lgwalker53: "How is it that you still can't see or call a "sexist" comment a sexist comment; or, more appropriately: why is it that you can't and won't call these comments what they are?"

Which comment are we talking about? That's the problem -- you won't even come out and say what you're referring to. If you want to bring out an actual quote, and discuss why those specific words are sexist in calm, rational manner, then please, go ahead.

lgwalker53: "Of course, if you really want to debate sexism and why several of the comments I used as examples are such, we could talk about how sexism is ingrained in the attitudes, from which the words and/or phrases follow. Would you understand it, then?"

Which examples again? I think you should stick to what is "sexist" in whatever examples you come up with. If you want to talk about a "sexist attitude" you're going to have a bigger challenge, because you seem to lack restraint in what you label as such.

lgwalker53: "And about the so-called "ad hominem" attacks against you: how can they be ad hominem when based on previous experience with you they seem to have merit?"

Whether or not you feel justified in your ad-hominem comments, why deny that they are ad-hominem in nature?

lgwalker53: "Is it ad hominem to say that you act like a 16-year old..."

Yes, that is an ad-hominem statement, by definition, regardless of the reason for using it. The nature of the statement is distinct from the motivation behind the statement.

lgwalker53: "(name-calling, baiting, generalizing, using red herrings and straw men)?"

I challenge you to demonstrate one instance of me using a straw-man argument. That would include explaining how it was a straw-man argument, not merely copying, pasting, and then labeling it.

lgwalker53: "Or ad hominem to make a comment about what "seems to be the doughnut hole that is your brain..."

Yes, that is ad-hominem, regardless of your reason for saying it. Again, it's a simple definition: look it up.

lgwalker53: "I haven't seen any indication that you understand or acknowledge one word of any of the points I have called you on before?"

I tend to address your points in detail. If there's something that you feel I've missed, then let's hear it.

lgwalker53: "Nor that you seem to have changed your behavior, at least based on several posts between us over a good hour-plus about a week ago?"

What behavior was I supposed to change?

lgwalker53: "Is it ad hominem when I tell you that your knowledge and understanding of feminism is "about enough to fit into a sperm cell"...

Yes, that is ad-hominem, albeit a colorful form of it. Not sure what your preoccupation with sperm is...

lgwalker53: "...you vilify Sen. Clinton through the language you use..."

Which language did I use? Examples?

lgwalker53: "...and your constant dismissal/denial/downplay of her long and distinguished public service record?"

I have gone into detail about my discussion of Hillary Clinton's record. I have already stated that I would probably not discuss it as much if her supporters, and if she, did not attempt to make such an issue of it. Saying "I have 35 years of experience" and then trying to claim her opponent has nearly no experience calls for examination of those 35 years and what they amount to. Her time as First Lady is ripe for examination since there is an open debate as to HOW those years count as experience. Same with her 16 years at the Rose Law Firm: serving on the board of directors of Wal-Mart for 6 of those years isn't necessarily the kind of experience for public office that some would consider positive. It's an open question, in any case. I am not vilifying her, I am responding to a point made on her behalf, and taking a critical look at some aspects of that point. Is that sexist? I don't think so. If we were talking about a male candidate who claimed "35 years of experience," and yet much of that experience was spent serving corporate interests, you can be sure that I would make the exact same types of comments. Gender has nothing to do with it. In any case, nothing was really established in the conversations you and I had other than our difference of opinion.

lgwalker53: "Since it appears that you want to continue to twist words and take no responsibility for past "comments" or conversations that have been POINTED OUT as sexist and/or as race-baiting"

Again, what comments were sexist? And especially, what was race-baiting? I mean, I REALLY don't get that charge. Who isn't taking responsibility here? You're making a charge against me and then avoiding backing it up with any examples? Where did I "race-bait"? I am really, really curious to know what you're referring to here. If you reply to anything in this comment, please reply to that. What was sexist, and what was race-baiting? The onus is on you.

lgwalker53: "...filled with fallacies..."

I think I've pretty well debunked that one, as well as demonstrated you don't even understand many of the fallacy terms that you used.

lgwalker53: "...and on several occasions filled with outright lies..."

Such as? Man, you just keep going but you don't provide details. If I lied, I would love to know what the lie was. My guess is it's another case of you confusing a value judgment with a factual judgment.

lgwalker53: "...there are no arguments, honest or otherwise, that I can make."

Taking this phrase out of context, I have to agree with you.

lgwalker53: "It does give more credence to my point, however, that there seem to be an awful lot of so-called "progressive" men in the Democratic Party who are just as sexist as their 60s and 70s progenitors."

You sure like calling people sexist without providing any tangible reason.

Ironic coming from a cold fish.

First there was the hippy Mom pursuing HER dream and dragging little Barack around with her while his foreigner father had high-tailed it back to Africa and rhen had many more authentically African children. Ann now had a new man in her life, another exotic guy, and the child had no choice but to go to Indonesia with his free-spirited mother and fit into a Muslim society, adapt to an Indonesian stepfather who attended the mosque. Mom also had a new baby and this time it was a girl.

Petticoat rule continued when ten year old Barack had to move again, for whatever reason, and Grandmother Dunham took over. Although the little boy looked exceptionally like Grandfather Dunham, with darker skin, it was Gramma who ruled the roost. She's still alive but being kept under wraps although John McCain's mother, in her 90s, is not.

The next significant woman in Barack's live is Michelle Robinson. She was his boss and is the assertive type, very mouthy and sarcastic. Maureen Dowd of The New York Times had to rebuke Michelle for emasculating Barack in public and making fun of him.

Then there's Oprah, mother-figure to millions of sad people, and it was SHE who got Barack's show on the road, and he knows it. Talk about being "pussy-whipped"! You'd really have to feel sorry for him with others writing his lovely speeches and ordering him to go away and learn them word-perfect, as though he was still a schoolboy. Then there's Axelrod and Plouffe riding to the rescue and telling him what to say when he learned a speech which Axelrod had already got for Deval Patrick in 2006. It's just so unfair but those bossy women are the worst of all. Oprah is nice though, just like a real Mom. With no children of her own, did Oprah secretly adopt Barack? It wouldn't be a surprise if she did as he's so cute.