An Open Letter to Hilary Rosen

Dear Ms. Rosen,
As you’ve no doubt figured out by now, attacking a stay-at-home mom as never having worked a day in her life was a stupid, stupid move.

Sadly, you’ve since stuck your other foot in your mouth with your snide apology which tries to say that the “war against stay-at-home moms” is fake. I’ll raise the ante on you a bit: if you’ll admit that the Democrats’ whole Republican War on Women (WoW) meme was a trumped up nasty pile of doggy doo, then I’ll let you off the hook for not understanding what working women go through.

There’s a word for the snooty jabs you and people like you try to make at women like Ann Romney: elitist. Ah, yes. Ann Romney certainly hasn’t worked as a clerk in a grocery store or a customer service rep. But tell me, Hilary, when was the last time you punched a clock, put up with irate customers, and had to stand on your feet working for eight hours straight? When was the last time you didn’t bill a client $500 per hour for you to sit around and “think” about how to exploit–er, help them with their problems, real or imagined? I’m willing to bet 20 bucks (which is more than the average woman makes per hour) that you haven’t ever held a clerical job, mowed a lawn, cleaned a bedpan, or cleaned up the vomit of a stranger for pay.

This is why the Democrats’ phony “War on Women” crap is so infuriating. You really live in a different world, one where women are stupid enough to vote based on trumped up charges of sexism because someone disagrees with your solutions to modern problems. You honestly expect women to be so dumb as to think your poke at Ann Romney didn’t hit every woman who has ever stayed home with her family. Unfortunately for you, women did notice a dumb woman and it wasn’t Ann Romney.

It’s time for Democrats to stop pretending that the same women who fought to vote, own property, start their own businesses, and run for president are helpless victims in a fake War on Women, waiting for Democrats to swoop in and save them. Real women–the ones you supposedly claim to see and work with every day–don’t want to be treated like idiots, which is what your behavior suggests. We want to be treated like intelligent adults who see through charlatans like you.

Sincerely,
An American Voter

47 Comments

  1. One wouldn’t think that Miss Rosen would have seen anything wrong with being a housewife, given that she was once one herself! From Wikipedia:

    On January 22, 2003, Rosen announced that she would resign as head of the RIAA at the end of 2003, in order to spend more time with her partner, Elizabeth Birch, and the the twins they adopted in 1999 (a boy and a girl).

    The problem is that, for so many of our friends on the left, the term “pro-choice” really applies only to abortion. They are decidedly not pro-choice when it comes to choices that they don’t like, including the choice Mrs Romney had, and took, to be a full-time mother. That, you see, is not an honorable choice, not to them.

    Foxfier has more on Truth Before Dishonor and her own site.

  2. Of course, Ann Romney has been very fortunate: her husband is wealthy and makes more than enough money for their family. Your very sexist Editor wonders just how many American women there are out there who would love to have had — and taken — Mrs Romney’s choice to be able to be a full-time mother? The (white) male chauvinist pig sitting in the Editor’s chair wonders just how many American mothers, as they are dropping their children off at a day-care center, to be reared by other people, wish that they had the option to stay at home and rear their children themselves.

  3. First of all, Sharon, I understand why Hilary Rosen’s words struck a sensitive nerve in you, because they appeared to attack the very woman you are. I would think that you would have been struck by the words which President Obama responded, about his wife and all women regarding how difficult a job it is to raise a family and be involved in the economic challenges many, many families face today.

    Secondly, it should be noted that Hilary Rosen apologized almost immediately for her choice of words.

    “It’s time for Democrats to stop pretending that the same women who fought to vote, own property, start their own businesses, and run for president are helpless victims in a fake War on Women, waiting for Democrats to swoop in and save them. Real women–the ones you supposedly claim to see and work with every day–don’t want to be treated like idiots, which is what your behavior suggests. We want to be treated like intelligent adults who see through charlatans like you.”

    This is a partisan statement made in a fit of anger which, when sober, I doubt that you really believe it, Sharon, not to mention that it is not true. There is no doubt that over our history women have had to battle for their rights against a culture dominated by men, a history of which I know you are well aware. That said, it does seem that the current crop of Republican men have back-tracked and are attacking certain rights of women, and minorities too:

    * Attacks on Planned Parenthood,

    * desire to cut funding for PP,

    * invasion of women’s privacy regarding requiring traditional ultra-sound and even some trans-vaginal invasions for every pregnancy,

    * fighting equal pay for equal work,

    * against women’s choice,

    * against provision of contraception,

    * Limbaugh’s attack on Sandra Fluke, Sonia Sotomayor and feminists,

    * reduce access to abortion services,

    * desire to cut Head Start,

    * trivializing war on women with “war on caterpillars”.

    The proof of the impact of all this is in the polls, which indicate that Democrats are favored by women by a wide margin, around 20 points.

    Republicans have brought the gender gap upon themselves, as discussed in this US News opinion piece.

    If Republicans do not get their act together on women’s issues, they will probably lose in November.

  4. Perry just called Sharon an angry, drunken, liar. But, on the bright side he didn’t accuse her of never having worked a single day in her life. That’s progressive.

  5. “The (white) male chauvinist pig sitting in the Editor’s chair wonders just how many American mothers, as they are dropping their children off at a day-care center, to be reared by other people, wish that they had the option to stay at home and rear their children themselves.”

    That’s the way it used to be when we were raising our children, Mr Editor. My wife was happy to be a stay-at-home mom until our girls were in high school, when she branched out with a part time job, being home when school was out. Stagnant incomes since Reaganomics hit us, combined with a change in priorities, have changed this picture, unfortunately.

  6. Baloney, SINP. Obama’s BS about his wife not having the luxury to stay home is absolute nonsense. If parents-to-be want mom to stay home, then good planning is all that’s needed. Blaming your ideological opponents for such is just so much sophistry. But then, you’re a master at that.

  7. Secondly, it should be noted that Hilary Rosen apologized almost immediately for her choice of words.

    It should be noted that had Perry actually read the article at the top, he would have seen that Sharon had already discussed that “snide apology” and rejected it for the bogus claptrap it was.

  8. Who is waging a war on women?


    Women paid significantly less in Obama White House than their male counterparts


    By Meghan Keneally

    All of President Barack Obama’s employees may not be treated equally in the White House, as recently released financial records show that female employees earn significantly less than their male counterparts.

    Using the 2011 annual report of White House staff salaries that was submitted to Congress, an $11,000 difference is clear between the median female employee salary and the median male employee salary.

    This news comes on top of continued criticism- of both President Obama and prior presidents- that women are underrepresented in the White House.

    Of the administration’s 20 top earners, who each took home a tidy $172,200 for their work in 2011, only six of those were women.

    The most oft-singled-out leading lady in the President’s testosterone-fueled inner circle is Valerie Jarrett who is one of his closest advisors.

    That said, she has been with the President since his days in Chicago and is seen as one of his close personal friends as well as a trusted advisor.

    More at the link.

  9. WW wrote:

    Secondly, it should be noted that Hilary Rosen apologized almost immediately for her choice of words.

    Translation: she was slapped down, hard, by the men running the Obama Administration and the Democratic Party, and if she wanted to keep her job, she had to get out there, right then, and make obeisance.

  10. Koolo wrote:

    Baloney, SINP. Obama’s BS about his wife not having the luxury to stay home is absolute nonsense. If parents-to-be want mom to stay home, then good planning is all that’s needed. Blaming your ideological opponents for such is just so much sophistry. But then, you’re a master at that.

    When my darlig bride got pregnant, she just assumed that she’d have to go back to work after our daughter was born, but the math was against it. At the time (1988), she was making $5.50 an hour as a nursing assistant. But we quickly figured out that it cost (roughly) $1.00 an hour just to work, for uniforms, transportation, and meals at work. Then there was (roughly) $1.00 for taxes. Then there’d be maybe $2.00 an hour, gone from her check, for day care. Out of $5.50 an hour, she’d be lucky to actually bring home $1.50 an hour of it that wasn’t lost to the costs of working. That’s $60 a week.

    So, she worked up until her eighth month, and then quit. Three years later, our second daughter was born. She took a couple of evening classes at Thomas Nelson Community College, and then, once both girls were in school full time, she went to nursing school at Thomas Nelson. In two years, she was a registered nurse, with a lot higher earning potential.

    So, what did she do? She worked night shift, while I was working days. That was rough, but it meant that there was always one parent available for our daughters. Our kids were never in day care, not even one day!

  11. “Translation: she was slapped down, hard, by the men running the Obama Administration and the Democratic Party, and if she wanted to keep her job, she had to get out there, right then, and make obeisance.”

    Are you implying that here apology was not genuine, Mr Editor? You have no idea! Typical!

  12. A critical examination of this Meghan Keneally piece indicates that her conclusions do not follow from the facts!

    Who is waging a war on women?

    Women paid significantly less in Obama White House than their male counterparts

    By Meghan Keneally

    All of President Barack Obama’s employees may not be treated equally in the White House, as recently released financial records show that female employees earn significantly less than their male counterparts.

    Using the 2011 annual report of White House staff salaries that was submitted to Congress, an $11,000 difference is clear between the median female employee salary and the median male employee salary.

    This is totally meaningless because the men and women may have different positions and different responsibilities.

    This news comes on top of continued criticism- of both President Obama and prior presidents- that women are underrepresented in the White House.

    Of the administration’s 20 top earners, who each took home a tidy $172,200 for their work in 2011, only six of those were women.

    This is also ridiculous. Where is the requirement that an equal number of the two genders be hired. The fit for the job is the most important criterion for making a hire.

    The most oft-singled-out leading lady in the President’s testosterone-fueled inner circle is Valerie Jarrett who is one of his closest advisors.

    What does this statement even mean? Also, the same criticism as the one above applies here.

    That said, she has been with the President since his days in Chicago and is seen as one of his close personal friends as well as a trusted advisor.

    Good god, so what?

    Is this all you have? This is not even good enough to be characterized as a stretch. It’s nonsense! You people ought be able to do better than this silliness, Mr Editor!

  13. First of all, Sharon, I understand why Hilary Rosen’s words struck a sensitive nerve in you, because they appeared to attack the very woman you are. I would think that you would have been struck by the words which President Obama responded, about his wife and all women regarding how difficult a job it is to raise a family and be involved in the economic challenges many, many families face today.

    WW, I’m not even sure what this means. “The very woman you are”? That I’m a woman with children? That I’m a well-educated woman? That I’ve been a stay-at-home mom? That I’m a working mom? That I’m a woman with a law degree? That I’m a woman? This paragraph is ridiculous on the face of it and, frankly, sounds very patronizing.

    This is a partisan statement made in a fit of anger which, when sober, I doubt that you really believe it, Sharon, not to mention that it is not true.

    So, because I displayed some emotion to Rosen’s idiotic statement I’m now, what, hysterical? You clearly haven’t paid much attention to feminism in the last 40 years, WW, because feminists would get all over you about accusing a woman of unseriousness. For your information, I read Rosen’s hoof-in-mouth statement early yesterday morning. I contacted Dana by about 10:30am saying I was interested in writing about it. And as the time stamp on the post shows, I wrote the thing at 10:30pm. I had a looooong time to think about what I wanted to write and I meant exactly what I said.

    There is no doubt that over our history women have had to battle for their rights against a culture dominated by men, a history of which I know you are well aware. That said, it does seem that the current crop of Republican men have back-tracked and are attacking certain rights of women, and minorities too:

    * Attacks on Planned Parenthood,

    * desire to cut funding for PP,

    * invasion of women’s privacy regarding requiring traditional ultra-sound and even some trans-vaginal invasions for every pregnancy,

    * fighting equal pay for equal work,

    * against women’s choice,

    * against provision of contraception,

    * Limbaugh’s attack on Sandra Fluke, Sonia Sotomayor and feminists,

    * reduce access to abortion services,

    * desire to cut Head Start,

    * trivializing war on women with “war on caterpillars”.

    I have to turn this accusation back on you, WW. Do you read what you write? Republicans aren’t “against contraception.” Many Republicans, myself included, have used it. But we believe that contraception is not a necessary expense that should be paid for by the taxpayer. If you want contraception, pay for it. Similarly, Republicans aren’t trying to run Planned Parenthood out of business but if you want an abortion, pay for it yourself.

    And don’t get me started on the inhumanity of abortion and the selling of it to women as “choice.” I’ve known far too many women who made that “choice” and were scarred by it. But then, as the women on Pandagon famously said, you might think an abortion is just “a 20-minute procedure,” one from which you “leave the clinic, give a fist pump and yell, ‘F*** yeah!’” I don’t, and I think that making abortion rare is a good thing.

    And do you really believe the GOP has a war on caterpillars? Please tell me you aren’t that ridiculous.

    I would agree that Republicans need to appeal to women voters, but they won’t do that by pandering to them or treating them like retarded stepchildren. Women are concerned about jobs, the economy in general, gasoline prices, and other issues. Phony “wars on women” just make us angry. You don’t want angry women voters.

  14. WW wrote:

    Are you implying that here apology was not genuine, Mr Editor? You have no idea! Typical!

    I very much doubt that her apology was genuine. After all, she said exactly what she meant to say, and said exactly what she meant. She is apologizing because she has to apologize.

    And while the Democrats who have to actually try to win votes are distancing themselves from the lovely Miss Rosen, those who don’t are doubling down:


    NOW president: Ann Romney lacks “life experience” and “imagination” to relate to most Americans


    posted at 10:26 am on April 13, 2012 by Ed Morrissey

    Via Newsbusters, NOW President Terry O’Neill ignores the First Rule of Holes (stop digging!) and provides another cycle for Republicans to defend Ann Romney and stay-at-home moms. Instead of leaving bad enough alone, O’Neill appeared on Ed Schultz’ MSNBC show last night and attempted to rewrite Hilary Rosen’s faceplant and keep the attack on Ann Romney for not having a salaried job in the workforce as a means to paint the Romneys as out of touch. Say, remember when feminism meant supporting the choices of women and defending them from being marginalized and demeaned? Good times, good times:

    TERRY O’NEILL: What would we be saying if Hillary Clinton had said this: that Ann Romney has never, has not worked for pay outside the home a day in her life? That’s my understanding that’s an accurate statement, and that raises the exact issue that Hilary Rosen was trying to get to, which is do Mr. & Mrs. Romney have the kind of life experience and if not, the imagination, to really understand what most American families are going through right now? I think that that was what Hilary was getting out, and so she left out the words “for pay outside the home.”

    Stick around to the end to see Rep. Maxine Waters keep it classy by calling the presumptive Republican nominee “Mitt Rot-ney,” but O’Neill is the real show here. Once again, we get to see the professional Left’s utter disdain for women who chose to stay home with their children rather than work in the workplace. Do they also lack “life experience” and “imagination”? Are their political and economic views also irrelevant? Is a woman’s worth entirely measured by her salary? Is that the official position of NOW? If so, then perhaps they may want to think about an official name change.

    More at the link.

  15. WW once again makes excuses for the President:

    Is this all you have? This is not even good enough to be characterized as a stretch. It’s nonsense! You people ought be able to do better than this silliness, Mr Editor!

    Do you know what would happen to the Administration if there were an EEOC investigation? Simply the statistical disparities would be considered prima facie evidence of discrimination.

  16. Sharon wrote:

    For your information, I read Rosen’s hoof-in-mouth statement early yesterday morning. I contacted Dana by about 10:30am saying I was interested in writing about it. And as the time stamp on the post shows, I wrote the thing at 10:30pm. I had a looooong time to think about what I wanted to write and I meant exactly what I said.

    I didn’t see Sharon’s e-mail until after I got home from work, and replied to her at 6:30 PM, four hours before she posted. In fact, I had already gonbe to bed before she posted.

  17. Of course, WW is absolutely right that I want to eliminate public funding for Planned Parenthood and eliminate government funding for contraception. Now, I expect that Planned Parenthood will survive, as it did before it started to receive government grants, and contraception will still be perfectly legal, but I do not see where it is the government’s obligation or even proper function to provide such services.

    For decades, our friends on the left have been telling us that what people do in their bedrooms is none of the government’s business, and I absolutely agree. But if people’s sex lives are strictly private business, why should the government be expected to help pay for whatever costs entail from people’s private business?

    We have a deficit of over a trillion dollars every year, and a skyrocketing national debt, but the left thinks that we ought to still spend money to buy people’s contraceptives? Ridiculous!

  18. “For decades, our friends on the left have been telling us that what people do in their bedrooms is none of the government’s business, and I absolutely agree. But if people’s sex lives are strictly private business, why should the government be expected to help pay for whatever costs entail from people’s private business?”

    Here’s a simple answer to a simpleton question: Because contraception is a women’s health issue. Ask your wife and both daughters, Mr Editor!

    PS: Providing contraception will also minimize abortions and the birth of unwanted children.

  19. “Phony “wars on women” just make us angry. You don’t want angry women voters.”

    Sharon, first of all I refer you to my comment above.

    Secondly, whether you will acknowledge it or not, we already have angry women voter, plenty of them, as current polling well indicates, and as my list of Republican policies indicates as well.

    Finally, I am really amazed at your angry reaction to this statement which I made:

    “First of all, Sharon, I understand why Hilary Rosen’s words struck a sensitive nerve in you, because they appeared to attack the very woman you are.”

    I know a little about you from what you yourself have written. My intent was to empathize with your reaction to Hilary Rosen’s unfortunate choice of words. I am a little surprised at how you reacted to that statement. I did not mean to offend you in the least! Since you were offended, I apologize for my part.

  20. Here’s a simple answer to a simpleton question

    Civility: Something not found in Perry but demanded of every Conservative. Because Perry is a passive-aggressive hypocrite of the highest order (or would that be the lowest). Just look at the misogynist treatment he gave Sharon (a very highly educated woman) further up.

  21. WW,
    I reacted to your words because they came across as more patronizing pablum (“Aw, the poor wittle woman is upset!”). My anger at Rosen is precisely because women of all political stripes have worked hard for decades to advance the idea that women are adults who get to make the same choices in life as men. That includes whether and when to have children and how to raise them, and that we should not show disdain for those choices. That another woman, who has obviously had to face some of the same attitudes about her choices, would flippantly dismiss another woman’s choice (for political gain) was repugnant.

    Like your list of supposed missteps by Republicans, the War on Women was entirely manufactured, and manufactured by Democrats to create a wedge issue. Barack Obama cannot run on his record; people hate what he has done in four years. The only hope of winning is to convince the electorate that change would be worse than Change.

    The election is far from over and it’s hard for me to believe women voters would be stupid enough not to be insulted by this War on Women crap. Mitt Romney has plenty of time to explain to American women why his policies will be better for them than the rotten, paternalistic policies of this administration.

  22. Sharon, I’m glad that you understand better where I was coming from re your response to Hilary Rosen’s statement, that I was empathetic and understanding your reaction, the opposite of patronizing you.

    On the idea that the Dems are waging a WoW, I don’t see it, nor do I think you have made the case for your view. I stand by my list.

    On President Obama running on his record, I think he has a good record to run on, like having a growing economy and job growth following the hand he was dealt by massive Republican mistakes. The numbers prove it. Republican partisan talking points are just that, with no numbers behind them. Following the 2010 midterms, the President and the Dems have been hampered by a do-nothing Congress, by a Republican party which would rather make the President a one-termer, to hell with the needs of our Country.

    Certainly Americans, especially women, do not want us to go backwards by voting in a party which wants to reverse our health care initiatives and put us on the austerity Ryan plan which puts the burden of the austerity on the middle while rewarding the wealthy with more tax breaks. That said, we certainly have to phase in more spending cuts and phase out stimulus as the economy continues to pick up speed.

    Being a women and probably in the upper end of middle income Americans, consider what impact the Republican retro ideology will have on your family, especially your girls as they are on the cusp of preparing for their long range futures, and including you and your husband who will be at retirement age and having to cope with the entitlement support cutbacks which the Ryan/Romney plan encompasses, should they ever be enacted.

    The great recession we have just been through has severely damaged the retirement savings of many pre-retirement couples. Were it not for the safety net of the entitlements, where would these people be? Republicans seem intent on destroying this safety net, as well as generating policies which will continue to move more wealth and power away from the middle and into the hands of a select few at the top. Is this the America you want, Sharon?

  23. First, I said the War on Women was manufactured by the Democrats. That means it was made up. There, in fact, is no War o Women. What Democrats call a War on Women is Republicans putting in place initiatives for smaller government, something they were asked to do by the American people who elected them.

    Most Americans oppose public funding of abortion, including the call to fund abortion in Obamacare. Planned Parenthood performs more abortions than any other clinic in the U.S., which makes them a big target for people against killing babies. And while government money may not specifically pay for abortions at Planned Parenthood clinics, money is fungible, as you know. If the taxpayer is paying for PP’s lights and counseling, that leaves more money from other sources for PP to perform abortions. IOW, the taxpayer may not be directly funding abortions but they indirectly fund them. That’s why Republicans, the pro-life party, wants PP defunded.

    President Obama has the worst economy post-recession since the Great Depression. Unemployment was 7.6 percent when President Obama took office. 3 1/2 years later, the unemployment rate for March 2012 was a dismal 8.2 percent, which is the lowest of this presidency since the recession supposedly ended. Just last week, U.S. jobless claims went up again, bringing more fears of a slowing, stagnating economy.

    While this president has constantly blamed his bad economy on his predecessor, intelligent people have noticed that his own policies have done little or nothing to improve conditions for Americans. Instead, his party gave us more debt through a stimulus program designed only to reward Democrats, not help the economy. He has increased government regulation which stifles economic growth. And as far as my children go, he has ensured that they have inherited a worse future because of the debt they will be responsible for.

    As far as Paul Ryan’s budget plan goes, you know full well that Ryan’s plan is revenue neutral. It will bring in at least the same money as the government currently confiscates. It flattens tax rates and simplifies the system. He proposes getting rid of loopholes which give unfair advantage to high income earners like the Obamas who pay a lower tax rate than his own secretary (I personally don’t care if he does, but after sniffing about “the rich” not “paying their fair share,” it’s worth pointing this out).

    Yes, austerity measures hurt. But lifelong dependency, which Democrats are trying to create, is worse.

  24. And now for the musings of that noted scholar Amanda Marcotte on the real reason Hilary Rosen ended up in such hot water:

    Ever since they latched onto Hilary Rosen, the right’s narrative has been, “See? This isn’t about pay or birth control. It’s about those feminists running around having fun and being free while you’re stuck at home with your ungrateful husband and whining kids. Who do those bitches think they are, going out at night with their lipstick on, just seeing where adventure takes them? They should be at home like me. I’m so much more moral, more American than those sluts. Yeah, I use birth control, but man, I really do want to stick it to them. Especially the lesbians, who think they just get to go their whole lives without having to pick up a man’s underwear.”

    Yeah, that’s exactly what I was trying to say.

  25. Wagonwheel explained Democratic policies perfectly:

    Being a women and probably in the upper end of middle income Americans, consider what impact the Republican retro ideology will have on your (Sharon’s) family, especially your girls as they are on the cusp of preparing for their long range futures, and including you and your husband who will be at retirement age and having to cope with the entitlement support cutbacks which the Ryan/Romney plan encompasses, should they ever be enacted.

    Translation: we will take care of you, from cradle to dormitory bedroom to grave. The individual need not worry about himself, because that’s the government’s job, don’t you know.

    In the same comment, WW wrote:

    we certainly have to phase in more spending cuts and phase out stimulus as the economy continues to pick up speed.

    That is a wholly unserious statement; it’s just fluff, because, other than Defense, you have absolutely no intention of cutting spending anywhere, and support policies to increase non-Defense spending. You support continued government “investment” in private industries like Solyndra, you support continued government spending for programs which could survive on their own, like NPR, you support increased government handouts to the poor and not-so-poor, you support continued government welfare for the wealthy like tax credits for buying things like the Chevy Dolt, and you want to see entitlements, in general, actually expanded. The entitlements explosion is what is driving our government into greater and greater debt; entitlements are the explosive force which cannot be sustained at such levels.

  26. Wagonwheel says:
    April 14, 2012 at 12:53 (Edit)

    Got it, Sharon. I humbly suggest you share this with your husband.

    Passive-aggressive dishonest (does Wagonwheel ever “humbly” suggest anything around here?) patronizing personal attack.

  27. The Nation’s first “Entitlement” was “Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness” Shouldn’t be any more than that and the Bill of Rights (which are disappearing quicker than anything in this country)

  28. “Translation: we will take care of you, from cradle to dormitory bedroom to grave. The individual need not worry about himself, because that’s the government’s job, don’t you know.”

    Translation: No, Mr Editor, you fail: Wingnut Translation: Thus, those are your words and beliefs, not mine.

    When you and your wife reach the age of eligibility for SS and Medicare, you are perfectly free and able to reject them. Is that your plan, Mr Editor. Are you two planning to follow through with your crazy ideological instincts? Your total insincerity here is not impressive, just as your insincerity regarding enforcement of your “Comments and Content Policy”. It is a sham, marking you out as a phoney on this issue.

    “That is a wholly unserious statement; it’s just fluff, because, other than Defense, you have absolutely no intention of cutting spending anywhere, and support policies to increase non-Defense spending.”

    Speak for yourself, Mr Editor, as you have no right to speak for me. Moreover, there you go again with your straw man fallacy followed by your attack on the straw man.

    We could not have followed your wish to go on austerity immediately, before we got the economy growing, which President Obama and the Dems have done, with no help at all from you unpatriotic Republicans. Instead you would rather take over power any way you can get it, rather than to work on the intricacies of policy to move us out of the mess which you folks created. Instead, you folks continue to hawk your old, failed ideology. Why that is total insanity!!!

    I repeat: The best approach is to phase out of the stimulus mode, and phase into the austerity mode with a growing economy, which is exactly what is starting to happen.

    Moreover, the ACA is a long range plan to insure and treat more Americans, and at lower cost. Who could not want this to happen?

    I also totally reject the Ryan/Romney plan, because the cuts are way too harsh, and because the tax policy will move more wealth into the 1%. See the UK as an example. The American people know this, and they don’t like it, as the polls indicate, since President Obama’s favorables continue to improve, and since many of the battleground states put President Obama a clear favorite over the flip-flopping Mitt Romney.

    Instead, your approach is to continue your war on women, to suppress the vote, to use the activist SCOTUS to your advantage, and to attack a lot and lie alot with your Super PACs. If this turns out to be a winning strategy, failure and chaos will be the outcome, in my view.

  29. “Passive-aggressive dishonest (does Wagonwheel ever “humbly” suggest anything around here?) patronizing personal attack.”

    So you don’t think that Sharon is perfectly capable of speaking for herself, Mr Hitchcock, the dominating control freak himself who shrinks from debate and deletes posts which he does not like. I think she can, and I hope that she does, because although we have many differences, at least I can have a civil conversation with her, in contrast to you.

  30. “The Nation’s first “Entitlement” was “Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness” Shouldn’t be any more than that and the Bill of Rights (which are disappearing quicker than anything in this country).”

    You said that right, Yorkshire! The War on Women is an example of the political Right to take these entitlements and rights away from women, as are policy initiatives to move more wealth to those who have not earned it and do not deserve it.

  31. Wagonwheel says:
    April 14, 2012 at 15:08 (Edit)

    “The Nation’s first “Entitlement” was “Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness” Shouldn’t be any more than that and the Bill of Rights (which are disappearing quicker than anything in this country).”

    You said that right, Yorkshire! The War on Women is an example of the political Right to take these entitlements and rights away from women, as are policy initiatives to move more wealth to those who have not earned it and do not deserve it.

    Are you saying Government paid for contraceptives are a guaranteed entitlement from the Feds? If so, where in the Constitution is it stated?

  32. *Yawn* The man who got suspended for threatening other people on this site because he didn’t like what they said calls someone else a dominating control freak. The man who spews a totally false narrative that the First Amendment somehow requires blog owners to let spewage flow on their sites tries to bully others into not responding to his condescending, patronizing, passive-aggressive bullying of someone else. The man who made a promise to not do something flies into a hissy fit when someone else forces him to abide by that promise.

    In other words, SSDD.

  33. policy initiatives to move more wealth to those who have not earned it and do not deserve it.

    I’m glad you’ve changed your mind, Perry, and agree with us that all this Leftist/Socialist/Progressive (same thing, different words) “entitlement” spending to Welfare recipients is dead wrong.

  34. “*Yawn* The man who got suspended for threatening other people on this site because he didn’t like what they said calls someone else a dominating control freak. The man who spews a totally false narrative that the First Amendment somehow requires blog owners to let spewage flow on their sites tries to bully others into not responding to his condescending, patronizing, passive-aggressive bullying of someone else. The man who made a promise to not do something flies into a hissy fit when someone else forces him to abide by that promise.

    In other words, SSDD.”

    The dominant control freak proves my point once again. If you were confident in your debate and in yourself, you would not delete posts on your thread which you do not like. But you do, Mr Hitchcock, so that’s on you. And by the way, I withdrew my silly promise, so the deletions have continued, proving your point. What is it that you fear, Mr Marine?

    And btw, Mr Wingnut, I note that you failed to answer my question whether you have ever been on welfare, and/or on unemployment, and/or on food stamps. I am guessing that you have. Your silence speaks volumes about your apparent blatant hypocrisy.

    Most recipients of these programs are people in dire need, therefore, except for your possible hypocrisy, I would not begrudge you if you have had to sign up. Have you, Mr Hitchcock? Now come clean and tell the truth!

  35. When you give someone your promise, it becomes theirs. It is no longer yours to take back. Attempting to take your promise back turns you most assuredly into an untrustworthy liar. I am holding you to your promise you gave me. Don’t like it? You have the right to not stick around. Nobody’s holding a gun to your head and forcing you to read this site.

  36. “And btw, Mr Wingnut, I note that you failed to answer my question whether you have ever been on welfare, and/or on unemployment, and/or on food stamps. I am guessing that you have. Your silence speaks volumes about your apparent blatant hypocrisy.”

    You’re a documented liar, re your over the top personal attacks on people you don’t like. So yes, I’ve dished out a few here today, for a change.

    I note you ducked the question, Mr Hitchcock, for a reason, because if you have, it would totally destroy your harshly Conservative wingnut meme. So what is your answer?

  37. There’s a reason they call it “Tough Love”, Wagonwheel. And part of that reason is because it forces the out-of-control adolescents to finally grow up and become responsible for their own actions. Hopefully, you’ll finally do so. Even Saul of Tarsus changed course, so could you.

  38. “There’s a reason they call it “Tough Love”, Wagonwheel. And part of that reason is because it forces the out-of-control adolescents to finally grow up and become responsible for their own actions.”

    Apply your good advice to yourself, Mr Hitchcock!

    And I note you did not answer the question about your ever being on welfare, etc., for a reason. You are deficient in gratitude for the assistance that has been given you by the government you claim to detest. Shame on you, Mr Hitchcock!

  39. You are deficient in gratitude for the assistance that has been given you by the government you claim to detest.

    That right there is the evidence of what I’ve been talking about for a very long time. Perry wants the Government to steal money from Sharon, apply a 70 percent “redistribution fee”, give the rest to some poor schlub, and then demand that poor schlub to show his appreciation for the Perry types by continuing to vote in the anti-Constitutional thieves. That’s called Idolatry, Perry, and I don’t go in for Idolatry.

  40. “Perry wants the Government to steal money from Sharon, ….”

    Uh huh!

    Still won’t answer a simple question about yourself, eh Mr Hitchcock? Instead you come out with an attack.

    There is absolutely nothing wrong with taking advantage of government programs when one has hit upon hard times. I believe you have been on some sort of welfare, perhaps are right now. So what? If so, it is not a question of stealing from Sharon, or me, or anyone else who is fortunate enough to have a sufficient income in these hard times. I would not want to see you going hungry, or without medical care when ill, or unclothed, or without sufficient heat. Living with your daughter provided for you, but now that she has moved, you are on your own again with insufficient income. In other words you are one of the poor. Of course I am making assumptions, so please correct me, Mr Hitchcock. Be happy that you have a government that cares!

  41. WW wrote:

    “Translation: we will take care of you, from cradle to dormitory bedroom to grave. The individual need not worry about himself, because that’s the government’s job, don’t you know.”

    Translation: No, Mr Editor, you fail: Wingnut Translation: Thus, those are your words and beliefs, not mine.

    When you and your wife reach the age of eligibility for SS and Medicare, you are perfectly free and able to reject them. Is that your plan, Mr Editor. Are you two planning to follow through with your crazy ideological instincts? Your total insincerity here is not impressive, just as your insincerity regarding enforcement of your “Comments and Content Policy”. It is a sham, marking you out as a phoney on this issue.

    Oh, I absolutely plan to take every dollar from Social Security for which I am eligible! that is a retirement program into which I had absolutely no choice but to contribute, and I intend to get back every dollar which was seized from my paychecks that I possibly can. If I had as much money as Bill Gates, I would still demand every last shilling I was owed from Social Security.

    “That is a wholly unserious statement; it’s just fluff, because, other than Defense, you have absolutely no intention of cutting spending anywhere, and support policies to increase non-Defense spending.”

    Speak for yourself, Mr Editor, as you have no right to speak for me. Moreover, there you go again with your straw man fallacy followed by your attack on the straw man.

    Had I ever seen a program you did wish to end, other than those which maintain our freedoms, I’d say that you have a point. You keep arguing for continued spending on things which may be nice to have, but without which we can still survive. Heck, you have argued for continuing to spend government money on things like Planned Parenthood and National Public Radio which would almost certainly survive without government funding; the notion that you would ever support real reductions in non-Defense government spending is unsupported by the evidence.

    We could not have followed your wish to go on austerity immediately, before we got the economy growing, which President Obama and the Dems have done, with no help at all from you unpatriotic Republicans. Instead you would rather take over power any way you can get it, rather than to work on the intricacies of policy to move us out of the mess which you folks created. Instead, you folks continue to hawk your old, failed ideology. Why that is total insanity!!!

    The economy would have started growing again without the porkulus plan, because expansions after recessions are simply part of the natural economic cycle. Considering how slow this recovery has been, it is quite possible to think that the Administration’s efforts slowed down, rather than speeded up, the recovery.

    As for doing austerity later, the last time the United States had zero national debt, the flag had 25 stars, Texas was an independent nation, and Andrew Jackson was President. Under Barack Obama, we have had deficits of over a trillion dollars every single year he has been President, and we have added more to the national debt in the 3 years and 3 months he has been President than were added in eight years under President Bush. Perhaps you will remember what Senator Barack Obama (D-IL) said about the amount of money that was added to the national debt under President Bush? Well, in case you have forgotten, a gentle reminder is to the right. —>

    I repeat: The best approach is to phase out of the stimulus mode, and phase into the austerity mode with a growing economy, which is exactly what is starting to happen.

    If austerity is going to be phased in, it is only because the TEA Party energized the Republicans, and the Republicans have forced it. Had the Democrats retained control of the House following the 2010 elections, the deficit and the debt would be even worse than it is today.

    Moreover, the ACA is a long range plan to insure and treat more Americans, and at lower cost. Who could not want this to happen?

    I absolutely want more Americans to be responsible and buy their own health insurance; I absolutely reject the idea that it’s any of the government’s business. As for less cost, no, it won’t cost less. That was the President’s argument, but his numbers have already been shown to be bogus, and ObumbleCare hasn’t even fully kicked in yet.

    Everything President Obama has tried has turned out wrong; everything he has done of any significance has been a failure. Yet you want to re-elect that idiot?

  42. WW wrote:

    “The Nation’s first “Entitlement” was “Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness” Shouldn’t be any more than that and the Bill of Rights (which are disappearing quicker than anything in this country).”

    You said that right, Yorkshire! The War on Women is an example of the political Right to take these entitlements and rights away from women, as are policy initiatives to move more wealth to those who have not earned it and do not deserve it.

    Really? Those basic rights are rights held by the people; the “pursuit of happiness” is not a guarantee that everyone will be happy, nor that everyone will be wealthy, nor that everything an individual wants will be supplied by the government. Yet, to you, our “rights” now include the government supporting people, the government getting involved in individual decisions, and the government forcing some people to have to abandon their religious principles because other people want more benefits.

    Back in the early 1970s, when I was in college, there was some pretty general student dissatisfaction with the notion that the University could legally act in loco parentis, and the policies generally died away; with most students being legally adults, such statutes and policies simply could not withstand legal challenges. But what you seem to want is for Uncle Sam to act in loco parentis, for everybody, from cradle to grave.

  43. Pingback: Sorta Blogless Sunday Pinup » Pirate's Cove

Comments are closed.