Since she gets just about everything about it wrong, I figured she'd appreciate clarification.
She started: We have gone from a presidential candidate gloating about his sexual predation...
Ah, no. He wasn't a presidential candidate when he did the gloating -- see how dishonest they are, folks? The presidential candidate said he wasn't proud of it, and he apologized for it. One wonders how somebody as (apparently) politically savvy as the SBee missed that ... or whether the "missing it" was deliberate.
Is this okay with you as it is with Connie? she asks of another commenter, whose comment indicates nothing of the kind, and of course my meme doesn't indicate that.
One wonders how much firewater was served up at the latest powwow to conjure up such an extraordinary hallucination. Okay with me? I've made no statement to that effect. Haven't implied it, haven't suggested it, haven't hinted at it.
What the Bee is doing, folks, is using her hatred to color her conceptualization of my words. Read on, we'll see more of this, because it's about all she does.
Take this, for example, "According to Connie, women 'wanted to abandon the kitchen….' so they deserved to be punished by predatory behaviour for the audacity of going to work?"
Well, the terminology was "home and children," not "kitchen," (that was a reference to "heat" and "getting out of..."). And I wasn't talking about "going to work." How many of you can read the meme and NOT see that I was talking about the world of politics?????. Is there anything in my meme that suggests women should be "punished by predatory behavior" for either pursuit? I think it is extremely clear from my meme what I'm talking about. I mean, how can you miss "...MEN HAVE BEEN INSULTING MEN IN POLITICS...." and the point is, if you want to enter that world on the basis of your fitness to be there, don't go around citing your delicateness...to WORDS.
So, who thinks the Bee somehow...
1. missed that
2. didn't understand it
3. is ignoring it in order to make an illegitimate point?
One would have thought she would at least have caught that I'm talking about politics because of my use of the phrase "get out of the kitchen," since it was used by Harry S Truman, POTUS. He didn't coin it, but popularized it. (As an aside, it's ironic that he took a domestic household reference and gave it political application.)
Any clearer for you, pumpkin?
I have a hot flash for folks like Connie: There are ladies — yes, LADIES — whose husbands died, and they were left to carry the workload. (Yep. See my note at the end of this blog post: https://polygraff.blogspot.com/2016/10/fact-checking-simpsons-hysteria.html) And then there is the single mother, who kept her baby which was a result of an assault, who had to go off to work.
Work yourself up into a pleasurable rage for nothing, puddin'. These aren't the women I'm talking about. I'm talking about women who get their mugs on national TV commentatin' on politics, as if they're the be-all and end-all of knowledge re: "wimmin's issues" but then put forth the notion that wimmins is delicate creatures who can't take being insulted.
These women are real, and they exist in my family. Even if the choice is their own to enter the workplace, no one, NO ONE deserves to be preyed upon at any time for any reason.
No joke. If words are predatory, ask Susan Hathaway how it has felt to have Brooks Simpson, his fellow floggers and comment thread haters such as yourself harassing, bullying and cyberstalking her for about half a decade....
Yep. These women probably exist in everybody's family, including mine, as referenced above. My mother entered the workplace before and after she married. So did one of my grandmothers. So did my aunts. So did my sister. So did I. What is there in my meme that suggests I think we/they deserve to be preyed upon? Absolutely nothing.
Feminist leaders don't care about women like us, anyway.
How many women in your family were on Fox News telling the world what they should think of Donald Trump, Bee? As if women can't make up their own minds about him. (That's the way leftists feminists are, and this is their message to ordinary women -- "You are smart, you are strong, equal and free to do as you will -- but you'd better THINK what we tell you to THINK, schweethaht. Got it?")
The discussion is not about “whining” or “screeching” or “sexism”. This about the revelation that Donald Trump is a sexual predator, and not only is it okay with Connie, rather, she demeans and belittles those find this behaviour repugnant.
Well, no, that's not what it's about. It is not okay with me and nothing I said suggests it is, and I haven't belittled those who find the WORDS repugnant. (Perhaps you should check with the refreshment committee before the next powwow and suggest they substitute Pepsi or Snapple for the firewater). Read on.
Let's get the least point out of the way first. He said it was all talk; he didn't actually DO what he was talking about. He said this at the debate when he flippin' APOLOGIZED AGAIN for the incident.
Second, if he's a sexual predator for talking, we need to change our laws. And if he's not a sexual predator but the things he says are just as bad, maybe we need to repeal the First Amendment and criminalize speech. Make the punishment for talking about sex the same as it is for sexual assault. Right now, offensive speech is protected. I'm not defending Trump's words, the Constitution is. Maybe it's time to rethink that, huh, lefties?
Third, it's not okay with me, but what's not okay with me even MORE -- and this has been my point when I've discussed this on Facebook and elsewhere -- is that I vehemently disagree with the lamestream media's elevating the reprehensibility of Trump's WORDS above the monstrousness of Bill Clinton's ACTIONS and DEEDS. Bubba really did commit sexual assault, rape and violence, and neither Bee nor Simpson nor the Fox News guest hens even mentioned that.
Not relevant because Bill's not running for office now, you say? Well, Trump wasn't running for office when he engaged in that locker-room man-banter, either, but that doesn't seem to matter to some people, especially leftists clinging to their beloved double standards. What makes it relevant to this election is that Hillary Clinton, who IS running for the highest office in the land now, enabled Bill's sexual predation and viciously attacked verbally (and some say violently) some of the women he had already preyed upon sexually.
Did the hens cackling on Fox News even CONSIDER that? Does Simpson, SBee or any Trump hater or Hillary devotee even CONSIDER THAT?
So let's recap, to make sure Shoshana Bee gets it.
Trump's words were repugnant. They were spoken long before he was a candidate for office. When they came to light (probably through Democratic dirty-trickery) he apologized. He apologized three times -- on video, in writing (in a tweet) and on live television.
Bill Clinton's deeds were worse than repugnant, they were injurious and criminal and they ruined lives. Some of them occurred while he occupied the Oval Office, and some specific acts occurred while he was conducting the business of the nation. Hillary Clinton further victimized some of these women. Neither of the Clintons publicly apologized.
The four guest hens cackling on Fox News need to get a clue...If Trump's insulting one of us insults us all, then Bill Clinton's raping one of us rapes us all, and Hillary Clinton's "bimbo eruption" attacks on one of us is an attack on all of us.
And a related observation/question. If fat-shaming Rosie O'Donnell is reprehensible, why didn't the people who are all up in arms about it admonish the folks who fat-shamed Gov. Chris "Krispy Kreme" Christie?
ReplyDelete