Reply Sat 20 Dec, 2014 01:52 pm
Quote:
President Obama did something remarkable on Friday. He held his last press conference of the year, and the only people in the entire press corps who were called on to ask questions were women. Yes, this was on purpose; it had to be.


http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-fix/wp/2014/12/19/that-time-obama-called-on-all-women-at-a-press-conference/

We men are of course expected to take this discrimination and exclusion quietly. And we are not supposed to mention that we see here a D employing power tactics that the D's have long claimed to be a cardinal sin. I guess it is only a sin when it is done on the " wrong" groups.
 
djjd62
 
  5  
Reply Sat 20 Dec, 2014 02:07 pm
wow, the he man woman haters club is really clutching at straws now
hawkeye10
 
  -1  
Reply Sat 20 Dec, 2014 02:19 pm
@djjd62,
Are judging individual people based upon their genetic group location wrong or is it not wrong? Is practicing exclusion based upon genetic groupings wrong or is it not wrong?

If you say it is wrong but support people who do it if they exclude the groups you want excluded then what does that make you?
0 Replies
 
djjd62
 
  4  
Reply Sat 20 Dec, 2014 02:49 pm
@hawkeye10,
Quote:
this was on purpose; it had to be.


it matters not what i think, in this instance, the "it had to be", invalidates the whole argument, if you knew for sure "this was on purpose", you'd have a better place to start

you start from a place of supposition


hawkeye10
 
  -1  
Reply Sat 20 Dec, 2014 02:58 pm
@djjd62,
Quote:
it matters not what i think, in this instance, the "it had to be", invalidates the whole argument, if you knew for sure "this was on purpose", you'd have a better place to start
It was not my quote, but the WH has admitted that they excluded men on purpose, so your argument is stillborn.
djjd62
 
  4  
Reply Sat 20 Dec, 2014 03:10 pm
@hawkeye10,
actually the white house admitted that the pres wanted to call on reporters not usually called on, the line you quoted came from the WP reporter, the pres then decided to call on all women

damn him, throwing some dames a bone on the last press conference of the year, i'm sure this is just the pretext to a cull of all males in 2015

careful dude, i think a chunk of sky just fell
hawkeye10
 
  0  
Reply Sat 20 Dec, 2014 04:46 pm
Quote:
Following the press conference, White House Press Secretary Josh Earnest confirmed that Obama had focused on female reporters who did not work for the major TV networks. Earnest said all of the networks have gotten to ask the president at least two questions since November, some of them have had exclusives, and they were notified ahead of Friday’s press conference that they wouldn’t be called on.

"The fact is, there are many women from a variety of news organizations who day-in and day-out do the hard work of covering the president of the United States,” Earnest said. “As the questioner list started to come together, we realized that we had a unique opportunity to highlight that fact at the president’s closely watched end-of-the-year news conference."

http://news.yahoo.com/obama-answers-female-reporters--questions-only-at-year-end-press-conference-212200355.html
I would have been ok with it had they picked people who had not been called on without gender bias.
0 Replies
 
Brandon9000
 
  1  
Reply Sat 20 Dec, 2014 04:48 pm
Well, I guess his argument is that if this discrimination was intentional, then no matter what the rationale, at the least, it was in bad taste. If you do not believe this, then you must be prepared to accept discrimination against any group as long as there's a reasonable rationale.
0 Replies
 
hawkeye10
 
  -1  
Reply Sat 20 Dec, 2014 04:49 pm
@djjd62,
Quote:
damn him, practicing the very discriminatory behavior that he so often rails against


fixed.
MontereyJack
 
  4  
Reply Sat 20 Dec, 2014 05:06 pm
@hawkeye10,
Taking asshole lessons from coldjoint now, are you? Going around changing what people say to make it fit what YOU think, billing it as a quote, which it is not, and putting "fixed" after it? It's pure shitheadedness when he does it, no better when you do it.
0 Replies
 
MontereyJack
 
  4  
Reply Sat 20 Dec, 2014 05:17 pm
Seems to me like an attempt to balance the scales. I've heard women reporters exasperated for years that they have a hard time getting their questions recognized. Good work, Barack.
farmerman
 
  3  
Reply Sat 20 Dec, 2014 05:39 pm
@MontereyJack,
All these"why Obama sucks" pronouncements are predicated on a fact that the namecallers are Republican sympathizers.

I heard on a local talk radio today how the GOP is gonna excoriate the Dems for delaying the recovery of (What they say) was a minor downturn in 2007 or 2008 (that too is dependent upon party affiliation)


COOOWL DREEENKS!!


0 Replies
 
izzythepush
 
  1  
Reply Mon 22 Dec, 2014 04:18 am
@hawkeye10,
Obama probably didn't know that your masculinity is in such a parlous state that a simple gesture like this could render you impotent.

Men have nothing to fear, and see this as a sign of progress, for centuries all the press corps were men, and men still dominate such events, there's absolutely nothing for men to feel worried about.

Burgess summed people like you up best.

How art thou, thou globby bottle of cheap, stinking chip oil? Come and get one in the yarbles, if ya have any yarbles, you eunuch jelly thou!
hawkeye10
 
  1  
Reply Mon 22 Dec, 2014 07:22 am
@izzythepush,
Quote:
Obama probably didn't know that your masculinity is in such a parlous state that a simple gesture like this could render you impotent.


Obama would still have been wrong if I did not exist.

ARGUMENT REJECTED

Quote:
Men have nothing to fear, and see this as a sign of progress, for centuries all the press corps were men, and men still dominate such events, there's absolutely nothing for men to feel worried about.


Practicing exclusion based upon genetics is progress? Oh do explain!
izzythepush
 
  2  
Reply Mon 22 Dec, 2014 07:33 am
@hawkeye10,
hawkeye10 wrote:
ARGUMENT REJECTED


All that means is you're too stupid to argue your corner, and you think using red letters is a substitute for reasoned debate. Maybe among a group of 8 year olds, but not with people who have actually gone through puberty.
hawkeye10 wrote:
Practicing exclusion based upon genetics is progress? Oh do explain!


I'll try to, but it won't be easy. The argument is fairly simple, but not nearly as simple as you. It's not exclusion, it's not based on genetics, it's based on gender. We do not live in an equal society, men still hold most of the top jobs. Having one, (just one mind you,) press conference with women only goes a very small way to redressing the balance. It's very little, but that still doesn't stop you having a conniption and throwing your rattle out of the pram.
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

Obama '08? - Discussion by sozobe
Let's get rid of the Electoral College - Discussion by Robert Gentel
McCain's VP: - Discussion by Cycloptichorn
Food Stamp Turkeys - Discussion by H2O MAN
The 2008 Democrat Convention - Discussion by Lash
McCain is blowing his election chances. - Discussion by McGentrix
Snowdon is a dummy - Discussion by cicerone imposter
TEA PARTY TO AMERICA: NOW WHAT?! - Discussion by farmerman
 
  1. Forums
  2. » Reason #59302 Why Obama SUCKS
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 02/25/2024 at 03:32:45