Posts
Reading through the FoxNews website an article by Howard Kurtz caught my attention: "Hillary backer: Calling Clinton 'calculating' or 'ambitious' is 'coded sexism'"
It begins with an email that a New York Times reporter, Amy Chozick, received from what Kurtz describes as a "hyperactive Hillary Clinton supporter." The email to Ms. Chozick is titled: "Your Obsessive and Loathsome Coverage."
We knew this was going to happen in Clinton's campaign, but her campaign hasn't even been officially announced and already the morons are pulling out the "Sexist Card."
John West, the moron in question, is the director of "HRC Super Volunteers." West apparently sees everything that is critical of Hillary Clinton as sexist, just like everything critical of Barack Obama is racist.
Liberals have nothing in their defensive arsenal to thwart factual criticism so they must rely on the liberal tactics of ad hominem attacks.
This Hillary pantywaist emailed 120 journalists telling them that he and his group (a gaggle of liberals who came together as one on Facebook) "will not tolerate any form of sexist news coverage of any woman who chooses to break through the glass ceilings: whether as a CEO or running for president of these United States. Already we have seen the coded language of sexism and innuendo used by major news outlets and we are not happy."
The 120 journalists are so scared of these vaginally-focused idiots that they were quaking in their jeans (or was it quacking at their computers).
West cites examples of what he determines is "coded innuendo": the New Yorker referring to Clinton as "petulant"; USA Today, the Washington Post and Time Magazine writing about her preference for "secrecy"; and the New York Times having the utter gall to say that she could "be seen as unduly secretive or imperious." Imagine, even Politico called her "devious" and "defensive."
How dare they write what John West finds offensive and sexist?
West threatened the journalists by saying:
Kurtz points out what a few male politicians, mostly from the GOP side, have gone through with the slings and arrows from the liberals. For example, John McCain being called old and possibly missing a couple of screws from his time in a POW camp (liberals really suck to use the POW ploy in a negative way for McCain); Ted Cruz being called a "wacko bird" and worst this week; Boehner being too weepy.
What Hillary Clinton did by keeping her government emails on a private server and deleting those she decided to get rid of, has nothing to do with her being a woman.
And along with her sordid past with White Water, her politically-motivated tolerance of Bill's indiscretions with women, her being fired from the Watergate Committee, and on and on, what does her being a woman have to do with the fact that we cannot accurately describe her as: insincere, ambitious, driven, defiant, polarizing, calculating, disingenuous, and will do anything to win?
To be told that one must censor what one writes about Hillary Rodham Clinton merely shows how weak she really is, and how her "super duper pooper volunteers" recognize this.
Like Barack Obama, Hillary's ego is unable to tolerate genuine criticism, especially when it rings true. Sadly, her super followers have the need to protect this weak woman, a throwback from the past.
Tweet
It begins with an email that a New York Times reporter, Amy Chozick, received from what Kurtz describes as a "hyperactive Hillary Clinton supporter." The email to Ms. Chozick is titled: "Your Obsessive and Loathsome Coverage."
We knew this was going to happen in Clinton's campaign, but her campaign hasn't even been officially announced and already the morons are pulling out the "Sexist Card."
John West, the moron in question, is the director of "HRC Super Volunteers." West apparently sees everything that is critical of Hillary Clinton as sexist, just like everything critical of Barack Obama is racist.
Liberals have nothing in their defensive arsenal to thwart factual criticism so they must rely on the liberal tactics of ad hominem attacks.
This Hillary pantywaist emailed 120 journalists telling them that he and his group (a gaggle of liberals who came together as one on Facebook) "will not tolerate any form of sexist news coverage of any woman who chooses to break through the glass ceilings: whether as a CEO or running for president of these United States. Already we have seen the coded language of sexism and innuendo used by major news outlets and we are not happy."
The 120 journalists are so scared of these vaginally-focused idiots that they were quaking in their jeans (or was it quacking at their computers).
West cites examples of what he determines is "coded innuendo": the New Yorker referring to Clinton as "petulant"; USA Today, the Washington Post and Time Magazine writing about her preference for "secrecy"; and the New York Times having the utter gall to say that she could "be seen as unduly secretive or imperious." Imagine, even Politico called her "devious" and "defensive."
How dare they write what John West finds offensive and sexist?
West threatened the journalists by saying:
"You are on notice that we will be watching, reading, listening and protesting coded sexism this time around in words and phrases like polarizing, calculating, disingenuous, insincere, ambitious, will do anything to win, represents the past, out of touch, inevitable, entitled, over cofident, defiant, inserting snide comments on her looks like tired, haggard, worn out . . . the list goes on but I trust you get my point."
Kurtz points out what a few male politicians, mostly from the GOP side, have gone through with the slings and arrows from the liberals. For example, John McCain being called old and possibly missing a couple of screws from his time in a POW camp (liberals really suck to use the POW ploy in a negative way for McCain); Ted Cruz being called a "wacko bird" and worst this week; Boehner being too weepy.
 |
| Originally a McCain joke about his shorts |
What Hillary Clinton did by keeping her government emails on a private server and deleting those she decided to get rid of, has nothing to do with her being a woman.
And along with her sordid past with White Water, her politically-motivated tolerance of Bill's indiscretions with women, her being fired from the Watergate Committee, and on and on, what does her being a woman have to do with the fact that we cannot accurately describe her as: insincere, ambitious, driven, defiant, polarizing, calculating, disingenuous, and will do anything to win?
To be told that one must censor what one writes about Hillary Rodham Clinton merely shows how weak she really is, and how her "super duper pooper volunteers" recognize this.
Like Barack Obama, Hillary's ego is unable to tolerate genuine criticism, especially when it rings true. Sadly, her super followers have the need to protect this weak woman, a throwback from the past.
Tweet
No comments:
Post a Comment