Pandagon

[GenuineRisk]

Originally Posted by brianwspencer

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.

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.

[Downthestretch55]

Originally Posted by GenuineRisk

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.

[GenuineRisk]

Originally Posted by Bababooyee

He is merely tangential to my point. See above.



I said she is a coward and/or a bigot. Maybe she isn't a coward. Just a bigot. And as I said before, she is interested in topics far more reaching that what is going on in the US.

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.

[brianwspencer]

Originally Posted by Bababooyee

This is nonsensical in context of what you're quoting from me. AFAIK, no one here advocted her getting fired, etc.

The point is, just because it is not a big deal to you, doesn't mean it is not a big deal to someone else.

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.

[brianwspencer]

Originally Posted by Bababooyee

Such tolerance.

The problem is, you think that only Donahue and folks of his ilk were offended. Based on what I've read PRIOR to the big media hoopla, that is not the case.

It may be bullshit, but its also politics.

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.

[brianwspencer]

[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.

Originally Posted by Bababooyee

PS: clue me in on what the ****** word was!

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

[GenuineRisk]

Originally Posted by Bababooyee

But holding people's feet to the fire for past comments IS politics.



Well, that I agree with. Like I said, politics. It is much nastier than it used to be...or it seems that way.

PS: clue me in on what the ****** word was!

Politics ebbs and flows in terms of "nasty"- though interestingly enough, there is a correlation between levels of economic divide and the vitriol spewed during campaigns-- the bigger the divide between rich and poor, the uglier the campaigns. So yes, it's nastier now than it was in the 1950's, but not any nastier than in the late 1800's.

Interesting discussion, as always, my friends. I'm off for the rest of the night. Have lovely evenings!

[brianwspencer]

Originally Posted by Bababooyee

I kind of liked the Phil Donahue Show when I was a kid. He was kinda like Springer and Oprah wraped into one.

I'd take Sally Jesse over anything. I used to watch it every day after school when I was in junior high.

[horseofcourse]

First off, Donahue is not catholic...any claims that he is by himself are purely for egotistical reasons. He in no way represents the catholic church on any matter. Him speaking for a catholic organization is sort of like Zippy Chippy speaking for grade 1 winning horses or something like that.