Still a month to go before “National Offend a Feminist Week,” but some folks can’t wait, eh? I’ll save the lecture for the updates, but first let’s aggregate today’s headlines (via Memeorandum and Twitter):
Ann Romney Fights Back: Debuts on Twitter
to Counter DNC Advisor’s Insult
— ABC News
Rosen apologizes over comments against Ann Romney
— CNN
Democrats declare war on women?
Update: Frequent White House visitor?
— Hot Air
Hilary Rosen, Frequent White House Visitor
— National Review
Team Romney To Obama:
You Started The War Over Women
— BuzzFeed
Conservatives Attack Hilary Rosen
For Raising Children As A Lesbian
— Think Progress
New Tone alert: Libs attack
Ann Romney as ‘cunt,’ ‘bitch,’ ‘whore’
— Twitchy
Once again demonstrating the enduring truth that, if it weren’t for double standards, Democrats would have no standards at all.
UPDATE: Remember last month when the Southern Poverty Law Center added “misogyny” to its Hate Group list? Not an accident.
UPDATE II: You now what we need here? Some good old-fashioned male chauvinist objectification:
Who Is Hotter? Hilary Rosen or Ann Romney
Brilliant. Which reminds me . . .
Hands off my “Ann Romney bikini” Google-bomb!
UPDATE III: What the hell? Liberals consider this an “apology”?
Rosen is defending, not apologizing for, her hateful attitude toward traditional wives and mothers. And please tell me who spent weeks trying to “score political points” on this issue, huh?
UPDATE IV: What started it all:
Maybe Rush Limbaugh should call Hilary Rosen a “slut,” just for the pure fun of it. (BTW, is that her maiden name?)
Excuse me, but “Think Progress” is cr**. I have been reading comments on conservative sites about what Rosen said since this morning. NOBODY mentioned she was a Lesbian. They didn’t even know she was a lesbian. Another attempt to gin anger on the part of the left.
I didn’t know Hilary Rosen was a lesbian. I just thought she was stupid.
It’s a trap, and it’s all about the general election.
[…] thanks to my Friend In The Ether, TWB, for the inspiration and to Stacy McCain for, well, covering this story the way it should […]
Nice aggregation. Linked:
‘Hilary Rosen’s ‘Faux’ Apology’.
Since it appears she is in fact a lesbian, it would be appropriate to call her a lesbian. Given OCBILL’s first impression and subsequent discovery it would be appropriate for him to call her a stupid lesbian. Now here is where I get confused (the proprieties change so quickly nowadays) would it or would it not be appropriate to call her an ignorant slut unless her name is Jane?
The left appears to be composed entirely of “adult” infants and toddlers, in dire need of a sugar tit and a nap. http://wp.me/p27DAO-hw
[…] Linked by The Other McCain and The Camp of the Saints, thank you sirs! May I be the first to coin a phrase? It’s a […]
By calling Rosen a lesbian, you think you made her realize her lack of intelligence? Do you think lesbianism is a sign of stupidity? Too bad Farwell is dead, sinful stupidity would have resonated with him. 😉
I think by calling her a lesbian, we’re going to generate a lot more hits for this website.
Methinks we should leave Rosen and Romeny alone.
They both ought to get a room (and gang up on each other.)
Often we hear people say, “You insult my intelligence” when people offer them a preposterous line of reasoning expecting them to believe it.
In conversation, the reverse happens more often, without the person who insulted his own intelligence realizing he/she did it. This is so, because in a contest of wits the one who uses insults first, clearly has given up on intelligence as his weapon of choice. So in resorting to insults in a debate, you insult your own intelligence, and show that you lack faith that it could win the day.
So it seems odd to see advocates of better reasoning, exhorting others to intelligence by calling them names.
Only an idiot-imbecile would come up with something so stupid.
She’s not a lesbian because she’s stupid and she isn’t stupid because she’s a lesbian. But she is stupid and she is a lesbian making her a stupid lesbian.
Have I pissed you off in some way? That’s OK you’ll get over it I know I have.
Who’s Farwell?
Fantasize much?
Read what rabid conservative Erick Erickson has said about Rosen:
Get a clue and put a rest to your faux outrage, conservatives.
Tut tut, Anamika, tut tut!
When rebutting an argument, one must provide facts that are relevant. To wit, nothing you post relates to Rosen being lesbian, as noted by FenelonSpoke.
Tut tut, Anamika! Be sure to use working links in your posts. Tut tut!
She’s a leftie. Which is the same thing as being stupid.
Tut tut, Anamika, tut tut!
Ad hominem attacks are supposed to be eschewed by lefties as non-intellectual. Yet, here you are, an ardent leftie, engaging in ad hominem attacks.
Tut tut, Anamika! Cheap booze and cognitive abilities never mix well. Tut tut!
I meant Falwell.
I also enjoy the same things that homosexual males enjoy. I could call myself a gay in a woman’s body but I won’t; just because I don’t have the same sense of humor that Adobe_walls has;-)
As for Falwell, he and Matin Luther King’s daughter died on the same day in 2007. Some deaths are sadder than others 😉 that’s what Bill Maher said.
Well, Anamika, my opinion of this is: they are baiting to get this to stay in the news. The more it stays in the news, the more people will begin to talk: is Ann Romney really aware of what most American women really face? Already this is happening (just look at some of the comments). It bolsters the image of the Romneys (not just Mitt now) as being out of touch multi-millionaires. The insinuation that Mitt is so out of touch with women that he has to have his wife talk to them for him could also be played.
…and since Romney is the likely nominee, that means they will try and tar every conservative with these brushes (and hope that the right wing will get worked up and trade point for point insults, which they can use as well)So in the end, no, it has nothing to do with stay at home moms vs. working moms persay.
So yes, this dumb imbecile thinks that this has nothing to do with an actual issue and more to do with preparing the groundwork for the general.
But what the heck do I know….I should probably bow down to your obvious, and often revealed, intellectual brilliance. Truly, you are a gem of cerebral magnificence, the likes of which this poor dumb hillbilly should be overawed at merely getting a glimpse of.
If it was Barney Frank and You doing the gang-bang, I would have told you to get a room, and “Homos on a rampage is NOT a pretty sight.”
Tut tut, Anamika, tut tut!
Methinks that by thinking “we should leave Rosen and Romeny alone”, you are diverting attention from Rosen’s blatant leftie bias and non-sexually influenced lack of intelligence, and not at all worried about Ann Romney. Methinks this as it took you several comments to suggest a supposedly non-partisan approach.
Tut tut, Anamika! Suggesting that Ann Romney, whose values are well known, should engage in lesbian activities is the hallmark of a person not at all interested in her welfare. Tut tut!
I know I’m resting my case right now. Thank you.
Tut tut, Anamika, tut tut!
Hypocrisy suits you well. Very well indeed.
Tut tut, Anamika! Don’t give up the day job — Obama doesn’t a speech writer of your (small) caliber. Tut tut!
“Still a month to go before “National Offend a Feminist Week,” but some folks can’t wait, eh?”
Can we get Steak and a you-know-what Day moved to that week?
Tut tut, Anamika, tut tut!
Taking out your sexual frustrations out on other people is an unhealthy practice. Have you considered hiring a prostitute of suitable gender?
Tut tut, Anamika! Does Barney Frank know you are telling stories out of school? Tut tut!
Jeff, you insult my intelligence!
THE AD HOMINEM FALLACY FALLACY:
Do you think you know what an ad hominem attack is and what is not? You clearly don’t. But don’t be ashamed; many don’t.
You done missed steak and a you-know-what day — that’s March 14. 🙂
Jeff, you insult (or is that ad homononize? LMAO) my intelligence!
The Ad hominem Fallacy Fallacy
Do you think you know what an ad hominem attack is and what is not? You clearly don’t. But don’t be ashamed; many don’t.
Tut tut, Anamika, tut tut!
“An ad hominem (Latin for “to the man” or “to the person”), short for argumentum ad hominem, is an attempt to negate the truth of a claim by pointing out a negative characteristic or belief of the person supporting it”
Tut tut, Anamika. My link works. Tut tut!
Methinks you’re onto something.
Combine your theory with Bryan Preston’s and things make a lot of sense.
http://pjmedia.com/tatler/2012/04/12/right-on-cue-obama-rides-in-to-play-the-role-of-the-moderate-who-loves-moms/
I know…..that’s why I want it moved!
;-p
What can of stupid fish should I take you for? Hang a little shrimp on that hook?
LOL
If I had called you a “nappy headed ho”…..would you have taken the bait?
See my comment below. It’s never too late to learn.
Tut tut, Anamika, tut tut!
The mere presence of a personal attack may not indicate an ad hominem attack. But the a personal attack as the sole point in a single sentence reply to an opinion is more than “mere presence”; it’s glaringly obvious to all but the most stupid of people. Context is all important, as I’m sure that an ardent leftie such as yourself realizes.
Tut tut, Anamika, tut tut! Your HTML skills leave much to be desired. Tut tut!
Tut tut, Anamika, tut tut!
One must learn in order to teach. In that, you have many years of study before reaching that noble goal.
Tut tut, Anamika. Never stop learning! Tut tut!
Tut tut, Anamika, tut tut!
You refute your own arguments above by admitting to making an ad hominem attack. For which I thank you.
Tut tut, Anamika! Trollish behavior is never a convincing argument, merely an expression of hate. Tut tut!
“So in resorting to insults in a debate, you insult your own intelligence, and show that you lack faith that it could win the day.”
Read your own words.
Oh, I don’t think I’m the one who has taken the bait. This nappy head thanks you…again. (although I fear you have gotten my hair texture incorrect — it’s more Mediterranean wavy, but I suppose for someone of such global sophistication as yourself we all look the same at a certain latitudinal point).
Again, many thanks.
Why do you keep doing this?
I’m NOT rebutting what FenelonSpoke wrote.
That’s just your assumption, just as you assumed I was rebutting what Pathfinder’s wife wrote below.
In fact, in both cases I agree with their comments.
By mentioning prominet conservative commentator Erick Erickson, I’m in fact providing supportive evidence (as to the lesbian charge) and a little encouragement to the vast majority of conservatives (including Stacy McCain) who are involved in what I consider to be “faux outrage” over Rosen’s comment.
Banastre Tarleton would be proud of Hilary Rosen. She’s his kind of American.
Where did it get the idea that we were trying to have a debate or rational argument with it?
Also, the combination of “lesbian” and “Ann Romney” probably has some search-traffic value.
Oh, and by the way…Anamika, I am engaging in ad hominem attack.
It probably isn’t the right thing to do or even very fair or nice of me, but I do it because I can. God bless you for being such a good sport and playing along dear.
That’s what I like about you, your unfailing optimism.
That’s a fallacy. Do you know which one is that?
I’m sorry, I asked you that… almost forgot you are too stupid to look it up.
So the procedure was unsuccessful?
This isn’t like the Anamika of old.. Who would write long essays that had nothing to do with the original comment
This one is a bit bitter and angry.
Anne Romney is definitely an asset. She’ll help Romney in certain areas and demographics, for sure. One thing for sure, leftists will think long and hard before they try to use her as a target.