"Assume the Position, Rep. Bachmann"

[Ban Hammer 13,417]

Actually, if 'some' are making similar comments about Palin and Bachmann that you did about Hillary (while objecting to the latter) then the point would be spot on. Surely...

how's that high horse of yours?

I have no personal investment in Obama. Why would I? I don't live in the US.

you don't have one with palin either, but that doesn't stop you.......

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

Are those sexist in nature Charles?

You're the one who said you wanted to see Palin in a Britney Spears outfit.

[Ban Hammer 13,417]

Are those sexist in nature Charles?

You're the one who said you wanted to see Palin in a Britney Spears outfit.

and? i'd rather see her in that than hillary in that.

all that proves is i still have my eyesight

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

It proves that you sexual objectify female politicians.

[Ban Hammer 13,417]

It proves that you sexual objectify female politicians.

no, it means i'd chose palin over hillary if i had to see one in that outfit.

next?

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

given the rants by some about palin and now bachmann, i'd say that point is wrong.

How so? You were game when Hillary was mocked but now you're not comfortable with attacks on female politicians when it hits Palin and Bachmann. Bit of a double standard there, Chuck. That's all I'm saying.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

No Charles, it proves that you don't judge female politicians on their background or qualifications but on their physical appearance and level sexual attractiveness.

How is this not sexist?

Edited June 17, 2011 by fishdude

[Ban Hammer 13,417]

How so? You were game when Hillary was mocked but now you're not comfortable with attacks on female politicians when it hits Palin and Bachmann. Bit of a double standard there, Chuck. That's all I'm saying.

if you think so. apparently you missed a few of my posts in support of hillary too.

No Charles, it proves that you don't judge female politicians on their background or qualifications but on their physical appearance and level sexual attractiveness.

How is this not sexist?

if you want to see hillary in a brittany spears outfit, feel free.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

If you don't take criticisms of this nature seriously, it only shows that your concern for the treatment of female politicians in public and the media is phoney.

[Ban Hammer 13,417]

yeah yeah, we know the routine.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

Sexism is a serious subject Charles.

yeah yeah, we know the routine.

Doesn't seem like your fans are interested.

[Ban Hammer 13,417]

Sexism is a serious subject Charles.

which must explain why you're not seeing the forest, you're fixated on me - again.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

You haven't demonstrated that female candidates for president receive worse treatment in the media than men.

What has been demonstrated is that you seem to be ok with making pejorative sexist remarks about Hillary Clinton on this board, yet are apparently concerned about the treatment of Sarah Palin and Michelle Bachman. It's muddled to say the least.

I just don't think you can take the issue seriously if you're going around suggesting that Hillary Clinton's physical appearance is somehow legitimate criticism.

[Ban Hammer 13,417]

You haven't demonstrated that female candidates for president receive worse treatment in the media than men.

answered earlier - keep up

http://www.visajourney.com/forums/topic/129926-hating-hillary/

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

That's not proof Charles. It's someone's unsubstantiated opinion.

But perhaps you are the best person to ask. Why do you feel that it's acceptable to judge female politicians on appearance and sexual attractiveness than on experience and qualifications?