Since Hillary seems to be very interested in her opponents plagarizing what their friends say you'd think she wouldn't do the same thing. I think the following is somewhat interesting for her to have done. You'd think that a woman grasping at so many straws in the never ending effort to discredit an opponent would do a little bit better to not be doing something she is accusing another of doing. Source
This photo raises an interesting question, something I addressed in TNZ last night before the shutdown. Why is it some men judge EVERY woman, first and foremost, by her looks? I can't stand Hillary. But I also can't help noticing that the first thing every male who dislikes her feels compelled to address is her looks. As if qualifying for a beauty contest were some sort of criterion for running for office. You guys don't address the male candidates' looks until after you've commented on his policies, if at all. Yeah, Obama's "too young", McCain's "too old," but to you that's secondary to "he's gonna take away our guns" or "he's not conservative enough." So tell me. If Hillary looked like Lindsay Lohan or Michelle Malkin or the babe of your choice, would you dislike her less?
Unfortunately all women are judged on their looks, but the harshest critics will be other women, not men. I myself couldn't care less what someone looks like if I feel they are going to represent my ideals. All is fair in love and war and this is a campaign after all I think Hilary is fair game for such attacks as she came off as a spoiled bitch early after her husbands election. Most first ladies just raise money for charities and such, but she wanted to muck around with healthcare and she had no right what so ever, she was not elected to any office at the time and should have kept her nose out of such business.
But here I am as a woman saying I'd disagree with Hillary as a politician no matter who did her hair or designed her wardrobe. So I guess I'm the exception. Just found it interesting that it's the first thing the menfolk jump on. It's appropriate if you're voting for a Playboy Bunny or Sports Illustrated's swimsuit edition, but unless you're going to judge male candidates by their looks, it shouldn't be a factor. JMO. YMMV.
Besides, people are simple in that regard and do vote for the best looking candidate in their opinion for the most part. People would vote for a good looking woman for president just so they could see a pretty face on the news.
No, that's not it at all. You're making the mistake of assuming that men who are commenting on Hillary's looks are doing so because that's a standard by which they judge most or all women when in fact, cutting on Hillary's looks is just the handiest stick with which to beat her (it's a cheap shot, sure, but it's very accessible in a pinch). The other possibility, of course, is just a wee bit more sublime. If we're to be honest, back in the day, Hillary really wasn't all that bad to look at. What pooches it for most people (and inspires photoshop jobs like the one above) is when she opens her mouth. What makes Hillary ugly isn't her face or her physique; it's the fact that she's an emasculating, Machiavellian-class harridan who makes Dracula look like a tea-totaler. It wouldn't matter to me if she looked like Audrey Hepburn, if it was Hillary on the inside I'd still keep a silver cross and vial of holy water by my bed.
Yes, because some women of the 1960's totally voted for JFK for his policies and not for his looks. This has been going on for quite a long time.
Valid argument vis-à-vis you vis-à-vis Hillary. And I only brought it up vis-à-vis Hillary because she is not my candidate. But if you observe the male reaction to women as public figures as a whole, the looks thing is the first criterion. Always. Turn it around. What's the standard reaction to Michelle Malkin? "Yeah, she's shrill, but I'd do her in a NY minute." Or "Who said I'm interested in what she *thinks*?" And, Nick, to be fair, JFK was the first Presidential candidate, probably since Jefferson, who *could* fairly be judged on his looks. And while there's no way of assessing it at this point, I'd guess that the majority of the voters who dismissed Nixon because of his shifty eyes and five-o'clock shadow were male.
Bah. Michelle Malkin is clever and hot. Anne Coulter, now... she's not bad, but she wouldn't do it for me were it not for her wit and charm.
Damn! As long as you look at nothing but the face, that might be the best picture Rodham Clinton ever took. The photoshoped package is worthy though.
That's the best reply that Team B. Hussein's got to Hillary's plagiarism charge? Those two passages have a few words in common while Osama Obama stole whole sentences from the speeches of Deval Patrick.
[mclaughlin]WRONG![/mclaughlin] You know..... if judging on appearance is your hang up, so be it. It's one of those unfair characterizations that you are so reluctant to cop to. That's just like saying , "all blondes are stupid". And before you shoot back with one of your glib responses, as it is with the worst affiliates of the blonde persuasion who, though few in number, end up being incorrectly representative of all or most blondes, it is the very same thing with men: the most vocal faction is the "I'd hit it" minority, and, unfortunately. in arguments like this with folks like you, all or most men are judged by that token. (sorry I couldn't work in a "vis-à-vis " since you're obviously all hot and bothered about that idiom this evening.) I'm sorry that you see the preponderance of men as a big herd of Archie Bunkers. As much as it will inconvenience you, the majority of males in this country are neither the weepy, gun-shy, over-sensitive men that the 90's would have had them be, nor are they the knuckle-dragging cave-dwellers seeking to drag females behind some rock for a little of the old in-and-out as you would, apparently, like to characterize them. We've come a long way, baby.
Keep it going, guys. You're proving my point with every post. You're also letting KIRK know his topic is of so little interest you're compelled to ignore it and go off on your own. Double-plus good.
Psst.... Just because you ignored the pertinent arguments (as usual) doesn't mean that the jibes which are returned quid pro quo for yours change the fact that you weren't able to answer, or that everyone here doesn't realize it.
"Pertinent arguments" are usually supportable by data. "Because I said so" is not in and of itself a pertinent argument. Also, someone was shouting "WRONG!" at the start of that post, and it made it very difficult to hear the rest. Please feel free to elaborate.
Well, Hillary did criticize Barack Obama in the Austin debate for lifting excerpts from Deval Patrick, and then turn around and at the end of that same debate lift material from John Edwards from earlier this year and from her husband in 1992. Now I don't have much problem with any of it, but if you're going to criticize someone for it, it's best not to be doing it yourself.
OK...I get it. You can dish it out, but you can't take it. You've got rules that you expect everyone else to live up to, but exempt yourself from abiding to in an equally strict manner. But, since, as usual, in your patented passive-aggressive style, you're being opaque, I'll give you the condescension you're begging for. You made a "universal statement" about how men will ALWAYS behave the same way in this situation. I pointed it out. Now, either you're really dumb enough to believe that men always behave as you've dictated (a "because I said so" contention if I ever heard one) or, you are enaged in hyperbole to make a point which doesn't exist, but one which you hope will be accepted as gospel because Wordforge Laureate Margaret Wander Bonanno thus spake. Either way, here on a planet that's not fictional, your tactics, and your argument, suck. Clear enough for ya?
^I'm merely pointing out that trolls are a dime a dozen in these parts. Your reputation as an intelligent poster precedes you, so I expected better. But you can't seem to resist the snide little digs and the WORDS IN CAPITAL LETTERS, both of which imply "I'm Peter Octavian, and I'm talking down to a moron." I have never been able to understand why posters on message boards consider that a legitimate opener for intelligent discourse. You're going to have to do better.
Again....let me clarify. I'm not going to inject "snide little digs", uppercase or otherwise, unless I'm returning the volley. If you think that you shouldn't have what you're shoveling thrown back at you, you're thinking wrong. Quid pro quo, garamet. As for anyone, anywhere, having the kind of esteem which you mentioned in your opening sentence, I have serious doubt, but even more so that you'd have it. For someone who, at one point in history, intimated that a biting little piece of satire I once wrote might be actionable, your qualified veneration is an awfully big pill to swallow. Since, yet despite my fondness for many of the Wordforge community, I don't have anyone to impress, I really don't have to do any better than I am presently. Are you sure that's not a mirror you should look into more closely?
^Well, unless you thought my initial post was aimed exclusively at Peter Octavian, or you're presuming to speak for all men everywhere, your outrage is disproportionate.
