Hilary Rosen's Comments on Ann Romney

Every time I see this thread all I can think about is the movie Fletch.

 

Okay. Let's just assume I agree with your take in the first paragraph here. Why would being more of a "wait and see, innocent until proven guilty" mindset in the Zimmerman case but a "Rosen is obviously an evil stay-at-home-mom hating feminazi" approach for that case be not contradictory? Is it that just because the stakes are lower for the parties involved, one is allowed to take a more aggressive approach? Originally you said my views were contradictory. If that is true, so is holding the opposite views for each case.

Of course, they aren't contradictory because they are apples-and-oranges comparisons. A person's death at another person's hand, with conflicting stories and evidence, should be fully investigated as a potential crime. I mean, someone is DEAD by another person's hand. Zimmerman's life will forever be changed either way. It was changed the moment he pulled that trigger whether it was a legal call or not. Obviously, Martin's life has been forever changed in that it has been ended. Not to mention his family. Where were you or anyone else then when Zimmerman took a series of actions that led to the confrontation, to point out that he could be ruining someone's life? Is Martin's now ruined life not worth a look, to see whether it was just to end it?

The difference is one can talk to Ann Romney and hear her side the story, because she wasn't shot in the chest while unarmed. I'd say that is a pretty big distinction in itself. Furthermore, I can listen to and read the entire context of what was going on before and after Rosen said what she said, hear her exact words, etc. With Zimmerman, all I have is his version of events, a 911 tape of him disobeying the instructions of the operator, some witnesses to the immediate aftermath, Martin's girlfriend's testimony about a conversation immediately preceding the event, etc. It warrants further investigation, not a "case closed, self defense" rubber stamp that it appeared well on it's way to getting.

I have never claimed Rosen did not deserve negative PR. That is exactly the kind of hyperbole that is at the heart of this matter. Only that what the story that came out of her words is a complete fabrication. Attack her all you want for promoting "class warfare," being jealous of the wealth, or whatever. But pretending like she said stay at home moms are lazy is, simply, dishonest. A lie, really. Doesn't matter how popular or widespread of one it is.

 

I mean come on, IP. That was awful. Where was I when Zimmerman was killing Trayvon? You've taken the antagonist role to the brink of idiocy.

And you are still ignoring the obvious reasons both Zimmerman and Rosen have for lying. Yet you choose to trust one implicitly and totally ignore the other.

As for the difference in the pursuit of each, I have advocated no punishment for Rosen and honestly don't think she deserves one. Even a worst. Even a worst case scenario for this whole ordeal doesn't see her getting the Imus treatment. In reality she'll receive the level of scorn she probably deserves for dragging Romney's wife into the fray. The punishments for Zimmerman are severe and well defined by law. Even if none of those are doled out, the level of public scorn he is due will make his life pretty rough. Who knows what will happen if Spike Lee's dumbass can figure out his real address. So yes, one case is more serious than the other and Zimmerman's deserves more care and attention to make sure it's gotten right. Americans listening and passing their own judgment on Rosen should be sufficient punishment and adequate due process.

 

And no, implications aren't lies. That is preposterous.

You are essentially saying that there is zero chance Rosen implied what virtually everyone agrees she implied. That everyone is willfully believing a lie. I thought you didn't believe in conspiracies?

 

What she said is plain as day: ann romney does not have sn average lifestyle. She is no more or less in touch with joe blow than her husband is. Romney saying she is his inside source on such things is silly. She said nothing more. If you choose to believe she absolutely said stay at home moms are nad and ignorant, you choosing to believe bullshit. Choosing.

As for idiocy, telling someone their opinions mirror your's seems like such to me. And you can't protect against risks to Zimmerman's life due to questions from him obliterating someone else's without inconsistency. With rosen, i simply look at the context. Woth Zimmerman, I am really asking to look at the same.

 

When have I told anyone their opinions mirror my own? I've done no such thing. Nor have I even implied they should stop investigating Zimmerman's case as you just stated. You rail on inconsistency, but ignore your own from Zimmerman to Rosen. You also seem to have kind of decided on your own what my take on the Zimmerman case is, so perhaps you should refrain from criticizing those who choose to use tone and context as indicators of an overall message.

 

being unemployed isn't exactly the same thing as making the decision to stay home with the kids.

 

she's one ugly women. the only men who find her good looking have massive white guilt or are closet homosexuals. my $.02

 

Anyhow, kind of surprised this event sparked so much debate here. I feel like I've made about all the points I could possibly make (getting a little redundant, actually) and I've failed to convince anyone of anything. I would suspect IPO is probably in a similar position. The level of discourse can only drop from here, so I'll respectfully bow out allow IP to be totally wrong, JK IMO GBO.

 

I was just trying to get laid by rosen. Apparently she isn't impressed with my e-penis any more than she is by actual penises.

 

Wouldn't that be penii?

 

Feminist.

 

Whether Barack Obama likes it or not, he is/will be tied to Rosen. Romney should use this and the video of BHO telling the Russians to give him some time in as many commercials as he can between now and November.

I am not a Romney fan, but I dislike BHO's policies to the point that I might be willing to vote for Romney just out of principle.

 

Why resort to distortions and sound bytes if the policies are so bad? Shouldn't the policies be all the source material needed?

 

What percentage of voters do you think have a strong enough grasp of the issues to even determine what policies are bad beyond mirroring party leaders' stances?

 

Distortions no. Sound bytes? Absolutely.

Sound bytes will appeal to the guy that sitting in his recliner watching TV. Most people couldn't give any specifics about the healthcare bill. But they know for damn sure they don't want some guy who has advisers that bad mouth housewives.

 

10%,
give or take 5%.

 

It's two weeks later and who still gives a shit about Rosen? To think that she will be relevant in six months, much less somehow tied to Obama is some serious wishful thinking. It sounds more like one of those usual anti-Obama things that FoxNews tries to keep afloat for weeks when the expiration date has long since passed.

Besides, people are kidding themselves that this comment is anything equivalent to the sweeping legislation criticized by Democrats regarding invasive procedures for women and work discrimination issues. One is significantly more relevant and meaningful than the other, no matter how much faux outrage is expressed by the right wing media sources.

The Russian thing is dumb, too. It only plays into people who believe something truly nefarious is planned for Obama's second term and those tin foilers weren't going Republican anyway. People with half a brain realize that (1) it's hard to get shit done in an election year and (2) not politically wise to try and do it. Politicians waiting until after an election to do things is pretty standard. It only works on those who fear Obama as the "other".

 

Excellent question.

2%??

 

Excellent question.

2%??