Ask Me Help Desk - The war on women

Quote:

Clinton survived his battles, and prospered,will Akin?

The compliant press did not press him about his serial abuse... Back then it was "just sex". He sexually assaulted at least 3 women (not including the ones the Arkansas State troopers covered up) /

Quote:

Sure he will because he just said what the right believes, but he said it in public. That was his only mistake. As we speak repubs are considering putting no exceptions for abortion as part of their convention platform.

Whether that becomes the platform or not ,his ignorant words do not represent the views of the "right" .
Again ;he spoke with an incredible ignorance. Clintoon acted with gross malice and disregard to the women he assaulted . But "your side " has given him a pass for 2 decades .

But we don't vote for them. When they get out of hand we ignore them and call the real police when they cross the line between loony, and criminal.

At least we KNOW the difference. And taking away his allowance ain't policing your own. Seems your efforts to police your own have fallen on deaf ears because he said screw you, he ain't going any place.

Quote:

Originally Posted by tomder55

There is nothing 'alleged ' .He's a serial abuser . Here is where they are honoring him.

Clinton to receive star speaking role at Democratic convention; Cheney to skip Republican gathering - ABC News

contrast that with
GOP chair: Akin should drop out, skip convention – CNN Political Ticker - CNN.com Blogs

They are honoring his political contributions, not his personal life.

Akin wants to make his views a political issue.

Very big difference. Can you see that?

Maybe Bill Cosby should have a new show called "Republicans say the darndest things." They already have about 10 seasons worth of material.

Perhaps we could have a new sitcom called the Right Wing starring George W Bush as the dullard President, oh wait aminute its been done already

Quote:

Seems your efforts to police your own have fallen on deaf ears because he said screw you, he ain't going any place.

Yes the schmuck is doing a Charlie Rangel and playing hardball. Too bad because my only real concern on this issue is that he weakens the chance of changing the majority in the Senate.

The Repubics have to realize that there are consequences for what they say that the Dems don't have to concern themselves with... in fact ;the Dems hardly ever have to pay consequences for their deeds. The deadline came and went . That doesn't mean he can't be convinced to step down . But it makes the process more difficult.

Quote:

Originally Posted by tomder55

That doesn't mean he can't be convinced to step down . But it makes the process more difficult.

Hello again, tom:

He's NOT stepping down.. A senate seat you COULD have won will now stay with the Democrats... That means CONTROL of the Senate is once again, slipping from your grasp.

Now, VP Paul Ryan, if there ever IS such an abomination, WON'T be able to break the tie in the Senate...

Poor fellows... The Tea Party strikes again.. I'da thought you'da learned from Sharron Angle and Christine O'Donnell - Joe Buck and that guy in Alaska.. No, huh?

excon

Hello again, tom:

So, since your party platform includes the NO abortion in case of rape plank, I want to ask you a question...

After a women suffers the indignity of being raped, are you going to to make her suffer the indignity of having to bear the rapists child by ORDER of the government?

Then after you answer, tell me again about how you're for SMALL government...

excon

You didn't read my reply earlier . The Tea Party Express and Palin did not support Aikin Sarah Steelman was the Tea Party candidate . What we've learned is that some can call themselves Tea Party candidates ,and get on the ballot under an assumed Tea Party line ;and not be a real Tea Party candidate.

We had the same problem here in NY in the special election for District 26 when a phoney named Jack Davis undermined and split the ticket ,handing an unexpected win to Democrat Kathy Hochul.
Her win was the first time the district had gone to a Democrat in nearly 40 years. Now she is running for reelection and is tacking hard right because she knows she has no chance to win as a Pelosi -lib.

Yeah ;the Repubics may squander a chance at the majority with this... But ,the real issue is open primaries. Why either party permits them is beyond me.

It's a very clever trap your side poses. If we take a moral position opposing abortions ;and we have exceptions ;then it weakens the moral reason . Then you can go further and say that if a baby doesn't deserve the protection of it's life because it was conceived in rape ;then you can push the envelope and question what other lines in the sand exceptions can be breached . Maybe some genetic deficiency in the child ? Maybe the child isn't the gender you prefer ?
So I say without reservation that the only exception I think is legitimate is if there is a choice between the life of the mother or the child.

How does that make me big government ? It doesn't . My contention has always been that it was up to the States to decide the issue .

Now ;are there any restrictions you would put on abortions?. late term ? Murder immediately prior to delivery ? And if so ;why don't those restrictions violate the women's right to control her body ?

Quote:

Originally Posted by tomder55

How does that make me big government ? It doesn't .

Hello again, tom:

If abortion is illegal, then presumably there's some sort of police ACTION required to ENFORCE it. There's going to be jailtime. I don't know for who, though - the woman or the doctor - or even both...

So, it looks to ME, like you've extended the governments reach into every doctors office in the nation so that the result of EVERY pregnancy ends up like the GOVERNMENT wants it to..

I think that's pretty BIG! You? Not so much.

excon

Yeah well I kind of think that murder is one of those things that needs to be controlled . But I am not 'big government ' because big government applies to the Federal Government assuming powers that are reserved for the States.

Quote:

Originally Posted by excon

Poor fellows... The Tea Party strikes again.. I'da thought you'da learned from Sharron Angle and Christine O'Donnell - Joe Buck and that guy in Alaska.. No, huh?

excon

Rubio, Paul Ryan and Ted Cruz seem to be doing OK.

Quote:

Originally Posted by excon

Hello again, tom:

If abortion is illegal, then presumably there's some sort of police ACTION required to ENFORCE it. There's going to be jailtime. I dunno for who, though - the woman or the doctor - or even both...

So, it looks to ME, like you've extended the governments reach into each and every doctors office in the nation so that the result of EVERY pregnancy ends up like the GOVERNMENT wants it to..

I think that's pretty BIG! You? Not so much.

excon

As if there are no laws governing the medical field? One of our government's responsibilities is protecting us, you just don't think the most helpless among us deserve any sort of protections. You want women protected, you want gays protected, you want minorities protected, but you don't want babies protected? That just baffles me to no end.

Quote:

Originally Posted by speechlesstx

...but you don't want babies protected? That just baffles me to no end.

We do, but we expect the parents of the baby to protect them, not some nanny state.

Still waiting to hear the restrictions on abortions that the pro abortion crowd accepts ;and why wouldn't those restrictions violate the women's so called "right to choose" .

Quote:

Originally Posted by tomder55

still waiting to hear the restrictions on abortions that the pro abortion crowd accepts ;and why wouldn't those restrictions violate the women's so called "right to choose" .

Maybe there is a way to meet in the middle that would make both side content.

Quote:

Originally Posted by speechlesstx

You want women protected, you want gays protected, you want minorities protected, but you don't want babies protected? That just baffles me to no end.

Hello again, Steve:

It shouldn't baffle you... I'm a simple man. My reasoning is simple too.. I want to protect babies, but I want to preserve their mother's right NOT to be pregnant if she doesn't want to be... I'm conflicted, but if I have to choose, and I do, I choose to guard the mothers rights.

Protecting gays against the government is an EASY choice.. Protecting minorities against the government is EASY too. But, protecting a mothers rights against her baby's rights isn't easy at all.

Does that unbaffle you?

excon

Quote:

Originally Posted by NeedKarma

Maybe there is a way to meet in the middle that would make both side content.

Can't really partially murder someone .

Quote:

Originally Posted by tomder55

can't really partially murder someone .

But it isn't murder as you well know. We'll never get past a discussion if you keep redefining stuff.