They all have it.

Cheney – Bush – this assclown.

Actually, it’s from the other end of the horse.

rimhotep Says:
Leftside Annie: Your comment would be accurate if Chris Wallace had a set of balls. His, clearly, have never descended.

This morning, it is the two of you who caused my near-daily eruption of coffee onto monitor. MORE, MORE!

As far as I’m concerned, this bunch can keep talking loud and long. It will keep the rethugs in the wilderness for years.

It is not just ‘Feminists’ who are angry about Armey’s remarks, I was angry too, and I am a man,so are many other men who posted their angry remarks here on TP.
Armey’s remark were tasteless, disrespectful ,and undefendable.

Folks on the air just speak.

As to racist jokes, the closest I’ve seen on this site come from the trolls. I have read more insightful comments here (as well as many digs) than I have ever heard on broadcast media.

The comments on this site haven’t been repeated by liberal journalists because…there aren’t many. The ‘Liberal’ media was bought up years ago and most of the responsible journalists have had to move on to other jobs because Rupert and company only want to pay for sleeze.

Certainly you’ve got to see the distinction between anonymous commenters on a blog vs. elected politicians, TV news hosts and radio hosts. There’s a different standard in effect. The sorts of comments you’ve cited havn’t been repeated by liberal politicians or journalists.

January 31st, 2009 at 1:38 pm
______

I’m not sure why you don’t think you should be held to the same standard as those you mentioned. By that measure, is it ok to tell racist jokes on a blog?

All of upright left’s comments and responses demonstrate that he will never see that the Republican party IS the party of hypocrisy. Picking out some instances of liberals on a blog who might have made fun of Palin’s appearance is nothing compared to the out-and-out lies the R’s talking heads told about both Hillary and Obama on national tv. You cannot distract us from the fact that Palin simply was not qualified for VP. If she had been a man, she would not have been qualified. Period.

Way to go with throwing Coulter into this mix. The vast majority of liberal women do not call another woman a whore just because we disagree with them. Coulter, through her own words and actions, earns every epithet thrown at her. There is a huge difference between belittling one woman in particular and belittling ALL women.

Nice broad brush, ul.

January 31st, 2009 at 10:40 am
______

How can I be trying to distract you from Palin’s lack of qualifications when I agree with you? Does lack of qualification make it ok for her to have been called a whore? I never said any woman called anyone a whore. I said posters used the word whore to describe women with whom they disagreed. Does the Republican party being more sexist excuse sexism by libs (picking out some instances of liberals on a blog)? Or is the blog excuse like tros used (sexism by libs on a blog is ok)? If a woman is especially vile like Coulter, is sexism ok? None of your excuses negates the hypocrisy. If a statement is sexism when made by a repub, it’s sexism when made by a lib. And I’m quite sure the majority here would have had a problem with Armey etc had they suggested Walsh is promiscuous or made fun of her appearance, as suggested by willow orchid. ;)

I make no excuses for anyone.

Certainly you’ve got to see the distinction between anonymous commenters on a blog vs. elected politicians, TV news hosts and radio hosts. There’s a different standard in effect. The sorts of comments you’ve cited havn’t been repeated by liberal politicians or journalists.

All of upright left’s comments and responses demonstrate that he will never see that the Republican party IS the party of hypocrisy. Picking out some instances of liberals on a blog who might have made fun of Palin’s appearance is nothing compared to the out-and-out lies the R’s talking heads told about both Hillary and Obama on national tv. You cannot distract us from the fact that Palin simply was not qualified for VP. If she had been a man, she would not have been qualified. Period.

Calling a woman a whore because you disagree with her doesn’t really seem like the action of someone who wants women to be treated equally either.

Way to go with throwing Coulter into this mix. The vast majority of liberal women do not call another woman a whore just because we disagree with them. Coulter, through her own words and actions, earns every epithet thrown at her. There is a huge difference between belittling one woman in particular and belittling ALL women.

Nice broad brush, ul.

I think you are taking the remarks of a few and using them to paint all liberals with the same wide brush.

First, liberals are as much in support of stay-at-home moms as anyone else — that is, as long as the mom chose to stay home and wasn’t forced to. Women have the right to choose what they do with their life and what role they play in the family, just as men do. And staying at home and rearing children is as valid a vocation as any other (same goes for fathers!).

Second, you are focusing on the remarks of some liberals and not others. Yes, some have criticized Palin for working — which set the Palin defenders pouncing. Most of these critics weren’t making that point because they genuinely believed that mothers should all stay home and take care of their children, but to point out the hypocrisy of an ideology that has been no friend to working women (”you’ll do anything to hurt working women, but it’s OK when it’s your veep nominee”). And you may have noticed that for every liberal who criticized Palin for working outside the home with a special needs child — for whatever reason — there were other liberals (like me) who would smack that down, claiming that if Palin was a man with a special needs child, nobody would have a problem with him running for Vice President (at least not for that reason). After all, there are many legitimate reasons to criticize Palin — we don’t have to contradict our own values by being sexist.

Now — you appear to be making a case for Armey, Wallace, and Gallagher’s blatant and incredibly offensive sexism, claiming it’s OK because some people criticized Palin for working. This is beyond lame. Sexism is wrong no matter where it’s coming from.
January 31st, 2009 at 8:36 am
______

Obviously, my comments were toward liberals in general and the fact that you were an exception is duly noted. I didn’t see your objection to comments regarding Palin working, but I did see one other one. There were comments pointing out that righties might have criticized a Dem in Palin’s position, most didn’t. Those comments can’t be dismissed; the hypocrisy exists. And, yes, there are more than enough legitimate reasons to criticize Palin without resorting to using her children as well.

I make no excuses for anyone. Just as Armey, Wallace and Gallagher were wrong, libs are wrong for criticizing the appearance of women with whom they disagree as noted in comment #76. It’s the hypocrisy. There are more than enough reasons to criticize Coulter without using her appearance. Willow orchard was concerned that righties might do that to Walsh. Calling a woman a whore because you disagree with her doesn’t really seem like the action of someone who wants women to be treated equally either. And, while I’m sure you’ve never done that, it happens frequently here and is rarely, if ever criticized by the regulars. You see the hypocrisy. ;)

Liberals aren’t known for being strong advocates of stay-at-home moms. Special needs children generally are enrolled in early intervention programs. Down syndrome children aren’t necessarily medically fragile and parents of Down’s children go to work every day.

Does the fact that repubs may have criticized a Dem mother of a special needs child make it ok for Dems, who pride themselves on treating everyone the same and standing up for moms who choose to work, to criticize Palin for working?
_______________________________________________________

I think you are taking the remarks of a few and using them to paint all liberals with the same wide brush.

First, liberals are as much in support of stay-at-home moms as anyone else — that is, as long as the mom chose to stay home and wasn’t forced to. Women have the right to choose what they do with their life and what role they play in the family, just as men do. And staying at home and rearing children is as valid a vocation as any other (same goes for fathers!).

Second, you are focusing on the remarks of some liberals and not others. Yes, some have criticized Palin for working — which set the Palin defenders pouncing. Most of these critics weren’t making that point because they genuinely believed that mothers should all stay home and take care of their children, but to point out the hypocrisy of an ideology that has been no friend to working women (”you’ll do anything to hurt working women, but it’s OK when it’s your veep nominee”). And you may have noticed that for every liberal who criticized Palin for working outside the home with a special needs child — for whatever reason — there were other liberals (like me) who would smack that down, claiming that if Palin was a man with a special needs child, nobody would have a problem with him running for Vice President (at least not for that reason). After all, there are many legitimate reasons to criticize Palin — we don’t have to contradict our own values by being sexist.

Now — you appear to be making a case for Armey, Wallace, and Gallagher’s blatant and incredibly offensive sexism, claiming it’s OK because some people criticized Palin for working. This is beyond lame. Sexism is wrong no matter where it’s coming from.

leftthought.blogspot.com/2005/08/mike-gallagher-again.html