Quote for the day -- congratulations, fundies
"I had dinner with my ex-wife a few weeks ago, and she’s gone from a
down-the-line Republican voter in 2008 to vowing that she’ll never cast a
vote for a GOP candidate again, all due to the contraception brouhaha,
the trans-vaginal ultrasound bills, etc. And she’s (marginally)
pro-life, for God’s sake. I honestly think most of the commenters on this site have no idea the
breadth and depth of the damage that’s been done in only a few months.
Romney absolutely cannot win with the type of gender gaps he’s posting
across the board, and it’s going to damage other candidates down the
ticket. In Washington state, we’ve fielded an outstanding gubernatorial
candidate who’s considered the odds-on favorite to win. But at every
turn, he’s being besieged with questions and confrontations about his
stand on contraception, abortion, etc.....Congratulations, social conservatives, you’ve once again shat the bed with your overzealousness."
Republican commenter "Win M." here
Republican commenter "Win M." here
posted by Infidel753 at 9:49 AM
7 Comments:
Truer words were never spoken. The war on women is costing the GOP big time.
The last thing a rape victim's going to want forced on her is a trans-vaginal ultrasound. Do the people promoting this actually know how it works?
So our side is winning the war on men, then?
Good.
Deplorable methods can bring about good results.
They can even be necessary, unfortunately.
Ahab: There's growing evidence of it in the polls, thank goodness. I'm just disappointed that there aren't more men outraged enough by this crap to show it by changing their vote.
LA: Since in my opinion the real motive of most anti-abortion zealots is a form of sniggering, prudish "slut"-shaming, I think that's exactly their point.
GSG: Sorry, there's no "war on men" except in the feverish hallucinations of these guys.
A bunch of perverse sexually repressed men. I could say more but will stop there. ; ) Don't know what the problem is with their female supporters - probably just as repressed but they don't have to worry about their equipment working.
It's obvious Republican men like their women stupid or they wouldn't support idiots like Palin, Bachmann, etc. Smart women are a threat to them.
The GOP legislatures and governors who took over states in the 2010 election have shown what is important to them: imposing their religious doctrine on all woman residing in their states.
How else can we explain the laws that mandate state sponsered rape of girls and women? Non-medical requirement by state law of an ultra-sound by means of device inserted into a girl's or woman's vagina is rape. What woman in her right mind would support a political party that passed such a law?
Just typing those words astounds me.
This really, really happend in 2012 in the United States of America.
How dare any Republican condemn the taliban for anything they do to women.
LP: There are a lot of very repressed women in puritanical cultures (those cultures give a high priority to inculcating repression in girls, after all). One way this manifests itself is repressed women condemning, and feeling superior to, those who are not repressed ("slut"-shaming, etc.). It's unfortunate, but as long as prudery persists, there will be women who side with such men and support their goals.
SK: imposing their religious doctrine on all woman residing in their states -- in other words, theocracy. As I've been saying all along, the Republicans are now a theocratic party. And of course the taboo system is to be imposed on everyone. It is especially onerous in the case of women, though, since it's derived from an extremely patriarchal culture over 2,000 years ago.
On the Taliban, I see your point about Republican hypocrisy, but the crimes of any one group should not be used as a pretext for de-emphasizing the crimes of another. Since I write regularly about the evils of religion, I sometimes get commenters who try to minimize the evils of the fundie Christianity in order to emphasize those of Islam (example here, comment #7) or vice versa (example here, comment #6). But it's not an either-or, it's a both-and. The evils of both must be condemned without reservation or excuse-making, even if in some cases one can point at something someone else is doing that is a bit worse (by that standard, no crime should ever be condemned if there has ever been some greater crime). I know you're not doing that, but some people do, and it's a point I think needs to be made.
Post a Comment
<< Home