Well done.
One more time for Roman Hruska.
Thank goodness this loon lost her bid for Congress.
As opposed to a Republican in the White House who was the most destructive in living memory.
A [legislator] in Alaska caused outrage after questioning whether the death of child abuse victims could be “a cost savings,” because it would mean they don’t need “government services” later in life…
Eastman said: “It can be argued, periodically, that it’s actually a cost savings because that child is not going to need any of those government services that they might otherwise be entitled to receive and need based on growing up in this type of environment.”
To which the Republican head of the House Judiciary Committee said:
Representative Sarah Vance, the Republican who claims [sic] the House Judiciary Committee, said… "I wished that he asked questions with a little bit more sensitivity to the listeners and how they’re perceived, and I can have that conversation.
First: If you don’t want children growing up to need public assistance, maybe offer abortion services instead of letting them be killed? Maybe use some of that oil money to lift people out of poverty?
Oh, wait…
Vance later suggested Eastman had been trying to make an argument against abortion, which some consider to be “child abuse.”
So ‘We must allow children to be killed so they’re not aborted.’ 
Second: Sara Vance seems to be saying, ‘Well he’s right; but I wish he hadn’t come right out and said it.’
Well yeah, that’s how these people think. Once that fetus exits the womb and becomes a child it ain’t their problem anymore. 'Cause really, it’s never, ever been about the fetus.
I was thinking about that the other day. The only babies who have actually been born that they seem to care about are the ones that Democrats eat.
And Jesus.
Catholic Democrats eat baby Jesus wafers. Many people are saying…
George Carlin said it best:
ETA: in my state, Kentucky, they’re fast-tracking an anti-trans bill that would have physicians risk their licenses for simply calling a trans youth by their preferred pronouns, or using any name other than their deadname.
Republican Lance Gooden insinuates that Congresswoman Chu isn’t “loyal or competent”.
Abortion pill outlaw case, judge shopping, Federalist society court packing, government by religion, for profit organization sucking up funds from non-profits for CEO self-aggrandizement; it’s all here folks.
Republicans, the party that keeps trying to outlaw basic human rights, are at it again. In Florida, Republicans are trying to “cancel” the Democratic party in the state. Yes, the same people who say cancel culture is ruining the country are trying to cancel their political opponents…
The text of the bill never says they are getting rid of Democrats, but the verbiage would make the cancellation apply only to that party. Basically, the bill would dissolve any party that’s “platform has previously advocated for, or been in support of, slavery or involuntary servitude.” Prior to and during the Civil War, southern Democrats supported slavery.
Doesn’t the current Republican party advocate and support forced prisoner labor?
The specific justification that they trot out is that the Thirteenth Amendment doesn’t apply to those convicted of a crime, and so forcing them to work against their will is acceptable.
I said the same thing in another thread. This bill would cancel any party that ever said they supported the US Constitution.
This is reminiscent of the legendary “cdesign proponentsists” incident.
After the Edwards vs Aguillard decision that barred the teaching of creationism in biology classes, some creationists tried to circumvent the ruling by embracing “intelligent design”, insisting that this was entirely different - true science rather than religious myth.
But of course it was exactly the same thing. In the creationist textbook Of Pandas And People, for the new edition they just searched and replaced “creationism” with “intelligent design” throughout. However, some of the edits had to be handled manually. An attempt to change “creationists” to “design proponents” was mangled and left in as “cdesign proponentsists”.
The fabulous irony was that one of the objections to the theory of evolution raised in the book was the claimed absence of transitional fossils - intermediates proving that one form had evolved into another.
The sub-heading in the article is kind of stupid. It’s obviously not hypocrisy, it’s irony. The Republicans are not seriously expecting to cancel the Democratic Party. They are trolling - it’s supposed to be a reductio ad absurdum of what they see as cancel culture.
Their point is wrong, but if their point were correct this is certainly an amusing way to make it.
Rule #1: Believe the autocrat. He means what he says.
That’s a non sequitur.
I believe that many Republicans want a theocracy, that they are incredibly hypocritical about “cancel culture”, and that they would ban the Democratic Party if they could find a way to do it.
Do you think this was an genuine attempt to cancel the Democratic Party that they thought might actually work, or do you think it was trolling?
It can be both. I see no reason to cut the asshole any slack for what he says.