Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Do you support Rush Limbaugh's proposal?

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • The War on Conservative Women

    I'm sorry Rush Limbaugh called 30-year-old Georgetown law student Sandra Fluke a "slut." She's really just another professional femme-a-gogue helping to manufacture a false narrative about the GOP "war on women." I'm sorry the civility police now have an opening to demonize the entire right based on one radio comment -- because it's the progressive left in this country that has viciously and systematically slimed female conservatives for their beliefs.
    We have the well-worn battle scars to prove it. And no, we don't need coddling phone calls from the pandering president of the United States to convince us to stand up and fight.

    At his first press conference of the year on Tuesday, the Nation's Concern Troll explained that he phoned Fluke to send a message to his daughters and all women that they shouldn't be "attacked or called horrible names because they are being good citizens." After inserting himself into the fray and dragging Sasha and Malia into the debate, Obama then told a reporter he "didn't want to get into the business of arbitrating" language and civility. Too late, pal.

    The fact is, "slut" is one of the nicer things I've been called over 20 years of public life. In college during the late 1980s, it was "race traitor," "coconut" (brown on the outside white on the inside) and "white man's puppet." After my first book, "Invasion," came out in 2001, it was "immigrant-hater," the "Radical Right's Asian Pitbull," "Tokyo Rose" and "Aunt Tomasina." In my third book, 2005's "Unhinged," I published entire chapters of hate mail rife with degrading, unprintable sexual epithets and mockery of my Filipino heritage.

    If I had a dollar for every time libs have called me a "Manila whore" and "Subic Bay bar girl," I'd be able to pay for a ticket to a Hollywood-for-Obama fundraiser.

    Self-serving opponents argue that such attacks do not represent "respectable," "mainstream" liberal opinion about their conservative female counterparts. But it was feminist godmother Gloria Steinem who called Texas Republican Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchison a "female impersonator." It was NOW leader Patricia Ireland who commanded her flock to only vote for "authentic" female political candidates. It was Al Gore consultant Naomi Wolf who accused the late Jeane Kirkpatrick of being "uninflected by the experiences of the female body."

    It was Matt Taibbi, now of Rolling Stone magazine, who mocked my early championing of the tea party movement by jibing: "Now when I read her stuff, I imagine her narrating her text, book-on-tape style, with a big, hairy set of (redacted) in her mouth. It vastly improves her prose."

    It was Keith Olbermann, then at MSNBC and now at Al Gore's Current TV, who wrote on Twitter that columnist S.E. Cupp was "a perfect demonstration of the necessity of the work Planned Parenthood does" and who called me a "mashed up bag of meat with lipstick on it." He stands by those remarks. Olbermann has been a special guest at the White House.

    Some of us have not forgotten when liberal Wisconsin radio host John "Sly" Sylvester outrageously accused GOP Lt. Gov. Rebecca Kleefisch of performing "fellatio on all the talk-show hosts in Milwaukee" and sneered that she had "pulled a train" (a crude phrase for gang sex). (Earlier, he called former Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice a "black trophy" and "Aunt Jemima.")

    Or when MSNBC misogynist Ed Schultz called talk show host Laura Ingraham a "talk slut" for criticizing Obama's petty beer summit. Or when Playboy published a list of the top 10 conservative women who deserved to be "hate-f**ked." The article, which was promoted by Anne Schroeder Mullins at Politico.com, included Ingraham, "The View's" Elisabeth Hasselbeck, former Bush spokeswoman Dana Perino, GOP Rep. Michele Bachmann and others. Yours truly topped the list with the following description: a "highly f**kable Filipina" and "a regular on Fox News, where her tight body and get-off-my-lawn stare just scream, 'Do me!'"

    And then there's the left's war on Sarah Palin, which would require an entire national forest of trees to publish.

    A reporter asked Obama to comment on examples of liberal hate speech at Tuesday's press conference. He whiffed, of course. This is, after all, the brave leader who sat on his hands while his street thugs attacked tea party mothers and grandmothers as "Koch whores" during the fight over union reform in Wisconsin. (As I reported last week, his re-election campaign is now targeting the Koch brothers' private foundation donors in a parallel effort to chill conservative speech and activism.) He's leading by example.

    So no, we won't get any phone calls from Mr. Civility. Acknowledging the war on conservative women would obliterate The Narrative. Enjoy the silence.
    Townhall is the leading source for conservative news, political cartoons, breaking stories, election analysis and commentary on politics and the media culture. An information hub for conservatives, republicans, libertarians, and liberty-loving Americans.
    Captain of Team Apolyton - ISDG 2012

    When I was younger I thought curfews were silly, but now as the daughter of a young woman, I appreciate them. - Rah

    Comment


    • Originally posted by Tupac Shakur View Post
      I'm not surprised that neither Media Matters nor Oerdin seem to understand that online radio ads aren't simulcast with the on-air ads.
      They talked about this was just for WABC and that other stations would have different ads playing or not playing.
      Try http://wordforge.net/index.php for discussion and debate.

      Comment


      • She doesn't understand why people don't like her? This is like punching someone in the face then complaining when they yell at you for it.
        “As a lifelong member of the Columbia Business School community, I adhere to the principles of truth, integrity, and respect. I will not lie, cheat, steal, or tolerate those who do.”
        "Capitalism ho!"

        Comment


        • You don't actually like Michelle Malkin, do you?

          Comment


          • I have just as much sympathy for extreme right women, as I do for Ku Klux Klan members who complain about attacks made against them.
            A lot of Republicans are not racist, but a lot of racists are Republican.

            Comment


            • And that right there is the problem.

              Both sides are rapidly becoming rabid ijeets, but it's just fine if the target is someone who one disagrees with.

              You end up with... something like Apolyton.
              (\__/)
              (='.'=)
              (")_(") This is Bunny. Copy and paste bunny into your signature to help him gain world domination.

              Comment


              • Originally posted by notyoueither View Post
                And that right there is the problem.

                Both sides are rapidly becoming rabid ijeets, but it's just fine if the target is someone who one disagrees with.
                No that isn't the problem. You're doing what most reasonable people have been doing and assuming that when both sides start shouting that the blame must belong to both sides and compromise much lay somewhere in the middle. It's allowed the right to move the entire political conversation so far to the extremes and make what 10 years ago would have seemed beyond ridicule to today be mainstream political debate.

                Comment


                • Yes, it is a large part of the problem.

                  Saying that the other side is 'evil, stupid, poop heads' is not conducive for anything.

                  Saying that the other side is wrong for reasons A, B, and C is.

                  The first is (generally) wrong when the left says it, just like it is (generally) wrong when the right says it. It is the second where the left is (generally, not in all situations such as abortion) correct. But just because A, B, and C are all good reasons, and even if the other side is quite factually wrong, doesn't mean that you should resort to calling the other side 'baby killers'.

                  JM
                  Jon Miller-
                  I AM.CANADIAN
                  GENERATION 35: The first time you see this, copy it into your sig on any forum and add 1 to the generation. Social experiment.

                  Comment


                  • Originally posted by Jon Miller View Post
                    Yes, it is a large part of the problem.

                    Saying that the other side is 'evil, stupid, poop heads' is not conducive for anything.

                    Saying that the other side is wrong for reasons A, B, and C is.
                    Except that in practise it just ended up with the rational side of the argument getting drowned out in the noise. It was like when Obama came into office and said he wanted to engage with both sides. Six months later the right was screaming so loudly, that the message from the left was just not being heard. It wasn't until the left started engaging at the same noise level that the right started getting penned back into their box.

                    It's terrible that it has to be that way, but at the moment it really does. A politician can come out and tell blatant lies, and those lies are repeated and amplified despite being completely discredited, because the loudest voice in the room is the one the media are allowing to define the debate.

                    Originally posted by Jon Miller View Post
                    But just because A, B, and C are all good reasons, and even if the other side is quite factually wrong, doesn't mean that you should resort to calling the other side 'baby killers'.
                    Funny, didn't you do exactly that in the abortion thread?

                    Comment


                    • I was providing an object lesson.

                      I have made my anti-abortion stance clear here on apolyton many times. I don't normally call people who have late term abortions baby killers. In that thread I did, right after arguing against the demonization of those who are against homosexual marriage.

                      Even things that are factually correct due not contribute to the discourse.

                      JM
                      Jon Miller-
                      I AM.CANADIAN
                      GENERATION 35: The first time you see this, copy it into your sig on any forum and add 1 to the generation. Social experiment.

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by Jon Miller View Post
                        I was providing an object lesson.

                        I have made my anti-abortion stance clear here on apolyton many times. I don't normally call people who have late term abortions baby killers. In that thread I did, right after arguing against the demonization of those who are against homosexual marriage.

                        Even things that are factually correct due not contribute to the discourse.

                        JM
                        It was just an object lesson to us all about how to debate? Interesting considering how many times during that thread you chose to 'educate' us by throwing around vitriolic terminology demonizing your opponents.

                        Comment


                        • Not how to debate.

                          About how even statements based on things that are completely objectively factual, still do not contribute to the discourse. It does not bring things any closer to a solution. Yes, if I made a half comment thrown in there it wouldn't have had any impact.

                          JM
                          (I also, in the previous thread, gave why I thought pedophilia was different than 'don't date outside of your culture/etc' or 'men can't marry men' or what have you.)
                          Jon Miller-
                          I AM.CANADIAN
                          GENERATION 35: The first time you see this, copy it into your sig on any forum and add 1 to the generation. Social experiment.

                          Comment


                          • For example, take Pat Robertson. Who on the Christian Right, and I could see a clear argument as being a real 'evil, stupid, poop head'.

                            However, he recent said something like this:
                            Pat Robertson: Pot should be legal like alcohol


                            Based not on supporting pot or that people should do what they please, but that the war on drugs is harming many more people than it is helping (perhaps very few). This statement actually makes me wonder if I am wrong in thinking Pat is an 'evil, stupid, poop head' and that he is just someone who thinks differently from me generally (and is wrong).

                            Jon
                            (Note the most important thing. Wrong does not mean 'evil, stupid, poop head'.)
                            Jon Miller-
                            I AM.CANADIAN
                            GENERATION 35: The first time you see this, copy it into your sig on any forum and add 1 to the generation. Social experiment.

                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by Jon Miller View Post
                              Not how to debate.

                              About how even statements based on things that are completely objectively factual, still do not contribute to the discourse. It does not bring things any closer to a solution. Yes, if I made a half comment thrown in there it wouldn't have had any impact.
                              'Completely objectively factual'? I think you'll find that in itself is not 'completely objectively factual'. :P

                              Originally posted by Jon Miller View Post
                              (I also, in the previous thread, gave why I thought pedophilia was different than 'don't date outside of your culture/etc' or 'men can't marry men' or what have you.)
                              WTF? I must have missed that part of the debate, because I'm shocked and appalled that anyone even raised it in the first place.

                              Comment


                              • Originally posted by Jon Miller View Post
                                For example, take Pat Robertson. Who on the Christian Right, and I could see a clear argument as being a real 'evil, stupid, poop head'.

                                However, he recent said something like this:
                                Pat Robertson: Pot should be legal like alcohol


                                Based not on supporting pot or that people should do what they please, but that the war on drugs is harming many more people than it is helping (perhaps very few). This statement actually makes me wonder if I am wrong in thinking Pat is an 'evil, stupid, poop head' and that he is just someone who thinks differently from me generally (and is wrong).

                                Jon
                                (Note the most important thing. Wrong does not mean 'evil, stupid, poop head'.)
                                If you'll excuse the Godwin, Hitler was very anti-smoking and loved dogs. Neither of those things mitigated the evil stuff.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X