Hillary clinton sexiest woman of the 21st century!

[wgbgator]

Originally Posted by orangeblueorangeblue

I really don't think any of them are attractive, but like I said they're all older women and that's sort of the nature of the sexual beast. Maybe when I get older they might have more appeal.

But for that very reason I wouldn't go calling any of them hideous or ugly or whatever. They're older women. I also don't doubt that plenty of Dems have made awful, disparaging remarks about the female Pub leaders and that plenty of Pubs have done similarly. To pretend that one side is inherently "better" or "worse" is idiotic.

Sure, I'm with you mostly. Based off what I've seen this board:

Pub women: usually decribed as "hot" by their supporters ---> primarily intelligence and competence questioned by other side. Is this fueled by a reaction to their appearance? I.e. "bimbos"

Dem women: described as powerful / strong /able by their supporters ---> other side question appearance, usually in worse terms than their competence or other attributres i.e. "Hildabeast." A reaction to their looks or affiliation?

I'm sure this could flip in a decade or so.

I'm not sure what I can draw from this other than politics is primarily a male dominated and driven discussion. Whatever the case, I don't see the same behavior with male politicians.

[orangeblueorangeblue]

I think that's largely due to who is at the forefront. I would be hard pressed to say Nancy Pelosi or Clinton were as or more attractive than Bachmann or Palin. So the insults gravitate to the easiest target.

I mean I saw some pretty nasty things written about Ann Coulter's appearance. It just depends.

[Row6]

Originally Posted by orangeblueorangeblue

Ah yes. In short, Maher and Olbemann don't count, Rush does.

Gotcha. Confirms my suspicion.

I have my reasons for the difference which you ignore, as you also ignore the examples before you on this thread and many others on TH. One cable comic does not make a pattern, while the echoing of the national leader of one party's thought process by TH posters does.

[CHFG8R]

Originally Posted by orangeblueorangeblue

I really don't think any of them are attractive, but like I said they're all older women and that's sort of the nature of the sexual beast. Maybe when I get older they might have more appeal.

But for that very reason I wouldn't go calling any of them hideous or ugly or whatever. They're older women. I also don't doubt that plenty of Dems have made awful, disparaging remarks about the female Pub leaders and that plenty of Pubs have done similarly. To pretend that one side is inherently "better" or "worse" is idiotic.

I do not see how a reasonable person could call the person in this link (https://www.google.com/search?num=10...1.HKisWx40hLM_) hideous (Ok, the one with the cown pants and glasses is pretty bad). Not going to be confused with Miss Alabama, but not hideous by any means. Given what I know about her now (smart, likes politics) I might have been interested in her back then.

[Row6]

Originally Posted by orangeblueorangeblue

I think that's largely due to who is at the forefront. I would be hard pressed to say Nancy Pelosi or Clinton were as or more attractive than Bachmann or Palin. So the insults gravitate to the easiest target.

I mean I saw some pretty nasty things written about Ann Coulter's appearance. It just depends.

So Barbara and Laura Bush were in some higher plane of physical beauty than the current elder state ladies of the democratic party? I see.

[wgbgator]

Originally Posted by orangeblueorangeblue

I think that's largely due to who is at the forefront. I would be hard pressed to say Nancy Pelosi or Clinton were as or more attractive than Bachmann or Palin. So the insults gravitate to the easiest target.

I mean I saw some pretty nasty things written about Ann Coulter's appearance. It just depends.

Yeah, I can see believing that someone does this more or less than the other side. But its impossible to defend without looking stupid. And what would you gain if you could? The bragging rights of being slightly less misogynist?

[CHFG8R]

Originally Posted by wgbgator

Yeah, I can see believing that someone does this more or less than the other side. But its impossible to defend without looking stupid. And what would you gain if you could? The bragging rights of being slightly less misogynist?

Rep.

[orangeblueorangeblue]

Originally Posted by Row6

I have my reasons for the difference which you ignore, as you also ignore the examples before you on this thread and many others on TH. One cable comic does not make a pattern, while the echoing of the national leader of one party's thought process by TH posters does.

Two cable personalities don't count, but one radio guy does.

The hypocrisy is apparent to anyone who would open their eyes to see it.

[Row6]

Originally Posted by wgbgator

Yeah, I can see believing that someone does this more or less than the other side. But its impossible to defend without looking stupid. And what would you gain if you could? The bragging rights of being slightly less misogynist?

BTW, Ms Coulter has engaged in this life class nonsense herself, having declared that she and republican woman were better looking than Democrats, more than once and she was serious.

[orangeblueorangeblue]

Originally Posted by Row6

BTW, Ms Coulter has engaged in this life class nonsense herself, having declared that she and republican woman were better looking than Democrats, more than once and she was serious.

Nobody's arguing the right doesn't do it. Just the ludicrous notion that somehow the left is inherently more noble in such regards.

[Row6]

Originally Posted by orangeblueorangeblue

Two cable personalities don't count, but one radio guy does.

The hypocrisy is apparent to anyone who would open their eyes to see it.

I see you're stuck in turtle mold. next time.

[orangeblueorangeblue]

Originally Posted by Row6

I see you're stuck in turtle mold. next time.

No, turtle mold = arbitrarily refusing to accept examples that don't validate your completely backwards view of the world.

When you actually believe that one side of the political spectrum is "better" than the other, being called a turtle is actually the best you could hope for. Ostrich is far more appropriate.

[orangeblueorangeblue]

"Oh, how about that this example"

"no, that doesn't count because [fill in the blank]"

[orangeblueorangeblue]

Remember when Chris Matthews called Palin "profoundly stupid." Yeah, that doesn't count because his first name starts with a C.

[orangeblueorangeblue]

When Ed Schultz called Inghram a "slut" that didn't count because he was wearing a red tie, temporarily making him a Republican.

[orangeblueorangeblue]

Wow, I never realized how easy it is to validate your own opinions by simply dismissing all evidence to the contrary. Great tip, Row!

[wgbgator]

Originally Posted by Row6

BTW, Ms Coulter has engaged in this life class nonsense herself, having declared that she and republican woman were better looking than Democrats, more than once and she was serious.

And Bill Maher used to have sex with her. So, maybe he agreed.

[wgbgator]

You don't have to fight every battle. Sometimes you can just believe something and let it be, because there is no argument available that is persuasive or doesnt look foolish to the persuadable.

[orangeblueorangeblue]

Originally Posted by wgbgator

You don't have to fight every battle. Sometimes you can just believe something and let it be, because there is no argument available that is persuasive or doesnt look foolish to the persuadable.

While that's fair enough, sometimes a warped view of the world tends to affect the way you handle reality.

[orangeblueorangeblue]

Particularly when you've invented some unsupportable view of a group of people you engage on the Internet. How can anyone be expected to engage in honest debate when they've blindly vilified someone in the face of reality?