Forums | MacLife

bratboy · 2008-09-12 10:06 am

I think it would be quite apropos for Palin to reach that destination first with the GOP, given the entirely cynical nature of her being chosen. Again, who knew that some of these people could become so sensitive to perceived "sexism" in just a few short weeks?

everlong554 · 2008-09-12 11:05 am

resedit wrote:
The Palin nomination may mean the republicans will be the first to put a woman in the white house.
Sure - the Dems tried many moons ago. I think the Dems are afraid that they will fail to put Obama in - thus not being the first to put a non cracker in - and watch the repubs get the glory for being the first to put a non male in.

Furthermore, it's no secret that McCain is old. He probably has four years in him, but he may not have 8 - so we could conceivably end up with the republican party being the first to have a female at the top spot.

I think Biden was an OK second seat nomination, but he was a safe nomination - nothing daring, nothing exciting, nothing that is causing a stir and causing heads to turn, and I think the Democratic party is regretting that to some extent.

And yes - I think Palin is drawing the right together. No one knows her well enough to hate her, but the effect she is having on the left is bringing music to their ears, so they love her.

How safe is Biden though really? He brings nothing to the ticket except gaffe after gaffe. Even his vaunted foreign policy experience isn't all that much of a positive as he's often been more wrong than right. Yes Obama needed that foreign policy as part of the ticket, but Biden is not particularly loved, doens't bring any states into play. Its such a safe pick that it could end up hurting Obama's outside the beltway reformer brand, without offsetting it with anyyting meaningful.
Except gaffes of course.

isaly · 2008-09-12 11:07 am

. . . too stupid for words. . .

everlong554 · 2008-09-12 11:11 am

bratboy wrote:
I think it would be quite apropos for Palin to reach that destination first with the GOP, given the entirely cynical nature of her being chosen. Again, who knew that some of these people could become so sensitive to perceived "sexism" in just a few short weeks?

Or maybe the party that plays sexism and racism cards at every turn, just got outplayed at their own game and are now smarting from the unfairness of it all.

You have to admit, some of the attacks on Palin are positively puritanical, and its quite hilarious to find so called feminists arguing that a womans place is in the home all of a sudden. Suddenly the left morphed back to 1950's values as if they were, dare I say it, conservatives.

Then again, when Bill was caught with his semen on Monica's dress, his transgression were forgiven as well and all of a sudden, women should be wearing kneepads to service him he was so good a president, and what's her name was trailer trash to be destroyed, and executives having sex with their subordinates was suddenly a private sexual matter, despite the fact that Bill himself signed into law really strict sexual harrasment laws for the rest of the executives in this country, who if THEY were caught bomping their secretary and then lying about it in a sexual harrasment trial would most assuredly not be lauded by feminists.

And lets not also forget that Obama, as per many Hillary supporters had no problem running a sexist campaign.

Maybe what's cynical is the democratic adherence to feminism and such values, until their guy has to run against a woman.

Last edited by everlong554 (2008-09-12 11:16 am)

everlong554 · 2008-09-12 11:21 am

isaly wrote:
. . . too stupid for words. . .

He just said that hillary would probalby have been a better pick. I'm sure Obama is smacking his head, muttering "Biden", like Seinfeld muttered "Newman" whenever he had to face Newman.
And then last week he was referring to a guy in a wheel chair and said "Standup". That is a gaffe of Bush proportions, frankly. Compare it to Bush supposedly waving at Stevie Wonder (which by the way was disproven. He was actuallly waving to Kelsey Grammer) who as everyone knows is blind. I'm sure Bush's critics had a field day with that one. No reason for us not to poke fun at Biden and his gaffe machine since he has and will continue to give us so much material.

And yet I'm sure after that last gaffe Obama had his usual reaction - (slaps head) "Biden!!!!"

Last edited by everlong554 (2008-09-12 11:22 am)

isaly · 2008-09-12 11:23 am

everlong, Obama, as far as I understand, has NEVER played the race card in this entire campaign. If you can show me a direct quote of him (not some teevee blowhard) actually doing it, I'll eat my words.

Additionally, except for the sweetie gaffe, the same holds true for the "sexist card?" as well.

Can you show otherwise?

If not STFU.

isaly · 2008-09-12 11:30 am

everlong554 wrote:
isaly wrote:
. . . too stupid for words. . .
He just said that hillary would probalby have been a better pick. I'm sure Obama is smacking his head, muttering "Biden", like Seinfeld muttered "Newman" whenever he had to face Newman.
And then last week he was referring to a guy in a wheel chair and said "Standup". That is a gaffe of Bush proportions, frankly. Compare it to Bush supposedly waving at Stevie Wonder (which by the way was disproven. He was actuallly waving to Kelsey Grammer) who as everyone knows is blind. I'm sure Bush's critics had a field day with that one. No reason for us not to poke fun at Biden and his gaffe machine since he has and will continue to give us so much material.

And yet I'm sure after that last gaffe Obama had his usual reaction - (slaps head) "Biden!!!!"

No, Hillary would not have been a better pick. . . for many reasons. Obama's on top of his game and he didn't pick her. The media would have had a field day making hay out of irrelevant crap like it always does, magnified by the fact that it's about Clinton.

Lots of us democrats didn't like the clintons. . . . mmmmember? You folks are twisting this whole thing up beyond all recognition. Biden's a good solid pick. He's been around. He's knowledgable.

everlong554 · 2008-09-12 11:31 am

isaly wrote:
everlong, Obama, as far as I understand, has NEVER played the race card in this entire campaign. If you can show me a direct quote of him (not some teevee blowhard) actually doing it, I'll eat my words.

Additionally, except for the sweetie gaffe, the same holds true for the "sexist card?" as well.

Can you show otherwise?

If not STFU.

Sexism and racism is in the eye and ear of the beholder. I already provided a link to instances where Obama's camp played the race card against Bill and Hillary and accused them of playing the race card as per the New Republic. I've already showed that Obama suggested others were going to play the race card against him, when in fact noone had done so. That is playing the race card. He's more subtle about it than Jesse Jackson, and a lot of it may be done by his campaign while he stays above the fray, but it is what it is.

Here for example is ABC discussing Obama's sexist language:

According to this unofficial transcript, over at MSNBC, Andrea Mitchell and Norah O'Donnell seemed to suggest Obama may have been -- if not playing the gender card, then using language women voters might find offensive. Language such as "when she's feeling down" "periodically" she "launches attacks."

Nora O'Donnell: "He said, 'I understand when she's down, that she makes these kinds of attacks.' It's getting a little personal."

Andrea Mitchell: "It's getting a little personal and, very frankly, you know how deeply we interpreted every comment to look for some sort of racial motivation before South Carolina. A lot of people said it was there. But, you know, when you start describing a female candidate as being 'down' and 'striking back,' I don't know, that's a little edgy, don't you think?" Nora O'Donnell: "Yeah. And I think there's gonna be a lot more comments about that."*

Rember those statement about Hillary getting out the claws (she's a bitch!) , and being down and emotional (ie ignore her, she's just suffering from PMS).

Last edited by everlong554 (2008-09-12 11:37 am)

isaly · 2008-09-12 11:33 am

No, everlong, they are not.

Racism and sexism are statements or actions intentionally done to either hurt or disparage someone else based on ethnicity or gender.

Obama has done NEITHER of these during this entire campaign.

Again, back it up or shut it up.

isaly · 2008-09-12 11:37 am

and Obama is right. . . anyone willfully claiming that Obama has played the "race card" is just plain lying. by doing that, those people knowingly falsely accusing him are, themselves, making it racial.

Honestly, everlong, your dishonesty is just epic. . . i'd be amazed but it's totally routine with you so I'm not surprised.

everlong554 · 2008-09-12 11:39 am

isaly wrote:
No, everlong, they are not.

Racism and sexism are statements or actions intentionally done to either hurt or disparage someone else based on ethnicity or gender.

Obama has done NEITHER of these during this entire campaign.

Again, back it up or shut it up.

take it up with Andrea Mitchell and Norah O'Donnell. THey were well aware of the potential sexism in his words. But then again, they are women and are prone to emotionalism. it was probably that time of the month.

isaly · 2008-09-12 11:46 am

Listen, Andrea Mitchell and Norah O'Donnell are not authorities on ANYTHING. They are women caught up in a vile nasty enterprise of discrediting an honest guy, casting about looking for something. . . anything with which they can gain a bit of traction to keep this sordid schtick going. Just because someone is a woman, does not necessarily and automatically make her an expert on sexism. If you can't or won't understand that, you really need help. . . but then I may as well call you "old reliable".

everlong554 · 2008-09-12 11:46 am

isaly wrote:
and Obama is right. . . anyone willfully claiming that Obama has played the "race card" is just plain lying. by doing that, those people knowingly falsely accusing him are, themselves, making it racial.

Honestly, everlong, your dishonesty is just epic. . . i'd be amazed but it's totally routine with you so I'm not surprised.

I don't work at the New Republic. THe new republic are in fact democrats. And they came to a similar conclusion. I wasn't aware that they were drinking my koolaid.

Just ask Bill Clinton. He certainly felt like the race card was played on him. Mr. first black president suddenly saying nothing but racist stuff and trying to insinuate race into everything. When in fact, it just may have been Obama's camp suggesting that things he were saying were in fact racial, when they were not, as a means to undermine his wifes campaign and discredit him.
That new republic article I linked to lists a good number of incidents that were played as racial. Why not go down the list and show why the opinions in that article are wrong before ascribing dishonesty on my part. I'm agreeing with the article.

everlong554 · 2008-09-12 11:49 am

isaly wrote:
Listen, Andrea Mitchell and Norah O'Donnell are not authorities on ANYTHING. They are women caught up in a vile nasty enterprise of discrediting an honest guy, casting about looking for something. . . anything with which they can gain a bit of traction to keep this sordid schtick going. Just because someone is a woman, does not necessarily and automatically make her an expert on sexism. If you can't or won't understand that, you really need help. . . but then I may as well call you "old reliable".

As I said, sexism and racism are subjective. Maybe they are just seeing something that you're not. Maybe they, being women are more tuned into sexist language when they hear it. I certainly wouldnt agree with everything they say, nor are they authorities on all things sexist. However, they denoted words, spoken by Obama which they felt came across as sexist. Why are they wrong?

Colonel Panic · 2008-09-12 11:51 am

everlong554 wrote:
isaly wrote:
Listen, Andrea Mitchell and Norah O'Donnell are not authorities on ANYTHING. They are women caught up in a vile nasty enterprise of discrediting an honest guy, casting about looking for something. . . anything with which they can gain a bit of traction to keep this sordid schtick going. Just because someone is a woman, does not necessarily and automatically make her an expert on sexism. If you can't or won't understand that, you really need help. . . but then I may as well call you "old reliable".
As I said, sexism and racism are subjective. Maybe they are just seeing something that you're not. Maybe they, being women are more tuned into sexist language when they hear it. I certainly wouldnt agree with everything they say, nor are they authorities on all things sexist. However, they denoted words, spoken by Obama which they felt came across as sexist. Why are they wrong?

Because they're smurfing morons who didn't understand the smurfing metaphor.

ShnickyShnack · 2008-09-12 11:55 am

I think it's so adorable that the Republicans have suddenly, after all these years, embraced political correctness, cultural relativism and sensitivity toward minorities.

Colonel Panic · 2008-09-12 11:58 am

ShnickyShnack wrote:
I think it's so adorable that the Republicans have suddenly, after all these years, embraced political correctness, cultural relativism and sensitivity toward minorities.

It's now safe for you to move here. You know you want to.

user · 2008-09-12 12:16 pm

I can't help but feel that they are winking at each other the whole time from behind their hands.

NokX · 2008-09-12 12:19 pm

ShnickyShnack wrote:
I think it's so adorable that the Republicans have suddenly, after all these years, embraced political correctness, cultural relativism and sensitivity toward minorities.

it's politics. that's what happens on both sides.

isaly · 2008-09-12 12:20 pm

. . . and people like you make excuses for it. . .

isaly · 2008-09-12 12:24 pm

everlong554 wrote:
isaly wrote:
Listen, Andrea Mitchell and Norah O'Donnell are not authorities on ANYTHING. They are women caught up in a vile nasty enterprise of discrediting an honest guy, casting about looking for something. . . anything with which they can gain a bit of traction to keep this sordid schtick going. Just because someone is a woman, does not necessarily and automatically make her an expert on sexism. If you can't or won't understand that, you really need help. . . but then I may as well call you "old reliable".
As I said, sexism and racism are subjective. Maybe they are just seeing something that you're not. Maybe they, being women are more tuned into sexist language when they hear it. I certainly wouldnt agree with everything they say, nor are they authorities on all things sexist. However, they denoted words, spoken by Obama which they felt came across as sexist. Why are they wrong?

They are not subjective ! ! ! They're not seeing anything. People who see insults where none are meant are usually called PARANOID !

You're just being completely dishonest. Why you persist, if you're not completely stupid, is just plain evil.

NokX · 2008-09-12 12:28 pm

isaly wrote:
. . . and people like you make excuses for it. . .

i'm not making excuses for it. i don't think they should do so. however, when have you not seen a political race where this happens? it always does.

user · 2008-09-12 12:31 pm

Now you sound like kev.

Last edited by user (2008-09-12 12:31 pm)

bratboy · 2008-09-12 12:49 pm

NokX wrote:
i'm not making excuses for it. i don't think they should do so. however, when have you not seen a political race where this happens? it always does.

There are varying degrees of "always does." People don't constantly reference the nasty battle between Bush and McCain or the Willie Horton ad because they were exactly the same as every-other contest.

everlong554 · 2008-09-12 12:56 pm

isaly wrote:
everlong554 wrote:
isaly wrote:
Listen, Andrea Mitchell and Norah O'Donnell are not authorities on ANYTHING. They are women caught up in a vile nasty enterprise of discrediting an honest guy, casting about looking for something. . . anything with which they can gain a bit of traction to keep this sordid schtick going. Just because someone is a woman, does not necessarily and automatically make her an expert on sexism. If you can't or won't understand that, you really need help. . . but then I may as well call you "old reliable".
As I said, sexism and racism are subjective. Maybe they are just seeing something that you're not. Maybe they, being women are more tuned into sexist language when they hear it. I certainly wouldnt agree with everything they say, nor are they authorities on all things sexist. However, they denoted words, spoken by Obama which they felt came across as sexist. Why are they wrong?
They are not subjective ! ! ! They're not seeing anything. People who see insults where none are meant are usually called PARANOID !

You're just being completely dishonest. Why you persist, if you're not completely stupid, is just plain evil.

As nirvana said "Just because you're paranoid, don't mean they're not after you".

Forums | MacLife

#26 2008-09-12 10:06 am

Re: Dems having second thoughts on nomination?

#27 2008-09-12 11:05 am

Re: Dems having second thoughts on nomination?

resedit wrote:

#28 2008-09-12 11:07 am

Re: Dems having second thoughts on nomination?

#29 2008-09-12 11:11 am

Re: Dems having second thoughts on nomination?

bratboy wrote:

#30 2008-09-12 11:21 am

Re: Dems having second thoughts on nomination?

isaly wrote:

#31 2008-09-12 11:23 am

Re: Dems having second thoughts on nomination?

#32 2008-09-12 11:30 am

Re: Dems having second thoughts on nomination?

everlong554 wrote:

isaly wrote:

#33 2008-09-12 11:31 am

Re: Dems having second thoughts on nomination?

isaly wrote:

#34 2008-09-12 11:33 am

Re: Dems having second thoughts on nomination?

#35 2008-09-12 11:37 am

Re: Dems having second thoughts on nomination?

#36 2008-09-12 11:39 am

Re: Dems having second thoughts on nomination?

isaly wrote:

#37 2008-09-12 11:46 am

Re: Dems having second thoughts on nomination?

#38 2008-09-12 11:46 am

Re: Dems having second thoughts on nomination?

isaly wrote:

#39 2008-09-12 11:49 am

Re: Dems having second thoughts on nomination?

isaly wrote:

#40 2008-09-12 11:51 am

Re: Dems having second thoughts on nomination?

everlong554 wrote:

isaly wrote:

#41 2008-09-12 11:55 am

Re: Dems having second thoughts on nomination?

#42 2008-09-12 11:58 am

Re: Dems having second thoughts on nomination?

ShnickyShnack wrote:

#43 2008-09-12 12:16 pm

Re: Dems having second thoughts on nomination?

#44 2008-09-12 12:19 pm

Re: Dems having second thoughts on nomination?

ShnickyShnack wrote:

#45 2008-09-12 12:20 pm

Re: Dems having second thoughts on nomination?

#46 2008-09-12 12:24 pm

Re: Dems having second thoughts on nomination?

everlong554 wrote:

isaly wrote:

#47 2008-09-12 12:28 pm

Re: Dems having second thoughts on nomination?

isaly wrote:

#48 2008-09-12 12:31 pm

Re: Dems having second thoughts on nomination?

#49 2008-09-12 12:49 pm

Re: Dems having second thoughts on nomination?

NokX wrote:

#50 2008-09-12 12:56 pm

Re: Dems having second thoughts on nomination?

isaly wrote:

everlong554 wrote:

isaly wrote:

Board footer