Re: Hillary Underrates Women
- From: Andre Lieven <andrelieven@xxxxxxxx>
- Date: Mon, 23 Jul 2007 09:31:32 -0700
On Jul 23, 11:26 am, patrick.bar...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx wrote:
On Jul 22, 5:55 pm, Andre Lieven <andrelie...@xxxxxxxx> wrote:
On Jul 22, 2:19 pm, Jill <aske...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On Sun, 22 Jul 2007 09:53:38 -0700, Andre Lieven
On Jul 22, 6:55 am, "MSNothing" <msnoth...@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
"MCP" <gf010w5...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
By DIANA FURCHTGOTT-ROTH
March 16, 2007
To listen to Senator Hillary Clinton proposing gender pay equity
legislation last week, one might reasonably conclude that she is paid
only 77% of Senator Obama's $165,200 salary.
Pay equity is a first rate example of "If you say it enough, it will become
Note that in the article, Lunatic Frau Clinton wants to change the pay
rates of different jobs. Yet another attempt to make pay for EASY
jobs be equal to the pay for TOUGH jobs, the ones that women
REFUSE to do.
The rebuttal to Frau Clinton's idiocy is Dr. Warren Farrell's book
" Why Men EARN More " ( My emphasis ).
Needless to say, holding a gun to my head could not get me to vote for
Frau Clinton, were I legally allowed to vote in the US.
I can vote for her but I'd cut off both hands before I'd ever do so.
Well, you don't have to go that far. How would you ever type again
to soc.men ? <bg>
She is the epitome of what is wrong with American women today.
Pretty much, yes. Given her relative base of support and how much she
can afford to take it for granted, her refusal to move away from ANY
of the tired old lies of Feminism is a far more massive failure than
anything that can be placed at her hubby's feet.
Unfortunately as things stand now the bitch will probably win the
I've been following both our and your politics since the late 60s now.
And, while I cannot suggest that Hillary cannot win it, I would say
that, one, its still so far away an event that its almost certain that
there will be things that happen between now and then that will
seriously affect both the outcome and who gets to be their party's
candidate and who will win it. Two, that so many US voters show
a negative view of her that she would just about need to win 100%
of everyone else in order to win, and that doesn't appear that likely
As Bill Maher says, its a norm in our feminised society that we
all have to clap at things that we know are not true, and the notion
of Hillary being the first woman to run, is one such. Its a knee jerk
" yay, look at diversity ", without THINKING what the politics and
planned policies of the mean. Especially given your little problem
I'm not exactly clear what you're saying here. Are you saying that
people applaud Clinton's candidacy publicly so they can appear to be
politically correct, while in private they have no intention of
actually voting for her?
Thats one aspect of the matter, the other is that, give how far away
time the 08 election is, its far easier to answer pollsters with the
easily identifiable Names. Polls in mid 08 will have more meaning.
She may well be the Democratic Party candidate. If that happens,
it will show that, once again, that Party will have fatally MS-read
the politics of the nation, and will have picked a national candidate
who cannot win the nation. Gore could have, and he seems to have
smartened up since ( I am sure that you do not agree with that !
Kerry not then and not now. Hillary, both points, but more so.
I fervently hope she is unelectable. I have not seen a candidate I
disliked so much in my lifetime as Hilary Clinton. Just the fact that
she could get nominated lessens my faith in my own country.
Shes a long way away from that, yet. Because the nomination
process has hardly even started.
- Prev by Date: Re: Hillary Underrates Women
- Next by Date: Re: Two Cheers for the Cleavers -- and their real-life counterparts
- Previous by thread: Re: Hillary Underrates Women
- Next by thread: Re: Hillary Underrates Women