Objectively Speaking, NY Times’ Maureen Dowd is a Bitch
March 14, 2012 § Leave a comment
Follow me on this: A female canine is called a bitch. People who focus on maligning others are called an attack dogs. Maureen is, reportedly, a female. Ms Dowd works for the New York Times verbally attacking men, primarily Republican men. Ergo; she‘s an attack bitch. And she also sounds amazingly stupid, as I will illustrate. Let’s start with her most recent column which is about – guess what? – attacking Republican men.
Take this comment, for example, wherein she states that there is an; “… attempt by Republican men to wrestle American women back into chastity belts…”. Although quoted out of context, if you read her column you will see that the content does nothing to temper her accusation. Does any thinking person really believe the goal of Republican men is to figuratively wrestle women back into chastity belts? Why on earth, Ms. Dowd, would a Republican politician want to alienate roughly half the people who can determine his future? Stupid.
In the very next paragraph, we read this gem of idiocy; “In some kind of insane bout of mass misogyny, Republicans are hounding out the women voters — including Republicans and independents — who helped them gain control of the House in 2010“. Her argument for this dumb statement is that many GOP politicians continue to voice objection to the killing of fetuses, often for the sake of a mother’s expediency. If Ms Dowd was half as smart as she thinks she is, she would have found out that 57% of all Americans oppose abortion for the purpose of ending a pregnancy simply because it is unwanted. And 42% simply oppose abortion at all. Yet when When Republican males agree with those millions upon millions of Americans, roughly half women, he is called a woman-hater by this man-hater.
Further on in her column, Dowd attempts to bolster her argument using Rush Limbaugh’s whack at Sandra Fluke, saying that he “branded a law student wanting insurance coverage for birth control pills … as a “prostitute” and “slut.” She of course did not point out that Ms. Fluke all but admits to having so much sex that her birth control costs have gone through the roof. And now she wants the rest of us to pay for her debauchery. Ms Fluke wants to get money directly as a result of her sexual promiscuity. Now what was the definition of prostitution again?
And, by the way, what if college men wanted their insurance – also paid for by others – to cover the cost of the booze they pour into chicks in order to loosen them up a bit? If Fluke can get money to be able to keep getting laid, the guys should get money to help them get laid also. Fair’s fair.
Dowd goes on to categorize the Republican’s response to Limbaugh as a “craven response”. What were the Republican candidates supposed to say? If they said, ’yeah, Limbaugh hit that one out of the park’ it might be a little harmful with the female voters. If they said, ’that was a terrible smear’, they would be lying. Even liberals can figure out what Fluke is. But Liberals like Dowd saw this as an opportunity to jump on Limbaugh, and by association, all Republicans.
So the Times’ attack bitch goes on, week after week, inanely whomping up on men. She used to be somewhat amusing but she has turned caustic. Now she sounds like a frustrated old maid. It is entirely believable to think that this castrating woman probably can’t get a man to even stand close to her, let alone cozy up. Maybe she needs to get lessons from Ms Fluke – not exactly what the average guy would call his dream girl – who seems to have no trouble luring Georgetown boys into the sack. (First suggestion Maureen; don’t squeeze so hard).
Maureen Dowd’s resume lists a Pulitzer prize although the charge of plagarism probably got left out of it. Pulitzer prizes, in case you didn’t know, are awarded to liberals for stuff they write, sort of like the Nobel Peace Prize is awarded to liberals for doing just about nothing but being President. What was Ms. Dowd’s award winner about? Bashing Clinton for boffing Monica. There was no conservative man she could better castrate at that time, so she went to work on the Womanizer-in-Chief. Ok, so she got one right.
To Maureen, testicles are testicles, and she is a specialist in getting them in her grasp. Her grasp of intelligent thought seems much more elusive.