To quote R_D ... Fuck you ... (and the horse you rode in on).
I won't go so far as to claim that you hate Obama because he's black but I can't recall your posting anything complimentary about the man. You seem to go out of your way to criticize him, though. IIRC you view the bailout of the economy and the Big Three automakers on Obama's watch as a Wall Street bailout with no benefit for the average American. And the ACA is a big sop for insurance companies.
Another case in point: your question about why Obama didn't push for federal law on abortion rights. Let's blame Barack! A shame you didn't try to address my points about those times btw. Were you in a coma back then, Kurt? Have you forgotten what the hell happened or are you just sticking to what Donnie and Tucker are telling you?
I also consider Trump's hatred of Obama and your knee-jerk adherence to Trump's views. So no, you ain't fooling no one.
Yes, they should have, even if it would have meant we'd be listening to you and your fellow minions screeching about government overreach and states' rights. Frankly, they also underestimated the extent of fascism in this country, which is likely another reason for their lack of action.
Democrats in Congress are not nearly as monolithic and sheep-like as their Republican counterparts. An attempt at passing federal law permitting abortion would have split the party. And why would Obama try to touch that third-rail issue when Roe v. Wade stood and SCOTUS was not yet lousy with lying idiots like Barrett and Crybaby Kavanaugh?
Finally, perhaps Kurt doesn't remember that Obama was pretty f*ckin' busy trying to save the American economy from complete collapse. Dubya's Secretary of Treasury (and former chairman of Goldman Sachs) Hank Paulson could tell Kurt all about that.
Oh, and Obama got the ACA passed. But Obama's a black guy whom Trump hates so Kurt hates him too.
Location: Perched on the precipice of the cauldron of truth
Posted:
Jun 27, 2022 - 2:30pm
maryte wrote:
Yes, they should have, even if it would have meant we'd be listening to you and your fellow minions screeching about government overreach and states' rights. Frankly, they also underestimated the extent of fascism in this country, which is likely another reason for their lack of action.
I think there are many of us who fall into that group!
Location: Blinding You With Library Science! Gender:
Posted:
Jun 27, 2022 - 2:12pm
kurtster wrote:
my last thought on this subject ...
If this was such an important issue to democrats, why did they not pass a law in Congress during the Obama administration when they had a super majority and passage would be guaranteed ?
Obviously, to me, they had more to gain by keep making it an issue than by resolving it.
Have fun. I'm going back to playing with music.
Yes, they should have, even if it would have meant we'd be listening to you and your fellow minions screeching about government overreach and states' rights. Frankly, they also underestimated the extent of fascism in this country, which is likely another reason for their lack of action.
I'm good with infanticide if a reasonable of the citizenry also approves of infanticide. But if the fellow citizens oppose infanticide, I am fine with the restriction.
As for erecting barriers to medically safe abortions I strongly oppose for a whole slew of personal, moral, ethical, collective security and economic reasons. Human capital is so critical in today's economy that the quality of child rearing and education is just as or more important than ever. Presumably wanted, planned children stand a better chance.
The treatment for An Ectopic pregnancy is abortion.
The treatment for a Septic Uterus is abortion.
The treatment for a miscarriage your body won't completely release is abortion.
Many quivers can be used to fight back against this assault on women's rights. Now the SCOTUS has jettisoned personal privacy and body autonomy, we can move to legislate court ordered paternity dna child support - married or not. If biology dictates forced birth, then it can also force financial assistance.
No one wants baby mama's parents to show up and say, "Hey, I have results your son is this situation's co-producer, and I'm going to solicit the court to force him to help finance this project one way or the other."
Just the fear of that happening to one's son may mean stepping up the sex ed.
It may make young men think twice about unprotected sex.
It may encourage husbands to make that vasectomy appointment. When testicles are as nervous as ovaries â support, finances and creative solutions are immediate.
Responsibility in the 21st century. It isn't just for girls anymore.
If this was such an important issue to democrats, why did they not pass a law in Congress during the Obama administration when they had a super majority and passage would be guaranteed ?
Obviously, to me, they had more to gain by keep making it an issue than by resolving it.
It would take a lot, but Iâd suggest that ALL womenâs health care providers should just go about their business, without modification. What happens next? Prosecution (tying up the courts), imprisonment (really?), loss of license (more likely) and then - what happens to womenâs health care in general in the nation? Not that itâs already great.
But just like police have to give up on arresting EVERYONE that takes a toke in states where itâs illegal, if provision of abortion is so widespread that itâs impossible to enforce the law practicallyâ¦
Despite its brevity, the line is "a statement of central government policy, and it sends a signal to all of those local level (Communist Party) cadres that this is a priority of the central government," she added.
Abortion has been widely practiced in China for decades. Under the one-child policy, introduced in 1979, millions of women a year were forced to terminate "illegal" pregnancies. The traditional preference for sons also led to a rise in sex-selective abortions, with families often choosing to abort girls. This has contributed to a significantly skewed gender ratio, with the 2021 census revealing there were almost 35 million more men than women in the country of 1.4 billion.
But over the past decade, China changed tack completely as it began to reckon with the consequences of its one-child policy — a rapidly aging population and shrinking workforce that threatened the country's economic growth.To raise its plummeting fertility rate, China enacted the two-child policy in 2016, then the three-child policy in August this year. The government has also launched an aggressive propaganda campaign urging women to have more children, with some local authorities even offering financial incentives for families.
. 
