Is the Republican Party 'Woman Friendly'?

#1 MORON Obamacare was forced on us MOST Americans did NOT want it but as a COMMIE THAT OBAMA IS....we now have a CRAP COMMIE health care that NO one wants! ALSO...Obama..... has increased the debt by 50% in his 3 plus years. How can you defend that? He has already spent the increased monies for the debt ceiling. ONE DAY. How can you defend that and still blame Bush. This is his economy.
Upon Inauguration: $10,626,877,048...
As of Aug 4, 2011: $14,564,970,167,709
In 3.5 yrs Increased: $8,938,093,118,796
George Bush (8yrs): $4,899,100,310,609
Obama Added More to National Debt in First 19 Months Than All Presidents from Washington Through Reagan Combined.
This is what obama is and has done !! OBAMA IS A COMMIE 100% ANTI-AMERICAN! This is what Obama-slime is doing.... Obama is not trying to lead America forward to recovery, prosperity and strength. Quite the opposite.
He’s following the script, as closely as he possibly can, known as the"Cloward-Piven Strategy.” That is the strategy of FORCING POLITICAL CHANGE THROUGH ORCHESTRATED CRISIS. Obama is on a is the fast track to hastening the fall of capitalism by overloading the government bureaucracy with a flood of impossible demands, thus pushing society into crisis and economic collapse.
Out of the chaos!!! Remember when he promised to “Fundamentally Change America”, but nobody asked, “TO WHAT?” But I DID for I knew this was what he was going to do!! This is the "WHAT!” And HE KNOWS EXACTLY WHAT HE IS DOING destroying America!!! Obama is 100% bent on to destroy America with his mentors, all Socialists and some Communists! They have filled his head more with their caca, witch he had some anyway because he was raised that way of thinking growning up!! By his Father and Mother and also his Grandparents ALL COMMUNISTS!! So Obama took more of the hook, line and sinker!!! . Obama thinks he is being so good for America with his"Cloward-Piven Strategy.” !!! .But one main FACT about OBAMA....HE HATES AMERICA ! So he will go along with the Cloward-Piven Strategy.” in his DREAM WORLD thinking he is going good for America! But the FACT remains Obama MADE STATMENTS many times in the past he DOES HATE AMERICA!! OBAMA-SLIME IS SHOWING US THAT PROOF EACH AND EVERY DAY!!!! First to Destroy a Country in One Term.
First to Bow to Foreign Leaders.
First to Alienate Isreal, our Friends and all our other ally's.
First Muslim to Cater to Muslim's, NOT Americans.
First to Openly Back Unions above Other Workers
First to Play Golf as Economy Crashes around Him
America is going broke from all of his SPENDING & SPENDING!!
He has now raised the debt MORE to trillions !
And so much more he has done to list..Obama-slime just keeps on going and will NOT STOP
Till he is KICKED OUT IN 2012 !! AND THAT IS BIG AMEN ON THAT!!! OBAMA WILL BE GONE IN 2012!! America has had ENOUGH!!!

Also this ...

Read this Obama is a 100% MARXIST see the TRUTH ...


Obama’s secret political life? It turns out that Obama’s childhood (from the age of around 16 ) mentor, Frank Marshall Davis, was a communist.
In his books, Obama admits attending “socialist conferences” and coming into contact with Marxist literature. core academic Marxist,” which was made by his colorful and outspoken 2004 U.S. Senate opponent, Republican Alan Keyes.is father was very close friends with Frank Davis, the Head of the Communist Party USA in Hawaii. Davis, according to Obama, was his mentor during his high school years.

Obama said in his first book that he would attend meetings where radicals would gather and socialist gatherings to hear certain speakers whenever possible.

However, through Frank Marshall Davis, Obama had an admitted relationship with someone who was publicly identified as a member of the Communist Party USA CPUSA). The record shows that Obama was in Hawaii from 1971-1979, where, at some point in time, he developed a close relationship, almost like a son, with Davis, listening to his “poetry” and getting advice on his career path. But Obama, in his book, Dreams From My Father,refers to him repeatedly as just “Frank.”

The reason is apparent: Davis was a known communist who belonged to a party subservient to the Soviet Union. In fact, the 1951 report of the Commission on Subversive Activities to the Legislature of the Territory of Hawaii identified him as a CPUSA member. What’s more, anti-communist congressional committees, including the House Un-American Activities Committee (HUAC), accused Davis of involvement in several communist-front organizations. Obama has well-documented socialist connections, which help explain why he sponsored a“Global Poverty Act” designed to send hundreds of billions of dollars of U.S. foreign aid to the rest of the world, in order to meet U.N. demands. The bill has passed the House and a Senate committee, and awaits full Senate action.

But the Communist Party connection through Davis is even more ominous. Decades ago, the CPUSA had tens of thousands of members, some of them covert agents who had penetrated the U.S. Government. It received secret subsidies from the old Soviet Union. But you will find it briefly discussed, sort of, in Obama’s own book, Dreams From My Father. He writes about “a poet named Frank,” who visited them in Hawaii, read poetry, and was full of “hard-earned knowledge” and advice. Who was Frank? Obama only says that he had “some modest notoriety once,” was “a contemporary of Richard Wright and
Langston Hughes during his years in Chicago…” but was now “pushing eighty.” He writes about “Frank and his old Black Power dashiki self” giving him advice before he left for Occidental College in 1979 at the age of 18. This “Frank” is none other than Frank Marshall Davis, the black communist writer now considered by some to be in the same category of prominence as Maya Angelou and Alice Walker. In the summer/fall 2003 issue of African American Review, James A. Miller of George Washington University reviews a book by John Edgar Tidwell, a professor at the University of Kansas, about Davis’s career, and notes, “In Davis’s case, his political commitments led him to join the American Communist Party during the middle of World War II-even though he never publicly admitted his Party membership.”

It was in Chicago that Obama became a “community organizer” and came into contact with more far-left political forces, including the Democratic Socialists of America, which maintains close ties to European socialist groups and parties through the Socialist International (SI), and two former members of the Students for a Democratic Society (SDS), William Ayers and Carl Davidson.

Oama parents were commies.....Obama's Mother Was a "Communist Sympathizer" - " Friends describe her as a "fellow traveler", that is, a communist sympathizer, from her youth, according to a March 27, 2007, Chicago Tribune report". "The values she taught me continue to be my touchstone when it comes to how I go about the world of politics - Barack Obama" Source: Tim Jones, Chicago Tribune

Obama's Parents Met in a Russian Class (Back then it was the Communist USSR) - "His mother, Stanley Ann Dunham just 18 when they met in a Russian class" Source: Sharon Cohen, St Louis Times .

Before we were forced to start dismantling our social security system, Germany was a liberal heaven. It still is compared to the USA. Even our right-wing party is far more liberal than the Democratic party in the U.S. :)

Just to name a few points: Universal health care, free high-quality public school education, nearly free university education, high unemployment benefits and welfare, job re-education programs for the unemployed, a high degree of market regulation, child benefits, environmentally friendly policies, "green" energy programs (Germany is the world leader in renewable energy technology), a giant public sector and, as a result of the latter, one of the most advanced public transportation and traffic infrastructures in Europe (I've never seen the need to own a car).

The reasons for the drastic population decline after the baby boomer years are manifold, but they all come down to the same unexpected results of liberal policies that I see in the USA nowadays. An unreasonable level of affirmative action policies, prioritization of career over family, feminist activism in academia, no-fault divorce, anti-male family law, increasing deregulation of abortion, and an increasing secularization of society.
I'm actually one of the 60% atheists among the German population, but even I can't ignore the negative social impact of the abolition of traditional values. The impact is so drastic that I've increasingly adopted a socially conservative stance over the years.

In the U.S., the positive birth rates are the result of high levels of religiosity (which, in a moderate form, can easily coexist with scientific rationalism). But things are about to change. The number of single households is rising, an increasing number of marriages fail, single households are becoming the norm, stay-at-home moms are traitors to the feminist cause, children are generally seen as a burden and a public nuisance, and pregnancy has become a medical problem. If this continues, you won't have to worry about rising population numbers anymore.

I agree that culture is not tied to genetics (or only to a small degree, thanks to a phenomenon known as gene-culture coevolution or dual inheritance theory). But I doubt that it would be met with positive public feedback if the US enforced immigration to Native American territories :)
I also think that some cultures are more compatible than others. In Germany, Italian, Greek and Spanish immigrants have fit in just fine, but we see a worrisome self-segregation of Muslim communities.

These rapidly growing communities have started a reverse cultural assimilation process by compelling urban administrations to honor Islamic holidays and change public schools to better accomodate Muslim children. In other words, we have first secularized the public sector and are now in the process of islamizing it. In addition, Germans who have been raised in non-religious families are converting to Islam. This kind of cultural displacement will only increase as our immigration policies are becoming ever more desperate in order to solve the problems of an overaged society.

I guess i don't see how anything you mentioned is necessarily a "problem." Changing cultural norms don't automatically mean problems. If you have a slightly negative (-0.21%) population growth rate that's good. Increasing religious diversity is good, especially in the sense that it teaches tolerance and the children growing up in a more religiously diverse culture will have broader horizons when it comes to their religious views. What may start out as causing friction initially will end up rubbing off everyone's sharp corners, or maybe I'm just an optimist.

Single parent households are fine as long as both parents are involved (they don't need to live together) and as long as there's plenty of community support. There are lots of studies that show that children of "non-intact" families have a very slightly greater chance of things like dropping out of school or delinquent behavior, but if you dig into the data what those studies also show is for the bulk of the children there's no difference and for the small percentage where there is a difference it is due to concomitant factors that often accompany divorce rather than the divorce itself. Things like increased economic hardship and exposure to high levels of tension in the household (preceding the divorce) have more to do with it than the divorce itself. In many cases (though certainly not all) those factors are mitigated by increased participation by the father in the child's life--IOW it's not uncommon for fathers to play a MORE active role after a divorce than they had been doing prior to it. This by no means true in all cases, but nor is the slightly increased tendency for delinquency.

The point is it's a series of changes taking place that are very complex in their ramifications, but that change is not automatically a bad thing. In the history of life evolution is fueled by such changes. The first fish that climbed on its fins up out of the water must have had its conservative brethren looking at it like it was crazy, and I can just imagine the split between the early homo erectus when a few of them started making fires and cooking meat while the rest preferred to stick to the more "traditional" ways of doing things. Yet in the end change always wins out and the traditional ways always fall by the wayside. It's true that not every change works, but it's also true that every "traditional way" eventually fails. Ask the dinosaurs. They'll tell you all about it.

I used to think that religious diversity is a good thing, seeing that it prevents single religious groups from gaining too much political influence. But I've realized that religious memes act as a container for socio-cultural paradigms that cover every aspect of life.

Look at the non-violent Amish and Mennonite cultures, for example. Almost no violent crime, no drug abuse, stable family environments, a remarkably low incidence of depression and mental illness, economic self-sufficiency and an environmentally friendly lifestyle. I'm not saying that we should emulate them, although we can probably learn a lot from them in terms of social policies. I merely think that their culture is a prime example for the far-reaching behavioral impact of a religious meme.

This example also shows that culturally homogenous societies tend to be more stable than multicultural ones. History has many examples of multicultural empires that began to self-destruct from within and eventually fell apart. Both the cultural and the genetic heritage of the populations that started these empires is now mostly lost. The less advanced societies that replaced them (e.g., the comparatively primitive European Middle Age societies that followed the Greek and Roman empires) prove that change is not always for the better and can lead to regression rather than progress.

The Christian meme started out as socially regressive compared to the cultural paradigms of highly civilized societies of antiquity. It did its job in ensuring high reproduction rates and stable family environments, but it was detrimental to intellectual progress.
But memes evolve, and over time this meme became not only able to coexist with scientific advancement (with the exception of fundamentalist denominations, which aren't a big concern in Europe), it also became an important driving force of humanist philosophy that shaped our understanding of human rights.

Islam, on the other hand, changed in the opposite direction. Once a driving force of scientific progress in the medieval Middle East, it has become culturally regressive. Things like blood feuds and blasphemy trials were a thing of the distant past in Western European cultures, but now we have to deal with honor killings and death threats against book and newspaper authors.

One would expect this socio-cultural ideology to become more tolerant and moderate due to cultural exchange with liberal Western societies, but it proves very resistent to change. Instead, we are changing our own cultures in an attempt to prevent acts of violence and terrorism.
After the uproar over the Danish newspaper cartoons and their re-printing in German newspapers, the Bavarian minister-president honestly suggested that we start enforcing an outdated and long-ignored anti-blasphemy paragraph in the German criminal code and silence all criticism of Islam. Instead of broadening our intellectual horizon, our increasing religious diversity is threatening to narrow it.

Sorry for the long text :) I'll address the single parent (and childless single household) issue in another post.

Regarding our changing family structure: The multi-generational family has been the norm throughout all of human history, up until we started to push off older generations into retirement homes. Children already missed out on an important aspect of social learning at that point, which might explain why we have become increasingly selfish and hedonistic.

I think we have also become less mature and responsible, since children no longer have to take up adult responsibilities such as the care of younger siblings and elderly relatives from an early age.
This could help explain the high suicide rates among teenagers btw. Evolutionary psychologist Denys de Catanzaro found that suicidal ideation is a natural response to the perception of being useless and a burden to immediate kin. The artificial extension of childhood and a modern teenager's lack of social usefulness might trigger this response. But I digress.

Next we turned the nuclear single-provider family into two-provider households with greatly reduced reduced parent-child interaction. And with increasingly lower wages, for that matter. People didn't fully realize that their wages didn't keep up with inflation until we reached a point where a single middle class worker was no longer able to provide for both children and spouse.

Then we lowered the number of children per household until only children became the norm, at least in Germany. Together with child support and alimony, this has allowed us to reduce the number of parents to one, usually the mother.
I'm not quite sure that the attention of a divorced father every other weekend can make up for this loss. Children need to observe the social interaction of a couple in a relationship in order to become able to form the same kind of lasting relationship in later life. It is unsurprising that the rise of single parenting led to the final stage of social evolution, namely the increasingly common childless single household.

Modern day childless singles have never really grown up. They lacked positive adult role models -- the role model of a loving couple, not that of a stressed-out single parent -- and were treated as children far beyond the point of physical maturity. They've spent most of their spare time interacting with other youths instead of picking up vital social skills through observation of adults, until they suddently find themselves in a highly demanding adult world.

These adults behave increasingly immature and seem less capable of forming lasting social bonds. Depression-addled 30-year-old men spend their free time playing video games in between unsuccessful attempts at online dating.
This kind of life is not only unfulfilling, it is a huge waste of intellectual potential that would be netter used to advance mankind's knowledge and progress. We used to reach for the stars, now we reach for level 60 in WoW. And occasionally for a partner, but we are all so very unique individuals nowadays that it's hard to find a compatible person even though we communicate online with people all over the globe.

Perhaps this is just a classic case of romanticising the past on my part. "Things were so much better in the olden days" :) But the impact of these developments on society -- such as falling birth rates, the steady rise of single households, and ever shorter relationship / marriage periods -- is hard to ignore. I can only hope that this is simply a transitional period, and that we will eventually find back to more stable family environments. Or even develop new and better ones (the Israeli kibbutz model looks quite promising imho).

I was an unplanned child. When my mother gave birth to me, she didn't walk off a plank and wasn't eaten by sharks.
Granted, she wasn't a rape victim either. Most women who abort unwanted children aren't rape victims, and I find it very telling that the left is so hung up on this small minority. It makes for an easy diversion from the abominable scale of abortion in Western countries.

I don't know the numbers for the U.S., but in central Europe, every 3rd pregnancy is terminated. The number is slightly lower here in Germany, but it still amounts to every 4th pregnancy.
That is despite excellent sex education in public schools coupled with compulsory school attendance, universal health care with birth control coverage, and a very low incidence of rape compared to the USA. These factors don't seem to cause abortion; the dehumanization of prenatal human life does. Meanwhile, the birth rate in my increasingly child-unfriendly country is down to 1.38 children per mother.

For the record, I support the legality of abortion throughout all trimesters in the cases of rape pregnancy, medical risks for the mother, and fetal health conditions that make post-birth survival either unlikely or painful. I also support legal abortion in all other cases during the first weeks after fertilization, prior to the onset of neural development.
But after this point, I consider abortion to be infanticide (with the exception of the aforementioned circumstances). When faced with an all-or-nothing choice, my conscience tells me to choose nothing rather than to accept legal mid- to late-term abortion of healthy human beings.