Plentyoffish dating forums are a place to meet singles and get dating advice or share dating experiences etc. Hopefully you will all have fun meeting singles and try out this online dating thing... Remember that we are the largest free online dating service, so you will never have to pay a dime to meet your soulmate.
     
Show ALL Forums  > Off Topic  > The War on Women      Home login  
 AUTHOR
 Aristotle_Amadopolis
Joined: 12/8/2011
Msg: 101
The War on WomenPage 5 of 31    (1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31)

How far do you think this will go before the war on women implodes on itself or will we do that slide back decades? Will serious numbers of women desert the GOP for good over this assault?

It is hard to say how many if any will desert the GOP.

I would say the bigger shift you will see is women who in the past did not vote will now be motivated to do so and I am pretty sure the majority of them will not be voting for any GOP candidates.


...and the outcome of the below may show citizens just hard far republicans will dig in their heels with regards to agreeing to anything the democrats bring forward.


Women Figure Anew in Senate’s Latest Battle

By JONATHAN WEISMAN
Published: March 14, 2012

WASHINGTON — With emotions still raw from the fight over President Obama’s contraception mandate, Senate Democrats are beginning a push to renew the Violence Against Women Act, the once broadly bipartisan 1994 legislation that now faces fierce opposition from conservatives.

The fight over the law, which would expand financing for and broaden the reach of domestic violence programs, will be joined Thursday when Senate Democratic women plan to march to the Senate floor to demand quick action on its extension. Senator Harry Reid of Nevada, the majority leader, has suggested he will push for a vote by the end of March.

Democrats, confident they have the political upper hand with women, insist that Republican opposition falls into a larger picture of insensitivity toward women that has progressed from abortion fights to contraception to preventive health care coverage — and now to domestic violence....
Read more at: http://www.nytimes.com/2012/03/15/us/politics/violence-against-women-act-divides-senate.html?hp
 Earthpuppy
Joined: 2/9/2008
Msg: 102
view profile
History
The War on Women
Posted: 3/15/2012 6:55:36 PM
It is getting a bit hilarious and delusional out there when the far right owns the House, the Supreme Court, has a blockage power over the Senate, yet a lone, half white man, sitting in the WHITE house, somehow can muster the power to change gas prices with a pen, mandate compassion and fairness with a wink, and single-handedly convert the world into a one world, socialist government that eats babies for breakfast wiping his face on the Constitution, and still have time to play with his BLACK dog, a Portugese one at that.

I particularly like the projection of anger, fear, intolerance and prejudice when these guys and gals do this dance.
 part deux
Joined: 11/11/2008
Msg: 103
view profile
History
The War on Women
Posted: 3/15/2012 7:08:11 PM
Pup, you seem to have forgotten that those who wish to deprive women of their rights, usually want to do the same to homosexuals and people of colour.
 BigBadNIrish
Joined: 1/31/2011
Msg: 104
The War on Women
Posted: 3/15/2012 7:13:53 PM

Pup, you seem to have forgotten that those who wish to deprive women of their rights, usually want to do the same to homosexuals and people of colour


Funny, that came up somewhere else...I think convinient constitutionalists call it equal protection of the laws for all....except____<-----place minority of choice here.
 robin-hood
Joined: 12/2/2008
Msg: 105
view profile
History
The War on Women
Posted: 3/15/2012 10:20:45 PM
ThinkinginCa msg#99
My proof was a night in Orange county jail for failure to ID in about 1980-81. Was a passenger in a vehicle at the time. Was unaware it was declared invalid.
 Bladesmith81801
Joined: 10/30/2010
Msg: 106
The War on Women
Posted: 3/16/2012 4:29:58 AM
Part Deux, you'll also notice that their God hates all the same people they do as well.

Coincidence?
 trinity818
Joined: 9/1/2006
Msg: 107
view profile
History
The War on Women
Posted: 3/16/2012 4:34:08 AM

It is hard to say how many if any will desert the GOP.

I would say the bigger shift you will see is women who in the past did not vote will now be motivated to do so and I am pretty sure the majority of them will not be voting for any GOP candidates.


Virtually all of my women friends are Republicans. Most of them have daughters and are reasonably intelligent people. None of them are truly aware of what is going on. They seem to rely on bogus emails for information. I've sent them links to politifact multiple times.

The best I can do for my gender is to try to education my friends and peers with facts.
 Justcheckingfor1
Joined: 8/11/2011
Msg: 108
The War on Women
Posted: 3/16/2012 4:53:30 AM
I find it hilarious that there are folks that actually believe there is a "war on women." If anything these politicians who are an extreme minority in there party are doing is pandering to a certain base of their party. A month or 2 from now, they will pander to another part or their party. All they are trying to do is get votes so they can keep their jobs. Democrats do the same thing, and also use fear mongering to get folks to take their side. Nothing is going to be turned back. It that were the case, then it would of never been turned forward to begin with. These politicians also have plenty of women that vote and even agree with them. They would not be in office if they did not. The women who support these politicians do not feel like there is a "war on them." Instead many of them feel like there is a war on unborn children, and don't agree with an obsession to kill babies. So what if they disagree with you, you are not going to change their minds, and since abortion is still legal, they don't represent everyone out there, so why even worry. Politicians on both sides of the isle are generally full of bull poo anyways. They make for good entertainment, but I would never take one all that seriously, because I don't see much changing, and if anything gets changed, it will be undone when the next grope of politicians get in office. Cheers and happy Friday to all.
 BigBadNIrish
Joined: 1/31/2011
Msg: 109
The War on Women
Posted: 3/16/2012 9:21:26 AM
I find it hilarious that there are folks that actually believe there is a "war on women."


Yep, funny when women feel there's a concerted effort to control and restrict their access to reporductive healthcare.


If anything these politicians who are an extreme minority in there party are doing is pandering to a certain base of their party


Do you know what you are talking about?


I have a hunch he won't want to be remembered by history as the man responsible for making one-sixth of the national economy subject to Soviet-style central planning.


Or is that Canadian planning...or is it British planning...or is it Norway...or is it New Zealand...or is it Japan...or is it Germany...or is it Austria, Isreal...yada yada yada....all of whom have universal healthcare and have had for sometime...in fact 32 of the 33 developed nations have universal healthcare...the lone exception being the United States...but, hey...that's what makes us great...in small minds.
 matchlight
Joined: 1/31/2009
Msg: 110
view profile
History
The War on Women
Posted: 3/16/2012 11:59:17 AM

Funny, that came up somewhere else...I think convinient constitutionalists call it equal protection of the laws for all....except____<-----place minority of choice here.


And I think--make that know--you have no idea what you're talking about on this subject. That "minority of choice" certainly wouldn't include blacks, since they are the very minority the 14th Amendment was meant to protect. If you think its guarantee of the equal protection of the laws was also meant to protect homosexuals, where's your evidence? It doesn't even extend fully to gender discrimination, and it doesn't prevent age discrimination at all.
 BigBadNIrish
Joined: 1/31/2011
Msg: 111
The War on Women
Posted: 3/16/2012 12:08:20 PM
. If you think its guarantee of the equal protection of the laws was also meant to protect homosexuals, where's your evidence? It doesn't even extend fully to gender discrimination, and it doesn't prevent age discrimination at all.


There ya go...your belief and INTERPRETATION of equal protection does allow for discrimination of certian people's...but, I already knew that....we'll add women to that list.
 Wolfpath
Joined: 1/24/2012
Msg: 112
The War on Women
Posted: 3/16/2012 12:53:17 PM
BLAHBLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH, WAAH WAAH WAHH!

The primary point of contraception is that sex, and sexual behavior is a personal decision.

The only parties responsible for their behavior is the parties involved, not society at large.

If you want to play . . then YOU PAY the consequences for your choices and behavior.

What a puling puking pile of entitlement minded garbage that can't even stay on topic.

Your well trained to respond to diversionary tactics and lose sight of the real issues that are going on in this country.

The "War On Women" . . baahh . . there has been a "war on men" for decades, especially white males (everything is the white males fault, sexism, slavery, bigotry, religious discord, abortion, gay lifestyles, you name it, its the white males fault) . . the worse war is on Children . . the use of the public shool system to enculterate children into being submissive to authoritarian government.
The WAR on Parents by the Social services system that has instilled fear and hesitance in even the best parents. the very war that has allowed government to step in and start ruling how we parent, how we school and how we raise our children.

Get over it and start dealing with the important issues, and all the trivial stuff will fade.
Like a bunch os squirrels chasing and losing sight of their acorn stashes . . so easily diverted and re-directed . . . "red light, green light" games of social anitpathy.

Unless of course you too chicken hearted to stand for what this country used to be, and could be again.
 Aristotle_Amadopolis
Joined: 12/8/2011
Msg: 113
The War on Women
Posted: 3/16/2012 1:09:13 PM

Unless of course you too chicken hearted to stand for what this country used to be, and could be again..

Well based on your post I assume you are not talking about a country that cares for the welfare of it citizens or creating policies that make the country a better place for everyone, so what did it use to be that it no longer is?
 matchlight
Joined: 1/31/2009
Msg: 114
view profile
History
The War on Women
Posted: 3/16/2012 1:14:07 PM

There ya go...your belief and INTERPRETATION of equal protection does allow for discrimination of certian people's...but, I already knew that....we'll add women to that list.


Thank you for proving me right--you really do have no idea what you're talking about here. Unfortunately, you feel the need to make up for it by getting personal about these issues, implying people who disagree with you are bigots. What I said is not MY interpretation at all, but what the Supreme Court has held in a number of equal protection decisions.

When the Court decides an equal protection challenge to a state law which discriminates against women, it does not apply the "strict scrutiny" standard. It reserves that very demanding standard for laws which either involve rights it considers "fundamental," e.g. voting, or which make "suspect classifications," e.g. by race.

The Court considers gender a "quasi-suspect" classification, instead, and applies a somewhat less demanding "intermediate" standard to laws which discriminate by gender. Under this standard, the state has the burden of proving that the law is "substantially" related to an "important" government interest. The Court requires an "exceedingly persuasive justification" in order to show this. If the law *intentionally* discriminates by gender, the state will usually be unable to show this required justification.

The Court also applies this intermediate standard in equal protection challenges to laws which discriminate on the basis of birth legitimacy.
 BigBadNIrish
Joined: 1/31/2011
Msg: 115
The War on Women
Posted: 3/16/2012 1:16:32 PM
so what did it use to be that it no longer is?


Well, in part it was a country that held that only white men could be of property and prosperity....it was a country that made laws that held women, people of color, and people of mixed race were inferior and not capable of voting, holding property, nor enjoying the same liberties that white men had....some say there is an effort to return to those good times.


Unfortunately, you feel the need to make up for it by getting personal about these issues, implying people who disagree with you are bigots. What I said is not MY interpretation at all, but what the Supreme Court has held in a number of equal protection decisions.


Puleeze...you post personal digs in nearly all of your postings...so, climb down off your high horse of hypocracy....and try standing on your own two feet as to your personal beliefs rather that hiding behind the cloak of the SC...your views are well known...you say your postings about SC decisions aren't your views...yet, all your postings support the extremism of the GOP....fancy that...

And I believe the court recently has been following the exacting intermediate scrutiny standard when deciding gender issues related to equal protection...be that as it may, gender is an factor and does apply to equal protection....sexual orientation will be the next hurtle.

 matchlight
Joined: 1/31/2009
Msg: 116
view profile
History
The War on Women
Posted: 3/16/2012 4:02:25 PM

And I believe the court recently has been following the exacting intermediate scrutiny standard when deciding gender issues related to equal protection


So you say, now. I'm sure you have no idea whether it has or not.


you post personal digs in nearly all of your postings


I don't think most people would call it a personal dig to challenge someone's false claims, or to punch back after they've insulted you without any provocation. I make it a point not to attack individual posters personally, but only their arguments. There's nothing wrong at all with challenging a false claim or exposing a misleading or ridiculous argument for what it is--that's what debating is about.

If I do make a personal attack, I direct at some *group* of people for the things they do. And if you find the shoe fits you, then wear it. I have never directed a comment at any personal characteristic of yours, or at anything about your private life. I don't need to, and that's not for these forums.

You, on the other hand, don't stop at condemning conservatives or Republicans, or whatever other group you despise, just for their ideas. You and several other posters here make a habit of directing disgusting, highly personal cracks at other posters, as individuals. Here, you mock what you imagine their sex lives or their religious beliefs are, call them racists or bigots or other derogatory names, and say whatever else you damn well feel like, but wouldn't have the courage to say to their faces.

Please feel free to do more of it. I've never reported anyone yet. If you want to show everyone how you need to make your arguments in the gutter because your game's so weak, go right ahead. Leftists do that all the time, both here and everywhere else, because their arguments are so lame. No matter how much name-calling or how many overheated personal insults you use to spice up your baloney, it's still just baloney.
 trinity818
Joined: 9/1/2006
Msg: 117
view profile
History
The War on Women
Posted: 3/16/2012 4:39:08 PM

So what if they disagree with you, you are not going to change their minds


Personally, I'm not interested in changing anyone's mind. I'm interested in doing my best to ensure that women are aware of the facts about what it actually occuring in the various states and at the federal level. Because, most of them are not. Once we are aware of factual information, the opinions we form are our own and not the business of anyone else.

The reluctance to renew the Violence Against Women Act has nothing to do with abortion.

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/03/15/us/politics/violence-against-women-act-divides-senate.html
 Wolfpath
Joined: 1/24/2012
Msg: 118
The War on Women
Posted: 3/16/2012 5:39:09 PM
I dont have any use for policies that encourage free loading or simeple
minded entitlement.
I have NO Issue with contributing people making use of resources they help support.
I do have an issue with communist in D.C. handing out peoples S>S.I. benefits to people who are here illegally, are not paying into the system and have not earned the use of monies that they have not helped support and have no intention of supporting.

Handouts and entitlement benefits (which S.S.I. is NOT) only encourage laziness and lackadaisical attitude, and gods forbid, people trying to guilt trip the industrious and self determined, into feeling sorry for lazy, useless oxygen wasters who wish to parasitize society.

And that . . that has nothing to do with the OP posting which is blatantly and erroneously biased, one sided and BLIND. The thread is the food and fodder of alleged functioning minds that wish to credit themselves for their sympathies, rather than acknowledge over all realities. It is a tool of glablist elite socio-communist sympathizers wishing to create greater discord, mis-trust and division within this country by fomenting distrust and discord amongst its citizenry. People who buy into it . . are simply tools with no use . .

If you love social communism so much, I wholeheartedly invite you to immigrate to China, or perhaps the Soviet Union (lmao) and leave America out of it. Half the world would not exist at the levels it currently does, without aid and assistance from the Evil Country of Capitalist America . . including yours.

Globalization and the U.N. need to be brought to heel on a short leash, just like our own out of control politicians.

Altruism is a torch being waved precariously over a vat of combustible liquids by holier than thou Blindfolded prophets with arthritis.
 statemachine500
Joined: 8/25/2011
Msg: 119
The War on Women
Posted: 3/16/2012 5:59:20 PM

The primary point of contraception is that sex, and sexual behavior is a personal decision.

The only parties responsible for their behavior is the parties involved, not society at large.

If you want to play . . then YOU PAY the consequences for your choices and behavior.


In the case of unwed mothers,often it is you and I that pay.In many ways.Obama is taking steps to attempt to remedy this issue.I always figured it would be cons that would try to push this issue.Obama beats them to the punch and now the cons whine that religous freedom is being violated....between this and the recovering dope addict Rush the cons have royally screwed up here.
 matchlight
Joined: 1/31/2009
Msg: 120
view profile
History
The War on Women
Posted: 3/16/2012 6:19:14 PM

The reluctance to renew the Violence Against Women Act has nothing to do with abortion.


No--and the Supreme Court struck down a major part of it years ago anyway.


and now the cons whine that religous freedom is being violated.


The fact you would call conservatives' valid concern about the federal government's plain violation of religious freedom whining says a lot about your low opinion of First Amendment freedoms.

But hostility toward the First Amendment is typical of leftists. That intolerance of freedom of speech and religion is even more evidence of their authoritarian streak.
 cotter
Joined: 10/17/2005
Msg: 121
view profile
History
The War on Women
Posted: 3/16/2012 6:32:26 PM
Wow ... Rachel Maddow just got done talking about a bunch of Republican Governors who are apparently playing big roles in the war on women.

Do you suppose we could start putting them (officially) in the "Idiot" category? No wait ... how about members of the official "Endeavoring to become as good as the 'High Functioning Moron' Club".
 part deux
Joined: 11/11/2008
Msg: 122
view profile
History
The War on Women
Posted: 3/16/2012 6:44:49 PM
The resistance Republicans are showing to renew the violence against women's act is appalling. They are pandering to the lowest, most ignorant sector of society for votes. Frankly, if the systematic removal of women's rights continues, America will have it's own version of 'sharia law'.
Please keep sharing links, and ignore the trolls, they always hop on to any discussion of women's rights, derail the conversation, make ridiculous, unfounded statements about feminisim,abortion, and manage to get interesting threads deleted.
It is obvious that they feel that a woman is no more than a uterus, and at that, a uterus that is jointly owned by the state and her male partner. You will never change their hatred, so why even try? They hate women, of course they support any law that puts women 'in their place'.
 matchlight
Joined: 1/31/2009
Msg: 123
view profile
History
The War on Women
Posted: 3/16/2012 6:49:31 PM
I wonder how it is that so many of the women in those states--and they are usually at least half the electorate--can have been such dupes as to vote in officials who make war on them. Conservatives trust women to know what's in their best interests. And I'm sure millions of them are not taken in by this ruse. They know the real war is the economic war this administration has been waging on their pocketbooks, and on their children's and grandchildren's future.


The resistance Republicans are showing to renew the violence against women's act is appalling.


You don't say. I'm sure you're thoroughly familiar with the Violence Against Women Act. Is there some part of the VAWA, I wonder, that you find especially laudable? I do hope the part the Supreme Court held unconstitutional wasn't your favorite!
 bwena
Joined: 2/5/2012
Msg: 124
The War on Women
Posted: 3/16/2012 7:08:01 PM
Lets talk about entitlement. Women should be entitled to adequate healthcare. That includes reproductive health. How many men know the reproductive issues of women? Do you know the pill helps severe pain caused by PCOS or Endometriosis or PMS? How many people can look back in history even as little as a hundred years ago? Women through out history DIED with childbirth related problems before contraception was available. Some men want to say...women should pay if they play. How many children do you suppose are born because of rape that is NOT reported? Women pay the price for sex, whether they want sex or not. Women pay the price for children, whether they want children or not.

The simple entitlement of birth control saves lives on all levels.... and sooo much cheaper than the government taking care of all the children that nobody wants. Soo much cheaper than the surgeries of thousands of women who are suffering from reproductive issues that are not treated with the pill that is not covered by insurance.

If you do not think that is accurate, take a look at ANY country that does not have birth control available and look at the rampant disease, homeless children on the streets and orphanages for children who's mothers have died.

Is that really a good option?
 Doremi_Fasolatido
Joined: 2/14/2009
Msg: 125
view profile
History
The War on Women
Posted: 3/16/2012 7:11:13 PM
War on women?

When I think of women the old saying " Make love, not war" rings foremost in my mind. Apparently, not all share this attitude or have any love for women. Or, men . Or, people in general.

Their only love is money and controlling what others do.
Show ALL Forums  > Off Topic  > The War on Women