|
Korean Job Discussion Forums
"The Internet's Meeting Place for ESL/EFL Teachers from Around the World!"
|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
Czarjorge
Joined: 01 May 2007
Location: I now have the same moustache, and it is glorious.
|
 Posted: Wed Sep 24, 2008 12:52 am Post subject: |
 |
|
| pkang0202 wrote: |
| Gopher wrote: |
Oh yeah, and I am laughing at your ignorance when I write this, you do realize that these "liberal women" you hero-worship, these Great Women who fought so hard for voting rights cast black women aside -- excluded them from national and state organizations and meetings, especially where Southern white women's sensibilities were concerned, etc. -- for political expediency all over the 1910s, 1920s and 1930s, no? |
BOOYAKASHA! Respect. |
Please, don't encourage him. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Czarjorge
Joined: 01 May 2007
Location: I now have the same moustache, and it is glorious.
|
| Posted: Wed Sep 24, 2008 1:17 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Gopher wrote: |
| Czarjorge wrote: |
| It was 'liberal' ladies that fought for the vote, and that alone earns them the right to dictate terms. |
Wrong.
Actually, that statement is accurate in that it was women who held liberal values that fought for the right to vote. Conservative women, by definition, did not. That earns them the right to make statements that would otherwise seem ridiculous. If John McCain can use his experience as a POW as an excuse for any stupid statement or deed then these ladies should be given the same leniency.
And you do not have the power to simply sweep aside and exclude all women who disagree with "liberal ladies." More smug elitism. Yet another reason why I can hardly stand your side's worldviews and politics anymore.
I love it when someone with your political slant pulls out the 'smug' card. Sweet sassy molassey you're completely unaware. What exactly is 'my side'? Aren't you the person that argues noone is completely conservative?
Besides, I do not have to argue this point with you. Phyllis Schlafly and other conservative women can argue it for themselves. We want our country to exist as a pluralist democracy. And in a pluralist democracy there is ample room for women who share S. Palin's politics. If you do not like this, then too damn bad.
Sure, sure. 'Conservative' women are representative of the majority of women. Did I mention, sure, sure? Oh, btdubs, we don't live in a pluralist democracy.
Liberals, Jorgito, simply do not get to "dictate terms," as you say. Keep dreaming about tyranny or whatever it is that was going through your little Khmer-Rouge head when you wrote this.
Actually, it would be autocracy,not tyranny. (And for the record as much as an autocracy run by 'my' side might seem a good idea it's not something I'm interested in.) And it's not so much about the 'liberal' bit but about the people who put in the time to earn the rights. The people that expand our rights as citizens of the US are 'LIBERALS'. The very nature of conservatives makes them people that want to mantain the status quo, and they are therefore OPPOSED to an expansion of rights. Ultimately, the people that fight for the expansion of the rights of the individual deserve to have some say in how that expansion is interpreted and mantained.
Oh yeah, and I am laughing at your ignorance when I write this, you do realize that these "liberal women" you hero-worship, these Great Women who fought so hard for voting rights cast black women aside -- excluded them from national and state organizations and meetings, especially where Southern white women's sensibilities were concerned, etc. -- for political expediency all over the 1910s, 1920s and 1930s, no?
Have you forgotten that black men had the vote long before white women? Regardless, political battles are always fought an inch at a time. Yes, no political movement is perfect, but 'our' side is still better than your side if for no other reason than the fact that this is the typical type of obfuscation Republicans choose to purvey. Bullshit, sir, is bullshit. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
desultude
Joined: 15 Jan 2003
Location: Dangling my toes in the Persian Gulf
|
| Posted: Wed Sep 24, 2008 1:22 am Post subject: |
|
|
I think the whole concept of being "against Sarah Palin" is wrongheaded.
I am in favor of electing a president and vice president who are both up to the almost impossible task of heading the US government.
Sarah Palin is probably a fine person, with her own strengths and shortcomings. I am certainly not against her, or her beliefs and values- we are all entitled.
But, she is no more qualified to be vice-president (president in waiting) than I am. It is not a question of Sarah, it is a question of skills and competencies. The question of Sarah Palin is more a question of what sort of leader is the person who chooses a second in command without a lot of consideration, vetting, and measurable criteria for eligibility.
Leave the woman alone- the election is for the presidency, and McCann has shown his poor leadership in choosing a vastly under-qualified candidate for his second. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Big_Bird
Joined: 31 Jan 2003
Location: Sometimes here sometimes there...
|
| Posted: Wed Sep 24, 2008 1:38 am Post subject: |
|
|
| desultude wrote: |
But, she is no more qualified to be vice-president (president in waiting) than I am. It is not a question of Sarah, it is a question of skills and competencies. The question of Sarah Palin is more a question of what sort of leader is the person who chooses a second in command without a lot of consideration, vetting, and measurable criteria for eligibility.
|
I think that's essentially the kind of thing they are saying in their petition:
| Quote: |
| Sarah Palin does not possess the experience needed to lead this country, not does she uphold the issues that are important to me as a female voter. Feminism is not simply about achieving the power and status typically held by men. It's about protecting and supporting the rights of women of all classes, races, cultures, and beliefs. Palin's record and beliefs do not align with this. She was chosen by John McCain specifically because he believes that American women will vote for any female candidate regardless of their qualifications. He is wrong. |
http://womenagainstsarahpalin.blogspot.com/ |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Gopher
Joined: 04 Jun 2005
|
| Posted: Wed Sep 24, 2008 2:09 am Post subject: |
|
|
Funny, Jorgito: we do not live in a pluralist democracy, do we? I disagree. And by the way, that is just M. Moore and Rev. J. Wright talking.
In any case, I will take that bait. What do we live in, then? (Bring on the superlatives and negative comparisons, I imagine.)
| desultude wrote: |
| I think the whole concept of being "against Sarah Palin" is wrongheaded. |
There are a lot of wrongheaded things afoot here. The sustained attack-campaign against S. Palin, for one. The idea, articulated here, that S. Palin somehow betrays "women." And, for good measure, the CNN journalist I saw who felt the need to locate and interview conservative blacks: you see they are black but they are not voting for B. Obama. This reporter thought that that called for explanation for some reason.
B. Clinton is exactly right: we should not be talking this way. One can disagree with and vote against McCain-Palin without resorting to all of the puerile nonsense we see on this messageboard and all over the media. Just yesterday I saw journalists comparing J. McCain and B. Obama's automobiles while pointing out that -- gasp -- McCain owns, among other cars, a Volkswagon. These kinds of lines of attack are palpably desperate.
Whatever happened to "the issues?" |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Nowhere Man
Joined: 08 Feb 2004
|
| Posted: Wed Sep 24, 2008 2:23 am Post subject: ... |
|
|
| Quote: |
Who are these "women?" Intolerant feminists who want to suppress those women who fail their ideological purity tests, no doubt. |
Yes! The get-pregnant-to-have-an-abortion types that fail your ideological purity tests, no doubt.
| Quote: |
| Oh yeah, and I am laughing at your ignorance when I write this, you do realize that these "liberal women" you hero-worship, these Great Women who fought so hard for voting rights cast black women aside -- excluded them from national and state organizations and meetings, especially where Southern white women's sensibilities were concerned, etc. -- for political expediency all over the 1910s, 1920s and 1930s, no? |
Hey, that stuff is self-correcting. Don't talk about it.
Can't you people discuss the election without being anti-American? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
beck's
Joined: 02 Aug 2006
|
| Posted: Wed Sep 24, 2008 10:22 am Post subject: |
|
|
Those intellectual barricade feminists see Sarah as being a no-class, white trash line jumper. The intellectual liberal feminists spent years and years collecting diplomas, reading thick books, discussing philosophy, doing arobics and jogging. They planned their families, had their abortions, married the upwardly mobile, limp d-ck nerd, discussed working class politics without really associating with actual workers and now Sarah's rise seems so, so unfair.
Sarah was a cheerleader and beauty contestent who married the handsome unionized oil rigger, had five children and still looks hot. Nothing pi--ses the feminists off worse. To them, she should be living in a trailer not running for VP. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
On the other hand
Joined: 19 Apr 2003
Location: I walk along the avenue
|
| Posted: Wed Sep 24, 2008 11:01 am Post subject: |
|
|
| beck's wrote: |
Those intellectual barricade feminists see Sarah as being a no-class, white trash line jumper. The intellectual liberal feminists spent years and years collecting diplomas, reading thick books, discussing philosophy, doing arobics and jogging. They planned their families, had their abortions, married the upwardly mobile, limp d-ck nerd, discussed working class politics without really associating with actual workers and now Sarah's rise seems so, so unfair.
Sarah was a cheerleader and beauty contestent who married the handsome unionized oil rigger, had five children and still looks hot. Nothing pi--ses the feminists off worse. To them, she should be living in a trailer not running for VP. |
I don't really care for Ivory Tower academic feminism myself. But are you seriously arguing that the only objection any feminist could raise against Sarah Palin's candidacy is that she didn't follow the typical bourgeois feminist career trajectory?
The McCain campaign has demanded that Sarah Palin be treated with "deference" in exchange for giving interviews, and stated that they will only allow her to debate Biden if the format was designed to be less confrontational(as far as I know, the Democrats were making no such demands). This is not indicative of a confident, ready-for-the-rough-and-tumble female candidate.
I'm a huge fan of Camille Paglia, but she really jumped the gun with her description of Palin as the epitome of frontier feminism. Apart from the most superficial qualities, like being into sports and whatnot, there is nothing at all rugged about this woman.
Remember when Hillary Clinton looked like she was about to cry on TV once, and the conservatives were all saying "yeah, like is she gonna negotiate with Kim Jong Il this way?" Well, you guys REALLY need to start asking the same sort of questions about Sarah Palin. This woman is scared of debating Joe Biden, for Christ's sake. |
|
| Back to top |
| |
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
