"Don't call her 'Hillary!!!!'"

What a bunch of ridiculous baloney. Jesus Christ, I am so sick of this offense-craving culture. "That's offensive! No, don't say that - that's offensive too! What do you mean it's nothing to get worked up over? You're gaslighting me! Don't try and erase my experiences!"

When people say just "Clinton," a lot of people picture Bill.

Welcome to humanity's penchant for extremes. It used to be that you couldn't be offended because the majority didn't give a crap. Now you MUST be offended.
 
aw man, don't quote the "leave Hillary Alone" crowd.

Although that post you quoted did take me back to 2008, when it was the height of wit.:D

I don't even get it. Is it a reference to something?

I just lol'd at the idea of calling someone that. How would one pronounce it? How would you verbally indicate the "!!11!!!!1"s? These thoughts made me grin.
 
Peggy Drexler CNN 4/14/15 said:
According to a University of Utah study, Clinton was called by her first name four times more than her 2008 rival, Barack Obama, and so it goes this time around. After all, Rand's also running for president. So is Marco. When those guys declared, however, they got headlines that included their last names.


There's a very good reason for that.

Indeed there is, but it's not the conclusion Peggy Drexler jumped to. It has to do with the fact that when Hillary Clinton started her NY Senate campaign she had her campaign material printed up as 'Hillary!'--note the exclamation point. That was dropped when people made fun of it, but she kept using 'Hillary' as her identifier for her presidential run in '08 as can be seen by a perusal of these signs. She has continued to use that as her designation as can be seen from her official campaign page 'Hillary for America.'

James Earl Carter preferred to be called 'Jimmy' in politics (note not 'Jim') which made him come across as more approachable as well.
 
Last edited:
I always believed that... the overwhelming public perception is that she feeds on the blood of virgins
Well I guess the public don't think that's a bad thing, because she's way more popular than any Republican candidate.

Or perhaps you are simply wrong (again).

Rasmussen Report:

Hillary Clinton: 47%
Ted Cruz: 38%
Rand Paul: 37%
Other: 11%
undecided: 5%

Democrats: 82% back Clinton
Republicans: 70% back Paul and Cruz
 
Well I guess the public don't think that's a bad thing, because she's way more popular than any Republican candidate.

Or perhaps you are simply wrong (again).

Rasmussen Report:

Hillary Clinton: 47%
Ted Cruz: 38%
Rand Paul: 37%
Other: 11%
undecided: 5%

Democrats: 82% back Clinton
Republicans: 70% back Paul and Cruz

Was any of that supposed to add to 100%?
 
Well I guess the public don't think that's a bad thing, because she's way more popular than any Republican candidate.

Or perhaps you are simply wrong (again).

Rasmussen Report:

Hillary Clinton: 47%
Ted Cruz: 38%
Rand Paul: 37%
Other: 11%
undecided: 5%

Democrats: 82% back Clinton
Republicans: 70% back Paul and Cruz

OH MI GAWD!!! SHE SOUNDS AWESOME!!!!!!

:rolleyes:
 
I'm not Evelyn kidding, it used to be a boy's name.

So did Shirley. It was one of those "mother's family name given to first-born son" things until that feminist Charlotte Bronte gave it to a girl in a book. True story.
 
Last edited:
I always believed that they did it to "humanize" her, because the overwhelming public perception is that she feeds on the blood of virgins

If she fed on the blood of virgins, she wouldn't look like she's old enough to have flip-flopped on the issue of alchemy.

Maybe virgins are just too hard to come by these days.
 

ISF - Join now!

Every member here is approved by hand. No bots, no spam, just people who care about evidence and honest debate.

Membership is free!

Create your free account

Back
Top Bottom