GOP Congressman Tells Women To Give Their Money To Democrats

GOP Congressman Tells Women To Give Their Money To Democrats (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion

Message

kalikshama -> GOP Congressman Tells Women To Give Their Money To Democrats (3/31/2012 12:22:15 PM)
As the only Republican Congressman at a rally for the Equal Rights Amendment on Thursday, Rep. Richard Hanna (R-N.Y.) gave women an unexpected piece of advice: Give your money to Democrats. "I think these are very precarious times for women, it seems. So many of your rights are under assault," he told the crowd of mostly women. "I'll tell you this: Contribute your money to people who speak out on your behalf, because the other side -- my side -- has a lot of it. And you need to send your own message. You need to remind people that you vote, you matter, and that they can't succeed without your help." The Equal Rights Amendment, which Congress passed in 1972 but has not yet been ratified by the necessary 38 states, simply says that equality under the law "shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or any state on account of sex." Rep. Carolyn Maloney (D-N.Y.) reintroduced the legislation this year in hopes that it would finally become a part of the Constitution. "If equality had been enshrined in the Constitution for these past 40 years, I wonder if we would still be hearing today from right-wing presidential contenders that women should not serve in combat, that women should think twice before they seek to work outside of the house, that women should not use birth control, and that women who do are called names that are not fit to repeat here," Maloney said at the rally. Hanna, a pro-choice Republican and co-sponsor of the Equal Rights Amendment, acknowledged that women's continuing fight for equality is meeting some resistance among his Republican colleagues. He urged women to become more politically active on their own behalf. "This is a dogfight, it's a fistfight, and you have all the cards," he said. "I can only tell you to get out there and use them. Tell the other women, the other 51 percent of the population, to kick in a few of their bucks. Make it matter, get out there, get on TV, advertise, talk about this. The fact that you want [the ERA] is evidence that you deserve it and you need it."

DaNewAgeViking -> RE: GOP Congressman Tells Women To Give Their Money To Democrats (3/31/2012 9:15:30 PM)
Hmph! Even the Republicans are turning on the Republicans! [sm=jerry.gif]

Musicmystery -> RE: GOP Congressman Tells Women To Give Their Money To Democrats (3/31/2012 10:25:52 PM)
This should be interesting. Due to redistricting, I'm once again with a representative I didn't vote for--no longer in the 23rd, and now this guy is my Congressman. He's not well liked. But this is an interesting development. It's because he wants to keep his seat, for sure. But interesting.

Yachtie -> RE: GOP Congressman Tells Women To Give Their Money To Democrats (4/1/2012 5:46:53 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Musicmystery This should be interesting. Due to redistricting, I'm once again with a representative I didn't vote for-- I have a president I didn't vote FOR. What's your point?

Musicmystery -> RE: GOP Congressman Tells Women To Give Their Money To Democrats (4/1/2012 6:42:55 AM)
Are you really this dense? You DID get to vote in that election. They didn't change the lines of Mexico and leave you with President Felipe Calderón. His term is also up in November 2012. Four candidates are running against the incumbent, promising change. Who do you like?

LoreBook -> RE: GOP Congressman Tells Women To Give Their Money To Democrats (4/1/2012 7:27:22 AM)
Wow. A politician who tells the truth. I guess the (R) after the name doesn't always stand for retard.

Musicmystery -> RE: GOP Congressman Tells Women To Give Their Money To Democrats (4/1/2012 7:36:03 AM)
Hanna published an Op-ed opposing the extension of the USA Patriot Act in February 2011. The piece published in the Syracuse Post Standard was later discovered to be largely plagiarized from a CATO editorial, lifting entire paragraphs verbatim and glossing the remaining text liberally. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_L._Hanna

kalikshama -> RE: GOP Congressman Tells Women To Give Their Money To Democrats (4/6/2012 7:15:02 AM)
[image]http://cdn.front.moveon.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/04/chicken500.jpg[/image]

kalikshama -> RE: GOP Congressman Tells Women To Give Their Money To Democrats (4/6/2012 7:16:03 AM)
[image]http://a1.sphotos.ak.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ak-snc7/p480x480/425926_382573035087014_114517875225866_1439833_1695862276_n.jpg[/image]

SoftBonds -> RE: GOP Congressman Tells Women To Give Their Money To Democrats (4/6/2012 2:51:54 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Musicmystery Hanna published an Op-ed opposing the extension of the USA Patriot Act in February 2011. The piece published in the Syracuse Post Standard was later discovered to be largely plagiarized from a CATO editorial, lifting entire paragraphs verbatim and glossing the remaining text liberally. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_L._Hanna I'm not a fan of plagiarism, but a republican (or a democrat) who is willing to vote against the patriot (detain US citizens without cause in direct contradiction to the bill of rights) act gets my support...

Aylee -> RE: GOP Congressman Tells Women To Give Their Money To Democrats (4/6/2012 7:49:51 PM)
I am so fisking glad to know that the only things I should care about when voting are my gonads. FFS people, maybe that is not my biggest concern. quote: women should not serve in combat No they should not. Unless we have women-only units. quote: that women should think twice before they seek to work outside of the house, Damn skippy a cost analysis should be done. Or, because I am a woman I cannot do math? quote: that women should not use birth control, That is left up to the woman (and hopefully man that she shares her life with). No law says otherwise. Folks making a different claim are ignoring facts. quote: and that women who do are called names that are not fit to repeat here Jew-bag and whore are acceptable terms now. YAY! (but slut still isn't.)

SoftBonds -> RE: GOP Congressman Tells Women To Give Their Money To Democrats (4/6/2012 8:19:56 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Aylee I am so fisking glad to know that the only things I should care about when voting are my gonads. FFS people, maybe that is not my biggest concern. quote: women should not serve in combat No they should not. Unless we have women-only units. Donno if someone can ask Aswad to join this discussion, but for centuries Scandinavian women bore shields for their men, protecting them in combat. Today women are just as fast, intelligent, and capable, and are a valued part of our military. The idea that 51% of the population should be excluded from consideration for our most important jobs is frankly silly. We need the best people we can get in the military, especially in combat jobs. As for women serving alongside men, yes, sometimes hanky-panky happens. Even prostitution. Some women or men spread STD's through a swath of the population, and some women get pregnant. Those costs are worth it though, especially when you consider the alternative. Would you really rather our troops were only looking at the locals for sex? Sounds like a recipe for a lot of rapes, cultural problems, and PR nightmares to me. We have had enough problems with that in Iraq and elsewhere, and while I think the military does a better job than a lot of organizations in history, especially for their size, in a million man army, there are going to be bad apples. Women are a lot less likely to sexually cause problems with the locals (at least in that way, I grant there are nations that have a problem with women in uniform...).

servantforuse -> RE: GOP Congressman Tells Women To Give Their Money To Democrats (4/6/2012 9:00:04 PM)
Softbonds, The patriot act was passed in the Senate 99 to 1. The lone disentor was Russ Feingold D Wis. We threw him out of office in the last election.

Aylee -> RE: GOP Congressman Tells Women To Give Their Money To Democrats (4/6/2012 9:16:04 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: SoftBonds quote: ORIGINAL: Aylee I am so fisking glad to know that the only things I should care about when voting are my gonads. FFS people, maybe that is not my biggest concern. quote: women should not serve in combat No they should not. Unless we have women-only units. Donno if someone can ask Aswad to join this discussion, but for centuries Scandinavian women bore shields for their men, protecting them in combat. Really? Yay for then. quote: Today women are just as fast, intelligent, and capable, and are a valued part of our military. Are they? Why then are there different ASPT results? quote: The idea that 51% of the population should be excluded from consideration for our most important jobs is frankly silly. We need the best people we can get in the military, especially in combat jobs. Aren't women the best baby factories? Where do you expect to find new baby factories for creating more persons for cannon fodder? Especially since my space-age uterine replicator has been denied? quote: As for women serving alongside men, yes, sometimes hanky-panky happens. Not sometimes. It is rampant. quote: Even prostitution. Some women or men spread STD's through a swath of the population, and some women get pregnant. Those costs are worth it though, especially when you consider the alternative. Would you really rather our troops were only looking at the locals for sex? Sounds like a recipe for a lot of rapes, cultural problems, and PR nightmares to me. We have had enough problems with that in Iraq and elsewhere, and while I think the military does a better job than a lot of organizations in history, especially for their size, in a million man army, there are going to be bad apples. I am sorry. What? It is okay that the women are sex objects because the waitresses are not? The troops should be looking at females for sexual relief? Umm. . . why is a women's only troop a bad idea? Because you need to get your rocks off? quote: Women are a lot less likely to sexually cause problems with the locals (at least in that way, I grant there are nations that have a problem with women in uniform...). Yes. Women are sexual outlets for you. So you will use it. Do women ever become more than whores to you?

SoftBonds -> RE: GOP Congressman Tells Women To Give Their Money To Democrats (4/7/2012 6:54:29 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Aylee quote: ORIGINAL: SoftBonds quote: ORIGINAL: Aylee I am so fisking glad to know that the only things I should care about when voting are my gonads. FFS people, maybe that is not my biggest concern. quote: women should not serve in combat No they should not. Unless we have women-only units. Donno if someone can ask Aswad to join this discussion, but for centuries Scandinavian women bore shields for their men, protecting them in combat. Really? Yay for then. quote: Today women are just as fast, intelligent, and capable, and are a valued part of our military. Are they? Why then are there different ASPT results? quote: The idea that 51% of the population should be excluded from consideration for our most important jobs is frankly silly. We need the best people we can get in the military, especially in combat jobs. Aren't women the best baby factories? Where do you expect to find new baby factories for creating more persons for cannon fodder? Especially since my space-age uterine replicator has been denied? quote: As for women serving alongside men, yes, sometimes hanky-panky happens. Not sometimes. It is rampant. quote: Even prostitution. Some women or men spread STD's through a swath of the population, and some women get pregnant. Those costs are worth it though, especially when you consider the alternative. Would you really rather our troops were only looking at the locals for sex? Sounds like a recipe for a lot of rapes, cultural problems, and PR nightmares to me. We have had enough problems with that in Iraq and elsewhere, and while I think the military does a better job than a lot of organizations in history, especially for their size, in a million man army, there are going to be bad apples. I am sorry. What? It is okay that the women are sex objects because the waitresses are not? The troops should be looking at females for sexual relief? Umm. . . why is a women's only troop a bad idea? Because you need to get your rocks off? quote: Women are a lot less likely to sexually cause problems with the locals (at least in that way, I grant there are nations that have a problem with women in uniform...). Yes. Women are sexual outlets for you. So you will use it. Do women ever become more than whores to you? Wait, so you say women are baby-factories, but not sex objects? I'm confused. btw, regarding sexual hanky-panky being "rampant," I've been in the war zone, I've been on a ship on a 7 month deployment. Yes, it happens, but not as much as you seem to think. Our soldiers, sailors, airmen and marines are much more disciplined and professional than you give them credit for. They care about their nation and their families back home. Yes, there are bad apples, it is pretty hard to muster over a million people into an organization and get 100% perfect people. But the idea that all our warriors are doing when in mixed sex units is screwing is an insult to our bravest citizens. The folks who have made out a check for "whatever it takes, up to and including my life," in payment for your right to say what you want on an internet forum. The idea that we should exclude some of the people willing to make that deal for something as silly as what is between their legs (or per your argument, the ability to be baby factories), is kinda an insult to both women and the military.

SoftBonds -> RE: GOP Congressman Tells Women To Give Their Money To Democrats (4/7/2012 7:07:34 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Aylee quote: Today women are just as fast, intelligent, and capable, and are a valued part of our military. Are they? Why then are there different ASPT results? OK, this deserves it's own response. First, let me ask you, is a soldier's ability to do 105 sit-ups in 2 minutes going to ever be used in a war zone? How about their ability to do 86 push-ups in 2 minutes? "Billy, we are being overrun, go do 86 push-ups or they will kill us all!" Sorry, doesn't seem likely. Now granted, the speed while running is probably important, except that it matters more how fast you run while carrying your gear, and we don't test that. What the ASPT is designed to test for is general physical fitness. It (like many things in life) is a compromise between the resources required for the test and the accuracy of results. Certainly we could put every service member through a battery of health tests, various physical training regimens, and combat stress tests and see how they did, getting a far more accurate measure of what the armed forces PT tests are designed to measure. Of course, that would take about 1 month per person, and would take a huge increase in the medical services corps. The "1 hour per 6 months," test that doesn't require medical except for an observer/EMT type in case of problems is a lot cheaper, for a slightly less efficient result. There was an article a while back I read about a sailor who ran marathons but failed the Body-Fat assessment. Why? Because the test the military uses first checks your weight/height ratio, then if that fails, checks the ratio of neck size to waistline. This guy had a lot of muscle mass and a small neck. So the question you should be asking is not "why are women allowed to do fewer push-ups and still pass," but "are more women than men failing the test?" The answer to that? No! Now, is it going to be harder for a 125 lb woman to put a 200 lb man in a fireman carry and get him to safety if he is unable to move on his own than vice-versa, certainly. It is, however, very doable. On the other hand, women's reflexes are slightly (but at a statistically significant level) better than men's. Women also have better breath control, which leads to better firearms accuracy. I'll leave it to you whether the person who is better at E and E or the person who fires a gun faster and more accurately is a better choice for a combat position.

Page: [1]

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.03125