Gynocentrism Sucks
Show Posts
This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.
the rescue capsule was built in Pennsylvania
The capsule , the biggest of three built by Chilean navy engineers, was named Phoenix I for the mythical bird that rises from ashes and is painted in the white, blue and red of the Chilean flag.
The thing that gets me about Palin is that no one is criticizing what she did while in office. Maybe the rape kit nonsense but that is far from a notable criticism. If you really have a good look at her accomplishments in the offices she held it is hard to not admire her. At least that is the way I see it. All of the BS is about her kids or something other than her performance in office. I remember reading two long articles about exactly what she accomplished in office and continue to admire what she did.
Most the BS I have seen, at least in this movement, can be boiled down to "Ewwwww... icky girl." I've seen no evidence presented to me that convinces me that if she was a man, she'd get the same criticism.
For a movement founded in opposition to a "Good Old Girls" type of mindset, and the product of such a poisonous, my gender first right or wrong, philosophy - it's pathetic.
I agree with you on this point. Same goes for Bachman and that O'Donnel woman. Bill Clinton did a little pot in college and he's a hero. O'Donnell, like lots of teen girls, goofed around with witchcraft... which is supposed to be hip with liberals... and she's a wack job.
But I think Palin screwed herself when she quit the governorship. She should have stuck it out. Male candidates have also faced harrassing lawsuits and redundant ethics charges and didn't run away.
The more grievance groups use the courts to shove their morality down people's throats, the less respect I have for them as a whole or as individuals.
I bet that's going to keep them awake at night.
The thing that gets me about Palin is that no one is criticizing what she did while in office. Maybe the rape kit nonsense but that is far from a notable criticism. If you really have a good look at her accomplishments in the offices she held it is hard to not admire her. At least that is the way I see it. All of the BS is about her kids or something other than her performance in office. I remember reading two long articles about exactly what she accomplished in office and continue to admire what she did.
Palin seems to be one of the most divisive figures Ive seen.
people either hate her or love her.
so its very hard to get any objective view
I mean on one hand, she gets the madcow's and olbermaa'ams in such a tizzy, its like "she cant be all bad"
on the other hand, she seems to have made an ass out of herself as often as I've wasted my check at the honky tonk, and palin-bashing, particularly on the subject of her intellect and awareness of issues, is as ubiquitous as the police, so its kinda like "a billion chinamen cant all be wrong"; that every bit of the hate is entirely unjustified
PS
bristol palin vs miley cyrus nekkid oil wrasslin
who wins?
Sorry, folks, I think the baby being taken away is justified in this case.
Well, we're glad to have the Fascist opinion on this case.
No, I think you could fall either way on this issue - given the meager facts that we have.
The only hysterical extremist here ... is you. I don't really see any fascists weighing in here.
By your own logic, Gonzo, you indict yourself. Even if a particular cop had always enforced the law in both spirit and letter, it seems pretty clear that you believe that if he has been divorced X number of times, this justifies a restraining order against him which separates him from his home and his children. Just the lack of marital perfection itself, not necessarily any unprofessional conduct, in your view justifies the police state powers of a restraining order. "Well, he asked for it!" you say, pointing to his desire to remain employed as a police officer, thinking of this as legitimizing an arbitrary application of the law stripping the officer of every individual right that he has. Hello, Mussolini.
Well, we're glad to have the Fascist opinion on this case.
And yet you wrote this, not too long ago:I'm inclined to give a guy even a second chance. Five time loser?
Now a great leap of intuitive thought to think ol' Mike Wooten may be the one with the problem.
It indicates a pattern of questionable behavior. 5 marriages - not one, not two, but five - gone south. Multiple black marks in his jacket. Repeated substantiated charges in the document you presented for his defense. etc.
He's just not credible as a victim.
Why is it a "pattern" that justifies government intervention when the subject (Mike Wooten) is considered the enemy of one of your favorite political personas (Sarah Palin), but it's not a pattern that justifies government intervention when Jon Irish shacks up with a married woman who repeatedly calls the cops on him? And if those calls to the cops were legit, then doesn't that also negatively reflect on the parental priorities of the mother in this case, since she stayed with him? And in comparing Wooten vs. Irish, what exactly is the pattern describing in each case? With Jon Irish, it's a pattern of alleged violence. But with Mike Wooten, it's only (? - G) a pattern of failed marriages, hardly in itself an indication of violence. And yet you supported both Sarah Palin's and her sister Molly Wooten's efforts to separate Mike Wooten from his home and kids via a bogus restraining order.
Wooten was never a threat to his kids, nor his then-wife. And when his marriages went south, each time he did the proper thing by ending them rather than exacting violent control over his wife. Contrast that with Jon Irish, who not only cohabits with a married woman but is also repeatedly accused by her of abuse, yet they're still together in what seems like a volatile, unhealthy, codependent and possibly violent relationship. And yet you still take Irish's side?
I think that your ideological loyalties are eclipsing your better judgment, Gonzo. I suppose if Satan was a gun activist you'd support him for president too. It seems to me that there was a credible chance that that baby would become the victim of violence within that household, whether perpetrated by the mother or father. What would you propose to have headed off that possible outcome, without intruding on the sanctity of the parents' privacy rights? What is your alternative?