jump to last post 1-4 of 4 discussions (75 posts)

Rand Paul's comments on the "War on Women" is he just groping?

  1. Credence2 profile image85
    Credence2posted 3 years ago

    This fellow has such a screwed reasoning system, check out this article

    http://nbcpolitics.nbcnews.com/_news/20 … c#comments

    Does he really believe that the indiscretions of a former President almost 20 years ago is a point in logic to attack the accusations from the left and center that the GOP through its policies is waging a War Against Women?

    However you feel about the term, Paul's logic is frayed on two counts

    1. Clinton's indiscretions were notable as an individual and ill advised, but it happened almost 20 years ago.

    2. The GOP is being attacked over a series of policy stances that are not well received by American women, from a number of its candidates and office holders over several states and over a variety of issues of concern to women. This certainly rises above a past indiscretion of one man from the other side.

    I am upset at Paul because he actually believes that this hair brained reasoning of his going to resonate with any thinking person.

    What are your thoughts?

    1. GA Anderson profile image85
      GA Andersonposted 3 years ago in reply to this

      What are our thoughts? Great! Now you want us to think before commenting? Next I suppose you will be asking for sources and back-up data?

      But, since this is such a subjective post, not really needing facts to weigh-in, I suppose I could offer that I think it is just more political pandering - part of an apparently newly-devised Republican strategy to refute their "war on women" image. Which I happen to think is a Democrat misnomer, also politically intended to distort the "general conservative views" on abortion and birth control issues.

      I may have caught the "prediction" bug from an exchange with Mighty Mom, but I will go out on a limb here saying that we will be hearing a lot more such statements from Republicans leading up to 2016 - and my prediction is that the Republican politicians are going to screw it up with more "...a woman's body can..." type statements.

      ps. I don't think it is "thinking people" that Paul is aiming for.

      pss. I am surprised you did not also tie this to Hucklebee's recent "... women's libido..." statement (careful this is a trap)

      GA

      1. Credence2 profile image85
        Credence2posted 3 years ago in reply to this

        Yes, GA, as for Hucklebee, I am not attacking an opinion only reasoning and logic that is askew in regard to Paul's comments. The concept of "War on Women" is anything but subjective (see Wikipedia), solid policy initiatives are behind this and it is more than just a false perception and smoke and mirrors. The GOP falling short with women on election day has something do with these things. Mandatory ultrasounds, vaginal probes? Advocacy of no abortion even after rape or incest, next they will say that the life of the mother, herself, is of secondary concern.

        The conservatives deserve being linked to this idea of the 'War on Women' and the bad press associated with it.

        The views from the loudest voices on the right regarding women's reproductive issues are strident and outside the realm of reasonableness. The GOP is acknowledging problems with female voters, do you think that this might just have something to do with it? The radical wing of the GOP makes it own problems, so who needs to distort anything? Hucklebee simply made a statement that I disagreed with, not distorting the facts and logic like Paul does.
        As you imply, perhaps it is best that the GOP keep its mouth shut in regards to these sensitive issues or continue to pay the price at the polls.

        1. GA Anderson profile image85
          GA Andersonposted 3 years ago in reply to this

          The "subjective" part was relative to your request for "thoughts," as in opinions, which are always subjective. And I have already agreed that I think Paul's statements were pure political pandering - as in pure balderdash.

          As for the "war on women" issue... I disagree with this characterization, but, (as you say), the loudest voices, and most ardent party core, do make it too easy to come to that conclusion.

          Now, it may just be a case of semantics, but if it were described as a "war on women's rights" I could be on-board with that - on most of the issues, (like the ones you mentioned), but I can also see the contextual truth in Hucklebee's statement.

          I am still an advocate for a 3rd "purple" party because I do not see the Republican party - as defined by its religious base, as any longer representative of us "normal" conservatives.

          ps. In my opinion conservative and Republican are not one and the same.
          pss. I just noticed you title word play, "war on women" and "groped" in the same sentence - how cute. LOL
          psss. I can see the line to ask what a "normal" conservative" is, forming now.


          GA

    2. profile image60
      retief2000posted 3 years ago in reply to this

      Bill Clinton is heralded and routinely feted  by lefties, yet he was a brutal user of women. What does that say about those who continue to elevate him?

      The Republican policy positions you refer to are disliked by women dependent upon the largess of the American people and the Daddy State.  Married women are far more conservative.  The misidentified "gender gap" has always been a marital status gap.

      1. GA Anderson profile image85
        GA Andersonposted 3 years ago in reply to this

        Well, that strident condemnation certainly leaves no doubt how you feel about the man, but does that also include him as the president? And does that connect the dots between the two issues as Rand's statement implies, as Credence2 asked?

        Are you sure you are comfortable with that "women's group" statement? I agree that the group you describe probably does dislike them, but you infer that is the only group that does. How can you be so confident about that? Personal experience? Studies? Polls? Focus groups?  Or Republican talking points?

        Couldn't it also be intelligent, independent, and financially secure women that may think politicians don't have any right to tell them what they can do with their reproductive systems? And do you suppose there might be married women that feel that way too?

        I can see you feel strongly about this issue, and of course, you are welcome to your own opinion. which is fine with me, you can keep it, because I certainly don't want it.

        GA

        1. Credence2 profile image85
          Credence2posted 3 years ago in reply to this

          whoa, GA!  I am impressed, to see you express a clear delineation between red and purple in your last post, goes a long way for credibility as a gentleman truly looking for a middle course. Standing up to retief, as red as they come, allows me to see that moderate conservatism is possible.

          1. GA Anderson profile image85
            GA Andersonposted 3 years ago in reply to this

            uh-oh... I guess the cat is out of the bag now.

            Still, excepting this issue, I suspect there are many things Releif2000 and I agree on. For instance, I get the impression we both thing most politicians stink.

            GA

        2. Quilligrapher profile image90
          Quilligrapherposted 3 years ago in reply to this

          Hey there G.A.

          Not only do I agree with what you said but also I am overwhelmingly in favor of the way you said it.

          *I tip my fedora to you*
          http://s2.hubimg.com/u/6919429.jpg

          1. GA Anderson profile image85
            GA Andersonposted 3 years ago in reply to this

            Greetings Quill, good to see you around the forums again. and thanks for the compliment, but...

            ... my stance on this "war on women" issue is not red or blue. I do not think the Federal government should be involved either way. Not mandating free contraceptives, nor regulating a woman's rights to her body -  Re. reproduction.

            I have less problem with state government involvement, (even if I disagree), because citizens can vote with their feet - and still remain citizens. Which is not an option with Federal involvement.

            But, back to Cred's point, Rand Paul's statement strikes me as nothing more than political theater. It appears the Republicans realize they need to push back against their image of being anti-woman, and Paul and Hucklebee are just the first ones off the blocks.

            I believe the thrust of Hucklebee's statement, (although terribly worded), is much more accurate than Paul's. I hope the moderates of the Republican party can see the danger of Paul's approach. (and get Hucklebee a better editor)

            GA

            1. wilderness profile image95
              wildernessposted 3 years ago in reply to this

              Question, GA, re: "... regulating a woman's rights to her body"

              Do you find government has a place in regulating, allowing or prohibiting abortion?  Specifically, say, a 36 week abortion?  A 2 day old fetal abortion?

              1. GA Anderson profile image85
                GA Andersonposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                Hello Wilderness,
                I will not hijack Cred's thread and turn it into another abortion thread. I am comfortable with my personal position on abortion. I don't expect to change anyone's mind on the issue, and I have given it enough thought to know that no one is going to change my mind. *barring some revelation that has never occurred to me of course

                But, to answer your question generally, and as already stated above; I do not have a problem with state regulation/involvement as promoted or supported by the residents of a state, regardless of whether I agree with them - because a state resident can move to another state and still remain a U.S. citizen. That is not an option when the control is from a Federal level.

                That is a general position that can be fairly countered with the "sure the wealthy can move, but what about the poor..." argument, to which I would reply, as with all things in life, "it is a matter of priorities."

                I am a firm believer in the old adage: "Where there is a will there is a way."  The history of the U.S has shown this to be a truism over and over, generation after generation - for good and ill.

                But, to steer you back to Cred's question, Do you believe Rand Paul's statement is a valid linkage? I don't believe the Republicans are waging a "war on women," but the public perception sure makes it look like it.

                ps. believing I know a little about your perspectives, from reading you in the forums, and past interactions with you - Wouldn't you have a problem honestly answering that, other than in a relationship between husband and wife, any man has any right telling a woman what she can do with her body?

                GA

                1. wilderness profile image95
                  wildernessposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                  As you say, to answer your final question would rather hijack the thread, but I would say in general that I am not comfortable giving one parent total control over a new life, particularly control over whether that life continues or terminates.  So I do have a problem answering, either way.

                  And that is in line with why I ask the question in the first place: I personally find that the claims of controlling what a woman can do with her body are irrelevant to the question of abortion.  I recognize the the far right, religious, segment of conservatism has declared that (human) life occurs at conception, and that abortion is thus murder.  Control of the reproductive system does not even enter the equation to them; only the question of murder, and that in turn means that the claims the right wishes to "wage war on women" is nothing but a political ploy to gain power with no substance or truth to it.

                  And sooner or later the furor is going to die a little and thinking heads will prevail.  The question of "humanness" will prevail, will be discussed and, just maybe, a compromise may be reached.  As long as the two sides refuse to recognize the reasoning of the other it will continue, along with the stupid claims of waging war on women because that's about all I ever see - the abortion issue.  Oh, sure, some will claim that society must provide contraception or they are waging war, but that is so transparent as to be laughable - it is, and cannot be, anything more than another try at getting something for nothing.  Of getting someone else to foot the bill for what you want.

                  1. GA Anderson profile image85
                    GA Andersonposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                    ...But what about the thread topic -  the Rand Paul question?

                    GA

        3. profile image60
          retief2000posted 3 years ago in reply to this

          http://www.mercatornet.com/articles/vie … omens_vote

          I don't do talking points.  If I don't believe it, haven't experienced it or haven't researched it - I don't say it or write it.

          As for "reproductive systems," is that actually the issue or the usual deception?  It isn't "reproductive systems" that is the thorny issue, at all, ever, it is once reproduction has taken place.  It is not the decision to be fertile or to freely engage in the reproductive act, the issue is abortion.

          1. GA Anderson profile image85
            GA Andersonposted 3 years ago in reply to this

            I did read your link. It seemed a reasonable article.

            But I still disagree with your characterization of the group(s) of women that are against the Republican's "war on women" issues - and that they are the only ones. Sounded/sounds like demagoguery to me.

            You may be mostly right that abortion is the real issue, but I think the contraceptives part of it is symbolically important too. I do not believe it is the government's place to provide or force provision of contraceptives. I say this is a symbolic issue because the extremely low cost and ready availability of contraceptives does not seem to support it as an economic hardship issue.

            GA

      2. Credence2 profile image85
        Credence2posted 3 years ago in reply to this

        I think that GA response to you pretty much reflects how I would have answered you if he had not arrived first.....

  2. GA Anderson profile image85
    GA Andersonposted 3 years ago

    Here, I think is a good illustration of the "war on women" problem - both sides talking past each other instead of to each other.

    Credence2 writes:
    "Mandatory ultrasounds, vaginal probes, no right to abortion even after rape or incest. All of this is coming from the Republican right. You can get on a soapbox and advocate this as smoke and mirrors from the left, but I think that it is quite valid and substantive..."

    Wilderness writes:
    "You're right - "Mandatory ultrasounds, vaginal probes, no right to abortion even after rape or incest", all from the right.  And ALL about protecting a helpless child from being murdered."

    And here is me appearing to want my cake, and eat it too...

    First, the mandatory stuff is coming from the state level, (Texas I think), not the Federal level, which as I have explained, makes a difference to me. (right or wrong)

    Cred's stance appears all about a woman's right to do what she wants with her body. Sounds right to me.

    Wilderness counters that no, it is not about that, it is about saving a life. This also sounds right to me.

    Regarding the "war on women," what I don't hear is any talk on woman-specific; banning cosmetic surgery, hair styles, dress codes, job/career restrictions, travel restrictions, etc. etc.

    If you want to see a real "war on women" - look to many of the Middle East cultures.

    I mentioned earlier that this may just be semantics. Maybe if the two sides discussed it as a "war on pregnant women" they would be more likely to discuss the real issues rather than shouting past each other.

    Both sides have valid points - based on their personal beliefs - so the question is... who has the right to over-rule the other?

    That is why I think the issue should be dealt with on a state level. If I feel strongly enough about something I disagree with - then I can move to a community of people, (a state) that feel as I do.

    Which leads me full circle back to my original thoughts that this "war on women" mantra is a Democrat manipulation of an issue. Aided by some really dumb Republican political statements.

    What say you Democrats... would you be comfortable changing your charge to "war on pregnant women?"

    Or do you have examples of non-abortion Republican attacks on women?

    GA

    1. Credence2 profile image85
      Credence2posted 3 years ago in reply to this

      GA, it is as you say, we should stay on topic. Nobody should have the right to rule over anybody else regarding this issue of woman's reproductive rights. While I lean left, I am not unreasonable. There is a balance between the desire to protect and preserve life, while acknowledging that the woman has something to say and have rights in the process. That is Roe vs Wade, the ruling that the GOP has been trying to undercut since its beginning. What compromise is there in saying that at conception the woman has to jump through hoops to terminate a pregnancy?

      When you talk about all this being within the purview of the states, I think about slave states verses free states. What happens when some states will accept marital status of gay couples and some do not? I certainly remember almost 50 years ago when it took a Supreme court ruling to permit interracial couples to consummate a marriage arrangement in Virginia and probably other southern states as well. When you say if you don't like the laws in a state move away, what about what is going on in Colorado where the  prairie northeast portion of the state wanted to create a new state within a state as they did not like the increasing blue pattern of the state's politics? They did not see moving to Kansas or Wyoming as a viable solution.

      Of course, this is not the Middle East, they are not the yardstick that we use as the world's oldest democracy.

      There is the GOP opposition, particularely house GOP regarding renewal of the "Violence Against Women Act" a couple of years back, there are also pay and work parity issues that the GOP takes a regressive tack on such as Fairness in Paycheck Act. Regardless as how you view these initiatives, women struggling to survive in a challenging economy are going to look to see who is helping and who is hindering, which again works against the GOP and is not related to reproduction issues.

      You can't just have a war against pregnant women, as anything that affects this group is likely to have a resonating effect as to  how all  women interact with society as a whole and the image of overbearing paternalism will not help the GOP brand. Besides, the reproduction issues are at the forefront as they get to the heart of the differences between men and woman as other issues do not. So it is not a piece, but a swath, which composes the lion's share of difference in the gender gap distinction.

      So there is my rebuttal, GA

      1. Silverspeeder profile image61
        Silverspeederposted 3 years ago in reply to this

        Worlds oldest democracy?

        I am still not sure about the OP and the statement of a "war on women" and what that actually means.

        Does it mean the federal government is advocating the enslavement of women in the US or cant they make their minds up about what rights a woman has?

        1. Credence2 profile image85
          Credence2posted 3 years ago in reply to this

          Yes, the U.S have operated in its current manner for longer than any other nation on the globe.
          Well, there are numerous examples as to what this means throughout the web.
          As for the last paragraph it may well be a mixture of both, it not a matter of making up minds but stern debate between differing political ideologies as to what lines are being drawn and where.

          1. Silverspeeder profile image61
            Silverspeederposted 3 years ago in reply to this

            I thought democracy would have included all Americans the vote, which as you know didn't happen until 1964.

            The only real examples I can find is ones of name calling by politicians.

            1. Credence2 profile image85
              Credence2posted 3 years ago in reply to this

              Nothing is perfect, the extralegal restrictions on voting in certain regions of the country directed at specific groups can no longer be accomplished. America is a work in progress, at least that is my opinion.

        2. profile image0
          mbuggiehposted 3 years ago in reply to this

          I am not fond of the language "war on women" because like the language of "global warming" (which is not about warming, but climate change) it misconstrues the issue.

          What IS happening in the United States---and what IS being promoted by Christian right-wing politicians NOW (in the present moment and as we approach a pivotal election) is an effort to roll back access to contraception. My sense is that such a roll back will have as much a negative effect on heterosexual men as it does on heterosexual women.

          As such, this is not a "war on women", but a war on sexual privacy; sexual privacy that most Americans had reason to believe was fought and won by 1972.

          I see this war on sexual privacy as part of a larger effort to impose conservative Christianity on the US as a matter of policy and law.

          What I don't get it is why anyone in their right mind would think that American men and women---particularly heterosexual men and women, would embrace a roll back of sexual privacy when it could mean loss of access to contraception.

          And what I really don't get is why when the Republican Party has an excellent chance of retaking the White House it is allowing some of its members to go out in public and repeat (and they are repeating) calls for legislation to roll back access to contraception.

          1. Silverspeeder profile image61
            Silverspeederposted 3 years ago in reply to this

            Thanks mbuggieh.

            I was al little miffed (being a Brit) as to the statement " war on women" as there is no mention of it in the UK media (or maybe I just missed it).

            1. profile image0
              mbuggiehposted 3 years ago in reply to this

              The only real attention the "war on women" is getting here is from just about anyone in "the media" (print, electronic, etc.) from the right and left and everything in between who thinks they can use it to either (a) mock the religious right and its legion of politicians who are saying some really bizarre things lately about women---like there is something called "legitimate rape" and if it happens women's bodies do some magic that precludes pregnancy OR (b) to express support for politicians who think that it is high-time in the US to deny women (and therefore men) access to contraception, to outlaw abortion, to outlaw divorce, and to embrace a Putin/Russian-style approach to gays and lesbians---all so that we can get back to our "traditional values".

              Interesting stuff in a country where about 99% of women have used contraceptives at some time in their lives.

              1. Silverspeeder profile image61
                Silverspeederposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                Do they believe then that this sort of rhetoric will get them votes? I would have thought it would lose them many votes.

                1. profile image0
                  mbuggiehposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                  Part of me thinks that they are deluded and think it will get them votes, but part of me is at a total loss to explain what is motivating them.

                  There is basically NO support in the US for any roll back of access to contraceptives and little support for any significant roll back to access to abortion.

                  Last week a former Republican candidate for president said that Democratic Party support for women's access to birth control is, essentially, a function of the Democratic Party believing that women have no control over their "libidos" (the Republican's word). When he wasn't being utterly mocked, he was being held up as the marker of all that is wrong with Republican Party thinking and as a marker of the Republican Party's "war on women".

                  Add this words like "legitimate rape" and ideas like women who become pregnant in the course of a rape need to chalk it up to "God's will" that they be raped/become pregnant and it is no wonder that the Republican Party cannot seem to get many women to support its agenda and its candidates.

                  1. profile image60
                    retief2000posted 3 years ago in reply to this

                    It was a comment on the continued exploitation of women by keeping them dependent on Democrats.  It is the infantilization of women and minorities that keep Democrats in power.  Democrats have lured many into a public preserve and now keep them there as wards of the State.  This dependency on Democrats will end, eventually and will be terribly painful when it does.

                    As for the roll back of abortion not being supported, that depends on where one looks for proof.

                    As for the women's vote, it is hardly monolithic.  Single women turned out in big numbers for Obama.  Obama lost among married women by 7 percentage points.

              2. profile image60
                retief2000posted 3 years ago in reply to this

                Let us not forget that great social thinker and anything-but-a-religious-right-zealot, Whoopy Goldberg justifying her support of the rapist, Roman Polanski, by calling his monstrous assault on a 13 year old by saying, "it wasn't rape-rape." 

                And there is hardly a legion of foolish politicians tripping over their own tongues regarding rape, it was one in Missouri.  It just feels like a legion when the lefty media drum beat is unending.

                1. profile image0
                  mbuggiehposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                  Her comments were inexcusable and demonstrate that she does not understand the concept of "statutory rape" OR why it's on the books.

                  The truth is it was more than one politician in Missouri who made comments about rape. Here is the list:

                  Todd Atkin and his "legitimate rape" language and theory.

                  Richard Murdock and his rape, pregnancy, and god's will theory.

                  Tom Smith who minimized rape and a subsequent pregnancy as no different from any out-of-wedlock pregnancy.

                  Roger Rivard who commented that "some girls rape easy".

                  Joe Koster who used the words "rape thing" when discussing rape.

                  And this is just from 2012.

                  Some other choice comments made by Republicans about rape:

                  http://www.addictinginfo.org/2013/07/16 … -remember/

                  1. profile image60
                    retief2000posted 3 years ago in reply to this

                    I bow to your information, but let us admit that rape is a BOMB of an issue.  It is so horrifying that the emotions it stirs cannot be discussed with reason. Rape is frequently used to load a question.  "Have you stopped beating your wife" pales compared to adding rape to any discussion.  I would suggest that Republican men are damned by the media, no Democrat would ever face questions about rape because pro-life Democrats have been all but expunged from the party.  If the choice is between a pro-life Democrat(now an oxymoron) and a pro-life Republican, the rape/abortion question will NEVER be asked.

      2. GA Anderson profile image85
        GA Andersonposted 3 years ago in reply to this

        ...and a damn good one it is. I did say I was trying to have it both ways

        You make very valid points relative to a very challenging issue.

        One of my problems in trying to defend a lot of Republican issues is that to my mind the religious right of the party is not the whole of the party, but that perspective is getting much harder to maintain.

        I do not want to see Roe v Wade overturned, but I also do not condone 2nd and 3rd trimester abortions. Whether right or wrong, I see a grey area in this issue, but I don't think most Republicans do.

        As for the states issue... my position is a squishy one trying to find a middle ground between my absolute belief that the Federal government should not be involved beyond the scope of Roe v Wade, and my belief that a community of citizens, (a state?), should be able to make the rules they want to live by. Slave state vs. Free state, Virginia's interracial marriage issue - good points.

        Colorado? hmm... your best example. I guess it is back to the drawing board for me - I see my statist solution crumbling before my eyes.

        Of course I was not promoting the Middle East as yardstick for social issues - but it does work to illustrate what a real "war on women" would look like. To me at least.

        As for your other examples, "violence, fairness... Acts - I don't know enough about them to comment. But I will. And when I do I will come back and chop your legs off. Or admit you are right. We'll see.

        I may stand battered and bloodied, but I stand. And am appreciative that I am forced to ditch the mushy thinking I tried to get away with. It is not an easy issue for an honest person.

        GA

        1. Credence2 profile image85
          Credence2posted 3 years ago in reply to this

          Thanks, GA, praise from a master is most gratifying. Have you seen Wilderness the Red's latest reply to my post? You talk about failure to communicate, so where is the impediment to communication in the exchange of opposing views.

          1. GA Anderson profile image85
            GA Andersonposted 3 years ago in reply to this

            Wilderness' reply? I did. And if we are talking about the same one, I think you may have missed a bit of his satirical sarcasm. At least that is the way I read it, and I hope I am right because I think he made some very good observations.

            I read Wilderness as being very "Red" (to use your description), and sometimes overly simplistic, (I do not live in a black and white world), but more often then not I think he presents very realistic views that represent very real life circumstances.

            ie. it is not pro-life vs. pro-abortion, it is (to the group he was speaking of), pro-life vs. pro-murder.

            I read his "God" exhortations as semi-exaggerated examples of the religious right's thinking. Not his perspective.

            Of course I could be wrong. Or we could be talking about different replies. I'm sure he will let me know.

            GA

            1. wilderness profile image95
              wildernessposted 3 years ago in reply to this

              You got it.  That reply would never come from MY lips; Not only did I clearly say I was playing Devil's Advocate, but I've made it very clear that I support Roe vs Wade, and pretty much fall into line with what you said earlier (I think it was you and I'm too lazy to spend any more time looking) in that abortions in the 2nd and 3rd trimester become questionable, but the first is always fine.

              It's still about finding a solution, though, more than what that solution is (In line with this thread).  It's still about the left screaming to high heaven about a war on women with the far right turning as deaf an ear as the left does to a mention of murder in the womb.  And, just as Credence says, there is a failure to communicate because of that; witness the hash made of what I was trying to say, which I thought was pretty darn plain.

              I have to say, too, that a "red" Wilderness is 1/2 right.  I am indeed quite red, fiscally.  But bluer, if that is possible, than even most democrats in the social field.  Which ties with supporting Roe vs Wade, gay marriage, and all the other individual freedoms the far right would take away in the name of religion.

              1. Credence2 profile image85
                Credence2posted 3 years ago in reply to this

                Sorry Wilderness, I was broadsided by your satire, and honestly did not recognize it for what it was. There are so many of this type for whom the  ideas expressed in your Store Front Preacher, burn in hell litany would be quite real. I should have known after our many debates that you would not deevolve in this way.

                But, where is the leftwing equivalent to this group. I don't hear anybody on the left advocating a more lenient approach to this issue than that provided in Roe vs Wade

                1. wilderness profile image95
                  wildernessposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                  The leftwing equivalent?  Those that simply shout about a womans right to an abortion while pretending that it doesn't mean murdering a child to some people.  Those that forever tell the lie about the right wanting a war on women, again pretending that that's what it's about. 

                  Those, in other words, as adamant that there is nothing to discuss except a woman's right to control her body as those that claim there is nothing to discuss except how to limit the murder rate.  I've said it and said it; until both sides at least recognize the stance of the other, there really IS nothing to discuss.  Neither side will listen, neither side will discuss the concerns of the other.

    2. wilderness profile image95
      wildernessposted 3 years ago in reply to this

      You're right - the "war on women" is a dumb democratic phrase, coined with the intent of diverting the issue to something it isn't.

      Just as the Republican far religious right, insists it's all about murder of children, instead of a woman's right to control her body - you can see it in the very phrase "pro life".

      It is both, and until both recognize and deal with that fact nothing is going to change.  We'll just keep swaying back and forth with the political winds, forever at each other's throats and forever hurting those that need help the most.

  3. profile image0
    mbuggiehposted 3 years ago

    One thing should be patently obvious:

    Mr Paul's comments have key purposes:

    (1)  To remind the American electorate that Hillary Clinton is Mrs Bill Clinton; 

    (2)  To remind the American electorate that Hillary Clinton remained married to Bill Clinton despite his sexual transgression with a female intern.

    And of course in doing each of these to suggest to the American public that Hillary Clinton is a tacit partner in the so-called "war on women"---a war which Mr Paul wants to define as not about abortion or contraceptives, but as about male sexual transgression.

    Remember, this is the same Senator Paul who is working closely and very publicly with female and left-leaning New York Senator Kirsten Gillibrand on a bill that would really hammer anybody in the military who in any way sexually abuses or exploits.

    I think Mr Paul is on to something---particularly as we approach 2016.

  4. GA Anderson profile image85
    GA Andersonposted 3 years ago

    Holy Cow Cred! Now look what you have done - created another God thread in the politics forum. tsk. tsk.

    GA

    1. Credence2 profile image85
      Credence2posted 3 years ago in reply to this

      Gotta be careful, don't want to inadvertently open up a 'pandora's box'

    2. wilderness profile image95
      wildernessposted 3 years ago in reply to this

      "I am still an advocate for a 3rd "purple" party because I do not see the Republican party - as defined by its religious base, as any longer... "

      Are you sure it was Credence that made it a God thread?  lol

      1. GA Anderson profile image85
        GA Andersonposted 3 years ago in reply to this

        Damn! Busted again... This thread has not bode well for me and my credibility as a "reasonable" thinking person.

        GA

        1. wilderness profile image95
          wildernessposted 3 years ago in reply to this

          smile

 
working