The requested article has expired, and is no longer available. Any related articles, and user comments are shown below.
© (c) 2014 AFPClinton says women's rights under assault by Republicans
DENVER©2024 GPlusMedia Inc.
The requested article has expired, and is no longer available. Any related articles, and user comments are shown below.
© (c) 2014 AFP
63 Comments
Login to comment
SuperLib
Everyone already knows this.
bass4funk
I knew the Dems were desperate, but this is just total schadenfreude.
Alphaape
Funny how when she was Sec. of State she didn't want to push "women's rights" as justification to do something about ISIS. After all, when she was for the war in Iraq before she was against it, she saw justification for using force to oust Saddam, yet now when we clearly see what ISIS will do to wormen and generally how they are treated in the Middle East, we get nothing from her.
One reason why I don't watch that show on CBS "Madame Secretary." Her machine has to resort to fiction to make her look good vice her own record.
Illyas
"And by women's rights, I mean the right to commit homicide."
MarkG
Your kidding right?
Nothing further from the truth. It's funny how any, and I mean ANY issue can be twisted to fit whichever category you wish to fill.
The Dems try and try. They trash opponents instead of simply disagreeing. Twist the issue to fit themselves and absolutely insult any others. This will comeback and bite them at some point in the you know what!
bass4funk
The war on women is a complete ruse as equal as the race card. I think people can see the tactics that the Dems are trying and it's not working. You could theoretically say, the Dems are the party that discriminate women by constantly undermine them, keeping them on welfare and unemployment by handing out more entitlements, thus keeping them on the governmental teat. If the Dems really cared about women, they would teach self-reliance and financial independence. With the Dems you are anti-gay, racist, sexist, you hate the environment, you hate Mexicans and Latinos and on and on and on.... The Dems are quickly running out of excuses to label the Repubs and the people are yawning. If you watched the presidents last speech, people were walking out and these are Obama supporters. Again, there is reason the Dems are most likely going to lose big this year. The people have had it with this president and the Dems in general.
Alphaape
@ bass4funk: I agree to your comments. I think it is good to have 2 parties, and both need to learn how to compromise. In the past during the 80's Reagan and Speaker "Tip" O'Neal and the Dems had disagreements, but they did learn the art of compromise. Sometimes not in the best interests of the populace, but if we got screwed over, it was by both parties. Now all we have is just a one party screw over, whether by Dems or GOP.
So much for Hillary saying that college costs are rising, yet she got over $200K from a speech at UNLV (roughly about $2K a minute). She claims they were poor when they left the White House, yet they are very wealthy now (I'm not against that at all), but don't call other being unfair in trying to better themselves and holding back someone else while you manage to "Do as I say and not as I do."
Wolfpack
It never ceases to amaze me to hear Hillary continually pushing her war on women line of BS when she spent years enabling her husband in his exploitation of multiple women from desperate widows to young immature interns. Shut up Hillary - you are the wrong messenger for the cause.
pointofview
Women should have equal rights. The problem is that the feminism movement wants more than that and have taken their eye off the ball. This has turned the womens rights issue into more of a "We take priority over you men" or "It`s payback time for the past." Just look at the family courts.
Laguna
Repubs are totally cool with Viagra covered by insurance, but then plan an end-run around the ACA by claiming that making birth control available over-the-counter is a step towards "women's rights" while failing to mention it would have to be covered out-of-pocket. These men are mendacious, and women trust their fates to them at their peril.
Illyas
There are important, common medical uses for Viagra outside of having sex. And as for birth control, the Hobby Lobby DID NOT stop subsidizing birth control for their employees, they merely objected to a few types of birth control. The most common type, the pill, is still covered.
bass4funk
The sad thing is that over the last 6 years, the Dems have in their haste to radically change the country failed at one fundamental and critical issue, they didn't listen to the people and focused more on ramming every legislation through as fast as they could and the result was and continues to be total chaos and as Alphaape said, our government was designed for equal share of power, not one overriding the other, both parties lose sight over that at times, but this admin. Has gone completely off the range. One reason why Clinton and Reagan got things done was because they reached out through the middle of the aisle, this president doesn't have that kind of intellect as smart as he claims to be. Now Hilary is trying to get herself out to prepare herself for running and the Dems have ALL their eggs in a basket with Hilary, this is it. They do have a sliver of hope just in case with "Elizabeth Warren," but that's a deep shoot in the dark. The woman is too radical and she probably wouldn't get a lot of attention from moderate Democrats.
Alphaape
I am from AR where Bill and Hillary where there. I could share stories that many in the press ignore. I know plenty of Dems in the state who were mad when the so called party leadership shifted to Obama in 2008. Made for a few interesting family debates among my people. I kept out since I was leaning GOP.
But the point others have made, a lot of Dems don't agree with the agenda that the Dem party is forcing down people's throats any more than all people who would vote GOP are fully in agreement. Hillary could win, if she just stopped trying to be "the everyperson" candidate and be herself.
I'll never forget the 2000 World Series between the Mets and the Yankees. Of course instead of trying to run for the Senate in the state that got them to the White House, Hillary changed her residency to NY, even though she had lived in AR since the 70's up until the move to the White House. At the games, it was interesting to see which team she was rooting for. Since both were from NYC, she had to choose carefully on what the focus groups told her, and how they thought the voters would respond. Never could get her to commit to a team, and the joke on the comedy shows at the time was when she was asked who she was for, she said "I'm for the team from New York."
Fast forward to today and you have the same thing. She changes to fit whatever areana she is in. Just be yourself and let the people see who you really are, and if you are that great, it should be an easy walk. After all, if the opposition is going to put up false claims you should be able to counter them with the truth, unless you can't.
Serrano
"women's rights under assault by Republicans"
This must be why Condoleeza Rice was Bush's Secretary of State, and Sarah Palin was John McCain's running mate.
SuperLib
Well the Republicans here have made it clear that there is no women problem.
Time to move on?
Laguna
I for one agree. The problem with women is that they do not understand self-reliance and financial independence, and it is up to SOMEONE to teach them. Perhaps we could set up some seminars or something. It's the same with the minimum wage: If it didn't exist, everyone would learn self-reliance and financial independence and have a great job! And also minorities - hey, America has a black president, so racial discrimination must have disappeared! What is WRONG with these people who don't understand that women, the poor, and minorities only suffer because they don't understand self-reliance and financial independence?!
SuperLib
Then after they learn their lessons they can join the fight to close abortion clinics, make voting more difficult, and block immigration reform.
All they need is a little self-reliance.
bass4funk
Will never happen! Not as long as Dems and liberals constantly bring up ludicrous statements about race and women, we will never move forward.
Actually, they suffer because the Democratic policies have sucked them into a perpetual cycle of governmental dependence. There is your underlining reason.
@super
Late term abortions, I think so.
You mean, to have an ID to help cut down on voter fraud? Huh, never knew that was racist, the same for wanting strict immigration reform, but I forget, normal countries have borders and liberals want a revolting door, let anyone come in at anytime come in, however, whenever they want. Borders are for racist people.
Laguna
B4f, your comments are not copied from an Onion article, are they?
Shh. Just like the "golden age" preceding the Civil Rights era: Don't talk about it and it doesn't exist.
("They" means the undeserving - those women and minorities who make up a pittance of those who benefit from government programs.) We could also lump those good-for-nothing old people in there.
If we have to reduce the number of abortion clinics in Texas to four to do so, that certainly wouldn't be an undue hardship to women, would it? They can just take a vacation!
As for voter ID, funny that Texas allows a gun license but not a college ID. Then again, one type is far more likely to vote Republican. Which might that be?
nath
This line of thinking is something alright. "The problem isn't with racism, it's with people that keep pointing out the fact that it exists."
bass4funk
Under Clinton's welfare program, welfare recipients went down, under Obama it's tripled. Clinton did his best to bring up the people at the bottom by giving them incentive which pushed and motivated people to get off their rear end and to seek employment, Obama is doing the exact opposite, his increased the welfare and unemployment benifit programs and has made people more dependent on the government. So it's a huge step backwards. But I keep forgetting, the president knows more about finance than a Wall St. Buyer.
Other than rape, incest or the life of the mother is in danger, there would be no need for a late term abortion, Full Term?! That's a stupid excuse for both parties involved.
I had no idea the Dems were at the forefront of Black emancipation and liberation.
http://thehill.com/blogs/ballot-box/house-races/211806-dems-push-race-issues-revving-up-their-voters
Laguna
For once, your ignorance landed on the correct side of the coin toss: It was the Republican Party that endeavored to fight for equality in the States. That was over a hundred years ago, though, and any observant human has noticed that constituencies have flipped during that time. That you continue to discuss "Black emancipation" (with a capital "B") displays this.
The bigger point is that your tone-deafness indicates that you just don't get it, and neither does the GOP. They might squeak out a majority in the Senate this year due to electoral issues, but would then lose it in 2016 - along with the next presidential election.
spahnmatthew
I believe that this so-called "war on women" is an act of desperation to win votes in November. The Dems are not running on their record, so Plan B is the well-coordinated smear campaign. Pathetic.
yabits
Yeah, the "smear campaign" means bringing to the front and publicizing the Republicans' utterly pathetic record.
Laguna
I agree to a point. Democrats should be full-voiced in defense of the ACA, for example, if only to counter Republicans like McConnell who pretend that it can be eradicated "root and branch" while those newly insured will somehow be spared. In a sense, I almost hope for a Republican victory in the Senate just to see how they would round this square.
serendipitous
bass still living in dreamland I see....
yabits
Regarding the AHCA, the Democrats would be well to point out how the Republicans predicted -- and fought hard for -- trying to get nobody to enroll in it. Remember how they said the young would not participate? Well, the number of enrollments has surpassed all expectations, proving the GOP wrong yet again.
Here in GA, we're seeing extremely tight races for governor and for the US Senate seat, where Michelle Nunn (daughter of Sam Nunn) is running. I live in an extremely conservative county and I'm seeing more Michelle Nunn and Jason Carter (the Democrat running for governor) signs than I ever have for other Democrats. A big reason for that has been our current governor's stance of opting our state out of the AHCA -- making no really affordable health care choices available to the working poor.
Hillary is right about the attacks on reproductive choices as being attacks on women. The same can be said of GOP positions on minimum wage, equal pay, and a host of other issues. What the Republicans know is this, and this terrifies them: If the American people show up to the polls -- simply show up! -- the GOP doesn't have a chance. As of last year, there were 700,000 unregistered voters among African-Americans. Even if half of those registered and showed up to vote -- and since last year, many thousands have -- Georgia would have gone to Obama in both elections.
The national demographic trend is no less promising for the party of the "bitter-enders." Talk about desperate -- that's what all this tempest is about Voter ID laws. It's going to backfire on them. Wait and see.
OldHawk
Hillary Clinton didn't mention a single women's right that is under assault. Neither have any of JT's Leftist posters or the anonymous group down-voting bass4funk's posts. Can anyone list any specific rights that are under assault?
The right to vote? No, it was the Democrats who opposed that. Now, the only issue Democrats think women care about is abortion.
http://spectator.org/articles/35608/republicans-and-womens-rights-brief-reality-check
http://www.nfrw.org/republicans/women/suffrage.htm
The right to self-defense? No, it is the Democrats who want gun control to disarm women (all civilians actually, just check with the Michael Bloomberg or the Brady Campaign, Moms Demand Action, etc.)
http://women.nra.org/
The right to work, marry, or both? No, it's the Democrats who have crafted and promoted handouts programs designed to keep women single, unemployed, pregnant, and dependent.
I repeat: Can anyone name a single right or women that is under assault by the Republicans?
Laguna:
As usual, you've omitted any context that is inconvenient for the image you're trying to create of the right. Carry permits (what you erroneously referred to as "gun licenses") are issued by the state, just like driver's licenses. Here in Tennessee, they even use the same number as the driver's license. College IDs are issued by schools, not the state. College IDs are also not valid for purchasing alcohol, cashing checks, or any of the other daily activities that require photo ID. Carry permits are.
bass4funk:
You're right (which I suspect is why you get down-voted on JT), but you're missing one thing: Clinton opposed welfare reform as it was written by the Republican congress under their self-imposed Contract with America. He wasn't going to sign it until one of his top advisors made it clear that he wouldn't win re-election if he didn't. He only signed welfare reform into law to help himself.
Alphaape
Want to know a funny fact about the welfare reform under Clinton. The only state that did not pass it was CA. They maintained the old system of welfare which meant no need to work or cap on lifetime benefits. As a result, CA leads the states in percentage of people on welfare and living below the poverty line.
When the law was enacted, of couse the success stories I remembered seeing all dealt with how women were getting off welfare into the workforce and getting back on their feet. I am for that 100%, but here's one thing you must remember. Bill Clinton didn't want to sign the law and was going to veto it, but Gingrich had enough seats in Congress to override the veto, so reluctantly he signed it. Now, 20 plus years later, Bill says that it is one of his greatest achievements as President, and I am sure that Hillary will hit the campaign trail saying how she was behind the scenes working as First Lady to help get it passed, when all along he (they) didn't want it to pass. Just goes to show, they are going to flood the American voting public with rhetoric and not facts. And the majority of us will fall for it.
bass4funk
Ok, so let's make it short and encapsulate this narrative: Dems are racist by the very nature of keeping Blacks on the government nipple and to get what? More FREE stuff, bottom line and pretty much sums it up. But advocating against self-reliance and entrepreneurship would be totally counterproductive, that in itself is social and economic racism.
No need to get emotional. Just telling the facts.
I hate to say this, but all the anger won't change jack, I hate to burst your bubble, but if things with this wacky admin. keep going the way they are 2016 might elude you as well. Dems are in the same position that Repubs were in 2007. It's history repeating itself except it's the socialists turn.
@yabits
Yabits, please don't go there. If I were to write a list of the record of Democrats and in particular this president, the list would take a month to complete, both parties have their flaws, but THIS time around, these guys are off the charts radical, just let me know if you want me to run down the accolades.
Many young people can't afford the premiums and many just opt out and would rather pay the penalty, because many don't want it or need it.
Overall, the Federal government reports that 32% of on-exchange enrollees as of March 1st are under the age of 34. And many of these are teenagers who are part of family policies, not the young yuppies that Obamacare is fervently targeting. Earlier estimates showed only 20% of enrollees were between the ages 18 and 34. The final number of young enrollees is well below the required cohort. Premiums will rise next year as a result of the adverse selection of older, and probably less healthy consumers. Why are young adults staying away? In one word, economics.
http://www.forbes.com/sites/scottgottlieb/2014/03/28/how-much-does-obamacare-rip-off-generation-x-we-ran-the-numbers-here-are-the-results/
http://patriotrising.com/2014/10/15/obamacare-website-wont-reveal-insurance-costs-2015-election/
Those planning to purchase health insurance on the Obamacare exchange will soon find out how much rates have increased — after the Nov. 4 election. Enrollment on the Healthcare.gov website begins Nov. 15, or 11 days after the midterm vote, and critics who worry about rising premium hikes in 2015 say that’s no coincidence. Last year’s inaugural enrollment period on the health-care exchange began Oct. 1.
And the Dems will once again dig another hole for themselves, keep doing that and they might dig through China.
So if Burger King wants a wage increase to say $15 an hour, how much do you think your Whopper will cost? Factor also in that the cost will be past on to the consumer and you think many food establishments can afford that. I'm all for an increase, I might go with $10, but that would be it. If you are part-time under 30 hours, NO benefits, just can't afford it and unless you want to get into management, these jobs are designed as a stepping stone or temp. job until something better comes along or they go onto university to further their education.
Actually, you have that the other way around, because if they didn't show up, Dems wouldn't be in a state of hysteria and eating their own in the process.
What? Could've, would've, should've Obama is not on the ballad this time around, but many of his radical policies are. And this time, the Black turnout won't be so high, for one, it's a midterm and two many Blacks are at a disillusion and felt let down from a man they helped elect to the highest office and what did they get in return, nothing. Blacks have suffered more under this president then any other president in recent memory.
Yabits, ROFL..yeah, seriously, wait and see. That's as funny as Debbie Wasserman Schultz saying that Democrats have nothing to worry about this year and that running on Obamacare is a good strategy. HEY! Go right ahead, Pleeeaase!!!!!
@seren
If that means that the reign of the Democrats will continue, then that is a nightmare of epic proportions!
kaimycahl
Hilary Clinton is full of it!
theFu
Ms. Clinton is unelectable for many historical reasons - nothing to do with her sex. Many people remember the things she has and has not done.
I am not a democrat, nor a republican. Neither of those options provides choices that fit my morality. Both are guilty of allowing the NSA to continuously violate the 4th amendment.
Abortion isn't an issue that matters to me. Let the woman+husband choose. Keep wacko religious people out of office.
I care more about government slowly removing our rights and all the herd animals not noticing. Mooooo.
Don't know what I'll do in these next elections, the smear campaign has begun in my state for governor. None of the above isn't an option, sadly.
MarkG
http://www.sheknows.com/parenting/articles/1054703/theres-nothing-feminist-about-forcing-kids-to-drop-f-bombs
And who are these incredibly controvercial producers of this commercial? Appalling!
bass4funk
If there is a life-risking complication that a woman is going through and the woman is living in a State that would be more problematic for a woman to have an abortion, there are other States where they can go to without being rejected for the procedure in that case, but to have an abortion a Full term just for the sake of getting rid of it doesn't apply and is no justification for it. So to say that there is an assault on women is absolutely laughable, so much so that I am actually amazed that Clinton would jump that wagon, given the fact of her husbands past accolades.
Yabits, I think you need a new shovel buddy, guns are not the issue in this, nice try. Do you know how many woman are assaulted without guns? Strangulation, physically abused, stabbed, please just stop. I really hope the Dems don't take that route, now that really looks like grasping at straws.
So you think, if you take away the guns, these violent men that abuse their wives can't further abuse them or threaten them anymore? Are you serious? They will just find something else. You don't need a gun to kill someone. Now what I would suggest and what seems more realistic. If the woman is in ANY way assaulted by her spouse or lover etc. and can be proven, the first time, the individual should get a lengthy sentence as a warning 6 months to 1 year depending on the severity of the abuse. Second time up it to 2-3 years with counseling and anger management classes upon release and the third time 5-25 respectively. There are more sensible ways to curb domestic violence, but taking away guns is not even close to a permanent solution.
Do I detect a bit of anger? Sucks that Dems are losing bad in MOST recent elections, the Senate looks grim, Obama and his polices in general have been disastrous to say the least for the country in general. 70% of the country thinks we are on the wrong track that has NOTHING to do with the Republicans and everything to do with how this presidents radical polices have been implemented and executed. Democrats have become toxic the same way the Republicans were 7 years ago.
That's why the people are kicking out the Dems out of office.
Hmmm, the Republicans are not perfect, but at least they are not trying to radicalize the country, like the Democrats, Ghoulish, more like the Dems have been demonic in trying to change virtually every aspect of life in this country, destroying traditions, trying to tell people how and what to eat, how to interact publicly to deny us to get our own energy independence, thinking that borders are bad, spying on Americans and on and on and on... That is your REAL evil incarnate.
MarkG
Lets not forget those wonderful and fair Democrat statements from Wasserman-Schultz, Reid, and Pelossi. I will leave out Obama though in his White House and the inequity there. It's do what I say not what as I do scenario for the Obama White House.
yabits
Let us not forget that the reason that a woman would have to travel to another state -- possibly many hundreds of miles away -- is because local Republicans, bowing to the religionists, have made the procedure illegal in her own state. If the kowtowing Republicans had their way, abortion would be prohibited in every state -- and then rich women, certainly conservatives among them, would travel to a foreign country to get an abortion. If the woman's pregnancy happens to be a dangerous one, it is the Republicans whose policy decisions have put her life in danger. That they don't really care about life at all comes through on all these issues.
Guns are an issue, and I'll show how, but there are certainly many ways that men abuse women. And so it's another Republican assault on women the way they have scaled back on the Violence Against Women Act, and many have opposed it outright. Source: http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2013/02/why-would-anyone-oppose-the-violence-against-women-act/273103/
Let us see the moronic lunacy for what it is. First of all, there is the matter of principle: Should men who physically abuse women have their second amendment rights protected? It's a very simple question, and I'm glad the Republican supporters are in favor of keeping firearms in the hands of wife-beaters. It speaks to their principles.
Second, even though other methods can be used to kill a person, it is often that a spouse and children are the first ones to be killed at the start of a rampage. Adam Lanza could have used "something else" to kill his mother, but he would have found it quite so easy to murder all those kids. Republicans like yourself don't even consider, or care about, all those "collateral" victims. They'll find any excuse under the sun to allow physically abusive -- ie violent -- people to keep their guns, especially when that violence is manifested against those closest to the man.
As bad as Obama's recent poll numbers are, the are rotten-barrel bottom for the GOP in Congress. While control of the Senate is in question, the GOP is looking extremely weak in all too many governor's seats across the nation. Something seriously bad has happened to the Republicans. For example, in Kansas, where the Republican won by 31 points in 2010, this years race is a dead heat. In Alaska where the GOP won by 21 percentage points, they are behind by over 5 points now.
Likewaise Michigan, where an 18-point margin is now tied. The same is true of my home state of Georgia. And then there is Wisconsin -- another tie. And Florida -- where Rick Scott stands to lose. And Pennsylvania where's there no hope for the Republicans retaining their seat. What do all those turnarounds have in common (except for Michigan)? All the GOP governors opposed AHCA.
Alphaape
How about this, instead of taking the man's guns away, why not advise the women that they should take a gun course and learn the proper use of a gun and if threatened use it themselves. But you will not hear any women's advocacy groups say this. They will not teach them what it takes to defend themselves. Afterall, I am sure that you yabits and the rest of the Dems are saying that there is a war on women, and you are all for allowing women to serve in combat roles in the military. Ok if that is the case, I say let them, but then you can't go back and say it would be wrong to teach a woman to defend herself against a domestic abusers.
yabits
So, your solution is for the violent man to keep his guns, and encourage the woman to arm up and allow the kids to get caught in the crossfire.
There is nothing wrong with a women getting a gun and learning how to use it, but if there are potentially violent or mentally unstable people in the house such a course would be extremely reckless. I am not surprised Republicans endorse it.
Alphaape
@ yabits: how many times have we seen here in JT the sad story of a mother killing her kids or others? Women can kill just as well as men with or without guns. What I am saying is that instead of teaching them that they are victims, let them learn that they can defend themselves in DV cases. Not saying they should settle arguments with fighting, but in cases where a man (or woman) contines to beat someone, then they should be told about other methods of defending themselves.
MarkG
How did this morph into a domestic violence issue? The strong tend to control the weak and some go to the violent extreme. Inherently women are physically weaker than men. No politics here.
Regarding the politics, Democrats do create a division. Clear and evident with favorable reporting from the media. It's been getting worse in recent years to the point of animosity. Shameful and unnecessary.
Republicans seem to take the hits and not retaliate with the accusational approach. I commend that.
Bottom line it is an individual choice what you believe. Women do have every opportunity a man has. Democrats certainly believe that with Hillary as a possible Presidential candidate and Republicans have tried the same. To claim Republicans try to prevent a womans choice for abortion is silly. Again this is in both parties and as far as Hobby-Lobby they stood their moral ground Like it or not it is the law of the land and I respect their decision to maintain a stance on their position.
Women tend to be less aggressive and that does hurt in the workplace. Even the White House has wage disparity. I will make no claim why. And funny they are one of the propaganda slingers claiming equity.
yabits
Here is what you are leaving out, and this is the problem with conservatives: Does the woman have to take the law into her own hands as the only recourse? I am not saying the woman should not be able to defend herself, even with a gun. But why should she settle for the State to do nothing about an abusive person with regard to taking away his guns -- as just one in a series of steps based on the principle that abusiven violent people should not have guns?
Your "solution" completely ignores the role of the state and forces the woman to take the law into her own hands as the first resort. You don't seem to understand the idea of a "principle" -- a common conservative problem.
As for the religionists who believe they have biblical sanction to physically abuse people, and who would give up their guns only out of their cold, dead hands, I would heartily endorse the State to oblige them.
bass4funk
So now you want to paint EVERY conservative person as a Republican? How ignorant is that. There are many conservative thinking liberals that believe that LATE term abortion is immoral and they are NOT religious, which is not the main issue to the opposition, but I get it. Dems need a bogeyman, it doesn't hurt to try, right?
But "abortion itself" was never really the main issue. There is a difference between an abortion and LATE term.
So what do you want to do once guns are outlawed, ban knives next or how about fists? Again, you have a lot, let me repeat A LOT of LIBERALS AND DEMOCRATS THAT ARE GUN HOLDERS. Harry Reid included and they will never go up against the NRA, so please, STOP being partisan and vent your anger equally to the Dems and libs that don't support gun control. Both parties will never go against their constituents.
On that point, I totally agree with Alphaape. But again, you take the guns away, that won't stop the abuse. Bangladesh leads the world when it comes to Domestic violence and Egypt, Iran, Morocco, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, Tunisia and Turkey are the biggest abusers when it comes to Domestic Violence, the US doesn't even come close, point is there are countries that are not only worse, don't have guns but use various other ways to kill women and these countries HAVE NO LAWS to protect women PERIOD! Again, the whole war on women debacle is like the old exploding cigar trick, it's going to blow up in their Dems faces.
So blame the perpetrator, it's not the gun issue.
How do you know what conservatives think or feel. Liberals like you and Clinton and this president have destroyed one of the greatest country and through every step wants to change the country, the country accumulating more debt, telling all Americans what to eat and how to live, I think that is more of a threat to the nation, Democratic failed policies.
That's NOT going to save the Dems from probably losing the Senate.
While control of the Senate is in question, the GOP is looking extremely weak in all too many governor's seats across the nation. Something seriously bad has happened to the Republicans. For example, in Kansas, where the Republican won by 31 points in 2010, this years race is a dead heat. In Alaska where the GOP won by 21 percentage points, they are behind by over 5 points now.
Ok, loved that spiel, it was good mooring humor and now let's look at the actual facts.
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/latest_polls/senate/
http://www.newsmax.com/Politics/GOP-Senate-midterms/2014/10/16/id/601079/
If the Repubs can get 5 out of 8 seats the Senate turns Red. I know it pains you, but regardless what you say, the polls, NONE of the unbiased ones at least show this. Please stop making stuff up. I could care less what Debbie Wasserman Schultz will spin.
Believe me, many smart Dems are NOT running on Obamacare as well.
yabits
That is not the issue, but I understand why you keep wanting to change it. The issue is the dangerous predicament faced by those women whose pregnancy has life-threatening consequences. In states where their access to safe and legal abortions has been eliminated, it is solely because of policies enacted by local Republicans. Not Democrats, Republicans. This is but one front in the Republican war on women who happen to believe reproductive choices be left to the individual.
So, the Republicans endorse violent abusers of women in their right to keep their guns. This is another example of their affront against women. Unless shown examples otherwise, I believe most women who are under threat of being assaulted would want the State to revoke a violent abuser's right to firearms -- as a matter of principle -- and take steps to confiscate those weapons.
Conservatives like yourself do not understand what is meant by "principle," which is why you shift the discussion away from American women to conditions in foreign countries.
OldHawk
yabits:
What percentage of abortions are carried out to preserve the life of the mother?
I knew somebody was going to bring this up. Not surprised that it's you. You know what's wrong with the Violence Against Women Act? Same thing that's wrong with all the other "hate crime" garbage: It gives special protection to a certain class. The Violence Against Women Act is unnecessary because we already have laws regarding violence against people. And this being America, all people are supposed to be equal under the law, right? Right?
Naturally, the Left, being the dishonest partisan hacks they are, suggest that Republicans (and Libertarians) support violence against women because they don't support the Left's (as usual) flawed solution. That doesn't mean there aren't dishonest partisan hacks out there that won't believe such things about Republicans or conservatives, of course. The internet is overflowing with examples of such pathological stupidity.
If the abuse is proven or clearly evident? Of course not. But if not, there are two problems I can think of right off the top of my head.
1) Enforcement. The police are going to go around and search the homes and cars of every man (or woman) accused of domestic violence? When are they going to do that? They don't do anything to enforce a restraining order, except answer a 911 call (often too late) when it's violated. In your post that was deleted, you complained that "abusers have easy access to guns". Aside from the fact that not one single state allows someone to legally buy a gun when there is a restraining order issued against them, what is to stop the abuser from illegally obtaining a gun? After all, not one single gun control measure implemented or proposed by Democrats has ever even attempted to put an end to illegal gun sales. They only make purchases more difficult for legal gun buyers, and in one recent case in Connecticut, make already legal gun owners into criminals. But that's just one of the problems with the Left's compartmentalized arguments, and yet another example of why y'all never solve any substantive issues.
2) Abuse of the system. One of my musician friends used to date an abusive alcoholic. She accused him of domestic violence, but never to the police because she knew she would end up on the hook for filing a false report. (Especially after a few people - myself included - witnessed her physically abusing him during one of her drunken routs.) To this day, over a decade later, she still tells my buddy's friends that he abused her. But just imagine if he were a gun owner. She accuses him, the police confiscate his gun, and then she (or some guys she pays) beats him up - or worse.
That's a complete lie.
So a woman feels threatened enough by her partner to get a gun for self-defense against him, but is still sharing living accommodations with him? Wow, you can really imagine some strange scenarios.
The founding fathers recognized that self-defense is a basic human right, granted by "the creator" (or by birth, if you prefer), and not granted by the state. But you, as a Statist, you have demonstrated that you think self-defense lies with the state first and the individual last.
As an individual, the law is in your own hands. You are there. The police aren't and likely won't be there in time. You have to relinquish that power to the state in order for the state to have it. The state does not have that power by default. Yet another example of why y'all never solve any substantive problems.
Wait, this thread is about Muslims now?
bass4funk
Dangerous, the Republicans are NOT the ones to likely lose the midterms.
Sadly there is NO war on women, the people are not listening, if they were, Dems would be smiling to the polls instead of sweating.
But the guns are not the issue. It looks good on paper for the Dems to keep trying to persuade voters to believe that but....
Actually! with all due respect I think it's liberals like yourself are angry that after 6 years of failed policies, Obama and his admin. Couldn't pull it off, didn't want to pull it off, tried their best to destroy this country by fundementally changing it and the people with everything that went on got tired, it's as simple as that and No amount of denial or fabricating thr truth or injecting personal feelings will change that fact. You cannot and other Dems run away from that. It is what it is.
OldHawk
Anyway, now for the second part of my previous question: What has Hillary Clinton done for the cause of women's rights?
Here's my submission for what Hillary Clinton has done for women's rights: Abortion. That's right, she's supported keeping Margaret Sanger's racist, genocidal dream alive. How does killing unborn children (including unborn women) help advance women in society?
It's a serious question. If Hillary is going to use her gender and make the fictional "Republican war on women" a campaign issue, then it should be asked what Hillary has done for the cause of women's rights, and what she will do for them. The answer is: Nothing. Just exploit them for a vote. Typical for Democrats.
After all, blacks turned out in record numbers in 2008 to vote for Obama, thinking life would get better for them. But even Dr. Martin Luther King Jr.'s daughter says that blacks are worse off now under Obama. Unemployment is worse, median incomes are worse, etc. Again, what has Obama done for them? He doesn't even want them to have jobs. He wants illegals to have jobs. That's what amnesty is for. The Democrats already have the black vote bought and paid for, so why would they do anything for them now? Eight years later, the Democrats want women to make the same mistake voting for Hillary.
Alphaape
Recently a state representative in IL tried to vote for himself (GOP) and others and when he picked his name on the voting machine, it came up for the Dem opponenet. Whenever he tried to vote for a GOP candidate, it came up Dem. When he pointed it out to the local election judge, they claim that the machine needed "calibration" and it will be taken out of service.
So we shall see how this plays out in the upcoming US midterms. I guess if not enough machines can be rigged, Hillary is getting out in front by her claims. Even though a recent poll has shown that women voters polled feel more secure (National Security wise) with the GOP vice the Dems. I fully expect to see Hillary riding in a tank ala Dukakis back in the 1988 election to make sure that she keeps up with the polls.
bass4funk
So that makes it a crime, if the reverse were in affect, The Republicans would be complaining about the Dems, just normal politics.
Actually, he can say that if he wants. Good question. What has Hilary done for women and what was her biggest contribution to any women's causes? And the clock ticks away........
yabits
LOL! When it's determined that the manufacturers of a voting machine are Republican supporters -- Oh well, it's just "normal" politics. Let us not forget that, in the history of the American republic, only once has a party gone to the US Supreme Court to prevent a state from hand-counting paper ballots to determine the intent of the voter. And that was the Republicans in Florida in 2000. And, lo and behold, they got five corrupt, partisan judges to go along with them.
Misogynists can wait for their answer until hell freezes over.
bass4funk
So you are saying, if they ( the manufacturers ) were Democrat supporters, then it would be better? Yabits, you are THE MOST partisan I have ever encountered, tow the line? No, not you!
Ok, we have NEVER in the history of the Republic had a president that stifled our individual freedoms and that by constant executive order rammed things through, put the country in an $18 Trillion debt. Conceded to our enemies, spyed on the American people, used the IRS to threaten any conservative with incarceration in order take out donors from entering an election cycle and to have the head commissioner lie under oath saying that NO curruption took place, to being complacent in the death of 4 people in Libya including our Ambassador and again stonewalling and having a coverup because of fears of giving the admin. A political Black eye and to potential scare off voters. Point is, ever political party has it's flaws, don't make it as if Democrats and particularly THIS president are innocent and noble law-abiding politicians. The Republicans are in NO way perfect, but compared to this current president, they seem like Cub Scouts.
So you don't want to answer the question? Lol, thought so,
yabits
Like an answer from heaven, we have a woman (Guilfoyle) on Fox News who says young women (of voting age) should not be worrying their pretty little heads about politics and would be better off not voting.
The thought of so many intelligent young women -- only one of whom needs to cancel out the vote of this Guilfoyle character -- makes me smile.
You go girls!!
Noliving
To be fair Viagra is not a form of birth control and two it can do nothing but only increase pregnancies and the spread of STDs when it comes to sex which means it doesn't contradict their anti-birthcontrol/abortion sentiment.
JoeBigs
Hillary Clinton urged
That's as far as I got. In my book Clinton is in the same boat as Palin. Hillary is ambitions and has tried to polish her image into Presidential material, but all she has is one foot out of the trailer part. Ask yourself, what has she really done? She did pick Janet Reno for AG and we all know how well that turned out. Let's not even go into her time as Secretary of State, that was a bad joke that turned into a farce. She may have the last name of a former President that doesn't mean she has the ability to be one.
Here are a few names that put Clinton into Palin's level...
Carly Fiorina, Mary Fallin, Wendy Davis or Elizabeth Warren.
Anyone of those are far better choices. Hillary's claim to fame is, Bill Clinton.
If she wasn't married to him and had his backing she would still be trying to practice law somewhere in the back roads of Arkansas.
yabits
To be fair, no Viagra is a form of birth control.
lucabrasi
@yabits
Ha! : )
bass4funk
Has nothing to do with intelligence and everything to do with emotion.
What a bold face lie! Guilfoyle she never said, they shouldn't vote, she meant, when you become of age, most people don't know or understand politics until they are more mentally matured and understand the issues properly instead of voting based on emotion, which she is right, Emotion is what got us Obama in the first place. Many of those same voters now who are older and understand the process and have lived under this president, have buyers remorse and this is the underlining problem. Just with drinking alchohol, you shouldn't be allowed to vote until your 21 by then you should be emotionally and mentally ready. That was her exact point. Yabits, you are amazing! Stop twisting other people's words to suit your narrative.
yabits
You reveal yet again that you don't know how to read with any understanding.
Guilfoyle said she didn't want the votes cast by those she smeared as uninformed because they were young to "dilute" the votes cast by those she considered superior. She used that exact word. There's only one way not to dilute the votes of the elite minds Guilfoyle prefers and that is by not allowing them to vote -- and she also said that they should not be allowed to sit on juries.
She's probably thinking of herself at a younger age and projecting her mindless lunacy on others. Nice to know one 18-year-old from her worst nightmare will cancel out -- dilute -- her vote.
toshiko
I think this is first step of her to declare US President candidate. If she became Dem Candidate, she will be first grand mother Presidential candidate. She should stop blaming anyone and concentrate on telling her plan to reduce debts and stop foreign land wars. Or she wants to continue wars?
Wolfpack
Hillary will claim she is concerned with women right up until one get's in the way of her ambition. Then they are "trailer trash" and "looney tunes". The fact that she has married her way to the top is informative of her brand of feminism. I would have said "slept her way to the top" but it is clear that Bill way too busy sleeping with a multitude of other women for that to have occurred.
HonestDictator
Unfortunately when I looked at my ballot choices and read up on the candidates who were running for Congress and Senate, they were for some things I was opposed to and also for some issues I supported as well.
IE I'm against abortion but do not believe that anyone should touch Roe vs. Wade. People should be able to choose to legally have an abortion, but should not be encouraged to do so nor utterly denied that option. The democrats want to force corporations whose owners do not agree with abortion to finance it by providing it as a "necessary" healthcare option, and republicans are for completely removing it and making abortion illegal. But the thing that scared me was how each one of them was following their party line to the letter, democrats voted the exact same as other democrats and same with the republicans. Like lemmings that couldn't think outside the box and not run the country over a cliff. With parties like this it will take a 3rd party that can be totally bi-partisan oil between the extreme liberals and extreme conservatives.
smithinjapan
yabits: "Let us not forget that, in the history of the American republic, only once has a party gone to the US Supreme Court to prevent a state from hand-counting paper ballots to determine the intent of the voter. And that was the Republicans in Florida in 2000."
Boom! Exactly! I KNEW someone was going to bring up that SINGLE voting machine as an example of some kind of 'Democrat conspiracy' and that it would blow back in their face ten-fold + when they did because, as you mentioned, the biggest ever example of covering up the truth and not allowing votes was back in 2000. And good on bringing up the Guilfoyle gaff as well (gaff being she said it out loud... she does of course actually believe what she said); Republicans are really trying to deny in their own minds, while denying that they are against women's rights, that she said that. Just look at bass -- he looks utterly out of breath!:
"Guilfoyle she never said, they shouldn't vote, she meant, when you become of age, most people don't know or understand politics until they are more mentally matured and understand the issues properly instead of voting based on emotion, which she is right..."
So, bass, you're saying that "she didn't say" what she said, and she never meant what she said. You're saying what she meant is that ONLY WOMEN shouldn't vote until the are married because they are not mentally mature enough until they have that man with them... so head to matchmaker? Or did she just not say what she said, or meant it, and meant and said something else she meant? Or are you just going to change topics?