Republican ConventionFollow

Irrelevant. If I make that claim, and I'm challenged on it, I'll provide a quote from someone that supports my claim.

See how we're different?

Give me a quote. If this is so ubiquitous that everyone's making the claim that conservatives are using the gender card, then it shouldn't be that hard.



As I said. "You" can't do it. Liberals can't do it. Republicans can.

See another difference? You assume we pick candidates for the same reasons you do. That's a mistake. And a funny one because in this case it's causing Liberal pundits and commentators to accuse the McCain camp of using the gender card purely because Palin happens to be a woman. Um... Don't you need some evidence of it actually being used?

The only reason you'd do that is if you simply assume that the only reason anyone would ever pick a woman running mate is to use the gender card. That's your sides's assumption Smash. Perhaps you should be looking at your own gender bias instead of assuming we're just as biased as you are.


Like I said. Hilarious. You can't help but keep piling on more proof of just how bigoted you are...

See another difference? You assume we pick candidates for the same reasons you do. That's a mistake.

Yeah, I don't know how to break this to you, Jack, but there is no "we" in your case. No one in the GOP would ever, ever, ever, ever, ever, allow you to make any sort of campaign decision. Palion wasn't chosen by the vast sucker army, she was selected by Charlie Black.

Are you really trying to say that Palin wasn't picked solely because Hillary was defeated on the other side? "You've got a negro, so we're getting a broad! Ha!"
Tell me that wasn't almost verbatim their reasoning.

Come on Gbaji..I hardly ever agree with you, but at least you're somewhat reasonable most of the time, but this is ridiculous. You don't HONESTLY believe this do you?

You REALLY think that Palin is on the ticket because of her record? Honestly, the GOP would have picked a new governor of an ineffectual state (least in terms of this election) who's only previous poltical experience before that was mayor of a small town, if they were some 60 year old white guy? Come on, you're not that much of a sheep, right?

Funny. I'm looking at that link, and what do I see? A page full of links to articles about Liberal talking heads wringing their hands about whether or not a statement made about Palin might be seen as sexist.

You see how that's not the conservatives doing this, right? It's your own side falling over their own wacky PC rules and trying to figure out what to do.

What you didn't hear about the convention: Police brutality, massive abuse of power, arrests of peaceful protesters and members of the media. People were tear gased, arrested, and held for days without charge.

Normally I wouldn't link a DailyKos diary because I prefer MSM and original sources, but this has video footage, personal testimonies, and tons of other goodies, and is basically begging KO (a Kossack regular) to get this out to the rest of the country:

http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2008/9/4/95717/90720/674/586129

There are going to be so many lawsuits coming out of this that it isn't funny.

Excuse me. That proves my point. She's saying that no one should be voting for Palin because she's a woman, but that she also should not be subjected to *more* attacks because of her gender either.


From a guy who's stated repeatedly that she's only on the ticket because she has nice tits, I think you have a hard time denying that she's been subject to many attacks that are purely directed at her because she's a woman. I'll point out again the number of times the argument that she shouldn't be running because being VP while raising children would be too hard. That's not a sexist attack? Did anyone say that Obama shouldn't run for President because he's got two young children to take care of at home? Why not?

That's the double standard that's being observed. And it's absolutely proper to point it out and call people on it. And no. It's *not* playing the gender card to point out sexism on the part of those making those attacks.


I'll ask again: Give me a quote where a conservative is *not* condemning attacks on Palin's gender, but arguing that her gender should protect her from normal attacks. That's what the CNN commentators were saying Smash. That's what I commented on.

It doesn't take long when looking about on the internets for comments about Palin to see a pattern. Massive numbers of Liberal sources attacking Palin, not on her actions or decisions, but because of her gender. Or attacking the choice of Palin because of some perception that it was done because of her gender. And when you get to the conservatives? They're all saying the same thing: "Judge her on her own abilities. Treat her just like you'd treat a male VP candidate".

And meanwhile, you've got the largely liberal mainstream media falling over themselves trying to figure out how sneak in those attacks while pretending to condemn them, but while not playing the gender card themselves. It really is funny. If they'd just treat her the same as they'd treat a male candidate, there'd be no problems. But they can't...


Which side is being sexist? It's really not hard to see...



Lol. I know the difference between making a sexist comment and pointing out that someone else made a sexist comment. Do you?

Edited, Sep 5th 2008 6:59pm by gbaji

Lol. I know the difference between making a sexist comment and pointing out that someone else made a sexist comment. Do you?

Yes, that's why I posted that the only defense they have to any rational inquiry is to wildly claim sexism. Then you told me no one had, and insisted I cite something. I did, but you couldn't manage to read it, being functionally retarded, and all, so I pasted it for you.

Shockingly you pretended to be arguing something completely different, even though your original post is sitting there.


You see how that's not the conservatives doing this, right?

Let's Pretend your little brother used your account to post that!

Hahahahaha, what a fucking joke you are. You can't even get the talking points from your own side right.

Hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha.

False.


She is attacked because:

1. She is a pro-absenence only education that has a pregnant teenaged daughter, if she were pro-choice, this would be a non-issue.

2. Attacked because she is a deep right-wing nut.

3. Attacked because she is a religious nut.

4. Attacked (by her own party no less) because there were much more qualified female republicans to choose from.

5. Attacked because of her lack of experience yet is on, and I quote, "The experience ticket".



Do you get it yet, no one cares about her gaping slit, it's when that gaping slit stands against everything she stands for, and more importantly everything McCain claims, is when it becomes intellectually dishonest.

No, she's where she is because she's ruthless, ambitious, lies, steps on people, makes stuff up when it suits her, and isn't afraid to flip-flop to stay on the popular side of an issue. She's also been brainwashed by the evangelical movement into doing things that are bad for women in the rest of the country.

A man can do those things just as well.

Now, it's quite possible McCain picked her because she has "talent" but I don't even want to begin to fathom that dirty old man's thought process. I think it goes along with the reason guys pick female characters to play in MMOs, the whole "if I gotta stare at an *** it might as well be a cute one." Well, if they wouldn't let McCain have Lieberman, he sure as hell wasn't gonna go with Pawlenty when there's a hot MILF that's just as popular.

You know what pisses me off the most about Palin? She has a cultivated personal style that is disturbingly similar to my own, except my hair is straight and not curly. But yeah, glasses and hair up in a flippy ponytai, that's how I identity myself. I'm glad I decided to grow my hair out now, although I'm definitely not getting a permanent any time soon.

I think choosing Palin as a VP just shows how desperate the Republicans are. It's crude, cynical, but mostly it's an insult to people's intelligence. And it's dangerous. It's almost genuinely scary to think that she could possibly end up President of the US. I know the odds of McCain dying in the next 4 years aren't that high, and I'm sure that's what the Republicans are telling themselves too, but I don't think it's a very clever game to play.

I can't say that the dirt that's been dug up on her is especially horrible, though. It's pretty mundane stuff for a politician. I'm more worried about the hard-right/evangelical angle. With all the religion tensions in the world, I can't see how a science-denying fundamentalist VP is going to help things much.

Having said all that, I was in Corsica this week. And when you're sitting on the terrace of a little tavern, looking at the mountains falling into the sea, in front of a sunset, eating fresh fish and drinking pastis while some locals in a bar nearby are playing guitars and singing polyphonic songs in their local dialect, and all of this is taking place in a little village, on a little island, on the mediterranean sea, well, none of this shit really matters.

Still, it would be a tragedy if the Reps win.