Well... it was more than hinted at, it was fairly explicit. You used
the analogy of the coal miner and the seamstress. Bill Clinton and the
Koreans being the the coal miners and Hillary the seamstress. What
difference is there other than Bill is a man and Hillary a woman? So
your analogy says don't send a woman to do a man's job. So no,
admittediy not every woman is a seamstress and you didn't say so but
you clearly indicate there are jobs suited to a woman and jobs suited
to a man. Pretty clear. Pretty sexist. If the logic of my
interpretation is flawed, in your opinion, then please explain.

**** on that.

On Aug 5, 3:55*pm, Robatoy wrote:
On Aug 5, 6:48*pm, "SonomaProducts.com" wrote:





Oh I see, all women are seamstresses. What a sexist dolt.

*You ask "And HOW is calling somebody a white-robed fig-sucker
degrading?" Oh, I guess that was a term of endearment. Are you so
blind to your racist point of view that you can't see that? If you are
so sure it is so benign maybe you should go find a group of Saudi's
and say that to their face... as if you had the balls; any balls.

I honestly thought I would be the last person on the earth to defend
Hillary but she ain't no seamstress. I suppose she has as much
toughness as any of the other aholes that have held that post since
Kissenger. Dude, your view of women and anyone not exactly like the
all impressive you is pretty clear. Pretty pathetic. I hope you have
coward your wife into an appropriate position of submission.

On Aug 5, 2:46*pm, Robatoy wrote:

On Aug 5, 4:09*pm, "SonomaProducts.com" wrote:

I think calling someone a "white robed fig sucker" is not in any way
recognizing the bigotry of others. It is just a racist slur, at best.