here's the rub...

this is Stewart's issue - has been for over many years - and not caught him lying or misrepresenting this (or anything else w/consistantcy)*. in the past, he's had to champion the cause to get it passed: GOP being the snaggy hags. so, go w/him knowing the bill, what's in it, and hold his observatons valid.

on the flip side, it's plausible Cruz had a defense but he is the reason they read 'Don't Cry Wolf' to kids. [become an incessant lying punk and when you need people to believe you - it's another lie to them.]

discretionary vs mandatory smells of an obfuscation (the fist bumping after the bill was nixed didn't help the believability either). also the gall of a Republican saying they fear 'out of control spending' is rich w/irony.**

don't believe Cruz. believe Stewart. just prudent that way.

NOTE: if the Red would highlight the problems w/the bill, either by speech or postings (not f'n' opinion)***, it would go a long way to make their side to look honestly honest. and no, they aren't known for their veracity. or compassion. i.e. prove it pedro.


*only once he misspoke, then corrected it. w/humility. hell, we all make mistakes: voted for Reagan once.
**Bob's 'fear porn' exemplified.
***presented as 'fact' - please.

I like at the end when that hag kisses the parrot and he's like "oh hell nah" and he moves away from her LOL.

As I'm reading today's articles about the situation in Greece/Europe, Keynes' "Economic Possibilities for our Grandchildren" came to mind:

We shall be able to rid ourselves of many of the pseudo-moral principles which have hag-ridden us for two hundred years, by which we have exalted some of the most distasteful of human qualities into the position of the highest virtues. We shall be able to afford to dare to assess the money-motive at its true value.

The love of money as a possession -as distinguished from the love of money as a means to the enjoyments and realities of life- will be recognised for what it is, a somewhat disgusting morbidity, one of those semicriminal, semi-pathological propensities which one hands over with a shudder to the specialists in mental disease.

Intentional pun, though now I think I had in mind a gargoyle of the wingless variety, the ones that sit on the edge of humanity, mouths agape, and channel the liquid down the side of a building...I dunno, fit the rhyme-schemata better.
Gorgons actually have powers to destroy mortals, Piers Poorman has no such innate talent.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gorgon

I used Shapiro's effortless semantics, he speaks on such a level as to make it appear so, and am always ready to see someone tell Piers to fuck the fuck off in such a proper manner without stooping to his non-host level.

My dream however, is to have all those vapid hag-babbling cunts on The View to have a collective nervous-breakdown on-air, and for THAT show to be forever cancelled.

*promote Fag Hags

Pretension ain't genius and Gaga's output rates mediocre at best.
Again, Trey Parker's voice adjusted to Cartman frequency produces a more pleasing rendition of "Poker Face" than the original artist formerly known as Stefani Joanne Angelina Germanotta, who as far as I can tell is a little full-of-herself, Sicilian/Canadian narcissist whose upper west side Manhattan upbringing has spilled-over into her horrible taste and run-of-the-mill musical offerings.

Her wiki page touts her many self-labeled endeavors, all of which appeal to her sense of self as the center of the universe.

She's a hag.

This hags' a a real piece-a-work.

>> ^PostalBlowfish:

Old hag ought to know what a Communist is, you lived through the Cold War and apparently learned nothing. Perhaps we need a new phrase, we have Low Information Voter, maybe we need "No Information Voter" or "Bullshit Mountain Voter."


That's not surprising since they Soviet Union wasn't Communist in the traditional sense at all.

Old hag ought to know what a Communist is, you lived through the Cold War and apparently learned nothing. Perhaps we need a new phrase, we have Low Information Voter, maybe we need "No Information Voter" or "Bullshit Mountain Voter."

I forgot all about this comment. I didn't haunt as much as I knew a lot of them in the group, but the whole elevatorgate just soured me on them. ( http://videosift.com/video/Hey-kids-need-some-help-recognising-legitimate-rape?loadcomm=1#comment-1515449 )
In reply to this comment by hpqp:
I don't know which parts of FTB you haunt(ed), but I still read Pharyngula, Greta Cristina and (to a lesser extent) Blag Hag, and all have a pretty appropriate and ethical attitude when it comes to misogyny and co.

(I don't know what the comments look like though, "I only read it for the articles" ; )
In reply to this comment by gwiz665:
In fairness, a lot of them are. I've given up on Freethought blogs for instance.>> ^hpqp:

>> ^Kreegath:
How do you know if you're suffering from man hating and fear? ♫
I'll tell you how to spot, man hating and fear ♪
You're not sure you've got, man hating and fear ♬
Well here's a little lesson for you,
Tell me if the following things are true:
I think all rapists are men - man hating and fear
I think all victims are women - man hating and fear
I rub out all grey areas to prove a moot point - man hating and fear
Men should have no rights to defense against allegations of rape - man hating and fear ♬

Oh, looks like we've got an MRA-hole in the house. Let me guess: you're a white male with malignant priviligitis, amirite? Did any one line of the song suggest falsely accusing someone of rape? Or calling all men rapists? Or hating men?? Oh wait, you ticked the sarcasm tag, that makes it all an a-okay bit of humour right? Wrong.
Your kind disgusts me. And by that I don't mean "men"; no, real men (and women, and anyone in between) know to respect another person's consent and their choice to retract it at any given moment. No, by "your kind" I mean the slimy, any-one-who-points-out-the-sexism-in-our-society-is-a-man-hating-feminazi-and-fear-mongerer kind.
I won't stoop to the MRA-low of wishing rape on you, because I would not wish it on anyone. Instead, I'll kindly suggest you go fuck yourself, because anyone in their right mind, male female or otherwise, would not consent to it with you if they knew your sexist stance. /angry rant
quality song btw

I don't know which parts of FTB you haunt(ed), but I still read Pharyngula, Greta Cristina and (to a lesser extent) Blag Hag, and all have a pretty appropriate and ethical attitude when it comes to misogyny and co.

(I don't know what the comments look like though, "I only read it for the articles" )
In reply to this comment by gwiz665:
In fairness, a lot of them are. I've given up on Freethought blogs for instance.>> ^hpqp:

>> ^Kreegath:
How do you know if you're suffering from man hating and fear? ♫
I'll tell you how to spot, man hating and fear ♪
You're not sure you've got, man hating and fear ♬
Well here's a little lesson for you,
Tell me if the following things are true:
I think all rapists are men - man hating and fear
I think all victims are women - man hating and fear
I rub out all grey areas to prove a moot point - man hating and fear
Men should have no rights to defense against allegations of rape - man hating and fear ♬

Oh, looks like we've got an MRA-hole in the house. Let me guess: you're a white male with malignant priviligitis, amirite? Did any one line of the song suggest falsely accusing someone of rape? Or calling all men rapists? Or hating men?? Oh wait, you ticked the sarcasm tag, that makes it all an a-okay bit of humour right? Wrong.
Your kind disgusts me. And by that I don't mean "men"; no, real men (and women, and anyone in between) know to respect another person's consent and their choice to retract it at any given moment. No, by "your kind" I mean the slimy, any-one-who-points-out-the-sexism-in-our-society-is-a-man-hating-feminazi-and-fear-mongerer kind.
I won't stoop to the MRA-low of wishing rape on you, because I would not wish it on anyone. Instead, I'll kindly suggest you go fuck yourself, because anyone in their right mind, male female or otherwise, would not consent to it with you if they knew your sexist stance. /angry rant
quality song btw

Yes--the feminists will complain in some small way. That's not the problem--but it is.

What he is saying is that most feminists won't jump on the podium and do what's right. They will burn their bras on a march, they will call out small injustices when it's a guy versus a woman everyday of their lives, but they will give this five minutes and then move on without a care in the world.

This is equal to Dan Savage and why he hates moderate Christians who don't scream about the far right who bash gays. Those that don't stand up more than just "Oh, it's wrong."

I don't hate feminists, but these ARE feminists. They just happen to be the far RIGHT feminists that don't belong. Just like the far RIGHT Christians... But then, I have been around true feminists like these women...

And hp, so you have changed your mind? Are far right Christians now not of the religious, but are mere dicks because they don't represent the movement? I doubt it... Just something to think on my friend. A bit of food for ye mind.

>> ^hpqp:

Those cackling hags are NOT feminists, they're stupid dicks. That being said, this loudmouth needs to get some perspective and not decide what feminism is based on a few singular situations.
For every story of a woman being treated preferentially (NOT what feminism is about btw), there are a million and one cases of misogynous abuse, lack of equal rights, rape perps and wife-killers walking free, "honour" killings, etc etc etc.
Most feminists will be the first to call out the hateful ignorance of situations like the one above, because it goes completely against what feminism is about, i.e. equal treatment. The way I see it, those dimwits (and anyone else who found this story funny instead of tragic) had something of an "Osama's death" moment, rejoicing over something unethical out of a sense of revenge for past (and present) misdeeds. Instead of using this situation to talk about the other side of what equality means - i.e. that women can be criminal/crazy/violent too - they took the low road of laughing at someone's mutilation. Shame on them, not on feminism.

I upvoted your comment, because I agree with the sentiment. But I think the angry atheist still has a point, too. His claim to fame is being a loudmouth, which doesn't serve him very well when he tries to make a point on a sensitive issue that not many people are good at considering.

We've had more and more of these kerfluffles lately and I expect they will become even more frequent. Another example is the Dawkins vs Watson nonsense that happened not too long ago.

And if interaction between feminists and non-feminists weren't complex enough, even feminism itself is splintering as new generations of women are entering the fold and the old guard is becoming irrelevant. Such dynamics are extremely complex, especially when people aren't able to objectively look at the world and their role in it.

So, I upvoted both your comment and the video. I think they are both right, to a point, and also wrong, to a point.

>> ^hpqp:

Those cackling hags are NOT feminists, they're stupid dicks. That being said, this loudmouth needs to get some perspective and not decide what feminism is based on a few singular situations.
For every story of a woman being treated preferentially (NOT what feminism is about btw), there are a million and one cases of misogynous abuse, lack of equal rights, rape perps and wife-killers walking free, "honour" killings, etc etc etc.
Most feminists will be the first to call out the hateful ignorance of situations like the one above, because it goes completely against what feminism is about, i.e. equal treatment. The way I see it, those dimwits (and anyone else who found this story funny instead of tragic) had something of an "Osama's death" moment, rejoicing over something unethical out of a sense of revenge for past (and present) misdeeds. Instead of using this situation to talk about the other side of what equality means - i.e. that women can be criminal/crazy/violent too - they took the low road of laughing at someone's mutilation. Shame on them, not on feminism.

I wish I could have upvoted this comment 5 times.

>> ^hpqp:

Those cackling hags are NOT feminists, they're stupid dicks. That being said, this loudmouth needs to get some perspective and not decide what feminism is based on a few singular situations.
For every story of a woman being treated preferentially (NOT what feminism is about btw), there are a million and one cases of misogynous abuse, lack of equal rights, rape perps and wife-killers walking free, "honour" killings, etc etc etc.
Most feminists will be the first to call out the hateful ignorance of situations like the one above, because it goes completely against what feminism is about, i.e. equal treatment. The way I see it, those dimwits (and anyone else who found this story funny instead of tragic) had something of an "Osama's death" moment, rejoicing over something unethical out of a sense of revenge for past (and present) misdeeds. Instead of using this situation to talk about the other side of what equality means - i.e. that women can be criminal/crazy/violent too - they took the low road of laughing at someone's mutilation. Shame on them, not on feminism.

I adore you.

In reply to this comment by hpqp:
Those cackling hags are NOT feminists, they're stupid dicks. That being said, this loudmouth needs to get some perspective and not decide what feminism is based on a few singular situations.

For every story of a woman being treated preferentially (NOT what feminism is about btw), there are a million and one cases of misogynous abuse, lack of equal rights, rape perps and wife-killers walking free, "honour" killings, etc etc etc.

Most feminists will be the first to call out the hateful ignorance of situations like the one above, because it goes completely against what feminism is about, i.e. equal treatment. The way I see it, those dimwits (and anyone else who found this story funny instead of tragic) had something of an "Osama's death" moment, rejoicing over something unethical out of a sense of revenge for past (and present) misdeeds. Instead of using this situation to talk about the other side of what equality means - i.e. that women can be criminal/crazy/violent too - they took the low road of laughing at someone's mutilation. Shame on them, not on feminism.