Make your own generalization here:

Bloomberg wrote:I am telling you if there is a God, when I get to heaven I’m not stopping to be interviewed. I am heading straight in. I have earned my place in heaven. It’s not even close.

Werthless wrote:Well, you are very serious. Always. You can take that as a compliment, since the reverse was meant as an insult to me!

Was actually going to edit my last to note that I care about this because you're basically the one right-leaning person with whom it's often worthwhile to argue, now that the creator of this site pretty much never plays in this thread. And that's definitely a compliment.

slugsrbad wrote:

cshort wrote:

drsmooth wrote:

cshort wrote:

Phan In Phlorida wrote:Jews in east Ukrane being told by the pro-Russia militants to register. Lovely.

Time top draw another line that Putin can cross.

yeah it's pretty much as black & white as that, Senator McCain

Was actually pointing out the silliness of even stating there's a line to cross. Anything we've come out with is completely ignored by Putin. Barry just likes to make himself sound tough, but if that makes you feel better, let him keep doing it.

Dude, Barry Jive is tough. He doesn't need to talk tough to make himself feel better, he's self assured like that.

this is libel

Dajafi, I think you missed Housh's point. It's not that liberals are sometimes anti-women, too. It's that most conservatives aren't either.

As always, dajafi has already said what I thought in much more eloquent terms. Just like to add regarding the statement above that 1)I don't think that was Housh's point at all, though he can clarify. I think he was just pointing out how malfeasance of any sort by a Republican is quickly branded as typical, while that by a Democrat or other liberal figure is either ignored or treated as a special case. And 2) Am I wrong in thinking that in general the conservative viewpoint leans toward protecting traditional gender roles? You don't have to couch this in terms of being "anti-women," and there may be a genuine belief that this is best for society as a whole, but it means necessarily to hang on to a system that has been demonstrably patriarchal for, oh, a few thousand years and must also necessarily limit women's choices biologically and sexually as well as socially and politically. Again, I can accept that adherents believe they are men (and women) of good faith who are doing what is right, but they are by definition doing this by limiting the choices of others, and mainly those who have paid the price of protecting this system through the years. While "anti-woman" is definitely unfair (they don't much like men who undermine the system either), one can definitely smell the fear of change underlying this attitude. Isn't that what a conservative is?

swishnicholson wrote: I think he was just pointing out how malfeasance of any sort by a Republican is quickly branded as typical, while that by a Democrat or other liberal figure is either ignored or treated as a special case. And 2) Am I wrong in thinking that in general the conservative viewpoint leans toward protecting traditional gender roles? You don't have to couch this in terms of being "anti-women,"

"typical" republicans (not sure what is) are anti-women in somewhat the same way that those favoring a woman's right to choose are "pro-abortion". The "typical" republican has no problem whatsoever referring to those in favor of choice as "pro-abortion" even though no one is actually "pro-abortion"

dajafi wrote:

Werthless wrote:

Houshphandzadeh wrote:yeah and Team Blue keeps repping a prez who gives no #$!&@ about torture or civil liberties

we win I guess

sorry I'm kinda drunk I'll stop

Dont forget that Rupublicans hate women!

Stay thirsty, my friend.

Do you really dispute that there's much more of an emphasis on the Republican side on controlling women's sexuality? If you have examples of Democrats wanting to limit access to condoms because "actions should have consequences" or whatever, please, share.

Tom Edsall in the NYT had a piece about this the other day, on why abortion remains as divisive as ever even as marriage equality declines as an issue.

Ramesh Ponnuru had a good response to Edsall's piece. I think one of the big problems with the war on women narrative is public opinion polling generally shows very little difference in abortion views by gender.

jerseyhoya wrote:

dajafi wrote:

Werthless wrote:

Houshphandzadeh wrote:yeah and Team Blue keeps repping a prez who gives no #$!&@ about torture or civil liberties

we win I guess

sorry I'm kinda drunk I'll stop

Dont forget that Rupublicans hate women!

Stay thirsty, my friend.

Do you really dispute that there's much more of an emphasis on the Republican side on controlling women's sexuality? If you have examples of Democrats wanting to limit access to condoms because "actions should have consequences" or whatever, please, share.

Tom Edsall in the NYT had a piece about this the other day, on why abortion remains as divisive as ever even as marriage equality declines as an issue.

Ramesh Ponnuru had a good response to Edsall's piece. I think one of the big problems with the war on women narrative is public opinion polling generally shows very little difference in abortion views by gender.

wouldn't the problem lie in party affiliation rather than gender? that is, if you told me there was little difference in abortion views by party, that would make the assertion tht "republicans have declared war on women" problematic. Telling me that there's little difference in abortion views by gender doesn't speak directly to the republican war on women meme, does it? Maybe you can clarify

I think I did see that thing about Lee. I thought he was involved in gang activity rather than terrorists, not that gangs are much better.

Anyway, I don't remember anyone on here defending Obama's drones or invasions into our privacy. Maybe I missed something. I know I have said several times that I don't agree with many things Obama has done, including the fact that he's carried on with Bush's version of security.

jerseyhoya wrote:

dajafi wrote:

Werthless wrote:

Houshphandzadeh wrote:yeah and Team Blue keeps repping a prez who gives no #$!&@ about torture or civil liberties

we win I guess

sorry I'm kinda drunk I'll stop

Dont forget that Rupublicans hate women!

Stay thirsty, my friend.

Do you really dispute that there's much more of an emphasis on the Republican side on controlling women's sexuality? If you have examples of Democrats wanting to limit access to condoms because "actions should have consequences" or whatever, please, share.

Tom Edsall in the NYT had a piece about this the other day, on why abortion remains as divisive as ever even as marriage equality declines as an issue.

Ramesh Ponnuru had a good response to Edsall's piece. I think one of the big problems with the war on women narrative is public opinion polling generally shows very little difference in abortion views by gender.

good response by a guy who titled his book "The Party of Death: The Democrats, the Media, the Courts, and the Disregard for Human Life".

Houshphandzadeh wrote:the response I would like is a little perspective to realize that it's a stupid idea that some backwater Republican mayor making a racist comment reflects significantly on the Republican party

Here's an essay (PDF from Google Docs) that may provide some perspective or insight.

drsmooth wrote:wouldn't the problem lie in party affiliation rather than gender? that is, if you told me there was little difference in abortion views by party, that would make the assertion tht "republicans have declared war on women" problematic. Telling me that there's little difference in abortion views by gender doesn't speak directly to the republican war on women meme, does it? Maybe you can clarify

At the elite/elected level, the polarization on the issue of abortion is almost total. There is a small group of prominent, pro-choice Republicans and probably even fewer pro-life Democrats. At the mass level there is polarization on the issue by party (though not nearly as complete), and there isn't much of a split at all by gender.

Gallup from last year - first number is pro-choice, second pro-life
Democrats 62-31
Independents 43-47
Republicans 26-68
Women 46-47
Men 42-50

I think people asserting that steps to restrict the legality of abortion is evidence of a war on women run into problems when 47% of women call themselves pro-life on the issue of abortion.

SK790 wrote:good response by a guy who titled his book "The Party of Death: The Democrats, the Media, the Courts, and the Disregard for Human Life".

I thought it was a good response by a guy who titled his book "The Party of Death: The Democrats, the Media, the Courts, and the Disregard for Human Life". He clearly falls on one side of the debate, but that isn't an argument that his post criticizing Edsall is incorrect.

Why is the 77% misleading and divisive?

My personal experience is that it feels wrong - that the companies I work for just care about performance. But wasn't sure how the other 96% live.

jerseyhoya wrote:I think people asserting that steps to restrict the legality of abortion is evidence of a war on women run into problems when 47% of women call themselves pro-life on the issue of abortion.

Maybe that's what some are doing. But I think most of us around here appreciate the anti-choice side of the argument, and for the purposes of asserting anti-women bias would point more toward your party's very pronounced slut-shaming tendencies.

dajafi wrote:

jerseyhoya wrote:I think people asserting that steps to restrict the legality of abortion is evidence of a war on women run into problems when 47% of women call themselves pro-life on the issue of abortion.

Maybe that's what some are doing. But I think most of us around here appreciate the anti-choice side of the argument, and for the purposes of asserting anti-women bias would point more toward your party's very pronounced slut-shaming tendencies.

I think that's conceding a bit much, even while conceding that many opposed to abortion see it as a heart felt and clear-cut moral issue as opposed to one of social control. If we're going to characterize parties as anti-women (as opposed to people, which I don't really have an interest in other than the most egregious cases), abortion rights needs to be one of the elements considered, even if it should never be the only one. I'm a little stunned as well by the justification that no policy can be considered anti-women if a lot of women are for it. Since when is it news that people often support policies that are actually harmful to their own race, class or situation, through shame or other mechanisms? Or that an underclass can be appropriated by the dominant one to shore up this support? or that lesser motives can impel certain people to deny rights to others simply because they themselves can not enjoy them?

swishnicholson wrote:

dajafi wrote:

jerseyhoya wrote:I think people asserting that steps to restrict the legality of abortion is evidence of a war on women run into problems when 47% of women call themselves pro-life on the issue of abortion.

Maybe that's what some are doing. But I think most of us around here appreciate the anti-choice side of the argument, and for the purposes of asserting anti-women bias would point more toward your party's very pronounced slut-shaming tendencies.

I think that's conceding a bit much, even while conceding that many opposed to abortion see it as a heart felt and clear-cut moral issue as opposed to one of social control. If we're going to characterize parties as anti-women (as opposed to people, which I don't really have an interest in other than the most egregious cases), abortion rights needs to be one of the elements considered, even if it should never be the only one. I'm a little stunned as well by the justification that no policy can be considered anti-women if a lot of women are for it. Since when is it news that people often support policies that are actually harmful to their own race, class or situation, through shame or other mechanisms? Or that an underclass can be appropriated by the dominant one to shore up this support? or that lesser motives can impel certain people to deny rights to others simply because they themselves can not enjoy them?

I didn't say 'no policy can be considered anti-women if a lot of women are for it' and wasn't trying to say that. But if a plurality or sizable minority of a group holds the supposed anti-group position, it's a pretty significant piece of evidence that the motivations of many who support the policy is not a dislike for the group. To argue otherwise I think requires some heavier lifting, and the default assumption for the motivation of a person holding the belief probably shouldn't be the most nefarious one, but that happens a lot. Painting with a broad brush that opposition to abortion is anti-woman is something the Democratic Party has been making a real effort to do over the past few election cycles, and I think it's obnoxious and wrong (outside of the rare Akin type situation) though effective for motivating some of the base to donate/vote.

The venom behind the PA ultrasound law is probably the most disgusting thing I've heard in recent memory.

jerseyhoya wrote:

drsmooth wrote:wouldn't the problem lie in party affiliation rather than gender? that is, if you told me there was little difference in abortion views by party, that would make the assertion tht "republicans have declared war on women" problematic. Telling me that there's little difference in abortion views by gender doesn't speak directly to the republican war on women meme, does it? Maybe you can clarify

At the elite/elected level, the polarization on the issue of abortion is almost total. There is a small group of prominent, pro-choice Republicans and probably even fewer pro-life Democrats. At the mass level there is polarization on the issue by party (though not nearly as complete), and there isn't much of a split at all by gender.

Gallup from last year - first number is pro-choice, second pro-life
Democrats 62-31
Independents 43-47
Republicans 26-68
Women 46-47
Men 42-50

I think people asserting that steps to restrict the legality of abortion is evidence of a war on women run into problems when 47% of women call themselves pro-life on the issue of abortion.

20% of people can't find California on a map of the US.

So calling policies that increase barriers to women's health services part of a war on women (doesn't all political rhetoric veer further to the extremes than it "needs" to?) is not about backing into poll numbers - it's about pointing out policy implications. Maybe MORE women would tell a pollster they were "pro-life" if they had not heard that there's a war on...?

how many women are against contraception

how many women are against equal pay

how many women are against controlling their own lives

how many women are against their equality

the answer my friend

is blowin' in the wind