The Chootzpah Games

Welcome to the 2016 Chootzpah Games!

Our first contestant: South Dakota Senator John Thune addressing reports that Facebook may have censored some news stories:

“Facebook must answer these serious allegations and hold those responsible to account if there has been political bias in the dissemination of trending news”

Now if you'll excuse me, I'm off to do an interview with FOX News!

You know, whether or not Facebook did what it is alleged to have done, Facebook is a private company and it can run whatever news stories it wants to. It doesn't owe Drudge or RedState or whoever access to its bandwidth. If it wants to, it can choose to run only stories from the Onion. This is not a scandal. But even if it were, a right-wing Republican complaining about a biased news source takes a hell of a lot of chootzpah.


Our next contestant: Former Arizona Gov. Jan Brewer

Jan Brewer calls for fewer female candidates: ‘This woman thing has gotten way out of control’

 

You know, now that I'm no longer running for office!

Contestant number 3: Former speaker Newt Gingrich.

Gingrich: Paul Ryan Made A Mistake By Not Endorsing Trump, "He Has An Obligation to Unify Party"

Former House speaker Newt Gingrich speaks with Sean Hannity about current speaker Paul Ryan hesitating to support the presumptive Republican nominee, Donald Trump.
NEWT GINGRICH: First of all... these pseudo-intellectual right-wingers
who have made a living in Washington D.C. being brilliant while they alienated the entire American people 

That's you! That is the most on-the-nose description of you I can think of.  Who was it that alienated the people by shutting down the government in a fit of pique over your seat on an airplane? Who is more of a pseudo-intellectual than Newt "I have a history degree" Gingrich? That tales a lot of chootzpah to complain about people in Washington behaving exactly like you.

 Oh, but Newt isn't done yet. He's going for bonus points.

In the case of the two Bushes and Romney. I was one of  Mitt's competitors in 2012. What do you think Mitt would have said if I did not support him?

 I'm guessing . . . Yawn?

I supported George H.W. Bush even though I was a Reagan supporter and a Bush supporter. 

Wait, you supported Bush even though you were a Bush supporter? Also, you're comparing your support for Bush Senior with Ryan's lack of support for Donald Trump? I think you're forgetting one important distinction: George H.W. Bush was not a preening, thin-skinned, narcissistic blowhard with more bankruptcies than ex-wives and zero relevant experience.  It was perfectly reasonable for you to support Bush Senior in 1988 or 92. It's political malpractice at best, bordering on the treasonous, to support an autocratic buffoon who specializes in childish insult to hold the highest office in the land.

What do you think Bush would have said if I had gotten up and not supported him?

Well, since no one had really heard of you at that point in your career, I'm guessing he wouldn't have said much.

 

What the heck is a "Gingrich?"

There is something wrong here when these people, who the Republican Party has done a lot for, let's be honest. The Bushes, the Romneys - The Republican Party has been pretty darn good to them, and they owe it to the party and the people who make up that party, beyond their own hope to be above it all. 

Yeah, that's what they're doing. That's exactly what they are doing. They are being above petty partisanship and saying "even though this buffoon is the standard-bearer of our party, I will not get behind him because he will be bad for the United States and I value my country more than my stupid, retrograde political party."  To say that they owe more to their demented, ugly hate-filled party than to their country? Well, that takes a hell of a lot of chootzpah!




The winner of the 2016 chootzpah games in Newt Gingrich! Tell him what he's won!

Newt, you've won a symbolic slap in the face, a year's supply of contempt and the scorn and ridicule of all right-thinking Americans! Congratulations!

Creepy religious fanatics are creepy.

So, apparently, fundamentalist creep Vaughn Ohlman - founder of the "Quiverfull" movement made famous/notorious by the loathsome Duggar clan, has a new project.





Which you know is creepy and gross, because who is it that is not being allowed to marry? It's not like this group was started a few years ago to promote the legalization of same-sex marriages. These people believe that the only reason for people to marry is to pump out as many babies as possible. So who in the breeder community is not being allowed to get married? If you said "underage girls," give yourself 1000 points and an airsickness bag!

Although, in their defense, this is the headline on their homepage:

Note: Contrary to vicious internet rumors we do not support or in any way condone child sexual activity of any sort, child marriage, or any other illegal activity. Nor do we support or condone forced marriages. We believe that parents should NOT seek a spouse for a child where that child has not actively sought for the parents to do so.

Okay. That sounds good. No children getting married.

But what about, say, tweens?

Do you support child marriage? No. Marriage is for men and women not boys and girls.
At what age do children become men or women? It varies. Every child matures physically at different rates. Mental, emotional and spiritual maturity vary even more.

So, you can marry a child as long as you say she's not a child. As long as you can say "hey, she's very mature for her age, you can marry a high-school freshman. It's kind of like how you can torture prisoners as long as you say that whatever you are doing is not torture. "Sure, I waterboarded this guy, but I'm saying that waterboarding isn't torture, so therefore I have not committed torture! Case dismissed!"

Also, if you go to the webpage concerning their arranged-marriage summer camp or whatever, you will be treated to this:

The page you requested is not available.

We are in the process of completely rewriting our site.

As a result of being picked up by the national media, and being misquoted, a lot, (and lied about), we decided it was best for our tiny ministry to focus on saying exactly what we mean and to take down the hundreds of blog posts and articles which attempted to explain, discuss and explore

Fortunately, Raw Story has some quotes from the page from before it was taken down where they explain their standards for who is too young to be pushed into an arranged marriage and who is old enough to get to breedin'!

 1.  The ‘youth’ ready for marriage has breasts. A woman who is to be married is one who has breasts; breasts which signal her readiness for marriage, and breasts who promise enjoyment for her husband. (We believe that ‘breasts’ here stand as a symbol for all forms of full secondary sexual characteristics.)

So a pretty good percentage of middle-schoolers are apparently grown women able to marry in the eyes of these sick fuckers godly men of God.

But don't worry, they aren't going to force any little girls to marry without their consent.

Do you support forced marriages? No we do not. Betrothal (called arranged marriage by many) is for those who agree with it.

 

 Yeah, you say no forced marriages but. . .

Scripture speaks of the father of the son “taking a wife” for his son, and the father of the bride “giving” her to her husband…. It gives example after example of young women being given to young men, without the young woman even being consulted, and often, in some of the most Godly marriages in Scripture, the young man is not consulted….

Some use the idea of “consent” to deny the very relevance of the action of their authorities to bind them in covenant, as if a covenant was of no effect whatsoever and all that matters is what the person themselves decide. Others consider a covenant to be something substantial but that it is not really binding until the person themselves “consents”.

In contrast, our study of Scripture has shown that the Word of God considers a covenant made by an authority to be meaningful and binding upon those under his or her authority. Biblical consent is not the “consent” of dating or courtship. It is not a “veto” power. It does not presume to cast judgment over their father’s actions. And so, a lack of consent of the individual concerned is a choice of disobedience, a breach of a vow and of a relationship.

So, no one's going to "force" you to marry, but your consent really means nothing, and if your father has picked out a groom for you and you don't agree, then you're basically defying God Himself and I hope you enjoy Hell!

Bride price: What is it, and why is it important? Wouldn’t a bride price be like selling your daughter? A “bride price” is anything paid or given by the man or his representative at the time of his betrothal or receiving his bride.

 And that's something that you obviously don't condone, right? Right?

Scripture certainly teaches about it, but it is not mandated, however,

 Oh, Jeezus! I guess that's the best we can expect from you. At least purchasing your bride is not mandatory. 

it is not mandated, however, except in the case of a couple of laws. 

 

The bride price plays a significant function: It shows the woman’s value, and the point isn’t that the father gets the money but that he keeps it for his daughter, if her husband should ever abandon her.

Yeah, nothing shows how valuable you are as a person like putting an actual monetary price on the purchase of you. Money that will be kept in trust for the day that you are no longer fertile and your husband trades you in for a newer model, because God knows you aren't capable of getting a job and taking care of yourself. And I'm guessing that alimony and child support probably are foreign concepts in your community.