In an article in the WSJ titled “Palinoia, the Destroyer”, James Taranto notes that the “unhinged hatred of Palin comes mostly from women,” and quotes a 30-something New York Liberal named Jessica Faller. Excerpt:
“(Palin’s) sex appeal might not have been such an issue if her demeanor on the campaign trail had been more, well, conservative. But here is this comely woman, in a curvy red suit, giving ‘shout-outs’ during the debate with Joe Biden, giving controversial interviews without apology, basically driving in there, parking the car, and walking in like she owned the place.”
“I’m not saying it’s a bad thing. But she couldn’t have pulled it off if she were a gray mouse in a pantsuit, and because the devil in the red dress wasn’t orating like a professor, it roused an unquenchable forest fire of rage and loathing in the breasts of many women, perhaps of the toiling gray mouse variety, who projected onto her their own career resentments and personal frustrations.”
“I am amazed at how people still abhor her. I personally do not. I don’t feel she would be a good choice to run this country, but she does not deserve the horrific treatment she gets. I can tell you, being privy to the endless, incendiary rants this past week about her, coming from hordes of liberal women–age demo 25 to 45–they rip her to pieces, they blame her for everything, and the jealousy/resentment factor is so clear and primal. I’ve never seen anything like it.”
Taranto:
“We’d say this goes beyond mere jealousy. For many liberal women, Palin threatens their sexual identity, which is bound up in their politics in a way that it is not for any other group (possibly excepting gays, though that is unrelated to today’s topic).”
The whole thing here.
They hate her because she is an outspoken Christian and they abhor the fact that she was in a beauty pageant, and the fact that she hunts animals. Personally, I do not think she will be able to pull off a win. I have nothing against Palin and hope she does well, I prefer her over Obama any day, yet there is something about her that is off putting; can’t articulate what it is, but it’s there.
Palin threatens women. They see her as the quitessential woman who could ‘grab their man’. The harridan in the pant suit (read Hillary) poses no treat. It’s all about sex because Palin, who isn’t a real intellectual problem, is afterall every womans problem
Well, let’s see. When the Left reflexively blames her for everything, including paradoxical things such as being a) a simpleton hick, yet b) able to control minds from thousands of miles away, then yeah conservatives are going to rightly point in your general direction and laugh at the paranoid inanity that emanates with regularity.
Well EBD,,,,, You started another Palin thread.
OK;
Can I Play too?
Rush went a rant today;
The Left is terrified of [Sarah Palin]. The Left knows that she would wipe the floor with Obama. Our intelligentsia on the Right-Wing know that she would wipe the floor with Obama. That’s what all of this means. …
The point of this is that if Republicans are going to sit by and watch Palin savaged, they’d better be prepared to sit by and watch the next one get savaged; and the next one because that’s what’s coming.
http://conservatives4palin.com/2011/01/rush-palin-would-wipe-the-floor-with-obama.html
The vid is at the link, He was commenting about an article he found at a blog “Legal Insurrection”
His dissection of the events after Tuscon is a warning to those on the right about whats going to happen if you don’t fight back.
(he really rips Frum a new one!)
It really is a clarion call to those who want to sit this one out.
They want us cowed, well look what happens to cows.
Perhaps the Femtard hared of Palin has more to do with the fact she’s not sexually maladjusted like the majority of femtards. These days Gender politics is just encounter group therapy for losers.
Well, it’s an interesting subject, Jay Forbes (I’ve taken the liberty of capitalizing your name for you). A former vice-presidential candidate, now a private citizen who doesn’t hold any public office, is blamed by millions of progressives for a shooting she had nothing to do with, while progressive women across the nation froth at the mouth at the very thought of her existence. And people like you make sarcastic, thinly-veiled, bitter comments on a blog site about how she energizes people and prompts comments on blog sites.
Your resentment, as a Canadian male, of the fact that she’s attracting such attention is simply one more thing that makes her interesting.
I found by saying to women who say I like her but:
I really do not like the sound of her voice;
Everybody thinks she really isn’t very smart;
Blah——————–Blah———;
“So you really are as insecure as you sometimes seem”. Probably doesn’t help Sarah Palin, but females who know me and know I am within hearing distance never say a word about Sarah Palin.
The men who denigrate Mrs. Palin fall within the group who;
Know the U.S.A. is Unsophisticated;
The U.S.A. is an angry place;
The Americans really want to be Canadians;
The men who do not denigrate her think she is;
Hot;
About time someone told it like it is;
That the men who knock her, know they never would have had a chance with her;
That only “girlie men” are scared of her intellect; Cheer;
Speaking of, here’s what Joan Rivers said – yesterday, I think – about Palin:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/jan/20/sarah-palin-fox-joan-rivers
Conservative women, on the hand, exhibit only calm respect for Hillary Clinton.
Dennis Miller came up with a brilliant theory 2 years ago about why Women of the Left hate Sarah Palin. I think it still applies today!
What’s not to respect about Hillary Clinton the way she invested $1000 in cattle futures and walked away with $100,000 in just ten months.
Just about any Conservative, man or woman, can respect that kind of savvy investing, right?
It isn’t as though Hillary walked away with other investor’s money just because she had the benefit of some inside information.
It was just beginners luck.
Sarah Palin honestly could have never made money like that, ever.
Honestly.
“Conservative women, on the other hand, exhibit only calm respect for Hillary Clinton.” – Kaplan (2:12)
Worst comment I’ve seen in a while. I understand that when people watch too much Jon Stewart they eventually end up believing that their own glib ripostes are some sort of coup de grace, but even so…you should try to have an actual point that bears at least some relation to reality.
No one here, or on *any other* conservative-leaning site, is frothing at the mouth, all apoplectic like, about Hillary Clinton – even though Hillary Clinton – unlike Sarah Palin, who is a private citizen – is Secretary of State.
So…what was your point?
Black Mamba
I started to read the comments in Guardian and it was (please excuse pathetic words) a feast of hate – a hate for Sarah Palin,and for Fox.
And they call themselves “liberals”?!!!
I had read Taranto’s article earlier in the day.
and I smirked.
And I saw the Dennis Miller clip.
and I smirked.
These pieces are all just noise.
They are insightful as postulates for the media pundits, and others,who want to dissect an emotion (hate)so the masses can get “related” to the persona of the day.
On an emotional basis only.
Start thinking in terms of political war.
The left don’t want Sarah’s feelings hurt.
The left doesn’t want Sarah’s self-esteem to take a hit.
The left wants her destroyed, annihilated,just gone!
Most Canadians have been conditioned to the emotional as opposed to logistical battles we witness in politics. It’s a product of a mult- culti,multi-party society inclined to watch and listen to psychobabble more that facts.
Spin a lie emotionally,it news worthy. Opposing facts,,, not so much.
When the percentage of voters in the US that became conditioned by Opreah and Dr.Phil hit that critical mass, he was in.
A commenter at C4P saw the same thing before.
I was intimately involved with the Draft Thompson movement last time around and witnessed exactly this tactic remove him from the running. They effectively use agents-provocateur to drive the discussion, MOBY’s to smear our supporters, and the ever popular “concern troll” to sow FUD (Fear Uncertainty and Doubt). We need to be out ahead of these tactics from the start and hope that some big name organizations and individuals will jump in with us in “shining the light of truth”
a MOBY is;
An insidious and specialized type of left-wing troll who visits blogs and impersonates a conservative for the purpose of either spreading false rumors intended to sow dissension among conservative voters, or who purposely posts inflammatory and offensive comments for the purpose of discrediting the blog in question.
http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=moby
Watch the Rush vid above and compare it to the Taranto article.
Which is a more important discourse right now? trying to figure out the psycho reasons for the lefts emotionalism, or realizing you don’t have to.
Just throw the facts back at them, without apology.
That’s why I like SDA. It is shining the light on the truth.
I deduced the left’s PDS was tied to their visceral mental/real promiscuity.
The lefty guys wanted to jump her and feared that would manifest as votes for her or resentment that instinctively they had no chance to jump her and any like her.
The lefty women was jealousy and fear. Knowing their men wanted to jump her.
There is no delicate way to express it.
The lefty’s regard Palin as a Sex Object.
I suppose it’s too late for her to go out and hug a seal pup, eh?
I am “pro-choice”, but I think a lot of the hate comes from the fear that someone like Palin who chose to keep a Down’s Syndrome baby shows that abortion on demand doesn’t always lead to admirable choices.
How many of us would have made her choice? Not many, I think.
I think the hatred of Palin is related to the bitter liberal disappointment with hilary, although they’d never admit it, not even to themselves. Clinton got power through marriage, and then underwent one of the greatest humiliations in the history of male/female relationships. What did she do? She took it like the stereotypical defeated housewife which is a character the liberals despise. And she’s still there for more.
Palin is Zena the Warrior Princess next to her.
And it burns, yes, it burns.
The leftards only feast on hatred, poor Jay hates having to look at the face of liberalism thus he mocks and misspells words aquiver in outrage and mockery. He reminds me of this woman who walked up to me at a mess dinner and she looked me up and then down and pronounced: “I hate women like you” and off she flounced pulling her elastic waist band up as she slithered off. Why did she hate me, because of my looks of course.
THIS is the article I tried to send the link to yesterday! The link kept my message getting caught in the filter. I’m glad to see the column up and running here.
Kaplan, from what you’ve seen from the women here at SDA about Hillary Clinton, maybe we do show calm respect—by saying almost nothing about her. Why? Because we are not obsessed with HC, that’s why. (Yes, what IS your point?)
I was watching an episode of The Agenda last night (by mistake, after watching another program): the discussion was about the banning of a song, here, in Canada, because it has the word “fa*got” in it, and the removal of the word “nig*er” from Huck Finn. The panel was made up of all lefties, three professors—a lesbian, a black man, and some metrosexual film instructor—and an East Indian Canadian, who writes about himself, “I know that it takes courage to be an idealist in a cynical world, to hold fast to our ideals even as we are being stripped of our illusions. Yet, I also know that practical idealists stand ready to do what is right not in spite of the difficulty, but precisely because of the difficulty, for it is only through the exercise of courage that we show ourselves worthy of our country’s name”, whatever that means. He was not a fan of political correctness.
All of them talked in circles—contextualization, blah, blah, blah, and were worried about victims and thought that language had to be used very carefully, so as to include everyone, especially victims. OK. Then, near the end of the show, the subject of Sarah Palin and the term “blood libel” was introduced by a smirking Steve Paikin, the moderator. What a feeding frenzy of savage distaste followed—even from the least left of the group, who distanced himself from defending her in any way: he made sure to throw her under the bus, in no uncertain terms.
Whatever happened to their ideal of using language to “include” people who are victims? BLOODY HYPOCRITES!
These privileged people were quite obviously affirmative action hires: parrot-like verbal pablum was all they contributed. And their disdain for SP, openly and most unattractively stated, was utterly disgraceful. I switched off before seeing if anyone mentioned lefty Harvard Law School Professor Alan Dershowitz’s defence of SP’s use of the term, “blood libel”. As far as things went, I can’t imagine that any one of this lefty mob appealed to the TRUTH—that SP was libelled: she was blamed for six heinous murders and the words “has blood on her hands” was liberally used by the usual suspects. The consensus of these SP haters was that the words “fog*ot” and “nig*er” could certainly be used in contexts which they approved—and by people they approved. None of that for SP! Her use of the term “blood libel” was anti-Semitic . . . Steve—who’s not the nice guy he pretends to be—sat there with a grin, like the cat who ate the canary.
I’ll watch the rest of this savaging of SP at the TVO web site, and suggest that others here check it out. This is a perfect example of the pack mentality of her detractors and their utter lack of either honesty or decency. And they say they want more civility. What bloody hypocrites!
I just had a vision based on an episode of Two and a half Men – Charlie & Alan are in a bar where when the bartender rings a bell the customers bark like dogs and down a shot. Except in my vision, whenever Palin is mentioned, lefties bark like seals. Very Pavlovian, but then group-think is their thing.
Now think about what I just said and tell me you ain’t smiling.
According to St John, “unlike Cain, who was of the evil one, and killed his brother. Why did he kill him? Because his works were evil, and his brother’s righteous. Don’t be surprised, my brothers, if the world hates you.”
Since the dawn of Creation, Evil has hated Good. Just as Islam is based on Evil so to is modern Leftism. Its the reason Leftist support Islam. Tragically the devil hates even his own and Islam, given the opportunity, would not return the favour but would instead kill modern Leftism.
MissAnthropy
Good observation. I often made similar comments regarding the so called ‘dufus’ GWB and his uncanny ability to mastermind all things that are evil.
lookout – there’s no way I’ll watch the Agenda; it’s the academic version of the bias and prejudices of the CBC.
Feminists of the left hate Palin because she shows that their ideology about women – who must be career women from Ivy League colleges, with no, few, or nannied children; who must use abortion regularly, who must rely on botox and breast implants and constant diets; — is functionally empty.
Palin does none of these things; she seems to flaunt each and every axiom of the Feminists – and yet, outdoes them in all categories: brains, marriage, beauty.
They loathe her for showing that Feminism is empty.
The ‘men’ who hate her – I can’t figure them out, other than, quite possibly, they fear her very energy and ‘female vibrancy’. She is most definitely not part of the ‘equal to men’ feminist model of women. She is Hippolyta, the warrior woman, the leader of the Amazons.
And the leftist intellectuals who hate her, do so because they consider themselves The Elite and she is a Peasant – who dares to attempt to move into the Ruler-Class.
It’s all pretty primitive.
The answer to the left’s hatred of Sarah Palin is really quite simple, she is the anti-liberal. Take any of their beliefs and she shatters them. Pro-life, conservative woman who doesn’t have an ivy league pedigree raising a large family who is happy, wealthy and influential. Why wouldn’t they feel threatened? Red state men are supposed to loathe women of power according to liberal preaching. Red state women are dumb; there men slap them around and keep them busy in the kitchen. My goodness, if she were black these left coast libs would be reduced to writhing in the streets with foam spewing from their mouths while clawing their own eyes out.
In my opinion, it’s pure jealousy. They aren’t better than her in the looks department (which seems to be more important for some primal reason than a person’s character and intelligence) so they are trying to destroy her in every other way. Most women (not all) don’t mind a woman whose smarter or has a better character as long as they feel that they are better looking than that woman.
It reminds me of the Wheat Board debate – when it comes down to it, the farmers that vote to keep the Wheat Board are scared that someone’s going to get more for their wheat than they will so they want to keep everyone down at the same level. They try to destroy anyone who disagrees. Jealousy.
Many progressive women consider Palin to be not just an enemy, but a traitor. Liberated women are expected to show fealty to the political forces which claim to have freed them.
And there’s a special hatred reserved for traitors that mere enemies are not subject to.
Okay, this is the simplest question of all, and any dude who wasn’t a loser or a dweeb in school understands this: women don’t like nor trust each other!
The entire Woman’s brotherhood is an illusion. It’s been my experience that so called ‘best friends’ will inevitably stab each other in the backs. Usually over a man.
Feminists understand this intellectually, and resent the fact that men are typically the opposite.
Perhaps ET has something to say about this, but in traditional hunter and gathering societies it is a necessity for men to get along and work together. This is not necessary for women; who typically would wait at home stewing in their own imagination of what wonderful things her man might be doing abroad, while at the whole time looking at the other women in the community with a crooked-eye wondering if the harlots have desires for her man.
The dislike between women is very evident on the sophisticated show “Jersey Shore”. My daughter made the astute observation that ” the women are always fighting with each other, while the guys sit back and laugh”.
Here’s the bottom line. When men fight each other, they most usually will bury the beef shortly after. Often, a physical conflict between men will lead to a closer friendship than before. I believe it has something to do with mutual respect. Conversely, women NEVER let a grudge go. Using the Jersey Shore example I’ll demonstrate this. At the end of last season, there was an epic verbal and physical fight between a few of the girls. Fortunately, it was the end of the season, and everyone was going their own way. Now, one would think that time would heal whatever silly beef the girls were on about; but, reality and common sense tells us different. On the first episode of the new season, six months later, guess what happens. Within minutes, the chicks are back to it. This is a microcosm of the female condition. The fact that these women would stew over this argument for a half a year speaks volumes about women.
Further to my point, one must just watch any male orientated program where men get to shoot the iSht. Take a football pregame show for example. My wife has often made the observation that “those guys have too much fun” on that show. And it’s true, men truly do enjoy the company of other men. That’s why we try and do things together away from women. Typically, fun for men doesn’t include women. Now, look at a similar type program or get-together geared towards women. Typically, it’s the type of stuff I wouldn’t sentence my worst enemy to endure. It’s almost always serious, rarely funny, and often included tears. YUK!
Now understand ladies, that what I’m saying here is not a revelation. In fact, it is something that all normal men know(not murses for example), and that all men have known since the beginning of time. We have simply been programed, likely through evolution, or passed down from generations not to speak of these things(just like every guy on earth knows the correct response to: do I look fat in these jeans?). For our own safety. Unfortunately, when it comes to women “you can’t handle the truth”.
All of that said, there are exceptions to every rule, my wife being one. She has no problem saying that she prefers to hang with boys for the very reasons I’ve outlined above; and I suspect some people like Black Mamba might be the same.
Nicola Timmerman
I have a question.
Please tell me why, when Rome appears to be burning all around us, do women (like you) prioritize social issues such as abortion so high on the list when there are obviously real problems to deal with? I’m not trying to be an a$$ here, but seriously, why the misdirection all the time? It truly appears that women (generally speaking) are ‘useful idiots’ who are constantly distracted by silly social issues that have been settled; so they can be used by socialists to implement real policy that will have a real negative effect on women, men and children abroad.
Forgive me for my uncouthness, but I really want to know.
BTW, the same question can be asked of the gay community who would bring us communism simply to gain something symbolic.
I think our resident trolls point the way. Some people can only feel big if they’ve got their boot on somebody else’s neck, even if only metaphorically.
The Lefties who come here don’t come to disagree with policy, to argue facts, to enlighten, or even just to see what’s going on. They come here exclusively to express their disdain of us, the rednecks. We are stupid, uninformed, culturally inferior, and dangerous. A little frisson of fear accompanies the disdain, the geeks lipping off the jocks, one of the Neanderthals might lose it.
They are in love with hating anyone not -exactly- like them. It makes them feel superior. Palin is the current focus of their hate.
They’re sick, basically. Sick people hate Sarah Palin. Nice to have a list of them, I say.
“The ‘men’ who hate her – I can’t figure them out,”
If I may, I think I’ve got this one cased.
Liberal men, IMO, and I don’t mean the elite liberals like Bill Clinton(they are a different creature), but the everyday liberal man is, what we’d call in high school, a ‘loser’.
It’s my belief that most men, that get into roles traditionally held by women (ie nurseing) get into such fields to meet women. These are the dorks(usually not fit and attractive) that couldn’t score on their own merit, so they try to angle-in from the ‘friend’ angle. These liberal men(sic) like to lurk in the shadows waiting for the men in the lives of the women they desire to screw-up; so they can swoop-in with empathy and friendship hoping to get close to what they otherwise wouldn’t get near. All guys out there know exactly the type of fem-boy I’m talking about.
These fem-boys, in an attempt to be part woman, mold their beliefs to fit the feminist narrative(what they learn in nursing, education, social work). As Black Mamba mentioned before, these fem-boys take their marching orders from their woman masters. That’s why they attack Sarah Palin, because if they don’t, they run the risk of losing membership to the Ya Ya Sisterhood. Remember, if they don’t fit-in, they’ll never get close enough to what they desire.
Seriously, I considered nursing as a career because of the ridiculous money you can make very quickly; but, I quickly realized that I wouldn’t last one day in a lecture hall with 100+ victims, never mind four years.
Liberal men (and I’m not talking about the elites) are truly the scum of the earth. They are also pariahs in the male community. The poetic justice is evident though, as nurses typically don’t fcuk Murses, they fcuk doctors; so the jokes on them.
Furthermore, anecdotal speaking, women that do end-up with these fem-boys typically fantasize about real men, and often will end-up with a real man in the end.
Nobody, and I mean nobody, wants a fem-boy.
PS…I apologize for the crude language, but upon proof-reading, such language better articulates my point.
Indiana Homez @ 10:43
I am a woman. You are correct.
I have very few women friends because they don’t live the characteristics of friendship. I much prefer the company of men – even though I still haven’t cracked all of manspeak yet!
We raised our daughters like boys. One is a tomboy, the other a girly girl. But they both have no patience for the crap you so bravely posted.
Indiana Homez:
Boy you hit the nail right on the head about the difference between women and men. There is no way in h–l that I have or will join any kind of womens group. The fighting and backstabbing will kill you, all the while they are hugging you and telling you how much they love you. I am one who much prefers the company of men .When I was in the job force I chose jobs that put me working with all men. They were great for the most part and were fun to be around tho I never went out with any of them or hit on them. I love Sarah Palin and have read her books. When anyone says to me they hate Sarah Palin I ask if they know her personally or if they have formed their opinion merely from the tv shows they watch. Down to the last one it is from the tv shows, so I ask them to read her books then come talk to me again. Of course I never hear another word about it. They are content to live in their own little world and please no one upset the apple cart for them.
eliza
i’m breathing a sigh of relief.
“It is only rarely that one can see in a little boy the promise of a man, but one can almost always see in a little girl the threat of a woman.”
-A. Dumas
In summation, it appears that the consensus above is that the left hate Sarah because she is everything they are not and what they want to destroy. She is the focal point for their hatred. She does not do the Red Tory thing and continually make compromises that end in a slow but inevitable slide to leftism.
“There is no way in h–l that I have or will join any kind of womens group. The fighting and backstabbing will kill you, all the while they are hugging you and telling you how much they love you.”
This is actually one of the major reasons I have not yet finished and may never finish my Archaeology degree. In North America Archaeology is a branch of Anthropology, and Anthro. is dominated by women; the men who get involved in it suck up to women, not necessarily for sex, but to network and schmooze. In my experience these guys tend to be very guarded and prim, bossy but basically passive.
Not all women are passive-aggressive backstabbing b*tches, absolutely not, but all-female group dynamics rarely go well.
Indy @11:20 – “As Black Mamba mentioned before, these fem-boys take their marching orders from their woman masters.” – Did I?
jay forbes – I never hated Hillary Clinton, although I’ve never understood why a woman whose main accomplishment was marrying (and undoubtedly steering) a powerful man was held up as a feminist icon. Women have been doing that forever. By the time Obama was winning the primaries I was positively rooting for her. The problem with Hill as a public personality is that she’s so palpably bitter and joyless that she always rings phoney.
Is it a coincidence that the women who so vehemently hate Sarah Palin are also the same women who are silent when Ahmed the new Canadian (American, Brit, etc) offs his daughter in order to preserve his family’s honour or cultural fanaticism?
There are many reasons for PDS. One in particular, flattery, should not be overlooked. Women thrive on flattery. Palin understands and praises middle class women who have middle class values and traditional lifestyles – these women love her. Those that have discarded middle class values (or feel they have risen above that class) feel slighted so they instinctively hate her. Never underestimate a woman’s need to complimented, so much of her worth it tied up in others assessment of her.
BTW, Indy, I agree that women have a tendency to be nastier to each other, hold a grudge and are far more class conscious. OTOH, having worked in all male workplaces (I actually had an entire locker room to myself for years), I don’t think your characterization of men is entirely accurate. They can be quite cruel to the misfits among them and piling on the poor loser is common. They are often territorial, just try sitting on the wrong chair at coffee time or put your helmet in their spot. They can also be quite rigid and tend towards grumpy old man syndrome, “We’ve done it this way for 25 years and I’ll never change, dammit”.
So, although I prefer working with men because they are funnier (intentionally and unintentionally), I wouldn’t romanticize male workplaces as much as you appear to.
Indiana Homez at 11:20 AM
now that was funny but holds a lot of truth.
Me I’v always run into problems in the work place when I had to tolerate these grrly-boys (liberals or dippers)
Joe @ 9:45: “Since the dawn of Creation, Evil has hated Good”, the point I made a couple of days ago here. For taking a pro-family, traditionalist stand, I have, like SP, often been marginalized and shunned—mainly by women who consider themselves feminists, many of whom have lived the life of Riley, on their husbands’ dime! Another biblical allusion: I just “wiped the dust off my feet” and moved on: who needs shallow and hypocritical people like this in one’s life, anyway?
ET, remember, I said I watched The Agenda by accident! (Mea culpa, but not maxima culpa!) I’ve actually not watched that show now for nearly two years, and my correspondence with Paikin, as prima donna a host as anyone at CBC, is over and done with. I’ll grant that he IS a talented interviewer—but he’s a left-wing partisan, who won’t admit it, no matter what. E.g., If I should—I won’t—point out to him that his panel last night was disgustingly slanted, he’d demur. He’s full of himself and his show suffers from serious bias. I’m sure his ratings have dropped because any people like us, who want to hear an honest discussion of controversial issues, have nixed The Agenda as such a source.
eliza, I’m also a woman who has a high regard for Sarah Palin. Like her, I’m an observant Christian and pro-life. I altogether admire her choices in that realm, and in many others. Of course, one of the many lies of the feminists is laid bare for all to see here: Sarah made her choices, and the feminists hate them. Wasn’t all this about “freedom of choice”? My contempt for the political feminists knows no bounds. They’re moral pygmies, are usually ugly (sorry!), are minimally intelligent and knowledgeable, and have no sense of either irony or humour: WHAT pathetic losers they are! I do have some very close female friends—but individually, not in a group. I get along very well with guys—but am keeping my distance now from the ones who hate Sarah. (Hmmm, their female partners are the smug, self-referential, shallow-minded women I’ve just described.) Who needs such small-minded, ignorant—they don’t really know anything about SP—sheeple men for friends? Life is too short.
Thanks, jay. Your compassion is positively moving.
Don’t be too hard on jay. His frustration obviously stems from attempting to, once again, cast pearls before swine. If only we weren’t so low class we would be more appreciative of his and other lefty trolls efforts. Just the other day an almost doctorate fella (gasp/swoon) appeared at SDA in a futile effort to educate us about the complexities of sport and non-competitive schoolin’. Please don’t leave. Keep trying to influence us go towards the light of progressiveness.
Thanks for adding that positive note and making my argument for me, lower-case jay.
What the hell is wrong with you that you spend so much of your day trying (and failing) to hurt the feelings of total strangers?
Here’s a choice snippet from the article:
“They say she is uneducated. What they mean is that her education is not elite–not Harvard or Yale, or even Michigan or UCLA. They resent her because, in their view, she has risen above her station. In this respect we identify fully with Palin, for we have been on the receiving end of similar disdain. Our education, like Sarah Palin’s, consisted of too many years at inferior state universities, although unlike her, we never even got around to graduating. The other day Paul Reidlinger took a shot at us for featuring one of his restaurant reviews under our “Wannabe Pundits” heading last month: “I was even denounced by noted high school graduate James Taranto.” (For the record, our high school diploma is a GED.)”
When I read that, I thought, “OMG, Reidlinger is a close cousin of SDA’s own Socialist Troll, Bill Stewart!” For it was just a few days ago when, within the first sentence or two, Monsieur Stewart went on & on about his Ph.D., implying that his education/intelligence was vastly superior to anyone else on here who would “dare” challenge his views. What an immature, insecure putz!
Mark Twain said “I have never let my schooling interfere with my education.”
Did I?
i thought we covered this when you corrected me regarding ‘misogyny’ the other day.
If I misunderstood, my bad. Although you do seem to agree if I take your comments about “Archaeology degree”
bygones
Bill Stewart, yep, that’s the guy I was thinking of. He was an almost Onion-worthy example of a smug, overbearing intellectual.
“entirely accurate”
far be it for me to be “entirely accurate”
I’ll take *mostly* accurate though.
Those ‘bullied’ guys you describe I call ‘babies’.
Hate, hate, hate.
A thread supposedly about someone else’s ‘hate’ becomes itself a long sickening vent of hate from you all.
I pity your pathetic, empty, sorry souls.
Posted by: jay forbes at January 21, 2011 12:57 PM
Thanks Jay. Nothing quite like a little dose of lefty self-righteousness to calm the savage beast in our neo-con souls.
A learning experience too, I might add. Most of us thought it was bile oozing from your pores…but we stand corrected…pity it is.