To Serve Women (a cookbook)

This really might be the dumbest, most ill-conceived and poorly written Daily Caller opinion piece ever, which, lordamercy, is saying something:

Why, to serve as civilizing hose-bags and poop out babies, of course! Well, at the very least, the column puts paid to any notion that the GOP’s “woman problem” will end when dinosaurs like Foster Friess finally lumber into the tar pit.

[X-POSTED at Balloon Juice]

Posted by Betty Cracker on 02/17/12 at 08:38 AM • Permalink

Categories: Politics • Election '12 • Bedwetters • Nutters • Our Stupid Media •

Share this post:

I can’t quite decide when the GOP has officially jumped the shark. I thought it was with Friess and now this.

Comment by Rebecca on 02/17/12 at 09:32 AM

Isn’t he just precious, even if his knowledge of female anatomy is evidently rather murky. I particularly liked this:

The purpose of lifting the left’s Potemkin skirts is not to score tits for tats

Another of Tucker’s Trust-Fund Mercy Hires, I suspect.

Comment by Mrs. Polly on 02/17/12 at 09:54 AM

Well, the upside is that the headline isn’t the most incoherent part of the whole thing.

I always wondered what it would be like to write by jerking off onto a thesarus and then using whatever words the dribblings from your dick landed on. Now I know.

Comment by StarStorm on 02/17/12 at 10:06 AM

It’d be really nice if the crap going on in the GOP would wake women up and have them bail on the party, but there are women who think we should all be barefoot, pregnant, and in the kitchen as well. It’s insane to me that my pursuit of happiness doesn’t start until about 1/2” away from my own skin.

Comment by domynoe on 02/17/12 at 11:14 AM

FYI, there is a rollicking discussion of the Poulos piece over at Roy’s place:

http://alicublog.blogspot.com/

Comment by Mr.Wonderful on 02/17/12 at 11:40 AM

The better question is “What are men for?” Which leads to the logical next question of “What is James Poulos for?” Why to mock, point and laff, clearly. It would be even funnier if I had half an idea of what most of his gibberish sentences even meant.

Comment by marindenver on 02/17/12 at 01:07 PM

It would be even funnier if I had half an idea of what most of his gibberish sentences even meant.

True. The writing was stunningly bad, even by the standards of Tucker’s Home for Illiterate Douchenozzles.

Comment by Betty Cracker on 02/17/12 at 01:30 PM

I’m guessing this character would be in favor of a soylent green approach to post-menopausal women. Just to keep them useful.

Comment by Glix on 02/17/12 at 01:51 PM

You really need to read the most amazing thing Poulos ever wrote: a denunciation of the culture-destroying practice of using “zany” fonts and nonstandard spellings on menus for “kidz.”

My response (from 2005) here.

Comment by Steve M. on 02/17/12 at 02:01 PM

Poulos is getting a lot of resistance in the comments. In fact, in lieu of coming up with something witty, I’ll just second this guy:

It appears that the author thinks men are for concocting incoherent, steaming verbal stews, overspiced with misturns of phrase.

Comment by D Johnston on 02/17/12 at 02:42 PM

Confession: I had to stop reading after the first page because I could feel myself getting more stupider. ...DAMN!!

Comment by Frank Stone on 02/17/12 at 04:58 PM

I bet this shitweasel chuckled to himself for at least 15 minutes after he came up with that Potemkin skirts and tits for tats crap. Juvenile AND anatomically incorrect.

Rusty pitchforks of vengence for everyone!*

*Womenfolk in the front line, for obvious reasons.

Comment by StringOnAStick on 02/17/12 at 05:06 PM

Potemkin skirt? What’s that, an apron? The hell with Finnegans Wake, I wanna see the annotated version of this thing. I think it’s about a writer who fell on his head and had a dream where women weren’t people, but I’m not sure.