While I don't know why Canadian Cosh is so impassioned about the candidates for British PM, I think he makes a good point here. Sometimes people are excused when they point out that they weren't even in town when the offensive thing was said. But "I was misquoted," without dispassionate, recorded evidence, almost never gets anyone off the hook.

Sheezus, 2016 is one fucked up year.

Two more via Cosh.

First, 2016 is a fucked up year with only the slenderest of possible silver linings.

Second, this describes the rhetorical offense which may have decided the PM contest after one day (two?) of campaigning...

...It's the kind of grandiose idiocy the some of the least willful people on the planet (who happen to have children) squirt at the happily-childless all to often.

It's nice to see that this stupidity might, in this instance, have history-making consequences.

re Crid's posts and from the BBC:

"What Mrs Leadsom said (in the interview):

Rachel Sylvester: "Do you feel like a mum in politics?"
Andrea Leadsom: "Yes. So..
.
RS: "Why and how?"

AL: "So really carefully because I am sure, I don't really know Theresa very well but I am sure she will be really really sad she doesn't have children so I don't want this to be 'Andrea has children, Theresa hasn't' because I think that would be really horrible.

"But genuinely I feel being a mum means you have a very real stake in the future of our country, a tangible stake.

"She possibly has nieces, nephews, lots of people, but I have children, who are going to have children, who will directly be a part of what happens next.

"So it really keeps you focused on 'what are you really saying?'. Because what it means is you don't want a downturn but 'never mind, let's look ahead to the ten years', hence it will all be fine. My children will be starting their lives in that next ten years so I have a real stake in the next year, the next two."

GET THE PITCHFOLKS!
Talk about snowflakes! To me she tried really hard to make the point that she was NOT making a negative comment about her opponent, but was explaining her POV from a Mother's perspective and the importance of the next few years.

BUT NOOOOOOOO! She said something that was not PC so she MUST GO.

Get a grip. It's her POV as a Mother! Like those new Mothers w/all of the FB posts about little Johnnie doing this and that. Everyone else goes "Yeah Yeah Yeah" internally but "Oh how nice" externally. It's a Mom thing.

Is this the future! (Cue Elmer Fud) "He/She said a BADDDD thing."

The gift that keeps on giving.

http://www.bbc.com/news/election-us-2016-36742095

"The US State Department is to restart its investigation into Hillary Clinton's handling of classified material when secretary of state."

> Is this the future! (Cue
> Elmer Fud) "He/She said a
> BADDDD thing."

Yes, exactly... It's the future. When people go stupid, their words & deeds will be instantly transmitted around the planet for ridicule. Elmer Fudd was a hunter: People will continue to be aggressive in their challenges to identity politics, which, if you've been paying attention during this most tempestuous of summers, has shown itself to be a loathsome influence on human consciousness & discipline.

Some of us have had enough of this shit. On this blog specifically, we're permitted and encouraged to note the stupidities of arrogant parents who move through the world without consciousness, presuming that the utterly mundane (and self-selected) burdens of their parenthood are actually a universally-recognized and admired source of secret truth and social license.

No, BritBunny... I don't care about your "Mother's perspective" as a source of insight any more than I'd credit a "Daughter's perspective" or a "Son's perspective" as a source of clarity, decency, leadership or novelty.

Fuck 'em.

I'd feel the same way about anyone who affirmed special powers for being gay, black, Jewish, quadriplegic, devout, atheist, quadriplegic or Texan.

And now, to completely change the subject: a cool ghost story about Langley AFB in Virginia! I remember taking a long, slow walk around Building 90 one afternoon, paying particular attention to the windows. I saw nothing, of course, but did manage to make the hair on my neck stand on-end...

Oh, no! Bernie's socialist dream is on the edge of the precipice!

http://www.npr.org/2016/07/05/484756549/venezuela-is-in-crisis-its-economy-is-in-a-tailspin

"I really believed in the whole revolution and what Chavez did. And now I would never vote for these guys again. And that is really what's changed here."

These are courtesy of Paul, who used to comment here. Uno & Dos.

Earlier draft was better, because No Kissing.

So glad to know that the country isn't divided.

According to the Great Divider, anyway.

"Bernie's socialist dream"

Stop with the ignorant rhetoric already. If you want to tar Sanders with a 'socialist' brush/country, use Denmark or Sweden, not Cuba or Venezuela.

Fuck me running but the ignorance is stunning, a year after the man came on the scene.

What's next, Trump is a Nazi? Jesus. Enough with the hyperbole.

Denmark has its own police brutality problem (the good news is that Socialist batons are colour blind) and Sweden.. Well.. If a refugee rapes you there, it's your fault for existing.

First review of the Ghostbusters (2016) movie:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u-Pvk70Gx6c

In deep middle age, hair-trigger eroticism settles into patterns of gentle, patient wisdom, and 'exotic' beauties are judged in larger contexts such that their distinctions become unremarkab FUCK EVERYTHING I MUST HAVE HER.

Thought about it... this gibberish may have been an attempt to post an image to the blog.

Whineth Crid: "FUCK EVERYTHING I MUST HAVE HER."

If you're an orthodontist, maybe.

The comment stack to that link is full of comments like that. Oh, she's not really all that attractive... Entirely resistible... Very few commenters describe her function in their hearts as anything *except* failed beauty.

You're bullshitting.

"Lats like a cobra."

Moar:

> If you want to tar Sanders with a
> 'socialist' brush/country, use
> Denmark or Sweden, not Cuba or
> Venezuela.

Why? Sincerely: Why can't we choose our own rhetoric? What I like best about the internet is that everyone can say whatever they want, so you learn to choose the people and ideas you want to consider.

Denmark's defense spending is 1.3% of GDP (2014), and Sweden's is 1.24% (2015). Whether they are (Denmark) or are not (Sweden) members of NATO (with it's token/trivial 2% requirement), they're typical (if not thoroughgoing) European free-riders in Pax Americana. A scan of headlines and stats suggests both nations are having typical problems with immigration as seen elsewhere in the Continent this year. Basically, both nations, like most of Europe, have been enjoying fat times since WWII as America has kept them safe, taking no steps to move their cultures into cosmopolitan, self-reliant directions.

Maybe that's not socialism, but we all know the odors.