kelincihutan: (USA)
[personal profile] kelincihutan
So, the Republican National Convention was a good watch. I really enjoyed the speeches from (Ann) Romney, Ryan, and Rubio. Romney-the-Presidential-Candidate's speech was not bad, but not quite as interesting. I was glad to hear Obama's top-down approach to government so thoroughly repudiated. As Marco Rubio said, "These are ideas people come to America to get away from" and I've seen the mess those ideas made in Indonesia enough to be certain that we don't want them here.

I also enjoyed observing the leftie obsession with "dog whistles" and how basically every other thing any of the speakers said was a dog whistle. Usually a racist one. My thoughts on that phenomenon are pretty well summed up by this article. I heard maybe one thing that would qualify as a dog whistle, and that was the end of Paul Ryan's speech when he condemned the left for perpetuating pro-abortion oppression, but he didn't use the word "abortion" to do it. I haven't seen these comments roundedly denigrated by every media outlet ever, as I had expected when he chose to end his speech on a pro-life note, so I'm wondering if perhaps that flew over the heads of those not in the pro-life movement.

I did notice, however, a lot of claims that most of the speeches didn't make policy statements, so I'm wondering if all of those were "dog whistles," too? I thought I heard some pretty clear ones from Romney towards the end there. Or maybe it's just that those on the right are familiar with the Republican platform already, and so the RNC is more interested in defining the reasons they adopted that platform then they are in telling people stuff they already know. I don't know that Democrats truly are better at making policy statements, but there seems to be broad agreement that they do make them more often. So, I'm wondering if that's because they feel (correctly or incorrectly) that people don't know what their policies are and they need to tell people.

kelincihutan: (USA)
[personal profile] kelincihutan
Let me preface this by saying that I am not a Romney fan. At all. However, when a moron like Hilary Rosen opens her mouth and says "Ann Romney has never worked a day in her life" because she's a homemaker...well.

Thankfully, Rosen was promptly eaten alive in the media, which has been nice to watch. And certainly Romney had plenty to say for herself. Which leads to this wonderful article:

I'll let you read for yourselves what the author has to say, though I think you'll enjoy it. My takeaway from all this, however, has been my increasing certainty that the only real feminists are conservatives. The fact that there's still the occasional attack on Sarah Palin (who isn't even running for anything and didn't deserve it when she was), Babette Josephs claiming pro-life women are "men with breasts," and now Rosen's comments add up to a disgusting picture of institutionalized misogyny running rampant in the Democratic party. How they managed to sell themselves as pro-women I will never figure out.
kelincihutan: (Simon going mad)
[personal profile] kelincihutan
In reading the news articles lately, I would almost say that a good portion of the left side of the nation is shocked--shocked, they tell us--that the Supreme Court has any kind of power at all. Most of us are content to await the Supreme Court to finish doing precisely the job they Constitutionally exist for, but apparently the idea that the High Court exists to determine the constitutionality of one statute or another--as opposed to creating new ones out of whole cloth when somebody couldn't get something through Congress--comes as news to some people.

First there's Obama himself, who claimed that "Ultimately, I'm confident that the Supreme Court will not take what would be an unprecedented, extraordinary step of overturning a law that was passed by a strong majority of a democratically elected Congress," and that "an unelected group of people would somehow overturn a duly constituted and passed law is a good example [of judicial activism] and I'm pretty confident this court will recognize that and not take that step." (Ums, ers, pauses, and filler words removed.) As if a seven-vote passage in the House is a "strong majority" or something. And since is grasp of recent history is so shaky, I suppose it's unsurprising that his comprehension of the Constitution--which must, on such a scale, be considered as old as dirt--and the history of the Supreme Court, is even worse. Apparently someone got with him later, as he did try to walk back from some of the more outrageous bits.

Then there's this article from The Atlantic urging Obama to run "against the Supreme Court." The article makes cases against two potential objections to this, neither of which--interestingly--are "What could he possibly accomplish by running against the only branch that doesn't get elected whist trying to be elected to the only branch that is uninvolved in amending the Constitution?" While I agree with the author in their conclusion that the Supreme Court is not above criticism or politics, they seem to think that Obama has any kind of ability to do anything to them.

But that's not all. The Atlantic also reminds us "You're confusing the poor Europeans!" The Daily Beast wants us to know that "Obama didn't really say anything that remarkable! And besides, Regan and FDR criticized the Court, too, so it's okay!" Not to mention Media Matters helpfully pointing out to everyone, "There's no precedent for striking down legislation under the commerce clause for the last seventy-five years, and that's ages ago so it doesn't count!" And this is just the tip of the enormous hysterical iceberg. There's lots more.

Sometimes I wonder if anyone has read the Constitution at all.
kelincihutan: (USA)
[personal profile] kelincihutan
I'm sure y'all probably already know that Breitbart has died.

From Big Government: In Memoriam: Andrew Breitbart (1969-2012)

I was honestly shocked to hear it, given that he was only 43 and seemed to be in good health. I have heard heart attack as the cause of death so far, though that is unconfirmed.

And...I don't know what to think beyond being very surprised. Any thoughts?
kelincihutan: (Default)
[personal profile] kelincihutan
Hi. I found your comm, and I like it, so I'm signing up. :) And since you've made it so easy, I am going to borrow your intro template, so here goes.

Name: KelinciHutan, Kelinci, Kels, Keli, or Kel. Feel free to make up your own variation, if you like.
Age & Location: 27, Alabama
What brings you here? I was looking for other pro-life people to connect with on DW (I periodically check to see who's listed it as an interest) and discovered this comm had done so. So here I am.
Got any favorite political/social/economic/ect topics? Life issues (abortion, euthanasia, abortifacient birth control, unjust war, culture of death stuff in general), obviously, are my hot button. I've even got a dedicated blog on DW for it, though I'm not as diligent about updating it as I should be. Aside from that, I'm a feminist and a Reganomics-style economist.
What else interests you? Fandom. I'm a huge fandom junkie. I've been writing fanfic since...2004? 2005? A while, anyway, though again, I'm not as diligent as I'd like. I lurk at [ profile] fandomsecrets a lot, and I'm a mod on a hilariously snark-less snark forum.
Ask a random question of your new comm buddies: Do you have a system for eating M&Ms? If yes, please describe it.
Answer the questions asked in previous intro posts:
  1. When was the last time a liberal drove you crazy? ;) Hrm... Oh, it was the other week. A group of them were whining about the proposed Oklahoma law that would ban any food that used fetal stem cells either in the food or in its research (as far as I know the first doesn't happen yet, but the second definitely does, unfortunately) and someone decided it would be great to HILARIOUSLY compare women with a pro-life viewpoint to aphids because aphids are "easy to breed." Because that's not anti-feminist in anyway, whatsoever, at all, right? *raeg*

  2. The age old question: you’re POTUS for a day. What 3 things would you do? Reinstitute the Mexico City Policy, get Congress to try and push through a national fetal pain bill in time for me to sign it, and institute an immigration reform that would include actually enforcing the border.

So, there you go. Nice to meet you. :)
muffinbutton: (Pink!)
[personal profile] muffinbutton
Salutations, rightly buddies, and welcome to [community profile] right_angles!

We’re glad to have you, and we hope you’ll stick around. Especially in an election year, things are bound to get entertaining soon! Please spread the word to your friends who may be interested: the more people, the better!

There’s not much to say here, except to check out The Rules page; feel free to start posting as soon as you’d like after reading through. We’d prefer it if you introduced yourself first, but it’s certainly not a requirement. As promised on our profile page, here’s a quick introductory template if you’d like to use one:

Of course, if we’re asking you to introduce yourselves, it’s only natural that we do the same!

Meet the Mods )

It should also be mentioned that we mods are twin sisters. Yes, we are identical. :)

We’re open to suggestions if you have any at all. Our chief concern is to foster an environment in which we righties can freely express ourselves without the molestation of leftward criticism.
fantastic_jackie: (Default)
[personal profile] fantastic_jackie
Let's go ahead and get through the housekeeping.

Please read all rules before participating in the comm. )

Questions? Comments? Concerns? Post them below or PM myself or [personal profile] muffinbutton, and we'll get back to you as quickly as possible.
fantastic_jackie: (Default)
[personal profile] fantastic_jackie
Hi there! This comm will be up and running soon. :)

September 2012

23 45678