I'd rather be called a "ho"
So Hillary Clinton went to Rutgers to kiss up to--I mean support--the women's basketball team. She addressed 700 students and faculty (the actual women players were too busy to meet with her--good for them) and urged the crowd to take a "Rutgers pledge," to say, "Enough is enough, when women or minorities or the powerless are marginalized or degraded."
My thoughts: As a woman, I would rather be referred to as a "nappy-headed ho" by Don Imus than called "powerless" by Hillary Clinton.
My thoughts: As a woman, I would rather be referred to as a "nappy-headed ho" by Don Imus than called "powerless" by Hillary Clinton.
posted by Helen at 8:38 AM
71 Comments:
Tsk, tsk...such hostility - unprofessional for a psychologist.
Yeah! Really Helen! Power? We don't need no stinking power!
I mean, embrace the victimhood! Revel in your weakness, beg for the politicians to save you, leave the driving to them, anger is a threat to all living things, bend over and take it, we are doing this for your own good, step away from your personal power, there is no you in responsible, ideas are for our leaders, drink of the white guilt, fear the powerful men, no one can save you, thinking gives you wrinkles, put down the gun, send that doctorate back to the male oppressors, only we can help yourselves, a woman's place is in the shelter - not the firing range, resistance is futile!
Or not. Maybe we need a "no victims" pledge. It could be something like "I don't think so" or "Fear monger please!"
Trey (who had help from his helpless, victimized wife.)
Hillary is so transparent. I can hardly believe anyone falls for her self-serving crap.
"Tsk, tsk...such hostility - unprofessional for a psychologist."
What about your own hostility, anon? Why do you lurk around Dr. Helen's site to be the first to comment, and then, rather than address the substance of the post, simply name-call by means of the usual assertional jibe - a common response and tactic amongst Faux Liberal Trolls [and dysfunctional Kindergartners, too, I might add.]
Does such a comment make you feel so proud that you cannot even take responsibility for it by referring to yourself by a screen name?
Go look into the mirror to see if you even have a reflection.
But Helen - if you won't stay on the plantation you aren't a real woman, so you don't have the right to an opinion.
(I've had a bit of not-on-the-plantation trouble myself.)
Agreed, dadvocate.
I guess powerlessness includes having the juice to humble the likes of Imus.
So, when will Bill be taking this Rutgers pledge? And, for that matter, when will Hillary?
I recall quite clearly when Ms Hillary informed the nation that she's "not some Tammy Wynette standing by my man."
Yet, that is exactly what she did. At the time, I granted her the grace that she was trying to spare the presidential office the grief a divorce would cause. But I predicted that she would smack Bill with divorce papers while Bush was taking the oath.
Didn't happen.
Still hasn't. And Bill is till a cad.
I wonder what Juanita Broderick would have to say about Hillary's statement, eh?
LissaKay,
Didn't you know about the exception clause? If you are for abortion rights, you can degrade women in any way you see fit.
The Rutgers women redeemed themselves by standing up Hillary. Perhaps they were ashamed of the "My feelings were hurt" victimhood in which they allowed themselves to indulge -- especially in light of the real victimization seen this week.
I really have a hard time seeing women who attend an expensive, elite University as victims of anything.
The be fair Hilary said "women or minorities or the powerless marginalized or degraded".
It would be possible to "degrade" Churchill, Lincoln, Wilberforce, Washington etc.
And any child or white male who was not entirely "powerless".
"Vote for me and I will favour your identity group."
j peden:
I'm not the anonymous poster you were responding to. However, let me say this:
Helen's original post contained no actual "substance" to address. It in fact was a "usual assertional jibe", just like you accuse anonymous 8:58 of employing.
There's plenty of substance in the original post. Writing "Hillary is a hypocrite...." and all that is nicely summed up in the last section. Arguments don't need to be spelled out in excruciating detail among discerning folk of good will.
The first anon called her "unprofessional" -- which is an ad hominem and thus is by definition -- non-substantive and insubstantial -- not to mention childish and illogical (see? There I attacked the statement without attacking the writer).
"Helen's original post contained no actual "substance" to address. It in fact was a "usual assertional jibe", just like you accuse anonymous 8:58 of employing."
Tell that to the respondents. Can you read?
j peden:
Just because folks are responding doesn't mean there was substance, for goodness sake. And frankly, a reading of the comments makes it clear there was no actual substance because the comments themselves reflect little or no substance. At best, they are all over the place. At worst, they are further examples of the original post, saying essentially-- "Yeah, I hate that bitch, too!"
troy:
The post was meant to suggest that Hillary is a hypocrite? Really? How's that? In what way does Helen suggest that Hillary is a hypocrite? Come on, I'm hardly asking for excruciating detail. I think it's obvious to any unbiased observer (almost based on the length of the post itself) that the post was in the nature of a drive-by slam.
The idea that Hillary is sucking up to this team for photo op while ignoring the huge gap in her own blind eye towards the maltreatment of women is right there. A certain amount of a priori info is required to get the post, but it's right there. SHe wrote in a few dozen words what it would take a few dozen paragraphs to communicate to someone who is being obtuse or who does not either know or hold the assumptions needed to understand the post. She's being pithy -- man! Do I get paid for being an apologist?!? :-)
There are no unbiased observers.... there are only biased observers and those who are kidding themselves.
"And frankly, a reading of the comments makes it clear there was no actual substance because the comments themselves reflect little or no substance."
I suppose being unable to read does leave you with a sole option: the vaunted Faux Liberal repeating-a-meme tactic, otherwise known as begging the question, or perhaps perseveration, though some would call it merely severe denial, just to be charitable.
Therefore, since what I just said can't possibly stop you, rave on. I'm going to only watch, yet at a safe distance.
[Still, hopefully, someone will translate this statement into a form which the anyonymi will understand, but I'm not holding my breath.]
OT: Cho had Autism according to his mom and his problems started in Korea:
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2007/4/21/123026/296
tmink,
I like your idea of the "no victim's" pledge. Great idea!!!
How about enough is enough when anyone is being degraded?
All you need to do to render anyone relatively "powerless" is to make up a sufficiently serious false allegation about them - see the Duke lacrosse players, Richard Jewel, etc.
Anonymous said...
Tsk, tsk...such hostility - unprofessional for a psychologist.
If Dr. Helen were testifying in a case as a forensic psychologist and I was an attorney who wanted to weaken the impact of her testimony, I would cull through her blog looking for posts that could challenge her objectivity and neutrality.
Anon. 4:45 - I hope you would also look for posts that exhibit her professional knowledge. A good attorney wanting to discredit a witness had better know the witness's strengths, as well.
What I really wanted to say has already been said or implied, but, not being powerless or voiceless, I will forge ahead: Hillary did seem to imply by omission that degrading men, whites of either sex (gender, if you're too young to remember that "sex" is the appropriate word, here), and anyone she does not perceive as powerless, is perfectly all right.
I would rather hold my head up than to have Hillary come and try to hold my hand to get my vote. But, then, I'd rather hold my head up just because I've shed the burden of victimhood than to have anyone perceive me as a victim...unless, of course, I'm being mugged, or something! Then, I'll appreciate some help, thank you.
Anonymous 4:45:
So the attorney would find out I hold similar views as a number of my fellow Americans--I'm not crazy about Hillary Clinton. Big Deal.
Anon wrote:"If Dr. Helen were testifying in a case as a forensic psychologist and I was an attorney who wanted to weaken the impact of her testimony, I would cull through her blog looking for posts that could challenge her objectivity and neutrality.'
But then you are NOT an attorney! An attorney would not be interested in such a silly, worthless exercise. You must be a women's studies teacher.
Trey (with appologies to Elizabeth)
Dr. Helen:
You can scoff. But I would think that the perception of neutrality and objectivity are important elements of an effective forensic expert.
If I was an attorney or someone hired to critique your forensic reports, I would search your blog for possible indications that you may have brought a pre-existing bias to your work (you blog frequently for instance about your opinions of the roles of men and women, see for example your public remarks about the Winkler case). Even if you did not bring such a bias in a particular case, your blog comments could serve to undermine your credibility as a neutral and objective expert.
Just a thought worth considering.
As a woman, I would rather be referred to as a "nappy-headed ho" by Don Imus than called "powerless" by Hillary Clinton.
This made me laugh out loud. My first thought was "me too!!!"
The saddest thing about the whole incident is that it made the women's basketball team look like a bunch of wimpy, shrinking violets. In reality, they are obviously more than competent, gutsy and accomplished women. Why should they care what a tool like Don Imus has to say!
They should have quickly released an "F-you, Don" statement and let it go. Oh well...
Hillary is all of Bill's baggage, with none of his charm.
I agree with you Helen, and this is coming from a black woman.
Hillary Clinton is a demangogue.
She has jumped on the blame hip hop bandwagon and then she turns around and takes money for her campaign from rappers.
Anon 6:08 pm said "I would search your blog for possible indications that you may have brought a pre-existing bias to your work"
A not so subtile attempt to get a blogger who refuses to drink the Kool-Aid to quit blogging or self censor what she writes. Of course, they do worse to the likes of Michelle Malkin. Imagine that, the gall of womyn who don't know their place. You dare dis the Hillary?
Listen, whom ever you are, slimy lawyer tricks are something every expert witness has to deal with. If the best a slimy lawyer can come up with to impeach the credibility of an expert witness is "She commits Lèse majesté ala Hillary!" then his client's gonna get the death penalty. Or maybe we'd just a few more Cho's off the street before they run amok.
Hummm... on second thought, tell ya what Anon, why don't you just keep pushing your idea. I for one would be in favor of the above results in court!
Not that I know anything about Jessica Mitford, author of 'The American Way of Death,' but The New Republic had a fascinating review of her or the Mitford sisters last year. Hillary Clinton seems to be a modern day 'Mitford sister.' The sisters were of English aristocratic lineage and would deepy ciriticze the society while continuing to act and live as privileged members of it, feeling comfortable in their upper class contacts. Jessica was a communist and her sister married the head of the British fascist party. George Orwell didn't so much invent a parody of the denial and superiority of such people when he had the pigs in Animal Farm write the clarifying line, 'All animals are equal but some animals are more equal than others,' as make their standard social and psychological operations a little more evident. The interesting thing about the review is that it showed that denial of intrafamily emotions may have been transformed into 'political' positions.
Thanks for posting this quote from Hillary. This is a brazen example of the kind of victimisation of minorities by the left. To say nothing of women: Feminists have victimised women more than any patriarchy could, simply by telling them they are oppressed when they're not. (To naysayers: Keep in mind feminism arose from the most privileged generation of women in history.)
Academic (sic) feminism is nothing but an unchanging diet of the most nauseating victimhood propaganda you can imagine. Given their motives, that is that they want to believe this stuff, it's clear these women will never be happy. And the leftwing elite's exploitive contempt for minorities, i.e. as being helpless without their political help, is clear for all who would see it.
If your only hope, thanks to the likes of Hillary and Al Sharpton, is in leftwing politicians for whom you get to tick a box for every election day, then you're right where they want you: powerless over your own life!
James Griffin said...
A not so subtile attempt to get a blogger who refuses to drink the Kool-Aid to quit blogging or self censor what she writes. Of course, they do worse to the likes of Michelle Malkin. Imagine that, the gall of womyn who don't know their place. You dare dis the Hillary?
It has nothing to do with Dr. Helen's Hillary comment. I would write EXACTLY the same thing if Dr. Helen, say, consistently supported a liberal, feminist perspective. In fact, I suspect, if Dr. Helen was involved in a case that required that she review the work of a forensic psychologist known for his or her liberal blog that she would consider this when evaluating the psychological appraisals of this liberal peer.
In some cases, keeping one's political persuasion private may have some advantages.
Anon 8:01 pm said "In some cases, keeping one's political persuasion private may have some advantages."
In a court of law, an expert witness has many more advantages with a reputation of saying what she means and meaning what she says. Any search of Dr. Helen's blog shows just that.
What a court wants most from an expert witness is the truth as the expert sees it.
A reputation of consistantly calling them as she sees them is a reputation any lawyer - not to mention judge or jury - loves to see in an expert.
The slimy witness and lawyer types go to great lengths to fake that kind of repoutation. Getting caught is seriously detrimental to their case. Not to mention personally embarassing.
Anonymous 8:01:
"In some cases, keeping one's political persuasion private may have some advantages."
Why don't you go tell that to the APA whose psychological journal articles are 93% left leaning? This would mean that psychologists as a whole who tend to be liberals should all refrain from any forensic work at all according to you.
James Griffin,
Good points.
Great link, Jamila Akil! And always remember to follow Hillary's money trail. Foul-mouthed, misogynistic-rapper "Timbaland" raised her $800,000.00 in one night's trick. Imus made fun of her husband's misogyny during a press dinner speech more than 10 years ago. Who do YOU think she's going to criticize?
Dr. Helen wrote:
Why don't you go tell that to the APA whose psychological journal articles are 93% left leaning? This would mean that psychologists as a whole who tend to be liberals should all refrain from any forensic work at all according to you.
93% is an interesting finding. I would appreciate it if you could direct me to where that figure comes from.
However, to the extent that psychologists tend to lean in the liberal direction, and let that influence their forensic work, yes I have a big problem with that. I suspect alot of psychologists and other mental health professionals have difficulty sticking by the scientific standards of evidence established by the courts. Those that do not understand and aspire to those standards should refrain from forensic work. My understanding is that the profession of psychology does not have the greatest reputation in the court room.
It's not just the courtrooms.
"I would rather be referred to as a "nappy-headed ho" by Don Imus than called "powerless" by Hillary Clinton."
Oh NO, you ditn't!! ;-)
Anon 9:45 said "My understanding is that the profession of psychology does not have the greatest reputation in the court room."
Friend, sometimes judges, lawyers, juries, and courts themselves don't have the greatest reputations in court. Or with me either.
Enough of this, I've got a presentation to prepare. Good morning all.
"I really have a hard time seeing women who attend an expensive, elite University as victims of anything."
You wouldn't happen to be one of a certain group of 88 professors at Duke by any chance would you?
Well no matter. The university in question in this post is Rutgers. It's the state university of New Jersey. Whatever it's previous merits, now it's about as far from elite as you can get. People go there only because they don't have the money to go somewhere else. And once they get in, they'll probably spend 6 years getting out because they can't get the classes they need to graduate.
Besides, the basketball players get scholarships, so even if the school was expensive, they're not paying tuition.
Anonymous states:
"93% is an interesting finding. I would appreciate it if you could direct me to where that figure comes from."
You can find it in "Sociopolitical Diversity in Pychology: The Case for Pluralism" in the book, "Destructive Trends in Mental Health" by Nicholas Cummings, a former APA president. In addition, social psychology journals typically espouse liberal sociopolitical views--you can see a lengthy citation list in "The Morals and Politics of Psychology," State University of New York Press, 1994.
Many thanks Dr. Helen. I appreciate the citations.
Originally, Sociopolitical Diversity in Pychology: The Case for Pluralism" by Redding was published in the American Psychologist in 2001. It was later published in Cummings book.
My examination of the article by Redding suggested that 97% of the articles published in the 1990's in the American Psychologist with political content advanced liberal themes. That is not the same as "Why don't you go tell that to the APA whose psychological journal articles are 93% left leaning"
Sounds like a broken/biased peer review process.
Purple Avenger,
I would say that's about right. Take for example, NYU professor, John Jost, who writes articles that lean towards negative characteristics of conservatives that are published by APA's "American Psychologist." He gives donations to Hillary Clinton--that seems like a conflict of interest to me.
Purple Avenger,
Sorry, forgot to add the link to Jost's contribution to Clinton:
The above information on the researcher John Jost can be found here at http://www.opensecrets.org/indivs/search.asp?key=DHM82&txtName=Jost&txtState=NY&txtAll=Y&Order=N
Anon keeps writing: "If I was an attorney . . ."
Well, if I were king of the forest, the chupmunks would obey me and listen to my pronouncements. But since I am not, well they ridicule me on their blogs.
While I may not be the king of the forest, I am clued in enough to know when I look like an ass.
Here is a dollar, you buy the clue.
Trey
Anon then wrote: "In some cases, keeping one's political persuasion private may have some advantages."
Mirror mirror.
Trey
And then anon wrote: "My examination of the article by Redding suggested that 97% of the articles published in the 1990's in the American Psychologist with political content advanced liberal themes. That is not the same as "Why don't you go tell that to the APA whose psychological journal articles are 93% left leaning" "
OK, Helen understated the finding by three percent. Your problem anon, well, one of them, is you do not recognize when you have been whipped, smacked down, beaten, and humiliated with the facts.
Here is your next post for you:
Anon said: "It is only a flesh wound."
Trey
TMink said...
And then anon wrote: "My examination of the article by Redding suggested that 97% of the articles published in the 1990's in the American Psychologist with political content advanced liberal themes. That is not the same as "Why don't you go tell that to the APA whose psychological journal articles are 93% left leaning" "
Dr. Helen:
Could you try to explain to TMink the difference between your presentation of the findings and the author's presentation of the findings in the article. It is not simply a matter of 4%.
I would not expect TMink to know that most articles in most APA sponsored journals do not touch on political issues. The writer of the article was not referring to Journals or articles that do not touch on political issues.
I grant you that there is a liberal bias in psychology and that this bias does psychology a disservice. However, I do not believe that imposing a conservative bias is a remedy for this situation. Distortions in any direction, be they informed by a liberal, conservative, or some other perspective, it seems to me, are counterproductive. Forensic experts, IMHO need to guard against distortion and bias from a range of sources and points of view.
The competent forensic psychologists I know come from a range of political persuasions (The best forensic psychologist I know of is a conservative republican). However, they make every effort to limit that bias when presenting psychological information both in court and in a public forum.
Anonymous 12:44:
"However, they make every effort to limit that bias when presenting psychological information both in court and in a public forum."
So what does this have to do with me? I go by the law, my data and training in my forensic work you mistakenly think this is a public forum. It is a personal blog. Too bad you cannot tell the difference.
Dr. Helen:
I am only suggesting that you consider how one's personal blogging and professional work may not be as clearly and distinctly separated as one might think. See for example:
http://www.apa.org/monitor/jan07/ethics.html
Even the title of your blog 'Dr. Helen' appears to blend both the personal and the professional and your posts are often informed by your personal experiences and professional expertise.
This is probably an important issue worth considering by many folks who are in powerful professional roles, not just forensic psychologists.
Ironically, Rutgers has a majority of female students.
If you go to the "Rutgers at a Glance" page here:
http://admissions.rutgers.edu/0101.asp
Scroll down a bit to see the male/female ratio of the student body:
Male / Female
Total University (Undergraduate)
* Male 47.1%
* Female 52.9%
It also seems to be pretty racially diverse for a college campus. From the same source as above:
Total University Racial/Ethnic Distribution
* African-American 11.5%
* American Indian 0.2%
* Asian 21%
* Latino 9.6%
* White 50.5%
* Foreign 1.8%
* Other 5.4%
Anonymous 2:07:
Forgive me if I can't get too worked up about the APA and their "ethics." For an organization that in the past has had held such views as "Zionism is a form of racism and racial discrimination" and that homosexuality was a mental disorder, it would be hypocritical to start telling it's members how to behave politically.
Dr. Helen said...
Forgive me if I can't get too worked up about the APA and their "ethics."
You could be right. I raised some thoughts that I believe might be worth considering. I really have nothing to add. Continued Good Luck.
Anonymous 4:18:
Thank you for raising them and for the civil tone.
What are you going to do, bleed on her?
Trey
Ya know, I am not a forensic psychologist. I do a little testing, and a little court work, but mostly I work with people. Primarily children lately. I love the work, and I have a waiting list.
I was scared white about having to take statistics in grad school. And I was completely amazed when I only missed two points the whole year in my second stats class. I was even more amazed when I was paid to explain statistics to other graduate students. But I made A's in all my stats classes and I learned a little. So I think I can find my way around a statistic.
But I am not called by local judges because of my stats grades. I am called because I speak in an honest, straight up fashion and tell the truth. Any of the judges that value my input would read what I post and say to themselves "That sounds like Trey" and chuckle a little.
Helen's blog is a blog, not a textbook. She does a job as a psychologist, she is not a secular priest who is expected to live her life in the service of liberalism and empathy. Nor am I. The people at parties who get nervous areound psychologists don't get it. It is a great job, but just a job. No voodoo involved, well at least not during work hours.
You miss the point and miss the mark anon. It happens, but that horse you were beating was so dead it was fossilized.
Trey
Trey,
Could be that in the world of psychology and the judicial system you and Helen are right on the mark--that whatever you write for your blogs has no bearing on how you are perceived as a professional. I'm part of neither of those worlds, so I take your word for it. In other worlds, though, it does matter. If I read a wacky letter to the editor and meet that person later in a business setting? You bet it affects my opinion of that person. I can try to separate the two events--wacky letter and business dealing--but in the back of my mind, I'm still thinking the guy is a nutcase. (And what are blogs if not an extended letter to the editor?)
Well anonymom, that is why I do not write about the little green men that inhabit my basement. It is not time for them to begin their world domin, em, their official status with the UN.
Wacky letters might indeed hurt credibility. Heck, my dyslexia and resulting poor spelling hurts my credibility. As does my mild impulsivity that led me to make the last post before this, knowing that I would regret it!
I have never worried about being wacky, perhaps I should! And I have never read a Dr. Helen post that I considered out there. Maybe I am missing on me, maybe on her, maybe on both of us. But I do not think that there would be enough evidence to convict me of wacky. Smartass? Guilty as charged.
But for me, I work in mainly child abuse cases with judges and lawyers that generally are, like me, looking out for the kids. It is not rocket science, and not the same type of work that Helen does. And frankly, while I love my job and consider it a ministry, it is just my job. Being a husband and dad is more important.
Finally, being real is a HUGE part of my job. Transparency is one of the core facilitative dimsensions for a therapist. I speak plainly to my patients, and to the judge, and on blogs. I consider it one of my strengths.
So if I am labled wacky, it will be real wackiness, honestly expressed. And I am OK with that.
What do you think?
Trey
Trey,
Wacky is in the eye of the beholder, I guess. If I write something in favor of gun control, most of Helen's audience will think I am exceedingly wise. Others will think I am misinformed or evil. Some might agree with my point but wish I had put it differently. When I read Michelle Malkin making fun of Cindy Sheehan's "muffin top," I stopped visiting Malkin's blog. Not because I disagreed with her larger point about peace activists, but because such a juvenile attack made me dislike and distrust Malkin in a personal way. It is entirely possible to dislike and distrust people with whom we agree. If someone has a way of communicating "my" point to the world, I would like them to present it in a way that doesn't alienate. Not because I care if that person is likeable but because when I believe strongly about something, I care about how that message is delivered.
I am wary of Ann Coulter saying anything that I agree with, for example, and I imagine some liberals wish Maureen Dowd would stop writing. People like that tend to make the discussion about themselves: witness Ann Althouse's desperate attempts to convince us that the breast controversy was about something more--because it is Ann and because Ann has developed a fluff-headed persona, those attempts fall flat. We still know it's all about Ann.
Anon's posts do not make her political stance evident. If readers assume that anon is a crazy liberal and react to her that way, they risk alienating someone who might actually be worth having on "our side." I admired anon's persistence in making her point about Helen's tone and I hope that she and I agree on other points. I have a hunch that conversations with her--as with you--would be worth my time, whether we agree or disagree.
The thing about blogs is that they are just so darned much fun, people forget that the topics under discussion might be worth treating with respect. It can be so delicious to say something offensive--it draws an audience.
Well, I am guilty of that no doubt. Especially the anons who come on, make some sanctimonious comment, and then whine when someone takes them to task.
I am not sure that is wacky, but I do tear in to the trolls when I am in the mood, and it is delicious.
We disagree about Ann, I enjoy her blog and understood her point about the breasts. Oops, sorry about that one. Talk with you later.
Trey
Helen, it appears you touched a nerve among the "Thou Shalt Not Say Bad Things About Hillary" crowd.
heh. Good.
The only sentence I want to hear out of Hillary's mouth is, "I'm sorry I lied about the vast right wing conspiracy to try to cover up for the sexually predatory behavior of my husband."
Words are bad, but actions are OK... well as long as they were committed by the "First Black President."
Hillary has nothing of value to say with respect to most things, but certainly she should be ashamed to say one word about protecting the rights of women. You can't lie and cover up rape and abuse and expect anyone to take you seriously on the issue of women's rights.
And since when did we have to "stifle" our opinions, lest we be accused of failing to show proper judgment?
Kind of reminds me of, "Don't you worry your pretty little head about that."
However you phrase it, Anon, what you're really telling Helen is to "stifle." It doesn't matter the guise, whether it's framed as "you're too stupid to speak because you're a woman," or "you're not objective if you make judgments and could lose your livelihood," it's a ruse to attack the messenger rather than the message. And it is a pathetic attempt to detract from the very reasoned and appropriate judgement that to be placated and talked down to by Hillary is sickening.
I never see much thought put into Hillary-bashing; it's mainly a visceral reaction to her, for whatever reason.
Liberals also have a visceral reaction to George W. Bush, but at least there's his atrocious record to back up their vitriol. Bashing the worst president ever is a good thing.
Anonymous (1:35 AM),
I never see much thought put into Bush bashing; it's mainly a visceral reaction to him, for whatever reason.
Conservatives also have a visceral reaction to Hillary, but at least there's her atrocious record to back up their vitriol. Bashing the worst first lady and senator ever is a good thing.
You don't see much thought on Hillary bashing?
You can't see thoughts.
The fact that there is a ton of evidence that she is an unprincipled hypocrite might be its basis. You know, like facts?
"a ton of evidence" isn't evidence, connie.
I think you just proved my point.
You go girl. Errr You go woman. Maybe, You go gal.
85cc免費影片85cc免費影片sex520免費影片免費 a 片85cc免費影片台灣論壇免費影片免費看 aa的滿18歲影片85cc免費影片線上觀賞免費Ａ片線上免費a片觀看a片免費看小魔女免費影城A片-sex520aaa片免費看短片aaaaa片俱樂部sex888免費看影片sex520免費影片sex免費成人影片馬子免費影片免費線上a片成人圖片區18成人avooo520sex貼片區臺灣情色網線上免費a長片免費卡通影片線上觀看gogo2sex免費 a 片sex520免費影片援交av080影片免費線上avdvd免費 aa 片試看,成人影片分享後宮0204movie免費影片免費線上歐美A片觀看sex888影片分享區微風成人av論壇plus論壇自拍情色0204movie免費影片aaa片免費看短片免費色咪咪影片網aaaa彩虹頻道免費影片日本 avdvd 介紹免費觀賞85cc免費影城5278論壇倉井空免費a影片bbs x693 com sex888a片免費觀賞sexy girls get fucked吉澤明步彩虹頻道免費短片sex520-卡通影片台灣情色網無碼avdvdaaa影片下載城彩虹頻道免費影片 sex383線上娛樂場一本道 a片 東京熱情色影片彩虹成人avdvd洪爺影城高中生援交偷拍自拍限制級色情 片
視訊做愛視訊美女無碼A片情色影劇kyo成人動漫tt1069同志交友網ut同志交友網微風成人論壇6k聊天室日本 avdvd 介紹免費觀賞UT視訊美女交友..........................
Post a Comment
<< Home