Reply to Explain to me this portion of the pro-choice/pro-life argument

Forum Index » Political Discussion

Reply to "Explain to me this portion of the pro-choice/pro-life argument"

Subject:

Emoticons





More smilies

Text Color: Font: Close Marks

[quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous]Agree with many of the PP's, and you're right there is middle ground here.  I personally would like to see much less "war on women" bombs continually coming from the ladies of the DNC, because there truly isn't one. [/quote]As a rhetorical point you may be right.  It is not a real war.

And I realize that the party would like to attract women.

But face facts:  the party actively seeks legislation reducing rights of women. It opposes legislation meant to redress histnissan bias against women in the workplace.  Only 10% of house republicans are women.

So when the party is behind by 20% among women in a key state like Florida, it is not because of the attractiveness of the Democratic party. It is because they have been alienated by the GOP. [/quote]

There's presently six female governors...two are Democrats. Oh and for what it's worth, those two are "just" white. Why can't you be more inclusive to minorities like we Republicans?  Just curious. [/quote]

Ooh, 4 vs. 2.  That's really significant.  There are 241 Republicans in the House.  10% is pitiful.
[/quote]

Seriously?  You lost one race and one another, get over yourself. You see zero value in a female, daughter of immigrants as a role model simply because she's got an R after her name.  Get it together, you simply cannot qualify a woman in power's status on your ideology. [/quote]

I have no idea what you are talking about regarding a race we won or lost.  I am saying that there are too few female Republicans in the party.  I am inferring that it is because women are not comfortable in the party.  Yes, you have a few governors, maybe even 20-some in the house.  It's not enough.  You should have at least double that.[/quote]

Thanks, I didn't realize Larry Sabato was on here. [/quote]

Who the hell is Larry Sabato, and does it take some "expert" to see that the Republican Party is still too much of a men's club?  By the numbers, the Republican party is failing with women.  Failing at the polls and failing in Congress.  If you want to deny it, be my guest.  I'm happy knowing that you are working your way to permanent minority status.[/quote]

You seem to really try hard to be convincing, but it's just not working.  And you're a schmuck for not knowing who Sabato is. But unlike yourself or another hypocritical liberal here, I wouldn't suggest you have no business posting here, like was done to me.

Other than holding the House and coming within one or two of retaking the Senate, what's your definition of permanent minority status?[/quote]
Really I am supposed to know every College prof / turned talking head?  That is what qualifies as informed?  I can read. Tv news is second rate.

As for your question about what I mean about permanent minority status, I will let Republicans explain it to you. And I'll cite the Blaze so you know it's not trickery. 
http://www.theblaze.com/blog/2012/08/27/jeb-bush-dan-quayle-inclusion-republican-party/

[/quote]

Options

	Disable HTML in this message
	Disable BB Code in this message
	Disable smilies in this message

Review message

Search Recent Topics Hottest Topics