Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : American Presidential Politics and foreign affairs -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Peter Dierks who wrote (49764)	3/8/2012 11:38:35 AM
From: Peter Dierks	1 Recommendation Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 71588

It's Like Totally Different When a Liberal Blowhard Guy Calls a Conservative Woman a Twat! Nick Gillespie \| March 6, 2012 You've probably heard that recidivist jackass Rush Limbaugh called a Georgetown law student Sandra Fluke "a slut" and "a prostitute" after she testified before Congress about wanting the Jesuits who run her college to pay for her birth control pills. Just to make sure that nobody but nobody ever gets sexually aroused again, the broadcaster who once "had talent on loan from God" spun out a scenario in which he would also watch a video of Fluke having sex. Limbaugh subsequently fake-apologized for his untoward remarks. Why a fake apology? Because being a former Oxycontin addict and super-conservative marrying man means never having to say you're sorry. Not as long as a Democrat's in the White House at least. But the comedy ain't done yet. Over at The New Republic, Timothy Noah explains why it's like totally different when Bill Maher calls Sarah Palin "a twat" and "a cunt," or when Keith Olbermann calls Michelle Malkin a "mashed-up bag of meat with lipstick on it." Here you go: It's different in two ways. First, all of the people who were subjected to verbal abuse by the liberal- or left-leaning blowhards and smart-asses mentioned above are public figures. If you follow politics you know who they are. Fluke, on the other hand, though a political activist, was not really a public figure. If you follow politics you probably didn't know who she was until Limbaugh attacked her. Second, and more important, none of the rappers and liberals and leftists mentioned above is so feared by President Obama or any other Democrat that said Democrat would hesitate to criticize him if the occasion warranted it. That isn't necessarily because Democrats are braver people. It's because there is no rapper or liberal or leftist commentator or talk-radio host or comedian who commands anything equivalent to the knuckle-dragging army of haters that Limbaugh leads on the right. Yeah, that's not really much of a counter-argument. For starters, Noah goes pretty light on the abuse-o-meter. At The Daily Beast, Kirsten Powers provides a somewhat more in-depth catalog of vagina dentata imagineering by liberal asshats. Olbermann, for instance, suggested that that the best way to take Hillary Clinton out of the 2008 presidential race "was to find 'somebody who can take her into a room and only he comes out.'" And that conservative commentator S.E. Cupp should have been aborted by her parents. Enchante! Matt Taibbi, whom Noah tags for calling Andrew Breitbart "a douche" in his obit, is similarly scampish toward the ladies, writes Powers: Left-wing darling Matt Taibbi wrote on his blog in 2009, “When I read [Malkin’s] stuff, I imagine her narrating her text, book-on-tape style, with a big, hairy set of balls in her mouth.” In a Rolling Stone article about Secretary of State Clinton, he referred to her “flabby arms.” When feminist writer Erica Jong criticized him for it, he responded by referring to Jong as an “800-year old sex novelist.” (Jong is almost 70, which apparently makes her an irrelevant human being.) Boy, those jokes are fall-down funny, aren't they? And then there's Chris Matthews, the leg-tingled MSNBC host and stalwart JFK defender, who particularly seems to thrive on attacking Hillary Clinton in gender-specific terms: Over the years he has referred to the former first lady, senator and presidential candidate and current secretary of state as a “she-devil,” “Nurse Ratched,” and “Madame Defarge.” Matthews has also called Clinton “witchy,” “anti-male,” and “uppity” and once claimed she won her Senate seat only because her “husband messed around.” But if Noah's catalog of rancid liberal misogyny is incomplete, is he right that Fluke isn't a public figure and hence not fair game? She's not as famous or all growed up as, say Hillary Clinton or Laura Ingraham ("a right-wing slut" according to MSNBC populist Ed Schultz), but even Noah notes that she's a political activist. But that's besides the point: How does being, I don't know, a syndicated columnist such as Michelle Malkin, make it less fucked up that Matt Taibbi wants to put "a big, hairy set of balls in her mouth"? The point isn't that Rush Limbaugh is a bigger tool than liberals who resort to sad-sack sexist japes. It's that there's something seriously fucked up with all of that sort of thing. Especially when you're pretending to be serious thinkers or writers or commentators. Noah's second reason for why Limbaugh needs to be held to a different standard is also odd: El Rushbo has more divisions than the Pope when it comes to commanding a Dittohead Army or something. If asked about it, any pol should dismiss such dumb comments, as should listeners. What exactly that has to do with, say NPR favorite Marc Maron's comments about hate-fucking Michelle Bachmann, I don't know. If you've ever needed a reason to rethink dumb attachments to the left-right, liberal-conservative Manicheanism at the heart of conventional politics, the sort of idiotic Team Red vs. Team Blue mentality underscored by Noah's need to exonerate the misogyny of his ideological allies should give you something to ponder. reason.com

To: Peter Dierks who wrote (49764)	3/13/2012 1:58:33 AM
From: greatplains_guy	1 Recommendation Respond to of 71588

Feminist enablers of the war against women March 12, 2012 Stella Morabito A war on women has been waged for a long time by elitist men hiding behind the apron strings of certain elitist women. It relies on the deception that the sexually incontinent male's idea of freedom should be the norm imposed on everyone. Feminists of the left have bought this hogwash hook, line and sinker. A male activist advocating for abortion at a UN conference summed it up best: "Let's stop fooling around here. What we're talking about is our right to f--k whoever we want, however we want, whenever we want." (For more details, see George Weigel's edifying National Review column "The Libertine Police State.") Sexually "progressive" men have always been the main players dictating the sexual "revolution." Their feminist counterparts were propelled and shadowed by them. Together, they seek to impose a radical agenda that includes mandating taxpayer-funded contraceptives, trashing all forms of abstinence education, undermining marriage, standardizing third-trimester abortion, encouraging single motherhood, enacting population controls that erode a woman's choice to have a child, and, ultimately, enforcing eugenics. A little history might clarify this. Nearly 100 years ago, a pioneer sexologist named Havelock Ellis had a huge influence on Planned Parenthood founder Margaret Sanger. He swayed her to promote his philosophy of unlimited sexual "liberation," as well as eugenics. Sanger's writings follow Ellis' lead, including the eagerness to decide who among us is "unfit" to live. A few decades later, Hugh Hefner enlisted a push for unrestricted abortion by feminists such as Gloria Steinem to promote the Playboy mentality of exploiting women. They were virtually in bed together on this from the start, feigned feminist outrage notwithstanding. The original coalition continues to spawn increasingly exploitative forms of pornography. Elitist men have always been the demographic most strongly in support of unrestricted abortion, though they needed vocal women to do their bidding. Note this conclusion of demographer Judith Blake in her study, "Abortion and Public Opinion: The 1960-1970 Decade" in Science magazine in 1971: "Legalized abortion is supported most strongly by the non-Catholic, male, well-educated 'establishment.'" She urged abortion proponents to look to them for legalization "in spite of conservative opinions among important subgroups such as the lower classes and women." Blake added: "Upper-class men have much to gain and very little to lose by an easing of legal restrictions against abortion." One key to the success of this pact between men who want to be promiscuous and feminists who accommodate them is their public degradation of women who resist this game, and their protection of women who abet and comply with it. The inevitable result is celebrity womanizers like Bill Maher referring to Sarah Palin as a "t--t" or Keith Olbermann referring to Michelle Malkin as a "mashed-up bag of meat with lipstick on it." In response, their female counterparts in the media and at the Democratic National Committee run cover for them, posing as poster girls in their contrived "war against women." It's especially telling how the left has rallied against Rush Limbaugh for using the word "slut" in reference to the testimony of a feminist activist advocating for government funding for all contraceptives. First they expressed shock - shock! - at the use of the word. They evaded Limbaugh's point that the mandate forces everyone to buy into the idea that all sex should be government funded. They portrayed the activist as helpless victim. Thus they conflate incontinent patterns of sexual behavior with "women's health." Despite shills of the left among them, most ordinary women viscerally know that unrestrained sexual activity is an alienating trap. They know single motherhood results in increased poverty and hardship. And they intuit that there is nothing liberating about succumbing to an abortion. The real agenda of sexual liberation never had much to do with sex or with liberation. The idea of freedom is the bait. But the switch inevitably comes in the form and style of Maher and Olbermann: the degradation of anyone who won't comply with their agenda of controlling women -- and everyone else. Stella Morabito writes on issues of society, culture and education. washingtonexaminer.com