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 10:16:05 PM
I'm applying for permanent residency and moving to Canada if they start passing rule of thumb legislation.
 
2012-05-05 10:22:53 PM
bugontherug: Mitt Romney need not have actual current plans to appoint anti-contraception justices in order to be willing to consider them to appease the anti-contraception conservative base.

I reject the premise of "the anti-contraception conservative base." Only 2-3% of Americans identify as anti-contraception. If you're going to label everyone who doesn't consider contraception an entitlement to be "anti-contraception," why stop there? Why not label people who don't favor subsidized iPads to be "anti-Apple"?

Back to the point, Romney has never issued a negative word against contraception. Your fears are unfounded.

It isn't just the legality of the act that matters. There's also the enforceability too. By making wage discrimination legal under Wisconsin law, Walker has made it easier for those who engage in pay discrimination to get away with it.

This is a good point, and I wish it's the one you had made in the first place. Lax enforcement is obviously one tradeoff that Republican legislators should have considered against the benefits of an improved business environment.

Good question, especially since the last act of discrimination is as illegal as the first act of pay discrimination.

Lily Ledbetter was bring her case to court much later than 180 days after the last act of discrimination. Even the most liberal Justices acknowledged this. They tried to argue that it wasn't the actual text of the Civil Rights Act that mattered so much as the animating spirit.

Hence, as said earlier in the thread, Roberts' pro-corporate, anti-woman interpretation was, in addition to being novel, ideologically driven, and counter to decades of established Title VII practice, anti-textual.

You don't even understand your own side's arguments! The liberal Justices' case against Roberts is that he was too beholden to the text of the law, and that the focus should have been on extratextual remedy.

The 11th Circuit is the 9th Circuit's evil twin. The 11th is to ideological rightism as the 9th is to ideological leftism. Your defense here is laughable to anyone with knowledge. And in any event, every other circuit that had considered the question ruled the other way.

The 11th Circuit's overturn rate is 60%, which is the third best in the country. The 9th's overturn rate is 80%, which is second-worst (only the Federal Circuit is worse). Stats

Fantastic. So now you say it's "prejuducial" to call a woman whose attacker has been convicted of rape, whose conviction was established by eyewitness testimony, security camera footage, and DNA evidence, and whose conviction has been upheld in exhaustion of all appeals, a "victim."

Yes. There are Women's Rights Groups who have made the same argument - the term "victim" is inherently prejudicial in a legal context.

Are these Women's Rights Groups misogynistic as well? How deep does the rabbit hole of muliebrous self-hatred go?

But I have a good faith (honestly held) belief you're a Fox News viewer, and that you're not honest about it.

I have a good faith, honestly held belief that you're lying about this. You don't really think that I'm a Fox News viewer. You're just saying so to be nettlesome.

If I didn't have more information, I might very well [believe that affirmative action laws were passed as part of a sinister anti-Asian agenda]. But I happen to know something of the history and purposes of affirmative action...

I happen to know something of the history and goals of conservatism. Because of that knowledge, I can confidently assert that your wished-for "War On Women" is a hallucination. Every shred of evidence you've presented has multiple explanations that are exponentially more plausible than misogynistic animus.

In the entire life span of the War on Women, the only mildly compelling accusations were those based on the ambiguous remarks of individual Republican lawmakers, such as State Rep. Bobby Franklin of Georgia. However, these accusations have plainly failed to cohere into any kind of case.

They were never meant to. The War on Women is fabricated. It was conceived four months ago, and quickly promulgated by Democratic partisans who viewed the prevailing focus on the economy to be electorally detrimental. It was never intended to be believed, only to be repeated, for the childish glee of throwing barbs across the political aisle.

As to the true believers who became convinced of the War's actuality, one can only put them in the same corner as the faithful who annually update the predicted hour of God's Judgment.
 
2012-05-05 10:25:05 PM
Violence Against Women Act? How about we authorize the Violence Against Republicans Act?
 
2012-05-05 10:41:39 PM
Keizer_Ghidorah: Secular people are just as caring, loving, and helping as Christians. In fact, I dare say that secular people are more often that way than Christians. Many Christians seem to require the threat of eternal damnation and unspeakable torment in order to help others, and often they do it as a way to score points with God and not out of innate goodness.


My overall concern with with the current right isn't about "who is religious and who is not religious". I think there is room for atheist, agnostic, skeptical, practicing, and devout in all political stripes. The concern I have is that as a Christian two major themes coming from the republican party right now are pushing me (a devout Christian) way to the left. Those themes are:
1. Ayn Raynd (whom by the way I don't consider a "philosopher" so much as a teenybopper author- her style and subject matter equates roughly to Harry Potter or the Hunger Games) had a very anti-christian (small c, philosophical not belief based) selfish and amoral pseudo-philosophy. To see a very unholy (pun intended) marriage of the Christian right and an atheist is disturbing.
2. The prosperity gospel of "I get rich and fark the weak" is also disturbing. I do not mind aligning with atheists if they have similar morals to me. In my understanding of my religion it is pretty basic- take care of others, protect the weak, give back, and don't show off how holy you are. If atheist can live this way and hold our government to the same standard as we try to live- what do I care if we "believe" the same thing. We are doing the same thing.

The current republican party pushed me out- one of the reasons is that they are willing to put citizens (in this case American women's rights on the brink for political gain). I won't judge you for not believing what I believe. I hope you understand that you do not have to judge me for not believing what you believe. Remember- the Quakers were active in the abolitionist movement, there are many strictly anti-war Christian sects, the Presbyterians were a major factor in the civil rights movement, and Jimmy Carter is a devout Christian.
 
2012-05-05 10:43:27 PM
Captain Dan

vernonFL: So if an illegal immigrant women is being abused, and is asking for our help, we should say no? Or say no, then deport her?

We should treat her the same way as an illegal immigrant at the Emergency Room: we'll offer help, but not amnesty. Deportation is off the table in these cases, because we don't want to force women to under-report abuse or to not address serious medical issues.


You're either unaware of how the system works, or not thinking it through.

Imagine you're an immigrant woman (I suspect this will be something you've never done). You're married to an American citizen. You've been married less than two years, so you don't have a green card. If the marriage ends, you get deported.

Your husband is beating you. Perhaps raping you for extra bonus points.

Without these protections, if you report him or otherwise seek help, all he has to do is initiate a divorce or annulment and you're deported. Talk about a perverse incentive to stay with your abuser.

Refusing amnesty is hardly declaring war on immigrant women.

You're right. Its actually giving license to their spouses to declare war on them.

Completely different. Well, from the victims' point of view, not so much.
 
2012-05-05 10:48:46 PM
News Director, "You oppose discount bus fare for war widows?"

Lisa, "Your damn right I do!"

Later ...

Homer, "Lousy mooching war widows."
 
2012-05-05 10:54:25 PM

Captain Dan: The War on Women is fabricated.


Is defunding Planned Parenthood fabricated? Is mandatory waiting periods for abortions fabricated? Are trans-vaginal ultrasounds fabricated? Is the repeal of equal pay for equal work laws fabricated? Is the repeal of Violence against women acts fabricated? Is dropping contraception (but not boner pills) from insurance plans fabricated?

All this came up recently because the DICKHEADS in the GOP just recently went apeshiat with all this garbage.

Your "fabrication" nonsense is fabricated.
 
2012-05-05 11:06:24 PM

smellysocksnshoes: Keizer_Ghidorah: Secular people are just as caring, loving, and helping as Christians. In fact, I dare say that secular people are more often that way than Christians. Many Christians seem to require the threat of eternal damnation and unspeakable torment in order to help others, and often they do it as a way to score points with God and not out of innate goodness.


My overall concern with with the current right isn't about "who is religious and who is not religious". I think there is room for atheist, agnostic, skeptical, practicing, and devout in all political stripes. The concern I have is that as a Christian two major themes coming from the republican party right now are pushing me (a devout Christian) way to the left. Those themes are:
1. Ayn Raynd (whom by the way I don't consider a "philosopher" so much as a teenybopper author- her style and subject matter equates roughly to Harry Potter or the Hunger Games) had a very anti-christian (small c, philosophical not belief based) selfish and amoral pseudo-philosophy. To see a very unholy (pun intended) marriage of the Christian right and an atheist is disturbing.
2. The prosperity gospel of "I get rich and fark the weak" is also disturbing. I do not mind aligning with atheists if they have similar morals to me. In my understanding of my religion it is pretty basic- take care of others, protect the weak, give back, and don't show off how holy you are. If atheist can live this way and hold our government to the same standard as we try to live- what do I care if we "believe" the same thing. We are doing the same thing.

The current republican party pushed me out- one of the reasons is that they are willing to put citizens (in this case American women's rights on the brink for political gain). I won't judge you for not believing what I believe. I hope you understand that you do not have to judge me for not believing what you believe. Remember- the Quakers were active in the abolitionist movement, there are many stric ...


Hey, I have no problems with Christians who actually act like Christians should. The problem is that the Christians who are complete assholes are also the ones in positions of high power.
 
2012-05-05 11:08:13 PM

A Dark Evil Omen: [deus-ex-machinima.net image 396x303]

I'm actually getting kind of sick of this macro... That guy in that picture is probably an okay dude and doesn't deserve being associated with someone like SkinnyHead.


Then put him on "ignore".

Some rancid dildo in this thread says that you have to spend all your waking day reading stupid stuff written by stupid people, but you don't.

Ignore them and spend your time reading and responding to people that say smart things.
 
2012-05-05 11:16:39 PM
Captain Dan

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

And yet, they have grown in France and Italy (and probably some other European countries, these just happen to be the two whose stats I'm familiar with).

Take a look at productivity gains in the last 30 years. Nice, eh? Lowers a firm's costs. Now where did that extra money go? Wages of workers, or company profits?

Take a look at the cost of health care over the last 30 years. Quite a rise. Now this is something that political parties could greatly affect - the proof being that the US system results in far, far higher costs than anywhere else. See all that money that is going to health insurance? If we had, say, a single-payer system similar to Germany's. that money could be going in to wages.

There has been income growth, so the money really does exist. It just has been flowing to shareholders, top level executives, and the finance sector.

And yes, there are things that political parties can do to reduce the skim that the finance sector takes from the economy. While it wouldn't affect a person's wages, if someone who qualified for a non-sub-prime loan is pushed in to a sub-prime with a higher rate, that has the same effect as reducing their wages.

If letting culture capitalists buy a healthy firm, load it up with debt, yank out management fees, and then let it go bankrupt is legal, then many people lose then it affects middle class earnings.

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.

Because manufacturing is the whole economy....?

You're right that these trends have changed employment in ways that no government could stop. Lifetime employment with at one place won't happen, for example.

But you're vastly oversimplifying, and pretending the situation is black and white. There are many, many things we could do to mitigate the negative effects, and many of them would help to make us globally competitive. Why do you think American car companies have built so many plants in Canada? In part, its because they don't have to provide health insurance.

Why do you think other countries have a national industrial strategy? Why do you think Germany manages to have a strong manufacturing sector, with good paying (union!) jobs? Could it be that the political parties there managed to come up with some better policies - things like forcing companies to put union reps on the corporate board, so that labor and management interests will align?

One final thought: you're telling me that political parties - and by extension, government - can't really do anything to affect, redirect, or mitigate global economic trends. You're telling me this via the internet, the biggest game changer in our economy today, created by the government.
 
2012-05-05 11:20:55 PM

Keizer_Ghidorah: Hey, I have no problems with Christians who actually act like Christians should.


How should Christians act? I would think, logically, it'd be according to the dogma of their particular religion. In which case, "the Christians who are complete assholes" are acting as Christians should act as much as the Christians who are not complete assholes, just in a different way. The Christian religions - keeping in mind there are hundreds of them - say a lot of opposite, contradictory, and mutually exclusive stuff. The assholes and the not-assholes are just cherry-picking different parts of their dogma to justify what they would probably normally do and think anyway if they didn't feel socially obligated to have a dogma.

Sorry, but it really gets on my nerves that so many people - non-Christians as well as Christians - are trying to change the meaning of the word "Christian" from some variation of "a follower of the Christ's teachings" to "a nice person." The two are very sharply distinct, and blurring that boundary is doing a disservice to nice people and to Christians, especially the large groups of people who are only in one category and not both.
 
2012-05-05 11:24:35 PM

MisterRonbo: You're either unaware of how the system works, or not thinking it through.


Those are usually safe assumptions, but in this case I'm merely misunderstood.

Imagine you're an immigrant woman...

I've written above that I would take deportation off the table for cases of reported abuse. I don't want to do anything that would incentivize domestic abuse. Protecting against violence is more important than deporting an illegal immigrant.

To protect against vindictive husbands, I'd ignore spousal "outings," opting to focus on deporting illegal immigrants guilty of other crimes. If a woman were a criminal and a victim of domestic abuse, I'd deport her and arrest the husband, but I could be talked out of that position.

None of these proposals entail amnesty. That's what Republicans are opposed to.
 
2012-05-05 11:35:11 PM
Wanna know how there are still women supporting this shiat? Their priests tell them to, because OMFG THINK OF THE CHILDREN!!
 
2012-05-05 11:39:13 PM

Captain Dan: Sorry, there's no "war on women." There's only a political food fight, encouraged by both parties so that gullible partisans get riled up and forget about matters of actual importance.


I agree that the word "war" is unfortunate hyperbole, but the idea is not without a substantial core of truth. For a long time, Republican policy positions have been opposed to those held by a majority of women on several fronts (abortion, ease of access to birth control, ease of bringing suit against an employer for pay discrimination, etc.). In the past, many bills supported by Republicans along these lines would have flown under the radar as far as national media is concerned. What you are seeing with the "war on women" media push is an attempt by Democrats to shine a light on these issues and call attention to the (very real) gap between the policy positions of the Republican Party and those of most women. Is it politically motivated? Of course! But why shouldn't it be? The Democrats would pretty much be incompetent not to call attention to it, and there's no reason why they shouldn't.
 
2012-05-05 11:43:01 PM

Lionel Mandrake: Is defunding Planned Parenthood fabricated? Is mandatory waiting periods for abortions fabricated? Are trans-vaginal ultrasounds fabricated?


Defunding Planned Parenthood, mandatory wait periods, and transvaginal ultrasounds were swipes against abortion, not womanhood. I don't agree with any of these proposals, but I recognize the motives.

Is the repeal of equal pay for equal work laws fabricated?

Not fabricated, but the intent of this repeal has been the subject of multiple posts above. I don't view it as motivated by misogyny (the motivation here is almost certainly money).

Is the repeal of Violence against women acts fabricated?

Mostly. Republicans have offered an alternate version of the VAWA that is 99.9% identical to the previous version passed by strong bipartisan majorities.

Is dropping contraception (but not boner pills) from insurance plans fabricated?

Yes. This was the falsest claim of all. Republicans have always viewed the Fluke case as a matter of protecting religious freedom, not of limiting contraception.

Republicans overwhelmingly support legal contraception. That's not the same as supporting free on-demand contraception (which I think would be a good idea, but I'm not going to force any religious institution to agree to).
 
2012-05-05 11:53:46 PM

Captain Dan: Republicans overwhelmingly support legal contraception. That's not the same as supporting free on-demand contraception (which I think would be a good idea, but I'm not going to force any religious institution to agree to).


Except, that they don't pay for contraception. They have offered insurance plans, and the employee has paid into that fund. The religious institution has not underwritten anything, they have acted as broker to that insurance plan--and the insurer gets a large pool of customers, who provide services to those customers.

That is the false portion of the show. The religious institution isn't paying for contraception, it is sometimes paying an insurer, but the relationship with the insurer and their client is between them, not the church.

Then again, perhaps it's time to come down to a single payer system, and then we won't have to worry about these issues. Right now, the middle men are simply slicing themselves off a piece of the pie, and not really providing much save more paperwork, more dollars wasted, and the only thing that they really provide is a layer of inefficiency to the system.
 
2012-05-05 11:54:31 PM

Captain Dan: I reject the premise of "the anti-contraception conservative base." Only 2-3% of Americans identify as anti-contraception. If you're going to label everyone who doesn't consider contraception an entitlement to be "anti-contraception," why stop there? Why not label people who don't favor subsidized iPads to be "anti-Apple"?

Back to the point, Romney has never issued a negative word against contraception. Your fears are unfounded.



1) The conservative judicial philosophy opposes the right to contraception as strongly as it does the right to abortion.

2) By refusing to acknowledge the legitimacy of the right to contraception in the context of a primary election in which the legitimacy of the right to contraception was directly in issue, Romney spoke loudly and clearly to the anti-contraception conservative base.


This is a good point, and I wish it's the one you had made in the first place. Lax enforcement is obviously one tradeoff that Republican legislators should have considered against the benefits of an improved business environment.


Scott Walker made it perfectly legal under Wisconsin law to discriminate in pay on the basis of sex. Conservative judicial activists banned nearly all federal pay discrimination actions by a novel, activist, pro-corporate, and anti-textual interpretation of Title VII. The Republican Party is actively hostile to women who want to be paid equally for equal work at every level of government. Your quibble is over definitions.

You don't even understand your own side's arguments! The liberal Justices' case against Roberts is that he was too beholden to the text of the law, and that the focus should have been on extratextual remedy.


Because unlike you, I am not a zombie partisan sucking bullsh*t talking points out of Glenn Beck's ass, I do not see the world as breaking down into two "sides." Whatever some dissenter said, given the text you quoted, it is clear that Roberts picked the most pro-corporate, anti-woman interpretation possible, that his interpretation was novel, and anti-textual.

Yes. There are Women's Rights Groups who have made the same argument - the term "victim" is inherently prejudicial in a legal context.

Are these Women's Rights Groups misogynistic as well? How deep does the rabbit hole of muliebrous self-hatred go?


No Women's Rights Group would deny that it is appropriate to say that a woman who was in fact raped is a victim.


I have a good faith, honestly held belief that you're lying about this. You don't really think that I'm a Fox News viewer. You're just saying so to be nettlesome.


And yet your arguments parrot Fox talking points so loyally. "Well some other liberal said this, so that means you're wrong for disagreeing with them! How come you don't toe the liberal line? How come you make independent arguments based on logic and objective facts of reality? Don't you know you're supposed to be made of straw so I can beat you up easily?"

The 11th Circuit's overturn rate is 60%, which is the third best in the country. The 9th's overturn rate is 80%, which is second-worst (only the Federal Circuit is worse).


You say that as though it undermines the proposition that the 11th Circuit is ideologically right wing. You say it as though it means something in an era in which the Supreme Court is dominated by committed conservative judicial activists, strongly sympathetic to an ideologically right wing lower court.

I happen to know something of the history and goals of conservatism. Because of that knowledge, I can confidently assert that your wished-for "War On Women" is a hallucination. Every shred of evidence you've presented has multiple explanations that are exponentially more plausible than misogynistic animus.


1) If you seriously believe American conservatism has no relationship to misogyny, you know nothing of the history and goals of conservatism. It was only in 1989 that a progressive Supreme Court finally vindicated womens' right to serve on juries against a Louisiana law barring them from doing so. At the time, conservative commentators called the Supreme Court "radical," "communist," and "activist." This even though a law prohibiting women from jury service could serve no plausible purpose except to vindicate conservative stereotypes about appropriate social roles for women.

And that's 1989. Conservatism's history of misogyny goes back much longer than that.

2) Whatever rationalizations you can come up with for each individual case, it's rather striking how consistently across different policy areas Republican policy is actively hostile to the interests of women. You suppose this is unconnected coincidence, despite the reality that modern evangelicals seriously argue that women shouldn't even be allowed to vote. You are blind to conservatism's misogyny.
 
2012-05-05 11:59:39 PM

Kome: The assholes and the not-assholes are just cherry-picking different parts of their dogma to justify what they would probably normally do and think anyway if they didn't feel socially obligated to have a dogma.


While I admire the fact that you seem to believe that you're quoting C.S. Lewis, the fact is that you're completely butchering his intent. When he argued that "Christian" had a specific meaning, and shouldn't be confused with just "being a good person", he absolutely did NOT mean you can utterly reject every single one of Christ's teachings, and still call yourself a Christian. That was, in fact, the opposite of what he meant.

Republicans cannot lay simultaneous claim to Christ and Ayn Rand. The two are antithetical. You can't say you're Christian and then worship greed. You can't say you're Christian and then show nothing but hatred and contempt for the poor. Or more accurately: you can't do those things and honestly claim to be a Christian, because you're not, any more than you can claim to be a fish or a Frisbee. Your nonsense about how Republicans just "embrace a different set of Christ's teachings" is silly. There is no part of Christ's teachings that tells people that the poor are lazy leeches on society. There is no part of Christ's teachings that say "the blind worship of money is a really good idea." Christ never said "Oh sure, I could heal and feed you, but then you'd just lie around the house collecting welfare". Christ said "Do good for people, and don't judge them." You can't reject that concept and still call yourself Christian.
 
2012-05-06 12:00:12 AM

Skyrmion: I agree that the word "war" is unfortunate hyperbole, but the idea is not without a substantial core of truth. For a long time, Republican policy positions have been opposed to those held by a majority of women on several fronts (abortion, ease of access to birth control, ease of bringing suit against an employer for pay discrimination, etc.).


You're using "War" to describe any political platform that runs counter to the opinions of the majority of a subgroup. 60% of women support Prop X and Republicans oppose it; therefore Republicans have declared war on women.

1) If that logic is consistently applied, then almost every political decision ever made is a war on some demographic. The election and political actions of Obama would be a War on White Men, the majority of whom did not vote for nor support him. The defeat of Christine O'Donnell is part of the War on Uneducated Voters.

2) Your argument would be more persuasive if it accounted for confounding variables. For example: it is often claimed that Mitt Romney has a woman problem. Not true. He has an unmarried woman problem. Young and unmarried women oppose him 2-to-1. Amongst married women, support is split evenly between Romney and Obama.

In the same vein, you need to ask why Republicans oppose abortion. Is it because the Party consists of men, or because the Party consists of religious conservatives who consider abortion to be equivalent to murder?

The question answers itself.
 
2012-05-06 12:01:06 AM

Captain Dan: Yes. This was the falsest claim of all. Republicans have always viewed the Fluke case as a matter of protecting religious freedom, not of limiting contraception.


Yeah, I'm glad that Republicans are so interested now in protecting religious freedom. I remember when they stood firm for religious freedom when muslims wanted to build a Mosque in downtown Manhattan.
 
2012-05-06 12:05:36 AM

Keizer_Ghidorah: Gyrfalcon: Kome: In the world of Republicans, someone gaming the system to become a citizen (have they any proof that this actually happens?) is the worse sin than a woman being abused and terrified and unable to get any help from the legal system (something we know happens every goddamned day). You can not spin this any other way. And if you can understand that concept and still think the Republican party is the party worth voting for this election, you are a monster. Plain and simple.

Good. Destroy all monsters.

[electrokami.com image 590x400]

The best of the Showa-era movies.


i293.photobucket.com

DAM straight!

I lived for the day that came on back when I was a tinier individual.

Creme de la freaking creme.
 
2012-05-06 12:11:22 AM

Captain Dan: You're using "War" to describe any political platform that runs counter to the opinions of the majority of a subgroup. 60% of women support Prop X and Republicans oppose it; therefore Republicans have declared war on women.


You are of course ignoring the overall pattern evinced by Republican legislative efforts in the past few years. It isn't as though Wisconsin Republicans decided to make pay discrimination legal under their state law, that this is the only anti-woman legislation the Republicans have ever passed, and that progressives are calling it a "war on women."

Stunningly, you've still refused to acknowledge the hostility to women evinced by renaming from "victims" to "accusers" only those who allege crimes which most frequently victimize women.
 
2012-05-06 12:12:41 AM

Captain Dan: I reject the premise of "the anti-contraception conservative base." Only 2-3% of Americans identify as anti-contraception. If you're going to label everyone who doesn't consider contraception an entitlement to be "anti-contraception," why stop there? Why not label people who don't favor subsidized iPads to be "anti-Apple"?


I love the way you keep pretending that you're calm, rational, and thoughtful, in reality you're really nothing but a giant flaming douchebag- a more verbose version of Skinnyhead.

Let me see if I can explain something to you. Insurance is between the insurer and the insured. Nobody else. Insurance covers a great many things, from Viagra to Prostate exams, that are important to men. Yet Rush Limbaugh has never called Bob Dole a whore for using Viagra. Your moronic comment about iPads is the giveaway as to your true nature- a Troll with way to much time on his hands. You'd literally have to be brain-damaged to believe that women wanting to decide their own health-care coverage (the same way men do) is the same as "wanting iPads to be to be subsidized." But that's how Republicans are- it never even remotely occurs to you that maybe women should be treated like actual human beings. Instead, their concerns are all pointless and trivial- the same as "wanting iPads to be subsidized".

The fact is that we've gotten along for over half a century know with women having access to birth control, but the moment Obama mentions that he's swung a deal with insurance providers to cover birth control for FREE, suddenly Republicans have their panties in a wad over it. And despite your pretend-ignorance, I'm sure you know that's exactly what this is all about. The moment a tiny minority of Catholic employers said that they didn't want to cover contraception, (which is insane, because you don't pay for insurance coverage by the item covered) Obama stepped in and said "Okay then, the Insurance companies have offered to cover it for free, because it saves them money in the long run. Happy now?" But of course, Republicans weren't happy, because they play a zero-sum game: Nobody wins unless somebody loses. That's why there's been this flood of anti-women idiocy from the Republicans, and you damn well know it. Every petty piece of idiotic legislation that you assure us really doesn't matter is their way of saying "We'll oppose anything Obama does, no matter how stupid we have to look in the process."

So tell me again how allowing insurance companies to provide free contraception coverage to women is the same as "demanding subsidies for iPads".
 
2012-05-06 12:14:31 AM

Mavent: Captain Dan: I reject the premise of "the anti-contraception conservative base." Only 2-3% of Americans identify as anti-contraception. If you're going to label everyone who doesn't consider contraception an entitlement to be "anti-contraception," why stop there? Why not label people who don't favor subsidized iPads to be "anti-Apple"?

I love the way you keep pretending that you're calm, rational, and thoughtful, in reality you're really nothing but a giant flaming douchebag- a more verbose version of Skinnyhead.

Let me see if I can explain something to you. Insurance is between the insurer and the insured. Nobody else. Insurance covers a great many things, from Viagra to Prostate exams, that are important to men. Yet Rush Limbaugh has never called Bob Dole a whore for using Viagra. Your moronic comment about iPads is the giveaway as to your true nature- a Troll with way to much time on his hands. You'd literally have to be brain-damaged to believe that women wanting to decide their own health-care coverage (the same way men do) is the same as "wanting iPads to be to be subsidized." But that's how Republicans are- it never even remotely occurs to you that maybe women should be treated like actual human beings. Instead, their concerns are all pointless and trivial- the same as "wanting iPads to be subsidized".

The fact is that we've gotten along for over half a century know with women having access to birth control, but the moment Obama mentions that he's swung a deal with insurance providers to cover birth control for FREE, suddenly Republicans have their panties in a wad over it. And despite your pretend-ignorance, I'm sure you know that's exactly what this is all about. The moment a tiny minority of Catholic employers said that they didn't want to cover contraception, (which is insane, because you don't pay for insurance coverage by the item covered) Obama stepped in and said "Okay then, the Insurance companies have offered to cover it for free, becau ...


Well said. At long last, thread over.

I'm going to bed.
 
2012-05-06 12:36:29 AM

Captain Dan: Lionel Mandrake: Is defunding Planned Parenthood fabricated? Is mandatory waiting periods for abortions fabricated? Are trans-vaginal ultrasounds fabricated?

Defunding Planned Parenthood, mandatory wait periods, and transvaginal ultrasounds were swipes against abortion, not womanhood. I don't agree with any of these proposals, but I recognize the motives.

Is the repeal of equal pay for equal work laws fabricated?

Not fabricated, but the intent of this repeal has been the subject of multiple posts above. I don't view it as motivated by misogyny (the motivation here is almost certainly money).

Is the repeal of Violence against women acts fabricated?

Mostly. Republicans have offered an alternate version of the VAWA that is 99.9% identical to the previous version passed by strong bipartisan majorities.

Is dropping contraception (but not boner pills) from insurance plans fabricated?

Yes. This was the falsest claim of all. Republicans have always viewed the Fluke case as a matter of protecting religious freedom, not of limiting contraception.

Republicans overwhelmingly support legal contraception. That's not the same as supporting free on-demand contraception (which I think would be a good idea, but I'm not going to force any religious institution to agree to).


I completely disagree with your take. You seem eager to make excuses. All of these "concerns" have been absent for 30, 40, 50 years, but all of a sudden they are deeply critical issues for "conservatives." What the hell is the motive you understand for trans-vaginal ultrasounds? All these laws you "understand" boil down to "You aren't capable of making a decision on your own, darling, so the government is going to force you through a painful procedure to help you, OK, sweetheart?" And why is contraception all of a sudden a religious liberty issue? What's up with this sudden deluge of government intrusion into the sex life of women??

Because Conservatism is dying and being replaced by radicalism. In fact, the takeover is nearly complete.

But our views are irrelevant. What women think is important. This may be why Romney, as the head of the GOP, is losing the women's vote by huge numbers.

So, you can keep the excuses, the Dems will keep the female vote
 
2012-05-06 12:46:04 AM
First of all, bravo on your ability to deftly explain away why all of those things aren't attacks on women, but rather focused efforts on abortion/First Amendment rights/loopholes based on morals/principles, but you ultimately fail because what they all have in common is that every single one negatively effects women exclusively, or significantly more than men. That's not by coincidence, it's by design.

You're a liar or a fool if you claim otherwise.

Captain Dan: Yes. This was the falsest claim of all. Republicans have always viewed the Fluke case as a matter of protecting religious freedom, not of limiting contraception.


Secondly, to this point in particular, you are so incredibly wrong that you lose all credibility. Either you're lying with this blatantly false explanation, or you believe every talking point that comes out of the Republican echo chamber.

1. Georgetown isn't a church, it's a university which receives millions of dollars from the government, which means it doesn't have the same freedoms as churches.
2. Georgetown had no moral objection to providing employees with insurance plans that covered birth control.
3. The Catholic Church has no moral objection to forms of birth control used primarily for medical treatment, such as described specifically by Sandra Fluke.

The fact that Republicans tried to falsely frame this as a "religious freedom" issue, and falsely claimed that Georgetown has "moral objections" to "providing birth control" proves that they know they'd lose if people knew the facts of the matter.
 
2012-05-06 12:47:04 AM

Kome: Keizer_Ghidorah: Hey, I have no problems with Christians who actually act like Christians should.

How should Christians act? I would think, logically, it'd be according to the dogma of their particular religion. In which case, "the Christians who are complete assholes" are acting as Christians should act as much as the Christians who are not complete assholes, just in a different way. The Christian religions - keeping in mind there are hundreds of them - say a lot of opposite, contradictory, and mutually exclusive stuff. The assholes and the not-assholes are just cherry-picking different parts of their dogma to justify what they would probably normally do and think anyway if they didn't feel socially obligated to have a dogma.

Sorry, but it really gets on my nerves that so many people - non-Christians as well as Christians - are trying to change the meaning of the word "Christian" from some variation of "a follower of the Christ's teachings" to "a nice person." The two are very sharply distinct, and blurring that boundary is doing a disservice to nice people and to Christians, especially the large groups of people who are only in one category and not both.


Well, the Bible clearly says "Love your neighbor as yourself and I" and "Judge not, lest yourself be judged; there is no greater judge than I". If Christians can't even follow those two simple instructions, then we should abolish the entire thing, because the Christians who advocate treating women, homosexuals, minorities, poor people, and other religions as less than human are a threat to our lives and safety. And I mean ALL Christianity, since we can't be too sure which Christians are the ones who do care about others and which ones are the ones who hate others.

How does that sound? Will that fix the problem?
 
2012-05-06 12:55:44 AM

Captain Dan: Skyrmion: I agree that the word "war" is unfortunate hyperbole, but the idea is not without a substantial core of truth. For a long time, Republican policy positions have been opposed to those held by a majority of women on several fronts (abortion, ease of access to birth control, ease of bringing suit against an employer for pay discrimination, etc.).

You're using "War" to describe any political platform that runs counter to the opinions of the majority of a subgroup.


Me, personally? No, I'm not.
 
2012-05-06 01:01:27 AM

Mavent: Kome: The assholes and the not-assholes are just cherry-picking different parts of their dogma to justify what they would probably normally do and think anyway if they didn't feel socially obligated to have a dogma.

While I admire the fact that you seem to believe that you're quoting C.S. Lewis, the fact is that you're completely butchering his intent. When he argued that "Christian" had a specific meaning, and shouldn't be confused with just "being a good person", he absolutely did NOT mean you can utterly reject every single one of Christ's teachings, and still call yourself a Christian. That was, in fact, the opposite of what he meant.

Republicans cannot lay simultaneous claim to Christ and Ayn Rand. The two are antithetical. You can't say you're Christian and then worship greed. You can't say you're Christian and then show nothing but hatred and contempt for the poor. Or more accurately: you can't do those things and honestly claim to be a Christian, because you're not, any more than you can claim to be a fish or a Frisbee. Your nonsense about how Republicans just "embrace a different set of Christ's teachings" is silly. There is no part of Christ's teachings that tells people that the poor are lazy leeches on society. There is no part of Christ's teachings that say "the blind worship of money is a really good idea." Christ never said "Oh sure, I could heal and feed you, but then you'd just lie around the house collecting welfare". Christ said "Do good for people, and don't judge them." You can't reject that concept and still call yourself Christian.


Not familiar with C.S. Lewis's writing on religion, but it's not a sentiment that only he brought up, or that he brought up first, I trust? Either way, if you could post a link or provide a title of some work of his on the matter, I would be delighted to read it.

Anyway, you're butchering what I am saying. The notion of how Christians "should" act does not at all preclude acting like a dick. Jesus was not entirely about preaching hippie sh*t. Without a doubt, some of the moral teachings found in the Bible generally and the Gospels specifically are laudable. But you can just as easily find, again in the Bible generally and in the Gospels specifically, a lot of heinous sh*t. In the Gospels, Jesus was not above preaching hate or intolerance. I would submit that it's impossible to reject, utterly, every single one of Jesus's teachings because the Gospels espouse so many different moral commandments and dictates, even to the point of some of them being mutually exclusive. It's simply a matter of cherry-picking what you justifies your preexisting biases, prejudices, beliefs, attitudes, and so on. Given any religiously held sacred text, it isn't that difficult a matter of cherry-picking what you want. Every religious group has tons of members who do it, and some of them are pretty awesome folks and others are complete jerks. Hell, you yourself just did it by saying, flat out without the slightest hint of irony or shame, that you can't call yourself a Christian and reject the notion of doing good for people and not judging them. Jesus did say to "Judge, not on appearance, but judge righteous judgement" in John. Jesus also said, multiple times, that people will suffer FOR ETERNITY. In what possible context could that ever, under any circumstance, be considered doing good? Eternal punishment. Eternity is a long time to pay for transgressions that are committed over, at most, a period of a few decades. Not sure where the good is in any of that, but there it is. Oh, and why not, Jesus also condemned some people for not killing their own children for being disobedient in Mark. Again, how is that being good... to anyone?

So, some people are acting like greedy dicks while claiming to be Christian. So what? That doesn't mean they aren't Christian. At worst, it just means they suck at being Christian as you define being Christian. Quit acting like it's impossible to be a bad Christian. If you can be a bad bicycle rider or a bad magician or a bad liar or a bad father, you can be a bad Christian. As far as my understanding goes, that's why there's such a thing as atonement and forgiveness and confession.
 
2012-05-06 01:02:24 AM

Keizer_Ghidorah: Gyrfalcon: Kome: In the world of Republicans, someone gaming the system to become a citizen (have they any proof that this actually happens?) is the worse sin than a woman being abused and terrified and unable to get any help from the legal system (something we know happens every goddamned day). You can not spin this any other way. And if you can understand that concept and still think the Republican party is the party worth voting for this election, you are a monster. Plain and simple.

Good. Destroy all monsters.

[electrokami.com image 590x400]

The best of the Showa-era movies.


I figured, from your handle.
 
2012-05-06 01:14:26 AM

quatchi: Keizer_Ghidorah: Gyrfalcon: Kome: In the world of Republicans, someone gaming the system to become a citizen (have they any proof that this actually happens?) is the worse sin than a woman being abused and terrified and unable to get any help from the legal system (something we know happens every goddamned day). You can not spin this any other way. And if you can understand that concept and still think the Republican party is the party worth voting for this election, you are a monster. Plain and simple.

Good. Destroy all monsters.

[electrokami.com image 590x400]

The best of the Showa-era movies.

[i293.photobucket.com image 262x400]

DAM straight!

I lived for the day that came on back when I was a tinier individual.

Creme de la freaking creme.


www.millionmonkeytheater.com

Thanks to DAM!, Gorosaurus gained a robust fan base. If it wasn't for him, King Ghidorah would have won. Though it sucks that it was at the expense of Baragon's screen time, since his suit was too badly damaged from being constantly modified into Ultraman monsters to have much screentime. And poor Varan being relegated to two quick shots of a toy. On the plus side, Minilla got to do the one awesome thing he did in the entire Showa series.
 
2012-05-06 01:29:12 AM
So in addition to actually eliminating jobs (Job CreatorsTM my ass), it appears the Republicans also want to make it harder to 1) arrest abusers and 2) convict anyone of any crime witnessed by an undocumented resident. I wonder how long it will take for the for-profit prison industry and law enforcement to realize and let the Republicans know that they haven't thought their cunning plan all the way through.
 
2012-05-06 01:29:58 AM
Why do women continue to support the GOP?
 
2012-05-06 01:34:44 AM
The Republican Party of USA = More radical than the Communist Party of North Korea!

Who would have thought....
 
2012-05-06 01:39:08 AM
bugontherug: By refusing to acknowledge the legitimacy of the right to contraception in the context of a primary election in which the legitimacy of the right to contraception was directly in issue, Romney spoke loudly and clearly to the anti-contraception conservative base.

99% of conservatives support legal birth control. There does not exist even one shred of evidence that there is an anti-contraceptive element within conservatism.

Scott Walker made it perfectly legal under Wisconsin law to discriminate in pay on the basis of sex.

Scott Walker did not legalize wage discrimination. He shifted jurisdiction for such cases to the federal courts. You don't even dispute this.

Your quibble is over definitions.

The definitions of "legal" and "illegal," which are important to distinguish.

Because unlike you... I do not see the world as breaking down into two "sides." Whatever some dissenter said...

It's very common for Supreme Court observers to break the court into its liberal and conservative wings. And the "some dissenter" I cited was the entire liberal contingent of the Supreme Court.

...given the text you quoted, it is clear that Roberts picked the most pro-corporate, anti-woman interpretation possible, that his interpretation was novel, and anti-textual.

You once again fail to understand even your own arguments! Let me help. Every single liberal Supreme Court justice, by their own pronouncement, argued that Roberts was too beholden to the text of the Constitution. Conservatives agree, but consider that a good thing.

Not a single educated person has argued that John Roberts' ruling was extratextual. If you could find even a 1st year law school student that agreed with you, I'd be bowled over.

No Women's Rights Group would deny that it is appropriate to say that a woman who was in fact raped is a victim.

Wrong. "Carol Tracy, director of the Women's Law Center, an advocacy organization, agreed with the call for neutral language, but said neither "victim" nor "accuser" are appropriate. In Pennsylvania, where she lives, the law references "complaintants," she said."

"How come I don't toe the liberal line?"

There are different liberal lines. There is an intelligent liberal line, the kind espoused by educated gentlefolk such as Elena Kagan and Brad DeLong, which you do not toe. Congratulations.

You say that [its low overturn rate] as though it undermines the proposition that the 11th Circuit is ideologically right wing. You say it as though it means something in an era in which the Supreme Court is dominated by committed conservative judicial activists, strongly sympathetic to an ideologically right wing lower court.

You do realize that the current "conservative activist" Supreme Court has one of the highest rates of unanimous decisions - ever? And that the reason for the historically high unanimous decision rate is because liberal and conservative justices are uniting to unanimously overturn decisions from the 9th Circuit? Link

It was only in 1989 that a progressive Supreme Court finally vindicated womens' right to serve on juries against a Louisiana law barring them from doing so.

Four factual errors in that sentence.

1. Taylor v. Louisiana was decided in 1975.
2. It was decided on a bipartisan, 8-1 vote, not by a "progressive" vote.
3. The issue at stake was women's representation in jury pools, not their right to serve on juries.
4. Louisiana law didn't bar women from doing anything.

At the time, conservative commentators called the Supreme Court "radical," "communist," and "activist."

The sole conservative dissent was by William Rehnquist, who was opposed on procedural grounds. Not a single utterance against women.

If you can cite a single conservative commentator referring to this case as "communism," I will change my mind about the falsity of your claim.

Whatever rationalizations you can come up with for each individual case, it's rather striking how consistently across different policy areas Republican policy is actively hostile to the interests of women. You suppose this is unconnected coincidence...

Everything is connected, there's a vast conspiracy, we're at war... are you listening to Glenn Beck?
 
2012-05-06 01:42:10 AM

vernonFL: Yeah, I'm glad that Republicans are so interested now in protecting religious freedom. I remember when they stood firm for religious freedom when muslims wanted to build a Mosque in downtown Manhattan.


The Republicans who opposed that were wrong. I strongly opposed that decision.

However, it's better to be inconstant than constantly wrong, and I'm glad the Republicans have decided to support the religious freedom of Catholic institutions.
 
2012-05-06 01:45:09 AM

Mavent: The moment Obama mentions that he's swung a deal with insurance providers to cover birth control for FREE, suddenly Republicans have their panties in a wad over it...


Please tell me that you don't actually believe it's free.
 
2012-05-06 01:49:39 AM

Captain Dan: vernonFL: Yeah, I'm glad that Republicans are so interested now in protecting religious freedom. I remember when they stood firm for religious freedom when muslims wanted to build a Mosque in downtown Manhattan.

The Republicans who opposed that were wrong. I strongly opposed that decision.

However, it's better to be inconstant than constantly wrong, and I'm glad the Republicans have decided to support the religious freedom of Catholic institutions.


Denying medical care to people because of your personal religious beliefs is where your "freedom" ends. The health and well-being of fellow humans trumps archaic doctrine every single time.
 
2012-05-06 01:55:32 AM

Lionel Mandrake: I completely disagree with your take. You seem eager to make excuses. All of these "concerns" have been absent for 30, 40, 50 years, but all of a sudden they are deeply critical issues for "conservatives."


The Republican Party has become more religiously conservative in the past 30 years, and it has shifted more and more of its energy in that time towards eliminating abortion.

The past two years have feature some of the numerically greatest Republican state-legislature majorities in history. They are implementing conservative legislation that never had a chance before, and some of that includes legislation designed to limit abortion.

What the hell is the motive you understand for trans-vaginal ultrasounds?

Preventing abortions. I don't agree, but I see the logic.

All these laws you "understand" boil down to "You aren't capable of making a decision on your own, darling, so the government is going to force you through a painful procedure to help you, OK, sweetheart?" And why is contraception all of a sudden a religious liberty issue? What's up with this sudden deluge of government intrusion into the sex life of women??

The government is not doing anything, at all, to change the status of contraception. Democrats want to change the status quo to force religious institutions to provide birth control. Republicans oppose this change, because they view it as an infringement on religious liberty.

As I have stated above, I am pro-choice and disagree with the Republican anti-abortion initiatives. But I understand why they are being passed. It's not misogyny or sadism, just a desire to abolish abortion.
 
2012-05-06 02:04:03 AM
Now I'm just left wondering what high ranking member of the GOP slipped this into the bill in order to protect his buddies who run a human trafficking ring.
 
2012-05-06 02:07:52 AM

Keizer_Ghidorah: Denying medical care to people because of your personal religious beliefs is where your "freedom" ends. The health and well-being of fellow humans trumps archaic doctrine every single time.


Are you dismissing the Constitution as archaic doctrine? It's the 1st Amendment, not Catholic dogma, that ultimately protects the freedom of the Catholic Church to do what it wants without interference from the federal government.
 
2012-05-06 02:11:10 AM

Captain Dan: Lionel Mandrake: I completely disagree with your take. You seem eager to make excuses. All of these "concerns" have been absent for 30, 40, 50 years, but all of a sudden they are deeply critical issues for "conservatives."

The Republican Party has become more religiously conservative in the past 30 years, and it has shifted more and more of its energy in that time towards eliminating abortion.


Wrong. It's shifted its energy into shaming women and restricting reproductive rights. If they cared about preventing abortion, they would:

1. Fund and encourage comprehensive sex education, rather than attempt to replace it with abstinence-only.
2. Support free and/or easy access to many forms of birth control, as well as comprehensive education for using them properly, rather than reduce access.
3. Put efforts into funding and reforming the adoption system, making adoption an easier and more appealing option.
4. Endorse more assistance (federal, state, or church) for young/single/poor parents, rather than attempt to take it away.
5. Provide honest, informative counseling for women seeking abortions, rather than fearmongering and lies.

And above all else, if the Religious Right sincerely cared about reducing the number of abortions rather than imposing their beliefs on others, they would:

6. Stop attacking Planned Parenthood and instead set up more locations, because Planned Parenthood provides most of the above. Planned Parenthood does more to prevent abortions than these assholes ever will.
 
2012-05-06 02:28:26 AM

Captain Dan: Lionel Mandrake: I completely disagree with your take. You seem eager to make excuses. All of these "concerns" have been absent for 30, 40, 50 years, but all of a sudden they are deeply critical issues for "conservatives."

The Republican Party has become more religiously conservative in the past 30 years, and it has shifted more and more of its energy in that time towards eliminating abortion.

The past two years have feature some of the numerically greatest Republican state-legislature majorities in history. They are implementing conservative legislation that never had a chance before, and some of that includes legislation designed to limit abortion.

What the hell is the motive you understand for trans-vaginal ultrasounds?

Preventing abortions. I don't agree, but I see the logic.

All these laws you "understand" boil down to "You aren't capable of making a decision on your own, darling, so the government is going to force you through a painful procedure to help you, OK, sweetheart?" And why is contraception all of a sudden a religious liberty issue? What's up with this sudden deluge of government intrusion into the sex life of women??

The government is not doing anything, at all, to change the status of contraception. Democrats want to change the status quo to force religious institutions to provide birth control. Republicans oppose this change, because they view it as an infringement on religious liberty.


Yeah, ALL OF A SUDDEN. I've been voting and following politics for 25 years, this is the first time "religious liberty" has ever been an issue vis-à-vis contraception. But this is because conservatism is dead, and radicalism ihas taken its place. RIP, Conservatives.

As I have stated above, I am pro-choice and disagree with the Republican anti-abortion initiatives. But I understand why they are being passed. It's not misogyny or sadism, just a desire to abolish abortion.

Well, that's your opinion, and you're entitled to it. And I'm entitled to disagree, which I do. Preventing abortion is surely a big part of it, but it's not the only motivation.

But, that's OK. The GOP can have their radical, big government intrusion.

The Dems will be happy to take the women's vote in return.

Knock yourselves out, "conservatives"
 
2012-05-06 02:30:46 AM

Dan the Schman: Every single one negatively effects women exclusively, or significantly more than men. That's not by coincidence, it's by design.


Disparate impact is not the same thing as discrimination. If you believe that the compelling factor behind this legislation is misogyny, rather than anti-abortion sentiment, then you are faced with the daunting task of explaining its overwhelming support amongst conservative women.

Secondly, to this point in particular, you are so incredibly wrong that you lose all credibility. Either you're lying with this blatantly false explanation...

Look, if I were going to to lie, I'd do so in a way that would ingratiate me to the Fark readership. There's little upside in offering the minority report. I'm not lying, not trolling, and not trying to get a rise.

Georgetown isn't a church, it's a university which receives millions of dollars from the government, which means it doesn't have the same freedoms as churches.

The enduring constitutional consensus has held that the wall of separation between church & state is not actually limited to a physical church. Georgetown is a religious institution.

The fact that Republicans tried to falsely frame this as a "religious freedom" issue, and falsely claimed that Georgetown has "moral objections" to "providing birth control" proves that they know they'd lose if people knew the facts of the matter.

Georgetown does have moral objections to providing birth control! In the majority of cases, even. They approve of birth control only for medical necessity, and reject it as a method of preventing pregnancy, hence why 2/3rds of petitions for birth control were rejected.
 
2012-05-06 02:42:49 AM

Dan the Schman: If they cared about preventing abortion, they would:

[Items #1-6]


I agree completely that comprehensive sex education and freely available birth control would do the most to limit the number of abortions. I enthusiastically support each item on your list.

However, it is common for people and political parties to desire one goal, and to act counterproductively. That's a policy failure, not a moral one.
 
2012-05-06 02:43:08 AM

Captain Dan: They approve of birth control only for medical necessity, and reject it as a method of preventing pregnancy, hence why 2/3rds of petitions for birth control were rejected.


Am I stupid or is preventing pregnancy not a way of preventing abortions?
 
2012-05-06 02:49:54 AM

Captain Dan: That's a policy failure, not a moral one.


So one could say that Republican policy is a failure after all.
 
2012-05-06 02:53:17 AM

Lionel Mandrake: Yeah, ALL OF A SUDDEN. I've been voting and following politics for 25 years, this is the first time "religious liberty" has ever been an issue vis-à-vis contraception. But this is because conservatism is dead, and radicalism has taken its place. RIP, Conservatives.

But, that's OK. The GOP can have their radical, big government intrusion. The Dems will be happy to take the women's vote in return.


You're probably going to be disappointed to read that I agree with your assessment about conservative overreach. Even though I doubt misogyny ever entered the GOP's minds while crafting anti-abortion legislation, or advocating against contraceptive mandates, they should have picked their battles. Appearances matter.

This is going to cost the Republican Party some votes, and was entirely preventable. My suspicion (maybe hope is the better word) is that the Party will quickly shift its agenda to limit the electoral harm incurred.
 
2012-05-06 02:56:13 AM

Pharque-it: So one could say that Republican policy is a failure after all.


I think that the Republican policy of abstinence-only education is a failure. The Democrats are right on this issue.
 
2012-05-06 03:47:06 AM

Captain Dan: Lionel Mandrake: Yeah, ALL OF A SUDDEN. I've been voting and following politics for 25 years, this is the first time "religious liberty" has ever been an issue vis-à-vis contraception. But this is because conservatism is dead, and radicalism has taken its place. RIP, Conservatives.

But, that's OK. The GOP can have their radical, big government intrusion. The Dems will be happy to take the women's vote in return.

You're probably going to be disappointed to read that I agree with your assessment about conservative overreach. Even though I doubt misogyny ever entered the GOP's minds while crafting anti-abortion legislation, or advocating against contraceptive mandates, they should have picked their battles. Appearances matter.


Why would that disappoint me? Other than disagreeing with you that misogyny plays no roll, I'm well aware that we are largely on the same page. Also, I wouldn't call it "conservative overreach," but rather "conservative capitulation to radicalism"

This is going to cost the Republican Party some votes, and was entirely preventable. My suspicion (maybe hope is the better word) is that the Party will quickly shift its agenda to limit the electoral harm incurred.

It will likely cost them a lot of votes. There's no chance of a "quick" shift because their numbers among women have been steadily dropping and they keep digging. I don't know where they think these policies are gaining them support, or how they can possibly think it is worth pissing off the largest voting demographic (women), but the futility of this pursuit was obvious months ago amd yet, as I said, they keep digging.
 
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 »






Report