When I think that there are thousands of politicians Obama could have easily smoked and run laughing all the way to the White House in this election year, I weep because instead we get this self-serving fake-smiling poll-calculating hatchet man. It's like a nightmare.
This election, even with a mediocre candidate, would have gone to the dems on the sheer basis of Bush's ineptitude. So we get a good candidate, just to make sure it's clinched. Then we get a historical candidate. Then another. I think that Stewart was right - we've overshot too far. I don't think we've overshot so far that we'll lose, but we overshot so badly that it's going to be close, I fear.
Why can't someone I like just crush the opposition once in a while? Shit, this is why I play video games - I want my guy to DESTROY on his path to the goal. I want to ride the wave of victory on a surfboard made of ass-kicking. Why does it always have to be close?
I think you might like Obama for the wrong reasons.
I pretty much stopped reading the moment she invoked Baby Boomers as women who "remember and recognize the ongoing struggle for equality and identify with feminism."
"After all, whether you agree with her politics or not, Hillary Clinton has gone where no other woman in America has gone, and therein lies the problem."
Other women have ran for president...
"the female argument against Hillary is that she shouldn't be supported just because she's a woman. This proves that the mixed messages of our society continue to confuse women."
"the female argument against Hillary is that she shouldn't be supported just because she's a woman. This proves that the mixed messages of our society continue to confuse women."
W.... what?
She says that you should vote for Hillary because she has a va-jay-jay.
Great, prior to reading that I was merely sad. Now I want to hang myself.
ElJeffe on
I submitted an entry to Lego Ideas, and if 10,000 people support me, it'll be turned into an actual Lego set!If you'd like to see and support my submission, follow this link.
I pretty much stopped reading the moment she invoked Baby Boomers as women who "remember and recognize the ongoing struggle for equality and identify with feminism."
A made it to "a deficient sisterhood" before I had to give up. Women are not all members of a worldwide organization who should agree with each other on absolutely everything, and women criticizing Hillary is not a sign of "female rivalry," you pathetic mockery of a journalist.
Sometimes I think MSNBC publishes this shit to make up for Chris Matthews being a misogynist dick.
"the female argument against Hillary is that she shouldn't be supported just because she's a woman. This proves that the mixed messages of our society continue to confuse women."
W.... what?
She says that you should vote for Hillary because she has a va-jay-jay.
I just don't see how any of that proves anything else...
And I think that the appropriate term when referring to Hillary is "snizz"
"After all, whether you agree with her politics or not, Hillary Clinton has gone where no other woman in America has gone, and therein lies the problem."
Other women have ran for president...
Yeah, but only 3 of them had sex with Bill Clinton.
If Hillary won by the same margin in every remaining primary, she still wouldn't have enough delegates to surpass Obama. Right now she has to win at by at least 30% in every remaining state to have enough.
I'm pretty sure the "comeback kid" angle is going to fade in the next couple days as this becomes apparent.
She needs on average a 37-point win in the remaining states to tie Obama on pledged delegates. Before the PA primary she needed on average a 28 point win.
I'm guessing the media is refusing to admit she's a goner because they get to provide more coverage of the nail-biting primary race and that they don't want to appear "biased" against Clinton.
RandomEngy on
Profile -> Signature Settings -> Hide signatures always. Then you don't have to read this worthless text anymore.
oh Christ I was only able to read the title of the article
"Do women want to see Hillary fail?"
it burns us
The article should really have gone on to proclaim that all those who oppose Clinton are elitists and factonistas. As it is, the article didn't mention education even once so what could have been good for a laugh is, instead, only a sad and painful reminder of the state of America.
When I think that there are thousands of politicians Obama could have easily smoked and run laughing all the way to the White House in this election year, I weep because instead we get this self-serving fake-smiling poll-calculating hatchet man. It's like a nightmare.
This election, even with a mediocre candidate, would have gone to the dems on the sheer basis of Bush's ineptitude. So we get a good candidate, just to make sure it's clinched. Then we get a historical candidate. Then another. I think that Stewart was right - we've overshot too far. I don't think we've overshot so far that we'll lose, but we overshot so badly that it's going to be close, I fear.
Why can't someone I like just crush the opposition once in a while? Shit, this is why I play video games - I want my guy to DESTROY on his path to the goal. I want to ride the wave of victory on a surfboard made of ass-kicking. Why does it always have to be close?
I think you might like Obama for the wrong reasons.
This is periphery, really, but it's the current source of disappointment. I like Obama because he understands technology in a way most boomers don't, because of his tendency to listen to experts instead of yes-men, because of his tuition credit/community service proposal, and his ability to say what needs to be said even though he knows the media and his opponents will probably spin it.
I like him because he appeals to basic human decency. Republican or democrat, we mostly want the same things. People want to eat some fuckin' dinner and have some fuckin' money. This country needs a man with a granite sack and legs of log. A man that slaps people who are talking.
Sorry, I slipped into Achewood quotes there at the end. But really, Obama realizes that if you were to strip the Rs and Ds from people, they'd see that we can get a lot done together. Hillary just isn't a uniter - look what she's doing to her own party.
The worst part is I had been sticking to MSNBC because, so far, they had be the least bias. Despite all of the pro-Obama talk, they call quite a bit down the middle. I would have expected this from MyDD or Hillaryis44, even a local paper.... but MSNBC? For shame.
And, of course, no one will call them on this. As misogynistic as Matthews portrays himself at times, we need a Buchanan level person to offset this nonsense.
I submitted an entry to Lego Ideas, and if 10,000 people support me, it'll be turned into an actual Lego set!If you'd like to see and support my submission, follow this link.
The worst part is I had been sticking to MSNBC because, so far, they had be the least bias. Despite all of the pro-Obama talk, they call quite a bit down the middle. I would have expected this from MyDD or Hillaryis44, even a local paper.... but MSNBC? For shame.
And, of course, no one will call them on this. As misogynistic as Matthews portrays himself at times, we need a Buchanan level person to offset this nonsense.
Keep in mind that's not really MSNBC, it's The Today Show portion of the website, which isn't a news show, so much as a complete cesspool dedicated to the downfall of our civilization.
The worst part is I had been sticking to MSNBC because, so far, they had be the least bias. Despite all of the pro-Obama talk, they call quite a bit down the middle. I would have expected this from MyDD or Hillaryis44, even a local paper.... but MSNBC? For shame.
And, of course, no one will call them on this. As misogynistic as Matthews portrays himself at times, we need a Buchanan level person to offset this nonsense.
Rachel Maddow might have righteous indignation. I hope.
God, 'our country needs and deserves the chance for female leadership,' ey? What part of nuking Iran and freezing me out of buying a home for the next 5 years+ is female? Hell, what part of that is leadership?
Haven't we all heard a man in the room say, "It's not that I'm against a woman for president. I just don't like her"? Women who succeed in our society are always held to a higher examination than their male counterparts.
The worst part is I had been sticking to MSNBC because, so far, they had be the least bias. Despite all of the pro-Obama talk, they call quite a bit down the middle. I would have expected this from MyDD or Hillaryis44, even a local paper.... but MSNBC? For shame.
And, of course, no one will call them on this. As misogynistic as Matthews portrays himself at times, we need a Buchanan level person to offset this nonsense.
Rachel Maddow might have righteous indignation. I hope.
God, 'our country needs and deserves the chance for female leadership,' ey? What part of nuking Iran and freezing me out of buying a home for the next 5 years+ is female? Hell, what part of that is leadership?
The same part that fostered the idea that George Bush was a great leader or that David Petraeus is an all knowing Oracle about Iraq and should be listened to no matter how retarded what he says objectively is.
Alternately: sure, woo female leadership; just not stupid leadership.
enlightenedbum on
Self-righteousness is incompatible with coalition building.
The worst part is I had been sticking to MSNBC because, so far, they had be the least bias. Despite all of the pro-Obama talk, they call quite a bit down the middle. I would have expected this from MyDD or Hillaryis44, even a local paper.... but MSNBC? For shame.
And, of course, no one will call them on this. As misogynistic as Matthews portrays himself at times, we need a Buchanan level person to offset this nonsense.
Keep in mind that's not really MSNBC, it's The Today Show portion of the website, which isn't a news show, so much as a complete cesspool dedicated to the downfall of our civilization.
Whew! You're right!
I was downloading podcasts when I saw it in the frame. There is still hope.
This is not the Random Shit That Kinda-Sorta Has To Do With Politics But Not Really thread.
ElJeffe on
I submitted an entry to Lego Ideas, and if 10,000 people support me, it'll be turned into an actual Lego set!If you'd like to see and support my submission, follow this link.
0
Options
SteevLWhat can I do for you?Registered Userregular
edited April 2008
Not sure if Gallup allows direct linking to their images, but here's today's graph:
I dunno. The spin might well push her up pretty close, but it may be like a few weeks ago with a 49/46 flat line. This wasn't a dogpile of every controversy brought up in half an hour to nock his numbers down, it's her winning a competition 'justifying' staying the race, for now, which will bring her numbers up.
Not sure if Gallup allows direct linking to their images, but here's today's graph:
Obama: 50
Clinton: 42 (up 2 from yesterday)
I imagine we'll see them meet again.
I figure riding the media wave she'll get above him again until North Carolina.
It's funny she doesn't even compete in states that look solid for him, and when the polls close they instantly announce he won them, yet that doesnt' get as much play as her lesser victories in places she has distinct advantages. I don't think she erode his Missippi margin, or any of the 11 post super tuesday victories. Where is that in the "come back kid" bullshit?
Preacher on
I would like some money because these are artisanal nuggets of wisdom philistine.
I pretty much stopped reading the moment she invoked Baby Boomers as women who "remember and recognize the ongoing struggle for equality and identify with feminism."
There's some truth to this. The feminism of the 60s and 70s is a different beast than is feminism today, and self-identified feminists of that era are more likely to identify with what Hillary is pitching and what she represents.
It's not too different from the civil-rights activists of the same era in my view.
I pretty much stopped reading the moment she invoked Baby Boomers as women who "remember and recognize the ongoing struggle for equality and identify with feminism."
There's some truth to this. The feminism of the 60s and 70s is a different beast than is feminism today, and self-identified feminists of that era are more likely to identify with what Hillary is pitching and what she represents.
It's not too different from the civil-rights activists of the same era in my view.
Which is why Boomers need to lose their electoral importance asap.
I figure riding the media wave she'll get above him again until North Carolina.
It's funny she doesn't even compete in states that look solid for him, and when the polls close they instantly announce he won them, yet that doesnt' get as much play as her lesser victories in places she has distinct advantages. I don't think she erode his Missippi margin, or any of the 11 post super tuesday victories. Where is that in the "come back kid" bullshit?
The media is inherently lazy and the Clintons are good for business. Better for the businesses that own the media? Republican policies.
This is not hard to figure out.
enlightenedbum on
Self-righteousness is incompatible with coalition building.
Gods that article was bad. Fortunately most everyone else agreed. It had a 2 star rating. I went and threw my .5 star in.
That article being the 'feminism' one.
I really just don't understand how someone that self identifies as a feminist can actually mislabel feminist philosophy that badly. I mean, come on.
From what I understand, feminism was a lot different in the 60s and 70s. Much more bra burning and emasculation.
No, there were a lot of feminists back then who weren't retards and wanted to be treated equally, not extra special.
But there was also a not-insignificant number of idiot-women who were active androgynists. They were the feminist equivalent of the Black Panthers minus the calls to violence (usually).
ElJeffe on
I submitted an entry to Lego Ideas, and if 10,000 people support me, it'll be turned into an actual Lego set!If you'd like to see and support my submission, follow this link.
0
Options
FencingsaxIt is difficult to get a man to understand, when his salary depends upon his not understandingGNU Terry PratchettRegistered Userregular
Gods that article was bad. Fortunately most everyone else agreed. It had a 2 star rating. I went and threw my .5 star in.
That article being the 'feminism' one.
I really just don't understand how someone that self identifies as a feminist can actually mislabel feminist philosophy that badly. I mean, come on.
From what I understand, feminism was a lot different in the 60s and 70s. Much more bra burning and emasculation.
No, there were a lot of feminists back then who weren't retards and wanted to be treated equally, not extra special.
But there was also a not-insignificant number of idiot-women who were active androgynists. They were the feminist equivalent of the Black Panthers minus the calls to violence (usually).
No, there were a lot of feminists back then who weren't retards and wanted to be treated equally, not extra special.
But there was also a not-insignificant number of idiot-women who were active androgynists. They were the feminist equivalent of the Black Panthers minus the calls to violence (usually).
Well, yeah, but they've had 4 decades since then to sit back and realize just how stupid and wrong they were before typing out that abortion of an article for the Today show. There's no excuse to being that wrong.
This is just reminding me of a friend back in school who had a women's studies elective course. And her teacher was a tenured misandrist pretending not to be. *generic rage*
But there was also a not-insignificant number of idiot-women who were active androgynists. They were the feminist equivalent of the Black Panthers minus the calls to violence (usually).
I've read some pretty messed up literature from that time period from the more radical feminist groups. I haven't seen or heard anything like it since.
I agree with moniker though, the majority of feminists were not like that. However, the ideological atmosphere disproportionately represented the radical groups since they got so much more attention.
Posts
I think you might like Obama for the wrong reasons.
"So you're voting for a man in the White House? You want the White House to be a 24-hour sausage-fest? It's all about the penis for you, isn't it?"
Other women have ran for president...
W.... what?
Great, prior to reading that I was merely sad. Now I want to hang myself.
A made it to "a deficient sisterhood" before I had to give up. Women are not all members of a worldwide organization who should agree with each other on absolutely everything, and women criticizing Hillary is not a sign of "female rivalry," you pathetic mockery of a journalist.
Sometimes I think MSNBC publishes this shit to make up for Chris Matthews being a misogynist dick.
Steam | Twitter
I just don't see how any of that proves anything else...
And I think that the appropriate term when referring to Hillary is "snizz"
Yeah, but only 3 of them had sex with Bill Clinton.
She needs on average a 37-point win in the remaining states to tie Obama on pledged delegates. Before the PA primary she needed on average a 28 point win.
I'm guessing the media is refusing to admit she's a goner because they get to provide more coverage of the nail-biting primary race and that they don't want to appear "biased" against Clinton.
"Do women want to see Hillary fail?"
it burns us
The article should really have gone on to proclaim that all those who oppose Clinton are elitists and factonistas. As it is, the article didn't mention education even once
This is periphery, really, but it's the current source of disappointment. I like Obama because he understands technology in a way most boomers don't, because of his tendency to listen to experts instead of yes-men, because of his tuition credit/community service proposal, and his ability to say what needs to be said even though he knows the media and his opponents will probably spin it.
I like him because he appeals to basic human decency. Republican or democrat, we mostly want the same things. People want to eat some fuckin' dinner and have some fuckin' money. This country needs a man with a granite sack and legs of log. A man that slaps people who are talking.
Sorry, I slipped into Achewood quotes there at the end. But really, Obama realizes that if you were to strip the Rs and Ds from people, they'd see that we can get a lot done together. Hillary just isn't a uniter - look what she's doing to her own party.
And, of course, no one will call them on this. As misogynistic as Matthews portrays himself at times, we need a Buchanan level person to offset this nonsense.
Rachel Maddow might have righteous indignation. I hope.
God, 'our country needs and deserves the chance for female leadership,' ey? What part of nuking Iran and freezing me out of buying a home for the next 5 years+ is female? Hell, what part of that is leadership?
The same part that fostered the idea that George Bush was a great leader or that David Petraeus is an all knowing Oracle about Iraq and should be listened to no matter how retarded what he says objectively is.
Alternately: sure, woo female leadership; just not stupid leadership.
I was downloading podcasts when I saw it in the frame. There is still hope.
XBL Gametag: mailarde
Screen Digest LOL3RZZ
This is not the Random Shit That Kinda-Sorta Has To Do With Politics But Not Really thread.
Obama: 50
Clinton: 42 (up 2 from yesterday)
I imagine we'll see them meet again.
My Backloggery
chair to Creation and then suplex the Void.
Nobody will win this. Nobody will drop out, nobody will pick up enough delegates to clinch the nomination. This is GOING to go to the convention.
I figure riding the media wave she'll get above him again until North Carolina.
It's funny she doesn't even compete in states that look solid for him, and when the polls close they instantly announce he won them, yet that doesnt' get as much play as her lesser victories in places she has distinct advantages. I don't think she erode his Missippi margin, or any of the 11 post super tuesday victories. Where is that in the "come back kid" bullshit?
pleasepaypreacher.net
There's some truth to this. The feminism of the 60s and 70s is a different beast than is feminism today, and self-identified feminists of that era are more likely to identify with what Hillary is pitching and what she represents.
It's not too different from the civil-rights activists of the same era in my view.
Which is why Boomers need to lose their electoral importance asap.
The media is inherently lazy and the Clintons are good for business. Better for the businesses that own the media? Republican policies.
This is not hard to figure out.
Nah, I'm still going to say Indiana or June, depending on how Barack does in the former.
That article being the 'feminism' one.
I really just don't understand how someone that self identifies as a feminist can actually mislabel feminist philosophy that badly. I mean, come on.
From what I understand, feminism was a lot different in the 60s and 70s. Much more bra burning and emasculation.
No, there were a lot of feminists back then who weren't retards and wanted to be treated equally, not extra special.
But there was also a not-insignificant number of idiot-women who were active androgynists. They were the feminist equivalent of the Black Panthers minus the calls to violence (usually).
Well, yeah, but they've had 4 decades since then to sit back and realize just how stupid and wrong they were before typing out that abortion of an article for the Today show. There's no excuse to being that wrong.
This is just reminding me of a friend back in school who had a women's studies elective course. And her teacher was a tenured misandrist pretending not to be. *generic rage*
I think he was talking about Pat.
I agree with moniker though, the majority of feminists were not like that. However, the ideological atmosphere disproportionately represented the radical groups since they got so much more attention.