| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
vientomas
Joined: 25 Apr 2000
Posts: 2343
|
 Posted: Tue Nov 21, 2017 4:21 pm Post subject: |
 |
|
| nw30 wrote: | | vientomas wrote: | | nw30 wrote: | The conservative "war on women" continues.
 |
What has been playing out in the media as of late, men abusing women, is a reflection of humanity that spans centuries and predates the labels conservative and liberal.
Anyone who thinks such behavior is confined to one particular political party is very small minded.
Furthermore, where is the compassion for the victims NW30? Do you think a victim cares about the political persuasion of their abuser?
I suppose that you have volunteered at the local domestic violence shelter NW30? I have. |
This is not a thread about the abuse of women, it's a thread about the hypocrisy of the dems claiming they are the party for women, and the republicans have always conducted a "war on women", according to the dems.
The chickennnnnnns are coming hommmmmme, to rooooooooooost.
If you feel like starting a new thread that is only about the abuse of women, be my guest, nobody is stopping you. |
More women identify as democrats...based on their own opinion. Not what a man told them to do. So if the Democratic Party is the party of women, it's because women made that choice. Are you going to take the position that all of the women who identify as democrats have been fooled into doing so? That;s not giving women much credit is it NW? That's a sexist position for you to take. Are you a sexist?
"A new Gallup analysis of almost 150,000 interviews conducted from January through May of this year sheds new light on the substantial gender gap that exists in American politics today. Not only are women significantly more likely than men to identify as Democrats, and less likely to identify as independents, but -- with only slight variation -- this gap is evident across all ages, from 18 to 85, and within all major racial, ethnic, and marital-status segments of society."
http://news.gallup.com/poll/120839/women-likely-democrats-regardless-age.aspx |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
nw30
Joined: 21 Dec 2008
Posts: 6485
Location: The eye of the universe, Cen. Cal. coast
|
| Posted: Tue Nov 21, 2017 6:29 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Thank you for reinforcing my point, of course there are probably more women democrats than any other party, they've been fed that notion that the dems are the party "for" women for years, not the party "of" women as you incorrectly assumed I said. They've been sold that notion for years, which is also why they are getting so upset, did you see the two women partners of Charlie Rose on CBS morning news today? They are apoplectic over Rose's behavior, and rightly so, they thought he was on their side.
You calling me sexist is like mac calling me a misogynist because I didn't like Hillary, and calling me a racist because I didn't like Obama, cheap bullshit, nothing more. Unfortunately there are 1000's of macs out there, and you seem to be trying to be another one.
BTW, you have a perfect avatar, it's fitting. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
mac
Joined: 07 Mar 1999
Posts: 17749
Location: Berkeley, California
|
| Posted: Tue Nov 21, 2017 7:57 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| nw30 wrote: | Thank you for reinforcing my point, of course there are probably more women democrats than any other party, they've been fed that notion that the dems are the party "for" women for years, not the party "of" women as you incorrectly assumed I said. They've been sold that notion for years, which is also why they are getting so upset, did you see the two women partners of Charlie Rose on CBS morning news today? They are apoplectic over Rose's behavior, and rightly so, they thought he was on their side.
You calling me sexist is like mac calling me a misogynist because I didn't like Hillary, and calling me a racist because I didn't like Obama, cheap bullshit, nothing more. Unfortunately there are 1000's of macs out there, and you seem to be trying to be another one.
BTW, you have a perfect avatar, it's fitting. |
Silly silly NW. Men from the Republican party have tried to take away women's right to abortion and access to contraception. They have blocked, or tried to block, all efforts at comparable pay for comparable work. I could provide a list of the 20 most hostile to women comments by "conservatives", or your 3 most misogynist postings, but that would please you. A war on women indeed, and the bad behavior of pigs--in both parties, in media, in show biz, and in industry--doesn't alter that. But if you could think critically instead of troll you'd know that. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
vientomas
Joined: 25 Apr 2000
Posts: 2343
|
| Posted: Tue Nov 21, 2017 8:25 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| nw30 wrote: | Thank you for reinforcing my point, of course there are probably more women democrats than any other party, they've been fed that notion that the dems are the party "for" women for years, not the party "of" women as you incorrectly assumed I said. They've been sold that notion for years, which is also why they are getting so upset, did you see the two women partners of Charlie Rose on CBS morning news today? They are apoplectic over Rose's behavior, and rightly so, they thought he was on their side.
You calling me sexist is like mac calling me a misogynist because I didn't like Hillary, and calling me a racist because I didn't like Obama, cheap bullshit, nothing more. Unfortunately there are 1000's of macs out there, and you seem to be trying to be another one.
BTW, you have a perfect avatar, it's fitting. |
No, I don't watch the "news", the same "news" you claim is biased.
Please cite one example of anyone claiming that "dems are the party "for" women". Your failure to provide an example will of course prove that you are wrong once again. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
MalibuGuru
Joined: 11 Nov 1993
Posts: 9300
|
| Posted: Wed Nov 22, 2017 12:00 am Post subject: |
|
|
| vientomas wrote: | | nw30 wrote: | Thank you for reinforcing my point, of course there are probably more women democrats than any other party, they've been fed that notion that the dems are the party "for" women for years, not the party "of" women as you incorrectly assumed I said. They've been sold that notion for years, which is also why they are getting so upset, did you see the two women partners of Charlie Rose on CBS morning news today? They are apoplectic over Rose's behavior, and rightly so, they thought he was on their side.
You calling me sexist is like mac calling me a misogynist because I didn't like Hillary, and calling me a racist because I didn't like Obama, cheap bullshit, nothing more. Unfortunately there are 1000's of macs out there, and you seem to be trying to be another one.
BTW, you have a perfect avatar, it's fitting. |
No, I don't watch the "news", the same "news" you claim is biased.
Please cite one example of anyone claiming that "dems are the party "for" women". Your failure to provide an example will of course prove that you are wrong once again. |
One word...Hillary |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
techno900
Joined: 28 Mar 2001
Posts: 4162
|
| Posted: Wed Nov 22, 2017 9:00 am Post subject: |
|
|
mac said: | Quote: | | Men from the Republican party have tried to take away women's right to abortion and access to contraception. |
I would agree with the abortion element, but "access to contraception" - Give me a break. Maybe FREE contraception, but women have had access to inexpensive contraception for a long time. Actually, I could tolerate my tax dollars paying for contraception if it indeed help stop the huge number of unwanted pregnancies, especially for low income, single or dependent women, but is it working?
Not all conservatives are anti abortion, but those in politics may feel obligated to stick with the party platform. However, many, including me believe that a women's choice about her body is hers and no one else's. The religious right throws a stick in the spokes of what I see as a conservative right to abortion, without government getting in the way. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
coboardhead
Joined: 26 Oct 2009
Posts: 4303
|
| Posted: Wed Nov 22, 2017 9:51 am Post subject: |
|
|
Techno
One of the ways the GOP has been trying to do this is to strip Planned Parenthood of ALL government funding including Medicaid reimbursement. ie, they will pay for wellness exams (not just birth control) for women if they visit a non-PP doctor but not if they visit PP.
Check out some of the health care plans presented by the GOP. They include targeted legislation to directly affect Planned Parenthood.
Medicaid pays for prostate screening but the GOP wants to not pay for PAP smears if they are provided by PP.
This is a direct assualt on poor women's heath care in the guise of pro-life. Contraceptives are only a part of women's health care. What is so disturbing to me is the attitude by so many men that sexual health for women is considered a luxury and not a necessity.
See how us rich white guys would feel if the tables were turned.
BTW. Providing this HEALTH CARE also saves money...a lot of money.
http://www.slate.com/articles/health_and_science/medical_examiner/2017/10/how_contraception_improves_health_and_saves_money.html |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
vientomas
Joined: 25 Apr 2000
Posts: 2343
|
| Posted: Wed Nov 22, 2017 10:29 am Post subject: |
|
|
| MalibuGuru wrote: | | vientomas wrote: | | nw30 wrote: | Thank you for reinforcing my point, of course there are probably more women democrats than any other party, they've been fed that notion that the dems are the party "for" women for years, not the party "of" women as you incorrectly assumed I said. They've been sold that notion for years, which is also why they are getting so upset, did you see the two women partners of Charlie Rose on CBS morning news today? They are apoplectic over Rose's behavior, and rightly so, they thought he was on their side.
You calling me sexist is like mac calling me a misogynist because I didn't like Hillary, and calling me a racist because I didn't like Obama, cheap bullshit, nothing more. Unfortunately there are 1000's of macs out there, and you seem to be trying to be another one.
BTW, you have a perfect avatar, it's fitting. |
No, I don't watch the "news", the same "news" you claim is biased.
Please cite one example of anyone claiming that "dems are the party "for" women". Your failure to provide an example will of course prove that you are wrong once again. |
One word...Hillary |
Where is the quote of Hillary stating that "dems are the party "for" women"? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
mac
Joined: 07 Mar 1999
Posts: 17749
Location: Berkeley, California
|
| Posted: Wed Nov 22, 2017 12:11 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| techno900 wrote: | mac said: | Quote: | | Men from the Republican party have tried to take away women's right to abortion and access to contraception. |
I would agree with the abortion element, but "access to contraception" - Give me a break. Maybe FREE contraception, but women have had access to inexpensive contraception for a long time. Actually, I could tolerate my tax dollars paying for contraception if it indeed help stop the huge number of unwanted pregnancies, especially for low income, single or dependent women, but is it working?
Not all conservatives are anti abortion, but those in politics may feel obligated to stick with the party platform. However, many, including me believe that a women's choice about her body is hers and no one else's. The religious right throws a stick in the spokes of what I see as a conservative right to abortion, without government getting in the way. |
Techno--I do appreciate that you are a rare conservative that doesn't troll and usually has thoughtful postings. To answer your question, free contraceptive care reduces teen births, overall public costs, and abortions. All good things in my opinion. Here from the LA Times:
| Quote: |
Nina Agrawal Contact Reporter
The U.S. abortion rate has hit its lowest point since the procedure became legal nationwide in 1973, according to a new study.
The researchers estimated that there were 926,200 abortions in 2014, or 14.6 abortions for every 1,000 women of reproductive age. That was down 14% from three years earlier.
“We saw declines in abortion in almost every single state,” said Jenna Jerman, a public health researcher at the Guttmacher Institute, a reproductive rights think tank in New York, and coauthor of the study published Tuesday in the journal Perspectives on Sexual and Reproductive Health.
Though the study did not look at the reasons for the decline, the authors and other experts suggested that improved access to contraception played a big role by preventing unintended pregnancies. |
From the Nation, on the impacts of Texas' war on abortion:
| Quote: | Mainstream pro-choice politicians often say that their goal for abortion policy is for it to be “safe, legal, and rare.” As if that standard were not low enough, one state’s crusade to virtually outlaw abortion has made abortion less safe, and teen childbearing less rare. Texas, in fact, has gotten it down to a science, and handed Congress a blueprint for undermining women’s health nationwide.
While conservatives in Washington have tried for years to defund Planned Parenthood and limit federal support for reproductive-health care, Texas has pioneered a model for sabotaging the state’s family-planning services through severe budget cuts and paralyzing regulations. And we’re now seeing the effects of the state’s latest, unprecedented attack on funding for Planned Parenthood and other low-cost reproductive-health care programs. According to new economic research, the impact has been anything but “pro-life.”
According to an analysis by Miami University economist Analisa Packham, Texas’s anti-abortion crusade has been successful in one way: undermining family-planning services. But its underlying puritanical social agenda isn’t quite working as planned: Teen birth rates are up. Moreover, the jump in teen moms has been concentrated in poor communities. Basically, the religious right’s war on abortion has resulted in more teen moms, and more poor young families.
ADVERTISING
Packham’s study, which tracked childbirth rates in the three years following the enactment of the 2011 measures, shows that “defunding Texas family planning clinics led to a 3.4 percent increase in teen birth rates over four years. These effects are driven by increases in teen childbearing 2 to 3 years following the initial funding cuts and are concentrated in relatively high poverty counties.”
Conservative lawmakers have claimed that anti-abortion policies have led to a gradual decline in teen birth rates across the state over the past generation. But Packham’s analysis paints a more nuanced picture: While there has been a downward trend, Packham’s study reveals that Texas’s net decline in teen births reflects national declines since the 1990s, but that this otherwise progressive trend been offset by the state’s recent regressive anti-abortion policies.
The study punctuates a growing body of research tracking high rates of unintended pregnancy and teen childbirth in the South. Another measure of the social cost of this trend is that Texas leads the country in public spending related to social costs of unintended pregnancy—actually outspending liberal California by about 50 percent. |
To be sure, a poor woman having a baby outside of marriage dooms both her and the baby, in most cases, to poverty. The facts do matter.
And just for troller NW, who keeps making false equivalencies--and denying the anti-woman anti-choice Republican policies, even in the face of rape:
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/republican-george-faught-rape-incest-gods-will-oklahoma-house-representatives-lord-circumstances-a7645061.html
A fool from Muskogee. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
techno900
Joined: 28 Mar 2001
Posts: 4162
|
| Posted: Wed Nov 22, 2017 12:24 pm Post subject: |
|
|
coboardhead,
Yes, I understand the shortcomings of the right, buy by far, I still support conservatism much more than liberalism.
Medicaid and Obamacare pay for contraceptives, and in some states, abortion. So other than abortion counseling, what is the big issue without Planned Parenthood? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
You cannot attach files in this forum
You cannot download files in this forum
|
|
|
Search
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Register
