Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Sorry Judy

[Sal Sunshine]

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

Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Sorry Judy

[Sal Sunshine]

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

Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Sorry Judy

[Sal Sunshine]

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

Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Sorry Judy

[Vaj]

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!

Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Sorry Judy

[Vaj]

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.

RE: [FairfieldLife] Re: Sorry Judy

[Rick Archer]

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
 , "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.
 

RE: [FairfieldLife] Re: Sorry Judy

[Rick Archer]

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?
 

Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Sorry Judy

[Mike Dixon]

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?

















  

Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Sorry Judy

[Vaj]

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.

RE: [FairfieldLife] Re: Sorry Judy

[Rick Archer]

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
 , "Rick Archer"  wrote:
>
> From: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com

[mailto:FairfieldLife@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.
Agreed, and well put.

Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Sorry Judy

[Sal Sunshine]

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

Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Sorry Judy

[Sal Sunshine]

On May 21, 2009, at 10:55 AM, TurquoiseB wrote:

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend"  wrote:


--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Rick Archer"  wrote:


I'm a hit and run reader and poster on FFL. I don't have
time to read all the posts in most threads, so I often
form impressions based on partial information. I was
talking with a friend last night who used to post
regularly but who these days only lurks. He said that it
was unfair to lump Judy and Raunchy together with regard
to their criticisms of Obama. He opined that Judy had
been much more fair and objective. So I'm sorry I did
that Judy. Maybe I'll end up apologizing to Raunchy too,
but I still get the impression that she couldn't bring
herself to say anything positive about Obama, due to her
emotional commitment to Hillary.


Thank you, Rick.

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. :)

Sal

RE: [FairfieldLife] Re: Sorry Judy

[Rick Archer]

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
 
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com
 , "Rick Archer"  wrote:
>
> I'm a hit and run reader and poster on FFL. I don't have
> time to read all the posts in most threads, so I often
> form impressions based on partial information. I was
> talking with a friend last night who used to post
> regularly but who these days only lurks. He said that it
> was unfair to lump Judy and Raunchy together with regard
> to their criticisms of Obama. He opined that Judy had
> been much more fair and objective. So I'm sorry I did
> that Judy. Maybe I'll end up apologizing to Raunchy too,
> but I still get the impression that she couldn't bring
> herself to say anything positive about Obama, due to her
> emotional commitment to Hillary.

Thank you, Rick.

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.
It does seem that Obama and Hillary have gotten over it. Maybe she's just
stifling resentment because she's a good sport and she wants to be Secretary
of State, but it looks like she and Obama have a close and cordial working
relationship. Everyone had their favorites during the campaign and here too
I don't claim to be objective, but it seems like all the candidates received
pretty harsh treatment by their opponents' followers. Sure, Olbermann and
others favored Obama over Hillary but Fox news trashed both of them in favor
of McCain and later McCain/Palin. So it goes.
 
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.
 

Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Sorry Judy

[Vaj]

On May 21, 2009, at 12:01 PM, raunchydog wrote:

I haven't seen you make such references to men, only to women,  
several times, and I pointed it out to you each time.



You do realize that Rick's guru is a women who hugs people to help  
them embrace totality, right? I think he's an excellent  
representative of that embracing equanimity.

Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Sorry Judy

[Vaj]

On May 21, 2009, at 11:55 AM, TurquoiseB wrote:


Thank you, Rick.

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.


I found this comment interesting:

Authfriend:

"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."

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. 

RE: [FairfieldLife] Re: Sorry Judy

[Rick Archer]

From: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com [mailto:fairfieldl...@yahoogroups.com]
On Behalf Of raunchydog
Sent: Thursday, May 21, 2009 10:16 AM
To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com
Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: Sorry Judy
 
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com
 , "Rick Archer"  wrote:
>
> I'm a hit and run reader and poster on FFL. I don't have time to read all
> the posts in most threads, so I often form impressions based on partial
> information. I was talking with a friend last night who used to post
> regularly but who these days only lurks. He said that it was unfair to
lump
> Judy and Raunchy together with regard to their criticisms of Obama. He
> opined that Judy had been much more fair and objective. So I'm sorry I did
> that Judy. Maybe I'll end up apologizing to Raunchy too, but I still get
the
> impression that she couldn't bring herself to say anything positive about
> Obama, due to her emotional commitment to Hillary.
>

Well waddya know, Rick: Message #219365 I actually said something positive
about Obama. I could bring myself to say something positive about you as
well if you refrained from implying that women are incapable of rational
thought because they are "emotional." This is sooo old school sexim, Rick.
It's time to update your programming.
I don't think I'm zeroing in on women. I can think of plenty of men,
including myself on occasion, whose views of a person or issue are colored
by emotions, preventing any semblance of objectivity.