WingNutDaily's Idiotic Article of the Day

[Iason Ouabache]

  Wait, I just found the funniest article ever.  Apparently Sarah Palin is an evil evil feminist who needs to go back to her kitchen and make Todd a sammich.

http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=103324

As America prepared to celebrate Independence Day, Sarah Palin declared her own independence – as a woman. By announcing she was resigning as governor of Alaska 18 months before the end of her term, Palin shocked adversaries and friends alike. While the media fireworks temporarily pushed Michael Jackson coverage off the front page, Palin naysayers like NBC's Andrea Mitchell opined that perhaps she was missing family life after a tiring stint of politics.

Fat chance of that.

Palin is an avowed feminist. As such, her husband and children have to fall in line behind her career goals. If everyday actions speak louder than words, then she holds more affinity with her pro-abortion feminist sisters than with her conservative sisters nursing babies at home.

When John McCain introduced Palin as his running mate last September, she praised both pro-abortion Geraldine Ferraro and Hillary Clinton, saying, "It was rightly noted in Denver this week that Hillary left 18 million cracks in the highest, hardest glass ceiling in America, but it turns out the women of America aren't finished yet and we can shatter that glass ceiling once and for all."

Do we have no men who can match her intelligence, charisma and leadership skills? To the contrary, we have better.

Have conservatives become so desperate for a passionate leader that they forsake their most basic values of home and hearth? Yes, but it's more than that.

Sarah Palin represents the empirical self of millions of women working outside the home. They live vicariously through her supposed success. Seeing such a woman extolled gives credibility to their frantic lifestyle juggling job, children, husband, church, and housework.

It has been said that part of Palin's appeal is that her family is like so many other families. She is today's American woman, who works outside the home and does it all. Whose daughters get pregnant out-of-wedlock. Whose husbands wear the aprons.

Have we gone insane? Is this something to celebrate?

There are certainly some valid reasons to support Sarah Palin. Her passion for the unborn is refreshing. Her strong support of Second Amendment gun rights is vital to our personal and national security. But her easy dismissal of the value of being at the center of a home and her children's lives seems antithetical to true, conservative "family values."

Our society has so twisted the distinctiveness of womanhood that we no longer recognize it. If our Founding Fathers could see their country now, what would they say about women fighting in combat overseas? What would they think about a mother of a young baby being the commander in chief of America's military? What would they say as she walked the line exchanging salutes with soldiers? They would hang their heads in shame.

There was a time when society understood that some responsibilities are best handled by men and others best handled by women. It has nothing to do with equality and everything to do with cherishing our differences. Diversity is in vogue everywhere except when considering the innate distinctions between a man and a woman.

Allegedly written by a woman, btw.

[Cain]

In other breaking news: Ron Paul discovered to be secret communist, after the group he was lunching with decided to split the bill evenly between them.

[Telarus]

[The Good Reverend Roger]

Wait, I just found the funniest article ever.  Apparently Sarah Palin is an evil evil feminist who needs to go back to her kitchen and make Todd a sammich.

http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=103324

As America prepared to celebrate Independence Day, Sarah Palin declared her own independence – as a woman. By announcing she was resigning as governor of Alaska 18 months before the end of her term, Palin shocked adversaries and friends alike. While the media fireworks temporarily pushed Michael Jackson coverage off the front page, Palin naysayers like NBC's Andrea Mitchell opined that perhaps she was missing family life after a tiring stint of politics.

Fat chance of that.

Palin is an avowed feminist. As such, her husband and children have to fall in line behind her career goals. If everyday actions speak louder than words, then she holds more affinity with her pro-abortion feminist sisters than with her conservative sisters nursing babies at home.

When John McCain introduced Palin as his running mate last September, she praised both pro-abortion Geraldine Ferraro and Hillary Clinton, saying, "It was rightly noted in Denver this week that Hillary left 18 million cracks in the highest, hardest glass ceiling in America, but it turns out the women of America aren't finished yet and we can shatter that glass ceiling once and for all."

Do we have no men who can match her intelligence, charisma and leadership skills? To the contrary, we have better.

Have conservatives become so desperate for a passionate leader that they forsake their most basic values of home and hearth? Yes, but it's more than that.

Sarah Palin represents the empirical self of millions of women working outside the home. They live vicariously through her supposed success. Seeing such a woman extolled gives credibility to their frantic lifestyle juggling job, children, husband, church, and housework.

It has been said that part of Palin's appeal is that her family is like so many other families. She is today's American woman, who works outside the home and does it all. Whose daughters get pregnant out-of-wedlock. Whose husbands wear the aprons.

Have we gone insane? Is this something to celebrate?

There are certainly some valid reasons to support Sarah Palin. Her passion for the unborn is refreshing. Her strong support of Second Amendment gun rights is vital to our personal and national security. But her easy dismissal of the value of being at the center of a home and her children's lives seems antithetical to true, conservative "family values."

Our society has so twisted the distinctiveness of womanhood that we no longer recognize it. If our Founding Fathers could see their country now, what would they say about women fighting in combat overseas? What would they think about a mother of a young baby being the commander in chief of America's military? What would they say as she walked the line exchanging salutes with soldiers? They would hang their heads in shame.

There was a time when society understood that some responsibilities are best handled by men and others best handled by women. It has nothing to do with equality and everything to do with cherishing our differences. Diversity is in vogue everywhere except when considering the innate distinctions between a man and a woman.

Allegedly written by a woman, btw.

Wow.   

[Iason Ouabache]

Alan Keyes makes sense for the first time in his life.

http://www.wnd.com/?pageId=103521

In her speech, Sarah Palin refers to a "recent trip to Kosovo and Landstuhl, to visit our wounded soldiers overseas" and "what we can all learn from our selfless troops ... they're bold, they don't give up and they take a stand ..." Here words are an apt reminder of what the faithful performance of duty requires. Soldiers take a stand in the very teeth of enemy fire, even though it means certain death or grievous wounds. There is a word for soldiers who quit their posts because the enemy is shooting at them. It is not intended as a compliment, especially when it's their own bad judgment that has put them in the way of enemy fire in the first place.

    Sarah Palin calls to mind our wounded soldiers in the very moment when she fails to follow their heroic example. In the process, she acknowledges that, thanks to the provision of Alaska's taxpayers, she has successfully evaded the cost-free political attacks allowed by "the ethics law I championed." She won! Had Custer won the battle at Little Big Horn, I doubt that anyone would have questioned the money expended for the guns and bullets required to do so. He had a duty to defend his command, especially after his own mistakes exposed it to danger.

    Of course, resignation would have been in order once he acknowledged and took responsibility for those mistakes. But Sarah Palin has done no such thing. She claims Alaska is being damaged by the attacks against her, but that the fault lies entirely with the bad motives and actions of others. She says her tenure as governor has been successful; her judgments and actions sound; her record all for the good of the state and its people. But if this is true, it makes no sense to deprive the state of the governor duly elected by the people simply because bad folks attack her. In that case, resigning simply lets the (political) assassins finish their work. How can letting the duly elected governor be taken out in this way be consistent with her sworn duty to defend the state?

    If she is without fault or blame, then Palin's explanation makes no sense except as a clear dereliction of duty. She swore faithfully to perform the duties of her office. She claims to have done so. Others have abused the law to attack her. She successfully defended against them. If, as she contends, she has simply been performing her duties, her defense of herself is in fact simply a defense of her office, in the literal sense. To preserve that office with integrity is one of her duties as governor. By resigning, she fails in the performance of that duty. She encourages the "politics of personal destruction" in much the same way that allowing terrorists to succeed encourages further acts of terrorism. This cannot be good for Alaska, and it does not keep faith with the people who elected her. They rightly expected her to defend the integrity of the office, which obviously means standing firm against those who attack its occupant without good reason.

    If her stated explanation makes no sense, we are forced to look for an alternative that does. Absent that, we are forced to conclude that her decision to resign is, like championing the law used to harass her, just another example of her bad statesmanship.

[Iason Ouabache]

ZOMG!!! GOOGLE IS BLOCKING SOMEONE'S BLOG JUST BECAUSE THEY DON'T LIKE THE GAYS!!!

http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=103902

Google's blog hosting service, Blogger.com, admits that in the name of "free speech" some of its blogs are "offensive, harmful, inaccurate," but when one of its clients blogged in opposition to a transgender rights bill, Google drew the line.

A day before the Massachusetts Legislature plans to review a controversial gender identity bill, Blogger.com blocked the blog of MassResistance, an organization that exposes the increasingly open agenda of the homosexual movement in Massachusetts, with a warning that some of the content may be "objectionable," requiring readers to confirm their intent to visit.

"Some readers of this blog have contacted Google because they believe this blog's content is objectionable," the warning reads. "In general, Google does not review nor do we endorse the content of this or any blog. For more information about our content policies, please visit the Blogger Terms of Service."

That's right, putting up a slightly inconvenient warning page is now fascism.

[Kai]

 

funny how wingers equate "transpeople getting equal protection under the law" to "gay men having anal sex on your front lawn"

[Pariah]

"Generally, the narrow focus of the freeze movement as well as academic discussions of first versus second-strike capabilities suit the military-industrial interests as they continue adding to their billion-dollar erector sets," Obama wrote.

He preferred to see deep unilateral disarmament by the U.S. – a cause that would have ensured the Soviet Union and the Berlin Wall would still be around today.

We nuked the Berlin Wall?

[Cain]

Being able to destroy the world only seventy times over, as opposed to several hundred times, would've sent a message to the Soviet Union that we were weak!

[LMNO]

funny how wingers equate "transpeople getting equal protection under the law" to "gay men having anal sex on your front lawn"

GODDAMMIT!  I WANT GAY MEN TO HAVE ANAL SEX ON MY FRONT LAWN!




That's better than cable TV, that is.

[Iason Ouabache]

Borrowed from Ed Brayton:

[The Good Reverend Roger]

Borrowed from Ed Brayton:

I love how they've finally stopped pretending to be a news source.

[Iason Ouabache]

Pat Boone thinks that waterboarding is super keen!

http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=104951

It's a harmless-sounding word in itself. Until a couple of years ago, "waterboarding" sounded like some kind of fun at the beach.

But after 9/11, after American and allied forces invaded Iraq and made incursions into Afghanistan hunting for Osama bin Laden, and after our homeland intelligence apprehended and arrested known and suspected jihadist terrorists bent on killing more Americans, the word took on a more ominous meaning. Thanks to much media exploitation, politically motivated accusations, certain criminally leaked classified information and of course some actual facts, the word "waterboarding" became synonymous with heinous, barbaric torture.

Since America became a nation, torture has never been identified with our policy or procedure. Investigative techniques and interrogation, yes, but always within humane limits – never the torture racks, lashings, beatings, burnings, nail-pullings, starvation, or sadistic mutilation practiced by so many other cultures and adversaries. We've expected our military to extract and obtain essential information through intelligent, often covert, sometimes even psychological means.

What happened? Something almost unprecedented. We were completely blindsided, attacked on our own soil, in our own airplanes and towers, and even in the Pentagon, in broad daylight. It was devastating, and after the first shock, it was obvious that if we did not act quickly and with almost no thought of normal restraint, it would happen again, and even more violently, and with even more catastrophic results.

We were at war, against an enemy with absolutely no moral compunction and with a demonic bloodlust to destroy us, our homes and families and way of life – and with even a religious desire to die while destroying us! It was a relentless waking nightmare, and it was real.

Those charged with the responsibility to protect this country – the president, the administration, the military, our intelligence agencies – quickly mobilized to do anything and everything possible to avert the next attacks. As captives were taken, they were subjected to every method of interrogation we'd ever tried, and because of the extreme urgency and unimaginable danger, when captives wouldn't divulge information that would save American lives, in some instances some interrogators went further than they had before.

They didn't kill, they didn't maim, they didn't inflict permanent injury, but they sure made the captive feel as if he were about to drown. They tied him down inclined, head a bit lower than feet, covered his face with towels, poured water on and through the towels and into his face, sometimes in his nostrils, and let him know this frightening and extremely uncomfortable experience could end if he would tell what he knew about the plans to wreak more devastation and kill more Americans. This procedure, unsettling as it is, came to be known worldwide as "waterboarding."

It came to be known worldwide because liberal media, abetted by a few political and military figures who didn't seem to grasp the urgency of stopping the maniacal plots against innocent civilians, revealed classified information and screamed "TORTURE!" Having no clue about how to get to the essential information some other way, but perhaps imagining themselves in the position of the captive, they just condemned those who were actually getting the job done at least in part. 

[Requia ☣]

 

You know what, I fucking give up on being a decent human being.  From now on I'm just going to waterboard people until they agree that its torture and wrong.

[LMNO]

Interestingly enough, this is actually a proven method -- there have been a few naysaying journalists and pundits who immediately changed their minds about waterboarding after they agreed to be subjected to it to prove it wasn't torture.