Santorum 2012?

jbg · March 4, 2012

At least Santorum is more of a true Republican than Romney.

I want a Republican, indeed anyone, who can replace Obama.

dre · March 4, 2012

No, not to be a "good husband", but to provide for them, services, etc. Are you denying a gender gap in politics?

No shes denying your simplistic explanation of why that gap exists.

It goes way beyond that. Women were treated like dogshit before the advent of the modern political democracy. Take a look at some of the other groups that tend to vote for progressive government.... Immigrants, jews, mexicans, blacks, etc.

Its not a matter of wanting free stuff... its a matter of wanting safety and human rights.

March 4, 2012

There's a reason the phrase "Nanny-State" exists. Government has expanded significantly, mostly due to women voting.

Really? Women control politics/government spending, do they? Interesting, to say the least.

I don't know if women are less likely to want the state involved in abortion, or marriage, or if they're more "concerned" about the less fortunate.

Then you really don't know much about why women are more likely than men to be Liberals.

What I do know, is that they want government spending money on everything under the sun.

"Everything under the sun," eh? Like wars? A strong military? Tax breaks to corporations? Bail outs? Women "want" all of that?

Sorry, but you cannot blame "government spending" on women.

Take the latest example of that Fluke woman testifying before congress. It wasn't a man asking for somebody else to pay for his condoms. Just another woman, asking the government to make something else "free."

According to what I've read, she wasn't asking for "condoms," but "birth control." FYI, birth control pills require a prescription, so she would like health care plans that cover prescriptions to cover birth control. As far as I can see, her critics - led by Limbaugh?* - made it about "condoms." But here's the thing - birth control isn't just about the woman - it's about the possible life that could be created and about the man being responsible for supporting said child and about the state providing for it if it's a low income situation (such as with university students). What do you think costs the state more - birth control - or providing for a child? So it's about more than the woman having sex and if men were the ones to get pregnant, perhaps it would have been a man testifying before Congress - although likely birth control would be covered if that were the case.

*You do know that Rush apologized to her, right? Forced into it by those who found his comments tasteless - to the point of threatening to pull ads. And that includes men and women, liberals and conservatives.

msj · March 4, 2012

I think Shady forgets that women pay taxes too.

Many of these women, not to mention many men, likely would prefer to have their taxes pay for birth control than for many things that Republicans would prefer to spend taxes on.

cybercoma · March 4, 2012

I seriously can't believe the birth control debate is still going on. This was settled in the 1960s, I thought. Even then there was heavy criticism towards the "committees" because they were made up entirely of men. Men deciding the reproductive rights of women without any input from women.

As far as birth control goes, it's not anything like condoms. You need a prescription for the pill. If your insurer covers prescriptions, they need to go out of their way to create an exemption for birth control. They better have a damn good reason for doing it. Imagine giving insurers the power to deny claims just by saying their firm doesn't believe in it?

BubberMiley · March 4, 2012

There's a reason the phrase "Nanny-State" exists. Government has expanded significantly, mostly due to women voting. Government spending has expanded significantly, mostly due to women voting.

Damn suffragettes. :lol:

msj · March 4, 2012

I seriously can't believe the birth control debate is still going on. This was settled in the 1960s, I thought.

Only a man could make such a statement.

Wolf Larsen · March 4, 2012

Rick Santorum reminds me of some right-wing pastor of a church. What we need is separation of church and state. We don't need a religious fanatic in the White House. In fact, every government in the world should be secular.

It's not surprising that on this thread you have people who are against including birth control as part of one's medical insurance. Birth control is a medical issue, not a moral issue.

If are going to talk about moral issues than I think the crusade of the American war machine against the Muslim people of Afghanistan & Iraq is definitely immoral, especially when one considers that the US government was trying to steal Iraq’s oil. That was the REAL motivation for the war.

It is also immoral I believe to give hundreds of millions of dollars in bailouts to the rich and big corporations, especially considering that the rich and the big corporations don't pay any taxes for the most part. They don't deserve bailouts. They are parasites. How come the rich people and the big corporations always feel they're entitled to something when they don't even pay taxes?

I think the "morality" of the right-wingers is hypocritical. What the right-wingers call "morality" is just a bunch of anti-woman bigotry. It is an attempt to limit the civil liberties of women. Of course, this should come as no surprise, as right-wingers tend to be hostile to civil liberties. The right-wingers talk endless propaganda about freedom and liberty, but in practice they are against the freedom and liberty.

I also want to point out that women workers pay taxes, and that's why they should be entitled to free birth control, free abortion on demand, and free quality childcare. Of course, right-wingers will say that that is socialism, because the taxes are helping the working people instead of the rich. And in a way they are correct. Socialists support free birth control, free abortion on demand, and free quality childcare. The pro-capitalists do not support these things, instead the pro-capitalists support bailouts for the rich.

Edited March 4, 2012 by Wolf Larsen

Moonlight Graham · March 4, 2012

Rick Santorum reminds me of some right-wing pastor of a church. What we need is separation of church and state. We don't need a religious fanatic in the White House.

Pretty much. He's a religious wack-job, and a not impressively smart one to boot.

Who is more the fool? The fool, or the fool who follows him?

bush_cheney2004 · March 4, 2012

Rick Santorum reminds me of some right-wing pastor of a church. What we need is separation of church and state. We don't need a religious fanatic in the White House. In fact, every government in the world should be secular.

Really? Even the the Vatican? How about Norway and its official religion?

It's not surprising that on this thread you have people who are against including birth control as part of one's medical insurance. Birth control is a medical issue, not a moral issue.

Does that mean tatoos on my ass should also be covered by medical insurance? How about body piercings?

If are going to talk about moral issues than I think the crusade of the American war machine against the Muslim people of Afghanistan & Iraq is definitely immoral, especially when one considers that the US government was trying to steal Iraq’s oil. That was the REAL motivation for the war.

Pretty expensive way to get oil that could have been purchased for far less.

It is also immoral I believe to give hundreds of millions of dollars in bailouts to the rich and big corporations, especially considering that the rich and the big corporations don't pay any taxes for the most part. They don't deserve bailouts. They are parasites. How come the rich people and the big corporations always feel they're entitled to something when they don't even pay taxes?

Wrong....and from your favorite source...Yahoo!

On average, the wealthiest people in America pay a lot more taxes than the middle class or the poor, according to private and government data. They pay at a higher rate, and as a group, they contribute a much larger share of the overall taxes collected by the federal government.

http://news.yahoo.com/fact-check-rich-taxed-less-secretaries-070642868.html

I think the "morality" of the right-wingers is hypocritical. What the right-wingers call "morality" is just a bunch of anti-woman bigotry. It is an attempt to limit the civil liberties of women. Of course, this should come as no surprise, as right-wingers tend to be hostile to civil liberties. The right-wingers talk endless propaganda about freedom and liberty, but in practice they are against the freedom and liberty.

US Abolitionists were "religious, right wingers".

I also want to point out that women workers pay taxes, and that's why they should be entitled to free birth control, free abortion on demand, and free quality childcare.

Dude...most US women don't even believe that.

Edited March 4, 2012 by bush_cheney2004

eyeball · March 4, 2012

There's a reason the phrase "Nanny-State" exists. Government has expanded significantly, mostly due to women voting. Government spending has expanded significantly, mostly due to women voting. I don't know if women are less likely to want the state involved in abortion, or marriage, or if they're more "concerned" about the less fortunate. What I do know, is that they want government spending money on everything under the sun. Take the latest example of that Fluke woman testifying before congress. It wasn't a man asking for somebody else to pay for his condoms. Just another woman, asking the government to make something else "free."

There's also a big overly-protective "Daddy-State" that's overly preoccupied with BIG spending on the military, security, police, prisons and forever crackin' down and shit.

You figure that's the result of women over-running the place too?

sharkman · March 4, 2012

Rick Santorum reminds me of some right-wing pastor of a church. What we need is separation of church and state. We don't need a religious fanatic in the White House. In fact, every government in the world should be secular.

It's not surprising that on this thread you have people who are against including birth control as part of one's medical insurance. Birth control is a medical issue, not a moral issue.

If are going to talk about moral issues than I think the crusade of the American war machine against the Muslim people of Afghanistan & Iraq is definitely immoral, especially when one considers that the US government was trying to steal Iraq’s oil. That was the REAL motivation for the war.

It is also immoral I believe to give hundreds of millions of dollars in bailouts to the rich and big corporations, especially considering that the rich and the big corporations don't pay any taxes for the most part. They don't deserve bailouts. They are parasites. How come the rich people and the big corporations always feel they're entitled to something when they don't even pay taxes?

I think the "morality" of the right-wingers is hypocritical. What the right-wingers call "morality" is just a bunch of anti-woman bigotry. It is an attempt to limit the civil liberties of women. Of course, this should come as no surprise, as right-wingers tend to be hostile to civil liberties. The right-wingers talk endless propaganda about freedom and liberty, but in practice they are against the freedom and liberty.

I also want to point out that women workers pay taxes, and that's why they should be entitled to free birth control, free abortion on demand, and free quality childcare. Of course, right-wingers will say that that is socialism, because the taxes are helping the working people instead of the rich. And in a way they are correct. Socialists support free birth control, free abortion on demand, and free quality childcare. The pro-capitalists do not support these things, instead the pro-capitalists support bailouts for the rich.

As far as Santorum reminding you of something, the man is a Catholic, and quite removed from being a 'right wing' pastor. Such a pastor would tell him to stop confessing to a Priest, stop deifying the mother of god, and communion is only crackers and wine.

Your thoughts on the USA stealing Iraqi oil is :lol: I would only hope they now turn their attention on Canada and 'steal' our oil.

Your knowledge on the bail outs and the rich has no doubt been based on the web sites you visit. Be more selective. Same with your naive views on morality and the right.

You suggest that since women pay taxes, they should be given free abortions and birth control. What about the women who do not pay taxes? Why are you valuing women based on paying taxes? And how about men? Shouldn't they get some free birth control stuff since some of them pay taxes too, you bigoted man hating purse wearer! (I wasn't serious about that. No doubt you don't hate men)

Thanks for your post, it made me smile.

Jack Weber · March 4, 2012

There's also a big overly-protective "Daddy-State" that's overly preoccupied with BIG spending on the military, security, police, prisons and forever crackin' down and shit.

You figure that's the result of women over-running the place too?

I figure that makes someone like Sarah Palin a tranny....

Shady · March 4, 2012

Sorry, but you cannot blame "government spending" on women.

Unfortunately for you, the facts are not in your favour.

From Freakonomics:

Women's suffrage and government growthUsing data from 1870 to 1940, Lott and Larry Kenny studied how state government expenditures and revenue changed in 48 state governments after women obtained the right to vote. Women were able to vote in 29 states prior to women's suffrage and the adoption of the 19th Amendment to the Constitution. Lott found that the impact of granting of women's suffrage on per-capita state government expenditures and revenue was startling.[29]
His research indicates that women's suffrage had a bigger impact on government spending and taxes in states with a greater percentage of women. Even after accounting for variables such as industrialization, urbanization, education and income, per capita real state government spending, which had been flat or falling during the 10 years before women began voting, doubled during the next 11 years. The increase in government spending and revenue started immediately after women started voting in national elections and 19 additional state elections.

Link

That's what we call an inconvenient truth! :lol:

Michael Hardner · March 4, 2012

I figure that makes someone like Sarah Palin a tranny....

Jack... Insulting comment here ?

Jack Weber · March 4, 2012

Jack... Insulting comment here ?

Not really...

Remember...The difference between Ms.Palin and a pit bull,in her own words...Is lipstick!

dre · March 4, 2012

Jack... Insulting comment here ?

Actually its your comment that the word "tranny" is an insult, that insults transgendered men and women world world wide!

Jack Weber · March 4, 2012

Actually its your comment that the word "tranny" is an insult, that insults transgendered men and women world world wide!

Oh well...

You'll just have to be offended then...

Shady · March 4, 2012

Actually its your comment that the word "tranny" is an insult, that insults transgendered men and women world world wide!

Not really. It's obvious to anyone that Jack used it as a pejorative. You know that, you're just pretending to feign ignorance. His implication is that she can't be a woman and possess certain political opinions. It's the same tripe used against conservative minorities. They can't really be black or hispanic, etc. Unfortuantely, it's a neanderthalic (my term) attitude prevelent with older people and people of the far left.

Edited March 4, 2012 by Shady

Shady · March 4, 2012

Anyways, perhaps Jack has special forum priviledges. I can't get away with the same type of name calling and vulgarity.

msj · March 4, 2012

Anyways, perhaps Jack has special forum priviledges. I can't get away with the same type of name calling and vulgarity.

Then report him and stop your whining.

Michael Hardner · March 4, 2012

Make your reports and on we go in the discussion...

dre · March 4, 2012

Not really. It's obvious to anyone that Jack used it as a pejorative. You know that, you're just pretending to feign ignorance. His implication is that she can't be a woman and possess certain political opinions. It's the same tripe used against conservative minorities. They can't really be black or hispanic, etc. Unfortuantely, it's a neanderthalic (my term) attitude prevelent with older people and people of the far left.

No I honestly saw it as an insult to transgendered people if anything

waldo · March 4, 2012

Not really. It's obvious to anyone that Jack used it as a pejorative. You know that, you're just pretending to feign ignorance. His implication is that she can't be a woman and possess certain political opinions. It's the same tripe used against conservative minorities. They can't really be black or hispanic, etc. Unfortuantely, it's a neanderthalic (my term) attitude prevelent with older people and people of the far left.

since you just took pains in another thread to point out a name/spelling correction you apparently made for me in the bygone past, let me highlight the 4 spelling mistakes you've made in your reply, as quoted above... but hey, who's counting!

in any case, in addition to you singling out women... and trannies, you've now added into your mix, "older people" and the "far left". That doesn't leave too much in your bubble, does it?

lukin · March 4, 2012

since you just took pains in another thread to point out a name/spelling correction you apparently made for me in the bygone past, let me highlight the 4 spelling mistakes you've made in your reply, as quoted above... but hey, who's counting!

in any case, in addition to you singling out women... and trannies, you've now added into your mix, "older people" and the "far left". That doesn't leave too much in your bubble, does it?

Why must you continue to insult? grow up already or get a valentine. :rolleyes: