Maybe She’ll Lead Them To Soros
Posted on June 9th, 2009 by Gavin M.
Moe Lane, RedState:
Newsbusters: AOL is lying about the Playboy Rape List firing.
- We are demanding an explanation from the editor who fired the guy who wrote the spiked story to boycott the magazine that hired the guy who wrote the spiked piece joking about hate-f*cking conservative women, which was offensive. Holes in her story raise disturbing questions.
‘Shorter’ concept created by Daniel Davies and perfected by Elton Beard. We are aware of all Internet traditions.™
Alternate shorter Moe Lane: [Fap, fap, fa-] Oh! Uh, this battered and sticky Playboy? I’m … uh … just doing some fact checking.
This has to be their most incoherent obsession yet. I can’t even get any sort of handle on what the hell they’re on about.
Third!
I call on everybody to ignore AOL!
Or, um, do what you were already doing.
This has to be their most incoherent obsession yet. I can’t even get any sort of handle on what the hell they’re on about.
I’m right there with you. I suspect, though, that the wingnuts have not yet begun to not make sense.
I always imagined being that much of an idiot was exhausting. One could strain an important muscle trying to make sense of that.
I’m having a hard time deciding which is more culturally irrelevant these days: Playboy, AOL, or RedState.
One of the holes leads to Obama, doesn’t it?
The deliberations of the Constitutional Convention of 1787 were held in strict secrecy. Consequently, anxious citizens gathered outside Independence Hall when the proceedings ended in order to learn what had been produced behind closed doors. The answer was provided immediately. A Mrs. Powel of Philadelphia asked Benjamin Franklin, “Well, Doctor, what have we got, a republic or a monarchy?” With no hesitation whatsoever, Franklin responded, “A republic, if you can keep it.”
This exchange was recorded by Constitution signer James McHenry in a diary entry that was later reproduced in the 1906 American Historical Review. Yet in more recent years, Franklin has occassionally been misquoted as having said, “A democracy, if you can keep it.” The NRA’s Charleton Heston quoted Franklin this way, for example, in a CBS 60 Minutes interview with Mike Wallace that was aired on December 20, 1998.
This misquote is a serious one, since the difference between a democracy and a republic is not merely a question of semantics but is fundamental. The word “republic” comes from the Latin res publica — which means simply “the public thing(s),” or more simply “the law(s).” “Democracy,” on the other hand, is derived from the Greek words demos and kratein, which translates to “the people to rule.” Democracy, therefore, has always been synonymous with majority rule.
The Founding Fathers supported the view that (in the words of the Declaration of Independence) “Men … are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights.” They recognized that such rights should not be violated by an unrestrained majority any more than they should be violated by an unrestrained king or monarch. In fact, they recognized that majority rule would quickly degenerate into mobocracy and then into tyranny. They had studied the history of both the Greek democracies and the Roman republic. They had a clear understanding of the relative freedom and stability that had characterized the latter, and of the strife and turmoil — quickly followed by despotism — that had characterized the former. In drafting the Constitution, they created a government of law and not of men, a republic and not a democracy.
But don’t take our word for it! Consider the words of the Founding Fathers themselves, who — one after another — condemned democracy.
• Virginia’s Edmund Randolph participated in the 1787 convention. Demonstrating a clear grasp of democracy’s inherent dangers, he reminded his colleagues during the early weeks of the Constitutional Convention that the purpose for which they had gathered was “to provide a cure for the evils under which the United States labored; that in tracing these evils to their origin every man had found it in the turbulence and trials of democracy….”
• Samuel Adams, a signer of the Declaration of Independence, championed the new Constitution in his state precisely because it would not create a democracy. “Democracy never lasts long,” he noted. “It soon wastes, exhausts and murders itself.” He insisted, “There was never a democracy that ‘did not commit suicide.'”
• New York’s Alexander Hamilton, in a June 21, 1788 speech urging ratification of the Constitution in his state, thundered: “It has been observed that a pure democracy if it were practicable would be the most perfect government. Experience has proved that no position is more false than this. The ancient democracies in which the people themselves deliberated never possessed one good feature of government. Their very character was tyranny; their figure deformity.” Earlier, at the Constitutional Convention, Hamilton stated: “We are a Republican Government. Real liberty is never found in despotism or in the extremes of Democracy.”
• James Madison, who is rightly known as the “Father of the Constitution,” wrote in The Federalist, No. 10: “… democracies have ever been spectacles of turbulence and contention; have ever been found incompatible with personal security, or the rights of property; and have in general been as short in their lives as they are violent in their deaths.” The Federalist Papers, recall, were written during the time of the ratification debate to encourage the citizens of New York to support the new Constitution.
• George Washington, who had presided over the Constitutional Convention and later accepted the honor of being chosen as the first President of the United States under its new Constitution, indicated during his inaugural address on April 30, 1789, that he would dedicate himself to “the preservation … of the republican model of government.”
• Fisher Ames served in the U.S. Congress during the eight years of George Washington’s presidency. A prominent member of the Massachusetts convention that ratified the Constitution for that state, he termed democracy “a government by the passions of the multitude, or, no less correctly, according to the vices and ambitions of their leaders.” On another occasion, he labeled democracy’s majority rule one of “the intermediate stages towards … tyranny.” He later opined: “Democracy, in its best state, is but the politics of Bedlam; while kept chained, its thoughts are frantic, but when it breaks loose, it kills the keeper, fires the building, and perishes.” And in an essay entitled The Mire of Democracy, he wrote that the framers of the Constitution “intended our government should be a republic, which differs more widely from a democracy than a democracy from a despotism.”
In light of the Founders’ view on the subject of republics and democracies, it is not surprising that the Constitution does not contain the word “democracy,” but does mandate: “The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a republican form of government.”
20th Century Changes
These principles were once widely understood. In the 19th century, many of the great leaders, both in America and abroad, stood in agreement with the Founding Fathers. John Marshall, chief justice of the Supreme Court from 1801 to 1835 echoed the sentiments of Fisher Ames. “Between a balanced republic and a democracy, the difference is like that between order and chaos,” he wrote. American poet James Russell Lowell warned that “democracy gives every man the right to be his own oppressor.” Lowell was joined in his disdain for democracy by Ralph Waldo Emerson, who remarked that “democracy becomes a government of bullies tempered by editors.” Across the Atlantic, British statesman Thomas Babington Macauly agreed with the Americans. “I have long been convinced,” he said, “that institutions purely democratic must, sooner or later, destroy liberty or civilization, or both.” Britons Benjamin Disraeli and Herbert Spencer would certainly agree with their countryman, Lord Acton, who wrote: “The one prevailing evil of democracy is the tyranny of the majority, or rather that party, not always the majority, that succeeds, by force or fraud, in carrying elections.”
By the 20th century, however, the falsehoods that democracy was the epitome of good government and that the Founding Fathers had established just such a government for the United States became increasingly widespread. This misinformation was fueled by President Woodrow Wilson’s famous 1916 appeal that our nation enter World War I “to make the world safe for democracy” — and by President Franklin Roosevelt’s 1940 exhortation that America “must be the great arsenal of democracy” by rushing to England’s aid during WWII.
One indicator of the radical transformation that took place is the contrast between the War Department’s 1928 “Training Manual No. 2000-25,” which was intended for use in citizenship training, and what followed. The 1928 U.S. government document correctly defined democracy as:
A government of the masses. Authority derived through mass meeting or any other form of “direct expression.” Results in mobocracy. Attitude toward property is communistic — negating property rights. Attitude of the law is that the will of the majority shall regulate, whether it be based upon deliberation or governed by passion, prejudice, and impulse, without restraint or regard to consequences. Results in demagogism, license, agitation, discontent, anarchy.
This manual also accurately stated that the framers of the Constitution “made a very marked distinction between a republic and a democracy … and said repeatedly and emphatically that they had formed a republic.”
But by 1932, pressure against its use caused it to be withdrawn. In 1936, Senator Homer Truett Bone (D-WA) took to the floor of the Senate to call for the document’s complete repudiation. By then, even finding a copy of the manual had become almost impossible. Decades later, in an article appearing in the October 1973 issue of Military Review, Lieutenant Colonel Paul B. Parham explained that the Army ceased using the manual because of letters of protest “from private citizens.” Interestingly, Parham also noted that the word democracy “appears on one hand to be of key importance to, and holds some peculiar significance for, the Communists.”
By 1952 the U.S. Army was singing the praises of democracy, instead of warning against it, in Field Manual 21-13, entitled The Soldier’s Guide. This new manual incorrectly stated: “Because the United States is a democracy, the majority of the people decide how our Government will be organized and run….” (Emphasis in original.)
Yet important voices continued to warn against the siren song for democracy. In 1931, England’s Duke of Northumberland issued a booklet entitled The History of World Revolution in which he stated: “The adoption of Democracy as a form of Government by all European nations is fatal to good Government, to liberty, to law and order, to respect for authority, and to religion, and must eventually produce a state of chaos from which a new world tyranny will arise.”
In 1939, historians Charles and Mary Beard added their strong voices in favor of historical accuracy in their America in Midpassage: “At no time, at no place, in solemn convention assembled, through no chosen agents, had the American people officially proclaimed the United States to be a democracy. The Constitution did not contain the word or any word lending countenance to it, except possibly the mention of ‘We, the People,’ in the preamble…. When the Constitution was framed no respectable person called himself or herself a democrat.”
During the 1950s, Clarence Manion, the dean of Notre Dame Law School, echoed and amplified what the Beards had so correctly stated. He summarized: “The honest and serious student of American history will recall that our Founding Fathers managed to write both the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution without using the term ‘democracy’ even once. No part of any of the existing state Constitutions contains any reference to the word. [The men] who were most influential in the institution and formulation of our government refer to ‘democracy’ only to distinguish it sharply from the republican form of our American Constitutional system.”
On September 17 (Constitution Day), 1961, John Birch Society founder Robert Welch delivered an important speech, entitled “Republics and Democracies,” in which he proclaimed: “This is a Republic, not a Democracy. Let’s keep it that way!” The speech, which was later published and widely distributed in pamphlet form, amounted to a jolting wake-up call for many Americans. In his remarks, Welch not only presented the evidence to show that the Founding Fathers had established a republic and had condemned democracy, but he warned that the definitions had been distorted, and that powerful forces were at work to convert the American republic into a democracy, in order to bring about dictatorship.
Means to an End
Welch understood that democracy is not an end in itself but a means to an end. Eighteenth century historian Alexander Fraser Tytler, Lord Woodhouselee, it is thought, argued that, “A democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government. It can only exist until the voters discover that they can vote themselves largesse from the public treasury. From that moment on, the majority always votes for the candidates promising the most benefits from the public treasury with the result that a democracy always collapses over loose fiscal policy, always followed by a dictatorship.” And as British writer G.K. Chesterton put it in the 20th century: “You can never have a revolution in order to establish a democracy. You must have a democracy in order to have a revolution.”
Communist revolutionary Karl Marx understood this principle all too well. Which is why, in The Communist Manifesto, this enemy of freedom stated that “the first step in the revolution by the working class is to raise the proletariat to the position of ruling class, to win the battle of democracy.” For what purpose? To “abolish private property”; to “wrest, by degrees, capital from the bourgeoisie”; to “centralize all instruments of production in the hands of the State”; etc.
Another champion of democracy was Communist Mao Tse-tung, who proclaimed in 1939 (a decade before consolidating control on the Chinese mainland): “Taken as a whole, the Chinese revolutionary movement led by the Communist Party embraces the two stages, i.e., the democratic and the socialist revolutions, which are essentially different revolutionary processes, and the second process can be carried through only after the first has been completed. The democratic revolution is the necessary preparation for the socialist revolution, and the socialist revolution is the inevitable sequel to the democratic revolution. The ultimate aim for which all communists strive is to bring about a socialist and communist society.”
Still another champion of democracy is Mikhail Gorbachev, who stated in his 1987 book Perestroika that, “according to Lenin, socialism and democracy are indivisible…. The essence of perestroika lies in the fact that it unites socialism with democracy [emphasis in the original] and revives the Leninist concept…. We want more socialism and, therefore, more democracy.”
This socialist revolution has been underway in America for generations. In January 1964, President Lyndon Johnson boasted in a White House address: “We are going to try to take all of the money that we think is unnecessarily being spent and take it from the ‘haves’ and give it to the ‘have nots’ that need it so much.” What he advocated, of course, was a Marxist, not an American, precept. (The way Marx put it was: “From each according to his abilities, to each according to his needs.”) But other presidents before and after have advanced the same goal. Of course, most who support this goal do not comprehend the totalitarian consequences of constantly transferring more power to Washington. But this lack of understanding is what makes revolution by the ballot box possible.
The push for democracy has only been possible because the Constitution is being ignored, violated, and circumvented. The Constitution defines and limits the powers of the federal government. Those powers, all of which are enumerated, do not include agricultural subsidy programs, housing programs, education assistance programs, food stamps, etc. Under the Constitution, Congress is not authorized to pass any law it chooses; it is only authorized to pass laws that are constitutional. Anybody who doubts the intent of the Founders to restrict federal powers, and thereby protect the rights of the individual, should review the language in the Bill of Rights, including the opening phrase of the First Amendment (“Congress shall make no law…”).
As Welch explained in his 1961 speech:
… man has certain unalienable rights which do not derive from government at all…. And those … rights cannot be abrogated by the vote of a majority any more than they can by the decree of a conqueror. The idea that the vote of a people, no matter how nearly unanimous, makes or creates or determines what is right or just becomes as absurd and unacceptable as the idea that right and justice are simply whatever a king says they are. Just as the early Greeks learned to try to have their rulers and themselves abide by the laws they had themselves established, so man has now been painfully learning that there are more permanent and lasting laws which cannot be changed by either sovereign kings or sovereign people, but which must be observed by both. And that government is merely a convenience, superimposed on Divine Commandments and on the natural laws that flow only from the Creator of man and man’s universe.
Such is the noble purpose of the constitutional republic we inherited from our Founding Fathers.
I would say they are all pretty irrelevant these days. Look at Playboy for instance. We have yet to see Women of GM or a Women of Lehman Brothers or a Women of Iceland pictorial. Hugh has been mailing it in for a while now…
Ron Paul nutter in da house y’all!
http://i2.iofferphoto.com/img/item/144/276/52/1.jpg
“Rape List.” Jesus Fucking Christ.
Moe Lane couldn’t get on a “rape list” if he walked around backward w/ his ass shaved.
Homunculus John Hawkins has a “rape list” going too. Ick.
That editor—she swallowed a fly, didn’t she?
On September 17 (Constitution Day), 1961, John Birch Society founder Robert Welch delivered an important speech, entitled “Republics and Democracies,” in which he proclaimed: “This is a Republic, not a Democracy. Let’s keep it that way!” The speech, which was later published and widely distributed in pamphlet form, amounted to a jolting wake-up call for many Americans.
Estimates of “many Americans” range from 35 to more than 500, but never over 750.
Most the women on the conservative list were in fact pretty good looking. But, how the f*ck did Malkin (#8??!!??) and Coulter get on and Marie ‘Jon get left off????
Oh man, Righteous Bubba, that cover brought back some great memories. Specifically, great memories about masturbating.
I have previously banned Tommy Christopher from RedState – and now follow him on Twitter and have linked to him when appropriate, because that banning was strictly business, nothing personal.
Jesus, he’s fucking Hyman Roth.
Cut-and-Paste Troll cut and … well, you know the rest.
“A Republic, if You Can Keep It”
But if it lasts for more than four hours, call a doctor.
Joke would be funnier if it included a few words about “the noses on the faces of the ladies of the harem of the court of King Caractacus”.
Or more obvious.
We have yet to see Women of GM or a Women of Lehman Brothers or a Women of Iceland pictorial.
Leave it to RB to find one more confirmation of Rule 34.
Note gauze, Vaseline® & Photoshop™ liberally applied to #6.
Note Dr. Helen. Note objects on chest (esp. her left) & upper panty line.
And, in the interests of pimpin’ mah web log & full disclosure, we direct you to the complete Pamela Geller (… number nine … number nine …) picture.
I’m a retired investor living on a pension. I came home to vote in the Presidential elections because they wouldn’t give me an absentee ballot.
Leave it to RB to find one more confirmation of Rule 34.
Very impressive. And probably the most non-horrifying example of Rule 34 that will ever be linked from here.
Yeah – but that was pre-bust Iceland!
That is SICK.
Phew! I am relieved I am not the only one that has no idea what these folks are so torqued about. I understand some people’s sub-pantaloons are all up in a twist but cannot get a hold of why. And I am afraid if I read the story more than once that its black hole-like incoherence will render me unable to operate my flip-flops. Shorter: “Wha…?”
A democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government. It can only exist until the voters discover that they can vote themselves largesse from the public treasury. From that moment on, the majority always votes for the candidates promising the most benefits from the public treasury with the result that a democracy always collapses over loose fiscal policy, always followed by a dictatorship
Ok, I traced the Tweets, links, e-mails, screenshots and read Moe’s commentary and — surprisingly — I’m totally confused.
Can the Red State/Newsbusters crews please get back to serious conspiracies involving birth certificates, Car Dealers and the dozens of GlennBeckisms?
This AOL/TommyChristopher/Hate fuckin’/E-mail/lying/Newsbusters- Gate is way too hard to make fun of.
Dudes, don’t you know that no republican is ever justifiably fired? And that AOL guy, even though he wasn’t exactly a conservative, he was fired, and sometimes in the past AOL hired some conservatives, so even though this doesn’t really help conservatism, it does kinda zing liberals, even though it doesn’t really, because liberals didn’t really have anything to do with the Playboy article or firing the AOL guy, but it might as well be blamed on liberals, dudes. Whew. I want a beer.
The “spend spend spend” prescription is how my idols, the Republicans, stay in power while screwing over 99% of America.
They bribe the population.
Without defending the original article, I would like to point out that hate fuck =/= rape.
They bribe the population.
Yeah, and the hell of it is they don’t even deliver on the bribes – they just line their own pockets and stuff broken broom handles up the voters’ bungholes, then blame it all on the liberals and coloreds. Bedam if I can figure out why anyone goes back for any more helpings of that!
Down w/ democracy!! Give all the wealth back to the nobility, they’ll know how to spend our money, & won’t have any stupid people w/ “needs” beyond the merest of fodd, clothing & shelter, bothering their decisions.
Man, that does sound familiar. It’s the oldest wing-nut talking point, I think. And not any less valid some 800 yrs. after the Magna Carta started the long decline of Christendom. O tempora! O mores!
Look for more of my recent medieval thinking at the website Doghouse Riley christened “Uncle Sam Takes a Dump on a Stump.”
Leave it to RB to find one more confirmation of Rule 34.
Very impressive. And probably the most non-horrifying example of Rule 34 that will ever be linked from here.
Until you add the interview with Matt Drudge, also in that issue. Wubba wubba wubba.
Until you add the interview with Matt Drudge, also in that issue.
Even including that, I bet that cover is the high point of Rule-34itude in Sadlyworld.
Chief Editor Henneberger :
And then they’ll make up a new one, even more convoluted than the first. Welcome to the wild world of wingnuttia.
Dudes, don’t you know that no republican is ever justifiably fired?
They can only fail upwards.
Without defending the original article, I would like to point out that hate fuck =/= rape.
Oh sure, next you’ll be suggesting that liberals apologize only for acts which really cause harm to real persons. Republicans gloat when a political opponent is shot in church. Remember, when the electorate kicks your flabby, pasty ass so far out of power, you cannot even see it over the horizon, you still have murder and terrorism to rule by fear and fiat. IOKIYAR!! Eventty!!1!! Wolver!nes1!
Even including that, I bet that cover is the high point of Rule-34itude in Sadlyworld.
Agreed. I was just cringing at the thought of applying Rule 34 to an interview with Drudge. Worse than sweep picking.
Yeah, sweeps it!
FYWP!
SWEEP!
I was just cringing at the thought of applying Rule 34 to an interview with Drudge. Worse than sweep picking.
You’re right – my brain recoiled so hard from the thought that it’s now sitting backwards inside my skull.
Without defending the original article, I would like to point out that hate fuck =/= rape.
No, it doesn’t. I didn’t think the original post or article or whatever was all THAT outrageous. ( I wouldn’t know what it said, except RedState thoughtfully saved it) I mean considering it’s not like John Kerry or Barack Obama or Kos wrote it, for fuck’s sake. It was some guy I never heard of. So sue me.
It was kind of sexist, so in the interest of equality, let me give a list of Republican males I’d like to hate-fuck.
Let’s see, there’s .. .. .and, um . . . ahh .. . never mind.
From that moment on, the majority always votes for the candidates promising the most benefits from the public treasury with the result that a democracy always collapses over loose fiscal policy, always followed by a dictatorship
No need for veiled threats there, bucko, I read you loud and clear. We can have our nice little democracy as long as we vote exactly the way that the rich want us to. Otherwise, it would be a shame if anything happened to it, right?
That’s real swell, except that isn’t how it happened. We didn’t get democracy left to us in the last will and testament of a generous uncle. It was that or your head on a pike. Any time the rich want to be lined up against the wall, they can feel free to stop playing.
See also Image results for skwisgaar skwigelf
We didn’t get democracy left to us in the last will and testament of a generous uncle. It was that or your head on a pike.
Exactly – what part of “We hold these truths to be self-evident … Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed” don’t these dough-heads understand?
Self-evident, d00d! You just have to look!
Gateway Pundit, 6/1/09 on The Playboy article:
Gateway Pundit, 6/8/09 on a Dutch journalist who was raped by Taliban leaders following an interview with Taliban leaders in 2008. Gateway was offended she didn’t refer to them as “monsters”:
http://gatewaypundit.blogspot.com/2009/06/leftwing-dutch-journalist-yes-taliban.html
Today they published a hideous piece about hate-f***ing (raping) conservative women.
As pedestrian said, I would like to point out that hate fuck =/= rape.
Of course, the teabagging movement showed just how well the rightards understand sex slang.
See also Image results for skwisgaar skwigelf
One additional note on this Rule 34 thing: I think my first introduction to sweep picking came by way of Frank Gambale, so I’ve always associated the technique with him. Great.
I’ve been reading about Robert Quine for too much of the day.
Women of Iceland
Shake that Alþing, baby!
Oh dear. I just read the link that Moe uses to substantiate his claim that hate fucking = rape.
I see that in this theoretical world, men are incapable of lying before sex.
After about 3 paragraphs of “A Republic’s-” missive I thought “Wait, I learned this in Eighth Grade, tho maybe not exactly the same stuff”. AND I got a good grade on my US Constitution test, 3rd highest in the school; I bet I’d have got the highest grade if only those two higher-graded students hadn’t done better than me.
My second thought was “What does this have to do with Playboy?” Too bad someone hasn’t yet written Blog Software that precludes a commenter from copying and pasting. We HAVE the technology.
WTF? He’s trying to apply logic to a fantasy? Not a particularly tasteful fantasy, sure, and one that you’re probably best advised not to share with the world. But since when is someone required to realistically justify their wank material?
We are, after all, talking about Playboy, filled with airbrushed plastic women that don’t actually exist in reality.
I’ve been reading … too much …
The Dictators were right: Lou Reed is a creep!!
Yeah, no shit, the very conclusion I came to.
OK. Hate-fucking is of, by & for (mostly) males of the species, as most of us are shallow enough to look beyond personality, intelligence, hygeine or whatnot, up to & including politics, as long as our new friend’s eyes are on either side of her nose, & the nose is above the mouth. So this list is, essentially, women attractive enough to, no matter how bat-shit wacky.
Also, who sez it has to be “rough” sex, unless that’s what Mlle. X wants? (If the safe phrase is “death tax” or something equivalent, the deal is off!!) Leftist gentlemen aim to please (so please, you aim).
I wonder why O’Reily isn’t all over this. He should attack these people for perverse sexual fantasies. Oh wait.
fywp
I have never understood the idea that “democracy” and “republic” are not overlapping definitions. A republic is a representative government; a democracy is a government in which accountability rests in the votes of the people. Why are conservative definitions of the term so rigid that “democracy” always means “direct democracy” — is it obtuseness or deliberate obfuscation?
fizzed
Deliberate obfuscation.
This installment of SATSQs brought to you by Kaus’ Swallow Balls.
Okay, both.
OT, but kitty served up a headless baby rabbit this evening. With lots of blood on the patio.
I feel sorry for the baby rabbit, but I can hardly scold the slaughter of one species of small furry rodent that moves while praising the extermination of others. Cats – this is what they do. Mostly I worry that she found out where the baby rabbit lived (under the front porch deck of a house across the street – a busy street) and hope that it had wandered over here so she’s not tempted to go back looking for its brothers and sisters.
It would take a liberal with blinkers on and a jaundiced attitude to pretend that Ms.Coulter is not a beautiful woman. And we know they don’t exist.
I’m guessing he hasn’t seen a recent photo, like the one on the banner that sometimes ghoulishly pops up over at John Cole’s place. Time: it’s not being kind to Coulter.
What are you guys talking about?!! She’s fucking hot
let’s try that again
Coulter is not unattractive, but she’s way overrated by conservatives in the looks department. Too skinny and a painfully unpleasant personality.
I see that in this theoretical world, men are incapable of lying before sex.
Sillier yet, it posits some rightard actually behaving in a manner consistent with
statedshouted beliefs. Larry Craig, Newt Gingrich, Rush Limbaugh, Henry Hyde, Mark Foley, etc. would blart to differ.A republic not a democracy
That’s like saying “That’s not a fruit, it’s an apple”.
“A Republic, if You Can Keep It” said
tl;dr
Seriously, cut-and-paste trolling is the nadir of laziness. Which makes it the zenith of liberal fascism, or something like that.
Gordon, remember the good ol’ days when Playboy got away with interviewing the Sandinistas when they first took office by saying they were they were in town for a “Girls of Managua” shoot?
Coulter is not unattractive […] a painfully unpleasant personality.
Depends on how you define “attractive”. Painfully unpleasant personality is a deal-breaker for me. And these days she really does look unhealthy, which doesn’t help.
The reason the wingnuts can’t get any traction on this scandal is that Hatefuckgate doesn’t roll trippingly off the tongue. It sounds like a military acronym.
I actually linked to the “A Republic, if You Can Keep It” post; as I thought it was appropriate to the issues I am dealing with.
It looked legit, and knowing this site well I expect there is no problem.
But…help me out if I messed up.
Uhh, my follow on link was not particularly helpful.
Let’s just say China’s been a bit interesting now, just enough to set me on edge.
But the rains falling so that is good. Summer is here!
Uhh, my follow on link was not particularly helpful.
Let’s just say China’s been a bit interesting now, just enough to set me on edge.
But the rain’s falling so that is good. Summer is here!
Well i finally found a fucking version of it online;
http://www.redstate.com/absentee/2009/06/02/the-playboy-article-nsfw/
Sorry but I still don’t understand why everybody sees hatefuck as rape. Urban dictionary [LOL!] agrees w/ some definitions from ’03 ffs. I think you’ve let the clogosphere redefine words again.
Who gives a fuck if the article was in good taste? It’s Playboy, it’s owner is a 128 year old man who curls up every night w/ a warm mug of coco, a good crossword puzzle and a set of 18year old identical twins. Better Homes and Gardens it is not.
Maybe it’s just me, but i always thought human females and males were both equally able to take care of themselves in a concensual relationship of any kind. To be honest I actually thought this was a somewhat common belief, at least in the modern western world. Now I find there are still many idiots like Little Miss Attila who argue that anything other a hallmark channel romance movie is exactly the same as rape or being tortured to death.
Riiiiiiiiight, because it’s in no way possible that a woman could get anything out of having sex w/ somebody they dislike emotionally but find attractive physically. Women don’t enjoy sex at all, it’s just an icky thing that they let men they love do to them.
Woops! Hold on a second..
Now it turns out women *can* enjoy sex and are in fact as able to use men for sex as men are of using women for same. Does that mean she’s just destroyed her own argument that adult women are not capable adults, unable to make their own decisions about relationships and that hate fuck = rape? Sadly, No! It only proves it further, somehow.
Fuck Little Miss Attila and everybody who thinks women are too weak or stupid to know what they want like an actual human being.
Fuck Newsbusters and all the habitually misogynistic assholes who have suddenly decided that women are human beings too.
I’d like to close, if I may, w/ a wingut anthem from the ’08 season.
It might help if I linked to the post in question, then again maybe not. Either way, http://littlemissattila.com/?p=8356
Everybody doesn’t, but I think most people see it as somewhat creepy to identify political opponents for, uh, hatefucking.
See also top 10 Catholics you’d like to hatefuck.
When I was just a boy, there was a TV show called V. That was what introduced me to the idea that you can really dislike someone but still want to bang them like a gong.
See also top 10 Catholics you’d like to hatefuck.
I compiled my list, and was surprised how few popes it contained.
UPDATE:
A reader informs me that Chrissie Hynde is not, in fact, Catholic.
This merely strengthens my point.