It drives me cr@zy that Hillary, Nancy, et. al. get away with murder and are the best thing since sliced bread but any GOP woman is automatically an ignoramus.AZGrizFan wrote:It's amazing to me how any action by Palin STILL gets liberals' panties in a knot.
Is this saracstic? Do you really believe women, minorities and poor people shouldn't matter?CID1990 wrote:This is what happens when you allow everyone to vote.
Women, minorities and people with less than $20,000 in real property suddenly matter.
Not to mention brain washed "O's" from military academies.CID1990 wrote:This is what happens when you allow everyone to vote.
Women, minorities and people with less than $20,000 in real property suddenly matter.
Go away bootlicker, and please get rid of that ugly assed bitch on hormone injections.SuperHornet wrote:It drives me cr@zy that Hillary, Nancy, et. al. get away with murder and are the best thing since sliced bread but any GOP woman is automatically an ignoramus.AZGrizFan wrote:It's amazing to me how any action by Palin STILL gets liberals' panties in a knot.
Sarah will be the best President this country has ever had.
This is some kind of schtick right? You can't really believe this? Can you?SuperHornet wrote:It drives me cr@zy that Hillary, Nancy, et. al. get away with murder and are the best thing since sliced bread but any GOP woman is automatically an ignoramus.AZGrizFan wrote:It's amazing to me how any action by Palin STILL gets liberals' panties in a knot.
Sarah will be the best President this country has ever had.
That's because noone can take a female or African American candidate seriously from the party of the Old, White, Pampered Male.SuperHornet wrote:No schtick. It's an incontrovertible fact that the Donkeys present themselves as the party of women and minorities and any female or minority who presumes to run from the GOP is treated as either incompetent or nonexistent by both the Donkeys and the liberal press. Ferrarro and Clinton had almost free rides, yet Palin gets nothing but contempt. Obama was practically handed the Presidency and anyone against him was portrayed as racist, yet Republican Alan Keyes was just ignored.
Palin is a political lightweight. She looks good, but there is no substance. I voted for McCain, but I wasn't happy that he chose her as a running mate.SuperHornet wrote:No schtick. It's an incontrovertible fact that the Donkeys present themselves as the party of women and minorities and any female or minority who presumes to run from the GOP is treated as either incompetent or nonexistent by both the Donkeys and the liberal press. Ferrarro and Clinton had almost free rides, yet Palin gets nothing but contempt. Obama was practically handed the Presidency and anyone against him was portrayed as racist, yet Republican Alan Keyes was just ignored.
Dude... you're serious? Christ, no wonder you're so screwed up.Skjellyfetti wrote:Is this saracstic? Do you really believe women, minorities and poor people shouldn't matter?CID1990 wrote:This is what happens when you allow everyone to vote.
Women, minorities and people with less than $20,000 in real property suddenly matter.
Agreed. That's why I cannot understand the hysterical obsession over her by the left.BlueHen86 wrote:Palin is a political lightweight. She looks good, but there is no substance. I voted for McCain, but I wasn't happy that he chose her as a running mate.SuperHornet wrote:No schtick. It's an incontrovertible fact that the Donkeys present themselves as the party of women and minorities and any female or minority who presumes to run from the GOP is treated as either incompetent or nonexistent by both the Donkeys and the liberal press. Ferrarro and Clinton had almost free rides, yet Palin gets nothing but contempt. Obama was practically handed the Presidency and anyone against him was portrayed as racist, yet Republican Alan Keyes was just ignored.
No way she'll ever be President, let alone the best President ever.
I think people would have taken Colin Powell seriously. I haven't heard Alan Keyes speak recently, but as I recall some of his views were "out there".AZGrizFan wrote:That's because noone can take a female or African American candidate seriously from the party of the Old, White, Pampered Male.SuperHornet wrote:No schtick. It's an incontrovertible fact that the Donkeys present themselves as the party of women and minorities and any female or minority who presumes to run from the GOP is treated as either incompetent or nonexistent by both the Donkeys and the liberal press. Ferrarro and Clinton had almost free rides, yet Palin gets nothing but contempt. Obama was practically handed the Presidency and anyone against him was portrayed as racist, yet Republican Alan Keyes was just ignored.
Skjellyfetti wrote:And that's bullshit. There's conservative women I like and respect.
Margaret Thatcher for one.
And Sarah Palin is no Margaret Thatcher.
Then your point is...well....pointless.Skjellyfetti wrote:No, I can't name a major American conservative alive that I have anything ideologically in common with... male, female, black, white, latino, whatever.
American conservatives are all way too evangelical/socially conservative for me.
Your source of information is quite narrow if you cannot find American conservatives who are not evangelical. As for social conservatism, most American conservatives seem to be that way simply because they oppose throwing away gobs of money on programs that have been proven to not only not work, but encourage reliance on government, not the other way around.Skjellyfetti wrote:No, I can't name a major American conservative alive that I have anything ideologically in common with... male, female, black, white, latino, whatever.
American conservatives are all way too evangelical/socially conservative for me.
Now you're starting to make sense.mainejeff wrote:We've gotten what we deserve. I've started weening myself away from politics and the trashy news networks......it's liberating!
Nope, just this GOP woman...SuperHornet wrote:It drives me cr@zy that Hillary, Nancy, et. al. get away with murder and are the best thing since sliced bread but any GOP woman is automatically an ignoramus.AZGrizFan wrote:It's amazing to me how any action by Palin STILL gets liberals' panties in a knot.
Sarah will be the best President this country has ever had.
Not on a national or state level. But I have no problem limiting people to vote in local elections who pay no local property taxes....like college students who live in an area from Oct-May & pay nothing in property tax to local government, yet, have the right to vote in local elections that directly affect same property-owning taxpayers..you might as well allow tourists to vote as well since they come up multiple weekends...A "transient" merely registering to vote in a local district should not be the only requirement to participating in decisions that impact local, property-owning residents.Skjellyfetti wrote:Is this saracstic? Do you really believe women, minorities and poor people shouldn't matter?CID1990 wrote:This is what happens when you allow everyone to vote.
Women, minorities and people with less than $20,000 in real property suddenly matter.
He relies on moveon.org and thedailykos.com. No American conservatives there.CID1990 wrote:Your source of information is quite narrow if you cannot find American conservatives who are not evangelical. As for social conservatism, most American conservatives seem to be that way simply because they oppose throwing away gobs of money on programs that have been proven to not only not work, but encourage reliance on government, not the other way around.Skjellyfetti wrote:No, I can't name a major American conservative alive that I have anything ideologically in common with... male, female, black, white, latino, whatever.
American conservatives are all way too evangelical/socially conservative for me.
Couldn't agree more.Appaholic wrote:Not on a national or state level. But I have no problem limiting people to vote in local elections who pay no local property taxes....like college students who live in an area from Oct-May & pay nothing in property tax to local government, yet, have the right to vote in local elections that directly affect same property-owning taxpayers..you might as well allow tourists to vote as well since they come up multiple weekends...A "transient" merely registering to vote in a local district should not be the only requirement to participating in decisions that impact local, property-owning residents.Skjellyfetti wrote:
Is this saracstic? Do you really believe women, minorities and poor people shouldn't matter?
+1Biff wrote:Couldn't agree more.Appaholic wrote:
Not on a national or state level. But I have no problem limiting people to vote in local elections who pay no local property taxes....like college students who live in an area from Oct-May & pay nothing in property tax to local government, yet, have the right to vote in local elections that directly affect same property-owning taxpayers..you might as well allow tourists to vote as well since they come up multiple weekends...A "transient" merely registering to vote in a local district should not be the only requirement to participating in decisions that impact local, property-owning residents.
CID1990 wrote:Dude... you're serious? Christ, no wonder you're so screwed up.Skjellyfetti wrote:
Is this saracstic? Do you really believe women, minorities and poor people shouldn't matter?
