Advertisement

Drudge Retort: The Other Side of the News
Thursday, September 02, 2021

Journalist Molly Jong Fast summarized it perfectly in her piece in Vogue earlier this summer: "Abortion isn't about abortion, and the pandemic is no longer about public health. For Republicans, it's a case of government regulation for thee but not for me."

More

Comments

Admin's note: Participants in this discussion must follow the site's moderation policy. Profanity will be filtered. Abusive conduct is not allowed.

Since the pandemic reached our shores last year, the right has been extremely vocal about its deeply held opposition to any type of government regulation that impacts personal health choices ... As anti-vaxxers protest against inoculation mandates, they often march with "my body, my choice" signage reminiscent of an entirely different political battle. Anti-mask parents protesting school mask mandates across the country have taken a similar tone -- angrily fighting against universal masking in schools due to the perceived long term threat they think it poses to their right to make health decisions for their children.

Republican governors have joined in, using some of this same language as they rage against mask rules and vaccine mandates in their states ... Texas Gov. Greg Abbott (R) and others of his ilk have defended their insistence on mask mandate bans as a matter of personal freedom, personal choice, personal autonomy, the right of parents to make decisions for their child.

It's unsurprising but we can't help but note: In the face of today's enactment of one of the most aggressive and outright dangerous anti-abortion laws passed in our nation's history, the silence from this new pro-choice, pro-freedom lobby is stark.

Happy Handmaid's Tale Day everybody. May the odds ever be in your favor(?).

#1 | Posted by tonyroma at 2021-09-01 09:22 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

Dang it Rodger only I'm allowed to have a headline with grammar that discombobulating.

#2 | Posted by Tor at 2021-09-02 12:49 PM | Reply | Funny: 1

And the left is all for free speech as long as they agree with what you're saying.

So many here reject the notion that the parties are the same. Here's just another case different but the same.

There's differences in the approach, but it's ultimately always about control.

#3 | Posted by kwrx25 at 2021-09-02 01:31 PM | Reply | Funny: 2

KWRX: The diffence is, the Left truly is in favor of free speech. The Right has never really been in favor of individual freedom unless it is freedoms they personally support. In case you are the only one who has not noticed, 'Cancel Culture' is far more a right wing phenomena than it has ever been a liberal one.

#4 | Posted by moder8 at 2021-09-02 01:34 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

To read this article requires a subscription, so I can only comment on the headline.

I understand that introspection is strongly discouraged here, but seriously, aren't the Democrats like that as well? Do they not also welcome all views as long it is one with which they agree?

This distresses me somewhat because I remember when the Democrats actually did walk the walk. The infiltration of the rabid progressives into this once great party has disenfranchised the liberals who truly are open to all ideas. Liberals may not agree, but they will not disparage and denigrate those with new or opposing ideas.

Henry Ford: "Any customer can have a car painted any color that he wants so long as it is black."

#5 | Posted by jakester at 2021-09-02 02:08 PM | Reply

Dang it Rodger only I'm allowed to have a headline with grammar that discombobulating.

I thought he'd fix it if he promoted the thread. Originally, I'd replaced 'like' with 'agree', that is why the 'with' is there. I changed it and forgot to delete the 'with'. Sorry for the discombobulation. ;^)

#6 | Posted by tonyroma at 2021-09-02 02:10 PM | Reply

I understand that introspection is strongly discouraged here, but seriously, aren't the Democrats like that as well?

Can you name one law where Democrats seek to limit personal autonomy for others while advocating just the opposite for themselves?

The Right has never really been in favor of individual freedom unless it is freedoms they personally support. In case you are the only one who has not noticed, 'Cancel Culture' is far more a right wing phenomena than it has ever been a liberal one.

BINGO, Moder8 nails it! To my recollection Democrats have never tried to force government regulation upon others and then in the next breath argue their own unfettered right to be free of government regulation that they themselves don't agree with.

Hence the term "Law applies to thee, but not to me."

#7 | Posted by tonyroma at 2021-09-02 02:24 PM | Reply

#7 - "Can you name one law where Democrats seek to limit personal autonomy for others while advocating just the opposite for themselves?"

With an open mind, you need go no further than this very headline. Admittedly this is more difficult since "pro choice" is a poor name to attach to abortion rights. Everything is pro choice. Pro-abortion rights is a much more accurate name.

#8 | Posted by jakester at 2021-09-02 02:43 PM | Reply

#8

The headline refers to one government-passed "health" law with stiff penalties and the hypocritical 180-degree opposition to any local attempts to force disease mitigation compliance during a public health crisis in which 625,000 Americans have died over the last 18 months.

You did not answer the question. What laws do Democrats pass to force others to privately comply while at the same time claim their own right to NOT comply with other regulations due to their own inherent rights of personal autonomy?

#9 | Posted by tonyroma at 2021-09-02 03:14 PM | Reply

#9 - my original comment referred to attitudes in general, not specific laws. That's not to say there aren't any.

#10 | Posted by jakester at 2021-09-02 03:16 PM | Reply

"With an open mind, you need go no further than this very headline."

Blah blah blah jake ... goat was always good at that.

Republicans have shown their true colors.

Obviously they care more about regulating women's bodies than they do about regulating guns or ending a global pandemic.

The covid crisis has proved beyond any shadow of doubt that they are definitely NOT pro life.

#11 | Posted by donnerboy at 2021-09-02 03:31 PM | Reply

my original comment referred to attitudes in general,

Okay, then when Democrats' "attitudes" are in the direction of passing laws, please name one in which Democrats are trying to restrict the "private" rights of others (meaning what people do inside their own non-public lives) while at the same time claiming for themselves personal rights to be free from restrictions forced on them by others.

To my observation, Democrats tend to advocate for the rights of everyone to be treated equally in public spaces writ large. They do not pass laws making it illegal for anyone to think, feel or believe anything inside their own private lives and religions. But since we all pay taxes, no one should be discriminated against with the legal imprimatur of the government or legal system in public discourse due to the personal feelings or beliefs of others.

So in my opinion, no, "Democrats are" not "like that as well."

#12 | Posted by tonyroma at 2021-09-02 03:36 PM | Reply

#12 - many Republicans see the unborn as human lives and see abortion as "restricting" (to use your word) that life.

#13 | Posted by jakester at 2021-09-02 03:41 PM | Reply

Back In The Day
Roe_V_Wade

#14 | Posted by LesWit at 2021-09-02 03:45 PM | Reply

#12 - many Republicans see the unborn as human lives and see abortion as "restricting" (to use your word) that life.

#13 | POSTED BY JAKESTER

Some do. More often, it's just a box you check to be in the Republican gang. True Believer Republicans would never, ever get abortions. However, the majority will have one at their first desperate encounter and just keep it secret.

#15 | Posted by Zed at 2021-09-02 03:58 PM | Reply

Opening a new industry of abortion tourism.
www.youtube.com

#16 | Posted by LesWit at 2021-09-02 04:09 PM | Reply

#12 - many Republicans see the unborn as human lives and see abortion as "restricting" (to use your word) that life.

#13 | POSTED BY JAKESTER

Republicans are pro birth. That is not the same as pro life.

After covid they should be ashamed of calling themselves pro life. They should call themselves pro- misery.

They are anything but pro life. For the life of me I will never understand why on earth they think that making peoples lives more miserable is a good thing.

#17 | Posted by donnerboy at 2021-09-02 04:19 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 3

many Republicans see the unborn as human lives and see abortion as "restricting" (to use your word) that life.

And many Democrats AND Republicans she non-viable, in vitro zygotes as just that, and see legal abortion as the assertion of the mother's autonomous rights to control her own health and body without any coercion or influence from government.

And many of the same Republicans you note also see school boards and corporations trying to protect the students in their charge from being exposed to a potentially deadly virus - by mandating that students temporarily wear masks across their faces until the viral pandemic ends - as a violation of THEIR rights to personal freedom and their ability to decide their own children's health choices.

Hypocrisy much? Again, care to enlighten us as to Democrats doing the same thing?

#18 | Posted by tonyroma at 2021-09-02 04:22 PM | Reply

"many Republicans see the unborn as human lives and see abortion as "restricting" (to use your word) that life."

You can only do this if you see the mother as a life support system for a fetus, subordinate to the fetus.

If Republicans viewed women as equal to fetuses, and they don't think human lives should be restricted, then they'd be able to see the competing interests here.

#19 | Posted by snoofy at 2021-09-02 04:25 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 2

Dang it Rodger only I'm allowed to have a headline with grammar that discombobulating.
#2 | POSTED BY TOR

I'm still not convinced the headline isn't a SQL Injection Attack.

#20 | Posted by snoofy at 2021-09-02 04:34 PM | Reply

#9 - my original comment referred to attitudes in general, not specific laws. That's not to say there aren't any.
#10 | POSTED BY JAKESTER AT 2021-09-02 03:16 PM | REPLY

To reiterate what Tony stated, you're conflating "general attitudes" with laws. IDGAF about general attitudes - the Constitution gives you the right to have any attitude you want. I DO care about laws, since laws legally affect everyone.

#21 | Posted by bartimus at 2021-09-02 04:37 PM | Reply

"Again, care to enlighten us as to Democrats doing the same thing?"

And again, I was talking about attitudes in general. Are you in such denial that you think Democrats don't believe, "We accept all thinking as long as it conforms with ours"? Apparently. So here's an example that goes along with the gist of this topic:

Democrats, and some Republicans will tell you a woman's body is hers to do with as she pleases. Yet there are many of them -- especially feminists -- who will say that exploitation of women as in prostitution or exotic dancing is wrong and should be curtailed. In other words the attitude is, "A woman's body is hers with to do with as she pleases as long as we say it's OK".

#22 | Posted by jakester at 2021-09-02 04:38 PM | Reply

"To reiterate what Tony stated, you're conflating "general attitudes" with laws."

Actually you have it backwards. Mine was originally meant as a general comment. In my first post I even said I couldn't read the article because of lack of a subscription and I was commenting on the headline. Tony brought up the law demanding that I produce one.

#23 | Posted by jakester at 2021-09-02 04:46 PM | Reply

#18 - "Hypocrisy much?"

So you are assigning the school board example to me then calling me a hypocrite on a stance I never took?

Do you have any idea how lame that is, Tonyroma?

#24 | Posted by jakester at 2021-09-02 04:50 PM | Reply

Yet there are many of them -- especially feminists -- who will say that exploitation of women as in prostitution or exotic dancing is wrong and should be curtailed.

The key word there is "exploitation" - which entails manipulation and/or influence by others outside of individuals making independent choices for themselves. I'm against exploitation too, but I'm not trying to write laws banning strip clubs and neither is the Democratic Party.

And yet again, this is not a political stance as much as a feminist one as you note. Just because feminists tend to be more progressive by nature doesn't make everything they stand for and believe in to be defacto "Democratic" positions.

This thread is about rules(laws) and regulations, not attitudes, so your original comment was misdirected, correct? That is why I challenged it.

Why didn't you just admit this to begin with instead of scurrying down your 'attitude' rabbit hole?

#25 | Posted by tonyroma at 2021-09-02 04:50 PM | Reply

You'll never get plonked with that attitude!

#26 | Posted by snoofy at 2021-09-02 04:52 PM | Reply

"And yet again, this is not a political stance as much as a feminist one as you note. Just because feminists tend to be more progressive by nature doesn't make everything they stand for and believe in to be defacto "Democratic" positions."

I know. That is why I said "many of them", Tonyroma.

Are you even reading my posts in their entirety, or trolling, or what? Given also your lame ploy of assigning a position to me I never took, then calling me a hypocrite based on it, and my saying from the first post I was responding based only on the headline and you deviating from that, I think you are just trolling.

#27 | Posted by jakester at 2021-09-02 04:56 PM | Reply

So you are assigning the school board example to me then calling me a hypocrite on a stance I never took?

Honestly Jake, did I put your name on the comparison? Of course not. I was speaking about whom I addressed directly in writing - "And many of the same Republicans you note..." - then I called them hypocrites. You never claimed to be in that group, did you, then how could I lump you into it?

#28 | Posted by tonyroma at 2021-09-02 04:58 PM | Reply

"This thread is about rules(laws) and regulations, not attitudes, so your original comment was misdirected, correct? "

Did I, or did I not say in my first post I was commenting on the headline only because I could not see the article due to lack of a subscription? I did. So quit responding to me as if I never made that qualification to my response.

#29 | Posted by jakester at 2021-09-02 04:59 PM | Reply

"Honestly Jake, did I put your name on the comparison? Of course not. "

Then who were you talking about with your "hypocrisy much" comment?

#30 | Posted by jakester at 2021-09-02 05:01 PM | Reply

FYI Jake, the article is just a short blurb. Most of it is reproduced in the title paragraph and post 1. The rest - maybe 500 words or less - is just fact filler recounting which GOPer has done what as it regards being on both sides of these 'personal freedom' issues.

#31 | Posted by tonyroma at 2021-09-02 05:02 PM | Reply

Are you even reading my posts in their entirety, or trolling, or what?

Then who were you talking about with your "hypocrisy much" comment?

I was speaking about whom I addressed directly in writing - "And many of the same Republicans you note..." - then I called them hypocrites.

#32 | Posted by tonyroma at 2021-09-02 05:05 PM | Reply

#32 - I accept your explanation. In my defense, every time I've heard "[...] much?" in my life, it was directed to the person with whom the other was speaking.

#33 | Posted by jakester at 2021-09-02 05:08 PM | Reply

#33

I did write "Hypocrisy" not hypocrite, so I thought it was easy to discern that I was talking about the group of Republicans I mentioned, not any one individual and certainly not you personally.

And in no way was I inferring nor implying that you yourself was a member of that group.

#34 | Posted by tonyroma at 2021-09-02 05:40 PM | Reply

The left likes to promote restrictions on the 2nd amendment while maintaining their own personal security teams.

I think that meets what you're looking for?

#35 | Posted by kwrx25 at 2021-09-02 05:40 PM | Reply

The left likes to promote restrictions on the 2nd amendment while maintaining their own personal security teams.

I think that meets what you're looking for?

Hardly. The SCOTUS' Heller decision upheld "restrictions" upon the 2nd Amendment, not the Democrats.

The Court admitted that the "the right secured by the Second Amendment is not unlimited" and the opinion mentioned types of gun control regulations that would be reasonable: "prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms." The Court even said the carrying of "dangerous and unusual weapons" may be prohibited.

subscriptlaw.com

Almost every restriction currently advocated by Democrats fits precisely into the SCOTUS' ruling in Heller. And many of those are fought against by pro-2nd Amendment proponents.

And maintaining armed security agents for personal protection has NEVER been a target for restrictive laws by Democrats. Democrats would be all for proficiency and gun safety training to be incorporated into all legal gun ownership responsibilities, things that professionals must do in order to maintain their licenses.

Said agents are mainly trained, licensed professionals, not untrained mentally-challenged individuals or former felons and criminals.

#36 | Posted by tonyroma at 2021-09-02 05:55 PM | Reply

You're saying the democrats haven't tried to pass laws limiting the 2nd, while still having armed guards for themselves?

#37 | Posted by kwrx25 at 2021-09-02 05:59 PM | Reply

#37 - the laws and mandates passed by Democrats at all levels of the government are often blatantly violated by the very ones who passed them, and to a larger extent the ones who support them. See also Hollywood celebrities.

#38 | Posted by jakester at 2021-09-02 06:13 PM | Reply

#38 - somehow part of that post got omitted when I posted. First line should start:

the laws and mandates concerning mask using and social distancing...

#39 | Posted by jakester at 2021-09-02 06:15 PM | Reply

#37

What I'm saying is that passing laws that conform to Heller muster is in no way directly related to employing armed professional security agents.

You keep acting as though background checks/wait periods that might keep people from legally obtaining firearms instantly is egregious to the 2nd Amendment. Non-licensed individuals cannot immediately start acting as armed security guards either. They too have to pass not only background checks, but also prove other proficiencies before being employed and licensed - iow, it takes time for them to become legal concealed firearm carriers too.

Politicians may be pacifists themselves, but still hire personal security to protect both themselves and their families from others. Until Democrats try to completely ban the ownership of personally-owned firearms, your point isn't the one you think it is.

It is not hypocritical to advocate for sensible gun laws and regulations and still employ armed guards who are themselves following the existing laws and whose jobs would not be impacted in the least by new laws. Being able to afford personal protection isn't political, it's economic and driven by one's public profile or profession.

#40 | Posted by tonyroma at 2021-09-02 06:22 PM | Reply

"It is not hypocritical to ...."

Do you feel it's hypocritical to pass mask and social distancing mandates then violate them?

#41 | Posted by jakester at 2021-09-02 06:25 PM | Reply

"You're saying the democrats haven't tried to pass laws limiting the 2nd, while still having armed guards for themselves?"

The Second Amendment could be repealed and it wouldn't make it illegal to own guns, or have armed guards.

People have cars. But you don't have a right to own a car. Somehow, people still manage to get them, without a Second Amendment type guarantee to own cars.

So, there's really no need for a Second Amendment. All it does is give the wrong people the right to bear arms.

#42 | Posted by snoofy at 2021-09-02 06:33 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 2

Do you feel it's hypocritical to pass mask and social distancing mandates then violate them?

Of course it is. But it's also part and parcel to a belief in privilege. The elites often feel excluded from rules they create for others. However, in the tone of this thread - which about the intersection of law, personal freedoms and extraordinary, temporary public health concerns - Democrats are far less politically hypocritical than are Republicans.

As it refers to masking, I've yet to see a single Democrat refuse to wear one when asked, or throw a fit about their own freedom as Republicans do. Just because someone takes a picture of a Dem with an improperly fitted mask doesn't make them scofflaws. Many of us have varying reasons to drop them for a moment, and many follow the recommendations to a T. I'm unaware of Democrats violating any "mandates" in public settings. Elected officials should set an example for the rest of us to follow.

#43 | Posted by tonyroma at 2021-09-02 06:35 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

" Democrats are far less politically hypocritical than are Republicans."

That's your opinion. Mine is that there are no differences between the two.

#44 | Posted by jakester at 2021-09-02 06:44 PM | Reply

^
Because he's a "liberal."

#45 | Posted by snoofy at 2021-09-02 06:45 PM | Reply | Funny: 2

If Julia Childs were alive she could joke about ivermectin paste making "a lovely veal gravy"

#46 | Posted by AMERICANUNITY at 2021-09-03 11:10 AM | Reply

...opinion. Mine is that there are no differences between the two.
#44 | Posted by jakester

That's the thing about opinions vs. facts. Opinions can be wrong.
Yours is wrong, Tony's is fact.
As asked previously, please site an specific act or event which informed your opinion. Unless you're pulling it out of your ass, your opinion must have an origin.
You made the claim.

#47 | Posted by TFDNihilist at 2021-09-03 03:48 PM | Reply

"As asked previously, please site an specific act or event which informed your opinion. "

I already did.

#48 | Posted by jakester at 2021-09-03 03:54 PM | Reply

To the GQP, women are good for incubators for their seed. They obviously don't believe women deserve equal rights or protections under the law, if they did they would not vote against the renewal of the Violence Against Women Act. The GQP walking lockstep with the white evangelical xtian minority, or Talapatists, is about to backfire spectacularly. Talapatists believe that they are superior, that they are the only "real" Americans, that they should be the only ones with rights and freedoms, and that one of those rights is to dictate to others what to do with their lives and bodies. Their time or reckoning is coming, they are quickly becoming a minority in this country, and there will be much gnashing of teeth and rending of garments when their reckoning comes.

#49 | Posted by _Gunslinger_ at 2021-09-03 04:36 PM | Reply

I already did.
#48 | Posted by jakester

No you didn't. You you mentioned some generalities about feminists and prostitution and second amendment laws.
Please link to a specific story about a specific law that is proof of your assertion.

#50 | Posted by TFDNihilist at 2021-09-03 05:38 PM | Reply

"No you didn't. "

Yes, I did. I also mentioned lawmakers who demand others wear masks, but they don't.

#51 | Posted by jakester at 2021-09-03 06:02 PM | Reply

That's your opinion. Mine is that there are no differences between the two.

#44 | Posted by jakester

Funny, that's the same opinion as every other republican who creates a new fake username and starts pretending to be a liberal.

#52 | Posted by SpeakSoftly at 2021-09-03 06:36 PM | Reply

Comments are closed for this entry.

Home | Breaking News | Comments | User Blogs | Stats | Back Page | RSS Feed | RSS Spec | DMCA Compliance | Privacy | Copyright 2021 World Readable

Drudge Retort