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.
February 21, 2008 05:32 PM ET Turns out experts on sexual assault are all too familiar with the issue. "It's been a problem for a long time," says Ilse Knecht, deputy director of public policy at the National Center for Victims of Crime. "We've heard so many stories of victims paying for their exams, or not being able to and then creditors coming after them." In order to qualify for federal grants under the Violence Against Women Act, states have to assume the full out-of-pocket costs for forensic medical exams, as the rape kits are called. But according to a 2004 bulletin published by the NCVC, "[F]eedback from the field indicates that sexual assault victims are still being billed." Knecht says she's recently heard from caseworkers in Illinois, Georgia, and Arkansas reporting that rape victims continue to be charged for their forensic exams.
Just because other states do something that is blatantly wrong and immoral is no defense for Wasilla to do it. And they did it under Palin's watch. Was she the one pushing to do this? No, but she was Mayor. She had no problems with pushing her agenda with other matters. But when it was a matter of her city complying with Alaskan law and policy, she either wasn't paying attention, or she supported the police chief to continue charging victims or their insurance companies for the rape kits. It's one or the other. Didn't know, or knew and agreed.
Perfect #2 example of double standard central USA.
Quote:
Originally Posted by DC at the Ridge
Just because other states do something that is blatantly wrong and immoral is no defense for Wasilla to do it. And they did it under Palin's watch. Was she the one pushing to do this? No, but she was Mayor. She had no problems with pushing her agenda with other matters. But when it was a matter of her city complying with Alaskan law and policy, she either wasn't paying attention, or she supported the police chief to continue charging victims or their insurance companies for the rape kits. It's one or the other. Didn't know, or knew and agreed.
It has everything to do with the double standard of liberals. So now women hate others that rise and break through the glass.....all for Hillary who lost but totally silent on Palin. The other atrocity was the ACLU who pushes all sorts of privacy act's but was dead silence when Palin's legal privacy rights were infringed upon.
People will only be stupid about these biased groups for so long as they keep making their biases louder and louder....sort of mimicking of the LIBERAL hate scream section of the left.
It's not a double standard. Women DON'T hate Palin for rising politically. I really don't think the majority of women hate Palin at all. But women don't automatically support a women running for office because she is female. As a woman, I wanted a Vice Presidential candidate that I felt confident in to trust the welfare of the United States. The Vice President's primary responsibility is to step in and serve as President if the President should die or be incapacitated while in office. Palin was unable to show me that she could do this. I never bashed her in regards to her personal life. I was shocked about the wardrobe issue just in terms of the amount of money spent, but it was an issue between Palin and the RNC and didn't really affect my opinion of Palin. What she said during the interviews and the debate, the difficulty she appeared to have in those situations, spoke volumes to me. I don't think questioning whether she was ready to be Vice President of the United States is bashing, I think it's the question at the very heart of any election.
What has Joe Biden got to do with any of this? We're talking about Palin and I don't think I made any mention of Biden.
That said, I'm afraid I don't get the analogy between Biden and Palin. Are you saying they are alike? I don't see that.
Still, if Palin puts her foot in her mouth call her on it just as I do Biden. But that's not what this is about. The attacks on Palin far outweigh any criticism I have ever seen of Biden and they're not about her putting her foot in her mouth.
And that's my point!!!! Palin should be treated equally, but she wasn't!!! And that is why I believe that feminists should have stood up to those who bashed her for things they would never have bashed a man about.
Case in point, did you see one story about the cost of Obama's suits? Did you see one investigation into where they came from, who bought them, how much they cost? Of course not! The only reason that issue came up is because Palin is a woman. And that's just one issue of dozens we could talk about.
But you know what? I don't think it's necessary for me to sit and defend her any longer because she didn't win!!!!!
And the funniest part of all of this for me is that I am not, and never have been, a feminist. I learned many long years ago that being a woman has many advantages and I wasn't about to give those up by becoming "equal".
I didn't think the wardrobe was a campaign issue. But it came up not because she was a woman, but because people who contributed to McCain's campaign and to the Republican Party generally don't expect that money to be spent at Neiman Marcus on clothes for the Vice-Presidential candidate or for her family. She is a Governor. Yes, she probably doesn't have a need for much formalwear or dressy clothes, but she's a Governor. She should surely have had some clothes appropriate for the campaign trail. She shouldn't have needed new makeup. Her husband must have a couple of suits hanging in the closet. It really wasn't because she's a woman, it was because she's a Vice-Presidential candidate that didn't have, apparently, anything appropriate to wear.
Right now it sounds like you throw a barb out, and when called to back it up, are trying to slip away. Spit it out, BigJon, what's the double standard?
I didn't think the wardrobe was a campaign issue. But it came up not because she was a woman, but because people who contributed to McCain's campaign and to the Republican Party generally don't expect that money to be spent at Neiman Marcus on clothes for the Vice-Presidential candidate or for her family. She is a Governor. Yes, she probably doesn't have a need for much formalwear or dressy clothes, but she's a Governor. She should surely have had some clothes appropriate for the campaign trail. She shouldn't have needed new makeup. Her husband must have a couple of suits hanging in the closet. It really wasn't because she's a woman, it was because she's a Vice-Presidential candidate that didn't have, apparently, anything appropriate to wear.
The Illinois senator's campaign is projected to have spent $250 million on ads in the last four months — a number that is equivalent to $750 million in a full year. Only AT&T, with a yearly advertising budget of about $1.3 billion, and Verizon, which shells out $950 million a year on ads, spends more than the Democratic presidential nominee. But most major companies spend far less than Obama, including McDonald’s ($588 million), Sprint PCS ($482 million), T-Mobile ($404 million), Target ($388 million), and Wal-Mart ($335 million).
The Illinois senator's campaign is projected to have spent $250 million on ads in the last four months — a number that is equivalent to $750 million in a full year. Only AT&T, with a yearly advertising budget of about $1.3 billion, and Verizon, which shells out $950 million a year on ads, spends more than the Democratic presidential nominee. But most major companies spend far less than Obama, including McDonald’s ($588 million), Sprint PCS ($482 million), T-Mobile ($404 million), Target ($388 million), and Wal-Mart ($335 million).
That's what I expect campaign dollars to go for. I stated quite clearly that I didn't think her wardrobe was a campaign issue, but rather an issue between Palin and the RNC. Is your point that Obama spent more than McCain on ads? Or that Obama could have paid for Palin's wardrobe and it would have been a blip on the radar? What's your point?
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.
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.
Perfect #2 example of double standard central USA.
.
