left•og•y•ny [left-oj-uh-nee] – noun; hatred, dislike, or mistrust of women who are seen as straying from the current liberal doctrine. This is a mental disorder held by most left-wing men and women who feel that women are betraying their gender by exhibiting signs of conservatism. i.e. Christian, family oriented, Republican, NRA member, pro-life (see Alaska governor, Sarah Palin)
Update (by Kate)…
Palinize – “to slander and caricature a working-class female public figure for the noble advancement of liberalism.”
Gee, you guys never do have any ideas or principles of your own, do you? Post after post merely reacting to what the Left has done.
It’s like your entire movement is based on spite! How many words here have been devoted to those “lefties”? Pathetic! Guess that’s why you’re on your way out.
Hey, Skip, how come you say I said something here that I never said? Can’t win your argument without lying?
real:
I have no idea what your point is.
Individuals have their own way of arriving at the truth.
Robots cannot think for themselves and when they can’t understand, they call others names … hmmmm, let’s see …. liar?
real, you aren’t making any sense.
Are you suggesting that we shouldn’t react to the reaction of the left to Palin? Their reaction to her selection as VP nominee has been malicious, spiteful, vicious. It has been filled with lies, innuendo, denigration of her accomplishments, sneers, put-downs..etc.
Are you saying that this spiteful and malicious behaviour of the left should be ignored? Why? Wouldn’t that be unprincipled on our part – not to stand up for truth and integrity?
Just take a look at the MSM and its vicious attacks against Mrs. Palin. How many words have been devoted to attacking her? Hmmm?
And what does our reacting to the Left’s reaction to the announcement have to do with ‘ideas’? After all, this thread isn’t about the ideas of the right. It’s about integrity in the political realm, and most of us feel that the left’s reaction to Mrs. Palin’s selection was unethical.
ET, why am I not at all surprised that you are too obtuse to understand my point.
I have read so much invective directed toward the likes of Hillary Clinton, Nancy Pelosi, Sheila Copps, Belinda Stronach, etc. etc. etc. – strong-minded women who don’t share the conservative viewpoint that a woman should be at home with her children until they are older (something it seems Palin doesn’t believe either) – about whether they are real women or good mothers because they chose work as well as families, because they are tough and not “feminine”. By Rush Limbaugh. By Sean Hannity. By Ann Coulter. Here at SDA. At Free Dominion. At the Shotgun. etc. etc. etc. Which is not to even go back in time to what was said and threatened against the Gloria Steinem’s etc.
And you do see many of the same comments from liberals about Nancy Reagan, Laura Bush, Ann Coulter, etc. etc. etc. – strong-minded women who don’t share their liberal values and viewpoint.
It is the same crap.
My point is a simple one so let me repeat: stupid partisans will throw out all principles when attacking the other side. Liberals and conservatives alike will call woment b**ches, and s**ts. Anything goes when you attack “the other side” and the partisan monkeys jump up and down clapping each other on the back.
I’m not saying conservatives and liberals are the same, ET. I am saying you and all the DailyKos and other knee-jerk reaction partisans are pretty much all stooges and the perfect example of “sheeple”.
Hope that wasn’t too difficult for you to understand this time.
And as for this silliness about “the Left” is a dogmatic religion, really, you can’t have it both ways folks. Is the Left dogmatic and like a religion, or as Texas Canuck says and as ET herself has said in a different post, is the Left devoid of any real principles where everything is relative and nothing absolute?
Which is it?
Political types of all stripes will use ideology to get power. That is certainly true on the left and certainly true on the right. They will hoodwink the general voting public by saying they believe in X, Y and Z and then do the politically expedient thing (read: what it takes to get and keep power) and the first opportunity. Like Chretien with the GST or Harper with spending, fixed-election dates, waiting times, etc. etc.
ET: Further to your earlier post:
This does help put into words a scenario from past elections that the Liberals won. I remember a time when Paul Martin said quite emphatically that he would not allow Alberta to have its own private hospitals. While the statement was rather silly on its own merits, its silliness was only exceeded by the hypocrisy of stating it at the same time he was getting services from a private clinic. I also remember a time when Brian Tobin was involved in some Liberal war room strategies when Chretien was running for re-election. Apparently, the guy who was role-playing the Alliance or Reform candidate (I forget which one) made a good point against the status quo on the subject of Canada’s national health care that left Chretien without a response. As this was just a rehearsal and Tobin felt sympathy for the speechless Chretien, Tobin came running out of a back room yelling “No two-tier, no two tier”. (This would be the Liberal strategy for that election on health care – it is a statement about the depth of Canadians’ intellectual interest in the health care debate that it worked.) When one compares this statement against the other scenario that would face Martin just a few years later, perhaps Tobin would have been more honest if he had said: “No two-tier for the peasant class.”
They are afraid. Very afraid. And so they should be.
Although McCain’s choice of Palin does seem to help him, the election is not over until it’s over. Th very nature of US politics suggests that the loosing side will try an October surprise. A book is about to be released in late September that has the potential to cause McCain some trouble. You may want to watch for it.
Gary Chafetz is a liberal Boston journalist who set out to chronicle the scandal involving conservative gun-for-hire and super-lobbyist, Jack Abramoff. Instead he uncovered a Shakespearean tragedy of deceit, betrayal and political vendetta in which the true villains are Presidential aspirant John McCain, the Washington Post newspaper and the U.S. Department of Justice–all of whom participated in the railroading of an innocent man. Chafetz benefited from exclusive and unconditional access to the jailed Abramoff and to many never-before-released documents. The blizzard of stories originating from the Washington political machine painted Abramoff as an implausibly greedy lobbyist who cheated Indian tribes, bribed politicians and corrupted the political process–a fascinating tale but, ultimately, untrue. The true story, as Chafetz recounts in The Perfect Villain, is even more riveting and compelling.
Will the electorate believe Chafetz? We will know on the 4th.
It’s interesting to wonder what would have happned if Sarah Palin was a democratic candidate, with a gay son who announced he had aids.
There would be endless talk about what a wonderful mother she was and flattering articles about her courage.
Ah, Ted. I love how you accuse all others of being partisan…presumably presenting yourself as balanced…yet you NEVER agree with ANY conservative principle and YOU are one of the only commenters at SDA who has attended a political party’s conventiuon and actively campaigned at it.
Ted, I dare say that YOU are every bit as partisan as you claim everyone else to be.
As for our supposedly viscious attacks against HRC, Pelosi, Copps, Stronach, et al, please point to an instance where we criticized them because of the actions of their offspring. NOW who’s being obtuse?
Partisan hack.
The problem, ted, is that your attempt to invoke equivalence as a tactic to smooth over the really vicious and malicious attacks against Gov. Palin by the left – is bereft of content. As usual, you also insert an insult – but that’s you.
You can name drop about Conservatives as much as you want, but without actual content of what they said – it’s just your word. And, heh, I don’t accept your word.
No, Conservative ideology is not ‘the woman remains in the kitchen and with the children’. I’d like to see some proof of that as well. It’s what YOU say is Conservative ideology, but it’s not what Conservatives say. So, again, I don’t accept your words.
Belinda Stronach is ‘strong-minded’? About what? I haven’t heard or read any comments from her that contained any analysis whatsoever. Now – is that conclusion similar to the invective directed to Gov. Palin? No.
Same with Sheila Copps.
Hillary Clinton’s ideas are critiqued. What’s wrong with that?
Pelosi’s ideas are critiqued. What’s wrong with that?
But the invective against Gov. Palin isn’t against her ideas but against her – being a mother, being a hunter, being against abortion, being both a mother and professional. They are against her daughter, against her husband. They are outrageous.
Yes, the left was vicious against Nancy Reagan and the Bush women – but again, this is a characteristic of the Left. It’s you who is trying to deflate the leftist invective against Gov. Palin by trying to set up a scenario of equivalence between left and right.
I disagree with you.
They are afraid. Very afraid. And so they should be.
This is kind of funny, Woodporter. They’re so afraid they’re laughing out loud!
I think McCain wanted Lieberman, but the religious right wouldn’t allow it. So he has picked Palin, who will implode and then be replaced by Lieberman, and then it will be McCain’s turn to tell Reed and his crowd to knuckle under.
And besides, this way McCain earns the undying gratitude of the tabloid press, which can come in real handy as EDay approaches.
“Guess that’s why you’re on your way out.”
– real
Travers wrote an op/ed in the Star the other day claiming the same thing. That America had already rejected Conservatism and the world, including Canada, was going to do the same thing.
This despite France, Germany, Switzerland, Italy and soon England’s swing to the right.
Facts and reason have no place in the brainless world of the left. All they’ve got is the audacity of whatever they want to think which they present as fact.
One of the immediate benefits of a McCain win will be watching the extreme and pathetic meltdown of the left. It’ll be a joy.
Though, thank God they don’t own guns.
David, you seem to have a habit of making controversial accusations (religious right would not allow Lieberman as VP) without evidence.
You should have a good reason for making this accusation, IOW evidence/link/quote/something besides your thoughts; if so, provide it.
If not, then don’t present your opinion/suspicions as fact.
david – could you provide proof for your allegation that McCain wanted Liebermann but the ‘religious right’ wouldn’t allow it.
Thanks. After all, without proof it’s just your view of the world – and heck, that began and ends with …you. Not reality.
“All they’ve got is the audacity of whatever they want to think which they present as fact.”
Exhibit A: David.
“They’re so afraid they’re laughing out loud!”
Those vicious attacks are the sound of laughter? Could’ve fooled me.
File those under inanity along with chickendove.
since Obama’s up 8 points since the Palin nomination, I think the laughter might have a different source 😉
“could you provide proof for your allegation that McCain wanted Liebermann but the ‘religious right’ wouldn’t allow it.”
Of course he can prove it, it’s right there in his talking points memo.
TC
If we’re taking credit here, I’m pretty sure I coined the term “leftard”:-)and I am sure I invented “Torontard”:-P
Speaking of tards, I saw Tropical Thunder yesterday; definiatly NOT OFFENSIVE. What a bunch of idiots(no pun intended).
Frankly I would have trouble taking someone seriously after they called their kids Track, Bristol, Willow, Piper and Trig. It sounds more aging-hippie than anything.
And if the oldest son were Track, shouldn’t the next one be Field?
Mike … this is probably the most retarded post that has EVER appeared on this site!