[QUOTE=davieddy;141028]Prick?[/QUOTE]

Slang for the male member or the owner thereof, but not considered especially pejorative in either context. Calling someone "a prick" is roughly equivalent to calling him "a jerk", maybe just a tad harsher.

Actually, "prick" and "bitch" strike me as roughly similar in terms of gender-specific harshness - in that regard one might ask why I censored the latter from Bob's post, the answer being that his accompanying use of the c-word pretty much cost him "privilege of anti-female pejorative" for the entire post.

My turn:

I'd be interested to hear what the Euros on this board think of that peculiar U.S. slang pejorative, "douchebag". I must admit it somehow rolls satisfyingly off the tongue, and has the benefit of not describing anything particularly "dirty" or "naughty".

[QUOTE=Uncwilly;141029]So general vulgarity is ok? And using terms of destain are not? I would have hoped that all vulgar slang would be censored.[/QUOTE]

I don't think a modest amount of mildly coarse language is deserving of censorship. Opinions from other readers on the topic are of course welcome.

(* ahem *)

Allow George and me to lead a return to civility (against the grain of some of our earlier postings when we were young and excitable), [I]not to mention [U]the thread topic[/U][/I] ...

[quote=Prime95;140996]IMO, they completely miss the boat in calling the choice of Palin a "snap decision". In fact, McCain made a brilliant calculated decision. The pick united [I]and motivated[/I] his base. Prior to Palin there was a significant chance the base would stay home. Palin also brings some of the independent women vote into play. It also brings interest to his campaign. Would any other VP candidate have generated 6 straight days of headline coverage? Would any other VP candidate have brought in 37 million viewers?[/quote]Yes, McCain seems, so far, to have been very good at this one.

What some might wonder, though, is whether McCain's publicly-expressed preference for quick decisions is appropriate for the office where, as has been pointed out many times in history, only the toughest-to-resolve questions reach the desk (all easier questions having been decided at lower levels).

[quote]Of course, Palin is not the most qualified to take over should the need arise.[/quote]"Only a heartbeat away from the presidency" is, IIRC, one view of the VP role. ... and McCain would be the [I]oldest-ever[/I] person to begin that presidency! Ay, yi, yi!

Some of us are _very, very_ concerned about that scenario! We certainly want to find out whether any of McCain's medical conditions are of the lifespan-shortening variety rather than merely the can't-raise-arms-above-shoulder type.

[quote]But from McCain's point of view the country will be better off if he becomes President and Palin gives him the best chance of that occurring.[/quote]I agree with that logic. I just worry about what would happen _after_ McCain would achieve that goal.

[quote]What's interesting, and somewhat sad, to me is that the press, pundits, and public seem more interested in her family life, her daughter's pregnancy, whether a mother with lots of children one with special needs can be a VP.[/quote]The other three (Biden, McCain, Obama) have already been in the national spotlight for at least a few years. Little details, similar to those, about them have already been sought-out and published. Palin's new to that spotlight. I, like tens of millions of other American voters, never even heard of her before ... when was it? ... eight or nine [B]days[/B] ago!

[quote]They don't spend much time talking about her real qualifications.[/quote]Uh, George -- she doesn't have any on the [U]national[/U] scale, yet. The other three do, in the United States Senate where important [U]national[/U] matters are debated and decided. There [I]is[/I] an obvious contrast there.

C'mon -- you can't realistically expect the press not to ask all sorts of basic questions about the personal life of a person nominated to be "only a heartbeat away from the presidency". It's _not_ political bias. It's that she's so new in the spotlight.

[quote]he also has a track record of being vindictive and prickly - not exactly consistent with the image he wants to project as one who can work with Democrats.[/quote]... or as one who can work well with foreign leaders ... or as one who can control his emotions when making important national decisions under intense pressure!

[quote=ewmayer;141030]
I'd be interested to hear what the Euros on this board think of that peculiar U.S. slang pejorative, "douchebag". I must admit it somehow rolls satisfyingly off the tongue, and has the benefit of not describing anything particularly "dirty" or "naughty".

[/quote]

Is a douche related to a bidet, or am I being too naive?
The OP asked what we (outside) made of the US elections.
As for the term "nigger" its use in the pejorative sense led
to its (deserved) rejection as an acceptable term.
But how do you spot an "American of African Origin" or
for that matter an Injun?

C'mon ... back to "New U.S. President", please?

[quote=cheesehead;141039]C'mon ... back to the topic, please?[/quote]
Either that or a new thread "What is a pottymouth?"
I believe in calling a spade a spade.
This side of the pond "political correctness" has thankfully
become a term of ridicule.

[QUOTE=wblipp;141008]That's twice Bob has resorted to misogynist, politically incorrect and offensive terminology to describe to Palin. If she inspires such hatred from ranting left wingers like Bob, she is an inspired selection.

On the other hand, Bob needs a timeout until he can get his potty mouth under control.

Kudos to the moderators for acting fast on censoring Bob's garbage[/QUOTE]

I suggest that you count the number of times I have actually used
profanity in this forum...... My choice of language here was deliberate
and well deserved.

This SPOS has gone on record stating not only that she is opposed to
gay marriage (which is not really OK, but I understand it) that partners
of gay people do not deserve benefits. This is one of the most hateful
things imaginable. She thinks she is entitled to censor books she does
not like, (and abuse her authority in the process), practice outright
bigotry, force her religion on everyone else, preach abstinance when
she herself was unwed and pregant, etc. etc. ad nauseum.

**** I said, and I STAND BY IT. I will NOT apologize. This woman
is dangerous.

[quote=wblipp;141008] misogynist, politically incorrect ........[/quote]
Is that spelt right?

[QUOTE=cheesehead;141037]Uh, George -- she doesn't have any on the [U]national[/U] scale, yet...[/quote]

She has some but not much. Any state governor will have some familiarity with national issues that affect their state.

[quote]C'mon -- you can't realistically expect the press not to ask all sorts of basic questions about the personal life of a person nominated to be "only a heartbeat away from the presidency". It's _not_ political bias. It's that she's so new in the spotlight.[/QUOTE]

I expect the national news to report the basic personal biography factually and then move on. Then I expect them to do the far more important work of reporting on, discussing, and debating her experience, strengths, and weaknesses. Instead, they have reported the personal biography and then debated how her personal life might affect her role as VP.

For example, one of the morning news shows today spent 10 minutes discussing whether a mother of 5 should be a VP? whether she should be VP because of her son's Downs syndrome? would a male be asked the same questions? yada, yada, yada.

They should have been focused on: What is her national and foreign policy experience? Is it enough? How does her religious background affect her public policy positions? What can we learn about her positions from her track record?

Maybe more of that will come out in the debates, but I doubt it. The VP traditionally just parrots the top of ticket's positions. If so, we'll know very little about what a Palin presidency might bring. As you point out, her personal beliefs are important because of McCain's age.

In other words, my beef is that the press & public are concentrating on the fluff not the meat.

[QUOTE=davieddy;141055]Is that spelt right?[/QUOTE]Is what spel{led,t} correctly? It looks OK to me.

Paul

[spoiler]He who lives by the pen shall die by the pen, or something like that.[/spoiler]

[quote=xilman;141065]Is what spel{led,t} correctly? It looks OK to me.

Paul

[spoiler]He who lives by the pen shall die by the pen, or something like that.[/spoiler][/quote]
Touche:smile:
Gynochology should have been a giveaway.

[QUOTE=Prime95;140996]whether a mother with lots of children one with special needs can be a VP. They don't spend much time talking about her real qualifications.



Now McCain has enough of a maverick reputation .[/QUOTE]

Maverick?? His voting record is public record. He voted with Bush
90+% of the time!!!!!!!

Actually, I would not object to McCain as president except for one
thing: his stance on Iraq.

And as for being a raving left winger, I voted for Romney as governor,
and I voted for Michael Sargent as governor (another republican).
I do not like the rampant social welfare in the U.S. (a right wing view),
I do not like allowing in all the immigrants (another right wing view),
and I am a strong advocate for requiring personal responsibility
(another right wing view)

Palin, OTOH is DANGEROUS. She tried to use her executive authority
as mayor to get a librarian fired because the librarian would not
censor books that were contrary to Palin's religious views.
[b]Can't you all see how dangerous that is???? [/b]She wants to teach
Creationism in school. The courts have already ruled that this is just
a disguised attempt to force the teaching of religion in schools.
[b]Can't you all see how dangerous that is???? [/b]
She wants not only to ban gay marriage, but to deny rights to domestic
partners of gays. [b]Can't you all see how dangerous that is???? [/b]

This is a woman who wants to force her religious views on others,
to deny rights to others based on those views, to practice censorship
based on those views. Someone called me a raving left winger.
I am simply someone who believes in the U.S. Constitution and its
guarantees of equal rights for ALL and on its guarantees of religious
freedom FOR ALL. The latter includes the right not to have the RRR
force its religion on everyone else.

This woman has me [b]freaking terrified[/b] that (owing to McCain's age)
she would become president!!! She was selected by McCain's
advisors to appease the RRR.

I do NOT buy the arguments about "unqualified due to experience".
Both Carter and Slick Willie have both stated that there is no prior
experience that helps once one becomes president. It is "on the
job training". How much experience did Lincoln (our most reverred
president) have? Zilch. This "unqualified" nonsense is an excuse
one side uses to attack the other.

BTW, one common argument of the RRR regarding gay rights is that it
will undermine/damage traditional marriage. As it turns out, the impact
on traditional marriage in Mass. has been ZILCH. It is just another lie
the RRR uses to further their social bigotry and repressive attitude.
Its impact on traditional marriage has been exactly zero. It is just
another excuse the RRR use in order to be socially repressive.
Indded, the Republican's use the word 'liberal' as if it were a dirty word.
I suggest in the same vein that everyone stop using the word 'conservative'
and replace it with 'social repressive'.