- This topic is empty.
-
AuthorPosts
-
April 30, 2012 at 3:05 pm #755336
JoBParticipantApril 30, 2012 at 5:08 pm #755337
JanSParticipantdid anyone see this yesterday? “working from a different set of facts” – watch what happens with Rachel Maddow at about the 5:00 mark…
May 21, 2012 at 9:00 am #755338
HMC RichParticipantNY Times Op Ed from CNN’s Campbell Brown. http://www.nytimes.com/2012/05/20/opinion/sunday/obama-condescending-to-women.html?_r=3&smid=tw-share
May 21, 2012 at 12:33 pm #755339
redblackParticipantoh, good grief. get me a handkerchief.
May 21, 2012 at 1:48 pm #755340
JoBParticipantNY Times editorial on the subject that builds a solid case
their conclusion…
“Whether this pattern of disturbing developments constitutes a war on women is a political argument. That women’s rights and health are casualties of Republican policy is indisputable.”
i would say that this one is a political argument with a solid basis.
btw…
democrats didn’t invent the “war” ..
they didn’t even name it.
a Republican woman did .. Tanya Melich…in 1996
in her Memoir entitled the Republican War Against Women
http://www.thomhartmann.com/forum/2012/03/1996-origin-term-republican-war-women
you might want to follow his links to this article in New York Magazine
http://nymag.com/news/frank-rich/gop-women-problem-2012-4/index2.html
i did
most enlightening
The observations in that article echo those of my father-in-law who was a republican delegate for the state of Arizona at the National Convention so many times we lost count…
that is until the party he loved was overrun by the far right and changed the party platform.
I am sure he voted Republican till his dieing day… my mother-in-law still does… but they both ended their extensive involvement with both the local and national republican parties.
May 21, 2012 at 1:51 pm #755341
JoBParticipantHMCRich
“I should disclose here that my husband is an adviser to Mr. Romney; I have no involvement with any campaign, and have been an independent journalist throughout my career.”
she is an independent journalist
but this is an opinion piece,
not a piece of fact based journalism
and hubby is an adviser to Mitt.
you did read that part, yes?
May 21, 2012 at 4:51 pm #755342
DBPMemberAhhhhh . . . thank you waynster.
For giving me yet another chance to say how glad I am that Hillary’s shot at the Presidency is forever over and done with.
Not that we couldn’t elect a woman President.
Just not that woman.
Look at the guy she stood behind.
(Not Obama, silly. The other guy. Willie Winkie.)
So she was the “better half” of that?
Hm. Not a great personal reference if you ask me.
May 21, 2012 at 9:02 pm #755343
kootchmanMemberFunny James Carville is married to Mary Maitlin… JoB.. so do we discount everything he or she says? But she raises a good point…. just let me at the table… ‘I don’t need another paternalistic, pandering, symbology driven, poll interpreting president to tell me a life of government dependency is an accepted life path.” That is how I would paraphrase it.. You go sister!! who knows the Clinton dynamic? Don’t really care. But she is going nowhere in 2016. It’s sorta like Gingrich had his day… so did she. By rights, Romney shouldn’t have had the legs either.. only because Obama is currently Occupying The White House was his candidacy possible.
May 22, 2012 at 3:37 pm #755344
JoBParticipantDBP..
your analysis of the worth of a woman rests upon her marriage partner? the man in her life?
how retro
May 22, 2012 at 3:42 pm #755345
JoBParticipantkootch..
you go girl?
You seem to forget the itty bitty little fact that women are far more concerned about the effect recent Republican legislation will have on their lives and those of their daughters and grand-daughters than about patronization perceived by a Republican reporter.
the difference between the Maitlin/Carville marriage and this one is that Maitlin/Carville straddle their much publicized political differences…
the Browns (? .. i don’t care enough to go looking for his name)
cozy up on the same side.
one of these things is not like the other
May 23, 2012 at 9:48 am #755346
HMC RichParticipantJoB, I read every word.
First. The Democratic Party is not the party is was 30, 50, 70 years ago. Oh both parties still have some of their original convictions, but platforms change. And the Republicans are purging the Progressives in the party. For good or bad. And the Democrats are leaning left more and more promoting big government.
Second, The New York Times Op Ed was emotional and again doesn’t tell the whole story, nor seems to understand the separation of powers between states and the Federal Government at times
Violence Against Women is wrong. Name one politician who is for Violence Against Women. It unfortunately happens but This is a local and States Rights issue. The Supreme Court has ruled on such issues and the has said very clearly that the Federal Government has little authority due to the commerce clause. More federal action would restrict the states ability to deal with local issues. Is it not better to let local authorities deal with a horrible problem such as this?
One size government cannot fit all problems. Oh how I wish there wasn’t a need for domestic violence shelters.
Fortunately the sonogram bill for people wanting abortions failed. Applying the logic above, the GOP in charge wanted a one shoe fits all solution. Fortunately, correct minded Republicans along with Democrats helped stop that legislation. That type of legislation is akin to many possible Obamacare decisions. Bureaucrats should not make the choices qualified (local) doctors should make. So, JoB there the writer did get it right. They just didn’t follow through all the way. Now, we know why this legislation was suggested. To fight abortion.
Which leads us into the next part of the NY Times OP ED. Abortion, and the call to not allow abortions after 20 weeks. Do you know why they chose that number? Because around 20 weeks there are brain waves. There is scientific research that shows brain waves in a fetus at 20 weeks. Now, I see a possible court battle here but I am not so certain the proponents that support abortion would win here. I think the possibility of Roe v Wade being challenged here could possibly change the precedence of that ruling.
You are worried about Violence against Women. But as you know, many are against Violence against unborn children.
Poor women’s access to healthcare. Due to various state’s not wanting funds going to abortions, other bills in some of these states are negatively affecting women’s access to healthcare by trying to cut off funding to Planned Parenthood. This is making those Republicans seem like monsters. Basically, the writer got it right.
But, For the Federal Government to push women’s access to abortions, contraception and other related items on Religious institutions is unconstitutional. This will not happen. We see the government in states and federally trying to mandate items that they shouldn’t.
On Equal Pay. This is only about Wisconsin. The point the writer is making is a bit of a stretch. One, nobody has filed a lawsuit since the Democrats passed the law two to three years ago. Two, it is possible that pay would be affected but the main point is that the people suing would have to use Federal instead of State Courts. This is really a push.
My point. There have been some instances of politicians going to far for various reasons. Then again, quite often the “facts” are sugar coated by people, which I suppose in these times is to be affected.
The War on Women is like the Vast GOP Conspiracy. A good title with some elements here and there of truth, but mostly a phrase that people get behind or oppose. Yes, there are people who are trying to pass legislation they would like to see implemented. But many of these instances are for other reasons. Usually, they are struck down if they are seen as too damaging to the voters.
So, remember, the constitution is in place to keep the Federal Government from getting too strong. Progressives believe it is too restricting, Conservatives believe it is being attacked and changed too much.
I think both sides have a point. Personally, I agree that the states should be the incubators and the Federal Government should be limited. As you can see, Politicians try to control us a bit too much by trying to help us.
May 23, 2012 at 9:58 am #755347
HMC RichParticipantI will also note, that when JoB answers, she will not find any fault in her views nor probably give credit to the opposition. A progressive just can’t do that. I don’t agree with every Republican or Conservative. I see areas where my side makes mistakes, but the utopian statist cannot do so. At least I enjoy life.
May 23, 2012 at 12:59 pm #755348
redblackParticipantViolence Against Women is wrong. Name one politician who is for Violence Against Women. It unfortunately happens but This is a local and States Rights issue.
rich: when the states don’t act, or they act in a manner that is inconsistent or that denies rights guaranteed by the constitution, then the federal government can and should enact laws to remedy the inconsistency.
like i told kootch: we are one country. not fifty.
furthermore, not talking about it as a country is the same as being silent and consenting. because everyone knows that there are guys who like to beat on women. and we also know that there’s a sizable chunk of the population who still believe that women are inferior to and subservient to men. (do i need to bring up the fact that a lot of those… special people… are fundamentalists?) their numbers even include women.
well, the rest of the country has evolved. and we know that that behavior is wrong. and until you republicans drag those people out of their churches and drag those rural towns and counties out of those red states and start telling them that beating women because your dinner was late – or because some obscure new testament passage says it’s a remedy for [whatever] – is NOT tolerable in this country, then we on the left are going to keep bringing legislation to make you conform and to make you talk about it.
and, yes, i know that there are guidos, gorillas, and juiceheads in the cities that do that, too. and they should be called out for the morons that they are, too. the difference is that in the cities, they are highly likely to be jailed – or killed by someone’s brother – for that behavior, unlike in the rural bedroom communities.
and you know what? on this subject, jo shouldn’t find any faults with her views. i sure as hell don’t.
and i would love to hear what credit she owes the opposition. for trying to deny safe access to abortion? for opposing equal pay acts? for failing to get behind the ERA for – how many decades now? for failing to invite women to the table in a hearing on contraception?
excuse me. i’m going to go get some popcorn. this should be good.
May 23, 2012 at 2:02 pm #755349
kootchmanMemberNo. You think it is wrong. Fine, don’t do it, don’t practice it. But, when your sanctification crosses that fine line, of using government to wield your cudgel, others will do likewise. what will happen is what is happening…backlash. Trying? They have. I am not aware of any fundamental religion that condones wife beating… silly to even suggest it is so. We are one country, loosely bound by a document that was very specific about how much power that binding authority should have. Jeez redblack the ERA hasn’t passed.. because.. shocker of shockers… and right as you think it may be… the majority of states didn’t and don’t. Now that is why we have loosely confederated states. Washington is free to pass alternative legislation. Oh wait… they have! Read it slowly..United….States… of …. America….we are a confederation bound by treaties with each individual state. (with an opt out clause, an extreme one, but it exists)
“A State (note the capital “S”) is a self-governing political entity. The term State can be used interchangeably with country.”
i.e State of Washington. Violence against women, or men, or children, or dogs, cats, is criminal law.. not federal law. It’s not a federal power and this country is not ready to cede the same. How is the federal government going to enforce it? They just filed three lawsuits against states… claiming they had no right to enforce federal law. Interesting. They can’t enforce the laws they have on the books now… so of what practical matter is it? Feels good? Symbolic? I prefer the practicality of good law. Given the current, highly politicized DOJ… selective enforcement as a political tool… nah. No mas.
rural, bedroom community? huh? rural? Now that’s a new definition.
Noun 1. bedroom community – a community where many commuters livesuburb, suburban area, suburbia – a residential district located on the outskirts of a city
May 23, 2012 at 2:49 pm #755350
JoBParticipantHMC..
violence against women is a state’s issue?
so if someone beats the shit out of me i should hope and pray i am in a state that thinks beating the shit out of women is not ok?
because there is a city in the midwest who made an economic decision to stop prosecuting violence against women citing the state law…
the prosecution of violence against women there has become an economic and political football that does not benefit the women who are being brutalized.
Women like me who remember the common sight of large sunglasses disguising those affectionate taps at home also remember why the violence against women act was and still is necessary.
women needed special protection because the laws of their states were not protecting them.
this states’ right thing has become an all too convenient place to shuttle discriminatory practices against women and other minorities.
May 23, 2012 at 2:54 pm #755351
JoBParticipantHMCRich..
Abortion is legal.
I get that you think it shouldn’t be.
but thinking you have the right to insist that individual women take on the medical and economic risks of pregnancy because you think they should is still unconstitutional.
which makes an anti-abortion stance a very poor justification for any bill…
May 23, 2012 at 2:59 pm #755352
kootchmanMemberBullshit… pure and simple. every state has laws against violence. Ya think the FBI is going to come in and enforce it? You are well protected in Washington. EXACTLY JoB…. make it a federal crime… and then the states abdicate the role… saving court costs, imprisonment, enforcement…. swift justice? Try getting on a federal docket. 18 months or longer… whilst the man or woman is out on bail? It is a state issue… it’s not a power enumerated in the constitution. Those specifically NOT granted to the federal government are the powers of the state. Be practical …. ya gonna call a federal law enforcement official? which one? the one that will respond in a timely fashion… I am guessing here… that call will go pretty much unanswered unless it is dialed in M-F, 8 Am to 4 PM…
The Supreme Court has upheld Roe v. Wade. However, it is not embraced in other parts of the country… and they will use the same tools… that’s fair play. You can legislate all day long… doesn’t mean a thing unless the population follows the law. See prohibition….see medical marijuana.
May 23, 2012 at 3:03 pm #755353
JoBParticipantHMCRich..
“I will also note, that when JoB answers, she will not find any fault in her views nor probably give credit to the opposition. A progressive just can’t do that.”
or could the truth be that there is no merit to discrimination no matter how and where it is applied?
anti abortion laws are discriminatory.
those who think abortion is wrong would give a fetus more rights than the woman who carries it to eliminate the individual woman’s choice.
yup.. that’s right.
more rights to a possibility than to a living individual.
and since only women carry children to term.. that discriminates against an entire class of people, women.
that’s just plain wrong.
and cloaking it in state’s right doesn’t make discrimination right.
equal but separate isn’t equal Rich.
labeling me an “utopian statist” doesn’t change that..
even if the definition of that term was even remotely germane..
but your parting shot ???
“At least I enjoy life.”
WTF?
in the first place, enjoying life is exactly what those who seek to put an end to discriminatory practices against women would like to do.
i question how you can enjoy yours knowing that because of laws being enacted as we speak other people are not able to enjoy theirs?
the implication that I don’t enjoy my life because i am “progressive”
which, btw I’m not..
i’m a good old fashioned lefty and proud of it
is absurd.
remember me? that do gooder woman who not only wants to enjoy her life but is willing to do what it takes to help you enjoy yours?
too much kool-aid Rich.
The best antidote to the political fervor that has replaced your humanity is to go help someone else.
works for me every time.
May 23, 2012 at 3:09 pm #755354
kootchmanMemberIt’s not a possibility… only as you define it… others define life differently. In fact, most states have very specific laws against fetal homicide don’t they? Your wife beater, if by his action, kills an infant in utero… we don’t have an assault, we have a homicide. So his defense is … it wasn’t human, it was only a “possibility’? Square that one. Are you suggesting it’s a possibility then, a life when not?. The economic and health risk was taken when they had sex. Yea.. you can trot out the very rare R & I argument,…but there is no lack of birth control, and the state cannot shield anyone from making bad judgements.
May 23, 2012 at 3:23 pm #755355
JoBParticipantkootch..
“No. You think it is wrong.”
“Fine, don’t do it, don’t practice it. But, when your sanctification crosses that fine line, of using government to wield your cudgel, others will do likewise. what will happen is what is happening…backlash.”
kootch.. we were talking about beating women.
so am i supposed to get from this that you think it is ok to beat women?
and that the violence against women act is using a government cudgel to stop the violence against women which justifies a backlash.. promoting discriminatory practices against women?
Whoa nelly…
if you didn’t just make the most cogent argument for the need for the violence against women act i have ever read.
Need, Kootch.
“In fact, most states have very specific laws against fetal homicide don’t they? Your wife beater, if by his action, kills an infant in utero… we don’t have an assault, we have a homicide. So his defense is … it wasn’t human, it was only a “possibility’? Square that one. “
and who passed those felony murder laws for a wife beater who causes a miscarriage kootch?
You don’t get to pass a law that “legalizes” a fetus and then use that law as a justification for passing discriminatory laws against women.
personally, i am against those laws.
I believe that the correct charge should be attempted murder..
of the pregnant woman…
since intentionally causing the kind of harm that will cause miscarriage often results in death for a pregnant woman.
just because you opened the door doesn’t mean you get to stick your foot in it…
May 23, 2012 at 3:27 pm #755356
JoBParticipantKootch..
“The Supreme Court has upheld Roe v. Wade. However, it is not embraced in other parts of the country.”
These United States Kootch
and their supreme court upheld Roe v. Wade on the basis of the Constitution of these United States
the basis of that decision was discrimination
May 23, 2012 at 6:16 pm #755357
kootchmanMemberNo you are incorrect. Roe v. Wade after an agonizingly long search by the liberal Burger court..Roe v. wade and Doe v Bolton… was decided by ” a privacy” construct by the court.
The basis of that decision was NOT discrimination. It was also tempered by the decision of the court, that as the child progresses in utero, the states interest did also, Hence the trimester ruling. Later struck down.
Funny, how that Supreme Court thing works. when it’s a liberal interpretation… it’s solid gold. Nothing else to discuss.
So when the Supreme Court also found the state had a compelling interest in voter ID and registration… settled quite handily … in the Indiana case….. why the liberals went nuts…
These United States, JoB….the DoJ is selectively targeting Republican states, blocking implementation… on case law already decided. … based on the constitution. Voter ID JoB .. law of the land.
Based upon this DoJ…. it will be a long long long time before the respective states give anymore powers to the federal government. They abuse the ones they have. Denying highway trust funds… to appease a lingering ghost of prohibitionist women… if the states didn’t all raise the drinking age to 21.. that was a good one .. and the results were at best mixed. Most Universities report increased binge drinking and fatal alcohol intoxication since that legislation. Bar tending was a staple of college kids seeking to make a few bucks to offset college expenses. Now we just want to loan them money… and crush them with debt. Yep.. try and get someone to admit that might have been bad law.
May 24, 2012 at 2:28 am #755358
kootchmanMemberI am so waiting to hear from The Messiah and his minions… when the AFL-CIO uses the image of the WOMAN governor of SC plastered on a pinata’ and beats it with an aluminum baseball bat. The backround vocals were revealing. Now, just suppose, that during a TEA Party rally, an effigy of Obama was suspended on a rope, and beaten with a baseball bat?!!??!?! It’s OK though to declare war on Republican women and simulate a baseball bat beating. what say you JoB? The fires of race baiting would be stoked, respect for the office.. blah blah blah blah…. there would have been a thread and links flying in the WSBlogosphere… the liberals would be chortling with joy… they FINALLY found their closet racist. But, beating a Republican woman of color in effigy passes progressive muster? Now the Democrats ARE starting to look desperate. The AFL-CIO returns to it’s roots… racist and anti-woman.
May 24, 2012 at 4:11 am #755359
redblackParticipantkootch:
LOL. thanks, man. seriously. at first i thought you might be parodying fundamentalism, but then i realized that you’re serious, and i think you might be angry.
so i won’t say anything else to you on this subject ever again, and i officially concede the thread to your rantings. your words speak for themselves.
well-played, sir.
by the yea, evolution called. you’re late.
May 24, 2012 at 6:01 am #755360
kootchmanMemberI am not a fundamentalist. But they are for this election cycle, allies in the Great Crusade. As irritating as Bernard Montgomery was, Ike knew he needed his allies. I am pretty much content to let them live life as they see fit. Make laws that reflect community standards. Evolution is not always good… sometimes it is just an aberrant mutation, damaging to the host. Eventually it dies out. It detracts from the health of the species. Few “evolutions” are successful…. most fail.
-
AuthorPosts
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.