[FairfieldLife] Re: Sorry Judy
Barry engages in extended self-defense of his sexism, but his agitation, as is so frequently the case, keeps him from making any sense: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB wrote: > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Richard M" wrote: > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "raunchydog" > > wrote: > > > > > [snip] > > > Lawson, Politicians define themselves ideologically > > > by their words and deeds on a political spectrum > > > ranging from left to right. Left is the big Mommy > > > government, "I'll share mine with you." Right is > > > the small Daddy government, "I've got mine, too > > > bad about you." > > > > What a contentious way to set the scene! > > > > Surely not right=daddy=male=selfish=bad? > > > > And if you're gonna think of it as Mommy v Daddy values, > > don't we probably need BOTH? We could do with the > > strengths of each without the weaknesses of each (value)? > > It's why most of us ignore Raunchy and Judy > when they get like this. They're both "old > school" feminists, in that their schtick is > all about BLAME. Of course, what Raunchy was saying in the quote has to do with left vs. right, Democrats vs. Republicans, not male vs. female. The Daddy vs. Mommy party distinction isn't something she dreamed up, as Barry would know if he had any knowledge of U.S. politics. In fact, it's a cliche by now; it was first used back in 1994 by a political economist and has been embraced by both Democrats and Republicans. > Me, I've worked with and been friends with > for several decades now *real* feminists. > None of them would waste any time or energy > whining about sexism or pointing fingers at > the people they BLAME for it. They're too > busy doing something with their lives, and > proving that sexism is no barrier to anyone > except those who allow it to be. Of course, with regard to Hillary, neither of us is saying sexism was why she lost. That doesn't mean the appalling sexism with which she and her supporters were treated during the campaign somehow doesn't matter. But Barry doesn't want it mentioned or discussed, because he was part of it, and he knows how bad it made him look. > If either of them *really* wanted to "change > things," they'd have developed by this time > some awareness of how they are *perceived* > when they get like this, and that it has the > effect of turning people OFF to the issue, > not increasing their awareness of it. Well, it certainly turns *Barry* off. But as usual, he assumes that whatever emotions he's feeling must be what everyone else is feeling as well. Unfortunately for him, the sexism of the primary campaign made strong feminists of many *men*--men who, unlike Barry, aren't threatened by powerful women. Barry thinks his distaste for feminism means feminists should just shut up. The only "feminists" who are acceptable to him are those who obligingly remain silent about sexism, because that lets him off the hook and leaves him free to indulge in it whenever he feels like it. Now he goes off into *another* ridiculous non sequitur that is not only wildly inaccurate on its own terms but has zero to do with what Raunchy and I have been talking about: > I see the pragmatic elimination of sexism in > the workplace every time I see women in confer- > ence rooms being "just one of the guys." NOT > meaning that they're acting like guys, just > meaning that they're not trying to either > stand out or be submissive. These successful > women do not perceive themselves as being *any > different* than the guys, and as a result the > guys don't treat them any differently. Some- > times I think that the women who still cling > to BLAME and the tenets of radical feminism > just don't get out much, and haven't worked > in offices for years. If they had, they would > have seen how real women have found a way to > deal with sexism without it being a big issue > for them. It's only the "shut-ins" who only > think *about* succeeding instead of doing it, > and who seem to still be stuck in this mindset > of "men are keeping us down." Um, trouble is, Barry has never seen either Raunchy or me say "Men are keeping us down." Raunchy can speak for herself, but I certainly consider myself successful, having supported myself by running my own business since 1976. Sexism is *not* a big issue for me personally. In fact, the only place I've encountered it directed at me in decades has been on this forum, in connection with my support for Hillary, the bulk of it from Barry. > They are keeping themselves down. Nope, neither of us is "down," sorry. > By desperately clinging to "wrongs done" in the > past and dwelling on them, they keep themselves > locked firmly in the "victim" mindset. By spend- > ing all their time assigning BLAME and seeking > some kind of revenge, they piss all that time > and all that energy away on being angry instead > of being successful. Er, no. I don't consider myself a victim, nor do I seek
[FairfieldLife] Re: Sorry Judy
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB wrote: > Predictably, when called on playing the > victim, Raunchy plays the victim. Having unsuccessfully tried to victimize Raunchy and getting laughed at for his pains, now he tries to claim Raunchy's playing the victim, but only ends up playing the victim himself: > She clearly didn't read a word of what > I wrote, Boo-hoo! Raunchy didn't read Barry's golden words! all of which I wrote anew, none > of which was recycled. Except for the > concept, of course Yes, except for the concept, of course. Barry hasn't actually come up with a new concept in a very long time. His stuff is all recycled. As Raunchy correctly notes, he does just enough tweaking to claim he "wrote it anew," but it's the same old, same old tripe.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Sorry Judy
O.K. Robert, I give up. You are so far off the rail there is no point in trying to reason with you any further. Believe your spoon fed media sound bites if it makes you happy to live in a bubble, I'm not in the mood to burst it. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Robert" wrote: > > (snip) > > Robert, If you are going to trash Bill Clinton, get your facts straight and > > find out what REALLY happened in South Carolina, learn the whole story in > > context and don't believe or consume all the media sound bites, spoon fed > > to you during the primary. The media jumped on Bill's Jessie Jackson > > comment TOTALLY out of context to make him look like he was race baiting > > when in fact it was the reporter baiting Bill. Anyway, the media took > > Bill's comments wildly out of context on Jackson having won S.C. twice and > > it blew up Hillary's campaign in S.C. > > > > Furthermore, even Jessie Jackson said that he was not offended by anything > > that Bill said about him. > > http://tinyurl.com/qo7wml > > I don't think that Jesse Jackson was in his right mind at the time...very > jealous man...wanted to castrate Barack Obama, in another comment he > made...sick man! > > I am not trashing Bill Clinton...he trashed himself... > He helped George W.Bush get elected in 2000, with sexual addiction... > > Hillary Clinton would not be in the position she is in without Bill... > She stuck with Bill through all his many, many adulterous affairs... > And he tried to make amends with her, by working hard to destroy Barack > Obama, in the Primary, along with the rest of the Lesbians... > And it didn't work... > > Bill, also caved to the Republicans in many of his decisions as President, > and much of the over-heated economy and the security swap trading was all > instituted when he was President... > > He is pretty much an ego maniac, and his freaking out, that they were going > to lose, started in South Carolina, when they lost the Black vote... > Remember they lost the Black vote? > Remember Obama won in Iowa... > > It was time to move on... > Far away from the Clinton Soap Opera... > R.g. >
[FairfieldLife] Re: Sorry Judy
(snip) > Robert, If you are going to trash Bill Clinton, get your facts straight and > find out what REALLY happened in South Carolina, learn the whole story in > context and don't believe or consume all the media sound bites, spoon fed to > you during the primary. The media jumped on Bill's Jessie Jackson comment > TOTALLY out of context to make him look like he was race baiting when in fact > it was the reporter baiting Bill. Anyway, the media took Bill's comments > wildly out of context on Jackson having won S.C. twice and it blew up > Hillary's campaign in S.C. > > Furthermore, even Jessie Jackson said that he was not offended by anything > that Bill said about him. > http://tinyurl.com/qo7wml I don't think that Jesse Jackson was in his right mind at the time...very jealous man...wanted to castrate Barack Obama, in another comment he made...sick man! I am not trashing Bill Clinton...he trashed himself... He helped George W.Bush get elected in 2000, with sexual addiction... Hillary Clinton would not be in the position she is in without Bill... She stuck with Bill through all his many, many adulterous affairs... And he tried to make amends with her, by working hard to destroy Barack Obama, in the Primary, along with the rest of the Lesbians... And it didn't work... Bill, also caved to the Republicans in many of his decisions as President, and much of the over-heated economy and the security swap trading was all instituted when he was President... He is pretty much an ego maniac, and his freaking out, that they were going to lose, started in South Carolina, when they lost the Black vote... Remember they lost the Black vote? Remember Obama won in Iowa... It was time to move on... Far away from the Clinton Soap Opera... R.g.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Sorry Judy
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Robert" wrote: > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "raunchydog" wrote: > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Sal Sunshine wrote: > > > > > > On May 24, 2009, at 10:35 PM, raunchydog wrote: > > > > > > > Hillary, bless her heart, has a long history as a died in the wool > > > > ideologue in the tradition of FDR and Truman > > > > > > Hillary is the ultimate opportunist--that's why she lost. > > > > > > Sal > > > > > > > Sal, brush up on your reading skills. Hillary has a long history as an > > ideologue, a person with core principles as a Democrat which is quite the > > opposite of an opportunist. > > > > If you care to respond, I'll help you make your case. Just to provide you > > with a little structure, these are questions you should ask yourself before > > you make anymore hair-brained pronouncements about Hillary: > > > > Why does Sal think Hillary is an opportunist? What does Sal know about > > Hillary that supports her argument that she is an opportunist? What is an > > opportunist? > > > > And here is the kicker, the most important question of all: > > Why does Sal think being an opportunist has anything to do with Hillary's > > loss? > > > > As Judy would say, "Non sequitur." It doesn't matter whether you can prove > > or disprove Hillary is an opportunist, it has absolutely nothing to do with > > why she lost. Read a few posts on this thread from Raunchy and Judy and get > > informed about why we think Hillary lost. Hint: Sexism, Caucus fraud and > > the DNC rigging the delegate count. > > > The 'Worm Turned' for Hillary, in South Carolina... > Her husband Long Dong Bill, began ranting about some some racist stuff, which > he had be 'In the Closet' about, and the Blacks turned against the > Clinton's...they never recovered... Robert, If you are going to trash Bill Clinton, get your facts straight and find out what REALLY happened in South Carolina, learn the whole story in context and don't believe or consume all the media sound bites, spoon fed to you during the primary. The media jumped on Bill's Jessie Jackson comment TOTALLY out of context to make him look like he was race baiting when in fact it was the reporter baiting Bill. Anyway, the media took Bill's comments wildly out of context on Jackson having won S.C. twice and it blew up Hillary's campaign in S.C. Furthermore, even Jessie Jackson said that he was not offended by anything that Bill said about him. http://tinyurl.com/qo7wml Here's a link to Bill's entire interview. I don't see any race baiting in it at all. He simply stated a historical fact in response to a question. http://tinyurl.com/38ycmt Craig Crawford had an interesting take on the media's treatment of the Clinton's: http://tinyurl.com/pgabt9 > Basically it was time for the 'Baby Boomer' generation to hand over the > baton... > After Bill and George, we had simply enough of arrogant lying ways of these > two soul bros... > Poppa Bushie, Bill's adopted Dad, and George Porgie pudding and pie, stuck it > to us all, and made us cry > Let's face it folks, it was time for a 'Cool Change'... > Hillary lost because she was doing it, 'Old School'... > R.G. >
[FairfieldLife] Re: Sorry Judy
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Richard M" wrote: > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > [snip] > > > > > Lawson, Politicians define themselves ideologically by their > > > > > words and deeds on a political spectrum ranging from left to > > > > > right. Left is the big Mommy government, "I'll share mine with > > > > > you." Right is the small Daddy government, "I've got mine, too > > > > > bad about you." > > > > > > > > What a contentious way to set the scene! > > > > > > > > Surely not right=daddy=male=selfish=bad? > > Raunchy - you are most unkind to bring attention to my cluelessness- > ness. > > Let me try to make my point again all the same. > > You said: > > "Right is the small Daddy government, 'I've got mine, too bad about > you.'" > > I questioned that as contentious (from which you consign me to > cluelessness-ness). > > In fact you replied in other post like so: > > > The concept of a political spectrum from left to right is High > > School Civics 101. It's how we define a politicians political > > values. The use of the term Mommy or Daddy State is quite common. > > It is not something I made up. Extreme Mommy State represents > > the extreme Left. Extreme Daddy State represent the > > extreme right. If you want a balance between Mommy and Daddy, you > > are describing a Centrist politics. > > Well I'm afraid I have not had the benefit of "High School Civics 101". > But that doesn't matter as, I am not at all questioning your > Mommy/Daddy analogy in this case. No - I queried your assertion that > the daddy value amounts to "I've got mine, too bad about you". I would > put it to you that it is not "clueless" to question or deny that > characterization (in fact if anything the cluelessness-ness lies in > that assertion!). I think the idea of the political right as "Daddy" is more commonly used to refer to national security than to a selfish attitude about keeping what is yours. In other words, Mommy will comfort you but Daddy will keep you safe.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Sorry Judy
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Richard M" wrote: > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "raunchydog" > wrote: > [snip] > > > > Actually the concept of a political spectrum is quite specific. > > I would agree that your assertion is not clueless. It only shows > > you are taking exception to my portrayal of conservatives as > > uncaring. The right wing believes in small government, > > unregulated markets, big military, discipline and an interest > > in controlling your personal life i.e. what happens in your > > bedroom. I'm guessing you lean right and you don't like it that > > the Republican Daddy party is getting a bad rap today. Sorry, > > my Lefty preference is showing. If you are interested in > > understanding political values of left and right, here is > > an entertaining survey you can take to discover where you are on > > the spectrum of left and right. > > > > http://www.politicalcompass.org/ > > > > I tried the survey - but I'm afraid I found I couldn't accept the > premiss of many of the questions. eg "Controlling inflation is more > important than controlling unemployment" (I think they're bound > together). > > "I'm guessing you lean right". Well do I? I think you (like many > lefties) confuse liberals, libertarians, authoritarians, nationalists, > and plonk them all together in one bag "the Right". Not only that, but > for your ilk the Left are the white knights (and knightesses of > course). The Right are the bad guys. > > "You don't like it that the Republican Daddy party is getting a bad rap > today". Well no, I'm agnostic. I don't know enough about US politics. I > believe that your centre ground is probably way to the right of our > (Brit) centre ground though. And we have just had over a decade of > power for our "Left" party (Labour). Under this very Left government > (by your standards) we have had: > > * much "bigger" government (that's true) > * less regulated markets (or more accurately, incompetently regulated > markets) > * big military and plenty of war > * draconian initiatives on discipline (but ineffective) > * a huge growth in the attempt to control our personal lives with a > phenomenal growth in surveillance in particular. > > I should say I don't care much for any of those trends. So you see > plenty of your right wing flotsam drifts in on the leftist tide! > Well, I guess we're about even. I know as much about British politics as you do about American politics. Maybe we can learn something from each other. Liberal politics that go too far left can be just as detrimental to good governance as Conservatives too far right. Fortunately, the pendulum swings during elections and we get a chance to throw the bums out. Far left and far right values will remain in tact for many folks, but it is always the swing voter who determines the outcome of an election. The reason the Republican party is in such shambles, is that the far right is very energized during primary elections and politicians since Reagan have had to pander to them in order to make it to a general election. Consequently, the Republicans have ended up with a very small hardcore base whose agenda centers around hot button social issues i.e. anti-abortion, anti-gay marriage, anti-illegal immigration, anti-taxation, pro-business, pro-gun, pro-military, and pro-small government. They have become the party of "NO." Libertarians are happy with minimal government interference as well but don't care about social hot buttons. Surveillance is worrisome. Whether Left or Right, surveillance is ultimately about controlling the governed under the guise of "protecting" the governed. Once that technological genie is out of the bottle, no party, no matter who, will cede power by reversing course on surveillance. Gordon Brown isn't going to pull the plug on cameras watching you take a crap in a London loo anytime soon and Obama isn't going to reverse FISA anytime soon either. I believe people have definable political values. I took the political compass survey and ended up spot on with the Dalai Lama. The question, "Controlling inflation is more important than controlling unemployment," just wants your best guess on that one question to see if in the aggregate of questions you lean left or right. It seems to me, concern about controlling inflation means you think a right-leaning government should protect business and the consumer, and controlling unemployment means you think a left-leaning government should protect labor. What were your results on the survey?
[FairfieldLife] Re: Sorry Judy
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "raunchydog" wrote: [snip] > > Actually the concept of a political spectrum is quite specific. > I would agree that your assertion is not clueless. It only shows > you are taking exception to my portrayal of conservatives as > uncaring. The right wing believes in small government, > unregulated markets, big military, discipline and an interest > in controlling your personal life i.e. what happens in your > bedroom. I'm guessing you lean right and you don't like it that > the Republican Daddy party is getting a bad rap today. Sorry, > my Lefty preference is showing. If you are interested in > understanding political values of left and right, here is > an entertaining survey you can take to discover where you are on > the spectrum of left and right. > > http://www.politicalcompass.org/ > I tried the survey - but I'm afraid I found I couldn't accept the premiss of many of the questions. eg "Controlling inflation is more important than controlling unemployment" (I think they're bound together). "I'm guessing you lean right". Well do I? I think you (like many lefties) confuse liberals, libertarians, authoritarians, nationalists, and plonk them all together in one bag "the Right". Not only that, but for your ilk the Left are the white knights (and knightesses of course). The Right are the bad guys. "You don't like it that the Republican Daddy party is getting a bad rap today". Well no, I'm agnostic. I don't know enough about US politics. I believe that your centre ground is probably way to the right of our (Brit) centre ground though. And we have just had over a decade of power for our "Left" party (Labour). Under this very Left government (by your standards) we have had: * much "bigger" government (that's true) * less regulated markets (or more accurately, incompetently regulated markets) * big military and plenty of war * draconian initiatives on discipline (but ineffective) * a huge growth in the attempt to control our personal lives with a phenomenal growth in surveillance in particular. I should say I don't care much for any of those trends. So you see plenty of your right wing flotsam drifts in on the leftist tide!
[FairfieldLife] Re: Sorry Judy
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "raunchydog" wrote: > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Sal Sunshine wrote: > > > > On May 24, 2009, at 10:35 PM, raunchydog wrote: > > > > > Hillary, bless her heart, has a long history as a died in the wool > > > ideologue in the tradition of FDR and Truman > > > > Hillary is the ultimate opportunist--that's why she lost. > > > > Sal > > > > Sal, brush up on your reading skills. Hillary has a long history as an > ideologue, a person with core principles as a Democrat which is quite the > opposite of an opportunist. > > If you care to respond, I'll help you make your case. Just to provide you > with a little structure, these are questions you should ask yourself before > you make anymore hair-brained pronouncements about Hillary: > > Why does Sal think Hillary is an opportunist? What does Sal know about > Hillary that supports her argument that she is an opportunist? What is an > opportunist? > > And here is the kicker, the most important question of all: > Why does Sal think being an opportunist has anything to do with Hillary's > loss? > > As Judy would say, "Non sequitur." It doesn't matter whether you can prove or > disprove Hillary is an opportunist, it has absolutely nothing to do with why > she lost. Read a few posts on this thread from Raunchy and Judy and get > informed about why we think Hillary lost. Hint: Sexism, Caucus fraud and the > DNC rigging the delegate count. > The 'Worm Turned' for Hillary, in South Carolina... Her husband Long Dong Bill, began ranting about some some racist stuff, which he had be 'In the Closet' about, and the Blacks turned against the Clinton's...they never recovered... Basically it was time for the 'Baby Boomer' generation to hand over the baton... After Bill and George, we had simply enough of arrogant lying ways of these two soul bros... Poppa Bushie, Bill's adopted Dad, and George Porgie pudding and pie, stuck it to us all, and made us cry Let's face it folks, it was time for a 'Cool Change'... Hillary lost because she was doing it, 'Old School'... R.G.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Sorry Judy
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Richard M" wrote: > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "raunchydog" > wrote: > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB wrote: > > > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Richard M" > wrote: > > > > > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "raunchydog" > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > [snip] > > > > > Lawson, Politicians define themselves ideologically by their > > > > > words and deeds on a political spectrum ranging from left to > > > > > right. Left is the big Mommy government, "I'll share mine with > > > > > you." Right is the small Daddy government, "I've got mine, too > > > > > bad about you." > > > > > > > > What a contentious way to set the scene! > > > > > > > > Surely not right=daddy=male=selfish=bad? > > > > > > > > And if you're gonna think of it as Mommy v Daddy values, don't > > > > we probably need BOTH? We could do with the strengths of each > > > > without the weaknesses of each (value)? > > > > > > It's why most of us ignore Raunchy and Judy > > > when they get like this. They're both "old > > > school" feminists, in that their schtick is > > > all about BLAME. > > > > > > > Apparently Barry is as clueless as Richard M about the concept of > > a left/right political spectrum. Based on Richard M's > > misunderstanding of common terminology, Barry, politically > > misinformed as usual, writes a laughable non sequitur. Why does > > he need such a stupid excuse to launch ad hominem attack on me > > and Judy? All he needs to do is access an old file like he trotted > > out today, edit and tweak it a little, and write the same old > > shit about us as he usually does. Next time, and there will be a > > next time, Barry should save himself the trouble of inventing an > > excuse to attack us and JUST DO IT OUTRIGHT rather than > > cowardly covering his ass. > > Raunchy - you are most unkind to bring attention to my cluelessness- > ness. > > Let me try to make my point again all the same. > > You said: > > "Right is the small Daddy government, 'I've got mine, too bad about > you.'" > > I questioned that as contentious (from which you consign me to > cluelessness-ness). > > In fact you replied in other post like so: > > > The concept of a political spectrum from left to right is High > > School Civics 101. It's how we define a politicians political > > values. The use of the term Mommy or Daddy State is quite common. > > It is not something I made up. Extreme Mommy State represents > > the extreme Left. Extreme Daddy State represent the > > extreme right. If you want a balance between Mommy and Daddy, you > > are describing a Centrist politics. > > Well I'm afraid I have not had the benefit of "High School Civics 101". > But that doesn't matter as, I am not at all questioning your > Mommy/Daddy analogy in this case. No - I queried your assertion that > the daddy value amounts to "I've got mine, too bad about you". I would > put it to you that it is not "clueless" to question or deny that > characterization (in fact if anything the cluelessness-ness lies in > that assertion!). > Actually the concept of a political spectrum is quite specific. I would agree that your assertion is not clueless. It only shows you are taking exception to my portrayal of conservatives as uncaring. The right wing believes in small government, unregulated markets, big military, discipline and an interest in controlling your personal life i.e. what happens in your bedroom. I'm guessing you lean right and you don't like it that the Republican Daddy party is getting a bad rap today. Sorry, my Lefty preference is showing. If you are interested in understanding political values of left and right, here is an entertaining survey you can take to discover where you are on the spectrum of left and right. http://www.politicalcompass.org/ > I would also put it to you that it is pretty darn "clueless" to think > that much weight can be put on the left/right divide in any case. Yes, > the left forms a sort of coherent continuum. But the right? Where's the > "continuum" between the ideas of classical liberalism and National > Socialism? Seems to me "the right" is just the term lazy lefties > reserve for anyone who disagrees with them, the aim being to generate > guilt by association with dodgy bedfellows. >
[FairfieldLife] Re: Sorry Judy
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "raunchydog" wrote: > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB wrote: > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Richard M" wrote: > > > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "raunchydog" > > > wrote: > > > > > > > [snip] > > > > Lawson, Politicians define themselves ideologically by their > > > > words and deeds on a political spectrum ranging from left to > > > > right. Left is the big Mommy government, "I'll share mine with > > > > you." Right is the small Daddy government, "I've got mine, too > > > > bad about you." > > > > > > What a contentious way to set the scene! > > > > > > Surely not right=daddy=male=selfish=bad? > > > > > > And if you're gonna think of it as Mommy v Daddy values, don't > > > we probably need BOTH? We could do with the strengths of each > > > without the weaknesses of each (value)? > > > > It's why most of us ignore Raunchy and Judy > > when they get like this. They're both "old > > school" feminists, in that their schtick is > > all about BLAME. > > > > Apparently Barry is as clueless as Richard M about the concept of > a left/right political spectrum. Based on Richard M's > misunderstanding of common terminology, Barry, politically > misinformed as usual, writes a laughable non sequitur. Why does > he need such a stupid excuse to launch ad hominem attack on me > and Judy? All he needs to do is access an old file like he trotted > out today, edit and tweak it a little, and write the same old > shit about us as he usually does. Next time, and there will be a > next time, Barry should save himself the trouble of inventing an > excuse to attack us and JUST DO IT OUTRIGHT rather than > cowardly covering his ass. Raunchy - you are most unkind to bring attention to my cluelessness- ness. Let me try to make my point again all the same. You said: "Right is the small Daddy government, 'I've got mine, too bad about you.'" I questioned that as contentious (from which you consign me to cluelessness-ness). In fact you replied in other post like so: > The concept of a political spectrum from left to right is High > School Civics 101. It's how we define a politicians political > values. The use of the term Mommy or Daddy State is quite common. > It is not something I made up. Extreme Mommy State represents > the extreme Left. Extreme Daddy State represent the > extreme right. If you want a balance between Mommy and Daddy, you > are describing a Centrist politics. Well I'm afraid I have not had the benefit of "High School Civics 101". But that doesn't matter as, I am not at all questioning your Mommy/Daddy analogy in this case. No - I queried your assertion that the daddy value amounts to "I've got mine, too bad about you". I would put it to you that it is not "clueless" to question or deny that characterization (in fact if anything the cluelessness-ness lies in that assertion!). I would also put it to you that it is pretty darn "clueless" to think that much weight can be put on the left/right divide in any case. Yes, the left forms a sort of coherent continuum. But the right? Where's the "continuum" between the ideas of classical liberalism and National Socialism? Seems to me "the right" is just the term lazy lefties reserve for anyone who disagrees with them, the aim being to generate guilt by association with dodgy bedfellows.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Sorry Judy
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "raunchydog" wrote: > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB wrote: > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Richard M" wrote: > > > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "raunchydog" > > > wrote: > > > > > > > [snip] > > > > Lawson, Politicians define themselves ideologically by their > > > > words and deeds on a political spectrum ranging from left to > > > > right. Left is the big Mommy government, "I'll share mine > > > > with you." Right is the small Daddy government, "I've got > > > > mine, too bad about you." > > > > > > What a contentious way to set the scene! > > > > > > Surely not right=daddy=male=selfish=bad? > > > > > > And if you're gonna think of it as Mommy v Daddy values, don't > > > we probably need BOTH? We could do with the strengths of each > > > without the weaknesses of each (value)? > > > > It's why most of us ignore Raunchy and Judy > > when they get like this. They're both "old > > school" feminists, in that their schtick is > > all about BLAME. > > Apparently Barry is as clueless as Richard M about the > concept of a left/right political spectrum. Based on > Richard M's misunderstanding of common terminology, Barry, > politically misinformed as usual, writes a laughable non > sequitur. Why does he need such a stupid excuse to launch > ad hominem attack on me and Judy? All he needs to do is > access an old file like he trotted out today, edit and > tweak it a little, and write the same old shit about us > as he usually does. Next time, and there will be a next > time, Barry should save himself the trouble of inventing > an excuse to attack us and JUST DO IT OUTRIGHT rather > than cowardly covering his ass. Predictably, when called on playing the victim, Raunchy plays the victim. She clearly didn't read a word of what I wrote, all of which I wrote anew, none of which was recycled. Except for the concept, of course, which is as true today as it was the last time I brought it up. And at this rate will be still as true the day she dies, still playing the victim and blaming others for how shitty she feels. I'll leave the rest for those who can actually read. > > Me, I've worked with and been friends with > > for several decades now *real* feminists. > > None of them would waste any time or energy > > whining about sexism or pointing fingers at > > the people they BLAME for it. They're too > > busy doing something with their lives, and > > proving that sexism is no barrier to anyone > > except those who allow it to be. > > > > No one reasonable can *miss* the imbalance > > in their positions and their outlooks on life > > when these two get like this. They are simply > > incapable of keeping the loathing that they > > feel out of their voices. Even their "screen > > voices." > > > > And I, for one, think it's unproductive. > > > > If either of them *really* wanted to "change > > things," they'd have developed by this time > > some awareness of how they are *perceived* > > when they get like this, and that it has the > > effect of turning people OFF to the issue, > > not increasing their awareness of it. My > > "take" on such women is the same as that of > > my real feminist friends -- they don't want > > to change things; they want to bitch about > > things. > > > > None of the strong women I know -- and that > > includes CEOs of multi-million dollar firms, > > high-level executives in corporations, and > > Olympic medal winners -- would have anything > > to do with either Raunchy or Judy. They would > > be embarrassed by them, as they are by women > > like Andrea Dworkin, Susan Brownmiller, > > Catharine MacKinnon and others who take > > similar "blame the men" stands as "radical > > feminists." The women I know -- DOERs all, > > winners all -- look upon such women as losers, > > and as *obstacles* to eliminating sexism. > > > > I see the pragmatic elimination of sexism in > > the workplace every time I see women in confer- > > ence rooms being "just one of the guys." NOT > > meaning that they're acting like guys, just > > meaning that they're not trying to either > > stand out or be submissive. These successful > > women do not perceive themselves as being *any > > different* than the guys, and as a result the > > guys don't treat them any differently. Some- > > times I think that the women who still cling > > to BLAME and the tenets of radical feminism > > just don't get out much, and haven't worked > > in offices for years. If they had, they would > > have seen how real women have found a way to > > deal with sexism without it being a big issue > > for them. It's only the "shut-ins" who only > > think *about* succeeding instead of doing it, > > and who seem to still be stuck in this mindset > > of "men are keeping us down." > > > > They are keeping themselves down. > > > > By desperately clinging to "wrongs done" in the > > past and dwelling on them, they keep th
[FairfieldLife] Re: Sorry Judy
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB wrote: > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Richard M" wrote: > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "raunchydog" > > wrote: > > > > > [snip] > > > Lawson, Politicians define themselves ideologically by their > > > words and deeds on a political spectrum ranging from left to > > > right. Left is the big Mommy government, "I'll share mine with > > > you." Right is the small Daddy government, "I've got mine, too > > > bad about you." > > > > What a contentious way to set the scene! > > > > Surely not right=daddy=male=selfish=bad? > > > > And if you're gonna think of it as Mommy v Daddy values, don't > > we probably need BOTH? We could do with the strengths of each > > without the weaknesses of each (value)? > > It's why most of us ignore Raunchy and Judy > when they get like this. They're both "old > school" feminists, in that their schtick is > all about BLAME. > Apparently Barry is as clueless as Richard M about the concept of a left/right political spectrum. Based on Richard M's misunderstanding of common terminology, Barry, politically misinformed as usual, writes a laughable non sequitur. Why does he need such a stupid excuse to launch ad hominem attack on me and Judy? All he needs to do is access an old file like he trotted out today, edit and tweak it a little, and write the same old shit about us as he usually does. Next time, and there will be a next time, Barry should save himself the trouble of inventing an excuse to attack us and JUST DO IT OUTRIGHT rather than cowardly covering his ass. > Me, I've worked with and been friends with > for several decades now *real* feminists. > None of them would waste any time or energy > whining about sexism or pointing fingers at > the people they BLAME for it. They're too > busy doing something with their lives, and > proving that sexism is no barrier to anyone > except those who allow it to be. > > No one reasonable can *miss* the imbalance > in their positions and their outlooks on life > when these two get like this. They are simply > incapable of keeping the loathing that they > feel out of their voices. Even their "screen > voices." > > And I, for one, think it's unproductive. > > If either of them *really* wanted to "change > things," they'd have developed by this time > some awareness of how they are *perceived* > when they get like this, and that it has the > effect of turning people OFF to the issue, > not increasing their awareness of it. My > "take" on such women is the same as that of > my real feminist friends -- they don't want > to change things; they want to bitch about > things. > > None of the strong women I know -- and that > includes CEOs of multi-million dollar firms, > high-level executives in corporations, and > Olympic medal winners -- would have anything > to do with either Raunchy or Judy. They would > be embarrassed by them, as they are by women > like Andrea Dworkin, Susan Brownmiller, > Catharine MacKinnon and others who take > similar "blame the men" stands as "radical > feminists." The women I know -- DOERs all, > winners all -- look upon such women as losers, > and as *obstacles* to eliminating sexism. > > I see the pragmatic elimination of sexism in > the workplace every time I see women in confer- > ence rooms being "just one of the guys." NOT > meaning that they're acting like guys, just > meaning that they're not trying to either > stand out or be submissive. These successful > women do not perceive themselves as being *any > different* than the guys, and as a result the > guys don't treat them any differently. Some- > times I think that the women who still cling > to BLAME and the tenets of radical feminism > just don't get out much, and haven't worked > in offices for years. If they had, they would > have seen how real women have found a way to > deal with sexism without it being a big issue > for them. It's only the "shut-ins" who only > think *about* succeeding instead of doing it, > and who seem to still be stuck in this mindset > of "men are keeping us down." > > They are keeping themselves down. > > By desperately clinging to "wrongs done" in the > past and dwelling on them, they keep themselves > locked firmly in the "victim" mindset. By spend- > ing all their time assigning BLAME and seeking > some kind of revenge, they piss all that time > and all that energy away on being angry instead > of being successful. > > The bottom line as I see it is that both Raunchy > and Judy are the most sexist posters on this > forum. Both have admitted that they would prefer > a woman candidate for president, simply because > she's a woman. I and other men they have char- > acterized as sexist would never do that. >
[FairfieldLife] Re: Sorry Judy
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Richard M" wrote: > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "raunchydog" > wrote: > > > [snip] > > Lawson, Politicians define themselves ideologically by their > > words and deeds on a political spectrum ranging from left to > > right. Left is the big Mommy government, "I'll share mine with > > you." Right is the small Daddy government, "I've got mine, too > > bad about you." > > What a contentious way to set the scene! > > Surely not right=daddy=male=selfish=bad? > > And if you're gonna think of it as Mommy v Daddy values, don't we > probably need BOTH? We could do with the strengths of each without the > weaknesses of each (value)? > > [snip] > The concept of a political spectrum from left to right is High School Civics 101. It's how we define a politicians political values. The use of the term Mommy or Daddy State is quite common. It is not something I made up. Extreme Mommy State represents the extreme Left. Extreme Daddy State represent the extreme right. If you want a balance between Mommy and Daddy, you are describing a Centrist politics.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Sorry Judy
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Richard M" wrote: > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "raunchydog" > wrote: > > > [snip] > > Lawson, Politicians define themselves ideologically by their > > words and deeds on a political spectrum ranging from left to > > right. Left is the big Mommy government, "I'll share mine with > > you." Right is the small Daddy government, "I've got mine, too > > bad about you." > > What a contentious way to set the scene! > > Surely not right=daddy=male=selfish=bad? > > And if you're gonna think of it as Mommy v Daddy values, don't > we probably need BOTH? We could do with the strengths of each > without the weaknesses of each (value)? It's why most of us ignore Raunchy and Judy when they get like this. They're both "old school" feminists, in that their schtick is all about BLAME. Me, I've worked with and been friends with for several decades now *real* feminists. None of them would waste any time or energy whining about sexism or pointing fingers at the people they BLAME for it. They're too busy doing something with their lives, and proving that sexism is no barrier to anyone except those who allow it to be. No one reasonable can *miss* the imbalance in their positions and their outlooks on life when these two get like this. They are simply incapable of keeping the loathing that they feel out of their voices. Even their "screen voices." And I, for one, think it's unproductive. If either of them *really* wanted to "change things," they'd have developed by this time some awareness of how they are *perceived* when they get like this, and that it has the effect of turning people OFF to the issue, not increasing their awareness of it. My "take" on such women is the same as that of my real feminist friends -- they don't want to change things; they want to bitch about things. None of the strong women I know -- and that includes CEOs of multi-million dollar firms, high-level executives in corporations, and Olympic medal winners -- would have anything to do with either Raunchy or Judy. They would be embarrassed by them, as they are by women like Andrea Dworkin, Susan Brownmiller, Catharine MacKinnon and others who take similar "blame the men" stands as "radical feminists." The women I know -- DOERs all, winners all -- look upon such women as losers, and as *obstacles* to eliminating sexism. I see the pragmatic elimination of sexism in the workplace every time I see women in confer- ence rooms being "just one of the guys." NOT meaning that they're acting like guys, just meaning that they're not trying to either stand out or be submissive. These successful women do not perceive themselves as being *any different* than the guys, and as a result the guys don't treat them any differently. Some- times I think that the women who still cling to BLAME and the tenets of radical feminism just don't get out much, and haven't worked in offices for years. If they had, they would have seen how real women have found a way to deal with sexism without it being a big issue for them. It's only the "shut-ins" who only think *about* succeeding instead of doing it, and who seem to still be stuck in this mindset of "men are keeping us down." They are keeping themselves down. By desperately clinging to "wrongs done" in the past and dwelling on them, they keep themselves locked firmly in the "victim" mindset. By spend- ing all their time assigning BLAME and seeking some kind of revenge, they piss all that time and all that energy away on being angry instead of being successful. The bottom line as I see it is that both Raunchy and Judy are the most sexist posters on this forum. Both have admitted that they would prefer a woman candidate for president, simply because she's a woman. I and other men they have char- acterized as sexist would never do that.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Sorry Judy
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "raunchydog" wrote: > [snip] > Lawson, Politicians define themselves ideologically by their > words and deeds on a political spectrum ranging from left to > right. Left is the big Mommy government, "I'll share mine with > you." Right is the small Daddy government, "I've got mine, too > bad about you." What a contentious way to set the scene! Surely not right=daddy=male=selfish=bad? And if you're gonna think of it as Mommy v Daddy values, don't we probably need BOTH? We could do with the strengths of each without the weaknesses of each (value)? [snip]
[FairfieldLife] Re: Sorry Judy
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Sal Sunshine wrote: > > On May 24, 2009, at 10:35 PM, raunchydog wrote: > > > Hillary, bless her heart, has a long history as a died in the wool > > ideologue in the tradition of FDR and Truman > > Hillary is the ultimate opportunist--that's why she lost. > > Sal > Sal, brush up on your reading skills. Hillary has a long history as an ideologue, a person with core principles as a Democrat which is quite the opposite of an opportunist. If you care to respond, I'll help you make your case. Just to provide you with a little structure, these are questions you should ask yourself before you make anymore hair-brained pronouncements about Hillary: Why does Sal think Hillary is an opportunist? What does Sal know about Hillary that supports her argument that she is an opportunist? What is an opportunist? And here is the kicker, the most important question of all: Why does Sal think being an opportunist has anything to do with Hillary's loss? As Judy would say, "Non sequitur." It doesn't matter whether you can prove or disprove Hillary is an opportunist, it has absolutely nothing to do with why she lost. Read a few posts on this thread from Raunchy and Judy and get informed about why we think Hillary lost. Hint: Sexism, Caucus fraud and the DNC rigging the delegate count.
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Sorry Judy
On May 24, 2009, at 10:35 PM, raunchydog wrote: Hillary, bless her heart, has a long history as a died in the wool ideologue in the tradition of FDR and Truman Hillary is the ultimate opportunist--that's why she lost. Sal
[FairfieldLife] Re: Sorry Judy
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "sparaig" wrote: > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" wrote: > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj wrote: > > > > > > > > Boy I'm so glad I found out what a women-hater Obama > > > was! I knew he had to be hidin' sometin. And here I > > > thought he was married to someone who's an archetype > > > for empowered women...silly me! > > > > Silly you indeed. Very few of McEwen's examples are of > > anything *Obama* said. They're from the media and blogs > > and his surrogates. > > > > As I said before, he didn't instigate most of the trash- > > talking. But he didn't do anything to squash it, and > > from time to time he even encouraged it. > > > > He doesn't hate women; he's just an opportunist. > > > > This is different from other politicians, including Hillary Clinton? > > > Lawson > Lawson, Politicians define themselves ideologically by their words and deeds on a political spectrum ranging from left to right. Left is the big Mommy government, "I'll share mine with you." Right is the small Daddy government, "I've got mine, too bad about you." If a politician consistently positions himself either left or right on the political spectrum, consider the politician an ideologue. He has core principles from which he operates. Generally, he will say what he means and do what he says. There is very little second-guessing, about what to expect and you can generally count on him for strong leadership. FDR, Truman, and LBJ were left wing ideologues. Carter was a weak leader but Habitat for Humanity definitely earns him status as a left wing ideologue. In the tradition of FDR and Truman, Bill Clinton stood for Left leaning core principles at heart, but his record of compromises with the right earns his administration a Centrist rating. As president, Clinton, was the consummate pragmatist. Nevertheless, since leaving office his left wing core values have come to the fore. The charitable work he does for the Clinton Foundation positions him as a Left wing ideologue. Reagan and Bush 41 were Right Wing ideologues. A politician who is neither left nor right in word or deed, and does not take a stand based on core principles, is not an ideologue, he is a pragmatist. Generally, you do not know what a pragmatist will do, just know he basis his decision on, "What's in it for me." He will do what is politically expedient rather than govern from core principles, and usually results in weak leadership. Such a politician is an "opportunist." Bush 43 is a mix of pragmatist and ideologue. He is hard to figure out because he was just doing as told in order to increase the power of the executive branch. He governed from the right but I never got the feeling any of it mattered to him, he just liked being King. IMO he would have been just as happy being a tool for the Left. Whichever way the wind blew, as long as it furthered the reach of his power and kept him in power; that was all that mattered. Bush 43 was the consummate opportunist. Hillary, bless her heart, has a long history as a died in the wool ideologue in the tradition of FDR and Truman. I share her political values. I admire her long time advocacy for women and children, her willingness to champion the little guy and I adore her political wonkishness. She speaks brilliantly and in depth on an amazing range of topics without a TELEPROMPTER because the issues MATTER to her enough to own it so completely that she can speak extemporaneously with ease. Glen Greenwald on Salon wrote "Ideology vs. pragmatism: Is one more important than the other?" discusses Obama's tendency to choose pragmatism over ideology. It's an interesting read. http://tinyurl.com/554k3m http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/2008/11/24/ideology/index.html
[FairfieldLife] Re: Sorry Judy
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" wrote: > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj wrote: > > > > > Boy I'm so glad I found out what a women-hater Obama > > was! I knew he had to be hidin' sometin. And here I > > thought he was married to someone who's an archetype > > for empowered women...silly me! > > Silly you indeed. Very few of McEwen's examples are of > anything *Obama* said. They're from the media and blogs > and his surrogates. > > As I said before, he didn't instigate most of the trash- > talking. But he didn't do anything to squash it, and > from time to time he even encouraged it. > > He doesn't hate women; he's just an opportunist. > This is different from other politicians, including Hillary Clinton? Lawson
[FairfieldLife] Re: Sorry Judy
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Robert" wrote: > > (snip) > > Robert, get a grip. Women are not interested in your penis. You are are > > still in the oedipal phase of libidinal and ego development and not yet > > very potent as a man. When you grow up someday, you'll realize that women > > want the same thing that you do...respect. > > > Thanks for the information on how to get a woman... > But, I was not saying that women are interested in my penis... > I was quoting a theory of Dr.Freud's, that woman subconsciously wish they had > a penis, as little girls, so they could be more 'less vulnerable, etc'...and > so I was talking about the penis in general... > Not my penis in particular... > I have been told, that I have an excellent penis, and don't have a penis > problem... > Thanks for the advice, anyone though...you are making good progress. > R.G. > O.K. Robert, I'm sorry I jumped on you with both feet. Good luck with finding a woman to love. I mean that sincerely.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Sorry Judy
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Robert" wrote: > Ya Know, I was never a big believer in Freud, but these > days, I'm starting to bye into the 'Penis Envy' theory... > I can't see any other reason, why woman these days, have > to prove all the time, how many are such silly Bumpkins, > and how Stupid they all are with they're 'Swingin' Dicks'... Thing is, Robert, a lot of men these days *aren't* silly bumpkins and *don't* feel the need to swing their dicks. Unfortunately we don't seem to have any of them on FFL, at least not who are willing to speak up. I actually think feminism has helped many men in this regard. Once men have gotten over their conditioning and internalized that women are their equals, they're no longer compulsively motivated to keep trying to demonstrate how superior they are by putting women down--and they find that a great relief (as do the women, natch). They may continue to swing their dicks at each other, but that's an entirely different phenomenon. > I'm starting to believe that ya' all wish you had > one to swing, yourselves... So, you didn't have to > wait in those damn long lines at the rest stops on > the way to D.C. That's the single reason I can think of that it might be nice to have a dick, in fact. > Now, I'm not tryin' to be a Dick here... > I like havin' one... > Don't know what it would be, if I didn't have one! If you didn't have one, you'd be a woman. You'd be fine with that (or without it, I should say). But you'd also understand why some men are such a pain in the you-know-what. You might even begin to wonder whether they weren't suffering from womb-envy. > Well, that's all I got... > God Bless the Meek, for they shall inherit the planet of apes... Yowzah.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Sorry Judy
(snip) > Robert, get a grip. Women are not interested in your penis. You are are still > in the oedipal phase of libidinal and ego development and not yet very potent > as a man. When you grow up someday, you'll realize that women want the same > thing that you do...respect. > Thanks for the information on how to get a woman... But, I was not saying that women are interested in my penis... I was quoting a theory of Dr.Freud's, that woman subconsciously wish they had a penis, as little girls, so they could be more 'less vulnerable, etc'...and so I was talking about the penis in general... Not my penis in particular... I have been told, that I have an excellent penis, and don't have a penis problem... Thanks for the advice, anyone though...you are making good progress. R.G.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Sorry Judy
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Robert" wrote: > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" wrote: > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Robert" wrote: > > > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" wrote: > > > > > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB wrote: > > > > > > > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Robert" wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > You really are revealing how much work you still need to > > > > > > > do in regard to your hatred of men, which borders on > > > > > > > psychotic... > > > > > > > Sorry to say. > > > > > > > > > > > > Let's see, I'm a hysterical racist who hates men, but > > > > > > all you men are *perfectly* rational. Have I got that > > > > > > right? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > She says, in her 30th post of the day, > > > > > after claiming that she's not the least > > > > > bit hysterical. > > > > > > > > Right, see, in women, talking a lot is the > > > > definitive sign of hysteria. > > > > > > > > Especially when they're saying things men > > > > don't want to hear. > > > > > > > Hysterical means you've lost your center... > > > Your pushing to hard, pulling to soft, something is > > > amiss...! Something has pushed you over your limit > > > and you feel overwhelmed... > > > > No, Robert, sorry, I don't feel at all overwhelmed. > > > > Listen: The folks here who have "lost their center" > > are the men, because two strong women have been > > saying things that make them very uncomfortable. > > > > The way they try to get back their center is to > > portray the women as hysterical, because if they're > > just hysterical, then there's no reason to listen > > to what they have to say. > > > > Do you know where the term "hysteria" comes from? > > Look it up. > > > > > You can no longer see any other alternative... > > > You become completely over-shadowed by the issue at > > > hand, and it overtakes you mentally, emotionally, > > > physically and spiritually... > > > > Er, no, Robert, it doesn't. I'm actually having > > quite a good time. You guys are funnier than you > > know. ;-) > > > Ya Know, I was never a big believer in Freud, but these days, I'm starting to > bye into the 'Penis Envy' theory... > I can't see any other reason, why woman these days, have to prove all the > time, how many are such silly Bumpkins, and how Stupid they all are with > they're 'Swingin' Dicks'... > I'm starting to believe that ya' all wish you had one to swing, yourselves... > So, you didn't have to wait in those damn long lines at the rest stops on the > way to D.C. > Now, I'm not tryin' to be a Dick here... > I like havin' one... > Don't know what it would be, if I didn't have one! > Well, that's all I got... > God Bless the Meek, for they shall inherit the planet of apes... > R.G. > Robert, get a grip. Women are not interested in your penis. You are are still in the oedipal phase of libidinal and ego development and not yet very potent as a man. When you grow up someday, you'll realize that women want the same thing that you do...respect.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Sorry Judy
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" wrote: > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Robert" wrote: > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" wrote: > > > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB wrote: > > > > > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" wrote: > > > > > > > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Robert" wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > You really are revealing how much work you still need to > > > > > > do in regard to your hatred of men, which borders on > > > > > > psychotic... > > > > > > Sorry to say. > > > > > > > > > > Let's see, I'm a hysterical racist who hates men, but > > > > > all you men are *perfectly* rational. Have I got that > > > > > right? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > She says, in her 30th post of the day, > > > > after claiming that she's not the least > > > > bit hysterical. > > > > > > Right, see, in women, talking a lot is the > > > definitive sign of hysteria. > > > > > > Especially when they're saying things men > > > don't want to hear. > > > > > Hysterical means you've lost your center... > > Your pushing to hard, pulling to soft, something is > > amiss...! Something has pushed you over your limit > > and you feel overwhelmed... > > No, Robert, sorry, I don't feel at all overwhelmed. > > Listen: The folks here who have "lost their center" > are the men, because two strong women have been > saying things that make them very uncomfortable. > > The way they try to get back their center is to > portray the women as hysterical, because if they're > just hysterical, then there's no reason to listen > to what they have to say. > > Do you know where the term "hysteria" comes from? > Look it up. > > > You can no longer see any other alternative... > > You become completely over-shadowed by the issue at > > hand, and it overtakes you mentally, emotionally, > > physically and spiritually... > > Er, no, Robert, it doesn't. I'm actually having > quite a good time. You guys are funnier than you > know. ;-) > Ya Know, I was never a big believer in Freud, but these days, I'm starting to bye into the 'Penis Envy' theory... I can't see any other reason, why woman these days, have to prove all the time, how many are such silly Bumpkins, and how Stupid they all are with they're 'Swingin' Dicks'... I'm starting to believe that ya' all wish you had one to swing, yourselves... So, you didn't have to wait in those damn long lines at the rest stops on the way to D.C. Now, I'm not tryin' to be a Dick here... I like havin' one... Don't know what it would be, if I didn't have one! Well, that's all I got... God Bless the Meek, for they shall inherit the planet of apes... R.G.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Sorry Judy
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "raunchydog" wrote: > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, satvadude108 wrote: > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "raunchydog" wrote: > > > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, satvadude108 wrote: > > > > > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" wrote: > > > > > > > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Robert" > > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > You really are revealing how much work you still need to > > > > > > > > do in regard to your hatred of men, which borders on > > > > > > > > psychotic... > > > > > > > > Sorry to say. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Let's see, I'm a hysterical racist who hates men, but > > > > > > > all you men are *perfectly* rational. Have I got that > > > > > > > right? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > She says, in her 30th post of the day, > > > > > > after claiming that she's not the least > > > > > > bit hysterical. > > > > > > > > > > Right, see, in women, talking a lot is the > > > > > definitive sign of hysteria. > > > > > > > > > > > > No. Not really. It is more of a definitive > > > > sign of verbal diarrhea most often displayed > > > > by attention whores. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Well, what do you know? How telling. Judy just handed satvadude108 his > > > ass is a mini debate. Rather than admit she owned him, he snarls like a > > > trapped animal in a corner from which he cannot escape, and resorts to > > > sexist invectives. > > > > > > Firstly, Judy has never handed or handled my ass. > > You've never seen my bum tattoo that reads > > Exit Only. Homie don't play that way. Sorry > > Raunch, you two will need to be content > > with your cyber humping of my leg. > > > > Secondly, your blatant sexism offends my > > sensitive side Raunch. Yas never heard of a > > man-whore? There goes that ERA right down > > the drain again. No worries. We didn't need it > > anyway as it is Constitutionally redundant due > > to the Equal Protection clause. Always glad to > > help. :-) > > > > http://snipurl.com/in301 > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Especially when they're saying things men > > > > > don't want to hear. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Due to lack of self-examination, the sexist pig has become an endangered > species. That isn't true at all Raunch, unless you haven't seen fit to reproduce. >Known for wallowing in filth, to his dying breath he roots desperately for one >last >snarling zinger to blame a woman for his miserable lot in life, but all >he finds to >appease his appetite is crow. > Hopefully you plan on cleaning up when you are done humping my leg. I'm going out later and man-whores are fastidious about hygiene .
[FairfieldLife] Re: Sorry Judy
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "raunchydog" wrote: > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" wrote: > > > > Listen: The folks here who have "lost their center" > > are the men, because two strong women have been > > saying things that make them very uncomfortable. > > > > The way they try to get back their center is to > > portray the women as hysterical, because if they're > > just hysterical, then there's no reason to listen > > to what they have to say. > > > > Do you know where the term "hysteria" comes from? > > Look it up. > > > > > You can no longer see any other alternative... > > > You become completely over-shadowed by the issue at > > > hand, and it overtakes you mentally, emotionally, > > > physically and spiritually... > > > > Er, no, Robert, it doesn't. I'm actually having > > quite a good time. You guys are funnier than you > > know. ;-) > > Yep. > http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x9k-AXlMyME *Now* I'm hysterical. Just hilarious.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Sorry Judy
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, satvadude108 wrote: > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "raunchydog" wrote: > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, satvadude108 wrote: > > > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" wrote: > > > > > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB wrote: > > > > > > > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Robert" wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > You really are revealing how much work you still need to > > > > > > > do in regard to your hatred of men, which borders on > > > > > > > psychotic... > > > > > > > Sorry to say. > > > > > > > > > > > > Let's see, I'm a hysterical racist who hates men, but > > > > > > all you men are *perfectly* rational. Have I got that > > > > > > right? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > She says, in her 30th post of the day, > > > > > after claiming that she's not the least > > > > > bit hysterical. > > > > > > > > Right, see, in women, talking a lot is the > > > > definitive sign of hysteria. > > > > > > > > > No. Not really. It is more of a definitive > > > sign of verbal diarrhea most often displayed > > > by attention whores. > > > > > > > > > > Well, what do you know? How telling. Judy just handed satvadude108 his ass > > is a mini debate. Rather than admit she owned him, he snarls like a > > trapped animal in a corner from which he cannot escape, and resorts to > > sexist invectives. > > > Firstly, Judy has never handed or handled my ass. > You've never seen my bum tattoo that reads > Exit Only. Homie don't play that way. Sorry > Raunch, you two will need to be content > with your cyber humping of my leg. > > Secondly, your blatant sexism offends my > sensitive side Raunch. Yas never heard of a > man-whore? There goes that ERA right down > the drain again. No worries. We didn't need it > anyway as it is Constitutionally redundant due > to the Equal Protection clause. Always glad to > help. :-) > > http://snipurl.com/in301 > > > > > > > > > > > Especially when they're saying things men > > > > don't want to hear. > > > > > > > > > > Due to lack of self-examination, the sexist pig has become an endangered species. Known for wallowing in filth, to his dying breath he roots desperately for one last snarling zinger to blame a woman for his miserable lot in life, but all he finds to appease his appetite is crow.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Sorry Judy
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "raunchydog" wrote: > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, satvadude108 wrote: > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" wrote: > > > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB wrote: > > > > > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" wrote: > > > > > > > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Robert" wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > You really are revealing how much work you still need to > > > > > > do in regard to your hatred of men, which borders on > > > > > > psychotic... > > > > > > Sorry to say. > > > > > > > > > > Let's see, I'm a hysterical racist who hates men, but > > > > > all you men are *perfectly* rational. Have I got that > > > > > right? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > She says, in her 30th post of the day, > > > > after claiming that she's not the least > > > > bit hysterical. > > > > > > Right, see, in women, talking a lot is the > > > definitive sign of hysteria. > > > > > > No. Not really. It is more of a definitive > > sign of verbal diarrhea most often displayed > > by attention whores. > > > > > > Well, what do you know? How telling. Judy just handed satvadude108 his ass is > a mini debate. Rather than admit she owned him, he snarls like a trapped > animal in a corner from which he cannot escape, and resorts to sexist > invectives. Firstly, Judy has never handed or handled my ass. You've never seen my bum tattoo that reads Exit Only. Homie don't play that way. Sorry Raunch, you two will need to be content with your cyber humping of my leg. Secondly, your blatant sexism offends my sensitive side Raunch. Yas never heard of a man-whore? There goes that ERA right down the drain again. No worries. We didn't need it anyway as it is Constitutionally redundant due to the Equal Protection clause. Always glad to help. :-) http://snipurl.com/in301 > > > > > > > Especially when they're saying things men > > > don't want to hear. > > > > > >
[FairfieldLife] Re: Sorry Judy
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" wrote: > > Listen: The folks here who have "lost their center" > are the men, because two strong women have been > saying things that make them very uncomfortable. > > The way they try to get back their center is to > portray the women as hysterical, because if they're > just hysterical, then there's no reason to listen > to what they have to say. > > Do you know where the term "hysteria" comes from? > Look it up. > > > You can no longer see any other alternative... > > You become completely over-shadowed by the issue at > > hand, and it overtakes you mentally, emotionally, > > physically and spiritually... > > Er, no, Robert, it doesn't. I'm actually having > quite a good time. You guys are funnier than you > know. ;-) > Yep. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x9k-AXlMyME
[FairfieldLife] Re: Sorry Judy
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, satvadude108 wrote: > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" wrote: > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB wrote: > > > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" wrote: > > > > > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Robert" wrote: > > > > > > > > > You really are revealing how much work you still need to > > > > > do in regard to your hatred of men, which borders on > > > > > psychotic... > > > > > Sorry to say. > > > > > > > > Let's see, I'm a hysterical racist who hates men, but > > > > all you men are *perfectly* rational. Have I got that > > > > right? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > She says, in her 30th post of the day, > > > after claiming that she's not the least > > > bit hysterical. > > > > Right, see, in women, talking a lot is the > > definitive sign of hysteria. > > > No. Not really. It is more of a definitive > sign of verbal diarrhea most often displayed > by attention whores. > > Well, what do you know? How telling. Judy just handed satvadude108 his ass is a mini debate. Rather than admit she owned him, he snarls like a trapped animal in a corner from which he cannot escape, and resorts to sexist invectives. > > > > Especially when they're saying things men > > don't want to hear. > > >
[FairfieldLife] Re: Sorry Judy
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" wrote: > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, satvadude108 wrote: > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" wrote: > > > > > > > The post you were responding to wasn't even > > > *emotional*, let alone hysterical. > > > > I disagree. > > Too bad. You're mistaken. > > > > But it sure freaked *you* out. > > > > Hmmm, I don't believe you are correct. > > Again, lets consult Mr Dictionary. You really > > should get one. We would then be clear that > > your lack of comprehension isn't a blatant > > dodge or evasion. > > > > freaked out: 1) react or behave in a wild and > > irrational way, typically because of the effects > > of extreme emotion, mental illness, or drugs > > > > Nope, I don't seem to fall into any of those > > categories. Sorry. Carry on. > > Then why *are* you reacting in a wild and > irrational way? > You never tire of the same ole evasions and blatant dodges do yas?
[FairfieldLife] Re: Sorry Judy
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" wrote: > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB wrote: > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" wrote: > > > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Robert" wrote: > > > > > > > You really are revealing how much work you still need to > > > > do in regard to your hatred of men, which borders on > > > > psychotic... > > > > Sorry to say. > > > > > > Let's see, I'm a hysterical racist who hates men, but > > > all you men are *perfectly* rational. Have I got that > > > right? > > > > > > > > > > She says, in her 30th post of the day, > > after claiming that she's not the least > > bit hysterical. > > Right, see, in women, talking a lot is the > definitive sign of hysteria. No. Not really. It is more of a definitive sign of verbal diarrhea most often displayed by attention whores. > > Especially when they're saying things men > don't want to hear. >
[FairfieldLife] Re: Sorry Judy
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Robert" wrote: > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" wrote: > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB wrote: > > > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" wrote: > > > > > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Robert" wrote: > > > > > > > > > You really are revealing how much work you still need to > > > > > do in regard to your hatred of men, which borders on > > > > > psychotic... > > > > > Sorry to say. > > > > > > > > Let's see, I'm a hysterical racist who hates men, but > > > > all you men are *perfectly* rational. Have I got that > > > > right? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > She says, in her 30th post of the day, > > > after claiming that she's not the least > > > bit hysterical. > > > > Right, see, in women, talking a lot is the > > definitive sign of hysteria. > > > > Especially when they're saying things men > > don't want to hear. > > > Hysterical means you've lost your center... > Your pushing to hard, pulling to soft, something is > amiss...! Something has pushed you over your limit > and you feel overwhelmed... No, Robert, sorry, I don't feel at all overwhelmed. Listen: The folks here who have "lost their center" are the men, because two strong women have been saying things that make them very uncomfortable. The way they try to get back their center is to portray the women as hysterical, because if they're just hysterical, then there's no reason to listen to what they have to say. Do you know where the term "hysteria" comes from? Look it up. > You can no longer see any other alternative... > You become completely over-shadowed by the issue at > hand, and it overtakes you mentally, emotionally, > physically and spiritually... Er, no, Robert, it doesn't. I'm actually having quite a good time. You guys are funnier than you know. ;-)
[FairfieldLife] Re: Sorry Judy
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Robert" wrote: > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" wrote: > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj wrote: > > > > > > On May 22, 2009, at 12:30 AM, raunchydog wrote: > > > > > > > Vaj: Why on earth would a successful meditator > > > > still have lingering destructive emotions months > > > > after the original stressor? ["He raped you, so > > > > what, get over it."] > > > > > > So experiencing Hillary loosing > > > > ["losing"] > > > > > was like being RAPED? > > > > (Ain't it fascinating how the well-poisoners here > > carefully overlook what both Raunchy and I have > > repeatedly explained, that it wasn't Hillary losing > > that we're bugged about, but *how* she lost?) > > > > > I'm sorry Raunch, but I do believe it's time for the > > > therapists couch. > > > > Actually, it's time for the therapist's couch for > > men who are unable to understand that sexism is the > > basis of the act of rape. > > > > It's also time for the therapist's couch for men > > who aren't able to recognize that telling a woman > > to "get over it" when she's been *psychologically* > > raped is analogous to telling her the same thing when > > she's been *physically* raped. > > Wow! Another casualty from the turnip truck. > The Election of 2008, had nothing to do with anyone getting raped! > There was no raping which was reported... > Your psychological tortured rape is all in your mind, from either this > lifetime's experience, or a past lifetime(s)... > In Message #219635 Judy explained this one nicely: "(Ain't it fascinating how the well-poisoners here carefully overlook what both Raunchy and I have repeatedly explained, that it wasn't Hillary losing that we're bugged about, but *how* she lost?)" Vaj: > I'm sorry Raunch, but I do believe it's time for the > therapists couch. Judy: "Actually, it's time for the therapist's couch for men who are unable to understand that sexism is the basis of the act of rape. It's also time for the therapist's couch for men who aren't able to recognize that telling a woman to "get over it" when she's been *psychologically* raped is analogous to telling her the same thing when she's been *physically* raped." > It has nothing to do with the election of Barack Obama. > > Hillary is doing fine, and doesn't appear to be traumitized by the election > and loves her job as Secretary of State and close confident of Barack Obama. > > Hillary's whole schtick was that, I'm a woman, so elect me. Wrong. If you're turnip truck had not been so comfy you would know that Hillary avoided playing gender politics and Obama played racial politics to the hilt. > It wasn't enough. > She needed a message besides that one. > She was not inspirational and became a focus for female angst. Wrong, wrong and wrong. Hillary had a huge progressive message and 18 million people voted for her, men included. > Then along comes Sarah Palin, who made a complete mockery of the notion of a > woman as a leader...as she seemed to be leading through pure seduction and > fear...what a joke! > Message #219606 Judy explains Palin quite nicely as well: "No, don't want it to happen to Palin either. She was treated disgracefully too. Good grief, if Democrats can't defeat Palin on the basis of her positions and record, we're in bad shape. Her *real* positions and *real* record, that is. There were a lot of false ones imputed to her. We shouldn't have needed to make her look even worse than she was. And there was *surely* no need for the sexist attacks on her." > There are many woman of power in the Obama White House... > > You really are revealing how much work you still need to do in regard to your > hatred of men, which borders on psychotic... > Sorry to say. > R.G. > Smack-down of the day Message #219666: Judy: "Let's see, I'm a hysterical racist who hates men, but all you men are *perfectly* rational. Have I got that right?"
[FairfieldLife] Re: Sorry Judy
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" wrote: > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB wrote: > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" wrote: > > > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Robert" wrote: > > > > > > > You really are revealing how much work you still need to > > > > do in regard to your hatred of men, which borders on > > > > psychotic... > > > > Sorry to say. > > > > > > Let's see, I'm a hysterical racist who hates men, but > > > all you men are *perfectly* rational. Have I got that > > > right? > > > > > > > > > > She says, in her 30th post of the day, > > after claiming that she's not the least > > bit hysterical. > > Right, see, in women, talking a lot is the > definitive sign of hysteria. > > Especially when they're saying things men > don't want to hear. > Hysterical means you've lost your center... Your pushing to hard, pulling to soft, something is amiss...! Something has pushed you over your limit and you feel overwhelmed... You can no longer see any other alternative... You become completely over-shadowed by the issue at hand, and it overtakes you mentally, emotionally, physically and spiritually... This is where TM comes in... You sit to meditate, and devote time, to regain your center... Also, yoga, tai chi, breath work, massage, dance, movement, riding your bike, getting off the computer for a while, all of these things can bring you back to center and bliss and unconditional love, which is your natural state, when you get centered... R.G.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Sorry Judy
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Robert" wrote: > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" wrote: > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Robert" wrote: > > > > > You really are revealing how much work you still need to > > > do in regard to your hatred of men, which borders on > > > psychotic... > > > Sorry to say. > > > > Let's see, I'm a hysterical racist who hates men, but > > all you men are *perfectly* rational. Have I got that > > right? > > > > > > > No, you think that you are a hysterical racist who hates men... I do??? > But, really inside, there is a little girl, crying out to be > noticed, loved and accepted for who you are...equal to everyone > else...no more, no less. > It has nothing to do with rationality... > It has to do with a wound, which you talk about... > You have been raped, and need to heal yourself of that. But you just got done saying I *wasn't* raped. Now you're saying I was. I'm so confused... > Not by continuing to inflict raping remarks on others, but by > healing the wound itself, if it is blocking you from loving > unconditionally... > > Anything which serves as a block of loving unconditionally is > standing in the way of your full development, as a human being and > enlightenment. > > So, it is necessary when the pain gets enough, and you can no > longer blame someone else for your pain, but see how you are > holding on to the pattern, that keeps recreating it in your > universethen you will decide you no longer need to hold onto > that thing... > > And, you will let go of judgment, and be healed... > (shed a tear) Robert, don't quit your day job, OK?
[FairfieldLife] Re: Sorry Judy
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, satvadude108 wrote: > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" wrote: > > > > The post you were responding to wasn't even > > *emotional*, let alone hysterical. > > I disagree. Too bad. You're mistaken. > > But it sure freaked *you* out. > > Hmmm, I don't believe you are correct. > Again, lets consult Mr Dictionary. You really > should get one. We would then be clear that > your lack of comprehension isn't a blatant > dodge or evasion. > > freaked out: 1) react or behave in a wild and > irrational way, typically because of the effects > of extreme emotion, mental illness, or drugs > > Nope, I don't seem to fall into any of those > categories. Sorry. Carry on. Then why *are* you reacting in a wild and irrational way?
[FairfieldLife] Re: Sorry Judy
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB wrote: > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" wrote: > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Robert" wrote: > > > > > You really are revealing how much work you still need to > > > do in regard to your hatred of men, which borders on > > > psychotic... > > > Sorry to say. > > > > Let's see, I'm a hysterical racist who hates men, but > > all you men are *perfectly* rational. Have I got that > > right? > > > > > > She says, in her 30th post of the day, > after claiming that she's not the least > bit hysterical. Right, see, in women, talking a lot is the definitive sign of hysteria. Especially when they're saying things men don't want to hear.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Sorry Judy
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" wrote: > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Robert" wrote: > > > You really are revealing how much work you still need to > > do in regard to your hatred of men, which borders on > > psychotic... > > Sorry to say. > > Let's see, I'm a hysterical racist who hates men, but > all you men are *perfectly* rational. Have I got that > right? > > > No, you think that you are a hysterical racist who hates men... But, really inside, there is a little girl, crying out to be noticed, loved and accepted for who you are...equal to everyone else...no more, no less. It has nothing to do with rationality... It has to do with a wound, which you talk about... You have been raped, and need to heal yourself of that. Not by continuing to inflict raping remarks on others, but by healing the wound itself, if it is blocking you from loving unconditionally... Anything which serves as a block of loving unconditionally is standing in the way of your full development, as a human being and enlightenment. So, it is necessary when the pain gets enough, and you can no longer blame someone else for your pain, but see how you are holding on to the pattern, that keeps recreating it in your universethen you will decide you no longer need to hold onto that thing... And, you will let go of judgment, and be healed... (shed a tear) r.g.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Sorry Judy
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" wrote: > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, satvadude108 wrote: > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" wrote: > > > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, satvadude108 wrote: > > > > > > > > Well Sal, you said you like the train wrecks. > > > > You must be in hog heaven right now. > > > > Judy is completely hysterical. > > > > > > Couldn't ask for a more perfect illustration of > > > what I said: > > > > > > > > It occurs to me that men think emotions always > > > > > block rational thought because it's true of > > > > > *them*, so they assume it's true of women as > > > > > well. Not really their fault; the culture > > > > > tells them "real men" don't indulge in > > > > > emotion, so when they experience emotion, it > > > > > scares the pants off them. That crippling > > > > > fear of not appearing manly is what prevents > > > > > them from being able to think rationally *as > > > > > well as* having emotions. > > > > > > > Human beings have emotions, thank goodness. Women > > > > experience them fully and acknowledge them, own > > > > them; men deny them so as not to appear unmanly. > > > > But their emotions come out anyway. They just come > > > > out sideways. > > > > Are your editorial skills failing or is this > > one of your oft used slippery and slimy > > diversions? > > Are those my only two choices? Well, I suppose you could still beat your wife if that was legal in your state. :-) > > > Lets consult, your friend and mine, Mr. > > Dictionary. > > > > hysterical : 1) deriving from or affected > > by uncontrolled extreme emotion. > > > > Uncontrolled extreme emotion. > > > > Calm down. Take a deep breath or three and you > > may be able to discern the difference between > > emotion and hysteria. > > Yeah, see, I think you're missing my point. Possibly. Wouldn't have been the first time. >The post you were responding to wasn't even > *emotional*, let alone hysterical. I disagree. > > But it sure freaked *you* out. > Hmmm, I don't believe you are correct. Again, lets consult Mr Dictionary. You really should get one. We would then be clear that your lack of comprehension isn't a blatant dodge or evasion. freaked out: 1) react or behave in a wild and irrational way, typically because of the effects of extreme emotion, mental illness, or drugs Nope, I don't seem to fall into any of those categories. Sorry. Carry on.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Sorry Judy
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" wrote: > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Robert" wrote: > > > You really are revealing how much work you still need to > > do in regard to your hatred of men, which borders on > > psychotic... > > Sorry to say. > > Let's see, I'm a hysterical racist who hates men, but > all you men are *perfectly* rational. Have I got that > right? > > She says, in her 30th post of the day, after claiming that she's not the least bit hysterical.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Sorry Judy
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Robert" wrote: > You really are revealing how much work you still need to > do in regard to your hatred of men, which borders on > psychotic... > Sorry to say. Let's see, I'm a hysterical racist who hates men, but all you men are *perfectly* rational. Have I got that right?
[FairfieldLife] Re: Sorry Judy
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" wrote: > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj wrote: > > > > On May 22, 2009, at 12:30 AM, raunchydog wrote: > > > > > Vaj: Why on earth would a successful meditator > > > still have lingering destructive emotions months > > > after the original stressor? ["He raped you, so > > > what, get over it."] > > > > So experiencing Hillary loosing > > ["losing"] > > > was like being RAPED? > > (Ain't it fascinating how the well-poisoners here > carefully overlook what both Raunchy and I have > repeatedly explained, that it wasn't Hillary losing > that we're bugged about, but *how* she lost?) > > > I'm sorry Raunch, but I do believe it's time for the > > therapists couch. > > Actually, it's time for the therapist's couch for > men who are unable to understand that sexism is the > basis of the act of rape. > > It's also time for the therapist's couch for men > who aren't able to recognize that telling a woman > to "get over it" when she's been *psychologically* > raped is analogous to telling her the same thing when > she's been *physically* raped. > The Election of 2008, had nothing to do with anyone getting raped! There was no raping which was reported... Your psychological tortured rape is all in your mind, from either this lifetime's experience, or a past lifetime(s)... It has nothing to do with the election of Barack Obama. Hillary is doing fine, and doesn't appear to be traumitized by the election and loves her job as Secretary of State and close confident of Barack Obama. Hillary's whole schtick was that, I'm a woman, so elect me. It wasn't enough. She needed a message besides that one. She was not inspirational and became a focus for female angst. Then along comes Sarah Palin, who made a complete mockery of the notion of a woman as a leader...as she seemed to be leading through pure seduction and fear...what a joke! There are many woman of power in the Obama White House... You really are revealing how much work you still need to do in regard to your hatred of men, which borders on psychotic... Sorry to say. R.G.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Sorry Judy
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, satvadude108 wrote: > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" wrote: > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, satvadude108 wrote: > > > > > > Well Sal, you said you like the train wrecks. > > > You must be in hog heaven right now. > > > Judy is completely hysterical. > > > > Couldn't ask for a more perfect illustration of > > what I said: > > > > > > It occurs to me that men think emotions always > > > > block rational thought because it's true of > > > > *them*, so they assume it's true of women as > > > > well. Not really their fault; the culture > > > > tells them "real men" don't indulge in > > > > emotion, so when they experience emotion, it > > > > scares the pants off them. That crippling > > > > fear of not appearing manly is what prevents > > > > them from being able to think rationally *as > > > > well as* having emotions. > > > > > Human beings have emotions, thank goodness. Women > > > experience them fully and acknowledge them, own > > > them; men deny them so as not to appear unmanly. > > > But their emotions come out anyway. They just come > > > out sideways. > > Are your editorial skills failing or is this > one of your oft used slippery and slimy > diversions? Are those my only two choices? > Lets consult, your friend and mine, Mr. > Dictionary. > > hysterical : 1) deriving from or affected > by uncontrolled extreme emotion. > > Uncontrolled extreme emotion. > > Calm down. Take a deep breath or three and you > may be able to discern the difference between > emotion and hysteria. Yeah, see, I think you're missing my point. The post you were responding to wasn't even *emotional*, let alone hysterical. But it sure freaked *you* out.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Sorry Judy
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "do.rflex" wrote: > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB wrote: > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" wrote: > > > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj wrote: > > > > > > > > On May 23, 2009, at 9:22 AM, raunchydog wrote: > > > > > > > > > Melissa McEwan at Shakesville's blogspot documented > > > > > 89 instances of blatant sexist attacks on Hillary > > > > > during the primary. > > > > > > > > Oh yeah, that famous investigative reporter Melissa McEwan > > > > of Shakesville's blogspot. Did she get the Pulitzer? I was > > > > thinking she might. > > > > > > > > I read it on the internet so it must be true! > > > > > > Do you know what the term "documented" means, Vaj? > > > > > > There wasn't exactly any need for "investigation" to > > > record the sexist attacks. They were quite open. > > > > Yeah, Vaj. What the fuck is *wrong* with > > you, dude? > > > > "Documented" means something you can provide > > a link to, something that shows *exactly* > > what the person you're talking about said, > > in their own words. Sorta like this: > > > > http://tinyurl.com/pzhv6n > > > > Just because it's on the Internet doesn't > > mean it's invalid. Right, Judy? Especially > > if all the words quoted as "documentation" > > are accurate. Right, Judy? > > > > "Documented" means it's true. > > > We should take bets on when she'll post out for the week. At this rate, it > looks like she's on track to set another record. > > What a hoot! > Out of control. Hysterical. Calling it a train wreck doesn't come close to describing this mindstate. Sal must be quite entertained today.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Sorry Judy
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" wrote: > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, satvadude108 wrote: > > > > Well Sal, you said you like the train wrecks. > > You must be in hog heaven right now. > > Judy is completely hysterical. > > Couldn't ask for a more perfect illustration of > what I said: > > > > It occurs to me that men think emotions always > > > block rational thought because it's true of > > > *them*, so they assume it's true of women as > > > well. Not really their fault; the culture > > > tells them "real men" don't indulge in > > > emotion, so when they experience emotion, it > > > scares the pants off them. That crippling > > > fear of not appearing manly is what prevents > > > them from being able to think rationally *as > > > well as* having emotions. > > > Human beings have emotions, thank goodness. Women > > experience them fully and acknowledge them, own > > them; men deny them so as not to appear unmanly. > > But their emotions come out anyway. They just come > > out sideways. > Are your editorial skills failing or is this one of your oft used slippery and slimy diversions? Lets consult, your friend and mine, Mr. Dictionary. hysterical : 1) deriving from or affected by uncontrolled extreme emotion. Uncontrolled extreme emotion. Calm down. Take a deep breath or three and you may be able to discern the difference between emotion and hysteria.
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Sorry Judy
On May 23, 2009, at 12:54 PM, raunchydog wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Sal Sunshine wrote: On May 23, 2009, at 12:48 AM, satvadude108 wrote: Well Sal, you said you like the train wrecks. You must be in hog heaven right now. Judy is completely hysterical. :) Sal Come on Sal. Show some courage. Let's see you make one coherent sentence exclaiming the joys of wallowing in hog heaven. Oink. Your point of view from the mud would be of great interest to all the Judy detractors too cowardly to take her on. Show your stuff. Be their champion. Debate her on the substantive issues of her recent posts, concerning sexist attacks on Hillary during the primary. I dare you. Oh never mind, Judy could mop the floor with you while sipping a tequila sunrise and dreaming of sunny beaches. Sal
[FairfieldLife] Re: Sorry Judy
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Sal Sunshine wrote: > > On May 23, 2009, at 12:48 AM, satvadude108 wrote: > > > Well Sal, you said you like the train wrecks. > > You must be in hog heaven right now. > > Judy is completely hysterical. > > :) > > Sal > Come on Sal. Show some courage. Let's see you make one coherent sentence exclaiming the joys of wallowing in hog heaven. Your point of view from the mud would be of great interest to all the Judy detractors too cowardly to take her on. Show your stuff. Be their champion. Debate her on the substantive issues of her recent posts, concerning sexist attacks on Hillary during the primary. I dare you. Oh never mind, Judy could mop the floor with you while sipping a tequila sunrise and dreaming of sunny beaches.
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Sorry Judy
On May 23, 2009, at 12:48 AM, satvadude108 wrote: Well Sal, you said you like the train wrecks. You must be in hog heaven right now. Judy is completely hysterical. :) Sal
[FairfieldLife] Re: Sorry Judy
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj wrote: > > Boy I'm so glad I found out what a women-hater Obama > was! I knew he had to be hidin' sometin. And here I > thought he was married to someone who's an archetype > for empowered women...silly me! Silly you indeed. Very few of McEwen's examples are of anything *Obama* said. They're from the media and blogs and his surrogates. As I said before, he didn't instigate most of the trash- talking. But he didn't do anything to squash it, and from time to time he even encouraged it. He doesn't hate women; he's just an opportunist. RD and Judy: don't > forget to hide your guns where Obama's negro army won't find them! > They's a comin' for uze guns! >
[FairfieldLife] Re: Sorry Judy
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB wrote: > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" wrote: > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj wrote: > > > > > > On May 23, 2009, at 9:22 AM, raunchydog wrote: > > > > > > > Melissa McEwan at Shakesville's blogspot documented > > > > 89 instances of blatant sexist attacks on Hillary > > > > during the primary. > > > > > > Oh yeah, that famous investigative reporter Melissa McEwan > > > of Shakesville's blogspot. Did she get the Pulitzer? I was > > > thinking she might. > > > > > > I read it on the internet so it must be true! > > > > Do you know what the term "documented" means, Vaj? > > > > There wasn't exactly any need for "investigation" to > > record the sexist attacks. They were quite open. > > Yeah, Vaj. What the fuck is *wrong* with > you, dude? > > "Documented" means something you can provide > a link to, something that shows *exactly* > what the person you're talking about said, > in their own words. Sorta like this: > > http://tinyurl.com/pzhv6n > > Just because it's on the Internet doesn't > mean it's invalid. Right, Judy? Especially > if all the words quoted as "documentation" > are accurate. Right, Judy? McEwan provides links to the original context so readers can judge for themselves whether her descriptions are accurate. Andrew didn't. Not his fault; I don't think it was possible way back then to link to Usenet posts (this was before the linkable Google archive). You could find them if you were willing to spend quite a bit of time at it, but he was counting on readers not wanting to be bothered doing that. He frequently truncated and/or distorted or outright misrepresented the context of what he quoted. Plus which, his quotes were taken from what were in most cases extended discussions on alt.m.t, not self- contained articles or segments of TV shows. > "Documented" means it's true.
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Sorry Judy
On May 23, 2009, at 10:50 AM, TurquoiseB wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj wrote: On May 23, 2009, at 9:22 AM, raunchydog wrote: Melissa McEwan at Shakesville's blogspot documented 89 instances of blatant sexist attacks on Hillary during the primary. Oh yeah, that famous investigative reporter Melissa McEwan of Shakesville's blogspot. Did she get the Pulitzer? I was thinking she might. I read it on the internet so it must be true! Do you know what the term "documented" means, Vaj? There wasn't exactly any need for "investigation" to record the sexist attacks. They were quite open. Yeah, Vaj. What the fuck is *wrong* with you, dude? "Documented" means something you can provide a link to, something that shows *exactly* what the person you're talking about said, in their own words. Sorta like this: http://tinyurl.com/pzhv6n Just because it's on the Internet doesn't mean it's invalid. Right, Judy? Especially if all the words quoted as "documentation" are accurate. Right, Judy? "Documented" means it's true. Pretty funny. Pretty desperate. Boy I'm so glad I found out what a women-hater Obama was! I knew he had to be hidin' sometin. And here I thought he was married to someone who's an archetype for empowered women...silly me! RD and Judy: don't forget to hide your guns where Obama's negro army won't find them! They's a comin' for uze guns!
[FairfieldLife] Re: Sorry Judy
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB wrote: > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" wrote: > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj wrote: > > > > > > On May 23, 2009, at 9:22 AM, raunchydog wrote: > > > > > > > Melissa McEwan at Shakesville's blogspot documented > > > > 89 instances of blatant sexist attacks on Hillary > > > > during the primary. > > > > > > Oh yeah, that famous investigative reporter Melissa McEwan > > > of Shakesville's blogspot. Did she get the Pulitzer? I was > > > thinking she might. > > > > > > I read it on the internet so it must be true! > > > > Do you know what the term "documented" means, Vaj? > > > > There wasn't exactly any need for "investigation" to > > record the sexist attacks. They were quite open. > > Yeah, Vaj. What the fuck is *wrong* with > you, dude? > > "Documented" means something you can provide > a link to, something that shows *exactly* > what the person you're talking about said, > in their own words. Sorta like this: > > http://tinyurl.com/pzhv6n > > Just because it's on the Internet doesn't > mean it's invalid. Right, Judy? Especially > if all the words quoted as "documentation" > are accurate. Right, Judy? > > "Documented" means it's true. We should take bets on when she'll post out for the week. At this rate, it looks like she's on track to set another record. What a hoot!
[FairfieldLife] Re: Sorry Judy
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj wrote: > > On May 22, 2009, at 12:30 AM, raunchydog wrote: > > > Vaj: Why on earth would a successful meditator > > still have lingering destructive emotions months > > after the original stressor? ["He raped you, so > > what, get over it."] > > So experiencing Hillary loosing ["losing"] > was like being RAPED? (Ain't it fascinating how the well-poisoners here carefully overlook what both Raunchy and I have repeatedly explained, that it wasn't Hillary losing that we're bugged about, but *how* she lost?) > I'm sorry Raunch, but I do believe it's time for the > therapists couch. Actually, it's time for the therapist's couch for men who are unable to understand that sexism is the basis of the act of rape. It's also time for the therapist's couch for men who aren't able to recognize that telling a woman to "get over it" when she's been *psychologically* raped is analogous to telling her the same thing when she's been *physically* raped.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Sorry Judy
Absolutely fascinating that Wednesday morning Vaj was railing against TMers "poisoning the well," characterizing it as "digital terrorism"... ...and Wednesday evening, only 12 hours later, he's energetically filling the well to overflowing with barrel after barrel of his own special brand of anti-TMer poison. And not for the first time, either. (Or the last.) It's the hypocrisy, stupid. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj wrote: > Why on earth would a successful meditator still > have lingering destructive emotions months after the > original stressor? Isn't part of the TM model that > unstressing will help with this kind of thing? > Was she even angrier before she started meditating? > After 30 years? I'm sorry, that's odd to me. It's > not working. > > If it was me, I would need to seriously reevaluate > my meditation method even if I was really, really > attached to it. And clearly, she's really, really > attached to it--to her detriment and to those > around her who have to continuously deal with the > still unresolved kleshas. I guess this level of > obscuration in consciousness could explain why she > has such a difficult time seeing things clearly, > unless they are very linear or black and white.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Sorry Judy
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB wrote: > *Should* it never happen again? Sure. > > Will it? Of course. > > *Should* race never have been an issue > with Obama? Sure. > > Was it? Of course. Nope, non sequitur, sorry. Obama was not the subject of racist attacks in the mainstream media and the lefty blogs, or from prominent Democrats. No comparison. > He was a strong enough candidate to > transcend race, and thus set the stage for > race not being an issue in a presidential > election ever again. > > Hillary was *not* a strong enough candidate > to transcend her gender, and thus she did > not do the same for women. Nope. Racism hasn't been acceptable as a public position in this society for quite some time before this election. If that hadn't been the case, Obama could never have won. Sexism, however, is still acceptable as a public position. No comparison. Were there any racist attacks on Obama and his supporters on FFL? Nope. Were there any sexist attacks on Hillary and her supporters on FFL? Scores. A lot of them from you. No comparison. > All women who have entered politics have > had to face this. The ones who are in office > don't whine about the sexism they encountered > the way you are doing. Hell, the *losers* -- > often because of sexism -- don't whine about > it the way you are doing. We aren't in office, nor did we lose an election. They aren't in a position to make a stink about what happened; we are. > Winning helps. When a woman candidate for > president comes along who is strong enough > to transcend gender the way that Obama > transcended race, *that* will help. For that to happen, sexism must first, like racism, become no longer publicly acceptable. That isn't the case now. It's *especially* not the case with you. > And I'll probably vote for her. Your not supporting Hillary didn't have a thing to do with her not being "strong enough to transcend gender." It had to do with *your* not being strong enough to transcend gender.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Sorry Judy
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, satvadude108 wrote: > > Well Sal, you said you like the train wrecks. > You must be in hog heaven right now. > Judy is completely hysterical. Couldn't ask for a more perfect illustration of what I said: > > It occurs to me that men think emotions always > > block rational thought because it's true of > > *them*, so they assume it's true of women as > > well. Not really their fault; the culture > > tells them "real men" don't indulge in > > emotion, so when they experience emotion, it > > scares the pants off them. That crippling > > fear of not appearing manly is what prevents > > them from being able to think rationally *as > > well as* having emotions. > Human beings have emotions, thank goodness. Women > experience them fully and acknowledge them, own > them; men deny them so as not to appear unmanly. > But their emotions come out anyway. They just come > out sideways.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Sorry Judy
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" wrote: > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj wrote: > > > > On May 23, 2009, at 9:22 AM, raunchydog wrote: > > > > > Melissa McEwan at Shakesville's blogspot documented > > > 89 instances of blatant sexist attacks on Hillary > > > during the primary. > > > > Oh yeah, that famous investigative reporter Melissa McEwan > > of Shakesville's blogspot. Did she get the Pulitzer? I was > > thinking she might. > > > > I read it on the internet so it must be true! > > Do you know what the term "documented" means, Vaj? > > There wasn't exactly any need for "investigation" to > record the sexist attacks. They were quite open. Yeah, Vaj. What the fuck is *wrong* with you, dude? "Documented" means something you can provide a link to, something that shows *exactly* what the person you're talking about said, in their own words. Sorta like this: http://tinyurl.com/pzhv6n Just because it's on the Internet doesn't mean it's invalid. Right, Judy? Especially if all the words quoted as "documentation" are accurate. Right, Judy? "Documented" means it's true.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Sorry Judy
Barry defends himself from the charge of "up-is-downism" by engaging in--wait for it!--up-is-downism. Like I just said, the gift that keeps on giving. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB wrote: > > Since Judy has hit the ground running in > "Gotta demonize anyone who thinks of me > differently than I want to be thought of" > mode, I might as well pay "homage" to one > of her classic ploys by providing a "trans- > lation" of the rant below: > > TRANSLATION: They're laughing at me. Can't > have that. Must do something. I know...ignore > my own posting history...ignore the fact that > I *admitted* that I still have bouts of anger > that I cannot control a year after the thing > I'm angry about...above all ignore the satire > that has people laughing at me...and think of > a new name to call the people laughing at me > or box to consign them to so that hopefully > more people won't join them in laughing at > me. Yeah...that's the ticket. I win. :-)
[FairfieldLife] Re: Sorry Judy
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB wrote: > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" wrote: > > We want you to acknowledge your ownership > > of the shit you threw at Hillary and her > > supporters, to be embarrassed by it, to realize > > just how shitty it was, and to repudiate it. > > > > Because *we don't want it to happen all over > > again when the next woman runs for president*. > > > > Get the point? > > We do, but I honestly don't think that you do. > > What you are expressing above has a name: > REVENGE. > > You want REVENGE for the perceived wrong. To have another woman run for president and not be the subject of vicious sexist attacks is what you consider "REVENGE"?? Boy, is *that* revealing. > REVENGE isn't sweet, let alone Maharishi's > "sweet truth." Pursuing it is a state of mind > that has known karmic repercussions. Like > turning one's life into a *never-ending* > quest for REVENGE, and thus perpetuating > itself. Like draining the joy from life such > that you can *only* find it in moments of > perceived REVENGE. Like isolating the > person bent on revenge from other people, who > easily see what the revenge-seeker cannot -- > that their life has devolved into *mainly* > the pursuit of revenge. Like starting to see > the world around you as *primarily* consisting > of causes to seek REVENGE for. > > In short, it makes you Judy Stein. And not Barry Wright? Master of Inadvertent Irony...the gift that keeps on giving.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Sorry Judy
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj wrote: > > > On May 23, 2009, at 9:22 AM, raunchydog wrote: > > > Melissa McEwan at Shakesville's blogspot documented > > 89 instances of blatant sexist attacks on Hillary > > during the primary. > > Oh yeah, that famous investigative reporter Melissa McEwan > of Shakesville's blogspot. Did she get the Pulitzer? I was > thinking she might. > > I read it on the internet so it must be true! Do you know what the term "documented" means, Vaj? There wasn't exactly any need for "investigation" to record the sexist attacks. They were quite open. http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_FLFv6-7ERXU/R4mi02Zm-mI/ACo/HC41kmfTrmY/s1600-h/oliphant.gif http://tinyurl.com/o4onev http://www.foulmouthshirts.com/New-shirts2/LIFES-A-BITCH-WHY-VOTE-FOR-ONE.htm http://tinyurl.com/pruusc http://www.hillarysanutcracker.com/hillarynutcracker http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/politics/2004041541_hillaryslurs29.html http://tinyurl.com/2255bc "You challenge the status quo and suddenly the claws come out."--Barack Obama, February 2008
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Sorry Judy
On May 23, 2009, at 9:22 AM, raunchydog wrote: > Melissa McEwan at Shakesville's blogspot documented 89 instances of > blatant sexist attacks on Hillary during the primary. Oh yeah, that famous investigative reporter Melissa McEwan of Shakesville's blogspot. Did she get the Pulitzer? I was thinking she might. I read it on the internet so it must be true! I'm sure you can find instances to support most of your delusions on the internet RD. Someone's always getting their tit into the wringer over some inconsequential and exaggerated slight. That's a big part of what old-style feminism is about. Hillary just seemed to bring the whacky fems out of the closet in droves.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Sorry Judy
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Rick Archer" wrote: > > I think Obama is as progressive as he can get away > with being. He's too radical for some people; not > radical enough for others. I think he had a sense > of how far he could push things and still get elected. > Folks like Ron Paul and Dennis Kucinich are great for > getting progressive ideas out there, but they don't > stand a chance of getting elected and actually being > able to act on those ideas. Jackson came very close to winning the Democratic nomination with a much more progressive record and platform than Obama's *25 years ago*. Jackson didn't worry about how much he could get away with, he didn't calculate his positions by how far he thought he could push things. He just led on the basis of what he believed. Plus which, Obama's lukewarm progressivity has actually cooled still further now that he's *in* the White House. Pragmatism is all very well, but it can become paralyzing. It can also be an excuse for lack of courage and weak leadership. When Jackson ran, the same things were being said about him as about Paul and Kucinich: he wasn't supposed to have a chance. But he gave the more moderate candidates a real run for their money. The eventual nominees--Mondale and Dukakis--both lost the election (to Reagan and Bush I) because they were perceived to be weak leaders.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Sorry Judy
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "raunchydog" wrote: > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Rick Archer" wrote: > > > > From: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com [mailto:fairfieldl...@yahoogroups.com] > > On Behalf Of raunchydog > > Sent: Saturday, May 23, 2009 2:36 AM > > To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com > > Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: Sorry Judy > > > > Conventional wisdom says Obama was elected because he "transcended race." > > Hogwash. If it hadn't been for MLK and LBJ and LAWS that forbid > > discrimination, and segregation, and many years of government and media > > effort to improve race relations, Obama would never have had a chance at the > > presidency. > > > > If Hillary had had the same protections against discrimination for her sex > > as Obama had for his race, without a doubt Hillary would have been treated > > more respectfully. No one transcends race or gender without some help from > > the LAW. > > > > We have become so sensitive as a nation about race that everyone tippy-toed > > to protect Obamba's sensibilities during the primary lest they wear the > > shameful name of "racist." Obama used it to his advantage on several > > occasions and people were often falsely accused of racism if they didn't > > support Obama. Deplorable. http://tinyurl.com/2ve8jt > > > > Hillary had no such tippy-toeing around her. It was open season to attack > > her and the so called progressive Left and the complicit DNC didn't hold > > back firing as many cheap sexist shots as they could. > > > Can you give us a few examples of these cheap sexist shots? > > Yikes! Rick just fell of the turnip truck. Either he wasn't paying attention > or he would know a sexist attack on a woman if it bit him in the ass. In > Message #219508 I referenced this: > > Melissa McEwan at Shakesville's blogspot documented 89 instances of blatant > sexist attacks on Hillary during the primary. I'm glad someone was keeping > count, if only to serve as a reminder of the perils awaiting any woman brave > enough to attempt a presidential run. If we don't learn from history, we are > doomed to repeat it. > > http://tinyurl.com/p4q7tt > http://shakespearessister.blogspot.com/2008/05/hillary-sexism-watch-part-eighty.\ > html > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "raunchydog" wrote: > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Rick Archer" wrote: > > > > From: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com [mailto:fairfieldl...@yahoogroups.com] > > On Behalf Of raunchydog > > Sent: Saturday, May 23, 2009 2:36 AM > > To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com > > Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: Sorry Judy > > > > Conventional wisdom says Obama was elected because he "transcended race." > > Hogwash. If it hadn't been for MLK and LBJ and LAWS that forbid > > discrimination, and segregation, and many years of government and media > > effort to improve race relations, Obama would never have had a chance at the > > presidency. > > > > If Hillary had had the same protections against discrimination for her sex > > as Obama had for his race, without a doubt Hillary would have been treated > > more respectfully. No one transcends race or gender without some help from > > the LAW. > > > > We have become so sensitive as a nation about race that everyone tippy-toed > > to protect Obamba's sensibilities during the primary lest they wear the > > shameful name of "racist." Obama used it to his advantage on several > > occasions and people were often falsely accused of racism if they didn't > > support Obama. Deplorable. http://tinyurl.com/2ve8jt > > > > Hillary had no such tippy-toeing around her. It was open season to attack > > her and the so called progressive Left and the complicit DNC didn't hold > > back firing as many cheap sexist shots as they could. > > > Can you give us a few examples of these cheap sexist shots? > > Yikes! Rick just fell of the turnip truck. Either he wasn't paying attention > or he would know a sexist attack on a woman if it bit him in the ass. In > Message #219508 I referenced this: > > Melissa McEwan at Shakesville's blogspot documented 89 instances of blatant > sexist attacks on Hillary during the primary. I'm glad someone was keeping > count, if only to serve as a reminder of the perils awaiting any woman brave > enough to attempt a presidential run. If we don't learn from history, we are > doomed to repeat it. > > http://ti
[FairfieldLife] Re: Sorry Judy
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Rick Archer" wrote: > > From: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com [mailto:fairfieldl...@yahoogroups.com] > On Behalf Of raunchydog > Sent: Saturday, May 23, 2009 2:36 AM > To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com > Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: Sorry Judy > > Conventional wisdom says Obama was elected because he "transcended race." > Hogwash. If it hadn't been for MLK and LBJ and LAWS that forbid > discrimination, and segregation, and many years of government and media > effort to improve race relations, Obama would never have had a chance at the > presidency. > > If Hillary had had the same protections against discrimination for her sex > as Obama had for his race, without a doubt Hillary would have been treated > more respectfully. No one transcends race or gender without some help from > the LAW. > > We have become so sensitive as a nation about race that everyone tippy-toed > to protect Obamba's sensibilities during the primary lest they wear the > shameful name of "racist." Obama used it to his advantage on several > occasions and people were often falsely accused of racism if they didn't > support Obama. Deplorable. http://tinyurl.com/2ve8jt > > Hillary had no such tippy-toeing around her. It was open season to attack > her and the so called progressive Left and the complicit DNC didn't hold > back firing as many cheap sexist shots as they could. > Can you give us a few examples of these cheap sexist shots? Yikes! Rick just fell of the turnip truck. Either he wasn't paying attention or he would know a sexist attack on a woman if it bit him in the ass. In Message #219508 I referenced this: Melissa McEwan at Shakesville's blogspot documented 89 instances of blatant sexist attacks on Hillary during the primary. I'm glad someone was keeping count, if only to serve as a reminder of the perils awaiting any woman brave enough to attempt a presidential run. If we don't learn from history, we are doomed to repeat it. http://tinyurl.com/p4q7tt http://shakespearessister.blogspot.com/2008/05/hillary-sexism-watch-part-eighty.\ html
RE: [FairfieldLife] Re: Sorry Judy
From: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com [mailto:fairfieldl...@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of authfriend Sent: Saturday, May 23, 2009 7:53 AM To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: Sorry Judy I think Obama is as progressive as he can get away with being. He's too radical for some people; not radical enough for others. I think he had a sense of how far he could push things and still get elected. Folks like Ron Paul and Dennis Kucinich are great for getting progressive ideas out there, but they don't stand a chance of getting elected and actually being able to act on those ideas. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com <mailto:FairfieldLife%40yahoogroups.com> , "raunchydog" wrote: > Conventional wisdom says Obama was elected because > he "transcended race." Hogwash. If it hadn't been > for MLK and LBJ and LAWS that forbid discrimination, > and segregation, and many years of government and > media effort to improve race relations, Obama would > never have had a chance at the presidency. Don't forget Jesse Jackson, who was an activist for civil rights before Obama was even born and broke the ground Obama would later use to his own advantage, by making two very respectable runs for the Democratic nomination himself, with no nonsense about "transcending race." As I said to OK earlier, it's no wonder Obama distanced himself from Jackson. Obama's record of accomplishments and his stands on progressive issues are pathetic compared to Jackson's: http://www.rainbowpush.org/about/revjackson.html http://www.4president.org/brochures/jessejackson1984brochure.htm http://tinyurl.com/os3wr6 > The Equal Rights for Women Amendment was first > proposed in 1923, it is still not part of the U.S. > Constitution. Ratifying the ERA was a plank in Jackson's platform both times he ran.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Sorry Judy
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "raunchydog" wrote: > Conventional wisdom says Obama was elected because > he "transcended race." Hogwash. If it hadn't been > for MLK and LBJ and LAWS that forbid discrimination, > and segregation, and many years of government and > media effort to improve race relations, Obama would > never have had a chance at the presidency. Don't forget Jesse Jackson, who was an activist for civil rights before Obama was even born and broke the ground Obama would later use to his own advantage, by making two very respectable runs for the Democratic nomination himself, with no nonsense about "transcending race." As I said to OK earlier, it's no wonder Obama distanced himself from Jackson. Obama's record of accomplishments and his stands on progressive issues are pathetic compared to Jackson's: http://www.rainbowpush.org/about/revjackson.html http://www.4president.org/brochures/jessejackson1984brochure.htm http://tinyurl.com/os3wr6 > The Equal Rights for Women Amendment was first > proposed in 1923, it is still not part of the U.S. > Constitution. Ratifying the ERA was a plank in Jackson's platform both times he ran.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Sorry Judy
Would you say that US is an egalatarian society with no gender discriminations, no glass ceilings.?? --- On Sat, 5/23/09, Rick Archer wrote: Subject: RE: [FairfieldLife] Re: Sorry Judy Date: Saturday, May 23, 2009, 5:24 AM Can you give us a few examples of these cheap sexist shots? If Hillary had campaigned as successfully as Obama, and he as unsuccessfully has she, she might have one. Her sex was not a critical variable, IMO. My impression was that campaign fatigue was eroding her judgment. She was knocking back shots and bragging about her experience with guns in order to appeal to rednecks. She drove her campaign deep into debt clinging to the hope of winning long after it was apparent that she couldn't. I could say similar things of McCain. By the end of the campaign, he was so burned out that he had become a walking caricature, saying "my friends" with every breath, making erratic decisions, and going on about Joe the Plumber. Obama became a bit incoherent at times, but for the most part, kept his cool and conducted a brilliant campaign to the end. Isn't campaigning partly about seeing how the candidates perform under duress, as a test of how they'll perform as president? *
RE: [FairfieldLife] Re: Sorry Judy
From: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com [mailto:fairfieldl...@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of raunchydog Sent: Saturday, May 23, 2009 2:36 AM To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: Sorry Judy Conventional wisdom says Obama was elected because he "transcended race." Hogwash. If it hadn't been for MLK and LBJ and LAWS that forbid discrimination, and segregation, and many years of government and media effort to improve race relations, Obama would never have had a chance at the presidency. If Hillary had had the same protections against discrimination for her sex as Obama had for his race, without a doubt Hillary would have been treated more respectfully. No one transcends race or gender without some help from the LAW. We have become so sensitive as a nation about race that everyone tippy-toed to protect Obamba's sensibilities during the primary lest they wear the shameful name of "racist." Obama used it to his advantage on several occasions and people were often falsely accused of racism if they didn't support Obama. Deplorable. http://tinyurl.com/2ve8jt Hillary had no such tippy-toeing around her. It was open season to attack her and the so called progressive Left and the complicit DNC didn't hold back firing as many cheap sexist shots as they could. Can you give us a few examples of these cheap sexist shots? If Hillary had campaigned as successfully as Obama, and he as unsuccessfully has she, she might have one. Her sex was not a critical variable, IMO. My impression was that campaign fatigue was eroding her judgment. She was knocking back shots and bragging about her experience with guns in order to appeal to rednecks. She drove her campaign deep into debt clinging to the hope of winning long after it was apparent that she couldn't. I could say similar things of McCain. By the end of the campaign, he was so burned out that he had become a walking caricature, saying "my friends" with every breath, making erratic decisions, and going on about Joe the Plumber. Obama became a bit incoherent at times, but for the most part, kept his cool and conducted a brilliant campaign to the end. Isn't campaigning partly about seeing how the candidates perform under duress, as a test of how they'll perform as president?
[FairfieldLife] Re: Sorry Judy
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" wrote: > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB wrote: > > > Raunchy feels like shit because Hillary lost. > > And she wants us to feel like shit, too. > > That´s the bottom line. > > No, that is *not* the bottom line. Both Raunchy > and I have been explicit that it isn't that > Hillary lost, it's *how* she lost. > > Yes, we *do* want you to feel like shit about > that. I'd like to thank Judy for validating the theory I proposed earlier in my first "The *intent* of overly-emotional writing" post and in the followup post she is replying to. She states above that both Raunchy and herself DO have an *intent* behind their harping on the Hillary Thang. She even states what that *intent* IS. She wants us to feel like shit. The thing is, I don't think Judy herself knows what the deeper nature of that wish and that *intent* is, so I'll rap about it a bit more, after she expands upon what her *intent* entails, from her point of view: > We want you to acknowledge your ownership > of the shit you threw at Hillary and her > supporters, to be embarrassed by it, to realize > just how shitty it was, and to repudiate it. > > Because *we don't want it to happen all over > again when the next woman runs for president*. > > Get the point? We do, but I honestly don't think that you do. What you are expressing above has a name: REVENGE. You want REVENGE for the perceived wrong. And I don't think I'm the only person here who understands that you want it a great deal more than you want the wrong "righted." In a few short words in this post Judy recapitulates her entire posting history, which is a 15-year attempt to get the folks she doesn't like to 1) ADMIT that they were "wrong" (and more important, but not stated, that Judy was "right"), and 2) PAY for having done the "wrong" thing. It's a REVENGE fantasy. And I, for one, do not believe that pursuing such fantasies with the diligence and fervor Judy has pursued them for fifteen years has anything whatsoever to do with "righting wrongs" and "making sure they don't happen again." That's just "sweet truth" she shovels out to cover the fact that she's indulging in REVENGE fantasies. REVENGE isn't sweet, let alone Maharishi's "sweet truth." Pursuing it is a state of mind that has known karmic repercussions. Like turning one's life into a *never-ending* quest for REVENGE, and thus perpetuating itself. Like draining the joy from life such that you can *only* find it in moments of perceived REVENGE. Like isolating the person bent on revenge from other people, who easily see what the revenge-seeker cannot -- that their life has devolved into *mainly* the pursuit of revenge. Like starting to see the world around you as *primarily* consisting of causes to seek REVENGE for. In short, it makes you Judy Stein. Those who want to turn out like her, follow her lead and dedicate your life to seeking REVENGE. You *will* turn out just like her. The reason why is a Law Of Nature, of cause- and-effect that has a short and simple name: karma. "Resentment is like taking poison and waiting for the other person to die." - Malachy McCourt
[FairfieldLife] Re: Sorry Judy
Since Judy has hit the ground running in "Gotta demonize anyone who thinks of me differently than I want to be thought of" mode, I might as well pay "homage" to one of her classic ploys by providing a "trans- lation" of the rant below: TRANSLATION: They're laughing at me. Can't have that. Must do something. I know...ignore my own posting history...ignore the fact that I *admitted* that I still have bouts of anger that I cannot control a year after the thing I'm angry about...above all ignore the satire that has people laughing at me...and think of a new name to call the people laughing at me or box to consign them to so that hopefully more people won't join them in laughing at me. Yeah...that's the ticket. I win. :-) --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" wrote: > > An FFL classic. You've got three people, one after > another--Barry, Sal, and do.rflex (actually Barry goes > twice)--indulging in what Josh Marshall of Talking > Points Memo would characterize as "up-is-downism," a > near-complete and willful reversal of reality that > they've convinced themselves to believe in. Not just > with regard to the post they're commenting on, or my > posting history here, but with regard to what happened > out in the real world in the primaries. > > Talk about living in a small world in one's head! They > can't even see far enough to notice what goes on right > in front of their noses. > > It's a sickness that manifested with great virulence > during the primaries and obviously is still deeply > embedded in the psyches of Obama supporters. > > Is there a cure for it? I don't know, but if we can't > find some way to treat those who are ill and keep > them from passing the disease on to future generations, > we're in very, very deep trouble. At one time it > appeared to be quarantined among Republicans, but > clearly it escaped, and it turns out that even lefty > progressives aren't immune to it. > > If anybody wants me to point out all the reality- > reversals in what follows, let me know, but I think > most FFLers will be able to spot them easily (although, > of course, you won't have the guts to speak up to > contest them). > > And of course one mustn't expect Vaj to rear up and > point out that these three posters are engaging in the > "poison-the-well fallacy"--what he characterizes as > "digital terrorism"--to beat the band. > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "do.rflex" wrote: > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB wrote: > > > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Sal Sunshine wrote: > > > > > > > > On May 21, 2009, at 10:55 AM, TurquoiseB wrote: > > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > It occurred to me last night as I was reading Raunchy's > > > > > > post #219365 that the emotional component is not so > > > > > > much a matter of Hillary having lost as of *how* she > > > > > > lost, how incredibly unfairly and viciously she was > > > > > > treated by Obama's supporters--in the lefty blogs, by > > > > > > the Democratic Party, by the media, and of course by > > > > > > the right wingers, not to mention some of the people > > > > > > on FFL. And it wasn't just Hillary who was treated > > > > > > this way, it was her supporters as well. > > > > > > > > > > > > That left deep emotional scars (speaking of Barry's > > > > > > Cockburn quotes about "tending to cause damage"). > > > > > > > > > > > > Obama himself wasn't the instigator of most of it, > > > > > > but he did almost nothing to try to stop or mitigate > > > > > > it and even encouraged it at times. That's awfully > > > > > > hard to forgive. > > > > > > > > > > Not for sane people. > > > > > > > > > > It's OVER. > > > > > > > > > > Why aren't YOU over it? Hillary certainly is. > > > > > > > > No kidding. Hard to believe that almost > > > > a year after Hillary conceded the nomination, > > > > and over 6 months since Obama soundly > > > > whipped McCain's ass, this insanity still goes > > > > on, complete with ugly names for Obama's > > > > supporters and a mean-spirited set of attacks > > > > on the supporters as well as Obama himself > > > > that seems to veer at times precipitously close > > > > to a personal vendetta, ie an irrational > > > > hatred that is not receptive to any kind > > > > of logical discussion. > > > > > > > > Obama has become the new Barry. :) > > > > > > Now THAT had me LOL. :-) > > > > > > Doncha *feel* for him? FIFTEEN YEARS from > > > now Obama, by then my age (63) and retired > > > gracefully from two successful terms as > > > President, will come through New Jersey > > > on a speaking tour and Judy, by then 103 > > > (or at least looking it) will attend and > > > scream out from the audience, "Liar! Don't > > > you remember what you said in a speech > > > back in 2008? [waving a printout] I have > > > a copy of it right here!" > > > > > > Obama will laugh at her. But Judy, deciding > > > that his
[FairfieldLife] Re: Sorry Judy
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" wrote: > > An FFL classic. You've got three people, one after > another--Barry, Sal, and do.rflex (actually Barry goes > twice)--indulging in what Josh Marshall of Talking > Points Memo would characterize as "up-is-downism," a > near-complete and willful reversal of reality that > they've convinced themselves to believe in. Not just > with regard to the post they're commenting on, or my > posting history here, but with regard to what happened > out in the real world in the primaries. > > Talk about living in a small world in one's head! They > can't even see far enough to notice what goes on right > in front of their noses. > > It's a sickness that manifested with great virulence > during the primaries and obviously is still deeply > embedded in the psyches of Obama supporters. > > Is there a cure for it? I don't know, but if we can't > find some way to treat those who are ill and keep > them from passing the disease on to future generations, > we're in very, very deep trouble. At one time it > appeared to be quarantined among Republicans, but > clearly it escaped, and it turns out that even lefty > progressives aren't immune to it. > Conventional wisdom says Obama was elected because he "transcended race." Hogwash. If it hadn't been for MLK and LBJ and LAWS that forbid discrimination, and segregation, and many years of government and media effort to improve race relations, Obama would never have had a chance at the presidency. If Hillary had had the same protections against discrimination for her sex as Obama had for his race, without a doubt Hillary would have been treated more respectfully. No one transcends race or gender without some help from the LAW. We have become so sensitive as a nation about race that everyone tippy-toed to protect Obamba's sensibilities during the primary lest they wear the shameful name of "racist." Obama used it to his advantage on several occasions and people were often falsely accused of racism if they didn't support Obama. Deplorable. http://tinyurl.com/2ve8jt Hillary had no such tippy-toeing around her. It was open season to attack her and the so called progressive Left and the complicit DNC didn't hold back firing as many cheap sexist shots as they could. Here's an interesting tidbit: The United States is the only developed nation that has not ratified the CEDAW, Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women. "The Universal Declaration of Human Rights, adopted in 1948, enshrines "the equal rights of men and women", and addressed both the equality and equity issues.[49] In 1979 the United Nations General Assembly adopted the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women (CEDAW). Described as an international bill of rights for women, it came into force on 3 September 1981." Read More: http://tinyurl.com/7tgjg The Equal Rights for Women Amendment was first proposed in 1923, it is still not part of the U.S. Constitution. The ERA has been ratified by 35 of the necessary 38 states. When three more states vote yes, the ERA might become the 28th Amendment. Unratified States Alabama Arizona Arkansas Florida Georgia Illinois Louisiana Mississippi Missouri Nevada North Carolina Oklahoma South Carolina Utah Virginia Read more: http://tinyurl.com/5hgbgm > If anybody wants me to point out all the reality- > reversals in what follows, let me know, but I think > most FFLers will be able to spot them easily (although, > of course, you won't have the guts to speak up to > contest them). > > And of course one mustn't expect Vaj to rear up and > point out that these three posters are engaging in the > "poison-the-well fallacy"--what he characterizes as > "digital terrorism"--to beat the band. > >
[FairfieldLife] Re: Sorry Judy
Well Sal, you said you like the train wrecks. You must be in hog heaven right now. Judy is completely hysterical. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" wrote: > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB wrote: > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "raunchydog" wrote: > > > > It brought me to tears to know that you > > > understand completely how painful it was to have > > > witnessed such shameful, sexist, unrelenting, > > > abuse of the first American woman ever to make > > > such a powerful and historic bid for the > > > presidency. > > > > And these are the women who claim not to > > be "running on emotion." > > Raunchy, from another post: > > "I'll own that sexism is an emotional hot button > for me but it doesn't preclude my rational > abilities to recognize it, speak out against it > and defend Hillary or any woman against it." > > What we claim is that our intellects aren't > "fundamentally governed," as Rick put it, by > our emotions, not that we don't *have* strong > emotions. (Note once again Barry's deceptive > use of quote marks; "running on emotion" is > *his* phrase, designed to create a straw man). > > It occurs to me that men think emotions always > block rational thought because it's true of > *them*, so they assume it's true of women as > well. Not really their fault; the culture > tells them "real men" don't indulge in > emotion, so when they experience emotion, it > scares the pants off them. That crippling > fear of not appearing manly is what prevents > them from being able to think rationally *as > well as* having emotions. > > In contrast, the culture tells women that it's > OK for them to have emotions, so they don't > fear them. They're perfectly capable of having > both emotions *and* rational thought and of > distinguishing between them. > > > It's A YEAR LATER. And neither of them sees > > anything the *least* bit odd about still > > breaking into tears or into uncontrollable > > bouts of anger about something that happened > > to SOMEONE THEY NEVER MET. > > Barry has again failed to pay attention to > the very posts he's criticizing. Raunchy *has* > met Hillary. > > And Raunchy didn't weep because of what > happened to Hillary, she wept because she > felt I had understood her anger. > > Nor was either of us having "uncontrollable > bouts" of anger. Again, men are so terrified > of emotions that they perceive them to be > inherently uncontrollable. What you were seeing > from both Raunchy and me was *controlled > anger*. > > > But it's not the weepiness or the anger that > > astounding me...it's the HOLDING ON TO IT. > > > > I honestly don't understand how anyone who > > has been meditating for 30+ years can do that. > > It just doesn't compute. Did these women never > > heard Maharishi's "line through water" analogy? > > Have they never *experienced* it? I suspect > > that almost everyone else here has. We GET > > OVER THINGS. Why don't you? > > See, here's the tendency of the TM critics to > view everything in black and white. It doesn't > occur to Barry that it depends on the situation. > He assumes that if we haven't "gotten over" one > particularly strong emotion, it means we haven't > *ever* gotten over *any* emotions. > > But that, of course, isn't the case, and it's > regularly demonstrated in our posts as well as > in our personal lives. > > > As for "What was done to Hillary," welcome to > > politics. Stop being such a wuss. She isn't. > > IMO *most* of what was said about Hillary > > Clinton wasn't aimed at her at all. She's > > a strong old bat; it wouldn't have affected > > her. And unlike you two, she doesn't appear > > to hold grudges; she's beyond it. > > She's a politician; unlike us, she *can't* > appear to hold grudges. > > We don't see her in private, however. We don't > know what kind of effort she has to exert to > put on and maintain that grudge-free public face. > > (Note that Barry uses the term "grudge" as a > weasel word to suggest that whatever the > complaint is has no basis.) > > > The sexist taunts at Hillary were designed > > to make her *followers* crazy. And they worked > > like a charm. Nothing loses a female politician > > more votes than a bunch of women running around > > screaming hysterically, "They're playing dirty > > with my candidate," in a national election. > > Are you DERANGED? Playing dirty is a *synonym* > > for "national election." > > So Barry admits that sexism is "playing dirty." > Let's remember that. > > But the sexist attacks weren't just aimed at > her supporters. They were designed to upset her > and throw her off her game. They were also > designed to make her appear ridiculous in the > eyes of those who were on the fence about whom > to support (particularly men; the attacks were > intended to reinforce their own stereotypes of > women as incapable of being presidential). > > And of course, the sexism of Obama's supporters > and the right wing actually
[FairfieldLife] Re: Sorry Judy
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Mike Dixon wrote: > Except Sarah Palin, right? No, don't want it to happen to Palin either. She was treated disgracefully too. Good grief, if Democrats can't defeat Palin on the basis of her positions and record, we're in bad shape. Her *real* positions and *real* record, that is. There were a lot of false ones imputed to her. We shouldn't have needed to make her look even worse than she was. And there was *surely* no need for the sexist attacks on her. > --- On Sat, 5/23/09, authfriend wrote: > > From: authfriend > Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: Sorry Judy > To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com > Date: Saturday, May 23, 2009, 4:04 AM > > --- In FairfieldLife@ yahoogroups. com, TurquoiseB wrote: > > > Raunchy feels like shit because Hillary lost. > > And she wants us to feel like shit, too. > > That´s the bottom line. > > No, that is *not* the bottom line. Both Raunchy > and I have been explicit that it isn't that > Hillary lost, it's *how* she lost. > > Yes, we *do* want you to feel like shit about > that. We want you to acknowledge your ownership > of the shit you threw at Hillary and her > supporters, to be embarrassed by it, to realize > just how shitty it was, and to repudiate it. > > Because *we don't want it to happen all over > again when the next woman runs for president*. > > Get the point?
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Sorry Judy
Except Sarah Palin, right? --- On Sat, 5/23/09, authfriend wrote: From: authfriend Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: Sorry Judy To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Date: Saturday, May 23, 2009, 4:04 AM --- In FairfieldLife@ yahoogroups. com, TurquoiseB wrote: > Raunchy feels like shit because Hillary lost. > And she wants us to feel like shit, too. > That´s the bottom line. No, that is *not* the bottom line. Both Raunchy and I have been explicit that it isn't that Hillary lost, it's *how* she lost. Yes, we *do* want you to feel like shit about that. We want you to acknowledge your ownership of the shit you threw at Hillary and her supporters, to be embarrassed by it, to realize just how shitty it was, and to repudiate it. Because *we don't want it to happen all over again when the next woman runs for president*. Get the point?
[FairfieldLife] Re: Sorry Judy
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB wrote: > You obviously either didn't read a word of > my posting about emotionally-manipulative > writing, or you don't realize that is what > you are doing. Let's see who didn't read a word of whose post: > Your preferred candidate in an election lost, > that's all. > > And you're trying to act as if that was *like* > having your balls cut off or being raped. Nope. One more time: Her losing wasn't like being raped. It was *how* she lost that was like being raped. Raunchy and I have both been explicit about this, so there's zero excuse for Barry to continue to misrepresent it.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Sorry Judy
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB wrote: > Raunchy feels like shit because Hillary lost. > And she wants us to feel like shit, too. > That´s the bottom line. No, that is *not* the bottom line. Both Raunchy and I have been explicit that it isn't that Hillary lost, it's *how* she lost. Yes, we *do* want you to feel like shit about that. We want you to acknowledge your ownership of the shit you threw at Hillary and her supporters, to be embarrassed by it, to realize just how shitty it was, and to repudiate it. Because *we don't want it to happen all over again when the next woman runs for president*. Get the point?
[FairfieldLife] Re: Sorry Judy
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB wrote: > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "raunchydog" wrote: > > It brought me to tears to know that you > > understand completely how painful it was to have > > witnessed such shameful, sexist, unrelenting, > > abuse of the first American woman ever to make > > such a powerful and historic bid for the > > presidency. > > And these are the women who claim not to > be "running on emotion." Raunchy, from another post: "I'll own that sexism is an emotional hot button for me but it doesn't preclude my rational abilities to recognize it, speak out against it and defend Hillary or any woman against it." What we claim is that our intellects aren't "fundamentally governed," as Rick put it, by our emotions, not that we don't *have* strong emotions. (Note once again Barry's deceptive use of quote marks; "running on emotion" is *his* phrase, designed to create a straw man). It occurs to me that men think emotions always block rational thought because it's true of *them*, so they assume it's true of women as well. Not really their fault; the culture tells them "real men" don't indulge in emotion, so when they experience emotion, it scares the pants off them. That crippling fear of not appearing manly is what prevents them from being able to think rationally *as well as* having emotions. In contrast, the culture tells women that it's OK for them to have emotions, so they don't fear them. They're perfectly capable of having both emotions *and* rational thought and of distinguishing between them. > It's A YEAR LATER. And neither of them sees > anything the *least* bit odd about still > breaking into tears or into uncontrollable > bouts of anger about something that happened > to SOMEONE THEY NEVER MET. Barry has again failed to pay attention to the very posts he's criticizing. Raunchy *has* met Hillary. And Raunchy didn't weep because of what happened to Hillary, she wept because she felt I had understood her anger. Nor was either of us having "uncontrollable bouts" of anger. Again, men are so terrified of emotions that they perceive them to be inherently uncontrollable. What you were seeing from both Raunchy and me was *controlled anger*. > But it's not the weepiness or the anger that > astounding me...it's the HOLDING ON TO IT. > > I honestly don't understand how anyone who > has been meditating for 30+ years can do that. > It just doesn't compute. Did these women never > heard Maharishi's "line through water" analogy? > Have they never *experienced* it? I suspect > that almost everyone else here has. We GET > OVER THINGS. Why don't you? See, here's the tendency of the TM critics to view everything in black and white. It doesn't occur to Barry that it depends on the situation. He assumes that if we haven't "gotten over" one particularly strong emotion, it means we haven't *ever* gotten over *any* emotions. But that, of course, isn't the case, and it's regularly demonstrated in our posts as well as in our personal lives. > As for "What was done to Hillary," welcome to > politics. Stop being such a wuss. She isn't. > IMO *most* of what was said about Hillary > Clinton wasn't aimed at her at all. She's > a strong old bat; it wouldn't have affected > her. And unlike you two, she doesn't appear > to hold grudges; she's beyond it. She's a politician; unlike us, she *can't* appear to hold grudges. We don't see her in private, however. We don't know what kind of effort she has to exert to put on and maintain that grudge-free public face. (Note that Barry uses the term "grudge" as a weasel word to suggest that whatever the complaint is has no basis.) > The sexist taunts at Hillary were designed > to make her *followers* crazy. And they worked > like a charm. Nothing loses a female politician > more votes than a bunch of women running around > screaming hysterically, "They're playing dirty > with my candidate," in a national election. > Are you DERANGED? Playing dirty is a *synonym* > for "national election." So Barry admits that sexism is "playing dirty." Let's remember that. But the sexist attacks weren't just aimed at her supporters. They were designed to upset her and throw her off her game. They were also designed to make her appear ridiculous in the eyes of those who were on the fence about whom to support (particularly men; the attacks were intended to reinforce their own stereotypes of women as incapable of being presidential). And of course, the sexism of Obama's supporters and the right wing actually resulted in Hillary *gaining* votes, not losing them. Many women took a second look at Hillary *because* she was being so viciously attacked. Like Raunchy, they saw the sexism as an attack on women in general, which inspired them to stand in solidarity with her, to see her as their champion. Another point Barry misses is that this was the first time a woman has ever actually had a chance in a presidential election--indeed, was initi
[FairfieldLife] Re: Sorry Judy
An FFL classic. You've got three people, one after another--Barry, Sal, and do.rflex (actually Barry goes twice)--indulging in what Josh Marshall of Talking Points Memo would characterize as "up-is-downism," a near-complete and willful reversal of reality that they've convinced themselves to believe in. Not just with regard to the post they're commenting on, or my posting history here, but with regard to what happened out in the real world in the primaries. Talk about living in a small world in one's head! They can't even see far enough to notice what goes on right in front of their noses. It's a sickness that manifested with great virulence during the primaries and obviously is still deeply embedded in the psyches of Obama supporters. Is there a cure for it? I don't know, but if we can't find some way to treat those who are ill and keep them from passing the disease on to future generations, we're in very, very deep trouble. At one time it appeared to be quarantined among Republicans, but clearly it escaped, and it turns out that even lefty progressives aren't immune to it. If anybody wants me to point out all the reality- reversals in what follows, let me know, but I think most FFLers will be able to spot them easily (although, of course, you won't have the guts to speak up to contest them). And of course one mustn't expect Vaj to rear up and point out that these three posters are engaging in the "poison-the-well fallacy"--what he characterizes as "digital terrorism"--to beat the band. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "do.rflex" wrote: > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB wrote: > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Sal Sunshine wrote: > > > > > > On May 21, 2009, at 10:55 AM, TurquoiseB wrote: > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" wrote: > > > > > > > > > > It occurred to me last night as I was reading Raunchy's > > > > > post #219365 that the emotional component is not so > > > > > much a matter of Hillary having lost as of *how* she > > > > > lost, how incredibly unfairly and viciously she was > > > > > treated by Obama's supporters--in the lefty blogs, by > > > > > the Democratic Party, by the media, and of course by > > > > > the right wingers, not to mention some of the people > > > > > on FFL. And it wasn't just Hillary who was treated > > > > > this way, it was her supporters as well. > > > > > > > > > > That left deep emotional scars (speaking of Barry's > > > > > Cockburn quotes about "tending to cause damage"). > > > > > > > > > > Obama himself wasn't the instigator of most of it, > > > > > but he did almost nothing to try to stop or mitigate > > > > > it and even encouraged it at times. That's awfully > > > > > hard to forgive. > > > > > > > > Not for sane people. > > > > > > > > It's OVER. > > > > > > > > Why aren't YOU over it? Hillary certainly is. > > > > > > No kidding. Hard to believe that almost > > > a year after Hillary conceded the nomination, > > > and over 6 months since Obama soundly > > > whipped McCain's ass, this insanity still goes > > > on, complete with ugly names for Obama's > > > supporters and a mean-spirited set of attacks > > > on the supporters as well as Obama himself > > > that seems to veer at times precipitously close > > > to a personal vendetta, ie an irrational > > > hatred that is not receptive to any kind > > > of logical discussion. > > > > > > Obama has become the new Barry. :) > > > > Now THAT had me LOL. :-) > > > > Doncha *feel* for him? FIFTEEN YEARS from > > now Obama, by then my age (63) and retired > > gracefully from two successful terms as > > President, will come through New Jersey > > on a speaking tour and Judy, by then 103 > > (or at least looking it) will attend and > > scream out from the audience, "Liar! Don't > > you remember what you said in a speech > > back in 2008? [waving a printout] I have > > a copy of it right here!" > > > > Obama will laugh at her. But Judy, deciding > > that his laughter and compassionate silence > > at encountering Yet Another Crazy is sub- > > mission, will decide that she "won" the > > encounter. > > > > Then, having gotten a taste of "the thrill > > of victory," she'll start stalking him all > > over the world, appearing at every one of > > his speaking engagements, yelling out the > > same stuff. The Secret Service assigned to > > Obama in retirement will offer to have her > > sent somewhere with padded walls, but being > > the compassionate mensch he is, Obama will > > decline the offer. > > > > Finally, tired of hearing the same old shit > > shouted by the same old windbag, the Secret > > Service agents will take matters into their > > own hands and cart her off to Bellevue > > themselves. > > > > Obama will never notice her absence, just > > as he never noticed her presence. > > > > :-) > > > Good laughs, Barry. I don't think she realizes what a small world she lives > in in her head. >
[FairfieldLife] Re: Sorry Judy
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, okpeachman2000 wrote: > For 40 years brother Jesse has been active to further > only one cause, himself. Wise folks in the community > have been embarrassed by this for years and it is why > Obama has kept him at a great distance. Not surprising that Obama would keep him at a distance. Here are some of the elements of Jackson's platform in 1984 and 1988 (from Wikipedia): --creating a Works Progress Administration-style program to rebuild America's infrastructure and provide jobs to all Americans --reprioritizing the War on Drugs to focus less on mandatory minimum sentences for drug users (which he views as racially biased) and more on harsher punishments for money-laundering bankers and others who are part of the "supply" end of "supply and demand" --reversing Reaganomics-inspired tax cuts for the richest ten percent of Americans and using the money to finance social welfare programs --cutting the budget of the Department of Defense by as much as fifteen percent over the course of his administration --declaring Apartheid-era South Africa to be a rogue nation --instituting an immediate nuclear freeze and beginning disarmament negotiations with the Soviet Union --giving reparations to descendants of black slaves --supporting family farmers by reviving many of Roosevelt's New Dealera farm programs --creating a single-payer system of universal health care --ratifying the Equal Rights Amendment --increasing federal funding for lower-level public education and providing free community college to all --applying stricter enforcement of the Voting Rights Act --supporting the formation of a Palestinian state James Carville said at one point in the primary campaign that Hillary should give Obama one of her balls, "and then they'd both have two." He could have said the same of Jackson and Obama.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Sorry Judy
Oh babajii, where to start? Never mind. I give, up. Arguing with dumb is pointless. One more time for the hard of learning: It's not that Hillary lost that is bothersome it HOW she lost. The blatant sexism directed at her was despicable. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Robert" wrote: > > (snip) > > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "raunchydog" > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > If someone cut off your balls, laughed at you about it, > > > > > > and said, "Oh we were just having some fun. Don't be such > > > > > > a wuss. It's so unmanly. Your tears and anger, just prove > > > > > > what we thought about you anyway. Weakling. Suck it up." > > > > > > Your lack of balls would be a constant reminder of the assault. > > > > > > > > > > > > Questions for a eunuch: > > > > > > > > > > > > Are you angry about it? > > > > > > Are you doing whatever you can to prevent it from happening > > > > > > to anyone ever again? > > > > > > Do you talk about it? > > > > > > Are you ashamed to talk about it? > > > > > > Other than other eunuchs, have you met anyone who understands > > > > > > how you feel? > > > > > > How do you feel when someone says, "I feel your pain?" > > > > > > How do you feel when someone says, "I will help you prevent > > > > > > this from happening to anyone ever again?" > > > > > > How do you feel when someone says, "Get over it?" > > > > > > > > > > > > Anyone who says to the eunuch, "Get over it" gives permission > > > > > > for future castrations. > > > > > > > > > > > > Jews talk about the Holocaust and say, "Never again." > > > > > > Native Americans talk about genocide and say, "Never again." > > > > > > Women talk about sexism directed at Hillary and say, "Never > > > > > > again." > > > > > > > > > > > > People who are so devoid of compassion that they close their > > > > > > hearts to injustice, are emotional eunuchs and need to get > > > > > > over it. > > > > > > > > > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On May 22, 2009, at 12:30 AM, raunchydog wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Vaj: Why on earth would a successful meditator still have > > > > > > > > > lingering destructive emotions months after the original > > > > > > > > > stressor? ["He raped you, so what, get over it."] > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > So experiencing Hillary loosing was like being RAPED? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I'm sorry Raunch, but I do believe it's time for the > > > > > > > > therapists couch. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > For the record, this is *exactly* what I > > > > > > > was talking about in my "The *intent* of > > > > > > > overly-emotional writing" post this morning. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Not only is the analogy Raunchy is trying > > > > > > > to make here inappropriate, is is *knowingly* > > > > > > > inappropriate, and used for its emotional- > > > > > > > manipulation characteristics > (snip) > Raunchy was talking about Trauma, and what happens when someone has been > Traumatized... > A lot of women, who were avid Hillary supporter's you could tell, had > experienced some kind of 'Gender-Related-Trauma'... > Hillary losing made them feel, like they were 'Re-Traumatized'... > Any remark made about Hillary, in that regard, would also, re-traumatize > them... > They began to blame their trauma on Barack Obama and his supporters... > They began to see him drawing huge rallies, and started thinking he was > Hitler or something... > They're consciousness blanked out, which is what consciousness does, with > unresolved trauma... > One with unresolved trauma, keeps seeing the same story over and over again... > The Jews who were traumatized in WWII, would still be working out fears in > this lifetime, related to that trauma... > The Native Americans who were traumatized, would still be working out fears > in this lifetime, related to being defeated...alcoholism...etc. > > Certain white people, who had lifetimes, where they owned slaves, or when > they felt that white people should rule the other races, can't imagine that a > black man is President of the United States... > They are in denial, of President Obama, and listen to other people who are > also in denial of reality, like Rush Limbo. > > The people who created a 'False Reality' based in 'Reaganism'... > Are now, being faced with a 'Real Reality' based in 'Truth'... > So, they don't find inspiration in Truth...they are so used to being > comforted by lies, that the truth scares them...it's too real... > > Many people on the 'Left' think that Obama is going to 'Snap his Finger's', > And everything will magically change... > Rome wasn't built in a day...it's it will take a while... > > So, the whole Hillary thing, is about this: > The attatchment to the notion, that if Hillary won, then all the trauma of > t
[FairfieldLife] Re: Sorry Judy
(snip) > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "raunchydog" wrote: > > > > > > > > > > If someone cut off your balls, laughed at you about it, > > > > > and said, "Oh we were just having some fun. Don't be such > > > > > a wuss. It's so unmanly. Your tears and anger, just prove > > > > > what we thought about you anyway. Weakling. Suck it up." > > > > > Your lack of balls would be a constant reminder of the assault. > > > > > > > > > > Questions for a eunuch: > > > > > > > > > > Are you angry about it? > > > > > Are you doing whatever you can to prevent it from happening > > > > > to anyone ever again? > > > > > Do you talk about it? > > > > > Are you ashamed to talk about it? > > > > > Other than other eunuchs, have you met anyone who understands > > > > > how you feel? > > > > > How do you feel when someone says, "I feel your pain?" > > > > > How do you feel when someone says, "I will help you prevent > > > > > this from happening to anyone ever again?" > > > > > How do you feel when someone says, "Get over it?" > > > > > > > > > > Anyone who says to the eunuch, "Get over it" gives permission > > > > > for future castrations. > > > > > > > > > > Jews talk about the Holocaust and say, "Never again." > > > > > Native Americans talk about genocide and say, "Never again." > > > > > Women talk about sexism directed at Hillary and say, "Never > > > > > again." > > > > > > > > > > People who are so devoid of compassion that they close their > > > > > hearts to injustice, are emotional eunuchs and need to get > > > > > over it. > > > > > > > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On May 22, 2009, at 12:30 AM, raunchydog wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Vaj: Why on earth would a successful meditator still have > > > > > > > > lingering destructive emotions months after the original > > > > > > > > stressor? ["He raped you, so what, get over it."] > > > > > > > > > > > > > > So experiencing Hillary loosing was like being RAPED? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I'm sorry Raunch, but I do believe it's time for the > > > > > > > therapists couch. > > > > > > > > > > > > For the record, this is *exactly* what I > > > > > > was talking about in my "The *intent* of > > > > > > overly-emotional writing" post this morning. > > > > > > > > > > > > Not only is the analogy Raunchy is trying > > > > > > to make here inappropriate, is is *knowingly* > > > > > > inappropriate, and used for its emotional- > > > > > > manipulation characteristics (snip) Raunchy was talking about Trauma, and what happens when someone has been Traumatized... A lot of women, who were avid Hillary supporter's you could tell, had experienced some kind of 'Gender-Related-Trauma'... Hillary losing made them feel, like they were 'Re-Traumatized'... Any remark made about Hillary, in that regard, would also, re-traumatize them... They began to blame their trauma on Barack Obama and his supporters... They began to see him drawing huge rallies, and started thinking he was Hitler or something... They're consciousness blanked out, which is what consciousness does, with unresolved trauma... One with unresolved trauma, keeps seeing the same story over and over again... The Jews who were traumatized in WWII, would still be working out fears in this lifetime, related to that trauma... The Native Americans who were traumatized, would still be working out fears in this lifetime, related to being defeated...alcoholism...etc. Certain white people, who had lifetimes, where they owned slaves, or when they felt that white people should rule the other races, can't imagine that a black man is President of the United States... They are in denial, of President Obama, and listen to other people who are also in denial of reality, like Rush Limbo. The people who created a 'False Reality' based in 'Reaganism'... Are now, being faced with a 'Real Reality' based in 'Truth'... So, they don't find inspiration in Truth...they are so used to being comforted by lies, that the truth scares them...it's too real... Many people on the 'Left' think that Obama is going to 'Snap his Finger's', And everything will magically change... Rome wasn't built in a day...it's it will take a while... So, the whole Hillary thing, is about this: The attatchment to the notion, that if Hillary won, then all the trauma of the past, related to gender would suddenly be healed... As though Hillary has or had the power to heal all the personal issues of all the girls and woman of America and the World... Talk about a 'Messiah Complex!' R.G. R.G.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Sorry Judy
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" wrote: > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Ben" wrote: > > > > > Obama has become the new Barry. :) > > > > > > Sal > > > > > I think they are afraid of an actual articulate educated black man... > > > > just my theory > > Can't get much lower than this "theory." > Really scraping the bottom of the barrel. > > Nothing would have thrilled me more than to > have been able to support a black man (or even > better, a black woman) for president. Interesting that you would openly base you support of a candidate on whether they have ovaries or testicles but feel your concealed racism should never find the light of day. Perhaps you have buried it so deeply you are no longer even consciously aware it exists. It frightens you and angers you when it is spotlighted. Unfortunately this is a somewhat common thing in modern society that often manifests as one ages in a variety of severe personality disorders. Only time will tell whether Obama lives up to the hopes and dreams he has inspired in his supporters. Claiming support for brother Jesse and sister Cynthia takes the cake. For 40 years brother Jesse has been active to further only one cause, himself. Wise folks in the community have been embarrassed by this for years and it is why Obama has kept him at a great distance. Sister Cynthia is such a joke she almost a caricature. Ovaries verses testicles. Telling, very telling. > > That's why I said in an earlier post (which > you didn't bother to read) that I had been > looking forward to Obama's speech at the 2004 > Democratic Convention and was so disappointed > when it didn't inspire me. I was hoping he was > going to provide that opportunity. > > I supported Jesse Jackson in his runs for > president; and I ultimately voted this time > around for Cynthia McKinney, because I wanted > my vote to be recorded for a black person, > even if it wasn't Obama. > > Your contemptible "theory" clearly has zero > to do with anything you know about me. You've > only been here for a week and haven't even > been reading my posts. > > What's behind such racism accusations, obviously, > is a terrible fear that Obama won't live up to > expectations. The idea is to intimidate critics > into shutting up lest they be accused of racism. > > The charge is made by those who think Obama can't > stand on his own and needs some extra help, that > he has to be protected from criticism. > > That's the *real* racism. >
[FairfieldLife] Re: Sorry Judy
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Ben" wrote: > > > Obama has become the new Barry. :) > > > > Sal > > > I think they are afraid of an actual articulate educated black man... > > just my theory Can't get much lower than this "theory." Really scraping the bottom of the barrel. Nothing would have thrilled me more than to have been able to support a black man (or even better, a black woman) for president. That's why I said in an earlier post (which you didn't bother to read) that I had been looking forward to Obama's speech at the 2004 Democratic Convention and was so disappointed when it didn't inspire me. I was hoping he was going to provide that opportunity. I supported Jesse Jackson in his runs for president; and I ultimately voted this time around for Cynthia McKinney, because I wanted my vote to be recorded for a black person, even if it wasn't Obama. Your contemptible "theory" clearly has zero to do with anything you know about me. You've only been here for a week and haven't even been reading my posts. What's behind such racism accusations, obviously, is a terrible fear that Obama won't live up to expectations. The idea is to intimidate critics into shutting up lest they be accused of racism. The charge is made by those who think Obama can't stand on his own and needs some extra help, that he has to be protected from criticism. That's the *real* racism.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Sorry Judy
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB wrote: > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "raunchydog" wrote: > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB wrote: > > > > > > I tried. > > > > I'll meet you half way. Agree that the sexism directed > > at Hillary was an injustice that should never happen > > to another female candidate again and I will not infer > > that you are an emotional eunuch devoid of compassion > > who needs to get over it. > > *Should* it never happen again? Sure. > > Will it? Of course. > > *Should* race never have been an issue > with Obama? Sure. > > Was it? Of course. > > He was a strong enough candidate to > transcend race, and thus set the stage for > race not being an issue in a presidential > election ever again. > > Hillary was *not* a strong enough candidate > to transcend her gender, and thus she did > not do the same for women. > What a bunch of ridiculous platitudes. Obama's win only proves a media interest in elevating the conversation about race relations and a successful mission to raise the consciousness of the electorate. Hillary's loss proves a dearth of media interest in elevating the conversation about sexism and failed miserably to raise the consciousness of the electorate about it. Ergo, racism trumps sexism in America. > All women who have entered politics have > had to face this. The ones who are in office > don't whine about the sexism they encountered > the way you are doing. Hell, the *losers* -- > often because of sexism -- don't whine about > it the way you are doing. > > Whining doesn't help. Getting so out of > control emotionally about the issue that > you don't even *realize* that you're > resorting to cheap emotional blackmail to > try to make your points doesn't help. > > Winning helps. When a woman candidate for > president comes along who is strong enough > to transcend gender the way that Obama > transcended race, *that* will help. And > I'll probably vote for her. > > Hillary was not that candidate. > > > > Really, I did. > > > > > > I tried talking to you as if you were sane, > > > but when you get like this you really aren't. > > > > > > You obviously either didn't read a word of > > > my posting about emotionally-manipulative > > > writing, or you don't realize that is what > > > you are doing. > > > > > > No one cut off your balls, Raunchy. > > > > > > No one raped you. > > > > > > Your preferred candidate in an election lost, > > > that's all. > > > > > > And you're trying to act as if that was *like* > > > having your balls cut off or being raped. > > > > > > That is being emotionally manipulative. It's > > > also being a child. > > > > > > I give up. I'll deal with you only during your > > > sane moments. > > > > > > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "raunchydog" wrote: > > > > > > > > If someone cut off your balls, laughed at you about it, > > > > and said, "Oh we were just having some fun. Don't be such > > > > a wuss. It's so unmanly. Your tears and anger, just prove > > > > what we thought about you anyway. Weakling. Suck it up." > > > > Your lack of balls would be a constant reminder of the assault. > > > > > > > > Questions for a eunuch: > > > > > > > > Are you angry about it? > > > > Are you doing whatever you can to prevent it from happening > > > > to anyone ever again? > > > > Do you talk about it? > > > > Are you ashamed to talk about it? > > > > Other than other eunuchs, have you met anyone who understands > > > > how you feel? > > > > How do you feel when someone says, "I feel your pain?" > > > > How do you feel when someone says, "I will help you prevent > > > > this from happening to anyone ever again?" > > > > How do you feel when someone says, "Get over it?" > > > > > > > > Anyone who says to the eunuch, "Get over it" gives permission > > > > for future castrations. > > > > > > > > Jews talk about the Holocaust and say, "Never again." > > > > Native Americans talk about genocide and say, "Never again." > > > > Women talk about sexism directed at Hillary and say, "Never > > > > again." > > > > > > > > People who are so devoid of compassion that they close their > > > > hearts to injustice, are emotional eunuchs and need to get > > > > over it. > > > > > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB wrote: > > > > > > > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On May 22, 2009, at 12:30 AM, raunchydog wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > Vaj: Why on earth would a successful meditator still have > > > > > > > lingering destructive emotions months after the original > > > > > > > stressor? ["He raped you, so what, get over it."] > > > > > > > > > > > > So experiencing Hillary loosing was like being RAPED? > > > > > > > > > > > > I'm sorry Raunch, but I do believe it's time for the > > > > > > therapists couch. > > > > > > > > > > For the record, this is *exac
[FairfieldLife] Re: Sorry Judy
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "raunchydog" wrote: > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB wrote: > > > > I tried. > > I'll meet you half way. Agree that the sexism directed > at Hillary was an injustice that should never happen > to another female candidate again and I will not infer > that you are an emotional eunuch devoid of compassion > who needs to get over it. *Should* it never happen again? Sure. Will it? Of course. *Should* race never have been an issue with Obama? Sure. Was it? Of course. He was a strong enough candidate to transcend race, and thus set the stage for race not being an issue in a presidential election ever again. Hillary was *not* a strong enough candidate to transcend her gender, and thus she did not do the same for women. All women who have entered politics have had to face this. The ones who are in office don't whine about the sexism they encountered the way you are doing. Hell, the *losers* -- often because of sexism -- don't whine about it the way you are doing. Whining doesn't help. Getting so out of control emotionally about the issue that you don't even *realize* that you're resorting to cheap emotional blackmail to try to make your points doesn't help. Winning helps. When a woman candidate for president comes along who is strong enough to transcend gender the way that Obama transcended race, *that* will help. And I'll probably vote for her. Hillary was not that candidate. > > Really, I did. > > > > I tried talking to you as if you were sane, > > but when you get like this you really aren't. > > > > You obviously either didn't read a word of > > my posting about emotionally-manipulative > > writing, or you don't realize that is what > > you are doing. > > > > No one cut off your balls, Raunchy. > > > > No one raped you. > > > > Your preferred candidate in an election lost, > > that's all. > > > > And you're trying to act as if that was *like* > > having your balls cut off or being raped. > > > > That is being emotionally manipulative. It's > > also being a child. > > > > I give up. I'll deal with you only during your > > sane moments. > > > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "raunchydog" wrote: > > > > > > If someone cut off your balls, laughed at you about it, > > > and said, "Oh we were just having some fun. Don't be such > > > a wuss. It's so unmanly. Your tears and anger, just prove > > > what we thought about you anyway. Weakling. Suck it up." > > > Your lack of balls would be a constant reminder of the assault. > > > > > > Questions for a eunuch: > > > > > > Are you angry about it? > > > Are you doing whatever you can to prevent it from happening > > > to anyone ever again? > > > Do you talk about it? > > > Are you ashamed to talk about it? > > > Other than other eunuchs, have you met anyone who understands > > > how you feel? > > > How do you feel when someone says, "I feel your pain?" > > > How do you feel when someone says, "I will help you prevent > > > this from happening to anyone ever again?" > > > How do you feel when someone says, "Get over it?" > > > > > > Anyone who says to the eunuch, "Get over it" gives permission > > > for future castrations. > > > > > > Jews talk about the Holocaust and say, "Never again." > > > Native Americans talk about genocide and say, "Never again." > > > Women talk about sexism directed at Hillary and say, "Never > > > again." > > > > > > People who are so devoid of compassion that they close their > > > hearts to injustice, are emotional eunuchs and need to get > > > over it. > > > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB wrote: > > > > > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On May 22, 2009, at 12:30 AM, raunchydog wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > Vaj: Why on earth would a successful meditator still have > > > > > > lingering destructive emotions months after the original > > > > > > stressor? ["He raped you, so what, get over it."] > > > > > > > > > > So experiencing Hillary loosing was like being RAPED? > > > > > > > > > > I'm sorry Raunch, but I do believe it's time for the > > > > > therapists couch. > > > > > > > > For the record, this is *exactly* what I > > > > was talking about in my "The *intent* of > > > > overly-emotional writing" post this morning. > > > > > > > > Not only is the analogy Raunchy is trying > > > > to make here inappropriate, is is *knowingly* > > > > inappropriate, and used for its emotional- > > > > manipulation characteristics. > > > > > > > > It is a lot like people who won´t let go of > > > > what happened to Native Americans: "Don´t > > > > you people *understand* what the white man > > > > did to the Indians? > > > atrocities here> *I* feel bad about that, > > > > so why don´t YOU? Is there something *wrong* > > > > with you that you don´t feel as bad as I do?" > > > > > > > > On the one hand it´s the inappropriateness > > > > of
[FairfieldLife] Re: Sorry Judy
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB wrote: > > I tried. > I'll meet you half way. Agree that the sexism directed at Hillary was an injustice that should never happen to another female candidate again and I will not infer that you are an emotional eunuch devoid of compassion who needs to get over it. > Really, I did. > > I tried talking to you as if you were sane, > but when you get like this you really aren't. > > You obviously either didn't read a word of > my posting about emotionally-manipulative > writing, or you don't realize that is what > you are doing. > > No one cut off your balls, Raunchy. > > No one raped you. > > Your preferred candidate in an election lost, > that's all. > > And you're trying to act as if that was *like* > having your balls cut off or being raped. > > That is being emotionally manipulative. It's > also being a child. > > I give up. I'll deal with you only during your > sane moments. > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "raunchydog" wrote: > > > > If someone cut off your balls, laughed at you about it, > > and said, "Oh we were just having some fun. Don't be such > > a wuss. It's so unmanly. Your tears and anger, just prove > > what we thought about you anyway. Weakling. Suck it up." > > Your lack of balls would be a constant reminder of the assault. > > > > Questions for a eunuch: > > > > Are you angry about it? > > Are you doing whatever you can to prevent it from happening > > to anyone ever again? > > Do you talk about it? > > Are you ashamed to talk about it? > > Other than other eunuchs, have you met anyone who understands > > how you feel? > > How do you feel when someone says, "I feel your pain?" > > How do you feel when someone says, "I will help you prevent > > this from happening to anyone ever again?" > > How do you feel when someone says, "Get over it?" > > > > Anyone who says to the eunuch, "Get over it" gives permission > > for future castrations. > > > > Jews talk about the Holocaust and say, "Never again." > > Native Americans talk about genocide and say, "Never again." > > Women talk about sexism directed at Hillary and say, "Never > > again." > > > > People who are so devoid of compassion that they close their > > hearts to injustice, are emotional eunuchs and need to get > > over it. > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB wrote: > > > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > On May 22, 2009, at 12:30 AM, raunchydog wrote: > > > > > > > > > Vaj: Why on earth would a successful meditator still have > > > > > lingering destructive emotions months after the original > > > > > stressor? ["He raped you, so what, get over it."] > > > > > > > > So experiencing Hillary loosing was like being RAPED? > > > > > > > > I'm sorry Raunch, but I do believe it's time for the > > > > therapists couch. > > > > > > For the record, this is *exactly* what I > > > was talking about in my "The *intent* of > > > overly-emotional writing" post this morning. > > > > > > Not only is the analogy Raunchy is trying > > > to make here inappropriate, is is *knowingly* > > > inappropriate, and used for its emotional- > > > manipulation characteristics. > > > > > > It is a lot like people who won´t let go of > > > what happened to Native Americans: "Don´t > > > you people *understand* what the white man > > > did to the Indians? > > atrocities here> *I* feel bad about that, > > > so why don´t YOU? Is there something *wrong* > > > with you that you don´t feel as bad as I do?" > > > > > > On the one hand it´s the inappropriateness > > > of such emotionally-manipulative writing > > > that galls. The people saying this on the > > > forums I´ve heard it on are all lily-white > > > and have never even *been* to a Native > > > American reservation or Peublo. > > > > > > But on a more fundamental level it´s an > > > attempt at emotional blackmail. We are > > > supposed to feel *bad* for them because > > > Native Americans were crapped on. We´re > > > supposed to feel *bad* for Raunchy because > > > she feels that Hillary Clinton losing was > > > like her being raped. And on one level > > > the intent of that is that we´ll feel more > > > inclined to take her rants more seriously, > > > because she "feels them so deeply." > > > > > > But on another level, the real *intent* is > > > to make the reader feel *bad*, PERIOD. > > > > > > Raunchy feels like shit because Hillary lost. > > > And she wants us to feel like shit, too. > > > That´s the bottom line. > > > > > > I´m sorry, Raunch...I like you when you´re > > > not pulling this crap, but that is *exactly* > > > what your intent was by posting the above. > > > > > >
[FairfieldLife] Re: Sorry Judy
I tried. Really, I did. I tried talking to you as if you were sane, but when you get like this you really aren't. You obviously either didn't read a word of my posting about emotionally-manipulative writing, or you don't realize that is what you are doing. No one cut off your balls, Raunchy. No one raped you. Your preferred candidate in an election lost, that's all. And you're trying to act as if that was *like* having your balls cut off or being raped. That is being emotionally manipulative. It's also being a child. I give up. I'll deal with you only during your sane moments. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "raunchydog" wrote: > > If someone cut off your balls, laughed at you about it, > and said, "Oh we were just having some fun. Don't be such > a wuss. It's so unmanly. Your tears and anger, just prove > what we thought about you anyway. Weakling. Suck it up." > Your lack of balls would be a constant reminder of the assault. > > Questions for a eunuch: > > Are you angry about it? > Are you doing whatever you can to prevent it from happening > to anyone ever again? > Do you talk about it? > Are you ashamed to talk about it? > Other than other eunuchs, have you met anyone who understands > how you feel? > How do you feel when someone says, "I feel your pain?" > How do you feel when someone says, "I will help you prevent > this from happening to anyone ever again?" > How do you feel when someone says, "Get over it?" > > Anyone who says to the eunuch, "Get over it" gives permission > for future castrations. > > Jews talk about the Holocaust and say, "Never again." > Native Americans talk about genocide and say, "Never again." > Women talk about sexism directed at Hillary and say, "Never > again." > > People who are so devoid of compassion that they close their > hearts to injustice, are emotional eunuchs and need to get > over it. > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB wrote: > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj wrote: > > > > > > > > > On May 22, 2009, at 12:30 AM, raunchydog wrote: > > > > > > > Vaj: Why on earth would a successful meditator still have > > > > lingering destructive emotions months after the original > > > > stressor? ["He raped you, so what, get over it."] > > > > > > So experiencing Hillary loosing was like being RAPED? > > > > > > I'm sorry Raunch, but I do believe it's time for the > > > therapists couch. > > > > For the record, this is *exactly* what I > > was talking about in my "The *intent* of > > overly-emotional writing" post this morning. > > > > Not only is the analogy Raunchy is trying > > to make here inappropriate, is is *knowingly* > > inappropriate, and used for its emotional- > > manipulation characteristics. > > > > It is a lot like people who won´t let go of > > what happened to Native Americans: "Don´t > > you people *understand* what the white man > > did to the Indians? > atrocities here> *I* feel bad about that, > > so why don´t YOU? Is there something *wrong* > > with you that you don´t feel as bad as I do?" > > > > On the one hand it´s the inappropriateness > > of such emotionally-manipulative writing > > that galls. The people saying this on the > > forums I´ve heard it on are all lily-white > > and have never even *been* to a Native > > American reservation or Peublo. > > > > But on a more fundamental level it´s an > > attempt at emotional blackmail. We are > > supposed to feel *bad* for them because > > Native Americans were crapped on. We´re > > supposed to feel *bad* for Raunchy because > > she feels that Hillary Clinton losing was > > like her being raped. And on one level > > the intent of that is that we´ll feel more > > inclined to take her rants more seriously, > > because she "feels them so deeply." > > > > But on another level, the real *intent* is > > to make the reader feel *bad*, PERIOD. > > > > Raunchy feels like shit because Hillary lost. > > And she wants us to feel like shit, too. > > That´s the bottom line. > > > > I´m sorry, Raunch...I like you when you´re > > not pulling this crap, but that is *exactly* > > what your intent was by posting the above. > > >
[FairfieldLife] Re: Sorry Judy
If someone cut off your balls, laughed at you about it, and said, "Oh we were just having some fun. Don't be such a wuss. It's so unmanly. Your tears and anger, just prove what we thought about you anyway. Weakling. Suck it up." Your lack of balls would be a constant reminder of the assault. Questions for a eunuch: Are you angry about it? Are you doing whatever you can to prevent it from happening to anyone ever again? Do you talk about it? Are you ashamed to talk about it? Other than other eunuchs, have you met anyone who understands how you feel? How do you feel when someone says, "I feel your pain?" How do you feel when someone says, "I will help you prevent this from happening to anyone ever again?" How do you feel when someone says, "Get over it?" Anyone who says to the eunuch, "Get over it" gives permission for future castrations. Jews talk about the Holocaust and say, "Never again." Native Americans talk about genocide and say, "Never again." Women talk about sexism directed at Hillary and say, "Never again." People who are so devoid of compassion that they close their hearts to injustice, are emotional eunuchs and need to get over it. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB wrote: > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj wrote: > > > > > > On May 22, 2009, at 12:30 AM, raunchydog wrote: > > > > > Vaj: Why on earth would a successful meditator still have > > > lingering destructive emotions months after the original > > > stressor? ["He raped you, so what, get over it."] > > > > So experiencing Hillary loosing was like being RAPED? > > > > I'm sorry Raunch, but I do believe it's time for the > > therapists couch. > > For the record, this is *exactly* what I > was talking about in my "The *intent* of > overly-emotional writing" post this morning. > > Not only is the analogy Raunchy is trying > to make here inappropriate, is is *knowingly* > inappropriate, and used for its emotional- > manipulation characteristics. > > It is a lot like people who won´t let go of > what happened to Native Americans: "Don´t > you people *understand* what the white man > did to the Indians? atrocities here> *I* feel bad about that, > so why don´t YOU? Is there something *wrong* > with you that you don´t feel as bad as I do?" > > On the one hand it´s the inappropriateness > of such emotionally-manipulative writing > that galls. The people saying this on the > forums I´ve heard it on are all lily-white > and have never even *been* to a Native > American reservation or Peublo. > > But on a more fundamental level it´s an > attempt at emotional blackmail. We are > supposed to feel *bad* for them because > Native Americans were crapped on. We´re > supposed to feel *bad* for Raunchy because > she feels that Hillary Clinton losing was > like her being raped. And on one level > the intent of that is that we´ll feel more > inclined to take her rants more seriously, > because she "feels them so deeply." > > But on another level, the real *intent* is > to make the reader feel *bad*, PERIOD. > > Raunchy feels like shit because Hillary lost. > And she wants us to feel like shit, too. > That´s the bottom line. > > I´m sorry, Raunch...I like you when you´re > not pulling this crap, but that is *exactly* > what your intent was by posting the above. >
[FairfieldLife] Re: Sorry Judy
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj wrote: > > > On May 22, 2009, at 12:30 AM, raunchydog wrote: > > > Vaj: Why on earth would a successful meditator still have > > lingering destructive emotions months after the original > > stressor? ["He raped you, so what, get over it."] > > So experiencing Hillary loosing was like being RAPED? > > I'm sorry Raunch, but I do believe it's time for the > therapists couch. For the record, this is *exactly* what I was talking about in my "The *intent* of overly-emotional writing" post this morning. Not only is the analogy Raunchy is trying to make here inappropriate, is is *knowingly* inappropriate, and used for its emotional- manipulation characteristics. It is a lot like people who won´t let go of what happened to Native Americans: "Don´t you people *understand* what the white man did to the Indians? *I* feel bad about that, so why don´t YOU? Is there something *wrong* with you that you don´t feel as bad as I do?" On the one hand it´s the inappropriateness of such emotionally-manipulative writing that galls. The people saying this on the forums I´ve heard it on are all lily-white and have never even *been* to a Native American reservation or Peublo. But on a more fundamental level it´s an attempt at emotional blackmail. We are supposed to feel *bad* for them because Native Americans were crapped on. We´re supposed to feel *bad* for Raunchy because she feels that Hillary Clinton losing was like her being raped. And on one level the intent of that is that we´ll feel more inclined to take her rants more seriously, because she "feels them so deeply." But on another level, the real *intent* is to make the reader feel *bad*, PERIOD. Raunchy feels like shit because Hillary lost. And she wants us to feel like shit, too. That´s the bottom line. I´m sorry, Raunch...I like you when you´re not pulling this crap, but that is *exactly* what your intent was by posting the above.
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Sorry Judy
On May 22, 2009, at 12:30 AM, raunchydog wrote: Vaj: Why on earth would a successful meditator still have lingering destructive emotions months after the original stressor? ["He raped you, so what, get over it."] So experiencing Hillary loosing was like being RAPED? I'm sorry Raunch, but I do believe it's time for the therapists couch. Isn't part of the TM model that unstressing will help with this kind of thing? Was she even angrier before she started meditating? After 30 years? I'm sorry, that's odd to me. It's not working. [Vaj's makes a gratuitous slam on TM in the guise of faux concern. How very "evolved" of him.] It doesn't matter how concerned anyone is when it comes to Judy, she's got that oppositional-defiant thing going on. She's way too attached to TM to ever let go of it. It's that attachment-to- meditation that I suspect will keep her locked into her same ole patterns for this incarnation. So, you see Raunch, it doesn't matter how concerned I am or anyone is, until Judy decides to do something herself, she'll continue being tortured by her destructive emotions-- and launching them at those around her.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Sorry Judy
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "raunchydog" wrote: > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Judy Stein" wrote: > > > > Anyway, as I read Raunchy's post, I realized how angry > > I still was. I've managed to repress that anger now > > that Obama's in the White House so I can evaluate > > what he's doing more objectively, but it doesn't take > > much to bring it up again. > > Judy, Thank you for putting into words exactly how I feel > about the primary. It brought me to tears to know that you > understand completely how painful it was to have witnessed > such shameful, sexist, unrelenting, abuse of the first > American woman ever to make such a powerful and historic > bid for the presidency. And these are the women who claim not to be "running on emotion." It's A YEAR LATER. And neither of them sees anything the *least* bit odd about still breaking into tears or into uncontrollable bouts of anger about something that happened to SOMEONE THEY NEVER MET. But it's not the weepiness or the anger that astounding me...it's the HOLDING ON TO IT. I honestly don't understand how anyone who has been meditating for 30+ years can do that. It just doesn't compute. Did these women never heard Maharishi's "line through water" analogy? Have they never *experienced* it? I suspect that almost everyone else here has. We GET OVER THINGS. Why don't you? As for "What was done to Hillary," welcome to politics. Stop being such a wuss. She isn't. IMO *most* of what was said about Hillary Clinton wasn't aimed at her at all. She's a strong old bat; it wouldn't have affected her. And unlike you two, she doesn't appear to hold grudges; she's beyond it. The sexist taunts at Hillary were designed to make her *followers* crazy. And they worked like a charm. Nothing loses a female politician more votes than a bunch of women running around screaming hysterically, "They're playing dirty with my candidate," in a national election. Are you DERANGED? Playing dirty is a *synonym* for "national election." GET OVER IT, Raunchy. I really like you when you relax and your funny side comes out. But when you get into "grudge mode" you start *personifying* all the things you resent men saying about women. You know...things like, "They're ruled by their emotions," or "They hold grudges for years, and cannot seem to ever let go of them." And your response to someone saying this is to DO WHAT THEY SAY YOU DO, and keep doing it? Think this one through... It's the same thing here at FFL. Judy postures as a rational person, and yet LIVES for her grudges and acting out on them. John Knapp shows up here and posts and she loses it and starts trashing him as if their history were NOT history, and was yesterday. Same with Andrew Skolnick. Mention his name here, or the website (http://www.aaskolnick.com/junkyarddog/) he created for Judy, and she goes ballistic, *while* claiming that she sees the site as some kind of "badge of honor." And she last interacted with Andrew NINE YEARS AGO. And this is to say nothing of her obsession with Vaj and myself. And you, Raunch? You're going along fine, being funny and writing your poetry, and someone men- tions Hillary Clinton and you drop back into "rant mode" and start acting out ALL of the negative stereotypes any man ever had about any woman. Here's a hint: If you really do care about ending the negative things that men say about women, as Willytex says, "DON'T FEED IT." How can you expect men to "take you seriously" when you don't act in a way that CAN be taken seriously? How can you expect us to understand your anger at portrayals of women as overly emotional and tending to hold onto grudges for years when you act overly emotional and hang onto grudges for years? It's like a child saying, "I am NOT 'throwing a tantrum.' And I'm going to sit here and pout and hold my breath until my face turns purple and until you stop saying that about me." Get the point? What I don't think you understand is that a number of us here LIKE you when you drop all this emotional and samskaric attachment to things in the past and just live in the present. The woman who does that and is able to be funny is a delight. It's the one who keeps throwing tantrums and claiming she isn't doing it we laugh at, rather than with.
RE: [FairfieldLife] Re: Sorry Judy
From: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com [mailto:fairfieldl...@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of raunchydog Sent: Thursday, May 21, 2009 10:59 PM To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: Sorry Judy --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com <mailto:FairfieldLife%40yahoogroups.com> , "Rick Archer" wrote: > > From: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com <mailto:FairfieldLife%40yahoogroups.com> [mailto:FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com <mailto:FairfieldLife%40yahoogroups.com> ] > On Behalf Of authfriend > Sent: Thursday, May 21, 2009 10:44 AM > To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com <mailto:FairfieldLife%40yahoogroups.com> > Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: Sorry Judy > > Finally, I do think you owe her an apology for your > initial comment about the two of us--that we wouldn't > be criticizing Hillary, were she in the White House, > for doing what Obama's been doing. That was way, way > out of line, and it just reminds us of the kind of crap > we had to put up with during the primary campaign. > Can't apologize for that one 'cause I still see it that way. I don't know > about you, but if Hillary were in there, making some of the same decisions > Obama is making, Raunchy would be reacting very differently. > Rick, you could not be more wrong about me. I take my first amendment rights as a citizen very seriously. If Hillary had voted against FISA in the Senate, which Obama did and she did not, I would have had serious doubts about her commitment to restore the constitution. If she had equivocated on a woman's right to choose, which Obama has and she has not, I would have been the first to call her a hypocrite and fight her tooth and nail. It is essential in a healthy democracy that we hold elected officials accountable, through petition, voting, and political activism, no matter who they are. I am happy to give credit where credit is due. Today in his speech on national security and terrorism Obama correctly pointed out that Bush had a haphazard, ineffective policy from the git-go at Gitmo. They rounded up a bunch of Al Qaeda but didn't know what to do with them. Obama made the case that we can protect the country without abandoning the Constitution. He said exactly what he needed to say, to give me hope that he might restore habeas corpus. Now let's see if he follows through. If he doesn't, will you hold him accountable? I will and you should as well. Agreed, and well put.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Sorry Judy
Judy, Thank you for putting into words exactly how I feel about the primary. It brought me to tears to know that you understand completely how painful it was to have witnessed such shameful, sexist, unrelenting, abuse of the first American woman ever to make such a powerful and historic bid for the presidency. You are correct that it is not Hillary's loss that bothers me; it is how she lost that is so incredibly galling. I feel unimaginable disgust for supposed progressive lefties and Democrats who trashed her. They are hypocrites, ever last one of them. They pretend to value equal rights for women but they treated Hillary with less respect than they would a worm. Their behavior toward her is utterly unforgivable. Melissa McEwan at Shakesville's blogspot documented 89 instances of blatant sexist attacks on Hillary during the primary. I'm glad someone was keeping count, if only to serve as a reminder of the perils awaiting any woman brave enough to attempt a presidential run. If we don't learn from history, we are doomed to repeat it. http://tinyurl.com/p4q7tt http://shakespearessister.blogspot.com/2008/05/hillary-sexism-watch-part-eighty.html I don't expect anyone on FFLife to "get it." It's like date rape. No one empathizes with the woman or has any compassion for her. It's always, "she asked for it, she enjoyed it, she deserved it, get over it, stop whining, she was a whore anyway, she just wants to ruin his reputation, she must be a lesbian, or why didn't she just cross her legs?" Witness the abode of compassion on FFLife: Rick: "Boo Hoo Hillary lost." Robert babajii_99: "I am sorry the 'Girls got hurt'...But, girls are made to withstand more hurt than men." [This is the most ridiculous excuse for inflicting pain on a woman I have ever heard.] "And from what I understand, their orgasms are more intense as well... Because they have twice as many nerve endings on their clitoris' As men have on their penis'" [Astounding! the most bizarrely prurient non sequiturs I have ever read.] Barry: "It's OVER. Why aren't YOU over it? Hillary certainly is." [So says Mr. Sweetness and Light.] Vaj: Why on earth would a successful meditator still have lingering destructive emotions months after the original stressor? ["He raped you, so what, get over it."] Isn't part of the TM model that unstressing will help with this kind of thing? Was she even angrier before she started meditating? After 30 years? I'm sorry, that's odd to me. It's not working. [Vaj's makes a gratuitous slam on TM in the guise of faux concern. How very "evolved" of him.] Sal: " this insanity still goes on, complete with ugly names for Obama's supporters and a mean-spirited set of attacks on the supporters as well as Obama himself that seems to veer at times precipitously close to a personal vendetta " [Sal doesn't bother to back up anything she says and she either missed the point of Judy's post entirely or she just chimed in with Barry out of habit.] Barry: "Obama will laugh at her. But Judy, deciding that his laughter and compassionate silence at encountering Yet Another Crazy is sub-mission, will decide that she "won" the encounter." [Laughably, Barry's attack on Judy lets him "win"] do.rflex: "Good laughs, Barry. I don't think she realizes what a small world she lives in in her head." [ad hominem attack and outright dismissal of Judy.] Ben: [In response to Sal] "I think they are afraid of an actual articulate educated black man...just my theory" [Obviously Ben has bought into the false meme that you are a racist if you don't support Obama. If he had read Judy's post, he would have known how far afield his theory is.] Ben brbenjaminassisi: "Hilary is a whore." [Thank you for such an erudite observation. I rest my case.] --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" wrote: > > It occurred to me last night as I was reading Raunchy's > post #219365 that the emotional component is not so > much a matter of Hillary having lost as of *how* she > lost, how incredibly unfairly and viciously she was > treated by Obama's supporters--in the lefty blogs, by > the Democratic Party, by the media, and of course by > the right wingers, not to mention some of the people > on FFL. And it wasn't just Hillary who was treated > this way, it was her supporters as well. > > That left deep emotional scars (speaking of Barry's > Cockburn quotes about "tending to cause damage"). > > Obama himself wasn't the instigator of most of it, > but he did almost nothing to try to stop or mitigate > it and even encouraged it at times. That's awfully > hard to forgive. > > It's entirely possible she'd have lost anyway had the > attitudes toward her been different. It would still > have been painful for those who found her genuinely > inspiring and Obama considerably less so, but nowhere > near what it was in the context of what actually went > on. One's favorite candidate isn't necessarily going > to win even in the fai
[FairfieldLife] Re: Sorry Judy
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Rick Archer" wrote: > > From: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com [mailto:fairfieldl...@yahoogroups.com] > On Behalf Of authfriend > Sent: Thursday, May 21, 2009 10:44 AM > To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com > Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: Sorry Judy > > Finally, I do think you owe her an apology for your > initial comment about the two of us--that we wouldn't > be criticizing Hillary, were she in the White House, > for doing what Obama's been doing. That was way, way > out of line, and it just reminds us of the kind of crap > we had to put up with during the primary campaign. > Can't apologize for that one 'cause I still see it that way. I don't know > about you, but if Hillary were in there, making some of the same decisions > Obama is making, Raunchy would be reacting very differently. > Rick, you could not be more wrong about me. I take my first amendment rights as a citizen very seriously. If Hillary had voted against FISA in the Senate, which Obama did and she did not, I would have had serious doubts about her commitment to restore the constitution. If she had equivocated on a woman's right to choose, which Obama has and she has not, I would have been the first to call her a hypocrite and fight her tooth and nail. It is essential in a healthy democracy that we hold elected officials accountable, through petition, voting, and political activism, no matter who they are. I am happy to give credit where credit is due. Today in his speech on national security and terrorism Obama correctly pointed out that Bush had a haphazard, ineffective policy from the git-go at Gitmo. They rounded up a bunch of Al Qaeda but didn't know what to do with them. Obama made the case that we can protect the country without abandoning the Constitution. He said exactly what he needed to say, to give me hope that he might restore habeas corpus. Now let's see if he follows through. If he doesn't, will you hold him accountable? I will and you should as well.
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Sorry Judy
On May 21, 2009, at 2:19 PM, Ben wrote: Why aren't YOU over it? Hillary certainly is. No kidding. Hard to believe that almost a year after Hillary conceded the nomination, and over 6 months since Obama soundly whipped McCain's ass, this insanity still goes on, complete with ugly names for Obama's supporters and a mean-spirited set of attacks on the supporters as well as Obama himself that seems to veer at times precipitously close to a personal vendetta, ie an irrational hatred that is not receptive to any kind of logical discussion. Obama has become the new Barry. :) Sal I think they are afraid of an actual articulate educated black man... just my theory Uh, oh...I think I'm beginning to see why you like spiritual topics, Ben. :) Just wait for the response to this...and then duck!! Sal
[FairfieldLife] Re: Sorry Judy
> > > > Why aren't YOU over it? Hillary certainly is. > > No kidding. Hard to believe that almost > a year after Hillary conceded the nomination, > and over 6 months since Obama soundly > whipped McCain's ass, this insanity still goes > on, complete with ugly names for Obama's > supporters and a mean-spirited set of attacks > on the supporters as well as Obama himself > that seems to veer at times precipitously close > to a personal vendetta, ie an irrational > hatred that is not receptive to any kind > of logical discussion. > > Obama has become the new Barry. :) > > Sal > I think they are afraid of an actual articulate educated black man... just my theory
[FairfieldLife] Re: Sorry Judy
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB wrote: > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Sal Sunshine wrote: > > > > On May 21, 2009, at 10:55 AM, TurquoiseB wrote: > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" wrote: > > > > > > > > It occurred to me last night as I was reading Raunchy's > > > > post #219365 that the emotional component is not so > > > > much a matter of Hillary having lost as of *how* she > > > > lost, how incredibly unfairly and viciously she was > > > > treated by Obama's supporters--in the lefty blogs, by > > > > the Democratic Party, by the media, and of course by > > > > the right wingers, not to mention some of the people > > > > on FFL. And it wasn't just Hillary who was treated > > > > this way, it was her supporters as well. > > > > > > > > That left deep emotional scars (speaking of Barry's > > > > Cockburn quotes about "tending to cause damage"). > > > > > > > > Obama himself wasn't the instigator of most of it, > > > > but he did almost nothing to try to stop or mitigate > > > > it and even encouraged it at times. That's awfully > > > > hard to forgive. > > > > > > Not for sane people. > > > > > > It's OVER. > > > > > > Why aren't YOU over it? Hillary certainly is. > > > > No kidding. Hard to believe that almost > > a year after Hillary conceded the nomination, > > and over 6 months since Obama soundly > > whipped McCain's ass, this insanity still goes > > on, complete with ugly names for Obama's > > supporters and a mean-spirited set of attacks > > on the supporters as well as Obama himself > > that seems to veer at times precipitously close > > to a personal vendetta, ie an irrational > > hatred that is not receptive to any kind > > of logical discussion. > > > > Obama has become the new Barry. :) > > Now THAT had me LOL. :-) > > Doncha *feel* for him? FIFTEEN YEARS from > now Obama, by then my age (63) and retired > gracefully from two successful terms as > President, will come through New Jersey > on a speaking tour and Judy, by then 103 > (or at least looking it) will attend and > scream out from the audience, "Liar! Don't > you remember what you said in a speech > back in 2008? [waving a printout] I have > a copy of it right here!" > > Obama will laugh at her. But Judy, deciding > that his laughter and compassionate silence > at encountering Yet Another Crazy is sub- > mission, will decide that she "won" the > encounter. > > Then, having gotten a taste of "the thrill > of victory," she'll start stalking him all > over the world, appearing at every one of > his speaking engagements, yelling out the > same stuff. The Secret Service assigned to > Obama in retirement will offer to have her > sent somewhere with padded walls, but being > the compassionate mensch he is, Obama will > decline the offer. > > Finally, tired of hearing the same old shit > shouted by the same old windbag, the Secret > Service agents will take matters into their > own hands and cart her off to Bellevue > themselves. > > Obama will never notice her absence, just > as he never noticed her presence. > > :-) Good laughs, Barry. I don't think she realizes what a small world she lives in in her head.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Sorry Judy
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Sal Sunshine wrote: > > On May 21, 2009, at 10:55 AM, TurquoiseB wrote: > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" wrote: > > > > > > It occurred to me last night as I was reading Raunchy's > > > post #219365 that the emotional component is not so > > > much a matter of Hillary having lost as of *how* she > > > lost, how incredibly unfairly and viciously she was > > > treated by Obama's supporters--in the lefty blogs, by > > > the Democratic Party, by the media, and of course by > > > the right wingers, not to mention some of the people > > > on FFL. And it wasn't just Hillary who was treated > > > this way, it was her supporters as well. > > > > > > That left deep emotional scars (speaking of Barry's > > > Cockburn quotes about "tending to cause damage"). > > > > > > Obama himself wasn't the instigator of most of it, > > > but he did almost nothing to try to stop or mitigate > > > it and even encouraged it at times. That's awfully > > > hard to forgive. > > > > Not for sane people. > > > > It's OVER. > > > > Why aren't YOU over it? Hillary certainly is. > > No kidding. Hard to believe that almost > a year after Hillary conceded the nomination, > and over 6 months since Obama soundly > whipped McCain's ass, this insanity still goes > on, complete with ugly names for Obama's > supporters and a mean-spirited set of attacks > on the supporters as well as Obama himself > that seems to veer at times precipitously close > to a personal vendetta, ie an irrational > hatred that is not receptive to any kind > of logical discussion. > > Obama has become the new Barry. :) Now THAT had me LOL. :-) Doncha *feel* for him? FIFTEEN YEARS from now Obama, by then my age (63) and retired gracefully from two successful terms as President, will come through New Jersey on a speaking tour and Judy, by then 103 (or at least looking it) will attend and scream out from the audience, "Liar! Don't you remember what you said in a speech back in 2008? [waving a printout] I have a copy of it right here!" Obama will laugh at her. But Judy, deciding that his laughter and compassionate silence at encountering Yet Another Crazy is sub- mission, will decide that she "won" the encounter. Then, having gotten a taste of "the thrill of victory," she'll start stalking him all over the world, appearing at every one of his speaking engagements, yelling out the same stuff. The Secret Service assigned to Obama in retirement will offer to have her sent somewhere with padded walls, but being the compassionate mensch he is, Obama will decline the offer. Finally, tired of hearing the same old shit shouted by the same old windbag, the Secret Service agents will take matters into their own hands and cart her off to Bellevue themselves. Obama will never notice her absence, just as he never noticed her presence. :-)
