Do you have adblock enabled?
If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Huffington Post)   The GOP is trying to roll back protections for abused women. Why? No reason. Apparently they just like pissing you off   (huffingtonpost.com) divider line 353
    More: Stupid, GOP, rollbacks, tributes, no reason  
•       •       •

4242 clicks; posted to Politics » on 05 May 2012 at 1:32 PM (2 years ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



353 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | » | Last | Show all
 
2012-05-05 03:45:02 PM  

FlashHarry: jesus, it sure seems that way. i mean, seriously, what the fark? what group are they pandering to with this move?


The TEA Party. Duh. Actually reading the article reveals the fact that they claim that the process to obtain citizenship is being abused by women falsely claiming abuse. We can't have them brown people fraudulently becoming citizens, now, can we?
 
2012-05-05 03:48:46 PM  

LouDobbsAwaaaay: You support the establishment of a pay-for-play system for combating pay discrimination.


You need to read more carefully. I corrected a claim which was factually inaccurate. That doesn't mean, or even insinuate, that I supported anything.

In this case, I don't know enough to have an informed opinion, which is why I've withheld comment about the wisdom of the repeal.

What the fark is wrong with people like you?

We're afflicted with good reading comprehension.
 
2012-05-05 03:50:19 PM  
There's no war on women.

Just a war on poor women.
 
2012-05-05 03:54:10 PM  

bugontherug: Compared to d20 Modern, it's clunky, and character generation takes too long. I also don't like the stat breakdown, because it builds all the mental stats into INT. So if you're character is smart, he's automatically charismatic, creative, intuitive, and disciplined, as well as mathematically and technologically gifted.


Yep, that's the biggest flaw that makes GURPS hugely unbalanced, especially when intelligence-based sets of powers like magic or psionics are included in the game.
 
2012-05-05 03:54:24 PM  

Lionel Mandrake: There's no war on women.

Just a war on poor women.


And brown women.
 
2012-05-05 03:57:44 PM  

Lionel Mandrake: There's no war on women.

Just a war on poor women.


There's no war on anyone. This language inflation crap is done solely for the purpose of riling up gullible partisans. It cheapens discourse, leads to enmity, and guarantees political dysfunction.

I didn't care for the Republicans' "War on Christmas", and I don't care for the Democrats' "War on Women". It's disgusting to hear politicians and media figures, almost all of whom have never seen an actual trench, treat the word so meaninglessly.
 
2012-05-05 03:57:44 PM  

Captain Dan: Weaver95: If you make less than $100,000 a year and vote Republican, then you are shooting yourself in the foot.

Not everyone votes solely on profit-maximization. If they did, they would rationally vote to amend the Constitution, and then seize and redistribute Bill Gates' assets.

If you can understand why people might view that as immoral, anti-social, and disincentivizing, then you can surely fathom why they might support the Republican platform of low taxes on all income.


I was referring to the fact that middle class wages have been flat for the past 20 years while productivity has risen...why you went with 'OMGSOCIALISMS' is entirely beyond me but...just as you will.
 
2012-05-05 03:58:01 PM  

Captain Dan: bugontherug: In the past few months, the Republicans have:1) Argued to overturn the constitutional right to contraception, which primarily benefits women.

There is no constitutional entitlement to contraception, only the right to lawfully purchase it. You've confused "not illegal" with "everyone is entitled to it."


Calling it an entitlement is a misnomer that makes it sound like women want something for nothing when in reality they just want their access to health services not dictated by religious whim. They are already paying for insurance required by law the question is "are they getting good value for their dollar?" The answer is no. Women want access, The insurers realize it's cheaper to provide access to BC than to cover the costs that come along with childbirth. The only people saying no are religious organizations. It's not a question of cost, that's a red herring. The real question here "is should a business be allowed to disallow access to contraception based on their beliefs or does a woman's right to access to basic health care (which includes various forms of BC) trump those concerns?"

I say yes, yes they do.

The rest of the civilized world tends to agree.

What do you say?

/I'mma sitting here trying to forget the fact that May 15th is still far too far away to wait for D3 to come out so I'm getting a real kick out of this talk of Torg and GURP gaming.
//WD FTW.
 
2012-05-05 03:58:29 PM  

LouDobbsAwaaaay: Captain Dan: 6) Republican Scott Walker has now made it perfectly legal under Wisconsin law to discriminate in pay on the basis of sex.

He did not make it "perfectly legal," he changed the appropriate venue for remedy from state courts to federal courts.

The Equal Pay Enforcement Act was passed in 2009 and gave workers avenues to pursue complaints about pay discrimination in the workplace and press charges where necessary. The law conferred upon workers the ability to pursue their cases in circuit court rather than the federal court system, which is costlier and less accessible to average citizens. It also expanded the window in which complainants are allowed to file their complaints relative to the time when they worked under discriminatory conditions.

You support the establishment of a pay-for-play system for combating pay discrimination. What the fark is wrong with people like you?


The federal system is not costlier and less accessible to average citizens because in pay discrimination cases the EEOC does all the work for you.
 
2012-05-05 04:06:04 PM  
It's not the government's job to legislate morality.

*tries to keep a straight face*
*tries harder*
 
2012-05-05 04:08:54 PM  

Captain Dan: There's no war on anyone. This language inflation crap is done solely for the purpose of riling up gullible partisans. It cheapens discourse, leads to enmity, and guarantees political dysfunction.


I agree, but "war on women" is easier than saying "a coordinated effort to limit access to women's health programs."
 
2012-05-05 04:11:02 PM  

Captain Dan: Lionel Mandrake: There's no war on women.

Just a war on poor women.

There's no war on anyone. This language inflation crap is done solely for the purpose of riling up gullible partisans. It cheapens discourse, leads to enmity, and guarantees political dysfunction.

I didn't care for the Republicans' "War on Christmas", and I don't care for the Democrats' "War on Women". It's disgusting to hear politicians and media figures, almost all of whom have never seen an actual trench, treat the word so meaninglessly.


Despite my recent use of the word, I agree. Only war is war.

Nevertheless, "conservatives" are clearly engaged in an effort to strip women of control of their own bodies and lives. But we again, you are right, we don't need to call it a war to point out what dickheads "conservatives" are.
 
2012-05-05 04:12:39 PM  

Weaver95: I was referring to the fact that middle class wages have been flat for the past 20 years while productivity has risen...why you went with 'OMGSOCIALISMS' is entirely beyond me but...just as you will.


Middle class wages have stagnated (actually, adjusted for inflation, they've decreased) because of factors beyond any political party's control. The loosening of capital flows and increased global competitiveness have guaranteed that there's no going back to the days of a guaranteed steady paycheck from the local manufacturer.

This is a difficult message, and its difficulty is compounded because both parties pretend at election time that those middle-class jobs might come back. They mostly aren't.

It seems essential for a nation and a society to generate well-paying jobs for the lesser skilled. How to accomplish that is a better question than wondering why the middle-class don't support higher income tax rates for the rich.
 
2012-05-05 04:12:58 PM  

Mrtraveler01: hasty ambush: Mrtraveler01: hasty ambush: As for abortions nobody is stopping them, they are just not forcing others to pay for them.

So you're just a willfully ignorant idiot who missed the fact that you don't pay for abortions already?

You are showing your ignorance . It is just BS accounting smoke and mirrors. If the taxpayers give Planned Parenthood X dollars to use for things like cancer screening or even paying the rent that frees up x amount of dollars from other sources that might have normally been used for cancer screenings and rent to be used for abortions.

Ah, yes. This idiotic argument.

It's like me supporting sex out of wedlock because I shop at Walgreen's where they also sell condoms and KY Jelly.

Because with that logic, if I give Walgreen's money to buy Tylenol, that frees up money Walgreen's can use to buy Condoms and Ky Jelly from their supplier.


The biggest flaw in you argument is that it is not tax money you are spending are Walgreen's It is you choosing to spend your money their on Tylenol , KY or C size batteries. You are not insisting that other people give you their money for those things (or are you?)

I am also guessing that from your argument you do not oppose tax money for vouchers so parents can send their kids to private schools or tax dollars to faith based initiatives as long as they double pinky swear that the money will only be used for secular activities and functions.
 
2012-05-05 04:14:25 PM  

Captain Dan: You need to read more carefully. I corrected a claim which was factually inaccurate. That doesn't mean, or even insinuate, that I supported anything.


Oh please. You defend the scum at every opportunity. I don't play semantics games with trolls.

/plonk
 
2012-05-05 04:15:03 PM  

vernonFL: Captain Dan: There's no war on anyone. This language inflation crap is done solely for the purpose of riling up gullible partisans. It cheapens discourse, leads to enmity, and guarantees political dysfunction.

I agree, but "war on women" is easier than saying "a coordinated effort to limit access to women's health programs."


If these same people also tried blocking insurance coverage of Viagra, or say that employers could choose to disallow treatments for erectile dysfunction... well, at least they'd be consistent. But they seem pretty fixated on making life more difficult for women. And it doesn't even make political sense.
 
2012-05-05 04:15:16 PM  

Captain Dan: Middle class wages have stagnated (actually, adjusted for inflation, they've decreased) because of factors beyond any political party's control. .


that is simply not true. it would be difficult, and a variety of corporate interests would scream bloody murder...but we could fix our wage stagnation if the will was there to get it done.
 
2012-05-05 04:15:54 PM  

Cataholic: he federal system is not costlier and less accessible to average citizens because in pay discrimination cases the EEOC does all the work for you.


[citation will never be provided because you're a troll]
 
2012-05-05 04:17:00 PM  

Lenny_da_Hog: Or maybe if you looked at the bills the GOP has been submitting all over the nation, it would make sense to you.


They're all part of the Obama Conspiracy.
 
2012-05-05 04:18:12 PM  

Captain Dan: There is no constitutional entitlement to contraception, only the right to lawfully purchase it. You've confused "not illegal" with "everyone is entitled to it."


Your misrepresentation of my argument here is prima facie and conclusive proof that you are either ignorant or dishonest on this issue. Try again, only this time respond to my argument re: Romney and Santorum seeking to overturn Griswold v. Connecticut, and Eisenstadt v. Baird, the cases establishing the federal constitutional right to contraception. This isn't about public funding for contraception.This is about the constitutional right to use contraception. A right which conservative ideology opposes, and by which opposition the Republicans demonstrate active hostility to the interests of women.


I'm with you on this one, because I am pro-choice. But I understand the opposing viewpoint, and you don't. From a coherent pro-life view, abortion is murder, and murder shouldn't be permitted even in the most inconvenient circumstances (i.e. unless the mother's life is at risk).


The point of view you offer would oppose all federal funding for abortion, not just federal funding for minors impregnated by sexual predators. And is inapposite to the question of whether the Republicans are actively hostile to the interests of women. They are, and their effort to ban federal funding for abortions by child victims of sex predators is evidence of that.


Very few Republicans oppose abortions that are necessary to protect the mother's life. There's a small handful of them, and they don't constitute much of an army for the "War on Women."


You seem to have failed to understand everything I said. How many Republicans oppose how many abortions is irrelevant to the question of whether House Republicans sought to immunize hospitals who refused to perform abortions in cases where the pregnancy threatened the mother's life. They did, and it's evidence that the Republican Party is actively hostile to the interests of women.

He did not make it "perfectly legal," he changed the appropriate venue for remedy from state courts to federal courts.


At least you've finally said something on point. In fact, Walker did make it perfectly legal under Wisconsin law to discriminate on the basis of pay. But careful reading doesn't exactly seem to be your forte. And his abolition of Wisconsin's cause of action for pay discrimination is actively hostile to the interests of women.

The Civil Rights Act of 1964 (Title VII) clearly specified the timetable to bring lawsuits: 180 days. Lily Ledbetter did not meet that timetable. Conservative justices ruled against her in 2007, upholding the text of the Civil Rights Act.


Of course, your response is utterly non-responsive to the point that conservative justices offered a novel, corporate agenda driven interpretation of when that 180 day clock begins ticking. An interpretation which was: 1) never accepted in more than 40 years of Title VII history, and which was 2) the most actively woman-hostile interpretation the conservative justices could possibly have chosen.


The bill was opposed because Democrats, possessing majorities in both chambers, were not entertaining any Republican input, such as provisions to limit frivolous lawsuits.


Its only provision was to overturn a novel, pro-corporation Supreme Court decision with the practical effect of banning nearly all federal causes of action for pay discrimination. Their opposition to it was actively hostile to the interests of women.


Also, you are factually incorrect: 17 Republican Senators voted for closure on the bill, and 5 Republican Senators supported the final version of the Act.


You are factually incorrect. All 17 of those Senators, even the 5 who supported the final bill, first participated in the filibuster. At that time, Republicans unanimously opposed the bill.

The term "victim" is loaded. So is "accuser." They should have gone with a more neutral term. Same goes for all crimes.


Were you being reasonable, you would have acknowledged the hostility toward women exhibited by the effort to rename only the crimes of which women are typically victims. But instead of being reasonable, you're trying to pretend the Republican Party isn't actively hostile to the interests of women. It is.


I'm glad that you're politically involved, but your views of Republicans are founded on distortions. If you get past the talking points, you'll find that political issues rarely break down to Good vs. Evil.


My views of Republicans are founded on researched objective facts of reality, many of which you are either ignorant of, or found so inconvenient that you disregarded them completely. If you get past the Fox News talking points, you'll see that the Republicans really are actively hostile to the interests of women, which was the subject of my post.
 
2012-05-05 04:21:11 PM  

Captain Dan: It seems essential for a nation and a society to generate well-paying jobs for the lesser skilled. How to accomplish that is a better question


The only ways I can see is Unions, minimum wage laws, job skills and life skills classes.
 
2012-05-05 04:23:10 PM  

Lionel Mandrake: Nevertheless, "conservatives" are clearly engaged in an effort to strip women of control of their own bodies and lives. But we again, you are right, we don't need to call it a war to point out what dickheads "conservatives" are.


I'm a conservative. Many of my friends and acquaintances are conservative. We're not dickheads. Most of us aren't - there are some in every group. But the proportion is no different than in any other political demographic.

I realize that you probably don't actually believe that all, or even most, conservatives are dickheads. If you do, then you need more life experience. If you don't, then you need to be the bigger person and stop engaging in political sniping. Seriously: this crap ruins discourse. It is dehumanizing.

Dehumanization is always the precursor to hating a person or group. If you can mentally navigate yourself out of that pitfall, you will be happier, and you will have a more accurate and ethical point of view.
 
2012-05-05 04:28:24 PM  
There are lots of intelligent pragmatic honest decent conservatives.

They just aren't running the Republican Party.
 
2012-05-05 04:28:48 PM  

quatchi: Calling it an entitlement is a misnomer that makes it sound like women want something for nothing when in reality they just want their access to health services not dictated by religious whim.


If that's the case, then why in God's name did Sandra Fluke attend a Catholic university that was morally opposed to providing the service she desires?

The real question here "is should a business be allowed to disallow access to contraception based on their beliefs or does a woman's right to access to basic health care (which includes various forms of BC) trump those concerns?"

I say yes, yes they do.

The rest of the civilized world tends to agree.

What do you say?


In cases of conflicting values, I grant the broadest tolerance towards religious freedom. Although I support birth control, and think that Catholic universities should offer it, I'm not going to compel them to do so. That strikes me as wrong, and unconstitutional.

For the record, I really don't care what the civilized world has to say about this. I'll make up my own mind.
 
2012-05-05 04:30:08 PM  

LouDobbsAwaaaay: Oh please. You defend the scum at every opportunity. I don't play semantics games with trolls.


Not trolling, nor playing the pedant.
 
2012-05-05 04:30:33 PM  

hasty ambush: I am also guessing that from your argument you do not oppose tax money for vouchers so parents can send their kids to private schools or tax dollars to faith based initiatives as long as they double pinky swear that the money will only be used for secular activities and functions.


Because taxpayer supported religious schools and women's health programs not related to abortion are the EXACT SAME THING!!!

Crappy strawman is crappy.

/sarcasm
 
2012-05-05 04:32:16 PM  

Weaver95: It would be difficult, and a variety of corporate interests would scream bloody murder...but we could fix our wage stagnation if the will was there to get it done.


I agree, although I don't think that anti-corporate hostility is the ticket to get there.
 
2012-05-05 04:32:50 PM  

vernonFL: There are lots of intelligent pragmatic honest decent conservatives.

They just aren't running the Republican Party.


There's maybe five at most. You listed four adjectives that are very good filters for eliminating conservatives.
 
2012-05-05 04:36:25 PM  

Captain Dan: Lionel Mandrake: Nevertheless, "conservatives" are clearly engaged in an effort to strip women of control of their own bodies and lives. But we again, you are right, we don't need to call it a war to point out what dickheads "conservatives" are.

I'm a conservative. Many of my friends and acquaintances are conservative. We're not dickheads. Most of us aren't - there are some in every group. But the proportion is no different than in any other political demographic.

I realize that you probably don't actually believe that all, or even most, conservatives are dickheads. If you do, then you need more life experience. If you don't, then you need to be the bigger person and stop engaging in political sniping. Seriously: this crap ruins discourse. It is dehumanizing.

Dehumanization is always the precursor to hating a person or group. If you can mentally navigate yourself out of that pitfall, you will be happier, and you will have a more accurate and ethical point of view.


I have no problem with conservatives. I routinely put quotation marks around the term for a purpose: because the vast majority of people who call themselves conservative are not. They are as in love with big government as any big-government liberal, and just as happy to spend recklessly. They just prefer government involvement in different (social) areas.

While I disagree with much of true Conservatism, I respect it, and do not consider adherents dickheads. But they are a dying breed.
 
2012-05-05 04:37:13 PM  
Conservatives normally favor the status quo, or slow gradual changes to things.

These people are changing laws and policies as fast as they can.

They're radicals, not conservatives.
 
2012-05-05 04:39:30 PM  

vernonFL: Conservatives normally favor the status quo, or slow gradual changes to things.

These people are changing laws and policies as fast as they can.

They're radicals, not conservatives.


Very much so. Which is the problem that I have with the party's leadership right now. This radicalism is leading us down very ugly roads, and not just with the implosion of the economy or the drastic nature of debate on social issues.
 
2012-05-05 04:40:36 PM  

Captain Dan: Weaver95: It would be difficult, and a variety of corporate interests would scream bloody murder...but we could fix our wage stagnation if the will was there to get it done.

I agree, although I don't think that anti-corporate hostility is the ticket to get there.


it's not 'anti-corporate hostility' to point out the facts of our situation. and the fact is, corporations are screwing over US workers for no other reason than they can do it and get away with it. ok, fine - to them its just business. But for the rest of us, it's kinda personal.
 
2012-05-05 04:40:46 PM  
You guys do know that there are more important things going on right now right? We have both Jessica Alba and Mila Kunis threads going on so there is no need to waste a bunch of time over here on women claiming about how they are equal but need special protections and funding.for women's stuff and if you disagree you are just mean.
 
2012-05-05 04:42:28 PM  

vernonFL: Conservatives normally favor the status quo, or slow gradual changes to things.

These people are changing laws and policies as fast as they can.

They're radicals, not conservatives.


THANK YOU!
 
2012-05-05 04:44:27 PM  

Captain Dan: There's no war on anyone. This language inflation crap is done solely for the purpose of riling up gullible partisans. It cheapens discourse, leads to enmity, and guarantees political dysfunction.


The Republicans Party is actively hostile to the interests of women, and seeking to do as much legal damage to those interests as it can. "War on Women" is a reasonable rhetorical flourish given this reality.
 
2012-05-05 04:49:59 PM  

Captain Dan: In cases of conflicting values, I grant the broadest tolerance towards religious freedom. Although I support birth control, and think that Catholic universities should offer it, I'm not going to compel them to do so. That strikes me as wrong, and unconstitutional.


The Obama administration worked long and hard crafting a compromise solution that has been accepted by pretty much everyone but the Catholics. Allowing religious entities who run businesses to dictate health insurance policies strikes me as wrong by every metric available.

For the record, I really don't care what the civilized world has to say about this. I'll make up my own mind.

For the record, my lack of surprise at this pronouncement is near absolute.
 
2012-05-05 04:51:39 PM  
they're making sure ole' mitt goes down in history as having ran for President, but loss to his contender
 
2012-05-05 04:58:46 PM  

bugontherug: [R]espond to my argument re: Romney and Santorum seeking to overturn Griswold v. Connecticut, and Eisenstadt v. Baird, the cases establishing the federal constitutional right to contraception. This isn't about public funding for contraception.This is about the constitutional right to use contraception.


I can find no quotes of Romney saying that. Santorum did, because he opposes the idea of a right to privacy as a penumbral right. I think he's wrong, and I'm glad that he's not the GOP's nominee.

The point of view you offer would oppose all federal funding for abortion, not just federal funding for minors impregnated by sexual predators.

You're not accurately summarizing this matter, but to respond to your broader claim: the Republican Party is going to try to limit abortions in almost all cases (except, as mentioned earlier, the life of the mother). That's part of the party platform.

If they can only achieve this goal piecemeal, then that's what they'll do.

In fact, Walker did make it perfectly legal under Wisconsin law to discriminate on the basis of pay.

No, he didn't. If you think otherwise, please provide the proof that has eluded everyone else.

Its only provision was to overturn a novel, pro-corporation Supreme Court decision with the practical effect of banning nearly all federal causes of action for pay discrimination. Their opposition to it was actively hostile to the interests of women.

I'm not able to read John Roberts' mind, as you apparently are, but I seriously doubt that unbridled misogyny was the impelling force in his decision.

You are factually incorrect. All 17 of those Senators, even the 5 who supported the final bill, first participated in the filibuster. At that time, Republicans unanimously opposed the bill.

I stand corrected! Voting to filibuster, and then immediately voting for closure to end debate, strikes me as more rhetorical point-making than a devious stratagem in the War on Women.

Were you being reasonable, you would have acknowledged the hostility toward women exhibited by the effort to rename only the crimes of which women are typically victims. But instead of being reasonable, you're trying to pretend the Republican Party isn't actively hostile to the interests of women. It is.

Were I being 100% reasonable, I wouldn't engage with someone whose mind isn't going to change regardless of what I say. But, I hope some other posters will read what I've posted and think "that guy is actually pretty reasonable."

The terms "accuser" and "victim" are both too loaded to be used impartially. Almost any reasonable person will agree with that.

My views of Republicans are founded on researched objective facts of reality, many of which you are either ignorant of, or found so inconvenient that you disregarded them completely. If you get past the Fox News talking points, you'll see that the Republicans really are actively hostile to the interests of women, which was the subject of my post.

I don't watch Fox News, because it poisons minds and polarizes otherwise decent people. People who get their news from partisan sources so often end up repeating talking points like "Republicans really are actively hostile to the interests of women."

On a final but important note: I'm sorry to break this to you, but you are not the sole arbiter of what is reasonable.
 
2012-05-05 05:01:02 PM  
But someone may be using these protections to cover up a consensual moment of sex! It's like when a tree falls on your dog, you need to burn down the entire forest. Makes total sense.

/Fark the GOP
 
2012-05-05 05:04:54 PM  

Lionel Mandrake: While I disagree with much of true Conservatism, I respect it, and do not consider adherents dickheads. But they are a dying breed.


I feel that way too. But I don't trash the faux-conservatives as "dickheads." Disagreeable is not a synonym for douchebag.

Essentially, I wouldn't call someone a dickhead even if they were in fact a dickhead. It accomplishes nothing productive. The temporary satisfaction of venting is outweighed by the psychic harm from holding such strong negative feelings against a person.
 
2012-05-05 05:12:18 PM  

quatchi: For the record, I really don't care what the civilized world has to say about this. I'll make up my own mind.

For the record, my lack of surprise at this pronouncement is near absolute.


There's no need to be passive-agressive. If you think I'm wrong, make a convincing argument why I am. I'll listen.

If I'd posted "I don't care what the Vatican says, I'll make up my own mind," would you object? Probably not, and for good reason: because suspending my critical faculties in deference to elite opinion would be the height of mindlessness. That holds for both the religious elite (the Vatican) and the political elite ("the civilized world" - except for the conservative parts of it).
 
2012-05-05 05:15:23 PM  

Captain Dan: Lionel Mandrake: While I disagree with much of true Conservatism, I respect it, and do not consider adherents dickheads. But they are a dying breed.

I feel that way too. But I don't trash the faux-conservatives as "dickheads." Disagreeable is not a synonym for douchebag.

Essentially, I wouldn't call someone a dickhead even if they were in fact a dickhead. It accomplishes nothing productive. The temporary satisfaction of venting is outweighed by the psychic harm from holding such strong negative feelings against a person.


I suppose there's probably some psychic harm in leaving frustrations unexpressed, as well.
 
2012-05-05 05:18:03 PM  

Captain Dan: Lionel Mandrake: While I disagree with much of true Conservatism, I respect it, and do not consider adherents dickheads. But they are a dying breed.

I feel that way too. But I don't trash the faux-conservatives as "dickheads." Disagreeable is not a synonym for douchebag.

Essentially, I wouldn't call someone a dickhead even if they were in fact a dickhead. It accomplishes nothing productive. The temporary satisfaction of venting is outweighed by the psychic harm from holding such strong negative feelings against a person.


Don't want to be associated with dickheads, then either get away from them or stand up to them. Sitting back and letting the dickheads continue to attack women, homosexuals, minorities, poor, and other religions while pounding their Bibles and saying their cause is just and supported by God makes you as bad as they are, if not worse.

Evil triumphs when good people do nothing.
 
2012-05-05 05:26:35 PM  

Weaver95: It's not 'anti-corporate hostility' to point out the facts of our situation. and the fact is, corporations are screwing over US workers for no other reason than they can do it and get away with it. ok, fine - to them it's just business. But for the rest of us, it's kinda personal.


You've touched on something that I feel strongly about - the disconnect between policy makers and the people affected. It's not just a Washington D.C. thing. The think tanks, business executives, and intellectuals who decide policy tend to all come from demographically secluded, upper-middle-class environs. Most of them don't ever encounter the people affected by their decisions.

I know these people. I'm one of them. It makes me uncomfortable to see the disconnect between some of my friends in the elite class and the realities facing the other 90% of their countrymen.

The reason there hasn't been a stronger response to the economic recession in the past 4 years is because it has been so socially localized. To elites, there hasn't been a recession at all. They haven't lost any jobs, their friends and neighbors haven't, and their kids have no trouble finding jobs. They don't understand just how hard it's been for other people.

It's not malevolence on their part, and it won't be solved by threatening them. The only solution is to force awareness on their part. Write letters. Send pictures. Tell your story.

Very few politicians are actually heartless. Most of them are limited either by timidity or unawareness.
 
2012-05-05 05:35:52 PM  
By that logic, we should get rid of every government program, including the military, because there's the possibility that an illegal immigrant might tangentially benefit from it.

... Wait, aside from the military part, that's what they actually want to do. Fark it all.
 
2012-05-05 05:37:06 PM  

Lionel Mandrake: I suppose there's probably some psychic harm in leaving frustrations unexpressed, as well.


It's healthier to just let it go. The most pragmatic thing you can do is to commit to being even more exemplary in your own conduct, which will inspire other people to do the same.

Keizer_Ghidorah: Don't want to be associated with dickheads, then either get away from them or stand up to them. Sitting back and letting the dickheads continue to attack women, homosexuals, minorities, poor, and other religions while pounding their Bibles and saying their cause is just and supported by God makes you as bad as they are, if not worse.


I haven't always stood up with my fellow conservatives, despite the fact that it would have been much easier and more socially convenient to do so. I've lost a few conservative friends because I didn't toe the line.

Evil triumphs when good people do nothing.

Although the guiding sentiment is correct, you should try to avoid that kind of language. It's politics, not a holy war.
 
2012-05-05 05:39:58 PM  

Captain Dan: I can find no quotes of Romney saying that. Santorum did, because he opposes the idea of a right to privacy as a penumbral right. I think he's wrong, and I'm glad that he's not the GOP's nominee


When asked to acknowledge the legitimacy of Griswold and Baird, Romney declined to do so. This in the context of a campaign in which the legitimacy of Griswold and Baird were directly in issue. Moreover, the right to contraception is derived from similar constitutional foundations tp the right to abortion. Conservative ideology opposes those foundations.

Romney's refusal to acknowledge the legitimacy of Griswold and Baird signals to his ideologically conservative, anti-contraception rights base that he will consider anti-contraception Supreme Court justices. Because contraception benefits primarily women, opposition to it is actively hostile to the interests of women.

You're not accurately summarizing this matter, but to respond to your broader claim: the Republican Party is going to try to limit abortions in almost all cases (except, as mentioned earlier, the life of the mother). That's part of the party platform. If they can only achieve this goal piecemeal, then that's what they'll do.


It's good to see you cede that banning federal funding for child victims to abort sex predators' babies is actively hostile to the interests of women. That is why you're trying to change the subject, after all.

No, he didn't. If you think otherwise, please provide the proof that has eluded everyone else.


I see you're committed to evading the question of whether repealing the law was actively hostile to the interests of women. It was. Walker repealed the Equal Pay Enforcement Act, which created a state cause of action with state damages for pay discrimination in the workplace. In so doing, he eliminated Wisconsin's state ban on pay discrimination in the workplace. Thus making it perfectly legal under Wisconsin law to discriminate against women in pay. Unless you can show that some Wisconsin law banning pay discrimination remains in place, the point is proved. Moreover, even if such a law appears on the books, but is in practical effect unenforceable, I stand by my point.

Of course the federal cause of action remains. But federal courts are more expensive, and dominated by activist judges committed to rigidly anti-plaintiff ideology. They bias juries against non-corporate plaintiffs, find petty excuses to throw out real claims, and when non-corporate plaintiffs do win damages, they reduce or eliminate the damages on appeal.


I'm not able to read John Roberts' mind, as you apparently are, but I seriously doubt that unbridled misogyny was the impelling force in his decision.


I'm not interested in Roberts' motive, though there exists substantial evidence that he is driven in part by anti-woman, pro-corporate ideology. I am interested in the fact that he selected a novel interpretation which was the most pro-corporate, woman-hostile interpretation available to that statute. A fact you seem desperate to obscure.

Were I being 100% reasonable, I wouldn't engage with someone whose mind isn't going to change regardless of what I say. But, I hope some other posters will read what I've posted and think "that guy is actually pretty reasonable."

1) You've still unreasonably refused to acknowledge the hostility to women evinced by legislation aimed renaming from "victims" to "accusers" only those crimes of which women are typically victims. If your aim is to appear reasonable, you are failing. Of course, you can't appear reasonable, because you are trying to pretend the Republican Party isn't actively hostile to the interests of women. It is.

2) If you were being 100% reasonable, you would too consider changing your mind in response to effectively framed arguments supported by objective facts of reality.

The terms "accuser" and "victim" are both too loaded to be used impartially. Almost any reasonable person will agree with that.


Depending on context, they may or may not be. Surely a woman who has in fact been raped is fairly characterized as a "victim." Or do you find that "too loaded?" And if you do find it "too loaded," do you likewise deny that saying rape victims shouldn't be called rape victims is actively hostile to the interests of women?

I stand corrected! Voting to filibuster, and then immediately voting for closure to end debate, strikes me as more rhetorical point-making than a devious stratagem in the War on Women.


Even the 17 who finally voted for the bill, initially participated in the filibuster to help negotiate provisions which made it harder for victims of pay discrimination to prevail. Thus, not only did almost all of the Republican Party oppose the final bill, even the handful of Republicans who voted for it still evinced hostility to the interests of women by seeking to making it more difficult for them to vindicate pay discrimination claims in court.


I don't watch Fox News, because it poisons minds and polarizes otherwise decent people. People who get their news from partisan sources so often end up repeating talking points like "Republicans really are actively hostile to the interests of women."


Mr. Justice Scalia would probably likewise deny he allows Fox News to inform his voting decisions. But his demonstrated on the bench ignorance about the provisions of PPACA suggest if he says so, he's not being entirely truthful. Similarly, your denial that the Republican Party is actively hostile to the interests of women, which within the context of our political culture is reasonably flourished as a "War on Women," suggests that you too are a Fox News viewer.

On a final but important note: I'm sorry to break this to you, but you are not the sole arbiter of what is reasonable.


Neither are you. What's that got to do with anything?
 
2012-05-05 05:46:04 PM  

SkinnyHead: I'd say Senate democrats are the ones playing political games. They're the ones who inserted this new illegal alien provision into the VAWA in order to make the VAWA a political football.


They inserted it to protect women you sick psychotic motherfarking son of a biatch. You're not even amusing this time. The act was designed to make it easier for ALL women to report abuse to the authorities and not have to worry about the consequences.

This time, you've just admitted you'd rather allow illegal immigrant women to be abused by their husbands than say your farking precious republicans might be in the wrong. You should be ashamed to call yourself human. I can't believe a thinking being would say something like this.
 
2012-05-05 05:49:27 PM  

Captain Dan: quatchi: For the record, I really don't care what the civilized world has to say about this. I'll make up my own mind.

For the record, my lack of surprise at this pronouncement is near absolute.

There's no need to be passive-agressive. If you think I'm wrong, make a convincing argument why I am. I'll listen.


Why you are wrong to dismiss so many other people's opinions out of hand?

You're kidding, right?

If I'd posted "I don't care what the Vatican says, I'll make up my own mind," would you object? Probably not, and for good reason: because suspending my critical faculties in deference to elite opinion would be the height of mindlessness. That holds for both the religious elite (the Vatican) and the political elite ("the civilized world" - except for the conservative parts of it).

Because looking to what other similar governments do on this issue around the world is exactly the same thing as taking advice from a religious institution?

That noted, the religious objections of not wanting to pay for BC, as I mentioned in my previous post, have been addressed to most people's satisfaction.

Of course one should make up one's own mind but for you to shut your mind to other views (as it appears you do from your post there) before making up your mind does make you seem a little narrow minded, one might even say a mite "Skinnyheaded".

You know, if one were inclined to be cruel.
 
2012-05-05 05:52:04 PM  
FTFA: WASHINGTON -- The House Republican version of the new Violence Against Women Act (VAWA) would dramatically roll back confidentiality protections for abused immigrant women, make it more difficult for undocumented witnesses to work with law enforcement officials, and eliminate a pathway to citizenship for witnesses who cooperate with police on criminal cases.

I hate when the news media does this. They use "undocumented," "undocumented immigrant" and "immigrant" interchangeably, trying to make it seem like various politicians and/or pieces of legislation directed against illegal immigrants -- those who are in the country illegally and are undocumented -- are actually targeted towards ALL immigrants -- legal and illegal -- which simply isn't true.

As for eliminating a pathway to citizenship: If you are in this country illegally, why should we provide you with a pathway to citizenship? Part of being a citizen of this country is having respect for and obeying the law, and you are breaking it and showing nothing but contempt for it.
 
Displayed 50 of 353 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
Advertisement
On Twitter





In Other Media


  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report