women have gotten far in the world and to me it seems that some dont want the power. i mean seriously..i think i should be paided wat a man is i should be treated equal to a man. even if this video is a joke. this is my opinion
These people are stupid whores. They only want mccain to win because they are rich selfish bastards and dont want their money taken away by taxes. they are also selfish because they only care about themselves in the matter of abortion. They also think that rape victims should pay for what they have done. WHAT THE FUCK! These shitholes should think whats better for the economy instead of whats better for themselves. I cant believe that anyone would vote for mccain and palin.
Yarley....you do realise these women are actually taking the "micky" out of mccain and are usuing the reverse psychology tactic. In other words....they are obama supporters. Think for a moment...they are highlighting all the negative aspects women have to face as a consequence of voting for mccain. No woman is going to tell you she wants lesser rights than a man when it comes to payment in the worforce. watch it again.
How about this: All the supposed Bible thumpers outlaw abortion them take in all the unwanted children that are in born the parents that don't want them. Good idea huh? How bout it?
So Fuck you and Burn in Hell! About the video they could of added a lot more stuff to persuede women not to vote for MCCAIN/PALIN. I mean who are these people that the most pressing thing is their lies in regard to choosing the next leader of the free world is abortion???? There are so many other important issues to worry about. Like the war, people losing their homes, health care, who gives a fuck about abortion. If you don't like abortions then don't get one. Simple as that.
To the comment below me. YOUR A FUCKING IDIOT! . One in three women are either raped or molested in their lifetime. And those are only the ones who report it! So check your facts, bitch. SO that supposed .5 percent should have a rape baby cause after all it only happens to "a few people." How come I know two women personally that it happened to. One was raped by a stranger and opted to have the baby. That was HER choice not yours or mine. Every woman should the option to choose.
I agree with you. I am both a woman and a feminist who is also pro-life, and I really take offense at the left's assumption that a person who objects to babies being sucked out by vacuum cleaners or having their brains stabbed with scissors is either ignorant or stuck in the dark ages. Since when did supporting women's advancement mean also automatically accepting the slaughter of infants without question? Pretty language about "choice" and "progress" doesn't erase the fact that its murder.
And what if your daughter was raped and became pregnant, and didn't want to go through with giving birth to her rapist's child? A pregnancy that was not of her own choosing?
And what if your daughter was 9 years old and the rapist was her father?
And out of the millions of abortions which happen every year how many of those are actually rape/incest cases, particularly extreme cases like the hypothetical one you are bringing up? The pro-choice side loves to throw out these exceptional scenarios as if they were the only reason why someone whould have an abortion, when the truth is most abortions happen because the girl doesn't want to miss a semester of University, lose her boyfriend or put on weight.
But since you want to play the "what if" game, fine. In that case, chances are if she is 9 years old a pregnancy would put her life in danger thus an abortion would be justified. My position is that abortion should only be legal in three scenarios: that the pregnancy is a threat to the mother's life, that the pregnancy is the product of rape or incest, or that the pregnant woman is under the age of 15. There are enough alternatives to make it unnecessary and morally reprehensible.
So you agree that a woman's body and volition should be in the government's control? What if these instances that you state, occur to a woman above the age of 15?
I agree that abortion is butchery and should be stopped, period. I'm sorry, but a child's life is worth more than a woman's inconvenience. Women have the right to choose not to have unprotected sex or to put the child up for adoption, not to kill it. Murder is murder. If I can't kill my roommate even though I own the house, I certainly should not be able to kill my child even though its my body.
Again, just to get some clarification, you agree that the government should be in control of your body and your volition, and that your body is essentially governmental jurisdiction at the moment of conception?
You are arguing in wide extremes here. The government obviously does exercise some control over the body, seeing as we have laws to prevent us from using our bodies to commit violent acts against others such as assault and rape. That doesn't mean my body is public property when a child is inside of it, but it does mean that I have a responsibility to someone other than myself and some of my autonomy will have to be curved.
For give me, I think you meant to address someone else; I didn't put forward an argument, simply questions? Could you be so kind as to clarify what you mean to say by '' that doesn't mean my body is public property when a child is inside of it ''?
In addition, could you further expand on what you mean by '' my autonomy will have to be curved (sic)'' (I presume you meant curbed)What are you implying here?
Do you realize that you are justifying the murder of a human being and condemning me for speaking out against it? That you are criticising me for suggesting that the government should prevent something that amounts to slaughter? Have you ever seen an abortion? Do you know what the procedure actually involves? it's brutal and awful. No rhetoric, no matter how much it tries to dehumanize the victim in the name of an obviously perverted concept of human rights is going to change that.
I'm still waiting for some clarification on whether or not you support and condone governmental control of your body? In addition, that the human rights of a woman are lesser and not equal to that of a foetus? And finally, the condoning of a woman's human right is a ''perverted concept of human rights ''? If I could just request some clarity on that, thank you.
You frame the question in such a way as to trap me into answering on your terms: "either you support woman's autonomy or you believe they are public property". My answer is "yes the government has a right to control my body to some degree, the same way it controls the bodies of those who would use them to commit violent acts (i.e. rape, murder etc.). The foetus does have rights, equal or somewhat inferior to those of the woman (if her life is in danger its condoneable).
The difference between my position and that of the pro-choice movement is that the movement doesn't recognize that the foetus has any rights at all, it is expendable. As for one's autonomy being curbed, part of living in a social group means giving up some personal autonomy in order for the group to be cohesive, and in order to protect the rights of others. In my mind a foetus is a human being.
You agree that a woman's uterus and the contents of it should be under governmental jurisdiction at the moment of conception? That what is formed at that moment should be defined as a ''foetus''?
I believe that at the moment of conception what exists should be legally defined as a "person" (if a Corporation can be defined as a person why can't a baby?) and thus entitled to legal protection. How to do this without creating a bureaucratic nightmare or a maternity-dictatorial regime are yet to be examined.
Therein lies the fault of your argument, reasoning and which forms the basis for the flawed reasoning of a lot of organizations which would seek to uphold the curbing of women's rights. Again I put it to you, do you agree that at the moment of conception a woman's uterus and the contents of it should automatically be under governmental control?
And threin lies the ideological "trap" which I have mentioned repeatedly. These organizations are not out to curb women's rights, they are out to protect unborn children. That is their purpose and their motivation. They are not a group of evildoers who sit around thinking about how to push women back into the kitchen and take away their rights. Rights have limits.
I think I answered this. Individual rights are limited when they infringe on the rights of others. I have the right to do anything I wish to my own body, but not to the body of another person. Just as I also have the right to have my body protected from the willful violent or abusive acts of others. The law ensures this protection by making it illegal and punisheable for anyone to commit a violent act against it. Abortion is a violent act against the body of a person.
You preface abortion as a woman's "inalienable human right" and then ask me if I'm against it. If I say no, then I am set up to say that I am against women's human rights. You mention that pro-life organizations "uphold the curbing of women's rights", when the only right they wish to curb is one which infringes on a child's right to wellbeing and is a "right" which supports what amounts to a legal act of violence and dehumanization.
Look at how you frame it in your rhetoric and you can see how the concept of human rights is being perverted: "the condoning of a woman's human right". So in other words a woman's rights is defined by the option of disposing of another human life for reasons of convenience? Anyone who disagrees with this premise is seen to disagree with women's human rights in general. Thus abortion=feminist, antiabortion=antifeminist, feminist=proabortion, antifeminist=antiabortion. This is a perversion.
Sorry to make so many posts, but I wanted to clarify my position as much as possible with all of its nuances: I don't like being rhetorically boxed into a false dichotomy. I am a feminist, a very passionate one, but I also believe that we are obligated as members of a society to protect and care for the vulnerable.
So, you are a feminist and an advocate for women's rights but not for all of them? In addition, that women are not entitled to the same total control over their bodies as men are?
Do you have an opinion on whether governmental policy would change if there was a majority of women involved at a legislative degree? Indeed, that policy in this regard has largely been formulated and enacted by men?
Except in certain cases, not when the assertion of her rights involves denying them to someone else. This is the limit of "rights" for both men and women. An autonomous, adult woman requires somewhat less legal protection than a child who is more vulnerable. It is an extension of the concept of social justice in which the stronger and more capable members of society aid, protect and empower the weaker or more disadvantaged ones.
Actually this is an interesting conversation. I would like to ask you to pose a few questions as well: Firstly, how do you define the concept of "rights"? Secondly, what is your opinion about abortion for the purpose of gender selection as is practiced in some parts of China and India? This is an interesting question because many who support free access to abortion are also horrified by the notion of gender selection.
The "trap" comes from the way you frame the question, not my own feelings or the possible weakness of my argument. My argument probably does have some weaknesses since I'm not boned up on how the law defines "personhood". My problem is you have set up a false dichotomy using ideologically laden terms: one in which disagreement with readily available abortion amounts to disagreement against women's autonomy. One can disagree with the first while fully supporting the second.
Suggesting that people ''love'' to throw out abortion scenarios is a little disturbing, frankly. But not more disturbing than the concept of denying an individual's human right to control over their own body.
What about the child's human right to existence regardless of the circumstances or mistakes of his/her parents. We don't deal with criminals by attacking their offspring anymore, so why should an innocent child be made to suffer because of his father's crimes or her mother's irresponsibility?
Exactly. Only 2.8% of abortions are because of the "health of the mother". Rape is less than .5%, and it makes sense. How many girls are raped each year, and of those, how many get pregnant, and of those, how many get an abortion because of it, compared to the number of women who want an abortion for convienience. The left can talk about that 2.8% all they want, but what about the other 98.7%?
That was sarcasm my dear. If you looked at the comment I replied to, you may have seen that the poster made the claim that if a woman chose to have sex then if they end up pregnant then it was their own fault. Women who were sexually violated and end up pregnant did not have a choice.
I guess the "saying look before you leap" applies here.
McCain/Palin, is the Choice of child abusers, women beaters, psychos, nazis, KKK members, terrorists worldwide, 3rd world dictators, drunks, drug addicts, and infidelitous cheaters who are happy to abandon their wives when they need them the most - as well as try to give them STDs before they leave - as a going away present.
Wow, that pretty much sums up the republican party and its supporters.
Seriously, I don't understand why women will vote for McCain... he has opposed multiple times to bills that benefit women. Females, please open your eyes! The same happens with Sarah Palin...
By the way, for a good laugh search for "Sarah Palin Remixex" in You Tube. Hilarious!!!!
Instead of using air quotes regarding our health McCain may as well just flipped every woman the middle finger last night. He has voted 125 times against woman. Not to mention twice voting against the bombing of abortion clinics being federal climbs. I guess you only have a "right" to life if you share the ideology.
Don't forget the teen un-wed prego daughter that's a must have for fall. Oh and for the holidays a Secessonist husband is the perfect date for all those Christmas Parties.
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
False advertising! Shenanigans. Harumph! Hope you get to keep the right to your bodies, but still very disappointed at how women have trashed the candidate that chose a woman when Obama was too insecure to do it. I bet McCain would have hillary in his cabinet, if she was interested. She a tough, pragmatic type, and that's more his style that evangelical stuff. He seriously considered changing parties a few years back.
FreeUlysses, I like to think that Obama thought highly enough of Hillary to NOT appoint her as Vice President. The VP has little to NO power. Now he can appoint her to a cabinet position, as opposed to just using her as a publicity stunt. McCain honestly doesn't care for Palin, otherwise he would've appointed her to something more important. For politicans, the VP is known as a political graveyard.
LOL you obviously have had your head stuck in the sand for the last eight years while Cheney turned the Vice-Presidency into a position with at least as much power as the President.
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
Wow, manufactured fear! Gee I never expected to see lib women being condescending to conservative women. I think these women's eyeballs are gonna pop out from all the seething rage that they've got over Palin. Palin has some weird conception but you're afraid she's gonna impose them on you when she clearly said that that was off the table. Chill out she's not gonna try to repeal Roe?wae or make you have a rape baby geez.
No, Obama is being cast as an evil, Muslim, terrorist, who should be "killed", as shouted out by thoughtless and irresponsible McCain-Palin supporters.
Good for you. We all have the right for free choice. If you think he's the man, and with his vp choice, to take this country forward into the future....good luck.
Who is making Obama out to be a prophet, but the evangelical right wing for mcAncient. Have at it. It's your vote....but it's OUR country.
Clinton would be very disappointed that a "straunch" supporter of hers would vote for McCain. You aren't carrying on her good works. And what is this "prophet" shit anyway?
Fantastic!
Iamsambeckett 5 hours ago
@ivankaman21
Its not killing, because its not alive yet. fuckhead.
explizidace 1 year ago
kinda reminds me how muslims have taken the womens rights away, this is just one step :p
Darusdei 1 year ago
mmkay.
heres wat i have to say.
i am women also but heres the thing.
I AM THE CONTROLER OF MY MIND/BODY/SOUL.
AINT NO ONE TELLING ME WAT IMMA DO.
women have gotten far in the world and to me it seems that some dont want the power. i mean seriously..i think i should be paided wat a man is i should be treated equal to a man. even if this video is a joke. this is my opinion
OBAMA 08
YES WE CAN
AND YES WE DID.
liason4ever1212 3 years ago
helllo
there not for mccain watch the video again!
Gab3y 3 years ago 2
Fuck Your Approved Message John McCain A change is gonna come... That time is now... Go out there and VOTE!!! OBAMA **08**
lessence69 3 years ago
@lessence69
I hope you're being sarcastic, its a fuckin satire you idiot ><
explizidace 1 year ago
this is great
HomeReality 3 years ago
These people are stupid whores. They only want mccain to win because they are rich selfish bastards and dont want their money taken away by taxes. they are also selfish because they only care about themselves in the matter of abortion. They also think that rape victims should pay for what they have done. WHAT THE FUCK! These shitholes should think whats better for the economy instead of whats better for themselves. I cant believe that anyone would vote for mccain and palin.
yarley0 3 years ago
Yarley....you do realise these women are actually taking the "micky" out of mccain and are usuing the reverse psychology tactic. In other words....they are obama supporters. Think for a moment...they are highlighting all the negative aspects women have to face as a consequence of voting for mccain. No woman is going to tell you she wants lesser rights than a man when it comes to payment in the worforce. watch it again.
oishy 3 years ago
How about this: All the supposed Bible thumpers outlaw abortion them take in all the unwanted children that are in born the parents that don't want them. Good idea huh? How bout it?
*crickets*
I thought so, SHUT THE FUCK UP!
ggrockets 3 years ago 2
So Fuck you and Burn in Hell! About the video they could of added a lot more stuff to persuede women not to vote for MCCAIN/PALIN. I mean who are these people that the most pressing thing is their lies in regard to choosing the next leader of the free world is abortion???? There are so many other important issues to worry about. Like the war, people losing their homes, health care, who gives a fuck about abortion. If you don't like abortions then don't get one. Simple as that.
ggrockets 3 years ago
To the comment below me. YOUR A FUCKING IDIOT! . One in three women are either raped or molested in their lifetime. And those are only the ones who report it! So check your facts, bitch. SO that supposed .5 percent should have a rape baby cause after all it only happens to "a few people." How come I know two women personally that it happened to. One was raped by a stranger and opted to have the baby. That was HER choice not yours or mine. Every woman should the option to choose.
ggrockets 3 years ago
I agree with you. I am both a woman and a feminist who is also pro-life, and I really take offense at the left's assumption that a person who objects to babies being sucked out by vacuum cleaners or having their brains stabbed with scissors is either ignorant or stuck in the dark ages. Since when did supporting women's advancement mean also automatically accepting the slaughter of infants without question? Pretty language about "choice" and "progress" doesn't erase the fact that its murder.
littleinfinity 3 years ago
And what if your daughter was raped and became pregnant, and didn't want to go through with giving birth to her rapist's child? A pregnancy that was not of her own choosing?
And what if your daughter was 9 years old and the rapist was her father?
calraigh 3 years ago
And out of the millions of abortions which happen every year how many of those are actually rape/incest cases, particularly extreme cases like the hypothetical one you are bringing up? The pro-choice side loves to throw out these exceptional scenarios as if they were the only reason why someone whould have an abortion, when the truth is most abortions happen because the girl doesn't want to miss a semester of University, lose her boyfriend or put on weight.
littleinfinity 3 years ago
But since you want to play the "what if" game, fine. In that case, chances are if she is 9 years old a pregnancy would put her life in danger thus an abortion would be justified. My position is that abortion should only be legal in three scenarios: that the pregnancy is a threat to the mother's life, that the pregnancy is the product of rape or incest, or that the pregnant woman is under the age of 15. There are enough alternatives to make it unnecessary and morally reprehensible.
littleinfinity 3 years ago
So you agree that a woman's body and volition should be in the government's control? What if these instances that you state, occur to a woman above the age of 15?
calraigh 3 years ago
I agree that abortion is butchery and should be stopped, period. I'm sorry, but a child's life is worth more than a woman's inconvenience. Women have the right to choose not to have unprotected sex or to put the child up for adoption, not to kill it. Murder is murder. If I can't kill my roommate even though I own the house, I certainly should not be able to kill my child even though its my body.
littleinfinity 3 years ago
Again, just to get some clarification, you agree that the government should be in control of your body and your volition, and that your body is essentially governmental jurisdiction at the moment of conception?
calraigh 3 years ago
You are arguing in wide extremes here. The government obviously does exercise some control over the body, seeing as we have laws to prevent us from using our bodies to commit violent acts against others such as assault and rape. That doesn't mean my body is public property when a child is inside of it, but it does mean that I have a responsibility to someone other than myself and some of my autonomy will have to be curved.
littleinfinity 3 years ago
For give me, I think you meant to address someone else; I didn't put forward an argument, simply questions? Could you be so kind as to clarify what you mean to say by '' that doesn't mean my body is public property when a child is inside of it ''?
In addition, could you further expand on what you mean by '' my autonomy will have to be curved (sic)'' (I presume you meant curbed)What are you implying here?
calraigh 3 years ago
'' If I can't kill my roommate even thoough I own the house, I certainly should not be able to kill my child even though it's my body .''
This is your best attempt at rhetoric? Do you really realize what you're saying here?!
calraigh 3 years ago
Do you realize that you are justifying the murder of a human being and condemning me for speaking out against it? That you are criticising me for suggesting that the government should prevent something that amounts to slaughter? Have you ever seen an abortion? Do you know what the procedure actually involves? it's brutal and awful. No rhetoric, no matter how much it tries to dehumanize the victim in the name of an obviously perverted concept of human rights is going to change that.
littleinfinity 3 years ago
I'm still waiting for some clarification on whether or not you support and condone governmental control of your body? In addition, that the human rights of a woman are lesser and not equal to that of a foetus? And finally, the condoning of a woman's human right is a ''perverted concept of human rights ''? If I could just request some clarity on that, thank you.
calraigh 3 years ago
You frame the question in such a way as to trap me into answering on your terms: "either you support woman's autonomy or you believe they are public property". My answer is "yes the government has a right to control my body to some degree, the same way it controls the bodies of those who would use them to commit violent acts (i.e. rape, murder etc.). The foetus does have rights, equal or somewhat inferior to those of the woman (if her life is in danger its condoneable).
littleinfinity 3 years ago
The difference between my position and that of the pro-choice movement is that the movement doesn't recognize that the foetus has any rights at all, it is expendable. As for one's autonomy being curbed, part of living in a social group means giving up some personal autonomy in order for the group to be cohesive, and in order to protect the rights of others. In my mind a foetus is a human being.
littleinfinity 3 years ago
You agree that a woman's uterus and the contents of it should be under governmental jurisdiction at the moment of conception? That what is formed at that moment should be defined as a ''foetus''?
calraigh 3 years ago
I believe that at the moment of conception what exists should be legally defined as a "person" (if a Corporation can be defined as a person why can't a baby?) and thus entitled to legal protection. How to do this without creating a bureaucratic nightmare or a maternity-dictatorial regime are yet to be examined.
littleinfinity 3 years ago
Therein lies the fault of your argument, reasoning and which forms the basis for the flawed reasoning of a lot of organizations which would seek to uphold the curbing of women's rights. Again I put it to you, do you agree that at the moment of conception a woman's uterus and the contents of it should automatically be under governmental control?
calraigh 3 years ago
And threin lies the ideological "trap" which I have mentioned repeatedly. These organizations are not out to curb women's rights, they are out to protect unborn children. That is their purpose and their motivation. They are not a group of evildoers who sit around thinking about how to push women back into the kitchen and take away their rights. Rights have limits.
littleinfinity 3 years ago
And what limits are those? What limits do you think should be enforced on those inalienable rights?
calraigh 3 years ago
I think I answered this. Individual rights are limited when they infringe on the rights of others. I have the right to do anything I wish to my own body, but not to the body of another person. Just as I also have the right to have my body protected from the willful violent or abusive acts of others. The law ensures this protection by making it illegal and punisheable for anyone to commit a violent act against it. Abortion is a violent act against the body of a person.
littleinfinity 3 years ago
Again, can you explain, specifically, with reference please, as to why you feel trapped? Why do you feel as though you are being cornered?
calraigh 3 years ago
You preface abortion as a woman's "inalienable human right" and then ask me if I'm against it. If I say no, then I am set up to say that I am against women's human rights. You mention that pro-life organizations "uphold the curbing of women's rights", when the only right they wish to curb is one which infringes on a child's right to wellbeing and is a "right" which supports what amounts to a legal act of violence and dehumanization.
littleinfinity 3 years ago
Look at how you frame it in your rhetoric and you can see how the concept of human rights is being perverted: "the condoning of a woman's human right". So in other words a woman's rights is defined by the option of disposing of another human life for reasons of convenience? Anyone who disagrees with this premise is seen to disagree with women's human rights in general. Thus abortion=feminist, antiabortion=antifeminist, feminist=proabortion, antifeminist=antiabortion. This is a perversion.
littleinfinity 3 years ago
Sorry to make so many posts, but I wanted to clarify my position as much as possible with all of its nuances: I don't like being rhetorically boxed into a false dichotomy. I am a feminist, a very passionate one, but I also believe that we are obligated as members of a society to protect and care for the vulnerable.
littleinfinity 3 years ago
So, you are a feminist and an advocate for women's rights but not for all of them? In addition, that women are not entitled to the same total control over their bodies as men are?
Do you have an opinion on whether governmental policy would change if there was a majority of women involved at a legislative degree? Indeed, that policy in this regard has largely been formulated and enacted by men?
I'm very interested in your views.
calraigh 3 years ago
Except in certain cases, not when the assertion of her rights involves denying them to someone else. This is the limit of "rights" for both men and women. An autonomous, adult woman requires somewhat less legal protection than a child who is more vulnerable. It is an extension of the concept of social justice in which the stronger and more capable members of society aid, protect and empower the weaker or more disadvantaged ones.
littleinfinity 3 years ago
Actually this is an interesting conversation. I would like to ask you to pose a few questions as well: Firstly, how do you define the concept of "rights"? Secondly, what is your opinion about abortion for the purpose of gender selection as is practiced in some parts of China and India? This is an interesting question because many who support free access to abortion are also horrified by the notion of gender selection.
littleinfinity 3 years ago
Why would you feel trapped? Do you feel guilty or that your reasoning is in some way weak?
calraigh 3 years ago
The "trap" comes from the way you frame the question, not my own feelings or the possible weakness of my argument. My argument probably does have some weaknesses since I'm not boned up on how the law defines "personhood". My problem is you have set up a false dichotomy using ideologically laden terms: one in which disagreement with readily available abortion amounts to disagreement against women's autonomy. One can disagree with the first while fully supporting the second.
littleinfinity 3 years ago
Suggesting that people ''love'' to throw out abortion scenarios is a little disturbing, frankly. But not more disturbing than the concept of denying an individual's human right to control over their own body.
calraigh 3 years ago
What about the child's human right to existence regardless of the circumstances or mistakes of his/her parents. We don't deal with criminals by attacking their offspring anymore, so why should an innocent child be made to suffer because of his father's crimes or her mother's irresponsibility?
littleinfinity 3 years ago
after reading this very interesting conversation, i've come to the conclusion that someone should had aborted littleinfinity.
it's not too late yet.
MauValmont 3 years ago
Exactly. Only 2.8% of abortions are because of the "health of the mother". Rape is less than .5%, and it makes sense. How many girls are raped each year, and of those, how many get pregnant, and of those, how many get an abortion because of it, compared to the number of women who want an abortion for convienience. The left can talk about that 2.8% all they want, but what about the other 98.7%?
Drahthaar422 3 years ago
yes, excellent, why would any woman vote for McCain-Palin? Obama-Biden 08
moorigs 3 years ago 2
That was sarcasm my dear. If you looked at the comment I replied to, you may have seen that the poster made the claim that if a woman chose to have sex then if they end up pregnant then it was their own fault. Women who were sexually violated and end up pregnant did not have a choice.
I guess the "saying look before you leap" applies here.
Ainsmar 3 years ago
What's a federal "climb"? A government built Jungle Jim?
jethangar 3 years ago
Way to not even watch the video.
Women and children who are raped or are victims of incest totally chose to be violated.
Ainsmar 3 years ago
McCain/Palin, is the Choice of child abusers, women beaters, psychos, nazis, KKK members, terrorists worldwide, 3rd world dictators, drunks, drug addicts, and infidelitous cheaters who are happy to abandon their wives when they need them the most - as well as try to give them STDs before they leave - as a going away present.
Wow, that pretty much sums up the republican party and its supporters.
Anvilofsteel 3 years ago 3
Seriously, I don't understand why women will vote for McCain... he has opposed multiple times to bills that benefit women. Females, please open your eyes! The same happens with Sarah Palin...
By the way, for a good laugh search for "Sarah Palin Remixex" in You Tube. Hilarious!!!!
HyperDF 3 years ago 2
Instead of using air quotes regarding our health McCain may as well just flipped every woman the middle finger last night. He has voted 125 times against woman. Not to mention twice voting against the bombing of abortion clinics being federal climbs. I guess you only have a "right" to life if you share the ideology.
hollygolightly66 3 years ago 5
Don't forget the teen un-wed prego daughter that's a must have for fall. Oh and for the holidays a Secessonist husband is the perfect date for all those Christmas Parties.
hollygolightly66 3 years ago 4
this is the best comment ever!
suicidecontrition 3 years ago
good ad.nice to see women arent all dumb bitches, heh.. :)
yersi 3 years ago
do they really want that, they are dehumanizing themselves saying that
Jake1722 3 years ago
No. This is an anti-McCain video disguised as an actual McCain ad. It's trying to scare women into not supporting him.
rurounikjs 3 years ago
couldn't they be more direct instead of this sarcasm video?, check out 'bushs third term' a documentary on google and YT,
Jake1722 3 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
Listen man, I'd rather have Bush #3 than Marx #2 okay? my word
christofu92 3 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
False advertising! Shenanigans. Harumph! Hope you get to keep the right to your bodies, but still very disappointed at how women have trashed the candidate that chose a woman when Obama was too insecure to do it. I bet McCain would have hillary in his cabinet, if she was interested. She a tough, pragmatic type, and that's more his style that evangelical stuff. He seriously considered changing parties a few years back.
FreeUlyssesDOTcom 3 years ago
FreeUlysses, I like to think that Obama thought highly enough of Hillary to NOT appoint her as Vice President. The VP has little to NO power. Now he can appoint her to a cabinet position, as opposed to just using her as a publicity stunt. McCain honestly doesn't care for Palin, otherwise he would've appointed her to something more important. For politicans, the VP is known as a political graveyard.
arrozc0nleche 3 years ago
LOL you obviously have had your head stuck in the sand for the last eight years while Cheney turned the Vice-Presidency into a position with at least as much power as the President.
jragan 3 years ago
you'd be pissed off too if you were being condescended to in a democratic country in 2008.
mervadine 3 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
Wow, manufactured fear! Gee I never expected to see lib women being condescending to conservative women. I think these women's eyeballs are gonna pop out from all the seething rage that they've got over Palin. Palin has some weird conception but you're afraid she's gonna impose them on you when she clearly said that that was off the table. Chill out she's not gonna try to repeal Roe?wae or make you have a rape baby geez.
KyleRoku 3 years ago
Yeah, she just makes women pay for their own rape kits.
rakrobn 3 years ago 2
Dear Sumancalif
Can you please point me to the arguments against Clinton which accused her of sexism? I totally missed those.
katiehalper 3 years ago
dope.
lipris 3 years ago
Excellent video. I wonder how many of the satire-impared republicans will actually think this is pro McCain.
DickyHertz 3 years ago 10
IF he wins, it will not take long. He will retire soon if his hart keeps beating.
Scoot2612 3 years ago
That's what the GOPher base is hoping. He'll retire or die & Palin will be President. I'm not joking here.
mmm413 3 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
But same kinda arguments were made against Clinton. Its like anybody who refuse to bow to Prophet Obama is Evil.
I am democrat i will vote for Mccain.
sumancalif 3 years ago
No, Obama is being cast as an evil, Muslim, terrorist, who should be "killed", as shouted out by thoughtless and irresponsible McCain-Palin supporters.
rhalper 3 years ago 5
This comment has received too many negative votes show
Be honest. look at the videos in youtube, there are 100 time more nasty words for Mccain than Prophet Obama.
The point is at the time of clinton-obama race, same things were doem to clinton. She was call Bitch and Whore all over by Prophet Obama supporters.
sumancalif 3 years ago
I'm not talking about what people say on you tube, but there should be some control of people saying Obama should be killed. Very scary.
rhalper 3 years ago 3
It is very scary and it is not a lie.
Pickles4776 3 years ago 2
Stop lying.
joehoevah 3 years ago
Good for you. We all have the right for free choice. If you think he's the man, and with his vp choice, to take this country forward into the future....good luck.
Who is making Obama out to be a prophet, but the evangelical right wing for mcAncient. Have at it. It's your vote....but it's OUR country.
HulksHeroes 3 years ago 6
Why will you vote for McCain?
mmm413 3 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
Because i feel anybody who run against Obama is turned evil by the media. You cannot say anything agaist Obama. He is a Prophet, he in untouchable.
I have been a straunch Clinton supporter, I have seen how she was treated by same media.
Even I am not white and I am atheist but i will vote for Mccain.
sumancalif 3 years ago
Clinton would be very disappointed that a "straunch" supporter of hers would vote for McCain. You aren't carrying on her good works. And what is this "prophet" shit anyway?
mmm413 3 years ago