Why they hate us
Don Surber looks at the liberal hatred of conservative women in the public sphere:
Too many American liberals cannot handle a strong, good-looking, intelligent, independent woman who disagrees with them — and so they make the crude, cruel and sexist remarks — including those about raping them or their 14-year-old daughters…
…So-called feminists stand on the sidelines like so many Silda Spitzers or Elizabeth Edwardses or Hillary Clintons, standing by their menfolk while the boys treat women like dirt. Heck, Mrs. Edwards even served as her husband’s attack dog against any critic — even as she knew he was sleeping with his mistress of many years…
See what others have said
Note from Michelle: This section is for comments from michellemalkin.com's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that I agree with or endorse any particular comment just because I let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with my terms of use may lose his or her posting privilege.
Trackbacks
- McCarthyism, Obama-Style « NEOAVATARA
- They Hate All that is Good, Beautiful « Federal Way Conservative
- Very interesting perspective and explanation of the Liberal mind « I Took The Red Pill (and escaped the Matrix)
- John Wayne Would Have Eaten David Letterman for Breakfast: Honor and Patriotism, 30-Year Anniversary of Wayne’s Death « Frugal Café Blog Zone
- Bravo, Elisabeth… Elisabeth Hasselbeck Goes After Playboy for Disgusting ‘Hate-Rape of Top 10 Conservative Women’ Article (video) « Frugal Café Blog Zone
- Price of Hate: Alaskan Liberals Out to “Get Sarah Palin” « Frugal Café Blog Zone
- Ann Coulter, in Defense of Christian Beauty Queen Carrie Prejean: ‘Liberals Are Ferocious Misogynists’ « Frugal Café Blog Zone
- Why Sarah Palin Drives Female Liberals Crazy « Frugal Café Blog Zone
- Letterman was just being Dave (an asshole, it’s what he does) « docweaselblog
- Why The Left Hates Sarah « Teh Resistance Blog
- Crowder and Zo Mock Republican Stereotypes | The Great Illuminator
- Sarah Palin Should Apologize to David Letterman | FrancisRants
- Carrie Prejean, on Being Fired by Miss California Pageant, ‘I Was Speechless’ | Sean Hannity Exclusive Video Interview « Frugal Café Blog Zone
- Philosophical Divide & Moral Relativism: Sarah Palin vs. Katie Couric & David Letterman « Frugal Café Blog Zone
- More Hate Against Palin’s Children: Bill Maher Wants Spotlight, Tops Letterman’s Willow Palin Rape Joke « Frugal Café Blog Zone
- CBS Loses Hotel Advertiser Because of David Letterman’s Rape Joke: Boycott Working, Protest Planned Outside CBS Studio « Frugal Café Blog Zone
- The Left’s Definition of Victims & Role Models: Sonja Schmidt, on Elizabeth Edwards, Mark Levin, and Sarah Palin (video) « Frugal Café Blog Zone
- Letterman’s Apology to Palins: Pronoun “I” Used an Average of Once Every 11 Seconds; Egotism, Not Remorse « Frugal Café Blog Zone
- Glenn Beck: How Liberal Media Works (video) « Frugal Café Blog Zone
- Bias and Bashing: McCain’s Camp Still Trashing Sarah Palin « Frugal Café Blog Zone
- Sarah Palin: Stepping Down As Alaska’s Governor « Frugal Café Blog Zone
- Filmmaker John Ziegler Defends Sarah Palin, Denounces Media’s Attacks on Her Children… Heated Interview on ‘The View’ about Media Bias « Frugal Café Blog Zone
- Rush Limbaugh Breaks Silence, Mark Levin Speaks on Sarah Palin’s Resignation « Frugal Café Blog Zone
- Stacking the Deck: Mental Manipulation of the Public — Leftist Mainstream Media & Politicians’ Use of Non-Stop Bias Tactics « Frugal Café Blog Zone
- Tel-Chai Nation
Comments
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Categories: Double standards, Sarah Palin, Unhinged
Power Line
» More From the East Anglia Archives
American Thinker
» Sarah Palin and the low ebb of the cultural leftRedstate
» Morning Briefing for November 24, 2009Doug Ross @ Journal
» ACORN pwnage part II: Breitbart's BigGovt Lowers the BoomBig Government
» BREAKING: San Diego ACORN Document Dump ScandalVillainous Company
» Amateur Hour in the Oval Office Continues....Nice Deb
» O
Gorebot ~ O’s already said they wouldn’t be burdened by an unwanted pregnancy. I’m sure an abortionist is on speed dial at the Michelle’s cell phone.
RSS ~ Missed your response to the Playboy article. Be so kind and remind us your opinion about it. Thx.
I know the source of the contraction.
At:
http://memphis.about.com/od/midsouthliving/qt/yall.htm
…we are told:
I had thought that “All y’all” started at two or more people; however, it appears from the reference that it starts at several (four) or more.
Apologies.
Indeed.
When I told my parents I was pregnant with both of my kids, they were so happy they cried.
Never for a moment did they consider my son, or my soon-to-be-born son, a punishment who should be destroyed.
Indeed, if I miscarried or had an abortion, the loss of their grandchild would devastate them. And, in the latter case, they’d be very disappointed and ashamed of me (and rightly so).
And, I should add, they wouldn’t have been happy if I’d had my children out of wedlock but they’d never consider their grandchild a punishment.
Dexter ~ Thx for the correction.
A friend of mine recently miscarried. It’s been over a month and she’s still in deep mourning for Lincoln.
I don’t know, it felt like punishment to take care of a cranky newborn between 23:30 and 00:30 last night!!!
It is simply a matter of class, self-discipline and dignity. The vast majority of liberals simply have none of those.
Oh cripes, it just occurred to me:
Obambi is going to “knock up” Michelle in early 2012, as an act of political one-”ups”manship, just to gain even more fawning adoration from LibMedia, Inc, thus boosting his re-election campaign dramatically.
LibCo. will obsequiously swoon over the “presidential pregnancy”, of course.
Hope there are backups of that abortionist who’s speedial number “somehow got lost”.
Do you really think the public would ever hear a single thing about it or would it be “taken care of” in a quiet manner?
I’ve heard several women at my university talk about The Five Master Suppression Techniques developed by Norwegian psychologist Berit As. You can find an explanation here http://eng.kilden.forskningsradet.no/c53296/artikkel/vis.html?tid=53283&strukt_tid=53296. These 5 techniques are very apropos to how Conservative women are treated by the media and entertainment industries. They are
* Making Invisible
* Ridiculing
* Withholding Information
* Damned If You Do And Damned If You Don’t
* Heaping Blame and Putting to Shame
Berit As’s work is definitely progressive and feminist, but it’s so ironic and so funny to see how the Left can rail against women’s treatment by the “oppressors” (i.e., men) on the one hand, and then turn around and use those very techniques against women with whom they disagree. Hypocrisy with a capital H.
Michelle Obama is 45 already, unless she freezes some eggs, it’ll be unlikely, though not impossible, for her to conceive a baby during the 2012 election cycle.
Not punishment! A “burden of love”!
Over-40 women run a much higher risk of conceiving a Down’s Syndrome baby– as Gov. Palin did. But, if MO did conceive, and the baby did have Down’s, and she went ahead with the birth, the double standard between her treatment and that of Gov. Palin would be stark.
Isn’t O the messiah (lower case intentional).
Michelle’s conception and delivery would be immaculate!
Dexter Alarius said:
Hope you don’t mind, I just thought a minor upgrade was in order.
Well, Jesus said that whoever lusts for women would be better off gouging his eyes out if he wants to get to heaven, so you can guess what my opinion of Playboy is. Whatever stupid frat dude was writing that blog was talking about how much he would love to “hatef*ck” conservative pundits which is totally lame and uncalled for, but as rightwingrocker and I pointed out, that doesn’t mean he wants to rape them. It’s not the meaning of that word.
I doubt anyone who has been raped regards the act as not having been one of “hateful” “f*ck”ing, and the law says the Rapee’s assessment prevails over the Raper’s.
If there is a distinction, it is one without an iota of difference.
*yawn*
I am tempted to jump into the abortion thing again, but as chapoutier has (a little less than gently) pointed out to me: it’s pointless.
In any case, RSS is right. “Hatef*ck” does not mean rape.
AFAIK it’s the same as a “grudgef*ck.” That is, you really don’t like the person all that much but they are attractive and you desire to give it to them “rough and hard.”
Example: anyone see this movie:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Just_Friends
?
One of the characters, “Dusty” says he would like to “revengef*ck” (something similiar) one of the female characters. She was poopular in High School and never gave him the time of day. So, he wants some kind of vindication or revenge.
It’s not rape. It’s rough, consensual sex. It is meant to be humiliating to the female, but more so because she desires to be humiliated in such a way.
The Playboy article in question was juvenile and tasteless, but it wasn’t advocating rape.
Male Cow Waste.
Additionally, it doesn’t even have to be rough or anything like that.
For example, a male desiring a “hatef8ck” could seduce a woman in question, have consensual sex, and then go on to brag about it in effort to humiliate.
ei.: I had that conservative b|tch panting and screaming my name, HAHA!
Tasteless, stupid, juvenile, pathetic, but not rape.
You can count on the latter, even if she wants the baby.
RWR
http://www.rightwingrocker.com
To liberals, conservatives of any gender and color are not even “people”; thus it is easy to treat them verbally like garbage. However, this is the same mind set that allows one group of people to physically brutalize another. I truly believe that liberals would make the utterances of conservative thought illegal, and punishable by imprisonment if they thought that they could. Look at the so called “Fairness Doctrine”, or that deranged DHS memo about domestic terrorists if you are doubtful. Liberals do not respect free speech or equal treatment of conservatives. To quote David Limbaugh, they are “morally bankrupt”. Truer words have not been spoken.
Isn’t that what rape is really all about?
When love is the focus, sex is called “making love”.
When hate and humiliation are the focus, sex is called “rape” and “hatef*ck”.
ITookTheRedPill:
Rape can be about a number of things besdies humilation:
Control, anger, etc.
If a man seduces a woman, they have consensual sex, and then he goes on to brag / take pictures and post them on the internet / tell all his friends about his conquest / etc, that can be classified as a “hatef*ck” and still not be rape.
Why is anyone even bothering to argue over this? I thought the meaning of the word (of course it’s slang, but still) was completely plain and well-known.
ITookTheRedPill:
Are you telling me you never had a female acquintance with whom you argued with all the time, never got along with, and just completely loathed only to later find yourself… (fill in the blanks) ?
Geee… someone missed out on their 20’s.
So since the intent is just humiliation, it’s all good, right? Wouldn’t rough sex possibly be physically harmful to the woman?
How is this anything only slightly better than rape? Isn’t this exploitation? And which of the conservative women on that list desire to be humiliated?
The article clearly meant rape.
Come on guys.
http://www.urbandictionary.com/
Do a search there. I can’t post the link itself because of the word filter.
Not one mention of anything non-consensual.
Look everyone; it’s no secret that conservative women are often treated with a double-standard by liberals. However, let’s not try and inflate the issue into something it’s not. Then that just makes us guilty of our own rhetoric.
englishqueen:
I never said it was “all good.” On the contrary, I have used various negative descriptors several times now.
It’s still not rape.
Doubtless, no one on that list desires a “hatef*ck” that still doesn’t mean the author was advocating rape.
sonofdy:
It clearly said “hatef*ck.” If the urban dictionary isn’t a good enough source, then I don’t know what is. *smile*.
zeroangel: IT CLEARLY CMEANT RAPE IN THE ARTICLE.
Do I need to yell it louder for you???
sonofdy:
I didn’t get that from the article (granted I merely skimmed it).
It seemed to me that the article was clearly talking about “hatef*cking” and not “rape.” There is a distinction.
It was still a tasteless and stupid article though, I agree.
Yes I KNOW. But this article was talking about rape.
sonofdy:
Yes, this article is trying to say that hatef*cking equals rape. It is being inflamatory and is guilty of it’s own rhetoric.
I never understand why pundits like this feel a need to inflate something already so egregious. Why risk sacrificing your own credibility when you don’t have to? Is an article about hatef*cking not tasteless and despicable enough? Do they really need to turn it up a notch?
I asked my wife what she would interpret the word to mean and she said rape. She was, at the time, completely unaware of the article or Letterman incident.
Regardless of what somebody wants to construe or infer from the term, the average person who is unaware of urban dictionary will think rape.
It is what it is.
I doubt I am going to convince any of you so I might as well give up.
It’s a slang word and the meaning is not set in stone being as how you can’t find it in Websters.
The Urban dictionary is the only “credible” source I can think of in this case. It agrees with me. Doubtless many other’s wives, husbands, brother-in-laws will disagree. *shrug*.
Now we’ve turned the talk to the Playboy article again, I’d just like to point out that considering the author would have a snowball’s chance in he!! of the lovely ladies he mentions agreeing to a hatef#@k, it could definitely be construed as a rape fantasy.
flmom:
You don’t agree to a “hatef*ck.” You are unaware that the consensual sex you are engaging in is a “hatefu*ck.” Well, at least not until the pics show up on the internet or something like that.
That’s part of the point afterall, unless, of course, it’s a mutual “hatef*cking.” Now that’s something.
You guys have made my afternoon BTW. What a discussion!
zeroangel
There must be some clueless women out there that would have consensual sex with someone who didn’t like them. Most women I know have an antenna for whether someone likes them or not.
Flmom:
Yes there certainly are clueless women out there. It can also be mutual, Urban dictionary spells it out rather well.
“My ex and I can’t stand one another, but the sex was so good, we occasionally hatef*ck.”
PS. There are clueless men out there too. (Making sure I am not accused of gender bias).
To these people conservatives an impediment to their quest for a society based on social justice. Their view is morally superior (in their eyes)
Because you are an impediment to justice you are unjsut and immoral.
Because you are unjust and immoral, you do not merit either justice or mercy. Further, given their secular view of morality, there is no higher authority than them, so there are no inhibitions on what they are capable of recommending happen to someone, or their children or their families.
In North Korea, if you transgress, all generations of your family are arrested to ensure the your cancerous presence in the society is totally excised. As you can tell by Letterman’s comments about a 14 year old girl, the “Progressives” are evolving into the next phase of their “social enlightenment.”
All together now, “it is possible to be an atheist AND a conservative.”
PS. It’s also possible to be a religious person AND a liberal.
http://www.firedavidletterman.com
zeroangel,
You deserve a clarification. I do not consider 90% of the liberals, like yourself, to be members of The Left or the Progressive Movement.
Unfortunately, for you The Hubert Humphrey’s, Paul Tsongas’, Joe Liebermann’s, and Paul Wellstone’s are no longer in control. The 10% who have no moral compass are running the show.
The whole argument about is it/isn’t it rape misses what is — to me, at least — the key point: the obligation of men to govern their base emotions, instead of letting those emotions get the better of them.
Most men who pick up the thought of using sex as a tool to degrade or humiliate a woman won’t take long to put it back down again.
The more noble among them will sooner rather than later experience a head-on collision with their conscience.
The less noble will at some point before committing the fantasy to article form realize that the sheer logistics involved in pulling it off without the aid of a Mickey or a gun would make the endeavor too absurd to contemplate further — absent some deranged John Hinckley-esque obsession, in which case there ultimately awaits either a jail cell or a padded cell.
Either way, any man with even a shred of decency and at least a notional sense of mental equilibrium wouldn’t stay on that line of thinking long enough to debate himself about whether it’d qualify as rape before dropping the subject.
If you have to ask yourself or someone else whether it’s rape, or if you have to do mental gymnastics and indulge in word-games to rationalize that it’s not, then you’re already over the precipice.
I don’t think it’s actually religion or right to life issues at the bottom of their ilk, those are diversionary issues they ‘think’ they can use to wedge people against conservatism in general.
No, I think it’s really the ‘bottom line’ issue of the non-producers getting very worried that the producers might re-gain some control over what they produce.
Sarah Palin recognizes and represents the producers. She knows that without any producers there will nothing produced at all – which is EXACTLY what the communists hope BHO will be able to pull off during his fraudulent term in office. That’s why I think the brainwashed apparatchiks become soooo enraged over even the mere mention of her name.
Just remember that many at Jim Jones’ compound really did drink the koolaid completely satisfied being told that suicide was their only option. Those following BHO are no less blind to his agenda, no less blind to the writing on the wall that he is determined to destroy our country.
Ok, lets say this frat boy wanted to hate f#ck you. Tell me again how this would not be a sexual assault?
Hi there!
Flyoverman:
If you had to nail me down, I would refer to myself as a “conservative” with left-leaning stances on a variety of issues. Or, maybe more accurately, an independent or “libertarian.”
I wouldn’t call myself a right-leaning liberal. I never voted Democrat. Ever.
Regulus:
It’s not about rationalizations or anything like that. As I have said several times, I think the Playboy article was juvenile, tasteless and stupid. My issue is with the pundits on the right blowing it out of proportion and sacrificing their credibility over some stupid Playboy stunt.
NJ-Aviator:
I know you were addressing RRS, but I believe I answered your question (albeit indirectly) above. What if the “hatef*cking” is mutual?
Take care all. BBL.
Jeddite:
Cheers!
Exactly.
Just to clarify my “blow out of proportion” statement:
It is true that the left will give a pass to misogynists they happen to agree with politically.
It is true that the Playboy article was tasteless, stupid, crass, and juvenile.
It is not true that hatef*cking equals rape.
Because Don Surber (and others) are willing to lie and distort the issue on this point (a point that doesn’t need to be lied or distorted since hatef*cking is so pathetic anyway) I am suspicious about what else he is willing to lie or distort in order to score political points.
I was listening to Hannity on the radio this afternoon. He didn’t even try and claim it was advocating rape (at least not while I was listening). You don’t have to. It’s enough to be honest about this.
Regulus:
…or not, maybe the author didn’t realize anything because he is a stupid frat boy?
To claim that he was advocating rape is disingenuous. Sexist, stupid pig? Yes. Rapist? No.
The concern is that the author of that particular screed injected a sexual aspect into his attempt to degrade select conservative females.
He began with something to the effect of, “We may despise everything they stand for…” which is one thing. One may hate another’s politics; one may even express that disdain in an article, “10 Conservative Women We Love to Hate.” Fine, whatever, all of the targets are public figures and should be prepared for criticism if not vituperation for their publicly expressed views.
But that wasn’t good enough apparently. He had to take it one step further, wandering into a line of perverse thought that would be impossible to realize without using sex as a means to “punish” these women.
My point is, if a man feels the need to use sex or to refer to sex as a means to “control” or to intimidate or to “discipline” a woman, he’s already crossed the line of what cannot be tolerated in how a man treats a woman — whether or not he expressly or obliquely advocates “rape.”
It’s all word games after that.
Regulus:
I don’t disagree with you for the most part. As I said, my issue is with why Surber felt the need to dial it up a notch. Why change “hatef*ck” to “rape?”
The obvious answer is he felt it necessary to turn up the volume on the rhetoric. It was unnecessary and he has sacrificed credibility in my eyes.
As far as “word games.” There is a very clear distinction between “hatef*ck” and “rape.” “Hatef*cking” can be mutual and it is consensual. Huge difference. It is possible, afterall, for both man and woman to degrade one another.
People like Surber that are trying to say “hatef*ck” equals “rape” are the ones playing word games. Why? Why sacrifice your credibility when it’s completely unnecessary?
We are in general agreement as to the lack of professionalism of the article author.
But I can’t take your definition of that term and square it with the article in which it appeared. For example, I don’t know the woman but I believe that Michelle would never consent to such treatment. She might submit to it if credibly threatened with immediate violence toward her or her family, but she’d never consent.
It’s a safe bet that the article writer knew or at least had to suspect that too, before he sat before the keyboard; yet he targeted her anyway.
So break it down: The author is effectively saying:
1. I despise Michelle Malkin.
2. She’s really *attractive,* though (I won’t use the specific term he used).
3. So, writing as I am for a porn site, I’d really like to personally, sexually express my hatred of her.
4. Whether I could count on her cooperation is doubtful, but doesn’t preclude the desire to commit the act.
It’s the last point that makes the difference. If the writer believed that “hate____” is as you say “mutual and consensual,” — yet at the same time knew or should’ve suspected that all of his desired “partners” could only be made to submit, not to consent to it — then by writing what he did he seems to have a broader definition of that term than yours.
And his definition is the one that matters: “Hate________ can be mutually consensual, but doesn’t have to be.”
Once you go there, it’s all downhill: you have to keep asking yourself awkward moral questions about what you’re doing:
- “Should I go ahead and purposefully, crudely, sexually degrade this woman, or not?” A rapist asks this question.
- “If I actually go through with this, and she won’t consent, should I force her to submit?” A rapist asks this question.
- “If I trick her or drug her into “consent,” but she comes around to realizing that I’m doing this solely as an act of pure hatred and tells me to stop, do I? After all, once she’s pregnant, she stays pregnant — Karma’s a bitch, ain’t it?” A rapist asks this question. [The italicized words are those of the Playboy.com writer.]
If by the express nature of what he wrote the author clearly indicates that he answered “Yes” to all these questions, then it is not sacrificing credibility to say that the line between “hate______” and “rape” is a very fine one indeed.
Anyway, I have said enough on this topic.
What’s the point? Without any actual principles of their own to weigh them down, liberals can change the definitions of words as often as they change their minds. Message boards, the Constitution.. it doesn’t matter – there’s never been word written for which they would not attempt to change its definition if it suits their agenda. Even the word ‘is’.
Thanks for the feedback. Hopefully my ADD will not overcome me and I will remember it.
It seems as though liberal “support for women” (including many so called feminists, it seems) is about as worthless as their “support” for the troops.
Unless George of the Hut nails her before then. It’s a ghetto thing, yo!
Regulus:
Beyonce wouldn’t consent to letting me sleep with her either. However, if I write about my fantasy with her it doesn’t mean I am advocating rape.
Elevating “hatef*ck” to “rape” is obvious and unnecessary rhetoric and strains credibility.
*WRT to the above:
…that’s only because she doesn’t know me well enough. *smile*
On June 11th, 2009 at 3:36 pm, zeroangel said:
No, I never had a female acquintance with whom I argued with all the time, never got along with, and just completely loathed only to later find myself “Hate F***ing” her.
And I don’t feel like I “missed out on” “Hate F***ing” women.
Sex is best in a loving, committed relationship (also known as “marriage”). Sex outside of that may bring short-term pleasure, but often leads to long-term emotional pain and suffering.
Consider this… if everyone practiced abstinence until marriage, there would be:
No sexually-transmitted diseases
No pregnancies out of wedlock
No emotional scares from having been “used for sex” and then dumped.
englishqueen1
Well, about the only way that wouldn’t involve physical assault or drugging would be some sort of cynical manipulation seducing the hated target into consenting. (Why anyone would bother would probably make an “interesting” tale, if one likes reading about seriously disturbed minds.)
Hmm, let me think. Nope, still sounds like a scummy thing to do to someone. Guess RSS is out of luck.
…and this is what I get for not going over to page 2 since it looks like the same thought occurred to others.
ITookTheRedPill:
Clearly there was a hint of sarcasm in my previous post. My point is made though, “hatef*cking” is not the same thing as rape.
Maybe some women missed out on hatef*cking you? I don’t know. I’m just sayin’, no need to make this a gender biased thing.
It sure can.
…usually when the respective parties are heaped upon shame and humiliation via religious pressures.
…there would also likely be a great many sexually frustrated individuals and much higher instances of abuse.
What countries in the world exhibit the kind of things you desire? Mainly Muslim countries. Sex is nothing to be ashamed of, regardless of whether or not the consenting parties don’t get along in other areas and regardless of whether or not they are married. Imagine a world in which everyone was well-educated about sex, contraception, and were not possessed of ancient taboos related to sex.
I read quite a bit of the comments, wow, basically quite a few of the commenters seem to think that Palin asks for it. So does her daughter, the defense being that it was Bristol that Letterman thought he was spoofing. I am going to go to the Planned Parenthood here and scream slut to all the girls that go in there. I mean, it is only jokes, right? I wonder if I claim to be a commedian to the police when they show up if that will be a good enough excuse? I doubt it though, and imagine all you good people will be in here “defending or condemning me” after. Hello hipocracy, you continue to reside on the left.
RedPill, great point. Logical and practical alternative to all of these social ills. What it requires is what many lack, or refuse to practice – SELF-CONTROL.
2 Tim. 3:3
MtsEdge:
…except, as I pointed out: the cultures that take these “logical and practical alternatives” are hellish theocracies where just about everyone is suffering from some kind of unhealthy sexual repression.
These cultures are also among the most violent in the world. Call me crazy, but I think there might be a connection there.
(*Sigh*)
You are too far gone, and will never understand.
Go back and furiously try to redefine more English words and terms – and have fun.
Not sure if that particular word is the one that we would use in this instance; but, regardless, you’ve saved us the effort, and have illustrated yourself clearly in your endless self-justifying posts…we don’t have to call you anything.
OK, now.
Go ahead and have the last word, again…as you must.
granite:
OK, but I won’t bother responding to your points, oh wait, there were none. You were just basically calling me crazy. OK, well, back to you and many more…
granite, it is my considered opinion that zeroangel is a pedantic bore.
Little Ma:
…and proud of it! You can thank the Army for that. Attention to detail!
This has happened to me and my wife twice. Once many years ago with our oldest and just recently with our youngest. We were certainly not happy when we were told….but utterly overjoyed at the prospect of some more grandchildren.
By the way, the oldest had that baby out of wedlock, got married a year or so later to a fine young man. And now 23 years later, that out of wedlock baby is now a fine young man has blessed us with a smart and beatiful little great granddaughter….go figure….
The thing about this is that Palinites are irritated because of what he said about her, and that is a little, only a little bit off from my perspective. My only issue is when some seem to think as if it is only Sarah Palin to whom he’s a complete jerk. He’s been nasty to Bush, Cheney, Rice, Limbaugh. There’s no reason to think Palin and her family should be exempt, and there’s no reason to assume that, given time, he won’t spew some tasteless junk about Romney or Jindal. I mean, a Mormon and an East Indian Catholic – can’t let those easy liberal bigot targets go to waste, right?
The truth is that Letterman has been a creep to all conservatives for many years. This Palin stuff is just the final straw…or couple of cement blocks, that will hopefully break the camel’s back of his stupid career.
I don’t mind any joking against conservatives. Liberal late-night comedians Conan O’Brien, Craig Ferguson, and Jimmy Kimmel rip on conservatives without crossing the line like this. Usually their stuff isn’t too far worse than what they give Biden (though one will notice they don’t touch the One himself…).
Letterman’s stuff meanwhile, crosses the line from “funny” to “miserable liberal bastard,” regularly turning himself into a less explosive and more boring version of Keith Olbermann. Its been this way for years. Letterman felt slighted that he didn’t get the Tonight Show in ‘92. So, he went to CBS and in ‘95 Leno interviewed Hugh Grant and started clobbering Letterman in the ratings. So, he’s spent the next 14 years being a miserable at the world. Only natural he’d come to align with the liberals.
“Too many American liberals cannot handle a strong, good-looking, intelligent, independent woman who disagrees with them — and so they make the crude, cruel and sexist remarks — including those about raping them or their 14-year-old daughters…”
So why are many conservatives seeingly always dumping on Leftist Hollywood Starlets for their political views? Aren’t they (with a few exceptions) also strong, good-looking, intelligent (in terms of college educated, to a large extent) and independent?
Isn’t that like the pot calling the kettle black?
On June 12th, 2009 at 8:58 am, zeroangel said:
You’re crazy.
When someone says something, it comes either out of the honey of their heart, or the pus of the evil abscessed there.
These people say these things because they feel untouchable right now, and are basically drunk with the feeling. They talk about raping 14yr olds or hate-sex because it is their (previously secret) desire.
There is no humor, it wasn’t meant as humor. I know that is the cloak they dress it in, but don’t be fooled. Read not only what they say, but how they say it. They mean it! They say it because they can, and we seemingly can do nothing. It comes from the hidden face they no longer fear to keep hidden.
We, as a society, no longer build, but we tear down. Where once we’d try to underscore the highest and most noble of sentiments we instead plumb the cesspool.
Truely Satan rages in the hearts of the children of men…[2 Nephi 28:20]
Zero, you missed the part about self control. Not from government, or a theocracy as you put it, but from within. God gives the grace and strength to resist temptation to those who ask. It cannot be imposed by others. That is the difference between your man-made “hellish theocracy” and God’s grace freely given.
MtsEdge:
It’s every bit as impractical to expect abstinence plans to work as it is to expect communism to work. Human beings just don’t work that way.
I used the word “practical” in comment #171 b/c it can be applied in a tangible sense, not b/c it is easy. BTW, as I mentioned earlier, God gives grace to those who ask to overcome ANY temptation.
Abstinence should not be imposed on others like communism is imposed on people. Abstinence involves an attitude of the heart, and is intended to be a temporary condition existing prior to marriage, and at times, during marriage (no joke). But it requires an individual’s action on their own behalf, using God’s grace.
MtsEdge:
Excellent. Then you and I don’t have a problem. Is it OK with you if my wife uses an IUD?
What a question! (to self) Am I really expected to answer this?
(to Zero) Do you think IUDs are dangerous, and potentially harmful to a woman who uses one?
MtsEdge:
You don’t have to answer it. In fact, don’t, it will just lead to another abortion debate.
The OBGYN that delivered our boy is convinced that they are safe, effective, and a wise method of birth control. He is a consummate professional and I trust his input on the matter.