Ace of Spades HQ

January 23, 2014

Prepare for a Shock: NBC Reporter, Entire Left Distorts Mike Huckabee Quote on Women
— Ace

Here's Huckabee's actual quote:

So he's saying he doesn't want the government sending a message that women are helpless and need Uncle Sugar buying their birth control pills.

And so now here's relentless progressive shill and part-time reporter Kasie Hunt "reporting" the quote:

Huckabee: Women "helpless without Uncle Sugar coming in and providing them ... birth control because they cannot control their libido"
— Kasie Hunt (@kasie) January 23, 2014

After some pushback for this egregious shilling, she "clarifies." But her clarification is also wrong:

To be clear: Huck says DEMS blv "helpless without Uncle Sugar" giving them birth control because "they cannot control their libido"
— Kasie Hunt (@kasie) January 23, 2014

She's still making it sound like Huck believes "women cannot control their libidos." No, he's saying that's the message the Democratic Party propagates.

Notice how quickly and easily the allegedly unbiased "reporters" of the allegedly "mainstream" media propagate attack lines cooked up by the leftwing agitprop organizations.

Ever see a reporter just sling out something they grabbed from a Hugh Hewitt column?

That said, @drewmtips (who alerted me to this) points out that Huck still isn't helping. Whether the thought is coming from his own mouth, or whether he's ventriloquizing it into Democrats' mouths, he's still making the connection that birth control has something to do with "controlling your libido."

I know this is a popular sentiment among the "Best form of birth control is an aspirin, held between your knees" caucus, but there are a lot of married men and women who do not feel that they should control their libidos with one another (indeed, complaints frequently run in the opposite direction) and would like to sometimes have sex without procreation being among the joys flowing from it.

And people really need to get the hell over this, because I'm tired of hearing it, and I'm at least a political ally of those insisting on this sort of message. I cannot fathom how this relentless claim that Sex is for Babiez, Alwayz, line falls on the ears of people not predisposed to giving the right a break.

It's no different than feminists' eternal war over the cultural preferability of pubic hair. What one does in the privacy of their own home -- whether to have childbirth as the result of sex, or to employ birth control -- is their own prerogative. It's every person's right to not use birth control, if they find it sinful; and it's everyone's right to use it, if they don't find it sinful.

The elevation of strictly personal decisions -- and this is strictly personal; abortion doesn't enter into it, so this is entirely about a woman's decision with no reference to a third party's rights -- into a major political issue is childish and tribalist.

Yes we all have a preferred mode of living. News at 11. The law is not about preferred modes of living, and neither should we make "political issues" about it.

Posted by: Ace at 10:12 AM | Comments (822)
Post contains 523 words, total size 4 kb.

1 Barack Obama is a stuttering clusterf*ck of a malignant traitor.

Posted by: AllenG (DedicatedTenther) Ah, F It. at January 23, 2014 10:15 AM (PYAXX)

2 Hey Ace, so your shocked, shocked I say, that the Dems/Libs/Progressives lie like a rug?

Posted by: Nevergiveup at January 23, 2014 10:15 AM (t3UFN)

3 "That's not a moon"

Posted by: Obi Wan Kenobi at January 23, 2014 10:15 AM (LSDdO)

4 Aren't libel laws supposed to prevent this sort of egregious misquoting? There's no way this is accidental.

Posted by: Long-time Commenter, First-time Reader at January 23, 2014 10:16 AM (pl1y3)

5 Nobody with a brain gives two shits what the MSM says. LIVs and ideologues are another issue altogether.

Posted by: CrotchetyOldJarhead at January 23, 2014 10:16 AM (4Vr+0)

6 The Narrative must be supported at all costs. A little journalistic integrity (stop laughing) is not too high a price to pay!

Posted by: AllenG (DedicatedTenther) Ah, F It. at January 23, 2014 10:16 AM (PYAXX)

7 What's up with the Hugh Hewitt reference?

Posted by: darii at January 23, 2014 10:16 AM (RdrW8)

8 You forgot the 'get this' part.

Posted by: [/i][/b][/u][/s] Tami at January 23, 2014 10:17 AM (bCEmE)

9 Ace; slow down. Take breather so the rest of us can catch up.

Posted by: Bitter Clinger and All That (Unexpurgated Edition) at January 23, 2014 10:17 AM (LSDdO)

10 I don't do the "as a woman" crap often, but as a woman, it is insanely patronizing to hear Dems say that they speak for me when they are pushing everything that I am explicitly and passionately opposed to. Kudos for Huckabee for pushing back against that particularly stupid line of rhetoric. As for the media? Well, what can I say that hasn't been said? They are the enemy.

Posted by: Lauren at January 23, 2014 10:17 AM (hFL/3)

11 Huck has a megaphone, he should force her to issue a no-reservations, public apology.

He won't.

Like we keep saying, they won't stop until they get as good as they give.

Posted by: RoyalOil at January 23, 2014 10:17 AM (VjL9S)

12 does it suprise anyone that
Huckabee

is a dumbass?

Posted by: garfish at January 23, 2014 10:18 AM (dyoHM)

13 So.

Lauren. You're normally disguised as a petite man?

(with divine taste in clothes?)

Posted by: Bitter Clinger and All That (Unexpurgated Edition) at January 23, 2014 10:19 AM (LSDdO)

14 My hatred for the media is stellar.

Posted by: DangerGirl Telecommunications at January 23, 2014 10:19 AM (GufPw)

15 DailyCaller is doing the same thing.

Posted by: Flatbush Joe at January 23, 2014 10:20 AM (ZPrif)

16 Gabe thinks that it was stupid for Huckabee to make this statement? @gabrielmalor 2m Reasonable to think both 1) libtard journos are being willfully stupid about Huck's statement; and 2) Huck pretty stupid to make statement.

Posted by: [/i][/b][/u][/s] Tami at January 23, 2014 10:20 AM (bCEmE)

17 Wait, maybe I read that wrong at DC. Nevermind.

Posted by: Flatbush Joe at January 23, 2014 10:20 AM (ZPrif)

18 You're even misquoting though, ace. He said the Dems want women to believe that "they cannot control their libido or their reproductive system without the help of Government." That second clause is important- the issue isn't just libido- though for unmarried men and women that is an issue. It is also "your reproductive system"- that would be BC, or whatever method you choose not to have a baby while still satisfying your libido. The point isn't "Birth control BAD!!!" The point is, "You don't need the government to take care of it for you- you can buy your own $9.00 prescription."

Posted by: AllenG (DedicatedTenther) Ah, F It. at January 23, 2014 10:20 AM (PYAXX)

19 And I disagree that he isn't helping. Women are offended to being reduced to our reproductive organs. It is embarrassing that we are portrayed as idiots who can't figure out how to scrounge up 4 dollars a month to pay for birth control. If there were some politician saying he "spoke for men" when whining about penis pumps, wouldn't you be happy to hear another sane politician say "I think men are capable of dealing with their sex lives without the input of the government."? I

Posted by: Lauren at January 23, 2014 10:21 AM (hFL/3)

20 And people really need to get the fuck over this, because I'm tired of hearing it, and I'm at least a political ally of those insisting on this sort of message. I cannot fathom how this relentless claim that Sex is for Babiez, Alwayz, line falls on the ears of people not predisposed to giving the right a break. ************ ^ Jezzuz who the hell do you hang out with-- Rose Kennedy!? Really--who the hell says this?

Posted by: Teleprompter Feed Crew at January 23, 2014 10:21 AM (RJMhd)

21 Frankly, I can't get too upset that the ol' huckster's being taken to the wood shed.

(and by some female reporterette. Think that had something to do with his inability to remember that the media ain't your friend?)

He's a fraud and he screwed up the primary in '08. He's another spoiler like Perot. He's in it for the lulz and for the walking away money.

Posted by: Bitter Clinger and All That (Unexpurgated Edition) at January 23, 2014 10:21 AM (LSDdO)

22 If Huck said that "Women are America's greatest resource" the MSM would find a way to accuse of him treating women as a commodity.

Posted by: Mallfly at January 23, 2014 10:22 AM (bJm7W)

23 Posted by: garfish at January 23, 2014 02:18 PM (dyoHM) Reread his statement and tell me what- about the statement- is particularly "dumb ass." I'm not a Huckster fan, but he's not saying what the Dems are claiming he is. He's not even saying what DrewM (via ace) is claiming he is.

Posted by: AllenG (DedicatedTenther) Ah, F It. at January 23, 2014 10:22 AM (PYAXX)

I dunno if I agree with Drew. While that's a possible lne of attack, it seems to me the Huckster is saying that Dems are claiming women would just be getting pregnant at the drop of the hat without gov't birth control.

But it is the Huckster, so Drew's reasoning is pretty sound.

Posted by: Austin in TX at January 23, 2014 10:22 AM (lKVc4)

25 David Burge ‏@iowahawkblog Internet won for the day Professor Snape ‏@_Snape_ Honestly.. pic.twitter.com/oEEOlB3zc0

Posted by: Flatbush Joe at January 23, 2014 10:22 AM (ZPrif)

26 "(with divine taste in clothes?)" I'd say that I'm fabulous, but right now I'm wearing a 3 year old Texas Rangers t-shirt so....

Posted by: Lauren at January 23, 2014 10:22 AM (hFL/3)

27 The Greatest threat facing this nation is one party control of the media. It is what gave us Obama, and it is what gave us a Democrat majority in the Senate.

Posted by: D-Lamp at January 23, 2014 10:23 AM (bb5+k)

28 Your last three paragraphs were a self-indulgent, egregious whine.

Bitch about socons when you have to. But an adult wouldn't stir up a fight for no reason like this.

Posted by: Emperor of Icecream at January 23, 2014 10:23 AM (ZMzpb)

29 You guys are a hoot. Not a peep when I mention this but when Ace does... you guys are all over it like it was bacon.

Posted by: soothsayer, with arms akimbo at January 23, 2014 10:23 AM (4N6Pk)

30 >>>And people really need to get the fuck over this, because I'm tired of hearing it, and I'm at least a political ally of those insisting on this sort of message. I cannot fathom how this relentless claim that Sex is for Babiez, Alwayz, line falls on the ears of people not predisposed to giving the right a break. it comes up. I don't know if Huck just made an error in speaking (it happens, naturally) or if he really intended to suggest the Control Your Libidos line, but yeah, I hear the Control Your Libidos line a fair amount, including in these comments. What's that guy, the rich guy, Freisz? Something like that? He offered the "aspirin between your knees" line, and it's been repeated approvingly here.

Posted by: ace at January 23, 2014 10:23 AM (/FnUH)

31 ace, here's the thing -- kids born within a marriage are not a societal problem. They may be unplanned, inconvenient, whatever -- but they are not a problem. The free-BC crowd isn't agitating for free BC to married women. It's for promiscuous unmarried women, precisely because it (in part) undermines the family as a unit. So, yeah, there are married women who want BC. But that is not the audience here.

Posted by: sunny-dee at January 23, 2014 10:23 AM (EBoCD)

And people really need to get the fuck over this, because I'm tired of hearing it, and I'm at least a political ally of those insisting on this sort of message. I cannot fathom how this relentless claim that Sex is for Babiez, Alwayz, line falls on the ears of people not predisposed to giving the right a break.

-------------

Isn't that going a little too far though? Remember the Obamacare Get Covered poster with the ugly chick all happy because she got free birth control so she could boink Ryan Gosling? Or the poster with the girl (refuse to call her a woman) happy she gets free birth control because that guy is SO HOT?

Pointing out that liberals are basically calling women sluts and in need of birth control because they can't keep their legs crossed is a pretty valid comeback to the arguments that Republicans are anti-woman. I don't think you have to go any further than that.

Posted by: Sandra Fluke at January 23, 2014 10:23 AM (eytER)

To the Democrats a woman is a strong, powerful, independent person who goes into more pieces than a dropped faberge egg at the first hint of criticism.

That is also a definition of a modern feminist, by the way.

Posted by: Mikey NTH - Mid Winter sale! Thinly Veiled Contempt 1/2 Off! at January 23, 2014 10:24 AM (hLRSq)

34
I am in the camp it doesn't matter if they say it or not, the MFM will just make it up and then put the correction on page 36 of the Cooking Section.

"Mitt Romney Killed a Woman!!!!!!!!!!11enty!!!!!!!!"

Posted by: Guy Mohawk at January 23, 2014 10:24 AM (n0DEs)

35 >>>Your last three paragraphs were a self-indulgent, egregious whine. Bitch about socons when you have to. But an adult wouldn't stir up a fight for no reason like this. ... Rolling eyes. Whatever. The socon right is permitted to make its intrusions into this area and if anyone says Boo back to them, it's the latter who's committed the foul.

Posted by: ace at January 23, 2014 10:24 AM (/FnUH)

36 it comes up. ********* You really got to tell your Mom to get off your case.

Posted by: Teleprompter Feed Crew at January 23, 2014 10:25 AM (RJMhd)

37 Call me when a vimen is playing MIddle Linebacker for the Chicago Bears

Posted by: Nevergiveup at January 23, 2014 10:25 AM (t3UFN)

38 And wow, what a sock fail. But hey, the point still stands.

Posted by: @JohnTant at January 23, 2014 10:25 AM (eytER)

39 Ace, Huckabee has 3 children. Obviously the man isn't opposed to birth control. What he *is* opposed to, and we should all oppose, is the government forcing everyone else to pay for it, including those who *are* opposed to birth control.

Posted by: Lauren at January 23, 2014 10:25 AM (hFL/3)

40 Alternate headline: NBC Reporter Proves Herself To Be Poor Editor and Lying Partisan Hack But Mostly Lying Partisan Hack

Posted by: DangerGirl Telecommunications at January 23, 2014 10:25 AM (GufPw)

41 18 Bingo, AllenG. I think Ace got a little hung up & skipped that part. I'm not a huge fan of Huck, but that's a great message. It should be trumpeted - by women at that.

Posted by: shredded chi - If the river was whiskey, I'd be a diving duck at January 23, 2014 10:26 AM (LM/hL)

42 I think Huckabee is an idiot, but don't put this on him.

It does not matter what conservatives say, it will be misreported by the media.

Write that 100 times on the blackboard.

Posted by: West at January 23, 2014 10:26 AM (1Rgee)

43 De Blasio Backs CuomoÂ’s Remarks That Conservatives Â“Have No PlaceÂ” In New York: Â“I Stand By That 100 PercentÂ”Â… ??? Not even conservative vimen?

Posted by: Nevergiveup at January 23, 2014 10:26 AM (t3UFN)

44 it comes up. I don't know if Huck just made an error in speaking (it happens, naturally) or if he really intended to suggest the Control Your Libidos line, but yeah, I hear the Control Your Libidos line a fair amount, including in these comments. Re-read the line, ace, he's not saying what you think he's saying. That said... I know virtually no one who agrees that the only point of sex is the making babies. Now many of us believe that is its *function* and so it should be approached as such, but that's a far cry from "you should only have sex to have babies."

Posted by: AllenG (DedicatedTenther) Ah, F It. at January 23, 2014 10:26 AM (PYAXX)

45 AllenG: His statement is that the Democrats are suggesting that, without government help, women cannot EITHER control their libidos OR buy birth control. So apparently it's either/or. You can control your libido, or you can indulge it with birth control.

Posted by: ace at January 23, 2014 10:26 AM (/FnUH)

46

I wish Huckabee would just go away, but this quote isn't an example of him saying stupid things.

He says "controlling their libido or reproductive system". Really, there is nothing terrible about this quote, in and of itself.

I mean, I guess I have no problem throwing him under the bus, because, well why not. But there is nothing wrong with this quote.

Posted by: dan-O at January 23, 2014 10:27 AM (D0bIN)

47 Yeah, the last two paragraphs came across as "let me pick a fight even though I always chastise people for picking a fight." Enjoyed the first half though.

Posted by: Burn the Witch at January 23, 2014 10:27 AM (WQcLz)

48 What's that guy, the rich guy, Freisz? Something like that? He offered the "aspirin between your knees" line, and it's been repeated approvingly here. ******** Freisz? I dunno -I think that aspirin line is older than dirt, er-- Rose Kennedy. Seriously it's an old Catholic axiom --or something. Isn't it?

Posted by: Teleprompter Feed Crew at January 23, 2014 10:27 AM (RJMhd)

49 What's fun is that when a democrat says something really stupid, the media will look at "context" and interpret the remark in the best possible light.

And, of course, do the exact opposite when a Republican says something.

And yet, they, and other leftist sycophants, pretend there is no bias.

But, even with that said, how is it that in this day and age republicans can't help but say things that are fairly easy to twist around or turn into a negative sound-bite? You are never going to win the war of "read what I really said" or "read the context of what I said" b/c people only pay attention to the first negative headline, not the arguments over quoting the entire thing or context that come later.

It's like republicans still don't believe that the media is the enemy.

Posted by: Monkeytoe at January 23, 2014 10:28 AM (sOx93)

50 I cannot fathom how this relentless claim that Sex is for Babiez, Alwayz, line falls on the ears of people not predisposed to giving the right a break. As a devout Mormon, I say "Not Us!" We aren't making that claim, at all. We say "Sex is great within the bounds the Lord has set." That being between a man and a woman who are legally and lawfully married. Other than that, it's great for bonding and de-stressing, and for kids, and for its own sake.

Posted by: bonhomme[/i][/b][/i][/b][/s][/s] at January 23, 2014 10:28 AM (P7Wsr)

51 CREW SLUT http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6VOa9IZ86Ak

Posted by: Central Scrutinizer at January 23, 2014 10:28 AM (s/gRn)

52
I dont like Huck.

I dont agree with a lot that Huck puts out.

I will not vote for Huck.

Having said that.... so what you're saying is "Huck was mis-attributed..... but Im going to kick him in the ballz because...... SOCON!!.....??"

Posted by: fixerupper at January 23, 2014 10:28 AM (nELVU)

53 >>>Ace, Huckabee has 3 children. Obviously the man isn't opposed to birth control. What he *is* opposed to, and we should all oppose, is the government forcing everyone else to pay for it, including those who *are* opposed to birth control. this is no answer, because people who push very strict social rules are... well, frequently afoul of those selfsame rules in their daily lives. And this goes for people on the right AND left proposing very strict rules of behavior: See Al Gore, Sheryl Crowe, etc.

Posted by: ace at January 23, 2014 10:28 AM (/FnUH)

54 Evangelicals ... Just not part of the "proper" 51% the GOP is looking for.

Posted by: ScogggDog at January 23, 2014 10:28 AM (ePQIH)

Yay I'm finally back after driving through the snow-covered ghetto with a battery I didn't know was loose, so I was kinda "Hey this car won't start! Why are those guys over there coming my way?!" ***mash mash mash*** vvVRRmMm chukkachukka WHEW and that was like a coupla times anyways til I figgered that out....

If I was repeatedly mashing it, maybe that should be "mashle" but nobody knows. Also I'm now haunted by word fragments like "gog" becoz agog and goggles and Ace has me all askeered.

Oh uh Huck: Anything what trashes Huck is A-OK but I guess I see the point of wishing they were less douche-like

Posted by: Bigby's Semaphore Hands at January 23, 2014 10:28 AM (3ZtZW)

56 I don't like huck but I love what he said here! Best rant ever and needed to be said And u and drew are confused

Posted by: BlackOrchid at January 23, 2014 10:29 AM (F+ZCA)

57 So apparently it's either/or. You can control your libido, or you can indulge it with birth control. ... ... And? Is that not true? I can either abstain from having sex (control my libido), or if I'm going to have sex (and don't want a child to result), I should provide my own birth control? Is there a 3rd option I'm missing? I mean, I suppose you could BOTH control your libido AND have birth control... but what, precisely, would be the point?

Posted by: AllenG (DedicatedTenther) Ah, F It. at January 23, 2014 10:29 AM (PYAXX)

58 >>>Having said that.... so what you're saying is "Huck was mis-attributed..... but Im going to kick him in the ballz because...... SOCON!!.....??" nope. Re-read. I have a specific complaint. The fact that you disagree with that complaint does not turn this into an Anti-Christian Bias Hate Attack.

Posted by: ace at January 23, 2014 10:29 AM (/FnUH)

59 I hate how when conservatives make reasonable statements that are taken out of context, a big segment of the right wants to blame the victim and say their statement was stupid because it could be distorted. All statements can be distorted.

I'm not a Huckabee fan, but it's clear he's deriding the idea that women should be labeled by sex. This is the same kind of stuff that prevents critiquing anything women do, or else it's sexist. I'm tired of the hysteria about birth control, it's up to individuals whether they should use it. All opinions are valid except "government use pay for it and force others to pay for it". My fiance is using birth control right now since we can't afford another child so soon after our first one, but if people don't think we should use it...who gives a shit? I don't care if people disagree with my decisions unless they're hateful or mean spirited.And even then...only if it's an important issue.

Posted by: Crazee(@Crazizzle) at January 23, 2014 10:29 AM (ynzfm)

AllenG:

His statement is that the Democrats are suggesting that, without government help, women cannot EITHER control their libidos OR buy birth control.

So apparently it's either/or. You can control your libido, or you can indulge it with birth control.

Posted by: ace at January 23, 2014 02:26 PM (/FnUH)

Ace, isn't that right given what the Dems are proposing? Huck's basically saying that the Dems are saying that if women don't have gov't provided birth control then the only possible alternative is abstinence because that's what those prudish Republicans are pushing.

His point seems to me that it's insulting to women to suggest that unless the gov't provides birth control there's no way women can engage in sex without getting pregnant.

Posted by: Austin in TX at January 23, 2014 10:29 AM (lKVc4)

61 wait.. WTF does libido have to do with birth control?

Mainly, I agree with him.. but that part was just stupid, Huck.

Posted by: Chi-Town Jerry at January 23, 2014 10:29 AM (f9c2L)

62 And even Old Catholics do that-- rythm method. I think that involves really bad music--not sure.

Posted by: Teleprompter Feed Crew at January 23, 2014 10:29 AM (RJMhd)

63 The Left has been saying "The personal is political" for decades.

Posted by: rickl at January 23, 2014 10:30 AM (zoehZ)

64 >>>And? Is that not true? ... Um, your act is alternating between "he didn't mean that" and "You're damn right, it's true." You would have more credibility on your first claim (he didn't say that) if you weren't so damnably eager to then claim he was right to say it.

Posted by: ace at January 23, 2014 10:30 AM (/FnUH)

65 Reread his statement and tell me what- about the statement- is particularly "dumb ass."

I'm not a Huckster fan, but he's not saying what the Dems are claiming he is. He's not even saying what DrewM (via ace) is claiming he is.

Okay...I will. Stand by. But my opinion that the Huckster is a dumbass is true.

Posted by: garfish at January 23, 2014 10:30 AM (dyoHM)

66 I think I'm made my position on being viewed as my ladyparts pretty clearly known.

Posted by: alexthechick - Skittle fueled Godzillette at January 23, 2014 10:30 AM (VtjlW)

67 >>>The Left has been saying "The personal is political" for decades. and they're wrong.

Posted by: ace at January 23, 2014 10:30 AM (/FnUH)

68 you guys are all over it like it was bacon. You know 'Bacon' is a dog whistle, now.

Posted by: garrett at January 23, 2014 10:30 AM (s/gRn)

69 and you know they're wrong, and you make fun of them for this. So why throw that in my face? Just to sort of stick a pebble in my shoe?

Posted by: ace at January 23, 2014 10:31 AM (/FnUH)

70 So, yeah, there are married women who want BC.

And nobody would care, except our insurance premiums went up so they could get it without having to drop $10 on a copay.

Posted by: HR at January 23, 2014 10:31 AM (ZKzrr)

71 @42 West: "It does not matter what conservatives say, it will be misreported by the media."

We need to be prepared for that, because that's going to happen very, very often.

Posted by: Joshua at January 23, 2014 10:31 AM (oCZ4e)

72 Drew is parsing Huckabee's words out far too closely. I think that sentence is just perfect the way it is.

Posted by: Brewdog at January 23, 2014 10:31 AM (ZgUuK)

73 Oops! *rhythm* method.

Posted by: Teleprompter Feed Crew at January 23, 2014 10:31 AM (RJMhd)

74 mmmmm bacon....

does that make me racist?

Posted by: Chi-Town Jerry at January 23, 2014 10:32 AM (f9c2L)

75 The next US ambassador to Norway, George Tsunis bundled $500,000 for President Obama in 2012, apparently knows nothing about Norway. Questioned by Senator John McCain about the anti-immigration Progress Party, which has now joined the ruling coalition, Tsunis had no idea what McCain was talking about. McCain asked for his thoughts; Tsunis replied, Â“You get some fringe elements that have a a microphone and spew their hatred. And I will tell you Norway has been very quick to denounce them.Â” That is untrue. They are part of the ruling coalition, as McCain quickly pointed out. Tsunis then replied, Â“I stand corrected. I would like to leave my answer atÂ…itÂ’s a very, very open society and the overwhelming amount of Norwegians and the overwhelming amount of people in parliament donÂ’t feel the same way.Â” Tsunis also referred to NorwayÂ’s Â“president,Â” although the country has no president, since it is a constitutional monarchy. The Norwegian newspaper The Local commented, Â“Future US envoy displays total ignorance of Norway.Â” But it's OK, because he is a man not a vimen

Posted by: Nevergiveup at January 23, 2014 10:32 AM (t3UFN)

76 It's like republicans still don't believe that the media is the enemy. Posted by: Monkeytoe at January 23, 2014 02:28 PM (sOx93) Hell, i'm still trying to convince Ace and Co that the media *IS* the enemy. Sure, he speaks disparagingly of them, but to whatever degree he regards them as bad, he is underestimating how bad they are by about a factor of five. The Media employees are the tip of the spear of the weapon that is killing the nation.

Posted by: D-Lamp at January 23, 2014 10:32 AM (bb5+k)

77 And, no, no Christian group believes that sex is *only* for having babies. Even the Catholic Church, who opposes birth control, have a very strong recognition of the role of sex within marriage as something that binds two people together. Most evangelical/ protestant churches have absolutely no issue with birth control at all, and some more conservative churches have issue only with abortificient birth control, but have no issue with condoms or sterilization.

Posted by: Lauren at January 23, 2014 10:33 AM (hFL/3)

78 27 The Greatest threat facing this nation is one party control of the media.
It is what gave us Obama, and it is what gave us a Democrat majority in the Senate.
Posted by: D-Lamp at January 23, 2014 02:23 PM (bb5+k)
Next up : Planet Hillary

Posted by: Bertram Cabot Jr. at January 23, 2014 10:33 AM (ZS1LI)

79 >>>Ace, isn't that right given what the Dems are proposing? Huck's basically saying that the Dems are saying that if women don't have gov't provided birth control then the only possible alternative is abstinence because that's what those prudish Republicans are pushing. His point seems to me that it's insulting to women to suggest that unless the gov't provides birth control there's no way women can engage in sex without getting pregnant. ... not the way I read it. And I think it's a bridge too far to claim that Democrats are pushing an "abstinence" line -- we obviously know they're not doing that. Your reading would be, "Huckabee is saying that democrats insist on either abstinence or government mandated birth control." That's silly. Abstinence isn't on their list at all. And Huck knows that. So it's a bit farfetched to claim he intended that.

Posted by: ace at January 23, 2014 10:33 AM (/FnUH)

80 Posted by: Monkeytoe at January 23, 2014 02:28 PM (sOx93)

This mostly happens for those who use some sort of principles/morality as guidance and the reason they're in politics in the first place.

They are (at first) delighted to be asked what they think about any topic and believe that the media is actually interested in the answer.

So they answer honestly. That's usually when the disaster occurs because the media of course can take any of what a conservative thinks and twist that into it's normal "conservatives are evil and stupid hicks" meme.

It's not that they say stupid stuff, it's that they're honest and the media is so DISHONEST.

To avoid being put to the flame, Republican conservatives would have to keep quiet and not answer (in any meaningful way) the media.

Which would muffle them. And that's what the Media really wants.

The crazy sound bites, made up or not, are just gravy.

Posted by: Bitter Clinger and All That (Unexpurgated Edition) at January 23, 2014 10:33 AM (LSDdO)

81 This thread is not going to go well....drops mic. *runs to exits*

Posted by: [/i][/b][/u][/s] Tami at January 23, 2014 10:33 AM (bCEmE)

82 68 >>>The Left has been saying "The personal is political" for decades. and they're wrong. Posted by: ace at January 23, 2014 02:30 PM (/FnUH)/i] I was just pointing out where it came from.

Posted by: rickl at January 23, 2014 10:33 AM (zoehZ)

83 see..this is the problem with you wingnuts...you never let these liberal dipshits be CLEAR. Let them be clear, damn you!!!!

Posted by: oeJay44incday at January 23, 2014 10:33 AM (QxSug)

84 That said, @drewmtips (who alerted me to this) points out that Huck still isn't helping. Whether the thought is coming from his own mouth, or whether he's ventriloquizing it into Democrats' mouths, he's still making the connection that birth control has something to do with "controlling your libido."

Well, you have seen the Colorado Obamacare ads, no? That seems to have been the very message, but I suppose it could have been calculated to bait our people into that discussion.

Either way, I think when you demand that others pay for your prophylactics, you're inviting scrutiny into what would otherwise be your private life.

Posted by: Alec Leamas at January 23, 2014 10:33 AM (nnkXw)

85 She's just stupid, that's all. She was a sociology major for chrissakes. She may not understand the English language, and her lame-ass "clarification" wasn't evil, it was inept.

Posted by: MTF at January 23, 2014 10:33 AM (F58x4)

86 Ack! /

Posted by: rickl at January 23, 2014 10:33 AM (zoehZ)

87 As a relative newcomer to the horde, I'd certainly like AtC to revisit her view on her ladyparts ... just to bring me up to speed.

Posted by: ScoggDog at January 23, 2014 10:34 AM (ePQIH)

88 Your reading would be, "Huckabee is saying that democrats insist on either abstinence or government mandated birth control." I think heÂ’s saying that Huckabee is saying that Democrats insist that the only options are what they call the Republican option (abstinence) or the Democrat option (government-mandated birth control).

Posted by: Paid for by Citizens for Clyde the Orangutan at January 23, 2014 10:34 AM (QF8uk)

>>>>*rhythm* method.

That only works for black guys

Posted by: Bigby's Semaphore Hands at January 23, 2014 10:34 AM (3ZtZW)

90 Posted by: Chi-Town Jerry at January 23, 2014 02:32 PM (f9c2L)

NO.

Anti semitic.

YES.

Posted by: Bitter Clinger and All That (Unexpurgated Edition) at January 23, 2014 10:34 AM (LSDdO)

91 >>>I was just pointing out where it came from. well yeah but isn't that obvious? It sure seemed to me you were suggesting it might be prudent to ape them.

Posted by: ace at January 23, 2014 10:35 AM (/FnUH)

92 Having said that.... so what you're saying is "Huck was mis-attributed..... but Im going to kick him in the ballz because...... SOCON!!.....??" Posted by: fixerupper at January 23, 2014 02:28 PM (nELVU) I have come to expect knee jerk reactionary commentary from Ace regarding SoCons. Rightly or wrongly, I perceive Ace's primary concern being with the issue of winning elections, and I firmly believe that he sees SoCon issues as damaging to this goal. This is a commonly held view from many if not most Libertarians.

Posted by: D-Lamp at January 23, 2014 10:35 AM (bb5+k)

93 His statement is that the Democrats are suggesting that, without government help, women cannot EITHER control their libidos OR buy birth control.

So apparently it's either/or. You can control your libido, or you can indulge it with birth control.

Ace really, *really* needs to get to making pancakes.

And I say that as a card-carrying socon.

Posted by: Ian S. at January 23, 2014 10:35 AM (B/VB5)

94 "this is no answer, because people who push very strict social rules are... well, frequently afoul of those selfsame rules in their daily lives. " No, ace it is an answer. Has Huckabee ever in the history of his political life said that no one should you contraception or that sex should only be for procreation? If not, then you're just slinging mud.

Posted by: Lauren at January 23, 2014 10:35 AM (hFL/3)

95 The damn extremist conservatives just need to shut up. Don't say anything, ever, at all. In fact, get out of my state.

Posted by: Andrew Cuomo at January 23, 2014 10:36 AM (YmPwQ)

96 >>>I think heÂ’s saying that Huckabee is saying that Democrats insist that the only options are what they call the Republican option (abstinence) or the Democrat option (government-mandated birth control). you have to do so much scoring and folding to get that meaning you've turned this page into an origami swan.

Posted by: ace at January 23, 2014 10:36 AM (/FnUH)

97 So Cons aren't the problem. (except maybe Huckabee)

The MEDIA is the problem.

Until that's rectified, we're just baying at the moon.

Posted by: Bitter Clinger and All That (Unexpurgated Edition) at January 23, 2014 10:36 AM (LSDdO)

98 You know what's neat? Dems can make a controversy over something a Republican says, and the media will report the comments as "controversial."

Posted by: blaster at January 23, 2014 10:36 AM (W6bkf)

99 " I cannot fathom how this relentless claim that Sex is for Babiez, Alwayz, line falls on the ears of people not predisposed to giving the right a break." who says that Ace? it's ascribed to those of us that don't want to pay for other people's abortions. You can go ahead and burn that strawman.

Posted by: DanMan at January 23, 2014 10:37 AM (RusNE)

100 I cannot fathom how this relentless claim that Sex is for Babiez, Alwayz, line falls on the ears of people not predisposed to giving the right a break.

As a devout Mormon, I say "Not Us!"

We aren't making that claim, at all.

We say "Sex is great within the bounds the Lord has set." That being between a man and a woman who are legally and lawfully married.

Other than that, it's great for bonding and de-stressing, and for kids, and for its own sake. Posted by: bonhomme

Who is making that claim? I don't get that at all. It sounds like another BS caricature of Christians from the left.

Posted by: Dang at January 23, 2014 10:37 AM (MNq6o)

101 Either way, I think when you demand that others pay for your prophylactics, you're inviting scrutiny into what would otherwise be your private life.

Pshaw. Her body, her choice, your wallet.

Posted by: HR at January 23, 2014 10:37 AM (ZKzrr)

102 Also, I'm generally not for the taking scalps game based upon what people say, but I think it is appropriate to call for Kasie Hunt's scalp and job because of sheer incompetence or worse.

Posted by: Alec Leamas at January 23, 2014 10:37 AM (nnkXw)

103
Something is amiss here. It is pointed out that this lying reporter purposely misrepresented what he said, but he is being similarly called out here on her misrepresentation.

or maybe I am not reading right.

Posted by: Guy Mohawk at January 23, 2014 10:37 AM (n0DEs)

104 >>>No, ace it is an answer. Has Huckabee ever in the history of his political life said that no one should you contraception or that sex should only be for procreation? If not, then you're just slinging mud. ... I have his statement above where he contrasts controlling one's libido to getting birth control.

Posted by: ace at January 23, 2014 10:37 AM (/FnUH)

105 Free batteries! Problem solved!

Posted by: Cicero Kid, if he were Liberal at January 23, 2014 10:37 AM (tcK++)

106 Wow-- I really like Huckabee's statement on the whole. Maybe that one part is not well written it's because it doesn't make it clear that Huckabee is trying to say how Democrats consider women. I wonder if you looked at the sentence and graphed it grammatically --if his meaning would become more apparent.

Posted by: Teleprompter Feed Crew at January 23, 2014 10:37 AM (RJMhd)

107 I think I'm made my position on being viewed as my ladyparts pretty clearly known.

Posted by: alexthechick - Skittle fueled Godzillette at January 23, 2014 02:30 PM (VtjlW)

Ranted at large from a pile of skulls does make an impresion, Alex.

Posted by: Mikey NTH - Mid Winter sale! Thinly Veiled Contempt 1/2 Off! at January 23, 2014 10:38 AM (hLRSq)

108 Uh that should read "no one should *use* contraception". What the hell brain?

Posted by: Lauren at January 23, 2014 10:38 AM (hFL/3)

109 Um, your act is alternating between "he didn't mean that" and "You're damn right, it's true." You would have more credibility on your first claim (he didn't say that) if you weren't so damnably eager to then claim he was right to say it. Dude, now you're just being obtuse. We have 2 options here (if you don't want kids) 1- Control your libido. 2- Use birth control of some form. Let's stop a moment and assert that as true. If you do NOT agree with that, we can't have a meaningful conversation. Now, what Huckster SAID was that Democrats believe (or want women to believe) that they can't do either of those things without Government assistance- "And if the Democrats want to insult the women of America by making them believe that they are helpless without Uncle Sugar providing for them a prescription each month for birth control because they cannot control their libido or their reproductive system without the help of the government..." What you are asserting is that he's saying "Oh, you just shouldn't have sex." But he doesn't say that. He says, "you have 3 choices- don't have sex, use birth control, or deal with the consequences." (Actually, what he says is, "You're a big girl, you can take care of your own decisions", but the underlying part is the 3 choices bit). The question is not whether or not women can (or should) control their libidos. The question is whether they need Government assistance to get BC because a) they can't or b) they choose not to and can't take care of their own BC.

Posted by: AllenG (DedicatedTenther) Ah, F It. at January 23, 2014 10:38 AM (PYAXX)

110 The attitude from the left that I have never understood, even as a teen when it was directed toward me, is "we won't bother to tell you not to have sex because you won't listen. Here's how to have it safely." Like that Obamacare ad, "now that I have free b.c. I can sleep with this guy." When they claim that everybody does it all the time, you shouldn't restrain yourself in any way, woman should go for it just like men stereo-typically do, and the gov't should help you pay for b.c. and anything else Julie needs, then I can see why Huckabee said what he said.

Posted by: Mama AJ at January 23, 2014 10:38 AM (SUKHu)

111 Can we go back to discussing what a lying hack this reporter is?

Posted by: DangerGirl Telecommunications at January 23, 2014 10:38 AM (jNNPU)

112 Who is making that claim? I don't get that at all. It sounds like another BS caricature of Christians from the left.

THIS.

Posted by: Sean Bannion[/i][/s][/u][/b] at January 23, 2014 10:38 AM (JpC1K)

113 >>>Something is amiss here. It is pointed out that this lying reporter purposely misrepresented what he said, but he is being similarly called out here on her misrepresentation. or maybe I am not reading right. ... no you're reading right. The post is a mess. I started with one take and then the more I thought about it the more I was bothered by Huckabee. I'm really sick of the left telling us how we all need to live. Some people on the right don't seem to get this, but it's no more attractive from you all. People don't like being bossed. Period.

Posted by: ace at January 23, 2014 10:38 AM (/FnUH)

114 45 AllenG:

His statement is that the Democrats are suggesting that, without government help, women cannot EITHER control their libidos OR buy birth control.

So apparently it's either/or. You can control your libido, or you can indulge it with birth control.

Posted by: ace at January 23, 2014 02:26 PM (/FnUH)

Wrong ace. Its not a completely clear sentence, but if you split up his actual quote into two sentences it becomes clearer.

These are the two sentences he's combined: "... believe they are helpless without uncle sugar coming in and providing them a prescription each month for birth control because they cannot control their libido."

And "... believe they are helpless without uncle sugar coming in and providing them a prescription each month for birth control because they cannot control their reproductive system without the help of the government."

Because those are how the democrats treat women. That they are sluts incapable of controlling their urges so they need help to protect them from the consequences or that they can't obtain birth control unless the government is giving it to them.

Posted by: buzzion at January 23, 2014 10:39 AM (LI48c)

115

Your reading would be, "Huckabee is saying that democrats insist on either abstinence or government mandated birth control."

That's silly. Abstinence isn't on their list at all. And Huck knows that. So it's a bit farfetched to claim he intended that.

Posted by: ace at January 23, 2014 02:33 PM (/FnUH)

I guess I wasn't as clear as I should be, or maybe I'm just not expressing myself well. I just don't read it the same way you and Drew are I guess, I simply seeing the line as a statement about the Dems view of women, not his view of women.

But it's not worth going into a blood-pressure raising comment war about; I think his general point is pretty good: Republicans should hit back on this "War on Women" nonsense, and try to give a positive message while doing it.

Posted by: Austin in TX at January 23, 2014 10:39 AM (lKVc4)

116 who says that Ace? Posted by: DanMan

I bet he come back with a quote from that preacher in the movie [iFootloose[/i].

Posted by: Dang at January 23, 2014 10:39 AM (MNq6o)

117 >>>Let's stop a moment and assert that as true. If you do NOT agree with that, we can't have a meaningful conversation. I don't believe it's true. So what's next?

Posted by: ace at January 23, 2014 10:39 AM (/FnUH)

118 Ok ... so skulls were somehow involved. Still gonna' need more details.

Posted by: ScoggDog at January 23, 2014 10:39 AM (ePQIH)

119 The MFM wil never be afraid of intentionally misquoting, omitting, and outright lying to the American public because they know nothing will EVER happen to them. Well, maybe they'll be promoted. But that's about it.

We always say someone needs to "hold them accountable". What does that even mean? Someone please explain the mechanics of this accountability thing. Does it involve a fine? A week in the stocks? A dunce cap? A public flogging? Who administers it? The People? Well, that's not exactly legal. The government? LOL!

Until there is a real financial and/or physical price to pay for this shit, this shit is exactly what we'll keep getting.

Yay, America! We rawk!

Posted by: Jaws at January 23, 2014 10:40 AM (Rbtz3)

120

Ace, you are missing the point as well.

"helpless without Uncle Sugar ...cannot control their reproductive systems without the help of government"

Emphasis added

Posted by: Vashta Nerada at January 23, 2014 10:40 AM (AskuI)

121
Wait.... her name is K Hunt. I think we are being punked.

Posted by: I P Freely at January 23, 2014 10:40 AM (n0DEs)

122

>>>>The damn extremist conservatives just need to shut up. Don't say anything, ever, at all.In fact, get out of my state.

Andy, you were shutting down all the kid's prisons - that should give you plenty of space for the cons!

Posted by: Bigby's Semaphore Hands at January 23, 2014 10:40 AM (3ZtZW)

123 As a relative newcomer to the horde, I'd certainly like AtC to revisit her view on her ladyparts ... just to bring me up to speed.

Posted by: ScoggDog at January 23, 2014 02:34 PM (ePQIH)

*puts goggles on, dons blood and viscera proof tarp*

Posted by: Mikey NTH - Mid Winter sale! Thinly Veiled Contempt 1/2 Off! at January 23, 2014 10:40 AM (hLRSq)

124 As a relative newcomer to the horde, I'd certainly like AtC to revisit her view on her ladyparts ... just to bring me up to speed. Posted by: ScoggDog at January 23, 2014 02:34 PM (ePQIH) Fine. Here it is: Warning: This is going to be incredibly profane, even by my standards. I am not my cunt. My entire life does not revolve around whom I fuck or who will fuck me. My tits are not relevant only to the extent that they may turn on me and give me cancer and kill me. Oh and speaking of cancer, and fuck cancer with the Warcock outfitted with a flaming cougar condom, cancer is not a motherfucking political issue you worthless pieces of shit who are turning it to such. My value as a person is not my vagina. I am not a mewling quim who is in desperate need of Daddy to take care of me because I am too feeble minded and weak to do so myself. I am not a talking gash who exists solely to be manipulated by being threatened that oh noes the Republicans hate my lady parts by the same party that is, as a practical matter, enforcing blasphemy laws on behalf of a religion that will cut off my clitoris. Let's not mention cutting off my head because I have the temerity to appreciate other ladies' lady parts. Every single Democrat who believes that the only thing I value as a woman is abortion needs to be punched in the face by me. Fuck you. Fuck you sideways with a pineapple. It's shockingly sexist and pathetic and disgusting.

Posted by: alexthechick - Skittle fueled Godzillette at January 23, 2014 10:40 AM (VtjlW)

125 Why should I listen to what this K.Hunt has to say?

Posted by: Empire of Jeff at January 23, 2014 10:41 AM (pqBkB)

126 I have his statement above where he contrasts controlling one's libido to getting birth control. Posted by: ace at January 23, 2014 02:37 PM (/FnUH) *********** If you look at the sentence structure grammatically--too me it looks like he is saying the Dems do that.

Posted by: Teleprompter Feed Crew at January 23, 2014 10:41 AM (RJMhd)

127 ACE!

Ace of Spades!

You get in here and eat your lunch young man. NOW!

And afterwards, clean up your blog. It's a mess.

Posted by: Bitter Clinger and All That (Unexpurgated Edition) at January 23, 2014 10:41 AM (LSDdO)

128
Good thing the MSM are shooting their wads prematurely when it comes to Huckabee and Christie.

When they run together in 2016 bridges and libido will be old news.

Posted by: Ed Anger at January 23, 2014 10:41 AM (tOkJB)

129 Posted by: alexthechick - Skittle fueled Godzillette at January 23, 2014 02:40 PM (VtjlW)

----

Holy shit. You said what Huck said.

Posted by: fixerupper at January 23, 2014 10:42 AM (nELVU)

130 Moonwatcher is not that far removed is he?

Posted by: Anna Puma (+SmuD) at January 23, 2014 10:42 AM (N8oJ5)

131 I have his statement above where he contrasts controlling one's libido to getting birth control. Please provide option 3. Seriously- if you *don't* want to have a child, what 3rd option do you have?

Posted by: AllenG (DedicatedTenther) Ah, F It. at January 23, 2014 10:42 AM (PYAXX)

132 Sorry, Ace,

Not a fan of Huck in any case, but the whole sentence from 'to insult' all the way through 'without the help of government' is a caricature of the Democrats' position. You can argue whether or not the caricature is fair or not, but he did not say that women should choose to control their libido.

Posted by: weft cut-loop [/i] [/b] at January 23, 2014 10:42 AM (cxs6V)

133 "I have his statement above where he contrasts controlling one's libido to getting birth control. " He is saying that LIBERALS believe that women can not control their own libido. And, as others have pointed out, that fits very well with the Colorado bro-surance ads that painted women as hot to trot now that they had free birth control. THAT is what is insulting.

Posted by: Lauren at January 23, 2014 10:42 AM (hFL/3)

134 Posted by: Empire of Jeff at January 23, 2014 02:41 PM (pqBkB)

ISWYDT

(heh)

Posted by: Bitter Clinger and All That (Unexpurgated Edition) at January 23, 2014 10:42 AM (LSDdO)

135 I'm the new Richard Sherman of journalism!

Posted by: Classless Scrunt at January 23, 2014 10:42 AM (Dwehj)

136 Wait, her name is K.Hunt?

Posted by: BlueStateRebel at January 23, 2014 10:42 AM (7ObY1)

137 And really, I think we're parsing. A man or women has two questions in regards to sex.

1. Will I have it? This is the question of controlling your libido/sex drive i.e abstinence or at least temperance(limiting your partners). I haven't waited for marriage, but I have limited my partners to girls I was engaged too. Not perfectly safe, but better than no restraint.

2. Will I use contraception or birth control(for ladies)? This is the "reproductive" part of his quote. Alright, I'm having sex. Can I make the smart decisions to protect myself?

So, men and women need to decide whether to control their libido OR use contraception/BC. The only other alternative is to just..do whatever you want and see what happens? That's not an approach I endorse or want any politician endorsing.

Really, the crux of this is whether women are capable of making these choices without Big Daddy Government. Huck thinks they are, dems don't. War on Women, I guess. Anyways, I need to go to work. Take care.

Posted by: Crazee(@Crazizzle) at January 23, 2014 10:43 AM (ynzfm)

138 It looks to me like he was saying that it is the Democrats who characterize women as being incapable of regulating their libido or their reproductive system w/out assistance from Uncle Sugar.

I don't think that's an outrageous statement when you have the other side (though maybe not explicitly Dem party-sponsored) doing things like "Slut Walks," "The Vagina Monologues", and donning vagina costumes to agitate for government-mandated free abortions and birth control.

The Left is entirely focused on taking care of our vaginas for us as if it's all we are, and as if we are incapable of doing it on our own. Disagreeing with the Left on this doesn't automatically make one a prude or believe in sex for babies only, it makes you an adult who wants to take care of herself, thanks.

Posted by: Lizzy at January 23, 2014 10:43 AM (POpqt)

139 you have to do so much scoring and folding to get that meaning you've turned this page into an origami swan. IÂ’ve always wanted to learn origami. IÂ’m not sure I see it either in the original text, but thatÂ’s what I read in AustinÂ’s comment. I donÂ’t think itÂ’s an unreasonable reading; itÂ’s what Democrats do, they point out alternatives between the completely unreasonable fake Republican option, and the mostly unreasonable Democrat option that now looks reasonable compared with the Â“some people believeÂ” option. It does require reading it into the context of the greater debate though; as I said I donÂ’t see it in the Huckabee text that youÂ’ve quoted, just in AustinÂ’s interpretation.

Posted by: Paid for by Citizens for Clyde the Orangutan at January 23, 2014 10:43 AM (QF8uk)

140 88 As a relative newcomer to the horde, I'd certainly like AtC to revisit her view on her ladyparts ... just to bring me up to speed. Posted by: ScoggDog at January 23, 2014 02:34 PM (ePQIH) I could stand to hear a little more.

Posted by: Jayne Cobb at January 23, 2014 10:43 AM (bb5+k)

141 Huckibee has said lots of stupid things and leveled unfair charges against people in his own party - so I've no sympathy for him when he ends up on the stink side of the poo-throwin' fight.

God will sort it out, right?

Posted by: 13times at January 23, 2014 10:43 AM (fGPLK)

142

iFootloose

Apple will brand anything

Posted by: Bigby's Semaphore Hands at January 23, 2014 10:43 AM (3ZtZW)

143 Yeah, I don't think the Huckster (who has quite a few control issues, granted) was actually wrong here. Look at the ho-surance ads we were all mocking a couple of months ago. Huck's characterization of the Democrat stance is spot-on.

Posted by: Long-time Commenter, First-time Reader at January 23, 2014 10:43 AM (pl1y3)

144 People don't like being bossed. Period.

Posted by: ace at January 23, 2014 02:38 PM (/FnUH)

I have opinions (and some of them are reasonably priced); I do not advocate making my opinions into mandates. I'll leave that to the likes of the Progressive "March You To Virtue At The Point Of A Bayonet" Left.

Posted by: Mikey NTH - Mid Winter sale! Thinly Veiled Contempt 1/2 Off! at January 23, 2014 10:43 AM (hLRSq)

145 Oh ... so you're my wife's twin. Small world.

Posted by: ScoggDog at January 23, 2014 10:44 AM (ePQIH)

146 I don't believe it's true. So what's next? Posted by: ace at January 23, 2014 02:39 PM (/FnUH) So you provide option 3.

Posted by: AllenG (DedicatedTenther) Ah, F It. at January 23, 2014 10:44 AM (PYAXX)

147 Huck is saying, women don't need the gov't to help them with their private bits.

On that he's right.

On the particular subject of abortion, I think a perfectly reasonable "Republican" position is the Nixonian one, to wit, the Federal gov't should stay out of it. Not ban it, not regulate it, not pay for it.

Posted by: looking closely at January 23, 2014 10:44 AM (PwGfd)

148 21. "He's a fraud and he screwed up the primary in '08. He's another spoiler like Perot. He's in it for the lulz and for the walking away money." Please do not denigrate our designated Christian.

Posted by: The GOP Consultancy (for a cut of the ad buy, we'll get you the independents) at January 23, 2014 10:44 AM (G7Yr9)

149 " I am not a mewling quim who is in desperate need of Daddy to take care of me because I am too feeble minded and weak to do so myself. " And that, young lady, is the problem.

Posted by: jwest at January 23, 2014 10:44 AM (u2a4R)

150 I read it the way most of the rest of you did. Huck is stating how the Democrats view women.

Posted by: DangerGirl Telecommunications at January 23, 2014 10:44 AM (jNNPU)

151 just pubic hair and lady parts that's all I am

Posted by: Karen Hill at January 23, 2014 10:44 AM (zOTsN)

152 And really, I think we're parsing. A man or women has two questions in regards to sex. Not according to ace. Apparently there is a 3rd option of which you and I are not aware.

Posted by: AllenG (DedicatedTenther) Ah, F It. at January 23, 2014 10:45 AM (PYAXX)

153 Those Tweets were written like a true K.Hunt.

Posted by: BlueStateRebel at January 23, 2014 10:45 AM (7ObY1)

154 I see Hunt retweets Lis Smith, the scrunt whose primary job is keeping Client #9 safe in a hot tub and off the streets.

Posted by: MTF at January 23, 2014 10:45 AM (F58x4)

155 The attitude from the left that I have never understood, even as a teen when it was directed toward me, is "we won't bother to tell you not to have sex because you won't listen. Here's how to have it safely." Yep. I was told "don't have sex before you're married." Guess what. I didn't have sex before I was married. I was in my early thirties when I got married. My wife has the same story. And I'm not some bird-chested dweeb. I'm 6'5 220 and spend an hour a day at the gym. My Catholic g/f called me her "gay boyfriend" a couple of times (before her siblings and I snapped her out of it) because I wouldn't have sex with her.

Posted by: bonhomme[/i][/b][/i][/b][/s][/s] at January 23, 2014 10:45 AM (A0glY)

156 Wait, a member of the Media lies to smear Republicans, and benefit Democrats? There's no way that could ever happen!

Posted by: Null at January 23, 2014 10:45 AM (P7hip)

157 The last 3 paragraphs needed more Pope references.

Posted by: Dr Spank at January 23, 2014 10:46 AM (P1WNR)

158 Please do not designate our denigrated Christian. FIFY

Posted by: Sean Bannion[/i][/i][/u][/s] at January 23, 2014 10:46 AM (sbV1u)

159 The only good part about the 2012 election cycle was when Huckabee announced that he wasn't running. He needs to go away but I bet he has a PAC or something.

Posted by: Shoot Me at January 23, 2014 10:46 AM (qiXMt)

160 Look. Look. Let us all stop fighting with each other and focus on something important. Apparently Matty Yglesias is going to join Ezra Klein's little project. AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAH I would give credit to my source but I got here first so neener neener neener.

Posted by: alexthechick - Skittle fueled Godzillette at January 23, 2014 10:46 AM (VtjlW)

161 Rightly or wrongly, I perceive Ace's primary concern being with the issue of winning elections, and I firmly believe that he sees SoCon issues as damaging to this goal.

This is a commonly held view from many if not most Libertarians.
=====

This is true, though in this particular case, I don't see Hucks position in the above quote being inconsistent there.

Again, he's saying the gov't should stay out of contraception and women's health issues. What's not to like about that?

Posted by: looking closely at January 23, 2014 10:46 AM (PwGfd)

162 Jeeezuus.

We're arguing over the grammar and syntax of a comment taken out of context that was convoluted and unclear to begin with like a bunch of liability lawyers at an oral discovery session.

IT'S THE MEDIA!!!!!!

They will take the clearest, simplest, most factual statement by any on the right and turn it into whatever they want it to be.

It's what they learned in j-school.

They're like Terminators like that. They won't stop, they can't stop they just keep on doing this over and over and over.

Somehow you'd think people would get the point and aim their attacks at the true adversary.

Posted by: Bitter Clinger and All That (Unexpurgated Edition) at January 23, 2014 10:46 AM (LSDdO)

163 Pic: Subway Windows Papered Over To Shield Mooch From The CommonersÂ… No one shall gaze upon the Queen without her consent! Weasel Zippers: Talk about a vimen?

Posted by: Nevergiveup at January 23, 2014 10:46 AM (t3UFN)

164 Apparently there is a 3rd option of which you and I are not aware.

Exercise your libido without a person of the opposite sex in the room.

Posted by: HR at January 23, 2014 10:46 AM (ZKzrr)

165

Huck should have just quoted AtC......yeah, I know. But.

That's what he was trying to say, more or less.

Posted by: Biff Boffo at January 23, 2014 10:46 AM (YmPwQ)

166 And people really need to get the hell over this, because I'm tired of hearing it, and I'm at least a political ally of those insisting on this sort of message. I cannot fathom how this relentless claim that Sex is for Babiez, Alwayz, line falls on the ears of people not predisposed to giving the right a break. ---------------------------------- You're tired of hearing this claim? Name three people who have made it. You can't, but you've never let that stop you in the past. Fuckit. Back to lurking and/or staying away.

Posted by: Empire of Jeff at January 23, 2014 10:46 AM (pqBkB)

167 Womyn are just another group, like African-Americans or Hispanics or the whole LGBT alphabet posse, that the Progressive-Socialist elites of the Democrat party use for their own power oriented ends. All these groups they try to bamboozle and manipulate to be happy down on the Cozy Comfort Acres Plantation.

And that populist smarmy Huckabee is right to point out what the Democrats are doing.

Posted by: Anna Puma (+SmuD) at January 23, 2014 10:47 AM (N8oJ5)

168 98 So Cons aren't the problem. (except maybe Huckabee) The MEDIA is the problem. Until that's rectified, we're just baying at the moon. Posted by: Bitter Clinger and All That (Unexpurgated Edition) at January 23, 2014 02:36 PM (LSDdO) Here here! The media are always in an adversarial mode when interviewing their political enemies, and they gleefully work to extract something that they can turn into political fodder for their preferred agenda. Republicans should know better than to cooperate in their own keelhauling.

Posted by: D-Lamp at January 23, 2014 10:47 AM (bb5+k)

169

>>>He is saying that LIBERALS believe that women can not control their own libido

They can't!

A man can use a clothespin to deal with that. What does a woman have available as an effective deterrent?

Posted by: Bigby's Semaphore Hands at January 23, 2014 10:47 AM (3ZtZW)

170 It's almost like they don't care what anyone who disagrees with them actually thinks.

Posted by: Mega at January 23, 2014 10:47 AM (hHFOx)

171 BRB getting tampon earrings

Posted by: Karen Hill at January 23, 2014 10:47 AM (zOTsN)

172 Correction: Please do not denigrate our token Christian. Edited for clarity.

Posted by: The GOP Consultancy (for a cut of the ad buy, we'll get you the independents) at January 23, 2014 10:47 AM (G7Yr9)

173 Exercise your libido without a person of the opposite sex in the room. That doesn't fall under "control [your] reproductive system?"

Posted by: AllenG (DedicatedTenther) Ah, F It. at January 23, 2014 10:48 AM (PYAXX)

174 Not according to ace. Apparently there is a 3rd option of which you and I are not aware. Posted by: AllenG (DedicatedTenther) Ah, F It. at January 23, 2014 02:45 PM (PYAXX) Asexual reproduction? Like a hydra?

Posted by: DangerGirl Telecommunications at January 23, 2014 10:48 AM (jNNPU)

175
Stay the hell out of my bedroom!1

Wait, what?

Posted by: Sandra Flook at January 23, 2014 10:48 AM (Dwehj)

176

War On Cuntlings !!

Posted by: polynikes at January 23, 2014 10:48 AM (m2CN7)

177 You know Alex ... we're kindred spirits, you and I. I also grow weary of being treated as only a sex object - and I'm positively fascinated with lady parts.

Posted by: ScoggDog at January 23, 2014 10:48 AM (ePQIH)

178 Houston we have a problem raining here now gonna dork up my tampon earrings

Posted by: Karen Hill at January 23, 2014 10:49 AM (zOTsN)

179 That doesn't fall under "control [your] reproductive system?"

Humans can't reproduce via gay sex.

Posted by: HR at January 23, 2014 10:49 AM (ZKzrr)

180 165Â Apparently there is a 3rd option of which you and I are not aware. Exercise your libido without a person of the opposite sex in the room ________ PIM? PIA?

Posted by: shredded chi - If the river was whiskey, I'd be a diving duck at January 23, 2014 10:49 AM (LM/hL)

181 To me Huckabee's intent is to lay that rational at the feet of the Democrats. But it is poorly written. Also I do think it is a bit of a stretch to make the leap from-- Huckabee is against the US Government paying for birth control-- to-- Huckabee is against birth control. That's an unfair reading I think.

Posted by: Teleprompter Feed Crew at January 23, 2014 10:49 AM (RJMhd)

182 Not according to ace. Apparently there is a 3rd option of which you and I are not aware. Cheese! Glorious cheese!

Posted by: Cicero Kid is NOT a cheese-perv. at January 23, 2014 10:49 AM (tcK++)

183 atc? I love your rant. Sometimes those fine old Anglo-Saxon cuss words express exactly what you mean.

My "first dead wife?" Miss Helen of the wheelchair? Was fond of saying:

"I'm a Liberated woman- but I'm not a Wymmins Libber."

Yes, she had a way with words. She brooked no nonsense from anyone.

Tips bush hat Heavenward....
Spins- pretty good for an old guy who was surgically reconstructed....
...and straighten the pictures of Helen and Emily
I keep in my heart.

Posted by: backhoe at January 23, 2014 10:49 AM (ULH4o)

184 He isn't bossing anyone. All he is saying is that women are grown ass women who can take care of themselves and they don't need the government to take care of their sexy needs. Which we do not. I mean, it is shockingly offensive that liberals *actually believe* that I am too stupid to make a doctor's apt and go to the pharmacy every month. What part of that procedure requires government intervetion? Oh, and you know what, if I *dont* want to go to the doctor and get on the pill I *can* control my libido and use NFP. That is ALSO not offensive. It may shock you to know, but many married women who are not finished having kids but also don't want a baby right. this. second. successfully use NFP. You want to talk about people judging life choices? Just look at how people talk about THAT choice. Apparently if we abstain from sex for 8 days a month we're frigid idiots. But, and let me make this perfectly clear, I don't give a flying fuck what you use for contraception, I just don't want to pay for it. I don't want you to force Catholic nuns to pay for it. Huckabee echoed this very well and nothing he said was the least bit "judgy" or offensive. He stood up for all the millions of women like me who are sick and tired of being told that we all secretly need Big Daddy Government to take care of us. That's the take away. Not Libidos.

Posted by: Lauren at January 23, 2014 10:50 AM (hFL/3)

185 They can't! A man can use a clothespin to deal with that. What does a woman have available as an effective deterrent? Posted by: Bigby's Semaphore Hands at January 23, 2014 02:47 PM (3ZtZW) Pasty skin and a banana dress

Posted by: Lena D at January 23, 2014 10:50 AM (fWAjv)

186 Hey does Huckabee have offices anywhere?!?!? putting on my vagina costume!!!!

Posted by: Karen Hill at January 23, 2014 10:50 AM (zOTsN)

187 Huckabee's main mistake is in thinking you can reason with unreasonable people. You can't, and that has to drive your messaging.

Posted by: Caliban at January 23, 2014 10:50 AM (DrC22)

188 Seen on her website: "Kasie covers politics for NBC News." It should read, "Kasie promotes left-wing politics for NBC News."

Posted by: Blacque Jacques Shellacque at January 23, 2014 10:50 AM (vd7A8)

189 AllenG and I are apparently on the same page. *BroFist*

Alright, I need to go.

Posted by: Crazee(@Crazizzle) at January 23, 2014 10:50 AM (ynzfm)

190 Humans can't reproduce via gay sex. Posted by: HR at January 23, 2014 02:49 PM (ZKzrr) Umm... exactly? So by indulging your libido with someone of the same sex, you are controlling your reproductive system- you're not putting it in a position to make a baby. There are lots of ways to control your reproductive system. Heck- one of them is to decide to have a child.

Posted by: AllenG (DedicatedTenther) Ah, F It. at January 23, 2014 10:50 AM (PYAXX)

191 Flame war!

Posted by: RoyalOil at January 23, 2014 10:50 AM (VjL9S)

192 I shot the clerk. I shot the clerk??

Posted by: Bill Gambini at January 23, 2014 10:50 AM (pmsMR)

193 I'm gonna make him a special AGW vagina sweater!!!

Posted by: Cooter Knitter at January 23, 2014 10:50 AM (zOTsN)

194 I think what Huck was clearly implying is that there should be a mini kitchen in the bedroom for easy baby and sandwich making, and that women are whores.

Posted by: Dr Spank at January 23, 2014 10:51 AM (P1WNR)

195 I am a married woman who regularly enjoys sexy time with my husband sans conception (and I do so without hormonal birth control, but that is another issue). And I resent the hell out of anyone who suggests that I need the damn government to help me avoid conception. And I also resent the hell out of the folks that act like women are just tripping and falling on dicks all the time and can't help getting pregnant so we need Big Daddy Uncle Sam to give us free pills. It's patronizing bullshit. Huckabee, who I detest with the heat of 1000 suns, didn't say anything wrong here. In fact, this may be the first thing he had ever said that did not make me want to punch him in his fat mouth.

Posted by: Mandy P., lurking lurker who lurks at January 23, 2014 10:51 AM (qFpRI)

196 A man can use a clothespin to deal with that. What does a woman have available as an effective deterrent? What? I've never heard of this libido dampening method. John Wilkes Booth cut his donger off after sleeping with a prostitute. Now that's a man devoted to abstinence!

Posted by: bonhomme[/i][/b][/i][/b][/s][/s] at January 23, 2014 10:51 AM (A0glY)

197 Although she and Huck said essentially the same thing, alexthechick is certainly the more compelling and convincing of the two.

Posted by: huerfano at January 23, 2014 10:51 AM (bAGA/)

198 112 Can we go back to discussing what a lying hack this reporter is? Posted by: DangerGirl Telecommunications at January 23, 2014 02:38 PM (jNNPU) Which is the only salient aspect of this conversation. The people who work in media are deceitful asswipes with whom we should not willingly discuss anything.

Posted by: D-Lamp at January 23, 2014 10:51 AM (bb5+k)

199 Man-hole covers are not what you think they are.

Posted by: Cicero Kid is NOT a cheese-perv. at January 23, 2014 10:51 AM (tcK++)

200 Basically agree. I'd quibble about one thing. Birth control is a couple's decision, not just a woman's. It's not a "woman's issue" at all and it does not help messaging to let it be one. Woman's issue? having our mammograms delayed b/c of Obamacare derived rationing of health care. GOP is on the right side of that but they fail to capitalize.

Posted by: Y-not on the phone at January 23, 2014 10:51 AM (zDsvJ)

201 Okay so here's another desperate attempt to threadjack before we all hate each other more than we do now: The reason I asked for the metallurgy links is because I was reading an article on the new aluminum F-150 and there was a discussion of is it really aluminum and a passing reference to magnetism and that made me realize that I've forgotten what little I know of metallurgy and knowing stuff is awesome as is distributed Horde knowledge. Which eventually leads me to this question: Since the new F-150 is aluminum and aluminum is non-magnetic, doesn't that mean that you can't use a magnetized business sign on the side of your truck and doesn't that also mean that Ford just screwed over sign makers?

Posted by: alexthechick - Skittle fueled Godzillette at January 23, 2014 10:51 AM (VtjlW)

202 Hunt parsed and plucked the exact words she wanted to string together* from that quote *what she heard rotating in her head** **perhaps she took speed reading a bit too far

Posted by: artisanal 'ette at January 23, 2014 10:52 AM (IXrOn)

203 Apparently Matty Yglesias is going to join Ezra Klein's little project. ******** Oh gawd...

Posted by: Teleprompter Feed Crew at January 23, 2014 10:52 AM (RJMhd)

204 Posted by: alexthechick - Skittle fueled Godzillette at January 23, 2014 02:46 PM (VtjlW)

They should call their new project . .

oh, I don't know, Journolist maybe?

Be interesting to see how many of the old crew he hires on to this exercise in spin.

Posted by: Bitter Clinger and All That (Unexpurgated Edition) at January 23, 2014 10:52 AM (LSDdO)

205 She's even got a Catholic priest and law professor from Notre Dame saying she "immorally misquoted" the source.

Posted by: Aquaviva at January 23, 2014 10:52 AM (wFinq)

206 >>In fact, this may be the first thing he had ever said that did not make me want to punch him in his fat mouth. That may be the most disturbing thing about this whole kerfuffle.

Posted by: Mama AJ at January 23, 2014 10:52 AM (SUKHu)

207 Exercise your libido without a person of the opposite sex in the room.

That's the most nicest way I ever heard someone say Beat dick like it owes you money.

Posted by: eleven at January 23, 2014 10:53 AM (KXm42)

208

And if the Democrats want to insult the women of America by making them believe that they are helpless without Uncle Sugar coming in and providing for them a prescription each month for birth control because they cannot control their libido or their reproductive system without the help of the government, then so be it, letÂ’s take that discussion all across America because women are far more than Democrats have made them to be.

---------

I dunno, Ace, I'm having a very hard time seeing what you're seeing there. The meaning looks pretty clear to me: Huckabee is saying women are much more capable than Democrats treat them as being.

Posted by: @JohnTant at January 23, 2014 10:53 AM (eytER)

209 I agree Mandy P. With your entire statement, including the mouth punching.

Posted by: DangerGirl Telecommunications at January 23, 2014 10:53 AM (jNNPU)

210 the Just Run With It media

Posted by: soothsayer, with arms akimbo at January 23, 2014 10:53 AM (WdFTd)

211 Listen to that old RWNJ!!! PIV is so rapey and clichÃ©

Posted by: Fawn "Kiln Expolsion" Lebowitz at January 23, 2014 10:53 AM (zOTsN)

212 Posted by: alexthechick - Skittle fueled Godzillette

Fucking awesome.

Posted by: Dang at January 23, 2014 10:54 AM (MNq6o)

213 Which eventually leads me to this question: Since the new F-150 is aluminum and aluminum is non-magnetic, doesn't that mean that you can't use a magnetized business sign on the side of your truck and doesn't that also mean that Ford just screwed over sign makers? You wouldn't be able to use a magnetized one, but you could have one painted, or use one that has some other way to adhere to the side of the vehicle.

Posted by: AllenG (DedicatedTenther) Ah, F It. at January 23, 2014 10:54 AM (PYAXX)

214 Some people on the right don't seem to get this, but it's no more attractive from you all. People don't like being bossed. Period. Posted by: ace at January 23, 2014 02:38 PM (/FnUH) Edmund Burke to the rescue! Men are qualified for civil liberty in exact proportion to their disposition to put moral chains upon their own appetites, Â— in proportion as their love to justice is above their rapacity, Â— in proportion as their soundness and sobriety of understanding is above their vanity and presumption, Â— in proportion as they are more disposed to listen to the counsels of the wise and good, in preference to the flattery of knaves. Society cannot exist, unless a controlling power upon will and appetite be placed somewhere; and the less of it there is within, the more there must be without. It is ordained in the eternal constitution of things, that men of intemperate minds cannot be free. Their passions forge their fetters. Letter to a Member of the National Assembly (1791).

Posted by: D-Lamp at January 23, 2014 10:54 AM (bb5+k)

215 >>>I dunno, Ace, I'm having a very hard time seeing what you're seeing there. The meaning looks pretty clear to me: Huckabee is saying women are much more capable than Democrats treat them as being. That is his main thrust, undeniably. But then he takes two steps back by setting up an opposition between living a sex-free life (controlling your libido) and birth control.

Posted by: ace at January 23, 2014 10:54 AM (/FnUH)

216 William Dailey, CSC ‏@wrdcsc

@kasie This is immorally incompetent misquotation

Posted by: Aquaviva at January 23, 2014 10:54 AM (wFinq)

217 Did y'all see this yet? Talk it to death while I was out & about? >>This morning, James OÂ’KeefeÂ’s Project Veritas released a new video out showing Wendy Davis supporters and organizers mocking her opponent Greg AbbottÂ’s wheelchair.

Posted by: Mama AJ at January 23, 2014 10:54 AM (SUKHu)

218 AlextheChick, I think only the bed of the new F-150 is aluminum. Which means the cab where the meat Popsicle resides is still steel. So those signs should still stick to the doors.

Posted by: Anna Puma (+SmuD) at January 23, 2014 10:54 AM (N8oJ5)

219 Which eventually leads me to this question: Since the new F-150 is aluminum and aluminum is non-magnetic, doesn't that mean that you can't use a magnetized business sign on the side of your truck and doesn't that also mean that Ford just screwed over sign makers? Posted by: alexthechick - Skittle fueled Godzillette at January 23, 2014 02:51 PM

Yes, and sign painters rejoice.

Posted by: huerfano at January 23, 2014 10:54 AM (bAGA/)

220 I think what Huck was clearly implying is that there should be a mini kitchen in the bedroom for easy baby and sandwich making, and that women are whores. Posted by: Dr Spank at January 23, 2014 02:51 PM (P1WNR) Why the bedroom? Clearly, all apparatus would be better positioned near the TV and Entertainment room. Surround Sound, after all.

Posted by: artisanal 'ette at January 23, 2014 10:54 AM (IXrOn)

221 Which eventually leads me to this question: Since the new F-150 is aluminum and aluminum is non-magnetic, doesn't that mean that you can't use a magnetized business sign on the side of your truck and doesn't that also mean that Ford just screwed over sign makers?

Posted by: alexthechick - Skittle fueled Godzillette at January 23, 2014 02:51 PM (VtjlW)

-----

Yes. It also means that every body shop in the country arent really equipped to deal with aluminum body parts. Repairs costs are going to be HIGH for the 15 F-150.s. Insurance carriers are talking about 10-20% surcharges to cover the aluminum trucks.

All because of "mileage standards".

Posted by: fixerupper at January 23, 2014 10:54 AM (nELVU)

222 >:Society cannot exist, unless a controlling power upon will and appetite be placed somewhere; and the less of it there is within, the more there must be without. I know you're on record as being in favor of kind of social controls, D-Lamp.

Posted by: ace at January 23, 2014 10:54 AM (/FnUH)

223 #185

This.

Huckabee: The Dems act like women are stupid and need the gov't to help them with their vaginas, but we know that isn't true.

Dem Shill person: Huck says women are stupid and need help with their vaginas.

The story here isn't what Huck said. . .which is pretty straightforward, and (IMO) fairly reasonable. Nowhere did he say he was against contraception. . .only that we don't need the gov't involved here. The story is that some Democrat hack deliberately twisted what he said into the exact OPPOSITE.

Posted by: looking closely at January 23, 2014 10:55 AM (PwGfd)

224 John Wilkes Booth cut his donger off after sleeping with a prostitute. Now that's a man devoted to abstinence! Posted by: bonhomme at January 23, 2014 02:51 PM (A0glY) ********* Was that in Bill O'Reilly's book-- Killing Lincoln?

Posted by: Teleprompter Feed Crew at January 23, 2014 10:55 AM (RJMhd)

225

It seems pretty straightforward to me that Huckabee is saying that Democrats believe women can't control their libidos and thus need the government to protect them from the consequences, or they can't control their reproductive systems without the help of government. Now its a really long sentence and can certainly get away from you as your reading and sticking an "EITHER" in there that does not exist at a place that it wouldn't even belong can mess up the meaning. But the way I have just pointed out that the sentence read is exactly how the Democrats treat women so it seems pretty obvious that it was Huckabee's intent.

Posted by: buzzion at January 23, 2014 10:55 AM (LI48c)

226 Posted by: Lauren at January 23, 2014 02:33 PM (hFL/3) Well said. Posted by: Lauren at January 23, 2014 02:50 PM (hFL/3) And that was a magnificent rant. :^) Thanks.

Posted by: FenelonSpoke at January 23, 2014 10:56 AM (7kkQJ)

227 War on Vimen, Global warming, guns guns guns, legalized drugs, coed subs, gays in the Military: wow what a lineup. Any Country that has those as it'smain concerns must be going down the crapper?

Posted by: Nevergiveup at January 23, 2014 10:56 AM (t3UFN)

228 D-Lamp, I think our difference is this: I would not disagree (for who could?) with the basic proposition that the more virtuous a society is (the more internal, personal control within person) the less need there is of external law, nor would I disagree that self-control, discipline, and virtue are highly desirable and that society would be better with such things. Where I disagree with you is the part where you would presume the right and power to instill these things into people. I deny your capability in that regard, and I deny your right.

Posted by: ace at January 23, 2014 10:56 AM (/FnUH)

229 Which eventually leads me to this question: Since the new F-150 is aluminum and aluminum is non-magnetic, doesn't that mean that you can't use a magnetized business sign on the side of your truck and doesn't that also mean that Ford just screwed over sign makers? Yes. Duct tape.

Posted by: rickb223 at January 23, 2014 10:56 AM (xZxMD)

230 217 Did y'all see this yet? Talk it to death while I was out & about? >>This morning, James OÂ’KeefeÂ’s Project Veritas released a new video out showing Wendy Davis supporters and organizers mocking her opponent Greg AbbottÂ’s wheelchair. Posted by: Mama AJ at January 23, 2014 02:54 PM (SUKHu) *********** Wow. Gross.

Posted by: Teleprompter Feed Crew at January 23, 2014 10:56 AM (RJMhd)

231 Posted by: Anna Puma (+SmuD) at January 23, 2014 02:54 PM (N8oJ5)

---

Not just the bed.

Posted by: fixerupper at January 23, 2014 10:57 AM (nELVU)

232 Posted by: ace at January 23, 2014 02:54 PM (/FnUH) Still waiting for option 3, ace. I'm a grown human being who doesn't want to have a baby. I have a health libido. What are my options? Huckabee, most of the Horde, and I seem to agree: 1- Don't have sex 2- Use some form of birth control. You have positively asserted that there is at least a 3rd option, but you have yet to provide it. Please do so, so we can understand your hang-up with his comment better. Of course, I'm kind of with EoJ here. I don't think you have one. I think DrewM suggested a way you could get a dig in at Huckabee in particular and SoCons generally, and you went with it- and now you're committed.

Posted by: AllenG (DedicatedTenther) Ah, F It. at January 23, 2014 10:57 AM (PYAXX)

233 217 Did y'all see this yet? Talk it to death while I was out & about?

>>This morning, James OÂ’KeefeÂ’s Project Veritas released a new video out showing Wendy Davis supporters and organizers mocking her opponent Greg AbbottÂ’s wheelchair. ----- That's just a typical Breitbart hit piece, and unfair use of boilerplate Democrat insults of the handicapped. I judge this: nothingburger.

Posted by: Mabe G. at January 23, 2014 10:57 AM (YmPwQ)

234 RoyalOil,

You are right in spirit, but like Barky, I think only the barest percentage of the same treatment will cow the media.

Like Barky, they have no idea what to do when they are called out on their bullshit. Obama just blames everyone around him, because unlike normal people, no one smacked him upside the head and told him to put on his big boy pants and man up.

The media only needs to be shamed a few times, or shredded a few times. They have no coping mechanism because, like Barky, they have never really been held accountable.

But we do need to punch back, and not hold back, civility be damned. Civility comes about when both sides know the other will attack if treated poorly. The Left has taken the complete wrong message from our tolerance, they have become brazen and foolhardy.

Time to put some fear back into them, and remind them tolerance and civility is a two-way street.

Posted by: acethepug at January 23, 2014 10:57 AM (KkbpF)

235 are there binders I was told there would be binders

Posted by: thunderb at January 23, 2014 10:57 AM (zOTsN)

236 Okay so here's another desperate attempt to threadjack before we all hate each other more than we do now:

If I had Timbits I would share them with you.

Posted by: HR at January 23, 2014 10:57 AM (ZKzrr)

237 Odd historical fact : John Wilkes Booth's nickname for his penis was Lincoln.

Posted by: Dr Spank at January 23, 2014 10:57 AM (P1WNR)

238 Am I the only one married to a Jedi Master of Libido ?

Posted by: ScoggDog at January 23, 2014 10:57 AM (ePQIH)

239 "...aluminum is non-magnetic, doesn't that mean that you can't use a magnetized business sign on the side of your truck..." Pretty sure the F-150 is using the aluminum in the frame sections and some unsprung suspension component. The door panel skin will probably still be steel.

Posted by: jwest at January 23, 2014 10:58 AM (u2a4R)

240 Take the statement and rewrite it for another issue:

"And if Democrats want to insult the (middle class) of America by making them believe that they are helpless without Uncle Sugar coming in and providing for them (a cradle to grave welfare system) because they cannot (provide for themselves or their families) without the help of government, then so be it; let's take that discussion all across America because (the middle class is) far more than Democrats have made it to be. "

Does the person that would have spoken that sentence believe that the middle class of America cannot provide for themselves?

Posted by: weft cut-loop [/i] [/b] at January 23, 2014 10:58 AM (cxs6V)

241 >>> Nowhere did he say he was against contraception. . . he does suggest that women have a pair of options, "controlling their libidos" (not being so slutty) and buying birth control themselves. No one here, I'm sure, doubts the latter part. The problem is with the formulation that a "controlled libido" means you don't need birth control, either because you don't have sex, or you're married and also don't mind having as many children as biological happenstance might bless you with.

Posted by: ace at January 23, 2014 10:58 AM (/FnUH)

242 John Wilkes Booth cut his donger off after sleeping with a prostitute. Now that's a man devoted to abstinence! For real? I did not know that. (channeling Johnny Carson) How could I not know that? Rushing off to research this now.

Posted by: BlueStateRebel at January 23, 2014 10:58 AM (7ObY1)

243 AlextheChick, I think only the bed of the new F-150 is aluminum. Which means the cab where the meat Popsicle resides is still steel. So those signs should still stick to the doors. Posted by: Anna Puma (+SmuD) at January 23, 2014 02:54 PM (N8oJ5) The article I read talked about people trying to slap magnetized signs on it and them not sticking so idk. Considering how I feel about the Huckster, comments that he and I may have accidentally reached an area of agreement makes me want to haul out the good flamethrower.

Posted by: alexthechick - Skittle fueled Godzillette at January 23, 2014 10:58 AM (VtjlW)

244 I guess Huck's quote is like a song. Everyone seems to be reading their own bias into it. /slant

Posted by: artisanal 'ette at January 23, 2014 10:58 AM (IXrOn)

245 I know you're on record as being in favor of kind of social controls, D-Lamp. Posted by: ace at January 23, 2014 02:54 PM (/FnUH)

ace, you do know that the whole point of that quote - and D-Lamp's citing of it - was that it's really best if people just control their own shit. Yes?

Posted by: Sean Bannion[/i][/s][/u][/b] at January 23, 2014 10:58 AM (sbV1u)

246 Republican misquoted by hardcore Democrat. I'm shocked. Shocked. That it's a white male Republican evangelical misquoted by a white feminazi* "reporter"? All the more predictable. *(Generally eschew that term, overused indiscriminately for effect by Rushers.) Whatever the "war on women" is, whoever is involved, it's misunderstood, often intentionally. Plenty of blame to spread around, though for different arguments depending on ideology. Noonan speaking for smart-ass Republicans v. Palin for example. WTF, don't tell me though "intelligent" Republicans learned to mock Palin less publicly, new female Republican candidates haven't been either ignored or given the shaft more often than not by the National Party Leadership. I'm thinking of the nuclear scientist running for national legislative office from Tucson. NO COMMENT, no notice from the big shots with big wads of dough. Even the AZ State Republican Party didn't get involved in promoting her campaign in order to remove the hardcore Democrat incumbent.

Posted by: panzernashorn at January 23, 2014 10:58 AM (MhA4j)

247 I deny your capability in that regard, and I deny your right.

Posted by: ace at January 23, 2014 02:56 PM (/FnUH)

Except you have a line somewhere right? Why do you believe your line is the correct one?

Posted by: polynikes at January 23, 2014 10:58 AM (m2CN7)

248 War on Vimen, Global warming, guns guns guns, legalized drugs, coed subs When coeds quit going down, it's time to put a bounty on them.

Posted by: rickb223 at January 23, 2014 10:59 AM (xZxMD)

249 229 D-Lamp, I think our difference is this: I would not disagree (for who could?) with the basic proposition that the more virtuous a society is (the more internal, personal control within person) the less need there is of external law, nor would I disagree that self-control, discipline, and virtue are highly desirable and that society would be better with such things. Where I disagree with you is the part where you would presume the right and power to instill these things into people. I deny your capability in that regard, and I deny your right. Posted by: ace at January 23, 2014 02:56 PM (/FnUH) *********** Religion--sometimes you can simply think of it as codified law. Without religion--how would you stop murder? Then is a law against murder a question of morality?

Posted by: Teleprompter Feed Crew at January 23, 2014 10:59 AM (RJMhd)

250 Ace doesn't like the suggestion of keeping your legs closed as a form of birth control, if I recall.

Posted by: soothsayer, with arms akimbo at January 23, 2014 10:59 AM (WdFTd)

251 Whoa, take a deep breath ace. As much as I find Huckabee to be a clown, you are also putting words into his mouth: making them believe that they are helpless without Uncle Sugar coming in and providing for them a prescription each month for birth control because they cannot control their libido or their reproductive system without the help of the government He is clearly stating that they can control their libido or their reproductive system (I assume via the pill, IUD, or some other form) and that they can do so without the help of the government. I see no call to make controlling feminine libido the only way to prevent unplanned pregnancy. Rather he correctly points out that it is a way and that women can do that (if they so choose) though the Democrats would have them believe they are helpless to do so. Alternatively, (i.e. or) they can control their reproductive system though the Democrats would have them believe that they cannot afford to do that on their own and it is a right to have the government provide it for them.

Posted by: Ken in NH at January 23, 2014 10:59 AM (MqjGP)

252

I would not disagree (for who could?) with the basic proposition that the more virtuous a society is (the more internal, personal control within person) the less need there is of external law, nor would I disagree that self-control, discipline, and virtue are highly desirable and that society would be better with such things.

Where I disagree with you is the part where you would presume the right and power to instill these things into people.

Ace, you do not need to instill these things into people, merely allow them to face the consequences when they do not.

Posted by: Vashta Nerada at January 23, 2014 10:59 AM (AskuI)

253 The whole body? So they are doing to the F-150 what Audi has done with their vehicles. But Audi does not make trucks, so yeah its going to be interesting.

Don't forget the melting point for aluminum is lower than steel. Lets hope Ford does not install a new lightweight fuel tank...

Posted by: Anna Puma (+SmuD) at January 23, 2014 10:59 AM (N8oJ5)

254 >>> I'm a grown human being who doesn't want to have a baby. I have a health libido. What are my options? Huckabee, most of the Horde, and I seem to agree: 1- Don't have sex 2- Use some form of birth control. ... Don't have sex isn't really a realistic option for anyone with a "healthy libido." We're talking about adults, not children. Oh wait, that's right, you push these ideas as ostensibly "about the children" but then we later find out you really mean "Children defined as all adults."

Posted by: ace at January 23, 2014 11:00 AM (/FnUH)

255 I get all chubby down there when ace goes after the SoCons!

Posted by: Mr. Foo Foo at January 23, 2014 11:00 AM (Dwehj)

256 Controlling your libido does NOT equal a sex-free life This is a liberal caricature of sexless conservatives. This is so infuriating because you are making all sorts of assumptions about religious people or just people who use NFP in general that are not even a little bit true. "Controlling your libido" may mean using condoms during your fertile period. It may mean abstaining during your fertile period but then having sex twice a day after ovulation. It may mean lots of uh...not so fore foreplay...during the fertile time. Sorry to be explicit, but apparently there is an idea that if you don't use hormonal birth control you aren't having sex and that couldn't be further from the truth. But, again, none of that was Huckabee's intent anyway. His entire point was that Liberals treat women like idiots and he believes that we are complete human beings.

Posted by: Lauren at January 23, 2014 11:00 AM (hFL/3)

257 Pretty sure the F-150 is using the aluminum in the frame sections and some unsprung suspension component. The door panel skin will probably still be steel. Body is supposed to be all aluminum, shaving off 700 lbs. Frame is all steel.

Posted by: rickb223 at January 23, 2014 11:00 AM (xZxMD)

258 The problem is with the formulation that a "controlled libido" means you don't need birth control,

Huh, I thought a controlled libido is a form a birth control. Isn't that the whole basis of NFP?

Posted by: no good deed at January 23, 2014 11:00 AM (vBhbc)

259 243 >>> Nowhere did he say he was against contraception. . .

he does suggest that women have a pair of options, "controlling their libidos" (not being so slutty) and buying birth control themselves.

No one here, I'm sure, doubts the latter part.

The problem is with the formulation that a "controlled libido" means you don't need birth control, either because you don't have sex, or you're married and also don't mind having as many children as biological happenstance might bless you with.

Posted by: ace at January 23, 2014 02:58 PM (/FnUH)

You are reading it wrong.

Posted by: buzzion at January 23, 2014 11:00 AM (LI48c)

260 >>>He is clearly stating that they can control their libido or their reproductive system (I assume via the pill, IUD, or some other form) and that they can do so without the help of the government. they see but they cannot perceive if you're determined not to see it, I can't make you see it by continuing to point out the same damn thing.

Posted by: ace at January 23, 2014 11:01 AM (/FnUH)

261 Was that in Bill O'Reilly's book-- Killing Lincoln? Dammit, it was the man who shot Booth. A man named Corbett.

Posted by: bonhomme[/i][/b][/i][/b][/s][/s] at January 23, 2014 11:01 AM (A0glY)

262 I know AlextheChick. Huckabee sounding rational. Blind squirrel and nut pops to mind.

Posted by: Anna Puma (+SmuD) at January 23, 2014 11:01 AM (N8oJ5)

263 Holy shit K. Hunt...don't get me started, cuz you know I got something for ya!!

Posted by: the guy that has everything in his pants at January 23, 2014 11:01 AM (NpXoL)

264 Word of advice to (male) GOP candidates, future or present: Don't voluntarily talk about women's libidos, birth control, or rape pregnancies.

Don't. Fucking. Go. There. It will not end well.

Posted by: Hollowpoint at January 23, 2014 11:01 AM (SY2Kh)

265 they see but they cannot perceive

if you're determined not to see it, I can't make you see it by continuing to point out the same damn thing.

Posted by: ace at January 23, 2014 03:01 PM (/FnUH)

Perhaps it's because you're the one seeing something that isn't there.

Posted by: Insomniac at January 23, 2014 11:02 AM (DrWcr)

266 I think JWB got all jacked up on cocaine "medicine" and castrated himself.

Posted by: Lincolntf at January 23, 2014 11:02 AM (ZshNr)

267 >>>"Controlling your libido" may mean using condoms during your fertile period. It may mean abstaining during your fertile period but then having sex twice a day after ovulation. It may mean lots of uh...not so fore foreplay...during the fertile time. in all the history of "controlling your libido," I have never quite seen anyone define it as "indulging your libido." Having an orgasm through sex (if on the pill) is "controlling your libido" now...? "Controlling your libido" means not having sex. Stop with the childish parsing.

Posted by: ace at January 23, 2014 11:02 AM (/FnUH)

268 Contolling aluminum F-150 libido.

Computing................

Posted by: eleven at January 23, 2014 11:02 AM (KXm42)

269 I hear the Control Your Libidos line a fair amount, I say, screw that. Just leave me and my libido alone.

Posted by: artisanal 'ette at January 23, 2014 11:02 AM (IXrOn)

270 he does suggest that women have a pair of options, "controlling their libidos" (not being so slutty) and buying birth control themselves. Wronr. This is NOT what he says. He says Democrats portray women as not being abke to control their libido or access birth control without government assistance.

Posted by: DangerGirl Telecommunications at January 23, 2014 11:03 AM (jNNPU)

271 Posted by: Lauren at January 23, 2014 02:50 PM (hFL/3) This! I deeply resent the prog assumption that I *need* their help in order to function at even a basic level.

Posted by: Polliwog the 'Ette at January 23, 2014 11:03 AM (GDulk)

272 Oh Lauren: I will accept your lunatic definition of "controlling your libido" meaning 'having sex, just with a rubber" the very moment Mike Huckabee clearly states that that's precisely what he intended. What that you say? He would never say such a thing...? Right, exactly my point.

Posted by: ace at January 23, 2014 11:03 AM (/FnUH)

273 Okay so here's another desperate attempt to threadjack before we all hate each other more than we do now:

The reason I asked for the metallurgy links is because I was reading an article on the new aluminum F-150 and there was a discussion of is it really aluminum and a passing reference to magnetism and that made me realize that I've forgotten what little I know of metallurgy and knowing stuff is awesome as is distributed Horde knowledge.

Which eventually leads me to this question: Since the new F-150 is aluminum and aluminum is non-magnetic, doesn't that mean that you can't use a magnetized business sign on the side of your truck and doesn't that also mean that Ford just screwed over sign makers?
Posted by: alexthechick - Skittle fueled Godzillette at January 23, 2014 02:51 PM (VtjlW)
----------------------------------------
Depending on how thick the aluminum body panels are, they could put someting magnetic underneath them that would allow magnetic signs to adhere. Sort of like what makers of stainless steel appliances do, since (some) stainless steels are not magnetic.

That probably defeats the purpose of using aluminum in the first place, of course, but if you only wanted signs on, say, the doors, maybe the sign makers/installers could add a magnetic "backer" inside the door panels.

Posted by: CoderInCrisis at January 23, 2014 11:04 AM (BAEzE)

274
The Government: "Hey ladies, you are helpless without me coming in and providing you a prescription each month for birth control because you cannot control your libido or your reproductive system without help from me."

Posted by: Dang at January 23, 2014 11:04 AM (MNq6o)

275 Ace in 256 needs to read Lauren in 258. And perhaps brush up on female reproductive physiology. We are not fertile every day of the month. Not even clise to that as ppl trying to conceive are well-aware.

Posted by: Y-not on the phone at January 23, 2014 11:04 AM (zDsvJ)

276 I hate the RINO fool, but this is whee Huckster needs to aggressively attack Katie Hunt for her obvious unfairness until she publicly makes a retraction.He needs to come across aggrieved and a victim of blatant bias, and not give up on it until NBC caves.

Posted by: redware at January 23, 2014 11:04 AM (gc2+4)

277 Wronr. This is NOT what he says. He says Democrats portray women as not being abke to control their libido or access birth control without government assistance.

Posted by: DangerGirl Telecommunications at January 23, 2014 03:03 PM (jNNPU)

I've been pointing this out twice. Hell it even more obvious that is what he's doing when he says that "Democrats want to make women believe..."

Posted by: buzzion at January 23, 2014 11:04 AM (LI48c)

278 Perhaps it's because you're the one seeing something that isn't there.

Posted by: Insomniac at January 23, 2014 03:02 PM (DrWcr)

----

We used to call that....... wishcasting....

Posted by: fixerupper at January 23, 2014 11:04 AM (nELVU)

279 While investigating Obamacare Navigators, Battleground Texas, and their connection to ObamaÂ’s Organizing for America, we caught some deeply offensive comments on tape. It seems Battleground Texas and Wendy DavisÂ’ strategy to win the GovernorÂ’s seat is to mock Attorney General AbbottÂ’s disability. We caught Davis supporters and Battleground Texas staff on tape making crude statement such as Â“isnÂ’t that amazing to think of? HeÂ’s in a wheelchair and we want to stand with Wendy?Â” Even more disturbing was an election official who when asked about forging signatures covered her ears and then went on to admit, Â“People do that all the time.Â” A Battleground Texas volunteer then added, Â“I donÂ’t think itÂ’s legal but I didnÂ’t hear you say that.Â”

Posted by: thunderb at January 23, 2014 11:04 AM (zOTsN)

280

A female's first menstrual cycle begins on average around the age of 12. That means this person is fertile and biologically set for sexual activity. Surely ace you believe society should put some type of limits on sexual activity of this sexually viable human being. Is that correct?

Posted by: polynikes at January 23, 2014 11:04 AM (m2CN7)

281 Don't have sex isn't really a realistic option for anyone with a "healthy libido." Bullshit. People do it every day. I have never had sex with anyone who is not my wife. There are many times she and/or I choose not to have sex- despite wanting to- for a variety of reasons. Others of the horde abstained until marriage. Are you saying that's impossible? 'Cause we did it. But even so, let me allow your misinformed premise- fine, he added an extra thing women could do (I find it insulting that you don't believe they could choose not to have sex, but I'll leave that for Lauren to address). What *Extra* option do you have? Because reducing the options from 2 to 1 is in my favor, not yours. You become the one infantilizing women- "not having sex isn't a realistic option for anyone with a healthy libido." Ergo- only people without a healthy libido can choose not to have sex.

Posted by: AllenG (DedicatedTenther) Ah, F It. at January 23, 2014 11:05 AM (PYAXX)

282 It was Boston Corbett, the guy who shot Booth, who castrated himself. Damn, I thought I was slipping there for a second.

Posted by: BlueStateRebel at January 23, 2014 11:05 AM (7ObY1)

283 I'm pretty sure it's men that have that "control the libido" problem.

Posted by: tangonine at January 23, 2014 11:05 AM (x3YFz)

284

"Controlling your libido" means not having sex. Stop with the childish parsing.

Don't be ridiculous. Controlling your libido means having sexual relations when appropriate, and not having them when not appropriate.

Posted by: Vashta Nerada at January 23, 2014 11:05 AM (AskuI)

285 he does suggest that women have a pair of options, "controlling their libidos" (not being so slutty) and buying birth control themselves.
Posted by: ace

Nope. He uses 'or' in a series of exaggerations, not as an either/or choice as preference.

Again, the entire sentence is a caricature of the Dem's position.

Posted by: weft cut-loop [/i] [/b] at January 23, 2014 11:05 AM (cxs6V)

286

Liberals go nuts when the policy discourse is over spending cuts, how much to cut, etc. They know that when we're talking that, which isn't often, they are losing.

When we are talking about birth control, we are losing. Um, period.

Posted by: CJ at January 23, 2014 11:05 AM (9KqcB)

287 Sounds more like something Poe or Van Gogh would have done, though. Must find book.

Posted by: Lincolntf at January 23, 2014 11:05 AM (ZshNr)

288 I can't believe we are still talking culture wat crap. We did not heed pat buchanans words 20+ years ago, we have completely and utterly lost the culture war. So just STFU Huckabee nothing you can possibly say will be helpful to the political discourse.

Posted by: Kreplach at January 23, 2014 11:05 AM (bZKG0)

289 "... this relentless claim that Sex is for Babiez, Alwayz," Who is making that claim? I don't get that at all. It sounds like another BS caricature of Christians from the left. Posted by: Dang at January 23, 2014 02:37 PM (MNq6o) ------------------------- Of course it's an ignorant ---dare I say bigoted?---caricature. But it EXISTS and you have to deal with it. If I say that whether you drink or not is your own business but that I should not be forced to pay for your booze, that you should not drive drunk, and that you should not disturb others by singing "Feelings" at the top of your lungs on a public sidewalk, I'm just asking you to be an adult and to take responsibility for your actions. Does this make me anti-booze?

Posted by: Margarita DeVille at January 23, 2014 11:06 AM (dfYL9)

290 "I will accept your lunatic definition of "controlling your libido" meaning 'having sex, just with a rubber" the very moment Mike Huckabee clearly states that that's precisely what he intended. " We don't use condoms. Still no pregnancy. I was explaining what one possible example of NFP looks like within a relationship.

Posted by: Lauren at January 23, 2014 11:06 AM (hFL/3)

291 Where I disagree with you is the part where you would presume the right and power to instill these things into people.

That's right. You have no right to teach your own kids.

Posted by: Scrunt on MSNBC with tampon earrings at January 23, 2014 11:06 AM (ZKzrr)

292 All this time I thought Dave in Texas was the staff gynecologist.

Posted by: Dr Spank at January 23, 2014 11:06 AM (P1WNR)

293

Thread Takeaways:

Ace really has a hard-on for Evangelicals

Alex and Lauren would be a hoot at a party

My jokes really ain't that funny

Posted by: ScoggDog at January 23, 2014 11:06 AM (ePQIH)

294 "Controlling your libido" means not having sex. Stop with the childish parsing. ace, that's not true, and please stop saying that people who do control their libidos are childish. It is offensive and makes you look bad. Control means control, not cut off. (JWB reference) Appropriate use of the lady and gentleman bits, not indiscriminate use, including appropriate time, place and circumstances. I'm with everyone else - who exactly has ever said sex is only for making babies and nothing else? You made a rather outrageous claim, and you aren't backing it up.

Posted by: VKI at January 23, 2014 11:06 AM (qySNZ)

295 This thread is proof that everyone on the right should totally avoid the subject of sex, women and reproduction. Period.

Posted by: jwest at January 23, 2014 11:06 AM (u2a4R)

296 Posted by: Hollowpoint at January 23, 2014 03:01 PM (SY2Kh)

And saying nothing is what they want.

Posted by: Bitter Clinger and All That (Unexpurgated Edition) at January 23, 2014 11:06 AM (LSDdO)

297 Castration and dick cutting off are two really different things.

I think you would die if your dick got cut off BTW.

Posted by: eleven at January 23, 2014 11:06 AM (KXm42)

298 First if that is what you believe- fine. But projecting that on others is another matter.

The problem people believing that "sex is just for babies" have, is one of articulation and conflation.

It is hard for them to say it is OK for MARRIED people to have frivolous sex and then tell young, unmarried people it is not.

Which is where abortion comes in. And it is downhill arguing from there.

Posted by: Marcus T at January 23, 2014 11:07 AM (GGCsk)

299 Bullshit. People do it every day. I have never had sex with anyone who is not my wife. There are many times she and/or I choose not to have sex- despite wanting to- for a variety of reasons.

Others of the horde abstained until marriage. Are you saying that's impossible? 'Cause we did it.

Posted by: AllenG (DedicatedTenther) Ah, F It. at January 23, 2014 03:05 PM (PYAXX)

*cough* I've never cheated on any girlfriend or my wife, but the abstained until marriage thing? I.... did not. With gusto.

Posted by: tangonine at January 23, 2014 11:07 AM (x3YFz)

300 If I say that whether you drink or not is your own business but that I should not be forced to pay for your booze, that you should not drive drunk, and that you should not disturb others by singing "Feelings" at the top of your lungs on a public sidewalk, I'm just asking you to be an adult and to take responsibility for your actions. Does this make me anti-booze?

Posted by: Margarita DeVille at January 23, 2014 03:06 PM (dfYL9)

You're a regular Carrie Nation. /sarc

Posted by: Insomniac at January 23, 2014 11:07 AM (DrWcr)

301 Controlling your libido means having sexual relations when appropriate, and not having them when not appropriate.

How ridiculous. That's lunatic!

Posted by: Sandra Flook at January 23, 2014 11:07 AM (Dwehj)

302 I think you would die if your dick got cut off BTW.

Posted by: eleven at January 23, 2014 03:06 PM (KXm42)

Shows what you know.

Posted by: John Bobbit at January 23, 2014 11:07 AM (LI48c)

303 I know you're on record as being in favor of kind of social controls, D-Lamp. Posted by: ace at January 23, 2014 02:54 PM (/FnUH) From my perspective it is a recognition that government of any sort cannot exist without some form of self control. Again, as Edmund Burke points out. The use of force alone is but temporary. It may subdue for a moment; but it does not remove the necessity of subduing again: and a nation is not governed, which is perpetually to be conquered. Societal controls are recursive.

Posted by: D-Lamp at January 23, 2014 11:07 AM (bb5+k)

304 263 Was that in Bill O'Reilly's book-- Killing Lincoln? Dammit, it was the man who shot Booth. A man named Corbett. Posted by: bonhomme at January 23, 2014 03:01 PM (A0glY) ******** LOL! Sure, sure it was. Ha! You can always learn something new here.

Posted by: Teleprompter Feed Crew at January 23, 2014 11:08 AM (RJMhd)

305 Word of advice to (male) GOP candidates, future or present: Don't voluntarily talk about women's libidos, birth control, or rape pregnancies. Don't. Fucking. Go. There. It will not end well. Posted by: Hollowpoint --------------------- What if that issue (like race) is constantly slammed down on the table by the Left, and promoted by the media? Standing mute will amount to Nolo Contendere in the eyes of the manipulated public.

Posted by: Mike Hammer at January 23, 2014 11:08 AM (aDwsi)

306 There's my man, JWest! Can I interest you in a spot in my cabinet?

Posted by: Andrew Cuomo at January 23, 2014 11:08 AM (YmPwQ)

307 Corbett, if that's the name lopped balls, not dick. Pretty sure. Can't open another tab to look it up.

Posted by: Lincolntf at January 23, 2014 11:08 AM (ZshNr)

308 i dunno, He seems to be pretty clear about empowering women with their own bodies. That they don't Need govt. to assist in their sexuality
because govt seems to be all over in our wombs and peni these days from an early age.
You are a woman that is capable of
a. controlling your libido.
b. have sex while using protection
planned by yourself by being responsible to yourself

imho . men should also play responsibly

Posted by: willow at January 23, 2014 11:08 AM (nqBYe)

309 214. Edmund Burke to the rescue! Men are qualified for civil liberty in exact proportion to their disposition to put moral chains upon their own appetites, Â— ... It is ordained in the eternal constitution of things, that men of intemperate minds cannot be free. Their passions forge their fetters. Letter to a Member of the National Assembly (1791). = Good quote. I've heard that for all the talk about "Rights" what really must be addressed is "Responsibilities". As example, BHO illustrates Burke's quote. To be noted, recent administrations forge the chains not on themselves, but on everyone else.

Posted by: panzernashorn at January 23, 2014 11:08 AM (MhA4j)

310 does controlling your car mean not driving it ever?

Posted by: thunderb at January 23, 2014 11:09 AM (zOTsN)

311 But we do need to punch back, and not hold back, civility be damned. Civility comes about when both sides know the other will attack if treated poorly. The Left has taken the complete wrong message from our tolerance, they have become brazen and foolhardy.

Time to put some fear back into them, and remind them tolerance and civility is a two-way street.
========
Dueling.

Posted by: RoyalOil at January 23, 2014 11:09 AM (VjL9S)

312

This thread is proof that everyone on the right should totally avoid the subject of sex, women and reproduction.

Period.

Or taxes, or illegal alien amnesty, or healtcare, or welfare spending, right? Just win elections for the GOP, and who cares what policies they follow.

Posted by: Vashta Nerada at January 23, 2014 11:09 AM (AskuI)

313 Posted by: tangonine at January 23, 2014 03:07 PM (x3YFz) Not saying everyone did. I'm saying it can be done- and has been.

Posted by: AllenG (DedicatedTenther) Ah, F It. at January 23, 2014 11:09 AM (PYAXX)

314 255 The whole body? So they are doing to the F-150 what Audi has done with their vehicles. But Audi does not make trucks, so yeah its going to be interesting.

Don't forget the melting point for aluminum is lower than steel. Lets hope Ford does not install a new lightweight fuel tank...
Posted by: Anna Puma (+SmuD) at January 23, 2014 02:59 PM (N8oJ5)
-------------------------------------------------
Aluminum is harder to work with than steel, too, so fixing dents is going to be a great deal of fun. I would think that pickups (work trucks, anyway) would be especially prone to dents and dings.

Posted by: CoderInCrisis at January 23, 2014 11:09 AM (BAEzE)

315

Ace,

Your last point hits the nail on the head. Why in the fuck are we talking about butt fucking or $9/month birth control. In the 8 yrs of GWB, were women somehow unable to get the fucking pill????? Were the gheys rounded up in prisons and camps????? WAS ANYONE???

This is such bullshit. Get whatever kind of birth control you want ladies, but I am not going to attack nuns to give it to you for free, so fuck off.

In the meantime, your children and grandchildren are becoming debt slaves and there are no jobs. Next question.

Posted by: prescient11 at January 23, 2014 11:09 AM (tVTLU)

316 does controlling your appetite mean starving to death?

Posted by: thunderb at January 23, 2014 11:09 AM (zOTsN)

317 This thread is proof that everyone on the right should totally avoid the subject of sex, women and reproduction.

Period.

Posted by: jwest at January 23, 2014 03:06 PM (u2a4R)

-----

WE WON!!!!!!!!!!!

Posted by: Lefties, Wyminists, Democrats and Proggs Eveerywhere at January 23, 2014 11:09 AM (nELVU)

318 This thread is proof that everyone on the right should totally avoid the subject of sex

Correct! It is WE who are the experts! Where's my damned butt plug?

Posted by: Sandra Flook at January 23, 2014 11:09 AM (Dwehj)

319 Rolling eyes.

Whatever. The socon right is permitted to make its intrusions into this area and if anyone says Boo back to them, it's the latter who's committed the foul.

Posted by: ace at January 23, 2014 02:24 PM (/FnUH)

Geeze, Ace, the Morons may be socons, some of them, but they sure don't seem to be opposed to sex for the sheer pleasure of it. Generally, the "aspirin between the knees" comments come about as an exasperated response to some leftard Special Snowflake that demands Government help to avoid becoming pregnant. Case in point: Sandra Fluke.

Posted by: Barry at January 23, 2014 11:10 AM (pFqpP)

320 Parthenogenesis. Ewoks reproduce that way. Read between the lines.

Posted by: Daybrother at January 23, 2014 11:10 AM (Dko1w)

321 Again, the entire sentence is a caricature of the Dem's position. Posted by: weft cut-loop at January 23, 2014 03:05 PM (cxs6V) yep why is this so hard to understand I guess we need to see facial expressions and hear tone of voice... oy

Posted by: artisanal 'ette at January 23, 2014 11:10 AM (IXrOn)

322 273 Polli the Wogette, What pisses me off is the notion that not wanting to have the Feds subsidize pogo pills, or baby blocker pills is some puritanical bender. Sandy Fluck's hobby is rutting I guess, mine is target shooting. I am at a loss why I get to subsidize Ms. Fluck fucking while I have to buy my guns and ammo. Also my marksmanship, like masturbation and flucking harms no one... It's a lifestyle choice if you will, yet oddly the media and Ms. Fluck want to hamper my gratificationary endeavor.... I'm gonna go out on a limb and bet democrats don't rake each other over the coals about their coalition's control impulses.

Posted by: sven10077 at January 23, 2014 11:10 AM (TE35l)

323 308 "There's my man, JWest! Can I interest you in a spot in my cabinet?" I've got the daughter of a Hong Kong billionaire to straighten out first, but maybe when I get back...

Posted by: jwest at January 23, 2014 11:10 AM (u2a4R)

324 Can't we all just get along?

Posted by: Rodney Daybrother King at January 23, 2014 11:11 AM (ipPo2)

325 "Controlling your libido" means not having sex. Stop with the childish parsing.Â - ace _____________ Then change it to "controlling your reproductive system" - maybe that works better?

Posted by: shredded chi - If the river was whiskey, I'd be a diving duck at January 23, 2014 11:11 AM (LM/hL)

326 Don't have sex isn't really a realistic option for anyone with a "healthy libido."

I think that may be the stupidest thing I've ever read. People do it all the time.

Posted by: HR at January 23, 2014 11:12 AM (ZKzrr)

327 when did control = cease

Posted by: thunderb at January 23, 2014 11:12 AM (zOTsN)

328 "d please stop saying that people who do control their libidos are childish. It is offensive and makes you look bad. " Yes. This! It honestly has me a bit infuriated right now because you seem to have as low a view of my reproductive capabilities as the liberals do. Just so you know, there are millions of couples out there who have healthy, normal sex lives, don't use contraception, and also don't have 37 children. And yes, it does involve self control...but we're not telling you that YOU have to do it, but please don't tell use that we are naive children.

Posted by: Lauren at January 23, 2014 11:12 AM (hFL/3)

329

Just got here, having coffee. I read the quote. I don't care for Huckabee, but I see nothing wrong with his quote. I see the same thing in one form or another from the 'ettes right here on AoS.

We have to remember, the MFM is seeing their control over the narrative slipping away from them because of the new media and sites just like this. And they're going to get more shrill as November approaches. They'll be shreiking insane people by election day.

Posted by: Soona at January 23, 2014 11:12 AM (tnQuI)

330 Not saying everyone did. I'm saying it can be done- and has been.

Posted by: AllenG (DedicatedTenther) Ah, F It. at January 23, 2014 03:09 PM (PYAXX)

I get ya.

But, brother... 20 years ago, nothing warm and moving was safe.

When you *volunteer* for wingman duty... it's a party!

Posted by: tangonine at January 23, 2014 11:12 AM (x3YFz)

331 Corbett, if that's the name lopped balls, not dick. Pretty sure. Can't open another tab to look it up. Yeah I failed on multiple levels with that one. Apologies.

Posted by: bonhomme[/i][/b][/i][/b][/s][/s] at January 23, 2014 11:12 AM (WhJf8)

332 >>>From my perspective it is a recognition that government of any sort cannot exist without some form of self control. you are not endeavoring to create self-control. You are attempting to impose your control on others, albeit through the less-egregious method of social shaming (social shaming being less egregious than positive government law, and yet still not "SELF" control).

Posted by: ace at January 23, 2014 11:12 AM (/FnUH)

333 And saying nothing is what they want.

I don't think so. More than a few GOP candidates have gotten found themselves in controversy (real or falsely ginned up) because they decided to address these topics. In some recent cases it was enough to sink them.

Why would the Dems not want Republicans to continue falling in that trap?

Posted by: Hollowpoint at January 23, 2014 11:13 AM (SY2Kh)

334 Buttsecks.

Posted by: eleven at January 23, 2014 11:13 AM (KXm42)

335 I know a ton of people who have learned to control their libidos for very long periods of time military members and their families

Posted by: thunderb at January 23, 2014 11:13 AM (zOTsN)

336 I suppose controlling one's libido could mean refraining from intercourse on the most fertile days of the month. Free calendars for everyone, no bitching.

Posted by: Lincolntf at January 23, 2014 11:14 AM (ZshNr)

337
Damn.

I thought since Willows here now there'd be a new thread up.

Posted by: fixerupper at January 23, 2014 11:14 AM (nELVU)

338 >>Word of advice to (male) GOP candidates, future or present: Don't voluntarily talk about women's libidos, birth control, or rape pregnancies. >>Don't. Fucking. Go. There. It will not end well. With the exception of birth control I agree. Not sure what the hell a woman's (or man's) libido has to do with anything so why even talk about it? We are forced to talk about it now that Dems insist it is a birth right and we all have to pay for everyone else's but when has talking about rape or libidos ever helped Republicans?

Posted by: JackStraw at January 23, 2014 11:14 AM (g1DWB)

339 Hell even Hammurabi's Code starts of with a reference to "a" God. Hammurabi ruled for nearly 43 years, ca. 1792 to 1750 BC according to the Middle chronology. In the preface to the law, he states, "Anu and Bel called by name me, Hammurabi, the exalted prince, who feared Marduk, the patron god of Babylon (The Human Record, Andrea & Overfield 2005), to bring about the rule in the land."[5] On the stone slab there are 44 columns and 28 paragraphs that contained over 282 laws.

Posted by: Teleprompter Feed Crew at January 23, 2014 11:14 AM (RJMhd)

340 I think it's obvious, and I'm sure Chi-Town Jerry will agree, that the best thing the GOP can do is to simply stop letting SoCons say ANYTHING about women, period. Just act like they aren't even there.

Posted by: Titus Quinctius Cincinnatus at January 23, 2014 11:14 AM (YYJjz)

341 >>>Not saying everyone did. I'm saying it can be done- and has been. yes let's set up the monastic standard as a general societal standard because... whatever. You get very free, as the left does, in imposing the Vindictive Standard on people when it comes to things you disapprove of. A standard should be the BASELINE. If your "standard" is the heroic standard of lifetime self-abnegation, that is not a "standard" -- that is an IDEAL. Ideals can be argued for and encouraged but they are not standards. Get your terminology straight and maybe that will fix your thinking.

Posted by: ace at January 23, 2014 11:14 AM (/FnUH)

342 My distinguished neighbor John Wayne Bobbitt begs to differ that you'll die if your dick is cut off. But I wouldn't want to find out first hand.

Posted by: BlueStateRebel at January 23, 2014 11:14 AM (7ObY1)

343 Posted by: DangerGirl Telecommunications at January 23, 2014 03:03 PM (jNNPU) I'm on team "Just shut up already Huck" and I also read it that way. As mentioned above, it *is* a long sentence but he seems to have tried to pick his words very carefully.

Posted by: Polliwog the 'Ette at January 23, 2014 11:14 AM (GDulk)

344 Don't you dare try to tell me I can't spread my virulent, antibiotic-resistant clap wherever the hell I want to!1!

Posted by: Sandra Flook at January 23, 2014 11:15 AM (Dwehj)

345 Any Country that has those as it's main concerns must be going down the crapper?

Posted by: Nevergiveup

Hand wave, distraction of the day.

Nanny state progressives will do and say anything to distract from the real problems this country is being hammered by. Idiots in the press promote anything to sling ink, politicians just want face time.

I grow weary of all this, fvck them all...

Posted by: Gmac at January 23, 2014 11:15 AM (4pjhs)

346

T9 ... Fistbump.

Good times, but if my boy aspires to half the shit we did ...

Posted by: ScoggDog at January 23, 2014 11:15 AM (ePQIH)

347 >>>>I suppose controlling one's libido could mean refraining from intercourse on the most fertile days of the month. Free calendars for everyone, no bitching. sure. and maybe it means blowjobs and anal, too.

Posted by: ace at January 23, 2014 11:15 AM (/FnUH)

348 >>>I know a ton of people who have learned to control their libidos for very long periods of time

military members and their families

Posted by: thunderb at January 23, 2014 03:13 PM (zOTsN)

As a veteran, I lol'd.

Posted by: Paul at January 23, 2014 11:15 AM (9qDRl)

349 Remind me again... Are we for rape-rape and making contraception illegal? Or should I wait and have our 2016 candidates explain it?

Posted by: jwest at January 23, 2014 11:16 AM (u2a4R)

350 Does controlling one's mind mean he can't think?

Posted by: Soona at January 23, 2014 11:16 AM (tnQuI)

351 My cat's breath smells like cat food.

Posted by: Daybrother at January 23, 2014 11:17 AM (0P6R5)

352 297 This thread is proof that everyone on the right should totally avoid the subject of sex, women and reproduction. Period. Posted by: jwest at January 23, 2014 03:06 PM (u2a4R) You said "period"!

Posted by: Poindexter at January 23, 2014 11:17 AM (DrC22)

353 "sure. and maybe it means blowjobs and anal, too. " Yeah, you asshole, it does mean blowjobs. No anal because I don't do that. But blowjobs, sure. OH GOD THE SOCONS...don't care at all even a little bit.

Posted by: Lauren at January 23, 2014 11:17 AM (hFL/3)

354 Now we've ventured into the ridiculous. I'll be back later.

Posted by: DangerGirl Telecommunications at January 23, 2014 11:17 AM (jNNPU)

355 I yearn for the goode olde days when controlling your libido meant crafting a walking stick and then going for a long walk in the woods, where you would hit your penis repeatedly with said stick.

Posted by: Dr Spank at January 23, 2014 11:17 AM (P1WNR)

356 345 Posted by: DangerGirl Telecommunications at January 23, 2014 03:03 PM (jNNPU)

I'm on team "Just shut up already Huck" and I also read it that way. As mentioned above, it *is* a long sentence but he seems to have tried to pick his words very carefully.

Posted by: Polliwog the 'Ette at January 23, 2014 03:14 PM (GDulk)

So have most other people. But apparently we are all wrong for reading the words that are actually there, unlike ace who is correct because he has read the words that are not there.

Posted by: buzzion at January 23, 2014 11:17 AM (LI48c)

357 You Pugs are not even allowed to accurately state the Democrat position on women, because the media will have a field day selectively quoting you. So shut up and move to f'n Texas, you nutjobs.

Posted by: Andrew Cuomo at January 23, 2014 11:17 AM (YmPwQ)

358 337 I know a ton of people who have learned to control their libidos for very long periods of time

military members and their families

Posted by: thunderb at January 23, 2014 03:13 PM (zOTsN)

might I chime in?

some. sure. But hit an NCO club after a brigade deploys.

*story time*

I was a SSgt at the time, and a Colonel was prowling the NCO club hitting on wives. He put hands on a waitress who was the wife of a friend. First and only time I snatched an officer up by the collar and called the MPs to come drive his drunk narrow ass home.

Posted by: tangonine at January 23, 2014 11:17 AM (x3YFz)

359 What I'm sayin is if you don't get rushed to a hospital you ain't gonna make it.

I doubt someone in the 1860's could cut off his weener and live to tell about it.

Posted by: eleven at January 23, 2014 11:17 AM (KXm42)

360 OK I also know some military members who didn't still I didn't read Hucks statement as saying no birth control only that women are capable enough to be in charge of their reproductive lives without the government paying for it

Posted by: thunderb at January 23, 2014 11:18 AM (zOTsN)

361 and I am no Huck fan

Posted by: thunderb at January 23, 2014 11:18 AM (zOTsN)

362 No one is imposing anything! If you can't keep your legs closed, you'll likely get pregnant. When the inevitable happens, don't rely on Taxpayers to support your bad decisions.

Posted by: soothsayer, with arms akimbo at January 23, 2014 11:18 AM (WdFTd)

363 I'm out, too.

Posted by: Y-not on the phone at January 23, 2014 11:18 AM (zDsvJ)

364

Posted by: ace at January 23, 2014 03:12 PM (/FnUH)

again, do you have a line of what should be allowed and not in society? Should women be able to go shirtless on a hot summer day? Should you be able to have sex in public? Should prostitution be legal?

The only way you would be consistent in your criticism of imposing some morality 'laws' by the government is if you believe that there should be none at all.

Posted by: polynikes at January 23, 2014 11:18 AM (m2CN7)

365 Ace's rant had nothing to do with what Huckabee said.

Posted by: Flatbush Joe at January 23, 2014 11:18 AM (ZPrif)

366 I find it quite interesting that birth control and abortion are front and center in Obamacare yet fertility treatments are nowhere to be found. The left spouts off about "choice"; but chooses to fund one side and not the other.

Posted by: Joel V at January 23, 2014 11:19 AM (rjl9o)

367 Where I disagree with you is the part where you would presume the right and power to instill these things into people. I deny your capability in that regard, and I deny your right. Posted by: ace at January 23, 2014 02:56 PM (/FnUH) I wish I had the time to convey my comprehension of the issue, but the topic is so extensive that it is simply not feasible in this forum. I will, however attempt to present an example of a concept that you may or may not be familiar with. A nation cannot protect anyone's freedom if it cannot survive it's own folly. (Plato came up with this too. )

When we lived under Monarchy, the King could rightfully prohibit the consumption of drugs on the basis that individuals, by damaging their own lives, were making themselves unfit to defend the nation. Indeed, if a sufficient quantity of people engaged in a form of behavior which created a severe reduction in available manpower (such as the manner in which Opium Addiction devastated China by 1900) then such behavior becomes a threat to the very existence of that form of government. It occurred to me that this danger to the King's government is a danger to any and all governments. Even a Democratic Republic can only tolerate some level of folly before it poses a threat to the very existence of that form of government. (I argue we are seeing examples of this currently.) The point is, a Nation must exercise whatever power that it must to preserve it's own existence, and if it cannot or will not do that, then it will be replaced by a government which will. (Usually a dictatorship with even less concern for freedom.) Evolution is a bitch which will always win in the end. Government's are just as much subject to the rules of biological evolution as are organisms.

Posted by: D-Lamp at January 23, 2014 11:19 AM (bb5+k)

368 Others of the horde abstained until marriage. Are you saying that's impossible? 'Cause we did it. Posted by: AllenG (DedicatedTenther) Ah, F It. at January 23, 2014 03:05 PM (PYAXX) We did too. Not easy. in fact, one of the reasons both sets of parents agreed to let us get married at 19 was to not make it *too* much harder than it had to be. Now that John has died I will be abstaining unless I get remarried. Not out of childishness (which is a really insulting assumption ace) but out of self respect and the knowledge that I will be a more emotionally whole person because of it.

Posted by: Polliwog the 'Ette at January 23, 2014 11:19 AM (GDulk)

369 I doubt that, but it works. as far as birth control is concerned. Really, abstaining for a few days or, Government forbid, a full week, is not exactly asking a lot of a thinking human being concerned with the consequences. Married people do it, single people do it, everyone but the most irresponsible adults or the jackasses on TV does it.

Posted by: Lincolntf at January 23, 2014 11:19 AM (ZshNr)

370 Okaaaaay. So I'm jumping in the thread really late here but, did I miss something? Where in Huckabee's statement is there any reference to women keeping their knees together? What argument that sex is just about babies? What am I missing?

Posted by: Niedermeyer's Dead Horse at January 23, 2014 11:19 AM (DmNpO)

371 My cat's breath smells like cat food.

Weird.

Posted by: eleven at January 23, 2014 11:19 AM (KXm42)

372 and even so, more military families controlled themselves than didnt

Posted by: thunderb at January 23, 2014 11:19 AM (zOTsN)

373 Centering "meaning" on sexual intercourse, only one singular bodily appetite, really misses consideration of the overall truth, the complete matter of civility and the Golden Rule. It's worth considering whether those who devolve into the "free sex" argument ever see past self indulgence of any appetite. Pearls and swine. Even so, Philip reminds that the pearl, clean or dirty, is yet the pearl. That it is up to the person to see value in virtue. (And of virtue, as many virtues as there are vices.)

Posted by: panzernashorn at January 23, 2014 11:19 AM (MhA4j)

374 361 What I'm sayin is if you don't get rushed to a hospital you ain't gonna make it.

I know, I just like poking fun at my local "celebrities." When your famous locals are John Wayne Bobbitt, Timothy McVeigh, Rick James and OJ Simpson, you gotta joke about it.

Posted by: BlueStateRebel at January 23, 2014 11:19 AM (7ObY1)

375
Healthy libido + blow job + cunnilingus = babies?!

Posted by: Dang at January 23, 2014 11:20 AM (MNq6o)

376 "....it does mean blowjobs. No anal because I don't do that. But blowjobs, sure..." Now that we've established that you're an open-minded girl, let's talk about the proper use of lube and graduated training program.

Posted by: jwest at January 23, 2014 11:20 AM (u2a4R)

377 Huck says Dems are condescending to women about sex babies contraception. Some idiot Lefty tweets misleadingsh*t. Ace worries that misleadingsh*t! will be politically damaging to Righties, so Huck should police himself more carefully and/or shut up.

How about this: we point out the misleadingsh*t, agree that Lefties are condescending totalitarians, and demand that Lefties say how noble and mature all those gals having babies out of wedlock really are, and how good they and their irresponsible lovers really are for this country.

The Left should be made explicitly to defend careless sex, infanticide-on-demand, and welfare incentives for producing out-of-wedlock kids. That's their vision of the Brave New Plantation.

Make them defend it.

Posted by: Feh at January 23, 2014 11:20 AM (5WJiQ)

378 What am I missing?

Posted by: Niedermeyer's Dead Horse at January 23, 2014 03:19 PM (DmNpO)

-----

Not.A.Damned.Thing

Posted by: fixerupper at January 23, 2014 11:20 AM (nELVU)

379 @201 Tip of the bauxite iceberg. I own a "plastic" car. Can't go through an automatic carwash -- they have a magnetic trigger. At one place, if the kid in charge would wave a trash can lid at the exact moment the nose of my car lined up with the sensor, it would work. Can't get all kids to do that kind of stuff.

Paint a sign on a car door? But, but, that negates the whole Rockford Files Business Card aspect of stealth corporate ID. Also, once you identify as a tax-deductible business vehicle, you might not want to drive it to the full-dress porte cochere entry at the opera hall. Think it doesn't happen? A five year run of Chevys wasn't called "Tuxedo" for nothing. Choose your business name wisely.

Seriously. aluminum does not like to be painted. It requires special crazing primers, usually acid. Ford must have spent a bundle figuring out how to use their pretty highly developed paint booths to add color to what would otherwise look like a WWII cargo plane. Repaints and touchups are going to be real interesting, and possibly EPA illegal.

Posted by: Stringer Davis at January 23, 2014 11:20 AM (xq1UY)

380 314
This thread is proof that everyone on the right should totally avoid the subject of sex, women and reproduction.

Period.

-

Or taxes, or illegal alien amnesty, or healtcare, or welfare spending, right? Just win elections for the GOP, and who cares what policies they follow.
Posted by: Vashta Nerada at January 23, 2014 03:09 PM (AskuI)
----------------------------------

One thing I wish the GOP would do a better job of is coach its candidates on how to handle topics like this. The left loves to use abortion, birth control, and other lefty sacred cows as gotchas, and they will run the ill-phrased quotes from an unprepared candidate 24/7 on every outlet they have. Which is pretty much all of them.

Posted by: CoderInCrisis at January 23, 2014 11:20 AM (BAEzE)

381 sure. and maybe it means blowjobs and anal, too. Posted by: ace at January 23, 2014 03:15 PM (/FnUH) Don't forget the Penis Pumps!

Posted by: artisanal 'ette at January 23, 2014 11:20 AM (IXrOn)

382 Posted by: ace at January 23, 2014 03:14 PM (/FnUH) No. You don't get away with that. YOU are the one suggesting a "general social standard." Not I. YOU are the one who stated that someone with a healthy libido just couldn't help having sex. That it wasn't a "realistic option." I, and Huckabee, laid out 2 options- Control (and the others are right- "control" != "cease", but I'll go with cease for the time being) your libido OR use birth control. Never once did I say one was preferred over the other- simply that they were both available. I *did* mention that more than a few people have done exactly what you say can't be done- abstain from sexual contact. So, once more- what is your 3rd option- or are women so base- so sub-MAN- that they only have the one (because they can't possibly "control their libido") when it comes to not having children?

Posted by: AllenG (DedicatedTenther) Ah, F It. at January 23, 2014 11:20 AM (PYAXX)

383 What am I missing?

Posted by: Niedermeyer's Dead Horse at January 23, 2014 03:19 PM (DmNpO)

Not much. But Huckabee is an idiot and detests the Tea Party so... I'm not stepping in to break up this retard slap fight.

Posted by: tangonine at January 23, 2014 11:20 AM (x3YFz)

384 361 What I'm sayin is if you don't get rushed to a hospital you ain't gonna make it. I doubt someone in the 1860's could cut off his weener and live to tell about it. Posted by: eleven at January 23, 2014 03:17 PM (KXm42) ********* What if it's --"just the tip"?

Posted by: Teleprompter Feed Crew at January 23, 2014 11:20 AM (RJMhd)

385 This was the title of this post by ace :
Prepare for a Shock: NBC Reporter, Entire Left Distorts Mike Huckabee Quote on Women

Posted by: Dr Spank at January 23, 2014 11:21 AM (P1WNR)

386 Ellipses. Is there anything they can't do? (When you want to misconstrue someone's meaning, that is?)

Posted by: jakeman at January 23, 2014 11:21 AM (vH4YP)

387 Others of the horde abstained until marriage. Are you saying that's impossible? 'Cause we did it.

Posted by: AllenG (DedicatedTenther) Ah, F It. at January 23, 2014 03:05 PM (PYAXX)

We did too. Not easy. Posted by: Polliwog the 'Ette

Same here.

Posted by: Dang at January 23, 2014 11:21 AM (MNq6o)

388 Does controlling yourself mean youÂ’re not Descartes?

Posted by: Paid for by Citizens for Clyde the Orangutan at January 23, 2014 11:21 AM (QF8uk)

389 >>>"d please stop saying that people who do control their libidos are childish. It is offensive and makes you look bad. " Yes. This! It honestly has me a bit infuriated right now because you seem to have as low a view of my reproductive capabilities as the liberals do. Just so you know, there are millions of couples out there who have healthy, normal sex lives, don't use contraception, and also don't have 37 children. And yes, it does involve self control...but we're not telling you that YOU have to do it, but please don't tell use that we are naive childre ... if you have a normal sex life you're not controlling your libido, you're exercising it. You want credit for two contradictory things: You want to assert that you "control your libido," but when I say "a sexless life should not be the standard," you rebut by saying "Oh no, I have lots of sex.' This is infantile. You're saying you have a healthy amount of sex, but you want to be credited as being part of the "controlling your libido" group. No. It's one or the other. A libido is not being "controlled" by being frequently satisfied; it is being SATED, not denied. But this another aspect of people I've come to dislike: People who want credit for being on both sides of an issue. I hear progressives saying they don't believe in any god, and yet are "very spiritual" (both at once!), and now I hear people saying they both "control their libidos," and yet have lots of healthy, red-blooded American sex. Well, if you're having lots of sex, why should any adult single woman be looked at askance for doing the same thing? Why is she being given the option of "controlling her libido" or indulging it with birth control? If Huck didn't mean this, he should have chosen his words more carefully. Maybe you are right, in the main: That he didn't mean this. That he was speaking extemporaneously. And in speaking thus, words tend to come out in tumbles. They are not minutely analyzed before being spoken. Yet nevertheless I will insist the words themselves -- whether Huck meant the meaning or not -- are problematic. We ARE going to lose women all day long and twice on Sundays if we continue pushing this agenda, as a part of our *politics,* in which the only real way to have acceptable sex is to be a Committed Christian in a Loving Marriage.

Posted by: ace at January 23, 2014 11:21 AM (/FnUH)

390 "he's still making the connection that birth control has something to do with 'controlling your libido.'"

To point out the obvious, Ace, it does. Unfortunately you are doing here the work of the Democrats for them.

Umm...excuse me, but did you ever make a Sandra Fluke joke? I seem to recall a few. Were these jokes sometimes aimed at her sexual proclivities? Again, I would have to say yes.

The point is NOT that procreation should always follow from sex. The point is if you cannot afford birth control and you don't want a child, then you CAN and OUGHT to control your libido. To say a person should not have to control his or her libido regardless of economic situation is to agree, then, that birth control is no different from, say, food. And the position that government should be in the business of providing free birth control suddenly becomes sensible.

Posted by: Nicholas Kronos at January 23, 2014 11:21 AM (bUvM7)

391 What if that issue (like race) is constantly slammed down on the table by the Left, and promoted by the media? Standing mute will amount to Nolo Contendere in the eyes of the manipulated public.

Why give them ammo? Huckabee wasn't responding to a question or accusation, it was a prepared speech.

Of all the many, many flaws with Obamacare, is mandatory birth control coverage really so high on the list of Bad Things that it must be addressed at every opportunity?

Posted by: Hollowpoint at January 23, 2014 11:22 AM (SY2Kh)

392
I would just like to pre-denounce myself for the years 2017 to 2021 for SEXIIIST!

You know its coming. Ol' Moonface and her supporters are gonna be shrieking it like a banshee!

oh crap, I denounce myself.

Posted by: Guy Mohawk at January 23, 2014 11:22 AM (n0DEs)

393 I think it's obvious, and I'm sure Chi-Town Jerry will agree, that the best thing the GOP can do is to simply stop letting SoCons say ANYTHING about women, period. Just act like they aren't even there.

----

Socons are not allowed to say anything about anything because they will cost the GOP elections. Nobody wants to hear from a bunch of moralizing, repressed Jesus freaks. Al they need to say is "We agree, Mr. Rove! How high, Mr. Rove? We love Democrat Lite, Mr. Rove!" and vote for spendaholic amnesty fans, and other "normal" Republicans. If you can't beat 'em, join 'em, baby!.

Posted by: Turd Blossom at January 23, 2014 11:22 AM (YmPwQ)

394 what's Ace got against handys?

Posted by: thunderb at January 23, 2014 11:22 AM (zOTsN)

395 372. Perhaps you've forgotten. But Huckabee did get into it while on the record, some time ago now. He always ends up saying too much, thinks far too much of himself. He's too like Joe Biden in that.

Posted by: panzernashorn at January 23, 2014 11:22 AM (MhA4j)

396

@ 382 - "One thing I wish the GOP would do a better job of is coach its candidates on how to handle topics like this. The left loves to use abortion, birth control, and other lefty sacred cows as gotchas, and they will run the ill-phrased quotes from an unprepared candidate 24/7 on every outlet they have. Which is pretty much all of them."

Why would that even matter? This thread is proof positive that you can say something perfectly true that the Democrats don't like, and they will simply take it, selectively edit it, and use it to make it look like you said something you never said.

Apparently even a few Morons are snowed by it (e.g. jwest).

Posted by: Titus Quinctius Cincinnatus at January 23, 2014 11:22 AM (YYJjz)

397 So just curious libertarian man- can people have haphazard, uncontrolled sex without society paying for it in some way either morally or financially?

Because I've never seen that point argued successfully.

If there is a moral, social or financial action created by someone's action, there need to be some type of "control" or "limit".

I am not saying the answer is actual government control or forceful action. But it can be a moral "control" or social "control" vis a vis societal influence or the general disapproval from society as a whole.

What erodes societies is a lack of controls and limits. So the issue is more a matter of how and how much.

Posted by: Marcus T at January 23, 2014 11:22 AM (GGCsk)

398 Can people control their sex drive? I'm not sure what is meant by "sex drive" here/ Does that mean control your ability to have sex? Yes, as HR pointed out people do it all the time. Otherwise, we'd be humping every person that we are attracted to who gave out signals they are available People also chose not to have sex because they don't have protection at the time or in the NFP cycle it's likely women are going to ovulate. And Lauren's comments in 320 were well stated. And yes, why should we suddenly have to pay for other people's birth control?

Posted by: FenelonSpoke at January 23, 2014 11:22 AM (7kkQJ)

399 "Controlling your libido" means not having sex. Stop with the childish parsing.

Ace, read it again with "control" in the medical sense of "controlling diabetes" rather than the lawyer sense of "we're going to force everyone to do this".

Thus, "controlling your libido" means anything a woman does that isn't immediate unprotected PIV. Including sending the guy down to the Walgreens on the corner (because there's *always* a Walgreens on the corner) for some Trojans first, which is specifically what Democrats seem to believe is beyond the mental capacity of women.

Posted by: Ian S. at January 23, 2014 11:22 AM (B/VB5)

400 So according to ace, saying "the other guy thinks you can't control your libido without government help" means we endorse slut shaming, cloistering our women, or outlawing sex except for the express purpose of procreation. And anytime a religious person expresses support for self control, they don't mean get married and keep it between you and the wife, they mean don't have sex. Ace, you have a brilliant mind, but this is a blind spot for you.

Posted by: bonhomme[/i][/b][/i][/b][/s][/s] at January 23, 2014 11:23 AM (WhJf8)

401

NBC chopping up a quote and then re-airing/tweeting it with an entirely different meaning? It's like the sun coming up tomorrow, from the east no less.

Perhaps people should just retweet everything Hunts writes with #DNCshill. Maybe create an account called DNCshill, so you can send it as @kasie @DNCshill.

Posted by: Leland at January 23, 2014 11:23 AM (QB3JR)

402 Fine. Here it is:

Posted by: alexthechick - Skittle fueled Godzillette at January 23, 2014 02:40 PM (VtjlW)

Every time I read that rant, I fall in love all over again.

Posted by: Blanco Basura at January 23, 2014 11:23 AM (YEelc)

403 Serious, you guys, why does nobody talk about Barry Obama's libido? Is it forbidden? Is it non-existent? Is it on the down low?

Scratch that. I don't want to know.

Posted by: Fritz at January 23, 2014 11:23 AM (UzPAd)

404

Here's the point. Do I think less of people who say they cannot control their libido? Sure I do. That is a weakness, or a sin, or whatever you wish to call it. Do I want to tell them that they cannot have sex with any willing adult they choose to? No. They are free to do as they wish as long as it is voluntary and legal to do so, and does not interfere with others' rights.

But, I should not have to pay for their contraception, or their STD treatments, nor should I be maligned because I don't accept their worldview that their moral weakness is somehow the 'correct' view.

Posted by: Vashta Nerada at January 23, 2014 11:23 AM (AskuI)

405 i'm trying to figure out what huckabee said that is so upsetting.....i hate the guy and i just don't see it.... seems like someone can't control his libido if he expects a bj or anal while his significant other is bleeding like a stuck pig.......

Posted by: phoenixgirl at work at January 23, 2014 11:23 AM (8v/hq)

406 SoCons can be annoying with their insistent articulation of moral standards that I don't always live up to. They come off smug and self-righteous all the time, and I'm often tempted to mock them or pick fights for no reason whatsoever. Apparently ace and I have at least that much in common.

Posted by: Fred at January 23, 2014 11:23 AM (waJ+2)

407 356 Now we've ventured into the ridiculous. I'll be back later. Posted by: DangerGirl Telecommunications +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Yep, it's getting to be a pretty predictable pattern. Sigh...

Posted by: Countrysquire at January 23, 2014 11:23 AM (LSJmV)

408 My mom had two sayings about birth control, and this goes back at least 35 years. "The best birth control is NoAssitol." The second best is Sulfa Denyl. Of course, she was preaching to me about chasing skirts, and preaching to the wrong son, but I thought it was funny. As far as the deliberate misquoting of Huckabee (believe me, I'm no fan of his), let's put the blame where it belongs... on reporters and other cum dumpsters who use ellipses and other omissions to create lies out of other peoples words. Yes, lies. They're lying liars who lie, and think it's cute how they do it, that's why it ends up on twitter.

Posted by: Normal man spitting his hands at January 23, 2014 11:23 AM (agLwc)

409 Married couple arrested for not controlling their libido...

http://www.thesmokinggun.com/documents/newlywed-park-sex-bust-912837

Posted by: Dang at January 23, 2014 11:24 AM (MNq6o)

410 >>>Where in Huckabee's statement is there any reference to women keeping their knees together? What argument that sex is just about babies? ... I don't know how many times I have to point out his listing of two choices: Controlling one's libido, OR birth control. Apparently the two aren't used in conjunction. Apparently women on birth control aren't patrolling their libidos, and so need the cheat of chemical assistance.

Posted by: ace at January 23, 2014 11:24 AM (/FnUH)

411 or ovulating

Posted by: phoenixgirl at work at January 23, 2014 11:24 AM (8v/hq)

412

@ 391 ace - "Just so you know, there are millions of couples out there who have healthy, normal sex lives, don't use contraception, and also don't have 37 children."

I don't think *anyone* has had 37 kids, so a poor choice of example.

Posted by: Titus Quinctius Cincinnatus at January 23, 2014 11:24 AM (YYJjz)

413 Ace's rant had nothing to do with what Huckabee said. Posted by: Flatbush Joe We have a winna!

Posted by: Daybrother at January 23, 2014 11:24 AM (5xB7w)

414 Nobody wants to hear from a bunch of moralizing, repressed Jesus freaks.

Posted by: Turd Blossom at January 23, 2014 03:22 PM (YmPwQ)

Easy there, crusher. While I agree that some (ok, a lot) of folks really chase the morality thing like a dog after a bone, but check fire before you hit a friendly.

Posted by: tangonine at January 23, 2014 11:24 AM (x3YFz)

415 Not much. But Huckabee is an idiot and detests the Tea Party so... I'm not stepping in to break up this retard slap fight. *** Don't get the popcorn stuck in your teeth.

Posted by: Niedermeyer's Dead Horse at January 23, 2014 11:24 AM (DmNpO)

416

Ace just because in your mind "Controlling your libido" means Celibate does not make it true. And again you read the sentence that mentioned it completely wrong.

Posted by: buzzion at January 23, 2014 11:24 AM (LI48c)

417

Not much. But Huckabee is an idiot and detests the Tea Party so... I'm not stepping in to break up this retard slap fight.

Posted by: tangonine at January 23, 2014 03:20 PM (x3YFz)

Moron slap flight, thank you!

Posted by: Austin in TX at January 23, 2014 11:24 AM (lKVc4)

418 When are we going to discuss the all important "Bieber Crisis"?

Posted by: Judge Pug at January 23, 2014 11:25 AM (E4MKN)

419 I don't think *anyone* has had 37 kids, so a poor choice of example. *** You don't read the Enquirer much, do you?

Posted by: Niedermeyer's Dead Horse at January 23, 2014 11:25 AM (DmNpO)

420 <<If I took into account only force, and the effects derived from it, I should say: "As long as a people is compelled to obey, and obeys, it does well; as soon as it can shake off the yoke, and shakes it off, it does still better; for, regaining its liberty by the same right as took it away, either it is justified in resuming it, or there was no justification for those who took it away." But the social order is a sacred right which is the basis of all other rights. Nevertheless, this right does not come from nature, and must therefore be founded on conventions. Before coming to that, I have to prove what I have just asserted.>>

Posted by: Marcus T at January 23, 2014 11:25 AM (GGCsk)

421 >>>Here's the point. Do I think less of people who say they cannot control their libido? Sure I do. That is a weakness, or a sin, or whatever you wish to call it. Do I want to tell them that they cannot have sex with any willing adult they choose to? No. They are free to do as they wish as long as it is voluntary and legal to do so, and does not interfere with others' rights. ah honesty. And yet when I say that's what Huck has in mind (as it is many people's minds), they begin swearing on a stack of Bibles that he couldn't possibly have meant any such thing, because of course No Christian Anywhere Believes Such Rot.

Posted by: ace at January 23, 2014 11:25 AM (/FnUH)

422 *ahem*

Posted by: Genghis Kahn at January 23, 2014 11:25 AM (ZPrif)

423 Religion--sometimes you can simply think of it as codified law. Without religion--how would you stop murder? Then is a law against murder a question of morality? Posted by: Teleprompter Feed Crew at January 23, 2014 02:59 PM (RJMhd) It is my belief that Religion is the foundation for Western Civilization. Indeed, without some basis for morality, who can say that Slavery is wrong? Murder is defined as the "Unlawful Killing" of a person. If the law says it's okay, why wouldn't people do it? Well, they would.

Posted by: D-Lamp at January 23, 2014 11:26 AM (bb5+k)

424 You know, maybe I'm just a reactionary SoCon, but I *still* don't see what's so bad about telling people that if they want to have sex, then they need to pay for all the trappings themselves, and they need to exercise personal responsibility for whatever the results of it may be.

Posted by: Titus Quinctius Cincinnatus at January 23, 2014 11:26 AM (YYJjz)

425 Apparently the two aren't used in conjunction. Apparently women on birth control aren't patrolling their libidos, and so need the cheat of chemical assistance.

Posted by: ace at January 23, 2014 03:24 PM (/FnUH)

Oh shit.

//pulls fire alarm

get to the choppa!

Posted by: tangonine at January 23, 2014 11:26 AM (x3YFz)

426 1) you all make a lot of assumptions about "SoCons" based on very few examples. (and most of them media hounds or spotlighted by the media because of their extremity)

2) Call it what you will but the removal of God from Government and the Schools has coincided with the decline in both and the degradation of the populace

3) Sex is for the married. Not because some religion says so but because it entangles the participants in ways they did not anticipate. (unless they also listened to what religion had to say)

4) To attack someone for their beliefs, no matter how wrongheaded you may think they are, is not better than what the Progressives do.

5) To claim that a certain faction is always and ever poisonous and sabotages a party's opportunity for power is a waste of energy. They exist and must be taken into consideration as to how to nullify their affect but not by outright rejection or demanding they be silent.

6) Fighting/arguing about this is EXACTLY what the Media wants to see happen. Divide and conquer/control. Set your enemies fighting amongst themselves.

Posted by: Bitter Clinger and All That (Unexpurgated Edition) at January 23, 2014 11:26 AM (LSDdO)

427 OK, I get the part about doing the sex thing is for makin'babiez.

But, just like any endeavor, if you want to excel at it, you need to practice, practice, practice.

Posted by: Village Idiot's Apprentice at January 23, 2014 11:26 AM (kFCo1)

428 I don't know how many times I have to point out his listing of two choices: Controlling one's libido, OR birth control.

Apparently the two aren't used in conjunction. Apparently women on birth control aren't patrolling their libidos, and so need the cheat of chemical assistance.

Posted by: ace at January 23, 2014 03:24 PM (/FnUH)

You have read him WRONG. You have it in your head that he has said something he has not said and refuse to reread it to properly understand the structure of the sentence. And to be doing so after you've spent the week focusing on language.

Posted by: buzzion at January 23, 2014 11:26 AM (LI48c)

429 I just want to control my libido in you baby.

Posted by: eleven at January 23, 2014 11:27 AM (KXm42)

430 >>>So according to ace, saying "the other guy thinks you can't control your libido without government help" means we endorse slut shaming, cloistering our women, or outlawing sex except for the express purpose of procreation. And anytime a religious person expresses support for self control, they don't mean get married and keep it between you and the wife, they mean don't have sex. ... I think you and I are going to just have to disagree on whether the concept of SELF control includes outside-the-self heckling from third parties.

Posted by: ace at January 23, 2014 11:27 AM (/FnUH)

431 WarOnWomenz! Repubs are mean and judgy!! They should never say anything that can willfully misconstrued!! Evar!!!

Posted by: Flatbush Joe at January 23, 2014 11:27 AM (ZPrif)

432 "It Takes a Village to Raise a Child."

Except for the Christians.
They need to shut up 'cause they don't know what they are talking about.

Posted by: RoyalOil at January 23, 2014 11:27 AM (VjL9S)

433 I think too much is being read into Huck's use of "or" in his statement. He obviously hasn't taken any Logic courses. You need to read that sentence in context with the rest of the statement.

Posted by: Dr Spank at January 23, 2014 11:27 AM (P1WNR)

434 >>> if you have a normal sex life you're not controlling your libido, you're exercising it.

Actually this isn't true. Of course it is possible to exercise your libido and control it at the same time.

Think of it as hunger for food: indulging in a delicious meal doesn't mean that you have to indulge in gluttony and visit the vomitarium.

I'm Catholic and I can tell you that from a Catholic point of view, a good, fulfilling sex life involves a sense of self-control as well. It's a balance, just like everything in life.

Posted by: dan-O at January 23, 2014 11:27 AM (D0bIN)

435 BREAKING NEWS!!! Someone actually listened to anything Huckabee had to say.

Posted by: Damiano at January 23, 2014 11:27 AM (j0wOO)

436 Moron slap flight, thank you!

Posted by: Austin in TX at January 23, 2014 03:24 PM (lKVc4)

heh... it was in reference to Huckabee vs. Reporter, not the comments here.

last thing this fire needs is gas poured on it.

Posted by: tangonine at January 23, 2014 11:27 AM (x3YFz)

437

The heat and smoke from all the strawmen Ace is burning are starting to get to me. See you on the next thread.

Posted by: Insomniac at January 23, 2014 11:28 AM (DrWcr)

438 i'm trying to figure out what huckabee said that is so upsetting.....i hate the guy and i just don't see it.... I'm with you, phoenixgirl. But I'm also with ace on the fact that giving the R bullhorn to people saying stuff like this is problematic, because the words *will* be twisted.

Posted by: jakeman at January 23, 2014 11:28 AM (vH4YP)

439

Well, good. This ought to just about kill any chance of Fuckabee running for President in 2016.

Posted by: rockmom at January 23, 2014 11:28 AM (Q4elb)

440 * puffs on e-cig..., ponders...., puffs again *

Posted by: Mike Hammer at January 23, 2014 11:28 AM (aDwsi)

441 Cannibal rats. Cannibal rats on a derelict ghost ship, plus Hillary-in-the-Moon. So how exactly is it that I'm getting to sleep tonight?

Posted by: joncelli at January 23, 2014 11:28 AM (RD7QR)

442 >>>You have read him WRONG. You have it in your head that he has said something he has not said and refuse to reread it to properly understand the structure of the sentence. And to be doing so after you've spent the week focusing on language. i read him wrong except that the Right Audience (AllenG, Vasha) apparently picked up the signal and agree with it.

Posted by: ace at January 23, 2014 11:28 AM (/FnUH)

443 What erodes societies is a lack of controls and limits. So the issue is more a matter of how and how much. Posted by: Marcus T at January 23, 2014 03:22 PM (GGCsk) Given a standard, AT LEAST in providing absolutely no financial incentives, subsidies or tax cushions for abuses. My dad's favorite saying: Choose as you like, but be willing to pay the consequences.

Posted by: panzernashorn at January 23, 2014 11:28 AM (MhA4j)

444 I think I will go watch the opening of 2001. Watch Moonwatcher get his brain tweaked and then kill the other hominid ape... we have not really progressed.

Posted by: Anna Puma (+SmuD) at January 23, 2014 11:28 AM (N8oJ5)

445

@ 421 - "You don't read the Enquirer much, do you?"

Allow me to rephrase with "...with the same woman."

Posted by: Titus Quinctius Cincinnatus at January 23, 2014 11:28 AM (YYJjz)

446 Don't have sex isn't really a realistic option for anyone with a "healthy libido." Posted by: ace at January 23, 2014 03:00 PM (/FnUH) It used to be. We have never before seen the explosion of bastard children and abortions (55 million) as we have now prior to 1960. What was the norm back then? Don't have sex unless you are married. My point is, not only was it possible, it was the norm.

Posted by: D-Lamp at January 23, 2014 11:28 AM (bb5+k)

447 if you have a normal sex life you're not controlling your libido, you're exercising it. So, ace, is eating "not controlling your appetite?" Control != complete abstinence. BUT even if it is, THEN all that other stuff (BJers & Anal, NFP, etc.) would fall under "control your reproductive system." Suddenly, I'm glad I have a pointless meeting.

Posted by: AllenG (DedicatedTenther) Ah, F It. at January 23, 2014 11:29 AM (PYAXX)

448 What this country needs is a good $5 cigar for every vagina.

Posted by: Slick Willy at January 23, 2014 11:29 AM (hpgw1)

449 >>>Apparently the two aren't used in conjunction. Apparently women on birth control aren't patrolling their libidos, and so need the cheat of chemical assistance.

Posted by: ace at January 23, 2014 03:24 PM (/FnUH)

Weren't you just insisting that "controlling one's libido" is exactly the same as "eliminating or not having a libido"? Why would they be in conjunction, then?

Posted by: Paul at January 23, 2014 11:29 AM (9qDRl)

450

ah honesty.

And yet when I say that's what Huck has in mind (as it is many people's minds), they begin swearing on a stack of Bibles that he couldn't possibly have meant any such thing, because of course No Christian Anywhere Believes Such Rot.

And yet, nowhere is there to be found any mention of government control, which was the crux of Huckabee's statement.

Posted by: Vashta Nerada at January 23, 2014 11:29 AM (AskuI)

451 so you cannot control the when , where, how ? (sure i guess if you are taken against your will)
or use protection?
because ?

misogyny?
or if a woman, i can't help myself?

Posted by: willow at January 23, 2014 11:29 AM (nqBYe)

452 what's Ace got against handys? Posted by: thunderb at January 23, 2014 03:22 PM (zOTsN) was thinking the same

Posted by: artisanal 'ette at January 23, 2014 11:29 AM (IXrOn)

453 I don't know how many times I have to point out his listing of two choices: Controlling one's libido, OR [reproductive system]. Apparently the two aren't used in conjunction. This is English, not math, and even if it were math, youÂ’re talking about XOR, not OR. In English, OR can easily mean that both are options (which is not an unreasonable reading of what Huckabee said); it can even mean that one is a rephrasing of the other, although IÂ’m not seeing that here. I didnÂ’t even have to fold the page for this.

Posted by: Paid for by Citizens for Clyde the Orangutan at January 23, 2014 11:29 AM (QF8uk)

454 SoCons can be annoying with their insistent articulation of moral standards that I don't always live up to. They come off smug and self-righteous all the time, and I'm often tempted to mock them or pick fights for no reason whatsoever.

Apparently ace and I have at least that much in common.

Posted by: Fred at January 23, 2014 03:23 PM (waJ+2)

----

Yeah.... cuz thats EXACTLY what was saying.

Ace put up the full quote from Huck.... for "context". Apparently you and he didnt read it.

Scroll up and read it..... Im sure you'll find SEVERAL sentences where he was thumpin all the "barefoot and pregnant" and "abstinence" passages.

Seriously .... this fookin thread is more egregious than K Hunts original tweet ever was.

Posted by: fixerupper at January 23, 2014 11:29 AM (nELVU)

455

I'll drop the flippant shit for just a minute.

What exactly IS the math on this, if a GOP candidate basically goes agnostic on this issue and declares "I don't care, but bring you own condoms".

They lose some Evangelicals, but do they make a net gain ? Any stats out there to give a clue ?

Posted by: ScoggDog at January 23, 2014 11:29 AM (ePQIH)

456 "This thread is proof positive that you can say something perfectly true that the Democrats don't like, and they will simply take it, selectively edit it, and use it to make it look like you said something you never said." You're finally recognizing reality. Democrats can say things about women and sex that we can't. If you could snap your fingers and change the entire MSM to be fair, than we might be able to, but until then, just avoid the subject. It's not fair. It's not right. But it damn sure is the way it is.

Posted by: jwest at January 23, 2014 11:29 AM (u2a4R)

457 Time for a new thread/cooling off period, I think.

Posted by: FenelonSpoke at January 23, 2014 11:29 AM (7kkQJ)

458 441. Agreed. May his own words stick to him, not to everyone else.

Posted by: panzernashorn at January 23, 2014 11:30 AM (MhA4j)

459 Huckabee is a minister and may not want people having sex unless they want to make babies but I didn't read anything in his statement advocating the government prohibit birth control he can believe whatever he wants doesn't sound like he is codifying it

Posted by: thunderb at January 23, 2014 11:30 AM (zOTsN)

460 For crying out loud, we've spent billions of dollars and wasted millions of hours on "sex education" curricula, PSA's, schoolhouse condom dispensaries, etc. all in the name of people making "good choices" regarding sex. Now we all of a sudden don't talk about choices anymore?

Posted by: Lincolntf at January 23, 2014 11:30 AM (ZshNr)

461 i read him wrong except that the Right Audience (AllenG, Vasha) apparently picked up the signal and agree with it.

Posted by: ace at January 23, 2014 03:28 PM (/FnUH)

They are arguing with your interpretation of what he has said. Meanwhile me, DangerGirl, Polliwoggette and multiple other people have pointed out that your interpretation of what he said is wrong.

Posted by: buzzion at January 23, 2014 11:30 AM (LI48c)

462 "if you have a normal sex life you're not controlling your libido, you're exercising it." Your misunderstanding of NFP is absolutely insane. I am just going to spell things out for you because apparently that is necessary. IN NFP you have "safe" days and "fertile" days. If you want to have sex during a "fertile" day, you have to make some decisions and exercise self control. You can a) Have sex and accept the risk of pregnancy. b) Abstain completely from sex (Also known as CONTROLLING YOUR LIBIDO) c) Have some sort of sexual contact that is unlikely to result in sex (Also CONTROLLING YOUR LIBIDO because any of the given options are probably not as fulfilling as PIV without a condom to completion) This is self control. How long you need to be careful depends on each woman's cycle and the couple's risk aversion. However, couples who practice NFP DO have 2 contrary natures. Self control AND a satisfying sex life. And we get credit for both.

Posted by: Lauren at January 23, 2014 11:30 AM (hFL/3)

463 Repub said X. Progtard Media lies and says Repub said Not X. Ace says this is a good opportunity to talk about point Z, which is unrelated but something I really like to talk about.

Posted by: Flatbush Joe at January 23, 2014 11:30 AM (ZPrif)

464

@ 428 - " 1) you all make a lot of assumptions about "SoCons" based on very few examples. (and most of them media hounds or spotlighted by the media because of their extremity)"

Keep in mind that social liberals/libertarians aren't exactly the paragons of rationality that they sometimes like to think they are, either.

Posted by: Titus Quinctius Cincinnatus at January 23, 2014 11:31 AM (YYJjz)

465 "We ARE going to lose women all day long and twice on Sundays if we continue pushing this agenda, as a part of our *politics,* in which the only real way to have acceptable sex is to be a Committed Christian in a Loving Marriage. " Ace, is that honestly what you think we're saying? Because it sounds like you're saying, for the sake of politics, Christians Should Just Shut Up, and you're going to lose Christians all day long and twice on Sundays if you continue pushing that agenda. I don't care if you're offended, as long as you can stay focused on that common ground. And yeah, the moral code is a *system* which worked better than what we're using now.

Posted by: Cameo Appearance at January 23, 2014 11:31 AM (R8yKQ)

466

>>>>One thing I wish the GOP would do a better job of is coach its candidates on how to handle topics like this. The left loves to use abortion, birth control, and other lefty sacred cows as gotchas

Just for the Hell of it, I want to see a GOP shock Candidate. You know, somebody who really DGAF who, when asked gotchas like this, opens his/her sports jacket to reveal a phony[?] dessicated fetus packed in the armpit and starts doing marionette shit with it. When they kick up the fuss he sez its just tissue...

Posted by: Bigby's Semaphore Hands at January 23, 2014 11:31 AM (3ZtZW)

467 >>>Actually this isn't true. Of course it is possible to exercise your libido and control it at the same time. Think of it as hunger for food: indulging in a delicious meal doesn't mean that you have to indulge in gluttony and visit the vomitarium. I'm Catholic and I can tell you that from a Catholic point of view, a good, fulfilling sex life involves a sense of self-control as well. It's a balance, just like everything in life. ... So presumably controlling your libido includes having a healthy sex life? Now, if one did not wish to get pregnant while exercising this healthy sex drive, would it be fair to say they would be using birth control of some kind? And if so, why does Huckabee suggest that the two things are in opposition? I seem to have a lot of people swearing on the Bible that the two things can exist side-by-side and in harmony. FWIW, I agree. Why does Huckabee then suggest that preganancy can be avoided by EITHER controlling one's libido OR using birth control? Why does everyone who swears they disagree with such a suggestion support it when Huckabee says it?

Posted by: ace at January 23, 2014 11:31 AM (/FnUH)

468 i now have a headache.

Posted by: willow at January 23, 2014 11:31 AM (nqBYe)

469

Don't have sex isn't really a realistic option for anyone with a "healthy libido."

Posted by: ace at January 23, 2014 03:00 PM (/FnUH)

It used to be. We have never before seen the explosion of bastard children and abortions (55 million) as we have now prior to 1960.

What was the norm back then? Don't have sex unless you are married.

My point is, not only was it possible, it was the norm.

Looks like big government found something it could excel at

Posted by: Vashta Nerada at January 23, 2014 11:31 AM (AskuI)

470 >>Posted by: D-Lamp at January 23, 2014 03:28 PM (bb5+k) <<

Absolutely correct. We are a victim of experiences where the outcome is already known.. There is no excuse for that. It is contra-intellectual. The proof not only exists, but points us in the opposite direction of where we are headed.

Posted by: Marcus T at January 23, 2014 11:32 AM (GGCsk)

471 266 Word of advice to (male) GOP candidates, future or present: Don't voluntarily talk about women's libidos, birth control, or rape pregnancies. Don't. Fucking. Go. There. It will not end well. Posted by: Hollowpoint at January 23, 2014 03:01 PM (SY2Kh) And you would have thought they would have "got" this by now.

Posted by: D-Lamp at January 23, 2014 11:32 AM (bb5+k)

472 The law is not about preferred modes of living, and neither should we make "political issues" about it. --ace Tell that to Obama, Holder, and Judicial Partners. When Obama's Policy trumps law, Houston, problem.

Posted by: panzernashorn at January 23, 2014 11:32 AM (MhA4j)

473 Posted by: Lauren at January 23, 2014 03:30 PM (hFL/3) I have a feeling that ace doesn't know much about NFP.

Posted by: FenelonSpoke at January 23, 2014 11:32 AM (7kkQJ)

474 I know a minefield when I see one.

Going to exit stage left.

Watch your step.

Posted by: tangonine at January 23, 2014 11:33 AM (x3YFz)

475 We are forced to talk about it now that Dems insist it is a birth right and we all have to pay for everyone else's but when has talking about rape or libidos ever helped Republicans?

No matter if you frame it as a matter of religious freedom or a fiscal matter, the general public (with help from the media) is going to hear "opposition to mandatory birth control coverage" as "opposition to birth control".

It's much like the abortion issue- those opposed to federal abortion funding aren't primarily motivated by the budgetary costs, but by opposition to abortion. It's reasonable to assume that if you're opposed to funding abortion, you're probably opposed to it in general.

One can address coverage mandates without directly mentioning birth control specifically. Frame it as a matter of choice- letting customers decide what they want their policy to cover.

Posted by: Hollowpoint at January 23, 2014 11:33 AM (SY2Kh)

476 And you would have thought they would have "got" this by now. Posted by: D-Lamp at January 23, 2014 03:32 PM (bb5+k) Brightest and the fucking bestest.

Posted by: Misanthropic Humantiarian at January 23, 2014 11:33 AM (HVff2)

477 Make war on ALL women. So I answer a craiglist add of two lesbos looking to get preggies and now I gotta pay child support? WTF!? More war, war, and less fapping I say.

Posted by: Sperm donor on Craiglist at January 23, 2014 11:33 AM (lkvjZ)

478 I think you and I are going to just have to disagree on whether the concept of SELF control includes outside-the-self heckling from third parties. Posted by: ace ------------------------------- But..., isn't the basis for self-control ALWAYS 'outside-the-self heckling', in one form or another?

Posted by: Mike Hammer at January 23, 2014 11:33 AM (aDwsi)

479 well everybody here is so cranky I think quite a few people need to get laid ***(runs, hides)****

Posted by: thunderb at January 23, 2014 11:34 AM (zOTsN)

480 "That said, @drewmtips (who alerted me to this) points out that Huck still isn't helping. Whether the thought is coming from his own mouth, or whether he's ventriloquizing it into Democrats' mouths, he's still making the connection that birth control has something to do with "controlling your libido."

Ace, maybe someone already said this, but you're wrong here. He's still saying it's the Democrats that want to fund birth control because they think women can't control their libidos. It's not about married people that want to hold off on having children, it's about single mothers, kids, and all that.

Posted by: Wysiwyg Mtwzzyzx at January 23, 2014 11:34 AM (98Feg)

481 I can't stand Huckabuck. But the "reporter" should be canned for her flat out dishonesty.

Posted by: Minnfidel at January 23, 2014 11:34 AM (C3Wjb)

482 Don't have sex isn't really a realistic option for anyone with a "healthy libido." I think that may be the stupidest thing I've ever read. People do it all the time. *** Holy shit! I want sex, like, all the friggin time but I'm not in a relationship and don't hook up so.... I control my libido. My ex-BF was from a family of seven kids, six of which were boys. They were smart, educated, and were raised as ranchers and farmers. Not one of them was lacking in libido. Yet... because they are devout Catholics, four of the sons made it through college and to their 30's before marrying and having sex. They had girlfriends and took a lot of cold showers, but their self-control was impressive. To each their own, but to suggest that anyone with a healthy appetite cannot control their urges is preposterous.

Posted by: Niedermeyer's Dead Horse at January 23, 2014 11:34 AM (DmNpO)

483 Posted by: D-Lamp at January 23, 2014 03:32 PM (bb5+k) Like a dog to its vomit.

Posted by: panzernashorn at January 23, 2014 11:34 AM (MhA4j)

484

@ 458 - "It's not fair. It's not right. But it damn sure is the way it is."

Good for you. If you want to be a spineless tweaker, that's your right. I choose not to play the MSM's game, but to get in their faces, whether it embarrasses turdsniffers like yourself or not.

Posted by: Titus Quinctius Cincinnatus at January 23, 2014 11:34 AM (YYJjz)

485 Moving on.

Posted by: Dr Spank at January 23, 2014 11:34 AM (P1WNR)

486 >>>Ace, is that honestly what you think we're saying? Because it sounds like you're saying, for the sake of politics, Christians Should Just Shut Up, and you're going to lose Christians all day long and twice on Sundays if you continue pushing that agenda. I don't care if you're offended, as long as you can stay focused on that common ground. And yeah, the moral code is a *system* which worked better than what we're using now. yes I do think it's what you're saying. Where am I going wrong? I constantly hear that IDEALS of behavior -- like a gay man literally going sex-free his whole life to avoid the sin of homosexuality -- are instead mere standards which everyone can, and should, abide by. I do not hear many calls for latitude on points of sexual decorum issuing from the social right. I rarely hear them distinguish between a high ideal (which should be encouraged but is not actually DEMANDED) and a mere standard (which is indeed demanded). For many, the ideal is the standard... at least when it involves other people's behavior. As usual, us being human beings, when it comes to our own behavior we're a little more understanding about it and do in fact distinguish between the Ideal and the Baseline Standard. We're far more willing to shrug off our own failures to meet the Ideal (well, I'll do better next time) than we are to shrug off those failures in others.

Posted by: ace at January 23, 2014 11:34 AM (/FnUH)

487

And if so, why does Huckabee suggest that the two things are in opposition?

He doesn't. You have read him wrong! You have thrown in an EITHER into his sentence that does not exist. You have completely ignored the beginning of the sentence to arrive at your conclusion.

Posted by: buzzion at January 23, 2014 11:34 AM (LI48c)

488 I think you and I are going to just have to disagree on whether the concept of SELF control includes outside-the-self heckling from third parties. Fair enough. Personally I think there are multiple levels of commitment to obedience to (God | morality | truth | virtue | whatevs) 1. Fear of legal repercussions (lowest level) 2. Fear of social opprobrium 3. Fear of supernatural opprobrium 4. Love of (God | morality | truth | virtue | whatevs) Of course #4 (internal SELF control) is the best and most desirable. I also agree that #1 shouldn't be in place. I disagree that #1 is what Huckabee is suggesting inasfar as I think that's what you're saying.

Posted by: bonhomme[/i][/b][/i][/b][/s][/s] at January 23, 2014 11:35 AM (9PrpA)

489 Basically, Ace did what most of us here do, skim the article, make a hand-waving linkage, and rant about something entirely different that was really bugging us and which is, to be honest, kinda the same rant we've made once every two weeks for the last year or so. I keed. I keed.

Posted by: Flatbush Joe at January 23, 2014 11:35 AM (ZPrif)

490 Since when does "controlling ones libido" mean denial?

That's where I lose the thread of the argument.

You can have sex all you want and if you're deciding when, where and how and with who, that's controlling it.

To control is to exert direction, degree (which varies from 0% to 100%) and the means on an object or action.

Posted by: Bitter Clinger and All That (Unexpurgated Edition) at January 23, 2014 11:35 AM (LSDdO)

491 i now have a headache.

Posted by: willow

That's how my wife controls my libido.

Posted by: Dang at January 23, 2014 11:35 AM (MNq6o)

492 459 Time for a new thread/cooling off period, I think.

Posted by: FenelonSpoke at January 23, 2014 03:29 PM (7kkQJ)

Or an insult thread. Haven't had one of those in [insert folksy time reference here].

Posted by: joncelli at January 23, 2014 11:35 AM (RD7QR)

493 A defense official says Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel is going to summon the militaryÂ’s most senior leaders to the Pentagon to discuss serious missteps, leadership lapses and personnel problems in the U.S. nuclear force. The officials said Hagel also will order an independent review of the nuclear force to determine whether a string of setbacks, including numerous missteps revealed by The Associated Press, reflect endemic failures that could harm the performance of the nuclear mission and the safety and security of the nationÂ’s nuclear weapons. FUCK THE PHONEY ISSUES: THIS IS THE FIRST STEP IN THE obama ADMIN'S DEISRE TO UNILATERALLY CUTTING OUR NUCLEAR FORCES. COUNT ON IT

Posted by: Nevergiveup at January 23, 2014 11:35 AM (t3UFN)

494
The good thing is Huck won't be the GOP standard bearer in 2016.

He can moralize all he wants as a preacher.

If not him, the MFM will find somebody, anybody to associate the GOP with hatin the women. You know its coming. Its already been decided and its already being put into action.

All this despite say Bob Filner or some other dem I recently read about talking about boners to women in his office.

Posted by: Guy Mohawk at January 23, 2014 11:35 AM (n0DEs)

495 >>4) To attack someone for their beliefs, no matter how wrongheaded you may think they are, is not better than what the Progressives do. And if I don't agree with your beliefs about social issues and you attack me?

Posted by: JackStraw at January 23, 2014 11:36 AM (g1DWB)

496 buzzion, I didn't throw the "OR" in there myself. I put the either in for emphasis. He says the "or." Google it. So once again I'm having the same old type of argument I always have with socons: Half arguing the guy didn't say what I say he said, the other half arguing he was right to say it. (And some, like AllenG, arguing both points, depending on where we are in the debate.)

Posted by: ace at January 23, 2014 11:36 AM (/FnUH)

497 "Now, if one did not wish to get pregnant while exercising this healthy sex drive, would it be fair to say they would be using birth control of some kind? " That depends on if you consider NFP to be birth control. Even if you do, you should also understand that the mechanism by which it works is...self control.

Posted by: Lauren at January 23, 2014 11:36 AM (hFL/3)

498 Bleah. There is no statement whose meaning cannot be inverted or otherwise perverted by the left, so I'm going to give a pass to Fuckabee who actually said nothing wrong for a change.

Posted by: Sandra Fluke's solid gold diaphragm at January 23, 2014 11:36 AM (M5T54)

499 I'm a minister and I'm perfectly fine with people having sex for other reasons than making babies. I do it myself. :^) I think pushing sex as an option for younger and younger people is not a good thing and no, I don't think I should have to pay for birth control for every person in America.

Posted by: FenelonSpoke at January 23, 2014 11:36 AM (7kkQJ)

500 Posted by: panzernashorn at January 23, 2014 03:34 PM (MhA4j)

A fool returns to their folly.

Posted by: Bitter Clinger and All That (Unexpurgated Edition) at January 23, 2014 11:37 AM (LSDdO)

501 398 @ 382 - "One thing I wish the GOP would do a better job of is coach its candidates on how to handle topics like this. The left loves to use abortion, birth control, and other lefty sacred cows as gotchas, and they will run the ill-phrased quotes from an unprepared candidate 24/7 on every outlet they have. Which is pretty much all of them."

Why would that even matter? This thread is proof positive that you can say something perfectly true that the Democrats don't like, and they will simply take it, selectively edit it, and use it to make it look like you said something you never said.

Apparently even a few Morons are snowed by it (e.g. jwest).
Posted by: Titus Quinctius Cincinnatus at January 23, 2014 03:22 PM (YYJjz)
-------------------------------------
Ain't that the truth. * sigh *

The best way to handle it (and maybe the only way) is to deflect the issue and steer the conversation back to solid ground. You see Democrats do this all the time - they refuse to engage an issue and divert it back to their prepared talking points.

Except that this works for them because the in-the-tank media won't call them out for dodging the question, but would hammer a Republican for it. At least a Republican candidate that was prepared for it could hope to not completely shoot his foot off. A determined opposition, like the MFM, will find something to spin to their liking, even if you say nothing at all. The goal here is to make it so that your fellow Republicans can defend you with a straight face and without looking stupid.

God, I'm depressed. Do ABC stores in NC stock Valu-Rite?

Posted by: CoderInCrisis at January 23, 2014 11:37 AM (BAEzE)

502 A defense official says Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel is going to summon the militaryÂ’s most senior leaders to the Pentagon to discuss serious missteps, leadership lapses and personnel problems in the U.S. nuclear force. The officials said Hagel also will order an independent review of the nuclear force to determine whether a string of setbacks, including numerous missteps revealed by The Associated Press, reflect endemic failures that could harm the performance of the nuclear mission and the safety and security of the nationÂ’s nuclear weapons. FUCK THE PHONEY ISSUES: THIS IS THE FIRST STEP IN THE obama ADMIN'S DEISRE TO UNILATERALLY CUTTING OUR NUCLEAR FORCES. COUNT ON IT Posted by: Nevergiveup don't be paranoid its also a purge ala Edogun

Posted by: thunderb at January 23, 2014 11:37 AM (zOTsN)

503 Do you know what's hilarious about this whole thing? We don't even us NFP for religious reasons. I just can't take birth control because I had a TIA 4 years ago. Glad I didn't know then that my only options were birth control and a blood clot or NEVER HAVING SEX AGAIN!!

Posted by: Lauren at January 23, 2014 11:37 AM (hFL/3)

504 Ace, my good wordsmith: You need to read up on the meanings of control. It includes many meanings, "stop" or "cease" not among them.

For example: I can control a river via a dam, directing that unstoppable force into a useful and beneficial (to me) manner. Or I can dig a channel and redirect it in a useful and beneficial (to me) manner.

Both are methods of control.

Posted by: RoyalOil at January 23, 2014 11:38 AM (VjL9S)

505 [insert folksy time reference here]. --------------------- Dogwhistle! Dogwhistle!

Posted by: Chrissy Matthews at January 23, 2014 11:38 AM (aDwsi)

506 Posted by: JackStraw at January 23, 2014 03:36 PM (g1DWB)

Define attack. Seems that holding a contrary opinion or belief and expressing it is considered an attack by some.

Here and other places.

Posted by: Bitter Clinger and All That (Unexpurgated Edition) at January 23, 2014 11:38 AM (LSDdO)

507 I don't get it. Is there something wrong with the very concept of controlling your libido, or is the problem here with the messaging?

Posted by: Caliban at January 23, 2014 11:39 AM (DrC22)

508 its also a purge ala Edogun Posted by: thunderb at January 23, 2014 03:37 PM (zOTsN) ITt's both. From day one they haver wanted to strip us of our nuclear deterrent unilaterally

Posted by: Nevergiveup at January 23, 2014 11:39 AM (t3UFN)

509 This is infantile. You're saying you have a healthy amount of sex, but you want to be credited as being part of the "controlling your libido" group. No. It's one or the other. A libido is not being "controlled" by being frequently satisfied; it is being SATED, not denied. Now that is a silly statement. You are arguing the reverse of your position. People with healthy sex drives direct or control their urges towards appropriate partners. We are not "Clan of the Cave Bears". And Huck is an idiot anyway. You really think he has a shot or do you just want to shut him up? I saw him "debate" the head of the Club for Growth; He asked him why the Club doesn't back moderate SoCons like himself. It was pathetic.

Posted by: Daybrother at January 23, 2014 11:39 AM (ugIDm)

510 i now have a headache. Posted by: willow That's how my wife controls my libido. Posted by: Dang at January 23, 2014 03:35 PM (MNq6o) heh. willow, don't take this so seriously. laugh it off that's what I do

Posted by: artisanal 'ette at January 23, 2014 11:39 AM (IXrOn)

511 Chuck Hagel? Oh..., Ok..., every thing will be fine.

Posted by: Mike Hammer at January 23, 2014 11:40 AM (aDwsi)

512 To all those who think that there are some subjects non-leftists shouldn't talk about...... WTF??? Are you kidding me? One side is supposed to clear out of certain subjects based on the tenacity and tendency of the other side to lie about it? Fine, but that's moronic in the bad way. Avoid talking about gender, sex, or race, and when the next election heats up and the left makes every issue about race, sex, and gender, let's just have crickets coming from our side. That'll work, just like it has the last few election cycles.

Posted by: Normal man spitting his hands at January 23, 2014 11:40 AM (agLwc)

513 Chuck Hagel? Oh..., Ok..., every thing will be fine. Posted by: Mike Hammer at January 23, 2014 03:40 PM (aDwsi) Ehh gadz, isn't he the Poster Boy for self control???

Posted by: Misanthropic Humantiarian at January 23, 2014 11:40 AM (HVff2)

514 anyway i don't see Republicans standing up trying to control Womens libidos I do however sure see Dems trying to decrease Woman to the idea they should hand over their bodies and responsibilities of their reproduction to the govt .

as with healthcare.

Posted by: willow at January 23, 2014 11:41 AM (nqBYe)

515 And if so, why does Huckabee suggest that the two things are in opposition? I think this is a failing of the English language. In logic there are two different ors. The regular or, where if either fragment is true, the entire statement is true. Both fragments can be true with the regular or. Then there is the exclusive or. (XOR) ONLY one fragment can be true, if both are true, the statement resolves to false. T OR T = T T XOR T = F T OR F = T F XOR T = T F OR T = T T XOR F = T F OR F = F F XOR F = F

Posted by: bonhomme[/i][/b][/i][/b][/s][/s] at January 23, 2014 11:41 AM (9PrpA)

516 498 buzzion, I didn't throw the "OR" in there myself. I put the either in for emphasis.

He says the "or." Google it.

So once again I'm having the same old type of argument I always have with socons: Half arguing the guy didn't say what I say he said, the other half arguing he was right to say it. (And some, like AllenG, arguing both points, depending on where we are in the debate.)

Posted by: ace at January 23, 2014 03:36 PM (/FnUH)

Of course he didn't throw the Or in there. But you put the Either in there and if it was going to be there at all you put it into the completely wrong place.

It may be a long ass sentence but it should be obvious to you that he is talking about how Democrats view women. And it has to be an "or" because they talk out of both sides of their mouths about it.

Posted by: buzzion at January 23, 2014 11:41 AM (LI48c)

517 Which eventually leads me to this question: Since the new F-150 is aluminum and aluminum is non-magnetic, doesn't that mean that you can't use a magnetized business sign on the side of your truck and doesn't that also mean that Ford just screwed over sign makers?

Posted by: alexthechick - Skittle fueled Godzillette at January 23, 2014 02:51 PM (VtjlW)

Yes, aluminum is non-magnetic, as are most of its alloys (not Alnico, heh). Sign makers have long taken advantage of a secondary property of steel bodies to make magnetic signs. It's not like car manufacturers said, "We shall make car bodies of steel so that manufacturers of magnetic signs can make an honest buck."

There are non-permanent adhesives on the market, so it's a non-issue. Just glue the damn signs on. Or use nails. It's not MY truck.

Posted by: Barry at January 23, 2014 11:41 AM (pFqpP)

518 We're far more willing to shrug off our own failures to meet the Ideal (well, I'll do better next time) than we are to shrug off those failures in others.
Posted by: ace at January 23, 2014 03:34 PM (/FnUH)

But somehow that human weakness is reason for some to say that SoCons should just shut up?

Posted by: Bitter Clinger and All That (Unexpurgated Edition) at January 23, 2014 11:41 AM (LSDdO)

519 That's how my wife controls my libido. Posted by: Dang at January 23, 2014 03:35 PM (MNq6o) LOL.Yep, time to laugh it off and start a new thread.

Posted by: FenelonSpoke at January 23, 2014 11:42 AM (7kkQJ)

520 "We're far more willing to shrug off our own failures to meet the Ideal (well, I'll do better next time) than we are to shrug off those failures in others. " I'm not being all judgey, but ... I can tell you really like making this point. Cause you make it a lot. Like a a lot, a lot. As in repeatedly often. Oftenly alot. I think this is an insight that you think other people have never had so you need to pound it into our heads. I think most of us already are aware of this aspect of human nature.

Posted by: Flatbush Joe at January 23, 2014 11:42 AM (ZPrif)

521 srsly do we have any Republicans tell women they can't have sex?

leaders?

Posted by: willow at January 23, 2014 11:42 AM (nqBYe)

522 513 Chuck Hagel? Oh..., Ok..., every thing will be fine. Posted by: Mike Hammer at January 23, 2014 03:40 PM (aDwsi) ****** I just merded myself.

Posted by: Teleprompter Feed Crew at January 23, 2014 11:42 AM (RJMhd)

523 468
>>>>One thing I wish the GOP would do a better job of is coach its candidates on how to handle topics like this. The left loves to use abortion, birth control, and other lefty sacred cows as gotchas

Just for the Hell of it, I want to see a GOP shock Candidate. You know, somebody who really DGAF who, when asked gotchas like this, opens his/her sports jacket to reveal a phony[?] dessicated fetus packed in the armpit and starts doing marionette shit with it. When they kick up the fuss he sez its just tissue...
Posted by: Bigby's Semaphore Hands at January 23, 2014 03:31 PM (3ZtZW)
---------------------------------
Heh!

And really, what does such a candidate have to lose? He/she has the scarlet letter (R) after their name, so the media already hates them.

Posted by: CoderInCrisis at January 23, 2014 11:42 AM (BAEzE)

524 Good thing Leftists never are hypocritically judgey. That's just a socon thing.

Posted by: Flatbush Joe at January 23, 2014 11:43 AM (ZPrif)

525 Basically, Ace did what most of us here do, skim the article, make a hand-waving linkage, and rant about something entirely different that was really bugging us and which is, to be honest, kinda the same rant we've made once every two weeks for the last year or so. I keed. I keed. Posted by: Flatbush Joe Yes but he did not add a call for impeachment or tell everyone he was buying more Gold and guns. Rookie mistake from the Head Guy.

Posted by: Daybrother at January 23, 2014 11:43 AM (18v6B)

526 >>Define attack. Seems that holding a contrary opinion or belief and expressing it is considered an attack by some. >>Here and other places. Go read the abortion thread from yesterday. I happen to believe there should be an exception for abortion in the case of rape or incest, didn't bother to weigh in on that yesterday because quite a few were insisting that if you believed anything other than a total ban on abortion is murder, period. I tend not to think of myself as pro-murder and call me crazy but I take it a little personal when I am called one. But for quite a few here there is no compromise on this issue at all. Thats fine. But don't expect to get any quarter from those whom you believe to be murderers for having a different opinion.

Posted by: JackStraw at January 23, 2014 11:43 AM (g1DWB)

527 bonhomme - Truth table please for "Maybe"

Posted by: Mike Hammer at January 23, 2014 11:43 AM (aDwsi)

528 (paraphrasing)

Hucks say: "Dems think that women are a bunch of sluts who can't control their collective libido without government help...". Which, I think, is a true statement.

What the "newsperson" saw (or chjose to see) : "blah blah blah CONTROL.blah blah..WOMEN blah LIBIDO blah blah..." And immediately the flop sweat starts.

Therefore, according to some here, Huck and the rest of the socons (of which I don't consider myself, btw) need to just shut up and stop trying to repress people.

Is that somewhat accurate?

Posted by: Biff Boffo at January 23, 2014 11:43 AM (YmPwQ)

529 someone needs to clam things down lets talk about Palin

Posted by: thunderb at January 23, 2014 11:43 AM (zOTsN)

530 >>Get whatever kind of birth control you want ladies, but I am not going to attack nuns to give it to you for free, so fuck off.

Agree 100%. As a woman, I am capable of paying for my own birth control and other reproductive health care cost. In fact, I've done it since college.
The idea that the womens are suddenly incapable is extremely offensive. This is what Huck seemed to to saying, not any puritanical, judgey shit.

Posted by: Lizzy at January 23, 2014 11:43 AM (POpqt)

531 calm not clam that was funny

Posted by: thunderb at January 23, 2014 11:43 AM (zOTsN)

532 okay the commenter above was right: This post has been the top post for far too long. I put up a new one, just swiped from Hot Air. I think it will be a lot less contentious. It's not the pot one. I was going to put that up but then, as someone suggested, we need a cool-down post, not a heat-up post.

Posted by: ace at January 23, 2014 11:44 AM (/FnUH)

533 someone needs to clam things down lets talk about Palin **** Ha! You jackass!

Posted by: Niedermeyer's Dead Horse at January 23, 2014 11:44 AM (DmNpO)

534 you are not endeavoring to create self-control. You are attempting to impose your control on others, albeit through the less-egregious method of social shaming (social shaming being less egregious than positive government law, and yet still not "SELF" control). Posted by: ace at January 23, 2014 03:12 PM (/FnUH) The two things are interdependent. Each one is synergistic to the other. Self control is much easier when the entire herd is doing it. (see herd theory) And it's not *MY* control, it is *Nature's* control which I happen to recognize and acknowledge. We are living through an artificial society right now. One that has been built on massive debt, and one in which the bill is looming. Not just the fiscal bill, but the social bill is coming as well. Tytler has it right, as near as I can see.

Posted by: D-Lamp at January 23, 2014 11:44 AM (bb5+k)

535 517 And if so, why does Huckabee suggest that the two things are in opposition? I think this is a failing of the English language. In logic there are two different ors. The regular or, where if either fragment is true, the entire statement is true. Both fragments can be true with the regular or. Then there is the exclusive or. (XOR) ONLY one fragment can be true, if both are true, the statement resolves to false. T OR T = T T XOR T = F T OR F = T F XOR T = T F OR T = T T XOR F = T F OR F = F F XOR F = F Posted by: bonhomme at January 23, 2014 03:41 PM (9PrpA) ******* By Gaia you should be a lawyer!

Posted by: Teleprompter Feed Crew at January 23, 2014 11:44 AM (RJMhd)

536 someone needs to clam things down

lets talk about Palin

Posted by: thunderb at January 23, 2014 03:43 PM (zOTsN)

lol

Posted by: willow at January 23, 2014 11:45 AM (nqBYe)

537 You know what another thing is that automakers have a hard time getting to stick on aluminum doors? Paint.

Posted by: jwest at January 23, 2014 11:45 AM (u2a4R)

538 Oh, and Repubs should never say anything about vaginas or abortions cause it can be misconstrued and sounds judgey. Also women shouldn't be criticized cause misconstrued and judgey. The more topics are off-limits for Repubs the better. The ideal candidate should be terrified of speaking.

Posted by: Flatbush Joe at January 23, 2014 11:45 AM (ZPrif)

539 This is why I support the return of chastity belts and back alley locksmithing clinics.

Posted by: Fritz at January 23, 2014 11:45 AM (UzPAd)

540 getting back to the libel...this is libel, I am sure we can prove malice, 1. there's layers and layers of editors? 2. check their emails and shit via discovery I don't understand why modern version of our party is so innocent when it comes to dealing with the media. They are our enemies and the only way Reagan won was because he talked over the MSM. As for the "aspirin between the knees" GOP, who cares, we are losing elections because of the messaging but also because of voter fraud and changing demographics which our party is willfully participating in.

Posted by: oeJay44incday at January 23, 2014 11:45 AM (QxSug)

541 Just for the Hell of it, I want to see a GOP shock Candidate. You know, somebody who really DGAF -------------- Ala Jeff Dunham and Achmed the Dead Terrorist...

Posted by: Mike Hammer at January 23, 2014 11:46 AM (aDwsi)

542 ***(runs, hides)****

Posted by: thunderb at January 23, 2014 03:34 PM (zOTsN)

coward.

I want sex, like, all the friggin time but I'm not in a relationship and don't hook up so.... I control my libido.

Posted by: Niedermeyer's Dead Horse at January 23, 2014 03:34 PM (DmNpO)

How're YOU doin'?

Posted by: GGE of the Moron Horde, NC Chapter at January 23, 2014 11:46 AM (yh0zB)

543 i need chocolate .

or maybe a glass of wine.

or maybe both with some fruit.

Posted by: willow at January 23, 2014 11:46 AM (nqBYe)

544 540 "Oh, and Repubs should never say anything about vaginas or abortions cause it can be misconstrued and sounds judgey. Also women shouldn't be criticized cause misconstrued and judgey. The more topics are off-limits for Repubs the better. The ideal candidate should be terrified of speaking." And race. For God's sake, don't talk about race. Can't we just nominate deaf mutes?

Posted by: jwest at January 23, 2014 11:47 AM (u2a4R)

545 At this point, I'm ready for the GOP to just go ahead and endorse taxpayer funded birth control. Let's start crop dusting inner cities with pills and condoms. Too many SoCons just simply can't control themselves on this issue, it seems to bring out the crazies.

I'm against taxpayer funded birth control pills because I think it's bullshit that that somebody expects another party to pay for it, but apparently a whole lot of conservatives are against it because they think any type of sex outside of the purpose of procreation needs to be stamped out.

Whatever part of the federal budget this makes up, (.00001%), it's worth it to stop losing so many voters because too many in the conservative movement get on the "sluts need their comeuppance" train when it comes to this issue.

Time to hand this pawn over to the Democrats rather than losing the whole chess game over it. The huge upside is it will mainly be Democrat demographics that will be effected.

Posted by: McAdams at January 23, 2014 11:47 AM (W9bii)

546 split ended rabbit hole constructed by a legal mind? 488 -- points of decorum issuing from the social right. I rarely hear them distinguish between a high ideal (which should be encouraged but is not actually DEMANDED) and a mere standard (which is indeed demanded). -- = or visa versa: a high ideal (the definition of quality) ideal : exactly right for a particular purpose, situation, or person 1 : existing as an archetypal idea vs. a mere standard (generally encouraged rule that tolerates wiggle room) standard: : a level of quality, achievement, etc., that is considered acceptable or desirable standards : ideas about morally correct and acceptable behavior

Posted by: panzernashorn at January 23, 2014 11:47 AM (MhA4j)

547 Willow, new thread

Posted by: Dack Thrombosis at January 23, 2014 11:48 AM (oFCZn)

548 I understand that with aluminum vehicles, you will have trouble using paint or magnetic signs.

Posted by: Paid for by Citizens for Clyde the Orangutan at January 23, 2014 11:48 AM (QF8uk)

549 >>'m not being all judgey, but ... I can tell you really like making this point. Cause you make it a lot. Like a a lot, a lot. As in repeatedly often. Oftenly alot. I think this is an insight that you think other people have never had so you need to pound it into our heads. I think most of us already are aware of this aspect of human nature. ... oh, people are aware. They do not act on this awareness, however, or else they insist they're not doing this when this is exactly what they are doing. Yes people acknowledge this as a general tendency... hypothetically. They never seem to come to realize, "And gee, that's exactly what I'm doing right now." No, when people have donned their Robes of Judgment, they are being Good Citizens upholding the Burkean ideal of instilling Virtue in the Citizenry, on behalf of The Children. So your point would have better effect if you could point out any instances where someone realized, and confessed, "Shit, I'm imposing a tougher standard on someone else than I'd impose on myself. I retract." When it comes to other people, this hazard might be acknowledged in the abstract, but people rarely act as if they're aware of the danger. It's just Judgement Away.

Posted by: ace at January 23, 2014 11:48 AM (/FnUH)

550 Can't we make fun of left's pathology which makes it sound like they're always campaigning against the preacher movie character in a teen comedy from the 70's?

Posted by: oeJay44incday at January 23, 2014 11:48 AM (QxSug)

551 Let's talk about sex baby Let's talk about you and me Let's talk about all the good things and the bad things That may be Let's talk about sex

Posted by: BlueStateRebel at January 23, 2014 11:48 AM (7ObY1)

552 >>>standard: : a level of quality, achievement, etc., that is considered acceptable or desirable standards : ideas about morally correct and acceptable behavior ... considered "Acceptable," not considered "Heroic and laudable." You're trying to impose an ideal on people and call it a standard. A standard must be several steps below an ideal.

Posted by: ace at January 23, 2014 11:49 AM (/FnUH)

553 Europe cuts abortion off at 24 weeks, and that is a maximum. Some countries cut it off at 12 weeks. The question is not does a woman have a right to govern her reproduction. The question is when does that right end. The Supreme Court said viability. 50 percent viability is at about 24 weeks, bringing us inline with the rest of Europe.

Posted by: Holger at January 23, 2014 11:49 AM (rIk1N)

554 I have a feeling that ace doesn't know much about NFP.

I have a feeling that ace doesn't know much about women.

Posted by: HR at January 23, 2014 11:49 AM (ZKzrr)

555 ty Dack.

Posted by: willow at January 23, 2014 11:49 AM (nqBYe)

556 >>> Can't we make fun of left's pathology which makes it sound like they're always campaigning against the preacher movie character in a teen comedy from the 70's? it would be easier to do if there weren't people so willing to play that role for them.

Posted by: ace at January 23, 2014 11:49 AM (/FnUH)

557 Just in case ace is still reading... Look, I'm sorry I got so emotional. The problem is that conservative women face the sort of derision for our reproductive choices that you were spouting all the time. It is really tiresome, but more importantly, it is just really disappointing hearing them come from someone who I like and respect (you) very much. It just seems as though you have a blind spot when it comes to What Christians Believe. I understand. I'm sure I have blinds spots about What New York Agnostics believe too. But the irritation comes when you try to tell us what we *really* believe when it is so far from the truth .

Posted by: Lauren at January 23, 2014 11:50 AM (hFL/3)

558 Ace sticks words into Huckabee's quote in this thread. Leaves out a key word in the headline of the next thread. Key word being "Insurers"

Posted by: buzzion at January 23, 2014 11:51 AM (LI48c)

559 If someone on the left starts talking about sex, women, contraception, race or anything loosely associated with them, just revert to this: "It's got a built in sauce rack"

Posted by: jwest at January 23, 2014 11:51 AM (u2a4R)

560 it would be easier to do if there weren't people so willing to play that role for them. Posted by: ace at January 23, 2014 03:49 PM (/FnUH) heh. last. word.

Posted by: artisanal 'ette at January 23, 2014 11:51 AM (IXrOn)

561 >>>Also women shouldn't be criticized cause misconstrued and judgey. yes there is no real judgeyness going on, ever. Only the stuff that gets "misconstrued" by the left.

Posted by: ace at January 23, 2014 11:51 AM (/FnUH)

562 266 "Word of advice to (male) GOP candidates...." Don't talk about anything, in fact. That way you won't piss off the Left, or risk fratricide from the Right. Christ, we love killing our own don't we? We're just an undisciplined rabble anymore.

Posted by: tubal at January 23, 2014 11:51 AM (YEQ2h)

563 514 To all those who think that there are some subjects non-leftists shouldn't talk about......

WTF??? Are you kidding me?
One side is supposed to clear out of certain subjects based on the tenacity and tendency of the other side to lie about it?

Fine, but that's moronic in the bad way.
Avoid talking about gender, sex, or race, and when the next election heats up and the left makes every issue about race, sex, and gender, let's just have crickets coming from our side.

That'll work, just like it has the last few election cycles.
Posted by: Normal man spitting his hands at January 23, 2014 03:40 PM (agLwc)
-------------------------------------
Not that they shouldn't talk about certain subjects, just that they need to be extremely careful. Recognize the "gotcha" topics and get back to safe ground. Don't extemporize on those subjects unless you actually know what the hell you're doing. Yes, the left loves to make everything about race/sex/gender/whatever, so don't engage them on that more than you have to - as the saying goes, they'll drag you down to their level and beat you with experience. Point out that they are constantly diverting the topic away from the issues, which are whatever.

The left controls the media, and thus controls the narrative. We can either recognize that and work with it or we can ignore that and let it destroy us. This is something that the GOP is appallingly bad at, in large measure because many of the leading GOP figures are "house conservatives" (McCain, Boehner, Christie, etc) and thus don't have the healthy distrust of the MFM that they should.

Posted by: CoderInCrisis at January 23, 2014 11:52 AM (BAEzE)

564 "Posted by: Regular Moron at January 23, 2014 03:49 PM (oGrEy)" You're safe 48 hours after she ovulates, just fyi.

Posted by: Lauren at January 23, 2014 11:52 AM (hFL/3)

565 I want sex, like, all the friggin time but I'm not in a relationship and don't hook up so.... I control my libido.

Unpossible! Not fucking everything that offers is "unrealistic."

Posted by: HR at January 23, 2014 11:52 AM (ZKzrr)

566 Only a handful of countries allow abortion at every stage of abortion. North Korea is a notable member of that group, China is another.

Posted by: Holger at January 23, 2014 11:52 AM (rIk1N)

567 Posted by: ace at January 23, 2014 03:48 PM (/FnUH) ******** Kind of like you are over-reading Huckabee to make a judgment call on most Conservatives or something. I don't think you have one female commenter here agreeing with you yet you are carrying water for women. It reminds me of what bugs me about male feminists for some reason. Or you are hanging around those extreme orthodox Catholics still. Dump 'em.

Posted by: Teleprompter Feed Crew at January 23, 2014 11:52 AM (RJMhd)

568 We ARE going to lose women all day long and twice on Sundays if we continue pushing this agenda, as a part of our *politics,* in which the only real way to have acceptable sex is to be a Committed Christian in a Loving Marriage. Posted by: ace at January 23, 2014 03:21 PM (/FnUH) And I think how you see it playing in Peoria is the main foundation of your criticism. You primarily see it as bad politics.

Posted by: D-Lamp at January 23, 2014 11:52 AM (bb5+k)

569 By Gaia you should be a lawyer! Posted by: Teleprompter Feed Crew Bastard! Take that back! : ) Maybe truth table: Maybe T = T | F Maybe F = T | F

Posted by: bonhomme[/i][/b][/i][/b][/s][/s] at January 23, 2014 11:53 AM (45N4D)

570 547. At this point, = give an inch, lose a mile It isn't that tax payers are too cheap or too mean to provide The Pill or condums "free" on demand. It IS precedence opening the rationale that tax payers must provide abortions, every welfare benefit "free" on demand, including those not yet on the books. Obama or any other POTUS spends tax funds without Congressional approval/appropriation not on established legislated programs. But on instituting his own demands AS LAW. And were it not so, there wouldn't be this vicious fight over the line.

Posted by: panzernashorn at January 23, 2014 11:53 AM (MhA4j)

571 OK Ace, I think I'm unable to follow you entirely, but: You don't want to be held to Christian ideals of behavior, and resent being told that you *should* be held to those ideals. You don't even have to reply, but just to clarify: (Back to the Moral Code System idea,) talking about Christian principles vis-a-vis American governance isn't new. And it really, at it's core, isn't different from a fiscal conservative saying, "This is how I handle my money, I can't follow you around cleaning up your messes if you can't find and follow good financial advice." Hopefully, you understand the conservative world well enough to understand that it isn't from "condemnation" judgment, it's mostly an "observation" judgment.

Posted by: Cameo Appearance at January 23, 2014 11:53 AM (R8yKQ)

572 Maybe truth table: Maybe T = T | F Maybe F = T | F Or start pulling out the fuzzy logic notation.

Posted by: Paid for by Citizens for Clyde the Orangutan at January 23, 2014 11:53 AM (QF8uk)

573 Everyone here has fallen for a limited, gated view of the world.

I mean, of course, the concept of libido, Freud's false duality (nuttier still: a tri-ality, a little Christianity-envy there?) of the psyche. If you try to treatyour sexual identity, or your sexual morals, or sexual desires and drives, like a little glass room in a Wood Allen movie, you're going to go crazy, and need analysis, which is most likely how Freud came up with this.

They dangled that worm (which is, sometimes, just a worm) and you all bit on it.

Freudian definitions of thought and character are crude, insulting, and misleading. The fact that everyone believes in them explains how crazy things are.

Posted by: Stringer Davis at January 23, 2014 11:54 AM (xq1UY)

574 Posted by: alexthechick - Skittle fueled Godzillette at January 23, 2014 02:40 PM (VtjlW) You need to send that to everyone in DC who is a Democrat, :^)

Posted by: FenelonSpoke at January 23, 2014 11:54 AM (7kkQJ)

575 That is his main thrust, undeniably. But then he takes two steps back by setting up an opposition between living a sex-free life (controlling your libido) and birth control.

Posted by: ace at January 23, 2014 02:54 PM (/FnUH)

Hmm, no.... he says liberals are making that opposition.

Posted by: [/i]KG at January 23, 2014 11:54 AM (p7BzH)

576 397 372. Perhaps you've forgotten. But Huckabee did get into it while on the record, some time ago now. He always ends up saying too much, thinks far too much of himself. He's too like Joe Biden in that. Posted by: panzernashorn at January 23, 2014 03:22 PM (MhA4j) I have no use for Huckabee.

Posted by: D-Lamp at January 23, 2014 11:54 AM (bb5+k)

577 >>>Look, I'm sorry I got so emotional. The problem is that conservative women face the sort of derision for our reproductive choices that you were spouting all the time. It is really tiresome, but more importantly, it is just really disappointing hearing them come from someone who I like and respect (you) very much. It just seems as though you have a blind spot when it comes to What Christians Believe. I understand. I'm sure I have blinds spots about What New York Agnostics believe too. But the irritation comes when you try to tell us what we *really* believe when it is so far from the truth . ... Lauren, we've had this same argument before. You have certain beliefs about sexual morality. I would call these beliefs more latitudinarian (more leeway) than other religious people have. But you keep insisting that your relatively easy-peasy sexual rules are the rules that all would impose. They're not. You're basically, and I kid with this, with the love, you're basically a Slutty McSlutterson. Just kidding, you know. But you keep telling me how relatively lenient your own church's teachings are on these matters. Fine, I believe you-- but you can't speak for all churches or all other people's political/social positions. The positions I say exist, DO exist. You just don't happen to believe in them.

Posted by: ace at January 23, 2014 11:55 AM (/FnUH)

578 And yes, why should we suddenly have to pay for other people's birth control? Posted by: FenelonSpoke at January 23, 2014 03:22 PM (7kkQJ) Or their foolish decision to have children which they cannot afford? Why are we expected to pay for the children created by other people's indulgence of their urges?

Posted by: D-Lamp at January 23, 2014 11:56 AM (bb5+k)

579 I've seen several people mock ace's assertion that no one has ever said sex is for making babies. My memory may well be faulty but I've seen that argument made several times around here, mostly when it's used in opposition of gay marriage. The argument being gay marriage cannot exist since the purpose of marriage and sex is to procreate.

Just my two cents.

Posted by: Heralder at January 23, 2014 11:56 AM (/Mxso)

580 there was a thing on newsbusters about private tech companies running their own buses in san fran and the media and social justice people are pissed - you would think it would be great, car pooling, lower carbon footprint, responsible corporations!! but no, its still an outrage - its almost not worth it

Posted by: Chelsea Danger at January 23, 2014 11:56 AM (mHol2)

581 572 By Gaia you should be a lawyer! Posted by: Teleprompter Feed Crew Bastard! Take that back! : ) Maybe truth table: Maybe T = T | F Maybe F = T | F Posted by: bonhomme at January 23, 2014 03:53 PM (45N4D) ******** LOL! Too much maybe--heh.

Posted by: Teleprompter Feed Crew at January 23, 2014 11:58 AM (RJMhd)

582 And yet, Romney won among married women.

Posted by: RoyalOil at January 23, 2014 11:59 AM (VjL9S)

583 TARP, among others. You know what I mean.

Posted by: nip at January 23, 2014 11:59 AM (jI23+)

584 559 Ace, I must need to work on my reading comprehension. It's pretty safe to say that no one here exceeds my antipathy for Huckadoodle and my read is his saying he thinks women can pay for and choose their own concerns. I am thrilled everything is SO ok we have time as a nation to argue about these vital but perversely easily overlooked items like birth control pills and the SoCon Cotton Mather Night Riders. If the last 5 years are an example of this hedonistic libertine Nirvana I stand in awe of America's sense and sobriety in judgement.

Posted by: sven10077 at January 23, 2014 11:59 AM (5F2cO)

585

Sorry SoLibs, but you can't demand that people exercise self-control everywhere else, and not ask them to do so in "sex issues."

Life doesn't work that way.

Posted by: Titus Quinctius Cincinnatus at January 23, 2014 12:00 PM (YYJjz)

586 So, if folks like Huckabee can't point out that the Dems treat women like throwaway toys, who is allowed to? Huntsman? Rudy? Christie? Or is the topic totally off limits because MFM? I ask merely for information.

Posted by: Biff Boffo at January 23, 2014 12:01 PM (YmPwQ)

587 Don't have sex isn't really a realistic option for anyone with a "healthy libido."

We're talking about adults, not children. Oh wait, that's right, you push these ideas as ostensibly "about the children" but then we later find out you really mean "Children defined as all adults."

Posted by: ace at January 23, 2014 03:00 PM (/FnUH)

You didn't answer his question.

Posted by: [/i]KG at January 23, 2014 12:01 PM (p7BzH)

588 Should probably cut the hands off GOP candidates as well, just to eliminate the Impolitic Signing possibilities.

Posted by: ScoggDog at January 23, 2014 12:01 PM (ePQIH)

589 >>>K Ace, I think I'm unable to follow you entirely, but: You don't want to be held to Christian ideals of behavior, and resent being told that you *should* be held to those ideals. yes, that is correct. Specifically, I have less problem with Christian ideals being promulgated than I have with Christian ideals being promulgated in a POLITICAL context (rather than the purely social/cultural context of a church or other voluntary gathering). Politics equals, in the end, positive law. Why the fuck these cultural norms keep being elevated to "politics" I don't know. Well, I do know. Pure tribalism. But yes, you're right: I'm tired of being told I must do this and I must do that. Just as YOU are tired of such endless nattering from the left. As I keep saying, being bossed around by anyone -- pressured, hectored, heckled, nagged and nattered -- is deeply bothersome. You are turning people the hell off and making the GOP an Only Christians Need Apply club. And that would actually be fine, sort of -- well, it would be bothersome, but it wouldn't be deadly -- if Christianity were growing strongly in the US. We could still win elections. But it's not. Atheism/agnosticism is growing, people who attend church do so more sporadically and not as seriously, and the conservative Christian/religious right fraction remains relatively constant (and definitely minority). The only way people will buy into these conclusions is if they also have the years of philosophical training of going to Church to understand where these beliefs come from. So if the Christian right starts converting a lot more people, then these tactics could wind up being politically salable. But they're not. No one believes this stuff except you guys and you are a minority of 35%.

Posted by: ace at January 23, 2014 12:02 PM (/FnUH)

590

buzzion, I didn't throw the "OR" in there myself. I put the either in for emphasis.

He says the "or." Google it.

ace you forgot to complete the sentence which ends with ' without the help of government" .

That makes all the difference in the world.

Posted by: polynikes at January 23, 2014 12:03 PM (m2CN7)

591 >>> The positions I say exist, DO exist. You just don't happen to believe in them.

I don't understand why you are so bent out of shape here ace.

The catholic church teaches that artificial birth control is immoral. Are you saying that they shouldn't teach that? Or that those who believe it should never say anything about it, lest they be accusing of "judging"? I sort of understand that position from a political/tactical point of view, but outside of politics...?

I'm not going to defend Huckabee here; he is an idiot. But I just don't understand why this vapid quote of his put you on tilt.

Posted by: dan-O at January 23, 2014 12:03 PM (D0bIN)

592 Keep in mind that social liberals/libertarians aren't exactly the paragons of rationality that they sometimes like to think they are, either. Posted by: Titus Quinctius Cincinnatus at January 23, 2014 03:31 PM (YYJjz) THIS. I constantly see dichotomies in their arguments. Dichotomies of which they are completely oblivious, and indeed not even capable of discerning once they are pointed out.

Posted by: D-Lamp at January 23, 2014 12:04 PM (bb5+k)

593 "But you keep telling me how relatively lenient your own church's teachings are on these matters. Fine, I believe you-- but you can't speak for all churches or all other people's political/social positions. The positions I say exist, DO exist. You just don't happen to believe in them. " But here's the thing. Churches are a lot more slutty mcslutterson than you believe. There are hardly any churches at all that forbid contraceptive use. It's really just the Catholics, and they are 100% super fine with NFP and sex between couples who can't have children. Most protestant churches are not only fine with birth control, but support as abortion as well. Evangelical churches are typically not ok with abortion, but have no issue with contraception. I know these things because I have worked extensively within the pro-life movement and I know the theologies of many different churches in terms of how they view sex, birth control, and abortion. The only real restraint upon sex that you'll find among all churches is that it needs to stay within marriage. That's it. ANd yeah, that is a lot to ask. I didn't follow it. I don't know many people who *do* follow it, but it's not exactly something shockingly shocking. Even the liberal Methodist church I went to as a kid was very Anti Sex Before Marriage. I think you're conflaing Anti Sex Before Marriage as Anti Sex, but they're not the same thing. The reason the Church is against extramarital sex is because it's explictly labled a sin. Of course, if we want to go deeper, there are obviously practical considerations as well regarding raising children, disease, not getting your heart broken ect ect ect. While marriage doesn't completely immunize a couple from these dangers, it does help to reduce them. However, there's no danger from a blow job. Well...I mean, there could be some blinding or something but let's move on.... I really think you should read Humanae Vitae. It is the Catholic stance on sex and it will be the MOST conservative that you'll find. I think you'll be somewhat shocked that it is actually very explicit in allowing sex between infertile couples/sex during infertile periods. IT really, really is not SEX MUST EQUAL BABIES ALL THE TIME. I promise.

Posted by: Lauren at January 23, 2014 12:04 PM (hFL/3)

594

@ 593 - "Specifically, I have less problem with Christian ideals being promulgated than I have with Christian ideals being promulgated in a POLITICAL context (rather than the purely social/cultural context of a church or other voluntary gathering)."

Hey, I'm fine with that, so long as nobody else's ideals end up being codified into positive law either, eh?

Posted by: Titus Quinctius Cincinnatus at January 23, 2014 12:04 PM (YYJjz)

595 I think that some here thing that because Socons don't want certain sex subjects to be taught in school that somehow that means we're opposed to adults doing them. That's not true.

Neither is it true that because some believe abortion is murder that they are attacking those that don't. (unless of course they start getting personal).

I think there's a lot of personal guilt going on in the push back against SoCons. Either guilt because they still in their heart believe the same but because they want to gain power to make changes for the Fiscons (and when has that ever happened?) they've buried those beliefs.

Or they're not really Conservative but are also not Progressives or Libertarian and are more LessGovernmentarians than anything else.

They see SoCons as a threat because they firmly believe that if one gets elected it'll be back to the stocks and branding with mandatory church attendance along with occasional witch burnings.

All emotionally weighted opinions with few facts to back them up.

Posted by: Bitter Clinger and All That (Unexpurgated Edition) at January 23, 2014 12:05 PM (LSDdO)

596

But yes, you're right: I'm tired of being told I must do this and I must do that. Just as YOU are tired of such endless nattering from the left.

As I keep saying, being bossed around by anyone -- pressured, hectored, heckled, nagged and nattered -- is deeply bothersome.

Exactly what are you being bossed around about? You have no answer.

Posted by: polynikes at January 23, 2014 12:05 PM (m2CN7)

597 **it would be easier to do if there weren't people so willing to play that role for them.** perhaps...Akin's words were...unfortunate as usual, Annie C nails it on how to talk about rape-bortions. Other than that though...what the hell, the other side has prudish feminazis. we can make fun of them as well.

Posted by: oeJay44incday at January 23, 2014 12:05 PM (QxSug)

598 There are non-permanent adhesives on the market, so it's a non-issue. Just glue the damn signs on. Or use nails. It's not MY truck.
===
What are we. . .chopped liver?

Posted by: Suction cups at January 23, 2014 12:06 PM (6Q9g2)

599 "...is the topic totally off limits because MFM? I ask merely for information." Here we are, almost at 600 comments, all because there are still a lot of people on our side who think just because they say something, the rest of the world will hear exactly that. In reality, it's more like a Charlie Brown cartoon. When we speak on these subjects, all they hear is "Waa Waa Waaa". In their minds, they make up words that fit the stereotype of religious freak arch conservatives bent on locking up all women and outlawing sex. It's a losing battle. To win elections, we should just avoid these subjects and concentrate on other fantasies like how we're good with money and national defense.

Posted by: jwest at January 23, 2014 12:06 PM (u2a4R)

600 **No one believes this stuff except you guys and you are a minority of 35%. *** what we need are more naturally conservative hispanics to flood the electorate. signed,xxoo the GOP...all of the GOP, it seems. PS, sure we know that they're naturally conservative but blindly vote for democrats and support abortions and gay marriage, the welfare state, and single payer tax systems...but think of how much we'll save on volume.

Posted by: oeJay44incday at January 23, 2014 12:07 PM (QxSug)

601 391. ace, A person who refrains, according to self restraint, from having intercourse every single time the urge or drive becomes conscious, is exercising self control. Not every opportunity for a sexual encounter is "appropriate". There are established taboos, for instance against incest or molesting children, or rape. There are many who believe in the sanctity of marriage, in monogamy, because they love their partner above all else in life. Spouses, refraining from intimacy outside of marriage is the best policy, as breaking trust inevitably leads to tragedy. libido 1 : instinctual psychic energy that in psychoanalytic theory is derived from primitive biological urges (as for sexual pleasure or self-preservation) and that is expressed in conscious activity 2 : sexual drive As far as what an individual chooses morally, that's personal, and remains private so long as legal. /"If you like your privacy, you can keep your privacy. Trust me." Big Brother

Posted by: panzernashorn at January 23, 2014 12:07 PM (MhA4j)

602 81 Posted by: Monkeytoe at January 23, 2014 02:28 PM (sOx93)

This mostly happens for those who use some sort of principles/morality as guidance and the reason they're in politics in the first place.

They are (at first) delighted to be asked what they think about any topic and believe that the media is actually interested in the answer.

30 years ago, this might have made sense, but today? What republican alive doesn't understand that the media is out to get them.

And, a lot of the time we aren't talking about answering a question off the cuff, but things a republican says from a prepared speech or in a debate. These people need to understand the media is out to get them no matter what.

Romney didn't understand it. McCain didn't understand it. I don't even think W understood it.

My question is - how? How do they (and their advisers and every other republican officeholder or aide/adviser/campaign pro) not understand this in 2013?

Posted by: Monkeytoe at January 23, 2014 12:07 PM (sOx93)

603 "Specifically, I have less problem with Christian ideals being promulgated than I have with Christian ideals being promulgated in a POLITICAL context (rather than the purely social/cultural context of a church or other voluntary gathering). " Someone needs to remodel the Supreme Court building then....

Posted by: [/i][/b][/u][/s] Tami at January 23, 2014 12:08 PM (bCEmE)

604 592 Scogg Dogg, You know if we poke out their eyes maybe they will not see any societal problems....? I am gonna laugh when the "Atheist Masses" try this routine with the Muslims Barry is importing.

Posted by: sven10077 at January 23, 2014 12:08 PM (5F2cO)

605 or maybe ace does have a point, but it's like I've been saying, sure you can have wedge issues, but you have to burnish it. otherwise, you get the sting of the other side pretending you're all a bunch of 50's baptist preachers without actually appealing to the people that that stuff appeals to. For example, romney never took on obama's big gay wet kiss to the gheys. so, on one hand, all the white people problem voters were all bummed on Mitt because gay stuff is the single defining moral crusade of their time. BUT Mitt got zero benefit from anyone who is a little skeeved out by the white people problems voter's love affair with stuff that doesn't matter.

Posted by: oeJay44incday at January 23, 2014 12:10 PM (QxSug)

606 >>>Someone needs to remodel the Supreme Court building then.... please. the only reason they're permitted is because of the bs line that's peddled that the Ten Commandments are present only as an early illustration of the law, among other illustrations of early law. If you want to call bullshit on the Christian Right's whole legal argument for keeping such monuments (and call them liars), do be my guest.

Posted by: ace at January 23, 2014 12:10 PM (/FnUH)

607 So once again I'm having the same old type of argument I always have with socons: Half arguing the guy didn't say what I say he said, the other half arguing he was right to say it. (And some, like AllenG, arguing both points, depending on where we are in the debate.) Posted by: ace at January 23, 2014 03:36 PM (/FnUH) And here you are falsely characterizing your opposition. The two concepts are not mutually exclusive, depending on how you take the meaning.

Posted by: D-Lamp at January 23, 2014 12:10 PM (bb5+k)

608 >>And yet, Romney won among married women. And lost with single women. And thats the rub. Married women tend to be more conservative and receptive to a stronger conservative message on things like birth control, etc. Younger, more socially liberal women are what the Republican party needs and they have been told by the msm for years that Republicans are sexually repressed monsters who fear the vagina and want to take women's rights away. We need to keep our message focused and talking about woman's libidos is probably not the way to go. Notice that is the thing Hunt seized on? It wasn't an accident.

Posted by: JackStraw at January 23, 2014 12:10 PM (g1DWB)

609

I think there's a lot of personal guilt going on in the push back against SoCons.

Posted by: Bitter Clinger and All That (Unexpurgated Edition) at January 23, 2014 04:05 PM (LSDdO)

In my experience, I submit that I have found some socons, not all, to be just as interested in imposing authoritarian rules on other people as the progressives, just with a different rule book.

Posted by: Heralder at January 23, 2014 12:10 PM (/Mxso)

610 OMG the number of comments in so short a time! All I want to say is that ever since that Fluke woman started moaning about the cost of her birth control I've been wondering: WTF? You can get a month's supply of birth control pills at walmart for $4. If you require a particular brand you might have to pay 2 or 3 times that. Condoms may be more expensive if you have a lot of sex, but not that much. Geesh louise! For not guaranteeing THIS as a freebie in your health care plan we have to rearrange the entire medical system and spend a trillion $$?? Here's an easier plan - give every woman a $200 deduction on income taxes. BOOM! Free birth control! Most insurance plans covered some of the expense anyway - it's just not entirely cost-free. I have never understood the "war on women" angle here. I am a woman, BTW. I am also an allergy sufferer - is there a "war on sinuses" victims league that I can sign up for since I can't get my Claritin for free? What about men who purchase condoms? If they can't get them for free is that a war on men? Nope, I just don't see it at all.

Posted by: dp at January 23, 2014 12:11 PM (GUTc0)

611 540 "Oh, and Repubs should never say anything about vaginas or abortions cause it can be misconstrued and sounds judgey. Also women shouldn't be criticized cause misconstrued and judgey. The more topics are off-limits for Repubs the better. The ideal candidate should be terrified of speaking." And race. For God's sake, don't talk about race. Can't we just nominate deaf mutes? Posted by: jwest at January 23, 2014 03:47 PM (u2a4R) Absolutely. That was the advice given to Romney regarding Benghazi at the second debate and it worked out soooo well. All we do is complain that none of the republicans have enough ba...s to fire back at the Democrats, and as soon as one does, we go all wobbly knees over how it is predictably distorted by the left. He shouldn't say this, he shouldn't say that.... There are lawsuits currently in the courts for heaven sakes, over the contraception mandate in Obamacare. HobbyLobby a very large employer is looking at closure if they are mandated to provide payment for birth control and abortions. Yet a bunch of posters here want the Rep. to run and hide and don't say anything about it. Because it will offend the feminazi's. I swear, people still didn't learn anything from the last election.

Posted by: Jen at January 23, 2014 12:11 PM (4t/Y9)

612 Great. Apparently "you could blind me" is now a valid excuse. Fantastic.

Posted by: ScoggDog at January 23, 2014 12:11 PM (ePQIH)

613 Posted by: ace at January 23, 2014 03:21 PM (/FnUH)

Now you are just being a jerk and arguing in bad faith.

Posted by: [/i]KG at January 23, 2014 12:12 PM (p7BzH)

614 So you want to strip the Judeo Christian foundation out of our politics and government. Be careful what you wish for--you might realize you had more in common with the Christian "minority" than you thought.

Posted by: Teleprompter Feed Crew at January 23, 2014 12:12 PM (RJMhd)

615 Mitt2012's defining message was obama screwed up because he loved too much, or something. while obama was all like 100,000 teachers and taxes for the rich. Also, wink wink, I'm totally not for ghey marriage but I am, depending on who is listening.

Posted by: oeJay44incday at January 23, 2014 12:12 PM (QxSug)

616 Nicely stated, Lauren.

Posted by: FenelonSpoke at January 23, 2014 12:12 PM (7kkQJ)

617

@ 603 - "When we speak on these subjects, all they hear is "Waa Waa Waaa". In their minds, they make up words that fit the stereotype of religious freak arch conservatives bent on locking up all women and outlawing sex. "

Part of overcoming a stereotype is to confront it directly, FORCE people to see that it isn't true, and use the truth to change their minds.

That's a good part of the reason why desegretion of the armed forces in 1947 helped to facilitate the civil rights movement in the 1960s. Whites in the military had to live, work, and fight alongside the "n*****s" they had always heard about but often didn't know anything about. They saw that the "n******s" were really a lot like they were, and became a lot more open to extending full participation in our society to African Americans.

That would have at least been a lot less likely to have happened, and the changes would have been many magnitudes more convulsive, if Truman hadn't had the courage to desegregate in 1947.

If we did things you're way, African-Americans would still be living under segregation because "everybody knows that those stereotypes about them that make them unfit for full participation in white society are true."

Posted by: Titus Quinctius Cincinnatus at January 23, 2014 12:13 PM (YYJjz)

618 607 Tami, We're on it.... // Jim, Habib, and Abdul your friends at Jihad inc.

Posted by: sven10077 at January 23, 2014 12:13 PM (5F2cO)

619 Ace, who the hell do you read to arrive at this opinion of what SoCons are all about?

Or even the Evangelicals?

or the Christian Right?

who, when where?

I've never seen that articulated where decrying the oversexualization of children is inflated to also mean adults also.

Posted by: Bitter Clinger and All That (Unexpurgated Edition) at January 23, 2014 12:13 PM (LSDdO)

620 >>>But here's the thing. Churches are a lot more slutty mcslutterson than you believe. please stop reading just me and read the arguments of your fellow Christians such as AllenG and VashaNerada and several others. You will confirm that they have more exacting standards in this regard than you do. I am not arguing that your standard does not exist. However, you seem to be arguing that the standard that I say exists, in some, does not exist at all. Reading the AllenG will disabuse you of this mistaken belief.

Posted by: ace at January 23, 2014 12:14 PM (/FnUH)

621 >>>I've never seen that articulated where decrying the oversexualization of children is inflated to also mean adults also. read the thread

Posted by: ace at January 23, 2014 12:15 PM (/FnUH)

622 "That was the advice given to Romney regarding Benghazi at the second debate ..." That's what we should be talking about. We're good at Benghazi, foreign relations, military, finance, freedom, rights, etc. etc. Hammer these subjects at every opportunity. But don't try to interject some lame view on the definition of rape. Or when contraception is appropriate. We lose on these. This isn't rocket science.

Posted by: jwest at January 23, 2014 12:15 PM (u2a4R)

623 Go read the abortion thread from yesterday. I happen to believe there should be an exception for abortion in the case of rape or incest, didn't bother to weigh in on that yesterday because quite a few were insisting that if you believed anything other than a total ban on abortion is murder, period. I tend not to think of myself as pro-murder and call me crazy but I take it a little personal when I am called one. But for quite a few here there is no compromise on this issue at all. Thats fine. But don't expect to get any quarter from those whom you believe to be murderers for having a different opinion. Posted by: JackStraw at January 23, 2014 03:43 PM (g1DWB) I agree with your position. Abortion as a necessary *MEDICAL* procedure is acceptable. Even Jewish law recognizes the need for it if the child becomes a "Pursuer."

Posted by: D-Lamp at January 23, 2014 12:15 PM (bb5+k)

624 honestly, I can't keep having this argument about whether some Christians believe this. I happen to be arguing with several who believe this. Read the thread. Stop denying the existence of that which plainly exists.

Posted by: ace at January 23, 2014 12:15 PM (/FnUH)

625 It's a losing battle.

To win elections, we should just avoid these subjects and concentrate on other fantasies like how we're good with money and national defense.
==========
And that's why we don't have President Romney today.

Because, he--and the GOP--went with your position.

Meanwhile, a minor increase in the Republican base would have tipped the election.

So, we have two choices: Go with the media-approved strategy of not saying anything that they can twist to offend single women and hope that means we can attract more single women to vote R.

Or: We could start saying things that appeal to the base and drive up their turnout.

Do you make a play for the "persuadables" or do you rally and fire up the choir?

We've had two Presidential elections in a row that have tested the former. We've neither a President McCain nor a President Romney as a result.

Posted by: RoyalOil at January 23, 2014 12:16 PM (VjL9S)

626 the trap is, the dnc will tell us we lost bc of our strengths. That's the whole point of the "x" is driving the moderates from the GOP stuff. Akin obviously lost MO for everyone but there was more to 2012 than that. You can point to your pet causes, too much voter fraud, not enough GOTV, too many FOB voters being bussed into vote on ballots they can't understand, romney took foot off of the pedal... or despite obama's miserable failure of a presidency, people were so scarred of turning into a small southern baptist congregation that they turned their noses up to Romney, who was, by the way, a moderate governor of a blue state. hardly scary stuff.

Posted by: oeJay44incday at January 23, 2014 12:17 PM (QxSug)

627

Since ace doesn't want to specify exactly how he has been bossed around by Socons I'll give a few specifics that show its the Socons that have been bossed around.

The elimination of school prayer.

The elimination of religious symbols

The forced implementation of gay marriage

The forced implementation of a gay military

The legalization of pot

The legalization of murder / abortion

The forcing of people to violate their religious beliefs under penalty of law. Sorry Nuns and cake bakers.

The government asssitance to dissolve private organizations. Sorry Boy Scouts.

I can go on but what's the use. dead thread

Posted by: polynikes at January 23, 2014 12:17 PM (m2CN7)

628 Niedermyer's Dead Horse, AllenG, and VashtaNerada all explicitly endorsed "don't have sex before marriage" as the definition of "controlling your libido." How has this thread gone on for this long without someone pointing this out. I mean, shit.

Posted by: Yoshi, Aggrieved Victim of the White Man at January 23, 2014 12:17 PM (ZEvg7)

629 I hate Mike Huckabee. and that's all I have to say about this.

Posted by: Shoey at January 23, 2014 12:17 PM (Y7jCH)

630 628 Ace, When, precisely, has the elected GOP empowered my Cotton Mather Night Rider Puritan Holy War on Strumpets and Wastrels?

Posted by: sven10077 at January 23, 2014 12:18 PM (5F2cO)

631 considered "Acceptable," not considered "Heroic and laudable." You're trying to impose an ideal on people and call it a standard. A standard must be several steps below an ideal. Posted by: ace at January 23, 2014 03:49 PM (/FnUH) Obviously what was the "Standard" for most of this nation's existence is now considered an unreasonable constraint nowadays.

Posted by: D-Lamp at January 23, 2014 12:18 PM (bb5+k)

632 >>>I'll give a few specifics that show its the Socons that have been bossed around. in many cases those are real cases of being bossed. In some, as in "the legalization of pot," you are only being bossed to the extent that you do not wish to live in a society where this is permissible, and if other people are permitted to do so, you're claiming you've been "bossed." I guess from having to countenance evil.

Posted by: ace at January 23, 2014 12:19 PM (/FnUH)

633 And by "don't have sex before marriage," otherwise known as "crossing your legs," I take that they mean "don't have oral or anal either." Because that's what most conservative Christians (including myself) take as the definition of "no sex before marriage."

Posted by: Yoshi, Aggrieved Victim of the White Man at January 23, 2014 12:19 PM (ZEvg7)

634 406 Here's the point. Do I think less of people who say they cannot control their libido? Sure I do. That is a weakness, or a sin, or whatever you wish to call it. Do I want to tell them that they cannot have sex with any willing adult they choose to? No. They are free to do as they wish as long as it is voluntary and legal to do so, and does not interfere with others' rights. But, I should not have to pay for their contraception, or their STD treatments, nor should I be maligned because I don't accept their worldview that their moral weakness is somehow the 'correct' view. Posted by: Vashta Nerada at January 23, 2014 03:23 PM (AskuI) ******* ^This. Plus he could be some other religion. How do you know he is Christian?

Posted by: Teleprompter Feed Crew at January 23, 2014 12:19 PM (RJMhd)

635 "But you keep telling me how relatively lenient your own church's teachings are on these matters. Fine, I believe you-- but you can't speak for all churches or all other people's political/social positions. " Yeah, no. I'm Catholic and we have the arguably most hard-line views on sex and guess what? It's basically the same thing Lauren describes. My sex life, which is faithful to the Catholic teaching to the letter, and what she described as hers could be completely interchangable. You seem to have this idea that there are crazy Bible beaters on the site insisting sex is only for babies and I have literally never seen anyone here, even the other Catholics, make that argument. Further, I haven't seen one woman on here interpret Dorkabee's statement in the way you have. With the exception of the few regulars that show up on threads that have the smallest whiff of social conservatism so they can jump in and shit on the dreaded SOCONS!!!111!!, most of us here read what he said as, "Democrats think women trip and fall onto dicks and- bBAM!!! Pregnant- all the time, so you need Big Daddy Uncle Sam to give you pills because you're incapable of controlling yourself." I love this website generally, which is why I lurk here all the damn time, but I do not understand what seems to be your own personal need to interpret things like this in the worst possible light. This is a big fat nothing burger. What Aiken said? Yes, please, go nuts on his stupid ass. But this is one big ass ridiculous thread and it is so because you insisted on seeing something that was not there and are so committed to being right about that and lecturing us about ideas we do not subscribe to that it has turned into a shit, flame throwing thread. Maybe it a lawyer thing. I don't know. But it turns a subject on which we all agree into a contentious flame war for no good reason whatsoever.

Posted by: Mandy P., lurking lurker who lurks at January 23, 2014 12:19 PM (qFpRI)

636 >>>Niedermyer's Dead Horse, AllenG, and VashtaNerada all explicitly endorsed "don't have sex before marriage" as the definition of "controlling your libido." right so people who are not married should not have sex....? Um, this is exactly what I'm saying Huck is suggesting: Sex should only be had in a marriage, and that should be a thing we talk a lot about in politics. So we're back to the He Never Said That/And He Was Also Right To Say It thing.

Posted by: ace at January 23, 2014 12:20 PM (/FnUH)

637 but I will add... I have NEVER in my entire life been oppressed, bullied or pushed around by any overtly christian person. not ever.

Posted by: Shoey at January 23, 2014 12:20 PM (Y7jCH)

638 599. I think that some here thing that because Socons don't want certain sex subjects to be taught in school that somehow that means we're opposed to adults doing them. That's not true. =Right. When 1 semester sex ed was first legislated as required curriculum for high school graduation after 1970, it was text book biology, pregnancy prevention and the reality of venereal diseases requiring protection/treatment. But the degree of promiscuous invasion by public educators on children today is insane. Hence, give an inch, lose a mile proving the road to serfdom isn't just for post-adolescents. Cradle to grave sex abuse via "education". How else would the TSA sexual molestation of everyone be so tolerated by the American citizenry? The smirks of "I like it" from Democratic Leadership who are NOT molested by TSA, despite their propaganda of how good it feels. There will always be the promiscuous self indulging Weiners. Best not touch with a 10 foot poll. Never personally grant them stimulus or live to rue the day. Back to Burke's quote, see the way this Patriot Act Bush/Obama authoritarian generation has played it out. It isn't the special people, the Tim Geithner cheats, who exercise control over their own wants so much as taking advantage from everyone else. Piracy.

Posted by: panzernashorn at January 23, 2014 12:20 PM (MhA4j)

639 Look, sven, if you don't pay for the left's lube and abortions, you are part of Cotton Mather Night Rider Puritan Holy War on Strumpets and Wastrels. it's sort of like W's stance in the war on terror, only it's the lilbs stance on the war on america.

Posted by: oeJay44incday endorses Cotton Mather Night Rider Puritan Holy War on Strumpets and Wastrels at January 23, 2014 12:21 PM (QxSug)

640 643 --actually, not pregnancy prevention back then. But the understood point without being stated was, this is how pregnancy occurs.

Posted by: panzernashorn at January 23, 2014 12:21 PM (MhA4j)

641 buzzion, I didn't throw the "OR" in there myself. I put the either in for emphasis.

He says the "or." Google it.

Posted by: ace at January 23, 2014 03:36 PM (/FnUH)

But YOU say the "either", that changes his meaning. You are literally putting words in Huckabee's mouth.

Posted by: [/i]KG at January 23, 2014 12:21 PM (p7BzH)

642 >>>Obviously what was the "Standard" for most of this nation's existence is now considered an unreasonable constraint nowadays. it doesn't help your cause for standards when you contrive vindictively strict ones instead of more reasonable ones most people could get behind. You are making "standard" synonomous with "The hairshirt" to your own political (and culture war) detriment.

Posted by: ace at January 23, 2014 12:22 PM (/FnUH)

643

@ 637 ace - "in many cases those are real cases of being bossed. "

I'm kind of thinking that being fined and jailed for not baking a cake for teh gheys counts as being "bossed around."

Posted by: Titus Quinctius Cincinnatus at January 23, 2014 12:22 PM (YYJjz)

644 I may have missed some of their comments to the contrary, because I did not read every comment, but it seems like even the most "socony" were saying "It is best that people don't have sex before marriage, but I'm not going to force the issue."

Posted by: Lauren at January 23, 2014 12:23 PM (hFL/3)

645 >>> Um, this is exactly what I'm saying Huck is suggesting: Sex should only be had in a marriage, and that should be a thing we talk a lot about in politics.

Wow, how did you read that from what he said? Dude. This is getting to dog-whistle levels.

And I now hate you for making feel like I am defending the Huckster.

Posted by: dan-O at January 23, 2014 12:23 PM (D0bIN)

646 Posted by: KG at January 23, 2014 04:21 PM (p7BzH) Quit this parsing nonsense. The question is "does Huckabee (and other socons) look disapprovingly at sex before marriage in the body politic."

Posted by: Yoshi, Aggrieved Victim of the White Man at January 23, 2014 12:24 PM (ZEvg7)

647 642. that's sarcasm, right

Posted by: panzernashorn at January 23, 2014 12:24 PM (MhA4j)

648 >>>But YOU say the "either", that changes his meaning. You are literally putting words in Huckabee's mouth. i said the either to emphasize the "or" which people kept not seeing, no matter how many times I pointed it out. If you want to get into semantics, or implies either-- or is read, in both law and common speech, as disjunctive (as an either one or the other proposition). Look it up. If you want to say "You're overreading into one word, he was speaking extemporaneously" -- fine. I could understand that position. But the words he chose would still be inadvisable and wrong, even if he didn't really mean to choose them.

Posted by: ace at January 23, 2014 12:24 PM (/FnUH)

649 But they're not. No one believes this stuff except you guys and you are a minority of 35%. Posted by: ace at January 23, 2014 04:02 PM (/FnUH) Not a long term thinker, eh? I would ask you to look at the Jewish Orthodox birth rate and project what will happen to the vote in New York in oh say, 20 years. Nature always wins in the end. This temporary political opinion we see around us now will pass away when nature pulls out it's strapon.

Posted by: D-Lamp at January 23, 2014 12:24 PM (bb5+k)

650

@ 642 - "I have NEVER in my entire life been oppressed, bullied or pushed around by any overtly christian person. "

Just wait until the Mike Huckabee Cotton Mather Night Rider Ku Klux Khurch Puritan Holy War against Whores and Gigilos and Pimps and Bear-Baiters and Women Who Can't Control Their Libidos comes after you.

Posted by: Titus Quinctius Cincinnatus at January 23, 2014 12:24 PM (YYJjz)

651 >>>I'm kind of thinking that being fined and jailed for not baking a cake for teh gheys counts as being "bossed around." as I said, in many cases those are real cases of being bossed. In a few, not so much.

Posted by: ace at January 23, 2014 12:25 PM (/FnUH)

652 But, I should not have to pay for their contraception, or their STD treatments, nor should I be maligned because I don't accept their worldview that their moral weakness is somehow the 'correct' view. Posted by: Vashta Nerada at January 23, 2014 03:23 PM (AskuI) ******* ^This. Plus he could be some other religion. How do you know he is Christian? Only half This. I couldn't agree more that I don't want to pay for anyone else's birth control or STD care or anything having to do with their sex life. And thats where we should focus. Personal choices, personal costs. But leave out the whole morality crap. Once you start asserting that your morality is superior you engage someone not on a rational basis but on an emotional one.

Posted by: JackStraw at January 23, 2014 12:26 PM (g1DWB)

653 Posted by: Lauren at January 23, 2014 04:23 PM (hFL/3) An eminently reasonable interpretation of Huckabee's remarks is that "controlling your libido" = "no sex before marriage." Three frequent posters here endorsed this interpretation with their own words. This is in the record.

Posted by: Yoshi, Aggrieved Victim of the White Man at January 23, 2014 12:26 PM (ZEvg7)

654 - Don't be ridiculous. Controlling your libido means having sexual relations when appropriate, and not having them when not appropriate. Posted by: Vashta Nerada at January 23, 2014 03:05 PM (AskuI) ******* ^This is about as close as Vashta comes to your characterization of what he said. I think you have to cross him off your list.

Posted by: Teleprompter Feed Crew at January 23, 2014 12:26 PM (RJMhd)

655 600-some posts into the thread, and people are still arguing over something that Huckabee didn't say.

Ace's headline is accurate. The NBC reporter selectively quoted Huckabee. What Huckabee actually said, most of the horde agrees with, even Ace (I think). But since it was Huckabee, the thread somehow becomes an argument about how Socons want to repress everybody. And they might, not being one of them, I'm not sure.

But that's not what Huck said.

Posted by: Biff Boffo at January 23, 2014 12:26 PM (YmPwQ)

656 Romney didn't understand it. McCain didn't understand it. I don't even think W understood it. My question is - how? How do they (and their advisers and every other republican officeholder or aide/adviser/campaign pro) not understand this in 2013? Posted by: Monkeytoe at January 23, 2014 04:07 PM (sOx93) It is indeed a bafflement.

Posted by: D-Lamp at January 23, 2014 12:27 PM (bb5+k)

657 Niedermyer's Dead Horse, AllenG, and VashtaNerada all explicitly endorsed "don't have sex before marriage" as the definition of "controlling your libido." right so people who are not married should not have sex....? Um, this is exactly what I'm saying Huck is suggesting: Sex should only be had in a marriage, and that should be a thing we talk a lot about in politics. So we're back to the He Never Said That/And He Was Also Right To Say It thing. *** I gave the example of people I know who, in accordance with their beliefs, did not have sex. In the example of me, personally, I did not say that I am not having sex because I am not married. I said I am not having sex because I am not in a relationship. Soooo, if I were hooking up like a hormonal teenager I wouldn't be some close-minded religious zealot?

Posted by: Niedermeyer's Dead Horse at January 23, 2014 12:27 PM (DmNpO)

658 >>>Wow, how did you read that from what he said? Dude. This is getting to dog-whistle levels. follow the context of the remark. I said that because a commenter said the Pro-Huck people were saying that all he meant was that sex outside of marriage was bad, not sex inside marriage.

Posted by: ace at January 23, 2014 12:27 PM (/FnUH)

659 ^This. Plus he could be some other religion. How do you know he is Christian? Only half This. I couldn't agree more that I don't want to pay for anyone else's birth control or STD care or anything having to do with their sex life. And thats where we should focus. Personal choices, personal costs. But leave out the whole morality crap. Once you start asserting that your morality is superior you engage someone not on a rational basis but on an emotional one. Posted by: JackStraw at January 23, 2014 04:26 PM (g1DWB) ******** I screwed up. I meant to put a question mark after-- This? I was asking if that was the comment or one of the comments that Ace was referring to. I think Aced is mischaracterizing Vashta's position.

Posted by: Teleprompter Feed Crew at January 23, 2014 12:27 PM (RJMhd)

660 maybe the problem is is that we're talking about Huck here. We is popular among the duck dynasty types. he wasn't our nominee. I agree with ace's way earlier musing that not all of us cons are duck dynasty types, if you catch my drift. We can be urban, educated, yankees who, regardless of our feeling on sex and god and shit, vote GOP. For what that's worth.

Posted by: oeJay44incday endorses Cotton Mather Night Rider Puritan Holy War on Strumpets and Wastrels at January 23, 2014 12:28 PM (QxSug)

661

# 660 - "But that's not what Huck said."

But ironically enough, that's essentially what Ace (the thread-poster) still seems to be trying to argue for.

Posted by: Titus Quinctius Cincinnatus at January 23, 2014 12:28 PM (YYJjz)

662 What I'm saying is, we've tested the "how can we win single, young, socially liberal women?"

And some still say that we'll find the "perfect cheer routine" that'll win their hearts AND keep the media from attacking conservatives.

We'll have better luck coming up with a program that encourages them to get married. And more useful too, as they'll become more conservative.

Meanwhile, can we test out the "how can we get even more married women to vote for us?"

Unless you're thinking a lot of married women also think like single, young, socially liberal women?
Which is to say, has the "war on women" rhetoric increased or decreased the share of married women who prefer Democrats?

Posted by: RoyalOil at January 23, 2014 12:30 PM (VjL9S)

663 Reading the AllenG will disabuse you of this mistaken belief.

Posted by: ace at January 23, 2014 04:14 PM (/FnUH)

Allen wasn't arguing for imposing anything, holy hell strawman!

Posted by: [/i]KG at January 23, 2014 12:30 PM (p7BzH)

664 I think that most americans are little more sexually conservative than the left's Girl's and Gheys Lena Dunam contingent. most hyperventilating about Con's love affair with their imaginary sky friend comes from the Lena Dunham branch.

Posted by: oeJay44incday endorses Cotton Mather Night Rider Puritan Holy War on Strumpets and Wastrels at January 23, 2014 12:30 PM (QxSug)

665 644bOejayinCdy 44, I stand in unbowed guilt at being a SoCon Holy Warrior.... Thank God the media gets to run our internal narrative... Now emboldened I will force birth baptismal for my next trick...

Posted by: sven10077 at January 23, 2014 12:31 PM (5F2cO)

666 Ace, You can find anyone to believe anything. Just because some Socons DO suggest some of the puritanical beliefs you are so appalled by, as supposedly evidenced by posters here, does not mean it is a mainstream Socon belief. You keep trying to make it out that the argument is Socons sometimes say X or they don't. I think your opponents here are shooting for something more nuanced: MOST Socons don't actually think X, so chill out.

Posted by: A-Hole at January 23, 2014 12:31 PM (FBj57)

667 Posted by: Niedermeyer's Dead Horse at January 23, 2014 04:27 PM (DmNpO) Okay, I misread you. Now let me ask you this: do you think Huck should denigrate hookup culture in his public discourse?

Posted by: Yoshi, Aggrieved Victim of the White Man at January 23, 2014 12:31 PM (ZEvg7)

668 And not all of us who think that Ace is wrong about this issue are "duck dynasty" types either.

Posted by: Lauren at January 23, 2014 12:31 PM (hFL/3)

669 Niedermyer's Dead Horse, AllenG, and VashtaNerada all explicitly endorsed "don't have sex before marriage" as the definition of "controlling your libido."

How has this thread gone on for this long without someone pointing this out.

I mean, shit.

Posted by: Yoshi, Aggrieved Victim of the White Man at January 23, 2014 04:17 PM (ZEvg7)

You've gotta be shitting me. The strawmen....

Controlling libido can INCLUDE abstaining from sex. Are you arguing that that is not true?

Posted by: [/i]KG at January 23, 2014 12:31 PM (p7BzH)

670

i said the either to emphasize the "or" which people kept not seeing, no matter how many times I pointed it out.

Posted by: ace at January 23, 2014 04:24 PM (/FnUH)

.....Uncle Sugar coming in and providing for them a prescription each month for birth control because they cannot control their libido or their reproductive system without the help of government, so be it........

How is the government helping control the libido because that is what the sentence says. So apparently he is saying birth control is controlling the libido which means to me that women would NOT be having sex until they get their birth control pills from the government. That we mean republicans are keeping them from their orgies or whatever they want to do sexuallly.

Posted by: polynikes at January 23, 2014 12:33 PM (m2CN7)

671 I think I'm made my position on being viewed as my ladyparts pretty clearly known.
Posted by: alexthechick - Skittle fueled Godzillette at January 23, 2014 02:30 PM (VtjlW)

==============================

I could stand to hear more.

Posted by: physics geek at January 23, 2014 12:34 PM (MT22W)

672 >>>You can find anyone to believe anything. Just because some Socons DO suggest some of the puritanical beliefs you are so appalled by, as supposedly evidenced by posters here, does not mean it is a mainstream Socon belief. if I'm arguing with a specific person for saying something, like Huck, or his fellow travellers, or a few of the more Strict Liability SoCons here, how the f*** is that in any way an attack on you? Protip: If I'm attacking a belief you don't actually believe, then it must be, perforce, that I am not attacking your beliefs. Correct? What the fuck is this new way of arguing where people say "Don't attack my beliefs and by the way I don't believe the thing you're attacking"?

Posted by: ace at January 23, 2014 12:35 PM (/FnUH)

673 In some, as in "the legalization of pot," you are only being bossed to the extent that you do not wish to live in a society where this is permissible, and if other people are permitted to do so, you're claiming you've been "bossed." I guess from having to countenance evil. Posted by: ace at January 23, 2014 04:19 PM (/FnUH) As one who has too often been required to clean up the messes created by other people in their pursuit of happy weed time, I can testify personally on behalf of the idea that people other than the users are getting hurt by that shit.

Posted by: D-Lamp at January 23, 2014 12:36 PM (bb5+k)

674 Kennedy stipulated his presidency would not be a pipeline link to the Vatican Romney stipulated he was proud of the faith of his fathers Huckabee is hardly going to give Romney the "better than" platform on anything moral. Even if Huckabee weren't the vain self-righteous prick he is, he is the self-promoting former Baptist Preacher. Ace would always bicker with Huckabee over sex. Libido or not. The bickering on sex is a given. Both ways. Whether Ace would bicker with ANY socon evangelical over sex is a question, easily answerable. Go through the list of candidates and comments made previously. The ONLY point relevant for this thread's solution is how best to coin political phraseology to temper common ground without losing elections. Believe it or not, there IS more to life than/with sex. Personally, from a constitutional constructionist and moral conservative female view, I'd rather the government stay out of SEX. It's no business of government (politicians, policies, bureaucracies, IRS) to tax or subsidize SEX. Regarding sexual activity, that remains a personal responsibility.

Posted by: panzernashorn at January 23, 2014 12:36 PM (MhA4j)

675 And not all of us who think that Ace is wrong about this issue are "duck dynasty" types either. ** to the left, in their minds, it's like the little cartoon ace posted a year ago where one character says "we need to store nuts for winter" and the other is all like "there you go again with your jeebus talk" I feel like this discussion is so confused because we are worried what delusional leftists think about us...and by us, I mean that they consider every con to be, as sven put it, cotton mather's morality riders. We need to forget about appealing to lena dunham and just learn to speak about abortion without scaring those people that generally agree with us. Also, as for casual sex, a lot of the duckdynasty vestal virgin crowd got pregnant too. Everyone does it, even if it's a sin. So....the point isn't outlawing sex, it's celebrating good decisions or something, I dunno.

Posted by: oeJay44incday endorses Cotton Mather Night Rider Puritan Holy War on Strumpets and Wastrels at January 23, 2014 12:37 PM (QxSug)

676 I just don't understand why publicly funded birth control is something that needs have such a focus put on it by conservatives. I can think of at least 100 different entitlements that I'd like to see eliminated first. Can't we move down that list of what's really busting our budgets and let the Catholic Church worry about who's on the pill? I'd rather pay for free birth control than say free ObamaPhones.

Also, if we're in this to win elections and not proselytize Catholic doctrine (that most Catholics also ignore), this stuff doesn't play well really anywhere.

I really don't think Republicans or the conservative movement is going to go on some sort of winning streak by going harder after birth control. Say we pass some federal law that zero tax dollars are allowed to fund any form of birth control. Whopptee Do, I guess America will have been fixed.

Posted by: McAdams at January 23, 2014 12:37 PM (W9bii)

677 >>>As one who has too often been required to clean up the messes created by other people in their pursuit of happy weed time, I can testify personally on behalf of the idea that people other than the users are getting hurt by that shit. Poor Sheryl Crowe has to pick up after you due to your Carbon Greedy Lifestyle choices.

Posted by: ace at January 23, 2014 12:37 PM (/FnUH)

678

Just to clarify what I got out of the sentence based on what I got out of the Fluke / Rush controversy.

She claimed she was prevented from exercising her libido because the Republicans were denying her her birth control . Huckster is saying that its an insult to women to believe that they rely on the government regard to control of their libido.

Posted by: polynikes at January 23, 2014 12:37 PM (m2CN7)

679 Posted by: KG at January 23, 2014 04:31 PM (p7BzH) Are you AllenG? No? Don't speak for him, then.

Posted by: Yoshi, Aggrieved Victim of the White Man at January 23, 2014 12:37 PM (el4Sn)

680 So we're back to the He Never Said That/And He Was Also Right To Say It thing. Posted by: ace at January 23, 2014 04:20 PM (/FnUH) You are really trying to push that interpretation of the commentary. That opposition arguments are a contradictory statement seems to be your starting assumption.

Posted by: D-Lamp at January 23, 2014 12:38 PM (bb5+k)

681

@ 679 - "Regarding sexual activity, that remains a personal responsibility."

BZZZZZZZTTTTTT.

"personal responsibility" - that's just a SoCon dog whistle for "use the government to ban sex."

Posted by: Titus Quinctius Cincinnatus at January 23, 2014 12:38 PM (YYJjz)

682 I guess from having to countenance evil. Posted by: ace at January 23, 2014 04:19 PM (/FnUH) Juvenile.

Posted by: panzernashorn at January 23, 2014 12:38 PM (MhA4j)

683 >> follow the context of the remark. I said that because a commenter said the Pro-Huck people were saying that all he meant was that sex outside of marriage was bad, not sex inside marriage.

Okay I have not been reading all the comments, so didn't catch that.

But still, I don't understand why this dumb, vapid line of Huck's sets you off so bad. If I told you that this line was said by David Frum, I think you would have believed it. Also, it wouldn't have set you off like this.

I think that the thing that annoys you is that a Social Con like Huck has the temerity to mention sex in public. This seems like an unreasonably strict standard to hold social conservatives to.

That said, I think Social Cons needs to be careful when discussing sex in public, because people are so touchy, but if you just look at the words of what he said, there isn't much there.

Posted by: dan-O at January 23, 2014 12:39 PM (D0bIN)

684 >>>She claimed she was prevented from exercising her libido because the Republicans were denying her her birth control . she didn't say that but whatever. that's the parody of what she said. OF COURSE she spoke in the left's preferred terms of "supporting women's health" or that kind of crap. Ridiculous. You're saying she said "You're stifling my libido?"

Posted by: ace at January 23, 2014 12:40 PM (/FnUH)

685 Well Ace, since no mainstream Christian denomination has a "no sex except for babies" doctrine, not even the Roman Catholic Church, which only opposes artificial means of birth control, but is ok with the rhythm method, your denunciation of Christians for adhering to a doctrine that does not exist and your only evidence for is a statement by Huckabee that has to be stretched pretty hard to mean that seems to reveal a tiny bit of anti-christian, lets say bias to be polite. Do you even know any Christians?

Posted by: hygate at January 23, 2014 12:40 PM (iyzFk)

686 **Thank God the media gets to run our internal narrative... ** it is a good trick: MSM: the cons are all jeebus freaks the GOP, holy shit the jesus freaks are killing us. Most Americans, we like a little probity but also a little spice. the DNC: gheys!!!!!!! who is the group acting like they're on a crusade.

Posted by: oeJay44incday endorses Cotton Mather Night Rider Puritan Holy War on Strumpets and Wastrels at January 23, 2014 12:40 PM (QxSug)

687 >>>But still, I don't understand why this dumb, vapid line of Huck's sets you off so bad. If I told you that this line was said by David Frum, I think you would have believed it. Also, it wouldn't have set you off like this. I think that the thing that annoys you is that a Social Con like Huck has the temerity to mention sex in public. This seems like an unreasonably strict standard to hold social conservatives to. ... It's unreasonably strict to criticize them for the unreasonably strict critique they make of others' sexual choices?

Posted by: ace at January 23, 2014 12:41 PM (/FnUH)

688

Shorter ace:

durrr, socons bad, fucking everything that moves good.

Posted by: gman at January 23, 2014 12:41 PM (UkbKS)

689 it doesn't help your cause for standards when you contrive vindictively strict ones instead of more reasonable ones most people could get behind. You are making "standard" synonomous with "The hairshirt" to your own political (and culture war) detriment. Posted by: ace at January 23, 2014 04:22 PM (/FnUH) I'm saying that what you regard as a ridiculously strict standard was the norm for most of this nation's existence. I personally think Anti-biotics, World War II, and Birth control pills created an environment that degraded the normal standard, and we have been dealing with the predictable consequences of those past events ever since. We are currently existing in socially artificial conditions financed by massive past debt which is coming due.

Posted by: D-Lamp at January 23, 2014 12:41 PM (bb5+k)

690 >>>your denunciation of Christians I'm racist against Christians. Surprised it took this long. I assume you're from Hot Air...?

Posted by: ace at January 23, 2014 12:41 PM (/FnUH)

691 I think ace and others have read only part of that sentence and misread it entirely.

Posted by: polynikes at January 23, 2014 12:41 PM (m2CN7)

692 @ 686 "personal responsibility" - that's just a SoCon dog whistle for "use the government to ban sex." BZZZZZZZTTTT Hardly. As stated above, a "right" entails "responsibility". I've consistently promoted the libertarian-conservative view, having grown up strictly while endorsing "live and let live". For centuries the premise was understood as Classical Liberal. We're not all dead.

Posted by: panzernashorn at January 23, 2014 12:41 PM (MhA4j)

693 Maybe a little less victim-mongering from certain quarters would be in order, especially as our side frequently accuses the left of its own victim-mongering.

Posted by: ace at January 23, 2014 12:42 PM (/FnUH)

694 I am pretty sure, gman, that that's only going to piss ace off and have him leave the thread.

Posted by: oeJay44incday endorses Cotton Mather Night Rider Puritan Holy War on Strumpets and Wastrels at January 23, 2014 12:42 PM (QxSug)

695 Huck is a douchebag, hated him for years. But what he said, in the reasonable interpretation, is not revolutionary or even particularly SoCon. The Government, from local to Federal, has been influencing sexual behavior for decades, emphasizing responsible decision-making, basic hygiene, etc. Because we can assume his views were informed by the Bible, we have to discount them? He makes a good, conservative, point about the dependence that women have developed on Government to be their sex Nanny.

Posted by: Lincolntf at January 23, 2014 12:43 PM (ZshNr)

696 Poor Sheryl Crowe has to pick up after you due to your Carbon Greedy Lifestyle choices. Posted by: ace at January 23, 2014 04:37 PM (/FnUH) ******** Well that's where liberals double down on dishonesty because that is-- SCIENCE!! Therefore better more rational than religion. So it's not a good example of moral equivalency--really.

Posted by: Teleprompter Feed Crew at January 23, 2014 12:43 PM (RJMhd)

697

@ 697 - "As stated above, a "right" entails "responsibility"."

That's just a fancy-pants way of saying that you weant to force your reactionary religious views off onto everyone else.

Posted by: Titus Quinctius Cincinnatus at January 23, 2014 12:43 PM (YYJjz)

698 Ridiculous. You're saying she said "You're stifling my libido?"

Posted by: ace at January 23, 2014 04:40 PM (/FnUH)

Yes she indicated she would not be able to engage in sex without birth control. Where were you when this was going on?

Posted by: polynikes at January 23, 2014 12:44 PM (m2CN7)

699 >>I'm saying that what you regard as a ridiculously strict standard was the norm for most of this nation's existence. yes and it's not anymore. Now were I to say wish to re-impose 50s era sexual morality (and, actually, sexual hypocrisy), would you say I was parodying you and misrepresenting your remarks, or would you agree, or would you try to have it both ways at once?

Posted by: ace at January 23, 2014 12:44 PM (/FnUH)

700 Posted by: gman at January 23, 2014 04:41 PM (UkbKS) This post is exactly the kind of bullshit that gets Republicans into trouble. They begin intimating, implicitly or explicitly, that the Democratic caucus is a bunch of horny young sluts that should keep their legs crossed, whereas the chorus should be - I DON'T CARE WHAT YOU DO AS LONG AS YOU DON'T MAKE ME PAY FOR IT. But BURN THE SLUT always has to come into it, always.

Posted by: Yoshi, Aggrieved Victim of the White Man at January 23, 2014 12:44 PM (el4Sn)

701 >>>Yes she indicated she would not be able to engage in sex without birth control. Where were you when this was going on? Oh I see that means she said "you're stifling my libido." I guess you think Rush's "so she's a slut" was an accurate representation of her remarks...?

Posted by: ace at January 23, 2014 12:45 PM (/FnUH)

702 Maybe a little less victim-mongering from certain quarters would be in order, especially as our side frequently accuses the left of its own victim-mongering.

Posted by: ace at January 23, 2014 04:42 PM (/FnUH)

You have got to be kidding me. You're the one who stated he is tired of being bossed around by socons but cannot give an example . Who is crying victim here?

Posted by: polynikes at January 23, 2014 12:46 PM (m2CN7)

703 Okay, I misread you. Now let me ask you this: do you think Huck should denigrate hookup culture in his public discourse? *** I'm trying to think of how to put it so that I don't misrepresent my own true feelings. So... I am a Christian. I believe that certain thoughts and actions are sinful, but forgivable. I believe that, as a Christian, I can only ask for forgiveness for myself. I cannot ask that another be forgiven for their sins. I do believe that, strictly taken, sex outside of a marriage is a sin... hence I am a sinner. I also believe that homosexual sex is a sin. Yet, this is where I become a Libertarian as I do not believe, in most cases, that it is my right to condemn nor enforce my morality on others. That's God's job. As a Christian I should help to educate others and serve as an example. I fail at both of these. I can know in my heart that one is committing a sin by Christian standards, but my sin is my sin, their sin is their sin. Do with it what they will. Having said that, if I thought that sin for sin's sake was the only message relevant to controlling one's libido, I'd say that we all shut up about it in the altogether. However, there are purely secular reasons for pushing for a more restrained society: unwed parents, teen pregnancy, STDs, impacts to education, etc.... and it is based upon THESE factors that I do believe that there should be public discussion of socon issues. AND, I think they should be framed in just such as way: As a blight on the greater landscape of economy, education, health, etc... Does that make any sense whatsoever?

Posted by: Niedermeyer's Dead Horse at January 23, 2014 12:46 PM (DmNpO)

704 >>>It's unreasonably strict to criticize them for the unreasonably strict critique they make of others' sexual choices?

People can believe whatever they want. I don't care if people believe in global warming or christianity or FSM, as long as they don't attempt to impose it on other via the law.

I don't think that you will find many notable examples of social cons who suggest making birth control pills illegal, or pre-marital sex illegal. And if we are talking about this dumb quote from dumb Huckabee, then I don't see how he telling others what to do in any way.

If the catholic church thinks that artificial birth control is immoral, then how does a catholic go about stating that is what he believes without being accused of what you are talking about?

Posted by: dan-O at January 23, 2014 12:46 PM (D0bIN)

705 Posted by: polynikes at January 23, 2014 04:44 PM (m2CN7) The correct response to this is "you can still have sex without paying for birth control, or you can pay for it yourself if you like." Instead, all we got was Rush calling her a slut.

Posted by: Yoshi, Aggrieved Victim of the White Man at January 23, 2014 12:46 PM (el4Sn)

706 Hmmm. Business is in the crapper, employment at all time lows, paychecks dwindling, taxes increasing, families falling apart over the horrific economy and the ACA... and the GOP is listing to speeches like this, on a topic that the other side has co-opted? Seriously? WTF?

Posted by: anon a mouse at January 23, 2014 12:46 PM (gXRIG)

707 " I just don't understand why publicly funded birth control is something that needs have such a focus put on it by conservatives." I don't know, cause we think abortion is infanticide?

Posted by: hygate at January 23, 2014 12:46 PM (iyzFk)

708 I guess you think Rush's "so she's a slut" was an accurate representation of her remarks...? Posted by: ace at January 23, 2014 04:45 PM (/FnUH) ******** That was a bad move defending Rush on that.

Posted by: Teleprompter Feed Crew at January 23, 2014 12:46 PM (RJMhd)

709 "And people really need to get the hell over this, because I'm tired of hearing it, and I'm at least a political ally of those insisting on this sort of message. I cannot fathom how this relentless claim that Sex is for Babiez, Alwayz, line falls on the ears of people not predisposed to giving the right a break." and then "698 Maybe a little less victim-mongering from certain quarters would be in order, especially as our side frequently accuses the left of its own victim-mongering. " Ace, you set up a flaming sraw man and now you're upset that people took offense? Not a single person in this thread sad anything remotely like "sex is only for babies!" Can you at least cross that off the list of Things SoCons Think?

Posted by: Lauren at January 23, 2014 12:47 PM (hFL/3)

710 Posted by: Titus Quinctius Cincinnatus at January 23, 2014 04:38 PM (YYJjz) You would press against personal responsibility? That's Obama's line.

Posted by: panzernashorn at January 23, 2014 12:47 PM (MhA4j)

711 699I am pretty sure, gman, that that's only going to piss ace off and have him leave the thread.

Posted by: oeJay44incday endorses Cotton Mather Night Rider Puritan Holy War on Strumpets and Wastrels at January 23, 2014 04:42 PM (QxSug)

Perhaps, but on the other hand, his mind-numblingly stupid comparison is pretty funny. Socon -or- total whore. It's nice to know life choices are this binary.

Posted by: Heralder at January 23, 2014 12:47 PM (/Mxso)

712 Maybe it's me. I don't see any critique of anyone's sexual choices; I see a critique of how Democrats seem to think that women all nothing but a bunch of robotic "Julias". Perhaps I should look into the emanations and penumbras.

In this case I sense it that the reaction is animosity toward the speaker. Of whom I am not a fan of and wish would go away.

Posted by: Biff Boffo at January 23, 2014 12:47 PM (YmPwQ)

713 I guess you think Rush's "so she's a slut" was an accurate representation of her remarks...?

Posted by: ace at January 23, 2014 04:45 PM (/FnUH)

You have three guesses left. Use them wisely.

Posted by: polynikes at January 23, 2014 12:48 PM (m2CN7)

714 >>>Shorter ace: durrr, socons bad, fucking everything that moves good. I seem to notice that people don't like being called 'bad," or criticized, or judged. As in, "Ace is judging Christians and telling them they're bad." No one likes that. In fact, people will even take SECONDARY offense -- taking offense on someone else's behalf. I have people telling me I'm attacking their beliefs... and also saying they don't share in those beliefs. I get that. So let's think about this: Can we... GENERALIZE about OTHER PEOPLE's reaction to being called bad, or being judged, or being bossed...? let's try to generalize from your personal reaction to these things in an effort to understand how to craft an appealing politics....

Posted by: ace at January 23, 2014 12:48 PM (/FnUH)

715 Of course, I'm kind of with EoJ here. I don't think you have one. I think DrewM suggested a way you could get a dig in at Huckabee in particular and SoCons generally, and you went with it- and now you're committed.

Posted by: AllenG (DedicatedTenther) Ah, F It. at January 23, 2014 02:57 PM (PYAXX)
---------------

Yep. He stepped on the tip of his d!ck, but rather than just admit he read Huckster's quote "with his eyes closed" and concede your point, he's just doubling down. Not much different than the "reporters" that are intentionally misquoting him.

Posted by: Saltydonnie at January 23, 2014 12:48 PM (i6shs)

716 Poor Sheryl Crowe has to pick up after you due to your Carbon Greedy Lifestyle choices. Posted by: ace at January 23, 2014 04:37 PM (/FnUH) When she is pulling out her checkbook to get me out of jail, you can let me know. That's when you'll have a valid point in this regard.

Posted by: D-Lamp at January 23, 2014 12:49 PM (bb5+k)

717 Business is in the crapper, employment at all time lows, paychecks dwindling, taxes increasing, families falling apart over the horrific economy and the ACA... and the GOP is listing to speeches like this, on a topic that the other side has co-opted? ************ I'm surprised we're still giving speeches at all, after all our opposition to 404care caused it to fail, and Romney's tweet about Libya caused Benghazi, so I am sure that the "aspirin" crowd is only causing moar teen pregnancies.

Posted by: oeJay44incday endorses Cotton Mather Night Rider Puritan Holy War on Strumpets and Wastrels at January 23, 2014 12:49 PM (QxSug)

718 Sorry, apologize for the previous comment. Read abortion when it said birth control.

Posted by: hygate at January 23, 2014 12:49 PM (iyzFk)

719 Does that make any sense whatsoever? Posted by: Niedermeyer's Dead Horse at January 23, 2014 04:46 PM (DmNpO) Yeah, I believe you answered 'yes' to my question. I am a conservative Christian (no sex before marriage and all that) myself, but I would answer that question with 'no' because I don't believe Huck or any other pol can influence the public. I don't believe it's their place, either, because rhetoric always leads to legislative action in politics.

Posted by: Yoshi, Aggrieved Victim of the White Man at January 23, 2014 12:49 PM (el4Sn)

720 Enough of this topic. I'm gonna see what the other thread is about.

Posted by: D-Lamp at January 23, 2014 12:50 PM (bb5+k)

721 Lauren, This is the last time I'll say this, because I've really said it now three or four times, mostly to you: If these are not your beliefs, then it is impossible that I could be "attacking your beliefs' by attackign these beliefs you don't believe in. Your claim that no Christian believes this is flat-out false. I have invited you multiple times to peruse the thread to ascertain this for yourself, but you have apparently declined. I will not bother replying to an obvious falsehood any further.

Posted by: ace at January 23, 2014 12:50 PM (/FnUH)

722 I guess you think Rush's "so she's a slut" was an accurate representation of her remarks...? Posted by: ace at January 23, 2014 04:45 PM (/FnUH) ........ That was a bad move defending Rush on that. ****** I agree

Posted by: Niedermeyer's Dead Horse at January 23, 2014 12:50 PM (DmNpO)

723

@ 715 - "You would press against personal responsibility?

That's Obama's line."

Well, at least Obama doesn't want to force us all to go to church to learn about how, uh, bear-baiting is bad.

Posted by: Titus Quinctius Cincinnatus at January 23, 2014 12:51 PM (YYJjz)

724 No, ace, I have looked thorughout the thread. Not ONE SINGLE PERSON said that sex is only for reproduction. NOT ONE. That was your claim. It was false.

Posted by: Lauren at January 23, 2014 12:51 PM (hFL/3)

725 >>>Not ONE SINGLE PERSON said that sex is only for reproduction. NOT ONE. that's right, Lauren, they merely say sex is only for marriage (in which reproduction can gainfully occur).

Posted by: ace at January 23, 2014 12:53 PM (/FnUH)

726 so the GOP is now the party of "No sex if you're not married, You'll Thank Us Later."

Posted by: ace at January 23, 2014 12:53 PM (/FnUH)

727 >>>Yes she indicated she would not be able to engage in sex without birth control. Where were you when this was going on? Oh I see that means she said "you're stifling my libido." I guess you think Rush's "so she's a slut" was an accurate representation of her remarks...? Rush's remarks were an attempt at humor and sarcasm that ended up being blown up in his face. Sandra Fluke was whining at the DNC convention about how difficult it was to pay for birth control while she was a student at Harvard Law School. She threw out cost numbers that were so ridiculous that in order to use that much birth control, one would need to either pay ten to fifteen times retail every month for BC pills or one would need to be using half a dozen condoms a day. Ms. Fluke was unmarried and advocating the need for BC was predicated on having half a dozen sexual encounters a day. That becomes slut territory in my world. So yes, Rush's remark was an accurate representation of what she ACTUALLY said. Since the Dem's are humorless, angry , grieved group , the long knives came out.

Posted by: Jen at January 23, 2014 12:53 PM (4t/Y9)

728 that's right, Lauren, they merely say sex is only for marriage (in which reproduction can gainfully occur). *** But Ace, you claimed above that I said that when I said no such thing.

Posted by: Niedermeyer's Dead Horse at January 23, 2014 12:55 PM (DmNpO)

729 next you guys are going to defend the GOP's socon anti-bro stance when you all made fun of bro-surance, causing it to fail. Not every american agrees with your 50's era no-keg-stands, no bro's for life lifestyle, man.

Posted by: oeJay44incday endorses Cotton Mather Night Rider Puritan Holy War on Strumpets and Wastrels at January 23, 2014 12:55 PM (QxSug)

730 Sex within marriage is hardly a Christian ideal. It's a modern civilization ideal. Unwed mothers, tomcat fathers, abandoned kids, do not for a healthy society make. The ancients figured that out, we can too. No legislation required, just a little reading and a little common sense in sexual practices.

Posted by: Lincolntf at January 23, 2014 12:56 PM (ZshNr)

731 @ 715 - "You would press against personal responsibility? That's Obama's line." panzernashorn Well, at least Obama doesn't want to force us all to go to [] to learn about how, uh, [] is bad. Posted by: Titus Quinctius Cincinnatus at January 23, 2014 04:51 PM (YYJjz) Even in jest, "you lie." Go figure and get real.

Posted by: panzernashorn at January 23, 2014 12:56 PM (MhA4j)

732 Posted by: Jen at January 23, 2014 04:53 PM (4t/Y9) Look, if you have to type up a 300 word paragraph to elucidate the true meaning of Rush's remarks, just give up. Given the opportunity to publish a 300 word defense of all my foot in mouth moments, I could make myself perfectly justified as well.

Posted by: Yoshi, Aggrieved Victim of the White Man at January 23, 2014 12:56 PM (el4Sn)

733 Also, you seem to have this strange idea that if your strawman is false then the group that you are using the strawman to attack can't take offense. That's absurd. A thought experiment. Me "God, I'm sick of all these DAMN NEW YORKERS telling everyone to have gay sex ALL THE TIME. STOP IT NEW YORKERS, YOU'RE PUSHING PEOPLE AWAY." And you said 'uh, point of order, New Yorkers aren't actually telling everyone to have gay sex all the time." And I reply "Well, maybe YOU"RE NOT, but there are New Yorkers who do. That's what New Yorkers do!" And you say "Uh, well, no they don't. Look I am A New Yorker, and we don't think that." Me again "Look, just because you don't believe taht doesn't mean that New Yorkers don't. Just look at tha guy at the gay pride parade! " You "Well, I don';t think even he thinks that everyone should have gay sex. I'm a bit offended that this is your view of New Yorkers." Me "Well, New Yorkers totally do. If you don't believe it why are you offended? " And scene

Posted by: Lauren at January 23, 2014 12:57 PM (hFL/3)

734 Yeah, so I'm usually on Ace's side of these sorts of political-cultural things, but here on this one he's bonkers-out-to-lunch. My ears are as attuned to cultural dog-whistles as any damnable RINO, and I'm not really hearing what you are.

Seriously: lighten up, Francis.

Posted by: Jeff B. at January 23, 2014 12:58 PM (ewYO6)

735 I reread huck's remarks. I don't think he was saying all that. I think it's mostly unobjectionable.

Posted by: oeJay44incday endorses Cotton Mather Night Rider Puritan Holy War on Strumpets and Wastrels at January 23, 2014 12:58 PM (QxSug)

736 Posted by: Niedermeyer's Dead Horse at January 23, 2014 04:55 PM (DmNpO) That's my fault. But AllenG definitely endorsed that view, and Vashta called sex outside of marriage "moral weakness" or somesuch.

Posted by: Yoshi, Aggrieved Victim of the White Man at January 23, 2014 12:58 PM (el4Sn)

737 I completely agree with Ace, so I denounce myself.

Posted by: SFGoth at January 23, 2014 12:58 PM (VGDJR)

738

@ 737 - "Even in jest, "you lie." Go figure and get real."

Pssst. Read up-thread a bit...I'm rourking the SoLibs.

Posted by: Titus Quinctius Cincinnatus at January 23, 2014 12:59 PM (YYJjz)

739 Unwed mothers, tomcat fathers, abandoned kids, do not for a healthy society make. ******* Plus it gets expensive as hell.

Posted by: Teleprompter Feed Crew at January 23, 2014 12:59 PM (RJMhd)

740 The whole Rush/Fluke thing was similar to the Huckabee criticism that where there's a freudian "female birth control=sluts".

I'm someone that doesn't believe all double standards are bad, I'll freely admit I look down on women that are loose far more than I do men. But this is something that's really sensitive to women, and if there's even a hint of it in the political arena, it goes nuclear because women flip out when they feel like they're being judged.

If a Republican politician is talking about birth control they're losing. No matter what.

That should be painfully obvious, it's a "can't lose" issue for Democrats because A) hardly anyone actually follows that moral teaching, including Catholics and B) most people want less breeding and think it's pennies on the dollar vs unwanted births for the taxpayer and C) when Republicans talk about the moral dimension, it comes off misogynistic because women are usually the ones that pay the biggest price for an unwanted pregnancy.

Posted by: McAdams at January 23, 2014 01:00 PM (W9bii)

741 732. that sounds like you're on a binge

Posted by: panzernashorn at January 23, 2014 01:00 PM (MhA4j)

742 Let's contrast Huck's pretty much innocuous statement with Rush Limbaugh calling Sandra Fluke a "slut." (Spare me the "it was a joke!" defense. Sure, it was...sort of. It was "kidding on the square." And even it wasn't, it was disastrously tasteless and damaging.) Huck's got nothing to apologize for, near as I can see. Whereas Rush is still pretty much on my shit list for the Fluke debacle.

I'll eat a gun if Huck's a GOP nominee for President, though, I can tell you that much.

Posted by: Jeff B. at January 23, 2014 01:00 PM (ewYO6)

743 Scene: Lauren: I don't believe that. You're attacking my beliefs. Ace: Some do believe that. I'm not criticizing your beliefs, as you don't believe them. I'm critizing other people's beliefs. Other people do believe this. Read the thread. But it is plainly impossible that I could attack your beliefs by criticizing beliefs you don't believe. Lauren: There you go, attacking my beliefs again...!

Posted by: ace at January 23, 2014 01:01 PM (/FnUH)

744 NDH: AllenG said it. Someone at one point lumped you in with him. I didn't read every single comment. I took the claim that you had supported that idea as true. If I was wrong, I apoloigze and retract.

Posted by: ace at January 23, 2014 01:01 PM (/FnUH)

745 "734 that's right, Lauren, they merely say sex is only for marriage (in which reproduction can gainfully occur). " But that is a hugely different claim. Every single religion in the world says "don't have sex til marriage." Not many people listen to it, but it is so standard as to not be at all controversial. You didn't make that claim initially because 'm sure you realized decrying all those people who won't SHUT UP ABOUT PREMARITAL SEX doesn't have quite the rhetorical impact as claiming that they say "SEX IS FOR BABIEZ ONLY". You're moving the goal posts and misunderstanding why we were offended by the first characterization.

Posted by: Lauren at January 23, 2014 01:01 PM (hFL/3)

746 so the GOP is now the party of "No sex if you're not married, You'll Thank Us Later." Stop with the strawmen, Ace and take a breather

Posted by: FenelonSpoke at January 23, 2014 01:02 PM (7kkQJ)

747 AllenG said it. Someone at one point lumped you in with him. I didn't read every single comment. I took the claim that you had supported that idea as true. If I was wrong, I apoloigze and retract. *** No problem, dude. Yoshi already stepped forward and clarified that it was his comment that started the misunderstanding.

Posted by: Niedermeyer's Dead Horse at January 23, 2014 01:03 PM (DmNpO)

748 Damn! Socon issues are hard, y'all.

Posted by: Niedermeyer's Dead Horse at January 23, 2014 01:04 PM (DmNpO)

749 Definition: STRAWMAN-- n. something that other people plainly believe, even though a specific individual does not. usage: "By attacking these beliefs which plainly exist, but which I don't personally believe, you're attacking A STRAWMAN."

Posted by: ace at January 23, 2014 01:04 PM (/FnUH)

750 But that is a hugely different claim. Every single religion in the world says "don't have sex til marriage." Not many people listen to it, but it is so standard as to not be at all controversial. Yeah, not controversial in church, but from a politician? Please, no mention of libido from a Republican ever again.

Posted by: Yoshi, Aggrieved Victim of the White Man at January 23, 2014 01:05 PM (el4Sn)

751 Just so we're clear:

1) Huckabee is a jackass
2) His comments were willfully and obviously misreported
3) The clarification of the misreporting was still false so...

Must be time to form the circular firing squad again.

Oh, and for the record? Saying that Conservatives and Republicans need to stay away from these topics is bullshit. Ask the GOP primary candidates who got asked by Stephanopolous if they planned to ban birth control.

This wouldn't be an issue if people by and large weren't dumb panicky animals, but there we are.

Posted by: physics geek at January 23, 2014 01:05 PM (MT22W)

752 Does anyone feel like they are watching a tennis match? I thought someone had scored--but then the return was pretty good. Shit. Someone win it already.

Posted by: Teleprompter Feed Crew at January 23, 2014 01:05 PM (RJMhd)

753 No, ace. The Strawman was that people believe that SEX IS ONLY FOR BABIEZ. No one believes that. That was a strawman.

Posted by: Lauren at January 23, 2014 01:05 PM (hFL/3)

754 physics geek wins. good point abt Mitt being asked about banning rubbers by Clinton stooge.

Posted by: oeJay44incday endorses Cotton Mather Night Rider Puritan Holy War on Strumpets and Wastrels at January 23, 2014 01:06 PM (QxSug)

755 I was specifically referring to your comment about the GOP. I am not officially bored with this thread. and stayed too long. I'm outta this thread

Posted by: FenelonSpoke at January 23, 2014 01:07 PM (7kkQJ)

756 >>>But that is a hugely different claim. Every single religion in the world says "don't have sex til marriage." Not many people listen to it, but it is so standard as to not be at all controversial. yes Lauren you're saying it's okay to be judgmental about the one thing (sex outside marriage) while permitting some latitude on another widespread (if not universal) belief (sex linked to reproduction) because you disfavor the former while favoring the latter. So you're saying that our standard should be whatever YOU like to do. Great. Completely novel argument-- "Let's all be like me." Backed with another novel argument (that just keeps getting more "new" feeling everytime I hear it): Because this Bible I believe in but you don't says so so you're just gonna have to get with the program. Oh and freedom agenda.

Posted by: ace at January 23, 2014 01:07 PM (/FnUH)

757 I think I'm going to go toke a straw man --just for the hell of it. For some reason I'm getting the urge to light one up.

Posted by: Teleprompter Feed Crew at January 23, 2014 01:07 PM (RJMhd)

758 I'm joining the Ace pile-on. Sorry. - The point is mangled, but from my perspective, and that of many other comments, it's clear that Huckabee was stating that DEMS think women are raging libido monsters. - I think Ace misconstrued what is probably a badly parsed sentence and refuses to back down. - Part of the reason I think Ace won't back down is because he's right - it's just apropos of nothing here. Yes, there are some people who think sex is ONLY for marriage and only for babies. Common or not, they are brought out by the left because few people think, or at least act, that way now. Encouraging those people will lead to results that range from bad to horrible. - However, circling right back round, sorry Ace, but it really, really doesn't appear that Huckabee is saying what you think he said. At least not in this particular quote. It also gives me a sads that Ace and Drew are far more RAWR about perceived Huckabee stupidity than how the media acted. If what he said was so abhorrent, they wouldn't have had to have blatantly lie.

Posted by: nerble at January 23, 2014 01:07 PM (6CbXf)

759 >>>o, ace. The Strawman was that people believe that SEX IS ONLY FOR BABIEZ. No one believes that. That was a strawman. ... Rick Santorum specifically said, in an interview with a Christian talk radio host, that he was going to fight back against the message that "birth control was okay."

Posted by: ace at January 23, 2014 01:08 PM (/FnUH)

760 761 physics geek wins. good point abt Mitt being asked about banning rubbers by Clinton stooge. Posted by: oeJay44incday endorses Cotton Mather Night Rider Puritan Holy War on Strumpets and Wastrels at January 23, 2014 05:06 PM (QxSug) ****** Yep, let's call it. The media wins--again.

Posted by: Teleprompter Feed Crew at January 23, 2014 01:09 PM (RJMhd)

761 >>>- However, circling right back round, sorry Ace, but it really, really doesn't appear that Huckabee is saying what you think he said. At least not in this particular quote. i am choosing to read "or" literally. If you choose to read it non-literally, or if you choose to say "he wasn't really watching his language with the exactitude as if he were drafting legislation," that's fair-- but what he said still, as a literal matter, sets up an opposition between "controlling your libido" and "birth control," as if the two choices are disjunctive (and or is a disjunctive conjunction, look it up). And yes I tend to think he meant that because people DO think this way. Witness this thread. Witness Rick Santorum.

Posted by: ace at January 23, 2014 01:10 PM (/FnUH)

762 Huckabee is a populist fuckstick Â… and Ace is *wrong* on this one. The only story is that the media is a bunch of leftist hacks that dowdified a quote. End of story.

Posted by: Bobby at January 23, 2014 01:10 PM (8iy5P)

763 as seen on twitter, note that it's now Kosher to ellipse comments to form an attack on politicians, so obama said he wants to "harm women and veterans and children"?

Posted by: oeJay44incday endorses Cotton Mather Night Rider Puritan Holy War on Strumpets and Wastrels at January 23, 2014 01:10 PM (QxSug)

764 Yeah, not controversial in church, but from a politician? Please, no mention of libido from a Republican ever again *** The word "libido" or any variation on the word... no discussion. It is a much too personal subject. However, the social ills that result from unrestrained libido yes, discuss. However, not just anyone can do it because it does, indeed, require walking a very fine line in order to convey the intended meaning.

Posted by: Niedermeyer's Dead Horse at January 23, 2014 01:11 PM (DmNpO)

765 733 comments so far and no I have'nt read them all. Maybe some Moron has written that he or she subscribes to the "sex is for babies" but really, stomp on this post. You can find flat-earthers, too if you want. I love you (in a manly and platonic and hypothetical way) and you've made a bunch of bull's eyes lately but esx for babies only? Dude.

Posted by: The inexplicable Dr. Julius Strageporke at January 23, 2014 01:12 PM (y6Ldx)

766 Meanwhile, every other ad you see on TV tonight, and half the posters on the subway Ace takes home, will be trying to influence libido, some will be Government produced PSA's, others ads for commercial products. Why is discussing sex so narrowly verboten, it's all half the country hears about all day.

Posted by: Lincolntf at January 23, 2014 01:13 PM (ZshNr)

767 "yes Lauren you're saying it's okay to be judgmental about the one thing (sex outside marriage) while permitting some latitude on another widespread (if not universal) belief (sex linked to reproduction) because you disfavor the former while favoring the latter. " No. I'm saying that you are moving the goal posts to prove a point. If you keep redefining what the "extremist" position is, you can catch us all. It is not evidence of a So Con conspiracy that 3 commenters think that sex should remain within marriage, and I think it's rather weak that you're using that stance as evidence that your original claim was even remotely accurate.

Posted by: Lauren at January 23, 2014 01:13 PM (hFL/3)

768 I don't understand why people who think purified zinc and animal gelatin in makeup is "toxic" but kicking your she-hormones in the balls 12 months out of a year will end well.

Posted by: Chris Balsz at January 23, 2014 01:14 PM (5xmd7)

769 747. real time, Regular Moron No argument as to given specific setting. But the larger contextual setting? Coming Elections! There as some squirrels that Rush can't resist: "feminazi!" When a public figure nearly always references females he's discussing as a feminazi, that public figure should reconsider whom to talk about. Spend more time discussing women whom he considers positively impact life. Those "good" women he mentions few and far between. Imagine, "Some of my best friends are women," as a defensive response. Then talk like it as a general rule. That is no endorsement of Shrillery, morons.

Posted by: panzernashorn at January 23, 2014 01:15 PM (MhA4j)

770 "Rick Santorum specifically said, in an interview with a Christian talk radio host, that he was going to fight back against the message that "birth control was okay." " And even that doesn't mean what you think it means. Santorum subscribes to the Catholic theology that birth control is not ok, but that sex has many purposes and there is nothing wrong with couples having sex while temporarily or permanently infertile. SO no, even the So Conniest of all So Cons does not believe that sex is only for babies.

Posted by: Lauren at January 23, 2014 01:17 PM (hFL/3)

771 Posted by: Lauren at January 23, 2014 05:13 PM (hFL/3) Wasn't the original claim that some conservative Christians disapprove of birth control entirely? Or do you take the original claim to be some Christian morons disapprove of birth control entirely? Rick Santorum speaking out against birth control seems to substantiate that claim. He didn't get his theology in a vacuum.

Posted by: Yoshi, Aggrieved Victim of the White Man at January 23, 2014 01:17 PM (el4Sn)

772 Posted by: Lauren at January 23, 2014 05:17 PM (hFL/3) Yeah, tough luck for all the fertile couples out there. That defense is too pedantic.

Posted by: Yoshi, Aggrieved Victim of the White Man at January 23, 2014 01:18 PM (el4Sn)

773 The SCOTUS decision(s) birth control before Roe V Wade led to Roe, which led to overturning Bowers v Hardwick (sodomy) decision. It is all connected, but I don't know what the answer is...

Posted by: Baldy at January 23, 2014 01:19 PM (2bql3)

774 Rick Santorum. He would not have gotten as far as he did in a normal primary. In that primary other candidates did not enter because they thought Obama would not be as weak as he appeared to be after only his first term. The field was unusually diluted or ill prepared due to jumping in at the last minute and therefore a candidate like Rick Santorum could look more influential that he might have been in a better primary contest. Although the next one could be a real circus.

Posted by: Teleprompter Feed Crew at January 23, 2014 01:19 PM (RJMhd)

775 Yoshi, The original claim was that our constant drumbeat of "Sex Is Only For Babies" is turning people off.

Posted by: Lauren at January 23, 2014 01:20 PM (hFL/3)

776 OK it seems I am not cool enough to get an answer on when THE Cotton Mather Puritan Night Rider Agenda has been enacted by the GOP.... Fuck it I have justified to watch.... Ace while fighting the Imaginary Mike Huckadoodle Presidency and portraying Donk As Motherfucker as somehow better on personal liberty issues can I point out:1 1) guns, speech, privacy there's not a democrat in power that gives a fuck on any of these three 2) the freedom to invest as you will and have your investments protected by 450 years of Ameican Contract law-gone 3) te right as a consumer to shop for the cheapest solutions to your daily needs-gone energy, insurance, light-bulbs, vehicles you name it Donkey micromanages it Are all examples of the "freedom party"

Posted by: sven10077 at January 23, 2014 01:21 PM (TE35l)

777 "Yeah, tough luck for all the fertile couples out there. That defense is too pedantic." You missed the word "temporarily" All women are "temporarily" infertile for the majority of their cycles. The Catholic Church, and Rick Santorum, believe that couples can have sex during this infertile period even though conception is not possile.

Posted by: Lauren at January 23, 2014 01:21 PM (hFL/3)

778 Even the ex-BF who is Catholic believes, personally, that birth control is okay. It's masturbation that he believes is the sin referred to as spilling seed on unfertile land.

Posted by: Niedermeyer's Dead Horse at January 23, 2014 01:23 PM (DmNpO)

779 Can anyone do us a solid & get us a new thread? We're dying on the one after this one.

Posted by: rickb223 at January 23, 2014 01:23 PM (xZxMD)

780 You missed the word "temporarily" All women are "temporarily" infertile for the majority of their cycles. *** WHAT?!

Posted by: Niedermeyer's Dead Horse at January 23, 2014 01:23 PM (DmNpO)

781 do we have republicans in mass attempting to make laws to say women can only have sex to procreate?
or that woman cannot buy bc?

because what difference does it make if some have religious beliefs ?
does it affect the populace at large for religious people to have a personal belief?

Posted by: willow at January 23, 2014 01:24 PM (nqBYe)

782 766. Rick Santorum specifically said, in an interview with a Christian talk radio host, that he was going to fight back against the message that "birth control was okay." Posted by: ace at January 23, 2014 05:08 PM (/FnUH) Which is reason why I would never support a Santorum national campaign. Another being his campaign promise, "I'd attack China!" Go ahead. Line up the next socon against the wall. Meanwhile, where's your concise, persuasive electoral political soundbite regarding SEX? Or ace's Republican SEX platform in one paragraph?

Posted by: panzernashorn at January 23, 2014 01:24 PM (MhA4j)

783 781 Baldy, The answer is OBVIOUSLY shut the fuck up and just vote for the smashing moderate success train that *is* the New England GOP.

Posted by: sven10077 at January 23, 2014 01:25 PM (TE35l)

784 Posted by: Lauren at January 23, 2014 05:20 PM (hFL/3) Okay, I see what you were driving at now. Thanks.

Posted by: Yoshi, Aggrieved Victim of the White Man at January 23, 2014 01:25 PM (el4Sn)

785 honestly, I'd vote against any neoconservative, including Santorum ENOUGH

Posted by: panzernashorn at January 23, 2014 01:25 PM (MhA4j)

786 what we do have are dems demanding others Pay for Others BC.

Posted by: willow at January 23, 2014 01:26 PM (nqBYe)

787 NDH, The fertile period is only about 8 days if you're being most conservative. 5 days before ovulation and 48 hours afterwards. Add a day if you're risk averse. (Obviously you have to know when you're ovulationg for this to be of any use)

Posted by: Lauren at January 23, 2014 01:26 PM (hFL/3)

788 ok i was unaware Santorum was wanting to make a law on BC.

Posted by: willow at January 23, 2014 01:27 PM (nqBYe)

789 nevermind, no idea why i checked back in.

Posted by: willow at January 23, 2014 01:28 PM (nqBYe)

790 Kasie Hunt. How many of you read that and thought "Hasa Kunt". Just me?

Posted by: Daniel Simpson Day at January 23, 2014 01:28 PM (aA2hG)

791 Willow, I believe that Santroum favors an Ireland style Personhood Amendment.

Posted by: Lauren at January 23, 2014 01:28 PM (hFL/3)

792 790 willow goose, gander whatever limitations would apply regardless of gender or orientation point remains, sex is a private matter of personal responsibility and the government has no legitimate interventionist role

Posted by: panzernashorn at January 23, 2014 01:29 PM (MhA4j)

793 Lauren ok i will have to look that up as i don't know what that entails.

Posted by: willow at January 23, 2014 01:30 PM (nqBYe)

794 *
Rolling eyes.

Whatever. The socon right is permitted to make its intrusions into this area and if anyone says Boo back to them, it's the latter who's committed the foul. *

Except that you're the bitchy whiner who brought up this fight. Embrce the real reality, not the one that lets you justify every little tantrum you have to throw. What, are you a grad student in a critical studies program or something, that you think whenever you feel like venting the universe suppliesHuckabee was caricaturing Dems, not offering policy proposals.

When somebody like that dude in Virginia tried to make a new sodomy law or something, OK, I thought it was pretty small time and marginal, but I understand that you don't like us social conversatives and are going to go after us whenever you have the chance. But there was nothing to justify it here--basically, that lots of people think Huckabee is a socon and also he said the word 'sex'

Grow up.

Posted by: Emperor of Icecream at January 23, 2014 01:30 PM (ZMzpb)

795 791 PanzerNashorn, I have as much use for Santorum as I do Huckadoodle... Obviously since we are not allowed to object now to pogo pils and baby blockers on the Taxpayer violating religious faith paradigm the answer is excommunicating SoCons from this GOP runaway succes train... Then we'll win Sandy Fluck.... If Sandy Fluck gets hoo hoo pills for free aren't we warring on Gaia and the Womyn by not giving her a Volt?

Posted by: sven10077 at January 23, 2014 01:30 PM (TE35l)

796 P.S. and for what it's worth, I could give a damn about birth control

Posted by: Emperor of Icecream at January 23, 2014 01:31 PM (ZMzpb)

797 So, I am a social conservative.

Also, I am now typing the word 'SEX.' Also 'LIBIDO.'

Crucify me.

Posted by: Emperor of Icecream at January 23, 2014 01:33 PM (ZMzpb)

798 Like Thomas Jefferson said, shut the fuck up, cocksucker

Posted by: Emperor of Icecream at January 23, 2014 01:33 PM (ZMzpb)

799 sven http://tinyurl.com/lto7gcv inch, mile, just say no.

Posted by: panzernashorn at January 23, 2014 01:34 PM (MhA4j)

800 807 bwahahahha /given he had a soft voice

Posted by: panzernashorn at January 23, 2014 01:34 PM (MhA4j)

801 Ace - We're reading comments, which I tend to not apply grammar rules to as firmly as things that were intended to be read. It seemed the overarching idea was that Dems had the bad and stupid thoughts, ect. Also, I live near Amish. You've no need to convince me that there are religious practices, reproductive and otherwise, that would raise most people's eyebrows. For example, did you know that many wooden buggies are equipped with lanterns, known for containing fuel and fire - noted friends of wood - for "driving" at night.

Posted by: nerble at January 23, 2014 01:35 PM (6CbXf)

802 @ 766 ace Where's your concise, persuasive electoral political soundbite regarding SEX? Or ace's Republican SEX platform in one paragraph? "Sex. It's a good thing. Unless it isn't." alright outta here

Posted by: panzernashorn at January 23, 2014 01:37 PM (MhA4j)

803 811. Behind curtain #1 we have... new thread?

Posted by: panzernashorn at January 23, 2014 01:39 PM (MhA4j)

804 808 panzernashorn at January 23, 2014 05:34 PM (MhA4j)

18 trillion in debt and climbing and the media has us arguing Baby Blocker pill ethics...

fucking retard nation

Posted by: sven10077 at January 23, 2014 01:43 PM (TE35l)

805

You are turning people the hell off and making the GOP an Only Christians Need Apply club said "Ace"

This is the biggest load of cow shit I have heard.

I suppose, the "FisCons" who spent all our fucking money and refuse to fight NOW had nothing to do with running people away from the GOP.

Fuck you and your "Its all you fault, my team does no wrong bullshit logic".

Talk about tribalism, you are the worst.

Posted by: FITP at January 23, 2014 01:43 PM (rGepj)

806 panzernashorn - We believe that men and women are smart enough to know how reproduction works. If someone genuinely is not able to afford condoms or other forms of birth control, there are a number of organizations that provide condoms free of charge. While we understand these are important issue that can have an enormous impact on people's lives, we do agree with those on the left who believe the government should stay out of the bedroom. As such, it is our belief that the government should not interfere in people's choices on these matters and past regulating the effectiveness of these products, we will strive to stay away from making laws related to these topics.

Posted by: nerble at January 23, 2014 01:45 PM (6CbXf)

807 This or that, one of Â’em gotta be true.

Posted by: Paid for by Citizens for Clyde the Orangutan at January 23, 2014 01:52 PM (QF8uk)

808 Keep your sex in your bedroom and out of my wallet and my kid's library books.

Posted by: Emperor of Icecream at January 23, 2014 01:56 PM (ZMzpb)

809 Ace just called this the Sexual Thunderdome. I'm fairly certain that's a dogwhistle about our overactive libidos.

Posted by: nerble at January 23, 2014 01:57 PM (6CbXf)

810 One more time ... Those Whom Gods Would Destroy They First Make Radical Feminists

Posted by: kbdabear at January 23, 2014 01:58 PM (aTXUx)

811 It's a dogwhistle about his allegiance to Zeus.

Posted by: Emperor of Icecream at January 23, 2014 02:01 PM (ZMzpb)

812 Santorum wasn't the only one that voted yes on that.

Don't make it out to be more than it is. And I suppose you're saying that because Santorum voted that way and he's a Socon, well then, all SoCons are painted with the same brush?

That's the sort of conversation I'd expect to have with a liberal.

Posted by: Bitter Clinger and All That (Unexpurgated Edition) at January 23, 2014 02:04 PM (LSDdO)

813 "Huckabee, most of the Horde, and I seem to agree" Most of the horde that still comments here since it has slowly become So-Con City. Now I just read Ace and skip the comments...this thread being a great example why.

Posted by: sexypig at January 23, 2014 02:07 PM (dZQh7)

814 Ace, You characterized the position as a popular problem aligned with Socons (of which I am not with the exception of the big whopper, abortion. But even then, I view it nonsecularly.) Lauren put it best with her example. If you rail against this largely phantom belief as a problem "people" need to get over, you characterize it as meaningful. It'd be like launching a tirade against the Westboro Babtist as an example of the kind of thinking Socons need to ditch. Yeah, I agree that they're very wrong, but Fuck you for saying that I need to she'd their beliefs. What I find confusion about your point is what exactly are you upset by? Do you think this minority is attempting to legislate "no sex before marriage"? Even fewer hold that belief. Are you just worried about Socon politicians stating their values in public as a commentary on a political situation? Are you upset that they even hold these beliefs? What's the point?

Posted by: A-Hole at January 23, 2014 02:07 PM (QjMIa)

815 I don't care who uses birth control. I only care about who pays for it... and that should be the person who wants to use it.

Posted by: Sarah at January 23, 2014 02:13 PM (e1hAg)

816 "Most of the horde that still comments here since it has slowly become So-Con City. Now I just read Ace and skip the comments...this thread being a great example why. Posted by: sexypig at January 23, 2014 06:07 PM (dZQh7) " Don't hate on refugees from Hot Air , which used to be [ ] but now [ ] until the [ ].

Posted by: Chris Balsz at January 23, 2014 02:59 PM (5xmd7)

817 Is this now So-Con City? More like Myopiaville.

Posted by: Biff Boffo at January 23, 2014 04:56 PM (1j9qS)

818 Huckabee: (kind words for women that could be NOW boilerplate, followed by) ... It's time for Democrats to stop distorting what we believe.

Democrats: (distortions follow)

uh ... yeah.... as predictable as Charlie Brown and the football.

this is not about birth control, women, sex, or any of that ...

This is about whether you get to define what you believe, or whether your worst enemy will define what you beleive in the most absurd, silly, counterfactual terms, and get away with it as 'truth'.

Posted by: Obama Lied Jobs Died at January 23, 2014 06:38 PM (oNqbW)

819 I guess Rush was right; she's a slut.

Posted by: Great Reagan's Ghost at January 23, 2014 07:18 PM (LsJAk)

820 OUR goals are what we agree with, together. What you hold yourself are YOUR goals. What I hold myself are MY goals. If those are opposite goals, YOU and I are opponents in that arena. It's not that I take from US to go do my thing. There's no OURS to divvy. You beat on social conservative goals because you oppose their achievement. OK. Then you whine that we treat you like some kind of opponent. That's annoying. If we valued groupthink above achievement, we'd have been Clinton Democrats years ago, and like Robin Thicke we'd drown ourselves in sluts half our age, and, we'd useless to you politically anyhow. Lighten up, Francis.

Posted by: Chris_Balsz at January 23, 2014 07:34 PM (MKQtC)

821
"Sandra Fluke was whining at the DNC convention about how difficult it was to pay for birth control while she was a student at Harvard Law School. She threw out cost numbers that were so ridiculous that in order to use that much birth control, one would need to either pay ten to fifteen times retail every month for BC pills or one would need to be using half a dozen condoms a day.
Ms. Fluke was unmarried and advocating the need for BC was predicated on having half a dozen sexual encounters a day."

You realize how hard it is to get an A in a Harvard Law course? How demandings those profs can be? Who knows how many condoms that might require.

Posted by: Obama Lied Jobs Died at January 23, 2014 08:01 PM (oNqbW)

822 Huckabee isn't complaining about contraceptives, he's complaining about the idea that the government has to hand it out to women because they can't actually deal with the issue themselves. There are of course people who think that all sex is for procreation only, and I'm sure that Huckabee's comments were pleasing to them, but don't confuse their approval of his statement with him promoting their position.

Posted by: Lee Reynolds at January 23, 2014 09:16 PM (0bC+U)

Hide Comments | Add Comment | Refresh | Top

Comments are disabled. Post is locked.

613kb generated in CPU 0.1483, elapsed 0.359 seconds.
64 queries taking 0.2724 seconds, 950 records returned.
Powered by Minx 1.1.6c-pink.