Would Ya Like a Crutch For that Limp?

[Tambora]

was gonna post a high five from my photobucket account, and just found out now if you want to link to your stuff there and have it show up here, you have to buy a $400 subscription (new terms), as if, i guess now ill be moving all my junk to my computer and looking for somewhere else to store it all so its still usable.

Yeah, they screwed over a lot of folks doing that.
Didn't give but a very short window of warning that they were going to do that.
And now you can't even download your photos to move elsewhere.

 

[annabenedetti]

I hope Hillary gets even more uppity.

I like how it drives the alt-righters right out of their self-righteous gourds.

 

[Angel4Truth]

I hope Hillary gets even more uppity.

I like how it drives the alt-righters right out of their self-righteous gourds.

I hope she does too, nothing like watching a loon, losing it.

 

[Danoh]

I hope she does too, nothing like watching a loon, losing it.

Hope granted...

Clinton Won't Rule Out Questioning 2016 Election, But Says No Clear Means To Do So...

http://www.npr.org/2017/09/18/55121...timistic-about-our-country-but-i-am-not-naive

 

[annabenedetti]

Hope granted...

Not really, if you take her comment in context. She said there was not a legal basis, but one can question the moral legitimacy. I don't see a problem with her saying that. Considering the current investigative situation, it seems logical.

 

[Nihilo]

I hope Hillary gets even more uppity.

I like how it drives the alt-righters right out of their self-righteous gourds.

uppity
adj.
Informal Taking liberties or assuming airs beyond one's station; presumptuous

Is this what we're meaning by uppity? I'm unfamiliar with the word . . . .

Because I wouldn't describe HRC as uppity.

 

[annabenedetti]

Is this what we're meaning by uppity? I'm unfamiliar with the word . . . .

Because I wouldn't describe HRC as uppity.

This:

"Misogyny is what happens when women break ranks or roles and disrupt the patriarchal order: they tend to be perceived as uppity, unruly, out of line, or insubordinate... Misogyny... imposes social costs on noncompliant women, who are liable to be labeled witches, [redacted], sluts, and “feminazis,” among other things."



Having said that, conservative women are quite capable of acting similar to men in the way they perceive liberal women, so I wouldn't limit the above definition to misogyny alone.

Many conservative women see liberal women as having broken ranks with 'real' (they mean conservative) women because liberal women have challenged the patriarchal order, and conservative women do impose their version of social costs on liberal women they see as noncompliant, often using the same terminology.

 

[Nihilo]

This:

"Misogyny is what happens when women break ranks or roles and disrupt the patriarchal order: they tend to be perceived as uppity, unruly, out of line, or insubordinate... Misogyny... imposes social costs on noncompliant women, who are liable to be labeled witches, [redacted], sluts, and “feminazis,” among other things."



Having said that, conservative women are quite capable of acting similar to men in the way they perceive liberal women, so I wouldn't limit the above definition to misogyny alone.

Many conservative women see liberal women as having broken ranks with 'real' (they mean conservative) women because liberal women have challenged the patriarchal order, and conservative women do impose their version of social costs on liberal women they see as noncompliant, often using the same terminology.

The quote-unquote patriarchal order is, and always has been, meritocratic. Drop microphone. Witness St. Joan of Arc. The patriarchal order is accidental. Feel free to level the playing field, which is what you're trying to do. We're actually tilting toward you, but it's only a little bit; it's only cosmetic. If we support the woman, it will be because we see things her way. If we don't see things her way, we don't support that woman .. does that sound reasonable to you, Annabenedetti?

The alternative is that we admit that we should have supported HRC by default. HRC's political ideals flagrantly offended mine, and many others,' and we don't support that woman, and it's not right for anybody to be vilified for not supporting her, even with her opponent being him. He's a better choice, morally, because if he employs our politics rather than her politics, we'll all be better off, in all honesty; that's why I'm conservative, and which is why I'm OK, even if President Trump has been a liberal mole all along, because now we'll be able to discern whether liberals loving, or hating the POTUS, does it matter when POTUS was only implementing leftist platforms all the time regardless. We'll know the scientific answer to that question, worst case. Better case, POTUS implements conservative platform; it's morally good for me to root for that; that's why I'm conservative; these things are good, in a Millian sense, according to me. The current POTUS is a good talking point for rearing daughters, it shows definitively that it doesn't matter how objectively important he is, he's capable of impropriety. There's no more "halo effect."

 

[annabenedetti]

The quote-unquote patriarchal order is, and always has been, meritocratic. Drop microphone. Witness St. Joan of Arc. The patriarchal order is accidental. Feel free to level the playing field, which is what you're trying to do. We're actually tilting toward you, but it's only a little bit; it's only cosmetic. If we support the woman, it will be because we see things her way. If we don't see things her way, we don't support that woman .. does that sound reasonable to you, Annabenedetti?

The alternative is that we admit that we should have supported HRC by default. HRC's political ideals flagrantly offended mine, and many others,' and we don't support that woman, and it's not right for anybody to be vilified for not supporting her, even with her opponent being him. He's a better choice, morally, because if he employs our politics rather than her politics, we'll all be better off, in all honesty; that's why I'm conservative, and which is why I'm OK, even if President Trump has been a liberal mole all along, because now we'll be able to discern whether liberals loving, or hating the POTUS, does it matter when POTUS was only implementing leftist platforms all the time regardless. We'll know the scientific answer to that question, worst case. Better case, POTUS implements conservative platform; it's morally good for me to root for that; that's why I'm conservative; these things are good, in a Millian sense, according to me. The current POTUS is a good talking point for rearing daughters, it shows definitively that it doesn't matter how objectively important he is, he's capable of impropriety. There's no more "halo effect."

So does this mean you're clear on how I was using the term "uppity?"

If you're not, you could ask Tambora.

 

[Danoh]

Not really, if you take her comment in context. She said there was not a legal basis, but one can question the moral legitimacy. I don't see a problem with her saying that. Considering the current investigative situation, it seems logical.

I'll wait and see on this one.

Prior to her book, she had been going on about having made peace with her having lost.

Only to turn around with her book to pull her version of Trump's "not my fault; everyone's out to get me" whine, whine, whine...:chuckle:

We'll see...anna the great

 

[annabenedetti]

I'll wait and see on this one.

Fair enough.

Prior to her book, she had been going on about having made peace with her having lost.

Only to turn around with her book to pull her version of Trump's "not my fault; everyone's out to get me" whine, whine, whine...:chuckle:

Except...

All of the times Hillary Clinton apologizes and admits being wrong in her book

There's quite a long list at the link. I believe you'll give them some consideration. That doesn't mean you have to like her. Just consider. And I think you'll be one to do that.

We'll see...anna the great

I'm not. And people are going to give you hate you for that... wait and see. :chuckle:

 

[Danoh]

Fair enough.



Except...

All of the times Hillary Clinton apologizes and admits being wrong in her book

There's quite a long list at the link. I believe you'll give them some consideration. That doesn't mean you have to like her. Just consider. And I think you'll be one to do that.



I'm not. And people are going to give you hate you for that... wait and see. :chuckle:

I, for one, do not believe she is being sincere.

Come clean, Hillary, dear...

We'll have to wait and see.
That's just me...

As for what ever further hate some might further dictate?

anna the great!
anna the great!
anna the great!

So come on hate.
For I can't wait!

Cause Romans 5:8.

 

[annabenedetti]

I, for one, do not believe she is being sincere.

Come clean, Hillary, dear...

We'll have to wait and see.
That's just me...

Hillary's book sales in the first week have passed 300,000 copies.

 

[Nihilo]

So does this mean you're clear on how I was using the term "uppity?"

Yes, your invocation of misogyny cleared things right uppity for me.

 

[Tambora]

I, for one, do not believe she is being sincere.

Sometimes you are a smart man, even if you are an Indian (the feathered kind, not the dotted kind).

:crackup:

 

[Tambora]

What happened​

..Hillary..
Rodham
.Clinton.
​

Alternate title:

I'm an awful loser.
Now give me money
for this book.
..Hillary..
Rodham
.Clinton.
​

 

[Tambora]

Found where I got that last post.
(Wording is a little different but says the same.)

Host and panel of 4 discussing Hillary's book.

 

[Tambora]

In her book, she describes a debate between her and Trump and how 'uncomfortable' she was to be around Trump.
She accuses Trump of 'looming' over her, 'following' her around the stage, and invading her space.
She explains that just days before, Trump had been reported as 'groping' women, and it actually made her skin crawl to the point of having to force back being physically ill to have to stand near him.

She then asks the question in her book:
"Well, what would you do? Do you stay calm, keep smiling, and carry on as if he weren’t repeatedly invading your space? Or do you turn, look him in the eye, and say, loudly and clearly: Back up you creep, get away from me"


I find her question interesting.
And I wonder why she has never expressed the same gut feeling about her lying-cheating-adulterous-groper of women husband.
She didn't mind being close to him on stage.

Here's her full quote from the book:

It was the second presidential debate, and Donald Trump was looming behind me. Two days before the world heard him brag about groping women. Now we were on a small stage and no matter where I walked, he followed me closely, staring at me, making faces. It was incredibly uncomfortable. He was literally breathing down my neck. My skin crawled.

It was one of those moments where you wish you could hit pause and ask everyone watching, well, what would you do? Do you stay calm, keep smiling and carry on as if he weren't repeatedly invading your space? Or do you turn, look him in the eye, and say loudly and clearly, back up, you creep. get away from me. I know you love to intimidate women, but you can't intimidate me, so back up.

 

[Danoh]

Hillary's book sales in the first week have passed 300,000 copies.

That by itself, proves nothing.

Several books on my shelf have each sold huge quantities of copies.

One that comes to mind, is mostly hype.

Another is not only very objective, but has proven useful.

And yet that second book has it's naysayers.

Just as that first one does.

As another example, take Trump's first book.

Huge bestseller - including the many copies the Trump Organization itself bought.

Sort of like how the fake Televangelists will buy a hundred thousand copies or more of their own book so they can get on one of the Best Seller lists because most people will easily buy into the notion that if many people have bought into a thing; it must be legitimate.

This tendency of human beings is what makes for the next con who comes along, and the next, and the next.

Anyway, many average everyday people bought into Trump's hype.

Result?

The many average people that allowed him to take them to the cleaners.

Look into the ACN lawsuits around the time Trump was hyping them.

Corrupt individual he has been, he had no trouble whatsoever knowingly promoting the ACN Pyramid to all those fools so enamoured by his hype - because "if so many people are so enamoured with this guy, he must be legit..."

Sorry, anna, but I see Hillary as cut from that same fabric.

Her and her husband were both in on that Trump Taj Mahal scheme with Trump, that cost hundreds of thousands of average families a combined hundreds of millions of dollars.

And as the first biography ON Trump long ago revealed - he always knows the state of the shoddy deals he is luring the unsuspecting average investor into.

Clinton biographies paint no different a picture.

Both these characters - the Trumps and the Clintons - ever remind me of the same old, same old in the world of corrupt business and politics.

THIS is why none of such EVER bring one another down.

Just keepin it real, anna - no offense intended.

 

[Nihilo]

In her book, she describes a debate between her and Trump and how 'uncomfortable' she was to be around Trump.
She accuses Trump of 'looming' over her, 'following' her around the stage, and invading her space.
She explains that just days before, Trump had been reported as 'groping' women, and it actually made her skin crawl to the point of having to force back being physically ill to have to stand near him.

She then asks the question in her book:
"Well, what would you do? Do you stay calm, keep smiling, and carry on as if he weren’t repeatedly invading your space? Or do you turn, look him in the eye, and say, loudly and clearly: Back up you creep, get away from me"


I find her question interesting.
And I wonder why she has never expressed the same gut feeling about her lying-cheating-adulterous-groper of women husband.
She didn't mind being close to him on stage.

Here's her full quote from the book:

It was the second presidential debate, and Donald Trump was looming behind me. Two days before the world heard him brag about groping women. Now we were on a small stage and no matter where I walked, he followed me closely, staring at me, making faces. It was incredibly uncomfortable. He was literally breathing down my neck. My skin crawled.

It was one of those moments where you wish you could hit pause and ask everyone watching, well, what would you do? Do you stay calm, keep smiling and carry on as if he weren't repeatedly invading your space? Or do you turn, look him in the eye, and say loudly and clearly, back up, you creep. get away from me. I know you love to intimidate women, but you can't intimidate me, so back up.

What a silly person. We dodged a bullet for sure.