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.
Unlike the Democratic Party whom only uses women as political pawns in order to ge elected, the GOP actually respects and honors women and the important role they play in the success of our society.
Earth to Dems - women are people.
Would you like to put up the number of women in leadership roles within the Democratic with those in comparable roles on the Republican side of the aisle?
OF COURSE he didn't! Otherwise he would have noticed the posts where people took each point made in that ridiculous link and busted them for the lies and idiocy that they were. Don't see him rebutting those arguments, do you? No, he would rather a stupid site/blog called "godfatherpolitics" voice his arguments for him and harp on people by assuming they didn't read the site instead of articulating his points with his own words and tackling rebuttals head on with evidence to support him.
It's weak. It's so, so weak.
I read all of both threads and think I have to call Pelosi on you for this post. I saw nobody talking about what was in the link with all that crap about same sex marriage and all the other things you leaners were talking about. I am sorry but if you can't read a link you have no business calling me out. You know nothing about the link, only the thing I said and I haven't seen much that was anything about it. I was sure that saying that would bring out some leaners making noise about lezzes. I don't waste time talking about those people.
Sorry, I don't support your hatred for gays and lesbians....nor should any woman. There is no need to support DOMA unless you think gays and lesbians shouldn't be allowed to marry.
When the law allows those people to marry I will be ready to talk about it. In some states it is that way but in mine it isn't and won't soon be the law.
Now if you believe that Holder and Obama don't have to enforce DOMA I think that you need to read in the Constitution of the US what their duties are and then think about their oaths of office. They are to enforce the laws of the US and that law was passed by the Congress. I guess you really think that their desire to destroy laws by not enforcing them is legal. Nope, it isn't. This crap about executives doing what they believe in when enforcing is pure Pelosi and some time Obama will pay for his way of dealing with the law.
We don't know about that, for sure just like we didn't in 2008 about Obama. We know about Obama now and that should tell anyone that he isn't the man for the job.
When the law allows those people to marry I will be ready to talk about it. In some states it is that way but in mine it isn't and won't soon be the law.
Now if you believe that Holder and Obama don't have to enforce DOMA I think that you need to read in the Constitution of the US what their duties are and then think about their oaths of office. They are to enforce the laws of the US and that law was passed by the Congress. I guess you really think that their desire to destroy laws by not enforcing them is legal. Nope, it isn't. This crap about executives doing what they believe in when enforcing is pure Pelosi and some time Obama will pay for his way of dealing with the law.
Did you know women and blacks use to basically have no rights? Yep, and somehow that has changed in our country, just like how gay marriage is changing in our country. I don't feel sorry for you if you don't like that, but you not liking it isn't a good enough reason to say women should vote against Obama because of it.
We don't know about that, for sure just like we didn't in 2008 about Obama. We know about Obama now and that should tell anyone that he isn't the man for the job.
Oh so you have no interest in asking that question before voting for Romney? Sounds a bit naive.
The Obama campaign has written off the white working class and straight male vote in favor of racial division and a newly invented war between the sexes.
This is their default strategy since Obama can't sell permanent 8.3% unemployment or never ending affirmative action to white men who work for a living.
Oh please the Republicans INVENTED RACIAL DIVISION AS A NATIONAL POLITICAL STRATEGY, and they been using it since the late 1960's. Here I'll let the late Lee Atwater a senior Republican political strategist and White Advisor explain it to you.
As a member of the Reagan administration in 1981, Atwater gave an anonymous interview to Political Scientist Alexander P. Lamis. Part of this interview was printed in Lamis' book The Two-Party South, then reprinted in Southern Politics in the 1990s with Atwater's name revealed. Bob Herbert reported on the interview in the 6 October 2005 edition of the New York Times. Atwater talked about the GOP's Southern Strategy and Ronald Reagan's version of it:
Atwater: As to the whole Southern strategy that Harry S. Dent, Sr. and others put together in 1968, opposition to the Voting Rights Act would have been a central part of keeping the South. Now [the new Southern Strategy of Ronald Reagan] doesn’t have to do that. All you have to do to keep the South is for Reagan to run in place on the issues he's campaigned on since 1964 and that's fiscal conservatism, balancing the budget, cut taxes, you know, the whole cluster.
Questioner: But the fact is, isn't it, that Reagan does get to the Wallace voter and to the racist side of the Wallace voter by doing away with legal services, by cutting down on food stamps?
Atwater: You start out in 1954 by saying, "N****r, n****r, n****r." By 1968 you can't say "n****r" — that hurts you. Backfires. So you say stuff like forced busing, states' rights and all that stuff. You're getting so abstract now [that] you're talking about cutting taxes, and all these things you're talking about are totally economic things and a byproduct of them is [that] blacks get hurt worse than whites. And subconsciously maybe that is part of it. I'm not saying that. But I'm saying that if it is getting that abstract, and that coded, that we are doing away with the racial problem one way or the other. You follow me — because obviously sitting around saying, "We want to cut this," is much more abstract than even the busing thing, and a hell of a lot more abstract than "N****r, n****r."[6][7]
After some investigation these women turned out to be Democrats. They need to lie to find support for Obama. Shameful and underhanded ad. Here are some stats on how much women were "helped" by Obama.
– 17 million women are living in poverty today — up 800,000 since President Obama took office;
– 7.5 million women are living in “extreme” poverty;
– Women working in President Obama’s White House are paid 18% less than his male employees;
– Women want their family’s health care decisions to be made by their doctors, not unelected bureaucrats;
– Women don’t want $4/gallon gasoline prices;
– Unemployment among women has gone up 15 percent since President Obama was inaugurated;
– Women are gaining jobs at 1/4 the pace of men;
– Women want the nation’s economy to grow more than 1.5% annually;
– Women don’t want to pass on trillions of dollars in debt and deficits to their children;
– Women want to retire someday, hopefully before Social Security goes bankrupt; and
– Women want stability in the housing market, not continuing record numbers of foreclosures and declining home values.
Given Glen Beck's "The Blaze"'s web site's long history of simply lying and making **** up I don't think I will believe any of that excrement until such time as it is confirmed by an at least some what creditable source. Seriously, Janelle, how could you be so clueless as to think citing the blaze is anything other than like citing the latest "Aliens visit Earth" cover story on the National Enquirer?
Given Glen Beck's "The Blaze"'s web site's long history of simply lying and making **** up I don't think I will believe any of that excrement until such time as it is confirmed by an at least some what creditable source. Seriously, Janelle, how could you be so clueless as to think citing the blaze is anything other than like citing the latest "Aliens visit Earth" cover story on the National Enquirer?
Ditto The New York Times.
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.
