Notice the tacit misogyny ?

[nat4900]

Let me first preface the fact that I am NOT a Hillary "fan".....

However, others may have noticed that right wingers respond to ANY support for Hillary by male democrats by labeling these men as "having no balls".......(Sure, some will respond that McCain did have the infamous Palin, but most of us know that to compare a "Sarah" with a "Hillary" is tantamount to a comparison between a Roland McDonald and an Nobel laureate.)

It is interesting that not long ago, any white person supporting Obama was [at best] labeled as having "white guilt"....and now, supporting a woman, as having "no balls"......

If you've ever wondered why right wingers will not see the oval office for decades to come, the above may offer some clue.

 

[hadit]

I don't see that happening.

 

[NightFox]

However, others may have noticed that right wingers respond to ANY support for Hillary by male democrats by labeling these men as "having no balls".......(Sure, some will

Personally I don't think it's a question of "having no balls" ... it's a sure sign that they have NO BRAINS.

 

[nat4900]

I don't see that happening.

You don't see WHAT happening???

 

[nat4900]

Personally I don't think it's a question of "having no balls" ... it's a sure sign that they have NO BRAINS.

Kind of expecting that genre of response from a right winger.....Go on, vote for your 3rd party and let us know how THAT turns out this November.

 

[hadit]

I don't see that happening.

You don't see WHAT happening???

I've not seen people accusing male Hillary supporters of not having any balls.

 

[DarkFury]

The lack of balls has nothing to do with a Hillary supporter. A Hillary supporter simply needs to be deaf, blind and stupid.

 

[nat4900]

I've not seen people accusing male Hillary supporters of not having any balls.

Just ONE example form a poster who calls his moronic self "couch protester" [sic] (I've noticed several others but one should suffice.)

 

[hadit]

I've not seen people accusing male Hillary supporters of not having any balls.

Just ONE example form a poster who calls his moronic self "couch protester" [sic] (I've noticed several others but one should suffice.)

That's not a comment on Hillary supporters having no balls, it's a comment on Hillary desiring to have the only functioning balls in Washington. IOW, it's more on her than on her supporters. That is to say, she's a ball buster.

 

[martybegan]

Let me first preface the fact that I am NOT a Hillary "fan".....

However, others may have noticed that right wingers respond to ANY support for Hillary by male democrats by labeling these men as "having no balls".......(Sure, some will respond that McCain did have the infamous Palin, but most of us know that to compare a "Sarah" with a "Hillary" is tantamount to a comparison between a Roland McDonald and an Nobel laureate.)

It is interesting that not long ago, any white person supporting Obama was [at best] labeled as having "white guilt"....and now, supporting a woman, as having "no balls"......

If you've ever wondered why right wingers will not see the oval office for decades to come, the above may offer some clue.

A bit of "begging the question" here, right?

 

[nat4900]

The lack of balls has nothing to do with a Hillary supporter. A Hillary supporter simply needs to be deaf, blind and stupid.

Well, not really (although your slurs may offer you some measure of comfort.) It is more a matter of resignation given what the GOP has to offer.

 

[nat4900]

That's not a comment on Hillary supporters having no balls, it's a comment on Hillary desiring to have the only functioning balls in Washington. IOW, it's more on her than on her supporters. That is to say, she's a ball buster.

OK...here's another...

Men for Hillary! No refund for your balls, you're now her official bitch. Pussy! She's a real Nutcracker.

 

[Fair&Balanced]

Let me first preface the fact that I am NOT a Hillary "fan".....

However, others may have noticed that right wingers respond to ANY support for Hillary by male democrats by labeling these men as "having no balls".......(Sure, some will respond that McCain did have the infamous Palin, but most of us know that to compare a "Sarah" with a "Hillary" is tantamount to a comparison between a Roland McDonald and an Nobel laureate.)

It is interesting that not long ago, any white person supporting Obama was [at best] labeled as having "white guilt"....and now, supporting a woman, as having "no balls"......

If you've ever wondered why right wingers will not see the oval office for decades to come, the above may offer some clue.

Talk about reading into things.................

By the way, suggesting that liberal men are limp wristed faggots is no attack on women.

 

[hadit]

That's not a comment on Hillary supporters having no balls, it's a comment on Hillary desiring to have the only functioning balls in Washington. IOW, it's more on her than on her supporters. That is to say, she's a ball buster.

OK...here's another...

Men for Hillary! No refund for your balls, you're now her official bitch. Pussy! She's a real Nutcracker.

Yay! You found one. Still not much of a mainstream movement. Certainly not enough to spark the OP and to claim that non-Hillary supporters are misogynists.

 

[nat4900]

That's not a comment on Hillary supporters having no balls, it's a comment on Hillary desiring to have the only functioning balls in Washington. IOW, it's more on her than on her supporters. That is to say, she's a ball buster.

....and a third one form some other moron who uses the S/N of digital drifter responding to support for Hillary......

I assumed it was because your balls have been removed.

 

[JimBowie1958]

Let me first preface the fact that I am NOT a Hillary "fan".....

However, others may have noticed that right wingers respond to ANY support for Hillary by male democrats by labeling these men as "having no balls".......(Sure, some will respond that McCain did have the infamous Palin, but most of us know that to compare a "Sarah" with a "Hillary" is tantamount to a comparison between a Roland McDonald and an Nobel laureate.)

It is interesting that not long ago, any white person supporting Obama was [at best] labeled as having "white guilt"....and now, supporting a woman, as having "no balls"......

If you've ever wondered why right wingers will not see the oval office for decades to come, the above may offer some clue.

The fact that some Democrats are voting for Hillary and that Democrat white males have no balls is entirely coincidental.

 

[Auld Phart]

I'll certainly state that many of those that support Clinton have no balls, but not because she's a woman.

Because they are supporting the most disliked person running in the Democratic party for decades, and they don't have the balls to say 'NO, We want better'.

And, yes, I feel the same about those backing Trump and Cruz, the two most disliked Republican candidates in decades, if not history

 

[nat4900]

The fact that some Democrats are voting for Hillary and that Democrat white males have no balls is entirely coincidental.

Ahhhh, an example of a right winger's "bravery" within the anonymity of a message board...LOL

 

[hadit]

That's not a comment on Hillary supporters having no balls, it's a comment on Hillary desiring to have the only functioning balls in Washington. IOW, it's more on her than on her supporters. That is to say, she's a ball buster.

....and a third one form some other moron who uses the S/N of digital drifter responding to support for Hillary......

I assumed it was because your balls have been removed.

Like I said, hardly a major movement, and certainly not enough to insinuate non-Hillary supporters actually think that.

 

[Fair&Balanced]

I'll certainly state that many of those that support Clinton have no balls, but not because she's a woman.

Because they are supporting the most disliked person running in the Democratic party for decades, and they don't have the balls to say 'NO, We want better'.

And, yes, I feel the same about those backing Trump and Cruz, the two most disliked Republican candidates in decades, if not history

In fairness to both groups, those in power don't give a shit if the measly voters want better.

I in noway believe that the majority of Democrats actually believe Hillary is a good candidate for POTUS, I mean sure they can't publicly admit such, but just look at her awful history as both a political figure and just as a person. She's a piece of human excrement. PERIOD.

And on the other side? We have a bloviated , self indulgent reality tv star. I mean come on, no one is thinking "damn that Trump is going to end up on Mt Rushmore" that's for damn sure.

The difference is Trump is a result of the people TRYING to stand up and tell the establishment "we want better" and the GOP not really having much of a choice, the Democrats of course pout a stranglehold on Sander's attempts to give his side better. He never had a chance.