Top 10 Liberal Women I’d Like to ‘Hate F***’
posted at 1:32 pm on June 1, 2009 by dougpowers
[ Media ] printer-friendly
As Ed Morrissey reported, Playboy is now doing a feature called “Top 10 conservative women we’d love to hate f***.”
Playboy writes about conservative women in a way that would have the angry hags from the NOW picketing outside their bunny-clad doors if they did anything remotely similar about liberal women — though I don’t know whey they’d be so ticked off — it’s not like anybody from NOW would be on the list.
Figuring that one good spurn deserves another (after all, what liberal doesn’t like “fairness”?), I thought I’d return the favor.
So, without further adeiu, here are the “Top Ten Liberal Women I’d Like to Hate F***”:
There’s… uh… one of them would be… um…
Well, there’s Aman… no wait, she’s not liberal.
Ooh, there was that one chick with the reddish hair who was on CNN in the mid-80’s… but I can’t remember her name and I’m not sure she was liberal.
So… gee, you’ll have to give me a few minutes on this… it’s like trying to make Viagra out of saltpeter.
Thanks to Playboy for reminding me about this classic:
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Greenroom Feed
Blowback
Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.
Trackbacks/Pings
Trackback URL
Comments
Most of them aren’t even a triple bagger..
One for her, one for you in case hers falls off.. and one for the lamp.
DaveC on June 1, 2009 at 1:37 PM
KP. And ok let’s get real: Scar-Jo the Obamanaughty and even Ashley Judd and more than a few hundred other braindead Hollywoodlets are more than a little attractive.
CK MacLeod on June 1, 2009 at 1:41 PM
Yeah, but DS…ugh.
MadisonConservative on June 1, 2009 at 2:12 PM
Look on the bright side: there are bound to be a ton of publicity interviews for “Transformers 2″ coming up, so there’s a good chance Megan Fox will say something objectionably liberal. That should jump-start your list nicely.
Doctor Zero on June 1, 2009 at 2:16 PM
The Playboy article was stupid.
For HotAir to complain about the Playboy article, but then run this post is really, reeeeeally stupid.
orange on June 1, 2009 at 2:30 PM
You can strike Peggy Noonan from our list. She has crossed over.
How about adding Megyn Kelly , Julie Banderas and Fox used to have this black woman do news update(sexy, good looking) can’t remember her name. Hopefully she is a conservative
Turns out she was not a lib, I think your talking about Lyne Russell. Used to appear with Bernie Sanders.
She now works in canda and ws on the O’reilly factor not long ago talking about the media and tea-bag thing
kangjie on June 1, 2009 at 2:38 PM
And why is that, Moby?
Jim Treacher on June 1, 2009 at 2:47 PM
I think though that the headline on this piece and even the content, even with asterisks, are questionable at a “conservative” site like this. You can like South Park, read Ace O Spades, and personally have a taste for other transgressive and pornoerotic material, without being in favor of forcing it all on other people, or helping people like Hugh Hefner bring down the level of public morality.
CK MacLeod on June 1, 2009 at 3:02 PM
In fact, as I think about it, though I hate to be a spoilsport, I’d urge the author to think about editing it or taking it down. I was torn about this issue when I put up a post of my own, the one about “Miss Kali’s Breasts.” I’d be interested in a poll of HotAir users on the question.
CK MacLeod on June 1, 2009 at 3:06 PM
This thread is fine in that he is making a point about the lack of criticism when something like this is done to conservative women. On any mag or blog etc.
You notice that they have to use the term ‘hate’ when they say hate F&&& otherwise they would get some flack from libs.
No need to be prudish just because it is a “conservative” site.
I mean if you can run an article about Palin being knocked up in secret and then pretending her daughter had the baby then I think we can handle this.
kangjie on June 1, 2009 at 3:15 PM
Beer, good looking women and sports television are all proof that god loves you and wants you to be happy.
quote by Benjamin Franklin (with an add on by Kangjie)
kangjie on June 1, 2009 at 3:17 PM
This post is disgusting. The only person happy to see it will be Bill O’.
meci on June 1, 2009 at 3:21 PM
I’m sorry but I agree
We’re better then them, we don’t need to be stooping to the level of playboy’s repulsive article.
Defector01 on June 1, 2009 at 3:39 PM
It’s a joke, made to insinuate that there aren’t any Lefties the author even finds attractive.
Esthier on June 1, 2009 at 3:41 PM
That collage of leftist women isn’t just ugly. It’s Janet-Reno-in-a-thong ugly.
The women in the “Theirs” section are so ugly when they walk into a room, mice jump on chairs.
pdigaudio on June 1, 2009 at 4:05 PM
Really, cluelessness like this is painful to witness.
It’s mocking playboys article for being so blatantly stupid and hateful. Or is it that you just don’t like when republicans actually take offense to something so offensive? We should just not comment on it at all right?
Please, If you’re looking for the place to take the moral high ground, it’s probably best not to try to do it by attacking an article which is critical of someone who writes about raping people based of party affiliation.
Scrappy on June 1, 2009 at 4:13 PM
So making a joke about some people being ugly is as bad as encoutraging “hate-f*cking” someone?
Sorry, but I don’t think so.
Scrappy on June 1, 2009 at 4:15 PM
Didn’t see it as a joke, but I can understand where you were going with it. And no I didn’t say what you did was as bad, I just said we shouldn’t bother with their level.
Still, I wouldn’t have done that but that’s just me.
Defector01 on June 1, 2009 at 4:26 PM
You’re not getting it, Scrappy. I can’t speak for the others questioning this post, but it has to do with the crude attitude and language – even when partly masked by asterisks. The question is whether HotAir is or should be a place we’d feel comfortable recommending to socially conservative people – say my churchgoing parents and friends – or not.
I’m not saying I know the answer – it’s not my site. I know what I think and I stated it above, but, in case it’s not clear, I don’t care about turnabout being fair play. I don’t think we need to descend to PLAYBOY’s level, and I think we should err on the side of respectful language and attitudes. If the site-owners feel different, that’s fine. It’s nice to know what the house rules are.
CK MacLeod on June 1, 2009 at 4:29 PM
Well, I don’t think that being critical of it or making jokes at it’s expense is “turnabout”. In order for his joke to be turnabout he’d have had to actually suggest that some liberal out there should be hate-f*cked. And no, I don’t like using the language either, but it’s hard to quote and comment without it.
So, sure, I get it, but I disagree. In my opinion letting something so hateful as the playboy article slide without comment is more irresponsible than not calling attention to and shaming it. In this case the author uses mockery to shame it, and well, that’s fine with me.
Scrappy on June 1, 2009 at 4:39 PM
I’m going to try one more time and keep it simple: I don’t see why socially conservative people should feel uncomfortable even about scanning the titles at HotAir. I don’t like the idea of some of my relatives and their friends having to look at “Women I’d like to Hate F***” when they come here to see if I have a new post in the Greenroom.
Sure, they’ve mostly all seen a lot worse in a lot of places – that’s why some of them don’t go to the movies or watch TV as much as they used to, or feel isolated and assaulted by our culture – but why do they have to have it thrown in their faces even at a place like this? I think we should aim higher.
CK MacLeod on June 1, 2009 at 4:48 PM
Well, I suppose if you’re looking for a political site where people aren’t going to quote those who they mean argue against then you’re going to have to make one yourself, cause I’ve not come across one yet.
If you’re going to allow the opposition to disarm you into not fighting against them because of the language they use, you can expect that they’ll use it a lot more often.
Scrappy on June 1, 2009 at 5:02 PM
I don’t have a problem with the post, I have a problem with the self-consciously lurid title. I think it’s simplistic to assume that the only way to “fight” against people like Hugh Hefner or his authors (not that I really think he’s worth fighting against) is by using their language and adopting their standards and attitudes.
I’ll also note that I’m raising my problem here, openly, rather than “narc”‘ing on the author, and I’m not demanding that he censor himself, just as I’m not censoring myself. However, he doesn’t seem to be monitoring comments or to be interested in participating.
CK MacLeod on June 1, 2009 at 5:12 PM
Though I’m kinda souring on the post, too.
CK MacLeod on June 1, 2009 at 5:13 PM
I think it’s a bit simplistic to assume that I advocate lowering to their level, and I’ve pointed out the differences between the levels used on this site and in playboy’s article. I think you’re being simplistic by trying to equate the two.
But on to your point about lurid headlines. Crafting headlines is an art aimed entirely on getting a quick point across and getting people’s attention. And how are you going to better shame a ridiculous article from playboy with a headline?
“Mens magazine says some not nice stuff”
or
“Playboy makes ‘Hate-F*ck’ list”
I think you know which one is more likely to get ignored.
You shame him by telling everyone who would be offended by it exactly what he said. Yes it’s an offensive headline. And I want people to know how offensive liberals can be. It’s the unvarnished truth. So, sour on it all you like, I still disagree with you and hope that many others here do too.
Scrappy on June 1, 2009 at 5:34 PM
To make one final point and to acknowledge our common ground on this.
I too think that coursening the debate is not helpful, and the language used is regretable.
It’s just that I’m in favor of pointing out who is out there throwing the kinds or bombs we are talking about. I’m tired of having our party being attacked as “hateful and intolerant” by hypocrites who spout this kind of filth. And I intend to remind people who really is spouting it.
Scrappy on June 1, 2009 at 5:46 PM
Sigh… I guess its just too much to hope that peeps have a sense of humor. When it comes to sex, so many people get all weird.
I say dont @#$%ing stoop to the level of these #*%$&! Let them wallow in their own @&$# and suck %$&@.
Hows that?
Do I offend?
Do I care?
bigskinny on June 1, 2009 at 5:55 PM
Dont worry bout what the other side says… they will say you are hate filled even if you are so perfect that you wear a halo.
Once the debate hits the gutter, its in the gutter. (period) Why not accept that fact and deal with it there? If the opposition wants to conduct its arguments in the sewer get down in the filth and let em eat a big fat slice of it.
But hey thats me. I dont pretend to be perfect, not so sure I wanna be. If I wanna get in there and get “scrappy” you can cheer me on or walk away. I wont pass judgment on those who walk if they wont pass it on me for getting in there and enjoying it.
bigskinny on June 1, 2009 at 6:04 PM
I think I was pretty much arguing the middle ground between you and CK MacLeod.
I might not want to get down in the gutter, but it seems he doesn’t even want to look down at the gutter and recognize who’s there trying to pull us into the gutter with them.
Scrappy on June 1, 2009 at 6:16 PM
Imagine if: Bill O’Rielly tonight quoted the Playboy article’s title and the corresponding Hotair postings title. Then acknowledged that Playboy had the decency to take their offensive article down, but Michelle Malkin did not show the same level of decency and remove the offensive blog posting at Hotair.com He further elaborates that this is not a members comment but an actual article posted on the site.
Remove the article. It can only cause damage to Michelle’s credibility.
meci on June 1, 2009 at 6:19 PM
Haha, she is actually attacked in the first article as one of the intended rape victims, and her site has a mocking post which makes fun of it. Anyone willing to judge it by (headlines) so blatantly out of context damages their own credibility, not hers.
Scrappy on June 1, 2009 at 6:32 PM
Meh, my personal opinion is that this should be taken down. It is quite likely to be used as fodder by someone in the MSM, and the playboy one is likely to be ignored, so who comes out worst here? Hotair of course. We all know libs will latch onto anything they can and skew it in their favor, so best not to play into their hands IMO.
Christina D on June 1, 2009 at 7:08 PM
Christina D on June 1, 2009 at 7:08 PM
My thoughts exactly.
Ryan Gandy on June 1, 2009 at 8:20 PM
They can hardly use this as fodder without publicizing the Playboy one.
Jim Treacher on June 1, 2009 at 8:47 PM
Jim, you’re too trusting of the media! Getting soft?
It sure seems like they can do anything they want these days.
Christina D on June 1, 2009 at 9:20 PM
I don’t see the MSM picking up on this one – though stranger things have happened. I’m more concerned about the tone within the community, for the precise reasons I stated, than I am with hostile judgments from hostile people.
CK MacLeod on June 1, 2009 at 10:22 PM
There’s no way to do it without drawing attention to the actual misdeeds of their own kind, so they won’t do it.
Jim Treacher on June 2, 2009 at 1:13 AM
Allah… Ed… You better come here and get this post deleted at once.
newton on June 2, 2009 at 11:27 AM