Keep it up GOP

[whell]

Originally Posted by BlueStreak

At least the Dems have the decency to blow in my ear before they fuck me.

Dave

I think that single sentence sums up this whole thread quite nicely. Thanks for that.

[whell]

Originally Posted by finnbow

Of course it's a cynical ploy in an election year. Then again, so is everything that both parties are doing right now. Nothing new here. However, it's almost a lead pipe cinch that the troglodytes within the GOP will take the bait and make complete @ssholes of themselves. Bet on it.

At least we can call it what it is. I guess that's progress...

[Charles]

Originally Posted by whell

Tell me why.

The point about the Dems raising this bill has nothing to do with "helping women". The Dems think they smell political blood in the water and want an issue to try to bludgeon repubs with, and maybe shore up the female vote in the process. If it doesn't work, then they'll drop the issue like a hot potato and go find the next political opportunity to exploit. It's all a big effin' political game.

Meanwhile, the party that says they're for the working guy has done wants to lead with this issue in an election year? Do you think the average Joe lunchbox gives a crap about this in the grand scheme of things?

So Carnac the Magnificent, tell me why this take is wrong?

It is wrong because the Donks don't want to hear it.

Chas

[BlueStreak]

Originally Posted by Charles

It is wrong because the Donks don't want to hear it.

Chas

We know that's what it is. Are there no "strawman" issues raised on the other side?

Please.

Dave

[CarlV]

Originally Posted by whell

Tell me why.

The point about the Dems raising this bill has nothing to do with "helping women". The Dems think they smell political blood in the water and want an issue to try to bludgeon repubs with, and maybe shore up the female vote in the process. If it doesn't work, then they'll drop the issue like a hot potato and go find the next political opportunity to exploit. It's all a big effin' political game.

Meanwhile, the party that says they're for the working guy has done wants to lead with this issue in an election year? Do you think the average Joe lunchbox gives a crap about this in the grand scheme of things?

So Carnac the Magnificent, tell me why this take is wrong?

Nobody in the Democratic Party told Issa what to do what he did when he held his bullshit hearing.



Carl

[BlueStreak]

Originally Posted by CarlV

Nobody in the Democratic Party told Issa what to do what he did when he held his bullshit hearing.



Carl

Is that the same Issa that authored the Public Option?

Dave

[CarlV]

Darrell Issa's First Panel on Contraception Coverage Had Zero Female Witnesses

By Amanda Marcotte

| Posted Thursday, Feb. 16, 2012, at 1:24 PM ET

Considering how politically toxic it is for Republicans to continue in this foolhardy campaign against regulations requiring insurance companies to offer complete contraception coverage, you would think the smart move would be for Republicans to drop it. Instead, the strategy is to wage this battle while insisting against all common sense that it's about "religious freedom," even though the tweak to Obama's original policy allowing insurers to cover women directly instead of going through their employers addressed that concern. Refusing to acknowledge that their stated concerns were addressed is simply revealing that the Republican war on contraception coverage is in fact a war on contraception itself, and no amount of hyperbole Rep. Darrell Issa uses in titling hearings can change that.

Issa's hearing on allowing women whose employers refuse to cover birth control to get it anyway through their insurance companies was intended to reframe the issue as "religious freedom," but his sexist behavior has caused that strategy to backfire. Of the five witnesses called to testify in the first round, all five were men who oppose contraception use. When Rep. Elijah Cummings asked Issa to include women as witnesses, the answer was basically a hell-no, with the implication that women's voices are not necessary when discussing "religious freedom." (The religious freedom of female workers to make their own contraception decisions is not included in the conservative definition of "religious freedom.") Reps. Carolyn Maloney and Eleanor Holmes Norton walked out in protest. Think Progress has a marvelous picture of the panel of witnesses asked to testify about women's access to contraception, a picture of five grumpy looking dudes.

The only question left: Is Darrell Issa a mole that's secretly working for the Democrats? If you wanted to send the message that Republicans have a serious problem with female sexuality and independence and are willing to move heaven and earth to take away the rights of ordinary women, you couldn't have concocted a better illustration than today's hearings.
http://www.slate.com/blogs/xx_factor...no_women_.html

When Rep. Elijah Cummings asked Issa to include women as witnesses, the answer was basically a hell-no, with the implication that women's voices are not necessary when discussing "religious freedom."

Unbelievable.


Carl

[Big_Bill]

Originally Posted by whell

I think that single sentence sums up this whole thread quite nicely. Thanks for that.

Dave,

If you were a larger contributer, they would kiss you first.

BB

[BlueStreak]

Originally Posted by whell

I think that single sentence sums up this whole thread quite nicely. Thanks for that.

How so?

[BlueStreak]

Originally Posted by CarlV

Darrell Issa's First Panel on Contraception Coverage Had Zero Female Witnesses

By Amanda Marcotte

| Posted Thursday, Feb. 16, 2012, at 1:24 PM ET

Considering how politically toxic it is for Republicans to continue in this foolhardy campaign against regulations requiring insurance companies to offer complete contraception coverage, you would think the smart move would be for Republicans to drop it. Instead, the strategy is to wage this battle while insisting against all common sense that it's about "religious freedom," even though the tweak to Obama's original policy allowing insurers to cover women directly instead of going through their employers addressed that concern. Refusing to acknowledge that their stated concerns were addressed is simply revealing that the Republican war on contraception coverage is in fact a war on contraception itself, and no amount of hyperbole Rep. Darrell Issa uses in titling hearings can change that.

Issa's hearing on allowing women whose employers refuse to cover birth control to get it anyway through their insurance companies was intended to reframe the issue as "religious freedom," but his sexist behavior has caused that strategy to backfire. Of the five witnesses called to testify in the first round, all five were men who oppose contraception use. When Rep. Elijah Cummings asked Issa to include women as witnesses, the answer was basically a hell-no, with the implication that women's voices are not necessary when discussing "religious freedom." (The religious freedom of female workers to make their own contraception decisions is not included in the conservative definition of "religious freedom.") Reps. Carolyn Maloney and Eleanor Holmes Norton walked out in protest. Think Progress has a marvelous picture of the panel of witnesses asked to testify about women's access to contraception, a picture of five grumpy looking dudes.

The only question left: Is Darrell Issa a mole that's secretly working for the Democrats? If you wanted to send the message that Republicans have a serious problem with female sexuality and independence and are willing to move heaven and earth to take away the rights of ordinary women, you couldn't have concocted a better illustration than today's hearings.
http://www.slate.com/blogs/xx_factor...no_women_.html



Unbelievable.


Carl

Thanks.

Dave