Mr Ice Cream Glove posted:

Holy poo poo the guy in the background

Intel&Sebastian posted:

http://www.rightwingwatch.org/content/louie-gohmert-gays-shouldn-t-serve-military-because-massages-will-make-them-vulnerable-terro


Louie Gohmert everybody!

Mr Ice Cream Glove posted:

Holy poo poo the guy in the background

beatlegs posted:

drat, why do so many young Republicans have that "Private Pyle" thing going on? It's creepy.

AGirlWonder posted:

But it's not even up for debate anymore. DADT is gone, why is he still going on about it?

Mr Ice Cream Glove posted:

Dr. Faustus posted:

HAHAHAHAHAHA people take this fuckwit Daddy's boy seriously.

Dr. Faustus posted:

HAHAHAHAHAHA people take this fuckwit Daddy's boy seriously.

Mr Ice Cream Glove posted:

12:00 p.m.

The Lessons Reagan Taught Us in Building a Winning Coalition
Featuring Lee Edwards, Craig Shirley, and Nicole Hoplin

1:30 p.m. The Lessons Reagan Taught Us in Communications
Featuring James Rosen, Lars Larson, David Keene, Ainsley Earhardt, and Ashley Pratte

4:30 p.m. The Lessons Reagan Would Have Taught Us in Reaching New Audiences
featuring Kate Obenshain, Raj Kannappan, Jiesi Zhao, and Patrick Coyle

6:00 p.m. The Lessons Reagan Would Have Taught Us Today
featuring David Keene, Frank Donatelli, and Chris Bedford

10:45 p.m. Michael Barone

quote:

I won’t say this video killed feminism, just like I don’t think Beyonce killed feminism when she performed a striptease on stage at an awards show in front of a giant, glowing ‘Feminist’ sign.

Nothing can kill feminism because it isn’t alive or dead. It’s like some sort of zombie corpse, lurching across the hillside, groaning and growling as it slowly devours itself. An undead, soulless abomination. A vacuous nothing. A walking plague, serving no purpose, muttering gibberish, and existing only for its own sake.

So, unlike some of my ideological peers, I won’t yell and scream when it tears off its mask and reveals its mangled, monstrous face. I won’t cover my eyes and insist that feminism stop exposing itself in public. In fact, if feminism wants to show us what it really is, I’ll welcome the opportunity. I’ll take a picture and share it all around. I’ll throw it a party and invite the whole neighborhood.

I want people to see the real feminism.

I want it to be on display.

Come and behold, ladies and gentlemen. Look upon this disfigured beast.

This is feminism.

Here. Check it out. I warn you that the video at the link contains very vulgar language. It isn’t suitable for children (least of all the children in the video) but it might be worth watching if you’re an adult.

It’s produced by a t-shirt company/’activist’ group called FckH8. You see, the folks at FckH8 don’t like hate. These audacious warriors are against hate. They oppose it. They are taking a heroic stance to defy hate, as well as frowns, tummy aches, boo-boos, and yuckiness.

This, apparently, is what we now call activism.

The latest FckH8 video is supposed to be a compelling bit of feminist advocacy. It has, predictably, been hailed in the progressive corners of the Internet as courageous, witty and provocative. It features little girls — probably between the ages of six and eight — cussing up a storm while rattling off a random collection of feminist idioms, catchphrases, and false assertions.



…Well, from the mouths of exploitative, manipulative, feminist mothers into the ears of their daughters and then regurgitated in front of a camera for the purposes of perpetuating division, falsehoods, and t-shirts.

I understand that the whole point of this video is to offend the silly conservative prudes who don’t think it particularly appropriate to train your six year old to use phrases like “pay up, motherf**ker” — so I guess I’m going to be in the silly prude camp today. Truly, it is beyond the bounds of basic human decency to use your children like this. These kids are victims of child abuse, plain and simply. Their parents should be exposed and shamed as the gutless, idiotic bullies they are. And to think: a mom might get CPS called on her if she spanks her kid at Walmart, but I doubt anyone from social services will be following up with the parents who forced their six-year-olds to star in an R-rated feminist propaganda film.

Of course, the other feminists of the Internet didn’t see it that way. Genius, they called it. Genius. The Sistine Chapel and little girls saying the F word: both works of sheer and utter genius.

It’s also empowering, they said. And brilliant. And amazing. And great. And powerful. You need to watch it. It will change the world for the better. These girls drop truth bombs and they’re obviously having lots of fun. Bill Maher shared it on Facebook and 14,000 of his morally bankrupt fans ‘liked’ it.

Some feminists and liberals did dissent, however, saying that it was a bit exploitative, but also cute and funny. Child exploitation can be cute and funny, didn’t you know? Sure, this might be a little abusive, but it’s just so freakin’ adorable!

Others commented that the clip was potentially quite charming, but they were turned off by the fact that this organization sells clothing.

Exploitation of children? All good. No worries.

Exploitation of feminism to hock apparel? Now you’ve crossed the line.

Elsewhere, feminists took the opportunity to play an exciting game of False Dichotomy:

Yes, you either oppose children being pimped out and corrupted for the sake of advancing the feminist agenda or you don’t like rape. You clearly can’t disagree with both. Do you see how this works?

If I do something despicable in order to supposedly call attention to something else that’s despicable, you can’t criticize my actions without condoning the action that I’m ostensibly protesting.

So if I slap a “stop pistol whipping baby polar bears” bumper sticker on my son’s head and then strap him to the top of my car like a piece of luggage, you can’t critique my arguably unsafe child transport technique without simultaneously celebrating the serial abuse of arctic mammals. Them’s the rules, my friend. I didn’t make ‘em, but I will play be ‘em.

But I don’t want to expend all of my energy simply complaining about this hideous footage of ideological child prostitution. Any civilized human being can see it for what it is. There isn’t much else that can be said about it.

Instead, I want to make sure that we’ve all learned something from this. And there is really only one thing we can learn: feminism is poison.

It has nothing to add to the discussion. It’s a movement without a direction. A cause without a cause. A campaign that never stops because it has no goal and no objective.

That’s why it still repeats the gender pay gap myth, over and over and over, no matter how many times the legend has been debunked and disproven.

Despite what those poor girls were forced to say on camera, women do not earn 23 percent less than men for ‘equal work.’ This is called a lie. A fable. A fairy tale. It’s not true. It’s not even close to true. These ‘pay gap’ figures come when women in all types of jobs, in all types of positions, with all types of experience levels, in every geographical location, working any number of hours above 35 a week, are collectively and indiscriminately compared to men in all types of jobs, in all types of positions, with all types of experience levels, in every geographical location, working any number of hours above 35 a week. And even then the gap isn’t 23 percent. Not even near. But whatever it is, if it exists at all, it exists because these frauds just weighed the salary of a commercial airline pilot against an entry level hairdresser.

Lies and obfuscations. That’s all you find here. The same can be said for the absurd claim — repeated by the child abuse victims in the video — that 20 percent of all women will be raped. (Or 25 percent or 30, I’ve heard about five different versions of the notorious statistic). A cursory bit of research will expose it as a cynical load of horse manure, advanced by feminist college professors but not supported by any hard evidence at all. An even more cursory use of your critical thought capabilities will tell you that, according to this claim, about 31 million women in America are current or future rape or sexual assault victims. 31 million. That’s the population of New York City times four.

If these crimes are so staggeringly pervasive that we could fill four New York Cities with rape victims, then there must be, by extension, tens of millions of rapist men in the country, and likely thousands of rapists in your community.

Does any rational person really believe that the numbers are this high? If they do believe it, then they have no choice but to assume that nearly every man is a potential rapist.

Feminists tell us that they don’t hate men. I believe them. They don’t. They just want to paint millions of us as rapists, that’s all. No big deal. Don’t take it personally, fellas. They aren’t man-haters, they just think there’s around a 20 percent chance that any particular man is a sex predator. Other than that, they’re fine with us.

Meanwhile, actual rape victims are buried and forgotten under the avalanche of false statistics and sensationalist claims, all of which have been fabricated for the sole purpose of driving a wedge between the sexes and denigrating men (and, in this case, selling t-shirts).

This is feminism and it helps no one. It has long since outlived whatever purpose it may have served many decades ago. In a country where a woman now has every single legal right that a man has — and even a few extra, like the right to execute her children with or without the father’s consent — feminism is left to invent new boogeymen.

Now I’m sure I’ll be told that feminism, despite its flaws, still spreads a crucial message: we shouldn’t rape women, sexism is wrong, and women are equal to men.

The problem, however, is that men and women are not equal. They are separate, distinct, and complimentary. Equal in dignity and worth, but unequal in every other way. We should be learning how to celebrate these differences and use them in service to each other, but you won’t hear that from feminists.

I have never in my life seen a feminist promote the idea that a woman’s uniquely feminine qualities ought to be used to serve and honor men, just as a man’s masculine qualities ought to serve and honor women. This is simply not a part of the feminist message. And that is exactly why feminism’s sermons about ‘inequality’ accomplish nothing of value. It’s built on the false premise that total equality between the sexes is possible, and it leads to the disastrous conclusion that this phantom equality must be achieved through any means necessary, including (and preferably) deception and force.

As for its other ‘positive’ messages, feminism does not own a monopoly over outrage about rape and sexism. We do not need feminism to tell us that women shouldn’t be abused or exploited. In fact, feminism is just as likely to do the abusing and the exploiting as it is to expose these atrocities.

And while feminists concentrate solely and exclusively on the both real and imagined plight of women, the obvious insinuation is that men have it easier. Feminists ignore the fact that boys face a school system that is 70 percent more likely to suspend them and a medical establishment that’s twice as likely to diagnose them with learning disabilities. They can call a man’s challenges less severe, but they never explain why guys kill themselves at a rate four times higher, and face a much higher probability of developing substance abuse disorders. They say that the system is stacked against females, but they never tell us why men receive longer prison sentences for the same crime. And they talk about violence against women but they don’t mention that men are 76 percent more likely to be murdered.

Feminism takes issues that afflict all human beings — struggles and tribulations that are inherent to life on Earth for all people — and twists them into a fantastical drama of man vs. woman.

A woman recently told me that she’s a feminist because she thinks a female should be able to walk to her car without worrying about getting mugged (I guess men should have to worry about it, or maybe she thinks that we never do). I’ve heard this line, or lines like it, countless times and it never gets less disturbing. How is it that these people need “feminism” to tell them that women shouldn’t be robbed in a parking lot? And how is it that they are so ignorant of world history that they think no other ideology or school of thought ever came up with the idea that women shouldn’t be raped and brutalized until feminism enlightened the world?

It’s all nonsense. Complete garbage. I think it’s time to stop making concessions. It’s time to stop pretending that feminism still has something of value to give to society. This is all it has. This is all it does.

The answer to our cultural problems — all of our problems — is to love and serve one another, to humble ourselves, and to strive to be closer to God. This is not the answer that feminism offers. It only drags us further from the truth and separates us from what will ultimately make us happy and fulfilled.

That’s feminism.

It’s kind of funny, though. At the end of this video, a scowling, angry, sarcastic, dishonest woman, presumably the mother of one of the young girls, appeared on screen and said, “this is what a feminist looks like.”

I couldn’t help but smile at that part.

“Yes,” I thought. “Finally we can agree on something.”

Mr Ice Cream Glove posted:

Oh Matt Walsh, shut the gently caress up

quote:

It has long since outlived whatever purpose it may have served many decades ago

Screaming Idiot posted:

I think it's because all rabid conservatives are sociopaths or at least utterly broken as human beings in some way.

beatlegs posted:

Walsh is a shithead, but I gotta say that video was terrible and probably set feminism back a few years.

Mr Ice Cream Glove posted:

This is beautiful

Young Americans Foundation is hosting a reagan-a-thon


http://www.ustream.tv/channel/Young-Americas-Foundation

1stGear posted:

I wonder how many liberal concepts have "outlived whatever purpose they may have served". Unions, feminism, the right of all citizens to vote. Yet conservative principles are timeless and enduring.

Weird!

Pyroxene Stigma posted:

loving fantastic point. Like the core of feminism (we're at least equal to men!) is all that contentious, but why are progressive ideals given a shelf life?

Tab8715 posted:

Great comments

The same organization that did this Young Americans for Freedom to Dump French Wine in Gutter at French Consulates in LA, New York

quote:

In a surprise move late Friday, a key Democrat on the Federal Election Commission called for burdensome new rules on Internet-based campaigning, prompting the Republican chairman to warn that Democrats want to regulate online political sites and even news media like the Drudge Report.

Democratic FEC Vice Chair Ann M. Ravel announced plans to begin the process to win regulations on Internet-based campaigns and videos, currently free from most of the FEC’s rules. “A reexamination of the commission’s approach to the internet and other emerging technologies is long over due,” she said.
....
Ravel’s statement suggests that she would regulate right-leaning groups like America Rising that posts anti-Democrat YouTube videos on its website.
....
“Since its inception this effort to protect individual bloggers and online commentators has been stretched to cover slickly-produced ads aired solely on the Internet but paid for by the same organizations and the same large contributors as the actual ads aired on TV,” Ravel argued.

Hazo posted:

That... actually sort of seems like the kind of thing the usual demagogues could spin into a "taking are free speech" frenzy. Not sure it'll end well.

On the other hand, I remember a long time ago someone on these forums proposed that pursuing legislation like this and the reinstatement of the Fairness Doctrine is a win/win for liberals: Either a) the right-wingers furiously oppose it, thereby tacitly admitting that they do control the majority of American media (despite their false narrative to the contrary) and don't want to give that up, or b) don't oppose it and the left achieves a balance that's been missing for decades. I'm not too sold on that argument personally (when was the last time conservatives used the critical thinking required to achieve option a?) but it's an interesting idea.

Hazo posted:

That... actually sort of seems like the kind of thing the usual demagogues could spin into a "taking are free speech" frenzy. Not sure it'll end well.

On the other hand, I remember a long time ago someone on these forums proposed that pursuing legislation like this and the reinstatement of the Fairness Doctrine is a win/win for liberals: Either a) the right-wingers furiously oppose it, thereby tacitly admitting that they do control the majority of American media (despite their false narrative to the contrary) and don't want to give that up, or b) don't oppose it and the left achieves a balance that's been missing for decades. I'm not too sold on that argument personally (when was the last time conservatives used the critical thinking required to achieve option a?) but it's an interesting idea.

Dr.Zeppelin posted:

Or, much more likely, c) they furiously oppose it, a handful of people weakly call them out on point a), a few liberals joke about how hypocritical they are, maybe like seven people nationwide switch their affiliation to Democratic over it, and the right has a way to feverishly whip the usual suspects into the polls and donor lists.

lurker1981 posted:

How does opposing something mean that something else is true?

For example, if someone opposes drunk driving, does that mean they are admitting that they are drunk drivers?

On the other hand, we have seen instances where some politicians and religious leaders have viciously expressed opposition to homosexuals and their proclivities, while engaging in the same behavior themselves...

Besides, if the right wing did control the media, how do you explain the lovefest that Obama received early on in his presidential career? Clearly most people weren't listening to the right wing propaganda and lies, otherwise He wouldn't have been elected twice.

Tab8715 posted:

Great comments

The same organization that did this Young Americans for Freedom to Dump French Wine in Gutter at French Consulates in LA, New York

lurker1981 posted:

Excellent news!

The left wing wants to regulate right wing media



I hope they make it so that only Democrats can put ads on the internet.

Now if only they can get rid of websites like the westboro baptist church's site, chimpout, and wunderground.com (because they support terrorism, and I'm pretty sure the DNC wouldn't actually want the proletarians to rise up in revolution against them).

BiggerBoat posted:

I want to go to that Reaganfest and read Reagan quotes while projecting a photo of Obama then see how many people boo and get outraged.

BiggerBoat posted:

I want to go to that Reaganfest and read Reagan quotes while projecting a photo of Obama then see how many people boo and get outraged.

Mr Ice Cream Glove posted:

Or Hitler and Reagan quotes and watch their brains short circuit

Intel&Sebastian posted:

Perhaps the same could be said of all conservative ideas...but enough talk, have at you!!!

beatlegs posted:

drat, why do so many young Republicans have that "Private Pyle" thing going on? It's creepy.

lurker1981 posted:

Excellent news!

The left wing wants to regulate right wing media



I hope they make it so that only Democrats can put ads on the internet.

Now if only they can get rid of websites like the westboro baptist church's site, chimpout, and wunderground.com (because they support terrorism, and I'm pretty sure the DNC wouldn't actually want the proletarians to rise up in revolution against them).

Intel&Sebastian posted:

http://www.rightwingwatch.org/content/louie-gohmert-gays-shouldn-t-serve-military-because-massages-will-make-them-vulnerable-terro


Louie Gohmert everybody!

Darkman Fanpage posted:

Louie takes the "The Greeks had homosexuals in their armies. " argument that is sometimes brought up way too seriously.

fade5 posted:

Now why would they get rid of wunderground.com, it's a very useful site; it's what my dad uses to check the weather. No, seriously, it's literally a weather site.

Not sure why they decided to go with the same name as the Weather Underground movement (besides the pun/name joke), but .

Sir Tonk posted:

What is a conservative activist? A miserable little pile of secrets.


I still have a hard time believing that was the intentional cover. It's so bad in so many ways.