WAR On WOMEN By Republicans

[Synthaholic]

Gary Condit got an unconfirmed kill.

As did Joe Scarborough!

 

[Synthaholic]

"A lot" of young people won't be voting democrat this November.

Good luck to the left.

Adding to the democrats problems:

War on Women: Obama WH Makes No Progress Closing Own 'Pay Gap' Since 2009 - Guy Benson

War on Women: Obama WH Makes No Progress Closing Own 'Pay Gap' Since 2009

Don't worry...they'll just have to make sure the graveyard vote and the illegal-alien vote turns out in greater numbers!

That's smart! Get your excuses all lined up ahead of time.

 

[daveman]

Reality check:

Georgia’s Voter ID Lawsuit, Seven Years Later: Disenfranchised, or Still Voting?

--

When Common Cause Georgia — a liberal “citizens’ lobby organization” — originally filed a federal lawsuit in 2005 over Georgia’s voter ID law along with a number of other plaintiffs, the organization claimed that hundreds of thousands of Georgians would be unable to vote. They produced witness after witness — who signed affidavits under penalty of perjury — claiming that they did not have a photo ID and could not obtain the free Georgia photo ID the law provided, and therefore would be turned away at the polls. The plaintiffs lost their lawsuit (as well as a state court action) after the federal court concluded that the law was neither discriminatory nor a burden on voters, and that none of them would be unable to vote.

Was the court wrong? Were the claims of these witnesses true? Were these individual Georgians prevented from casting their ballots?

Official state voting records show that the court was right. Many of these witnesses — again, who signed affidavits — went on to vote in the 2008, 2010, and 2012 elections.

Clara Williams was a 68-year-old African-American resident of Fulton County, Georgia, and a named plaintiff in Common Cause’s suit. Because she had been adopted, Mrs. Williams swore in an affidavit that she was “afraid that election officials will not allow me to vote because I do not have (and cannot obtain) a Georgia Photo ID in my name as it appears on my voter registration.”

But voting records show she voted in local elections in 2009, and in state and federal elections in 2010 and 2012.

When Amanda Clifton got a divorce in 2005 and changed her name, she swore the same thing in an affidavit: “I am afraid that election officials will not allow me to vote because I do not have (and cannot obtain) a Georgia Photo ID in my name as it appears on my voter registration.”

But voting records show that Clifton voted in the 2008, 2010, and 2012 elections.

Annie Johnson, then a 75-year-old African-American woman, cited economic hardship, physical disability, and the lack of a car as reasons why she would be unable to vote.

Annie Johnson voted in 2008, 2010, and 2012.

Ronnie Gibson, then a 49-year-old African-American man, signed an affidavit fearing disenfranchisement because he did not have and could not obtain a free photo ID card.

Georgia records show that he had no problems voting in the 2008, 2010, and 2012 elections.

Ruth Butler, then an 89-year-old white resident of DeKalb County, claimed she would be “unable to obtain a photo identification card without great personal and economic hardship.”

But there she was, voting in 2008, 2010, and 2012.

Betty Kooper (90), Pearl Kramer (80), Norma Pechman (84), Eva Jeffrey, and Cheryl Simmons (45) all cited economic hardship as the reason for their inability to get a Georgia ID card, yet all of them voted in the 2008 election. (Several of these voters have passed away since voting in 2008.)

Georgia voting records disprove the insistent claims that voter ID laws strip minority and elderly voters of the right to vote. These witnesses, after signing sworn affidavits that they did not have and could not obtain a Georgia voter ID card, nevertheless did obtain ID cards and did cast their ballots.

Similar sky-is-falling claims are now being raised over the North Carolina and the Texas voter ID laws, and these claims will doubtless prove to be as baseless as the claims from Georgia. (Several faux martyrs [4] have already been identified by critics of these new laws.)

The Department of Justice also recently launched a suit against Texas, claiming that the Texas law violates Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act by discriminating against black and Hispanic voters. Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act forbids any voting qualification that “results in a denial or abridgement of the right of any citizens of the United States to vote on account of race or color.” The complaint against Texas claims that lower income and car-ownership rates will make it more difficult for blacks and Hispanics, in comparison to whites, to obtain a photo ID.

The complaint in the original Georgia case also made such claims. A number of the witnesses in the Georgia case signed affidavits citing their economic circumstances, or the inability to drive, or the fact that they could not afford a car as a major reason for their supposed inability to obtain a voter ID. Several of the production-line affidavits read: “I have certain circumstances that make my obtaining a Georgia identification card burdensome. In particular, my economic circumstances make me unable to obtain a photo identification card without great personal and economic hardship, I am not able to afford a car, and I do not have the economic means” to obtain the free voter ID card.

These Georgia voters managed to meet the requirements of the law and to vote after the court rejected their hyperbolic claims. Further, and contrary to what opponents said would happen in Georgia and Indiana, whose ID law was upheld up the U.S. Supreme Court, the turnout of minority voters went up, not down, in those states after the ID law was implemented.​

How did the DOJ's case against the Texas voter ID law go?

Badly. Very, very badly -- for DOJ.

The Justice Department presented what it said was evidence that as many as 1.5 million Texans don’t have the government issued photo i.d. required to vote, but Attorney General Greg Abbott says of the people on that roll, 50,000 are dead, 330,000 are over the age of 65 and can vote by mail, where a photo i.d. is not required, and more than 800,000 are on the list improperly.

Among the people who the DOJ listed as ‘lacking the required documentation needed to vote’ are Former President George W. Bush, San Antonio State Senator Leticia Van de Putte, and Licia Ellis, who’s husband, Houston state Senator Rodney Ellis, on Wednesday blasted the voter i.d. law as ‘just like the racist murder of James Byrd’ who was dragged to death in east Texas in 1998.

In fact, University of Texas students conducted a telephone survey of random people on the DOJ’s list of people who allegedly don’t have the documents required to vote, and found that more than 90% of them, including 93% of African Americans and 92% of Hispanics on the list, actually have a photo i.d.

Which brings us to Victoria Rodriguez. The San Antonio teenager was the only individual in a flurry of ‘experts’ the Department of Justice called to the stand to represent the 1.5 million allegedly set to be disenfranchised under the Texas law. Rodriguez testified that she not only lacks a photo i.d., but lacks the documentation need to obtain one, and State Rep. Trey Martinez Fischer said requiring her to pay to obtain those documents would amount to an illegal ‘poll tax.’

Under cross examination, Rodriguez admitted that she has a birth certificate, a voter registration card, and a Social Security Card, and only two of those three forms of i.d. are required to obtain a free voter i.d. card offered by the DPS. Rodriguez testified that she ‘doesn’t have time’ to go the DPS office to obtain the voter i.d. card, but she testified she had plenty of time to fly more than 1500 miles to Baltimore, catch a train to Washington DC, and sit for hours in a federal courtroom to testify about how unfair the Texas voter i.d. law is.

Perhaps the most embarrassing for the Justice Department was the testimony of its alleged expert witness, Harvard Professor Stephen Ansolabehere.

He testified that his research shows the law is ‘more likely to affect black and Hispanic voters worst than white voters.’

But under cross examination, Ansolabehere testified that in fact ‘almost no one is excluded’ by the requirement to vote.

Another Department of Justice ‘expert’ testified that the Legislature ‘intended’ to discriminate against minorities when it passed the Voter I.D. bill. But J. Morgan Kousser’s comments under cross examination show he knows little to nothing about the Texas Legislature (he referred to State Sen. Leticia Van De Putte as the enate Minority Leader, a position that doesn’t exist in the Texas Legislature) and lawyers for the state pointed out that he said the U.S. Supreme Court ruling which upheld a similar voter i.d. law in Indiana, a decision which was written by Justices O’Connor, Kennedy, Scalia, Rehnquist, and Thomas, was written so the five, laughably, could ‘promote white supremacy.’

Kousser also claimed in a book that Republicans are ‘not legitimate representatives’ of minority communities, and that any African American or Hispanic who supports voter i.d. ‘has been manipulated and misled by Republicans.

In fact, Kousser admitted that he got many of the ‘facts’ used to buttress these bizarre claims from ‘Wikipedia,’ an on line encyclopedia that anybody, including Kousser himself, can upload information onto.​

Objections to Voter ID laws are utterly groundless.

Progressives hate them because they can't steal elections.

[MENTION=42946]Howey[/MENTION]...this is a large post. It took extra effort to ignore it, didn't it?

Y'know, pretending it's not there doesn't mean it doesn't actually exist. Other people can see it, and can see that it demolishes the left's objections to Voter ID.

It's time to let go of the victimhood fantasy.

I know...however since one of your fellow conservatives reported my post as being off topic I decided not to reply. Sad too because you're wrong.

I'm wrong? How? All those people who said they wouldn't be able to vote because they couldn't get IDs...got IDs and voted.

How does that make me wrong?

 

[daveman]

Ted Kennedy got the only confirmed kill in the war on women.

Don't forget Laura Bush!

That was a boy killed in the accident.

Dumbass.

 

[Synthaholic]

Ted Kennedy got the only confirmed kill in the war on women.

Don't forget Laura Bush!

That was a boy killed in the accident.

Dumbass.

That was part of the Republican War On Children.

 

[daveman]

Don't forget Laura Bush!

That was a boy killed in the accident.

Dumbass.

That was part of the Republican War On Children.

Good Gaea, you're stupid.

 

[Vigilante]

 

[Cecilie1200]

The GOP needs women, and that means respecting their needs, all of them, including birth control, which should be covered in health care plans.

Can you name a company that does not cover birth control in their health care plans?

Notre Dame University. Their female employees have a supplemental prescription plan that covers birth control.

Leftists make this religious accommodation thing sound like it's SOOOO HARD, just an insurmountable difficulty. It's a bit of a nuisance, but really took me about five minutes to figure out and explain to my co-workers.

 

[Cecilie1200]

A lot of Republican women will be voting Democrat in November.

Then they really aren't Republican are they?

They are married to Republican men, and usually vote with their husbands.

Not this November. It's one of the keys to Democratic victory. Along with Hispanics, college-age, Blacks, and single women.

And sane Republicans who are tired of know-nothing cavemen running their party.

Ahh, yes. The "Women are dumb pieces of ass who just blindly do what their men tell them to" School of Respecting Women. Just heartwarming. We couldn't ever POSSIBLY believe that women decided - all on their own, like they have BRAINS or something! - that you're just a sack of shit they don't agree with (or want to date), right?

 

[Cecilie1200]

Well, hey, without jobs, they have nothing better to do with their time than fuck, right?

 

[edthecynic]

Table A-1. Employment status of the civilian population by sex and age

66,939,000 women employed Jan 2009.
68,568,000 women employed June 2014.

 

[candycorn]

Speaks for itself.

 

[Vigilante]

Table A-1. Employment status of the civilian population by sex and age

66,939,000 women employed Jan 2009.
68,568,000 women employed June 2014.

Seems we have CONFLICTING DATA!!!

According to data from the Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS), the number of women 16 and older not in the labor force rose to a record high of 55,299,000 in June, says CNSNews.



"This means that there were 55,299,000 women 16 and older who not only did not have a job, they did not actively seek one in the last four weeks. That is up 282,000 from the 55,017,000 women who were not in the labor force in May," CNS News explains.


The labor force participation rate for women in June was 56.8 percent, the lowest of this year, according to BLS. October of 2013 saw the same participation rate for women, but not since October of 1988 was the rate this low.


As Breitbart News’ Caroline May reported Thursday, BLS indicated that 92,120,000 people did not participate in the labor force in the United States last month, leaving the labor force participation rate at the 35-year low of 62.8 percent.


While the number of Americans not working increased and the participation rate fell, the unemployment rate for women 16 and older dropped over June from 6.2 percent in May to 5.9 percent.

Guess you never heard of the Labor Force Participation Rate!

 

[edthecynic]

Table A-1. Employment status of the civilian population by sex and age

66,939,000 women employed Jan 2009.
68,568,000 women employed June 2014.

Seems we have CONFLICTING DATA!!!

According to data from the Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS), the number of women 16 and older not in the labor force rose to a record high of 55,299,000 in June, says CNSNews.



"This means that there were 55,299,000 women 16 and older who not only did not have a job, they did not actively seek one in the last four weeks. That is up 282,000 from the 55,017,000 women who were not in the labor force in May," CNS News explains.


The labor force participation rate for women in June was 56.8 percent, the lowest of this year, according to BLS. October of 2013 saw the same participation rate for women, but not since October of 1988 was the rate this low.


As Breitbart News’ Caroline May reported Thursday, BLS indicated that 92,120,000 people did not participate in the labor force in the United States last month, leaving the labor force participation rate at the 35-year low of 62.8 percent.


While the number of Americans not working increased and the participation rate fell, the unemployment rate for women 16 and older dropped over June from 6.2 percent in May to 5.9 percent.

Guess you never heard of the Labor Force Participation Rate!

Guess you are too stupid to know the difference between "unemployed" which is what your photo said and "LPR."

The LPR going down means Boomers are retiring faster than people are entering the workforce, not the lie in red that CNS, one of the least reliable sources of anything, claimed it means.

The fact remains that there are more women employed and less women unemployed today then when Obama took office.
Man up and admit it, CNS lied to you because they know you are a born sucker!

 

[daveman]

Guess you are too stupid to know the difference between "unemployed" which is what your photo said and "LPR."

The LPR going down means Boomers are retiring faster than people are entering the workforce, not the lie in red that CNS, one of the least reliable sources of anything, claimed it means.

The fact remains that there are more women employed and less women unemployed today then when Obama took office.
Man up and admit it, CNS lied to you because they know you are a born sucker!

Do you have a link to prove your contention that all those people who no longer collect benefits and are not looking for work are retiring boomers?

NOTE: Wishful thinking in support of your little tin god is not proof. Well, it proves you're a moron.

 

[edthecynic]

Guess you are too stupid to know the difference between "unemployed" which is what your photo said and "LPR."

The LPR going down means Boomers are retiring faster than people are entering the workforce, not the lie in red that CNS, one of the least reliable sources of anything, claimed it means.

The fact remains that there are more women employed and less women unemployed today then when Obama took office.
Man up and admit it, CNS lied to you because they know you are a born sucker!

Do you have a link to prove your contention that all those people who no longer collect benefits and are not looking for work are retiring boomers?

NOTE: Wishful thinking in support of your little tin god is not proof. Well, it proves you're a moron.

Did you require proof from CNS that the 282,000 women who left the labor force last month were discouraged workers?
Obviously not!
Table A-16. Persons not in the labor force and multiple jobholders by sex, not seasonally adjusted

275,000 discouraged women May.
291,000 discouraged women June.

 

[Vigilante]

Table A-1. Employment status of the civilian population by sex and age

66,939,000 women employed Jan 2009.
68,568,000 women employed June 2014.

Seems we have CONFLICTING DATA!!!

According to data from the Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS), the number of women 16 and older not in the labor force rose to a record high of 55,299,000 in June, says CNSNews.



"This means that there were 55,299,000 women 16 and older who not only did not have a job, they did not actively seek one in the last four weeks. That is up 282,000 from the 55,017,000 women who were not in the labor force in May," CNS News explains.


The labor force participation rate for women in June was 56.8 percent, the lowest of this year, according to BLS. October of 2013 saw the same participation rate for women, but not since October of 1988 was the rate this low.


As Breitbart News’ Caroline May reported Thursday, BLS indicated that 92,120,000 people did not participate in the labor force in the United States last month, leaving the labor force participation rate at the 35-year low of 62.8 percent.


While the number of Americans not working increased and the participation rate fell, the unemployment rate for women 16 and older dropped over June from 6.2 percent in May to 5.9 percent.

Guess you never heard of the Labor Force Participation Rate!

Guess you are too stupid to know the difference between "unemployed" which is what your photo said and "LPR."

The LPR going down means Boomers are retiring faster than people are entering the workforce, not the lie in red that CNS, one of the least reliable sources of anything, claimed it means.

The fact remains that there are more women employed and less women unemployed today then when Obama took office.
Man up and admit it, CNS lied to you because they know you are a born sucker!

I see you also like to PARSE your words like good subversives do when YOU know perfectly well with LESS people being counted as they fall INTO LIMBO and not counted for anything, that the rate goes down, and MORE WOMAN lose their employment status.... So very Democrat of you!

I see you also LIED about boomer retiring! Please Ed, continue to make yourself look dumber than you are!

Boomers working to stay employed during golden years

 

[Vigilante]

Table A-1. Employment status of the civilian population by sex and age

66,939,000 women employed Jan 2009.
68,568,000 women employed June 2014.

Seems we have CONFLICTING DATA!!!

According to data from the Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS), the number of women 16 and older not in the labor force rose to a record high of 55,299,000 in June, says CNSNews.



"This means that there were 55,299,000 women 16 and older who not only did not have a job, they did not actively seek one in the last four weeks. That is up 282,000 from the 55,017,000 women who were not in the labor force in May," CNS News explains.


The labor force participation rate for women in June was 56.8 percent, the lowest of this year, according to BLS. October of 2013 saw the same participation rate for women, but not since October of 1988 was the rate this low.


As Breitbart News’ Caroline May reported Thursday, BLS indicated that 92,120,000 people did not participate in the labor force in the United States last month, leaving the labor force participation rate at the 35-year low of 62.8 percent.


While the number of Americans not working increased and the participation rate fell, the unemployment rate for women 16 and older dropped over June from 6.2 percent in May to 5.9 percent.

Guess you never heard of the Labor Force Participation Rate!

Guess you are too stupid to know the difference between "unemployed" which is what your photo said and "LPR."

The LPR going down means Boomers are retiring faster than people are entering the workforce, not the lie in red that CNS, one of the least reliable sources of anything, claimed it means.

The fact remains that there are more women employed and less women unemployed today then when Obama took office.
Man up and admit it, CNS lied to you because they know you are a born sucker!

You have a hard time handling the truth, I see!

 

[edthecynic]

Seems we have CONFLICTING DATA!!!

According to data from the Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS), the number of women 16 and older not in the labor force rose to a record high of 55,299,000 in June, says CNSNews.



"This means that there were 55,299,000 women 16 and older who not only did not have a job, they did not actively seek one in the last four weeks. That is up 282,000 from the 55,017,000 women who were not in the labor force in May," CNS News explains.


The labor force participation rate for women in June was 56.8 percent, the lowest of this year, according to BLS. October of 2013 saw the same participation rate for women, but not since October of 1988 was the rate this low.


As Breitbart News’ Caroline May reported Thursday, BLS indicated that 92,120,000 people did not participate in the labor force in the United States last month, leaving the labor force participation rate at the 35-year low of 62.8 percent.


While the number of Americans not working increased and the participation rate fell, the unemployment rate for women 16 and older dropped over June from 6.2 percent in May to 5.9 percent.

Guess you never heard of the Labor Force Participation Rate!

Guess you are too stupid to know the difference between "unemployed" which is what your photo said and "LPR."

The LPR going down means Boomers are retiring faster than people are entering the workforce, not the lie in red that CNS, one of the least reliable sources of anything, claimed it means.

The fact remains that there are more women employed and less women unemployed today then when Obama took office.
Man up and admit it, CNS lied to you because they know you are a born sucker!

I see you also like to PARSE your words like good subversives do when YOU know perfectly well with LESS people being counted as they fall INTO LIMBO and not counted for anything, that the rate goes down, and MORE WOMAN lose their employment status.... So very Democrat of you!

I see you also LIED about boomer retiring! Please Ed, continue to make yourself look dumber than you are!

Boomers working to stay employed during golden years

That is just a bullshit survey of what Boomers think they might do, what they actually do is quite different. Actual retirement data show differently, 75% of Boomers retire as soon as eligible at 62 years old, and 82% of Boomers retire by age 65.

Ideation Insurance Group
Approximately 3 out of 4 Americans start claiming Social Security benefits the moment they are eligible at age 62.

Not letting go: Companies hang on to their baby boomers - Fortune
In 1985, 10.8% of people over 65 worked full-time or part-time. By 2011, that figure rose to over 18%, according to the AARP Public Policy Institute.

 

[edthecynic]

Seems we have CONFLICTING DATA!!!

According to data from the Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS), the number of women 16 and older not in the labor force rose to a record high of 55,299,000 in June, says CNSNews.



"This means that there were 55,299,000 women 16 and older who not only did not have a job, they did not actively seek one in the last four weeks. That is up 282,000 from the 55,017,000 women who were not in the labor force in May," CNS News explains.


The labor force participation rate for women in June was 56.8 percent, the lowest of this year, according to BLS. October of 2013 saw the same participation rate for women, but not since October of 1988 was the rate this low.


As Breitbart News’ Caroline May reported Thursday, BLS indicated that 92,120,000 people did not participate in the labor force in the United States last month, leaving the labor force participation rate at the 35-year low of 62.8 percent.


While the number of Americans not working increased and the participation rate fell, the unemployment rate for women 16 and older dropped over June from 6.2 percent in May to 5.9 percent.

Guess you never heard of the Labor Force Participation Rate!

Guess you are too stupid to know the difference between "unemployed" which is what your photo said and "LPR."

The LPR going down means Boomers are retiring faster than people are entering the workforce, not the lie in red that CNS, one of the least reliable sources of anything, claimed it means.

The fact remains that there are more women employed and less women unemployed today then when Obama took office.
Man up and admit it, CNS lied to you because they know you are a born sucker!

You have a hard time handling the truth, I see!

An obvious projection on your part.