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: 1253
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
#1. To: christine (#0)
She needs to drop the pro-illegal "path to citizenship" BS and purge her presence of neocons/Israeli-firsters.
That would be an excellent start.
I heard her on Greta's show say that she's never even been in a Saks 5th Avenue or Neiman Marcus store, but a little factoid like that would never see the light of day when it is more scandalous to print lies. 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. Greta, in a leadup to her interview before airing had told one of the other talking heads that these things rolled off her like water off a duck. Given the viciousness of the attacks, one would have to have really thick skin. And one of the bright spots which I heard Sarah say was a snapshot into her personality, too. It was when she indicated that the big O had called her and said 'good luck--well not too much luck' or words to that effect. She thought it was pretty funny or cool. She hasn't taken the loss as the end of the world, there's a fight another day.........whereas there are way tooooooo many people, it seems, who have taken it right to their heart and it injures them unbelievably. Oh, another thing.......she talked about how the kids are with all the crap.......she said they've grown up with her in politics, and local races can be just as bad. She did mention that she and Willow being driven somewhere saw protesters on a corner with t shirts on with filth written on them and Willow just asked how people could say that when they don't even know her. My thought was, geeze, this 14 year old kid has more going for her than a number of posters on 4um.
Yessssssssssssssssss!!!! What a better way to delegitimize the current political process than to have Sarah representing one of the 2 parties in a national election? But... then again, I thought Double-You would accomplish that and he didn't.
Antiparty - find out why, think about 'how'
Did she say where she spent that $150,000? I don't believe seeing her a the Sam's Club lately. They got some nice fleece sweaters there on sale and she could keep half of Alaska warm if she spent that kind of money there.
Antiparty - find out why, think about 'how'
That would be an excellent start. She would have to drop out of the republican party and the system. Anything other than that would be unacceptable. Even as Senator she would be marginalized as the good ole boys are not about to share party power.
Even as Senator she would be marginalized as the good ole SHE did not spend any of it.......get your facts straight. Nor did she even ask anyone to spend it or find clothes for her or her family. And for your information, she has stated previously her favorite places to shop are a consignment shop or a 2nd hand shop in Wasilla. So far, no reporter has called her a liar about that--do ya supposed they checked and found out it was the truth--but wouldn't/couldn't be bothered to let the public know they confirmed it? Nah.......they're as bad as you are in distortions, outright lies, and innuendos. They don't let getting caught worry them, and apparently neither do you.
Sir Lod... If Palin were to shed the party and the system like a dirty shirt, it would put the fear of God into the establishment. Ferraro made the mistake of staying in the dem party and they destroyed and buried her.
Yes, I remember, all she ever asked for was a bottle of diet Dr. Pepper. And $150,000 worth of clothes. This kind of fits the pattern of her charging the state of Alaska for sleeping in her own home. She squeaks with cleanliness.
Antiparty - find out why, think about 'how'
I forgot, what were Ferraros' merits other than her Double-X chromozomes and her weird haircut?
Antiparty - find out why, think about 'how'
Why would she be marginalized? Her loopy theology and foreign policy views fit the Zionists and neocons like a glove.
Oh shit.........are you still beating your wife? Is it just once a week now? Or have you been able to reach the level of just bi-weekly?
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.
Neocon Jews demonized Palin? What have you been smoking? The neocons and PNAC just LOVE Christian Zionists. They make such useful tools: www.weeklystandard.com/Co.../000/000/015/500wrhjq.asp It's so obvious that Kristol wants to kill Palin! You guys who think that Palin is an enemy of the neocons and Zionists in the face of all evidence are funny. You remind me of Ferret Mike and others here who go on pretending that Obama is an anti-war President-elect.
I think the door will be wide open after four years of Obama. But the MSM will attack Sarah more than Reagan if she runs again. They may even try to take her out but this time they will hire a professional instead of using the son of a close personal friend of the Bush family. Sarah may not be the brightest politician, but she does have integrity which is more than you can say for most politicians.
God is always good!
It was all a charade. The jews HATE Sarah Palin because she is nothing more inoffensive than a Methodist like Bush. Her alleged photo of the little Israel flag in her Governor's office meant nothing to jews/Zionists, her attendance at an Assembly of God church sent the MSM-jews around the bend because she's NOT an affirmative-action freak for faggots or abortion. Support for abortion and faggotry marginalize American jews to the extreme left.
Palin is the Britney Spears of politics. What's the point in paying attention to her? She likes attention.
Based on what evidence? All I've seen is neocon Jews singing her praises. You must live in some alternate universe where she's an enemy of the neocons instead of their puppet. If the Israelis and neocons were happy with Bush, they'd be even happier with Palin. She even repeats the story about Saddam being behind 9-11, years after Bush was smart enough to be embarassed by it. Support for abortion and faggotry marginalize American jews to the extreme left. 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.
That's almost an insult to Britney. You don't hear Britney talking about foreign policy. At least she knows that she'd be in over her head.
............and she would get the same treatment as Perot, Buchanan, and Ron Paul got from the MSM. Either way she had her fling at glory and just ought to go back to Alaska and watch over Russia. She, hiliary, and Ferraro should join together and write a book. I opt for the title Nearly On Top, But Clearly A Flop.
Even better then.
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."
I have nothing to say cause if I do, you will tattle to the owner.
The facts say "Yes!". That's how it is.
"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
For centuries only male heirs could inherit property or could expect an inheritance as a matter of birthright. And, there was no shortage of wars, death and destruction, which requires no debate as to their negative effects on society. So, by your logic men created the system for their benefit but it wasn't "abused" until women who could be left to starve for the crime of getting older began to demand protection as a matter of law. Since when is taking care of our mothers, sisters, wives and daughters a bad thing? And, if simple reliance upon the goodwill of others is all that's needed then why do men continue to use legals wills to protect their sons inheritances? And, why do men generally support workplace safety, mandatory overtime and minimum wage laws? If you believe that only women look to govt for financial security and protection then you're simply responding to pre-programmed stimuli. Farmers are a distinct class of socialists with their own govt programs and they are mostly men.
Close enough to "Biotch" for me.
Where's your birth certificate Barack ?
That's so twisted I would not know where to start in response a little advice to most males on this thread.....ease up on the viagra it effects the other head
That reminds me, my ex used to tell me that I thought with my little head ... I agreed and asked if that was her excuse for not being able to conjure up a thought.
Where's your birth certificate Barack ?
Texas Pastor Challenges Congregation To 7 Days of Sex Beginning next weekend, Fellowship Church, a Dallas-based mega church with over 20,000 people in attendance, continues a controversial teaching seminar called "Leaving Lust Vegas" that skates the razor-thin line between lust, sex, marriage and family. And now Pastor Ed Young heightens the controversy with an unprecedented challenge to married couples: Have Seven Days of Sex beginning Nov. 16.
gross generalization on both
There are no warlike people--just warlike leaders. – Ralph Bunche
Still mad at me I see :-) .... name one bill that contains the term "children" that any congress women/senator has not voted for....as for my own kind we will crawl over broken glass to get a little action we don't need a reason...I'm just being honest sorry if it offends...then again maybe it is the effects of being a bachelor for the past decade PS A little bit of history John Adams to James Sullivan on women, the poor, and voting rights May 26, 1776 [Adams explains why women, children, and the poor are excluded from the vote. — TGW] It is certain in theory, that the only moral foundation of government is the consent of the people. But to what an extent shall we carry this principle? Shall we say, that every individual of the community, old and young, male and female, as well as rich and poor, must consent, expressly, to every act of legislation? No, you will say. This is impossible. How then does the right arise in the majority to govern the minority, against their will? Whence arises the right of the men to govern women, without their consent? Whence the right of the old to bind the young, without theirs? But let us first suppose, that the whole community of every age, rank, sex, and condition, has a right to vote. This community, is assembled—a motion is made and carried by a majority of one voice. The minority will not agree to this. Whence arises the right of the majority to govern, and the obligation of the minority to obey? from necessity, you will say, because there can be no other rule. But why exclude women? You will say, because their delicacy renders them unfit for practice and experience, in the great business of life, and the hardy enterprises of war, as well as the arduous cares of state. Besides, their attention is so much engaged with the necessary nurture of their children, that nature has made them fittest for domestic cares. And children have not judgment or will of their own. True. But will not these reasons apply to others? Is it not equally true, that men in general in every society, who are wholly destitute of property, are also too little acquainted with public affairs to form a right judgment, and too dependent upon other men to have a will of their own? If this is a fact, if you give to every man, who has no property, a vote, will you not make a fine encouraging provision for corruption by your fundamental law? Such is the frailty of the human heart, that very few men, who have no property, have any judgment of their own. They talk and vote as they are directed by some man of property, who has attached their minds to his interest… I should think that wisdom and policy would dictate in these times, to be very cautious of making alterations. Our people have never been very rigid in scrutinizing into the qualifications of voters, and I presume they will not now begin to be so. But I would not advise them to make any alteration in the laws, at present, respecting the qualifications of voters. Your idea, that those laws, which affect the lives and personal liberty of all, or which inflict corporal punishment, affect those, who are not qualified to vote, as well as those who are, is just. But, so they do women, as well as men, children as well as adults. What reason should there be, for excluding a man of twenty years, Eleven months and twenty-seven days old, from a vote when you admit one, who is twenty one? The reason is, you must fix upon some period in life, when the understanding and will of men in general is fit to be trusted by the public. Will not the same reason justify the state in fixing upon some certain quantity of property, as a qualification. The same reasoning, which will induce you to admit all men, who have no property, to vote, with those who have, for those laws, which affect the person will prove that you ought to admit women and children: for generally speaking, women and children, have as good judgment, and as independent minds as those men who are wholly destitute of property: these last being to all intents and purposes as much dependent upon others, who will please to feed, clothe, and employ them, as women are upon their husbands, or children on their parents… Society can be governed only by general rules. Government cannot accommodate itself to every particular case, as it happens, nor to the circumstances of particular persons. It must establish general, comprehensive regulations for cases and persons. The only question is, which general rule, will accommodate most cases and most persons. Depend upon it, sir, it is dangerous to open so fruitful a source of controversy and altercation, as would be opened by attempting to alter the qualifications of voters. There will be no end of it. New claims will arise. Women will demand a vote. Lads from 12 to 21 will think their rights not enough attended to, and every man, who has not a farthing, will demand an equal voice with any other in all acts of state. It tends to confound and destroy all distinctions, and prostrate all ranks, to one common level. [From Philip B. Kurland and Ralph Lerner, ed., The Founders’
Just plain gross will suffice.
PW
Thank you, dawgie........
rob... I can tolerate your gold bug passions but your gross behavior on someone elses dime is despicable.
I guess you missed the class on the "free speech" thing
I excelled in proper and socially acceptable public speaking. Indeed I did flunk gutter street language. That filthy human habit was a turnoff to most decent people.
Maybe you need a radio show!
No thanks. I had a long, more rewarding professional career.
Then why are you poor?
rob... You are in over your head and digging a deeper hole. Defending your vulgar language and hatred of women by attacking is just another of your many failures. People here read it and it is like an open book, exposing all your human frailties to public scrutiny. Winning friends and influencing people here has been fruitless as we see more and more posters ignoring you. Me included.
Hate to burst your bubble but there are a bunch of women in Scottsdale who would disagree with your statement of my "hatred of women" I most proberly spend more on them in a week then you earn in a month or more!
You are in over your head and digging a deeper hole. Defending your vulgar language and hatred of women by attacking is just another of your many failur They coin salesman guy is a cuckoo clock..totally nuts. TG for the bozo filter. Last person, after listening for a decade or longer on s/w radio, i'd ever think I'd bozo/...but he be GONE. :))
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 Hey it's DH
I do not know how to Bozo but I can ignore like others are already doing. Shame. I like people and learn from most but when posters are their own worst enemy, ignore is the rule of the day.
practise what you preach ....
PW Political Whimp ??? Pussy whip ??? Both !
Where's your birth certificate Barack ?
Here's what you deserve for your politically correct view of women. (A real Witch).
Where's your birth certificate Barack ?
Although I generally avoid you (because you may hold the record for consecutive troll posts while pretending that you have intelligent replies but, you aren't really all that anxious for us to see just how brilliant you really are, choosing to appear sophomoric and ignorant until someone throws you a slow pitch then suddenly you're the sage again) let me say this to you. I understand your point of view and may have agreed with at some point in my youth. And, as you see, if I choose to dispute you and your ilk I'll do so with specific points that a gifted intellect could and would respond to. But, so far all I see (once again) are you and another little ratshit enabler clinging to each other like frightened children in a thunderstorm while posturing as, not reflections but shadows of manly 18th century men! Believe me, the instant you metamorphosed from the pseudo-intellectual, faux philosophical to the childish and insulting you not only lost the debate but you forfeit any reasonable expectation of respectful treatment from me or any other member who isn't here to lash out at mommy. Now, you may surprise me and actually write something original instead of quoting some long dead guru that you would have us believe agrees with you instead of you pretending to understand and agree with him! (hah!) but, I don't believe that you have the intellect to stand toe to toe and argue this or any other point. And that is why you are forever destined to be a troll. And, just as you refuse to see that sitting on a stack of phone books while typing mediocre troll posts won't change a demented dwarf into a superman, you refuse to take an honest appraisal of your amoebic persona and see what I and others clearly see. In fact, people at your level usually sit quietly when I speak publicly, and you wouldn't even exist if not for the anonymity and seeming equality of the internet. In a public gathering you'd be too embarrassed to stay until the end, choosing to drop out through the restroom window before any have the chance to corner and identify you and the specific name of the med you refuse to take for your condition, or asking the name of your probation officer. The best you can hope for is to be mildly irritating, and I shouldn't ever expect you to really set me straight the way my betters (some of whom are women) sometimes do. Pity. I was so looking forward to that. Here's a hint: When you cherry pick a four word post to throw Adams up in response while trolling all others that would require an investment of time and intelligence, you reveal yourself in such a way that as a thinking man with sons I'm actually embarrassed for you. And you reinforce the old axiom that stupid people don't know that they are stupid. It's your turn. Another witty Viagra quip, perhaps?
Gee, I wished I'd said that! And his reply is to heave up something about free speech, completely missing the point that he's posting on the property of another, not standing in the public square where he can lay claim to speech as a matter of right. He's actually easy to ignore because unlike some trolls he doesn't actually write anything that requires rebuttal. It's not as if he'll confuse anyone if a response doesn't follow.... "Duh, did Viagra make you say that?" It won't take too many more of those demands to "exercise his goddam right!" and chris will educate him about the difference between free speech rights and posting privileges. And, he doesn't even see it coming.
You mean the man regarded as one of the most influential Founding Fathers of the United States ....I take it you are a offended women...deal with it! PS That was my last post,so see you guys don't want to upset Christine any more we have our differences but on this issue I don't back down it's her sand box it's been fun ....bye!
Free speech is just that... Projecting ones free speech does not allow them to intrude on others. Free speech has ALWAYS had boundaries as to HOW, WHEN and WHERE you may exercise it. Exercising ones "free speech" in my living room by calling all women vulgar names will get the person a very bad beating. (That would be administered by my wife) Then I would enjoy shoveling the human filth out the door into the street.
-Schweizerische Schuetzenzeitung (Swiss Shooting Federation) April, 1941
#2. To: X-15, christine, all (#1)
She needs to drop the pro-illegal "path to citizenship" BS and purge her presence of neocons/Israeli-firsters.
#3. To: christine (#0)
#4. To: christine (#0)
Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin says she wouldn't hesitate to run for the presidency in four years if it's God's will,
#5. To: rowdee (#3)
I heard her on Greta's show say that she's never even been in a Saks 5th Avenue or Neiman Marcus
#6. To: lodwick (#2)
(Edited)
She needs to drop the pro-illegal "path to citizenship" BS and purge her presence of neocons/Israeli-firsters.
#7. To: Cynicom, all (#6)
boys zionists are not about to share party power.
#8. To: a vast rightwing conspirator (#5)
Did she say where she spent that $150,000?
#9. To: lodwick (#7)
#10. To: rowdee (#8)
#11. To: Cynicom (#9)
#12. To: lodwick (#7)
Even as Senator she would be marginalized as the good ole boys zionists are not about to share party power.
#13. To: a vast rightwing conspirator (#10)
#14. To: Rupert_Pupkin (#12)
Her loopy theology and foreign policy views fit the Zionists and neocons like a glove.
-Schweizerische Schuetzenzeitung (Swiss Shooting Federation) April, 1941
#15. To: X-15 (#14)
(Edited)
the jews and neocons demonized her
#16. To: christine (#0)
"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."
#17. To: Rupert_Pupkin (#15)
(Edited)
-Schweizerische Schuetzenzeitung (Swiss Shooting Federation) April, 1941
#18. To: christine (#0)
#19. To: X-15 (#17)
(Edited)
The jews HATE Sarah Palin because she is nothing more inoffensive than a Methodist like Bush.
#20. To: bluegrass (#18)
Palin is the Britney Spears of politics.
#21. To: Cynicom (#9)
f Palin were to shed the party and the system like a dirty shirt, it would put the fear of God into the establishment.
#22. To: Rupert_Pupkin (#20)
That's almost an insult to Britney.
#23. To: LACUMO (#21)
She, 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)
#64. To: robnoel (#62)
If its not true correct me!
#65. To: robnoel (#62)
Did Women's Suffrage Change the Size and Scope of Government?
#66. To: robnoel (#53)
#67. To: Rupert_Pupkin (#63)
The Sioux Indians would have called Ann Coulter a "Berdache."
#68. To: HOUNDDAWG (#66)
#69. To: robnoel (#68)
ease up on the viagra it effects the other head
#70. To: noone222 (#69)
This is going a little to far....I wonder if they have spiked the water in Texas with the little blue pill
#71. To: robnoel (#59)
Women vote on emotion it's the same with sex ...women need a reason men just need a place
#72. To: christine (#71)
(Edited)
#73. To: christine (#71)
#74. To: Cynicom (#73)
#75. To: HOUNDDAWG (#66)
#76. To: robnoel (#74)
#77. To: Cynicom (#76)
#78. To: robnoel (#77)
I guess you missed the class on the "free speech" thing
#79. To: Cynicom (#78)
I excelled in proper and socially acceptable public speaking.
#80. To: robnoel (#79)
#81. To: Cynicom (#80)
#82. To: robnoel (#81)
Then why are you poor?
#83. To: Cynicom (#82)
Defending your vulgar language and hatred of women by attacking is just another of your many failures.
#84. To: Cynicom (#82)
rob...
"There is no 'legitimate' Corporation by virtue of its very legal definition and purpose."
-- IndieTx
#85. To: IndieTX (#84)
#86. To: IndieTX (#84)
#87. To: Cynicom (#86)
ignore is the rule of the day.
#88. To: robnoel, Cynicom (#74)
Cynicom
#89. To: Cynicom (#82)
#90. To: robnoel, christine, rowdee, Astoria, farmfriend (#68)
(Edited)
#91. To: Cynicom, christine, lodwick (#76)
I can tolerate your gold bug passions but your gross behavior on someone elses dime is despicable.
#92. To: HOUNDDAWG (#90)
(Edited)
instead of quoting some long dead guru
#93. To: HOUNDDAWG, all (#91)
And, he doesn't even see it coming.
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest