Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News Editorials & Other Articles General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

General Discussion

My Good Babushka

(2,710 posts)

12. He should have asked

Reply to Brickbat (Reply #10)

Thu Apr 14, 2016, 12:33 PM

Apr 2016

Is Hillary a quid pro quo politician who will favor corporate-friendly legislation for campaign and foundation contributions, because it sure looks like it. Has anything she's ever proposed been more favorable to the underprivileged than to the very privileged. It's too bad the speaker wasn't elegant and refined enough for the delicate sensibilities of some.

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

29 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

If I call someone an ass hat [View all] My Good Babushka Apr 2016 OP

Obviously. In_The_Wind Apr 2016 #1

indeed... yuiyoshida Apr 2016 #2

It only takes three asshats. nt JustABozoOnThisBus Apr 2016 #3

That must be common then yuiyoshida Apr 2016 #4

I'd hate to see an ass hat rack. nt Javaman Apr 2016 #6

Is "hat" a gendered term? Brickbat Apr 2016 #5

Neither hat nor whore are gendered terms. nt. My Good Babushka Apr 2016 #7

Says you. Brickbat Apr 2016 #8

I don't think it is. Others think it is. My Good Babushka Apr 2016 #9

Oh shit, I never thought about the slippery slope that might appear if people stopped using Brickbat Apr 2016 #10

Joanna Weiss Orrex Apr 2016 #11

It's certainly used in that way. Brickbat Apr 2016 #14

Dare we consider that its use might depend on context? Orrex Apr 2016 #15

Absolutely. But as I say below, to pretend that you are using one context and couldn't possibly mean Brickbat Apr 2016 #16

Some of the burden is on the reader or listener Orrex Apr 2016 #19

Fortunately, names are generally fairly straightforward. Brickbat Apr 2016 #20

I used a name as a silly example, but there are many others Orrex Apr 2016 #21

"You are arguing that a speaker/writer must self-censor in order to avoid words that some people Brickbat Apr 2016 #23

Lovely Orrex Apr 2016 #24

Fair enough. Brickbat Apr 2016 #25

He should have asked My Good Babushka Apr 2016 #12

Part of communicating clearly is understanding whether any of your words carry baggage. Brickbat Apr 2016 #13

It can be said that some are feigning outrage My Good Babushka Apr 2016 #17

It can, indeed, be said. Brickbat Apr 2016 #18

I prefer the term Corporate Stooge. n/t OnlinePoker Apr 2016 #22

Clearly not obvious to many at DU. Recommended. guillaumeb Apr 2016 #26

some like to feign ignorance almost as much as they feign outrage 2pooped2pop Apr 2016 #27

This thread needs pictures sarisataka Apr 2016 #28

What ever! I am not at all surprised at the condoning of the use of this word against women leftofcool Apr 2016 #29