Republican War Against Women Continues

Republican War Against Women Continues

Posted in the Keavy Forum

First Prev
of 18
Next Last

Since: Sep 09

o------------><-----------o

#1 Jan 24, 2013
Before the election I posted a thread with a list of some of the attacks the Republican Party was making against us. If anyone wishes to read it I'll post the link.

http://www.topix.com/forum/city/london-ky/TC6...

But the fact that their attacks on our (women's) rights cost them the election the Republican Party hasn't learned a thing from it. It's continuing.

Since the election another Republican leader has said we cannot become pregnant from rape.

Now there is this .....

A New Mexico Republican bill would criminalize abortions after rape ..... get this one ..... as 'Tampering With Evidence'.

It would legally require rape victims to carry their pregnancies to term in order to use the fetus as evidence for a rape trial.

The bill would add this as a new section to the law covering tampering with evidence .....

"Tampering with evidence shall include procuring or facilitating an abortion, or compelling or coercing another to obtain an abortion, of a fetus that is the result of criminal sexual penetration or incest with the intent to destroy evidence of the crime."

Notice also there is 'no' exclusion for children impregnated by rape or incest, or for pregnancies which could for health reasons endanger the life of the rape victim.

Judged:

25

25

23

Reply »
Report Abuse Judge it!

Since: Sep 09

o------------><-----------o

#2 Jan 24, 2013
Another observation ..... who most is opposing the new military policy permitting women to defend their own nation? The Conservatives.
Bonita

London, KY

#3 Jan 24, 2013
Too bad they didn't call in a drone on Hillary. Afterall, today, what would it matter? Not all women just those worthy.
truth

Barnesville, GA

#4 Jan 24, 2013
Hillary was paid off to lie. The day before hearing after 4 years her campaign debt from 2008 was paid off. I guess that was just an accident
SpeakUp

Eustis, FL

#6 Jan 24, 2013
truth wrote:
Hillary was paid off to lie. The day before hearing after 4 years her campaign debt from 2008 was paid off. I guess that was just an accident
YOU are a blatent liar. Hillary is very smart. Your Republican Senator couldn't hold his own with her, so you have to find some justification now don't you? Face it. You're a WEAK lot. Here's the deal. You Right Wingers don't pay as much attention to detail as we and that's a proven fact. You can't win an election because you get caught up in your own lies. You haven't won one battle against us yet. And........you won't.
SpeakUp

Eustis, FL

#7 Jan 24, 2013
___Jenny___ wrote:
Before the election I posted a thread with a list of some of the attacks the Republican Party was making against us. If anyone wishes to read it I'll post the link.
http://www.topix.com/forum/city/london-ky/TC6...
But the fact that their attacks on our (women's) rights cost them the election the Republican Party hasn't learned a thing from it. It's continuing.
Since the election another Republican leader has said we cannot become pregnant from rape.
Now there is this .....
A New Mexico Republican bill would criminalize abortions after rape ..... get this one ..... as 'Tampering With Evidence'.
It would legally require rape victims to carry their pregnancies to term in order to use the fetus as evidence for a rape trial.
The bill would add this as a new section to the law covering tampering with evidence .....
"Tampering with evidence shall include procuring or facilitating an abortion, or compelling or coercing another to obtain an abortion, of a fetus that is the result of criminal sexual penetration or incest with the intent to destroy evidence of the crime."
Notice also there is 'no' exclusion for children impregnated by rape or incest, or for pregnancies which could for health reasons endanger the life of the rape victim.
I hadn't heard that one Jen. Thanks for posting it. Unbelievable! The Republicans act like women are just flat out machinery of some kind that can be used and abused. All they are doing is, more and more, giving the male species a free ride to do whatever they choose. This reminds me of back in the day when law enforcement couldn't get a DNA from an accused prisoner for rape because it would "violate their rights". They can violate women, but not their rights. LGMS
SpeakUp

Eustis, FL

#10 Jan 24, 2013
I grant you that not every woman that serves in the military is what you are calling them nor should it frankly matter and it's quite clear, your reference to our President is also extremely racist, not to mention unacceptable. There's always one who things they are bigger, better, stronger, smarter than the next. Apparently, you are one of them. And furthermore, our President wasn't old enough to serve in Viet Nam. He was only in his early 40's when he took office, 8 yrs. after your party felt a bloody war was necessary to take down one man unlike our current President who called the shots that got rid of the world's #1 terrorist in one flash.

So while you're drowning in your ego, I assume your soldierhood might need questioned when you obviously didn't support your colleagues in the military, female or otherwise. Any person who risks his/her life in the military desserves honor. Apparently you must feel that rule applies only to.....self?
glitter

Greenbrier, AR

#11 Jan 24, 2013
I hope things keep changing for the better and don't get set backwards. we don't even need a male to cosign for a loan if we want to buy a house for ourselves these days.
.
unlike a friend of mine when she bought her house 30 years ago. bank wouldn't let her buy unless she had a male relative cosign it for her. she ended up having to have her brother be the one. even though he didn't live there.
Patriot

London, KY

#12 Jan 25, 2013
Was the NJ Senator caught protecting a convicted child sex offender from deportation and arrest? Buying little girls in the DomRep for sex. Was it the Republicans that protected him and his proclivities until after the women voted in the election?

You know the answer. This Democrat is a baby raper and had an illegal baby raper in his employee. They found out all of this abuse of females long before the election.

They kept it quite just like it was "war plans." That is exactly what it was. Yes there is a battle being waged and it is against America.
Patriot

London, KY

#13 Jan 25, 2013
glitter wrote:
I hope things keep changing for the better and don't get set backwards. we don't even need a male to cosign for a loan if we want to buy a house for ourselves these days.
.
unlike a friend of mine when she bought her house 30 years ago. bank wouldn't let her buy unless she had a male relative cosign it for her. she ended up having to have her brother be the one. even though he didn't live there.
30 years ago the one thing banks cared about. WILL THE LOAN BE REPAID. They didn't care one bit to loan my relatives, male or female?

Since: Sep 09

o------------><-----------o

#14 Jan 25, 2013
Patriot wrote:
<quoted text>
30 years ago the one thing banks cared about. WILL THE LOAN BE REPAID. They didn't care one bit to loan my relatives, male or female?
I would say her story is very true. A lot of banks and loan companies did that, particularly in rural farming areas. A closely related example is in the early nineteen-nineties my parents bought a home. The house is and the loan was in both their names. But the loan company 'required' the primary borrower to be my dad. Even though the loan and house was in both their names my dad had to sign a paper giving my mom permission in the future to speak with company representatives and make decisions in his name (instead of him). My mom said it totally peeved her off because it was like something right out of middle-eastern sharia.
Patriot

London, KY

#15 Jan 25, 2013
___Jenny___ wrote:
<quoted text>
I would say her story is very true. A lot of banks and loan companies did that, particularly in rural farming areas. A closely related example is in the early nineteen-nineties my parents bought a home. The house is and the loan was in both their names. But the loan company 'required' the primary borrower to be my dad. Even though the loan and house was in both their names my dad had to sign a paper giving my mom permission in the future to speak with company representatives and make decisions in his name (instead of him). My mom said it totally peeved her off because it was like something right out of middle-eastern sharia.
Funny, my parents had good credit. Never used it but it was always being offered? Tell them to pay their bills and live within their meager means.

Since: Sep 09

o------------><-----------o

#16 Jan 25, 2013
Patriot wrote:
<quoted text>
Funny, my parents had good credit. Never used it but it was always being offered? Tell them to pay their bills and live within their meager means.
Their credit was good. The loan company had no problems with giving the loan. They both were college graduates and were at that time, and still are, equal owners of a company with several branches in various states. The issue is that the loan company required my dad be the primary borrower and even though my mom was on the loan papers the company required she had to have my dad's written permission to conduct business pertaining to the loan. Why? Only due to her being a woman and not a man.
Patriot

London, KY

#17 Jan 25, 2013
___Jenny___ wrote:
<quoted text>
Their credit was good. The loan company had no problems with giving the loan. They both were college graduates and were at that time, and still are, equal owners of a company with several branches in various states. The issue is that the loan company required my dad be the primary borrower and even though my mom was on the loan papers the company required she had to have my dad's written permission to conduct business pertaining to the loan. Why? Only due to her being a woman and not a man.
Sure banks try to figure out how to take excessive risk. Maybe they weren't risky enough. Picking up cans across state lines even for college grads is honest work.

Since: Sep 09

o------------><-----------o

#18 Jan 25, 2013
Patriot wrote:
<quoted text>
Sure banks try to figure out how to take excessive risk. Maybe they weren't risky enough. Picking up cans across state lines even for college grads is honest work.
2016, here comes another Democrat win. You guys are repeating history like watching a rerun on TV.
SpeakUp

Eustis, FL

#19 Jan 25, 2013
Patriot wrote:
<quoted text>
30 years ago the one thing banks cared about. WILL THE LOAN BE REPAID. They didn't care one bit to loan my relatives, male or female?
And speaking of 30 yrs. ago, you are a liar. If you did have a spouse in the household, that spouse did have to sign for a mortgage or about anything else, because fact is, they did want to ensure the Underwriters that loan would be repaid. IF one is single without a spouse in the household, then it would be based upon that person only. If their income permitted it, then they get it.

You do have to face it though. Men, as important as we women feel they are to carry the 50# sacks, are slowly becoming a more useless species. We freeze your sperm, so the rest of you is really not needed. We can learn faster than you. We statistically have more intelligence than you. We grow up faster than you. We bear the children. We can work. We have a brain. And since in 20 years+ from now, robots will do your work, voice activation will put you out to pasture, you may as well start preplanning now. See your Advisor. They will be developing "Male Management" accounts the same as now they have "wealth management" accounts. Trust me. It helps to preplan.

So tell me now, the floor is yours. What purpose do you serve?
SpeakUp

Eustis, FL

#20 Jan 25, 2013
Just think, if males hadn't exercised being so dominant over time, we wouldn't be having this conversation. We really are capable of voting. We really are capable of working and often earning more than the male in some cases because we tend to want to become more educated. And tell me when the male species would like to take over childbirth and I'm sure there are women that would be more than happy to turn that over to you! In the meantime, find yourself a pound of hamburger and get your drill out.

Since: Sep 09

o------------><-----------o

#21 Jan 25, 2013
SpeakUp wrote:
<quoted text>
And speaking of 30 yrs. ago, you are a liar. If you did have a spouse in the household, that spouse did have to sign for a mortgage or about anything else, because fact is, they did want to ensure the Underwriters that loan would be repaid. IF one is single without a spouse in the household, then it would be based upon that person only. If their income permitted it, then they get it.
You do have to face it though. Men, as important as we women feel they are to carry the 50# sacks, are slowly becoming a more useless species. We freeze your sperm, so the rest of you is really not needed. We can learn faster than you. We statistically have more intelligence than you. We grow up faster than you. We bear the children. We can work. We have a brain. And since in 20 years+ from now, robots will do your work, voice activation will put you out to pasture, you may as well start preplanning now. See your Advisor. They will be developing "Male Management" accounts the same as now they have "wealth management" accounts. Trust me. It helps to preplan.
So tell me now, the floor is yours. What purpose do you serve?
SpeakUp wrote:
<quoted text>
You do have to face it though. Men, as important as we women feel they are to carry the 50# sacks, are slowly becoming a more useless species. We freeze your sperm, so the rest of you is really not needed. We can learn faster than you. We statistically have more intelligence than you. We grow up faster than you. We bear the children. We can work. We have a brain. And since in 20 years+ from now, robots will do your work, voice activation will put you out to pasture, you may as well start preplanning now. See your Advisor. They will be developing "Male Management" accounts the same as now they have "wealth management" accounts. Trust me. It helps to preplan.
.....>laughing<.....

Awesome.
Patriot

London, KY

#22 Jan 25, 2013
SpeakUp wrote:
<quoted text>
And speaking of 30 yrs. ago, you are a liar. If you did have a spouse in the household, that spouse did have to sign for a mortgage or about anything else, because fact is, they did want to ensure the Underwriters that loan would be repaid. IF one is single without a spouse in the household, then it would be based upon that person only. If their income permitted it, then they get it.
You do have to face it though. Men, as important as we women feel they are to carry the 50# sacks, are slowly becoming a more useless species. We freeze your sperm, so the rest of you is really not needed. We can learn faster than you. We statistically have more intelligence than you. We grow up faster than you. We bear the children. We can work. We have a brain. And since in 20 years+ from now, robots will do your work, voice activation will put you out to pasture, you may as well start preplanning now. See your Advisor. They will be developing "Male Management" accounts the same as now they have "wealth management" accounts. Trust me. It helps to preplan.
So tell me now, the floor is yours. What purpose do you serve?
LOL. Then I guess mom and dad and later on only mom had good credit. I am sorry about your lot. No wonder you left those deadbeats in Apeyard.
real

Mount Vernon, KY

#23 Jan 25, 2013
SpeakUp wrote:
Just think, if males hadn't exercised being so dominant over time, we wouldn't be having this conversation. We really are capable of voting. We really are capable of working and often earning more than the male in some cases because we tend to want to become more educated. And tell me when the male species would like to take over childbirth and I'm sure there are women that would be more than happy to turn that over to you! In the meantime, find yourself a pound of hamburger and get your drill out.
One more graduate from Bush's talking points and speaking skills class, gggggreat.

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker
First Prev
of 18
Next Last

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Keavy Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
Natural Gas well theft in Clay County Ky (Jun '12) 2 hr Another victim 11
How to make someone racist 4 hr wowed 4
Libs dem demand new York be nuke 4 hr wowed 5
Kentucky is Cracking Down on Annoyance 4 hr Social Services 1
trump 5 hr wowed 18
News Bible study rules for public schools proposed (Feb '10) 5 hr know 166,372
Can Christians Backslide and Go to Hell? (Nov '08) 7 hr MikePeralta 431

Keavy Jobs

More from around the web

Personal Finance

Keavy Mortgages