Talk Elections

Election Archive => 2012 Elections => Topic started by: Queen Mum Inks.LWC on April 13, 2012, 11:18:23 PM



Title: Hilary Rosen's Ann Romney Comment
Post by: Queen Mum Inks.LWC on April 13, 2012, 11:18:23 PM
I'm surprised nobody's started a topic on this yet.  What are your thoughts on Rosen's comment?

"What you have is Mitt Romney running around the country saying, 'Well, you know my wife tells me that what women really care about are economic issues and when I listen to my wife that's what I'm hearing.' Guess what? His wife has actually never worked a day in her life. She's never really dealt with the kinds of economic issues that a majority of the women in this country are facing in terms of how do we feed our kids, how do we send them to school and why do we worry about their future."

As for my thoughts, Rosen's wording was poor, and you should generally leave candidates spouses out of the picture, but Romney brought her into this. And ultimately Rosen is right: as a stay-at-home mom, Rosen doesn't have the perspective that a working mom would have on economic issues. Although, the bigger point that probably could've been made without making stay-at-home moms angry would've just to made a comment about the Romneys wealth in general. Not that that's fair either, but Democrat pissing off wealthy voters hurts less than pissing off moms.


Title: Re: Hilary Rosen's Ann Romney Comment
Post by: fezzyfestoon on April 13, 2012, 11:36:29 PM
I think it's more of the same old American sensationalism. Turning an absolute non-issue into the issue of the week. I find the entire thing to be excruciatingly contrived and pointless.

EDIT: To go deeper...since this is apparently going to be a serious discussion; I should clarify that what I find the most offensively idiot about this whole garbage issue is that the entire point of the comment has been glossed over in favor of sensationalist politicking. She hasn't worked! There are so many women who are being swept under the rug by Obama and just this issue in general that are fighting ALONE to go to their jobs all day and come home to raise their kids day in and day out. I can't even do that for myself let alone little people that depend on me. The whole basis of this issue is so beyond ignorant that it just baffles me. I honestly cannot believe that people are trying to turn this into an issue about raising children. BULL, this is about women who run their own shet AND have to raise kids all on their own. Something Ann Romney definitely NEVER did.


Title: Re: Hilary Rosen's Ann Romney Comment
Post by: HagridOfTheDeep on April 13, 2012, 11:37:40 PM
I don't.

I am outraged by Rosen's comments, because I am a Republican and she offended the people we needed her to offend.

Outraged, I say!

;)


Title: Re: Hilary Rosen's Ann Romney Comment
Post by: tmthforu94 on April 13, 2012, 11:41:44 PM
I partly feel sympathy for her, just because I honestly don't think she was thinking "moms don't work" when she said that, but then again, I've seen Republicans make similar-type comments and it was blown way out of proportion as well. Will be interesting to see what this does - Romney shouldn't overplay this, but it may have helped him slightly with women, at least for now. If anything, it gains them some sympathy.

I have no ill feelings towards her on the comments - Anne Romney has thick skin, so I doubt it bothered her too much. If anything, strategist Republicans were happy she made this comment as it gives a little bit of ammo in trying to win some more of the women vote.

In closing, politician's families should never be attacked in a campaign like that. So the blame falls on Rosen.



Title: Re: Hilary Rosen's Ann Romney Comment
Post by: memphis on April 13, 2012, 11:45:19 PM
It's not so much that she didn't work while she was raising her kids. It's that she's never had a job. Ever. And I certainly don't blame her personally. I wouldn't work if I didn't have to. But what does that say about our economy that you have these idle richers who have never been gainfully employed a day in their life, live off investments, and then pay taxes at a lower rate than the vast majority of people who work hard every day? Our entire economic system is seriously screwy.


Title: Re: Hilary Rosen's Ann Romney Comment
Post by: ○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└ on April 13, 2012, 11:48:30 PM
It's not so much that she didn't work while she was raising her kids. It's that she's never had a job. Ever. And I certainly don't blame her personally. I wouldn't work if I didn't have to. But what does that say about our economy that you have these idle richers who have never been gainfully employed a day in their life, live off investments, and then pay taxes at a lower rate than the vast majority of people who work hard every day? Our entire economic system is seriously screwy.

Mitt hasn't had a job for over half a decade now, either.


Title: Re: Hilary Rosen's Ann Romney Comment
Post by: Torie on April 14, 2012, 12:02:11 AM
I find the remark nauseating, because Ann was simply saying what she heard working women tell her, not that she claimed to be an expert on the world of paycheck work where you depend on that paycheck. So the attack on her for not being an expert, poorly worded, was way, way beyond the pale. Rosen is just an unthinking attack dog really, who hasn't been adequately trained to do the job effectively.


Title: Re: Hilary Rosen's Ann Romney Comment
Post by: Miles on April 14, 2012, 12:22:56 AM
I agree with Rosen's general message but her delivery was poor and made her sound ignorant. I hold working women in infinitely higher esteem than rich housewives.


Title: Re: Hilary Rosen's Ann Romney Comment
Post by: tpfkaw on April 14, 2012, 12:46:25 AM
You know who else never had a "real job?"  Jackie Kennedy, and Lady Bird Johnson (unless "using daddy's money to buy a radio station and then totally non-suspiciously getting a legal monopoly for the entire city of Austin" counts), and Rosalynn Carter.  Oh, and Theresa Heinz, and Tipper Gore (unless "part-time photographer" counts), and Kitty Dukakis, and Joan Mondale (unless "part-time museum tour guide for less than a year" counts).  Oh, and if we're going the class warfare route and excluding jobs earning more than six figures, Hillary Clinton and Michelle Obama.

(In short, the only Democratic first lady candidate ever to hold a working-class job for any extended period of time out of economic necessity rather than personal choice was Eleanor McGovern).


Title: Re: Hilary Rosen's Ann Romney Comment
Post by: Gustaf on April 14, 2012, 02:34:42 AM
The Romneys are a couple where both are out of work, desperately trying to raise a family while still making sure to uphold American values by driving a couple of Cadillacs.


Title: Re: Hilary Rosen's Ann Romney Comment
Post by: Landslide Lyndon on April 14, 2012, 04:55:34 AM
What's really asinine is that even the journalists who covered this thing admitted it's a trivial non-issue, yet they went on with their hyperventilating reporting and analysis. 


Title: Re: Hilary Rosen's Ann Romney Comment
Post by: Bandit3 the Worker on April 14, 2012, 08:12:54 AM
I'm surprised nobody's started a topic on this yet.  What are your thoughts on Rosen's comment?

This story is being hyped by the media in an attempt to help Romney. But Rosen is not an Obama strategist, so it's really not even relevant to Obama.

The media needs to just shut its mouth.


Title: Re: Hilary Rosen's Ann Romney Comment
Post by: Democratic Hawk on April 14, 2012, 08:29:45 AM
I'm surprised nobody's started a topic on this yet.  What are your thoughts on Rosen's comment?

This story is being hyped by the media in an attempt to help Romney. But Rosen is not an Obama strategist, so it's really not even relevant to Obama.

The media needs to just shut its mouth.

Correct, Bandit. Romney seems on course to get a John McCain style 2008 free pass >:(


Title: Re: Hilary Rosen's Ann Romney Comment
Post by: Bandit3 the Worker on April 14, 2012, 08:31:01 AM
Correct, Bandit. Romney seems on course to get a John McCain style 2008 free pass >:(

Or even worse, a Bush-style free pass.


Title: Re: Hilary Rosen's Ann Romney Comment
Post by: Democratic Hawk on April 14, 2012, 09:19:49 AM
Correct, Bandit. Romney seems on course to get a John McCain style 2008 free pass >:(

Or even worse, a Bush-style free pass.

Had a bad feeling in my water with GWB from DAY ONE. Indeed, the Reactionary Party seems oblivious to the fact that capitalism requires more broad-based prosperity (Bill Clinton, to a point, understood that, which is why, economically, he was by far more successful than any of the Republicans post-1981)

If only a Democrat :) had been bequeathed the Clinton legacy of prosperity (given that most of the 22% gain in median incomes - during the Washington Consensus - occurred during his presidency), low unemployment (23 million jobs generated between 1993-2001) and solvent government

Anyway, nothing changes the fact that the 'Crash of 2008' has totally and utterly discredited the neoliberal mantra espoused by Friedrich von Hayek. Reactionary Party-nomics have proven themselves The Road to Serfdom

The Democratic Party is the party of middle class empowerment; the Reactionary Party that of middle class emaciation. If the GOP hadn't gained control of the House of Representatives or made sizeable gains in the Senate, in 2010, the economic recovery may well have been locked-in with unemployment on a more rapidly trend downwards.


Title: Re: Hilary Rosen's Ann Romney Comment
Post by: Bandit3 the Worker on April 14, 2012, 09:26:49 AM
There's no middle class left. The Democrats need to become the party of lower class empowerment.


Title: Re: Hilary Rosen's Ann Romney Comment
Post by: Lincoln Republican on April 14, 2012, 10:30:56 AM
Hilary Rosen is an absolute embarassment to the nation and to the Obama administration.  She is a classless, ignorant wench.

Even President Obama, First Lady Michelle Obama, and Vice President Biden have condemned her outrageous remarks.

There is no tougher job, or role, in life than being a mother.

If the Democrats have any sense at all, they will not be having Rosen speak for them at all in the future.


Title: Re: Hilary Rosen's Ann Romney Comment
Post by: HagridOfTheDeep on April 14, 2012, 12:14:58 PM
I joked that I was mostly offended because it was a useful gaffe for our side. But I do want to say, I don't think this gaffe is as much of a non-issue as Democrats want to say it is.

They key electorate this cycle is women. And Hilary's comments will piss off a lot of women. It will certainly piss off the moms of higher-income families--Rosen's comments were a direct assault on their lifestyles. I'd say there'd be a fair middle-class population of stay-at-home moms too--a group that Obama desperately needs. And even poorer mothers who do work could take some issue with this, just out of feeling rubbed the wrong way.

The comments could be made to symbolize the group that Democrats would leave out in the dust come a second term.


Title: Re: Hilary Rosen's Ann Romney Comment
Post by: Democratic Hawk on April 14, 2012, 12:22:31 PM
I joked that I was mostly offended because it was a useful gaffe for our side. But I do want to say, I don't think this gaffe is as much of a non-issue as Democrats want to say it is.

They key electorate this cycle is women. And Hilary's comments will piss off a lot of women. It will certainly piss off the moms of higher-income families--Rosen's comments were a direct assault on their lifestyles. I'd say there'd be a fair middle-class population of stay-at-home moms too--a group that Obama desperately needs. And even poorer mothers who do work could take some issue with this, just out of feeling rubbed the wrong way.

The comments could be made to symbolize the group that Democrats would leave out in the dust come a second term.

Rosen's comments, of course, have nothing to do with the Obama administration


Title: Re: Hilary Rosen's Ann Romney Comment
Post by: HagridOfTheDeep on April 14, 2012, 12:24:21 PM
But as one of the premier ambassadors for Democrats in the media, it's pretty significant.


Title: Re: Hilary Rosen's Ann Romney Comment
Post by: The world will shine with light in our nightmare on April 14, 2012, 12:28:40 PM
Non-issue; it will be forgotten about in a week.  Most people didn't know who Hillary Rosen was before this happened, and since what she said obviously only reflects her personal views on the matter, this will not have an impact on Obama.  It would be foolish to blame Obama for something that he didn't mean to construe.


Title: Re: Hilary Rosen's Ann Romney Comment
Post by: Bull Moose Base on April 14, 2012, 12:40:17 PM
I think this issue will continue to be the media's focus for the next 6 months.  The only remote chance I can see people moving on is in the unlikely event someone else on TV says something stupid between now and then and we're all distracted.  I suppose it's possible but I don't honestly see that happening.


Title: Re: Hilary Rosen's Ann Romney Comment
Post by: Beet on April 14, 2012, 12:43:30 PM
Rosen's comments have been turned into something far more than what they were. Most news sources refuse to quote her in context:

Quote
What you have is Mitt Romney running around the country saying, well, you know, my wife tells me that what women really care about are economic issues, and when I listen to my wife, that's what I am hearing.  Guess what?  His wife has actually never worked a day in her life.
She's never really dealt with the kinds of economic issues that a majority of the women in this country are facing in terms of how do we feed our kids, how do we send them to school and how do we worry - and why we worry about their future.  I think, yes, it's about these positions and, yes, I think there will be a war of words about the positions.

Rosen's point was just that Romney wife maybe isn't the most qualified advisor Romney could have chosen to be advisor on these issues. That just the fact that she is his wife doesn't negate that her life experiences have been very different than that of most women. Any good-faith reading of these comments would appreciate that her remark "never worked a day in her life" wasn't meant as an attack on stay-at-home moms. Rosen likely didn't have SAHM in her mind when she uttered the comment. She was clearly referring to formal work. As in "I went to work," or "I'm out of work." When people say these things they don't literally mean that no dishes are washed or no lawns are mowed at home, or that unemployed people can't also raise children. They just mean formal, paid work.

Rosen as a mother herself knows how hard that kind of work is. Also, I think that clearly you can see it wasn't spite for Ann Romney driving the comments. Rosen was responding to Romney's assertion that he uses Ann for advice on women's issues. The point was not to hate on Ann but to point out that Romney might get better advice from more diverse sources. By refusing to defend Rosen, Democrats unfortunately have allowed Republicans to get away with the notion that a Democratic pundit somehow attacked SAHM or Ann Romney, when that is not the case.

Compare the above to these comments,

Quote
1. Limbaugh Reads CNS Post: "A Georgetown Co-Ed Told Rep. Nancy Pelosi's Hearing That The Women In Her Law School Program Are Having So Much Sex That They're Going Broke." On his radio show, Limbaugh read from a CNSNews.com blog post that attacked Fluke, saying, " "A Georgetown co-ed told Rep. Nancy Pelosi's hearing that the women in her law school program are having so much sex that they're going broke, so you and I should pay for their birth control. ... Georgetown law student Sandra Fluke said that it's too expensive to have sex in law school without mandated insurance coverage.' " [Premiere Radio Networks, The Rush Limbaugh Show, 2/29/12, via RushLimbaugh.com]

2. Limbaugh: "Can You Imagine If You're Her Parents"? Fluke Testified "She's Having So Much Sex She Can't Afford Her Own Birth Control Pills." Also on the February 29 show, Limbaugh said: "Can you imagine if you're her parents how proud of Sandra Fluke you would be? Your daughter goes up to a congressional hearing conducted by the Botox-filled Nancy Pelosi and testifies she's having so much sex she can't afford her own birth control pills and she agrees that Obama should provide them, or the Pope." [Premiere Radio Networks, The Rush Limbaugh Show, 2/29/12, via RushLimbaugh.com]

3. Limbaugh Calls Fluke A "Slut" And "A Prostitute." Later on the broadcast, Limbaugh said, "What does it say about the college co-ed Susan Fluke [sic], who goes before a congressional committee and essentially says that she must be paid for sex? What does that make her? It makes her a slut, right? It makes her a prostitute." [Premiere Radio Networks, The Rush Limbaugh Show, 2/29/12, via Media Matters]

4. Limbaugh: "She Wants To Be Paid To Have Sex." After calling Fluke a "slut," Limbaugh continued: "She wants to be paid to have sex. She's having so much sex she can't afford the contraception. She wants you and me and the taxpayers to pay her to have sex. What does that make us? We're the pimps. (interruption) The johns? We would be the johns? No! We're not the johns. (interruption) Yeah, that's right. Pimp's not the right word."

5. Limbaugh: Fluke Is "Round-Heeled." Limbaugh modified his comment about Fluke being a "slut": "Okay, so she's not a slut. She's 'round heeled.' I take it back." [Premiere Radio Networks, The Rush Limbaugh Show, 2/29/12, via RushLimbaugh.com]

6. Limbaugh: "I Guess Now We Know Why Bill Clinton Went To Georgetown. ... Sandra Fluke. So Much Sex Going On, They Can't Afford Birth Control Pills." Later on the broadcast, Limbaugh said, "Well, I guess now we know why Bill Clinton went to Georgetown and why Hillary went to Wellesley. Well, all the sex going on at Georgetown. Sandra Fluke. So much sex going on, they can't afford birth control pills. She said that to Nancy Pelosi yesterday." [Premiere Radio Networks, The Rush Limbaugh Show, 2/29/12, via RushLimbaugh.com]

MARCH 1

7. Limbaugh: Yesterday, I Said Fluke "Went Before A Congressional Committee And Said She's Having So Much Sex, She's Going Broke Buying Contraceptives." On the March 1 broadcast of his show, Rush Limbaugh said, "The left has been thrown into an outright conniption fit. ... The reaction that they are having to what I said yesterday about Susan Fluke -- or Sandra Fluke, whatever her name is -- the Georgetown student who went before a congressional committee and said she's having so much sex, she's going broke buying contraceptives and wants us to buy them." [Premiere Radio Networks, The Rush Limbaugh Show, 3/1/12, via Media Matters]

8. Limbaugh: You'd Call Someone "Who Wants Us To Pay For Her To Have Sex" A "Slut Or Prostitute." Limbaugh then said, "I said, 'Well, what you call someone who wants us to pay for her to have sex? What would you call that woman? You'd call 'em as I -- slut or prostitute or what-- that has sent them into orbit." [Premiere Radio Networks, The Rush Limbaugh Show, 3/1/12, via Media Matters]

9. Limbaugh: "I'll Happily Buy [Fluke] All The Aspirin She Wants." Limbaugh went on to say: "I'll happily buy her all the aspirin she wants. ... We would happily buy Sandra Fluke all the aspirin she wants. What could that possibly cost? ... I'm offering a compromise today. I will buy all of the women at Georgetown University as much aspirin to put between their knees as they want." [Premiere Radio Networks, The Rush Limbaugh Show, 3/1/12, via Media Matters]

10. Limbaugh Again Reads CNS Article Claiming Fluke Told Hearing "That The Women In Her Law School Program Are Having So Much Sex That They're Going Broke." Also on the March 1 show, Limbaugh again read the CNS post attacking Fluke, saying, "Now, here's the story that started all this. It's by a guy named Craig Bannister at Cybercast News Service [CNS]: 'A Georgetown co-ed told Representative Nancy Pelosi's hearing that the women in her law school program are having so much sex -- so much sex -- that they're going broke, so you and I should pay for their birth control. ... Georgetown Law student Sandra Fluke said that it's too expensive to have sex in law school without mandated insurance coverage.' " [Premiere Radio Networks, The Rush Limbaugh Show, 3/1/12, via Media Matters]

11. Limbaugh: Fluke "Wants Us To Buy Her Sex. She Wants Us To Pay For Her Sex, And She Went To A Congressional Committee To Close The Sale." Limbaugh also said on the March 1 broadcast: " 'Without insurance coverage, contraception, as you know, can cost a woman over $3,000 during law school.' That's a thousand dollars a year for sex that she wants us to pay for it. Now, what does that make her? She wants us to buy her sex. She wants us to pay for her sex, and she went to a congressional committee to close the sale." [Premiere Radio Networks, The Rush Limbaugh Show, 3/1/12, via Media Matters]

12. Limbaugh Mocks Fluke With Baby Voice, Pretending To Cry: "I'm Going Broke Having Sex. ... It's Not Fair." Limbaugh went on to mock Fluke with an affected baby voice, saying, "A woman who goes to law school at Georgetown goes to a congressional hearing where Pelosi is, 'I'm going broke having sex. I need government to provide me condoms and contraception. It's not fair.' " [Premiere Radio Networks, The Rush Limbaugh Show, 3/1/12, via Media Matters]

13. Limbaugh: "We Are Paying [Fluke] For Having Sex." Limbaugh then said, "So [this is a] law student at a congressional committee asking for us to pay for the things that make it possible for her to have sex. Therefore, we are paying her to have sex. Therefore, we are paying her for having sex. We are getting screwed, even though we don't meet her personally. What would you call this?" [Premiere Radio Networks, The Rush Limbaugh Show, 3/1/12, via Media Matters]


Title: Re: Hilary Rosen's Ann Romney Comment
Post by: Beet on April 14, 2012, 12:43:59 PM
Quote
14. Limbaugh: "Ms. Fluke, Have You Ever Heard Of Not Having Sex?" Later on the March 1 broadcast of his show, Limbaugh played clips of Fluke's testimony at the congressional hearing. He then said: "Ms. Fluke, have you ever heard of not having sex? Have you ever heard of not having sex so often? What next that you can't afford are you gonna go to Pelosi and say we need to buy? Mink? A Volt? A Prius?" [Premiere Radio Networks, The Rush Limbaugh Show, 3/1/12, via Media Matters]

15. Limbaugh Demands That "Fluke And The Rest Of You Feminazis" Who Are Calling For Contraception Coverage Post Sex "Videos Online So We Can All Watch." Later on the March 1 broadcast, Limbaugh said, "So, Ms. Fluke and the rest of you feminazis, here's the deal. If we are going to pay for your contraceptives, and thus pay for you to have sex, we want something for it. And I'll tell you what it is. We want you to post the videos online so we can all watch." [Premiere Radio Networks, The Rush Limbaugh Show, 3/1/12, via Media Matters]

16. Limbaugh Again Tells Fluke That He Wants "The Videos Of All This Sex Posted Online So We Can See What We Are Getting For Our Money." Later, Limbaugh said, "So, if we're gonna sit here, and if we're gonna have a part in this, then we want something in return, Ms. Fluke: And that would be the videos of all this sex posted online so we can see what we are getting for our money." [Premiere Radio Networks, The Rush Limbaugh Show, 3/1/12, via RushLimbaugh.com]

17. Limbaugh Asks Fluke: "Who Bought Your Condoms In Junior High? Who Bought Your Condoms In The Sixth Grade?" Limbaugh went on to say, "I want to know, who bought -- Ms. Fluke, who bought your condoms in junior high? Who bought your condoms in the sixth grade, or your contraception? Who bought your contraceptive pills in high school? Wouldn't you be just as likely to go broke in high school and junior high as you would be in college?" [Premiere Radio Networks, The Rush Limbaugh Show, 3/1/12, via Media Matters]

18. Limbaugh: "A Woman Goes Up To A Congressional Committee And Says, 'I'm Having Sex So Damn Much, I'm Going Broke.' " Later on the show, Limbaugh played a clip on Sen. Frank Lautenberg (D-NJ) condemning the attacks on Fluke. Limbaugh then said: "A woman goes up to congressional committee and says: I'm having sex so damn much, I'm going broke. What the heck is going on here?" [Premiere Radio Networks, The Rush Limbaugh Show, 3/1/12, via RushLimbaugh.com]

19. Limbaugh: "I'm Not Questioning [Fluke's] Virtue. I Know What Her Virtue Is. She's Having So Much Sex That She's Going Broke." Limbaugh went on to say that an MSNBC anchor had said that "Limbaugh yesterday squarely aimed his words at Sandra Fluke questioning her virtue." Limbaugh then said: "I'm not questioning her virtue. I know what her virtue is. She's having so much sex that she's going broke! There's no question about her virtue." [Premiere Radio Networks, The Rush Limbaugh Show, 3/1/12, via RushLimbaugh.com]

20. Limbaugh Mocks The Idea That Fluke Is "Courageous" Because She's "Having So Much Sex She's Going Broke." Later on the show, Limbaugh played a clip of congresswoman Shelia Jackson Lee condemning Limbaugh's attacks on Fluke and calling Fluke "a courageous young woman." Limbaugh then said, "Stop the tape. Courageous. Recue that to the top. Courageous, having so much sex she's going broke at Georgetown Law. (laughing) Gosh, I love this." [Premiere Radio Networks, The Rush Limbaugh Show, 3/1/12, via RushLimbaugh.com]

21. Limbaugh: "Here's A Woman Exercising No Self-Control ... She Wants To Have Repeated, Never-Ending, As-Often-As-She-Wants-It Sex." Limbaugh later said of Fluke, "Here's a woman exercising no self-control. The fact that she wants to have repeated, never-ending, as-often-as-she-wants-it sex -- given. No question about that." [Premiere Radio Networks, The Rush Limbaugh Show, 3/1/12, via RushLimbaugh.com]

22. Limbaugh: Fluke Is "Having So Much Sex, It's Amazing She Can Still Walk." Later during the show, Limbaugh said, "Did you notice in that sound bite was Sheila Jackson Lee or Maria Cantwell or one of them, talked about the strength that Sandra Fluke had to go before Congress -- which is amazing. She's having so much sex, it's amazing she can still walk, but she made it up there." [Premiere Radio Networks, The Rush Limbaugh Show, 3/1/12, via Media Matters]


Title: Re: Hilary Rosen's Ann Romney Comment
Post by: World politics is up Schmitt creek on April 14, 2012, 12:44:22 PM
...who even is Hilary Rosen?


Title: Re: Hilary Rosen's Ann Romney Comment
Post by: Beet on April 14, 2012, 12:45:03 PM
Quote
23. Limbaugh: "[Fluke's] Up At Congress Asking For Thousands Of Dollars in Birth Control Pills. ... This Law School, They Need To Establish" A "Wilt Chamberlain Scholarship, Exclusively For Women." Limbaugh later said: "Georgetown Law costs $45,000 per year, $20,000 for room and board, sex not included. So tuition and room and board is 60 grand a year, and this woman's up at Congress asking for thousands of dollars for birth control pills. This place -- I'm going to tell you what -- this college, this law school, they need to establish a new scholarship, the Wilt Chamberlain Scholarship, exclusively for women." [Premiere Radio Networks, The Rush Limbaugh Show, 3/1/12, via Media Matters]

24. Limbaugh: "This Is More Than Just One Woman Wanting Us To Pay For Her To Have Sex All The Time." Also on the March 1 show, Limbaugh said, "The reason I'm spending a little bit of time on this is because it's about much more than just this one woman wanting us to pay for her to have sex all the time." [Premiere Radio Networks, The Rush Limbaugh Show, 3/1/12, via RushLimbaugh.com]

25. Limbaugh: The Left Is "Build[ing] Their Case For Government-Run Health Care Around A Female Law Student ... [Who] Wants The Rest Of Us To Pay For Her Sex." Limbaugh went on to say, "[The left has] decided to build their case for government-run health care around a female law student attending an expensive law school, who not only wants a scholarship -- the Wilt Chamberlain Scholarship -- to pay her tuition, she wants the rest of us to pay for her sex." [Premiere Radio Networks, The Rush Limbaugh Show, 3/1/12, via RushLimbaugh.com]

26. Limbaugh: "Ms. Fluke Is Asking To Be Exempted From Personal Responsibility. She Wants All The Sex That She Wants All The Time Paid For By The Rest Of Us." Later on the show, Limbaugh said, "p 'til now, individuals paid for that themselves, because what really is going on here is the end of personal responsibility. Ms. Fluke is asking to be exempted from personal responsibility. She wants all the sex that she wants all the time paid for by the rest of us. She wants no consequences for it, or to it. She wants a penalty-free, moral-free life where everybody else pays for the mistakes that she makes as a consequence of the way she lives her life." [Premiere Radio Networks, The Rush Limbaugh Show, 3/1/12, via RushLimbaugh.com]

27. Limbaugh: "Here This Babe Goes Before Congress And Wants Thousands Of Dollars To Pay For Her Sex." Later during the show, Limbaugh said, "Here this babe goes before Congress and wants thousands of dollars to pay for her sex. Well, that's what it is. If she wants her contraception to be provided, that means she wants to have sex without consequences, with no worries, no responsibility." [Premiere Radio Networks, The Rush Limbaugh Show, 3/1/12, via RushLimbaugh.com]

28. Limbaugh: "If This Woman Wants To Have Sex Ten Times A Day For Three Years, Fine And Dandy." While answering a caller's questions about contraception and sexually transmitted infections, Limbaugh said: "If this woman wants to have sex ten times a day for three years, fine and dandy. If she wants no consequences, let her take the steps necessary. I shouldn't have to be, and nobody else should have to be, responsible for her and guarantee her a life of no responsibility or no consequence whatsoever." [Premiere Radio Networks, The Rush Limbaugh Show, 3/1/12, via RushLimbaugh.com]

29. Limbaugh On Fluke: "You Want To Have All The Sex You Want All Day Long, No Consequences, No Responsibility For Your Behavior." Later on the show, Limbaugh said, "Here we have a woman, Sandra Fluke materialized out of nowhere, it seems, to testify before a committee to talk about the Republicans denying women their contraceptives. ... You want to have all the sex you want all day long, no consequences, no responsibility for your behavior, why go to a Catholic college?" [Premiere Radio Networks, The Rush Limbaugh Show, 3/1/12, via Media Matters]

30. Limbaugh: Fluke "Is Happily Presenting Herself As An Immoral, Baseless, No-Purpose-To-Her-Life Woman. She Wants All The Sex In The World ... All The Time." Limbaugh later said about Fluke: "[T]he Democrats are putting on parade a woman who is happily presenting herself as an immoral, baseless, no-purpose-to-her-life woman. She wants all the sex in the world, whenever she wants it, all the time. No consequences. No responsibility for her behavior." [Premiere Radio Networks, The Rush Limbaugh Show, 3/1/12, via Media Matters]

31. Limbaugh Again Lectures Fluke: "Have You Ever Heard Of Aspirin? Have You Ever Heard Of Saying No?" Limbaugh later said, addressing Fluke, "Georgetown's a pretty expensive school. I don't buy your argument that's it unaffordable. Have you ever heard of the term 'budget'? Have you ever heard of aspirin? Have you ever heard of saying 'no'? You can't afford it, you don't buy it. You can't afford it, you don't do it." [Premiere Radio Networks, The Rush Limbaugh Show, 3/1/12, via RushLimbaugh.com]

32. Limbaugh: "The Woman Wants Unlimited, No-Responsibility, No-Consequences Sex, And She Wants It With Contraceptives Paid For By Us." After the CNN clip was aired, Limbaugh went on to say: "They heard every word I said and they are dumbfounded and they are reeling. ... You don't need birth control if you're not having sex. The woman wants unlimited, no-responsibility, no-consequences sex, and she wants it with contraceptives paid for by us." [Premiere Radio Networks, The Rush Limbaugh Show, 3/1/12, via RushLimbaugh.com]

33. Limbaugh Says "I Didn't Know Any Flukes" When I Was In School, Then Corrects Himself: "Every School Had A Couple Of These. Now They're Everywhere." After discussing the CNN clip, Limbaugh said, appearing to be speaking to someone off set, "Were these kinds of women around when I was in school?" Limbaugh then said: "Oh, oh, no, no, no. I didn't know any Flukes. No. Well, wait. I take it back. Yes. Every school had a couple of 'em. You know, for every 500 students, every school had a couple of these. Now they're everywhere. That's what you're getting at, right? And the two at your school, I mean even with birth control, you wouldn't go there. That's the big difference. I mean there were women that you might think you could get a disease, but you didn't care." [Premiere Radio Networks, The Rush Limbaugh Show, 3/1/12, via RushLimbaugh.com]

MARCH 2

34. Limbaugh Claims Fluke Had "It Reported About Her That She's Having So Much Sex, She Can't Afford Her Birth Control Pills Anymore." While responding to a caller during the March 2 edition of his show, Limbaugh said, "I think one of the best ways to illustrate what's happening here is, we've got a news story, a woman, a law school student at Georgetown, has it reported about her that she's having so much sex, she can't afford her birth control pills anymore." [Premiere Radio Networks, The Rush Limbaugh Show, 3/2/12, via Media Matters]


Title: Re: Hilary Rosen's Ann Romney Comment
Post by: Beet on April 14, 2012, 12:45:29 PM
Quote
35. Limbaugh Again Says Fluke "Is Having So Much Sex She Can't Pay For It." Later during his response to the caller, Limbaugh said: "So Pelosi arranges her own press conference for the woman. And the woman makes it clear, her name is Sandra Fluke, she's having so much sex she can't pay for it, and we should." [Premiere Radio Networks, The Rush Limbaugh Show, 3/2/12, via Media Matters]

36. Limbaugh: "The Woman Comes Forth With This, Frankly, Hilarious Claim That She's Having So Much Sex ... She Can't Afford It." Limbaugh later said, "So the woman comes forth with this, frankly, hilarious claim that she's having so much sex, and her buddies with her, that she can't afford it." [Premiere Radio Networks, The Rush Limbaugh Show, 3/2/12, via Media Matters]

37. Limbaugh: "Not One Person Says, Well, Did You Ever Think About Maybe Backing Off The Amount Of Sex That You Have?" Limbaugh then said, "And not one person says, well, did you ever think about maybe backing off the amount of sex that you have? Do you ever think maybe it's your responsibility for your own birth control, not everybody else's?" [Premiere Radio Networks, The Rush Limbaugh Show, 3/2/12, via Media Matters]

38. Limbaugh Again Says Fluke Is "A Student At Georgetown Law, Who Admits To Having So Much Sex That She Can't Afford It Anymore." After learning that Obama had personally called Fluke, Limbaugh said sarcastically, "What a great guy. The president called her to make sure she's OK. What is she, 30 years old? Thirty years old, a student at Georgetown Law, who admits to have so much sex that she can't afford it anymore." [Premiere Radio Networks, The Rush Limbaugh Show, 3/2/12, via Media Matters]

39. Limbaugh Says He'd "Be Embarrassed" If His Daughter "Appear[ed] Before A Congressional Committee And Says She's Having So Much Sex She Can't Pay For It." Reacting to the news that Obama had told Fluke her parents should be proud of her, Limbaugh said, "OK, I'm going to button my lip on that one." He went on to say: "OK. Let me ask you a question. ... Your daughter appears before a congressional committee and says she's having so much sex, she can't pay for it and wants a new welfare program to pay for it. Would you be proud? I don't know -- I -- I'd be embarrassed." [Premiere Radio Networks, The Rush Limbaugh Show, 3/2/12, via Media Matters]

40. Limbaugh Again Claims That Fluke Said She Needs "Free Contraceptive, To Handle Her Sex Life -- And It's, By Her Own Admission, Quite Active." While responding to a caller, Limabugh said: "Georgetown has had this policy for a long time. People that go there understand it before they enroll. The moment the activist, Ms. Fluke, asserts her right to free contraceptive, to handle her sex life -- and it's, by her own admission, quite active." [Premiere Radio Networks, The Rush Limbaugh Show, 3/2/12, via RushLimbaugh.com]

41. Limbaugh Reads Blog Post By Conservative Georgetown Student That Claims Fluke "Ask[ed] For The Cost Of Her Sex Life To Be Subsidized By Other Students." Also during the March 2 show, Limbaugh read from a blog post by Georgetown student Angela Morabito, titled "Sandra Fluke Does Not Speak for Me." Limbaugh read: "Ms. Sandra Fluke, a Georgetown Law student ... jump[ed] up to talk about her sex life (with the [House] Minority Leader and with the liberal media) and ask for the cost of her sex life to be subsidized by other students at a Jesuit School?" [Premiere Radio Networks, The Rush Limbaugh Show, 3/2/12, via RushLimbaugh.com]

42. Limbaugh: "It Was Sandra Fluke Who Said That She Was Having So Much Sex, She Can't Afford It." Later, Limbaugh claimed, "It was Sandra Fluke who said that she was having so much sex, she can't afford it." [Premiere Radio Networks, The Rush Limbaugh Show, 3/2/12, via Media Matters]

43. Limbaugh Again Claims That "By Her Own Admission ... Sandra Fluke Is Having So Much Sex That She Can't Afford It." Limbaugh later repeated the claim, saying, "By her own admission, in her own words, Sandra Fluke is having so much sex that she can't afford it. She's going broke, I believe she said." [Premiere Radio Networks, The Rush Limbaugh Show, 3/2/12, via Media Matters]

44. Limbaugh: "Does She Have More Boyfriends? Ha! They're Lined Up Around The Block. They Would Have Been, In My Day." Reacting to someone else in the studio, at one point, Limbaugh said: "Oh! Does she have more boyfriends? Ha! They're lined up around the block. They would have been, in my day." [Premiere Radio Networks, The Rush Limbaugh Show, 3/2/12, via Media Matters]

45. Limbaugh: "Maybe They're Not Having A Lot Of Sex, And Want To. But [Fluke Is] Saying That They Are Struggling Financially As A Result Of The Policy At Georgetown." Also during the March 2 broadcast, Limbaugh said: "y her own admission -- maybe they're not having a lot of sex, and want to. I don't know. But [Fluke is] saying that they are struggling financially as a result of the policy at Georgetown. Struggling financially. That's $1,000 a year for contraception that she can't afford and wants us to pay for it." [Premiere Radio Networks, The Rush Limbaugh Show, 3/2/12, via Media Matters]

46. Limbaugh Again Claims He Can "Quote" Fluke Saying "She's Having Sex So Frequently That She Can't Afford All The Birth Control Pills She Needs." Later, Limbaugh again said, "Use her own words. I'm not making any of it up. ... [Fluke is] struggling financially. Why? Just quote her. Her sex life is active. She's having sex so frequently that she can't afford all the birth control pills that she needs, is what she's saying." [Premiere Radio Networks, The Rush Limbaugh Show, 3/2/12, via Media Matters]

And ask yourself-- whose comments were more misogynistic? Whose comments were more deserving of a firestorm / backlash? Now compare the amount of listeners Rush Limbaugh has vs. Hilary Rosen, the profile Rush Limbaugh has vs. Hilary Rosen in their respective parties, the fact that Hilary Rosen skipped MTP and will likely be keeping a much lower profile for the rest of the campaign, while Rush did not lose a millisecond of airtime. And where is Rush Limbaugh now? On the air. Gloating. (Sorry about the 4-page elephant, I started it out meaning to be one post but Rush is really verbose!)


Title: Re: Hilary Rosen's Ann Romney Comment
Post by: The world will shine with light in our nightmare on April 14, 2012, 12:47:05 PM
I think this issue will continue to be the media's focus for the next 6 months.  The only remote chance I can see people moving on is in the unlikely event someone else on TV says something stupid between now and then and we're all distracted.  I suppose it's possible but I don't honestly see that happening.

lol


Title: Re: Hilary Rosen's Ann Romney Comment
Post by: True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자) on April 14, 2012, 07:15:30 PM
I think this issue will continue to be the media's focus for the next 6 months.  The only remote chance I can see people moving on is in the unlikely event someone else on TV says something stupid between now and then and we're all distracted.  I suppose it's possible but I don't honestly see that happening.

lol

Amen. The only thing uncertain is which political operatives will have gaffes, not if there will be gaffes.

The Romney campaign has handled this gaffe well, but they can't play the Ann card too much.  She's more charismatic than her husband, but if used too much, she'll either have to stay away from the issues so much as to appear a lightweight or talk about them enough to either contradict her husband's views or embrace them enough to be tarnished as a privileged plutocrat like her husband.


Title: Re: Hilary Rosen's Ann Romney Comment
Post by: milhouse24 on April 14, 2012, 07:43:02 PM
Some people think Romney and Republicans have a problem with Female voters.  They are losing to obama by 8%. 

This is just one way for Romney to win over Soccer Moms. 

But Romney has a 20% lead over obama amongst Men, so I think Romney will do very well in the election with those kind of numbers.

While Obama and democrats are preoccupied trying to win women and soccer moms, Romney will be building his lead with nascar dads, working class men, and white catholic men.  Its that simple really.


Title: Re: Hilary Rosen's Ann Romney Comment
Post by: Politico on April 14, 2012, 07:57:27 PM
I find the remark nauseating, because Ann was simply saying what she heard working women tell her, not that she claimed to be an expert on the world of paycheck work where you depend on that paycheck. So the attack on her for not being an expert, poorly worded, was way, way beyond the pale. Rosen is just an unthinking attack dog really, who hasn't been adequately trained to do the job effectively.

This.

I salute Rosen for unintentionally giving Romney a boost among women just when it was needed. The sooner the gender gap can be closed, the better. We only need 47-48% of women, and it won't even be close.


Title: Re: Hilary Rosen's Ann Romney Comment
Post by: Politico on April 14, 2012, 08:00:24 PM
Correct, Bandit. Romney seems on course to get a John McCain style 2008 free pass >:(

Or even worse, a Bush-style free pass.

Try a Reagan-style free pass ;)


Title: Re: Hilary Rosen's Ann Romney Comment
Post by: World politics is up Schmitt creek on April 14, 2012, 09:20:56 PM
I salute Rosen for unintentionally giving Romney a boost among women just when it was needed. The sooner the gender gap can be closed, the better. We only need 47-48% of women, and it won't even be close.

Romney will not, of course, get that percentage of the female vote in a million years.


Title: Re: Hilary Rosen's Ann Romney Comment
Post by: HagridOfTheDeep on April 14, 2012, 09:30:30 PM
We'll see.


Title: Re: Hilary Rosen's Ann Romney Comment
Post by: Indy Texas on April 14, 2012, 09:55:37 PM
If living a similar lifestyle is considered necessary for relating to voters, would any politician's wife meet that test? Ann Romney doesn't, but neither does Michelle Obama (being a 'working mom' when you're a white shoe lawyer and a healthcare executive is a bit different). Cindy McCain the brewery heiress didn't. Ironically, I'd say the most relatable candidate spouse we've recently had is probably Todd Palin. Which in turn begs the question of whether that's really an important criteria in picking a candidate.

What is odd about Ann Romney is that she has literally never had a non-domestic paying job before. She was a full-time student when she married at 19, and she had her first child not long after that. Even in the June Cleaver days, most women would have some kind of job in their early 20s before they got married, or sometimes up until they had kids. (My grandmother was a secretary up until she had her first kid. My grandfather was an accountant at the same company - they drove to work together every morning.)


Title: Re: Hilary Rosen's Ann Romney Comment
Post by: ○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└ on April 15, 2012, 12:24:05 AM
I'm surprised nobody's started a topic on this yet.  What are your thoughts on Rosen's comment?

This story is being hyped by the media in an attempt to help Romney. But Rosen is not an Obama strategist, so it's really not even relevant to Obama.

The media needs to just shut its mouth.

Correct, Bandit. Romney seems on course to get a John McCain style 2008 free pass >:(

Surprise, after years of Obama sucking up to them, the right-wing media still hates him. Obviously this Rosen comment is a complete non-story. As for Mitt, he's been an unemployed bum for over 5 years.


Title: Re: Hilary Rosen's Ann Romney Comment
Post by: NVGonzalez on April 15, 2012, 02:59:07 AM
This will be forgotten faster than Kony by next week. Let's move on.


Title: Re: Hilary Rosen's Ann Romney Comment
Post by: Politico on April 15, 2012, 04:25:08 AM
This will be forgotten faster than Kony by next week. Let's move on.

Hopefully the males in the Democratic Party's apparatus will keep repeating this from now until November. Denial is not just a river in Egypt.

We're coming for your soccer moms with the New King of Triangulation!


Title: Re: Hilary Rosen's Ann Romney Comment
Post by: AmericanNation on April 15, 2012, 09:55:38 AM
If living a similar lifestyle is considered necessary for relating to voters, would any politician's wife meet that test? Ann Romney doesn't, but neither does Michelle Obama (being a 'working mom' when you're a white shoe lawyer and a healthcare executive is a bit different). Cindy McCain the brewery heiress didn't. Ironically, I'd say the most relatable candidate spouse we've recently had is probably Todd Palin. Which in turn begs the question of whether that's really an important criteria in picking a candidate.

What is odd about Ann Romney is that she has literally never had a non-domestic paying job before. She was a full-time student when she married at 19, and she had her first child not long after that. Even in the June Cleaver days, most women would have some kind of job in their early 20s before they got married, or sometimes up until they had kids. (My grandmother was a secretary up until she had her first kid. My grandfather was an accountant at the same company - they drove to work together every morning.)

When did:
1) (making a great choice) marrying well.
2) building a great family the traditional way (countless great choices)
3) making it on your own   
4) achieving the 'american dream'
5) struggling through cancer and MS inspirationaly
become a dis-qualifier to speak or be listened to? 

Democrat culture war fail.   
 


Title: Re: Hilary Rosen's Ann Romney Comment
Post by: World politics is up Schmitt creek on April 15, 2012, 11:41:47 AM

When did:
1) (making a great choice) marrying well.
2) building a great family the traditional way (countless great choices)
3) making it on your own   
4) achieving the 'american dream'
5) struggling through cancer and MS inspirationaly
become a dis-qualifier to speak or be listened to? 

Democrat culture war fail.   
 

Not a disqualifier to speak or be listened to, but the subject is economics and the person in question has literally never held a paying job.

This will be forgotten faster than Kony by next week. Let's move on.

Hopefully the males in the Democratic Party's apparatus will keep repeating this from now until November. Denial is not just a river in Egypt.

We're coming for your soccer moms with the New King of Triangulation!

Sure is nineties in here.


Title: Re: Hilary Rosen's Ann Romney Comment
Post by: Bandit3 the Worker on April 15, 2012, 11:45:04 AM

Politico needs to start sporting helmet hair and using the Chicago font.


Title: Re: Hilary Rosen's Ann Romney Comment
Post by: Bull Moose Base on April 15, 2012, 11:52:18 AM
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/04/15/mitt-romney-mothers-welfare-moms_n_1426113.html (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/04/15/mitt-romney-mothers-welfare-moms_n_1426113.html)

Oops.  That turned up even faster than the several days it took Romney to address Rush Limbaugh's comments (saying only that he himself would have used different language).


Title: Re: Hilary Rosen's Ann Romney Comment
Post by: So rightwing that I broke the Political Compass! on April 15, 2012, 11:59:08 AM
When did:
1) (making a great choice) marrying well.

3) making it on your own  
LOL wut? I'm amused to see that conservatives consider becoming the trophy wife of a millionaire to be "making it on your own".

People talking about how being a stay at home mum is a real job... well I'd firstly be curious to know how much use the Romney's made use of maids and other hired help for the housework. Of course raising children is taxing in and of itself, but Ann Romney chose that option because she preferred it- theirs no shortage of women can't make that choice because they don't have a wealthy husband(or any husband at all).... and then theirs those mothers/couples that can't even find a job at all(whilst Ann Romney enjoyed the certainty that she would be able to secure a job if she ever wanted one).

Hilary Rosen should have phrased it better. She should have said Ann couldn't understand most women's situation because she's never needed a job... even if she had taken one it would have been a luxury preference since her income would be statistically insignificant compared to her husband's and therefore not impacted her standard of living one way or the other.

She's basically equivalent to a trust fund millionare in other words. Sure they might opt for a job or children, but the job will be out of preference rather then financial pressure, and children won't mean a financial pressure for them.


Title: Re: Hilary Rosen's Ann Romney Comment
Post by: So rightwing that I broke the Political Compass! on April 15, 2012, 12:18:35 PM
Joementum's link raises an interesting point... what is the moral difference between a stay at home mum living off her husband and a stay at home mum living of the government? Mitt claimed that the latter is undignified and women on welfare with 2 year olds should be compelled to work... yet somehow the former is simultaneously respectable?


Title: Re: Hilary Rosen's Ann Romney Comment
Post by: The world will shine with light in our nightmare on April 15, 2012, 12:35:04 PM
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/04/15/mitt-romney-mothers-welfare-moms_n_1426113.html (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/04/15/mitt-romney-mothers-welfare-moms_n_1426113.html)

Oops.  That turned up even faster than the several days it took Romney to address Rush Limbaugh's comments (saying only that he himself would have used different language).

I salute Romney for unintentionally giving Obama another boost among women just when it was needed.


Title: Re: Hilary Rosen's Ann Romney Comment
Post by: True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자) on April 15, 2012, 12:44:56 PM
Joementum's link raises an interesting point... what is the moral difference between a stay at home mum living off her husband and a stay at home mum living of the government? Mitt claimed that the latter is undignified and women on welfare with 2 year olds should be compelled to work... yet somehow the former is simultaneously respectable?

The difference is that with the former, the dad can provide a role-model of how work can get you what you want.  With the latter, the dad can't because the dad ain't there.


Title: Re: Hilary Rosen's Ann Romney Comment
Post by: Democratic Hawk on April 15, 2012, 03:21:10 PM

We're coming for your soccer moms with the New King of Triangulation!

How pray is Romney going to triangulate given that if the Earth was flat the Reactionary Party would have fallen off the right face of it?


Title: Re: Hilary Rosen's Ann Romney Comment
Post by: Sbane on April 15, 2012, 03:28:59 PM
There are women out there who have to raise children AND go to work. Those are the people who are struggling out there and Ann Romney does not understand how it is to be in their shoes. Hillary Rosen was absolutely right, though of course she should have phrased it better.


Title: Re: Hilary Rosen's Ann Romney Comment
Post by: Politico on April 15, 2012, 03:32:39 PM
Let me get this straight: Is Team Obama really gearing up for this re-election battle by arguing we should return welfare to the way it was before the Clinton era reforms? Is Barack Obama really going to transform into Walter Mondale? Please pinch me!

Ann Romney has dealt with cancer and MS. I think she knows a thing or two about struggling in life. And she is just as capable as Michelle Obama when it comes to listening to the concerns of women of all backgrounds. And guess what: Ann connects with females better than Michelle, who does not even appear to enjoy being First Lady.


Title: Re: Hilary Rosen's Ann Romney Comment
Post by: The world will shine with light in our nightmare on April 15, 2012, 03:34:11 PM
Romney is not going to triangulate.  He is not anywhere near progressive on social issues.  If I can recall correctly, he said during one of the debates that he would even push for an amendment banning same-sex marriage.  He's talked about getting rid of Planned Parenthood and basically ignored a man in a wheel chair after he asked him about his position on medical marijuana.  There is not a single thing, given the rhetoric that he delivers today, that should earn him a reputation as a "moderate."  But he has one, anyway.


Title: Re: Hilary Rosen's Ann Romney Comment
Post by: Politico on April 15, 2012, 03:35:18 PM
Romney is not going to triangulate.  He is not anywhere near progressive on social issues.  If I can recall correctly, he said during one of the debates that he would even push for an amendment banning same-sex marriage.  He's talked about getting rid of Planned Parenthood and basically ignored a man in a wheel chair when asked about his position on medical marijuana.  There is not a single thing, given the rhetoric that he delivers today, that should earn him a reputation as a "moderate."  But he has one, anyway.

GOP primary is over, buddy. We're triangulating, baby! We are going to do whatever it takes to get 47-48% of female voters, which will only be a boost of 3-4 percentage points over what McCain did. Even if we only do as well among males as McCain did (we are BLOWING his benchmark out of the water right now), we will win with 47-48% of female voters. If we accomplish that and maintain our current lead among males, this election will be a landslide for Mitt.


Title: Re: Hilary Rosen's Ann Romney Comment
Post by: The world will shine with light in our nightmare on April 15, 2012, 03:36:55 PM
Romney is not going to triangulate.  He is not anywhere near progressive on social issues.  If I can recall correctly, he said during one of the debates that he would even push for an amendment banning same-sex marriage.  He's talked about getting rid of Planned Parenthood and basically ignored a man in a wheel chair when asked about his position on medical marijuana.  There is not a single thing, given the rhetoric that he delivers today, that should earn him a reputation as a "moderate."  But he has one, anyway.

GOP primary is over, buddy. We're triangulating, baby!

Y'know what?  Welcome to my ignore list.  I'm done getting worked up over some troll's idiotic, insane, non-responsive posts that were so obviously written by a paid worker for Romney's campaign.  I'm done wasting my time with you people.


Title: Re: Hilary Rosen's Ann Romney Comment
Post by: Politico on April 15, 2012, 03:38:57 PM
Romney is not going to triangulate.  He is not anywhere near progressive on social issues.  If I can recall correctly, he said during one of the debates that he would even push for an amendment banning same-sex marriage.  He's talked about getting rid of Planned Parenthood and basically ignored a man in a wheel chair when asked about his position on medical marijuana.  There is not a single thing, given the rhetoric that he delivers today, that should earn him a reputation as a "moderate."  But he has one, anyway.

GOP primary is over, buddy. We're triangulating, baby!

Y'know what?  Welcome to my ignore list.  I'm done getting worked up over some troll's idiotic, insane, non-responsive posts that were so obviously written by a paid worker for Romney's campaign.  I'm done wasting my time with you people.

Is there an ignore list for reality? I think you may need it on the evening of Tuesday, November 6, 2012.


Title: Re: Hilary Rosen's Ann Romney Comment
Post by: Bull Moose Base on April 15, 2012, 03:56:54 PM
Let me get this straight: Is Team Obama really gearing up for this re-election battle by arguing we should return welfare to the way it was before the Clinton era reforms? Is Barack Obama really going to transform into Walter Mondale? Please pinch me!

The problem for Romney in this new twist are his words.  Women are likely to take umbrage at his suggestion that stay-at-home mothers receiving welfare lack dignity because they don't have a real job.  And they're likely to recognize the Romney campaign's professed offense at Hillary Rosen comment's as calculated and disingenuous, in light of his own comments.  It aggravates two problems he already has (1) women aren't into him (2) his image as a phony.


Title: Re: Hilary Rosen's Ann Romney Comment
Post by: HagridOfTheDeep on April 15, 2012, 04:03:32 PM
Except are Mitt's comments spreading as much as Rosen's did? I've had to be away from the TV for the weekend so I haven't been able to see. It seemed like Hilary's comments spread really fast. Have these unearthed Mitt comments done the same?

Because like it or not, Hilary's made for a much more sensational soundbite. And that's really what this is all about.


Title: Re: Hilary Rosen's Ann Romney Comment
Post by: Landslide Lyndon on April 15, 2012, 04:15:20 PM
Ann Romney has dealt with cancer and MS.

Now I know that Mississippi has a bad reputation. But equating living in it with having cancer seems a bit mean to me.


Title: Re: Hilary Rosen's Ann Romney Comment
Post by: True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자) on April 15, 2012, 05:58:37 PM
Romney is not going to triangulate.  He is not anywhere near progressive on social issues.  If I can recall correctly, he said during one of the debates that he would even push for an amendment banning same-sex marriage.  He's talked about getting rid of Planned Parenthood and basically ignored a man in a wheel chair when asked about his position on medical marijuana.  There is not a single thing, given the rhetoric that he delivers today, that should earn him a reputation as a "moderate."  But he has one, anyway.

GOP primary is over, buddy. We're triangulating, baby!

Y'know what?  Welcome to my ignore list.  I'm done getting worked up over some troll's idiotic, insane, non-responsive posts that were so obviously written by a paid worker for Romney's campaign.  I'm done wasting my time with you people.

Scott, the Romney campaign would not be so idiotic as to pay a person to make such obnoxious posts on his behalf.  There is a minuscule chance that Politico is an Obama false flag operative who was supposed to discredit Romney by association but who overdid his assignment.


Title: Re: Hilary Rosen's Ann Romney Comment
Post by: The world will shine with light in our nightmare on April 15, 2012, 06:08:22 PM
Romney is not going to triangulate.  He is not anywhere near progressive on social issues.  If I can recall correctly, he said during one of the debates that he would even push for an amendment banning same-sex marriage.  He's talked about getting rid of Planned Parenthood and basically ignored a man in a wheel chair when asked about his position on medical marijuana.  There is not a single thing, given the rhetoric that he delivers today, that should earn him a reputation as a "moderate."  But he has one, anyway.

GOP primary is over, buddy. We're triangulating, baby!

Y'know what?  Welcome to my ignore list.  I'm done getting worked up over some troll's idiotic, insane, non-responsive posts that were so obviously written by a paid worker for Romney's campaign.  I'm done wasting my time with you people.

Scott, the Romney campaign would not be so idiotic as to pay a person to make such obnoxious posts on his behalf.  There is a minuscule chance that Politico is an Obama false flag operative who was supposed to discredit Romney by association but who overdid his assignment.

Now that I think of it, that scenario would be much more likely.


Title: Re: Hilary Rosen's Ann Romney Comment
Post by: AmericanNation on April 16, 2012, 01:06:39 PM
When did:
1) (making a great choice) marrying well.

3) making it on your own  
LOL wut? I'm amused to see that conservatives consider becoming the trophy wife of a millionaire to be "making it on your own".

People talking about how being a stay at home mum is a real job... well I'd firstly be curious to know how much use the Romney's made use of maids and other hired help for the housework. Of course raising children is taxing in and of itself, but Ann Romney chose that option because she preferred it- theirs no shortage of women can't make that choice because they don't have a wealthy husband(or any husband at all).... and then theirs those mothers/couples that can't even find a job at all(whilst Ann Romney enjoyed the certainty that she would be able to secure a job if she ever wanted one).

Hilary Rosen should have phrased it better. She should have said Ann couldn't understand most women's situation because she's never needed a job... even if she had taken one it would have been a luxury preference since her income would be statistically insignificant compared to her husband's and therefore not impacted her standard of living one way or the other.

She's basically equivalent to a trust fund millionare in other words. Sure they might opt for a job or children, but the job will be out of preference rather then financial pressure, and children won't mean a financial pressure for them.

She didn't marry a millionaire.  She married a guy from a good family.  That you think Mitt has been rich his entire life is a little stunning, but not surprising I guess.  Remember at that time it was normal for 'rich' parents to raise kids to maturity and let them: 'go out on their own.'  Mitt was married raising kids while going to college... I'm sure that was a life of luxury.  I've herd stories about how their parents would visit their cheap concrete floor apartment, take them out to dinner, and make fun of them for living like that.  I thought it was common knowledge Mitt donated everything he inherited from his dad. 

I don't think it is wise for a large part of society to denigrate or cheapen someone because their PARENTS were successful.  Like that's a bad thing.  Likewise, glorifying people for having any type of 'bad' parents isn't the best thing either.       


Title: Re: Hilary Rosen's Ann Romney Comment
Post by: AmericanNation on April 16, 2012, 01:50:34 PM
1) a "Trophy wife" is typically approaching half the guys age, not his high school sweetheart.
2) a trophy wife typically marries the guy when he actually has money, not a decade before. 
etc. etc.


Title: Re: Hilary Rosen's Ann Romney Comment
Post by: Joe Republic on April 16, 2012, 01:54:40 PM
Who is Hilary Rosen?


Title: Re: Hilary Rosen's Ann Romney Comment
Post by: AmericanNation on April 16, 2012, 02:03:33 PM
A paid employee of the Democrats project to manufacture a nonexistent GOP "war on women."  That is actually what makes this a news story.  The perpetrators of a gigantic slander are actually guilty of said slander.  Had they not manufactured and pumped up the issue for two months it wouldn't matter so much.  Oops! 

People forget that these tactics employed by this generation of democrats sometimes, perhaps often, blowup in your face and create a backlash.       


Title: Re: Hilary Rosen's Ann Romney Comment
Post by: Joe Republic on April 16, 2012, 02:09:42 PM
And had you heard of her before this comment was made, and the media apparently decided to latch onto it?

Also, are you alleging that the GOP War on Women is a myth??  ???


Title: Re: Hilary Rosen's Ann Romney Comment
Post by: Landslide Lyndon on April 16, 2012, 02:15:16 PM
A paid employee of the Democrats project to manufacture a nonexistent GOP "war on women."        

CNN=Democrats? Who knew?


Title: Re: Hilary Rosen's Ann Romney Comment
Post by: AmericanNation on April 16, 2012, 02:29:05 PM
Yes, I had seen her on TV pushing democrat talking points before.

Also,
I had heard of the PR firm she works for.  I had heard of the democrat party before (they employ the firm she works for).  I had heard of the Obama administration before (she has lobbying privileges).  I had heard the "war on women" crap being manufactured by all of her bosses for months prior to her comments.
    
I think she was honest when she called the fake manufactured "war on women" PR campaign a "Phony War".  She would know because she was employed by the entities manufacturing it to manufacture it.  

Quotation: "Let's declare peace in this phony war and go back to focus on the substance."


Title: Re: Hilary Rosen's Ann Romney Comment
Post by: AmericanNation on April 16, 2012, 02:33:11 PM
A paid employee of the Democrats project to manufacture a nonexistent GOP "war on women."        

CNN=Democrats? Who knew?

I don't think CNN paid her much or anything... her other jobs are paying though.  Nice try. 


Title: Re: Hilary Rosen's Ann Romney Comment
Post by: HagridOfTheDeep on April 16, 2012, 02:36:20 PM
And let's call this what it is: Santorum's War on Women.

Romney had no choice but to involve himself, which is a damn shame. This war on women was 100% Santorum's fault.


Title: Re: Hilary Rosen's Ann Romney Comment
Post by: Lief 🗽 on April 16, 2012, 02:41:04 PM
And let's call this what it is: Santorum's War on Women.

Romney had no choice but to involve himself, which is a damn shame. This war on women was 100% Santorum's fault.

()


Title: Re: Hilary Rosen's Ann Romney Comment
Post by: Joe Republic on April 16, 2012, 02:43:07 PM
Yes, I had seen her on TV pushing democrat talking points before.

Also,
I had herd of the PR firm she works for.  I had herd of the democrat party before (they employ the firm she works for).  I had heard of the Obama administration before (she has lobbying privileges).  I had herd the "war on women" crap being manufactured by all of her boss's for  months prior to her comments.

How on earth is somebody vaguely affiliated to Thailand's minority political party in any way relevant to the US presidential election?  You must be really clutching at straws!

And here's a helpful compilation of various battlegrounds in the War on Women:  https://uselectionatlas.org/FORUM/index.php?topic=150850.0
I wasn't able to catch as many of them as I'd have liked.


[Spelling and grammar errors have been highlighted in red.  You're welcome!]


Title: Re: Hilary Rosen's Ann Romney Comment
Post by: Landslide Lyndon on April 16, 2012, 02:51:24 PM
A paid employee of the Democrats project to manufacture a nonexistent GOP "war on women."        

CNN=Democrats? Who knew?

I don't think CNN paid her much or anything... her other jobs are paying though.  Nice try. 

Rosen is an employee of CNN which has a policy of forbidding its employees from working in political campaigns.
Nice try.


Title: Re: Hilary Rosen's Ann Romney Comment
Post by: they don't love you like i love you on April 16, 2012, 02:55:37 PM
Who is this person and why should I care?


Title: Re: Hilary Rosen's Ann Romney Comment
Post by: HagridOfTheDeep on April 16, 2012, 03:58:31 PM
She's one of the premier ambassadors for Democrats in the media.

You should care because she snubbed a huge demographic of people.

As for me saying Romney had no choice but to turn right on this women's issue--I still stand by what I said. Romney had to win a primary dominated by the religious right. If you have a losing candidate spouting red meat every which way to these people, you sort of have to engage. I blame Santorum.


Title: Re: Hilary Rosen's Ann Romney Comment
Post by: DrScholl on April 16, 2012, 05:20:47 PM
The fact that Ann Romney brought being a mother into the equation is being totally ignored, Hilary Rosen never once mentioned any mothers.

Ann Romney didn't work for a paycheck, so how can she claim any authority on knowing anything about economics? Mitt claimed she is his economic surrogate, but someone with no work history cannot speak with any authority on that. The outrage is for the campaign, nothing more.


Title: Re: Hilary Rosen's Ann Romney Comment
Post by: Joe Republic on April 16, 2012, 06:50:04 PM
I had herd the "war on women" crap being manufactured by all of her boss's for  months prior to her comments.

[Spelling and grammar errors have been highlighted in red.  You're welcome!]

boss's is correct (depends on which grammar book you use I suppose)

Haha, what?  Perhaps if the grammar book pertains to a language other than English!


Title: Re: Hilary Rosen's Ann Romney Comment
Post by: World politics is up Schmitt creek on April 17, 2012, 02:19:43 PM

The sexualities of the people involved aren't even slightly relevant.


Title: Re: Hilary Rosen's Ann Romney Comment
Post by: Oakvale on April 17, 2012, 02:33:31 PM
I had herd the "war on women" crap being manufactured by all of her boss's for  months prior to her comments.

[Spelling and grammar errors have been highlighted in red.  You're welcome!]

boss's is correct (depends on which grammar book you use I suppose)

Haha, what?  Perhaps if the grammar book pertains to a language other than English!

Your a grammar Nazi, Joe.


Title: Re: Hilary Rosen's Ann Romney Comment
Post by: Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home. on April 17, 2012, 03:33:11 PM

The sexualities of the people involved aren't even slightly relevant.

yeah, sure....


Title: Re: Hilary Rosen's Ann Romney Comment
Post by: World politics is up Schmitt creek on April 17, 2012, 03:37:57 PM

The sexualities of the people involved aren't even slightly relevant.

yeah, sure....

If Ann Romney was a lesbian mother of five, or of any other number of children including zero, who had never held a paid job she'd be just inept an economic surrogate for a major party's presidential candidate.

I think your image of lesbianism is stuck about thirty-five years ago.


Title: Re: Hilary Rosen's Ann Romney Comment
Post by: HagridOfTheDeep on April 17, 2012, 04:56:04 PM
Yeah, but when Democrats calls lesbians "dykes," it's okay because at least they vote for more "open minded" candidates.

What a joke.

I don't at all support the original comment. But I think it's pretty inaccurate to associate what he said with all conservatives.


Title: Re: Hilary Rosen's Ann Romney Comment
Post by: Oakvale on April 17, 2012, 05:27:08 PM
Yeah, but when Democrats calls lesbians "dykes," it's okay because at least they vote for more "open minded" candidates.


What?


Title: Re: Hilary Rosen's Ann Romney Comment
Post by: HagridOfTheDeep on April 17, 2012, 06:19:37 PM
Conservatives aren't the only people who throw around terms like "dyke" and "f****t." So it's unfair to say "it's no wonder conservatives get labelled so badly."

There's just as much bigotry amongst Democrat voters, but no one attributes those comments to the Democrats, because their candidates are supposedly more "pro-gay." But for many of the people who vote Democrat, the candidates' positions on gay rights don't matter... voters on both sides still call people dykes and f****ts.

So I don't like when people try to associate bigotry with one political ideology. If we're being honest, it should  be associated with everyone.


Title: Re: Hilary Rosen's Ann Romney Comment
Post by: They put it to a vote and they just kept lying on April 18, 2012, 05:22:40 AM
I had herd the "war on women" crap being manufactured by all of her boss's for  months prior to her comments.

[Spelling and grammar errors have been highlighted in red.  You're welcome!]

boss's is correct (depends on which grammar book you use I suppose)

Haha, what?  Perhaps if the grammar book pertains to a language other than English!

Your a grammar Nazi, Joe.

Awwww :P


Title: Re: Hilary Rosen's Ann Romney Comment
Post by: Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home. on April 18, 2012, 12:35:59 PM
Conservatives aren't the only people who throw around terms like "dyke" and "f****t." So it's unfair to say "it's no wonder conservatives get labelled so badly."

yo, "dyke" is a common word among dykes....example:  Pat Benatar perfoms her concerts with a "Dykes Rule" sticker on her guitar


Title: Re: Hilary Rosen's Ann Romney Comment
Post by: Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home. on April 18, 2012, 12:40:42 PM
If Ann Romney was a lesbian mother of five, or of any other number of children including zero, who had never held a paid job she'd be just inept an economic surrogate for a major party's presidential candidate.

well, my wife hasn't worked in 17 years, but she makes >90% of the purchases and is well aware of the real world of economics.

---

I think your image of lesbianism is stuck about thirty-five years ago.

as you well know, I side with God on the issue, and His image of it hasn't changed since Adam and Eve.  And, as you also well know, you choose to blind yourself to the truth.


Title: Re: Hilary Rosen's Ann Romney Comment
Post by: HagridOfTheDeep on April 18, 2012, 12:57:18 PM
Conservatives aren't the only people who throw around terms like "dyke" and "f****t." So it's unfair to say "it's no wonder conservatives get labelled so badly."

yo, "dyke" is a common word among dykes....example:  Pat Benatar perfoms her concerts with a "Dykes Rule" sticker on her guitar

The N word is a common word amongst African-Americans. I dare you to go into a Golden Corral and shout "Hey there, n-ggers!" at the top of your lungs. It should be okay because it's "a common word."

For the most part, I'm not in any way pro-gay. But it does no good to throw around demeaning and offensive terms--whether you're a Democrat OR a Republican.


Title: Re: Hilary Rosen's Ann Romney Comment
Post by: Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home. on April 18, 2012, 01:19:18 PM
The N word is a common word amongst African-Americans. I dare you to go into a Golden Corral and shout "Hey there, n-ggers!" at the top of your lungs. It should be okay because it's "a common word."

Ma'am, don't confuse race with homosexuality.  One is not condemned, the other is.

Also, not sure about the Golden Corral, but at least a couple of nights out of most weeks, I wouldn't have to look past my own living room to find some brothas and/or thick-souled sistas.


Title: Re: Hilary Rosen's Ann Romney Comment
Post by: Brittain33 on April 18, 2012, 01:28:55 PM
The N word is a common word amongst African-Americans. I dare you to go into a Golden Corral and shout "Hey there, n-ggers!" at the top of your lungs. It should be okay because it's "a common word."

Ma'am, don't confuse race with homosexuality.  One is not condemned, the other is.

That's got nothing to do with his point, which is that using a term positively and reclaiming a slur as a positive vs. a term negatively is a factor.


Title: Re: Hilary Rosen's Ann Romney Comment
Post by: World politics is up Schmitt creek on April 18, 2012, 01:30:57 PM
If Ann Romney was a lesbian mother of five, or of any other number of children including zero, who had never held a paid job she'd be just inept an economic surrogate for a major party's presidential candidate.

well, my wife hasn't worked in 17 years, but she makes >90% of the purchases and is well aware of the real world of economics.

But is she the economic surrogate to a presidential candidate?

Quote
I think your image of lesbianism is stuck about thirty-five years ago.

as you well know, I side with God on the issue, and His image of it hasn't changed since Adam and Eve.  And, as you also well know, you choose to blind yourself to the truth.

Even with God not admitting of change the world most certainly is. 'The lesbian' is not a monolithic social entity fixed from eternity that can be defined by its hatred of motherhood. You're applying sacramental characters to identitarian concepts, which is truly bizarre. I assure you, I can see a lot more and further than you can.


Title: Re: Hilary Rosen's Ann Romney Comment
Post by: Oakvale on April 18, 2012, 01:32:26 PM
Conservatives aren't the only people who throw around terms like "dyke" and "f****t." So it's unfair to say "it's no wonder conservatives get labelled so badly."

yo, "dyke" is a common word among dykes....example:  Pat Benatar perfoms her concerts with a "Dykes Rule" sticker on her guitar

The N word is a common word amongst African-Americans. I dare you to go into a Golden Corral and shout "Hey there, n-ggers!" at the top of your lungs. It should be okay because it's "a common word."

...

Do you really not see a distinction?


Title: Re: Hilary Rosen's Ann Romney Comment
Post by: Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home. on April 18, 2012, 01:45:16 PM
Even with God not admitting of change the world most certainly is.

yeah, and the current world is destined for fire...so I choose to side with God.

---

'The lesbian' is not a monolithic social entity fixed from eternity that can be defined by its hatred of motherhood.

hate to clue you in, but homosexuality ain't exactly the embracement of human reproduction.


Title: Re: Hilary Rosen's Ann Romney Comment
Post by: World politics is up Schmitt creek on April 18, 2012, 01:54:14 PM
Even with God not admitting of change the world most certainly is.

yeah, and the current world is destined for fire...so I choose to side with God.

The world is what we're discussing here, and Hilary Rosen's and Ann Romney's respective places within it. God does not speak through Hilary Rosen's mealy mouth for the purpose of discrediting her sexual orientation.

Quote
'The lesbian' is not a monolithic social entity fixed from eternity that can be defined by its hatred of motherhood.

hate to clue you in, but homosexuality ain't exactly the embracement of human reproduction.

Hate to clue you in, but 'embracement' isn't a real word, and 'motherhood' socially is not the same thing as biological reproduction. For somebody with pretenses to being a Christian, you're absurdly obsessed with the carnal.


Title: Re: Hilary Rosen's Ann Romney Comment
Post by: Brittain33 on April 18, 2012, 01:57:10 PM
hate to clue you in, but homosexuality ain't exactly the embracement of human reproduction.

Many gays would love to be parents and achieve this by adoption or other biological means. Including Hilary Rosen. The desire to be a parent is not identical to sexual orientation.


Title: Re: Hilary Rosen's Ann Romney Comment
Post by: Joe Republic on April 18, 2012, 02:10:12 PM
Aaaaaaand now this non-story is about those EVIL GAYS!!  Great thread, gentlemen.  You should all be very proud.


Title: Re: Hilary Rosen's Ann Romney Comment
Post by: The world will shine with light in our nightmare on April 18, 2012, 02:29:47 PM
We're still talking about this?


Title: Re: Hilary Rosen's Ann Romney Comment
Post by: AmericanNation on April 18, 2012, 03:06:52 PM
1) Has Ann Romney been touring the country for the last several years talking to women about their struggles and how the economy is effecting them? ? ?... Yes
2) Is she capable of relaying their messages to Mitt? ? ?... Yes
3) Did the democrats try to 'take out' Ann because they knew she would play a role in tightening the 'gender gap' ? ? ?... yes
4) Did the 'hit' backfire? ? ? ...yes


Title: Re: Hilary Rosen's Ann Romney Comment
Post by: Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home. on April 18, 2012, 03:28:51 PM
I've never seen it in any actual writing and I read about one book a week. Also, you were using the transitive form and I'm honestly not sure how 'to embrace' can even be intransitive.

why are you discussing correct word usage with a native Texan?  here is the link to Webster, you'll see embracement is a noun form of the word:

— embrace·able \-ˈbrā-sə-bəl\ adjective
— em·brace·ment \-ˈbrās-mənt\ noun
— em·brac·er noun
— em·brac·ing·ly \-ˈbrā-siŋ-lē\ adverb

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/embracement (http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/embracement)

Here are several examples of its usage:

http://www.wordnik.com/words/embracement (http://www.wordnik.com/words/embracement)

---

I'd be astonished if any of your notions about what 'the gays', perceived of course as a monolith, are like came from anything remotely resembling actual familiarity.

you'll have to forgive the bible for not bothering to parse homosexuals into different groups...but I think you'll find it also doesn't bother parsing fornicators, liars, drunkards, etc, etc, etc.


Title: Re: Hilary Rosen's Ann Romney Comment
Post by: RogueBeaver on April 18, 2012, 03:34:14 PM
We're still talking about this? This week's meme is canine, BTW.


Title: Re: Hilary Rosen's Ann Romney Comment
Post by: World politics is up Schmitt creek on April 18, 2012, 03:37:27 PM
I've never seen it in any actual writing and I read about one book a week. Also, you were using the transitive form and I'm honestly not sure how 'to embrace' can even be intransitive.

why are you discussing correct word usage with a native Texan?  here is the link to Webster, you'll see embracement is a noun form of the word:

intransitive verb
: to participate in an embrace

— embrace·able \-ˈbrā-sə-bəl\ adjective
— em·brace·ment \-ˈbrās-mənt\ noun
— em·brac·er noun
— em·brac·ing·ly \-ˈbrā-siŋ-lē\ adverb

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/embracement (http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/embracement)

Here are several examples of its usage:

http://www.wordnik.com/words/embracement (http://www.wordnik.com/words/embracement)

Oh, so it seems to be a neologism of some kind, or at least something that's used more frequently now than it used to be. I was unaware that this was a word and although it's not one that I think the English language needs or that my spell checker accepts thank you for alerting me to it.

Webster also has a kind of odd idea of what 'intransitive' means, but I suppose they can take that up with the linguists.

Quote
I'd be astonished if any of your notions about what 'the gays', perceived of course as a monolith, are like came from anything remotely resembling actual familiarity.

you'll have to forgive the bible for not bothering to parse homosexuals into different groups...but I think you'll find it also doesn't bother parsing fornicators, liars, drunkards, etc, etc, etc.

'Homosexuals' are a social phenomenon that didn't exist in Bible times. The Bible certainly portrays people involved in personal bonds, physical or otherwise, with people of the same sex pretty diversely.

It's also not so much that you're totalizing per se, which is a problem that everybody has, as that you're objectively wrong, perversely obsessed with other groups of people's sex lives beyond even the interest that they themselves have, and feel no desire to change any of this because you pride yourself in deliberate and aggressive ignorance wrapped in theme-park, heretical Christianity.


Title: Re: Hilary Rosen's Ann Romney Comment
Post by: Oakvale on April 18, 2012, 03:38:20 PM
I wouldn't bother, Nathan.


Title: Re: Hilary Rosen's Ann Romney Comment
Post by: True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자) on April 18, 2012, 03:48:46 PM
Webster also has a kind of odd idea of what 'intransitive' means, but I suppose they can take that up with the linguists.

The transitive/intransitive divide really doesn't apply to Modern English verbs as much as it does in other languages, since there is no morphological distinction between the two categories as there are in some other languages.  It can be used intransitively, which seems to be all that Webster's cares about.


Title: Re: Hilary Rosen's Ann Romney Comment
Post by: World politics is up Schmitt creek on April 18, 2012, 04:03:51 PM
Webster also has a kind of odd idea of what 'intransitive' means, but I suppose they can take that up with the linguists.

The transitive/intransitive divide really doesn't apply to Modern English verbs as much as it does in other languages, since there is no morphological distinction between the two categories as there are in some other languages.  It can be used intransitively, which seems to be all that Webster's cares about.

I know, I've noticed that about English since I've begun studying a language (Japanese) in which transitivity pairs are grammatically important.


Title: Re: Hilary Rosen's Ann Romney Comment
Post by: Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home. on April 18, 2012, 04:33:09 PM
'Homosexuals' are a social phenomenon that didn't exist in Bible times.

dude, I don't care what label you put on it - call them "those-who-sexually-lust-after-those-of-the-same-sex" if you want.  But the bible does address them and their sexual desires and actions.



Title: Re: Hilary Rosen's Ann Romney Comment
Post by: World politics is up Schmitt creek on April 18, 2012, 05:36:59 PM
Yes, as I said, the Bible has any number of things to say on that as on many subjects, as does lived experience if one bothers to actually make a token effort at comprehending the objects of one's opprobrium.


Title: Re: Hilary Rosen's Ann Romney Comment
Post by: HagridOfTheDeep on April 18, 2012, 06:21:09 PM
(I understand there's a difference between the N word and calling someone a dyke. But both are offensive and using the excuse that "they call themselves that" is a real cop-out, especially when everyone knows the original comment was meant to be offensive in the first place.)


Title: Re: Hilary Rosen's Ann Romney Comment
Post by: Mr. Morden on April 19, 2012, 06:02:55 AM
Thread's been derailed beyond repair.  If you guys want to debate homosexuality, do so on the appropriate board.