Letters to the Editor
-
Stentor
You said "cram it." Is that the same thing as "stick it up your ass?"
-
@ TRenee
As usual, when you cannot actually counter another's argument point-by-point, you resort to trying to imply that the other person is racist.
How's that working for you?
Enjoy yourself by resting assured that you have the support of people like jeffersonian -- at least until you end up on the other side of the argument with him. Then see how quickly you will become just another sexist slur.
-
Smith
You're own argument isn't going all that swimmingly either.
-
Smith and KateTex
will soon be in the loony bin, while Hillary will still be running way after Obama is inaugurated in January. Amazing how delusional they are of their own small intelect.
-
Stentor
Because if anyone ever had the temerity to say that to my face, they would be picking themselves up off the floor, bleeding, or both.
Oh, Stunted One, you're such a tough guy.
Taking an Angry Pill every day is one thing, but you seem to have wolfed down the whole bottle.
You jackasses seem to think that if someone disagrees with you, that they are a fundamentally flawed human being, or stupid.
Not everybody. Mostly just you.
This is America, and I am entitled to my opinion, and my vote.
Fine. Go vote.
The only way to deal with somebody like you is to shut you up in a room by yourself. Lacking any other target you'll eventually just beat yourself up.
Maybe you could teach yourself some manners.
-
Mark Penn thought primaries were winner take all?
From a report in Time magazine:
Clinton picked people for her team primarily for their loyalty to her, instead of their mastery of the game. That became abundantly clear in a strategy session last year, according to two people who were there. As aides looked over the campaign calendar, chief strategist Mark Penn confidently predicted that an early win in California would put her over the top because she would pick up all the state's 370 delegates. It sounded smart, but as every high school civics student now knows, Penn was wrong: Democrats, unlike the Republicans, apportion their delegates according to vote totals, rather than allowing any state to award them winner-take-all. Sitting nearby, veteran Democratic insider Harold M. Ickes, who had helped write those rules, was horrified -- and let Penn know it. "How can it possibly be," Ickes asked, "that the much vaunted chief strategist doesn't understand proportional allocation?" And yet the strategy remained the same, with the campaign making its bet on big-state victories.
This type of incompetence is why she lost, and should have lost.
-
smith the self righteous
so, your stats are bullshit, just like I thought. Rape means forced sex without consent. That's all it means, and it's an appalling thing. Your attitude is of the bottom feeding variety that normally elicits the c, b, a, and mf words. that's what you want: confrontation, so you can feel so very righteous. Piss off. I didn't call Hill a beaver: I called beaver a beaver, since she's so pretentious she chose a French nom de guerre that means beaver. Billary has been bitchy; so has Bill, and Penn, and Lanny Davis. It's not a gender issue. You're pathetic.
-
Re:Funny Story about that word
I was walking between my parents (Dad & Stepmother) one time when I was little, about eight or nine, I think. We were in Lincoln, Nebraska because he was working on his Masters Degree in Music, so it was definitely summertime. I know we had just parked the car near an alley, and we were walking to a pizza parlor. My Dad was listening to something my Stepmom was saying, and he said to her, "Oh, cram it." me being young and ignorant of what that meant, I said, "Yeah, cram it." My Dad promptly popped me in the mouth, and I remember being pissed off the rest of the night for getting hit for something I didn't even know what it was.
It wasn't until years later that I learned that cram it meant stick it up your ass, but I always remembered that from my childhood. It wasn't funny at the time, but it's pretty funny now.
Go back to about page 1 through 9, and just read the level of putdowns from some of the posters to those people who were defending Clinton. The sheer amount of condescending name-calling just completely pissed me off, so I jumped in with both feet, and barrels, and let a few sanctimonious donkeys know what I thought. Some responded with name calling, I was calling names, but there's a difference between saying eff-yoo, and ad hominem, which was what the majority of what I did, later on, it degenerated to the point where I just walked away from the keyboard.
Some of these people would vote for a turnip if it was running against Hillary. It's not so much that they want Obama to win, it's just that they want her to lose. And that puts them in with the rest of the American Specator crowd in my mind. I had to live through those years, and what the Clintons had to put up with back then was just complete, and total, horseshit. From the media, from Congress, from anyone who had an axe to grind with them. When David Brock didn't quite do the hit job the Republican Right wanted, they completely ousted him. Some in the Obama crowd act just like that, and there's a word for it, bully. They may not be physically intimidating others, but they're acting just like it in the verbal sense. Only one way to handle bullies, of any stripe, you invite them outside to discuss it further.
-
Clinton supporters passing through the five stages of grief
And from the looks of it, it seems there now going through Anger.
Next comes the bargaining. I'm guessing that will have something to do with the VP slot, FL and MI, and Clinton's campaign debts.
-
xufapemu
This type of incompetence is why she lost, and should have lost.
Yeah, well, she wasn't going to win on the issues, either.
-
Re:Walter Map is what's wrong with this whole thread.
Yeah, and you're a supercilious prick.
-
@ AKA
"I'll bite. How would you protect men against violence?"
In the ways that you mention. But also in our political decisions. I'm still taken aback at how you can dismiss or ignore Hillary's war vote.
One way to reduce violence is if we start rejecting is politically. Don't hit your kids and don't bomb you neighbors. We can get into the merits of self defense but with Iraq and threatened premption in Iran is permission that you can kill people before they even hurt you.
We can look at the way we treat our problems, locking up mentally ill and drug additcted people with the rapists and murderers. all of our social problems are addressed with war - the war on drugs the war on poverty- but I'm less concerned with linguistic war than with actual violence.
I'm going backwards here but another point:
"No, we are still there. Also, do you think that people didn't think these things were wrong in the past? They did!"
Some did, most didn't. It was acceptable until far too recently to beat your wife or or for either parent to beat their child. It was considered a private matter. It was ony in the last couple of decades people recognized spousal rape, date rape or grey rape at all. (Rape bad and crime prior but it was a crime of property not violence.)
All of this we can credit with the first and second wave of feminism. The second wave saw the need for itself - we're you throwing off, discarding or dissmissing the gains of the first wave? Certainly not! Neither is the third.