“It’s the worst case of Stockholm Syndrome I’ve seen since Patty Hearst.”
Shorter Elizabeth Price Foley: “I’m really sick and tired of Obama ‘pandering’ to women by such dishonest tactics as ‘urging that their rights be protected’. Give me Mitt Romney and his more honest ‘women (who are poorer than me) should be forced by state coercion to carry their pregnancies to term’ and ‘a woman’s place is at home cooking dinner so who cares if women face discrimination at their phoney-baloney jobs’ any day. And, hey, you’re Instapundit readers, so you’re dumb enough to swallow the ol’ ‘overruling Roe is no big deal‘ routine, right?”
What? That blurt is really dumb.
Though I guess if your world view is that everything Obama says is a lie, it makes a lot of sense. Through that lens, you come to realize that everything coming out of his mouth must be a manipulation.
Otherwise, you’re left looking at Republicans want to do and listening to what they say about contraception and abortion. Apparently, she does not want to do that.
Wait, that was through Instapundit AND a shorter?
Instie did not write it himself.
Jennifer Rubin got a 2nd job and a Galtian pseudonym?
WOW. That is some weapons grade stupid. I think that qualifies as a “please do not stop beating me” moment.
Hmm…
Mitt Romney’s solution to gender discrimination in the workplace is tax cuts and deregulation.
Weird! He would never propose that solution to any other problems.
I notice that this sort of “logic”–that the most important thing you can do for a minority is lower taxes, deregulate, the usual agenda–is also used by organizations like GOProud. That’s how they resolve the contradiction that the popular kids that they so admire treat them like dirt at every opportunity. I don’t know how they can stand being around the level of hatred that they get from the Republican Party, but I suppose it pales in comparison to their self-hatred.
I had not previously had the pleasure of reading anything by Elizabeth Price Foley, so I Googled and discovered that after going to Harvard Law and working for Ron Wyden, she read the country’s founding documents, which turned her like magic into a tea party-championing “intellectual” who explains how President Obama showed us his racist “Billy Joel “Stranger”-type freaky face.”
http://pjmedia.com/instapundit/152485/
Wow.
“Billy Joel “Stranger”-type freaky face” sounds like a phrase Wonkette would come up with to make fun of someone else’s writing. I can’t believe somebody actually wrote that seriously.
So it’s true they don’t teach the Constitution at Harvard Law? Now I’m voting for Scott Brown.
I guess she didn’t get into Tribe’s class.
Or even Charles Fried’s. Who is apparently some kind of leftist whackaloon or something.
She is right though that calling out racial injustice as something to fix is disrespecting racists who want to perpetuate it.
Meanwhile Romney wants everyone to be free to work for subsistence wages paid in vouchers to the company store. We’ll get there, someday.
I think we can all agree that Kanye West shoulders the lion’s share of the blame for Katrina.
an uneducated, uncouth rapper
Ahma let you finish, Elizabeth Price Foley, but Kanye West was raised by his mother, who was chair of the English department at Chicago State University. He attended classes at the American Academy of Art and Chicago State before starting his musical career. He started a foundation that works on keeping black and Latino kids in school. So stick it up your jumper, as the kids say.
. . . They don’t? Oh.
I did not know Kanye West’s mother was a Professor of English. I’m going to admit I’m pretty sure my view of his upbringing as a black child of a single mother in Chicago who turned out a rapper…
may have been a bit racist.
Oh wow, I knew that Kayne West was cool but this is absolutely awesome. He might qualify as one of the most intellectual rappers of all time. This is really great stuff.
She’s also right that having a minority racial identity is something wacky and fun, like brightly-colored polka dots.
Everyone knows that people of color are just like Muppets!
Uneducated, uncouth rapper, huh?
Hey racists…those dogwhistles…WE CAN ALL HEAR YOU.
I always thought this odd. Listening now to classic rock I heard when I was growing up, I’m struck by how dirty or provocative a lot of it is. It makes me feel a lot better about rap, knowing a previous generation just said these overtly sexual or violent things in a more singing manner.
As people pointed out in a previous thread, this does make sense if you accept Romney’s premises that
(a) Women are the least employable group, the labour force of last resort;
(b) this is the way it should be; and
(c) magic beans will make the economy grow.
In fairness to Romney, he once saw an ultrasound of the economy where it looked just like a magic bean.
Romney is trying to speak to women honestly, not pander to them.
Binders is Freudian, I think.
Has anyone considered he made the gaff of all gaffes? In HBO’s Big Love the Cult Leaders of the Compound kept albums of available young women with pics and vital stats. Did they call them Binders? If so, then he is being honest with women.
Binding, sealing. Seems like Mormon B&D.
They called it the “joy book” if I recall. They contained pictures of faces, hands and feet, as if they were adding additional cows to their herd.
“Joy Books.” (About halfway down. Via Wonkette.)
What’s the old saying?
A woman voting for Mitt Romney is like a chicken voting for Colonel Sanders.
Wengler: I am so stealing this. Thanks.
This, I believe, is the advice former Congressman JC Watts got from his father, about blacks voting for Republicans. It did not deter him, though.
If you step back and think about it, Obama says “yes” to both 1 & 2, meaning he believes (in typical progressive fashion), that there is one-size-fits-all to this controversial topic, and it’s his way or the highway. Romney’s position is the opposite, suggesting that, given the high degree of disagreement among Americans (and yes, women, too), a one-size-fits-all federal mandate isn’t the proper solution.
Mandating that insurance companies provide coverage for contraception is a nice one size fits all mandate. Each woman can choose if she wants to use it or not. I think anyone who is not a moron would believe that the choice should be made by the individual, not a creepy, superstitious cleric.
Lotsa morons out there, I tell you. Infringing on “liberteh!”
Personally, how does one reason with someone who thinks that allowing contraception to be covered, whether by the explicit plan of the Institution or via the by-pass route of accessiblity within Obamacare, is infrining on Religious Liberty?
How does one reason with someone who thinks a pharmacist/nurse conscience objection over dispensing birth control (hormonal therapy) has anything to do with the benefit of the patient?
Seeing two prescriptions for Bob, along with Bob’s other prescriptions may cause harm to Bob — yes, please speak up.
Seeing BC on a prescription pad, then declining? How does the pharmacist know it’s for treating cysts, abnormal bleeding, etc., vs. slutty mcwhore being able to have consequenceless sex?!
The sad reality is those people are lost causes. Smart people realize no one is asking anyone to take BC, simply making an option available. Especially if said Institution receives $$ from the federal tit, then you follow federal rules.
Uterus-American, out.
I don’t even like that the administration was willing to compromise in the least bit. These are the rules, if you don’t like it, feel free to go pound sand. Religious freedom also means freedom from screwball religious dogma and doctrine. I don’t give a shit if Catholics don’t like it. They don’t have to use it. I rather like the idea of shoving it down their poor, oppressed throats, as they so eloquently state it.
Actually, almost every catholic has a rather pragmatic relationship with birth control. Its only the clergy, and mainly the upper levels — the bishops — that are against birth control.
I’m sure they do, but it’s the bullshit artists that seem to be driving the policy these days. They’re influential enough to get the law changed.
Word.
The freak-fest that comes out of the “Infringing Religious Liberteh!” nutteres when you point out that their beloved 1st Amendment also encompasses freedom *from* religion is amusing.
Now, it’s clear to the Rationals that if Principle was so gosh, darn important, they would take the penalty ($$) or no longer accept federal funding.
Yes, the press allowing the Clergy to conflate this with religious liberty is really frustrating. Not surprising, but frustrating.
It’s clear to anyone who has a brain that forcing an employer (not the Church, but the hospitals they administrate!) to provide healthcare that covers contraception is not at all related to forcing people to take contraception.
If you have faith in your members, why would you even care? Obviously since they all must believe what you do, they’re not going to take the birth control!
If you have faith in your members, why would you even care?
Well, but the whole point is that the regulation applies in situations in which employees are not necesarily members of the church. It’s not the nuns who are entitled to birth control coverage, it’s the janitors.
[...] debate. Unsurprisingly some conservatives think that Obama considering women’s issues is just pandering, because it’s not like losing Roe vs. Wade would encourage states to pass even more [...]