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
 part deux
Joined: 11/11/2008
Msg: 126
view profile
History
The War on WomenPage 6 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)
Thinking in CA, I think it involves a multitude of factors:
- They drank the Kool Aid.
- They are comfortable with the status quo, theyre ok, so everyone else should be as well.
- They are the primary caregivers for children and elderly parents, and they work 2 full time jobs, inside and outside the home. They don't vote, this is not apathy, it's exhaustion.
They have been so marginalized, they don't beleive their vote makes a difference.
And once again, please don't feed the trolls :)
 Aries_328
Joined: 10/16/2011
Msg: 127
view profile
History
The War on Women
Posted: 3/16/2012 9:00:39 PM
It's simply an unexpected consequence of uncontrolled mob mentality, and appeasement to the craziest among them


OMG you get it! Thank you! The feeling of the threat from the current administration is so great that it was permitted to have an equally but opposite force against it. And it is too far.

This is one of the worst Leadership environments we have ever had. I hope some on the left see this. You can't have this deep of division without incredibly bad leadership. Giving the credit as bad leadership because the alternative is that it IS on purpose. If Hilary was President now do you think she would be playing games like this with Women’s rights to 'expose those crazy republicans?' It is irresponsible and should not be justified by anyone.

It is not far off from Plato's the Rebublic. When things get out of hand and people feel threatened and they will start to look towards those that they think will protect them and return security. In order to return security freedoms and rights will be taken away.

 matchlight
Joined: 1/31/2009
Msg: 128
view profile
History
The War on Women
Posted: 3/16/2012 9:10:20 PM

Women pay the price for sex, whether they want sex or not.


They do? If a woman wants sex, provided she's not extremely unattractive, I can't see why she necessarily has to pay any price at all for it. Some women have very pleasurable experiences that way, all for free.


How many children do you suppose are born because of rape that is NOT reported?


I give up--how many? I couldn't find the unreported figures on that.


The simple entitlement of birth control


I guess that's a moral claim and not a legal one. There's certainly no constitutional right to free contraception. I suppose women could be entitled to free contraception under a state law which provided for it. I don't like the chances of a law like that passing, though.


Is that really a good option?


Obviously not. But even if a majority of Americans is certain a thing would be an unalloyed blessing for all, that doesn't mean the U.S. government has authority to make that thing a reality. In a free country, at least--as opposed to a dictatorship--there is a little question of legitimacy: Laws aren't valid if there's no authority for them.

When a large enough majority of Americans wants the federal government to do something the Constitution doesn't authorize, there's a solution. As a matter of fact, the process for achieving this solution is described in detail right in the Constitution itself, in Article Five. It's called amendment.
 mungojoe
Joined: 11/15/2006
Msg: 129
The War on Women
Posted: 3/16/2012 10:34:41 PM
This is one of the worst Leadership environments we have ever had. I hope some on the left see this. You can't have this deep of division without incredibly bad leadership.

You're absolutely right, but likely not in the way you intended... The bad leadership that promotes this division is that of the right... When nutbars like Santorum, scumsacks like Gingrich, the opportunists like Perry and their ilk are pandering to the craziest of the right wing, the colonial moralists, the Christian Dominionists, the delusional "counterjihad" whackjobs, the unrestrained bigotry of the "OMG, Obama's a muslim" screwballs and "Birther" fruitcakes, rather than leading them to some sort of political sanity you can't expect anything else... Of course nobody is going to be concerned about their "fears" (or more properly, paranoid, delusional horsesh!t) because it isn't sane and nobody is going to listen to the more moderate because they deliberately support the bad leadership that continues it... Ya pays yer money 'n ya takes yer chances and it looks like the more moderate conservatives have shot themselves in the foot by backing the wrong horse(s) and embracing the teabaggers, the Christian nutbars, the delusional "counterjihad" whackjobs and the "muslim/Birther" fruitcakes...

Giving the credit as bad leadership because the alternative is that it IS on purpose.

Well... it clearly is "on purpose" to some extent... The leadership of the right made a deliberate choice to embrace these lunatic ideas and their delusional supporters... Whether one/some/all did so because they truly believe the same insanely paranoid delusions is another matter...

If Hilary was President now do you think she would be playing games like this with Women’s rights to 'expose those crazy republicans?'

It wouldn't take Hillary as President to "expose those crazy republicans"... It doesn't even take Obama... The "crazy republicans" (and even the sane and moderate ones, by their acceptance and support of these nuts) are doing a fine job of that on their own...

It is irresponsible and should not be justified by anyone.

And yet, this supposed (and increasingly hypothetical) sane, moderate majority of conservatives still support it... egg it on at times, even... and yet it seems that only the left are willing to call it for what it is...

Whether this latest steaming pile of horse sh!t... this seeming insatiable desire to pander to the 'anti-woman' desires of the religious whackjobs/colonial moralists... this attack on women's rights... is really just pandering, or if it is truly reflective of the core values of the republicans leadership (and by association, their voting supporters)... it is still what it is, a "war on women"...
 QueenBeeSweetness
Joined: 9/23/2011
Msg: 130
The War on Women
Posted: 3/16/2012 10:39:12 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.


A child should never be used as a "punishment" for having sex.

And BC is used for a variety of medical issues, it is not a free pass to go out & screw all you want (however...if women do choose to do that, their bedroom, their body, their business).

I have a feeling you will say the exact same thing about the children that are born out of lack of contraceptive access..........not myyyyyyyy problem.
 Earthpuppy
Joined: 2/9/2008
Msg: 131
view profile
History
The War on Women
Posted: 3/16/2012 11:41:47 PM

OMG you get it! Thank you! The feeling of the threat from the current administration is so great that it was permitted to have an equally but opposite force against it. And it is too far.

This is one of the worst Leadership environments we have ever had. I hope some on the left see this. You can't have this deep of division without incredibly bad leadership. Giving the credit as bad leadership because the alternative is that it IS on purpose. If Hilary was President now do you think she would be playing games like this with Women’s rights to 'expose those crazy republicans?' It is irresponsible and should not be justified by anyone.


^^^ A new variation on the theme.."she dressed too provacatively and should have expected that she would be raped". By that rationale, this person believes that because we elected Obama, whe should expect women to be assaulted and their rights taken away because the the majority of them had the audacity to vote for him and made old white males crazy. They had it coming!

Got news for ya. Hilary ain't taking the regressive assault on women lying down either.
http://thenewcivilrightsmovement.com/hillary-clinton-aimes-her-fire-and-ire-at-gop-war-on-women-video/politics/2012/03/14/36435

The regressives would have had the same response if a woman lived in their White House as they did when a half white guy had that audacity to get elected and lead us out of the Bush morasse.

At least you admit that this has nothing to do with morality, women's health, or rights, but everything to do with regressive politics in an election cycle reacting to an unacceptable cultural change in the WHITE House.. Thanks for being one of the few honest ones.
 Aries_328
Joined: 10/16/2011
Msg: 132
view profile
History
The War on Women
Posted: 3/17/2012 12:08:30 AM
Mungojoe

I almost agree with you but you are also right but not in the way you intended. We can not be all right or all left. Both sides are needed to balance out what the other lacks as well as to balance out the extreme sides of both.

No matter how much you disagree with any part of the 'general' outlook of republicans it is effectively a 2 party country and that very much means that half the political system is more right and the other half is more left. Central position is not the weak moderate that both sides want to absolutely discount as being morally ambivalent, weak or in some cases a sellout. It is from a position of diplomacy what would hope to be the picking of the best parts of each side and maintaining a bridge. Neither party is all correct or morally superior.

To think that any of this is not following predictable human nature is to basically ignore reality.

For some reason I find this incredibly fascinating in that there is a higher level of operation occurring in which it is not just individuals acting selfishly or selflessly but the combination of ideologies and party structures to act in a unified group consciousness level. I could be crazy but its incredibly interesting from not only a psychology level but also from cultural and philosophical levels and if people didn't have their heads shoved so far up their asses to see what was right in front of them they might see that each side is causing the others reactions.

There are many sides and they range the spectrum from wanting the total collapse and fall of the United States to a new revision of America under God. Most likely it will end somewhere in the middle with just another day. We have Arab spring, Occupy Wall St and a very volatile year around the world. Parts of the people want the UN to hold authority over the US including our Secretary of Defense http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JkDyKHYPO7g.

I would even hold out the possibility that the extreme left movement of the country was a result of the "too far to the right" position from Bush. If you consider the example of Plato's republic at all Bush's security measures could easily be taken as that first step to loss of freedoms.

What is pathetically sad is the ****y and whiney ass ignorant idiots that only see right vs left and could virtually care less about truth or liberty or women’s rights. It's just power and control. They just want to be right. I don’t really give a crap if people think that the time of religion is over and only idiots and backwards thinking whatever they want to call it could believe such utter nonsense. It doesn’t really matter what they think right now because if the time is not now then it is not now and trying to force 60+ percent of the country to believe that God is a lie because of your idiotic political aspirations is just stupendously ignorant and just not reality.

A lot of posts on here attack Match on his positions. Not that he gives a crap and it doesn’t matter if I agree with him or not. He is mostly not ever really stating his opinion. He is giving legal interpretations. If anyone has ever spent even just a bit of time in a court room they would know that opinion (and even sometimes facts) don’t mean crap. Laws are not based on feelings. The can take them into account. No matter how strongly you ‘feel’ for a position that doesn’t give it even an ounce of legal credibility. Most of what we commonly think things are the way they are is total fantasy. At some point someone ended up in court with some case that made its way through many courts and became the prevailing opinion.

Our constitution means something and even those morons that think its stupid don’t get that they are even permitted to think that because of interpretations of law that came from it.

The War against Women is not real. It is a political bs brought on and supported by bad leadership.

I bet that was a whole lot of crap wasn’t it ;)
 mungojoe
Joined: 11/15/2006
Msg: 133
The War on Women
Posted: 3/17/2012 2:31:01 AM
I bet that was a whole lot of crap wasn’t it ;)

some was... some wasn't... Take this for example...

Parts of the people want the UN to hold authority over the US including our Secretary of Defense http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JkDyKHYPO7g.

This is a case of the former... to a 'fly drawing' degree... if this is all about that "giving up sovereignty to the UN/new world order" nonsense... this is an example of one of those "fears" I mentioned, the insane ones...

I would even hold out the possibility that the extreme left movement of the country was a result of the "too far to the right" position from Bush.

This is another point that I would "scrape off the bottom of my shoe"... There is really no extreme left movement in the US... not anymore anyway... and certainly nothing like the utter nutcases being openly and actively embraced by the right...

Here is another one...

...trying to force 60+ percent of the country to believe that God is a lie because of your idiotic political aspirations is just stupendously ignorant and just not reality.

I'm sorry but there is no mainstream political party trying to do any such thing... And to whatever extent there is a 'sideshow' party that wants such a thing, they do not have control or influence over the direction of the Democratic party much less the gov't...

I'd put much of the rest of it in the latter (that's the 'not crap' category)... I just need to clarify this one bit...

Our constitution means something and even those morons that think its stupid...

I'm not really seeing any 'left wing' pol's of any significance saying that the constitution 'means nothing'... or that it's 'stupid'... but I do remember one 'right wing' pol, one of the players in this "let's embrace the looney tunes" game, that called it a "god-damn piece of paper"... or some such fool thing at some point...

I do have to agree with this point regarding this "War against Women"... but I think I made that clear in a previous post...

It is a political bs brought on and supported by bad leadership.
 OyVay...
Joined: 7/15/2011
Msg: 134
The War on Women
Posted: 3/17/2012 7:15:18 AM
"both sides are needed to balance out what the other lacks"

See, this to me makes sense, but no longer exists. We have reached the pinacle of a new civil war, this time between conservatives and liberals. As such, neither side will compromise, because to them it means, losing a battle or surrendering their values. When what it really is, is "balance" achieved through using some of both, to attain goals.

If you wish to say "no war on women" exists, perhaps you are right. It may indeed be, some choice of phrase to get emotions to run higher than they are. Taken in totality, the right has embraced a series of restrictive objectives, that marginalize women and some of the things they attained, in the last 40+ years.

"trying to force 60+ percent of the population that God is a lie"

This is no more correct than that same 60% trying to force the 40% to believe they know best for them.

"The War against Women is not real."

Gee, So now by law in Arizona, it's ok for a doctor NOT to tell a woman she's pregnant, if she might consider an abortion. Vaginal probes for ultrasounds are all the rage in legislation, in several states. Trying to water down laws on abuse, especially rape, seems like something women would have a problem with.

Now add to that, Santorums stand on porn, something many women hate, but was already deemed OK by the Supreme court(I think, I'm sure someone (cough cough) will correct me, in the case against Larry Flint.

How about the voter ID issue, which has nothing to do with anything, other than to hold down a major part of the left's base, and keep them from voting.

How about the spurious arguments that higher gas prices are Obama's fault? Oil prices are determined by the free market, they trade everyday on the NYMEX. Why not go and tell those "free market" traders, to stop pushing up the price of oil.

"whole lot of crap"

You got that right! Maybe war isn't the right word, perhaps we should use "extremeist partisan politics", or some other phrase.

Perhaps Gabby god-worshipper is happy to have a probe shoved up her who-haw? She can sit there, legs up and sing along to onward christian soldiers, while the doc works her over. But other women I'm sure aren't.

The right doesn't see the benefit in the healthcare legislation, or extending unemployment benefits, or jobs bills. OK!! So give us something better? Not religious paranoia about contraception, porn, restricting voters rights.
 Aristotle_Amadopolis
Joined: 12/8/2011
Msg: 135
The War on Women
Posted: 3/17/2012 7:20:16 AM
10 Reasons the Rest of the World Thinks the U.S. Is Nuts
Soraya Chemaly
Feminist, Satirist, and Media Critic
Posted: 03/15/2012 5:47 pm

...I gestate humans, you do not. I know how it feels to be pregnant. You do not. I know what happens to a fetus in a womb. You do not. I have carried three fetuses to term. You have not. What I experience when I am pregnant is not empathy. It is permeability. The fetus is me. And the state is you, apparently. But, no matter what you say or do I have fundamental human rights. What makes you think that you, who cannot have this fully human experience, can tell me anything about gestation or how I experience it? Especially when you compare my existence and experience to that of brutish animals.

The rest of the civilized world thinks this country has lost its mind. It's no wonder. Look at this list of frenzied misogyny:

1. Making women carry still-born fetuses to full term because cows and pigs do. This week, Mr. Edwards, you supported a bill requiring just this, because of just that. It has passed the House in Georgia and might very well pass the Senate. Women are different from farm animals, Mr. England, and this bill, requiring a woman to carry a dead or dying fetus, with no possibility of abortion, even when the she is in danger of dying, is inhumane and unethical. By forcing a woman to do this, you are violating her right not to be subjected to inhuman treatment and tortured. And, yes, involuntarily carrying a dead fetus to term, although not torture to you or to a pig, is torture for a woman. It is also a violation of her bodily integrity and a threat to her life and as such violates her right to life.

2. Consigning women to death to save a fetus. Abortions save women's lives. "Let women die" bills are happening all over the country. There is no simple or pretty way to put this. Every day, all over the world, women die because they do not have access to safe abortions. Yet, here we are, returning to the dark ages of maternal sacrifice. Do really have to type this sentence: this is a violation of women's fundamental right to life.

3. Criminalizing pregnancy and miscarriages and arresting, imprisoning and charging women who miscarry with murder, like Rennie Gibbs in Mississippi or at least 40 other similar cases in Alabama or like Bei Bei Shuai, a mentally ill person, who is currently imprisoned and charged with murder after trying to commit suicide while pregnant. Pregnant women are becoming a special class subject to "special" laws that infringe on their fundamental rights.

4. Forcing women to undergo involuntary vaginal penetration (otherwise called rape) with a condom-covered, six- to eight-inch ultrasound probe.
Pennsylvania is currently considering that option along with eleven other states. Trans-vaginal ultrasounds undertaken with out a woman's consent are rape according the legal definition of the word. This violates a woman's bodily integrity and also constitutes torture when used, as states are suggesting, as a form of control and oppression. Women have the right not to be raped by the state.

5. Disabling women or sacrificing their lives by either withholding medical treatment or forcing women to undergo involuntary medical procedures. We impose an unequal obligation on women to sacrifice their bodily integrity for another. For example, as in Tysiac v. Poland, in which a mother of two, became blind after her doctor refused to perform an abortion that she wanted that would have halted the course of a degenerative eye disease. If my newborn baby is in need of a kidney and you have a spare matching one, can I enact legislation that says the state can take yours and give it to her? No. We do not force people to donate their organs to benefit others, even those who have already been born. One of the most fundamental of all human rights is that humans be treated equally before the law. Denying a woman this right is a violation of her equal right to this protection.

6. Giving zygotes "personhood" rights while systematically stripping women of their fundamental rights. There is too much to say about the danger of personhood ideas creeping into health policy to do it here. But, consider what happens to a woman whose womb is not considered the "best" environment for a gestating fetus in a world of personhood-for-zygote legislation: who decides the best environment -- the state, her insurance company, her employer, her rapist who decides he really, really wants to be a father? Anyone but a woman.

7. Inhibiting, humiliating and punishing women for their choices to have an abortion for any reason by levying taxes specifically on abortion, including abortions sought by rape victims to end their involuntary insemination, imposing restrictive requirements like 24 hour wait periods and empowering doctors to lie to female patients about their fetuses in order to avoid prosecution. In Arizona, Kansas, Texas, Virginia, Colorado, Arkansas and other states around the country bills that make women "pay" for their choices are abounding.

8. Allowing employers to delve women's private lives and only pay for insurance when they agree, for religious reasons, with how she choses to use birth control. In Arizona, which introduced such a bill this week, this means covering payment for birth control as a benefit only when a woman has proven that she will not use it to control her own reproduction (ie. as birth control). As much as I am worried about women and families in Arizona though, I am more worried about those in Alabama. You see, as recently revealed in a public policy poll in Alabama, conservative, evangelicals who support "personhood" related "pro-life" legislation and are fighting for their "religious liberty" -- 21 percent think interracial marriage should be illegal. So, what if they decide that an employee involved in an interracial marriage should not, by divine mandate, reproduce? Do they switch and provide birth control for this employee? Do they make contraception a necessary term of employment for people in interracial marriages? This violates a woman's right to privacy. My womb is one million times more private than your bedrooms, gentlemen.

9. Sacrificing women's overall health and the well-being of their families in order to stop them from exercising their fundamental human right to control their own bodies and reproduction. Texas just did that when it turned down $35million dollars in federal funds thereby ensuring that 300,000 low-income and uninsured Texas women will have no or greatly-reduced access to basic preventive and reproductive health care.

10. Depriving women of their ability to earn a living and support themselves and their families. Bills, like this one in Arizona, allow employers to fire women for using contraception. Women like these are being fired for not.


Read more at: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/soraya-chemaly/womens-reproductive-rights_b_1345214.html
 part deux
Joined: 11/11/2008
Msg: 136
view profile
History
The War on Women
Posted: 3/17/2012 8:20:40 AM
American corporations get to wage war on women all over the globe, profit, profit, profit!
http://www.webster.edu/~woolflm/sweatshops.html
Are these the same corporations that feel morally compromised if they have to pay for b/c? Some impressive morals!
 BigBadNIrish
Joined: 1/31/2011
Msg: 137
The War on Women
Posted: 3/17/2012 9:28:46 AM

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.


Ah yes, hide behind enuendo and "the group bash"...of course, you quote someone and without a pause in sentence structure go on about leftist=communists=socialist=nazi's=brownshirts=stupid (my word-yours are so much more veiled-not)=seditionistic=cnostitution burning/hating/disrespectin=statist...ectra...I will only say that you fool some with your personal bashes, but not all.


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.


So...let me get this straight...your viewpoint is that I, and everyone else who post in these political threads....who appears to be from the left...grovel in the gutter with our arguments...that we only present lame arguments...and that we all name call to spice up our insignificant arguments....and you wonder why we read your pompous bs and think the way we do?

There is no war on women...it's a dream made-up by leftist, communist, socialist, constitutional rejecting, brownshirted nazi's...and we forced the GOP to try and legislate soooo many of these bills to control and subjugate women in an effort to deflect attention from the economy.
 matchlight
Joined: 1/31/2009
Msg: 138
view profile
History
The War on Women
Posted: 3/17/2012 9:54:59 AM

Look at this list of frenzied misogyny:


Once again, you are circulating very misleading information. I won't speculate about why you're doing that, or why this woman wrote it.

Re:
1., 2. I don't believe the author's "let her die" description of what these bills provide for. But even if it were accurate, so what? Any state law that required a woman to carry a fetus to term at the risk of her life or health would be plainly unconstitutional.

3. She asserts that various women's rights were violated without offering any evidence that the states involved acted illegally.

4. She asserts that procedure meets the legal definition of rape. That is her opinion, and it's nonsense. The lack of consent which is a necessary element in the crime of rape doesn't exist. Any woman is completely free not to submit to the procedure.

5. Are we supposed to believe that the pregnancy of the woman in the case she mentions caused her vision to deteriorate so fast it was impossible to find another doctor, anywhere, to perform the abortion before she went blind? It's also interesting that the author names the case and then says nothing about which way it was decided, or why.

6. She asserts that some unnamed proposal to give "zygotes" personhood, made by someone not named, "systematically" strips women of "their fundamental rights." Yet she never states what those rights are or explains how doing this would strip women of them.

7. Who is taxing abortion, and how? She doesn't say. The Supreme Court has upheld a 24-hour waiting period, and yet the author tries to portray it as an outrage. And the same with the rest--vague, emotional assertions of wrongdoing without any evidence of it.

8., 9., 10. Never in the history of this country have employers been obligated by law to provide their employees insurance for things the employer didn't approve of. The bills she refers to do nothing but keep that as it always has been.

The author implies that Arizona should not let employers fire employees for that reason, but never explains why they should have to pick up the tab. Most people are employed at will--neither side has to give the other much reason for staying or going.

If enough Texas women dislike the state's decision to cut back those services and refuse the federal aid, they can make their voices heard at the ballot box. If a majority of them had not approved of the decision, their elected representatives would probably have been very reluctant to make it.

Ms. Soraya Chemaly--feminist, satirist, media critic--and ignoramus, propagandist, or both.
 RushLuv
Joined: 4/16/2009
Msg: 139
The War on Women
Posted: 3/17/2012 10:30:19 AM
Yaaaay! What a war! Perhaps by 2020 we'll be just like the women in the Middle East with no rights at all. Wooooo-hooooo!
 cotter
Joined: 10/17/2005
Msg: 140
view profile
History
The War on Women
Posted: 3/17/2012 11:13:24 AM


Women pay the price for sex, whether they want sex or not.

They do? If a woman wants sex, provided she's not extremely unattractive, I can't see why she necessarily has to pay any price at all for it.


I know you said not to feed the trolls (sigh), but I simply must ask ... what does "attractiveness" have to do with rape? Soooo ... only "attractive" women get raped?

What does "attractiveness" have to do with "free" sex ... sex for money?

I used to work in the jail in Columbus, Ohio and in Tampa, Florida. I booked in plenty of prostitutes who were relatively toothless, over-processed hair was falling out, fingernails were all caked up with filth, some had lice and fleas. When asked why they were out selling themselves ... a majority of them did not say it was to get drug money ... the majority said is was to make money to feed their children. (Note ... I would have known if it was for drugs as then I would have been treating them up in the housing units for detox if it was. Most did not need to go through detox.)

Oh, oh ... I know ... let's all make ourselves as UNattractive as possible so we can avoid rape and no man will want to pay us for sex either. Hell, they won't even take it if it's free then because then men would no be looking at us and desiring sex with us. I suppose that way, "birth control" won't be necessary ... and if we don't have sex, then certainly abortion won't be necessary either ... right? Is that the way the Republicans want that to be?

I guarantee you one thing ... if all those Republican men out there have are UGLY women, I'm betting more and more of them will be playing patty-cake with their feet in men's restrooms at the bus stations and airports.

Hmmmm ... they might even start finding the guys better-looking than the women in general. Of course, same sex would not create birth control or abortion issues ... right?
 magicallaroundme
Joined: 3/9/2011
Msg: 141
The War on Women
Posted: 3/17/2012 11:51:48 AM
War on women? Whatever! It should come as no surprise that the government could and would begin to coerce and regulate women because that is what government is -- the application of collectivized force to restrict the absolute volition of individuals. The astronomical expansion of federal power came largely at the behest and in the name of women. The problem lies in the fact that a government that is powerful enough to enforce such things as affirmative action and voting rights is also powerful enough to ban abortion and stamp out civil liberties.

Like everyone else, I have loads of conjectures on how we got here and a ton of speculation about how it will all play out but they don't amount to a pitcher of warm piss. What I do know is that if the federal government is going to expend its maximum level of coercive power to prevent someone in South Dakota from masturbating or enforcing mandatory vasectomies, it is going to do little to change the trade imbalance or rebuild the national infrastructure. Then again... so forkin what? It is plain to see that what JLo wears to the Golden Globes is more vital to the national interest than civil liberties or the economy could ever be. How can we expect Congress to take any measure of care in deciding such matters as trivial as human rights, global warfare or national insolvency?
 Bladesmith81801
Joined: 10/30/2010
Msg: 142
The War on Women
Posted: 3/17/2012 1:05:25 PM
Paul, I think you missed the point. If you're paying an insurance premium, are you not ENTITLED to having your health issues covered for the price?

pretty sure thats what she meant, not something for nothing. Remember, Fluke wasn't expecting anyone to carry her, just that her PAID insurance policy cover female health issues.
 Bladesmith81801
Joined: 10/30/2010
Msg: 143
The War on Women
Posted: 3/17/2012 1:14:52 PM
Cotter, but theres no misogyny in that comment you posted, is there? No sirree!
 Aries_328
Joined: 10/16/2011
Msg: 144
view profile
History
The War on Women
Posted: 3/17/2012 1:34:28 PM

War on women? Whatever! It should come as no surprise that the government could and would begin to coerce and regulate women because that is what government is -- the application of collectivized force to restrict the absolute volition of individuals. The astronomical expansion of federal power came largely at the behest and in the name of women. The problem lies in the fact that a government that is powerful enough to enforce such things as affirmative action and voting rights is also powerful enough to ban abortion and stamp out civil liberties


This has been on of the running themes that I have been trying to point out. It is a very simple concept that gets dismissed as though it is so obvious that even mentioning it is a sign of partisan stupidity...

What the government grants it can also take away. There is no acknowledgment of this on the liberal side. The conservative sides are very aware of this and are even proving why it is a required restriction even against their own side. The typical things on the left are not so individually troublesome such as light bulbs, fat from oils, taxes on cigarettes, bans on smoking, and the billion other little daily life idiotic management tax and fine issues that make functioning in daily life a constant assault of taxes and restrictions. It is all to support an out of control and monstrous spending addiction.

The 'war on women’ if it is a restriction of liberty and in any way violates a law than deal with the law. There is no law preventing us from being taxed into oblivion and I just did my taxes and don't feel like my forced contributions to liberal moral charities of welfare and social programs have really done much to help the people out of their situation. They help them stay in it. Increasing the roles of welfare isn't a sign of success.

There is no evidence anywhere that once a crisis of spending is reached that spending more will resolve the problem. So on what factual basis is it being done? It is average people that suffer the most. The poor will remain poor and will probably get their bit of pittance from liberal society and maybe it might increase by a few dollars. The very very rich will have a bit less. The rest of us that don't qualify as either rich or poor will live on the edge of month to month and just hope that anything we can do to prepare is sufficient for a long enough time to make it through.

The war on women isn't real. There is a potential for negative impact of some specific issues but that in no way invalidates a women's vote. It does not invalidate a women's freedom to speak, join in groups, or stand equally on any topic and speak with equal authority. There is a way to challenge and change a bad state law. That is built into the system. There is a way to challenge a bad company that does harm. There is a way to challenge an individual politician. The only means to challenge an out of control Federal Government is for states to assert their authority which is not going to be a pretty picture.

Legislating morality is just kind of stupid. But you only really notice it when it hits something a bit more impacting then where you smoke a cigarette. All these little laws just set the precedent that it's ok to control behavior this way. Congrats.
 OneGodfather
Joined: 3/4/2012
Msg: 145
The War on Women
Posted: 3/17/2012 1:42:45 PM
I cant believe some of the conversation on here? America has major problems and the topic of discussion is women's conception ? I dont know if there is a war on women, As Far as I can see.. women in America can do anything they want except being in NFL etc.

Yeah some of the old guard still treats women as second class citizen, but then again they treat anyone that isn't in their group as second class citizen.

I truly hope that people in America , Canada and the rest of the free world wake the beep up, we either work together and make our respected countries great and a place to prosper again or do jack and let it fall by the way side and turn into 2nd world economies.
 matchlight
Joined: 1/31/2009
Msg: 146
view profile
History
The War on Women
Posted: 3/17/2012 2:26:06 PM
Exactly. And they happen to be bolstered by the Republican Party, who helps to bring the distracting legislation to the floor of both state and national congress. America will be able to work together if those arses stop the non-sense.


What federal legislation introduced by Republican(s) are you referring to? As for state legislation, elected representatives from either party are free to introduce pretty much anything their constituents want them to. And if anyone outside the state thinks one of its laws is wrong, too damn bad. Unless it violates the Constitution or some federal law or treaty, it's no one else's business.

Some of us are not interested in cooperating with people who are bent on illegitimately turning this country into something unrecognizable. We mean to use every legal means to defeat and discredit them and what they stand for. If Sweden or France or New Zealand or any other country is so wonderful, move there. Or, work to amend the Constitution to redesign our government so it's just the kind of democratic socialist utopia that will warm your hearts.

But you don't get to cut corners by ignoring the Constitution to have things your way. Anyone who does that does not respect the rule of law and the individual liberties it guarantees. I don't really care if those people mean well, or hate this country and everything about it. The result's the same--ruin.

When these people support arbitrary, lawless government power, that is just another way of saying they support authoritarian rule--and even a "soft" tyranny is illegitimate. Many millions of Americans--most of us, even now--are determined not to let the people who are pushing to create that here ever succeed.
 mungojoe
Joined: 11/15/2006
Msg: 147
The War on Women
Posted: 3/17/2012 2:45:25 PM

But you don't get to cut corners by ignoring the Constitution to have things your way. Anyone who does that does not respect the rule of law and the individual liberties it guarantees.
....
When these people support arbitrary, lawless government power

This would be yet another example of the kind of insane, delusional thinking being embraced by the right wing in their futile quest to avoid irrelevancy... Of course, none of what is spoken of in the quote is actually happening within the Democratic party, the executive or what passes for "left wing" politics in the US (the 'left' in the US is actually rather centrist, even right of centre at times)...

But, it is fully within the current right wing political paradigm in the US to embrace this kind of delusional nonsense... Apparently some (or a lot) of the US right wing took the story of Chicken Little just a bit too seriously...

Of course it does helps to explain why the right usually has several different, often contradictory, "justifications" for the kind of 'anti-rights' legislation they try so hard to push...
 Aries_328
Joined: 10/16/2011
Msg: 148
view profile
History
The War on Women
Posted: 3/17/2012 3:06:24 PM

Of course it does helps to explain why the right usually has several different, often contradictory, "justifications" for the kind of 'anti-rights' legislation they try so hard to push...


You know what several different and often contradictory, "Justifications" means? Independent thought.

Independent thought is not something permitted with your assertion that your way is the only way. We need the chicken little’s. We need the conspiracy theorists. We need the liberals, the conservatives, the centrists and atheists and religious. Even idiot wackjobs have a role in being a demonstration of a healthy society. One size will never fit all. Learn how to deal with that.

We have laws to cope with things that reach various levels of impact. Most laws do not come into existence until some situation occurs that warrants the imposition. Once you have a law that law is typically specifically narrow to only directly impact the narrow situation that brought the law. Sometimes that law can be interpreted to have relevant meaning to things within a reasonable association but there is no requirement for that. A law banning chewing gum in California would neither limit nor prevent chewing tobacco. However, it may not be out of bounds for a city or public authority to make the claim that since chewing gum is prohibited that also extends to chewing tobacco. If people feel that association is invalid there are methods in place to bring that challenge to court in which an interpretation to extend chewing gum to chewing tobacco can be made.
This is the aspect that activism always misses the point on. Just because you clamor loudly that a specific interpretation of something is how you see it that does not make it true nor does that provide a means to actually change the situation.
 mungojoe
Joined: 11/15/2006
Msg: 149
The War on Women
Posted: 3/17/2012 3:42:17 PM
You know what several different and often contradictory, "Justifications" means? Independent thought.


"Independent thought"...?!?

No dude... What "several different and often contradictory, "Justifications"" means is exactly what it sounds like, having no actual, logical rationale... Just a 'desire' for something which can't actually be justified so EVERY possible excuse is 'thrown against the wall' in the hopes that something, somewhere will 'stick' for somebody... It means they can't actually produce a logically consistant, intellectually valid rationale... It means they "just want it" for their own petty personal desires without regard for the rights of others...

Independent thought is not something permitted with your assertion that your way is the only way.

You are going to have to show me where I asserted "my way is the only way"... I'm afraid you are a little confused on this point... THAT position is coming from the right wing nutjobs who want to remove the choices and rights of others for their petty little bigotries, selfish personal desires and utterly insane and/or fantasy 'beliefs' (in the irrational, religious sense of 'beliefs')...
 Casper66
Joined: 3/2/2007
Msg: 150
view profile
History
The War on Women
Posted: 3/17/2012 3:56:58 PM
If you want to take away the rights of others you do it in small calculated manoeuvres, so people don't notice until it's too late. I see all these state laws as steps to reverse women's rights a little at time, but the end is still the same, a small majority trying to force their supposed moral agenda on others at the expense of an individual rights. The fact that Santorum is going after the porn industry is not a surprize, a good moral outrage is a great way to deflect that fact that none of them really have a clue how to fix the economy/create jobs and they don't have to go after their big money friends who have contributed to their campaigns.
Show ALL Forums  > Off Topic  > The War on Women