Republican spokesman: Let's hurl some acid at female Democratic Senators

So this wasn't even said by the woman who is one of a couple hundred representatives in the House, this is her Spokesperson? Stop the presses!!!

Why does one representative need a spokesperson?
 
Why do all congressmen have spokesmen, and even staff, who are supposed to know better than to post stuff like that?

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/05/31/jay-townsend-nan-hayworth-acid-war-on-women_n_1560693.html

A moderator of the NY19 U.S. House of Representatives Civil Discussion Center page responded to Townsend, asking him to "please refrain from calling our members names." The unnamed moderator also asked if Hayworth knew about his comments or whether he had "gone rogue."
Click to expand...

Richard Becker, a Democrat running to challenge Hayworth this year, released a statement on Townsend's incendiary comments.

From his campaign spokesman Barry Caro: "I'd be fired -- immediately and with cause -- if I said stuff like this. Which begs the question: why is Jay Townsend still Nan Hayworth's spokesman. ... Does she agree that we should 'hurl some acid' at politicians her campaign disagrees with? These comments are simply unprofessional and should never cross the lips of a Congressional spokesman."

"This isn't some obscure supporter or no-name right wing provocateur, and we're not playing 'six degrees of condemnation.' This is Nan Hayworth's official campaign spokesman saying some truly disturbing things on her behalf. The people of this district deserve to know whether Nan thinks what her spokesman is saying is ok -- and if not, what she's going to do about it."
Click to expand...
 
8) Two-thirds of the elderly poor are women, and Republicans are taking aim at them too. A spending bill would cut funding for employment services, meals, and housing for senior citizens.
Click to expand...

Now that's stretching it. These cuts are not targeted at women specifically. They're just part of the ongoing war on the poor.
 
That's the downside to free speech: You don't know anymore when to shut up because you will always find some scumbags who will applaud any hideous thing you say.
 
GoodSarmatian said:
Now that's stretching it. These cuts are not targeted at women specifically. They're just part of the ongoing war on the poor.
Click to expand...
Why is it a "stretch" to point out that 2/3rds of the elderly poor are women? That they feel the effects of these cuts even more than men do?
 
GoodSarmatian said:
Now that's stretching it. These cuts are not targeted at women specifically. They're just part of the ongoing war on the poor.
Click to expand...

The policy disproportionately hurts women, so it's not really a stretch.
 
Leonel said:
I wouldn't say living proof, more so indicative of a prevailing attitude in the GOP at the very best. Undoubtedly they'll spin this as metaphorical acid.

But yes, this throwing acid in women's faces is making me reconsider the phrase "American Taliban"
Click to expand...

Wuut? There is a prevailing attitude in the GOP for their members to throw acid in the face of woman? Or are they just favourable to that concept? This is a very odd post.
 
To be fair: It was an internet rant.

And that douchebag was probably just looking for an elaborate way to say 'fvck' without uttering a word that is so much more evil than throwing acid in someone's face.

 

Attachments

  • 251951-patricia-lefranc-before-and-after-the-attack.jpg
    251951-patricia-lefranc-before-and-after-the-attack.jpg
    141.4 KB · Views: 174
Quackers said:
Wuut? There is a prevailing attitude in the GOP for their members to throw acid in the face of woman? Or are they just favourable to that concept? This is a very odd post.
Click to expand...

Of at least dismissing women. AT BEST. They did have that birth control thing where all the guest speakers were men.
 
Yeah, I don't think the elderly poor thing really ought to be on a top ten list, partly because I think the intended target is most specifically "elderly poor" and that we'd see the same situation even if 3/4 of them were men, but mostly because when you're trying to defend a shaky premise your arguments need to be that much more solid. And some dickhead mouthing off on facebook is just some dickhead mouthing off on facebook.

The term "war on women" is just too hysterical (hurr) to take seriously. I don't see an organized campaign, and even if it were organized, the "war on ___" terminology is alarmist hyperbole that I'm not willing to engage in.

The thing I think we ought to take from this OP is more along the lines of what Aroddo and Ailedhoo were saying. A few others touched on it as well. This dickhead doesn't know where the lines are. Why is that okay? I vote we banish him from the grownups' table.
 
useless said:
Welp! To give some context, the discussion had simply been about gas prices up to that point. So out of nowhere this guy decides to somewhat switch topic and latch onto women Senators as a problem specifically and that a possible solution would be the type of attack famous for its use by the bloody taliban. Jesus, what is wrong with this guy?

This guy is living proof that the GOP are in fact, through various means, conducting a war on women be it through legal routes (such as restricting their ability to choose how they deal with their bodies) or through social views like this crap. Disgusting.
Click to expand...

Wait...is this guy even an elected official?

No?

:rolleyes:
 
No wonder people like Karl Rove, Paul Wolfowitz, Condoleezza Rice, and Alberto Gonzales got away with so much like advocating torture, and actually ran the country while GWB was president. They weren't elected officials.

As the article above makes quite clear, if the official spokesman for a reputable congressman made those statements they would have been immediately fired.
 
Formaldehyde said:
While I agree this is essentially nothing compared to the all-too-frequent wars on women being waged by the GOP, it is still another nail in the coffin that it doesn't even exist.
Click to expand...
You're using the war metaphors now too? What happened to all the outrage after the Gabby Giffords shooting about jingoistic political terms?
 
amadeus said:
You're using the war metaphors now too? What happened to all the outrage after the Gabby Giffords shooting about jingoistic political terms?
Click to expand...

Amadeus is right. We shouldn't descend to the level of barbarians or the GOP
 
amadeus said:
You're using the war metaphors now too? What happened to all the outrage after the Gabby Giffords shooting about jingoistic political terms?
Click to expand...

Silly amadeus, thinking that people would stop using war terms in political discourse. That's about as likely as people not using sports terms in political discourse.
 
amadeus said:
You're using the war metaphors now too? What happened to all the outrage after the Gabby Giffords shooting about jingoistic political terms?
Click to expand...
It isn't me who is using the war metaphors. I am merely commenting about them. I have stated the are absurd numerous times myself. I usually put them in quotes for that very reason.

Ironically, it was the far-right that started them and have responded to the Democrats using their same devices against them by manufacturing even more. Perhaps what we really need is a "war on war metaphors".
 
JollyRoger said:
Same as that lefty woman you righties got your panties in a wad over a few weeks ago for saying something truthful abot Mrs. Romney.
Click to expand...

Yeah, but wasnt concerning someone much farther up the democrat feeding chain?
 
MobBoss said:
Yeah, but wasnt concerning someone much farther up the democrat feeding chain?
Click to expand...

Wait...was that gal even an elected official?

No?

:rolleyes:

If you are going to roll your eyes, mean it - otherwise people might mistake the rolling for batting.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom