In 2016, she posted a long letter defending her decision to vote for Donald Trump on the grounds that she could not let Hillary Clinton "have control over my son's future." She thanked Trump "for allowing my right to bear arms," and bragged about how she's not scared of Trump's "big personality and quick temper." Finally, she signed the letter as someone who is "sick of getting f*cked in the ass and would rather be grabbed by the girl thingy." https://www.salon.com/2021/12/06/maga-moms-meet-madison-cawthorns-challenge-w...

Irony is often used incorrectly, but in this instance it would be correct to say that Mrs Crumbley's suggestion that by giving her son a gun that she won't be letting 'Clinton' interfere with that and no one is going to f them up the a.

As a result all three are now royally f'd up the a, big time. And that ladies and gentlemen is the epitome of an ironic statement because their son's future is now TOTALLY controlled and permanent, and as a bonus, that goes for both parents too.

So in their stated desire to not be 'controlled' they have thereby followed a course of action that is the ultimate State control.

One can wonder if this type of irony can be more widely extrapolated. Because it appears that the right is very concerned with being controlled, via vaccines, or guns, while coincidentally being quite OK with controlling women's bodies. Amy Coney Barrett wondered if it really was such an imposition for force women to carry unwanted babies when they can sort of pre pledge their baby to State controlled baby centres. And of course controlling who can vote.

eau de sauvage wrote on 12/06/21 at 16:07:30:


The right isn’t concerned about controlling women’s bodies. They’re concerned about the life that’s growing in a woman’s body.