PDA

View Full Version : Hilllary was hot for sure



Bob
05-17-2015, 10:17 AM
Election video ... presentation on Hillary


https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=TfG0bSK6fH4

midcan5
05-17-2015, 10:58 AM
The power of one woman to make the right wing absolutely crazy is fascinating stuff. Is it simply misogyny or something much deeper? Is it a sign of male impotence, a failure of the gender to face the fact women can be strong? If you compare this woman to the empty rhetoric of those whose only accomplishment is criticism you are left bemused. Are they - the right wing conservative republican - now only a nation of schoolyard bullies who can only browbeat the other to hide their own personal weakness? You cannot address this issue in debate, not because there are no answers, but because no reasonable answer will be accepted. The empty words of the right in America were here when Bill Clinton was President, they accomplished nothing then and they will accomplish nothing now as they show only the immaturity and the useless place the right now occupies. Tracing the history and creation of bitterness and failure that is the conservative republican today would be a fascinating task, a compendium of sources, I wonder if the thoughtful (?) would be proud of what they have failed to accomplish? Or is this simply what they are? Talkers only, tools of the rich and powerful who feed them vague notions of a supposed free market and how they too will one day be more than what they are: whiners.

Captain Obvious
05-17-2015, 11:00 AM
The power of one woman to make the right wing absolutely crazy is fascinating stuff. Is it simply misogyny or something much deeper? Is it a sign of male impotence, a failure of the gender to face the fact women can be strong? If you compare this woman to the empty rhetoric of those whose only accomplishment is criticism you are left bemused. Are they - the right wing conservative republican - now only a nation of schoolyard bullies who can only browbeat the other to hide their own personal weakness? You cannot address this issue in debate, not because there are no answers, but because no reasonable answer will be accepted. The empty words of the right in America were here when Bill Clinton was President, they accomplished nothing then and they will accomplish nothing now as they show only the immaturity and the useless place the right now occupies. Tracing the history and creation of bitterness and failure that is the conservative republican today would be a fascinating task, a compendium of sources, I wonder if the thoughtful (?) would be proud of what they have failed to accomplish? Or is this simply what they are? Takers only, tools of the rich and powerful who feed them vague notions of a supposed free market and how they too will one day be more than what they are: whiners.

Here we go, lol!

Criticize Hillary and you're a misogynist.

Criticize teh O'bama and you're a racist.

Same shit, different thread.

Bo-4
05-17-2015, 11:06 AM
As Dems go, Hillary is barely left of center.

So in that regard she still is conservative even if she's doing a Liz Warren imitation right now.

But you'll never figure that out. ;-)

Peter1469
05-17-2015, 11:11 AM
Palin.

:shocked:

Utter hypocrisy.



The power of one woman to make the right wing absolutely crazy is fascinating stuff. Is it simply misogyny or something much deeper? Is it a sign of male impotence, a failure of the gender to face the fact women can be strong? If you compare this woman to the empty rhetoric of those whose only accomplishment is criticism you are left bemused. Are they - the right wing conservative republican - now only a nation of schoolyard bullies who can only browbeat the other to hide their own personal weakness? You cannot address this issue in debate, not because there are no answers, but because no reasonable answer will be accepted. The empty words of the right in America were here when Bill Clinton was President, they accomplished nothing then and they will accomplish nothing now as they show only the immaturity and the useless place the right now occupies. Tracing the history and creation of bitterness and failure that is the conservative republican today would be a fascinating task, a compendium of sources, I wonder if the thoughtful (?) would be proud of what they have failed to accomplish? Or is this simply what they are? Talkers only, tools of the rich and powerful who feed them vague notions of a supposed free market and how they too will one day be more than what they are: whiners.

Mac-7
05-17-2015, 11:20 AM
Here we go, lol!

Criticize Hillary and you're a misogynist.

Criticize teh O'bama and you're a racist.

Same $#@!, different thread.

It's easy to understand

Leftwingers agree with obumer and Billary on almost everything and can't imagine others not agreeing too UNLESS they are racists or woman haters

Captain Obvious
05-17-2015, 11:21 AM
As Dems go, Hillary is barely left of center.

So in that regard she still is conservative even if she's doing a Liz Warren imitation right now.

But you'll never figure that out. ;-)

I agree, Hillary isn't as far left as some are but she's certainly institutional establishment.

Chris
05-17-2015, 11:21 AM
The power of one woman to make the right wing absolutely crazy is fascinating stuff. Is it simply misogyny or something much deeper? Is it a sign of male impotence, a failure of the gender to face the fact women can be strong? If you compare this woman to the empty rhetoric of those whose only accomplishment is criticism you are left bemused. Are they - the right wing conservative republican - now only a nation of schoolyard bullies who can only browbeat the other to hide their own personal weakness? You cannot address this issue in debate, not because there are no answers, but because no reasonable answer will be accepted. The empty words of the right in America were here when Bill Clinton was President, they accomplished nothing then and they will accomplish nothing now as they show only the immaturity and the useless place the right now occupies. Tracing the history and creation of bitterness and failure that is the conservative republican today would be a fascinating task, a compendium of sources, I wonder if the thoughtful (?) would be proud of what they have failed to accomplish? Or is this simply what they are? Talkers only, tools of the rich and powerful who feed them vague notions of a supposed free market and how they too will one day be more than what they are: whiners.



Hmmmmm, no, it's disagreement with her positions and policies.

Green Arrow
05-17-2015, 11:41 AM
I'm still trying to figure out why I pressed "play" on the video.

Worse, I can't figure out why I sat through the whole two minutes and forty seconds.

That's two minutes and forty seconds that I could have been increasing my IQ rather than decreasing it.

Captain Obvious
05-17-2015, 11:43 AM
I'm still trying to figure out why I pressed "play" on the video.

Worse, I can't figure out why I sat through the whole two minutes and forty seconds.

That's two minutes and forty seconds that I could have been increasing my IQ rather than decreasing it.

Or picking a booger

IMPress Polly
05-17-2015, 11:44 AM
Chris wrote:
Hmmmmm, no, it's disagreement with her positions and policies.

Except that I seem to be the only person on this message board who even knows or cares what her positions and policy proposals are. There is zero discussion thereof going on right now. However, we are evaluating her appearance (see the thread title for example).

I feel that women in general tend to get criticized in personal, rather than political, ways when they run for public office, where by contrast male politicians and candidates enjoy the luxury of being evaluated in impersonal ways, based on their ideas and policies, and nowhere do we find this dynamic more pronounced than in the character assassination campaign surrounding Hillary Clinton in which all of the corporate media is complicit. The video in the OP goes even further than most in focusing in on things like whether she looks attractive or not and how important that should be in terms of whether one should vote for her. Male candidates simply are not treated that way. Not to an even remotely comparable degree. Same principle applies in every sphere of society. In most every field, women are quite often discussed and evaluated mostly in personal, rather than professional, ways.

Chris
05-17-2015, 11:47 AM
Except that I seem to be the only person on this message board who even knows or cares what her positions and policy proposals are. There is zero discussion thereof going on right now. However, we are evaluating her appearance (see the thread title for example).

I feel that women in general tend to get criticized in personal, rather than political, ways when they run for public office, where by contrast male politicians and candidates enjoy the luxury of being evaluated in impersonal ways, based on their ideas and policies, and nowhere do we find this dynamic more pronounced than in the character assassination campaign surrounding Hillary Clinton in which all of the corporate media is complicit. The video in the OP goes even further than most in focusing in on things like whether she looks attractive or not and how important that should be in terms of whether one should vote for her. Male candidates simply are not treated that way. Not to an even remotely comparable degree. Same principle applies in every sphere of society. In most every field, women are quite often discussed and evaluated mostly in personal, rather than professional, ways.

Or Sarah Palin.

Then I agree.

Green Arrow
05-17-2015, 11:47 AM
Or picking a booger

That too.

Captain Obvious
05-17-2015, 11:48 AM
Except that I seem to be the only person on this message board who even knows or cares what her positions and policy proposals are. There is zero discussion thereof going on right now. However, we are evaluating her appearance (see the thread title for example).

I feel that women in general tend to get criticized in personal, rather than political, ways when they run for public office, where by contrast male politicians and candidates enjoy the luxury of being evaluated in impersonal ways, based on their ideas and policies, and nowhere do we find this dynamic more pronounced than in the character assassination campaign surrounding Hillary Clinton in which all of the corporate media is complicit. The video in the OP goes even further than most in focusing in on things like whether she looks attractive or not and how important that should be in terms of whether one should vote for her. Male candidates simply are not treated that way. Not to an even remotely comparable degree. Same principle applies in every sphere of society. In most every field, women are quite often discussed and evaluated mostly in personal, rather than professional, ways.

Tell that to McTurtle

GrassrootsConservative
05-17-2015, 11:50 AM
Except that I seem to be the only person on this message board who even knows or cares what her positions and policy proposals are. There is zero discussion thereof going on right now. However, we are evaluating her appearance (see the thread title for example).

I feel that women in general tend to get criticized in personal, rather than political, ways when they run for public office, where by contrast male politicians and candidates enjoy the luxury of being evaluated in impersonal ways, based on their ideas and policies, and nowhere do we find this dynamic more pronounced than in the character assassination campaign surrounding Hillary Clinton in which all of the corporate media is complicit. The video in the OP goes even further than most in focusing in on things like whether she looks attractive or not and how important that should be in terms of whether one should vote for her. Male candidates simply are not treated that way. Not to an even remotely comparable degree. Same principle applies in every sphere of society. In most every field, women are quite often discussed and evaluated mostly in personal, rather than professional, ways.

I discuss Hillary's policies and positions everyday. That's the great thing about using a term like "Liberals" or "the Loony Left" it envelopes all of you.

You remain inactive just enough to where it's impossible to hold a discussion with you.

I might be the same way. Not sure. Don't really care. I'm not trying to pretend to be anybody special.

Green Arrow
05-17-2015, 11:52 AM
Except that I seem to be the only person on this message board who even knows or cares what her positions and policy proposals are. There is zero discussion thereof going on right now. However, we are evaluating her appearance (see the thread title for example).

I feel that women in general tend to get criticized in personal, rather than political, ways when they run for public office, where by contrast male politicians and candidates enjoy the luxury of being evaluated in impersonal ways, based on their ideas and policies, and nowhere do we find this dynamic more pronounced than in the character assassination campaign surrounding Hillary Clinton in which all of the corporate media is complicit. The video in the OP goes even further than most in focusing in on things like whether she looks attractive or not and how important that should be in terms of whether one should vote for her. Male candidates simply are not treated that way. Not to an even remotely comparable degree. Same principle applies in every sphere of society. In most every field, women are quite often discussed and evaluated mostly in personal, rather than professional, ways.

I can't recall a time on this forum where I opted to discuss Hillary Clinton's personal life or looks over political issues, or even where I treated Hillary Clinton any differently than any male politician in my criticism.

Common
05-17-2015, 11:54 AM
Your of the minority of those that dont support her

GrassrootsConservative
05-17-2015, 11:56 AM
Your of the minority of those that dont support her

The left is the same way and if you weren't so partisan you would know that.

Most people, if they have a problem with someone, will go the easy route and insult them based on something easy than something that takes critical thinking. I'm sure you have done it too and I know I have done it.

I've seen you call Chris Christie fat and other such things so I know you're not immune. ;)

/Edit: Do not get me started on actual Conservatives like Rubio and Cruz. Or Paul.

Green Arrow
05-17-2015, 11:59 AM
Your of the minority of those that dont support her

I'm okay with that. All throughout history, those who choose to stand on the things that are right and good were typically outnumbered by those who stood for evil.

It doesn't make the right and good things any less valuable or important.

Ravens Fan
05-17-2015, 12:08 PM
Except that I seem to be the only person on this message board who even knows or cares what her positions and policy proposals are. There is zero discussion thereof going on right now. However, we are evaluating her appearance (see the thread title for example).

I feel that women in general tend to get criticized in personal, rather than political, ways when they run for public office, where by contrast male politicians and candidates enjoy the luxury of being evaluated in impersonal ways, based on their ideas and policies, and nowhere do we find this dynamic more pronounced than in the character assassination campaign surrounding Hillary Clinton in which all of the corporate media is complicit. The video in the OP goes even further than most in focusing in on things like whether she looks attractive or not and how important that should be in terms of whether one should vote for her. Male candidates simply are not treated that way. Not to an even remotely comparable degree. Same principle applies in every sphere of society. In most every field, women are quite often discussed and evaluated mostly in personal, rather than professional, ways.

I can agree with that for the most part, and it does happen with men too, just not nearly as much. I have said something before about those that constantly attack Chris Christie because of his weight, rather than his actions or policies. But I have noticed that if a woman is hot, she is a bimbo... if she isn't, she is a hag. No real arguments to their positions, just appearance.

Personally, I don't care for Hillary. Not because of her appearance or gender, but based on her performance as Secretary of State and her lies. I would love to see us have a female president, but we should vote based on the best person for the job at the time... not just because we want a female in the office.

IMPress Polly
05-17-2015, 12:08 PM
Chris wrote:
Or Sarah Palin.

Then I agree.

I do agree...to a degree. While I do think that people, including leftists, often criticized Sarah Palin in more personal ways than they would have a male analogy, at the same time I also feel that the selection of that particular woman was one typical reflection of what the Republican Party and its partisans tend to value in women. Let's be frank: Sarah Palin was/is no feminist. Neither was/is Michele Bachmann. Neither do women like these have resumes comparable to those of say Hillary Clinton's or Nancy Pelosi. But those are the kinds of women that get places in the Republican Party. You see what I'm getting at? When it comes to women, looks seem to be more important to that crowd than job qualifications. You can figure out the social order that that thinking corresponds to. Much like how modern-day Uncle Toms like Ben Carson and Herman Cain who would rather sweep obvious social issues of race discrimination under the rug are the GOP's favorite kind of African American, similarly the party favors aesthetically pleasing women who care nothing for the larger interests of their sex. I believe that is sexist. It's easy for men, and for women heavily invested in and benefiting from patriarchy, to support those kinds of women. Harder, and more stigmatizing, to support women with the guts to stand up for women.

Mac-7
05-17-2015, 12:13 PM
I do agree...to a degree. While I do think that people, including leftists, often criticized Sarah Palin in more personal ways than they would have a male analogy, at the same time I also feel that the selection of that particular woman was one typical reflection of what the Republican Party and its partisans tend to value in women. Let's be frank: Sarah Palin was/is no feminist. Neither was/is Michele Bachmann. Neither do women like these have resumes comparable to those of say Hillary Clinton's or Nancy Pelosi. But those are the kinds of women that get places in the Republican Party. You see what I'm getting at? When it comes to women, looks seem to be more important to that crowd than job qualifications. You can figure out the social order that that thinking corresponds to. Much like how modern-day Uncle Toms like Ben Carson and Herman Cain who would rather sweep obvious social issues of race discrimination under the rug are the GOP's favorite kind of African American, similarly the party favors aesthetically pleasing women who care nothing for the larger interests of their sex. I believe that is sexist. It's easy for men, and for women heavily invested in and benefiting from patriarchy, to support those kinds of women. Harder, and more stigmatizing, to support women with the guts to stand up for women.

I think this woman is too clueless to realize the irony of complaining about sexism while calling Ben Carson and Herman Cain "uncle toms."

Green Arrow
05-17-2015, 12:14 PM
I think this woman is too clueless to realize the irony of complaining about sexism while calling Ben Carson and Herman Cain "uncle toms."

It's not sexist to call Ben Carson and Herman Cain "Uncle Toms," so I'm not sure what irony you're referring to.

IMPress Polly
05-17-2015, 12:15 PM
Green Arrow wrote:
I can't recall a time on this forum where I opted to discuss Hillary Clinton's personal life or looks over political issues, or even where I treated Hillary Clinton any differently than any male politician in my criticism.

I wasn't per se speaking of you, but since you bring up the subject, neither can I recall a time when you discussed her in anything other than abstractions (e.g. "I just don't trust her") at all. :wink:


It's not sexist to call Ben Carson and Herman Cain "Uncle Toms," so I'm not sure what irony you're referring to.

I was drawing a logical analogy between different forms of favoritism: racism and sexism. I feel that you are deliberately choosing to miss my point.

Green Arrow
05-17-2015, 12:18 PM
I wasn't per se speaking of you, but since you bring up the subject, neither can I recall a time when you discussed her in anything other than abstractions (e.g. "I just don't trust her") at all. :wink:

Well, you could start by traversing over to the thread about Jeb Bush supporting the Iraq War, where I referenced her vote to authorize the Iraq War as a Senator as one of the many political issues I object to her on.

GrassrootsConservative
05-17-2015, 12:19 PM
I do agree...to a degree. While I do think that people, including leftists, often criticized Sarah Palin in more personal ways than they would have a male analogy, at the same time I also feel that the selection of that particular woman was one typical reflection of what the Republican Party and its partisans tend to value in women. Let's be frank: Sarah Palin was/is no feminist. Neither was/is Michele Bachmann. Neither do women like these have resumes comparable to those of say Hillary Clinton's or Nancy Pelosi. But those are the kinds of women that get places in the Republican Party. You see what I'm getting at? When it comes to women, looks seem to be more important to that crowd than job qualifications. You can figure out the social order that that thinking corresponds to. Much like how modern-day Uncle Toms like Ben Carson and Herman Cain who would rather sweep obvious social issues of race discrimination under the rug are the GOP's favorite kind of African American, similarly the party favors aesthetically pleasing women who care nothing for the larger interests of their sex. I believe that is sexist. It's easy for men, and for women heavily invested in and benefiting from patriarchy, to support those kinds of women. Harder, and more stigmatizing, to support women with the guts to stand up for women.

Not everyone likes feminism. I think it's a cover-up for a female supremacy movement, much like what the black-rights movement has become now that they are equal. It's fucked up. People hiding hate in a shroud of equality.

I like Sarah Palin because she did good for the state of Alaska and I think she and McCain would have done good for the country. I don't care if they side with my beliefs or not.

IMPress Polly
05-17-2015, 12:22 PM
Mac-7 wrote:
I think this woman is too clueless to realize the irony of complaining about sexism while calling Ben Carson and Herman Cain "uncle toms."

I call African Americans Uncle Toms when they come out against even the peaceful protests in Baltimore, for example, when they come out opposed to affirmative action, opposed to voting rights protections, and so forth; a whole range of things that upwards of 90% of all black people in this country would have the guts to support. There's a reason why these candidates have a virtually all-white support base and it's not because they're standing up for the larger interests of their people.

GrassrootsConservative
05-17-2015, 12:23 PM
I call African Americans Uncle Toms when they come out against even the peaceful protests in Baltimore, for example, when they come out opposed to affirmative action, opposed to voting rights protections, and so forth; things that upwards of 90% of all black people in this country would have the guts to support. There's a reason why these candidates have a virtually all-white support base and it's not because they're standing up for the larger interests of their people.

Affirmative action is discrimination though. Why do you call African Americans names when they oppose discrimination?

Captain Obvious
05-17-2015, 12:24 PM
It's not sexist to call Ben Carson and Herman Cain "Uncle Toms," so I'm not sure what irony you're referring to.

Pavlov's bell gone wrong

Captain Obvious
05-17-2015, 12:25 PM
I call African Americans Uncle Toms when they come out against even the peaceful protests in Baltimore, for example, when they come out opposed to affirmative action, opposed to voting rights protections, and so forth; a whole range of things that upwards of 90% of all black people in this country would have the guts to support. There's a reason why these candidates have a virtually all-white support base and it's not because they're standing up for the larger interests of their people.

Do as I say not as I do, lol!

IMPress Polly
05-17-2015, 12:25 PM
Mac-7 wrote:
Not everyone likes feminism. I think it's a cover-up for a female supremacy movement, much like what the black-rights movement has become now that they are equal. It's $#@!ed up. People hiding hate in a shroud of equality.

Personally, I believe you feel that way because you're an entitled [not allowed to complete sentence].

I mean I feel that you just take whatever positions are easy and self-interested personally because you're not capable of empathy.

GrassrootsConservative
05-17-2015, 12:27 PM
Personally, I believe you feel that way because you're an entitled [not allowed to complete sentence].

For crying out loud. YOU THINK HE'S ENTITLED? You want to decide who is equal and who is "more equal." Who gets affirmative action? An exclusive group of people. You think you're ENTITLED to say who gets what.

IMPress Polly
05-17-2015, 12:28 PM
Captain Obvious wrote:
Do as I say not as I do, lol!

Oh really? How have I evaluated Mr. Herman Cain or Mr. Ben Carson here based on anything other than their political stances?

Better question: Why am I still talking to you?

Captain Obvious
05-17-2015, 12:29 PM
Oh really? How have I evaluated Mr. Herman Cain or Mr. Ben Carson here based on anything other than their political stances?

Would you call say Jeb Bush an "uncle tom"?

Or Hillary?

I stand by my comment, you should take it as constructive criticism.

Ravens Fan
05-17-2015, 12:30 PM
I do agree...to a degree. While I do think that people, including leftists, often criticized Sarah Palin in more personal ways than they would have a male analogy, at the same time I also feel that the selection of that particular woman was one typical reflection of what the Republican Party and its partisans tend to value in women. Let's be frank: Sarah Palin was/is no feminist. Neither was/is Michele Bachmann. Neither do women like these have resumes comparable to those of say Hillary Clinton's or Nancy Pelosi. But those are the kinds of women that get places in the Republican Party. You see what I'm getting at? When it comes to women, looks seem to be more important to that crowd than job qualifications. You can figure out the social order that that thinking corresponds to. Much like how modern-day Uncle Toms like Ben Carson and Herman Cain who would rather sweep obvious social issues of race discrimination under the rug are the GOP's favorite kind of African American, similarly the party favors aesthetically pleasing women who care nothing for the larger interests of their sex. I believe that is sexist. It's easy for men, and for women heavily invested in and benefiting from patriarchy, to support those kinds of women. Harder, and more stigmatizing, to support women with the guts to stand up for women.

I was with you until this. if you are going to complain about how women are treated in politics, it helps to acknowledge all of it and not just when it is done to those you agree with. From this comment, I took away 2 things: Republicans are bad, any woman or black republican is inferior to female or black Democrats.

GrassrootsConservative
05-17-2015, 12:32 PM
I was with you until this. if you are going to complain about how women are treated in politics, it helps to acknowledge all of it and not just when it is done to those you agree with. From this comment, I took away 2 things: Republicans are bad, any woman or black republican is inferior to female or black Democrats.

And if they're not a feminist? Why would anybody support that? :eyeroll:


Let's be frank: Sarah Palin was/is no feminist. Neither was/is Michele Bachmann.

Not everybody is such a single-issue-voter. I understand this is hard for single-issue-voters to comprehend.

IMPress Polly
05-17-2015, 12:32 PM
GrassrootsConservative wrote:
For crying out loud. YOU THINK HE'S ENTITLED? You want to decide who is equal and who is "more equal." Who gets affirmative action? An exclusive group of people. You think you're ENTITLED to say who gets what.

Not at all. Affirmative action applies to anyone who is experiencing race or sex discrimination. For example, white people too have filed high-profile suits over race discrimination vis-a-vis various employers. It's not as if only colored people stand to benefit from anti-discrimination laws and protections. It's just that, overall, these laws are in the interests of colored people because colored people are more likely to face race discrimination when it comes to matters like employment and educational opportunities and as much is statistically demonstrable.


Not everybody is such a single-issue-voter. I understand this is hard for single-issue-voters to comprehend.

I'm not a single-issue voter either, but I was speaking to a large, overarching pattern in terms of the kinds of women that Republicans tend to favor.

GrassrootsConservative
05-17-2015, 12:34 PM
Not at all. Affirmative action applies to anyone who is experiencing race or sex discrimination. For example, white people too have filed high-profile suits over race discrimination vis-a-vis various employers. It's not as if only colored people stand to benefit from anti-discrimination laws and protections. It's just that, overall, these laws are in the interests of colored people because colored people are more likely to face race discrimination when it comes to matters like employment and educational opportunities and as much is statistically demonstrable.

Where did I say anything about affirmative action only benefiting "colored people," as you call them?

Peter1469
05-17-2015, 12:39 PM
Except that I seem to be the only person on this message board who even knows or cares what her positions and policy proposals are. There is zero discussion thereof going on right now. However, we are evaluating her appearance (see the thread title for example).

I feel that women in general tend to get criticized in personal, rather than political, ways when they run for public office, where by contrast male politicians and candidates enjoy the luxury of being evaluated in impersonal ways, based on their ideas and policies, and nowhere do we find this dynamic more pronounced than in the character assassination campaign surrounding Hillary Clinton in which all of the corporate media is complicit. The video in the OP goes even further than most in focusing in on things like whether she looks attractive or not and how important that should be in terms of whether one should vote for her. Male candidates simply are not treated that way. Not to an even remotely comparable degree. Same principle applies in every sphere of society. In most every field, women are quite often discussed and evaluated mostly in personal, rather than professional, ways.

One male candidate was treated that way. :shocked:

GrassrootsConservative
05-17-2015, 12:39 PM
I was with you until this. if you are going to complain about how women are treated in politics, it helps to acknowledge all of it and not just when it is done to those you agree with. From this comment, I took away 2 things: Republicans are bad, any woman or black republican is inferior to female or black Democrats.

It's a shame, too. Polly has a fairly good head on her shoulders, but this is overlapped a bit by her partisanship so her posts are always just a little "off."

IMPress Polly
05-17-2015, 12:40 PM
Ravens Fan wrote:
I was with you until this. if you are going to complain about how women are treated in politics, it helps to acknowledge all of it and not just when it is done to those you agree with. From this comment, I took away 2 things: Republicans are bad, any woman or black republican is inferior to female or black Democrats.

You're misunderstanding. When say for example Newsweek publishes a magazine that inexplicably portrays Michele Bachmann as a raving lunatic where they would never treat a male presidential candidate the same (that actually happened in 2011), I defend Michele Bachmann against what is objectively sex discrimination. But would she do the same for me? Or for Hillary Clinton? Or for Nancy Pelosi? No. And it is women like that who tend to get places in the Republican Party. THAT was my point.

I'm not suggesting that Republican women shouldn't be defended when they face discrimination. I'm suggesting that Republicans themselves have much bigger problems in general than say Democrats do when it comes to their gender politics and should adopt a more egalitarian attitude. I'm taking a nuanced position in other words.

GrassrootsConservative
05-17-2015, 12:44 PM
Maybe they just don't prioritize the same issues you do.

You really going to ostracize them for that?

Ravens Fan
05-17-2015, 12:50 PM
You're misunderstanding. When say for example Newsweek publishes a magazine that inexplicably portrays Michele Bachmann as a raving lunatic where they would never treat a male presidential candidate the same (that actually happened in 2011), I defend Michele Bachmann against what is objectively sex discrimination. But would she do the same for me? Or for Hillary Clinton? Or for Nancy Pelosi? No. And it is women like that who tend to get places in the Republican Party. THAT was my point.

I don't think that Hillary or Nancy were defending her then. It kinda looks like you are lumping all Republican women together and discrediting them for doing what it takes to get to the top. The feminist movement is important, but isn't getting yourself into a position of power just as important for women that want to make change?


I'm not suggesting that Republican women shouldn't be defended when they face discrimination. I'm suggesting that Republicans themselves have much bigger problems in general than say Democrats do when it comes to their gender politics and should adopt a more egalitarian attitude. I'm taking a nuanced position in other words.

Sorry, but I just don't see much difference between the 2 parties on this one. The Dems talk the good talk, but lack substance. Maybe the Republicans should start lying about how they treat women equal too?

IMPress Polly
05-17-2015, 12:54 PM
GrassrootsConservative wrote:
Maybe they just don't prioritize the same issues you do.

You really going to ostracize them for that?

Not at all. In as far as say Carly Fiorina may face discrimination in the course of this campaign, I'll defend her against that. But don't expect me to be interested in voting for her regardless of her politics simply because she's female. Sorry. I mean it feels like that's what you and Ravens Fan are demanding of me here, seeming to consider that the only real and legitimate form of feminism.

Peter1469
05-17-2015, 12:55 PM
I don't think that Hillary or Nancy were defending her then. It kinda looks like you are lumping all Republican women together and discrediting them for doing what it takes to get to the top. The feminist movement is important, but isn't getting yourself into a position of power just as important for women that want to make change?



Sorry, but I just don't see much difference between the 2 parties on this one. The Dems talk the good talk, but lack substance. Maybe the Republicans should start lying about how they treat women equal too?

Post of the day.

GrassrootsConservative
05-17-2015, 12:57 PM
Not at all. In as far as say Carly Fiorina may face discrimination in the course of this campaign, I'll defend her against that. But don't expect me to be interested in voting for her regardless of her politics simply because she's female. Sorry. I mean it feels like that's what you and Ravens Fan are demanding of me here, seeming to consider that the only real and legitimate form of feminism.

Demanding? No, I don't speak for him and don't wish to attempt to, but all I was doing was trying to tell you that if you claim to be for women you need to be for all women, not just the ones you agree with.

Ravens Fan
05-17-2015, 12:58 PM
Not at all. In as far as say Carly Fiorina may face discrimination in the course of this campaign, I'll defend her against that. But don't expect me to be interested in voting for her regardless of her politics simply because she's female. Sorry. I mean it feels like that's what you and Ravens Fan are demanding of me here, seeming to consider that the only real and legitimate form of feminism.

I'm not trying to demand anything, just pointing out the hypocrisy in your post. No ill will meant towards you personally. :smiley:

IMPress Polly
05-17-2015, 01:01 PM
Ravens Fan wrote:
I don't think that Hillary or Nancy were defending her then.

The National Organization for Women did even though they had endorsed Hillary and Pelosi's campaigns and not Bachmann's. Surely you can see my point. There is no way she would ever defend another woman in the same predicament.


It kinda looks like you are lumping all Republican women together and discrediting them for doing what it takes to get to the top.

Not necessarily all, but certainly most. I just don't see any remaining exceptions these days. All Congressional Republicans, including the women, to my knowledge vote against all equal pay measures, support all bills and policies restricting abortion and contraception that come before them, vote against basic physical protections like the Violence Against Women Act, and just in every other way I'm aware of oppose the interests of women as a sex. Show me the rare exception to that rule and I will show you someone I'm perhaps a little more sympathetic to.


The feminist movement is important, but isn't getting yourself into a position of power just as important for women that want to make change?

Not if it's a woman who wants to roll back my rights!

GrassrootsConservative
05-17-2015, 01:05 PM
Surely you can see my point.

Surely you can see ours.

IMPress Polly
05-17-2015, 01:10 PM
GrassrootsConservative wrote:
Demanding? No, I don't speak for him and don't wish to attempt to, but all I was doing was trying to tell you that if you claim to be for women you need to be for all women, not just the ones you agree with.

You guys (and it is all guys so far) should really stop claiming that I'm refusing to defend women against discrimination based on political preference. I'm not, as I've explained multiple times already now. What I'm proposing is that a woman is not entitled TO MY VOTE just for being a woman. How is that a discriminatory nuance?

If the press starts discussing Carly Fiorina's age and appearance, for example, I'll defend her against that. That doesn't entitle her to my vote though, considering that I can't think of any position she's taken so far that I agree with, on gender issues or others.

Ravens Fan
05-17-2015, 01:15 PM
The National Organization for Women did even though they had endorsed Hillary and Pelosi's campaigns and not Bachmann's. Surely you can see my point. There is no way she would ever defend another woman in the same predicament.

I understand what you are getting at, but you are excusing Hillary and Nancy for the same thing...


Not necessarily all, but certainly most. I just don't see any remaining exceptions these days. All Congressional Republicans, including the women, to my knowledge vote against all equal pay measures, support all bills and policies restricting abortion and contraception that come before them, vote against basic physical protections like the Violence Against Women Act, and just in every other way I'm aware of oppose the interests of women as a sex. Show me the rare exception to that rule and I will show you someone I'm perhaps a little more sympathetic to.

But why do they vote against those things? If it is due to fiscal responsibility, or bad bills that do not really help women in their eyes, then are they not doing their jobs? You and I cannot really speak to the reasons for them to vote the way they do. I think we both have seen legislation from both sides that are sold to the people as one thing, but the fine print says otherwise. I'm not necessarily saying that you are wrong, just that I don't think it's that black an white.


Not if it's a woman who wants to roll back my rights!

Very true.

GrassrootsConservative
05-17-2015, 01:18 PM
You guys (and it is all guys so far) should really stop claiming that I'm refusing to defend women against discrimination based on political preference. I'm not, as I've explained multiple times already now. What I'm proposing is that a woman is not entitled TO MY VOTE just for being a woman. How is that a discriminatory nuance?

Where did I claim any of this?

hanger4
05-17-2015, 01:23 PM
The National Organization for Women did even though they had endorsed Hillary and Pelosi's campaigns and not Bachmann's. Surely you can see my point. There is no way she would ever defend another woman in the same predicament

NOW became a nonentity when they turned a blind eye toward Bill Clinton.

IMPress Polly
05-17-2015, 01:50 PM
Ravens Fan wrote:
But why do they vote against those things? If it is due to fiscal responsibility, or bad bills that do not really help women in their eyes, then are they not doing their jobs? You and I cannot really speak to the reasons for them to vote the way they do. I think we both have seen legislation from both sides that are sold to the people as one thing, but the fine print says otherwise. I'm not necessarily saying that you are wrong, just that I don't think it's that black an white.

Since we're in agreement on everything else at this point, I figured I'd just focus on this remaining area of disagreement.

People fabricate all sorts of clever-sounding reasons to oppose equal treatment, but none of them really stand up to scrutiny. For example, if you vote against say the Violence Against Women Act on the argument that domestic violence protections are somehow a waste of taxpayer dollars, using that fiscal responsibility line of argument, then logically you should also vote against abortion and birth control restrictions. But see that's just it: the gender politics of our elected Republicans are more consistent than their fiscal politics. That tells me something about the heart of the Republican Party itself.

It didn't used to be this way! Even in the aftermath of Phyllis Schlaftly's anti-ERA campaign, as recently as 20 years ago or even just 10 years ago, there were lots and lots of pro-choice female elected Republicans and the two parties were absolutely united on policies like the Violence Against Women Act and most other gender politics issues! Then along came the Tea Party movement and that whole scene of pro-feminist Republicans was wiped out. That is the underlying reason why today the Democrats are able to use the "Republican war on women" monicker to some effect. And it is part of why the feminist scene today tends to one-sidedly favor Democrats.

Ravens Fan
05-17-2015, 01:58 PM
You guys (and it is all guys so far) should really stop claiming that I'm refusing to defend women against discrimination based on political preference. I'm not, as I've explained multiple times already now. What I'm proposing is that a woman is not entitled TO MY VOTE just for being a woman. How is that a discriminatory nuance?

If the press starts discussing Carly Fiorina's age and appearance, for example, I'll defend her against that. That doesn't entitle her to my vote though, considering that I can't think of any position she's taken so far that I agree with, on gender issues or others.

That line I completely agree with. If you are voting someone in just because of their gender, race, sexuality, etc, then you are part of the problem.

Chris
05-17-2015, 01:59 PM
Equal treatment before the law is fine. But equal treatment in society usually requires unequal treatment in the law what with this or that group given special treatment at the expense of others..

Captain Obvious
05-17-2015, 02:00 PM
One male candidate was treated that way. :shocked:

He had purty hair tho

GrassrootsConservative
05-17-2015, 02:00 PM
That line I completely agree with. If you are voting someone in just because of their gender, race, sexuality, etc, then you are part of the problem.

That's the only reason why the left is thinking about Hillary. They want her to steal the election with the woman vote just like Obama did with the black vote. They're using their race and genders instead of their politics and unfortunately, with a lot of the stupid people in this country, that wins.

IMPress Polly
05-17-2015, 02:11 PM
GrassrootsConservative wrote:
That's the only reason why the left is thinking about Hillary.

Many women would indeed like to see a female president elected and I'd be lying if I said that I hated the idea myself. But that's not a determining factor in terms of for whom I will or won't vote. If it were, then in a hypothetical (albeit VERY unlikely :tongue:) match-up between Bernie Sanders and Carly Fiorina for the White House, I should logically favor the latter even though I don't agree with her on anything I can think of. That's not how I think though. In such a contest, I'd vote Sanders in a heartbeat. Not only is he the more progressive candidate generally, he'd also, in such a match-up, be the more pro-feminist one by a lot. You're not entitled to my vote by virtue of your genitals. You have to earn it. Hillary is someone though who I feel is both viable and earns my vote with her electoral platform generally: on economic policy (fundamentally anyway), foreign policy (mostly), and certainly cultural policy. And yeah, the fact that she's a woman is a nice bonus that doesn't hurt her in my eyes.

Ravens Fan
05-17-2015, 02:15 PM
Since we're in agreement on everything else at this point, I figured I'd just focus on this remaining area of disagreement.

People fabricate all sorts of clever-sounding reasons to oppose equal treatment, but none of them really stand up to scrutiny.

This I agree with too.


For example, if you vote against say the Violence Against Women Act on the argument that domestic violence protections are somehow a waste of taxpayer dollars, using that fiscal responsibility line of argument, then logically you should also vote against abortion and birth control restrictions. But see that's just it: the gender politics of our elected Republicans are more consistent than their fiscal politics. That tells me something about the heart of the Republican Party itself.

My argument is that anyone can make a bill with a good sounding name that sells itself. But when you dig into what it actually says and do not agree with parts of it, how can you vote for it? I don't know if that is the case or not, but very possible.


It didn't used to be this way! Even in the aftermath of Phyllis Schlaftly's anti-ERA campaign, as recently as 20 years ago or even just 10 years ago, there were lots and lots of pro-choice female elected Republicans and the two parties were absolutely united on policies like the Violence Against Women Act and most other gender politics issues! Then along came the Tea Party movement and that whole scene of pro-feminist Republicans was wiped out. That is the underlying reason why today the Democrats are able to use the "Republican war on women" monicker to some effect. And it is part of why the feminist scene today tends to one-sidedly favor Democrats.

I had not noticed it TBH, but the woman's rights issue is not as high on my personal importance list. Not that it isn't important to me, but I don't experience it everyday, so it takes someone pointing it out to me at times.

I guess we should be asking why there aren't so many pro-feminists anymore. Is it really the tea party? Is it a lack of candidates who place that as a high priority? Or is it that the voters aren't putting that type of person in there? I really don't know, but I don't think that Republicans just don't care about women.

Redrose
05-17-2015, 02:16 PM
The power of one woman to make the right wing absolutely crazy is fascinating stuff. Is it simply misogyny or something much deeper? Is it a sign of male impotence, a failure of the gender to face the fact women can be strong? If you compare this woman to the empty rhetoric of those whose only accomplishment is criticism you are left bemused. Are they - the right wing conservative republican - now only a nation of schoolyard bullies who can only browbeat the other to hide their own personal weakness? You cannot address this issue in debate, not because there are no answers, but because no reasonable answer will be accepted. The empty words of the right in America were here when Bill Clinton was President, they accomplished nothing then and they will accomplish nothing now as they show only the immaturity and the useless place the right now occupies. Tracing the history and creation of bitterness and failure that is the conservative republican today would be a fascinating task, a compendium of sources, I wonder if the thoughtful (?) would be proud of what they have failed to accomplish? Or is this simply what they are? Talkers only, tools of the rich and powerful who feed them vague notions of a supposed free market and how they too will one day be more than what they are: whiners.


Misogyny? The GOP nominated Palin as VP, and the GOP has numerous women in high political positions.

Right now, we have a woman...Fiorina, a Black....Carson, a Baptist....Huckabee, a Cuban...Rubio and maybe a gay man....Graham all contenders for the presidency. That shows the GOP's diversity not narrow minded bigotry.

It's not her gender that troubles some, it's her political views, history of shady deals, and deceitful behavior.

Captain Obvious
05-17-2015, 02:26 PM
Misogyny? The GOP nominated Palin as VP, and the GOP has numeeous women in high political positions.

Right now, we have a woman...Fiorina, a Black....Carson, a Baptist....Huckabee, a Cuban...Rubio and maybe a gay man....Graham all contenders for the presidency. That shows the GOP's diversity not narrow minded bigotry.

It's not her gender that troubles some, it's her political views, history of shady deals, and deceitful behavior.

Dole had a gal running mate, what was her name again?

I think she was the first nutless VPOTUS candidate actually.

Redrose
05-17-2015, 02:39 PM
Dole had a gal running mate, what was her name again?

I think she was the first nutless VPOTUS candidate actually.


Aren't ALL women "nutless"?

Captain Obvious
05-17-2015, 02:41 PM
Aren't ALL women "nutless"?

That's fuzzy math nowadays

GrassrootsConservative
05-17-2015, 02:43 PM
That's fuzzy math nowadays

:drumdude:

Redrose
05-17-2015, 02:47 PM
That's fuzzy math nowadays


True. Maybe we should require a complete physical to be sure if they're Mr. or Madam President?

Captain Obvious
05-17-2015, 02:50 PM
True. Maybe we should require a complete physical to be sure if they're Mr. or Madam President?

No thanks, birthers were enough, we don't need gonaders.

Green Arrow
05-17-2015, 03:11 PM
Dole had a gal running mate, what was her name again?

I think she was the first nutless VPOTUS candidate actually.

Dole had Jack Kemp. You're thinking of Geraldine Ferraro, who was Walter Mondale's running mate for the 1984 presidential election against Reagan. Ferraro was the first female VPOTUS candidate, Palin was the second.

donttread
05-17-2015, 04:09 PM
Election video ... presentation on Hillary


https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=TfG0bSK6fH4

No she was never really hot, but she at one time look like a woman

Peter1469
05-17-2015, 04:25 PM
She looks like a woman now....

del
05-17-2015, 04:31 PM
Dole had a gal running mate, what was her name again?

I think she was the first nutless VPOTUS candidate actually.

you'd be wrong, actually, jack kemp was fully equipped.

Redrose
05-17-2015, 04:35 PM
No she was never really hot, but she at one time look like a woman


She looks like a woman, she's no sex symbol, but that should not be a prerequisite for the job.

We had an attractive woman on the ticket and she was ripped apart for that and everything else too.

Some critics just nit pick female candidates relentlessly.

My mom voted for BHO because she said he looked good in a suit. See what that idiotic thinking got us.

donttread
05-17-2015, 04:36 PM
No she was never really hot, but she at one time look like a woman

You are entitled to your opinion

Bob
05-17-2015, 05:27 PM
The power of one woman to make the right wing absolutely crazy is fascinating stuff. Is it simply misogyny or something much deeper? Is it a sign of male impotence, a failure of the gender to face the fact women can be strong? If you compare this woman to the empty rhetoric of those whose only accomplishment is criticism you are left bemused. Are they - the right wing conservative republican - now only a nation of schoolyard bullies who can only browbeat the other to hide their own personal weakness? You cannot address this issue in debate, not because there are no answers, but because no reasonable answer will be accepted. The empty words of the right in America were here when Bill Clinton was President, they accomplished nothing then and they will accomplish nothing now as they show only the immaturity and the useless place the right now occupies. Tracing the history and creation of bitterness and failure that is the conservative republican today would be a fascinating task, a compendium of sources, I wonder if the thoughtful (?) would be proud of what they have failed to accomplish? Or is this simply what they are? Talkers only, tools of the rich and powerful who feed them vague notions of a supposed free market and how they too will one day be more than what they are: whiners.

You guys gutted Sarah Palin and enjoyed the hell out of it. Surely you have not forgot?

Captain Obvious
05-17-2015, 05:30 PM
Dole had Jack Kemp. You're thinking of Geraldine Ferraro, who was Walter Mondale's running mate for the 1984 presidential election against Reagan. Ferraro was the first female VPOTUS candidate, Palin was the second.

Thanks

Bob
05-17-2015, 05:32 PM
Except that I seem to be the only person on this message board who even knows or cares what her positions and policy proposals are. There is zero discussion thereof going on right now. However, we are evaluating her appearance (see the thread title for example).

I feel that women in general tend to get criticized in personal, rather than political, ways when they run for public office, where by contrast male politicians and candidates enjoy the luxury of being evaluated in impersonal ways, based on their ideas and policies, and nowhere do we find this dynamic more pronounced than in the character assassination campaign surrounding Hillary Clinton in which all of the corporate media is complicit. The video in the OP goes even further than most in focusing in on things like whether she looks attractive or not and how important that should be in terms of whether one should vote for her. Male candidates simply are not treated that way. Not to an even remotely comparable degree. Same principle applies in every sphere of society. In most every field, women are quite often discussed and evaluated mostly in personal, rather than professional, ways.

​Sarah Palin

Bob
05-17-2015, 05:42 PM
I do agree...to a degree. While I do think that people, including leftists, often criticized Sarah Palin in more personal ways than they would have a male analogy, at the same time I also feel that the selection of that particular woman was one typical reflection of what the Republican Party and its partisans tend to value in women. Let's be frank: Sarah Palin was/is no feminist. Neither was/is Michele Bachmann. Neither do women like these have resumes comparable to those of say Hillary Clinton's or Nancy Pelosi. But those are the kinds of women that get places in the Republican Party. You see what I'm getting at? When it comes to women, looks seem to be more important to that crowd than job qualifications. You can figure out the social order that that thinking corresponds to. Much like how modern-day Uncle Toms like Ben Carson and Herman Cain who would rather sweep obvious social issues of race discrimination under the rug are the GOP's favorite kind of African American, similarly the party favors aesthetically pleasing women who care nothing for the larger interests of their sex. I believe that is sexist. It's easy for men, and for women heavily invested in and benefiting from patriarchy, to support those kinds of women. Harder, and more stigmatizing, to support women with the guts to stand up for women.

You talk like the so called progressives talk.
One tone for Palin and Bachmann, run them both down, they praise Hillary as if she is good.

Boris The Animal
05-17-2015, 06:39 PM
I call African Americans Uncle Toms when they come out against even the peaceful protests in Baltimore, for example, when they come out opposed to affirmative action, opposed to voting rights protections, and so forth; a whole range of things that upwards of 90% of all black people in this country would have the guts to support. There's a reason why these candidates have a virtually all-white support base and it's not because they're standing up for the larger interests of their people.Typical Leftist shill. You think in order to be a "real" black person in the US one has to embrace the Leftist plantation hook line and sinker?

Safety
05-17-2015, 06:57 PM
I call African Americans Uncle Toms when they come out against even the peaceful protests in Baltimore, for example, when they come out opposed to affirmative action, opposed to voting rights protections, and so forth; a whole range of things that upwards of 90% of all black people in this country would have the guts to support. There's a reason why these candidates have a virtually all-white support base and it's not because they're standing up for the larger interests of their people.

The best way to answer people when they cry about the word "uncle tom" being used, is to ask them why the term "guilt ridden white liberal" is ok, but "uncle tom" somehow isn't.

Captain Obvious
05-17-2015, 06:59 PM
The best way to answer people when they cry about the word "uncle tom" being used, is to ask them why the term "guilt ridden white liberal" is ok, but "uncle tom" somehow isn't.

For the record, I have no fucks to give about the term other than if she's going to suggest that Hillary and other femme political figures are being judged by their personal traits then suggesting someone is an "uncle tom" which can only be used for black males legitimately then it comes off as a bit hypocritical.

Captain Obvious
05-17-2015, 07:01 PM
edit: to further that point, then I can call Hillary the C-word because, well she does display those traits but if I did then I'd no doubt be cast into the fires of misogyny.

So I choose not to.

Captain Obvious
05-17-2015, 07:02 PM
you'd be wrong, actually, jack kemp was fully equipped.

Thank you for the anatomical correction.

For the record, that year I was a junior high school fucking in the front seat of a tiny Toyota pickup truck which is a fairly complicated task, trust me on that.

Bo-4
05-17-2015, 07:04 PM
I agree, Hillary isn't as far left as some are but she's certainly institutional establishment.

Honestly? I would vote for Rand or even Rubio over Hilly.

God i'm gonna get creamed for that!

:D

Peter1469
05-17-2015, 07:31 PM
Typical Leftist shill. You think in order to be a "real" black person in the US one has to embrace the Leftist plantation hook line and sinker?

Calling Polly a shill is pretty low brow. Trashy even.

She puts more thought into one post than most of you clowns put into your entire lives.

You can disagree with her without being a complete and utter dick.

I know. She and I don't agree on much of anything. Yet we respect each other.

zelmo1234
05-17-2015, 07:36 PM
The power of one woman to make the right wing absolutely crazy is fascinating stuff. Is it simply misogyny or something much deeper? Is it a sign of male impotence, a failure of the gender to face the fact women can be strong? If you compare this woman to the empty rhetoric of those whose only accomplishment is criticism you are left bemused. Are they - the right wing conservative republican - now only a nation of schoolyard bullies who can only browbeat the other to hide their own personal weakness? You cannot address this issue in debate, not because there are no answers, but because no reasonable answer will be accepted. The empty words of the right in America were here when Bill Clinton was President, they accomplished nothing then and they will accomplish nothing now as they show only the immaturity and the useless place the right now occupies. Tracing the history and creation of bitterness and failure that is the conservative republican today would be a fascinating task, a compendium of sources, I wonder if the thoughtful (?) would be proud of what they have failed to accomplish? Or is this simply what they are? Talkers only, tools of the rich and powerful who feed them vague notions of a supposed free market and how they too will one day be more than what they are: whiners.

So the video pointed out several things that Hilary failed at, but you chose to attack republicans and conservatives instead of debating the information in the video?

Why not actually debate the issues, instead of assuming sexism?

Captain Obvious
05-17-2015, 07:36 PM
Calling Polly a shill is pretty low brow. Trashy even.

She puts more thought into one post than most of you clowns put into your entire lives.

You can disagree with her without being a complete and utter dick.

I know. She and I don't agree on much of anything. Yet we respect each other.

Agreed.

I'm pretty sure Polly hates me but I don't begrudge her opinions, at least she's engaged.

Green Arrow
05-17-2015, 08:15 PM
Typical Leftist shill. You think in order to be a "real" black person in the US one has to embrace the Leftist plantation hook line and sinker?

I don't agree with Polly all the time, but I do respect her. She is far from a shill. She's far more of a free thinker than a blind partisan like you.

Take your opinion and shove it up your ass.

Boris The Animal
05-17-2015, 09:41 PM
I don't agree with Polly all the time, but I do respect her. She is far from a shill. She's far more of a free thinker than a blind partisan like you.

Take your opinion and shove it up your ass.
And yet she never embraces any Conservative principles. Like I said, typical leftist shill.

Green Arrow
05-17-2015, 09:51 PM
And yet she never embraces any Conservative principles. Like I said, typical leftist shill.

You don't have to embrace conservative principles. Conservative principles are human principles, they are just as flawed as liberal principles.

Captain Obvious
05-18-2015, 08:01 AM
You don't have to embrace conservative principles. Conservative principles are human principles, they are just as flawed as liberal principles.

But she did not conform and that makes Mongo angry.

Safety
05-18-2015, 08:05 AM
But she did not conform and that makes Mongo angry.

http://stream1.gifsoup.com/view/35894/mongo-punches-horse-o.gif

The Sage of Main Street
05-18-2015, 01:46 PM
you'd be wrong, actually, jack kemp was fully equipped. But the sissyboy didn't have enough cojones to stand up to 100-pound Viet Cong soldiers, so the sympathetic Draft Board accepted a bribe to exempt him from that.

Tahuyaman
05-18-2015, 06:35 PM
Hillary at one time was hot? Only if you have extremely low standards.