Home › Forums › Open Discussion › Romney +2 among women in CBS/NYT poll?
- This topic is empty.
-
AuthorPosts
-
May 15, 2012 at 7:18 pm #603280
SmittyParticipantHow is that “war on women” working our for you.
At least the media buried it – CBS did their part by not mentioning it in the summary.
May 15, 2012 at 7:43 pm #758385
JoBParticipantSmitty,
hmmm. the latest round of attack ads are aired
and Obama slips in a poll …
surprise surprise surprise
you do know that the actual election is months away
and that nothing substantial will be decided before then..
no matter what the polls say.
don’t you?
you spend your time on the horse race
i am going to focus on the issues
May 15, 2012 at 7:51 pm #758386
SmittyParticipantCouldn’t agree more, JoB. This thing will fluctuate back-and-forth until November.
Just thought it was interesting how this war on women has taken center stage (until the gay marriage thing) yet he is down 2 among that demo. Can’t help but wonder how much press it would be getting had it showed Obama widening his lead among women.
Polls can be skewed too – sampling can be off – and I haven’t researched this one yet.
May 15, 2012 at 8:53 pm #758387
JanSParticipantspoken like a conservative MAN…war on women? stop being emotional and get over it, huh..it doesn’t exist?
May 15, 2012 at 9:13 pm #758388
JanSParticipanthttp://www.care2.com/causes/gov-brewer-signs-tell-your-boss-youre-on-the-pill-bill.html
does any man out there have to tell their boss if they use viagra and explain why? of course, not….
but there is some reason..
I don’t think the above mentioned poll asked the correct women…
May 16, 2012 at 5:01 am #758389
DBPMemberJan, you do realize that all the links you included above are Op-Ed pieces and not news stories, right? Two of the three pieces are from solidly left-wing sources. And, since you mentioned emotion, I should also say that those same two pieces were written in a somewhat (ahem) emotional tone of voice.
Which is not to say that emotional arguments are the exclusive purview of women, or even that there’s anything wrong with getting emotional during an argument. (redblack: wink!)
There’s a place for emotion in argument, all right. At the very end, after all the relevant facts have been presented and the parties are making their closing statements.
Unfortunately, after reading the three pieces you linked, I don’t feel that all the relevant facts were presented. For example, why are some Republicans against the Violence Against Women Act? That piece was definitely missing from the analysis.
And what’s this nonsense about bosses “interrogating” women about whether they use birth control? If a religious employer is allowed to opt out of covering birth control, then what’s there to interrogate?
Finally, I want to say that this Viagra/birth-control analogy is shaky at best. Viagra is ostensibly prescribed to treat a medical condition: erectile dysfunction. On the other hand, using birth control pills to avoid pregnancy is not treating a medical condition — unless you consider parentophobia a medical condition.
You’d have a much stronger case for gender bias (read: “war on women”) if the bulk of the Republican Party was demanding that condoms be covered by all insurers, while BC pills and the like NOT be covered. Is that the case? No. Neither BC pills NOR condoms will be covered by religious employers who opt out.
*************************************************************************************
Abortion is, of course, a different matter, since it “happens” only to a woman.
—Or does it? Abortion opponents claim that a fetus (or even an embryo) is a “person” who has rights, and if you simply ignore that argument, you’re not going to get anywhere with the millions of Americans who oppose abortion on those grounds.
Getting back to the Bernie Sanders piece . . . I once heard an abortion opponent make an excellent riposte to Sanders’ argument that we mustn’t go back to a time when women were dying from back-alley abortions.
“Back-alley or not,” he said, “someone always dies during an abortion.”
Â
Whether you agree with this position or not, for abortion opponents, that’s the crux of the matter. For them, it’s not about making “war on women.” It’s about protecting what they consider to be a human life.
Â
May 16, 2012 at 2:51 pm #758390
JoBParticipantDBP
OpEd stories?
Jan Brewer signing a bill in Arizona that allows ANY employer to not only ask if you are on the pill but ask why and decide whether or not your insurance will cover it is Op Ed?
No. I don’t think so.
You can’t dismiss an article simply because you don’t like the source.
And yes, if you are being asked personal questions not only about your your medications but why you use them, that is an interrogation… especially if that same employer has the right to fire you because he doesn’t like your answers.
Because… wait for it.. had you actually read the article carefully you would have noted that those women being interrogated are those who are applying to have their birth control medication covered because it is used to treat a medical condition.
“why are some Republicans against the Violence Against Women Act?
Now there is a really good question.
Why are some republicans against an act that is supported by attorney generals nationwide for the impact it has on violence against women?
better yet, why is a woman serving 20+ years for firing a warning shot at an abusive husband in Florida?
“Someone always dies in abortions”?
Melinda Gates posted an alarming figure in the last few days.. and no, i am not going to go look at it for you…
but it was the number of women who die from pregnancies they didn’t want.
Women die from pregnancies DBP.
Yup. that charming little parasite kills women.
That’s what a fetus is until it can exist outside the body of a woman.
It simply flabbergasts me that people can talk about a fetus as though it was a living breathing independent entity
without giving a thought to the woman who must carry that fetus to term for it to become the child everyone imagines.
A fetus is NOT viable without the woman who carries it.
I’ts too bad that in their zeal to protect human life so many give so little thought to the living.
May 16, 2012 at 2:58 pm #758391
JoBParticipantSmitty…
i think there are going to be a lot of polls between now and then
and i don’t think any of them will accurately reflect what will happen in the privacy of the voting booth
any more than i believe the votes from the swing states are the only important votes in this election.
btw.. latest news…
the republican strategists have abandoned their bid for the women’s vote.
they are now going after the kids…
overlooking of course the fact that the House Republicans are holding student loan rates hostage for scoring points against women’s health care and that the same health care plan they are trying to dismantle is covering the insurance for those youthful voters…
oops…
we will see how it plays.
May 16, 2012 at 6:35 pm #758392
SmittyParticipantAgree with you on polling, JoB. There will be many fluctuations between now and November. Fun to discuss nonetheless.
I disagree on swing states though. It really comes down to a few regulars.
Also, no matter what the “republican strategists” throw out there this will all come down to a vote on the economy – not just where we are currently, but if President Obama can convince the electorate that the general direction is good – that the trend is your friend – then he wins.
You know where I stand on that one……
May 16, 2012 at 7:05 pm #758393
DBPMemberJoB, I criticized kootchman for citing biased sources; I see no reason why I shouldn’t criticize Jan when she does the same thing. Any “news” source with the word “Care” in the name and a masthead emblazoned with “The Women’s Rights Cause” is likely to be a biased source. And when I look at the article Jan cited, I find that indeed it IS biased, as well as being confusing and otherwise poorly written.
A phrase like “employers will now have the ability to interrogate employees” would never make it past the editor at a respectable news desk. As an editor myself, I regularly weed out phrases like this from my client’s papers.
Also, I must say that I find your characterization of a fetus as a “parasite” as rather callous, not to mention misinformed. If you use language like that, you are likely to find yourself shut out of most discussions on this topic.
May 16, 2012 at 7:32 pm #758394
JanSParticipantwow…so in the future if there is ever the word “care” in the news source, it’s gonna be biased, and probably a leftie? Are you serious? And because it comes from a group that supports women, well, gee, we can’t count on the to be very factual, because, gee, it’s women , after all..and you know how emotional they get…and slanted in their news…yadda, yadda, yadda…should I feel that way about anything that might come from a man? Or is that who I should trust for unbiased, unslanted anything? DBP..I thought I knew you better than that..but..hey, you feel any way you want. I don’t get this all of a sudden women vs. men thing..oops…sorry..I was getting emotional again…I’ll take a back seat now.
And spare us “I’m an editor, I know better”…thank you..
May 16, 2012 at 7:45 pm #758395
JanSParticipantDBP..I don’t believe that JoB meant parasite in a pejorative way.. But you took it that way, didn’t you?
par·a·site/ˈparəˌsīt/
Noun:
An organism that lives in or on another organism (its host) and benefits by deriving nutrients at the host’s expense.
May 16, 2012 at 7:49 pm #758396
JanSParticipantyou asked a good question, DBP…Why ARE some republicans against the Violence Against Women Act? Got an answer?
May 16, 2012 at 7:49 pm #758397
DBPMemberYeah, Jan. If it has “care” in the name, it’s almost certain to be strongly biased in favor of the thing that is “cared” about, and against those who are perceived as “not caring.”
It shouldn’t be treated as a serious or reliable news source — even if it does include some facts (e.g., “Governor Brewer signed a bill today). If you cited that article in an academic context, you’d be ridiculed by your peers.
But this is the major problem with the phenomenon of Internet “news.” Anyone these days can have a so-called news site. But there’s no accountability, no fact checking, no reputation to maintain. This “Care2” Web site of yours could’ve been thrown up last night for all we know. And it could go out of business tomorrow, too, without anyone batting an eyelash.
Not so for an established, accountable, and credible source like the New York Times.
And yet . . . AND YET . . . even credible news sources like to put their slant in, and that is why the more honest ones, like the NYT, have a dedicated Op-Ed page, where they can slant to their hearts’ content, and no one will think the worse of them for it.
Â
May 16, 2012 at 7:51 pm #758398
JanSParticipantand.. to make a point…birth control pills ARE used to treat medical conditions…just like Viagra is…but my point was…oh, nevermind..
May 16, 2012 at 7:54 pm #758399
DBPMemberyou asked a good question, DBP…Why ARE some republicans against the Violence Against Women Act? Got an answer?
—No. Since I don’t move in Republican circles, I don’t know why they’re against that Act. I was hoping your linked article might give me some useful info on that. (Silly me.)
Until I DO know why Republicans opposed the bill, however, I’m going to defer judgment.
I’m certainly not going to reflexively chalk it up as just more evidence that Republicans hate women.
May 16, 2012 at 8:01 pm #758400
BostonmanMemberYou do realize that the bill was changed from its original form. They inserted some language in it and its that language people don’t agree with, not the substance of the bill. Remember people, sometimes you have to look beyond the forest to see the trees.
Of course anything to get a few talking points. War on woman pfft. I am a normal republican and when I hear phrases like that I just laugh.
May 16, 2012 at 8:32 pm #758401
kootchmanMemberJoB… ?
better yet, why is a woman serving 20+ years for firing a warning shot at an abusive husband in Florida?
Because the prosecuting attorney (who is prosecuting you know who) based on ballastics determined that the shot was an intentional head shot that missed, that there were also two children in the adjoining room that the bullet entered, for which the woman had no regard and there was no imminent threat that justified the shot.
Some laws are just silly and given titles to slave over a constituent. Hate crimes … being one moronic law. If you use a racial epithet of sexual perjorative… your assault is more egregious than if you assaulted a senior citizen for a purse grab? Now we have laws that make some people less harmed because they are a different gender, race, or sexual orientation? A first degree assault is a first degree assault. On anyone. Sorta throws away the notion of equal protection under the law.
May 16, 2012 at 8:49 pm #758402
kootchmanMemberBecause the Supreme Court found it unconstitutional. Powers not specifically granted to the federal government belong to the state. Criminal law is the responsibility of the state not your “big daddy” in WA DC. The solution to every life problem is not to be found in the halls of congress… no matter how much pander butter they put on your slice of bread. Assault on a federal officer is a federal crime… assault is a state crime.
May 16, 2012 at 9:03 pm #758403
JanSParticipantDBP…the Violence Against Women Act has been on the books since 1994. Why it’s being brought up now has no explanation. I don’t think the Repubs that are now agaist are saying why they object. I haven’t seen an explanation yet, and I try to pay attention. This Wiki explanation (paragraph 3) might explain it.
Kootch..the Supreme Court struck down one provision in 2000. They DID NOT find the whole thing unconstitutional. Only the provision that allowed women to sue their attackers in federal court.
The history of VAWA:
http://www.thehotline.org/get-educated/violence-against-women-act-vawa/
see? the Supreme Court did not rule it unconstitutional, even if you would like it too
May 17, 2012 at 2:38 am #758404
JanSParticipantgranted, this poll included both genders, but..look at this…it’s a Fox News poll…puts Obama ahead 46-39 %
http://blog.seattlepi.com/seattlepolitics/2012/05/16/a-fox-news-poll-yes-fox-puts-obama-ahead/
May 17, 2012 at 7:27 am #758405
JanSParticipantwow…just wow. Yes, Rachel Maddow is on MSNBC. Guess you more conservative people will have to get over that. No one can argue that Rachel Maddow isn’t intelligent, articulate. And tonight she articulated this…makes one’s head shake…long video, but you should watch..
http://video.msnbc.msn.com/the-rachel-maddow-show/47454638#47454638
May 17, 2012 at 12:40 pm #758406
redblackParticipantDP said:
There’s a place for emotion in argument, all right. At the very end, after all the relevant facts have been presented and the parties are making their closing statements.
we’re not robots, you know. sometimes we argue based purely on emotion, and there’s nothing wrong with that.
the subject of taxation is a good example. the only reason to oppose using taxes to fund a social infrastructure and safety net is pure selfishness.
as a matter of fact, right-to-unborn-lifers are arguing based purely on emotion. there’s no logic in not allowing women to get abortions, especially when the procedure saves the mother’s life.
for some reason, the phrase “rending of garments and gnashing of teeth” comes to mind…
kootch: since we can’t seem to stick to one topic – in this case women and how republicans treat them, and women’s reaction to that treatment as reflected in the polls…
the federal government must be big enough to regulate and tax anything that operates within its borders. some companies have revenues larger than individual states’. therefore, we have a large federal government.
furthermore, when states have laws – or a lack thereof – that contradict the constitution, there is a need for federal statutes.
this is one country. not fifty. get over it.
May 17, 2012 at 2:38 pm #758407
JoBParticipantDBP..
there is no war on women
but if a news source has the word care in it
it must be about ?????
both your ignorance and prejudice are showing
CARE2NEWS was started to report on animal abuse
thus the word CARE
May 17, 2012 at 2:39 pm #758408
JoBParticipantthe Violence Against Women ACT has been altered by the current Republican Legislature… to ensure that unworthy women will not be protected.
Bostonman… This is NOT about language
-
AuthorPosts
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.