U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies > Elections
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 03-02-2012, 11:36 PM
 
Location: Midwest
4,628 posts, read 3,953,548 times
Reputation: 6618

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by Gurbie View Post
Very, very, VERY bad news for the GOP. In the past six weeks, since the Clueless Party nose-dived into the empty pool of the Great Birth Control Debate of 2012, Obama has opened up a thirteen Point lead over Romney with women:


http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j...DZFevPoqjOXdjg

Obama 54%, Romney 41%, a ten point swing since Dec.

Well done, sirs! Well done
Some people that vote Republican, like myself, saw the writing was on the wall before they decided to shoot themselves in the foot.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 03-02-2012, 11:40 PM
 
Location: Illinois Delta
5,763 posts, read 4,340,984 times
Reputation: 2060
Quote:
Originally Posted by shpanda View Post
I'm not.

No one wants to ban birth control, and I'm more concerned with economic issues. Obama will never get my vote, and neither will the majority of the republican party.

Not so fast, shpanda. The Blunt Amendmendment was only defeated by a
51-48 vote, so that makes the majority of GOP legislators in favor of banning birth control. And Blunt has vowed to continue the fight.

Roy Blunt On Contraception Debate: 'I'm Confident This Issue Is Not Over'

Makes me think of one thing:


What's Up! / 4 Non Blondes - YouTube
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-03-2012, 12:06 AM
 
Location: MW
1,433 posts, read 992,944 times
Reputation: 544
Quote:
Originally Posted by Evenstar51 View Post
Not so fast, shpanda. The Blunt Amendmendment was only defeated by a
51-48 vote, so that makes the majority of GOP legislators in favor of banning birth control. And Blunt has vowed to continue the fight.

Roy Blunt On Contraception Debate: 'I'm Confident This Issue Is Not Over'

Makes me think of one thing:


What's Up! / 4 Non Blondes - YouTube
I still have confidence not all are like psycho Santorum. Congress, Senate, everything needs an overhaul.

And I still love that song. hahaha Reps for you.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-03-2012, 12:14 AM
 
Location: Texas
14,969 posts, read 14,173,058 times
Reputation: 4555
Quote:
Originally Posted by Evenstar51 View Post
Not so fast, shpanda. The Blunt Amendmendment was only defeated by a
51-48 vote, so that makes the majority of GOP legislators in favor of banning birth control. And Blunt has vowed to continue the fight.

Roy Blunt On Contraception Debate: 'I'm Confident This Issue Is Not Over'
The Blunt Amendment wasn't about banning birth control. It was about allowing employers to not cover birth control if they don't want to because it goes against their beliefs.

There's quite a big difference between not being legally allowed to use birth control and possibly having to pay for it yourself.

Is "not free" now seen as the same as "illegal" by liberals?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-03-2012, 12:43 AM
 
Location: Illinois Delta
5,763 posts, read 4,340,984 times
Reputation: 2060
Quote:
Originally Posted by afoigrokerkok View Post
The Blunt Amendment wasn't about banning birth control. It was about allowing employers to not cover birth control if they don't want to.

There's a difference between not being legally allowed to use birth control and possibly having to pay for it yourself.

Does "not free" now equal "illegal" to liberals?

Oh, we all know that...but the underlying motivation is to chip away at women's reproductive rights and ultimately an attempt to overturn Roe v. Wade. That's a given. But say for instance that your 14 year-old daughter develops acne, and the doctor prescribes birth control pills...but your employer refuses to include that medication under the coverage you're
provided because he/she assumes that it's for contraception? And b.c. pills are used to treat more serious conditions as well:

[quote]
Overall, use of oral contraceptives appears to slightly reduce all-cause mortality, with a rate ratio for overall mortality of 0.87 (confidence interval: 0.79–0.96) when comparing ever-users of OCs with never-users.[115]
The use of oral contraceptives (birth control pills) for five years or more decreases the risk of ovarian cancer in later life by 50%.[116] Combined oral contraceptive use reduces the risk of ovarian cancer by 40% and the risk of endometrial cancer by 50% compared to never users. The risk reduction increases with duration of use, with an 80% reduction in risk for both ovarian and endometrial cancer with use for more than 10 years. The risk reduction for both ovarian and endometrial cancer persists for at least 20 years.[25]
Taking oral contraceptives also reduces the risk of colorectal cancer, and improves conditions such as pelvic inflammatory disease, dysmenorrhea, premenstrual syndrome, and acne.[83] Additionally, birth control pills reduce symptoms of polycystic ovary syndrome, and decrease the risk of anemia.[84]
Use of combined oral contraceptives is associated with a reduced risk of endometriosis, giving a relative risk of endometriosis of 0.63 during active use, yet with limited quality of evidence according to a systematic review.
[117] [end quote]

Combined oral contraceptive pill - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Providing oral contraceptives would, it follows, not only decrease the number of unwanted children and abortions but also decrease the cost of treatment later for something that could have been prevented. It would be so much better if men stopped trying to play doctor with the lives of America's women. If an employer is so sanctimonious that they'd
refuse to pay for something as pragmatic as birth control pills, he/she would suffer due to time off for illness by his employees, maternity leave and other variables. Cutting off one's nose to spite one's face, my grandmother would say.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-03-2012, 01:52 AM
 
Location: Stillwater, Oklahoma
14,744 posts, read 13,251,868 times
Reputation: 4474
If Republicans keep their nonsense up, they will also lose the House and not take the Senate.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-03-2012, 02:25 AM
 
Location: Texas
26,609 posts, read 11,139,524 times
Reputation: 6102
Quote:
Originally Posted by Evenstar51 View Post
Oh, we all know that...but the underlying motivation is to chip away at women's reproductive rights and ultimately an attempt to overturn Roe v. Wade. That's a given. But say for instance that your 14 year-old daughter develops acne, and the doctor prescribes birth control pills...but your employer refuses to include that medication under the coverage you're
provided because he/she assumes that it's for contraception? And b.c. pills are used to treat more serious conditions as well:

Providing oral contraceptives would, it follows, not only decrease the number of unwanted children and abortions but also decrease the cost of treatment later for something that could have been prevented. It would be so much better if men stopped trying to play doctor with the lives of America's women. If an employer is so sanctimonious that they'd
refuse to pay for something as pragmatic as birth control pills, he/she would suffer due to time off for illness by his employees, maternity leave and other variables. Cutting off one's nose to spite one's face, my grandmother would say.
It's about religious freedom. No one should be forced to purchase insurance that goes against their religion. Of course no one should be forced to purchase health care insurance. But that's what supporters of big government want. Use force to get what they want.

Since you are all for decreasing costs in the long run, you must be in favor of banning pork and other foods considered unhealthy. How about a tax on overweight people since they are not as healthy as others?

Anymore rights and freedoms of mine you want to crush under the guise of "good intentions"?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-03-2012, 04:09 AM
 
Location: Illinois Delta
5,763 posts, read 4,340,984 times
Reputation: 2060
Quote:
Originally Posted by Loveshiscountry View Post
It's about religious freedom. No one should be forced to purchase insurance that goes against their religion. Of course no one should be forced to purchase health care insurance. But that's what supporters of big government want. Use force to get what they want.

Since you are all for decreasing costs in the long run, you must be in favor of banning pork and other foods considered unhealthy. How about a tax on overweight people since they are not as healthy as others?

Anymore rights and freedoms of mine you want to crush under the guise of "good intentions"?
It has nothing to do with religious freedom, as much as the GOP would like to make it so. I had no idea that insurance companies were now religious institutions and could deny one benefits based on their religious views. So nurses can refuse to care for a patient because he/she doesn't agree with their religion? Bosses can refuse to hire you because they don't agree with your religion? That is a far more slippery slope than the simple notion that employers can't dictate the type of health care that their employees use
based on that employer's personal religion. "Big Government" would prefer a form of universal health coverage as opposed to mandating that people carry health insurance...you carry it on your car by law, so how much more important is it that you have access to affordable, quality health care? And you're against prophylactic medicine? The proven theory that having optimal health when young lowers the cost of health care later doesn't seem sensible to you? Trying to extrapolate on my belief that preventative medicine saves money in the long run into some strange
diatribe about banning pork and taxing fat people simply shows that the post to me was written without much contemplation at all. Eating too much pork and being overweight fall under "personal responsibility," as does using birth control to either prevent conception or as treatment for
certain illnesses. I thought that personal responsibility was a favorite RW tenet? And really; exactly how have I or anyone else involved in this dialog deprived you of any religious beliefs or practices? You have it bass akwards; it is you who seek to impose your personal religion on every woman in America, using the false impression that you know what's best for us and that your perception of God supercedes ours because we practice our faith differently. Are there any more hard-earned rights and privileges that you'd like to take from me and other women, under the guise of your perceived religious superiority? Want to tighten those chastity belts on women one last time and thereby deprive us of our
freedom yet again? If there's anything more offensive than hypocrisy it's false piety. Women make up more than half of the population, and the
GOP is alienating that huge voting bloc in order to pander to the 30% of the party that represents the extreme right. Thank you for driving moderate and Independent women into the voting booth to cast their votes for President Obama because they're no longer "pure" enough to be members of the GOP.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-03-2012, 04:16 AM
 
Location: Democratic Peoples Republic of Redneckistan
11,102 posts, read 13,153,225 times
Reputation: 3923
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gurbie View Post
Very, very, VERY bad news for the GOP. In the past six weeks, since the Clueless Party nose-dived into the empty pool of the Great Birth Control Debate of 2012, Obama has opened up a thirteen Point lead over Romney with women:


http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j...DZFevPoqjOXdjg

Obama 54%, Romney 41%, a ten point swing since Dec.

Well done, sirs! Well done
Yep...and when you PO a woman then her man automatically gets mad at you too because he has to hear about it all the time
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-03-2012, 05:09 AM
 
12,870 posts, read 13,108,199 times
Reputation: 4453
i don't believe for a minute that women are flocking to obama.

women don't like wars and women protect their children.

i don't believe that men are flocking to obama either.

men don't like being broke and not being able to provide for their families adequately:



EU And US Tighten Screws On Own Economies With Oil And Banking Boycott Of Iran | Culture of Life News

can anyone disagree that the screws are being tightened on our own economy? oil prices rise, and americans suffer even more. the very sad part is that this is ALL intentional, and our troops get put in more danger by this idiocracy.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies > Elections
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6. The time now is 05:35 PM.

© 2005-2019, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 - Top