On Wed, 18 Jul 2007 08:12:30 -0700, sechumlib wrote
(in article ):

George Graves wrote:
On Tue, 17 Jul 2007 17:40:34 -0700, sechumlib wrote
(in article ):


The latest, in the above message, is close to a libel.


No it isn't. I was merely stating that it has been suggested that she is a
lesbian, and if it is true, and comes out during the election, it will hurt
her chances.

Well, aren't you the Goody Two-Shoes! All sanctimonious about suggesting
near-libelous insulting things.

Like I said above, I don't really care what her sexual
preference is, I wouldn't want that Bitch as my president if she was Mother
Theresa and Xavier Hollander all rolled up in one!

I make the

assumption that "canoe bailer" is another name for a lesbian, though I
don't really know. But the unresisted impulse is to put every possible
stigma on a Clinton, whether he/she deserves it or not. She's probably
considered a "bitch" because she has the chutzpah to run for president,
which no arch-submissive woman of the right kind should do. Assert
yourself, and you're a bitch.


She's not A bitch, she's THE BITCH and the road to an even quicker decline
for this poor benighted Republic of ours.

Nothing like throwing insults around to prove how perceptive you are.
But then, you're just the same as all the rest of the ultra-right-wing
creeps who don't care how competent their chosen ones are, as long as
they are able to subvert any human incentives by government or private
enterprise.

And you are just the same as all the rest of the ultra-left-wing creeps who
care only for some socialist, one-world liberal utopia where no-one has any
rights, any hope or any aspirations. All anybody will have is a "benevolent"
world totalitarian government that tells everybody what to think and what to
do, and in return feeds you (poorly) and takes care of your every need (also
poorly) from the cradle to the grave.

Now that we've each mischaracterized each other's political views to the
point of utter absurdity, what now?