So yesterday with a snicker-snack! the Supreme Court delivered a terrible blow to women’s rights or something with a split decision in favor of businesses refusing to cover contraception on the basis of religious beliefs.
Behold, America’s impending theocratic oppression. Or something.
Fun fact: until recently, I had never engaged people on the topic of abortion. Living in a red state, I have had little contact with the baby killers. I also tended to avoid the topic; perhaps I subconsciously knew I would hate the results.
Honestly, I was inclined to believe that things are the way they are because of inertia and Wendy Davis.
1. Funny how “freedom” when dealing with human actors always becomes something inherently unequal. Jen ignores this. Of course. Jen instead projects a conception of freedom that involves reality catering to her wants. Of course.
This “higher ground” amounts to spitting on religious doctrine in favor of the disgusting behavior associated with gay “culture.” Apparently it’s also not absolutism or religious if you are a female or “LGBT ally” that absolutely and religiously supports things that were better off secluded in dens of iniquity.
Cool story, bro: a party planned in Flint, Michigan went viral last week, threatening the West’s narrative on the negro question.
Particularly damaging were the party’s fliers, depicting civil rights leader Martin Luther King Jr.’s face photoshopped on a BET actor.
Oh, and the party’s theme was “freedom 2 twerk.” That’s pretty damned triggering, especially to us white folk who seem to be the only ones that recollect the words to and meaning behind MLK’s speeches.
Unlike “libertarian feminists” or even regular libertarians, I think women are absolutely right to hate freedom. There are reasons they do, and those reasons have served them well. Women’s sensibilities are wholly appropriate; to women. They just shouldn’t, under any circumstances, be given the power to impose them on men. As the old cliche goes, what’s good for the goose isn’t necessarily good for the gander, and vice versa.
Q: Why are the liquor store, projects, and quickie loans on the Republican side?
A: The negroes can’t afford to live in the white Democrat side. LOL when you realize that the Democrats achieve what white racial separatists desire, and with efficient cars to boot!
It is a popular argument among the “classical” liberals that theirs is the correct strain of liberal thought, that the popular leftism of today has deviated too far from its roots and is no longer viable.
The classical liberal types argue that their differences in application of liberal ideals are profound; we argue that they are superficial.
That is why, in this short article, we will compare the modern liberal’s infamous “Life Of Julia” with the classical liberal’s threadbare “Free Market.”
On Tuesday July 23rd, a day which will live in infamy, Lewrockwell.com published a piece by edgytarian Fred Reed, titled “Why Sexual Integration Is A Bad Idea.”
In response to Reed’s work, three “libertarian feminists” penned an amusing retort; amusing, because their collective hissy-fit does more to support Reed’s position than his own work (which I didn’t read).
This humble article will be the type of response I do not expect to be see published on either LRC or Fred’s blog. I’ll get around to explaining why I believe this to be the case. First things first, I must dissect the choicer bits of Borowski, Reisenwitz, and Kristian’s calumnious response to Reed, a concerted effort by three women to promote individuality and feminism (lol).