What about this "War on Women" Business?

[3DOCTORS]

Having read most of this board I think a caution is in order. The Wade case is studied in Constitutional law, not because it is seminal but rather because it is based on Griswold and was the culmination of over fifty years of effort to legalize abortion.

Opinion
The above referenced effort was religious bigotry aimed at Catholics. The use of the term 'against women" was found to be the most effective and that methodology is still in use today. Make no mistake, authority over human life belongs to God alone. Make no mistake, there are religious bigots out there. We will never eliminate sin, we may assist other sinners.

OK, now I’m more confused than ever. Clarification please?

 

[Lujack]

So you’re admitting there is no “War on Womyn”?

I’m not admitting that either. I’m saying that the Republican Party has, at the very least, an image problem on this issue, and by not quickly repudiating and distancing themselves from Limbaugh and his ilk, they are making it worse.

I’m sure you feigned the same outrage when Maher was calling anyone he didn’t agree with every bad name in the book.

Actually, I did and so did many other people. I’ve never liked Bill Maher.

But you’re walking right into it-Rush Limbaugh called a college student who wasn’t a public figure a slut and said she should make sex tapes. People say that’s offensive and shouldn’t be done; you say “But, but, but…Bill Maher!”

 

[Lujack]

What good is a friend who demands that you read his favorite talking heads, but refuses to read yours? It’s simple mutual respect. If they refuse to read anything but Soros backed websites, then Kool-aid drinkers are what they are.

If I put my Facebook status as a link from ThinkProgress or if you put yours as a link from the National Review, neither of us is demanding that anyone else read it. If you don’t care for that Facebook status, then just ignore it and comment on their Facebook status about the Knicks game. If you feel like getting into a debate, get into a debate. If someone is posting nothing but political things and this annoys you, unsubscribe.

Nobody posting things on Facebook is putting a gun to your head and reading the things you link in your status.

If you care enough about someone to try to maintain a friendship with them, calling them kool-aid drinkers is a good way to drive them away. Its one thing to call me that-you don’t know me from Adam; but presumably you want to continue getting along with people who you are friends with on Facebook and you don’t have to turn a debate insulting.

 

[LegoGE1947]

Most of their sources I find highly suspect. Blogs and Alex Jones? Really? This is what passes for sources these days?

The Alex Jones I know of is a former black pentacostal preacher from Detroit who after doing a series of bible studies on the early church became Catholic along with much of his church. He is now a deacon with the ArchDiocese of Detroit. His story which was filmed and shown on EWTN was partly responsible for my conversion to the Catholic Church. Is there another Alex Jones I don’t know about or is this the same Alex Jones I am describing?

 

[3DOCTORS]

I would really appreciate it if this thread got back on topic . . . pretty please?

 

[IrishRush]

This.

Not sure what you mean by “This.”

 

[IrishRush]

But you’re walking right into it-Rush Limbaugh called a college student who wasn’t a public figure a slut and said she should make sex tapes. People say that’s offensive and shouldn’t be done; you say “But, but, but…Bill Maher!”

Nobody says “But, but, but…Bill Maher!” What is being said is that there is a double standard at play here. While Rush Limbaugh was, rightly, castigated for his horrible comments, Bill Maher is given a pass on theings he has said so many times, that are even worse, about people like Sarah Palin. For some reason, our media finds attacks on Republican or conservative women (Palin, Bachmann) acceptable but cannot tolerate anything said about any woman who supports the Democrats and liberal left. None of it is acceptable, and the blatant media bias is pretty sickening as well.

And for what it’s worth, Fluke, who is a grad student not a college student - there is quite a difference there - made herself a public figure by playing into the Democrats hands to get her 15 minutes of fame. And she’s not the innocent the media tries to make her out to be in this - she has quite a history of activism in this area (pro-abortion movement).

 

[Lujack]

Nobody says “But, but, but…Bill Maher!” What is being said is that there is a double standard at play here. While Rush Limbaugh was, rightly, castigated for his horrible comments, Bill Maher is given a pass on theings he has said so many times, that are even worse, about people like Sarah Palin. For some reason, our media finds attacks on Republican or conservative women (Palin, Bachmann) acceptable but cannot tolerate anything said about any woman who supports the Democrats and liberal left. None of it is acceptable, and the blatant media bias is pretty sickening as well.

There is not a double standard-Bill Maher gets castigated all the time, and he doesn’t have anything to do with Sandra Fluke. Bringing him up is nothing but a red herring.

And for what it’s worth, Fluke, who is a grad student not a college student - there is quite a difference there - made herself a public figure by playing into the Democrats hands to get her 15 minutes of fame. And she’s not the innocent the media tries to make her out to be in this - she has quite a history of activism in this area (pro-abortion movement).

What’s her history of activism? She still didn’t run for public office or hold prominent position. What was she, in campus organizations?

And she is a full-time student at a university. That’s a college student.

And there you go again-“What Rush Limbaugh said was bad, but double standard…Bill Maher…she’s not an innocent…”

 

[BrJuniper]

OK, now I’m more confused than ever. Clarification please?

Space makes this difficult. There are phrases used in society that are intentionally ad populem. They are “come upon” in meetings with the purpose of being connotatively effective. Exigite the phrase “War on women”. There is no war. Thus it is designed for a pure emotional response, in order to control the dialogue. This is very common, taught to many and very effective if your audience is ignorant of Logic.

Does that help?

 

[nordskoven]

This is the Satanic war on Woman & Seed, the Genesis 3:15 mandate given as God cursing Lucifer and his seed with the Woman & Seed. Catholics act nice. The bishops tried compromise with HHS, projecting altruistic motives on the not-so-nice. “By their fruits you will know them.” Janet Reno, as accused serial rapist Clinton’s Attorney General, filed an amicus brief supporting a defendant who was charged with child pornography. The accused was taking pictures of boys dropping their trousers and girls lifting their skirts at playgrounds. There is no mission creep here. Just creeps on a mission against women and children.

When you triple a woman’s chances of breast cancer with an elective abortion–cash up front, please–it’s soft kill genocide, Margaret Sanger’s wish to kill all brown-eyed people fulfilled as Planned Parenthood clinics perch vulture-like around African neighborhoods. The party of elitists that opposed Lincoln should be given their due. They are wise as serpents and harmless as doves. Time for Catholics to realize this is war, and first use all the spiritual weapons: prayer, fasting and almsgiving. May God lavishly bless our Lenten penance and unite us in the resurrection and eternal life of Chirst.

 

[BrJuniper]

This is the Satanic war on Woman & Seed, the Genesis 3:15 mandate given as God cursing Lucifer and his seed with the Woman & Seed. Catholics act nice. The bishops tried compromise with HHS, projecting altruistic motives on the not-so-nice. “By their fruits you will know them.” Janet Reno, as accused serial rapist Clinton’s Attorney General, filed an amicus brief supporting a defendant who was charged with child pornography. The accused was taking pictures of boys dropping their trousers and girls lifting their skirts at playgrounds. There is no mission creep here. Just creeps on a mission against women and children.

When you triple a woman’s chances of breast cancer with an elective abortion–cash up front, please–it’s soft kill genocide, Margaret Sanger’s wish to kill all brown-eyed people fulfilled as Planned Parenthood clinics perch vulture-like around African neighborhoods. The party of elitists that opposed Lincoln should be given their due. They are wise as serpents and harmless as doves. Time for Catholics to realize this is war, and first use all the spiritual weapons: prayer, fasting and almsgiving. May God lavishly bless our Lenten penance and unite us in the resurrection and eternal life of Chirst.

wow…so much for reason.

 

[HelenRose]

Fine. Read their stuff and respond. Then ask them how much reading they are doing of First Things or National Review. When they answer none, expose them for being ignorant of opposing arguments and leftist Koolaid drinkers.

It’s not like they are making any serious points. Law MUST be fair and impartial. Laws that create special provisions for certain peoples undermine the basic purpose of law. To oppose such faulty laws is hardly a ‘war’ on the proposed special class of person. This is why I oppose ‘hate crime’ laws and similar things. Violence should be punished for what it is, not what motivated it.

I have never understood “Hate Crime Laws” When anyone beats ups and kills another person hate is the motive. It would hardly make any difference to me if I were badly beaten and/or raped by a black, hispanic, or anglo man. I would want this person locked up for good.

 

[3DOCTORS]

Space makes this difficult. There are phrases used in society that are intentionally ad populem. They are “come upon” in meetings with the purpose of being connotatively effective. Exigite the phrase “War on women”. There is no war. Thus it is designed for a pure emotional response, in order to control the dialogue. This is very common, taught to many and very effective if your audience is ignorant of Logic.

Does that help?

Thanks - yes, I have been studying fallacies in argumentation (a good thing for anyone in an election year to brush up on, IMO ) so I see what they’re trying to do. It just seemed as if people on this thread were saying I was sinful for investigating the whole business. Oh, well, I guess I should just stop worrying what others think, I know what my purpose was, right!?

 

[scipio337]

I’m not admitting that either. I’m saying that the Republican Party has, at the very least, an image problem on this issue, and by not quickly repudiating and distancing themselves from Limbaugh and his ilk, they are making it worse.

Actually, I did and so did many other people. I’ve never liked Bill Maher.

But you’re walking right into it-Rush Limbaugh called a college student who wasn’t a public figure a slut and said she should make sex tapes. People say that’s offensive and shouldn’t be done; you say “But, but, but…Bill Maher!”

I’ve said what Rush has done was wrong, and I don’t fall into the “tu quoque” trap.

The point isn’t that Rush Limbaugh is a bigger tool than liberals who resort to sad-sack sexist japes. It’s that there’s a serious double-standard when it comes to demeaning conservative women.

 

[Daizies]

The Alex Jones I know of is a former black pentacostal preacher from Detroit who after doing a series of bible studies on the early church became Catholic along with much of his church. He is now a deacon with the ArchDiocese of Detroit. His story which was filmed and shown on EWTN was partly responsible for my conversion to the Catholic Church. Is there another Alex Jones I don’t know about or is this the same Alex Jones I am describing?

No, I am referring to Alex Jones the Libertarian Conspiracy theorist. He is a radio host of sorts, and runs websites like infowars and prison planet. (although after I looked more closely at the sources, I mixed up one of them with a very similar name - my bad) I’ve seen some of his documentaries, if you can call them that, and they are very over the top, with many non-prove-able assertions.

I still stand by what I said about sources. The problem with the internet is you can find sources that say pretty much anything. That was my issue with the original site. I have no problem with people reading up on opposing beliefs, I often do the same thing. However, sources are very important - a blog is a person’s opinion, not fact. And sadly there are also many sites that pass themselves off as “journalism” when it is again, opinion pieces. If all they can reference is opinion pieces, and I cannot verify the information via a third party (like another reliable source) then they are not worth my time.

Specifically as it relates to the website in the original post, when I went through the sources of their list, either the sources did not support the conclusion they posted, or the source was not credible.

 

[Lujack]

I have never understood “Hate Crime Laws” When anyone beats ups and kills another person hate is the motive. It would hardly make any difference to me if I were badly beaten and/or raped by a black, hispanic, or anglo man. I would want this person locked up for good.

The purpose of hate crime laws is pretty simple, actually. Beating someone up is a crime against that person (assault). Beating someone up because they are Irish/gay/Jewish/Catholic/speak Spanish is both a crime against that person (assault) and a crime against every other Irish/gay/Jewish/Catholic/Spanish speaker (attempting to send a message that “we don’t like your kind, don’t come around here”). It should be punished more severely for that reason. Also, hate crimes are one of many recidivism factors. Just like a man who is perpetually a violent drunk is more likely to commit crimes again, a man who hates the Irish so much he wants to beat all of them into submission is more likely to act again.

 

[tomarin]

Let’s look at the sequence of events. The first thing that happened was Obama’s promulgation of the HHS mandate which threw Catholics under the bus. That caused outrage even among liberal Catholics. The HHS mandate was clearly a war on religious freedom and the outcry for some reason surprised the administration. They tried to craft a fake compromise, but it was too late. Now, every bishop in the U.S. has announced opposition to the mandate including the fake compromise. Several Catholic and non-Catholic institutions have filed suit against the HHS.

The administration’s response was to make up a “war on women” where there is none. That’s what Sandra Fluke was all about. That’s the new narrative which will justify a de facto war on the Catholic Church.

I could not agree more with this post.

 

[nordskoven]

The “enmity” between Satan and his seed and Woman & Seed continues. The FBI statistics on hate crimes do not include females. This parallels the FBI’s refusal to gather statistics on rape victims (statistically somewhat more likely to be female) under the age of 12 because sexologist and lobbyist for legalized sex with minors, Alfred “Proc” Kinsey, claimed that children, even infants six months of age, enjoy sex with adults. Kinsey, who posited all normal people were bisexual, died of the consequences of hanging himself by his privates.

A recent legislative proposal to include violence against pregnant females under hate crime legislation was rejected by the Democrats. Know the enemy. “We fight not against men, but against [evil] powers and principalities.” This is not so much a political issue as a religious issue, the Genesis 3:15 wolf in political sheep’s clothing. The rap sheet of the infiltrated Democrat party’s crimes against women spins onward and downward. Lincoln’s party created WIC programs providing for women, infants and children’s nutrition. Lincoln’s opponents have brought America’s population growth to…death, with America now below the population replacement rate. This is particularly true in African communities who are serviced by racist founder Margaret Sanger’s Planned Parenthood, darling of the Progressives, not the Susan B. Anthony feminists.

"Crime reported to the FBI involve those motivated by biases based on race, religion, sexual orientation, ethnicity/national origin, and disability."

---

This is the from the FBI’s website. No mention of females. This shows the institutionalized effort to obscure the rate of criminal violence against women and children. Affront is selective, ignoring the corrupt elitists in government, as those shown in the Franklin Savings & Loan child procurement scandal; Barney Franks’ gay prostitution ring; Bill Clinton’s alleged long-term victimization of women; Janet Reno’s support of kiddie porn; all contradistinct from Reagan’s pornography crack-down and Colin Powell’s international effort to stop the sex trafficking in women and children, including the criminal prosecution of perps in America for crimes committed abroad.

The media’s selective memory is spearheaded by a preacher, not of fundamentalism, but of Progressivism, with the man in charge of “Beelzebubba’s” so-called “Bimbo Eruptions,” women claiming sexual assault by the then-Democratic candidate and future president, mediating Republican presidential candidate debates. Conservatives are bribed and bullied into submission and the war against Woman & Seed continues. Wield spiritual weapons. “Pray and work.” Prayer first. Prayer, fasting and almsgiving are the winners’ weapons. That’s the reason for the season. Do please keep me in prayer. Thanks and God bless, protect, defend and grant victory to His children, His elect, His Church that exalts the lowly Woman & Seed.

 

[_Abyssinia]

There is no war on women in America just because employers want to keep the rights that they have had for 200 years, to not pay for services in health insurance they find objectionable. For anybody to say their is a war on women in America just because there are people that want religious freedom, which is guaranteed anyway in the first amendment needs to think about the countries where women can not drive or vote.

 

[LegoGE1947]

No, I am referring to Alex Jones the Libertarian Conspiracy theorist. He is a radio host of sorts, and runs websites like infowars and prison planet. (although after I looked more closely at the sources, I mixed up one of them with a very similar name - my bad) I’ve seen some of his documentaries, if you can call them that, and they are very over the top, with many non-prove-able assertions.

I still stand by what I said about sources. The problem with the internet is you can find sources that say pretty much anything. That was my issue with the original site. I have no problem with people reading up on opposing beliefs, I often do the same thing. However, sources are very important - a blog is a person’s opinion, not fact. And sadly there are also many sites that pass themselves off as “journalism” when it is again, opinion pieces. If all they can reference is opinion pieces, and I cannot verify the information via a third party (like another reliable source) then they are not worth my time.

Specifically as it relates to the website in the original post, when I went through the sources of their list, either the sources did not support the conclusion they posted, or the source was not credible.

Thank you. The “Alex Jones” you describe I have never heard of. I will agree with your statement about being able to find sources on Internet that say just about anything. And I have seen so called “journalism” websites that are really just expressions of opinion. There are anti-catholic books such as the book by Loraine Boettner that blasts Catholicism by giving “quotes” with no mention of any sources. I forget the name of this book but it is talked about in Karl Keetings book “Catholicism & Fundamentalism”