Obama Sworn In

[BroncoInferno]

We all know what nuyk nyuk means by saying the First Lady is "vindicating every negative stereotype about black female behavior there is": Mrs. Obama is being too uppity. Right, nyuk nyuk?

[BroncoBeavis]

Originally Posted by TonyR

Why the comparisons with Palin? Palin was a candidate who was a national joke and never won office. Michelle Obama is the First Lady and the wife of a candidate who won twice. There's no comparison here. First Ladies are always dressed to the nines. Why is it an issue now?

So what you're saying is it's ok to ridicule women you no likey in sexist terms, but everyone on your team is off limits.

[TonyR]

Originally Posted by BroncoBeavis

So what you're saying is it's ok to ridicule women you no likey in sexist terms, but everyone on your team is off limits.

It's your choice whether or not to "ridicule women". My point was and is that the comparisons between Palin, a failed VP candidate, and the current First Lady aren't very relevant.

[W*GS]

Originally Posted by nyuk nyuk

Did you borrow LA's label gun?

Hooded robe still at the cleaners?

Originally Posted by nyuk nyuk

You're defending the government here.

No, I'm asking why you believe Michelle Obama is an example of the "negative stereotype about black female behavior". What is said behavior?

Others have asked, and you've avoided answering. Why? Too cowardly to stand up for your beliefs?

Originally Posted by nyuk nyuk

What's up with that? Aren't they all 'war criminals' and ****?

I've never said that - but stick with the attempt at deflection from your obvious bigotry. That you feel it necessary to do so just proves you're a racist prick.

[BroncoBeavis]

Originally Posted by TonyR

It's your choice whether or not to "ridicule women". My point was and is that the comparisons between Palin, a failed VP candidate, and the current First Lady aren't very relevant.

Many people would think a sitting Governor, if not any female running for, or holding, major public office should be above being criticized for what she spent on her wardrobe. Especially since it's never been made a campaign issue with men.

You're discrediting any argument for equality on the issue if you're willing to throw the standard aside in any case of a woman you don't personally like.

But hey, what am I saying. One of your favorite editorialists was busy, back in the day, posting pictures on his website critiquing which of the various Palin ladies looked fat enough to have been pregnant.

If these years since 2008 have taught anyone anything, it's that for many of the politics-obsessed, there are no standards without double-standards.

[nyuk nyuk]

Originally Posted by W*GS

Hooded robe still at the cleaners?

Qualify that statement.

No, I'm asking why you believe Michelle Obama is an example of the "negative stereotype about black female behavior". What is said behavior?

You obviously haven't read what I said on this thread.

Others have asked, and you've avoided answering. Why? Too cowardly to stand up for your beliefs?

I've never been. They, like you, are playing stupid. Or... Maybe they/you are stupid?

I've never said that - but stick with the attempt at deflection from your obvious bigotry. That you feel it necessary to do so just proves you're a racist prick.

LMAO. I don't think criticizing her pattern of poor, disrespectful public behavior unfitting for her position is bigotry, but of course those in your crowd do if it happens to be that the person happens to be behaving like a walking stereotype, regardless of whether or not the criticism is valid.

So are you saying she's NOT behaving like a walking stereotype or that she may be doing so but it's "racist" to point it out?

Of course, we all know that to the Obama Coalition, racism is a one way street anyway.

Here's something very basic that libs never grasp: When you choose to apply a label to someone, it's on YOU to state the case for why the label is applicable. The onus isn't on the labeled person to vindicate themselves.

[nyuk nyuk]

Originally Posted by BroncoBeavis

Many people would think a sitting Governor, if not any female running for, or holding, major public office should be above being criticized for what she spent on her wardrobe. Especially since it's never been made a campaign issue with men.

It's called sexism when Republicans do it. It's called fair play when Democrats do it. Likewise with homosexual baiting, Dems do it quite often.

You're discrediting any argument for equality on the issue if you're willing to throw the standard aside in any case of a woman you don't personally like.

Dude, you're letting the facts get in the way. Even feminists let men with the letter D behind their name get away with all kind of filth. Look how quiet they were with Bill Clinton.

But hey, what am I saying. One of your favorite editorialists was busy, back in the day, posting pictures on his website critiquing which of the various Palin ladies looked fat enough to have been pregnant.

And whether or not Trig was actually Sarah's child. Yet they didn't do that with the Obama girls.

If these years since 2008 have taught anyone anything, it's that for many of the politics-obsessed, there are no standards without double-standards.

Sadly true.

[nyuk nyuk]

Originally Posted by BroncoInferno

We all know what nuyk nyuk means by saying the First Lady is "vindicating every negative stereotype about black female behavior there is": Mrs. Obama is being too uppity. Right, nyuk nyuk?

What is "too uppity"?

[DenverBrit]

Nyuk, Nyuk. I'm also curious about your comment:

"vindicating every negative stereotype about black female behavior there is"

You claim to have answered it, yet all I see is you deflecting and avoiding answering what appears to be an obvious racist comment.

What exactly did you mean??

[BroncoInferno]

If I recall correctly, the controversy with Palin was with the exorbitant six figure sum the RNC spent on her wardrobe. That doesn't strike me as "sexist."

In any case, nyuk nyuk and Beavis are doing the ubiquitous right-wing shuffle by tossing out some unrelated alleged offense to deflect from the clear racist overtones of nyuk nyuk's statement re: Michelle Obama "vindicating every negative stereotype about black female behavior there is." Why not address those comments rather than making an irrelevant deflection? If you are so concerned that Palin is the victim of sexism, start a thread about it. The topic of this thread is the inauguration. It's just like when flat-earthers think that by attacking Al Gore, they are somehow discrediting climate-change science, when of course Al Gore's alleged hypocrisy and the validity of the science are independent issues entirely unrelated to one another.

[W*GS]

Originally Posted by nyuk nyuk

Qualify that statement.

Since they're white, they get very dirty when out harassing blacks and others, and especially during cross-burnings.

Originally Posted by nyuk nyuk

You obviously haven't read what I said on this thread.

You toss out a bigoted statement and then refuse to defend and make your claim more specific with evidence for its correctness.

You've done nothing more than race-bait. Why?

Originally Posted by nyuk nyuk

LMAO. I don't think criticizing her pattern of poor, disrespectful public behavior unfitting for her position is bigotry, but of course those in your crowd do if it happens to be that the person happens to be behaving like a walking stereotype, regardless of whether or not the criticism is valid.

So are you saying she's NOT behaving like a walking stereotype or that she may be doing so but it's "racist" to point it out?

Of course, we all know that to the Obama Coalition, racism is a one way street anyway.

Here's something very basic that libs never grasp: When you choose to apply a label to someone, it's on YOU to state the case for why the label is applicable. The onus isn't on the labeled person to vindicate themselves.

What is this "walking stereotype"? Explain.

[BroncoInferno]

Originally Posted by nyuk nyuk

What is "too uppity"?

You tell us.

What specific stereotypes did Michelle Obama's behavior confirm? Tell us the specific stereotype, then tell us what behavior from the first lady confirms said stereotype.

[BroncoBeavis]

Originally Posted by BroncoInferno

If I recall correctly, the controversy with Palin was with the exorbitant six figure sum the RNC spent on her wardrobe. That doesn't strike me as "sexist."

In any case, nyuk nyuk and Beavis are doing the ubiquitous right-wing shuffle by tossing out some unrelated alleged offense to deflect from the clear racist overtones of nyuk nyuk's statement re: Michelle Obama "vindicating every negative stereotype about black female behavior there is." Why not address those comments rather than making an irrelevant deflection? If you are so concerned that Palin is the victim of sexism, start a thread about it. The topic of this thread is the inauguration. It's just like when flat-earthers think that by attacking Al Gore, they are somehow discrediting climate-change science, when of course Al Gore's alleged hypocrisy and the validity of the science are independent issues entirely unrelated to one another.

Read down. I didn't even touch on what nyuk said. I was responding to Tony's claiming that what's ok for Palin is somehow different for the First Lady.

Politics in this country could use a good dose of the Golden Rule. That's all I'm sayin'

And the first lady gets a pretty hefty tax-payer funded clothing allowance. So I guess I don't see how it's ok to question clothing paid for by a privately-funded campaign, but totally not ok when it's paid for by taxpayers.

[nyuk nyuk]

Originally Posted by DenverBrit

Nyuk, Nyuk. I'm also curious about your comment:

You claim to have answered it, yet all I see is you deflecting and avoiding answering what appears to be an obvious racist comment.

What exactly did you mean??

As I said to the above poster, qualify your claim. Why is it racist? Is it that it's true but racist or that it's untrue and racist? In either case, why is it racist?

[nyuk nyuk]

Originally Posted by BroncoInferno

You tell us.

What specific stereotypes did Michelle Obama's behavior confirm? Tell us the specific stereotype, then tell us what behavior from the first lady confirms said stereotype.

You make a claim asserting what my alleged motive was, and instead of explaining or justifying this assertion you want me to vindicate myself of this perception of yours that I claimed she was being "uppity" when I never said such a thing. What IS "uppity" exactly?

My post in this regard was already self-explanatory regarding her behavior.

[BroncoInferno]

Originally Posted by nyuk nyuk

As I said to the above poster, qualify your claim. Why is it racist? Is it that it's true but racist or that it's untrue and racist? In either case, why is it racist?

You have to explain what you meant first. What are the specific stereotypes you have in mind, and what specific behaviors from Mrs. Obama's confirms said stereotypes?

[BroncoInferno]

Originally Posted by nyuk nyuk

My post in this regard was already self-explanatory regarding her behavior.

It's not self explanatory at all. You made a vague, non-specific assertion regarding the First Lady's behaviors and how they confirm stereotypes which you refuse to specify. Why are you afraid to be specific?

[TonyR]

Originally Posted by BroncoBeavis

Read down. I didn't even touch on what nyuk said. I was responding to Tony's claiming that what's ok for Palin is somehow different for the First Lady.

I'm not aware that I ever said it was "ok" in either case. I said that you can't compare the two. Palin was scrutinized because she was running for a rather important office. The wardrobe story was one of many things that came out, right or wrong. A lot of people were amused and/or concerned about the puppet show the RNC was putting on, and what a horrible and fraudulent candidate Palin was. I'm not sure how this compares to the First Lady getting dressed up for the inauguration.

[nyuk nyuk]

Originally Posted by W*GS

Since they're white, they get very dirty when out harassing blacks and others, and especially during cross-burnings.

So this is a non sequitur then. That's what I thought.

You toss out a bigoted statement and then refuse to defend and make your claim more specific with evidence for its correctness.

You've claimed it to be a "bigoted statement" without qualifying it as bigoted but expect your claim of it being bigoted as bigoted without your qualifying it.

You've done nothing more than race-bait. Why?

You can also qualify this claim. How is it race baiting to make an observation about her poor behavior? Why is it race baiting to point out this woman sometimes acts like a walking stereotype? Her behavior toward the Speaker certainly justifies the criticism. She's done it before. Is calling someone a walking stereotype as long as they aren't white a racist act? If so, why?

So you're alleging here that my criticizing her makes me a cross burner, but her acting like a walking stereotype doesn't justify criticism of her acting like one? You're not making any sense.

What is this "walking stereotype"? Explain.

You're playing stupid. Indeed you prove you are by accusing me of racism. You've yet to justify your use of the label. Why is criticizing her behavior a racist act?

[nyuk nyuk]

Originally Posted by TonyR

I'm not aware that I ever said it was "ok" in either case. I said that you can't compare the two. Palin was scrutinized because she was running for a rather important office. The wardrobe story was one of many things that came out, right or wrong. A lot of people were amused and/or concerned about the puppet show the RNC was putting on, and what a horrible and fraudulent candidate Palin was. I'm not sure how this compares to the First Lady getting dressed up for the inauguration.

You're trying to rationalize selective gender sniping.

[nyuk nyuk]

Originally Posted by BroncoInferno

It's not self explanatory at all. You made a vague, non-specific assertion regarding the First Lady's behaviors and how they confirm stereotypes which you refuse to specify. Why are you afraid to be specific?

I have been specific and I've repeated it more than once. I haven't been vague at all. What gain is there in pretending I haven't been?

If you're saying my criticism of her is wrong, then tell us why it's wrong to criticize her. Further, is it wrong to criticize her regardless if the criticism is accurate? As I've said, what should be up to criticism here is her poor public behavior, not people's criticism of it. As such, you're indirectly excusing her poor behavior.

I'd say your priorities are inverted.

[W*GS]

Originally Posted by nyuk nyuk

So this is a non sequitur then. That's what I thought.

Hardly a non sequitur. The racism oozes throughout your comments.

Originally Posted by nyuk nyuk

Why is criticizing her behavior a racist act?

Because you explicitly made her behavior tied to her race, to wit:

She seems to make it a point of vindicating every negative stereotype about black female behavior there is.

Not only is your comment bigoted, it's sexist.

[W*GS]

Originally Posted by nyuk nyuk

You're trying to rationalize selective gender sniping.

You're trying to justify your assholiness.

[nyuk nyuk]

Originally Posted by BroncoInferno

It's not self explanatory at all. You made a vague, non-specific assertion regarding the First Lady's behaviors and how they confirm stereotypes which you refuse to specify. Why are you afraid to be specific?

Then you obviously haven't read every post I've made on this thread. I'm not going to repeat myself umpteen times because you're too lazy to read.

[BroncoBeavis]

Originally Posted by TonyR

I'm not aware that I ever said it was "ok" in either case. I said that you can't compare the two. Palin was scrutinized because she was running for a rather important office. The wardrobe story was one of many things that came out, right or wrong. A lot of people were amused and/or concerned about the puppet show the RNC was putting on, and what a horrible and fraudulent candidate Palin was. I'm not sure how this compares to the First Lady getting dressed up for the inauguration.

But that's the thing. The problem is that criticizing it in either case is dumb. You're saying it's only dumb when it's a criticism of someone on your team. Or insinuating so by saying they can't be compared. Why not? Michelle's not buying her clothes out of her own pocket. They're paid for by the taxpayer because of her political role.

Most political figures spend a ton of cash on clothing. But it rarely comes up unless it happens to be a woman. Essentially you're saying that's ok, so long as the subject is someone you don't like.