More tolerance from the Left

So the blood-pressure machine at the grocery store indicated the blood pressure is on the high side.  Unwisely, I navigated the ol' browser over to the verbal diarrhea of KayInMaine and her monument to tolerance, White Noise Insanity.  Wherever the blood pressure was, I'm sure it spiked when I saw this page:

Huh. That’s news to me. If I remember correctly in all the times I’ve tuned into to listen to this right wing forked tongued bozo, she’s spewing vicious vile lies about everyone except her right wing rabid slutty Wall Street whore worshipers! Even Bill O’Reilly of Fart News once said of Laura that she is an idealogue and is hooked up to an IV kool aid drip.

I noticed that Kay didn't delineate any example of the so-called "lies".  I've also noticed that Bill O'reilly is only a hate-filled right-wing conservative when the Left needs to slander him.  Other times, they acknowledge his commitment to balance.

Remember the time when one of Ingraham’s fill-ins called Michelle Obama "trash in the White House"? I thought the right wing of America always respected the office of the presidency and the First Family? Nope! They’re nothing but a bunch of sluts and whores for the Medicare Killer Billionaire’s group! By the way, did her fill-in get fired? Nope!

The fill-in was Tammy Bruce, and did you actually read what she said?  How is the disrespect to the "office of the presidency and the First Family"?  Funny, I've never heard of such an office.  I have heard of the Office of the President of the United States, but there is no corresponding Office of the First Lady.  At least, not one provided for in the Constitution.  The fact of the matter is this First Lady has acted as though being married to the President entitles her to some sort of Constitutional office.  The woman has waged a hypocritical war on the food and beverage industry.  Bruce was correct in characterizing Michelle Obama as "trash" in regards to her tendency to talk down to people in this area.  Other First Ladies?  Nancy Reagan worked with people with disabilities, particularly veterans.  Barbara Bush worked for reducing illiteracy.  Laura Bush continued that trend, along with education (she was a teacher, after all) and bringing awareness to the plight of oppressed women and at-risk youth.  Hillary Clinton?  Well, she faded from the limelight, much like Michelle did for a little while when she adopted an attitude that her office was a Constitutional one.

Remember when she wrote a piece over on the Huffington Post in the voice of Michelle Obama? Completely racist in tone!

Racist?  Pointing out Michelle Obama's "Marie Antoinette" moment in wearing $540 sneakers when going to a food bank in 2009, and then making the comment about there being plenty of other, non-oil-soaked beaches where the peasants-- er, "American people" can vacation, especially those living in the Gulf Coast.  You know, the ones who has just had their livelihoods destroyed?

Remember the time when Ingraham implied that Nancy Pelosi was a cheap whore?

 Oh, I'm sorry, are you offended by the fact that Nancy Pelosi essentially bribed and cajoled members of Congress into supporting the largely-unpopular health care "reform" bill?  Ingraham said Pelosi had done everything short of selling her body.  Sorry to burst your bubble here, Kay, but politics and prostitution differ only in one important regard:  With prostitution, the customer is more likely to get his/her money's worth when he/she is getting screwed!

And then there was the time the slut called Meaghan McCain ‘fat’ while using a Valley Girl voice. Is that being respectful? Nope!

Ingraham was wrong to make fun of McCain because of her weight, but making fun of McCain because of her vacuous, mind-numbingly-stupid political commentary that is given weight (no pun intended) because her dad is the GOP media darling when he attacks those in his own party.  The Valley-Girl voice?  Par for the course.  Meghan McCain is, after all, a moron.

And don’t forget the time Ingraham started to take her clothes off on O’Reilly’s show! LOL Seriously, what kind of respectful journalist would do that for ratings? Only sluts do that (especially the Wall Street whores!).

Oh my god, she took off her sweater jacket!  Cue the stripper music!  Oh, and Kay, Ingraham is not a journalist, she's a talk radio host and political pundit.  Based on Kay's comment, if the studio Ingraham was in was too hot, I guess she's supposed to just sit there and bake.

I notice Kay mixes up sluts and whores here.  For the uninformed, whores have sex for money, sluts have sex because they can't get enough!  And before you castigate the "Wall Street whores", Kay, bear in mind they tend to donate to the Democrats more than the GOP.

Anyway, Ed Schultz has apologized to Satan’s Disciple for letting the truth slip out and he’s been suspended from his show to give himself time to think up better adjectives to describe ole Laura with...

Amusing to hear an avowed Christian-bashing Atheist refer to someone as "Satan's Disciple."  Oh, and Ed originally equivocated his actions on his radio show, presumably before MSNBC execs realized that attacking a breast-cancer survivor and Catholic, church-going, adoptive mother of two was pure poison for their already-basement ratings.

Ed, if you need help, let me know. The rabid right wing has been after me for years and calling me a ’slut, cunt, bitch, whore, lesbian, asshole’ is something they do weekly! 

Given your predilection for hyperbole, you'll pardon me if I don't believe a word you say.  OK, I'd buy that someone has called you a bitch.  You certainly act that way, though it doesn't justify someone sinking to your level.

I’ve got lots of adjectives for you to use that have been given the okay to be used by the trolls because they use them so often! See? I’d be glad to help you.

So if the "trolls" on your blog (which I'd argue are the commenters you agree with) use these terms in the highly-anonymous environment of the Internet, logic follows that Ed Schultz should be able to use the terms on radio and TV and sign his name to them, huh?  My God you are stupid.

Laura Ingraham is a phucking asshole!

Either Kay has proof that Ingraham has had intercourse with a player from the Philadelphia Phillies, had intercourse while under pharmaceuticals, or had "machine intercourse" (up until hearing this term, I had considered myself "worldly").

Or Kay just can't fucking spell.


 

God, give it a rest already!

So, an acquaintance of mine cites the infinite wisdom of Stephen Colbert:

EFL:   "It's easy to deny gays equal rights. What is going to be difficult is explaining that to our grandchildren." -Stephen Colbert

to which another acquaintance replies:

JC: :) Love him & Jon Stewart both. I keep thinking if people were allowed to vote on whether african-americans got the same civil rights in the 60s, that the results would have been the same as putting gay marraige to a vote today. Sometimes, leadership isn't popular, but is necessary.

This from a woman who has for years been the head of a non-profit in Minnesota.  I've heard more than one person describe her stewardship of said organization as "tyrannical."  I've encountered her "leadership" style:  It's a rare form of bullying.

I will refrain from pointing out the percentages of Republicans who voted for the Civil Rights Act of 1964, versus the percentage of Democrats.  But I will point out the huge non sequitor:  Gay marriage, or marriage of any kind, is NOT A CIVIL RIGHT.  It's a religious institution.  Regrettably, the line between civil "marriage" and the religious sacrament of marriage has been blurred, and I will concede the couples out there with biologically-incompatible genitalia have a point:  Separate the two flavors of institutions, give the homos their frickin' benefits, and let's just shut up about the issue!

SL: Now the effort is to only allow those with photo ID's the right to vote-how far back in time do we really need to go? Womens suffrage-maybe American Indians shouldn't get to vote anymore either???

Oh.  My.  God.  Please tell me you were drunk or hit your head when your scribbled out this piece of shit.  Do yourself a favor, SL, and get your "news" (aka what a reasonable person would call "talking points") from a source other than The Huffington Post or MSNBC.  Just because you don't see the potential for fraud within Minnesota's "fantastic" system just means you're not capable of devious thought.  Good for you.  In the meantime, ask some election judges from the last election held in MN about the large groups of college students who got people to vouch for their eligibility to vote in MN. True, only two students are under investigation, but there's an old saying:  "Where there's smoke, there's fire."


The reality is that voter fraud is damn difficult to prove.  Under the current laws, you pretty much have to have the person confess of their own free will, since voting is done by secret ballot.  And if the Left were so damned worried about disenfranchisement, why don't they worry about the nullification of my vote by an ineligible voter?!

EFL: We've got so far to go....

True, EFL, so far to go before you and your like-minded peers consider for the briefest of possible moments that the other side is not evil, and they just might have a few good ideas.

So Thursday night on TV, ABC aired the episode of Grey's Anatomy where gay couple Drs. Callie Torres and Arizona Robbins get "married".

Of course, it's not legal, and that was kind of the point that Grey's Anatomy Sondra Rhimes was making, I believe.

But Rhimes couldn't just stop there:  Nope, we had to hear about how Robbins and Torres couldn't get a priest to marry them, and they had to search high and low for a minister who would perform the ceremony.

* boo hoo *

Gee, wonder why?  Could it be that you're expecting a religious official to disregard the religion that ordained him or her?  Or expect the religion you're a willing member of to just conform to your viewpoint so you could feel better about yourself?

Marriage is a religious institution.  The gay marriage proponents have made an interesting point, however:  If we are to recognize marriage as the religious institution that it is, then a secular society can no longer sanction them.

But what we will put in place of the religious institution of marriage?  Some sort of secularly-recognized status?

Ooh, I get it!  Civil unions!

Give the gay community federally-recognized civil unions with the same rights and privileges as marriage, and let's drop this silly issue.

And what gay-marriage promotion would be incomplete without the obligatory Christian-bashing?

You see, the character of Callie Torres is Catholic.  And her mother had, well, issues:

• She didn't want to hold her granddaughter, a child born out of wedlock, going so far as to call her a bastard.  Which is what you call a child born to unmarried parents.
• She astutely pointed out that the wedding wasn't legal.  She went on to state how the whole thing had an element of fakery to it.
• To top it off, she was concerned her daughter wouldn't get into Heaven.

Well, yeah.  That's her religion.  Her religion informs her that the marriage is wrong.  The whole thing clearly made her uncomfortable.  And I get that weddings mean the bride (or brides, in this case) pretty much gets to be treated like a princess for the day while everyone else endures some discomfort.  But did Callie have a reasonable expectation that her mother, a deeply religious woman, would turn her back on her faith, as Callie did, to sate her daughter's narcissism?  That's a pretty tall order.

Finding offense...

Everything is a matter of perspective, I suppose.  a former colleague of mine has this picture and comment on her Facebook status:

 

Found this as I was looking through the coupons from the Sunday paper. How is this not really, really insulting and offensive?? Try as I might, I can't figure out how the message of this ad could be interpreted positively, especially by working moms. Great job, P&G.

Followed by a series of comments from her like-minded friends, and a comment by her:

Apparently! "In case you've forgotten, moms, Mr. Clean is here to remind you what your 'real' job is. And that bathtub had better be SPARKLING by Sunday."

Normally, I'd just hit the "Remove" button on the post and chalk it up to my former colleague spending too much time in a Bohemian place and state of mind. It's sad that her reading comprehension skills have suffered. The ad doesn't say what the moms' "real" job is. It says "get back to the job that really matters."  It's an innocuous ad unless you're prepared to take offense.  Remember, the Left is always telling us how NUANCED their thinking is!

In this case, P&G isn't insinuating that a working mom's real job is cleaning the house.  It shows the mom cleaning with her young daughter.  She's being a mom.  That's the "job" that "really matters."

I suppose after the ad with the little boy with hot pink toenail polish, the liberals think they deserve a "freebie".  I can see where the knee-jerk reaction would be to take offense, and perhaps P&G should've paid for a few more words to clarify that moms can be something besides moms, but being moms is the the job that matters.

UPDATE:  I decided to leave a polite comment:

####, I have a slightly different take on this ad: It's showing the mom spending time with the daughter. I don't think it's insinuating that's what the mom's real job is. Moms can be something besides moms, but the ad is stating that b...eing the mom is the job that "really matters." It's a cleaning product, so they're gonna show mom and daughter cleaning. It's analogous to showing a father and son working on a car in a Father's Day ad for Valvoline. Granted, the wording's vague.

If nothing else, I was able to get people in the thread thinking that there are different ways to see the ad.  One FB friend:

That's just what moms want to do, spend their time with their kids cleaning. Hell no! If they wanted to show parents spending quality time with their kids it should be reading together, playing ball, on a family vacation, etc etc. To me, this ad screams "a woman's most important job is to keep their house clean to to teach their daughters how to clean as well"

Mind you, I can't do anything about their reading comprehension. Once again, there is a world of difference between "most important job" and "job that really matters."  The first statement implies moms are supposed to do housekeeping first and foremost.  What the ad is talking about is that being a mom is the job that really matters-- to the kids.  And being a mom is not about cooking, cleaning, or anything else.  It's about bonding with your children.

Fortunately, the author of the thread understands what I'm getting at:

###: I agree, that's probably what they're going for. However, the implications are just bad. There are LOTS of other things the mom and daughter could be doing to spend quality time together -- cleaning the bathroom (and the implication th...at that's what moms should do on Mother's Day) is probably not one of them. I disagree that this is analogous to the dad working on the car with the son -- a better analogy could be gardening or scrapbooking. Cleaning is work, not a hobby.

And after she reads the rest of my comment:

Also, I understand that they're selling a cleaning product and not gardening products or board games or other 'family fun' products. As such, a much better message would have been something like "hey kids, let mom take a load off and clean the bathroom yourselves." Not, "hey Mom, clean the bathroom on Mother's Day to show your kids how much you love them."

 Huh?  Where is she getting that?  And by the way, showing the kids cleaning the bathroom while the mom takes a load off is going to get you into trouble with people who have no sense of humor about child labor.

To be fair, one of the other FB friends on the thread whom I estimated to have an I.Q. in the Cro-Magnon range actually produced this bit of logic:

I disagree with that, #####. I would find working on the car and gardening equal to cleaning the house. It's work, not a hobby, —something I don't want to do if I don't have to. The context of that woman cleaning is in the eye of the beholder. Just as an ad of a man working on car would be the same.

 Looking at the thread, I see the distribution:  Males see nothing sinister about the ad, women find it offensive.

Glad I'm single.  I can picture myself going 10 rounds with Tawny over this.