“For the love of all that is holy, keep your children and all goats out of political debates with we Republicans. We can’t keep it in our pants, you know.”

Fixed Mark’s typos.

“Keep your children out of political debates, or we’ll publicly molest them.” That’s everything we ever needed to know about right-wing “family values”.

Of course, it’s totally unfair and completely mean for liberals to mention any actual children in a debate about health insurance for children.

Well said.

For the love of all that is holy, keep your children out of political debates. It’s dishonest and exploitative, and it makes complex policy arguments needlessly personal.

Keep your children out of the debates – write to the gummint and get issued some Snowflake Babies™.

We gotta have standards.

I was wondering who that sobriquet is trademarked to (Mr. Freedom Camp, if I’m not mistaken); I once called them the World Blog on the Planet (trademark still pending).

It’s “dishonest” to cite examples?

And using a child as an example of the effectiveness of the Children’s Health Insurance Plan is “exploitative”?

So we should discuss SCHIP by talking about how it has benefited the spider monkey population in Asia? But we shouldn’t single out any single spider monkey?

Mark Hemingway is a turd. And not a very smart turd, at that.

Jesus. Is that really Hemingway? Looks like someone didn’t qualify for the government S-ROGAINE program…

That’s kinda in, “baby, why you always gotta make me hit you?” territory.

“… It makes complex policy arguments needlessly personal.”

While such great conservative arguments as “Michael Moore is fat, so therefore the Second Amendment is the only one worth keeping” and “Al Gore is a tree-hugging wussy, which proves that global warming is a fraud” are both needful and impersonal. Riiiight.

And to think there are literary people who thought Ernest had permanently retired the “Biggest Fraud Writing Under the Hemingway Name” award…

Ok so the rules are:

1. Only GOPPER approved Children may be shown.
and
2. God is a perfectly acceptable authority when declaring what policies should be implemented.

How did this asshole graduate from the University of Oregon?

How did this asshole graduate from the University of Oregon?

Those of us from the Sooner State undertstand that at UO they have, er, different standards of judgment.

Erp…”understand”

“It’s dishonest and exploitative, and it makes complex policy arguments needlessly personal.”

Amen, Mr. Hemingway! I hate when politics becomes personal. When you start to consider that political policy has an effect on human beings, you can get all compassionate and shit, instead of being serious and focused on the “big picture” (power and profits).

“Hey, get those kids this policy helped off the stage! It makes it hard for us to convince people this is all about taxes!”

Can we have a rule where anybody who thinks it’s okay to spend the kind of money we’re laying down in Iraq every day cannot complain about government programs that cost less than 5% of that? Because it’s ringing a tad hollow.

Seems to me that the rethugs have been arguing by anecdote for years. The main difference here is that these examples represent the rule rather than the exception and are educational rather than mean-spirited propaganda.

Is this was passes for ruthlessness on the far-right, to pubicly lynch a chronically ill two-year-old child to make political points?

Too chickenshit to join the military and go kill “islamofascists,” these fucktards instead direct their ire at…sick children?

What’s next? Smashing puppies with sledgehammers? Bullwhipping the elderly for being old? Kneecapping special needs children?

We already knew these right-wing assholes were cowardly and vile chickenhawks. Now they’re sinking to picking on the weak and defenseless?

They’re not just lousy citizens. They are also horrible human beings, rotten to the core.

That’s kinda in, “baby, why you always gotta make me hit you?” territory.

That’s for sure. He should call his column “that 2-year-old is asking for it!”

Seems to me that the rethugs have been arguing by anecdote for years.

That seems to be the only way they know how to think. Do they really believe that attacking a child will prove that we don’t need S-Chip? If the Frost family could afford insurance, does that mean no family needs government help?

“It’s dishonest and exploitative, and it makes complex policy arguments needlessly personal.”

Translation from the wingnutese: “Jesus Christ, you’re killing us with these cute kids! Stop it or I’ll be forced to show (1) what a complete asshole I am, and (2) how bereft of ideas the GOP is.”

“That’s kinda in, “baby, why you always gotta make me hit you?” territory.”

Quote of the day.

But the poor dears can’t help themselves. All they can do is attack individuals. They never, ever argue the merits, the principles, the rationale behind this or that political or public state of affairs. If you can “prove” that the mosque really isn’t “destroyed,” then you discredit (you think, or try to think) every critique of the war, and we’re really winning a noble struggle.

At best it’s stupidity, at worst it’s loathsome propagandistic mendacity. Me, I think it’s both.

It’s not really a complex policy issue at all. The S-CHIP program works, and we should expand it to include more children. Their objection to it is simple, too. It conflicts with their ideology when a government program works.

Other suggested titles:

A Farewell to Brains
For Whom the Dumbbell Tolls

For the love of all that is holy, keep your children out of political debates.

Right! And besides, with all these “helping people” distractions, the Great White Bush can’t focus on preventing Al Qaeda from killing your children!!!!!!!!

It’s dishonest and exploitative, and it makes complex policy arguments needlessly personal.

And we all know that government policy arguments are abstract and confusing, and they never have any effect on people in the real world.

Or, not important effects anyway, like Obama’s flag pin or Edwards’ haircut.

If they literally cannot stop themselves from going after kids, then I guess it’s really someone else’s fault for dangling kids in front of them like that. Sort of like those guys who would go absolutely barking apeshit crazy if they saw a woman’s exposed midriff or whatever. Interestingly, this is apparently compatible with a belief in personal responsibility. I’m not sure I want to understand how that works.

It’s fine to talk about kids when they’re prenatal. The post-natal kids are such downers.

The bright side of Mr Hemingway’s proscription is that it will reduce the number of trolls visiting S,N! and asking “Tell me why people who can afford health insurance must take money from my pocket?”, After all, such questions make complex policy arguments needlessly personal.