• Welcome to the Internet Infidels Discussion Board.

March for women. A message from Conservatives

 
 
 
Shadowy Man said:
Tom Sawyer said:
But she made an offhand comment two years ago which wasn't a complete repudiation and condemnation of Islam. I think we can all agree that this means that the entire rationale of the Women's March is invalidated and Donald Trump had ten thousand million devoted fans packing downtown Washington cheering his inauguration.
Click to expand...

Yes, because we all know that we hold everyone to the tweets they made years ago, you know, like we do with Donald Trump.
Click to expand...

Wouldn't it be interesting if Derec decided to enter politics and someone pointed out his posts here.
 
Shadowy Man said:
Angry Floof said:
Yes, because the US President shouldn't be held to the highest level of accountability or anything.
Click to expand...

Actually, my point was that we aren't holding Trump to the tweets he's made in the past. He's been all over the political map and nobody cares.
Click to expand...
Ah, sorry. I misunderstood. I thought you were saying that we do call him on past tweets and we're hypocrites if we don't do the same to Madonna. I got it completely backwards. :/
 
Angry Floof said:
The conservative outrage and focus on celebrities is comical considering all they will accept without question in the POTUS, the highest office, when there's a Republican in it.
Click to expand...

I've seen this pattern before. There's a type of conservative who accepts without question whatever their leaders say, and thinks everyone else does the same thing. They genuinely believe that if a celebrity spoke at a rally it means all the rally-goers believe without question whatever that celebrity said. They believe mocking the celebrity is the same thing as providing a thoughtful critique of the rally-goers' stated goals.

I'm not sure if anyone here genuinely believes calling Madonna a has-been says anything remotely relevant about the millions of people who joined in the Women's March, but I guess it's a handy way to disparage them.
 
Arctish said:
Angry Floof said:
The conservative outrage and focus on celebrities is comical considering all they will accept without question in the POTUS, the highest office, when there's a Republican in it.
Click to expand...

I've seen this pattern before. There's a type of conservative who accepts without question whatever their leaders say, and thinks everyone else does the same thing. They genuinely believe that if a celebrity spoke at a rally it means all the rally-goers believe without question whatever that celebrity said. They believe mocking the celebrity is the same thing as providing a thoughtful critique of the rally-goers' stated goals.

I'm not sure if anyone here genuinely believes calling Madonna a has-been says anything remotely relevant about the millions of people who joined in the Women's March, but I guess it's a handy way to disparage them.
Click to expand...

Yep.
 
Angry Floof said:
The conservative outrage and focus on celebrities is comical considering all they will accept without question in the POTUS, the highest office, when there's a Republican in it.
Click to expand...

A Republican who used to host a game show with the word "Celebrity" in the name.

Trump is primarily famous for being rich and famous. He was Kardashian before it was cool. As a billionaire, he's positively c-list. Bloomberg or the Kochs or even the dreaded George Soros could buy him out with the spare change in their pockets, but Trump had himself a television show. That was focus for the decade before he ran for office - building his name recognition by appearing on the boob tube one night a week. He had a catchphrase and promos teasing the latest salacious dust-up between c and d-list folks like Meat Loaf or Gary Busey, who were also all trying desperately to stretch their fifteen minutes of fame...the only thing they or Trump had left worth selling.
 
Ford said:
Angry Floof said:
The conservative outrage and focus on celebrities is comical considering all they will accept without question in the POTUS, the highest office, when there's a Republican in it.
Click to expand...

A Republican who used to host a game show with the word "Celebrity" in the name.

Trump is primarily famous for being rich and famous. He was Kardashian before it was cool. As a billionaire, he's positively c-list. Bloomberg or the Kochs or even the dreaded George Soros could buy him out with the spare change in their pockets, but Trump had himself a television show. That was focus for the decade before he ran for office - building his name recognition by appearing on the boob tube one night a week. He had a catchphrase and promos teasing the latest salacious dust-up between c and d-list folks like Meat Loaf or Gary Busey, who were also all trying desperately to stretch their fifteen minutes of fame...the only thing they or Trump had left worth selling.
Click to expand...

Consumerism comes part and parcel with today's US Christians and right wingers. I made some off-hand criticism about consumerism in a conversation about five years ago to a conservative. She reacted like I just murdered her family.

It's really disgusting what conservatives have allowed themselves to become attached to in the last few decades. They're disgusted by other people's sex lives, bad words, kids with unauthorized toys and clothes, criticism of an imaginary magical Dad, non-belief, questioning, other-belief, brown skin, the sight of a breast in any context except sexual, and vaginas.

They love TV, Hollywood, pop culture and music, and keeping up with the Joneses. But stripping millions of healthcare, legalizing discrimination and abuse, dismantling democratic protections, lying to the public, and removing government transparency doesn't get a twitch in reaction. A sea of Manchurian candidates, at least 62 million of them.
 
Loren Pechtel said:
Derec said:
I don't think any claims of actual wrongdoing (like Juanita Broderick) were ever substantiated, right? There are many things that were bad about Clinton presidency, but we should not focus on his personal life. That's between him and Hillary.
Click to expand...

That's my impression, also. Sticking it in inappropriate places, yes. Forcing women, no. When you're powerful and a reasonable person there's plenty of willing pussy, why force anyone?
Click to expand...

WTF ?
 
Angry Floof said:
Shadowy Man said:
Actually, my point was that we aren't holding Trump to the tweets he's made in the past. He's been all over the political map and nobody cares.
Click to expand...
Ah, sorry. I misunderstood. I thought you were saying that we do call him on past tweets and we're hypocrites if we don't do the same to Madonna. I got it completely backwards. :/
Click to expand...

Sorry..my bad. I forgot my <sarcasm> tags.
 
Jolly_Penguin said:
Toni said:
Because he's rich.
Click to expand...

I am surprised more people haven't moved to hold his feet to the fire on this. When he said the "you can grab them by the pussy line" he was talking about how rich and famous people can get away with such beyond the pale behavior. He was noting the power imbalance and how we let some get away with far more than we let others.
Click to expand...

No, he very clearly was bragging about how HE gets away with that behavior... not how it is so terrible we live in a society where "some people" think "they" can get away with it.

HE expressed how great it was that HE can do that.
 
TSwizzle said:
Loren Pechtel said:
That's my impression, also. Sticking it in inappropriate places, yes. Forcing women, no. When you're powerful and a reasonable person there's plenty of willing pussy, why force anyone?
Click to expand...

WTF ?
Click to expand...
He means some of you don't seem to understand the concept of consent and why it matters. He was a shit for cheating on his wife, which is not relevant to why women marched. Bill Clinton didn't cheat on Hillary because of misogyny. He did it because he was a giant hornball and Monica was pretty and infatuated with him. Women are not marching against the fact that humans cheat on each other. Bill Clinton's infidelity to his wife didn't threaten the rights, health, and safety of American women.

Lame. Seriously, it's weak.
 
Yep, the march was for kidnappers' rights. And don't turn back the clock for murderers.
 
Right wing authoritarian followers look for a figurehead to attack. It's almost like we have a bunch of scientologists in this thread.
 
TSwizzle said:
Derec said:
Speaking of the women's march, one of the chief organizers is an Islamist who supports Sharia law and Hamas.

Organizer For DC Women’s March, Linda Sarsour Is Pro Sharia Law with Ties To Hamas
Click to expand...

And convicted kidnapper and murderer Donna Hylton.
Click to expand...

I did see her name but I am not sure she is "extremist" only because I haven't checked either way though I have some reservations. Hamas has not conducted any attacks outside of Israel/Palestine. However Linda may not realise that the Hijab is not even mandated in the Koran.

Hamas and Israel are more or less at War with each other.
 
TSwizzle said:
Derec said:
Speaking of the women's march, one of the chief organizers is an Islamist who supports Sharia law and Hamas.

Organizer For DC Women’s March, Linda Sarsour Is Pro Sharia Law with Ties To Hamas
Click to expand...

And convicted kidnapper and murderer Donna Hylton.
Click to expand...

The crime was pretty bad. There are no doubt genuine people on the marches these types just attract one or two strange characters.

Psychology Today 1995 ARTICLE
https://www.psychologytoday.com/articles/199507/crime-and-punishment

http://www.speroforum.com/a/ISRZGUK...featured-speaker-at-Womens-March#.WIvPxxuLTIU
Reference to the case here.
According to a 1985 petition for habeas corpus, “Petitioner and her co-defendants kidnapped Thomas Vigliarolo, a Long Island businessman, in order to obtain a ransom and that during the kidnapping, Vigliarolo died.” The petition, which was ultimately denied, indicated that it was on March 12, 1986, that a jury found Hylton guilty of second degree murder and two counts of first degree kidnapping. “Petitioner was sentenced to concurrent indeterminate prison terms of twenty-five years to life. People v. Hylton, 564 N.Y.S.2d 746 (1st Dep't 1991). “ She would spend 27 years in prison.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom