A woman who witnesses said appeared to be in labor was prevented from crossing an LA street Wednesday afternoon because the road was closed for President Barack Obama’s motorcade.

The woman was seen sitting at a bus stop bench on the south side of 3rd Street just east of Robertson Boulevard and across from Cedars Sinai Medical Center.

NBC4’s Robert Kovacik shot video on his cell phone of a woman sitting at a bus stop bench and posted it to his Instagram account with the caption, "Woman in labor on bench as motorcade passes; not allowed to cross street to get to #CedarsSinai."

Unless there is meant to be some irony with the OP...

Yeah, I'm sure if was a motorcade for Bush or Reagan, it would have been a much different outcome.

"As motorcade passes"...what were they going to let her do, walk out in the middle of traffic?

That's almost like saying, "woman not allowed to walk out into traffic to cross street"...

The "war on women" is a Democratic fabrication meant to garner votes.

"What difference does it make?"

Wonder if she had signed up for OBamacare?




feed the Libbys

Hope for Change

Truth Teller Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> The "war on women" is a Democratic fabrication
> meant to garner votes.


Sure fools a lot of women, especially single women. I guess they're all just idiot sheep.

etGtu Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Truth Teller Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > The "war on women" is a Democratic fabrication
> > meant to garner votes.
>
>
> Sure fools a lot of women, especially single
> women. I guess they're all just idiot sheep.

If you continue to repeat a lie, people will believe it.

You know, that is true. "Iraq has weapons of mass destruction". It worked for the previous administration.

JM6d4 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> You know, that is true. "Iraq has weapons of mass
> destruction". It worked for the previous
> administration.

Yes, it is true. Again, if you repeat a lie enough (like the Jews control the world), people begin to believe it.

Truth Teller Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> JM6d4 Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > You know, that is true. "Iraq has weapons of
> mass
> > destruction". It worked for the previous
> > administration.
>
> Yes, it is true. Again, if you repeat a lie enough
> (like the Jews control the world), people begin to
> believe it.


The difference is, the phrase "war on women" is not meant to be taken literally. No one thinks that the right is at war with women. Its a alliterative shorthand for right wing policies and statements about women that women, especially single women, find both offensive and clueless.

"War on women" is a political statement. It's not subject to truth or falsity in the same sense as your example is. And it is not unreasonable for women, when they hear right wing politicians and pundits making idiotic statements about rape or contraception, calling women "sluts" for supporting contraceptive coverage in medical insurance, etc. to believe that the right is against them.

If you'd like, I could give you a list of some of those statements and policies, but I'm sure you can find them yourself. (start with Todd Akin if you want)

Democrats are easy to make fun of.

mtYbT Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Truth Teller Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > JM6d4 Wrote:
> >
> --------------------------------------------------
>
> > -----
> > > You know, that is true. "Iraq has weapons of
> > mass
> > > destruction". It worked for the previous
> > > administration.
> >
> > Yes, it is true. Again, if you repeat a lie
> enough
> > (like the Jews control the world), people begin
> to
> > believe it.
>
>
> The difference is, the phrase "war on women" is
> not meant to be taken literally. No one thinks
> that the right is at war with women. Its a
> alliterative shorthand for right wing policies and
> statements about women that women, especially
> single women, find both offensive and clueless.
>
> "War on women" is a political statement. It's not
> subject to truth or falsity in the same sense as
> your example is. And it is not unreasonable for
> women, when they hear right wing politicians and
> pundits making idiotic statements about rape or
> contraception, calling women "sluts" for
> supporting contraceptive coverage in medical
> insurance, etc. to believe that the right is
> against them.
>
> If you'd like, I could give you a list of some of
> those statements and policies, but I'm sure you
> can find them yourself. (start with Todd Akin if
> you want)


You mean like the equal pay bullshit that they had to abandon after being called out for having the same numbers and using the same justification why that was the case? lol

It's political bullshit intended to motivate idiots within their base. Period.

Period. Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> >
> You mean like the equal pay bullshit that they had
> to abandon after being called out for having the
> same numbers and using the same justification why
> that was the case? lol
>

I'd like to respond to you, but I have no fucking idea what you're talking about. Do you really think that sentence makes any sense?

npGnx Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Period. Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > >
> > You mean like the equal pay bullshit that they
> had
> > to abandon after being called out for having
> the
> > same numbers and using the same justification
> why
> > that was the case? lol
> >
>
> I'd like to respond to you, but I have no fucking
> idea what you're talking about. Do you really
> think that sentence makes any sense?


Don't keep up with the news much huh? lol

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/04/08/us/politics/as-obama-spotlights-gender-gap-in-wages-his-own-payroll-draws-scrutiny.html?_r=0

The equal pay thing was to be a primary Dem talking point going into the November elections and to dove-tail with Hillary's campaign. They had to bail on it after they were called out on all sides for being full of shit, having the exact same situation at the White House and in Dem Congressional staff. In many cases worse than average. And for using the exact same arguments to justify why that was the case that those who they were attempting to demonize cite in the same way.

It was dumb political bullshit designed for dumb people just like the rest of the stupid war on women bullshit.

Period. Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> npGnx Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > Period. Wrote:
> >
> --------------------------------------------------
>
> > -----
> > > >
> > > You mean like the equal pay bullshit that
> they had to abandon after being called out for having
> > the same numbers and using the same justification
> > why that was the case? lol
> > >
> >
> > I'd like to respond to you, but I have no
> fucking
> > idea what you're talking about. Do you really
> > think that sentence makes any sense?
>
>
> Don't keep up with the news much huh? lol
>
>
I didn't say that there wasn't something "in the news". I was saying that your sentence read like it was written by a drunken 15 year old. Your second post isn't a lot clearer.

If you are trying to say that the democrats have abandoned wage parity as an issue because of wage differentials between men and women on the White House staff, that's just incorrect. Democrats are still using it as an issue. Just because you the right starts cackling about a supposed hypocrisy of the democrats, doesn't mean that other people, especially women, think that the issue has suddenly become irrelevant and that the GOP is suddenly women's savior.

w3dk7 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> >
> I didn't say that there wasn't something "in the
> news". I was saying that your sentence read like
> it was written by a drunken 15 year old. Your
> second post isn't a lot clearer.
>
> If you are trying to say that the democrats have
> abandoned wage parity as an issue because of wage
> differentials between men and women on the White
> House staff, that's just incorrect. Democrats are
> still using it as an issue. Just because you the
> right starts cackling about a supposed hypocrisy
> of the democrats, doesn't mean that other people,
> especially women, think that the issue has
> suddenly become irrelevant and that the GOP is
> suddenly women's savior.


It's perfectly clear if you followed what happened objectively.

Yes, in fact they have abandoned it as a primary political talking point in the way that they had planned. Because there are stupid women out there who continue to buy into the bullshit doesn't change the fact that it was political bullshit. As is the rest of the idiotic 'war on women' bullshit. It's textbook manipulative identity politics. If you don't understand that, then you're an idiot too.

Equal pay is a massive myth that rears its ugly head every so often.

Is there a metaphorical 'war on women' by conservatives? Let's see...

- Ridiculous, politically motivated new facility requirements for abortion clinics
- Mandated transvaginal ultrasounds
- Mandated waiting periods for abortions
- Attempts to restrict abortions to rape, incest, and the life of the mother
- Restricted funding for Planned Parenthood
- Religious exemptions for corporations from the birth control requirement of Obamacare
- Stupid Republican congressmen making asinine statements on birth control and abortion
- Proposed 'personhood' status for fetuses
- Proposed requirement that women who suffer miscarriages report them
- Proposed legislation to allow health care providers and pharmacists to refuse to provide birth control
- Women called 'whores' for supporting birth control and abortion
- Mocking pay parity
- Attempts to restrict food stamps, most of which go to women and children
- Refusal to accept an ID with a woman's maiden name under new voter restrictions
- Refusal to get serious about gun control for violent domestic partners
- Opposition to renewal of the Violence Against Women Act

I could name more, but there's no point, especially since you'll just declare this all 'bullshit'. Until Republicans start taking women seriously, expect to continue to lose elections that aren't hopelessly rigged.

You can't argue with the Truth. The Truth is True.

First, Webster vs. Reproductive Health Services- as long as Roe v. Wade is honored, states can implement restrictions on abortions. Therefore, mandated waiting periods and ultrasounds are not illegal.

Second, the religious exemption for corporations makes sense under corporate personhood.

Third, there is no pay gap. This myth has been smashed so many times that it's not even worth reporting. Yeah, I get that "women earn .77/.81 for every $1 that a man earns. I've heard it. Men work 57% of the hours, represent 92% of all workplace fatalities, and tend to stay in their careers far, far longer than women. Men also tend to have more advanced degrees than women.

If you can prove that there's a pay gap for equally qualified, tenured people, I'll believe you.

wow. Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> A woman who witnesses said appeared to be in labor
> was prevented from crossing an LA street Wednesday
> afternoon because the road was closed for
> President Barack Obama’s motorcade.
>
> The woman was seen sitting at a bus stop bench on
> the south side of 3rd Street just east of
> Robertson Boulevard and across from Cedars Sinai
> Medical Center.
>
> NBC4’s Robert Kovacik shot video on his cell
> phone of a woman sitting at a bus stop bench and
> posted it to his Instagram account with the
> caption, "Woman in labor on bench as motorcade
> passes; not allowed to cross street to get to
> #CedarsSinai."

Conserva-tards!

LoLz!

Truth Teller Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> First, Webster vs. Reproductive Health Services-
> as long as Roe v. Wade is honored, states can
> implement restrictions on abortions. Therefore,
> mandated waiting periods and ultrasounds are not
> illegal.
>

Right, they're not illegal. And since they're not, GOP right wingers will try to mandate them. And since they are trying this, many women will bolt to the democrats. What the fuck is your point? That because it's not illegal, women should be o.k. with it?

No wonder women think the right doesn't get it. Your post is yet another example.

^ + 1000

JnF9G Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Truth Teller Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > First, Webster vs. Reproductive Health
> Services-
> > as long as Roe v. Wade is honored, states can
> > implement restrictions on abortions. Therefore,
> > mandated waiting periods and ultrasounds are
> not
> > illegal.
> >
>
> Right, they're not illegal. And since they're
> not, GOP right wingers will try to mandate them.
> And since they are trying this, many women will
> bolt to the democrats. What the fuck is your
> point? That because it's not illegal, women
> should be o.k. with it?
>
> No wonder women think the right doesn't get it.
> Your post is yet another example.

Nailed it!

I think it's funny that you think I'm right wing. I actually think the Democrats and Republicans are equally inept and terrible for the country.

No, my point is that since it's not illegal, you can't make a compelling case saying that the GOP is taking away reproductive rights. As long as Roe v. Wade is upheld, you've reproductive rights.

Truth Teller Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I think it's funny that you think I'm right wing.
> I actually think the Democrats and Republicans are
> equally inept and terrible for the country.
>
> No, my point is that since it's not illegal, you
> can't make a compelling case saying that the GOP
> is taking away reproductive rights. As long as Roe
> v. Wade is upheld, you've reproductive rights.


Why do you think the right is pressing these restrictions? To protect women's health? If you live in a major city, yes, you will probably always have access to abortion (unless Roe is overturned, which is clearly on the right's agenda). If however you live in say rural South Dakota or Texas, these restrictions effectively eliminate your right to abortion. Oh, and don't bother telling me that a women can just get in her car and drive a few hundred miles to get one. That's a huge barrier to many, many people. At what point does restricting access become "taking away reproductive rights". It depends on where you sit on the socio-economic scale.

Oh, and I don't buy that you're not right wing. OK, you just think and vote like one.

VP7KT Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Why do you think the right is pressing these
> restrictions? To protect women's health? If you
> live in a major city, yes, you will probably
> always have access to abortion (unless Roe is
> overturned, which is clearly on the right's
> agenda). If however you live in say rural South
> Dakota or Texas, these restrictions effectively
> eliminate your right to abortion. Oh, and don't
> bother telling me that a women can just get in her
> car and drive a few hundred miles to get one.
> That's a huge barrier to many, many people. At
> what point does restricting access become "taking
> away reproductive rights". It depends on where
> you sit on the socio-economic scale.
>
> Oh, and I don't buy that you're not right wing.
> OK, you just think and vote like one.

I don't vote. It's a waste of time.

Yes, the GOP has a Christian Conservative base that thinks that all abortion is murder. Yes, the GOP wants to pander to them, so in states where they can do so and have no fear of being defeated, they pander to the Christian Conservatives.

It's for the courts to decide what reasonable restrictions are. I would contend that these aren't necessarily reasonable restrictions, although it depends on a lot of things.

VP7KT Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Truth Teller Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > I think it's funny that you think I'm right
> wing.
> > I actually think the Democrats and Republicans
> are
> > equally inept and terrible for the country.
> >
> > No, my point is that since it's not illegal,
> you
> > can't make a compelling case saying that the
> GOP
> > is taking away reproductive rights. As long as
> Roe
> > v. Wade is upheld, you've reproductive rights.
>
>
> Why do you think the right is pressing these
> restrictions? To protect women's health? If you
> live in a major city, yes, you will probably
> always have access to abortion (unless Roe is
> overturned, which is clearly on the right's
> agenda). If however you live in say rural South
> Dakota or Texas, these restrictions effectively
> eliminate your right to abortion. Oh, and don't
> bother telling me that a women can just get in her
> car and drive a few hundred miles to get one.
> That's a huge barrier to many, many people. At
> what point does restricting access become "taking
> away reproductive rights". It depends on where
> you sit on the socio-economic scale.
>
> Oh, and I don't buy that you're not right wing.
> OK, you just think and vote like one.

God forbid a lib becomes responsible. You don't want kids don't have sex. It's not rocket science. Who is looking out for that unborn human who could be the next Ben Franklin or Michael Obama? Not libtards. They hate children. They murder a million a year. Hey, but don't fuck with that turtle habitat. That shit is important.

w3dk7 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Period. Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > npGnx Wrote:
> >
> --------------------------------------------------
>
> > -----
> > > Period. Wrote:
> > >
> >
> --------------------------------------------------
>
> >
> > > -----
> > > > >
> > > > You mean like the equal pay bullshit that
> > they had to abandon after being called out for
> having
> > > the same numbers and using the same
> justification
> > > why that was the case? lol
> > > >
> > >
> > > I'd like to respond to you, but I have no
> > fucking
> > > idea what you're talking about. Do you
> really
> > > think that sentence makes any sense?
> >
> >
> > Don't keep up with the news much huh? lol
> >
> >
> I didn't say that there wasn't something "in the
> news". I was saying that your sentence read like
> it was written by a drunken 15 year old. Your
> second post isn't a lot clearer.
>
> If you are trying to say that the democrats have
> abandoned wage parity as an issue because of wage
> differentials between men and women on the White
> House staff, that's just incorrect. Democrats are
> still using it as an issue. Just because you the
> right starts cackling about a supposed hypocrisy
> of the democrats, doesn't mean that other people,
> especially women, think that the issue has
> suddenly become irrelevant and that the GOP is
> suddenly women's savior.


Do you really think that last sentence makes sense? Sounds like it was written by a drunken 12 year old.