| Is there a Republican War Against Women? |
| Duh, of course |
|
69% |
[ 23 ] |
| Duh, I don't know |
|
0% |
[ 0 ] |
| Duh, of course not |
|
21% |
[ 7 ] |
| Duh, just show the results |
|
9% |
[ 3 ] |
|
| Total Votes : 33 |
|
Delphiki
Launchie
Joined: Apr 15, 2012
Age: 23
Posts: 1350
Location: My own version of reality
|
 Posted: Wed Apr 25, 2012 12:22 am Post subject: |
 |
|
[quote="Vexcalibur"] | Delphiki wrote: | | Yeah that would make a lot of sense. A war against 50% of the people that vote for you |
Don't shoot the messenger.
I was talking about the phrase, I had written more the internet went bad and it didn't post. I am not sure what you are referring too |
|
| Back to top |
|
Declension
Phoenix
Joined: Jan 21, 2012
Posts: 1654
|
| Posted: Wed Apr 25, 2012 1:45 am Post subject: |
|
|
| hyperlexian wrote: | | i wondered if female politicians are taken more seriously if they are conservative than if they are liberal |
If you get somebody on your team who is in a category which the enemy team often claims that you hate, then you've struck gold. If you want to be anti-Islam, then you should get a spokesperson who is a dark-skinned ex-Muslim, like Ayaan Hirsi Ali. If you want to defend American libertarianism, then you should get a black spokesperson from a working-class background, like Thomas Sowell. If you want to propose more taxes on the rich, then you should get a rich spokesperson, like Warren Buffett. If you want to defend American imperialism, then you should get an ex-leftie spokesperson who isn't from America, like Christopher Hitchens.
These people exist by the laws of probability, but they are chosen for cynical reasons. |
|
| Back to top |
|
unduki
Phoenix
Joined: Oct 22, 2011
Posts: 651
|
| Posted: Wed Apr 25, 2012 2:23 am Post subject: |
|
|
| No. There's a democrat war against republicans. It's stupid and divisive. It seems the democrat way these days is to attack the messenger any way they can and forsake all reason in discussing anything of importance. |
|
| Back to top |
|
LKL
Phoenix
Joined: Jul 22, 2007
Age: 37
Posts: 5689
|
| Posted: Wed Apr 25, 2012 4:32 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Declension wrote: | | hyperlexian wrote: | | i wondered if female politicians are taken more seriously if they are conservative than if they are liberal |
If you get somebody on your team who is in a category which the enemy team often claims that you hate, then you've struck gold. If you want to be anti-Islam, then you should get a spokesperson who is a dark-skinned ex-Muslim, like Ayaan Hirsi Ali. If you want to defend American libertarianism, then you should get a black spokesperson from a working-class background, like Thomas Sowell. If you want to propose more taxes on the rich, then you should get a rich spokesperson, like Warren Buffett. If you want to defend American imperialism, then you should get an ex-leftie spokesperson who isn't from America, like Christopher Hitchens.
These people exist by the laws of probability, but they are chosen for cynical reasons. |
QFT |
|
| Back to top |
|
LunaticOnTheGrass
Snowy Owl
Joined: Mar 14, 2012
Age: 19
Posts: 136
Location: Under the Sun, in tune.
|
| Posted: Wed Apr 25, 2012 8:42 am Post subject: |
|
|
| unduki wrote: | | No. There's a democrat war against republicans. It's stupid and divisive. It seems the democrat way these days is to attack the messenger any way they can and forsake all reason in discussing anything of importance. |
...Examples? |
|
| Back to top |
|
visagrunt
Polymath
Joined: Oct 17, 2009
Age: 45
Posts: 5754
Location: Vancouver, BC
|
| Posted: Wed Apr 25, 2012 11:42 am Post subject: |
|
|
| unduki wrote: | | No. There's a democrat war against republicans. It's stupid and divisive. It seems the democrat way these days is to attack the messenger any way they can and forsake all reason in discussing anything of importance. |
Have you picked up a newspaper or turned on the television in the last two millenia?!?
The politics of divisiveness, and messages aimed at the lowest common denominator are not creations of the Democrats (or the Republicans for that matter), they preexist both of those political parties. Partisans have been slinging mud at their opponents since the days of Athens!
And before you start proclaiming the lily-white purity of the Republicans, take a long, hard look at the tactics of Karl "turd blossom" Rove.
Now, I will grant you that the, "War on Women" is an overly simplistic message, designed to be worked into many a sound bite. But so long as Republicans continue to propose legislation that women (and their supporters) perceive as an attack on women's civil liberties, you can be damn sure that the label's gonna stick.
As for
| Delphiki wrote: | | Yeah that would make a lot of sense. A war against 50% of the people that vote for you |
Anyone who believes that 50% of Republican voters are women can't do 5th grade arithmetic.
_________________
--James |
|
| Back to top |
|
Vexcalibur
Proud to be smug as heck
![]()
Joined: Jan 18, 2008
Posts: 5378
|
| Posted: Wed Apr 25, 2012 1:35 pm Post subject: |
|
|
It is not really a war against women.
It is actually a war against religious freedom and to impose "Christian" values. That's what keeps republicans popular with some women. Gals like Michelle Bachman and Sarah Palin are theocrat extremists.
That the "Christian" values that the republicans are currently enforcing happen to be that women enjoying sex is evil and that pregnancy is deserved punishment for this sin is just a mere unlucky side effect.
_________________
. |
|
| Back to top |
|
abacacus
Rock 'N Roll Outlaw
Joined: Apr 16, 2007
Age: 21
Posts: 3316
|
| Posted: Wed Apr 25, 2012 1:57 pm Post subject: |
|
|
After some thought, my vote went to yes. I simply can't see all the bills designed to remove womens rights in any other way.
Republicans are, it seems, actively trying to delegate women back to second class citizens.
_________________
A shot gun blast into the face of deceit
You'll gain your just reward.
We'll not rest until the purge is complete
You will reap what you've sown. |
|
| Back to top |
|
Billybones
Snowy Owl
Joined: Jan 28, 2012
Posts: 133
|
| Posted: Wed Apr 25, 2012 2:54 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Tim_Tex wrote: | If there was a Republican war against women, why would they have people like Sarah Palin and Michelle Bachmann in their midst?
They are not banning abortion, they are trying to make sure that people make an informed decision before doing so. That's what the sonograms are for. And even the majority of pro-life people support exceptions for rape, incest, and potential dangers to the mother. |
And 100 years ago, if black people really wanted equal rights, why did they have Booker T. Washington in their midst? Or better yet, if Republican Party was hostile to civil rights, why do they have Clarence Thomas in their midst? Nevermind that he's against everything that the civil rights movement fought for, he does have black skin, right? I'm saying these things only to point out the absurdity of the above comment.
The fact of the matter is that the Republican Party very much IS trying to put a stop to abortion. Just read their platform if you have any questions. They can't ban it directly because this would contravene current law (the Roe v. Wade decision) & immediately be stayed by the courts. But they ARE quite serious about packing the Supreme Court with hard-right judges, toward the goal of overturning that decision.
In the meantime, the Republicans are, in the U.S. Congress and in state legislatures across the country, trying to make the process of getting an abortion so cumbersome, humiliating, invasive & expensive as to be practically not an option for women. That's the point of the ultrasound & vaginal probe laws they are trying to enact. That's the point of the "waiting periods" now required by law. That's the point in requiring women to receive anti-abortion "counseling" from conservative religious activists officially sanctioned by the state to play that role. Republican lawmakers are enacting regulations on abortion providers in the guise of "health" & "safety", but actually intended to be so burdensome as to force them to close. They are also trying to stop private insurance providers from covering abortion & contraception, & to defund Planned Parenthood. These are facts - just look at their record.
It is extremely disingenuous to suggest that these measures are simply for health & safety & to help women make an "informed" decision about something highly personal as this. I guess the presumption is that a woman facing this decision & considering abortion is too stupid & uninformed to make the correct decision, so the state will have to step in. So, to say that the Republican Party isn't trying to outlaw abortion is outright FALSE. |
|
| Back to top |
|
techstepgenr8tion
that chatty American
Joined: Feb 07, 2005
Posts: 14832
Location: A beautiful vector among many
|
| Posted: Wed Apr 25, 2012 4:22 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Yes. They're waging a war against both women and white people right now. Losing both wars terribly. |
|
| Back to top |
|
Billybones
Snowy Owl
Joined: Jan 28, 2012
Posts: 133
|
| Posted: Wed Apr 25, 2012 4:25 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| techstepgenr8tion wrote: | | Yes. They're waging a war against both women and white people right now. Losing both wars terribly. |
But this is a party that makes its living appealing to the fears and prejudices of (less educated) white people. |
|
| Back to top |
|
techstepgenr8tion
that chatty American
Joined: Feb 07, 2005
Posts: 14832
Location: A beautiful vector among many
|
| Posted: Wed Apr 25, 2012 4:26 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Billybones wrote: | | techstepgenr8tion wrote: | | Yes. They're waging a war against both women and white people right now. Losing both wars terribly. |
But this is a party that makes its living appealing to the fears and prejudices of (less educated) white people. |
Mmmm....you're thinking of 'both'. |
|
| Back to top |
|
unduki
Phoenix
Joined: Oct 22, 2011
Posts: 651
|
| Posted: Wed Apr 25, 2012 7:29 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Instead of deciding between the two KNOWN evils, vote for Ron Paul.
_________________
Life isn't about waiting for the storm to pass; it's about learning to dance in the rain. |
|
| Back to top |
|
techstepgenr8tion
that chatty American
Joined: Feb 07, 2005
Posts: 14832
Location: A beautiful vector among many
|
| Posted: Wed Apr 25, 2012 9:01 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Lol, right, and bring that to three known evils. I think we'll do that once our nation is fixed up economically and things are coasting easy. At the moment things are a bit too close to the edge. |
|
| Back to top |
|
Dox47
Consigliere
Joined: Jan 29, 2008
Posts: 5181
Location: Seattle Area
|
| Posted: Wed Apr 25, 2012 10:10 pm Post subject: |
|
|
This must be the slow boat...
| David Weigel wrote: | The “War on Women” Is Over
The life cycle of a political talking point, from birth to adolescence to death.
By David Weigel|Posted Thursday, April 12, 2012, at 6:37 PM ET
A moment of silence, please, for a talking point that was taken too soon. The “war on women” began its life in a February 2011 House speech about abortion. After a short life as a Democratic hobby horse, it died during the second week of April 2012. The cause of death: Rosengate, the latest and least explicable battle in the Umbrage Wars.
On Wednesday, in her capacity as a CNN political analyst, Democratic strategist Hilary Rosen laughed at Mitt Romney’s claim that he stayed in touch with the economy through his wife, Ann. “His wife has never actually worked a day in her life,” said Rosen.
Over the next 24 hours, the Romney campaign managed to make Democrats—including First Lady Michelle Obama—stop what they were doing and denounce Rosen, who does not work for the Obama-Biden campaign or the Democratic National Committee. “The issues of stay-at-home moms and women being hurt by the economy are not good turf for [the Democrats],” explained RNC deputy communications director Tim Miller. “Their ‘war on women,’ which was milked for weeks, is definitely no longer. They have the woman problem right now.”
Even a dead talking point can teach us something. The “war on women” was a fitfully successful frame for Democrats to describe anti-abortion bills, then anti-equal-pay legislation.
Birth: The war on women line was born during the debate over the long-forgotten No Taxpayer Funding for Abortion Act. The midwife was a man: Rep. Jerry Nadler of New York. “This legislation,” he said on Feb. 9, 2011, “represents an entirely new front in the war on women and their families.”
The bill—one of many that would pass John Boehner’s House and run aground in the Senate—was a mess. It would have prevented the use of any tax benefits to pay for abortions, and in its original version provided an out only in cases of “forcible rape.” Democrats, bruised and humbled by their landslide 2010 losses, started raising money with war-drum emails about the threat to choice. The newborn talking point rolled off the tongue and straight into press releases: The Center for American Progress described the bill as “the Right’s War on Women.” Planned Parenthood protested the doomed bill with pre-printed “War on Women” signs.
Awkward childhood: Rep. Debbie Wasserman Schultz, one of her party’s rising stars, started using the war on women line in March 2011. Nobody noticed. When she became the chairwoman of the Democratic National Committee in May 2011, people started noticing. She noshed at a Christian Science Monitor breakfast on May 26, after the House had voted to ban any taxpayer money from going to Planned Parenthood. “The war on women that the Republicans have been waging since they took over the House,” she said, “I think is going to not only restore but possibly helps us exceed the president's margin of victory in the next election.”
|
[mod edit: article truncated for copyright reasons]
http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/politics/2012/04/hilary_rosen_ann_romney_the_birth_adolescence_and_death_of_the_democrats_war_on_women_talking_point_.single.html
_________________
Unconditional allegiance is the surest way to render one’s beliefs and agenda irrelevant
Any power that government has to do something you like will invariably be used for something you abhor
Murum aries attigit |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
