MENU

Reason.com

Free Minds & Free Markets

Democrats Created a Birth-Control Banning Bogeyman Out of Brett Kavanaugh. Called Out, Kamala Harris Doubled Down

Harris and other Democrats distorted Kavanaugh's comments on birth control to portray him as a religious extremist.

Erin Scott/Polaris/NewscomErin Scott/Polaris/NewscomCalifornia Sen. Kamala Harris and other prominent Democrats distorted Brett Kavanaugh's statements on birth control in widely shared warnings that the Supreme Court nominee is a woman-hating religious extremist. Harris' comments about Kavanaugh have been deemed whoppers by Washington Post fact-checker Glenn Kessler and ruled as false by the lie detectors at Politifact.

Harris, who is widely considered a 2020 Democratic presidential contender, accused Kavanaugh of signaling during Senate confirmation hearings last week that he would be "going after birth control." The Republican nominee, she tweeted, had been specifically chosen for his willingness to snatch up "a woman's constitutionally protected right to make her own health care decisions."

"Make no mistake," she warned, "this is about punishing women."

But the clip Harris shared as confirmation of this secret plot was deceptively edited. Asked about a case involving religious objections to the Obamacare contraception mandate, the video showed Kavanaugh responding that "filling out the form would make [Priests for Life] complicit in the provision of the abortion-inducing drugs that they were, as a religious matter, objected to."

Kavanaugh's use of the phrase abortion-inducing drugs is what's at issue here. The contraception mandate said that employer health-insurance plans must cover birth control, not abortion pills. Harris called Kavanaugh's answer a "dog whistle" that showed he was against not just abortion but also birth control.

Other Democrats echoed her. "This is a red-alarm moment," tweeted Oregon Sen. Jeff Merkley. "If you didn't believe it before, believe it now – a woman's constitutional right to abortion AND birth control are both 100% at stake." U.S. House candidate Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez tweeted: "Brett Kavanaugh doesn't even know what birth control IS. He doesn't deserve to pass a 7th grade health class, let alone a Supreme Court confirmation…. We must #CancelKavanaugh."

But here's what Harris left off the start of the abortion-inducing drugs sentence in her video clip: They said. Kavanaugh's full sentence has been that "they said filling out the form would make them complicit in the provision of the abortion-inducing drugs that they were, as a religious matter, objecting to."

In other words, Kavanaugh was characterizing the positions of Priests for Life, plaintiffs in the lawsuit which he had specifically been asked about.

In 2015, Kavanaugh had dissented from other U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit judges, who had denied Priests for Life's request for full-court hearing after a three-judge panel rejected their claims. In his dissent, Kavanaugh writes that the Supreme Court's ruling in the Hobby Lobby case "strongly suggests that the Government has a compelling interest in facilitating access to contraception for the employees of these religious organizations." However, "the Government need not—and therefore under RFRA [the Religious Freedom Restoration Act] may not—pursue its compelling interest in facilitating access to contraception by requiring religious nonprofit organizations to submit the form required by current federal regulations."

"One final note for clarity," Kavanaugh added:

The Government may of course continue to require the religious organizations' insurers to provide contraceptive coverage to the religious organizations' employees, even if the religious organizations object. As Judge Flaum correctly explained, "RFRA does not authorize religious organizations to dictate the independent actions of third-parties, even if the organization sincerely disagrees with them."

When called out about the shortened clip, Harris pressed on with original criticism. "There's no question that he uncritically used the term 'abortion-inducing drugs,' which is a dog whistle term used by extreme anti-choice groups to describe birth control," she tweeted. This is a pattern with Harris—when called out on bad behavior, she doubles down. (For more Reason coverage of Harris, see here, here, here, here, and here.)

In any event, it looks like we're gearing up for a full rehash of the "War on Women" rhetoric we saw in the late Obama years. And so far, it's promising to be every bit as dumb.

Photo Credit: Erin Scott/Polaris/Newscom

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  • Diane Reynolds (Paul.)||

    by the lie detectors at Politifact.

    It's my understanding that if Politifact found a Democrat to be a liar, they pretty much have to be in flat-earther territory for that.

  • ||

    ^ This. For a Democrat to not get a "mostly true" from Politifact there has to just be no way to torture it into anything even closely resembling reality.

  • FreeRadical||

    So very true.

  • ||

    Heh. Harris' comments were so egregious it forced Politifact to grow a conscience.

  • Wise Old Fool||

    They have corrected democrats many times. Stop being disingenuous.

  • VinniUSMC||

    Well, at least you got the "fool" part of your moniker right.

  • Ellis Wyatt||

    If he IS a fool I'd take him over a psycho liar and cyber-bully who never has any substance.
    I'm looking at you.

    Politifact indeed calls out both Dems and Reps, but Trumpsters began as Birthers and are still eagerly manipulated by the growing number conspiracies to wish away Trump's mounting failures as a President and his growing criminal liability.

  • Diane Reynolds (Paul.)||

    "There's no question that he uncritically used the term 'abortion-inducing drugs,' which is a dog whistle term

    Ah, the dog-whistle argument. I'm hearing things that aren't there...

  • damikesc||

    If somebody keeps hearing dog whistles everywhere...perhaps they are the problem, not the assorted speakers.

    I mean, she said "make no mistake" and then made huge mistakes...oh wait, they weren't mistakes. They were intentional.

    She's just a fucking moronic liar.

  • TrickyVic (old school)||

    Isn't she a former prosecutor?

    She knows how to use the media to poison public opinion.

  • Conchfritters||

    It's called schizophrenia, and it's a major mental illness.

  • FlameCCT||

    If somebody keeps hearing dog whistles everywhere...perhaps they have tinnitus. If they are interpreting the dog whistle then they are just bat-shit crazy! ;-)

  • sharmota4zeb||

    I'm hearing things that aren't there...

    The FDA approved several medications for that. In the mid-20th Century, plenty of women got prescriptions from doctors for those pills, hence the movie "Stepford Wives". There are reasons a woman might choose to work for an employer who does not cover the cost of certain medications.

  • Ellis Wyatt||

    The Stepford Wives were a statement on extreme socons. And so very accurate!

  • Mickey Rat||

    He was not only describing the plaintiffs position, it is, in fact, true that a number of the birth control drugs do work by intentionally causing miscarriages, i.e abortions.

    In Harris' mind, a dog whistle is accurately describing a thing instead of using the goodthink euphemism.

  • Zeb||

    That may be true in some cases, but as far as I know, it's not a good characterization of birth control in general.

  • Poppyseed||

    His comments weren't about "birth control in general" nor was the case he was commenting on, so "birth control in general" doesn't really have anything to do with the discussion.

  • Mickey Rat||

    It is not unequivocally wrong, which is what Harris is saying.

  • UnrepentantCurmudgeon||

    Harris ran her mouth before her brain was in gear, so now she will say anything to make it sound like she was saying something she wasn't. Very Nixonian: (paraphrasing) "I know you think you understand what you think it is I said, but I'm not sure you realize that what I said is not exactly what I meant".

  • retiredfire||

    "...it's not a good characterization of birth control in general"
    But the pro-aborts have been trying, mightily, to conflate the killing of the already embedded fetus, with simple birth control, like pulling on a condom.
    Trying to confuse arguments by making one thing seem just like another, when they are not, is just another form of lying. From the party of liars.

  • Wise Old Fool||

    No they don't birth control by definition stops the pairing of the gamete cells. You are completely and utterly wrong. Yes there are abortion inducing pills, but those are given by doctors and patients are instructed that they are aborting a fetus. So stop it with the fucking lying. Also the morning after pill is not an abortion pill either. That is a common misconception of low information people.

  • retiredfire||

    The morning after pill, which is just a massive dosage of the hormones in the daily BCP, doesn't induce an abortion, but it does act on two "gamete cells" that have paired by not letting them implant in the uterus.
    Some call that pairing - life.

  • Lester224||

    Those that call that paring = human person-hood are calling it that due to their religion. They want to force their religion on everyone. It's as simple as that. Paired cells do not equal a person with rights over and above that ove a breathing thinking woman unless you are a theocrat. Why do paired cells have the right to force a human being to support them with their blood, body etc.? They don't even have brain-waves.

  • Ellis Wyatt||

    Separation.

  • damikesc||

    When called out about the shortened clip, Harris pressed on with original criticism. "There's no question that he uncritically used the term 'abortion-inducing drugs,'
  • damikesc||

    God I hate this site sometimes.

    I've had to write papers about the rise of fascism in Europe back in college.

    Using Kamala's theory, quoting Hitler accurately means I, by default, had to agree with him.

    God she is a fucking moron.

  • Crusty Juggler||

    I've had to write papers about the rise of fascism in Europe back in college.

    Check out Mr. Humble-brag over here.

  • damikesc||

    My professor was Jewish as well and a fucking expert on Hitler. That he could very dispassionately discuss the Holocaust was always amazing to me.

    But, hey, I went to a state school. If I was humble bragging, it'd be "Back at Yale..."

  • BYODB||

    Yeah, a humble brag would require 'when I was in grad school' at the very least. Just going to college for a bachelors degree shouldn't be that big of a brag.

  • TrickyVic (old school)||

    ""If I was humble bragging, it'd be "Back at Yale...""'

    That's just not how we do it at Harvard.

  • AFSlade||

    Haah-vuhd -
    From the Brahmin for, "I'm an asshole."

  • ||

    God she is a fucking moron.

    That's pretty generous. I would have gone with "completely amoral lying sociopath."

  • Tony||

    So presidential material?

  • ||

    Yup.

  • Hamster of Doom||

    Urrrrgh. Blech.

  • ||

    Yes indeed.

    I had an argument with a forumite here. At one point, Hillary Clinton said that an abortion rights bill before Congress contained no exceptions for rape and incest. Flat out, in the first sentence of the proposed bill, it said the amendments did not apply to incidences where it was deemed necessary to save the mother's life, the result of rape, or incest.

    Amoral lying sociopath is what Washington does. It's not the only place that does it, but it is notorious for it.

  • ||

    Amoral lying sociopath is what Washington does.

    ^ This. Amoral lying sociopaths do well in politics. Moral truth-tellers resoundingly do not.

  • FlameCCT||

    Naw, she's just common bat-shit crazy!

  • UnrepentantCurmudgeon||

    And a black woman to boot. Woot!

  • Rock Lobster||

    She's not a fucking moron.

    She is evil.

  • DarrenM||

    These two things are not mutually exclusive.

  • Rock Lobster||

    I hear you, but if you really think Harris a moron, rather than a clever, calculating leftist who would say anything in the pursuit of power, you are deluding yourself for the momentary pleasure of of a cheap insult.

    This woman and all those like her are very dangerous.

  • Rock Lobster||

    To elaborate, Tony is a moron, the Rev is a moron, Hihn is... well, he's a crazy moron. But there is a huge difference between the "useful" idiots of the left and the leftist leadership who uses them. Harris is one of the latter.

  • Rock Lobster||

    To elaborate, Tony is a moron, the Rev is a moron, Hihn is... well, he's a crazy moron. But there is a huge difference between the "useful" idiots of the left and the leftist leadership who uses them. Harris is one of the latter.

  • Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland||

    I thought I was a fancy-pants elitist, with my advanced degrees and standard English.

    Half-educated right-wing goobers seem unable to keep their faux libertarian stories straight.

    Carry on, clingers.

  • ||

    the Rev is a moron
    I thought I was a fancy-pants elitist, with my advanced degrees and standard English.

    These two things are not mutually exclusive.

  • Rock Lobster||

    You're a dishonest POS, Rev. I know it, you know it, and everyone who comments here knows it.

    Otherwise, you are pretty much just a moron.

  • Jack Klompus Magic Ink||

    Buy a gun and shoot yourself in the face.

  • FlameCCT||

    That's what you get for thinking!

  • Ellis Wyatt||

    Behold the authoritarian right!

    Jack Klompus Magic Ink|9.12.18 @ 8:08AM|#
    Buy a gun and shoot yourself in the face.

    Rock Lobster|9.11.18 @ 10:31PM|#
    You're a dishonest POS, ... you are pretty much just a moron.

    Rock Lobster|9.11.18 @ 7:27PM|#
    To elaborate, Tony is a moron, the Rev is a moron, Hihn is... well, he's a crazy moron.

    Right-wing snowflakes. Triggered. Shouting down non-conformers. The mirror image of Berkeley students.

    Left - Right = Zero

  • Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland||

    For taking the libertarian position on contraception, in contravention to Justice Kavanaugh's portfolio of authoritarian positions?

  • Ellis Wyatt||

    You MUST be silenced. In the nam,e of Truth, Justice and the American Way -- which now means mindless puppets, dancing on the strings of a psychotic billionaire financed entirely by Russia.
    So we have one puppet -- dancing on Putin's string -- as a puppet master to millions of goobers.

  • MoreFreedom||

    I disagree that Harris "is a f***** moron". She knows exactly what she's doing, and will never retract her lies, because the media will drop it. She's making stuff up about her political opponents.

    Harris shows her incivility, mendacity, and lack of character. IMHO, she's unqualified to be employed by the government, and should be doing something like mowing yards where she would be paid for results you can see with your own eyes and without her mouth involved. It's no surprise, with her character, that she seeks to be an elected politician.

  • Ellis Wyatt||

    You say she may be as big a liar as President Trump?

  • Ellis Wyatt||

    It's ALMOST bad as WHOEVER edited he video to show Obama saying, "This is not a Christian nation."
    Millions of goobers swallowed that one, and still do. Likely a lot of Birthers in that group.

  • msinop||

  • Ellis Wyatt||

    The smell of of infantile tribal hatted is in the air.

  • John||

    Is there anything more indicative of the intellectual bankruptcy of Progressivism than its total obsession with abortion and birth control? It has always been a stupid ideology but in the past, it could at least claim to have big goals aimed at solving important problems like poverty. A chicken in every pot and a job and dignity for every man is one hell of a far cry from "Sandra Fluke shouldn't have to pay for her birth control and abortions'. If it wasn't so serious and they did not have so much influence, it would be comical.

  • damikesc||

    Look at the bright side...if she became President, it'd be both racist and sexist to call her a fucking moron who rode Willie Brown's cock to power.

    ...yet it's true.

  • Eddy||

    You don't get it, it's those nasty Republicans who are obsessed with birth control, the Democrats are simply pointing out this fact, so as to alert the people to the danger facing the Republic.

  • Eddy||

    Oh, and the Republicans obsess over birth control so as to fool the people into voting against big government. It's all a plot.

    Plus, Republicans are paranoid.

  • retiredfire||

    Taking the life of a nascent human being is not the benign sounding "birth control".
    The obsession of the left is that they are panicked over the possibility that too many of their sycophants will realize this.
    Republicans know this, already, and want to see this taking of life stopped.
    That's not the side that is paranoid.

  • sharmota4zeb||

    The concept of progressive evolution inspired the progressive political movement. They liked the idea of evolution without acknowledging how it works and thought that government should steer evolution. Abortion is one of their core beliefs.

  • John||

    You know who else loved evolution?

  • Dillinger||

    amphibians

  • Hamster of Doom||

    Not me. I know people rave about that flick and yeah, I *liked* it, but I don't get the hype.

  • Crusty Juggler||

    " A garter belt? At a day function?"

  • John||

    That is some of it. But a lot of it is that it has become totally beholden to and controlled by middle and upper-class women. And they want their free shit and they certainly don't want to ever have to take any responsibility for getting pregnant. Giving women the vote may have harmed Progressivism more than any other ideology.

  • prolefeed||

    Not sure how progressivism was harmed -- I mean, when your ideology supports eugenics and Mussolini, changing the topic and wanting to force other people to pay for your contraceptives isn't much of an escalation.

    It was an obnoxious philosophy when only men could vote. Still is obnoxious.

  • Red Rocks White Privilege||

    But a lot of it is that it has become totally beholden to and controlled by middle and upper-class single women whose sole consistent life companions are a cat and a bottle of wine.

    Provided the necessary clauses. I'd be grateful that these miserable, wrinkled, unloved whores aren't actually reproducing if they weren't in so many positions of political and social influence. They're a walking advertisement for why the 19th Amendment should be repealed.

  • DarrenM||

    You can do more with a bottle of wine than just drink it.

  • Red Rocks White Privilege||

    If this is the lead-in to a SugarFree tribute post, I'd rather leave it alone.

  • FlameCCT||

    Damn it, you're gonna get in trouble for that one. Especially since you forgot to include ice cream.

  • Tony||

    Birth control is cheaper than feeding and clothing an unwanted child. Of course you don't think society should care about either.

  • John||

    A bullet is cheaper too and it at least has the virtue of being honest about the intentions of its user.

    It says so much about the level of your depravity that it never dawns on you what a disgusting and immoral term "unwanted child" is. Unwanted by whom? And since when does being "wanted" determine someone's value?

    You really are hideous Tony. If you ever realized how morally depraved you are and stopped rationalizing, I am not sure how you could face it.

  • Tony||

    How do you propose to force women to raise unwanted children properly after you've forced them to give birth?

    How about just dropping the fucking Jesus bullshit and letting women have access to reproductive control like if we were a civilized society?

  • damikesc||

    How about just dropping the fucking Jesus bullshit and letting women have access to reproductive control like if we were a civilized society?

    They could always not fuck any dude who looks at them...

    Just sayin'. Even without BC, they have near total control over reproduction.

  • Dillinger||

    >>>They could always not fuck any dude who looks at them..

    shhhhh.

  • Hamster of Doom||

    No kidding. Is this a thing he genuinely wants to happen?

  • Tony||

    Thank you for confirming that useless jackass nonsense conservative "values" are about policing the crotches of women. Like I needed to be told.

  • damikesc||

    YOU are acting like they DON'T have ready access to it.

    They do.

    And if they want me to pay for it? Well, tough shit. Fuck you slaver.

  • Tony||

    Would you like me to list all the things you demand I pay for on your behalf for the millionth time?

    "Those are legitimate functions of government, muh!"

  • prolefeed||

    Would you like me to list all the things you demand I pay for on your behalf for the millionth time?

    Here's the complete and unabridged list for me, of things I want to force other people to pay for at gunpoint:

  • damikesc||

    BC, to be truly technical, BLOCKS proper function of the body.

    The body is DESIGNED to reproduce.

    If you want to alter your body's function? Go ahead. I won't participate.

    ...you know, most women have, you know, guys they fuck who will help with the cost if needed. But women needing help to collect $9 a month seems a bit sad and misogynistic.

  • I am the 0.000000013%||

    Would you like me to list all the things you demand I pay for on your behalf for the millionth time?

    I would like to see this list - apparently I missed the first million showings. Thanks in advance!

  • TrickyVic (old school)||

    ""Would you like me to list all the things you demand I pay for on your behalf for the millionth time?"'

    Funny how condoms isn't one.

  • Poppyseed||

    "Thank you for confirming that useless jackass nonsense conservative "values" are about policing the crotches of women"

    By insisting women take responsibility for their "crotches"?

    Lol you don't even realize how retarded you sound.

  • retiredfire||

    The conservative value is for women to control their own crotches and not act like rutting animals.
    And, when they don't, to not be allowed to punish the result of their lack of control, by killing it.

  • Zeb||

    Or they could use the birth control that is readily available and that very few people want to restrict or ban. Just don't expect other people to pay for it involuntarily.

    You'd think from some of these discussions that there was actually a significant political movement to restrict birth control in this country.

  • Cathy L||

    The doctors' lobby is a significant political movement.

  • BYODB||


    You'd think from some of these discussions that there was actually a significant political movement to restrict birth control in this country.


    That's really the big thing for me that's head scratching. They've invented a boogeyman out of whole-cloth, and now fight with their imaginary construction in full view of the public and no one asks why there's no one actually there for them to fight with.

  • retiredfire||

    But the left wants to create the idea that there is "a significant political movement to restrict birth control in this country".
    So that when they conflate birth control with killing of a developing human, it sounds unreasonable to be against the latter.
    The father if lies would be so proud of his party.

  • Ellis Wyatt||

    The right has been brainwashed into denying the moral concept of unalienable rights. Ubner mind-control, they see nothing wrong with authoritarian leaders. Because they have no values.

    Unalienable rights are each absolute. They include Life, a package called Liberty, another package called Pursuit of Happiness, plus many that are never listed in the Ninth Amendment.

    And if all those rights are absolute, then NONE can be superior to ANY other, when ANY two of are conflicting. All from the dictionary definition of unalienable, which they learned in high school, but that too was brainwashed away.

    Many call themselves "Constitutional Conservatives" ,, as they squat over the Constitution, pissing and shitting all over it.

    THAT is why God invented libertarians. Not just to defend Americans, but to also defend Himself. Those rights they shit on. They were created by Him. (Or a Creator. Either way)

    Some claim to be defending God, by defying WILL of God.
    It was THEIR God who endowed ONLY humans with the capacity for joy from sex, even when conception is impossible. (Human females do NOT need to be in heat!)

    It was THEIR God who endowed humans with His rights, at conception, and HIS will that a woman RETAINS full rights ...if pregnant! Yes, pregnancy does not suspend God-given rights, or GOD would have told uis. Not some shameless blasphemers ,...

  • Zeb||

    They could always not fuck any dude who looks at them...

    And people could stop hurting each other and stealing from each other and having wars and murdering each other. People could do a lot of things.
    Birth control isn't just for sluts. Many, if not most, monogamous people use birth control.

  • Poppyseed||

    That has literally nothing to do with this discussion.

  • Ellis Wyatt||

    That has literally nothing to do with this discussion.Limbaugh said it does, has been quoted here, and his cult (like Trump's) are eagerly manipulated.

  • Poppyseed||

    "Birth control isn't just for sluts"

    No one said it was.

    And, self control isn't just for good girls.

    Stop swallowing stupid fucking propaganda and leaping to the defense of imagined slights against promiscuity, because this time your overly sensitive detector malfunctioned.

  • Ellis Wyatt||

    You said it has nothing to do with sluts ... only promiscuity. That "stupid fucking propaganda" came form Limbaugh ... who is so FUCKING stupid he thinks women take the pill only if having sex!!! ... apparently, because it's contraception, like a condom ... which may explain his MANY failed marriages!

    And, self control isn't just for good girls.

    Which has ABSOLUTELY no relevance to human rights and individual liberty.

    your overly sensitive detector malfunctioned.

    IRONY!

  • BYODB||


    Birth control isn't just for sluts. Many, if not most, monogamous people use birth control.


    Correct, but it bears repeating that not fucking is perfect birth control that will never fail and it costs the individual nothing to use.

    Fucking without having children isn't actually a 'right' that I'm able to locate, nor is abortion in general. For example, why isn't it legal to put the fetus in a blender five minutes before it's born? After all, it's still in her body.

    I think the most amazing thing is that 'feminists' don't appear to have any qualms about a large number of women being drugged for roughly a third of their lifetime and that being considered the norm.

  • Ellis Wyatt||

    Fucking without having children isn't actually a 'right' that I'm able to locate,

    "having children:" has nothing to do with it.. What you are unable to locate is ANY understanding of rights,. or of sex. Having sex for the sheer joy of it, even when pregnancy is impossible, is by the Will of Almighty God, How dare you defy His Will?

    (a right) nor is abortion in general.

    You can't find any right to Liberty, or that it is unalienable, Umm, if the fetus had full rights at conception, so did the woman. I can't find ANYTHING that says a woman loses ANY rights for "sin" of becoming pregnant ... a sin YOU say she MUST commit.

    Now the ABSOLUTE most BAT-SHIT crazy blinder of the ... year? Decade?

    For example, why isn't it legal to put the fetus in a blender five minutes before it's born?

    (laughing hysterically)

    After all, it's still in her body.

    Which is WHY it can't be in a blender!!.

    You people are HYSTERICAL!
    Tell us WHY you think a HUMAN female MUST be in heat?
    Sex is only for procreation ... AMONG THE LOWER ANIMALS. So, when YOU get horny, do you go sniff your wife? What does she say?

  • Tony||

    Many, if not most, monogamous people use birth control.

    Which brings us to the obvious fact that these laws are motivated primarily by religious belief and are thus unconstitutional.

  • BYODB||


    Which brings us to the obvious fact that these laws are motivated primarily by religious belief and are thus unconstitutional.

    "Thou Shalt Not Kill"

    *throws his hands up in the air* I guess murder is legal now!

  • Ellis Wyatt||

    BYOB is almost as crazy here .. as he was just above!

    Is it too late for him to grasp the crazy notion of "unalienable rights"

  • retiredfire||

    Tony, once again proving what a complete moron he is.

  • Ellis Wyatt||

    Tony, once again proving what a complete moron he is.

    Tell us how.
    So I can publicly humiliate you

    IF you're capable of anything beyond infantile insults. Hit and Run.

  • DesigNate||

    And the overwhelming majority of those people pay for it themselves.

  • Ellis Wyatt||

    WRONG

    Do you also agree with superdumbfcuk Limbaugh that a woman takes the pill only on days of actual sex ... because it's contraception?. Like a condom?

  • damikesc||

    How about just dropping the fucking Jesus bullshit and letting women have access to reproductive control like if we were a civilized society?

    They could always not fuck any dude who looks at them...

    Just sayin'. Even without BC, they have near total control over reproduction.

  • Ellis Wyatt||

    How about just dropping the fucking Jesus bullshit and letting women have access to reproductive control like if we were a civilized society?

    They could always not fuck any dude who looks at them...

    Try again. You FAIL at "dropping the fucking Jesus bullshit."

    Even without BC, they have near total control over reproduction.

    Only to total fucking morons who think sex is only for procreation ... in BLATANT defiance of the Will of Almighty God.

    Does your dog (or an nearby dog) have to be in heat to have sex?
    Did your mother have to be in heat to have the sex that created you?
    Was your mom able t experience joy from sex, even when procreation is impossible?
    Was it God's Will that SHE be capable of sex for joy alone, ... but not your dog?

  • bvandyke||

    How about people actually make a choice and choose not to get pregnant. Not really that hard at all and most birth control is free.

    But wait... that requires people to actually think about their actions - completely opposite of progressive politics.

    Can't do anything to prevent "mistakes" just have to kill them after.

  • Ellis Wyatt||

    bvandyke,

    Does your dog (or an nearby dog) have to be in heat to have sex?
    Did your mother have to be in heat for the sex that created you?
    Was your mom able t experience joy from sex, even when procreation is impossible?
    Was it God's Will that SHE be capable of sex for joy alone, ... but not your dog?

    Do you defy the Will of Almighty God ... for a political agenda?

    Have you ever heard the words "unalienable rights?"
    If so, why do you defy our Constitution AND the Will of Almighty God?

  • John||

    What I said has nothing to do with Jesus, you evil half wit. My God do you really think that having respect for life and not thinking assholes lie you should get to decide who lives and who dies requires Jesus?

    God you are evil.

  • Tony||

    Tell me again why we needed to kill hundreds of thousands of Arabs in search of invisible WMDs, Mr. Respect for Life.

  • bvandyke||

    WTF? - Loon

  • Ellis Wyatt||

    Hysterical!

    WTF? - Loon

    When even TONY kicks your sorry ass to the curb ....

  • Poppyseed||

    Tell me again how you're running from the stupid implications of your own position by lamely trying to change the subject.

  • Jimothy||

    So we've either got to kill hundreds of thousands of Arabs OR hundreds of thousands of fetuses? I wonder if there's any other choice.

    And I'm not talking about killing Arabs AND fetuses, though that seems to be the popular choice.

  • Jack Klompus Magic Ink||

    How do stark raving retards like you remember to breathe without a little golden instruction book? You really are an utter worthless, idiotic, piece of steaming human garbage.

  • Ellis Wyatt||

    What I said has nothing to do with Jesus, you evil half wit.

    Tony kicked your ass on that. I'll be more direct.

    Other than (Jesus) religion, where else would you get such crazy bullshit?
    Certainly not from our founders. (secular)

    My God do you really think that having respect for life and not thinking assholes lie you should get to decide who lives and who dies requires Jesus?

    WHAT ELSE? ... in defiance of America;'s core principle of defending rights that are unalienable

    God you are evil.

    WHAT ELSE, without rejecting Separation.

    P,.S. If some loon convinced you that sex is only for procreation ... then you also DEFY the Will of Almighty God ... and are kinda DUMB about sex.

  • prolefeed||

    How about just dropping the fucking Jesus bullshit and letting women have access to reproductive control like if we were a civilized society?

    So, you're saying that unless you rob someone and then give part of the proceeds to someone else to buy something they could already walk into stores and buy, you're cutting off their access to that thing they are already allowed to buy?

  • Tony||

    Would you like me to list all the things you demand I pay for on your behalf for the millionth time?

    "Those are legitimate functions of government, dickhead!"

    Stop changing the subject.

  • prolefeed||

    Yes, actually. Please do list all the things that I, prolefeed, demand that other people be compelled to pay for at gunpoint or the threat thereof.

    Here's a hint - the complete and unabridged list is as follows:

    .

  • Juice||

    Fuck you. I'm not paying for your period.

  • DesigNate||

    well played sir.

  • Tony||

    Nobody has time to indulge the insane fantasy rantings of anarchists, but at least you're consistent.

  • Poppyseed||

    "Stop changing the subject."

    "Tony|9.11.18 @ 3:24PM|#

    Tell me again why we needed to kill hundreds of thousands of Arabs in search of invisible WMDs,"

    Tony, not just an idiot and a liar, but a hypocrite besides.

  • Tony||

    The subject was life in that case. John and his conservatard brethren couldn't give one forced shit about life. They care about forcing women not to be sluts.

  • damikesc||

    Im not seeing praise for Iraq war. Can u cite anybody here praising it?

  • ||

    Im not seeing praise for Iraq war. Can u cite anybody here praising it?

    Tony assumes that if you disagree with any official Democrat position, you must agree with everything he thinks Republicans think.

    It's one of the many ways he demonstrates to us that he's far above the binary thinking we are all infected with.

  • Ellis Wyatt||

    So, you're saying that unless you rob someone

    That's NOT what you quoted. duh.

  • D-Pizzle||

    Two things:

    1) As stated elsewhere, adoption is always an option.

    2) Is "access to reproductive control" your euphemism for abortion?

  • Ellis Wyatt||

    1) Do you understand the concept of equal, unalienable and/or God-Given Rights?

    2) Do you buy the crazy-ass bullshit that sex must be solely for procreation, which is against the Will of Almighty God? If so, on what authority?

    2a) Did you pass or flunk Biology?

  • DarrenM||

    It is rather difficult when you simultaneously enact policies that discourage adoption, but I suppose that's the point.

  • Violent Sociopath||

    How about just dropping the fucking Jesus bullshit and letting women have access to reproductive control like if we were a civilized society?

    Good news! They already have access to reproductive control. They're absolutely 100% free to buy IUDs, shots, pills, condoms, and so forth. On top of that they have the ultimate say over who they fuck and when.

    So what's your problem?

  • Jack Klompus Magic Ink||

    If only your mother had followed this advice the world would be spared its biggest retard.

  • damikesc||

    Was Tony wanted?

    I'm having doubts.

  • Tony||

    Nope. Then they had the gall to expect my success in life to translate into a meal ticket for them in old age. They didn't count on me having no sense of loyalty.

  • Shirley Knott||

    And yet they'd met you.

  • loveconstitution1789||

    Tony is for birth control because his momma could not afford to abort him.

    Tony knows that he is the scourge and does not want to burden others with people like him.

  • Ellis Wyatt||

    Does your dog (or an nearby dog) have to be in heat to have sex?
    Did your mother have to be in heat to have the sex that created you?
    Was your mom able t experience joy from sex, even when procreation is impossible?
    Was it God's Will that SHE be capable of sex for joy alone, ... but not your dog?

    On what basis do you reject the core principle of Equal and Unalienable Rights, as endowed by a Creator (however you define Creator, doesn't matter), i.e. innate to humans.

    Does this comment trace to your being in the Authoritarian Right?

  • ||

    Unwanted by whom?

    Anyone. Just because you think it's disgusting, doesn't mean it doesn't happen.

  • John||

    No one in Germany wanted the Jews. I guess the Holocaust is just one of those things then. Just because it happens doesn't make it okay or Tony any less depraved for thinking anyone who is by his definition "unwanted" deserves to never have been born.

  • ||

    No one in Germany wanted the Jews.

    Other, of course, than the Jews. Little Jewish babies had Jewish parents to take care of them.

    Some babies are born to parents who don't want them. And no one else wants them either. I don't see how that's analogous to Nazis - is there some group of people you can force to stop the mothers from not wanting the babies? Can you force someone to want the babies?

  • John||

    What is analogous is the idea that someone's right to life and value of as a person is in anyway variable or dependent on other people's opinion and being "wanted".

  • ||

    What is analogous is the idea that someone's right to life and value of as a person is in anyway variable or dependent on other people's opinion and being "wanted".

    But when you're talking about an infant, it is. Fundamentally.

    You're analogizing no one wanting to take care of a baby (who will 100% certainly die without constant care) with actively killing self-sufficient adults. Not the same form of "not wanting."

  • Cyronic||

    A one year-old will also 100% certainly die without constant care, as they are completely incapable of providing for themselves or avoiding danger. Yet, if a parents - who is biologically, fundamentally, morally responsible for their offspring's well-being - no longer wants the toddler and refuses to care for it and it dies, I still call that murder.

  • ||

    Yet, if a parents - who is biologically, fundamentally, morally responsible for their offspring's well-being - no longer wants the toddler and refuses to care for it and it dies, I still call that murder.

    Call it what you want - what I was responding to was John's confusion at the term "unwanted babies," as if some sort of social "want" of "babies-in-the-abstract" = "care for those babies."

    It happens that there are in fact sometimes children in the world that literally no one wants or is willing to care for. Is that tragic for those children? Yes. Does wishing that weren't the case make it not the case? No.

    Further, I would posit a difference between "oh shit, I'm pregnant and don't want to be" and "meh, I've decided I no longer feel like caring for this person whose life I've actively maintained for the past year."

  • D-Pizzle||

    "Can you force someone to want the babies?"

    Fortunately, there are waiting lists for people who want to adopt newborns, to such an extent that some are willing to go through the considerable time and expense to adopt from abroad.

  • ||

    Fortunately, there are waiting lists for people who want to adopt newborns, to such an extent that some are willing to go through the considerable time and expense to adopt from abroad.

    Which is why there is no such thing as orphanages or foster homes.

  • Poppyseed||

    So, you think that means they're unwanted?

  • ||

    So, you think that means they're unwanted?

    The kids who are shuffled off to be raised in closets by paid zookeepers?

    Yeah.

  • Hamster of Doom||

    S=C, that would be logical, in a sense, and yet there's an awful lot of industries mostly focusing on job security. 'Specially in the "helping" industry.

    I suspect that if the paid zookeepers 1. rate of pay is guaranteed regardless of bad results 2. would be financially limited by little local need for zookeeping and 3. are the same people that determine which animals need the zookeeper's services, then some questions may be in order about the necessity of the services being marketed.

  • ||

    Honestly not sure what you're getting at, HoD.

  • Hamster of Doom||

    Sorry. I realised i'd wandered into a freaking abortion thread and, while aiming for Not Pissing Literally Everyone Off, managed to land on Obscure WTF.

    People see what they want to. Especially when they're paid to. Logically it follows some kids in the zoo are wanted; except the zookeepers want kids in the zoo.

  • DesigNate||

    Except those are, almost exclusively, not babies. And have usually been taken away by the state.

  • ||

    Except those are, almost exclusively, not babies. And have usually been taken away by the state.

    Often taken away by the state because of the parents' inability/unwillingness to care of them.

  • DarrenM||

    If a single individual can be terminated because it's unwanted by any other individual, why can't a single group be terminated because it's unwanted by any other group?

  • ||

    "Not actively caring for" =/= "rounding up and slaughtering in prison camps."

    Again, what I'm responding to is John's mystification at the notion of "unwanted children" and equating wondering-whether-it's-a-preferable- thing-to-condemn-someone-to-a-life- of-suffering-and-misery with Nazis-rounding-up-the-Jews.

  • BYODB||

    It's one of the oldest debates in the books between nurture vs. nature, but in terms of that debate abortion removes the possibility for that individual to figure that out for themselves. Circumstance does not dictate outcome, in my view, even while it certainly changes the odd's of good outcomes.

    Of course, my own moral sensibilities aren't the question. The question is can natural rights be at odd's within a woman's own body while pregnant? Yes. Yes they can. Hence, while abortion is morally repugnant in most cases it's a necessarily evil if one wants to live in a society that respects natural rights. It also by definition means there will be limits placed upon it, which specifically is the part where a lot of leftists start to get confused.

    Of course, that said, it's sad that abortion is one of the few conflicts of natural rights that leftists are able to recognize. I guess even a stopped clock is right twice a day.

  • ||

    Unwanted by those who have the primary responsibility for raising the child. Sure, there is always someone willing to raise a child - in theory. In practice, too many of these children don´t get to end up with someone who wants to raise them with love, or with someone who wants them for the right reasons - whether it is due to criminal stupidity of the birth parents that would rather abuse the child than give him or her for adoption, or due to failures of the system that just places the kid with the wrong people. Yes, I do believe there is suffering worse than being aborted, and it is certain that by banning abortion, this kind of suffering will be increased.

  • John||

    es, I do believe there is suffering worse than being aborted,

    That is great but what gives you the right to decide that for other people? I think death probably preferable to being stupid. Does that give me the right to shoot Tony for his own good? As tempting as that is, no it doesn't.

  • ||

    That is great but what gives you the right to decide that for other people?

    Being the literal parents-with-primary-responsibility for said people.

  • ||

    Parents decide a lot of things for their children all the time, what gives them the right? Their level of maturity, which is greater than their children´s. Sure, the parents don´t have the right to decide to kill their child. The child is its own, independent person, even if immature. But if not only the child isn´t capable without the parent´s, and no one else but the parent´s s body, but they also don´t feel any pain or have any sense of what life or death is, then yes, I believe they do have the right to choose what they consider lesser evil.

    I am no fan of abortion, though, and I find it particularly abhorrent in situations when there is a known person - like a father or a grandparent - that is willing and capable to raise the child, yet the mother just can´t be bothered to carry to term, or when she just decides to keep it secret so that no one who has a legitimate interest even gets to try to beg some compassion into her.

  • Dillinger||

    >>>Yes, I do believe there is suffering worse than being aborted

    how do you poll that?

  • ||

    I don´t. That is my subjective perception. I have not been aborted, nor have I been abused, neither physically nor emotionally nor sexually. But I know that had I been aborted, I wouldn´t have been aware of it. Had I been abused, I would have been very much aware.

  • D-Pizzle||

    If you were to successfully kill yourself, you would be completely unaware that you were dead. See how that works?

  • ||

    Wouldn't the right to suicide follow pretty fundamentally from the concept of self-ownership?

  • ||

    And isn't suicide pretty much always a confirmation of the premise that "sometimes death is preferable to life?"

  • Dillinger||

    your right to kill you is totally okay with me ... especially if you die trying to cut out a kidney to sell

    >>>pretty much always a confirmation of the premise

    *super* dependent on the state of mind of the suicidal ... can that be trusted?

  • ||

    *super* dependent on the state of mind of the suicidal ... can that be trusted?

    Maybe not always, but probably not never.

  • Dillinger||

    exactly. and the jerks can never be reached for comment.

  • Cyronic||

    Ah, yes, the classic "quality of life is more important than the inherent value of life itself" argument.

  • ||

    To me, it is, especially at THIS specific stage of life. Had I been aborted, I wouldn´t have known. Had I been abused, I would have been very much aware of all the pain and suffering.

  • ||

    Had I been aborted and someone else would have emotionally suffered because of it, say my dad or grandma, that´s, according to my personal morality, a completely different story.

  • ||

    quality of life is more important than the inherent value of life itself

    Isn't it? You know, the inability to conceive of a fate worse than death is a common symptom of narcissistic personality disorder. . .

  • lap83||

    It's not up to someone else to decide whether my quality of life is good enough for me to live

  • ||

    It's not up to someone else to decide whether my quality of life is good enough for me to live

    What about euthanizing someone who is incapacitated and suffering? My mother has literally on several occasions told my brother and I to put a bullet through her head if she is ever incapacitated by Alzheimer's.

    But, as always, at root of this discussion is the extent to which a fetus counts as "someone." This sort of comes back to my response to Cyronic, above - I agree that at some point you've taken responsibility for another life. I'm just not convinced that "the moment you become pregnant" is that point.

    I'm also not convinced that forcing Julie-crack-addict to give birth can just be assumed to be the "best thing for the baby."

    BUT, the response to "who is best positioned to make that decision" is never anyone but Julie-crack-addict herself.

  • lap83||

    Like most progressives he also has an offensively low opinion of the women he claims to speak for. Plenty of women have surprise and/or inconvenient pregnancies and quickly change their mind on whether they want a baby. It's not a normal thing to view a person that came from you as a parasite.

  • Brett Bellmore||

    It isn't cheaper once you factor in the contributions to the economy they would have made for 40-50 years if you hadn't killed them. And having to import replacements from neighboring third world countries.

  • Mickey Rat||

    Tony again implies that the solution to poverty is to kill the poor.

  • Just Say'n||

    Ah yes, the old "but, what about the costs associated with a living human being?" The only time progressives care about spending is when it justifies their eugenic beliefs

  • Ron||

    there are no cost with unwanted immigrants, illegals, while there is a cost to unwanted children? how does that equate

  • Tony||

    Illegal immigrants come ready to work.

  • DarrenM||

    So a person's values is dependent on how much and how soon they are able to contribute economically to society.

  • Tony||

    I think a person has inherent value as a person, which is why we should abort them before they become people and we are obligated to take care of them.

  • Get To Da Chippah||

    Tony, your party has historically been the one happy to label certain groups of humans as 'not people' for political ends.

  • DesigNate||

    Yet you bitch about how the free market* would have children working in factories and sweat shops.

    *We have no way of knowing what would happen in 2018 if there was a truly free market economy in America.

  • lap83||

    But you want them to have plenty of social safety nets, just in case they don't

  • Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland||

    Let's hear the libertarian position against contraception, you bigoted, authoritarian rube.

  • Jack Klompus Magic Ink||

    Buy a gun and shoot yourself in the face.

  • retiredfire||

    Contraception is the prevention of pregnancy.
    Abortion is the killing of the result of pregnancy.
    The two are not the same.
    It is an absolute violation of the NAP, to kill.

  • Ellis Wyatt||

    It is an absolute violation of the NAP, to kill.

    It is an absolute violation of THINKING to claim that applies to abortion.

    And that's why the Libertarian Party, and most libertarians reject NAP as a standalone .
    MASSIVE abuse of individual rights require no force at all.. Educate yourself on liberty.

    For libertarians, and for nearly a half-century"
    Republicans want government out of your wallet and into your bedroom.
    Democrats want government out of your bedroom and into your wallet.
    ONLY libertarians DEFY government intrusion into BOTH economic and personal issues
    A growing majority of Americans agree, and now SELF-define as fiscally conservative and socially liberal.
    Left and right are now less than 40% of Americans combined and shrinking

    NAP defends unequal rights ... which is why its core supporters have a history of overt racism and other bigotry.

    "Women should have the right to vote."
    There is only one right, that force may not be initiated against her. which does not apply here.
    "Blacks and whites should be allowed to marry"
    Ditto
    "Stop denying Marriage Equality"
    You don't get it do you?. We can keep you from doing ANYTHING where we don't initiate force.
    "The 14th Amendment forbids that, if in violation of equal rights and/or due process
    There is only one right, that force may not be initiated against anyone

    FUCK NAP (as standalone)

  • retiredfire||

    Contraception is the prevention of a pregnancy.
    Abortion is the killing of the "fruit" of a pregnancy, but only before birth.
    The two are not the same.
    Killing is an absolute violation of the NAP.

  • Ellis Wyatt||

    Is there anything more indicative of the intellectual bankruptcy of .... (conservatism and it's contempt for American values of individual liberty and unalienable rights)?

    They gather in online forums, spew their authoritarian hatred, combined with personal insults -- and high-five each other when "a good one."

    They travel in a pack. Like wild dogs.

    Left - Right = Zero

  • Ellis Wyatt||

    Is there anything more indicative of the intellectual bankruptcy of Progressivism than its total obsession with abortion and birth control?

    WE AGREE. Progressives are just as crazy as conservatives .. as you display your own obsession (like so many millions of others.)

  • Crusty Juggler||

    She looks good there.

  • Dillinger||

    this time I wouldn't.

  • loveconstitution1789||

    Harris, who is widely considered a 2020 Democratic presidential contender

    Trump will definitely be a two-term president.

  • ||

    Trump will definitely be a two-term president.

    More and more I think this is true. It reminds me of 2003 when polls showed that "any faceless Democrat" would beat Bush handily in 2004.

    Trouble being, they can't run "faceless Democrats" - they can only run actual Democrats.

  • John||

    I think of it this way; if you are someone who voted for Trump in 2016 what has happened since he took office that would cause you to change your mind? Nothing as far as I can tell. Meanwhile, I think a significant number of people didn't vote or voted for Hillary because they Trump was such an unproven commodity. A lot of those people after four years of Trump being President and assuming he doesn't get us into a big war or the economy doesn't crash, will likely vote for him in 2020 where they didn't in 2016.

    Meanwhile, the Democrats either have to win over voters who voted for Trump or get new voters who didn't show up to show up in 2020. Absent a recession or some really big war or something, I don't see how they do that.

  • I am the 0.000000013%||

    Very good points.

    I think polling is going to be skewed by TDS.

    I think I will probably vote for Trump, but I don't think I will tell anyone for fear they'll trash my car or something....

  • loveconstitution1789||

    I voted for GayJay in 2016.

    Trump turns out to be far better than Gary Johnson would have been as president. Mainly for rolling back stuff. GayJay might have vetoes the 2017 and 2018 budgets which would have been awesome.

    Anywho, barring some super duper Libertarian presidential candidate, I will vote for trump in 2020. It wont really matter because Georgia will got to Trump...again whether I vote for him or not.

    I just want to come back and rub it in Gillespie, Welch, KMW, Boehm, and Shackford's face that Trump won reelection and I voted for him.

  • Ron||

    Don't worry John the democrats will do something like destroy the housing market like they did in 2007 or outlaw all plastic which would affect everything made today. they will find something. they may even be successful at impeachment and find a way to keep the U.S. without a president for a year or two.

  • BYODB||


    Absent a recession or some really big war or something, I don't see how they do that.

    Fear-monger and race-bait harder than they've done in ages along with a very complicit media. It's odd that during the Obama years there wasn't much serious talk of impeachment, but Congress and Democrats have been openly talking about impeachment since Trump was sworn in.

    At least some of us gave Obama a chance before he proved to be the opposite of almost everything he ever promised.

  • Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland||

    The people discussing the Twenty-Fifth Amendment have been right-wingers in close proximity to Trump, you half-educated goober.

  • retiredfire||

    LOL
    You'll swallow anything the NY Slimes sends your way, won't you?

  • Ellis Wyatt||

    Read the Constitution. Stop making a public fool of yourself.
    It will be VERY difficult (the second one), but stick with it. Miracles CAN happen.

  • Juice||

    It reminds me of 2003 when polls showed that "any faceless Democrat" would beat Bush handily in 2004.

    A faceless Democrat would have beat the shit out of him, but a Democrat with a face full of skull and bones ended up with the nomination to make sure that didn't happen.

  • retiredfire||

    It reminds me of 2003 when polls showed that "any faceless Democrat" would beat Bush handily in 2004.
    2004 was the only time, in the last seven presidential elections that the Republican won the popular vote.

    Don't pay attention to "the polls".

  • TrickyVic (old school)||

    ""It reminds me of 2003 when polls showed that "any faceless Democrat" would beat Bush handily in 2004."'

    My joke was Ronald McDonald could beat him. But Ronald wasn't running.

  • ||

    Mine was that the Dems took it as a challenge - "Think we can't lose, huh? Have you seen this guy?"

  • BYODB||

    What I'd like to see is a debate between Romney and Kerry. The boredom would be a great sleeping aid.

  • ||

    I almost passed out just thinking about it.

  • Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland||

    Trump will definitely be a two-term president.


    If you genuinely believed that, you could make a substantial profit on that proposition by wagering . . . had you the courage or the funds.
  • VinniUSMC||

    It seems a relatively safe bet, as long as progressives like you exist to constantly remind people just how awful the "better" people are. Thanks. Cling on.

  • Ellis Wyatt||

    To VinniUSMC:

    U.S. expects to hit $1 trillion deficit earlier than planned

    The U.S. deficit grew by $222 billion from this time last year — reaching a total of $895 billion, according to the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office.

    Why it matters: This increase was due mostly to the new Republican tax law and Congress' routine decision to increase spending, which grew by 7% compared to revenue growth of only 1%. The CBO now says the deficit will approach $1 trillion by the end of this fiscal year, but in April the agency didn't expect the deficit to reach $1 trillion until 2020.

    Don't forget, Trump campaigned on paying off the entire debt in 8 years! From his tariffs!
    Breitbart Do the math.

    Tariff revenues of (19/8=) $2.4T per year ... vs Revenues of $3.3T per year!

    Tariffs are paid by consumers. So Trump PROMISED to increase consumer prices by the equivalent of a 73% tax increase! ... which says all you need to know about the "mental capacity" of Trumptards. (smirk)

    Do the math: $895 deficit, 10 months FY = $89.5 billion per month
    2 months at $89.5 = 179B + 895B = $1.074T.

  • Crusty Juggler||

    In any event, it looks like we're gearing up for a full rehash of the "War on Women" rhetoric we saw in the late Obama years. And so far, it's promising to be every bit as dumb.

    *sigh*

    It seems like the patriarchy is strong with this one.

    Women's rights aren't dumb, ENB - you can't put us back in the kitchen!

  • Eddy||

    Just step in there long enough to make me a...no, just kidding, just kidding!

  • Crusty Juggler||

    LOL! Never forget!

  • sharmota4zeb||

    You can raise someone to stir the pot. You can raise someone to take out the trash. If you raise someone to do both, he'll end up having to take out the trash because he kept stirring the pot.

  • Crusty Juggler||

    Psh I was raised to fuck the trash and smoke all the pots, ya heard?

  • ||

    If you raise someone to do both, he'll end up having to take out the trash because he kept stirring the pot.

    Keynesianism!

  • Brian||

    God it's so boring: "Make no mistake: they hate women! All the women! Even though we have all the pussy! They want to kill us all! What will you do for babies then?"

    It's just sad that even resonates with anyone.

  • Tony||

    It's not hatred, it's a desire to control.

  • damikesc||

    But enough about Senator Willie Brown's Side Pussy...

  • Brian||

    Oh, don't start lecturing me with your a priori assumptions about what freedom is...

  • Tony||

    If you only have dudes talking about what freedom is, it likely will fall short in some ways.

  • Brian||

    Thanks, Captain Obvious. That's everything we need to know, really.

  • damikesc||

    Tony, how many women legalized abortion?

    Feel free, name the female justice who did that.

    How about legalized sales of birth control under a right to privacy?

    The number of female justices?

  • Tony||

    It's like you don't realize you're making a feminist point.

  • damikesc||

    You said men talking about freedom has things fall thru the cracks.

    Men, exclusively, legalized abortion and birth control pills.

    Tell me more.

  • Brian||

    There can only be one answer: we need sex-based quotas in election outcomes, just in case people don't vote right.

  • Tony||

    ...Because there weren't very many women in power to do so.

    And men are gonna be the ones taking it away anyway.

  • Brian||

    It's like government is invalid if you don't identify specifically with the actual representatives.

    Who knew it was all so fragile?

  • Shirley Knott||

    Intersectionality "theorists"

  • Tony||

    Nobody said invalid. It's flawed by a lack of perspectives.

  • Brian||

    Women have had the right to vote for about a century now.

    Is there some other requirement for representative democracy that I'm unaware of?

  • Tony||

    You're in the parking lot of modern progressivism. Come on in, we'll introduce you to the concept of institutional disadvantage.

    Or I suppose women have simply freely chosen not to be in positions of power all this time.

  • Brian||

    I guess 100 years of democracy isn't very effective.

  • Tony||

    Necessary but not sufficient.

  • Brian||

    Obviously, if even a century of voting means women's perspectives just aren't heard using the bestest best mechanism for empowering the people and making their voices heard with one person one vote blah blah blah weee weee weee!

  • Brian||

    Anyway, since when is hearing things you don't like not hate speech? Someone write a memo.

  • Mickey Rat||

    And for progressive men: it is not love, it is a desire for sex without commitment

  • Tony||

    Conservative men don't like casual sex? Probably for the best.

  • Jack Klompus Magic Ink||

    When it comes to you, it's definitely hatred. 100% pure hatred, you useless steaming pile of stupid.

  • sharmota4zeb||

    The Democratic's target market is women who expect a boyfriend or husband to force them to stay pregnant, because battered wives agree with high taxes and are willing to volunteer many hours on the campaign trail. Oh, they also like men who force their wives to get abortions in the name of the household budget/ carrying capacity of mother earth.

  • damikesc||

    The Democrat's target market are "well educated" imbeciles who like to feel superior to those deplorables who disagree with them but are less willing to fall for mind-bogglingly stupid BS as they are.

  • Hamster of Doom||

    Seems to be a popular target market these days.

  • Ellis Wyatt||

    Is ANYTHING scarier than a long and complex thread .. of chimpanzees debating nuclear physics?
    Or conservatards discussing politics. (same thing)

  • Tony||

    Brett Kavanaugh is a coach. That is all ye know on earth and all ye need to know. Coachy coach coach. Season tickets!

  • Jack Klompus Magic Ink||

    Even when you make lame attempts at being witty all you do is put on a show of what an useless, inane retard you are.

  • Ellis Wyatt||

    Even when you make lame attempts at being an adult, all you do is spew infantile name-calling and hate-spewing bigotry.

    So how long have you been a conservative Republican? And how large is your Klavern?

    Left - Right = Zero

  • KDN||

    This is a pattern with Harris—when called out on bad behavior, she doubles down.

    Why not? It got Trump elected President. Her bio and that trait makes her the leading contender in 2020. If she manages to get herself a wife she'll be a shoo-in for the nomination.

  • Unicorn Abattoir||

    Err...This is straight out of the Clinton playbook. And that's what got Trump elected.

  • KDN||

    Nah, the Clinton playbook is character assassination of antagonists paired with unceasing denial of said bad behavior.

  • Ellis Wyatt||

    That is Trump.. As President.
    And his dancing puppets.

  • Ken Shultz||

    Kamala Harris isn't trying to do anything with this but further her own bid to win the Democrat nomination for president in 2020.

    All she needs to do is be more SJW, progressive, and socialist than the rest of the field--and sticking out like a sore thumb when the cameras are rolling is just what the doctor ordered.

    Of course, making a fool of herself to win the nomination only makes her more unelectable in the general election. I guess you cross the bridge when you come to it. No sense in thinking about the red zone if you can't get past the 50 yard line.

  • KDN||

    Of course, making a fool of herself to win the nomination only makes her more unelectable in the general election.

    I think recent events have proven that assertion false. If the rust belt center is in the right mood then what is said in the past won't matter whatsoever.

  • Ken Shultz||

    Surely, you realize that the last election was unusual.

    In fact, the stupid shit Bernie and Hillary made each other say may have been what pushed so many swing voters to support Trump.

    On the other side of the ball, you're not suggesting Trump won the election in spite of not making controversial statements, are you?

  • KDN||

    Surely, you realize that the last election was unusual.

    Indeed, but I suspect the dynamics at work in the major parties and the continued involvement of one of the last election's principals will make the next one similarly unusual. And at that point it might well be the new normal.

  • Brett Bellmore||

    What really won it for him, though, was making uncontroversial statements politicians have been trained to regard as controversial. All those fake "third rails" the other candidates were avoiding that turned out to have no voltage.

  • retiredfire||

    What decided the last election was whose side lost the highest percentage of voters from past elections.
    0blama went down 1.85% from 2008 in 2012. HiLIARy went down another 2.99%.
    Trump, only went down 1.22% from Romney, in 2012, who went up by 1.55% from McLame in 2008.
    Trends matter.

  • Ellis Wyatt||

    Trumptard BRAGS that Trump's popular vote was LESS THAN A LOSER!

    Nearly 10 million voted against Trump. He won the Electoral College by 39,000 voters
    But NO WAY Russian millions could have switched 0.003% of the vote!!

    Trends matter

    IQ more, because one must understand the trends!
    And elementary math.

  • Ken Shultz||

    P.S. This is why Obama gave Hillary the Secretary of State gig. The sooner progressives can stop making fools of themselves in front of swing voters and move to the middle, the sooner the more likely they are to win.

    Sometimes you wonder why politicians say the few controversial and stupid things they do. It's usually about winning the primaries. The person who says the stupidest thing of all about abortion, choice, gun control, etc. wins the support of that constituent group in the primaries. Yay!

    Then they have to spend the rest of their lives living with having said something stupid about something like "legitimate rape". They say politics is show business for ugly people, but they should add that the show is slapstick humor. Next time there's a Democratic debate, somebody should broadcast the whole thing live with an 80s style laugh track.

  • Hamster of Doom||

    Ooh. I read a very interesting analysis on the theory that the center can no longer hold. Let me try to find it.

  • Hamster of Doom||

  • KevinP||

    The dark cloud of the War Against Women is forever hovering over Republicans but usually manages to land on Progressives and Democrats.

    New Yorker: Four Women Accuse New York's Democratic Attorney General of Physical Abuse


    Quotes:
    Eric Schneiderman, New York's attorney general, has long been a liberal Democratic champion of women's rights, and recently he has become an outspoken figure in the #MeToo movement against sexual harassment... [to] the distress of four women with whom he has had romantic relationships or encounters. They accuse Schneiderman of having subjected them to nonconsensual physical violence. Two of the women, Michelle Manning Barish and Tanya Selvaratnam, have talked to The New Yorker on the record. They allege that he repeatedly hit them, often after drinking, frequently in bed and never with their consent. Manning Barish and Selvaratnam categorize the abuse he inflicted on them as "assault." They did not report their allegations to the police at the time, but both say that they eventually sought medical attention after having been slapped hard across the ear and face, and also choked. Selvaratnam says that Schneiderman warned her he could have her followed and her phones tapped, and both say that he threatened to kill them if they broke up with him.

  • Fist of Etiquette||

    Telling a verifiable fib? She is president material!

  • Brian||

    It's still fact-based when she does it.

  • Just Say'n||

    "Freedom's just another word for....abortion. At that's about it."

    - Janis Joplin lyrics for the 21st Century

  • Dillinger||

    nuthin' left to lose except this cell clump.

  • Lester224||

    Kavanagh has crafted his wording so that it doesn't seem like he supports making birth-control illegal. Harris is misinterpreting him on purpose.

    However, it is well known that lots of religious Catholics (Kavanaugh, Alito and Roberts are devout Catholics - Sotomayor is sort of a cafeteria Catholic) tend to call many kinds of birth control "abortion-inducing drugs" even when they, scientifically, are not "abortion-inducing drugs". I'm not saying that Kavanaugh, Alito and Roberts would make this equivalence, but many of their fellow Cathoics do.

    Anti-abortion organizations routinely claim that standard hormonal birth-control pills prevent implantation in addition to preventing ovulation and therefore should be called "abortion-inducing".

    That is not the case, and even if it was the case the standard definition of pregnancy is successful implantation. If many anti-abortion organizations had their way all forms of hormonal birth control as well as IUDs would be illegal. These make up all the really effective forms of birth-control.

    Those who worry about continued legality of birth control have some basis to worry. As long as condoms are legal religious judges can claim they are not really anti birth-control, just anti some forms of birth control (which happen to be the effective forms).

  • Just Say'n||

    It's frightening that a religion does not live up to our secular morals. Absolutely frightening. It's pretty clear what needs to be done now. Impose a religious test, because we can't trust those shady Catholics, and then pretend like we totally believe in liberalism and freedom after just imposing a blatant religious test. Government is God, we should have no other god before it.

  • BYODB||

    Well, if Catholics couldn't be President there would probably be at least a few more of the Kennedy family than there are today.

  • Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland||

    However, it is well known that lots of religious Catholics (Kavanaugh, Alito and Roberts are devout Catholics - Sotomayor is sort of a cafeteria Catholic) tend to call many kinds of birth control "abortion-inducing drugs" even when they, scientifically, are not "abortion-inducing drugs".

    Superstition-based, science-disdaining quackery influencing public affairs in general and women's rights in particular -- good or bad?

    Why do right-wingers have such a difficult time with this one?

  • Red Rocks White Privilege||

    Probably for the same reasons hicklibs continue to demonstrate their idiocy.

  • retiredfire||

    It is absolutely science-based, and not in the least superstitious, that the first process in creating a new life is the combining of the sperm and the ovum.
    Whether preventing the implantation in the uterus is the same as abortion may be up to debate but superstition plays no role in that argument, while the fact that it is artificially accomplished is without doubt an unnatural event.
    I thought you watermelons were all about things being natural.

  • Cynical Asshole||

    When called out about the shortened clip, Harris pressed on with original criticism. "There's no question that he uncritically used the term 'abortion-inducing drugs,' which is a dog whistle term used by extreme anti-choice groups to describe birth control," she tweeted. This is a pattern with Harris—when called out on bad behavior, she doubles down. ...

    In any event, it looks like we're gearing up for a full rehash of the "War on Women" rhetoric we saw in the late Obama years. And so far, it's promising to be every bit as dumb.

    When dumb is all you have, doubling down is pretty much your only option.

    A smarter person would at least attempt to shift the goalposts, put up a strawman, or change the subject until you get sick of their bullshit and stop attempting to argue with them, at which point they claim victory and move on. A stupid person can only ever double down because they're not smart enough to come up with anything else. Kamala Harris is a very stupid person.

  • Truthteller1||

    This intellectually challenged bot running for president is a republican dream.

  • Sevo||

    "Harris, who is widely considered a 2020 Democratic presidential contender,"

    Pretty sure she studied politics 'under' Willie Brown, if you know what I mean, and I think you do.

  • DarrenM||

    I'm sure she worked on many positions....er....political positions.

  • D-Pizzle||

    A friend posted a HuffPo article about this on FB four days ago. I completely debunked it with specific quotes and citations, just like the above. Sadly, the post is still up.

  • DarrenM||

    "There's no question that he uncritically used the term 'abortion-inducing drugs,' which is a dog whistle term used by extreme anti-choice groups to describe birth control,"

    How is this a "dog whistle"? Abortion-inducing drugs are drugs used to induce abortion. What else would they be called? Is it possible Harris is dumber than I thought?

  • Eddy||

    I think she means it's only an abortifacient if it kicks in (so to speak) after implantation.

  • esteve7||

    That my lefty friends think Harris and Booker are clever is very disturbing. These are lunatics who make less sense than a toddler having a temper tantrum.

  • Tony||

    Harris is clever and tough and you'll figure that out in a pool of your own tears soon enough. Booker on the other hand is a grandstanding embarrassment and someone needs to find a gay hooker in his past stat.

  • DesigNate||

    I never would have pegged you as an authoritarian bootlicker Tony. Supporting someone who so clearly hates women and the first amendment so much that she made a career of going after prostitutes and backpage is so out of character for you.

    Oh wait...

  • Tony||

    I intend to lick the boots of Potted Plant (D) this next time around, as I've explained.

  • Red Rocks White Privilege||

    Harris is clever and tough

    No, she's not. She is, however, representative of the Democrats' continued march towards expunging the last few white people from its ranks.

  • damikesc||

    Tough enough to suck Willie Browns cock for years.

  • Tony||

    Do you have some kind of problem with consensual oral sex?

  • Jack Klompus Magic Ink||

    We have a problem that the Okie retards that procreated and produced the human shit stain known as you didn't stop at oral sex and went for the whole shebang thus burdening the world with your existence.

  • Inigo Montoya||

    If you're going to edit the hell out of a quote, you can pretty much "get" anyone to say anything. I'm sure you could even make Jeff Sessions be quoted as supporting full legalization of all drugs, for example!

    Christ, what an asshole this Harris is! I know she's a former prosecutor, but seriously?

  • Eddy||

    "I'm sure...Christ...is() I."

  • Brian||

    Called Out, Kamala Harris Doubled Down

    I learned it from watching Trump!

  • Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland||

    Another rousing joint meeting of Libertarians For Government Womb Management and Libertarians For State Micromanagement Of Women's Clinics.

    Why do so many authoritarian, stale-thinking, big-government, prudish, bigoted right-wingers call themselves libertarians?

    Is it the gullibility? The lousy education? The superstition? Something else?

  • Hamster of Doom||

    Neurology.

  • Red Rocks White Privilege||

    Another hicklib shitpost from the Progressive Hayseed.

    Is the mendacity? The subliteracy? The fantasy? Something else?

  • Hamster of Doom||

    Neurology.

  • David Nolan||

    Is it the gullibility? The lousy education? The superstition? Something else?

    Something else Authoritarian statism
    Theocracy branch.

    Left - Right = Zero

  • Jack Klompus Magic Ink||

    Buy a gun and shoot yourself in the face.

  • Ellis Wyatt||

    Asshole?

    "Something else Authoritarian statism"

    Buy a gun and shoot yourself in the face.

    CONFIRMED!

  • Red Rocks White Privilege||

    Dumbfuck Hihnsano's multiple personality disorder emerges again.

  • DesigNate||

    Why do so many douchebag authoritarian fascist support former prosecutors and attorney generals who actively try to surpress the first amendment and throw as many innocent people in jail as possible?

    The world may never know.

  • Ellis Wyatt||

    Yeah, but those Republican douchebags have all the power.
    For four more months.

  • HANSENWT||

    If your that worried about it I recommend you stock up right away. I have a strange feeling that most stores/pharmacies/med supplies will still be well stocked the morning after he gets confirmed though.

  • HANSENWT||

    So I guess Chicken Little needs birth control....what to do, what to do.

  • HANSENWT||

    Yep he's nuts. He has no clue, right Ocasio-Cortez?,,,,but what did the Supreme Court say about it when this ruling was appealed? Affirmed for Hobby Lobby....so lets just waste an entire week of our lives arguing how he should have ruled which is obvious the way he would since the US Supreme Court voted in favor of Hobby Lobby....and guess what Kavanaugh wasn't on there yet....so we're litigating a US Supreme Court decision for what a Circuit Court Justice thinks about it and he rightly agrees...if he disagreed then one would have to question his abilities much less whether or not he can read since that one was national news. I sincerely hope when we question liberal justices eventually in the future that the same questions will be asked and when they argue against the Supreme Court they are trying to get on, that should be an automatic "How about NOOOOOO!

  • HANSENWT||

    "My name is Kamala and I have been in Congress for 21 months. I was a lawyer in San Francisco before that....so I am way smarter then the US Supreme Court." Amazingly she is definitely someone we should never consider for the US Supreme Court for all the reasons they accuse Kavanaugh (as far as lying, bias etc....) and she is a sitting Senator and voting against the unbiased honest guy to get a promotion because he won't be like her. What is wrong with this picture?

  • UnrepentantCurmudgeon||

    Always remember, Harris was the California AG who never understood what the bail system was about or how it worked. Major smarts she has.

  • David Nolan||

    This is why ENB remains the gold standard for liberty here.

  • Jerry B.||

    If only Democrats can hear Judge Kavanaugh's 'dog whistles', what does that make Democrats?

  • Ellis Wyatt||

    Conservatives?

  • CDRSchafer||

    Jackasses like always.

  • UnrepentantCurmudgeon||

    When considering the opinions and positions of any single appointee to the Supreme Court, liberal alarmists and their myrmidons should at least show some understanding of the way the Supreme Court works. Whatever Kavanaugh's opinions on birth control might be, the issue does not come before SCOTUS unless (a) it has worked its way up through the federal appellate courts, and (b) SCOTUS issues a Writ of Certiorari which requires that a majority of the justices on the court agree that the matter should be heard. And even if the Writ issues, it in no way means that the single justice's point of view will prevail. On this and other "women's" issues (and if you thought SCOTUS was about Constitutional issues, please take note) it is unlikely to the point of improbable that any five justices would vote to consider such a case.

  • Ellis Wyatt||

    and if you thought SCOTUS was about Constitutional issues,

    They'd be a hell of a lot smarter than that wacko bullshit of yours.

    One more vote makes 5 and that's a majority.

    Would one more liberal vote matter?
    Will I get an honest answer?

  • Red Rocks White Privilege||

    Dumbfuck Hihnsano spouting his cheeseboard lunacy again.

  • CDRSchafer||

    Harris is a dangerous lunatic. Progressives are all violently destructive morons.

  • 1440 minutes||

    Kavanaugh will get away with being a Trump shill, and the Democrats' distortions will help him. No former POTUS had ever vetted a SCOTUS nominee more thoroughly...

GET REASON MAGAZINE

Get Reason's print or digital edition before it’s posted online