Liberals are just plain mean
dene
to the nth degree. What would happen if a conservative magazine put Obama
on their cover, in a watermelon patch? The double standard is amazing.
I can't wait to see them get what's coming to them in 2010 and 2012. Middle
America sees through this hypocrisy, which is precisely why Fox News has
become so successful now. Whereas, the Left continued to delude themselves
with their haughtiness and arrogance. Tsk..tsk..they say. Will the sheep
ever evolve??
-Greg
bkn...@conramp.net
wrote:
Sexism? That picture wasn't shot without her knowledge. She posed
for it.
She's an airhead and is now really being shown as that by the
McCain campaign advisors. Palin is only good for the GOP by raising
money from the far right, and her approval rating is around 28%.
Blather, blather, blather.
BK
Howard Brazee
wrote:
>I cite the cover of Newsweek, showing Sarah Palin in a running suit. Sexism
>to the nth degree. What would happen if a conservative magazine put Obama
>on their cover, in a watermelon patch? The double standard is amazing.
I don't get it. What does a running suit have to do with anything
except being fit? Is there some unknown stereotype of women with
running suits?
(I suspect she would have approved of such a photo).
--
"In no part of the constitution is more wisdom to be found,
than in the clause which confides the question of war or peace
to the legislature, and not to the executive department."
- James Madison
William Clark
bkn...@conramp.net wrote:
Hey, back off this. The longer these idiots think that Eskimo Barbie is
the future of the GoP and the Right, the longer the electorate will keep
them out of government.
She does indeed have a 60% negative rating. Of course, compared to
Dubya's exit readings, that isn't bad. Maybe it has become the new
wingnut calibration.
Frank Ketchum
<bkn...@conramp.net> wrote in message
news:nen7g5t71gk535nhs...@4ax.com...
>
> She's an airhead and is now really being shown as that by the
> McCain campaign advisors. Palin is only good for the GOP by raising
> money from the far right, and her approval rating is around 28%.
Well, first where is your source for the stat you cite?
Second, she's not in office or running for office. What relevance would an
approval rating have?
Your side's reaction to the woman is one reason why many on the right like
her.
MNMikeW
Approval rating for what exactly? It is simply amazing how she drives the
leftards insane. But the left does need something to distract from Obamas
disasterous administration.
bkn...@conramp.net
There's no way that the GOP will give her a scintilla of a shot at
running on their platform. She's screwed that up but good.
bk
bkn...@conramp.net
<nos...@thanksanyway.com> wrote:
>
><bkn...@conramp.net> wrote in message
>news:nen7g5t71gk535nhs...@4ax.com...
>>
>> She's an airhead and is now really being shown as that by the
>> McCain campaign advisors. Palin is only good for the GOP by raising
>> money from the far right, and her approval rating is around 28%.
>
>Well, first where is your source for the stat you cite?
The numbers vary, but here's a good cross-section of the polls.
>
>Second, she's not in office or running for office. What relevance would an
>approval rating have?
You really are smarter than that aren't you Frank?
>
>Your side's reaction to the woman is one reason why many on the right like
>her.
>
Not many like her at all, and "my side" was with McCain until he
picked her as a running mate. Bad idea.
BK
bkn...@conramp.net
wrote:
Approval rating for idiocy I guess.
http://features.csmonitor.com/politics/2009/11/17/sarah-palin-going-rogue-to-the-white-house-polls-say-no/
She drove me insane with her over-the-top, cutsey, unprofessional mien
to begin with. As I said, she turned me off of the McCain ticket.
The Obama administration has a long way to go, but it damned sure
isn't time to call disaster yet.
BK
bkn...@conramp.net
>On Wed, 18 Nov 2009 09:03:16 -0500, "Frank Ketchum"
><nos...@thanksanyway.com> wrote:
>
>>
>><bkn...@conramp.net> wrote in message
>>news:nen7g5t71gk535nhs...@4ax.com...
>>>
>>> She's an airhead and is now really being shown as that by the
>>> McCain campaign advisors. Palin is only good for the GOP by raising
>>> money from the far right, and her approval rating is around 28%.
>>
>>Well, first where is your source for the stat you cite?
>
>The numbers vary, but here's a good cross-section of the polls.
Oops. The link didn't print.
BK
William Clark
bkn...@conramp.net wrote:
Or time to call for Palin, either.
William Clark
bkn...@conramp.net wrote:
But do you think that the GoP's disapproval will stop her or the loony
right from pushing herself front and center into the limelight? With
Faux News on her side, the entertainment should go on for a while yet :-)
Frank Ketchum
<bkn...@conramp.net> wrote in message
news:lp58g5dce7rk8n32m...@4ax.com...
>>
>>Second, she's not in office or running for office. What relevance would
>>an
>>approval rating have?
>
> You really are smarter than that aren't you Frank?
No Bobby, I am obviously too stupid to understand why the approval rating of
a non-candidate matters 3 years before an election. Why don't you grace us
with the sheer magnitude of your towering intellect and explain it? Please
be sure to dumb it down enough so that the rest of us can grasp it.
Or is your only move to constantly insult the intelligence of anyone who has
a different opinion than you?
dene
<bkn...@conramp.net> wrote in message
news:nen7g5t71gk535nhs...@4ax.com...
> On Tue, 17 Nov 2009 23:32:48 -0800, "dene" <de...@remove.ipns.com>
> wrote:
>
> >I cite the cover of Newsweek, showing Sarah Palin in a running suit.
Sexism
> >to the nth degree. What would happen if a conservative magazine put
Obama
> >on their cover, in a watermelon patch? The double standard is
amazing.
> >
> >I can't wait to see them get what's coming to them in 2010 and 2012.
Middle
> >America sees through this hypocrisy, which is precisely why Fox News has
> >become so successful now. Whereas, the Left continued to delude
themselves
> >with their haughtiness and arrogance. Tsk..tsk..they say. Will the
sheep
> >ever evolve??
> >
> >-Greg
> >
> Sexism? That picture wasn't shot without her knowledge. She posed
> for it.
She posed for Runner's World. Newsweek, without her knowledge, used that
photograph. Explain why if you don't accept my view that it was done out of
spite.
> She's an airhead and is now really being shown as that by the
> McCain campaign advisors. Palin is only good for the GOP by raising
> money from the far right, and her approval rating is around 28%.
And there is a larger percentage who haven't made up their mind about her.
> Blather, blather, blather.
That describes your "argument." You fail to miss the point. It's not about
Palin. It's about how liberals act when faced with somebody who disagrees
with them. You are a classic example of that in here.
-Greg
dene
"William Clark" <cl...@nospam.matsceng.ohio-state.edu> wrote in message
news:clark-1E808C....@charm.magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu...
> >
> > There's no way that the GOP will give her a scintilla of a shot at
> > running on their platform. She's screwed that up but good.
> >
> > bk
>
> But do you think that the GoP's disapproval will stop her or the loony
> right from pushing herself front and center into the limelight? With
> Faux News on her side, the entertainment should go on for a while yet :-)
It doesn't really matter who is presented. They will soundly beat the empty
suit and his bizarre policies.
-Greg
dene
<bkn...@conramp.net> wrote in message
news:lp58g5dce7rk8n32m...@4ax.com...
> On Wed, 18 Nov 2009 09:03:16 -0500, "Frank Ketchum"
> <nos...@thanksanyway.com> wrote:
>
> >
> ><bkn...@conramp.net> wrote in message
> >news:nen7g5t71gk535nhs...@4ax.com...
> >>
> >> She's an airhead and is now really being shown as that by the
> >> McCain campaign advisors. Palin is only good for the GOP by raising
> >> money from the far right, and her approval rating is around 28%.
> >
> >Well, first where is your source for the stat you cite?
>
> The numbers vary, but here's a good cross-section of the polls.
That's a fair assessement.
> >Second, she's not in office or running for office. What relevance would
an
> >approval rating have?
>
> You really are smarter than that aren't you Frank?
Notice the rancor and insults when the liberal is challenged, Frank?
> >Your side's reaction to the woman is one reason why many on the right
like
> >her.
> >
> Not many like her at all, and "my side" was with McCain until he
> picked her as a running mate. Bad idea.
Disingenous. Bobby hasn't voted for a Republican since Ike.
-Greg
dene
"Frank Ketchum" <nos...@thanksanyway.com> wrote in message
news:WmVMm.34475$Xf2....@newsfe12.iad...
Liberal M.O. This is how their side operates and it will be a key reason
why they will rule the Congress for only one more year.
-Greg
dene
She's not going to be nominated. But....she will effectively galvanize the
party and remind middle America about the traditional values they hold dear,
in contrast to psuedo-intellectual blather and Hollywood.
-Greg
bkn...@conramp.net
Holy shit Frank. This wasn't an opinion. You asked about approval
ratings and I gave you a link. Approval is approval whether or not
someone may be running for office. Ask all of the pollsters about the
relevance.
Your intelligence was insulted by you, not I.
Dumbed down enough for you? I'm pretty sure most everyone else
understood it.
BK
bkn...@conramp.net
wrote:
>
><bkn...@conramp.net> wrote in message
>>
>> Sexism? That picture wasn't shot without her knowledge. She posed
>> for it.
>
>She posed for Runner's World. Newsweek, without her knowledge, used that
>photograph. Explain why if you don't accept my view that it was done out of
>spite.
Why she would have allowed such a picture in the first place? Is this
something that any reasonable woman running for vice-president would
do? I have no idea whether or not it was done in spite, and neither
do you. The bottom line is that the picture is out there, and she
knew it.
Explain why you don't think that she's delighted to have something
else to hype her book? I think that she welcomed the Newsweek cover.
>
>> She's an airhead and is now really being shown as that by the
>> McCain campaign advisors. Palin is only good for the GOP by raising
>> money from the far right, and her approval rating is around 28%.
>
>And there is a larger percentage who haven't made up their mind about her.
>
>> Blather, blather, blather.
>
>That describes your "argument." You fail to miss the point. It's not about
>Palin. It's about how liberals act when faced with somebody who disagrees
>with them. You are a classic example of that in here.
>
>-Greg
>
Its about Palin. Get back when you have an original idea.
K
bkn...@conramp.net
wrote:
How the hell would you know who anyone else voted for unless they tell
you? More of your self-importance showing...TITPB. LOL
I didn't think you read my posts. Liar.
BK
bkn...@conramp.net
wrote:
As usual, you're so far wrong its funny. If the GOP wins it sure
won't have a thing to do with Sara Palin...the laughingstock of
politicians everywhere.
BK
Chris Bellomy
> I cite the cover of Newsweek, showing Sarah Palin in a running suit. Sexism
> to the nth degree. What would happen if a conservative magazine put Obama
> on their cover, in a watermelon patch?
If Obama posed for a magazine cover in a watermelon patch, Newsweek
would be right to use it.
I fixed your headers for you.
cb
Frank Ketchum
<bkn...@conramp.net> wrote in message
news:1ra8g55ul78hskem3...@4ax.com...
>>>>
>>>>Second, she's not in office or running for office. What relevance would
>>>>an
>>>>approval rating have?
>>>
>>> You really are smarter than that aren't you Frank?
>>
>>No Bobby, I am obviously too stupid to understand why the approval rating
>>of
>>a non-candidate matters 3 years before an election. Why don't you grace
>>us
>>with the sheer magnitude of your towering intellect and explain it?
>>Please
>>be sure to dumb it down enough so that the rest of us can grasp it.
>>
>>Or is your only move to constantly insult the intelligence of anyone who
>>has
>>a different opinion than you?
>
> Holy shit Frank. This wasn't an opinion. You asked about approval
> ratings and I gave you a link. Approval is approval whether or not
> someone may be running for office. Ask all of the pollsters about the
> relevance.
Wrong. Get your facts straight. I asked you for your source for the
rating. You provided that. I also asked about the RELEVANCE of the
approval rating. Instead of answering that question you insult my
intelligence. I then ask you again what relevance the approval rating has
and you again dodge the question pretending that I suggested the approval
rating itself is opinion. Ask the pollsters about the relevance?
Translation - it has no relevance but you won't admit it.
>
> Your intelligence was insulted by you, not I.
>
> Dumbed down enough for you? I'm pretty sure most everyone else
> understood it.
Everyone understands perfectly how full of shit you are any time Palin is
the subject of discussion.
Dinosaur_Sr
Funny how they don't run the photo of Obama 90% nude! It's OK for a
man to be a beefcake though! The real hypocrites are the feminists,
obviously. Apparently in fact women can't choose their own way in
life! Few people are as successful as Palin, man or woman, she has 5
kids, and her family is strong...but that's not what feminists want
apparently. You are supposed to be some uptight bimbo living in a
rathole like NYC...like say Caroline Kennedy...and there's an airhead
for ya...I'd love to see a debate between Palin and Caroline Kennedy.
The great thing about all this is Palin is smart and she is not going
to go away, and as time passes everyone but the committed kooks on the
left will see the sexism. The ridiculous closeups on the Baba Wawa
(the name the sexist left gave to Barbara Walters) interview made ABC
look very tacky, which they are of course. She also exposes the out of
touch elitism of a lot of politics and the media, a person from Idaho
cannot possibly run the country can they...you have to go to the
"right" schools and come from the "right" background...like Tim
Geithner or Barak Obama, or the Bushes, or Jimmy Carter...and look at
what a great job they did compared to outsiders like Clinton and
Reagan!
bkn...@conramp.net
Wrong. Its inane for you to ask ME the relevance of polls. There are
dozens of them on this topic, the relevance is obvious, and up to the
pollsters.
>>
>> Your intelligence was insulted by you, not I.
>>
>> Dumbed down enough for you? I'm pretty sure most everyone else
>> understood it.
>
>Everyone understands perfectly how full of shit you are any time Palin is
>the subject of discussion.
FOS because I see a woman who has absolutely no background that
affords her any thought for national office?
She attended Hawaii Pacific College in Hilo, Hawaii, in 1982 for a
semester, where she majored in Business Administration, and
transferred in 1983 to North Idaho College for the 1983-1984 school
year. Then to Matanuska-Susitna College in Alaska for one term
before transferring back to the University of Idaho the following year
where she finished out her college education and received a Bachelor
of Science degree in communications-journalism from the University of
Idaho in 1987. Five schools to get a communications degree?
Bingo...well educated to be the vice-president! Not. Anyone that
lets Katie Couric rattle them is a joke.
Seems that the McCain advisory group that worked closely with her
during the election may be in agreement with my thoughts. She's not
only out of her league, but a liar.
As far as being full of shit about Palin, anyone that buys anything
other than that she's a bimbo is just that. She's a cartoon.
BK
Frank Ketchum
<bkn...@conramp.net> wrote in message
news:rid8g5pj0mj5bf0kp...@4ax.com...
> Wrong. Its inane for you to ask ME the relevance of polls. There are
> dozens of them on this topic, the relevance is obvious, and up to the
> pollsters.
Obvious and up to the pollsters? You are in rare form today.
>
> FOS because I see a woman who has absolutely no background that
> affords her any thought for national office?
>
> She attended Hawaii Pacific College in Hilo, Hawaii, in 1982 for a
> semester, where she majored in Business Administration, and
> transferred in 1983 to North Idaho College for the 1983-1984 school
> year. Then to Matanuska-Susitna College in Alaska for one term
> before transferring back to the University of Idaho the following year
> where she finished out her college education and received a Bachelor
> of Science degree in communications-journalism from the University of
> Idaho in 1987. Five schools to get a communications degree?
> Bingo...well educated to be the vice-president! Not. Anyone that
> lets Katie Couric rattle them is a joke.
It is pretty amusing to watch you Palin haters continue to ignore the fact
that she was the governor of a state. Contrast that with all of your
stammering around grasping for an answer when asked during the campaign last
summer about precisely what qualified the first term junior senator Obama to
be president. The consensus seemed to be that he had been a community
organizer. You can't make this stuff up. But Palin is the one unqualified
for national office.
> Seems that the McCain advisory group that worked closely with her
> during the election may be in agreement with my thoughts. She's not
> only out of her league, but a liar.
>
> As far as being full of shit about Palin, anyone that buys anything
> other than that she's a bimbo is just that. She's a cartoon.
Even more amusing is to watch you insist that she sank McCain. You seem to
forget that the McCain campaign was in the toilet until he added her to the
ticket. It was after she was added that he pulled up close to Obama in the
polls and finished there.
bkn...@conramp.net
<nos...@thanksanyway.com> wrote:
>
><bkn...@conramp.net> wrote in message
>> Holy shit Frank. This wasn't an opinion. You asked about approval
>> ratings and I gave you a link. Approval is approval whether or not
>> someone may be running for office. Ask all of the pollsters about the
>> relevance.
>
>Wrong. Get your facts straight. I asked you for your source for the
>rating. You provided that. I also asked about the RELEVANCE of the
>approval rating. Instead of answering that question you insult my
>intelligence. I then ask you again what relevance the approval rating has
>and you again dodge the question pretending that I suggested the approval
>rating itself is opinion. Ask the pollsters about the relevance?
>Translation - it has no relevance but you won't admit it.
This is really bugging me. Why on earth did you ask me to defend the
Christian Science Monitor, CBS, Fox News, CNN, and several other
polling groups who have run approval ratings for Palin? There's no
dodge, because I don't know, nor care, why they do it. How can I
admit knowledge of their policies, unknown to me, and explain their
reasoning of relevance?
I thought that you would see this immediately because your posts are
generally well thought out and concise. It surprised me that it
escaped you
BK
Frank Ketchum
<bkn...@conramp.net> wrote in message
news:8eg8g5lprmkuq1jen...@4ax.com...
>
> This is really bugging me. Why on earth did you ask me to defend the
> Christian Science Monitor, CBS, Fox News, CNN, and several other
> polling groups who have run approval ratings for Palin? There's no
> dodge, because I don't know, nor care, why they do it. How can I
> admit knowledge of their policies, unknown to me, and explain their
> reasoning of relevance?
>
> I thought that you would see this immediately because your posts are
> generally well thought out and concise. It surprised me that it
> escaped you
I want to know what you think the relevance is of a poll of a non-candidate,
3 years prior to an election. Why on earth would you bring it up if you
didn't think it was relevant? It doesn't make any sense.
bkn...@conramp.net
<nos...@thanksanyway.com> wrote:
>
><bkn...@conramp.net> wrote in message
>news:rid8g5pj0mj5bf0kp...@4ax.com...
>It is pretty amusing to watch you Palin haters continue to ignore the fact
>that she was the governor of a state.
Jimmie Davis, a country western singer, was governor of Louisiana.
Jesse Ventura, wrestler, was governor of Minnesota.
Mark Sanford, South Carolina.
Blagojevich.
Being a governor doesn't necessarily make you very smart, or
especially, qualified to be a heart beat away from the POUS..
>Contrast that with all of your
>stammering around grasping for an answer when asked during the campaign last
>summer about precisely what qualified the first term junior senator Obama to
>be president. The consensus seemed to be that he had been a community
>organizer. You can't make this stuff up. But Palin is the one unqualified
>for national office.
>
You aren't directing this to me personally I hope. I thought McCain
was more qualified until he brought in the bimbo.
>> Seems that the McCain advisory group that worked closely with her
>> during the election may be in agreement with my thoughts. She's not
>> only out of her league, but a liar.
>>
No response to this Frank??
>> As far as being full of shit about Palin, anyone that buys anything
>> other than that she's a bimbo is just that. She's a cartoon.
>
>Even more amusing is to watch you insist that she sank McCain. You seem to
>forget that the McCain campaign was in the toilet until he added her to the
>ticket. It was after she was added that he pulled up close to Obama in the
>polls and finished there.
How did that finally work out for him? He lost. IMO because of her.
bkn...@conramp.net
Again, I don't make policy for those people, and anything I think
about it is personal. Why are you so interested in my opinion?
OK then... I think its just a running picture of where any politician
who may be seeking the presidency happens to fit in the mix at a given
time. What else could it be?
Relevant to you? Maybe not, but the pollsters have to have a reason
for it.
BK
Frank Ketchum
<bkn...@conramp.net> wrote in message
news:g3h8g5hvjlcb8re20...@4ax.com...
>
> Being a governor doesn't necessarily make you very smart, or
> especially, qualified to be a heart beat away from the POUS..
I didn't suggest that it did. I just point out that none of her critics
that claim she is unqualified ever mention her governorship.
>>Contrast that with all of your
>>stammering around grasping for an answer when asked during the campaign
>>last
>>summer about precisely what qualified the first term junior senator Obama
>>to
>>be president. The consensus seemed to be that he had been a community
>>organizer. You can't make this stuff up. But Palin is the one
>>unqualified
>>for national office.
>>
>
> You aren't directing this to me personally I hope. I thought McCain
> was more qualified until he brought in the bimbo.
Was directed at Palin haters. I don't remember specifically if you
personally ever attempted to explain why Obama was qualified. No response
otherwise?
>>> Seems that the McCain advisory group that worked closely with her
>>> during the election may be in agreement with my thoughts. She's not
>>> only out of her league, but a liar.
>>>
>
> No response to this Frank??
Who knows how much truth there is to it. It is sure plausible that this is
a classic case of scapegoating.
>
>>> As far as being full of shit about Palin, anyone that buys anything
>>> other than that she's a bimbo is just that. She's a cartoon.
>>
>>Even more amusing is to watch you insist that she sank McCain. You seem
>>to
>>forget that the McCain campaign was in the toilet until he added her to
>>the
>>ticket. It was after she was added that he pulled up close to Obama in
>>the
>>polls and finished there.
>
> How did that finally work out for him? He lost. IMO because of her.
And your take on the fact that he was far behind Obama and then drew close
after Palin's selection? You seem a bit blinded to reality by the way that
she struck you personally.
The irony here is that you and I don't really disagree that much when it
comes to her. I am not a fan of hers at all. I can't stand the way she
talks with that country bumpkin, aw shucks claptrap. It drives me crazy.
But how a person speaks is not how I decide for whom I will vote. It is not
an indicator of how well they can govern. We had a well spoken candidate
win the presidency last year and how is that working? So far, like shit.
bkn...@conramp.net
<nos...@thanksanyway.com> wrote:
>
><bkn...@conramp.net> wrote in message
>news:g3h8g5hvjlcb8re20...@4ax.com...
>>>> Seems that the McCain advisory group that worked closely with her
>>>> during the election may be in agreement with my thoughts. She's not
>>>> only out of her league, but a liar.
>>>>
>>
>> No response to this Frank??
>
>Who knows how much truth there is to it. It is sure plausible that this is
>a classic case of scapegoating.
>
>in
Were that so it would've come well before now. They are just
responding to her book, calling it fiction.
>>
>>>> As far as being full of shit about Palin, anyone that buys anything
>>>> other than that she's a bimbo is just that. She's a cartoon.
>>>
>>>Even more amusing is to watch you insist that she sank McCain. You seem
>>>to
>>>forget that the McCain campaign was in the toilet until he added her to
>>>the
>>>ticket. It was after she was added that he pulled up close to Obama in
>>>the
>>>polls and finished there.
>>
>> How did that finally work out for him? He lost. IMO because of her.
>
>And your take on the fact that he was far behind Obama and then drew close
>after Palin's selection? You seem a bit blinded to reality by the way that
>she struck you personally.
>
The reality is that they lost and her popularity is half that of
Obama's according to those polls.
>The irony here is that you and I don't really disagree that much when it
>comes to her. I am not a fan of hers at all. I can't stand the way she
>talks with that country bumpkin, aw shucks claptrap. It drives me crazy.
>But how a person speaks is not how I decide for whom I will vote. It is not
>an indicator of how well they can govern. We had a well spoken candidate
>win the presidency last year and how is that working? So far, like shit.
>
How well did Palin handle Alaska? To paraphrase Horvath, that ain't
leadership to leave halfway through her term. I'm with you though on
her cutesy crap. That is NOT presidential.
I still have hopes that Obama can get things straight in time. Its an
old saw, but he inherited more problems than any president in history,
and he's only had 11 months to make any headway.
BK
Don Kirkman
<clark-4931D1....@charm.magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu>:
>In article <qu58g59429raue5k4...@4ax.com>,
> bkn...@conramp.net wrote:
>> On Wed, 18 Nov 2009 09:35:50 -0600, "MNMikeW" <MNMi...@aol.com>
>> wrote:
>> ><bkn...@conramp.net> wrote in message
>> >news:nen7g5t71gk535nhs...@4ax.com...
>> >> On Tue, 17 Nov 2009 23:32:48 -0800, "dene" <de...@remove.ipns.com>
>> >> wrote:
>> >> Sexism? That picture wasn't shot without her knowledge. She posed
>> >> for it.
>> >> She's an airhead and is now really being shown as that by the
>> >> McCain campaign advisors. Palin is only good for the GOP by raising
>> >> money from the far right, and her approval rating is around 28%.
>> >> Blather, blather, blather.
>> >Approval rating for what exactly? It is simply amazing how she drives the
>> >leftards insane. But the left does need something to distract from Obamas
>> >disasterous administration.
>> Approval rating for idiocy I guess.
>> http://features.csmonitor.com/politics/2009/11/17/sarah-palin-going-rogue-to-t
>> he-white-house-polls-say-no/
>> She drove me insane with her over-the-top, cutsey, unprofessional mien
>> to begin with. As I said, she turned me off of the McCain ticket.
>> The Obama administration has a long way to go, but it damned sure
>> isn't time to call disaster yet.
>Or time to call for Palin, either.
Aren't you repeating what Bobby wrote?
--
Don Kirkman
don...@charter.net
Don Kirkman
<7minbcF...@mid.individual.net>:
>
><bkn...@conramp.net> wrote in message
>news:nen7g5t71gk535nhs...@4ax.com...
>> On Tue, 17 Nov 2009 23:32:48 -0800, "dene" <de...@remove.ipns.com>
>> wrote:
>> >I cite the cover of Newsweek, showing Sarah Palin in a running suit.
>Sexism
>> >to the nth degree. What would happen if a conservative magazine put
>Obama
>> >on their cover, in a watermelon patch? The double standard is
>amazing.
>> Sexism? That picture wasn't shot without her knowledge. She posed
>> for it.
>She posed for Runner's World. Newsweek, without her knowledge, used that
>photograph. Explain why if you don't accept my view that it was done out of
>spite.
Haven't you noticed everybody's talking about whether she's running or
not? The running togs are a visual allusion.
--
Don Kirkman
don...@charter.net
MNMikeW
<bkn...@conramp.net> wrote in message
news:u558g51ks1o5a5jkr...@4ax.com...
> On Wed, 18 Nov 2009 08:13:20 -0500, William Clark
> <cl...@nospam.matsceng.ohio-state.edu> wrote:
>
>>In article <nen7g5t71gk535nhs...@4ax.com>,
>> bkn...@conramp.net wrote:
>>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>> >I cite the cover of Newsweek, showing Sarah Palin in a running suit.
>>> >Sexism
>>> >to the nth degree. What would happen if a conservative magazine put
>>> >Obama
>>> >on their cover, in a watermelon patch? The double standard is
>>> >amazing.
>>> >
>>> >Middle
>>> >America sees through this hypocrisy, which is precisely why Fox News
>>> >has
>>> >become so successful now. Whereas, the Left continued to delude
>>> >themselves
>>> >with their haughtiness and arrogance. Tsk..tsk..they say. Will the
>>> >sheep
>>> >ever evolve??
>>> >
>>> >-Greg
>>> >
>>> for it.
>>>
>>> McCain campaign advisors. Palin is only good for the GOP by raising
>>> money from the far right, and her approval rating is around 28%.
>>>
>>> Blather, blather, blather.
>>>
>>
>>Hey, back off this. The longer these idiots think that Eskimo Barbie is
>>the future of the GoP and the Right, the longer the electorate will keep
>>them out of government.
>>
>
> running on their platform. She's screwed that up but good.
>
> bk
Yes, I hope they have learned their lesson this time around.
Frank Ketchum
<bkn...@conramp.net> wrote in message
news:bmj8g55q0gnmplect...@4ax.com...
> Were that so it would've come well before now. They are just
> responding to her book, calling it fiction.
The McCain campaign began dumping on Palin as soon as the election was over
Bobby. You must have missed it.
> How well did Palin handle Alaska? To paraphrase Horvath, that ain't
> leadership to leave halfway through her term. I'm with you though on
> her cutesy crap. That is NOT presidential.
Palin had good job approval ratings in Alaska. Another tidbit usually
ignored. And as far as her quitting, I am not convinced that it will hurt
her chances at higher offices at all. A lot of commentators seem to think
it will but I can't help but notice they are the same commentators that seem
to get 90% of their predictions wrong anyway.
> I still have hopes that Obama can get things straight in time. Its an
> old saw, but he inherited more problems than any president in history,
> and he's only had 11 months to make any headway.
Speaking of scapegoating. I don't seem to recall anyone last summer saying
that the problems of this country are so great it really doesn't matter who
we elect.
The truth of the matter is if we continue as we are right now, it won't even
matter what name is on the Republican ticket in 3 years. They will win.
MNMikeW
> In article <u558g51ks1o5a5jkr...@4ax.com>,
> right from pushing herself front and center into the limelight? With
> Faux News on her side, the entertainment should go on for a while yet :-)
The loony RIGHT pushing her into the limelight? The only ones putting her
into the spotlight is the loony LEFT. Like the way you fawn over her.
MNMikeW
"Frank Ketchum" <nos...@thanksanyway.com> wrote in message
news:WmVMm.34475$Xf2....@newsfe12.iad...
>
> news:lp58g5dce7rk8n32m...@4ax.com...
>>>
>>>Second, she's not in office or running for office. What relevance would
>>>an
>>>approval rating have?
>>
>> You really are smarter than that aren't you Frank?
>
> No Bobby, I am obviously too stupid to understand why the approval rating
> of a non-candidate matters 3 years before an election. Why don't you
> grace us with the sheer magnitude of your towering intellect and explain
> it? Please be sure to dumb it down enough so that the rest of us can
> grasp it.
>
> Or is your only move to constantly insult the intelligence of anyone who
> has a different opinion than you?
>
MNMikeW
<bkn...@conramp.net> wrote in message
news:rid8g5pj0mj5bf0kp...@4ax.com...
A cartoon that scrares the fuck out of you libs.
bkn...@conramp.net
wrote:
>
>"William Clark" <cl...@nospam.matsceng.ohio-state.edu> wrote in message
>> But do you think that the GoP's disapproval will stop her or the loony
>> right from pushing herself front and center into the limelight? With
>> Faux News on her side, the entertainment should go on for a while yet :-)
>
>The loony RIGHT pushing her into the limelight? The only ones putting her
>into the spotlight is the loony LEFT. Like the way you fawn over her.
>
They do push her into the limelight, but its not making her
attractive. I don't see Clark fawning at all. He's very critical of
her.
BK
bkn...@conramp.net
wrote:
You need to read the follow-ups before bleating Mike. I had no
opinion on this.
BK
MNMikeW
<bkn...@conramp.net> wrote in message
news:6gb8g5haq4c3bfgqm...@4ax.com...
Obama will be the reason the GOP wins.
Frank Ketchum
<bkn...@conramp.net> wrote in message
news:3dn8g5p21b5m4gb2s...@4ax.com...
>
> They do push her into the limelight, but its not making her
> attractive. I don't see Clark fawning at all. He's very critical of
> her.
Bull. She is very attractive. Hot if you ask me.
Clark is probably gay. (kidding!)
bkn...@conramp.net
wrote:
>
><bkn...@conramp.net> wrote in message
>> As far as being full of shit about Palin, anyone that buys anything
>> other than that she's a bimbo is just that. She's a cartoon.
>>
>> BK
>
>A cartoon that scrares the fuck out of you libs.
>
How can anyone that is held in such poor repute, according to those
polls, scare anyone?
Also, I don't understand. Just twenty minutes ago there was this
conversation:
> There's no way that the GOP will give her a scintilla of a shot at
> running on their platform. She's screwed that up but good.
>
> bk
You replied:
>>Yes, I hope they have learned their lesson this time around.
So which is it? Pro or con for Palin?
BK
bkn...@conramp.net
wrote:
>
><bkn...@conramp.net> wrote in message
>>If the GOP wins it sure won't have a thing to do with Sara Palin...the laughingstock of
>> politicians everywhere.
>>
>> BK
>
>Obama will be the reason the GOP wins.
>
Notice that I used the word "if".
BK
bkn...@conramp.net
Attractive as a responsible representative. Her personality gets in
the way of her looks too. Now, Tina Fey.....!!!!
BK
Corky's Nemesis
<bkn...@conramp.net> wrote in message
news:nen7g5t71gk535nhs...@4ax.com...
> On Tue, 17 Nov 2009 23:32:48 -0800, "dene" <de...@remove.ipns.com>
> wrote:
>
> >I cite the cover of Newsweek, showing Sarah Palin in a running suit.
Sexism
> >to the nth degree. What would happen if a conservative magazine put
Obama
> >on their cover, in a watermelon patch? The double standard is
amazing.
> >
> >I can't wait to see them get what's coming to them in 2010 and 2012.
Middle
> >America sees through this hypocrisy, which is precisely why Fox News has
> >become so successful now. Whereas, the Left continued to delude
themselves
> >with their haughtiness and arrogance. Tsk..tsk..they say. Will the
sheep
> >ever evolve??
> >
> >-Greg
> >
> Sexism? That picture wasn't shot without her knowledge. She posed
> for it.
>
> She's an airhead and is now really being shown as that by the
> McCain campaign advisors. Palin is only good for the GOP by raising
> money from the far right, and her approval rating is around 28%.
>
> Blather, blather, blather.
Off-topic post #1267. POST ON-TOPIC OR DON'T POST AT ALL.
Corky's Nemesis
<bkn...@conramp.net> wrote in message
news:lp58g5dce7rk8n32m...@4ax.com...
> On Wed, 18 Nov 2009 09:03:16 -0500, "Frank Ketchum"
> <nos...@thanksanyway.com> wrote:
>
> >
> ><bkn...@conramp.net> wrote in message
> >news:nen7g5t71gk535nhs...@4ax.com...
> >>
> >> McCain campaign advisors. Palin is only good for the GOP by raising
> >> money from the far right, and her approval rating is around 28%.
> >
>
> The numbers vary, but here's a good cross-section of the polls.
> >
> >Second, she's not in office or running for office. What relevance would
an
> >approval rating have?
>
> You really are smarter than that aren't you Frank?
> >
like
> >her.
> >
> Not many like her at all, and "my side" was with McCain until he
> picked her as a running mate. Bad idea.
Off-topic post #1299. POST ON-TOPIC OR DON'T POST AT ALL.
Corky's Nemesis
news:1ra8g55ul78hskem3...@4ax.com...
> On Wed, 18 Nov 2009 11:37:44 -0500, "Frank Ketchum"> >news:lp58g5dce7rk8n32m...@4ax.com...
> >>>
> >>>Second, she's not in office or running for office. What relevance
would
> >>>an
> >>>approval rating have?
> >>
> >> You really are smarter than that aren't you Frank?
> >
of
> >a non-candidate matters 3 years before an election. Why don't you grace
us
> >with the sheer magnitude of your towering intellect and explain it?
Please
> >be sure to dumb it down enough so that the rest of us can grasp it.
> >
> >Or is your only move to constantly insult the intelligence of anyone who
has
> >a different opinion than you?
>
> ratings and I gave you a link. Approval is approval whether or not
> someone may be running for office. Ask all of the pollsters about the
> relevance.
>
>
> Dumbed down enough for you? I'm pretty sure most everyone else
> understood it.
Off-topic post #1347. POST ON-TOPIC OR DON'T POST AT ALL.
Corky's Nemesis
<bkn...@conramp.net> wrote in message
news:rid8g5pj0mj5bf0kp...@4ax.com...
Speaking of yourself when discussing cartoons.
Off-topic post #1379. POST ON-TOPIC OR DON'T POST AT ALL.
Kommienezuspadt
"Chris Bellomy" <ten.wohsdoog@sirhc> wrote in message
news:vf-dncTlzp-BrpnW...@supernews.com...
> dene wrote, On 11/18/09 1:32 AM:
>> I cite the cover of Newsweek, showing Sarah Palin in a running suit.
>> Sexism
>> to the nth degree. What would happen if a conservative magazine put
>> Obama
>> on their cover, in a watermelon patch?
>
> would be right to use it.
>
> I fixed your headers for you.
>
> cb
yup = if she didn't want that photo used -- then don't pose for it --
sheeeesh --- what passes for brains amazes me.
MNMikeW
<bkn...@conramp.net> wrote in message
news:3dn8g5p21b5m4gb2s...@4ax.com...
So am I. But I dont OBSESS over here like he does.
bkn...@conramp.net
<some...@aol.com> wrote:
You just don't get it.
Pflum, who is highly regarded on RSG has been fighting this battle for
about 6 years and hasn't been able to make any headway. Why do you
think that you, as an unknown boob, will make any changes?
RSG changed several years ago and will only be a full time golf group
during the Majors, Ryder's and President's Cup weeks.
ESAD.
BK
MNMikeW
<bkn...@conramp.net> wrote in message
news:8ln8g59lv9a8oicgh...@4ax.com...
No, he pretty much nailed your condensating attitude.
MNMikeW
<bkn...@conramp.net> wrote in message
news:cnn8g510f4jvs2mdl...@4ax.com...
I've always been con, politics wise. She does not deserve the beating she
gets from the nutless wonders on the left. And it's pretty funny seeing her
scare the crap out of them.
William Clark
"Frank Ketchum" <nos...@thanksanyway.com> wrote:
> <bkn...@conramp.net> wrote in message
> news:rid8g5pj0mj5bf0kp...@4ax.com...
> > Wrong. Its inane for you to ask ME the relevance of polls. There are
> > dozens of them on this topic, the relevance is obvious, and up to the
> > pollsters.
>
> Obvious and up to the pollsters? You are in rare form today.
>
> >
> > FOS because I see a woman who has absolutely no background that
> > affords her any thought for national office?
> >
> > She attended Hawaii Pacific College in Hilo, Hawaii, in 1982 for a
> > semester, where she majored in Business Administration, and
> > transferred in 1983 to North Idaho College for the 1983-1984 school
> > year. Then to Matanuska-Susitna College in Alaska for one term
> > before transferring back to the University of Idaho the following year
> > where she finished out her college education and received a Bachelor
> > of Science degree in communications-journalism from the University of
> > Idaho in 1987. Five schools to get a communications degree?
> > Bingo...well educated to be the vice-president! Not. Anyone that
> > lets Katie Couric rattle them is a joke.
>
> It is pretty amusing to watch you Palin haters continue to ignore the fact
> that she was the governor of a state. Contrast that with all of your
> stammering around grasping for an answer when asked during the campaign last
> summer about precisely what qualified the first term junior senator Obama to
> be president. The consensus seemed to be that he had been a community
> organizer. You can't make this stuff up. But Palin is the one unqualified
> for national office.
She was only Governor until she decided it was beyond her after only two
years, and quit to make money peddling her third grade book. Quite an
achievement, don't you think? Do you suppose she would have done the
same as VPOTUS? I suspect so - had a little tantrum about Magoo's
staffers and stormed out.
>
> > Seems that the McCain advisory group that worked closely with her
> > during the election may be in agreement with my thoughts. She's not
> > only out of her league, but a liar.
> >
> > As far as being full of shit about Palin, anyone that buys anything
> > other than that she's a bimbo is just that. She's a cartoon.
>
> Even more amusing is to watch you insist that she sank McCain. You seem to
> forget that the McCain campaign was in the toilet until he added her to the
> ticket. It was after she was added that he pulled up close to Obama in the
> polls and finished there.
No, McCain sank himself, and the first torpedo that did the damage was
when he put Palin on the ticket. After a slight bump because of her
curiosity factor, their numbers sank like a stone once everyone saw how
genuinely stupid an uneducated she is.
bkn...@conramp.net
wrote:
>
><bkn...@conramp.net> wrote in message
>>>
>> You need to read the follow-ups before bleating Mike. I had no
>> opinion on this.
>>
>> BK
>
>No, he pretty much nailed your condensating attitude.
>
You mean by pointing out that he was asking me to explain the polling
by news groups? That's not condescending, it's saying that I'm not
accountable for what they do. The fact that it escaped him at first
is not my fault.
The fact that you still don't understand it isn't either.
BK
MNMikeW
"Corky's Nemesis" <some...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:he1o10$qg6$1...@aioe.org...
bkn...@conramp.net
wrote:
>
><bkn...@conramp.net> wrote in message
>> So which is it? Pro or con for Palin?
>>
>> BK
>
>I've always been con, politics wise. She does not deserve the beating she
>gets from the nutless wonders on the left. And it's pretty funny seeing her
>scare the crap out of them.
>
C'mon Mike. You have to be kidding yourself if you think that she
scares anyone at all. Cartoons amuse, they don't scare.
BK
William Clark
"MNMikeW" <MNMi...@aol.com> wrote:
God, if you are on the left, you cannot let Palin out of the spotlight.
She is worth at least 20 percentage points to teh Democrats.
jrm...@gmail.com
> On Tue, 17 Nov 2009 23:32:48 -0800, "dene" <d...@remove.ipns.com>
> wrote:
>
> >I cite the cover of Newsweek, showing Sarah Palin in a running suit. Sexism
> >to the nth degree. What would happen if a conservative magazine put Obama
> >on their cover, in a watermelon patch? The double standard is amazing.
>
> >I can't wait to see them get what's coming to them in 2010 and 2012. Middle
> >America sees through this hypocrisy, which is precisely why Fox News has
> >become so successful now. Whereas, the Left continued to delude themselves
> >with their haughtiness and arrogance. Tsk..tsk..they say. Will the sheep
> >ever evolve??
>
> >-Greg
>
> Sexism? That picture wasn't shot without her knowledge. She posed
> for it.
And not only did she pose for it, but she allowed an American flag to
be included in the picture. That makes the photo political and makes
it clear the photo isn't intended just for Runner's World readers.
William Clark
bkn...@conramp.net wrote:
Yes, well Tina has a functional IQ, which sets her (well) apart from
Palin.
bkn...@conramp.net
Not fair.
Bringing logic and reason here stifles these non-thinkers.
BK
Frank Ketchum
<bkn...@conramp.net> wrote in message
news:g4q8g59kbrt0a829k...@4ax.com...
> C'mon Mike. You have to be kidding yourself if you think that she
> scares anyone at all. Cartoons amuse, they don't scare.
Cartoons get laughter, like the way everyone laughs at Biden. Palin gets a
different response. Your reaction to Palin is not laughter, it is something
quite different.
bkn...@conramp.net
Honestly Frank...I actually laugh at her. Especially at the short
clips of her boo that I've read.. I really laugh.
BK
MNMikeW
<bkn...@conramp.net> wrote in message
news:jtp8g5lfbnilkagbo...@4ax.com...
It's the way you say things that is condescending.
MNMikeW
<bkn...@conramp.net> wrote in message
news:g4q8g59kbrt0a829k...@4ax.com...
It doesnt take much to scare a lib.
MNMikeW
And Obama needs all the cover he can get.
MNMikeW
Palin has more IQ than all of Hollyweird.
MNMikeW
"MNMikeW" <MNMi...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:7mjbcbF...@mid.individual.net...
Frank Ketchum
<bkn...@conramp.net> wrote in message
news:jtp8g5lfbnilkagbo...@4ax.com...
> You mean by pointing out that he was asking me to explain the polling
> by news groups? That's not condescending, it's saying that I'm not
> accountable for what they do. The fact that it escaped him at first
> is not my fault.
I was asking you to explain the relevance of the poll. You are the one that
brought the poll up in the first place, you claim the poll has relevance,
you claim that the relevance is obvious but then you refuse to explain it.
> The fact that you still don't understand it isn't either.
You are the one who doesn't understand. Probably still.
Dinosaur_Sr
state.edu> wrote:
> In article <64o8g55csc3v7onjs51muljpr1ru67d...@4ax.com>,
>
>
>
> bkni...@conramp.net wrote:
> > On Wed, 18 Nov 2009 16:00:30 -0500, "Frank Ketchum"
> > <nos...@thanksanyway.com> wrote:
>
> > >news:3dn8g5p21b5m4gb2s...@4ax.com...
>
> > >> They do push her into the limelight, but its not making her
> > >> attractive. I don't see Clark fawning at all. He's very critical of
> > >> her.
>
> > >Bull. She is very attractive. Hot if you ask me.
>
> > >Clark is probably gay. (kidding!)
>
> > Attractive as a responsible representative. Her personality gets in
> > the way of her looks too. Now, Tina Fey.....!!!!
>
> > BK
>
> Yes, well Tina has a functional IQ, which sets her (well) apart from
> Palin.
Tina Fey. Not particularly attractive and clearly not too bright.
Lloyd Parsons
"MNMikeW" <MNMi...@aol.com> wrote:
whatever your smokin', pass it around... :)
bkn...@conramp.net
wrote:
>
>>>> >> > bkn...@conramp.net wrote:
>>>> >> >> Sexism? That picture wasn't shot without her knowledge. She
>>>> >> >> posed
>>>> >> >> for it.
>http://www.dailyfinance.com/2009/11/18/palin-photographer-breached-contract-with-sale-to-newsweek/
>
>
Read the whole article Mike. The photographer himself didn't release
the photo to Newsweek, who had no knowledge of the time restriction in
the contract, but it was sold by his agency. There may be a lawsuit,
but Newsweek and the photographer could be out of that. His agency
should be on the hook.
She still posed for it, and if it was sexist for Newsweek why is it
not sexist for Runner's World?
Interesting vote on that site about whether the pic is sexist or not.
BK
bkn...@conramp.net
<frostb...@att.net> wrote:
>> �bkni...@conramp.net wrote:
>> > Attractive as a responsible representative. � Her personality gets in
>> > the way of her looks too. �Now, Tina Fey.....!!!!
>>
>> > BK
>>
>> Yes, well Tina has a functional IQ, which sets her (well) apart from
>> Palin.
>
>Tina Fey. Not particularly attractive and clearly not too bright.
I strongly disagree. She writes, directs and acts well. If you think
Palin is hot then how can you not think she is?
Anyway, if you're right she's obviously qualified for the GOP to run
her as VP. :-)
BK
MNMikeW
<bkn...@conramp.net> wrote in message
news:9iv8g59gpt10lroh3...@4ax.com...
So why is it you always say "read the whole article Mike". I wouldnt post it
if I didnt fucking read it. And what exactly did I say about the article?
Nothing. Was just throwing it out there since this was what this thread was
talking about and it showed just how Newsweek got ahold of the pic.
bkn...@conramp.net
>You are the one who doesn't understand. Probably still. .
>
I not only understand, I'm dead-assed sure of this.
Because I mentioned the polls (PLURAL), it doesn't mean that I have
to defend, or explain, or be held accountable for their relevance, or
the pollster's policies.
Is that too hard for you to comprehend? Why don't you write the
Christian Science Monitor and ask them why the poll? They'll have an
answer.
BK
bkn...@conramp.net
wrote:
My apologies. I guess I used the same lame thinking that Ketchum did
when I mentioned the polls. I was just reporting and so were you.
BK
Frank Ketchum
<bkn...@conramp.net> wrote in message
news:4h09g5d1j5lk6ifj5...@4ax.com...
> I not only understand, I'm dead-assed sure of this.
>
> Because I mentioned the polls (PLURAL), it doesn't mean that I have
> to defend, or explain, or be held accountable for their relevance, or
> the pollster's policies.
>
> Is that too hard for you to comprehend? Why don't you write the
> Christian Science Monitor and ask them why the poll? They'll have an
> answer.
I am asking about the relevance of the results of the polls. You are the
one that posted the results of the polls. Your efforts to avoid answering
the question are remarkable.
I am finished attempting to get this through your thick head. Adios.
MNMikeW
<bkn...@conramp.net> wrote in message
news:4h09g5d1j5lk6ifj5...@4ax.com...
Polls are like assholes.....
bkn...@conramp.net
You failed to make any sense Frank. Because I posted the results
doesn't mean that I have to defend them or prove their relevance. You
haven't asked a question that hasn't been answered. You're looking
for something that is already there. I gave a link to the polls. Go
there and make up your mind about them. I really don't give a crap.
BK
bkn...@conramp.net
asked for.
On Wed, 18 Nov 2009 09:49:58 -0600, bkn...@conramp.net wrote:
>On Wed, 18 Nov 2009 09:03:16 -0500, "Frank Ketchum"
><nos...@thanksanyway.com> wrote:
>
>>
>><bkn...@conramp.net> wrote in message
>>news:nen7g5t71gk535nhs...@4ax.com...
>>>
>>> She's an airhead and is now really being shown as that by the
>>> McCain campaign advisors. Palin is only good for the GOP by raising
>>> money from the far right, and her approval rating is around 28%.
>>
>>Well, first where is your source for the stat you cite?
>
>The numbers vary, but here's a good cross-section of the polls.
BK
Then you wrote:
On Wed, 18 Nov 2009 11:37:44 -0500, "Frank Ketchum"
<nos...@thanksanyway.com> wrote:
>>>Second, she's not in office or running for office. What relevance would
>>>an
>>>approval rating have?
>>
>> You really are smarter than that aren't you Frank?
>
>No Bobby, I am obviously too stupid to understand why the approval rating of
>a non-candidate matters 3 years before an election. Why don't you grace us
>with the sheer magnitude of your towering intellect and explain it? Please
>be sure to dumb it down enough so that the rest of us can grasp it.
>
>Or is your only move to constantly insult the intelligence of anyone who has
>a different opinion th
>>Holy shit Frank. This wasn't an opinion. You asked about approval
>>ratings and I gave you a link. Approval is approval whether or not
>>someone may be running for office. Ask all of the pollsters about the
>>relevance.
Now show me where I'm to be accountable to explain relevance for
what's in that link.
You can't. Sorry that you can't grasp a simple concept, but you
obviously got wrapped up in trying to make something of nothing.
BK
Jack Hollis
wrote:
>I cite the cover of Newsweek, showing Sarah Palin in a running suit. Sexism
>to the nth degree. What would happen if a conservative magazine put Obama
>on their cover, in a watermelon patch? The double standard is amazing.
I don't know if I would equate Sarah Palin in running shorts to Obama
in a watermelon patch, but your point is well taken that the Newsweek
photo was a deliberate slight. That being said, she certainly looks
good in shorts.
Of course, Newsweek knows that a Palin cover photo increases
circulation and a controversial picture should add even more readers.
I doubt that many Palin supporters are Newsweek readers, so they have
little to lose if they don't like it.
If the feminists weren't a bunch of hypocrites they would stand up for
their fellow woman, but Sarah Palin is the left wing feminist's worst
nightmare.
dene
He needs all the deflection he can get.
-Greg
dene
<bkn...@conramp.net> wrote in message
news:9iv8g59gpt10lroh3...@4ax.com...
> On Wed, 18 Nov 2009 17:04:04 -0600, "MNMikeW" <MNMi...@aol.com>
> She still posed for it, and if it was sexist for Newsweek why is it
> not sexist for Runner's World?
Uh....perhaps because Newsweek is presumeably about news and Running World
is definitely about running. Observe the track outfit, come to a logical
conclusion, and then get back to us.
> Interesting vote on that site about whether the pic is sexist or not.
Idealogy vs. honesty.
-Greg
dene
<bkn...@conramp.net> wrote in message
news:bmj8g55q0gnmplect...@4ax.com...
> On Wed, 18 Nov 2009 14:45:50 -0500, "Frank Ketchum"
> How well did Palin handle Alaska? To paraphrase Horvath, that ain't
> leadership to leave halfway through her term. I'm with you though on
> her cutesy crap. That is NOT presidential.
You, and others, are making a huge assumption that she intends to run for
President.
> I still have hopes that Obama can get things straight in time. Its an
> old saw, but he inherited more problems than any president in history,
> and he's only had 11 months to make any headway.
Let's presume your excuses have merit. Name one solution he's done to solve
just one of these problems, besides buying a white cop and a racist
professor a beer.
-Greg
William Clark
bkn...@conramp.net wrote:
I had really forgotten just how pathetically funny she is when she tries
to be folksy, or anything, for that matter. It is refreshing to get a
good belly laugh again.
dene
> No, McCain sank himself, and the first torpedo that did the damage was
> when he put Palin on the ticket. After a slight bump because of her
> curiosity factor, their numbers sank like a stone once everyone saw how >
genuinely stupid an uneducated she is.
So education is the key. Describe the education factor with the greatest
president in my lifetime, Ronald Reagan.
I'll give you a clue. Education complements a leader.....it doesn't make a
leader. Palin had demonstrated clear leadership and charisma which is
obvious to anyone who isn't blinded by liberalism.
Here's an avenue for more clues, Clark. Her interview with O'Reilly, Thurs.
night, Friday night, and Monday night. He's a tough, give and take
interviewer, who promises that he will not be focusing on Katie or Levi. It
will be interesting to all with an open mind just how she does.
-Greg
dene
<bkn...@conramp.net> wrote in message
news:egp8g5tl1e58r3q7l...@4ax.com...
> On Wed, 18 Nov 2009 16:11:44 -0500, "Corky's Nemesis"
> <some...@aol.com> wrote:
> You just don't get it.
>
> Pflum, who is highly regarded on RSG has been fighting this battle for
> about 6 years and hasn't been able to make any headway. Why do you
> think that you, as an unknown boob, will make any changes?
Well said.
> RSG changed several years ago and will only be a full time golf group
> during the Majors, Ryder's and President's Cup weeks.
AKA as troll weeks.
-Greg
dene
<bkn...@conramp.net> wrote in message
news:jtp8g5lfbnilkagbo...@4ax.com...
> On Wed, 18 Nov 2009 15:30:09 -0600, "MNMikeW" <MNMi...@aol.com>
> >> opinion on this.
> >>
> >> BK
> >
> >No, he pretty much nailed your condensating attitude.
> >
> by news groups? That's not condescending, it's saying that I'm not
> accountable for what they do. The fact that it escaped him at first
> is not my fault.
>
"You really are smarter than that aren't you Frank?"
You are way out of bounds, Mike. How could you possibly think that Bobby's
statement is condescending.
Pffffft.
-Greg
dene
<bkn...@conramp.net> wrote in message
news:ubb8g5l9qe5t9v02t...@4ax.com...
> >
> >Disingenous. Bobby hasn't voted for a Republican since Ike.
> >
> >-Greg
> >
> How the hell would you know who anyone else voted for unless they tell
> you? More of your self-importance showing...TITPB. LOL
Because you posted it, dumbass. Actually, IIRC, I think you admitted to
never voting for a Republican. I could google it but unlike your existence,
time is more precious to me.
> I didn't think you read my posts. Liar.
Uh.....let me help you put the puzzle together, Grumps. The OP is about
mean liberals. Since you are first and foremost, isn't it conceivable that
I let you out of the idiot file for a short time?
BTW. You proved my point immediate. The first person who challenged you
(Frank) was insulted. It's so typical of you and your ilk.
-Greg
dene
<bkn...@conramp.net> wrote in message
news:k0o8g59runkj1725v...@4ax.com...
> On Wed, 18 Nov 2009 14:56:47 -0600, "MNMikeW" <MNMi...@aol.com>> >>If the GOP wins it sure won't have a thing to do with Sara Palin...the
laughingstock of
> >> politicians everywhere.
> >>
> >> BK
> >
> >Obama will be the reason the GOP wins.
> >
>
> Notice that I used the word "if".
>
> BK
So he's not doing a good job???
-Greg
bkn...@conramp.net
wrote:
>
><bkn...@conramp.net> wrote in message
>news:jtp8g5lfbnilkagbo...@4ax.com...
>> On Wed, 18 Nov 2009 15:30:09 -0600, "MNMikeW" <MNMi...@aol.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>> >
>> ><bkn...@conramp.net> wrote in message
>>
>> >>>
>> >> You need to read the follow-ups before bleating Mike. I had no
>> >> opinion on this.
>> >>
>> >> BK
>> >
>> >No, he pretty much nailed your condensating attitude.
>> >
>> You mean by pointing out that he was asking me to explain the polling
>> by news groups? That's not condescending, it's saying that I'm not
>> accountable for what they do. The fact that it escaped him at first
>> is not my fault.
>>
>> The fact that you still don't understand it isn't either.
>
>"You really are smarter than that aren't you Frank?"
>
>You are way out of bounds, Mike. How could you possibly think that Bobby's
>statement is condescending.
>
>Pffffft.
You need remedial reading. I'll try again to get through that density
called your brain.
>> You mean by pointing out that he was asking me to explain the polling
>> by news groups? That's not condescending, it's saying that I'm not
>> accountable for what they do.
I know that's a big two sentences for you to understand. There has to
be a teen on your block who can explain it to you.
Pffffffffft.
BK
>
>-Greg
>
dene
<bkn...@conramp.net> wrote in message
news:l0b8g5pkr2lutdn1p...@4ax.com...
> On Wed, 18 Nov 2009 09:01:53 -0800, "dene" <de...@remove.ipns.com>
>
> Why she would have allowed such a picture in the first place? Is this
> something that any reasonable woman running for vice-president would
> do? I have no idea whether or not it was done in spite, and neither
> do you. The bottom line is that the picture is out there, and she
> knew it.
Cite the following. A. ...that she knew Newsweek was going to buy the
picture, and B. ....that she had any control over what Newsweek puts on
their cover.
So if it's not done in spite, then what was the reason?
Also, why is it unreasonable that an attractive celebrity be pictured in
modest running clothes for a running magazine? I have no objections to the
same celebrities having a milk moustache, unless they put it on a cover of a
"news" magazine.
(Any bets Knight will ignore, deflect, or insult the author of these
questions??)
> Explain why you don't think that she's delighted to have something
> else to hype her book? I think that she welcomed the Newsweek cover.
She stated objections about their choice of pictures....and she's correct.
It is sexist. Your conclusion has no factual basis. It's just a reflection
of your intolerant, liberal bias.
> >> She's an airhead and is now really being shown as that by the
> >> McCain campaign advisors. Palin is only good for the GOP by raising
> >> money from the far right, and her approval rating is around 28%.
> >
> >And there is a larger percentage who haven't made up their mind about
her.
> >
> >> Blather, blather, blather.
> >
> >That describes your "argument." You fail to miss the point. It's not
about
> >Palin. It's about how liberals act when faced with somebody who
disagrees
> >with them. You are a classic example of that in here.
> >
> >-Greg
> Its about Palin. Get back when you have an original idea.
> K
Nice deflection but the OP is not about Palin. It's liberal M.O.. Re-read,
but slower this time.
Finally....get back to me when you actually prove or construct a logical
conclusion, vs. your typical close-minded, crotchety, crapola.
-Greg
dene
<jrm...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:964724f3-a776-446b...@n35g2000yqm.googlegroups.com...
And not only did she pose for it, but she allowed an American flag to
be included in the picture. That makes the photo political and makes
it clear the photo isn't intended just for Runner's World readers.
-----------------------------------------------------------
Now that's an *original* objection. Nice job!
-Greg
dene
<bkn...@conramp.net> wrote in message
news:akq8g55v2pbjcroh1...@4ax.com...
> Not fair.
>
> Bringing logic and reason here stifles these non-thinkers.
>
>
> BK
Brilliant dittohead, just brilliant.
-Greg
dene
"Chris Bellomy" <ten.wohsdoog@sirhc> wrote in message
news:vf-dncTlzp-BrpnW...@supernews.com...
> dene wrote, On 11/18/09 1:32 AM:
> > I cite the cover of Newsweek, showing Sarah Palin in a running suit.
Sexism
> > to the nth degree. What would happen if a conservative magazine put
Obama
> > on their cover, in a watermelon patch?
>
> would be right to use it.
Obama was shirtless in Hawaii. Why wasn't it on the cover of Newsweek?
-Greg
bkn...@conramp.net
wrote:
>
><bkn...@conramp.net> wrote in message
>news:ubb8g5l9qe5t9v02t...@4ax.com...
>> >
>> >Disingenous. Bobby hasn't voted for a Republican since Ike.
>> >
>> >-Greg
>> >
>> How the hell would you know who anyone else voted for unless they tell
>> you? More of your self-importance showing...TITPB. LOL
>
>Because you posted it, dumbass. Actually, IIRC, I think you admitted to
>never voting for a Republican. I could google it but unlike your existence,
>time is more precious to me.
You're dead assed wrong again TTIYPB. I've probably voted for more
Republicans than Democrats here in local and State elections. Plus I
voted for Gerald Ford. Google yourself to death.
>> I didn't think you read my posts. Liar.
>
>Uh.....let me help you put the puzzle together, Grumps. The OP is about
>mean liberals. Since you are first and foremost, isn't it conceivable that
>I let you out of the idiot file for a short time?
Just another ploy to cover your lying ass. You were the OP, and sorry
that the mean, mean, Newsweek hurt you so much. Almost as much as
being kicked off the C-List and being asked not to attend a golf
tournament...because you're so popular.
>BTW. You proved my point immediate. The first person who challenged you
>(Frank) was insulted. It's so typical of you and your ilk.
>
>-Greg
LOL. I have more respect for Frank than you think. That's why I was
surprised that he completely missed the boat on this thread. You?
There is no ilk because you are the most despicable ass around here
and have never had an original thought.
You also can't help from showing your lying butt.
Pfffft. LOL
BK
>
bkn...@conramp.net
wrote:
>
><bkn...@conramp.net> wrote in message
>news:egp8g5tl1e58r3q7l...@4ax.com...
>> On Wed, 18 Nov 2009 16:11:44 -0500, "Corky's Nemesis"
>> <some...@aol.com> wrote:
>> You just don't get it.
>>
>> Pflum, who is highly regarded on RSG has been fighting this battle for
>> about 6 years and hasn't been able to make any headway. Why do you
>> think that you, as an unknown boob, will make any changes?
>
>Well said.
Really? So you've changed your mind about calling him a liar when he
completely made a fool of you regarding the C-List.
Predictably wishy-washy Greg. That's also called hypocritical.
BK