chris benoit

[rickyricardo]

I am actually not surprised you chimed in with a "face value" interpretation on this.AND YOU OBVIOUSLY MISSED THE BLATANT SARCASM.

I obviously did....probably b/c it wasn't that blatant. I'm not sure when a started signifying that everything you stated before was facetious and shouldn't be taken seriously. Maybe you've started a trend, who knows.

And of course I take what's being said at face value. It's a message board...there is nothing *but* face value. Whatever context there is to what you say is that which you have to provide, since the rest of us here that don't know you, your life story, or whatever.

Failing to see any context in your statement, I called it what it was....sexist.

Almost every political OPINION I have ever expressed on this board you have called me out as something somewhat ignorant,uninformed,right,racist,and now sexist.

Honestly, I don't remember half the shit you've written before. However, I am certain that I've never personally called you racist, sexist, uninformed, etc, b/c that's certainly not my M.O. so I'm not exactly sure where your silly victim complex is coming from.

If I have used any of those words addressing something that you have posted, perhaps you should exercise putting a little space between yourself and your ideas.

I cannot attack you. I do not know you. I will attack your opinions...especially if they are ignorant, uninformed, racist, sexist, whatever.

You know, one thing that always gets me is when people thrust up the phrase "But it's just my opinion!", as if that magic phrase wraps up whatever they say in an impenetrable armor against critique and dissection. As if the mere formation of an opinion places themselves at neither "right" nor "wrong" in the minds of others, b/c hey, "it's just my opinion"

First off,and with all due respect sir,I am entitled to an opinion.An opinion that I base on personal experience and broad observation.

Hey, that's great, no one is saying that you can't have opinions. Yes, everyone is entitled to an opinion, but at the same time no one should expect that their opinion is somehow above criticism.

I do not know you,nor do I claim to,and I mostly agree with the myriad political opinions you express on this forum.But you do not know me enough to call me racist,sexist,classist,or anything of that ilk.

Exactly....which is why i've never said those things about you.

But I have also said that I don't think America is ready for a black president either.Does that make me a rascist?I think not,but you have the right to your opinion on that as well.Sizzla's post could be taken as sexist too,but I don't see you jumping down his throat and calling him out as such.Did you even note the " " at the bottom of my post?I have not read one single response,nor recieved a single pm from any of the women on this forum regarding this,but you pulled an attack on this immediately.It's almost like the abortion issue,you know,where most of the people and lawmakers against it are men,yet they cannot physically have children due to thier gender and all,but are so outspoken about it nonetheless.

I commented on your post specifically b/c you were making a gross generalization. More specifically, this statement:

It sounds good in theory,but women are too emotional and a lot of times crack under pressure

...which taken at face value (b/c hey, that's all we have here) I took to be an extremely sexist one. It's irrelevant who complained or who didn't complain (and how do you know that no one complained? Complaints usually go to the mods)....I found a problem w/ what you said, so I said something about it.

I will say this.I have nothing but respect for you and every member of this forum and all the opinions expressed here(no matter what the subject).And if you want to flex your moderator muscle and have me banned for standing up for myself in this moment,I wll respect that decision as well,and with no love lost.But please,before you start calling other people out as something that everyone would agree as negative,be sure you know who they are first.You might just find that people aren't always 100% serious.

ummm...ok jesus, you can hop down off the cross now. No one is going to ban you. Additionally, I don't have to know you to criticize the things you say....just like you don't have to read my life story before attacking something that I say either. It's irrelevant to the heart of what's being discussed.

That said,I still stand by my opinion that Hillary has too many personal agendas

And I'd agree w/ you...but that wasn't the opinion I spoke against.

And I agree with Sizzla's opinion that men in this country will have some new social and economic challenges if she makes it.And I am quite sure that the feminist groups(as well as women in general)in this country would be right behind her to make sure she "takes care of business",as at this point,they are her strongest contingent.

That, I would disagree w/, mainly b/c I believe Hillary isn't the bra-burning feminist that people on the right fear she is (and that people on the left hope she is). If women's groups are putting all their chips in for a Clinton presidency for their political ambitions, they've certainly backed the wrong horse.

Socially, you could call Hillary a centrist at best, or a conservative at worse. She won't even give a straight answer about whether homosexuality is "immoral" or not. She supported the godawful Defense of Marriage Act. That doesn't exactly sound like someone who's gonna get into office and take a sledgehammer to the every glass ceiling, and garden shears to every penis.

Especially, when connected to those penises, are incredibly powerful special interests.

I think you and Sizzla somewhat overestimate the strength of the feminist lobby. Sure Hillary will pander to them as long as they are organized (and contributing) on her behalf, and maybe even throw them a few bones of empty rhetoric, but I wouldn't expect her to keep any sort of obligations to them once she reaches office. Especially when she's already backed by more organized, more powerful interests anyway. What are they gonna gonna do if Hillary doesn't keep her promises? Vote Republican?

I see the situation being somewhat analogous to Bush's relationship w/ the religious nuts: Useful during the campaign season, but mostly disposable any other time of the year.

That is not to say she would be a "bad president",as you assumed I said,but she definitely shows signs of vindication.

I didn't *assume* you said that, you implied it by talking about emotions and "cracking under pressure".

Incidentally, I do think she'd make a bad president...and if it comes down to her and some unnamed Republican bible-thumper, I'm writing in a candidacy for Marquis de Sade

[echo wanderer]

i personally think its rather sexist too, and really cant see how youre being sarcastic either. people are entitled to their views though n thats fair enough, but youve got to realise people are going to reply and give their thoughts when you say stuff like ''women are too emotional and a lot of times crack under pressure.'' -theres so many women modern day and throughout history who made great leaders and were a great influence on society.
''a female president would most likely take a more direct,immediate approach,viewing men as the lesser race'' - this is crazy.

actually, you must have been joking, what am i going on about. u cant have been serious. lol. nice one. i just got it.

Did you notice that I said I respect everyones' opinion on this forum(or anywhere for that matter) in my little tirade?I just sucks when people can't,or in a lot of cases,won't return that same respect.But you bring up a good point by taking the two quotes that hold the key to the humorous point I was trying to make.It was a response to the humor that I found in Sizzla's statement.I still can't see why everyone knows he was joking,but not me?Go figure...

As I said - sarcasm.It's exercised quite a bit on this forum.Just look at the "Is 27 old?" thread.Half the people saying it was are like 26+!

The reason I say:''a female president would most likely take a more direct,immediate approach,viewing men as the lesser race'',is simply because the WASP-y,male dominated government and society that has controlled this country has viewed women as lesser beings for over 231 years.I personally think the tables need to be turned to an extent.That bit of irony wasn't wasted on you mate.The same goes for the "too emotional" thing.That statement is how most American men feel about a woman president.I don't think that way,I mean there are al lot of women who are overly emotional and easily stressed,but I know a whole hell of a lot of men that are like that too.It's how most men have always percieved women.Ever read Maxim?Playboy?FHM?Hustler?.A stereotype doesn't exist without some truth to base it on.I should have been less generalised.Hillary probably has no emotions.

Maybe I was secretly fantasizing about it a bit.I love when a woman takes control.And don't get me started on my foot fetish...

And not only that,my mum would slap the shit out of me if she ever heard me say something like that!!!ESPECIALLY if I actually meant it!!I learned that when I was about ten and accused her of being on the rag because she was pissed I was fuckin' off in school!

By the way...I talked to her earlier and told her about how someone called me "sexist".She was ROLLIN'!!!She was like ,'YOU??!".Then I told her word for word what I had said and she just laughed and asked me how anyone could take that seriously coming from me.I just said they obviously don't know me,to which she told me that's why one should never assume anything about anyone.I got my lesson for the day,since I assumed most people would get it.I am glad at least one person did.

[echo wanderer]

I obviously did....probably b/c it wasn't that blatant. I'm not sure when a started signifying that everything you stated before was facetious and shouldn't be taken seriously. Maybe you've started a trend, who knows.

As I said above,sarcasm is rampant on this board.

And of course I take what's being said at face value. It's a message board...there is nothing *but* face value. Whatever context there is to what you say is that which you have to provide, since the rest of us here that don't know you, your life story, or whatever.
Failing to see any context in your statement, I called it what it was....sexist.

Duly noted.Point seen.But the context was sarcastic.If you didn't see it that doesn't mean it is nonexistant.And I felt I should give a little insight into who I am,because as I said,being publicly labeled as a sexist/mysoginist when I have a problem with the very people who think that way is a little offensive,I don't care who you are.Especially when I know I was joking.

Almost every political OPINION I have ever expressed on this board you have called me out as something somewhat ignorant,uninformed,right,racist,and now sexist.

Okay.Maybe this is an embellished statement,though I can recall a couple of instances in which I somewhat felt as if you were belittling my(and a few others on here) opinions.Plus...how would you feel if someone called you something that you aren't and feel very strong about?Especially publicly.

Honestly, I don't remember half the shit you've written before. However, I am certain that I've never personally called you racist, sexist, uninformed, etc, b/c that's certainly not my M.O. so I'm not exactly sure where your silly victim complex is coming from.

Oh.So what I write is "shit"?

I am not a victim.I willl never be a victim.I believe we bring consequence upon ourselves for the most part(there are exceptions in life).But it's funny.Beliefs and opinions are part of who a person is.But then you go on to say?:

I will attack your opinions...especially if they are ignorant, uninformed, racist, sexist, whatever.

So you are indeed saying all these things,or at least implying them by saying this just after calling my musings "shit" and directly saying that you never said these things.

You know, one thing that always gets me is when people thrust up the phrase "But it's just my opinion!", as if that magic phrase wraps up whatever they say in an impenetrable armor against critique and dissection. As if the mere formation of an opinion places themselves at neither "right" nor "wrong" in the minds of others, b/c hey, "it's just my opinion"

I hate that too.Opinions don't "wrap anything up in armor".Only fact can do that.And even that can change sometimes.But it could appear right to some and wrong to others.That's the beauty of the free-thinking mind.If you think I am wrong about something,so what?It's like music,what I like you may not.I don't expect anyone to ever agree with me.If you don't like or misunderstand something I say,I'm not gonna go to B'more and argue it out with you(though I could've at one time.I used to live in DC and went to B'more all the time.Would have loved to meet you!Not being sarcastic either).

Hey, that's great, no one is saying that you can't have opinions. Yes, everyone is entitled to an opinion, but at the same time no one should expect that their opinion is somehow above criticism.

I do realise this.And I don't expect anything.

But I have also said that I don't think America is ready for a black president either.Does that make me a rascist?I think not,but you have the right to your opinion on that as well.Sizzla's post could be taken as sexist too,but I don't see you jumping down his throat and calling him out as such.Did you even note the " " at the bottom of my post?I have not read one single response,nor recieved a single pm from any of the women on this forum regarding this,but you pulled an attack on this immediately.It's almost like the abortion issue,you know,where most of the people and lawmakers against it are men,yet they cannot physically have children due to thier gender and all,but are so outspoken about it nonetheless.

I commented on your post specifically b/c you were making a gross generalization. More specifically, this statement:

It sounds good in theory,but women are too emotional and a lot of times crack under pressure

...which taken at face value (b/c hey, that's all we have here) I took to be an extremely sexist one. It's irrelevant who complained or who didn't complain (and how do you know that no one complained? Complaints usually go to the mods)....I found a problem w/ what you said, so I said something about it.

And I appreciate your opinion.But you could've have PMed me about it.That was an option,no?All I am trying to do is clear you up to what was really going on:a humorous response to a humorous statement that was made.As I said,sarcasm is all over this forum.I didn't even expect to recieve a response from anyone,considering all of the sexually degrading comments made in jest here recently.What was that word again?Oh yes..."Gash".Not to mention the ageist comments.

I will say this.I have nothing but respect for you and every member of this forum and all the opinions expressed here(no matter what the subject).And if you want to flex your moderator muscle and have me banned for standing up for myself in this moment,I wll respect that decision as well,and with no love lost.But please,before you start calling other people out as something that everyone would agree as negative,be sure you know who they are first.You might just find that people aren't always 100% serious.

ummm...ok jesus, you can hop down off the cross now. No one is going to ban you. Additionally, I don't have to know you to criticize the things you say....just like you don't have to read my life story before attacking something that I say either. It's irrelevant to the heart of what's being discussed.

I say that only because I figured that I somehow offended you.You have the power to do it,so I just thought you should know in case you did.But I am not about attacking people.Calling me "Jesus" is offensive and could be considered a personal attack.How do you know that I am not a Bhuddist,Muslim,Jew,or even Scientologist?No.I am not martyring myself just because I don't want to offend someone.And beyond that,I enjoy this forum,thus I'd rather not be banned.

And I agree with Sizzla's opinion that men in this country will have some new social and economic challenges if she makes it.And I am quite sure that the feminist groups(as well as women in general)in this country would be right behind her to make sure she "takes care of business",as at this point,they are her strongest contingent.

That, I would disagree w/, mainly b/c I believe Hillary isn't the bra-burning feminist that people on the right fear she is (and that people on the left hope she is). If women's groups are putting all their chips in for a Clinton presidency for their political ambitions, they've certainly backed the wrong horse.

Hey.I know a LOT of women who won't trust or back Hillary.But she does have a lot of women's groups behind her,regardless if they've put in all of thier stock in her or not.That's what is seen right now.There is still time for all that to change.The same goes for Obama and minority groups respectively.But a person's personal life does affect how they operate in just about any job,and there is a risk of Hillary and her past disappointments with not only Bill,but the other men on The Hill treating her like many females there have said they've been treated for years.Like inferiors.

Socially, you could call Hillary a centrist at best, or a conservative at worse. She won't even give a straight answer about whether homosexuality is "immoral" or not. She supported the godawful Defense of Marriage Act.

Agreed.She's very good at what she does.She's trying to get as many voters as she can from just as many demographics.It's politics and she has a lot of experience with it.

That doesn't exactly sound like someone who's gonna get into office and take a sledgehammer to the every glass ceiling, and garden shears to every penis.

Note that I ended my post with not only ,but with the statement:"Men are pigs,but we don't deserve to die!".Don't tell me you actually took that seriously.It was a joking plea.I actually kinda thought the women on this board would find it funny.

Especially, when connected to those penises, are incredibly powerful special interests.

That is the funniest,yet sadly truest,statement I've heard all day!

I think you and Sizzla somewhat overestimate the strength of the feminist lobby.

I can't speak for him.I am not overestimating it.But I have seen quite a bit of positive action firsthand.I don't underestimate them.

Sure Hillary will pander to them as long as they are organized (and contributing) on her behalf, and maybe even throw them a few bones of empty rhetoric, but I wouldn't expect her to keep any sort of obligations to them once she reaches office.

I don't either.And I think you underestimate their intelligence by implying that they believe she will.

Especially when she's already backed by more organized, more powerful interests anyway.

Oh yes!Those penises!:lol:

What are they gonna gonna do if Hillary doesn't keep her promises? Vote Republican?

Good question...

They could.It worked for Condi.Look how far she got...

I see the situation being somewhat analogous to Bush's relationship w/ the religious nuts: Useful during the campaign season, but mostly disposable any other time of the year.

I think that is a global political strategy.

That is not to say she would be a "bad president",as you assumed I said,but she definitely shows signs of vindication.

I didn't *assume* you said that, you implied it by talking about emotions and "cracking under pressure".

Sorry.But I do think Hillary is possibly a little bit cracked.Just watch her eyes and body movements when she gets excited.You can't tell me this isn't just a little scary...

Incidentally, I do think she'd make a bad president...and if it comes down to her and some unnamed Republican bible-thumper, I'm writing in a candidacy for Marquis de Sade

Really?

I'd write in a monkey,but we have one now.

So can we just bury this and go back to homcidal/suicidal wrestlers?

[poax]

"say uncle"