RE: MSNBC's Chelsea comment angers Clinton

RE: MSNBC's Chelsea comment angers Clinton (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Casual Banter] >> Off the Grid

Message

slaveboyforyou -> RE: MSNBC's Chelsea comment angers Clinton (2/8/2008 9:44:45 PM)
quote: quote: Hey slaveboy, It`s cool that she or any kid of a pol is involved.My point is to keep the shit throwing to the parents,not the children. Before Bill Clinton`s terms,no one touched the family."Billy Beer" Carter was another story,b/c he brought that upon himself. We can roast the Clintons and keep Chelsea out of it. Again, I agree Owner. I just think the Clintons are using her for their own ends. It bothers me that they would do that. I am not surprised. I know how they do politics. I hate to say it, but Clinton learned it here. Arkansas politics are dirty, and they always have been. I have heard some horror stories from old timers, and I do mean horror stories. I don't have any affinity for the press, but I think this guy is correct in his beliefs. I agree his terminology was bad. Pimping is a disgusting profession. But I think that has more to do with our current pop culture. In the last 20 years, we have turned pimps into something funny. The term "pimp" has lost it's salt, so to speak. I don't think this guy really thought about what he was inferring when he said that. For fuck's sake, MSNBC is not exactly a right wing think tank. quote: sbfy, cyberdude, Heretic and the rest of the "stay out of the kitchen" crowd - It has exactly ZERO to do with any one in the Clinton clan's conduct towards the press and everything to do with a boorish newsman stepping over the line. There are any number of terms one might choose to describe candidates using their adult children to campaign but "pimping" is just crude and unnecessary. Zensee, I mentioned this in my comment above to Owner....I agree that "pimping" is a bad choice of words. I think that is more a negative consequence of our pop culture. Honestly, turn on the radio or televison. Pimps are not seen as the disgusting, scumbag, criminals they once were. We laugh about it now, because of movies and music. They are treated as jokes rather than the douchebags they truly are. I don't agree with it, but we are all victims of our own culture. We all pick up on the slang. I don't think this guy meant anything that disgusting about it. But. he should of used a different word to describe his feelings.

Zensee -> RE: MSNBC's Chelsea comment angers Clinton (2/8/2008 9:55:19 PM)
Thanks for clarifying your position, sbfy. Z.

thornhappy -> RE: MSNBC's Chelsea comment angers Clinton (2/9/2008 8:48:15 AM)
Strange that Romney wasn't accused of pimping out his sons. thornhappy[ quote]ORIGINAL: slaveboyforyou http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080208/ap_on_el_pr/msnbc_clinton Read the article. The MSNBC fellow said that the Clintons were "pimping out" their daughter. It may piss off the Clintons that he said it, but it's the damn truth. The truth hurts, and the Clintons should know that. They go irate when a journalist tries to question her, but they send her around the country to promote her mother and father's politics. Politics is a dirty game, and if you can't take the tackles then you shouldn't play. It's just more of the Clinton hypocracy at it's finest. Fake outrage is a hallmark of the Clintons. [/quote]

domiguy -> RE: MSNBC's Chelsea comment angers Clinton (2/9/2008 10:39:17 AM)
It's a atupid argument that goes directly to the thinking of the op.....If anyone supports any political figure wouldn't that mean they were beinbg "pimped out." The only reason you chose that article was because the guy used the word "pimped"...And somehow initially you seemed surprised that the Clinton's would be upset that the reporter from MSNBC called their daughter a "whore." Then you go on to add this.... quote: slaveboyforyou Zensee, I mentioned this in my comment above to Owner....I agree that "pimping" is a bad choice of words. I think that is more a negative consequence of our pop culture. Honestly, turn on the radio or televison. Pimps are not seen as the disgusting, scumbag, criminals they once were. We laugh about it now, because of movies and music. They are treated as jokes rather than the douchebags they truly are. I don't agree with it, but we are all victims of our own culture. We all pick up on the slang. I don't think this guy meant anything that disgusting about it. But. he should of used a different word to describe his feelings. It was an extremely "poor choice" of words....No one deserves to have their daughter called a whore because she supports their opinions and chooses to voice that support. It just goes to show your bias...It doesn't put you in the best of light.

kittinSol -> RE: MSNBC's Chelsea comment angers Clinton (2/9/2008 12:57:57 PM)
We're seeing a lot of mud slinging from conservatives voters at the moment: I wonder if it could have anything to do with the fact that they've already lost this election (McCain being the least conservative of all the Rep. candidates) :-) ?

Alumbrado -> RE: MSNBC's Chelsea comment angers Clinton (2/11/2008 2:10:30 PM)
OK, now I'm confused...if they aren't 'pimping her out' what else do you call having your 28 year old daughter dress up like a little school girl, and going out on dates with superdelegates, when the superdelegates (like Dad and cronies), are going to be the deciding factor in keeping Obama down? http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/Vote2008/story?id=4273078&page=1

DomKen -> RE: MSNBC's Chelsea comment angers Clinton (2/11/2008 2:34:42 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Alumbrado OK, now I'm confused...if they aren't 'pimping her out' what else do you call having your 28 year old daughter dress up like a little school girl, and going out on dates with superdelegates, when the superdelegates (like Dad and cronies), are going to be the deciding factor in keeping Obama down? http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/Vote2008/story?id=4273078&page=1 First of all you made stuff up. The link you provided said nothing about how Chelsea was dressed when she took the young superdelegate to breakfast. Also where was the multiple occasions required to make this "dates." Also the superdelegate in question was 21 years of age and certainly not a crony of Bill Clinton. He made it clear he was a bit flabbergasted by being lobbied personally by Bill Clinton. So how could anyone comment on your claim since it has no basis in fact and is completely made up? Once again I'll point out that I couldn't care less if you dislike someone or some group but don't tell lies to try and make them look bad or I'll happily call you on it.

Zensee -> RE: MSNBC's Chelsea comment angers Clinton (2/11/2008 2:36:46 PM)
Gees, Alumbrado - I picked through that article and there wasn't a jot of schoolgirl wank worthy material, let alone any pics. You sure you haven't been sneaking nips from that big bottle of Ol' Hyperbole, under the bar? Z.

slaveboyforyou -> RE: MSNBC's Chelsea comment angers Clinton (2/11/2008 2:41:23 PM)
quote: It just goes to show your bias...It doesn't put you in the best of light. Well, I will try not to lose any sleep over not being in your good graces.

Alumbrado -> RE: MSNBC's Chelsea comment angers Clinton (2/11/2008 3:10:57 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DomKen quote: ORIGINAL: Alumbrado OK, now I'm confused...if they aren't 'pimping her out' what else do you call having your 28 year old daughter dress up like a little school girl, and going out on dates with superdelegates, when the superdelegates (like Dad and cronies), are going to be the deciding factor in keeping Obama down? http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/Vote2008/story?id=4273078&page=1 First of all you made stuff up. The link you provided said nothing about how Chelsea was dressed when she took the young superdelegate to breakfast. Also where was the multiple occasions required to make this "dates." Also the superdelegate in question was 21 years of age and certainly not a crony of Bill Clinton. He made it clear he was a bit flabbergasted by being lobbied personally by Bill Clinton. So how could anyone comment on your claim since it has no basis in fact and is completely made up? Once again I'll point out that I couldn't care less if you dislike someone or some group but don't tell lies to try and make them look bad or I'll happily call you on it. No, you will continue your tired old dishonest tactic of claiming I said something I never said, twisting my sarcasm into fraudulent assertions, and expecting me to debate you over it. You on the other hand are still running away from the cases where I've linked to impartial facts calling you on your rabid BS assertions, so don't waste anyone's time pretending you've called me on anything. Here are your tactics laid out: 1> The article used the word 'date', so it is a deliberate untruth for you to say I completely made that up. The relevant news coverage has also made clear that this is a series of events where Chelsea goes to college campuses, campaign rallies, party fundraisers, et al. and meets with people likely to help her mother's campaign, hence the tongue in cheek 'dates'. 2> The article shows a photo of Chelsea wearing a high school uniform type cardigan sweater and plain white blouse, and a totally different look for her makeup and hair...one that presents her as passable teenager, certainly nowhere near approaching her 30s..making your claim that the words didn't appear in the article, typically disingenuous. 3> Your twistng of what I said about superdelegates in general (not the the 21 year old) being cronies of Clinton into 'the 21 year old isn't a crony', and thus insinuating that no superdelegates have any relationship with the ex-president is ridiculous... here is a link that again proves you to be flat out wrong. http://superdelegates.org/Main_Page Plenty of crony material in there, care to prove that Chelsea has never campaigned in front of a single one of them? 4> And your most transparent lie, is that my linking to a factual article and daring to ask a sarcastic question defines me as; a) Hating the people in the article b) Fabricating the content of the article and accompanying photo. Feel free to keep spouting your knee jerk bigotry and rabid partisan hatemongering all you want. Just don't expect your deceit and empty threats to keep people who haven't taken a side in this crap from making fun of you, and the icons you worship. That is one of the consequences you accepted when you gave up thinking for yourself, and became a drone of rich politicians.

Alumbrado -> RE: MSNBC's Chelsea comment angers Clinton (2/11/2008 3:13:58 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Zensee Gees, Alumbrado - I picked through that article and there wasn't a jot of schoolgirl wank worthy material, let alone any pics. You sure you haven't been sneaking nips from that big bottle of Ol' Hyperbole, under the bar? Z. From the linked page, with subcaption and clearly accompanying the article... ap_chelsea_080211_ms.jpg Interesting how the non-partisan have no trouble seeing that pic...vanilla as it may be.[;)]

luckydog1 -> RE: MSNBC's Chelsea comment angers Clinton (2/11/2008 3:23:44 PM)
Chelsea is a grown up and in the game by choice, so she is fair game. But really calling her a whore is out of line. Attack her policies and actions. I couldn't find any sort of schoolgirl hooker picture of her on that site, damn you for getting my hopes up... If I were conspiricy minded I might think that that the Heavily Clinton supporting MSNBC called her this to make a bunch of noise to obscure the fact that even though the People are choosing Obama, Hillary is getting more Delegates. And make a big non issue to get sympathy for her. But thats way too far out there to be possible I guess.

DomKen -> RE: MSNBC's Chelsea comment angers Clinton (2/11/2008 4:31:23 PM)
So you didn't like having someone point out the truth so you tried to smear me. How totally unoriginal. responding to your points. 1) you claim your post was sarcastic. I quoted it unedited so as to maintain proof of exactly of what you wrote. No signals of any kind that it was supposed to be a joke. No smileys or other signs that you were joking. I'm going to have to say I simply don't believe your claim. No factual assertion except for your admission that "dates" was not supported so no factual rebuttal is possible. 2) Let's examine that photo's caption. quote: Chelsea Clinton speaks to supporters Friday, Feb. 8, 2008 after a campaign event for her mother, Democratic presidential hopeful, Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton, D-N.Y., at Bowdoin College in Brunswick, Maine. (Joel Page/AP Photo) Now a pertinent two paragraphs from the article: quote: He spends several hours a day in class at Marquette University in Wisconsin where he is majoring in history and political science. He is closely following the Marquette basketball team and has the Golden Eagles' schedule memorized. But not many 21-year-olds start their Monday with a personal breakfast with Chelsea Clinton, as Rae did this morning at the student union at the nearby University of Milwaukee. Now oddly you're claiming the outfit she wore on Friday the 8th in Maine is what she wore to a breakfast on a Monday in Wisconsin. So you had no basis for the claim and your defense was more lies. 3) You tried to make it sound as if the superdelegate in question was one of the Clinton's "cronies." Your claim was based on the link provided as that was the only source you refered to. On that basis I determined you were slurring this young man and Chelsea. I called you on it and you have now tried to squirm away. Too late. 4) You posted a link to an artile after making a series of assertions not supported by the article. You apparently thought no one would check your supposed source. Now that you've been shown to be lieing you claim not to have an agenda. With overwhelming evidence of your complete lack of objectivity on all things Democratic and complete pass on all things Republican your claim is ludicrous and to think you could pull it off shows a contempt for the intelligence of the rest of us on this forum. Next time post something that actually says what you say it says or expect to be called on it again.

Aheeb -> RE: MSNBC's Chelsea comment angers Clinton (2/11/2008 5:53:14 PM)
the term "pimped out" rarly means doing tricks for money now a days. Pretty much Clinton is exploiting her daughter by having her call voters and super delegates on her moms behalf to get sympathy, compasion and votes so yes I do think that she is being pimped out and i think its a bit unfair that the news reported is being fired for making the mistakes even tho he apologized on air but Hillary is known to hold a grudge and throw her wight around.

Zensee -> RE: MSNBC's Chelsea comment angers Clinton (2/11/2008 8:16:07 PM)
A picture of Ms. Clinton in a white shirt and cardigan does not "dress(ing) up like a schhool girl" make. Nor does the article support you assertion that she was pimped out. You twist the article and image out of all proportion. You can read what you like into that bland account and image but if that equates to school-girl porn in your estimation, your tastes are rather tame. Z.

domiguy -> RE: MSNBC's Chelsea comment angers Clinton (2/11/2008 8:23:07 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Aheeb the term "pimped out" rarly means doing tricks for money now a days. Pretty much Clinton is exploiting her daughter by having her call voters and super delegates on her moms behalf to get sympathy, compasion and votes so yes I do think that she is being pimped out and i think its a bit unfair that the news reported is being fired for making the mistakes even tho he apologized on air but Hillary is known to hold a grudge and throw her wight around. So they meant it as a compliment...Like that she looked real "Kewl" right? "Shit, Chelsea you look all pimped out gurl..You sure is fine." I'm sure that is what the guy from MSNBC was alluding to. He used it in a way that it meant that they were whoring her out to do their dirty work....No possibility that she could be doing it of her own accord or that she believes that her mother is the best candidate....You folks should really attempt to think outside of the box every now and again. People use poor choices of words to describe a situation all of the time...That is what this is.

knees2you -> RE: MSNBC's Chelsea comment angers Clinton (2/11/2008 8:32:33 PM)
*I Totally Agree. If you give it,[sm=boxer.gif] boy you better be able to take it!"* *As always, ant[sm=idea.gif]*

Gwynvyd -> RE: MSNBC's Chelsea comment angers Clinton (2/11/2008 8:39:58 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: slaveboyforyou quote: The kids should be left out of the ugly fucked up part of politics. That`s always been the case,I guess till now. Some folks will stoop and lick scum off rocks and yet others seem to think that`s ok and buy into it. One is just as fucked up as the other. Owner, I agree. But Chelsea isn't a kid. She is a grown woman who is highly educated. I don't have anything against her, and I don't know much about her. I don't make judgments on people I don't know. I am judging the Clintons, who I know well. I know they are using her, because a lot of people are curious about Chelsea. She draws crowds, and that's fine. But the Clintons need to make up their mind. Either cut the umbilical cord and allow her to explain her assertions to the press, or keep her away from making speeches and active politics. Ok.. anyone who remembers the 90's remembers how the press attacked Chelsea. and I mean Attacked her. To the point of calling the then child _ugly_ in the press, making fun of her... ect. They were nasty bastards about it, and pulled no punches. You simply do not do that to a child. I dont give a shit what you think about the parents. You leave kids the fuck out of it. So they as good parents went to the press and told them to lay off. Years down the road in her mothers campaign she is calling "Super Delegates" Not the general public.. not publicaly speaking... calling folks whom they know... who are on the same side... for her mom. If she wasnt involved in her mothers campaign in some way or annother I would wonder why. We all would.. and I am sure some slime ball some where would pick up on it, and put it out there that "even her daughter doesnt support her" So lets get real for a fucking moment shall we? yes politics are ugly.. but why in the hell should we give a free pass to someone slinging shit like "she pimped out her daughter" crap. Esp. by a member of the press. Enough is enough. She is a woman.. and she is Hillary Clinton. People are pissed she is running. MSNBC has been particualy nasty to her. Geez.. how dare she run.. she should go back into the kitchen and cook. Get over it folks. Lets raise the bar a bit and hold the press accountable for the shit that gets slinged.. and for the crap they hold onto when they should cover important stuff instead of all of the trivial BS crap. If someone calls Obama's wife a Ho the world would have stopped. Let's keep it real. Gwyn

amelliagrace -> RE: MSNBC's Chelsea comment angers Clinton (2/11/2008 8:41:31 PM)
*Thanks for all of your excellent posts to this thread, Domi.* *Regards-* *Grace*

Alumbrado -> RE: MSNBC's Chelsea comment angers Clinton (2/11/2008 8:43:49 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Zensee A picture of Ms. Clinton in a white shirt and cardigan does not "dress(ing) up like a schhool girl" make. Nor does the article support you assertion that she was pimped out. You twist the article and image out of all proportion. You can read what you like into that bland account and image but if that equates to school-girl porn in your estimation, your tastes are rather tame. Z. Nowhere do I make the claim that she was performing sex for money, or posing for pornography. Those bizzarre connotations came totally from your mind, nowhere else. Perhaps those for whom partisan zealotry has atrophied their ability to grasp sarcasm and use vocabulary in a rational manner, should stay in the shallow end, safely away from things that are over their heads.

Page: << < prev 1 [2] 3 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.046875