When Phyllis Schlafly Speaks the Truth, Democrats Call It ‘Extremism’

Posted on | July 30, 2010 | 90 Comments

Phyllis Schlafly is one of conservatism’s great heroines. Both Michelle Malkin and Ann Coulter acknowledge Schlafly’s influence as a role model. Forty-six years after her rallying cry for Goldwater, A Choice Not an Echo, and three decades after she led the crusade to stop ratification of the Equal Rights Amendment, she’s still driving liberals nuts:

“One of the things Obama’s been doing is deliberately trying to increase the percentage of our population that is dependent on government for their living. For example, do you know what was the second-biggest demographic group that voted for Obama? . . . Unmarried women. Seventy percent of unmarried women voted for Obama. And this is because, when you kick your husband out, you’ve got to have Big Brother government to be your provider. . . .”

This is what we in the journalism business call a “fact”:

Those numbers are from an exit poll conducted by a notorious right-wing extremist group — CNN — and Schlafly’s explanation of why single women vote overwhelmingly for Democrats is neither new nor “extreme” nor uniquely hers. Carrie Lukas of the Independent Women’s Forum in National Review, April 10:

Take a recent report entitled “Advancing the Economic Security of Unmarried Women” by the Center for American Progress, the “progressive” nonprofit run by Bill Clinton’s former chief of staff John Podesta. The report reviews the problems of a growing segment of our society: unmarried women. They are poorer, more likely than other women to be unemployed, have less access to health care, and often struggle to care for children without support from fathers.
What’s CAP’s solution? More government at every turn. Among the recommended proposals are more generous unemployment benefits, more job-training and job-placement programs, greater subsidies for child care, more generous child-nutrition programs, direct welfare payments for those with children, government intervention to prevent foreclosures, expanded low-income-housing programs, an increased minimum wage, government intervention to increase the pay of occupations dominated by women, mandatory paid family and sick leave, and, of course, government-provided health care. In other words, complete cradle-to-grave, taxpayer-provided government support.
It’s tempting to call this paper sexist: Women — especially unmarried women — are portrayed as barely able to subsist without extra protection. One could also ruminate on CAP’s view of family formation, which seems willing to substitute a dependent relationship on the government for marriage. A woman without a man is encouraged to depend on Uncle Sam.

One might disagree with that analysis, but it is hardly “extreme,” and yet the Schlafly speech making the same basic point is being seized as a campaign issue by Democrats:

Democrats aim to exploit the comments to pressure the more than 60 Republican candidates who have earned Schlafly’s endorsement. . . .
Democrats plan to jump on the 75 Republican candidates for federal office that Schlafly’s Eagle Forum has endorsed and donated to — a list that includes Todd Tiahrt in the Kansas Republican primary for Senate, Ken Buck in the Colorado Republican primary for Senate, Sen. Jim DeMint (R-SC) and his Senate Conservatives Fund and Sen. David Vitter. Already, reporters in Vitter’s home state of Louisiana are getting releases from the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee pressing them to ask Vitter if he agrees with Schlafly. The Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee is doing the same thing to Eagle Forum-endorsed House candidates, painting Republicans on dozens of ballots — including Rep. Michele Bachmann and Scott Rigell in the competitive VA-02 race — as “extreme” and saying the candidate should refuse Schlafly’s endorsement.

I plan to renounce any Republican who renounces Phyllis Schlafly.

UPDATE: Linked by Da Tech Guy and liberal feminist Taylor Marsh, and there’s a Memeorandum thread.

UPDATE II: Linked by Virginia Right and Scipio 62 at Red State, and featured by Red at Caught Him With a Corndog.

UPDATE III: Professor Donald Douglas suggests that Rocky Raczkowski is inviting renunciation. I’m not going to be hasty, like Vilsack throwing Sherrod under the bus.

The Blog Prof offers a primer in the techniques of liberal bias, as demonstrated by the Oakland (Mich.) Press News.

For the benefit of any Republican confused by all this uproar, let me explain the basic problem: The way to tackle feminism is head-on.

Feminism is a left-wing phenomenon. It is a radical egalitarian ideology based upon a fallacy, and should never be endorsed or appeased in the erroneous belief that, by kowtowing to ideologues, Republicans can win “The Women’s Vote” (capital-T, capital-W, capital-V, denoting a dubious category that is reified by feminist ideology). A brief explanation:

Insofar as men and women are different, they are not equal.
Equality implies fungibility — that two things are perfectly interchangeable, so that one thing may be substituted for the other without any difference in value. Only a fool could believe that men and women are equal in that way, and yet this is what feminists would require us to believe. And any man who dares contradict this egalitarian dogma is a sexist, an oppressor, a reactionary representative of the patriarchy.
All the other errors of feminism flow from this one fundamental error, a counterfactual insistence on the equality of the sexes. Men and women are not the same, and therefore are not equal.

Do not think that you, a Republican, can benefit by attempting some sort of “me-too” feminism, nor should you fall into the error of thinking that there is some sort of “conservative feminism” which can be mobilized to elect you. Such foolish behaviors and atttitudes only betray your lack of judgment and courage.

Most of all, do not think that you can benefit by throwing Phyllis Schlafly under the bus. Do you know how Phyllis Schlafly earned her way through college? Working in a munitions plant during World War II, when her job was test-firing .50-caliber machine-gun ammunition.

Think about that, gentlemen.

UPDATE: Welcome, Instapundit readers! BTW, did you hear what happened to the Republican billionaires who didn’t hit my tip jar?

Category: Conservatism 101, Feminism, Vast Right-Wing Conspiracy

Comments

90 Responses to “When Phyllis Schlafly Speaks the Truth, Democrats Call It ‘Extremism’”

sybilll
July 30th, 2010 @ 2:24 am
Perhaps this will be a start to changing the narrative: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=55aujTwuJY8&feature=player_embedded
Not sure if you have seen this trailer for the plantation politics exposed in this documentary. Timely to this article, IMO.
Kojocaro
July 30th, 2010 @ 7:16 am
yes truth is extremism to these dolts i hope they piss off
Virginia Right! News Hound for 7/30/2010 | Virginia Right!
July 30th, 2010 @ 7:41 am
[...] When Phyllis Schlafly Speaks the Truth, Democrats Call It ‘Extremism’ [...]
Kojocaro
July 30th, 2010 @ 7:44 am
my mom voted for obama because she thought palin was dumb obviously she is regretting it now…………that’s nice but she hould have found him out than not now
Joe
July 30th, 2010 @ 8:27 am
I’ve listened to and admires Phyllis Schlafly for years. She is quite right in her assessment of where President BO is going with the country and how he plans to get there.
Po
July 30th, 2010 @ 9:19 am
If I can disagree with the analysis then by definition it is opinion – not fact.
Joe
July 30th, 2010 @ 9:23 am
Hardly extremist. Unmarried men with kids, as a demographic, seem almost as bad in voting for Obama too. So there is plenty of blame to throw around.
Double Speech standard « DaTechguy's Blog
July 30th, 2010 @ 9:31 am
[...] nothing factually wrong there, Stacy McCain not only put it best: This is what we in the journalism business call a [...]
Phyllis Schlafly, What the Republican Tea Party Really Thinks About Women | Taylor Marsh – TaylorMarsh.com – News, Opinion and Weblog on Progressive Politics
July 30th, 2010 @ 10:09 am
[...] in the mid-19th century. Of course, they won’t, which is why Republicans are a dying brand sucking off the teat of the Tea Party to stay [...]
Barack Obama
July 30th, 2010 @ 10:42 am
I speak the truth too, you mongrel bitches!
God I love the View. Their questions are even easier than MSNBC.
“I plan to renounce any Republican who renounces Phyllis Schlafly.” | RedState
July 30th, 2010 @ 10:48 am
[...] Stacy McCain ends his post with the title of my [...]
Andrew
July 30th, 2010 @ 10:49 am
I think the problem is not with the statement that unmarried woman vote for Obama, but that they “kicked their husbands out” and want a government handout.
Men sometime abuse their spouses, woman have marriages that don’t work out, and woman live longer than men and therefore there are lots of unmarried woman, who did not kick out their husbands.
I doubt that woman choose to leave their abusive or otherwise unacceptable husbands or do not remmarry because then they can rely on government aid.
There are lots of reasons why a woman may be unmarried other than her love of the nanny state.
TQ White II
July 30th, 2010 @ 10:56 am
But “And this is because, when you kick your husband out, you’ve got to have Big Brother government to be your provider” is NOT a fact.
It is an opinion that demeans women that choose independence. It tells us that any woman without a man is unable to provide for herself.
It also non-sequitors from an actual fact (lots of unmarried women) to a manipulative, pretend fact (these are women that kicked their husband out). Not only does this ignore the women (probably the majority of unmarrieds) that either are not ready to marry or were “kicked out” BY their husbands, it denigrates those that did initiate divorce with the term “kicked out”.
This is extremism. It characterizes a large segment of the population unfairly, reduces their motivations to a caricature, and associates it with a political viewpoint that nobody really has (“Big Brother Government” should be your provider).
This woman was a force for evil when she abused gay people in the seventies and she is a force for evil today. Of course, I understand that most people reading this page like it that way.
Roxeanne de Luca
July 30th, 2010 @ 11:33 am
Proud to be among the 30%.
I doubt that woman choose to leave their abusive or otherwise unacceptable husbands or do not remmarry because then they can rely on government aid.
Oh, please. Women initiate about 60-80% of divorces, and, while there are certainly some bad men in the lot, there are also women who do it because they know that alimony is there for them. In fact, that’s a huge issue in Massachusetts right now; ex-wives can return for alimony, even on the shortest of marriages, for the rest of their lives.
The other thing is that a lot of liberal women want it both ways, and want us to fork over the money for it. They don’t want to marry (or marry young), don’t want to work in a job that would provide them with a decent living (because that’s caving into the capitalist system), and don’t want to be poor, so they turn to the government for help.
Reality is that marriage, on the whole, reduces poverty, and especially poverty among women.
Reality is that 40% of women CHOOSE to give birth out of wedlock, and then turn to the government for help. So, they might not have kicked their husbands out, as per Mrs. Schlafly’s words, but they have made choices which have resulted in unwed motherhood and want us to pay for them.
None of that is counter-factual nor sexist; it’s just reality – a place that these chickies are encouraged to join.
Red
July 30th, 2010 @ 11:36 am
RSM Schlaflypost spotlighted in “Today’s Forecast” on Corndog. You’re welcome
Republican Moderate
July 30th, 2010 @ 12:02 pm
Fact: Seventy percent of unmarried women voted for Obama
Opinion: To think that the President is trying to promote this is absurd
Americaneocon
July 30th, 2010 @ 12:13 pm
American Power tracked-back with, ‘Robert Stacy McCain to Slam GOP Congressional Candidate Rocky Raczkowski for Phyllis Schlafly Renunciation?’.
TQ White II
July 30th, 2010 @ 12:32 pm
I love how you righties just morph the argument any old way to keep your unfair argument alive. Having had the “kicked out” idea discredited, it turns out that the real point is, “they might not have kicked their husbands out, as per Mrs. Schlafly’s words, but they have made choices which have resulted in unwed motherhood and want us to pay for them.”
Now the villains are unwed mothers. Why not, everyone knows they are sluts, right? Of course, a substantial majority of them are teenaged children under eighteen, a group well known for savvy political strategy even if they are not old enough to vote. Does that make this assertion stupid yet?
How about this: Only half of unwed mothers are on welfare. When you include the majority of them that are under eighteen and thus don’t vote, you have a pretty slim voting block supporting the socialist president.
Since the goal is to just keep saying derogatory stuff, I don’t suppose that matters. I do suppose it adds some more evil people to the Phyllis Shafly club.
RightKlik
July 30th, 2010 @ 12:33 pm
“I plan to renounce any Republican who renounces Phyllis Schlafly.”
I’m with you!
Red
July 30th, 2010 @ 12:49 pm
And I thank you sir!
John S
July 30th, 2010 @ 1:15 pm
The chart alone is a great study in voting patterns and personal responsibility.
muffler
July 30th, 2010 @ 1:21 pm
The whole thing is based on the desire to pick a single factoid from a more complex set of information and then us it to support some insane conclusion and ideas. Wingnuttery
hilzoy
July 30th, 2010 @ 1:53 pm
I am an unmarried woman. I did not “kick my husband out”: I never had one. I did not make choices that led to unwed motherhood: I have no kids. Nor do I rely on government handouts.
Not all unmarried women are divorced. Not all unmarried women are mothers. Get a clue.
Roxeanne de Luca
July 30th, 2010 @ 2:17 pm
TQ: oh, so now that your side got decimated after trying to say that single women don’t need government handouts, you’re going to “deliberate political strategy”.
Look, you brain trust: 16-year-old tramps with kids eventually turn into voting-age tramps with kids and without their parents to help them out. There’s a reason why the left is deeply invested in turning 16-year-olds into whores, because the ADULTS are making a new voting bloc for themselves.
It’s pretty easy to not be on welfare or dirt poor: keep your knees together until you get married, or, if you have no self-control and act like an animal during mating season, at least keep ‘em shut until you get out of college.
By the way, if you ever want to know why single mothers are not angels come to earth but rather total fuck-ups, go read Ann Coulter’s ridiculously well-researched, fact-based book. The long and short of it is that being born to married parents is the best thing you can do in your life, and being born to a mom who got knocked up and didn’t marry the baby daddy puts you in for a life of poverty, crime, and under-education.
Roxeanne de Luca
July 30th, 2010 @ 2:23 pm
By the way, in case anyone can’t tell from my snittiness on this subject, I’m the child of parents whose own parents made them march their young, expecting-child butts down the aisle. It was the best thing for all three people involved, but that tends to happen when people act like adults rather than spoiled children who have had too much cake and soda at a party.
Andrew
July 30th, 2010 @ 2:46 pm
I would be interested to see the source of the stat that 60-80% of divorces are initiated by woman.
“40% of woman choose to give birth out of wedlock” is also an interesting stat, that lacks any support.
My guess is that those stats are made up to fit Ms. Luca’s personal opinions or life experience.
Also, Ms. Luca does not account for the woman who are widows or never married, which according to the following link is 24%
According to this link, with 2004 data ( http://www.statemaster.com/graph/lif_per_of_wom_who_nev_mar-percent-women-who-never-married ) 24% of woman, never marry, so they have never kicked out their husbands.
Rhetoric like Schlafly’s is not only inaccurate but also tone deaf to the many reasons why a woman might not have a husband.
Sissy Willis
July 30th, 2010 @ 3:40 pm
It doesn’t ring true for me that “all the other errors of feminism flow from this one fundamental error, a counterfactual insistence on the equality of the sexes.” Vive la différence, but I think the “one fundamental error” flows from something more profound.
For starters, it isn’t feminism per se but the postmodern version of it that highjacked earlier waves of feminism that we’re talking about. As Linda Kimball explained in her American Thinker essay “Cultural Marxism” a couple of years back, it’s one of a multitude of single-issue isms that arose from the ashes of the New Left in the last decades of the 20th century. http://bit.ly/aVjImy
In that light the “one fundamental error” at the heart of postmodern feminism would be Marxism’s counterintuitive utopian view of a socially engineerable human nature vs. the conservative view — understood by the Founding Fathers — that, in VDS’s words, “human nature is predictable and thus tragic.” http://bit.ly/beyFIY
Pomo feminists’ insistence on the equality of the sexes in that light would be simply an instance of a more general fundamental misunderstanding of human nature. Or am I splitting hairs?
KG
July 30th, 2010 @ 4:14 pm
As I read these anti_Schafly arguments, I can’t help but feeling that something is … off. Sure, their arguments appear to have merit, yet there also sseems to be a sheen of sophistry to them. It’s subtle, and fortunately, I don’t care enough about their opinions to tease out their wrongness.
Eva Braun
July 30th, 2010 @ 4:43 pm
You people are f(l)unking crazy!
The Righteous Rant Of The Day… « The Camp Of The Saints
July 30th, 2010 @ 5:14 pm
[...] Rant Of The Day… 30 July 2010 @ 17:13 by bobbelvedere …comes courtesy of Robert Stacy McCain, the eternal ingrown hair on the butt of GOP Establishment, for his justifiable beat down of [...]
Roxeanne de Luca
July 30th, 2010 @ 5:54 pm
Stacy – your post ate my comment!
Kojocaro
July 30th, 2010 @ 6:14 pm
i like how TQ falls back on the that jooo lover abused gays so she is an extremist what about the muslims who express their wish to kill gays oh wait i forgot that is ok in your eyes
Mary Rose
July 30th, 2010 @ 7:20 pm
Rock on, Roxeanne! I was blessed to have two parents growing up, and although they fought like cats and dogs at times, they stayed together until the day she passed in 2007. I attribute my semi-moments of sanity and responsibility to having two adults who toughed it out.
As for Schlafly, I cut my political teeth on her book, The Power of the Positive Woman back when I was in high school. (I need to see if I can get some of her out-of-print books…) I loved her story of defeating the ERA. And she is dead-on with her assessment of single women and the government.
I always thought that there was this strange addictive relationship between those on welfare and the government. Especially for women. The government doesn’t benefit from really helping inner-city men to be responsible citizens of society, to be strong fathers and husbands. Nope. There has been a systematic razing of masculinity and fatherhood in this country since the 60’s.
Meanwhile, with those bothersome males out of the way, who can help those poor, abandoned women? Uncle “Got the Bling to Ring” Sam!
“We’ll never let you down, beaten-down women. We’re much better than men! We’re always around, we won’t cheat on you (instead we’ll cheat the responsible citizens of their hard-earned wages..), and no one will ever turn our gaze away from you!”
Sure, why wouldn’t these women gaze all starry-eyed at President Obama & Company? It’s co-dependency at the highest level. The women will cling and the government will enable them. What a great system.
GOP Conservative Phyllis Schlafly attacks US women, they should be cared for by men - US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum
July 30th, 2010 @ 7:26 pm
[...] [...]
Mary Rose
July 30th, 2010 @ 7:40 pm
The stats show that the highest percentage who voted for Obama were unmarried women with kids.
I didn’t get married until I was 39. I was definitely able to provide for myself. The stats show that women who have children were more apt to vote for Obama. I don’t think it takes a rocket scientist to figure out why. If the government continues to reward it, then it’s no surprise that you get more of it.
I know not every single woman who is in the situation of being a single mother is taking advantage of the system. But unfortunately, there are enough who do and things haven’t improved. Blame it on the disappearance of the “shotgun marriage.”
TQ White II
July 30th, 2010 @ 11:06 pm
My argument decimated? I just don’t see it.
Here’s my argument: Most unwed mothers are teenaged girls that haven’t a clue about anything. They are children with parents that suck. They aren’t doing it because they will get welfare. They are doing it so the boy will like them. The attempt to recruit them as villains in your political drama is the usual, cynical right wing use of the unfortunate.
That said, it is you people that brought up single mothers, when it became obvious that condemning all single women was extreme. Like the right-wing in general, you are happy to use sad girls, trapped by their own ignorance, as a foil for you to support this awful Shafly woman.
Nothing that any of you have said contradicts my real point that Shafly’s comments support your ugly inclination to condemn women that are show any independence and that her comments are not “truth”, fact or any other kind of reality. Her condemnation of an entire class of people is the purest sort of extremism.
My favorite thing though, is that, like it always does when I drop into rightie-world, after we condemn women that don’t obey their man, and after we blame unwed mothers, we eventually get to bigoted comments about moslems (“their wish to kill gays,” incredible!) and then personal attacks (that killing gays “is ok in your eyes”).
But then, incredibly we learn that shotgun weddings are the solution. Gotta love it. You’re happy with the idea of forcing people to marry. Reproductive choice, not so much. I know, freedom isn’t much of a virtue around here.
It’s always great to visit the fantasy world of the right-wing where denigrating all single women is not extreme and malleable dishonesty is a virtue.
Roxeanne de Luca
July 30th, 2010 @ 11:58 pm
condemn women that are show any independence
Comedy gold! The issue isn’t independent women – as an unmarried, almost 30-year-old, paying her own way through life engineer-turned-lawyer, I have the independent woman thing DOWN, bitches – it’s DEPENDENT women.
Women who depend on the government. Women who depend on abortion. Women who cannot live their own lives and make their failures everyone else’s problem.
That you fail to understand that is your own damn problem, not mine.
Roxeanne de Luca
July 31st, 2010 @ 12:06 am
A quick summary of the comment that Stacy’s site ate:
To liberals, facts are a bitch. The idea that 24% of women don’t ever marry? According to the CDC, 86% of all women have been married at least once by the age of 40, and 93% of non-Hispanic white women have:
http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/databriefs/db19.htm#sex
To add: the median age of first-time marriage for women is before 25, and 74% of women have been married at least once by age 30.
The idea that I’m simply wrong to say that 40% of women who have children are choosing to have them out of wedlock? The CDC again supplies us with answers:
http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/fastats/unmarry.htm
38.5% of births are to unmarried women. Aside from the vanishingly small percent of whom are widows, the idea that 40% of women who have children are choosing to have them out of wedlock is rather well-supported by data.
Finally, do a google search of who initiates divorces; I came up with a source that says 65%, and another 75%, initiated by women. (Stacy’s site might be cranky with all the links.)
So that leaves us with one of two options:
1. My claims about women who choose to have birth out of wedlock, who divorce, and who marry are hardly the claims of a woman who makes up facts to suit her own agenda; they are the claims of a woman in cahoots with the government, attorneys, social scientists, and news sources to design a conspiracy to support my radical agenda. Also, women are the victims of rogue semen-filled turkey basters and storks.
OR
2. You are a liberal dumbass, which is also a redundancy.
Tennwriter
July 31st, 2010 @ 12:15 am
TQ,
Have you heard of Independence Day? Its the time when a young girl who lives with her single mother, and a couple rowdy brothers, and has ‘uncles’ sniffing around….Then she turns sixteen, and if she has a baby, she can leave all that, and have her own apartment.
As long as she’s not married.
Sounds like an inducement to have more single mothers doesn’t it?
That’s the story I’ve heard.
And Go Phyllis Go!! Kick the dweebs in the teeth! If only we had more giants with the moral courage of Phyllis instead of the collection of punks that make up the Republican party.
Roxeanne de Luca
July 31st, 2010 @ 12:16 am
T.Q.: you don’t “see” the decimation of your argument, because you either never read what I wrote or lack reading comprehension skills (or both).
You claim that I think that 16-year-olds are getting knocked up for welfare, although I explicitly said that it’s leftist adults who are doing the encouraging (and are calling us “slut-shamers” when we try to discourage it). Go figure!
Shafly’s comments support your ugly inclination to condemn women that are show any independence and that her comments are not “truth”,
1. ad hominem, and
2. not true; as per above, we condemn women who claim to be all independent, but hose working strangers to support their lifestyles.
But then, incredibly we learn that shotgun weddings are the solution. Gotta love it. You’re happy with the idea of forcing people to marry. Reproductive choice, not so much. I know, freedom isn’t much of a virtue around here.
As opposed to dismembering the child in the womb or raising it in the worst possible environment? Pray tell, TQ, what is your solution?
Let’s be real: your solutions, like every leftist solution out there, are bad for innocent people. If you’re a slut who is too stupid to use birth control, the “solution” is to harm a person who had no part in creating the problem. If you’re a woman who couldn’t keep her knees shut until marriage, then your “solution” is to raise the child in poverty, sponge off the government, and tell the child who might want a daddy that her mother is an angel come to earth.
I believe in reproductive choice, but that choice does not extend to killing your offspring, no more than a man can exercise his “reproductive choice” by taking a baseball bat to his pregnant partner’s abdomen.
myohmy
July 31st, 2010 @ 12:20 am
Look at California where unmarried women are rampant. They preferred not to marry to collect welfare from Uncle Sam and continue making more babies to collect more subsidies. It is a sad state of affairs. Thanks to democrats endless pandering.
Jeff Weimer
July 31st, 2010 @ 12:24 am
Don’t look now Stacy…
INSTALANCHE!!!!!
pelicans
July 31st, 2010 @ 12:34 am
On the internet, one would hate to sound syrupy or anything but every day of my life, I am grateful for those who try to tell the truth even if it means pointing out the fallacies of the prevailing orthodoxy. Thank you, Phyllis.
livermoron
July 31st, 2010 @ 3:55 am
TQ: How do you explain the sudden drop in the rate of illegitimate, esp. in the black community, that occurred when Welfare Reform was passed?
Roxeanne said it better than I can. All I can add is that people like you are the real evil.
Steve Skubinna
July 31st, 2010 @ 6:00 am
TQ, shove it sideways. The policies you vermin promote are evil, and have been proven so by decades of miserable failure.
You enslave people. Pretend otherwise among your equally evil compatriots, but the gloves are off, asshole.
Carol
July 31st, 2010 @ 6:07 am
Phyllis Schlafly is losing her mind or lost it. She is an embarassment to woman. Why do they have nut cases like her in office. Why is she a voice to speak for American woman. She is living in a caveman era. Life is life and no one can decide another’s fate. When things get rough we work and pray. Single woman who love their kids will go out there and fight to keep their children with a roof over their heads, clothed and fed and educated. I did and I never complained or had to beg for help or go on assistance. She sounds like Hitler. Having it hard at times is part of life and only makes you strong. It gives you awareness in life that at times you must fend for yourself. I certainly don’t look at Government as a role model substitue for a husband. She’s an old nasty looking person who is pretty dumb. She probably always was. Does she have children? God helped them if she does. She must of been spoon fed and beat down her husband and thinks that’s the way life should be. Everything I look back on in life is golden both the good and bad and I’m proud to be an American woman who independently raised her child and worked every day. From where I sit, she looks like she is looking to Government as a husband replacement. Who could look at her and listen to what she says about woman and not want to throw up. She is a disgrace.
Jon
July 31st, 2010 @ 6:16 am
Everyone needs to read ‘The Misandry Bubble’. It will open your eyes about how female supremacism has become a pervasive ideology in the US.
Matt
July 31st, 2010 @ 7:12 am
In Muslim countries, it’s illegal to be gay, often punishable by death. This is a fact, but being concerned about it doesn’t make you pro gay rights, it makes you an anti muslem bigot, at least in lefty land. The little troll came in the night, like the tooth fairy, and confirmed this.
netmarcos
July 31st, 2010 @ 7:28 am
@Carol: Godwin invoked, debate over. Your side loses.
wormme
July 31st, 2010 @ 7:32 am
“Liberals” once loved to quote John Stuart Mill because of this observation “…it is not true that all conservatives are stupid people, (but) it is true that most stupid people are conservative.”
Of course in JSM’s day “conservatives” wanted to conserve power and privilege, not liberty.
Anyway, JSM, a true freedom-loving liberal, thought that people on the public dole should surrender their right to vote.
It’s obvious when you think about it, right? Children don’t get an equal vote with their parents. People who can’t take care of themselves should not be permitted to vote in adult business.
World's Only Rational Man
July 31st, 2010 @ 7:37 am
[...] brings this one is an other McCain post about Phyllis Schlafly. She said, ”Seventy percent of unmarried women voted for [...]
Ten
July 31st, 2010 @ 8:09 am
Now the villains are unwed mothers. Why not, everyone knows they are sluts, right?
Do your research before calling others liars: The overwhelming majority of divorces are unilaterally initiated by women. Some 85% of all divorces with children end with mom with the kids and the dad’s monthly ransom to see them twice a month. Divorce and custody are nationalized industry fomented by Title IV-D (part of the welfare state) and your local family court’s contract with the DA.
This isn’t opinion, it’s documented fact – some of us have done the work, friend.
All this, in turn, is traceable directly to the far left’s feminist philosophy as designed and enabled in academia and high office. Plus it’s huge business. And yes, it runs on copious mythmaking and financial opportunism.
Of course the enormous incentive, backed by statist orthodoxy, is in place to induce mom to kick dad out and take on the State as parent. In a nation where half of new marriages end in divorce, single female parenting is a inculcated tradition just as much as the welfare state has decimated the minority and poor family.
Get your facts straight. Schlafly has and has been on the forefront of the battleground the State has created where separating children from their fathers is an excellent paying business for lawyers, social workers, and government. Ants always find the sugar and in leftist statism, there’s plenty of sugar.
Had you ever even read Schlafly? Furthermore, readers are encouraged to read the groundbreaking expose of the left’s state divorce and custody machinery. Dr. Stephen Baskerville’s Taken Into Custody documents the willful ruin this state engine is bringing to the American family as we speak.
Ten
July 31st, 2010 @ 8:12 am
Carol, your slandering Schlafly at #46 out of hand only serves to confirm that you are both ignorant and abusive.
aberra
July 31st, 2010 @ 8:28 am
Roxeanne -
Agree with your general points, but this one is in error:
38.5% of babies being born out of wedlock does not mean 40% of women choose to have babies out of wedlock.
You can’t use the percentage of babies born out of wedlock to tell you the percentage of women who are having these babies. The two things are not the same.
Ten
July 31st, 2010 @ 8:28 am
Most unwed mothers are teenaged girls that haven’t a clue about anything. They are children with parents that suck. They aren’t doing it because they will get welfare. They are doing it so the boy will like them. The attempt to recruit them as villains in your political drama is the usual, cynical right wing use of the unfortunate.
That said, it is you people that brought up single mothers, when it became obvious that condemning all single women was extreme. Like the right-wing in general, you are happy to use sad girls, trapped by their own ignorance, as a foil for you to support this awful Shafly woman.
Ah, “trapped by their own ignorance”. Get that everyone? Trapped. Victims. And where did that come from if not the breakdown of the family caused by the rejection of solid, traditional values? With all such breakdowns aided by social engineering per academic and government pressures.
You speak in great generalities…that depend on a very narrow field of view and hang on precisely one thin assertion to appear to be supported. That assertion – that parents suck so as to enable the State to replace them – is precisely the sort of emotional arbitrary goofiness that State uses to empower itself to make an industry out of inducing parents – typically moms – to hack dad out of the child’s life for money and personal advantage.
Ironically, it’s also what Schlafly claims is the root of the problem: The State as parent spawns State-parenting. Any lightbulbs going on yet, poster?
It’s taken decades for the religion of secular humanism to produce a state where traditional values and responsibilities are replaced by economic opportunity and the ways and means to glean and grow rich from that opportunity, as the child support industry’s powers naturally have and as they continually lobby the State to enrich. Ask me how I know.
The average child is worth somewhere north of five hundred dollars a month, plus other benefits – a family of five children can easily pay a mother to live scot-free, and when benefits accrue, they’ll all be handsomely covered, typically in what had been dad’s house.
This is the mechanism, poster. And all it takes is for one person, typically mom, to make the decision you just floated that, you know, dad just kinda sucks. From the custody industry swings into action.
Custody depends on two things: Gender and unilateralism. Being mom and being sick of a father “that sucks” is all it takes to throw the sorry bastard that used to be dad on the street, keep the house and car, and have him (or many hims) pay a whack of tax-free money to support the State’s control of his own children.
That State having, in effect, remarried the mother of his children. But somehow this incentive and pathway escapes you. Because parents suck…leaving the State in precisely the position to do what Schlafly says it has and will do countless times. Welcome to the family in 2010…and welcome to Schlafly’s assertion writ large.
I’ll take your slander as proof of your intellectual desperation, and that desperation as an admission that you really don’t have a leg to stand on.
MilwaukeeD
July 31st, 2010 @ 8:42 am
hilzoy, get a clue. This article, even though you are unmarried and barren, isn’t about you. It’s about a patterns of behavior. Of course there are always exceptions. Most divorces are initiated by the woman, about 70%. That does not mean All divorces, just most.
While President Obama may not have initiated this cycle, he and the liberal seem willing to continue, expand and nurture these trends. Where is the money going to come from?
Debi
July 31st, 2010 @ 8:43 am
Good morning,
While on the subject of statistics pop over to doj.gov and see who is most dangerous to kids, and it is not the biological fathers. I myself am 3rd generation single mom and I do agree with Ms. Schafly. My Grandma did it without gov help, my Mom did it without gov help, I too have done it without gov help. I have also argued for years that it would be easier for me to care for my own children if I didn’t have to pay for other womens kids. I’ve never expected anyone to pay for my poor choices. There is a large block that could be won by the GOP if they had the nads to take on this new feminism. It used to be I am woman hear me roar, now it is I am a helpless little girl help me big daddy gov. It infantilzes women and is repulsive. Single parenthood has always been with us, the gov paying for it for the last 50+ years is what has damaged society. It is not that the 16 year old gets an apartment, it is that to get help she has to leave the nest where her and her offspring would be safer. What sense does that make, it puts someone who already shows irresponsible behavior on her own. She goes looking for safety from the first man she perceives as strong and a vicious cycle is begun, with children standing in the middle. All the while the children watch and learn. I was not a teen mom, but even in as stable a home as I was able to provide, my sons show the lack of control that comes from not have Dad show how to control self. Thank God they are past that in HS with goals for the future but it was a battle that did not have to take place, had we been more important than him getting high, yes women walk away in higher numbers. But sometimes you think you know someone and find out they are not what they present, like Obama.
I have voted rep since 2000, but only because they are less evil than dems. Doesn’t seem like a real choice, the Tea party had me at Santellis rant. To sum up it is my opinion that kids do way better with 2 parents, and I hammer that home with mine and any others in my sphere. Wait, get an education, get married, plan for the babes. They act as if teens are animals with no self control. Give them the biological facts about std’s, failure rates of BC, and the emotional trauma associated with teen sex. Knowledge is power, they don’t get that in school. It has to come from us.
“When Phyllis Schlafly Speaks the Truth, Democrats Call It ‘Extremism’” [JHoward]
July 31st, 2010 @ 8:45 am
[...] on official speech and its hand-and-glove relationship with the left’s expanding statism, RS McCain offers a post on the outlaw Phyllis Schlafly. Good stuff and worth a read-the-whole-thing. [...]
MilwaukeeD
July 31st, 2010 @ 8:45 am
Studies I’ve read in the past indicated that a substantial majority of teen pregnancies were by men 4 or more years older than the woman. I think that is considered some level of rape in Wisconsin, but is almost never prosecuted. In the African-American community, about 68% of children are being raised in single parent households. Is that the accepted cultural norm? It would interesting to see the data above broken down by ethnic groups.
furious
July 31st, 2010 @ 9:53 am
Debi&Ten: you both rule.
To my liberal friends who defend the sex-ed
equivalent of letting children play with firearms, I respond that violence and prejudice are as genetically hard-wired as
the reproductive urge, but we don’t encourage children to indulge those urges, do we?
There was an illustrative story in the Dallas
Morning News this week, about teens struggling
to pass Texas high-school proficiency tests. Several paragraphs in the reporter got around to how the young woman at issue was an unwed teenage mother (baby-daddy incarcerated) struggled with balancing studies (failed TAKS twice) with “clubbing and hanging with her homegirls”.
Uh, ya think?
serr8d
July 31st, 2010 @ 10:50 am
Jeff G. responds to RSM…
http://proteinwisdom.com/?p=20137#comment-962162
Pardon me while I sip my tea
July 31st, 2010 @ 10:59 am
[...] on both extremes of social issues really put me off. But I have to agree with her latest, and Stacy McCain’s take on it. From Schafly: One of the things Obama’s been doing is deliberately trying to [...]
Thoughts on the previous post
July 31st, 2010 @ 11:05 am
[...] of many of the big feminist blogs to make their cases — and I’m sad to say McCain is wrong here: to be classically liberal is to be a feminist, and this is not some sort of “me-to” [...]
Roxeanne de Luca
July 31st, 2010 @ 11:06 am
Aberra: I mis-spoke a bit initially, but do not forget that since damn near all women have children, and married women often have more than unmarried women, that the 40% is not inaccurate, either way (i.e. the groups are functionally the same).
Oddly, about 35-45% of all women will have abortions, so I really have zero compunctions about throwing a substantial minority of women under the bus as far as motherhood goes, since they are all but eating their own young… then asking us to treat them as heroes for doing it.
Roxeanne de Luca
July 31st, 2010 @ 11:07 am
Debi&Ten: you both rule.
To my liberal friends who defend the sex-ed
equivalent of letting children play with firearms, I respond that violence and prejudice are as genetically hard-wired as
the reproductive urge, but we don’t encourage children to indulge those urges, do we?
<3 it.
Kevin J Jones
July 31st, 2010 @ 11:38 am
My ideal politician would say something like:
“Why is it that we praise single mothers more than the upstanding, hard-working husbands and wives whose taxes support them? The policies of today’s so-called liberals makes it harder for a working man to support a wife and kids. As Allan Carlson of profam.org has shown in ‘The Social Conservative Case for the New Deal’, the oldtime liberals would have been appalled…”
aberra
July 31st, 2010 @ 1:13 pm
Roxanne:
“Damn near all women have children” ??
Oh really?
A 2003 U.S. Census study found that 19% of American women ages 40-44 had no children.
That’s nearly one in five. If I got an 81 on a test at school, I doubt if my parents would have considered that I got “damn near all” the questions.
Please cite the direct, actual statistic to back up your claim that 40% of women have babies out of wedlock. If you can do that, fine & kudos. But until you do, I will have to call BS on your claim.
As I stated before, you can’t just fudge an assocation from the percentage of babies born out of wedlock to the percentage of women having these babies.
Suppositions, correlations and generalizations are no substitute for hard numbers.
TQ White II
July 31st, 2010 @ 1:41 pm
There are about 1.5 billion moslems in this world. The moslem countries that have bizarre laws about gay people represent a small minority of them and in those countries, the people themselves are living in functional dictatorships. I’d bet huge odds that a smaller proportion moslems than christians hate gay people – especially among American conservatives. I am 100% certain that the number of moslems that think gay people should be killed is a tiny percentage. It is extremism to imply that all moslems do.
Those of you that think that parents of a fourteen year old pregnant girl don’t suck or that the child is a rationale player in her economic future, choosing a fabulous life on $500/month are idiots, spewing irrational talking points to further more uncaring cruelty.
That said, I made no claim that there are no women that figure that welfare will take care of them, merely that it’s extremism to claim that all of them are. I made no claim the you, Roxeanne, are not an independent woman, I said that the characterization of any mother that doesn’t have a man as a parasite is extremism and, worse, a manipulative way of casting aspersions on independent women in general. (And, it’s worth noting, this started with Shafly talking, not about unwed mothers, but all divorced women, in this way.)
When you “slut-slammers” talk about young unwed mothers in terms of “just keep your legs shut” you reveal a stupid cruelty that is unbearable but indicative of the fantasy life of conservatives. Children do not cooperate. They do dumb, counterproductive things all the time. The idea that society has the ability to force them not to screw is just plain dumb. People have tried everything from literal chastity belts, to shotgun marriages, to putting girls in prison, to immeasurable cruelties of all sorts. It never works. I love the idea that preventing sex education, ie, attempting to conceal the reality of sex from children, will make them more responsible. Pure fantasy.
But the most stupid thing I read here is the ongoing assertion about liberal motivation. I have been a politically active, thoughtful liberal for decades. I have protested, run campaigns, written articles, read books, engaged in every way. I have never, ever known a liberal that has an affirmative motivation to replace the father, ruin families, encourage dependency, or any of the other dumb things you people have said.
Never. To the extent that you base your viewpoints on that notion, you are 100% wrong.
Of course, you’ll call me a liar but that’s because the conservative mindset operates on a fantasy that, “if it makes sense to me, it must be true.” Somehow you think that, given enough cruelty and intolerance, the things you dislike will magically go away. Think badly of me and fellow liberals and maybe that will be true, too.
Or not.
Roxeanne de Luca
July 31st, 2010 @ 1:48 pm
Aberra,
On 31 July, at 12:06 am EDT, I wrote:
The idea that I’m simply wrong to say that 40% of women who have children are choosing to have them out of wedlock? The CDC again supplies us with answers:
http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/fastats/unmarry.htm
38.5% of births are to unmarried women. Aside from the vanishingly small percent of whom are widows, the idea that 40% of women who have children are choosing to have them out of wedlock is rather well-supported by data.
Now, what is unclear about this or different from your initial comment? What is so wrong about “40% of women who have children”?
If I – heaven forbid! – made a typo on a BLOG, it was obviously clarified in that point. If you continue to pick away at me, POST-CLARIFICATION, then you’re being the asshole here.
(By the way, over 80% of babies that are aborted are to women who are unmarried at the time. Those represent about a quarter of all pregnancies. So, pray tell, how am I wrong to say that 40% of women who have children have them out of wedlock? They just kill them before they get out of the womb.)
Roxeanne de Luca
July 31st, 2010 @ 1:50 pm
TQ: um, dumbass? If a woman is independent, then she’s not looking to the government for a welfare check, nor to her baby daddy or ex-husband for alimony nor child support, nor to society to help her make ends meet.
We call those women “Republicans”.
Roxeanne de Luca
July 31st, 2010 @ 1:56 pm
Oh, debunking my favourite liberal talking point! Liberal morons say that it’s impossible to control human sexuality (which is a bit of a projection, IMHO…).
Problematically, T.Q., if it’s impossible to change human sexual behaviour, then we would expect human sexual behaviour to remain constant through time and across cultures, as cultural norms would have no effect on it. What sucks for you is that, as conservative values have declined, the number of sexual partners that people have has increased, the age of first intercourse has decreased, and the number of people who have slept with no one but their spouses has radically increased.
Now, imagine me saying this: controlling male sexuality is impossible. No matter what tortures we design, some men will always rape women. Therefore, the modern view of rape as a wrong thing should be abolished, and, in the name of acknowledging basic human nature, rape should be legal and uncensored by society, since neither societal condemnation nor illegality can succeed in eliminating it.
That, in your world, would be the “compassionate” response to a systemic problem of trying to control human sexuality.
Go ahead and defend it, based on your most recent standards for social norms. Have fun!
Henry Bowman
July 31st, 2010 @ 2:29 pm
@Roxeanne: “What sucks for you is that, as conservative values have declined… the number of people who have slept with no one but their spouses has radically increased.”
Wow, I didn’t see THAT coming.
TQ White II
July 31st, 2010 @ 2:44 pm
You might think it’s the decline of conservative values but I think it’s the increase in commercial values. The constant emphasis on desire, self-gratification, and the sexualization of everything by corporations (those capitalists that you no-doubt think should be completely unregulated) has, in my view, a much, much stronger influence on the behavior of people than your values ever did. Or mine, for that matter.
I don’t agree that rape is sexual behavior so your point is, well, pointless. They are not comparable in any way.
Teenagers that want to screw are immature people responding to normal urges that are especially intense at that age. Rapists are vicious sickos. Rapists are a small minority that we can afford to jail. Horny teenagers are a huge population that we can’t afford to jail.
You know Roxeanne, you seem to have a fixation on me. I love the flurry of “dumbass” and “sucks for me”. I don’t really suffer for any of this. I am 100% happy to contribute to the support of kids that have trouble. I am enthusiastic about paying for sex education and free condoms in schools to prevent bad consequences. Nothing about this sucks for me.
It’s you that is in a state of dissonance. You’re the one that thinks that it is possible to eliminate unwed pregnancy. You’re the one who lives in a world where you look at a divorced woman and think, there’s another parasite that has chosen the dole instead of respecting her man.
But, as this little party continues, I feel I must remind you that the topic at hand is this: The characterization of divorcing women as welfare parasites is not “truth”. It is the very epitome of “extremism.”
Nobody seems to be able to refute that.
AJB
July 31st, 2010 @ 3:46 pm
FYI Schlafly thinks that it’s okay for husbands to rape their wives.
http://majikthise.typepad.com/majikthise_/2008/05/phylis-schlafly.html
“I think that when you get married you have consented to sex. That’s what marriage is all about, I don’t know if maybe these girls missed sex ed. That doesn’t mean the husband can beat you up, we have plenty of laws against assault and battery. If there is any violence or mistreatment that can be dealt with by criminal prosecution, by divorce or in various ways. When it gets down to calling it rape though, it isn’t rape, it’s a he said-she said where it’s just too easy to lie about it.”
Live Free Or Die
July 31st, 2010 @ 6:09 pm
No where in the Schlafly quotes, included in
#74 AJB comments, does Phyllis Schlafly think that it’s OK for husbands to rape their wives.
But Whoopie Goldberg still believes it isn’t
‘rape-rape’ for Roman Polanski to drug, rape/sodomize a 13 year old.
M. Simon
July 31st, 2010 @ 6:49 pm
The answer is obvious. Forced abortions for unmarried pregnant women is the answer. That should please Democrats and Republicans.
Hi Stacy.
M. Simon
July 31st, 2010 @ 6:59 pm
as conservative values have declined, the number of sexual partners that people have has increased, the age of first intercourse has decreased, and the number of people who have slept with no one but their spouses has radically increased.
I guess that would explain the radical decline in per capita rape statistics in America over the last 40 years.
M. Simon
July 31st, 2010 @ 7:00 pm
Or maybe Internet pornography.
Little Miss Attila
July 31st, 2010 @ 7:51 pm
Um. Have we really decided that the winning strategy this fall and in 2012 is to be known as the party of sexism?
‘Cause here’s my thing: I would prefer that the independent voters who went for Obama (many of whom were single, and many of whom were female) actually start voting Republican.
So I fear that going out of our way to insult these people is tantamount to leading with the chin.
hg382
July 31st, 2010 @ 9:31 pm
Some of the above arguments remind me of one I got into with a ‘nuanced’ liberal about a particular negative social phenomenon with a racial angle. She took the approach as seen in comments above of finding one nitpick as somehow disproving the larger argument (as if something that is 90% true is not proof of a trend because of 10% that don’t fit.)
These ‘nuanced’ thinker who accuse *us* of simplistic black and white thinking can’t seem to think statistically, understanding distributions or trends.
In my case my dissenter was coming up with all sorts of minor cases that were exceptions to a general social comment I’d made based on many years of first hand observation at a nearby WalMart.
I was the neanderthal ignorantly shooting from the hip. Turned out she made some uppity refernce to what she sees in “DuPage county”, and I googled. She’s from “one of the wealthiest counties in the nation” (Naperville & other rich suburbs of CHicago), which happens to be just 3% black. I’m in a decent sized city which is 33% black (in my county). I cited those stats and ripped her a new one — *she* was the provincial one who didn’t know what the hell she was talking about beyond her liberal CW spoonfed by NPR and the NYT.
Sunday Links
August 1st, 2010 @ 2:25 am
[...] Schafley speaks the truth on why unmarried vote Democrat. (Hat Tip: [...]
Rule 5 Sunday : The Other McCain
August 1st, 2010 @ 8:46 am
[...] must have access to the FBI archive, or something. How they managed to come up with a picture of Phyllis Schlafly test-firing .50-caliber machine-gun ammo is unknown, but impressive. The research into the pressing [...]
old white guy
August 1st, 2010 @ 9:15 am
time to remove the right to vote from women. it was a bad idea.
Joe
August 1st, 2010 @ 3:37 pm
So I fear that going out of our way to insult these people is tantamount to leading with the chin.
To some extent, perhaps. Then again, it is almost like it does not matter what you say, they will make up lies about you to generate dischord. So you might as well say the truth, as you see it. The art of it is doing it in a manner that you minimize the offending (because when you challenge someone the first reaction will be anger) but get your message across.
Joe
August 1st, 2010 @ 3:52 pm
There are about 1.5 billion [a bit high but okay] moslems [spelling] in this world. The moslem countries that have bizarre [spelling] laws about gay people represent a small minority of them and in those countries, the people themselves are living in functional dictatorships [ahhh, every Muslim majority state other than arguably Turkey is a functional dictatorship, monarchy, or olicharchy]. I’d bet huge odds that a smaller proportion moslems than christians hate gay people – especially among American conservatives [where is this coming from?]. I am 100% certain that the number of moslems that think gay people should be killed is a tiny percentage [I am not aware of any Western state condoning anything like that, I know Iran, the Taliban and al Qaeda promote doing that now]. It is extremism to imply that all moslems do. [Who implied that? This is a straw man argument].
Those of you that think that parents of a fourteen year old pregnant girl don’t suck or that the child is a rationale player in her economic future, choosing a fabulous life on $500/month are idiots, spewing irrational talking points to further more uncaring cruelty. [I have no idea what you are saying].
That said, I made no claim that there are no women that figure that welfare will take care of them, merely that it’s extremism to claim that all of them are. [My head is starting to hurt now reading this crap]. I made no claim the you, Roxeanne, are not an independent woman, I said that the characterization of any mother that doesn’t have a man as a parasite is extremism and, worse, a manipulative way of casting aspersions on independent women in general. (And, it’s worth noting, this started with Shafly talking, not about unwed mothers, but all divorced women, in this way.) [Roxanne is twice the man you are].
When you “slut-slammers” talk about young unwed mothers in terms of “just keep your legs shut” you reveal a stupid cruelty that is unbearable but indicative of the fantasy life of conservatives. [Your perjoritives aside, that is not bad advice to start with, we all recognize it is hardly foolproof.] Children do not cooperate. [Duh.] They do dumb, counterproductive things all the time. [Duh.] The idea that society has the ability to force them not to screw is just plain dumb. People have tried everything from literal chastity belts, to shotgun marriages, to putting girls in prison, to immeasurable cruelties of all sorts. [You must be thinking of your Muslim pals noted above]. It never works. I love the idea that preventing sex education, ie, attempting to conceal the reality of sex from children, will make them more responsible. Pure fantasy. [Sex education on the mechanics of how pregnancy happens, explaining what controception is, and why having sex at an early age is a bad idea is fine, telling kids what fisting is all about or encouraging them that picking up strange adult men at bus stations is okay is not.]
But the most stupid thing I read here is the ongoing assertion about liberal motivation. I have been a politically active, thoughtful liberal for decades. [No kidding? I never would have guessed that.] I have protested, run campaigns, written articles, read books, engaged in every way. [You go girl]. I have never, ever known a liberal that has an affirmative motivation to replace the father, ruin families, encourage dependency, or any of the other dumb things you people have said. [Well, spend some time in a feminist book store and you might find what you say does not exists.]
Never. To the extent that you base your viewpoints on that notion, you are 100% wrong. [This refers to the paragraph above?]
Of course, you’ll call me a liar but that’s because the conservative mindset operates on a fantasy that, “if it makes sense to me, it must be true.” [Liar, no, you really do believe this shit.] Somehow you think that, given enough cruelty and intolerance, the things you dislike will magically go away. [Dude, did we hurt your feelings?] Think badly of me and fellow liberals and maybe that will be true, too. [Come on now, let's smoke a bong and hug it out.]
Or not.
Tennwriter
August 1st, 2010 @ 5:02 pm
Miss Attilla,
Its libertarians who are the Chihuahuas who snap at the ankles of conservatives, thus distracting said Conservatives from forcing RINOs to pretend to be reasonable, and then the conservatives moving on to stomping the crud out of liberalism.
AKA, if libertarians spent less time sniping at conservatives with their understandable social concerns (as Conservatism is based on Freedom and Virtue), then libertarians might see the expansion of Freedom they claim so loudly to support. However, one sometimes suspects they hate conservatives more than they love Freedom.
Perhaps this is not you, but you might spread the word to the other libertarians eager to start fights that need not be fought now.
Joe
August 1st, 2010 @ 5:18 pm
Tennwriter, there are lots of issues out there, but small “l” libertarians are not the problem. Big “L” losertarians, unfortunately, occasionally cost Republicans elections as spoilers.
cowboydave
August 1st, 2010 @ 8:10 pm
PLEASE CALL THE NRA 800 392 8683 PRESS #3 TELL THE REP. DO NOT ENDORSE harry reid….. PLEASE THIS IS IMPORTANT….. TELL YOUR FRIENDS TO CALL THEM, ALSO NRA MEMBERS PLEASE WRITE THE NRA DIRECTORS TELL THEM TO NOT LET THE NRA ENDORSE harry reid THANK YOU
Unexpected Endorsement for Schlafly : The Other McCain
August 2nd, 2010 @ 3:17 pm
[...] Arthur KoestlerUnexpected Endorsement for SchlaflyPosted on | August 2, 2010 | No CommentsRemember my defense of Phyllis Schlafly? Well, now comes some blunt truth from Patterico:Here is a generalization for you: when I see [...]
Foppish Munch-head’s Jacked-up Ruling: Annoying : The Other McCain
August 7th, 2010 @ 6:24 am
[...] Graham Sadly Abdicated His Elected ResponsibilityThe Lonely ConservativeObi’s SisterPhyllisWhen Phyllis Schlafly Speaks the Truth, Democrats Call It ‘Extremism’VA RightDaTechguyTaylor MarshRed StateThe Camp of the SaintsUS Message BoardWorlds Only Rational [...]

The Other McCain

"One should either write ruthlessly what one believes to be the truth, or else shut up." — Arthur Koestler

When Phyllis Schlafly Speaks the Truth, Democrats Call It ‘Extremism’

Comments

The Full Metal Jacket Reach-Around Award

Hit the Freaking Tip Jar!

HEADLINES

Recent Posts

Really Should Subscribe (RSS)

Cool Twitter Dudes

Hot Air Greenroom

The Other Other McCain

Top Referers

Categories

ADVERTISE HERE

Help America Fight the Terrifying OBAMA ZOMBIES!

Blogroll

Adsense