PR Gals, is this the reason?

[texaspackerbacker]

Tex, I think you should have a glass of warm milk and go to bed.

But could you possibly disagree with any of what I said?

[packinpatland]

Tex, I think you should have a glass of warm milk and go to bed.

But could you possibly disagree with any of what I said?

Yes Tex, I'm going to disagree with all of what you said. But what difference does it make? Let's just agree to agree to disagree till one of us is proved right or wrong. Let it go, for heaven's sake.

[retailguy]

Tex, I think you should have a glass of warm milk and go to bed.

But could you possibly disagree with any of what I said?

That's the way it works around here Tex, you got "dismissed" by the elitist liberals. They're too smart and "aloof" for you. You should just give it up. It isn't worth it.

If they refuse to dignify your comments then they don't have to ADMIT that you have some points, then they don't have to defend their perspectives (see how it works?).... Besides, you heard Ziggy, it's "IRRELEVENT" because it doesn't "affect" her. ROFLMAO!

[texaspackerbacker]

Tex, I think you should have a glass of warm milk and go to bed.

But could you possibly disagree with any of what I said?

That's the way it works around here Tex, you got "dismissed" by the elitist liberals. They're too smart and "aloof" for you. You should just give it up. It isn't worth it.

If they refuse to dignify your comments then they don't have to ADMIT that you have some points, then they don't have to defend their perspectives (see how it works?).... Besides, you heard Ziggy, it's "IRRELEVENT" because it doesn't "affect" her. ROFLMAO!

You got that right, retailguy. "Let it go" apparently translates to "I refuse to concede the point even though the facts are hopelessly against me"--which is almost always the case with the libs.

[Zool]

Tex, I think you should have a glass of warm milk and go to bed.

But could you possibly disagree with any of what I said?

That's the way it works around here Tex, you got "dismissed" by the elitist liberals. They're too smart and "aloof" for you. You should just give it up. It isn't worth it.

If they refuse to dignify your comments then they don't have to ADMIT that you have some points, then they don't have to defend their perspectives (see how it works?).... Besides, you heard Ziggy, it's "IRRELEVENT" because it doesn't "affect" her. ROFLMAO!

Just plain wow RG. You talk down to pretty much every single person on this board who disagrees with you, and call someone else elitist?

[retailguy]

Tex, I think you should have a glass of warm milk and go to bed.

But could you possibly disagree with any of what I said?

That's the way it works around here Tex, you got "dismissed" by the elitist liberals. They're too smart and "aloof" for you. You should just give it up. It isn't worth it.

If they refuse to dignify your comments then they don't have to ADMIT that you have some points, then they don't have to defend their perspectives (see how it works?).... Besides, you heard Ziggy, it's "IRRELEVENT" because it doesn't "affect" her. ROFLMAO!

Just plain wow RG. You talk down to pretty much every single person on this board who disagrees with you, and call someone else elitist?

There were several questions, many, actually asked in this thread. The questions went largely UNANSWERED. I find that elitist and called it as such. Their criticisms of Palin went well beyond campaign rhetoric.

I don't believe that I "duck" questions or call them "irrelevant". When asked, I've given my perspective. Both of them have STEADFASTLY refused to do that. If they have questions related to Obama, I'd be happy to field them. Since I've read everything I can get my hands on, and have lived with him as my Senator, I think I can actually answer intelligently. On the flip side, they can't cite one accomplishment from our Alaskan Governor, because by their own admission, they've never looked....they just believed what they were spoon fed, which was the point of the thread, I think.

Hope that clears it up for you.

[packinpatland]

Please don't say that.....

On the flip side, they can't cite one accomplishment from our Alaskan Governor, because by their own admission, they've never looked....they just believed what they were spoon fed, which was the point of the thread, I think.

Posted: Sat Dec 27, 2008 8:19 pm Post subject:

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I bet there are alot of Govenors that wish they could predict a surplus..... she's doing something right.

"Next year's budget is expected to create a surplus of $388.7 million, Palin said."


http://www.reuters.com/article/gover...53242820081216

[MJZiggy]

Tex, I think you should have a glass of warm milk and go to bed.

But could you possibly disagree with any of what I said?

That's the way it works around here Tex, you got "dismissed" by the elitist liberals. They're too smart and "aloof" for you. You should just give it up. It isn't worth it.

If they refuse to dignify your comments then they don't have to ADMIT that you have some points, then they don't have to defend their perspectives (see how it works?).... Besides, you heard Ziggy, it's "IRRELEVENT" because it doesn't "affect" her. ROFLMAO!

Just plain wow RG. You talk down to pretty much every single person on this board who disagrees with you, and call someone else elitist?

There were several questions, many, actually asked in this thread. The questions went largely UNANSWERED. I find that elitist and called it as such. Their criticisms of Palin went well beyond campaign rhetoric.

I don't believe that I "duck" questions or call them "irrelevant". When asked, I've given my perspective. Both of them have STEADFASTLY refused to do that. If they have questions related to Obama, I'd be happy to field them. Since I've read everything I can get my hands on, and have lived with him as my Senator, I think I can actually answer intelligently. On the flip side, they can't cite one accomplishment from our Alaskan Governor, because by their own admission, they've never looked....they just believed what they were spoon fed, which was the point of the thread, I think.

Hope that clears it up for you.

Yes, all those questions I asked about Palin's specific policies and actions went largely unanswered. I call bullshit. Tex was the only one who took a stab at it, though all he did was post general republican stances. I very highly doubt they were actually Palin's specific views based on what she stated her views to be or her actions in office. If I can't list her thoughts views and politics, neither can you, dear.

And if you'd like the reasons the answers went beyond campaign rhetoric, read the first post of the thread, with a question I so foolishly thought I could try to answer and thought it might invoke an intelligent discussion on the perceptions of politicians by the public. Sheep of all people actually started moving in the right direction, but rather than the actual discussion I'd hoped for, instead I just got attacked from the same old folks who have this obsession with me liking Sarah Palin. I've told you over and over again that the only one who can make that happen is Palin herself. I don't have to like her any more than you have to like Obama. I didn't call the questions irrelevant, I called Sara Palin irrelevant. And at the moment, if you don't live in Alaska, Sarah Palin is irrelevant. Which question didn't I answer again?

[Jimx29]

Re: PR Gals, is this the reason?

You don't even think of most Democratic woman as women: Rosa Delauro, Nita Lowey, Patty Murray, Janet Napolitano -- .......your Janet Renos, your Donna Shalalas

I'd hit 'em

[sheepshead]

Well, they are dodging the question, they want to tell us why they didn't vote for her. That's been beat to death on here. I was asking about the hatred. A women, the possibility of breaking the glass ceiling in a big way and a large percentage of the female population hates her. Two quick examples. Tina Fay, admired performer. Says, I hope to never do her after Nov. 4th. Oprah. Oprah has a show for and about women. Not for and about blacks. Oprah refuses to have her on her show during the campaign. While those are prime known examples, the hate is prevalent in my personal observation. Just not sure I can figure out why.

[MJZiggy]

Sheep, I answered it in my first post. You even responded to my answer with a thought-out answer of your own. Intelligent women really dislike (hate is a strong word) stupid women who try to get by on looks and charm--and we know it when we see it. Intelligent women have high expectations of other women and Sarah Palin fails in meeting those expectations to a degree you don't seem to be able to properly fathom. Likely her worst moment was smiling and winking at the camera in the middle of a vice-presidential debate. Many called that charming. Most women that she would have needed to impress wanted to barf. It was a visceral reaction. What would you have thought of a man who did that? Women are trying to move forward in the world based on our abilities and our intellect. Not on winks and smiles and not being able to list that you read the Washington Post Express every morning followed up with the Post itself for further information and the WTOP website for local stories. It just ain't that hard and the fact that she couldn't even name the Anchorage Daily News, her own local newspaper is appalling and completely unacceptable for a governor much less a vice-presidential candidate. I don't need to do further research on her to know that. She couldn't think of a single Supreme Court decision? Brown v. Board of Education was too much for her or Bush v. Gore.? That's not a gotcha question. And to smile and say, "well, all of them were important" is unacceptable in a world leader. Women don't want a leader in office who is going to make men look at her as an example that women don't belong in office because they're too dumb.

I've stated over and over the first moment I came to realize I didn't like her and it was over a policy issue that tells me wasn't thinking things all the way through Do you know what that policy issue is? I doubt it. She is basing her thoughts on the way she wants things to be instead of the evidence before her. Mine is an opinion set in motion by a specific human learning reaction (or failure thereof). I don't need any more than that. If she can't learn and adapt, I don't trust her to be able to lead this country.

More importantly, it's getting very tiresome to not be able to have a grown up discussion here without it being made into a battle. I thought Sheep's question was interesting and his comparison to Reagan's early political years an apt comparison. Why'd you boneheads have to go and trash it with attacks? Does every topic have to devolve into left vs. right, lib vs. democrat Obama vs. whoever? Are you going to keep on the attack if Obama turns out to be a good president? Some in here have been grown up enough to say that it's worth finding out. And some have even gone so far as to mock those that start the happy non-political kinds of topics that the Romper Room was founded on. You've turned the whole room into the FYI thread, when really it was based on the AP thread with an FYI thread inside it. Used to be kinda funny in here and after a long day, sometimes you could just use a good laugh, don't you think?

[sheepshead]

I'll spend some time on this I promise, but my kneejerk is GWB winks and smiles. Obama smiles all the time. Calls women "hun". Biden...well.

I would say it's her being her. Not to get you all worked up, but that genuineness works for many. It's an asset the president elect has yet to master.

[texaspackerbacker]

He calls Biden "hun" too? Don't ask, don't tell about that one.