DescentBB

....not, in any way, because I feel Hillary is the perfect candidate, but as a contrast to the lunacy that the GOP produces. Does ANYONE not see that the vast bulk of the US electorate will respond FAR more positively to this message?
http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/ ... ar-BBhW8EJ

now, I have some far-left friends who are just appalled that another Centrist Dem is likely to be the candidate. And, as with Obama, nothing could make me happier than to see the far right AND far left feel marginalized.

Too bad she doesn't practice what she preaches but what do you expect from a tired worn out old shoe

She offers words but doesn't offer deeds to back them up. She paid her female staffers .72 on the dollar. She wants the glass ceiling broken but only the one that is in her way....she doesn't give a crap about anyone else.

And you offer this as something to be proud of? That she has a message that will resonate with lots of people (assuming the media continues to cover her ass)?!?

“greater economic mobility for women”

I think she missed that boat, because it already sailed.

Women are starting more businesses, getting to greater heights in existing businesses…etc.

In fact, it’s probably men we should start worrying about, considering the news on workplace participation, dropout rates…etc.

nitpicking so far, missing my entire point. Do you think the public will respond positively to this, or to a bunch of angry white guys wishing to take stuff away and not compromise with anyone?

Oh good, we can start eliminating all the ridiculous talking points early:

Will Robinson wrote:She paid her female staffers .72 on the dollar.

Spidey wrote:Women are starting more businesses, getting to greater heights in existing businesses…etc.

These are not things Mrs. Clinton has, or has ever had, any control over.

callmeslick wrote:Do you think the public will respond positively to this, or to a bunch of angry [removed] guys wishing to take stuff away and not compromise with anyone?

Sexisim is a huge problem in the US and probably her greatest hurdle.

That said, it's probably going to be Jeb in 2016. This country is not ready to put sexism aside. ★■◆●, gays can't even get married in most places. America has a huge hangup on sex and gender (remember, there are tons of guys like woody and ST out there).

Jeb can't even win the GOP primary, I'd guess......if he does, it will be by backpeddling so far, so hard, on immigration that he will lose the Hispanic vote as badly as the GOP lost the black vote the last two, and Hillary will pull both women and African-Americans out of the woodwork. Women are notable as they now vote in higher numbers than men(and the Dems know it) in Presidential races.

Spidey wrote:Women are starting more businesses, getting to greater heights in existing businesses…etc.

vision wrote:These are not things Mrs. Clinton has, or has ever had, any control over.

Got that right, but I guess she can wave her magic wand and make sexism disappear if elected.

Sure, I thought you DIDN’T believe in fairy tales.

I don't think anyone would view her election as ending sexism, any more than electing Barack Obama ended racism. But, it will signal a major step
forward, in the same way, that would resonate for a generation or more(his will, to be sure....one need only speak with or encounter classrooms full of African American kids to see that). All that she would be able to accomplish by getting elected, directly, would be federal pay policies, and anything that could come from using the bully pulpit.

callmeslick wrote:All that she would be able to accomplish by getting elected, directly, would be federal pay policies, and anything that could come from using the bully pulpit.

And so what is Obama waiting for?

If a female president can do such things…why hasn’t a Democratic president done so by now.

callmeslick wrote:nitpicking so far, missing my entire point. Do you think the public will respond positively to this, or to a bunch of angry white guys wishing to take stuff away and not compromise with anyone?

You already declared she would be well recieved so your question is just a vehicle to support your rhetorical juxtaposition of the evil white man.

You aren't asking for discussion, you are on a soapbox pretending to care what people think. Just like her.

Oh…it will be well received by all of the usual suspects, but will also be seen as the empty rhetoric that it really is by all of those “angry white men”.

vision wrote: America has a huge hangup on sex and gender (remember, there are tons of guys like woody and ST out there).

I think the only one with hangups is you. Now, kindly point out where I've shown any hangups you accuse me off.

woodchip wrote:Now, kindly point out where I've shown any hangups you accuse me off.

Give me a break. Search your own posts and read it yourself. You can't seem to mention her name without tacking on something like "old hag" or other misogynistic remarks. Yes, you are a sexist. No, you won't recognize it because people like you never do.

Glass ceiling?

I think that's been disproven in the form of Oprah.

Hillary has more problems than White Water and Travel Gate:

"The revelation that foreign countries with interests before the U.S. government were allowed to donate millions of dollars to the foundation could raise questions about Clinton's impartiality while serving as secretary of state from 2009 to 2013."

Just what we need is a president who will be swayed in their decision making by foreign govts. donating money to the Clintons Foundation.

vision wrote:

woodchip wrote:Now, kindly point out where I've shown any hangups you accuse me off.

Give me a break. Search your own posts and read it yourself. You can't seem to mention her name without tacking on something like "old hag" or other misogynistic remarks. Yes, you are a sexist. No, you won't recognize it because people like you never do.

And people like you were calling me racist because I was criticizing Obama back in 2008. You usually give better examples than pulling out straws from that musty bed of yours.

You shouldn't call someone an old hag.

If memory serves I didn't call her a "Old Hag". I would say "Hillary Hillary Clinton or Hag Hillary. No different than calling Biden "the Gaffer" or Pelosi "Princess". Some of you here really need to lighten up and get a life.

I believe when someone insults another person and there is some gender specific component included it isn't proof of sexism. It is evidence that the person issuing the insult wanted to strike a nerve. Calling Hillary a "hag" is designed to assault the feminine aspect of her but not necessarily designed to insult all females or proof the person holds any bias against all females. Other females may empathize with her and claim a shared offense but that can happen whether the insulting party has any sexist characteristic in their make up.

If I'm wrong then go look back on all the insults any of you issued....did you ever specify gender? Angry white 'man'? Everyone is sexist if that is the benchmark, thus rendering sexism a moot charge.

The 'sexist card' is being dusted off and the race card set aside in preparation for Hillary's run for power and it is going to be assigned without any substance to the charge 9 out of 10 times. Standard operating procedure.

At least most of the conservatives here reserve their insults for people in public life, unlike the “progressives” who target board members.

Will Robinson wrote:I believe when someone insults another person and there is some gender specific component included it isn't proof of sexism.

So help me understand: after you remove the sexist component of "hag," what is the part that remains?

What 'remains' is what it always was on its face. A comment on her appearance.

"Her" as in singular. To make the speaker a sexist is to imply they feel superior to females in general. Maybe he simply meant to insult the one female and reveres women in general.

Where is the evidence he had such a sweeping intent to using the description "hag" that it was born of sexism? Maybe he wanted to be mean to one person.

who the hell comments on a political candidate's 'appearance' unless they are shallow and stupid? Seriously, screw 'sexist'. Did you hear comments on Bill Clinton's appearance? Reagans? Even Obamas? To comment on Hillary's physical appearance is idiotic, and should bar the commenter from being able to cast a legal vote.

callmeslick wrote:who the hell comments on a political candidate's 'appearance' unless they are shallow and stupid? Seriously, screw 'sexist'. Did you hear comments on Bill Clinton's appearance? Reagans? Even Obamas? To comment on Hillary's physical appearance is idiotic, and should bar the commenter from being able to cast a legal vote.

"WARREN, Mich., Oct. 10— President Reagan today assailed suggestions from some Democrats and news commentators that he showed signs of age Sunday in his debate with Walter F. Mondale. "

Want to continue showing your ignorance (which is legendary at this point)?

showed signs of age? That is akin to commenting on outward appearance? He showed signs of age by being freaking senile, Woody. Let's face it, the second term was the first time the US had a Woman President, and it went pretty well compared to his first.

Now you are equating age with senility. Way to go. You got any proof he was senile or you just reaching into the vapors again.

I always found her to be a cold blooded cackling shrew with the scruples of Al Capone.
But "hag" is certainly acceptable, maybe a bit generous, but it works.

woodchip wrote:Now you are equating age with senility. Way to go. You got any proof he was senile or you just reaching into the vapors again.

every recollection that has come out in recent years suggests serious onset of senility. Plus, getting back to Mondale's remarks, they were NOT about his physical appearance,but his speech and other affects. Fair game. Not so, calling Hillary Clinton a hag, which simply proves you to be a sexist fool, and I'm sure we can expect 8 years of the same idiocy directed towards her Presidency that we've seen aimed at Obama(but, you're not a racist, right?)

And, Will is able to demonstrate the same simplemindedness, I see. Hardly a surprise. Enjoy the ride until 2024.

Who exactly wrote this rule book on "Fair Game" that you imply you adhere to slick?
Are there any exemptions in that book for commenting on Michelle Bachmann or Sara Palin?

Will wrote:Calling Hillary a "hag" is designed to assault the feminine aspect of her but not necessarily designed to insult all females or proof the person holds any bias against all females.

There's no requirement that an insult has to insult all women for the insult to be sexist. You can make a racist insult even if you don't hate all black people. You can make a sexist insult even if you don't hate all women. In fact, most insults and slurs of this type typically aren't universally insulting in a strictly logical sense. Lazy n***er -> "not racist because it only insults the lazy ones." Old hag -> "not sexist because it only insults the old and unattractive ones." Can I call a black politician a n***er as an "assault on the black aspect of him but not necessarily designed to insult all black people" too? Or is this defense something that only works with gender slurs?

Can you call black person a racist for their calling another black person a ★■◆●?
Are all women that deride another woman's looks engaged in some kind of sexist-self loathing? Or just being insulting out of spite and/or meanness?

It seems to me some context and knowledge of the speaker is needed beyond knowing the word was uttered.

A sexist might compliment a woman for looking fantastic and be a sexist for doing so....

The fact that a man says a woman is unattractive is not evidence of sexism. A sexist might use an insult like that, or praise her beauty, but you'll need something more to show he is a sexist.

"Even Sarah Palin is getting back in the game, guest hosting on the Today Show,"...."Which reminds me of an old saying...what's the difference between a hockey mom and a pitbull?
A pitbull is delicious."

Is that a sexist remark?

You explicitly stated that "calling Hillary a 'hag' is designed to assault the feminine aspect of her," so why should I even entertain the theory that Woodchip is a schoolgirl merely deriding another girl's looks?

Jeff250 wrote:You explicitly stated that "calling Hillary a 'hag' is designed to assault the feminine aspect of her," so why should I even entertain the theory that Woodchip is a schoolgirl merely deriding another girl's looks?

You shouldn't operate under the premise that males can't have the non-sexist motivation to insult a woman for her looks....

Just because a man choses to exploit the vulnerability of vanity does not mean he is a sexist. Vanity is not a female-only-trait.
I guess you could say I am a sexist for assuming she would see the insult as gender specific...but you haven't found any proof that Woody shares my belief.

Not hiring/voting for Hillary based on her appearance is not the same as not hiring/voting for her because she is female. The latter is sexist. The former is just insensitive.

wow, and that's not sexist, Will....not at all. I find it astounding that such drivel is all the right wing loonisphere can fall back on, so early in the game.

callmeslick wrote:wow, and that's not sexist, Will....not at all. I find it astounding that such drivel is all the right wing loonisphere can fall back on, so early in the game.

Be specific. I had asked about a quote, if it was sexist...is that what you are talking about?
Or are you talking about my last comments where I gave a distinction between sexism and insensitivity?

OMG…another dick slinging contest over who are the bigger victims.

I heard a lot of comments about McCain’s face, talk about ignorance…he got that way serving this country.

And wow, are we even allowed to say senility anymore, I guess political correctness only applies to the negros and gays.

(it was Alzheimer’s IIRC)

Personally, I prefer “★■◆●” when describing Hillary…Call it sexist if you want…but I personally don’t think the truth can be sexist.

(for reference. I call her a ★■◆● because of a very insensitive remark she made during the Clinton admin.)

Spidey wrote:OMG…another dick slinging contest over who are the bigger victims.

I heard a lot of comments about McCain’s face, talk about ignorance…he got that way serving this country......

I thought that his jaw deformity was a result of cancer and the surgery to remove that cancer and any potentially affected lymph nodes.

http://voices.washingtonpost.com/44/200 ... ppear.html

You could be right…lots of rumors were flying around…doesn’t change the fact that there are a lot of people who made comments on those “looks”.

Yeah, that's pretty crass.