Monday, October 7, 2013

Anti-Hillary Campaign Buttons Show the Republicans for the Misogynists They Are

hillary_pins

Addicting Info

In 2012, Republicans suffered a 12 point loss among women in the race for the White House. Even with this major defeat, the GOP believes it can still attract female voters while continuing to be anti-women by simply keeping their mouths shut about women’s bodies, rape, and reproductive rights. But that strategy has now been blown completely out of the water with the appearance of extremely sexist and highly offensive anti-Hillary Clinton buttons at the California GOP convention.

60 comments:

  1. Oh yes, these buttons show that all Republicans everywhere, and all libertarians who you want to call Republicans, are misogynists.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. No one said "all" except you. That's because you feel you must exaggerate what your opponent says in order to have a justified argument against him.

      Delete
    2. You said "the Republicans" as if the actions of a couple of members show that the group as a whole are misogynists--you may not mean every individual, but you do mean to generalize about the whole group and then be able to pull back on individuals.

      Delete
    3. The Republicans ARE generally misogynistic. But you accused me of saying "all Republicans everywhere." Then when I called you on it, YOU'RE the one who pulled back, unable to admit you were wrong.

      Delete
    4. And your proof of this misogynism is? These buttons? Please.

      Delete
    5. No, of course not. I shouldn't waste time on you with your disingenuous pretending, but haven't you heard of the "war on women." That cute phrase was coined to describe what we're really talking about. These campaign buttons appeal to those types who abound in the Republican party.

      Delete
    6. Ah, and here I was just thinking they appealed to the same urge to make fun of the appearance of one's opponent that your comments about Anne Coulter appealed to.

      I guess you must be a misogynist too.

      Delete
    7. That doesn't really work. When I called Coulter a racist anorexic, the description did not apply to women in general. It was very specifically about her. But, when you reference fat thighs and small breasts, you're talking about all unattractive women.

      Delete
    8. Ah, so insulting one woman's physical features is ok, but insulting another woman's features is an insult to all women.

      Right.

      Lame, Mike. It's like you're just phoning in your defense of your double standard.


      Also, I thought this was about generalizing about all women. Now you've cut it down to generalizing about unattractive women.

      And you've labeled members of the Itty Bitty Titty Committee as unattractive based on their proportions. Don't feminists go on about how the whole big boobs and perfect proportions thing objectifies women.

      Please, continue defending your double standard--I want to see how deep you can dig the hole!

      Delete
    9. And Mikeb, why don't you stop generalizing your opinions to everyone? Not all men are attracted to the same kind of woman.

      Delete
  2. "Anti-Hillary Campaign Buttons Show the Republicans for the Misogynists They Are "

    "Mentally Ill Racist Anorexic Ann Coulter Calls Obama a Monkey - Several Times"

    So how exactly are these two statements (yours about Coulter and the buttons) so very different?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Well, one's general and the other's specific? I don't know what you're getting at other than trying for a cheap gotcha.

      Delete
    2. One makes comments About the former Secretary of State and one makes comments about a conservative columnist. Which on exactly is the general one?

      Delete
    3. Well, not really. Although the campaign buttons were directed at Hillary by name, they display a general misogynistic attitude towards all women. Don't you think?

      My remarks about Coulter were aimed specifically at that hateful banshee herself, not at women in general.

      Delete
    4. Another MikeB double standard! How grand! This time based on his ability to know the secret thoughts of half the population better than they know them themselves!

      So full of fail.

      Delete
    5. Mikeb, you make misogynistic comments about women all the time. I call you out for them. Those buttons come from the same attitude that you have toward women who support gun rights. Both of you feel that it's acceptable to make such remarks so long as you don't like the person you're attacking.

      Delete
    6. You guys can say anything you want. Everyone knows your not bound by the truth.

      Delete
    7. Ah, the ad hominem attack. The penultimate refuge of Mikeb. Next stop: Racists!

      Delete
    8. Mikeb, explain how describing a woman you don't like as a silly cow isn't mysogynist.

      Delete
    9. Greg, I have said a lot of things. But that doesn't make me anything in particular. If I were all the things you call me, I'd be one bad character.

      Delete
  3. When the silly liberals come up with a bill to let women practice the world's oldest profession without having to worry about being thrown in prison, they might not be looked upon as the effing hypocrites that they are.

    orlin sellers

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Hahahahahahahaha. You're a riot, Orlin.

      Delete
    2. Why is that so funny? Is a woman not free to do with her body as she pleases? Certainly we all have the choice to have sexual relations with whomever we choose for whatever purpose we choose, right?

      Delete
    3. What was funny was the way Orlin thinks, coming up with the prostitution thing out of left field.

      Delete
  4. The link is broken. I remember that joke from the time when Bill Clinton was president. And do tell how buttons sold by a vendor, presumably, characterize the entire Republican Party.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Not the "entire" party, but generally speaking the Republicans hate women. Didn't that become clear enough in the last couple elections?

      Delete
    2. You mean when they ran a woman on the national ticket? When they ran women for various other offices?

      Delete
    3. No, when they continue to deny women equal rights, in fucking 2013. When they said pregnancy resulting from rape is God's will, you remember that one, don't you.

      You're being your typical lying self to pretend not to get what I'm saying. That's your MO.

      Delete
    4. And again you generalize, you call positions held by many women misogynistic, and you try to paint an entire party with the words of one of its dumber members.

      If you really want to argue this way then how about we look at the comments of Kevin, various anonymous gun controllers who comment here, and the all of the gun control fans on twitter who opine about wishing for people's children to be killed.

      Delete
    5. "One of its dumber members?" Was there only one remark like that in the news? I seem to remember a slew of them, but of course, your memory is not so good when it's convenient to forget. In other words, you're lying again.

      Delete
    6. I remember the one remark you mentioned. There was another, different remark about the trauma of rape reducing the likelihood of conception--one that you did not bring up in your argument.

      So no, I wasn't lying, I was talking about the one remark you used to back up your side.

      Also, I said "one of its dumber members." That implies the existence of others, one of whom you singled out.

      When you so obviously twist my words and then castigate me for "lying" all you are doing is highlighting your own dishonesty.

      Delete
  5. So Mike, do you intend to stop making fun of people's weight?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. How much do you weigh, TS?

      Delete
    2. A typical Mikeb response. If we criticize his use of bigotry, he tries to lump us in with all the other people of a certain kind that he hates.

      Delete
    3. 61kg.

      Are you going to stop making fun of people's weight? I'm not an overly sensitive person. If you feel the need to make fun of people, go right ahead. Just don't get all indignant when someone on your side of the political debate gets made fun of.

      Delete
    4. Actually, I don't think what I do is make fun of people's weight.

      Delete
    5. Mikeb, are you really that tone deaf? You mock people all the time for being overweight. And you allow your fellow bloggers to post articles mocking people's weight. You make up all manner of nonsense about what a heavy person should and should not be allowed to do.

      Open your eyes and see your own bigotry.

      Delete
    6. Mainly I mock GUN OWNERS who are overweight.

      Delete
    7. But you're not mocking them for their weight, just singling them out of the group you dislike . . . for . . . it . . .

      Delete
  6. It is Republicans who insist in shoving implements up women's vaginas and making that intrusion law. You know, the party that says government should stay out of a persons personal business. The party that refuses to sign a law stating equal pay for equal work by women and men. The stay out of my personal business Republican party that, by law, dictates a woman's pregnancy. These are things ALL Republicans support. Defend these personal, bodily intrusions.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I think you have the understanding of the parties is backwards fella. Its actually the opposite. There is a Democrat that wants to run for the Governor of Texas that promotes the killing of babies and exactly the rest of your claim. The Republicans on the other hand, are working to stop this wanton destruction of human life. If this Democrat, Wendy Davis, were to have her way, I would not be surprised if she supported the abortion of five year olds. She is in favor of REALLY LATE term abortions that pose no danger to the mother or child of the pregnancy, other than some woman that has changed her mind about having the child.

      You really need to look at your party understanding before spouting nonsense.

      Delete
    2. You wing nuts make me laugh.
      Sorry pal, you should study up! It's not Democrats who want laws forcing women to have invasive (unnecessary) probes shoved up their vaginas.
      It's not Democrats trying to subdue voting by passing unnecessary restrictive voting laws.
      It's not Democrats forcing abortion (a legal process) clinics to close, thus taking away a woman's right, as affirmed by the Supreme Court.
      The Supreme Court affirms your right to a gun, but you don't honor that same groups decision on giving a woman a right to chose.
      Hypocrite.

      Delete
    3. Anonymous, not all Republicans oppose abortion rights. And despite what you say here, not all gun rights supporters oppose abortion rights.

      Delete
    4. Greg, I'll admit, is an exception to the rule which is followed in lock-step by Texas Colt carry and Orlin.

      Texas, why didn't you call Anonymous a troll?

      Delete
    5. How is Texas' pro-life stance misogynistic? He's not saying that the women are less human or have fewer rights; he's merely saying that he believes that the unborn's right to life trumps the mother's choice to terminate a pregnancy.

      Delete
    6. Extreme pro-life views automatically deny women the rights that men would never accept for themselves. Autonomy over one's own body should be a given for you pro-rights extremists, but oddly, when it comes to women, it's not.

      A microscopic zygote trumps the rights of a fully grown woman? You have to be a lunatic fanatic to even consider such a thing. If women made laws like that about men, would you accept them?

      Delete
    7. By that same argument, why should women be able to make a choice to keep a child and thus force a man to pay child support for the rest of his life when she could easily terminate the pregnancy? Where's his choice of whether or not to become a father?

      As for the views you call fanatical, the general idea comes down to the question of where human life begins. At what point do rights adhere to the individual? And in case it isn't clear enough, I'm talking in the moral sense: at what point does a human life exist that cannot morally be killed?

      And unless you can give me a set time and prove that THAT is the time such that it's ok to abort before that point and not ok after it, then I have to ask: Why would we not want to err on the side of caution to make sure we're not snuffing out human lives?

      Delete
    8. Your first paragraph about "fathers' rights" is so bizarre, I don't know how to respond.

      Delete
    9. I was merely providing a counter example. You say that not allowing abortion on demand is the equivalent of forcing the woman to bear a child against her will and that men's rights are not violated similarly.

      I was merely pointing out that the modern child support structure forces a man to take responsibility for a child he fathered even if it's against his will. The woman has the choice to put the child up for adoption and get out of her support obligations or to abort it, but the man gets no say--a woman gets to choose whether or not he will have parental responsibilities.

      No, it's not an imposition on his body for 9 months, but it is an imposition on his labor for 18 years, and both cases are susceptible to the charge of one sex having demands made on them by the other sex and by society at large imposing their morality on the person.


      Now that I've explained it, do you have a response?

      And what about the bulk of my post? Any answers to my questions, or are you just going to toss up a smokescreen and avoid answering them?
      (Also, whether or not Mike answers, I'm happy to hear answers and discuss the issue with others on the pro-choice side.)

      Delete
    10. You better check the last Republican platform. You know, the document stating what Republicans stand for. It clearly states that the party position is against abortion. If you are Republican, you are anti abortion.

      " And despite what you say here, not all gun rights supporters oppose abortion rights."
      Where did I say that? I guess what they say about you is correct, you lie to make false points.

      Delete
    11. "The Supreme Court affirms your right to a gun, but you don't honor that same groups decision on giving a woman a right to chose."

      It's hard to tell which Anonymous is which, but that was your statement, no? I take it that you can't figure out what an implication is.

      Delete
    12. I was talking about YOU, which I mentioned several times. You want to deflect that by talking about the whole country. Point still stands on the whole party, they have clearly stated they are anti abortion, but pro gun. So in one case they support the Constitution, in the other they do not. Hypocrites.

      Delete
  7. I would say that pro life people are much more respectful of a woman's body than the pro abortion crowd. You have to figure that about half of the people aborted are women and I would be willing to bet that given the choice they would rather keep their bodies intact and alive.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Women get to choose. That's the only right way.

      Delete
    2. Mikeb, what if a woman chooses to own and carry a gun?

      Delete
  8. The Supreme court has already determined when a woman can get an abortion and when she cannot. You want to change that because you disagree with it; but instead of changing the law, you simply make it impossible for a woman to exercise her right. That's like Republican fiscal policies. Republicans never had the votes to kill programs like SS, Welfare, food stamps, etc., so they "starve the beast" (cut taxes, thus cut funding) and the program is dead, without majority representation to do so. Traitors to the Democratic process the Constitution sets out.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. The Constitution gives Congress the power of the purse, or did you miss that part?

      Delete
    2. And destroy peoples rights, the fiscal stability of the country, and the spirit of the law and our country. We are in such good shape today because Republican jack asses like you have to divert the will of the people for your gain. A traitor to America.

      Delete
    3. Anonymous has it exactly right. The Republicans are evil bastards who subvert the democratic process at every chance, for the most part. There are RINO exceptions.

      Delete
    4. That's right. Which makes the false claim by Republicans that Obama shut down the government an outright lie. The House shut down the government by not paying the bills. Dead soldier families (hungry and sick children and people) are not getting benefit checks because the House Republicans refuse to cut any checks. They can't get rid of the ACA, so they make people suffer and die. Pure scum.

      Delete