Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

Dronze wrote:
Didin't say he was, but you can't tell me that that particular slogan, or anything along the same lines, wouldn't have come up if he was white. I was commenting on the slogan, itself, not the poster.

Uh, yeah, I can. Its really easy, look: That slogan would have come up if he happened to be white. See? Really easy.

Its an acronym, it doesn't play on his race, it plays on his name. All politicians enjoy similar treatment. Recall McCancer?

dogma wrote:

Monster Rain wrote:
The fact that other politicians don't get a pass for their behavior doesn't strike you as being somewhat hypocritical? Allegations against Obama are discarded out of hand as being the work of racist troglodytes while every crazy charge leveled at Sarah Palin is taken as gospel.

Except they aren't always discarded as the work of racist troglodytes, often time they're discarded as illegitimate criticism for being untrue, or unlikely to be true.

To invert your point: often times criticism of Palin is discarded as the work of misogynists, and elitists.

Monster Rain wrote:
That said, I don't want her to be president, and she has no chance of being nominated. I'm a little annoyed at her for being an albatross around Johnny McCain's neck, and I think that he deserved to lose for trying to pick her and in so doing made me realize what a pandering hack he really is. Still though, it's interesting how much more of a hassle she seems to get than any other politician that I can think of off hand...

McCain was his own failing. If you can't manage a campaign, how are you going to manage a nation?

About Palin:

To say that she is a terrible presidential candidate is not misogynist. Saying she's a dumb bitch sort of is, wouldn't you say?

On McCain:

That was precisely my point!

dogma wrote:

Dronze wrote:Didin't say he was, but you can't tell me that that particular slogan, or anything along the same lines, wouldn't have come up if he was white. I was commenting on the slogan, itself, not the poster.

Uh, yeah, I can. Its really easy, look: That slogan would have come up if he happened to be white. See? Really easy.

Its an acronym, it doesn't play on his race, it plays on his name. All politicians enjoy similar treatment. Recall McCancer?

Poor Alaskan Lady Incites Neo-conservatives.

Wait, is that sexist?

Monster Rain wrote:Saying she's a dumb bitch sort of is, wouldn't you say?

Maybe. It depends on how strictly we want to regard the more benign physical (gender, race, ethnicity) slurs.

Kilkrazy wrote:Maritime Law and Air Law

Enforced by local military forces within their own airspace and waters...

The Postal Service

Handled by individual governments within their own borders, any international interaction would be handled by customs in the relative countries.

Telecommunications

Developed by the IEEE and OSI (or ISO, depending on which name you prefer), both non-government groups. These are established technological standards, any legal bearing is, once again, handled by the local national government.

Science (SI units, etc.)

Apolitical and used by scientists, who should not be worried about the countries they are working for, unless developing secret military technology. Standards used only for the aid of multinational academics.

Passports and Customs Unions

Which are federally issued and who's application process and inspection process is handled by the applicable governments, not by an international agency.

dogma wrote:

Monster Rain wrote:Saying she's a dumb bitch sort of is, wouldn't you say?

Maybe. It depends on how strictly we want to regard the more benign physical (gender, race, ethnicity) slurs.

Yeah, right. Because if someone said something along the lines of "Barack Obama is a dumb (insert any racial slur here)" they wouldn't be labeled a racist.

Monster Rain wrote:


Yeah, right. Because if someone said something along the lines of "Barack Obama is a dumb (insert any racial slur here)" they wouldn't be labeled a racist.

I'm not talking about labeling, I'm talking about legitimacy. People will be labeled in different ways regardless of what they do, the question that's actually interesting is: are those labels legitimate?

dogma wrote:

Monster Rain wrote:


Yeah, right. Because if someone said something along the lines of "Barack Obama is a dumb (insert any racial slur here)" they wouldn't be labeled a racist.

I'm not talking about labeling, I'm talking about legitimacy. People will be labeled in different ways regardless of what they do, the question that's actually interesting is: are those labels legitimate?

I guess that's in the mind of the individual doing the labeling, as well as based on the motives of the person making the statement being considered.

"Sarah Palin is a dumb bitch" is on it's face a misogynist statement, in my opinion, because the term bitch is traditionally in slang used as a slur against women. Then again people use that term constantly in a million different contexts, so maybe it's not intended to be as misogynistic as it seems at first.

Its also worth noting that many people will use slurs in order to deliberately insult, rather than to indicate their own beliefs about a group of people.

For example, I know homosexual gender theory professors who will drop the c-bomb when discussing women they really dislike, or want to offend.

dogma wrote:Its also worth noting that many people will use slurs in order to deliberately insult, rather than to indicate their own beliefs about a group of people.

For example, I know homosexual gender theory professors who will drop the c-bomb when discussing women they really dislike, or want to offend.

Or the generic overuse of the term f*g, and other homoseual slurs amongst kids these days.

Monster Rain wrote:
...
...

I don't know... I think a lot of the comments made in this very thread kind of back up a few of those. The hatred of the woman is a bit over the top. Yeah, you can find Sarah Palin saying some goofy stuff but you can find clips of anyone saying stupid things if they're a public figure.

Surely the question is whether you can find evidence of them saying stuff that makes sense.

"Lift American Spirits!"

dogma wrote:For example, I know homosexual gender theory professors who will drop the c-bomb when discussing women they really dislike, or want to offend.

I'd be interested to know how they felt about someone throwing the term "[see forum posting rules]" around with wild abandon.

I haz bin censoared?

Surely, within the context of the conversation, the use of the term "f*g" is clearly not intended to offend.

They found it very insulting. Just as their targets were likely to find the c-bomb very insulting.

dogma wrote:They found it very insulting. Just as their targets were likely to find the c-bomb very insulting.

There it is!

If it's offensive to you, it should be eradicated. If it isn't, you wonder why the party that is offended by it thinks it's such a big deal!

The Green Git wrote:

ShumaGorath wrote:Hah! Proclaiming the evils of the lefts blanket statements and hypocrisy by making hypocritical blanket statements! Clever!

I know you are trying to say something here, but all that comes through is farting noises.

Maybe it's not my place to comment, but a good start to fixing that problem might begin with pulling your head out of your ass.
*edit* Huh, I thought that was one of the words that got auto-filtered. Also, the above was meant purely as a joke based on context.

Bookwrack wrote:

The Green Git wrote:I know you are trying to say something here, but all that comes through is farting noises.

Maybe it's not my place to comment, but a good start to fixing that problem might begin with pulling your head out of your ass.
*edit* Huh, I thought that was one of the words that got auto-filtered. Also, the above was meant purely as a joke based on context.

Heh... though if my head was in my ass then I wouldn't be able to fart now would I?

I'm tempted to say it was more a reference to the need some people feel to follow one around expelling foul smelling gusts that, while making a mighty noise actually contain no intelligent content. But I won't.

The Green Git wrote:
I'm tempted to say it was more a reference to the need some people feel to follow one around expelling foul smelling gusts that, while making a mighty noise actually contain no intelligent content. But I won't.

You consider a hypocritical, generalist indictment of hypocritical generalization to be intelligent content?

dogma wrote:

The Green Git wrote:
I'm tempted to say it was more a reference to the need some people feel to follow one around expelling foul smelling gusts that, while making a mighty noise actually contain no intelligent content. But I won't.

You consider a hypocritical, generalist indictment of hypocritical generalization to be intelligent content?

Isn't that what the American Electoral System is based on?

That said, I don't want her to be president, and she has no chance of being nominated. I'm a little annoyed at her for being an albatross around Johnny McCain's neck, and I think that he deserved to lose for trying to pick her and in so doing made me realize what a pandering hack he really is. Still though, it's interesting how much more of a hassle she seems to get than any other politician that I can think of off hand...

It helps that she quit her job to sell a book in the middle of a financial crisis yet is still adored by the right wing crazies she caters too. She's incredibly visible, as is her intention, and she's a dumbass who deserves scorn. A spark + fuel + oxygen = a fire. It's the perfect storm of deserved hate and undeserved attention.

I know you are trying to say something here, but all that comes through is farting noises.

You are the classiest man alive.

Obama isn't a worker at all. As SNL clearly noted, he didn't do anything in the first year, much less pass the big push that he promised as part of his election platform. Not even Healthcare, which was supposed to be the centerpiece of his agenda. If he can't do any of that, what good is he?

DD, you truly have no idea what you're talking about. I mean, he didn't get the healthcare legislation passed (yet), but he's done hundreds of things. The dude hasn't spent a month on his ranch once yet, and you know that (I hope).

I always thought you were left........

People constantly assume that because my views line up against conservative (greedy idiots) that they line up correctly with liberals (less greedy but largely still idiots). I take logical stances, reality just has a left wing bias right now.

But then, could the Republicans simply ape the Liberals by knee-jerking out the Woman Card to call anybody who doesn't support her a Sexist, Misogynist, woman-hater?

Hillary would just call her a douche, and it's not like anyone was afraid to make fun of her before.

Thank you, Shuma.

It's OK, I'll even get you started: Facetious. Snarky. Smart-assed.

That said, in general, if you're taking my "political" postings any further than that, or reading anything further into them, you might want to have your humor meter checked...

You don't really have a history logical thought or opinions on this forum. I only know you through here, so I will take that which I see as you at face value with reservations.

To paraphrase South Park, in an election, you have to choose between a Turd Sandwich and a Giant Douche because those are the only people who will suck up enough to get the nomination.

Isn't democracy great?

Didin't say he was, but you can't tell me that that particular slogan, or anything along the same lines, wouldn't have come up if he was white. I was commenting on the slogan, itself, not the poster.

It's just an acronym based on his name. I fail to see how it was racist (though he likely wouldn't get the same level of criticism if he were white).


*whew* Responded to everyone!

:edit: God damnit you all kept posting.

dogma wrote:

The Green Git wrote:
I'm tempted to say it was more a reference to the need some people feel to follow one around expelling foul smelling gusts that, while making a mighty noise actually contain no intelligent content. But I won't.

You consider a hypocritical, generalist indictment of hypocritical generalization to be intelligent content?

Isn't that what the American Electoral System is based on?

Dronze wrote:An international framework for anything just leads to an inefficient system.

I'm sorry, but that's just ludicrous. If international frameworks are inefficient, could you please explain why the progress towards international accounting standards has been driven by the market?

Thing is, as long as every nation is free to pick its own financial regs you will get competition to draw major institutions to your country, resulting in a race to the bottom as nations outdo each other to bring business to their country. You also have issues with compatibility, as the requirements of compliance in one legal system might be unachievable or completely inconsistant with compliance in another country. Then there's the cost of complying with the regulations of the multiple countries that a bank might operate in.

People really need to get over the knee-jerk reaction that supra-national is automatically inefficient, and actually look at how the world works.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Monster Rain wrote:That said, I don't want her to be president, and she has no chance of being nominated. I'm a little annoyed at her for being an albatross around Johnny McCain's neck, and I think that he deserved to lose for trying to pick her and in so doing made me realize what a pandering hack he really is. Still though, it's interesting how much more of a hassle she seems to get than any other politician that I can think of off hand...

It isn't that hard to understand. There is a feeling among the left wing that the right is just empty rhetoric and pretend folksiness, and Palin 'proves' this for them. The left is far more keen to attach Palin to the tea party movement than anyone else is (except possibly Palin herself) because it allows them to discredit the movement.

Have you noticed how often the right wing mention Al Gore and only Al Gore in the context of global warming? There are thousands of experts with far weightier opinions than Gore, but he's the one that lets them frame the issue as political one.

sebster wrote:

Monster Rain wrote:That said, I don't want her to be president, and she has no chance of being nominated. I'm a little annoyed at her for being an albatross around Johnny McCain's neck, and I think that he deserved to lose for trying to pick her and in so doing made me realize what a pandering hack he really is. Still though, it's interesting how much more of a hassle she seems to get than any other politician that I can think of off hand...

It isn't that hard to understand. There is a feeling among the left wing that the right is just empty rhetoric and pretend folksiness, and Palin 'proves' this for them. The left is far more keen to attach Palin to the tea party movement than anyone else is (except possibly Palin herself) because it allows them to discredit the movement.

Have you noticed how often the right wing mention Al Gore and only Al Gore in the context of global warming? There are thousands of experts with far weightier opinions than Gore, but he's the one that lets them frame the issue as political one.

That is an excellent example. I stand corrected!

Though I think that both of those two catch a bit more flak than is necessary. But maybe I'm just too nice a guy...

dogma wrote:

Monster Rain wrote:
That said, I don't want her to be president, and she has no chance of being nominated. I'm a little annoyed at her for being an albatross around Johnny McCain's neck, and I think that he deserved to lose for trying to pick her and in so doing made me realize what a pandering hack he really is. Still though, it's interesting how much more of a hassle she seems to get than any other politician that I can think of off hand...

McCain was his own failing. If you can't manage a campaign, how are you going to manage a nation?

That. I mean, the truth is that McCain got railroaded into picking her because the religious right flipped out over his desire to pick either Liebermann or Tom Ridge. But if he doesn't have the political power or will to tell a segment of his party to sit down and shut up, it sadly doesn't speak well of his ability to lead the entire nation. I thought that whole situation was rather sad, as I respect John McCain quite a bit.

I think Palin's looks/desirability are grossly overrated. She kinda has nice eyes, but she's got that manly jaw, a stumpy build, and she's had how many kids now? She's like the one okay-looking female at the comic/game store that benefits from an extremely shallow pool...

gorgon wrote:That. I mean, the truth is that McCain got railroaded into picking her because the religious right flipped out over his desire to pick either Liebermann or Tom Ridge.

That's just laughable. Honestly, how many of you even knew Sarah Palin existed before McCain picked her to be the VP nominee? McCain picked Palin to shore up the "religious-right" base whom McCain had alienated for years with his maverick ways. Don't forget, it wasn't all that long ago that McCain almost switched parties.

This is an interesting commentary on the liberal frenzy about the possibility of Palin running for President...

http://www.americanthinker.com/2010/02/powerless_against_palin.html

gorgon wrote:I think Palin's looks/desirability are grossly overrated. She kinda has nice eyes, but she's got that manly jaw, a stumpy build, and she's had how many kids now? She's like the one okay-looking female at the comic/game store that benefits from an extremely shallow pool...

People in Australia got all excited over this woman when she ran for office;




Politics and power has a weird effect on people. Like you said about the one girl in the comic store, context matters.

I'm a conservative and she scares the daylights out of me. TBH, I'd almost vote for Hilliary before Palin....

gorgon wrote:I think Palin's looks/desirability are grossly overrated. She kinda has nice eyes, but she's got that manly jaw, a stumpy build, and she's had how many kids now? She's like the one okay-looking female at the comic/game store that benefits from an extremely shallow pool...

I have to agree with this statement. He's nice looking, but an utter troll next to Jennifer Love Hugechest. Personally, I think that the media decided she's attractive, so that sets some peer pressure that we should find her attractive. I also doubt that it hurt the perception that she's a MILF when Larry Flynt made several pornographic movies with an 'actress' that kinda looks like her (except for the 'actress' has a rack that would make Hugechest envious). "Hey, if she's hot enough to make porn about, that means she's really hot, right?"

In summary, I wouldn't vote for her. As a former Keystoner, I'd really like to see the GOP put Tom Ridge as the nominee. I also doubt it will happen. Ridge is a moderate in the GOP with a military background (Vietnam, Homeland Security), and he just seems to get 'it'. I think he's a lot less of a shyster than most politicians.

Also, in summary, I have no desire to tap Palin. She's not awful looking, but she's not nearly hot enough that it'd be worth getting thrown out of my house and hit with a divorce.

Vladigar wrote:

gorgon wrote:That. I mean, the truth is that McCain got railroaded into picking her because the religious right flipped out over his desire to pick either Liebermann or Tom Ridge.

That's just laughable. Honestly, how many of you even knew Sarah Palin existed before McCain picked her to be the VP nominee? McCain picked Palin to shore up the "religious-right" base whom McCain had alienated for years with his maverick ways. Don't forget, it wasn't all that long ago that McCain almost switched parties.

This is an interesting commentary on the liberal frenzy about the possibility of Palin running for President...

http://www.americanthinker.com/2010/02/powerless_against_palin.html

I repeat: PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE run her again. Please. I'm practically salivating.

Very few people "hate" the woman, at least not the way Limbaugh and friends have convinced significant segments of their listerners to hate Hillary Clinton. The reason she comes in for such heat is that she's an easy target, and people are lazy.

She is such a pathetically good target, and such a terrible choice to represent any party, that people can't resist taking shots at her. Any party so foolish to associate themselves with her is putting a "kick me" sign on their own back.

Vladigar wrote:
That's just laughable. Honestly, how many of you even knew Sarah Palin existed before McCain picked her to be the VP nominee? McCain picked Palin to shore up the "religious-right" base whom McCain had alienated for years with his maverick ways.

So you say a comment is laughable, and then agree with it? Well played, my cognitively dissonant friend. Well played...

Vladigar wrote:
Don't forget, it wasn't all that long ago that McCain almost switched parties.

Implying centrism.

Vladigar wrote:
This is an interesting commentary on the liberal frenzy about the possibility of Palin running for President...

http://www.americanthinker.com/2010/02/powerless_against_palin.html

I openly invite the Republicans to do so. Just as I openly invite Nancy Pelosi to run for the Democrats.

dogma wrote:

Vladigar wrote:
That's just laughable. Honestly, how many of you even knew Sarah Palin existed before McCain picked her to be the VP nominee? McCain picked Palin to shore up the "religious-right" base whom McCain had alienated for years with his maverick ways.

So you say a comment is laughable, and then agree with it? Well played, my cognitively dissonant friend. Well played...

Reading comprehension is your friend. Your assertion was that traditional conservatives had problems with his other possible VP choices. Mine is that their problem was with him.

dogma wrote:

Vladigar wrote:
Don't forget, it wasn't all that long ago that McCain almost switched parties.

Implying centrism..

Implying that he needed someone that the traditional conservative base could rally behind. McCain may have won the nomination, partly due to blunders by his opponents in the primaries and partly due to the "we gotta have moderates" fad. But noone was pleased or excited about his candidacy until his picked Palin.

But like I said, I highly doubt she'd run for office again. She'd have to take a pay-cut. So rest easy, Palin-haters.