See other (s)Elections Articles
Title: Palin says she might run for high office again
Source:
[None]
URL Source: http://www.breitbart.com/article.ph ... CPRCO0&show_article=1&catnum=0
Published: Nov 11, 2008
Author: AP
Post Date: 2008-11-11 11:03:03 by christine
Keywords: None
Views: 1558
Comments: 93
WASILLA, Alaska (AP) - Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin says she wouldn't hesitate to run for the presidency in four years if it's God's will, even though she never thought Campaign 2008 would be "as brutal a ride as it turned out to be." In a series of interviews in the wake of last Tuesday's elections, Palin said she had no problem with Republican presidential nominee John McCain, but that she resents rumors she said were spread about her and her family by the Arizona Republican's aides. She emphatically denied that she was a drag on the GOP ticket. "I think the economic collapse had a heckuva lot more to do with the campaign's collapse than me personally," the governor said in an interview broadcast Tuesday on NBC's "Today" show. Palin also said "There were a lot of times I wanted to shout out, 'Hey, wait a minute, it's not true.' It's pretty brutal." Nevertheless, the relatively obscure governor of Alaska, whose selection for the ticket by McCain last August brought excitement—and controversy—to the 2008 campaign, said she would be eager to do it all again under the right circumstances. "I'm like, OK, God, if there is an open door for me somewhere, this is what I always pray, I'm like, don't let me miss the open door," Palin said in an interview with Fox News on Monday. "And if there is an open door in '12 or four years later, and if it is something that is going to be good for my family, for my state, for my nation, an opportunity for me, then I'll plow through that door." In the wide-ranging interview, Palin said she neither wanted nor asked for the $150,000-plus wardrobe the Republican Party bankrolled, and thought the issue was an odd one at the end of the campaign, considering "what is going on in the world today." "I did not order the clothes. Did not ask for the clothes," Palin said. "I would have been happy to have worn my own clothes from Day One. But that is kind of an odd issue, an odd campaign issue as things were wrapping up there as to who ordered what and who demanded what." "It's amazing that we did as well as we did," the governor said of the election in a separate interview with the Anchorage Daily News. "I think the Republican ticket represented too much of the status quo, too much of what had gone on in these last eight years, that Americans were kind of shaking their heads like going, wait a minute, how did we run up a $10 trillion debt in a Republican administration? How have there been blunders with war strategy under a Republican administration? If we're talking change, we want to get far away from what it was that the present administration represented and that is to a great degree what the Republican Party at the time had been representing," Palin said in a story published Sunday. Palin has scheduled a series of national interviews this week with Fox, NBC's "Today" show and CNN. She also plans to attend the Republican Governors Association conference in Florida this week. Palin has been mentioned as a possible presidential candidate in 2012. She also could seek re-election in 2010 or challenge Sen. Lisa Murkowski. Still uncertain is the fate of Sen. Ted Stevens, who is leading in his bid for another term but could be ousted by the Senate for his conviction on seven felony counts of failing to report more than $250,000 in gifts, mostly renovations on his home. If Stevens loses his seat, Palin could run for it in a special election. Palin and McCain's campaign faced a storm of criticism over the tens of thousands of dollars spent at such high-end stores as Saks Fifth Avenue and Neiman Marcus to dress the nominee. Republican National Committee lawyers are still trying to determine exactly what clothing was bought for Palin, what was returned and what has become of the rest.
Post Comment Private Reply Ignore Thread
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
Comments (1-22) not displayed.
.
.
.
#23. To: LACUMO (#21)
We have a lot of women haters here.
A lot of people here have a hero complex for Sarah Palin and go around pretending that she's something other than another GOP tool of the neocons, in the face of all evidence. It reminds me of the Obamessiah worshippers. Sarah repeats the neocon line about 9/11, Saddam Hussein, Iran, and Israel. "She doesn't really mean it, her handlers made her say it!" Neocons like Bill Kristol and Randy Scheunemann praise Sarah. "They don't really mean it, it's just a charade." Sarah repeats the McCain line on amnesty, and it's "She doesn't really believe that, McCain made her say it!" Just like Obama "doesn't really mean it" when he says he wants to send troops to Pakistan, because he's "really" anti-war. Unbelievable - talk about stupid, blind faith and grasping at straws. When people project their hopes and fantasies onto candidates who say the exact opposite, it says more about the people's hopes and fantasies than it does about the candidates.
"People hate Palin because she's a woman" sounds awfully close to "people who don't vote for Obama are racist." I dislike Palin because I see no significant difference between her statements and the crap that I've been hearing from the Bush administration since 2001. When I call Bush an idiot and Cheney a crook, nobody calls me a "man-hater."
It might be also that that a lot of people here do not like women.
You must have forgot this article detailing the jewish "treatment" of Sarah Palin. THIS is the real face of American jews and their undying hatred of Christians:
When I see jews attacking somebody for attempting to live a decent Christian- lifestyle, I embrace them and reject the jews. Here's why: "of Bernhard saying about Sarah Palin, “Don’t you fucking reference the Old Testament, bitch. You stay with your goyish, crappy, shiksa-funky [or is it "shiksa-fucking"?] bullshit. Don’t you touch my Old Testament, you bitch. Because we have left it open to interpretation. It is no longer taken literally. You whore …” So the moral high ground comes from having the correct interpretation of the Bible? I thought that was the sort of thing that people like Palin are accused of. How very quaint coming from this super edgy and ultra-chic Jewish-lesbian radical."
Jews like Bill Kristol and Joe Lieberman have a lot more influence than Sandra Bernhard. Sandra Bernhard doesn't run a policy think tank that sends orders to the White House. When neocon Jews praise Sarah, you assure us that it's a charade, that they "don't really mean it." That makes as much sense as if somebody said that Bernhard "didn't really mean" what she said, either.
Boy ain't that the truth! Just because I see very clearly that poor little Sarah was outta her league and allowed herself to be used by the gop and neocons, cyni brands me a woman hater. Those that can't see she was used, or those that refuse to see she was used are the real women haters.
You think so? My guess is that she would be ignored and marginalized as was RonPaul, and with the magic HAVA voting machines, does it really matter any more? If you don't have the blessing of TelAviv, you are toast.
A most excellent point.
RP: Her loopy theology and foreign policy views fit the Zionists and neocons like a glove. X-15: Actually, her profession of faith (New Testament) is why the jews and neocons demonized her. There's not a jew/faggot/democrat in America that wouldn't kill her given the opportunity. Law Enforcement Against Prohibition "Corporation: An entity created for the legal protection of its human parasites, whose sole purpose is profit and self-perpetuation." © IndieTx Thank God I'm not the only one!.....I assume you are married and have a dog?....try this ...leave your wife and dog in the car for a hour and then see who is happier to see you when you return...I rest my case!
Robby..........are you telling us you like, ah,,,,,,,,,er,,,,,,,,,,men?
His comment would indicate to me that he likes dogs. Women are harder to like.
Where's your birth certificate Barack ?
Increased health insurance premiums are an additional expense related to homosexual activity.
Where's your birth certificate Barack ?
Me too ! (Besides she sounds like a twit whenever she opens her mouth.)
Where's your birth certificate Barack ?
Please...women have a place but it's certainly not in politics as many have proven beyond all reasonable doubt...your argument is as weak as those who accuse me of being a communist because I disagree with Bush...in other words grow up!
I have never frequented any forum that has displayed so many women hating men.
Its a puzzle to me, too, Cyni... I didn't realize there were so many males out there who think wimmen are only good for being barefoot and all that jazz! Oh well.... You are appreciated much, believe it or not. :)
Good lord, Robby........I wasn't arguing with ya.........I was only concerned that, well.......you know. And at worst, I reckon it was a sad attempt at being funny, or making a joke, with someone who doesn't see much humor in things. Sorry to have ruffled yer feathers, friend.
Yeah, right.......just about like the men in our lives. This is about as silly a situation as one can endure. Not only have the bastards given us class warfare between whites and blacks, the haves and the have nots, we now are being entertained with the men vs wimmen class wars. Sheesh........ May y'all be content with yer dogs. I'm sure they'll endure the rocking chair age with ya, comfort you in your old, crotchety years, and bury ya when the inevitable happens.
No man should ever outlive his dogs :)
Law Enforcement Against Prohibition "Corporation: An entity created for the legal protection of its human parasites, whose sole purpose is profit and self-perpetuation." © IndieTx you make a lot of sense. good posts.
MY REPLY TO ZEITGEIST: 1John Chapter 2: "21 I write to you not because you do not know the truth but because you do, and because every lie is alien to the truth. 22 Who is the liar? Whoever denies that Jesus is the Christ. Whoever denies the Father and the Son, this is the antichrist." I'd have to say that women have assisted "the bastards" by going along with them. The bastards have legislated equality where it doesn't exist. Women fire- fighters are a prime example or how about the broad holding the slow down sign at a road construction site ? It isn't a situation that exists because women are bad. It's a bad situation that exists because women have been convinced that they have been abused, mistreated, and deprived socially, when in most cases they were placed upon a pedestal, considered too fair for certain male activities such as war, construction or fire-fighting. Divorce court injustice favoring women to such a disproportionate degree hasn't helped male/female relations either. Most men are easily manipulated through sexual attraction to give women the benefit of the doubt concerning most issues, until they have experienced the negative impact of subjecting themselves to pack horse status for a little pussy, becoming fathers, raising a family only to find themselves under monthly attack by a PMS stricken female maniac. It's a difficult situation wherein many men have determined the cost factor doesn't justify the grief factor. That's their choice. It is what it is.
Where's your birth certificate Barack ?
Nothing personal no ruffled feathers just nipping it in the bud before Cynicom starts using it ....
Hehehehehehehehehehehehehehehehehe.
Ole rob is very tweakable.
John John posed nude and he could have easily been elected prez, (which is probably why his plane fell from the sky because his first step would have been to knock off Senator "Bruno Rodham", the next to hunt down the murdering bastards who are enjoying their golden years after murdering JFK) There's no reason for a double standard where Sarah is concerned. Let her pose (if she wishes to) and collect the bux for her kids' college funds and run for higher office, too. Flynt isn't gunning for her. He knows that he can sell double his usual monthly run if "Caribou Stacy" is the featured spread (sorry) And, regarding the opinion that women "don't belong in politics" I say, "Do those who say that believe that woman could have bungled things any more than men already have?" Our oceans, rivers, streams and aquifers are polluted and all fish are contaminated, our food supply is rapidly becoming toxic. Men caused the deaths of 100 million people in the last century while rattling their sabers and sending other people to die for their crack brained fanatical ideas. "Send one hundred men to plant our flag on that molehill! If ninety nine are killed to get it done then goddammit it was worth it!" The few women who are considered "successful" as leaders were simply masculinized, ersatz men (Golda, (Israel) Maggie, (The UK) Ann, (Texas) etc.,.) and none have ever been allowed to implement the policies that women would make to run the world. If they "go rogue" and buck the party bosses they don't get elected. "What do you mean we can't backshoot em or nuke their ignorant brown asses? You should go back home and raise a family, little mother. You ain't got the right stuff to run the world!" Unfortunately, in the absence of male guidance (one notable exception being women volleyball coaches, but they too are masculinized) women aren't as successful at teamwork or organization, which is why, despite their superior numbers they haven't taken control.....yet. BUT, if women do run things someday we'll probably be healthier, happier and less likely to lose sons and daughters in foreign wars. And, it's a sad fact that the most gifted women don't seek careers in politics. If we want to attract more respected women candidates we'll have to make politics respectable, but those who have the power to accomplish that are blind to their own character flaws, the same flaws that created this obscene state of affairs. Astoria is a gifted intellect, a sterling character and an imminently fair administrator, and I have no doubt that she'd be a fine leader. Is it any wonder why she wouldn't want to wallow in the bisexual "cash for favors" and "pork me hard!" mosh pit of (arguably) male-dominated Republicratic politics? And, farmfriend is a courageous and energetic activist who has stood up for right against the prevailing political winds. Is there any reason why she wouldn't do a fine job if she had the power to override the entrenched corrupt majority? And, our very own beloved christine is intelligent, courageous, ethical and patriotic, and she can be very persuasive! ;) Who dares to suggest that he is by virtue of his sex better qualified than these women? Well, you'll have to prove it to me.
I'm sorry but history says the opposite the suffragette movement used this same argument to win the passage of the 19th amendment a few short years later WW2 broke out and if you want to trace the explosion in government spending on social programs it may be a coincidence but it started in 1920
Yeah, Prohibition, the age of the deadly fed goons who machine gunned "intemperate people" also began in 1920. (The law was passed by men. Women could not vote or hold public office then) And, then when the 21st amendment repealed the 18th instead of firing all of those liquor agents they suddenly decided that America needed Draconian gun enforcement. These destructive police state policies were the wet dreams of power hungry men! And, it wasn't women who started the world wars or collapsed the economy on purpose to buy up industries for pennies on the dollar. And, didn't Hitler subsidize the births of babies to German mothers? (sounds like a policy that women would support and, what is wrong with that?) His enemy wasn't "spending on social programs", because Germany is hemorrhaging money in reparations today. But, that's another story. Be patient and I'll get someone in here to explain it all to you.
Here let John Lott explain it Women's suffrage over time By John R. Lott, Jr. "If we took away women's right to vote, we'd never have to worry about another Democrat president. It's kind of a pipe dream, it's a personal fantasy of mine, but I don't think it's going to happen." —Ann Coulter, Oct. 2 New York Observer With Hillary Clinton still the leading Democrat in the race for president, a lot of news stories over the next year will discuss women voting patterns. Some women may well vote for Mrs. Clinton, even if they disagree with her policies, simply because she is a woman. Terms like "historic" will be thrown around a lot, but Mrs. Clinton's run really just represents a continuation of a trend that started about a hundred years ago, when women started voting in large numbers. In fact, if you believe all the academic research that voters do a very good job of putting into office the right politicians who represent their interests, Mrs. Clinton's specific election is really besides the point. Academics have long pondered why the government started growing precisely when it did. The federal government, aside from periods of wartime, consumed about 2 percent to 3 percent of gross domestic product (GDP) up until World War I. It was the first war that the government spending didn't go all the way back down to its pre-war levels, and then, in the 1920s, non-military federal spending began steadily climbing. President Franklin Delano Roosevelt's New Deal — often viewed as the genesis of big government — really just continued an earlier trend. What changed before Roosevelt came to power that explains the growth of government? The answer is women's suffrage. For decades, polls have shown that women as a group vote differently than men. Without the women's vote, Republicans would have swept every presidential race but one between 1968 and 2004. The gender gap exists on various issues. The major one is the issue of smaller government and lower taxes, which is a much higher priority for men than for women. This is seen in divergent attitudes held by men and women on many separate issues. Women were much more opposed to the 1996 federal welfare reforms, which mandated time limits for receiving welfare and imposed some work requirements on welfare recipients. Women are also more supportive of Medicare, Social Security and educational expenditures. Studies show that women are generally more risk averse than men. Possibly, this is why they are more supportive of government programs to ensure against certain risks in life. Women's average incomes are also slightly lower and less likely to vary over time, which gives single women an incentive to prefer more progressive income taxes. Once women become married, however, they bear a greater share of taxes through their husbands' relatively higher income. In that circumstance, women's support for high taxes understandably declines. Marriage also provides an economic explanation for men and women to prefer different policies. Because women generally shoulder most of the child-rearing responsibilities, married men are more likely to acquire marketable skills that help them earn money outside the household. If a man gets divorced, he still retains these skills. But if a woman gets divorced, she is unable to recoup her investment in running the household. Hence, single women who believe they may marry in the future, as well as married women who most fear divorce, look to the government as a form of protection against this risk from a possible divorce: a more progressive tax system and other government transfers of wealth from rich to poor. The more certain a woman is that she doesn't risk divorce, the more likely she is to oppose government transfers. Has it always been this way? Can women's suffrage in the late 19th and early 20th century thus help explain the growth of government? While the timing of the two events is suggestive, other changes during this time could have played a role. For example, some argue that Americans became more supportive of bigger government due to the success of widespread economic regulations imposed during World War I. A good way to analyze the direct effect of women's suffrage on the growth of government is to study how each of the 48 state governments expanded after women obtained the right to vote. Women's suffrage was first granted in western states with relatively few women — Wyoming (1869), Utah (1870), Colorado (1893) and Idaho (1896). Women could vote in 29 states before women's suffrage was achieved nationwide in 1920 with the adoption of the 19th Amendment to the Constitution. If women's suffrage increased government, our analysis should show a few definite indicators. First, women's suffrage would have a bigger impact on government spending and taxes in states with a greater percentage of women. And secondly, the size of government in western states should steadily expand as women comprise an increasing share of their population. Even after accounting for a range of other factors — such as industrialization, urbanization, education and income — the impact of granting of women's suffrage on per-capita state government expenditures and revenue was startling. Per capita state government spending after accounting for inflation had been flat or falling during the 10 years before women began voting. But state governments started expanding the first year after women voted and continued growing until within 11 years real per capita spending had more than doubled. The increase in government spending and revenue started immediately after women started voting. Yet, as suggestive as these facts are, we must still consider whether women's suffrage itself caused the growth in government, or did the government expand due to some political or social change that accompanied women's suffrage? Fortunately, there was a unique aspect of women's suffrage that allows us to answer this question: Of the 19 states that had not passed women's suffrage before the approval of the 19th Amendment, nine approved the amendment, while the other 12 had suffrage imposed on them. If some unknown factor caused both a desire for larger government and women's suffrage, then government should have only grown in states that voluntarily adopted suffrage. This, however, is not the case: After approving women's suffrage, a similar growth in government was seen in both groups of states. Women's suffrage also explains much of the federal government's growth from the 1920s to the 1960s. In the 45 years after the adoption of suffrage, as women's voting rates gradually increased until finally reaching the same level as men's, the size of state and federal governments expanded as women became an increasingly important part of the electorate. But the battle between the sexes does not end there. During the early 1970s, just as women's share of the voting population was leveling off, something else was changing: The American family began to break down, with rising divorce rates and increasing numbers of out-of-wedlock births. Over the course of women's lives, their political views on average vary more than those of men. Young single women start out being much more liberal than their male counterparts and are about 50 percent more likely to vote Democratic. As previously noted, these women also support a higher, more progressive income tax as well as more educational and welfare spending. But for married women this gap is only one-third as large. And married women with children become more conservative still. But for women with children who are divorced, they are suddenly about 75 percent more likely to vote for Democrats than single men. So as divorce rates have increased, due in large part to changing divorce laws, voters have become more liberal. Women's suffrage ushered in a sea change in American politics that affected policies aside from taxes and the size of government. For example, states that granted suffrage were much more likely to pass Prohibition, for the temperance movement was largely dominated by middle-class women. Although the "gender gap" is commonly thought to have arisen only in the 1960s, female voting dramatically changed American politics from the very beginning.
And, it's a sad fact that the most gifted women don't seek careers in politics. If we want to attract more respected women candidates we'll have to make politics respectable, hear hear! and thank you for the defense and compliments, dawg.
It started with the founding of the Federal Reserve, WWI and the IRS.
Right answer wrong subject
Lott deals in facts for sure.
"If you love wealth more than liberty, the tranquility of servitude better than the animating contest of freedom, depart from us in peace. We ask not your counsel nor your arms. Crouch down and lick the hand that feeds you. May your chains rest lightly upon you and may posterity forget that you were our countrymen.”—Samuel Adams
—Ann Coulter, Oct. 2 New York Observer Doesn't that sound like the one about the Trojan who says "All Trojans are liars?" If a woman says that women aren't qualified to vote, what does that say about that woman's opinion?
Women vote on emotion it's the same with sex ...women need a reason men just need a place.....I always feel the urge to add "sorry Christine" nothing personal
Gross.
It's a man's !
Where's your birth certificate Barack ?
If its not true correct me!
Drag queens with blonde wigs don't count as men, or as women either. The Sioux Indians would have called Ann Coulter a "Berdache."
Comments (64 - 93) not displayed.
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/LatestShe, hiliary, and Ferraro should join together and write a book. I opt for the title Nearly On Top, But Clearly A Flop.
#24. To: Cynicom, LACUMO, X-15 (#9)
(Edited)
If Palin were to shed the party and the system like a dirty shirt, it would put the fear of God into the establishment.
#25. To: Cynicom (#23)
We have a lot of women haters here.
#26. To: Rupert_Pupkin (#24)
A lot of people here have a hero complex for Sarah Palin
#27. To: Rupert_Pupkin (#19)
-Schweizerische Schuetzenzeitung (Swiss Shooting Federation) April, 1941
#28. To: Rupert_Pupkin (#24)
-Schweizerische Schuetzenzeitung (Swiss Shooting Federation) April, 1941
#29. To: X-15 (#28)
#30. To: Rupert_Pupkin (#24)
A lot of people here have a hero complex for Sarah Palin and go around pretending that she's something other than another GOP tool of the neocons, in the face of all evidence. It reminds me of the Obamessiah worshippers.
#31. To: Cynicom (#9)
If Palin were to shed the party and the system like a dirty shirt, it would put the fear of God into the establishment.
#32. To: Rupert_Pupkin (#19)
Neocons like Kristol care a lot more about Israel than they do about abortion and homosexuals. Truth is, Israel-firsters bother me more than homosexuals do, because I have to pay for Israel. I don't have to pay for anyone else's sexual behavior.
#33. To: X-15, rupert_pupkin (#14)
(Edited)
"There is no 'legitimate' Corporation by virtue of its very legal definition and purpose."
-- IndieTx
#34. To: Cynicom (#23)
We have a lot of women haters here.
#35. To: robnoel (#34)
Thank God I'm not the only one!.....
#36. To: rowdee (#35)
#37. To: Rupert_Pupkin (#32)
I don't have to pay for anyone else's sexual behavior.
#38. To: Rupert_Pupkin (#25)
I dislike Palin because I see no significant difference between her statements and the crap that I've been hearing from the Bush administration since 2001.
#39. To: rowdee (#35)
#40. To: rowdee, robnoel (#35)
Robby..........are you telling us you like, ah,,,,,,,,,er,,,,,,,,,,men?
#41. To: Cynicom (#40)
#42. To: robnoel (#39)
#43. To: noone222 (#36)
Women are harder to like.
#44. To: rowdee (#43)
May y'all be content with yer dogs. I'm sure they'll endure the rocking chair age with ya, comfort you in your old, crotchety years, and bury ya when the inevitable happens.
"There is no 'legitimate' Corporation by virtue of its very legal definition and purpose."
-- IndieTx
#45. To: Rupert_Pupkin (#19)
"I don't know where Bin Laden is. I truly am not that concerned about him"
George W, Bush, 3/13/02 http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2002/03/20020313-8.html
#46. To: rowdee (#43)
(Edited)
Not only have the bastards given us class warfare between whites and blacks, the haves and the have nots, we now are being entertained with the men vs wimmen class wars. Sheesh........
#47. To: rowdee (#42)
Sorry to have ruffled yer feathers, friend.
#48. To: robnoel (#47)
Nothing personal no ruffled feathers just nipping it in the bud before Cynicom starts using it ....
#49. To: rowdee, robnoel (#42)
Sorry to have ruffled yer feathers, friend.
#50. To: rowdee, Jethro Tull, Lodwick, christine, Lady X, Astoria, Farmfriend (#3)
(Edited)
Has anyone read or heard of the supposed $2M porn offer by some producer in Florida? You know they're gunnin' for her when ol' Larry Flynt thinks its a good idea.
#51. To: HOUNDDAWG (#50)
BUT, if women do run things someday we'll probably be healthier, happier and less likely to lose sons and daughters in foreign wars.
#52. To: robnoel, bluegrass (#51)
(Edited)
I'm sorry but history says the opposite the suffragette movement used this same argument to win the passage of the 19th amendment a few short years later WW2 broke out and if you want to trace the explosion in government spending on social programs it may be a coincidence but it started in 1920
#53. To: HOUNDDAWG (#52)
Be patient and I'll get someone in here to explain it all to you.
#54. To: HOUNDDAWG (#50)
BUT, if women do run things someday we'll probably be healthier, happier and less likely to lose sons and daughters in foreign wars.
#55. To: robnoel, HOUNDDAWG (#51)
I'm sorry but history says the opposite the suffragette movement used this same argument to win the passage of the 19th amendment a few short years later WW2 broke out and if you want to trace the explosion in government spending on social programs it may be a coincidence but it started in 1920
#56. To: bluegrass (#55)
#57. To: robnoel (#53)
#58. To: robnoel (#53)
(Edited)
"If we took away women's right to vote, we'd never have to worry about another Democrat president. It's kind of a pipe dream, it's a personal fantasy of mine, but I don't think it's going to happen."
#59. To: Rupert_Pupkin (#58)
#60. To: robnoel (#59)
#61. To: Rupert_Pupkin (#58)
If a woman says that women aren't qualified to vote, what does that say about that woman's opinion?
#62. To: Cynicom (#60)
#63. To: noone222 (#61)
(Edited)
.
.
.