20 Mar

Let me show you what a real war on women looks like [Reader Post]

                                       

Paula Jones. James Carville called her trailer park trash. Evan Thomas said she was a “sleazy woman”

Gloria Steinem said Bill Clinton was entitled to a “freebie” when he groped Kathleen Willey.

That’s Juanita Broaddrick on the right. Lanny Davis said we should all feel dirty even speaking of her accusations.

Betsy Wright had Flowers in mind as the bimbo in “bimbo eruption.”

This is Mary Jo Kopechne. Ted Kennedy “forgot” about her while she was trapped in an inverted submerged car.

Democrats are pitching a phony “war on women” by the right following Rush Limbaugh’s comments on Sandra Fluke. They absolutely pale in contrast to what democrats have done. Rand Simberg recalls democrats’ war on women over the last several decades:

An evergreen guide to what the Left is doing or plans to do is to listen to what they accuse their political opponents of. Along those lines, incandescent in its projection, cynicism, and hypocrisy is the latest mantra emanating from the Democrats of the “Republican War On Women,” based on nothing more than some crude comments (since apologized for) by a talk-show host aimed at a Democrat feminist activist who thinks that the world owes her free (and expensive) contraception and, moreover, that it should be done in violation of the religious conscience of Catholics. Of course, they don’t want their demagoguery to be distracted by the annoying reality that their own misogyny and assault on women is much more virulent, and has been going on for much longer.

It should be shocking, by the conventional narrative, that the White House of a “liberal” president would be a hostile work environment for women, but it is not at all a surprise to anyone familiar with the history of the Democrats and the Left, going back at least to the 1960s, when a prominent Democrat politician got a pass from the media for abandoning a young woman (possibly pregnant by him) to drown in his car. The same man went on to later fame as the top slice of bread in a “waitress sandwich,” and yet was so lionized by the Left that not that long ago, at the time of his death, a woman(!) wrote that Mary Jo Kopechne might have been happy to undergo the terror as her lungs filled with the brackish water of Martha’s Vineyard had she only known what a great legislator he would turn out to be.

To see similar hypocritical Leftist misogyny, we need only go back to the last time a Democrat was in the White House. Whenever a woman came forward with allegations of inappropriate sexual conduct by Bill Clinton, the response of the Clinton defenders, both in and out of the media, was to attack her credibility, character, and virtue. Advisor James Carville famously said of Paula Jones (the young Arkansas state employee whom Clinton as governor had his state police guard procure to his hotel room for the purpose of orally pleasuring him), “Drag $100 bills through trailer parks, there’s no telling what you’ll find.” Evan Thomas of Newsweek dutifully complemented the slander by declaring her on national television “just some sleazy woman with big hair coming out of the trailer parks,” though he later was compelled to apologize in print. (One wonders how residents of trailer parks felt about that, but I guess empathy for them is for the little people.) When Kathleen Willey accused the president of groping her in the White House, and was physically threatened for her trouble, feminist icon and (former) scourge of sexual harassers Gloria Steinem said that it was no problem — he was entitled to a freebie, after which Cathy Young of Reason magazine reported on “the death of sexual harassment.”

It got worse. As the Paula Jones lawsuit progressed, and the president committed acts of obstruction of justice (federal felonies) by perjury and subornation of perjury through threats and bribes, the White House was prepared to go after Monica Lewinsky, the woman about whom he engaged in such obstruction. She was bribed with jobs, and urged to in turn suborn perjury from her confidante Linda Tripp, by implying threats against her family. If the incriminating blue dress hadn’t turned up, their plan was to continue to cover up and lie, and accuse Lewinsky of being a crazy stalker. The White House orchestrated the leak of the personnel files of Pentagon employee Linda Tripp, the only person in the entire fiasco who told the truth, in an attempt (sadly quite successful) to discredit her. This included a mistaken felony arrest record that had been sealed since she was a teenager. She was vilified and maligned in the media, with late-night comedians mocking her physical appearance. It’s unlikely that many of these people were either conservatives or Republicans.

Read it all.

Barack Obama is not without sin. His administration made life brutal for women.

Friction about the roles of women in the Obama White House grew so intense during the first two years of the president’s tenure that he was forced to take steps to reassure senior women on his staff that he valued their presence and their input.

At a dinner in November 2009, several senior female aides complained directly to the president that men enjoyed greater access to him and often muscled them out of key policy discussions.

Those tensions prompted Obama, urged on by senior adviser Valerie Jarrett, to elevate more women into senior White House positions, recognize them more during staff meetings and increase the female presence in the upper ranks of the reelection campaign. “There were some issues early on with women feeling as though they hadn’t figured out what their role was going to be on the senior team at the White House,” Jarrett said in an interview Monday. “Most of the women hadn’t worked on the campaign, and so they didn’t have a personal relationship with the president.”

The women’s-inclusion issue in the Obama White House is featured prominently in a controversial new book to be released Tuesday, “Confidence Men: Wall Street, Washington and the Education of a President,” by journalist Ron Suskind.

The book, based on more than 700 hours of interviews, including one with Obama, quotes a number of top officials describing a difficult work environment at the time for women, due largely to the dominating roles of male officials such as economics adviser Lawrence H. Summers and chief of staff Rahm Emanuel.

Former White House Communications Director Anita Dunn was quoted as saying

“this place would be in court for a hostile workplace. . . . Because it actually fit all of the classic legal requirements for a genuinely hostile workplace to women.”

No word on whether Obama explained that to his daughters.

But the lapdog poodle press is rushing to Barack Obama’s side like faithful and dutiful pets. Remember I told you that the left has absolutely no long term memory whatsoever?

Meanwhile, Bristol Palin is still waiting for Obama’s phone call.

And I would love to be a fly on the wall to hear Obama explain to Sasha and Malia about Cee Lo Green (and Daddy is a fan of Cee Lo) and why Daddy arranged for someone to sing F*ck You (a song to a woman) at Daddy’s fundraiser. Don’t miss Green flipping the bird as well.

YouTube Preview Image

In case you missed something, here are the complete lyrics


(Chorus)
I See You Driving ’round Town
With The Girl I Love And I’m Like,
Fuck You!
Oo, Oo, Ooo
I Guess The Change In My Pocket
Wasn’t Enough I’m Like,
Fuck You!
And Fuck Her Too!
I Said, If I Was Richer, I’d Still Be With Ya
Ha, Now Ain’t That Some Shit? (ain’t That Some Shit?)
And Although There’s Pain In My Chest
I Still Wish You The Best With A…
Fuck You!
Oo, Oo, Ooo

Yeah I’m Sorry, I Can’t Afford A Ferrari,
But That Don’t Mean I Can’t Get You There.
I Guess He’s An Xbox And I’m More Atari,
But The Way You Play Your Game Ain’t Fair.

I Picture The Fool That Falls In Love With You
(oh Shit She’s A Gold Digger)
Well
(just Thought You Should Know Nigga)
Ooooooh
I’ve Got Some News For You
Yeah Go Run And Tell Your Little Boyfriend

(chorus)

Now I Know, That I Had To Borrow,
Beg And Steal And Lie And Cheat.
Trying To Keep Ya, Trying To Please Ya.
‘Cause Being In Love With You Ass Ain’t Cheap.

I Picture The Fool That Falls In Love With You
(oh Shit She’s A Gold Digger)
Well
(just Thought You Should Know Nigga)
Ooooooh
I’ve Got Some News For You
I Really Hate Yo Ass Right Now
(chorus)

Now Baby, Baby, Baby, Why D’you Wanna Wanna Hurt Me So Bad?

(so Bad, So Bad, So Bad)
I Tried To Tell My Mamma But She Told Me
“this Is One For Your Dad”
(your Dad, Your Dad, Your Dad)
Uh! Whhhy? Uh! Whhhy? Uh!
Whhhy Lady? Oh! I Love You Oh!
I Still Love You. Oooh!

This sounds like a truly touching Obama family melody. Maybe Obama can share some of Cee Lo’s other dubious remarks with his daughters as well. Maybe he could share all of this history with the kids. Maybe he could say “Girls, ain’t that some sh*t?”

About DrJohn

DrJohn has been a health care professional for more than 30 years. In addition to clinical practice he has done extensive research and has published widely with over 70 original articles and abstracts in the peer-reviewed literature. DrJohn is well known in his field and has lectured on every continent except for Antarctica. He has been married to the same wonderful lady for over 30 years and has three kids- two sons, both of whom are attorneys and one daughter on her way into the field of education. DrJohn was brought up with the concept that one can do well if one is prepared to work hard but nothing in life is guaranteed. Except for liberals being foolish.
This entry was posted in Barack Obama, Feminism, Liberal Idiots, Media, MSM Bias, Obama Euphoric-Rapture Syndrome, Politics, propaganda bureau, WtF? and tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , . Bookmark the permalink. Tuesday, March 20th, 2012 at 7:54 pm
| 1,897 views

75 Responses to Let me show you what a real war on women looks like [Reader Post]

  1. johngalt says: 51

    To all, one other important aspect of the Catholic Church and their views on artificial birth control means. A woman has a right not to belong to the Catholic church, as well as a right to seek employment elsewhere. No one is stopping them, and any financial or job opportunity argument against that is purely beside the point, and points to another issue entirely.

    Another way to look at it is that the left is spouting off about a “woman’s right to choose” while at the same time limiting the choices others can make. It’s hypocritical to the nth degree.

    If the government is allowed to force someone to pay for someone else’s birth control, then they also are allowed to force people to NOT pay for the same thing. And this is the crux of what the liberal/progressives are trying to push onto “we, the people”. If successful, then their argument for continued support, on this issue, becomes exactly what they are arguing. That is, that the GOP, and conservatives in general, CAN do away with this “women’s right” to free birth control. The left has framed and made the argument what it is, simply by their own action. Whether or not it was purposeful is an entirely different discussion, but it’s hard not to lean that way when the left does it with so many issues.

    ReplyReply
  2. KenChimp says: 52

    @johngalt:

    I’m not only a Republican and a conservative on most political issues. I’m also male.
    Perhaps I am brainwashed (or brain dead). I know some other Republican, conservative males who think so, and I am certain there are many more out there I do not know who would think so if they knew me. If they would pause in their hypocrisy for long enough to actually parse what I say, they might actually learn that they are wrong about their thoughts on me.

    I do not take offense at the particular generalizations you have pointed out. I am as aware of them as I am of all the generalizations coming from conservatives on this issue aimed in the opposite direction. I’m fully aware of the generalizations. The difference between how you and I respond to this is probably that you identify with the population of men such as the RNC Chairman and Rush Limbaugh, and perhaps the cabal of shriveled, pasty-faced old geezers who are attempting most steadfastly to legislate their specific, personal, religious beliefs to the detriment of the lives, liberties and property of reproductive age women. Me? I identify with any PERSON whose personhood and rights are under attack. That’s what a responsible free moral agent does.

    You claim the religious freedom of the Catholic Church and her faithful are under attack by so-called (perhaps not by you, but by those you seem to identify with) “slutty” women who want others to pay for their birth control. Nothing could be more fallacious.

    The FACT of the matter is that when a Church organization decides to purchase a business, such as a hospital, that business is NOT the same thing as a congregational house of worship, a parochial school, or any other truly “religious” establishment. A hospital is an establishment of medical practice and care. Most…..not all, but most….hospitals owned by religious establishments are corporate entities in themselves, which are then owned by the incorporated entity better known as the Catholic Church.

    These hospitals are profit based, they have boards of directors, they have share holders, they have executive officers, etc. They are non-religious BUSINESSES. And yet the profits garnered by these businesses are tax exempt. This nonsense is fomented by the despicably corrupt system of 501 c 3 incorporation for tax exempt organizations. It is justified by the “charity” of these hospitals in caring for indigent patients (patients who cannot pay their medical bills).

    Hospitals not owned by religious establishments also provide indigent care. They DO NOT receive tax exemptions under 501 c 3. They DO NOT receive tax exemptions for the “charity” they provide to the indigent patients they care for. They are, with very few exceptions, FORCED by law and by the Hippocratic Oath they operate under as medical practitioners to care for people who do not have health insurance or other ready means of payment for services and products rendered.

    So now back to you paying for other people’s birth control pills. Non Catholics work at hospitals owned by the Catholic Church. Non-Catholics are among the patients of these hospitals. Since these hospitals are NOT institutions of religious worship, for the Catholic Church, or any member of the board of directors for the hospital, or that hospital’s executive officers (or any other shyster or fool) to declare that the health insurance the hospital provides for its workers is a part or portion of religious establishment and is a form of protected speech under the 1st Amendment’s Establishment Clause, is not only patently ludicrous, it is INVASIVE AND DANGEROUS to the very concept of liberty in a free society within a constitutional, democratic republic.

    Respondez S’il Vous Plait?

    ReplyReply
  3. Aye says: 53

    @KenChimp:

    …to declare that the health insurance the hospital provides for its workers is a part or portion of religious establishment and is a form of protected speech under the 1st Amendment’s Establishment Clause, is not only patently ludicrous, it is INVASIVE AND DANGEROUS to the very concept of liberty in a free society within a constitutional, democratic republic.

    It’s not the Establishment Clause portion of the First Amendment that is the issue here.

    It’s the “free expression thereof” portion.

    The Catholic Church and, ultimately, all other religious organizations have every right to whatever tenets they wish to espouse. Just as a Catholic hospital cannot be forced to offer abortion services due to those beliefs they also cannot be required to provide for birth control or abortion services through their insurance plans either.

    No one, not the president, not the Congress, and not the Courts can force a religious organization to violate the tenets of it’s religious beliefs.

    ReplyReply
  4. johngalt says: 54

    @KenChimp:

    The difference between how you and I respond to this is probably that you identify with the population of men such as the RNC Chairman and Rush Limbaugh,……..

    You make an assumption that is no where close to being the truth.

    I identify with any PERSON whose personhood and rights are under attack. That’s what a responsible free moral agent does.

    As do I. However, in order to understand if a person actually has a right that is under attack, one needs to understand exactly what a right is. Women demanding someone else pay for their birth control is not exercising a right. Women demanding access to birth control measures is.

    As for the rest of your comment, Aye has answered it as well as I could.

    ReplyReply
  5. Nan G says: 55

    ObamaCare permits a state to opt out of allowing health insurance plans that cover abortions to participate in the new health insurance exchanges within that state and thereby prohibit taxpayer money from subsidizing plans that cover abortions.

    Hope everyone knew that.

    South Dakota became the 15th state to enact such a law.
    South Dakota’s law expressly states, “No qualified health plan offered through a health insurance exchange established in the state may include elective abortion coverage.”
    So, anyone who wants to have insurance coverage for abortion must pay for it outside of the government-subsidized exchange.
    Taxpayers and persons enrolled in insurance plans in the South Dakota exchange will not be forced to pay for the abortions of other South Dakotans.

    At least seven other states have similar bills pending.
    Additionally, several other states are planning to include similar language in their legislation to establish the insurance exchanges in their state.

    If all of the ones planning to add in this law do so, a majority of states will legally stand in the way of ObamaCare’s plan to force abortion coverage on those who don’t want or need it.

    Add to that, 8 states prohibit all private insurance plans operating within the state from covering abortion except through an optional rider that an individual must choose to purchase separately.

    From:
    Obamacare abortion mandate withers – More states opting out of extremist liberal plan

    ReplyReply
  6. KenChimp says: 56

    @Aye:

    First, the “Establishment Clause” of the First Amendment is the portion of the First Amendment which deals specifically with religion. Therefore it is the entirety of “respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof” as regards “Congress shall make no law”.

    The Catholic Church and other religious establishments have every right to believe and practice whatever they will within the confines of CRIMINAL LAW. They do not have the right to deny other people’s rights. Just as it is not protected speech for a religious institution to FORCE other people (non-believers of their tenets) to participate in public prayer at school, it is NOT protected speech for a religious institution to FORCE other people (non-believers of their tenets) to participate in religious restrictions of employee health insurance.

    Again, a person or group of people have the right to believe in and practice whatever nonsense they want to. But no person has the right to FORCE said practices upon a non-consenting other. And I’ve already pointed out why your argument is invalid from the fallacious concept that a hospital is a religious establishment. I suppose you chose not to consider that portion.

    Next?

    ReplyReply
  7. KenChimp says: 57

    @johngalt:

    You make an assumption that is no where close to being the truth.

    If my assumption is erroneous, it is based solely upon what you have posted here thus far. My apologies if I have the wrong idea about your stance on this issue, and with which side of the issue you most identify.

    Women demanding someone else pay for their birth control is not exercising a right. Women demanding access to birth control measures is.

    Ah yes, those crazy, uppity women demanding special rights.

    This is NOT about women demanding special rights. It is about women DEMANDING equal protection under the law for medical supplies/services. This has been pointed out numerous times in this single thread alone, yet it has gone largely ignored by arguments to the contrary, EXCEPT for one rather ignorant post suggesting that Viagra is treatment for a medical problem but hormonal birth control is not. No, I do not consider “pregnancy” itself to be a medical “problem”, but it MOST CERTAINLY IS for a woman who does not wish to be pregnant!

    If you cannot understand that, or cannot understand how that should be as equally protected as a man with erectile dysfunction who wants his health insurance to cover it, then you are either stupid or being deliberately obtuse. Since your posts SEEM intelligent enough in origin, I must assume the latter. Sorry.

    ReplyReply
  8. AlexWolf says: 58

    Participating in this forum is like being pecked to death by chickens. You folks have equal intellect and bravery. I’ve seen my points ignored over and over again and been replied to with utter nonsense. You’ve proven both your ignorance of the Constitution and common decency, let alone liberty and equality. The original author of this ridiculous piece of “work” still won’t speak to his ignorant and mean spirited assumptions about a woman he knows nothing about nor will he even admit he’s wrong about the costs of birth control. I am not going to participate any further in this nonsense. You may crow your victory among yourselves and pat yourselves on the back as you assume you’ve driven me away with your irrefutable and brilliantly crafted arguments. Know, however, that I leave because of the age old adage about teaching pigs to sing. And yes, I did just compare you all to livestock. You merit such a comparison to barnyard animals. So, I leave you with these final thoughts;

    When you have legislation attempted that would force a woman to carry a dead child in her womb rather than have it removed via abortion as Georgia’s recently passed HB 954 was originally written because it outlawed ALL abortion after 20 weeks regardless of reason and made NO exceptions for rape, incest, or even non-viable pregnancies or those that threatened the life of the mother, and was ONLY changed to include those exceptions when there was huge public outcry, THAT, to me, is indicative of a war on women. When women with the misfortune to live in Texas must now submit to state ordered rape (lest we forget, the legal definition of rape is ANY unwanted penetration of the vagina, whether that be with a penis OR a foreign object) if they are seeking a legal abortion AND are forced to pay for this proceedure, thus making legal abortion less accessible, THAT is indicative to me of a war on women. When we women are hammered with piece after piece of legislation, authored by Republicans, attempting to dictate what we may or may not do with our own bodies, THAT is indicative, to me, of a war on women. When the only Republican presidential candidate who has NOT signed a “personhood pledge” is also the same one who says he’s going to “get rid” of Planned Parenthood and thus deprive untold thousands of women of the only healthcare they usually recieve each year, THAT, to me, is indicative of a war on women. When “personhood” laws, so strongly advocated by many Republicans, would place the “rights” of a POTENTIAL person over the rights of the ACTUAL PERSON carrying that potential person inside their own bodies, reducing them to little more than incubators and brood mares, THAT is indicative, to me, of a war on women. You want to prove there’s no war on women? STOP WAGING IT.

    ReplyReply
  9. Aye says: 59

    @AlexWolf:

    So, I leave you with these final thoughts;

    Aww… Does that mean you’re leaving without even attempting to support your claims?

    Damn! I’m so disappointed.

    The questions I posed to you weren’t that difficult. You made a claim and I simply asked you to support it with fact. You obviously weren’t able to do so and now you’ve gotta run away.

    When you first arrived, I thought you were gonna be something different. Something special. Turns out you’re nothing more than ordinary.

    Sucks to be you, eh?

    ReplyReply
  10. Aye says: 60

    @KenChimp:

    First, the “Establishment Clause” of the First Amendment is the portion of the First Amendment which deals specifically with religion. Therefore it is the entirety of “respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof” as regards “Congress shall make no law”.

    You appear to be arguing from a basic lack of understanding of the First Amendment:

    Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

    The Establishment Clause refers to the establishment of a state (Federal) religion and that’s it. That’s what it refers to and is completely unrelated to the “free exercise” portion.

    Your argument regarding the birth control issue runs afoul of the “free exercise” portion of the First.

    They do not have the right to deny other people’s rights.

    Who is being denied their “rights” and which “rights,” specifically, are they supposedly being denied?

    …it is NOT protected speech for a religious institution to FORCE other people (non-believers of their tenets) to participate in religious restrictions of employee health insurance.

    Which religious institution is “forcing” any person (believers or non) to participate in religious tenets they do not believe in? Cite specific examples please.

    Which portion of the Bill of Rights protects said person from being forced to participate in religious tenets that they don’t subscribe to? Why, yes, that’s right the “free expression thereof” portion.

    Which religious institution is “forcing” their employees to remain in a job which provides a health plan with restrictions on abortion services or birth control? Is there modern day slavery or indentured servitude present somewhere in America? Cite specific examples please.

    Which religious institution is “forcing” their employees to NOT receive abortion services or purchase birth control via a prescription from their doctor and render payment for such services or medications via a non-employer insurance plan or via out of pocket payment? Cite specific examples please.

    And I’ve already pointed out why your argument is invalid from the fallacious concept that a hospital is a religious establishment. I suppose you chose not to consider that portion.

    From the founding of our country religious schools, universities, and hospitals have always been seen and recognized as religious institutions. They have, since our founding, enjoyed the freedoms and protections of the US Constitution and the Bill of Rights.

    Your efforts to redefine long standing tradition, as well as settled case law, are futile.

    Again, a person or group of people have the right to believe in and practice whatever nonsense they want to. But no person has the right to FORCE said practices upon a non-consenting other.

    So, let me get this straight now. You’re saying “a person or group of people have the right to believe in and practice whatever nonsense they want to” but that person or group of people (religious institution) can be forced to violate the most basic tenets of their religious beliefs in order to accommodate the wishes and desires of an employee?

    That’s some mighty fine Pretzel LogicTM right there.

    Not only does your argument fly directly in the face of the First Amendment, it also violates the Equal Protection clause of the 14th Amendment as well.

    Everyone is guaranteed equal protections under the 14th Amendment. Your desire to grant “rights” to employees while simultaneously denying First Amendment protections to religious organizations end up violating both the 1st as well as the 14th.

    @KenChimp:

    This is NOT about women demanding special rights. It is about women DEMANDING equal protection under the law for medical supplies/services.

    What “equal protections” are women being denied in this scenario?

    Is there a Catholic Church provided insurance plan that is covering male contraceptive services via their insurance plan while simultaneously denying coverage for contraceptive services to female employees?

    Are men able to have a Catholic Church provided insurance plan pay for condoms or vasectomy operations? If so, does that specific plan concurrently deny condom or tubal ligation/sterilization coverage to female employees?

    Source any and all affirmative answers that you provide.

    If there are no affirmative answers to those questions then how do you square your “equal protection” arguments?

    Respondez S’il Vous Plait?

    ReplyReply
  11. johngalt says: 61

    @KenChimp:

    My apologies if I have the wrong idea about your stance on this issue, and with which side of the issue you most identify.

    It’s not the “side of the issue” that you had the wrong idea about. It’s linking me to people that I don’t necessarily identify with, such as the RNC chairman and Rush Limbaugh, as well as assuming that because I don’t agree with Ms. AlexWolf on the issue, that you then assume that I refer to women as “slutty”. You are guilty of generalizing the entire conservative population for what a handful of GOP have referenced to, or look like, or refer to women as. And since I self-identify as a conservative, you assume(generalize) that I relate to them as well. This is where you went wrong.

    Ah yes, those crazy, uppity women demanding special rights.

    The point I made, about rights, goes well beyond this issue alone. It is in reference to the wider issue of what actually constitutes a right, and what people try to deem a right. Our Constitution is based on ‘natural rights’. ‘Natural rights’ require not an action by others, but an inaction, either by other individuals, states, or the federal government. The “rights” that liberal/progressive groups are trying to ordain as protected in the Constitution are not ‘natural rights’, but rather, what is termed as ‘positive rights’. ‘Positive rights’ require the action, service, or product, of another person or group in order to satisfy them. These are not rights, as protected within the Constitution, but rather, privileges.

    In the specific example of women’s reproductive rights, other than on abortion, I agree that women have a right to choose and have access to whatever means of reproductive health and contraceptives that they want. So does every conservative that I know of. But, when the demand becomes more than access or choice, which requires no action on my part to recognize, to the point that the demand is that I, or others provide it, that it changes from a right, to a privilege. And even then, many conservatives have no problem with providing for it, AS LONG AS IT ISN”T INFRINGING UPON OTHERS CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS, such as ‘free expression of religion’.

    If you cannot understand that, or cannot understand how that should be as equally protected as a man with erectile dysfunction who wants his health insurance to cover it, then you are either stupid or being deliberately obtuse.

    I won’t deny that many women are prescribed birth control pills for medical conditions that have nothing to do with contraception. There are many examples of doctors prescribing medications intended for treatment of one thing, to treat an entirely separate medical issue based on a drug’s medical benefits. Aspirin for heart problems comes to mind. However, when a drug’s intended use is for something that the Catholic Church’s official viewpoint is against, it is entirely acceptable for them to wish to deny providing it, even if the reason for it’s prescription is different in scope than it’s intended use, because even as it provides treatment for the other condition, it still has the effect of being an artificial contraceptive on the women taking it.

    The problem that I, and most conservatives, have with this issue doesn’t even really have to do with women, though. No, the problem we have is that the federal government is seemingly violating the Constitution itself. I say seemingly because the line between the Church and it’s affiliated organizations is somewhat blurred, and we conservatives recognize that. A line in the sand, however, has to be drawn, otherwise the government, which never eases away from actions, will continue to probe further and further across the line, until eventually we all wake up and see our freedoms and liberties gone. If one values freedom and liberty, eventually one has to take a stand against tyranny.

    This issue could have been dealt with, and compromised on, simply by discussing the reach of both religious organizations and the federal government. Where one’s reach stops, and the other’s begins. Instead, political hay has been made on the issue by relating it, wrongly, to a “war on women”, which no conservative that I know of actively engages in, contrary to certain poster’s positions.

    And lastly, Viagra has little to do with the issue, for several reasons.
    - One, it is not being called a “right” that men are clamoring for access to.
    - Two, it is not contrary to the Catholic Church’s positions on reproductive health. In actuality, it supports their position, and allows men who otherwise might not be able to engage in sex, and to contribute to reproduction, to do so. Although, I do admit that it is hypocritical in one aspect. That is, that if God intended a woman to get pregnant, and an artificial contraceptive denies that, then God, most likely, also intended the male who needs such a device as Viagra to not be able to get a woman pregnant. But that is a theological discussion of God him/her self and I don’t intend to continue in such a discussion.
    -Three, the federal government is not forcing any insurance company, religious related or not, that I know of, to actively provide the drug in it’s coverage plans.

    In the end, this particular issue is not about women’s reproductive “rights”, but rather, religious freedom. The reasoning behind referring to it as part of some “war on women” is purely political, and intended solely to garner votes by vilifying the opposing side.

    ReplyReply
  12. Curt says: 62

    @AlexWolf: @KenChimp:

    What is it with you lefties that you have to pull sockpuppet stunts to try and prove your point? FYI, I can see the IP address you use to comment with, both of these comments were submitted from the same computer. Pick a username and stick with that one. First and final warning.

    ReplyReply
  13. johngalt says: 63

    @AlexWolf:

    I am sorry to see you go, as you did bring up some interesting points to ponder. My biggest beef with you was your generalizing of people for what some few others have said, or commented on. That is unfair to males in general, and conservative males in particular. That is just as bad as the NBPP condemning the entire white race for something that a “white” hispanic did. It is wrong to do so, and one shouldn’t engage in it and expect rational discussion.

    As for the “war on women”, I still believe that it’s a made up political ploy of the left, and done simply to garner votes amongst the female population. The GOP is being painted by the left as being full of old, white, rich males. However, there are many females, blacks, hispanics, and even a smattering of homosexual members within the party. In order for your claimed “war on women” to be true, all of those pieces of legislation you listed above, and in other comments and links, would have needed to be passed entirely by the men of the GOP. For example, the GA HB 954 that you reference had ALL 13 of the Republican women voting in favor of it. Surely, if there really was a “war on women”, then some, many, or all of those 13 GOP women would have voted no, correct?

    And I won’t sit here and deny that some people in the world, including here in the US, actively hate women and women’s rights, seeing them as second class citizens or worse. However, you cannot sit there and claim that just because a position, viewpoint, legislation, or other, goes against your own viewpoint, and that of other women, that it automatically means it’s a battlefront in some “war on women”. That’s intellectually dishonest, and unfair to the positions of those you are opposed to. And if one continues to engage in such hyperbole and platitudinous expressions, then they shouldn’t really expect a rational discussion on the issue that results in a fair, equitable compromise or outcome.

    To us conservatives, of which there are many, many women, doing as you have done is simply adopting a mantle of victimhood, and the only reason to do so is to elicit support by means of guilt and emotional response. It doesn’t have a thing to do with the actual issue, or legislation, at hand. It is for this reason that I stated the left is using you, and women like you. They only do it to further their political aims of gaining power.

    Again, sorry to see you go.

    ReplyReply
  14. AlexWolf says: 64

    @Curt:

    You say,”What is it with you lefties that you have to pull sockpuppet stunts to try and prove your point? FYI, I can see the IP address you use to comment with, both of these comments were submitted from the same computer. Pick a username and stick with that one. First and final warning. ”

    Against my better judgement, I took a peek back here because I wanted to read what my fiance’ had written. And then I see this stupidity. Shockingly enough, it just happens that 2 different people inhabit the same home and have similar viewpoints. And yes, I love him even though he IS a registered Republican and I’m an Independent. I know, just crazy. Try to wrap your tiny head around it anyway.

    I’d be wiling to consider having a private conversation with jongalt if that were possible as I would like to answer some of his points but it’s just not worth putting up with the rest of you.

    ReplyReply
  15. Aye says: 65

    @AlexWolf:

    I would like to answer some of his points but it’s just not worth putting up with the rest of you.

    Translation: The rest of you made me look like an idiot so there’s no way I could even attempt to redeem myself at this point.

    ReplyReply
  16. AlexWolf says: 66

    @Aye:
    “The rest of you made me look like an idiot so there’s no way I could even attempt to redeem myself at this point.”

    Thanks for proving my point classy guy.

    ReplyReply
  17. johngalt says: 67

    @AlexWolf:

    It’s johngalt, with an “H”. The reason Curt is adamant about so-called “sock-puppetry” is that a favorite tactic of the left, in discussions here and elsewhere, is to use several different names and post comments under them, and all from the same person. In some cases, the person will act inflammatory towards their own side, simply to give an “example” of their point about the other side on the issue. If you truly are two different people, and neither I, nor probably Curt, have any reason to believe you are not, then apologies, but Curt’s rules are the rules, and put in place for a reason. I would suggest, if you wish to continue commenting here, both of you, that you appeal to Curt to allow it, or use two different computers.

    I, personally, would welcome both you and your fiance to remain engaged here at FA. It is an excellent site for discussion of political topics and issues, and I find myself learning quite a bit from the interactions I have with others here, on an almost daily basis. And yes, at times some people can be frustrating and enraging, even, to engage in discussion with, but to me, those are rare.

    ReplyReply
  18. Aye says: 68

    @AlexWolf:

    Almost from the moment you arrived here you began putting forward patently false arguments and engaging in childish insults as you accused us of “flapping [our] gums in ignorance via [our] keyboards”

    Then, when challenged to support those arguments with source materials, you wanted to re-frame the debate from your original premise.

    When challenged to bring the debate back to your original point, you tried to insult us all by referring to us as farm animals as you fled the sandbox.

    What I find most amusing is the blatant hypocrisy that you engaged in by attempting to insult us with the farm animal thing. Isn’t that comparison, after all, almost identical to what you spent most of your time here bellyaching over?

    So, the question now is: Will you return to engage in a civil conversation?

    “When shall we three meet again?
    In thunder, lightning, or in rain?”

    ReplyReply
  19. KenChimp says: 69

    @Curt:

    What is it with you lefties that you have to pull sockpuppet stunts to try and prove your point? FYI, I can see the IP address you use to comment with, both of these comments were submitted from the same computer. Pick a username and stick with that one. First and final warning.

    First, I am NOT a “lefty” in any political sense. I AM left handed, although I seriously doubt you had any knowledge of that.

    Second, I don’t give a damn what you can or cannot see regarding connections. I am well aware of the capabilities web servers have of determining information about connections. I am a UNIX systems engineer.

    Third, you ASSUME that my posts and those of AlexWolf were written by the same person because of your perusal of your web server logs. In doing so, you have shown a lack of regard for what is being written and how it is written. If you cannot tell a distinct difference between what I write and what AlexWolf writes by content and style, then you clearly have not even bothered to read what is written beyond what it takes to determine a general gist.

    AlexWolf and I are NOT the same person. We share a household, and thus a common internet service provider. The IP address you see in your web logs is not the IP address assigned to my computer or to hers. It is the IP address assigned to my home network firewall by our internet service provider.

    So my question to your “warning”: Is it against terms of use for your forum for two people sharing an internet service connection to post their thoughts and opinions? Or is it only against the terms when so-called “lefties” do so, or when you tire of salient arguments which run contrary to yours?

    Now back to the “leftie” comment. As I have stated before in this thread, I am a registered Republican. I am a fiscal conservative. I am for SMALL government that is kept within the enumerated powers of the Constitution. I am not a socialist in ANY sense of the word, nor am I a Neo-Con fascist. I am a centrist libertarian. One of my strongest beliefs is that liberty requires responsibility, and responsibility, in any sense, requires liberty.

    None of you have adequately addressed my concerns about the abuse of the Establishment clause of the First Amendment as regards religious institutions which own non-religious business institutions, in this case specifically, hospitals. Aye continues to ignore the specific statements I have made regarding equal protection of law, attempting to suggest that my understanding of the Constitution is lacking and attempting to suggest that my understanding of “rights” is socialist in ideology. Neither suggestion is correct, nor has Aye adequately argued these suggestions.

    I’m more than willing to argue from the Constitution with any of you. I guarantee there is more evidence to show that the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment is much, much more than simply a statement that the Congress is forbidden by the Constitution to set up a “state” church. If that is what the framers of the Constitution had meant, that is what they would have said. To find out what they meant, we refer to their other writings which address the First Amendment specifically. And you will find much information there, believe me.

    A religious establishment….ANY religious establishment in this nation is protected in the free exercise of their religious practices. However, owning a hospital is NOT a religious practice. This idea that any act done under color of “religious establishment” is protected by the First Amendment is patently ludicrous and inherently dangerous to the rule of law.

    ReplyReply
  20. Aye says: 70

    @KenChimp:

    None of you have adequately addressed my concerns about the abuse of the Establishment clause of the First Amendment as regards religious institutions which own non-religious business institutions, in this case specifically, hospitals.

    Actually, that is completely false.

    I directly addressed your claims regarding the Establishment Clause more than once and explained to you why your thinking on that issue is incorrect.

    Now, if you wish to cite case law or, perhaps, the writings of the Founders as to their Original Intent on the Establishment Clause feel free to do so.

    Repeating your same incorrect point over and over, however, is not going to accomplish anything toward making it any more correct.

    Aye continues to ignore the specific statements I have made regarding equal protection of law, attempting to suggest that my understanding of the Constitution is lacking and attempting to suggest that my understanding of “rights” is socialist in ideology.

    That, again, is completely false.

    I specifically argued the assertions that you made regarding equal protection and challenged you to cite examples where you claim these violations to be occurring.

    Again, repeating it over and over sans anything to back your arguments is a waste of time for both of us.

    Your points. Your onus.

    I’m more than willing to argue from the Constitution with any of you. I guarantee there is more evidence to show that the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment is much, much more than simply a statement that the Congress is forbidden by the Constitution to set up a “state” church. If that is what the framers of the Constitution had meant, that is what they would have said. To find out what they meant, we refer to their other writings which address the First Amendment specifically. And you will find much information there, believe me.

    That’s great. Let’s have that discussion. I welcome the opportunity to do so.

    Since your arrival here, I’ve been attempting to get you to cite some sources to support your arguments. So far, nothing.

    A religious establishment….ANY religious establishment in this nation is protected in the free exercise of their religious practices.

    Finally, a point we can agree on.

    However, owning a hospital is NOT a religious practice. This idea that any act done under color of “religious establishment” is protected by the First Amendment is patently ludicrous and inherently dangerous to the rule of law.

    Can we both agree that ministering to the sick is a basic tenet of many religions, including Christianity?

    If so, then it would be impossible to argue that any attempt to deny a religious organization the right to own and operate hospitals or other medical facilities as they wish wouldn’t be a denial of their rights to “free expression.”

    If your point is true, and “owning a hospital is NOT a religious practice”, then you will have no trouble whatsoever in citing historical or legal precedent or, perhaps, even case law to support it.

    Finally, we both realize that the scope of the First Amendment goes above and beyond the Establishment and Free Expression clauses.

    ReplyReply
  21. Curt says: 71

    @KenChimp:

    And I could care less what you give a damn about. My blog, my rules. If you don’t like them then leave…simple as that. Do you really believe that this is the first time I have encountered a sock puppet and their attempts to fool this blog and their readers? Sock puppets will many times change their style of writing to attempt to fool the audience. It’s what they do. Finally, I had both you and your lady in the moderation queue but took that off after researching her claim that you live together last night and finding them to be true.

    ReplyReply
  22. Hard Right says: 72

    Alex, don’t let the door hit you in the *ss on the way out.
    You came here with your hateful, condescending smears of those that dared to disagree with you. When challenged and shown to be lacking in proof of your assertions you beacme even more snotty and insulting. When you got it thrown right back in your face you squealed like a stuck pig. We have several intelligent female posters here, and you are not one of them. Goodbye you useful idiot.

    ReplyReply
  23. Pingback: New Ad Claims “The dreams of all of our daughters are at stake…” | Flopping Aces

  24. Pingback: What would the world look like if we were all liberals? | Freedom, Justice and Liberty (CWNews)

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>