I think, nomore, that the "patriarchal misogyny" is itself a detail, or an aspect, of something bigger. It's a feature of the three monotheistic religions' views on how to channel sexuality and structure family life. They condemn sex outside marriage. Then they make the woman the naysayer to sex, using shame brought on by out-of-wedlock pregnancy and childbirth. These religions, Judaism. Christianity, and Islam, can't change this "detail"/aspect, or any other core tenet, because once a religion sanctifies a belief, it can never admit it was wrong, or it will undercut it's claim of representing a perfect deity on this earth.

With the advent of effective birth control and safe abortion, this method of channelling sexuality and structuring family life became archaic and meaningless, and the three major religions lost social power. They reacted by condemning the technology and social change that rendered them less relevant. They want to return to the days when an out-of-wedlock baby was used as a scarlet letter, an indelible symbol of shame. They don't hate women per se, but they do hate modern women, because modern women fly in the face of ancient tenets that they can't roll back or change.

As it becomes clear that perverting U.S. laws to impose their theology on everyone else raises many hackles, some of the shrewder TeaHaddist politicians, like Gov. Ultrasound, is trying to downplay the fact that they're obsessive and ruthless in their drive to turn our country into their theocracy. Todd Akin made that so much more difficult. Gov. Ultrasound's attempt to downplay their TeaHaddist ruthlessness as a "detail" is a feeble attempt to disguise that ruthlessness.

However, with many TeaHaddist coming to Akin's defense, a schism may be developing within the GOP ranks. Blackwell's fight against RNC rule changes may overlap with that schism.

Sofferclese, well stated. In the short run it is easy to preach to zealots. Two plus generations of women and a lot of men. are not so voluntarily blind to the hypocrisy. Church attendance continues to fall worldwide, so if the religions do not grow they will wither, They do not have the power to create fear or ostracize as in their good old days.

LOL, good one joca

When you graduate from Newt University, what is your degree in?

Slime!

Vulture/Voucher 2012
Proving Two Rights DO Make a Wrong!

;-)

Pretzel, you have unfinished business here. If you are able, please defend your position or at least acknowledge the points of my reply. By the way, IF you are going to go after someone like you did to me, it is courteous, appropriate, and honorable to defend your ground OR conceed a position instead of sniping and ducking like a coward.

http://maddowblog.msnbc.com/_news/2012/08/27/13503987-a-mount-carmel-moment?__utma=154396583.1002071434.1345922217.1345922217.1345922217.1&__utmb=154396583.6.10.1345922217&__utmc=154396583&__utmx=-&__utmz=154396583.1345922217.1.1.utmcsr=(direct)|utmccn=(direct)|utmcmd=(none)&__utmv=154396583.|8=Earned%20By=newsvine%7Cnewsvine=1^12=Landing%20Content=Original=1^13=Landing%20Hostname=pretzelogicinphillypa.newsvine.com=1^30=Visit%20Type%20to%20Content=Internal%20to%20Original=1&__utmk=77770068

The link above is the last time I called you out on this issue. The direct link to the relevant discussion is here:

http://maddowblog.msnbc.com/_news/2012/08/21/13399471-tuesdays-mini-report?commentId=69181385&__utma=154396583.1002071434.1345922217.1345922217.1345922217.1&__utmb=154396583.4.10.1345922217&__utmc=154396583&__utmx=-&__utmz=154396583.1345922217.1.1.utmcsr=(direct)|utmccn=(direct)|utmcmd=(none)&__utmv=154396583.|8=Earned%20By=newsvine%7Cnewsvine=1^12=Landing%20Content=Original=1^13=Landing%20Hostname=pretzelogicinphillypa.newsvine.com=1^30=Visit%20Type%20to%20Content=Internal%20to%20Original=1&__utmk=9595637#c69181385

I have nothing in particular further to add to your "debate" - I stand by what I said previously. I consider what you did - on this blog, and others, to be a wordy example of "concern trolling". If you want to assert that it was something else - that's your privilege.

BTW, I didn't happen to see your previous "call out". :D Your original "points of response" were pointless, that's why I didn't bother to respond any further at the time. Allow me to save you (and all the rest of us) many words and cut right to the bottom line, which I mentioned PROMINENTLY in my original response to you, and which you conveniently completely ignored in your "rebuttal":

If you are even remotely serious in your understanding of American politics, you understand that there are exactly two choices in this coming election. One of them is clearly superior to the other.

If you really want to argue that they're both equivalent, then I will simply have to "call bull@!$%#" and move on. If you are prepared to argue that the "Legitimate"-Rape-Public-CON party is the better of the two available choices, I will laugh at you, really hard, and then move on.

If you are prepared to acknowledge that, whatever flaws it may possess, the Democratic Party is the better choice in this election, than we are left with one of two possible conclusions: either you are a patriot and will do what you can to ensure what's best for your country, or you're not.

Whatever your critiques about the Democrats may be, however legitimate they may even be, if you seek to avoid the disastrous outcome of a "Legitimate"-Rape-Public-CON victory in this crucial election, then this is not the time to harp on such matters - we can pick up that debate after the re-election. Or, as Bob Dylan once sang, "Now ain't the time for your tears!" (If you don't get the Dylan analogy, listen again, more carefully, to The Lonesome Death of Hattie Carroll.

Like it or not - two choices. Two. Only. That is the practical reality. Whining will not change that. And trying to draw out a so-called "debate" about your critiques, now, is just trolling. Suck it up and work for the better outcome, Bubba, or be honest and explain once and for all why you seem to feel the other outcome would be better instead.

If you'd just rather keep whining, that's still your right and your business. I would be the last to suggest that you can't say whatever you want to say. For my own part, however, I will continue to feel free to call out whiny "concern trolling" for what it is, whenever I encounter it. Deal with that.

Vulture/Voucher 2012
Proving Two Rights DO Make a Wrong!

;-)

Pretzel:

First, the relevant discussion is “back there” in the comment thread I last linked. THAT is where you got buried under the bricks of a real debate, -bricks like facts, logic, and reason. (Link at bottom)

At any rate, I suppose I should thank you for at least acknowledging my request. So thanks. And… the way that you managed to do so while avoiding every single fact I laid at your feet is most remarkable indeed. You are truly gifted at denying and stonewalling. You aren’t by chance Ari Fleischer, are you? Because he could take notes on your style.

"Your original ‘points of response’ were pointless, that's why I didn't bother to respond any further at the time.”

That’s a damn lie. People do have eyes, all they have to do is look (article linked at bottom). The fact is you refused to acknowledge an argument lost. What you did was hit and run, and now you want to whitewash that cowardly act after the fact. Where I come from you stand behind your words AND your position.

"If you are even remotely serious in your understanding of American politics, you understand that there are exactly two choices in this coming election. One of them is clearly superior to the other.”

On there being exactly two choices, you’re wrong again. There is ALWAYS the option to write in a candidate and cast your vote. While that’s not likely to win the election (thanks in large part to the warped logic of commentators like you), -it IS an option to reflect the WILL OF THE PEOPLE. Neither you nor Obama should dismiss that option out of hand.

How the hell do you think progressives are ever GOING TO FORCE Obama to keep his campaign promises unless we speak out right now, -when he actually cares what we think and when our voice has power?

I will remind you what Obama said about supporters of Hillary Clinton after he defeated her in the primary (btw with significant republican help). Obama said: ~”They don’t have a choice but to support me.” I still bristle when I read that. Right now, you’re asking all of us to agree we have no choice.

"…we can pick up that debate after the re-election.”

Yes, by all means, let’s do that. Let’s wait until Obama can safely ignore our interests and dismiss our concerns for another 4 years, -and THEN try to motivate him. That's exactly what he did to us last time. You wanna kiss my backside when that happens again?

"If you are prepared to acknowledge that, whatever flaws it may possess, the Democratic Party is the better choice in this election, than we are left with one of two possible conclusions: either you are a patriot and will do what you can to ensure what's best for your country, or you're not.”

Don’t question my patriotism. That cowardly act is the last refuge of a lying, manipulating scoundrel who ignores facts and reason because he can‘t refute them. -In other words, you’ve got nothing else. Lookit: I do agree the democratic party is better. However, if the democratic party were to pick it’s leader without interference from republicans and neoCons, Obama wouldn’t even be in the top 25. Obama is a lying piece of crap.

Bradley Manning is the best example of what happens when someone confronts Obama with the truth. Wanna talk about Bradley? Go ahead, I dare you.

And let me illuminate your perspective on Obama’s Gitmo mythology:

http://www.salon.com/2012/07/23/the_obama_gitmo_myth/

Of course, you’ll have to ignore that too because you can’t refute it. Right?

“as Bob Dylan once sang, 'Now ain't the time for your tears!' (If you don't get the Dylan analogy…)"

Speaking of Bob, did you notice him cringe as Obama -who is now a proven Master of War- placed a medal around his neck? In fact, the whole ceremony reminded me of when Obama received the Nobel Peace Prize, -and in hindsight we all know that was intended just to manipulate us. Seriously, should Bob Dylan’s award be any different?

As for Dylan songs that are analogous to the situation, perhaps “Honey, Just Allow Me One More Chance” is most appropriate.

So YOU have two choices, -you can refute all these points, -and the previous ones as well, -or you can be Ari Fleischer and pretend it never happened. Good luck with your decision.

Lastly, I have already told you I will not vote for Romney, and I have not encouraged anyone else to do so either. I do want Obama to stand up and honor his promises. That will only happen if we demand it.

http://maddowblog.msnbc.com/_news/2012/08/21/13399471-tuesdays-mini-report?commentId=69181385&__utma=154396583.1002071434.1345922217.1345922217.1345922217.1&__utmb=154396583.4.10.1345922217&__utmc=154396583&__utmx=-&__utmz=154396583.1345922217.1.1.utmcsr=(direct)|utmccn=(direct)|utmcmd=(none)&__utmv=154396583.|8=Earned%20By=newsvine%7Cnewsvine=1^12=Landing%20Content=Original=1^13=Landing%20Hostname=pretzelogicinphillypa.newsvine.com=1^30=Visit%20Type%20to%20Content=Internal%20to%20Original=1&__utmk=9595637#c69181385

So... concern troll is still very concerned (and incredibly wordy). At least you finally answered the one essential question here.

"If you are even remotely serious in your understanding of American politics, you understand that there are exactly two choices in this coming election. One of them is clearly superior to the other.”

On there being exactly two choices, you’re wrong again. There is ALWAYS the option to write in a candidate and cast your vote. While that’s not likely to win the election (thanks in large part to the warped logic of commentators like you), -it IS an option to reflect the WILL OF THE PEOPLE. Neither you nor Obama should dismiss that option out of hand.

At last, you've managed to clarify the problem for me: clearly, either by inability or by choice, you are NOT remotely serious in your understanding of American politics. I will try patiently to explain, one final time: the reason "that's not likely to win an election" (herp derp) has NOTHING to do with warped logic, be it of commentators like me or anyone else. It has to do with the nature of state-by-state electoral politics. If you want to argue that those should be changed, on that we can agree. But you must be deranged if you think it can be changed in time for this coming election.

So, the PRACTICAL REALITY REMAINS: there are two and only two choices. Writing in another candidate doesn't only "fail to win the election". By drawing votes away from whichever of the only two real choices more closely reflects the voter's interests (however imperfectly so) it also reduces the ability of that candidate to win, and concurrently makes it more likely that the candidate least reflective of that voter's interests will win. So you say you will not vote for Willard, but if you "write in" a more liberal candidate's name, you will have effectively done so anyway. For good or ill, that is how our present system works. Understand now? It's not essential that you like it, just that you understand how this works.

Note further, that while it may be given that there will be substantial challenges in achieving modifications of this system under either party's rule, such modifications are vastly more likely to be achievable via the Democrats than via the "Legitimate"-Rape-Public-CON party.

Frankly, right now, @!$%# "reflecting the will of the people" or anything of the sort - grow up! If I am to assume that you are serious in your argument, than I am forced to conclude that you are either an idiot, naive - literally beyond belief - or: a "concern troll".

In other words, if you don't want me to "question your patriotism" you force me to question your intellect and/or common sense. Since you seem from your responses to be reasonably articulate and well educated, I have (for now) ruled out your being a complete idiot. I am also, it bears repeating, incapable of believing that anyone could actually be as naive as you sound in your post. Thus am I compelled to my firm and unshaken conclusion that you must be a "concern troll" - I am charitably assuming that you're NOT a moron, at least beyond whatever level of stupidity must be required to act in any way as to improve the odds of Willard's election, whether you actually intend to "vote for him" or not. You say you agree that the Democrats are the better choice. In that case, (if I am supposed to believe you) how do you really think this kind of "debate" is helping them to get elected?

Deflect this all you want, but right now, that's all that matters. Nattering on with these whiny diatribes will not engage the Obama campaign, or have the slightest influence, right now, on this Administration's policies. But one could see how a sufficiently determined troll might have the hope that it would encourage those who otherwise might support the President's re-election, in a close race, to effectively vote for his opponent by "writing in" a vote for some fantasy candidate.

Sorry if you're disappointed that I'm not engaging you, point by point, on your series of critiques and complaints. I think I've made it fairly clear that I don't intend to. If you want to believe that this means you "win the internet today", yay for you! Right now, quite frankly, I really don't give a crap about any of that.

I can't really make this any simpler: just two choices, pick one. If you want to support Willard by refusing to support Obama, that's your choice. If you want to come on the MaddowBlog, otherwise frequented primarily by supporters of the President's re-election, and argue that they should support Willard by failing to support Obama, that too is your privilege. But I know "concern trolling" when I see it. And calling trolls out for that is my privilege.

If you think I am painting you unfairly, oh well, my bad. But I don't think I am. If nothing else then, we simply disagree as to what should be a priority roughly 10 weeks out from an election which, among other things, may well determine the future of a social "safety-net" which I and many others think is well worth preserving. We disagree, so... I guess we can agree on that.

And, in the immortal words of Wolf Blitzer, "we'll have to leave it there".

D N F T T

Vulture/Voucher 2012
Proving Two Rights DO Make a Wrong!

;-)

Pretzel:

Care to comment on Obama’s decision NOT TO INVESTIGATE OR PROSECUTE ANYONE over allegations of torture of war detainees and POWs? That was the biggest gift republicans have received since Ford pardoned Nixon. In fact, that alone would be a sufficient basis to sabotage a national election.

I'm beginning to see how you operate. You’re a professional delegitimizer. Are you paid to do this, or do you practice pro-bono? The first thing you did was to determine if my original comments in the other thread could be refuted. Seeing they were factual and could not be refuted, you evaporated, hoping to leave that subject untouched and unknown to other readers.

So after being cornered, you continued the discussion here, in spite of having been invited to finish what you started back there. Good diversion tactic.

And I’m curious: Why do you typically employ name calling as a tactic? That’s weak. You started the original discussion (linked at bottom) by labeling me a troll. I have generally called people by name. Is that more delegitimization on your part?

On to a few points:

Point 1: “…The reason 'that's not likely to win an election' has NOTHING to do with warped logic, be it of commentators like me or anyone else. It has to do with the nature of state-by-state electoral politics. If you want to argue that those should be changed, on that we can agree.”

I agree things should be changed. On the current state-by-state, winner-take-all electoral process, many people now think the system is broken. Most of those would be progressive democrats who expected change after being hoodwinked in the democratic primary.

One of the biggest changes we deserve is a permanent slot on the ballot to vote for “none of the above”. If that choice wins, a new election is called and all previous candidates are thrown out. Fundamental modifications to the electoral college process are also needed regarding change to a system for proportional allocation of state electoral delegates and appropriate participation of territories.

Point 2: See? We can agree on something. This is probably the third time I have agreed with you on a point. You, OTOH, have not agreed with anything I have said, -nor have you refuted those points. Instead you just call me a troll as a way to dismiss my point and delegitimize my argument.

Since I have found some points of agreement with you, can you do the same?

Would you care to acknowledge what Obama did to Bradley Manning? Or could you perhaps agree with the rational analysis of Glenn Greenwald on Obama’s true Gitmo agenda and the false mythology propagated by Obama sycophants in his article “The Obama GITMO Myth” at salon.com?

http://www.salon.com/2012/07/23/the_obama_gitmo_myth/

Or how about Obama’s continued pursuit of Bush and Cheney’s unfinished agenda for regime change in every Arab state of the mid east? Do you really think voters who demanded an end to the wars actually voted to continue Cheney’s agenda of regime change by other means? If you believe that, you must be deranged.

Surely there is something in all that I have said that you can agree with.

Point 3: “You say you agree that the Democrats are the better choice. In that case, how do you really think this kind of "debate" is helping them to get elected? …right now, (winning the election is) all that matters. Nattering on with these whiny diatribes will not engage the Obama campaign, or have the slightest influence, right now, on this Administration's policies.”

To that I say bullpucky. IF Obama perceives he can’t count on automatic support from a democratic base that he believes “has no choice”, -then he WILL be forced to keep his campaign promises to earn their support. Short of that, at a minimum he will have to draw blood in an attempt to keep those promises. So far he has not done this.

When Obama honors his campaign promises for change, EVERY democratic candidate will benefit. Frankly, he has pissed on his democratic base for almost 4 years. By doing so, HE has personally pissed on the campaigns of every other democratic candidate in the coming election. Time grows short to undo this damage.

“Understand now?”

I always understood, and I can do so without being dismissive.

“So, the PRACTICAL REALITY REMAINS: there are two and only two choices.”

Yea, let’s get back to that for a moment. The underlying point about your “two choices” argument is whether Obama has earned the support of his base. That is OUR decision. Obama has had 4 years to win our support. Instead, he has operated on the theory that he can safely ignore our interests because we have no choice. As I mentioned, he literally said this about Clinton supporters after the primary. His message was that he could IGNORE the concerns and interests of those people because they HAD NO CHOICE but to support him.

Point 4: “Frankly, right now, @!$%# ‘reflecting the will of the people’.”

I like that. That's nice. You know what I'm going to do? I'm going to leave your words right up there for all our readers to enjoy, giving you full credit of course.

“Grow up!”

Should I take that to mean you are going to stop calling names? It is quite childish, and I believe we are better than that. To be clear, I’m not speaking about your sig line. I think it is effective and appropriate.

“If you want to support Willard by refusing to support Obama, that's your choice. If you want to come on the MaddowBlog, otherwise frequented primarily by supporters of the President's re-election, and argue that they should support Willard by failing to support Obama, that too is your privilege.”

I support the right of every citizen to make their own choice and vote their conscience and their beliefs. We already know what you said about that.

In closing, I should acknowledge you have taken at least some small steps to defend your position. I respect that, but it would look better if you addressed the issues I reiterated in Point 2 of my comments above. Ignoring them only underlines the fact that you are afraid of them.