NOW defends Clinton (d)
Walt Horning
Let's take some guesses at what she might say to defend him:
"Let's TRUST Bill Clinton for the next 28 months because I believe
he told the truth under oath. Besides, 'oral sex' is just a
discussion about sex."
"The National Organization of Whores supported Bill's re-erection
to the Oral Orifice."
"I, the president of NOW, love the smell of a good cigar."
"I am telling you the TRUTH when I say I represent all women in
America." [Did Bill teach you how to tell the "TRUTH"?]
"I have 5 women on my immediate staff who were former interns. They
all say 'serving' Bill Clinton gave them instant gratification."
"I do not believe Bill Clinton sexually assaulted Kathleen Willey,
Paula Jones and 5 other women or raped and beat up two others. Bill
Clinton 'swore' this was the truth."
"Its time to get this behind us. In fact I usually enjoy my sex that
way, from behind."
"You see that smirk I have on my face everytime I go on TV. A friend
named Bill gave it to me. --uh--oops ... Oh shit! Now Hillary knows
about me too."
"At NOW, we never 'suck up to men', but suck men who are up."
"Bill Clinton supports all our causes, well, except maybe for marital
fidelity, equal job advancement for women, hour-long love-making
(not 'just sex'), healthy TV education for our children, putting
rapists behind bars, and respect for women. ... Well, anyway he
believes in women and proves it because he said,
"I've had a hundred women!"
Roedy Green
see the original to appreciate a good parody. Perhaps you could post some
of Patricia Ireland's actual sayings.
I saw her on Larry King Live, at least I saw a woman billed as the head of
NOW. I don't recall her name. She had fairly long dark hair, on the thin
side, perhaps in her 40s or 50s. Was that Ireland?
Larry did not let her say much. I think she was too rational and calm
compared with the other guests. I expected a Feminazi, jibing at everyone
demanding political correctness. She seemed remarkably moderate.
--
Roedy Green
-30-
Mr. Horrible
Walt, how about posting what she's REALLY said instead of what you wish
she would say?
Mr. H
Walt Horning
>Walt Horning makes up more stuff.
>
>Walt, how about posting what she's REALLY said instead of what you wish
>she would say?
How about getting smart and understanding the word "SATIRE".
Roedy Green
>How about getting smart and understanding the word "SATIRE".
It is only satirical if there is a grain of truth in it that is
exaggerated. This seemed just totally off the wall, nothing to do with the
woman. I challenged the author to provide some of the original quotes that
were the seeds of his ideas.
--
Roedy Green
-30-
Mr. Horrible
>
> "Mr. Horrible" <m...@nospam.org> wrote:
>
> >Walt Horning makes up more stuff.
> >
> >Walt, how about posting what she's REALLY said instead of what you wish
> >she would say?
>
Walt, it's not that you write satire, its that you write BAD satire.
Mr. H
Walt Horning
>Walt Horning wrote:
>>
>> "Mr. Horrible" <m...@nospam.org> wrote:
>>
>> >Walt Horning makes up more stuff.
>> >
>> >Walt, how about posting what she's REALLY said instead of what you wish
>> >she would say?
>>
>> How about getting smart and understanding the word "SATIRE".
>
>Walt, it's not that you write satire, its that you write BAD satire.
Well, whether its good or bad, you took me for "serious".
Walt Horning
>Walt Horning asked, wrote, or quoted:
>>How about getting smart and understanding the word "SATIRE".
>
>It is only satirical if there is a grain of truth in it that is
>exaggerated. This seemed just totally off the wall, nothing to do with the
>woman.
Well, that's because it takes a little imagination to appreciate such
satire and its also takes one who dislikes Ireland to not care one way
or the other if its partly baseless or not. (The Supreme Court has
already upheld completely baseless satire as free speech/press: the
girlie magazine CEO who did satire on the famous religious leader,
saying that he had sex with his own mother, which was totally
baseless.)
>I challenged the author to provide some of the original quotes that
>were the seeds of his ideas.
The satire I posted was partly based on a news conference about a
month ago where Ireland and others stated their support for Clinton.
I would have to quote the entire news conference. It is also based on
the fact that not everyone shares NOW's views. Its also based on the
fact that NOW has a liberal agenda that may possibly not despise any
kind of "crazy sex" whatsover (even I do not despise most kinds of sex
either). The satire is also based on support for a president who is
alleged to have committed sex crimes (9 women). Satire is frequently
based on allegations alone (that's a "grain of truth"), and if Ireland
supports a president alleged to have sexually assaulted 9 women (as
supported by perhaps two-dozen witnesses), then the satire is very
fitting.
In short, if NOW supports Clinton, it supports whatever Clinton does,
even if it says it does not condone some behavior. By supporting him
they are in the "same camp". Thus the grain of truth about Clinton
then becomes the grain of truth about NOW (by throwing their support
behind Clinton) (though the Alexandria, VA branch did voice some
displeasure about the Jones lawsuit dismissal).
I can find a "grain of truth" in every one of my lines of Satire. I
just do not have time to go "point-by-point". Besides, to those who
have a deeper knowledge of politics and/or who disapprove of NOW,
those truths are likely to be more apparent. For NOW supporters, their
"defensive" position automatically puts "blinders" on their eyes.