WAR On WOMEN By Republicans

[daveman]

The reality is that women were given the vote...

You're right, we did "give" you the vote, and we stopped beating you, mostly, and we allowed you not to stay barefoot and pregnant for life, and to work, and to drive, and we stopped swatting your bottom just because you were bent over filing papers, and we passed laws that said even though we were married to you we could still be charged with rape, and all of that because women very unlike you, much braver than you, gave a shit, stood up for what mattered, and took all the abuse necessary for as long as necessary so that you could call those who follow in their footsteps, stupid twats...

So that means women HAVE to do as they're told and vote Democrat.

 

[daveman]

You're right, we did "give" you the vote, and we stopped beating you, mostly, and we allowed you not to stay barefoot and pregnant for life, and to work, and to drive, and we stopped swatting your bottom just because you were bent over filing papers, and we passed laws that said even though we were married to you we could still be charged with rape, and all of that because women very unlike you, much braver than you, gave a shit, stood up for what mattered, and took all the abuse necessary for as long as necessary so that you could call those who follow in their footsteps, stupid twats...

^^^ like I say.......the feminist bulldogs love to troll in these threads.

That's not trolling sweetcheeks, that's a take-down from a man who actually lived through it. I know what she doesn't, and never will.

So you're telling Cecilie to sit down and shut up when a man's talking.

 

[daveman]

Torch, Conservative women understand that Politics is not the venue they should be paying attention to. Their time is much better spent taking care of the children and the home than worrying about politics or current events. That's what she has a father, boyfriend, or husband for.

At home making beds, breads, and babies, the GOP way.

Really? The only side I see that coming from in this thread is yours. Specifically, YOU.

 

[daveman]

Oh my! This Reality posting really brought out all of the trolls from out of the woodwork didn't it! Well, I know the truth hurts but just bear with it until your political party can make reparations to women in this country.

The elections prove what we are saying: women vote democratic because the democrats support women's issues.

Yes, we've covered this. Democrats view women as nothing more than a reproductive system, interested only in consequence-free sex underwritten by the taxpayer.

 

[daveman]

^^^ like I say.......the feminist bulldogs love to troll in these threads.

Too bad for the penis-envy dykes out there that THEY didn't give me the vote, or anything else. Nor are they and their "I'm a woman, pity me and give me things because my vagina is a birth defect that means I can't take care of myself like a man" sobbing the heirs of Susan B. Anthony and the other suffragettes. Truth to tell, if those women could see what today's women were going to do with their votes, they'd most likely just say, "Never mind" and head back to the kitchen. They sure as hell weren't marching and fighting for leftist broads to vote for President as though they're trying to get picked up in a singles bar a half-hour before last call.

Anyone who doesn't want to be called a stupid **** need only stop acting like one. As long as leftie women are appearing on Capitol Hill for the "important right" to have the government supply them with the means to be some player's one-night stand . . . hey, I calls 'em like I sees 'em, sweetie pie.

Why do you never buy a woman a wristwatch as a gift? Because there's always a clock in the kitchen.

The funny thing is, my mother raised me to respect girls and women. What she neglected to mention was that some of them, like you, are just worthless *****. I guess she figured I'd figure that out, which I did. Just calling it like I see it...

Hey, remember how liberals can't be misogynists?

Yeah, that's a ******* lie.

 

[Andylusion]

This message is hidden because Howey is on your ignore list.

Oh what a beautiful message. Best posts by him ever.

 

[daveman]

What a narrow minded and ignorant statement.

Many blacks and whites who were born during the Depression were birthed by midwifes, as well as today in certain parts of this country. There is no official record of the birth therefore it's impossible for them to meet 5 he new voting ID requirements. Others, the poor you so disdain, simply can't afford it.

Put down that wide brush, mkay?

Reality check:

Georgia’s Voter ID Lawsuit, Seven Years Later: Disenfranchised, or Still Voting?

--

When Common Cause Georgia — a liberal “citizens’ lobby organization” — originally filed a federal lawsuit in 2005 over Georgia’s voter ID law along with a number of other plaintiffs, the organization claimed that hundreds of thousands of Georgians would be unable to vote. They produced witness after witness — who signed affidavits under penalty of perjury — claiming that they did not have a photo ID and could not obtain the free Georgia photo ID the law provided, and therefore would be turned away at the polls. The plaintiffs lost their lawsuit (as well as a state court action) after the federal court concluded that the law was neither discriminatory nor a burden on voters, and that none of them would be unable to vote.

Was the court wrong? Were the claims of these witnesses true? Were these individual Georgians prevented from casting their ballots?

Official state voting records show that the court was right. Many of these witnesses — again, who signed affidavits — went on to vote in the 2008, 2010, and 2012 elections.

See more at link.​

How did the DOJ's case against the Texas voter ID law go?

Badly. Very, very badly -- for DOJ.

The Justice Department presented what it said was evidence that as many as 1.5 million Texans don’t have the government issued photo i.d. required to vote, but Attorney General Greg Abbott says of the people on that roll, 50,000 are dead, 330,000 are over the age of 65 and can vote by mail, where a photo i.d. is not required, and more than 800,000 are on the list improperly.

Among the people who the DOJ listed as ‘lacking the required documentation needed to vote’ are Former President George W. Bush, San Antonio State Senator Leticia Van de Putte, and Licia Ellis, who’s husband, Houston state Senator Rodney Ellis, on Wednesday blasted the voter i.d. law as ‘just like the racist murder of James Byrd’ who was dragged to death in east Texas in 1998.

In fact, University of Texas students conducted a telephone survey of random people on the DOJ’s list of people who allegedly don’t have the documents required to vote, and found that more than 90% of them, including 93% of African Americans and 92% of Hispanics on the list, actually have a photo i.d.

See more at link​

Objections to Voter ID laws are utterly groundless.

Progressives hate them because they can't steal elections.

Objections to Voter ID laws are utterly groundless.

Progressives hate them because they can't steal elections.

 

[Cecilie1200]

Oh my! This Reality posting really brought out all of the trolls from out of the woodwork didn't it! Well, I know the truth hurts but just bear with it until your political party can make reparations to women in this country.

The elections prove what we are saying: women vote democratic because the democrats support women's issues.

The elections prove what men were saying all along: women shouldn't be allowed to vote on public policy as though they're choosing a baby daddy.

How does it feel to be Exhibit One in the argument AGAINST women's suffrage?

 

[Cecilie1200]

What a narrow minded and ignorant statement.

Many blacks and whites who were born during the Depression were birthed by midwifes, as well as today in certain parts of this country. There is no official record of the birth therefore it's impossible for them to meet 5 he new voting ID requirements. Others, the poor you so disdain, simply can't afford it.

Put down that wide brush, mkay?

Really, dimwit? You REALLY think the laws haven't already made provisions for the circumstances of people born in the 1930s by now? You really think those people have lived all these decades without any sort of ID? How the **** do you think they're getting Social Security checks and Medicare?

Stop talking, I beg you. Any more ignorance is bound to cause some sort of tear in the fabric of space and time with the sheer force of its stupidity.

Please feel free to show me, with links, the efforts states have made to alleviate both points I made.

yeah. I know you can't, [MENTION=14617]Cecilie1200[/MENTION].

Jesus H. Jumped-Up Christ, you should really stick to pumping your boyfriend and not worry your fluffy little head about complicated matters like politics. It'll just give you wrinkles, Snookums.

Here's the advice given to immigrants who do not have regular birth certificates:

I don't have a birth certificate or I do have one but my name is not on it, is misspelled, etc.

If you don't have a birth certificate, you may submit notarized affidavits from your parents. If it is not possible to get affidavits from your parents, you may submit affidavits from other relatives who were at least 10 years old at the time of your birth. The affidavits must include the individual's name, address, date of birth, relationship to you, and an explanation of how the person knows when you were born. The affidavits must also include your name, date and place of birth, and the names of both of your parents. Examples of people who may be able to complete an affidavit are your grandparents, aunts and uncles. In general, if a birth certificate is not available,you should obtain: (a) a certificate of non-availability from the government agency that would have issued the birth certificate if one were available, and (b) two affidavits as described above. You may also submit any other evidence of your date of birth, such as a school certificate, religious certificate, certificate from the hospital or midwife, etc. Failure to submit proper proof of birth will generally result in the USCIS issuing a Request for Evidence (RFE) for the birth certificate and/or the required affidavits.

So please tell me, you pathetic ignoramus, that you think that our laws have provisions for non-citizens to enter and operate within the legal system and acquire identification and other services, but you're convinced that people born in this country but not in a hospital are expected to live "in the shadows" without any access.

And that's just what I came up with in five minutes on the Internet. But I'm sure that acquiring information is MUCH HARDER for everyone else in the United States, right?

If we need an expert on bath houses, we'll call you. Otherwise, leave the real issues to real people with real brains.

 

[Vigilante]

 

[Howey]

really, dimwit? You really think the laws haven't already made provisions for the circumstances of people born in the 1930s by now? You really think those people have lived all these decades without any sort of id? How the **** do you think they're getting social security checks and medicare?

Stop talking, i beg you. Any more ignorance is bound to cause some sort of tear in the fabric of space and time with the sheer force of its stupidity.

please feel free to show me, with links, the efforts states have made to alleviate both points i made.

Yeah. I know you can't, [mention=14617]cecilie1200[/mention].

jesus h. Jumped-up christ, you should really stick to pumping your boyfriend and not worry your fluffy little head about complicated matters like politics. It'll just give you wrinkles, snookums.

Here's the advice given to immigrants who do not have regular birth certificates:

i don't have a birth certificate or i do have one but my name is not on it, is misspelled, etc.

if you don't have a birth certificate, you may submit notarized affidavits from your parents. If it is not possible to get affidavits from your parents, you may submit affidavits from other relatives who were at least 10 years old at the time of your birth. The affidavits must include the individual's name, address, date of birth, relationship to you, and an explanation of how the person knows when you were born. The affidavits must also include your name, date and place of birth, and the names of both of your parents. Examples of people who may be able to complete an affidavit are your grandparents, aunts and uncles. In general, if a birth certificate is not available,you should obtain: (a) a certificate of non-availability from the government agency that would have issued the birth certificate if one were available, and (b) two affidavits as described above. You may also submit any other evidence of your date of birth, such as a school certificate, religious certificate, certificate from the hospital or midwife, etc. Failure to submit proper proof of birth will generally result in the uscis issuing a request for evidence (rfe) for the birth certificate and/or the required affidavits.

So please tell me, you pathetic ignoramus, that you think that our laws have provisions for non-citizens to enter and operate within the legal system and acquire identification and other services, but you're convinced that people born in this country but not in a hospital are expected to live "in the shadows" without any access.

And that's just what i came up with in five minutes on the internet. But i'm sure that acquiring information is much harder for everyone else in the united states, right?

If we need an expert on bath houses, we'll call you. Otherwise, leave the real issues to real people with real brains.

off topic

 

[Cecilie1200]

Voter Photo ID Laws Hit Older Americans Hard - Voting Rights - AARP

There's five or six posts on this sub-topic, started by one of your fellow right wingers. Make an erroneous statement, I'll refute it. I don't give a damn what the topic of the thread is.

A left-leaning website with a political agenda "refutes" nothing except any lingering notion that you have two or more functioning brain cells.

 

[daveman]

What a narrow minded and ignorant statement.

Many blacks and whites who were born during the Depression were birthed by midwifes, as well as today in certain parts of this country. There is no official record of the birth therefore it's impossible for them to meet 5 he new voting ID requirements. Others, the poor you so disdain, simply can't afford it.

Put down that wide brush, mkay?

Reality check:

Georgia’s Voter ID Lawsuit, Seven Years Later: Disenfranchised, or Still Voting?

--

When Common Cause Georgia — a liberal “citizens’ lobby organization” — originally filed a federal lawsuit in 2005 over Georgia’s voter ID law along with a number of other plaintiffs, the organization claimed that hundreds of thousands of Georgians would be unable to vote. They produced witness after witness — who signed affidavits under penalty of perjury — claiming that they did not have a photo ID and could not obtain the free Georgia photo ID the law provided, and therefore would be turned away at the polls. The plaintiffs lost their lawsuit (as well as a state court action) after the federal court concluded that the law was neither discriminatory nor a burden on voters, and that none of them would be unable to vote.

Was the court wrong? Were the claims of these witnesses true? Were these individual Georgians prevented from casting their ballots?

Official state voting records show that the court was right. Many of these witnesses — again, who signed affidavits — went on to vote in the 2008, 2010, and 2012 elections.

See more at link.​

How did the DOJ's case against the Texas voter ID law go?

Badly. Very, very badly -- for DOJ.

The Justice Department presented what it said was evidence that as many as 1.5 million Texans don’t have the government issued photo i.d. required to vote, but Attorney General Greg Abbott says of the people on that roll, 50,000 are dead, 330,000 are over the age of 65 and can vote by mail, where a photo i.d. is not required, and more than 800,000 are on the list improperly.

Among the people who the DOJ listed as ‘lacking the required documentation needed to vote’ are Former President George W. Bush, San Antonio State Senator Leticia Van de Putte, and Licia Ellis, who’s husband, Houston state Senator Rodney Ellis, on Wednesday blasted the voter i.d. law as ‘just like the racist murder of James Byrd’ who was dragged to death in east Texas in 1998.

In fact, University of Texas students conducted a telephone survey of random people on the DOJ’s list of people who allegedly don’t have the documents required to vote, and found that more than 90% of them, including 93% of African Americans and 92% of Hispanics on the list, actually have a photo i.d.

See more at link​

Objections to Voter ID laws are utterly groundless.

Progressives hate them because they can't steal elections.

[MENTION=42946]Howey[/MENTION]...this is a large post. It took extra effort to ignore it, didn't it?

Y'know, pretending it's not there doesn't mean it doesn't actually exist. Other people can see it, and can see that it demolishes the left's objections to Voter ID.

It's time to let go of the victimhood fantasy.

 

[Synthaholic]

A lot of Republican women will be voting Democrat in November.

 

[Zander]

A lot of Republican women will be voting Democrat in November.

Yes. My wife checks with her vagina first, before every election! Don't they all?

 

[Listening]

"A lot" of young people won't be voting democrat this November.

Good luck to the left.

Adding to the democrats problems:

http://townhall.com/tipsheet/guybenson/2014/07/02/white-house-pay-gap-n1858141

War on Women: Obama WH Makes No Progress Closing Own 'Pay Gap' Since 2009

 

[Cecilie1200]

A lot of Republican women will be voting Democrat in November.

Yeah, you just keep fapping to that daydream.

 

[Howey]

What a narrow minded and ignorant statement.

Many blacks and whites who were born during the Depression were birthed by midwifes, as well as today in certain parts of this country. There is no official record of the birth therefore it's impossible for them to meet 5 he new voting ID requirements. Others, the poor you so disdain, simply can't afford it.

Put down that wide brush, mkay?

Reality check:

Georgia’s Voter ID Lawsuit, Seven Years Later: Disenfranchised, or Still Voting?

--

When Common Cause Georgia — a liberal “citizens’ lobby organization” — originally filed a federal lawsuit in 2005 over Georgia’s voter ID law along with a number of other plaintiffs, the organization claimed that hundreds of thousands of Georgians would be unable to vote. They produced witness after witness — who signed affidavits under penalty of perjury — claiming that they did not have a photo ID and could not obtain the free Georgia photo ID the law provided, and therefore would be turned away at the polls. The plaintiffs lost their lawsuit (as well as a state court action) after the federal court concluded that the law was neither discriminatory nor a burden on voters, and that none of them would be unable to vote.

Was the court wrong? Were the claims of these witnesses true? Were these individual Georgians prevented from casting their ballots?

Official state voting records show that the court was right. Many of these witnesses — again, who signed affidavits — went on to vote in the 2008, 2010, and 2012 elections.

Clara Williams was a 68-year-old African-American resident of Fulton County, Georgia, and a named plaintiff in Common Cause’s suit. Because she had been adopted, Mrs. Williams swore in an affidavit that she was “afraid that election officials will not allow me to vote because I do not have (and cannot obtain) a Georgia Photo ID in my name as it appears on my voter registration.”

But voting records show she voted in local elections in 2009, and in state and federal elections in 2010 and 2012.

When Amanda Clifton got a divorce in 2005 and changed her name, she swore the same thing in an affidavit: “I am afraid that election officials will not allow me to vote because I do not have (and cannot obtain) a Georgia Photo ID in my name as it appears on my voter registration.”

But voting records show that Clifton voted in the 2008, 2010, and 2012 elections.

Annie Johnson, then a 75-year-old African-American woman, cited economic hardship, physical disability, and the lack of a car as reasons why she would be unable to vote.

Annie Johnson voted in 2008, 2010, and 2012.

Ronnie Gibson, then a 49-year-old African-American man, signed an affidavit fearing disenfranchisement because he did not have and could not obtain a free photo ID card.

Georgia records show that he had no problems voting in the 2008, 2010, and 2012 elections.

Ruth Butler, then an 89-year-old white resident of DeKalb County, claimed she would be “unable to obtain a photo identification card without great personal and economic hardship.”

But there she was, voting in 2008, 2010, and 2012.

Betty Kooper (90), Pearl Kramer (80), Norma Pechman (84), Eva Jeffrey, and Cheryl Simmons (45) all cited economic hardship as the reason for their inability to get a Georgia ID card, yet all of them voted in the 2008 election. (Several of these voters have passed away since voting in 2008.)

Georgia voting records disprove the insistent claims that voter ID laws strip minority and elderly voters of the right to vote. These witnesses, after signing sworn affidavits that they did not have and could not obtain a Georgia voter ID card, nevertheless did obtain ID cards and did cast their ballots.

Similar sky-is-falling claims are now being raised over the North Carolina and the Texas voter ID laws, and these claims will doubtless prove to be as baseless as the claims from Georgia. (Several faux martyrs [4] have already been identified by critics of these new laws.)

The Department of Justice also recently launched a suit against Texas, claiming that the Texas law violates Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act by discriminating against black and Hispanic voters. Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act forbids any voting qualification that “results in a denial or abridgement of the right of any citizens of the United States to vote on account of race or color.” The complaint against Texas claims that lower income and car-ownership rates will make it more difficult for blacks and Hispanics, in comparison to whites, to obtain a photo ID.

The complaint in the original Georgia case also made such claims. A number of the witnesses in the Georgia case signed affidavits citing their economic circumstances, or the inability to drive, or the fact that they could not afford a car as a major reason for their supposed inability to obtain a voter ID. Several of the production-line affidavits read: “I have certain circumstances that make my obtaining a Georgia identification card burdensome. In particular, my economic circumstances make me unable to obtain a photo identification card without great personal and economic hardship, I am not able to afford a car, and I do not have the economic means” to obtain the free voter ID card.

These Georgia voters managed to meet the requirements of the law and to vote after the court rejected their hyperbolic claims. Further, and contrary to what opponents said would happen in Georgia and Indiana, whose ID law was upheld up the U.S. Supreme Court, the turnout of minority voters went up, not down, in those states after the ID law was implemented.​

How did the DOJ's case against the Texas voter ID law go?

Badly. Very, very badly -- for DOJ.

The Justice Department presented what it said was evidence that as many as 1.5 million Texans don’t have the government issued photo i.d. required to vote, but Attorney General Greg Abbott says of the people on that roll, 50,000 are dead, 330,000 are over the age of 65 and can vote by mail, where a photo i.d. is not required, and more than 800,000 are on the list improperly.

Among the people who the DOJ listed as ‘lacking the required documentation needed to vote’ are Former President George W. Bush, San Antonio State Senator Leticia Van de Putte, and Licia Ellis, who’s husband, Houston state Senator Rodney Ellis, on Wednesday blasted the voter i.d. law as ‘just like the racist murder of James Byrd’ who was dragged to death in east Texas in 1998.

In fact, University of Texas students conducted a telephone survey of random people on the DOJ’s list of people who allegedly don’t have the documents required to vote, and found that more than 90% of them, including 93% of African Americans and 92% of Hispanics on the list, actually have a photo i.d.

Which brings us to Victoria Rodriguez. The San Antonio teenager was the only individual in a flurry of ‘experts’ the Department of Justice called to the stand to represent the 1.5 million allegedly set to be disenfranchised under the Texas law. Rodriguez testified that she not only lacks a photo i.d., but lacks the documentation need to obtain one, and State Rep. Trey Martinez Fischer said requiring her to pay to obtain those documents would amount to an illegal ‘poll tax.’

Under cross examination, Rodriguez admitted that she has a birth certificate, a voter registration card, and a Social Security Card, and only two of those three forms of i.d. are required to obtain a free voter i.d. card offered by the DPS. Rodriguez testified that she ‘doesn’t have time’ to go the DPS office to obtain the voter i.d. card, but she testified she had plenty of time to fly more than 1500 miles to Baltimore, catch a train to Washington DC, and sit for hours in a federal courtroom to testify about how unfair the Texas voter i.d. law is.

Perhaps the most embarrassing for the Justice Department was the testimony of its alleged expert witness, Harvard Professor Stephen Ansolabehere.

He testified that his research shows the law is ‘more likely to affect black and Hispanic voters worst than white voters.’

But under cross examination, Ansolabehere testified that in fact ‘almost no one is excluded’ by the requirement to vote.

Another Department of Justice ‘expert’ testified that the Legislature ‘intended’ to discriminate against minorities when it passed the Voter I.D. bill. But J. Morgan Kousser’s comments under cross examination show he knows little to nothing about the Texas Legislature (he referred to State Sen. Leticia Van De Putte as the enate Minority Leader, a position that doesn’t exist in the Texas Legislature) and lawyers for the state pointed out that he said the U.S. Supreme Court ruling which upheld a similar voter i.d. law in Indiana, a decision which was written by Justices O’Connor, Kennedy, Scalia, Rehnquist, and Thomas, was written so the five, laughably, could ‘promote white supremacy.’

Kousser also claimed in a book that Republicans are ‘not legitimate representatives’ of minority communities, and that any African American or Hispanic who supports voter i.d. ‘has been manipulated and misled by Republicans.

In fact, Kousser admitted that he got many of the ‘facts’ used to buttress these bizarre claims from ‘Wikipedia,’ an on line encyclopedia that anybody, including Kousser himself, can upload information onto.​

Objections to Voter ID laws are utterly groundless.

Progressives hate them because they can't steal elections.

[MENTION=42946]Howey[/MENTION]...this is a large post. It took extra effort to ignore it, didn't it?

Y'know, pretending it's not there doesn't mean it doesn't actually exist. Other people can see it, and can see that it demolishes the left's objections to Voter ID.

It's time to let go of the victimhood fantasy.

I know...however since one of your fellow conservatives reported my post as being off topic I decided not to reply. Sad too because you're wrong.

 

[Crystalclear]

War on women, stupid leftist BS.

 

[Rozman]

A lot of Republican women will be voting Democrat in November.

Then they really aren't Republican are they?