RE: Curiouser and Curiouser

RE: Curiouser and Curiouser (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion

Message

TheHeretic -> RE: Curiouser and Curiouser (5/29/2014 10:47:02 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: dcnovice Malcolm Baldrige, Reagan's first Commerce Secretary I've got free speech well above partisan preferences, DC. Have a good night. [:)]

tweakabelle -> RE: Curiouser and Curiouser (5/30/2014 3:35:27 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: thishereboi quote: ORIGINAL: tweakabelle quote: ORIGINAL: thishereboi Honestly though, what you snipped there doesn't sound all that different from your rantings about Israel. Are you under indictment, or are those evil fucking Zionists not a special, protected class, in your country's censorship laws? Unfortunately for your idiotic insinuations, Australians are free to make whatever political criticisms they like. Ironically enough, the only recent attempt to close down political criticism here was initiated by your Zionist mates, as can be seen here. I'm happy to report it failed miserably and ended up doing far more damage than good to the Zionist cause, while our rights of free speech and freedom of political criticism were affirmed when the case was thrown out. It takes a particular kind of stupid to be persuaded that any criticism of a State that practices ethnic cleansing and apartheid is racist. I didn't insinuate anything but I am not surprised that you would say I did. I merely changed the word jew to Israel because it seemed to bother you. As for my mates, I have never heard of them but again am not surprised you would lie and claim they were my "zonist mates". Seems to be sop with you. quote: If you are unable to distinguish between political criticism and inciting hate, as your posts indicate you are, perhaps you ought to think twice before attempting to lecture those of us who can. You spew hate in the majority of your posts regarding Israel. It's not hard to distinguish at all. It you have a problem with me commenting on it, I suggest you use the hide feature. Is there no end to your ignorance? It now seems you have no idea what the word 'hate' means. Why any one would insist that there must be a sinister ulterior motive to criticising a bellicose militarist State that practices ethnic cleansing and apartheid, butchers human rights and treats international law with contempt is beyond me. There's enough there to justify several mountain ranges of legitimate criticism. And there is an awful lot more to criticise about Israel beyond the points I have just mentioned. All that is necessary to criticise Israel is a commitment to human rights and justice. In your view, this equates to hate. Good luck with that. As I noted previously it takes a particularly dense kind of stupidity to hold that view. You are entitled to your views no matter how stupid and ignorant they are. I'm far from alone in feeling entitled (and justified) in treating your views with the derision and contempt they deserve.

thishereboi -> RE: Curiouser and Curiouser (5/30/2014 6:46:40 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: tweakabelle Is there no end to your ignorance? It now seems you have no idea what the word 'hate' means. Why any one would insist that there must be a sinister ulterior motive to criticising a bellicose militarist State that practices ethnic cleansing and apartheid, butchers human rights and treats international law with contempt is beyond me. There's enough there to justify several mountain ranges of legitimate criticism. And there is an awful lot more to criticise about Israel beyond the points I have just mentioned. All that is necessary to criticise Israel is a commitment to human rights and justice. In your view, this equates to hate. Good luck with that. As I noted previously it takes a particularly dense kind of stupidity to hold that view. You are entitled to your views no matter how stupid and ignorant they are. I'm far from alone in feeling entitled (and justified) in treating your views with the derision and contempt they deserve. Are you incapable of responding without throwing an insult first? Does it make you feel all warm and fuzzy inside to tell someone they are stupid. Perhaps you puff your chest out a bit as you type. But I digress, I do know what the word hate means and I have to say it helps when you give such good examples.

FieryOpal -> RE: Curiouser and Curiouser (5/30/2014 6:47:34 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: TheHeretic Oh what the hell. There may be a lot of people who've tossed that moment right down the memory hole. Hillary Clinton shrieks for the right of dissent On a serious note, I really have no horse in this race, but I have to pose a cogent question to the guys: Why is it when a female public figure speaks out forcefully, it is characterized as "shriek[ing]" or some other sort of histrionic behaviorism, but when a male public figure critically blasts an issue, he is being an effective, awe-inspiring speaker, or perceived by many as such? Double standard, much? Other than with Rush Limbaugh, it goes without saying. [:-] (Nothing personal, Heretic, in my pointing this out, as it is a common occurrence or phenomenon. [:)] ) [Edited for word]

mnottertail -> RE: Curiouser and Curiouser (5/30/2014 6:54:46 AM)
Cuz you are nagging bitches? I dunno, just a guess maybe. Yeah, it is rather interesting how similar behaviors by opposite sexes are attributed differently like that.

FieryOpal -> RE: Curiouser and Curiouser (5/30/2014 7:06:32 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: mnottertail Cuz you are nagging bitches? I dunno, just a guess maybe. Yeah, it is rather interesting how similar behaviors by opposite sexes are attributed differently like that. Well, besides that, yanno. We can't help it--you guys don't listen very well. (It's like dealing with little kids.) Would a sledgehammer be a better option? [:D]

TheHeretic -> RE: Curiouser and Curiouser (5/30/2014 7:07:37 AM)
Higher pitch to the voice, FieryOpal. It seems to be the best word to describe the sort of noise she was making. YMMV.

tj444 -> RE: Curiouser and Curiouser (5/30/2014 7:07:45 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: FieryOpal quote: ORIGINAL: TheHeretic Oh what the hell. There may be a lot of people who've tossed that moment right down the memory hole. Hillary Clinton shrieks for the right of dissent On a serious note, I really have no horse in this race, but I have to pose a cogent question to the guys: Why is it when a female public figure speaks out forcefully, it is characterized as "shriek[ing]" or some other sort of histrionic behaviorism, but when a male public figure critically blasts an issue, he is being an effective, awe-inspiring speaker, or perceived by many as such? Double standard, much? Other than with Rush Limbaugh, it goes without saying. [:-] (Nothing personal, Heretic, in my pointing this out, as it is a common occurrence or phenomenon. [:)] ) [Edited for word] well.. I don't like Hillary at all.. [>:] of all the politicians I put her in the same league as Bush.. so I am fine with the characterization of her "shrieking", [:D] ..cuz to me she does.. When I think of her I think of her flappin' her gums and blaming Canada for 9/11 terrorists.. [8\|]

chatterbox24 -> RE: Curiouser and Curiouser (5/30/2014 7:22:55 AM)
[sm=lol.gif][sm=violin.gif] that ought to do it. That is all neutral sex bitches.[sm=rofl.gif][sm=spanking.gif]

FieryOpal -> RE: Curiouser and Curiouser (5/30/2014 7:28:24 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: TheHeretic Higher pitch to the voice, FieryOpal. It seems to be the best word to describe the sort of noise she was making. YMMV. Oh, so she should have kept it baritone and been accused of having balls. Wait, she already does get accused of that. [8D] tj, on a side note, I don't have to agree with someone's policies or even like them as a person to admire their dedication, not backing down when the going gets tough, and ability to inspire the grudging respect of (dipshit) world leaders. She blamed Canada for letting terrorists cross the border into the U.S.? I'm mad at Canada that I can't cross over the other side of Niagara Falls without a passport, which expired on me a few years ago (or will an American driver's license suffice?). The same goes for non-U.S. territory Caribbean islands. [ETA phrase]

tj444 -> RE: Curiouser and Curiouser (5/30/2014 7:36:21 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: FieryOpal tj, on a side note, I don't have to agree with someone's policies or even like them as a person to respect their dedication, not backing down when the going gets rough, and ability to inspire the grudging respect of (dipshit) world leaders. She blamed Canada for letting terrorists cross the border into the U.S.? I'm mad at Canada that I can't cross over the other side of Niagara Falls without a passport, which expired on me a few years ago. well,.. Bush was dedicated too.. [:D] The problem with 99.99% of the politicians is that they are dedicated to doing what 1%ers & lobbyists push for.. as for the passport thing, look to your US govt for that one, you need your US passport to get back into the US no matter which country you visit.. the passport was brought in due to 9/11 and the Patriot Act (or some such law).. it wasn't Canada's idea at all.. you would actually be in a pickle if you were allowed into Canada without a passport and then you couldn't get back home cuz of it.. eta- I think some US licenses might be accepted but I think they need to be new ones with certain features.. you would have to look into that yourself to find out if you need a new one or if the one you have would work.. ..some countries require a Visa also to enter their country, each country does have their own regs about that.. its just as the US requires citizens of certain countries must apply for a US Visa to get in..

dcnovice -> RE: Curiouser and Curiouser (5/30/2014 7:44:03 AM)
quote: When I think of her I think of her flappin' her gums and blaming Canada for 9/11 terrorists.. TJ, do you recall where you learned that? I'm having trouble finding any info about it.

Zonie63 -> RE: Curiouser and Curiouser (5/30/2014 7:46:00 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: FieryOpal quote: ORIGINAL: TheHeretic Oh what the hell. There may be a lot of people who've tossed that moment right down the memory hole. Hillary Clinton shrieks for the right of dissent On a serious note, I really have no horse in this race, but I have to pose a cogent question to the guys: Why is it when a female public figure speaks out forcefully, it is characterized as "shriek[ing]" or some other sort of histrionic behaviorism, but when a male public figure critically blasts an issue, he is being an effective, awe-inspiring speaker, or perceived by many as such? Double standard, much? Other than with Rush Limbaugh, it goes without saying. [:-] I see what you're saying, but it's possible that it could also be a political double standard. This is pretty common, where people tend to root for the public figures they agree with and who argue for their side, while the opposition is viewed with contempt - with the rhetoric to match. Likewise, our culture seems to value how a person says something over what they actually say, along with various comments about one's tone of voice, whether "shrieking," "whining," "screaming," "crying," "wailing," etc. I suppose there could also be gender double standards regarding different reactions to tone of voice or the manner in which one expresses oneself. There was once a woman who ran for governor here in Arizona who had a very deep, gravely voice which sounded like a man's voice. A lot of people made jokes about that, and it seemed to distract from the campaign somewhat. She ended up losing the election to Evan Mecham.

Musicmystery -> RE: Curiouser and Curiouser (5/30/2014 7:49:07 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: FieryOpal quote: ORIGINAL: TheHeretic Oh what the hell. There may be a lot of people who've tossed that moment right down the memory hole. Hillary Clinton shrieks for the right of dissent On a serious note, I really have no horse in this race, but I have to pose a cogent question to the guys: Why is it when a female public figure speaks out forcefully, it is characterized as "shriek[ing]" or some other sort of histrionic behaviorism, but when a male public figure critically blasts an issue, he is being an effective, awe-inspiring speaker, or perceived by many as such? Double standard, much? Other than with Rush Limbaugh, it goes without saying. [:-] (Nothing personal, Heretic, in my pointing this out, as it is a common occurrence or phenomenon. [:)] ) [Edited for word] That's nonsense. Male or female, the response will be partisan based, not gender motivated. I saw a video where someone tried to make this point, a male and female business speaker delivering similar texts. Trouble is, it was totally contrived. He smiled and held out his open hands when speaking, she frowned and jabbed her finger at the audience. Reverse those gestures, reverse the perception. Duh.

FieryOpal -> RE: Curiouser and Curiouser (5/30/2014 8:03:58 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Musicmystery That's nonsense. Male or female, the response will be partisan based, not gender motivated. I saw a video where someone tried to make this point, a male and female business speaker delivering similar texts. Trouble is, it was totally contrived. He smiled and held out his open hands when speaking, she frowned and jabbed her finger at the audience. Reverse those gestures, reverse the perception. Duh. This is only partially true re partisanship as you and Zonie have indicated. Women are expected to act feminine, yet when they do, they don't get taken seriously in a position of authority in the public sector, so I respectfully disagree.

tj444 -> RE: Curiouser and Curiouser (5/30/2014 8:27:36 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: dcnovice quote: When I think of her I think of her flappin' her gums and blaming Canada for 9/11 terrorists.. TJ, do you recall where you learned that? I'm having trouble finding any info about it. Its hard to find stuff on that, it being quite a long time ago and stuff gets deleted when websites are updated, etc.. She wasn't the only one to blame Canada for 9/11 terrorists tho, and if she was parroting what DHS or others said, then she is just exactly like Bush falsely claiming Iraq had WMD.. And of course when confronted with the truth the politicians like Hillary claim they never said that or were misquoted, blah, blah, blah.. (like reporters don't record everything that is actually said cuz politicians will lie and say they were misquoted!).. damage done imo, Hillary is a bitch and I hope she never becomes Prez.. she is dangerous imo.. "Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton (D-N.Y.) was quoted in October as saying the terrorists had crossed into New York from Canada. Her office disputes the quotes" http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A38816-2005Apr8.html "The day after 9/11, ABC News broadcast a report suggesting that some of the highjackers had entered from Canada. ABC also reported that investigations were underway to determine if the perpetrators had crossed over from Quebec into Maine. Despite almost desperate attempts by Canadian politicians and diplomats to quash these rumours; and evidence produced later that none of the bombers had entered from Canada the rumours persisted. Senators Hillary Clinton, Conrad Burns, and John McCain have at one time or other supported this claim. Surprisingly, as recently as 2009, during a CBC television interview, U.S. Homeland Security Secretary, Janet Napolitano, stated that some of the 9/11 terrorists had entered from Canada." [8\|] http://www.immigrationreform.ca/CMFiles/Research/National%20security/IS%20THE%20CANADIAN%20BODER%20A%20SECURITY%20THREAT.pdf

dcnovice -> RE: Curiouser and Curiouser (5/30/2014 8:40:29 AM)
Thanks, TJ! My Google-fu, along with other key brain components, hasn't kicked in yet this morning.

tweakabelle -> RE: Curiouser and Curiouser (5/30/2014 9:14:10 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: thishereboi quote: ORIGINAL: tweakabelle Is there no end to your ignorance? It now seems you have no idea what the word 'hate' means. Why any one would insist that there must be a sinister ulterior motive to criticising a bellicose militarist State that practices ethnic cleansing and apartheid, butchers human rights and treats international law with contempt is beyond me. There's enough there to justify several mountain ranges of legitimate criticism. And there is an awful lot more to criticise about Israel beyond the points I have just mentioned. All that is necessary to criticise Israel is a commitment to human rights and justice. In your view, this equates to hate. Good luck with that. As I noted previously it takes a particularly dense kind of stupidity to hold that view. You are entitled to your views no matter how stupid and ignorant they are. I'm far from alone in feeling entitled (and justified) in treating your views with the derision and contempt they deserve. Are you incapable of responding without throwing an insult first? Does it make you feel all warm and fuzzy inside to tell someone they are stupid. Perhaps you puff your chest out a bit as you type. But I digress, I do know what the word hate means and I have to say it helps when you give such good examples. If you wish to be taken seriously, here's two things you might consider: 1. Don't make baseless accusations of hate against others. People tend to react sharply to false allegations of bigotry, such as the accusation of hate you introduced into this conversation; and 2. Try to post something sensible for a change. If you can manage to lift your game I'll be more than happy to respond in kind.

tweakabelle -> RE: Curiouser and Curiouser (5/30/2014 9:23:16 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: FieryOpal quote: ORIGINAL: Musicmystery That's nonsense. Male or female, the response will be partisan based, not gender motivated. I saw a video where someone tried to make this point, a male and female business speaker delivering similar texts. Trouble is, it was totally contrived. He smiled and held out his open hands when speaking, she frowned and jabbed her finger at the audience. Reverse those gestures, reverse the perception. Duh. This is only partially true re partisanship as you and Zonie have indicated. Women are expected to act feminine, yet when they do, they don't get taken seriously in a position of authority in the public sector, so I respectfully disagree. Didn't Hilary Clinton say something to the effect: 'As Sec of State I travelled to 133 countries yet all you guys [the media] want to write about is my hair' ....? So much so that she joked about calling her memoirs 'The Scrunchie Chronicles'.

FieryOpal -> RE: Curiouser and Curiouser (5/30/2014 9:30:22 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: tweakabelle Didn't Hilary Clinton say something to the effect: 'As Sec of State I travelled to 133 countries yet all you guys [the media] want to write about is my hair' ....? So much so that she joked about calling her memoirs 'The Scrunchie Chronicles'. Then when women act assertive and/or won't budge, appropriate to the circumstances, they get called "ballbusters," or worse.

Page: << < prev 4 5 [6] 7 8 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

6.445313E-02