b.k. barunt wrote:Silly me. I equate femininity with softness. I love a soft vulnerable woman. I would suggest that the average woman is softer both emotionally and physically than the average man. Is that a sexist view? Do i give a flying f*ck if it is? Well now that we have the hard questions out of the way . . .
Honibaz
That's not what's sexist, it's the idea that having those qualities makes one less fit for politics. Surely being soft in politics is not very useful, but merely being soft does not mean one outs that softness everywhere and to the same degree.
Ironically, this broaches on a pet topic of mine. I think the problem is not that women need to "be men" to lead. We are often pushed into those molds, but the real strength of men and women is not to be clones, but to each be oruselves, together.
That means looking at real people, not stereotypical clones.
I, of course, strongly dislike Sarah Palin. Anybody who thinks the earth is only 12,000 years old lacks the mental capacity I expect from a president.. period. And, sure, her voice is.. a bit unusual and certainly "Saturday Night Live" material. That said, surface appearances aside, she would not be where she is without a certain strength and ability to work with varied people. I would hardly call her "soft" in any real way. She is "soft" like a female bear is soft -- until you get between her and her cubs!
Personally, I could care less how old someone thinks the world to be. I am much more interested in a Presidents ability to cut the government fat and adhere to the US Constitution. Obama is shredding that doc as we speak... that is, whats left of it after little hitler bush wiped his ass with it.
Dancing Mustard wrote:Anyway, the real point is that Nighty was a flagrantly partisan mod, who used to crack-down hard on left-wingers making mildly snarky comments, but would turn two blind eyes to flagrant abuse-hurling and trolling by people who were advocating right-wing causes that he believed in.
Really? You've never looked into my PM box, so how would you know who I have and have not warned? It's not my fault that several of you that have liberal views are the ones posting the flames, spam, trolls, and other items against the community guidelines.
Absolute rubbish, you are either in denial or just plain being dishonest, the fact is that you were totally biased as a moderator = An extremely bad one.
Yeah, I just wanna fast forward to the huge dirt she's trying to cover up.
God, I love that woman. She's like an SNL skit in real life.
jay_a2j wrote:hey if any1 would like me to make them a signature or like an avator just let me no, my sig below i did, and i also did "panther 88" so i can do something like that for u if ud like...
I would agree that it's probably a scandal, but it doesn't appear that she's "going away." I mean, there's more media attention on her now than there was prior to her resigning. So, resigning does nothing for reducing her public image. In any event, the woman is fine; the fawning over her is what disgusts me.
thegreekdog wrote:In any event, the woman is fine...
Not sure what you mean by that, but I'm pretty sure I disagree. With the exception of her appearances, I don't think I'd describe any aspect of her as "fine." As far as I can tell she's an inarticulate, ill-educated, petty, vindictive ideologue. I'm not fine with any of these things.
thegreekdog wrote:In any event, the woman is fine...
Not sure what you mean by that, but I'm pretty sure I disagree. With the exception of her appearances, I don't think I'd describe any aspect of her as "fine." As far as I can tell she's an inarticulate, ill-educated, petty, vindictive ideologue. I'm not fine with any of these things.
She may be inarticulate, uneducated, petty, and vindictive, but really those things don't matter to me. What matters to me are the ideas, and I don't like her ideas. Hence, the woman is fine.
As an analogy, President Clinton was a womanizer, liar, and adroit politician (the last is not necessarily a good quality). You can acknowledge these things as being bad, without hating the man.
thegreekdog wrote:In any event, the woman is fine...
Not sure what you mean by that, but I'm pretty sure I disagree. With the exception of her appearances, I don't think I'd describe any aspect of her as "fine." As far as I can tell she's an inarticulate, ill-educated, petty, vindictive ideologue. I'm not fine with any of these things.
She may be inarticulate, uneducated, petty, and vindictive, but really those things don't matter to me. What matters to me are the ideas, and I don't like her ideas. Hence, the woman is fine.
As an analogy, President Clinton was a womanizer, liar, and adroit politician (the last is not necessarily a good quality). You can acknowledge these things as being bad, without hating the man.
Agreed. While putting yourself up in public office or as a star of some kind certainly leaves you open to more than the usual criticism, the idea that everyone "in lights" is supposed to be flawless is silly. Let's judge people for what they offer and keep the purely personnal out of it.
Palin's vindictiveness and pettiness are the chief reason I'm glad she'll never make in politics down here. Those qualities directly affect governance.
thegreekdog wrote:In any event, the woman is fine...
Not sure what you mean by that, but I'm pretty sure I disagree. With the exception of her appearances, I don't think I'd describe any aspect of her as "fine." As far as I can tell she's an inarticulate, ill-educated, petty, vindictive ideologue. I'm not fine with any of these things.
She may be inarticulate, uneducated, petty, and vindictive, but really those things don't matter to me. What matters to me are the ideas, and I don't like her ideas. Hence, the woman is fine.
As an analogy, President Clinton was a womanizer, liar, and adroit politician (the last is not necessarily a good quality). You can acknowledge these things as being bad, without hating the man.
Agreed. While putting yourself up in public office or as a star of some kind certainly leaves you open to more than the usual criticism, the idea that everyone "in lights" is supposed to be flawless is silly. Let's judge people for what they offer and keep the purely personnal out of it.
While it's true that having excessively high expectations of people is silly, that is not really what we're talking about in this case. One who is inarticulate is not a good person to have in a role where diplomacy is a major part of the duties of that role. One who is poorly educated is not a good person to have in a role where knowledge and critical thinking are necessary to make informed decisions. One who is petty is not a good person to have in a role where personal vendettas may supersede the interests of the many. One who is vindictive is not a good person to have in a role where an even, fair-minded temperament is essential to making good judgments about the fate of many. One who is an ideologue is not a good person to have in a role where many viewpoints need to be considered before deciding on a course of action. In other words, these personal aspects of Sarah Palin are exactly why she has the ideas that she has, and are likely to affect every idea she has in the foreseeable future. Therefore, she is not fine
spurgistan wrote:Palin's vindictiveness and pettiness are the chief reason I'm glad she'll never make in politics down here. Those qualities directly affect governance.
spurgistan wrote:I do kinda wish the media hadn't delved into her family's life with such abandon, though. I do think we kinda got sidetracked as a nation, there.
thegreekdog wrote:In any event, the woman is fine...
Not sure what you mean by that, but I'm pretty sure I disagree. With the exception of her appearances, I don't think I'd describe any aspect of her as "fine." As far as I can tell she's an inarticulate, ill-educated, petty, vindictive ideologue. I'm not fine with any of these things.
She may be inarticulate, uneducated, petty, and vindictive, but really those things don't matter to me. What matters to me are the ideas, and I don't like her ideas. Hence, the woman is fine.
As an analogy, President Clinton was a womanizer, liar, and adroit politician (the last is not necessarily a good quality). You can acknowledge these things as being bad, without hating the man.
Agreed. While putting yourself up in public office or as a star of some kind certainly leaves you open to more than the usual criticism, the idea that everyone "in lights" is supposed to be flawless is silly. Let's judge people for what they offer and keep the purely personnal out of it.
While it's true that having excessively high expectations of people is silly, that is not really what we're talking about in this case. One who is inarticulate is not a good person to have in a role where diplomacy is a major part of the duties of that role. One who is poorly educated is not a good person to have in a role where knowledge and critical thinking are necessary to make informed decisions. One who is petty is not a good person to have in a role where personal vendettas may supersede the interests of the many. One who is vindictive is not a good person to have in a role where an even, fair-minded temperament is essential to making good judgments about the fate of many. One who is an ideologue is not a good person to have in a role where many viewpoints need to be considered before deciding on a course of action. In other words, these personal aspects of Sarah Palin are exactly why she has the ideas that she has, and are likely to affect every idea she has in the foreseeable future. Therefore, she is not fine
I agree that she should not be in office anywhere.
thegreekdog wrote:In any event, the woman is fine...
Not sure what you mean by that, but I'm pretty sure I disagree. With the exception of her appearances, I don't think I'd describe any aspect of her as "fine." As far as I can tell she's an inarticulate, ill-educated, petty, vindictive ideologue. I'm not fine with any of these things.
She may be inarticulate, uneducated, petty, and vindictive, but really those things don't matter to me. What matters to me are the ideas, and I don't like her ideas. Hence, the woman is fine.
I swear as I sat here reading this that I thought the second half of your second sentence was destined to be "is that she is HAWT". <chuckle>
...I prefer a man who will burn the flag and then wrap himself in the Constitution to a man who will burn the Constitution and then wrap himself in the flag.
thegreekdog wrote:In any event, the woman is fine...
Not sure what you mean by that, but I'm pretty sure I disagree. With the exception of her appearances, I don't think I'd describe any aspect of her as "fine." As far as I can tell she's an inarticulate, ill-educated, petty, vindictive ideologue. I'm not fine with any of these things.
She may be inarticulate, uneducated, petty, and vindictive, but really those things don't matter to me. What matters to me are the ideas, and I don't like her ideas. Hence, the woman is fine.
I swear as I sat here reading this that I thought the second half of your second sentence was destined to be "is that she is HAWT". <chuckle>
I never really found her to be hot. Because, really, she's not that hot. She's hot for an older woman, she's hot for an Alaskan, she's hot for... ad naseum. The point being, no one really thinks she's just hot. She's hot for [insert something].
thegreekdog wrote:In any event, the woman is fine...
Not sure what you mean by that, but I'm pretty sure I disagree. With the exception of her appearances, I don't think I'd describe any aspect of her as "fine." As far as I can tell she's an inarticulate, ill-educated, petty, vindictive ideologue. I'm not fine with any of these things.
She may be inarticulate, uneducated, petty, and vindictive, but really those things don't matter to me. What matters to me are the ideas, and I don't like her ideas. Hence, the woman is fine.
I swear as I sat here reading this that I thought the second half of your second sentence was destined to be "is that she is HAWT". <chuckle>
I never really found her to be hot. Because, really, she's not that hot. She's hot for an older woman, she's hot for an Alaskan, she's hot for... ad naseum. The point being, no one really thinks she's just hot. She's hot for [insert something].
She's hot for inserting something? How do you know this?
StiffMittens wrote:Not sure what you mean by that, but I'm pretty sure I disagree. With the exception of her appearances, I don't think I'd describe any aspect of her as "fine." As far as I can tell she's an inarticulate, ill-educated, petty, vindictive ideologue. I'm not fine with any of these things.
She may be inarticulate, uneducated, petty, and vindictive, but really those things don't matter to me. What matters to me are the ideas, and I don't like her ideas. Hence, the woman is fine.
I swear as I sat here reading this that I thought the second half of your second sentence was destined to be "is that she is HAWT". <chuckle>
I never really found her to be hot. Because, really, she's not that hot. She's hot for an older woman, she's hot for an Alaskan, she's hot for... ad naseum. The point being, no one really thinks she's just hot. She's hot for [insert something].
She's hot for inserting something? How do you know this?
<laughing out loud> That was worded perfectly, wasn't it...
...I prefer a man who will burn the flag and then wrap himself in the Constitution to a man who will burn the Constitution and then wrap himself in the flag.
