GOP Poll: Women Think Republican Party Is 'Stuck In The Past'

[Seawytch]

Just realize not all of us see voting as the proper way to reform the country.

Ah...the "there's gonna be an armed revolt and Sarah Palin will be declared President" faction. I love you guys!

 

[Derideo_Te]

It was all that democrat stuff enabling them to have recreational sex without negative consequences.

So the only thing women care about is having inconsequential sex?

Who's being sexist here?

What's more telling is all this progressive crap has really done is allow MEN to have recreational sex without negative consequences.

Hey, blame me for the fcking poll, gandolf.

It was all that democrat stuff enabling them to have recreational sex without negative consequences.

So the only thing women care about is having inconsequential sex?

Who's being sexist here?

What's more telling is all this progressive crap has really done is allow MEN to have recreational sex without negative consequences.

Apparently this is the lib narrative.
Their view of women is that females are simple creatures with that politically single issue minded.
That women do not have any control over their hormones and are interested in matters of biology.

Actually, it was a goper who brought up the recreational sex angle.

And it is progressives that let men fuck around without consequences.

Really?

Senator Vitter and Governor Sanford were "progressives"?

Rep Anthony Weiner was a "conservative"?

 

[rdean]

Look at the NFL. Vicks was kicked out for how long for dogfighting?
One player smokes a joint and he's banned for a season.

Another player beat the shit out of his wife and is video taped dragging her unconscious body away and is suspended two games. You heard me, TWO GAMES.

It's not just a GOP thing, it's cultural. But of course, it's worse in the GOP because they are "conservative" or how thoughtful observers correctly describe them, "Stuck in the past".

 

[Seawytch]

What would Democrats do without their legions of dead voters and multiple voters?

This guy was a Republican.

Shorewood man charged with 13 counts of voter fraud

 

[martybegan]

It was all that democrat stuff enabling them to have recreational sex without negative consequences.

So the only thing women care about is having inconsequential sex?

Who's being sexist here?

What's more telling is all this progressive crap has really done is allow MEN to have recreational sex without negative consequences.

Hey, blame me for the fcking poll, gandolf.

It was all that democrat stuff enabling them to have recreational sex without negative consequences.

So the only thing women care about is having inconsequential sex?

Who's being sexist here?

What's more telling is all this progressive crap has really done is allow MEN to have recreational sex without negative consequences.

Apparently this is the lib narrative.
Their view of women is that females are simple creatures with that politically single issue minded.
That women do not have any control over their hormones and are interested in matters of biology.

Actually, it was a goper who brought up the recreational sex angle.

And it is progressives that let men fuck around without consequences.

Really?

Senator Vitter and Governor Sanford were "progressives"?

Rep Anthony Weiner was a "conservative"?

This is more about the consequences of an unfettered safety net allowing young men to abandon the women they knock up, then the dalliances of politicians.

By consequences I mean generational poverty, and crime ridden inner cities, not the end of ones political career.

 

[Nosmo King]

And we've heard from Republicans on this thread that women should not be extended the vote as is their right.

When you exercise your right to vote to enslave me and steal the fruits of my labor so that it can be used to support you and thus free you up to go to marches where you chant about how you're an independent woman, then no, using your vote to enslave others to support you is an illegitimate use of the vote.

If you want to be independent, then be independent, don't marry the government. Stand on your own feet.

So, in your vision of Democracy, any vote you do not agree with is illegitimate?

Were you raised in America? Because that attitude runs counter to our way of life.

 

[Kondor3]

...Does anyone honestly expect that Republicans will "deal honestly with any disagreement on abortion"?...

Why not?

Have they (as a group) not honestly stated their opposition to abortion, over the years?

Or are they only being honest if they agree with you?

...I don't.

Thank you for your personal opinion on the subject.

Kondor is missing the point. Dealing "honestly with any disagreement" does not mean stubbornly objecting and doing everything in their power to deny women their Constitutional right to privacy. Instead "dealing honestly" means acknowledging that not everyone agrees that "life begins at conception" and for those that don't they should be allowed to exercise their rights as they deem fit without being vilified.

I disagree (I think).

I understand the distinction that you are trying to make.

I also believe that you are abusing the definition of 'honest dealing' here.

Honest dealing, to my tiny little mind, means conducting one's self openly in support of one's viewpoint.

Honest dealing, in your mind, appears to mean conceding the point (to each one's own), in a functional sense.

If one believes that life begins at conception, then ending such life is a Wrong Thing.

One cannot be true to one's self and one's values by conceding the field to Evil (doers of Wrong Things).

Most especially when dealing with (perceived) Human Life.

So long as one is open and above-board about one's opinion in such matters, one is dealing honestly.

At least, according to any functional definition that I've ever encountered.

Or so it seems to this observer.

 

[bodecea]

332-206....yeah, ya'll got butchered--by the American voters.

Just realize not all of us see voting as the proper way to reform the country.

Wait....what?

 

[chikenwing]

Anti-choice pro-birth fanatics try to restrict women's access to abortion and contraceptives - and then condemn them for not wanting to deliver a baby that they don't want. One would think these fanatics would want women to have totally free access to contraceptives and all associated doctor visits - which would be much less costly to all concerned (both morally and financially).

It totally amazes me how little concern the anti-choice zealots have for the financial/mental/physical welfare of pregnant women who don't want babies for various reasons. These women should come first. According to Roe v. Wade - they do come first.

Republican anti-choice pro-birth fanatics have no moral standing in forcing and/or shaming a pregnant woman into giving birth to an unwanted baby.

One would think these fanatics would want women to have totally free access to contraceptives and all associated doctor visits - which would be much less costly to all concerned (both morally and financially).

Pro life people do want full access to contraception,and people do,your lie doesn't make it so.

Claiming the moral high ground while humans are being kiiled is absurd and shows your rationality and lack of humnity

You would have to consider the IUD to be birth control for that statement to be true.

IUD are contraceptives?? at what point did I mention that they were not.

See this is a very good example of the ignorance of the left,they like to put words into others mouth,especially when they have nothing. They assume ,willingly what every they wish you to believe.

 

[chikenwing]

Anti-choice pro-birth fanatics try to restrict women's access to abortion and contraceptives - and then condemn them for not wanting to deliver a baby that they don't want. One would think these fanatics would want women to have totally free access to contraceptives and all associated doctor visits - which would be much less costly to all concerned (both morally and financially).

It totally amazes me how little concern the anti-choice zealots have for the financial/mental/physical welfare of pregnant women who don't want babies for various reasons. These women should come first. According to Roe v. Wade - they do come first.

Republican anti-choice pro-birth fanatics have no moral standing in forcing and/or shaming a pregnant woman into giving birth to an unwanted baby.

One would think these fanatics would want women to have totally free access to contraceptives and all associated doctor visits - which would be much less costly to all concerned (both morally and financially).

Pro life people do want full access to contraception,and people do,your lie doesn't make it so.

Claiming the moral high ground while humans are being kiiled is absurd and shows your rationality and lack of humnity

Cough! Cough! Hobby Lobby Cough Cough!

And this is relative how?? cough cough!!

Hobby lobby has and still includes contraceptives in they health insurance policy,they rejected only a few drug that induce abortions,you do know that right?

 

[deltex1]

Yeah..that's what we want...a woman that "ACTS LIKE A MAN!!!!".

 

[bodecea]

Yeah..that's what we want...a woman that "ACTS LIKE A MAN!!!!".

Why is it that some people think an independent, brave, assertive woman is "acting like a man"?

 

[Derideo_Te]

It was all that democrat stuff enabling them to have recreational sex without negative consequences.

So the only thing women care about is having inconsequential sex?

Who's being sexist here?

What's more telling is all this progressive crap has really done is allow MEN to have recreational sex without negative consequences.

Hey, blame me for the fcking poll, gandolf.

It was all that democrat stuff enabling them to have recreational sex without negative consequences.

So the only thing women care about is having inconsequential sex?

Who's being sexist here?

What's more telling is all this progressive crap has really done is allow MEN to have recreational sex without negative consequences.

Apparently this is the lib narrative.
Their view of women is that females are simple creatures with that politically single issue minded.
That women do not have any control over their hormones and are interested in matters of biology.

Actually, it was a goper who brought up the recreational sex angle.

And it is progressives that let men fuck around without consequences.

Really?

Senator Vitter and Governor Sanford were "progressives"?

Rep Anthony Weiner was a "conservative"?

This is more about the consequences of an unfettered safety net allowing young men to abandon the women they knock up, then the dalliances of politicians.

By consequences I mean generational poverty, and crime ridden inner cities, not the end of ones political career.

Nothing is going to stop recreational sex.

But access to affordable contraception via the ACA will reduce the incidence of pregnancies.

A reduction in the number of pregnancies will reduce generational poverty.

No wonder the GOP is opposed to Obamacare. They won't be able to use single mothers as an excuse to drive their sheeple to vote Republican any longer. Yet another nail in the coffin of the extreme right.

 

[Derideo_Te]

...Does anyone honestly expect that Republicans will "deal honestly with any disagreement on abortion"?...

Why not?

Have they (as a group) not honestly stated their opposition to abortion, over the years?

Or are they only being honest if they agree with you?

...I don't.

Thank you for your personal opinion on the subject.

Kondor is missing the point. Dealing "honestly with any disagreement" does not mean stubbornly objecting and doing everything in their power to deny women their Constitutional right to privacy. Instead "dealing honestly" means acknowledging that not everyone agrees that "life begins at conception" and for those that don't they should be allowed to exercise their rights as they deem fit without being vilified.

I disagree (I think).

I understand the distinction that you are trying to make.

I also believe that you are abusing the definition of 'honest dealing' here.

Honest dealing, to my tiny little mind, means conducting one's self openly in support of one's viewpoint.

Honest dealing, in your mind, appears to mean conceding the point (to each one's own), in a functional sense.

If one believes that life begins at conception, then ending such life is a Wrong Thing.

One cannot be true to one's self and one's values by conceding the field to Evil (doers of Wrong Things).

Most especially when dealing with (perceived) Human Life.

So long as one is open and above-board about one's opinion in such matters, one is dealing honestly.

At least, according to any functional definition that I've ever encountered.

Or so it seems to this observer.

You are dealing with religious absolutes that don't allow for compromise. Religious absolutes are not allowed to dictate government policy. The compromise is to follow your own conscience as far as what you can control which is yourself. You have no right to impose your religious absolutes on others who don't share your religious beliefs. That is how the Constitution works. If you don't like it change the Constitution. Until then you have an obligation to obey the Law of the Land and allow others to exercise their rights as they see fit. Anything else is dishonesty and unAmerican.

 

[Derideo_Te]

Yeah..that's what we want...a woman that "ACTS LIKE A MAN!!!!".

Why is it that some people think an independent, brave, assertive woman is "acting like a man"?

Because they are threatened by women who are not subservient to them. Real men are not not threatened by independent, brave, assertive women.

 

[martybegan]

Nothing is going to stop recreational sex.

But access to affordable contraception via the ACA will reduce the incidence of pregnancies.

A reduction in the number of pregnancies will reduce generational poverty.

No wonder the GOP is opposed to Obamacare. They won't be able to use single mothers as an excuse to drive their sheeple to vote Republican any longer. Yet another nail in the coffin of the extreme right.

Who wants to stop recreational sex? I'm a big fan of it personally.

We have had affordable and easily accessible contraception for decades now, and yet the problem of inner city poverty, which has one of its roots in the lack of stable families, continues. Unless you start mandating that the pill or rubbers are required in the hood, all the "access" you create ain't gonna do shit.

What is needed is a reduction in pregnancies among people not willing or able to take responsibility for the results of sex without "consequences."

We actually need MORE pregnancies from people with the means to have kids and support them, or we will soon end up in the same boat as Japan and a bunch of Scandinavian countries.

 

[martybegan]

Yeah..that's what we want...a woman that "ACTS LIKE A MAN!!!!".

Why is it that some people think an independent, brave, assertive woman is "acting like a man"?

Because they are threatened by women who are not subservient to them. Real men are not not threatened by independent, brave, assertive women.

Oh, hai there!

 

[rightwinger]

It was all that democrat stuff enabling them to have recreational sex without negative consequences.

So the only thing women care about is having inconsequential sex?

Who's being sexist here?

What's more telling is all this progressive crap has really done is allow MEN to have recreational sex without negative consequences.

Hey, blame me for the fcking poll, gandolf.

It was all that democrat stuff enabling them to have recreational sex without negative consequences.

So the only thing women care about is having inconsequential sex?

Who's being sexist here?

What's more telling is all this progressive crap has really done is allow MEN to have recreational sex without negative consequences.

Apparently this is the lib narrative.
Their view of women is that females are simple creatures with that politically single issue minded.
That women do not have any control over their hormones and are interested in matters of biology.

Actually, it was a goper who brought up the recreational sex angle.

And it is progressives that let men fuck around without consequences.

Really?

Senator Vitter and Governor Sanford were "progressives"?

Rep Anthony Weiner was a "conservative"?

This is more about the consequences of an unfettered safety net allowing young men to abandon the women they knock up, then the dalliances of politicians.

By consequences I mean generational poverty, and crime ridden inner cities, not the end of ones political career.

Nothing is going to stop recreational sex.

But access to affordable contraception via the ACA will reduce the incidence of pregnancies.

A reduction in the number of pregnancies will reduce generational poverty.

No wonder the GOP is opposed to Obamacare. They won't be able to use single mothers as an excuse to drive their sheeple to vote Republican any longer. Yet another nail in the coffin of the extreme right.

Republicans oppose abortion....yet they try to block access to birth control
They want a young woman to "choose life"....but they block programs that provide prenatal care, childcare services and job protections for pregnant women

 

[bodecea]

Yeah..that's what we want...a woman that "ACTS LIKE A MAN!!!!".

Why is it that some people think an independent, brave, assertive woman is "acting like a man"?

Because they are threatened by women who are not subservient to them. Real men are not not threatened by independent, brave, assertive women.

Oh, hai there!

Ah...so you are confused between being threatened by someone and disagreeing with someone's political positions.

 

[martybegan]

Yeah..that's what we want...a woman that "ACTS LIKE A MAN!!!!".

Why is it that some people think an independent, brave, assertive woman is "acting like a man"?

Because they are threatened by women who are not subservient to them. Real men are not not threatened by independent, brave, assertive women.

Oh, hai there!

Ah...so you are confused between being threatened by someone and disagreeing with someone's political positions.

Stop trying to make a snark response to a ironic post into an actual position.

And progressives are the ones who think disagreeing = heresy nowadays, I'd worry about the hoisting of your own petard if I were you.