Can they do this, then get away with supporting Jeb Bush?

tekkychick said:
In the pics, he's not "over" her
http://articles.latimes.com/2012/jan/25/news/la-pn-jan-brewer-obama-welcome-20120125

My guess is Pres. Obama wasn't as nearly as upset as all of us were.

But USF, if you have a link to a picture where he looks like he's over her in a threatening way, pls. post it. The pics I see, he's close so he can hear her, but he's not looming. And certainly Ms. Brewer never said he was threatening to her. And no one has said he yelled at her about his book; just that he didn't like how she characterized a meeting.
Click to expand...

You posted the picture in question, yourself.

Look how he is slightly bent at the waist, his shoulders are thrown forward, his head is tilted and he's "looking down on her".
Unless you were there, how do you know he had to get that close to hear her?

You are correct in one thing though.
The only ones who are upset about this, is the left; because Obama never made a single comment about this.
 
USFREEDOM911 said:
You posted the picture in question, yourself.

Look how he is slightly bent at the waist, his shoulders are thrown forward, his head is tilted and he's "looking down on her".
Unless you were there, how do you know he had to get that close to hear her?

You are correct in one thing though.
The only ones who are upset about this, is the left; because Obama never made a single comment about this.
Click to expand...

Doesn't look threatening to me. There's a decent distance between them.

But not going to go back and forth 20 more times on whether it is or isn't or is or isn't. We'll just have to disagree.
 
tekkychick said:
Doesn't look threatening to me. There's a decent distance between them.

But not going to go back and forth 20 more times on whether it is or isn't or is or isn't. We'll just have to disagree.
Click to expand...

Is this the way the majority of your disagreements are going to be?
1 - you get to post your opinions and what you think
2 - the opposition disagrees and posts their take on the issue
3 - you dismiss what they offer and then just want to drop the subject
 
tekkychick said:
Doesn't look threatening to me. There's a decent distance between them.

But not going to go back and forth 20 more times on whether it is or isn't or is or isn't. We'll just have to disagree.
Click to expand...


Well gee...since President Obama is TALLER than Brewer, it goes without saying that any conversation they have in person is going to involve him "looking down" on her...but little things like that don't matter to partisan clowns like USF out to smear the President no matter what.
 
USFREEDOM911 said:
Is this the way the majority of your disagreements are going to be?
1 - you get to post your opinions and what you think
2 - the opposition disagrees and posts their take on the issue
3 - you dismiss what they offer and then just want to drop the subject
Click to expand...

What do you want me to say? As ZG says, he's taller than her. As I said there is sufficient room between them. Therefore you are wrong. But will you accept that? Or do you want to go into a twenty message stream with each of us saying the other is wrong?

If you have any new evidence to present, please do. But you based it on the picture I linked to; he's not threatening her; she never claimed to be threatened; you're wrong and you'll never admit it; so yeah, dropping it seems the best use of MY time. If you want to keep on posting that he's threatening her, please, feel free to waste the bandwidth.

What would POSSIBLY be gained by us continuing to disagree in messages on this thread assuming no new evidence?
 
tekkychick said:
What do you want me to say? As ZG says, he's taller than her. As I said there is sufficient room between them. Therefore you are wrong. But will you accept that? Or do you want to go into a twenty message stream with each of us saying the other is wrong?

If you have any new evidence to present, please do. But you based it on the picture I linked to; he's not threatening her; she never claimed to be threatened; you're wrong and you'll never admit it; so yeah, dropping it seems the best use of MY time. If you want to keep on posting that he's threatening her, please, feel free to waste the bandwidth.

What would POSSIBLY be gained by us continuing to disagree in messages on this thread assuming no new evidence?
Click to expand...


Don't bother arguing with fools
 
DamnYankee said:
In other words, I was spot-on, but you feel the need to insult me anyway.
Click to expand...

No, I insulted you because you provided the opportunity. You don't know the meaning of the term "sexist" or you would not have used it that way.

The new girl shouldn't use words she wouldn't want others to use. Hence, you are still an idiot.
 
After 8 years of Obama, it looks like we will get four more years of Clinton... Just imagine what the Supreme Court will look like.


I cant wait to stay up late election night in 16'! The R's better try to get something together soon, they dont have a viable canidate.
 
Rune said:
No, I insulted you because you provided the opportunity. You don't know the meaning of the term "sexist" or you would not have used it that way.

The new girl shouldn't use words she wouldn't want others to use. Hence, you are still an idiot.
Click to expand...

Not sure if DY was was referring to my post in #234 since I have him on ignore and have only read others reaction to his reaction.
(post - http://www.justplainpolitics.com/showthread.php?52655-Can-they-do-this-then-get-away-with-supporting-Jeb-Bush&p=1250474&highlight=cunt#post1250474 )

But I will point out I did NOT call anyone a "cunt" - Calling women by terms meant to demean them is what I object to. My comment was "it IS possible to have a discussion without calling a woman a bitch, a cunt, a whore, and all the other crap some people do on this board"

I don't see how that is sexist or objectionable. I was deliberately listing the language some people use to attack women; I was not attacking women (nor men) myself. A totally different context. Not sure how I can tell people that certain language is objectionable without using it.
 
Rune said:
No, I insulted you because you provided the opportunity. You don't know the meaning of the term "sexist" or you would not have used it that way.

The new girl shouldn't use words she wouldn't want others to use. Hence, you are still an idiot.
Click to expand...

Sexist: prejudice or discrimination based on sex. TK came in to defend two women and then went all judgmental on a list of men. That is the very definition of sexism. I. however, treat all libs as individuals, as they deserve. Clinton deserves to be bitch-slapped. Zippy deserves to be bitch-slapped.
 
tekkychick said:
Not sure if DY was was referring to my post in #234 since I have him on ignore and have only read others reaction to his reaction.
(post - http://www.justplainpolitics.com/sh...Jeb-Bush&p=1250474&highlight=cunt#post1250474 )

But I will point out I did NOT call anyone a "cunt" - Calling women by terms meant to demean them is what I object to. My comment was "it IS possible to have a discussion without calling a woman a bitch, a cunt, a whore, and all the other crap some people do on this board"

I don't see how that is sexist or objectionable. I was deliberately listing the language some people use to attack women; I was not attacking women (nor men) myself. A totally different context. Not sure how I can tell people that certain language is objectionable without using it.
Click to expand...


My personal standard is that I never want to hear or see the c-word or the n-word. I chastise all members who use them. Some oblige me and some don't.
 
DamnYankee said:
Sexist: prejudice or discrimination based on sex. TK came in to defend two women and then went all judgmental on a list of men. That is the very definition of sexism. I. however, treat all libs as individuals, as they deserve. Clinton deserves to be bitch-slapped. Zippy deserves to be bitch-slapped.
Click to expand...

17 pages and you still don't get it, which is why you are an idiot.
No one deserves to be "bitch slapped" .
 
Jarod said:
Republicans are painting Hillary Clinton as old news and suggest we need new blood in the presidency.....

If they nominate Jeb Bush wont that argument backfire?


http://www.nytimes.com/2013/06/30/u...news-for-2016-presidential-election.html?_r=0
Click to expand...

Jeb is the MAN!

The man in the family that killed America and any supporters of him admit that they don't know a thing about America. But maybe he will win when he talks about how low gas will be after fracking all over America and then says the words "freedom" and "liberty" knowing the blind morons will follow.
 
Rune said:
My personal standard is that I never want to hear or see the c-word or the n-word. I chastise all members who use them. Some oblige me and some don't.
Click to expand...

Fair point, and it's a word I rarely use. I thought it made sense in this context, but no, you won't see me using it much. It's not a word I normally use.

As far as DY's saying I was sexist because I listed men on this site who are sexist.... well, that just makes no sense. He still doesn't get it. Thanks for your comments.
 
tekkychick said:
What do you want me to say? As ZG says, he's taller than her. As I said there is sufficient room between them. Therefore you are wrong. But will you accept that? Or do you want to go into a twenty message stream with each of us saying the other is wrong?

If you have any new evidence to present, please do. But you based it on the picture I linked to; he's not threatening her; she never claimed to be threatened; you're wrong and you'll never admit it; so yeah, dropping it seems the best use of MY time. If you want to keep on posting that he's threatening her, please, feel free to waste the bandwidth.

What would POSSIBLY be gained by us continuing to disagree in messages on this thread assuming no new evidence?
Click to expand...

So because you THINK there was sufficent room between them, means that anyone else's opinion is incorrect; just because of your opinion?
Obama never said that he felt she was wrong either; so you're wrong and will never admit it.
(see how I did that)

I know you feel the need to defend Obama, no matter what, and will never admit you're wrong for doing so.
(see, I did it again)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top