The Cellar

The Cellar (http://cellar.org/index.php)
-   Current Events (http://cellar.org/forumdisplay.php?f=4)
-   -   The Third Jihad (http://cellar.org/showthread.php?t=18420)

xoxoxoBruce 10-15-2008 04:23 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DanaC (Post 493837)
*Nods* I have the same response to the constant mangling of Hillary's name into Hitlery. It's vile. I don't care what your political grief with her is, the reason she's so hated is that she's a woman who got uppity.

No, she's also hated for the things she did, or tried to do, while she was uppity there. :haha:

TheMercenary 10-15-2008 11:16 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DanaC (Post 493837)
*Nods* I have the same response to the constant mangling of Hillary's name into Hitlery. It's vile. I don't care what your political grief with her is, the reason she's so hated is that she's a woman who got uppity.

No, the reason she is hated is because her last name is Clinton. :D

xoxoxoBruce 10-15-2008 11:26 AM

Yeah, she's got a lot of nerve using the same name as the best president since Harry Truman. ;)

classicman 10-15-2008 02:04 PM

hahahahahahaha

DanaC 10-15-2008 03:37 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by xoxoxoBruce (Post 493844)
No, she's also hated for the things she did, or tried to do, while she was uppity there. :haha:

*chuckles* touche :P

Yeah, I guess so. But the level of bile seems more extreme with Hillary than it is/was with Clinton. Looking in from the outside, that is. I only have limited access to what the American media is up to, so that may reflect more how it was channelled and packaged at this end, rather than how it looks on the ground *shrugs*.

@Merc. Ok. But now my interest is piqued. Who do you hate/despise more, Bill or Hillary?

classicman 10-15-2008 04:03 PM

Geraldine Ferraro ran on a Dem ticket as the VP with Mondale - she wasn't treated like Hillary. Why do you suppose that is?

DanaC 10-15-2008 05:01 PM

*Shows ignorance of American political history* I have never heard of either of those people...

I do think the media treats female politicians differently to the way hey treat male politicians...and I think the electorate have different expectations of female politicians than those they have of male politicians...

Well, duh. *Chuckles* The media expresses and distills (potentially distorts) current cultural preoccupations. It reflects back our cultural expectations and that includes how we view men and women. On the public stage, men must prove themselves to the electorate by showing their strengths and talents and so it is with women; but there had better be 'good wife and mother' on her list of strengths if she wants to be within a mile of high office.

It's expected that a man on the public stage will have a wife in his private world; but how good a father and husband he is only really becomes an issue if he's a cheating bastard. Domestic affairs have the potential to weaken him in public opinion, but they're unlikely to be a strengthening asset.

*shrugs* It's not a conspiracy. It's just the way it is.

TheMercenary 10-15-2008 07:08 PM

A wife and a Mistress.... :D

The first woman to run for President:

Victoria Woodhull, born in 1838 in Homer, Ohio, was selected by the Equal Rights Party to be its candidate in the 1872 election.

http://www.loc.gov/wiseguide/may06/women.html

DanaC 10-15-2008 07:57 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TheMercenary (Post 494040)
A wife and a Mistress.... :D

The first woman to run for President:

Victoria Woodhull, born in 1838 in Homer, Ohio, was selected by the Equal Rights Party to be its candidate in the 1872 election.

http://www.loc.gov/wiseguide/may06/women.html


No shit? Fantastic, thanks for the link! That's really interesting. I tend to stick pretty much with Britain in the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries, only really look at whats going on in other countries where it relates back to Britain *smiles* so it's kind of nice to step out of that and look at similar social movement elsewhere.

Though, actually, now I know shes from the nineteenth century, I think I have heard of her. Her names been mentioned in the context of women in te 'public sphere'. I had assumed you weretalking about candidates in more recent history:P

classicman 10-15-2008 08:50 PM

I was Dana. Merc took it to a whole nother level.

TheMercenary 10-15-2008 08:56 PM

It is only because I heard it on NPR. Yea I am a NPR junky. Whatever......

classicman 10-15-2008 09:06 PM

I wasn't takin a shot at you Merc - I was just sayin...

I really don't think that any of the shit Hillary gets is because she is a woman. Its simply because of who she is, thats all.

TheMercenary 10-15-2008 09:08 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by classicman (Post 494076)
I wasn't takin a shot at you Merc - I was just sayin...

I really don't think that any of the shit Hillary gets is because she is a woman. Its simply because of who she is, thats all.

No worries. I did not take it any other way. Just shooting from the hip. A weakness of mine.

TheMercenary 10-15-2008 09:21 PM

This from a beloved brother and friend:

I got the DVD, "Obsession," in the mail and in a newspaper from the group that is responsible for making these films. They were distributed only in "battleground" states with no effort - THEY said - to influence the election. My first though is this is from some fundamentalist christian pro-Israel group. It is actually from a Rabbi named Raphael Shore. See below. This is all partisan anti-Muslim rhetoric designed to scare people into voting for McPalin.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/erik-o..._b_125969.html
Raphael Shore is an Israeli-Canadian film writer, producer, and Rabbi employed full time by Aish HaTorah.[1][2] He is the founder of The Clarion Fund, a non-profit organization that seeks to advance the idea that the United States faces a threat of radical Islam. Shore is also a regular critic of the media coverage on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, coverage which he alleges is regularly anti-Israel. [3]
Shore's documentary about radical Islam, Obsession, became a controversial part of the 2008 presidential campaign when he distributed copies of it to 28 million voters in U.S. swing states in an apparent attempt to convince them of the dangers of Islamic terror in the run-up to the election. [4] Shore has declined to reveal who funded both the production of the film or dissemination of the DVDs. [5]
Shore is currently a full-time employee of Aish HaTorah[6], an Orthodox organization devoted to promoting Jewish learning, and has collaborated with its sub-organization, HonestReporting, a pro-Israel media watchdog site.
Shore wrote and produced the documentary films Relentless: The Struggle for Peace in the Middle East and Obsession: Radical Islam’s War Against the West.
Raphael Shore is the twin brother of Ephraim Shore, the former head of HonestReporting.[7]

The information above would need to be further vetted to be accepted at face value. The typical event has occurred. He says, she says, he says, she says. Somewhere you will need to make your own decisions.

regular.joe 10-16-2008 10:13 AM

I'd like to list a few of the things that I use to even this out in my own head.

- Most Muslims are regular joes that just want to take care of their family and do Gods will.

- Most Christians are regular joes that just want to take care of their family and do Gods will.

- There are a few radical Christians who will indeed blow you up or murder you if you are involved in something very immoral in their eyes, like abortion.

- There are a few radical Muslims who will indeed blow you up or murder you if you are not a Muslim (of their type).

- Just for the record there has never been a Norwegian suicide bomber.

Which one poses the largest threat right now to my country? Do I have any real evidence to support the conclusion I may come to in answering that question?

classicman 10-16-2008 02:49 PM

I'm most worried about the Icelandic suicide bombers.

tw 10-16-2008 04:16 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by classicman (Post 494076)
I really don't think that any of the shit Hillary gets is because she is a woman. Its simply because of who she is, thats all.

That's right. She is who Rush Limbaugh has been telling us to hate for over eight years now. Many will simply believe what they are told to believe - including WMDs. Rush Limbaugh and the many other Republican party mouthpieces have been telling us for at least a decade to hate Hilary Clinton. Not all of us are smart enough to ignore or demand 'reasons why' from those wacko extremist mouthpieces.

TheMercenary 10-16-2008 07:55 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by classicman (Post 494361)
I'm most worried about the Icelandic suicide bombers.

Me too. But I heard the chicks are smoking hot!

regular.joe 10-16-2008 08:01 PM

Yea, the chicks are the BOMB!

regular.joe 10-16-2008 08:02 PM

...oh God, I kill me. HA!

classicman 10-16-2008 08:10 PM

Pics required after a claim like that!

Sundae 10-17-2008 04:07 PM

I was looking for Stiff Little Fingers on YouTube for the music thread, and came across this compilation of clips set to Alternative Ulster.

The song was neither pro or anti British, it was simply written about living in a war zone, and the young rising up to claim a reasonable living space. The clips (which are more biased) at least show what it was like to grow up in NI in the 70s.

I know I might witter on about this, but it was a huge thing for me, growing up Catholic in England. And in and around London, where many attacks took place (apols Birmingham, Manchester, Warrington et al). Terrorism has a huge impact on your life, especially if it happens somewhere you spend a lot of your time, and/ or your relatives live there.

America is simply too big to live under the fear of sustained terrorist attacks by Muslims. Those already inside your borders will be too easily corrupted by the American way of life, which offers so many more immediate pleasures than in a strictly Islamic state. And devout Muslims aren't bombers. You'd need thousands of fruitloops to kill on a scale even approaching the troubles (percentage wise).

If you have anything to fear it will come from those closest to you. Of course I hope not. And in fact I really don't think it will. Anyone want to make a bet on a terrorist attack in the US in the next year? I'll give you great odds.

BTW it's the album version of the song. I'll find a live one for the music thread, it's much dirtier (not the words, just the music)

TheMercenary 10-17-2008 04:15 PM

Ohhhh, we like dirty. :D

piercehawkeye45 10-17-2008 06:46 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sundae Girl (Post 494801)
America is simply too big to live under the fear of sustained terrorist attacks by Muslims. Those already inside your borders will be too easily corrupted by the American way of life, which offers so many more immediate pleasures than in a strictly Islamic state. And devout Muslims aren't bombers. You'd need thousands of fruitloops to kill on a scale even approaching the troubles (percentage wise).

If you have anything to fear it will come from those closest to you. Of course I hope not. And in fact I really don't think it will. Anyone want to make a bet on a terrorist attack in the US in the next year? I'll give you great odds.

Agree 100%. I used to live in a "very" Islamic neighborhood and all the kids growing up in the States act much more Western than Islamic.

classicman 10-22-2008 12:49 PM

Al-Qaida-linked Web site backs McCain as president

Quote:

WASHINGTON (AP) - Al-Qaida supporters suggested in a Web site message this week they would welcome a pre-election terror attack on the U.S. as a way to usher in a McCain presidency.

The message, posted Monday on the password-protected al-Hesbah Web site, said if al-Qaida wants to exhaust the United States militarily and economically, "impetuous" Republican presidential candidate Sen. John McCain is the better choice because he is more likely to continue the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.

"This requires presence of an impetuous American leader such as McCain, who pledged to continue the war till the last American soldier," the message said. "Then, al-Qaida will have to support McCain in the coming elections so that he continues the failing march of his predecessor, Bush."

SITE Intelligence Group, based in Bethesda, Md., monitors the Web site and translated the message.

"If al-Qaida carries out a big operation against American interests," the message said, "this act will be support of McCain because it will push the Americans deliberately to vote for McCain so that he takes revenge for them against al-Qaida. Al-Qaida then will succeed in exhausting America till its last year in it."

Mark Salter, a senior McCain adviser, said he had heard about the Web site chatter but had no immediate comment.
That last line says a lot to me. "No comment" Way to come off as being the strong leader he purports to be - NOT!


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 08:00 PM.

Powered by: vBulletin Version 3.8.1
Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.