I think that Hillary and her campaign know now that they are truly done. She will not win the Democratic nomination. I think that now, the only reason she is keeping up the campaign is to try to damage Obama so he will lose in November, and then Hillary can run again in 2012.

If Hillary supporters are aghast at nastiness that is directed her way and are at a loss for why, that should be the answer. What a shitty display of self-interest before what's better for the party and the country.

I think that's the point of running a campaign; to discredit an opponent and their vision of the future (even if it's done overtly from time to time), and try to win.

I don't see how she can go to the convention and try to steal the nomination without fracturing her party at it's core, and even driving many traditional Democrats to vote for McCain; who isn't a bad choice in the eyes of many moderates; Reagan democrats, and the not so liberal left.

When Barry Goldwater ran for president in 1964 and opposed the civil rights amendment, he pushed a huge number of blacks who had traditionally voted republican for years (yes, Republican) to the Democratic party (the Dems were the party of segregation long before the 60's, and even had their own terrorist wing; the KKK), and the vast majority are still voting Democrat to this day.

It can happen again in the opposite direction, especially if she were to take the nomination from a black man (probably not likely, but truth is very often stranger than fiction, and anything CAN happen), and if Hillary really cares about her party, her country and other things far bigger than herself and any lust for power she may be fostering, she should step aside if and when it comes down to it, put on a happy face and get behind her party's candidate, regardless of her personal feelings and losses.

She said a few weeks ago that this race is "extremely close". The way I see it, it's not extremely close; at least not today. I don't know if she's in denial that her campaign is in trouble, OR, if has some ace in the hole she's waiting to unleash against Obama in the near future. I wouldn't put anything against the Clinton political machine.

It's not over yet, but it definitely doesn't look to good for the Clinton's at this point (yes the Clinton's; Bill is a big part of this campaign, and will become an even bigger part the closer we get to November).

The delegate count and the popular vote are in Obama's favor at this time, and if he can maintain his momentum, she may soon be finished.

Politics is a dirty business, and politicians will sometimes say or do almost anything to win, but sooner or later, someone has to lose.

I think that's the point of running a campaign; to discredit an opponent and their vision of the future (even if it's done overtly from time to time), and try to win.

I don't think she has any hope left in 2008, and I don't think she thinks she does. I think she is simply trying to ruin Obama so she can run again in 2012 right now.

I think that's the point of running a campaign; to discredit an opponent and their vision of the future (even if it's done overtly from time to time), and try to win.


The point of a campaign is to try to win. The means used in that effort are not intrinsic to the effort. Just because we have become accustomed in the US to the most base forms of mud-slinging and dirty tricks in politics does not make it the point of political campaigning... or rather, it will remain the point of political campaigning as long as it is rewarded by the American people.

We get the kind of politicians we deserve.

I often wonder if the strangeness of the people we elect to lead us is not caused by a large segment of our society voting for the candidate with the most perceived entertainment value. That would explain our penchant for electing Hollywood actors, and for praising the candidates who fight dirty, walk with a stupid swagger and a cocky semi-retarded grin, and appeal to our basest instincts of fear rather than our loftier ones.


... if Hillary really cares about her party, her country and other things far bigger than herself and any lust for power she may be fostering, she should step aside if and when it comes down to it, put on a happy face and get behind her party's candidate, regardless of her personal feelings and losses.


Agreed. I think she might find that very difficult to do, if I have read her right. She has already publically expressed preference for McCain over Obama on several occasions.
Once again, the fact that that did not completely bankrupt her credibility in the eyes of the American people shows we aren't looking at the right things in our candidates in order to make our decisions.


She said a few weeks ago that this race is "extremely close". The way I see it, it's not extremely close; at least not today. I don't know if she's in denial that her campaign is in trouble, OR, if has some ace in the hole she's waiting to unleash against Obama in the near future. I wouldn't put anything against the Clinton political machine.


I think it is simply a case of trying to maintain herself as a candidate perceived to have a chance. She will win some votes if she can keep America thinking she has a chance of winning. She's just plain 'talking herself up'.


It's not over yet, but it definitely doesn't look to good for the Clinton's at this point (yes the Clinton's; Bill is a big part of this campaign, and will become an even bigger part the closer we get to November).

The delegate count and the popular vote are in Obama's favor at this time, and if he can maintain his momentum, she may soon be finished.


Agreed.


Politics is a dirty business, and politicians will sometimes say or do almost anything to win, but sooner or later, someone has to lose.

I pray for the day where as a people, we penalize those politicians who say or do almost anything in order to win. We wonder why our politicians lie to us, forget their electoral promises as soon as they are in office, and are found to be profoundly corrupt... after electing them for their corrupt, dishonorable and deceitful campaigns.

This is a character flaw of the American people, and one we repeatedly suffer from, without correcting it.
This is partly why Obama is creating such an uproar. He is trying to maintain his integrity even though he knows the appetite for gossip, slander and blows below the belt is strong in the American people. People like him don't get to the ballot very often - it is the first time in my lifetime. We can opt for more of the same, or we can send a message to the political establishment, and to aspiring politicians for our future who are still young, that honorable, honest leaders CAN make it in our system.

That's a pretty important opportunity we have - I wonder how many of us realize it.

M.

When Barry Goldwater ran for president in 1964 and opposed the civil rights amendment, he pushed a huge number of blacks who had traditionally voted republican for years (yes, Republican) to the Democratic party (the Dems were the party of segregation long before the 60's, and even had their own terrorist wing; the KKK), and the vast majority are still voting Democrat to this day.

^LOL

Your hindsight goggles are tinted a bit on the red side eh ?

The truth is the southern redneck bigot class of democrats switched parties en-mass in the 60's BECAUSE of the democratically driven civil rights legislation .. (when was the last time you heard of "dixiecrats"?)

The GOP welcomed them and their votes with open arms .. the democratic party leaders in the 60's realized that pushing the legislation would cost the party elections in the future but it had to be done

The KKK platform, save maybe two planks, is indistinguishable from the GOP's, sad but true

I pray for the day where as a people, we penalize those politicians who say or do almost anything in order to win. We wonder why our politicians lie to us, forget their electoral promises as soon as they are in office, and are found to be profoundly corrupt... after electing them for their corrupt, dishonorable and deceitful campaigns.

This is a character flaw of the American people, and one we repeatedly suffer from, without correcting it.
This is partly why Obama is creating such an uproar. He is trying to maintain his integrity even though he knows the appetite for gossip, slander and blows below the belt is strong in the American people. People like him don't get to the ballot very often - it is the first time in my lifetime. We can opt for more of the same, or we can send a message to the political establishment, and to aspiring politicians for our future who are still young, that honorable, honest leaders CAN make it in our system.

That's a pretty important opportunity we have - I wonder how many of us realize it.

:werd:

Obama luv

I think that's the point of running a campaign; to discredit an opponent and their vision of the future (even if it's done overtly from time to time), and try to win.

if the best thing you have to say is "my opponents ideas blow" then you have nothing of interest i want to hear.

if i wanted that kind of bullshit i could have stayed married to my ex wife.

instead i want to hear what YOUR ideas are, not hear you bash your opponent.
two people in indiana have been fighting tooth and nail for a congressional seat and they've both held it and still fight over it. and every ****ing election year they just smear each other. not once have i heard either say anything about what they want to do should they get in office or what they believe in or support. no its just the same old negative attack ads. im tired of that shit.

campaigns were not always about bashing the opponent, they are now though. that's all a campaign is about now. bash bash bash bash bash and make yourself look as pure as the driven snow without saying a damn thing of substance. just say what people want to hear and **** the rest. is that how you like politics to be run? i dont.

I don't think she has any hope left in 2008, and I don't think she thinks she does. I think she is simply trying to ruin Obama so she can run again in 2012 right now.


i think she's doing it because i believe she has this mentality that if she cant have it then neither can he.

reminds you of the kid who would break all the toys if they didnt get the one they wanted. that'd be her.

I don't think she has any hope left in 2008, and I don't think she thinks she does. I think she is simply trying to ruin Obama so she can run again in 2012 right now.

That's it exactly. They figure that McCain is a hopelessly lost idiot who will founder tragically with the mess that Bush will leave whoever gets the job. Then the bitch can swoop down in 2012 like some kind of "I told you so" hero and save the day.

She's a piece of shit.

I think that Hillary and her campaign know now that they are truly done. She will not win the Democratic nomination. I think that now, the only reason she is keeping up the campaign is to try to damage Obama so he will lose in November, and then Hillary can run again in 2012.

If Hillary supporters are aghast at nastiness that is directed her way and are at a loss for why, that should be the answer. What a shitty display of self-interest before what's better for the party and the country.


I agree, she really has lost it, it seems as if she's nothing but a McCain operative at this point, makes sense since she's a conservative.

The point of a campaign is to try to win. The means used in that effort are not intrinsic to the effort. Just because we have become accustomed in the US to the most base forms of mud-slinging and dirty tricks in politics does not make it the point of political campaigning... or rather, it will remain the point of political campaigning as long as it is rewarded by the American people.

We get the kind of politicians we deserve.

I often wonder if the strangeness of the people we elect to lead us is not caused by a large segment of our society voting for the candidate with the most perceived entertainment value. That would explain our penchant for electing Hollywood actors, and for praising the candidates who fight dirty, walk with a stupid swagger and a cocky semi-retarded grin, and appeal to our basest instincts of fear rather than our loftier ones.



Agreed. I think she might find that very difficult to do, if I have read her right. She has already publically expressed preference for McCain over Obama on several occasions.
Once again, the fact that that did not completely bankrupt her credibility in the eyes of the American people shows we aren't looking at the right things in our candidates in order to make our decisions.



I think it is simply a case of trying to maintain herself as a candidate perceived to have a chance. She will win some votes if she can keep America thinking she has a chance of winning. She's just plain 'talking herself up'.



Agreed.



I pray for the day where as a people, we penalize those politicians who say or do almost anything in order to win. We wonder why our politicians lie to us, forget their electoral promises as soon as they are in office, and are found to be profoundly corrupt... after electing them for their corrupt, dishonorable and deceitful campaigns.

This is a character flaw of the American people, and one we repeatedly suffer from, without correcting it.This is partly why Obama is creating such an uproar. He is trying to maintain his integrity even though he knows the appetite for gossip, slander and blows below the belt is strong in the American people. People like him don't get to the ballot very often - it is the first time in my lifetime. We can opt for more of the same, or we can send a message to the political establishment, and to aspiring politicians for our future who are still young, that honorable, honest leaders CAN make it in our system.

That's a pretty important opportunity we have - I wonder how many of us realize it.
M.

:nice:

You've been missed, glad to see you back again for a bit.

i think she's doing it because i believe she has this mentality that if she cant have it then neither can he.

reminds you of the kid who would break all the toys if they didnt get the one they wanted. that'd be her.

:werd:

Scorched earth tactics.

:nice:

You've been missed, glad to see you back again for a bit.

Thanks Que: I'm glad you are here too!

M

Another viewpoint : http://www.nytimes.com/2008/01/08/opinion/08steinem.html

Gloria Steinem

'Nuff said!

'Nuff said!


She is a great American.

I truly believe Hillary Clinton is just trying to ruin Obama's chances in November now

It's so so obvious. What a ****ing *******.

She is a great American.

??? Why?
I don't see that at all. She had some interesting grass roots tendancies when she was in college, but from there on out, all I see is a scramble for money and power. I'd love to know what you feel makes her so great.

M.

??? Why?
I don't see that at all. She had some interesting grass roots tendancies when she was in college, but from there on out, all I see is a scramble for money and power. I'd love to know what you feel makes her so great.

M.

He's talking about Gloria Steinem. Who, buy the way, sucks.

I think Malcolm was too.

I think Malcolm was too.

No, my mistake: I was talking about Hillary Clinton. I really don't know anything about Gloria Steinem... and unfortunately I can't read the article TT linked to. I'll just have to take TLG's word that I'm not missing much :)

M.

Gah. Feminism has ruined the future of the Feminists.

If we don't like Hillary, it must be because she's a woman. It can't possibly be that she's the only candidate using Karl Rove style tactics and character assassination slander in her campaign, or that she's intentionally misrepresenting herself to appeal to a broader audience through lies and deceit.

Nope. It's because she has a vag.

:rolleyes:

Gah. Feminism has ruined the future of the Feminists.

If we don't like Hillary, it must be because she's a woman. It can't possibly be that she's the only candidate using Karl Rove style tactics and character assassination slander in her campaign, or that she's intentionally misrepresenting herself to appeal to a broader audience through lies and deceit.

Nope. It's because she has a vag.

:rolleyes:M.
Ah, is that what Gloria Steinem thinks?
I'm glad I wasn't able to follow the link...

From the article:

So why is the sex barrier not taken as seriously as the racial one? The reasons are as pervasive as the air we breathe: because sexism is still confused with nature as racism once was; because anything that affects males is seen as more serious than anything that affects “only” the female half of the human race; because children are still raised mostly by women (to put it mildly) so men especially tend to feel they are regressing to childhood when dealing with a powerful woman; because racism stereotyped black men as more “masculine” for so long that some white men find their presence to be masculinity-affirming (as long as there aren’t too many of them); and because there is still no “right” way to be a woman in public power without being considered a you-know-what.

Hillary's campaign was much stronger when it was focusing on her as a human being. Focusing on her womanhood is about as politically relevant as the price of a jar of gefilte fish.

And in the midst of this is that whole incident with her crying on national TV. Nothing portrays strong leadership like breaking down in tears because of stress, right?

From the article:


Hillary's campaign was much stronger when it was focusing on her as a human being. Focusing on her womanhood is about as politically relevant as the price of a jar of gefilte fish.

And in the midst of this is that whole incident with her crying on national TV. Nothing portrays strong leadership like breaking down in tears because of stress, right?

Hey thanks for the extract.
Everything she writes is true, but the bottom line is you are right: it is a grave mistake to mix these truths in with the campaign.
I have a friend at work who supports Hillary, but when we get down to particulars, she is not able to say why she is a better candidate. Another female co-worker was more honest and said she thought it was amazing a woman might be the next leader of the free world. My friend then agreed in a way that told me that was indeed the root of her support for her.
I told them both that as a black man, I feel the same way about Obama but that we can't let that be the reason why we vote for our President. We just can't. Its the lamest reason to vote for someone.

Its about their character, their platform, their integrity, and whether they are the right person for these times.

If it was Hillary speaking Obama's words with the sincerity that he does, and if she had his track record as an honest academic and his ability to take the high-road in his campaigning, if it was her speaking so lucidly about race relations... I'd vote for her.

M.

The stupid part is that there are women who would tell us that we can't possibly understand because we're male.

*sigh*

The stupid part is that there are women who would tell us that we can't possibly understand because we're male.

*sigh*

no more than them having no clue what its like to be a guy, their crude stereotypical comments aside about scratching our balls and watching sports and being violent.

He's talking about Gloria Steinem. Who, buy the way, sucks.


More misogyny.

More misogyny.

Misogyny, sure. Tell that to all the women I love or lady political candidates I've supported and/or volunteered for.

Misogyny, sure. Tell that to all the women I love or lady political candidates I've supported and/or volunteered for.


You don't support full reproductive rights for women,plus you think businesses should have the the right to discriminate due to race,gender,sexual orentation etc. if they choose to.

All progressives that I know [and know of]would call that misogynistic [at the very least].

You don't support full reproductive rights for women,plus you think businesses should have the the right to discriminate due to race,gender,sexual orentation etc. if they choose to.

All progressives that I know [and know of]would call that misogynistic [at the very least].

So don't label me a progressive. Like a give a ****. To be honest, I would think most people would wear your disapproval of their character as a badge of honor.

More misogynyThat makes absolutely no sense.

Well, unless me thinking George W. Bush sucks makes me a misandrist.

More misogyny.

Stop trolling - what he just said was not misogynist in any shape or form.

M.

You don't support full reproductive rights for women,plus you think businesses should have the the right to discriminate due to race,gender,sexual orentation etc. if they choose to.

All progressives that I know [and know of]would call that misogynistic [at the very least].

Actually, none of those things is misogynist.

Do you know what "misogynist" means? I doubt that you know any progressives, or even any liberals for that matter.

Hillary Clinton needs to shut the fluck up and quit the race, she has no chance at winning yet she's willing to destroy the other Democrats chance of beating McCain who has vowed to carry on with every Bush policy. She must be a closet Republican.

It's crazy to imagine that some Democrats would rather have 4-8 more years of Bush than Obama..

To be honest, I would think most people would wear your disapproval of their character as a badge of honor.

Only ignorant people would.

Stop trolling - what he just said was not misogynist in any shape or form.

M.


Being against the women's movement is misogynistic.



Actually, none of those things is misogynist.


Virtually all women I know say so.


Do you know what "misogynist" means?


It means sexism,fear,hatred,distrust of women [especially women who want full,equal rights].


I doubt that you know any progressives, or even any liberals for that matter.

The old school progessives /liberals I know agree with me and they risked their lives to register African-Americans to vote in the South.

They also risked arrest,physical attack and losing their jobs or scholarships to protest the Vietnam War.

What the extremist young has done to liberalism is the reason the word "liberal" is used by mainstream society in a derogatory way today.:nonono:

Being against the women's movement is misogynistic.


Sure, we can agree on that.
At the risk of reminding you fo what you wrote though: you said 'more misogyny' in response to LTG merely saying Gloria Steinem sucks.

Just to point out the obvious: thinking one person sucks does not a misogynist make.

End of story. Admit it and move on.

M.

Just reverse the names in the thread title; it would be much more accurate.

TT, stop your trolling and attacks.
Guido, don't bait him.

Everybody else: Carry on. :)

Only ignorant people would.



Being against the women's movement is misogynistic.




Virtually all women I know say so.



It means sexism,fear,hatred,distrust of women [especially women who want full,equal rights].



The old school progessives /liberals I know agree with me and they risked their lives to register African-Americans to vote in the South.

They also risked arrest,physical attack and losing their jobs or scholarships to protest the Vietnam War.

What the extremist young has done to liberalism is the reason the word "liberal" is used by mainstream society in a derogatory way today.:nonono:

1. Being against the "woman's movement" (whatever that is) is not necessarily misogynist.

2. It doesn't matter what "virtually all women" you know (assuming you know any women) say; what matters is what the word "misogynist" means, and that is not determined by some women say.

3. [What the extremist young has done to liberalism is the reason the word "liberal" is used by mainstream society in a derogatory way today.:/QUOTE]

Nobody has or could to anything to liberalism because liberalism is an idea and therefore immune to the stupidity of fake "leftists" like you. The reason the word "liberal" is in disrepute in American political culture is because "Reagan Democrats" like you persist in calling yourselves "liberals" when you aren't liberal at all.

To be fair to unTruth Teller, I wouldn't really classify him as a Reagan Democrat...

To be fair to unTruth Teller, I wouldn't really classify him as a Reagan Democrat...

How would you classify him?

That would be a violation of the TOS.

That would be a violation of the TOS.


I understand and agree with you. "Reagan Democrat" was a euphemism.

I wouldn't really classify him as a Reagan Democrat...


Especially since I never voted for Reagan and regarded him as the worst president ever until Bush 43 came along.

1. Being against the "woman's movement" (whatever that is) is not necessarily misogynist.

2. It doesn't matter what "virtually all women" you know (assuming you know any women) say; what matters is what the word "misogynist" means, and that is not determined by some women say.

3. [What the extremist young has done to liberalism is the reason the word "liberal" is used by mainstream society in a derogatory way today.:/QUOTE]

Nobody has or could to anything to liberalism because liberalism is an idea and therefore immune to the stupidity of fake "leftists" like you. The reason the word "liberal" is in disrepute in American political culture is because "Reagan Democrats" like you persist in calling yourselves "liberals" when you aren't liberal at all.


What you or anybody else thinks about me does not matter.:shrug:

What matters is what I think about myself and I think I'm a damn good guy.:cool:

By the way ,Monster told you to stop baiting me and you responded by baiting me some more.

Tell that to all the women I love

WHATTTTT, since when do you "love" any women?:p;) Aren't you 100% gay?:confused:


It's crazy to imagine that some Democrats would rather have 4-8 more years of Bush than Obama..

Maybe it's because they believe that if Obama is nominated, he will lose, and THEN we REALLY will have another 4-8 years of Bush:rolleyes:.

What the extremist young has done to liberalism is the reason the word "liberal" is used by mainstream society in a derogatory way today.

Ahhh, forgive them, they are a bunch of spoiled kids who just finished school and no longer get enough money from their parents to buy some pot and chill out:p. So they are stressed out and going a bit crazy, but as soon as they get a job and get used to living in the real world on their own, they will probably become more mature. I've also gone through that stage, when I was about 15 or 16:).

1. Being against the "woman's movement" (whatever that is) is not necessarily misogynist.


Guido, you are very consistent, I'll give you that. You believe that one can oppose giving a certain group equal rights (that most other people have) without being a bigot against them. In your view, I can oppose feminism and equal rights for women (which is what "woman's movement" is about) and still not be sexist, just like I can specifically oppose a Jewish state (while not opposing all other ethinic and religion-based states) and still not be anti-semitic:).

However, you even make most neo-cons and modern republicans look like "liberals". Even they may find your bigotery against women and certain minorities to be a bit too far, especially your support for countries who allow women to be treated worse than dogs:rolleyes:. You have NO RIGHT of calling anybody a "fake liberal" or a "fake leftist".

2. It doesn't matter what "virtually all women" you know (assuming you know any women) say; what matters is what the word "misogynist" means, and that is not determined by some women say.

Well, ironically with Obama teenyboppers, if we will use Biblical terms...TLG does not "know" any women and admited in the past that he never "knew" any women;). And most of us wouldn't be surprised if your romantic experience with women is not a whole lot better than his:p.

And as somebody who has been very close to lots and lots of women (romantically and otherwise:D), I have to say that TT is correct:).

Nobody has or could to anything to liberalism because liberalism is an idea and therefore immune to the stupidity of fake "leftists" like you. The reason the word "liberal" is in disrepute in American political culture is because "Reagan Democrats" like you persist in calling yourselves "liberals" when you aren't liberal at all.

No, it's just the fact that he's more of a liberal/leftist the way people like John Lennon, Jerry Rubin, Martin Luther King and Michael Moore are, while you are more of a Stalin/Castro type of "leftist":).

WHATTTTT, since when do you "love" any women?:p;) Aren't you 100% gay?:confused:

Well I kinda love my grandma, sister, some close friends, etc. etc.... :hmm:

Maybe it's because they believe that if Obama is nominated, he will lose, and THEN we REALLY will have another 4-8 years of Bush:rolleyes:

Virtually every poll belies this assertion.

Ahhh, forgive them, they are a bunch of spoiled kids who just finished school and no longer get enough money from their parents to buy some pot and chill out:p. So they are stressed out and going a bit crazy, but as soon as they get a job and get used to living in the real world on their own, they will probably become more mature. I've also gone through that stage, when I was about 15 or 16:).

No.

Guido, you are very consistent, I'll give you that. You believe that one can oppose giving a certain group equal rights (that most other people have) without being a bigot against them. In your view, I can oppose feminism and equal rights for women (which is what "woman's movement" is about) and still not be sexist, just like I can specifically oppose a Jewish state (while not opposing all other ethinic and religion-based states) and still not be anti-semitic:).

Opposing abortion is opposing equal rights for women? Maybe if I thought it was okay for men to have abortions but not women... :confused:

And as somebody who has been very close to lots and lots of women (romantically and otherwise:D), I have to say that TT is correct:).

TT is correct that I'm a misogynist? That's the discussion we were having and what you responded to Guido in reference to.

Well I kinda love my grandma, sister, some close friends, etc. etc....

LOL, I was joking.

Virtually every poll belies this assertion.

Ahhh, but not so fast...the Republicans have lots of "surprises" for us once they nominate him. Anybody should be able to see that they are NOT going full force on him right now and are most likely saving it all in case he is nominated. They could easily make half of the country fear of him right now, if they chose to, but that would be stupid, in case that Hillary would beat him and then they would have a harder time beating her in the REAL election. When it comes to Obama, he has links with some very very bad people, and that alone, combined with his name, his father's religion and other stuff...the Republicans will make him look very scary to the average American.

You need to think a couple of steps ahead:rolleyes:.

Opposing abortion is opposing equal rights for women? Maybe if I thought it was okay for men to have abortions but not women...

So if a woman supports cutting EVERYBODY's balls off, she's not discriminating against men?:confused::p

TT is correct that I'm a misogynist? That's the discussion we were having and what you responded to Guido in reference to.

I don't have enough evidence to call you a sexist, but you do have some bias against women. Or you just ignorant and not sensitive to the kind of discrimination that women have been going through.

LOL, I was joking.

Okay.

Ahhh, but not so fast...the Republicans have lots of "surprises" for us once they nominate him. Anybody should be able to see that they are NOT going full force on him right now and are most likely saving it all in case he is nominated. They could easily make half of the country fear of him right now, if they chose to, but that would be stupid, in case that Hillary would beat him and then they would have a harder time beating her in the REAL election. When it comes to Obama, he has links with some very very bad people, and that alone, combined with his name, his father's religion and other stuff...the Republicans will make him look very scary to the average American.

You need to think a couple of steps ahead:rolleyes:.

I went to college for 5 years in Oklahoma. I have fat old ladies in Oklahoma on my mind every time I consider politics in America. And I always think ahead. I sincerely believe Barack Obama has a significantly better chance of beating John McCain in the fall. IF for no other reason (although there are lots of other reasons) than for the fact that right now Hillary has no other path to the nomination other than actions that would give the appearance--legitimately or not--that she stole the nomination from the nation's first serious black contender for President, and Democratic support among blacks would CRUMBLE. But there are lots of other reasons as well.

I don't have enough evidence to call you a sexist, but you do have some bias against women. Or you just ignorant and not sensitive to the kind of discrimination that women have been going through.

No and no.

No, it's just the fact that he's more of a liberal/leftist the way people like John Lennon, Jerry Rubin, Martin Luther King and Michael Moore are


You got me right.:nice:



, while you are more of a Stalin/Castro type of "leftist":).


Don't forget Mao.

Don't forget Mao.

True, and not to say I have too many positive things to say about Mao, but to his defense, he did have a more progressive view on Jewish people and women's rights than Guido, I'd give him that much:p.

Guido, you are very consistent, I'll give you that. You believe that one can oppose giving a certain group equal rights (that most other people have) without being a bigot against them.

My post stated that one can oppose the "women's movement" without being misogynist.

Misogynist means hating women.

First, I don't know what is meant by "women's movement." As far as I know, there is no "women's movement" in the United States, and hasn't been for some time now.

Second, it's perfectly possible that one might not hate women while being opposed to the "women's movement" for a variety of unrelated reasons, such as, for example, one doesn't like the leadership of that movement, one disapproves of its tactics, one doesn't think it properly or effectively represents women in general, etc. There are literally countless reasons why one might oppose a political movement other than hatred of women.

All of this is completely obvious to anyone who isn't mentally deficient.

The problem with you and Truth Teller is that neither of you is capable of having actual thoughts and expressing them in the english language. You guys just toss around a few slogans, sound bytes and pre-packaged prejudices as if that constitutes "political debate."

My post stated that one can oppose the "women's movement" without being misogynist.

Misogynist means hating women.

Some people don't "hate" women, but they don't believe they should have equal rights/opportunities and/or be allowed to do what men do. Are they "misogynists" in your view?:confused:

First, I don't know what is meant by "women's movement." As far as I know, there is no "women's movement" in the United States, and hasn't been for some time now.


1. There are feminist organizations everywhere, including in the US.

2. He was rather talking about support for feminism and equal rights for women in general, not just a specific "movement".

Second, it's perfectly possible that one might not hate women while being opposed to the "women's movement" for a variety of unrelated reasons, such as, for example, one doesn't like the leadership of that movement, one disapproves of its tactics, one doesn't think it properly or effectively represents women in general, etc.

And if their reasons have absolutely nothing to do with sexism, but rather small technicalities, ,that's completely fine. But one should still support the general ideas and goals though.

The problem with you and Truth Teller is that neither of you is capable of having actual thoughts and expressing them in the english language. You guys just toss around a few slogans, sound bytes and pre-packaged prejudices as if that constitutes "political debate."

You feel that way because you are not sensitive towards minority groups. You don't really care about sexism, racism, anti-semitism or bigotery in general, and you openly said that sexism in Arab Muslim states is hardly a big issue to you. That's why you have a hard time understanding why many, or even most, liberals are so extremely supportive of women's rights movements, Israel's existence, and have problems with bigotery and oppression in Muslim countries, for instance.

If you really cared about minority groups, you would understand.

Hey GF,

You and I give our actual opinions ,feelings ,personal experiences, etc.

Yet we are crticized as "not capible of having actual thoughts " by someone who [when he's not baiting or trolling] puts up nothing but long,boring,banal posts that consisit of nothing but cutting pasting someone else's words.:rofl:

Thanks for ruining the thread guys.

:locked:

:nonono: ****ing morons.