Phyllis Schlafly Speaks the Truth
Via Instapundit, R.S. McCain quotes Phyllis Schlafly making a point about the support unmarried women have shown for Obama:
For example, do you know what was the second-biggest demographic group that voted for Obama? . . . Unmarried women. Seventy percent of unmarried women voted for Obama. And this is because, when you kick your husband out, you’ve got to have Big Brother government to be your provider. . . .
While a generalization, Schlafly’s point is right on the mark. Government welfare programs create circumstances that encourage fatherless households; it is therefore little surprise that the women of these fatherless households tend to vote for the person who will maximize their government benefits.
McCain notes that some on the left have cynically attempted to paint Schlafly’s comments as extreme, and to tar Republicans with their alleged extreme nature by association. But Republicans need not fear this dishonest tactic. As McCain points out, Schlafly’s facts are correct. One should not need to fear speaking the truth.
Perhaps some of the problem comes when people misread Schafly. Some have argued that Schlafly is suggesting that women who divorce their husbands are all (or mostly) greedy women who, in divorcing their children’s fathers, are motivated to do so by a desire to get on the government dole. This is an obvious misunderstanding on several levels. First, many unmarried mothers did not divorce; many never bothered to marry the father to begin with. Second, Schlafly was not discussing the motives for mothers separating from fathers; she was discussing the motives for why mothers, having separated from fathers, might vote for the form of government that best financially substitutes for those fathers. Third, Schlafly never said her statement applied to ALL unmarried mothers, and people need to be able to make arguments without including countless caveats about possible exceptions to their largely correct generalizations — otherwise arguments lose their force.
Here is a generalization for you: when I see violent criminals in court, they tend to be fatherless. When government welfare policies encourage fatherless households, they encourage crime and violence. And when anyone — unmarried women or anyone else — votes for expanding the welfare state, they are voting for a continuation of this depressing and dangerous cycle.
Pointing out that women who raise children without fathers vote their pocketbooks is not irresponsible. It’s simply speaking the truth — and it’s a truth that needs to be told.
It would be wrong to use the misreading of Schlafly’s arguments as symptomatic of some larger failing on the part of those who make those unsound arguments. Having myself in the past criticized the rhetorical choices of certain conservatives, and having had my arguments mischaracterized as some generalized opposition to bold rhetoric, I refuse to play the same game and draw unfair conclusions based on this one isolated disagreement.
Patterico (c218bd) — 7/31/2010 @ 2:48 pmNot having a father and/or being raised by an unmarried mother is one of the leading indicators that can be used to determine an individual’s future. (male or female).
They are more likely to do poorly in school and drop out. The are more likely to be involved with drugs and other addictive behaviors. They are more likely to be incarcerated and/or belong to a gang. They have an increased likelihood of suicide and a shorter lifespan.
Irina Dunn
Sadly, although that may be true, her offspring do need a father.
jakee308 (e1996a) — 7/31/2010 @ 3:07 pmI think it’s deranged that she acknowledges marriagings make for a stronger economic unit and she berates the hoochies whose marriagings fail but but she doesn’t support gay ones cause… of some creepy old lady logic I guess.
happyfeet (19c1da) — 7/31/2010 @ 3:23 pmhappy,
While I support gay marriage, there is a not irrational argument that traditional marriages have benefits (especially for children) that gay marriages don’t.
Although I would prefer for this not to be a gay marriage thread. That’s not what my post was about.
Patterico (c218bd) — 7/31/2010 @ 3:26 pmok I just think there’s some tension there is all I will go to my quiet place now
happyfeet (19c1da) — 7/31/2010 @ 3:27 pmC’mon, Mr. Feet. “Hootchies” is pretty darned rude, and you were just told by a female poster it is rude. But everyone thinks you are so flippin’ cute, especially yourself. It’s just that it was not a far leap for you to get really, really rude (“cancer hootchie”) which you also apparently think is very cutesy.
Having one female relative who died of cancer in December, and another with the same disease, could you please stop the weird anti-female thing? Just for a while. Lord knows you could, oh I don’t know, critique policy instead of someone’s person.
I’m probably too irritable about this. But you sure come across as a person with issues regarding women.
I probably need a break.
Eric Blair (d7ba5c) — 7/31/2010 @ 3:28 pmGreetings:
Are you trying to tell me that a single-mother saying, “You just wait until President Obama gets home tonight!” isn’t as effective a disciplinarian as a mother saying, “You just wait until your father gets home tonight!”???
11B40 (db4ba6) — 7/31/2010 @ 3:29 pmoh I lied… I’m such a liar I want to add this to the conversation then I’ll go for reals…
I’m not saying I agree I just thought that was a thought-provoking comment in context of this discussion.
happyfeet (19c1da) — 7/31/2010 @ 3:31 pmtwo thought-provoking comments actually
happyfeet (19c1da) — 7/31/2010 @ 3:38 pmGosh, all reasonable there, instead the odd “…some creepy old lady logic…” offensiveness. Who knew?
Eric Blair (d7ba5c) — 7/31/2010 @ 3:40 pmthat was actually two thought-provoking comments there I should have said cause I don’t want to suggest I endorse the rejoinder exactly
happyfeet (19c1da) — 7/31/2010 @ 3:43 pmAs I say, Mr. Feet, you have a quite a fan club, despite what I think is more than a little misogyny on your part. I found your cancer comment completely out of line and personally repugnant. You clearly think that kind of thing is funny. That is what got me noticing the common thread about women in general.
But I’m just one person. Doesn’t matter one iota what I think.
Eric Blair (d7ba5c) — 7/31/2010 @ 3:48 pmI don’t know what you want me to say.
happyfeet (19c1da) — 7/31/2010 @ 3:49 pmI think mom had died maybe a little over a year before of the cancer when I wrote that… maybe a year and a half… and she actually lost an election while the coughing from the as yet undiagnosed tumor in her lungs was becoming more and more of a problem when she gave campaign speeches… I guess I just find “cancer survivor” as a resume item to be profoundly lame, cause I think it suggests there’s something special about the ones that survive. Carly has since stopped foregrounding that as much. Probably cause someone realized how godawful tacky it was.
happyfeet (19c1da) — 7/31/2010 @ 3:54 pmNothing. Everyone thinks your stuff is just hilarious.
Eric Blair (f89659) — 7/31/2010 @ 3:54 pmhappyfeet – My mother died of cancer after a fifteen year battle with it. It would go into remission and then reappear somewhere else. Both breastesses sliced off. I don’t find the cancer hoochie remark amusing and being a cancer survivor is something to brag about.
daleyrocks (940075) — 7/31/2010 @ 4:07 pm“you’ve got to have Big Brother government to be your provider” sure as hell sounds like she’s insulting divorced women. Phyllis Schlafley is to womens’ causes what day is to night.
And please don’t try to pretend differently. She’s said many things impugning her own sex over the years:
“Much of the demand for women in combat comes from female officers who are eager for medals and promotions.”
“Sexual harassment on the job is not a problem for virtuous women”
“By getting married, the woman has consented to sex, and I don’t think you can call it rape.”
JEA (a990fe) — 7/31/2010 @ 4:25 pm“#14
Nothing. Everyone thinks your stuff is just hilarious.
Comment by Eric Blair — 7/31/2010 @ 3:54 pm”
You are painting with a broad brush there. I don’t. Please speak for yourself.
Machinist (497786) — 7/31/2010 @ 4:34 pmJeez, Mr. Feet. I’m going to take a break, but for God’s sake, look at what you just wrote:
There is. They lived. Unlike my sister-in-law on Christmas Eve day, and probably my mother in the next year.
There are some people, like me, who dislike reading mean spirited jokes about cancer survivors—conflating it with politics. But, hey, I’m just overly sensitive.
For someone who was concerned about proper verbal treatment of Ms. Sherrod, and spent some time understanding her comments in light of horrific life experiences, this is surprising. On the other hand, you now have JEA as a buddy, so perhaps I shouldn’t be surprised.
Wow. Just wow. You are still talking about politics.
Eric Blair (c8876d) — 7/31/2010 @ 4:35 pmMachinist, I let this silly stuff upset me, because of how the sad topic impacts my family. I would never intend to insult you. My apologies.
Eric Blair (c8876d) — 7/31/2010 @ 4:36 pmNone called for, Sir. Please just don’t imply I find such offensive stuff funny. I don’t.
Machinist (497786) — 7/31/2010 @ 4:37 pmI appreciate your trying to get the commenter to give it a rest. I try to ignore him. I don’t expect a change.
Machinist (497786) — 7/31/2010 @ 4:39 pmJust to be clear, Machinist, because you have always been so honorable and fair-minded….there are many folks who like the fellow’s schtick. I don’t mind the fractured English. It the increasing mean-spiritedness (from my perspective).
And I feel badly when it bothers me, because many folks are able to ignore and focus on the odd humor.
So I felt I was in the minority, when it started bothering me. And you are right that I shouldn’t make assumptions.
Thus, again: apologies.
Eric Blair (c8876d) — 7/31/2010 @ 4:44 pmI will feel badly when such doesn’t bother me.
Again, thank you for speaking out.
Machinist (497786) — 7/31/2010 @ 4:49 pmAnd I am sad about DRJ leaving.
Eric Blair (c8876d) — 7/31/2010 @ 4:52 pmA shining pillar of grace and class that always warrants my respectful attention.
Machinist (497786) — 7/31/2010 @ 5:01 pmshe berates the hoochies whose marriagings fail but but she doesn’t support gay ones cause… of some creepy old lady logic I guess.
What’s one thing got to do with the other? Talk about creepy logic. The reason she doesn’t support gay ones is because she’s a Christian.
Gerald A. (2b94cf) — 7/31/2010 @ 5:17 pmPlus her point is not really to berate women with failed marriages. But that’s a secondary point I think.
Gerald A. (2b94cf) — 7/31/2010 @ 5:19 pmI’m a christian and I support gay marriage.
hf (9bda9c) — 7/31/2010 @ 5:24 pm____________________________________
she doesn’t support gay ones cause
My hunch was correct not long ago, when we were all dealing with the big-mouth woman at that NAACP convention. You apparently do lean left when it comes to social issues, libertarian/quasi-rightist when it comes to economic issues.
Sort of schizophrenic. That’s because common sense in one — economic issues — is helped by common sense in the other. IOW, stability in the economy is helped when a society also is well-grounded socially and culturally. So I always raise an eyebrow when a person says he or she is a conservative on economic issues but a liberal on cultural ones.
That reminds me of all those overweight people who buy lots of burgers, fries and milkshakes at McDonald’s, etc, while always making sure a large supply of Diet Coke is in the pantry at home.
Mark (411533) — 7/31/2010 @ 5:24 pm#24 And I am sad about DRJ leaving.
Why is DRJ leaving? I’ll certainly miss her posts about Texas and college football.
Mike LaRoche (d4323e) — 7/31/2010 @ 5:28 pm“she berates the hoochies whose marriagings fail”
I think she’s berating the philosophy of a welfare state which encourages single parent families, IMHO.
daleyrocks (940075) — 7/31/2010 @ 5:30 pmI was at one of the big lefty fem blogs reading about Schlafly in a piece written by a woman, entitled Schlafly: Still Alive, Still Hates Women.
I find it amusing considering she is rather a superb example of what a woman can accomplish when making sound decisions regarding the man she chooses to become involved with, is willing to work very hard, and defines herself by her own values, principles, and ethic rather than defining herself by a man. Ownership of one’s independence and self-reliance cannot be underestimated. Unfortunately there is a whole demographic of women who do this very thing under the guise of feminist. Of course another item to fuel the feminist fires of ire, is that she remained married for 44 years to the same man. A sure sign patriarchal dominance and oppression…
Dana (8ba2fb) — 7/31/2010 @ 5:32 pm“She began college early and worked as a model for a time. She earned her A.B. Phi Beta Kappa from Washington University, in St. Louis, in 1944, at age 19. She received a Master of Arts degree, in Government, from Radcliffe College, in Cambridge, Massachusetts, in 1945. In one of her books, Strike From Space (1965), Schlafly notes that during WWII she worked briefly as “a ballistics gunner and technician at the largest ammunition plant in the world.” In 1978, she earned a J.D. from Washington University Law School in St. Louis.”
Ok maybe it’s just me but I detect a hint of censure in her characterization of the divorced ladies as having thrown away their husband for the welcoming arms of welfare.
hf (9bda9c) — 7/31/2010 @ 5:37 pmshe doesn’t support gay ones cause… of some creepy old lady logic I guess.
Yea, and it’s sad she doesn’t support multiple-partner marriages, too (aka, polygamy). After all, if two dudes or two women wanna get hitched, why not also allow two women to be betrothed to one guy? Or — less commonly — two guys to be wedded to one woman?
Mark (411533) — 7/31/2010 @ 5:38 pmDid Barack’s mama throw away his daddy to go on the welfares or does she get a pass cause he was a miserable drunk?
I’m not at all sure really.
hf (9bda9c) — 7/31/2010 @ 5:45 pmI have not followed Ms. Schlafly closely, but I have thought of her as someone who is speaking to affirm her base, and from that perspective uses wording that can be offensive to others. There are some commentattorew who I think are very smart and have good things to say, but I think are lusy candidates to engage in discussion with those who don’t agree.
For example, her comment would have been no less true had she avoided the phrase “kick your husband out”. I agree that she is making a generalization and assume she realizes that often the woman doesn’t “kick out” the man, and sometimes the man deserves to be kicked out”. I hope I’m not violating the spirit that Patterico encouraged in this thread. I’m not castigating her, etc., etc., but commenting on the reality of the wording.
MD in Philly (3d3f72) — 7/31/2010 @ 5:45 pmThere’s probably not a single family in this country that has not had some connection to cancer in some way. My grandfather and maternal uncle died of it, my maternal grandparents both survived it by over twenty years, my stepmother has been battling with it for about five years now, by the grace of God and pills that cost about $3k a month…H–l, by virtue of heredity and Crohn’s I have a statistical chance of 175 percent of getting it at some point. Shall we agree that no one should make a joke about cancer, and get back to the main topic?
To quote Mrs. S.:
And this is because, when you kick your husband out, you’ve got to have Big Brother government to be your provider. . . .
I have a problem with that because to me it sounds like she’s implying that most divorced women try to get government assistance; whereas it’s my experience (and I will acknowledge the limits of personal experience) that most women undergoing a divorce don’t expect government help, except in the form of the court forcing the husband to pay child support. This experience comes through doing divorce cases through the local legal aid program to satisfy Florida’s (officially voluntary) pro bono requirement for lawyers–which meant I was dealing with women who had, at least temporarily, no money and little or no income. (This also means that none of what I am saying applies to woman who never bothered with marrying the father(s) of their children.) Most of them either worked at jobs and tried to be self sufficient (as long as they could count on that child support) or were attempting to do so, usually with the help of relatives and not the government. There were some who were getting government welfare; in the case of all of these, the father/husband had left his family, usually by totally abandoning them, and it would be the extreme opposite of the truth to say any of these women had kicked their husbands out. The only exception to this was a man who was serving a sentence in state prison and would probably be deported back to Honduras at the end of the sentence (the family, or at least the mother and children, were all legal immigrants); the mother meanwhile was seeking the divorce because she wanted to marry another man, and she wanted to marry him because she was pregnant with his child–a scenario that totally throws Ms. Schafly’s scenario out the windo. (If you ever want a good soap opera, just go down to Family Court.)
kishnevi (fc89b6) — 7/31/2010 @ 5:50 pmThere were of course divorced peoples in her audience, but they were the right kind of divorced and no one thought anything of it.
happyfeet (19c1da) — 7/31/2010 @ 6:03 pm___________________________________
For someone who was concerned about proper verbal treatment of Ms. Sherrod,
I did a post on that several minutes ago, but it apparently got lost in cyberspace. I realize I did gauge happyfeet’s political sentiments correctly a few days ago. He appears to be of the left when it comes to social matters, and a libertarian/semi-rightist when it comes to economic ones. He’s not exactly uncommon in this age of do-your-own-thang and modern “sophistication.”
But I still raise an eyebrow when I hear people say they’re conservatives when it comes to economic issues but liberals when it comes to cultural issues. That’s because healthy economies tend to be nurtured in environments that also are socially stable, self-reliant and reassuring. IOW, various forms of dysfunction and certainly a void of ethics can easily rip apart the inner-workings of otherwise sound economic principles.
Mark (411533) — 7/31/2010 @ 6:06 pmWhere does she say this? This is the very misreading I criticize in the post, to the extent you suggest the former was motivated by the latter.
Patterico (eaf05f) — 7/31/2010 @ 6:07 pmAnd yet, hf, do you somehow think that policy choices like AFDC and other welfare programs do not create incentives for certain disadvantageous choices?
SPQR (26be8b) — 7/31/2010 @ 6:17 pmmy feeling personally is she’s not-so-tacitly adding married to the more or less conventional Team R tribal identity of white straight and Christian and if you’re not these things then increasingly Team R is simply not for you… I imagine that is a controversial opinion, but I think what is less controversial is that she’s dividing women into “our kind” and “their kind.”
But that is not necessarily what the 2008 election results mean I don’t think.
Seventy percent of unmarried women voted for Obama.
Maybe unmarried women just thought McCain was an odious creepy geezer. I think the line during the campaign was he reminds women of their first husband. American people don’t necessarily vote for policy… no really. Sometimes they just vote for the most slickly-packaged empty-suited douchebag on the ballot, and in 2008 that wasn’t McCain.
when you kick your husband out, you’ve got to have Big Brother government to be your provider.
of course someone had kicked McCain out cause he cheated on her a lot and he found a rich h****** and made lemonade and his wife didn’t go on the welfares not even a little I bet but I don’t know that for sure. I just think we would have heard about it.
happyfeet (19c1da) — 7/31/2010 @ 6:26 pmMr. SPQR thank you for asking. Yes I do think she has a good point with respect to welfare programs though I think she slightly overstates the number of women what see divorce and welfare as a ducky Plan B.
I think she would have a more better point if she also denounced the child tax credit and the adoption tax credit and the mortgage interest deduction and the one about caring for dependents and lots and lots of other things.
The government doesn’t need to be involved in any of that sort of social engineering nonsense I don’t think, and I would have preferred that Schafly had stuck to a message about the imperative of limiting government as opposed to condemning government for the very particular intrusiveness she disagrees with.
happyfeet (19c1da) — 7/31/2010 @ 6:33 pmWhat do you mean by Christian?
Gerald A. (2b94cf) — 7/31/2010 @ 6:36 pmoh mercy
happyfeet (19c1da) — 7/31/2010 @ 6:38 pm“she’s not-so-tacitly adding married to the more or less conventional Team R tribal identity of white straight and Christian”
That certainly seems to be the meme Team D wants people to remember. Team D has a whole bunch of Christians and white folks too, so what’s up with that?
daleyrocks (940075) — 7/31/2010 @ 6:49 pmI think this could be interpreted not as the desire of the divorcee, but as the consequence of her actions.
Tanny O'Haley (12193c) — 7/31/2010 @ 6:53 pmYes daley but Team Dirty Socialist isn’t hinting that if you’re married you’re not “our kind” while Phyllis definitely suggests that divorced women are sullied in some way what has driven them into the arms of the welfare state.
happyfeet (19c1da) — 7/31/2010 @ 6:56 pmIt really goes down to the fact that if they dismantle or discredit every traditional institution
ian cormac (6718a9) — 7/31/2010 @ 6:59 pmthen there is no recourse but the state, this is what they intended some 40 plus years ago
“Phyllis definitely suggests that divorced women are sullied in some way ”
That is just untrue. She suggested these women voted their self interest. That is completely different.
Machinist (497786) — 7/31/2010 @ 7:01 pmI’m not feeling it Mr. Machinist… later on in summary she says the dirty socialist policies are aimed at subsidizing illegitimacy… good lord creepy old lady. That’s very judgey language I think.
Illegitimacy? Really? That’s what we want to talk about in 2010?
Okey dokey. But every single person in America from sea to sheening sea what is concerned about “illegitimacy” I promise you is already a loyal Team R voter.
happyfeet (19c1da) — 7/31/2010 @ 7:06 pmHF, you’ve already shown you have a HUGE animus toward people who hold traditional Christian values, so much so that your venom sprays off my monitor at me. You’ve already shown a hatred of women. And now, you’ve shown your racism in your racist projections.
And yes, race-baiting is indeed racism.
And about your whole shtick, hf, it’s old, worn out, and grating. Especially when you add your woman-hating, Christian-hating, racist crap.
EOL
John Hitchcock (9e8ad9) — 7/31/2010 @ 7:08 pmMr. Feets – I’m not feeling the sullied part.
I am feeling you feeding the Team D narrative, though, that Team R has some wild-eyed crazy racist Christianists in it, while Team D has the right kind of intellectual, tolerant, white Christians on their side. Of course since Team D is all about Socialism, Sodomy and Abortion, this makes perfect sense to those propagating the meme.
daleyrocks (940075) — 7/31/2010 @ 7:15 pmyou’re a very angry person Mr. Hitchcock I don’t think I want to engage you on this subject
happyfeet (19c1da) — 7/31/2010 @ 7:16 pmOf course, I have nothing against fallen womyn, otherwise I’d have to sneak around to date people.
daleyrocks (940075) — 7/31/2010 @ 7:16 pmAnd you are a very hateful person, hf, in misrepresenting what Mrs Schlafly said and in your attack on her for her traditional Christian values that you hate, and in accusing her and her target audience of people with traditional Christian values of being racist with absolutely zero evidence.
John Hitchcock (9e8ad9) — 7/31/2010 @ 7:23 pmwell Mr. daley for reals am I doing more to feed the dirty socialist narrative than Phyllis is? She doesn’t give us a lot to work with.. She says Obama wants people dependent on government.
Then she invokes the statistic that 70% of unmarried women were down with smelling what the Obama was cooking in 2008.
You can see we have a chicken and egg problem here.
Obama’s policies weren’t around before the womens voted.
So which is it? Is the problem policies what foster dependence or is the problem the unmarried womens of the statistic? I think you can conclude that Phyllis is not particularly happy with either, that she sees both as being inimical to Team R ascendance.
And if you are a Team R spokesperson I think you should take care specifically not to hint that you see unredeeming qualities in unmarried womens, cause Team Dirty Socialist definitely has a narrative at the ready.
happyfeet (19c1da) — 7/31/2010 @ 7:25 pmYou’re a mean pikachu feets, you call women you disagree, unfaithful, because of political opinions,
ian cormac (6718a9) — 7/31/2010 @ 7:26 pmyou make fun of cancer survivors, you stand up for
demagogues who would put you out of business if they knew who you were
Mr. cormac womens and mens I scorn them both equally as I see fit and I didn’t make fun of cancer survivors ever… I dismissed the obnoxious Carly in much the same way as Biden dismissed Giuliani as a noun a verb and 911 back when she seemed to think it was quite the selling point, and this is a woman what is still as of last month garnering headlines like Carly Fiorina plays the cancer card.
And I don’t know what demagogues I stand for exactly but you’re right I shouldn’t do that.
happyfeet (19c1da) — 7/31/2010 @ 7:34 pmYes ‘we really dodged a bullet’ with that idiot, supporter, of the Sandinistas, the nuclear freeze, the WAr Powers Resolution. FISA (that worked out well, didn’t it) And I wa referring to the Sherrods
ian cormac (6718a9) — 7/31/2010 @ 7:39 pmwho are really selling out the real courage they had once upon a time
oh. Shirley? jeez I don’t mean to complain but you guys are very rehashy tonight
happyfeet (19c1da) — 7/31/2010 @ 7:44 pmWell, this was ironic:
Indeed it is, but not the way he thinks.
Eric Blair (ae95bc) — 7/31/2010 @ 7:45 pmbut that was very dishonest of you to say I make fun of cancer survivors I think and it hurt my feelings
happyfeet (19c1da) — 7/31/2010 @ 7:46 pmThat, my friends, is pure bovine biproduct. HF regularly uses sexually perverse dysphemisms of women he disagrees with. He doesn’t do the same with men he disagrees with. QED
John Hitchcock (9e8ad9) — 7/31/2010 @ 7:46 pmUm. You really don’t want a replay, do you?
Eric Blair (ae95bc) — 7/31/2010 @ 7:48 pmwhat? Just yesterday… here I will link … believe you me Mr. Hitchcock I am very ecumenical with the sexually perverse dysphemisms and that was on a dead thread even… you just don’t get treated to them here cause of Mr. P prefers his discourse a certain way but if you don’t trust me ask Princess Lindsey.
happyfeet (19c1da) — 7/31/2010 @ 7:51 pmLook your state is about to bring Jerry Brown back from the wilderness, that’s one of hte signs that
ian cormac (6718a9) — 7/31/2010 @ 7:51 pmCtluthu’s right around the corner, rest assured Mike “Ice Age” Murphy will prevent that from happening
The fellow just doesn’t get it.
Eric Blair (ae95bc) — 7/31/2010 @ 7:52 pmI love how happyfeet’s “shtick” got “old” once his targeting reticule started drifting starboard.
Regarding Sheila Jackson Lee: “She’s not just a raunchy blinkered dirty socialist skeezer, she’s a hateful hateful hateful raunchy blinkered dirty socialist skeezer, and yet NPR says be on the lookout for angry stupid poor white guys.
I think the case of Sheila Jackson Lee suggests that there are some far far angrier and stupider skeezey black hoochies what are far more directly impacting the health care debate.”
To which not one word of rebuke was uttered.
If a hoochie is a whore, then a cancer hoochie is someone who whores out their affliction for gain. It’s perfectly plausible for someone to have a great deal of respect for most of those who have suffered from cancer while simultaneously harboring a deep contempt for those that try to profit from it – as happyfeet seems to think Fiorina has done (or Palin has done, with folksy charm taking the place of cancer as the whored item in question). I think it’s disingenuous to turn this into a conversation on happyfeet’s sympathy bona fides; and I’m sure happyfeet has a great deal of respect for a great number of women; and to suggest that happyfeet is a misogynist because he’s not as impressed with Sarah Palin as you are is smear-tactic bullshit.
Leviticus (30ac20) — 7/31/2010 @ 7:53 pm“You can see we have a chicken and egg problem here.”
Mr. Feets – No, I’m having trouble sussing that out.
“She says Obama wants people dependent on government.” – No argument. ObamaCare, Government Motors, Fin Industry Reform and Taxover, government approval of compensation, expansion of government jobs while private sector jobs shrink. Euroweeniedom is Obama’s goal.
“Obama’s policies weren’t around before the womens voted.” Oh noes, what were they voting for, his moobs, his creased pants, or his ideas (read “policies”)?
daleyrocks (940075) — 7/31/2010 @ 7:54 pmyes you are right Mr. cormac but Team R wants to go with another hand-picked McCain bleep to succeed kid-tested mother approved bleep bleep bleep bleep Arnold and honestly I think it’s maybe better if a dirty socialist is in the engineer’s seat when the California choo choo crashes.
happyfeet (19c1da) — 7/31/2010 @ 7:54 pmSo you regularly throw sexually perverse dysphemisms at women here and rarely do so to men because Patterico prefers you treat men better than you treat women? Or are you saying Patterico prefers both genders be treated better than you treat women, so you treat men better? Or are you totally confused in your defense of your indefensible actions?
John Hitchcock (9e8ad9) — 7/31/2010 @ 7:55 pmEric Blair go find where I made a point of making sport of cancer survivors. I think you owe us a link.
happyfeet (19c1da) — 7/31/2010 @ 7:56 pmI treat the womens we talk about here very decorously I think Mr. Hitchcock. Except for maybe that Palin bleep. I was sure a lot nicer to our new friend Shirley than most of you guys were.
happyfeet (19c1da) — 7/31/2010 @ 7:57 pmCont.
“Is the problem policies what foster dependence” – Yes. Obama repealed the Clinton era welfare reform. Why?
“or is the problem the unmarried womens of the statistic?” – The liberal great society programs exacerabated these trends. QED. No chicken or egg.
daleyrocks (940075) — 7/31/2010 @ 7:58 pmMr. daley I think they were voting a lot for how the idea of him made them feel. I don’t think they had much grasp of his policy inclinations.
happyfeet (19c1da) — 7/31/2010 @ 7:59 pmSo, Mr. Feet, you never used the term “cancer hootchie”?
But that isn’t making fun- making fun, I suppose. And I am not the only person who has remarked on that.
Unclear on the concept and mean spirited. And if you think I am judging you, what precisely informed your comment?
Eric Blair (ae95bc) — 7/31/2010 @ 8:04 pmThere are two instances when “hooch” can be used:
1) Turner and Hooch
2) alcoholic beverage
Never in regards to a female, EVER. Doing so shows a blatant disrespect for all women.
And the need for a “bleep” shows a puberty-wracked boy’s titillation with certain words and a lack of cognitive ability.
John Hitchcock (9e8ad9) — 7/31/2010 @ 8:04 pmoh. Cont.
I think Phyllis could have been more clear personally. I hear a not so veiled criticism of unmarried womens… here is more P-Schaf to chew on…
She seems to have a clear bias that married women are just better people. You’ll note that the extraordinarily capable Condoleezza’s package is highly deficient by this calculus.
happyfeet (19c1da) — 7/31/2010 @ 8:04 pm“I was sure a lot nicer to our new friend Shirley than most of you guys were.”
feets – Good thing that nasty racist socialist hoochie won’t have to sell no more jelly roll if they fund that piggy Pigford settlement, if she ever did.
daleyrocks (940075) — 7/31/2010 @ 8:05 pmBut see Daley, it’s different when you say it!
Eric Blair (ae95bc) — 7/31/2010 @ 8:07 pmEric – What did I say?
daleyrocks (940075) — 7/31/2010 @ 8:08 pmjeez with the word policing Mr. Hitchcock…
Mr. Blair I used that term once in the clear context of finding Carly to be another useless empty no principles-having McCain tool the likes of which our Senate is already chock full of. At the time she was most definitely favoring biography over substance. There are whole articles about it you can read on the internet.
happyfeet (19c1da) — 7/31/2010 @ 8:08 pmthat excerpt would actually contradict your argument, Whitman is another Romney proxy run by
ian cormac (6718a9) — 7/31/2010 @ 8:10 pmMurphy, who shies away from really confronting the
idiocy that is Governor Moonbeam redux
And I can still think it as much as I want you can’t stop me.
happyfeet (19c1da) — 7/31/2010 @ 8:10 pmDaley I thought what you wrote was a great homage to the HF schtick. But I’ll bet he didn’t like your version!
Eric Blair (ae95bc) — 7/31/2010 @ 8:11 pmdaley I wish Shirley well she got caught up in something she didn’t ask for and for which she was ill-prepared and you know, bless her heart.
happyfeet (19c1da) — 7/31/2010 @ 8:13 pmWell, that makes it all better! Jeez. That’s the trouble with The Schtick. You start believing your own press.
By all means, think what you like. But I think you have made your inner workings quite clear.
Eric Blair (ae95bc) — 7/31/2010 @ 8:14 pmThanks Eric. I knew what you meant, but hey, at least I put a qualifier on the end.
daleyrocks (940075) — 7/31/2010 @ 8:15 pmtell me what I say
ColonelHaiku (ac3c3c) — 7/31/2010 @ 8:16 pmhappyfrum go all ray charles
hey uhhh hey uhhh hey… repeat chorus
Mr. Blair it may come to pass after Carly takes office and starts voting you will need some choice words. Words of dismay. Words of scorn. And you know what? I’ll be there for you.
happyfeet (19c1da) — 7/31/2010 @ 8:17 pmalso thank you Mr. Leviticus I think that’s fair… I sure was hard on Sheila I wonder what she did exactly
happyfeet (19c1da) — 7/31/2010 @ 8:18 pmHF, I have traditional Christian values (which actually put me at odds with EB on a very specific matter) and I respect aphrael’s debating abilities and tactics far more than yours because aphrael debates respectfully and with honorable intent. You, not so much.
John Hitchcock (9e8ad9) — 7/31/2010 @ 8:21 pmCarly takes office and starts voting you will need some choice words.
She probably will be a squish, but because California is such an uber-blue state — where much of its populace buys into the notion that liberalism is holy and devout — voters of the right gotta do what they can do and and realize that beggars can’t be choosers.
Besides, if you can give a million benefits of the doubt to the big-mouth woman at the NAACP convention, you certainly can give some leeway to squishy (aka “centrist”) Republicans.
Mark (411533) — 7/31/2010 @ 8:27 pmMr. H I’m just a little pikachu whose fingers can reach the keyboard and I type my thinkings and these are called comments… it’s simply not as fraught as you seem to suggest I don’t think
if we ever met I would say hi how are you hungry have you ever had pancakes at a thai restaurant a lot of people don’t know this but the pancakes of the thai people are some of the mostest tasty pancakes you can ever find
happyfeet (19c1da) — 7/31/2010 @ 8:29 pm“But I think you have made your inner workings quite clear.”
– Eric Blair
Yikes… is Bizarro-JD about to pop out and yell “Sexist”?
happyfeet – here’s the link to the post: https://patterico.com/2009/08/16/sheila-jackson-lees-public-notice/
Leviticus (30ac20) — 7/31/2010 @ 8:32 pmMark I have said this before and I will say this again that the curtain will fall and the darkness will descend not by dint of overwhelming dirty socialist might but because Team R acquiesces one too many times and Carly is most definitely not counted among those what are stalwart and true… it is these Carly McCain Princess Lindsey ones what are the weak link in the armor of freedom, and it is these what will be our undoing.
It makes me very sad to think about it.
happyfeet (19c1da) — 7/31/2010 @ 8:33 pmoh… that was during the perversion of our health cares… I was very worked up at the time. I remember that now.
happyfeet (19c1da) — 7/31/2010 @ 8:35 pmBack to the topic at hand.
Show the high school graduation rate, college attendance rate, crime rate, income level of:
1) Children born to single mothers.
2) Children living in single-parent households.
3) Children living in traditional two-parent households.
Compare those statistics with the statistic showing 70 percent of single mothers voting for Obama.
Also note: 30 percent of single mothers did not vote for Obama but for his opponents. Many of them would be among those with traditional values despite their current circumstances.
A further note: Schlafly did not in any way say women were getting divorced in order to get on the public dole, contrary to what many in the lib world claimed.
John Hitchcock (9e8ad9) — 7/31/2010 @ 8:37 pmthe throwing away the husbands part made it sound like this was a capricious choice she was describing I thought and not a complex sort of social phenomenon with multiple causes
happyfeet (19c1da) — 7/31/2010 @ 8:41 pm“You’ll note that the extraordinarily capable Condoleezza’s package is highly deficient by this calculus.”
Mr. Feets – Did Phyllis say Condoleeza was unfit for an office for which she is not running because she is not married and has not kids or is that what you believe her opinion of Ms. Rice would be based on your interpretation of her standards?
daleyrocks (940075) — 7/31/2010 @ 8:41 pm“it’s simply not as fraught as you seem to suggest I don’t think”
Sort of like P-Schaf’s comments except for what Team D is trying to frame them as earth shattering and pants wetting bad an such for talking points purposes.
daleyrocks (940075) — 7/31/2010 @ 8:46 pmTeam R acquiesces one too many times
But look in the mirror, hf. Look at how you rationalized and excused, then excused and rationalized away, the politics swirling around a race-baiting leftist like Shirley Sherrod. I won’t even mention the rhetoric you’re aiming at Phyllis Schlafly, who generally is doing no more than making the observation that when it comes to one aspect of culture, 2 plus 2 equals four.
And if Team R is hamstrung by being too squishy, I’ll lay a lot more blame on the adverse influence of a large portion of the American electorate hitched to the left (Hi, all you idiots in states like California, New York, Oregon, etc). I’m referring to the millions of people who believe their do-gooder ideology instills in them, and, in turn, the USA, a high level of beautiful compassion and wonderful sophistication.
Mark (411533) — 7/31/2010 @ 8:46 pmI just read that right in daley that Condi doesn’t have a “total package” by P-Schaf’s standards of womanhood
happyfeet (19c1da) — 7/31/2010 @ 8:47 pmmaybe that was presumptuous?
happyfeet (19c1da) — 7/31/2010 @ 8:47 pmMark there’s a huge difference in pummeling a random and largely innocent dirty socialist old lady what was down wif da struggle her whole life and pummeling actual socialisms. And jeez Phyllis is old and busted Sharni Vinson is the new hotness.
I liked the part about the beautiful compassion and wonderful sophistication though.
happyfeet (19c1da) — 7/31/2010 @ 8:52 pmYou just can’t get away from your venomous sexist attacks, can you?
John Hitchcock (9e8ad9) — 7/31/2010 @ 8:57 pmI guess not Mr. Hitchcock my insouciance it seems knows no bounds
happyfeet (19c1da) — 7/31/2010 @ 8:59 pmSchafly did not even try to define womanhood, you ignorant fool. And Breitbart did not lie, you piece of work. And Sherrod is as innocent as Obama is Christian Conservative.
John Hitchcock (9e8ad9) — 7/31/2010 @ 9:00 pmI miss DRJ though I hope enjoys the rest of her summer
happyfeet (19c1da) — 7/31/2010 @ 9:01 pm*she* enjoys I mean I think I’m getting tired I’m gonna go to Ralph’s and get a tasty beverage
happyfeet (19c1da) — 7/31/2010 @ 9:03 pm“And Sherrod is as innocent as Obama is Christian Conservative.”
Heh. I thought he was the Mongrel Manchurian Muslim President.
daleyrocks (940075) — 7/31/2010 @ 9:04 pmHow do you say ‘mook’ in Texan, because that is certainly what he is.
ian cormac (6718a9) — 7/31/2010 @ 9:04 pmPhyllis Schlafly is
Colonelhaiku (ac3c3c) — 7/31/2010 @ 9:05 pma woman who libs would deify
if a Democrat
“I mean I think I’m getting tired I’m gonna go to Ralph’s and get a tasty beverage”
feets – Add a cheery turnover to the list. They are tasty and a good pickmeup with natural fruitness.
daleyrocks (940075) — 7/31/2010 @ 9:10 pmPhyllis Schlafly is
a woman whose kid made the con
servapedia
where we learn that
happyfeet (19c1da) — 7/31/2010 @ 9:13 pmI will see what I can find. brb.
happyfeet (19c1da) — 7/31/2010 @ 9:14 pmJust for clarification on traditional Christian value structure (in no particular order):
1) Abortion is murder.
2) Homosexuality is an abomination.
3) Out-of-wedlock child-birth and the exercises that caused it are sinful.
4) Personal responsibility is of penultimate value; playing the blame game is sinful.
5) Jesus is the ONLY way to salvation. This is the ultimate value.
6) Providence does indeed punish nations for the sins of the population.
7) Love the sinner; hate the sin.
8 ) Creation is Truth; evolution is false.
9) The fact I have failed in some of the values (some are not listed) in my own personal life means #5 is as important to me as it is for everyone else.
Mrs Schlafly holds traditional Christian values, as do I and millions of others (such as Focus on the Family). Years ago, I listened to Eagle Forum on a regular basis. And, despite what those of the left try to claim, Mrs Schlafly does not base womanhood on marital status nor do any others with traditional Christian values.
John Hitchcock (9e8ad9) — 7/31/2010 @ 9:32 pmA large part of the women who divorce or seperate from their husband/boyfriends do it only long enough to get on a bunch of government programs then the husband/boyfriend slips back in and lives there full time. It’s all part of the welfare ripoffs going on daily.
Scrapiron (996c34) — 7/31/2010 @ 9:33 pmScrapiron, I gotta have proof of what you just said because I don’t believe a word of what you said, based on your first six words.
John Hitchcock (9e8ad9) — 7/31/2010 @ 9:40 pmno turnover it’s just grapefruit perrier with the light minute maid
I was so strong.
happyfeet (19c1da) — 7/31/2010 @ 9:56 pmThey can’t seem to resist going after the kids of those they disagree with. *sigh*
Machinist (497786) — 7/31/2010 @ 9:57 pmIf he’s her kid he’s like a thousand.
happyfeet (19c1da) — 7/31/2010 @ 10:02 pmI’m 44, my mother is 65, if my great-grandmother (that’s 3 generations older than me) were still alive, she’d be 106. My daughter turns 22 in a few days. My grandson turns 5 months in a few days. Mrs Schlafly has been married for over 40 years, so her child can easily be over 40 years old.
I’m greying quite noticeably and I’m also balding quite noticeably. My best friend in HS was balding quite noticeably at age 17.
So your “age” point, hf, is rather dull. But, at this point, I don’t expect anything other than vitriol from you where Mrs Schlafly is concerned.
John Hitchcock (9e8ad9) — 7/31/2010 @ 10:19 pmhere he is and he’s not the oldest one even
happyfeet (19c1da) — 7/31/2010 @ 10:21 pmYes, hf, he looks like he could be 40ish. He also looks like he has no greying issues nor balding issues. What’s your point, if not an attack on his mother?
John Hitchcock (9e8ad9) — 7/31/2010 @ 10:25 pmMy point was that he created conservapedia, which is filled with wonderful facts like about how the lesbians dig fat chicks so P-Schlaf isn’t the only sociological wunderkind in the family.
happyfeet (19c1da) — 7/31/2010 @ 10:32 pm“wonderful facts like about how the lesbians dig fat chicks”
Feets – If it’s a fact, what’s the problem?
daleyrocks (940075) — 7/31/2010 @ 10:34 pmHere’s Thom Collier, who graduated from the same HS as me, a year earlier than me. Is my mother 1000 years old, hf?
John Hitchcock (9e8ad9) — 7/31/2010 @ 10:38 pmI’m sure your mom is a beautiful and vibrant woman.
happyfeet (19c1da) — 7/31/2010 @ 10:44 pmI have to go to bed.
happyfeet (19c1da) — 7/31/2010 @ 10:45 pmFeets – I hope you don’t have a problem with fat chicks what like other fat chicks.
daleyrocks (940075) — 7/31/2010 @ 10:52 pmBut is it love… or gravity?
happyfeet (19c1da) — 7/31/2010 @ 10:56 pmhf’s CHICKENS have come home to ROOST.
John Hitchcock (9e8ad9) — 7/31/2010 @ 10:57 pmThe thing to keep in mind regarding Schlafly’s comments is that the support of unmarried women for Obama vis-a-vis government services for this demographic is that this support is merely a symptom of a much larger problem–there is an entire government bureaucratic industry devoted to various “social services” for unmarried, single mothers in particular, that requires women to remain outside traditional marraiges and disconnected from their families in order to justify their existence.
This industry is the real driver behind the degradation of the family unit and treating fathers as mere sperm donors and ATM machines. A country with a culture of strong, stable nuclear and extended families has little to no need of such services. In response, these bureaucrats, in conjunction with various allies in academia, have successfully encouraged a culture degrading marraige and strong families as a foundational cornerstone for a strong society, in favor of dependence on various state agencies instead. The treatment of today’s public schools as glorfied babysitting services rather than educational institutions is another symptom of this cultural disease of state dependence.
Rolling back these institutions will be well-nigh impossible now because they are too embedded in our cultural mindset as “entitlements”–things we are “owed” rather than things that are there only for real emergencies.
The only thing that can actually roll it back is a collapse, but the math is going to catch up to this entitlement culture in our country eventually.
Another Chris (40ac96) — 7/31/2010 @ 11:06 pmI agree, Another Chris. When 50 percent of the population pays zero federal income tax and lives off the payments of the other 50 percent, there is a guaranteed segment of society to vote for all the freebies. And, face it, single mothers fit into that demographic quite well. Likely close to that 70 percent mark who voted for Obama.
John Hitchcock (9e8ad9) — 7/31/2010 @ 11:11 pmwell she’s definitely doing her part to help Obama’s effort there… I don’t understand why she wants to peddle a class warfare framework what would be sure to energize the dirty socialist base. Nasty old woman.
happyfeet (19c1da) — 8/1/2010 @ 7:18 amhappyfrum in same
class of great lib thinker as
the deepak chopra
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qySx8tSs8BQ
ColonelHaiku (ac3c3c) — 8/1/2010 @ 7:40 amMr. Colonel Schlafly’s weird vendetta is just not appropriate demagoguery when unemployment is at 10% and economic insecurity is higher than ever in our whole lives I don’t think… opportunities are just not there… and Team R needs to talk about what it’s gonna to do to create opportunity as opposed to slagging welfare moms and I think.
happyfeet (19c1da) — 8/1/2010 @ 7:43 amoh. Just *I think* … I didn’t have anything to go with the and or if I did I forgot
happyfeet (19c1da) — 8/1/2010 @ 7:46 ammedia ignore
ColonelHaiku (ac3c3c) — 8/1/2010 @ 7:52 amSchlafly celebrate tedious
feminista shrews
As young woman, Schlafly work her way through college – 48 hours a week in ammunitions plant, test-firing machine guns (my kinda gal!)where she earn straight As and graduated (a year early)Phi Beta Kappa and Pi Sigma Alpha and won a scholarship to Harvard grad school.
She write ten books, most of them on military policy.
ColonelHaiku (ac3c3c) — 8/1/2010 @ 7:57 amSchlafly defeat the
ColonelHaiku (ac3c3c) — 8/1/2010 @ 8:02 amERA almost herself
she god-like for that
Schlafly raised questions polite people wouldn’t, like how ERA affect draft, family law, abortion, gays, adoption, widow’s benefits, locker rooms, etc.
the defeat of the ERA, which ran out of time in ’82, with only three more states needed for ratification, was a legal triumph of sexual counter-revolution. If anyone on left did something of this magnitude, we’d never hear end of it.
ColonelHaiku (ac3c3c) — 8/1/2010 @ 8:08 amthank you Phyliss for defeating the ERA you’re a peach
happyfeet (19c1da) — 8/1/2010 @ 8:11 amhappyfrumdeepak
ColonelHaiku (ac3c3c) — 8/1/2010 @ 8:15 amwhat you push just amount to
do it if feel good
that video
ColonelHaiku (ac3c3c) — 8/1/2010 @ 8:17 amcapture your quality of
thought most succinctly
happyfrumdeepak
ColonelHaiku (ac3c3c) — 8/1/2010 @ 8:23 amsay he think all he want scream
“somebody stop me!”
look you can get rid of all the welfares if you want to I don’t care but the point is you can do it without demonizing divorced moms I found the statistical statistics!
so there you go P-Schlaf didn’t overgeneralize she’s just wrong. It’s the never marrieds what account for more of the single momness than the divorced ones.
happyfeet (19c1da) — 8/1/2010 @ 8:49 amWell in one post we get things like “nasty old woman” and then we get use of the word “vendetta.”. Hmm… Irony everywhere.
Eric Blair (ae95bc) — 8/1/2010 @ 8:50 amyou have a weird obsession with me that’s kind of creepy Mr. Blair
happyfeet (19c1da) — 8/1/2010 @ 8:53 amAt least Ms. Schlafly isn’t married to John McCain and has Sarah Palin for a daughter. That would make Mr. Feet’s non-vendetta head explode.
Eric Blair (ae95bc) — 8/1/2010 @ 8:53 amI am so not spending my Sunday with you.
happyfeet (19c1da) — 8/1/2010 @ 8:55 amNot at all, Mr. Feet. I think you have much about yourself you hide with The Schtick. And it is amusing that you think anyone at all has an obsession.
Perhaps we all need to have a tasty beverage and enjoy Sunday.
Eric Blair (ae95bc) — 8/1/2010 @ 8:56 amyes that sounds nice
happyfeet (19c1da) — 8/1/2010 @ 8:58 amdrink drink drain your glass
ColonelHaiku (ac3c3c) — 8/1/2010 @ 9:03 amraise your glass high there but for
grace of God go I
As a former prosecutor, I can tell you the most of the juveniles I saw in court came from fatherless families, as did most of the adults who ended up being criminally charged. People can argue all day long about cause and effect, but the fact is that kids raised in fatherless homes face lots of challenges, and are far more likely to end up in court than kids who have two parents at home. There is a strong argument to be made that continued government welfare programs don’t strenthen the family but actually contribute to its demise.
rochf (ae9c58) — 8/1/2010 @ 9:29 amyou would have a friend
ColonelHaiku (ac3c3c) — 8/1/2010 @ 9:32 amand ally if Moynihan
were still above ground
“I don’t understand why she wants to peddle a class warfare framework what would be sure to energize the dirty socialist base.”
Shorter Mr. Feets – Do not interfere with Team D’s Class Warfare meme.
daleyrocks (940075) — 8/1/2010 @ 9:49 amlargely innocent dirty socialist old lady what was down wif da struggle her whole life and pummeling actual socialisms. And jeez Phyllis is old and busted
Sherrod is hardly innocent, hf. Moreover, you sound way more resentful of a rightist like Schlafly than a leftist like Sherrod. To add to this, you also say you support the idea of gay marriage. But you’re kind of a libertarian — or conservative — when it comes to economic matters.
There definitely is a not-small percentage of the electorate who’s similar to you. That’s why squishy (or “centrist”) Republican politicians are a fact of life. So why you of all people berate such people is puzzling to me.
Mark (411533) — 8/1/2010 @ 11:43 am“Moreover, you sound way more resentful of a rightist like Schlafly than a leftist like Sherrod.”
– Mark
Yeah, what the fuck’s up with that? Get back in line, happyfeet.
Leviticus (30ac20) — 8/1/2010 @ 12:24 pmDon’t expect a woman to have the ability to identify the “seed n Feed” syndrome!
Basically means some female person will fuck anybody or better, marry the bloke, to have an offspring. Which of course is theirs and they have the sole claim to such, et all. Therefore you the fucker that did this should have to pay forever! Even if you are not really the bio dad! They will take your seed and expect you to feed them for life. Knowing the govt will be the fail safe for them and their bastard kids!
For clarity ask any woman if that is THEIR child!
I’d bet about 99% would say such is only theirs as though they had not so much as had a sperm doner! Yet alone a former B/F husband that was making a positive attempt to provide for their offspring!
BTW, I’ve not read one response to this thread. What I’ve said is based on real world observations and behaviors.
RTF (94ff2b) — 8/1/2010 @ 12:34 pmThis implies that if a married man with children dies prematurely, then his kids will turn to drugs and other addictive behaviors, and more likely to be incarcerated or involved with a gang, because of the father’s premature death.
the leadership of the gay “marriage” movement wants legal recognition of gay “marriage” only because they believe it will lead to public acceptance of homosexual behavior.
That is why so much attention is focused on the word used to describe gay relationships, and why even “farriage” is not good enough for them.
There were a lot of bitter people in Pennsylvania who clung to guns and religion, and who could not bring themselves to vote for a Republican.
Guess how they voted in the Democratic primaries.
Michael Ejercito (249c90) — 8/1/2010 @ 1:00 pmThere definitely is a not-small percentage of the electorate who’s similar to you. That’s why squishy (or “centrist”) Republican politicians are a fact of life. So why you of all people berate such people is puzzling to me.
they’re squishy about all the wrong things… they’re squishy about freedom. The long and short of it is that squish is an increasingly inapt word. Team R is riddled with cowards and whores I think. How many Team R senators voted for McCain’s goof-ass campaign finance reform farce? No less than 11. And one of them was Fred Thompson what I went on to support for president. He took my monies and endorsed Meghan’s daddy. Screw him. And so in future I will not support McCain-endorsed losers like Carly and Meg.
I think that is a principled and decidedly unsquishy decision.
and why even “farriage” is not good enough for them.
Ok that’s an ugly word. But Mr. Ejercito you will not be able to build for anyone – even if you google google google like you’ve never googled before – a persuasive case that Team R ever did anything to press ahead for anything remotely resembling “farriage.”
happyfeet (19c1da) — 8/1/2010 @ 1:49 pmI never implied that they did.
Michael Ejercito (249c90) — 8/1/2010 @ 2:03 pmAnd so in future I will not support McCain-endorsed losers like Carly and Meg.
Since the winner of this election will have a say in redrawing of Congressional districts for the next decade, that’s not very wise.
Gerald A. (2b94cf) — 8/1/2010 @ 2:06 pmbut you’re saying that something they’ve never been offered is nonetheless not good enough for them… how can we know this to be true?
happyfeet (19c1da) — 8/1/2010 @ 2:06 pmTeam R’s “leadership” on the gay marriage issue is DOMA which is one of the gayer laws ever passed I think.
happyfeet (19c1da) — 8/1/2010 @ 2:08 pmhappyfeet, do you ever think about what you write?
SPQR (26be8b) — 8/1/2010 @ 2:08 pmwhat have I said that’s not sensible SPQR? why should I vote for people what don’t represent me when I could *pretend* to go vote and instead have tasty vegan Thai pancakes? Or why should I pretend that Team R is anything other than embarrassingly reactionary and deeply silly on the gay marriage issue?
Helpful hint for Schlafly fans: If your marriage needs defending from roving bands of matrimonious homos you’re doing it wrong.
happyfeet (19c1da) — 8/1/2010 @ 2:14 pmhappyfrum never
ColonelHaiku (537db7) — 8/1/2010 @ 2:16 pmlearn it okay not to speak
each thought come to mind
Gerald, you are onto something. I believe some folks want the whole structure to burn down, thinking a “purer” politics will result.
Never mind that hasn’t worked yet.
Eric Blair (aec019) — 8/1/2010 @ 2:26 pmHow so?
Michael Ejercito (249c90) — 8/1/2010 @ 2:53 pmI already said… Team R has no proactive approach to the issue other than to circle the wagons around a status quo what is obviously deficient as evinced by the need to circle wagons where none existed before. It’s very sad how neither of our two party’s embraces ideals of individual liberty… but the idea that an individual not the state or a handful of religious freaks should decide who they will marry seems pretty basic.
happyfeet (19c1da) — 8/1/2010 @ 2:58 pm*parties*
happyfeet (19c1da) — 8/1/2010 @ 2:58 pmhappyfeet, you keep mentioning “Team R”.
Where is the Democrats’ repeal of DOMA? They have both houses of congress and the White House ( although you also seem to forget who signed DOMA ).
This habit of yours of forgetting historical fact annoys.
SPQR (26be8b) — 8/1/2010 @ 3:00 pmboth parties mine the status quo for fundraisings and base mobilization.
DOMA sprang from the twisted mind of Bob Barr and it was signed into law by the very twisted and cowardly Bill Clinton.
happyfeet (19c1da) — 8/1/2010 @ 3:05 pmFurther evidence, happyfeet, that you really don’t think about anything you write.
SPQR (26be8b) — 8/1/2010 @ 3:06 pmmy feeling personally is she’s not-so-tacitly adding married to the more or less conventional Team R tribal identity of white straight and Christian and if you’re not these things then increasingly Team R is simply not for you… I imagine that is a controversial opinion
It’s pretty banal. The GOP has been the married peoples party for generations – that why they talk (or used to talk) about family values. And the Democrats have been the unmarried peoples party for the same period. You don’t much about politics, do you?
Subotai (721472) — 8/1/2010 @ 3:12 pmyou people are very into the personal attacks like the Hot Air commenters
happyfeet (19c1da) — 8/1/2010 @ 3:15 pmTeam R has no proactive approach to the issue other than to circle the wagons around a status quo what is obviously deficient as evinced by the need to circle wagons where none existed before.
As usual, you don’t have the foggiest idea what you are talking about. Those “wagons” have been “circled” for a very long time now.
the idea that an individual not the state or a handful of religious freaks should decide who they will marry seems pretty basic.
You have a habit of constructing absurd strawmen and getting freaky with them.
Subotai (721472) — 8/1/2010 @ 3:15 pmWow. Really?
Eric Blair (aec019) — 8/1/2010 @ 3:15 pmYou have a habit of constructing absurd strawmen and getting freaky with them.
this is a thread about an old crone what is blaming socialism on a bunch of moms what divorce their husbands on purpose for the joys of welfare
happyfeet (19c1da) — 8/1/2010 @ 3:19 pmyou people are very into the personal attacks like the Hot Air commenters
That’s just creepy old lady logic.
Oh, wait, its not a “personal attack” when you do it, right?
Subotai (721472) — 8/1/2010 @ 3:20 pmSubotai, my comment was not in reference to you. I was just awed by a person with a long history of dealing personal insults criticizing others for dealing…personal insults. .
Too much. I’m going out for a lovely walk.
Too much Clintonian parsing for me.
Sorry to even mention it. To each their own.
Eric Blair (d5d7c2) — 8/1/2010 @ 3:22 pmthis is a thread about an old crone
And then you screech like a stuck pig about “personal attacks”. Hypocrisy, they name is Liberal.
Subotai (721472) — 8/1/2010 @ 3:22 pmI ask again, happyfeet, do you think about what you write at all?
SPQR (26be8b) — 8/1/2010 @ 3:23 pmI haven’t personally attacked any of you ever I don’t think. I could be wrong.
happyfeet (19c1da) — 8/1/2010 @ 3:25 pmThat is a vicious personal attack on all who hold mainstream traditional Christian values. Among that list of millions of Americans, you will find my name.
John Hitchcock (9e8ad9) — 8/1/2010 @ 3:30 pmI haven’t personally attacked any of you ever I don’t think. I could be wrong.
That makes your vile spittle-flecked invective aimed at other people (but mixed in with your trademark “humor”) just fine and dandy, don’t it?
Actually, it just makes you gutless. You know lots of us agree with Schlafly. So man up and tell us about our creepy reactionary old crone logic.
Subotai (721472) — 8/1/2010 @ 3:32 pmI don’t think I’m gutless really but I don’t think gutsyness is really a lot a part of blog commenting.
happyfeet (19c1da) — 8/1/2010 @ 3:37 pmI don’t think gutsyness is really a lot a part of blog commenting.
Yeah, blog commenting is all about being a passive aggressive little bitch.
Ha ha. What, you didn’t get the “humor” there?
Subotai (721472) — 8/1/2010 @ 3:41 pmThat’s hf, alright. Most certainly.
John Hitchcock (9e8ad9) — 8/1/2010 @ 3:43 pmsee I’m hearing a lot of “you” statements… let’s try using more I statements
For example, you could say, “I disagree, happy. I think gay people should never marry cause of it’s bad and also wrong.”
And then I can say Mr. Subotai then I have a question. If you think about what Phyllis says about married women being less dependent on the state, how does that resonate with Mr. Buddy’s idea in #8 that people who don’t marry (or, I would add, are not allowed to marry) are equally more likely to be dependent on the state when they are old like Phyllis?
happyfeet (19c1da) — 8/1/2010 @ 3:47 pmHF wants everyone to quit pointing out HF’s mendacious behavior and start saying “I” so he can go about saying “you”. He admitted as much.
John Hitchcock (9e8ad9) — 8/1/2010 @ 3:51 pmyou’re very clever Mr. Hitchcock.
happyfeet (19c1da) — 8/1/2010 @ 3:55 pmLeviticus, on the matter of Ms. Lee, could you remind us on what pressing International/National/Societal issues she has been correct on, I don’t recall too many?
You may not like the way ‘feets refers to some of his targets (I don’t particularly care for his references to the Sarahcuda), but I don’t think it’s a Left/Right thing, just that his targets offend his personal code, as do many of the targets of other commenters here (including, I think, yours).
AD - RtR/OS! (d51e57) — 8/1/2010 @ 4:00 pmCan’t we all just get along?
The simple fact is that some want Schlafly to “make the case without the demagoguing” — but her so-called “demagoguing” is largely accurate, if one pays attention to what she actually said.
Instead, certain allegedly “non-pragmatic” classical liberals (as well as some of the non-classical variety) are twisting her words out of context to make it sound as if she was talking about things she wasn’t talking about. She was not talking about motivations for divorcing, but motivations for voting a certain way.
Now that I have tried to redirect the focus to what I posted about, you can discuss that, or go back to insulting each other. I would obviously prefer you do the former.
Patterico (c218bd) — 8/1/2010 @ 4:07 pmpeople who don’t marry (or, I would add, are not allowed to marry) are equally more likely to be dependent on the state when they are old
They are not “equally more likely”. Single women with children are much more likely to be dependent on the state than are single people who don’t marry but have no children. Because they are much more likely to be poor.
The same is somewhat true for single men with children, but that’s a tiny set of people.
I’d think that a real “fiscal conservative” would not need to be told this.
Subotai (721472) — 8/1/2010 @ 4:09 pmOf course, twisting her words allows one to pose as being on the side of single mothers. If such a pose — seeking out a clap on the back from single mothers, as it were — is more important than discussing Schlafly’s actual statements . . . who am I to stand in the way?
Patterico (c218bd) — 8/1/2010 @ 4:09 pmPatterico, exactly and I’ve always wondered at those who deny the reality of economic incentives to pretend to be “defending” someone. As though denying the reality of the universe in order to feel better about oneself actually altered reality.
SPQR (26be8b) — 8/1/2010 @ 4:13 pmlet’s try using more I statements
You mean like, “I think that Sherrod is a reactionary bigoted old crone who uses creepy racist hootchie logic”?
I think it’s possible to convey my disagreement with the woman without sinking all the way to your level.
Subotai (721472) — 8/1/2010 @ 4:15 pmI think she could have been more clear. That she goes on to speak about “subsidizing illegitimacy” suggests to me that what she is talking about does have bearing on the “motive” of the women involved.
When you pair “subsidizing illegitimacy” with the “throw the husbands out” line I think she’s saying that the welfare state is an inducement to illegitimacy. You subsidize what you want more of. And so the women she talks about have evinced a motive in that they’ve responded to an inducement in Phyliss’ view.
She’s saying that welfare is anti-traditional family. Which is fair. But she oversimplifies and I think she does so in an unfortunate way by suggesting that women find welfare preferable to marriage. But as the stats describe at #147 and as you said in the post, only a fraction of welfare mommies are products of divorce, and Mr. G is most likely correct in his suggestion that many of these divorces would not be perforce censured by most conservatives were the details made known.
happyfeet (19c1da) — 8/1/2010 @ 4:25 pmYou are simply wrong, happyfeet. By using the word “motive”, you are trying to imply conscious choices and twist the concept of incentive into being an attack on the women, all to justify your emotional response.
The welfare state decreases the perceived cost of a choice, then it incentivises that choice. That’s the bottom line.
SPQR (26be8b) — 8/1/2010 @ 4:30 pmNow that I have tried to redirect the focus to what I posted about, you can discuss that, or go back to insulting each other. I would obviously prefer you do the former.
always somebody
ColonelHaiku (537db7) — 8/1/2010 @ 4:31 pmtry steer from lowest common
denominator!
When you pair “subsidizing illegitimacy” with the “throw the husbands out” line I think she’s saying that the welfare state is an inducement to illegitimacy.
Gee, ya think?
she oversimplifies and I think she does so in an unfortunate way by suggesting that women find welfare preferable to marriage
A significant minority of women do find welfare preferable to marriage. As evidenced by the significant minority of women who have children, are not married, and are on welfare.
Subotai (721472) — 8/1/2010 @ 4:33 pm“When you reward a certain behaviour, you will get more of it;
AD - RtR/OS! (d51e57) — 8/1/2010 @ 4:36 pmconversly, when you tax a certain behaviour, you will get less of it.”
Well however you interpret it I think it’s fair to say that Phyllis is a deeply deeply cynical person.
It’s the times, yes? We all stand together under this darkling dirty socialist sky and know not what to make of the dreary panorama of fail what unfolds before our eyes. And we sigh like Peggy Noonan and we gather our strength where we can and we borrow our hope from those dwindling stockpiles we thought we’d stashed away for a far more distant time, and we try to be kind to one another.
That’s all we can do really, and it just may be just enough I think.
happyfeet (19c1da) — 8/1/2010 @ 4:41 pmAnd I wholeheartedly disagree with your assessment.
John Hitchcock (9e8ad9) — 8/1/2010 @ 4:49 pm“Leviticus, on the matter of Ms. Lee, could you remind us on what pressing International/National/Societal issues she has been correct on, I don’t recall too many?”
– AD – RtR/OS!
None that I know of, certainly. My point wasn’t to defend Ms. Jackson-Lee – oh my goodness no – but only to point out that this deluge of consternation for happyfeet began only when he began leveling his uniquely phrased criticisms at right-wingers instead of left-wingers.
In sum, I don’t think it’s a Left-Right thing either – not for happyfeet, anyway.
Leviticus (30ac20) — 8/1/2010 @ 4:49 pm“this deluge of consternation for happyfeet began only when he began leveling his uniquely phrased criticisms at right-wingers instead of left-wingers.”
Leviticus – I would argue that the consternation level rises with the misogyny and seeming lack of lack intellectual consistency behind the comments, not a right versus left perspective, at least from my perspective.
How many liberals running for office have come out explicitly in favor of gay marriage versus how many conservatives? Do we have a count?
daleyrocks (940075) — 8/1/2010 @ 5:03 pmoff topic but it’s an amazing and from what I can tell wholly unprovoked act of journalism what the AP has committed surely on accident today
the “editor’s note” is priceless.
happyfeet (19c1da) — 8/1/2010 @ 5:05 pm_________________________________
And so in future I will not support McCain-endorsed losers like Carly and Meg.
I think that is a principled and decidedly unsquishy decision.
It will be quite squishy if you vote for the liberal/Democrat alternative or some marginal Third-Party candidate—who, unless they’re hard-core rightwing, will be squishy in his or her own way.
Team R’s “leadership” on the gay marriage issue is DOMA which is one of the gayer laws ever passed I think.
You’re a set of contradictions, hf. You apparently have a soft spot in your heart for homosexuality (or at least gay marriage), yet you slam the “Defense of Marriage Act” by using “gay” in a pejorative way.
However, I will say that many people, regardless of whether they’re leftwing or right (or in-between) — and even if they admire a politically correct climate — do feel a twinge of disdain (if not disgust) for homosexuality.
IOW, most parents won’t proclaim “I saw my son kissing another boy in high school today and I thought ‘how cute’!” Most dads in particular (unless they’re bi) definitely will not blurt out “thatta boy!” when learning his son is making out with the high school quarterback instead of the hot (female) cheerleader.
Mark (411533) — 8/1/2010 @ 5:09 pmActually, I have never thought “hootchie” and such were great words, independent of partisan affiliation. But I am not cool and edgey.
Eric Blair (98e6d0) — 8/1/2010 @ 5:15 pmHappyFrum person
ColonelHaiku (537db7) — 8/1/2010 @ 5:19 pmneed to do research and read
about great lady
Schlafly is furthest
ColonelHaiku (537db7) — 8/1/2010 @ 5:21 pmthing from cynical you show
total lack of facts
Mr. buttons gave me a lot of her bio she’s a neat lady and smart but you know what I think? I think she’s a little on the dogmatic side.
happyfeet (19c1da) — 8/1/2010 @ 5:21 pmby suggesting that women find welfare preferable to marriage.
Actually, if anything, Schlafly isn’t tough or explicit enough about how sloppy and lazy socio-cultural norms have become in modern society. She should have said that the large safety net created over the past 40-plus years makes the idea of shacking up with a guy for a short while, having his kids, then parting company with him, far more easier than ever before.
However, it is kind of a chicken-or-egg matter since do-your-own-thang behavior will occur no matter what. But there is no question that the government patting such people on the head makes poor decisionmaking less of a problem than before. (One girl to another: “My friend had her babies before her no-good, SOB boyfriend walked out on them. But she at least can apply for food stamps and other benefits!!”)
Mark (411533) — 8/1/2010 @ 5:22 pm“little of bio”
ColonelHaiku (537db7) — 8/1/2010 @ 5:23 pmnot do justice spend some time
and learn about her
dont go away mad
ColonelHaiku (537db7) — 8/1/2010 @ 5:26 pmjust open mind go away
educated man
“I would argue that the consternation level rises with the misogyny and seeming lack of lack intellectual consistency behind the comments, not a right versus left perspective, at least from my perspective.”
– daleyrocks
Then where was it when he was referring to Sheila Jackson Lee as “hateful hateful hateful raunchy blinkered dirty socialist skeezer”? The “shtick” isn’t new – it’s been around for a while. It’s just that it was directed at liberals in its earlier manifestations. So… no harm, no foul? Or something? Not that “the schtick” is any worse than half the things that get said in quasi-jest about political opponents, on this blog or any other, which makes the seemingly manufactured sense of outrage on this particular topic somewhat baffling.
“Actually, I have never thought “hootchie” and such were great words, independent of partisan affiliation. But I am not cool and edgey.”
– Eric Blair
Yeah? Then why didn’t you complain about them when they were trained at liberals? They can’t be too bad, right?
…
…
…
Really, they’re not. Are we really going to pretend that “hootchie” is worth 218 comments of consternation?
Maybe after you guys start getting your panties in a bunch every time JD says “douchenozzle” or “twatwaffle” or some such, I’ll take this whole thing a little more seriously.
Leviticus (30ac20) — 8/1/2010 @ 5:45 pmWe all stand together under this darkling dirty socialist sky
Do we? You have yet to explain your position on the topic of welfare for single mothers. Your unhinged ranting about Schlafly sort of suggests that you think it’s a good thing, but you’ve never spelled out your answer in black and white. Why don’t you do that now?
Subotai (721472) — 8/1/2010 @ 5:53 pmLeviticus, I’ve found happyfeet to be less than coherent even when I can figure out the target of its ire.
SPQR (26be8b) — 8/1/2010 @ 5:56 pmColonel only hope
ColonelHaiku (537db7) — 8/1/2010 @ 5:56 pmleviticus not kiss his
mother with that mouth
A reminder:
AD - RtR/OS! (d51e57) — 8/1/2010 @ 5:58 pmPhyllis Schlafly has been persona non grata with the Left since she practically single-handedly defeated ratification of the Equal Rights Amendment (ERA).
That put her on the same plane with the Left, as Richard Nixon re Alger Hiss.
Really, they’re not. Are we really going to pretend that “hootchie” is worth 218 comments of consternation?
It’s a slow news day?
AD - RtR/OS! (d51e57) — 8/1/2010 @ 5:59 pmdon’t stop make it pop dj blow my speakas up I think
happyfeet (19c1da) — 8/1/2010 @ 6:00 pmdon’t give one fuck ’bout
Leviticus (30ac20) — 8/1/2010 @ 6:00 pmwhat ColonelHaiku say
about my comments
Also, I was only quoting things other people have said on this blog on a fairly regular basis.
Leviticus (30ac20) — 8/1/2010 @ 6:01 pmWhy don’t you do that now?
I already did that on another blog elsewheres. I will copy it here for you
happyfeet (19c1da) — 8/1/2010 @ 6:09 pmAre we really going to pretend that “hootchie” is worth 218 comments of consternation?
Saying “hootchie” is not hf’s problem. It’s the passive-aggressive crapola which is so very tedious. If hf wants to be rude, crude, and obnoxious that’s fine with me. (As long as its fine with the site owner) It’s the way he combines being rude, crude and obnoxious with an air of injured innocence if he gets his own attitude reflected back to him which grates on people.
And of course he tends to threadjack any thread he appears on. Has he said anything at all on the topic here? As a reminder, the topic here is not Schlafly, but the consequences of welfare programs in creating fatherless households.
Subotai (721472) — 8/1/2010 @ 6:09 pmI already did that on another blog elsewheres. I will copy it here for you
Can you rewrite that all in English? I don’t know half the words you use.
Subotai (721472) — 8/1/2010 @ 6:11 pmLeviticus, I know you don’t like me and think I am unfair. But I have never approved of insulting people, and I never have moderated that position on the basis of partisanship. You will disagree, and that is your right. But you are incorrect in your judgement of me. Civility is not weakness. But you have a nice rude image of me and that is your right. I haven’t battled with you in a long time, and I won’t start now. I hope you can agree that calling women “hootchies” is inappropriate. That isn’t a D versus R versus I issue. Peace be upon you.
Eric Blair (61528e) — 8/1/2010 @ 6:14 pm“Then where was it when he was referring to Sheila Jackson Lee as “hateful hateful hateful raunchy blinkered dirty socialist skeezer”?”
Leviticus – Is there something incorrect about his description of Rep. Lee?
I think if you juxtapose his fact deprived comments regarding Shirley Sherrod with those regarding P-Schlaf you will have a better flavor of my sentiments, but I appreciate you joining the argument late.
daleyrocks (940075) — 8/1/2010 @ 6:14 pmmortgage interest is a deduction not a credit so that was just wrong, that part
happyfeet (19c1da) — 8/1/2010 @ 6:15 pmIt’s the way he combines being rude, crude and obnoxious with an air of injured innocence if he gets his own attitude reflected back to him
Sort of like “lovie”, or whatever it’s calling itself these days.
AD - RtR/OS! (d51e57) — 8/1/2010 @ 6:15 pmwhy does everybody keep putting a t in hoochies that is neither parsimonious nor correct
happyfeet (19c1da) — 8/1/2010 @ 6:16 pm“don’t stop make it pop dj blow my speakas up I think”
she’s a brick house, mighty mighty, letting it all hang out
daleyrocks (940075) — 8/1/2010 @ 6:17 pmit’s hoochie as in hoochie mama or hoochie coochie
happyfeet (19c1da) — 8/1/2010 @ 6:18 pm“So let’s pursue that as opposed to pronouncing judgment on all the single ladies all the single ladies cause he had his turn and now he’s gonna learn.”
feets – Once again, you missed the point. She’s passing judgement on the MAN, not the womyn.
daleyrocks (940075) — 8/1/2010 @ 6:21 pmI guess I have to repeat this question to hf.
You have yet to explain your position on the topic of welfare for single mothers. Your unhinged ranting about Schlafly sort of suggests that you think it’s a good thing, but you’ve never spelled out your answer in black and white. Why don’t you do that now?
And when I say “why don’t you do that now” I don’t mean respond with yet another illiterate incoherent off-topic rant about much you dislike Schlafly. I mean explain your position on the topic of welfare for single mothers.
Subotai (721472) — 8/1/2010 @ 6:24 pmshe really doesn’t talk about the husband at all though… he was “thrown out” in her formulation and I would concede I missed the point but for her next-day clarification…
her focus is on Obama’s fiendishly clever scheme to use welfares to suborn otherwise proper married conservative total package womens and entice them into the clutches of our dirty socialist overlords.
happyfeet (19c1da) — 8/1/2010 @ 6:26 pmher focus is on Obama’s fiendishly clever scheme to use welfares to suborn otherwise proper married conservative total package womens and entice them into the clutches of our dirty socialist overlords.
Has anyone ever told you that your habit of making shit up is sort of annoying?
Subotai (721472) — 8/1/2010 @ 6:31 pmI don’t think the government needs to be in the welfare business for hardly anybody. I thought I made that clear in #227.
Limited government is teh awesome. But Schlaffles I suspect is a lot happy to use government to subsidize the things she wants more of and to tax the things she wants less of. She seems creepily fascinated by the ways government can be used to compel if you ask me.
happyfeet (19c1da) — 8/1/2010 @ 6:32 pmEric Blair,
It seems like I have to keep saying this, but I don’t not like you. And I don’t think you’re rude – I think you’re quite polite, more often than I am for sure. But I’m also not particularly offended by the word “hoochie” – I guess I’m a product of our morally dilapidated public school system.
The point is, I’d like to bury the hatchet at some point, because I don’t want you to assume that every disagreement I have with you traces back to some earlier grudge, and peace be upon you as well, and don’t read any particular vitriol into my defense of happyfeet on this particular issue, and I’m sorry but I think you’re being oversensitive re: the use of the word “hoochie”, and call me a cad if you must.
The point is: hatchet = buried, at least in my book. I don’t even remember exactly what the original dispute was about, but I know I insulted you in your professional capacity at some point in the exchange, and I’m sorry for that and I apologize for it.
Leviticus (30ac20) — 8/1/2010 @ 6:37 pmI don’t think the government needs to be in the welfare business for hardly anybody. I thought I made that clear in #227.
The only thing which you made clear in 227 was that you don’t like Schlafly.
Schlaffles I suspect is a lot happy to use government to subsidize the things she wants more of and to tax the things she wants less of. She seems creepily fascinated by the ways government can be used to compel if you ask me.
Will you get around to offering specifics to back up these charges at some point, or are you just here to share your creepy fascination with Schlafly to us?
Can you answer a simple yes or no question without appending a lot of garbled bullshit to it? Do you oppose giving welfare to unwed mothers, yes or no?
Subotai (721472) — 8/1/2010 @ 6:48 pm“her focus is on Obama’s fiendishly clever scheme to use welfares to suborn otherwise proper married conservative total package womens and entice them into the clutches of our dirty socialist overlords.”
This is the song that never ends.
daleyrocks (940075) — 8/1/2010 @ 6:57 pmMany years ago, my daughter tried to get help with day care for her 2 year old, as she was in the process of getting divorced and wasn’t getting any help from him. They told her she couldn’t get any help because she was still married. The day care was $85 a week. As young couple with 2 children were pay $10 per week per child. My daugher asked why and they said because they weren’t married. Just one example, but still an example.
And this old biddy thinks happyfeet is a Donkey in RINO clothes.
PatAZ (9d1bb3) — 8/1/2010 @ 7:04 pmcorrection: A young couple … were paying
PatAZ (9d1bb3) — 8/1/2010 @ 7:06 pmShould have read before I sent.
Three cheers for Leviticus’s comment.
Patterico (118d00) — 8/1/2010 @ 7:44 pmAnd I missed #241: thank you very much, Leviticus. I have always maintained that you are consistent in your beliefs, and hold yourself to high standards. I don’t need to tell you that is rare.
I appreciate the reminder from Patterico on this subject.
Eric Blair (c8876d) — 8/1/2010 @ 7:50 pmthe idea that an individual not the state or a handful of religious freaks should decide who they will marry seems pretty basic.
Where do you get this “handful” stuff? MOST AMERICANS oppose gay marriage. Haven’t you figured that out yet?
Also the government HAS TO DECIDE WHAT KIND OF MARRIAGES IT WILL RECOGNIZE. Is that too complicated for you? That’s why this is not an individual liberty issue. If a church wants to marry gays no one can stop them. But the state doesn’t have to recognize it.
You have this narrative that is impenetrable to basic logic and facts.
Gerald A (2b94cf) — 8/1/2010 @ 8:00 pmMaybe so, but the Supreme Court never recognized it. See Reynolds v. United States, Murphy v. Ramsey, and Davis v. Beason.
Senator Robert Byrd made a great speech about DOMA .
Michael Ejercito (249c90) — 8/1/2010 @ 8:07 pm“Where is the Democrats’ repeal of DOMA?”
Michael Ejercito – Team D is obviously a party of religious freaks.
daleyrocks (940075) — 8/1/2010 @ 8:21 pmWow, I read almost this entire thread. I must be coming down with something. I had a root canal last week that is still hurting, maybe that’s what made this comment thread seem so pleasant. (Gosh, and I’m using ‘I’ messages too!)
Hardly anybody except Patterico got back to the subject – the question of why in the world 70% of unmarried women voted for O. (NB: that was unmarried “women” not unmarried “mothers”.) Surely, subtracting all of the ad hominem, Schlafly’s reasoning is a likely as anyone else’s.
Gesundheit (594b29) — 8/2/2010 @ 6:15 am