I felt the same way. What kind of numbskull believes that clinic workers are making Big Money in the baby parts racket? The same ones who’d gullibly take a worker’s statement that she’s saving up for a Lamborghini seriously.
Pharyngula
Evolution, development, and random biological ejaculations from a godless liberal
The force of amoral lying assholes multiplied by the stupidity of most self-identified conservatives is practically unstoppable. Hence, Fox News.
Fox News has totally accepted the doctored vid, and is extrapolating conspiracies from its premise.
Most folks have no idea what is involved in donation of human body parts for research. So they are free to be stupid in their presuppositions.
Those who know better can only laugh at them, then cry when they won’t listen.
This is a great video – short, to the point and utterly devastating to the multitudinous lies about planned parenthood and the imaginary great baby parts conspiracy. It’s a shame that most conservatives will never watch it, and those few that do will either lack the capacity to truly understand it, or more likely will willfully misinterpret it in order to both protect their cherished delusions and have an excuse to make innocent women’s lives worse.
The old saying is at least partially true – truth like this does indeed whisper, but lies don’t so much shout as are broadcasted through banks of extra loud Fox News branded speakers.
moarscienceplz, no, conservatives are not inherently stupid. They are misinformed by their trusted news sources, and they (like everyone to some degree or other) suffer from confirmation bias, making it easier for them to accept what they are told since it comports with their world view (formed in part by those same news sources).
If you think conservatives “don’t get it” because they are dumb, you will develop your own irrational conclusions.
re jaybee@5:
good advice.
In moarscienceplz defense, can be interpreted as judging their actions, not their inherent intelligence. As in the “stupidity” being a descriptive of their attitude, not a statement regarding their absolute intelligence.
I too advise moarscienceplz to no longer use that phraseology. However, I can see that their intent was directed differently than jaybee interpreted. Whenever a phrasing can be interpreted badly, choose a different phrasing that has fewer possibilities.
What I really want to know is whether this “crisis” will cause the catholics to stop handing out jesus meat and god blood.
I’m fairly certain that the Fox News/Breitbart types know they’re lying about Planned Parenthood. They don’t care about that — in fact, they’re in favor of it. Lying about ACORN got ACORN disbanded a few years ago, and there were no repercussions for any of the people who told lies, so why shouldn’t they repeat that strategy ad infinitum?
They don’t care about that — in fact, they’re in favor of it. Lying about ACORN got ACORN disbanded a few years ago, and there were no repercussions for any of the people who told lies, so why shouldn’t they repeat that strategy ad infinitum?
Trump is showing them the error of their ways. Now that they have created a constituency that laps up lies, an internal division will happen and lies will be the weapons on both sides of that rift. Basically, they’ve set themselves up for failure, and the results will be delicious.
@#9, Marcus Ranum:
Mmmmnope. Trump will be discreetly bribed out of the race if he doesn’t get out on his own. Meanwhile, the Democrats are in the process of nominating the one candidate they have who literally cannot win the contest, the one with the most baggage, the one who has consistently acted to move the Overton Window to the right, the one who will guarantee the lowest possible turnout for the Democrats and the highest possible turnout for the Republicans, and who lies at the drop of a hat, Hillary “I Won’t Say Whether I’m For Or Against The Keystone Pipeline Until I’m Elected” Clinton. The minute she gets the nomination is the minute the Republicans can start making plans for the redecoration of the Oval Office.
The Vicar: “Trump will be discreetly bribed out of the race ”
And how exactly do you bribe a billionaire? Seriously, I hear this one bandied by TV pundits and people who know absolutely nothing about politics, but no one is advancing a scenario that passes the Completely Illogical or Wishful Thinking test. I personally don’t think Trump is going to get the nomination, but it’s not because the RNC is going to “discreetly bribe” Donald Trump.
Also: “the one who will guarantee the lowest possible turnout for the Democrats”
That’s right, the possible election of the first woman as POTUS will in no way motivate certain constituencies, say slightly over half the population of the US, to get out and vote for the most popular woman on Earth.
You’ve been listening to too much talk radio. Your critical thinking skills are seriously floundering here.
If Chamber of Commerce, Koch brothers, Adelson or Wall Street bankers think that Trump will cost them a lot of money as the President, they may try to play him out of the race. Either by funding Walker or Bush or attacking Trump’s business.
Michael Anderburg
Prestige. There must be a country he’d like to be an ambassador of the US to. Russia? Israel?
@#11, Michael Anderburg:
You are very unimaginative — you seem to think that money is the only thing which can be used to bribe people. The following things could be offered, alone or in conjunction, to bribe Trump to drop out of the race:
1. A cancellation-proof job as a pundit on a “respectable” platform. (The guy loves to hear his own voice, and has always shown signs of being disappointed that nobody will take him seriously. Sure he can buy time by running a “reality” show — but nobody is watching that show to listen to his political opinions and he knows it.)
2. Chances to buy up assets which aren’t currently for sale, or which are currently illegal to sell. Trump has a history of buying (or building) utterly useless stuff which is supposed to impress people.
3. An agreement not to mention his many, many failures: the football league he sank, his bankruptcy, the various companies he basically screwed up… heck, even his self-named boardgame is good for a laugh. By the time the primaries roll around, he may even end up wanting people to forget he ever tried to run for office. If you don’t think he would be glad to have the promises of, say, a selection of big TV and newspaper owners that those will now be off-limits for comment — or that the owners of media outlets can’t make such declarations — then you are strangely naive.
4. Some sweet targeted deregulation to make his business ventures more profitable (or, in some cases, legal). Trump has a history of doing legally shaky things in business; packing a few zoning boards with Trump-friendly would do wonders for his real estate operations.
No, there won’t be any suitcases full of thousand-dollar bills being handed over. That style of bribery isn’t even used in small towns any more — these days it’s more “ensure that our business gets a multimillion dollar contract financed by municipal debt and our sister corporation will hire your spouse’s consulting firm for ill-defined and easy job duties”. But the appeal to Trump will most likely be to his ego, and will probably take the form of a guarantee that his ego will be stroked at no risk to himself for a much longer time than he would be in office as president.
Everyone I know who plans to vote for Clinton if she wins the nomination is reluctant about it. Even the women. I think seeing how Obama has been such an awful president for black people — combined with memories of how Margaret Thatcher was so awful for women in the U.K. — makes the more intelligent class of voter very suspicious of Clinton. Particularly since her entire track record, right from the start, has been one of nice-sounding leftish lies followed by abrasive rightward actions. (And, of course, there are the lies which aren’t even leftish — remember how she was dodging bullets?)
And those are the people who are willing to vote for her; what I’m seeing more of than I have seen ever before, even back in 2000, are people who are getting ready to vote Green or not vote at all, because the prospect of Hillary Clinton as the Democratic candidate is so obviously a bad one. She is the ultimate embodiment of the “we don’t have to be good at government, we just have to be less obviously bad than the Republicans” philosophy that the Democrats have espoused since about 1984. (And who decided on that? The self-appointed Democratic Leadership Committee, which included… Hillary Clinton. She’s been screwing us all over a lot longer than most Democrats are aware.)
Your premise is that there are more women who will vote for Hillary Clinton on the basis of identity politics than there are people who will refuse to vote for Hillary Clinton on the basis of… well, pretty much everything she has ever done or stood for. The Republicans thought like you did when they put Sarah Palin as McCain’s running mate, and the general reaction among female swing voters was “this is an insulting obvious attempt at pandering, I am not going to vote for this”. But, hey, maybe you think left-wingers are more oblivious to pandering (and have, in general, less integrity) than right-wingers. You might even be right, if you’re a left-winger. But I’m a left-winger, too, and your apparent position disgusts me with its cynicism.
@ Michael Anderburg
Lofty raises a good point; bribes are not necessarily monetary.
But I think you’re right about Clinton. She’s too far to the right for a lot of the Democrat core, but I think the opportunity to elect the first ever female POTUS will energise a lot of voters. However, it remains to be seen whether or not that will be enough.
Were I a Democrat, it would be a difficult choice. On the one hand, I could vote for the first ever female President (!), but risk the Overton window going further right… On the other, I could stick to my principals, vote for a leftier independent perhaps, but risk a) losing the chance to help, in some small way, to break male hegemony, and b) a Republican getting in.
On balance, I’d turn out and vote for her, but people can be stubborn.
Is it possible that your acquaintences are not a representative sample of potential Democratic voters? I dislike and distrust Clinton, and would be delighted if Sanders gets the nomination (I know very little about the other candidates, but would probably prefer at least some of them as well); but I don’t fool myself that I know what the result of any possible pairing of candidates would be. You don’t know either.
God, I hope Sanders gets elected in the US. And in five years time, we get Corbyn over here. Finally, a “special relationship” that might do the world some fucking good!
Thumper @ 17:
Yep, I’m actually planning on doing active campaigning for a candidate, sad to say, only the second time in my life to do so. I’m not entirely sure he’s electable, but I intend to help until/unless he’s clearly not.
Clinton is an acceptable choice, but no more than that. I won’t have to hold my nose if I vote for her, but I would roll my eyes. I’m less reluctant than simply unenthusiastic. But, yeah, the best argument for Clinton is what’s across the aisle from her.
Speaking personally, I’m still a long way from a write-in ballot for Princess Celestia.
The Vicar, lofty, Michael – I’m dubious Trump can be strong armed. That’s really the problem he presents to the rest of the GOP field – they can’t knuckle him under with anything and since there is no real Republican party establishment anymore, just silos of power funded by private money, there’s no organized structure to pressure him. Meanwhile he’s out there saying exactly what the Republican base thinks but is not bothering to use dog whistles or doublespeak to hide the nastiness of it. The base is lapping it up meanwhile actual professional politicians are looking at this and knowing there’s no way they can win a national election if this is the candidate. I despise Trump but I’m enjoying watching the sideshow here. I’m certain he will not be the nominee, though.
Orac has a post showing the links between the anti-vaccination movement and the perpetrators of this “sting” operation.
@#5
Stupidity is thinking the ACA is bad and needs to be repealed at all cost simply because it is a government program. Stupidity is thinking a snowball in D. C. in February is proof Global Warming is a hoax.
Stupidity is believing that the Iraq War could be won in six days or six weeks or six months.
Stupidity is not a congenital lack of intelligence. It is instead a consequence of simply assuming your model of the world is accurate, rather than bothering to look at actual hard data.
Webster does define stupidity as ” the state of being foolish or unintelligent”. It is unfortunate that they conflate foolishness and lack of intelligence. I think that does a disservice to people with Downs Syndrome and similar conditions – many of them are not at all foolish. I much prefer the definition that Google provides, “behavior that shows a lack of good sense or judgment.”
Thumper@17,
A couple of weeks ago I was telling a friend who’s a Labour Party member that Corbyn wouldn’t be elected as leader, and he should join me in the Scottish Green Party – but since then I’ve seen polls suggesting he will! I’d probably stick with the SGP (having only joined last November), but it would cetainly make me consider my options. My hunch is that if he was elected, that would bring about a split in the party: you recall that he only got the required 35 nominations from Labour MPs (out of 258) because some who had no intention of voting for him nonetheless thought there should be a token lefty in the contest. How could MPs like Liz Kendall stay after the things they’ve said about the consequences of Corbyn winning? A Corbyn victory would certainly be heavily exploited by the Tories and their media chums – but what a breath of fresh air it would be to have a Labour leader who is actually a socialist!
The video was short, to the point, and 100% accurate. However, I can foretell that there’s now going to be claims of ‘Rebecca Watson calls fetuses garbage!!!!’
danishdynamite:
How very SJW of you.
The calumny against Planned Parenthood is distressingly similar to the ancient ‘blood libel’ against Jews that they obtain the blood of innocent godfearing children for some nefarious and possibly pecuniary Jewish purpose.
I’ve kept track of my interactions with one religious right nitwit who’s selling that bullshit about planned parenthood, and I’ve included that video in my latest response.
We’ll see how long it stays up.
@ Nick Gotts
It is always possible for me to be wrong. On the other hand, it is usually possible for me to be right. The people who are saying this (that is, that they will avoid voting for Clinton under all circumstances) are “90s kids”, the people for whom this is the first or second presidential election. They are, furthermore, enthusiastic voters — these are the young people who are planning to vote, and will be agitating their peers. Writing them off, which is effectively what the Democrats will do if they nominate Hillary, would be not merely a mistake but a huge, fucking stupid mistake which will color politics in the U.S. for the next generation at a minimum. You know, like deciding that the Democrats should cozy up to corporate money and stop making more than a token gesture at populism, which was of course the decision the DLC made when Hillary Clinton was involved. I’m fairly certain that this election will, in retrospect, be a very important one, and if Clinton is the candidate for the Democrats, it’s going to be one which the Democrats botched utterly, absolutely, and dismally, and we will all sit around and bemoan the fact.
@Anri
As of two days ago, at least, polls were showing him beating all the Republicans “if the election were held today”. The threat that he is “unelectable” is a bogus one, since it’s his opponents who are mostly the “we must vote Democratic no matter who the candidate is” kind of Democrats.
@moarscienceplz
Oddly enough, I agree with you entirely. So what does it say about Hillary Clinton that she was convinced of the truth of that claim and voted for the invasion of Iraq, then? Seriously, Clinton is bad policy all the way down.
I know this is incredibly childish, but I can’t help mentally correcting his name to “Douche-Hat” whenever I see it written down.
I tend to read it as “doubt that”.
Of course, parts of babies’ bodies *are* cut off, sold, and used in commercial products like really expensive high-end facial creams. Circumcision is organ trafficking.
Why aren’t the Republicans investigating the DMV for promoting the harvesting of body parts? Every time you renew your license they try to talk you into giving vital organs just like Hitler did to the Jews.
I would do anything for love, but I won’t Douthat.
The Vicar: “You are very unimaginative…”
You, on the other hand, are very imaginative. ALL of the things you listed are already Trump’s for the asking and WILL be his for the asking whether he continues to run or not. Your main failure of comprehension is that you have a head full of reasonable sounding fantasies but are ignoring the simple, obvious facts that are right in front of you. Billionaire’s do not need to horse trade for that list of tempting treats (actually your main failure is thinking that being extremely extemporaneous is a substitute for a well thought out argument).
“Everyone I know who plans to vote for Clinton if she wins the nomination is reluctant about it. Even the women”
Once again: critical thinking fail. Your anecdotal experience in no way describes a statistical probability, nor does your boilerplate, conventional wisdom description of Clinton, the DLC, etc. describe how people actually line up behind the main candidate and actually vote. The line about people deciding to vote Green is laughably tragic. As a Green Party member who’s been trying to drag people into the party for the last 25 years I can tell you with certainty that LOTS of people say they’re going to vote Green and the 2 faced fuckers never do. Even in 2000 when we took the fall for Gore’s incompetent campaign we didn’t get 5% of the vote and let me tell you a hell of a lot more people were “going to vote Green” in 2000 than are saying it now even in your fevered imagination.
“Your premise is that there are more women who will vote for Hillary Clinton on the basis of identity politics…”
No, my premise, which I’ll restate because apparently you can’t read, is “the possible election of the first woman as POTUS will … motivate …slightly over half the population of the US, to get out and vote for the most popular woman on Earth.”
Key words being “motivate” and “popular.” Clinton is hugely popular among women. I know it seems really weird to the straight, white, male that you are statistically likely to be given the way you use the term “identity politics” without cracking up, but women, as a group have huge vested personal interest in seeing one of them become the POTUS, and one whom is more favorable among them by a 24 point spread is likely to get a lot of them to get out and vote. As things stand Clinton trounces every opponent put against her in every single poll. The only metric we have for even guessing what the 2016 election will be like demonstrate that you are completely talking out of your ass.
And please, “The Republicans thought like you did when they put Sarah Palin as McCain’s running mate,” is about as good of an example of a bad faith argument as I’ve seen posted on FTB. You cannot compare the selection of Palin by McCain’s team as a fob to attract women voters and the fact that Clinton, being a woman, was attracting women voters. You’re like an asshole who argues that people who point out sexism are the real sexists because Insert Fallacy Incorrectly Here.
Little fact for you: The 2 major parties have been pandering to their constituencies by only promoting straight, white, Xtian, men for the last 200 years. But a woman decides to run, then the very fact of her gender makes nice, mild-mannered centrist parrots like you run screaming for the hills because She’s Pandering to Women! This is good old fashioned sexism, and you’d really do well to examine that for a little while.
Not that anyone really cares but
Doing this
<blockquote>paste copied text here</blockquote>
Results in this
It makes comments with quotes easier to read.
Your content is your responsibility.
Michael Cantrell at Young Conservatives has a screed against Rebecca Watston’s video HERE.
#36, the number of reactionary cliches you have employed to trash Watson’s video “seems subpar at best” “rehashing of talking points” “vapid, second rate youtube personalities” leave no doubt that you are in fact an MRA created random feminist critique generator.
And in this case, the only real evidence we have (national poll results) suggests that you are. If I were an American, I’d likely be campaigning for Sanders right now, but your chats with your chums are not serious evidence of anything.
Haven Monahan, Media matters, issued the junk being debunked. And their film was fact free junk. Well, at least we know your veracity and intent.