Going Rogue drawing crowds…

42 comments on this post so far. Add yours!

• 

  ChefGus on November 20 at 5:57 a.m.

  Ms Palin is but a “fox” in sheep's clothing… when one observes the “diversity” of the crowds she is drawing one might draw a conclusion that she is likely just a front for the very same old white males that run the Republican party. Representative McMorris-Rodgers is all to oft seen just to the left and slightly behind these guys in their current press conferences on Health Care Reform. Another pretty face with less than stelar academic qualifications.

  Charisma has it's place in politics certainly, but she stated yesterday that her reading of news … finally in some response to a question by a pundit over a year ago….. includes her local paper, an extreme right wing web site and the Murdoch owned Wall Street Journal… Wonder if she even knows what “The Economist” is…. ( Alan Who?)…

  She will fit right in when visiting Fred Meyer ( a renowned great book store..in our neighbor city to the East Coeur d'Alene.. It is one of the five fastest growing “Whitopias” in the United States… A meeting with Mr Tony Stewart of North Idaho College and the Human Rights commission there might raise her consiousness a bit..

  Julia Robers… Pretty Woman… good grief watch her walk and talk and move around… it is all very very well polished acting… john

  Flag as inappropriate

• 

  Ninch on November 20 at 7:29 a.m.

  I sense some real misogynistic leanings in the first post above (e.g. “fox”…”Another pretty face with less than stelar academic qualifications.”)

  Note: Correct spelling is “stellar.” So what are the “academic qualifications” of ChefGus?

  Flag as inappropriate

• 

  Ninch on November 20 at 7:42 a.m.

  P.S. President Truman had no “academic qualifications.”

  To address the blog:
  Regarding Palin, she has a political future, but not for President in the near future. Despite having more authentic “governance” experience than Obama, Palin is still being depicted as “unqualified” by the MSM… and “devil incarnate” by ObamaLand.

  The next viable candidates will be the opposite of Obama because he has already exhibited that a very short term Senate career, running a successful campaign, and giving speeches ad nauseum do not equate to being an effective President. Having a majority Democratic Congress was also the worst scenario for Obama, because he so easily reneged on his promise of bipartisanship.

  Flag as inappropriate

• 

  arliacne on November 20 at 8:03 a.m.

  Palin for President? Oh, god - please say it wouldn't be so! However, the jokes, cartoons and songs created at her expense last year were hilarious. Her inability to string an intelligent sentence together was like listening to a female version of George. She is a buffoon begging for media attention despite her attacks of the institution. And Fred Meyer in Coeur d'Alene? Bet she's looking forward to that stop, you betcha ;)

  As for Obama not being effective - thankfully the term is for at the least four years. It has only been 10 months. Let's just wait and see.

  As for McMorris being a pretty face? The Chef needs new glasses.

  As for Palin? Enough said, forever more.

  Flag as inappropriate

• 

  Dave Laird on November 20 at 9:22 a.m.

  Good morning, everyone…

  McMorris a pretty face? Well, thanks in part to one of my anonymous donors, I have a picture which I will post shortly that shows McMorris in a somewhat less-than-complimentary pose.

  Dave

  Flag as inappropriate

• 

  Lulubelle on November 20 at 10:20 a.m.

  No, McMo-Ro is not “lovely” by any stretch of the imagination….in looks or deeds. She plays up the “wonderful cute” Cathy image to appeal to her conservative supporters who care little about actual abilities or qualifications for the job of Representative. She represents her Republican leadership, not the residents of Eastern WA. She expresses disdain for “government” but keeps coming back for reelection and bellies up to the govenment trough of health care and pension benefits…..benefits we taxpayers pay for, but she would deny her constituents on the grounds that they cost too much.
  Rumor has it that as soon as she gets in enough time to qualify for full salary pension she'll quit to “spend more time with family”.
  Good riddance.

  Flag as inappropriate

• 

  ChefGus on November 20 at 11:12 a.m.

  stellar… sorry I don't usually go back and check the spelling.. it's one of my failings… my academic qualifications are
  BS, MS, OD 1968 Pacific University

  The “mysogynistic” was an attempt to be “cute” and i usually fail at that… but I don't think she is a “wolf”….. and it is the old white Republicans ( redundant i know) that are drooling over her “presentation” on NewsWeek that she posed for not me…. J

  Flag as inappropriate

• 

  richard on November 20 at 11:49 p.m.

  Gus … I find your posting to be quite offensive. Do you make a habit of demeaning ALL women; or is it just conservative women like Palin whom you feel entitled to treat with such sexist disregard?

  Your comments about McMorris raise the same questions. Just a “pretty face” behind the men? Really? And I won’t even mention your ‘elitist’ and sexist comments about their “less than stellar education.”

  And how do you feel about the term, “white-trash”? Is it a term you often use to describe some people? The reason I ask is because I don’t think anyone was fooled with your “code” language for “white trash,” when you made a reference to “fitting in” at Fred Meyer.

  And a bit off topic, I am curious by your depiction of the Republican Party being run by “old white men.” When you say, “being run by,” am I to understand this to mean that you view Michael Steele as just a “token black-face,” with no power in the party? Which of course, in liberal-code-talk, this would mean he is an “Uncle Tom.”

  Either way, I must repeat myself and say that I find your posting to be quite offensive. Do you make it a habit to demean ALL blacks, or just conservative blacks? And is this just another “code” for your view that Michael Steele is not a “good black;” and that he is acting “white?”

  It looks to me like you could actually be a very virulent racist and sexist, hiding behind your “liberal” face and your code language.

  Actually, I am wondering if you are really not just the “typical” liberal who hides behind his liberalism. Just like I wonder if Dave doesn’t share some of the “typical” liberal makeup. He did, after all, gleefully promise the “less than flattering” picture of McMorris. And he certainly seems to condone postings such as yours.

  Let me just say that I hope impressionable young people don’t make it a habit of reading postings on this blog. I certainly would not let any teenager of mine read this blog with this kind of shameful behavior.

  Flag as inappropriate

• 

  spokelooneh on November 21 at 2:16 a.m.

  The sub-100 IQ republicans love Saracuda. The intelligent republicans do not. It's really quite simple.

  Flag as inappropriate

• 

  Diana on November 21 at 5:13 a.m.

  Well, I'll be darned. If I hadn't seen all those sexist-and-demeaning-to-all-women posts on AMOO, I might think that Richard has turned into a feminist liberal!

  Richard, are you now coming out for racial and gender equality? Should I believe my eyes? You would be the last person I'd think would go all feminist on us. I know you have a habit of shouting “where's NOW?” at perceived slights to women, but never thought it would come to this.

  I'd like to hear more about your change of heart. Shall I expect no more criticism of President Obama (black) and Nancy Pelosi (female)? Reverend Wright (black) or Rachel Maddow (female AND gay AND elite MSM)?

  Flag as inappropriate

• 

  ChefGus on November 21 at 7:15 a.m.

  Richard… i offer again an opportunity to serve… among the many many disadvantaged that dine at Shalom… just put on some blue jeans and a watch cap and come in and walk through the service line …. and then see if any of your comments about me personally are close to who I am… and my “fred meyer comment” had to do with the fact that it is not actually a book store… It is my favorite store to shop.. Not Huckleberries or World Food.. or Helley Hansen.. or Nordstrom's or, or, or…

  Did you see the near riots when Ms Palin “left the job” again and many supporter's that had waited in line for up to nine hours with their “Borders Books” purchase and wrist bands for their merchandise to be signed…. one spark away from turning over the bus…. Her crowds seem to have a potential to be pretty volatile… both positively and negatively so…

  Anyway.. i'll match my bona fides with yours any day with regards a spectrum of friends, relatives, business and professional aquaintance's and sex offenders, and criminals, and prostitutes and mentally ill, and alcoholic and corporate and on and on and even “blog” sympatico's… j

  Flag as inappropriate

• 

  richard on November 21 at 3:18 p.m.

  It is all very simple. When Gus uses sexist language to describe one woman - any woman - even a “conservative; then his claims of “virtue” fall on deaf ears. And isn’t it interesting that I am not the only one on this page to point out his “demeaning and misogynist” remarks. His shield of liberalism only heightens the awareness that he “has no clothes.”

  It is difficult to run away from one’s own words. And making claims of “virtue” because of having “street creds,” echoes the liberal excuse from the past with incredulous denials of racism with the retort that “… some of my best friends are black!”

  I have been “around the block” enough and have enough of my own “bona fides” (I just don’t toot my own horn or list my degrees) to recognize that some of the more insidious forms of racism and sexism are “hidden in plain sight” by white liberals who believe they can merely stand on their laurels. These are the paternalistic and patronizing white liberals who believe it is their role to “protect” and “safeguard.”

  And then they withhold with a vengeance the same “safeguards” to women and minorities who do not march along side with a liberal banner held high.

  Duplicitous and hypocritical.

  As a society, we have challenged the virulent forms of racism and sexism practiced by some Republicans and so-called conservatives; I believe it is time to challenge the subtle and menacing forms which are practiced by some Democrats and so-called liberals.

  And, Diana, I take your allegations seriously: “all those sexist-and-demeaning-to-all-women posts.” If you feel you have the evidence to make that stick … then you must first produce it. I doubt very seriously you can.
  

  Flag as inappropriate

• 

  Diana on November 22 at 8:06 a.m.

  One only need look at previous posts to see where you're coming from with regards to women.

  Gus is not someone I would describe as sexist. In fact, Gus is consistently pro-women in his posts going back for years. But, just as some men are, some women are idiots, such as Sarah Palin.

  This one is for Richard:

  http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/10…

  Flag as inappropriate

• 

  richard on November 22 at 9:31 a.m.

  Thanks for admitting that you had no evidence, Diana. When challenged, you failed the test to produce anything. Why am I not surprised?

  I know it must be devastating to have your own sexist views exposed by a conservative.

  And if you and Gus want to call someone an “idiot,” be my guest. I have no problem with you having opinions. But when you both claim to be “pro-women” (and I will use as many exclamation points as necessary), then those views should include ALL women.

  When you use sexist code and descriptors for some, then you are not pro-women at all; you are hypocritical. Just as all the “feminist” groups that gave Bill Clinton a complete pass, and instead, attacked the women who were his victims.

  Liberal hypocrisy! There is no other way to describe it.

  And how timely; Jonah Goldberg’s commentary was written both for you and Gus. Mindless personalized attacks.

  “Hate Palin first, ask questions later.” I am quite sure both you and Gus would have “mocked” the same quote from the book written by Obama … if you first believed it had been written by Palin.

  And how funny is it that Slate magazine was exposed on its own blog for the Palin-hatred-disease it is infected with?

  So go ahead and challenge her positions and policies, but you destroy your credibility when the best you have to offer is childish name-calling and sexist and classist banalities.

  Flag as inappropriate

• 

  Rifleman__Dodd on November 22 at 2:48 p.m.

  I think her mystic is that she offers something different, not the same ol blah blah pseudo b.s. that the normal politicians shovel out. Her b.s. is REAL and thats the attraction.

  After the fakey breaky heart of other politico's she's got a whole new tune.

  Flag as inappropriate

• 

  Diana on November 22 at 5:32 p.m.

  Okay, Richard. So you're a non-patronizing, non-paternalistic feminist and you are pro-ALL women. I'll hold you to it.

  I have neither the time nor inclination to search for evidence. I think the regulars at the SR blogs know your record.

  While I won't speak for Gus, you have made an assumption that I hate Sarah Palin. Nothing could be further from the truth. I love Sarah Palin and in fact, hope she runs in 2012. She even mentioned Glenn Beck as a running mate. Now, that's a dream team!

  Flag as inappropriate

• 

  spokelooneh on November 22 at 7:02 p.m.

  The sub-100 IQ tea-bagger wing of the Republican party just love Palin, as they are deluded as to her faux populism. Traditional conservatives, sometimes known as paleocons have no illusions about this and are quick to point out the Palin supporters lies.

  “After reading some of the things Palinites have been writing this week, I am tempted to say that they are “objectively” pro-Obama inasmuch as they are doing their very best to make Obama’s re-election secure. It’s tempting, but it wouldn’t be entirely fair. What is a bit sad is simply how out of it Palinites are. R.S. McCain imagines that Palin is extremely popular. This is true only among a shrinking number of Republicans. Douglas thinks that Palin is powerful because she has become a favorite pinata of the left. In fact, she has very little power outside the conservative cocoon where she receives so much praise and deference. As her favorability ratings show, the intense and concentrated opposition to her has helped turn most of the public against her; Palin has managed to do the rest all by herself. That is evidence of her political weakness. She certainly generates a remarkable degree of irrational loathing, but then she also generates irrational and excessive admiration that makes her supporters believe absurd things about her and her political potential.

  What McCain misses in his article is that liberal journalists actually take great delight in the Palin phenomenon. Yes, of course, they don’t want to see her in power, but I think they do want to see her prosper and thrive as the face of the Republican Party. An American right led by or identified with Palin is one that they can very easily ridicule and discredit, and at the same time they can be confident that a Palinized GOP poses no threat to anything they value.

  ***Palin is not going to bring the party out of the minority, and were she to lead the party it would more or less guarantee continued Democratic ascendancy for many years to come.*** Her content-free pseudo-populism ensures that the legitimate political concerns of her constituency remain irrelevant to real policy debates.”

  http://www.amconmag.com/larison/2009/…

  Run Saracuda, Run!

  Flag as inappropriate

• 

  richard on November 22 at 7:14 p.m.

  You are repeating yourself, Diana. You already told us about the Palin - Beck ticket. I think it was a joke, at least you could have laughed at the joke.

  I am sure you have the time to prove me wrong and paint me as a sexist. You just know I have never made racist or sexist attacks. And you are not the first one to accuse me of being racist. Druid has done it several times … but then again she calls everyone who has a conservative voice and is critical of Obama a racist.

  She didn't have the time or inclination to support her claims either.

  But calling conservatives racist and sexist is a very popular passtime of many liberal/progressives. I have learned the best defense for that is to challenge them to produce evidence.

  No one has ever been able to make it stick. And those who know me know it to be a ludicrous allegation.

  And I sincerely expect you to hold me to being non-sexist or racist.

  and yes, I know you don't speak for gus. I just wish he once be answerable to his own character failings, as everyone else is.

  Flag as inappropriate

• 

  Diana on November 23 at 4:02 a.m.

  No joke, Richard. Sarah said it herself a few days ago when she was interviewed by Newsmax. She referred to Mr. Beck as a “hoot”. I don't know if Ms. Palin thinks being a hoot is a good qualification for the vice-presidency of the United States, but she said it, not me. Her interview was pretty much the same as all her others, filled with repeating talking points, fear, religion and no understanding of the issues.

  Carry on, Richard. But always remember, neither I nor Gus is your problem.

  Flag as inappropriate

• 

  martin hibbs on November 23 at 5:36 p.m.

  Hmmm…….. Looks to me like Ricardo is projecting.

  Flag as inappropriate

• 

  richard on November 23 at 10:45 p.m.

  Why is it that liberals just never have any answers to challenges put forth by others?

  It is second nature, when they get cornered, to yell, “racist, sexist.” They rarely have evidence to back it up, so they just group together and say stupid things like … “he is projecting.”

  Projecting what? hibbs. Do you even have a point for saying that? Or is it just a reaction when there is nothing of substance to say.

  I guess this blog works only when there is only liberal voices saying all those nasty things that liberals are so fond of saying.

  It used to be stimulating to debate and discuss with liberals and progressives. But today they just like to be an echo, echo, echo. And while they are the world's best at criticizing, they fold like a cheap tent of any of that comes back on them.

  I guess they are just above reproach.

  Carry on. And I apologize for interjecting myself into the Republican-women hate fest. I didn't realize it was considered as such “fair sport.”

  I will make sure to never do that again.

  Flag as inappropriate

• 

  ChefGus on November 24 at 5:32 a.m.

  Whew… thank goodness…

  Flag as inappropriate

• 

  Diana on November 24 at 6:08 a.m.

  It's always laughable when one who perceives himself to be the standard and truth-bearer for all of us to bleat and whine about how liberals always/liberals never do this or that. I've seen bratty children use that, too, complete with foot stomping. Whaaaa!

  Oh well. It still doesn't change the fact that Sarah Palin is excrutiatingly stupid.

  Flag as inappropriate

• 

  spokelooneh on November 24 at 9:49 a.m.

  Definitions of the word, rogue. None of them seem complimentary.

  noun (plural rogues)
  Definition:
  
  1. somebody dishonest: an unscrupulous or dishonest person, especially somebody who is also likable

  2. somebody mischievous: a mischievously playful person, especially a naughty child

  3. dangerous solitary animal: a vicious or uncontrolled animal that lives apart from the rest of its herd or group

  4. botany biologically inferior variant: a plant that is a biologically inferior variant of its type

  adjective
  Definition:
  
  1. unorthodox and unpredictable: acting independently and using unorthodox methods that are unpredictable and are likely to cause trouble
  a rogue trader

  2. dangerous and solitary: describes an animal that is vicious and uncontrolled and lives apart from the rest of the herd or group
  a rogue male

  3. botany stray: describes a plant that is inferior and unwanted

  http://encarta.msn.com/dictionary_/ro…

  Seems to rather invite criticism of such activities by the quitter ex-Governor Caribou Barbie.
  

  Flag as inappropriate

• 

  martin hibbs on November 24 at 4:16 p.m.

  ricardo…. Were you as knowledgeable as you would have others believe, you would not have to ask the question.

  Flag as inappropriate

• 

  Ron_the_Cop on November 24 at 8:29 p.m.

  OK for the record I'm not a sub 100 IQ teabagger. With that said I find Palin is appealing to Middle American because they're tired of the same old politics and I mean both side of the aisle who are porking on OPM. I didn't like what The One did to Hillary even though I'm not an ardent fan of hers either. I believe there is a double standard in today's politics when it comes to women.

  OK if the MSM wants to send legions of fact checkers to AK looking for any dirt angle on Palin, how about some equity in mucking around Chicago for The One's skeletons that seem to be being thrown under the bus with some regularity.

  Flag as inappropriate

• 

  Jeffrey_Grey on November 25 at 3:34 a.m.

  Ron,

  That America's patience with respect to the behavior of our elected officials is currently strained to the breaking point - I think the only people nowadays who don't appreciate that truth are the politicians themselves. But what can you expect? The assumption that the American voter is an apathetic, gullible idiot is so fundamental to a politician's core belief system that I think it's purely reflexive these days.

  The problem is…

  If American is looking to someone like Sara Palin as the solution to and the savior from this tawdry state of affairs, I can only say that the fundamental assumption (apathetic, gullible idiot) is evidently valid.
  

  Flag as inappropriate

• 

  Diana on November 25 at 5:01 a.m.

  Per Ron the cop's description, I wouldn't call him a teabagger.

  Sarah earned the heat and her place under the microscope with her theocratic, superstitious populist revival based on ignorance and race/class warfare. Let her whine all she wants. Until she comes to grip with the fact that fancy pageant walking doesn't qualify her for leadership, and absent any substantive ideas, she can never be seriously considered as part of any solution.

  She may be a magnet for the entertainment dollars of the uneducated and disaffected of the country, but I don't see it going much further. With her memoir now already written, and the totality of even her most minute experiences consigned to 400 pages of fluff, she's out of ammo, unless she writes a memoir about her book tour.

  She's in it for the money and that's great, this is America and we are all allowed to do that.

  Flag as inappropriate

• 

  arliacne on November 25 at 7:11 a.m.

  Palin is in it for Palin. She is simply projecting politics as usual.

  Flag as inappropriate

• 

  Rifleman__Dodd on November 25 at 7:12 a.m.

  How can one tell the difference between Palin and McMorris?

  One is low class and the other is no class. Its up to the observer to figure out which one is which.

  Flag as inappropriate

• 

  Ron_the_Cop on November 25 at 9:46 a.m.

  OK I don't care if it's male or female. I just want someone with some fricken common sense and not a member of our political class elite that is spending of OPM likes it's water please or getting kick backs from lobbyists! And one that doesn't have socialist/Marxist leanings:-)

  Flag as inappropriate

• 

  arliacne on November 25 at 1:05 p.m.

  Man, R_t_C - stop reading from the republican play book and think for yourself. Damn!!!

  Flag as inappropriate

• 

  Rifleman__Dodd on November 25 at 1:08 p.m.

  Ron The Cop… on the election ballot..that option is:

  “None of the above”.

  perhaps we can get Margaret Thatcher naturalized. She was one velvet fist for sure. Wooped the damn limeys into shape. Tony Blair on the other hand was a Bush WUSS.

  Flag as inappropriate

• 

  richard on November 25 at 10:49 p.m.

  Sarah earned the heat and her place under the microscope with her … “theocratic, superstitious populist revival based on ignorance and race/class warfare.” Diana said.

  Just how do you defend your words Diana? Describe for us all how specifically, Sarah Palin professes a theocracy? Do you even know that this word relates to a specific form of government run by a church or a religious body? Where is your evidence … other than what you read some excitable leftist write on some blathering blog somewhere?

  Tell me what her superstitions are? Can you ever provide some basis for the mostly mindless ranting you use to justify your extreme hatred? And please tell us all how she practices “race/class warfare”?

  All of these terms you bandy about are a dime a dozen on the leftist blogs that are notoriously filled with the most extreme hatred and vile of talk.

  So please explain your self, Diana. You can’t just make those unsubstantiated claims about someone without evidence.

  Flag as inappropriate

• 

  richard on November 26 at 12:57 a.m.

  A small catalogue of the undeniable misogynist Left.

  Leftist Roman Polanski used his notions of “moral relevance” to justify his lust for a 13 year old girl and ply her with drink and drugs and then summarily raped her. And who can forget Rosemary’s Baby; a story about a women being raped by Satan?

  The “real” story of the Black Panthers is filled with incidents of brutalizing and raping their “sisters.” This form of violence was used to keep them subservient. In Oakland, a woman who had “worked” for them for years was brutally murdered; she had “disobeyed” them.

  Bobby Seale, Eldridge Cleaver, Huey Newton all became “heroes” at the Upper East Side elite leftist cocktail parties. It was rather “hip” to have a Black Panther attend your party and impress the producers, the writers, the New York Times editors, etc.

  And while this was going on, these liberals and leftists were joining hands with their “sisters” to protect their “reproductive rights.” It was a sham.

  The Symbionese Liberation Army made its claim to fame by kidnapping a child of a corporate elite. They chose Patty Hirst; a female. They then locked her up, raped and beat her into submission. Then they displayed her to the world, subservient to their cause.

  Sarah Palin comes along and something enflames the left. She obviously represents something very threatening to them. She is not subservient to the Left, she does not need their pro-choice agenda, and she doesn’t check with the New York Times before she takes a stance on an issue.

  We learned very clearly that today’s “feminists” are really just another cog in the leftist/liberal cabal, when Bill Clinton put his liberal brand of misogynist behavior on public display, and there was virtually no condemnation by feminist groups of Clinton’s harassment. Instead, they took part in the ruthless attacks to destroy and diminish all of Clinton’s victims. Why? Because they are subservient to the “cause” of liberalism first and foremost.

  If you don’t believe me, then ask the former president of the LA Chapter of NOW, Tammy Bruce, about how that group made a pact with the “devil” to be subservient to the agenda of the Left above all considerations of their “fight” for women’s rights. This gay woman who remains a strong voice for women’s issues, left NOW because she refused to compromise her views, for the agenda of the Left.

  Sandra Bernhard did a “comedy” routine in which she fantasized about watching Palin be gang-raped. David Letterman did a “joke” about Palin’s 13 year old daughter being raped by a baseball player.

  Carrie Prejean, was called a “slut” and a “man in drag” all because she gave her opinion about gay marriage - which was identical to that of Obama, Bill Clinton, Biden, Kerry … liberal icons all. No one sexualized them by calling them a despicable name.

  Playboy printed a list of the Top Ten Conservative Women they (leftists) would like to “hate-////.” Sounds very much like rape to me. Violent rape at that. There have been countless instances of leftist blogs where Palin has been referred to as female genitals.

  What is it with “fantasies” of rape and liberal men?

  Andrew Sullivan, writing for the elite magazine said this; “Sarah Palin's vagina is the font of all evil in the galaxy.”

  I think it is “settled” that leftist/liberals have no respect for women. Unless it is a leftist woman (who are “needed” politically) then they have no compunction in sexualizing and defiling - if merely symbolically - females in the vilest of ways imaginable. They casually justify it because their targets are “conservative” women, never realizing they are women first and foremost.

  Were Gus’s comments about Palin being a “Fox” and his comments that Republicans “leer” at Palin, merely his own leftist projections? And what about his many comments that Palin is Erin Brokovich personified; when Brokovich is very much an idealized figure of liberal lust?

  Flag as inappropriate

• 

  Uptight_Spokanite on November 26 at 9:21 a.m.

  Carrie Prejean also made webcam videos of herself masturbating that she sent to some dude she'd met for a 4 day hotel lust fest. Nothing sluttish about that!

  I guess if woman hating means wanting women to have the legal, social, financial opportunities to be on equal footing with men, and passing the legislation to make it the law of the land, then liberals are terrible women haters! I guess if women hating means creating a world where women can have more than just being barefoot, pregnant, stuck at home with squawling dirty faced toddlers making supper for her husband, then liberals are horrible women haters! I guess if women hating means allowing women the right to control their own bodies and reproductive organs without the angry, sweaty male hands of religious nutballs thrusting into their wombs to force them to carry fetuses, then liberals sure are loathsome women haters!

  Nice try Richard - vomiting up the teabagger liberals are misogynists because they point and laugh at Sarah Palin meme straight outta the Glenn Beck/Rush Limbaugh playbook for angry extremist America hating right wing morons.

  But I must say this newfound condemnation of misogyny by conservative Republican men, a group comprised of almost entirely closeted homosexuals, belies the usual stereotypes of vulva-averse gay men .Such deep thoughts from republican men of whom one would not expect entertain many such thoughts in the area of gender politics while on their knees on dirty airport restroom floors furiously (and repetitively) engaging in their love for their fellow man.

  Thank you for this brave post, Richard. Just keep letting it all out, sir.

  Flag as inappropriate

• 

  Diana on November 26 at 1:33 p.m.

  Oh, Richard. Sit down, adjust your tin foil hat and take a deep breath.

  It is fascinating beyond words that you have served up examples, such as the Black Panthers and the Symbionese Liberation Army, no less, and then go on to proclaim, “I think it is “settled” that leftist/liberals have no respect for women.” Using your same logic, may I say, based on this link, that conservatives have no respect for anything?

  www.republicanoffenders.com

  I would never call anyone a “slut”. The word is meaningless to me, and has no male equivalent. Carrie Prejean, famous California beauty queen with implants and an opinion, can do whatever she wants: make sex tapes, lie about them, say she was a teenager when they were made, and lie about that, too. Her Christian “values” mean nothing to me.

  But, after all is said and done, I'm glad you've gone feminist, Richard. I hope you'll put as much energy into defending Hillary Clinton from her conservative misogynist detractors as you have done with Sarah Palin. Welcome to our side.

  By the way, your hero Glenn Beck announced today that he will not run on a ticket with Sarah Palin, because she would be “yapping like we're in the kitchen”. Uh, oh. That wasn't misogynistic or anything, was it?

  Flag as inappropriate

• 

  richard on November 27 at 12:41 p.m.

  Uptight (female in hiding) offers the same non-thinking response you get from the one-eyed liberal/progressives - especially the women who are subservient to the liberal agenda.

  This isn’t about laws or regulations; this is about individual and group behavior. The left has had a long, long history of making women subservient. The violent ones do it through rape and physical intimidation … all the while taking to the streets to attack the Middle America - under the guise of “women’s rights. (What? don’t leftist males believe women can take care of themselves?).

  No, they don’t, is the simple answer. They are very clever when they project their own shortcomings onto conservatism.

  But you don’t have conservative movie producers making film after film after film which sexualizes women, or brutalizing women like Polanski, all to the cheers of the liberal media and the liberal minion class of his “genius.”

  And you can rehash all the dime-store academia produced bumper-sticker slogans (“barefoot and pregnant”) which is really a boorish way to support women.

  And as I continue reading your post, I see that your lack of imagination and thoughtfulness merely degrades into chants of boorish “teabagger” comments. And I see no purpose to legitimize pure irrational and zealous hatred … “republican men who are almost entirely closeted homosexuals.”

  Thanks for your hatred. You made my point very succinctly; no actual discussion of respect of women … just inflammatory leftwing propaganda dished out by a women who is very subservient to the left and its sexualizing and demonizing of women.

  ps: why the charade? You are obviously a known poster on these pages? Part of your ruse to hide your gender?
  

  Flag as inappropriate

• 

  arliacne on November 27 at 1:14 p.m.

  pig + lipstick = Sarah Palin (my apologies to the pig).

  Flag as inappropriate

• 

  richard on November 27 at 1:36 p.m.

  I didn’t think Diana, that you would really have anything to add to the discussion … but I figured you would try. I am sincerely grateful though, that you didn’t dissolve into the purely venomous blather of your “sister-in-arms,” “Uptight_Spokanite.”

  I would like to make a correction to your comments, though. You offered your “well-researched” document, “republican-offenders” but you then made the error when you said, “Using you logic, may I say, based on this link, that conservatives have no respect for anything?”

  The link was about Republicans, not conservatives. You can be a Republican and not a conservative; you can be a conservative and not a Republican. Sometimes, but certainly not all the time, you can be both.

  So you question is not valid; would you care to rephrase it?

  But the whole idea of searching for a link about Republican offenders - meaning those who broke laws - should actually have been a search for “politician” offenders. To try to make the point that Republican offenders are unique to our political system or that they offend more than Democrats would be a losing proposition all day long. Just for the record.

  Like Uptight, you didn’t address the points of my post. Have you really, honestly taken a moment of silence and considered the analysis I made? Of course not; and that is where you make your mistake. You cannot offer any thoughtful defense - as if anyone would want to defend any of the behavior I listed. But you can’t even poke any holes in the analysis.

  These are just a few incidents I “gathered” off the top of my head in about 15 minutes to write my post. Liberal/leftists, as I listed here, remind me of the “fiery” preachers who condemn “sinful’ behavior on Sunday and then do a whole lot of their own sinful behavior all week long. There is much in common between the two.

  And I said in my posting that it is certainly not all liberals. But even those who don’t act in this manner rarely condemn the bad and double-standard behavior of their leftist brethren. Often they still support them, without mentioning the misogynist behavior and attitudes.

  But most, like yourself and Uptight, defend the sexist, sexualized, violence-ridden comments, jokes, etc abut conservative women … by saying they “deserve it.” And that clearly demonstrates the lack of insight how it is just another form of misogyny. And it also demonstrates how subservient to the broader leftist/liberal agenda - to the detriment of women - this kind of “reaction” (or lack of condemnation) allows.

  Letterman could have made a joke about her politics without involving her daughter or especially the raping of her daughter … but the important point is HE DID. He knew exactly what he was saying and what the message is. “If you are a woman, you best support the liberal agenda; for if you don’t, and if you become a threat to the leftist agenda, you will be slandered with even violent, sexist, sexualized language.

  The very same message that Playboy sent to the “conservative women.” They don’t do that to conservative men. Yeah, they criticize them, they mock them, they even call them names - it happens on both sides - but they don’t reduce them to a mere object of sexual gratification or fantasy.

  Be a feminist without compromising what that means just to be accepted by the male dominated leftist/liberal movement. I would highly recommend reading Tammy Bruce - not for her politics, you can skip those parts - but for her experiences with NOW and with the dominating leftists.

  It might open your eyes.
  

  Flag as inappropriate

• 

  Diana on November 28 at 6:00 a.m.

  I didn’t know there was a discussion, Richard. That aside, I’m not surprised that you completely missed the point of my post. I did not infer anything about Republicans vs. conservatives, but was attempting to point out the fallacy of your own illogical argument. And you have proved my point. I have no intention of arguing about whether or not the Republicans on that website are conservatives. It’s a distinction without a difference and my interest in sorting out your pretzel logic is nil.

  You said, “to try to make the point that Republican offenders are unique to our political system or that they offend more than Democrats would be a losing proposition all day long”. Isn’t that your assertion, Richard, that liberals offend more than conservatives?

  To grab something from recent news, how do you defend conservative Rush Limbaugh calling Mary Landrieu, who accepted $3 million for her Katrina-torn state, a “prostitute”? Or is that different? Were you silent, Richard, on the continual sexist remarks by conservatives about Hillary Clinton? Did you find it abhorrent when conservative shock jocks in Alaska called Palin’s political opponent, Lyda Green, a b*tch and cancer, while Ms. Palin giggled in the background?

  In Ms. Palin’s book, it is written that when she received the Down Syndrome news, she “wavered”. Interesting. She made her choice, but would take that same choice away from all other women, if she had the power to do so.

  You should really try to get over that Playboy thing. The article you reference didn’t run. And Letterman said nothing about rape, except maybe in your mind. Speaking of rape, what are you doing to help combat the worldwide trafficking of girls and women as sex slaves?

  Nice try and thanks anyway, Richard. But having been on the short end of sexism my entire life, the last thing I need is you or any other paternalistic American white male lecturing me on what feminism means or the evils of misogyny. Tag: off.

  Flag as inappropriate

• 

  richard on November 28 at 7:47 p.m.

  You sure give up easily Diana. Whenever anyone - conservative or liberal (during the nominations last year) used sexist language to tarnish Hillary, they were wrong and there is no excuse for it. None!

  I don’t think Rush called Landrieu a “prostitute” - I could be wrong - but I thought he said she was prostituting herself for accepting $3 million for her vote (Katrina was 4 years ago, she already received a lot of fed money for that) Nice try though! And another notch for your unquestioning allegiance to the male dominated leftist/progressive movement who would sell women’s rights down the river if it meant more political power.

  You can count on that. You are being scammed. In the 60’s our motto was “free sex” which meant, for men; but it was intended to sway females. Then came unintended pregnancies, and then came a call for legalizing abortion. And the left was right there with the women … “yeah, we don’t want any pregnancy messing up our “woman’s” body. Abort the damn thing! Yeah, reproductive rights; Right On!

  You have been snookered. To the left, you are just another group to a be the foot soldiers. You don’t have to be a card carrying leftist to believe and value women’s equality. That is just another one of those damnable lies of the left; … I know; I was there.

  And the lies have piled up and they are now mountain ranges!

  I could have added Howard Stern to the list of leftists who loves to bring women - mostly strippers and hookers - who he then mocks them, makes them “dance for him.” He is a legend to the left! He even got his own movie!

  And he has made hundreds of millions of dollars of the backs of uneducated, poor women and girls. Face the facts; the truth does set you free. Leftists are the worst and most heinous misogynists around. Hands down!
  

  Flag as inappropriate

« Back to Community Comment