War On Women? Really…
Well, street-wise people have a certain translation of this phrase. Others might just understand thatalways loose cannon Old Joe Biden, Obama and the democrats have been delivering a whole load of BS for decades...
Now then, how do you think Old Joe Biden meant that remark? Better yet, this begs the question of such cape-wearing super feminists, Would you accept such misogynistic remarks from a GOP candidate? Really? NY Times writer Maureen Dowd recently penned from her Ivory Tower in downtown NYC how she is extremely troubled and disappointed by her sister's vote going to Mitt Romney this election. If Romney is elected, MoDo pretty much warns, the whole of women and girls in this nation will be forced into turning over their slacks, leaving jobs/careers, being locked in kitchens with baby bellies between them and the kitchen sink filled with dirty dishes, and even possibly be forced to 'show us your t*ts' ... or something ... Your biggest MSM cheerleader Chris Matthews, while joined by a NOW guest, claims Romney will force women into some Sharia Law existence, yet your feminist minions could care less about the actual war on Muslim women around the world, especially where our troops are fighting. Here is your guy Joe Biden addressing an audience of democrat women voters with sexually charged rhetoric, while campaign ads are being released with a young woman instigating her fellow young women to treat their vote like a first time sexual encounter while insinuating they do so in exchange for personal stuff that will be given to them. Political prostitution? Oh come on, that is exactly what you would be calling it if the GOP candidate was doing this sort of campaigning. THIS is exactly where you and your ilk wanted all your decades of insisting women stop being treated and viewed as sex objects for men to end up?
We got your war on women right here, democrats...
Corre la bola | 
Double standard. DOUBLE standard. Got that? Same as for Cuba vs. South Africa, in principle. And no, they see NOTHING wrong with it. It's simply whatever suits them, period.
I thought when he said he is going to give them the whole load he meant Bulls**t.
Gingrich strikes again. If Obama wins, I fear we will all be living under Sharia law. So what does Matthews say? that if Romney wins we will all be living under Sharia law. They are going to have to start developing their own stuff and stop stealing ours. This Gingrich syndrome of the left is growing tiresome.
Hey, after four years of screwing the nation incessantly with so much drive and joy, that load is not only expected, it's expected to be huge. That is, (as a Honey said) a big load of "bulls**t".
In all seriousness, the classless and annoying demeanor of this arrogant buffoon is on par with that of Raul Castro and just a couple notches shy of Chavez's. That's the trash the left has running this nation. Then the shameless cretins talk about being offended by Donald Trump and the word "binders".
Can you imagine their outcry if this ever came from any Republican?
To me the real issue for Democrats is abortion which is supposed to be the heart of women's rights, but they don't want to bring it up clearly lest some Catholics (women and men) who are still sitting on the fence get that straight and go for Romney/Ryan
The issue of abortion is one that actually harms Republicans. I am aware it is a sensitive subject that's not black and white, nor pretty, but at the same time when put on the broad spectrum this is a personal matter that has no political importance.
Furthermore, for many Republicans to categorically oppose abortion in the name of the party, as many do, is a contradiction regarding a party whose motto is less government intervention over civic matters.
The reality is that abortion is most prominent among the most irresponsible and promiscuous groups. The state will not force these people, all democrats by the way, to be responsible nor want their children by making abortion illegal. They will just create a weight on themselves (the government) which ultimately becomes a weight on society.
All this has done is give democrats another stupid tool to further divide and distract. The same goes for the stupidity of homosexual marriage. When democrats saw they were going to need to scrape the pan for votes, they all of the sudden became advocates for it despite having opposed it previously.
If I had the Republican party in my hands I would make echo of all these stupidities a la libertarian and leave it up for voting. That way stripping them of the bs and leaving them with nothing but what really matters (which is what they want to distract from).
"The issue of abortion is one that actually harms Republicans."
It's an insane world we live in when defending the lives of the unborn is seen as a political liability. Disgusting.
"The issue of abortion is one that actually harms Republicans. I am aware it is a sensitive subject that's not black and white, nor pretty, but at the same time when put on the broad spectrum this is a personal matter that has no political importance.
Furthermore, for many Republicans to categorically oppose abortion in the name of the party, as many do, is a contradiction regarding a party whose motto is less government intervention over civic matters."
1.) I am not claiming abortion should be made "illegal", and it should be a state issue not a federal one
2.) abortion should not be funded by taxpayer dollars. If it is being made available in places like Planned Parenthood they should not be getting federal, state, or local tax dollars for it. If people want to make donations Planned Parenthood can hold TV telethons and take truckloads of all that Hollywood money.
It is not the republican party that drives the abortion issue. They have a platform on it and stand by it. It is the democrat party that insists on dragging abortion out every election making it sound as if republicans will legalize rape, then force pregnancies on women. The fact is, personal responsibility is a pillar in the republican ideology. It is the exact opposite in the democrat ideology. Everyone is forever a victim of life.
What gets me most is pretty much in line with what George expressed. Here in the 21st century innocent unborn life and the free and open ability to just kill it for the sake of killing personal responsibility says something very bad about our society. And to try to protect that same life is somehow a negative?
Sorry, George, I am going to give a political response here.
Without the "issue of abortion" our side would lose the votes of 24 million Americans. And don't ask the question where are they going to go. They will develop a third party and we would have Obamaism, inc. for eternity. That's the political answer.
Romney is gaining among women as we speak, incidentally.
I agree that this should be a state issue, but it was the liberal Supreme Court that made it a national one.
Nobody tells me what to think in the party. Our party has room for all opinions on this subject. It is the dem party that has the dictatorial way. We all remember Casey the father not being welcome by the dems at their convention. And the son was also nowhere to be seen even though he is up for reelection this year.
The tyranny on the abortion issue is all on the side of the left. Ever try to get a word in of equivocation on this subject with a liberal? I once had a one hour argument with Ralph Reed on the subject, Ralph Reed, than which you can find no one more pro life. He was cordial, attentive, reasonable and charming. We ended as friends even though I had many things to say he would not agree with.
I once wrote William Buckley to tell him that he had no right to tell women they had to have their babies unless he was going to take care of every one of them - that you cannot tell someone what she must do when you are not going to be responsible for the outcome of the choice you are imposing on her. He did not get angry. Buckley, a Catholic and anti abortionist, remember. He thought about what I said and then allowed almost an entire issue of NR to present all views pro and con abortion.
No, the tyranny on this issue springs entirely from the left and they feel no shame or pressure to explain themselves when after all their idea is to allow in utero babies to be killed at will. So why do we put pressure on our side?
Gallardo, you are incorrect on this.
"It is the democrat party that insists on dragging abortion out every election making it sound as if republicans will legalize rape, then force pregnancies on women."
Yes, because Republicans make it possible for them to do so...
http://articles.chicagotribune.com/2012-10-31/news/sns-rt-us-usa-campaign-abortionbre8a006a-20121031_1_abortion-personal-medical-decisions-incest
Now, if you find this as a contribution to the party and an a mere assertion of personal responsibility then I also believe in Batman. This is manna from heaven for Democrats is what it is, a total stupidity.
That fact is that abortion in this nation is legal to avoid the coat hanger ways of Latin America. This has already been voted on years ago and the majority of the votes have shown to be on the pro-choice side.
We are all entitled to our honest views but I am not the only Republican to see it this way, express it, and who suggests to stay out of it as a result.
Not just Condoleezza Rice (and admirable republican), H.W. Bush and Nixon were also pro-choice republicans and they won the presidential election despite being such. So no, the Republican party does not depend on this issue for votes, much less now. All the contrary, we loose votes because of the the comments of John Koster.
Let me also get something straight, I don't like abortion, it is not pretty, I don't promote it, but these people, the ones that want to abort their own children and have no care for aborting them, will have no sense of personal responsibility even if they are legally forced to have the kid.
They will either abort it behind an alley with a coat hanger despite or have the kid and neglect it, abuse it, or give it to the state. All meaning more tax expenses, crime, and yes, more democrat votes. I can't stop who they are and no one is going to either.
The best hope for these poor children will be a responsible relative somewhere because even adoption is easier in China than here and I don't think John Koster here is going to take care of them.
I'm sorry, but I will not allow one side (pro-"choice") to promote their ideology while I am expected to be silent.
As fate would have it, my medical school daughter is on clinical rotation right now with an OB/GYN. This morning they did a D and E on a young expecting mother who was 13 weeks along, but the baby had died. My daughter expressed to me later on the phone how disturbed she felt watching the blood and---- I'll just leave it to everyone's imagination ... even though she knew for a fact the baby had died. I told her that is because subconsciously she was relating it to a live abortion.
I am not of the "no abortion for any reason" stripe. However, I am scolded for voicing my pro-life belief as a republican, where the democrats can voice their "abortion for any reason at any time at any cost, as long as the American taxpayer is footing the bill" without challenge?
I'm sorry, but Homey don't play that game.
If we allowed our Constitution to work as intended each state would make up its mind about the issues of the day and that would be that. The Tenth Amendment to the Constitution exists for a reason...
Interesting conversation here. The issue is very complex, obviously. At a pro life conference in Madrid where Jews, Muslims and Christians (Catholic & Evangelical) participated an Evangelical black woman, from the US, said that the pro abortion lobby was acheiving something the KKK never dreamed of: the elimination of 15 million blacks, aborted since the Supreme Court decision. There is a question of demographics involved, with long term political consequences. Gadaffi arrived at the thought that no terrorism was needed, demographics would do the job. Granted, this is just one angle.