Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
Jarhead, the official committee hearing on issues of reproductive access had a long list of people testifying - all men. Surely you understand the problem there? The Democrats, not being morons, figured out that they could host their own hearing and invite women, just as the Republicans only invited men. It was political genius.
The conservative media was under no mandate to cover the Democratic hearing. They covered it because they thought they had an angle to bash Democrats. They were quite spectacularly wrong, and Rush made it an error-squared by elevating the hearing to a national news story. It's not that the GOP hates women - it's that Rush and others took a series of steps that make many women think they are not supportive (or don't understand) women's issues. That's why R's are losing so badly on this issue and wishing it would go away while D's are happy to continue talking about.
Meanwhile, Obama's numbers among women are climbing and Rush had to run 77 PSA's on his flagship station yesterday.
Issa's committee hearing was to address the 1st Amendment ramifications of the 'contraception mandate' vis-a-vis churches and religious organizations. It had nothing to do with anything else. Fluke has no knowledge about religious organizations so she was rightfully excluded from that hearing.
Edited to add: If you're going to flap your gums about it, at least be accurate.
Did Anita Dun force Rush Limbaugh to call Fluke a slut and a prostitute?
Jarhead, the official committee hearing on issues of reproductive access had a long list of people testifying - all men. Surely you understand the problem there? The Democrats, not being morons, figured out that they could host their own hearing and invite women, just as the Republicans only invited men. It was political genius.
The conservative media was under no mandate to cover the Democratic hearing. They covered it because they thought they had an angle to bash Democrats. They were quite spectacularly wrong, and Rush made it an error-squared by elevating the hearing to a national news story. It's not that the GOP hates women - it's that Rush and others took a series of steps that make many women think they are not supportive (or don't understand) women's issues. That's why R's are losing so badly on this issue and wishing it would go away while D's are happy to continue talking about.
Meanwhile, Obama's numbers among women are climbing and Rush had to run 77 PSA's on his flagship station yesterday.
Issa's committee hearing was to address the 1st Amendment ramifications of the 'contraception mandate' vis-a-vis churches and religious organizations. It had nothing to do with anything else. Fluke has no knowledge about religious organizations so she was rightfully excluded from that hearing.
Edited to add: If you're going to flap your gums about it, at least be accurate.
See that part about contraception? In this case, contraception for women? i don't usually give free advice to paying clients, but if you're going to have a top-level discussion about women's contraception, you don't have to be a political genius to realize that having women participate makes sense.
Jarhead, the official committee hearing on issues of reproductive access had a long list of people testifying - all men. Surely you understand the problem there? The Democrats, not being morons, figured out that they could host their own hearing and invite women, just as the Republicans only invited men. It was political genius.
The conservative media was under no mandate to cover the Democratic hearing. They covered it because they thought they had an angle to bash Democrats. They were quite spectacularly wrong, and Rush made it an error-squared by elevating the hearing to a national news story. It's not that the GOP hates women - it's that Rush and others took a series of steps that make many women think they are not supportive (or don't understand) women's issues. That's why R's are losing so badly on this issue and wishing it would go away while D's are happy to continue talking about.
Meanwhile, Obama's numbers among women are climbing and Rush had to run 77 PSA's on his flagship station yesterday.
Issa's committee hearing was to address the 1st Amendment ramifications of the 'contraception mandate' vis-a-vis churches and religious organizations. It had nothing to do with anything else. Fluke has no knowledge about religious organizations so she was rightfully excluded from that hearing.
Edited to add: If you're going to flap your gums about it, at least be accurate.
See that part about contraception? In this case, contraception for women? i don't usually give free advice to paying clients, but if you're going to have a top-level discussion about women's contraception, you don't have to be a political genius to realize that having women participate makes sense.
Issa's committee hearing was to address the 1st Amendment ramifications of the 'contraception mandate' vis-a-vis churches and religious organizations. It had nothing to do with anything else. Fluke has no knowledge about religious organizations so she was rightfully excluded from that hearing.
Edited to add: If you're going to flap your gums about it, at least be accurate.
See that part about contraception? In this case, contraception for women? i don't usually give free advice to paying clients, but if you're going to have a top-level discussion about women's contraception, you don't have to be a political genius to realize that having women participate makes sense.
Try to stop being so obtuse. See that part about the 1st Amendment and mandate and religious organizations? THAT was the subject, try to keep up.
Um, no; it wasn't. It is about the First Amendment's guarantee to the religious that they can practice their beliefs without government interference.See that part about contraception? In this case, contraception for women? i don't usually give free advice to paying clients, but if you're going to have a top-level discussion about women's contraception, you don't have to be a political genius to realize that having women participate makes sense.
Try to stop being so obtuse. See that part about the 1st Amendment and mandate and religious organizations? THAT was the subject, try to keep up.
The mandate was about female contraception. I'm being completely serious when I say this: If Republican's cant see the terrible optics of discussing topics related to female contraception without inviting females to participate, they are in worse shape come November than I ever imagined.
Seriously, think about the optics of that for just one second.
See that part about contraception? In this case, contraception for women? i don't usually give free advice to paying clients, but if you're going to have a top-level discussion about women's contraception, you don't have to be a political genius to realize that having women participate makes sense.
Try to stop being so obtuse. See that part about the 1st Amendment and mandate and religious organizations? THAT was the subject, try to keep up.
The mandate was about female contraception. I'm being completely serious when I say this: If Republican's cant see the terrible optics of discussing topics related to female contraception without inviting females to participate, they are in worse shape come November than I ever imagined.
Seriously, think about the optics of that for just one second.
See that part about contraception? In this case, contraception for women? i don't usually give free advice to paying clients, but if you're going to have a top-level discussion about women's contraception, you don't have to be a political genius to realize that having women participate makes sense.
Try to stop being so obtuse. See that part about the 1st Amendment and mandate and religious organizations? THAT was the subject, try to keep up.
The mandate was about female contraception. I'm being completely serious when I say this: If Republican's cant see the terrible optics of discussing topics related to female contraception without inviting females to participate, they are in worse shape come November than I ever imagined.
Seriously, think about the optics of that for just one second.
Did you listen to the hearing? The primary topic was female contraception and the right of certain organizations to opt out of providing it.Try to stop being so obtuse. See that part about the 1st Amendment and mandate and religious organizations? THAT was the subject, try to keep up.
The mandate was about female contraception. I'm being completely serious when I say this: If Republican's cant see the terrible optics of discussing topics related to female contraception without inviting females to participate, they are in worse shape come November than I ever imagined.
Seriously, think about the optics of that for just one second.
The hearing was about the 1st Amendment guarantees of religious liberty and the 'conscience clause', it was NOT about contraception. That's the problem with your myopic view, you can't or won't admit that you're wrong.
See that part about contraception? In this case, contraception for women? i don't usually give free advice to paying clients, but if you're going to have a top-level discussion about women's contraception, you don't have to be a political genius to realize that having women participate makes sense.
Try to stop being so obtuse. See that part about the 1st Amendment and mandate and religious organizations? THAT was the subject, try to keep up.
The mandate was about female contraception. I'm being completely serious when I say this: If Republican's cant see the terrible optics of discussing topics related to female contraception without inviting females to participate, they are in worse shape come November than I ever imagined.
Seriously, think about the optics of that for just one second.
Of course I listened to the hearing. It was, indeed, about the right of certain organizations - religious ones, to be exact - to opt out of it. It's called protection from government influence on religious organizations to practice their beliefs. It's guaranteed by the First.Did you listen to the hearing? The primary topic was female contraception and the right of certain organizations to opt out of providing it.The mandate was about female contraception. I'm being completely serious when I say this: If Republican's cant see the terrible optics of discussing topics related to female contraception without inviting females to participate, they are in worse shape come November than I ever imagined.
Seriously, think about the optics of that for just one second.
The hearing was about the 1st Amendment guarantees of religious liberty and the 'conscience clause', it was NOT about contraception. That's the problem with your myopic view, you can't or won't admit that you're wrong.
....
As for the hearing, Issa Thursday said Democrats could not add their witness because she was not a member of the clergy, but a student at Georgetown. He also faulted Democrats for not submitting the name of the witness, Georgetown Law Center student Sandra Fluke, in time.
Issa’s staff sent a letter to the Democrats, saying, “As the hearing is not about reproductive rights but instead about the administration’s actions as they relate to freedom of religion and conscience, he believes that Ms. Fluke is not an appropriate witness.”
Try to stop being so obtuse. See that part about the 1st Amendment and mandate and religious organizations? THAT was the subject, try to keep up.
The mandate was about female contraception. I'm being completely serious when I say this: If Republican's cant see the terrible optics of discussing topics related to female contraception without inviting females to participate, they are in worse shape come November than I ever imagined.
Seriously, think about the optics of that for just one second.
what dont you get?
The hearing was about whether or not the government can mandate something without it being in breach of the constitution.
Ones opinion on the need for contraception is irrelevant...even if the mandate has to do with contraception.
Did you listen to the hearing? The primary topic was female contraception and the right of certain organizations to opt out of providing it.The mandate was about female contraception. I'm being completely serious when I say this: If Republican's cant see the terrible optics of discussing topics related to female contraception without inviting females to participate, they are in worse shape come November than I ever imagined.
Seriously, think about the optics of that for just one second.
The hearing was about the 1st Amendment guarantees of religious liberty and the 'conscience clause', it was NOT about contraception. That's the problem with your myopic view, you can't or won't admit that you're wrong.
Again, the optics of an all-male panel on that are just terrible. awful. hilariously, epically pathetic. If you want to continue to explain it away be my guest. But the optics are what the optics are, and Republicans lost...badly. They will continue to lose if they don't learn from this. That's why women are running from the Republicans right now. Women can vote. Daughters, mothers, wives, grandmothers? They can vote.
No, Jarhead - the legislative branch doesn't get to determine if something is constitutional. Any time they claim to be doing so, they are yapping for the sake of yapping.Try to stop being so obtuse. See that part about the 1st Amendment and mandate and religious organizations? THAT was the subject, try to keep up.
The mandate was about female contraception. I'm being completely serious when I say this: If Republican's cant see the terrible optics of discussing topics related to female contraception without inviting females to participate, they are in worse shape come November than I ever imagined.
Seriously, think about the optics of that for just one second.
When determining the constitionality of something, ones personal feelings about the subject itself is supposed to be ignored.
Like a judge....one is not to apply ones personal sentiments and ideology when deciding the law.
You need to see what you are saying.
You want "emotion" to be used when determining if something is constitutional.
May sound good to you in this case....but it wont in a case where it goes against your ideology.
You are wrong here...you need to see that and move on.
The mandate was about female contraception. I'm being completely serious when I say this: If Republican's cant see the terrible optics of discussing topics related to female contraception without inviting females to participate, they are in worse shape come November than I ever imagined.
Seriously, think about the optics of that for just one second.
what dont you get?
The hearing was about whether or not the government can mandate something without it being in breach of the constitution.
Ones opinion on the need for contraception is irrelevant...even if the mandate has to do with contraception.
Optics, Jarhead. Optics. Seriously, Republicans could learn something here. instead, they are losing women in droves. Which is fine with me, of course.
Fluke isn't the only woman who could have testified.
No, Jarhead - the legislative branch doesn't get to determine if something is constitutional. Any time they claim to be doing so, they are yapping for the sake of yapping.The mandate was about female contraception. I'm being completely serious when I say this: If Republican's cant see the terrible optics of discussing topics related to female contraception without inviting females to participate, they are in worse shape come November than I ever imagined.
Seriously, think about the optics of that for just one second.
When determining the constitionality of something, ones personal feelings about the subject itself is supposed to be ignored.
Like a judge....one is not to apply ones personal sentiments and ideology when deciding the law.
You need to see what you are saying.
You want "emotion" to be used when determining if something is constitutional.
May sound good to you in this case....but it wont in a case where it goes against your ideology.
You are wrong here...you need to see that and move on.
That's the court's job.
They thought they had a political angle. it backfired - to epic proportions. So much so that the leading conservative commentator in the nation had to run 77 public service announcements in one day on his flagship station.
what dont you get?
The hearing was about whether or not the government can mandate something without it being in breach of the constitution.
Ones opinion on the need for contraception is irrelevant...even if the mandate has to do with contraception.
Optics, Jarhead. Optics. Seriously, Republicans could learn something here. instead, they are losing women in droves. Which is fine with me, of course.
Fluke isn't the only woman who could have testified.
I applaud the GOP for not caring about how it makes them look.
They want to preserve the constitution.....and they needed to hear from those that can help them determnine if the mandate is constitutional......not to determine whether or not conmtraception should be for free.
No, Jarhead - the legislative branch doesn't get to determine if something is constitutional. Any time they claim to be doing so, they are yapping for the sake of yapping.When determining the constitionality of something, ones personal feelings about the subject itself is supposed to be ignored.
Like a judge....one is not to apply ones personal sentiments and ideology when deciding the law.
You need to see what you are saying.
You want "emotion" to be used when determining if something is constitutional.
May sound good to you in this case....but it wont in a case where it goes against your ideology.
You are wrong here...you need to see that and move on.
That's the court's job.
They thought they had a political angle. it backfired - to epic proportions. So much so that the leading conservative commentator in the nation had to run 77 public service announcements in one day on his flagship station.
Let me ask you this....
Exactly what did Fluke have to offer as it pertains to whether or not the consitution was being breached by the mandate?
