Forum Post: Why do Republicans and Muslim Fundamentalists Need to Control Women?
Posted 12 years ago on March 12, 2012, 10:01 p.m. EST by HitGirl
(2263)
This content is user submitted and not an official statement
Top 10 Shocking Attacks from the GOP's War on Women
1) Republicans not only want to reduce women's access to abortion care, they're actually trying to redefine rape. After a major backlash, they promised to stop. But they haven't yet. Shocker.
2) A state legislator in Georgia wants to change the legal term for victims of rape, stalking, and domestic violence to "accuser." But victims of other less gendered crimes, like burglary, would remain "victims."
3) In South Dakota, Republicans proposed a bill that could make it legal to murder a doctor who provides abortion care. (Yep, for real.)
4) Republicans want to cut nearly a billion dollars of food and other aid to low-income pregnant women, mothers, babies, and kids.
5) In Congress, Republicans have a bill that would let hospitals allow a woman to die rather than perform an abortion necessary to save her life.
6) Maryland Republicans ended all county money for a low-income kids' preschool program. Why? No need, they said. Women should really be home with the kids, not out working.
7) And at the federal level, Republicans want to cut that same program, Head Start, by $1 billion. That means over 200,000 kids could lose their spots in preschool.
8) Two-thirds of the elderly poor are women, and Republicans are taking aim at them too. A spending bill would cut funding for employment services, meals, and housing for senior citizens.
9) Congress just voted for a Republican amendment to cut all federal funding from Planned Parenthood health centers, one of the most trusted providers of basic health care and family planning in our country.
10) And if that wasn't enough, Republicans are pushing to eliminate all funds for the only federal family planning program. (For humans. But Republican Dan Burton has a bill to provide contraception for wild horses. You can't make this stuff up).
Link...
It's pure abject terror. The defenders of tradition have no thought processes that outpace fear. They have no principles that don't crumble before the threat of change. There will be no satisfying the ancient urges to despise and fear those different from you until they are able to make time tick backward (even then you'd see holy edicts to exterminate our past selves for being so foreign).
OK, that was funny.
Are you talking about the religious right in this country?
Extreme conservatives will go to any lengths to exert control over everything in their sight while hysterically crying victim any time someone tries to stop them. They're sociopathic three year-olds who really think the world would be just like the Land of Disney if it weren't for all these damn liberals, feminists and brown people on planet earth. The most pervasive social experiment in the history of human kind has created the most paranoid, ignorant generation in American history -- thanks, commercial television, we couldn't have done it without you!
You are by far my new favorite poster on here. Awesome perspective!!!
Spot on!
What a nice thing to say! Thanks a lot.
No one controls women more than Liberals. Keeping women dependent on Government is the ultimate form of slavery.
That's a load of total horseshit and you know it, Mr. Rand-is-my-God.
really? how is it a load of sh ? You need to support your argument.
Actually, YOU need to support YOUR argument. You were the one who asserted, absolutely fact-free, that women are being made "dependent" on government. And further, that dependence on vital services is a form of slavery. You have not provided an once of evidence to back those two outlandish pronouncements up.
whats the difference between a slave having all their needs provided for as long as they work the plantation & women receiving welfare or any other govt benefits in exchange for votes? government dependency is a drug & the govt is the dealer.
You're right Sunshine! Let's just eliminate the entire social safety net. Let the government rape us with their intervaginal probes while the Right Wing Evangelicals proceed to make abortion illegal.
Hey Sunshine! While you're at it - why don't you just take away our voting rights too! That will make things oh so much better.
Yes sir-eee Sunshine! Oh so much better!
desires are not rights & contraception is not a safety net item. forgo the daily Starbucks Latte' and you can pay for your own contraception sweetie.
Uhh Sunshine, I never said contraception was a safety net item. But since you brought it up, clearly, this is bothersome for you.
How about you explain to me how it's fine for insurance to cover your Viagra? Because really Sunshine, I don't want to pay for your Viagra. You don't really need to have sex do you? Sex isn't medically necessary. In fact, I think your erectile dysfunction is all in your head. I think it should be required that you undergo about 6 months of psycho therapy before the Viagra is prescribed. And I'm not paying for your psycho therapy either. Just try porn. It's cheaper.
And Sunshine, how about you tell me why any institution should be allowed to impose religious standards on an individual when it comes to legal medical choices, contraception or otherwise? The birth control pill was made legal in like 1970 ya know? I think it's about time you get over it Sunshine. : )
http://dailycaller.com/2012/03/18/a-pelosi-maher-go-to-nyc-welfare-office-to-show-plight-of-the-poor/
I've worked in obstetrics and gyn for 25 years, I have given out pregnancy test results to many low income women who were not thrilled with the positive results of their test, and not one has ever said, "Oh I got pregnant because I couldn't afford birth control" . As a nurse it is my job to make sure that people are aware of public assistance and programs and again, with the exception of young teenagers, I have never informed a women about title X programs who were not already aware of where the clinics were in their community. They may not know the reason that the local health department, tribal organization, hospitals, university health center, independent clinics, community health centers, or faith-based organization is able to provide the birth control for free because of "Title X" but they are almost always aware that there are places in their community where they can get free birth control and many are currently getting their birth control already from one of them. The fact is that even when used correctly, most methods are not %100 effective. But usually women will admit to failing to use the method properly or simply being willing to "take the chance" even though planned parenthood or one of the other title X clinics I have mentioined is in their community. Basically the same reasons that middle class people cite for getting pregnant when its an "unwanted pregnancy".
There is a little thing called "responsibility" that is really lacking in our society. And you can be for some of the basic tenets that OWS is for and not be part of the entitlement culture. If a women can't afford birth control then she shouldn't be having sex, because all methods have a failure rate and if you can't afford to pay for your own birth control then you sure as hell can't afford to have a kid. I realize that this is considered an extreme view, but to me its just common sense.
I appreciate your views. You have specialized first hand knowledge in this area which is great. I was unaware of some of these things ( ie: Title X).
I agree that responsibility is an issue. But the reality is, women will have sex whether they can afford a child or not. And it's much less costly to provide contraception than welfare for a mother with a child that she cannot provide for.
An erection is not medically necessary. Any more than cosmetic surgery is.
And the larger point - contraception would not be an issue at all if it were not for the Religious Right who cannot get over the fact that oral contraception was made legal like 40 years ago. It's not about cost. It's not about responsibility or lack there of. It is about religious beliefs and people that simply cannot get over the fact that oral contraception is legal.
I just think that this whole "war against women" is a straw man argument put forth by the Obama administration to draw attention away from his failures. Like you said, birth control has been around for 40 years. Even a 13 or 15 year old girl can get free birth control- access to birth control isn't a problem. We are broke, cuts must be made or the safety nets for the poor and elderly and disabled will not be possible any longer. We don't need to be giving away freebies that most people can pay for and for the poor there are already existing programs. You are right, women will have sex even when they are not financially prepared to raise children- hey in a way I'm one of them- lots of pregnancies are unplanned, and I have two kids in the next room to prove it, but I never expected the government to pay for my birth control. My point about responsibility is that instead of putting policies in place that nurture a sense of entitlement and irresponsibility, I'd like to see this generation gain a greater sense of responsibility- if the government keeps spending and wasting tax payer money my kids generation and those a little older then them are not going to have anything near the quality of life, security and "the American Dream" of the past 60 years. Just like dating or in other relationships, usually the one who pays has the greater power- do we really want to give the government so much power over our lives?
how about my health club membership? $20.00 per month - should we be able to squeeze that into the mandated healthcare policy as well? No religious org is imposing anything on anyone - you are free to work elsewhere where the policies are more to your liking. Birth control being legal is one thing - asking everyone else to pay for it for you is quite another. How about that health club membership?
You did not answer the question. I do not want to pay for your Viagra. Why is it ok that your Viagra is offered and paid for by insurance? But not oral contraception?
Why should any institution restict legal medical choices based on religion?
Answer my questions, then we'll talk about Health Club memberships. Sunshine.
I never said I thought it was ok to include Viagra - where did I say that? That is just as bad. Now how about that health club membership?
So glad we agree. I'm not paying for your Viagra. You didn't have to say anything about Viagra. I was using it as an example. It's not necessary that insurance cover it. There are other ways to deal with your erectile dysfunction that you can pay for yourself.
Also, you eat like crap. All those saturated fats you eat. Yuk! That's why your cholesterol is so high. Your body is a temple given to you by God. I'm not paying for your cholesterol medication because you eat like crap. I'm not paying for any other health complications you might develop because you ate like crap. It's against my religion.
Are you implying that the healthclub membership would be too costly for insurance to cover? The argument about contraception is not about cost. There are far more costly things that insurance covers. Like your impending heart disease because you ate like crap. The contraception issue is based on religion. Not cost.
I'm not paying for your cholesterol meds because you eat like crap. And eating like crap is against my religion.
explain how it is I want a Theocracy again ? you voluntarily engage in a religious institution, then you want to tell them what the rules are? How is it I am forcing you to engage a religious institution again?
thank you for conceding the argument. your personal attacks tell me you have nothing left.
You want a theocracy. So what more can I say? You refuse to acknowledge the broader dangers of an institution claiming moral objection to anything and everything. So good luck to all of us living in the Religious State that you would have for us.
no one is coercing you to be involved with any church - thats the beauty of it. I dont know how you can twist it like you are forced to go to a catholic college or forced to work for a catholic hospital etc. Thats completely warped. You are free to engage or not engage with religious institutions. Is it too much to ask for you to follow their rules if you want to participate? Thats ridiculous.
Yeah right Mr. Theocracy. Talk to me when you have a uterus and are pregnant. And I hope your Viagra fails and you never have sex again.
Religion forcing women to do what? Look - the Catholic church is against premarital sex, and the use of contraception including the morning after abortion pill now being called contraception. If you find it so objectionable no one is forcing you to work for a religious organization. Go find employment somewhere else or go to a non Catholic school. This law is intended to break the church. it has nothing to do with contraception. It has to do with power and who has it The Federal government or the First Amendment protections of the church. Tell me - where in the Constitution does it say Contraception is a right? I must have missed that in the Bill of Rights.
NO ONE is trying to "break the church" and you know it; YOU are the one making the strawman now! That is just an issue that you and your pals on the Right are trying to create to scare the electorate.....again!
Where does it say in the Constitution that the church has a right to coerce me into following their religious views? We don't live in a Religious State.
You're right it has to do with power. Individual freedom v an instituion attempting to coerce compliance of their religious views.
According to your logic - an institutions religious beliefs should take precedence over individual freedoms. The church has the right to preach. Thats it. Individuals have a right to their individual choice. To choose to live by the church's teaching or not. Because we do not live in a Religious State. We have separation of church and state.
The church is using the non payment as coercion to enforce their morality. It's not about cost. Cost is just the lever. It's about coercion. And they don't get to do that. We do not live in a Religious State. Utlimately it comes down to an individual's choice. To choose to live by the church's teaching or not.
Next, is the church going to find a way to coerce compliance with their views of premarital sex. What's to prevent the church from requiring me to have a a vaginal exam before the Right of Marriage to make sure I'm a virgin? And refuse the Right of Marriage, and ask the State to back them up and not provide a marriage certificate?
Should the government go along with this coercion too? Hey, they're not saying I can't have sex. They're just refusing to marry me if I do. Same thing as the contraception issue. They're not saying I can't use oral contraception. They're just not going to pay for it.
Or maybe you think that a vaginal exam before marriage is a really great idea?
No one is trying to break the church for God's sake. We don't live in a Religious State. There's a little thing called separation of church and state. I know the Right doesn't like it, but that's the way it is. Don't you see the danger in being a Religious State?
And healthcare in general - this is a slippery slope. If any institution can claim moral objection to anything and everything and deny insurance coverage. Don't you see the larger danger in this?
Any other healthcare items like cancer screenings, healthclub costs. Those are cost/benefit issues. That's why insurance covers these things. Because it is much less costly to have early detection and treatment. Same thing with health clubs. Many companies subsidise memberships. Many companies have on site health club facilities. Because they know that the health benefits of excercise outweigh the cost. It pays for itself . So they encourage prevention and healthy lifestyles by providing these things.
I would not be reckless no matter who was or was not paying for my contraception. The point is, I don't want to be coerced by anyone's religious views for something that should be my personal choice. To choose to live by the church's teachings or not. It's my choice. They don't get to coerce me in any insidious or not so insidious way. Unless we are living in a Religious State.
So you are telling me unless someone else pays for your contraception you will be reckless and irresponsible and get pregnant because you cant afford to pay for it out of your own pocket? This is only if you Choose to work for a religious org by the way - another choice you have. So for the cost of a Starbucks Latte every day - you'd rather force the taxpayer to subsidize your contraception. So therefore - why not have everything else I want subsidized as well. Viagra, healthclub membership Annual cancer screenings for everybody. Where does it end?
is contraception a matter of life or death like a heart attack is? What is the litmus test for what is covered or not? The whole healthcare law is crap in the first place because it is a use of FORCE. Whether it is on religion or not should be besides the point. Why is it one size fits all anyway? Why dont you get to check from a list of coverage items from a menu of choices? Then you will be in a pool with people from each of the covered items. The reason is that the healthcare law has nothing to do with improving healthcare - it is about controlling the electorate and you've fallen for it hook like & sinker. If the govt can force healthcare on us what else can they force on us? It is boundless and we are well on our way to the totalitarian State.
That you have a problem with the Affordable Care Act overall is a different subject. I don't think it has anything specific to do with women, or liberals trying to control women.
You said liberals control women. I disagree. The contraception issue is an example. It is about religion. Not cost. It is the Right that seeks to control women. And they attempt to use religion to do it.
And my point exactly. What is the litmus test for what's covered? If an institution can claim moral objection - that is a very slippery slope. So what is to prevent an institution from claiming moral objection to anything and everything? The litmus test is - it's a legal appropriate medical choice between an individual and their doctor.
Spoken like man who's never been pregnant.
Aren't you one of those that complains about people having children they can't afford?
We are not talking about "the religious organization" supplying the birth control.....It is the Insurance companies that do that and it doesn't cost anymore to cover someone with or without birth control, it goes by age and health.
you are talking about the use of force. whether it is on the religious org or ins companies etc. or me paying premiums that have the costs of birth control built in etc. it is force and force is anti freedom & anti American
In other words if there were no democrats there were no republicans!
What a fun country US is for politicians!
??? drugs ? focus please.
chewing gum???
No I don't. You need to support your assertion that liberal policy is to intentionally keep women dependent on government services. Since we're the ones called feminazis and accused of upending American society by allowing our women to leave the kitchen, YOU have the burden of proof, buddy. Take your time. Maybe go consult with your boyfriend, Rush. I'll be around. ;-)
ok - you win - creating ever increasing dependence on government is a good thing. evidenced by the exploding national debt. Greece is the model we should aspire too - The biggest welfare state of them all.
England has a bigger welfare state than Greece. Your lack of facts is pretty much what I expected. Thanks for playing.
buh bye
ok - so how are things in the U.K. ? going broke like everyone else. in fact- they are unwinding their single payer healthcare debacle to a more market oriented system as we head down the road to serfdom in opposite fashion. good luck.
No, the NHS is one of the most popular institutions in the UK. There's a bit of grousing at times but all-in-all, a well-regarded public program. UK is still in better shape than Greece, even with the much bigger welfare state, so your theory, as with the rest of your defunct ideology, is for crap. You want to know what the real problem in Europe is, go get a history on the ECB and IMF and World Bank. Your ignorance is making my teeth hurt.
great - so where's your passport? - I'll give you a lift to the airport so you can move there. adios! what's this business in the U.K. to get vision care you have to lose vision in one eye before it is considered an emergency lol! http://www.carersuk.org/newsroom/item/2492-care--support-alliance-care-crisis-lobby
That link shows that the Brits want MORE NHS, not less. And hey, you're the one that's so in love with corporations that are allied with China to bring America to its knees. You already made your choice. China is your sovereign now. You should move there before the plutocrats take all the good estates.
yea they want MORE - it's never enough! That's the point - and they still have crap coverage. good luck to you in Utopia!
You offer no support for your opinions whatsoever but you sure do know how to sound angry, Chinaboy. Whatever.
hahaha! are you kidding ? OWS is the most toxic environment I've ever seen! talk about a cesspool of malcontents lol!
You've become so accustomed to living in your own filth that you've grown to hate the sunlight.
hahaha! good luck. Life is great from where I am standing. Hope you make it someday. First you need to ditch your toxic company you are keeping.
You hope I make it someday? How magnanimous, especially coming from a recluse on food stamps. Whatever, clown.
UK wanna-be US mainstream. lol
Sexual jealously is an evolutionary trait ... and I guess some people have a hard time crawling out of the primordial soup. Usually indicative of a heavy dose of stupidity.
Are you talking about jealousy of sex or jealousy of women? Because with the GOP either seems to fit.
Since Francis brought up the subject of evolution, let me stipulate that humanity is at a crossroads of evolving consciousness. If you consider the question, it will explain a lot.
Which question? Are you referring to the post or the one I asked Francis??
Both. I am referring to your post in light of francis's refference to evolution. My point is that humans now exist within a VERY wide spectrum of evolution regarding empathy and compassion vs control and suppression; the Darwinian order vs. the spiritually enlightened order and these things do not always fall along the political lines we might presuppose.
Do you see what I am driving at?
I think so. Can our occupation of Afghanistan be seen in that light also?
I think the whole human condition can be seen partly in this light. There is a confluence of ideas out there now that can save us if we put them together. But I could not express this view in a single post.
I'm trying to get to an understanding that can include the 100%.
if one complains about sexual harassment at work,
it will cause such a reaction that one may loss their job .
So, you're pro sexual harassment at work?
no but oppression to keep sexual harassment off the books
has led to an environment where employees are afraid to talk about it
Maybe...but not at my workplace.
Apparently republicans and muslim fundamentalists share similar values.
Exactly. The new Republicans have more in common with their Muslim brothers than they do with average Americans. But try to convince them of that.
It's getting scary.
I think there are something like over 300 women incarcerated in the US after having a miscarriage-South Carolina. That has to stop. It is the most insane thing that I have ever seen.
This is HR 358 which is number five and is called the Protect Life Act. It's the latest version.
Here is number 2. http://www.legis.ga.gov/Legislation/20112012/108144.pdf
I agree in part with his rational.
The good news is even conservative women are getting pissed off!
There are a lot of women that are upset about this, no boundaries.
House Bill 14 in Georgia
seems to be about stalking at first glance
HR 358 is a tangle of placing , removing and altering sections
that is not transparent law
HR 358? It's just a different way of reading. You have to retrain how you read this stuff. But, once you get into it, it's kind of fun.
I disagree
these bills need to be well ordered
They are well ordered because they are amending a law already on the books.
then they new ways those laws should appear should be written first
followed by the current law
followed by the amendments
Like a regular book or regular paper. I understand what you are saying.
GirlFriday you are scaring me. Reading Legalese Fun?
Well it is great you are on the side of GOOD. We need people who can read and translate this kind of stuff.
Yeah, I'm a little strange. :D
Well I don't know as I would say that. Multifaceted? Complex? Intense? Deep? Original? Creative? Sure but no I don't think strange would be correct.
[;>)
Haha! Thank you.
how did they know these women were ever pregnant? who reported them?
I suppose HitGirl isn't aware there are no democrats or republicans doing a damned thing to instantly make this right. It won't happen either.
I have no idea. That is a question for HitGirl.
I know there is at least one Dem that is a cosponsor of the Protect Life Act.
It is a copy and paste. My email is filled with the same thing. They don't go far enough into detail which really ticks me off.
One of the first things that happens when there is an economic crisis is the heat comes down for women to leave their jobs. That comes first. It happened during the depression. There is a historical pattern that supports that.
If you look at a huge percentage of the republiclans' actions in the last 10-20 years - they are not anti-woman
they are anti-spending
because spending means taxes
and grover would not approve
look at how your list fits perfectly with-
anti-gay laws
flag burning
the national motto
etc
Redefining rape has nothing to do with taxes. Some of this stuff is just plain anti-women and my guess is that it has more to do with appeasing their own fundamentalist base than any practical or reasonable motive.
call yourself jart, thrassy, hitgirl, gypsyking, ... what ever,
what we do know is that your a transvestite on the kalle-lasn payroll,
the british army had it best solved, they simply rammed broken glass up the vaginas of african women and if the bled to death they weren't witches,
The US military ( occupying arab/persian world ) does the same they cut off or crush the genitals of children and if they die, they weren't terrorists.
You're just full of fun facts, aren't you, owlslitter? Your brand of cynicism and depravity are not yet the norm here in America. Your mysogyny is as obvious as the state of your bankrupt soul. I think we could all do without seeing the putrid garbage heap you have amassed and try to pass off as wisdom. Certainly don't let it anywhere near the children.
They have been anti-spending mostly on things that effect the poor, the disenfranchised, minorities, and not least, women. Indeed, their entire "Starve The Beast" official strategy of the past 40 years has been to make sure no social programs can be funded. The people most effected by that policy wold be women over the age of 65, since they are by far the largest beneficiaries of the programs they fight to cut.
However, they have had no problem increasing spending by the trillions on subsidies and tax breaks and direct funding for oil companies, the Koch brothers, Halliburton, and others of the 1%.
That amounts to nothing less than institutional sexism, homophobia, racism and classism.
I think its called "Communist redistribution of wealth"
Yup, and all from the bottom to the top.
What many don't see, though, is that such a policy is de facto, not only classist, but racist and sexist as well. The individuals responsible may not be bigots, per se, but the effects of their policies are more devastatingly racist and sexist than personal prejudice could ever be.
I assume you have seen soylent green - where we are heading
another great sci fi - VERY DIFFERENT - the man from earth is GREAT
Haven't yet seen the second one. Looks interesting though. (I was the trailer). The best Sci-fi it seems to be, is not some fantasy about the future, but an exploration of who we are now.
Both films fit that description, I think.
soylet green is where I am afraid we are heading
it is worth knowing that edward g robinson's last scene is his last scene.
the man from earth is a scifi movie with no guns or rockets - it is a real thought provoker about life - a bit like my favorite movie of all - inherit the wind
HitGirl,
Wonderful Post, and also, this issue will stay current right up until when General Election happens. We need to vote out every single legislator who has perpetuated this injustice on women. We can send a very loud MESSAGE to these people that we do watch, we were watching, and that's why we unelected you, now get the f out. Go hunting with Teddy. He'll tell you stories of chopping heads and what not. Now get the f_ out! Now!
The Puzzlin
Tel-AvivGirl wants sexual freedom to the extreme so that no woman does not become a whore and no man stays chaste!
She wants to destroy the values of the American society by making it easier to have intercourse with just about any living-being then get an abortion!
I know Muslim families in this country, and clearly controlling women is not on their agenda. The republicans wish to control women has a lot to do with their ties to the wacky religious right.
I knew some Muslim families too, so...I guess it all depends on which family you're talking about. It's pretty well known that part of the reason we were invested in Afghanistan was to provide women an avenue to learn and grow and play a bigger role in their community.
HitGirl, you have nailed it. Your Mama would be proud of you as am I.
Well...It's not my list. Just worthy of discussion.
And modest too. Well on a psychological basis, according to recent neurological research, there is a difference in the wiring of the brains. There is an indication that there is development of an area of the brain which is wired for the old fight or flight reaction. But it isn't pre wired this way, it is a learned behavior.
Just as we have learned that infants in French speaking households and some oriental homes are or are become wired with the speech recognition and generation functions in a different location than Broca's area, which is where it is located in other romance language and English speakers. We still don't know why this happens but it does happen this way.
It can be assumed, but deserves more research, that little conservatives grow into real conservatives later on and the difference is the fear factor. In mild forms it is a lack of self esteem but it typically manifests it self in attacking when feeling threatened, and the threat can be imagined, as well as real. You have seen them showing up here and their very first post is an attack, followed by a rapid escalation in vituperative name calling. The pattern repeats here time after time. Even when a calm nonthreatening response (like GypsyKing) expresses a mild disagreement with the first post, an overreaction to it follows and the decibel level quickly climbs out of sight.
So, we should just ignore them because they will feel threatened no matter what we say, because they have come to (what they consider) a threatening place.
Muslims, much more pronounced in those of foreign origin, seem to be wired the same way. This is interesting because in the middle ages they were the more normal ones, making scientific progress while the Europeans were busy torturing each other.
Why some groups substantially change I don't know. It is usually tied to some leader, for good or, more likely, evil.
Good topic.
These extremists have been controlled/abused all their lives and are now mentally ill. This illness causes them to feel a need to exert control whenever possible. They are truly sad pitiful people.
I suspect there's some truth to that.
Scuse You! Don't you mean M.E.N.--period??
Don't forget this nation has had its share of history of men 'Controlling women' and most of those MEN who do are not those you have named. Remember, who is backing most antiquated oppressive ideologies around the globe.....M.E.N. Don't get me wrong, I know a lot of great men, but they are of a totally different mind set with a better than average amount of self-confidence!
15 Bible Texts Reveal Why “God’s Own Party” Is at War with Women Tuesday 13 March 2012 by: Valerie Tarico, Away Point | Op-Ed Why can’t GOP politicians trumpet their religious credentials without assaulting women? Because fundamentalist religion of all stripes has degradation of women at its core. Fundamentalist Christianity is no exception. Progressive Christians believe that the Bible is a human document, a record of humanity’s multi-millennial struggle to understand what is good and what is God and how to live in moral community with each other. But fundamentalists believe that the Bible is the literally perfect word of the Almighty, essentially dictated by God to the writers. To believe that the Bible is the literally perfect word of God is to believe that women are tainted seductresses who must be controlled by men.
Listen to early Church father Tertullian: “You [woman] are the devil’s gateway: you are the unsealer of that (forbidden) tree: you are the first deserter of the divine law: you are she who persuaded him whom the devil was not valiant enough to attack. You destroyed so easily God’s image, man. On account of your desert—that is, death—even the Son of God had to die.”
Or take it from reformer John Calvin: “Woman is more guilty than man, because she was seduced by Satan, and so diverted her husband from obedience to God that she was an instrument of death leading to all perdition. It is necessary that woman recognize this, and that she learn to what she is subjected; and not only against her husband. This is reason enough why today she is placed below and that she bears within her ignominy and shame.”
Both Tertullian, a respected Catholic theologian, and Calvin, a leader of the Protestant Reformation, took their cues on this matter straight from the book of Genesis:
To the woman [God] said, I will make your pains in childbearing very severe; with painful labor you will give birth to children. Your desire will be for your husband, and he will rule over you. -Genesis 3:16
No matter how outrageous Santorum and Gingrich may seem to secularists and moderate people of faith, they are right on target for an intended audience of Bible believing fundamentalists. If you have any doubt, check out these fifteen Bible passages.*
1.A wife is a man’s property: You shall not covet your neighbor’s house. You shall not covet your neighbor’s wife, or his male or female servant, his ox or donkey, or anything that belongs to your neighbor. Exodus 20:17
2.Daughters can be bought and sold: If a man sells his daughter as a servant, she is not to go free as male servants do. Exodus 21:7
3.A raped daughter can be sold to her rapist: 28 If a man happens to meet a virgin who is not pledged to be married and rapes her and they are discovered, 29 he shall pay her father fifty shekels of silver. He must marry the young woman, for he has violated her. He can never divorce her as long as he lives. Deuteronomy 22:28-29
4.Collecting wives and sex slaves is a sign of status: He [Solomon] had seven hundred wives of royal birth and three hundred concubines, and his wives led him astray. 1 Kings 11:3
5.Used brides deserve death: If, however the charge is true and no proof of the girl’s virginity can be found, she shall be brought to the door of her father’s house and there the men of her town shall stone her to death. Deuteronomy 22:20-21.
6.Women, but only virgins, are to be taken as spoils of war: Now kill all the boys. And kill every woman who has slept with a man, 18 but save for yourselves every girl who has never slept with a man. Numbers 31:17-18
7.Menstruating women are spiritually unclean: 19 “‘When a woman has her regular flow of blood, the impurity of her monthly period will last seven days, and anyone who touches her will be unclean till evening. 20 “‘Anything she lies on during her period will be unclean, and anything she sits on will be unclean. 21 Anyone who touches her bed will be unclean; they must wash their clothes and bathe with water, and they will be unclean till evening. 22 Anyone who touches anything she sits on will be unclean; they must wash their clothes and bathe with water, . . . 30 The priest is to sacrifice one for a sin offering and the other for a burnt offering. In this way he will make atonement for her before the LORD for the uncleanness of her discharge. 31“‘You must keep the Israelites separate from things that make them unclean, so they will not die in their uncleanness for defiling my dwelling place,[a] which is among them.’” Leviticus 15: 19-31
8.A woman is twice as unclean after giving birth to girl as to a boy: A woman who becomes pregnant and gives birth to a son will be ceremonially unclean for seven days, just as she is unclean during her monthly period. ‘ 3 On the eighth day the boy is to be circumcised. 4 Then the woman must wait thirty-three days to be purified from her bleeding. She must not touch anything sacred or go to the sanctuary until the days of her purification are over. 5 If she gives birth to a daughter, for two weeks the woman will be unclean, as during her period. Then she must wait sixty-six days to be purified from her bleeding. 6 ” ‘When the days of her purification for a son or daughter are over, she is to bring to the priest at the entrance to the tent of meeting a year-old lamb for a burnt offering and a young pigeon or a dove for a sin offering. Leviticus 12: 1-8
9.A woman’s promise is binding only if her father or husband agrees: 2 When a man makes a vow to the LORD or takes an oath to obligate himself by a pledge, he must not break his word but must do everything he said. 3 “When a young woman still living in her father’s household makes a vow to the LORD or obligates herself by a pledge 4 and her father hears about her vow or pledge but says nothing to her, then all her vows and every pledge by which she obligated herself will stand. 5 But if her father forbids her when he hears about it, none of her vows or the pledges by which she obligated herself will stand; the LORD will release her because her father has forbidden her. . . . . A woman’s vow is meaningless unless approved by her husband or father. But if her husband nullifies them when he hears about them, then none of the vows or pledges that came from her lips will stand. Her husband has nullified them, and the LORD will release her. 13 Her husband may confirm or nullify any vow she makes or any sworn pledge to deny herself. Numbers 30:1-16
10.Women should be seen not heard: Women should remain silent in the churches. They are not allowed to speak, but must be in submission, as the law says. 1 Corinthians 14:34
11.Wives should submit to their husband’s instructions and desires: Wives, submit yourselves to your husbands, as is fitting in the Lord. Colossians 3:18
12.In case you missed that submission thing . . . : Wives, submit yourselves to your own husbands as you do to the Lord. 23 For the husband is the head of the wife as Christ is the head of the church, his body, of which he is the Savior. 24 Now as the church submits to Christ, so also wives should submit to their husbands in everything. Ephesians 5:22-24.
13.More submission – and childbearing as a form of atonement: A woman should learn in quietness and full submission. 12 I do not permit a woman to teach or to assume authority over a man; she must be quiet. 13 For Adam was formed first, then Eve. 14 And Adam was not the one deceived; it was the woman who was deceived and became a sinner. 15 But women will be saved through childbearing—if they continue in faith, love and holiness with propriety. 1 Timothy 2: 11-15
14.Women were created for men: For if a woman does not cover her head, she might as well have her hair cut off; but if it is a disgrace for a woman to have her hair cut off or her head shaved, then she should cover her head. 7 A man ought not to cover his head, since he is the image and glory of God; but woman is the glory of man. 8 For man did not come from woman, but woman from man; 9 neither was man created for woman, but woman for man. 1 Corinthians 11:2-10
15.Sleeping with women is dirty: No one could learn the song except the 144,000 who had been redeemed from the earth. 4 These are those who did not defile themselves with women, for they remained virgins. They follow the Lamb wherever he goes. They were purchased from among mankind and offered as first-fruits to God and the Lamb. Revelation 14:3-4
This list is just a sampling of the Bible verses that either instruct or illustrate proper relationships between men and women. In context, they often are mixed among passages that teach proper relationships with children, slaves and foreigners. The Bible doesn’t forbid either contraception or abortion, but it is easy to see why Bible believing fundamentalists might have negative feelings about both.
I guess we can infer from this that religion itself was an institution dominated by men who produced a lot of this sacred text in their image. In short, it is kind of a male fantasy version of God and how he relates to MANkind. And if you were a priest or mullah and you wanted any credibility with men you better be saying the right stuff.
The irony is that the Bible (i.e. the J source) was actually begun by a woman who used her royal position to ensure that her family's priesthood would remain the official priesthood of the land. This, in itself, was in reaction to another royal woman who had lived a century earlier bringing her own priesthood from Tyre and giving rise to royal daughters who had displaced the native priestly daughters for royal marriage.
Can you provide a reference to this? I'm interested is all.
"The Book of J" is a source. "Who Wrote The Bible?" and "The Hidden Book In The Bible" by Richard Elliott Friedman are far better sources. The biblical books of Kings shows the animosity towards Queen Izabel and the influence of the foreign Baal worshiping priesthood that came with her from Tyre (1Kings 16:31-33, 18:19, 21:25) and also shows how her female descendants married into the royalty of the southern kingdom spreading that priesthood even further (2Kings 8:16-18, 8:25-27, 11:13-18). It's only after the fall of the foreign-influenced Omri dynasty and the return of prosperity in the eighth century BCE that the J-source is written with its overall command not to have any other god before the national god. Queen Yerusha, who had lived at this time, had been the daughter of a native priest (2Kings 15:32-33) and the command of fidelity to the national god was no less than a command of fidelity to the priesthood of that god ensuring that priesthood with the tithe i.e. 10% of the national wealth. Intermarriage between the royalty and the priestly family also helped to ensure that status.
Copied to my wordpad.
As futurist Sara Robinson has pointed out, traditional rules that govern male-female relationships are grounded more in property rights than civil rights. Men essentially have ownership of women, whose lives are scripted to serve an end—bearing offspring. It is very important to men that they know whose progeny they are raising, so sexual morality has focused primarily on controlling women’s sex activity and maintaining their “purity” and value as assets. Traditional gender roles and rules evolved on the presumption that women don’t have control over their fertility. In other words, modern contraception radically changed a social compact that had existed for literally thousands of years.
Some people don’t welcome change. Since the beginnings of the 20th Century, fundamentalist Christians have been engaged in what they see as spiritual warfare against secularists and modernist Christians. Both of their foes have embraced discoveries in fields such as linguistics, archeology, psychology, biology and physics – all of which call into question the heart of conservative religion and culture. Biblical scholars now challenge such “fundamentals” as a historical Adam, the Virgin Birth, the Resurrection and the special status that Abraham’s God gave to straight males. Fundamentalists are fighting desperately to hang on to certainties and privileges they once saw as an Abrahamic birthright. If they can’t keep women in line; it’s all over. The future ends up in the hands of cultural creatives, scientists, artists, inquiring minds, and girls. It’s horrifying.
*All verses are quoted the New International Version of the Bible, a favorite of evangelicals.
This Post is all about Republicans, so the reference to Muslims in the Headline is clearly just a gratuitous attempt to target, & spread hatred against, Muslims.
In fact, Christian & Jewish (&, indeed, Hindu, Sikh, etc.) fundamentalists are just as obsessed with controlling women as are their Muslim counterparts.
True, there is nothing new about the repression of women.
[Removed]
muslims oppress women in particular, and everyone else in general
The problem with your link is "there aren't any names" just accusations. Where's the beef - where's the names or the bills that are being offered?
You can google search any of the above to get precise information.
Also HB1 introduced by State Rep. Bobby Franklin of Georgia if enacted, would require proof that a miscarriage occurred naturally. If a woman can’t prove that her miscarriage–or spontaneous abortion–occurred without intervention, she could face felony charges.
Girl Friday provided this link for one...
This is HR 358 which is number five and is called the Protect Life Act. It's the latest version.
Here is number 2. http://www.legis.ga.gov/Legislation/20112012/108144.pdf
So let me ask you does changing the word from victim to accuser give the accuser any less protection? The wording remiained the same only the word "victim" has been changed to "accuser".
I guess guess when you look at it from a defense attorneys perspective, the word "victim" sounds more harsh then the word "accuser".
Am I right in making this comparison?
If I suffer a beating, I am a victim and an accuser, but it is appropriate to call me a victim. You are saying it is not appropriate to call me the victim of a rape?
You are correct but you also have to realize that we are now living in a world of being "politically correct". So, until the people of this country uprise and change that everything from her on is going to be changed to make it "politically correct".
This is where the country is headed - don't use harsh words they offend people - I am sure you are very aware of this.
All I know is accuser seems to have a more negative connotation than victim. A rape victim (or should I say rape accuser) is going to go through enough character assassination as it is in the courtroom. I suppose next it will be shortened to tramp. Words make a difference and so do bad laws.
Somewhere along the line there was a reason for changing the word. I think the word "victim" has more of a negative connotation then the word "accuser".
I think that' the reason for changing the word. If you look at it from this perspective the word "accuser" means I am accusing you of something.
Now the word "victim" being used the same way has more of a "emotional" affect - you don't have to explain why because the word "victim" says it all whereas the word 'accuser" doesn't.
Do you see my point -
Somewhere along the line there was a reason for changing the word? Well, let's here it. Because it looks pretty sexist and insensitive to me and "somewhere along the line there was a reason" just doesn't cut it.
Well, I guess you'll just have to ask the person who made the changes why they did it. Things are done for reasons beyond which you and I may think are unreasonable but when it comes to law there's a whole new vocabulary and english language out there
mostly these reference to unlisted sections and unnecessary rearrangement of the efficient order of the text
laws may be further complicated by bundling over 10 pages or more
Or maybe some misogynistic fundamentalist congressman wrote some patently bad legislation to appeal to his ignorant base.
yes exactly.. you want the beaten assaulted female to be less than the attacker. if you are attacked you are a victim. you cannot change facts. if they were saying that every person right down to a murder.. the state would be the accuser in that case you would have a point.. but they only want this for female victims.. you see my point? everyone would be considered a 'victim' of assault except if that victim was a woman
I don't disagree at all.
nothing emotional about it
the victim is not a victim unless the accused is guilty of the charges
Well, you know as well as I the word "victim" is used to make it sound more "charging". Of course a person can still be a victim and the guilty person may not be charged because of not having enough proof to convict them.
"Politically Correct," REALLY?! Are you righties that completely void of a cause or idea that you have to regurgitate empty talking points from the late 80s? Or are the ideas and goals you have descended to now so repugnant, like your deep-seated racism and misogyny, that you can't come right out and say them out-loud. That WAS Rush's job: castigating and smearing caring, the welfare of the people and higher moral standards, while you righties work overtime and weekends destroying the New Deal, the Great Society and even humanitarianism and egalitarianism in the evil service of greed and the boundless, never-ending, roughshod transference of wealth to the 1% of the top 1%. "Harsh words" must indeed be a touchy subject for people whose very existence is a vile unconcealable stain on humanity itself. Yet, all you need is love, too ~ just before you crush it with another truckload of plunder. Take your subterfuge and infantile recrimination-masquerade back to the militia encampment and shoot it for target practice in effigy of the heart you wish you had. But don't you dare forget to post the videos online so Rush and his RW ilk can all watch.
I think the idea of "innocent until proven guilty" applies here
Well, doesn't that apply to all charges - let me take that back - it doesn't anymore.
All crimes like rape or burglary have a victim. All those accused have allegedly committed those crimes until they are convicted. It is ludicrous to change victim to accuser in these crimes over here but not those over there.
The problem is that these types of crimes hit the front page with mug shots without much facts or they have been distorted or you can watch Nancy Grace. If someone is not guilty, there usually is no mug shot on the front page declaring someone's innocence. So, this is a response to the public backlash against these types of crimes.
Are there those that are falsely accused? Oh, yeah. Are there those that have committed these crimes? Oh, yeah. Will it change the public perception of those that have been falsely accused? No. That is a media issue and a public perception issue. The media will often try and convict someone. Most people see that and get in on it. The problem is that we know that any woman that is a victim in these crimes will be crucified in the court room. They will trash her entire private life.
There has to be a better way.
http://www.legis.ga.gov/Legislation/20112012/108144.pdf
well I read that victim clause in the stalker bit
the telephone number verification flew over my head
sounds like victims well be warned when an offender is released
Can't disagree with you on what you say. So very true.
who's controlling women? I'd say the democrats control women by promising to give them free stuff. Women are dependent on government. The dems are great at creating dependency. That's how they get your vote. Giving out free stuff.
[Removed]
Q: Why do Republicans and Muslim Fundamentalists Need to Control Women?
A: Why do American Sheeple allow corporate-controlled Demopublicans to re-use old social issues to distract attention from real fascist threats?
Next Question?
Whatever. Don't let anyone call you a one-trick-pony.
To me it is unfair to judge other cultures by our own. I beleive that it is called ethnocentricism. It is unrealistic for us to expect that a country like Afghanistan...that their country should be in the same place as ours in terms of cultural advancement. It is not that long ago that women in this country were shunned for wearing slacks, not having dinner ready on time, and for it being societally acceptable for a man to beat his wife. Women had little recourse too, as divorce was looked at scandalously.
The fact is that Islam is practiced in different ways, in different parts of the world. In some of those areas of the world they have lived under tribal and/or repressive regimes for more than a hundred years (well more than that on the former of course) hence they have not had the opportunity to advance in the same way that we have living in a free society.
I know a Muslim family who have two bright daughters, one of whom is in a CUNY university in NYC, and another who is in John Jay School of Criminal Justice in NYC. There is no discernable difference from that family that I know personally, to most other families of enlightened people.
So the question that begs a respnse is: Is it our job to go around the world bringing these cultures up to our standards, and if so how much of our limited resources including lives should we expend to do so? Haven't things like this been used as justification to carry out an entirely different agenda, which has nothing to do with women's rights? And the last question is: Wouldn't we be better off cleaning our own house on a whole bunch of different levels, before we go bankrupt trying to clean everyone else's.
[Removed]
[Removed]
[Removed]
no that's depleted uranium in fallujah
I used to be anti-government until I realized Republicans were screwing it up intentionally.
[Removed]
Sorry, don't speak Troll.
[Removed]
"Muslim Fundamentalists"? And what do the other Muslims think? And why must the Feds pay for killing your baby?
I imagine each Muslim has his own opinion. And why must the Feds pay for your Viagra?
I don't think they have to pay for my Viagra. What the fuck does that have to do with muslims and infanticide?
[Removed]
a story from moveon, which is funded by george soros. the link to moveon give moveon as its sources and other soros funded sites. keep pushing the democrate mantra,...........since they cant run on how obama is killing the USA, they perpetuate a non/phoney story.
Have you ever heard the saying it is snowing like a bitch out there? How about don't eat that apple? Or I did not have sexual relations with that woman... lol God help me I do love them so...
moveon is your source?????????? what a joke. soros funds moveone. the sources they site are either their own site or other soros funded sites. soros has no love for the USA , in fact he wants to bring down the USA as it was founded. the "republican war on women" is pure fabrication, since 0bama can't run on the economy
The legislation is real. So is the anger of women all across America.
you've talked to ALL the women in the USA? it's a manufactured non issue to get away from the terrible record that barry can't run on.
Corrupt republicans and those others.
Huh.
Could it be because they are not allowed to posses sheep?
Many animal cruelty laws do seem to be more strongly enforced.
Forget trying to respond to my post folks. The site has erased it.
And nothing of value was lost.
YOU USE that "R" word ALOT! Utterly and completely counterproductive.
Take a wild guess how many states already have a law which makes it a mere misdemeanor for a sheriff to allow a lynching of prisoners. You do know that the sheriff of a county can trump orders of the President, don't you?
No need in me telling any colorful tales about things that have taken place, but, DC is the problem.
No big gubment...no public schools...should we all home school? Want to get rid of banking regulations too? Did you ever think that maybe the Republican mission to degrade the reputation of government might just be the real problem?
So are you saying that only the republican party is to blame for all our ills?
Not at all. They're just mostly responsible.
Home schooling is bad, because it takes power from the government. And heaven forbid people receive a credit on the money they paid into the school system they aren't using, that would be terrible.
Have you ever communicated with a home schooled individual? they have no social skills and have a crazy idea about what life is all about. If I ever make it into the upper middle class, I will make it a point to have my children schooled in a public setting, so they will stay grounded and have a better idea about what is real and what is a dramatized spectacle.
You're right, we need to ban home schooling because we know what is best. After that we can start stereotyping people! Yay!
{"Have you ever communicated with a insert racial descriptor here ? they have no social skills and have a crazy idea about what life is all about."}
Then we can slap each other congratulatorily on the back and lie to each other about how tolerant and accepting of others we are! Yay!
WHAT is up with you either, or people. That is my opinion from living life and communicating with my fellow man. You can do what you want with your life but that don't change the fact that I enjoyed my public school setting and found those who never grew up in such a setting were scared of the world around them. this is an opinion that many I talk to share so take your extreme "either or" rhetoric and shove it. you sound like a child when you frame stuff in such absolutes, especially when we are talking about politics. You and satanD need to take a chill pill or come back when you have some real world experience.
Thank you!! Steroetypes are good some times! It's okay to group peope together by a common association!
Have you ever met a muslim? They're all murderous lunatic nutjobs!! What?? All the ones I have met have been! Stop looking at me like that!!
ok, you are right my comment was a little over the top.
Your opinion is always welcome, however inane.
Your fear of letting go of a proven corrupt and broken machine of oppression is simply impossible for me to fathom.
Maybe I love my country and respect the wisdom of it's founding fathers, or maybe I'm just smart enough to know that your libertarian paradise does not exist. It's just an excuse to plunder the people.
It's not about the wisdom of any dead person, the constitution is a package deal. If you don't like something about it, fight to have it changed using the guidelines set forth in the document itself. But merely ignoring parts you don't like is an act of treason, the highest crime in the land.
Who's ignoring what? What were we talking about? Or was that just a general defense of libertarian ideology?
The operative word in your post is "maybe". There's no maybe about it you're a propagandized Leftist and wrong about everything you've said.
Well, thank you for your opinion. When you care to back it up we can have a whole conversation.
"Republicans want to cut nearly a billion dollars of food and other aid to low-income pregnant women, mothers, babies, and kids."
"Two-thirds of the elderly poor are women, and Republicans are taking aim at them too. A spending bill would cut funding for employment services, meals, and housing for senior citizens."
"Republicans not only want to reduce women's access to abortion care, they're actually trying to redefine rape. After a major backlash, they promised to stop. But they haven't yet. Shocker."
These are only but a few of your bullshit,generalized,propaganda statements. You are the one that needs to prove everything you've posted with facts and not JUST moveon.org propaganda.
Never mind sun star. You won't get any answers or even any adult discussion. The Left is incapable of it. There is an ingrained childishness in liberalism. It destroys everything it touches.
Too bad for you those are all "maybes".
See, the fact that the government is so easily corrupted speaks volumes about the society. And to get rid of the only institution with one iota amount of accountability, is to release the full force of American corruptibility. Besides, I don't believe the republicans ever really decided to starve the beast. They just said that to get the idiots to vote against their own economic self interests.
I GET IT NOW!!!!! Democrats are the GOOD GUYS and the Republicans are the actual evil doers!
Thanks! I had no idea things were really this simple!
you are such a drama queen. I never said that, and if you are uber rich, you would probably believe that the Republicans are the good guys, but i am not so they are not my type of people. There is no good guys vs bad guys in politics. there is just different interests and different priorities. Good guys vs bad guys is the per view of your religion and should not carry over to politics. Grow up, dog. this is not the Holy Roman Empire.
Now you're talkin' Sweet Potato. : )
Wow! What an epiphany!
All this time I really thought the corporate owned DC government was the root cause. Now I know better, just vote D and there will be no more NDAA 2012 type laws and the many other fascists laws just like it!
I'll wake up and it will all be just a bad dream!
The REPUBLICANS made Obama sign the NDAA! How many times do I have to tell you????
The REPUBLICANS made him bomb Libya!! The REPUBLICANS made him bail out and nationalize General Motors! He'll reverse it all in his second term!! Watch him!! That and he'll make good on every other promise he broke!! Believe!
he nationalized the car industry ?
I never heard that happened
Yeah, I know, right? The federal government merely owned a majority stake in GM, it resembled nothing similar to nationalization!
I would prefer the government stick to infrastructure like power plants and hospitals
Well, some of us believe in MLK's dream. I guess you don't. I have pity. You don't see the need for widespread nationalization of industry? It's in the constitution, I'll get it for you if you are foolish enough to question me.
promote the general welfare
I think providing the people power and health qualifies
Yeah! They put the tenth amendment in there for no reason at all! It was a practical joke gone way wrong!!
It took you this long to figure out that we have two sides, one 98% perfect, that is incapable of wrong or corruption, and one 100% corrupt, that never does anything good? It's obvious to me. Go autodesk something.
I rode the chopper bus to a mud thatch school house. I'm sure the windows were made of candy because I licked them the whole way.
I think I'll hire a new staff of all "d's" and make them jump me in with repeated donkey punches.
I feel much cleaner now.
What are you smoking?
Reefers man..........
Don't bother. I'm beginning to think it comes down to basic intelligence. These reds really believe the propaganda. They believe that the very machine that corrupts this nation will fix the problems and lead us to utopia. The liberal really is a stupid, deluded "person". Their system doesn't work. Every liberal run city is a shithole. Every liberal run state is a basket case. They are too stupid to see their way is garbage.
Rs is not a word
it is what you wipe with tp
How about all the fascist garbage your worshipful "D's" have signed, just in the last year?
I know, the Toiletpaper Party made them do it, they had no choice.
DC IS NOT THE PROBLEM!!! DC is the SOLUTION!! there's three things you need to know:
Corporations have been usurping power through the use of their corporate puppets in Washington DC
The politicians are corporate puppets and have been thoroughly corrupted by corporate interests
We need the corporate puppets to craft laws to slap their corporate masters! They will take the power away from their bosses!
YES! this will work if everyone will vote right!
Yeah- vote Democrat!
War...on....women......now where have I heard that? Oh yeah, in the official MSM talking point promulgated by your masters.... Talk about brainwashed assholes.....
There is plenty of evidence, from talking heads publically degrading women and even saying women shouldn't be able to vote to legislation that seeks to undermine a woman's right to choose to Republican operatives defunding women's health organizations. Republicans love to use the WAR word when it can get a bunch of their contractor buddies rich, but call it a War on Women and suddenly you've gone over the top.
Don't like it, don't be it, douche.
No, it IS a war on women! But Libya is not a war! Just a bombing!
Just last night we played escaped FEMA detainee and Congressman's wife.