War On Women Big Fail

[candycorn]

VAWA does help victims of violence..I'm not sure what you're talking about there.

It should be fairly obvious what I'm talking about. If VAWA is really legislation that helps victims of violence and was not being used as a political bashing tool, there would be no controversy. Naming it as if it is solely to help women and screeching that anyone who opposes it hates women makes it little more than a partisan tool. Here's a clue. No one hates women. The only "War on Women" I'm aware of is the paternalistic contempt displayed by the democrat party towards them.

It does help victims of violence and there is no controversy. Again for the 40th time, I brought it up because you guys keep telling whomever is listening that the only things liberals see in a woman is their "plumbing".

But since the ONLY 22 PEOPLE TO VOTE AGAINST IT IN THE SENATE WERE MALE GOP MEMBERS, it is fair game politically...is it not?

It sounds like you're admitting it is being used as a partisan political tool by claiming "War on Women" without bothering to find out if there are other reasons to vote against it.

You can always find a reason to vote against something... Whether or not they are good reasons is in the eye of the voter.

As for partisanship, if Rubio is proud of his vote, he can use it as a tool himself.

Rubio's opposition to it was what exactly?

I'll be sure to ask him at the next meeting. Until then, how hard is it for you to look it up? One of his oppositions is the way it diverts funds from domestic violence programs to sexual assault programs. Here's what he says about that.

These funding decisions should be left up to the state-based coalitions that understand local needs best, but instead this new legislation would put those decisions into the hands of distant Washington bureaucrats in the Department of Justice

I'm always tickled by that; as if when you're in Miami, the person in Tallahassee is tuned into "local needs". And as we saw with the ACA, the States can't be trusted to implement things that the governor/legislature doesn't deem necessary.

At any rate: Local Resources OVW Department of Justice Local presence in every state and Territory.

Ya gotta love it when people start carrying on about how people exercising their right to self determination mean that "they can't be trusted". That's the democrat attitude right there. People need democrats to force them to do certain things because they're either too stupid to know they should or hate somebody and want to harm them. Either way, it's ridiculous.

Ahh because the Governor and the Legislature know better than the person?

How is putting power in the hands of the federal government more empowering to the individual than by putting it in the hands of the state, or even better, the county level? I can move to a different county easily. Not so much a different country, especially if I want to take my money with me.

For one thing, you have access to federal programs regardless whether some guy in Austin or Atlanta think the program is good/bad or indifferent.

For another thing, they are the same everywhere so you can move from state to state and still be a stakeholder in the program...you don't have to worry about the Governor's mansion changing hands and she/he deciding that they know better.

Sounds to me like he prefers letting states decide how best to spend the money. That makes a lot more sense that screeching that he hates women.

He'll have to explain his vote if he runs for President. It won't be pretty.

That'll be fine. Hillary will have to explain what she's done as well, and that will be a short presentation. At least he has a history of accomplishment. If he can't explain it, that's his problem. If people lie about his explanation and don't care if there was a good reason for his vote, that's their problem.

He does? Thanks for the chuckle.
I think it will be his problem when he doesn't get the votes especially since the GOP just got through playing politics with the ACA and denying persons access to affordable insurance in some cases.

Obamadon'tcare is causing pain and will continue to cause pain for a long time to come. There's no need to play politics with it at all. And if you want truly affordable policies, bring back the bare bones basic ones that young people could actually afford instead of making them pay for things they don't want or need, like a man paying for female birth control.

Must be why we had so many town halls about it last month. Actually there were pretty much zero.

I guess the "grass roots" folks had better things to be peeved about....maybe?

 

[hadit]

It should be fairly obvious what I'm talking about. If VAWA is really legislation that helps victims of violence and was not being used as a political bashing tool, there would be no controversy. Naming it as if it is solely to help women and screeching that anyone who opposes it hates women makes it little more than a partisan tool. Here's a clue. No one hates women. The only "War on Women" I'm aware of is the paternalistic contempt displayed by the democrat party towards them.

It does help victims of violence and there is no controversy. Again for the 40th time, I brought it up because you guys keep telling whomever is listening that the only things liberals see in a woman is their "plumbing".

But since the ONLY 22 PEOPLE TO VOTE AGAINST IT IN THE SENATE WERE MALE GOP MEMBERS, it is fair game politically...is it not?

It sounds like you're admitting it is being used as a partisan political tool by claiming "War on Women" without bothering to find out if there are other reasons to vote against it.

You can always find a reason to vote against something... Whether or not they are good reasons is in the eye of the voter.

As for partisanship, if Rubio is proud of his vote, he can use it as a tool himself.

I'll be sure to ask him at the next meeting. Until then, how hard is it for you to look it up? One of his oppositions is the way it diverts funds from domestic violence programs to sexual assault programs. Here's what he says about that.

I'm always tickled by that; as if when you're in Miami, the person in Tallahassee is tuned into "local needs". And as we saw with the ACA, the States can't be trusted to implement things that the governor/legislature doesn't deem necessary.

At any rate: Local Resources OVW Department of Justice Local presence in every state and Territory.

Ya gotta love it when people start carrying on about how people exercising their right to self determination mean that "they can't be trusted". That's the democrat attitude right there. People need democrats to force them to do certain things because they're either too stupid to know they should or hate somebody and want to harm them. Either way, it's ridiculous.

Ahh because the Governor and the Legislature know better than the person?

How is putting power in the hands of the federal government more empowering to the individual than by putting it in the hands of the state, or even better, the county level? I can move to a different county easily. Not so much a different country, especially if I want to take my money with me.

For one thing, you have access to federal programs regardless whether some guy in Austin or Atlanta think the program is good/bad or indifferent.

For another thing, they are the same everywhere so you can move from state to state and still be a stakeholder in the program...you don't have to worry about the Governor's mansion changing hands and she/he deciding that they know better.

By the same token, you have a lot less control over what you're forced to do re these programs when they're dictated from Washington instead of locally. It may well be that a one-size-fits-all solution is detrimental rather than beneficial and localities should be able to do what works best for their citizens.

Sounds to me like he prefers letting states decide how best to spend the money. That makes a lot more sense that screeching that he hates women.

He'll have to explain his vote if he runs for President. It won't be pretty.

That'll be fine. Hillary will have to explain what she's done as well, and that will be a short presentation. At least he has a history of accomplishment. If he can't explain it, that's his problem. If people lie about his explanation and don't care if there was a good reason for his vote, that's their problem.

He does? Thanks for the chuckle.
I think it will be his problem when he doesn't get the votes especially since the GOP just got through playing politics with the ACA and denying persons access to affordable insurance in some cases.

Obamadon'tcare is causing pain and will continue to cause pain for a long time to come. There's no need to play politics with it at all. And if you want truly affordable policies, bring back the bare bones basic ones that young people could actually afford instead of making them pay for things they don't want or need, like a man paying for female birth control.

Must be why we had so many town halls about it last month. Actually there were pretty much zero.

I guess the "grass roots" folks had better things to be peeved about....maybe?

Who calls town hall meetings? Not the citizens. Apparently, the ones who would be expected to run on the stellar success of Obamadon'tcare don't really want to talk about it.

 

[labespy]

I suggest You can try this one definetly will help you direct access testing sites that provide the lab order that you can take to any of the certified laboratories like labcorp and quest to get the actual test done. I also find this useful website Buy cheapest Lab Tests online for Sexually Transmitted Infections (STIs) and Save! | LabEspy that can search for the cheapest price and checking the std tesing near me.