Democrats & Liberals Archives

Obama believes women are second-class citizens who need the constant protection of the paternalistic state.

It is interesting that liberals feel it necessary to revise a violence against women act to include Native American women. Were they not women until our liberal friends declared them such? Have our liberal friends also declared all member of LGBT to be women too. Some among them are proudly male. Immigrants are also women, according to liberals? What about children and grandchildren of immigrants.

So according to our liberal friends, everybody is a women, even men. I think this is the liberal feminization of society that we sometimes hear about.

You know, if life was fair women would live as long as men do; they would be in college in equal numbers; they would be injured or killed on the job as often and we would spend as much on women’s diseases like breast cancer as we do on men’s diseases like prostate cancer. Oh wait…

C&J-
Do you just argue things to see if you can get away with them? Such are the wages of arguing on a contrarian basis. Democrats support it, so you must oppose, even though you’re probably opposing something that does real good.

Stephen… Nailed it.

Stephen

I don’t believe in this “war on women” crap. Just don’t. If I can ridicule it, I will use that weapon to smack it over the head. That is how a smart person fights silly ideas. Ridicule. I can marshal all sorts of arguments, but they will do not good. Ridicule works.

Why does ridicule work? Because the war on women idea is so stupid. Consider how I could make fun of it. Liberals extended the idea to include Native American women. What! Not included in “women.” They want to include gays. What! Now included in “women.” Immigrants?

Re this stuff doing some good - NO. Dividing Americans into hostile groups does NOT do good. It is, in fact, evil. I understand some liberals have good intentions, but the results of these sorts of activities is bad.

Returning to the subject of ridicule - I suggest if you dislike the idea of being ridiculed it might be a good idea not to post silly things.

Let me give you the non-ridicule response - the war on women is a dishonest idea. It assumes that women are dependent and need a big paternalistic government to keep them safe and that being against an expansion of government is a “war on women”. The premise is wrong. It is a shrill slogan. Do you like this better?

This doesn’t sound like a winner for democrats at all. Unlike the birth control issue, I don’t think many women voters are worried that there aren’t enough laws about violence against women. C&J’s backlash reaction is going to be fairly typical of the reaction from the middle.

C&J-
Well, you can talk about paternalism in theory and paternalism in fact. Making it more difficult to stop abusive men from doing harm to women is paternalism in your theory, but in fact it frees women from being intimidated by their husbands and boyfriends, undermining paternalism in fact. You can pretend that if there wasn’t a law there, men wouldn’t misbehave, but that’s not what happens.

As for a backlash? For the most part, this is a re-authorization, so speaking in logical terms, if there was going to be a backlash against this from society at large, there would have been long before now.

As for the War on Women line? Look, if you want to ridicule it, fine, do so and play right into the stereotype that is getting locked to your faces like an iron mask. We can reel off one change after another that put women and their reproductive rights at risk. We can milk the paternalism of your party about women’s sexuality, especially the part where the use of birth control is tied to being a slut and a prostitute.

The more we provoke you to defend these ideas, the more their toxic effects will manifest themselves. We can make you folks look like the most backwards, retrograde ideologues, and the best part is, you will willingly cooperate in our attempts to paint you as extremists by embracing that extremism.

SD

Such a vapid argument. You really have to reach into the straw pile to get such a losing diatribe. What you have written makes no sense.

An argument coulg be made, using your lack of logic, that men are abused. They are abused in a way you don’t look at. They are abused verbally quite often.

Oh, you are considering only physical abuse. I did’nt recognize that was the only liberal position.

Abuse is used often by members of both genders and it is used often.

“We can milk the paternalism of your party about women’s sexuality, especially the part where the use of birth control is tied to being a slut and a prostitute.”

You have just committed a lie. The use of two phrases to describe an individual is not part of a party platform and you know it. To tell such a lie certainly does nothing for your credibility which isn’t much anyway.

Maranatha

Stephen

Last I heard, violence was against the law. I also know that 77% of the victims of violence are men.

This law changes nothing except to create more feelings of victimhood. It is silly.

It is against the law today, here and now, to commit violence against women, men or any others.

Democrats and liberals may want to create a special war on women, men or whomever they please. I prefer law to apply equally to all genders, races, creeds equally. I regret that liberals have abandoned the equal application of law in favor of particular justice enacted to satisfy particular interest groups and to use the dividing of America as a political weapon to pit Americans against Americans. It is despicable.

So to sum up - I am against violence. It is already against the law in all states and jurisdictions. If you oppose that, I suppose it is your business.

War on women, just another thing to pit one group against another. Can’t run on their accomplishments so they use scare tactics. PITIFUL when you have to resort to such tactics.

tom humes-
I won’t insult you with the “hit home” argument, but I will say this: your argument seems to be an expression of incoherent anger, rather than a real response. So I’ll do you the favor of not responding any further.

C&J-
I can sum up my argument, too: when it comes to civil rights, equal protection by the law, you have to shape the laws to fit the violation. It’s not just about making abuse of women a worse offense, it’s about putting in place the institutions and rights necessary to help the problem on a social level.

It’s funny to see you generalize so quickly and completely. Are you sure you’ve actually researched the bill in question, or are you just responding off the top of your head, about what you think the law is about?-

KAP-
Oh, no, we can’t run on killing Bin Laden or Saving GM, or the success of the Stimulus in preventing another depression… Wait, we are running on those things!

It’s the Republicans who have nothing to run on, in no small part because most of what they’ve done is offensive to some key Demographic, or merely consisted of getting in the way of President Obama.

What’s pitiful is that practically every time I level a fact based accusation at the right, they respond by rhetorically trying to spin the argument in the exact opposite direction, as if everybody’s too stupid to notice.

Republicans have made it a point not to focus on jobs, jobs, jobs, but on trying to tear down liberals and the institutions that support them. But Americans haven’t forgotten what they elected you to do, and we won’t let them forget what you have done instead.

Republicans have made it a point not to focus on jobs, jobs, jobs, but on trying to tear down liberals and the institutions that support them. But Americans haven’t forgotten what they elected you to do, and we won’t let them forget what you have done instead.

The problem is, this is exactly what the republican voters elected their reps to do. See Dick Lugar ousted for trying to solve problems. Can’t have it.

War is instinctive; and those skilled at tapping those instincts to indoctronate soldiers will rise to prominence. See General Limbaugh.

SD

I take that to mean what I said was with credibility. Thank you.

Marantha

Schwamp-
Lugar fell because the Right thinks it will get better result if it insists and doesn’t let the Democrats force them to compromise.

Trouble is, Republicans have to win everything to get things the way they want. If they fail to retake Congress, but retake the Presidency, they’re minus the ability to legislate and control the budget. If they don’t win the Senate, they’ll be at a loss to get anything substantial passed. If they don’t keep the house, they lose budget authority even if they take the Senate.

If they fail to retake the Presidency? Laying aside the political consequences of a long term war to retake the Presidency that ends in defeat, the veto pen remains in the hands of Barack Obama.

Plans that rely on best case scenarios to succeed are not good plans, but try telling Republicans in Washington that, these days.

The Republicans have a big problem: For all their talk, they’ve gotten even less done than their counterparts did in the face of considerable opposition from their side. Democrats succeeded in shifting the country, on a policy basis, further to the left. Republicans are playing catchup, but with no desire to compromise, they’re running this race with both legs tied behind their back. That they’ve passed only 109 pieces of legislation, where the previous Do-Nothing Congress passed 900-something tells you how badly they’ve crippled themselves.

The only thing they have on their side is unwarranted confidence and unceasing fear of what happens if the other side wins. But that cannot last forever. Democrats could do very well if they get aggressive enough, and its about time.

Conservatives do not pass laws that are harmful to the interests of women because they hate women or because they are waging a war on women. They pass these laws because they are in line with their beliefs. It’s those liberals and their Feminizes that are waging war on conservative men.

Kap, if not for scare tactics, both the Democratic and Republican parties would have a hard time getting out the vote. Scare tactics are a mainstay of politics.

Poor Conservtive men. Unable to force women to risk getting pregnant or deny them services and legal remedies when abusive partners come after them.

Sometimes people should be scared. Sometimes it’s the lack of fear that’s the abnormal response.

tom humes-
Credibility?

That you have to earn, and all you did was insult what I said on general terms. You can’t come in here and pretend to refute everything I say with unproven statements about my argument. You have to actually prove things.

I am assuming Stephen Daugherty is now writing under an alias (obamaluv), since he is the one arguing the case. This is a rediculous post. But we have known for some time that SD is much like Chris Matthews, who gets a tingly feeling running up his leg at the mention of messiah obama. So I guess “obamaluv” is a good handle.

I have to agree with C&J, Tom Humes, and KAP; there is no such thing as a Republican “War on Women”. It’s nothing more than another attempt by the socialist left to divide Americans. I believe the American voter is becoming wise to the election day tactics of the left, i.e. throw grandma off the cliff, steal seniors SS, and now war on women.

Stephen, your “post” and or comments make you look like one stupid ***.

Stephen

Re the Bill - no I did not research it. One does not need to eat the whole egg to know it is rotten.

I have a bedrock belief that we should be treated equally under the law w/o regard to gender, race, creed or national origin. I used to think that all Americans believed this. I still believe that all good Americans believe this. I regret that my liberal friends are backing away from it.

SD

“You have to actually prove things.”

That was easy. I did.

Maranatha

Frank-
Assume? You know what they say about what happens when folks assume.

I am not Sock puppeting. That would be kind of pathetic, and would reflect a lack of faith in my own blogging’s strength.

Worse yet, if I were trying to escape my reputation, as you suggest, why would I call myself Obamaluv? It really isn’t like that would be a fresh start for me, given the conservatives’ attitudes on this site. Am I wrong?

As for the rest, I think I have only to mention transvaginal probe to a woman to get them disgusted with Republican policy. The worst part is that it’s a potshot you can’t disprove.

“The War on Women” may be a bit of strong rhetoric, but the incidents that back the notion are pretty much what we say they are. Meanwhile you have C&J having to twist around everything so that legislation meant to protect women is somehow now a slight against them. You guys do little but twist words these days, because your obstructionist agenda has almost completely cut you off from productive legislation. If you can’t compromise, if you won’t let the majority’s policies through, if you filibuster more in six years than the nation did in the previous 200, you’re going to leave a rather glancing mark on the law books.

So, all you have is the tortured rhetoric of a party that hasn’t earned its way back to being a productive force in American politics, like people want.

C&J-
You can twist your rhetoric so far that you have to avail yourself of Albert Einstein to describe the topology, but the fact is we are committed in fact to equality. It says something that the Log Cabin Republicans are more outraged by President Obama picking now to come out outright in support of gay marriage, than they are of their own party pushing Amendment 1 in North Carolina to a successful victory.

When Democrats move to get you your equal rights, that’s what we’ll give you, with the protections and the rights the law provides. When Republicans talk about restoring equal rights, they will strip people of the ability to sue attackers, to seek the redress of greivances in court, to successfully gain for themselves things like hospital visitations, legal rights to property, tax statuses, etc.

So on and so forth. So really, if you want somebody protecting your rights, let it be a Democrat, because they’re not merely using rhetoric to cover for an intolerant position.

Or a complete ignorance of the law they’re critiquing in no uncertain terms. When you think first of politics and second of policy, there are many mistakes you will make.

The GOP IS waging a War On Women, and everyone knows this.
It’s a winning issue for Democrats — and clearly they’re aware of this fact.

Jack:

Liberals extended the idea to include Native American women. What! Not included in “women.”

Correct — include those women who live on Native American reservations. Because many of these cases go unreported or aren’t investigated because existing federal laws have been forcing tribes to rely on far distant federal and state government officials to investigate and prosecute domestic crimes committed by non-Indians. The Act is intended to allow tribal courts to prosecute non-Indian perpetrators of domestic violence on reservations.

They want to include gays. What! Now included in “women.”

Yes, all people who are vulnerable to incidences of domestic violence and abuse, including LGBT folks.

Immigrants?

Yes, to expand the U-visa for immigrant victims of crimes, because the power of the abuser over their undocumented partners often means they can cruelly exploit that victim due to their immigration status. This has made many women afraid to report the abuse to and seek help — and that failure to report can later mean that that same abuser will have no prior record, even as he goes on to cruelly abuse other women — including women who are American citizens.

This Act is meant to protect ALL people who find themselves vulnerable and endangered by incidences of domestic violence and abuse while on American soil. And that’s something Progressives can and should be extremely proud of!!! It falls right in line with our long-established tradition of assisting people in their moments of greatest crisis and need. One of the enormous strengths of progressives has always been that we are not only willing to stand up for ourselves, we will also stand up for all others as well!

Stephen

I believe in equality under the law w/o special right/burdens based on race, gender, creed or national origin. I don’t know how to make that any clearer.

Violence against men & women is currently against the law. This is the law I support.

BTW - re rights - I have always supported rights of gay marriage. Obama has finally come around to my point of view. In fact, I think that there should be no legal status that is like marriage. Chrissy and I get to pay thousands of extra dollars in taxes because we choose to be married. I want my gay friends to have the same choice.

Adrienne

So the act is intended to protect ALL people who might be the victims of violence. I thought we had a law like that already. I was unaware that violence was previously legal. You maybe should provide a reference. I would be against that kind of thing. I stand up for the victims of violence.

Jack,
It’s a reauthorization of an existing Act aimed at DOMESTIC violence. The additions to the bill are intended to better protect ALL who may be victims of that type of abuse.

Adrienne

I oppose violence, whether against men, women, immigrants or Native American women. I thought those things were against the law going back … hundreds of years. Too bad you guys think we need a federal law to tell you these things.

Re the specific domestic violence re-authorization - I understand that the bill could have easily been reauthorized if it was left as it has been.

It seems that people on both sides of the debate tried to add on lots of extra provisions and that is what is causing the trouble. The actual story doesn’t fit the “war on women” idea.

http://www.courthousenews.com/2012/05/09/46355.htm

I oppose violence, whether against men, women, immigrants or Native American women. I thought those things were against the law going back … hundreds of years. Too bad you guys think we need a federal law to tell you these things.

VAWA was enacted in 1994 to increase the federal penalties for those who perpetrated domestic violence, for services for victims of that violence, and to train police and prosecutors about domestic violence. Up until now there had always been bipartisan support for this bill, but now conservatives have decided they’re against it — and that very clearly has to do with the fact that the changes that have been made simply furnished protections to people that conservatives don’t like.

Re the specific domestic violence re-authorization - I understand that the bill could have easily been reauthorized if it was left as it has been.

Why it should it be left as it was when it has been incomplete and unable to help protect ALL victims of domestic violence that take place in America?

It seems that people on both sides of the debate tried to add on lots of extra provisions and that is what is causing the trouble.

The trouble is that Conservatives obviously don’t think it’s necessary to try to protect Native American women, Gay People, and Immigrants from domestic violence right along with every other woman in this nation.

The actual story doesn’t fit the “war on women” idea.

Yes, it most certainly does. The fact that Republicans are refusing to reauthorizing the Violence Against Women Act has the power to hurt and endanger every single woman in America.

Adrienne

Native American women were not included among “women” in the past? Ditto immigrants. My assumption was that immigrants were people too. You disagree?

Re Gay on Gay violence - are you sure you want to get into gay domestic violence? It might confirm a few conservative stereotypes.

Native American women were not included among “women” in the past? Ditto immigrants. My assumption was that immigrants were people too. You disagree?

I answered all of this already. Go back and read what I wrote.

Re Gay on Gay violence - are you sure you want to get into gay domestic violence? It might confirm a few conservative stereotypes.

You seem intent on confirming a conservative stereotype by making this comment — because it sounds like something a shameless anti-gay bigot might say.

Adrienne

You answered in your way. We disagree that your answer was adequate.

Re anti-gay bigot - you can dislike what I wrote but let’s use that logic thing again.

This is a domestic violence bill. Right? That indicates that the violence is mostly among domestic partners. Right? Is it more likely that a domestic partner of a gay man will be gay or straight? So if there is any domestic violence against a gay man, what are the chances that it will be committed to another gay man?

Violence is already against the law. Extending this new law to gays will inevitably raise the numbers of cases brought, revealing the violence in gay domestic relationships.

C&J-
What you’re doing is twisting our message, our policy motivations, even as you seek to claim to be a champion of tolerance and respect.

Worse, you do it in professed ignorance of what you’re attacking, or how effective it might be in real life.

It’s plain to see that even if your intentions are pure, your strategy here is political, partisan, and divisive. A real bipartisan would call for the renewal, or give a reason that wasn’t all about impugning the good intentions of others on twisted premises.

Stephen

The difference is that I actually believe in the equal application of law whereas you guys want to categorize people and treat them as group members rather than individuals.

I wish we could go back to a bipartisan approach that did respected individual rights w/o reference to group membership.

I understand that you seem to see most things in terms of groups. You and Adrienne talk about liberals and conservatives as if those categories are entities that stretch back in history. In fact, different individuals in different generations choose values.

Back in the 1960s, I chose the values of individual rights. That is why I can so freely quote Martin Luther King. His ideas in this respect are mine. If those ideas have become conservative now, it doesn’t matter. If liberals want to claim them, that is okay too. I believe in the idea that we should judge individuals by what they do, by the content of their characters, rather than by the group we place them in.

In this case, I am the champion of tolerance. If you want to join, I am happy. It can be bipartisan.

C&J - I think you have a very 2 dimensional understanding of Dr. Martin Luther King. If you read the full quote, “I have a dream that my four little children will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin but by the content of their character.” It was and is still a dream in many ways. Maybe you should ask his children what they think. We are a whole lot closer now than in 1968 when he was murdered for being black and speaking out. People are still profiled, wrongfully imprisoned, and murdered because of their color in this country. We have come a long way but it is myopia to declare this war won.

Since you think you and Dr. King were so closely aligned, how do you feel about this one?

“We must rapidly begin the shift from a “thing-oriented” society to a “person-oriented” society. When machines and computers, profit motives and property rights are considered more important than people, the giant triplets of racism, materialism, and militarism are incapable of being conquered.”

We’re doing a bit better on the racism thing but the other two … not so much. The GOP has appointed the poster boy for disgusting materialism as their presidential candidate.

tcsned

My understanding of King is that he worked for integration and equal rights. I am still for those things. I may not agree with everything King said or did. I don’t agree with anybody 100%.

The key is the equality. Do you disagree with that?

tcsned

I would also add that like all great men and women, today King belongs to the ages and all Americans. Like Washington, Jefferson of Lincoln, we do not need to believe in everything they said or did in order to take part in their legacy.

The part of the King legacy I find most valuable was what he said about equality and integration. Other things perhaps are not my business.