(10-16-2017 12:10 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(10-16-2017 11:49 AM)JustAnotherAustinOwl Wrote:  So I retract my original statement and will say that over the past 10-15 years the Republican party has been taken over by those who want to turn back the clock on equality and inclusiveness and even basic civil rights.

IOW, the deplorables.

LOL, if you insist.

Whataboutism has a longer history as a term than I had realized.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whataboutism

I think the archetypal example in current American politics is "what about black on black crime?" For example, in a discussion about police brutality or racial targeting, saying "yeah, but what about black on black crime?"

What about it? At best it's a non-sequitur and red-herring.

(10-16-2017 01:17 PM)JustAnotherAustinOwl Wrote:  

(10-16-2017 12:10 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(10-16-2017 11:49 AM)JustAnotherAustinOwl Wrote:  So I retract my original statement and will say that over the past 10-15 years the Republican party has been taken over by those who want to turn back the clock on equality and inclusiveness and even basic civil rights.

IOW, the deplorables.

LOL, if you insist.

I think your attitude and Hillary's are just prime examples of demonizing the other side based on stereotypes.

(10-16-2017 11:49 AM)JustAnotherAustinOwl Wrote:  So I retract my original statement and will say that over the past 10-15 years the Republican party has been taken over by those who want to turn back the clock on equality and inclusiveness and even basic civil rights.

If I were a democrat, that's exactly the talking point narrative that I would be pushing because of its obvious political utility. Useful, yes, but IMO neither fair nor accurate.

(10-16-2017 05:23 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(10-16-2017 11:49 AM)JustAnotherAustinOwl Wrote:  So I retract my original statement and will say that over the past 10-15 years the Republican party has been taken over by those who want to turn back the clock on equality and inclusiveness and even basic civil rights.

If I were a democrat, that's exactly the talking point narrative that I would be pushing because of its obvious political utility. Useful, yes, but IMO neither fair nor accurate.

Given the results of the 2016 election, it might be questionable as to the overall utility at this point.

The more you tell people who would consider to vote an R that they are evil pointy eared racist asshats for even considering that, the more you inure them to the charge --- to the point they *just* might tell the people that keep this chant up that they can f-ck off for good.

That *just* might happen....

(10-15-2017 06:30 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(10-15-2017 04:38 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  So what you're saying is that once you go left of center you're a full fledged communist?

Nope. I said nothing of the sort. I said left of center left, not left of center.
Put it this way, when the massive redistribution stuff starts, that's where one moves from center left to relying on socialist/communist collectivist principles. Wherever that occurs is where I draw the line.

Just to clarify. I don't consider you to be a socialist/communist. I think you are one of many well-meaning and intelligent people I know who sincerely believe that the left's ideas are the way to go.

The democrat leadership, on the other hand, does seem to me to be very much on the collectivist/redistributionist band wagon. With respect to those issues, I would consider the likes of Obama, Hillary, Pelosi, Reid, Schumer, Sanders, and Biden to be socialist/communist leaning, at minimum. My wish would be for people like you to see that you are being led on a merry chase that ends badly, but so far I have not made much headway.

(10-16-2017 07:38 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(10-16-2017 05:23 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(10-16-2017 11:49 AM)JustAnotherAustinOwl Wrote:  So I retract my original statement and will say that over the past 10-15 years the Republican party has been taken over by those who want to turn back the clock on equality and inclusiveness and even basic civil rights.

If I were a democrat, that's exactly the talking point narrative that I would be pushing because of its obvious political utility. Useful, yes, but IMO neither fair nor accurate.

Given the results of the 2016 election, it might be questionable as to the overall utility at this point.

The more you tell people who would consider to vote an R that they are evil pointy eared racist asshats for even considering that, the more you inure them to the charge --- to the point they *just* might tell the people that keep this chant up that they can f-ck off for good.

That *just* might happen....

...again.

JAAO’s statement is so out in left field, it is hard to believe it was written by a Rice grad.
But it does illustrate the attitude that so many on the left have that they are morally and ethically superior to those who different opinions. If one considers that it should take a majority to “take over” a party, then it becomes clear where Hillary got her figure of “half” . Half of Trump voters, half of the Republican Party, all the same. This is the attitude that elected Trump, Not the Russians, not the emails, not Comet, not misogyny. Just the moral snootiness of the elite. The bitter clingers in the flyover states took notice.

Personally, I do not know one single person who wants to turn back the clock on equality, inclusiveness, or civil rights. What a myth he has swallowed.

(10-16-2017 09:55 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(10-16-2017 07:38 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(10-16-2017 05:23 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(10-16-2017 11:49 AM)JustAnotherAustinOwl Wrote:  So I retract my original statement and will say that over the past 10-15 years the Republican party has been taken over by those who want to turn back the clock on equality and inclusiveness and even basic civil rights.

If I were a democrat, that's exactly the talking point narrative that I would be pushing because of its obvious political utility. Useful, yes, but IMO neither fair nor accurate.

Given the results of the 2016 election, it might be questionable as to the overall utility at this point.

The more you tell people who would consider to vote an R that they are evil pointy eared racist asshats for even considering that, the more you inure them to the charge --- to the point they *just* might tell the people that keep this chant up that they can f-ck off for good.

That *just* might happen....

...again.

JAAO’s statement is so out in left field, it is hard to believe it was written by a Rice grad.

But not right field; that is solely and exclusively populated by the pointy white hat people, the Harvey Weinsteins, and the Westboro church, all of which are the authors and drivers of serious mainstream conservative thought.

"Left" field --- heh..... awesome entendre there OO. <clap>

(10-17-2017 10:52 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(10-16-2017 09:55 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(10-16-2017 07:38 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(10-16-2017 05:23 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(10-16-2017 11:49 AM)JustAnotherAustinOwl Wrote:  So I retract my original statement and will say that over the past 10-15 years the Republican party has been taken over by those who want to turn back the clock on equality and inclusiveness and even basic civil rights.

If I were a democrat, that's exactly the talking point narrative that I would be pushing because of its obvious political utility. Useful, yes, but IMO neither fair nor accurate.

Given the results of the 2016 election, it might be questionable as to the overall utility at this point.

The more you tell people who would consider to vote an R that they are evil pointy eared racist asshats for even considering that, the more you inure them to the charge --- to the point they *just* might tell the people that keep this chant up that they can f-ck off for good.

That *just* might happen....

...again.

JAAO’s statement is so out in left field, it is hard to believe it was written by a Rice grad.

But not right field; that is solely and exclusively populated by the pointy white people, the Harvey Weinsteins, and the Westboro church, all of which are the authors and drivers of serious mainstream conservative thought.

"Left" field --- heh..... awesome entendre there OO. <clap>

Weinstein is in left field also. In fact, he is an all-star left fielder. Weinstein is just who the left thinks the right are. A deplorable.

(10-17-2017 12:03 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(10-17-2017 10:52 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(10-16-2017 09:55 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(10-16-2017 07:38 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(10-16-2017 05:23 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  If I were a democrat, that's exactly the talking point narrative that I would be pushing because of its obvious political utility. Useful, yes, but IMO neither fair nor accurate.

Given the results of the 2016 election, it might be questionable as to the overall utility at this point.

The more you tell people who would consider to vote an R that they are evil pointy eared racist asshats for even considering that, the more you inure them to the charge --- to the point they *just* might tell the people that keep this chant up that they can f-ck off for good.

That *just* might happen....

...again.

JAAO’s statement is so out in left field, it is hard to believe it was written by a Rice grad.

But not right field; that is solely and exclusively populated by the pointy white people, the Harvey Weinsteins, and the Westboro church, all of which are the authors and drivers of serious mainstream conservative thought.

"Left" field --- heh..... awesome entendre there OO. <clap>

Weinstein is in left field also. In fact, he is an all-star left fielder. Weinstein is just who the left thinks the right are. A deplorable.

Glass houses, stones, Trump, grabbing.

I wouldn’t reach too far with Weinstein when Trump was elected and the Republican representative for POTUS. Shunning disgusting men who prey on women is not a Leg a conservative can stand on right now.

(10-17-2017 12:35 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(10-17-2017 12:03 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(10-17-2017 10:52 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(10-16-2017 09:55 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(10-16-2017 07:38 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  Given the results of the 2016 election, it might be questionable as to the overall utility at this point.

The more you tell people who would consider to vote an R that they are evil pointy eared racist asshats for even considering that, the more you inure them to the charge --- to the point they *just* might tell the people that keep this chant up that they can f-ck off for good.

That *just* might happen....

...again.

JAAO’s statement is so out in left field, it is hard to believe it was written by a Rice grad.

But not right field; that is solely and exclusively populated by the pointy white people, the Harvey Weinsteins, and the Westboro church, all of which are the authors and drivers of serious mainstream conservative thought.

"Left" field --- heh..... awesome entendre there OO. <clap>

Weinstein is in left field also. In fact, he is an all-star left fielder. Weinstein is just who the left thinks the right are. A deplorable.

Glass houses, stones, Trump, grabbing.

I wouldn’t reach too far with Weinstein when Trump was elected and the Republican representative for POTUS. Shunning disgusting men who prey on women is not a Leg a conservative can stand on right now.

I dont think anyone here (let alone anyone on the right, or any Republican, or any libertarian-type leaner) has advocated any of Trump's actions or comments on the matter, or even come close to supporting them.

Just pointing out the comments from one side that the right is the party of misogynists truly is in fact much of the "Glass houses, stones"-type comment made above. (and not even touching Hillary's record re: Bill's conduct)

Seems the 'party of misogynists' moniker can run quite the wide gamut these days given Trump, Weiner, and Weinstein.

Just food for thought.

All of these examples noted above (in fact any of them taken alone, for that matter) make the clown-show about the comment of "binders of women" seem fundamentally laughable in retrospect.

(10-17-2017 01:15 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(10-17-2017 12:35 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(10-17-2017 12:03 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(10-17-2017 10:52 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(10-16-2017 09:55 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  ...again.

JAAO’s statement is so out in left field, it is hard to believe it was written by a Rice grad.

But not right field; that is solely and exclusively populated by the pointy white people, the Harvey Weinsteins, and the Westboro church, all of which are the authors and drivers of serious mainstream conservative thought.

"Left" field --- heh..... awesome entendre there OO. <clap>

Weinstein is in left field also. In fact, he is an all-star left fielder. Weinstein is just who the left thinks the right are. A deplorable.

Glass houses, stones, Trump, grabbing.

I wouldn’t reach too far with Weinstein when Trump was elected and the Republican representative for POTUS. Shunning disgusting men who prey on women is not a Leg a conservative can stand on right now.

I dont think anyone here has advocated any of Trump's actions or comments on the matter, or even come close to supporting them.

Just pointing out the comments from one side of the right being the party of misogynists (to some) is in fact much of the "Glass houses, stones"-type comment made above.

Seems the 'party of misogynists' moniker can run quite the wide gamut these days given Trump, Weiner, and Weinstein.

Just food for thought.

Any and all of these make the clown-show about the comment made about "binders of women" seem fundamentally laughable in retrospect.

The binder full of women comment was laughable in a funny sort of way, and should have stayed at that in 2012, instead of trying to be used as a way to paint Romney as sexist. I can't remember if it was before or after the Cheeto in Chief was elected, but I actually referenced that situation to some friends when I was arguing that perhaps the fact that an ACTUAL sexist was representing the Republican party would cause a shift in tone for subsequent politicians because the boy had, in essence, finally cried wolf. And in all liklihood, the over-use of those accusations for people who just happened to be less precise with their language, is what caused that.

And to your comment about the moniker running the gamut, that's largely true for almost all types of crappy people, from corrupt people (see Menedez) to skeezeballs (see Weiner).

I do have two thoughts on this. I think that it starts to become a reach when either side tries to indict the other based on the actions of its financial donors, unless their are explicit allegations of the political party being aware of, and supporting the scrupulous behavior. And I also think the most important issue when say a politician or a supporter is found to have done something awful, is how the party responds. Do they embrace or defend that person? Or do they stand up for what is right and moral, and disavow the politician or supporter?

(10-17-2017 12:35 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(10-17-2017 12:03 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(10-17-2017 10:52 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(10-16-2017 09:55 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(10-16-2017 07:38 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  Given the results of the 2016 election, it might be questionable as to the overall utility at this point.

The more you tell people who would consider to vote an R that they are evil pointy eared racist asshats for even considering that, the more you inure them to the charge --- to the point they *just* might tell the people that keep this chant up that they can f-ck off for good.

That *just* might happen....

...again.

JAAO’s statement is so out in left field, it is hard to believe it was written by a Rice grad.

But not right field; that is solely and exclusively populated by the pointy white people, the Harvey Weinsteins, and the Westboro church, all of which are the authors and drivers of serious mainstream conservative thought.

"Left" field --- heh..... awesome entendre there OO. <clap>

Weinstein is in left field also. In fact, he is an all-star left fielder. Weinstein is just who the left thinks the right are. A deplorable.

Glass houses, stones, Trump, grabbing.

I wouldn’t reach too far with Weinstein when Trump was elected and the Republican representative for POTUS. Shunning disgusting men who prey on women is not a Leg a conservative can stand on right now.

Whataboutism.

(10-17-2017 01:55 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(10-17-2017 12:35 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(10-17-2017 12:03 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(10-17-2017 10:52 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(10-16-2017 09:55 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  ...again.

JAAO’s statement is so out in left field, it is hard to believe it was written by a Rice grad.

But not right field; that is solely and exclusively populated by the pointy white people, the Harvey Weinsteins, and the Westboro church, all of which are the authors and drivers of serious mainstream conservative thought.

"Left" field --- heh..... awesome entendre there OO. <clap>

Weinstein is in left field also. In fact, he is an all-star left fielder. Weinstein is just who the left thinks the right are. A deplorable.

Glass houses, stones, Trump, grabbing.

I wouldn’t reach too far with Weinstein when Trump was elected and the Republican representative for POTUS. Shunning disgusting men who prey on women is not a Leg a conservative can stand on right now.

Whataboutism.

Not really. What Weinstein is accused of doing is disgusting, and it's almost certain that the accusations have merit and are true. I wasn't trying to deflect any criticisms of his actions.

I was commenting on the connection that was being made to a broader political party. I was commenting on the irony of trying to tie him to the broader party he supported BECAUSE of his support, when the opposite party elected someone who has been accused of doing the exact same thing.

(10-17-2017 01:29 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  I do have two thoughts on this. I think that it starts to become a reach when either side tries to indict the other based on the actions of its financial donors, unless their are explicit allegations of the political party being aware of, and supporting the scrupulous behavior. And I also think the most important issue when say a politician or a supporter is found to have done something awful, is how the party responds. Do they embrace or defend that person? Or do they stand up for what is right and moral, and disavow the politician or supporter?

I think Weinstein's behavior was an open secret, i.e., not a secret at all. You can't do that much, that long, to that many people without it being known. Yet, nothing until it became public. I think it was wink, wink, up to then.

(10-17-2017 01:29 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(10-17-2017 01:15 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(10-17-2017 12:35 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(10-17-2017 12:03 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(10-17-2017 10:52 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  But not right field; that is solely and exclusively populated by the pointy white people, the Harvey Weinsteins, and the Westboro church, all of which are the authors and drivers of serious mainstream conservative thought.

"Left" field --- heh..... awesome entendre there OO. <clap>

Weinstein is in left field also. In fact, he is an all-star left fielder. Weinstein is just who the left thinks the right are. A deplorable.

Glass houses, stones, Trump, grabbing.

I wouldn’t reach too far with Weinstein when Trump was elected and the Republican representative for POTUS. Shunning disgusting men who prey on women is not a Leg a conservative can stand on right now.

I dont think anyone here has advocated any of Trump's actions or comments on the matter, or even come close to supporting them.

Just pointing out the comments from one side of the right being the party of misogynists (to some) is in fact much of the "Glass houses, stones"-type comment made above.

Seems the 'party of misogynists' moniker can run quite the wide gamut these days given Trump, Weiner, and Weinstein.

Just food for thought.

Any and all of these make the clown-show about the comment made about "binders of women" seem fundamentally laughable in retrospect.

And in all liklihood, the over-use of those accusations for people who just happened to be less precise with their language, is what caused that.

Given the widespread (pretty much unfettered) use of the SMRH (shorthand for sexist, misogynist, racist, homophobic, as I am really tired of the effort to spell all of them out in the future) 'planks', do you *really* think it is a simple case of "less precis[ion]" by those speakers?

If so, the left sure seems to have a serious need for actual English instruction to remedy that lack of "precis[ion]". Pretty much across the entire population thereof.

Lad, just call it what it is. It *is* intentional. It *is* used to create an emotional response for the base constituencies. Please don't short sell it as "wow, what poor unintentional choice of words and actions".

Republicans and the right have their intentional, emotive, get an automatic knee-jerk reaction subjects and statements, without any doubt.

But, we are all fairly non-stupid people here. I don't think the lack of "precis[ion]" really has anything to do with this, nor the Republican/rightist phrases that are used in a correspondingly shallow fashion.

I will agree with the "overuse" portion of your statement; not necessarily the soft-landing "less precise" portion though.

(10-17-2017 02:01 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(10-17-2017 01:29 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  I do have two thoughts on this. I think that it starts to become a reach when either side tries to indict the other based on the actions of its financial donors, unless their are explicit allegations of the political party being aware of, and supporting the scrupulous behavior. And I also think the most important issue when say a politician or a supporter is found to have done something awful, is how the party responds. Do they embrace or defend that person? Or do they stand up for what is right and moral, and disavow the politician or supporter?

I think Weinstein's behavior was an open secret, i.e., not a secret at all. You can't do that much, that long, to that many people without it being known. Yet, nothing until it became public. I think it was wink, wink, up to then.

It appears as if it was a widespread non-secret in Hollywood (you can find countless videos of celebrities referencing it as far as I think 2005 with Courtney Love). I also think there are other stars in Hollywood who likely have similarly disgusting open secrets but have not been officially outed. That's a huge problem for Hollywood, but i fail to see how that is an indictment of a political party, unless there is evidence to suggest that major politicians in the DNC are that familiar with the inner workings of Hollywood.

It's just how I don't think O'Reilly or Ailes are indictments of the RNC or conservatives.

(10-17-2017 02:03 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(10-17-2017 01:29 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(10-17-2017 01:15 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(10-17-2017 12:35 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(10-17-2017 12:03 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  Weinstein is in left field also. In fact, he is an all-star left fielder. Weinstein is just who the left thinks the right are. A deplorable.

Glass houses, stones, Trump, grabbing.

I wouldn’t reach too far with Weinstein when Trump was elected and the Republican representative for POTUS. Shunning disgusting men who prey on women is not a Leg a conservative can stand on right now.

I dont think anyone here has advocated any of Trump's actions or comments on the matter, or even come close to supporting them.

Just pointing out the comments from one side of the right being the party of misogynists (to some) is in fact much of the "Glass houses, stones"-type comment made above.

Seems the 'party of misogynists' moniker can run quite the wide gamut these days given Trump, Weiner, and Weinstein.

Just food for thought.

Any and all of these make the clown-show about the comment made about "binders of women" seem fundamentally laughable in retrospect.

And in all liklihood, the over-use of those accusations for people who just happened to be less precise with their language, is what caused that.

Given the widespread (pretty much unfettered) use of the SMRH (shorthand for sexist, misogynist, racist, homophobic, as I am really tired of the effort to spell all of them out in the future) 'planks', do you *really* think it is a simple case of "less precis[ion]" by those speakers?

If so, the left sure seems to have a serious need for actual English instruction to remedy that lack of "precis[ion]". Pretty much across the entire population thereof.

Lad, just call it what it is. It *is* intentional. It *is* used to create an emotional response for the base constituencies. Please don't short sell it as "wow, what poor unintentional choice of words and actions".

Republicans and the right have their intentional, emotive, get an automatic knee-jerk reaction subjects and statements, without any doubt.

But, we are all fairly non-stupid people here. I don't think the lack of "precis[ion]" really has anything to do with this, nor the Republican/rightist phrases that are used in a correspondingly shallow fashion.

I will agree with the "overuse" portion of your statement; not necessarily the soft-landing "less precise" portion though.

I think you're misunderstanding what I am saying. I'm not saying those on the left did not intentionally pounce on Romney, they were very intentional about it and took advantage of an imprecise statement by Romney.

I suggested that the "binders full of women" was a poorly chosen phrase and not precise. And it was his imprecision that was pounced upon as being sexist, when it wasn't. Had he been more precise and said that they intentionally sought out high performing women and they had binders full of resumes from highly qualified women, the people screaming sexist probably wouldn't have.

That's not saying that Romney was wrong and should be blamed, I'm saying that he was imprecise with his language (he was) and people tried to take advantage of that and suggest it was something more than just an imprecise description of the situation.

It's the same thing as the "You didn't build that" quote that riles up the right.

(10-17-2017 02:16 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(10-17-2017 02:03 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(10-17-2017 01:29 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(10-17-2017 01:15 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(10-17-2017 12:35 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  Glass houses, stones, Trump, grabbing.

I wouldn’t reach too far with Weinstein when Trump was elected and the Republican representative for POTUS. Shunning disgusting men who prey on women is not a Leg a conservative can stand on right now.

I dont think anyone here has advocated any of Trump's actions or comments on the matter, or even come close to supporting them.

Just pointing out the comments from one side of the right being the party of misogynists (to some) is in fact much of the "Glass houses, stones"-type comment made above.

Seems the 'party of misogynists' moniker can run quite the wide gamut these days given Trump, Weiner, and Weinstein.

Just food for thought.

Any and all of these make the clown-show about the comment made about "binders of women" seem fundamentally laughable in retrospect.

And in all liklihood, the over-use of those accusations for people who just happened to be less precise with their language, is what caused that.

Given the widespread (pretty much unfettered) use of the SMRH (shorthand for sexist, misogynist, racist, homophobic, as I am really tired of the effort to spell all of them out in the future) 'planks', do you *really* think it is a simple case of "less precis[ion]" by those speakers?

If so, the left sure seems to have a serious need for actual English instruction to remedy that lack of "precis[ion]". Pretty much across the entire population thereof.

Lad, just call it what it is. It *is* intentional. It *is* used to create an emotional response for the base constituencies. Please don't short sell it as "wow, what poor unintentional choice of words and actions".

Republicans and the right have their intentional, emotive, get an automatic knee-jerk reaction subjects and statements, without any doubt.

But, we are all fairly non-stupid people here. I don't think the lack of "precis[ion]" really has anything to do with this, nor the Republican/rightist phrases that are used in a correspondingly shallow fashion.

I will agree with the "overuse" portion of your statement; not necessarily the soft-landing "less precise" portion though.

I think you're misunderstanding what I am saying. I'm not saying those on the left did not intentionally pounce on Romney, they were very intentional about it and took advantage of an imprecise statement by Romney.

I suggested that the "binders full of women" was a poorly chosen phrase and not precise. And it was his imprecision that was pounced upon as being sexist, when it wasn't. Had he been more precise and said that they intentionally sought out high performing women and they had binders full of resumes from highly qualified women, the people screaming sexist probably wouldn't have.

That's not saying that Romney was wrong and should be blamed, I'm saying that he was imprecise with his language (he was) and people tried to take advantage of that and suggest it was something more than just an imprecise description of the situation.

It's the same thing as the "You didn't build that" quote that riles up the right.

The problem with your "whatabout" regarding the "You didnt build that" is that the term was intended as a point to promote a goal, the goal (his re-election) being an ostensibly collectivist-centric one.

While used in isolation and out of context, the ultimate goal of that quote was pretty much in line with the out-of context and therefore exaggerated by omission use of of that portion. The ultimate goal of that quote was to feed the idea that 'successful businesses and businessmen' need to pony up more for the collective; I don't think there is anything more collectivist than the call for that. When you read the entire passage that contains that snippet, that is precisely what is being implicitly advocated through the entire passage.

I seriously do not believe that Romney's was being a 'misogynist-whisperer' or speaking through his 'inner-M' voice when making his comments. On the other hand, it is very plausible to believe that Obama would definitely channel an 'inner community organizer' voice (wait, I forgot, that was the good proportion of his professional career; and the *entirety* of his career prior to elective office....)

(10-17-2017 03:26 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(10-17-2017 02:16 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(10-17-2017 02:03 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(10-17-2017 01:29 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(10-17-2017 01:15 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  I dont think anyone here has advocated any of Trump's actions or comments on the matter, or even come close to supporting them.

Just pointing out the comments from one side of the right being the party of misogynists (to some) is in fact much of the "Glass houses, stones"-type comment made above.

Seems the 'party of misogynists' moniker can run quite the wide gamut these days given Trump, Weiner, and Weinstein.

Just food for thought.

Any and all of these make the clown-show about the comment made about "binders of women" seem fundamentally laughable in retrospect.

And in all liklihood, the over-use of those accusations for people who just happened to be less precise with their language, is what caused that.

Given the widespread (pretty much unfettered) use of the SMRH (shorthand for sexist, misogynist, racist, homophobic, as I am really tired of the effort to spell all of them out in the future) 'planks', do you *really* think it is a simple case of "less precis[ion]" by those speakers?

If so, the left sure seems to have a serious need for actual English instruction to remedy that lack of "precis[ion]". Pretty much across the entire population thereof.

Lad, just call it what it is. It *is* intentional. It *is* used to create an emotional response for the base constituencies. Please don't short sell it as "wow, what poor unintentional choice of words and actions".

Republicans and the right have their intentional, emotive, get an automatic knee-jerk reaction subjects and statements, without any doubt.

But, we are all fairly non-stupid people here. I don't think the lack of "precis[ion]" really has anything to do with this, nor the Republican/rightist phrases that are used in a correspondingly shallow fashion.

I will agree with the "overuse" portion of your statement; not necessarily the soft-landing "less precise" portion though.

I think you're misunderstanding what I am saying. I'm not saying those on the left did not intentionally pounce on Romney, they were very intentional about it and took advantage of an imprecise statement by Romney.

I suggested that the "binders full of women" was a poorly chosen phrase and not precise. And it was his imprecision that was pounced upon as being sexist, when it wasn't. Had he been more precise and said that they intentionally sought out high performing women and they had binders full of resumes from highly qualified women, the people screaming sexist probably wouldn't have.

That's not saying that Romney was wrong and should be blamed, I'm saying that he was imprecise with his language (he was) and people tried to take advantage of that and suggest it was something more than just an imprecise description of the situation.

It's the same thing as the "You didn't build that" quote that riles up the right.

The problem with your "whatabout" regarding the "You didnt build that" is that the term was intended as a point to promote a goal, the goal (his re-election) being an ostensibly collectivist-centric one.

While used in isolation and out of context, the ultimate goal of that quote was pretty much in line with the out-of context and therefore exaggerated by omission use of of that portion. The ultimate goal of that quote was to feed the idea that 'successful businesses and businessmen' need to pony up more for the collective; I don't think there is anything more collectivist than the call for that. When you read the entire passage that contains that snippet, that is precisely what is being implicitly advocated through the entire passage.

I seriously do not believe that Romney's was being a 'misogynist-whisperer' or speaking through his 'inner-M' voice when making his comments. On the other hand, it is very plausible to believe that Obama would definitely channel an 'inner community organizer' voice (wait, I forgot, that was the good proportion of his professional career; and the *entirety* of his career prior to elective office....)

Since when did a comparison get turned into a whataboutism? A whataboutism implies you're trying to distract from a salient point by trying to point out the hypocrisy of your opponent.

I was not trying to point out a hypocrisy or defend the left's response to the binder o' women, I was trying to provide an example of a similar situation where an opposing political group pounced on a singular phrase that was poorly chosen or worded, and tried to do that for political gain. I understand your quibble with the comparison, but it is not a whataboutism.

You also are misrepresenting the response to Obama. He was not attacked about his line by people saying he was advocating for a collectivist approach. He was attacked specifically for suggesting people did not build or earn their business through their own hard work, that the government was the only reason people were successful, etc., and that specifically was not what he was suggesting. He was suggesting something closer to what you mention, that through a collective society, everyone has benefited from the work of someone else and that we should continue investing in that idea. But that was not what many criticized him for, he was attacked by people saying that Just look at this Fox article, which says: "President Obama, in a speech to supporters, suggested business owners owe their success to government investment in infrastructure and other projects..." http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2012/07/...alone.html

Also, you didn't actually respond to the thrust of my comment , and instead latched on to what you felt was a mediocre comparison, and I'm not sure why. It seems like we both agree that the reaction to the binders o' women was bad and that the response was wholly inappropriate because it was not an example of Romney being sexist - it was just a poorly constructed sentence he used to try and explain how he was actively trying to seek out qualified women candidates to fill roles in his company. I hope that those on the left stop crying wolf, like they did then.