[identity profile] brendala.livejournal.com posting in [community profile] therightfangirl
Considering the fact that the Democratic party now expects us girls to vote with our vaginas instead of our brains, I think this ad is timelier now than it was 4 years ago (the video can't be embedded. So you have to go to YouTube to see it)




Believe it or not, that "sexy" commercial was a legitimate Democrat campaign ad (some republican smart-ass just added the color commentary). I just....don't see who they thought they were appealing to. Do they really think that so many right wingers are just dying to screw them? And that we'll change our vote to get in their pants (instead of just, y'know lying or not having sex with them at all). Seriously, what the hell?

Date: 2012-10-28 05:28 am (UTC)
From: [identity profile] neemarita.livejournal.com
The campaign is running on empty. They have nothing to do on except "Romney hates you and wants you to be barefoot and pregnant in the kitchen after taking away birth control and your tampons". I see this so much on Facebook lately.

Date: 2012-10-30 01:23 am (UTC)
From: [identity profile] coldblossom.livejournal.com
I like to trot this icon out whenever I can. Its just a shame that the opinion is invalid when it clashes with the liberal world-view of women as childless careerists who see men as mere tools for...whatever.

Date: 2012-10-28 11:33 am (UTC)
From: [identity profile] izuko.livejournal.com
Four years of only having sex with women who shave their legs on a regular basis? OH TEH HORROR!!!!

Date: 2012-10-28 01:19 pm (UTC)
From: [identity profile] pat-t.livejournal.com
I have no words....

Date: 2012-10-28 01:22 pm (UTC)
From: [identity profile] spikedpunch.livejournal.com
Interesting... 113 likes, 1184 dislikes. Nope, don't think anyone is buying this rubbish this time around.

Date: 2012-10-28 03:42 pm (UTC)
From: [identity profile] gotsparkly.livejournal.com
As I said on my journal (and got defriended by multiple people and bitched out by one for doing so - woohoo political-unfriending-cherry popped!) --

If you are voting with your vagina and not your brains, if sexual freedom is more important to you than impending economic collapse - you are not thinking like an adult, you are thinking like an oversexed teenager and you need to grow up before you have any business having the right to vote.

I have a mental rant about this running around inside my brain right now, and it might or might not ever see pixels, but it's there nonetheless. America has for too long been run by children, thanks to overindulgent parents at the individual and societal level. The economic and foreign policy situation we have right now is the result. It's time to put the grownups back in charge and leave them there for a while if we are going to get out of this mess.

Date: 2012-10-28 06:35 pm (UTC)
From: [identity profile] muses-circle.livejournal.com
THIS x a billion. I am so over this entitlement mentality that this country has. It's time people grew up and faced the mess we've created.

Date: 2012-10-29 01:23 am (UTC)
ext_40352: Danny & Lindsay snuggling (3x24) (csiny- default snuggling)
From: [identity profile] so-sporktastic.livejournal.com
Apparently, there was this quote going around...

"I wish my moderate Republican friends would simply be honest. They all say they're voting for Romney because of his economic policies (tenuous and ill-formed as they are), and that they disagree with him on gay rights. Fine. Then look me in the eye, speak with a level clear voice, and say, 'My taxes and take-home pay mean more than your fundamental civil rights, the sanctity of your marriage, your right to visit an ailing spouse in the hospital, your dignity as a citizen of this country, your healthcare, your right to inherit, the mental welfare and emotional well-being of your youth, and your very personhood.'

It's like voting for George Wallace during the Civil Rights movements, and apologizing for his racism. You're still complicit. You're still perpetuating anti-gay legislation and cultural homophobia. You don't get to walk away clean, because you say you 'disagree' with your candidate on these issues." -Pulitzer and Tony Winning playwright Doug Wright


Ayyyyyy.

Also, (and got defriended by multiple people and bitched out by one for doing so - woohoo political-unfriending-cherry popped!) - ohmygod, story of my life. I was BANNED by a longtime friend because I DARED to say that Sarah Palin had nothing to do with the Loughner shootings (Arizona, Gabby Giffords, etc), and linked supporting evidence. Classy.

Date: 2012-10-29 02:48 am (UTC)
From: [identity profile] chibimarchy.livejournal.com
UGH I saw that quote and wanted to flip a table. I just... I can't with these people anymore, I just can't. The sheer stupidity is mindboggling.

Date: 2012-10-29 03:02 am (UTC)
From: [identity profile] neverfading.livejournal.com
"I wish my moderate Republican friends would simply be honest. They all say they're voting for Romney because of his economic policies (tenuous and ill-formed as they are), and that they disagree with him on gay rights.....


Wow. Lovely. That quote's a doozy. This reminds me of the fact that leftists always act like conservatives are going to be shocked and horrified and full of remorse when they're accused of holding views that are, y'know, conservative.

I know that various members of the comm will differ with me on this subject, but my response (if there's any point in responding to this type of thing, which is doubtful) would be something like this:

"Gay rights" is a made-up concept, absolutely nobody is being denied "civil rights" or "personhood." You have absolutely no entitlement to imaginary privileges for being a member of a tiny fringe group, any more than people deserve extra "rights" for being left-handed."

I've seen it before, leftists think that conservatives will be like "No, no, I looooove gays/feminists/whoever, some of my best friends are gays/communists/whoever, I'm not that kind of big bad icky conservative!"

IMO it would blow their minds if someone simply stated that yes, they disagree with those ideas and that worldview, without waffling or apologizing one little bit.

Ranty leftist: You're against gay rights!

Unapologetic me: Yes. Yes, I am. Any other questions?

Ranty Leftist : But...but...now's when you're supposed to get flustered and apologize! *brain implodes*

I'm cynical enough to predict that Romney and Co. will fold on every single social issue, but that's just me.
Edited Date: 2012-10-29 03:07 am (UTC)

Date: 2012-10-29 04:03 am (UTC)
From: [identity profile] kabiosile.livejournal.com
Ranty Leftist : But...but...now's when you're supposed to get flustered and apologize! *brain implodes*

There's so... self-centered, gawsh. It's like... I don't care what you think about me. I don't care if you're offended. I don't care about you, period. Get over it.

Date: 2012-10-29 05:51 am (UTC)
From: [identity profile] neverfading.livejournal.com

It wasn't an actual conversation, I was just being snarky...

Date: 2012-10-29 03:11 pm (UTC)
From: [identity profile] kabiosile.livejournal.com
Ah. Sorry, lol. I really will say things like that to people...

But to be fair, I'm under pressure lately. I'm Cuban-American and my mother (once a refugee) works for a big bank. So when leftists start threatening me, I take 'em seriously. And that leads to real anger.

I've been trying to get into Christianity to kind of... lessen my anger, but it's not working. They've wronged me one too many times, lol.

Date: 2012-10-29 05:50 am (UTC)
From: [identity profile] neverfading.livejournal.com
While the "gays and women" issues may indeed be red herrings designed to distract us from more pressing concerns right now, I believe that social and fiscal issues are inextricably linked.

That's a much longer conversation for another day, but as I've said before, I find it very, very curious when people claim the social and economic realms are entirely independent of one another, as if these two things each exist in a vacuum and never interact, and never affect each other.

The breakdown of the family has a direct impact on people's financial lives. Personal behavior has a direct impact on our monetary concerns. I would really, really like to hear someone explain how being "socially liberal and fiscally conservative" works, because that, to me, sounds like they're really just a left-libertarian, or they're a conservative who doesn't want to think about the social issues.

There's no fiscal behavior versus social behavior, there's just human behavior.

The perfect example of how personal behavior affects us in terms of money and the economy, is when people become dependent on welfare and other government programs and subsidies, through their own irresponsible or at least questionable behavior. That's a direct correlation between personal behavior and a monetary effect on our society.

EDIT: When Sandra Fluke and Co. demand that we pay for her birth control, that's another example of how personal behavior can directly impact us financially.

I suppose that a true libertarian would say "you have a perfect right to be promiscuous if you want, but you can't ask anyone else to deal with the consequences or help you when things go awry."

I, on the other hand, would say "you have a perfect right to have sex however and whenever and with whomever you want, but some types of sexual/personal behavior are destructive and unhealthy, and while they will certainly not be *outlawed* or formally punished, they will be strongly discouraged through social/cultural pressure."
Edited Date: 2012-10-29 05:59 am (UTC)

Date: 2012-10-31 07:03 pm (UTC)
From: [identity profile] neverfading.livejournal.com
I hate it when people act of if that statement is just the slut-shaming ramblings of religious nuts. There is a middle ground between "anything goes" and "brand every unwed mother with a scarlet A".

Exactly. See, this is why I consider myself a true libertarian and a social conservative at the same time, which somebody might consider contradictory or impossible.

Like I said, I'm starting to believe that virtually nothing should be formally regulated, but lots of things should be strongly *discouraged* through social/cultural pressure, on an informal, local, personal level.

If kids hear from parents, teachers, media, authority figures, and everyone in their community that XYZ behavior is negative and destructive, then maybe they'll be less likely to indulge in that behavior.

While we're on the topic, I think that any laws *against* homosexual behavior that are still on the books should be eliminated, too. I think there shouldn't be any formal prohibitions or sanctions *against* personal behavior, but there should be *cultural* sanctions against some types of personal behavior.

Date: 2012-10-30 01:22 pm (UTC)
From: [identity profile] jacobs-muse.livejournal.com
Hell, just divorce has a big financial impact - either the single mother struggles a lot more to meet her kid(s)' basic needs, or the father is shafted and completely drained of his resources just because "he's a man and therefore wrong". Or both, if they didn't have much as a couple to begin with. As a unit, their chances are greater of fighting through hard times than alone.

Date: 2012-10-31 07:11 pm (UTC)
From: [identity profile] neverfading.livejournal.com
Yeah. And you know, the whole "marriage" issue has got me thinking:

If someone who's been divorced six times can get "married", if Kim Kardashian can be married for one month or whatever, and if Britney Spears can be married for twenty-four hours or whatever to some guy, then how meaningful is marriage, anymore?

Expanding the definition of marriage does NOT strengthen the institution of marriage. If you want to strengthen the institution of marriage, then it needs to be *harder* to get married and *harder* to get divorced, not easier.

If we really wanted to protect and bolster the value of marriage, we'd make it harder to get divorced, and maybe that would make people think twice before entering into a more binding contract.

TBH, if I were in a serious relationship right now and contemplating getting married, I think I'd just have a personal, non-legal, purely symbolic ceremony.

If the law has decided that two men are a "marriage" or two women are a "marriage" or somebody's fifth wedding is a "marriage", why would I want to participate in that institution?

Why would I want to place myself in the same category with Elizabeth Taylor or Kim Kardashian or a homosexual relationship?

Marriage is becoming meaningless.

EDIT: *harder to get divorced except in cases where there's something clearly unacceptable like physical abuse or infidelity, obviously...
Edited Date: 2012-10-31 07:29 pm (UTC)

Date: 2012-10-31 07:45 pm (UTC)
From: [identity profile] jacobs-muse.livejournal.com
It's meaningless in pop culture.

It's not meaningless to all the people that enter into it with the best of intentions and love. The actual divorce rate isn't the 50-60% of the population people like to cite....the statistic is wrong as someone finally did a study on finding out if it was true vs. one poll saying it's true. It's more like 25%.

Pastors have made it 'harder' to get married for a while, requiring weeks or months of counseling sessions before they will marry a couple to make sure they're prepared. It's the civil/legal contract that's so easy to enter into. Divorces used to be harder to get at the same time women couldn't legally vote or own property, and then in more recent history when a woman had legal rights but no financial options she stayed. In a world where men and women are equal, the most common thing couples fight about is money, so when times are prosperous for the majority, less couples will split. Fix the economy, and then the rest will sort out.

Date: 2012-10-29 04:19 am (UTC)
From: [identity profile] neverfading.livejournal.com

Or literally sold as slaves, if you want to go further back in time...

Date: 2012-10-28 05:02 pm (UTC)
From: [identity profile] kabiosile.livejournal.com
I know a bunch of girls like this (obsessed with birth control and casual sex). They're all diseased. Literally.

Somehow, I don't feel like I'm missing out on much.

Date: 2012-10-28 07:46 pm (UTC)

Date: 2012-10-28 05:51 pm (UTC)
From: [identity profile] akilika.livejournal.com
Funny thing? I went looking for the original... and apparently it's from 2008.

It's absolutely hilarious how little has changed.

Date: 2012-10-28 07:50 pm (UTC)
From: [identity profile] dark-weezing.livejournal.com
Well, I did like the girl with the lollipop....

If this is what passes for deep gender political thought, I'm amazed anyone has any sex, at all, these days.

Profile

therightfangirl: (Default)
The Right Fangirl

October 2017

S M T W T F S
1234567
891011121314
15161718192021
22232425262728
293031    

Most Popular Tags

Style Credit

Expand Cut Tags

No cut tags
Page generated Oct. 19th, 2017 02:36 pm
Powered by Dreamwidth Studios