PDA

View Full Version : the democratic primary race



TheOldMark
05-08-2008, 10:48 AM
The democratic primary in my eyes is a prime example of how gullible and manipulable the American people are.
I’ll state right now, I hate Hilary Clinton, I always have, and I have good reasons. She has been involved in so many scandals, acts shady whenever she gets heat, is completely dishonest, no sense of sincerity whatsoever, and is a flip-flopper. She’s vicious. She spins. She detracts, lies, plots, and plays the dirtiest tricks I’ve ever seen any politician pull. She will do anything to get her nomination, she would have Barack murdered if she could get away with it.There is no way to predict what she’d do as president, what problems she causes, who she will actually help out and who she will support. I’ll get into specifics in a minute.

On the other hand, we don’t know much about Obama. But I do know this- he has never been directly involved in a serious scandal, as far as I know has never been caught lying, and as far as I can tell he cares less about his political career and more about whats best for America than any other candidate Ive seen in my lifetime.
Now aside from being a raging feminist B-word, there is no way any reasonable person could trust Hillary. She has never been honest, ever. Her and her “husband” had a bunch of shady deals, they bought land in Chelsea’s name so they wouldn’t have to pay taxes on it (I forget what they called that scandal), and when Bill left office- she was all about trying to dodge out of all the scandals Bill caused on his way out. When the Clintons were leaving the whitehouse in 2001, they stole hundreds of items that belonged to the US government. This was a huge deal but quickly brushed off with Bush’s shinanigans. I saw Hilary on TV say “well, after 8 years it was confusing what items belonged to us and what belonged to the government”. OK well, the thing about that is, you stole a painting of John Adams thatd been in the whitehouse since the early 1800s, you stole a coffee table that belonged to TR, and various other items I don’t recall that CLEARLY predate both your lives and you knew exactly who they belonged to. Oh and Bill’s pardons for cash. Disgraceful.
Another thing I hated about the Clintons is that when Bill beat Bush Sr., and took over the whitehouse, one of his first acts in WH policy was banning broccoli and lifting a ban on smoking, as a big FU to the Bushs. Okay, seriously now, Broccoli is really good for you and smoking is terrible for you, I mean, what the fuck??
When GWB started the whole missile defense plan, got funding approved and all that; Hilary, now a Senator, had the balls to go on TV and say “well my husband could never get a missle defense program approved because of all the economic problems that Bush SR left him…” What are you kidding me? Bill had the office for 8 years, and experienced some of the best economic growth in my lifetime. He just never considered a missile defense program. Hilary wont ever take responsibility for her or Bill’s shortcommings. And I guarentee you she will take every opportunity to blame GWB for any and all failures she experiences as president. Oh just wait.
If I haven’t convinced you that Hilary is the root of all evil yet, consider her former aids. Their friends, people that worked for Bill and her, either before or during Bill’s presidency. Most notable now are the superdelagate endorsements. Why do you think so many of their friends, former aids, and coworkers (other public officials I mean) have opted to endorse Obama instead? Many times pledging to Hilary and then turning on her??
Perhaps the best example of former aids turning on the Clintons, is Dick Morris. He worked for the Clintons for 6 or 8 years, I think, as Bill’s top aid. He has got to be the most outspoken critic of Hilary. He is able to predict her every move, every vicious power grabbing tactic. He has written many books on her detailing her evil and is frequently a commentator on Fox News.
Speaking of Fox News, I noticed very recently that people like Bill O’Rielly and Sean Hannity have suddenly become Hilary’s biggest fans, and have been really sticking it to Obama. Keep in mind, if you’ve ever watched them in the last 10 years, they absolutely hate her. This is what I mean by media spin. Theyre all about trashing Obama and supporting Hilary now because they think McCain could only win against Hilary. This is totally wrong, Hilary would beat McCain, Obama probably cant. And I’m willing to bet money on this.
Speaking of betting money, I actually have a $50 bet on the democratic primary. I bet my friend John that Hilary will win the primary. I am so sure that her dirty tricks will pay off. Obviously I hope she looses, and that I loose the bet. So really I’m in a strategic win-win situation.
Hilary cares more about her political career than anything else- including the country’s well-being. She meddled in her husbands work in the early 90s to try to gain some credibility, failed miserably. It wasn’t until Bill admitted to his affair and got impeached that people started talking about her being the next president. She ran with it. She probably should have divorced her cheating womanizing manipulating husband that admitted he lied to her for a two straight years. But she cares more about her political career than the sanctity of marriage. She cares more about herself and her power than she does about American values. She could have easily been Senator of Arkansas, her home state, but instead chose to run in New York, a state she’d probably never been to for more than a day, because it would yeild her more power. She would rather abandon her home state, her fellow Arkansasians and represent people she’d never had any connection with. Tisk tisk on New Yorkers for falling for her tactics. I was very active in that campaign too, even though I was only 16, I handed out Lasio bumper stickers and blogged about it back then as well.
I have never met anyone who openly supported Hilary Clinton, ever. Not in this campaign or the 2000 Senate election. The only support I’ve heard for her is two or three girls that said “I don’t know, I just want a woman President.” I mean I understand and respect your desire to have a female president, I wouldn’t mind one either (I’d totally vote for Oprah), but just like you should vote or not vote for someone based on the color of their skin, you shouldn’t vote for someone because of their sex. I want a female president, but please, anyone but Hilary. We will, in my lifetime I bet, have a female president. A good respectable compassionate honest female President. Hilary is not any of those. You should vote for someone based on their issues, what they’re going to do as President. Hilary both supported the war, voted for it, and then turned on it, all for political gain. This means there is absolutely no way to predict what she will do as President. In fact I’d be she will merely reduce troop levels a bit and call it a day.
If you support Hilary, other than just “I want a female President”, please, do enlighten me, whether publically or privately. I want to understand why you’re ignoring all these negative facts. Help me understand.

OffspringHead
05-08-2008, 03:13 PM
The bottom line is that America is in such a bad spot right now, no one can really be a suitable president. Things like our economy and the war have no solutions presented to us that will work at all.

Obama is black. Now, i'm not racist but there's still a lot of our country who are radical racists and he has good chance of being assassinated. He wants to pull out of Iraq because of the debt and deaths. That's good and all but makes us look like weak just like Vietnam did. And I think he's too young. But i do think that the fact he is persecuted from his wife and pastor is fucking bullshit. If it's not him saying it, then shut the fuck up.

Clinton- Too into herself. Every month or so she looks like shes gonna break down and cry over every little thing. And you know what time of month that is :rolleyes: I'm not a sexist either i just think Clinton is a terrible choice of a president.

McCain- Too bloodthirsty. He'll keep us in Iraq and cost us more and more money. Republicans are too into big business and letting them do what they want and that's not something that the American economy needs right now. We need a president who is gonna try and help our economy.

No matter what, the war is always gonna be a bad issue whether we keep the troops in or out. We look like pussies if we take them out and if we keep them in, it costs us more and more money putting us deeper into national debt.

Sunny
05-08-2008, 04:21 PM
Clinton- Too into herself. Every month or so she looks like shes gonna break down and cry over every little thing. And you know what time of month that is :rolleyes: I'm not a sexist either


that's kinda like saying "i'm not racist, but black people just can't help being lazy".

Rag Doll
05-08-2008, 04:31 PM
in regard to the comment about clinton's menstrual cycle, i think she's past the age where you can even attempt to make that claim.

and i'm not getting to a whole big discussion about the election at the moment because i'm totally fried (5 huge papers due in the past 2 days), but i do not trust obama as far as i could throw him. and i have like no upper arm strength, so that isn't very far.

randman21
05-08-2008, 06:20 PM
Obama is black. Now, i'm not racist but there's still a lot of our country who are radical racists and he has good chance of being assassinated. He wants to pull out of Iraq because of the debt and deaths. That's good and all but makes us look like weak just like Vietnam did.

I don't even pretend to know politics, but I'm pretty sure Vietnam's problem was not looking weak because we pulled out. It was being there in the first place, even more so than this current one. Gosh dern America!

OffspringHead
05-08-2008, 06:58 PM
that's kinda like saying "i'm not racist, but black people just can't help being lazy".

Lmfao. I like you =D But seriously, that was a joke. She really can't hold her emotions which isn't something we want in a leader.

darea
05-09-2008, 05:43 AM
I think that it's weak for somebody to think "we look like pussies if we take them out of the war". I think that people who say that they are weak by not going to war are just weak by saying it.
What people should be proud of would be of solving problems without WAR and without killing, and that would be a way of showing that one is NOT weak, because if one had the power to win without murder would be someone who is really strong. But I guess that just can't be done, as there's always been war, and if there's always war it might just show that everyone is weak.

Now its good to be fighting for something or for someone, but fighting shouldnt always mean killing.
anyway I think it might be cool if Obama was president. I dont really follow whats going on, and Im so sick of our new president in france (and even sicker that his new wife - who I knew as a singer and ex top model, and who used to know my best friend's dad - makes it even worse). But I just saw a short thing on the news of kids saying bad things about Obama. How can people be so sick to make kids say bad things, or just use kids for anything that does not concern them?

Anyway, the idea of seeing a Black president in America seems good. Even if people do try and kill him, I think it will mean a lot if a black man becomes president. Then, there's the idea of the first (and only) woman Prime Minister in Great Britain was a total disaster, so it shows that women PM or Presidents are not always a good idea.

So if the USA had a black president, it would make a change and it would show people that change is possible, and it would give some hope that things could get better.

Even though I think it's very hard for any nation to ever get a president or Prime Minister that they can be happy about. Because the world of politics just seems to be full of sickness and corruption or whatever.

OffspringHead
05-09-2008, 07:47 AM
I think that it's weak for somebody to think "we look like pussies if we take them out of the war". I think that people who say that they are weak by not going to war are just weak by saying it.
What people should be proud of would be of solving problems without WAR and without killing, and that would be a way of showing that one is NOT weak, because if one had the power to win without murder would be someone who is really strong. But I guess that just can't be done, as there's always been war, and if there's always war it might just show that everyone is weak.

Now its good to be fighting for something or for someone, but fighting shouldnt always mean killing.
anyway I think it might be cool if Obama was president. I dont really follow whats going on, and Im so sick of our new president in france (and even sicker that his new wife - who I knew as a singer and ex top model, and who used to know my best friend's dad - makes it even worse). But I just saw a short thing on the news of kids saying bad things about Obama. How can people be so sick to make kids say bad things, or just use kids for anything that does not concern them?

Anyway, the idea of seeing a Black president in America seems good. Even if people do try and kill him, I think it will mean a lot if a black man becomes president. Then, there's the idea of the first (and only) woman Prime Minister in Great Britain was a total disaster, so it shows that women PM or Presidents are not always a good idea.

So if the USA had a black president, it would make a change and it would show people that change is possible, and it would give some hope that things could get better.

Even though I think it's very hard for any nation to ever get a president or Prime Minister that they can be happy about. Because the world of politics just seems to be full of sickness and corruption or whatever.
the only reason we'd look like pussies is because the United States is "the last remaining superpower." We're not allowed to not help a country or quit on a war. Simply because SO many countries rely on us.

And the idea of a black president could really change our country in a good way or a bad way. It can go either way. But Obama is also really young and has no experience.

Vera
05-10-2008, 05:08 AM
the only reason we'd look like pussies is because the United States is "the last remaining superpower." We're not allowed to not help a country or quit on a war. Simply because SO many countries rely on us.
How so? Just curious.

OffspringHead
05-10-2008, 10:25 AM
How so? Just curious.

Look at so many different world problems. We just sent i think it was 400,000,000 dollars to Darfur. I'm completely ok with that except for one thing. Why do WE need to send them our money when we're already in record breaking debt. They're starving and going through a genocide so I have some sympathy but we are so deep into debt that 400,000,000 could of gone to help us out ya know? We go help any country that "needs us". Like the Rwanda Genocide.

It's cool that we're helping these troubled countries but we have problems of our own. And when these countries that need us see us pulling out of a war because we can't handle it, we look weak. And then crazed countries like North Vietnam and Iran see this and that gives us more of a prone chance to get attacked.

Vera
05-10-2008, 11:06 AM
Well, if your gov hadn't decided to blow something close to what, 3 trillion dollars on the war in Iraq, you'd have money to help out both yourself and Darfur.

Not Ozymandias
05-10-2008, 12:34 PM
It shits me how intensely the Hillary and Obama people each hate the opposing candidate. They're virtually the same politician, except Hillary is a little more conservative.

To listen to most of their supporters you'd think there was some kind of significant idealogical difference between them.

OffspringHead
05-10-2008, 02:38 PM
Well, if your gov hadn't decided to blow something close to what, 3 trillion dollars on the war in Iraq, you'd have money to help out both yourself and Darfur.

I agree 100%. You're my BFF now.

IamSam
05-10-2008, 05:01 PM
I'm going to go see former President Clinton speak tonight. I'll let you know what I think.

Mota Boy
05-10-2008, 05:59 PM
He simply meant that so many countries drink Coke, we couldn't possibly cope without it, could we.Don't forget Hollywood.


Obama is black. Now, i'm not racist but there's still a lot of our country who are radical racists and he has good chance of being assassinated.I doubt it. Obama's a black man, but he's not a black politician. I can't see racists viewing him as a threat. If anything, it'd be the people that think he's a secret Muslim or the anti-christ.


On the other hand, we don’t know much about ObamaThis line annoys me. This line really, really annoys me. You're just regurgitating a conservative talking point from when they couldn't dig up any dirt on Obama. They were suspicious of a liberal, but they couldn't pin anything on him or skewer him as they could Hillary or Edwards, so they just played off conservative suspicions of a guy that could be vaguely associated with strange and foreign things (ooooh, he spent a couple years in Indonesia!) and that he might have a "secret agenda". I mean, come the fuck on - the man has a best-selling autobiography. If you "don't know much about him" then pick it up and read the damn thing. There is just as much information about Obama out there as there is Edwards or Richardson or Gravel or the other lesser-known candidates. It's just that we didn't have any scandals on him, so suddenly everyone is confusing the fact that they don't know much about Obama with the idea that, therefore nobody must know anything about him. The man has lived on this planet for four and a half decades. He's been in the public sphere for the last several years. His policies are all available online. Rather than claiming that "we" don't know much about him, the least you could do is spend twenty minutes on wikipedia.

Llamas
05-10-2008, 07:33 PM
Obama is black. Now, i'm not racist but there's still a lot of our country who are radical racists and he has good chance of being assassinated. He wants to pull out of Iraq because of the debt and deaths. That's good and all but makes us look like weak just like Vietnam did. And I think he's too young. But i do think that the fact he is persecuted from his wife and pastor is fucking bullshit. If it's not him saying it, then shut the fuck up.
The entire world WANTS the US to pull out of Iraq. It's almost impossible for it to look weak... it'll instead look like we did something we should've done long ago.


It shits me how intensely the Hillary and Obama people each hate the opposing candidate. They're virtually the same politician, except Hillary is a little more conservative.

To listen to most of their supporters you'd think there was some kind of significant idealogical difference between them.
False. I don't omg passionately HATE HILLARY! or anything, but she is very different from Obama. Examples:
Their health care plans. (Hillary's plan is terrible based on how much debt we're already in.)
Their views on gas/oil prices, and the gas tax.
Their views on students/universities. (Hillary doesn't want to help students, she doesn't even want them to vote.)
I also think their foreign policy is very different from each other, and think Obama has a much better grasp on the world than Hillary does. I mean, I'm not that bitter about her lying about Bosnia (cause it doesn't matter that much), but I think that hints more toward her focus on the US and ignorance of the rest of the world.

OffspringHead
05-10-2008, 09:00 PM
I doubt it. Obama's a black man, but he's not a black politician. I can't see racists viewing him as a threat. If anything, it'd be the people that think he's a secret Muslim or the anti-christ.

Very true but that's not how a racist would think. They would think "There is a Black Man representing me and my country" which can cause un-necessary violence.

OffspringHead
05-10-2008, 09:02 PM
The entire world WANTS the US to pull out of Iraq. It's almost impossible for it to look weak... it'll instead look like we did something we should've done long ago.

Eh. You're sorta right. But radicalists that hate us can see it as a good opportunity to attack. But you're right. I stand corrected.

Llamas
05-10-2008, 09:46 PM
Very true but that's not how a racist would think. They would think "There is a Black Man representing me and my country" which can cause un-necessary violence.

There are radicals who would potentially act up against ANY new president. There are racists who might kill Obama. There are sexists that might kill Clinton. There are atheist liberal druggies who might kill McCain. To say that Obama shouldn't be president cause he might be assassinated is illogical.


Eh. You're sorta right. But radicalists that hate us can see it as a good opportunity to attack. But you're right. I stand corrected.
Radicals that hate us don't need an excuse to attack us. How would us pulling out of Iraq create a vulnerability for attack? They're not gonna hate us MORE than they already do for stopping a war... and we're not more vulnerable by pulling out.

Sorry, but your argument is very empty. I respect your ability to debate things logically, though. With a username like OffspringHead, I wouldn't have expected that. ;)

Mota Boy
05-10-2008, 11:24 PM
Radicals that hate us don't need an excuse to attack us. How would us pulling out of Iraq create a vulnerability for attack? They're not gonna hate us MORE than they already do for stopping a war... and we're not more vulnerable by pulling out.The argument goes like this - pulling out in response to an attack results in a moral hazard in that it makes future attacks more likely because, in retreating, we respond to violence as intended.

Examples: Ronald Reagan pulling US troops out of Lebanon in 1982 in response to the bombing of the marine barracks there. President Clinton (in response to outcries from Republicans in Congress) pulling troops out of Somalia after the deaths of US special forces troops there. Spanish voters electing the opposition party after the Madrid bomb attack. Russia pulling out of Afghanistan, etc.

In this sense, pulling out legitimizes the use of violence as an effective strategy for Islamic terrorists to use to affect the policy decisions of foreign governments, or election results that are favorable to them. Granted, it is in no way this simple, and it can be argued that a prolonged insurgency, such as that seen in Iraq and Afghanistan under the USSR, is fundamentally different from a specific terrorist attack, but bin Laden has cited Lebanon and Somalia as two cases where the US didn't have the heart continue its commitment to a foreign country after losing a few soldiers. There is some school of thought that Saddam, in the first Gulf War, never expected to defeat the US, but believed that if he could bog us down for a few weeks and inflict a certain number of casualties, the American people would quickly withdraw support and call for an end to the conflict.

Another argument is that, in invading Iraq, we present a front line in the war on terror, so that potential terrorists, rather than striking at US interests in other parts of the world, they attack us in Iraq, where we're actively fighting them and not just sitting back hoping to prevent an attack. Note how there has been more hatred for the US than ever over the past five years, yet there have been no major terrorist attacks against the US outside of Iraq.

Lastly, pulling out of Iraq will likely result in anarchy and, eventually, a theocratic regime hostile to US interests. As we've seen in Afghanistan, this can lead to a base of operations in which terrorists can safely operate and plan large-scale attacks.

Now, I don't necessarily endorse these viewpoints, and I think they all have their flaws, but neither can they simply be dismissed in assuming that nothing will change if the US pulls out of Iraq.

Llamas
05-11-2008, 02:26 AM
Hmm, definitely interesting points that I certainly never thought of.

Can I ask what your arguments are against the parts you disagree with?

Little_Miss_1565
05-11-2008, 12:01 PM
I'm not a Hillary fan by any means, but I am pretty disgusted with most of the mud slung at her.

GWB is a former cokehead who has never run a successful business in his life. Indeed, he's run the country into the ground the same way he ran every business he ever owned into the ground. Laura Bush was drunk one night in Vermont, ran someone off the road, and they died. But they both found Jesus so it's somehow okay, and Bush was yet elected. Somehow, Watergate and her husband liking to make (consensual) touchy on the ladies is expected to be a good argument on why she is unelectable? I call bullshit. Yeah, there is a lot of crookedness in the Clinton name, but absolutely none of it makes her unelectable, and she still has more experience.

There was a great bit on SNL that Tina Fey did on Weekend Update on why people should vote Clinton. I'm not sweating the democratic race because they're basically the same person. But Obama is a much better public speaker.

OffspringHead
05-11-2008, 01:12 PM
There are radicals who would potentially act up against ANY new president. There are racists who might kill Obama. There are sexists that might kill Clinton. There are atheist liberal druggies who might kill McCain. To say that Obama shouldn't be president cause he might be assassinated is illogical.


Radicals that hate us don't need an excuse to attack us. How would us pulling out of Iraq create a vulnerability for attack? They're not gonna hate us MORE than they already do for stopping a war... and we're not more vulnerable by pulling out.

Sorry, but your argument is very empty. I respect your ability to debate things logically, though. With a username like OffspringHead, I wouldn't have expected that. ;)
You're thinking of this in a sane point of view (I'm assuming that you are in fact sane :D). You're right though. Any president has a potential to be assassinated but we've never had a president in office that wasn't white and protestant with the exception of Kennedy. He was white, but Catholic. With a Woman or a Black president things get more complicated in a radicalist's mind. I just think that a black man has more of a chance of getting assassinated than someone like McCain.

I'll be 18 when the time comes to vote and I can safely say that I won't be participating. I don't like anyone who is running for office. If anything, I'll vote for Nader so that the main candidates lose a vote. =D

wheelchairman
05-11-2008, 01:47 PM
I agree with 1565 completely about how horrible the Clintons supposedly are. I remember them fondly.

However there is something very insincere about the way Clinton acts as opposed to the way Obama acts. I suppose it's because she's attempting to pander towards lower middle class votes or whatever, and he hasn't really tried to do that.

Either way I started out being a Hillary supporter, but really I think I'd probably prefer Obama. Somehow, campaigning has made Hillary look so dirty in my eyes. That and she's a terrible orator of late. Really just bad. I know she's just pandering towards the religious or whatever, but it doesn't leave a nice taste in the mouth at all.

On the other hand, Obama totally has this Jean-Luc Picard thing going for him.

IamSam
05-11-2008, 03:10 PM
That and she's a terrible orator of late.

Although her husband is pretty damn good. I went and listened to him last night and he made a very good case as to why we should pull for her instead of Obama. It will be an interesting race for sure.

wheelchairman
05-11-2008, 03:36 PM
heheh you liked Bill's oral.

He was always good at speaking though. Which puts him in striking contrast to other presidents.... :o

IamSam
05-11-2008, 04:50 PM
heheh you liked Bill's oral.



Oh shit. Should have seen that one coming.

Little_Miss_1565
05-11-2008, 04:53 PM
On the other hand, Obama totally has this Jean-Luc Picard thing going for him.

Oh my god. You're right!

Mota Boy
05-11-2008, 08:15 PM
There was a great bit on SNL that Tina Fey did on Weekend Update on why people should vote Clinton. I'm not sweating the democratic race because they're basically the same person. But Obama is a much better public speaker.I didn't see the whole thing (cross-oceanic video is way too slow), but something that did stand out for me was when Tina said something like "Hillary is a bitch... well, so am I." My thought was "...sorry Tina, I love you, but I wouldn't vote you in to rule the country either."

Hillary and Obama have basically the same policy positions, but the issue for me is that the same person they ain't. For one, even if she were a saint, Hillary brings with her a lot of political baggage and a lot of enemies. She'd cause division from day one. Granted, it's not as if the GOP will give Obama a warm embrace should he be elected, as they're excellent at taking seemingly arbitrary characteristics about an individual and turning them into life-or-death matters for their base. "John Edwards combs his hair, heaven forbid he lead us!" but it's nothing like the level of rancor the Clintons invite.

And a saint Hillary ain't. She is, from most of what I can gather - even at the point last fall when I was reluctantly attempting to support her I couldn't shake this - a vindictive bitch. We've already had eight years of a vindictive, partisan dick in the White House, and look how well that went over. Also, I feel as though Hillary is much more lax than Obama at using policy as a means to an end, rather than an end in itself (latest example - that pandering gas tax "holiday", after which she called economists "elitist" for pointing out that it was an awful idea).

Granted, I think it's all a moot point by now (I expect the race to be over in June, if not before), but calling Hillary a "bitch" isn't just knee-jerk response in negatively stereotyping a strong woman - it's just that "asshole" is more of a masculine derogative and thus doesn't sound as appropriate.


Hmm, definitely interesting points that I certainly never thought of.

Can I ask what your arguments are against the parts you disagree with?Well, most of it is that those arguments don't exist in isolation, but have several arguments for why staying on is even worse than the potential problems we'd create by leaving (so it's like arguing which is preferable, running naked through a burning warehouse lit with bundles of your own cash or being subjected to four hammer smashes on randomly-chosen parts of your anatomy).

While Iraq exists as a "diversionary" target to siphon off attacks that would otherwise be directed against US interests, our presence there is still causing much, much more violence than would ordinarily occur. And most of the major attacks against US interests (the African embassy attacks, the Cole, the failed millennial plots, 9/11) were organized prior to our invasion of Afghanistan, which greatly disrupted al Qaeda's ability to plan large-scale attacks. I doubt that we'd see another 9/11-sized attack, and Iraq is probably recruiting far more "terrorists" than would otherwise be drawn in... but it's also possible the cat's out of the bag and if we withdrew we'd have a couple million angry men willing to exact revenge. Hard to tell.

For me, the most convincing argument against pulling out is the "ensuing chaos" one. Personally, I believe Iraq is just too poor for a democracy to work there, or at least work easily. Were we to remove ourselves, it would only be a matter of time before it dissolved into chaos and either a strongman or a theocracy emerged, assuming any state came about at all. And any leader would almost have to be hostile to the US. And he wasn't, it'd only be a matter of time before someone hostile replaced him. I just feel like it would be bad mojo.

On the whole, however, I don't invest a whole lot of energy in caring about Iraq. One reason is that, as I mentioned earlier, it's frying pan or fire, but I don't know which is which, and it's hard to have a strong opinion one way or the other when two bad options are presented with such a high level of uncertainty. The other is that I honestly believe that even if Obama were elected, it'd be impossible to bring the troops home. There is just far too much inertia right now - too much has been invested already, there are too many careers and too much money wrapped up in Iraq for a pull-out to be easy, and that's not even mentioning the political firestorm such an action would entail.

Also, I thin Petraeus is a much more apt commander of the forces than prior American leaders in Iraq, so I don't think US policy with regard to the country is as jaw-droppingly out of touch with reality as it was when we first went in. My main thought on what to do concerning Iraq, just in case you want something positive rather than a relentless sense of "we're fucked so why bother" is for a feint - were I in charge - I'd go for a full-court press on Israel to recognize a Palestinian state, whereupon I'd invest massive amounts of cash in infrastructure and family-planning in the area. I think that if the US could somehow help find a solution to the issue (though it would politically hard as hell to pressure Israel, what with the massive domestic support is has here) it would completely confound the radical Islamic narrative of the US as an imperialist power waging war again Islam, and give us some political capital to maneuver.

OffspringHead
05-11-2008, 08:22 PM
Well, I think people should worry more about whose in Congress rather than the presidancy. Sure a president is pretty fucking important but Congress makes the laws and the way you live. Congress declares war (besides the unconstitutional war declared on Iraq/Afghanistan) and makes laws. The president only agrees or disagrees with the bills. And if the president is dumb enough to veto a good bill, then it just goes to the Supreme Court and gets a big fat override. Check and Balances is a beautiful thing.

I mean, it's pretty important to pick a good president but not really as important as Congress. Just my opinion.

Llamas
05-11-2008, 09:20 PM
(latest example - that pandering gas tax "holiday", after which she called economists "elitist" for pointing out that it was an awful idea).
This for me was honestly the final straw in my dislike of her. So many people acted shocked at Obama's response to this at first... what? He WANTS gas prices to go up?? People supported Hillary's idea upon first hearing it, but it really didn't take long to realize how retarded it was. And then she gets pissed when people realize it was a horrible idea. I'm still wondering how she ever thought it was anything BUT idiotic.



While Iraq exists as a "diversionary" target to siphon off attacks that would otherwise be directed against US interests, our presence there is still causing much, much more violence than would ordinarily occur. And most of the major attacks against US interests (the African embassy attacks, the Cole, the failed millennial plots, 9/11) were organized prior to our invasion of Afghanistan, which greatly disrupted al Qaeda's ability to plan large-scale attacks. I doubt that we'd see another 9/11-sized attack, and Iraq is probably recruiting far more "terrorists" than would otherwise be drawn in... but it's also possible the cat's out of the bag and if we withdrew we'd have a couple million angry men willing to exact revenge. Hard to tell.
Yeah, I also think it's kind of "unfair" to pull attacks toward someone else's land so that we're protected... it's not a willing front on Iraq's part.


For me, the most convincing argument against pulling out is the "ensuing chaos" one. Personally, I believe Iraq is just too poor for a democracy to work there, or at least work easily. Were we to remove ourselves, it would only be a matter of time before it dissolved into chaos and either a strongman or a theocracy emerged, assuming any state came about at all. And any leader would almost have to be hostile to the US. And he wasn't, it'd only be a matter of time before someone hostile replaced him. I just feel like it would be bad mojo.
I agree with you on this, but I also kind of get this feeling that Iraq is fucked for a VERY long time, regardless of what we do at this point. I don't think that keeping troops there is bettering any situations, and I really feel like pulling out the troops, but finding other ways to help them rebuild would be better.


On the whole, however, I don't invest a whole lot of energy in caring about Iraq. One reason is that, as I mentioned earlier, it's frying pan or fire, but I don't know which is which, and it's hard to have a strong opinion one way or the other when two bad options are presented with such a high level of uncertainty. The other is that I honestly believe that even if Obama were elected, it'd be impossible to bring the troops home. There is just far too much inertia right now - too much has been invested already, there are too many careers and too much money wrapped up in Iraq for a pull-out to be easy, and that's not even mentioning the political firestorm such an action would entail.
Is Obama for pulling the troops immediately? I thought he wanted to work at it... I thought Hillary was the one who wanted to pull them right away. I could definitely be wrong.


I'd go for a full-court press on Israel to recognize a Palestinian state, whereupon I'd invest massive amounts of cash in infrastructure and family-planning in the area. I think that if the US could somehow help find a solution to the issue (though it would politically hard as hell to pressure Israel, what with the massive domestic support is has here) it would completely confound the radical Islamic narrative of the US as an imperialist power waging war again Islam, and give us some political capital to maneuver.
Oh my GOD, agreed. I understand why this isn't exactly a priority at this point, and I kind of doubt it happening... at least to a degree that would actually affect us... but I definitely would consider this more important than Iraq.

However, I still lean toward getting the fuck outta Iraq... though I'm glad to understand other viewpoints now.

Mota Boy
05-11-2008, 10:34 PM
I agree with you on this, but I also kind of get this feeling that Iraq is fucked for a VERY long time, regardless of what we do at this point. I don't think that keeping troops there is bettering any situations, and I really feel like pulling out the troops, but finding other ways to help them rebuild would be better.I'm of the opinion that if we pull out today, the country breaks up next week. The Iraqi troops have repeatedly proved unwilling or unable to fight the militias unaided. The country's fucked either way, but I think it's pretty much a certainty it's going to hell if we leave, and there's only, say, a strong possibility of it going to hell if we stay. So 100% to 60-70% (and that is probably me being optimistic). Is it worth the money and lives we're currently pouring into it for that less-than-50% chance? That's the question I can't answer. But again, the idea that there's a, let's say ten to fifteen percent chance that we hold it out and create a true pluralist democracy in the Middle East, pissed off at and suspicious of the US but not openly hostile, but also angry at radical Muslims... how many dividends might that pay down the road if those ideals were to spread? What's worth risking for that possibility? Again, I can't say. I think at this point I'm just a gadfly on the Iraq debate, playing devil's advocate for both sides while avoiding at all costs anything that sounds like an opinion as to what to do other than keep your fingers crossed.


Is Obama for pulling the troops immediately? I thought he wanted to work at it... I thought Hillary was the one who wanted to pull them right away. I could definitely be wrong.He's made it a campaign promise to pull out within sixteen months of being elected, which is the one thing he's done that's made me most cringe. You can't keep that promise. For one, who knows what the situation will be like in two years (sixteen months + the time he gets into office)? For another, as I've said before, it's a promise I don't think he could keep. So he's either naive or intentionally misleading.

darea
05-12-2008, 07:37 AM
the only reason we'd look like pussies is because the United States is "the last remaining superpower." We're not allowed to not help a country or quit on a war. Simply because SO many countries rely on us.

And the idea of a black president could really change our country in a good way or a bad way. It can go either way. But Obama is also really young and has no experience.

It's only through doing something that you can gain experience. I hate seeing presidents always being old people, the only time it's okay, is when its a horrible president and he's so old that you can hope he might die soon. Imagine if Obama became president (and didnt get killed) and even if he is not great at the beginning, he might improve. And maybe he might become a president again some other time, when he's older and more experienced... I think its good to give chances to the young, it can't always be good, but a change might be good...

Rag Doll
05-12-2008, 09:29 AM
The president only agrees or disagrees with the bills. And if the president is dumb enough to veto a good bill, then it just goes to the Supreme Court and gets a big fat override. Check and Balances is a beautiful thing.



Except members of the Supreme Court are fucking OLD. I think Stevens is like, what, 88 now? When they die/retire, who picks them? The PRESIDENT. So, if more liberal Justices (ie: Stevens) are out for whatever reason and McCain is in office, he'll fill the seat with a conservative. And there goes some rights people now have (first that comes to mind is Roe v. Wade being overturned...). And let's say the President does something dumb (I'm not sure if you're correctly realizing how checks and balances and the Court works and what not from what you said, because you make it seem like after the President makes a decision, the Court then gets to decide it right away as well..)...it'll be a LONG time before there is some issue with whatever they do that makes its way up to the Court, IF the Court even decides to hear it. It could be years and years if not longer if ever...

darea
05-12-2008, 09:59 AM
US politics seem just so complicated...

TheOldMark
05-12-2008, 11:09 AM
Obama is black. Now, i'm not racist but there's still a lot of our country who are radical racists and he has good chance of being assassinated.

I never thought about that before, I never even heard it discussed in the news. But I disagree. Keep in mind we have one of the most hated presidents in history right now, people wanted to kill him from the start, he was never able to have a normal parade because of security concerns. If Bush can last 8 years without getting shot, Obama can too.

TheOldMark
05-12-2008, 11:14 AM
This line annoys me. This line really, really annoys me. You're just regurgitating a conservative talking point from when they couldn't dig up any dirt on Obama. They were suspicious of a liberal, but they couldn't pin anything on him or skewer him as they could Hillary or Edwards, so they just played off conservative suspicions of a guy that could be vaguely associated with strange and foreign things (ooooh, he spent a couple years in Indonesia!) and that he might have a "secret agenda". I mean, come the fuck on - the man has a best-selling autobiography. If you "don't know much about him" then pick it up and read the damn thing. There is just as much information about Obama out there as there is Edwards or Richardson or Gravel or the other lesser-known candidates. It's just that we didn't have any scandals on him, so suddenly everyone is confusing the fact that they don't know much about Obama with the idea that, therefore nobody must know anything about him. The man has lived on this planet for four and a half decades. He's been in the public sphere for the last several years. His policies are all available online. Rather than claiming that "we" don't know much about him, the least you could do is spend twenty minutes on wikipedia.

Very well said. I didn't mean to seem ignorant about Obama, I just wanted to paint it as a anti-Hillary rant rather than a pro-Obama. And I'm speaking to people who probably never read the news. But your frustration I think is misdirected, when I say we don't know much about him, I don't mean I dont know shit about his policies. I mean he came up really really fast so we dont know him as well as we know Hillary or McCain.

OffspringHead
05-12-2008, 11:32 AM
Except members of the Supreme Court are fucking OLD. I think Stevens is like, what, 88 now? When they die/retire, who picks them? The PRESIDENT. So, if more liberal Justices (ie: Stevens) are out for whatever reason and McCain is in office, he'll fill the seat with a conservative.
Wrong. The people choose the House of Rep. and State Legislatures choose the Senate. Not the president


http://wiki.answers.com/Q/Who_elects_the_US_Congress

Sunny
05-12-2008, 11:33 AM
uh, ok. I don't trust Hillary, I think she's a mudslinging hypocrite, and many of her remarks made me cringe ("hard working white Americans", anyone?)... but there is something that bothers me quite a bit. It seems that people are using Hillary's shortcomings as an excuse to let all of their sexism hang out. And sweet Jesus, is it ever ugly. All the remarks about periods, menopause, womanly emotions, her being a "nut buster", a bitch, or unstable - come on, people, it's fucking 2008. can't you find a legitimate, non-bigoted reason to criticize her? yeah, yeah, she will be "on the rag" and press the red button and start a nuclear war, i'm sure. come on, it's fucking pathetic. people are just jumping on the opportunity to air out all their bigotry and misogyny, and it's sickening beyond belief. just grow some fucking balls and say "I hate women and think they're incapable of being good leaders", because that's what you really have in mind when you say all the shit I mentioned above.

and for what it's worth, i support Obama... except it's not worth shit cause i can't vote. :]

Rag Doll
05-12-2008, 11:38 AM
Wrong. The people choose the House of Rep. and State Legislatures choose the Senate. Not the president


http://wiki.answers.com/Q/Who_elects_the_US_Congress

Learn to read. I was discussing the Supreme Court, NOT the U.S. Legislature.

I would link you to a Wiki article discussing how that works, but it seems you can figure that out on your own. =)

darea
05-12-2008, 11:42 AM
On facebook there's a little appli that allows you to see if you're fit to become a US citizen.

Who nominates the Supreme Court Justices is one of the questions.

There's no point cheating!! I got 60% good answers... when we're supposed to get at least 80%... but it was all about politics and I didnt know all that much...

OffspringHead
05-12-2008, 11:45 AM
It's only through doing something that you can gain experience. I hate seeing presidents always being old people, the only time it's okay, is when its a horrible president and he's so old that you can hope he might die soon. Imagine if Obama became president (and didnt get killed) and even if he is not great at the beginning, he might improve. And maybe he might become a president again some other time, when he's older and more experienced... I think its good to give chances to the young, it can't always be good, but a change might be good...

I agree with you in a sense. The point is he has only been an Arkansas State Senator and hasn't been in politics nearly long enough to really get the proper experience he needs. Maybe he IS ready but consider his age and positions prior to running for president.

Rag Doll
05-12-2008, 11:47 AM
I agree with you in a sense. The point is he has only been an Arkansas State Senator and hasn't been in politics nearly long enough to really get the proper experience he needs. Maybe he IS ready but consider his age and positions prior to running for president.


Obama is from Illinois. And he isn't a state Senator, he's a U.S. Senator.

OffspringHead
05-12-2008, 11:51 AM
Learn to read. I was discussing the Supreme Court, NOT the U.S. Legislature.

I would link you to a Wiki article discussing how that works, but it seems you can figure that out on your own. =)

I'm actually trying to slip by on the internet in class right now so i did kind of skim through your first post and i apologize. You're right that'll it'll take a while but thats why i said it's still important to get a smart president just not AS important as Congress.

And the judicial system in this country is a joke. You're right. They're all old and it takes wayyyyy too long.


And sorry again for skimming your post.:)

Llamas
05-12-2008, 11:51 AM
uh, ok. I don't trust Hillary, I think she's a mudslinging hypocrite, and many of her remarks made me cringe ("hard working white Americans", anyone?)... but there is something that bothers me quite a bit. It seems that people are using Hillary's shortcomings as an excuse to let all of their sexism hang out. And sweet Jesus, is it ever ugly. All the remarks about periods, menopause, womanly emotions, her being a "nut buster", a bitch, or unstable - come on, people, it's fucking 2008. can't you find a legitimate, non-bigoted reason to criticize her? yeah, yeah, she will be "on the rag" and press the red button and start a nuclear war, i'm sure. come on, it's fucking pathetic. people are just jumping on the opportunity to air out all their bigotry and misogyny, and it's sickening beyond belief. just grow some fucking balls and say "I hate women and think they're incapable of being good leaders", because that's what you really have in mind when you say all the shit I mentioned above.

Oh yessssss how I agree with you. I hate/dislike Hillary, but was initially totally open to the idea of having a woman as president. I just don't like THIS woman. I can't count how many people clearly have no good reason for not liking her, and just throw sexist things around. One of my good friends is a republican... he's a great friend and all that, but holy shit I have to avoid politics at all costs sometimes cause he'll start going on about how much of a crazy bitch Hillary is, and blah blah blah "even Obama would be better than her". :-/ Hating Hillary is even more annoying of a trend than loving Obama. All these people who do either without having good reasons why.

wheelchairman
05-12-2008, 11:52 AM
uh, ok. I don't trust Hillary, I think she's a mudslinging hypocrite, and many of her remarks made me cringe ("hard working white Americans", anyone?)... but there is something that bothers me quite a bit. It seems that people are using Hillary's shortcomings as an excuse to let all of their sexism hang out. And sweet Jesus, is it ever ugly. All the remarks about periods, menopause, womanly emotions, her being a "nut buster", a bitch, or unstable - come on, people, it's fucking 2008. can't you find a legitimate, non-bigoted reason to criticize her? yeah, yeah, she will be "on the rag" and press the red button and start a nuclear war, i'm sure. come on, it's fucking pathetic. people are just jumping on the opportunity to air out all their bigotry and misogyny, and it's sickening beyond belief. just grow some fucking balls and say "I hate women and think they're incapable of being good leaders", because that's what you really have in mind when you say all the shit I mentioned above.

and for what it's worth, i support Obama... except it's not worth shit cause i can't vote. :]
Besides I think she's a bit old to be having her period.

Rag Doll
05-12-2008, 11:56 AM
I'm actually trying to slip by on the internet in class right now so i did kind of skim through your first post and i apologize. You're right that'll it'll take a while but thats why i said it's still important to get a smart president just not AS important as Congress.

And the judicial system in this country is a joke. You're right. They're all old and it takes wayyyyy too long.


And sorry again for skimming your post.:)

No problem =). I just get a bit cranky if someone says I don't know what I'm talking about with US Government, because that's what I've spent 4 years in college studying...

I don't think old is necessary a problem with the Court....just that they're ALL super old (except like, Roberts...)...so they like all die/retire at once, setting someone up to stack the Court to his/her liking. Which is terrible.

OffspringHead
05-12-2008, 12:03 PM
No problem =). I just get a bit cranky if someone says I don't know what I'm talking about with US Government, because that's what I've spent 4 years in college studying...

I don't think old is necessary a problem with the Court....just that they're ALL super old (except like, Roberts...)...so they like all die/retire at once, setting someone up to stack the Court to his/her liking. Which is terrible.

Yeah but it's too long of a process. The government gets too many vacations throughout the year considering their position. Just my opinion though.

Rag Doll
05-12-2008, 12:06 PM
In regard to the misogynistic ridiculousness of some of the hillary bashing....

I always saw it in the media, which I guess is pretty accepted. but lately, I'm seeing like....fuckloads of it at school. generally, the student population is for obama (with the random kid in every class still rambling about nader...)...and the amount of just "hillary is a fucking bitch" or "hillary is a fucking dyke" that gets said is just...sickening. There wasn't this much of it in the past at my school, and I really think it is, like Sunny said, just a way for these people to let their misogyny spill out. because everyone is SO politically (and otherwise) apathetic at that school. I doubt it's that they really give a fuck about Obama or the election.

Sunny
05-12-2008, 12:11 PM
it really makes me wonder how many people are voting for Obama because they would rather choose a candidate that's *not* female.

Rag Doll
05-12-2008, 12:18 PM
totally. i was talking to someone about this who said, "it really says something about misogyny in this culture when a racist, sexist white guy would rather vote for the black guy."

just interesting.

Sunny
05-12-2008, 12:26 PM
that's a good (and scary) point. i usually try to stay away from being all like "we're moar oppressed" "no, WE are moar oppressed!" because you can't really compare racism and sexism... but it is interesting how some people seem to think "well, he might be black and all, but at least he's not a bitch".

Rag Doll
05-12-2008, 02:07 PM
ya. i mean, my father is exactly the opposite, being all "uhhh, she's a bitch, but she isnt black".....it's just so sad that THAT is the deciding factor for some people =\

Jesus
05-12-2008, 02:22 PM
Examples:
Their health care plans. (Hillary's plan is terrible based on how much debt we're already in.)
Gahgshqjh. What the fuck, Hillary's health plan way better. It's in fact one of the few areas in which she's more progressive than Obama. Hers is basically a mix of the Netherlands/Switzerland, thus reality based. It's also a step in the right direction to universal healthcare. Obama's plan is one based on American exceptionalism, based on fear of mandates (and one that wouldn't really work in it's original form). So it's another obstacle to universal healthcare.
About the costs, the plans would obviously lower the costs. Not surprising since the US already spends the most on it.

OffspringHead
05-12-2008, 03:52 PM
ya. i mean, my father is exactly the opposite, being all "uhhh, she's a bitch, but she isnt black".....it's just so sad that THAT is the deciding factor for some people =\

Lmfao. My dad's excuse for not voting for her is because "She's a retarded Communist"

Llamas
05-12-2008, 06:07 PM
Gahgshqjh. What the fuck, Hillary's health plan way better. It's in fact one of the few areas in which she's more progressive than Obama. Hers is basically a mix of the Netherlands/Switzerland, thus reality based. It's also a step in the right direction to universal healthcare. Obama's plan is one based on American exceptionalism, based on fear of mandates (and one that wouldn't really work in it's original form). So it's another obstacle to universal healthcare.
About the costs, the plans would obviously lower the costs. Not surprising since the US already spends the most on it.

I think health care that covers everyone like she wants is stupid for this country. Americans are the type of people who wanna run to the doctor for a sniffly nose, and have OCD about everything. God, I know too many people who go to the doctor cause they have a stomach ache. That doesn't happen in most countries, because most people in the world aren't so paranoid and whiny. To have universal health care like she wants for a nation like ours would cost way too much, especially with the debt we are in. Obama realizes that we can not afford to make such a huge jump right now, and wants to work toward bettering health care. She's more progressive in her views, but progressive isn't always the best option.

wheelchairman
05-12-2008, 06:17 PM
I think health care that covers everyone like she wants is stupid for this country. Americans are the type of people who wanna run to the doctor for a sniffly nose, and have OCD about everything. God, I know too many people who go to the doctor cause they have a stomach ache. That doesn't happen in most countries, because most people in the world aren't so paranoid and whiny.

All of this.... is wrong.... wtf?

First of all this is a continuation of your habit of generalizing grossly about entire societies and countries. Second of all, all those behaviors are individual, not societal.

Sunny
05-12-2008, 08:38 PM
i would argue that the tendency of American doctors to overdiagnose some conditions is most definitely a societal phenomenon. otherwise, we wouldn't have just so many middle school kids hopped up on Ritalin, Adderol and antidepressants. it's, hm, pretty telling. we love our pharmaceuticals, even if they hurt our kids.

in addition, i'm certainly not the only person who thinks Americans are a nation of hypochondriacs who run to webmd.com the second they feel the slightest ache (often followed by "omg webmd says i have super death cancer!!! must go see doctor NOWWW!).

Not Ozymandias
05-12-2008, 08:55 PM
You're definitely NOT the only one.


http://blogtown.portlandmercury.com/files/2006/08/batshit%20crazy.png

OffspringHead
05-12-2008, 09:16 PM
i would argue that the tendency of American doctors to overdiagnose some conditions is most definitely a societal phenomenon. otherwise, we wouldn't have just so many middle school kids hopped up on Ritalin, Adderol and antidepressants. it's, hm, pretty telling. we love our pharmaceuticals, even if they hurt our kids.
Psh. True that. People can be diagnosed with social anxiety, multiple personality, schizophrenia, and hundreds of different psychological diseases with one tiny little symptom. The American people are the trick-or-treaters and the Doctors give out the candy. It's just too easy.

It's the same thing with the Marijuana vendor license in California. You can go to a doctor with a mere back-ache and you'll get a temporary Marijuana License. But meanwhile the Feds want to interfere and shut down these legal vendors (complete violation of the Constitution) . If the Feds want it close it down, then maybe a tighter medical system in the United States is a better thing.

I'm all for the Marijuana vendors in Cali and all the other states they're in. I think the Drug War is a complete disgrace in this country. Too much money is spent busting marijuana dealers in this country that can be used for so many other things. Heroin, Crack, Meth etc. should be illegal and enforced just cause they're KNOWN to kill you and fuck you up.

America is infamous for wasting money =)

sKratch
05-12-2008, 09:36 PM
Um... wow. War on Drugs somehow comes into play? Or do you try to stick that into everything you talk about.

T-6005
05-12-2008, 10:00 PM
God, I know too many people who go to the doctor cause they have a stomach ache. That doesn't happen in most countries, because most people in the world aren't so paranoid and whiny.
Per's right - you are grossly overgeneralizing, but that's not that I want to point attention to.

It's the fact that unfortunately, you're just plain wrong. It absolutely happens in other countries, especially those with some sort of universal health care. In France, people do it all the time, especially when they know exactly what they want - nearly every French person I have ever known has "known" exactly what disease they've had before they even set foot in a doctor's office, and exactly what was necessary to treat it. If the doctor doesn't give them that, then they just go somewhere else until they get what they want. Their trouble is paid for by the government, after all.

The only real difference is when it comes to psychological diagnoses, and to be honest I have no practical observations to offer there. I don't know tons of American families with kids who "have ADD" and eat their cereal with Ritalin, it's just one of those things I always heard about.

I don't want to get into this argument, mostly because I don't care who becomes the next president, but I just wanted to ask you, llamas, where exactly you get this confidence in grouping people from certain countries into lump behaviors, especially considering your quite honestly limited international experience. I mean shit - I made the comment about France because it's something that was actually mentioned, that I've talked to family and friends and even read a book on once, but it wouldn't even come to mind to tell you that the Japanese "avoid going to the doctor's for minor aches and pains" as compared to Americans. That's because after three years, I still don't know enough about them to say that with certainty.

How exactly do you know that people in the rest of the world aren't so "paranoid and whiny?"

Llamas
05-13-2008, 12:28 AM
i would argue that the tendency of American doctors to overdiagnose some conditions is most definitely a societal phenomenon. otherwise, we wouldn't have just so many middle school kids hopped up on Ritalin, Adderol and antidepressants. it's, hm, pretty telling. we love our pharmaceuticals, even if they hurt our kids.

in addition, i'm certainly not the only person who thinks Americans are a nation of hypochondriacs who run to webmd.com the second they feel the slightest ache (often followed by "omg webmd says i have super death cancer!!! must go see doctor NOWWW!).

Exactly! I've stopped telling my friends here when I feel something that I don't normally feel... man I've had a headache the last couple days... I've been drinking sooooo much water and been thirsty for like a week!... cause people here are always like "OMG UR SICK GO SEE DOCTOR NOWWWWWW!!!" How about I just wait it out and see if it goes away soon? Cause most of the time it really does.

Take the example of when I fell down the stairs in Austria and cut my wrist. One of my Finnish friends said I might wanna see a doctor, but everyone else (coming from quite a few different countries) there was just trying to help me make sure I put lotions on it, wrap it up, etc. A few days later, I returned to the US, and even still now that it's healed, people (read: everyone I saw, and thereby who asked what happened to my arm) freak out at me for not having seen the doctor. It's so crazy.

In regard to Thibault- well, obviously it's just my perspective. Maybe I shouldn't have said it so factually, but it's actually been a cultural interest of me for about 8 years. I've talked to a LOT of different people from almost anywhere in the world. I've read a lot of research about what people seek medical attention for where. Now, granted, what I've read is certainly limited due to the fact that most countries won't necessarily have a ton of media available in English.

I don't know for certain, and I'm sorry it came off that I thought I did. But I know most any of my friends who've lived in other countries (quite a lot of which have) have noticed the same trends, save a few countries/cultures.

Mota Boy
05-13-2008, 12:36 AM
Wrong. The people choose the House of Rep. and State Legislatures choose the Senate. Not the president


http://wiki.answers.com/Q/Who_elects_the_US_CongressThe Hell? The Senate hasn't been selected by state legislatures since the ratification of the 17th Amendment in 1913. In fact, it says as much in the link you provided.


Very well said. I didn't mean to seem ignorant about Obama, I just wanted to paint it as a anti-Hillary rant rather than a pro-Obama. And I'm speaking to people who probably never read the news. But your frustration I think is misdirected, when I say we don't know much about him, I don't mean I dont know shit about his policies. I mean he came up really really fast so we dont know him as well as we know Hillary or McCain.Oh, I knew it as I typed it. I wasn't as angry with you as I was with what you were saying, because a lot of the people that actually do say it in the news and whatnot... well, everything I said applies. It's a way of using Obama's rapid success against him. And it even contains a hint of anti-Christ. It's just ridiculous.

Re: sexism and Hillary: I think it's difficult to disentangle the hatred aimed at Hillary because she's unlikeable, and the hatred aimed at her because she's a woman. Granted, the PMS-related fears are quite ridiculous, but just because someone calls Hillary a female-specific slur, I don't necessarily believe that means that they hate her because she's female. They're just saying that she possesses negative qualities and she's female. Just the same way that when Ann Coulter called John Edwards a "faggot" I don't think anyone mistook that as a slur directed against all men. Hillary's personality defects and her general unlikeability manifests itself (supposedly) in a potent rage as well as vindictiveness, along with suggestions of a megalomaniac desire for power. What slur do you use for that person? If the qualities were the same, but the person in reference was a man, you could say "asshole" or a "dick" or a "prick", all of which are masculine slurs which don't seem to insinuate that all men are unfit for office.

Come to think of it, a lot of our insults are gender-specific. "Idiot" and "moron" are, in a sense, masculine versions of "ditz" and "bimbo". There's certainly some overlap, but the feel of them is gender-related. Again, though, just because a slur references gender doesn't mean that gender is the primary motivating factor behind the slur.

Vera
05-13-2008, 12:56 AM
Take the example of when I fell down the stairs in Austria and cut my wrist. One of my Finnish friends said I might wanna see a doctor, but everyone else (coming from quite a few different countries) there was just trying to help me make sure I put lotions on it, wrap it up, etc. A few days later, I returned to the US, and even still now that it's healed, people (read: everyone I saw, and thereby who asked what happened to my arm) freak out at me for not having seen the doctor. It's so crazy.

That's because it might've been broken and let's face it, you can't fix broken bones with home remedies. So it's good to make sure. Hypochondria over usual things like colds or a throat ache that goes away in a few days, of course that's crazy. But a WRIST, dude. Have you not seen The Colbert Report? Wrists are really important. You can't mess around with your wrist health like that.

Also, I dunno how it works in Austria but in Finland, most not-that-serious cases are handled by nurses, not doctors. If I have a cold and need proof of it for work, I go to the clinic and they have a nurse examine me and give a few days of sick leave.

Honestly, we have one of the top health care systems in the world - ..or so we're always told - and people still aren't happy. Whether this kind of thing would work in the US, fuck me if I know. But I don't think Finns abuse the system like Frenchies. A bigger problem is the "pill = cure for everything" type of treatments. Not just that docs think so, but that patients do, too.

Some doctors go against the wave, though - my mum had a flu a few months back and her doctor made her do these alternative thingies. It was pretty cool.

Llamas
05-13-2008, 01:11 AM
That's because it might've been broken and let's face it, you can't fix broken bones with home remedies. So it's good to make sure. Hypochondria over usual things like colds or a throat ache that goes away in a few days, of course that's crazy. But a WRIST, dude. Have you not seen The Colbert Report? Wrists are really important. You can't mess around with your wrist health like that.

Well not only was there no chance it was broken (the damage was caused by a piece of glass cutting into my skin, and the wound was very clearly visible), but also the people in Europe didn't freak out and say I should go to the doctor. These people included Finns, Croatians, Austrians, Nigerians, Brazilians, French people, Swedes, Brits, New Zealanders, Czechs, Dutch people... and more that I can't remember right now. But all the Americans freaked out over when I came back. That was the real point.

The only possible thing a doctor could've done was stitch it up so that it would heal quicker. But with my bandaging, it still closed up completely within a few weeks. I talked to a few people at a pharmacy in Austria, and they basically just said to wrap it up, too, and to be careful not to move it a whole ton.

Doctors who try to go with more natural remedies rock. I went to the doctor last (only time I've gone to a doctor cause of something in years) because I was suffering major insomnia, and my best friend who was going in for narcolepsy (kinda funny) made me go in with her. The doctor understood my wish to not take medicine, and helped me come up with lifestyle changes to help me along. Then he prescribed something "just in case", but I didn't feel any pressure to fill it. I thought that was super cool of him, cause I was really afraid I was gonna get a doctor who said, "Take these, you'll sleep fine" and that was it.

Sunny
05-13-2008, 07:31 AM
lol @ tommy cruise.

for everyone who thinks i'm oh so horrendously generalizing, i suggest you familiarize yourself with The Scientific Review of Mental Health Practice, in particular the overdiagnosis of certain disorders in adolescents.

as for the overmedication of the American people:

"About 130 million Americans swallow, inject, inhale, infuse, spray, and pat on prescribed medication every month, the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention indicates. Americans buy much more medicine per person than any other country."

"Drug advertising to consumers has also boomed since the late 1990s, thanks largely to relaxed government restrictions on television spots."

coincidence? i don't think so. i don't think enough attention is being paid to drug safety, prescription drug abuse is rampant... i mean, come on. we are very "drug-savvy" and have a pill for everything, but it's not always for the best.

“We are taking way too many drugs for dubious or exaggerated ailments,” says Dr. Marcia Angell, former editor of the New England Journal of Medicine and author of “The Truth About the Drug Companies.”

“What the drug companies are doing now is promoting drugs for long-term use to essentially healthy people. Why? Because it’s the biggest market.”
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/7503122/

and for the record, i am not an "all natural, meds r bad, anti-psychiatry" person. many people in my family depend on prescription medications, and i'm very happy they have access to appropriate treatments. they certainly wouldn't do well with just alternative medicine and herbal remedies... lols. however, to say that Americans are not more overmedicated than the rest of the world is fucking laughable. it's certainly spreading to other countries, at least according to my mother who works in healthcare in Poland... but it's not as prevalent as it is here. if you think i'm pulling shit out of my ass, do look it up, kindly plz.

wheelchairman
05-13-2008, 09:18 AM
Taking pills is not going to the doctors.....

Sure some of those pills require a prescription.

You pay for pills in European countries too depending on the seriousness. (like obviously over the counter stuff you pay for or something.) Depends on the country though.

No one is saying that Americans don't pop a pill for everything. Whenever I go to America I'm always creeped out by the commercials of butterflies making people sleep and a nice old man explaining how hard it can be etc. etc.

But strictly as far as going to the doctor's, I don't think Americans are any better or worse. And it also depends on where in America, naturally there are huge discrepancies. As far as I can remember in Oregon, people didn't go to the hospital for every little thing. Maybe they do in NY, I don't know. But there is nothing representative of America other than that statistic you posted, which again, doesn't tell much.

A person's urge to go to a doctor really is individual. Some people go for every little thing, and others don't. I mean it's quite easy to do here when it's free. People do it all the time. Whether the majority of people take pills for everything all the time is another issue. But an unrelated one at the moment. Although I don't know why more people in the US question the growing dependency on miracle pills.... The worst is the list of symptoms.

Personally when we lived in America I had never been to a hospital. My parents were self-employed so of course they had no insurance, and all their money was tied up in the property. Thankfully nothing truly bad happened that required immediate medical attention. Although I did burn my hand once, but they had the resources to take care of it.

Sunny
05-13-2008, 09:40 AM
Taking pills is not going to the doctors.....


of course it's not, but it's all a part of the same phenomenon. people tend to first "diagnose" themselves, then run to the doctor to request medication, then pop the pills. the dynamic goes like this "i can't get a boner/my kid is distracted/i can't sleep/i'm sad" to "it must be erectile dysfunction/ADHD/insomnia/depression" to "must get viagra/adderol/ambien/zoloft! GIMME!" you can't really single out one of these mechanisms (popping pills or going to the doctor's) without looking at the phenomenon as a whole.


No one is saying that Americans don't pop a pill for everything. Whenever I go to America I'm always creeped out by the commercials of butterflies making people sleep and a nice old man explaining how hard it can be etc. etc.

well, that basically proves llamas point about Americans, even though i wouldn't put it the way she did. i'd probably say that we have a tendency to look for instant gratification and easy solutions to perceived problems (our approach to weight loss through popping pills is yet another example), hence our love for pharmaceuticals and medicine (and yes, doctors) even if unnecessary. you and Thi claimed that she's vastly overgeneralizing and wrong, and that it is an individual thing as opposed to being a societal issue. i happen to think the sheer numbers i provided in my above post prove otherwise. as you pointed out, a quick look at our tv commercials supports my view as well.

Mota Boy
05-13-2008, 10:00 AM
No one is saying that Americans don't pop a pill for everything. Whenever I go to America I'm always creeped out by the commercials of butterflies making people sleep and a nice old man explaining how hard it can be etc. etc.Yeah, Bob Dole was downright creepy.

BREAK
05-13-2008, 10:58 AM
OK well back on topic...

Of course the blatant misoginy from Hillary bashers gets old (cuz like wow, men have done SUCH a better job so far), but what's worse is that people seem to be supporting her simply because she's a woman. And like, any politician who gets as far as she has will have to deal with a bunch of heat along the way; should we go easier on this one because it's female? And if she didn't want to be perceived as a cunt, couldn't she conceivably...tone down the cuntiness once in awhile?

I don't have much, if any, opinion on her and don't really give a shit about the election, but she is NOT a victim. I'm sure the insinuation would offend her, even.

Rag Doll
05-13-2008, 11:06 AM
I don't think anyone said she's a victim. Just that many people are using this race as a way to woman bash while claiming they have nothing against women as a whole (when many of them do).

And why should she "tone down the cuntiness once in awhile"? When men are opinionated and strong on a position and maybe do negative campaigning, the backlash is not nearly as strong, in my opinion. It's that they're strong and good leaders and passionate and wahwahwah. But when women do it, it's "ohmygod what a BITCH must be that time of the month." It's a double standard, that frankly, is quite annoying.

BREAK
05-13-2008, 11:32 AM
All I was saying is she makes no apologies for who she is. It's the fact that she doesn't mind playing EXACTLY into the negative stereotype the media/public have pegged her for that makes her seem at least a little too proud. Either she's oblivious or just truly doesn't fucking care. And what you are saying seems to imply that it's impossible to gain a bunch of power without resorting to the mudslinging and dirt-digging tactics that typify regular old male politicians. It's not necessarily progressive to emulate men, is it? I'm not saying there's no double standard - just that if she were a better politician, she could rise above it.

Komaschwarz
05-13-2008, 11:47 AM
I'm not a US citizen. But even if I was, I wouldn't vote.

"There's no point for democracy, when ignorance is celebrated"

I have a unique stance on voting, but George Carlin does a reasonably good job of summing it up:

http://youtube.com/watch?v=0u6lCBnRoHQ

Sunny
05-13-2008, 12:21 PM
All I was saying is she makes no apologies for who she is. It's the fact that she doesn't mind playing EXACTLY into the negative stereotype the media/public have pegged her for that makes her seem at least a little too proud.

i'm not a fan of Hillary's campaigning tactics, but honestly, she is not the only mudslinger and hypocrite out there, yet *she* gets singled out for being "too proud". there are many cunty politicians, but because this one actually *has* a cunt, she is expected to act differently. as Sam pointed out, if a male politician employs negative tactics and fearmongering, he is not told to go get some Midol and a heatpad. that's the problem. i have no issue with people disagreeing with Hillary, obviously; what i do take issue with is how people use her flaws as an excuse to make incredibly sexist and bigoted statements.

i'm sure you see a difference between "I'm pissed at Hillary for making that remark about hard-working white Americans" and "I hate Hillary because she's a nutcracking menopausal cunt with moodswings".

Llamas
05-13-2008, 01:15 PM
well, that basically proves llamas point about Americans, even though i wouldn't put it the way she did. i'd probably say that we have a tendency to look for instant gratification and easy solutions to perceived problems (our approach to weight loss through popping pills is yet another example), hence our love for pharmaceuticals and medicine (and yes, doctors) even if unnecessary.
Much better way of putting it... essentially what I meant, but in better words.

I'm glad you were able to find some numbers and stats... I was too out of it last night to try to find anything, haha.


All I was saying is she makes no apologies for who she is. It's the fact that she doesn't mind playing EXACTLY into the negative stereotype the media/public have pegged her for that makes her seem at least a little too proud. Either she's oblivious or just truly doesn't fucking care. And what you are saying seems to imply that it's impossible to gain a bunch of power without resorting to the mudslinging and dirt-digging tactics that typify regular old male politicians. It's not necessarily progressive to emulate men, is it? I'm not saying there's no double standard - just that if she were a better politician, she could rise above it.
McCain doesn't apologize for who he is.
And wait, just because she could rise above it but doesn't, means it's okay to use such sexist terms about her? McCain could also rise above being a jerk, but I don't hear 30 people a day say "OMG John McCain is such a masculine prick! He must have erectile dysfunction." It still wouldn't be the same, cause sexism isn't really a problem for men in this country... but the point remains. These two people could be the same fucking person, and people would be bashing Hillary for being a cunt on her rag, but McCain is just a normal politician.

Komaschwarz
05-13-2008, 01:21 PM
sexism isn't really a problem for men in this country

Hahahahaha.

Sunny
05-13-2008, 01:28 PM
wow, guys, we've got ourselves an erudite here!

OffspringHead
05-13-2008, 01:34 PM
Um... wow. War on Drugs somehow comes into play? Or do you try to stick that into everything you talk about.

They were talking about how America wastes money. And all I simply said that a lot of the Drug War is a waste of money. So i fail to see the irrelevance.

OffspringHead
05-13-2008, 01:36 PM
And i don't see how what everyone is talking about is "Off Topic" these are all things that presidential candidates need to consider and have opinions on.

Llamas
05-13-2008, 01:58 PM
Hahahahaha.


wow, guys, we've got ourselves an erudite here!

lol uguiys stfu :( i r smrt dammit!

OffspringHead, it's funny how you write long posts about something, with several different points you're trying to defend in them... then later, you say, "I simply said ______." That's just false. You said a lot more than that. Here and in your Offspring/GD thread.

OffspringHead
05-13-2008, 02:04 PM
lol uguiys stfu :( i r smrt dammit!

OffspringHead, it's funny how you write long posts about something, with several different points you're trying to defend in them... then later, you say, "I simply said ______." That's just false. You said a lot more than that. Here and in your Offspring/GD thread.
Because when i say "i simply said" i just put it in a nut-shell. All i fucking did was defend myself cause everyone was talking about worthless spending and the medical system in the united states so i gave my opinion. What the fuck is the big deal in that?

BREAK
05-13-2008, 02:41 PM
i'm not a fan of Hillary's campaigning tactics, but honestly, she is not the only mudslinger and hypocrite out there, yet *she* gets singled out for being "too proud". there are many cunty politicians, but because this one actually *has* a cunt, she is expected to act differently. as Sam pointed out, if a male politician employs negative tactics and fearmongering, he is not told to go get some Midol and a heatpad. that's the problem. i have no issue with people disagreeing with Hillary, obviously; what i do take issue with is how people use her flaws as an excuse to make incredibly sexist and bigoted statements.

i'm sure you see a difference between "I'm pissed at Hillary for making that remark about hard-working white Americans" and "I hate Hillary because she's a nutcracking menopausal cunt with moodswings".

I'd be more upset about the media(and whoever)'s stereotyping of Clinton as a craven, power-hungry Machiavellian Lady MacBeth if she didn't exactly fit this stereotype to a tee. What has she ever done to try to convince people she's not (etc., etc.)? If anything she seems to embrace it. And that's great, good for her, I'm sure it's empowering on some level...like those "You say I'm a bitch like it's a bad thing" bumper stickers, right?

But is it possible to consider some woman a bitch while she's attempting to gain power without being a misogynist? It appears not.



McCain doesn't apologize for who he is.
And wait, just because she could rise above it but doesn't, means it's okay to use such sexist terms about her? McCain could also rise above being a jerk, but I don't hear 30 people a day say "OMG John McCain is such a masculine prick! He must have erectile dysfunction." It still wouldn't be the same, cause sexism isn't really a problem for men in this country... but the point remains. These two people could be the same fucking person, and people would be bashing Hillary for being a cunt on her rag, but McCain is just a normal politician.

That's because McCain has almost no personality traits at all, unless you count the standard "lying phony" that could apply to every politician. I can't possibly imagine that any Republicans are actually excited about voting for him. Of course, there's a been a book published about how the media has basically given him a free pass his whole career...so it could be that he's made plenty of douchey mistakes that I just haven't heard about. Maybe Hill'd get better press if she were a Republican.

So I'll just restate my earlier question: If a woman is trying to attain some power, which may involve stepping on a few heads along the way, is it now sexist to consider her a bitch, even if that's exactly what she is? I don't expect answers; this one looks like a no-win.

Komaschwarz
05-13-2008, 02:48 PM
lol uguiys stfu :( i r smrt dammit!


I wasn't attacking you. I like you. I just disagree with that particular statement you made.

And if it's any consolation, the erudite remark was probably directed towards me, for choosing not to explain my position, and suffice it with a few haha's.

Komaschwarz
05-13-2008, 04:49 PM
I think I'm in love with Duskygrin.

OffspringHead
05-13-2008, 09:05 PM
sexism isn't really a problem for men in this country.
Wrong. There is a lot of sexism against men. Just in a different form. A woman molests a 12 year old boy, a woman teacher has sex with a student etc. When a man does these things, you hear about it in headlines, newspapers, magazines the whole 9 yards. A Student has sex with a good looking teacher the boy gets high fives and the severity of punishment against the woman teacher isn't as bad compared to a man. I spend A LOT of time on this in my History/Economics Class.

My teacher actually brought up a point on this topic today. When my teacher was 19 he told us he was a sports reporter for some newspaper. He had to interview players of the Eagles of the NFL. He was allowed in the locker room right after the game, and so were woman. He said 90% of the players freely walked around in the nude with woman reporters present.

Now, In men's sports, news reporters (of all sexes) are allowed in the locker rooms right after the game to do interviews and such. Meaning the men players have no time to dress, shower or anything like that. But in womans sports such as the WNBA, men have to wait 15-20 minutes after the game for the woman basketball players to "cover up". The women reporters are allowed in the WNBA's locker room right after the game. The woman reporters have a higher advantage over men reporters because they get the first story and first interviews because the men have to wait.

Now the argument comes up that if Men sports don't get 15 minutes then why do the woman? Or why can't men just go straight into the locker room after a Woman's event? It's sexism.

(Ok. Now, this was off topic lmao. This is an "Off Topic" thing you can bitch at me for. I just had to get it out =D. But just don't reply if you don't want to)

Rag Doll
05-13-2008, 09:26 PM
Your argument is flawed, but I feel like it's pointless to try to discuss this with you because you don't listen much anyways.

Llamas
05-13-2008, 11:14 PM
I thought the same thing, ragdoll...

But I guess I could sum it up for you, offspringhead, by pointing this out:

I didn't say sexism against men doesn't exist; I said that it's not a big problem, say in the way it's a problem for women.

Sunny
05-14-2008, 07:30 AM
ok, i'm bored, so i'll give this a shot.


Wrong. There is a lot of sexism against men. Just in a different form. A woman molests a 12 year old boy, a woman teacher has sex with a student etc. When a man does these things, you hear about it in headlines, newspapers, magazines the whole 9 yards. A Student has sex with a good looking teacher the boy gets high fives and the severity of punishment against the woman teacher isn't as bad compared to a man. I spend A LOT of time on this in my History/Economics Class.

My teacher actually brought up a point on this topic today. When my teacher was 19 he told us he was a sports reporter for some newspaper. He had to interview players of the Eagles of the NFL. He was allowed in the locker room right after the game, and so were woman. He said 90% of the players freely walked around in the nude with woman reporters present.

Now, In men's sports, news reporters (of all sexes) are allowed in the locker rooms right after the game to do interviews and such. Meaning the men players have no time to dress, shower or anything like that. But in womans sports such as the WNBA, men have to wait 15-20 minutes after the game for the woman basketball players to "cover up". The women reporters are allowed in the WNBA's locker room right after the game. The woman reporters have a higher advantage over men reporters because they get the first story and first interviews because the men have to wait.

Now the argument comes up that if Men sports don't get 15 minutes then why do the woman? Or why can't men just go straight into the locker room after a Woman's event? It's sexism.



what's next, white people suffer horribly from racism?

yes, gender-based prejudice affects both genders. obviously. however, what you need to understand is the difference between occasional gender-based discrimination and institutionalized, widely accepted sexism. honestly, your locker room examples hardly fall under the first category, let alone the other. i simply fail to understand how you can compare 15 minutes of time after some sports event to the institutionalized misogyny women have to deal with every day. honestly, i laughed out loud reading your post; your *one* teacher, at the age of 19, was not allowed into a women's locker room. oh my god, the fucking hardship, poor baby! cry moar plz.

examples? let me show you them. let's, for the sake of brevity, narrow it down to four. if you have any questions or want to know more, i will be happy to answer. anyway:

- your average American woman makes 77 cents for every dollar an American man makes.

- it is a *woman's* reproductive choice that is constantly questioned, judged and argued about... by male legislators.

- women are the ones that are notoriously abused, raped and harassed (yes, men get raped too, but do look up the statistics... you'll see there is quite a discrepancy between the numbers). on top of that, women often end up taking the blame for the sexual abuse they fell victim to - "she wanted it", "she was drunk", "the bitch asked for it". hell, forget rape for a second. sexual harassment of women is incredibly commonplace, from strangers grabbing their asses on the subway to their bosses making unwanted sexual advances at work, and no one gives a shit, really, because if the bitch didn't want the attention, she wouldn't wear such a short skirt.

- sex industry and trafficking - an industry that benefits primarily from the dehumanization and abuse of... oh, you guessed it. women.

- a woman's sexuality is subject to severe scrutiny, unlike the sexual behavior of men. i'm sure you've heard this a million times, but if a woman has had numerous partners, she's a "whore" and a "dirty slut". a man in the same situation would be referred to as a "player", "pimp" or "the man".

and that's just four examples i came up with in like... 5 minutes.
lordy.

TheUnholyNightbringer
05-14-2008, 09:02 AM
That's 5 examples.

YAY I TOOK PART!

Sunny
05-14-2008, 09:08 AM
aw, fuck you.

i'm a woman, i can't do math! :(

TheUnholyNightbringer
05-14-2008, 09:12 AM
lul women can't do math. hilary is a women. she should not be leader of USA!

I like logic lots!

OffspringHead
05-14-2008, 01:18 PM
ok, i'm bored, so i'll give this a shot.




what's next, white people suffer horribly from racism?

yes, gender-based prejudice affects both genders. obviously. however, what you need to understand is the difference between occasional gender-based discrimination and institutionalized, widely accepted sexism. honestly, your locker room examples hardly fall under the first category, let alone the other. i simply fail to understand how you can compare 15 minutes of time after some sports event to the institutionalized misogyny women have to deal with every day. honestly, i laughed out loud reading your post; your *one* teacher, at the age of 19, was not allowed into a women's locker room. oh my god, the fucking hardship, poor baby! cry moar plz.

examples? let me show you them. let's, for the sake of brevity, narrow it down to four. if you have any questions or want to know more, i will be happy to answer. anyway:

- your average American woman makes 77 cents for every dollar an American man makes.

- it is a *woman's* reproductive choice that is constantly questioned, judged and argued about... by male legislators.

- women are the ones that are notoriously abused, raped and harassed (yes, men get raped too, but do look up the statistics... you'll see there is quite a discrepancy between the numbers). on top of that, women often end up taking the blame for the sexual abuse they fell victim to - "she wanted it", "she was drunk", "the bitch asked for it". hell, forget rape for a second. sexual harassment of women is incredibly commonplace, from strangers grabbing their asses on the subway to their bosses making unwanted sexual advances at work, and no one gives a shit, really, because if the bitch didn't want the attention, she wouldn't wear such a short skirt.

- sex industry and trafficking - an industry that benefits primarily from the dehumanization and abuse of... oh, you guessed it. women.

- a woman's sexuality is subject to severe scrutiny, unlike the sexual behavior of men. i'm sure you've heard this a million times, but if a woman has had numerous partners, she's a "whore" and a "dirty slut". a man in the same situation would be referred to as a "player", "pimp" or "the man".

and that's just four examples i came up with in like... 5 minutes.
lordy.
Jesus. I fucking know all this shit. You people are too quick to jump down throats. I know sexism is worse for woman im not a fucking retard. I was just giving an example of sexism against men and i fucking specifically said it's off topic. I know the example I gave is not a big deal but it's an example regardless. It's not like I'm a fucking sexist pig against woman. I know they have it worse so the fact you got all defensive with me is complete bullshit.

Rag Doll
05-14-2008, 06:55 PM
There is no sexism against men. "Isms" (racism, sexism, heterosexism, etc) are perpetrated by the dominant group against the target group. The dominant group in this case are men, the target group are women. It is based in power. Since women are the target group, they are lacking power. Without power, there is no "ism." Women can be prejudiced, but they can't be sexist. They do not have the "power" in society to institute a system of oppression over men.

wheelchairman
05-14-2008, 07:09 PM
I think what many people find annoying and which hasn't been addressed is that when people use a gender-specific insult against Hillary, it's portrayed in this thread as an attack on women. Or as an attack based solely on the fact that Hillary is a woman.

I think that would be a gross-overestimation of sexism in America. I think people don't like Hillary and have picked a relevant insult. I don't think that just because it's gender-based, that makes them hate women.

Now of course I'm not saying that some of them aren't sexist. Just not every single one or even probably the majority.

Rag Doll
05-14-2008, 07:18 PM
I don't think anyone is saying that everyone who calls Hillary a "bitch" hates women (I can't speak for Sunny or llamas, but I don't think that's really where they're going). But a lot of people that hate women are using Hillary to....get that out without saying "I'm a sexist fuck and hate all women"....you get me? And some people that call her a "bitch" would not say something negative about a man that exhibited the exact same behavior. Is that more clear?

wheelchairman
05-14-2008, 07:49 PM
That is clear. The it just seems like either you 3 know a looooot of sexists or are overstating the issue.

Sunny
05-15-2008, 07:13 AM
well, it could be that, it could be that we live in the US (I know you're originally from here, but you spend most of your time abroad if I'm not mistaken).... or it could be that a patriarchal system is a lot easier to look past if you have the right gear dangling between your legs.

i don't mean this as a swipe at you; i know plenty of awesome feminist-friendly guys who often admit they haven't even thought about certain sexism related issues... simply because they never had to. if the system benefits you, you don't tend to question it. hell, i never thought about my racial or class privilege until people told me "uh, check your privilege". having been made aware of this, i don't go around telling people "well uhhh you must've just met a lot of racists and classists!".
ur invisible knapsack, let me show u it.

also, you make it sound like sexists are few and far between, and llamas, Sam and i just magically happened to stumble upon so many of them. first of all, Sam and i live in a *very* liberal area. hell, i live in NYC, which is like a shining fucking beacon of reproductive rights and whatnot. and yet there's a ton of sexist shit going on here. it's not like we live somewhere deep in the American south could it perhaps be that sexism is a whole lot more prevalent than people would be willing to admit? just because people doesn't consider themselves actively *sexist* (i don't hate womens!) or *racist* (i don't hate black peoples!) doesn't mean they haven't internalized it through living in a sexist and racist society.

wheelchairman
05-15-2008, 07:58 AM
Oh definitely, I'm not denying there are sexists in America (and in Europe, Denmark simply ignores the fact that women go nowhere fast, despite qualifications.)

It just seems that when you and Sunny commiserate over the bitch-hillary comments you make it sound like "oh isn't this just sad and miserable how many sexists there are."

And without knowing an exact number it just sounds like every male who doesn't like Hillary. Sorry for the misinterpretation. I just wanted to make it clear that using a gender-specific insult (against a woman) does not always denote sexism. Just a lack of creativity.

BREAK
05-15-2008, 09:29 AM
I just wanted to make it clear that using a gender-specific insult (against a woman) does not always denote sexism. Just a lack of creativity.

That's the same shit I was trying to say, except I'm a retarded and don't pick my words right. Thank you.

The thing these chicks are complaining about seems to be the sense of male entitlement in our society. Of course men have the right to grab for power by any means necessary, it's what men are supposed to do. But how dare a woman do the same blblblah. It's just gender roles. There's stuff men aren't supposed to do, and stuff that women aren't supposed to do. Unfortunately, the stuff women aren't supposed to do seems to prevent them from ever gaining true equality.

I would submit that men do suffer discrimination in this society, but only for not living up to the "masculine ideal". So even then, it's still just a product of hatred towards women again.

Sunny
05-15-2008, 09:52 AM
It just seems that when you and Sunny commiserate over the bitch-hillary comments you make it sound like "oh isn't this just sad and miserable how many sexists there are."

well i mean... isn't it sad and miserable?

anyway, I get what you guys are saying about the gender-specific insults, which is that people don't use "bitch" as a consciously misogynist statement, but more as "female asshat"... but i think Sam already explained that it's not what we take issue with.


I would submit that men do suffer discrimination in this society, but only for not living up to the "masculine ideal". So even then, it's still just a product of hatred towards women again.

that's a great point. some men are discriminated against for not being "masculine enough" because the other option is femininity... and femininity is looked down on because we live in a misogynist society. a lot of discrimination against gay men has its roots in misogyny too, because gay men are viewed as more feminine.
and speaking of masculinity and femininity, it's funny how we are totally obsessed with them and how strictly we're supposed to adhere to them... even though they are completely artificial and constructed ideas.

Llamas
05-15-2008, 12:34 PM
I would submit that men do suffer discrimination in this society, but only for not living up to the "masculine ideal". So even then, it's still just a product of hatred towards women again.

Oh god, this has been something that's bothered me for a few years... but nobody else ever seems to notice it. When I mention it to people, they think I'm making shit up, pulling something out of my ass. If a girl wants to be more masculine, she'll certainly get some flack... but it's not nearly of the same degree as a guy being more feminine. If a girl dresses like a guy, it's so much more acceptable than if a guy dresses like a girl. In fact, most men's clothing is available for women these days... and it's almost normal for girls to buy boys' pants or shoes or shirts now and then. But if a guy wears anything from the girls section, or even just wears something that could possibly resemble a purse, the least he's gonna hear is that he must be gay.

Oh, and I also live in an extremely liberal area. Minneapolis is the 5th gayest state in the nation, haha, and we always vote democrat. It's just cause we have the biggest University here, so that brings in TONS of liberal folks. But yes, I still do run into sexists, and it's not that few and far between.

I met a guy a few weeks ago... I told him I was planning on moving to the Czech Republic. He said, "What? You'll get your head cut off." I said, "In the Czech Republic? Naw, I was just there last year, and my head is still firmly attached!" His wife said, "Well that was last year..." The guy went on to talk about how dangerous and bad things are there. I really wanted to ask him if he even knew where the Czech Republic was, or the first thing about it. But the point is, there is a lot of stereotyping and/or ignorance no matter where you go. However, I run into it a LOT less here than I did while I was living in Milwaukee... I swear that everyone there is Christian, is conservative, hates blacks, and hates gays.

Little_Miss_1565
05-15-2008, 01:08 PM
I made a post once about how we need a new definition of masculinity and now I can't find it. It totes said that though.

wheelchairman
05-16-2008, 09:36 AM
It's pretty much what Fight Club is all about.

It's rather ironic that in Denmark all definitions of masculinity have been defined by women as of late. It seems that the Danish male is impotent to be a role model.

It's some sort of collective loss of a backbone. I don't really know what it is though, it's frustrating but it's not my problem in particular.

IamSam
05-16-2008, 06:25 PM
Well, Montana is finally on the map as being needed for a primary for the first time that anyone I've talked to can remember. Obama is coming to my city on Monday, tickets ran out within ten minutes, whereas at the Hillary rally where Bill spoke there were roughly 500-800 free seats left open. I went to see former president Clinton speak and was quite surprised. I don't remember hearing him speak when I was younger and that guy is damn good. He's also a nice guy it would seem: He personally walked up to some volunteers and thanked them for the work on the stage as they were working. Anyway, here is a picture that I took of the man speachifying.

http://i274.photobucket.com/albums/jj256/birchwl/P1030834resize.jpg

TheOldMark
05-17-2008, 08:33 PM
I think what many people find annoying and which hasn't been addressed is that when people use a gender-specific insult against Hillary, it's portrayed in this thread as an attack on women. Or as an attack based solely on the fact that Hillary is a woman.


I think being outside of the country, some of you have a misconception about what this is all about. there is a huge amount of people in the US who just cant stand Hillary. I thought I made it clear in my original post that my hatred of her has nothing to do with her being a woman, she is just a piece of shit. There are other women who I would support. And personally I think its stupid that people will vote for her just because she's a woman, just like blacks voting for Obama just because hes black. To me, its all about character, integrity, trust. Obama can fit that bill, Hillary absolutely cannot.

Wolfbutter
05-18-2008, 04:10 PM
I'm afraid that Obama is going to win. He seems like he has no idea what's he doing at all...

wheelchairman
05-18-2008, 04:21 PM
I think being outside of the country, some of you have a misconception about what this is all about. there is a huge amount of people in the US who just cant stand Hillary. I thought I made it clear in my original post that my hatred of her has nothing to do with her being a woman, she is just a piece of shit. There are other women who I would support. And personally I think its stupid that people will vote for her just because she's a woman, just like blacks voting for Obama just because hes black. To me, its all about character, integrity, trust. Obama can fit that bill, Hillary absolutely cannot.

I think being illiterate might have given you a misconception about what I had actually written...