Comments on: Afternoon Open Thread http://www.jackandjillpolitics.com/2009/07/afternoon-open-thread-90/ A black bourgeoisie perspective on U.S. politics Fri, 19 Mar 2010 03:50:20 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.9.2 hourly 1 By: khrish http://www.jackandjillpolitics.com/2009/07/afternoon-open-thread-90/comment-page-4/#comment-349850 khrish Tue, 14 Jul 2009 20:08:59 +0000 http://www.jackandjillpolitics.com/?p=13149#comment-349850 Isn't it amazing when one gets the right to make a choice for oneself and maybe didn't like the results of that choice.....They want to deny anyone else the same opportunity for choice that they had? Isn't it amazing when one gets the right to make a choice for oneself and maybe didn't like the results of that choice…..They want to deny anyone else the same opportunity for choice that they had?

]]> By: WordSmith http://www.jackandjillpolitics.com/2009/07/afternoon-open-thread-90/comment-page-4/#comment-349851 WordSmith Tue, 14 Jul 2009 16:43:54 +0000 http://www.jackandjillpolitics.com/?p=13149#comment-349851 The point that MDI is attempting to get from us is an unequivocal "all politician's children are off limits" regardless of age. That premise is unacceptable because 'children' grow into adults and cannot be unequivocal.<br><br>Regardless of who was treated worse, it can be said that it is considered inappropriate to attack the "under age" children of any politician. (Under age in this case meaning the age of majority most often recognized as 18.)<br><br>The sticking point: MDI made an 'accusation' regarding the posters here going off on the underage children of politicians. When asked to provide proof, what then transpires is this idiotic back and forth to first claim all children of all politicians off limits. It's not going to happen.<br><br>You cannot make an accusation and then expect those you accuse to prove your point. The onus for <u>that </u> is on the one doing the accusing - ITC.... mon_dieu_ishmael <br><br>It's simple - provide the proof or shut the fuck up. The point that MDI is attempting to get from us is an unequivocal “all politician's children are off limits” regardless of age. That premise is unacceptable because 'children' grow into adults and cannot be unequivocal.

Regardless of who was treated worse, it can be said that it is considered inappropriate to attack the “under age” children of any politician. (Under age in this case meaning the age of majority most often recognized as 18.)

The sticking point: MDI made an 'accusation' regarding the posters here going off on the underage children of politicians. When asked to provide proof, what then transpires is this idiotic back and forth to first claim all children of all politicians off limits. It's not going to happen.

You cannot make an accusation and then expect those you accuse to prove your point. The onus for that is on the one doing the accusing – ITC…. mon_dieu_ishmael

It's simple – provide the proof or shut the fuck up.

]]> By: khrish http://www.jackandjillpolitics.com/2009/07/afternoon-open-thread-90/comment-page-4/#comment-237710 khrish Tue, 14 Jul 2009 16:08:59 +0000 http://www.jackandjillpolitics.com/?p=13149#comment-237710 Isn't it amazing when one gets the right to make a choice for oneself and maybe didn't like the results of that choice.....They want to deny anyone else the same opportunity for choice that they had? Isn't it amazing when one gets the right to make a choice for oneself and maybe didn't like the results of that choice…..They want to deny anyone else the same opportunity for choice that they had?

]]> By: WordSmith http://www.jackandjillpolitics.com/2009/07/afternoon-open-thread-90/comment-page-4/#comment-237409 WordSmith Tue, 14 Jul 2009 12:43:54 +0000 http://www.jackandjillpolitics.com/?p=13149#comment-237409 The point that MDI is attempting to get from us is an unequivocal "all politician's children are off limits" regardless of age. That premise is unacceptable because 'children' grow into adults and cannot be unequivocal.<br><br>Regardless of who was treated worse, it can be said that it is considered inappropriate to attack the "under age" children of any politician. (Under age in this case meaning the age of majority most often recognized as 18.)<br><br>The sticking point: MDI made an 'accusation' regarding the posters here going off on the underage children of politicians. When asked to provide proof, what then transpires is this idiotic back and forth to first claim all children of all politicians off limits. It's not going to happen.<br><br>You cannot make an accusation and then expect those you accuse to prove your point. The onus for <u>that </u> is on the one doing the accusing - ITC....MDI.<br><br>It's simple - provide the proof or shut the fuck up. The point that MDI is attempting to get from us is an unequivocal “all politician's children are off limits” regardless of age. That premise is unacceptable because 'children' grow into adults and cannot be unequivocal.

Regardless of who was treated worse, it can be said that it is considered inappropriate to attack the “under age” children of any politician. (Under age in this case meaning the age of majority most often recognized as 18.)

The sticking point: MDI made an 'accusation' regarding the posters here going off on the underage children of politicians. When asked to provide proof, what then transpires is this idiotic back and forth to first claim all children of all politicians off limits. It's not going to happen.

You cannot make an accusation and then expect those you accuse to prove your point. The onus for that is on the one doing the accusing – ITC….MDI.

It's simple – provide the proof or shut the fuck up.

]]> By: Miranda http://www.jackandjillpolitics.com/2009/07/afternoon-open-thread-90/comment-page-4/#comment-237350 Miranda Tue, 14 Jul 2009 11:24:27 +0000 http://www.jackandjillpolitics.com/?p=13149#comment-237350 She's a politician's daughter, so now you have caveats. In other words, you're just making it up as you go along. She's a politician's daughter, so now you have caveats. In other words, you're just making it up as you go along.

]]> By: Muzikal203 http://www.jackandjillpolitics.com/2009/07/afternoon-open-thread-90/comment-page-3/#comment-237045 Muzikal203 Tue, 14 Jul 2009 04:34:35 +0000 http://www.jackandjillpolitics.com/?p=13149#comment-237045 No, the cheap shots were at Sarah Palin for being a hypocrite still preaching abstinence only when her own daughter ended up knocked up which should have shown her that policy was misguided. Hell, Bristol herself said it was unrealistic until Sarah reminded her what she was supposed ot be saying. No, the cheap shots were at Sarah Palin for being a hypocrite still preaching abstinence only when her own daughter ended up knocked up which should have shown her that policy was misguided. Hell, Bristol herself said it was unrealistic until Sarah reminded her what she was supposed ot be saying.

]]> By: carolinagirl http://www.jackandjillpolitics.com/2009/07/afternoon-open-thread-90/comment-page-3/#comment-237037 carolinagirl Tue, 14 Jul 2009 04:24:14 +0000 http://www.jackandjillpolitics.com/?p=13149#comment-237037 You are full of crap.<br><br>The key point that you seem to be missing is that these so-called "cheap shots" were taken at an 18 year old woman. No where on this blog was she called a street whore. She was not called a slut or any other offensive name. No one ragged on her for wearing shorts and a t-shirt.<br><br>Now as far as Sarah Palin is concerned, we called her a sno-ho b/c that's what she is. I think you seem to be conflating the two. You are full of crap.

The key point that you seem to be missing is that these so-called “cheap shots” were taken at an 18 year old woman. No where on this blog was she called a street whore. She was not called a slut or any other offensive name. No one ragged on her for wearing shorts and a t-shirt.

Now as far as Sarah Palin is concerned, we called her a sno-ho b/c that's what she is. I think you seem to be conflating the two.

]]> By: Plantsmantx http://www.jackandjillpolitics.com/2009/07/afternoon-open-thread-90/comment-page-3/#comment-237033 Plantsmantx Tue, 14 Jul 2009 04:19:16 +0000 http://www.jackandjillpolitics.com/?p=13149#comment-237033 And what do you call "defending the joke"? You see, that's why Palin and the Palinites insisted that Letterman didn't get the names mixed up, as he obviously did, but was actually talking about the 14=year-old. They could accuse anyone who pointed out that he wasn't talking about the 14 year old, and anyone who disagreed that he was a "pedophile", of "defending the joke". Don't you know how transparent that shit is? You should know it's not going to work here. And what do you call “defending the joke”? You see, that's why Palin and the Palinites insisted that Letterman didn't get the names mixed up, as he obviously did, but was actually talking about the 14=year-old. They could accuse anyone who pointed out that he wasn't talking about the 14 year old, and anyone who disagreed that he was a “pedophile”, of “defending the joke”. Don't you know how transparent that shit is? You should know it's not going to work here.

]]> By: Admiral_Komack http://www.jackandjillpolitics.com/2009/07/afternoon-open-thread-90/comment-page-3/#comment-237030 Admiral_Komack Tue, 14 Jul 2009 04:17:23 +0000 http://www.jackandjillpolitics.com/?p=13149#comment-237030 Hey now!<br><br><3<3<3<3 Maybe it was...LOVE <3 <3 <3 <3 Hey now!

<3<3<3<3 Maybe it was…LOVE <3 <3 <3 <3

]]> By: Plantsmantx http://www.jackandjillpolitics.com/2009/07/afternoon-open-thread-90/comment-page-3/#comment-237024 Plantsmantx Tue, 14 Jul 2009 04:09:07 +0000 http://www.jackandjillpolitics.com/?p=13149#comment-237024 Document. Document.

]]> By: Justice58 http://www.jackandjillpolitics.com/2009/07/afternoon-open-thread-90/comment-page-3/#comment-237017 Justice58 Tue, 14 Jul 2009 04:04:33 +0000 http://www.jackandjillpolitics.com/?p=13149#comment-237017 You made an accusation against posters on JJP.<br><br>We call you a liar, so prove us wrong! You made an accusation against posters on JJP.

We call you a liar, so prove us wrong!

]]> By: Justice58 http://www.jackandjillpolitics.com/2009/07/afternoon-open-thread-90/comment-page-3/#comment-237015 Justice58 Tue, 14 Jul 2009 04:02:30 +0000 http://www.jackandjillpolitics.com/?p=13149#comment-237015 Not no but hell no! Not no but hell no!

]]> By: danadevin74 http://www.jackandjillpolitics.com/2009/07/afternoon-open-thread-90/comment-page-3/#comment-237013 danadevin74 Tue, 14 Jul 2009 04:00:48 +0000 http://www.jackandjillpolitics.com/?p=13149#comment-237013 no i don't have to look through archives<br>your the one who made the accusation<br>therefore it's on you <br>to prove you aren't lying<br><br>and if you find proof<br>i will apologize<br>until then no i don't have to look through archives
your the one who made the accusation
therefore it's on you
to prove you aren't lying

and if you find proof
i will apologize
until then

]]> By: spirit_55z http://www.jackandjillpolitics.com/2009/07/afternoon-open-thread-90/comment-page-3/#comment-237009 spirit_55z Tue, 14 Jul 2009 03:56:03 +0000 http://www.jackandjillpolitics.com/?p=13149#comment-237009 I DONT'S AGREE WTH YOU.<br><br>THE. END. I DONT'S AGREE WTH YOU.

THE. END.

]]> By: mon_dieu_ishmael http://www.jackandjillpolitics.com/2009/07/afternoon-open-thread-90/comment-page-3/#comment-237005 mon_dieu_ishmael Tue, 14 Jul 2009 03:51:48 +0000 http://www.jackandjillpolitics.com/?p=13149#comment-237005 Caroline Kennedy was running for the US senate. She was a politician in her own right. (and don't tell me she was not running). Caroline Kennedy was running for the US senate. She was a politician in her own right. (and don't tell me she was not running).

]]> By: mon_dieu_ishmael http://www.jackandjillpolitics.com/2009/07/afternoon-open-thread-90/comment-page-3/#comment-236998 mon_dieu_ishmael Tue, 14 Jul 2009 03:47:03 +0000 http://www.jackandjillpolitics.com/?p=13149#comment-236998 I tell you what, you go back over the last 8 months, ever since Bristol announced her pregnancy, and read the comments at JJP.<br>PPLZ I tell you what, you go back over the last 8 months, ever since Bristol announced her pregnancy, and read the comments at JJP.
PPLZ

]]> By: Plantsmantx http://www.jackandjillpolitics.com/2009/07/afternoon-open-thread-90/comment-page-3/#comment-236986 Plantsmantx Tue, 14 Jul 2009 03:36:53 +0000 http://www.jackandjillpolitics.com/?p=13149#comment-236986 What? You only made that accusation in order to change the subject. <br><br>They have a script, I'll tell ya. What? You only made that accusation in order to change the subject.

They have a script, I'll tell ya.

]]> By: Justice58 http://www.jackandjillpolitics.com/2009/07/afternoon-open-thread-90/comment-page-3/#comment-236982 Justice58 Tue, 14 Jul 2009 03:34:22 +0000 http://www.jackandjillpolitics.com/?p=13149#comment-236982 <i>(and letterman got the wrong daughter) deserved to be called a slut, etc... .</i><br><br>You lie like a rug! (and letterman got the wrong daughter) deserved to be called a slut, etc… .

You lie like a rug!

]]> By: mon_dieu_ishmael http://www.jackandjillpolitics.com/2009/07/afternoon-open-thread-90/comment-page-3/#comment-236979 mon_dieu_ishmael Tue, 14 Jul 2009 03:31:18 +0000 http://www.jackandjillpolitics.com/?p=13149#comment-236979 the subject is POLITICIANS KIDS SHOULD BE OFF LIMITS.<br>u all are trying to change the subject. the subject is POLITICIANS KIDS SHOULD BE OFF LIMITS.
u all are trying to change the subject.

]]> By: Justice58 http://www.jackandjillpolitics.com/2009/07/afternoon-open-thread-90/comment-page-3/#comment-236971 Justice58 Tue, 14 Jul 2009 03:24:01 +0000 http://www.jackandjillpolitics.com/?p=13149#comment-236971 <i>People here played pile on with Palin's kids. The comments about her kids were vindictive, mean, and appalling.</i><br><br><br>Don't change the subject. Prove your accusation? People here played pile on with Palin's kids. The comments about her kids were vindictive, mean, and appalling.

Don't change the subject. Prove your accusation?

]]>