The republicans war on women blurt thread

[NeverEndingMe]

clearly we need a new labor law that if a worker receives a paper cut, well clearly this person needs union protection and should be allowed to recuperate at home for one month. full pay of course

 

[richard_daily]

"Deep thoughts, with Eeyore and Jeninflorida."

 

[busybody..]

No one in the thread talks honor killings in US

All this shit of war on women is BS

 

[NeverEndingMe]

"Deep thoughts, with Eeyore and Jeninflorida."

you are one sorry human. are you even human or just some thug from the streets? how long have you been on welfare?

how long was your father in prison, wait, do you know who your daddy is?


lastly, why are you so obsessed with this Jen? do you dream about her? at night, do you scream out her name?

I can only assume you were calling me Jen, since you are just as ignorant as Merc

 

[TexasWife25]

So how many women will benefit from not having the interest rates on their student loans increase by 100%?

Or, do you intentionally ignore those women who benefit because it doesn't fit your war on republicans?

BTW:

Since you seem all into championing women politically...

...perhaps you can tell us how many of the following cities - the most physically dangerous to women - are governed by republicans:



1. Saginaw, Michigan
2. Anchorage, Alaska
3. Fairbanks, Alaska
4. Springfield, Illinoiswhic
5. Redding, California
6. Flint, Michigan
7. Pine Bluff, Arkansas
8. Lawton, Oklahoma
9. Battle Creek, Michigan
10. Memphis, Tennessee

I began looking at the mayorships and city councils of some of the listed, and would you even believe how many women and Democrats are in the leadership of these cities?

As always, a very interesting post, although most of it is not on topic.

Can we at least agree, that its rather foolish politics, in a time where the media is buzzing about the GOP's war on women, to choose to cut womens health benefits to pay for student loan rates.

which btw, the president had already stated he would veto the bill if they choose to do that.

 

[eyer]

As always, a very interesting post, although most of it is not on topic.

Can we at least agree, that its rather foolish politics, in a time where the media is buzzing about the GOP's war on women, to choose to cut womens health benefits to pay for student loan rates.

which btw, the president had already stated he would veto the bill if they choose to do that.

Again...

...why do you intentionally ignore the women who will benefit by not having their interest rates automatically double?

And why do you intentionally ignore that the majority of lawmakers in the 10 most dangerous cities for women...

...are Democrat and many of them are female?

 

[Peregrinator]

Off topic somewhat:

"A conservative is a man with two perfectly good legs who, however, has never learned to walk forward."
— Franklin D. Roosevelt

There's something oddly unsettling about this quote coming from a guy in a wheelchair.

 

[TexasWife25]

Again...

...why do you intentionally ignore the women who will benefit by not having their interest rates automatically double?

And why do you intentionally ignore that the majority of lawmakers in the 10 most dangerous cities for women...

...are Democrat and many of them are female?

Well, because this thread is about new laws that are passed that have direct negative effects on women specifically.

If you'd like to post recent laws that those democratic cities passed that you consider anti-women, then THAT would be on topic.

Also, are you really arguing that cutting money earmarked for womens cancer screening isnt anti women because some women have student loans and will benefit from that?

I have student loans, of course I dont want loan rates to increase, but out of all the things that the GOP could have chosen to cut from the new health care law, cutting cervical cancer screening money, in a time where they are having serious issues with women voters, was beyond foolish.

 

[unregistered]

 

[renard_ruse]

All this shit of war on women is BS

Obviously, the whole thing is complete, utter, and total BS. Feminism is not only anti-man (obviously), but anti-woman, anti-heterosexual couple and family, and anti-society. Feminism is a War on Everything.

http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_euHCAaiI3S4/TKEovdbbq7I/AAAAAAAAHYU/PXhKjkNk6r0/s1600/33640_163365940343978_163359650344607_567048_7408031_n.jpg

 

[about_average]

No one in the thread talks honor killings in US

Exactly how is murder relevant to restrictive laws that target primarily, or only, women?
Are you suggesting that somewhere there's a law in the US that permits "honor" killings?
As far as I know murder is illegal in every square inch of the US, but maybe you know otherwise.

Or are you just mentioning it, as usual, in order to divert attention from the fact you have no arguments?

 

[eyer]

The fact is women are in the most physical danger in cities which Democrats mostly govern...

...yet you choose to completely dismiss that mortal danger in favor of continuing to attack republicans for not championing more socialist intervention like the Democrats do who rule over the cities that are the most physically dangerous to women.

You choose to assault republicans who, iyo, cut costs that happen to affect women...

...while you intentionally ignore the women who are being murdered, raped, and assaulted the most in cities Democrats govern.

You deem cutting federal funding for free pap smears by republicans...

...as more relevant than the physical harm women suffer in cities ruled by Democrats.

So, yeah...

...you're nothing but another friggin' partisan fluffer.


[...either that, or just mercury1/4 posing as his "wife".]

 

[TexasWife25]

The fact is women are in the most physical danger in cities which Democrats mostly govern...

...yet you choose to completely dismiss that mortal danger in favor of continuing to attack republicans for not championing more socialist intervention like the Democrats do who rule over the cities that are the most physically dangerous to women.

You choose to assault republicans who, iyo, cut costs that happen to affect women...

...while you intentionally ignore the women who are being murdered, raped, and assaulted the most in cities Democrats govern.

You deem cutting federal funding for free pap smears by republicans...

...as more relevant than the physical harm women suffer in cities ruled by Democrats.

So, yeah...

...you're nothing but another friggin' partisan fluffer.


[...either that, or just mercury1/4 posing as his "wife".]

Eyer, if you feel that the democrats in charge are the REASON those cities are dangerous, feel more then free to blurt about the laws that they have enacted that make those cites so dangerous for women.

There's a difference between causation and correlation.


I am "assaulting" LAWS, that I feel are anti-womens rights. I notice while several people have stopped by to post about how this is all "BS", no one has tried to argue that I am mistaken about the actual laws.

edit- why do you think Im Mercurys wife? Because Im female, and socially liberal, then obviously Im an alt?

 

[BoyNextDoor]

Education vs. Women's Health is not exactly the "Guns vs. Butter" debate that should be happening on Capitol Hill.

How about 10 less F-35 joint strike fighters? How about stopping the $255million on tanks even the Pentagon does not want?

It is easy to see the Republican war on Women when they say screw you to the children of the middle class and say if you want to be educated you have to side with us against women's health issues when the GOP could have done the balancing against the tanks even the Pentagon does not want.

There is no justification for this absurd politicking. The GOP may as well hand Obama the White House for another term.

 

[NeverEndingMe]

No, that is just insane.

the only solution is more taxes so that we can have those thanks and F-35 and free health insurance for everyone!

the only solution for a recession, is massive government spending so that future generations will become slaves to Government!

long live the regime

Education vs. Women's Health is not exactly the "Guns vs. Butter" debate that should be happening on Capitol Hill.

How about 10 less F-35 joint strike fighters? How about stopping the $255million on tanks even the Pentagon does not want?

It is easy to see the Republican war on Women when they say screw you to the children of the middle class and say if you want to be educated you have to side with us against women's health issues when the GOP could have done the balancing against the tanks even the Pentagon does not want.

There is no justification for this absurd politicking. The GOP may as well hand Obama the White House for another term.

 

[Sean Renaud]

I dunno, there are enough people like Jen here that hate women that Obama might have to try to win. It's unlikely but possible.

 

[about_average]

There's a difference between causation and correlation.

Apparently not in his mind. By his logic the 9-11 attacks were Bush's fault, since he was president when they took place, and the Beirut barracks bombing was Reagen's fault.

 

[Sean Renaud]

The Derp is strong with that one.

 

[unregistered]

 

[eyer]

Apparently not in his mind. By his logic the 9-11 attacks were Bush's fault, since he was president when they took place, and the Beirut barracks bombing was Reagen's fault.

Actually...

...not completely annihilating al Qaeda and their Taliban hosts after 9/11 was definitely neoconservative Bush II's fault.

Just as funding the Taliban today while they kill as many Americans as they can with that money is social democrat Obama's fault.

The primary fault of 9/11, though, lies at the feet of social democrat Clinton...

...who - despite presiding over the first al Qaeda attack on the World Trade Center - declined numerous times after the attack to cut-off al Qaeda's head before its body had fully grown.

Not declaring war on the Islamic Republic of Iran and wiping their proxy Hezbollah from the face of the earth was definitely prototypical neoconservative Reagan's fault...

...just as it was neocon Bush I's and Clinton's fault for also allowing the Islamic Republic of Iran and their proxy Hezbollah to continue to underwrite in all ways so much of the state of terrorism as we know it today.

Alas, so too is the continued - and, in most instances increasing - danger that confronts women in the most dangerous cities the fault of those neocons and social democrats legislators, elected to protect and defend all.

You bozos are just too big of hacks and sexists to see the world beyond your preferred Party and piss piece...

...that is why there is absolutely no news to what you bring to your partisan table.

 

[IrezumiKiss]

Maybe you ought to look at how much energy they put into enforcing the law.

Or maybe the question should be answered directly instead of being constantly deflected towards irrelevant squawk that has nothing to do with the original topic.

 

[eyer]

I am "assaulting" LAWS, that I feel are anti-womens rights. I notice while several people have stopped by to post about how this is all "BS", no one has tried to argue that I am mistaken about the actual laws.

Over 40 million human lives have been murdered since 1973...

...directly attributed to one "law" championed overwhelmingly by Democrat Party women and men.

At least half - over 20 million - of those murdered were female...

...that's just not your "anti-womens rights", for there exists no other "law" that's more blatantly anti-woman life.

But, just as the overwhelming percentage of socialists everywhere...

...you will not "assault" that law in defense of those females killed either, will you?

 

[about_average]

Over 40 million human lives have been murdered since 1973...

http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-vmHukyWYYdA/To5LxngOrHI/AAAAAAAAAKA/Ng9F4FgLp4w/s1600/straws.jpg

 

[TexasWife25]

Over 40 million human lives have been murdered since 1973...

Ah, I understand now. Thank you Eyer.

 

[unregistered]