>From the brimming cesspool of idiocy that FFL often shows itself to be, a fascinating sequence of utter obtuseness:
--- In [email protected], Sal Sunshine <salsunsh...@...> wrote: <snip> > Not to mention that Judy consistently misses the fact > that since the "sexism" used against HC was out in the > open, rather than hidden (all according to her) that's > about the best situation one could hope for Right, Stupid Sal. For people to treat her with respect would have been a poor second to open, contemptuous sexism. ...(assuming, > of course, that there really *was* sexism, and that it > wasn't just a figment of, um, some of her more fanatical > followers trying to justify her loss any way they could.) The sexism was, of course, *very* widely remarked in the media, not just among her supporters by any means. It was rampant on FFL, just to mention the most obvious example. And speaking for myself, I've *never* said she lost because of the sexism; I believe, in fact, that I've said she *didn't* lose because of it. So Stupid Sal can't even read, let alone come up with a coherent argument. > since having something out in the open usually means > it's a lot easier to deal with, right? Obviously (to anyone other than Stupid Sal), it very much depends on the situation and what the "something" is. But that, of course, not only isn't the point but makes no sense in this context. So why didn't > Hillary deal with it? Because either it didn't exist, or > it was so negligible she didn't want to waste her time. As Raunchy pointed out, she was very much aware of it. As should be blindingly obvious, she didn't mention it because she'd have been accused of "whining" by disgusting people like Stupid Sal, do.rkflex, and Barry the Misogynist. Women politicians aren't *allowed* to complain about sexism. That's part of the sexist mindset they have to deal with. But that doesn't apply to *supporters* of women politicians. The whole game here is to exercise the sexism when it'll damage the candidate, and then DISAPPEAR it once the campaign is over, pretend it never happened, stigmatize anybody who dares mention it. Racism, of course, is an entirely different matter. > It's pretty astounding that two people who profess > to be Democrats could wish something heinous were > hidden rather than obvious. But there you have it... And Sal's puerile yammering wouldn't be complete without a big fat VERY stupid lie at the end. Neither Raunchy nor I, of course, wished the sexism against Hillary could have been "hidden." Just how much of a nitwit does Sal have to be to make up something like that and think it'll pass muster?? But there you have it... do.rkflex's response to Sal is, if anything, stupider than her post: --- In [email protected], "do.rflex" <do.rf...@...> wrote: <snip> > I don't think there's anyone on this forum who can't > see that RD and Judy are bitterly biased against > Obama because their candidate didn't win. Actually, anybody with any brains who can read can see that's NOT the case. Whether there are any such people on this forum is another question entirely. Sal and do.rkflex certainly aren't. > Like I said, it couldn't be more obvious. And each > of them goes bananas when it's pointed out. Yes, because it's insulting and WRONG, you stupid git. And then to top off this flood of idiocy, we have do.rkflex's response to Raunchy: --- In [email protected], "do.rflex" <do.rf...@...> wrote: > > --- In [email protected], "raunchydog" <raunchydog@> wrote: > > > > IMO my bananas don't nearly match your bananas when > > I point out Obama's broken promises. You have not > > once refuted any of my posts documenting how Obama is > > clearly and arrogantly screwing you on civil liberties. > > I'm not here to play fetch-the-answers for your every > whine. Translation: do.rkflex couldn't fetch the answers to the very real objections ON THE LEFT, from OBAMA'S SUPPORTERS, if he tried. How many of the links Raunchy posted do you think do.rkflex read? <snip> > Politics is tough. I really don't think you can > compare your claims of 'sexism' against Hillary to > the massive orchestrated right wing deluge of smears > against Michelle as an angry black woman [note cover > of New Yorker] Ah, yes, that right-wing rag The New Yorker. <horselaugh> He really *doesn't* read, does he? > and her husband as a Muslim, a Kenyan born foreigner, > a covert Islamofascist terrorist who palled around > with a domestic terrorist etc., etc... Those smears were from THE RIGHT, dickhead. That's to be expected. What we're objecting to is the massive orchestrated deluge of sexist smears against Hillary FROM THE LEFT. My God, how can he *possibly* be so brainless as to have missed that?
