How offensive can Hillary Foes be?
StarTribune.com, Minneapolis-St. Paul, Minnesota
By Jonathan Tilove, Newhouse News Service
Last update: December 9, 2007 - 4:08 PM
This article qualifies as the stupidest, most ridiculous article I've read on the web in weeks upon weeks.
It belongs in a class by itself, it is so inane and stupid.
It's about casting stereotypes in order to deny what is true and also deeply felt about candidate Hillary Clinton.
A conservative Republican woman running for president might provoke a far less angry male response, said sociologist C.J. Pascoe, a researcher with the Digital Youth Project at Berkeley's Institute for the Study of Social Change. "This would not be happening if it were Elizabeth Dole," Pascoe said.
But, she said, Clinton offers young men on social networking sites a ripe target for their aggression.
Elizabeth Dole has never been the dishonorable femme as has been Hillary.
Of course, this just cannot occur to the author and those quoted in the article.
After the famous hanging chad episode the Lady in Florida was horribly mistreated in press by the very feminists who uphold the same ideology being put forth in this article.
When it comes to cattiness, men don't hold a candle to what females can do and say.
When, say, Republicans can run entire colleges featuring paid professors at high salaries constantly kvetching about the "vagina with teeth" -- then perhaps there might be some parity with all the viscious stereotyping by Democrat females about males.
Yes, I found this article to be OBSCENE. Pornographic.
Thanks to several thousand years of phallocentric history, there is no comparable vocabulary of degradation for men, no equivalently rich trove of synonyms for a sexually sullied male. As for the word beginning with C? No single term for a man reduces him to his genitals to such devastating effect.
Baloney. The negative image of males now sells Hallmark cards. Entire magazine enterprises have booned surrounding this. Entire pub ed curriculae brought to millions of boys and girls surrounds the evilness of the "penis people".
What the left hates most, I think, is that the phrase Bill Clinton has become the modern day perjorative.
And the very feminists who say they hate cads, celebrated Bill Clinton's cadness.
This article was written by liars for other liars.
Oh My EYES.
Not only does Hillary remain wed to Bill Clinton, she's now adored by her feminist fans for... what? Being a "skank"? A "slut"? A "Woman Who Loves Too Much?" Take your pick.
Most women with self respect would have dumped the cad long ago.
And Feminists wonder why Hillary gets called names from ALL SIDES OF THE AISLES.
This article is ripe, rank tripe.
Those authoring and cited in this article have got to be seriously unhinged:
One is "Hillary Clinton: Stop Running for President and Make Me a Sandwich," with more than 23,000 members and 2,200 "wall posts" -- Internet graffiti in which participants have fantasized about Clinton being raped by a donkey.
And she continually DID make him a sandwich after his "bad boy" episodes. Obviously, his to his own, and hers to her own? How can one seriously dispute the fury and obvious disgust with this couple?
Is the language horrid? YES. But the thoughts which underlie such neanderthalic wordings carry a subtext which the authors and "thinkers" of this article refuse to comprehend.
The Clinton couple embody the very domestic violence "scenarios" constantly fought by taxpayer dollars. She's not "burning Billy's bed" but she has tempered him into her dog to help her with her campaign. He continues, obviously, to get his rocks off with whomever and whatever, and somehow the authors and those quoted in this article wish others to give this couple RESPECT???
On his radio show, which reaches 14.5 million people, Rush Limbaugh talks about Clinton's "testicle lock box." On his MSNBC show, Tucker Carlson says, "There's just something about her that feels castrating, overbearing and scary," and a guest, Cliff May, president of the Foundation for Defense of Democracies and a former spokesman for the Republican National Committee, says that if Clinton is going to appeal to women for support on the basis of her gender, "at least call her a vaginal-American."
Hillary sees Bill as her dog. Obviously. She gives him "treats" whenever he's been a "bad doggie". And he continues to back to his alpha pack leader, Hillary. "Testicle lock box" is a very apt image.
Hillary's "vagina" is her brain. She thinks with her vagina. She has sex with her brain. The Clintons are seriously dysfunctional.
And this article is mewling over something which they do not comprehend.
And while they consider themselves more intelligent than anyone else, obviously more intelligent than anyone reading their blatherings.
Oh, this article is rank. It smells of stale boiled cabbage. And I truly best stop here before I get into the odors which emanate from a female who constantly takes back to herself a philandering husband.
Let me end by saying: No wonder she's for Universal Healthcare. Will probably save her a load of co-payments for yeast infections, STDs and other such troubles.
In the name of public health. In the name of all that is good and decent, the article author and those he cites should be barred from public spewage ever again.
The horror of their illness and witlessness. The inanity of their thoughts. The mere audacity of sharing their "dysfunctionalities" as a "normalcy".
Candidate Hillary and her co-partner Bill do NOT move American women Forward, obviously, they move American women to a place they'd never wished to be: compromised.
But *that* is obviously far more than the article author and his cite-ettes can begin to comprehend. Like adolescents, they can only focus on the negatives being directed at their candidate, Hillary Clinton.
The only ones who couldn't comprehend the sheer nature of the perversity of this article have got to be Vaginal-Americans like Hillary herself.
I hear it is dark in there, and there's teeth.
Oviously, the article author and cite-ettes resent the "teeth" part. But don't mind the darkness of their own thoughts whatsoever.