This is nothing new people…

I have been seeing a ton of blog posts out there about how the DNC propaganda arm, better known as the LSM, keeps making excuses for democrats that treat women like chattel, while pretending that the other side is waging a war on women, based on oft ludicrous nonsense that has nothing to do with women’s rights, but economic or social freedoms being trampled by collectivist agendas. I have to admit I am baffled. Most of these posts or articles seem to intimate that this is a new phenomenon, but I think those that believe that are seriously wrong.

All I have to point out is the way the left handled the Clinton scandals, going back almost 2 decades, and you can clearly see how this same double standard was in play. While screaming that conservatives wanted to keep women down, pregnant and barefoot in the kitchen, they made excuse after excuse for a serial philanderer. Heck, they even treat the opportunistic and shameless hag that stayed married to him for political reasons as a heroine.

And if you want to see that this phenomenon is far older than just 2 decades, take a look at the Kennedys. They all were cads, and one of them even played U-Boat commander and killed some poor girl, but the left idolized them while turning a blind eye to their sexual predations.

Let’s be honest here. The left only finds fault with bad or criminal behavior when the other side does it. If the perp is one of their own, they try hard to ignore or bury the story, and if that can’t be done, they actually defend the perp and make excuses for the behavior that they would lynch the other side for. Conservatives are handicapped because too many of them they will not tolerate bad behavior from their reps. So, the left takes advantage of that to kneecap the conservatives. In the meantime, conservatives go all bonkers about the fact the left defends and protects the sleaziest and most disgusting people possible, until it simply costs them too much politically to salvage the unsalvageable.

Don’t get me wrong. This double standard sucks and needs to be exposed. But let’s not pretend that it is a new phenomenon. The left has been living with this double standard for over a half century, and we are fools not to expect them to behave that way going forward. It has worked, and worked well, for them, and until it doesn’t anymore, they will keep doing exactly that. Keep that in mind and you won’t be surprised by this inexplicable behavior.

Comments are closed.

  1. salinger

    Hidden due to low comment rating. Click here to see.

    Thumb up 5

  2. AlexInCT *

    While a moron texting pics of his junk is distasteful behavior it doesn’t equate with opposition to equal pay, reproductive and health rights, or violence against women legislation.

    So you’re saying that as long as I spout and politically support the right progressive bullshit, I don’t have to really even bother to pretend I believe any of it, or even live by it, right? I can demand people pay their fair share of taxes, then be totally delinquent on mine, even get a job working for government supervising policy. And as long as I vehemently defend the right to abortions and free contraceptives – after all, they help me bang the chicks – I can be the biggest sleazebag ever. Also support wealth transfer schemes, and I can treat all women like chattel. What a deal, and thanks for clarifying.

    Thumb up 10

  3. CM

    Hidden due to low comment rating. Click here to see.

    Thumb up 6

  4. Seattle Outcast

    they made excuse after excuse for a serial philanderer. Heck, they even treat the opportunistic and shameless hag that stayed married to him for political reasons as a heroine.

    Let’s be clear on the subject – Bill Clinton is a rapist and should be in prison.

    Thumb up 10

  5. Seattle Outcast

    (SO on Hillary: “Have you SEEN what a complete bucket of ugly Hillary deliberately is? More accurate casting would be a bulldog in a wig and glasses…”).

    You’re saying you have a problem with people being truthful? I say much the same thing about anybody if the description fits. I don’t go out of my way to give any individual, gender, nationality, ethnic group, religion, etc the benefit of “not being mean” when discussing them. Your problem is that you think that your idol (whom you can never vote for because she’s a citizen of a different county on the other side of the planet) should only have positive things said about her. People that honestly evaluate her are somehow discriminating against her.

    As for Hillary being ugly on purpose – that was actually a campaign issue when Bill ran for governor, and even 60 Minutes commented on it. It isn’t a new observation by anyone in the last 40 years. The irony is that they chose a woman to play her in their “Hillary as God” movie that ranks at least 4, maybe 5 notches above her on a scale of 1 to 10.

    While I’m at it, that picture I saw of you makes you look like a total poofter. Grow a real beard.

    Thumb up 3

  6. stogy

    People that honestly evaluate her are somehow discriminating against her.

    Well yeah. If you are going to attack her based on her appearance as a woman, then that probably amounts to discrimination.

    Thumb up 2

  7. AlexInCT *

    Yep, and you can call one a “hag” in a post about how “the other side” treats them badly.

    Maybe you are unfamiliar with the mythological hag, CM, because while I find Hillary to be butt fucking ugly, my primary reason to refer to her as a hag is her soul sucking evil. I have no qualms admitting I wouldn’t fuck her with your dick, but my objection to her, I repeat, is that she is a opportunist and soul sucking evil thing above all else. BTW, I have called Jane Fonda a hag as well back in the day, and I would have plowed her just for the ability to say I did.

    But don’t let the facts get in the way of the narrative that only conservatives should be targeted as women haters, because being progressive immunizes you from being so.

    Thumb up 5

  8. Seattle Outcast

    Yeah bit late to pretend you judge men by their appearance the way you do women SO.

    Wait until they cast Henry Cavil to play Bill Clinton…

    Thumb up 2

  9. Iconoclast
    and I can treat all women like chattel…

    Yep, and you can call one a “hag” in a post about how “the other side” treats them badly.

    Yep, because calling one woman a “hag” is the moral eqiuvalent to treating all women like chattel…

    Moral Relativism — another SOP from the Flaming Left.

    As any liberal knows, calling one woman a “hag” is the moral equivalent to driving drunk, crashing your car into a river, fleeing the scene and leaving your girlfriend behind in the back seat to drown in the icy waters, only to be called the “Lion of the Senate” in your later years (Ted Kennedy).

    As any liberal knows, calling one woman a “hag” is the moral equivalent to being what amounts to a serial rapist while holding the highest office in the land (President Clinton).

    Other than women being too stupid to realise they are being treated badly by the Democrat, what is the alternative explanation for why the vote largely Democrat? The same question applies to the black vote.

    And the same answer applies to both questions — Democrats pander to them with big promises. Example from Presidet Lyndon B. Johnson:

    “I’ll have those niggers voting Democratic for the next 200 years. [Touting his underlying intentions for the “Great Society” programs, LBJ confided with two like-minded governors on Air Force One]”

    And so forth. But do go ahead and remain in denial, by all means.

    Thumb up 15

  10. Dave D

    Icon: All that may be true, but according to the resident leftists here, publicly supporting the collective piece of ass’s right to vote/kill unborn/get equal pay is all that is needed to get the votes. Don’t you know that?

    Thumb up 10

  11. CM

    Hidden due to low comment rating. Click here to see.

    Thumb up 0

  12. CM

    Hidden due to low comment rating. Click here to see.

    Thumb up 0

  13. Mississippi Yankee

    “Her Filthiness” will always be the correct title for Mrs. Clinton. In fact I think she should be required to use it at her inauguration.
    (it will never happen you say…)

    Of course if Gary Johnson doesn’t run in a third party all bets are off. ;-/

    Thumb up 0

  14. Ed Kline

    better known as the LSM

    No, it’s better known as the MSM. Just because you call it that every fucking chance you get doesn’t make it true.

    Thumb up 1

  15. Ed Kline

    “Her Filthiness” will always be the correct title for Mrs. Clinton. In fact I think she should be required to use it at her inauguration.

    You people are really no better than the hate filled liberals you despise. It’s like watching Cowboys and Giants fans. Right, as in correct, has nothing to do with anything anymore.

    Thumb up 1

  16. Technomad

    I don’t particularly object to Hillary’s appearance. For her age, she’s not badly-preserved, although she does rather remind me of a poorish job of embalming. I object to her sociopathic focus on getting ahead, no matter what. When her “husband” was exposed, not just as a serial philanderer (she had to have known about that for decades, and had almost certainly long since made a peace with it) but an out-and-out rapist (if Clinton had been innocent, he could have sued both Juanita Broadderick and Christopher Hitchens’ socks straight off; instead, he did nothing) she “stood by her man.” All so she could have a shot at high office in her own right; I’ve heard that the Demoratic Party bigshots offered her anything they had if she just wouldn’t walk out.

    And I still think that Vince Foster’s death is one of the hinkier things to happen in DC in my lifetime; unfortunately, with the media firmly in the Donkey Party’s camp, I don’t think the truth will come out soon.

    Thumb up 6

  17. Mississippi Yankee

    You people are really no better than the hate filled liberals you despise. It’s like watching Cowboys and Giants fans. Right, as in correct, has nothing to do with anything anymore.

    Ed, just so your pontificating ass should know. I’ve called her that since her husband’s first campaign for the WH. That’s when her scandal-ed past first came to light. Yanno, Rose Law Firm, missing document that were eventually found in the WH, made a spectacular profit from trading cattle futures contracts, an initial $1,000 investment generated nearly $100,000 when she stopped trading after ten months. The couple also began their ill-fated investment in the Whitewater Development Corporation real estate venture with Jim and Susan McDougal at this time, (shame about Jim McDougal), Web Hubble,… ect…ect… Not to mention her lackluster performance as she “marked time” in the U.S. Senate. Oh and dodging sniper fire in Bosnia… I guess doing nothing while padding her resume’ at the State Dept. could be considered a plus, that is until the shoe drop on the Benghazi “What difference does it make” scandal.
    Regarding her as Her Filthiness may just be a kindness on my part.

    When a person has absolutely no redeeming qualities only a sycophant continue to sing her praises and defend her as you appear to be attempting. But I do find your “I know you are but what am I” harangue ‘cute’ in a schoolyard sort of way.

    Thumb up 4

  18. CM

    When a person has absolutely no redeeming qualities only a sycophant continue to sing her praises and defend her as you appear to be attempting.

    The point is that many of her detractors constantly call into question her appearance, in a way they never do with any equivalent man.

    You’re saying you have a problem with people being truthful?

    It’s entirely your choice where you decide to admit to your misogyny. You certainly don’t hold back on it here. Presumably because you know you have company.
    (That’s Iconoclast’s cue to pretend I’ve said something completely different)

    Your problem is that you think that your idol….

    Cool, yet another addition to your collection of made-up-shit. When have I EVER said anything positive about Hillary, let alone suggested she’s an idol? Let me guess, you KNOW I did, you just can’t recall where or when. And for some strange reason Google is conspiring against you again.

    As stogy said:

    If you are going to attack her based on her appearance as a woman, then that probably amounts to discrimination.

    While I’m at it, that picture I saw of you makes you look like a total poofter. Grow a real beard.

    Wow, that’s something a caricature would post.
    I actually agree that I look better with a full beard, but there’s a specific reason I don’t have one (not something I’m sharing here though).
    But now you’ve taken the opportunity to criticise my physical appearance, it’s only fair that I get the chance to do the same. Unless you’re a coward?

    Thumb up 1

  19. Section8

    But now you’ve taken the opportunity to criticise my physical appearance, it’s only fair that I get the chance to do the same. Unless you’re a coward?

    To top it off he’s accused you of being a woman since only women are criticized based on appearances here according to you.

    Seriously though, I’ve never seen such nonsense in a thread here. It makes for good reading though. Not even worth getting into explaining if you haven’t seen it by now.

    Thumb up 2

  20. CM

    To top it off he’s accused you of being a woman since only women are criticized based on appearances here according to you.

    He clearly only did it to try and demonstrate, retrospectively, that he criticises the appearance of men (although it’s likely that he often criticises the appearance of women AND poofters anyway). But that (and your comment) misses the point.
    It’s not confined to this blog though – women in positions of power regularly get abused for their physical appearance when it’s not relevant and the same criticism (most of it extreme, likely in order to make one seem macho) about a man in the some position. And the fact that people even object to that being acknowledged speaks volumes.
    Nothing new though (as has been pointed out), just interesting to see it still happening in 2013.

    Seriously though, I’ve never seen such nonsense in a thread here.

    I dunno, too much competition to judge.

    Thumb up 0

  21. AlexInCT *

    It’s like watching Cowboys and Giants fans.

    Fuck the Cowboys, and Fuck the Giants. Fuck the Eagles too. I am a Redskins fan.

    Thumb up 0

  22. AlexInCT *

    So Alex, when have you ever called soul-sucking evil men ‘hags’?

    There are far more appropriate names for them than hags CM. For example Obama: I call him a wraith or Spectre the way he is sucking the soul out of America, but I think the more appropriate name would be a douchebag.

    Thumb up 3

  23. AlexInCT *

    The point is that many of her detractors constantly call into question her appearance, in a way they never do with any equivalent man.

    Some of the nastiest Hillary detractors are progressives. In my experience nobody rips on the sexes, the races, or people’s sexual orientation like a progressive, only because they have the right ideas, they always seem to get a pass. It was Hillary’s campaign that accused Obama of being foreign born and a muslim, but progressives today seem to think that was all from the other side. There are countless other such examples out there.

    Thumb up 3

  24. CM

    ‘Hag’ is specific to her being a female though. ‘Wraith’ or ‘spectre’ is gender-neutral. The point being that her being a female is always somehow apparently relevant.

    This double standard sucks and needs to be exposed.

    I agree. But that would mean directing your criticism to what you don’t actually like.

    Thumb up 0

  25. CM

    Some of the nastiest Hillary detractors are progressives. In my experience nobody rips on the sexes, the races, or people’s sexual orientation like a progressive, only because they have the right ideas, they always seem to get a pass.

    Yeah it kinda goes without saying that you think that nobody is as bad about ANYTHING as ‘progressives’. ;-)
    I do agree with your point though – because the progressive policy platform accommodates gender/races/sexual orientation issues (Iconoclast would call it ‘pandering’), individuals on that side probably do get away with more shit.
    I assume most women would consider measures to restrict their reproductive rights to be more of an issue than individual Dem men doing or saying dumb sexist shit (again, Salinger summed it up well).
    The double-standard might be less if the GOP platform reflected those gender/races/sexual orientation issues.

    Thumb up 0

  26. Iconoclast

    Sheesh. That’s some seriously impressive mangling.

    Almost as impressive as the levels of irony you can shoehorn into a couple of vacuous, throwaway responses. I’ve seen you mangle with the best of them, and I really enjoyed your asinine assumption, which itself was another shining example of irony…

    I can only assume you’ve given up.

    See what I mean? I can deduce as much on your side, based on the sheer vacuity of your responses.

    Ah ok they’re selfish. They’re happy to sacrifice the betterment of everyone so that their interest group can ahead. Either that or they’re idiots.

    Some fine examples of mangling, or at the very least, trying to shove words into my mouth. To be clear, the one using words like “stupid”, “selfish” and “idiots” to describe certain segments of the electorate is you, and it’s transparently obvious that you want to attribute those words to me. I just gave you LBJ’s own actual words — the conclusion is up to you.

    That being said, I am willing to recognize that we are all selfish, that is simply part of the human condition. I selfishly want my freedoms and liberties to not be eroded away, for example, while others selfishly want “free stuff” from the Government, and liberals, both Democrat and Republican, pander to that latter group. You can pontificate your sanctimonious moral indignation all you want, but unless you can counter the assertion, your pontification is just hot air. It doesn’t matter a whit how much the assertion offends your sensibilities.

    As I keep saying, you’ve invented a system so that nobody can disagree with you, if they do they’re immediate somehow “in denial”.

    You can spin/mangle it any way you want, but the simple fact is, either you can accept a claim, refute it, or you can simply deny it. I see you doing the third option on a fairly regular basis, hence the accusation of denial. Again, I claimed that Democrats pander to certain groups to get votes, and I gave you a quote from President Lyndon Johnson to back up my assertion. Either you can accept the assertion, or you can refute it, or you can simply deny it. Refuting it would be difficult, given the LBJ quote. That kind of leaves two options, agree or deny. And no, I didn’t “invent” this system, it predates me by generations.

    It’s so transparently stupid though, why would you bother? It’s really sad that you feel your arguments are constantly so weak that you need to do that. It’s really very childish. But I bet a large amount of money you’ll keep doing it.

    Again, lot’s of whiney hot air. If you don’t like my choices of rhetoric, too bad; nobody is forcing you to read my responses, or respond to them. Again, you can either refute my claims, agree with them, or simply deny them. Or you can simply bitch and whine about my debate style. I personally don’t care, but whining doesn’t go very far in refuting anything I claim.

    Thumb up 12

  27. Technomad

    She has not scrupled, in the past, to hide behind her gender when it suited her book. That being the case, I do not think that attacking her on that front is inappropriate.

    Thumb up 4

  28. AlexInCT *

    “Hag’ is specific to her being a female though. ‘Wraith’ or ‘spectre’ is gender-neutral. The point being that her being a female is always somehow apparently relevant.

    I don’t get it. Is your point that we should treat her like any other guy? You do remember that this is the woman that demanded to be treated like any other guy up until she got in trouble, at which point suddenly she played the poor and innocent woman being atatcked and abused by the evil partiarchy, right?

    BTW, it seems to me you are employing that same tactic she did to get her ass out of the fire that she did, right here, in the hopes of shutting the messenger up….

    Thumb up 4

  29. AlexInCT *

    Yeah it kinda goes without saying that you think that nobody is as bad about ANYTHING as ‘progressives’.

    When you are exposed to it 24/7, you know, it sticks.

    I do agree with your point though – because the progressive policy platform accommodates gender/races/sexual orientation issues (Iconoclast would call it ‘pandering’), individuals on that side probably do get away with more shit.

    That’s one heck of an understatement there bud, but at least it is a move in the right direction.

    I assume most women would consider measures to restrict their reproductive rights to be more of an issue than individual Dem men doing or saying dumb sexist shit (again, Salinger summed it up well).

    If most women understood that the fiercest male proponents of said rights are there to make it easier to bag said women (look at Clinton, Weiner, and Filner for proof, and the list of other such candidates is long and distinguished), and could care less about them or their rights otherwise, I have a feeling many of those women would feel a bit cheated. Stupid people will get taken advantage off.

    The double-standard might be less if the GOP platform reflected those gender/races/sexual orientation issues.

    Here is a novel thought for ya, CM: focus on people and their character, and forget their plumbing and other peripheral bullshit that is primarily used by the progressive movement to divide and conquer, and things would be a lot better. Personally I do not care if you have balls and a penis or ovaries and a vagina: I care if your head is screwed on right and your hands are out of my pockets and my freedoms are left intact.

    Thumb up 4

  30. InsipiD

    Another valid reason to be honest about her looks is that the media tries so hard to be flattering with her that we’re told that having Diane Lane play her is proper casting. That’s how good looking we’re supposed to think she is.

    Thumb up 3

  31. CM

    Almost as impressive as the levels of irony you can shoehorn into a couple of vacuous, throwaway responses. I’ve seen you mangle with the best of them, and I really enjoyed your asinine assumption, which itself was another shining example of irony…

    It’s YOUR assumption, not mine. You made a whole series of them in your speech (are you campaigning for something?) I wasn’t suggesting that “calling one woman a “hag” is the moral eqiuvalent to treating all women like chattel…”. Very clearly they would not be any kind of equivalent.

    See what I mean? I can deduce as much on your side, based on the sheer vacuity of your responses.

    That, and others like it, are not INTENDED to not carry great meaning. It’s not intended to be an equivalent.

    Some fine examples of mangling, or at the very least, trying to shove words into my mouth. To be clear, the one using words like “stupid”, “selfish” and “idiots” to describe certain segments of the electorate is you, and it’s transparently obvious that you want to attribute those words to me.

    Usually I do phrase it as a question. Either way, anyone is welcome (and encouraged to provide an alternative explanation). I certainly won’t claim you’re in denial just because you disagree with me.

    I just gave you LBJ’s own actual words — the conclusion is up to you.

    If it’s so very blatant then why would blacks (and women) keep voting for the people that consider them simply as chattels (and presumably treat them as such)? They have a choice, there is no coercion involved.
    Why could it not be predominantly because the party is more closely aligned with their values and how they believe society should be structured (i.e. the same reason you vote for who you vote for)? Telling them they just want “free shit” (or that they’re part of the 47%) doesn’t seem like an intelligent or productive argument or reaction. Even holding that view seems entirely counter-productive. It would be trying to get you to vote Democrat by telling you to stop being a selfish greedy arsehole who thinks of the poor as simply units of labour. Not only would that be insulting and offensive, it would be counter-productive.

    That being said, I am willing to recognize that we are all selfish, that is simply part of the human condition. I selfishly want my freedoms and liberties to not be eroded away, for example, while others selfishly want “free stuff” from the Government, and liberals, both Democrat and Republican, pander to that latter group.

    That’s awesome how you’re voting on principle but they’re not.
    It must be convenient to be able to easily dismiss so many people to justify your own beliefs, simply by making shit up and believing it.

    You can pontificate your sanctimonious moral indignation all you want,

    Nothing I’ve said comes remotely close to the sanctimonious moral indignation of your previous statement.

    You’re just underlining my point:

    And the fact that people even object to that being acknowledged speaks volumes.

    You can spin/mangle it any way you want, but the simple fact is, either you can accept a claim, refute it, or you can simply deny it. I see you doing the third option on a fairly regular basis, hence the accusation of denial.

    I never just deny anything, I always explain why I think it’s wrong. You still mark it down as denial though. So in reality you provide two options – agree or be in denial. It really doesn’t get more arrogant than that. Or transparent.

    Again, I claimed that Democrats pander to certain groups to get votes, and I gave you a quote from President Lyndon Johnson to back up my assertion. Either you can accept the assertion, or you can refute it, or you can simply deny it. Refuting it would be difficult, given the LBJ quote.

    You’ve provided a statement of one guy 50 years ago (apparently from a book full of rumur and speculation, so I’m sure it would be a favourite here).
    You’d need to explain the difference between ‘pander’ and ‘appeal by sharing the same basic values and beliefs in how society and the economy should be structured’. It’s very easy for anyone to claim the latter for themselves and suggest the former applies to the ‘other side’

    That kind of leaves two options, agree or deny. And no, I didn’t “invent” this system, it predates me by generations.

    There we go – you’re even admitting that an argument against you will be regarded simply as denial.

    Again, lot’s of whiney hot air. If you don’t like my choices of rhetoric, too bad; nobody is forcing you to read my responses, or respond to them.

    You were the one that responded to me.

    Again, you can either refute my claims, agree with them, or simply deny them.

    You can pretend that’s what you’re doing but the evidence suggests otherwise.

    I don’t get it. Is your point that we should treat her like any other guy?

    My comment was that it’s a little rich to accuse the Dems of treating women badly given the comments about women you (and others) here make which illustrate what you think of them. If you used similar language about a race there would be no doubt you’d be considered racist.

    BTW, it seems to me you are employing that same tactic she did to get her ass out of the fire that she did, right here, in the hopes of shutting the messenger up….

    What message am I hope to avoid or hide?

    When you are exposed to it 24/7, you know, it sticks.

    When you hunt for it 24/7 and stretch anything to suit, I can see how you’d reach that conclusion.

    If most women understood that the fiercest male proponents of said rights are there to make it easier to bag said women (look at Clinton, Weiner, and Filner for proof, and the list of other such candidates is long and distinguished), and could care less about them or their rights otherwise, I have a feeling many of those women would feel a bit cheated. Stupid people will get taken advantage off.

    So why don’t they understand it? How do YOU understand it, but most women don’t? If it’s not that they’re disproportionately stupid, then what is it? Because I’m sure you’d want to avoid coming across as believing they’re just too stupid to know better, wouldn’t you?
    Again, what about the difference between “individual sociopathic assholes and party policy”? Perhaps policy trumps the statements and actions of individuals? (even though when they clash so badly it looks worse than it would otherwise)

    Adopting the Democratic “War on Women” messaging and trying to flip it won’t work, because that was an argument about Republican policies on women — women as a group — rather than about reprehensible individual behavior. That’s why people like Rep. Todd Akin were a focus, not Rep. Scott DesJarlais (who, despite public opposition to abortion, pressured a mistress to have one.)

    http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2013/08/the-gops-totally-reactive-reaction-to-the-war-on-women/278303/

    Here is a novel thought for ya, CM: focus on people and their character, and forget their plumbing and other peripheral bullshit

    My point exactly. Criticise Hillary on grounds that aren’t related to her gender and you might have some initial credibility when you talk about your narrative ‘Dems treating women as chattels’ narrative.

    Personally I do not care if you have balls and a penis or ovaries and a vagina: I care if your head is screwed on right and your hands are out of my pockets and my freedoms are left intact.

    Unfortunately your comments about women don’t reflect that at all.

    Thumb up 1

  32. salinger

    Guess who likes the GOP’s 20-week abortion ban? Women.

    Couple points:

    First off – I believe this is true, and it is something I would support with one caveat. That you actually state it as agreed to by the majority of women polled.

    They did not say they like a BAN after 20 weeks. Polling showed that the majority of women support restrictions on abortions after 20 weeks. I agree with them. There is a difference between restrictions and an outright ban. That being said.

    A money quote from the article:
    People who think abortion should be legal, in many cases, are quite open to new restrictions.

    I would be amongst them. So would my wife who is a pretty vocal feminist.

    This should be looked at as a victory for the conservative minded. But this new breed of conservatism doesn’t see the above as good enough – agreed upon common ground compromise just doesn’t cut it for them – they refuse any and all compromise – they sneak anti reproductive right language into motorcycle safety bills, they require ultrasounds be shown to those seeking legal abortions, they force adoption workshops and misinform high school students that an abortion will leave them incapable of bearing children.

    It’s the total ban – the overturning of Roe v Wade – the “not even in cases of rape and incest” or the life of the mother crowd that so many on the right seem hellbent on going down with the ship with that the majority is opposed to.

    It’s these tactics that lose the GOP the women’s vote.

    Thumb up 3

  33. Mississippi Yankee

    “A money quote from the article:
    People who think abortion should be legal, in many cases, are quite open to new restrictions”

    I would be amongst them. So would my wife who is a pretty vocal feminist.

    Damn, I get a little better picture of you every time you post a comment.

    Thumb up 0

  34. Iconoclast

    It’s YOUR assumption, not mine.

    At times like this, I truly wonder of English is your native language. I quoted YOUR assumption immediately after I mentioned it:

    I can only assume you’ve given up.

    CM, August 3, 2013 7:25 PM

    How is that possibly “MY assumption, not yours”?????

    I wasn’t suggesting that “calling one woman a ‘hag’ is the moral equivalent to treating all women like chattel…”.

    Well, what you did say is this:

    Yep, and you can call one a “hag” in a post about how “the other side” treats them badly.

    CM, August 2, 2013 3:49 PM

    There is an implied comparison between “calling one woman a ‘hag'” and “how ‘the other side’ treats them badly”, whether you care to own up to it or not. Furthermore, when discussing “how ‘the other side’ treats them badly”, Alex mentioned “treating [all women] like chattel…”, so, by simple transitivity, there was an implied comparison between the two. Yeah, I know, I am “trying so very hard” yadda yadda yadda. Nonsense. English is what it is, no matter how inconvenient it may be, and when I read what you wrote, “”calling one woman a ‘hag’ is the moral equivalent to treating all women like chattel” is what immediately came to my mind, with no “effort” whatsoever (this is your opportunity to impugn my mental processes — have fun). The only “effort”, the only “trying so very hard” that comes into play is when I try to explain these things to those who are so (willfully?) obtuse.

    Very clearly they would not be any kind of equivalent.

    Good. We agree.

    If it’s so very blatant then why would blacks (and women) keep voting for the people that consider them simply as chattels (and presumably treat them as such)?

    I’ve already answered this question.

    Why could it not be predominantly because the party is more closely aligned with their values and how they believe society should be structured (i.e. the same reason you vote for who you vote for)?

    Who says it isn’t?

    Telling them they just want “free shit” (or that they’re part of the 47%) doesn’t seem like an intelligent or productive argument or reaction.

    How it “seems” to you is irrelevant. If they “want ‘free shit'”, then they want free shit. If “they’re part of the 47%” then they’re part of the 47%. Being sanctimonious about such observations doesn’t change anything.

    It would be trying to get you to vote Democrat by telling you to stop being a selfish greedy arsehole who thinks of the poor as simply units of labour.

    But I am a selfish greedy asshole. We all are, to one degree or another. And I personally favor coming to grips with that fact of life instead of trying to pretend it doesn’t exist. That is one reason I favor Capitalism — it recognizes that we are all “selfish greedy assholes” and channels that greed to productive ends better than any other system out there. The various flavors of Socialism try to pretend that the “selfish greedy asshole” aspect of humanity can be mitigated via government regulation. The problem, of course, is that those doing all the regulating are themselves “selfish greedy assholes” who refuse to admit it to themselves.

    As far as “the poor as simply units of labour” is concerned, again it’s Capitalism that has the better track record of elevating the poor out of the lower class and into the middle class.

    That’s awesome how you’re voting on principle but they’re not.

    I don’t recalling mentioning “principle” in any capacity whatsoever, but hey, since you brought it up, go ahead and explain to us what lofty “principles” are involved with simply voting for getting “free” stuff from government for oneself. That explanation should be “awesome”.

    It must be convenient to be able to easily dismiss so many people to justify your own beliefs, simply by making shit up and believing it.

    So now I’m “delusional” — that’s also “awesome”. Go ahead and substantiate this claim of yours that I am “making shit up and believing it”. While you’re at it, perhaps you can also substantiate why we shouldn’t consider that you are the one in that category.

    Nothing I’ve said comes remotely close to the sanctimonious moral indignation of your previous statement.

    Go ahead and substantiate this claim, if you think you can. What alleged “sanctimonious moral indignation” did I express in my “previous statement”? And by what measure do you claim it’s so much greater than any you have expressed that yours doesn’t come “remotely close” to it?

    I never just deny anything, I always explain why I think it’s wrong.

    You appear to be under the misguided notion that her speaking at a forum somehow precludes the possibility of her attending to other matters while at the White House.

    Not at all. My point is that she was there to speak at a forum.

    CM, May 23, 2013 5:00 PM, IRS and AP Scandal Updates

    You didn’t “explain” anything there. You just reiterated what I had already said about her being at a forum, while simply denying “that her speaking at a forum somehow precludes the possibility of her attending to other matters”, while arguing that very thing.

    I can find other examples, if you insist.

    You still mark it down as denial though.

    Sure, when your “explanations” fail to actually explain anything.

    So in reality you provide two options – agree or be in denial. t really doesn’t get more arrogant than that. Or transparent.

    And again, you peg the irony meter.

    You’ve provided a statement of one guy 50 years ago (apparently from a book full of rumur and speculation, so I’m sure it would be a favourite here).

    “Apparently” based on what, besides your obvious dislike? Can you refute that LBJ said this, or must you merely dismiss it?

    And what difference does its age make? Just because it dates back to the “Great Society” it’s no longer relevant? The point still stands.

    That kind of leaves two options, agree or deny. And no, I didn’t “invent” this system, it predates me by generations.

    There we go – you’re even admitting that an argument against you will be regarded simply as denial.

    Talk about transparent arrogance — you edited out the following:

    Either you can accept the assertion, or you can refute it, or you can simply deny it. Refuting it would be difficult, given the LBJ quote.

    So I do in fact acknowledge an option beyond “agree” or “deny”. I just mention that the third option, “refute”, would be difficult due to the substantiation I provided, so, by the process of elimination, only the two remain, “kind of“.

    That is simply not the same as claiming “an argument against me will be regarded simply as denial”, and it certainly doesn’t qualify as an admission of such. If you have an argument, then present it. Dismissals are not arguments, however.

    Again, lot’s of whiney hot air. If you don’t like my choices of rhetoric, too bad; nobody is forcing you to read my responses, or respond to them.

    You were the one that responded to me.

    Well, obviously — that’s pretty well implied by the phrase, “my responses”, after all. But again, this is just an example of you making a statement that doesn’t provide any actual information. It’s just a reiteration of something I already said, or at the very least implied. It certainly doesn’t qualify as an “explanation” for anything.

    You can pretend that’s what you’re doing but the evidence suggests otherwise.

    Then kindly present said “evidence”, and make your case.

    Thumb up 10

  35. Mississippi Yankee

    I don’t really understand that comment MY. What does that tell you about him?

    If you truly didn’t understand my comment then why did you down-vote me? Yeah, that’s what I thought…

    Thumb up 0

  36. CM

    At times like this, I truly wonder of English is your native language. I quoted YOUR assumption immediately after I mentioned it:

    I was referring to your assumption that I was saying “calling one woman a “hag” is the moral equivalent to treating all women like chattel”.
    You’ve done this before – you have this whole narrative of the ‘Flaming Left’ and that’s the lens through which you obviously read these comments. Another example was where you claiming that I had pretended to have done lots of climate change research/investigation, only to then admit that you were just assuming because that’s your experience with people (apparently) like me.

    And so we then get:

    As any liberal knows, calling one woman a “hag” is the moral equivalent to driving drunk, crashing your car into a river, fleeing the scene and leaving your girlfriend behind in the back seat to drown in the icy waters, only to be called the “Lion of the Senate” in your later years (Ted Kennedy).

    As any liberal knows, calling one woman a “hag” is the moral equivalent to being what amounts to a serial rapist while holding the highest office in the land (President Clinton).

    I’m a liberal, so I must be making those moral equivalents too apparently.

    There is an implied comparison between “calling one woman a ‘hag’” and “how ‘the other side’ treats them badly”, whether you care to own up to it or not.

    Except I didn’t just note that Alex called her a hag. I also said, directly following that:

    Your comments in general on this blog, much like some others here, are not exactly favorable to women (SO on Hillary: “Have you SEEN what a complete bucket of ugly Hillary deliberately is? More accurate casting would be a bulldog in a wig and glasses…”).

    There is a prevailing attitude on this blog from some people that isn’t exactly positive towards women, so when they’re looking to judge how others treat women (let alone complain about), it rings a little hollow. I hope that makes things a little clearer.

    There is an implied comparison between “calling one woman a ‘hag’” and “how ‘the other side’ treats them badly”, whether you care to own up to it or not. Furthermore, when discussing “how ‘the other side’ treats them badly”, Alex mentioned “treating [all women] like chattel…”, so, by simple transitivity, there was an implied comparison between the two. Yeah, I know, I am “trying so very hard” yadda yadda yadda. Nonsense. English is what it is, no matter how inconvenient it may be, and when I read what you wrote, “”calling one woman a ‘hag’ is the moral equivalent to treating all women like chattel” is what immediately came to my mind, with no “effort” whatsoever (this is your opportunity to impugn my mental processes — have fun). The only “effort”, the only “trying so very hard” that comes into play is when I try to explain these things to those who are so (willfully?) obtuse.

    I don’t doubt that you took it that way. This is apparently what you do (your SOP) – you interpret everything a liberal says through your little ideological lens, and conclude the most negative thing possible, often to fit some existing predetermined mindset. You’re actively seeking examples of “SOP from the Flaming Left”. It’s not just you either. BluesStringer/CzarChasm was an absolute master. At first I thought he was taking the piss (it really was uncanny), but then after a while I realised that he was actually genuinely interpreting everything that way.
    I was not saying it was a moral equivalence. It is possible to point things like this out without making one.

    Good. We agree.

    We do. I can’t even begin to think of how one could construct an argument to say that it’s a moral equivalence. For a start there would need to be some acceptance that the Dems have/do treat women like ‘chattels’.

    Who says it isn’t?

    You, by implying that women and blacks mostly vote Dems because they’re pandered to, including being offered free stuff.

    But I am a selfish greedy asshole. We all are, to one degree or another.

    I agree.

    That is one reason I favor Capitalism — it recognizes that we are all “selfish greedy assholes” and channels that greed to productive ends better than any other system out there.

    I agree, and favour Capitalism as well.

    The various flavors of Socialism try to pretend that the “selfish greedy asshole” aspect of humanity can be mitigated via government regulation.

    Capitalism requires government regulation to function. Not even Adam Smith argued against government regulation.

    The problem, of course, is that those doing all the regulating are themselves “selfish greedy assholes” who refuse to admit it to themselves.

    But at least there’s transparency. At least there can be.

    As far as “the poor as simply units of labour” is concerned, again it’s Capitalism that has the better track record of elevating the poor out of the lower class and into the middle class.

    I agree. Regulated capitalism though.

    I don’t recalling mentioning “principle” in any capacity whatsoever, but hey, since you brought it up, go ahead and explain to us what lofty “principles” are involved with simply voting for getting “free” stuff from government for oneself. That explanation should be “awesome”.

    Wow, you’ve misinterpreted this again, and yet you have the gall to suggest that I’m the one being obtuse. Far out man.
    There are no “lofty principles” involved in simply voting to get “free stuff”. But if you vote according to the best way you believe society should be structured, and so do they, and your own personal benefit or cost isn’t relevant to that equation, then you’re both voting out of principle. On the other hand, if you’re both voting to get as much personal “free stuff” as you like (by way of tax breaks for example), then you’re both voting solely for yourself.

    So now I’m “delusional” — that’s also “awesome”. Go ahead and substantiate this claim of yours that I am “making shit up and believing it”. While you’re at it, perhaps you can also substantiate why we shouldn’t consider that you are the one in that category.

    You seem to have determined that a certain (sizeable) proportion of those on the left just vote to get “free shit”. But how do you know? Romney said it was 47%, or pretty much every single person on the left. Do you agree with him, and on what basis do you substantiate that?
    My point is – how do you get to determine how many people just vote for liberal parties in order to satisfy their own personal desire for free shit? Because if you believe that the Dems get a lot of their vote (e.g. from women and blacks) because of the pandering, then that’s what you’re saying. If not, please correct me.

    You didn’t “explain” anything there. You just reiterated what I had already said about her being at a forum, while simply denying “that her speaking at a forum somehow precludes the possibility of her attending to other matters”, while arguing that very thing.

    I corrected you because your belief that I was “under a misguided notion” was wrong. You implied that I was suggesting that it was impossible for her to have done anything else at the WH while attending that Forum. Yet again you’ve cherry-picked, missing the next sentence (among others) which provides context:

    And yet apparently, according to The American Spectator, her appearance in the White House visitors log is possibly a “smoking gun”.

    THAT was the point – the American Spectator was pretending that her being at the WH was a big mystery, yet they had clearly either not bothered to click their mouse in the right place, or had decided to lie about the fact that her visit was listed at their own link, and elsewhere online (easily accessible).

    I can find other examples, if you insist.

    Don’t bother if it’s just going to be more misrepresentation.

    Sure, when your “explanations” fail to actually explain anything.

    Nothing ever seems to “explain anything” to you, which is exactly what I mean. You just deny that my explanation is acceptable, and say I’m in “denial”, quite often adding “knee-jerk”.

    “Apparently” based on what, besides your obvious dislike?

    Based on your lack of a supporting link. I assume you got it from somewhere, and didn’t just make it up? If so, it’s customary to provide a supporting link. Googling it brings up a number of right-wing sites.

    Can you refute that LBJ said this, or must you merely dismiss it?

    I dismissed it? Where?
    I even started my reply with “If it’s so very blatant then…” which would be consistent with accepting it.

    It’s hard to refute when you’ve not even linked to where you got it from. The only mentions I can see are simply people providing that quote. Eventually I found that it was from a book. I looked to see what I could find out about the book and it seems to be a fairly widespread view that the author picked and chose what to include to show the Republican Presidents as being great and the Democratic Presidents are being terrible. I’m struggling to find any sort of context to the quote other than the words you have provided.

    And what difference does its age make? Just because it dates back to the “Great Society” it’s no longer relevant? The point still stands.

    Hard to say, there is nothing to provide confidence that it was accurately quoted, or that the context was accurate. People are misquoted, or quoted out of context, all the time.

    So I do in fact acknowledge an option beyond “agree” or “deny”. I just mention that the third option, “refute”, would be difficult due to the substantiation I provided, so, by the process of elimination, only the two remain, “kind of“.

    I certainly would never deny that political parties (and politicians themselves) pander to attract votes/voters. They do it all the time. That includes the Democrats. What I would refute is the idea that having policies and positions that appeal to certain groups (and present a clear choice with another party or politician) is necessarily ‘pandering’.

    Again, I claimed that Democrats pander to certain groups to get votes, and I gave you a quote from President Lyndon Johnson to back up my assertion. Either you can accept the assertion, or you can refute it, or you can simply deny it. Refuting it would be difficult, given the LBJ quote. That kind of leaves two options, agree or deny. And no, I didn’t “invent” this system, it predates me by generations.

    Again, recognising that your parties’ policies and positions will likely appeal more to a certain group than the opposition group isn’t necessarily ‘pandering’. Also, if the Republicans had done something that would lose them a considerable chunk of the black vote (as opposed to Democratic policy being something that would probably secure that vote, LBJ’s could still have made that statement. So I don’t accept the premise.

    Thumb up 1

  37. salinger

    Well by all the down-votes it is obvious I am missing something that you all seem to see clearly.

    I have no idea what MY meant by, or the reason for his assertion:

    Damn, I get a little better picture of you every time you post a comment.

    Then – because I say I don’t see what he is saying – and I ask for clarification – I get down voted? Sometimes you guys are inscrutable.

    Thumb up 0

  38. Mississippi Yankee

    salinger, just have your wife explain it to you. Chances are you’re married to a person of infinite patience.

    Thumb up 1

  39. salinger

    salinger, just have your wife explain it to you. Chances are you’re married to a person of infinite patience

    What a chickenshit cop out. You don’t even know what you meant – do you?

    Thumb up 0

  40. salinger

    Did your wife tell you to use that language?

    Oh, I’m sorry. I hadn’t realized you were a complete idiot, or perhaps it had just slipped my mind. I’ll keep you in that special group, with Alex, of folks whose comments deserve no expenditure of thought. I’ll do my best to not respond to any but the most hilarious of your demonstrations of ignorance.

    Thumb up 0

  41. Iconoclast

    I was referring to your assumption that I was saying “calling one woman a ‘hag’ is the moral equivalent to treating all women like chattel”.

    Irrelevant; I am the one who brought up the subject of peoples’ assumptions, not you. I am the one who was initially talking about your assumption:

    I can only assume you’ve given up.

    CM, August 3, 2013 7:25 PM

    That means the subject of assumptions was currently focused on the one I explicitly quoted, the one you explicitly expressed. You then proceeded to respond:

    It’s YOUR assumption, not mine.

    CM, August 5, 2013 5:18 PM

    You were clearly in error, as “it” refers to YOUR assumption, the one I explicitly quoted, the one that you explicitly expressed. Any alleged assumptions on my part are irrelevant, since the subject of discussion was your assumption.

    It is simply ridiculous that I have to keep breaking these things down to such ridiculous levels for you.

    Getting back to my alleged “assumption”, where I am allegedly claiming that you were “saying “calling one woman a ‘hag’ is the moral equivalent to treating all women like chattel”, it is not an “assumption” at all, but an inference, based on the implications of what you actually wrote, as I patiently explained in my prior post.

    You’ve done this before – you have this whole narrative of the ‘Flaming Left’ and that’s the lens through which you obviously read these comments.

    We all perceive the world through our personal biases — it’s part of the human condition. I make no effort to hide this aspect of myself. If you can provide actual evidence as to why I shouldn’t “read these comments…through…the lens”, then do so, but for the love of Marx, do not sit there and tell me that you’re completely innocent.

    Another example was where you claiming that I had pretended to have done lots of climate change research/investigation…

    To clarify, I claimed that you pretended to do climate change research/investigation to the best of your ability. That qualifier means something. Liberals tend to advance the concept rather enthusiastically, for, apparently, it provides a path to further government expansion and regulation, and provides yet another avenue for pursuing some sort of “social justice”, whatever that term is supposed to mean at any given moment. It provides a way to wage a war against big oil, and coal. It provides a way to wage war against people who drive SUVs and sports cars, and otherwise selfishly enjoy their lives. To put it simply and bluntly, it provides the perfect opportunity/platform for the complete destruction of personal liberties for the collective “Greater Good”. You yourself advance that notion, because you “simply cannot see” how Capitalism or private interests cold possibly solve the problem — no, it’s up to big governments “sitting at the table” of power to devise solutions.

    I believe you investigated it enough to sufficiently satisfy and confirm what you probably wanted to believe all along. Of course, you will insist otherwise.

    I hope that makes things a little clearer.

    It does, and I am forced to agree. It doesn’t even just to apply to Liberal women — I’ve seen extremely unflattering things said here about Conservative women as well.

    I don’t doubt that you took it that way. This is apparently what you do (your SOP) – you interpret everything a liberal says through your little ideological lens, and conclude the most negative thing possible, often to fit some existing predetermined mindset.

    For what it’s worth, I’ve seen the same from you. We are all guilty of this to one degree or another. I just don’t try to hide it.

    You, by implying that women and blacks mostly vote Dems because they’re pandered to, including being offered free stuff.

    I said it in an attempt to answer your question as to why they do vote Democrat. I have stated elsewhere that any answer would be unflattering to the group. There is no flattering way to explain why an individual or group engages in self-destructive behavior. Furthermore, even if I imply “that women and blacks mostly vote Dems because they’re pandered to”, that still leaves room for other explanations to come into play as well. “Mostly” does not mean “exclusively”. I am sure that there are those who vote Democrat for what they believe are noble reasons, but there I go, filtering through my “little lens” again. Too bad, but I think liberalism is completely and utterly without merit, and cannot help but interpret the actions of any liberal through that lens. In my view, those who think they’re being noble by voting Democrat, so that “others may benefit from government programs” or whatever, are still voting primarily to make themselves feel better about themselves, and perhaps less guilty at some level, while ultimately doing harm to those they intend to help, and doing harm to the country as a whole.

    Capitalism requires government regulation to function.

    Well, there you go, completely missing the point while obliquely implying that I favor anarchy. Obviously some government regulation is necessary, but it should be minimal, and seek only to prevent people from deliberately harming one another. I am not suggesting that we abandon government, or the rule of law. I was contrasting how Socialism and Capitalism approach “the ‘selfish greedy asshole’ aspect of humanity”, and that Socialism tries to regulate that into submission, while Capitalism channels it toward productivity. That is how I was discussing “regulation”, in terms of trying to mitigate human social behavior, and I wasn’t even implying that there is utterly no place whatsoever for regulation.

    But at least there’s transparency. At least there can be.

    Well, obviously, but as the current Administration clearly shows, transparency is by no means a given, and can in fact be diminished to an alarming degree.

    Wow, you’ve misinterpreted this again, and yet you have the gall to suggest that I’m the one being obtuse.

    Sheer nonsense. I started this particular thread of discussion with two specific examples:

    I selfishly want my freedoms and liberties to not be eroded away, for example, while others selfishly want “free stuff” from the Government…

    Iconoclast, August 5, 2013 12:56 AM

    Those were the two examples on the table, and there was absolutely no mention of “principles” whatsoever. Nevertheless, you took it upon yourself to respond thusly:

    That’s awesome how you’re voting on principle but they’re not.

    CM, August 5, 2013 5:18 PM

    Again, there were two specific examples on the table, myself, and “them”, “them” being “others [who] selfishly want ‘free stuff’ from the Government”. The “myself” example never claimed he was doing it based on “principles”, nor did he claim that the “others” were not, for the “myself” example never even mentioned “principles” in any capacity whatsoever. So yeah, here I am again having to explain things to you in absurd detail, thus indicating how obtuse you can be, and there is no “gall” involved on my part. Quite the contrary, the one displaying “gall” would be you, for implying that I am the obtuse one, or, at the very least, suggesting that you are not while criticizing me for suggesting you are.

    Now, if you have a problem with the examples, if you think they aren’t fair representations or whatever, then sure, you can raise the issue. BUT YOU DIDN’T. You simply went with the examples as they were initially presented. So, obviously to anyone with two eyes and a brain, I didn’t “misinterpret” anything.

    Far out man.

    Agreed.

    You seem to have determined that a certain (sizeable) proportion of those on the left just vote to get “free shit”. But how do you know?

    Well, arguably, and depending on how nominal you want to be, I wouldn’t claim that I necessarily “know” anything at all. But I do recall various campaign ads during various election cycles, where the theme was consistently along the lines of, “if you vote Republican, such-and-such benefits will be cut back or eliminated, but if you vote Democrat, such-and-such benefits will continue, or new such-and-such benefits will become available”. Now sure, you can argue that 100% of the target audience would vote Democrat “for the benefit of others, with no benefit to themselves”, but that would be a self-defeating position, as it would imply that all those who receive these benefits either vote Republican or don’t vote at all.

    Are Welfare Recipients mostly Republican?

    For the record, no, I don’t believe it’s 47%.

    THAT was the point – the American Spectator was pretending that her being at the WH was a big mystery, yet they had clearly either not bothered to click their mouse in the right place, or had decided to lie about the fact that her visit was listed at their own link, and elsewhere online (easily accessible).

    And my point was simply that the one doesn’t necessarily preclude the other, but you were acting as though it did.

    Based on your lack of a supporting link. I assume you got it from somewhere, and didn’t just make it up?

    As far as I am concerned, you can assume anything you like. After all, you did say this:

    …nobody has to even pretend that any standards apply people can make up any old shit to suit their political ideology and others will claim it as FACT and as ‘news’…

    CM, August 4, 2013 8:37 PM — “I know it is wrong…”

    That tells me that you are free to dismiss the LBJ quote as “made up any old shit” that “others will claim…as FACT” regardless of whether I provide a link. How utterly convenient for you that you’ve invented a system where you can dismiss any inconvenient bit of information you want, simply by proclaiming it to be “made up any old shit” that “others will claim…as FACT and as ‘news'”…

    Thumb up 9