• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Petitioners paint Obama as ‘misogynist’ who’s ‘alienating’ women

Deuce said:
Obama did well with women because Republicans keep saying **** like this. Ditto for the hispanic vote.
Click to expand...

There are probably Bimbos within the Spanish community as well, though they tend to be less vocal than those in the BimbosforBama campaign. And what's more the Dems know these women aren't terribly bright. The same is true for many men too, of course, but Obama did get the single women vote.

Stephanie Cutter: Women Will Vote For Obama Because They’re Stupid | RedState

Bimbos will always be leftists until they mature into responsible adults.
 
I don't see how this make Obama a misogynist. I said it before, what percentage does he have to hit so he won't be viewed as sexist?

If you really want to make your point, trying pointing out instances where a less qualified male was selected over a better qualified female and then we can have a discussion. Who gives a crap that 47 interns are female to 74 male ones. Perhaps that's just the way the cookie crumbled in the talent department.

Let's start with some specifics. Can anyone name who Obama appointed to the supreme court?

nota bene said:
From the Washington Times article I linked previously:

After Tuesday’s town hall debate, President Obama is playing up his record on women’s issues and ridiculing Mitt Romney for his “binders full of women” comment, but Mr. Obama has a mixed record when it comes to hiring women at the White House.

Team Obama clearly believes he thumped Mr. Romney on the question of equal pay and job opportunities for women.

“Mitt Romney still won’t say whether he’d stand up for equal pay, but he did tell us hehas ‘binders full of women,’ ” Mr. Obama tweeted Wednesday morning, and his campaign later hosted a press call with equal pay advocate Lilly Ledbetter and Cecile Richards, the president of Planned Parenthood.

...Later Wednesday in Iowa, when talking about his commitment to education and hiring more teachers, the president hammered Mr. Romney again on the binder comment.

“We don’t have to collect a bunch of binders to find talented qualified young women” for these fields, Mr. Obama said.

Read more: Obama's record on paying women White House aides not stellar - Washington Times
Click to expand...
 
j-mac said:
Although I found it laughable in the SoTU speech that Obama would be taking credit for equality, and parity in the workplace between men and women, when the fact is that in his own house the disparity is about 16% for women working the exact same jobs as men, now it seems that Obama has to deal with the PC police, and outrage anarchists as well....

good.
Click to expand...


This petition does not even exist. All links point back the Washingtimes article.

nothing to see here. Move along.
 
madman said:
This petition does not even exist. All links point back the Washingtimes article.

nothing to see here. Move along.
Click to expand...


Got something to prove that, or is this just another liberal trying to deflect?
 
j-mac said:
Got something to prove that, or is this just another liberal trying to deflect?
Click to expand...

You cant prove a negative.
Where is the link in the article that points to this "petition"?
 
OpportunityCost said:
1. The President of the US should be held to the same level of scrutiny whether hes a democrat or republican. That is currently not the case.
2. He did not sway women voters by being for them, he swayed them by being pro abortion and borth control on someone elses dime.
3. Bold is bait. Shove it where the sun dont shine.
Click to expand...

....but being for healthcare for women is kind of being for them in a way isn't it?
 
madman said:
This petition does not even exist. All links point back the Washingtimes article.

nothing to see here. Move along.
Click to expand...

I went back to this post because I have to say, doing a little pre search, I can't find whom the "petitioners" are...I am not sure now if such a petition exists now or not, but I will keep searching....
 
j-mac said:
I went back to this post because I have to say, doing a little pre search, I can't find whom the "petitioners" are...I am not sure now if such a petition exists now or not, but I will keep searching....
Click to expand...


Im not looking for who the "petitioners" are. I was wondering where the link to the petition was on the whitehouse.gov site.
That's what i dont understand. Why would an online news org NOT link to said petition. Leads me to believe this is nothing more than right wing fake outrage.
 
madman said:
Im not looking for who the "petitioners" are. I was wondering where the link to the petition was on the whitehouse.gov site.
That's what i dont understand. Why would an online news org NOT link to said petition. Leads me to believe this is nothing more than right wing fake outrage.
Click to expand...

yeah, I don't know what's going on here, but I'd like to think that I am intellectually honest enough that even if it isn't on the WH site, it could still be something, just something team "O" doesn't want to highlight....But, even that, I would need the name of the group protesting...I can't find it, so at this point I have to call BS on WashTimes, and my own OP....
 
Monserrat said:
....but being for healthcare for women is kind of being for them in a way isn't it?
Click to expand...

No he was for healthcare that someone else was going to pay for---he went quid pro quo for their votes. That doesnt mean hes for them, it means he knows how to buy their votes with someone else's money.
 
j-mac said:
Although I found it laughable in the SoTU speech that Obama would be taking credit for equality, and parity in the workplace between men and women, when the fact is that in his own house the disparity is about 16% for women working the exact same jobs as men, now it seems that Obama has to deal with the PC police, and outrage anarchists as well....

good.
Click to expand...

What I find laughable is that conservatives are the ones that are leading the charge on this.. especially considering that is the conservatives in the US that are the most misogynist of all... everything from abortion to so few female politicians with the GOP tag on them.
 
Monserrat said:
....but being for healthcare for women is kind of being for them in a way isn't it?
Click to expand...

What about health care for men?

He didn't pander to the male vote at all, but promise free birth control pills and abortion and he's a rock star to screaming female bimbos.
 
Grant said:
What about health care for men?

He didn't pander to the male vote at all, but promise free birth control pills and abortion and he's a rock star to screaming female bimbos.
Click to expand...

He wants healthcare for everyone, paid for by everyone. People were complaining a hell of a lot more about paying for care that's specific to women, no one talked about denying any male specific healthcare.
 
OpportunityCost said:
No he was for healthcare that someone else was going to pay for---he went quid pro quo for their votes. That doesnt mean hes for them, it means he knows how to buy their votes with someone else's money.
Click to expand...

He was for healthcare that everyone would pay for and healthcare that didn't exclude care specific to women..that's very important to a lot of people and yes being for that is still being for women in that way especially if he's consistent with it.
 
OpportunityCost said:
The President of the US should be held to the same level of scrutiny whether hes a democrat or republican. That is currently not the case.
Click to expand...
Why isn't it the case? Didn't a couple of thousand sign a petition? Just because millions of women voters don't agree with the 2,200 petitioners doesn't mean he escaped scrutiny.

OpportunityCost said:
He did not sway women voters by being for them, he swayed them by being pro abortion and borth control on someone elses dime.
Click to expand...
Polls show that a comfortable margin of adults say that abortion should be legal, either always or most of the time and almost three quarters of Americans oppose the Roe v. Wade decision being overturned. Seems that they were already "swayed". It could be said that one reason why some didn't vote for the other guy, is they didn't want it legislated that their doctor be required to shove a device between their legs, like some conservative controlled states have already passed and at least another considering it.

Birth control on someone elses dime? It's just one of many other preventative services that require no co-pay, such as, cholesterol screening, colorectal Cancer screening, Type 2 Diabetes screening, Immunization vaccine, etc. It's not free, you pay for it in the premium, it's included in the health care coverage under the ACA.

OpportunityCost said:
Bold is bait. Shove it where the sun dont shine.
Click to expand...
Ahhh, there's one of those mucho macho cons now...LOL! You don't even have to call them out, just turn on the light and they show up.:lol:

The whole thread was started as bait (along with many others), with no merit, but that fact swooshed right on by some...LOL!!!
 
Monserrat said:
He wants healthcare for everyone, paid for by everyone. People were complaining a hell of a lot more about paying for care that's specific to women, no one talked about denying any male specific healthcare.
Click to expand...

He wants someone else to pay for women's BC pills but as far as recall there was no mention of buying condoms for men.

The whole thing is ridiculous anyway and only demonstrates further how juvenile much of the electorate has become when these, and the 'folders full of women', are the election issues.
 
Monserrat said:
He wants healthcare for everyone, paid for by everyone. People were complaining a hell of a lot more about paying for care that's specific to women, no one talked about denying any male specific healthcare.
Click to expand...

Would you pass a work site and ask the workers to pay for your birth control pills, or for condoms for your boyfriend? Or ask the person next to you on the bus, or at a PTA meeting or a taxi driver?

I don;t think so. And the reason is because we are supposed to be reasonable adults looking after issues such as these by ourselves. But when the government says they'll pay (meaning these same people at job sites etc) then it becomes okay.

But it's not okay. It makes us all dependent and excuses us of our own responsibilities as adults. It creates a nation of juveniles, and we are seeing a lot of that already.
 
Grant said:
Would you pass a work site and ask the workers to pay for your birth control pills, or for condoms for your boyfriend? Or ask the person next to you on the bus, or at a PTA meeting or a taxi driver?

I don;t think so. And the reason is because we are supposed to be reasonable adults looking after issues such as these by ourselves. But when the government says they'll pay (meaning these same people at job sites etc) then it becomes okay.

But it's not okay. It makes us all dependent and excuses us of our own responsibilities as adults. It creates a nation of juveniles, and we are seeing a lot of that already.
Click to expand...

Except far right conservatives like you keep arguing against a fictional problem.

The government is not paying for birth control.

They are mandating insurance companies treat birth control pills like any other needed prescription drug and cover it under a plan which someone is paying for.

You, as usual are arguing from a fictional universe.
 
BWG said:
Here's a list of preventative services without co-pays, as required under the ACA. But, yes all that some concentrated on was the contraceptives for women. Preventive Services Covered Under the Affordable Care Act | HealthCare.gov
Click to expand...

That's only demonstrates further how infantile much of the American public has become, at least in the eyes of the government. Much of that list involves things that the average person should already know, and the bureaucracy to handle all the dietary problems of the average overweight person, for example, will largely be ignored anyway.
 
Grant said:
He wants someone else to pay for women's BC pills but as far as recall there was no mention of buying condoms for men.

The whole thing is ridiculous anyway and only demonstrates further how juvenile much of the electorate has become when these, and the 'folders full of women', are the election issues.
Click to expand...

That's not the same thing. Womens birth control are often prescribed for womens health issues:
Other Reasons to Take the Pill

I was prescribed them for severe pain that over the counter pain killers wasn't helping with. If we have some form of universal health care system then why should they not be covered when they're often times being used for health care?
 
Grant said:
There are probably Bimbos within the Spanish community as well, though they tend to be less vocal than those in the BimbosforBama campaign. And what's more the Dems know these women aren't terribly bright. The same is true for many men too, of course, but Obama did get the single women vote.

Stephanie Cutter: Women Will Vote For Obama Because They’re Stupid | RedState

Bimbos will always be leftists until they mature into responsible adults.
Click to expand...

Are you really so far gone that you think that headline is a fair representation of what was said? Wow, dude. You just don't even bother to hide your misogyny.
 
Jetboogieman said:
Except far right conservatives like you keep arguing against a fictional problem.

The government is not paying for birth control.

They are mandating insurance companies treat birth control pills like any other needed prescription drug and cover it under a plan which someone is paying for.

You, as usual are arguing from a fictional universe.
Click to expand...


That may be a valid argument if Obamacare wasn't designed to collapse the private insurance system in Health Care, and move everyone to a Universal system.
 
Monserrat said:
That's not the same thing. Womens birth control are often prescribed for womens health issues:
Other Reasons to Take the Pill

I was prescribed them for severe pain that over the counter pain killers wasn't helping with. If we have some form of universal health care system then why should they not be covered when they're often times being used for health care?
Click to expand...

Actually, we've been through this before, the pill is not prescribed anymore in the vast majority of these cases. And even in the small amount it is, it is not the majority of why the pill is used. You know that, but like most arguments that surround this sort of issue, the left latches on to the 1 in 100K example to justify the broad coverage, and deflect why the standard application is what they want.
 
j-mac said:
Although I found it laughable in the SoTU speech that Obama would be taking credit for equality, and parity in the workplace between men and women, when the fact is that in his own house the disparity is about 16% for women working the exact same jobs as men, now it seems that Obama has to deal with the PC police, and outrage anarchists as well....

good.
Click to expand...

This sometimes is why the super-femme-nazi's get on my last nerve . . . they lose their ability to logically reason through **** - look:

This is what he said:
“We know our economy is stronger when our wives, mothers and daughters can live their lives free from discrimination in the workplace and free from the fear of domestic violence.”
Click to expand...

Just how should that reworded to be 'not-offensive' because when you're talking about sexual discrimination in the workplace it's obvious he's addressing men who DO the discriminating . . . and he's trying to get these stupid men to think of these women as someone's mother, someone's wife, someone's daughter - etc . . . You know - see them as people and respect them. It's a negotiation tactic, actually.

Just what exactly do they want to hear instead?

You know - since they're so much smarter than me on this maybe they can give an example of what's acceptable.

Uh no - they just want it to be said, "We know of economy is stronger when women can live their lives free from discrimination in the workplace and free from the fear of domestic violence."

Well call me a retarded rock - because that just doesn't deliver the same personal message to me. It's cold and distant - merely defining women by their gender alone and nothing more, don't you think? :roll:

LOL - but I am laughing at the 'we know our economy is stronger' - what the **** does sexual discrimination have to do with the economy?
LOL - not a damn thing.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom