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.
Many years ago I was told by a group of men who were in Austin lobbying against the passage of the ERA in Texas that I was going to hell due go going against the will of God. That same bunch of relentlessly committed and their kids do want certain bill control methods removed from the market. They will never give up.
Wedge issues have been used for fund raising forever. Just ask the NRA and the counter NRA. Same thing.
Nobody wants abortion. But taking away BC is stupid. But, their premise is certain methods cause an abortion.
IIRC our Republicans in congress voted against allowing women to apply for a credit card or mortgage, voted against banning employers from firing a woman because she was pregnant, and just a few years back, voted against equal pay for equal work.
I find it ironic that women are protesting the fifth woman in history on the world's most powerful court as a sign that women's rights are being taken away by the OrangeMan and republicans who are gladly confirming her.
Ironic, to the say the least.
I was thinking how strong the cognitive dissonance must be when they attacked her religion. They must be really oppressing women when one of their own is about to achieve the highest and most prestigious position possible in her field.
I actually find it ironic that a woman who seems to feel that women should be beholden to their husbands is even remotely in the position to be appointed to the Supreme Court. I wonder how many non-submissive women had to work like hell against various men in order for that to even be a possibility for her. Hmm.
People can have personal views that are not what is written in the law. Do you not remember Hillary Clinton as a defense attorney? Was she incapable of separating her views on topics like rape or theft etc. and not follow the law and give the accused a full defense?
It's called being a professional. If you can cite unprofessional action on her part that led to bad rulings then do so.
Otherwise, you're no different than someone that doesn't like gay marriage and so just skips past a qualified applicant that they know is in a gay marriage.
Yes. She needs to look down and see whose shoulders she's standing on.
Quote:
Originally Posted by AnotherTouchOfWhimsy
I actually find it ironic that a woman who seems to feel that women should be beholden to their husbands is even remotely in the position to be appointed to the Supreme Court. I wonder how many non-submissive women had to work like hell against various men in order for that to even be a possibility for her. Hmm.
As I've said when she was nominated I did a little research on her work. Just a little. I also listened to some of the hearing. She seems to me to be very smart and unbiased. She worked hard for her career while having a successful marriage and raising children. She also has her own religious beliefs as does everyone and I did not see where those interfered with her ability to uphold the law.
So can you enlighten me as to why you feel she is submissive has an overwhelming sense of beholding to her husband that she is unfit for SCOTUS. Am I missing something.
Yeah, a smart accuser doesn't remember where or when the attack occurred nor be able to produce any witnesses.
A story can't fall apart if it was never constructed to begin with.
The people that hijacked #metoo to mean we automatically have to believe all accusers (when we approve of whom they're accusing) hopefully feel some remorse in hindsight for believing something with no proof and then turning around and having different standards as it suits them.
Just look at who you're responding to. They will gladly support #metoo when it's their side, no matter how outrageous and in the next breath denigrate other accusers
I was thinking how strong the cognitive dissonance must be when they attacked her religion. They must be really oppressing women when one of their own is about to achieve the highest and most prestigious position possible in her field.
You have just described the conflicting issue in the movement for women's rights.
Do we support just the women who agree with the purpose, or all women?
I'm actually hoping women's rights get taken away. I have no sympathy for people who vote against their own self interest. Without women supporters, Trump wouldn't be president. I feel sorry the Democrat women but at the end of the day, there is no solidarity in the female gender.
I'm actually hoping women's rights get taken away. I have no sympathy for people who vote against their own self interest. Without women supporters, Trump wouldn't be president. I feel sorry the Democrat women but at the end of the day, there is no solidarity in the female gender.
Uhh, pretty sure it's mainly the men who voted the current grifter into office. Who is he polling the highest with? Not women.
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.
