Caissa, There is no such list (and I am not a Nazi). I am just suggesting that folks consider what oppression the pejoratives they throw out may be based on before they use them. Sterility has been used as an excuse to dump (or kill) wives since time immemorial. I am sure there are a lot of able-ist, homophobic, sexist or racist pejoratives you are already avoiding although they still have currency on the street, precisely because these oppressions still rule the world.
Palin, Mallick, feminism: rabble shock & awe
Fri, 2008-09-26 09:27
#52
Fri, 2008-09-26 09:44
#53
It's interesting that the use of German makes one respond that he is not a Nazi. There is a lot of history to Germany than its 1933-45 period.
Fri, 2008-09-26 09:48
#54
And denial (of one's rhetorical stratagems) is not a river in Egypt.
[ 26 September 2008: Message edited by: martin dufresne ]
Fri, 2008-09-26 10:01
#55
remind
Ghislaine, male politicians get dissed for how they look all the time, currently we see Harpr being mocked for his sweater wearing, Layton gets compared to Stalin because of his mustache, Dion gets ridiculed for his a school boyish look and so on. I could come up many many comments on how males look who are in politics.
Palin's actions are trash, and she should be trashed as a politician, because of her religious policies and actions impacting upon public policies and in a direct way upon [b]only[/b] women. Say nothing of hunting from helicopters, and wanting to drill for oil on the north slope and destroy the cariboo's birthing habitat. And I would say the same about any man doing what she has done, and worse, I would call them misogynist ass hats, at the least, when they made public policies that were harmful to only women.
And intrestingly enough, in respect to the porn star comment, I was flicking through the channels and started watching TMZ (sp?) last night, as they were talking on the street with a well known porn star in the USA and her hair style was exactly, and I mean exactly, like Palin's. It was pretty amusing to see actually, given Mallick's comments.
[ 26 September 2008: Message edited by: remind ]
Fri, 2008-09-26 10:02
#56
Next you'll be accusing me of being in pyramid schemes, Martin.
We won't discuss the strategem of deflecting debate of someone's arguments by objecting to one of their adjectives [img]wink.gif" border="0[/img]
Fri, 2008-09-26 10:51
#57
Your argument was all in the adjectives used,
But I'll concede you the (Godwin) point. [img]tongue.gif" border="0[/img]
Fri, 2008-09-26 13:46
#58
Frustrated Mess
quote:
. "I wanted to meet you for many years," Ms. Palin told Mr. Peres, according to an aide to the president. "The only flag at my office is an Israeli flag," she was quoted as saying."
[url=http://www.nysun.com/national/palin-only-flag-in-my-office-is-israeli/86... new, improved Confederate flag?[/url]
Fri, 2008-09-26 19:32
#59
The CBC Ombudsman [url=http://www.cbc.ca/ombudsman/page/MALLICK-PALIN.pdf]opinion[/url] of Mallick's piece:
quote:
Ms. Mallick is free to draw her own conclusions about Ms. Palin’s appearance, as irrelevant as that might be to her worth as a public official, but a similar sortie against one of her children is, at best, in poor taste. Had Ms. Mallick’s article been labeled “satire,” there might have been scope for such descriptions and conclusions—they have a certain cartoonish tinge—but even the best and most pointed editorial cartoonists have, at some point, run afoul of sensible editorial authority. There is a significant difference between censorship and appropriate editorial oversight. CBC journalists are required to exercise appropriate oversight over material that appears on CBC outlets. Ms. Mallick is entitled to her opinions, and those opinions should not be censored, but those opinions must also be expressed in a manner that meets our Journalistic Standards and Practices. Liberty is not the same as license.
Ms. Mallick has the liberty to hold whatever views she wishes. And the CBC has both the right, and the obligation, to exercise appropriate editorial supervision. Interestingly, had Ms. Mallick’s column been written in the spirit of her note to me, it would still have been pointed and provocative but, with a broader context, would probably not have failed to meet editorial standards.Portions of Ms. Mallick’s column do not meet the standards set out in policy for a point-of-view piece since some of her “facts” are unsupportable. She may, of course, resubmit her column taking account of our editorial standards. The editors are free to, in fact obliged to, exercise appropriate editing standards.
It is not my job to agree or disagree with Ms. Mallick’s opinions or the tone in which they are expressed. She is free to craft them as she chooses.
CBCNews.ca should address its editing standards to ensure that vigorous opinion thrives while ensuring that journalistic and quality standards are met.
Fri, 2008-09-26 19:45
#60
quote:
(...)For instance, many of those who complained claimed that there is no one of an opposite ideological viewpoint readily apparent on the service. Unfortunately, this appears to be true.(...)
No RW voice among CBC pundits? Colour me stunned. [img]rolleyes.gif" border="0[/img]
Sat, 2008-09-27 07:10
#61
remind
I agree martin, and the CBC response actually says not much. And I find it amazing that the right wing as represented by Fox news, and the Ann Coulter sorts feel it can call for the deaths of left wingers, and other assorted actions and nasty beliefs, but those of opposing views on the left must not express negative perceptions about right wingers. They can dish them out but not take them apparently as represented by Greta Va... calling Mallick a pig.
This fact, makes me dislike the right more than what I already do, and I had not thought that possible.
Having said that, I find now that I am of a different mind about some of the words Mallick used, however, it is her viewpoint and she has every right to it.
Sat, 2008-09-27 08:07
#62
quote:
Originally posted by remind:
[b]I agree martin, and the CBC response actually says not much. And I find it amazing that the right wing as represented by Fox news, and the Ann Coulter sorts feel it can call for the deaths of left wingers, and other assorted actions and nasty beliefs, but those of opposing views on the left must not express negative perceptions about right wingers. They can dish them out but not take them apparently as represented by Greta Va... calling Mallick a pig.This fact, makes me dislike the right more than what I already do, and I had not thought that possible.
Having said that, I find now that I am of a different mind about some of the words Mallick used, however, it is her viewpoint and she has every right to it.[/b]
She has every right to her viewpoint - as the ombudsman noted - but not a right to go against the CBC's standards and policies, which the ombudsman clearly stated that she did. Does this mean anything at all other than he issued a statement that few people will read? I doubt it.
Similarily, babblers have every right to their viewpoint, but if they go against the rules here they are banned. Is calling a large percentage of low-income Americans "white trash" and writing that a female politician has the "porn star look" okay on babble?
Apparently.
[ 27 September 2008: Message edited by: Ghislaine ]
Sat, 2008-09-27 08:29
#63
remind
Yes IMV.
Sat, 2008-09-27 08:43
#64
Huh, Ghislaine... [url=http://www.rabble.ca/babble/ultimatebb.php?ubb=get_topic&f=31&t=000711]y... are the one who posted these words on Babble, seventeen days ago...
[ 27 September 2008: Message edited by: martin dufresne ]
Sat, 2008-09-27 08:49
#65
remind
Mallick's column was at Rabble.
And yes, I believe Rabble has every right to carry such a column and they should continue to post what ever the hell type of coloumn they want..
Sat, 2008-09-27 08:55
#66
Frustrated Mess
quote:
Originally posted by remind:
[b]Mallick's column was at Rabble.And yes, I believe Rabble has every right to carry such a column and they should continue to post what ever the hell type of coloumn they want..[/b]
I couldn't agree more.
Sat, 2008-09-27 08:56
#67
Current CBC hockey analyst Glenn Healy once said a male Ottawa player looked like a porn star. Was he being sexist?
Sat, 2008-09-27 09:07
#68
Was he speaking disparagingly or admiringly? (Those analysts have access to the guys' dressing rooms.)
Sat, 2008-09-27 10:00
#69
quote:
CONCLUSION:
Portions of Ms. Mallick’s column do not meet the standards set out in policy for a point-of-view piece since some of her “facts” are unsupportable. She may, of course, resubmit her column taking account of our editorial standards. The editors are free to, in fact obliged to, exercise appropriate editing standards.
It is not my job to agree or disagree with Ms. Mallick’s opinions or the tone in which they are expressed. She is free to craft them as she chooses.
CBCNews.ca should address its editing standards to ensure that vigorous opinion thrives while ensuring that journalistic and quality standards are met.
Opinion and analysis should be clearly labeled and not lumped together. If an item is meant to be satiric, it should be labeled as such.
CBCNews.ca should have appropriate resources to ensure that a wide range of opinion and analysis is available.
Vince Carlin
The ombudsmen's conclusion is a rather weak defence of the myth of journalistic objectivity rather than a strong condemnation of Mallick failing to meet CBC standards.
Personally I cringe any time someone with the Corporate media uses the term "facts" , these facts are in reality constructed within the context of the dominant narrative, the very narrative that this media itself constructs and maintains. Even understanding this it is a stretch to say that Mallick's assertions are unsupportable. It is unsupportable that a great number of the republican base is "loud, ignorant and proudly unlettered."
In terms of referring to Palin as having a "porn star look" I think the implications are clear. Porn is a massive industry that plays a strong role in the patriarchal construction of female identity it influences both self perceptions and expectations in relation to women's presentation in the world. The expectation is that women present themselves in highly sexualized terms in order to access power and privilege in relation to men. It is hardly unsupportable to acknowledge the existence of such a "porn star look." Palin herself was a contestant in a beauty pagent, the distinction between "beauty queen" and "porn queen' is subtle and can easily be located in the sexist archetypes of the "virgin/whore" dichotomy that is prevalent in the dominant construction of female identity. Palin's presentation of self is important in that expresses an acceptance or at least acquiessence to the dominant patriarchal construction of female identity.
I will repeat that the value of Heather's piece was that it exposed the ugliness beneath the manufactured construction of the republican base as plucky hard-working ordinary folk as opposed to the insular vicious, small minded bigots that they are. The response to the article is telling and graphically illustrates the reality of that mind set of the republican base. I find frightening and disturbing that Heather's personal safety was put at risk in demonstrating these realities.
Sat, 2008-09-27 12:00
#70
quote:
Originally posted by remind:
[b]And I find it amazing that the right wing as represented by Fox news, and the Ann Coulter sorts feel it can call for the deaths of left wingers, and other assorted actions and nasty beliefs, but those of opposing views on the left must not express negative perceptions about right wingers. They can dish them out but not take them apparently as represented by Greta Va... calling Mallick a pig.[/b]
The problem, as should be obvious, is that when the right wingers say it, they're playing to type. When left wingers say stuff like that, they look like hypocrites.
Heather Mallick's column was "at best, puerile", as Vince Carlin said, and totally lacking in journalistic merit. He said:
quote:
[b]Had Ms. Mallick’s article been labeled 'satire,' there might have been scope for such descriptions and conclusions[/b]
I agree with him. This is material fit for a blog, or The Onion, but not an actual news organization with journalistic standards.
There are a lot of liberal, lefty, progressive intelligent people, and even some rightwingers now, attacking Palin in a logical, well-argued manner. Heather Mallick writes satire.
Sat, 2008-09-27 12:49
#71
I say hypocrite because I believe it is totally indefensible to espouse liberal values and then go and call someone trash (as HeatherM herself did in this discussion forum: "She is white, and she is trash"), and then go attack the woman and her family on the basis of their physical appearance.
How can anyone defend that?
[ 27 September 2008: Message edited by: fischerville ]
Sat, 2008-09-27 12:55
#72
M. Spector
quote:
Originally posted by fischerville:
[b]How can anyone defend that?[/b]
You'd be surprised what people can defend during an election campaign.
(I know I am).
Sat, 2008-09-27 13:14
#73
Maysie
quote:
fisherville: The problem, as should be obvious, is that when the right wingers say it, they're playing to type. When left wingers say stuff like that, they look like hypocrites.
I've stayed out of this topic until now for a number of reasons, but I have to respond to this, because I almost fell off my dinosaur, given the ancient and ridiculous argument this is, and so well refuted.
Please excuse the thread drift/rant.
Right wingers should know hypocrisy. They live it, both the leaders and the followers.
"Family values"? Lots of divorces and gay affairs and second marriages, including John McCain (the divorce and the second marriage that is [img]smile.gif" border="0[/img] ).
"Just say no to drugs"? Newt G. is one of many examples. Oh, and Cindy McCain, the heiress and wife of John. Oh, and soon-to-be-former President GWB.
As for the vicious and hateful way that right wingers describe anyone that doesn't agree with them (pick a blog any blog. Pick a network news station, any network news station), they are surely not able to take the [i]mildest[/i] form of critique in the form of Heather's column that, no, wasn't measured and logical and calm. The argument that lefties always have to be sweet and kind and polite, in service of our lefty values is bullshit.
Like, read babble much? [img]smile.gif" border="0[/img]
For the record, I'm generally not a fan of Heather's writing, and didn't like that particular piece myself. Nonetheless, getting vicious hatemail is both typical of right wing internet cowards, and a classic response, to "hatebomb" a woman who they disagree with.
And, what N.R. Kissed said.
Sat, 2008-09-27 13:19
#74
Cueball
Let me get this Mallick makes a major US news network for her dinky little column?
Sat, 2008-09-27 13:25
#75
Ok, so HeatherM got vicious hate mail from the stupids. Get over it. This is not about them or what they wrote. She did not write her article in response to hate mail, she wrote it because Sarah Palin has pouty lips like a porn star, and she hates white trash.
Liberalism is evidently based on intelligent, educated, rational thinking. If you descend to calling your oppnent trash, you might as well be a member of the Sons of Liberty, the unthinking ultra-left-wing rabble that went around lynching moderate conservatives.
Basically, to summarize the two positions, which is more hypocritical: "we're intellectual and forward-thinking, and those guys are trash", or "get out of my face you intellectual trash" ?
Sat, 2008-09-27 13:29
#76
I'm not saying leftists should be polite, i'm saying they should be rational. Heather Mallick's piece was not, in any way shape or form, rational or constructive.
Sat, 2008-09-27 13:35
#77
Maysie
fish, I'm not disagreeing with you re the piece itself, but why can't we apply the same standard to right wingers? Why can't we insist they be rational, coherent and factual before we allow their arguments into the discourse?
I'll tell you why:
...... tumbleweeds .... crickets .....
Creating bandwidth for, oh I don't know, intelligent discourse? I know, I know, I'm a wacky dreamer.
The only ones left will be, who, David Frum? [img]eek.gif" border="0[/img] Anyone else?
Sat, 2008-09-27 13:37
#78
Frustrated Mess
It was a good column. If you don't like it, don't read it.
And as for the CBC and so-called ethical standards, I hear the CBC editorialize in news broadcasts all of the time. There is no objectivity. And then there is the shameless Afghanistan cheerleading.
Sat, 2008-09-27 13:59
#79
Cueball
Well I basically think all the criticism is perfectly valid, but I can't believe the US media is picking up on this dinky little article.
Sat, 2008-09-27 14:03
#80
remind
I agree BCG, that right wingers should be held accountable for what they say, but they aren't, and people act as if they are not capable of it. I say BS.
Moreover, I am sick of the double standard hypocrisy when it comes to expecting people to play by some standard of mythical rules that those on the left are suppposed to play by because we are so much better than that! [img]rolleyes.gif" border="0[/img]
The reason why the right gets away with it is because the "left"s expected to be better than that, and look what happened GWB got in twice, by playing dirty and getting away with it. because the "left" is supposed to be above all that.
Just like the Cons and Liberals up here, they are used to defaming the NDP, and having the NDP rollover. This rolling over has given the appearance that the NDP are gutless and could not make the hard decisions in governing. It's BS of course, but most people do not see it that way.
Personally, if people change the rules, or operate according to different rules, while expecting others to be "nice", cause they are "nice", while planning on fucking them over, I play by my own set too. Until we reach a point in society, where everyone is on the same page rule wise, and are sick to death of dirty politics, then I am going to give as good as what I am getting, or got.
Tolerance does not mean having to tolerate intolerance, or to tolerate getting fucked over.
Sat, 2008-09-27 14:19
#81
Remind says: "No need to think about stuff or know things, this is a time for action! Action i say! Out with the trash."
Gimme a break.
Sat, 2008-09-27 14:20
#82
Cueball
Well, Mallick's comments are offensive and classist. Period.
Sat, 2008-09-27 14:22
#83
Cueball
Did I mention "cheap"?
Sat, 2008-09-27 14:23
#84
Cueball
Regardless its annoying that the MSM has picked up on this and is able to ride it like this. So they are foolish comments as well. Very silly article, not worthy of much discussion.
Sat, 2008-09-27 14:23
#85
quote:
Originally posted by remind:
[b]Tolerance does not mean having to tolerate intolerance, or to tolerate getting fucked over.[/b]
What does tolerance mean then? I think the left should not lower itself to a worse standard just to "compete" with others using dirty tricks, sexist language and classist terminology. Do we want everyone using this level of discourse. I think Fischerville's point was that we expect that level of discourse from the right.
How exactly did Bristol Palin fuck anyone over or show intolerance? And yet Mallick deems her worthy of the label "pram-faced" and discuses her personal relationship and sex life. She is a 17 yr old private citizen and has never had anything to do with any policy and for all we know may end up rebelling against her upbringing and becomign a leftist politician someday.
[ 27 September 2008: Message edited by: Ghislaine ]
Sat, 2008-09-27 14:27
#86
[url=http://www.americanvision.org/articlearchive2008/01-10-08.asp]Is Russia Mentioned in the Bible?[/url]
The article concludes that it is not. But apparently it's never stopped televangelicals from preaching against Russia.
Sat, 2008-09-27 14:31
#87
I also don't get the ombudsmen's statement that these statements would be acceptable if it were "labelled satire" Is that how satire needs to be?
Do we need warning labels:
SATIRE AHEAD MAY CAUSE DISTRESS TO LITERAL THINKERS!!!
isn't satire supposed to be subtle?
Sat, 2008-09-27 14:35
#88
If i was a fence-sitting American voter, and i was trying to decide for myself some issues, like affirmative action, for instance. The rightwingers say that affirmative action is essentially another form of discrimination, against white people. Leftists say that's ok, because whites are unfairly privileged by our culture, so it's only fair to give a chance to other groups. I think to myself "are proponents of affirmative action just a different kind of racist?" Then i read Heather Mallick's article. Damn that's brutal. I guess leftists are racist after all.
Score 1 for the Republicans.
Intolerance will get you nowhere.
Sat, 2008-09-27 14:45
#89
quote:
Originally posted by N.R.KISSED:
[b]I also don't get the ombudsmen's statement that these statements would be acceptable if it were "labelled satire"[/b]
Because there was no journalistic merit to her article. That is what distinguishes a opinion column from satire.
quote:
[b]Policy calls for opinions to be based on fact. Ms. Mallick’s item generally stays in the opinion column but she does offer some flat statements that appear to offer “facts” without any backup.[/b]
Sat, 2008-09-27 14:53
#90
quote:
Because there was no journalistic merit to her article. That is what distinguishes a opinion column from satire
Journalistic merit? The endless stream of corporate media indoctrination has merit? Once again we're into the realm of fantasy of media objectivity and merit.
Sat, 2008-09-27 14:53
#91
remind
quote:
Originally posted by Ghislaine:
[b]What does tolerance mean then? [/b]
It definitley does not mean tolerating intolerance, that is a gimick those on the right would like those on the left to play by.
For example, I do not have to tolerate your intolerence and butting into other people's private business and Charter of Rights, rights.
quote:
[b]I think the left should not lower itself to a worse standard just to "compete" with others using dirty tricks, sexist language and classist terminology.[/b]
Mallick's words were NOTHING in compare to what the right has to say about those on the left, nor indeed were they a lower standard than those who would seek to impose their personal opinions and beliefs upon other's Rights. Nor did I say using dirty tricks, there are other ways of circumventing those who utilize dirty tricks.
quote:
[b]Do we want everyone using this level of discourse. [/b]
No one said a word about everyone we are talking and a journalist here. However, I am not opposed to nasty discourse when the situation warrants it. Why are you letting the right, get away with it? As you are by thinking yourself superior and above it all, and indeed IMV, you are being emminently classist by doing so.
quote:
[b]I think Fischerville's point was that we expect that level of discourse from the right. [/b]
We shouldn't!
quote:
[b]How exactly did Bristol Palin fuck anyone over or show intolerance? And yet Mallick deems her worthy of the label "pram-faced" [/b]
Do you really NOT get that "pram faced" = baby faced?
quote:
[b]and discuses her personal relationship and sex life. [/b]
NO, she actually discussed Palin's views in respect to her actions towards her daughter, she did not actually discuss Bristol at all, other than by infering perhaps she was a viictim of her mother's mindless nonsense.
quote:
[b]She is a 17 yr old private citizen and has never had anything to do with any policy and for all we know may end up rebelling against her upbringing and becomign a leftist politician someday.[/b]
Point? Politicians kids and their actions get discussed all the fucking time, get over it, it comes with the territory of being a politicians kid. If politicans are worried about their children's actions being observed and discussed then they should not be in politics. Not that Mallick in any way got personal about who Bristol is, nor did she cast disparaging remarks upon her, as she did not.
Moreover, if Bristol is old enough to have a baby and be a mom, she is certainly old enough to have her personal and sex life discussed in the public arena, as that is where HER mother put her. No other politician's children are sacred so why should she be?
Sat, 2008-09-27 14:54
#92
Cueball
quote:
Originally posted by fischerville:
[b]If i was a fence-sitting American voter, and i was trying to decide for myself some issues, like affirmative action, for instance. The rightwingers say that affirmative action is essentially another form of discrimination, against white people. Leftists say that's ok, because whites are unfairly privileged by our culture, so it's only fair to give a chance to other groups. I think to myself "are proponents of affirmative action just a different kind of racist?" Then i read Heather Mallick's article. Damn that's brutal. I guess leftists are racist after all.Score 1 for the Republicans.
Intolerance will get you nowhere.[/b]
When was the last time an American presidential candidate used the phrase "affirmative action"? Please remind me, if you remember.
Sat, 2008-09-27 15:02
#93
remind
quote:
Originally posted by N.R.KISSED:
[b]Journalistic merit? The endless stream of corporate media indoctrination has merit? Once again we're into the realm of fantasy of media objectivity and merit.[/b]
Exactly, good point the hypocrisy is astounding!
Sat, 2008-09-27 15:02
#94
quote:
If i was a fence-sitting American voter, and i was trying to decide for myself some issues, like affirmative action, for instance.
So are you likely to fantasize that you were a "fence-sitting American voter" whose thoughts would somehow disagree with the rhetorical point your attempting to make?
[ 27 September 2008: Message edited by: N.R.KISSED ]
Sat, 2008-09-27 15:28
#95
Polly B
quote:
1. pram face:girl who is a little rough around the edges and wouldn't look at all out of place at 14 years of age pushing a newborn through a council estate.
from urban dictionary.com
I agree, bringing Bristol into it and insulting a 17 year old girl was unfair and mean spirited.
Sat, 2008-09-27 15:38
#96
remind
I didn't know that was the definition, I took Mallick's comment to mean baby faced, as she is definitely not worn around the edges.
Bristol Palin stopped being a girl the minute she adopted adult responsibilities.
The Kennedy family's children have always been targeted, so were the Bush twins and their cousins, as well as the Trudeau boys, and Ben Mulroney. I see no difference here.
Sat, 2008-09-27 15:45
#97
quote:
Originally posted by remind:
[b] Do you really NOT get that "pram faced" = baby faced?[/b]
It absolutely does not mean any such thing. Pramfaced = Breeder. Think an 18-year-old mexican immigrant holding a baby in each hand and living in and affordable housing unit, and you have a basic idea of what pramface means.
[url=http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2003/aug/10/socialexclusion.advertisi... it in the Guardian.[/url]
[ 27 September 2008: Message edited by: fischerville ]
[ 27 September 2008: Message edited by: fischerville ]
Sat, 2008-09-27 15:51
#98
quote:
Originally posted by remind:
[b]The Kennedy family's children have always been targeted, so were the Bush twins and their cousins, as well as the Trudeau boys, and Ben Mulroney. I see no difference here.[/b]
Ok, so people get upset at George W. for having Iraqis waterboarded. But George W. says "well, that's nothing compared to what they're doing. they're cutting heads off with butcher knives! compared to them we're CIVILISED, DAMMIT!" Why is he wrong? Because he's a hypocrite.
The United States invades countries ostensibly for liberty and all that rot, and everybody hates them because they're hypocrites. It doesn't matter that the Sunnis and Shiites are filming themselves performing executions, because they're not pretending to be principled.
You jettison your principles, it's checkmate.
Sat, 2008-09-27 16:10
#99
quote:
Originally posted by N.R.KISSED:
[b]Journalistic merit? The endless stream of corporate media indoctrination has merit? Once again we're into the realm of fantasy of media objectivity and merit.[/b]
Fantasy Schmantasy. Geez people, it's Debate 101.
Let's test something here. Which of the three sentences below don't contain a gaping logical fallacy:
1. "Sarah Palin looks like a porn star, and her supporters are trash to boot"
2. "Sarah Palin should not be the vp candidate because she has no foreign policy experience -- despite her juvenile assertions to the contrary -- and her anti-science views are diametrically opposed to rational thinking"
3. "Quick study or not, she doesn’t know enough about economics and foreign policy to make Americans comfortable with a President Palin should conditions warrant her promotion"
[url=http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=MDZiMDhjYTU1NmI5Y2MwZjg2MWNiMWMyYTU..., even the conservatives are making more sense than Heather Mallick.[/url]
Sat, 2008-09-27 16:12
#100
remind
Well, colour me shocked, [img]redface.gif" border="0[/img] I really thought Mallick was using another term for baby-faced, having never heard the term before. Thanks for the info, it certainly puts a different light onto Mallick's words then, if that is what she meant...
fischerville, having said that, I do not accept your analogy to head chopping and invading a country.
Sat, 2008-09-27 16:21
#101
quote:
Originally posted by remind:
[b]fischerville, having said that, I do not accept your analogy to head chopping and invading a country.[/b]
Fair enough. It just irritates me to no end when people defend the indefensible by saying "well, that's nothing compared to what so-and-so did". Pretty juvenile. It's like kids, you know... "he hit me first".