Kamala's main role

[fredtoast]

(11-10-2020, 06:41 PM)bfine32 Wrote: Why do respond to things not said?

I don't.

(11-10-2020, 06:24 PM)fredtoast Wrote: But we still need to go back to the original point. If she is qualified, which you have admitted she is, then it does not matter if she is a woman.

People who complain about a qualified person getting a job just because she is a woman are being sexist.

(11-10-2020, 06:27 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: It mattered to Biden.

(11-10-2020, 06:29 PM)fredtoast Wrote: Biden is not complaining about the selection.

[fredtoast]

(11-10-2020, 07:09 PM)bfine32 Wrote: Since no one could argue with the assertion that Biden eliminating half the selection pool based on nothing other than sex as sexist;

Actually I can argue that assertion.

If Biden felt that it was in the best interest of the country to appoint a female vice President then he was not discriminating against men based on sex.  Instead he was just choosing a woman because of the best interest of the country.

If Biden picks a black person to negotiate with BLM he is not being racist.  He is not discriminating against white people because of the color of their skin.  Instead he is choosing the best candidate based on the fact that BLM might trust and identify more with a minority than a white person.

Biden might have chosen a woman as Vice-President because he thought it would garner more support for his administration from women.  The more support he has the easier it will be for him to implement policy.  Or he might have felt that a woman VP would empower young women, give them more confidence, or  sense of inclusion that would again benefit the entire country.

Only the most base pervert would assume that he just wanted a "vagina".  What kind of person defines women as "vaginas"?  

[*bfine32*]

(11-10-2020, 08:22 PM)fredtoast Wrote: Only the most base pervert would assume that he just wanted a "vagina".  What kind of person defines women as "vaginas"?  

Now you've got to add pervert to you list of name calling.

I never said he just wanted a vagina; I stated it was a qualification that he employed, not me.

Apologies that I used an anatomical to explain the difference between a man and woman; seems others are a lot more caught up in the word that I, despite what that one dude said. I suppose I could have went with something more subjective such as....... IDK........ likes the color pink. But that seems kind of sexist.

[GMDino]

(11-10-2020, 06:41 PM)hollodero Wrote: Sure... I just never saw it being actually used against a male politician, or a male whatever for that matter. At least never outside the gossip columns.



I know. I used that in jest.

Because it is not used that way.  It is used to disparage women and make them seem as if they did not earn their positions or are not qualified.

That's why they are trying to spin away from saying it in the first place.

[Benton]

(11-10-2020, 05:54 PM)bfine32 Wrote: You don't think the bold is a fair assessment?

No.

I don't have access to his inner thinking's.

Maybe he looked at his top five qualifications and found those we're all available in women. Maybe he had a short list of things and thought all of them could be fulfilled by naming a woman.

But I digress. You have someone in on the Biden campaign who says Biden's top most important  qualification was being a woman, so, again, I appreciate your insight.

[fredtoast]

(11-10-2020, 08:44 PM)bfine32 Wrote: Apologies that I used an anatomical to explain the difference between a man and woman;

Apology accepted.

Just try and use the term "woman" in the future.  Defining women by their sexual organs is the highest level of objectification.  And objectifying women is very sexist.

[fredtoast]

(11-10-2020, 08:44 PM)bfine32 Wrote: I never said he just wanted a vagina; I stated it was a qualification that he employed, not me.

Got a link to Biden using the term "vagina" when discussing his choices for Vice President.

And what if he had chosen Delaware State Senator Sarah McBride?

[*bfine32*]

(11-10-2020, 09:53 PM)Benton Wrote: No.

I don't have access to his inner thinking's.

Maybe he looked at his top five qualifications and found those we're all available in women. Maybe he had a short list of things and thought all of them could be fulfilled by naming a woman.

But I digress. You have someone in on the Biden campaign who says Biden's top most important  qualification was being a woman, so, again, I appreciate your insight.

I asked what other dis-qualifier did Biden publicly state. 

That doesn't require any access to anyone's inner thinking's. 

It requires the ability to hear and comprehend what you hear. 

Maybe he looked at a lot of things, but we know what he publicly stated was a disqualification. 

[fredtoast]

(11-10-2020, 10:03 PM)bfine32 Wrote: I asked what other dis-qualifier did Biden publicly state. 

And I asked when he said it was his #1 qualification.

[*bfine32*]

(11-10-2020, 10:05 PM)fredtoast Wrote: And I asked when he said it was his #1 qualification.

Once you call someone a pervert in this forum the the rational discussion is over. 

Even I'm surprised that slur toward me is allowed to stand.

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(11-10-2020, 09:45 PM)GMDino Wrote: Because it is not used that way.  It is used to disparage women and make them seem as if they did not earn their positions or are not qualified.

When it's not true, it is absolutely used that way.

Quote:That's why they are trying to spin away from saying it in the first place.

Who is they?

[hollodero]

(11-10-2020, 09:45 PM)GMDino Wrote: Because it is not used that way.  It is used to disparage women and make them seem as if they did not earn their positions or are not qualified.

That's why they are trying to spin away from saying it in the first place.

Ah, I think that's true often. I guess it might not be true when it comes to bfine. He doesn't use it to put her down or to be sexist, but to tickle you et al.

Of course I agree that a discussion would be better served and have a chance of being more constructive if these characterisations weren't used in the first place, but that seldomly lies in the interest of all kinds of folk on all kinds of sides.

[Benton]

(11-08-2020, 11:08 PM)bfine32 Wrote: He made it clear that being a woman was his #1 criteria. So perhaps he was being sexist..

(11-08-2020, 11:36 PM)bfine32 Wrote: Biden made it clear his #1 requirement in a VP was a vagina, but if you point that out you're sexist. 

(11-10-2020, 10:03 PM)bfine32 Wrote: I asked what other dis-qualifier did Biden publicly state. 

That doesn't require any access to anyone's inner thinking's. 

It requires the ability to hear and comprehend what you hear. 

Maybe he looked at a lot of things, but we know what he publicly stated was a disqualification. 

Yeah, that's what you asked. 

It'd be more believable if you just stated you and Biden were buds and you have access to his inner thinking rather than trying to walk back your statement that his biggest requirement was her physiology. 

So what is it?

Do you know what Biden's top requirement was because you have some knowledge the rest of us don't? Or is it that the rest of us can't comprehend beyond what is read and heard?

Are you in the know, or are the rest of us just idiots for thinking there's more to his pick than being a woman?

[*bfine32*]

(11-10-2020, 10:44 PM)Benton Wrote:


Yeah, that's what you asked. 

It'd be more believable if you just stated you and Biden were buds and you have access to his inner thinking rather than trying to walk back your statement that his biggest requirement was her physiology. 

So what is it?

Do you know what Biden's top requirement was because you have some knowledge the rest of us don't? Or is it that the rest of us can't comprehend beyond what is read and heard?

Are you in the know, or are the rest of us just idiots for thinking there's more to his pick than being a woman?

If you don't want to answer what other dis qualifier Biden made known, no one can make you, but it's obvious why you will not.

I've stated numerous times that I inferred the opposite of his only announced dis qualifier as being his top qualification.

Personally I think the idiots are the ones who infer what I said as my saying it's the "only requirement".

Any thoughts on posters calling each other perverts or are you just concerned with posters questioning the selection criteria as stated by the President Elect? 

[Benton]

(11-10-2020, 10:55 PM)bfine32 Wrote: I've stated numerous times that I inferred the opposite of his only announced dis qualifier as being his top qualification.

Or you disparaged other posters who couldn't see it was his #1 qualification.

Pnr is what we make it. If you want it to be a better place to post, act like it.

[BFritz21]

How long before he main role becomes to change his diaper?!

[*bfine32*]

(11-10-2020, 11:24 PM)Benton Wrote: Or you disparaged other posters who couldn't see it was his #1 qualification.

Pnr is what we make it. If you want it to be a better place to post, act like it.

No I didn't. I disparaged those that asserted I said it was his only qualification when I clearly did not.

But you're right. PnR is what you and the others make it.  

[NATI BENGALS]

(11-10-2020, 11:42 PM)bfine32 Wrote: No I didn't. I disparaged those that asserted I said it was his only qualification when I clearly did not.

But you're right. PnR is what you and the others make it.  

meh

you jumped my ass a few weeks back for calling a handmaid a handmaiden. 

Now somehow we are awfully far deep in a conversation started by you calling VP elect a side piece. 

it is what it is

[*bfine32*]

(11-11-2020, 12:48 AM)NATI BENGALS Wrote: meh

you jumped my ass a few weeks back for calling a handmaid a handmaiden. 

Now somehow we are awfully far deep in a conversation started by you calling VP elect a side piece. 

it is what it is

Lots of folks have used the term side piece in this thread; however, I'm not one. As I understand it we should address each thread on its own merit.

As to your assertion, while bringing up yet another thread; go back and look at that thread. You'll probably see I took issue to you calling someone a weirdo religious lady.

I don't know the difference between a handmaid and a handmaiden; so I doubt I took issue with the semantics.

But it is what it is

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(11-10-2020, 08:09 PM)fredtoast Wrote: I don't.

Yet another twisting of words to try and make a point.  I didn't say that Biden was complaining, I'm saying correctly, that selecting a woman mattered to Biden.  I can say this because he said this.

https://www.nytimes.com/2020/03/15/us/politics/joe-biden-female-vice-president.html


“I commit that I will, in fact, appoint a woman to be vice president,” Mr. Biden said. “There are a number of women qualified to be president tomorrow.”

So, we don't need anyone but Biden's own words to tell us that his nominee being a woman mattered.  You deliberately made it look like I was making a point I was clearly not making.  Your posts here are becoming chronically dishonest.  It was always an issue, it's now become the norm.