• commentary
  • FRIDAY JULY 24 2009 10:00 AM

Asshole Fuckface Roundup #107

Submitted by FearTheReaper

Edited by nicole_powers

Tags: Abortion, Ohio, Marijuana, Republicans, Healthcare

We’re down to the second to last Asshole Fuckface Roundup of all time. I’ve been called up to the big leagues. Asshole Fuckfaces will no longer be my business. This makes today the 7th worst day in world history. Tomorrow will be the 6th and you can probably see a pattern developing. So, hold on to your assholes, because this is going to be ugly.

First up, some Ohio Asshole Fuckfacing.

Meet Ohio State Representative John Adams. He believes women’s bodies belong to men, like property. Women should obviously have no say in what they want in their pathetic lives.

An Ohio lawmaker has introduced a bill that would prevent a woman from having an abortion unless she gets written consent from the biological father.



Can’t see any problem with that. It’s just a well thought out policy.

"What does the father have to say in the abortion of his child? He has nothing to say (under current law)," Adams told 10TV News.



That’s because it’s not growing in his torso and coming out of his vagina.

In the case where the father isn't known, House Bill 252 would compel the woman to provide a list of names of people who may be the father in an effort to determine paternity. The bill also would make it a crime for women to lie about who the father is, and make it illegal for doctors to perform abortions without the father's consent.



A worthy use of government. Also, if the father is located, the woman will be branded with his name on her forehead. Oh, and I loved the book, The Handmaid's Tale. Thanks for the reminder.

The bill would force a woman to have a child if the father does not agree to an abortion.



Or to move out of Ohio. Dear John Adams, you are sub-human.

Next up, more racist Republican Asshole Fuckfacery.

As I wrote the day Obama was elected, racist Republican nonsense will continue to spew forth every day Obama is in office. Republicans, or, as they are often called, “rich, white people,” believe their racist jokes are something everyone does. They believe it’s just our common language and they will continue sending offensive jokes and twitters until he leaves office. It’s who they are. They don't know any better.

First, we’ll start with Atwater, California City Council member Gary Frago. Gary’s big on sending out hilarious emails about President Obama and his wife.

“Breaking News Playboy just offered Sarah Palin $1 million to pose nude in the January issue. Michelle Obama got the same offer from National Geographic.”



She’s black, by the way. I mean, if you missed the hilarity, National Geographic is known for publishing photos of bare-chested African women, or, at least they did in the ‘50s.

Some emails compared Obama to O.J. Simpson while others suggested that “nigger rigs” should now be called “presidential solutions.”



Obviously, Gary has a big future in politics, but he’s not the worst racist emailer of the week. No, that honor goes to Dr. David McKalip. Dr. David is the founder of the right-wing, anti-health reform group Doctors For Patient Freedom. He’s one of the doctors the GOP is taking out for talks to explain to Americans why health care reform is bad.

"Congress wants to create larger, government-funded programs for health care and more bureaucracy that ration care and impose cookbook medicine."



Good stuff. He also sent out this image of Obama as a witch doctor this week.



McKalip said he believes that by depicting the president as an African witch doctor, the artist who created the image "was expressing concerns that the health-care proposals [made by President Obama] would make the quality of medical care worse in our country." McKalip said he didn't know who created it.



Hell yeah. It’s impossible to make that point without putting a bone in the president’s nose. Impossible.

Next up, more Republican Asshole Fuckfacery.

The Republicans have whipped up their talking points to stop health care reform. Here's the highlight:

Democrats are proposing a government controlled health insurance system, which will control care, treatments, medicines and even what doctors a patient may see.



So, health insurance that will control care, treatments, medicines and even what doctors a patient may see? Um, that’s exactly what we have now. So, good point? Oh, and there's more.

President Obama's health care experiment is too much, too fast, too soon. Our country cannot afford to fix health care through a rushed experiment.



It’s a good thing we haven’t had, like, 60 years to think about it. In actuality, it needs to be a rush job. Why? Because 5 million Americans have lost their insurance since September. Because 16% of Americans over the age of 18 have no health insurance. That’s actually something you should deal with fast, not slow. Oh, and 70% of Americans want a public plan.

The only reason Republicans want to “slow it down” is because they want more time to come up with lies to spread across the airwaves to defeat health care reform. And they have no plan. No plan.

Finally, some pot Asshole Fuckfacery.

With all that is going on in our country, it amazing we continue our war on drugs, specifically marijuana. Currently, law enforcement officials are conducting “Operation SOS — or, “Save Our Sierra.” They are saving it from pot.

“More than 314,000 plants were uprooted in 70 gardens — numbers expected to rise as the enforcement action continues,” the paper reported. “Agents also seized $41,000 in cash, 26 firearms and three vehicles.”



Sweet. Obama’s drug policy is the same old, stupid, moronic drug policy we have been living under for years, with the same old idiots in charge. Take Obama’s new idiot drug czar, Gil Kerlikowske, who had some awesome things to say about pot.

"Legalization is not in the president's vocabulary, and it's not in mine," he said.

"Marijuana is dangerous and has no medicinal benefit," Kerlikowske said.



No, can’t think of a thing.

Keep on keepin’ on. It’s a tremendous success and a great use of our money. By the way, government, if pot was legal pot farmers wouldn't be screwing up the environment up in the mountains. Just a tip.

FearTheReaper is a writer, actor and stand up comedian. Check back each Tuesday and Friday for more from FearTheReaper You may also enjoy his blog, Stop All Monsters.

  • PERMALINK
  • PRINT
  • Digg This
  • Email To A Friend
 

Previous

PAGE: 

1 ... 

8 | 9 | 10

Next

Comments
Otoki

Otoki

SUICIDEGIRL

Minnesota, USA

AUG 01, 2009 12:19 AM

CassyLee said:

Otoki said:

Loleetah said:
In regards to the abortion issue: I know that it is unfair if a woman becomes pregnant and the man wants to continue the pregnancy while she does not. It sucks for the guy but that is how it has to be.
A woman should not be forced to continue a pregnancy if she does not want to.
If she has no choice over her pregnancy you can bet she'll have no choice on whether or not she can place a child up for adoption, thus she will be stuck with a child she does not want.
If this bill is passed and goes into effect, the rate of child abuse and murder will go through the roof!
mad


Why would the rates go up?



I think she's implying that if a woman is forced to have a child she doesn't want that the woman will abuse and/or kill it. What she's forgetting is that woman who want kids already do that. Not wanting a kid doesn't make you an abuser or a murderer.


That was my impression, too, but I wanted to make sure. It's a really weird assumption to make. I could see baby ABANDONMENT rates going up (dropping baby at firestation, police station, hospital, etc) but not abuse.

Subrosa

Subrosa

San Francisco, CA
July 2004

AUG 02, 2009 11:12 AM

malkav11 said:
All I can say is, he's decided I'm coming from a position I'm not, with an agenda I don't have, and has either misconstrued or ignored most of what I've had to say. I tried to correct this impression, and he appears to have decided I was wrong (about what I myself believe) or lying or something. I don't know what else I'm supposed to conclude. And yes, it does seem rather out of character for him, as I generally find his posts both sensible and well-researched. Hell, if I were in fact the person he seems to believe me to be, his responses would probably be all sorts of awesome. But I'm just plain not.



Oh what a load of whiny bullshit.

For you to complain about me ignoring what you've had to say is rich indeed. I'll spoiler the evidence, but you are so full of it when you say that I've ignored your points that it ceases to be amusing.

Here's what happened:

SPOILERS! (Click to view)
You said that the system doesn't address kids with dead or indigent fathers (even though it does) and that

I sometimes get the feeling that the system is designed more to punish men for acting in ways many people find reprehensible than to best serve the child.


That whole post was a valiant effort to defend the rights of men, by the way.

Regardless, after disabusing you of both of those notions, I asked you if you would prefer a system where a non-custodial parent could walk away from their support obligations if they so chose.

You ignored that question.

Then you asserted that the needs of the child would best be provided for by a "reliable source." I responded that the system as is currently constructed DOES provide a reliable source of funds for children and repeated my question above about whether you would prefer a system where non custodial parents would be able to walk away if they so choose.

You answered yes. You said that your string attached would be "If they are also willing to walk away from all of their rights." I replied:

Your "not no strings attached" hypothetical is in reality no strings attached and you know it. A person who is not willing to take part in a child's life is only going to be happy to "walk away from their rights" in exchange. That's not a difficult choice.


I've subsequently re-iterated the above point a half-dozen times throughout the thread.

You've continued to ignore it every single time.

From there you shifted the goal posts to consider whether the current system is cost effective. Because after all, wouldn't it just be better to just give money directly to the children?

I responded by pointing out that your cost benefit analysis on a micro level may have extremely adverse consequences on a macro level. I've asked you to address that point twice subsequently.

You've ignored that, too.

At this point, you just decided to throw up your hands and pretend that somehow you're being misconstrued. Whether it's because you're truly butthurt or you've realized that you have backed yourself into a rhetorical corner that you cannot defend or for some other reason entirely is not for me to say. All I can say about that is that you seem to be particularly annoyed that I am not going to let you forget that you think that children's needs are best served by allowing non-custodial parents to walk away if they so choose. I'm sorry, but you made that argument and I'm not going to let you skate away from it. If that annoys you, tough.



As anyone reading the thread can see, I've responded to your posts throughout in a point-by-point fashion, quoting your language and rebutting it directly. You've tended to respond by posting a new point anew without addressing directly anything I've said, or at least not addressing my rebuttals of your argument. I mean, the above is only a summary. I've probably made another dozen different other points that you've ignored as well. I understand that during the back and forth of an argument, certain minor points can get lost, but you've ignored both the minor and the major with equal facility.

If you want to defend your position, defend it. If you don't, don't. But don't try to play the victim when your arguments have been taken apart.

Previous

PAGE: 

1 ... 

8 | 9 | 10

Next

featured interviews