Do you have adblock enabled?
If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(New York Daily News)   Well ever since that phoney "war on women" thing started the GOP has been doing better amongst women and the more conservative the better   (nydailynews.com) divider line 367
    More: Interesting, GOP, Republican  
•       •       •

5837 clicks; posted to Politics » on 05 Apr 2012 at 1:32 PM (2 years ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



367 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | » | Last | Show all
 
2012-04-05 06:05:22 PM  

HighOnCraic: skullkrusher: rufus-t-firefly: skullkrusher: rufus-t-firefly: In 65 percent of the cases at our school, our female students were interrogated by insurance representatives and university medical staff about why they needed prescriptions and whether they were lying about their symptoms.

I still don't get why university staff are involved. That sounds like the proposed Arizona law allowing an employer to basically do the job of the insurance company. It's ludicrous on several levels

Because they can't have a woman using the insurance that she pays for to cover a prescription that her doctor prescribes when she might just be a big slut getting her doctor to lie for her.

Conservatives say they don't want the government in between a patient and her doctor, but they don't mind when a religious institution or an insurance company interferes with patient care.

but it's Georgetown. That ain't quite Bob Jones University. Jesuits are pretty loosey goosey with the rules. Oh, and it is an excellent school while BJU isn't even accredited. Makes no sense to me. You used to be cool, Jesuits

For instance, a Georgetown University spokesperson told ThinkProgress yesterday that employees "have access to health insurance plans offered and designed by national providers to a national pool. These plans include coverage for birth control."

Link (new window)

So it's okay for their employees, just not for their slutty students who are obviously having much more sex than the employees, and thus, the need much more birth control pills.

/sarc


They need to stop dressing them in those damned plaid skirts then...
 
2012-04-05 06:06:47 PM  

Urbn: WombatControl: HighOnCraic:

Once more, so what? The fact that some states mandate contraceptive coverage doesn't imply that the federal government must step in and make that decision for every state. The fact that some religious institutions choose to pay for contraception and some do not does not imply that every religious institution must do so.

On the question of whether the schools pay for part of the premium, the typical answer is yes - that's the why health care policies work in this country. The employee pays a share of the overall premium, and the company pays a share of the premium. There may be different policies for different employers, but that's the general way it works. The reason why is because the part the employer pays is a tax offset to them, and the part that the employee pays may be paid pre-tax for them.

Basically, the way that the vast majority of private health-care financing was created for tax reasons. Which explains why so much of our private health-care financing is so phenomenally farked up...

I know a way that no employer will ever have to violate their delicate moral values by inserting their righteous noses into my healthcare purchases or what my doctor prescribes for me...

SINGLE PAYER PUBLIC OPTION NOW!


But then you're forcing ME to pay for things I don't agree with by using my tax dollars!

(funny - this argument isn't acceptable for wars, torture, etc...but whatever)
 
2012-04-05 06:10:28 PM  

rufus-t-firefly: Urbn: WombatControl: HighOnCraic:

Once more, so what? The fact that some states mandate contraceptive coverage doesn't imply that the federal government must step in and make that decision for every state. The fact that some religious institutions choose to pay for contraception and some do not does not imply that every religious institution must do so.

On the question of whether the schools pay for part of the premium, the typical answer is yes - that's the why health care policies work in this country. The employee pays a share of the overall premium, and the company pays a share of the premium. There may be different policies for different employers, but that's the general way it works. The reason why is because the part the employer pays is a tax offset to them, and the part that the employee pays may be paid pre-tax for them.

Basically, the way that the vast majority of private health-care financing was created for tax reasons. Which explains why so much of our private health-care financing is so phenomenally farked up...

I know a way that no employer will ever have to violate their delicate moral values by inserting their righteous noses into my healthcare purchases or what my doctor prescribes for me...

SINGLE PAYER PUBLIC OPTION NOW!

But then you're forcing ME to pay for things I don't agree with by using my tax dollars!

(funny - this argument isn't acceptable for wars, torture, etc...but whatever)


And I don't suppose they can wrap their mind around the fact that we already are paying for these people in a variety of ways who don't have insurance or don't pay their medical bills, so extending medicare taxes would actually make sure almost everyone has 'skin in the game' (which is a term they are also very fond of I'm told).
 
2012-04-05 06:11:47 PM  

Urbn: rufus-t-firefly: Urbn: WombatControl: HighOnCraic:

Once more, so what? The fact that some states mandate contraceptive coverage doesn't imply that the federal government must step in and make that decision for every state. The fact that some religious institutions choose to pay for contraception and some do not does not imply that every religious institution must do so.

On the question of whether the schools pay for part of the premium, the typical answer is yes - that's the why health care policies work in this country. The employee pays a share of the overall premium, and the company pays a share of the premium. There may be different policies for different employers, but that's the general way it works. The reason why is because the part the employer pays is a tax offset to them, and the part that the employee pays may be paid pre-tax for them.

Basically, the way that the vast majority of private health-care financing was created for tax reasons. Which explains why so much of our private health-care financing is so phenomenally farked up...

I know a way that no employer will ever have to violate their delicate moral values by inserting their righteous noses into my healthcare purchases or what my doctor prescribes for me...

SINGLE PAYER PUBLIC OPTION NOW!

But then you're forcing ME to pay for things I don't agree with by using my tax dollars!

(funny - this argument isn't acceptable for wars, torture, etc...but whatever)

And I don't suppose they can wrap their mind around the fact that we already are paying for these people in a variety of ways who don't have insurance or don't pay their medical bills, so extending medicare taxes would actually make sure almost everyone has 'skin in the game' (which is a term they are also very fond of I'm told).


It actually isn't acceptable because there is no way you can prove your dollar paid for war, torture, or birth control.
 
2012-04-05 06:24:07 PM  

o5iiawah: It looks as though more women tend to be liberal because if they dare believe in conservatism, they'll be outed as a sell-out, vapid coont, troll and stupid.


...And there's the attitude that will have women flocking to the GOP in November.

You suave motherf*ckers. *rolls eyes*
 
2012-04-05 06:25:54 PM  

James F. Campbell: Hello? Yes, who is this? Oh, hello, Fallacy of Composition, how are you doing today? Oh? Yes, those Republicans certainly are evil farking scumbags, aren't they?


This is true, it's only about 80% of the GOP that's making the other 20% look bad at this point. The latter number shrinking every day.

WombatControl: The Why Not Guy:
Stop right there. Numerous studies, including at least one by the CDC, have shown that access to contraception does not increase sexual promiscuity or lead to young people having sex earlier. The sexual deviancy thing? Who knows. But the rest is flat out false.

I'm not saying I agree with that - for the record, I'm very much for contraception - but that's the opinion that others hold.


Nah, an "opinion" is a differing interpretation of a given set of data. The word for holding a belief when it is factually untrue is "denial". Different thing entirely.
 
2012-04-05 06:28:38 PM  
If there is a gender gap i think it occurs among single women. Otherwise, I think married couples often vote similarly.
 
2012-04-05 06:29:27 PM  

GameSprocket: Nickster79: S.E Cupp often makes my head hurt when she tries to justify the GOP's actions, but good lord is she hot.

Meh. This is hot ...

[farm1.staticflickr.com image 419x317]

[farm1.static.flickr.com image 417x500]


God damn that woman was hot. But time has not been terribly kind, if you have seen her on MSNBC lately. Whatever happened to the prostitute?
 
2012-04-05 06:32:32 PM  

Rapmaster2000: Women, it seems, are falling for the left's "we'll take care of you" economic paternalism, the insistence that women need the state, or wealthy taxpayers, to rescue them from a life of oppression, squalor and servitude.

Yeah, why didn't these women just get born into an upper class household and attend Cornell University for a degree in Art History and then use their looks to procure a "hot pundit" gig like SE Cupp?

Those women are so stupid that they are falling for the paternalism that their peers like SE Cupp have overcome.


Her degree is in Art History? Really? Ha!
 
2012-04-05 06:38:25 PM  
Quinnipiac, Public Policy Polling and Gallup found that Romney actually improved with women between mid-December and mid-February, just after the brouhaha began. And Rick Santorum, the staunch social conservative whose views on contraception have been at the epicenter of the debate, has earned the female vote in every state he's won. He also polled 21 points higher among Republican female voters than Romney in a question about who understands their needs better.

Among Republican voters, certain Republicans are polling better than other Republicans, ergo Republicans are polling better among women?

In a January NBC/Wall Street Journal poll, Democrats on the congressional ballot had a 15-point advantage with women before the debate began. And now? A 14-point advantage.

What are the numbers in February? What is the usual variation in approval month to month? What influence do presidential primaries have on congressional approval?

Further, Obama's job-performance rating among women, according to Gallup, has remained steady throughout the debate, at about 50.

Can ask similar questions. Remaining steady may show a widening of the gender approval gap by not lessening despite cyclical circumstance.

Not suggesting the policies are or are not causing greater division between genders, but those were a couple of polls which you provide minimal information regarding methods, sample, comparison, context, etc.. Don't ask for "women [to] do their homework" while failing to do yours.
 
2012-04-05 06:40:24 PM  
You know, since everything has else been covered, I really take offense to the idea that empowerment = no help ever. Of course you're going to need help at some point. Feminism wasn't about taking that away--every human on the planet will at some stage need help, and it's just cruel to deny it. Or do you think Real Feminist Women(tm) only eat what they personally kill from birth onwards?

/Feminists need to quit doing this too, pride is not empowerment and it's inane to confuse them.
 
2012-04-05 06:51:23 PM  

sigdiamond2000: if only women would do their homework, they'd see that Republican policies of lower taxes and smaller government are better for women

Time for another round of...

Republicans 2000-2008: "Nobody votes for Democrats because they treat the American people like they're stupid."

Republicans 2009-present: "The American people are stupid."


This is pretty similar to the GOP outreach program towards minorities as well.

GOP: Why can't we get more black voters, after all they are way more religious and socially conservative than most white Democrats? GET OFF THE PLANTATION YOU BRAINWASHED LAYABOUTS! Now let's outreach us some Latinos.
 
2012-04-05 06:55:23 PM  
The more important question is, why hasn't this author biatch made us all sandwiches yet?
 
2012-04-05 07:10:13 PM  

BSABSVR: GOP: Why can't we get more black voters, after all they are way more religious and socially conservative than most white Democrats? GET OFF THE PLANTATION YOU BRAINWASHED LAYABOUTS! Now let's outreach us some Latinos.


Bingo. They wonder why blacks vote overwhelmingly Democrat as they place a "Don't Re-Nig in 2012" bumper sticker on their car
 
2012-04-05 07:20:10 PM  

Ishkur: Sippy Cupp again. I can't decide if she's playing a rightwing troll for the cheap and easy press/money (like a less subtle Colbert) or if she sincerely wants to become the next Malkin/Coulter.


I'm so happy I'm not the only one who calls her that.

/Good lord she is a beautiful woman though. I hate to see her spout off talking points like this.
 
2012-04-05 07:48:12 PM  
By someone who is far funnier than me:

- It was the Democrats that forced conservatives in Idaho, Arizona, Pennsylvania, Virginia, Georgia, Mississippi, Texas, Oklahoma, Ohio, Alaska, Wisconsin, and elsewhere to write legislation restricting access to abortion services.
- It was Demmycrats with their mind control powers who hypnotized California Republican Darrell Issa and forced him to hold that now-famous hearing about birth control that featured zero women on the panel.
- Liberals used witchcraft to magick Rush Limbaugh into calling Sandra Fluke a slut, and then forced the Republican candidates for President to offer only tepid condemnations of his words.
- It was DNC Chairwoman Debbie Wasserman Schultz herself, actually, who dressed up in a very convincing Dave Albo disguise and gave a speech before the Virginia Assembly about how sad she was about not getting to have sex because of the "trans v" ultrasound bill.
- Pro-choice Democrats are to blame for the near-government shutdown over Planned Parenthood funding last year.
- And it's definitely the bleeding heart tax n' spenders who have tried to make it legal for a woman's husband or parents to interfere with her right to abortion.

Look what you've gone and made the Republicans do, Democrats. If you didn't want them to think you wanted them to legislatively fark women, then you shouldn't have left the house dressed like that.


Clearly it was the Democrats cause the Republicans to limit women's rights and empowerment.
 
2012-04-05 07:49:44 PM  

Headso: Smaller government gives women more choices

that has to be satire


What do you mean? It gives them lots of new choices; for instance the choice to find the bright-side of rape, or fulfillment in a life of drudgery and childcare, or to acquiesce to sexual harassment and social inequality. Think of all those arduous duties -like thinking for themselves, making their own living, forcing dead-beat spouses to pay child support, fighting within the court system to punish people who harm them, and competing on an increasingly equal playing field with men- that our dastardly, lie-beral Nanny State government has imposed on women since the 1960s. If women would just realize how voting Republican would free them from all that, would bring back the Golden Age when they didn't have to worry about all of that and they had the "freedom" to sit at home doing nothing intellectually or professionally fulfilling with their time, things would be so much better for them.


/I'm being sarcastic in case that wasn't clear.
 
2012-04-05 07:56:29 PM  

Headso: Smaller government gives women more choices

that has to be satire


Yes, especially as the clear historical evidence is that small government = Democrat, for at least the last 30+ years. So that gives two major reasons for virtually all women to vote democrat 1) more choices 2) they don't have over a dozen women hating policies at the core of their agenda.

It is funny how much the GOP keep using tactics right out of Goebbels playbook - "repeat a lie often enough and it becomes the truth".
 
2012-04-05 08:17:26 PM  

xria: Headso: Smaller government gives women more choices

that has to be satire

Yes, especially as the clear historical evidence is that small government = Democrat, for at least the last 30+ years. So that gives two major reasons for virtually all women to vote democrat 1) more choices 2) they don't have over a dozen women hating policies at the core of their agenda.

It is funny how much the GOP keep using tactics right out of Goebbels playbook - "repeat a lie often enough and it becomes the truth".


Say what you want about Goebbels, the man was a genius PR hack. He was the ultimate spinmeister before the term was even invented.

Nevermind going back in time and killing Hitler, the one who really needs pre-1933 assassination is Goebbels. Without him, Adolf would never have survived.
 
2012-04-05 08:53:53 PM  

xria: It is funny how much the GOP keep using tactics right out of Goebbels playbook - "repeat a lie often enough and it becomes the truth".


Not really. It's still a lie, and now that more people realize GOP tactics, it just makes them look insane. That's where Goebbels falls apart, really: the media plays as big of a role as they can until one becomes skeptical enough to realize they benefit from what they report. And as we can see from the GOP, if they were canny enough to realize this, they wouldn't be losing women from all over the place along with everybody that isn't already voting for them.

S.E. Cupp comes off as being just yet another pathetic person trying to find a niche in a fading trend.
 
2012-04-05 09:01:43 PM  

WombatControl: What matters here is who has the right to dictate that choice?


I say the woman. You say the church that owns the institution the woman works for.

Which one of us supports individual freedom?
 
2012-04-05 09:02:21 PM  

Parthenogenetic:
Wait does she seriously sit with her legs up like that on TV? Please tell me those are photoshopped.

Apparently, yes she does. No those are not.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8L-ObCaDwq8#t=1m20s (new window)


Good lord...
 
2012-04-05 09:13:56 PM  

Hickory-smoked: WombatControl: What matters here is who has the right to dictate that choice?

I say the woman. You say the church that owns the institution the woman works for.

Which one of us supports individual freedom?


The woman is still free to buy contraceptives. The woman is still free to purchase her own insurance (and should, in a sane system, be able to do that easily and affordably). The woman has the choice whether to work for that institution or not (and I'd even add that the institution should make it clear what is and is not covered and give plenty of warning when that changes).

Individual freedom isn't the question here, the question is whether the government gets to dictate to a religiously-affiliated employer what they must pay for. This isn't a matter of getting to use contraceptives, this is a matter of who pays for them.
 
2012-04-05 09:19:27 PM  
I'm sorry, your party thinks it's okay for my doctor to lie to me. your argument is invalid.
 
2012-04-05 09:21:01 PM  

WombatControl:
Individual freedom isn't the question here, the question is whether the government gets to dictate to a religiously-affiliated employer what they must pay for.


If religiously affiliated employers don't like the labor laws as they pertain to all businesses, they can quit running businesses, and go back to being churches.
 
2012-04-05 09:22:04 PM  

WombatControl: Individual freedom isn't the question here, the question is whether the government gets to dictate to a religiously-affiliated employer what they must pay for. This isn't a matter of getting to use contraceptives, this is a matter of who pays for them.


So, when it got switched to the insurance company, why was there still outrage?
 
2012-04-05 09:26:26 PM  

Benni K Rok: WombatControl: Individual freedom isn't the question here, the question is whether the government gets to dictate to a religiously-affiliated employer what they must pay for. This isn't a matter of getting to use contraceptives, this is a matter of who pays for them.

So, when it got switched to the insurance company, why was there still outrage?


Because they're women.
 
2012-04-05 09:26:28 PM  
Ms. Cupp, before you continue writing dumb bullshiat, I must inform you that punditry results in an increased risk for breast cancer, just like abortions.

/thank you, doctor
//oh, I'm not a doctor
 
2012-04-05 09:26:51 PM  

James F. Campbell: I guess if you're a soulless psychopath with a pretty face who wants an easy job, why not sell yourself to the Republican party? It's more respectable than being an escort or stripper.


No, it's not.
 
2012-04-05 09:28:14 PM  

More_Like_A_Stain: WombatControl:
Individual freedom isn't the question here, the question is whether the government gets to dictate to a religiously-affiliated employer what they must pay for.

If religiously affiliated employers don't like the labor laws as they pertain to all businesses, they can quit running businesses, and go back to being churches.


I'm fairly certain that it's the policy holders who lay out the co-pay. They also hold the policy. Come to think of it, the actual policy is in the employees name.

The employer doesn't pay for any procedures. That's not how employer's insurance works.

And the church realizes this.

They just want an issue to obfuscate. And lookey-lookey, there are idiots like WC who are pushing it with disengenuity and more obfuscation...
 
2012-04-05 09:33:43 PM  

More_Like_A_Stain: WombatControl:
Individual freedom isn't the question here, the question is whether the government gets to dictate to a religiously-affiliated employer what they must pay for.

If religiously affiliated employers don't like the labor laws as they pertain to all businesses, they can quit running businesses, and go back to being churches.


I've seen several versions of Kevin's complaint on the interwebs, and everyone makes it seems to assume that we're doing the Catholic Church a big old favor by allowing them to provide health care and other social services to a needy public. Why, we're really coddling them, and it's about time they started acting a little grateful for everything we've done for them!

These people seem to be living in an alternate universe that I don't have access to, where there's a positive glut of secular organizations who are just dying to provide top-notch care for the sick, the poor, and the dispossessed.

In the universe where I live, some of the best charity care is provided by religious groups--in part because they have extremely strong fundraising capabilities, in part because they often have access to an extremely deep and motivated pool of volunteers, and in part because they are often able to generate significant returns to scale and longevity. And of course, the comparative discretion and decentralization of private charity, religious or secular, makes it much more effective in many (not all ways) than government entitlements.

In this world, I had been under the impression that we were providing Catholic charities with federal funds mostly because this was the most cost-effective way of delivering services to needy groups.


Megan McArdle - Should the Catholic Church Have to Dispense Birth Control? - The Atlantic
 
2012-04-05 09:34:57 PM  
So I put the blame squarely on the shoulders of women. As everyone knows, we're the smarter sex, so why shouldn't we be held accountable for the way we vote? And if most women are voting for Democrats, they must have their reasons.

How about:
they're the smarter sex?
 
2012-04-05 09:44:38 PM  

Mike Chewbacca: Lenny_da_Hog: The GOP is polling well with the women it most wishes to impress -- those judgmental, competitive middle-aged housewives meeting at the church three times a week for quilting socials, Bible study, and choir practice.

Holy shiat you just described my mom! Too bad for the GOP she's a liberal who votes Democrat. She also thinks gay marriage should be legalized and protected at the federal level, that most drugs (especially pot) should be handled like tobacco and alcohol, and that prostitution and gambling should also be legalized, taxed, and regulated.


And you have described my grandmother. Unfortunately, she has passed away, but she used to say of prostitution "I work; I pay taxes and so should they." She was a nurse and she was huge on the idea of annual exams and regulations for "the industry".
 
2012-04-05 09:45:51 PM  

Krieghund: So I put the blame squarely on the shoulders of women. As everyone knows, we're the smarter sex, so why shouldn't we be held accountable for the way we vote? And if most women are voting for Democrats, they must have their reasons.

How about:
they're the smarter sex?


What the RNC has to worry about is that wimmins have gone black, and as we all know, that means they won't go back...
 
2012-04-05 10:00:16 PM  

Ishkur: "design" does not imply there is a designer


... Yes, it does. (new window)

Again: use another word. Preferably one that doesn't connote will or intent.
 
2012-04-05 10:02:40 PM  

WombatControl: These people seem to be living in an alternate universe that I don't have access to, where there's a positive glut of secular organizations who are just dying to provide top-notch care for the sick, the poor, and the dispossessed.


Hey guiz, it's the argument that Catholic hospitals will close their doors if their insurance has to cover contraception!

Say, how many Catholic hospitals have closed down in the states that mandate it already?
 
2012-04-05 10:44:14 PM  

rufus-t-firefly: Conservatives say they don't want the government in between a patient and her doctor, but they don't mind when a religious institution or an insurance company interferes with patient care.


Nonono. They don't want the government between a patient and his doctor. They're fine with getting the government in between a woman and her doctor, especially if she wants slut pills.
 
2012-04-05 10:47:09 PM  

Stile4aly: "Romney actually improved with women between mid-December and mid-February"

How big an improvement? How does this improvement compare with his overall numbers over the same period? How did Obama's polling among women change during the same time?

"And Rick Santorum, the staunch social conservative whose views on contraception have been at the epicenter of the debate, has earned the female vote in every state he's won."

How does Rick Santorum's performance among self selected Republican primary voters extrapolate to a general election? Also, hasn't Mitt Romney won the female vote in states where he's won, or Gingrich for the state's he's won?

So many poor arguments for such a short article.


This. A lot of BS made from heavily cherrypicked data.

Increased support for Romney among women ≠ increased support for the GOP among women, especially independents
The fact that this happened around the same time as the Limbaugh debate ≠ It happened because of the GOP's stance on birth control
 
2012-04-05 10:58:12 PM  

WombatControl: Hickory-smoked: WombatControl: What matters here is who has the right to dictate that choice?

I say the woman. You say the church that owns the institution the woman works for.

Which one of us supports individual freedom?

The woman is still free to buy contraceptives. The woman is still free to purchase her own insurance (and should, in a sane system, be able to do that easily and affordably). The woman has the choice whether to work for that institution or not (and I'd even add that the institution should make it clear what is and is not covered and give plenty of warning when that changes).

Individual freedom isn't the question here, the question is whether the government gets to dictate to a religiously-affiliated employer what they must pay for. This isn't a matter of getting to use contraceptives, this is a matter of who pays for them.


By being an employer, they take on certain social obligations. One of those obligations is the provision of a wage. Part of providing that wage is providing health insurance. Refusing to pay for insurance that covers women's reproductive and preventative health-care while paying for insurance that covers men's reproductive and preventative health-care is discriminatory. The government has long been recognized as having a substantive, actionable interest in ensuring equality in employment and service provision. Therefore, the government is well within its powers mandating that employers -even religiously affiliated ones- must provide insurance plans that cover women's health to the same extent that they cover men's health.

Though at this point, it is only fair to point out that Obama's compromise on this issue doesn't do that. The employers in question aren't being made to pay for contraception and health services they object to; rather the insurance companies are being required to provide the option for a co-pay for such services directly to the female employees, even though the plans they are signed up for through their employers don't cover them. Unsurprisingly, because the issue isn't who pays but rather the moral nature of contraception and the agency of women, the bishops and "religiously-affiliated employers" are just as opposed to the compromise as they were to the entirely legal mandate that they not engage in gender discrimination among their staff.

This entire episode is an attempt by the employers to force their view of moral behavior on female employees through the insurance plans they provide as part of their wage obligations, and by the bishops who prompted them to force a radical anti-contraception agenda upon a society in which they have been endemic for over 40 years.
 
2012-04-05 10:59:01 PM  

James F. Campbell: Ishkur: "design" does not imply there is a designer

... Yes, it does. (new window)

Again: use another word. Preferably one that doesn't connote will or intent.


Well then we're screwed. Because "evolve" means:

e·volve (-vlv)
v. e·volved, e·volv·ing, e·volves
v.tr.
1.
a. To develop or achieve gradually: evolve a style of one's own.
b. To work (something) out; devise: "the schemes he evolved to line his purse" (S.J. Perelman).
2. Biology To develop (a characteristic) by evolutionary processes.
3. To give off; emit.


To develop or achieve gradually. Develop implies a developer; achieve implies an intent to progress.

I understand where you're coming from, but there just isn't a word or phrase that means what you want it to mean, unless we start saying "cheetahs were gradually and randomly put together (wait, that won't work--implies something is putting them together) cheetahs were gradually and randomly born from other cheetah-like ancestors to be faster and leaner than their predecessors until they became the cheetahs we have today." It's a lot easier to say "Cheetahs are built for speed", and then to understand we mean nobody actually BUILT them, don't you think?
 
2012-04-05 11:00:07 PM  

rufus-t-firefly: Two parties, one Cupp.


WIN.

So... Who the fark is this chick and what's her major malfunction?

Vash The Stampede: It's S.E. Cupp, the worst concern troll of them all.

Ah, ty for that, Saved some time.

Aside from the fact that Ms Cupp is wrong on every available metric here how the fark can a 33 year old woman expect to be taken seriously by anyone...

i293.photobucket.com

i293.photobucket.com

...when she's still taking fashion tips from Avril Lavigne circa 2003?
 
2012-04-05 11:02:56 PM  

Gyrfalcon: I understand where you're coming from, but there just isn't a word or phrase that means what you want it to mean, unless we start saying "cheetahs were gradually and randomly put together (wait, that won't work--implies something is putting them together) cheetahs were gradually and randomly born from other cheetah-like ancestors to be faster and leaner than their predecessors until they became the cheetahs we have today." It's a lot easier to say "Cheetahs are built for speed", and then to understand we mean nobody actually BUILT them, don't you think?


Cheetahs have occurred.
 
2012-04-05 11:15:13 PM  

Gyrfalcon: To develop or achieve gradually. Develop implies a developer; achieve implies an intent to progress.


Nonsense. A child develops. Muscles develop. The mind develops. In all of these examples, the noun is passive; the subject is not the "developer" the one directing the development, nor is there any need for one; they are the "developee" and the idea is completed at that. Compare that to "design". "The chair designs" makes no sense as a complete sentence or concept because a chair has no agency. "The chair was designed" begs the question, "by who?". All your paragraph proved is that verbs have subjects; not that "develop" implies a developer.
 
2012-04-05 11:34:45 PM  
oh my god

shut up

shut up forever
 
2012-04-05 11:43:05 PM  

AlinaJoan: By someone who is far funnier than me:

- It was the Democrats that forced conservatives in Idaho, Arizona, Pennsylvania, Virginia, Georgia, Mississippi, Texas, Oklahoma, Ohio, Alaska, Wisconsin, and elsewhere to write legislation restricting access to abortion services.
- It was Demmycrats with their mind control powers who hypnotized California Republican Darrell Issa and forced him to hold that now-famous hearing about birth control that featured zero women on the panel.
- Liberals used witchcraft to magick Rush Limbaugh into calling Sandra Fluke a slut, and then forced the Republican candidates for President to offer only tepid condemnations of his words.
- It was DNC Chairwoman Debbie Wasserman Schultz herself, actually, who dressed up in a very convincing Dave Albo disguise and gave a speech before the Virginia Assembly about how sad she was about not getting to have sex because of the "trans v" ultrasound bill.
- Pro-choice Democrats are to blame for the near-government shutdown over Planned Parenthood funding last year.
- And it's definitely the bleeding heart tax n' spenders who have tried to make it legal for a woman's husband or parents to interfere with her right to abortion.

Look what you've gone and made the Republicans do, Democrats. If you didn't want them to think you wanted them to legislatively fark women, then you shouldn't have left the house dressed like that.

Clearly it was the Democrats cause the Republicans to limit women's rights and empowerment.


And after a federal judge threw out Oklahoma's transvaginal probe bill, it was the Demoncraps who forced Oklahoma's attorney general to appeal the ruling.
 
2012-04-05 11:58:18 PM  

WombatControl: These people seem to be living in an alternate universe that I don't have access to, where there's a positive glut of secular organizations who are just dying to provide top-notch care for the sick, the poor, and the dispossessed.


Meh...the Jewish hospitals here do a better job anyway and they could give a flying fark if you use BC or not.

Besides, the Catholic hospitals around here aren't as willing to help the poor as much as you'd think

Seriously, where does she live where there are no secular hospitals?
 
2012-04-06 12:13:02 AM  

Fart_Machine: WombatControl: These people seem to be living in an alternate universe that I don't have access to, where there's a positive glut of secular organizations who are just dying to provide top-notch care for the sick, the poor, and the dispossessed.

Hey guiz, it's the argument that Catholic hospitals will close their doors if their insurance has to cover contraception!

Say, how many Catholic hospitals have closed down in the states that mandate it already?


You've got to love the not-so-subtle blackmail vibe in that piece though. "Nice humanitarian infrastructure you've got there... be a shame if something were to happen to it."
 
2012-04-06 12:28:11 AM  

Gyrfalcon: Develop implies a developer


No, not ordinarily.
 
2012-04-06 12:30:06 AM  
farm8.staticflickr.com
 
2012-04-06 12:34:40 AM  

Gyrfalcon: but there just isn't a word or phrase that means what you want it to mean


Wrong.

Men evolved to impregnate as many females as they can.

Men have a biological predisposition to impregnate as many females as they can.

Men are evolutionarily predisposed to impregnate as many females as they can.


But they are most certainly not designed.

Richard Dawkins: "Biology is the study of complicated things that give the appearance of having been designed for a purpose."

Words mean things.
 
Displayed 50 of 367 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
Advertisement
On Twitter





In Other Media


  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report