colourwheel Posted January 24, 2014 Author Share Posted January 24, 2014 (edited) But unless the Republican party all of a sudden fights to protect a womans reproductive rights, pay equity, etc... I don't see the gender gap closing anytime soon for the party... When you speak about women as though they all obviously agree with you about issues like reproductive rights you are the one who is demeaning others based on gender. Please, consider the possibility that there are women in the United States who hold the same views as Huckabee regarding reproductive rights and pay equity and who would strongly disagree with your political opinions regarding those issues, despite your gender similarity. I agree some woman but not nearly enough. As it may seem odd, some are quite comfortable having policies controlling their reproductive rights and being paid less than their male counter parts in the work place. But this effort to push these types of policies over all turn the heads of a majority of female voters. If the goal of the GOP is to close the gender gap within the party the social policies they push are not working. Even looking at the exit polls from past national election results can show the republican party has issues with female voters. Let me remind you Romney lost by over 11% of overall female voters in America and these numbers are not getting better for the party... After these demeaning comments from mike Huckabee at the RNC winter meeting seems the GOP has decided to get a "female" spokes person Cathy McMorris Rogers to give the republican response to Obama's state of the union address this year... Why do you place the word "female" inside quotation marks? Is she not female? Is she somehow less female because of her party affiliation? Also, why would you attack their choice of speaker based on her gender? Would you prefer a male speaker? You actually manage to sound more sexist in your remarks than any forward-thinking man ever would. Have you ever noticed when the republican party ever makes a gaffe either in insulting a race or a gender they always get a "head figure" to speak for the party. When ever there is a huge uproar in public speech gone wrong, such as ending up unintentionally denigrating a race or gender, The Republican party always quickly finds a head figure to speak for the party immediately as if this addresses their problems indefinately and fixes everything. Seemingly getting someone "female" to make a response to Obama's state of the union address this year... I have no problem with Cathy McMorris Rogers, other than the fact it was an odd choice for the republican party to quickly pick a nationally "unknown" to give the Republican response to Obama's State of the Union speech. Originally it was rumored Huckabee was going to be giving it... Seems like a huge change in heart... :laugh: The republican party has had a huge problem talking about or even talking to women as if they have never talked to women before in their lives... How do you propose they address this problem? They could stop talking about womens reproductive system. This could be a good start... :laugh: This might seem like a shock to some but there are more females voters in America than male voters. When a political party has policies which negatively effect any particular demographic group which makes up more than half of the nation, the party has a problem ideologically in my opinion.... Edited January 25, 2014 by colourwheel Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vagrant0 Posted January 24, 2014 Share Posted January 24, 2014 Have you ever noticed when the republican party ever makes a makes a gaffe either in insulting a race or a gender they always get a "head figure" to speak for the party. For example, electing Michael Steele as head of the party after Obama came into office as a means of trying to win-back the "black" vote. A decision that they pretty much regretted instantly. The problem isn't what they're trying to do, but rather HOW they're trying to do it. By framing "Women can have government prescriptions to pay for their birth (hormone) control medication" as "The Democratic party believes women are weak willed, and that women need government help in order to buy medicine to curb the consequences of their weakness"; you are creating a sort of logical disconnect. Meaning that they are trying to pass off their own beliefs in a negative way as being connected to someone else in order for them to try and look like they're trying to do something good. Doing it this way, they are also turning the whole basis of the argument solely around promiscuity instead of the greater variety of cases such government assistance can be applied to (many of them life threatening). It's just disingenuous, it's nothing new, and it's a clear sign that the party just doesn't know what battles are worth fighting any more. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RGMage2 Posted January 25, 2014 Share Posted January 25, 2014 Maybe it's time they stopped talking and started listening. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
colourwheel Posted January 25, 2014 Author Share Posted January 25, 2014 (edited) The problem isn't what they're trying to do, but rather HOW they're trying to do it. By framing "Women can have government prescriptions to pay for their birth (hormone) control medication" as "The Democratic party believes women are weak willed, and that women need government help in order to buy medicine to curb the consequences of their weakness"; you are creating a sort of logical disconnect. Meaning that they are trying to pass off their own beliefs in a negative way as being connected to someone else in order for them to try and look like they're trying to do something good. Doing it this way, they are also turning the whole basis of the argument solely around promiscuity instead of the greater variety of cases such government assistance can be applied to (many of them life threatening). It's just disingenuous, it's nothing new, and it's a clear sign that the party just doesn't know what battles are worth fighting any more. Even The RNC Chairman Reince Priebus tired to implore Republicans to improve their "tone" at the winter meeting. “I’ve said many times before that the policies and principles of our party are sound,” Priebus said in a Friday speech at the RNC winter meeting. “However, as we look to grow the ranks of our party, we must all be very conscious of the tone and choice of words we use to communicate those policies effectively.” I can agree with Priebus that the party needs to watch their "tone" but the party has a deeper issue they need to deal with other than how they try to communicate their so called sound policies and principles. "Priebus and his cronies gave near-unanimous approval Friday to a package of rules changes that would condense the 2016 presidential nominating calendar and help the party avoid the kind of protracted party infighting that dented GOP nominee Mitt Romney's general election appeal in 2012." The longer republican candidates discuss their policies in public, the more obvious their insidious duping becomes to conservatives. Their only hope is to 'lay low', misinform, attack democrats, and hope that conservative voters fail to actually look at what republicans are actually offering. Now Mike Huckabee has been "claiming" his speech wasn't even about contraception... This is after the fact that many reporters had decided to dig into Huckabee's political past when he refused to answer questions after his speech at the RNC meeting, finding in 2005 when he was Governor of Arkansas he signed into law mandating insurance plans provide contraception coverage in his state. The thought of government ensuring access to contraception was happily embraced by republicans only nine years ago... Shows how "extreme" the party has become since then... The republican party is so fractured internally, not only is there going to be a Republican response to Obama's State of the union address but a "rand Paul" response and a Tea party response this year... Edited January 25, 2014 by colourwheel Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HeyYou Posted January 25, 2014 Share Posted January 25, 2014 Maybe it's time they stopped talking and started listening.This. Of course, that would apply to all the political parties. They stopped listening to the people they ostensibly represent years ago. Now, government seems to be under the impression that they know what is 'best' for us, and pass laws, start wars, accordingly. Doesn't seem to matter that those social policies change with whichever political party has the ability to get their agenda passed. What we end up with is a mish-mash of legislation, that accomplishes nothing, except making the average americans life far more difficult than it really needs to be. What I would like to see happen is, DUMP 90% of the legislation restricting peoples rights to do with their own bodies/property what they will. But, that will never happen, as our government doesn't deem that to be in our best interests..... The ultimate nanny-state. Wonderful. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
colourwheel Posted January 25, 2014 Author Share Posted January 25, 2014 (edited) What I would like to see happen is, DUMP 90% of the legislation restricting peoples rights to do with their own bodies/property what they will. But, that will never happen, as our government doesn't deem that to be in our best interests..... The ultimate nanny-state. Wonderful. Just out of curiosity exactly what legislation would you want dumped that is restricting peoples rights to do with their own bodies/property what they will? Edited January 25, 2014 by colourwheel Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TRoaches Posted January 25, 2014 Share Posted January 25, 2014 I have no problem with Cathy McMorris Rogers, other than the fact it was an odd choice for the republican party to quickly pick a nationally "unknown" to give the Republican response to Obama's State of the Union speech. Originally it was rumored Huckabee was going to be giving it... Seems like a huge change in heart... :laugh:Do you remember when the Democrats chose a nationally unknown senator to give the keynote speech at the DNC in 2004? Would it have been appropriate for someone to say "well they just chose him because of his ethnicity!" when that unknown senator was chosen to speak? You are doing exactly this when you question their choice of speaker because of her gender. Bear in mind, the DNC keynote speech is, by any measure, a much bigger deal than the State of the Union rebuttal yet they went with a young and nationally unknown Senator. It turned out he did a pretty good job at that speech, and inspired quite a few people to support him and his party. They could stop talking about womens reproductive system. This could be a good start... Is it ok with you if Catchy Rodgers discusses issues regarding her own body, and the body of her daughter? Is she allowed to have an opinion in that area, even though she is a Republican? I suppose not, and she should just never mention such things again because Republicans should not talk about a woman's reproductive system, right? You should send her an email and tell her this, because she may have some ridiculous notion that her political opinions regarding her own body or the body of her daughter are relevant and legitimate. Cathy Rodgers, stop discussing your no-no area, you silly Republican! Just out of curiosity exactly what legislation would you want dumped that is restricting peoples rights to do with their own bodies/property what they will? Federal prohibition laws Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rizon72 Posted January 25, 2014 Share Posted January 25, 2014 Personally, I think Huckabee spoke a truth democrats want to ignore. The truth is the left can be just as nasty towards women as the right. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
colourwheel Posted January 25, 2014 Author Share Posted January 25, 2014 (edited) I have no problem with Cathy McMorris Rogers, other than the fact it was an odd choice for the republican party to quickly pick a nationally "unknown" to give the Republican response to Obama's State of the Union speech. Originally it was rumored Huckabee was going to be giving it... Seems like a huge change in heart... :laugh: Do you remember when the Democrats chose a nationally unknown senator to give the keynote speech at the DNC in 2004? Would it have been appropriate for someone to say "well they just chose him because of his ethnicity!" when that unknown senator was chosen to speak? You are doing exactly this when you question their choice of speaker because of her gender. Bear in mind, the DNC keynote speech is, by any measure, a much bigger deal than the State of the Union rebuttal yet they went with a young and nationally unknown Senator. It turned out he did a pretty good job at that speech, and inspired quite a few people to support him and his party. You are right Obama was an unknown back then. But he wasn't chosen in response to outrage from a speech made by another Democrat at a DNC event. Remember Huckabee was "rumored" as the person who was going to originally give the republican response to the state of the union address this year. Many people perceive this move of getting Cathy McMorris Roger to give the republican response this year as just a "head figure" in light of the embracing and inappropriate things said by Huckabee at the RNC winter meeting. Even women within the party were outraged by the comments made by Huckabee. The notion alone claiming that anyone has the belief that women can't control their "libidos" or reproductive system at the RNC meeting was completely inappropriate. Huckabee ended up denigrating women when trying to "claim" that democrats were the ones who were really denigrating women... :armscrossed: Is it ok with you if Catchy Rodgers discusses issues regarding her own body, and the body of her daughter? Is she allowed to have an opinion in that area, even though she is a Republican? I suppose not, and she should just never mention such things again because Republicans should not talk about a woman's reproductive system, right? You should send her an email and tell her this, because she may have some ridiculous notion that her political opinions regarding her own body or the body of her daughter are relevant and legitimate. Cathy Rodgers, stop discussing your no-no area, you silly Republican! I think your missing the point... Why even talk about a woman's reproductive system at all? You don't see Democrats talking about a woman's "libido", "legitimate rape", etc.. when they make any national speeches.... Just out of curiosity exactly what legislation would you want dumped that is restricting peoples rights to do with their own bodies/property what they will? Federal prohibition laws The question was for HeyYou... but claiming he wants "90% of legislation dumped that is restricting peoples rights to do with their own bodies/property what they will" is a little vague when your just saying "Federal prohibition laws". I was wanting something more specific since he said "90%" and not "all".... Edited January 25, 2014 by colourwheel Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TRoaches Posted January 25, 2014 Share Posted January 25, 2014 You are right Obama was an unknown back then. But he wasn't chosen in response to outrage from a speech made by another Democrat at a DNC event. Why was he chosen? Remember Huckabee was "rumored" as the person who was going to originally give the republican response to the state of the union address this year. No, because I don't pay attention to rumors. They are usually irrelevant and come from a dubious source, like a "party official who spoke to us on the condition of anonymity". The notion alone claiming that anyone has the belief that women can't control their "libidos" or reproductive system at the RNC meeting is inappropriate. I agree, and that is why I am happy to see Huckabee get tossed aside by the party. It is also why I am happy to see a woman being given the opportunity to represent the party. I just can't wrap my head around why you are opposed to the concept. I think your missing the point... Why even talk about a woman's reproductive system at all? Because it is exactly the kind of wedge issue that the major parties like to focus on and thereby encourage you and others, republican and democrat alike, to focus on so that they can work in lockstep to support their common financial interests and profit from our government's imperialism and our corporation's destruction of our society and cultures. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts