War On Women Big Fail

[hadit]

The War on Women predates Obama. Whether you choose to acknowledge it or not. Further, Obama is not up for reelection and the Republicans still don't have a plan and since they are the ones that are a part of the problem then it doesn't look good for them either.

The war on women and womanhood was initiated in the 1960s by groups such as NOW and scum, such as Gloria Steinhem, Bella Abzug,

The sexual revolution is over and the men won.

 

[hadit]

Dear Hadit,

Get an argument together and then come talk to me.

Thanks.

You seem to think that women being the primary custodial parent justifies giving them total control over a man's reproductive freedom. Could not the same argument have been made about the man being the primary breadwinner justifying him being in total control of his wife's activities back in the 50's? IOW, that's a poor frikken' excuse for giving one person total control over another's reproductive freedom.

 

[hadit]

Anyone that still supports Bill Clinton shows that they truly hate women..

Thus in turn, the far left hates women.

I don't know about hate, but they proved they don't care about women when they tossed Hillary aside to get a negro candidate when Hillary was the more qualified person in 2008.

How any woman could support the Democratic party after that slap in the face is beyond me.

That slap plus their continued hero worship of Bubba after he used the lest powerful woman in the office for his selfish sexual pleasure, and their continued hero worship of Teddy after he not only abandoned a woman to die in his car while he saved his own hide, but spent his entire life chasing tail.

 

[alan1]

In the USA, women are 50.8% of the population, why do liberals call them a minority when they are obviously a majority?

 

[hadit]

In the USA, women are 50.8% of the population, why do liberals call them a minority when they are obviously a majority?

Simple emotionalism. It's easier that way.

 

[Disir]

Dear Hadit,

Get an argument together and then come talk to me.

Thanks.

You seem to think that women being the primary custodial parent justifies giving them total control over a man's reproductive freedom. Could not the same argument have been made about the man being the primary breadwinner justifying him being in total control of his wife's activities back in the 50's? IOW, that's a poor frikken' excuse for giving one person total control over another's reproductive freedom.

First of all, the woman is the one that is pregnant. Secondly, it is women that are the primary custodians 82.2% of the time. Thus, the decision belongs to women. It would be her body that this takes place in and I don't care if that just makes you feel powerless and weak.

Now, let's get this straight: A very tiny percentage of women did not work during the fifties. White women, upper middle class, etc.

You still don't have an argument.

 

[hadit]

Dear Hadit,

Get an argument together and then come talk to me.

Thanks.

You seem to think that women being the primary custodial parent justifies giving them total control over a man's reproductive freedom. Could not the same argument have been made about the man being the primary breadwinner justifying him being in total control of his wife's activities back in the 50's? IOW, that's a poor frikken' excuse for giving one person total control over another's reproductive freedom.

First of all, the woman is the one that is pregnant. Secondly, it is women that are the primary custodians 82.2% of the time. Thus, the decision belongs to women. It would be her body that this takes place in and I don't care if that just makes you feel powerless and weak.

Now, let's get this straight: A very tiny percentage of women did not work during the fifties. White women, upper middle class, etc.

You still don't have an argument.

Absolutely I do. BOTH parties should lose their "freedom" when pregnancy happens, because there is now another life involved. You seem to think that women being primary custodial parents is justification for forcing others into indentured servitude or to be denied parenthood. It is simply not. Your argument is no more authoritative than would have been a man's in the 50's who said (and many blue collar men had this attitude) that "no woman of mine is going to work", then used her not working as justification for controlling her life. Sheer numbers do not trump principle.

 

[candycorn]

Anyone that still supports Bill Clinton shows that they truly hate women..

Thus in turn, the far left hates women.

I don't know about hate, but they proved they don't care about women when they tossed Hillary aside to get a negro candidate when Hillary was the more qualified person in 2008.

How any woman could support the Democratic party after that slap in the face is beyond me.

Compared to the invasive, needless, and humiliating things republicans have forced women to go through in the name of their health, you'd have to have the IQ of a box of rocks to not understand it.

 

[Disir]

In the USA, women are 50.8% of the population, why do liberals call them a minority when they are obviously a majority?

Dear Hadit,

Get an argument together and then come talk to me.

Thanks.

You seem to think that women being the primary custodial parent justifies giving them total control over a man's reproductive freedom. Could not the same argument have been made about the man being the primary breadwinner justifying him being in total control of his wife's activities back in the 50's? IOW, that's a poor frikken' excuse for giving one person total control over another's reproductive freedom.

First of all, the woman is the one that is pregnant. Secondly, it is women that are the primary custodians 82.2% of the time. Thus, the decision belongs to women. It would be her body that this takes place in and I don't care if that just makes you feel powerless and weak.

Now, let's get this straight: A very tiny percentage of women did not work during the fifties. White women, upper middle class, etc.

You still don't have an argument.

Absolutely I do. BOTH parties should lose their "freedom" when pregnancy happens, because there is now another life involved. You seem to think that women being primary custodial parents is justification for forcing others into indentured servitude or to be denied parenthood. It is simply not. Your argument is no more authoritative than would have been a man's in the 50's who said (and many blue collar men had this attitude) that "no woman of mine is going to work", then used her not working as justification for controlling her life. Sheer numbers do not trump principle.

Sorry bud, you got nothing. Again, the numbers state who it is that actually does have custody. Thus, they are the ones that are the responsible party.

 

[GWV5903]

What is the war on women in America?

The War on Women predates Obama. Whether you choose to acknowledge it or not. Further, Obama is not up for reelection and the Republicans still don't have a plan and since they are the ones that are a part of the problem then it doesn't look good for them either.

It is an imaginary idea dreamed up by liberals.

No.

Oh yes it is...

And you're proof...

 

[Disir]

What is the war on women in America?

The War on Women predates Obama. Whether you choose to acknowledge it or not. Further, Obama is not up for reelection and the Republicans still don't have a plan and since they are the ones that are a part of the problem then it doesn't look good for them either.

It is an imaginary idea dreamed up by liberals.

No.

Oh yes it is...

And you're proof...

Proof of what?

 

[hadit]

In the USA, women are 50.8% of the population, why do liberals call them a minority when they are obviously a majority?

Dear Hadit,

Get an argument together and then come talk to me.

Thanks.

You seem to think that women being the primary custodial parent justifies giving them total control over a man's reproductive freedom. Could not the same argument have been made about the man being the primary breadwinner justifying him being in total control of his wife's activities back in the 50's? IOW, that's a poor frikken' excuse for giving one person total control over another's reproductive freedom.

First of all, the woman is the one that is pregnant. Secondly, it is women that are the primary custodians 82.2% of the time. Thus, the decision belongs to women. It would be her body that this takes place in and I don't care if that just makes you feel powerless and weak.

Now, let's get this straight: A very tiny percentage of women did not work during the fifties. White women, upper middle class, etc.

You still don't have an argument.

Absolutely I do. BOTH parties should lose their "freedom" when pregnancy happens, because there is now another life involved. You seem to think that women being primary custodial parents is justification for forcing others into indentured servitude or to be denied parenthood. It is simply not. Your argument is no more authoritative than would have been a man's in the 50's who said (and many blue collar men had this attitude) that "no woman of mine is going to work", then used her not working as justification for controlling her life. Sheer numbers do not trump principle.

Sorry bud, you got nothing. Again, the numbers state who it is that actually does have custody. Thus, they are the ones that are the responsible party.

Cool. Then you would support legislation ensuring that a pregnant woman cannot abort the child if the man who impregnated her agreed to be the custodial parent and merely demanded child support payments for the next 18 years?

 

[Disir]

In the USA, women are 50.8% of the population, why do liberals call them a minority when they are obviously a majority?

Dear Hadit,

Get an argument together and then come talk to me.

Thanks.

You seem to think that women being the primary custodial parent justifies giving them total control over a man's reproductive freedom. Could not the same argument have been made about the man being the primary breadwinner justifying him being in total control of his wife's activities back in the 50's? IOW, that's a poor frikken' excuse for giving one person total control over another's reproductive freedom.

First of all, the woman is the one that is pregnant. Secondly, it is women that are the primary custodians 82.2% of the time. Thus, the decision belongs to women. It would be her body that this takes place in and I don't care if that just makes you feel powerless and weak.

Now, let's get this straight: A very tiny percentage of women did not work during the fifties. White women, upper middle class, etc.

You still don't have an argument.

Absolutely I do. BOTH parties should lose their "freedom" when pregnancy happens, because there is now another life involved. You seem to think that women being primary custodial parents is justification for forcing others into indentured servitude or to be denied parenthood. It is simply not. Your argument is no more authoritative than would have been a man's in the 50's who said (and many blue collar men had this attitude) that "no woman of mine is going to work", then used her not working as justification for controlling her life. Sheer numbers do not trump principle.

Sorry bud, you got nothing. Again, the numbers state who it is that actually does have custody. Thus, they are the ones that are the responsible party.

Cool. Then you would support legislation ensuring that a pregnant woman cannot abort the child if the man who impregnated her agreed to be the custodial parent and merely demanded child support payments for the next 18 years?

What part of no did you not grasp the first dozen times?

 

[hadit]

In the USA, women are 50.8% of the population, why do liberals call them a minority when they are obviously a majority?

You seem to think that women being the primary custodial parent justifies giving them total control over a man's reproductive freedom. Could not the same argument have been made about the man being the primary breadwinner justifying him being in total control of his wife's activities back in the 50's? IOW, that's a poor frikken' excuse for giving one person total control over another's reproductive freedom.

First of all, the woman is the one that is pregnant. Secondly, it is women that are the primary custodians 82.2% of the time. Thus, the decision belongs to women. It would be her body that this takes place in and I don't care if that just makes you feel powerless and weak.

Now, let's get this straight: A very tiny percentage of women did not work during the fifties. White women, upper middle class, etc.

You still don't have an argument.

Absolutely I do. BOTH parties should lose their "freedom" when pregnancy happens, because there is now another life involved. You seem to think that women being primary custodial parents is justification for forcing others into indentured servitude or to be denied parenthood. It is simply not. Your argument is no more authoritative than would have been a man's in the 50's who said (and many blue collar men had this attitude) that "no woman of mine is going to work", then used her not working as justification for controlling her life. Sheer numbers do not trump principle.

Sorry bud, you got nothing. Again, the numbers state who it is that actually does have custody. Thus, they are the ones that are the responsible party.

Cool. Then you would support legislation ensuring that a pregnant woman cannot abort the child if the man who impregnated her agreed to be the custodial parent and merely demanded child support payments for the next 18 years?

What part of no did you not grasp the first dozen times?

You have corroborated my first perception. You're NOT concerned with the rights of the custodial parent at all. You're ONLY concerned with making sure the pregnant woman has total control over whether the baby growing inside her lives to be born or not, full stop. All the rest is merely fluff and smoke, designed to obscure. So let us drop the ridiculous argument that the woman should have control over the man's reproductive freedom because she would be the custodial parent, because you just eliminated that idea. It's fine to you if a woman can force a man to become a parent and pay child support for nearly two decades, but not if a man can do the same to a woman.

 

[Disir]

In the USA, women are 50.8% of the population, why do liberals call them a minority when they are obviously a majority?

First of all, the woman is the one that is pregnant. Secondly, it is women that are the primary custodians 82.2% of the time. Thus, the decision belongs to women. It would be her body that this takes place in and I don't care if that just makes you feel powerless and weak.

Now, let's get this straight: A very tiny percentage of women did not work during the fifties. White women, upper middle class, etc.

You still don't have an argument.

Absolutely I do. BOTH parties should lose their "freedom" when pregnancy happens, because there is now another life involved. You seem to think that women being primary custodial parents is justification for forcing others into indentured servitude or to be denied parenthood. It is simply not. Your argument is no more authoritative than would have been a man's in the 50's who said (and many blue collar men had this attitude) that "no woman of mine is going to work", then used her not working as justification for controlling her life. Sheer numbers do not trump principle.

Sorry bud, you got nothing. Again, the numbers state who it is that actually does have custody. Thus, they are the ones that are the responsible party.

Cool. Then you would support legislation ensuring that a pregnant woman cannot abort the child if the man who impregnated her agreed to be the custodial parent and merely demanded child support payments for the next 18 years?

What part of no did you not grasp the first dozen times?

You have corroborated my first perception. You're NOT concerned with the rights of the custodial parent at all. You're ONLY concerned with making sure the pregnant woman has total control over whether the baby growing inside her lives to be born or not, full stop. All the rest is merely fluff and smoke, designed to obscure. So let us drop the ridiculous argument that the woman should have control over the man's reproductive freedom because she would be the custodial parent, because you just eliminated that idea. It's fine to you if a woman can force a man to become a parent and pay child support for nearly two decades, but not if a man can do the same to a woman.

There's nothing to obscure. You're not well wrapped. I maintain the stance that I have had from the beginning of this thread. The world doesn't revolve around you.

 

[hadit]

In the USA, women are 50.8% of the population, why do liberals call them a minority when they are obviously a majority?

Absolutely I do. BOTH parties should lose their "freedom" when pregnancy happens, because there is now another life involved. You seem to think that women being primary custodial parents is justification for forcing others into indentured servitude or to be denied parenthood. It is simply not. Your argument is no more authoritative than would have been a man's in the 50's who said (and many blue collar men had this attitude) that "no woman of mine is going to work", then used her not working as justification for controlling her life. Sheer numbers do not trump principle.

Sorry bud, you got nothing. Again, the numbers state who it is that actually does have custody. Thus, they are the ones that are the responsible party.

Cool. Then you would support legislation ensuring that a pregnant woman cannot abort the child if the man who impregnated her agreed to be the custodial parent and merely demanded child support payments for the next 18 years?

What part of no did you not grasp the first dozen times?

You have corroborated my first perception. You're NOT concerned with the rights of the custodial parent at all. You're ONLY concerned with making sure the pregnant woman has total control over whether the baby growing inside her lives to be born or not, full stop. All the rest is merely fluff and smoke, designed to obscure. So let us drop the ridiculous argument that the woman should have control over the man's reproductive freedom because she would be the custodial parent, because you just eliminated that idea. It's fine to you if a woman can force a man to become a parent and pay child support for nearly two decades, but not if a man can do the same to a woman.

There's nothing to obscure. You're not well wrapped. I maintain the stance that I have had from the beginning of this thread. The world doesn't revolve around you.

My conclusion therefore stands. Your argument that a pregnant woman is justified in controlling a man's reproductive freedom because she's often the custodial parent is null and void, because when the custodial issue is removed from the equation, you still insist that it is right for her to do so. Be honest with yourself and us and find a different excuse.

 

[boilermaker55]

And on cue you do ad hominem which says you have nothing to back your statement.
Attack the poster like you always do.
Grow up once!

Give it a break with your phony twist, You attacked women on the board with your sexist remarks.
71 and still immature.

Being a mother is the most awesome and beautiful thing in the world.

Maybe some of the women who don't want this experience could put their baby up for adoption for all the newly married gay couples.

I'm not interested in how you feel about the best parent.

It goes back to what I said. I underlined and bolded it for you, in case you forgot.

I didn't tell you what I felt about the best parent ma'am. I asked if you believed that in 83% of the cases the woman was the best parent?

You may be 71 but you are ignorant and immature with your thinking of women.
So go find a popsicle for your enjoyment.

You are the most immature fool.
With your response its so evident that there is only one thought going on in your mind about women.
Hence, you prove the point about someone like you.
Stupidity and sexist.

Ok. I'll defer that you have a thing for ugly women. Some guys have a thing for fat women. I don't. To each his own. I am immature though as you say. I'm only 71. Give me a chance to grow up.

You are immature in that you make no argument only attacks. Typical low-info Liberal. Goes to MSNBC for his thesis.

I'm sorry. I didn't realize you were gay.

 

[GWV5903]

What is the war on women in America?

The War on Women predates Obama. Whether you choose to acknowledge it or not. Further, Obama is not up for reelection and the Republicans still don't have a plan and since they are the ones that are a part of the problem then it doesn't look good for them either.

It is an imaginary idea dreamed up by liberals.

No.

Oh yes it is...

And you're proof...

Proof of what?

Really?

 

[R.D.]

Anyone that still supports Bill Clinton shows that they truly hate women..

Thus in turn, the far left hates women.

I don't know about hate, but they proved they don't care about women when they tossed Hillary aside to get a negro candidate when Hillary was the more qualified person in 2008.

How any woman could support the Democratic party after that slap in the face is beyond me.

Compared to the invasive, needless, and humiliating things republicans have forced women to go through in the name of their health, you'd have to have the IQ of a box of rocks to not understand it.

Yawn. Ultra sound prior to killing the unborn - your annual pap is more intrusive and you volunteer for that

 

[candycorn]

Anyone that still supports Bill Clinton shows that they truly hate women..

Thus in turn, the far left hates women.

I don't know about hate, but they proved they don't care about women when they tossed Hillary aside to get a negro candidate when Hillary was the more qualified person in 2008.

How any woman could support the Democratic party after that slap in the face is beyond me.

Compared to the invasive, needless, and humiliating things republicans have forced women to go through in the name of their health, you'd have to have the IQ of a box of rocks to not understand it.

Yawn. Ultra sound prior to killing the unborn - your annual pap is more intrusive and you volunteer for that

Candidate Akin I presume?