…by the Democrats.
It’s kind of like their war on blacks.
[Update mid afternoon]
“We’ll treat you like dirt, but at least you get to kill your unborn children.”
8 thoughts on “The War On Women”
Comments are closed.
…by the Democrats.
It’s kind of like their war on blacks.
[Update mid afternoon]
“We’ll treat you like dirt, but at least you get to kill your unborn children.”
Comments are closed.
But that’s okay, because abortion. Better a serial molester or an actual murderer who supports abortion than a fairly decent guy who opposes it.
Which tells us a lot about abortion supporters, no?
To my mind, the comparison makes no sense. The actions of Filner and Weiner are universally viewed with disgust by Democrats, whereas Limbaugh’s and Aikin’s statements are applauded by a lot of people on the right (I imagine mostly men). Furthermore, Filner and Weiner at least had to state that what they did was wrong, while Limbaugh took his usual cowardly dodge by saying he was “just trying to be humorous”. But most importantly, Filner and Weiner are engaged in some obscene activities, but those activities aren’t offered as the basis for some kind of national policy. You can’t say that about Aikin, who was trying to rationalize the extremely unpopular (and to my mind disgusting) stance that women should be denied abortions even in the case of rape, nor of Limbaugh, who was attacking a woman’s right to health care.
So universal was the Democratic disgust that they covered up for Filner for years and now are doing all they can to downplay the story.
Mocking the rest of your newspeak I leave as an exercise to the reader.
“You can’t say that about Aikin, who was trying to rationalize the extremely unpopular (and to my mind disgusting) stance that women should be denied abortions even in the case of rape…”
For the sake of argument, if you begin with the premise that life begins at conception, then why does it matter if that conception was the result of rape? Is the resultant human being less deserving of life simply because of the non-consensual nature of the intercourse between the parents? To those who believe that human life begins at conception, your statement is just as disgusting. Should the baby be put to death because of the sins of the father? In this country, children have historically NOT been held accountable for the crimes of the parents, and yet you condemn them to death without due process. Is pregnancy from rape a horrendous event? Certainly, and in my mind, the punishment for rape should, accordingly, be very high. But abortion, in the eyes of many of your fellow citizens, is equally as wrong. Two wrongs don’t make right.
“…Limbaugh, who was attacking a woman’s right to health care.”
1) Limbaugh is a private citizen and may say any damn thing he wants. 2) He wasn’t attacking a woman’s right to health care. Even if you accept a “right to healthcare” (which I don’t) he was making fun of her demand for “free” contraception. She was perfectly free to exercise her right to health care by buying her own damn condoms; no one was preventing her from doing so.
So universal was the Democratic disgust that they covered up for Filner for years and now are doing all they can to downplay the story.
Who are the “they” you say covered this up? Certainly not the rank and file of the Democratic Party. There’s no such thing as a “universal” coverup — my statement stands, the vast majority of Democrats were appalled when they found out about Filner, and condemn him still.
Is pregnancy from rape a horrendous event? Certainly, and in my mind, the punishment for rape should, accordingly, be very high. But abortion, in the eyes of many of your fellow citizens, is equally as wrong. Two wrongs don’t make right.
I abhor your view, you abhor mine, and ne’er the twain shall meet. The difference is that my view puts the choice in the hands of the individual mother-to-be — which is why it’s rightly said that the war on women is being waged from the right.
She was perfectly free to exercise her right to health care by buying her own damn condoms; no one was preventing her from doing so.
The issue was her right to medical coverage she paid for through her tuition. She wasn’t asking you or anyone other than her insurance company for “free” contraception — contraception is “medical” to everyone except the Christian Taliban in America.
Who are the “they” you say covered this up? Certainly not the rank and file of the Democratic Party. There’s no such thing as a “universal” coverup — my statement stands, the vast majority of Democrats were appalled when they found out about Filner, and condemn him still.
Dave, you contend that the rank and file of our political parties control the message that gets press coverage? Wow.
You asked who covered up Filner’s actions? Well, there was the California Democratic Party for one.
The local Democratic Party has known for a long time about sexual harassment allegations against Bob Filner, a former Democratic assemblywoman said in a Thursday interview.
“I blew the whistle on this two years ago to the Democratic Party leadership,” former Assemblywoman Lori Saldaña said.
Saldaña said that in summer 2011 six prominent women in local politics, business and education told her that Filner had physically or verbally harassed them. Saldaña had been exploring what turned out to be an unsuccessful bid for Congress and the conversations came in the context of the 2012 elections.
Saldaña said she contacted former party Chairman Jess Durfee with the allegations and Durfee was among a group of Democratic leaders who met with Filner to discuss them that summer. She said nothing happened.
“As disgraceful as Bob’s behavior has been, it’s been tolerated by our Democratic Party leadership,” she said.
Oh, and the Press in San Diego knew all about him for years but failed to do more than talk to one another about it.
They are questions that should have been asked long ago, and should have been asked by those whose job it is to ask such questions: us.
Who are “us”?
“Us” are the San Diego news media reporters, editors, producers and writers who pretty much knew who and what Bob Filner is and has been.
Yes, I’m including myself in that group. I’ve covered Bob Filner off and on since he was elected to the San Diego Unified School District Board in 1979. From the beginning, most of us saw how arrogant Filner was and is, how abusive he could be to his own staff members, how he felt elective office entitled him to be all those things and more.
We all saw that in Filner, and yet we did nothing about it. Filner was often a topic of conversation among us when we gathered at news conferences or when we would gather at the various watering holes many of us frequented together when off work.
The near universal opinion among us was, “Can you believe this guy? Why does he get away with acting like that?” Then another round of drinks would appear, and talk went on to other things.
But we never asked those questions on air or in print. We never really tried to find out what was behind the near-incessant rumors that always floated around Filner. We never tried to confirm any of those rumors, or, if we did, we quickly gave up when presented with the denials, or refusals to talk about it.
Dave,
I see rational discourse escapes you. Here, I thought we were discussing an issue important to society by calmly examining the merits of various arguments for and against. Yet you can’t seem to frame a coherent thought without resorting to hasty generalizations and ad hominems. I point out that there is a rather significant portion of the population that thinks abortion is wrong and instead of acknowledging that fact you trot out the tired cliché of a “war on women” from the “right”.
“The issue was her right to medical coverage she paid for through her tuition. She wasn’t asking you or anyone other than her insurance company for “free” contraception…”
Really? I was supposed to translate “Limbaugh, who was attacking a woman’s right to health care…” as “Limbaugh, who was attacking a woman’s right to medical coverage she paid for through her tuition…”? That’s OK, I’ll pivot to the new interpretation. The young lady had an insurance policy that she paid for. That policy, which is a type of contract, did not include coverage for contraception. If it had, then the young lady had a case, and should be able to sue the insurance company for breach of contract. However, I don’t believe that the policy did. Is it your contention, that one party to a contract should be able to impose a unilateral requirement on the other party, without providing any additional consideration, retroactively, and without the other party’s consent? What’s the basis in law for that?
“— contraception is ‘medical’ …” Who said it wasn’t and why is it germane to this conversation? Do you think a health care policy automatically covers all things “medical”? Lawyers would have a field day with that interpretation. Sex change operations are “medical” in nature, I’d be willing to bet the young lady’s policy didn’t cover those either, should she be so inclined. I know my current health care plan has a very long list of exclusions, and I knew what they were ahead of time. Headaches are “medical” but my insurance policy won’t cover over-the-counter aspirin. In fact, the IRS won’t allow me to use my FSA dollars for any medicines (also “medical stuff) that I don’t have a prescription for. So the issue really isn’t about contraception, but whether or not the state should be able to arbitrarily require insurers to issue policies in the future meeting certain requirements, even requirements that may be too costly or that go against the purchasing institution’s values.
Please notice that I’ve managed to frame the discussion without any reference to religion and terrorists. Though I have to ask, does referring to those with opposing views as “the Christian Taliban” allow you to feel superior in some way? Or does it just allow you to rationalize being a horse’s ass?