Bring Chris Reid back!!!

Sure, I'll get in on some of this "Chris Reid blog-on-blog action". From Birth Pangs:

"In another coup for the blogosphere, a Conservative candidate who was outed as a
right-wing. gun-totin’, fetish fetishizing nutbar by Big City Lib has withdrawn from the campaign.

But that’s not the end of the story.

Blob Blogging Wingnut and her unsavory pals want him back.

Chris Reid is pro-life.Proudly pro-life. I’ve seen him publicly defend unborn children in facebook debates.

But Suzanne, he’s gay…

So I’ll say a rosary for him.

So, there we have it. Nutopia priorities. Gays marginally tolerable if anti-choice.

We at Birth Pangs agree. Bring Chris Reid back! He’s the perfect example of the havoc the Conservatards will wreak if they get a majority.

UPPITY-DATE: From the You Can’t Make This Stuff Up Department: Some staunch homophobic nutbars Conservative supporters do not want him back. Seems he represents a ‘homo plot’ to torpedo the Reforma-Tories."

Yes, please please pleeeeeease by all means bring Chris Reid back because he's a fetus fetishizer, but make sure you pray feverishly for him -- he's got Teh Ghey!!!

Do these people even know what disgusting hypocrites they are?

UPDATE: Montreal Simon weighs in, in his inimitable way.

Fundie-mail

Boom! Got a major alert from one of my fundie email subscriptions tonight. There's a poll out there that needs freeping!!!

"PBS has a short video on Sarah Palin on the website. Also included is a poll that asks: Is Sarah Palin qualified to be VP?

I logged on a few minutes ago and 37% had voted YES, 62% NO.

Let's turn this around..... You don't have to give your name or email address in order to vote. It's very simple.

PBS hates conservatives.

Here's the link:

http://www.pbs.org/now/polls/poll-435.html"

Hey, check that out -- they're wearing their little clicking-fingers to the bone trying to get this thing turned around and it's at 39% with a bullet! And even if the stars and suns don't align, the cookies don't clear, and things don't fall into place as planned, they'll know that it's all because

"PBS hates conservatives."

Like the guy said,

"It's very simple."

"It" sure is.

The anti-sex agenda and personal responsibility

About a week ago there was a news item about a woman who sued for "Wrongful Birth" and was awarded $80,000 after a screwed-up tubal ligation resulted in her getting pregnant:

"She was only 26 years old, but life was already starting to press in on the New Brunswick woman: She had three children to support, her husband was seriously ill, his business was failing and the couple had lost their house and car. The last thing the young mother needed was another mouth to feed. To prevent any costly additions to the family, she had a tubal ligation, a permanent sterilization procedure thousands of Canadian women undergo every year.

Much was her shock, then, when, barely a year later, she became pregnant. She eventually gave birth to a healthy baby girl. But just over a month ago, a judge ruled in favour of the lawsuit she had filed over the sterilization blunder, awarding the mother $80,000 in damages."

The lawsuit sounds reasonable to anyone with their head screwed on right. And one would think that conservatives in particular could get behind the "personal responsibility" aspect of the story -- the woman did try to do the responsible thing and limit her output of kids to what she could afford. Even social conservatives, basically a fascist constituency when it comes to reproductive matters, should be able to appreciate the fact that she chose not to abort.

Yet, in spite of seemingly doing everything right by the Conservative Playbook of Personal Responsibility, for some reason this woman has provoked the ire of social conservatives. CC took one of these self-righteous twits to the woodshed a few days ago; now someone even more arrogant has posted about the story at Free D, and the overweening superciliousness is just breathtaking. He starts:

"Culture of death"? So a woman who tries to be responsible is "culture of death"? She could have aborted, she could have even dropped the baby on the doorstep of a cop shop or in a dumpster for that matter, but instead she had it and kept it. But to this sanctimonious little fart, she's done something evil because she wanted restitution for a medical procedure that clearly went sideways. To their credit, FDers responding to the thread are baffled:

And one of the telltale replies:

Yep, it all gets down to having Sex for any other reason than procreation. That's the Bad Thing, and if you do it you better keep your mouth shut and your legs open, crank out those babies and be happy about it. So say the tense little authoritarians who would dictate how the rest of us run our sex lives, those who obsessively stuff their noses into the -- but hey, what's this:

HAHAHAHAHA! Oh, the intrinsic evil and immorality of the blowjob. Well, that might explain some of the tension. As for the rest, the culprit is probably sperm backup -- the brain becomes flooded, synapses flicker, smoke and short out and all manner of irrational behaviour ensues.

Not him again!

Welcome to my new series: McVetywatch! I was right -- I've been derelict in my duty of keeping a close eye on this nitwit and now he's breaking out everywhere, like herpes. Here he is yet again, shrieking, swooning and squirting all over the crusty pages of the Calgary Herald that "We don't want to subsidize porn!"

"Opponents of subsidies for pornography face the same arguments given generations ago by defenders of government assistance for tobacco production. If you opposed tobacco subsidies, you were against farmers, against agriculture and probably against any government assistance to weak sectors of the economy."

What is it with these oh-so-tiresome religious crackpots and their idiotic analogies? First fetuses were like slaves, now we've got the puritanical, authoritarian dingbats who oppose free artistic expression being compared to anti-tobacco activists. Are these people completely and totally incapable of making their point on its own merit? Do they have a point and does it even have any merit!? (Okay, easy now hippie, don't get away from yourself here.) *ahem* Let's read on:

"As in the case of tobacco, defenders of porn subsidies use a kind of attempted character assassination in saying that only the religiously minded are against it. One doesn't have to be religious to recognize inanity.

A Compas poll released this past week shows that three-quarters of Canadians oppose subsidies for porn films..."

Hold the phone! "Compas poll"? He can't mean the poll that got a 75% opposed response by asking the impossibly absurd question "Should the government fund child pornography?" He should know better than to cite a poll that only a few days ago got him spanked and ridiculed:

In closing, ridiculous asshole McVety sobs:

"Instead, the free speech of 75 per cent of Canadians is oppressed as we are vilified, accusations of censorship are levelled, and yet no one can give a good reason to allow tax dollars to fund pornography, or to fund films focusing on sex with corpses, or others with memorable names like Young People F---ing and The Masturbators."

Oh, here we go, flavour of the week, the Free fucking Speech canard. You know their argument is weak-to-nonexistent when they trot this one out. Yet you have to be in awe of the kind of psychological gymnastics it must have taken McVety to arrive at the conclusion that his free speech is being oppressed... because he isn't being allowed to oppress the free speech of someone else! Oh well, I'll concede that he showed remarkable restraint in getting almost the entire article barfed out before he finally broke down and said his favourite phrase, "Young People F--ing", but I bet he had to smack his hands a few times to do it.