Skip to main content

Much of my internet surfing the past few days had stories about what was happening at CPAC along with links and invitations to watch it live.  I finally broke down and decided to watch.  I didn't last long, five or ten minutes.  There was a panel of women talking about how ridiculous the "War on Women" meme was since they were there.

They spoke about right it was to hold conservative beliefs, and the problem is the optics.  Men shouldn't speak about women's issues, we need women to do the talking.  I guess they had a point, I don't know.  I'm a man, so I'll put it out as a question.  If a woman were to talk about "legitimate rape" or tell about how she avoids getting pregnant by holding a bottle of aspirin between her legs, is it less offensive?

They talked about how the Violence Against Women Act was passed to help lawyers.  They mocked the Lily Ledbetter Act.  They acknowledged a wage gap, but said they weren't dependent on big bad government to solve the problem.  They have completely missed the point.

The point is below the fold:

Conservatives spend a lot of time talking about the Constitution.  They act like they own the copyright, much like they own the copyright on the Bible, and any interpretations that don't jibe with their own are wrong.  They don't.  They also happen to be wrong.  The whole reason the Constitution exists is because the United States under the Articles of the Confederacy was an abject failure.

The Federalist Papers were an 18th century ad campaign to argue that we are stronger as a Union.  The Constitutional Convention was convened to draw up a federal government.  The founders did not distrust government, they distrusted power which is why they split it up.  What exactly did the founders believe about government?  I claim that they believed governments are instituted among men to secure the rights of the citizens.  Where did I ever get that idea?

Women getting equal pay for equal work are not being Dependent on Government.  Government is serving it's purpose by protecting women's rights.  That's why it exists.  My dog chews shoes, government protects rights.

I recall a conversation I had with my father when a bankruptcy reform bill was being debated.  An amendment was proposed to prevent a bank from foreclosing on a US servicemen's home while they were serving overseas.  My father didn't believe the amendment was necessary.  "Who would do such a thing?" was his argument.  Banks, apparently, since we now know that it has happened.

Conservatives believe that the free market makes everything work, and government interferes with that.  They just passed some government in West Virginia, and North Carolina is hoping for some more government  because they realized that they like having clean water.  What kind of Socialist wants clean water?  Richard M. Nixon put his name on a law to that effect.

Your Email has been sent.
You must add at least one tag to this diary before publishing it.

Add keywords that describe this diary. Separate multiple keywords with commas.
Tagging tips - Search For Tags - Browse For Tags


More Tagging tips:

A tag is a way to search for this diary. If someone is searching for "Barack Obama," is this a diary they'd be trying to find?

Use a person's full name, without any title. Senator Obama may become President Obama, and Michelle Obama might run for office.

If your diary covers an election or elected official, use election tags, which are generally the state abbreviation followed by the office. CA-01 is the first district House seat. CA-Sen covers both senate races. NY-GOV covers the New York governor's race.

Tags do not compound: that is, "education reform" is a completely different tag from "education". A tag like "reform" alone is probably not meaningful.

Consider if one or more of these tags fits your diary: Civil Rights, Community, Congress, Culture, Economy, Education, Elections, Energy, Environment, Health Care, International, Labor, Law, Media, Meta, National Security, Science, Transportation, or White House. If your diary is specific to a state, consider adding the state (California, Texas, etc). Keep in mind, though, that there are many wonderful and important diaries that don't fit in any of these tags. Don't worry if yours doesn't.

You can add a private note to this diary when hotlisting it:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from your hotlist?
Are you sure you want to remove your recommendation? You can only recommend a diary once, so you will not be able to re-recommend it afterwards.
Rescue this diary, and add a note:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from Rescue?
Choose where to republish this diary. The diary will be added to the queue for that group. Publish it from the queue to make it appear.

You must be a member of a group to use this feature.

Add a quick update to your diary without changing the diary itself:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary?
(The diary will be removed from the site and returned to your drafts for further editing.)
(The diary will be removed.)
Are you sure you want to save these changes to the published diary?

Comment Preferences

  •  For me, I find it even MORE offensive (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    thanatokephaloides, anon004

    when a woman spews that rw misogynistic nonsense!

    Tipped & rec'd for your fortitude in watching CPAC so we don't have to!

    I don't love writing, but I love having written ~ Dorothy Parker // Visit my Handmade Gallery on Zibbet

    by jan4insight on Sun Mar 09, 2014 at 12:39:53 PM PDT

  •  I've never understood the argument that if (3+ / 0-)

    something is unlikely to occur, we shouldn't have a law about it.  Have the law, and if it never happens, the law simply never does anything.  Nobody is 'hurt' by laws existing that don't ever do anything.

    So if there were a law to prevent banks from foreclosing on servicemen overseas, and 'no one would ever do that', then fine, no harm, no foul.  But, as you point out, it does actually happen, which is why we maybe kinda need such a law.

  •  promote the general Welfare (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:

    It seems like I have read that somewhere before.

    For conservatives the Constitution consists of the Second amendment, the Tenth Amendment, and parts of the First. This is the Constitution they know.

    Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

    A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

    The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

    The rest - meh....

    “We can always count on the Americans to do the right thing, after they have exhausted all the other possibilities.” - Winston Chuchill

    by se portland on Sun Mar 09, 2014 at 01:13:39 PM PDT

    •  conservative Constitution (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      se portland

      se portland, you made your quotation of the conservative-recognized Constitution a little more extensive than it should be.

      As conservatives see them:

      First Amendment: Congress shall make no law. Period. Conservatives don't believe in freedom of religion of any kind (they want a fundagelical Protestant "Christian" theocracy); they don't believe in freedom of speech or press except for them and their gazillionaire friends (do the initials NSA ring a bell? Or Faux "News" ?); you can ask Occupy Wall Street about conservatives' attitudes towards the supposedly guaranteed freedom to peaceably assemble; and you can ask the unionized public servants in Wisconsin about the supposed right to petition the government for redress of grievances.

      Also, if we can prevent Congress from making all those nasty laws, the above-mentioned gazillionaires won't have to pay taxes.

      Second Amendment: you got it spot-on.  The exclusive right of white male individuals to keep, bear, and use any sort of weapons they F'ing well please, in any places they so please, shall not be abridged for any reason whatsoever.

      Tenth Amendment: The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, as well as those which are so delegated, are reserved to the States exclusively.

      Conservatives do not believe in any power to go to the individual people at all. (Witness all the brouhaha about how the basic unit of society is their all-too-narrow concept of the family, blatantly ignoring ancient common-sense proverbs on the subject of chains and their weakest links. Or the concerted efforts made by conservative pols to make it harder for non-white and non-rich to vote.) Ceiling Cat forbid that any individual have any inalienable rights to call her own!

      "It's high time (and then some) that we put an end to the exceptionalistic nonsense floating around in our culture and face the fact that either the economy works for all, or it doesn't work AT all." -- Sean McCullough (DailyKos user thanatokephaloides)

      by thanatokephaloides on Sun Mar 09, 2014 at 05:21:42 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site