Now, with THIS, you seem to be agreeing with me...

But I might be missing the point.. :D

Michale

By all means, do enlighten me...

Because it seems you are saying that all women think men are scum, but they are going to vote Democrat anyways because Republicans are evil..

Glad to hear some talking points nonsense, though, thanks for playing.

Well, Friday IS "talking points" day, eh??
:D

Michale

Glad to hear some talking points nonsense, though, thanks for playing.

While not completely true, women know that slimy men exist across the board. Put together any decent sized group of men and a percentage of them will be slime (in the sense we mean here: sexist-ish, misogynist-ish, etc)

That doesn't explain why the Left worships Bill Clinton yet castigates the Right for this alleged "war on women"...

Only ONE explanation explains that..

Ideological enslavement...

There is a word that describes the malady perfectly...

JONESTOWN

Michale

While not completely true, women know that slimy men exist across the board. Put together any decent sized group of men and a percentage of them will be slime (in the sense we mean here: sexist-ish, misogynist-ish, etc).

It's also why men like Vitter don't influence the larger "women's vote" issue, either. On the other hand, GOP and Dem policies can and events like that described in this article almost definitely do (see the reaction to Issa's "War on Religion" committee meeting for another example).

hehehehehehe That never gets old!! :D

Michale

Present company excepted, of course... :D

Michale

Which is not to say that Democrats won't be SUCCESSFUL in their spin..

There are a LOT of low-information voters who would vote Democrat, even if the Party fielded Jeffery Dahlmer, William Gacy or Charles Manson..

But, speaking from a MORAL or ETHICAL perspective, Democrats will NEVER have the moral high ground as long as Clinton is the... ahem.. titular leader of the Democratic Party...

Michale

Character counts..

A LOT.....

Michale

What would the Left's reaction be to a Republican who says that sexual harassment, sexual assault and rape is "just characters behaving badly"??

I think we would both agree that the Left would go bat-shit crazy...

One political party with some badly-behaving characters (David Vitter would top my list, but there are many others) who actively legislates against their rights.

There is a BIG difference, a HUGE difference between patronizing hookers and sexual assault, sexual harassment and rape...

As I am sure you would agree...

If you'd like to make a case "Democrats push legislation X, Y, and Z, which hurts women or strips women's rights," then we can talk. Because when we talk apples and apples, the parties' differences are clear.

Again, it's in the spin...

The Mayoral Race of BumFuq California, remember?? :D

What it all boils down to is this..

Democrats will NEVER have the moral high ground on this issue until they kick Clinton to the curb the way they did Filner, Weiner and Spitzer.....

Objectively, you know I am right...

Michale

You were!??? Awesome!!!! :D

Michale

We're talking spin, not logic or facts.

Millions of Americans believe that life begins at conception..

They have a right to believe that way.

As much as you or I would like to believe otherwise, this country was FOUNDED on those kinds of christian beliefs..

So, the "spin" that the GOP is on the side of children (born and unborne) has as much "logic" as the spin that the GOP is engaging in a war on women...

That's why spin is so subjective. It could be ANYTHING anyone wants it to be...

It's like god's will.. or global warming..

It's ANYTHING and EVERYTHING... :D

On a completely unrelated note that I am sure we'll cover this weekend..

How bad a luck is it for Obama and the Democrats to have this huge VA scandal blow up on Memorial Day Weekend...

I mean, ya just gotta shake yer head and say, "WOW... What are the odds??"

Michale

Here's the choice actual women see:

One political party with some badly-behaving characters who fights for their rights.

One political party with some badly-behaving characters (David Vitter would top my list, but there are many others) who actively legislates against their rights.

The choice is pretty obvious, which is why the GOP is losing young and single women in droves. Because they're not stupid, and they don't get distracted by individual scandals -- they look at "what have you done for me lately" in terms of policy, instead.

Glad to have cleared that up for you. If you'd like to make a case "Democrats push legislation X, Y, and Z, which hurts women or strips women's rights," then we can talk. Because when we talk apples and apples, the parties' differences are clear.

:-)

-CW

Yeah, I always hesitate when essentially re-writing an article from elsewhere, but this one seemed to call for it. THe original article did point out the facts, but you're right, it didn't express the outrage I felt when I saw that video clip. So I decided to add my own thoughts.

I'm glad, because doing these re-writes is kinda lazy journalism in a way, but if I feel there's more to be said, then I go ahead and write it. So it's good to hear this kind of feedback.

:-)

-CW

i was following your reasoning on a number of other points, but that one is too gag-worthy not to point out. to reach that conclusion logically requires both the underlying presumptions that an egg/embryo/fetus is a child and that favoring a woman's right to choose constitutes wanting there to be more abortions. a substantial plurality of people may believe those things, but neither is even close to an established fact.

many people (usually a majority depending on how the poll question is asked) believe that a fetus is not a child. in many ways a fetus is more like a goldfish than a child. i'm not advocating the killing of goldfish en-masse, but i'm not protesting for the unalienable rights of goldfish either. the second premise is even less likely to be true than the first. many people want abortions to be less frequent while still supporting the woman's right to make that decision herself.

even if one were, for the sake of argument, to accept those suspect premises, the conclusion would still be far from assured. As CW pointed out in wednesday's column, abortion is a conflict between the rights of various people, including the rights of rapists to procreate with any woman they are able to impregnate. therefore, even if we were to call a fetus a person, an anti-abortion position would be taking that person's side as allied with the rapist and against the woman he raped.

JL

To put it into it's proper context, it would be as if the Republican Party were to complain about how Democrats treat illegal immigrants..

It's ridiculous that borders on, then CROSSES the border into ludicrous...

"Peter?? Oh, he was borderline for a while.. Then he crossed the border..."
-Egon Spengler, GHOSTBUSTERS II

Michale

Don't blame me for the grammatical error..

I am a dyslexic, agnostic insomniac...

I lie awake at night wondering if there is a Dog...

:D

Michale

Michale

What movie is Shocking. Positively shocking. from?

I stand corrected..

Just can't resist interjecting Trek quote at the drop of a dime.. :D

Michale

The Left won't be happy until every American things and acts EXACTLY as the Left does..

So much for 'diversity', eh??

Michale

:-)

"There is mimicry and there is mockery. And THAT was definitely mockery"
-Dr Leonard McCoy, STAR TREK, Yesterday's Son

:D

Michale

BTW, CW. Samantha Lachmann's original article on HuffPo is terrible.

Shocking. Positively shocking.

"Have a nice day.."
"DON'T tell ME what kind of day to have!!!"

:D

Michale

BTW, CW. Samantha Lachmann's original article on HuffPo is terrible.

It consists of the video and a GOP talking point without talking about any of the absurdity inherent in this attempt. "Ornamental"? I mean really. Wow.

Thanks for doing the follow-up analysis that I'm really surprised wasn't in the original article.

-David

Reproductive Health Care

Equal Pay

Personhood Amendments

Sexual Harassment

Domestic Violence

Childcare

Let's tackle those one by one..

Reproductive Health Care and Personhood Amendments are kinda synonymous..

And yer, right. Democrats lead the pack there..

But the next FOUR??

Equal Pay?? Sexual Harrassment?? Domestic Violence?? **CHILD**care???

Obama's White House pays women less...
FAIL

The Republicans are ON THE CHILDREN's side. Democrats want to kill unborn children.
FAIL

On Domestic Violence/Sexual harassment... Bill Clinton
EPIC FAIL...

Of the FIVE items you list, Democrats are only on the side of women in ONE of them....

In other words, Democrats only support women 20% of the issues they care about..

The GOP support women in the other 80%...

Do you see why this is such a losing issue for Democrats??

Because, when you look past the glitzy and glamorous sound quips, the FACTS are that Democrats are WORSE for women than Republicans are...

Michale

It gives the Right an opening..

Every time a Democrat says something about the "War On Women" all a Republican has to do is point to Eliot Spitzer, Anthony Wiener, Bob Filner and Bill Clinton..

Now, I see your point.. This is about policy not personality..

Do you think that matters to Joe Sixpack?? Do you think that Joe and Jane Sixpack are going to say to themselves, "Well, ya know, it's the policy that is important.."???

Of course not.. All Joe and Jane are going to think to themselves and talk to their friends about is the fact that Democrats go on and on about how they are on the side of women, yet they have a dozen times accused rapist as their leader..

You see the point??

This is NOT a winning issue for Democrats because the MINUTE they say "women" the FIRST thing that pops into your average American's mind is "Bill Clinton"...

And it's only going to get worse until Hillary decides to announce that she is not running..

Michale