It'd be a hoot if it weren't real. The Hollywood one is my favorite, slightly edging out the one where "the community has yet to apologize to straight people for all the damage they have done."

And I'm saying it's not as big a deal as you, Donahue, or any other person who has been deeply offended by these comments thinks.

Difference in tastes, I suppose.

I can't speak for what GLAAD would do if that happened, because that would be a big deal. Who knows. If you find me a rollicking big deal that happened, we can check into what GLAAD did. You can google that one yourself. But thus far, we're playing hypotheticals because this whole thing was not, in fact, a big deal.

B, Donohue has been in front of the media long before this mess- click on the mediamatters link and you'll see he's a regular on Scarborough, Hardball, etc. He reaches far, far more people than Marcotte and the other woman put together, and the stuff he spouts is pretty awful. Read the quotes. Just because you don't care to know about the guy doesn't mean you shouldn't- if you're going to discuss him, know what he's saying.

The Catholic Church has considerably more power in the US than any Islamic organization. Why is it cowardly for her to focus on the big gun and not the peashooter? If anything, it takes less courage to lambast (lambaste?) Islam here, since oodles of your average Americans are perfectly happy to fling around the term "towelhead." I've seen it on this forum. But they aren't so likely to yell "Papist" at a Catholic these days. (Though I have a Floridian friend who makes no bones about the fact that she thinks Catholics are going to Hell. She's Presbyterian, I think.)

(For the record, I think both the Catholic Church and Islam are pretty backward in their views on women and am perfectly happy to see either one taken to task for it.)

Well, I would like an apology. My life has been irrevocably damaged by all the hours I spent watching "Queer Eye for the Straight Guy" and listening to the Indigo Girls. What do I have to show for it, other than learning how to broil fish and knowing all the lyrics to "Closer to Fine?"

Well my partner would like an apology from your people for the six hours a day I spent in front of the television every Sunday for the past six months drinking beer because of your macho football indoctrination system.

So there. I have football and beer, and you have broiled fish and fabulous music. No apologies necessary, they cancel one another out.

I didn't say that Hardaway should lose his job and place pressure on him until he quit.

So, what exactly is the point? He said what he said. Sure I think it's a big deal, but I have not advocated for any negative consequences in his life as a result of it.

That's the difference.

Can I trade you the fish for the beer? I consume a lot more beer than I do fish.

I think my partner would like an apology from your partner for pain and suffering resulting from now regularly getting his eyebrows waxed.

GR,
A recipe will be posted in the "DT Cookbook" for beer battered fish.
I aim to please.
Eyebrow waxing scares me to the eyeballs though.

Right, but B, you're essentially defending his position and I'm saying, just look at who you're defending. He's a lackey for the GOP, and seized on things the woman posted BEFORE she started working for Edwards as an opportunity to put the Edwards campaign at a disadvantage (and all his claims that Edwards is a good man doesn't disguise what his real agenda was- to cause trouble for the campaign of a Democrat). Yes, she's responsible for what she's written, but then I guess one has to say, should that affect the job she does for Edwards? If she started posting inflammatory rhetoric under the auspices of his campaign, fine, but these things were posted separately from her job for Edwards.

Clearly conservative Christians had no problem letting go of the fact that Reagan was a divorcé when they voted for him, despite divorce being a sin in their religion. I think the question is, how much should a person's actions or words separate from or prior to a job be allowed to affect whether they keep that job?

And I cannot figure out why a blogger that (rightly, in many cases) points out hypocricies in right-wing church organizations is automatically obligated to do the same with Islam. Why is she required to do that?

Look, ultimately we're all bigots about something ("Bigot" being someone intolerant of opinions, lifestyles or identities differing from one's own). I have no understanding for the Muslim hajib (headscarf) because I consider it a symbol of a culture that believe men aren't responsible for controlling their sexual desires (I'm just as bigoted about people who say a raped woman was "asking for it" because she was in a short skirt). I think we all have something we're intolerant about. But to say that she's a bigot, and choose to completely ignore and in fact, expressly avoid reading, bigoted comments by the man you are in essence defending, seems a wee bit disingenuous, wouldn't you say? What is it you're afraid to learn about Donohue?

As John Cole said, there's room to hate them both. Learning what a complete a*shole he is doesn't mean you'll automatically start reading Pandagon.

Well, arguing over whether to buy regular eggs or jumbo eggs is a big deal to some people too. Calling a female dog a bitch is offensive to some people. They're not big deals.

Point is, that I don't care if it's a big deal to some people. I don't care about that or them either. If people were really outrageously offended by this stupid 'incident,' then I would venture that I would find most of the rest of what they think to be foolish and ignorant rubbish as well.....which would mean that I don't care about them. But I wouldn't advocate forcing them out of a job they were offered, which is exactly what happened here. Someone cries wolf, someone loses a job. That's bullshit, if I may say so.

It was not politics to begin with. It was personal blogging from before she was on Edwards campaign team. It was a seedy smear campaign against Edwards, which Donahue had no qualms about admitting during the fiasco. It would hurt Edwards if he kept up with it, and he made that quite clear.

I'm sure as far as "anti-Catholic" vitriol goes, he could have undoubtedly found thousands of more serious offenders....but he could hurt a Democratic candidate at the same time, and that's an I'm-an-******* bonus for guys like Donahuhe.

[quote=Bababooyee]But holding people's feet to the fire for past comments IS politics.[\QUOTE]

If she were a politician, sure. It had no correlation to anything relevant to her job description for the Edwards campaign. Donahue could make it something to hurt Edwards, and he did. It doesn't make it right for her to lose her job, politics or not.


A-hole, of course. Though, I'm shocked that DT doesn't ******* the word "Donahue," seeing as they are synonomous.