Newsweek Cover Hottie A Fixture in Lonely Rightwing Men's Bathrooms
Doc
Marvin The Paranoid Android
I was going to post this one too -- too funny.
:-D
Bob
The proper context for that photo is that she posed for Runner's World
magazine. That photo was not intended to be on the cover of Newsweek,
which is obviously using it in the "mainstream" media's continued
attempts to diminish her standing as a serious woman in the political
arena.
I wonder how other women feel about the misuse of that photo? Do they
care? Or is it all fair game because she's a woman they don't like?
How would they feel if this was done to a woman they do like? Would
they have a completely different reaction to it? And I wonder if
supposedly enlightened men would be mocking and laughing at a woman
they like, if (oh, say, for instance) Fox News purposely tried to mock
and diminish a liberal woman?
Somehow, I have a feeling the reaction would be completely different.
Here's what Runner's World magazine had to say about Newsweek using
that photo:
EDITOR’S NOTE:
[quoting] On the cover of this week’s issue of Newsweek is a photo
that was shot for the August 2009 issue of Runner’s World, in which
Sarah Palin was featured on the monthly “I’m a Runner” back page.
Runner’s World did not provide Newsweek with the image. Instead, it
was provided to Newsweek by the photographer’s stock agency, without
Runner’s World’s knowledge or permission. [end quote]
http://www.runnersworld.com/photo/sarahpalin/
Newsweek is a piece of crap. But then so is most of the "mainstream"
media in this country.
Werewolfy
My God. I didn't realise just how sensitive you Americans are. I see
nothing wrong with the picture, even if it was used out of context.
Is so much reliance placed on 'image' and dressing up in a way to sway
the public, that a perfectly ordinary photo of her in sporting clothes
is looked on as being somehow demeaning from a political viewpoint?
So sensitive....it's laughable. The UK electorate would applaud a
photo of the Prime Minister showing a leaning towards exercise and
sport. Somehow, you turn this into a sexist thing. She's simply weaing
sportswear..so what?
Werewolfy
Jane
> On Nov 18, 4:31 am, Marvin The Paranoid Android
>
> <marvinparanoidandr...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > On Nov 18, 1:10 am, "Doc" <cmdrl...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > >http://news.yahoo.com/s/ynews/20091117/pl_ynews/ynews_pl984
>
> > > LOLOL!! !!
>
> > > ;))~
>
> > I was going to post this one too -- too funny.
>
> The proper context for that photo is that she posed for Runner's World
> magazine. That photo was not intended to be on the cover of Newsweek,
> which is obviously using it in the "mainstream" media's continued
> attempts to diminish her standing as a serious woman in the political
> arena.
>
> I wonder how other women feel about the misuse of that photo? Do they
> care? Or is it all fair game because she's a woman they don't like?
> How would they feel if this was done to a woman they do like? Would
> they have a completely different reaction to it? And I wonder if
> supposedly enlightened men would be mocking and laughing at a woman
> they like, if (oh, say, for instance) Fox News purposely tried to mock
> and diminish a liberal woman?
I think it's fair game and hilarious. Most 'runners' don't have their
hair and make-up done to perfection before they go for a run, for one
thing. She may well be a serious runner, but she certainly doesn't
project that here.
She does, however, enhance her 'Barbie' look, :).
Marvin The Paranoid Android
Stop making sense ... ;-)
Werewolfy
<marvinparanoidandr...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> Stop making sense ... ;-)-
!!!!!!............................;)
Werewolfy
Doc
"Bob" <steven....@rocketmail.com> wrote in message
news:8a7f0251-4ed2-4f3a...@e4g2000prn.googlegroups.com...
On Nov 18, 4:31 am, Marvin The Paranoid Android
<marvinparanoidandr...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> On Nov 18, 1:10 am, "Doc" <cmdrl...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >http://news.yahoo.com/s/ynews/20091117/pl_ynews/ynews_pl984
>
> > LOLOL!! !!
>
> > ;))~
>
> I was going to post this one too -- too funny.
The proper context for that photo is that she posed for Runner's World
magazine. That photo was not intended to be on the cover of Newsweek,
which is obviously using it in the "mainstream" media's continued
attempts to diminish her standing as a serious woman in the political
arena.
I wonder how other women feel about the misuse of that photo? Do they
care? Or is it all fair game because she's a woman they don't like?
How would they feel if this was done to a woman they do like? Would
they have a completely different reaction to it? And I wonder if
supposedly enlightened men would be mocking and laughing at a woman
they like, if (oh, say, for instance) Fox News purposely tried to mock
and diminish a liberal woman?
Somehow, I have a feeling the reaction would be completely different.
Here's what Runner's World magazine had to say about Newsweek using
that photo:
EDITOR�S NOTE:
[quoting] On the cover of this week�s issue of Newsweek is a photo
that was shot for the August 2009 issue of Runner�s World, in which
Sarah Palin was featured on the monthly �I�m a Runner� back page.
Runner�s World did not provide Newsweek with the image. Instead, it
was provided to Newsweek by the photographer�s stock agency, without
Runner�s World�s knowledge or permission. [end quote]
http://www.runnersworld.com/photo/sarahpalin/
Newsweek is a piece of crap. But then so is most of the "mainstream"
media in this country.
Well, Bob, since you're one of her self-appointed wranglers, you might want
to get your 'serious' political animal trained to 'just say no' to silly
vanity photo shoots. Imagine Geraldine Ferraro doing this, or Nancy Pelosi.
You and your pals Rush, Hannity, O'Reilly, Coulter, and the rest, would've
been all over 'serious' leftwing female leaders for such glamorous
exhibitions.
BTW, the article I posted explains what you felt oddly necessary to explain
again.
You and your rightwing comrades have gone crackers.
2nd BTW: Photo stock agencies retain the original copyright and don't need
permission from the subject or any customer they contracted with. It's right
there in black and white in their release contracts, standardized in that
industry.
All "Runner's World" was banking on is the current controversy surrounding
political demogague Palin to help boost its sales and ad revenue, junior.
Everyone in the exploitative political and corporate worlds orbit so well
together. Birds of a feather...LOLOLOL!!!! !!!! And you fit perfectly into
the stupid self-glorifying asylum.
Doc
Doc
"Jane" <pushl...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:47b1675b-ca5f-47f3...@33g2000vbe.googlegroups.com...
> EDITOR�S NOTE:
> [quoting] On the cover of this week�s issue of Newsweek is a photo
> that was shot for the August 2009 issue of Runner�s World, in which
> Sarah Palin was featured on the monthly �I�m a Runner� back page.
> Runner�s World did not provide Newsweek with the image. Instead, it
> was provided to Newsweek by the photographer�s stock agency, without
> Runner�s World�s knowledge or permission. [end quote]
>
> http://www.runnersworld.com/photo/sarahpalin/
>
> Newsweek is a piece of crap. But then so is most of the "mainstream"
> media in this country.
You can take the girl outta' the beauty contest, but you can't take the
beauty contest outta' the girl. *
Hah! Hah! Hah!
*(Sarah Palin was a runner-up in the Miss Alaska Beauty Pageant in 1964).
Doc
"Marvin The Paranoid Android" <marvinpara...@hotmail.com> wrote in
message
news:04ddddc4-0ccd-4928...@k19g2000yqc.googlegroups.com...
:-D
I wonder if the witch has been considering a 'photo shoot' with her
daughter's Playgirl poster boyfriend?
It'd undoubtedly sell out all over.
LOL!!
Doc
Doc
"Werewolfy" <Werew...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message
news:d4126c44-ce1b-4094...@a21g2000yqc.googlegroups.com...
On 18 Nov, 15:02, Bob <steven.doug...@rocketmail.com> wrote:
> On Nov 18, 4:31 am, Marvin The Paranoid Android
>
> <marvinparanoidandr...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > On Nov 18, 1:10 am, "Doc" <cmdrl...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > >http://news.yahoo.com/s/ynews/20091117/pl_ynews/ynews_pl984
>
> > > LOLOL!! !!
>
> > > ;))~
>
> > I was going to post this one too -- too funny.
>
> The proper context for that photo is that she posed for Runner's World
> magazine. That photo was not intended to be on the cover of Newsweek,
> which is obviously using it in the "mainstream" media's continued
> attempts to diminish her standing as a serious woman in the political
> arena.
>
> I wonder how other women feel about the misuse of that photo? Do they
> care? Or is it all fair game because she's a woman they don't like?
> How would they feel if this was done to a woman they do like? Would
> they have a completely different reaction to it? And I wonder if
> supposedly enlightened men would be mocking and laughing at a woman
> they like, if (oh, say, for instance) Fox News purposely tried to mock
> and diminish a liberal woman?
>
> Somehow, I have a feeling the reaction would be completely different.
>
> Here's what Runner's World magazine had to say about Newsweek using
> that photo:
>
> [quoting] On the cover of this week�s issue of Newsweek is a photo
> that was shot for the August 2009 issue of Runner�s World, in which
> Sarah Palin was featured on the monthly �I�m a Runner� back page.
> Runner�s World did not provide Newsweek with the image. Instead, it
> was provided to Newsweek by the photographer�s stock agency, without
>
> http://www.runnersworld.com/photo/sarahpalin/
>
> Newsweek is a piece of crap. But then so is most of the "mainstream"
> media in this country.
My God. I didn't realise just how sensitive you Americans are. I see
nothing wrong with the picture, even if it was used out of context.
Is so much reliance placed on 'image' and dressing up in a way to sway
the public, that a perfectly ordinary photo of her in sporting clothes
is looked on as being somehow demeaning from a political viewpoint?
So sensitive....it's laughable. The UK electorate would applaud a
photo of the Prime Minister showing a leaning towards exercise and
sport. Somehow, you turn this into a sexist thing. She's simply weaing
sportswear..so what?
Werewolfy
Ha, ha, haaa...so 'sensitive' here at home yet so very insensitive towards
other's nations we lay waste to.
Doc
Woodswun
Man, she seriously needs to get over herself. Since when is
publishing a photo of someone in running shorts "sexist"?!?
Woods
Woodswun
She's nuts, Wolfy. There is nothing remotely sexist or controversial
about the photo, she's just desperate to be in the media.
Woods
Bob
It's the result of putting that photo on a serious news magazine. What
Newsweek knew would happen would be the type of reaction we see (for
example) with the title of this thread. That photo was appropriate for
Runner's World magazine, but not for Newsweek. And the proof of that
is that no one saw the photo until now. Doc did not start a new thread
with the title of this one when that photo appeared in August in
Runner's World. It was only after it appeared on the cover of a
serious news magazine that we got Doc's sleaze.
>
> So sensitive....it's laughable. The UK electorate would applaud a
> photo of the Prime Minister showing a leaning towards exercise and
> sport. Somehow, you turn this into a sexist thing. She's simply weaing
> sportswear..so what?
Because the cover of a serious news magazine is not the place for such
a photo. In that setting she should be wearing something appropriate.
The only reason for this is to diminish her standing as a serious
person in the political arena. Doc's title for this thread says it
all. He's all the proof I need.
Bob
The photo shoot was done for Runner's World magazine. If they wanted
another look, don't you think they'd have given it to her?
>
> She does, however, enhance her 'Barbie' look, :).
Which is appropriate for Runner's World magazine. But not for the
cover of Newsweek. I don't expect you to understand that concept,
however.
Bob
>
> Well, Bob, since you're one of her self-appointed wranglers, you might want
> to get your 'serious' political animal trained to 'just say no' to silly
> vanity photo shoots. Imagine Geraldine Ferraro doing this, or Nancy Pelosi.
Are you saying they're not in good enough shape to pose for Runner's
World magazine? I have no problem with that photo appearing inside
Runner's World. But it's not appropriate for the cover of Newsweek.
But then the leftist editors of Newsweek knew there would be people
like you who would mock her with headlines such as the one you wrote
for this thread.
Bob
On the cover of Newsweek? So you approve of Doc's title for this
thread?
Bob
>
> She's nuts, Wolfy. There is nothing remotely sexist or controversial
> about the photo, she's just desperate to be in the media.
The cover of Newsweek is not the place for that photo. How would you
feel if conservatives were writing titles for threads (such as this
one) about some liberal woman you admire? It's all about politics,
isn't it Woods? No principles, no standards, just politics. If it's a
woman you don't like, she's "fair game" (to quote someone else in this
thread). But if it's a woman you like and admire, and someone wrote
something like the title of this thread about her, you'd have an
entirely different outlook, wouldn't you?
Doc
She's soiled herself, junior.
If she's fucking *serious* as a political candidate, she'd never fucking
posed for this unreal shot!!!
A nutty bitch enamored with herself and her looks, and sudden national
celebrity status, and confused about the disassociation between pure vanity
and political self-promotion.
Get a brain on ya, junior.
But don't ask Palin to loan you one.
Doc
Oooooooh, so that's what your pissing your pants over? LOL!
I must've hit a nerve.
If you don't think she's playing the 'sex angle' for additional notoreity
among the male voters, you really are a naive bastard.
Does Katherine Harris ring a fucking bell?
Another psychotic leader using her sex appeal (however limited) to advance
her *career*, and , *serious* about it. heehehee...
Doc
On Nov 18, 8:17 am, Werewolfy <Werewol...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
>
> On 18 Nov, 15:02, Bob <steven.doug...@rocketmail.com> wrote:
>
> > On Nov 18, 4:31 am, Marvin The Paranoid Android
> > <marvinparanoidandr...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > On Nov 18, 1:10 am, "Doc" <cmdrl...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > >http://news.yahoo.com/s/ynews/20091117/pl_ynews/ynews_pl984
>
> > > > LOLOL!! !!
>
> > > > ;))~
>
> > > I was going to post this one too -- too funny.
>
> > The proper context for that photo is that she posed for Runner's World
> > magazine. That photo was not intended to be on the cover of Newsweek,
> > which is obviously using it in the "mainstream" media's continued
> > attempts to diminish her standing as a serious woman in the political
> > arena.
>
> > I wonder how other women feel about the misuse of that photo? Do they
> > care? Or is it all fair game because she's a woman they don't like?
> > How would they feel if this was done to a woman they do like? Would
> > they have a completely different reaction to it? And I wonder if
> > supposedly enlightened men would be mocking and laughing at a woman
> > they like, if (oh, say, for instance) Fox News purposely tried to mock
> > and diminish a liberal woman?
>
> > Somehow, I have a feeling the reaction would be completely different.
>
> > Here's what Runner's World magazine had to say about Newsweek using
> > that photo:
>
> > [quoting] On the cover of this week�s issue of Newsweek is a photo
> > that was shot for the August 2009 issue of Runner�s World, in which
> > Sarah Palin was featured on the monthly �I�m a Runner� back page.
> > Runner�s World did not provide Newsweek with the image. Instead, it
> > was provided to Newsweek by the photographer�s stock agency, without
You're a laugh riot, junior! LOL!!
So, Runner's World is just an exercise promotion zine and Newsweek is just a
current events zine, eh???
Uh, did you notice the US FLAG draped on a prop that's she leaning on?
Now, why do you suppose they'd put that patriotic thing in an...
EXERCISE ZINE ??
heeheeheeheee....why did she not object to it?
HUH?
She's using the, uh, um, *exercise zine* to promote herself politically.
She exploits it, they exploit her for readership, Newsweek comes along and
blows the whole shitty thing outta' the swamp water!!!!
Woodswun
You're pretty desperate to make something out of nothing, if you're
going to try blending Doc's subject title with the discussion of the
actual Newsweek cover itself.
I disagree that the cover is at all inappropriate. I don't see any
difference between using that and some photo of GH Bush in golfing
attire, or Clinton in his running outfit. I think you, and your
Conservative friends, have some kind of issue with women who do
"manly" stuff like, you know, exercise.
Woods
Jane
LOL!
>
>
>
> > She does, however, enhance her 'Barbie' look, :).
>
> Which is appropriate for Runner's World magazine. But not for the
> cover of Newsweek. I don't expect you to understand that concept,
> however.
Actually, it's not appropriate for Runner's World, if it is supposed
to be catering to true athletes and not Bimbo wannabes.
I understand the concept very well and I will ignore your *taunt*!
Jane
> "Bob" <steven.doug...@rocketmail.com> wrote in message
> > > [quoting] On the cover of this week’s issue of Newsweek is a photo
> > > that was shot for the August 2009 issue of Runner’s World, in which
> > > Sarah Palin was featured on the monthly “I’m a Runner” back page.
> > > Runner’s World did not provide Newsweek with the image. Instead, it
> > > was provided to Newsweek by the photographer’s stock agency, without
Kudos to Newsweek, :).
◙2012 NEWS ** Xa Ta Zac Xa Ta Amac ~ The Last 1000 days ~ Unc!e W@!!y ☻☺☻
> "Jane" <pushlin...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> > [quoting] On the cover of this week’s issue of Newsweek is a photo
> > that was shot for the August 2009 issue of Runner’s World, in which
> > Sarah Palin was featured on the monthly “I’m a Runner” back page.
> > Runner’s World did not provide Newsweek with the image. Instead, it
> > was provided to Newsweek by the photographer’s stock agency, without
>
> >http://www.runnersworld.com/photo/sarahpalin/
>
> > Newsweek is a piece of crap. But then so is most of the "mainstream"
> > media in this country.
>
> You can take the girl outta' the beauty contest, but you can't take the
> beauty contest outta' the girl. *
>
> Hah! Hah! Hah!
>
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
Hang on a little mo there, Gary ~ she was born in 1964 ~!!!!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sarah_Palin
Perhaps you meant that she was runner-up in the Miss Alaska beauty
pageant in 1984 ?!?!?
She *does* have very nice legs thoigh ~! Gotta give her that, even
though I'm at the opposite
end of the political spectrum .....
☻☺☻
HOOROO
UNCLE WALLY
▬▬▬▬▬
Bob
>
> "Bob" <steven.doug...@rocketmail.com> wrote in message
>
>
>>>Man, she seriously needs to get over herself. Since when is
>>>publishing a photo of someone in running shorts "sexist"?!?
>
> >On the cover of Newsweek? So you approve of Doc's title for this
> >thread?
>
> Oooooooh, so that's what your pissing your pants over? LOL!
> I must've hit a nerve.
What you did is prove my point before I made it. In addition, your
title for this thread has shown that *some* women have no principled
values. How they feel in any given situation is based entirely on
politics. They hate Sarah Palin, so your title is just fine for her.
But if I ever wrote something like that about some woman they like,
all hell would break loose.
Bob
>
> On Nov 18, 7:46 pm, Bob <steven.doug...@rocketmail.com> wrote:
>
> > On Nov 18, 3:51 pm, Woodswun <woods...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > She's nuts, Wolfy. There is nothing remotely sexist or controversial
> > > about the photo, she's just desperate to be in the media.
>
> > The cover of Newsweek is not the place for that photo. How would you
> > feel if conservatives were writing titles for threads (such as this
> > one) about some liberal woman you admire? It's all about politics,
> > isn't it Woods? No principles, no standards, just politics. If it's a
> > woman you don't like, she's "fair game" (to quote someone else in this
> > thread). But if it's a woman you like and admire, and someone wrote
> > something like the title of this thread about her, you'd have an
> > entirely different outlook, wouldn't you?
>
> You're pretty desperate to make something out of nothing, if you're
> going to try blending Doc's subject title with the discussion of the
> actual Newsweek cover itself.
Doc's title for this thread is based entirely on the Newsweek cover.
The editors of Newsweek knew they'd get plenty of reactions such as
Doc's when they put that photo on the cover.
>
> I disagree that the cover is at all inappropriate. I don't see any
> difference between using that and some photo of GH Bush in golfing
> attire, or Clinton in his running outfit.
Did Newsweek put Clinton on the cover of Newsweek in his running
outfit? When was that?
>
> I think you, and your
> Conservative friends, have some kind of issue with women who do
> "manly" stuff like, you know, exercise.
What? Exercise is manly? Is that what you believe? First of all, I
don't think there's anything manly about Sarah Palin. And secondly,
there's nothing inherently "manly" about exercise. What the hell are
you talking about? My problem is not with the photo, it's that
Newsweek decided to put it on the cover. If they'd shown her in normal
business attire on the cover, and then shown that picture inside the
magazine somewhere, it wouldn't be an issue. Manly stuff like
exercise? I can't get over that. You're very strange.
Bob
That's it? No answer, just a simple LOL!? My question stands,
unanswered.
>
> > > She does, however, enhance her 'Barbie' look, :).
>
> > Which is appropriate for Runner's World magazine. But not for the
> > cover of Newsweek. I don't expect you to understand that concept,
> > however.
>
> Actually, it's not appropriate for Runner's World, if it is supposed
> to be catering to true athletes and not Bimbo wannabes.
Uh, it was Runner's World's photo shoot. They published a set of
photos in August. So apparently it WAS appropriate for Runner's World,
since they commissioned the photos and published them.
>
> I understand the concept very well and I will ignore your *taunt*!
Not a taunt, but a sincere observation based on the topic under
discussion. And after your response, I stand by it, with emphasis --
the photo was perfectly appropriate for Runner's World, but not at all
appropriate for the cover of Newsweek.
Jane
Well, duhhh!
They published a set of
> photos in August. So apparently it WAS appropriate for Runner's World,
> since they commissioned the photos and published them.
So no magazine has ever commissioned inappropriate photos (Mylie Cyrus
in Vanity Fair, to name one small example)? No wonder I 'LOL' (see
above). 'Inappropriate' is perhaps not the right choice of words; they
are not sleazy. However, it is a joke if it is supposed to be directed
at real athletes. Ever seen pics of actresses when they are going for
a run? The most beautiful women in the world don't deck themselves out
like that to go running. That is the joke. She's not a wind-up toy,
but she looks like one.
>
> > I understand the concept very well and I will ignore your *taunt*!
>
> Not a taunt, but a sincere observation based on the topic under
> discussion. And after your response, I stand by it, with emphasis --
> the photo was perfectly appropriate for Runner's World, but not at all
> appropriate for the cover of Newsweek.
It wouldn't surprise me if *she* paid Newsweek to publish them! It
gives her a chance to do her self-righteous whinge and get a pile of
publicity at the same time. Not to mention, she gets to look hot on
the cover of a magazine with far greater circulation than Runner's
World.
Naivity, thy name is Bob!
Doc
Your 'point' is patently fucking ridiculous. How I interpret the sillier
aspects of political horses' asses is my fucking right.
How you interpret them is your's. If you truly think dolling oneself for an
exercise zine isn't a blatant contradiction to a candidate promoting herself
as a 'serious candidate', then for christs' sake, join her and the other
horses' asses, junior, and whinny on down the Yellow Brick Road to stardom,
er, um, high office.
Can you imagine Hillary Clinton on the zine's cover while she pushed for the
nomination, dressed the same way?
Here, you stupid man, read this:
This morning, on the Today show, NEWSWEEK Managing Editor Daniel Klaidman
further explained the editorial choice. "Since [Sarah Palin] has been on the
national stage, there have been these questions about her gravitas and her
seriousness. Sarah Palin has cultivated this image of a down-home, folksy,
outdoorsy woman. And I'm not suggesting it's not authentic, but there is a
sense in which she understands that it resonates politically," Klaidman told
Today host Matt Lauer. "There are a lot of people who would see that image
and say 'that's Sarah Palin, that's why she connects with people, there's
that authenticity.' I don't think this is an image that is taken out of
context, especially when you consider what the point of the story was: to
raise these questions about her seriousness."
http://blog.newsweek.com/blogs/thegaggle/archive/2009/11/18/newsweek-explains-thinking-behind-palin-cover.aspx
Bob
So it was appropriate for Runner's World, since it was their photo
shoot and they published the photos.
>
> >They published a set of
> > photos in August. So apparently it WAS appropriate for Runner's World,
> > since they commissioned the photos and published them.
>
> So no magazine has ever commissioned inappropriate photos (Mylie Cyrus
> in Vanity Fair, to name one small example)?
What is it that you're not understanding when I say the photos WERE
appropriate for Runner's World, but NOT appropriate for the cover of
Newsweek? This has nothing to do with something that happened in
Vanity Fair. It's about the cover of a serious newsmagazine. Why is
this such a difficult concept for you?
>
> No wonder I 'LOL' (see
> above). 'Inappropriate' is perhaps not the right choice of words; they
> are not sleazy.
Uh, the photos are NOT inappropriate for Runner's World. No, they are
no sleazy, but Doc's title for this thread is. And that's exactly what
the editors of Newsweek were hoping for, by taking a woman in the
political arena, and putting a nonserious photo of her on the COVER of
a serious newsmagazine. The editors of Newsweek KNEW they'd get people
like Doc mocking her and making fun of her. And they knew they'd get
women who hate Palin to laugh along with the sleazeballs like Doc.
>
> However, it is a joke if it is supposed to be directed
> at real athletes. Ever seen pics of actresses when they are going for
> a run? The most beautiful women in the world don't deck themselves out
> like that to go running. That is the joke. She's not a wind-up toy,
> but she looks like one.
You didn't even bother to look at the other photos in the slide show,
did you? Of course you didn't. I even posted the link, which would
have allowed you to become better informed. Instead, you're spouting
off as if you did look at the slide show, when it's clear that you
didn't. There is ONE photo where she's posed the way the new cover of
Newsweek shows her. There are other photos that don't look like that.
Why don't you take a look and become better informed.
http://www.runnersworld.com/photo/sarahpalin/home.html
Bob
>
> Your 'point' is patently fucking ridiculous.
I'm not interested in what a sleazeball has to say about this,
sleazeball.
Doc
Man, you really pooped out early.
Polanski and the 13 year old angel kept you gassed up a lot longer.
What happened?
Dani
"Werewolfy" <Werew...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message
news:d4126c44-ce1b-4094...@a21g2000yqc.googlegroups.com...
> On 18 Nov, 15:02, Bob <steven.doug...@rocketmail.com> wrote:
>> On Nov 18, 4:31 am, Marvin The Paranoid Android
>>
>> <marvinparanoidandr...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> > On Nov 18, 1:10 am, "Doc" <cmdrl...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> > >http://news.yahoo.com/s/ynews/20091117/pl_ynews/ynews_pl984
>>
>> > > LOLOL!! !!
>>
>> > > ;))~
>>
>> > I was going to post this one too -- too funny.
>>
>> The proper context for that photo is that she posed for Runner's World
>> magazine. That photo was not intended to be on the cover of Newsweek,
>> which is obviously using it in the "mainstream" media's continued
>> attempts to diminish her standing as a serious woman in the political
>> arena.
>>
>> I wonder how other women feel about the misuse of that photo? Do they
>> care? Or is it all fair game because she's a woman they don't like?
>> How would they feel if this was done to a woman they do like? Would
>> they have a completely different reaction to it? And I wonder if
>> supposedly enlightened men would be mocking and laughing at a woman
>> they like, if (oh, say, for instance) Fox News purposely tried to mock
>> and diminish a liberal woman?
>>
>> Somehow, I have a feeling the reaction would be completely different.
>>
>> Here's what Runner's World magazine had to say about Newsweek using
>> that photo:
>>
>> EDITOR�S NOTE:
>> [quoting] On the cover of this week�s issue of Newsweek is a photo
>> that was shot for the August 2009 issue of Runner�s World, in which
>> Sarah Palin was featured on the monthly �I�m a Runner� back page.
>> Runner�s World did not provide Newsweek with the image. Instead, it
>> was provided to Newsweek by the photographer�s stock agency, without
>> Runner�s World�s knowledge or permission. [end quote]
>>
>> http://www.runnersworld.com/photo/sarahpalin/
>>
>> Newsweek is a piece of crap. But then so is most of the "mainstream"
>> media in this country.
>
> My God. I didn't realise just how sensitive you Americans are. I see
> nothing wrong with the picture, even if it was used out of context.
> Is so much reliance placed on 'image' and dressing up in a way to sway
> the public, that a perfectly ordinary photo of her in sporting clothes
> is looked on as being somehow demeaning from a political viewpoint?
>
> So sensitive....it's laughable. The UK electorate would applaud a
> photo of the Prime Minister showing a leaning towards exercise and
> sport. Somehow, you turn this into a sexist thing. She's simply weaing
> sportswear..so what?
Exactly... I mean really... what's the f'in problem with her outfit? Just
looks like she's been exercising, or she's just returned home from a jog or
a bike ride.
And as far as some saying she looks "Hott" .. ahhh... that outfit is QUITE
tame if ya ask me!
Ahhh... yet another reason Politics irks me such.
Cheers,
Dani
Jane
every right to put that pic on their cover. Don't like it, don't buy
it.
As I said (and you ignored), Sarah probably paid them to do it.
>
> > No wonder I 'LOL' (see
> > above). 'Inappropriate' is perhaps not the right choice of words; they
> > are not sleazy.
>
> Uh, the photos are NOT inappropriate for Runner's World. No, they are
> no sleazy, but Doc's title for this thread is. And that's exactly what
> the editors of Newsweek were hoping for, by taking a woman in the
> political arena, and putting a nonserious photo of her on the COVER of
> a serious newsmagazine. The editors of Newsweek KNEW they'd get people
> like Doc mocking her and making fun of her. And they knew they'd get
> women who hate Palin to laugh along with the sleazeballs like Doc.
Smart women in politics don't pose for photos like that (or else they
write into their contract that the photos are *only* to be used for
the sporting mag.) You get what you project and she projects
"Bimbo" (Caribou Barbie Bimbo, to be specific).
>
>
>
> > However, it is a joke if it is supposed to be directed
> > at real athletes. Ever seen pics of actresses when they are going for
> > a run? The most beautiful women in the world don't deck themselves out
> > like that to go running. That is the joke. She's not a wind-up toy,
> > but she looks like one.
>
> You didn't even bother to look at the other photos in the slide show,
> did you?
Nope, because I don't care. We're discussing the photo that wound up
on the cover of Newsweek.
Of course you didn't. I even posted the link, which would
> have allowed you to become better informed. Instead, you're spouting
> off as if you did look at the slide show, when it's clear that you
> didn't. There is ONE photo where she's posed the way the new cover of
> Newsweek shows her. There are other photos that don't look like that.
So what? It's irrelevant to the discussion.
> Why don't you take a look and become better informed.
Better things to do, frankly.
Jane
> "Werewolfy" <Werewol...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message
>
> news:d4126c44-ce1b-4094...@a21g2000yqc.googlegroups.com...
>
>
>
> > On 18 Nov, 15:02, Bob <steven.doug...@rocketmail.com> wrote:
> >> On Nov 18, 4:31 am, Marvin The Paranoid Android
>
> >> <marvinparanoidandr...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> >> > On Nov 18, 1:10 am, "Doc" <cmdrl...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >> > >http://news.yahoo.com/s/ynews/20091117/pl_ynews/ynews_pl984
>
> >> > > LOLOL!! !!
>
> >> > > ;))~
>
> >> > I was going to post this one too -- too funny.
>
> >> The proper context for that photo is that she posed for Runner's World
> >> magazine. That photo was not intended to be on the cover of Newsweek,
> >> which is obviously using it in the "mainstream" media's continued
> >> attempts to diminish her standing as a serious woman in the political
> >> arena.
>
> >> I wonder how other women feel about the misuse of that photo? Do they
> >> care? Or is it all fair game because she's a woman they don't like?
> >> How would they feel if this was done to a woman they do like? Would
> >> they have a completely different reaction to it? And I wonder if
> >> supposedly enlightened men would be mocking and laughing at a woman
> >> they like, if (oh, say, for instance) Fox News purposely tried to mock
> >> and diminish a liberal woman?
>
> >> Somehow, I have a feeling the reaction would be completely different.
>
> >> Here's what Runner's World magazine had to say about Newsweek using
> >> that photo:
>
> >> [quoting] On the cover of this week’s issue of Newsweek is a photo
> >> that was shot for the August 2009 issue of Runner’s World, in which
> >> Sarah Palin was featured on the monthly “I’m a Runner” back page.
> >> Runner’s World did not provide Newsweek with the image. Instead, it
> >> was provided to Newsweek by the photographer’s stock agency, without
>
> >>http://www.runnersworld.com/photo/sarahpalin/
>
> >> Newsweek is a piece of crap. But then so is most of the "mainstream"
> >> media in this country.
>
> > My God. I didn't realise just how sensitive you Americans are. I see
> > nothing wrong with the picture, even if it was used out of context.
> > Is so much reliance placed on 'image' and dressing up in a way to sway
> > the public, that a perfectly ordinary photo of her in sporting clothes
> > is looked on as being somehow demeaning from a political viewpoint?
>
> > So sensitive....it's laughable. The UK electorate would applaud a
> > photo of the Prime Minister showing a leaning towards exercise and
> > sport. Somehow, you turn this into a sexist thing. She's simply weaing
> > sportswear..so what?
>
> Exactly... I mean really... what's the f'in problem with her outfit? Just
> looks like she's been exercising, or she's just returned home from a jog or
> a bike ride.
>
> And as far as some saying she looks "Hott" .. ahhh... that outfit is QUITE
> tame if ya ask me!
I wasn't talking about the outfit being hot, Dani, but the hair and
make-up (to those who are attracted to the Caribou Barbie look). I
remember guys on my autoworkers board joking about how they'd 'do'
her, so obviously some men find her attractive.
She certainly looks far too plastic to have been exercising, or even
to be planning to exercise. That is what I find absurd about it.
Marvin The Paranoid Android
To summarize this thread, she's a shallow, self-obsessed idiot who is
the most bizarre thing to happen in U.S. politics.
McCain's defending his campaign team from her now. He's an idiot for
even tossing her onto the national political scene.
Jane
Can't disagree.
Jane
I keep forgetting to address this. When I first started at GM, there
were very few women working there. Photos of women (some naked and
spread-eagled) were posted all over the place. I figured 'when in
Rome' and started my own display of men (albeit, not naked). The guys
got a kick out of it.
That was then. Naturally, all such photos are banned these days, and
rightly so. However, I know that men without women around will post
photos. Likely some do post them in bathrooms and use them for...well,
you know.
Doc's headline offends me not in the least. That has nothing to do
with the subject of it, either. If Margaret Thatcher (the only woman
in politics I can think of offhand that I have admired) were more
attractive and Doc wrote the same headline about her, I still would
not be offended.
So don't make blanket statements about *women* when you have no idea
what you are talking about.
Woodswun
> On Nov 18, 6:42 pm, Woodswun <woods...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Nov 18, 7:46 pm, Bob <steven.doug...@rocketmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > On Nov 18, 3:51 pm, Woodswun <woods...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > She's nuts, Wolfy. There is nothing remotely sexist or controversial
> > > > about the photo, she's just desperate to be in the media.
>
> > > The cover of Newsweek is not the place for that photo. How would you
> > > feel if conservatives were writing titles for threads (such as this
> > > one) about some liberal woman you admire? It's all about politics,
> > > isn't it Woods? No principles, no standards, just politics. If it's a
> > > woman you don't like, she's "fair game" (to quote someone else in this
> > > thread). But if it's a woman you like and admire, and someone wrote
> > > something like the title of this thread about her, you'd have an
> > > entirely different outlook, wouldn't you?
>
> > You're pretty desperate to make something out of nothing, if you're
> > going to try blending Doc's subject title with the discussion of the
> > actual Newsweek cover itself.
>
> Doc's title for this thread is based entirely on the Newsweek cover.
> The editors of Newsweek knew they'd get plenty of reactions such as
> Doc's when they put that photo on the cover.
Doc was deliberately being ridiculous. You're being ridiculous, too,
only it's no deliberate and you don't even realize that you're being
ridiculous - lol!
>
>
>
> > I disagree that the cover is at all inappropriate. I don't see any
> > difference between using that and some photo of GH Bush in golfing
> > attire, or Clinton in his running outfit.
>
> Did Newsweek put Clinton on the cover of Newsweek in his running
> outfit? When was that?
>
I don't pay as close attention to Newsweek covers as you do. How
about you check out the Newsweek covers for the past 20 years and see
if they've done that for former presidents? How about celebrities in
general? That's what Palin is, you know, she isn't a politician
anymore, and she's going for the whole "celebrity" thing.
>
>
> > I think you, and your
> > Conservative friends, have some kind of issue with women who do
> > "manly" stuff like, you know, exercise.
>
> What? Exercise is manly? Is that what you believe? First of all, I
> don't think there's anything manly about Sarah Palin. And secondly,
> there's nothing inherently "manly" about exercise. What the hell are
> you talking about? My problem is not with the photo, it's that
> Newsweek decided to put it on the cover. If they'd shown her in normal
> business attire on the cover, and then shown that picture inside the
> magazine somewhere, it wouldn't be an issue. Manly stuff like
> exercise? I can't get over that. You're very strange.
You just don't want her to be photographed in anything but a dress,
then? Well, that's still sexist.
Woods
Woodswun
You know that Palin could have restricted Runner's World to only using
the photos in their own magazine for that one article, right? She
chose to let them do whatever they wanted with the photos. Obviously,
she didn't care at the time. She probably doesn't care now, but
making a lot of noise sure is drumming up some free publicity from the
right wing nut jobs!
Woods
Jane
I made that very same point.
She
> chose to let them do whatever they wanted with the photos. Obviously,
> she didn't care at the time. She probably doesn't care now, but
> making a lot of noise sure is drumming up some free publicity from the
> right wing nut jobs!
Without a doubt!
Bob
>
> Exactly... I mean really... what's the f'in problem with her outfit? Just
> looks like she's been exercising, or she's just returned home from a jog or
> a bike ride.
There's nothing wrong with her outfit. She looks great, and that photo
is appropriate for Runner's World magazine. But it's not appropriate
for the cover of Newsweek.
>
> And as far as some saying she looks "Hott" .. ahhh... that outfit is QUITE
> tame if ya ask me!
>
> Ahhh... yet another reason Politics irks me such.
Newsweek used that photo in an effort to diminish Sarah Palin as a
serious person in the political arena. And judging by Doc's title for
this thread, they succeeded. At least here, and in every other place
where sleazeballs exist.
Bob
>
> Why is it so difficult for you to understand that Newsweek also had
> every right to put that pic on their cover.
Where did I say they don't have the right? Are you kidding? We have
the First Amendment in this country. Why is it so difficult for you to
understand that I have every right to criticize Newsweek for putting
that pic on their cover?
Bob
And you're obsessed with her.
>
> McCain's defending his campaign team from her now. He's an idiot for
> even tossing her onto the national political scene.
He was an idiot for the way he ran his campaign. He'd have done even
worse without her.
Bob
>
> I keep forgetting to address this. When I first started at GM, there
> were very few women working there. Photos of women (some naked and
> spread-eagled) were posted all over the place. I figured 'when in
> Rome' and started my own display of men (albeit, not naked). The guys
> got a kick out of it.
>
> That was then. Naturally, all such photos are banned these days, and
> rightly so. However, I know that men without women around will post
> photos. Likely some do post them in bathrooms and use them for...well,
> you know.
>
> Doc's headline offends me not in the least. That has nothing to do
> with the subject of it, either. If Margaret Thatcher (the only woman
> in politics I can think of offhand that I have admired) were more
> attractive and Doc wrote the same headline about her, I still would
> not be offended.
>
> So don't make blanket statements about *women* when you have no idea
> what you are talking about.
I know double-standards that are completely based on politics when I
see them.
Bob
>
> On Nov 18, 11:20 pm, Bob <steven.doug...@rocketmail.com> wrote:
>
> > On Nov 18, 6:42 pm, Woodswun <woods...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > On Nov 18, 7:46 pm, Bob <steven.doug...@rocketmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > On Nov 18, 3:51 pm, Woodswun <woods...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > She's nuts, Wolfy. There is nothing remotely sexist or controversial
> > > > > about the photo, she's just desperate to be in the media.
>
> > > > The cover of Newsweek is not the place for that photo. How would you
> > > > feel if conservatives were writing titles for threads (such as this
> > > > one) about some liberal woman you admire? It's all about politics,
> > > > isn't it Woods? No principles, no standards, just politics. If it's a
> > > > woman you don't like, she's "fair game" (to quote someone else in this
> > > > thread). But if it's a woman you like and admire, and someone wrote
> > > > something like the title of this thread about her, you'd have an
> > > > entirely different outlook, wouldn't you?
>
> > > You're pretty desperate to make something out of nothing, if you're
> > > going to try blending Doc's subject title with the discussion of the
> > > actual Newsweek cover itself.
>
> > Doc's title for this thread is based entirely on the Newsweek cover.
> > The editors of Newsweek knew they'd get plenty of reactions such as
> > Doc's when they put that photo on the cover.
>
> Doc was deliberately being ridiculous. You're being ridiculous, too,
> only it's no deliberate and you don't even realize that you're being
> ridiculous - lol!
Woods, you're so ridiculous that you don't know how ridiculous you
are. Didn't you just insist the other day that an election that has
yet to be certified was over a long time ago? Didn't you insist that I
did not know what I was talking about, when that was you? Doc was not
being ridiculous, he was being his usual sleazeball self.
>
> > > I disagree that the cover is at all inappropriate. I don't see any
> > > difference between using that and some photo of GH Bush in golfing
> > > attire, or Clinton in his running outfit.
>
> > Did Newsweek put Clinton on the cover of Newsweek in his running
> > outfit? When was that?
>
> I don't pay as close attention to Newsweek covers as you do. How
> about you check out the Newsweek covers for the past 20 years and see
> if they've done that for former presidents? How about celebrities in
> general? That's what Palin is, you know, she isn't a politician
> anymore, and she's going for the whole "celebrity" thing.
She's still in the political arena, or you leftists wouldn't be so
obsessed with her.
>
> > > I think you, and your
> > > Conservative friends, have some kind of issue with women who do
> > > "manly" stuff like, you know, exercise.
>
> > What? Exercise is manly? Is that what you believe? First of all, I
> > don't think there's anything manly about Sarah Palin. And secondly,
> > there's nothing inherently "manly" about exercise. What the hell are
> > you talking about? My problem is not with the photo, it's that
> > Newsweek decided to put it on the cover. If they'd shown her in normal
> > business attire on the cover, and then shown that picture inside the
> > magazine somewhere, it wouldn't be an issue. Manly stuff like
> > exercise? I can't get over that. You're very strange.
>
> You just don't want her to be photographed in anything but a dress,
> then? Well, that's still sexist.
Uh, no, I never said anything of the sort. How many times do I have to
say that the photo would have been appropriate if it had appeared
inside the issue of Newsweek. But on the cover, it's inappropriate.
And you'd know that if you weren't blinded by your political bias and
hatred for Palin.
Bob
>
> You know that Palin could have restricted Runner's World to only using
> the photos in their own magazine for that one article, right?
I'm sure she'll think of that in the future.
Dani
"Jane" <pushl...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:45df57f1-a28d-49e1...@j35g2000vbl.googlegroups.com...
>> >> EDITOR�S NOTE:
>> >> [quoting] On the cover of this week�s issue of Newsweek is a photo
>> >> that was shot for the August 2009 issue of Runner�s World, in which
>> >> Sarah Palin was featured on the monthly �I�m a Runner� back page.
>> >> Runner�s World did not provide Newsweek with the image. Instead, it
>> >> was provided to Newsweek by the photographer�s stock agency, without
>> >> Runner�s World�s knowledge or permission. [end quote]
>>
>> >>http://www.runnersworld.com/photo/sarahpalin/
>> >> Newsweek is a piece of crap. But then so is most of the "mainstream"
>> >> media in this country.
>> > My God. I didn't realise just how sensitive you Americans are. I see
>> > nothing wrong with the picture, even if it was used out of context.
>> > Is so much reliance placed on 'image' and dressing up in a way to sway
>> > the public, that a perfectly ordinary photo of her in sporting clothes
>> > is looked on as being somehow demeaning from a political viewpoint?
>> > So sensitive....it's laughable. The UK electorate would applaud a
>> > photo of the Prime Minister showing a leaning towards exercise and
>> > sport. Somehow, you turn this into a sexist thing. She's simply weaing
>> > sportswear..so what?
>> Exactly... I mean really... what's the f'in problem with her outfit?
>> Just looks like she's been exercising, or she's just returned home from a
>> jog or a bike ride.
>> And as far as some saying she looks "Hott" .. ahhh... that outfit is
>> QUITE tame if ya ask me!
> I wasn't talking about the outfit being hot, Dani, but the hair and
> make-up (to those who are attracted to the Caribou Barbie look).
I think there's been a "failure of communication" here, Jane. ..
I was only agreeing with Ricky that she's simply wearing a sporty (exercise
type) outfit; and I added
that as far as the "Hott" factor...I find the outfit quite tame.
I haven't read every post in this thread, and I didn't even see the post by
you that you're referencing.
Maybe I should probably read all the posts in context so I can follow the
conversation better next time! .. ;)
>I remember guys on my autoworkers board joking about how they'd 'do'
> her, so obviously some men find her attractive.
Yeah, I think she's attractive, too. But I wouldn't do 'er .. lol! .. ;)
Nah, but seriously...yes, she is quite pretty.
> She certainly looks far too plastic to have been exercising, or even
> to be planning to exercise. That is what I find absurd about it.
Ya know, on one hand she wants to be taken thoroughly seriously, and wants
to be seen as an intellectual; yet on the other...I can't help but to wonder
if somewhere in the back of that head of hers, she *knows* that a lot of men
find her sexy/attractive/desirable etc.. and whether consciously (directly),
or sub-consciously (indirectly), she uses that knowledge to her benefit.
I'm all for Powerful, intelligent women; I'm all for equality. But when it
comes to running my Country? Obviously I'd rather have the ugliest person
known to man on the *outside* ..while on the *inside* he has the intellect,
knowledge, life experience etc.. to fix the catastrophe that Bush has left
us in running the USA...over a woman that when men see her, the first thing
they think is:
"Mmmm, wouldn't mind me a piece of THAT!!!" .
Oh My!
This isn't a Fashion-Show for Christ sake! Come on!
Now on the other hand...she could look like Claudia Schiffer (drop-dead
beauty if some readers don't know who she is), or a Victoria's Secret
Model... IF she has the intellect, knowledge, perception, common sense,
book-smarts, negotiation skills (ie: can play Chess with the best of 'em),
life experience etc.. then yes, of course, bring it! All the power to her!
Of course I am ALL FOR successful, powerful woman... being that I too am a
female!
But sorry. May I speak candidly? Pull no punches? No holds barred?
Permission to speak freely?
Quite frankly...Palin just does NOT have what it takes...by ANY means!
Not a wit! .. ;)
Cheers,
Dani
Woodswun
If she had been a serious political person, she would have thought of
that before posing for that set of photos in the first place.
Woods
Woodswun
> "Jane" <pushlin...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> >> >> [quoting] On the cover of this week’s issue of Newsweek is a photo
> >> >> that was shot for the August 2009 issue of Runner’s World, in which
> >> >> Sarah Palin was featured on the monthly “I’m a Runner” back page.
> >> >> Runner’s World did not provide Newsweek with the image. Instead, it
> >> >> was provided to Newsweek by the photographer’s stock agency, without
Nope. And she's a quitter.
Woods
Jane
You actually know very little.
Bob
She told Barbara Walters that she wouldn't have accepted Runner's
World's request for the profile and photo shoot if she'd known one of
the photos would wind up on the cover of Newsweek. Whoopi Goldberg
said she doesn't think Palin would have given Newsweek such a photo if
Newsweek told her it planned to use it on the cover. According to
Whoppi, "Its a snipe." She also said women would be properly upset if
Newsweek did that to Hillary Clinton. Whoopi said, correctly, that
it's not about liberal or conservative, but about women. But to a
political animal like you, politics trumps all. Your hatred for Palin
is showing.
Jane
I'm sure she thought of that in the past. I maintain that she is quite
happy to have that "inappropriate" shot on the cover.
Bob
And the left is more obsessed with her than ever.
Bob
What I know is that there are women who hate Sarah Palin. You're one
of them.
Bob
What you maintain is irrelevant. Do you think she'd have knowingly
posed for that photo for the cover of Newsweek? You're out of your
mind.
Jane
It's not rocket science. Hubby is an amateur photog who occasionally
sells his pics. He sold a CD full to an interested company this summer
and stipulated how they could be used.
Now, we all know that Sarah is no rocket-scientist, lol, but I am sure
she far less upset about that pic than her Battery-Operated Boyfriend
is!
◙ Republic of Australia☻☺☻
> "Werewolfy" <Werewol...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message
>
> news:d4126c44-ce1b-4094...@a21g2000yqc.googlegroups.com...
>
>
>
>
>
> > On 18 Nov, 15:02, Bob <steven.doug...@rocketmail.com> wrote:
> >> On Nov 18, 4:31 am, Marvin The Paranoid Android
>
> >> <marvinparanoidandr...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> >> > On Nov 18, 1:10 am, "Doc" <cmdrl...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >> > >http://news.yahoo.com/s/ynews/20091117/pl_ynews/ynews_pl984
>
> >> > > LOLOL!! !!
>
> >> > > ;))~
>
> >> > I was going to post this one too -- too funny.
>
> >> The proper context for that photo is that she posed for Runner's World
> >> magazine. That photo was not intended to be on the cover of Newsweek,
> >> which is obviously using it in the "mainstream" media's continued
> >> attempts to diminish her standing as a serious woman in the political
> >> arena.
>
> >> I wonder how other women feel about the misuse of that photo? Do they
> >> care? Or is it all fair game because she's a woman they don't like?
> >> How would they feel if this was done to a woman they do like? Would
> >> they have a completely different reaction to it? And I wonder if
> >> supposedly enlightened men would be mocking and laughing at a woman
> >> they like, if (oh, say, for instance) Fox News purposely tried to mock
> >> and diminish a liberal woman?
>
> >> Somehow, I have a feeling the reaction would be completely different.
>
> >> Here's what Runner's World magazine had to say about Newsweek using
> >> that photo:
>
> >> [quoting] On the cover of this week’s issue of Newsweek is a photo
> >> that was shot for the August 2009 issue of Runner’s World, in which
> >> Sarah Palin was featured on the monthly “I’m a Runner” back page.
> >> Runner’s World did not provide Newsweek with the image. Instead, it
> >> was provided to Newsweek by the photographer’s stock agency, without
>
> >>http://www.runnersworld.com/photo/sarahpalin/
>
> >> Newsweek is a piece of crap. But then so is most of the "mainstream"
> >> media in this country.
>
> > My God. I didn't realise just how sensitive you Americans are. I see
> > nothing wrong with the picture, even if it was used out of context.
> > Is so much reliance placed on 'image' and dressing up in a way to sway
> > the public, that a perfectly ordinary photo of her in sporting clothes
> > is looked on as being somehow demeaning from a political viewpoint?
>
> > So sensitive....it's laughable. The UK electorate would applaud a
> > photo of the Prime Minister showing a leaning towards exercise and
> > sport. Somehow, you turn this into a sexist thing. She's simply weaing
> > sportswear..so what?
>
> Exactly... I mean really... what's the f'in problem with her outfit? Just
> looks like she's been exercising, or she's just returned home from a jog or
> a bike ride.
>
> And as far as some saying she looks "Hott" .. ahhh... that outfit is QUITE
> tame if ya ask me!
>
> Ahhh... yet another reason Politics irks me such.
>
> Cheers,
>
>
> - Show quoted text -
very nice legs, though ~!!! gotta definately give her that, even
though her political views stink to high heaven ~!!!!
HOOROO
UNCLE WALLY
▬
Jane
The left likes comedy, would be my guess!
Jane
Don't be ridiculous. I don't even know her, so how can I hate her? I
do think she's a joke.
Jane
No, because to pose for it and have the world know she was posing for
Newsweek would be crazy. I think she is crazy like a fox. Figure it
out.
Bob
You're sure, are you? Go ahead, feel free to mock on a personal basis
(Palin) who has accomplished more in her life than you ever will. Go
ahead and make fun of someone who has stood up to over a year of harsh
personal attacks on a level that would have crushed you in two
minutes. Go ahead, big Jane, tell us how personally superior you are
to little ol' Sarah Palin.
Jane
The difference is, I don't aspire to political office. Our *leaders*
(or wannabes) are held to higher standards. As they should be.
Public figures also set themselves up for ridicule when they behave
ridiculously. Live with it, Bobby.
Bob
They're not laughing. They're afraid of her. That's why they're doing
everything they can to diminish her standing as a serious person in
the political arena.
Jane
I hear a great deal of laughter, actually...but suit yourself.
Bob
Even if you did, you don't have what it takes. Imagine yourself trying
to stand up to what she's been standing up to. Talk about a joke. But
who says she aspires to political office? Woods says she's finished.
Yet Woods will continue to be obsessed with her.
>
> Our *leaders*
> (or wannabes) are held to higher standards. As they should be.
She's very popular with her following. Far more popular than McCain
ever was.
>
> Public figures also set themselves up for ridicule when they behave
> ridiculously. Live with it, Bobby.
I just think it's funny that a nobody like you thinks (in your own
mind) that you're somehow personally superior to Sarah Palin.
Bob
It's nervous laughter. They're afraid of her. They're obsessed with
her. This thread is one small example (of a much larger phenomenon),
and proves my point.
Marvin The Paranoid Android
I've posted 3 times in this thread (not counting this one of course).
I think you must be nearing 30.
And *I'm* obsessed? ;-)
McCain could've shown the religious right the door and gone with
Lieberman, an independent and a pro-Israel hawk and scored more votes
from the center than he got from the usual nut-job Palinists.
Cheers!
Doc
"Bob" <dst...@flashmail.com> wrote in message
news:b01e5da7-942c-4c73...@y10g2000prg.googlegroups.com...
On Nov 19, 7:52 pm, Jane <pushlin...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> On Nov 19, 10:46 pm, Bob <dste...@flashmail.com> wrote:
>
> > On Nov 19, 7:38 pm, Jane <pushlin...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > On Nov 19, 10:33 pm, Bob <steven.doug...@rocketmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > On Nov 19, 7:05 pm, Woodswun <woods...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > On Nov 19, 9:59 pm, "Dani" <purplewildflo...@live.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > > Quite frankly...Palin just does NOT have what it takes...by ANY
> > > > > > means!
>
> > > > > Nope. And she's a quitter.
>
> > > > And the left is more obsessed with her than ever.
>
> > > The left likes comedy, would be my guess!
>
> > They're not laughing. They're afraid of her. That's why they're doing
> > everything they can to diminish her standing as a serious person in
> > the political arena.
>
> I hear a great deal of laughter, actually...but suit yourself.
It's nervous laughter. They're afraid of her.
Admittedly, you may have something there.
http://media.dorks.com/content/pic/d10222008/hot_sarah_palin.jpg
Doc
"Bob" <steven....@rocketmail.com> wrote in message
news:5d2722dc-a2c8-479a...@m7g2000prd.googlegroups.com...
On Nov 19, 9:56 am, "Dani" <purplewildflo...@live.com> wrote:
>
> Exactly... I mean really... what's the f'in problem with her outfit? Just
> looks like she's been exercising, or she's just returned home from a jog
> or
> a bike ride.
There's nothing wrong with her outfit. She looks great, and that photo
is appropriate for Runner's World magazine. But it's not appropriate
for the cover of Newsweek.
>
> And as far as some saying she looks "Hott" .. ahhh... that outfit is QUITE
> tame if ya ask me!
>
> Ahhh... yet another reason Politics irks me such.
Newsweek used that photo in an effort to diminish Sarah Palin as a
serious person in the political arena. And judging by Doc's title for
this thread, they succeeded. At least here, and in every other place
where sleazeballs exist.
You were the FIRST person to dig into the sleazy details of Polanski's 13
year old love object, Samantha Geimer.
And then proceeded to spew out more of the sleazy testimony as the heated
argument ensued.
I can get the archival evidence on you in one or two minutes.
LOL!!
Doc
"◙ Republic of Australia☻☺☻" <sgde...@yahoo.ca> wrote in message
news:d9b0326a-9611-425b...@h14g2000pri.googlegroups.com...
HOOROO
UNCLE WALLY
▬
To be perfectly honest, and to contradict what Bob thinks I'm 'obsessed'
with, Palin's looks don't interest me.
Her politics, if they can be fairly termed that, are atrociously sleazy and
potentially dangerous.
Yet, with only 30% supporting her for Presidential material, I don't think
we have much to worry about.
Obama is doing a pretty good job so far, and it was one of the smarter
things voters did.
Of course, I will not be shocked to see impatience and propaganda fear
override that smartness a bit later, sending the lemmings to the 2012 polls
'mad as hell' and voting in another doofus, like Bush.
Doc
Jane
You think you do? Now, there's a joke!
Imagine yourself trying
> to stand up to what she's been standing up to. Talk about a joke. But
> who says she aspires to political office? Woods says she's finished.
> Yet Woods will continue to be obsessed with her.
>
Change it to 'aspired', then. No, I don't believe she aspires to it
anymore. She already quit. Now it's all about selling her flimsy book
and getting on the over of Newsweek in her cute little get-up. next
she'll turn up on 'Dancing With the Stars', or some such dreck.
>
> > Our *leaders*
> > (or wannabes) are held to higher standards. As they should be.
>
> She's very popular with her following. Far more popular than McCain
> ever was.
>
Jim Jones was popular with his following, too. Popularity with a
following means nothing, except that stupid people are easily led.
>
> > Public figures also set themselves up for ridicule when they behave
> > ridiculously. Live with it, Bobby.
>
> I just think it's funny that a nobody like you thinks (in your own
> mind) that you're somehow personally superior to Sarah Palin.
I don't think I'm superior to anyone. However, I will make fun of
ridiculous public figures, because they ask for it.
For a guy who gets all bent out of shape when someone makes so-called
false assumptions about him, you sure don't mind making them about
others!
Jane
> "Bob" <steven.doug...@rocketmail.com> wrote in message
We all remember Bobby wallowing in the salacious details, Doc!
Doc
"Marvin The Paranoid Android" <marvinpara...@hotmail.com> wrote in
message
news:44125542-b8e1-4488...@j14g2000yqm.googlegroups.com...
On Nov 19, 4:47 pm, Jane <pushlin...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> On Nov 19, 10:18 am, Bob <steven.doug...@rocketmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Nov 19, 2:40 am, Jane <pushlin...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > On Nov 18, 11:26 pm, Bob <steven.doug...@rocketmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > On Nov 18, 7:31 pm, Jane <pushlin...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > On Nov 18, 7:40 pm, Bob <steven.doug...@rocketmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > > On Nov 18, 1:27 pm, Jane <pushlin...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > > > On Nov 18, 10:02 am, Bob <steven.doug...@rocketmail.com>
>
> > > > > > > > On Nov 18, 4:31 am, Marvin The Paranoid Android
> > > > > > > > <marvinparanoidandr...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > > > > > On Nov 18, 1:10 am, "Doc" <cmdrl...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > > > > > >http://news.yahoo.com/s/ynews/20091117/pl_ynews/ynews_pl984
>
> > > > > > > > > > LOLOL!! !!
>
> > > > > > > > > > ;))~
>
> > > > > > > > > I was going to post this one too -- too funny.
>
> > > > > > > > Runner's World
> > > > > > > > magazine. That photo was not intended to be on the cover of
> > > > > > > > Newsweek,
> > > > > > > > which is obviously using it in the "mainstream" media's
> > > > > > > > continued
> > > > > > > > attempts to diminish her standing as a serious woman in the
> > > > > > > > political
> > > > > > > > arena.
>
> > > > > > > > I wonder how other women feel about the misuse of that
> > > > > > > > photo? Do they
> > > > > > > > care? Or is it all fair game because she's a woman they
> > > > > > > > don't like?
> > > > > > > > How would they feel if this was done to a woman they do
> > > > > > > > like? Would
> > > > > > > > they have a completely different reaction to it? And I
> > > > > > > > wonder if
> > > > > > > > supposedly enlightened men would be mocking and laughing at
> > > > > > > > a woman
> > > > > > > > they like, if (oh, say, for instance) Fox News purposely
> > > > > > > > tried to mock
> > > > > > > > and diminish a liberal woman?
>
> > > > > > > have their
> > > > > > > hair and make-up done to perfection before they go for a run,
> > > > > > > for one
> > > > > > > thing. She may well be a serious runner, but she certainly
> > > > > > > doesn't
> > > > > > > project that here.
>
> > > > > > The photo shoot was done for Runner's World magazine. If they
> > > > > > wanted
> > > > > > another look, don't you think they'd have given it to her?
>
> > > > > LOL!
>
> > > > That's it? No answer, just a simple LOL!? My question stands,
> > > > unanswered.
>
> > > > > > > She does, however, enhance her 'Barbie' look, :).
>
> > > > > > the
>
> > > gives her a chance to do her self-righteous whinge and get a pile of
> > > publicity at the same time. Not to mention, she gets to look hot on
> > > the cover of a magazine with far greater circulation than Runner's
> > > World.
>
> > > Naivity, thy name is Bob!
To summarize this thread, she's a shallow, self-obsessed idiot who is
the most bizarre thing to happen in U.S. politics.
McCain's defending his campaign team from her now. He's an idiot for
even tossing her onto the national political scene.
And, ya know, the really tragic secondary story is this undying 'obsession'
rightwingers have with her, defending a poor choice made, and compounding it
by suggesting their partisanship must stick with the demagogue until the
(bitter) end.
Their attempt to make criticism of Palin appear to be 'sexist' is simply
outrageous. It was the Left that first promoted a woman as VP, and supported
the women's rights movements, early in the 20th century, and later again,
that century.
It is the Left that encouraged Hillary Clinton to become the nation's first
top-running candidate of a major party. And so on...
Instead of tucking their enormous misplaced pride in their back pockets, and
proceeding to scout for and promote a more capable wannabe President, they,
instead, laughably, almost childishly fight with that 70% out there that
don't think she's qualified.
It's really 'do or die' time for Republicans, Marv.
They need to get off their proudful pedestals and get on with better
choices, better candidates, saner policies, and stop trying to more sharply
divide the already ideologically divided America into a vicious 'us versus
them' milieu while hypocritically toting the 'unity' of a 'superior nation'
out to liberate and reform folks from evil all over the globe.
While they whine over liberals lobbing lil' sarcastic bombs upon their Queen
of Alaska (self-dethroned), liberals are increasingly concerned with
rightwing death threats against the President.
I was reading this morning how threats to Obama being not-so-subtly couched
in Psalms verses and other 'holy' references are being circulated by far
rightwing christians and political radical offshoots.
http://features.csmonitor.com/politics/2009/11/16/biblical-anti-obama-slogan-use-of-psalm-1098-funny-or-sinister/
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ynews/ynews_ts950
The situation has grown intense and potentially quite dangerous for Obama,
and there is concern among leftists that it will spread to increased violent
threats to supporters of Obama.
Doc
Doc
Cheers!
Well, I'm pretty convinced their first female VP candidate was influenced
heavily by the high popularity of Clinton, and when Obama chose not to
include her on the ticket, or she turned it down (whichever, depending on
who you believe), I think the RNC was calling Johnny and telling the ol'
fart to go with a woman to hopefully steal some 'thunder' from the
historical Dem primary, that'd trumped them all year in publicity.
There was serious talk among conservatives that Palin would draw some
disgruntled Clintonites, but was dismissed a bit later as fantasy.
There was a sense of growing unease the Republicans were looking antiquated,
and losing the media spotlight too much.
Johnny touted himself as a maverick constantly, despite cozing up to Bush
policies more often than not, and I think he picked Palin partly because of
her maverick image. He admired her for her rebelliousness.
Secondly, I think he chose her because he was...well...having sexual
frigidity problems with his beer heiress wife, Cindy.
LOLOLOLOL!!
(Just kidding on the last one, just in case Baaawb blows another fuse.)
Doc ;))~~
Doc
"Jane" <pushl...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:259026c3-065a-4e0e...@j35g2000vbl.googlegroups.com...
On Nov 18, 11:13 pm, Bob <steven.doug...@rocketmail.com> wrote:
> On Nov 18, 6:24 pm, "Doc" <cmdrl...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > "Bob" <steven.doug...@rocketmail.com> wrote in message
>
>
> >>>Man, she seriously needs to get over herself. Since when is
> >>>publishing a photo of someone in running shorts "sexist"?!?
>
> > >On the cover of Newsweek? So you approve of Doc's title for this
> > >thread?
>
> > Oooooooh, so that's what your pissing your pants over? LOL!
> > I must've hit a nerve.
>
> What you did is prove my point before I made it. In addition, your
> title for this thread has shown that *some* women have no principled
> values. How they feel in any given situation is based entirely on
> politics. They hate Sarah Palin, so your title is just fine for her.
> But if I ever wrote something like that about some woman they like,
> all hell would break loose.
I keep forgetting to address this. When I first started at GM, there
were very few women working there. Photos of women (some naked and
spread-eagled) were posted all over the place. I figured 'when in
Rome' and started my own display of men (albeit, not naked). The guys
got a kick out of it.
That was then. Naturally, all such photos are banned these days, and
rightly so. However, I know that men without women around will post
photos. Likely some do post them in bathrooms and use them for...well,
you know.
Doc's headline offends me not in the least. That has nothing to do
with the subject of it, either. If Margaret Thatcher (the only woman
in politics I can think of offhand that I have admired) were more
attractive and Doc wrote the same headline about her, I still would
not be offended.
So don't make blanket statements about *women* when you have no idea
what you are talking about.
Thanks. I didn't choose the title solely from what I may think of her, but
gleaned it partly from widespread jokes about her, some appearing in that
vein on SNL, etc.
You can go back to June when Letterman 'offended' Palin cultists with a
mis-researched joke on her teen daughter, Palin, which Letterman thought was
with her at a baseball game. It was the 14 year old Willow, instead, and
rightwingers accused Letterman of deliberately maligning the underage girl
sexually, and additionally, trying to hurt an already self piss-stained
Sarah Palin.
I knew at that incredibly irrational moment, this furor over liberals coming
to power was going to go down into the 7 levels of stupid Hell before it
subsided.
We face much trouble as a nation in the years ahead from radicalized
rightwingers, 'rednecks', venting their anger and fears.
An insane situation, to be sure, totally unneeded, and ultimately
counter-productive to all, but that is the history of America.
It frequently turns on itself like a mad Rotweiler.
Doc
Bob
Your obsession with Palin did not begin with this thread. But it has
continued in this thread.
>
> I think you must be nearing 30.
I have several different posters replying to my posts. Responding to
multiple posters produces multiple posts.
>
> And *I'm* obsessed? ;-)
Yes!
>
> McCain could've shown the religious right the door and gone with
> Lieberman, an independent and a pro-Israel hawk and scored more votes
> from the center than he got from the usual nut-job Palinists.
But he'd have lost the conservative base. If you think a Republican
could win the White House without the conservative base, you know even
less about this country than I already think you do. McCain was not
going to win due to his own inept campaign strategy. Additionally,
Obama was a phenomenon who brought out first time voters in
overwhelming numbers. Despite all that, McCain got 56 million votes.
Palin didn't hurt him. His vote total would have been lower with
Lieberman.
Bob
>
> You were the FIRST person to dig into the sleazy details of Polanski's 13
> year old love object, Samantha Geimer.
I posted her court testimony to show you for the liar you are.
Bob
When I said you don't have what it takes, I was referring to those
times you ran whining and crying from the group. Imagine you standing
up to the level of personal attacks Sarah Palin has endured. That's
the joke. And I'm only saying this because you think you're qualified
to mock her on a personal level, as if you're somehow superior to her.
Now, would I be able to stand up to what Sarah Palin has gone through?
Probably not, though I would hang in longer than you would.
>
> >Imagine yourself trying
> > to stand up to what she's been standing up to. Talk about a joke. But
> > who says she aspires to political office? Woods says she's finished.
> > Yet Woods will continue to be obsessed with her.
>
> Change it to 'aspired', then. No, I don't believe she aspires to it
> anymore. She already quit. Now it's all about selling her flimsy book
> and getting on the over of Newsweek in her cute little get-up. next
> she'll turn up on 'Dancing With the Stars', or some such dreck.
Then why do you (and others) so obsessed (to the point of hatred) with
her?
>
> > > Our *leaders*
> > > (or wannabes) are held to higher standards. As they should be.
>
> > She's very popular with her following. Far more popular than McCain
> > ever was.
>
> Jim Jones was popular with his following, too.
No comparison. No, actually, that's a stupid comparison. Jim Jones had
a relatively tiny following. Sarah Palin has a rather large following.
In fact, her following far outnumbers the entire population of your
country. Do you seriously think Jim Jones was anywhere near that kind
of popularity? That's probably the most ridiculous thing you've ever
said here.
>
> Popularity with a
> following means nothing, except that stupid people are easily led.
Look at you sneering at millions of people. What makes you so special
that you think you're so much better (on a personal level) than
millions of other people?
>
> > > Public figures also set themselves up for ridicule when they behave
> > > ridiculously. Live with it, Bobby.
>
> > I just think it's funny that a nobody like you thinks (in your own
> > mind) that you're somehow personally superior to Sarah Palin.
>
> I don't think I'm superior to anyone.
Demonstrably false. You gave the demonstration just above when you
sneered at millions of people, and then again just below.
>
> However, I will make fun of
> ridiculous public figures, because they ask for it.
You're so wonderful. You're so much better (on a personal level) than
Sarah Palin (in your own mind).
>
> For a guy who gets all bent out of shape when someone makes so-called
> false assumptions about him, you sure don't mind making them about
> others!
What false assumption have I made about you?
Bob
>
> We all remember Bobby wallowing in the salacious details, Doc!
No, I wasn't "wallowing" in anything. I posted a court transcript to
show Doc for the sleazy liar that he is. But here you are, dangerously
close to going back on the apology you gave me, which involved the
subject you just raised. What type of person are you? Are you really a
nice person, or are you a vindictive bitch? Which is it?
Bob
>
> And, ya know, the really tragic secondary story is this undying 'obsession'
I'm not interested in your analysis, sleazeball.
Jane
"It's the same old story, same old song and dance, my friends..
It's the same old story, same old song and dance..."
Go figure! I promised Marvin I wouldn't do this anymore. Sorry to
disappoint.
>
> Now, would I be able to stand up to what Sarah Palin has gone through?
> Probably not, though I would hang in longer than you would.
>
>
>
> > >Imagine yourself trying
> > > to stand up to what she's been standing up to. Talk about a joke. But
> > > who says she aspires to political office? Woods says she's finished.
> > > Yet Woods will continue to be obsessed with her.
>
> > Change it to 'aspired', then. No, I don't believe she aspires to it
> > anymore. She already quit. Now it's all about selling her flimsy book
> > and getting on the over of Newsweek in her cute little get-up. next
> > she'll turn up on 'Dancing With the Stars', or some such dreck.
>
> Then why do you (and others) so obsessed (to the point of hatred) with
> her?
>
Except I'm not obsessed...being Canadian, she's actually fairly
irrelevant to me. however, I am aware of her and will contribute to
the discussion if I feel like doing so.
>
> > > > Our *leaders*
> > > > (or wannabes) are held to higher standards. As they should be.
>
> > > She's very popular with her following. Far more popular than McCain
> > > ever was.
>
> > Jim Jones was popular with his following, too.
>
> No comparison. No, actually, that's a stupid comparison. Jim Jones had
> a relatively tiny following. Sarah Palin has a rather large following.
> In fact, her following far outnumbers the entire population of your
> country. Do you seriously think Jim Jones was anywhere near that kind
> of popularity? That's probably the most ridiculous thing you've ever
> said here.
>
Ok. If J.J. is a bad example, I'll use Hitler. 'Popular' is not
indicative of anything but a charismatic person's ability to suck a
bunch of morons in.
>
> > Popularity with a
> > following means nothing, except that stupid people are easily led.
>
> Look at you sneering at millions of people. What makes you so special
> that you think you're so much better (on a personal level) than
> millions of other people?
I don't. Millions of Germans were not necessarily 'inferior' because
they chose to follow a charismatic maniac. They came to their senses.
Luckily, most Americans already have, too. You'll catch up someday,
Bobby.
>
>
>
> > > > Public figures also set themselves up for ridicule when they behave
> > > > ridiculously. Live with it, Bobby.
>
> > > I just think it's funny that a nobody like you thinks (in your own
> > > mind) that you're somehow personally superior to Sarah Palin.
>
> > I don't think I'm superior to anyone.
>
> Demonstrably false. You gave the demonstration just above when you
> sneered at millions of people, and then again just below.
You just have hard time processing complex ideas. If I think someone
is misled because they want to follow Caribou Barbie, it doesn't mean
I feel I am superior. See my Hitler comment, above.
>
>
>
> > However, I will make fun of
> > ridiculous public figures, because they ask for it.
>
> You're so wonderful. You're so much better (on a personal level) than
> Sarah Palin (in your own mind).
>
Nope. Never said such a thing. You're guilty of exactly what you have
accused me of doing many times recently.
>
> > For a guy who gets all bent out of shape when someone makes so-called
> > false assumptions about him, you sure don't mind making them about
> > others!
>
> What false assumption have I made about you?
See above.
Jane
Probably a vindictive bitch.
Sorta like when you said you'd *never* bring up my real name again
(after said apology) and then proceeded to do so shortly thereafter.
You get the same kind of treatment that you give, sweetheart.
Doc
I'm not the least interested in your diversion. LOL!!
Doc
What? LOL!!
heeheeheehee...
Liar?
You mean all the details of her getting screwed had to be aired to prove
your point that Polanski had admitted to illegal intercourse?
LOLOLOL!!
Please tell us how the ' innocent child' was raped, after she stripped off
her top for a photo shoot, took booze and a Quaalude (that she'd had
before), got naked in a hot tub, and then told the court she was 'scared' of
him.
Yet, the half-million private settlement has made her quite content and
secure these days.
And, the 'victim' no longer wants anything to do with it.
She even helped promote one of his movies in 2003, saying he was a creative
important filmmaker who deserved recognition.
Yes, please tell us again, junior, you sleazer.
Doc
Huh?
Why is it that you've made TWO separate denials to my ONE post?? LOL!!
You're not fooling anyone, you distracting lil' sleazer.
The contemptible problem with your disingenuous psychotic personality,
junior, is that you're unable to keep from rationalizing in yourself the
very 'sleazy' behavior you accuse others of.
I'd respect a man who is openly fascinated with sexual adventures and
crimes, but have no respect for one like you, who morally, hypocritically
lectures, while getting a prurient-interest rise outta', uh, um,
controversial sleazy human activity.
That is what it is for ya, ain't it?
Just you being 'socially concerned', not being like a repressed choirboy
telling your priest your secretive visits to free internet porn sites on the
church's computer was part of a sociological study meant to reveal the
'evil' of it, and help support action against it? LOL!!
Doc
Doc
Hah! You felt it necessary to repeat parts of that testimony and draw
reference to the URL source, over and over.
Are you a socially concerned prosecutor or just another usenet radical
junkie 'amusing' himself?
LOL!
Woodswun
> On Nov 19, 7:04 pm, Woodswun <woods...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Nov 19, 9:32 pm, Bob <steven.doug...@rocketmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > On Nov 19, 4:53 pm, Woodswun <woods...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > You know that Palin could have restricted Runner's World to only using
> > > > the photos in their own magazine for that one article, right?
>
> > > I'm sure she'll think of that in the future.
>
> > If she had been a serious political person, she would have thought of
> > that before posing for that set of photos in the first place.
>
> World's request for the profile and photo shoot if she'd known one of
> the photos would wind up on the cover of Newsweek.
And,. of course, she's never, ever lied or made anything up to cover
her backside ... 9_9
>Whoopi Goldberg
> said she doesn't think Palin would have given Newsweek such a photo if
> Newsweek told her it planned to use it on the cover. According to
> Whoppi, "Its a snipe." She also said women would be properly upset if
> Newsweek did that to Hillary Clinton. Whoopi said, correctly, that
> it's not about liberal or conservative, but about women.
What does some actress with a dead career have to do with anything at
all????
>But to a
> political animal like you, politics trumps all. Your hatred for Palin
> is showing.
What politics? Palin is out of politics.
Woods
Woodswun
> On Nov 19, 10:04 pm, Woodswun <woods...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > On Nov 19, 9:32 pm, Bob <steven.doug...@rocketmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > On Nov 19, 4:53 pm, Woodswun <woods...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > You know that Palin could have restricted Runner's World to only using
> > > > the photos in their own magazine for that one article, right?
>
> > > I'm sure she'll think of that in the future.
>
> > If she had been a serious political person, she would have thought of
> > that before posing for that set of photos in the first place.
>
>
> It's not rocket science. Hubby is an amateur photog who occasionally
> sells his pics. He sold a CD full to an interested company this summer
> and stipulated how they could be used.
Oh-hoooo .... is that right? Then she had to have known that SI could
resell the photos and she actively chose not to get a contract that
said they couldn't. LOL!
>
> Now, we all know that Sarah is no rocket-scientist, lol, but I am sure
> she far less upset about that pic than her Battery-Operated Boyfriend
> is!
Her hubby probably planned the press coverage for all this. I don't
think she's bright enough to have figure out that much.
Too funny - she's having the last laugh on her devoted followers. :-
D
Woods
Woodswun
> On Nov 19, 7:38 pm, Jane <pushlin...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Nov 19, 10:33 pm, Bob <steven.doug...@rocketmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > On Nov 19, 7:05 pm, Woodswun <woods...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > On Nov 19, 9:59 pm, "Dani" <purplewildflo...@live.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > Quite frankly...Palin just does NOT have what it takes...by ANY means!
>
> > > > Nope. And she's a quitter.
>
> > > And the left is more obsessed with her than ever.
>
> > The left likes comedy, would be my guess!
>
> everything they can to diminish her standing as a serious person in
> the political arena.
LOL!
Nobody forced her to have a photo shoot in short shorts or write a
book that was more loosely based on reality than a Disney flick.
She's the one making herself a laughing stock and a non-contender in
the political arena. Nobody, and I mean nobody, else could do nearly
as good a job at making her look like a brainless bimbo than herself!
Woods
Woodswun
So now women who can stand up for themselves are "vindictive bitches",
but if they let you walk all over them, then their a "nice person"?
Nice double standard ya got there ...
Woods
Jane
Men like Bob fear strong women. That's why they gravitate to bimbos
like Sarah.
Doc
Possibly, he more fears people will find out he's not strong. Beating up on
women is a great "diversion".
Baaaawb's beginning to look more and more like the crazy paranoid character
Bogart played in "The Caine Mutiny".
Just substitute his fears about his crew with Baaawb's fears about
'leftists, liberals, Democrats" ... it all fits, eerily. Although Caine is a
commander, and Baaawb's not, and this isn't his 'crew', you can see that he
expects us to get inline with him or suffer derogatory labeling, harassment,
obsessive citing, etc.
LOL!!!!
Jane
> "Jane" <pushlin...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
'Obsessive citing'. I love it! The irony is, if you post a peer-
reviewed journal article, Bobby-Baby ignores it. He prefers more
dubious cites, lol.
Woodswun
I don't think Bob understands the significance of an article that's
published in a peer-reviewed journal.
Woods
Bob
>
> On Nov 19, 10:32 pm, Bob <steven.doug...@rocketmail.com> wrote:
>
> > On Nov 19, 7:04 pm, Woodswun <woods...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > On Nov 19, 9:32 pm, Bob <steven.doug...@rocketmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > On Nov 19, 4:53 pm, Woodswun <woods...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > You know that Palin could have restricted Runner's World to only using
> > > > > the photos in their own magazine for that one article, right?
>
> > > > I'm sure she'll think of that in the future.
>
> > > If she had been a serious political person, she would have thought of
> > > that before posing for that set of photos in the first place.
>
> > She told Barbara Walters that she wouldn't have accepted Runner's
> > World's request for the profile and photo shoot if she'd known one of
> > the photos would wind up on the cover of Newsweek.
>
> And,. of course, she's never, ever lied or made anything up to cover
> her backside ... 9_9
You're so wrong, so often, that your speculation is entirely
irrelevant.
>
> >Whoopi Goldberg
> > said she doesn't think Palin would have given Newsweek such a photo if
> > Newsweek told her it planned to use it on the cover. According to
> > Whoppi, "Its a snipe." She also said women would be properly upset if
> > Newsweek did that to Hillary Clinton. Whoopi said, correctly, that
> > it's not about liberal or conservative, but about women.
>
> What does some actress with a dead career have to do with anything at
> all????
She's a woman. A liberal woman. I don't usually agree with Whoopi, but
in this case I respect her opinion far more than I do yours or the
vindictive bitch's.
>
> >But to a
> > political animal like you, politics trumps all. Your hatred for Palin
> > is showing.
>
> What politics? Palin is out of politics.
Your politics. And if Palin is out of politics. why is the left so
obsessed with her?
Bob
> On Nov 20, 11:36 am, Bob <steven.doug...@rocketmail.com> wrote:
>
> > On Nov 20, 2:57 am, Jane <pushlin...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > We all remember Bobby wallowing in the salacious details, Doc!
>
> > No, I wasn't "wallowing" in anything. I posted a court transcript to
> > show Doc for the sleazy liar that he is. But here you are, dangerously
> > close to going back on the apology you gave me, which involved the
> > subject you just raised. What type of person are you? Are you really a
> > nice person, or are you a vindictive bitch? Which is it?
>
> Probably a vindictive bitch.
Nothing "probably" about it.
>
> Sorta like when you said you'd *never* bring up my real name again
> (after said apology) and then proceeded to do so shortly thereafter.
I NEVER mentioned your real name. I mentioned *one* initial. And
because I mentioned *one* initial, you'd think I had raped a 13-year-
old girl ... no, wait, if I'd done that, I'd have been applauded
around here. So mentioning *one* initial is worse than raping a 13-
year-old girl. Imagine that.
>
> You get the same kind of treatment that you give, sweetheart.
What have I done that is so bad that you're on the verge of
withdrawing your original apology? I've asked you this before, and you
haven't been able to come up with an answer. Seriously, what have I
done that is so bad that you've become this vindictive bitch you've
become?
Bob
No, I love strong women. That leaves you out, because you're about as
weak as they come.
>
> That's why they gravitate to bimbos like Sarah.
As a strong woman, she's got you beat by infinite proportions. You're
a weaking.
Bob
> reviewed journal article, Bobby-Baby ignores it. He prefers more
> dubious cites, lol.
Dubious cites? Can you show an example of what you're talking about,
vindictive bitch?