.....be defined by the Left/Liberals/Democrats/Progressives/Socialists/Communists as a "War on Women" or a "War on Minorities" or that would not be deemed to "have a greater impact on women and minorities"?
The only one I can think of is "the Millitary". So other than that?
By the way, what happened to the (D) led request for civility and an end to "millitaristic" langauge in politics? Describing their opponenst as "Generals in a War"? Is that supposed to be less aggressive that designative a political opponent as "targeted for defeat"?California Senator Barbara Boxer claimed yesterday that Republicans have a "sickness" when it comes to women, and decried the party's efforts to defund women's healthcare.
In a speech to Planned Parenthood in San Jose, Boxer told those in attendance that the mainstream of the GOP is "extreme on women's health." She suggested that Missouri Senator Todd Akin's recent comments reflect views that are well represented in the party at large, and are distressingly in evidence on the Romney-Ryan ticket.
"There is a war against women, and Romney and Ryan – if they are elected – would become its top generals," said Boxer, "and it's not going to end until we all say at the polls, 'That's not the country we want.'"
So really, what can we cut in Govt. that we could guarantee wouldn't be described as part of a War of Women and Minorities (and Kids)? What could we reduce the rate of increae from +7% to only +6.8% and not be described as hateful, racist, homophobic, sexists for?
And the reverse, at what point does adding new women and minorities to public aid programs become inappropriate and hence denail not a "war on Women and Minroities"? Is it 50% of them? 75%? 100%?
If so, it would be nice to have that honest conevrsatiom about it.