Alaska nominee says sex outside of marriage should be illegal

Mott the Hoople said:
Oh no Fox would never, ever do that! Holy fuck balls DY, Fox does practically nothing but that. They pick an extreme and demonize it or they try to spin that what their opponents are doing is extreme when in fact Fox has the extremist position. So using your own logic then it is quite clear that Fox has lost the debate. I agree with you.
Click to expand...

to be honest, from what I have seen, Fox is the only network which provides both extreme positions so you can compare them......most news sources only provide one and pretend it's the "news"........
 
tom prendergast said:
Considering that she professes to be a conservative woman, she is coming across as a fully paid up member of the feminazi tendency.
Click to expand...

Ehhh, I don't think what 3D posts qualifies as Porn. Damo is pretty strict about that but I do think he's crossed the line of good taste and common sense on more than one occasion, so ID does have the basis of a gripe. I know I've had to disable the signature line at work cause of 3D.

On the other hand ID seems to have a problem between identifying a sexist prick and a horny young man. 3D just wants to get laid. Rush and the other conservative crusaders want women to revert back to being chattel property. Now that's what I call sexist.
 
WinterBorn said:
No it wasn't. ID and I have had some hostile discussions about some things she has said as well.

But she was taking a cheap shot at a person with whom she has a running feud. You were trying to say someone who has had several spouses cannot be prim & proper. I see a difference, even if you do not.
Click to expand...

She has a running feud with all the liberals here, and here entire schtick consists of taking cheap and vulgar shots at them.

We don't expect you to know the history but believe me, she needs no defending.
 
christiefan915 said:
She has a running feud with all the liberals here, and here entire schtick consists of taking cheap and vulgar shots at them.

We don't expect you to know the history but believe me, she needs no defending.
Click to expand...

I know she has a running feud with some people. Not my problem.

I posted what I thought, and do not base it on whether I think she needs defending or not.



With that said, do you think I would have been accused of the "Sir Galahad Act" if I had posted on a thread where someone other than ID was complaining?

Pot/Kettle
 
WinterBorn said:
I know she has a running feud with some people. Not my problem.

I posted what I thought, and do not base it on whether I think she needs defending or not.



With that said, do you think I would have been accused of the "Sir Galahad Act" if I had posted on a thread where someone other than ID was complaining?

Pot/Kettle
Click to expand...

It depends on who complained and who defended, doesn't it.

If I posted every sexually vulgar comment she wrote toward me and others over the years, I'd get banned.

Making a wisecrack about the number of husbands is prayerful compared to what she's written in the past, and still writes.
 
christiefan915 said:
It depends on who complained and who defended, doesn't it.

If I posted every sexually vulgar comment she wrote toward me and others over the years, I'd get banned.

Making a wisecrack about the number of husbands is prayerful compared to what she's written in the past, and still writes.
Click to expand...

I'm not denying she has written some vulgar stuff. But that really isn't the point.

But I get what you are saying. You think since she has posted rude & obnoxious things, its ok to try and say she cannot be a prude because she has had 3 husbands and that she should never be defended.

Interesting set of standards there. But not surprising for this site.
 
WinterBorn said:
I'm not denying she has written some vulgar stuff. But that really isn't the point.

But I get what you are saying. You think since she has posted rude & obnoxious things, its ok to try and say she cannot be a prude because she has had 3 husbands and that she should never be defended.

Interesting set of standards there. But not surprising for this site.
Click to expand...

Let's just say that for somebody who's rightfully criticized DY for his tasteless comments about you and/or your family, you seem to turn a blind eye to all the times she's done the very same thing to those she despises.
 
christiefan915 said:
Let's just say that for somebody who's rightfully criticized DY for his tasteless comments about you and/or your family, you seem to turn a blind eye to all the times she's done the very same thing to those she despises.
Click to expand...

And she has done the same to me on several occasions. That still does not change anything. The fact that I posted what I did and then was accused of some sort of "Sir Galahad Act" shows that the bullshit runs both ways. When ID gets obnoxious towards me, I have no problem replying in kind. But the fact that you think that should carry over to every thread in which she makes a post shows more than you might think.

What I was trying, in vain, to do was return the topic to the OP. But that only works if the people involved want it.
 
WinterBorn said:
And she has done the same to me on several occasions. That still does not change anything. The fact that I posted what I did and then was accused of some sort of "Sir Galahad Act" shows that the bullshit runs both ways. When ID gets obnoxious towards me, I have no problem replying in kind. But the fact that you think that should carry over to every thread in which she makes a post shows more than you might think.

What I was trying, in vain, to do was return the topic to the OP. But that only works if the people involved want it.
Click to expand...

Which is why I don't respond to her comments, either by groaning or answering her directly, yet it hasn't stopped her from attacking. She's derailed numerous threads with her personal vendettas and this thread is following the usual pattern.

My experience is that the arguments among most people here aren't personal, just the outcome of having strong political opinions. But with that woman the political becomes the personal and she will always find a reason to push the envelope and take her grudges to the next level. So don't be surprised that some of us don't see your defense of her in quite the same way you do.
 
christiefan915 said:
She has a running feud with all the liberals here, and here entire schtick consists of taking cheap and vulgar shots at them.

We don't expect you to know the history but believe me, she needs no defending.
Click to expand...

You fricking assed pollyanna...you have used vulgarity as well as Tom towards myself; Freedom; Loyal; and posters who are no longer here..."the grudge" as you call swings both ways... you pathetic hypocrite. But you go ahead and attempt your shame game of WB it's so you~
 
christiefan915 said:
Let's just say that for somebody who's rightfully criticized DY for his tasteless comments about you and/or your family, you seem to turn a blind eye to all the times she's done the very same thing to those she despises.
Click to expand...

Maybe because unlike you, WB knows he has thrown the personal shit at DY as well as taken it from him.
 
apple0154 said:
The great majority of pictures posted by 3-D were not accompanied by any comments and many were simply part of his signature line.

I'd still appreciate an answer to my question, "If you feel posting pictures of semi-nude women is wrong what is your attitude towards women dressing in a semi-nude fashion?"

If a picture is supposedly denoting “something” then it must mean that “something” took place. For example, if a picture portrays a person wearing a mask and silly outfit on October 31st. it’s reasonable to conclude the person was dressed for Halloween. Or if a picture shows a man wearing a helmet, slightly soiled clothes and steel-toed boots it’s logical to conclude the man was dressed in work clothes.

Surely it must follow if a picture of a woman in a bathing suit or shorts and tank top or other apparel is considered porno then it’s logical to conclude the woman was dressed in a pornographic manner. What other logical conclusion can be drawn?

So, I’m asking, if you feel certain pictures depicting the dress of women are pornographic do you believe dressing in such a manner is pornographic?
Click to expand...

If the picture is sexualizing women...is's sexist...it moves over to porn when the woman is nude and posed in a sexually suggestive pose...it becomes even more so when it is accomapnied by sexually demeaning commentary...and my personal opinion about how women may or may not "choose" to dress has nothing to do with my complaint on here.
 
Last edited:
tom prendergast said:
I consider that comment to be sexist and what's infinitely worse, desperately unfunny.

A great many people think they are thinking when they are merely rearranging their prejudices. -- William James
Click to expand...

See, Tom, that's your trouble right there ...I was not trying to be funny-I was being literal.
 
christiefan915 said:
Which is why I don't respond to her comments, either by groaning or answering her directly, yet it hasn't stopped her from attacking. She's derailed numerous threads with her personal vendettas and this thread is following the usual pattern.

My experience is that the arguments among most people here aren't personal, just the outcome of having strong political opinions. But with that woman the political becomes the personal and she will always find a reason to push the envelope and take her grudges to the next level. So don't be surprised that some of us don't see your defense of her in quite the same way you do.
Click to expand...

No one has derailed this thread bitch...that is except you and Tom, who have tried to make it personal about me. The photo in question was posted in this thread making it perfectly legitimate for the discussion to be in this thread. Damo himself posted about in this thread because it is the right thread to do so in. It was Tom and now you, who have made the attempt to go personal...WB called you on it-now do try and get your x-tra large bloomers out of their twist.

I have and always will throw bigger rocks then are thrown at me...I think it comes from growing up with 4 older brothers.
 
The thing of it is, there is no rule against "sexist", while I do have a rule about pornography. However, pornography is subjective in nature. I agree, posting the picture and adding the teener comment seems to objectify a woman (specifically the one pictured, anonymously with no face). However, IMO, it doesn't constitute porn as if you saw that in a movie, it would still not make the movie a "porn" flick. Let's say they were talking about the book on a talk show or some other show on TV. While it would rate a TV14 rating, it certainly wouldn't be disallowed on TV. It doesn't show any of the important bits that would make it something that would be "porn", soft or hard.

Sexism does not equal porn. They are not synonymous terms. And like the entire US, this particular site has no guarantee that you will never be offended by what is posted here. In fact, it is almost certain that you will be offended at times from what others say. One should not assume that the staff is here to protect them from being offended.

"Porn", being relative in nature (and unless it is about kids) will be treated subjectively, as there is no other way to do it.

Ask yourself, if they were to grab this book in a movie and start talking about it exactly as 3D did here, would it make the movie even NC-17? Would it even make it stronger than PG-13?
 
Damocles said:
The thing of it is, there is no rule against "sexist", while I do have a rule about pornography. However, pornography is subjective in nature. I agree, posting the picture and adding the teener comment seems to objectify a woman (specifically the one pictured, anonymously with no face). However, IMO, it doesn't constitute porn as if you saw that in a movie, it would still not make the movie a "porn" flick. Let's say they were talking about the book on a talk show or some other show on TV. While it would rate a TV14 rating, it certainly wouldn't be disallowed on TV. It doesn't show any of the important bits that would make it something that would be "porn", soft or hard.

Sexism does not equal porn. They are not synonymous terms. And like the entire US, this particular site has no guarantee that you will never be offended by what is posted here. In fact, it is almost certain that you will be offended at times from what others say. One should not assume that the staff is here to protect them from being offended.

"Porn", being relative in nature (and unless it is about kids) will be treated subjectively, as there is no other way to do it.

Ask yourself, if they were to grab this book in a movie and start talking about it exactly as 3D did here, would it make the movie even NC-17? Would it even make it stronger than PG-13?
Click to expand...

First I never called it hard core porn... I already stated to 3d it is softcore. It is the nude picture (against the rules) of a woman in a sexual pose (softcore porn) and the comment was sexually graphic. Further his posting goes against the spirit of the rule by using the site for regular postings of this nature...but as already noted -you have bs rules that time and again are merely subjective gobbly-goop. That men have stated "it's not porn...really" and that there are no other female voices to counter it, means you can pump yourself up that you have been the voice of intellectual reason on the matter...as if.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top