Shorter blogosphere: We have to let Obama cut Social Security because otherwise Michele Bachmann will take away our porn
Well, the shitstorm over Obama cutting Social Security lasted about a day. One day. That’s how long it took for everyone’s attention to be completely distracted by another, much more important shitstorm: porn! Ohmygod, PORN! The conservatives will take away our PORN! Anything is better than that, anything! Please, take our Social Security, take our Medicare, take every fucking thing—just leave us our porn!
Maybe the lesson here is that we need to rename our major benefit programs. Instead of “Social Security,” it could be “Money to buy porn when you’re old or disabled.” Instead of “Medicare,” it could be “Money to buy porn when you’re sick.”
In all seriousness though, this kabuki is just fucking pathetic. You know how for years we’ve marveled at the way Republican voters are distracted by the red meat social issues being dangled in front of them, thus enabling the wholesale economic plundering of the country? Yeah.
28 Responses to “Shorter blogosphere: We have to let Obama cut Social Security because otherwise Michele Bachmann will take away our porn”
-
Carmonn says:
What’s so funny is that there are about 25 legit disturbing things in that pledge that they could have jumped on. But, no, it’s all opposing porn is racist and the Christian Right hates porn, like a bad 80′s flashback.
How about national healthcare now, because consumptives make very unsexy porn stars.
July 9th, 2011 at 1:11 am EST -
myiq2xu says:
“Let’s worry about the woman running for office instead of the man who’s in it.”
Makes sense to me.
/snark
-
Violet Socks says:
One of the blogs, I think maybe Jack & Jill, played into the dialectic perfectly. They were reacting to a report that MoveOn had threatened not to support Obama’s reelection campaign if he cut Social Security. The blogger was outraged! Outraged! And wrote a whole post to the tune of, “But, but, did you see what Michele Bachmann said??? Sure, Social Security is nice, but did you see what Michele Bachmann said????“
-
angie says:
Carmonn is so right about that pledge — the porn thing (and it was actually only about banning child porn — but hey, with these “progressive” dudes that might not matter) was just about the *only* acceptable thing in it.
But, it seems with the New Democrat Party absolutely everything is negotiable but porn. The porn is sacrosanct.
-
Sameol says:
Jack and Jill’s allowing as how Bachmann *might* even be crazier and more hardcore than Sarah Palin. That was before the news came down about pot, though. Now we know just how Sophie felt. What if we choose between porn and pot and lose both anyway?
-
Carmonn says:
But, it seems with the New Democrat Party absolutely everything is negotiable but porn.
I’m guessing there’s a whole laundry list of things that are non-negotiable if the blogosphere is anything to go by. Prostitution, mail-order brides, racial fetish porn. Who says they won’t fight for anything?
-
Violet Socks says:
The pledge is deeply offensive in many ways, but realistically, it’s not going to amount to anything. It’s the same sort of Fundie Fantasy garbage that people like Santorum and Bachmann have been plugging for years. On the other hand, the threat to Social Security and Medicare is very real and very immediate.
Yet Jack & Jill have it exactly backward. They think the stupid pledge is the big threat, and that MoveOn—by trying to keep the president from destroying our social safety net—is exposing them to this big threat. You really couldn’t ask for a better auto-mindfuck.
Sameol, I don’t know what you’re referring to about pot. Is this something in the news I’ve missed?
-
myiq2xu says:
The pledge is deeply offensive in many ways, but realistically, it’s not going to amount to anything.
The knee jerk reaction is politically stupid. The first amendment will prevent a blanket ban on porn anyway – ask Ed Meese. But the progressive blogosphere (and by extensive all progressives) have now declared themselves pro-porn. That should win over lots of votes from independents.
It reminds me of Troopergate. The progressives were so eager to attack Palin they didn’t stop to consider that what she was accused of was trying to get her abusive former brother-in-law fired.
That actually made her look better, not worse.
-
Not your Sweetie says:
Oh, well, Ds used to be the party of the economic recovery. Enter Obama and it becomes the party of porn (one of the logical conclusions of misogyny). If I didn’t leave them in 2008, I’d be very embarrassed today.
-
Sameol says:
The federal government has declared that pot has no medical purpose and will remain classified with heroin as a dangerous drug.
-
lambert strether says:
Gosh, it’s almost like the entire discourse works together like an interlocking system of bullshit, misdirection, and distraction.
-
lambert strether says:
“Auto-mindfuck” is a brilliant conceptual category, deserving the broadest possible propagation.
-
Cleaver says:
You know how for years we’ve marveled at the way Republican voters are distracted by the red meat social issues being dangled in front of them, thus enabling the wholesale economic plundering of the country? Yeah.
I’ve said forever that our moonbats are at least as bad as their wingnuts.
-
lambert strether says:
Yep. 10% nominal (20% real) DISemployment is the desired policy outcome for our policy elites.
-
lambert strether says:
OT because at the wrong blog! I go now…
-
JeanLouise says:
Just to be clear, has anyone ever heard Obama actually refer to himself as a Democrat? I know that Michelle refused to do it during the primaries.
-
Aleealee says:
I pointed that out to folks in the primary, that he never, ever refers to himself as a Democrat, or that he supports democratic values, opposes Republican values, etc,…you know, like the other primary candidate did. They said she was lying and that her ideas about an HOLC like response to the housing debacle was bullshit, her health care support was bogus, and she was the one that lied about jobs in Ohio and Canada. I wish he was lying about not being a Democrat.
-
myiq2xu says:
Sign the pledge:
-
propertius says:
and it was actually only about banning child porn
You can read the full “Marriage Vow” on the Family Leader website:
http://www.thefamilyleader.com.....9.11-1.pdf
There are 14 bullet items in the pledge. The 9th reads:
Humane protection of women and the innocent fruit of conjugal intimacy our next generation of American children
from human trafficking, sexual slavery, seduction into promiscuity, and all forms of pornography and prostitution, infanticide, abortion and other types of coercion or stolen innocence.I don’t read that as being limited only to “child pornography”, but as I said this is just one point out of 14 (and not even the first out of 14, coming after pledges to oppose gay marriage, bigamy, and polygamy; favor the adoption of the “Marriage Amendment”; advocate for DOMA; and support laws making it more difficult and time-consuming to divorce). It’s before recognizing ” that robust childbearing and reproduction is beneficial to U.S. demographic, economic, strategic and actuarial
health and security”, committing to downsize government, and keeping women from front-line military roles. -
Monchichipox says:
I can’t remember the last time I did an internet search and a pair of boobs didn’t come up. Or something that led me to a pair of boobs. That comment doesn’t add much to the discussion I know but just a comment on how pervasive porn has come.
Thanks to this blog, whenever porn is foisted on me, I think of people eating Thanksgiving dinner while getting beat with a rubber hose. That post deserves to printed all over the internets.
-
Cleaver says:
Breaking: AngryFakeBlackGuy on social security:
If I save my money the way I should, I shouldn’t need SS.
-
chrisvee says:
Breaking: AngryFakeBlackGuy on social security:
Wow. Just…wow.
-
cellocat says:
Cleaver – that’s breathtaking, even for ABG. There’s nothing he can’t rationalize, whoever he is. That is the voice of privilege: I’ve got mine, and screw the rest of you people.
-
Sameol says:
I don’t understand why so many people who don’t seem to care about much of anything care so much about Obama. I certainly understand being jaded, and cynical, and feeling as if there’s nothing real in our politics and nothing will ever change–but feeling that way and being okay with it are two different things. If we don’t need SS because we can save, then what is the point of any of this, really?
-
K.A. says:
I recall reading somewhere that friends of the Obamas were shocked to learn that he was running as a Democrat for president. How much truth there is to this, I don’t know, but it certainly fits.
-
womononajourney says:
I can’t imagine corporate Amerika would back this woman. And we all know it’s whoever the big corporations back that wins.
But yeah, absolutely outrageous how the only thing men care about is their (so-called) “right to porn” being abolished.
-
Diamond says:
This quote came out of the blue from Rolling Stone magazine. Film critic Peter Travers describing Michael Bay, director of “Transformers: Dark of the Moon”: “If a director could be jailed for using a camera to have carnal knowledge of an actress, he’d be doing life.”
Read C.E. Chambers’ critique of the film: http://www.cechambers.com
-
Topper Harley says:
@21 — Get him to “put up or shut up” and sign a pledge to send his SocSec checks back.
