• 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!

Biden: 'War on Women' is Real, Will Intensify

AdamT said:
So how do the women feel about the Republicans' near-universal opposition to the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act?

FYI, when questioned about it on a live press call that Romney arranged to discuss women's issues ... he didn't even appear to know what the Act was (it was the first law Obama signed). His campaign told the reporter that Romney would have to get back to him on that. :roll: Subsequently Romney did not endorse the measure, but he graciously said that he would not repeal it -- as if that's something the President can do.
Click to expand...

If I am not mistaken, and I could be because I dont know every republicans reasonings, but I recall hearing back then that Republicans did not oppose the main idea of the bill, but rather wanted some additional wording or provisions included to help prevent frivolous lawsuits. Working to prevent frivilous lawsuits hardly constitutes an attack on woman.
 
muciti said:
Here's Adam with todays deflection.
Click to expand...

Here's mucilage with today's oxymoron.

How is the Republicans' opposition to a bill designed to insure equal pay for women a deflection in a thread about the Republicans' war on women?
 
ChuckBerry said:
The Democratic party is waging a war on stupid women trying to frighten them into voting for Obama.
Click to expand...

another reason I don't like this administration, however, they are pulling the successful fear tactic that the Bush administration used in 2004.

Remember the threat color code system in 2004? Fear plays the best I guess.
 
muciti said:
According to you Santorums statement was proof of attacks on women by the right. Not by Santorum, by the right.
Click to expand...
I said, "Attacks on Planned Parenthood, birth control mandates because it's "immoral" and comments like these: [...], come from the right." Those attacks, which are more than ones from Santorum by the way, do come from the right. Please explain to me how "come from the right" is the same thing as "speaking for the right" since not everybody on the right speaks for everyone else on the right.
 
ThePlayDrive said:
I said, "Attacks on Planned Parenthood, birth control mandates because it's "immoral" and comments like these: [...], come from the right." Those attacks, which are more than ones from Santorum by the way, do come from the right. Please explain to me how "come from the right" is the same thing as "speaking for the right" since not everybody on the right speaks for everyone else on the right.
Click to expand...

would it be a bit more honest, to be discussing where you feel Romney who is the candidate has been shown to make statements such as the ones above?
 
muciti said:
Noone opposes equal pay for women.
Click to expand...

You think? Then why did Republicans vote almost unanimously against the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act? Why did only eight Republicans in Congress support it? :popcorn2:
 
AdamT said:
You think? Then why did Republicans vote almost unanimously against the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act? Why did only eight Republicans in Congress support it? :popcorn2:
Click to expand...

Because it had nothing to do with equal pay. It was about statue of limitations.
 
ThePlayDrive said:
I said, "Attacks on Planned Parenthood, birth control mandates because it's "immoral" and comments like these: [...], come from the right." Those attacks, which are more than ones from Santorum by the way, do come from the right. Please explain to me how "come from the right" is the same thing as "speaking for the right" since not everybody on the right speaks for everyone else on the right.
Click to expand...

Its not coming from the right. Its coming from Rick Santorum.
 
muciti said:
Its not coming from the right. Its coming from Rick Santorum.
Click to expand...
Santorum is on the right. Also, I didn't just say Santorum - even though you seem to be super obsessed with that part of my comment. I also mentioned those who were against Planned Parenthood and birth control mandates. Those attacks came from the right as well. Just like attacks against religion come from the left. Period. Have a nice day.
 
Samhain said:
Because it had nothing to do with equal pay. It was about statue of limitations.
Click to expand...

Puhlease ... it's about the statute of limitations to file an equal pay claim. :roll:

Under previous law the limitations period was ridiculously short; accordingly, by the time that many women discovered they had been discriminated against, their claims were already time barred.
 
muciti said:
If I am not mistaken, and I could be because I dont know every republicans reasonings, but I recall hearing back then that Republicans did not oppose the main idea of the bill, but rather wanted some additional wording or provisions included to help prevent frivolous lawsuits. Working to prevent frivilous lawsuits hardly constitutes an attack on woman.
Click to expand...

A typically lame Republican excuse. The Courts are well equipped to deal with frivilous lawsuits.
 
AdamT said:
A typically lame Republican excuse. The Courts are well equipped to deal with frivilous lawsuits.
Click to expand...

The courts need to be equipped to deal with frivolous lawsuits. If they were well equipped we wouldnt be seeing so many. Also it is not an excuse. That was their reasoning. Their legitimate reasoning in some people's minds. Do you realize that a person can oppose parts but not all parts of a bill? A person could introduce a bill banning slavery but also murdering all women. If I vote no on that would I then be against slavery? No. I know its an extreme example but it shows my point.
 
tessaesque said:
I don't know whether to be insulted by the fact that he (and others) think women are stupid enough to fall for bs fear tactics, or whether I'm dismayed by the fact that they're at least partially correct.
Click to expand...


:yt

yep thats it I agree 100%

a BS fear tacit mixed with some truth.

If it was a treat the cupcake and sprinkles would be BS but the icing would be the truth.

Its not a war at all but some certainly want to infringe on womens rights.
 
ThePlayDrive said:
Santorum is on the right. Also, I didn't just say Santorum - even though you seem to be super obsessed with that part of my comment. I also mentioned those who were against Planned Parenthood and birth control mandates. Those attacks came from the right as well. Just like attacks against religion come from the left. Period. Have a nice day.
Click to expand...

For the love of crhist, man. Being against free birth control is not being against women's rights. It's being against unsubstantiated preferential treatment for women via federal legislation. It isn't an attack on women, a war on women, or an attempt to suppress women. It's an attempt to avoid increasing the costs of healthcare for everybody so women can have something for "free" that poor women already get "free" and middle class, insurance covered women can get for as low as $10/month, co-pays dependent.
 
AdamT said:
A typically lame Republican excuse. The Courts are well equipped to deal with frivilous lawsuits.
Click to expand...

At the expense of tax payers, in an era when revenue is only 2/3 of total expenditure. Yeah, nothing important, or anything.
 
Some responses in this thread make me want to just say: "I do not have to LIKE or SUPPORT every woman out there who's on the tv, news, radio or in politics just because they're women"

I can dislike whoever I want - like Anne Coulter who's a racist, heartless bitch - all I like.

We're not in the Sororal of the Vaginas, here.

K? Thanks

(And that doesn't even constitute what I would consider a 'war on women' - if there was a 'war on women' it would center around rights - like voting, equal pay for work - and so on)
 
Last edited:
AdamT said:
A typically lame Republican excuse. The Courts are well equipped to deal with frivilous lawsuits.
Click to expand...

Oh really ?

Like "Loser Pays" ...... oh wait :roll:

Sorry, but "because I said so" doesn't work. Try again though ;)
 
tessaesque said:
For the love of crhist, man. Being against free birth control is not being against women's rights. It's being against unsubstantiated preferential treatment for women via federal legislation. It isn't an attack on women, a war on women, or an attempt to suppress women. It's an attempt to avoid increasing the costs of healthcare for everybody so women can have something for "free" that poor women already get "free" and middle class, insurance covered women can get for as low as $10/month, co-pays dependent.
Click to expand...
I wasn't talking about people who oppose mandates for what they perceive as practical reasons. I made that clear in my original comment to you:

ThePlayDrive said:
Attacks on Planned Parenthood, birth control mandates because it's "immoral" ...come from the right.
Click to expand...

Also, you keep trying to correct me over something that's a matter of perception. Kinda nonsensical.
 
tessaesque said:
At the expense of tax payers, in an era when revenue is only 2/3 of total expenditure. Yeah, nothing important, or anything.
Click to expand...

Huh? How does a private lawsuit against a private party, with the parties paying the court costs, add to the deficit? That's the lamest excuse yet.
 
Are Democrats now at war with "Stay-at-home" moms? What about all those stay-at-home moms on welfare who vote Democrat? Do they realize they are now under attack? Who is going to save them in the war?
 
Eighty Deuce said:
Oh really ?

Like "Loser Pays" ...... oh wait :roll:

Sorry, but "because I said so" doesn't work. Try again though ;)
Click to expand...

As in, a party can be sanctioned for filing a frivolous lawsuit. As in, frivilous lawsuits can be dismissed very quickly via a motion to dismiss.

Let's get real here. The Act only provides a 180 day statute of limitations, which is pretty damned short by any standard. The reason the Act was needed is that the SC held that the 180 day period started to run when the EMPLOYER made the decision to discriminate. Now how in the **** is a woman supposed to know that? A woman could work for a company for 10 years and only then discover that she's been paid half what her male cooworkers are making. According to the SC she can go pound sand because her statute of limitations ran almost nine years prior. It's absurd and Republicans should be ashamed of themselves for opposing the law.
 
AdamT said:
As in, a party can be sanctioned for filing a frivolous lawsuit. As in, frivilous lawsuits can be dismissed very quickly via a motion to dismiss.

Let's get real here. The Act only provides a 180 day statute of limitations, which is pretty damned short by any standard. The reason the Act was needed is that the SC held that the 180 day period started to run when the EMPLOYER made the decision to discriminate. Now how in the **** is a woman supposed to know that? A woman could work for a company for 10 years and only then discover that she's been paid half what her male cooworkers are making. According to the SC she can go pound sand because her statute of limitations ran almost nine years prior. It's absurd and Republicans should be ashamed of themselves for opposing the law.
Click to expand...

and once again they didnt oppose that part of it. Keep ignoring facts to suit your overly biased and blinded opinions. Get back to me when you want to make your own opinion with all of the information rather than just going with what you were told to think.
 
Last edited:
washunut said:
Is it possible that slogan based campaigns that rely on emotion versus reason is one of the reasons the country is in the mess it is in?
Click to expand...

Yes...not only possible, but quite probable.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom