Airman Doors has said, more than once, that Bristol Palin has been “attacked” for choosing not to abort her child.
He’s been challenged on this morsel of utter insanity, but rather than provide a cite of any such attack has retreated, tail between his legs, without even acknowledging the responses to his whackery.
Now, it’s a big Internet, and I’m sure that if he dug deep enough he’d find some frothing nutjob somewhere who is actually “pro-abortion”; an individual who thinks that fetuses are evil or something and should be destroyed. But he hasn’t even offered that up; he’s simply silent on the subject.
So Doors, put up or shut. The fuck. Up.
(ETA: Sorry, that first link above is where Doors says Sarah Palin is being attacked, not Bristol. Thisis the other example I meant to include.)
And I don’t have enough english to know if he’s being serious or not, but he does say:
"By pro-life standards, Sarracuda is an extremist. Parting ways with five out of six Americans, she’s against abortion even in cases of rape and incest. For Bristol, doing the “right thing”–carrying the baby to term, getting married, being paraded across 37 million TV sets–was the path of least resistance.
In reality, Bristol is doing the wrong thing. She’s having the kid. She’s marrying the father. Three lives will likely be destroyed.
Even pro-choice liberals are afraid to speak the truth: teen marriage and parenthood are disasters for everyone concerned. I have serious problems with well-off married couples who decide to terminate their pregnancies for frivolous reasons. Conversely, abortion ought to be mandatory for people under 18. Twenty-five would be better. Teen marriage should be banned."
and finished with:
“Congress should act to protect these kids from themselves–ban teen marriage, mandate teen abortion.”
Like I said, it’s a big Internet, I knew there’d a be frothing nutjob out there somewhere to prove the rule. The very extremity of this view is what makes it notable, as an exception.
Still, Doors’s quotes like “The pro-choice people are attacking her” and “it’s amazing how people are pro-choice only until the choice is to keep the baby, then it’s attack, attack, attack” make it clear that he’s suggesting that more than one lone voice in the whacky wilderness is “attacking” the Palins. If he’s suggesting that the author of that column is representative of the liberal view, then he’s still a liar.
In any case, the author is a political satirist, so I’m not entirely sure he’s serious. Still, he sounds serious, and he is a liberal satirist, so he might well be. In which case I’ll read his cartoons with a grain of salt henceforth.
(ETA: In ANY case, Doors didn’t even provide the Ralls column as an example; he simply slunk away.)
In any normal situation I would agree that the kid is doing the wrong thing. In this case it could be that she sees it as a way out from under her batshit insane family. Just a thought
I’ll go further: I don’t think anyone “attacked” Sarah Palin in the ‘is-she-Trig’s-grandmother’ kerfluffle either. There were a lot of people who read a provocative blog entry and said “hmmm…”
Now, to be fair, I would concede that some people have attacked Sarah Palin for flying-after-her-water-broke. Those attacks were unwarranted without clearer information.
And there has been a thread entitled She Tried To Ban Books, when she didn’t, really.
He is, and he’s on the Rush Limbaugh spectrum, the sort of satirist who likes to say outrageous things for the sake of attention. He’s not whatshername awful (the let’s-kill-liberals lady, I forget her name), but he’s pretty shockjockish.
I’ve always been of the observation that most right wing nuts will usually burst into flames before admitting anything akin to being mistaken, or heaven forbid, wrongdoing. I know that Bricker admitted recently that he was wrong about us Beyotches, but apparently that was part of calculated trolling.
This doesn’t mean that there aren’t wingnuts out there who will admit mistakeness, but I’m not aware of them. They are mostly of the Sen. Larry Craig variety: they have a wide stance and God speaks to them personally.
Aaaand we’re right back to calling Airman Doors a wingnut.
For the most part, I’m on the Democrat side this election, but as I mentioned in a previous thread (it may have been over Amnesia Weekend), I’m fucking embarrassed at how Doors gets treated here. When he acknowledges that the Republicans screwed up and Obama would do a better job, the lefties here sing hosannas. When he maintains some conservative stances or otherwise disagrees with the left, he gets derided as just another Republican wingnut.
This is off-topic to the OP, and if he can’t back up his assertion then he damn well deserves to be called on it. But the praising or ridiculing that appears to be based solely on whether he happens to be agreeing or disagreeing with the left at any given time does us no favors.
So . . . with one hand you acknowledge that I’m not trashing him based on his core beliefs . . . but with the other you insert yourself into this thread only to lambaste . . . somebody . . . for doing just that. So, thanks, I guess.
Like I said, it doesn’t really have anything to do with the OP. I suppose I could have started a new thread about it, but I’m lazy. I’ll hijack no more.