Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: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.

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.

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.

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

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.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: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.

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.

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.

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

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: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.

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.

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.

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

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: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.

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.

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.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: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.

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.

Anonymous wrote: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.

Anonymous wrote: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.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:For the person who asked about reconciling the belief of when life begins with abortion: I am rabidly pro choice. I am *personally" anti abortion. As in I had an unwanted pregnancy that I knew would totally f*ck up my life (birth control failure while married). But I had and kept the baby anyway and am still wrestling with the consequences today. I personally couldn't look at the child I already had and destroy what in my mind was another copy of her in the making. I knew I would not be able to live with that ghost on my conscience. But I am glad I had a choice and glad my daughters will have a choice.

I believe that life is present from conception and that a zygote, a fetus, grows into a BABY. I don't think a zygote is the same thing as a baby, or that a fetus is a baby. I think a zygote or fetus has life, is a potential person, but is not a person YET. When that line is crossed, I have to leave to science, theologians, and law. I think that limiting abortion to the first trimester is fine. I DON'T want the Arizona legislature passing laws about when my pregnancy begins (two weeks from last period..... It's a miracle! I'm pregnant RIGHT NOW!). That determination should be left to a woman and her doctor. Some women can be OK with (or feel forced to) end that emerging life. Others like me, couldn't. But I don't think MY beliefs shoudl dictate other women's choices.

I believe abortion should be legal but discouraged as much as possible by providing alternatives to women. By increasing availability of birth control, sex ed, and economic alternatives that encourage life instead of abortion. Basically, everything Republicans don't want to pay for.

I am rabidly pro-life and I completely agree with increasing availability of birth control, sex ed (including emotional aspects, not just mechanics) and any other alternative that prevents unwanted pregnancies and promotes life.

Anonymous wrote:For the person who asked about reconciling the belief of when life begins with abortion: I am rabidly pro choice. I am *personally" anti abortion. As in I had an unwanted pregnancy that I knew would totally f*ck up my life (birth control failure while married). But I had and kept the baby anyway and am still wrestling with the consequences today. I personally couldn't look at the child I already had and destroy what in my mind was another copy of her in the making. I knew I would not be able to live with that ghost on my conscience. But I am glad I had a choice and glad my daughters will have a choice.

I believe that life is present from conception and that a zygote, a fetus, grows into a BABY. I don't think a zygote is the same thing as a baby, or that a fetus is a baby. I think a zygote or fetus has life, is a potential person, but is not a person YET. When that line is crossed, I have to leave to science, theologians, and law. I think that limiting abortion to the first trimester is fine. I DON'T want the Arizona legislature passing laws about when my pregnancy begins (two weeks from last period..... It's a miracle! I'm pregnant RIGHT NOW!). That determination should be left to a woman and her doctor. Some women can be OK with (or feel forced to) end that emerging life. Others like me, couldn't. But I don't think MY beliefs shoudl dictate other women's choices.

I believe abortion should be legal but discouraged as much as possible by providing alternatives to women. By increasing availability of birth control, sex ed, and economic alternatives that encourage life instead of abortion. Basically, everything Republicans don't want to pay for.