Letters to the Editor
-
walter
supercilious prick, meet scrofulous labia. who says internet dating doesn't work.
-
jeffersonian
Rape means forced sex without consent.
According to AKA Smith, rape is inviting a guy up to her room for a good time and changing her mind twenty-four hours later when he doesn't say the right things when he calls.
We didn't fail to notice that Smith managed to turn yet another discussion on presidential primary politics into yet another vent on her rape obsession. Since counseling hasn't helped you might like to just ignore her.
-
jeffersonian
supercilious prick
Oh, bite me, wouldja? If I want shit out of you I'll squeeze your head.
-
Stentor
What? Because he said Clinty wasn't gonna win on the issues?
-
@ micro ms.
"Asking if Celia would debate a the merits of a man's desire to rape vs. a woman's desire not to be raped? Obviously untenable and intended to anger. Of course she doesn't wish to, but by setting up a construct for debate that demands a particular argument, you lose the debate because you've shut down the conversation."
Thank you for teasing this out- I couldnt wrap my head around this bizarre assertion. You're right, the premise is off. A clever debate tactic but it doesn;t help much towards understanding anything.
-
Well has she won jackshit?
I mean I wouldn't wanna cram it atcha, but what did she win?
-
@ xufapemu
OMG could actually be true about Penn? How do these guys keep getting hired? At least Shrum is not in the picture this time.
Forget retiring debt- Hillary should send Penn a copy of that article and an invoice for any cash she has already paid him!
-
CeliaInSF
Forget retiring debt- Hillary should send Penn a copy of that article and an invoice for any cash she has already paid him!
This suggests very poor judgement on the part of Mrs. Clinton, a characteristic we don't need in yet another president.
Cheney at least had the presence of mind to hire expert con artists. Hillarly can make up her campaign financial losses by selling out the workers at Wal*Mart again.
-
She wants to be president?
Hillary has bankrupted her campaign; hired Penn who still believes in winner-take-all primaries; has huge problems with her campaign staff; changes her goal posts every time she wins or loses; cannot control her out of control husband; thinks that the American people owe her the crown; lies about FP; lies about experience; seen her former friends now in the Obama camp; resorts to cheap fearmongering
and we should turn over the keys of the country to this incompetent wretch? Haven't we had enough with Bush?
-
Do NOT give her a veto over the VP nominee
That way she can tactfully say no to another woman making it onto the ticket to steal her spotlight. She could ensure that none of the potential 2012 candidates get positioned for a run in case Obama should fail in November.
AND THIS WOULD HELP THE DEMOCRATIC PARTY AND/OR WOMEN IN POLITICS EXACTLY HOW???
No thanks, I'd rather he just did what he's started doing, namely ignoring her.
-
walter_map
Oh yes, there are many ways in which she has shown poor judgement. Particularly in not having an actual campaign ready since she was expecting a coronation. Still don't think she should pay another penny to that douche Penn. And not just on this on the Columbia flap too- how do they come up with these guys?
-
08YesWeCan
and we should turn over the keys of the country to this incompetent wretch? Haven't we had enough with Bush?
True enough. But Bush was so bad he'd even make Hillary look good.
Still, we need to bring the Clintonites in, to get them behind the Democratic candidate. We're also going to need them to help clean up the vast mess left by the Bushites. Plenty for everybody to do.
-
@ micro ms.
You see yourself putting feet in the fire and I see unnecessarily harsh, borderline rational arguments.
It doesn't matter. They never answer my rational arguments either.
Okay, I am going to be really rude. It seems that the younger generation doesn't really understand much about argument sometimes. Logic whizzes past them. I knew we were in trouble when I first taught freshmen composition and I told them I was going to teach the class how to construct an argument. I got protests that argument was bad. People weren't supposed to argue. Now, as the internet has come to the fore, too many of them still don't know how to argue, but they have surely learned the power of invective. They do understand hyperbole, and all of them know how to construct strawmen. Red herrings abound. I think I can be forgiven for employing a few of my own.
You aren't clearing up anything for younger women, you're coming off as condescending and irrational. It's all about tone, and online formats are tone deaf. Sarcasm is lost, passion is lost.... it's an environment ripe with opportunity for miscommunication.
I am angry. I am angry that they dismiss women who support Hillary and all they can talk about is the war, despite the fact that Obama never voted against the war, his plan for exiting is almost like hers, and his position on Iran going nuclear is essentially the same has hers. He just did use the word obliberate. Too many of them seem to think the war is the only issue.
I am also quite angry -- and have been for some time -- at the cavalier way that they accept casual sexist insults and see so little harm in them. My daughter has the same attitude, although she is not an Obama supporter. They don't realize that feminism has lost ground not by some big social upheaval but by fleabites. It's quite frustrating. If you toss out pay equity, if you toss out sexual harrassment, if you toss out a realization that women are often the crime victims of men, then you have little left but choice. Choice is important to empower women, but it is not enough.
Some people feed off of that, but more often than not, it makes us lose our own arguments. Asking if Celia would debate a the merits of a man's desire to rape vs. a woman's desire not to be raped? Obviously untenable and intended to anger. Of course she doesn't wish to, but by setting up a construct for debate that demands a particular argument, you lose the debate because you've shut down the conversation.
Not really. Because I still have another post to answer of CeliaSF. She's still talking.
I don't expect anyone to jump on board in support of Barack. After all, the primary isn't over yet. I can only hope that you'll see the post on this site for what they are, the ravings of lunatics. I include myself in that. I mean, what sane person gets in arguments with people they will never meet in a format that doesn't really go anywhere? The truth is that there are jerks within all of the campaigns, but there are far more decent people. They just aren't posting here. I hope you'll give the general election the same sort of time you've given the primaries.
I suspect that the same online jerks will be making things miserable for everyone. The same people who were calling Hillary a bitch because the only words they can use against a woman are sexist will be calling McCain Grampa and the old geezer and offending everyone over 60.
We will see how the general election goes. If Hillary is on the ticket in either place I will vote Dem.
As to TRenee, we have argued before. It always ends the same. She declares not to engage me and implies that I am racist. I don't know why she doesn't just put me on her ignore list since I seem to upset her so much. If I had that many issues with someone, I would just not post to them.
Like I said before, maybe she is working out some karma thing.