my reaction was considered a norm in thad's board, from my perspective
Please do feel free to find me a single other example of someone taking a lengthy post and randomly changing words in it so that people have to go over it with a fucking magnifying glass to find out what the hell the point of the post is actually supposed to be.
You can hide behind the "high-context" label all you want, but any idiot can see you make your posts incomprehensible on purpose.
But rather than make this a conversation entirely about you, again, I'll play along for now and get back to the subject at hand.
If I posted similarly to Shinra using Obama in place of Biden and a few minor other alterations, you would all say I was being a closed-minded jackass.
There may be some validity in this claim. Unfortunately, you then proceed to support it through the use of false equivalence.
"I'm waiting for Obama to say something incredibly stupid. Obama's camp was trying to avoid this by keeping him centered in the media until the media overlooks his shortcomings.
The media just spent two days saying he called a woman pig because he used a common figure of speech.
They have got to keep him on a shiny, golden platform; An ultra-liberal, ultra left-wing spitter-in-the-faces of our culture
Here you use "spitter-in-the-faces of our culture" as equivalent to "religio-facist [sic]". Huh?
who is confirmed as a secessionist
How is Obama a confirmed secessionist at all?
I'll grant Shinra's exaggerating in calling Palin a "confirmed secessionist", but she IS married to one and DID speak to a convention of them.
Plus he's black."
I don't see that as equivalent to anything Shinra said at all.
The point here is that being a member of a group, like christianity, doesn't automatically infer racism or a lack of political suave.
...The constant use of "infer" for "imply" is another of those things I'm fairly confident you're doing on purpose just to annoy me. Knock it off. I know some guys would put up with that kind of thing, but frankly, I can't imagine why.
At any rate, this is a strawman. Nobody's saying Palin is a racist or not politically talented just because she's a Christian. Every single fucking person in this race and every President in the history of America is a Christian.
There's a difference between being simply being a Christian and subscribing to a radical, fringe system of beliefs -- and if you want to talk about double-standards, Palin's crazy pastor hasn't received NEARLY the media coverage that Obama's did.
Palin's record reveals her as someone with far-right social conservative views that should give a Libertarian-leaning Republican such as yourself pause -- she believes in abstinence-only sex education, teaching creationism in science class, banning books, banning abortion even for victims of rape and incest, belongs to a church that "cures" gays, and, as Noro noted in the post Shinra quoted Brent quoting, made rape victims pay for their own forensic tests.
Inferring racism or anti-semitism from extreme social conservatism may not be PC (see what I did there?), but these things often go hand-in-hand. I certainly think her sneer every time she said "community organizer" in her speech was about more than a job title -- I would argue it's more about class than race, but those are also two things that often go hand-in-hand.
As for the part about the McCain campaign keeping Palin away from the press out of concern that she'd make a gaffe? As TA noted at the top of page 12, that's not conjecture, that's
pretty much exactly right.
I'm willing to acknowledge that Shinra indulged in some exaggerations and some conjecture. But the way you've gone about criticizing him for it -- a hard-to-read post followed by clarification by way of false comparison -- doesn't help your case.
Author
Topic: Running-Mate Discussion (Read 39417 times)