WAR On WOMEN By Republicans

[Uncensored2008]

And not even all businesses...just closely-held ones.

The left has gotten their frilly panties in a wad over nothing. But, hey, it distracts attention away from Obama's continued failures.

Oh, I don't think this is over nothing. Obama's Fascistcare mandates are the most blatant assault on civil rights in 40 years. Obama and the radical left declared people to be property of the state, subject to the dictates of rulers from thousands of miles away. This was a test of whether the 1st Amendment still applies in America. To quote Biden, this was a big fucking deal. The loss by the administration and the left is substantial, the plan to steamroll over the Bill of Rights is thwarted. Obama and the left have suffered a serious defeat. The impact on contraception is non-existent, but the impact on civil rights is huge. Obama cannot force people to violate their religious convictions, which is a serious blow to the lefts war to end liberty.

 

[M.D. Rawlings]

ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ

I'm not blinded by anything. Keep your God laws off my body including reproductive health, and your nose out of my business, equal pay for equal work and we will get along fine.

Oh shut up. No real man would have anything to do with a baby-killing, pseudo female like you, let alone get anywhere near that . . . uh . . . reproductive apparatus on your body.

Is that the best your ignorant ass can come up with? Of course it is Koch whore.

You don't deserve any better. Any more questions, baby-killing, pseudo female?

 

[squeeze berry]

Asshat, party of one.......your table is ready. Can we freshen your douche for you?

When Dr. Laura was yellinmg N***** N****** N*****, I believe she was saying the same thing that Lee Atwater did when he yelled N***** N***** N*****.

And Sarah Palin was saying the same when she advised Dr. Laura, "Don't retreat, but reload."

Ball just wiffed you.

Trust me, I smelled what you stepped in. Go scrape the moronic shit off of your shoe.

you want him to scrape his brains off his shoe?

 

[daveman]

The chamber opposed E-verify...

Except it doesn't.

U.S. Chamber Of Commerce Supports Mandatory E-Verify Law - Immigration - United States

A representative from the U.S. Chamber of Commerce told the subcommittee that while in the past the chamber resisted efforts to expand E-Verify, recent improvements in the system and feedback from chamber members have caused it to reassess its position. The U.S. Chamber of Commerce now supports a mandatory E-Verify law for all employers to be phased in over the next three years, provided that certain conditions are met. The U.S. Chamber of Commerce hopes to see a federal E-Verify law that preempts state and local verification laws, eliminating the possibility of a patchwork of laws nationwide, and opposes any law that would require employers to verify the employment authorization of existing employees. The representative from the chamber also testified that employers should continue to enjoy a safe harbor when they rely on the information generated by E-Verify.​

I'm just citing what the Right normally consider unimpeachable CON$ervative sources.

The U.S. Chamber of Commerce vs. America | National Review Online

The Chamber opposed E-verify and sued Arizona over its employer-sanctions law

Welcome to the past.

The Chamber now supports e-Verify. Your talking points are old.

 

[daveman]

The recent U.S. Supreme Court ruling on Hobby Lobby and how it ultimately affects religion and businesses and people associated with it and especially how it affects women's rights is gaining much strength and women are up in arms about this decision and the GOP has much to ponder upon on whether it can continue to receive and sustain the female vote in future elections as long as they have Conservative judges and other Republican elected officials in office who can severely thwart Women's Rights and move them backward instead of forward.

Stephanie Miller eviscerates GOPer: Your medieval history degree is ?handy? defending Republicans

Ahhh, I see your problem:

You get all your news analysis from comedians.

Tell me, what are Jerry Seinfeld's insightful observations about ISIS?

Isn't Rush just an entertainer? That's what you regressives say whenever he embarrasses you.

Good point. You get your news from comedians, and an entertainer sends you into fits of rage.

You sure an emotional bunch. Have you considered growing the hell up?

 

[daveman]

So keep your fucking mouth shut about whatever Obama does in Afghanistan, since you're not over there in uniform.

Kinda like that?

You were in Kuwait -- but you weren't in uniform.

Yet you've spouted your bullshit about the Middle East.

Oh, and I've been to Afghanistan. You? No? News flash: Sucking Obama's ass doesn't make you an expert.

Meanwhile, we're left with the inescapable conclusion that you think voting for someone is MORE EFFECTIVE than actually doing anything.

Whatever lets you live with your selfishness and laziness, I suppose.

As usual, you cannot grasp the simplest of points: do you have to have adopted children in order to comment on the adoption system? Do you have to have been in Afghanistan to comment on the war (That would silence a lot of Republican voices, like the aforementioned Rush)? Do you have to be married to talk about marriage equality?

Hopefully, the point is starting to dawn on you.

The point is you're a raging hypocrite. You want the freedom to say what you like without criticism; then claim people cannot criticize Obama.

He thanks you for being a mindless boot-licker...well, he would, if he gave a shit about you.

 

[daveman]

Obama isn't interested in enforcing immigration law. In fact, he's encouraging people to come here illegally.

ISTOOK: Judge's order condemns how Obama promotes smuggling children across our border - Washington Times

“The Department of Homeland Security, instead of enforcing our border security laws, actually assisted the criminal conspiracy [of child-smuggling] in achieving its illegal goals,” writes a federal judge in a court order.

U.S. District Judge Andrew S. Hanen in Brownsville, Texas, issued the order in December. It explains and condemns how today’s crisis was created by President Barack Obama’s laxity and refusal to enforce our immigration laws. An estimated 10,000 unaccompanied children are being apprehended each month as they are smuggled into the U.S. yet permitted to stay. Military bases and facilities in Texas, Arizona and California are overflowing, so another 600 are being transferred to Fort Sill, Okla.

Since most border violators are not caught, the actual numbers arriving presumably are far larger.

Few children can make the 1,650-mile trip from Central America to Texas on their own, so these children are mostly being transported by smugglers. The human-traffickers blatantly advertise that President Obama’s policies virtually guarantee success: Even if caught, the child will be delivered to the family, courtesy of U.S. authorities.

Paying the smugglers thousands of dollars per child are their parents and family — illegal aliens already in America who send for their children under the belief that amnesty is coming and they will benefit from it. U.S. taxpayers get the rest of the tab. Under Obama’s policy we pay $2 billion to complete the process of delivering illegally-arrived children to their illegally-here family. Nobody gets deported. Nobody gets charged with the crime of paying to smuggle people into the country.

--

“The DHS is rewarding criminal conduct instead of enforcing the current laws,” the judge concluded. He found four clear and present dangers which this causes:

“These illegal activities help fund the illegal drug cartels which are a very real danger for both citizens of this country and Mexico … [involving] murder, kidnapping, assault, drug trafficking, weapon smuggling, and money laundering. However, by far the most vile crime in which these organizations and other criminals are engaged is the exploitation and trafficking of children.”

“The DHS‘ current policy undermines the deterrent effect the laws may have and inspires others to commit further violations.”

“This policy is encouraging individuals to turn their children over to complete strangers — strangers about whom only one thing is truly known: they are criminals.”

“This policy lowers the morale of those law enforcement agents on the front line here on the border.”​

I'd ask you to rationally defend this, but you don't see anything wrong with it, because your worship of your little tin god doesn't allow you to acknowledge he's anything less than perfect.

First off, they have been coming in large numbers since 2011. This is due to the 2008 Human Trafficking Bill that Bush signed, and was totally uncontroversial. It states that any children who come across the border from a country other than Canada or Mexico must be given a hearing before deportation.

Why do you want Obama to break the law and deport these children en masse? In order to impeach him for breaking the law?

Bush? Not really.

William Wilberforce Trafficking Victims Protection Reauthorization Act of 2008

To authorize appropriations for fiscal years 2008 through 2011 for the Trafficking Victims Protection Act of 2000...​

Who was President in 2000?

Meanwhile, the inescapable fact remains that the Obama Administration is deliberately causing this humanitarian crisis.

You can claim he's merely looking out for the kids, but that it simply not the case. He's encouraging parents to abandon their kids to mules.

Does that sound like someone who cares about kids?

 

[Katzndogz]

obama lets in thousands of rapists and says Republicans have a war on women. Yet the highest body count goes to democrats.

 

[daveman]

An IUD is and abortion now? Classic comedy from the knuckle draggers.

Intrauterine Device (IUD) Birth Control and Side Effects

How it works
Both types of IUD prevent fertilization of the egg by damaging or killing sperm. The IUD also affects the uterine lining (where a fertilized egg would implant and grow).

Hormonal IUD. This IUD prevents fertilization by damaging or killing sperm and making the mucus in the cervix thick and sticky, so sperm can't get through to the uterus. It also keeps the lining of the uterus (endometrium) from growing very thick.1 This makes the lining a poor place for a fertilized egg to implant and grow. The hormones in this IUD also reduce menstrual bleeding and cramping.​

IOW, no abortion can take place because no pregnancy can.

DUH.

Upon further reading, that's true.

And yet Hobby Lobby isn't required to pay for it. Women are free to use any of the 16 methods HL does cover, or seek the remaining 4 on their own. Nothing is preventing them from doing so.

Really, there is absolutely no reason for the left to be outraged.

So why are you?

 

[Impenitent]

When Dr. Laura was yellinmg N***** N****** N*****, I believe she was saying the same thing that Lee Atwater did when he yelled N***** N***** N*****.

And Sarah Palin was saying the same when she advised Dr. Laura, "Don't retreat, but reload."

Ball just wiffed you.

Trust me, I smelled what you stepped in. Go scrape the moronic shit off of your shoe.

you want him to scrape his brains off his shoe?

You, as a bottom-feeding "conservative" seem to misunderestimate message boards such as this, where opposing sides meet in debate.

I made an assertion, although backed up with what I believe to be credible evidence, you obviously disagree.

But rather than attempting to disprove my assertion with evidence of your own, you choose to belittle, insult, and make a brutally chilling negative rep suggestion.

I understand that you adamantly disagree, but if you are unable to debate, and your only response is an ad hominem, perhaps political debate is not for you.

I suggest you restrict yourself to the comments section on Fox and other right wing sites.

 

[Synthaholic]

Intrauterine Device (IUD) Birth Control and Side Effects

How it works
Both types of IUD prevent fertilization of the egg by damaging or killing sperm. The IUD also affects the uterine lining (where a fertilized egg would implant and grow).

Hormonal IUD. This IUD prevents fertilization by damaging or killing sperm and making the mucus in the cervix thick and sticky, so sperm can't get through to the uterus. It also keeps the lining of the uterus (endometrium) from growing very thick.1 This makes the lining a poor place for a fertilized egg to implant and grow. The hormones in this IUD also reduce menstrual bleeding and cramping.​

IOW, no abortion can take place because no pregnancy can.

DUH.

Upon further reading, that's true.

And yet Hobby Lobby isn't required to pay for it. Women are free to use any of the 16 methods HL does cover, or seek the remaining 4 on their own. Nothing is preventing them from doing so.

Really, there is absolutely no reason for the left to be outraged.

So why are you?

Why shouldn't they, since their objection was to abortafacients?

 

[daveman]

IOW, no abortion can take place because no pregnancy can.

DUH.

Upon further reading, that's true.

And yet Hobby Lobby isn't required to pay for it. Women are free to use any of the 16 methods HL does cover, or seek the remaining 4 on their own. Nothing is preventing them from doing so.

Really, there is absolutely no reason for the left to be outraged.

So why are you?

Why shouldn't they, since their objection was to abortafacients?

Beats me. Apparently, the government was so incompetent they couldn't convince SCOTUS that the IUD doesn't cause abortions.

If there's anything the Obama Administration is good at, it's incompetence.

 

[Synthaholic]

Upon further reading, that's true.

And yet Hobby Lobby isn't required to pay for it. Women are free to use any of the 16 methods HL does cover, or seek the remaining 4 on their own. Nothing is preventing them from doing so.

Really, there is absolutely no reason for the left to be outraged.

So why are you?

Why shouldn't they, since their objection was to abortafacients?

Beats me. Apparently, the government was so incompetent they couldn't convince SCOTUS that the IUD doesn't cause abortions.

If there's anything the Obama Administration is good at, it's incompetence.

You mean convince the Right-Wing justices, correct?

Are they living in an info-free bubble? Do they not investigate the claims before them, with the help of extremely able and competent law clerks, the best and brightest in America?

Do you see how ridiculous you sound?

 

[daveman]

Why shouldn't they, since their objection was to abortafacients?

Beats me. Apparently, the government was so incompetent they couldn't convince SCOTUS that the IUD doesn't cause abortions.

If there's anything the Obama Administration is good at, it's incompetence.

You mean convince the Right-Wing justices, correct?

Are they living in an info-free bubble? Do they not investigate the claims before them, with the help of extremely able and competent law clerks, the best and brightest in America?

Do you see how ridiculous you sound?

I would if I did. This Admin has a long and famed history of incompetence.

You can't see it because your head is up Obama's ass.

 

[Synthaholic]

Beats me. Apparently, the government was so incompetent they couldn't convince SCOTUS that the IUD doesn't cause abortions.

If there's anything the Obama Administration is good at, it's incompetence.

You mean convince the Right-Wing justices, correct?

Are they living in an info-free bubble? Do they not investigate the claims before them, with the help of extremely able and competent law clerks, the best and brightest in America?

Do you see how ridiculous you sound?

I would if I did. This Admin has a long and famed history of incompetence.

You can't see it because your head is up Obama's ass.

So it's your contention that the Right-Wing SCOTUS Justices are ignorant, and don't understand what's being argued before them?

I agree.

 

[Vigilante]

 

[daveman]

You mean convince the Right-Wing justices, correct?

Are they living in an info-free bubble? Do they not investigate the claims before them, with the help of extremely able and competent law clerks, the best and brightest in America?

Do you see how ridiculous you sound?

I would if I did. This Admin has a long and famed history of incompetence.

You can't see it because your head is up Obama's ass.

So it's your contention that the Right-Wing SCOTUS Justices are ignorant, and don't understand what's being argued before them?

I agree.

You agree with something I didn't say, because you're dishonest and stupid.

I'd tell you to stop being dishonest and stupid, but it's all you've got.

 

[Vigilante]

You mean convince the Right-Wing justices, correct?

Are they living in an info-free bubble? Do they not investigate the claims before them, with the help of extremely able and competent law clerks, the best and brightest in America?

Do you see how ridiculous you sound?

I would if I did. This Admin has a long and famed history of incompetence.

You can't see it because your head is up Obama's ass.

So it's your contention that the Right-Wing SCOTUS Justices are ignorant, and don't understand what's being argued before them?

I agree.

No, Only the fucking douchebag, subversive ***** on the court are truly ignorant!

 

[Synthaholic]

I would if I did. This Admin has a long and famed history of incompetence.

You can't see it because your head is up Obama's ass.

So it's your contention that the Right-Wing SCOTUS Justices are ignorant, and don't understand what's being argued before them?

I agree.

You agree with something I didn't say, because you're dishonest and stupid.

I'd tell you to stop being dishonest and stupid, but it's all you've got.

I'm sorry dave, but when I ask you reasonable, direct questions and you punt, it tells me that I made a point that you cannot refute.

If you don't want me to conclude that my argument has won out, then counter my points.

Or not. I win either way.

 

[bendog]

Am I the only one who missed George Will's idiotic column on rape giving college women an elevated status?

Target of George Will column shames him on CNN: Rape ?isn?t a privilege for anybody?