Donald Trump’s lame day was matched by Gloria Allred, the very definition of annoying.
Trump’s ballyhooed Wednesday announcement amounted to an offer of 5 million smackers to Obama’s charity of choice if he releases all those missing records….yea… he’s gonna do that, Donald. My theory: Trump had some divorce scuttlebutt about the Obama’s and was too thick-headed to realize it would help the President if his marriage survived a bad patch. It’s called the sympathy vote. Upon hearing about the potential Obama divorce papers from 2000 even I felt for the couple. Donald T was told quietly to stop being a moron and came up with a lame back up plan so the tweeters would have something….this entailed writing a check, of course.
Allred came to play today too. Romney testified in an ugly divorce in 1829 or something. Allred wants the records unsealed because Romney will look like a monster…so she thinks. Classic. Obama. Move. Here’s the kicker: Romney’s side is fine with the release of the records.
I’d like to reinforce my thesis about how ugly this campaign but, alas, today only proves it’s silly. Trump and Allred trying to dictate an election. This is what we’ve come to. Lordy, makes ya hope the Mayan calendar is correct. Flush the whole damn thing and start over.
Set aside time on Thursday for the BIG SHOW.
So Romney lying under oath is no problem for you?
See this is what I’m talking about:
Dead ambassador = fog of war; no problem; bumps in the road.
A divorce from 25 years ago with no evidence but the aggrieved ex-wife who has spent $4 million trying to re-litigate her settlement this entire time — ROMNEY COMMITTED PERJURY!!!eleventy!!
Some people *can* be fooled *all* of the time.
PS — If Romney *actually* committed perjury, it would be on the front page of the New York Times, not TMZ, Einstein.
WW has His Master’s tactics down cold.
Good WW…report to Axe, and he’ll give you a head pat and a cookie.
(Sigh. Why must ESN (Educationally Sub-Normal) types come here….)
angienc, excellent logic: if something wasn’t on the front page of NYT, it did not happen?
I am not going to comment on whether Romney actually committed perjury: it will be impossible to prove either way, since as far as I know, the ex-wife already sued a few times to change the settlement and did get anywhere.
“So Romney lying under oath is no problem for you?”
So obama murdering innocent civilians with drones no problem for YOU?
Be careful, folks…this one might be a Romney DOUBLE AGENT!!!!!!!
Actually, no.
X-List — the fact that you can even entertain the idea that Romney *may* have committed perjury for NO REASON WHATSOEVER (and before you get all huffy — if he had actually undervalued the stock in his testimony that would have enured to the benefit of Maureen Sullivan as she would have gotten more than the 500,000 shares than she did in her portion of the division of property) means you pretty much shouldn’t throw the word “logic” around in a sarcastic fashion.
She sold her shares too soon — if she would have held on to them when Staples went public she would have been mega-rich too instead of *just* rich. She’s sued her own attorneys who represented her in the settlement for malpractice, burned through $4 million in attorney’s fees trying to re-litigate the settlement, lashed out at her ex-husband & become obsessed with the “wrong” Romney did her. But the fact is, she shorted herself. Not Romney’s fault. Life sucks in her $5,200 a month Boston apartment with all that time on her hands to post wild accusations on HuffPo, hooking up with the likes of Gloria Allred and crying about how “broke” she is.
No, WW; just like the Birther “fact” that Obama wasn’t born in America is not a problem for me. Message to Obamanation: Your October surprise is October stoopid.
angienc, I’ve read about that case too. It is not inconceivable that Romney lied under oath to help his friend. I am not saying he did, all I am saying is that we will never know. But “it is not inconceivable” without any actual proof seems to be the basis of way too many conspiracy theories, like “Obama was born in Kenya”, “Mossad organized 9/11″, et cetera.
Hey – Xlist – when did you stop beating your spouse? Now, I’m not saying you actually did; just that it’s impossible to prove that you did or didn’t beat your spouse either way.
Zinger, Run! Couldn’t have put it better.
It could be a coincidence that Trump’s “big announcement” came on the same day that Allred went to court on this b.s. (and truly, it’s b.s. — because despite the way TMZ is playing it the divorce records aren’t sealed because of *Romney’s* testimony — they’re sealed because of whatever stuff was going on with the couple themselves and/or issues to do with their minor child). OR Trump could have been making a preemptive strike against Gloria Allred, as in make her share the headlines with him & bring her fully down to his level: P. T. Barnum.
I only suggest the later because Trump simply *can’t* be as dumb as he looks.
I think its time for his new season of “Celebrity Apprentice”. That’s most likely what this is all about
Yeah, it isn’t worth thinking too hard about, it it?
I agree, and he has the immunity that loads of money provides. He can play the baffoon and fool anytime that it’s needed and still be paid attention to when he returns for another round. In my opinion, the $5 million dollar offer for Obama’s transcripts was just a fallback story after an agreement was reached about what he was really threatening to release. The Romney camp may have been the ones that struck the deal to get him to back off.
Trump is no dummy, but he is an incredible narcissist, one to rival Obama and Newt.
Gloria Allred is a one-woman campaign to discredit feminism. The Lawyer For Women On The Rag. I’m sick to death of her and her victim clients.
Sexist much
No, not much. I don’t like douchbags like her representing me.
Sally, take your facist, censoring feminism and shove it all the way up your preening ass.
Have you heard the latest? Hormones decide how a woman is going to vote. That’s right. Whether or not a woman is “on the rag” determines who she will vote for. And women who are past being “on the rag” might go all menapostal and vote for Jill Stein! Scary stuff.
From Joseph Cannon:
“That notion began with Matt Drudge, who — it is now clear — hoped to sic the attack dogs on the wrong party. And now Fox News is leading the misinformation crusade.
The fight to unseal those court records is being waged by the Boston Globe. The newspaper started this, not the attorney. Allred is simply representing one of the parties in that divorce fight. As far as I can see, Allred has done nothing more than convey her client’s assent to having those records revealed. Any number of other attorneys could have done likewise.
Anyone who starts blathering on about why he or she doesn’t like Gloria Allred is trying to mislead you. Of course, right-wing propagandists would rather direct a rage campaign against a feminist lawyer than against a newspaper.”
Yeah victim clients are so annoying. Attorneys whose clients are perpetrators are much more fun.
I’m seeing more clearly why Romney appeals to you.
“I’m seeing more clearly why Romney appeals to you.”
Oh no…I’m so worried, Zal.
Don’t lecture me about clients with grievances. I represent and vindicate the rights of plenty of people with true grievances. More often than not, Allred’s clients don’t fall into that category — they tend to be those seeking media attention, book opportunities, and the like, rather than a vindication of their injured ‘rights.’ Also, it’s undisputed that Allred is a Dem Pty hack, magically surfacing with dirt on the opponent of her chosen candidate (Jerry Brown, Obama, eg). She’s no different than Trump, a publicity-seeking carnival barker.
Here’s the missing ‘s’. Trying to figure out what a facist would be. A dermatologist?
Referring to “on the rag” is offensive to all women, not just feminists.It is offensive because it reduces an argument or an action to physiology. If you want to bully women just for being women, go someplace else. If you believe women don’t deserve to have lawyers to help them address grievances in court, you belong in the dark ages. If you believe that women cannot be victims of crimes or wrongs, or that they have no right to attempt to remedy such wrongs, you similarly have little inclination to think of women as real people (the essence of feminism) and should crawl back into your cave. This place once called itself “Liberal Rapture”. Now it apparently tolerates jerks like you. To be charitable, maybe you were just commenting drunk, but I didn’t call for censorship — just self-censorship. And calling me names doesn’t make you a better person. Just more of a jerk.
I agree with Sally that it’s offensive to use the “on the rag” remark. And Anthony, your comment about whining was also offensive. Can we all remember what 2008 was like?
What Sally said.
Well, I guess the regulars are determined to run off all liberals and feminists and remake John’s place into the Crawdad Hole Redux.
But I’m surprised at Jay Floyd”s highly offensive remark to Sally; it was completely uncalled for and sounds more like run dmc..
To object to an offensive remark is not censorship, it makes one’s displeasure known, that is all.
And, let’s leave everybody’ s ass out of it, shall we?
Oh, stop whining.
Nobody’s trying to run liberals and feminists off of anything.
Sally left a snarky comment and got the same in return. Grow up.
What Anthony said – put your big girl pants on. And, the fact that you claim that anyone who doesn’t agree with you can’t be a feminist is what everyone hates about the people who self-proclaim that they represent “true feminism.” If you don’t like rough and tumble debate, then don’t dive in. True feminists can handle it without playing the victim card (see: HRC).
Are pigs flying?
New York Post endorses Mitt Romney.
http://www.nypost.com/p/news/national/mitt_will_get_the_jobs_done_9hpevJPvBnMgJ0GMyGb0GO
The New York Post has been a right wing rag for thirty five years.
It’s owned by Rupert Murdoch, ever hear of him?
Color me surprised.
So tell me again why Obama should have a second term?
(C’mon….. You know you want to….)
The Post had its pick of two candidates. One’s prosemitic, the other isn’t. Big surprise as to who they picked.
Anthony, your pigs flying comment indicated that you were surprised that the NY Post endorsed the republican candidate. Sweet Sue pointed out the universally-known fact that the Post is an extreme rightwing tabloid that ALWAYS endorses the Gop.
Perhaps you wrote this at 4:20 a.m. and confused the NY Post with the Washington Post. In any case, instead of admitting your mistake, or at least explaining the reason for your surprise, you responded to Sue with a complete non sequitur, a straw man attack on her non-existent support for obama.
Pull yourself together, man!
Seriously, Anthony?
Read Sally’s remark to NES and, then, read Jay Floyd’s comment to Sally. Do they strike you as equivalent?
Why, is it when a woman objects, she’s “complaining?”
I guess I should be grateful that you didn’t say “bitching.”
Snark is snark. Again, stop whining.
If Sally was “Salvatore” or if Jay was “Jayne”, you wouldn’t be saying a fucking word. Something tells me you could find misogyny in a can of soup…
So you’re saying anything goes on the Internet because no one knows who anyone is? Hostility toward women hurts every woman who reads it and poisons the climate for participation by women who might not want to be called douchebags or threatened by physical violence (up the ass). It discourages participation here by women.
Anthony, I absolutely think you’re right about the ‘Jay’ / ‘Jayne’ assessment, and I’m just sick of the PC Feminist Police and when I see bullshit, I’m going to call bullshit. If I felt polite about it, I’d be polite. But clearly I don’t.
” It discourages participation here by women.”
Really? It doesn’t discourage participation by you or Sweet Sue — nor should it. It doesn’t discourage participation by me or other women regulars here. Women aren’t delicate, hot-house blossoms that need to be protected from language or the rough-and-tumble of blog commentary; they’re quite capable of taking care of themselves, thank you very much. Your view to the contrary is quite insulting to women.
The only blogs that have “discouraged” my participation have been so-called feminist blogs where it’s supposed to be “safe” for women to express themselves…as long as what you express conforms to the groupthink. (That’s not counting the places I was banned from in 2008 for not being pro-Obama.)
Me? Oh, no, I’ve voted for Jill Stein.
In Ohio.
bright
Anthony, when you showed up at this liberal blog (the former “Liberal Rapture”), did you mistakenly think it’s readers were conservatives? Or do you think you can convert us to the ‘dems-hurt-my-hillary-so-lets-all-be-republicans-now’ philosophy?
As I said on the radio, if I lived in OH, I’d vote for Romney, but solely to get rid of obama. I’d not feel good about it. Sweet Sue voted her conscience and for her principles. So back off.
Glad to hear it. Jill Stein is an excellent choice. She’s my first pick too.
Tamerlane, if anyone needs to back off its you. I remember LIberal Rapture. I visited often and posted a couple of times, so you are the last person to lecture me about what THIS site is all about.
As for your (mistaken) idea that I thought the population here was conservative, your assumption is totally out of whack. I’m voting for Romney because out of all the choices I have, I think he’s the best pick. You don’t have to like that decision. I do.
You yourself said if you lived in a swing state, you would vote for Romney to get rid of Obama. I suspect you think that to be a bright strategy. So why all the yapping? I posted one word, and it was sarcastic. I don’t think its very bright to vote TPC in a swing state, and neither do you.
I also voted for Jill Stein.
If Sue wants to declare that she threw away her vote, then people who believe she threw away her vote can declare that too. You can also say “back off” but you’ll be ignored.
Run, my first reaction was also that a Stein vote in THE crucial state of Ohio is wasted. But, my second thought is that it’s not really because it’s a vote Obama would’ve counted on (given my guess that Sue’s a registered Dem), but didn’t get. It’s therefore a vote O has to replace, so to speak. Does that make sense?
My conscience would compel me to vote for Romney in a swing state out of desperation, nothing more. Sue’s conscience dictated she vote for Stein, even in a swing state. I respect that.
Anthony’s voting for Romney out of choice, in non-swing state. No true liberal would ever choose Romney freely. If you really like Romney’s values, then fine, I’d respect that, too — if you stopped pretending to be a liberal.
NES – from your lips to god’s ears as the saying goes. I think that’s true; at least truly hope that’s true.
Tamer – why would “no true liberal” vote for Romney? Because that’s how you’ve decided who liberals are? Other than the abortion issue – which I’ve NEVER voted on – Romney is a moderate. In fact at bottom, he’s a pragmatist. As a liberal pragmatist myself, I get to define myself thank you very much.
Tamer, get real. Suggesting I’m a traditional conservative sounds like you’re channeling Zal. I’m a fiscal conservative, and very liberal (probably more than you are) on social issues.
Like it or not, the 2 party system would never let a TPC accomplish a damned thing if they were to win the WH, and right now the advocacy I’m providing for people who are going to be dying from the Medicare cuts that Obamacare is bringing makes any choice other than Romney a bad choice.
IMO, voting for a TPC would be nothing more than self serving folly. Still, I do not call you names or make ridiculous accusations because of your choice to vote for Stein out of protest. I will, however, respond in kind to you or anyone else who crosses that line with me.
If all you can see are two little boxes – liberal and conservative, defined by your own values – then its time for you to start thinking outside the box
Good for you sweet Sue. I am in California and I also voted for Stein. Even if I was in a swing state I would have voted for Stein I can’t stomach Obama or Romney.
The problem isn’t Gloria Allred,[ well just Being Gloria Allred must be a problem, at least to her] the problem is those who still view even strong women as ‘victims.’
That whole “”Herman Caine touched my knee” nonsense fell apart when it was learned that his ‘victim’ lived in the same condo bldg as Axelrod, and had financial problems to boot.
All these frivolous lawsuits will only be given credence when men are also allowed to sue women who touch their knees and make suggestive remarks, and can bring their cases without being laughed out of the courtroom . Women can be predators too,otherwise today”s equal rights aren’t really equal, are they ?
Gloria Allred is an attorney who represents both women and men in court cases. I would imagine that sometimes they win and sometimes they lose. Her cases concern matters of law, the merits of which are decided by judges and juries. You might think such cases are frivolous (or not), but it isn’t up to you in such cases. When we start thinking that only people with legitimate cases deserve lawyers (or only defendants who are innocent, not guilty), haven’t you tried the case before the law has had a chance to engage in due process? Being a real live person, Gloria Allred is also entitled to hold political opinions and to work to support whichever candidates she favors. Some lawyers are even employed by politicians and some politicians need them, as the Clintons did when they were both rightly and wrongly attacked by the right during Bill Clinton’s two terms. If someone is going to make a statement about Hermain Cain, I think having a lawyer to advise on what constitutes libel or slander and what is safe to say would be a good idea. Allred is not endorsing that person’s accusations by advising him or her in such a situation. That Allred stands next to a variety of people at podiums making public statements indicates that she has expertise in the law governing such situations, nothing more. Some of you seem to be equating her with the people she works for. That would be like assuming a criminal defense attorney is a criminal because his or her clients may be.
Conner43, men can and do file a percentage of the sexual harrassment grievances with the EEOC and do advance such lawsuits and complaints. My husband was harrassed by a female supervisor at one of his jobs. It happens and it isn’t fun and it doesn’t make a man less manly to complain about having been harrassed. The situation is difficult because one’s employment is at stake and a man is no less eager to risk being fired by shutting down unwanted advances than a woman is. If Herman Cain put his hand oin my knee, I wouldn’t like it, but the larger question is what kind of man, employer or not, thinks it is OK to put his hands on any part of a woman’s body without permission? And why is this considered trivial or frivolous by men? This is remedial education. It saddens me that women keep having to explain these things, over and over. Men are not “laughed out of the courtroom” when they bring sexual harrassment cases, any more than women are. The law takes this seriously as do most large employers (who don’t want to be sued) — so should people in everyday life.
To be honest, the “On the Rag” bit of my comment was intemperate and crude; I was highly annoyed with the Allred episode when I wrote it. Had I had access to an edit button, I would’ve used it to delete or rephrase that turn of phrase. That said, I stand by the entirety of the rest of my comment about Gloria Allred and her fake-’victim’ clients; they do a disservice to feminism.
Yes, it was bright because it tells the Democratic Party that it’s not liberal, enough; a vote for Romney endorses radical Conservatism.
Snark versus an ad hominem attack with hints of violence, yeah, right, no difference.
And, you’re wrong, Anthony, I don’t like bullying no matter from where and to whom it’s aimed.
“…with hints of violence,….”
That’s utterly over the top and uncalled for.
It felt pretty violent to me, the person it was aimed at. If it wasn’t violent it would be sexual, and that isn’t any better. The remark is inappropriate because it made no reference at all to the substance of the discussion. It attacked me as a person by implying physical domination through force. How is that not violent? If he wanted to disagree there were a lot of different words that could have been used instead. I don’t think anyone should get a bye on such language simply because they’ve been here a while and there isn’t any question of them driving over to my house and implementing the threat.
It’s HILARIOUS to me that by whatever flimsy and convenient standards you judge something as ‘bullying’, that “Sexist much”, when someone is being nothing like sexist, is somehow acceptable. You people are something else. (Insert knee jerk response to ‘you people’ here.)
And ‘hints of violence’ is another bullshit ‘liberal’ censoring tactic. It means nothing because it is of nothing.
“If it wasn’t violent it would be sexual, and that isn’t any better.”
“It attacked me as a person by implying physical domination through force. How is that not violent?”
Sigh.
While Jay used strong language (as most of us, including I, have done here, at some point or another), we all understand he was speaking metaphorically; it’s disingenuous to try to paint it otherwise for rhetorical purposes. He was saying no more than that, in his view, you were being a PC Police and sanctimonious. You were, actually being exactly that — although I got where you were coming from (while disagreeing with the charge of sexism laid against me) and, as indicated by my answer to you, I wasn’t personally offended.
Sally, let’s be honest: you do drop in, fairly frequently, to chide and chastise the commenters and JWS, and seemingly to corral us into some PC pen. It’s like you’re on some sort of mission to re-educate us; good luck with that. It’s your prerogative to do so, of course, but the cost of riling people is to take your lumps, occasionally. That’s what happened here…you got some lumps. What you did not get is threats of violence or sexual slurs. (I got, and took, my lumps on the “rag” phrase. Fine…I ran that risk when I wrote it. It’s all in the game.)
Jay told Sally to “Stuff it up her (OWN) ass.”
The only way that could be construed as “an attack with a hint of violence” is if she was dumb enough to take his suggestion and act upon it. Please.
“shove it all the way up your preening ass.”
That’s how we talk to each other, here?
It’s not usual–it happens, from time to time. But, that’s not the point, is it? To say Jay’s speech has “hints of violence” is OTP nonsense. You comment here often enough to know that that charge is unfairly laid at Jay’s feet.
I think that we need MumLawyerLettered2theMax to come back and get us on the right track of eloquent discource.
I’m attaching these links becuase I think they’re funny, and they’re funny because there is truth in them.. I love the Onion
http://www.theonion.com/articles/i-mean-if-i-lose-to-mitt-romney-ill-probably-kill,30092/
http://www.theonion.com/articles/romney-stares-uncomprehendingly-at-1-bill,28592/
http://www.theonion.com/articles/obama-takes-out-romney-with-middebate-drone-attack,30055/
http://www.theonion.com/articles/weeping-obama-breaks-down-admits-bin-laden-still-a,30058/
Dan, those are hilarious. Thanks for posting them! Still laughing
Smooth move here by the Romney campaign: http://www.boston.com/politicalintelligence/2012/10/25/court-allows-testimony-mitt-romney-stemberg-divorce-case-unsealed/PYQi6CxYTGOKRhtahY83DI/story.html
If I’m reading this right, Stemberg stopped his objection to having the testimony unsealed, and the Globe stopped it’s push to have the gag order dropped. The effect seems to be that the testimony can now become public, but Maureen Stemberg still can’t discuss it. Says Allred:
I think that’s a classic boxing-in of Allred/Stemberg. The lawyers here can verify or correct me if I’m wrong.
Well I’m sure the faux feminists here advocating for Romney will think that’s just peachy.
Women should keep their mouths shut and their legs open.
Seriously, there couldn’t have been a more offensive -or revealing- outcome.
If any of you read Ani’s book, you would have found an extended argument about why using that kind of language, even about political opponents (Allred in this case) is harmful to both women and our political process. I could post under a male (or ambiguous) name but I deliberately always use a female name because women are run off the comments sections of blogs by the kind of comments that popped up here. The harsh treatment women in particular got when defending Clinton and criticizing Obama during 2008 has inured most of us to this stuff, but some of us also make it a point to object to it when it occurs because it prevents more women from participating fully in our democracy. Even if we leave because we just don’t like hearing it, that is suppression of a voice that needs to be heard. This view that politics should be rough and tumble and that guys learn to take it so why can’t women, etc., ignores that women receive sexual and violent threats whereas men are taken more seriously. So, the douchebag, “on the rag” and similar remarks are just as bad as the violent ones “shove it…”. Bullying is intended to make people sit down and shut up. I value this blog because it was one of the places I could express my opinions without being harrassed first, then banned. So many Obama enthusiasts believed that any treatment of someone with an opposing view was OK as long as Obama got elected, because the tactics don’t matter, only the outcome and it was essential for Obama to win. Some of us Democrats parted ways with the Obama people over the issue over whether we should become as dirty in our tactics as the conservatives. Ani has pointed out the it was perhaps naive to ever believe the Democrats were more principled and that the bad treatment should have been no surprise. For myself, I believe we must have principles in how we win or else we become them — which is why I abhor Obama’s kill list and the other invasions of our civil liberties justified in the name of winning, in this case a so-called war on terror. Even war must have rules and breaking them must have consequences. So, if you think lying is OK, or bullying people or rigging the system (whether a caucus or a voting machine), or banning dissident voices from a blog because they shouldn’t have a podium, or similar stuff, we have a lot to disagree about. Someone has to stick up for principled behavior, even at the risk of being called sanctimonious.
Sally,
The first time I heard the term “douche bag” as a pejorative I cringed. This was several years ago. Now it seems to be a standard way of slinging invective at someone else. I find the term offensive and insulting and always have, but have never said anything and is very clearly an insult against women – if one takes the time to think about it. Thanks for pointing this out.
NES,
I appreciate your apology, and as always you remain one of my favorite and most gracious posters here.
Hiya Senneth.
Thanks for the kind word.
Wow, how you elevate PC bullshit is painstaking, tedious and so of our age.
You’re the girl who called Virginia Woolf.
Damnitt, I can’t get my fingers to cooperate.
The girl who cried Virginia Woolf. Loved it and ruined it.
“The girl who cried Virginia Woolf. Loved it and ruined it.”
Meaning what, Jay? Confused.
NES, the I was commenting on the phenomenon of citing sexism where it doesn’t exist. What happened to the boy who cried wolf?
Oh — the ‘loved it and ruined it’ referred to the post above where I said ‘called Woolf’ instead of ‘cried Woolf’. Loved it. Ruined it.
Ha, Jay! I was a bit thrown by the second sentence.
I’ll have you know I googled the Woolf phrase and came up with music video (warning: it’s awful music): http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uUBf6SPQlfE&feature=youtube_gdata_player
Do people really come here to get a dose of what they define as “liberal” politics? Serious (not rhetorical) question.
I started visiting regularly (albeit as a non-commenting reader) in early 2008, when it was known as “Liberal Rapture,” because I loved John’s writing and his astute political insights; and I’ve stayed for that reason. In other words, even though I almost always enjoy, and often learn from, what the commenters say, I come here for Mr. Smart’s posts and political insights (in whichever direction they go).
i came here because of liberal rapture too. i remember those “bible” quotes about obama. they were awesome!
but now in my opinion there is someone here poisoning the water with what they think is adding to the conversation. but i think they are always just trying to start arguments by coiley playing devil’s advocate.
i don’t agree with some posters here who see this person as not an obot. but i see this person as a complete obot because they are always trying to distract us with their walls of text. this is just imho… basically i agree with NES and lola and others who have called this person out.
I read this blog because i appreciate what john writes, but am not commenting as much here because this one person is just ruining my experience here. this person comments so much and so strongly, they almost act as if this is their blog and they are the only right all the time. i can’t hang with that kind of takeover. it feels like a heavy hand and i don’t like that, that is just as bad as ob’s cult following to me.
thank god for the other sites where i feel like part of an actual conversation and not a distraction by someone who only sees black and white and never grey. someone who thinks that if you vote for romney, then you must support them. well, if this person thinks this way and doesn’t believe there is such a thing as a protest vote, then that is black and white thinking simply put. thinking in black and white is not creative or strategic thinking, and it is telling people what they think, which gets under my skin. people can have other motives than this person thinks in their black and white thinking way.
anyway, maybe i will comment again later, but for now i know this person will probably flame me for speaking out for feeling uncomfortable here because of what i feel they are not adding to the conversation, for their takeover of the site with their deluge of thoughts, they are just turning me off of the conversation with their know it all walls of text. i will see you NES, lola, and some others here at our “other” hang out more until election day of course and i hope this person i speak of never finds us there and ruins our vibe there too.
“i came here because of liberal rapture too. i remember those “bible” quotes about obama. they were awesome!”
Yessss! The wonderful, wickedly humorous “Obama Scriptures.” Let’s call for an encore: JWS, are you listening? Pretty please….
Kanaughty, I’m sorry you’re staying away — please reconsider. Also, you should drop in at imust’s place too: http://www.pie2012.wordpress.com. You’ve been there; right?
I love John’s writing too. But I especially love his radio show and wish it was on more than once or twice a week.
Yes, the radio shows are great. I wish they were on later, though — I’m always at work then and can’t listen in. And, then the recordings don’t come up on my iPad (because of Apple’s annoying refusal to use Adobe).
NES, with respect, Jay’s intemperate comment sounded like “STFU” or I’ll paste you one.
I’ve seen people bullied off this blog and I don’t like it, but, you’re right, I was surprised to see that from him.
I am so glad I’m not a woman.
I cannot imagine the frustration of seeing other women being so abusive about women.
Lots of gay men have attacked me, online, since 2008 because of my political opinions. But I haven’t seen one single gay man attack gays with derogatory gay insults the way some women attack women here.
“I am so glad I’m not a woman.”
I’ll warrant you were one sometime in your past, Zal. Or, perhaps in another life.
You’re such a shit-stirrer.
Also Zal, haven’t you previously railed against identity politics? But now women are supposed to refrain from criticizing Allred and her latest client because they’re women? Hypocrisy.
What am I missing?
Jay Floyd and Anthony are women?
Sally has written so eloquently about this dustup, I have little to add.
There’s no level playing field, yet.
Men rule the world; they rule this country (look at the pitiful number of women in Congress); they are bigger and stronger than women and intimidating because of that.
What men hear as “rough and tumble”, women hear as threatening because men can back up their harsh words with their fists, and, sadly, often do.
It has little to do with our poor, little fee-fees and more to do with real world-meatspace-experience.
What ever happened to manners? Do we really want Lord of the Flies, Madd Maxx rules?
No, I’m not looking for a Shakesville type of “safe place”, hell, no, just base line decency to each other.
“Jay Floyd and Anthony are women?”
No, Jay and Anthony aren’t women.
Speculating here, but I think Sally may have mistakenly though I’m a guy when I criticized Allred and her latest client when she made her “Sexism much?” snark.
I’m all for decency to each other too, Sweet Sue, whilst acknowledging that I have occasionally fallen short of that standard (as when I told Tamer to “STFU” an eon ago). As a standard, we should strive for decency; agreed. We generally do, IMO.
Now, Zal reserves his chiding for women who’re voting for Romney. Selective.
I didn’t see any criticism of Allred. Here is what was posted:
“Gloria Allred is a one-woman campaign to discredit feminism. The Lawyer For Women On The Rag. I’m sick to death of her and her victim clients.”
This is just name-calling largely based on being female. She represents menstruating women (as if such women were not worth representing or their monthly period disqualified their cases from having any legal merit) and victims. Its another way of saying that women, because they are women, have thoughts and concerns not worth anything because they are dominated by hormones (as if men were not also dominated by hormones). Seems to me being a victim is an excellent reason to bring a legal case and what does a lawyer do but represent people who have been wronged in some way. Are we victim-haters now? I can see that someone who wishes to do whatever he wants regardless of the consequences would prefer that no one hurt by his actions complain about what he has done. There is a vested interest in denigrating victims among those who believe the strongest should be allowed to do and take what they want (e.g., Ayn Rand followers). And I don’t see what any of this has to do with feminism. Allred would likely be a feminist just for having completed law school, given that only about 3-5% of law students were women in the early 70s. But Allred’s cases are not all about feminism, nor are her clients necessarily women. She represents a lot of civil liberties and academic cases too, such as denial of tenure or wrongful termination. She also represents both women and men in sex discrimination cases. Judging her based solely on her famous (notorious) cases is probably a mistake. Must one be a feminist to represent a menstruating woman, as if no other lawyer would want to handle such a case? Is Allred the only person concerned with feminist issues? I don’t think so — to my knowledge there are many people with such concerns, so “one-woman” is surely wrong. Has she embarrassed (discredited) feminism by taking cases that lose occasionally or by taking highly visible cases with controversial defendants or plaintiffs? Again, being a liberal, I think everyone is entitled to use our legal system to pursue their grievances or assert their interests. The courts will decide if they have merit or not.
My discussion seems silly or disingenuous because the original statement was not really a criticism of Allred. It was a sex-based slander of her, one that affects all women because it has nothing to do with any of Allred’s actions or statements, just the fact that her clients menstruate (as do all women at some point in their lives). Use of the term “on the rag” instead of a more neutral phrase is a give-away to someone’s intentions, if the hostility were not obvious from the rest of the sentence. So don’t pretend this is just criticism of Allred.
Yes, I assumed NoEmptySuits was a guy, but you don’t have to be male to be sexist. Ani talks about that in her book too. The remark about “up the ass” came from Anthony who I do assume is male. I hardly ever hear women talk that way.
If you don’t want Gloria Allred to represent you, you’ll probably save a lot of money — she doesn’t come cheap. Do you perhaps have her confused with an activist or public figure? Allred is an attorney, not a leader of any feminist organization, feminist author or theorist.
Do you have a bank account in your own name? Thank the feminists. Do you have a car loan or mortgage under your own name without a co-signer? Thank the feminists. Do you vote? Thank the feminists. Do you get medical care without a man’s decision-making? Thank the feminists. Have you recently had lunch in a restaurant by yourself or booked a hotel room for your own use? Thank the feminists — women alone were considered prostitutes and weren’t permitted in hotels or restaurants unaccompanied. Did you go to grad school in something other than teaching or nursing? Do you have a job outside the pink ghetto of secretarial and clerical work? Thank the feminists. Did you get custody of your kids after a divorce? Thank the feminists. There are many more things we take for granted today that were not possible for women during my lifetime, so I know how much things have changed. You may have the luxury of hating the feminists and claiming that they don’t represent you, but you benefit from the changes they won for us every day and are a hypocrite if you don’t at least acknowledge your debt to them. Feminists in the process had to be somewhat obnoxious and disagreeable, downright unladylike, so of course women today want to distance themselves from them, but rights like these don’t come for free, they had to be fought for. If you like having your life controlled by men, from a husband to a bank manager to legislators, go ahead and hate Allred and the other women who made themselves obnoxious to give us more options in our lives.
Sally, you seem to have a problem with metaphors. Literalism is not a virtue; it’s a tactic.
And, yes, my original comment has everything to do with Allred — see the first and third sentences of the comment you quoted. (I have already taken back the second sentence, conceding that it was intemperate and crass; see above.) Many of Allred’s notorious cases — eg, the woman who accused Whitman, the woman who accused Cain, the woman who now accuses Romney — do have to do with clients who have a false sense of ‘victimhood,’ whom Allred represents and takes public, at the height of election seasons, in service of her own political (anti-GOP) agenda. In so doing, she’s acting primarily as a political hack, not a lawyer, although she always wraps herself in the cloak of feminism. As such, I stand by my claim that Allred discredits feminism.
Let’s just say, we disagree on this point; or, you can continue on your censorious tirade, as you choose. But, take heed: I’m not easily bullied into silence (woman though I am). Irony alert on the parenthetical in the foregoing sentence!
NES, I didn’t say anything about criticizing Allred, and as far as I can see nobody else did either.
Maybe if you read my comment again you’ll understand it.
Are you kidding me?! Where did it “come from Anthony”? Get your lies straight.
” You may have the luxury of hating the feminists and claiming that they don’t represent you, but you benefit from the changes they won for us every day and are a hypocrite if you don’t at least acknowledge your debt to them. Feminists in the process had to be somewhat obnoxious and disagreeable, downright unladylike, so of course women today want to distance themselves from them, but rights like these don’t come for free, they had to be fought for. If you like having your life controlled by men, from a husband to a bank manager to legislators, go ahead and hate Allred and the other women who made themselves obnoxious to give us more options in our lives.”
Oh for crissakes, Sally, you do jump to conclusions and trade in stereotypes.
I’m a lesbian, an attorney, and a feminist. I crossed the aisle of my politics to vote for and support Hillary (since I must agree with only 25% of her politics, probably). Why? Because I wanted, and believed the world needed, a woman POTUS, at long last; and because she was a strong and supremely competent woman. No, I don’t hate feminists, not by a long stretch. I acknowledge that I wouldn’t be where I am without their struggles. I’m sorry you think all feminists must come in one size and with one set of orthodoxies and politics; I don’t.
I don’t like Allred for the reasons I’ve mentioned in the thread; it’s personal to her and her tactics, not to feminism in general.
Sorry to bust all your stereotypes. Welcome to the 21st century.
Zal, I apologize if I misunderstood your criticism. I re-read your comment, as you requested, and I’m not clear what different “abusive” to women comments you’re talking about…this thread is all about Allred and Stemberg, after all. Explicate, please.
Sorry, it was Jay Floyd not Anthony.
I’ve been around here & LR since 2008 or thereabouts and I comment when I see something I strongly disagree with. Otherwise I just read. I’ve noticed an influx of conservatives lately. Maybe John is making new friends or maybe this is because there is the election but the mix of viewpoints means more effort explaining where you are coming from. We don’t all hate Allred here like they do on the conservative blogs.
Got it, Sally. I agree there’s a greater diversity of viewpoints here than there used to be (or than one finds at most other places). You are correct that some comments may need to be more contextualized as a result. Intensive tweeting — the hazards of adhering to the 140-character limitation — has probably contributed to making me more pointed.
Zal – so glad you’re not a woman too. And, I guess you couldn’t know the frustration of experiencing – rather than seeing (since you actually can see it) – women being abusive to other women, but you certainly don’t mind being abusive to women yourself. If you want to make me start posting your comment with that completely abusive, misogynistic video of “ann romney” that you posted about a month ago, go right ahead and keep acting like you are oh so down with the sisterhood. “Cause this sister will CALL. YOU. OUT.
Sally – I’ve been around this blog at least as long as you have – definitely since 2008 and I think LR started in the early days of the primary – like in 2007 so been here since then. I’m not conservative. And, since I’ve now declared I’m not conservative, you have to believe me. Like when Zal declares he’s not an Obama supporter. Although, unlike, Zal – you can go back through my comments and find proof of my declaration.
I “like” Obama. I said, “in terms of the total package, Obama is plrreeabfe to the other[ top presidential contenders].” That’s a very different statement. I was judging him against Clinton, Edwards, McCain, Giuliani, and Romney. I think it’s great Ron Paul is in. I hope Hagel will get in. If so, I will still prefer Obama to the rest of the Democratic field, but should Paul get the nomination, I would prefer him to Obama. That’s probably true for Hagel too, subject to learning more about Hagel’s domestic policy positions. He once endorsed the draft, you know. Not good. (And what’s Paul’s position on immigration?)I really don’t want anyone to be president. There should be no such office. But if it exists and someone is going to occupy the office, I don’t mind saying that, other things equal, I like the idea of a black man becoming president. I would like the idea of a woman becoming president were she not Hillary Clinton.
Here’s something interesting:
“ED KLEIN: BILL CLINTON ‘URGING’ HILLARY TO RELEASE BENGHAZI DOCUMENTS THAT WOULD ‘EXONERATE’ HER, DESTROY OBAMA’S RE-ELECTION HOPES”
http://www.theblaze.com/stories/ed-klein-bill-clinton-urging-hillary-to-release-benghazi-documents-that-would-exonerate-her-destroy-obamas-re-election-hopes/
I’d like to believe that, Anthony, but I’m not sure I do. Klein is a suspect source. And isn’t the Blaze that RW nut’s website…Glen Beck, is it?
That said, I hope it’s true because it’d be nice if Hillary did request beefing up security in Benghazi; I would expect her to do the appropriate and responsible thing (especially when it came to taking care of her peeps). CBS mentioned that she did make such a request, but I don’t believe they specified the source for that info. Have you got a link to other than the Blaze or Klein?
Someone just texted that to me a minute or so before posting it, and have been looking for something from a better source
Interesting that Sally thought NES was a man.. She is smart, incisive and often sympathetic,and she writes like a woman, it is obvious, at least to me. {also a woman} Not that men can’t be all those things too, but female and male ‘vibes’ are easily picked up by most of us.
Gloria Allred is a publicity hound..
Connor/Sophie, thanks.
err…conner//sophie above..
Tamer, I blessed the recent rainfall because I thought it’d get you indoors to begin penning your promised piece on Benghazi. Did le deluge have that salutary effect? I look forward to reading and tweeting it. No pressure, lol.
For people who have problems establishing who good feeding on and fitness routine here’s a single move ones center and even boost up your inspiration. Give thought to your personal ambition, unique to reduce weight as well as take up a fitness system. Take an inventory with the good reasons you intend to reach the end goal. And then marketing to the target conduct available for you? You could desire a good much better physical structure so you’re able to exist for a longer time
and even feel good. As well as shedding extra weight increases your personal self-esteem.
Formulate lots of points, big and small.
An interesting coda to the thread.
Sigh.
BTW – watched the “3rd party” debate with the crypt keeper as moderator. Aside from the fact I am as viable as a write-in candidate for the presidency as any of them, they were all a joke substantively. Absolutely NO concrete plans for actually executing within our federated system against their “unicorns and candy” platforms. They seemed at times as if they didn’t actually know what form of government they were running to be part of as leader of a 3rd branch. It was embarrasing. These, I’m sure, are talented people if they weren’t making fools of themselves trying to get some kind of national attention. (Like . .. say . .. Donald Trump). I wish they were using their talents for something actually constructive, not wasting their own time and the time of the people who work for them.
Who’s the “crypt keeper”?
Larry King
Rofl.
I wonder if the reason third parties traditionally don’t do well in the US is because most Americans, psychologically, like to be on a team that could win. I know the major parties make it difficult for third party candidates to register, but I have to think there’s more to it. Thoughts?
3rd parties can register – that’s not the issue. Most of the major 3rd parties are on the ballots in all 50 states. The fact is that their platforms seem extreme to most people and so they only get fringe voters to vote for them. Sorry, but it’s true and will always be true. We are a center country who deviates right to left on very few degrees from the center. People who want us to be on one or the other extreme – or believe the center is really the extreme and think “they really are the center” even though they can’t persuade any but a small minority to their point of view – always want to think it’s because “the majority of Americans are stupid and uninformed.” AKA – majority of Americans don’t believe in my beautiful mind’s viewpoint.
We all want to be part of a community, it is a human need., It helps us connect, even if superficially to like minded people. Political identification is one way to achieve that, as is issues based activism. Where Sally sees a feminist issue, I see a tragic woman who can’t let go of a husband who divorced her 25 years ago, and has let him live in her head, and consequently stunted her own personal growth. If Ms Allred really wanted to help, she should have bought her a couple of stiff drinks and told to get a shrink and a life.
I identified as a Democrat most of my life, until I realized I started my activism as a young peacenik, and hadn’t examined my beliefs in a probing way in 45 years..Imagine if one didn’t clean out their medicine cabinet for over 40 years, yuck, mine would still contain Dr Lyons Tooth Powder, shouldn’t we re-examine our spirit and our heads at least as often as we clean our closet ?
This ^
This x 2.
This decades old divorce case has nothing to do with feminism or Mitt Romney. It has everything to do with a woman who won’t move on. It’s really quite sad. But injecting this sad case into a national election was crass and unnecessary, and makes Allred look like an obnoxious attention hound.