Evidence of a clever PUMA. Huffington Post is Promoting A Hate Site Fanatic

I remember the scene in Starship Troopers quite well, when a talking head dismisses the idea of brain bug out of hand. Amy Siskind is a brain PUMA.

Not all PUMAs are as idiotic as Darra$h Murphy. Her extreme racist agenda is out there for all to see. Siskind is different. The most dangerous form of racist is a racist with a brain. They sell their hate and bigotry by manipulation.

Amy Siskind has an old agenda to sell, hate, wrapped up in one shiny happy package.




To Siskind, crimes against women are only committed by members or supporters of the Democratic Party or by ethnic minorities and for her agenda, preferably both. Not once has she mentioned the assassination of Dr Tiller, a crime against all women. Letterman was more important. She has never once mentioned the wife beating dished out by Republican Dave Weller. The assault by Chris Brown on Rihanna, accord ind to Siskind, should have required a Presidential explanation.

Why the silence on Republican attacks on women? What has she said about the way the Republican Party, to a man, voted to support rape. Do women count so little to Siskind that she trades the real issues that impact them for her revenge against what she considers to be Obama campaign sexism against Hillary and Sarah?

When it comes to the achievements of President Obama on womens issues, Siskind is either silent, spreading mis truths or being deliberately manipulative.

The first Cabinet pick by President Obama has more women in it than any other President, he picked Hillary Clinton as Secretary of State and Judge Sotomayor for the Supreme Court. She claims women are not supported by this President, because they do not play basketball with him. This was the whole basis of her article on Huffington Post. As a poster there said, it should have been on the Onion.

On the appointment of Valerie Jarrett, Siskind claim she defended her appointment, but she opens using every smear the right put out about her, using a common "some say" method of smearing.

On Ledbetter, it took the New Agenda the best part of six months to say nothing worth saying anyway.

Issues of race are completely irrelevant to The New Palin Agenda. Never mind that minority women are impacted more by racism than men. No, women of colour should just go elsewhere. The New Agenda will not tackle racism.

She declares:



When Siskind tried to claim credit for the internal election results of NOW, Diana Castaneda, of the NOW Combating Racism Task Force, made it clear - The New Agenda can get lost.



Race hate is not welcomed by NOW. NOW fights against it. The New Palin Agenda, considers issues of racism irrelevant. That says a lot about The Real Agenda offered by Siskind.

She has called hate site No Quarter, "good friends of the New Agenda" and has them on her blog roll.

These are her good friends







Just some of the classy comments there. Does anyone call them out? "Her friends" make Freepers and Stormfront look classy.

Is this the first time NoQuarter displays such hatred and sexism against women? Nope, of course not</a>.

It is worth remembering even Harriet Christian called Siskind out.Christian was not the right type of woman wanted by the New Palin Agenda.

Huffington Post should not be pretending that Amy Siskind is a Democratic woman upset with the progress on issues that matter to Women. She is not. She is a Republican tool, being used to sell the Republican Party to women. That is The New Agenda. She needs to be called out for it continuously.

This is your chance to object email HuffPo.

community-support@huffingtonpost.com

n/t

Oxymoron if I ever saw one.

In her attempt to merge her PUMA friends with the Republicans she decided that she was going to have a Women's Rights site without including one of the most important issues to women.

Amy Siskund is absolutely a PUMA. It's a shame that that word has lost all meaning because it gets thrown around so much at people who are certainly not PUMAs but have disagreements with the administration.

You are right, Siskind is a total PUMA.

I consider PUMA to be a derogatory term. (So it is funny when they say I am a proud PUMA). Only a tiny number of Hillary supporters were Hillary supporters, Hillary and her real supporters wanted nothing to do with them. When the likes of Suksind left (if they were ever in it) the Party was given a good enema.

Now they just sell hate (and run away from the FEC).

http://query.nictusa.com/cgi-bin/fecimg/?C00451369

Michelle Malkin

http://thenewagenda.net/2009/10/16/%E2%80%9Ca-big-mashed-up-bag-of-meat-with-lipstick-on-it%E2%80%9D/

I kid you not.

Her article "Is Obama uncomfortable around Women" is truly a feat of stupidity.



Read more at: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/amy-siskind/is-obama-uncomfortable-ar_b_322267.html


But to see new heights of kook-dom, read "Should Women Back Palin in 2012"



http://www.thedailybeast.com/blogs-and-stories/2009-10-04/should-women-back-palin-in-2012/2/

Any "Democrat" who writes anything in support of Sarah Palin is a lying, disingenuous piece of shit.

Her article at Huffpo was painful to read, and her defenders in the comment section, even more painful.

I can't say whether they're racist (haven't read enough about them) but I feel very comfortable saying that they are NOT Democrats, and very likely never were.

I read that article--and then the comments--and the number of PUMAs who commented was staggering. I don't think I saw the word "Obot" thrown around as often in the primaries here as I did in just two pages of comments.

want to know more? http://starshiptroopers.wikia.com/wiki/Mormon

Arianna does whatever she thinks is good for her bank account. She's Drudge in pumps. Period.

record lately.

You get face time being the opposition. No one wants to talk to the supporters. This was the case with Bush and it's the case with Obama.

So she'll write an obscene and ridiculous article suggesting Biden should resign and the media will eat it up.

Liberal Arianna Huffington Thinks Biden Should Resign.

:eyes:

It gets her on the teevee and allows her to pimp her site.

She's turned into Perez Hilton of the political world. At least Drudge is consistent. You know where he stands. Arianna is all over the map.

That defines her lack of reason.

and refusal to even discuss the impact of racism on women is not unusual. I've found that this is a fairly common refrain, even among some liberal women and liberal groups.

Even here on DU, a few deliberately attempt to hijack every discussion of racism and turn it to a discussion of sexism or whatever their particular cause is. This has been noted repeatedly by the female members of the African American forum here. Since we've started calling this behavior out, it's gotten better but it's still mind-blowing that this type of attitude is still so pervasive in 2009. And people wonder why so many people of color feel the need to deliberately segregate themselves by race, even when involving themselves in social/civil rights movements in this country.

Happy to rec. Please keep these posts coming!

we have definitely been through the fire.
Sometimes liberals are the main ones with their heads in the sand when it comes to race. Prime example, the carville/greenberg poll.

To confront the racism of the women's movement as well as the sexism of overall culture.

There is hardly a movement in American history where people of color have NOT felt the need to isolate themselves by race or run the risk of having their causes be mischaracterized, misappropriated or ignored altogether.

And the Huff Post, unfortunately, is quickly going to the dogs.

:shrug:

who attempted to associate themselves with the Clinton campaign. When she suspended her campaign they all left, which pretty much acted as a good enema to the Party in as much as it got rid of a whole load of birthers and stormfront supporters.

Many of them donated money to a a Darragh Murphy PAC, that has yet to file a valid FEC return. I kind of enjoy watching stupid racists have money stolen from them.

they started a group called Party Unity My Ass later becoming an official PAC called People United Means Actions. These people say she actually won the primary, because she won the popular vote. As Clinton won bigger states more people had actually voted for her and therefore they believe she was the more deserving candidate. They also said Obama rann a sexist campaign for all these and other reason they said they would rather vote McCain than support Obama.

The question since then has been how much is really pissed off Clinton supporters and how much of this is astroturfing by McCain/GOP supporters

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/People_United_Means_Action

http://pumapac.org/blog-goals/who-we-are/

but then I realized they gave her Michigan where Obama was not on the ballot. Sort of a joke way to count...

It takes a good deal of pretzel logic to claim she won the popular vote.

Still no valid FEC returns, no explanation of where all the PAC money has gone to (although Murphy admits to charging PUMA PAC rent and paying herself from it).

It runs sickening "Islam sucks" campaigns.

Darra$h Murphy has a long term history of being a McCain supporter (she donated to him in 2000).

To the idiots that donated to her, they should remember, her former company went bankrupt, had no paperwork and she attempted to give the money she owed creditors to her mother. The Court slapped that down.

Darra$h Murphy is pretty much of an irrelevance, that we have some fun with here:

http://stupidpumas.com/

Amy Siskind is different as CBS and others lend her credibility as a "Liberal Feminist", ignoring the fact that she promotes politicians like Palin and Bachmann. Hardly great feminists.

shows something of an obsession- and destroys one's credibility.

You embarrassed?

and the embarrassment is all theirs

On edit- by folks I mean those who've done the reaction formation- not the bogus set itself.

They do not only hang out on Huffington Post. I am sure some of them are still here licking their wounds. Whatever the reason, whether they are truly repigs or disgruntle Clinton supporters, it does not really matter to me. I read some sick shit coming from some of them during the primaries.I think they should go ahead and make themselves a national party and call it a day. At least that way the assholes of the country will have an alternative to the Republican party.

Well they used to have the numbers for national but are still a big voting bloc.

PUMAs never had the numbers for shit. The huge majority of unhappy HRC supporters still voted for the Democratic ticket. The number who stayed home (like my wife) or went third party is really small, and the number who actually voted McCain/Palin out of spite is negligible.

Is Palin taking credit for burning down the Republicans, or is someone saying that she did? or is it something else? Maybe some other house, or some other meaning?

There is an argument for that from some Republicans.

Anyone think this was intentional?


I should say that is not a slight on her or her family, in my view it would be some sort of compliment. And the Girl Scout photo is found to be witty, so there is no negativity, just curious if it was intentional.

I'm sure they were happy to play along with Lewinsky Redux.

PUMA means "party unity, my ass!" and refers to Democrats who felt that Hillary Clinton was badly treated by the D. power structure during the primaries. What this article describes sounds a lot more like a neocon Republican than a former Democrat.

P.S.

I read Siskind's rant. She has a point.

The difference between being a disgruntled supporter and being a "PUMA" is put simply, whether you wanted to F America up the arse and have the Rethugs back in for 4 years because your candidate lost.

The PUMA "movement" was nothing but a bunch of washed up racists who wanted "revenge". The likes of Larry Johnson, Amy Siskind, were better off without them.

Many many sources to Siskind and her PUMA links

http://www.google.com/search?q=amy+siskind+PUMA

She only has a point if you news is onion tasting.

... took about two minutes to decide I was a racist. So, you will excuse me if I don't find that argument compelling. I was so disgusted with the way people here, the party and the media threw Hillary under the bus and swift-boated those who admired her that I went over to Capital Hill until the primary was over. I only reluctantly decided that an amateur with good ideas is better than a pro with crappy ideas.

Support for Hillary did not equate to racism.

Darra$h Murphy, et al. They were a different story.

large percentage are incredibly stupid people that use the same tactics repigs use and think that will get them somewhere, especially here of all places.

Sounds like not so god compnany to keep if concerned about personal security. Sure , how some citizens behave is a variable and different thing, due to circumstance and upbringing and upbringing that has been foisted on people by reaganomics, no excuse but a reason. One thing about Obama he sets out to change those circumstances and raise education. But legislators voting against women is a whole different arena. How they may choose to vote can construct their whole reality for the better or the worse. Pres. Obama may not be the public official of their dreams, but turning away from the party in the past created the nightmare of their dreams.

Democratic agenda? It seems to be all "sneaky" Palin/Malkin promotion, seems kind of like a bad joke.

Huffpo readers are pretty well onto her transparent game. Hopefully the site drops her soon.