War on women, can anyone verify some of this stuff?

1. 78

   kirstenblogposted 13 years ago

   I was just sent this link and find it deeply disturbing, but I don't want to react to fast and wondered if any of you guys have read about any of these stories from other sources. I am not holding my breath on finding anything online that is not biased with the same old same old BS.
   
   http://pol.moveon.org/waronwomen/?rc=fb

   replyreport
   1. 65

      Ralph Deedsposted 13 years agoin reply to this

      Most of the items mentioned by Move On have been reported in the Ny Times and other MSM sources.

      replyreport
   2. 60

      tony0724posted 13 years agoin reply to this

      It's moveon.org. I would sooner trust High Times Kristen

      replyreport
      1. 0

         PrettyPantherposted 13 years agoin reply to this

         Every item on the list is verifiable, Kirsten.  If you want to find the truth, then check them out yourself.  Unbelievable as it may seem, the list is accurate.

         replyreport
         1. 78

            kirstenblogposted 13 years agoin reply to this

            If it is all true then I am glad I don't live in the States anymore. I also do not see how decent folks can call themselves republican if this is the stuff the party gets up to. I think that this is the thing, there are down right decent republicans and democrats in this world who will never see the decency in the other and my worry is that this sort of inflammatory story found in the link is why. How to get through to those decent people out there who claim a label like republican or democrat to either drop the label completely or actually keep an eye on and police those groups they label themselves as?
            
            If its spin then, whatever, its more of the same old BS. If it is not spin but accurate reporting then how the heck can anyone call themselves a republican?

            replyreport
      2. 78

         kirstenblogposted 13 years agoin reply to this

         High Times is a highly reputable mag, and I wont have its good named sullied!
         
         The other one is new to me, tho it had a list of resources at the bottom of the page that were all equally unknown sources so not easy to use in a debate to back up one side of an argument.

         replyreport
   3. 60

      Jim Hunterposted 13 years agoin reply to this

      "3) In South Dakota, Republicans proposed a bill that could make it legal to murder a doctor who provides abortion care. (Yep, for real.)"
      
      Uhhhhh, murder is a term used to describe a criminal act.
      
      Moveon.org.....Jesus

      replyreport
      1. 85

         kerrygposted 13 years agoin reply to this

         So you're only pro-life for things that have never taken a breath of their own? How typical.
         
         It's worth noting that 1 in 4 women who agreed to answer questions after calling the National Domestic Violence Hotline said a partner had pressured them to become pregnant, told them not to use contraceptives, or forced them to have unprotected sex. A smaller but more formal study last year found the ratio to be 1 in 3. These men are already abusive, unstable, and prone to violence, so giving them an excuse to legally murder somebody is irresponsible in the extreme.

         replyreport
         1. 60

            Jim Hunterposted 13 years agoin reply to this

            "So you're only pro-life for things that have never taken a breath of their own? How typical."
            
            Do you hear a lot of wind?
            
            Murder is a word to describe a criminal act.
            
            The link provides this
            
            "In South Dakota, Republicans proposed a bill that could make it legal to murder"
            
            Legal murder?
            
            Its verrrrrrrrry windy where you are.

            replyreport
            1. 85

               kerrygposted 13 years agoin reply to this

               In common usage, the word "murder" is used to describe any deliberate killing of a another human the speaker regards as immoral, whether or not it is actually illegal. Thus, anti-death penalty activists regard the death penalty as "murder" and anti-abortion activists regard abortion as "murder."
               
               As you well know.

               replyreport
      2. 74

         Jeff Berndtposted 13 years agoin reply to this

         Here's the bill, guys:
         http://legis.state.sd.us/sessions/2011/ … 171HJU.htm
         
         It's exactly that: it legalizes the killing of abortion providers.

         replyreport
         1. 60

            Jim Hunterposted 13 years agoin reply to this

            It expands the definition of justifiable homicide to include protecting a fetus.
            
            Whats the problem?
            
            It didn't say anything about legally killing Abortion Doctors.
            
            So once again....Fail

            replyreport
            1. 74

               Jeff Berndtposted 13 years agoin reply to this

               "It expands the definition of justifiable homicide to include protecting a fetus.
               
               Whats the problem?
               
               It didn't say anything about legally killing Abortion Doctors."
               
               Yeah, it does. Under the very strictest interpretation, under this law, anyone can legally kill an abortion provider while they're performing an abortion. Under looser interpretations, you can kill an abortion provider while they're prepping for surgery, when they arrive at the office, while they're on their way to work, or at any time someone has reason to believe that the abortion provider is about to perform an abortion.
               
               The only fail is in the badness of this legislation.

               replyreport
   4. 74

      Jeff Berndtposted 13 years agoin reply to this

      Kirsten, all of the claims on the moveon site you linked are also linked. Scroll down to the footnotes and click on the sources. That's the difference between moveon.org and most other PACs. Moveon backs up their claims with links to outside sources.
      
      Click on them.
      
      You may disagree with Moveon's opinion about whether these things are good or bad, but you'll find that they are really happening.

      replyreport
2. 66

   SparklingJewelposted 13 years ago

   I saw the same link on facebook...it sounds like an opinionated version of what the outcome of the legislation was...as usual, interpretation is...what keeps people riled up and divided instead of learning to work together

   replyreport
   1. 78

      kirstenblogposted 13 years agoin reply to this

      I had very similar thoughts, my emotional response was the sort of thing that of course leads to division and so I thought to take a step back. I figured if I started arguing this stuff for why the republicans are all poopy heads (sorry the 2 year old in me is somewhat out of control today) without better more trustworthy resources that would make me a poopy head!
      
      I think maybe sometimes, just sometimes, when we hear about this or that side did this or that, and it sounds to horrible to believe then maybe it is made up spin from the other side. If we can do this every once in a blue moon then perhaps there can be less poop flinging from one side to the other and things can actually be done to improve things.
      
      That said, republicans are all poopy heads and democrats are all booger faces!

      replyreport
3. 77

   lovemychrisposted 13 years ago

   Oh, it's DEFINATELY a war on women...I'm just trying to figure out why.
   
   Maybe it's the Last Gasp of this male-dominated Time. We are moving into the Age of Aquarius. Female energy is coming in.
   
   The God Apollo does not want to give up his power so easily.
   
   This is an analogy --from studying art in Ancient cultures, and from my love of Astrology.
   
   Before Apollo, there was Gaia.   
   In order to have Jesus, there had to be Mary.
   
   Jealousy maybe.
   Angry little boys and their helicopter mothers!!!

   replyreport
   1. 60

      Evan G Rogersposted 13 years agoin reply to this

      Definitely.
      
      "defin(e)-itely.

      replyreport
      1. 78

         kirstenblogposted 13 years agoin reply to this

         That is one word that drives me up the blooming wall! I always spell it wrong!

         replyreport
   2. 60

      Jim Hunterposted 13 years agoin reply to this

      "Oh, it's DEFINATELY a war on women...I'm just trying to figure out why."
      
      Its only a war on democrat women.
      
      Republican women are safe...and atrractive

      replyreport
      1. 60

         Doug Hughesposted 13 years agoin reply to this

         Jim - those on the left know the intent of the Constitution is to protect ALL people. As pertains to this post, ALL women. Twenty years after liberals secure liberty, conservatives try to rewrite history and claim the advances in rights for women or rights for minorities were their idea all along.
         
         What a crock.

         replyreport
4. 60

   knolyourselfposted 13 years ago

   " I don't want to react to fast and wondered if any of you guys have read about any of these stories from other sources." Forever and a day. That's who republicans are. They are anti-socialist to the core. They don't want abortions but its fine with them if all those kids starve to death.

   replyreport
5. 60

   Evan G Rogersposted 13 years ago

   who cares what you call it: rape is rape. Just because government can't get its head out of its ass doesn't change the crime.

   replyreport
   1. 85

      kerrygposted 13 years agoin reply to this

      It matters because the Hyde Amendment only allows Medicaid to cover abortions in cases of rape, incest, and threat to the mother. I realize you don't think Medicaid should exist, but it does and it's the only form of insurance many poor women have. Where abortion is concerned, "federal funding" also includes tax-exempt HSA accounts.
      
      Republicans are trying to redefine rape so that only "forcible rape" counts, so women who are drugged and raped, for example, would have to pay 100% out of pocket for an abortion. It could also affect some statutory rape cases and rape cases where the victim is not mentally competent to consent, like the retarded girl in New Jersey who "consented" to be sexually assaulted with a baseball bat and a broom handle. (She obviously didn't get pregnant, but her situation isn't unique, or even particularly uncommon.)

      replyreport
      1. 60

         DTR0005posted 13 years agoin reply to this

         I am really not certain if the Right knows how bad they really look.

         replyreport
6. 76

   brimancandyposted 13 years ago

   I read all the various ideas that were presented, and obviously the most disturbing one is the bill about killing abortion doctors. Whomever came up with this bill needs to be fired pronto! That could be considered aiding criminal activity. But, it's not the first I have heard of this nonsense. Those people are nuts!
   
   Another one I have heard quite a bit about is denying food assistance and benefits to single women. Mainly because it is a documented fact that some young women are purposely having many children because of the huge amount of assistance they get to care for them under the food stamp program and ADC. 10 times more money then they would get if they actually worked for a living. While the same system offers zero dollars to single men, even those men that have children get very little compared to what a woman gets. And that is hardly fair.
   
   I actually saw a program a few years back where a senator actually proposed a bill that would pay these women NOT to have children. It would pay them not to have children while still continuing the other program. Which to me, seems like a huge waste of tax payer dollars, and, almost impossible to keep track of. They can barely keep track of who is who now!
   
   So, In some ways, I can see that there is a justified move to crack down on some women. Single men do not see any of the help that these women are getting, so there has to be a level of fairness for everyone. If a single woman insists on having 9 kids, then she should be held accountable for her own actions.
   Why should the taxpayers have to support her? If she has no self control. I'm sorry, but a single woman with 9 kids isn't using her head. And, I certainly feel sorry for those kids.
   
   Most women who have that many children, and are getting public assistance are only looking out for one person, and that is themselves. Some even exchange their foodstamp money for cash to get cigerettes, alcohol, and drugs, while their children starve.
   Is this what we are paying for?

   replyreport
   1. 95

      wildernessposted 13 years agoin reply to this

      For the most part in these cases, that is exactly what we are paying for.  I can't imagine any single women with 9 children all with no fathers caring in the slightest about the children.  Only her income from them.

      replyreport
      1. 76

         brimancandyposted 13 years agoin reply to this

         Another note about this problem is that the GOV. Always bitches that these women don't get married and the children have no fathers. Well DUH!! the first thing they do when a woman on welfare marries, is cut their benefits. And, they push the burden off onto the father to support them. But, they do not cut benefits for those women who has the boyfriend living with them, even though that boyfriend is probably the father of all of her children.
         
         I know of several men who divorced their wives, so that their now x-wives and children would be able to get welfare. Even though they still live in the home. So, they are really not deadbeat dads, they are just victims of an unfair system, and they are just smart enough to take advantage of it.
         Some really do it for the sake of their children.
         
         Unfortunately a majority of young welfare mothers are just milking the sytstem for every penny they can get. I know one girl who had 5 kids before she was 20. But, she also worked full time. So, I have respect for her, as she is at least trying, while some of her friends are doing nothing.

         replyreport
7. 60

   BobbiRantposted 13 years ago

   Many find it hard to grasp the 'truth' something politicians count on heavily.  Yes, those bills are all listed on web sites and they are correct.  So Some may tell you those bills are far fetched, but believe me, politicians are something out of the Twilight Zone these days.

   replyreport
8. 67

   AnnCeeposted 13 years ago

   1.     Mother Jones
   
   
   2.   http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread … ersy-Again
   
   
   3.  http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/co … 06502.html
   
   
   etc.   All you have to do is google a key phrase and you'll find the news stories.   
   
   It might be instructive to research moveon.org also. 
   
   One thing about moveon.org that rather amuses me is that it was named after the phrase uttered ad nauseum by Clinton supporters to Americans who were interested in the fact that he had sex with a subordinate, an intern, a very young woman in the oval office, opening himself to the possibility of blackmail and subjecting the nation to humiliation.   
   
   
   They said, "It's time to MOVE ON." 
   
   Now moveon.org is all interested in protecting women.
   
   
   That's pretty funny considering what was done by the same people to various women who had contact with Clinton.
   
   Liberals are such hypocrites.

   replyreport
   1. 52

      Row Rowposted 13 years agoin reply to this

      Ann Cee,
      
      It is similar to how Clinton was always called the first "Black President", yet it was President Bush who had more minorities and women in positions of authority than any other President.
      
      Funny how Democrats always seem to go after the minorities and women who get to "uppity" by being nominated for important jobs.
      
      row row

      replyreport
9. 70

   Iontachposted 13 years ago

   I sincerely hope that BS is a joke. Jesus Christ what next...you know it shocks me so much I can't even think straight, I'm speeches. I think you all need to stand up against this complete and utter BS, wish I could stand up with you's but I'm far far away.

   replyreport