OT: 2008 Elections/Politics thread, Part 3

Welcome to the Digital Sportspage forum.

Moderators: Bill_Abner, ScoopBrady

Locked

Who are you planning to vote for?

McCain / Palin (R)
15
30%
Obama / Biden (D)
22
44%
Still Undecided, but leaning Rep.
5
10%
Still Undecided, but leaning Dem.
4
8%
Undecided - Could go either way
1
2%
Not going to vote
2
4%
Libertarian (L)
1
2%
 
Total votes: 50

User avatar
RobVarak
DSP-Funk All-Star
DSP-Funk All-Star
Posts: 8684
Joined: Thu Apr 24, 2003 3:00 am
Location: Naperville, IL

Post by RobVarak »

Brando70 wrote:
Rob, you ignorant slut.

There is no way women would have advanced as far as they have without political activism. Feminism sparked that activism, getting women to fight in the courts, in statehouses, in Congress, in the workplace, and at home. The entire history of women's rights in the 20th century is one of pushing against barriers, not waiting for those barriers to magically disappear at the whim of men.

Despite the progress women have made, reproduction remains a touchy issue is because it's an issue of control, wrapped in the veil of morality. It's not an issue for men because there are no laws against us buying rubbers, getting a vasectamy, buying ED medication, or abdicating our roles as fathers as long as we pay child support. The law does not attempt to control our right to have sex and reproduce.

That is not the case with women. We're talking about a person's personal freedom to control their body, and yet you want to act like it's some single issue like gun rights or immigration. How can someone be free if they face the possibility of going to drug store and being told they can't get their birth control pills? How does that not infantilize women? Once you've done that, it's not hard to start making all kinds of justifications to keep women from getting equal treatment as men.

There are a number of Republicans who don't support that view. But Palin was brought in specifically to win the conservative base over to McCain, and that wing of the party supports things like a pharmacist's right to refuse filling medications based on religious beliefs or for health insurance to cover birth control medication. It's hard to believe that sort of thing could happen in 21st century America. And you think feminism is outdated?
I understand that the issue is of enormous important and involves a what may be a fundamental right. And again. I don't think that there is anything wrong with mobilizing on either side of the abortion debate. And I certainly don't want to get into the merits of that debate, as the merits are actually irrelevent to my point.

There are women on both sides of the issue, and there always have been. I fail to see how any group can claim to be advancing the interests of women when women themselves are not nearly unanimous with respect to their position on this issue. What they are advancing is their own interest or the interest of the party with which they are affiliated.

If I were a woman on either side of the debate, I would bristle at the presumption that only one side of any issue is the "woman's side." Many women do not even see the debate in the terms you have framed it, so why should they be "represented" by people who do.

If women must be represented by pro-choice leaders (who decide themselves what is "pro-woman"), those pro-life women are beyond marginalized...they're basically sociopaths, or not even women at all.

Did I suggest that the barriers which women faced "magically disappeared?" I think quite to the contrary:
Since WWII, women have progressed through the collective efforts of millions of women who each did their individual part to demonstrate their value and capacity, not through the selfish and short-sighted efforts of a few politically motivated demagogues. Women have torn down the barriers which once confronted them by demonstrating that given the freedom to do so they can manage the entirety of a life, professional, family and personal without special consideration from government or the law.
As for what they've gained through "political activism," I think we may assess that quite differently. At the risk of repeating myself, the real social change which they have made and from which they have benefitted has been the result of their own hard work. They've won their independence one strong woman at a time, not through any grand romantic political activism.

People suggest that fighting for their reproductive rights in and of itself was the cause that helped them progress this far. I beg to differ, and I think the suggestion is a bit reductive, making women seem burdened by their reproductive and gender roles.
XBL Gamertag: RobVarak

"Ok I'm an elitist, but I have a healthy respect for people who don't measure up." --Aaron Sorkin
User avatar
Jackdog
DSP-Funk All-Star
DSP-Funk All-Star
Posts: 4006
Joined: Mon Aug 19, 2002 3:00 am
Location: Ft Collins, CO

Post by Jackdog »

Teal wrote:
JackDog wrote:
Teal wrote:And, in RING #3!

http://wcbstv.com/politics/paterson.mcc ... 13646.html
:lol: This is just getting better and better...
Wonder why Carol and I didn't get that memo??
Is it because you're a couple of, *ahem*..."community organizers"? :lol:

Sorry-hell, that was SO racist of me...
:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:
[img]http://www.ideaspot.net/flags/Big_10/small/mich-sm.gif[/img][img]http://www.ideaspot.net/nfl/NFC_North/small/pack1-sm.gif[/img]
User avatar
Brando70
DSP-Funk All-Star
DSP-Funk All-Star
Posts: 7597
Joined: Tue Jun 03, 2003 3:00 am
Location: In Transition, IL

Post by Brando70 »

RobVarak wrote:As for what they've gained through "political activism," I think we may assess that quite differently. At the risk of repeating myself, the real social change which they have made and from which they have benefitted has been the result of their own hard work. They've won their independence one strong woman at a time, not through any grand romantic political activism.
Dare I ask who has the "grand romantic" vision here? Are you running for office with "one strong woman at a time?" No wonder you're voting McCain, you sound just like him.

The sacrifices of ordinary women, the ones in the trenches pushing for equality, are of course important. But those changes did not occur, or did not last, without political and legal change. The pattern tended to be that women would push against one inequality, face a barrier, and have to resort to legal or political action to remove that barrier. That's been the case with everything from issues such as sexual harassment and birth control to maternity leave and health care. The women who pushed for those changes were feminists -- in a broad sense of the word, but feminists nonetheless. Without feminism, women would not have made the advances they did. It's like arguing that African Americans would have gotten ahead without the Civil Rights Movement.
User avatar
RobVarak
DSP-Funk All-Star
DSP-Funk All-Star
Posts: 8684
Joined: Thu Apr 24, 2003 3:00 am
Location: Naperville, IL

Post by RobVarak »

Brando70 wrote:It's like arguing that African Americans would have gotten ahead without the Civil Rights Movement.
If this analogy ends up with the equation as Al Sharpton = Gloria Steinem then we're on the same page. :)
XBL Gamertag: RobVarak

"Ok I'm an elitist, but I have a healthy respect for people who don't measure up." --Aaron Sorkin
User avatar
FatPitcher
DSP-Funk All-Star
DSP-Funk All-Star
Posts: 1068
Joined: Thu Aug 01, 2002 3:00 am

Post by FatPitcher »

RobVarak wrote:
Brando70 wrote:It's like arguing that African Americans would have gotten ahead without the Civil Rights Movement.
If this analogy ends up with the equation as Al Sharpton = Gloria Steinem then we're on the same page. :)
Zing.

I liked Camille Paglia's recent column on the subject. I think it is (was?) linked on drudge. She's someone I disagree with (mistaking Obama's fresh face/voice for fresh ideas) but who at least is intellectually honest.
User avatar
webdanzer
DSP-Funk All-Star
DSP-Funk All-Star
Posts: 4795
Joined: Mon Feb 17, 2003 4:00 am
Location: New Jersey

Post by webdanzer »

FatPitcher wrote:
RobVarak wrote:
Brando70 wrote:It's like arguing that African Americans would have gotten ahead without the Civil Rights Movement.
If this analogy ends up with the equation as Al Sharpton = Gloria Steinem then we're on the same page. :)
Zing.

I liked Camille Paglia's recent column on the subject. I think it is (was?) linked on drudge. She's someone I disagree with (mistaking Obama's fresh face/voice for fresh ideas) but who at least is intellectually honest.
Here's the link:

http://www.salon.com/opinion/paglia/200 ... index.html

Definitely speaks to the debated subject.
User avatar
Slumberland
DSP-Funk All-Star
DSP-Funk All-Star
Posts: 3574
Joined: Tue Oct 28, 2003 4:00 am

Post by Slumberland »

Really interesting column, that.
User avatar
Teal
DSP-Funk All-Star
DSP-Funk All-Star
Posts: 8620
Joined: Mon Aug 19, 2002 3:00 am

Post by Teal »

Bottom Line:

Steinem is a complete dumbass. Paglia, not so much...
www.trailheadoutfitters.org
trailheadoutfitters.wordpress.com
facebook.com/Intentional.Fatherhood
User avatar
RobVarak
DSP-Funk All-Star
DSP-Funk All-Star
Posts: 8684
Joined: Thu Apr 24, 2003 3:00 am
Location: Naperville, IL

Post by RobVarak »

I was pulling quotes from it until I realized about half way through that she obviously read my work here and pulled a Joe Biden. She'll be hearing from my counsel.

Oh well, off to another day of serving as Camille Paglia's muse. :)

Seriously, I'm not surprised. Paglia has been in a decades-long culture war against the same feminist intelligentsia that was the target of my ire, and which is represented by the series of writings to which I have linked. And she's already villainized by the establishment left for a variety of thought crimes, including not buying into their theory of global warming. And she's had a number of verbal face-offs with Steinem and her gang.

Edit--

I can't resist a few of the parallels myself, if only because I'm amazed at how closely we agree despite the fact that I haven't read any Paglia at length in about 10 years. LOL

Me:
Women would have done as well or better without the Steinems of the world ignoring the social reality of womens' improving lives and creating elaborate persecution myths
Paglia:
As a dissident feminist, I have been arguing since my arrival on the scene nearly 20 years ago that young American women aspiring to political power should be studying military history rather than taking women's studies courses, with their rote agenda of never-ending grievances.
Me:

Code: Select all

If women must be represented by pro-choice leaders (who decide themselves what is "pro-woman"), those pro-life women are beyond marginalized...they're basically sociopaths, or not even women at all. 
Women in the US have a varied and multi-faceted political agenda, while the dinosaurs of the feminist movement still cling pathetically to the rapidly-disintegrating life raft of reproductive rights scare tactics.
Paglia:
I have criticized the way that abortion became the obsessive idée fixe of the post-1960s women's movement -- leading to feminists' McCarthyite tactics in pitting Anita Hill with her flimsy charges against conservative Clarence Thomas (admittedly not the most qualified candidate possible) during his nomination hearings for the Supreme Court. Similarly, Bill Clinton's support for abortion rights gave him a free pass among leading feminists for his serial exploitation of women -- an abusive pattern that would scream misogyny to any neutral observer.
And I made a comparison about 2 iterations of this thread back about feminists and black leaders abandoning the real needs of their constituencies in favor of slavish devotion to the Democrats, and said that the Religious Right has done the same.
Now that's the Sarah Palin brand of can-do, no-excuses, moose-hunting feminism -- a world away from the whining, sniping, wearily ironic mode of the establishment feminism represented by Gloria Steinem, a Hillary Clinton supporter whose shameless Democratic partisanship over the past four decades has severely limited American feminism and not allowed it to become the big tent it can and should be. Sarah Palin, if her reputation survives the punishing next two months, may be breaking down those barriers. Feminism, which should be about equal rights and equal opportunity, should not be a closed club requiring an ideological litmus test for membership.




----
Last edited by RobVarak on Wed Sep 10, 2008 10:31 am, edited 1 time in total.
XBL Gamertag: RobVarak

"Ok I'm an elitist, but I have a healthy respect for people who don't measure up." --Aaron Sorkin
User avatar
JackB1
DSP-Funk All-Star
DSP-Funk All-Star
Posts: 8124
Joined: Fri Nov 21, 2003 4:00 am

Post by JackB1 »

XXXIV wrote:
JackB1 wrote:
For once I agree with you Rob. Meaningless comment. Let's get back to the issues...
Aerial wolf hunting ? :P
Sorry 34, but cruelty to animals is a huge issue for me and hopefully for some others. A lot more than some comment about lipstick and a pig.
User avatar
Slumberland
DSP-Funk All-Star
DSP-Funk All-Star
Posts: 3574
Joined: Tue Oct 28, 2003 4:00 am

Post by Slumberland »

The Obama campaign is now in the unfortunate position of no longer steering the discussion and instead having to convince everyone why the opposition should be discounted... Frank Grimes, basically.

Grimes: Can you believe that guy? He's in his office making a
pathetic attempt to look professional.
Carl: Hey, what do you got against Homer, anyway?
Grimes: Are you kidding? Does this whole plant have some disease
where you can't see that he's an idiot? Look here. [points
out a chart tacked to the bulletin board] Accidents have
doubled every year since he became safety inspector, and, and
meltdowns have tripled. Has he been fired? No. Has he been
disciplined? No, no.
Lenny: Eh, everybody makes mistakes. That's why they put erasers on
pencils.
Carl: Yeah, Homer's okay. Give him a break.
Grimes: No! Homer is not okay. And I want everyone in this plant to
realize it. I would die a happy man if I could prove to you
that Homer Simpson has the intelligence of a six-year-old.
Lenny: [to Carl] So, how are you doing?
[annoyed, Grimes leaves]
User avatar
JackB1
DSP-Funk All-Star
DSP-Funk All-Star
Posts: 8124
Joined: Fri Nov 21, 2003 4:00 am

Post by JackB1 »

This campaign is getting nuttier by the minute....

Now the Rep's are saying that Biden took a shot at Palin's down syndrome kid because he said something like "If they cared about helping special needs kids, they would support stem cell research".

And yesterday , with the "lipstick on a pig" thing???

Why don't the candidates tell us what they plan on doing about the economy, instead of over analyzing each other's comments to death. When are we as a country going to get past this crap?
User avatar
XXXIV
DSP-Funk All-Star
DSP-Funk All-Star
Posts: 17337
Joined: Mon Dec 01, 2003 4:00 am
Location: United States

Post by XXXIV »

JackB1 wrote:
XXXIV wrote:
JackB1 wrote:
For once I agree with you Rob. Meaningless comment. Let's get back to the issues...
Aerial wolf hunting ? :P
Sorry 34, but cruelty to animals is a huge issue for me and hopefully for some others. A lot more than some comment about lipstick and a pig.
Excuse me but isnt putting lipstick on a pig cruelty to animals?

Image
User avatar
JackB1
DSP-Funk All-Star
DSP-Funk All-Star
Posts: 8124
Joined: Fri Nov 21, 2003 4:00 am

Post by JackB1 »

XXXIV wrote:
Excuse me but isnt putting lipstick on a pig cruelty to animals?

Image
:D
User avatar
Teal
DSP-Funk All-Star
DSP-Funk All-Star
Posts: 8620
Joined: Mon Aug 19, 2002 3:00 am

Post by Teal »

It may or may not have been what Obama intended, but it was what the crowd took from it, for sure-and why, more than anything else, he stepped in it:

<embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/FPd4yk0x-eg&hl=en&fs=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed>

I'm not saying that he MEANT to say this about Palin, but he should understand that perception IS reality in things like this. In that vein, his 'spare me the phony outrage' comment this morning in response to it isn't going to help. Some people ARE outraged, even if he didn't intend what they took from it (I don't think he did-he can't be that stupid), and so, when some folks think he meant it the way they took it, all he did was to throw gas on the fire by belittling people's perceptions.

So I'm arguing this as stupid, not because he meant it, but because it was taken that way.
www.trailheadoutfitters.org
trailheadoutfitters.wordpress.com
facebook.com/Intentional.Fatherhood
User avatar
webdanzer
DSP-Funk All-Star
DSP-Funk All-Star
Posts: 4795
Joined: Mon Feb 17, 2003 4:00 am
Location: New Jersey

Post by webdanzer »

IMO, the way he delivered the line (with the pause) is some evidence he meant for the connection to be made. However, a denial is plausible because the statement is a fairly common aphorism. Sneaky, but I would have paused just a bit less before finishing the thought.
User avatar
Teal
DSP-Funk All-Star
DSP-Funk All-Star
Posts: 8620
Joined: Mon Aug 19, 2002 3:00 am

Post by Teal »

What is with the word 'policy'? Obama says 'polic-EHH'...sounds like Jesse Jackson... :lol:
www.trailheadoutfitters.org
trailheadoutfitters.wordpress.com
facebook.com/Intentional.Fatherhood
User avatar
Brando70
DSP-Funk All-Star
DSP-Funk All-Star
Posts: 7597
Joined: Tue Jun 03, 2003 3:00 am
Location: In Transition, IL

Post by Brando70 »

Seriously. I have read dozens of things in this forum about the pussification of America by political correctness, and people are going to get their panties in a wad about that? He's clearly talking about McCain, and used an expression that just happened to use a word Palin used. That is as much as a stretch as thinking "community activist" is code for "The sheriff is near."

Camille Paglia would tell you guys to untuck your genitals from between your legs and quit acting like a bunch of female victims. :P

Wading through Paglia's essay (and I thought Hitchens could overwrite), she makes a good point about Palin's frontier feminism. (Wait, what's that word? Oh, right, feminism.) I think those qualities of Palin, combined with her attractiveness, make her very appealing, even to people who have nothing in common with her politically. Paglia's analysis is quite apt here.

But that last page about abortion rights is a complete, cranium-f***in mess. She contradicted herself on a whole host of points. She also pats herself on the back for her maverick assertion that abortion should be legal even if it is wrong, and that this flies in the face of a liberal elite who won't confront the ethics of it. Well John f***in Kerry more or less said the same thing in 2004. Congrats, Camille, you're in fine intellectual company.
User avatar
Brando70
DSP-Funk All-Star
DSP-Funk All-Star
Posts: 7597
Joined: Tue Jun 03, 2003 3:00 am
Location: In Transition, IL

Post by Brando70 »

Incidentally, I actually dreamed last night that I was posting in the politics thread here. Scared me far more than John McCain's smile. I am worried I'm going to start dreaming that JackDog is my father and Rob is my mother. I don't make the kind of money to pay for those therapy bills. :D
User avatar
matthewk
DSP-Funk All-Star
DSP-Funk All-Star
Posts: 3324
Joined: Mon Apr 07, 2003 3:00 am
Location: Wisconsin
Contact:

Post by matthewk »

JackB1 wrote:This campaign is getting nuttier by the minute....

Now the Rep's are saying that Biden took a shot at Palin's down syndrome kid because he said something like "If they cared about helping special needs kids, they would support stem cell research".

And yesterday , with the "lipstick on a pig" thing???

Why don't the candidates tell us what they plan on doing about the economy, instead of over analyzing each other's comments to death. When are we as a country going to get past this crap?
Why don't Biden and Obama stop wasting their breath trying to discredit McCain and Palin and do exactly what you're asking for?
-Matt
User avatar
JackB1
DSP-Funk All-Star
DSP-Funk All-Star
Posts: 8124
Joined: Fri Nov 21, 2003 4:00 am

Post by JackB1 »

Teal wrote:What is with the word 'policy'? Obama says 'polic-EHH'...sounds like Jesse Jackson... :lol:
But can he say "nuclear"

or is it "nuc-u-lar" ? :wink:
User avatar
JackB1
DSP-Funk All-Star
DSP-Funk All-Star
Posts: 8124
Joined: Fri Nov 21, 2003 4:00 am

Post by JackB1 »

matthewk wrote:
JackB1 wrote:This campaign is getting nuttier by the minute....

Now the Rep's are saying that Biden took a shot at Palin's down syndrome kid because he said something like "If they cared about helping special needs kids, they would support stem cell research".

And yesterday , with the "lipstick on a pig" thing???

Why don't the candidates tell us what they plan on doing about the economy, instead of over analyzing each other's comments to death. When are we as a country going to get past this crap?
Why don't Biden and Obama stop wasting their breath trying to discredit McCain and Palin and do exactly what you're asking for?
I would love for both parties to do that. Problem is, most of this stuff is brought up by their respective campaign people, not by them themselves.
All this crap detracts from what is really important. I really hate it.
I wish they would pass a law saying that during campaining, the nominees are only allowed to discuss themselves. They can save this stuff for the debates.
User avatar
Teal
DSP-Funk All-Star
DSP-Funk All-Star
Posts: 8620
Joined: Mon Aug 19, 2002 3:00 am

Post by Teal »

Brando70 wrote:Seriously. I have read dozens of things in this forum about the pussification of America by political correctness, and people are going to get their panties in a wad about that? He's clearly talking about McCain, and used an expression that just happened to use a word Palin used. That is as much as a stretch as thinking "community activist" is code for "The sheriff is near."

Camille Paglia would tell you guys to untuck your genitals from between your legs and quit acting like a bunch of female victims. :P
I'm not saying that I think it's a huge deal; what I AM saying is that it's become a pretty big deal out there. He stepped in it. Did he mean to? I don't know. I wouldn't think so, if he had a shred of sense. But he did, nonetheless. If he was 'clearly talking about McCain', then it oughta be clear to all those people behind him who pretty clearly seem to think he's talking about Palin.
www.trailheadoutfitters.org
trailheadoutfitters.wordpress.com
facebook.com/Intentional.Fatherhood
User avatar
JackB1
DSP-Funk All-Star
DSP-Funk All-Star
Posts: 8124
Joined: Fri Nov 21, 2003 4:00 am

Post by JackB1 »

Now you can get your very own Sara Palin doll. This is for real.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstop ... soars.html

And No PK...it's not lifesize!!! :)
User avatar
RobVarak
DSP-Funk All-Star
DSP-Funk All-Star
Posts: 8684
Joined: Thu Apr 24, 2003 3:00 am
Location: Naperville, IL

Post by RobVarak »

I'm not the only one who's making this comparison, but to me this seems a lot like the "macaca" kerfuffle. The actual content and intent have been overwhelmed by what the crowd and subsequent viewers seem to have taken away.

I didn't think that was bad and I don't think this was bad either. I have spent a large part of my life trafficking in insensitive racial and ethnic humor, and the word macaca carries with it no such undertones. :) But ultimately that didn't matter, and neither, it appears does this.

To me there were two much more troubling statements yesterday by people associated with Obama. The first was Biden's stupid statement about Palin's election being a step backward for women. The other was Bill Ayers (yep he's back!) with this "explanation" of his previous explanation for not renouncing his terrorist past:

http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalpunch ... emote.html

You can put all the lipstick you want on a terrorist, but it's still a terrorist.
XBL Gamertag: RobVarak

"Ok I'm an elitist, but I have a healthy respect for people who don't measure up." --Aaron Sorkin
Locked