“When was the last time you heard a high-profile conservative pundit or politian say something disparaging to a woman or to women?”
Shannon Tanski on Mar 4, 2010 at 21:09:29
“Have you heard what glenn beck said in response to sarah palin joking that she wouldn't mind being on a presidential ticket with him?
"No, no I'm just saying -- Beck-Palin, I'll consider. But Palin-Beck -- can you imagine, can you imagine what an administration with the two of us would be like? What? Come on! She'd be yapping or something, and I'd say, "I'm sorry, why am I hearing your voice? I'm not in the kitchen."
The feminist movement, just like the proponents of gay rights, need to divorice themselves from liberalism if they ever wish to succeed. It is made clear by liberals such as Keith Olbermann that many liberals think women are only deserving of respect if they have correct thoughts. Otherwise, you are smeared as a "mashed up bag of meat," for example. Bill Maher has also shown that liberals find it perfectly acceptable to talk down to women with his mysoginistic comments regarding Sarah Palin.
Feminists need to focus on the things that ALL women agree on, and work from there. Free @bortion and childcare is not a good place to start. Not all women think that women should be completely free from all responsibility they have that comes with being a woman. People make decisions in life, and if women honestly desire to be held up as equals, feminists like this author need to move past the idea that personal responsiblity should not apply to them. That is called the soft bigotry of low expectations. Why is it that this author assumes that women cannot either have kids, or pay for their own @bortions, and still be functioning members of society? That may be one of the more sexist things I have read in a long time.
Feminists, like other special interests, need to become unentrenched from the liberal ranks if they ever wish to rise above.”
Appleblossom on Mar 5, 2010 at 11:42:21
“Showing you have no idea why liberals and feminists tend to be compatible.
Conservatives do not want women to have the right to make a decisions in their lives. Sarah Palin talks about her having the choice to have her last child and then in the next breath says she wants to not give that to anyone else.”
roseau on Mar 4, 2010 at 21:06:12
“I don't love everything you say, but I love the way you say it.”
mollybeejay on Mar 4, 2010 at 18:21:51
“Right, because as we can see daily, the conservatives really respect the little woman.”
“You are probably closer to a classical Liberal, you know, the ones that stood up for liberty. Today's liberals seem to have an affinity for fascism. They want to determine what is "right" and "wrong," and force everybody to live according to their whims, with the rules never applying to them personally. See: the anti-growth policies of Nanzi and Al Gore, and their airplanes.”
Mark Harker on Mar 2, 2010 at 15:39:43
“yES - THAT IS EXACTLY WHAT DRIVES ME NUTS ABOUT LIBERALS
SORRY MY CAPS KEY SEEMS TO BE STUCK ON FOR SOME REASON.”
snesich on Mar 2, 2010 at 15:25:03
“You're right, "Joe Caps"; I want a society in which each and every one of us can do whatever we want with no Big Bad Government taking away my rights!!!
I should be able to do whatever I want, whenever I want, wherever I want, with absolutely no restrictions whatsoever. I don't care who it might hurt or inconvenience. Anything less than that is restricting my freedom and must be "fascism"!
Oh, what's that? You don't agree? Why not? What, are you one of them "liberals"?!?!?!
Oh, you actually agree there should be some laws and regulations on individual actions and behavior? Oh, really...well, I do too.
Gee whiz, I guess that makes us both "liberals". Now, maybe we can have a sensible discussion regarding where and when we make laws that restrict individuals, instead of denouncing the entire idea and slandering those who disagree with you. Would that be possible?”
“The founding fathers didn't know about the Internet. That means free speech does not apply to the Internet. I think you just broke the constitution or something. You should turn yourself in. Oh, and don't call anybody and tell them about this, because phones were not around then which means your free speech does not fall under that.”
TFlint on Mar 2, 2010 at 15:02:17
Ishmael1 on Mar 2, 2010 at 15:02:06
“I was beng facetious, boys and girls. That said, there IS NO Constitutional Definition of the term "Arms", now is there?”
“Dims do not want minorities to have any form of power. If they have power, they can rise up and become self-sufficent. Self-sufficient people do not need the government to survive, which means they won't be dependent upon liberal pols and won't have an interest in keeping them in power. That is why all liberal policy is anti-growth. They want to keep people down so they will be dependent on government subsidies and vote for the poltiicans that promise them more subsidies.”
Subterfuge on Mar 2, 2010 at 14:59:31
“You are awesome... You have a creative imagination that is completely laudable and respectable. You should, seriously, go into creative writing. Don't let your talents go to waste here trying to provoke the riff-raff with your inventions.”
“hahahahha what? it does not count cuz they can harm people? What, do you think the founding fathers did not understand that when they wrote the law?”
PaintingAnemone on Mar 2, 2010 at 15:24:56
“"it does not count cuz they can harm people? "
That's right. We already regulate things that can cause harm to others - chemicals, drugs, etc. - so what makes guns so special that any @ssh0le with a small johnson should be able to go buy one so he can make himself feel more manly?
You mention the founding fathers. Well, when they wrote the constitution hundreds of years ago, the point of the 2nd amend. was to arm the populace so that if the country needed defending (by, say, a regulated militia), they would be armed. It was for MILITARY DUTY.
The country is a very different place now, we have a fully equipped military, national guard, etc., so the idea that the average guy walking the street needs a gun for national defense is laughable. We don't need this anymore, and we definitely don't need nitwits out there stocking guns and ammunition with no limits.”
“Are you really that dense or do you not get that the language pertains to two different things: (a) the right to form militas and (b) the right for PEOPLE to keep arms?”
tjconkster on Mar 2, 2010 at 14:47:12
“Ah Joey boy, I thought you come after me. Did I step on your toe? You seem a little testy today...”
Robert Cantor on Mar 2, 2010 at 14:30:45
“those things are RELATED by the language. the right to bear arms can not be infringed so that people can form well regulated militias. you want to own a gun? Fine, join a well regulated militia; regulated by the federal or state govt.
“Violent acts with weapons went up in the UK after they banned guns. The problem is when you ban guns then only criminals own them.”
Forester on Mar 2, 2010 at 14:29:36
“The problem with these types of statistics (if you are in fact citing factual data), is that you have to control for many other confounding factors to make a valid interpretation. If guns were banned because there was already an increasing level of violence, then you might be able to show it would have increased even higher without the ban. Crime statistics move in distinct waves, often in close association with economic trends, and politicians always try to take credit for drops in crime rates during these periods.
Again, you have to be very careful when designing and interpreting these sorts of studies, and without expert interpretation, they can more often mislead than inform good policy.”
DrewDaugherty on Mar 2, 2010 at 14:16:52
“What part of "shall not be infringed" don't you understand?”
“It's not about whether or not anything is "needed." Do you really "need" free speech? Do you really "need" to be allowed to assemble peacefully? Do you really "need" to be allowed to worship?
See how that slipperly slope works there?”
TFlint on Mar 2, 2010 at 15:10:07
PaintingAnemone on Mar 2, 2010 at 14:23:34
“Actually, I need all those things. But guess what? Not one of those things kills anyone. Handguns, on the other hand, have no other purpose - absolutely none - than to injure or kill.
And I agree with Niasia. If a person I knew, and even liked, started talking about their weapons collection, and complaining about ammunition shortages, I'd definitely look at that person differently. In fact, I'd probably start monitoring them for emotional disturbance, so I could warn someone before they came to work one day with a semiautomatic and started capping people.”
“"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."
What part of "shall not be infringed" is confusing to you lefties?”
TFlint on Mar 2, 2010 at 15:05:44
“You are not well regulated.”
oldcliche on Mar 2, 2010 at 14:48:14
tjconkster on Mar 2, 2010 at 14:18:02
“Why is it everytime a democrat is elected president you righties run around like chicken little screaming the sky is falling? Right away you whine cry that the dems are going to take away the guns. I haven't heard anything of this nature coming from the WH
What planet do you guys live on?”
Robert Cantor on Mar 2, 2010 at 14:14:03
“pls describe what constitutes a 'well regulated Militia'?
is it walking into a gun show and buying a semi-automatic weapons and an adapter kit?
You will either ignore me or insult me because you have no real response to this.”
“Well, to his credit, that was BEFORE Obama blew more money than all of the presidents before him combined.”
Greybeard53 on Mar 2, 2010 at 16:09:47
Welib on Mar 2, 2010 at 12:29:32
“Where do you people get your information?
Republicans spent 5 trillion dollars on top of the 2.5 trillion dollars they gave themselves in big tax breaks. That's a 7.5 trillion dollar hole in the US economy.
Obama instituted the stimulus of 878 billion dollars.
Obama has NOT spent even close to what Republicans did and you know it.
You people face nothing. Your party can bankrupt the country, the rest of the global markets, give themselves trillions of dollars in tax breaks and then hold the country hostage becuase they don't like the Black man in White House.
That's all it is.
You cannot be stupid enough to believe Repubs that Obama has come anywhere near to what they have spent.
When he does start spend in his budget, you just remember who put us in this position that our president now has to dig the country out of.
Obama wouldn't have to spend like this if Republicans had been responsible and hadn't bankrupted the whole dam.ned world.
You have no idea what you're talking about!”
rmonroe on Mar 2, 2010 at 11:50:55
“So this myth is still floating around. How do you figure Obama blew more money than all the Presidents before him combined? Bush raised the deficit by 12 trillion dollars, Obama raised it by 4 trillion projected this year I believe. Is 4 more than 12 now? Is that the new teabagger math?”
Silvanesti on Mar 2, 2010 at 11:48:23
“"I’m a big fan of criticizing Obama’s profligacy, but it is inaccurate and/or dishonest to blame him for Bush’s mistakes. the 2009 Budget began October 1, 2008, the vast majority of the spending for that year was the result of Bush 2009 budget. Yes, Obama did add to the waste with the so-called stimulus, the omnibus appropriation, the CHIP bill, the cash-for-clunkers nonsense,but these boondoggles only amounted to a tiny percentage of the FY2009 total, about $140 billion of a $3.5 trillion budget."here are some subjective aspects to this estimate, to be sure. Supplemental defense spending could boost Obama’s share by another $25 billion, but Bush surely would have asked for much more extra spending,. Also, Obama used some bailout money for the car companies, but I did not count that as a net increase in spending since the bailout funds were approved under Bush and I strongly suspect the previous Administration also would have funneled money to GM and Chrysler. In any event, I did not give Obama credit for the substantial amount of TARP funds that were repaid after January 20, so the net effect of all the judgment calls certainly is not to Bush’s disadvantage.
Obama’s FY2009 performance is like a relief pitcher who enters a game in the fourth inning trailing 19-0 and allows another run to score. The extra run is nothing to cheer about, of course, but fans should be far more angry with the starting pitcher.”
devildog21 on Mar 2, 2010 at 11:40:25
“Need to work on those facts a bit Joe. The Shrub is responsible for a majority of the deficit. His tax cuts alone cost the country over one trillion. He never bothered putting the cost of two wars into his budget, costing us another couple of trillion. That, coupled with disastrous economic policy brought us to the brink of full blown recession. By the way, the bank bailouts were the shrub's brainchild too.
I'm not a big Obama supporter, but you can't blame him for spending what is necessary to try and bring our economy back.”
“Yeah but he didn't start an unfunded war, while one was already on, did he? You want to point to blowing deficits? How about unfunded tax cuts and Iraq? Obama is just trying to clean up the elephant poop.”
“It has more to do with him hating children. He wants them to be saddled with as much debt as possible so that Harry can dodge some politically unpopular policies -- like having to fund his statist dreams for America.”
“Uh what is so wrong about this guy wanting the benefits to be funded? You guys are attacking the man like he hates unemployed people or something, when in reality he just does not want more and more unfunded spending.”
clarryr on Mar 3, 2010 at 09:17:47
“Sure. That's why he voted against paygo that would requir any legislation to be funded.”
wespenn56 on Mar 2, 2010 at 18:26:39
“Where was his righteous indignation when he voted for unfunded tax cuts for the rich, 2 unfunded wars, etc. Amazing how he saw the light by denying the 10% of unemployed Kentuckians a chance to buy food”
phree on Mar 2, 2010 at 15:03:23
“No Republicans object to welfare bailouts for bank billionaires, or Goldman/AIG bonuses or the cost of war, or tax cuts for the top 1%, but when legislation comes through to support ordinary Americans, then he objects.
True hypocrisy & a lack of compassion!”
Welib on Mar 2, 2010 at 11:46:56
“You mean like the 5 trillion they spent along with their 2.5 trillion dollar tax breaks for themselves and their rich friends?
Please. These men were hired to do a job. They are the ones that put the people in this position in the first place and all of a sudden they want to be fiscally responsible?
Republicans have NEVER been fiscally responsible. Every time we have suffered through another near financial collapse it has been at the hands of Republicans.
They have caused division and unrest in the country with their failed policies and every day attacks against Obama and Demcrats. All lies and manipulation.
All they have are attacks and as far as I'm concerned, this is now an attack on the American people.
The Republican party has signed it's own deathwarrrant. Every voter that isn't Republican will be voting for someone else in November.”
CalDemo on Mar 2, 2010 at 11:35:54
“Unfunded spending like he voted for during the Bush years; tax cuts, two wars and medicare prescription benefits. Guess the tax cuts which benefited the wealthy the most was way more important than people who are trying to keep house and household together. His is not a noble cause, he's just an attention grabbing opportunist who no longer has any obligations to serve the public.”
MossyOak on Mar 2, 2010 at 11:35:49
“The place to get real is not on the backs of the unemployed. Try the bloated defense budget, or one of the 300 military bases we fund. Until those priorities are brought into line, the GOP has no standing to yell and scream.”
knerd on Mar 2, 2010 at 11:33:18
“What is WRONG is that Bunning is still using bankrupt, linear, either/or 19th century thinking. What prevents you from being accountable for the EFFECTS of your fiscal "good intentions"?”
rubygreen on Mar 2, 2010 at 11:32:18
“How convenient he choses those unemployed to take a stand.
What happend when he supported other unfunded bills that got us into the mess we are in now? Oh, I know, they were republican bills.”
m raskolnikov on Mar 2, 2010 at 11:31:26
“In the majority of States, benefit funding is based solely on a tax imposed on employers. (Three (3) States require minimal employee contributions.)
The taxes raised for unemployment have been confiscated to pay for things like private contractors in Iraq so they can fund their hooker habits.
Stop being a Fox news Parrot.”
Jim Fourniadis on Mar 2, 2010 at 11:30:57
“He had his chance to argue, if his objection is so important he can introduce an amendment, but his beef is screwing around with innocent citizens. THAT is what is wrong.
His philosophical difference has real consequences, so forgive me if I don't shed a tear for him being criticized.”
rmonroe on Mar 2, 2010 at 11:28:54
“As long as he blocked the Iraq war for not being funded. Did he? Oh wait, no. He didn't feel fiscally responsible then I guess.”