Tuesday, May 31, 2011

The Liberal Plan for Women

Kevin McCullough's latest article takes Liberals to courting the woman vote, doing things like allowing Debbie Wasserman Schultz to assume control of the DNC.
They intend to win the votes of women, and they will lie, confuse, and mislead if necessary to do so.
Yep we're just awful. He lists a number of prominent Conservative woman politicians to prove that Conservatives just care about women more, and then says this.
. . . a simple question for Rep. Schultz, "Where is your proof that the GOP is at war with these ladies?" Because while I'm not 100% certain, I'm fairly sure none of them embrace your ideas of equality for women--a world without men, where butchery of your own children is praised, immoral liberties are encouraged, and the idea of nurturing one's children is the equivalent to dropping a nuclear bomb.
A world without men? This in an article where he admits that admits that Schultz is married and has children (and even concedes that she might be a pretty good mother). It then turns around and ascribes to Schultz all of these cliches.

Presumably McCullough really does believe that we liberals, particularly liberal woman, want a world with no men and praise the butchery of our own children. Either he believes that is what sort of people we are or he is simply a deceitful propagandist.

The comments seem to contain multiple posts by a guy who believes that Liberalism is wanting to turn Heterosexual males into Diaper Dads.

UNTIL 50% of men in office are repalced by women.. that's their whoopi-agenda.

(now you know...) .. DIAPER DADS WE ARE TO MADE...

This includes School Boards, local, County and State government (in which to warm up) along with the Federal Government. To be 'included' are Judges all the way up to and 'including' SCOTUS. Add to this.. corporations plus Government departments and agencies.


.. while mommy legislates, adjudicates, governs or runs a corporation.
That should probably be "DIAPER DADS WE ARE TO BE MADE." Still kind of awkward.

No comments: