HRC Super Volunteers - You're Words are Sad, Pathetic, and Delusional

If you haven't heard the HRC (Hillary Rodham Clinton) Super Volunteers made a statement to the press:

"We will be watching, reading, listening and protesting coded sexism" [You can no longer use these words to describe Hillary Clinton] "polarizing, calculating, disingenuous, insincere, ambitious, inevitable, entitled, over confident, secretive, will do anything to win, represents the past, out of touch".

Washington Post Article

SAD: Because it attempts to stop any form of criticism of Hillary Clinton. Is the only way Hillary will win, if there is no criticism of her actions, past or present? Criticism has been the foundation of political elections. Too often such criticism is poorly made or is deliberately designed to sabotage the other candidate, because of how inaccurate such statements are, like Harry Reid's statement about how Mitt Romney had not paid his taxes in 10 years (wholly unfounded, but was affective, as Harry Reid proudly asserts). But when such criticisms are bipartisan, it often, but not always, balances out. However if one candidate is criticized, but the other is not, then the balance is lost.

PATHETIC: Because a politically motivated group (HRC Super Volunteers) is attempting to stifle the presses' first amendment right. They are attempting to use fear in order to control the flow of information. The first amendment may be written to protect the media and individuals from the government, but the concept holds true to other individuals as well. Meaning that by attempting to control the flow of information by the media, the HRC Super Volunteers are demonstrating a completely un-American view, a non-patriotic view. These people do not believe in the American system, or even, for that matter, in Hillary Clinton, since they do not believe that she can weather this criticism.

DELUSIONAL: Because the HRC Super Volunteers' banned words are banned under the premise that they are coded sexism. Clearly they added the word "coded", because none of these words (or in fact phrases) are inherently sexist, in any way. By using the word "coded", they are trying to say that when the media uses one of these words, they are using it because they are sexist. The first presumption by them is that ALL media comes from a sexist patriarchal point of view. Which means they are ignoring ALL the WOMEN who are in the media, claiming that they have no voice or opinion in what is said/reported on Hillary Clinton: that sounds pretty freakin' sexist to me. BUT the second presumption is that none of these words are true, that none of these words accurately describe Hillary Clinton, that, in fact, Hillary Clinton is NOT "polarizing, calculating, disingenuous, insincere, ambitious, inevitable, entitled, over confident, secretive, will do anything to win, represents the past, out of touch". What if they were true? What if they were reported because there is factual evidence to support such a criticism? Is it suddenly labeled sexism? Does that mean that facts are less important than opinions?

A couple of examples:
Secretive: Hillary Clinton used a personal server to store her e-mail, instead of using the government e-mail account she was given. When asked to hand over her e-mails, for archiving, she had someone review all the e-mails on the server, and hand over only a few. She then deleted all the other e-mails off the server. This is the opposite of being transparent; there is the possibility of information that we ought to know or ought to have archived, that we will never know about. She kept her e-mails secret, as if she were...
Will Do Anything To Win: Does anyone remember the Democratic Primary for the 2008 Presidential Election? She bashed Obama left and right; she threw so much "mud" in the primary that the Republicans had nothing left to throw at Obama. And then when she lost the presidential nomination...what did she do? She met with Obama, in order to ask to be his vice-president. I will never forgive her for such "ambitious," "calculating," "over confident," "entitled" behaviour.


Is it just me or are the biggest supporters of Hillary For President completely insane?

5 Reasons for Hillary to Run

PS Don't think just because you trick a bunch of little girls into promoting Hillary for president with half-truths that I'll care.

War with Iran

War with Iran seems inevitable.

The question we have to ask ourselves is do we prefer:

War with Iran

or

Nuclear War with Iran

Indiana Religious Freedom Law: The Left Needs to Check Themselves, Before They Chick-Ity-Wreck Themselves

SO.....it's ok for the government to discriminate against individuals/private businesses, but it's not ok for an individual to discriminate against other individuals....that about right?

Psychos.

Obviously the government (well the US government) should not be creating any laws that discriminate against anyone as it oppresses their freedom. AND the US Government is supposed to be about protecting freedom.
INCLUDING the freedom to like/dislike/or treat (as individuals, which a private business is an extension of) others how their beliefs dictate.

I, personally, support gay marriage because this is the land of freedom. IF your particular institution (speaking mostly to churches here) do not want to endorse gay marriage...Great! That's your prerogative. But the government shouldn't get involved in such decisions.

This whole backlash against the Indiana Governor and the Indiana law are either full of bigotry or are too simplified to be dealing with the actual issue. We all know that laws are written as convoluted as possible, so is there a possibility that there are elements to this law, nuances perhaps, that do more than I am suggesting here? Possibly, but I'll need an attorney for that (even the politicians can't tell you for sure).

SO, Left? Stop looking like a bunch of bigots who don't like it when you are treated poorly...hell, I've been treated poorly much of my life, but you don't see me whining like a little [female dog], or even abusing a capitalist website for political means, or even wanting everything that "I think" I deserve.

Thank god this will result in a Conservative President.