NationStates Jolt Archive

NOW (National Organisation for Women) is a fairly major player. They've always disdained from endorsing any candidate (other than way back in 1984 for Walter Mondale as he had Geraldine Ferraro as his VP - not that it did them much good)
Here's their response in 2003:
http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9D01E3DB163AF935A2575AC0A9659C8B63
Quote:
"We've never made endorsements to impress the media or the pundits, and we're not going to start now. That would be silly."

But NOW are back and along with FMF (Feminist Majority Foundation), endorsing a presidential candidate again. And again it's because there's a woman on the election ticket:
http://voices.washingtonpost.com/the-trail/2008/09/16/faced_with_palin_womens_groups.html

This time however, they're endorsing the opposition because said woman (and some old guy) on the other ticket opinions and actions run directly against NOW and FMF's aims at equality and fairness for all.


Let's just wait for the usual rabble to claim these two groups are sexist and hate women...

What? Theyre clearly not really feminists then. We all know Sarah Palin is a feminist. John McCain, Sarah Palin, their advisors, Sean Hannity, the right wing noise machine, and their supporters all told me she was. Since when have they been wrong/dishonost/liars?

National Organization for Women. Men can join too!

This made my day. I can't wait to see how McCain spins this as a sexist attack on Miss Palin.:tongue:

The tide has turned. Let's hope Obama's up to the job.:)

National Organization for Women. Men can join too!
Oooh, where can I sign up?

This made my day. I can't wait to see how McCain spins this as a sexist attack on Miss Palin.:tongue:

He'll call them feminazis? Or maybe just lesbians. "Moral values" America would eat it up.

Oooh, where can I sign up?

They're always happy to take anyone's money (https://www.now.org/member.html?srce=wbtpnv), though not that many men seem to join. Maybe it's the name...:tongue:

They're always happy to take anyone's money (https://www.now.org/member.html?srce=wbtpnv), though not that many men seem to join. Maybe it's the name...:tongue:
Possibly.

I think, though, that our society still tends to look down on feminism. That's why Rush Limbaugh and others can get away with terms like feminazi.

Really, there's nothing wrong with being a feminist. I am quite the avid male feminist.

Unfortunately, I do not have money, or else I'd actually join this group.

This made my day. I can't wait to see how McCain spins this as a sexist attack on Miss Palin.:tongue:
No doubt the right will claim that NOW and FMF are a bunch of hairy-legged man-hating sensible-shoe wearers who know nothing about 'real' equality.

real equality being, for example, McCain's opposition to the Ledbetter bill for Equal Pay. Didn't vote on it (only 1 of 2 who abstained) but stated he was against it, as it would open up companies to being sued.
Because a company should have the right to pay it's women workers less than men when they do the exact same job. It's only 'fair'.

http://blog.washingtonpost.com/the-trail/2008/04/24/by_juliet_eilperin_washington.html

I notice he used the phrase, "my friends" there. Obviously he's been told to use it as much as possible. That and the 'POW' bit. I'm a tad surprised he didn't manage to wheedle that into this discussion.

I think, though, that our society still tends to look down on feminism. That's why Rush Limbaugh and others can get away with terms like feminazi.

Very true. Compared to the number of times I've heard the word "feminazi", the number of feminists who have organized an invasion of Poland is really quite small. Which is not to say that the occasional radical man-basher doesn't pop up at chapter meetings, but the vast majority of NOW members that I know are rather run-of-the-mill feminists, fond of coffee and talking about politics while drinking coffee.

Really, there's nothing wrong with being a feminist. I am quite the avid male feminist.

Huzzah!

Unfortunately, I do not have money, or else I'd actually join this group.

I can sympathize. Luckily, NOW will probably be around when you do have money. I'm also fond of the League of Women Voters (also open to men) which isn't as big as it used to be but is admirably non-partisan (though not non-political.) They actually used to run the presidential debates until the major parties complained that the format was too tough and third-party candidates were being taken seriously.

Unfortunately, I do not have money, or else I'd actually join this group.
I'm sure if you approach them and explain your support but lack of funds they might well find some volunteer work you could help them out with.

If nothing else, telling as many people as possible about their endorsement - and why.

This made my day. I can't wait to see how McCain spins this as a sexist attack on Miss Palin.:tongue:


Who's saying that criticism of Gov. Palin is necessarily sexist? No one reputable, and not the McCain campaign. Not that there's even been any specific criticism beyond the claim that she's "out of touch with women," at least in this article.

Some of the most militant anti-feminists have been women - Phyllis Schlafly for instance (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phyllis_Schlafly).

I have always found it interesting how many educated, powerful women are anti-feminist - it's almost as if they're saying "I've got mine and you can't have any" to the rest of us.

I have never been a militant feminist, but I do believe in feminist principals, and Palin is not a feminist, regardless of what she may claim. Feminism is clearly grounded in making informed choices and Palin's "family values" take some of the more basic choices, and the information needed to make those choices, away from women.

Palin may or may not be a sexist, but she is clearly a politician and she's a politician who's willing to sacrifice her family to succeed.

Who's saying that criticism of Gov. Palin is necessarily sexist? No one reputable, and not the McCain campaign.
really. You're going to have to do better than that to avoid the issue here.

http://www.suntimes.com/news/elections/rnc/1142801,card080308.article

''These questions would not be asked if she were a man,'' she (former U.S. Treasurer Rosario Marin) said.

''The scrutiny you are giving her is so darn unfair. It is really indecent,'' he (Rudy Giuliani) told MSNBC's morning crew. ''She is being asked questions like, can you, as a mother ... be vice president? Whoever asked a man?

''The vetting controversy,'' (senior McCain adviser) Steve Schmidt said, ''is a faux media scandal designed to destroy the first female Republican nominee for the vice president of the United States who has never been a part of the old boys' network that has come to dominate the news establishment of this country.''

http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2008/09/02/fiorina-dems-launching-sexist-attacks-against-palin/
“I am appalled by the Obama campaign's attempts to belittle Governor Sarah Palin’s experience....They (American women) will not tolerate sexist treatment of Governor Palin.”

http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/09/03/gop-women-call-palin-criticism-sexist/
...they(six Republican women) described as “sexist attacks” against Ms. Palin.
“They would never dare to say that about a man.”

http://abcnews.go.com/GMA/Conventions/story?id=5718292
Prospective first lady Cindy McCain tells ABC News' "Good Morning America" she "absolutely" believes sexism is behind critical coverage of her husband's vice presidential pick, Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin.
"I think it's insulting. I think it's outlandish. And for whatever reason, the media has decided to treat her differently, because, I believe, because she's a woman."

http://time-blog.com/real_clear_politics/2008/09/gop_women_call_palin_critics_sexist.html
"The Republican Party will not stand by while Gov. Palin is subjected to sexist attacks," said (senior McCain aide )Carly Fiorina.

This bit is especially telling about the GOP mindset:
"These smears are meant to distract from the fact that Gov. Palin has more experience than Barack Obama," said Amore, "Let me use some ebonics ... We will get with you, if you keep messing with us."

So it's okay to talk condescendingly to a Black man but to raise any comment about a woman is sexist.
Imagine the uproar if a Dem had used their best Amos 'n Andy voice when talking to a Black Republican.

"...run directly against NOW and FMF's aims at equality and fairness for all."

NOW is nothing but a pro-abortion lobby, dedicated to forcing every state to allow unlimited on-demand abortions to every female, adult or not. They've been liberal shills for years, and hardly care at all about equality and fairness for all, much less women.

Who's saying that criticism of Gov. Palin is necessarily sexist? No one reputable, and not the McCain campaign. Not that there's even been any specific criticism beyond the claim that she's "out of touch with women," at least in this article.

Please don't embarrass yourself.

Rabble Rabble

Palin and her supporters claim attacks on her are motivated by sexism, Obama and his people claim racism motivate attacks on him.

Is anyone surprised at either position? Really?

"...run directly against NOW and FMF's aims at equality and fairness for all."

NOW is nothing but a pro-abortion lobby, dedicated to forcing every state to allow unlimited on-demand abortions to every female, adult or not. They've been liberal shills for years, and hardly care at all about equality and fairness for all, much less women.

And unlimited, on-demand abortions are unfair to women because.... ?

"...run directly against NOW and FMF's aims at equality and fairness for all."

NOW is nothing but a pro-abortion lobby, dedicated to forcing every state to allow unlimited on-demand abortions to every female, adult or not. They've been liberal shills for years, and hardly care at all about equality and fairness for all, much less women.
You're funny. I like you. I hope you stay around long-time to keep us amused with your silly antics.


...dedicated to forcing every state to allow unlimited on-demand abortions to every female, adult or not.
wait. wait. wait.
'adult OR NOT'?
Does this mean you favour raped girls being forced to carry their pregnancies through?
If not, what exactly do you mean by 'forcing abortions on non-adult females'?

really. You're going to have to do better than that to avoid the issue here.


*Some* of the attacks have been sexist. I was responding to an ignorant comment, not claiming that the McCain campaign hasn't responded to those incidents.

Who's saying that criticism of Gov. Palin is necessarily sexist? No one reputable, and not the McCain campaign. Not that there's even been any specific criticism beyond the claim that she's "out of touch with women," at least in this article.

really. You're going to have to do better than that to avoid the issue here.

http://www.suntimes.com/news/elections/rnc/1142801,card080308.article

''These questions would not be asked if she were a man,'' she (former U.S. Treasurer Rosario Marin) said.

''The scrutiny you are giving her is so darn unfair. It is really indecent,'' he (Rudy Giuliani) told MSNBC's morning crew. ''She is being asked questions like, can you, as a mother ... be vice president? Whoever asked a man?

''The vetting controversy,'' (senior McCain adviser) Steve Schmidt said, ''is a faux media scandal designed to destroy the first female Republican nominee for the vice president of the United States who has never been a part of the old boys' network that has come to dominate the news establishment of this country.''

http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2008/09/02/fiorina-dems-launching-sexist-attacks-against-palin/
“I am appalled by the Obama campaign's attempts to belittle Governor Sarah Palin’s experience....They (American women) will not tolerate sexist treatment of Governor Palin.”

http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/09/03/gop-women-call-palin-criticism-sexist/
...they(six Republican women) described as “sexist attacks” against Ms. Palin.
“They would never dare to say that about a man.”

http://abcnews.go.com/GMA/Conventions/story?id=5718292
Prospective first lady Cindy McCain tells ABC News' "Good Morning America" she "absolutely" believes sexism is behind critical coverage of her husband's vice presidential pick, Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin.
"I think it's insulting. I think it's outlandish. And for whatever reason, the media has decided to treat her differently, because, I believe, because she's a woman."

http://time-blog.com/real_clear_politics/2008/09/gop_women_call_palin_critics_sexist.html
"The Republican Party will not stand by while Gov. Palin is subjected to sexist attacks," said (senior McCain aide )Carly Fiorina.

This bit is especially telling about the GOP mindset:
"These smears are meant to distract from the fact that Gov. Palin has more experience than Barack Obama," said Amore, "Let me use some ebonics ... We will get with you, if you keep messing with us."

So it's okay to talk condescendingly to a Black man but to raise any comment about a woman is sexist.
Imagine the uproar if a Dem had used their best Amos 'n Andy voice when talking to a Black Republican.

*Some* of the attacks have been sexist. I was responding to an ignorant comment, not claiming that the McCain campaign hasn't responded to those incidents.

Ah, it's so much easier when the goalposts have tires attached.

"...run directly against NOW and FMF's aims at equality and fairness for all."

NOW is nothing but a pro-abortion lobby, dedicated to forcing every state to allow unlimited on-demand abortions to every female, adult or not. They've been liberal shills for years, and hardly care at all about equality and fairness for all, much less women.

This is the NOW website. If you would actually bother to check it out, you would see that they have a multitude of concerns, that do indeed include, but are not limited to, reproductive rights. They are also concerned about equal pay for equal work, equal opportunity for jobs and education, equal status under the law, equality in parenting and a whole plethora of issues that concern, now, read this carefully because I know it's complicated, both men and women.

http://www.now.org/

Ah, it's so much easier when the goalposts have tires attached.

It's easier when you can comprehend a simple sentence. The modifier "necessarily" is somewhat important.

And unlimited, on-demand abortions are unfair to women because.... ?

I did not claim they were unfair to women. I claimed these are their primary motivations, not equality, not fairness, and not women.

*Some* of the attacks have been sexist.
Feel free to supply examples from the Obama ticket.

It's easier when you can comprehend a simple sentence. The modifier "necessarily" is somewhat important.

Even easier if you read the actual documentations that were provided, but hey coming from someone who'd endorse 4 More Years of Bush hardly a surprise.

Even easier if you read the actual documentations that were provided, but hey coming from someone who'd endorse 4 More Years of Bush hardly a surprise.

Oh, SNAP! BURN! Ur a BUSH lover! Now I can ignore whatever you say!

Oh, SNAP! BURN! Ur a BUSH lover! Now I can ignore whatever you say!
When said statements are not backed by any proofs and are just unsubstantiated opinion which don't stand up to any scrutiny, and when called on them offer no defence of them, refuse to read nor accept the proofs against said opinions, then yes, they can and should be ignored as this proves the poster is not interested in any reasonable discourse but just wishes to fling mud and make outrageous slander.

But I expect you know all about that on a deeply personal level...

When said statements are not backed by any proofs and are just unsubstantiated opinion which don't stand up to any scrutiny, and when called on them offer no defence of them, refuse to read nor accept the proofs against said opinions, then yes, they can and should be ignored as this proves the poster is not interested in any reasonable discourse but just wishes to fling mud and make outrageous slander.

But I expect you know all about that on a deeply personal level...

Ah, yes, try to justify your motives behind this statement:

"...but hey coming from someone who'd endorse 4 More Years of Bush hardly a surprise."

It's almost like liberals have their own McCarthyist slander which allows them to ignore the claims of any opponent.

"I disagree."
"Bush-lover!"
End of discussion.

Feel free to supply examples from the Obama ticket.

I'm not accusing Obama of sexism. Again, there has been plenty of legitimate criticism of Gov. Palin and her policies - the idea that the McCain campaign is somehow trying to stifle debate by branding any criticism sexist is wrong. If you've been watching cable news, you'd believe that this was the case with much of the oppposition to her candidacy, but that's a red herring.

It's almost like liberals have their own McCarthyist slander which allows them to ignore the claims of any opponent.

"I disagree."
"Bush-lover!"
End of discussion.

You mean like...

"I disagree."
"Unpatriotic!"
End of discussion.

"I disagree."
"Soft on terrorism!"
End of discussion.

"I disagree."
"Sexist!"
End of discussion.

So on, and so forth.

You mean like...

"I disagree."
"Unpatriotic!"
End of discussion.

"I disagree."
"Soft on terrorism!"
End of discussion.

"I disagree."
"Sexist!"
End of discussion.

So on, and so forth.

So, you attempt to defend your ad hominem name-calling by pointing out that the other side does it too?
If everybody jumped off a cliff...
Never mind, I don't want to give a liberal ideas.

And you're clearly ignoring the evidence. He presented you with multiple examples of exactly the opposite of your claim, TPC.

It's a red herring alright, but it's coming from the McCain camp.

So, you attempt to defend your ad hominem name-calling by pointing out that the other side does it too?
If everybody jumped off a cliff...
Never mind, I don't want to give a liberal ideas.

Call him a flip-flopper too. That'll learn him.

Or maybe you could focus on the actual arguments.

See, everyone notices when you drop arguments in favor of concentrating on something unimportant like you're doing now.

I'm not accusing Obama of sexism.
...
the idea that the McCain campaign is somehow trying to stifle debate by branding any criticism sexist is wrong.

Do we really need to go thru this again?
http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?p=14019818#post14019818

Read:
“I am appalled by the Obama campaign's attempts to belittle Governor Sarah Palin’s experience....They (American women) will not tolerate sexist treatment of Governor Palin.”

Prospective first lady Cindy McCain believes sexism is behind critical coverage of her husband's vice presidential pick, Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin.

"The Republican Party will not stand by while Gov. Palin is subjected to sexist attacks," said senior McCain aide Carly Fiorina.

''These questions would not be asked if she were a man,'' former U.S. Treasurer Rosario Marin said.

Top Republican women held a fiery press conference today to denounce what they consider to be sexist smears from the Obama campaign against Gov. Sarah Palin.

Look at who is saying these things. Then tell me the McCain ticket is not crying 'sexism'.

Oh, and here's another one:
http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2008/09/15/fiorina-calls-snl-impersonation-of-palin-sexist/
Even parodying her is sexist:
"I think that continues the line of argument that is disrespectful in the extreme, and yes, I would say, sexist"

and another:
http://www.cbsnews.com/video/watch/?id=4413778n

and more:
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0908/13090.html
Sen. Lindsey Graham, a top surrogate for John McCain, Tuesday accused critics of Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin of sexism.

and still more:
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122031229774188795.html?mod=todays_us_opinion
Ignore the Chauvinists. Palin Has Real Experience. by NANCY PFOTENHAUER, senior policy adviser and national spokesperson for the McCain campaign.

All comments made from senior spokespeopleon the McCain campaign.

And you're clearly ignoring the evidence. He presented you with multiple examples of exactly the opposite of your claim.

It's a red herring alright, but it's coming from the McCain camp.

Republicans responding to (what they perceive to be) sexism isn't proof that McCain sees any attack on Gov. Palin as sexism. I'm not ignoring those blogs - they don't address the point I was making.

Oh, SNAP! BURN! Ur a BUSH lover! Now I can ignore whatever you say!

It's almost like liberals have their own McCarthyist slander which allows them to ignore the claims of any opponent.

"I disagree."
"Bush-lover!"
End of discussion.

Oh, wah. Like you don't do it, and have done it yourself in this very thread:


NOW is nothing but a pro-abortion lobby, dedicated to forcing every state to allow unlimited on-demand abortions to every female, adult or not. They've been liberal shills for years, and hardly care at all about equality and fairness for all, much less women.

Oh SNAP! BURN! Ur a LIBERAL SHILL! Now I can ignore whatever you say!

How does it feel being a painfully obvious hypocrite?

Republicans responding to (what they perceive to be) sexism isn't proof that McCain sees any attack on Gov. Palin as sexism. I'm not ignoring those blogs - they don't address the point I was making.

Who's saying that criticism of Gov. Palin is necessarily sexist? No one reputable, and not the McCain campaign. Not that there's even been any specific criticism beyond the claim that she's "out of touch with women," at least in this article.

I wonder if it's possible to do a wheelie with a goalpost...

Republicans responding to (what they perceive to be) sexism isn't proof that McCain sees any attack on Gov. Palin as sexism. I'm not ignoring those blogs - they don't address the point I was making.

McCain is the head of the Republican party. It's his responsibility to control their message. So are you claiming he's a bad leader?

McCain is the head of the Republican party. It's his responsibility to control their message. So are you claiming he's a bad leader?

All of this is really reminding me of the whole Ron Paul thing where he was supposedly unaware of a racist publishing racist articles in the Ron Paul Newsletter for years, but we're supposed to vote for him because he's supposedly a good leader.

Oh, wah. Like you don't do it, and have done it yourself in this very thread:



Oh SNAP! BURN! Ur a LIBERAL SHILL! Now I can ignore whatever you say!

How does it feel being a painfully obvious hypocrite?

Wow, you sound really angry, angrier even than liberals usually are at life in general. I guess I must really be hitting the mark.
You should go home and write up some legislation to make it illegal for posters on internet forums to hurt your feelings.

Wow, you sound really angry, angrier even than liberals usually are at life in general. I guess I must really be hitting the mark.
You should go home and write up some legislation to make it illegal for posters on internet forums to hurt your feelings.

Nice presentation of an example, actually.

Wow, you sound really angry, angrier even than liberals usually are at life in general. I guess I must really be hitting the mark.

Hypocrisy, and stupid hypocrisy, pisses me off. If you want to pat yourself on the back for your display of stupid hypocrisy as "hitting the mark," feel free to.


You should go home and write up some legislation to make it illegal for posters on internet forums to hurt your feelings.

Do you honestly believe that because I just tore the shit out of your whining, contradictory 'arguments' and shoved them down your throat, that my feelings are hurt?

Wow, you sound really angry, angrier even than liberals usually are at life in general. I guess I must really be hitting the mark.

Weren't you the one crying about everyone else making Ad Hominem attacks a while back?

You should go home and write up some legislation to make it illegal for posters on internet forums to hurt your feelings.

Ironic, considering McCain wanted members of MoveOn.org to be deported.

:D

McCain To MoveOn: Get Out (http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2007/09/14/politics/main3262322.shtml)

Weren't you the one crying about everyone else making Ad Hominem attacks a while back?



Ironic, considering McCain wanted members of MoveOn.Org to be deported

:D

McCain To MoveOn: Get Out (http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2007/09/14/politics/main3262322.shtml)

Yet another reason to throw my support behind McCain, as if I needed one!

I wonder if it's possible to do a wheelie with a goalpost...

Is the word "necessarily" really so foreign to you?

McCain is the head of the Republican party. It's his responsibility to control their message. So are you claiming he's a bad leader?

I don't believe it's his responsibility to silence any off-message comments. I personally don't like the blame-the-media strategy that seems to be increasing in popularity, but that's something else.

Is the word "necessarily" really so foreign to you?



I don't believe it's his responsibility to silence any off-message comments. I personally don't like the blame-the-media strategy that seems to be increasing in popularity, but that's something else.

It's not his responsibility to talk to his wife about what message he wants to convey? Seriously, are you this limber in real life?

Republicans responding to (what they perceive to be) sexism isn't proof that McCain sees any attack on Gov. Palin as sexism. I'm not ignoring those blogs - they don't address the point I was making.
wait a mo.
Are you now telling me that:

CBS News,
The Washington Post
The Suntimes
The New York Times
TIME
ABC News
CNN
Wall Street Journal

are now all blogs?
When did this happen?

(I ask cause the media above were all the ones I referenced in my two posts to you. Neither of them, I notice, you have actually addressed)

Wow, you sound really angry, angrier even than liberals usually are at life in general. I guess I must really be hitting the mark.
You should go home and write up some legislation to make it illegal for posters on internet forums to hurt your feelings.

And you seem to be a typically angry conservative.

I am not a liberal, nor am I conservative. I am what many here are pleased to term "indecisive," meaning I actually like to inform myself about issues before I make decisions about them.

Item: your contention that NOW is purely a pro-abortion lobbying organization - it is not. Please refer to the link I provided earlier in this thread. It is the NOW website and it gives detailed information about everything they support.

Item: The contention that Liberal attitudes towards Palin constitute sexism. Perhaps from some they do, but, by and large they do not. They are legitimate questions about her fitness to serve. I would aim these same questions at men, particularly men, who, like Palin, seem inclined to sacrifice their families on the altar of their ambition - especially when they publicly and loudly proclaim their devotion to family values. Could it be, perhaps, that Ms. Palin is a hypocrite? And could it be that, perhaps, her supporters partake in some part of this hypocrisy?

And you seem to be a typically angry conservative.

I am not a liberal, nor am I conservative. I am what many here are pleased to term "indecisive," meaning I actually like to inform myself about issues before I make decisions about them.

Item: your contention that NOW is purely a pro-abortion lobbying organization - it is not. Please refer to the link I provided earlier in this thread. It is the NOW website and it gives detailed information about everything they support.

Item: The contention that Liberal attitudes towards Palin constitute sexism. Perhaps from some they do, but, by and large they do not. They are legitimate questions about her fitness to serve. I would aim these same questions at men, particularly men, who, like Palin, seem inclined to sacrifice their families on the altar of their ambition - especially when they publicly and loudly proclaim their devotion to family values. Could it be, perhaps, that Ms. Palin is a hypocrite? And could it be that, perhaps, her supporters partake in some part of this hypocrisy?

Of course you're not a liberal: no one's REALLY a liberal, they're all "independents".
Check out the Klan's Web site sometime, and all the information about what they really support. It won't convince you any more than NOW's claims will convince me. Actions speak louder than text.

Of course you're not a liberal: no one's REALLY a liberal, they're all "independents".
Check out the Klan's Web site sometime, and all the information about what they really support. It won't convince you any more than NOW's claims will convince me. Actions speak louder than text.

What does that have to do with anything? Seriously.

All of this is really reminding me of the whole Ron Paul thing where he was supposedly unaware of a racist publishing racist articles in the Ron Paul Newsletter for years, but we're supposed to vote for him because he's supposedly a good leader.

It's funny because that was a lose-lose situation for him. If he knew about it, then he was a racist. If he didn't, he was incompetent. He really didn't have a chance.


You should go home and write up some legislation to make it illegal for posters on internet forums to hurt your feelings.

How does that jive with...

Yet another reason to throw my support behind McCain, as if I needed one!

...this?

You're accusing Clomata of being the kind of personality that wants to take legal action against opinions he doesn't like in order to stifle them. This is exactly what McCain's statements allude to.

So it's only OK when Republicans do it, right? After all, it's not like you guys can ever do anything wrong.

This is complete sarcasm. I'm practically accusing you of hypocrisy of the worst degree and I'm calling you out on it.

I don't believe it's his responsibility to silence any off-message comments.
So your argument now reduces to: It wasn't McCain who said these things, it was someone else. This means he doesn't 'necessarily' approve.
So in effect you're claiming he has no control over what any of these people say:
Nancy Pfotenhauer: Senior policy adviser and national spokesperson for the McCain campaign.
Steve Schmidt: senior adviser and McCain campaign manager.
Carly Fiorina: Senior economic advisor for the McCain campaign.
Cindy McCain: WIFE of John McCain.

Are you really that obtuse to honestly believe there isn't an orchestrated attack by the McCain ticket to deflect any criticism of Palin by crying, 'sexism'?

wait a mo.
Are you now telling me that:

CBS News,
The Washington Post
The Suntimes
The New York Times
TIME
ABC News
CNN
Wall Street Journal

are now all blogs?
When did this happen?

(I ask cause the media above were all the ones I referenced in my two posts to you. Neither of them, I notice, you have actually addressed)

Those media outlets employ bloggers and editorial writers. You linked to four blogs and a straight-news article (ABC). I wasn't using the word "blog" pejoratively in any case - I read blogs routinely and have no problem with linking to them, ordinarily. I read them. I had already read a couple of them before posting in this thread. The reason that I didn't address them is because they're examples of republicans addressing sexism in the media, and not proof that the McCain campaign is branding any opposition sexist or characterising Obama's as a sexist campaign.

It's not his responsibility to talk to his wife about what message he wants to convey? Seriously, are you this limber in real life?

His wife has called some of the coverage sexist. There's no need to censor her because John McCain has said the same thing. McCain has "cried sexism" where he thinks it exists, not in every case or even frequently, even if those instances are red meat for cable news, to the point the viewer could almost forget there were actual issues at stake.

It's funny because that was a lose-lose situation for him. If he knew about it, then he was a racist. If he didn't, he was incompetent. He really didn't have a chance.



How does that jive with...



...this?

You're accusing Clomata of being the kind of personality that wants to take legal action against opinions he doesn't like in order to stifle them. This is exactly what McCain's statements allude to.

So it's only OK when Republicans do it, right? After all, it's not like you guys can ever do anything wrong.

This is complete sarcasm. I'm practically accusing you of hypocrisy of the worst degree and I'm calling you out on it.

No, I just don't like you and your ilk, and would like to see you out of the country.

P.S. colouring things white doesn't hide them when you use the quote button. Just FYI.

Some how I doubt McCain or anybody else will care. In the long run people will make up their own minds and endorsements don't matter. Like Daddy Yankee endorsing McCain (Who Obama says hates dos icky latinos) didn't matter much. Oprah was a bigger endorsement anyway, she has a popular show and stays in the limelight more often, in 2 weeks nobody will remember this.

You should go home and write up some legislation to make it illegal for posters on internet forums to hurt your feelings.

No, I just don't like you and your ilk, and would like to see you out of the country.

cute troll is cute!

cute troll is cute!

As are your liberal delusions, when viewed from reality.

Those media outlets employ bloggers and editorial writers. You linked to four blogs and a straight-news article (ABC). I wasn't using the word "blog" pejoratively in any case - I read blogs routinely and have no problem with linking to them, ordinarily. I read them. I had already read a couple of them before posting in this thread. The reason that I didn't address them is because they're examples of republicans addressing sexism in the media, and not proof that the McCain campaign is branding any opposition sexist or characterising Obama's as a sexist campaign.



His wife has called some of the coverage sexist. There's no need to censor her because John McCain has said the same thing. McCain has "cried sexism" where he thinks it exists, not in every case or even frequently, even if those instances are red meat for cable news, to the point the viewer could almost forget there were actual issues at stake.

Gymnastics again? The constant message for more than a week from prominent Republicans was that the Obama campaign was sexist and that the media was sexist. You're squirming pretty hard to twist that, but if McCain has lost control of his party then he doesn't deserve to be President. His wife, his campaign and most prominent Republicans have echoed this belief.


They WANTED the viewer to forget the issues at stake. McCain is getting killed on the issues. That's the point of Palin.

Of course you're not a liberal: no one's REALLY a liberal, they're all "independents".
Check out the Klan's Web site sometime, and all the information about what they really support. It won't convince you any more than NOW's claims will convince me. Actions speak louder than text.
This is by far the funniest post you have done.
More, good sir, more!
I do so need a good chuckle now and again. And your increasingly bizarre rantings and ravings perk me up no end.
I look forward to your next diatribe. How can you top this? Claim Obama is a soul-eating lizard from beyond the stars come to forceably inseminate the female populace, just so NOW can perform abortions on them as sacrifical offerings to the Thanatus?

naw. that makes far too much sense. I'm sure your next post will be even more incomprehensible and hilarious than that.
looking forward to it. really, really looking forward to it.

(remind self not to drink coke while reading Nicea's post - otherwise I'm likely to snort cola out all over the keyboard and monitor)

No, I just don't like you and your ilk, and would like to see you out of the country.

And I don't give a damn where you'd like to see me. I hope that's perfectly clear?

P.S. colouring things white doesn't hide them when you use the quote button. Just FYI.

I didn't intend for that to be hidden, per se. I knew perfectly well that you'd see it when quoting. It's a bit unusual, I know. But seeing as how sarcasm and jokes can be hard to tell, I want to see if having a bit of an optional P.S.would clarify things. Obviously having it as the main part of the post would ruin the moment, so it's at one's leisure to read it if they don't quite get it, so to speak.

I do hope it catches on, though I daresay I've never been good at setting trends.

Are you really that obtuse to honestly believe there isn't an orchestrated attack by the McCain ticket to deflect any criticism of Palin by crying, 'sexism'?

The McCain ticket has been blaming the media for what it claims are sexist attacks on Gov. Palin. That's a matter of record, and I'm not disputing your sources. The claim that McCain is trying to brand *any* criticism of Gov. Palin sexist is what I've been disputing since Page 1.

Of course you're not a liberal: no one's REALLY a liberal, they're all "independents".
Check out the Klan's Web site sometime, and all the information about what they really support. It won't convince you any more than NOW's claims will convince me. Actions speak louder than text.

Here's another item. I'm more than twice your age (61 to be exact), so I've been around long enough to observe NOW's activities over several decades. Among other things I've observed - 1. They do, indeed support reproductive rights, but that's not all 2. They've also worked for the Equal Rights Amendment, for equal pay for equal work, for equal opportunity in work and education, for title 9, and for several other causes. 3. The causes the support are of vital importance to both men and women (for instance, paternity leave for men). Whether you like it or not, you've reaped the benefit of their work. You have more opportunities now than I did when I was your age. Why do suppose that is? Because organizations like NOW worked for them.

So get over yourself and start using facts and logic to support your claims and not wishful thinking and opinions.

The McCain ticket has been blaming the media for what it claims are sexist attacks on Gov. Palin. That's a matter of record, and I'm not disputing your sources. The claim that McCain is trying to brand *any* criticism of Gov. Palin sexist is what I've been disputing since Page 1.

Watch folks. I can put my feet behind my head.

Seriously, that's gotta hurt. People aren't supposed to bend that way.

As are your liberal delusions, when viewed from reality.

Do cite examples of my 'liberal delusions.'

All I've done is point out your hypocrisy. I don't think that's particularly "liberal," and because the evidence is right here it's not a delusion either.

The fact that you label anything and everything that you don't like "liberal" just proves my point about the meaninglessness of the term.

We're done here, troll. GTFO.

Here's another item. I'm more than twice your age (61 to be exact), so I've been around long enough to observe NOW's activities over several decades. Among other things I've observed - 1. They do, indeed support reproductive rights, but taht's not all 2. They've also worked for the Equal Rights Amendment, for equal pay for equal work, for equal opportunity in work and education, for title 9, and for several other causes. 3. The causes the support are of vital importance to both men and women (for instance, paternity leave for men). Whether you like it or not, you've reaped the benefit of their work. You have more opportunities now than I did when I was your age. Why do suppose that is? Because organizations like NOW worked for them.

So get over yourself and start using facts and logic to support your claims and not wishful thinking and opinions.

Don't be ridiculous, those were all just covers so their subversive actions of killing babies would go unnoticed.

What does that have to do with anything? Seriously.

Well, it shows he's been to the Ku Klux Klan website at least once.

Actions speak louder than text!

Watch folks. I can put my feet behind my head.

Seriously, that's gotta hurt. People aren't supposed to bend that way.

This is getting silly. To quote myself, p. 1:

Who's saying that criticism of Gov. Palin is necessarily sexist? No one reputable, and not the McCain campaign.

Pretty simple.

Those media outlets employ bloggers and editorial writers. You linked to four blogs and a straight-news article (ABC). I wasn't using the word "blog" pejoratively in any case - I read blogs routinely and have no problem with linking to them, ordinarily. I read them. I had already read a couple of them before posting in this thread. The reason that I didn't address them is because they're examples of republicans addressing sexism in the media, and not proof that the McCain campaign is branding any opposition sexist or characterising Obama's as a sexist campaign.
what part of:
'sexist smears from the Obama campaign against Gov. Sarah Palin.'
“I am appalled by the Obama campaign's attempts to belittle Governor Sarah Palin’s experience....They (American women) will not tolerate sexist treatment of Governor Palin.”
do you not get?

Which specific claims are they calling sexist?
Thus far, all I can see is that they calling every bit of criticism against her sexist. They're not even offering examples, just coming out against all criticism.
If you can show me that all the claims I posted refer to specific* statements made by either the media or Obama's campaign then I'll defer to you that McCain's campaign is not claiming all criticisms against Palin are sexist, just some.

*specific as being criticisms being levelled against her solely on her gender, and not on anything else.

waiting.

Do cite examples of my 'liberal delusions.'

All I've done is point out your hypocrisy. I don't think that's particularly "liberal," and because the evidence is right here it's not a delusion either.

The fact that you label anything and everything that you don't like "liberal" just proves my point about the meaninglessness of the term.

We're done here, troll. GTFO.

cute troll is cute!

As are your liberal delusions, when viewed from reality.

No, I just don't like you and your ilk, and would like to see you out of the country.
.

I could add a few others to this insult bouquet, but the above should be enough to show you, Clomata and Nicea Sancta, that you've fallen into the common trap of attacking the poster instead of the argument.

Have a yellow card to remind you not to do that. It's nasty.

This is getting silly. To quote myself, p. 1:



Pretty simple.

Except people showed you them making those accusations. They weren't being specific. They were generally calling the criticism of Palin sexist. Your reply was to claim the people who said that didn't count. Then we pointed out their relationship to McCain and you claimed they count by it's not any criticism they are talking about. Rinse. Repeat.

This is a big lame circle where you squirm and try to pretend there is any intellectual way you could reach the conclusion have. There isn't.

wait. wait. wait.
'adult OR NOT'?
Does this mean you favour raped girls being forced to carry their pregnancies through?

Why wouldn't he? Palin does.

http://dwb.adn.com/news/politics/elections/2006/governor/story/8372383p-8266781c.html

Watch folks. I can put my feet behind my head.

Seriously, that's gotta hurt. People aren't supposed to bend that way.

Especially when it's being attempted on a goalpost with tires attached. Ow.

what part of:
'sexist smears from the Obama campaign against Gov. Sarah Palin.'
“I am appalled by the Obama campaign's attempts to belittle Governor Sarah Palin’s experience....They (American women) will not tolerate sexist treatment of Governor Palin.”
do you not get?

Which specific claims are they calling sexist?
Thus far, all I can see is that they calling every bit of criticism against her sexist. They're not even offering examples, just coming out against all criticism.
If you can show me that all the claims I posted refer to specific* statements made by either the media or Obama's campaign then I'll defer to you that McCain's campaign is not claiming all criticisms against Palin are sexist, just some.

*specific as being criticisms being levelled against her solely on her gender, and not on anything else.

waiting.

Read your last link, time-blog. I think those women are right to question the media coverage of Gov. Palin's candidacy - we don't ask whether a man's campaign for public office will affect his children's upbringing, but that has been the case for Gov. Palin. Some of the photos and comments in the media have objectified the Governor. Comparisons between Palin and Michelle Obama (rather than her actual opponent, Joe Biden) on childrearing and family have been inappropriate, in my opinion.

As to Fiorina, her quote:

"The Republican Party will not stand by while Gov. Palin is subjected to sexist attacks," said Fiorina, who explained that all the women on stage had experienced sexism in their careers. "I don't believe American women are going to stand for it either."


...doesn't immediately follow her claim that Obama was "belittling" Palin's experience, in that article. If it did as delivered, then I would hope it was accidental. As it happens, I read yesterday that McCain is planning on putting Ms. Fiorina on the shelf, as it were. I found her humorless comments on "Saturday Night Live"'s supposed sexism completely ridiculous. She's one of many McCain subordinates, but McCain is nonetheless accountable for her responses to the press. But again, I disagree completely with the notion that the McCain campaign is trying to quash any dissent by indiscriminately or categorically calling "sexism."

Edit: sorry if it sounds like a cop-out, but it's sacktime for me. Fun talking to everyone. :)

Obama and his people claim racism motivate attacks on him.

And Im sure you can provide evidence of Obama saying his opposition is racist....?


Because, as far as I remember, he's been saying for a very long time that race is not a part of his campaign.

How can you top this? Claim Obama is a soul-eating lizard from beyond the stars come to forceably inseminate the female populace, just so NOW can perform abortions on them as sacrifical offerings to the Thanatus?

naw. that makes far too much

Win. The only reason NS isnt on my ignore list is because I find his delusion unsupported rantings to be funny.

I see we have an entertaining n00b on board. Good stuff.

Unless it's an oldtimer comeback to add craziness. Then welcome back.

I see we have an entertaining n00b on board. Good stuff.

Unless it's an oldtimer comeback to add craziness. Then welcome back.

I've heard it tossed around that Clomata might be Greater Trostia, but at this point it's just rumor.

Of course you're not a liberal: no one's REALLY a liberal, they're all "independents".
Check out the Klan's Web site sometime, and all the information about what they really support. It won't convince you any more than NOW's claims will convince me. Actions speak louder than text.

Hi, I'm REALLY a liberal. Nice to meet you.

This is also one of the most hilarious posts I've ever read.

This is the NOW website. If you would actually bother to check it out, you would see that they have a multitude of concerns, that do indeed include, but are not limited to, reproductive rights. They are also concerned about equal pay for equal work, equal opportunity for jobs and education, equal status under the law, equality in parenting and a whole plethora of issues that concern, now, read this carefully because I know it's complicated, both men and women.

http://www.now.org/

... and Sara Palin feels the same way about all of those issues, yet NOW says that she is thoroughly unfit and out of touch because she does not agree that abortion should be treated the same as getting a haircut - at least by the government.

Therefore - it is obvious that the primary issue which NOW is concerned with is abortion; it readily demonstrates that all other issues are secondary - including breaking the glass ceiling to the second highest office in the nation.

I frankly don't mind if they are an abortion advocacy group - I only object that they do it under the auspices of being for gender equality and presuming to speak for all women on that subject. There are far more dimensions to equality to consider. Abortion is a deep, complex and personal issue - not a subset of gender politics.

... and Sara Palin feels the same way about all of those issues, yet NOW says that she is thoroughly unfit and out of touch because she does not agree that abortion should be treated the same as getting a haircut - at least by the government.

Therefore - it is obvious that the primary issue which NOW is concerned with is abortion; it readily demonstrates that all other issues are secondary - including breaking the glass ceiling to the second highest office in the nation.

I frankly don't mind if they are an abortion advocacy group - I only object that they do it under the auspices of being for gender equality and presuming to speak for all women on that subject. There are far more dimensions to equality to consider. Abortion is a deep, complex and personal issue - not a subset of gender politics.

First, if you knew what NOW had done, you would know they endorsed Obama-Biden because of their excellent record on women's rights.

Second, I'd love to see you actually document Sarah Palin's feminist credentials. Although she has a particularly extreme view on that issue -- one that is sufficient reason to oppose her -- it is not the only issue on which she falls short. (The issue of rape victims being charged for rape kits is a nice example. Another is her agreement with McCain on being against equal pay for equal work.)

Third, you chide NOW for not really being about gender equality in the same breath that you chide them for not supporting Palin simply because she has a vagina. I suggest it is you that has a skewed view of gender equality.

Fourth, Feminists for Life claim to be a feminist organization and yet they focus almost exclusively on the issue of abortion. Double standards anyone?

If it makes you feel better to write off NOW as merely an abortion advocacy group, so be it. But don't think you are fooling anybody.

... and Sara Palin feels the same way about all of those issues, yet NOW says that she is thoroughly unfit and out of touch because she does not agree that abortion should be treated the same as getting a haircut - at least by the government.

Even if this were true, which I disagree with, why would an organization support a ticket that supports all their issues but one over a ticket that supports all their issues, no exception?

Why should NOW support a candidate that is close to their views, when they can support one that's closer?

Therefore - it is obvious that the primary issue which NOW is concerned with is abortion; it readily demonstrates that all other issues are secondary - including breaking the glass ceiling to the second highest office in the nation.


So they should support a candidate that's less closely aligned with their views simply because that particular candidate has a vagina? I think NOW (quite rightly) concluded that any benefit women will gain in society by having a female vice president will be more than totally countered by having this vice president, who just so happens to be a woman.

As far as women's rights, and woman advancement in society is concerned, the mere fact that Palin has a vagina does not offset her remarkably anti women's rights platform. Frankly, NOW is interested in what most advances the feminist cause, and Palin aint it. Vagina not withstanding.

So they should support a candidate that's less closely aligned with their views simply because that particular candidate has a vagina?

Given the conservatives constant support for her just because of that, I'm starting to think that Ann Coulter could run for president, and they'd be just as supportive of her, using the same arguments.

But if Hillary had run for president, I suspect they'd use all the opposite arguments.

Of course you're not a liberal: no one's REALLY a liberal, they're all "independents".
Check out the Klan's Web site sometime, and all the information about what they really support. It won't convince you any more than NOW's claims will convince me. Actions speak louder than text.

I know you were just trying to make a clever analogy, but check out the KKK's website sometime and you'll see they are pretty open about their support for white supremacy (as well as lots of other evil stuff).

Also, both the KKK and NOW have histories that anyone of intelligence can look at and judge. NOW has worked consistently for gender equality and a better future for everyone. The KKK hasn't.

Who's saying that criticism of Gov. Palin is necessarily sexist? No one reputable, just the McCain campaign.
Fixed :p

... and Sara Palin feels the same way about all of those issues, yet NOW says that she is thoroughly unfit and out of touch because she does not agree that abortion should be treated the same as getting a haircut - at least by the government.

Therefore - it is obvious that the primary issue which NOW is concerned with is abortion; it readily demonstrates that all other issues are secondary - including breaking the glass ceiling to the second highest office in the nation.

I frankly don't mind if they are an abortion advocacy group - I only object that they do it under the auspices of being for gender equality and presuming to speak for all women on that subject. There are far more dimensions to equality to consider. Abortion is a deep, complex and personal issue - not a subset of gender politics.
If you read what NOW says, it's not just about Abortion rights:
From the OP article:
"John McCain has a 26 year record of voting against issues important to women."
(Ellie Smeal, president of the Feminist Majority Foundation) cited McCain's opposition to a bill that would afford equal pay to women, his opposition to abortion funding and a vote he cast against breast cancer research.

McCain has opposed pay equity legislation, abortion funding and breast cancer research.
So that's THREE major - huge - issues which NOW (and FMF) actively fight for, not just one.