|
Post by pixiechick on Jan 29, 2022 18:37:15 GMT
Yeah, I looked at his Twitter Page. Yikes. I’m just not sure that his take was fair and balanced. 🤔🥴 Caleb Howe @calebhowe Senior Fellow of Wearing American Flag shirts. Ed. Mediaite. Write/Pub'd Blaze, PJM, USA Today, AmSpec, DW, RedState, NRO, fortune cookies, manifestos, napkins. It's a lesson to all of us to note both the outlet and the writer when assessing the credibility or potential bias of a source. Good point. I was not aware that it was a writer from the Blaze. I appreciate his explanation, but I can't be the only person who has never heard that phrase mean anything but an assault. I am 63. It was a poor choice of words. I do wonder if this is a regional thing. I used “backhanded” growing up. And I say that because my mother backhanded me several times as a teen. I was mouthy. 🤔 But could it vary by region? ETA: It was a poor choice of words, since it has two very different meanings. You obviously are not the only one and I get what you're saying but I always try to see from the other side. The opposite can be true, some only know the term in the way he says it was meant. It was a poor choice of words from your (and some others) perspective but perhaps not his until it was pointed out. Just like different languages and dialects can be differently interpreted / misinterpreted, this can too. I realize none of this was said for my benefit, but I can appreciate that you were all honest enough to include your thoughts here that do go along with the others. Thank you for doing so. He knew exactly what the phrase means. I’m so tired of assholes trying to make excuses for their behavior after they’ve been called out. I hear you. I'm taking the word of some very reasoned peas, that he has no history of this. I'm also taking into account the bio of the writer. (Merge made a good point) I'm with you in general though. Yeah, I knew something was amiss. Violence isn't his style at all. Old-fashioned idioms are though. I've seen no other history of "violence" in his posts, I follow. He’s not. He’s passionate, sure - but it’s reasoned passion, I’ve never seen him advocate violence - ever, and there is years of his written and spoken content out there. My first thought on reading the tweet was backhand - I'm glad he deleted the tweet and accept his explanation. This is where I'm at now. That's what reasoned conversation does. Thank you to those that did that.
|
|
|
Post by aj2hall on Jan 29, 2022 18:43:06 GMT
Thank you for recognizing the bias of the writer. Perhaps we could have had a more reasoned conversation if you initially posted the other half of the story.
|
|
|
Post by lucyg on Jan 30, 2022 0:39:43 GMT
He knew exactly what the phrase means. I’m so tired of assholes trying to make excuses for their behavior after they’ve been called out. Robert Reich is nothing resembling an asshole, and he used an idiom that has hundreds of years of non-violent meaning behind it. Are you familiar with him at all? If you were, I doubt you’d say anything like this. He is a very intelligent, educated, and respected man who does not espouse violence, ever.
|
|
|
Post by pixiechick on Jan 30, 2022 2:27:11 GMT
Thank you for recognizing the bias of the writer. Perhaps we could have had a more reasoned conversation if you initially posted the other half of the story. No thanks. I don't need lessons on what *I* should do to have a reasoned discussion from someone committed to not having one. No lessons needed from someone who will do anything to avoid the appearance of ever being wrong, including throwing all manner of verifiable lies out to see what sticks or in hopes that people will just give up and walk away from your bullshit. Not from someone who says something isn’t true, demands proof and yet no amount of proof is ever good enough. Someone who when she can't find a way to dismiss a fact, moves the goal posts.
|
|
|
Post by papercrafteradvocate on Jan 30, 2022 2:28:49 GMT
Thank you for recognizing the bias of the writer. Perhaps we could have had a more reasoned conversation if you initially posted the other half of the story. No thanks. I don't need lessons on what *I* should do to have a reasoned discussion from someone committed to not having one. No lessons needed from someone who will do anything to avoid the appearance of ever being wrong, including throwing all manner of verifiable lies out to see what sticks or in hopes that people will just give up and walk away from your bullshit. Were you looking in a mirror when you wrote out this post? You’re full of gaslighting crap every post you make. In other words…You’re going to continue to lie, keep things out of context, only post your cherry picked parts of a story, and gaslight, in hopes that you don’t get called out. And then when you do, you’re going to twist like a pretzel to blame others for your babble.
|
|
|
Post by aj2hall on Jan 30, 2022 4:16:27 GMT
Nice attempt at gas lighting and deflecting. More than 24 hours after it was pointed out to you that you left out half of the story and no changes to your post or title. Clearly, time wasn't the issue. I guess half truths are OK if you're the one posting. Any attempt at a reasoned conversation is disingenuous when you leave out significant important details. Despite your claim to the contrary, this was clearly a gotcha post. And not an equal representation.
|
|
|
Post by pixiechick on Jan 30, 2022 5:16:55 GMT
Nice attempt at gas lighting and deflecting. More than 24 hours after it was pointed out to you that you left out half of the story and no changes to your post or title. Clearly, time wasn't the issue. I guess half truths are OK if you're the one posting. Any attempt at a reasoned conversation is disingenuous when you leave out significant important details. Despite your claim to the contrary, this was clearly a gotcha post. And not an equal representation. Throwing out more verifiable lies to see what sticks again, or a theatrical show of "See I can admit when I'm wrong."? I changed the title more than 10 HOURS ago. It's right there for you to see and verify for yourself, you don't even have to go digging or research it. Just read the damn title that you claim hasn't been changed and look at the edit time in the bottom right of the post.
|
|
|
Post by aj2hall on Jan 30, 2022 6:17:23 GMT
I apologize, I missed the title change. Thank you for correcting that.
|
|
|
Post by mollycoddle on Jan 30, 2022 7:49:50 GMT
Nice attempt at gas lighting and deflecting. More than 24 hours after it was pointed out to you that you left out half of the story and no changes to your post or title. Clearly, time wasn't the issue. I guess half truths are OK if you're the one posting. Any attempt at a reasoned conversation is disingenuous when you leave out significant important details. Despite your claim to the contrary, this was clearly a gotcha post. And not an equal representation. Throwing out more verifiable lies to see what sticks again, or a theatrical show of "See I can admit when I'm wrong."? I changed the title more than 10 HOURS ago. It's right there for you to see and verify for yourself, you don't even have to go digging or research it. Just read the damn title that you claim hasn't been changed and look at the edit time in the bottom right of the post. I did notice the title change. Well done.
|
|
AmeliaBloomer
Drama Llama
Posts: 6,842
Location: USA
Jun 26, 2014 5:01:45 GMT
|
Post by AmeliaBloomer on Jan 30, 2022 11:44:03 GMT
I was avoiding even opening this thread because, you know, Robert Reich for crying out loud. And, you know, the history histories of the OP for crying out loud. But the title change finally drew me in…and now I’m tripping down Political Memory Lane… Remember the time, during the Obama-McCain campaign, that the GOP spiraled into high dudgeon ( lucyg, how’s that for Merriam-Webster?) when Candidate Obama made a “lipstick on a pig” dig about the McCain-Palin campaign promising change. (Full quote: "You can put lipstick on a pig, it’s still a pig. You can wrap an old fish in a piece of paper called change, it’s still gonna stink. We've had enough of the same old thing.") Oh, the hue and cry! The demands for an apology from the misogynist Democrat! The claims that it was an outdated, even arcane, metaphor that nobody knew…then the discovery that McCain had used the same expression on the same campaign trail and his former advisor had used it in a book title (for crying out loud)…then the hilarious compilation the Democrats put together of so very many GOP politicians publicly using the very same expression. But because Palin had mentioned lipstick in her quippy convention speech (remember that?), it was interpreted as Obama calling Palin a pig no matter WHO had used the expression before. Me? I always wondered why nobody got their bloomers in a twist thinking Obama had called McCain, a candidate frequently criticized for his age, a stinky old fish.
|
|
|
Post by onelasttime on Jan 30, 2022 14:45:30 GMT
I was cu4ious about “lipstick on a pig” so I asked my friend google. From PolitiFact. linkThe question was Obama referring to Palin when he used the term “ lipstick on a pig”. It was rated “Pants on Fire” “If there's lipstick on a pig, it's this McCain ad”(Published Sept. 10, 2008) “The story begins, like so many these days, with Gov. Sarah Palin’s speech at the Republican National Convention last week. Having stirred the crowd to its feet more than once, Palin delivered a knockout line when she deadpanned: “I love those hockey moms. You know the difference between a hockey mom and a pit bull? Lipstick.” The line drew cheerful applause and has echoed ever since, which seems to explain how Sen. Barack Obama found himself in the middle of an uproar when he uttered a time-worn phrase to denigrate Sen. John McCain’s proclaimed agenda for “change” in Washington. "John McCain says he's about change, too," Obama said. "And so I guess his whole angle is, 'Watch out, George Bush! Except for economic policy, health care policy, tax policy, education policy, foreign policy, and Karl Rove-style politics, we're really going to shake things up in Washington.'" "That's not change," Obama said. "That's just calling something the same thing something different. But you know, you can put lipstick on a pig. It's still a pig. You can wrap an old fish in a piece of paper called change, it’s still going to stink after eight years. We’ve had enough of the same old thing." Gasp! He just said lipstick! Did he just call Sarah Palin a pig??!!! That’s the charge. Later that day, the McCain campaign arranged a conference call for reporters with Jane Swift, the former governor of Massachusetts. She said that when you add up Obama’s comments and Palin’s comments, you get Obama calling Palin a pig. Swift said Obama should apologize. “Calling a very prominent female governor of one of our states a ‘pig’ is not exactly what we want to see,” Swift said. The issue has dominated the presidential campaign for two days, with the McCain campaign stirring a controversy by having local lawmakers call for Obama to apologize, and the Obama campaign responding with examples of how often he and others have used the phrase. The next day, Obama called the McCain’s campaign tactics “lies and phony outrage and Swift-boat politics.” On Wednesday, the McCain campaign released a Web ad called “Lipstick.” It begins with a clip of Palin delivering her lipstick line, then text flashes on the screen saying “Barack Obama on: Sarah Palin.” A moment later, the ad plays a small portion of Obama’s “lipstick on a pig” remark, but not enough of his quotation to make clear what he was talking about. The ad concludes with a clip of CBS anchor Katie Couric soberly remarking on sexism on the campaign trail. The ad has two big problems, as does the complaint of former Gov. Swift. First, in the full text of the remarks it’s clear that Obama isn’t talking about Sarah Palin. He’s talking about McCain’s argument that he represents change. Second, “putting lipstick on a pig” is a popular put-down, especially among politicians. It generally means taking a bad or unattractive idea and trying to dress it up. We weren’t able to pin down the origins of this folksy expression, but we found tons of instances of people using it. The political newspaper The Hill labeled the phrase “Congress Speak” back in June, and gave it an official definition: “an expression used to illustrate that something unattractive cannot be beautified or otherwise positively changed by any amount of makeup or other exterior alterations.” In 1986, Texas Agricultural Commissioner Jim Hightower used the phrase to criticize Ronald Reagan’s farm policy. During the 2004 presidential campaign, both Dick Cheney and John Edwards used it to attack the other guy’s running mate. Earlier this year, Democratic Congresswoman Linda Sanchez of California gave a speech on trade policy. “You know the old saying about putting lipstick on a pig? Well, I smell bacon,” she groused. Obama and McCain both have used the expression. In September 2007, Washington Post columnist Eugene Robinson quoted Obama using the phrase to discuss Iraq policy: “I think that both Gen. Petraeus and Ambassador Crocker are capable people who have been given an impossible assignment,” Obama said. “George Bush has given a mission to Gen. Petraeus, and he has done his best to try to figure out how to put lipstick on a pig.” In Iowa on Oct. 11, 2007, McCain panned Sen. Hillary Clinton’s health care plan, calling it “eerily reminiscent” of the plan that failed during Bill Clinton’s administration, according to a report in the Chicago Tribune. “I think they put some lipstick on a pig,” McCain said, “but it’s still a pig.” On Feb. 1, 2007, McCain blasted a Senate resolution that would have criticized President Bush’s strategy in Iraq. Some had praised the resolution as a compromise measure, but McCain disagreed. “It gets down to whether you support what is being done in this new strategy or you don’t,” McCain said. “You can put lipstick on a pig, [but] it’s still a pig, in my view.” It is simply impossible to view the complete remarks by Obama and conclude that he’s making a veiled and unsavory reference to Palin. Her name never is used in the preceding sentence. In fact, it’s hard to see how one could interpret Obama’s lipstick-on-a-pig remark as referring directly to McCain, either. We think it’s very clear that Obama was saying McCain’s effort to call himself the “candidate of change” is like putting lipstick on a pig, trying to dress up a bad idea to look better. Agree or disagree with Obama’s point, but his remark wasn’t the smear that McCain’s people have tried to make it. If anyone’s doing any smearing, it’s the McCain campaign and its outrageous attempt to distort the facts. Did Obama call Palin a pig? No, and saying so is Pants on Fire wrong.“
|
|
|
Post by aj2hall on Jan 30, 2022 15:14:47 GMT
Last night I was just going to let this go, and maybe I should, I will probably regret this. After thinking about it, here’s the other part of this thread that bothers me (in addition to deliberately posting only half of the story). The OP wants to talk about political violence on both sides of the aisle. However, she has not yet acknowledged Trump’s role on Jan 6. She has not denounced him for inviting his supporters to DC, stirring them up and inciting a violent insurrection to overturn the results of a free and fair election. So I don’t get accused of misquoting her, here are her exact words.
This was a disgusting event by a bunch of dumbass thugs who lost their minds. If they ever even had one to begin with. It was completely wrong and NEVER should have happened.
Nothing about Trump’s central role in the insurrection. How do you have a conversation about political violence if one side fails to recognize a sitting president’s role in inciting violence? That is not equal representation or reasoned conversation, despite her claims.
|
|
|
Post by onelasttime on Jan 30, 2022 16:00:11 GMT
And she never will.
|
|
|
Post by pixiechick on Jan 30, 2022 23:42:11 GMT
I apologize, I missed the title change. Thank you for correcting that. Apology accepted, thank you for that. Last night I was just going to let this go, and maybe I should, I will probably regret this. After thinking about it, here’s the other part of this thread that bothers me (in addition to deliberately posting only half of the story). The OP wants to talk about political violence on both sides of the aisle. However, she has not yet acknowledged Trump’s role on Jan 6. She has not denounced him for inviting his supporters to DC, stirring them up and inciting a violent insurrection to overturn the results of a free and fair election. So I don’t get accused of misquoting her, here are her exact words. This was a disgusting event by a bunch of dumbass thugs who lost their minds. If they ever even had one to begin with. It was completely wrong and NEVER should have happened. Nothing about Trump’s central role in the insurrection. How do you have a conversation about political violence if one side fails to recognize a sitting president’s role in inciting violence? That is not equal representation or reasoned conversation, despite her claims. Thank you for showing, without a doubt, that you will continue to demand very precise conformity and performance only on your time frame and yet showing that it will NEVER, EVER be good enough. Thank you for showing that reasoned conversation with you is not possible. I got it now, it has sunk in.
|
|
|
Post by onelasttime on Jan 31, 2022 0:30:21 GMT
I apologize, I missed the title change. Thank you for correcting that. Apology accepted, thank you for that. Last night I was just going to let this go, and maybe I should, I will probably regret this. After thinking about it, here’s the other part of this thread that bothers me (in addition to deliberately posting only half of the story). The OP wants to talk about political violence on both sides of the aisle. However, she has not yet acknowledged Trump’s role on Jan 6. She has not denounced him for inviting his supporters to DC, stirring them up and inciting a violent insurrection to overturn the results of a free and fair election. So I don’t get accused of misquoting her, here are her exact words. This was a disgusting event by a bunch of dumbass thugs who lost their minds. If they ever even had one to begin with. It was completely wrong and NEVER should have happened. Nothing about Trump’s central role in the insurrection. How do you have a conversation about political violence if one side fails to recognize a sitting president’s role in inciting violence? That is not equal representation or reasoned conversation, despite her claims. Thank you for showing, without a doubt, that you will continue to demand very precise conformity and performance only on your time frame and yet showing that it will NEVER, EVER be good enough. Thank you for showing that reasoned conversation with you is not possible. I got it now, it has sunk in. The thing is you have never ever been interested in having a “reasoned conversation”. You fit the description of a bad faith actor perfectly.
|
|
|
Post by aj2hall on Jan 31, 2022 0:49:29 GMT
I apologize, I missed the title change. Thank you for correcting that. Apology accepted, thank you for that. Last night I was just going to let this go, and maybe I should, I will probably regret this. After thinking about it, here’s the other part of this thread that bothers me (in addition to deliberately posting only half of the story). The OP wants to talk about political violence on both sides of the aisle. However, she has not yet acknowledged Trump’s role on Jan 6. She has not denounced him for inviting his supporters to DC, stirring them up and inciting a violent insurrection to overturn the results of a free and fair election. So I don’t get accused of misquoting her, here are her exact words. This was a disgusting event by a bunch of dumbass thugs who lost their minds. If they ever even had one to begin with. It was completely wrong and NEVER should have happened. Nothing about Trump’s central role in the insurrection. How do you have a conversation about political violence if one side fails to recognize a sitting president’s role in inciting violence? That is not equal representation or reasoned conversation, despite her claims. Thank you for showing, without a doubt, that you will continue to demand very precise conformity and performance only on your time frame and yet showing that it will NEVER, EVER be good enough. Thank you for showing that reasoned conversation with you is not possible. I got it now, it has sunk in. My problems with your original post are simple. 1. You only posted half the story. You read an article that included the facts that he deleted the tweet, posted a clarification and denounced violence in absolute terms. Maybe if you started with ALL of the information, we could have had a reasoned conversation. However, you deceptively left out significant details. 2. Did you miss the part about not condemning Trump? How much more time do you need to condemn him for inciting violence? It's been more than a year. If one side is unwilling to admit Trump's role in the insurrection, how do you have a conversation about political violence? He incited possibly the most significant act of political violence in 200 years. If you can't start with the same basic facts, you can't have a reasoned conversation. Nothing about your post is equal representation.
|
|
|
Post by chances on Jan 31, 2022 1:17:04 GMT
I agree this was supposed to be “gotcha”moment and I don’t think he was inciting violence.
As a side note, I was surprised to see a number of people on this thread casually call people unread and uneducated for not knowing this idiom. I understand the context of talking with this OP makes things contentious but I really encourage people to reconsider insulting someone’s intelligence for being ignorant about something.
I’ve never heard this phrase as anything but violence. I learned something today. With the diversity of region, age, nationality, etc. people might want to be a bit less smug about what is common knowledge among the “educated and well-read.”
|
|