--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > I'm going to reply to this one, because words > and the use of them is not only my business, > they are one of my greatest sources of pleasure.
It appears that Barry's greatest source of pleasure is to use words dishonestly. Your attempt to whitewash your use of the word "cunt" is not believable. As you use the term, it's clearly intended to insult women you don't like for being women. The only reason for your elaborate and utterly unconvincing attempt to justify it is so you can use it with impunity. > Raunchydog is AFRAID of certain words. No, you're afraid of her. Calling her a "cunt" makes her appear less threatening to you. It's not any more complicated than that. But guess what? It doesn't diminish her any; it only diminishes you. Only diminishes you *further*, I should say. Not only have you shown yourself to be a misogynist, but a race-baiter *and* a racist, and a homophobe to boot, not to mention a chronic liar and hypocrite and elitist. Using your de-gendered definition, I'd say that makes you a bigger cunt than all the men and women to whom you apply the term put together. ----- --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > What's most fascinating to me is that the very > thing that both Hillary and McCain tried to brand > Obama with -- "lack of experience" -- now turns > out to be the most important thing in the race. > If Hillary had been the candidate, *she* would > have been linked to the current financial crisis > just as easily (and as correctly) as McCain has > been. Again Barry trots out his boundless ignorance. Hillary, in fact, had foreseen this financial crisis way back when and had proposed ways to deal with it before it reached the disaster stage. She has long been a proponent of tighter regulation of the financial markets, whereas McCain has been a top promoter of deregulation. > And, as long as we are reminding people what Judy > Stein "stands for," the candidate that Judy pledged > to vote for for president in this election is the > same Cynthia McKinny (Green Party candidate) who, > the other day, announced that the US Department of > Defense had shot 5000 prisoners during the Katrina > crisis and secretly buried them: > > http://www.dvorak.org/blog/?p=26456 > > I guess that decrying conspiracy theories and theor- > ists is something Judy does only when Bhairitu > proposes them. Actually, as Barry knows, I haven't commented one way or the other on this particular theory. I will now: it sounds insane to me. In any case, I've said from the start that I'd vote for McKinney as a protest, not because I wanted her to win or thought she *should* win. > She sure knows how to pick winners, doesn't she? > First Hillary, then Sarah Palin, and now Cynthia > McKinny... Nope, as Barry knows, only Hillary. ----- How many lies and misstatements can Barry pack into a single paragaph? Let's see: (I know the ethically challenged readership of FFL thinks it's just fine for Barry or anybody else to lie, but I'm going to continue to tabulate and refute Barry's lies for the record as long as he continues to tell them.) --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: <snip> > We've seen it even on this forum. You have two women > who are ostensibly intelligent, but who nonetheless > have dedicated their lives Nope. Maybe denouncing raunchydog and me on FFL is what Barry has dedicated *his* life to, but for us, criticizing Obama is just a small, temporary portion of our lives, one among many things we do. (#1) since Obama beat the pants > off of their preferred candidate Nope. As Barry knows, the primary was one of the, if not *the*, most closely contested in history. Obama won by a hair. (#2) > to destroying the man who beat her. Nope. Maybe Barry entertains solipsistic fantasies about "destroying" raunchydog and me, but we're just a tad bit more realistic about our influence in the world (and even just on FFL). (#3) In fact, what *I've* been doing with respect to Obama is simply to attempt to explain why a reasonable person might not want to vote for him. I don't expect to change anybody else's vote. (#4) And far more of my posts here are to correct ignorant misstatements by all the low-information voters on the forum (most of its posters, in fact, Barry perhaps the lowest). They spend what must be hours each week > searching for derogatory articles or rants about Obama, > and posting them here. Nope. I spend literally *zero* time searching for derogatory articles or rants about Obama. When I encounter one in the normal course of surfing and think it's well expressed, I may post it here, but I don't "search" for any of 'em. (#5) And why? Well, despite their > claims of other motives, I think that pretty much every- > one here knows why they're doing it -- Angry Loser > Syndrome. Nope. Another of Barry's solipsistic fantasies, that he somehow knows our minds better than we do, and that everybody else here does too. (#6) (That's one of Barry's standard tactics, by the way--to appeal to a nonexistent consensus. The idea is to make readers feel that Barry's imaginary consensus is Right, and if they happen not to be part of it, they must be Wrong. Keep an eye out for how often he pulls this trick. It's yet another aspect of his solipsism, that he can magically *create* consensus.) As to "Angry Loser Syndrome," there's certainly an element of it, in that we feel Obama did not win fair and square, for reasons we've explained (and nobody here, BTW, has been able to address). Had Obama *in fact* "beat the pants off" Hillary, one of my motivations for criticizing him would be eliminated. That (a) he used some very nasty tactics to "win" and (b) the Democratic leadership assisted him in doing so is one of the major reasons why I oppose him, in addition to his many other deficiencies. Nor is it just the fact that *Hillary* lost. Had Biden or Edwards emerged as Obama's main opponent in the primary after beating Hillary fair and square, and then lost to Obama by a hair because of the scummy tactics of Obama and the Democratic leadership, I'd be just as opposed to Obama and that leadership. That it was Hillary who ultimately lost is merely incidental. (#7) So that's seven lies in five sentences. Pretty good, huh? (I'm calling them lies rather than misstatements because I've explained in previous posts everything I said in this post.) ----- --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Hugo" <richardhughes103@> wrote: <snip> > > > Government unveils 'Big Brother' plan: Now they want > > > to snoop on every phone call, email and text message > > > http://tinyurl.com/3z5b5b > > > > This is close to my heart, I'm constantly amazed > > that so few take an interest in the steady erosion > > of our hard-won civil rights. > > It's close to my heart as well. I grew up as a > SciFi freak, reading books like 1984 and novels > by Phillip K. Dick in which the characters stuggled > to survive under oppressive, authoritarian govern- > ments. Now I find the government of my homeland > to be one of them. Hmm. What did you think of Obama's stance on FISA, Barry? Do you even know what it is? Do you even know what *FISA* is? (Speaking of lack of interest in the erosion of our rights...) > What is most frightening in the UK is that > 1) these things don't get covered in the press > the way they should, and 2) the people don't > react with rage the way they should. Same in > the US. I don't recall Barry reacting with rage to news of Obama's FISA stance. Did I miss something? <snip> > Did you read the article I posted that talked > about Obama's advisors and friends, Cass Sundheim (Sunstein.) > and Samantha Power? One of the things I found most > uplifting in that article was their/Obama's belief > in what causes extremism -- hanging out only with > people like yourself, who believe the same things > that you do. Scientifically, it has been proven > that when this happens, extreme views *grow*. > > So, as a strong part of his political philosophy > and approach, Obama plans to surround himself with > advisors who *disagree* -- with each other and > with him. He plans to sit down and talk with > enemies as well as friends. This, in my opinion, > is the way that things should be done. Except by Barry on FFL, of course. What Barry thinks he should be doing on FFL is mocking, denouncing, insulting, and lying about anybody who doesn't agree with him, those he considers his "enemies"--and this while boasting that he doesn't read what we say in the first place and urging others to ignore us as well. Not *once* has he actually "sat down" to *discuss* our differences of opinion. Not a single time. He doesn't even know what the issues are, let alone why we take the positions on those issues that we do. > I tend to associate the same approach with fear > of immigrants, and the tendency of people to "clump > together" into ethnic or racial groups. When this > happens, and is allowed to happen it cannot *help* > but foster extremism. Just as it fosters Barry's extremist stance on FFL. <snip> > Even though I may occasionally rail against > some of the things that the visiting rednecks from > the US or the UK say, I'm glad that I get to inter- > act with them and talk with them. Unlike what Barry does on FFL, with regard either to the right-wingers or the Obama-dissident lefties on the forum. It keeps me more > balanced, and keeps me from believing -- as many > who post to this forum seem to believe -- that they > somehow "know" what people they NEVER talk to and > interact with are thinking, and what they believe. >From Barry's earlier post of the same day: "Well, despite their claims of other motives, I think that pretty much everyone here knows why they're doing it -- Angry Loser Syndrome." Not only does Barry know what people he NEVER talks to or interacts with are thinking and what they believe, he knows what *everybody else on this forum* thinks and believes. Barry Wright, Master of Inadvertent Irony. (BTW, he made this post at 7:47 am EST and the one I just quoted above at 6:51 am EST. In less than an hour, he'd completely forgotten what he said in the earlier post.)
