Post by Jack
A UC Berkeley professor of linguistics had this to say about Hillary Clinton’s mishandling of classified information…
‘It’s not about emails; it’s about public communication by a woman’
I am mad. I am mad because I am scared. And if you are a woman, you should be, too. Emailgate is a bitch hunt, but the target is not Hillary Clinton. It’s us.
The only reason the whole email flap has legs is because the candidate is female. Can you imagine this happening to a man? Clinton is guilty of SWF (Speaking While Female), and emailgate is just a reminder to us all that she has no business doing what she’s doing and must be punished, for the sake of all decent women everywhere. There is so much of that going around.
If the candidate were male, there would be no scolding and no “scandal.” Those very ideas would be absurd. Men have a nearly absolute right to freedom of speech. In theory, so do women, but that, as the creationists like to say, is only a theory.
Clinton’s use of a personal server has not been found to be a crime. Then how is it that so many have found the charge so easy to make, and make stick? How has her use of the server made plausible all the claims that she is “deceptive” and “untrustworthy”?
It’s not about emails; it’s about public communication by a woman in general. Of course, in the year 2016, no one (probably not even The Donald) could make this argument explicitly. After all, he and his fellow Republicans are not waging a war on women. How do we know that? They have said so. And they’re men, so they must be telling the truth.
But here’s Hillary Rodham Clinton, the very public stand-in for all bossy, uppity and ambitious women. Here are her emails. And since it’s a woman, doing what decent women should never do—engaging in high-level public communication—well, there must be something wrong with that, even if we can’t quite find that something. We will invoke the terminology of criminal law to account for our feelings. She’s getting away with treason! Put her in jail! We can’t quite put our fingers on it, but the words sure do make a lot of people feel better, so they must be right.
So that’s the take of Berkley linguistics professor Robin Lakoff. Now here’s the take from Charles S. Faddis, a former CIA operations officer with 20 years of experience in intelligence operations. What a nut job, this woman’s perspective is so skewed, I wouldn’t want her baby sitting children much less teaching young adults.
Charles S. Faddis is right. We have to track down and find all the students she has taught and re-program them to be human again. People like Robin Lakoff need to be shipped off to Syria and dump them into the middle of their Utopian dream of a One World Order where gender is served with syrup and butter. I wonder if electric shock therapy would bring her back to reality?
This woman’s message is particularly pathetic today. Hillary is performing as a screeching shrew, rather than a confident accomplished woman on the campaign trail. In defending her record she listed her titles, as if the titles alone were sufficient evidence of accomplishment. Instead her list demonstrates the reality that her appointment to various positions were accomplished mainly because she married to an ambitious man.
The main gripe I’ve always had with this brand of feminist, in addition to the angry screeching, is that instead of creating institutions they focused on disrupting and invading institutions. Instead of competing they demeaned their male competitors and used their gender to bully and climb over colleagues. Instead of building successful businesses with their own glass ceilings, they played the victim.
Their are women of real accomplishment in America. Few of them get the recognition, especially by feminists, that they deserve. But I found it interesting that when seeking out patents acquired by women I found most happened prior to the modern feminist movement.
It could be that the “roaring” feminist of the sixties pushed women into a box of victim-hood that stifled creativity and natural pathways to real accomplishment.
I absolutely reject the notion that Hillary is being criticized because she is a woman. The truth is she is a dishonest, ambitious, deceitful, narcissist who believes the rules do not apply to her. She is guilty of unethical and unprofessional behaviors and breaking several federal laws that, were she not a (60’s feminist) woman, she would now be in jail.
“The truth is she is a dishonest, ambitious, deceitful, narcissist who believes the rules do not apply to her.”
Odd. I would say that very thing about your guy. I’d even be willing to wager that you did not know what a narcissist was until the label was firmly applied to your guy some months back.
And how can you possible claim veracity, integrity, or anything like it, for a fellow running as a Republican, who was, and possibly still is, a registered Democrat? Very odd.
Libby, lets say Trump is all of things too, does that mean this woman or Hillary gets a pass? No, of course not and that’s why we continue to speak up about flawed characters in politics that are damaging our country. You feel free to talk about flawed characters that bear the GOP stamp, chances are we will agree with you in many cases. But, this is where we differ. You have no interest in exposing corruption on the left, even if is for the purpose of defending the Constitution, rather, you have a very narrow agenda that deals exclusively with criticizing and demeaning anything or anyone… conservative.
We prefer to, “Call em like we see em.” You should try it, you might like it.
” You have no interest in exposing corruption on the left, ….”
Jack, it is exposed. Those busy beavers at the FBI are hard at work on this, that, and the other thing. If this fails to result in criminal charges, it’s you who don’t seem content with that. She should be a criminal just because you say she is? You and Soaps have a lot in common, but that’s just not how it works.
And, unhappily, the perceived nature, degree and significance of this, that, or the other on an individual voter are decidedly subjective. I perceive Hillary to be less of a threat to my personal well-being than The Donald, and that is how I will vote. And there really isn’t a whole hell of a lot you can do about it.
No, it’s not even that. It’s vanity. That such a whining, petulant, boorish buffoon of a man should represent my country to the world … this is not acceptable.
Libby, your opinion of Mr. Trump is widely shared, even by a lot of Republicans. I think we are in trouble no matter who gets elected. Putin would like to see Trump be elected because he think he can deal with Trump, but I suspect he sees Hillary too much like himself and fears her.
“I’d even be willing to wager that you did not know what a narcissist was…”
Ridiculous, the term has been applied to both Bill Clinton and Obama by professionals. Their use of the words I, me, and my are a dead giveaway.
“And how can you possible claim veracity, integrity …”
You’ve accused me of being a partisan, I guess this proves you were wrong on that score as well. If you recall DT was not my first choice and as I have said in comments countless times…Hillary is just that bad.
My veracity and integrity are in tact. Trump is the most conservative of the two candidates with a chance to win.
“screeching shrew,”
Why are you so determined to prove those who scream sexism at the drop of a hat right?
This feminist professor is stupid–the e-mail thing has nothing to do with Clinton’s gender–but “screeching shrew” absolutely does. You can’t disprove allegations of misogyny by engaging in misogynistic slurs. Not if you have a lick of sense.
“But I found it interesting that when seeking out patents acquired by women I found most happened prior to the modern feminist movement.”
This is not true.
Since 1977, women have quintupled their representation among patent holders, yet they still hold “an extremely small share of patents,” according to a new paper by the Institute for Women’s Policy Research. Four decades ago, 3 percent of all patents listed at least one woman inventor. As of 2010, nearly 19 percent of patents did. Overall, more than 81 percent of patents include no women.
http://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2016/07/the-patent-gap/492065/
At least we can agree this has nothing to do with sexism. We feel the issues against Hillary are purely of a criminal nature and we wish to see her treated the same as anyone else when it comes to prosecution. Her gender or her politics are a diversion, a red herring and they are absolutely irrelevant to the core issue, that being criminality as defined by federal law. This professor is a dingbat and its a shame she is teaching our children.
It is not misogynistic to call Hillary Clinton a “screeching shrew” when she is, in fact, a screeching shrew. Just ask a few members of the Secret Service who were given the miserable duty of protecting her, Chris.
The Screeching Shrew In Public
Yes, it is. “Shrew” is a gendered insult used only to describe women. That is literally what misogyny means. The word has been used to describe only women for over 500 years. Why pretend not to know this? What can you possibly hope to gain by pretending to be stupider than you really are?
Sheesh, what a jerk! Slurs have always had genders attached to them, Chris. It isn’t misandrist or misogynist to use them, you stupid JACKass.
Chris, you are an idiotic and rabid freak from PC hell. Go make an horse’s ass of yourself elsewhere.
Specious fools like this moron Chris would criticize romance languages for assigning gender to all nouns.
Hillary is a screeching shrew and calling her such does not change that fact. She is also an ***hole. Happy now, Chris?
This Chris c*** (I switched to his identity gender to be fair, I wouldn’t want to be sexist) would disparage Shakespeare for writing “The Taming of the Shrew.”
“Why are you so determined to prove those who scream sexism at the drop of a hat right? ”
The English major apparently doesn’t understand the common use of descriptive words. GWB was called cocky, for instance.
Women aren’t perfect or angelic and they certainly aren’t victims. Anyone running for president can expect the descriptive words to fly hot and heavy, particularly when they use plenty of them themselves. Hillary went on quite a tirade today (video): “I am sick and tired of the negative, dark, divisive, dangerous vision and the anger of people who support Donald Trump…”
I hope you took note of the tone in her voice. Like it or don’t, IMHO, she fits the description of an aggressive, bad-tempered woman perfectly! She is a shrew.
Happy to hear I was wrong about the number of women with patents.
I also don’t subscribe to feminist definitions and bullying tactics, as you well know, Chris.
Well, it is interesting (telling, in fact) that you do not seem to be able to content yourself attacking her policy positions, and expend vast quantities of energy attacking herself.
Another load from Lippy demonstrating yet again that she lives in a parallel universe of her imagination. Post Scripts has addressed Clintonian and Obamian policy. Oh well …
There is a 30 year long string of “coincidence” following a trail of the Clinton Crime Family activities. That is at least as important as her ridiculous policy positions that are, essentially, a continuation of Obama’s.
Go ahead, turn a blind eye Lippy. No one gives a damn that you are a wannabe water carrier on the Clinton plantation. If you do not like what Post Scripts writes, no one is forcing you to read it, fool.
Search Warrant Approved —
The FBI reopened its Clinton email investigation after agents recovered a laptop computer from Wiener that reportedly contains some 650,000 emails now being reviewed by FBI agents. Weiner’s laptop was obtained during an investigation into allegations the former congressman exchanged illicit messages with a 15-year-old girl.
The FBI began reviewing the emails after receiving a search warrant on Monday.
Abedin New Focus of
Clinton Email Investigation
FBI report reveals she forwarded classified data to her private email
Pot calls kettle black.
“… the issues against Hillary are purely of a criminal nature … that being criminality as defined by federal law.”
She’s been charged with something? I don’t believe so. Consequently, it would seem you have no issues with Hillary … and yet … you cannot keep quiet about her dreadful character. Telling.
Yes, Lippy, so far Hillary has avoided being charged. That was a failing of the FBI which chose to ignore the law regarding gross negligence in the handling of government communications. People have been fined and jailed for less. If there is any justice left in this world, Hillary will be charged, but Obama will pardon her and so she will never have to answer for her crimes.
Lippy, your defense of the Clinton Crime Family speaks volumes.
Yeah, it’s tough to make a case when the key witnesses keep turning up dead, and the rest are on the foundation payroll.
They weren’t able to convict member of the mafia for years, Libby. That didn’t mean they had not committed many federal crimes.
You choose to ignore the laws she has broken even when we have posted them here…telling!
Your assertion, your belief that she broke them is not evidence that she broke them. I cannot believe the republic has lasted this long, when such an alarmingly large number of people have no idea how it works.
Over a dozen people were convicted of some thing or other re the demise of the Whitewater Development Corporation. (Bubba pardoned several of them.) Notwithstanding, you have to think that if there had been something to nail the couple with, they would have been nailed. But such reasonableness is not possible for you … is it?
You know, you keep accusing me of supporting Hillary. I defy you to quote an instance of this. I’ve told you two dozen times … I’m a Bernie girl. Why do you never hear? But Bernie lost. And, at this point, I have to doubt the sanity of anybody who wants the bloody job.
However, as I said … a President of the United States who grabs crotch? … this is not acceptable.
Lippy has plenty of Hillary in her, she thinks people are idiots who will believe her incredulous nonsense.
Lippy keeps defending Hillary and attacking Post Scripts. Her aim is pretty obvious.
Lippy, why lie about it? Step up. Own it. Or STFU.
Regarding Robin Lakoff’s ridiculous article:
Unintentional satire is the best satire.
It just keeps growing and growing …
Clinton Aide Asked Secret Service Agent to Assist With Securing Hillary Email Server
“Barring some obstruction, in some way, they believe they will continue to likely and indictment.” Bret Baier.
FBI focusing on Clinton pay-for-play emails
The Hill picks this up —
Report: Indictment ‘likely’ in FBI’s Clinton Foundation probe
Most likely this is what Ms. Lakoff is creating in her classroom:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RGvrmltfMrA
This would be hilarious if it were not so sad and true.