I didn't think so.


Yes, she's governor of the first AND second largest states in the union, before Texas. But then, nobody lives in either one of them either, so how hard can that job be?

Lighten up folks.

I don't think Sarah is particularly bright. Probably smarter than Quayle, which puts her somewhere within the last 4 million years of human evolution intelligence-wise. I do worry a little about what might happen if she became president - which pushes this particular republican a non-trivial amount 2 the left this election.

At least she's cute. :MrEEk:

-ol' 2long

Krazy,

MB is full of lessons as you know.

I wonder about two of them...1) why do you take the bait (what's your payoff); and 2) why does someone else doing/not doing it make it okay for you to do/not do it?

If that's what you see as the other person's reasoning that sets you off the most, why do it yourself?

LA

LOL..AGREED...

No HGTV?? That is the bomb!

I so agree with this. I discovered NY Times' bias about 10 years ago when I was in a political debate group with about 80 others. It was amazing how often the headlines did not match the actual STORY and how a politically inconvenient FACT would be buried in the article.

My biggest shock was when they edited my letter to the editor about Congresswoman Maxine Waters. I had objected to her self designation as the "racial conscience of the House" and they re-arranged a couple of words to make it sound like I was agreeing that she was! There is a good book titled Journalistic Fraud, written by attorney, Bob Kohn[?], a long time reader of the Times, that documents their bias. He was very outraged at what they had become. It was a very good read.

Will someone please answer WHEN she LETS HER HAIR DOWN and WHEN she puts it up? I like her STYLE when it's DOWN...I only catch it now and then in news clips...

who gives a flying turd about her hair?

WE DO!!! Her hair is cutest when worn DOWN!

In my opinion, OF COURSE!

What does that prove? Mary Matalin is married James Carville. They are rabidly polar opposites politically and yet they've stayed together. All it means to me is that they probably don't discuss politics close to bedtime!

Krazy - in typical liberal fashion, ANYTHING that presents a conservative side is a "joke."

And that really is the joke.



Riiiiiight. He owes his job to those nasty "right-leaning" guys.
They hire him, they pay him....

And the last time anyone checked the ratings, to call MSNBC's ratings "drawing a decent audience" is typical liberal-speak. It's also why the liberals keep trying to push the "Fairness in Broadcasting" law. They flat out don't like that they no longer have a monopoly on what gets on the air and they REALLY don't like it that anything BUT a totally liberal slant is given to those "poor, too dumb to make up their own minds" lemmings who they used to have eating out their hands.



Ya, "even-keeled," complete with those "tingles running up their legs."

One thing this election cycle has done is to "pull the curtain back" (for those Wizard of Oz fans out there) on the REAL intent of the "major media outlets." No longer can they just say what they want us to hear. There are too many sources, like the internet, radio, and Fox News that ARE willing to tell the people "the whole story" and let them make up their minds for themselves.

It's something that the liberals don't like much....and INFORMED public.

You see, Krazy, the REAL important thing in your statement there is the word PRETEND. That is precisely what the liberals like to do...pretend, while they REALLY have a completely different agenda. The same as Obama's "tack" to the middle to fool as many people as he can to GET what he want, the control and the power to DO what he really wants....typical lesson that he learned very well back in Chicago.

tsk, tsk, AGG, I wasn't calling you sexist, I was responding to YOUR post. As a matter of fact, I don't think you are sexist, but I really couldn't care one way or the other. The rest of the sentence was the "salient point."

I dunno, AGG. Did you take all those women "swooning" over how handsome and attractive Bill Clinton was?

Certainly Monica seemed to find him at least partially attractive.

Well, I've not seen any demographics, so I don't know if "mostly" is correct or not.

But regardless, the issue is a "red herring." Fox IS the only network that attempts to present, consistently, a "both sides of the story" approach to the news.

OPINION shows, like Hannity and Colmes, present opinions, NOT the news. They opine about the news, and they have a staunch conservative and a staunch liberal as "co-biased opinionators."

Who are the staunch conservative "anchors" or "hosts" on the other networks?

So WHERE ELSE do you think those "nasty Republicans" WOULD go to reporting that is NOT obviously biased and slanted to the "kook" liberal side? Those networks don't even like "moderate Democrats" like Joe Lieberman and the Democrat Party tried their level best to get him voted out of office BECAUSE he wouldn't tow the "far-left line, no questions asked."

penaltykill - This election cycle really has ripped the curtain down where the NY Times is concerned. It is patently OBVIOUS to everyone who is not a "rabid, don't think for yourself," liberal that the "Gray Lady" is no longer a NEWS organization, but is ACTIVELY CAMPAIGNING for the Democrat Party and liberalism.

Any pretext of being a news organization is GONE as far as the NY Times is concerned. It is nothing more than an advertising arm and propaganda machine for far-left liberalism.

Ya, I heard the two of them are in the Dictionary as the definition of "Strange Bedfellows."

Hmm, I thought I explained.. Lemme try again. She was being judged on her "[censored]"ets, not on her capability. That is the very definition of sexist.

There is nothing sexist in saying that a woman is unqualified for Presidency because she is stupid. It is totally sexist to say that she is qualified because she makes the guy sit up straight when he sees her winking at him .

Like I said, had McCain picked Kay Bailey Hutchinson, I might have been leaning towards voting for him.

AGG

Peace, agreed. I was just responding to the repeated assetion by others that I dislike Palin because she is a woman, which makes me sexist, and your post provided some of the salient words. But yes, agreed, you were not calling me sexist.

AGG

So you think that the conservatives' hatred of Clinton was sexist? That's what the argument of "sexism" seems to suggest... .

AGG

AGG - Kay Bailey would have been a good pick too, in my "book." In fact she was one that I had in "my picks" for a VP before McCain finally made his choice known.

But after looking at some of the "women" in politics (I'm thinking of Madeline Albright and Janet Reno, for example), I LOVE the fact that not only is Sarah Palin qualified with executive experience(which none of the other candidates has), but she is darn cute too.

Now if you want a "sexist" sort of remark, the above mentionee's remind me of a "boys" rating system that included words like "double-bagger" and "triple-bagger."

If that's "sexist," well then shoot me. My eyes still work, thank God!

no, I was responding to your idea that Palin couldn't be taken seriously because people think she looks good.

Extending that reasoning, then Clinton couldn't be taken seriously because women were "swooning" over him.

In other words, I was rejecting the idea, not picking a fight.