Women need birth control because "they can't control their libido"

[JakeStarkey]

Careful here, you are being logical with facts.

have you acknowledged that you were wrong and that they do indeed perform abortions and that there is NO way we know yes or no they don't with gov. $$ in that why there is not separate accounts per service etc. private inst. do it all the time, exactly what money from bucket a goes to service b and so forth, there is no reason not too. Unless you don't want to, and then why not?

here the key;

when threatened with a cut off of gov. funds they always say hey then we cannot provide basic services, (OTHER than abortion), ok, so how do they know that?


If PP claims they cannot get by without gov. funds then they should simply account properly for their use, I'd be fine with that, I am not against PP, just their inability to be transparent,

and temple and I posted those 'facts' btw.

It's certain that Churchill had folks like Jake in mind when he said this:

"Men occasionally stumble over the truth, but most of them pick themselves up and hurry off as if nothing ever happened."

An ad hom only reveals your weakness, Helena.

GOP candidates who attack women will reap the whirlwind the sow.

 

[Mac1958]

GOP candidates who attack women will reap the whirlwind the sow.

Very true. The PC Police will be more than prepared to substitute the current "racist" scream with "sexist", any time any person in any way disagrees with Hillary to any degree on any issue whatsoever.

This will allow them, of course, to avoid actually discussing that issue openly and honestly, which is the point of their intellectually dishonest, destructive strategy.

Hopefully the current trend of pushing back against such phony, transparent strategic hypersensitivity will continue so that the PC Police will lose their grip on the national conversation and we can actually have open, honest, constructive communication about the country's problems.

.

.

 

[JoeB131]

For the record, Democrats invented this "War on Women" shtick. When you use women as tool in a political argument, that my friends is how you most effectively objectify a woman.

No, Republicans invented it when they decided that they were going to go along with the religious right in trying to legistlate everyone's sexuality.

You don't like gay sex- Don't have gay sex.

You don't like abortion - don't have an abortion.

You don't like birth control- don't use birth control. (

Pretty freakin' simple.

 

[Mertex]

For the record, Democrats invented this "War on Women" shtick. When you use women as tool in a political argument, that my friends is how you most effectively objectify a woman.

Democrats brought it to the attention of everyone that Republicans have a war with almost everyone....women, gays, blacks, minorities, immigrants, poor people, old people.....so, nobody is going to believe you when your leaders spout the opposite of what you are saying.

 

[BobPlumb]

For the record, Democrats invented this "War on Women" shtick. When you use women as tool in a political argument, that my friends is how you most effectively objectify a woman.

Democrats brought it to the attention of everyone that Republicans have a war with almost everyone....women, gays, blacks, minorities, immigrants, poor people, old people.....so, nobody is going to believe you when your leaders spout the opposite of what you are saying.

News flash, in an attempt to be inclusive the GOP has decided to also have a war on white men....

 

[NYcarbineer]

And some facts on the Guttmacher institute...

1) It is not an independent nor an unbiased source of information and data. It is a proponent of abortion rights.

2) In 1968, the Guttmacher Institute was founded as the Center for Family Planning Program Development, a semi-autonomous division of Planned Parenthood. This precludes the possibility of it being an "independent" anything, Derideo.

3) Alan Frank Guttmacher was a former president of Planned Parenthood from 1962. He was a eugenicist, and signed the Humanist Manifesto II in 1973.

Can't say I trust the Guttmacher Institute, Derideo.

That standard makes you a source of information that no one should trust.

 

[JakeStarkey]

"This [actual attacks on women by male GOP candidates] will allow them, of course, to avoid actually discussing that issue openly and honestly, which is the point of their intellectually dishonest, destructive strategy"

There is no issue to be discussed, honestly or not. Women will not tolerate the insensitivity.

That's the problem. Learn to phrase the message better, Mac, to the intended audience, because the female audience will kick utterances such as the one by Huck up the collective candidate ass.

 

[Samson]

For the record, Democrats invented this "War on Women" shtick. When you use women as tool in a political argument, that my friends is how you most effectively objectify a woman.

Democrats brought it to the attention of everyone that Republicans have a war with almost everyone....women, gays, blacks, minorities, immigrants, poor people, old people.....so, nobody is going to believe you when your leaders spout the opposite of what you are saying.

News flash, in an attempt to be inclusive the GOP has decided to also have a war on white men....

Well, you seem to have included everyone......


.....yet Republicans control the HR since 2012....



Interesting how despite your accusations about the GOP "deciding to also have a war on" the entire population, Dems do not remain universally popular.

Wonder how that could be?




Lemme guess, its a vast conspiracy by the cunning George Bush and Koch families, and FNC.

 

[Samson]

"This [actual attacks on women by male GOP candidates] will allow them, of course, to avoid actually discussing that issue openly and honestly, which is the point of their intellectually dishonest, destructive strategy"

There is no issue to be discussed, honestly or not. Women will not tolerate the insensitivity.

That's the problem. Learn to phrase the message better, Mac, to the intended audience, because the female audience will kick utterances such as the one by Huck up the collective candidate ass.

What?

No Proof?

I demand you cite a poll in which women will not tolerate the comments associated with the OP.

Post the quotation.

I don't put up with shit heads who do one thing and demand they be held to a different standard..

 

[TemplarKormac]

For the record, Democrats invented this "War on Women" shtick. When you use women as tool in a political argument, that my friends is how you most effectively objectify a woman.

Democrats brought it to the attention of everyone that Republicans have a war with almost everyone....women, gays, blacks, minorities, immigrants, poor people, old people.....so, nobody is going to believe you when your leaders spout the opposite of what you are saying.

Let's get one thing straight here.

I do not belong to the Republican party, therefore none of them are "my leaders." Secondly and lastly, Democrats are having a war with everyone Mert, they call them racists, misogynists, bigots, rich people, bullies, arsonists, terrorists, anarchists and etc...

 

[PixieStix]

I am sick to death of liberals who claim they believe women are capable and independent and strong, and yet are flabbergasted when a woman actually is as capable, strong and independent enough to NOT depend on big daddy government .

Then they twist words that a man says simply because he is a republican. Bunch of hypocrites

 

[Knightfall]

GOP candidates who attack women will reap the whirlwind the sow.

Very true. The PC Police will be more than prepared to substitute the current "racist" scream with "sexist", any time any person in any way disagrees with Hillary to any degree on any issue whatsoever.

This will allow them, of course, to avoid actually discussing that issue openly and honestly, which is the point of their intellectually dishonest, destructive strategy.

Hopefully the current trend of pushing back against such phony, transparent strategic hypersensitivity will continue so that the PC Police will lose their grip on the national conversation and we can actually have open, honest, constructive communication about the country's problems.

.

.

So, theoretical question. Do you think it's best to address the accusations of racism or just ignore them as off topic and clearly empty attacks which don't deserve attention? It seems to me that if you don't make at least some attempt to clarify your position, then those who see you fail to refute the racist claims will believe them to be true, but if you spend much time defending yourself against them, then you never get to the real point and never go on the offensive. Any thoughts?

 

[PixieStix]

"This [actual attacks on women by male GOP candidates] will allow them, of course, to avoid actually discussing that issue openly and honestly, which is the point of their intellectually dishonest, destructive strategy"

There is no issue to be discussed, honestly or not. Women will not tolerate the insensitivity.

That's the problem. Learn to phrase the message better, Mac, to the intended audience, because the female audience will kick utterances such as the one by Huck up the collective candidate ass.

I, as a strong capable and independent woman. Hates being patronized.

Being insensitive doesn't bother a truly strong woman

 

[Mertex]

Don't need to back it up. Simply by you saying that Democrats are "for women" and that Republicans simply want to "screw them over" provides me with all the proof I need. If they were "for women" Mert, they would be defending a woman's right to choose life, as well as abortion. That is what it means to be "Pro Choice." But alas, such a belief doesn't exist in the Democratic Party. You objectify women by thinking her only choice is choosing abortion.



Just one question, how is it a "choice" when only one option is being touted over the other?[/B]

None of the taxpayer funding going to Planned Parenthood pays for abortions. There is a federal law that makes that illegal. All funding for abortions obtained via PP is paid for by private donations. The CNS article is deliberately obfuscating those facts for the purposes of trying to shut down PP which performs vital services for women who would otherwise not have access to them at all.

It's impossible to debate logically with someone who makes the claim that Democrats only give women one choice and that is to have an abortion. I know, I thought i was seeing things, but there it is, in black and white, Democrats only give women the choice of abortion.....talk about not knowing what he is talking about.

No wonder they don't think their party is promoting a war against women.....they don't even understand what pro-choice means.

 

[Samson]

"This [actual attacks on women by male GOP candidates] will allow them, of course, to avoid actually discussing that issue openly and honestly, which is the point of their intellectually dishonest, destructive strategy"

There is no issue to be discussed, honestly or not. Women will not tolerate the insensitivity.

That's the problem. Learn to phrase the message better, Mac, to the intended audience, because the female audience will kick utterances such as the one by Huck up the collective candidate ass.

I, as a strong capable and independent woman. Hates being patronized.

Being insensitive doesn't bother a truly strong woman

Well, that settles it: Jake is wrong about Women.




Who would have guessed?

 

[TemplarKormac]

Mert, you're spewing talking points. When your party fights for women's rights, only abortion comes up. Not once do you hear them saying "hey, let that woman have that child!" They get mad if someone insists the woman carry the child.

I'm not going to get into a marathon debate with you tonight, nor will I stay here and be derided. But your party clearly favors one half of the choice over the other. Choice means abortion, and only abortion. That's it, that's all.

 

[Mertex]

For the record, Democrats invented this "War on Women" shtick. When you use women as tool in a political argument, that my friends is how you most effectively objectify a woman.

Democrats brought it to the attention of everyone that Republicans have a war with almost everyone....women, gays, blacks, minorities, immigrants, poor people, old people.....so, nobody is going to believe you when your leaders spout the opposite of what you are saying.

News flash, in an attempt to be inclusive the GOP has decided to also have a war on white men....

Hey that makes sense....they'll say "We're for equal opportunity"......

 

[Mertex]

Mert, you're spewing talking points. When your party fights for women's rights, only abortion comes up. Not once do you hear them saying "hey, let that woman have that child!" They get mad if someone insists the woman carry the child.

That's freaking insane. Democrats don't push women to have abortions....they defend women's right to have one if that is what they want, and within the perimeters set by current laws. When Republicans quit their crusade to end all abortions, then maybe it won't seem like that's all we talk about, because there will always be times when an abortion is necessary, to save the life of the woman....and if you have done away with it, the woman dies....that's not pro-life in anybody's book.

I'm not going to get into a marathon debate with you tonight, nor will I stay here and be derided. But your party clearly favors one half of the choice over the other. Choice means abortion, and only abortion. That's it, that's all.

I know that is what it looks like to you, but from my perspective, your party wants to end all abortions, and even though I don't support elective abortions after the first tri-mester, I don't want abortions to be illegal for women whose life are at risk, for women that have been raped, or for young girls who have been raped in incest. Choice means, the woman can choose. To you pro-life means the fetus is more important than the mother...and that is no pro-life, no matter how much lipstick you put on it.

 

[TemplarKormac]

Democrats brought it to the attention of everyone that Republicans have a war with almost everyone....women, gays, blacks, minorities, immigrants, poor people, old people.....so, nobody is going to believe you when your leaders spout the opposite of what you are saying.

News flash, in an attempt to be inclusive the GOP has decided to also have a war on white men....

Hey that makes sense....they'll say "We're for equal opportunity"......

Being advocates of affirmative action, is your party for equal opportunity?

 

[koshergrl]

You're dodging, DT. You claim to be a proponent of hard facts, but you refuse to acknowledge the fact that there are no hard facts available. We don't know how many abortions are performed...but we do know that Planned Parenthood has been caught time and again falsifying medical records, cooking books, and claiming to provide services they don't...

How then can you cling to the ridiculous "3 percent" figure as if it is above suspicion?

... then why are you making up claims that tax dollars are funding abortions?

I'm not making it up. They were caught and had to pay millions back. See there ARE hard facts to support what I say.

There aren't any hard facts to support the numbers that people cite as *evidence* that abortions only represent 3 percent of PP's services (it's laughable)