The GOP's War on Women

Discuss

174 Responses to “The GOP's War on Women”

  1. Guest says:

    It’s a great video.

  2. Mister44 says:

    That’s right. Only GOP women like that idiot Palin should be demeaned.

    Not excusing GOP idiots, but the Dems are full of old white misogynists as well.

    • Gideon Jones says:

      Yeah, but you see, we criticize and punish our old White misogynists.  We also refrain from passing laws taking basic rights away from women.  Which is really the bigger point- calling a woman a slut is horrible, but doing so while stripping her of several decades of legal progress is a hell of a lot worse.  

      Also, it’s really not OK to be using the “but they did it too” defense past the age of about 7.

    • eldritch says:

      Palin was demeaned for being an idiot, not for being a woman.

      As for misogynists among the Democrats, I can’t think of any high profile ones, nor any that are openly behind legislation which works against women’s rights.

      • Mister44 says:

         re: “Palin was demeaned for being an idiot, not for being a woman.”

        Give me a break. If some female dem was attacked like Palin is – just about her intelligence – the left would raise hell about it.

        As for misogynists dems – two words – Bill Maher. He and Rush have a lot more in common than they want to admit.  Just with a 1min google search I found these examples: http://suburbanmomnotes.blogspot.com/2012/03/misogynists-r-us-theyre-republicans-and.html

        If moveon.org wanted to fight misogyny, they would attack it everywhere.

        • PhosPhorious says:

           ” If some female dem was attacked like Palin is – just about her intelligence. . . ”

          See any random conservative on Hillary Clinton from 1992 -2000. 

        • Gideon Jones says:

          Maher is not a liberal or a Democrat, he’s a libertarian.  And he was roundly criticized by liberals for that, and many other instances of sexism.

          • hymenopterid says:

            Maher is just clueless.

          • Antinous / Moderator says:

            But…but…it’s Bong Boing’s responsibility to account for Bill Maher’s behavior!

            It’s just neo-Godwining. Problem: Republican being criticized for misogyny. Solution: Inject right-wing talking point about Bill Maher as if it were somehow relevant or the fault of the the critics.

          • Judas Peckerwood says:

            ‘”Maher is not a liberal or a Democrat, he’s a libertarian.”

            Um, no. He just wrote a million-dollar check to a Super Pac supporting Obama’s reelection, not something that any self-respecting libertarian would ever dream of doing.

          • Gideon Jones says:

            Because the GOP’s takeover by the religious right and people like Palin terrify him.  You might want to pay attention to what he’s actually saying.  

            A lot of us don’t fit neatly into the two party system ideologically, but still find ourselves supporting one or the other because there is no alternative in this country.  Maher is the same way.  

          • Shane Simmons says:

            “not something that any self-respecting libertarian would ever dream of doing.”

            Nor would any true Scotsman.

          • Navin_Johnson says:

             not something that any self-respecting libertarian would ever dream of doing.

            I think I saw a consistent libertarian once, just a quick glimpse and then it darted away.  Unfortunately I didn’t have my camera on me….

        • Antinous / Moderator says:

          Give me a break. If some female dem was attacked like Palin is – just about her intelligence – the left would raise hell about it.

          Please feel free to provide an example of a Democratic woman national politician who approaches Ms. Palin in lack of knowledge. Because otherwise, you’re just drooling.

          • Antinous / Moderator says:

            Isn’t she correct? Don’t politicians/terrorists/whoever of all persuasions commonly become popular by helping/pandering to the poor?

          • millie fink says:

            WOW, good work PapayaSF! One 9-year old remark by Senator Murray. 

            How the f does that compare to the mountain of recent, straight-up stupid remarks from Palin?

            You’re stretching so much that your Slip of Desperation is showing.

          • millie fink says:

            You should take off those partisan-colored shades you’re wearing, Papaya. Then you might be able to see that unlike the politicians you’re quoting, there’s no need to carefully cherry-pick for fatuous utterances when it comes to Palin.

          • Mister44 says:

             Soooo at a certain level of intelligence, it’s ok?

            I am sure everyone woman – every person – in politics has said something stupid. Or worse, try to legislate things they really have no idea about, such as the infamous “shoulder thing that goes up” http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carolyn_McCarthy#Gun_Control

            Palin might be a bigger idiot (or playing one), but that doesn’t excuse some of the nasty comments. 

          • Antinous / Moderator says:

            Soooo at a certain level of intelligence, it’s ok?

            I’d say that mocking someone who aspires to national leadership but couldn’t pass a 6th grade Civics test is perfectly reasonable. That doesn’t excuse racist, sexist, etc. language when they do the mocking.

          • hymenopterid says:

            Good job Papaya on providing some evidence in what was otherwise a purely speculative argument.  It’s still based on a hypothetical though, namely that if a Dem were as stupid as Palin, a conservative would be called a misogynist for calling her dumb.  

            I guess the perception is that political correctness is preventing Republicans from telling us all how truly dumb all the Democratic women are.  

            I don’t necessarily think that’s really happening but I can see how someone might think that.

            lol.

          • robuluz says:

            @PapayaSF:disqus  & @Antinous_Moderator:disqus 

            Perhaps not the best way to put it, but it is an undeniable fact that the vacuum of poverty is filled quickly by extremism. And when you don’t have enough to feed your family I’m not even sure what extremism is. Radical Islam is schooling and sheltering children all over the world, because a lot of states don’t have the means or the will.

            And there before us lies one of the few practical ways we can actually fight the war on terror, with foreign aid.

            Good luck trying to see any attempt from any Republican (let alone whats her name with the bus and the job at fox) to convey an idea that nuanced to mainstream America.

            No, they’re calling you a fucking idiot to your face, and a lot of you are lapping it up and asking for more.

            A lot of you are, obviously, calling it out for what it is too, thank God.

        • hymenopterid says:

          “If some female dem was attacked like Palin is – just about her intelligence – the left would raise hell about it.”

          Yeah, that whole liberal media shtick is getting pretty old.  Like I’m supposed to believe that the only reason I think Republicans are assholes is that the media reports the things they said or did.  It’s very existential.

          I can’t help but think that the only reason you’re trying to deflect attention toward media bias is because you know there’s  no way to defend the things Santorum said about rape being God’s gift of human life.

          (edit) The media is just where i get my news, 44. Google mostly. BB is media too. Moveon is media. Propaganda, but still media.

          If the left is going to raise hell as you say, they will be doing it in the media, just as the right does through it’s media channels. Public appearances, photo ops, press releases, speeches, that sort of thing.

          • Mister44 says:

             Where did I mention the media?

          • Phil Worthington says:

            Hymen, I suppose if you believe in this sort of thing – Christ was the result of date-rape – after all, didn’t god impregnate Mary while she slept? 

          • abstract_reg says:

            @google-44da4ddec3715c5077c3ddba1e15daab:disqus Luke 1:38 “And Mary said, Behold the handmaid of the Lord; be it unto me according to thy word. And the angel departed from her.” Sounds like consent to me.

        • chenille says:

          Maher again?  Really?

          You know, if all I listened to were you apologists, I’d think there wasn’t any sexism at all in the liberal world.  Because Republican after Republican has been trashing women, and every time the counter is always this one same guy, who is mostly a libertarian.

          No, I’m not asking for you to dig up a second example.  I read other things and know it happens everywhere.  It doesn’t change that this particular parade, where misogyny has all but been announced a core value of the party, is something else.

          • bardfinn says:

            It has been announced. Read the GOP national platform for 2004, 2008, 2012, the various state platforms, etcetera. They tend to be published as image-only PDFs — all the better to facilitate conveying their core beliefs to the public.

        •  Bush gets mocked more for his stupidity than Palin does.  Is that because he’s a man?

          I wish people would stop inserting non-existent bigotry into scenarios so they have something extra to be angry about.  It desaturates genuine acts of bigotry.

          • Navin_Johnson says:

             Palin is a media uh “whore” and a demagogue, as well as a perpetual gaffe machine, but you see, half the population “only criticize her because she’s a woman!”  “See what we did there!?”  “Flipped the script on y’all!”

            It’s also funny that as a person with little job experience, or vetting, that she was simply, and cynically picked for her looks and youth in contrast to John “old man yells at cloud” McCain.  She was like every right winger’s (and many libertarian’s) sekrit, pretend girlfriend.  I still recall all the crowing about her looks when she first came into American consciousness. 

            Oh, but don’t mock her being obviously waaaaay out of her league!  “Reverse sexism!  Reverse sexism!” 

          • novium says:

            Actually, there was a lot of sexism in how people spoke about Palin. To say I disagree with her politically would be an understatement. As a feminist, I think she’s disastrous. But at the same time, it would be disingenuous to pretend that all of the criticism directed at her was based solely on her nonsensical grasp of policy, frequent faux-pas, or frankly frightening politics. I wish it had been, it would have saved me considerable angst during the 2008 election, when I just really wanted to go “grr! palin!” but was constantly getting shit for being a “palin supporter” because I had the temerity to point out  when the  ire directed her way was more about her being a woman (in politics!) rather than some of the very, very, very many reasonable things to attack. But no. We spent a lot of time talking about how she looked, how she dressed, about her fitness as a mother, about how she was a whore, about how she was dumb as a rock but still fuckable, about MILFs (the last two were the worst, in my opinion, because they  work  to “put her in her place” as a sexual object.)

            But you know what else I also remember? A lot of feminists saying the same things. It’s not that either party is free of sexism or misogyny (hell, such a thing is extremely unlikely because sexism and misogyny still pervade out society) it’s that only one party is actively (and openly) trying to roll back all the advances of feminism.

            ETA- this last bit isn’t directed at Nathan as much as the rest of the thread.

            “The liberals are sexist too!” carries very little water with this woman. Yep. They are. So? They’re not the ones trying to get us ladies back to being barefoot and pregnant in the kitchen.

          • zuben says:

            IMO, Winona LaDuke was the most genuine, intelligent, wise, and (every positive adjective I could come up with) candidate for president we never had. She did not want to be in politics. Instead, she stepped up (for VP) because she felt a responsibility to do so. Exact opposite of Palin.

            Palin was a gender tool wielded by the cult of personality. It was convenient for the GOP because any (legitimate) criticism of her could so easily be dismissed as an attack on women. Clever and cunning. But ultimately, a fail.

        • Shane Simmons says:

          “Give me a break. If some female dem was attacked like Palin is – just about her intelligence – the left would raise hell about it.”

          Nancy Pelosi. Not for her intelligence, but everything else. How dare a woman be strong-willed and stand by her beliefs!

          I do say that some of the things said about Palin, and especially her family, made me extremely uncomfortable. As far as her intelligence goes, though, she gives the impression that her IQ is slightly below that of a tepid cup of water, but the party was pushing her as the perfect running mate. I mean, jeez, she acts dumber than Biden, and that’s a feat.

        • Navin_Johnson says:

           We’re still doing the Maher vs. Rush false equivalence thing?  Wow.

        • wysinwyg says:

          I love how conservatives keep citing Bill Maher as the liberal Rush Limbaugh.  Name one Democrat who has ever had to apologize to Bill Maher because he said something mean about him.  Provide some evidence that nearly as many libs take Bill Maher seriously as conservatives do Limbaugh.

          You won’t because you can’t because Bill Maher is not a particularly popular spokesman for liberalism.  Not many liberals are interested in his opinions or what he has to say.  And for good reason because he is a tool.

        • Eddie Abello says:

          There is actually a couple, albeit subtle, but  improtant difference between the two. Limbaugh claims to do a “news show”, he says several times during the broadcast that he is “America’s Anchor”. He sees himself as a source of information. It’s only when there is blowback from some stupid comment like this (or Donovan McNabb or Michael J Fox or the countless other hateful things he’s said) that he then falls into this default that he is an entertainer and he was not to be taken seriously. Maher is a comedian and never claims to be doing anything else but trying to get a laugh. Moreover, Maher has already gone through this and this is why he is on pay cable now and not CBS.

          Secondly, Limbaugh was attacking a private citizen who had no platform to fight back (well, she does now, but that is another discussion). Anybody who has taken a course in journalistic ethics knows that this is generally accepted. Why the double standard? Well, because Palin has millions of dollars and her own bully pulpit from which to respond, Fluke does not.

          Most importantly though, I think Limbaugh was willfully lying to confuse his audience and muddle the truth, more than a misogynist he’s a  fraud. Fluke was not asking for public funds to finance her birth control nor did she equate her need for birth control with how often she gets busy. That was a complete distortion of the truth.

          So if Rush thinks it’s unfair that people are petitioning his advertisers to leave his show he should change his format. He should move to XM like Howard Stern, or try a podcast. That way he would be immune from the criticism and he could say whatever the hell he wants. But there is very little money in that, and at the end of the day this is why he is mad, not some percieved double standard.

    • PhosPhorious says:

       Nobody liberal ever said that a woman being forcibly impreganted (which is to say, raped) was a “terrible gift.”

      Watch the video again.  If you think it is about conservatives “insulting” women, or calling them names, then you are very very stupid.

      A law that forces a woman to give birth to the child of her rapist does not compare in any way to calling Sarah Plain a c**t.

      It simply doesn’t.

    • Rindan says:

      Palin was demeaned for being incoherent and stupid.  There wasn’t a double standard.  Bush was also demeaned for being a fucking idiot, and he clearly was a bit sharper than Palin.  That isn’t to say that there are not misogynistic democrats, but the thrashing of Palin came from the fact that Republicans held up a complete dolt as their savior.
      Idiot politicians should be demeaned, regardless of what sex organs they wield.  It is okay to point to a moron and call them out for being stupid when they are trying to take control of the political system.

    • atimoshenko says:

      There’s a difference between belittling a person who happens to be female, and belittling women. Same way that disliking OBL did not make anyone a misandrist, but disliking men in general does.

  3. daemiel says:

     There’s just a *slight* difference between the two.  On one hand, you have people criticizing an arguably dangerously ill-informed, close-minded, and incapable candidate who said, “You can actually see Russia, from land, here in Alaska,” when asked about her foreign policy experience.  On the other, you have those who wish to restrict women’s health care purely on the fallacious argument that it is only desired in order for women to be promiscuous, with virtually no acknowledgement that there are serious and important health considerations.  Then the issue is downplayed as a minor matter – as if over half the country’s population isn’t female.

  4. bcsizemo says:

    Much like all Republicans hate Obama because he is black…

    • millie fink says:

      What? No, not much like that. Not much at all.

      Go directly to jail, do not pass Go.

      • bardfinn says:

        I could see individual republicans hating him just because he’s a Democrat. The difficulty with that, however, is this: if one reads and agrees with the GOP platform, One is — by definition — a racist. The GOP platform is almost entirely about securing white, Anglo-Saxon, Protestant, Heterosexual male privilege — except where it happens to coincide with white, Anglo-Saxon, Catholic male privilege.
        It may not be the sole or main reason, but to believe that a registered GOP Republican does not, in some measure, hate Obama because he is black, requires extra-ordinary proof.

        • Navin_Johnson says:

           Yes this.  Conservatism inherently boils down to supporting the existing hierarchy/tyranny against those trying to climb the ladder and seek some justice from below, and not much else, despite empty ramblings about “liberty” and “limited government”.

        • Navin_Johnson says:

          Not to worry, bardfinn.  I have no doubt that Obama will repeatedly remind us during the campaign that he is black, and his opponents are, in many cases, white.

          It’ll be impossible to forget with all the cartoons and funny photos of the Obamas harvesting watermelons on the White House lawn that will surely increase once the campaign heats up.

          Let’s not forget about those nice polls that tell us that nearly half of Mississippi GOPers think that interracial marriage should be illegal. 

    • h00kha says:

      if republican hate Obama so much, why are they trying so hard to loose?

    • Navin_Johnson says:

      Just yesterday we had The John Locke Foundation putting up a photoshop of Obama in s&m gear cradling a bucket of KFC chicken. Just the weekly installment of an endless assortment of racist caricatures and emails forwarded by GOP/right wing folks, ranging from average joes to heads of GOP organizations, to Federal Judges.

      Obama’s blackness is definitely a big part of it, especially when you see The GOP vilifying him for many policies that are the same or more right wing than those of the Bush admin that preceded him.

  5. PapayaSF says:

    You youngsters may need to know a bit of history in order to appreciate the irony here. Back in the early ’90s, sexual harassment was a terrible, unforgivable crime against women, right up to the moment Bill Clinton got caught doing it multiple times. Then, suddenly, it was no big deal, the victimized women were called “trailer trash” and other names, and an organization was formed to change the subject, because we all needed to “move on.” And now, when it suits them, MoveOn.org is all for defending women….

    • blueelm says:

      Ummmm… no.  And guess what, the fact that sexism exists in both Democrat and Republican circles shouldn’t surprise you since sexism exists in all of society. That means it exists in all religious groups and non religious groups. However, at no point does it get “cancelled out” and for certain nothing excuses the barrage of legislation against women being pushed by Republicans right now.

      All you’ve managed to display is that you, yourself, don’t give a crap about what is happening to women and care more about picking sides with politics. Thank you for being a part of the problem for all of the women in the US!

      • millie fink says:

        Wait, shouldn’t that be “Democratic and Republic circles”?  ;)

        http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democrat_Party_(phrase) 

        • blueelm says:

          Oops. Seems like one of those phrases that’s backfiring too. Turns out people don’t care what you call them so long as they’re the not-Republican party. That’s… actually really sad for the US.

      • Wreckrob8 says:

        Until men stop claiming to be able to speak for women and women stop claiming to be able to speak for men there will be sexism, misogyny, misandry and discrimination.
        Then people will start listening and communicating. ‘Religious thinking’ is the root of the problem. It has not always been so.
        I don’t even try to speak for straight men. How does that work? Fuck knows. So why should I claim to speak for women.

        • Scurra says:

          Do you mind if I completely agree with everything you say apart from the sudden introduction of the term “religious thinking”?  It’s “religious NON-thinking” that is the real problem here.  

    • Gideon Jones says:

      It’s only ironic if you ignore the policies championed by the parties involved and assume the criticisms here are related solely to personal conduct.

    • Antinous / Moderator says:

      Say, do you write history books for the Texas Board of Education by any chance?

      • PapayaSF says:

        You do know that that’s where the “move on” name came from, right?

        • bardfinn says:

          Strangely, there seems to be plenty of prior art in the multitude of extant responses to someone beating a dead horse.
          Now that’s been covered, move on.

    • Snig says:

      Been following politics since the 70′s, thank you, don’t quite need a history lesson. 
      MoveOn was originally about how the nation should focus on something besides a consensual blowjob.  One thing  Clinton was trying to do, which was nearly entirely ignored by the blowjob oriented republican party, was to defend against the then unknown Osama Bin Laden.  They compared it to “wag the dog”, and stated his actions were to distract them from the importance of the blowjob.  Towers might still be standing if the largely Blowjob wing of the Republican party hadn’t come to power.

      • Mister44 says:

         re: “Towers might still be standing if the largely Blowjob wing of the Republican party hadn’t come to power.”

        Doubtful. Osama hated America long be Clinton. Al-Qaeda already attacked the WTC 5 years or so before Lewinsky.  They don’t see any difference between R and D – they hate all of us.

        • Snig says:

          You are absolutely correct in AQ being happy to bomb either R or D.  My point was that had Clinton been better supported in his actions against OBL, or had the Bush administration paid better attention to the extant intelligence, the nation could have been better defended.  Odd fact: Newt Gingrich, who I don’t like very much at all, was one of those in the Republican party who did see the importance of Clinton’s attacks, and decried those who said he was doing it for political cover.

          • Mister44 says:

             Maybe – but I really don’t think there was anything anyone could do. They just were not on the radar. Presidents often get more blame and credit for what they do.

          • Snig says:

             @Mister44:disqus
            OBL was on Clinton’s radar, he spent political capital trying to assassinate him with cruise missiles.   It’s possible that had the cruise missiles  killed OBL that the attacks still would have gone through.  It’s also possible that had Bush and his cabinet paid more attention to the previous administration’s advice and the memos specifically predicting the 9/11 attacks that they still could have done those attacks or something similar. Hindsight is always 20/20.  I still think Clinton deserves credit for trying and Bush deserves derision for apparently not paying attention.

            From here, in 1998, at a time when when we should have moved on from talks of Lewinsky and paid attention to this:
            http://partners.nytimes.com/library/world/africa/082198attack-us.html

            “In his speech Clinton warned Americans that the strike would by no means put an end to terrorism.
            “This will be a long, ongoing struggle,” he said. “America is and will remain a target of terrorists.””

          • h00kha says:

            Clinton and Bush both reduced intelligence coverage of the middle east during their presidency, mainly to avoid embarrassing and pissing off the united emirates and their oil.

          • VicqRuiz says:

            “had Clinton been better supported in his actions against OBL, or had the Bush administration paid better attention to the extant intelligence,”

            Jamie Gorelick’s “wall of separation” between Federal investigations, established in 1995 under Clinton, may have made it much more difficult for either administration to find out what OBL was up to.

            Besides, what if we had found out, a week before 9/11, exactly what was cooking?  Very few people on this board would have supported drone attacks, invading Afghanistan, profiling Saudis or Afghanis at airports, or anything else really, as a preemptive action.

          • wysinwyg says:

            Maybe – but I really don’t think there was anything anyone could do. They just were not on the radar. Presidents often get more blame and credit for what they do.

            This is incorrect.  OBL WAS on the radar.  Clinton had Delta Force guys after him 24/7.  Clinton tells a story on his bizarre Fox News interview about calling off an assault on OBL because there would almost certainly have been civilian casualties.

            Besides, what if we had found out, a week before 9/11, exactly what was cooking?  Very few people on this board would have supported drone attacks, invading Afghanistan, profiling Saudis or Afghanis at airports, or anything else really, as a preemptive action.

            Non sequitirs.  Drone attacks and invading Afghanistan — neither of those things would have prevented 9/11 anyway.  So-called “racial profiling” is always counterproductive because race is simply not a good variable by which to profile someone.  Better variables might be “single male, traveling alone, little baggage, carrying weapons” and a bunch of other variables that actually apply to the 9/11 hijackers.

            Sorry Mister44 and Vic, you guys will have to do a better job of rewriting history.  But do it on another thread because this one is about misogyny, not terrorism.

    • Christopher says:

       You keep beating that horse, but not only is it not going anywhere it’s obvious you know it’s not going anywhere.

    • Shane Simmons says:

      Your drugs, share them.

      Is this one of those comments where we take the people who felt strongly about all forms of sexual harassment, and the people who felt like the Clinton scandal was no big deal, lump them together, pretend they’re all one homogenized group, and use that as a talking point? Yeah…no.

    • wysinwyg says:

      There may have been a few idiots saying that sexual harassment wasn’t a big deal but for the most part people were just pointing out that the Republicans spent millions of dollars and wasted thousands of hours of time of the courts and of government officials for the sake of nailing Clinton on something fairly ridiculous.  And as far as I can tell the whole thing was more about schadenfreude than about punishing wrongdoing.

      You might not want to dwell on this since the Court of (Kenneth) Starr chamber is not exactly a shining badge on the lapel of the Republican party. 

  6. bcsizemo says:

    I try to get the bulk of my governmental knowledge from George Noory.

  7. Susan Carley Oliver says:

    Back to the post – I heartily recommend the extended cut of this MoveOn ad. The look on the woman’s face at the end is priceless (as she ponders a bottle of aspirin).

  8. Green Ghost says:

    It is so satisfying to have Repubs complain about having their quotes used in this spot. It is so refreshing to hear truth in a political ad instead of lies and innuendo. Of course, I suppose all these quotes could have been taken out of context. :)

  9. Daniel Smith says:

    The difference between the D’s and R’s is that the D’s don’t have conservative evangelical christians that want to see the country ruled by their particular patriarchal  misogynistic interpretation of the bible and are a big enough block to be pandered shamelessly to. The idea that someone who thinks like Santorum thinks about women and women’s issues (among a plethora of other questionable positions) seems to have a shot, however remote, of being the president scares me to my secular humanist core. I find myself voting for the D’s not so much because I like what they say but rather because the republican party has taken on a distinctly dark ages approach to social issues and I have no desire to live in a theocracy.

    • h00kha says:

       that’s why we need run off voting.

      • Eric Rucker says:

        Or maybe last past the post voting.

        Because voting in the US isn’t actually voting for the best candidate, it’s voting for the candidate that’s most likely to beat the worst candidate, why not just vote for the worst candidate, and whoever has the least votes wins?

  10. teapot says:

    Not that an outsider’s opinion (Australia) matters in the eyes of American voters but from over here it seems the GOP and their supporting talking heads routinely say the most monstrous crap which is mostly demonstrably incorrect. It’s not even about a difference of opinion – it’s often just ludicrous thought-fail pandering to the lowest common denominator.

    I am pleased that I can read the commentary on posts like this without caring too much as I cannot direct affect nor will I be directly affected by the outcome of the election but let me just put it like this: I’ve been following the run-up to the election fairly closely for an outsider and if Obama was to be replaced by any of the GOP candidates, the world’s view of America would dim significantly because they all come across as simpletons. Bush was a literal laughing stock to us.. do you really want the world to see you through that frame again?

    Anyway, enjoy your shitfight.

    • bumpngrindcore says:

      I agree on being happy to not be in the states and subject to the will of bible-bashing ignorami masquerading as patriots.
      Then I remember that Tony Abbott will most likely win the next election.

      • ocker3 says:

         You’re just Trying to make me cry aren’t you???

        A lot of commentators are saying Queensland will decide the next Federal election, and Labor was beaten, shot, stabbed, buried, then dug up and pissed on by the electorate at this weekend’s state election. If that’s any indication of what’s going to happen at the Federal level, I’m afraid there’s nowhere left to move to. The UK is a silly place, as is Canada, South Africa is dangerous as all get out, should we all move to Japan and reverse their aging population curve?

    • millie fink says:

      Yes teapot, it’s way better for a rapacious empire to come across as kindly and wise, rather than as what it actually is.

    • IronEdithKidd says:

      Your first paragraph?  That’s exactly what they’re doing. 

  11. HubrisSonic says:

    It’s typical that the right wing trolls in this thread cannot address the substance of the ad.

  12. It just boggles my mind that there are actually Republicans who read BoingBoing. How do they find us!?

  13. Ama Zing says:

    I find it shocking that so many have commented and how few have actually said anything relevant to the message of this video. Imagine your girlfriend/wife was raped and you were forced to raise a child from that rape because abortion was illegal. Imagine that abortion was not illegal,but before your recently raped loved one could have an abortion they were submitted to a transvaginal ultrasound. Would you want your loved one to endure that? The GOP wants to force all women into the dark ages. Not just the slutty ones who dare to have sex.

    • Gideon Jones says:

      Which is why they’ve decided to go with the “But Bill Maher said it too!” defense.  It’s a distraction from the actual legislation being put forward by the GOP while they make these comments.

      Even a lot of the furthest right people have suddenly realized that saying this stuff out loud and in public isn’t exactly doing themselves any favors. Unfortunately they seem to think they can continue legislating this way as long as they couch it in less inflammatory speech. Hopefully they’re wrong.

    • millie fink says:

      Amen.

  14. h0n0rb says:

    Good video, but my first thought was, “is this just because of that 80mph debacle?” I guess even so, it’s still a good video.

  15. squeeziecat says:

    Amazing. the vast majority of comments on this thread are simply name-calling, word-play and entrenched, tired rhetoric about the 2-party system. very few actually address the problem at hand – that being the potential roll-back of what much of the western world considers basic rights. 

    If I can make a wild generalization based on the profile names and photos (and hints like “if this was your girlfriend”), the vast majority of commenters appear to be male. you guys just don’t get it. this isn’t R vs. D, this is my right to make a fundamental decision about my body, my life, my autonomy.  

    I’ve been raped and I’ve had an abortion (unconnected events). I can assure you the first was traumatic and the second was liberating. had I become pregnant because of a rape and forced to carry that child, my life would’ve been changed – irrevocably – for the worse. this isn’t about rhetoric, this is about ruining women’s lives. time for the men to back out of this conversation and let women decide what we already know: we will make the right decisions for ourselves when it comes to whether or not to use contraception or have an abortion. if you don’t have a uterus, don’t tell me what I should do with mine.

    • millie fink says:

      Amen squared!

    • abstract_reg says:

      I’m hoping that the reason that most comments aren’t focusing on the Republican’s move to start a war on women is that this move is absurd.  It is so obviously wrong and it turns the United States into a one party system. And that isn’t a good thing.

    • IronEdithKidd says:

      I’ve always felt that men should have little say in women’s reproductive matters. Frankly, women past menopause, or who are infertile really need to shut the hell up about what goes on in my uterus, too.
       
      That’s neither here, nor there.  The problem is that republican controlled legislatures across the country are passing ALEC-written crap regardless of public opinion, ethics, morality, or legality.  Some of the legislation that has recently passed has already been found unconstitutional by various circuit courts if not by SCOTUS itself.  They’re doing it anyway.  They know how long and difficult it is to repeal legislation, they know the laws will stand until an org like the ACLU takes them to task.  So they keep on keepin’ on. 
       
      I could go on for days about how dissatisfied I am with the political structure in the US (as some men above have been doing).  I could go on for days about how insane the ultimate outcome of restrictions on reproductive freedom *will* be.  But nothing changes unless women come together to fight the bullshit, educate males without belittling them, and vote for candidates who aren’t a threat to your bodily autonomy.  I’m in a somewhat unique situation in that all of my representatives on the state and federal level are democrats who have pro-choice voting records.  I can cheerlead for women in other locations, but only those women can affect the change in leadership they need. 
       
      tl;dr - ladies, get your butts to the polls in November.

      • abstract_reg says:

        I think even fertile women shouldn’t have a say about what goes on in your uterus. It’s yours and yours alone.

        Also, men, if you like having sex with your ladyfriends you better vote aswell.

        And people not taking part in the gender binary, vote because these crazies are going to deny your existence till the ends of the earth.

      • Christopher says:

        As a man I usually feel it’s so patently obvious that I don’t have a say in women’s reproductive matters that I try to avoid commenting on the issue at all. And when I do comment I try very hard to remember that all I can do is offer an opinion as someone who will never be in a woman’s position when it comes to reproduction. That means that, no matter how educated or well thought-out my opinion may be, I am always going to have an outsider’s perspective.

        What I’m getting at is that, while women coming together would be a good thing, we men also need to come together and take collective responsibility for our efforts to dictate women’s reproductive rights. And stop doing it.

    • Shane Simmons says:

      “the vast majority of commenters appear to be male. you guys just don’t get it.”
      Let’s see.  My wife had a miscarriage.  If some social conservatives had their way, she would have been subject to a criminal investigation.  Given how traumatized she was by the event, I can only imagine how things would have gone if she’d had to undergo that.

      Oh!  She also takes birth control, and our insurance covered it.  What was it that Rush Limbaugh just called women who want their birth controled covered?  Sluts?  Prostitutes?  Yeah…call me crazy, but I didn’t appreciate that bloviating gasbag calling my wife a slut.

      But nah, someone who is married and has two daughters will never get it.

      I’ve been in the middle on abortion.  In cases like yours, I fully support it.  A means of dealing with an unwanted pregnancy when it was through careless consensual sex?  No.  I’d rather see tax dollars going toward giving away condoms and other contraception first.We could get into an argument about when exactly medical science considers a fetus to be a human, but it’s something that grows into a human.  Apparently that human is an “it” until it is born, and therefore has no right to live…because it’s not the woman with the uterus.

      And no, I’m not a Republican or particularly socially conservative, so please, no shooting from the peanut gallery about how I’m in favor of a fetus’s rights but against social programs, because nothing could be further from the truth.

      • abstract_reg says:

        Agree to disagree on abortion, we have bigger problems now.

      • wysinwyg says:

        I’ve been in the middle on abortion.  In cases like yours, I fully support it.  A means of dealing with an unwanted pregnancy when it was through careless consensual sex?  No.

        It’s not really any business of yours why anyone gets an abortion ever.  That’s the point. 

        If you think it is any of your business then despite your wife and two daughters I can only think that you really don’t get it.

      • novium says:

        The problem with that  is there will never be a Solomon capable of deciding which abortions are justifiable and which are not (for the sake of this argument, I am assuming that there are such things). There’s never going to be a rule of thumb easily applied, because there are so many different possible circumstances, and many of those circumstances are unknowable/unprovable that in the end it all becomes subjective. There’ll never be a way to weed out the “careless consensual sex” from the “I was raped, but since it wasn’t a stranger in a dark alley, no one will ever believe me” from the “pregnancy is a threat to my health.” (ESPECIALLY that last one. What constitutes a threat to one’s health? Certainly even a healthy pregnancy represents a health threat, albeit a relatively small one. It’s all a spectrum from there- certainly, diabetes can certainly make pregnancy risky, but it can also be managed, but sometimes not enough…then there’s mental illness. My sister is on a lot of medication. It keeps her relatively stable. If she were ever to become pregnant, she’d have to go off her meds. This would likely mean an extended stay in a mental institution, something about which she still has nightmares, because when she’s off her meds she is a danger to herself.)

        So with all those considerations? I think the best thing to do is to let women make the decision for themselves, for good or ill. To me, the chance that women would use abortion as an alternative to birth control is far better addressed via education, easy access to a variety of contraceptives, and really great support for pregnant women, families, and adoptions than restricting abortion to only the “justified” type (especially since there are so many ideas on what constitutes justified).

        The second thing- about the rights of a fetus as a person…you’re right. No one is ever going to really agree on when life begins/when a fetus counts as a person. But even if we assume a fetus has the full rights of a person, it’s not a clear cut case. The right to swing my fist ends at your nose, yadayada, and being forced to carry a baby to term is a pretty big infringement on a woman’s own self sovereignty. In this equation, (assuming equal humanity and equal rights), someone is always going to lose in a pretty big way. One person’s rights will be elevated over another’s. Honestly (and I know you weren’t arguing this yourself, but I see it a lot) it’s hard not to take offense as a woman when the rights of a potential person are considered to automatically trump my own as a fully realized person, even to the point of my own death.

      • “I’d rather see tax dollars going toward giving away condoms and other contraception first.”

        You realize, don’t you, that NO tax dollars go to “funding abortions” — the Federal monies provided to Planned Parenthood, et al, are SPECIFICALLY banned from use for abortions.

        I’ll give you benefit of doubt…

      • squeeziecat says:

        Sorry, Shane. you got it wrong. As I mentioned above, I did not become pregnant via rape, in fact, I became pregnant by having sex with my husband – through contraceptive failure. We were relatively young and poor (although I was very informed about sexual health and was very careful to use 2 methods of contraception at all times – which still failed). We were  sharing a house with a single mother with a fretful, colic-y newborn and were shocked by our collective inability – 3 adults – to help in any way. 
        We knew we’d be ill-equipped parents if we had a baby before finishing school and moving out of our student-style shared digs. We went on to have 2 great kids 6 and 9 years later - we’re great parents now. I look back on that decision with no regrets. So please, before you go on about “giving away condoms”, understand that every pregnancy and decision to have an abortion is far more nuanced than you will ever know.

  16. Daniel Smith says:

    I can happily ignore “stupid one liners” from any side. The problem is when what appears to be a “stupid one liner” actually articulates concisely a horribly twisted worldview. It isn’t the one liners that are the problem, it is the policies that seek to strip women, gay folk, and anyone much different than them of hard earned rights that are the problem. The repubs have become the party of rich white evangelical male privilege, and by their own admission they seek to kill Roe v. Wade, to make being gay a crime once again, and to gleefully keep plundering the wealth of the nation and stuff it into their already bulging pockets. This would be the case with or without the “stupid one liners”.

  17. abstract_reg says:

    How much of this will be stuck to Romney when he goes head to head with one of the greatest political speakers of my lifetime in the Fall?

    • Antinous / Moderator says:

      Since Santorum has just said that he’d rather see Obama than Romney win, it should be an interesting campaign.

  18. Sean McKibbon says:

    I couldn’t believe that the comments up top were all about the parties and not the repugnant content of the words uttered by the politicians. I don’t care what party a person belongs to, if they say any of those things (I’d heard the limbaugh stuff not the other things before and now I AM SO ANGRY!) they are filth. The ad is effective. It turns the tables by stripping away that patriarchal authority figure voice and showing how ridiculous and awful what was being said is. I’m proud of whoever came up with this ad and the women who participated in it.

    • Mister44 says:

       The reason politics  came up so early is that the video was one sided. Misogyny isn’t a GOP only problem. Maybe it is more prevalent, I dunno, but moveon.org is a left wing group and it’s a right wing attack. It isn’t about fighting misogyny, but showing how awful some of the right is, while ignoring any bad behavior on the left.

      • Daniel Smith says:

         I’d be gratified to hear of any dems that want to roll back womens rights so that they can be properly flayed. Please share. It really isn’t about the stupid comments, it’s about the stupid policies…it just seems that most of the really stupid policy ideas come from one party.

      • chenille says:

        Maybe it is more prevalent, I dunno…

        Then you haven’t been paying any attention to what the parties have been saying and doing. Unless maybe it’s impossible to know, because you won’t trust “left wing” groups, and nobody can be unbiased and point out the order of magnitude difference.

      • Amphigorey says:

        This is not a case of “both sides do it!” The right wing is WAY WAY WORSE about women’s health than the left wing. Like, orders of magnitude worse. If your main concern about the video is that it’s one-sided, your priorities are messed up.

  19. zuben says:

    Dear GOP,

    It appears you’ve alienated large voter demographics with your current approach. The dog whistle frequencies are still effective, but you’ve long since sewn up *that* base. For those who aren’t so readily falling in line with your agendas though, here’s my advice: straight up candor.

    And remember, it’s not going to be easy to get everyone to vote against their best interests, but we need to keep America’s finest reality show “Political Theater” live. At least for a little longer…

    Examples:
    ————

    Rush Limbaugh: Hey ladies, I’m one of you! I’M A WHORE! A corporate whore, but in essence, we’re both selling our *ahem* services, aren’t we? You see, we’re not so different…

    Rick Santorum: Hey gay people, I’m one of you! I mean, I know what it’s like to be marginalized. Did you know there’s a War On Christmas?! For Christ’s sake–a war! Where will the persecution end?! The Christmas displays don’t even show up until what–like September anymore?! Outrageous…

    Mitt Romney: Hey (human) people, I’m one of you! You see, I’m a corporation. And as such, I’ve had to fight long and hard for my right to be recognized as a person. I KNOW what it’s like to fight for personal liberties…

    GOP: Hey Americans, we’re you. Now repeat after us, er, yourselves: privatize profit and socialize risk. Got it? Good.

  20. chrispa says:

    How many millions of women vote Republican again?

    Why do you think that is? Just a bunch of dumb gals? Tricked by Eeeevil Conservative Man? Self-loathing Stepford Wives? Did none of you pause to think about this, even for a moment? Which variation of “They’re just dumb broads” do you want to use?

    None of you cringe at such laughably over-the-top political bumper stickers like “The GOP’s War on Women”…?

    I’m not mad. I’m just disappointed.

    • millie fink says:

      None of you cringe at such laughably over-the-top political bumper stickers like “The GOP’s War on Women”…?

      I don’t, because such observations are about Republican policies, not about who Republicans are as people. 

      I don’t think Republican women are necessarily dumb, but I do think they’ve been fooled into aligning themselves with a party whose policies are far more against women’s rights and self-interest than those of the opposing party. Being fooled doesn’t mean being dumb. Although I do remember studies purporting to demonstrate that the average IQs and educational levels on the Left exceed those on the Right, I’m sure “dummies” exist on both sides.

      • chrispa says:

        So, they were fooled by evil conservatives, because they have lower IQs than the Democrat-voting women who need taxpayer-subsidized birth control to avoid becoming pregnant.

        I was trying to determine if you were exposed to and understood – even if you don’t agree with – the views of millions and millions of Republican women who are just as passionate and intelligent as you.

  21. chrispa says:

    “It’s not really any business of yours why anyone gets an abortion ever. ”

    Fair enough. That’s why I’m pro-choice.

    Also not my business: Whether or not your able to raise that child you wanted without being encumbered by a husband. Leave me, my family and my tax dollars out of it. Because I respect your privacy.  

    • Susan Carley Oliver says:

      Right – because having a husband automatically means the family will never need public assistance.   

    • grimc says:

      Not my business: Why you got married and had kids. Yet as a single person I have to pay more while you get nice little tax breaks. Why should my tax dollars support your lifestyle?

      What? ‘Greater good’? That’s crazy talk!

    • Antinous / Moderator says:

      Leave me, my family and my tax dollars out of it.

      That’s hilarious.  Because you’re commenting with a .gov e-mail address.  Pro-tip:  take the log out of your own eye.

      • chrispa says:

        Wow. Is my email public, or did you just abuse your position as “moderator”?

        ‘Cause I can defend myself if need be. Can you? 

        • Antinous / Moderator says:

          Mentioning a top level domain doesn’t exactly expose you. Except as someone who complains about her taxes going to other people while using a government e-mail address to make blog comments. From a government IP address. Unless you’re being paid to make the comments. That would be a whole other thing.

          What do you think that moderators do if it doesn’t involve looking at where comments originate?

          • Shinkuhadoken says:

            For a Republican, surprisingly caught off guard by the whole free-enterprise-is-not-the-government-and-not-held-to-the-same-standards thing. Probably been in government too long. However, good to know there’s more social liberals in the ranks.

  22. VicqRuiz says:

    “Comments made by prominent members of the Republican party”

    OK, who have we here??

    First, a quote from that well known misogynist, “Republican lawmaker”.  Ooooooh, I know him!!  Could be a state representative from Bumfuck, Idaho for all we can tell.

    Second, we hear from “Foster Friess, major Republican donor”.  Next time someone cites comments by George Soros as official Democratic doctrine, I’m sure you’ll all agree, right?? Any of you who have heard of Foster Friess before you saw that clip raise your hands. Be honest, now!!

    Third, let’s cue up El Rushbo.  Wasn’t it just a couple of weeks ago that the marketplace was going to force him off the air?  In that case, isn’t this kicking a dead horse?

    Finally, we have ol’ sweater vest hisself, Rick Santorum.  Yep, can’t argue there.  I guess one out of four ain’t bad.

    Now, find me some equivalent quotes from Boehner, or DeMint, or Daniels, or Romney, or Jindal….then I’ll agree you’ve got the sense of what “prominent” Republicans think.  This is just an exercise in cherry picking.

    • zuben says:

      The quotes serve a purpose–it doesn’t matter from what caricature they were excreted from. The purpose is to help those others you’ve mentioned legislate accordingly.

      • VicqRuiz says:

        Fair enough.  When the five Republicans I mentioned initiate legislation to prohibit contraception, you let me know, I’ll be here.

        • zuben says:

          So just those five then? Sorry, I thought your point was that this was all just “an exercise in cherry picking.”

          And whether or not they draft the legislation themselves, they’ll still have a vote and will still shape policy that will affect people in ways they are insulated from.

          • VicqRuiz says:

            OK, how about “any Republican governor or chairman of a House or Senate committee” – that wide enough? Without their support, it ain’t happening.

            And I want to hear about laws that would prohibit contraception.  Not laws that deal with what the government does and doesn’t pay for.  Not the same thing.

            BTW, my personal position is that contraceptives for women should be available over the counter, just like condoms.  And paid for out of pocket, the same way.

          • zuben says:

            So OTC abortions (sans mandatory ultrasounds and other tomfoolery) then?

          • VicqRuiz says:

            “So OTC abortions (sans mandatory ultrasounds and other tomfoolery) then?”

            Early in pregnancy, yes.  I differ with the pro-lifers on that.  I differ with the pro-choicers on whether abortion should be allowed once you get to the point where the fetus can survive independently.  At that point, it is a distinct individual with its own rights.

        • novium says:

          Since he said it better, I’ll let Lincoln say it:  But when we see a lot of framed timbers, different portions of which we know have been gotten out at different times and places and by different workmen [...]and we see these timbers joined together, and see they exactly make the frame of a house or a mill [...] or, if a single piece be lacking, we see the place in the frame exactly fitted and prepared yet to bring such piece in—in such a case we find it impossible not to believe that [the workmen] all understood one another from the beginning, and all worked upon a common plan or draft drawn up before the first blow was struck.

    • The evidence you seek is in the GOP’s absolute refusal to repute *any* of those comments.

      In other words, they are COMPLICIT.

      • VicqRuiz says:

        Nonsense.  I don’t expect the Democratic leadership to “repute” (sic) idiotic things said by Al Sharpton or Mike Malloy or Dennis Kuchinich, and they don’t.

  23. Amphigorey says:

    Shane Simmons:
    You must uncouple the right to have an abortion with how any woman gets pregnant. It’s not your business, and ultimately it doesn’t matter. If it does matter, what you are doing is advocating punishment for sex. You are advocating forcing women to give birth for the crime of having sex. That is not okay.

    You must also remember that the vast majority of abortions take place early in the pregnancy, so yes, calling the fetus an “it” when it’s that undeveloped is perfectly appropriate. Don’t fall for the forced-birth propaganda that shows you pictures of newborn babies; two-month fetuses don’t look remotely like that.

    • VicqRuiz says:

      “You must uncouple the right to have an abortion with how any woman gets pregnant.”

      Of course, that’s exactly the same way that the “forced-birth” fundamentalists would put it.  Their view is that a baby’s a baby, regardless of the circumstances of contraception.

      It’s interesting though as I look up-thread, I see several posts telling me that “Republicans want to make raped women bear those babies”. I don’t see any posts about how “Republicans won’t let me abort that girl when I want a boy” or “Republicans won’t let me abort when I can’t take care of a child because of that heavy course load I’ve got”.

      No, the pro-choice side plays the rape card often, so don’t be surprised when someone says “OK, let’s make an exception for rape”.

      BTW – like your handle (yes, non-leftists can be Gorey fans too)

      • zuben says:

        I hope I’m not flirting with the ban-hammer, but I’m curious about where you’re coming from.

        First off, I apologize for my earlier snark. But the assertion that a woman needing an abortion would find it as easy and accessible as a man buying condoms over the counter struck me as absurd. Would the cashier be performing the transvaginal (or any other) ultrasound over that same counter?

        More curious to me is your statement:

        “I differ with the pro-choicers on whether abortion should be allowed once you get to the point where the fetus can survive independently.  At that point, it is a distinct individual with its own rights.”

        Survive independently? What exactly does that mean? Survive outside of its mother? Survive without (your) tax support? How would the former even be accomplished? But even if it could, wouldn’t that invoke the latter dependency: who and what will support this fetus? Tax dollars?

        What you’re saying seems to be an unwitting example of how the GOP so often talks out of both sides of its mouth.

        • VicqRuiz says:

          I see no reason why I should be compelled to accept either the view that life unequivocally begins at conception or the view that it begins only at natural childbirth. 

          I’m talking about successful survival with medical assistance.  Clearly this has never happened at 15 weeks, equally clearly it has happened very often at 26 weeks.  So if you abort at six weeks, you’re not killing a human being.  If you abort at 28 weeks, yes, you are.

          Now I realize that this drives the hard-core advocates on both sides crazy, because it doesn’t lend itself to an absolutist position.  Tough, that’s their problem not mine.

          • Antinous / Moderator says:

             VicqRuiz,You’re repeating yourself.  Why don’t you take the afternoon off.

  24. LulamaeBroadway says:

    Love the concept, but wish I liked the execution of the spot better.  Something about this spot just misses the mark.  It works as a preaching to the choir piece, but ideally it should be speaking to independents and traditional Republican woman who are increasingly alienated from their party. 

    I can’t quite put my finger on what doesn’t work.  Wish the women had been .. better actresses, better cast, more ironic, more – something, less… something else… Grr… What is it?

  25. Ladyfingers says:

    Surely abortion and contraception would cut billions from the welfare expenses the Republicans are so intent on reducing?

    • Daniel Smith says:

       They have another solution to that problem, do away with welfare and other programs for the poor altogether. Social darwinism will then weed out the unfit.

  26. xian says:

    This wasn’t a pro Democrat Party ad, it was an anti Republican Party ad.

  27. Miss Cellania says:

    The world needs more Democrat Party mouthpieces. The more the merrier.

  28. anarres says:

     How is Obama different than Bush? Obama doesn’t want to ban contraception and impose mandatory child-bearing. It’s kind of a big difference.

  29. PhosPhorious says:

     Not me. 

    Besides how is it “pro-democratic party” or even “Anti-republican” to simply repeat, verbatim, what various conservatives have said?

    Are you claiming the quotes were altered in some way?

  30. Hanglyman says:

    Not being as different as everyone would like him to be is not the same as not being different at all. I don’t feel either party represents me and I’d love a third option, but it’s still disingenuous to say that they’re equally bad. I really don’t see how exposing the shamelessly evil behavior of one of them is a bad thing, whether you’re a Democrat or not.

  31. Mister44 says:

     Somehow they must think there is  a big difference between the two.

  32. xian says:

    Welcome to America, home of the two-party system and deep fried butter.

  33. Shinkuhadoken says:

    Lord knows you can always turn to Fox News 24/7 for all the evils the Democrats do, real or imagined.

  34. saurabh says:

     How is Beelzebub, seventh duke of Hell, different than Asmodeus, the fourth duke? Well, while flaying your skin off with whips in the lake of fire, Beelzebub doesn’t festoon himself with your intestines and giggle the way Asmodeus does.

  35. h00kha says:

     if anyone wants to become president, they have to be for contraception, maybe not abortion, but no sane person wants a world without condoms and the pill. that being said, Obama and bush do have a lot of similarities when it comes to foreign policies and constitutional rights.

  36. VicqRuiz says:

    Citation for Bush wanting to ban contraception, please. 

  37. HubrisSonic says:

    Everyone knows the truth has a liberal bias!

  38. HubrisSonic says:

    I believe you mean ‘Democratic Party’…

  39. chaopoiesis says:

    Have sympathy for the plight of the Republican supporter… it’s a tough job, promoting the economic interests of the %1 at the expense of everybody else, and in a democracy that’s technically controlled by a voting majority. 

    The only way to pull it off is with a never-ending stream of deception, deflection, tribal shit-stirring, and general three-card-monte’ing. And you can’t ever stop peddling or the shills will come out of their daze, and then it’s game over. 

    A tough job… but then jobs are hard to come by these days. But if you’re doing all this Republican supporting for free, and you’re not already in the 1%… then you’re a major chump.

  40. “Lord knows you can always turn to Fox News 24/7 for all the evils the Democrats do, real or imagined”

    All politicians are assholes, but Fox has a policy against telling the truth about anything.

  41. renke says:

    is this somehow related to the Jesus Hate Facts poster?

  42. Miss Cellania says:

     Yeah, that what I meant, but I was quoting the original deleted comment.

  43. wysinwyg says:

     No, “reality has a well-known liberal bias” was a joke from the US television show The Colbert Report.  The “God hates facts” poster was a parody of a group in the US calling themselves the Westboro Baptist Church that picket military funerals and other stuff with signs that say “God hates f**s” (three letter slur starting with “f”, I think you can interpolate). 

    As bad as the Republican candidates are they’re nowhere near as bad as Westboro Baptist Church.

Leave a Reply