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
 Aries_328
Joined: 10/16/2011
Msg: 151
view profile
History
The War on WomenPage 7 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)
You are going to have to show me where I asserted "my way is the only way”



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')...
Over and over and over and over.... And not a singe peep about every other aspect of life that is regulated and taxed and over controlled to keep everyone in their place and cast.

I am not excusing these things from the right either. But, I will also not condone the other side doing it in every other aspect of life. And I at least have the ability to recognize that states have authority to enact laws that I don't like and to hope that the people of that state will note those things and vote accordingly to either over turn those things or to vote for those that say they will oppose them. If they do not choose to oppose these state issues than who am I to say they are having their freedoms abridged. I hope they do oppose them. The law hasn’t passed either.

Where is the allowance for states rights, individual rights and freedom in your insistance that you know what is best for the people in another place? It doesn't exist.

Santorums now declared war on porn… I have no problem calling that a war on porn. It is a specifically targeted campaign against the whole. That qualifies. The war on women isn’t real. It is an abridgment of very specific medical issues and one that isn’t a ban. It is just a refusal to require others to pay for it as an entitlement and permits those that feel they do not want to pay for it to opt out. It is a moderate abridgment of who pays not a war on women. At least deal with the reality

If it were a pure democratic election in the state of Arizona and the people voted by majority to all these exclusions would you over ride them? Access to services and products are not restricted just not all plans and organizations will pay for them.

Los Angeles is not the home of the religious right nor is it conservative. How do you explain the restrictions on the porn industry that just passed here? Would you call it a war?
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/03/05/condoms-in-porn-now-required_n_1320948.html

Not only is this an idiotic move by los angles economically but it was done for a liberal ‘protection’ purpose. What is the difference? Isn’t this just as much of a ‘war on porn’ by the left? The people in the industry don't want this and think it may actually do more harm than good. Every time someone tries to legislate morality things get worse.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/03/05/condoms-in-porn-now-required_n_1320948.html


"We don't see a bar to the city or the county doing what they need to do," Widess said in a telephone interview Monday evening. "We believe the city can use its authority to prevent the spread of HIV/AIDS among people involved in the adult film industry."

Ged Kenslea, a spokesman for AIDS Healthcare Foundation, the ballot measure's main backer, said proponents gathered more than 70,000 signatures, well beyond the 41,000 required to place it on the ballot.

"We're thrilled we've passed this initial threshold," Kenslea said. "We believe we're going to prevail in court and look forward to taking this issue directly to the voters."
 judydentures
Joined: 2/27/2012
Msg: 152
The War on Women
Posted: 3/17/2012 5:43:35 PM
There is no war on women, and anybody with half a brain knows it.
If anything, there's been an ongoing war on men since the 60's.
Tell me about the "war on women" when she gets the house, the car, and lifetime
support.
The right is dumb, I''l grant you that, but the left is insane.
 magicallaroundme
Joined: 3/9/2011
Msg: 153
The War on Women
Posted: 3/17/2012 5:47:59 PM

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.


I grant you that Canadians usually have a better grasp of American civics and history than Americans do. What they don't have is a long-standing tradition of constitutional republicanism. Your system of monarchy and parliamentary social democracy doesn't readily lend itself to the decentralization that is possible in America.

Opponents of the new laws are actually fortunate that they are being proposed at the state level for two reasons: They are easier and faster to get rid of when they fail. The damage can be quarantined to a limited area. A federal level legislative disaster could persist indefinitely and would necessarily infect the entire country. Entrenched power clusters would form around bad laws to perpetuate them. With state legislation, competition from the other states would limit the tenure of an ill conceived law. The main objection that is usually raised in regard to state sovereignty was certain Southern states using the concept to maintain segregation. Most Americans don't realize that states rights was used most often and to greatest effect by Northern states refusal to honor the Fugitive Slave Act.

In America it is best to make social policy at the lowest level possible. For instance, if a handful of school boards in Alabama decide to decimate a proper curriculum in favor of "A Christ centered alternative to literacy" the outcomes of their pupils would force a change back quite quickly and the experiment would have almost no effect upon the University of Iowa. I fear we will never see an end to "No Child Left Behind". There is too much money in creating imbeciles.
 mungojoe
Joined: 11/15/2006
Msg: 154
The War on Women
Posted: 3/17/2012 5:58:14 PM

Los Angeles is not the home of the religious right nor is it conservative. How do you explain the restrictions on the porn industry that just passed here? Would you call it a war?

I'd call it a legitimate occupational health and safety requirement... filtered/self-contained breathing equipment can be a real pain in the ass but it is perfectly legitimate to regulate that employers require/provide them in situations of particular risk...

It's also a sound public health policy...

Not only is this an idiotic move by los angles economically but it was done for a liberal ‘protection’ purpose. What is the difference? Isn’t this just as much of a ‘war on porn’ by the left? The people in the industry don't want this and think it may actually do more harm than good.

Funny... Seems that we heard this same kind of complaining from industry and their (usually right-wing) apologists before regulations requiring the use of respirators in certain employment situations became commonplace...

Every time someone tries to legislate morality things get worse.

Ah... here is the real problem... you see... that example you brought up has little to nothing to do with "legislating morality"... too bad the same can't be said for what is happening in this 'war on women' that the (increasingly hypothetical) moderate Republicans have let the right-wingnuts rope them into...
 RushLuv
Joined: 4/16/2009
Msg: 155
The War on Women
Posted: 3/17/2012 6:00:53 PM
@ Judy. Men have been trying to reverse women's rights for decades now.

I bet you there were a shitload of men not satisfied when women were given the right to vote.

This war on women is not something that just started. This has been going on for the longest.

And, yes. I do agree that this is an going war to strip away women's rights.

Geez. Roe vs. Wade was instated for a reason.
 Aries_328
Joined: 10/16/2011
Msg: 156
view profile
History
The War on Women
Posted: 3/17/2012 6:56:36 PM
Ah... here is the real problem... you see... that example you brought up has little to nothing to do with "legislating morality"... too bad the same can't be said for what is happening in this 'war on women' that the (increasingly hypothetical) moderate Republicans have let the right-wingnuts rope them into...


And your example for a war on women based on who pays for it can be seen as an imposition of morality in both directions as well as not a morality question at all but an economic one. Why can't you see that? It isn't prevented. It is just about who pays.

As for your 'safety police' in porn... who is going to do the inspections? What about places that use condoms instead of testing standards? And what do you do with the fact that it is already a state law and followed by the larger film companies.

and what about this:
http://goo.gl/VV5qc

Many of the people attracted to this industry are still those who don’t care a lot about public opinion or about obeying authorities. In the case of a condom mandate tied to permits, many producers will simply shoot in Los Angeles without a permit. Others will move production outside of the city – to places like Las Vegas, San Francisco or Miami, where some companies are already established.


Rational thinking just doesn't permeate the protective instincts does it.

http://www.syracuse.com/have-you-heard
/index.ssf/2012/03/condoms_now_required_for_los_a.html

If any do leave, he said, his organization will follow them and push for similar legislation in those new communities..


and finally... another city gets to 'volunteer' for the regulation and here is their justification:

The primary purpose here is it’s a health and safety issue. And secondarily, we don’t want them here,” Mayor Bob Huber said of his city of 125,000 residents. “This is a family-oriented community and we don’t want them setting up their studios in Simi Valley.”


So... Your wonderful health and safety issue is already being used for purposes of moral legislation.

What is the result of legislation of morality? All that is accomplished is pushing the problem to an underground economy that is wholly unregulated and much more dangerous than anything prior to the attempted fix.
 matchlight
Joined: 1/31/2009
Msg: 157
view profile
History
The War on Women
Posted: 3/17/2012 7:18:42 PM
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...


What's your point? That the principles of government on which the United States was founded are illogical and irrational? Those are the principles which are incorporated in the Constitution, and which conservatives support.

In school, I was so busy thinking about girls and drinking beer that I missed some of the finer points. And then, too, I'm an American. So I wouldn't know what an "intellectually valid rationale" is. Sounds impressive, though, like something Americans--except maybe the ones who hate America--are just too dim to understand.

The idea that any American voter would try to satisfy his petty personal desires is outrageous! How dare those ordinary people try to make laws and policies in their own states, just because they're a majority? They should think of the rights of others, for once, and just do what Mr. Obama and his experts in Washington know is best for ALL of us. All this independent thinking is selfish and divisive.


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)...


So you say. I say otherwise. I could just as easily call your views insane and delusional, and it would be no more a legitimate argument than it is coming from you. Assertions not supported by any reasoning aren't arguments, no matter how peevish or bitter you make them. But then, maybe you feel whatever you declare should just be accepted as the truth--no questions asked.
 mungojoe
Joined: 11/15/2006
Msg: 158
The War on Women
Posted: 3/17/2012 7:32:11 PM

So... Your wonderful health and safety issue is already being used for purposes of moral legislation.

You gave an example you THOUGHT was related to the topic and I showed you it wasn't... you can "play dreidle" and try to twist and turn this off topic into a rant about regulatory inefficiency all you want... I'm not biting...

Why can't you see that? It isn't prevented. It is just about who pays.

Because I'm not wearing "right-wing crazy" blinders... The right-wing point ISN'T about "who pays" (though they like to TRY to hide behind that bit of smoke and mirrors)... It's about "who controls"... Blacks weren't specifically and directly "prevented" from voting by state literacy tests or economic pressures (like poll taxes, etc.) either, but they were still prevented in reality...

For the right-wingnuts and their (increasingly hypothetical) moderate dupes/hostages/allies this is ALL about "who controls"... The right-wingnuts want gov't (through law) and third parties (through economic "veto") to control the personal decisions of individual women... The left want the individual women to be able to exercise their own personal decisions without the coercion of gov't (law) and third-party colonial moralists and wingnuts (economic sanction)...
 Aries_328
Joined: 10/16/2011
Msg: 159
view profile
History
The War on Women
Posted: 3/17/2012 7:37:32 PM
Because I'm not wearing "right-wing crazy" blinders... The right-wing point ISN'T about "who pays" (though they like to TRY to hide behind that bit of smoke and mirrors)... It's about "who controls"... Blacks weren't specifically and directly "prevented" from voting by state literacy tests or economic pressures (like poll taxes, etc.) either, but they were still prevented in reality...


I also altered my quote to suit your needs. I also said that it could be seen as a moral impostion in both directions. But you ignored that because it also supported your version but also included the oppostion. WHICH IS REALITY.

You are wearing right-wing crazy "blinder... You see them everywhere. Totally incapable of seeing how it is the nature of government in general to do this. Totally incapable of seeing how laws are passed and why where they come from matter. You are blind to reality. Wake up!!!! Drink some coffee if you need to.
 mungojoe
Joined: 11/15/2006
Msg: 160
The War on Women
Posted: 3/17/2012 8:41:10 PM

I could just as easily call your views insane and delusional, and it would be no more a legitimate argument than it is coming from you.

Yes, you could... but the difference is, I have the advantages of reality and their (the ones who argue for views I have referred to as insane and delusional) own words to prove MY point...

You are wearing right-wing crazy "blinder... You see them everywhere.

No... not everywhere... but, as with seagulls, some places sure have more than their fair share of them these days...

Totally incapable of seeing how it is the nature of government in general to do this.

I hate to break it to you but... gov't is NOT a living entity, it's not in its "nature" to DO anything, it's a TOOL... and like any tool its function lies solely in the hands of the people who use it... Gov't is neither "good" nor "evil", it just IS, the "good" or "evil" is found in the nature of the people who use it...

Totally incapable of seeing how missing the point of how laws are passed and where they come from matter.

I'm not missing anything in that regard... I'm quite capable of seeing the nature of the people waging this war...The ones using the 'tool' I referenced above, the ones who are weilding the 'tool' as a hammer against women mainly to placate the right-wingnut crazies with all the insane delusions they've embraced...
 Aries_328
Joined: 10/16/2011
Msg: 161
view profile
History
The War on Women
Posted: 3/17/2012 8:57:06 PM

I hate to break it to you but... gov't is NOT a living entity, it's not in its "nature" to DO anything, it's a TOOL... and like any tool its function lies solely in the hands of the people who use it... Gov't is neither "good" nor "evil", it just IS, the "good" or "evil" is found in the nature of the people who use it...


We differ here. Government is made up of groups of people and groups of people behave in certain ways. All kinds of things come into play with groups of people and even more when there is authority. It is very much like a living thing and its function outlives a person.


I'm not missing anything in that regard... I'm quite capable of seeing the nature of the people waging this war...The ones using the 'tool' I referenced above, the ones who are weilding the 'tool' as a hammer against women mainly to placate the right-wingnut crazies with all the insane delusions they've embraced


But you don't seem to have any problem with the down sides of left positions. As though somehow they are infallible. You don't have problems with ignoring a state’s rights nor individuals rights nor of individual liberty if it goes against your idea of protection while if it is right view of protection it is bad. That is illogical.

I tried to give examples of how the issue could be a legitimate position in a state as well as liberal policies that lead to other forms of restrictions and every bit of what I tried to present to you was rejected. Not one attempt to view alternative views. Not one attempt to understand opposition. Nothing. You have a pretty strong shield there. Not once did I say I agree with these attempts at laws either. But my agreement/disagreement with them does not prevent me from understanding the positions.
 mungojoe
Joined: 11/15/2006
Msg: 162
The War on Women
Posted: 3/17/2012 10:10:13 PM

We differ here. Government is made up of groups of people and groups of people behave in certain ways. All kinds of things come into play with groups of people and even more when there is authority. It is very much like a living thing and its function outlives a person.

And here is where you make an error... you fail to distinguish between form and function... you mention "groups of people" but fail to distinguish between the roles and functions of those groups... you say it is "very much like" (my emphasis) a living thing but fail to acknowledge why it APPEARS that way (and it only appears so)...

These "groups of people" form particular castes with particular roles which roughly fall into two categories the "political managers" (elected and political appointees) and the "worker drones" (civil service)... The "worker drones" are the only reason gov't APPEARS to be "like" a living thing... pull the "political managers" for an indefinite vacation and the gov't still chugs right along (just like your computer with its interrupt routines and such when you are away) without a hiccup and will continue to do so for quite some time... pull the civil service and the gov't would collapse almost overnight (just like your computer would if the BIOS were seriously corrupted); the "political managers" could filibuster and speechify and pass law to their hearts content and it would all be a lot of "sound and fury signifying nothing"...

But here's the thing... this "worker drone" class that gives gov't an APPEARANCE of living... They don't pass the laws... they simply perform their assigned tasks, their particular "interrupt routine"... They change nothing... If we pulled the "political managers" gov't would go on for some time just as it is right now... no change, no progress, no regress, nothing, a moment frozen in "legislative time"... The law and gov't service we have now would be the law and gov't service we would have until the "political managers" returned... taxes would be collected, cheques issued, the absence would be nearly invisible (except for the quiet and serenity) for some time... THIS does NOT make gov't a "living thing", especially not in the context of this thread...

Change, progress, regress ALL arise solely from the "political managers"... They are the ones who pass the laws and enact the regulations... They are the source of any "good" or "evil" nature... And it is the Republican "political managers", who are sucking up to these right-wing crazies, who are inflicting these assaults in this "war on women"...

But you don't seem to have any problem with the down sides of left positions. As though somehow they are infallible.

That's funny... because I don't seem to remember this thread being about "the down sides of left positions"... This is a ridiculous deflection (but, sadly, not uncommon)...

every bit of what I tried to present to you was rejected.

Not all of it was rejected... just the parts which were deflection from the central issues or further examples of the delusional insanity that is sucking the US right, (increasingly hypothetical) moderates and all, down their blackhole of wingnuttery...

Not one attempt to view alternative views. Not one attempt to understand opposition. Nothing.

The fact that I reject them in no way implies that I did not "view" or "understand"... It simply means that I reject them... Actually, I understand them quite well and THAT is why I reject them and often refer to many as insanely delusional or bigoted...

But my agreement/disagreement with them does not prevent me from understanding the positions.

And my understanding of them does not prevent me from rejecting them or seeing many of them as insanely delusional...
 Aries_328
Joined: 10/16/2011
Msg: 163
view profile
History
The War on Women
Posted: 3/17/2012 10:52:07 PM

And it is the Republican "political managers", who are sucking up to these right-wing crazies, who are inflicting these assaults in this "war on women"...


Ok... have it your way. Radical leftists are trying to illegally overthrow the constitution and should be stopped at all costs. Oh wait... you are not even living in this country. No wonder why you could care less about it.

Take care.
 Casper66
Joined: 3/2/2007
Msg: 164
view profile
History
The War on Women
Posted: 3/18/2012 4:58:16 AM
Good points Magicallaroundme, as a Canadian I have more than just a two party system, which seems to foster an "us verses them" mentality in the US, thou I have to say the last couple of years seems to have brought out more of the fringe element of the parties. The moderates seem to be overshadowed by these extreme groups, perhaps due to the Republican race and the future presidential elections they seem more vocal. IMO it should be a concern for more than just women if these extreme fringes were in a position of power at both state and federal levels, I certainly wouldn't want a small group of individuals forcing their "morality" on me.
 Bladesmith81801
Joined: 10/30/2010
Msg: 165
The War on Women
Posted: 3/18/2012 6:47:30 AM
Looks like the Anti women crowd are losing. Good.

"Oh dear. This means that the administration still plans to make God-fearing Catholic organizations indulge in accounting tricks that will still result in the same thing: Women insured through those organizations will get free access to contraceptives. How awful.

Let us stop here for a moment to think of all the people in this country who did not want to pay to bomb innocent people in Iraq, who believed with all their hearts that the war was immoral and a crime against God, and yet no one (especially the Republicans in Congress) gave a damn what they thought:


WASHINGTON — The Obama administration took another step on Friday to enforce a federal mandate for health insurance coverage of contraceptives, announcing how the new requirement would apply to the many Roman Catholic hospitals, universities and social service agencies that insure themselves.

In such cases, the administration said, female employees and students will still have access to free coverage of contraceptives.

The coverage will be provided by the companies that review and pay claims — “third-party administrators” — or by “some other independent entity,” it said.

Kathleen Sebelius, the secretary of health and human services, said the government would guarantee women access to contraceptives “while accommodating religious liberty interests.”

The new proposal escalates the election-year fight over the administration’s birth control policy.

President Obama had previously announced what he described as an “accommodation” for religiously affiliated organizations that buy commercial insurance but object, for religious reasons, to covering contraceptives and sterilization procedures. In these cases, the White House said, the insurer “will be required to provide contraception coverage to women free of charge.”

On Friday, the Department of Health and Human Services went a step further and said it would propose a similar requirement for group health plans sponsored by religious organizations that insure themselves.

The new proposal did not mollify Republicans in Congress."
http://crooksandliars.com/susie-madrak/self-insured-religious-groups-will-st

Emphasis added.

'The coverage will be provided by the companies that review and pay claims — “third-party administrators” — or by “some other independent entity,” it said.'

"that buy commercial insurance"

Get it? The church doesn't have a say in the matter. These agencies providing insurance are NOT the church. They are not run by the church, and are not owned by the church, and it wouldn't matter if they were. They are Insurance COMPANIES, and as such, are exempt from claiming religious exemptions. They are not the "First Insurance Church of Christ" or any other such silliness. Insurance companies take state and federal dollars, and as such, have to abide by all the rules for businesses, their religious beliefs DO NOT enter into it.
 cotter
Joined: 10/17/2005
Msg: 166
view profile
History
The War on Women
Posted: 3/18/2012 8:24:11 AM
I just found a page where we can get information for a date that they are organizing a march on April 28th ...
http://www.wearewomenmarch.net/
Unite Against The War On Women

We are all in this together!

Here is the information I found for Ohio:
http://ohiodailyblog.com/
Columbus. April 28. Fight Back Against the War on Women
Submitted by Anastasia Pantsios on Sat, 03/17/2012 - 9:59pm.

How things can change in a year. It was about a year ago when, at a Democratic Club meeting in the Cleveland area, someone asked Kellie Copeland of NARAL Pro Choice Ohio why, with all the new abortion legislation being proposed, no one was organizing women to descend on the statehouse the way union members and supporters were in protest of SB 5. She said that they were afraid the turnout would be too puny to take the risk, and it would make it look like pro-choicers were outgunned by the other side.
Don't think that's the case anymore!
It's time.
On Saturday morning April 28, women and those who support women's rights (I can't even believe we're talking about this) will gather in Columbus for a rally at the statehouse to "Unite Against the War on Women." It's part of the national "We Are Women March" effort which will be taking place in every state capital across the country and Washington D.C.

http://www.wearewomenmarch.net/

No details about the event yet, so bookmark this link and go back for updates:
https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=2506459121350&set=o.133307966792...
Let's outnumber Rep. Lynn Wachtmann (the man who sponsored the "Heartbeat" Bill) 10,000-1.


I have spoken with a lot of ladies who are planning to be part of this.

I hope we can get a march together for a million women to march on Washington.
 Earthpuppy
Joined: 2/9/2008
Msg: 167
view profile
History
The War on Women
Posted: 3/18/2012 9:16:12 AM
The blowback from the Repubs declaring war on women is already showing to be significant.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/republicans-suffer-among-female-voters/2012/03/08/gIQANzfM1R_story.html

snip..
When a Wall Street Journal-NBC News survey asked in the summer which party should control Congress, 46 percent of women favored Democrats and 42 percent preferred Republican control.

But in a survey released Monday, compiling data since the beginning of the year, that figure had widened considerably to a 15-point advantage for the Democrats, according to polling by the team of Democratic pollster Peter Hart and Republican Bill McInturff. Fifty-one percent favored Democratic control; only 36 percent wanted to see the Republicans in charge.

snip..
A GOP strategist, who spoke on the condition of anonymity to discuss the party’s situation frankly, said: “It’s devastating. I don’t think it’s going to go away. I think it’s going to be a significant challenge the Republican nominee is going to inherit.”
snip..
“I think most women assumed that these were settled issues probably three decades ago and are aghast that it’s been reopened,” Howell said. “Almost half my e-mails . . . are from men. And they’re speaking for their wives, their girlfriends, their daughters, and are very upset by what’s happening. Many of them say they have been Republicans but they’re not going to vote Republican in the future.”
snip..
“I have never had a vote I’ve taken where I have felt that I let down more people that believed in me,” Sen. Lisa Murkowski (R-Alaska) told the Anchorage Daily News on Sunday, adding, “The wind had shifted, and Republicans didn’t have enough sense to get off of it.”


What a difference 50 years makes..Goldwater would be scoffed at by the current theocracy of the republican party.
“Mark my word, if and when these preachers get control of the [Republican] party, and they're sure trying to do so, it's going to be a terrible damn problem. Frankly, these people frighten me. Politics and governing demand compromise. But these Christians believe they are acting in the name of God, so they can't and won't compromise. I know, I've tried to deal with them.”
— Barry Goldwater
“One of the criticisms I make is to what I refer to as more of a
Libertarianish right.
They have this idea that people should be left alone, be able to do
whatever they want to do, government should keep our taxes down and keep our
regulations low, that we shouldn’t get involved in the bedroom, we shouldn’t get
involved in cultural issues.
That is not how traditional conservatives view the world. There is no such
society that I’m aware of, where we’ve had radical individualism and that it
succeeds as a culture.”
-Rick Santorum
 magicallaroundme
Joined: 3/9/2011
Msg: 168
The War on Women
Posted: 3/18/2012 10:12:50 AM

Looks like the Anti women crowd are losing. Good.


Don't make that mistake. Things are already at the point that if even one more right winger takes office there will be no hope of restoring democracy in the US. That could easily happen if voter turnout were sufficiently low. It will happen. It is just a matter of when. Actually the most dangerous situation that could occur is if the economy improves because voters will once again become complacent.
 Aries_328
Joined: 10/16/2011
Msg: 169
view profile
History
The War on Women
Posted: 3/18/2012 10:50:34 AM
Actually the most dangerous situation that could occur is if the economy improves because voters will once again become complacent.


And you wonder why there are a lot of people that think this is all being done on purpose? Really? How about you take that line and present it to all women and to all the poor as well as the rest of the world like Greece and through Africa.

At least you were honest about it. Have to acknowledge that. There is truth to the statement. Stability can have a complacency effect.
 matchlight
Joined: 1/31/2009
Msg: 170
view profile
History
The War on Women
Posted: 3/18/2012 11:15:34 AM
The church doesn't have a say in the matter.


That's just the problem. There are at leas two important points Mr. Obama and Ms. Sebelius conveniently ignored. And Ms. Susie Madrak is either too ignorant or, like most so-called reporters, too far in the tank for this administration, to mention it.

First, quite a few Catholic organizations are their own insurers. So for them, this "accommodation" does nothing at all. Ironically, these organizations first chose to insure themselves to avoid the very violation of conscience that's now being forced on them.

Second, it's clear to anyone who's not economically illiterate that this is a ruse. Mr. Obama may be able to stop the seas from rising, as he claimed, but even he can't change the fact that medical care costs money. Someone has to pay for it. Does anyone really believe he can order private insurance companies to eat the cost of providing birth control to the employees of organizations affiliated with the Catholic Church?

Private insurance companies are not charities. The only reason they exist is to make a profit. They will obviously pass the cost of the birth control for those employees on to the employees themselves--in the form of higher premiums for the *other* services their policies cover. So their employers will pay the cost just the same, only in a way that's harder for people to notice--and therefore easier to hide from them. This is just another shell game from a man who specializes in them.
 OyVay...
Joined: 7/15/2011
Msg: 171
The War on Women
Posted: 3/18/2012 12:28:11 PM
One last observation on the republican agenda, and why women in those states voted for them. Several posters have made reference to why hadn't women had a problem with these politicians before this.

If you look at say, Scott Walker of Wisconsin, he didn't run on a platform of union elimination, or ban of contraceptives. Neither did most of the rest, or the state legislature that party controls. None of them ran on the "vaginal probe" as core to their law making, or legislation they would support or introduce.

These were largely bait and switch tactics. You never heard a word about this before they had a majority of legislative votes, in these states.
 magicallaroundme
Joined: 3/9/2011
Msg: 172
The War on Women
Posted: 3/18/2012 12:39:02 PM

How about you take that line and present it to all women and to all the poor as well as the rest of the world like Greece and through Africa.


Because I don't give a flying "F" about women, Greece, Africa or whathaveyou. If we don't get the situation handled within these borders then nobody anywhere has any hope.

I don't want to get too long winded about it so I'll just say that I as a rational liberal recognize you as a rational conservative and we have common cause against all irrational ideologies whatever their origin. Feminism and Religious Fundamentalism have more in common than just methodology and aspirations of tyranny. They both are rooted in base emotionalism (fundamentalists-rampant fear and feminists-unrestrained hedonism). Both would welcome despotism.

I am of the opinion that feminism can more easily be expelled from leadership of the left than fundamentalism can be neutralized on the right. So I encourage all rational persons to join the left and eject feminism.
 matchlight
Joined: 1/31/2009
Msg: 173
view profile
History
The War on Women
Posted: 3/18/2012 12:59:50 PM
If you look at say, Scott Walker of Wisconsin, he didn't run on a platform of . . . ban of contraceptives.


It wouldn't matter if he or anyone else had run on that isssue. No state can ban contraceptives anyway, no matter who might want to or how much they might want it. That's been true ever since 1965, when the Supreme Court said so in Griswold v. Connecticut.


These were largely bait and switch tactics.


You're suggesting these officials got elected by pretending to represent the majority of their constituents, but then, once in office, promoting laws and policies that majority doesn't favor. Obviously some officials have done that--Mr. Obama is a good example. But they always do it at the risk of being turned out of office by the majority they've tricked. The score usually gets evened in the end.

Fooling voters isn't so simple. "You can fool some of the people all of the time, and all of the people some of the time; but you can not fool all of the people all of the time." If Mr. Lincoln didn't say it, he should have.
 Welsh474
Joined: 9/13/2010
Msg: 174
The War on Women
Posted: 3/18/2012 1:21:05 PM
I don't understand the hypocracy of this topic regarding the Catholic church and any medical insurance plans they may have. Catholics use birth control, I'd say the majority of them do. Catholics also get vasectomies, tubal ligations, line up for abortions, cheat on their spouses and we also have the added bonus of child molestors thrown in the mix. They are no different than any other religious group or non religious group....they just think they are. It's nice that they come out and say "hhmmm, we don't believe in birth control" when in fact probably the only Catholics that don't use birth control are nuns and priests - the rest of the flock do as they wish which means they use birth control.

Aren't you guys the church and state folks??
 magicallaroundme
Joined: 3/9/2011
Msg: 175
The War on Women
Posted: 3/18/2012 1:56:21 PM

I don't understand the hypocracy of this topic regarding the Catholic church and any medical insurance plans they may have. Catholics use birth control,...


Catholics in America are, for the most part, are a mish-mash of largely urban, ethnic populations that have little in common besides church affiliation. The urban part is key because the most persuasive influences upon a particular individual are secular rather than religious. In South Boston, a man is probably a Red Sox fan first, Irish second and maybe a Catholic third. In Chicago - machinist, Polish, Catholic. In Los Angeles -- soldier, Chicano, Catholic. Until Benedict XIV jumps center for the Lakers, what the church says or does won't ever be all that important.
Show ALL Forums  > Off Topic  > The War on Women