 |
Yeah I'm back, and wondering if I'll be allowed to let liberals speak for themselves this time...
True or false? Who's really bashing who?Quote:
“The Republican Party is Gay-bashing, Muslim-bashing, Latino-bashing, immigrant-bashing, women-bashing every day”
This tells me that the Obots are concerned that they won't get a youth vote turnout like they did in 2008 .So they are ginning up as many periphery issues as possible to divert from their poor performance.
This must be the bashing in question today, Reince Priebus compared women to caterpillars or something and Augusta still won't allow women.
Of course he is concerned with the youth turnout. In that category they have an over 50% unemployment rate. Maybe they should have asked about the shovel ready jobs ?Quote:
Originally Posted by tomder55
Quote:
Originally Posted by speechlesstx
That's an easy one. Reince Priebus is not comparing women to caterpillars.
Tut
Obama thinks women are more concerned about membership to Augusta than the price of groceries .
Hello steve:Quote:
Originally Posted by speechlesstx
If my party had a war on women, and it was showing up STRONGLY in the polls, I too, would pretend it was about the high price of groceries.
On the subject of your OP, I promise, on behalf of ALL liberals, that we won't bash right wingers any more. Feel better?
excon
I assure you that the high price of groceries is of greater concern to the majority of American women than free contraception . But let's examine Obama's record of women participation on the links with him. According to the NY Slimes ,he played 23 rounds of golf in his personal mens only club until he finally invited a woman to play along... and that only happened because to President was getting some heat for running an all mens club environment in the White House.
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/10/25/us...vibe.html?_r=3
The White House Boys' Club: President Obama Has a Woman Problem | Swampland | TIME.com
I guess it's fine if we spend our time here discussing Augusta club's gender policies ;but I would hope the President would have more on his plate.
Hello again, tom:Quote:
Originally Posted by tomder55
FREE Contraception?? Caterpillars?? As long as you MISCAST and/or DENY the problem, it's going to dog you, and that makes me happy.
The economy didn't change over the last month, but you guys went from being AHEAD to being far, far behind. Why? I KNOW, and you do too.
excon
No sir, I wish Howard Dean would speak his mind more often. And dude, there was never any war on women and you know it.Quote:
Originally Posted by excon
I mean really, most of us are married or have girlfriends (or both I reckon), have daughters, work with or for women and otherwise have women as a huge part of our lives. I adore women, I cook for my wife most days and spend more time with "my girls" at work than I do anyone else. But hey, if you can't run on your record then make stuff up. I get it. You apparently don't get that my wife is much more concerned about the price of groceries and gas than buying birth control pills for everyone.
P.S. Did you notice in tom's article that Obama played 23 rounds of golf between January and October of 2009 before inviting a single woman to his foursome? I've played golf with women more than him and I love it.
That's not rare at all, in fact it's the norm. The uptake for golf for women is very low. Other than fun scrambles it isn't often that I play a round with a woman... I'd love to!Quote:
Originally Posted by speechlesstx
You're right, is "the norm" for those men allegedly fighting for "women's rights" to exclude them. Thanks for clearing that up.Quote:
Originally Posted by NeedKarma
Once again you misrepresent what someone said. That's why you're not taken seriously.
Just following your example.
P.S. I sure manage to get a lot of attention here to be "not taken seriously".
Hello again, Steve:Quote:
Originally Posted by speechlesstx
No, I don't know that at all. What I DO know that while JOBS were what Republicans ran on, H.R 3, No Taxpayer Funding for Abortion, was the THIRD piece of business for newly installed right wingers...
Since then, the attack has been consistent and relentless. Just over just the last few weeks, when the right wing's popularity was plummeting, we heard the Limp one call women sluts and prostitutes for wanting access to birth control... We had the Blunt amendment... We had INTER VAGINAL probes.. And, THAT was just on the federal level..
Mississippi is just one small example of what the states are doing. We have the Virginia governor telling women if they don't want to watch what the state is MANDATING their doctor to do, they can close their eyes.. All the women I know, LOVE that part.
Have you asked any of the women you love whether they'd LIKE that?? Nahhhh, you didn't.
excon
Again, which of these is a "war on women" and which is manufactured outrage? No taxpayer funding for abortion is a war against making me pay for violating my conscience in the murder of babies. In fact, they're all about protecting the most innocent life among us, while the "pro-choice" crowd continues to push the boundaries. Protecting children is not a "war on women", you guys are just making stuff up to distract from this administrations failures.
What next, killing granny too? Why does the left hate babies and old people?Quote:
Just when you thought the religious right couldn’t get any crazier, with its personhood amendments and its attacks on contraception, here comes the academic left with an even crazier idea: after-birth abortion.
No, I didn’t make this up. “Partial-birth abortion” is a term invented by pro-lifers. But “after-birth abortion” is a term invented by two philosophers, Alberto Giubilini and Francesca Minerva. In the Journal of Medical Ethics, they propose:
[W]hen circumstances occur after birth such that they would have justified abortion, what we call after-birth abortion should be permissible. … [W]e propose to call this practice ‘after-birth abortion’, rather than ‘infanticide,’ to emphasize that the moral status of the individual killed is comparable with that of a fetus … rather than to that of a child. Therefore, we claim that killing a newborn could be ethically permissible in all the circumstances where abortion would be. Such circumstances include cases where the newborn has the potential to have an (at least) acceptable life, but the well-being of the family is at risk.
Hello again, Steve:Quote:
Originally Posted by speechlesstx
Couple things... The Hyde Amendment made taxpayer funding for abortion illegal way back in '76. So it LOOKS like HB 3 was piling on. What do YOU think it was for?
I understand that you don't favor abortion... Then get it reversed. But, short of doing that, if you chip away at what IS a woman's LEGAL right, it LOOKS like you're perpetrating a war against HER.
I KNOW you don't see it that way, but I'm pretty sure WOMEN do. Oh, not your right wing women - just the ordinary ones.
excon
Every "ordinary" woman I know - and I don't bother to ask them their political leanings - is pro-baby. And the "Hyde Amendment" is not a law as even your link reports. HB3 isn't "piling on", it's making the ban against federal funds for abortion permanent. So since Hyde is renewed every year there should be no outrage over making the ban permanent. Ready for your next manufactured outrage, sir.
I suppose we're supposed to take that ridiculous thing seriously?
Hello again,
War on women?? Nahhh... Libs are making it up... Or not...
Governor Scott Walker quietly signed a law that repealed Wisconsin's Equal Pay Enforcement law. But, women don't care about equality, do they?
Bwa, ha ha ha.
excon
Hello again,
I just had an epiphany. You don't see the war on women like I don't see the war on religion...
Well, I'll fix that. Happy Easter.
excon
Of course the right wants to frame the war on women as religious freedom, but men telling woman what to do with their bodies will never work. Women don't care how you frame it, they know when they are being screwed with and I doubt they stand for it.
You need proof? You think they listen to the pope about contraception? No evidence of that anywhere. So keep pissing the ladies off by not letting them do what they want and you risk losing at the ballot box, and the bedroom. Keep on thinking you can tell them its for the good of the babies, when you try to take their choices from them.
They know what's best for the babies, you don't so listen, or lose the war.
Nonsense. You guys are smart enough to see the simple fact that the birth control mandate is a new, manufactured "right" while the first amendment has explicitly protected freedom of religion for 220 years. It doesn't get any simpler than that.
I saw nothing about a war on women in that bill. Equal Pay is already covered under federal statute so SB 2020 was unnecessary.Quote:
Originally Posted by excon
The real war on women is the Democrat war on families;driving up prices of food and fuel . But I can understand the Republican predicament... It's hard to run against the party that promises 'free 'stuff.
Hello tom:Quote:
Originally Posted by tomder55
One minute you tell us that speculators have NO influence on the market, and can't move it an inch, and NOW you're telling us the Democrats CAN??
So, if they can MOVE prices, why do you think they'd move them UP? Seems to me they'd make them as close to "free" as possible. No?
excon
Also have to wonder if the President is having women problems . Recent announcements that Evita and Oprah will not be joining him on the campaign trail... and Babs won't sing at his fund raisers. Something's up there .
Ex it's the policies ;not the speculations that are flawed.
Hello again, tom:Quote:
Originally Posted by tomder55
So, you haven't noticed that this far left wing loon is to the right of center?? Babs did. Me too. Oprah?? She's got a network to save.
excon
Hello again, Steve:Quote:
Originally Posted by speechlesstx
No, I do not. That's why I argued that a women's right to health care has ALWAYS been equal to that of men, and that the president's "mandate" was legally unnecessary... Then the discussion devolved into what a church is...
You won't find a stronger defender of civil liberties on this board, AND of a church's RIGHT to BE tax exempt.. But, a church CANNOT claim a religious exemption when it's dealing with EMPLOYEES. It MUST tax the employees. It MUST PAY its share of the employee's unemployment taxes, EVEN IF it is exempt from OTHER taxes... In short, the workplace in a CHURCH is no different than the workplace in a lumber yard.
Now, nobody is REQUIRING the Catholic church to provide health insurance for its employees... But IF it's going to provide it, it CAN'T discriminate.
I see nothing WEIRD, NEW, ANTI RELIGIOUS, or ILLEGAL in my conclusions.
excon
I know you don't, and I don't see a right to healthcare for men or women in the constitution. And the reason it "devolved into what a church is" is because the mandate redefines what qualifies as religious in contradiction of centuries of historical and legal precedent.
Hello again, Steve:Quote:
Originally Posted by speechlesstx
".. that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness."
Let's just take the first one...
excon
That isn't in the constitution, and it doesn't guarantee quality of life. Next?
Hello Steve:Quote:
Originally Posted by speechlesstx
Amendment IX
"The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people."
I was just laying the foundation above. Clearly, the reason WHY we revolted DOES have something to do with our founding documents... They certainly thought SOMETHING about life or it wouldn't have been mentioned..
But, if you want to find the RIGHT to healthcare, it's there in the Ninth Amendment.. You know, the catchall amendment... Some of the authors of the Constitution didn't want to enumerate the rights the people have for fear that people like you would say, "well, it's NOT listed, so it's NOT a right". That's EXACTLY why they wrote the wonderful Ninth Amendment - to make sure that OTHER rights retained by the people STAY retained..
excon
Oh, you mean like the right to be free from forced commerce by the federal government and forced violation of my first amendment freedom of religion.
You are still free to pursue any religion of your choice, nothing has changed there.Quote:
Originally Posted by speechlesstx
I beg your pardon, I have proven conclusively in no uncertain terms that the Obamacare mandate redefines what qualifies as religious. And by the way, "pursuing" religion is not the same as the "free exercise" of religion which is what this mandate changes. Things that have been religious activities for centuries no longer qualify as a religious activity under the mandate AND Catholics are no longer free FROM forced violation of their religious beliefs. It changes everything.
For businesses that operate under the guise of religion.Quote:
Originally Posted by speechlesstx
It is the federal government that keeps intruding on the church, not the church intruding into the business sector. The church was doing health care and education long before the United States existed.Quote:
Originally Posted by NeedKarma
| All times are GMT -7. The time now is 12:06 AM. |