Democrat Women Become Targets

Wow, I hope the use of the word target in the title does not cause progressives to become apoplectic. I would not want them to get visions of violence and start having fits about how language might incite people to do bad things. Not to worry little libs, the only violent people are on your side and the radicals in Islam.

Feminism is a movement that started a long time ago when women burned bras and demanded to be treated the same as men. Then when they were in the workplace and subject to listening to men talk they filed suits for harassment. The radical part of that movement has been largely associated with liberal women and their love the one you’re with, I can do it better, don’t hold that door for me attitudes. I bet the founders of that movement wish they had kept those bras so that their navels would not be between their breasts.

Women demanded equality. A noble cause to be sure but anything can be carried to extreme. I hold the door for people behind me no matter who they are and I have never had another man tell me he did not need me to hold a door for him. I can’t say the same about a few women I have encountered along the way. The problem is that some of these very people who demand the equal treatment whine when they get it.

Sarah Palin is a person who unites a lot of people. She either unites conservatives who agree with her or she unites the liberal/progressives who oppose anything she says and are afraid of her because she gets attention and she can influence races involving their beloved candidates. They claim not to fear her but they go out of their way to lie about her, attack her and her family, and to attack anything involving her. They do this because she scares them.

So Palin has set her sights on several Democrats in the upcoming election. She is working on getting them defeated and they don’t like that too much. Yes, several of the ones she has picked to defeat are women and they are not too happy about it.

Now it makes sense to say they are not happy. No one would be happy about being targeted for defeat but these women are upset because she is attacking other women. They feel that women in Congress get along pretty well regardless of party and that Palin, a conservative feminist, is not doing the feminist movement any good by going after the sisterhood of women. You got that? They are upset because she is going after women who have worked so hard to make it in a man’s world and that is just terrible. Women should not treat each other this way, boo, hoo.

Perhaps these women would care to chime in on how well the women in Congress get along and demonstrate how well Michele Bachmann is treated by Nancy Pelosi. Pelosi has made Bachmann the number 1 target of the Dems so I don’t see much love and cooperation there. Certainly there is not as much as the Fem-Dems claim.

Let me help them out. Listen up ladies, you all wanted equal treatment and this is what you are getting. Palin has a number of males on her list so you are treated the same as any other Democrat who needs to be removed from office regardless of sex. It is your equal treatment so quit your whining. If you don’t like it then work hard to stop it and work hard to get reelected. Work hard to dispute what Palin and her supporters will say about you and your record. Run on your abilities and your leadership. If what you have is good then you should be reelected.

Whining about another woman targeting you is not effective and does little for the feminist movement you claim to defend. It makes you look like the weaker sex. It makes it look as if you can’t handle the same heat as the men. It makes it look as if you want it both ways, equality but special treatment when it benefits you.

Buck up ladies because Sarahcuda has you in her cross-hairs.

Oops, there I go again with that talk that Bill Clinton thinks could incite violence. Funny Clinton’s name came up.

The feminist reaction to his antics helped them lose a lot of credibility.

Perhaps they secretly wanted treatment equal to Monica’s…

Never surrender, never submit.
Big Dog


If you enjoy what you read consider signing up to receive email notification of new posts. There are several options in the sidebar and I am sure you can find one that suits you. If you prefer, consider adding this site to your favorite feed reader. If you receive emails and wish to stop them follow the instructions included in the email.

Print This Post

If you enjoy what you read consider signing up to receive email notification of new posts. There are several options in the sidebar and I am sure you can find one that suits you. If you prefer, consider adding this site to your favorite feed reader. If you receive emails and wish to stop them follow the instructions included in the email.

16 Responses to “Democrat Women Become Targets”

  1. victoria says:

    These two have my vote–they are great. It did my heart good to see someone stand up to a lefty insinuation. And Sarah can do it too that is why they hate her so much.

  2. Blake says:

    There is a difference between real feminism (the Palin- Bachman type) and the whiny, screechy Pelosi type- where true independence is shunned and abhorred, and you are part of the group only if you have some kind of Botox mind-meld that causes you to utter asinine statements like Pelosi so regularly does, or Maxine Waters, or Babs Boxer- these are women who have lost all femininity.
    As far as “firearm” allusions- only the truly wimpy liberals, the ones who have “Lubner’s Disease” (born without a spine) get “up in arms” (whoops, there THEY go) about this farcical argument.
    Still, this is something progressives have tried since they wormed their way into the intestinal tract of this country- remember the “Right- Wing Insurgent” booklet they came out with.
    They have learned Goebbel’s lesson about the “Big Lie”- tell it often enough, and loud enough, and soon there will be some who will believe it.
    And on the subject of death panels and rationing, the new head of Medicare strongly advocates rationing and “end of life” alternatives to prolonging said life.

  3. Bunny Colvin says:

    Hey Blake- still think we should “conquer Mexico”? And if we are going to “kill ALL the ‘druggie people'” does that mean Rush Limbaugh, too? Yikes!


    • Big Dog says:

      Limbaugh had a problem with prescription drugs that were legally prescribed to him. He became addicted and went drug seeking to get more. Oxy is very addictive. he got treatment an is drug free. He was not a dealer and only used for himself so no they would not kill him. But if he fits the mold for those who get killed then Obama would have to go to the gallows as well. He was a druggie with the illegal stuff.

  4. Bunny Colvin says:

    Nice! This is one of my favorite arguments of yours, Dog. It’s all good because “he became addicted” to “legally prescribed drugs”. Is it a “problem” when someone is addicted to alcohol? How bout if a guy’s doctor tells him to have a glass of red wine a day and next thing you know, he’s chugging a couple bottles of Thunderbird every evening as he watches Beck cry like a little girl?

    When it comes to drugs, you really are a dope. Barry did drugs in college- just like W. Only he had the courage (this is the part where, when describing his drunken past, Beck tears up and his voice cracks like a 11 year old boy) to admit to his indiscretions. Like an adult. I don’t recall any stories lately about Obama asking a cleaning lady to score him drugs. Of course, Larry Sinclair said he did drugs with Obama. So that means he is a crazed cokehead. Larry never lies.

    The more you repeat your legality nonsense, the more I start to wonder what type of drugs you must be on.


    • Big Dog says:

      No one said it is all good, it was a human failing, something you have trouble with when it is a conservative. Limbaugh and Beck were addicted to legal drugs and it was not as if they went out and said I think I will take these and abuse them. It happened that way and they overcame the addiction, something I thought libs were happy about.

      As for what drugs I am on. Good luck with that, I have never taken an illegal drug or abused legal ones. I have not had alcohol in years. But nice try.

  5. Bunny Colvin says:

    Please correct me if I’m wrong, but wasn’t Beck addicted to alcohol? Cause if so, how the hell do you know that it “was not as if [he] went out and said I think I will take these” and/or “abuse them”? Or was his alcohol consumption legally prescribed by a doctor at the time?

    CONservatives obsess about other peoples human failings. That is what makes it so troubling when they are exposed as liars. All these holy rollers turning out to be gay. Mr. Moral Values Souter has a girlfriend. A website called “rentboy” is now often mentioned in the same sentence as the esteemed Family Research Council. Crazy sh!t, Dog. And it’s your side these people are on.


    **Removed the dot com after rentboy. I don’t want to link to them.

    • Big Dog says:

      People don’t generally start off as abusers of alcohol. They generally start off drinking it and become abusers and then become alcoholics. I am sure Beck started as a person who consumed alcohol and became an alcoholic. That is the usual progression.

      I am not sure that we obsess about other people’s failings. What we have a problem with is when a lib has a car wreck or run in with the cops because of DUI he goes to rehab and you all fawn over him. A conservative in the same boat is never treated the same way.

      People have failings and problems. My side believes people can overcome them. Your side thinks government is the only answer to fix them.

  6. Bunny Colvin says:

    The more you comment on this, the sillier your position looks. “People don’t generally start off as abusers of alcohol. They generally start off drinking it and become abusers and then become alcoholics”. The same can be said for most illegal drug users, genius. It’s clear you know little of what you’re speaking and now I know why you never went for the M.D. Do a little research, Dr. Dog. Check into how many illegal drug addicts follow a cycle much different from the one you described above. You are oblivious to the fact that most drug addicts began as casual users- just like the people you so courageously defend- alcoholics. And this makes you a dope.


    • Big Dog says:

      Yeah Bunny, I know not what I am talking about. Hey genius, the key word is ILLEGAL. If people did not break the law to get ILLEGAL drugs they would not become abusers. I am sure no one starts off looking to be a drug abuser but if they did not break the law they would not become abusers.

      A little research, you are rich. As for you assertion about defending, the folks I supposedly defend did not start off breaking the law when they became addicted. But to be clear, I support people who had an addiction to illegal drugs and got clean.

  7. Bunny Colvin says:

    Look into how many alcoholics waited until they were 21 (or 18 when that was the legal age) to start drinking, Dr. Dog. As you will find, many alcoholics started drinking alcohol before they were of legal age. Therefore, they were breaking the law and consuming alcohol ILLEGALLY. So yes, many if not most of the folks you defend “did strart off breaking the law when they became addicted.”

    Like I said, when it comes to drugs you are a dope. Big Dog? McGruff wouldn’t think so.

    And, as I’ve told you before, I am rich. But thanks for reminding me.


    • Big Dog says:

      Once again, reading comprehension. Rich, you should learn context. Plenty of people are rich under Obama’s definition.

      Sure, plenty of kids started using a legal substance illegally much like people who use legal Rx drugs in an illegal fashion. How many of those kids went on to become alcoholics compared to those who waited until the legal age?

      And they did not start breaking the law when they became addicted. They broke the law and became addicted much later. For most people addiction does not happen immediately. It takes time.

      When it comes to drugs I am a dope. Sure, you keep believing that. You, on the other hand, do not know much about the subject except that when a conservative has a substance abuse problem you make that the be all end all but when a lib has a problem you say they needed and got help and we should applaud them, blah, blah.

      What is the recidivism rate of the druggie kids you deal with? How many do you get off the stuff? Of all the kids who abuse substances how many abuse illegal drugs and how many abuse legal drugs they obtained illegally?

      Ask Obama about getting the illegal stuff. He is a lifetime drug user (using your definition for Limbaugh and Beck).

      And if you are truly rich then you are living proof that money cannot buy you intelligence and it certainly can’t buy you brains.

  8. Bunny Colvin says:

    “And they did not start breaking the law when they became addicted. They broke the law and became addicted much later. For most people addiction does not happen immediately. It takes time.”

    Generalization. They broke the law and then became addicted, eh? I’ll take it that you have some type of tried and true Dr. Dog equation for how long it takes an individual to become addicted, depending on the drug of choice. You’ve claimed to be some kind of native American before on this blog, Dog. Can you honestly say that many of your fellow tribesman have not succumbed to alcohol addiction soon after their first drinks? How long does it normally take heroin users to reach a level categorized as addiction? Does it “happen immediately” or does it “take time”?

    Please, enlighten us with what must be earth shattering breakthroughs in the medical world. Oh, your college age son is out drinking heavily with his friends every weekend? Have no fear- according to Dr. Dog’s charts, addiction doesn’t set in for quite awhile. It takes time. Oh, your daughter has lost 25 pounds in a month, resembles a raccoon in sunlight and falls asleep mid-conversation? Very unlikely that she is a heroin addict. That takes more time.

    Dog, I’m not going to discuss recidivism rates of my students. Nor will I give you numbers of how many I “get off the stuff”. This decision has been made given your propensity to make all sorts of silly accusations and generalizations about my work. (You once accused me of molesting the children I work with and then said it was “just a mistake”). I will tell you that in any school I’ve ever worked in, studied, or been enrolled myself, that the percentage of American children who “abuse legal drugs they obtained illegally” is significantly higher than the percentage that “abuses illegal drugs”. I thought everyone knew this. Perhaps you do not. The drug of choice for the vast majority of America’s youth is called alcohol. I suspect you look at this as less of a problem than illegal drug abuse, but I assure you it is not.

    Where did I say Obama, Limbaugh or Beck fit my definition of a lifetime drug user? All I said was that Obama (like W) did illegal drugs a fairly long time ago, while Rush’s pill poppin and doctor shoppin were more recent events.

    If you bought intelligence, wouldn’t brains by definition come with? Why would you have to make seperate purchases of brains and intelligence? Makes no sense. But neither do most of your comments.


    • Big Dog says:

      According to the Mayo Clinic, alcoholism is a chronic condition. Alcohol dependence is a condition that occurs gradually (which means over time). The Indians who had trouble with alcohol drank excessive amounts of something they had never had. Did they become alcoholics or alcohol depnendent quickly? Unknown though there is no doubt they had trouble with abusing it and eventually they suffered alcoholism.

      Alcohol is easier to get than most other drugs because it is readily available in society and in many homes. This is true for legal drugs as well since kids can take what is in the home medicine cabinet. However, many college kids drink to excess on the weekends and end up leading productive lives and not becoming addicted or alcoholics. There are, of course, some who do and end up having problems before ever leaving school (if they even finish). But alcohol dependence takes time 9a gradual occurance) and alcoholism is a chronic (over time) disease.

      Heroin addiction occurs more rapidly as does any addiction to opiates. Opiates act differently on the body and produce a euphoria. People become addicted to Heroin (and other opiates) because they like the feeling produced and eventually need more of the drug to produce the same effects. Heroin is converted to morphjine in the body (the by-product 6-monoacetylmorphine) is a conclusive positive test for heroin and cannot be confused with any other drug (no explaining it away with poppy seed bagels though that is a near impossibility in and of itself).

      If your college aged son is drinking every weekend he is abusing alcohol and could eventually become an alcoholic or alcohol dependent providing he meets the criteria of DSM-IV. Your daughter who looks like she does would have had the problem for a while. NIDA considers heroin addiction a long-term effect of the drug.

  9. Bunny Colvin says:

    “Alcohol is easier to get than most other drugs because it is readily available in society and in many homes”.

    Another generalization. For a sizeable number of younger children, illegal drugs are easier to get than alcohol. There are plenty of ten year old little boys out there that could score you heroin easier than they could buy you beer. They just don’t happen to live in your neighborhood. And fall outside of the protection of Detective Dog. Most cops would be willing to tell you this, but you’ve shown little respect for the police before.

    “Your daughter who looks like she does would have had the problem for a while”.

    You are clueless, Doggie. Give it up.


    • Big Dog says:

      Sure, the Mayo clinic and I are clueless. And most kids can score alcohol from the home.

      You are right though, it is not my neighborhood. I live in a nice one by design and would not tolerate that crap in it.