Advertisement
“A dream you dream alone is only a dream; a dream you dream together is reality.” — Yoko Ono
Jun
19
Offensive Remarks of the Week
Filed Under 2008 election, assholes, gender, media, misogyny, offensive remark of the week, politics, sexism, social conservatives | Posted by Cara |
That’s right, this week’s Offensive Remark is actually a set of Offensive Remarks. A whole offensive discussion for your reading repulsion!
On the June 17 edition of the Chris Matthews Show, Chris Matthews, classy as always, asked his panelists: “Do Americans want to return to the Hillary model of first lady, or do they like the Laura Bush model?”
You’ll be happy to know that all twelve panelists eagerly stated that Americans long for the Laura Bush Model.
You can read the full transcript, full of lovely little gems like this:
But with Hillary Clinton, there was a feeling that she was too eager for power, that she was too ambitious, that she was trying to promote herself as being president, almost, when she hadn’t been elected. They felt uncomfortable. That clip that we showed earlier in the program about how she wasn’t going to stay home and bake cookies and have teas, that alienates a lot of people, and you’re not going to hear her say it this time around, I’m absolutely sure of that.
Bottom line: America wants the bitches to shut the fuck up and bake them some cookies.
And who can fault them (or the Republicans making it up) for that?
Comments
10 Comments so far
Subscribe to The Curvature
“Men, their rights, and nothing more; women, their rights, and nothing less.” — Susan B. Anthony
As to the “she’s not going to do that again” – surely they aren’t suggesting that Hilary would dream of offering tea and cookies if elected prez.
Will this nonsense ever end? We need a “first gentleman” to show us the silliness of all of this. Would HE serve tea and cookies? A rhetorical question . . .
http://opinionjournal.com/extra/?id=110010227
Since Roe Vs Wade, society has seen:
• A sharp increase in pre-marital sex.
• A sharp rise in out-of-wedlock births.
• A drop in the number of children placed for adoption.
• A decline in marriages that occur after the woman is pregnant.
Rooster, how are any of those things bad?… Premarital sex and out-of-wedlock births are no big deal, less children placed for adoption I would imagine is GOOD because people are actually keeping and taking care of their children, and marrying just because the woman is pregnant is ridiculous.
As for the Laura Bush First Lady model… She always creeped me the hell out. Seriously, Stepford Wife anyone? *shudder*
Yeah, I’m not sure what Rooster was getting at there (or what it has to do with this post), but it has given me material for a potential rant later on today. So thanks for that, Rooster.
Read on.
Many academic studies have shown that legalized abortion, by encouraging premarital sex, increased the number of unplanned births, even outweighing the reduction in unplanned births due to abortion. In the United States from the early 1970s, when abortion was liberalized, through the late 1980s, there was a tremendous increase in the rate of out-of-wedlock births, rising from an average of 5% of all births in 1965-69 to more than 16% two decades later (1985-1989). For blacks, the numbers soared from 35% to 62%. While not all of this rise can be attributed to liberalized abortion rules, it was nevertheless a key contributing factor.
I’m still not sure what you’re getting at, Rooster. But if you’re pro-forced birth and trying to convince us how right you are, go away.
Rooster, the abortion rate in countries where it’s illegal is the same as the abortion rate in countries where it’s legal. Abortion has not encouraged premarital sex, because nobody thinks, “You don’t have a condom? That’s okay. I can always have an abortion,” because nobody wants to have an abortion, because having an abortion is a pain in the ass.
You are inventing correlations where there are none to be found. It’s sad and silly and we’ve heard all of your dumb arguments before.
But, but . . . Jenny! The guy who wrote Freedomnomics SAID! Are you calling the guy who wrote Freedomnomics a liar? He couldn’t lie! He wrote a book called Freedomnomics!
Ha! Like Laura Bush wasn’t too involved in the political system with her No Child Left Behind Act! One of the worst laws on the educational system.
Hillary Clinton did a lot of good things, such as lobbying for policies to get health care to children whose families could not afford it. Not to mention that she was a top ranking female lawyer well before her husband became president. Laura Bush was a teacher. You cannot make a fair comparison of the two. Maybe Hillary overstepped her role of First Lady, and maybe not. Women have played background roles in politics for centuries. Either way, the argument is moot. Hillary has legitimately been democratically elected into the legislature, and would have to be democratically elected again to become president. She wouldn’t be the First Lady!!!!! And I’m assuming that this discussion only began because of the upcoming presidential elections next year.
This is nothing more than propaganda.
Rooster, normally I would tell someone to support their controversial arguments by at least showing what they base their material all including full citations of the source, as well as analyzing the reasoning for conducting those so-called “academic studies.” I’ve had classes in social science research, and you can warp data to make it fit into your personal political/social ideals. However, you show that you are an idiot by the fact that you started an argument that is completely an utterly irrelevant to the issue for this discussion. The above info is wasted on you, and was only included to show how you are an idiot. I don’t expect you to show me whatever bs info you came across because you are too stupid to connect argument topics. Thanks for the laugh! I pity you and your stupidity. People like you should not procreate, lest you genetically spread your utter stupidity.
Ok, I’m done. That was fun.
Rooster’s “info” is well-known, long-ago debunked misogynistic spew from the Forced Birth Agenda.
You’re going to have to do better than that if you’re going to argue that women shouldn’t have bodily autonmy in a supposed “free country”.