Perino: Sanford affair proves we need to ‘elect more women.’
Perino: Sanford affair proves we need to ‘elect more women.’
Commenting on Gov. Mark Sanford’s (R-SC) extramarital affair with a woman from Argentina, former White House Press Secretary Dana Perino writes in the National Review: “If the constant stream of these confessions by unfaithful husbands is any guide, we’ll be treated to more and more of these stories.” She then suggests an interesting solution:
While I am not able to explain, I do think I know the answer to all of this: Elect more women. No woman I know has the time for such trysts, nor do I know any who say the desire one. They’re too busy trying to keep all the plates spinning at home, at work, and at the gym to make sure none fall and break.
Right-wing anti-tax activist Grover Norquist had quite a different takeaway from the Sanford saga, suggesting that women might be the problem. “It does indicate that men who oppose federal spending at the local level are irresistible to women,” he said.
Topic Cloud
ArchivesBlog Roll
Dana Purina and K-Lo agreeing? That MUST be a really strong argument.
If only Michelle Bachmann would sign on, too.
June 25th, 2009 at 4:03 pmOf course a cold, sexless dimwit like Perino would think such a thing.
I know it’s unusual in the Republican world, but most men having affairs are having them with women.
June 25th, 2009 at 4:05 pm“… and at the gym…”
C L U E L E S S . . .
June 25th, 2009 at 4:05 pmbut we DO need to elect more women…
June 25th, 2009 at 4:06 pmNow who on Earth would look to ANYONE in the Bush Administration for any advice about anything?
June 25th, 2009 at 4:06 pmGrover Norquist: “It does indicate that men who oppose federal spending at the local level are irresistible to women.”
In regard to Grover, that’s WAY down the list…
June 25th, 2009 at 4:07 pmWait!
Women don’t have affairs, or venture away from their marriage/relationship?
When did this happen?
June 25th, 2009 at 4:09 pmNo woman I know has the time for such trysts, nor do I know any who say the desire one.
That dana, isn’t a surprise.
June 25th, 2009 at 4:09 pmAnd coincidentally, it’s the same reason some of the husbands are seeing other women.
No woman I know has the time for such trysts, nor do I know any who say the desire one.
……says the president of the frigid woman club! Brrr, is it cold in here or what?
June 25th, 2009 at 4:09 pmkaty Says:
“… and at the gym…”
C L U E L E S S . . .
June 25th, 2009 at 4:05 pm
Dana believes it when her hubby tells her he cheats because she’s not thin enough. ;)
June 25th, 2009 at 4:09 pmPolitics gets men laid?!? ELECT MORE WOMEN!!
June 25th, 2009 at 4:10 pmPerino: Sanford affair proves we need to ‘elect more women.’
– - Perino sounds like she’s writing for a right-wing version of The Onion.
June 25th, 2009 at 4:10 pmWell, there are women . . . and then there’s Dana Bimborino. . . and Shelley Bachmann . . . and Michelle Merkin . . . and mAnn Coultergeist . . . and Lizzie (Borden) Cheney . . . and Babe Buchanan.
June 25th, 2009 at 4:11 pmI will vote for any qualified individual who represents my views best.
But to vote for a woman simply because she is less likely to “stray” is laughable.
The key is finding honorable individuals who do not let the prestige of their office go their heads.
June 25th, 2009 at 4:12 pmO/T…worth posting.
http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2009/6/24/746547/-OlbermannPiece-of-CrapRush-Jr.
June 25th, 2009 at 4:12 pmIt must of been a really slow news day for someone to put a mike in front of pe pe parino…What a crazy week, who else from the reich will add more crapola to make themselves relevent..These posers will ride on anyone’s coat tales just to get noticed..LOL…By by parino, your fame is up…P. B. & J
June 25th, 2009 at 4:13 pmBecause, of course, women are never involved in affairs.
Sigh.
Can we get smarter Republicans, PLEASE?
June 25th, 2009 at 4:14 pmSo using politics to get laid is now a benchmark for political service. Well, at least there is a tad of honesty showing.
Of course with Dana saying I can’t get laid even using politics makes one wonder.
And finally, can we please get this getting laid crap out of politics?
June 25th, 2009 at 4:14 pmI hope that Perino is just as soundly beaten down as Sotomayer was for her suggestion on Latina women. Or better yet, is there any quotes by Perino on Sotomayer’s speech?
June 25th, 2009 at 4:15 pmDid Dana just endorse another woman on the Supreme Court?
June 25th, 2009 at 4:15 pmRepublicans Love Facts Says:
June 25th, 2009 at 4:12 pm
Thanks for your concern.
June 25th, 2009 at 4:15 pm“It does indicate that men who oppose federal spending at the local level are irresistible to women,” he said.
Since when does Grover get laid? Sounds like a wish-fulfillment fantasy to me.
.
robbez_92107 Says:
If only Michelle Bachmann would sign on, too.
She would only sign on because Obama’s secret plan to poison the water supply with testosterone in order to start riots would be better resisted by women. Or something.
.
DRxJ Says:
Wait!
Women don’t have affairs, or venture away from their marriage/relationship?
When did this happen?
Since Perino decided to join the “look over there at anybody but me!” bandwagon. My guess is she must be cheating.
June 25th, 2009 at 4:15 pmtigger, “smart republican” in an oxymoron.
June 25th, 2009 at 4:16 pmElBruce says: … My guess is she must be cheating.
ah hahahahaha! oh my… yes, maybe she DOES protesteth too much!
June 25th, 2009 at 4:20 pmIt must of been a really slow news day for someone to put a mike in front of pe pe parino
Bimborino is on Little Seanie Vanity’s show right now. She sounds like a “Valley girl” beauty pageant contestant . . . vapid and stupid.
June 25th, 2009 at 4:21 pmI have a better solution. Elect FEWER Bible-thumping hypocritical horndogs.
June 25th, 2009 at 4:23 pmIf women didn’t have time for these trysts, how did Ensign and Sanford find anyone to hook up with?????????????????
I think Dana’s really saying she thinks women are better at keeping their infidelities under wraps, and that’s not exactly a compliment.
June 25th, 2009 at 4:23 pm“No woman I know has the time for such trysts, nor do I know any who say the desire one.”
Then who are all these guys f_cking?
June 25th, 2009 at 4:23 pmIs it too much to ask that Republicans make sense when they speak?!
“…men who oppose federal spending at the local level are irresistible to women.” Because Argentinian women care about American stimulus funding??? Are you serious?! Is this the logic of an educated human being? Even if it’s merely pandering to support less federal stimulus, do you really think this is the situation to connect anti-stimulus funding to?
…and Perino basically stating that women elected to office are too busy to be bothered by sexual impulses?! Are you serious?! Again, is this the logic of an educated human being? Women are sexless and therefore better in public office? Really?!
It is amazing how the GOP can be so opportunistic and yet so stupifyingly ignorant all in the same breath!
June 25th, 2009 at 4:24 pmThis woman seems to have a constant urge to prove how stupid she is. Hey Perino, we know already. It is the hypocrisy. Your party hijacked the election, they hijacked religion and they took on the mantle of family values.
They sought and did for years, force their view of religion and morality on the rest of us. They crucified Clinton, who despite the constant assaults, managed to do his job and we all knew where to find him. He did not hike from Appalachia to Argentina, he stayed home. I did not like Clinton that well, but he knew how to take the heat and remain on the job.
Your party is not just the party of no, no, no, no. It is the party of hypocrisy. And because your party managed to lose two contenders in one week, a number even big enough for the GOP, it is the hypocrisy and the constant lying. I remember all that Sanford said way back, about Clinton. I also remember what Ensign said. And he also said if it ever happened to him, he would know enough to resign. Let’s just see if either of them do.
Perhaps the GOP can pray to the God they invented and on one else recognizes, to get some real ethics.
The GOP, the party that keeps on giving.
June 25th, 2009 at 4:24 pmAccording to this website Perino’s claim is correct.
http://www.menstuff.org/issues/byissue/infidelitystats.html
22 percent of married men have strayed at least once during their married lives.
June 25th, 2009 at 4:30 pm14 percent of married women have had affairs at least once during their married lives.
well… more proof that dems and progs are the TRUE righteous ones…
NObody gets a free pass…
i didn’t see olberman last night, but if his rant was anything like was described in the kos piece, i would agree with the outrage… “piece of crap” is a bit much, but keith can get a bit too dramatic for sure…
June 25th, 2009 at 4:30 pmGo for it Dana, run your lily white ass for governor of S.C.!
June 25th, 2009 at 4:31 pmShe probably meant to say, “No woman I know named Dana Perino has the time for such trysts.”
June 25th, 2009 at 4:32 pmJohnM Says:
According to this website Perino’s claim is correct.
That would cut the number of philanderers by half, but there’d still be some. Still, changing it up a bit might be fun.
.
RUCeriousMaggot! Says:
Go for it Dana, run your lily white ass for governor of S.C.!
This does sound like “positioning” to me. I think she’s going to go for it once she settles on a good state and/or district.
June 25th, 2009 at 4:35 pmAhhhh…former White House Spokesmodel Dana Peroxide. The ever-reliable Ms. Vapid.
June 25th, 2009 at 4:35 pmHas Perino ever said anything that wasn’t either stupid or dishonest?
June 25th, 2009 at 4:35 pmCan this scandal get any weirder?
June 25th, 2009 at 4:36 pmGosh John M – You’ve discovered the 7% solution to our political ills. Perhaps Ms Perino will share authorship with you on this truly earthshaking breakthrough of understanding!!!
You really “got” everyone with that one, my friend. I am wowed and humbled. What an incredible display of intellective prowess!! Comparing the two groups really provides a night-and-day contrast that I’m sure many, many voters will make use of the next time they approach a ballot box.
We’re just fortunate there are steely-eyed analysts like yourself around to catch these “under-the-radar” truisms – where would we be if an important hair like this one actually went un-split??
June 25th, 2009 at 4:38 pmThe Sanford affair appears to be with a married woman.
We should only elect gay people since they can’t get married in most states! I guess that’s kind of what the Catholic Church does with its priests. Anyway.
I think that we should be adult enough to recognize that people do stray and that one’s personal conduct does not necessarily exclude you from being able to hold office. We seem very juvenile in this as in so many other matters.
Sanford should resign not for his affair, but because he put the state in danger by flying to a foreign country for several days without so much as letting the Lt. Governor know he was in power for the duration.
June 25th, 2009 at 4:39 pmtigger Says:
Can we get smarter Republicans, PLEASE?
June 25th, 2009 at 4:14 pm
___________
Uh, no.
If they were smarter, they’d be Democrats.
June 25th, 2009 at 4:42 pmSo…who is the anonymous source that set the ball rolling by giving copies of Gov. Sanford’s Lurid E-mails to the South Carolina Newpaper???
It could be some Super hacker OR…
Some Republican staffer with access to the Governors office and an ax to grind regarding all that Federal Money the Governor was Refusing to take.
The South Carolina Legislature Overtrurned 10 of Sanford’s Vetos.
June 25th, 2009 at 4:42 pmJohnM Says:
Do you ever read the articles that you link, please explain how this snippet proves your point?
June 25th, 2009 at 4:43 pm
Dana Purina’s illustrious career can be summed up quickly…
Worst.Press.Secretary.Ever
for
Worst.President.Ever
Congrats, National Review, you have a real whiner there!
June 25th, 2009 at 4:45 pmYeah, I don’t think this subject merits much taunting.
I don’t want to elect leaders based on the idea that they would be less likely to cheat on their partners. I want to elect people under the assumption and knowledge that they do their job.
After all, they elected Sanford with the idea that he wasn’t the cheating type. If we elect someone else thinking that they wouldn’t cheat on people, then what are we to say if they DO cheat on people?
June 25th, 2009 at 4:46 pmThe rare opportunity, I’ll take it to agree with you.
Women don’t have affairs?
The only ones that believe that, are those uncomfortable with the idea their sweet, barefoot princess in the kitchen is capable of it.
June 25th, 2009 at 4:47 pmtombaker Says:
——————————————————————————–
Gosh John M – You’ve discovered the 7% solution to our political ills. Perhaps Ms Perino will share authorship with you on this truly earthshaking breakthrough of understanding!!!
You really “got” everyone with that one, my friend. I am wowed and humbled. What an incredible display of intellective prowess!! Comparing the two groups really provides a night-and-day contrast that I’m sure many, many voters will make use of the next time they approach a ballot box.
We’re just fortunate there are steely-eyed analysts like yourself around to catch these “under-the-radar” truisms – where would we be if an important hair like this one actually went un-split??
You are not looking at this correctly. If 14% of women have cheated and 22% of men, that would mean men are 57% more likely than women to cheat. That is a pretty big difference.
June 25th, 2009 at 4:47 pmAdditionally, 100% of hookers admit to having sex with people they work with…
June 25th, 2009 at 4:48 pmYou mean like you and Condisleaza “We Do Not Torture” Rice?
No thanks…really
June 25th, 2009 at 4:49 pmWas hoping for… “Said Perino, whose husband, coincidentally, is taking a hike on the Appalachian trail this week”
:-)
June 25th, 2009 at 4:49 pmReggie Says:
——————————————————————————–
JohnM Says:
Do you ever read the articles that you link, please explain how this snippet proves your point?
2 out of 3 women and 3 out of 4 men admit they have sexual thoughts about co-workers.
86% of men and 81% of women admit they routinely flirt with the opposite sex.
75% of men and 65% of women admit to having sex with people they work with
None of them prove or disprove my point. First, thoughts are not actions, so that is not relevant. Second, flirting is not an affair, so that is not relvant. Finally, the fact that 75% of men and 65% of women admit to having sex with people they work with does not mean they are having affairs. This number also includes single men and women.
June 25th, 2009 at 4:50 pmwow for once I actually agree with Dana “Queen of Spin” so I say the state of Louisiana needs to elect Stormy Daniels as its next U.S. Senator!
June 25th, 2009 at 4:54 pmTranslation: Me and my buddies love to get some strange, but our fear of being exposed compels us to uncategorically deny it.
June 25th, 2009 at 4:55 pmWell, I’m all for electing more women even if it’s for stupid reasons. If this gives sexist wingnuts an excuse to vote for more women at all levels, that’s fine with me.
June 25th, 2009 at 4:55 pmDid anyone ever take into consideration that there are more women than men in the world? For an outre comparison, if 75% of men have affairs and there are 150 men and if 65% of women have affairs and their are 300 women…do the math.
June 25th, 2009 at 4:56 pmIn this scenario, electing more women is roughly equal to doing the right thing in the polling booth. Ain’t going to happen considering the types of people being elected now.
June 25th, 2009 at 4:57 pmbackup Says:
Hey, I am only quoting from the troll’s link. JohnM has a bad habit of cheery-picking from articles and never bothers to read them in their entirety.
As far as the hookers, I bet the figure is not quite 100%. I know of a married neighbor who got caught with his pants down and his wallet, pants and car keys were out the door before anything happened.
June 25th, 2009 at 4:58 pmJohnM, the only thing that poll proves is,more men are dumber then most women for admitting they had an affair.
June 25th, 2009 at 5:01 pmDana’s real problem is no one would consider porking her with JohnM’s dick. And, pitiful as that is, she knows it.
That is why she is out hyping herself on the TV box.
June 25th, 2009 at 5:02 pmDearest Dana: you’re no Sarah Palin.
June 25th, 2009 at 5:02 pmIsn’t a woman also involved in these affairs, what are they talking about, probably want Palin in 2012 :)
June 25th, 2009 at 5:02 pmOval12345678 aka James K. Sayre Says:
Dearest Dana: you’re no Sarah Palin.
Don’t know whether to laugh or cry here. Can someone just lend me a hat to hurl in?
June 25th, 2009 at 5:03 pmReggie. I’m just kidding.
But, although I would like to see more women in government, I think people are people.
If we had more women politicians, there would be more political scandals involving women politicians.
The idea that women are somehow significantly less susceptible to infidelity (or any other kind of behavior), I just don’t buy.
And although I strive for fidelity in my life, it is not a prerequisite that I would require from our leadership.
I would settle for not selling us out for campaign contributions.
June 25th, 2009 at 5:07 pmReggie Says:
——————————————————————————–
backup Says:
Hey, I am only quoting from the troll’s link. JohnM has a bad habit of cheery-picking from articles and never bothers to read them in their entirety.
What was cherry picked? This is about affairs, not people who sleep with co-workers regardless of marital status. I pulled the relevant information.
June 25th, 2009 at 5:08 pmReally?
According to my slide rule, “nothing from nothing leaves nothing”, and that’s all you and Dana have to say.
June 25th, 2009 at 5:09 pmFacts and statistics can be dangerous to your health: politically, sexually and spiritually. 100% of us got here using the normal conveyance of intercourse. This truth is pretty irrefutable. When it comes to matters of the heart there is 0% we even have half the self awareness to explain it to someone not present at the time. But hanging out your dirty laundry in public and then expecting people not to see the stains and soil left by hypocrisy has a 99% chance of failing to past the smell test, especially if one chooses the public life.
June 25th, 2009 at 5:09 pmbackup, if you elected a capybara to Congress, gave it unlimited food and a great place to sleep, where do you think it would slap a paw down to vote?
Congress votes for money. Sex is just entertainment.
June 25th, 2009 at 5:09 pmangels81 Says:
——————————————————————————–
JohnM, the only thing that poll proves is,more men are dumber then most women for admitting they had an affair.
More men are dumber…ok? They did not admit the affair to their wives, it was a poll question.
June 25th, 2009 at 5:10 pm8% fewer women than men admit affairs in polling, study says.
June 25th, 2009 at 5:13 pmIf a troll sticks its fingers in its ears or dunks its head in a bucket of water, what is the difference?
The bucket of water makes bubbles when it says la-la-la.
June 25th, 2009 at 5:13 pmI have no problem with electing more women. Frankly, outside of a few on either fringe, most women in elected office are competent, smart, hardworking and less prone to dramatic fits of self promotion. Of course our elections have ceased being about competence and intelligence. It’s about who’s the bigger celebrity. Competent women are less experienced at preening around a stage extolling their greatness. In this sense, I suppose Sarah Palin should be seen as progress.
June 25th, 2009 at 5:16 pmbackup Says:
I was kidding too, probably didn’t make it clear.
June 25th, 2009 at 5:16 pmIt’s also the first time I’ve ever given a recommend to one of your comments.
I know. Nobody else supports it, but I’ve always thought we need to pay our representatives way more.
Instead of paying the President $400,000, try 4 million. Representatives? Instead of a couple hundred thousand, try 2 million a piece.
535 X 2 million is a billion and change. Triple that to cover a general increase for staffers.
Throw in a billion to sweeten the pot for the cabinet.
For probably less than $10 billion dollars, you could create real incentive for the best people to join public service. Additionally, while they are in office, their efforts would be directed towards doing good work to keep their lucrative gigs, instead of fleecing the rest of us to line their otherwise relatively empty pockets.
June 25th, 2009 at 5:19 pmI am a male, and I completely agree with her, just not for the reason she is giving. Although we can all admit that men are dirt bags more often than women.
http://www.progressnotcongress.org
June 25th, 2009 at 5:24 pmReggie. you’re cool.
June 25th, 2009 at 5:25 pmJohnM, I know it was a poll question. Whats your point? Its still a meaningless poll, because you have no idea who answered truthfully.
June 25th, 2009 at 5:25 pmIt’s obvious this nut shouldn’t procreate.
June 25th, 2009 at 5:28 pmYes, more Helen Chenoweths!
June 25th, 2009 at 5:30 pmNote to Dana: the women you know don’t have affairs because (a) not many of them are in positions of power and (b) you don’t have a big enough sample.
Politicians believe they can get away with affairs and believe they’re entitled. If we had as many women in office as we do men, we’d have damn near as many of them straying.
June 25th, 2009 at 5:31 pmangels81 Says:
——————————————————————————–
JohnM, I know it was a poll question. Whats your point? Its still a meaningless poll, because you have no idea who answered truthfully.
This is true in any poll. I think it is not much of a leap to assume men are more likely to commit adultry than women though.
June 25th, 2009 at 5:32 pmThe Desperate Housewives Party
June 25th, 2009 at 5:33 pmHey, I’d vote for Dana Perino.
For Town Prostitute, maybe. She’d do a GREAT job.
June 25th, 2009 at 5:35 pmkevsters. I disagree. I believe women are the equals of men. I think a more equal representation of women in government will benefit us.
But, to promote the idea that women are somehow morally superior to men, I believe is idealistic and an affront to the ideal of gender equality.
Let me put it this way: The ladies in your life have done a good job getting you to believe that they operate in a higher moral realm. It’s possible that’s the case. It’s also possible that the circumstance that women find themselves in, compel them to exude the chastity you perceive. Whether it’s real or not.
June 25th, 2009 at 5:35 pmMasonMcD Says:
——————————————————————————–
8% fewer women than men admit affairs in polling, study says.
Actually that statement is not correct. In order to look at percentages like this you need to only relate the two percentages to one another. If the number is 8% more you need to relate that to what percentage of women commit adultry.
This would mean that a man is 57% more likely to commit adultry than a woman.
Or another way to look at it would be for every 10 women who commit adultry, nearly 16 men will commit adultry.
June 25th, 2009 at 5:36 pmJohnM, and I think alot of women would disagree. More men will admitt they had an affair, because for some of them it becomes bragging rights. Most women I know aren’t interested in bragging rights, and tend to keep things like affairs to themseleves.
June 25th, 2009 at 5:36 pmHere’s a blast from the past, in case no one else already brought it up:
Sarah Palin’s Secret Lover Revealed
This story was probably true, and yet nobody remembers it, thanks to that Liberal Media.
June 25th, 2009 at 5:37 pmis Perino so naive as to think that women don’t have affairs? Another Republican genius or is she suggesting that Sanford’s affair was homosexual?
June 25th, 2009 at 5:38 pmbackup, it isn’t the pay scale, it is the power. I would be if you cut Conogressional pay to $1 a year you would still have people running for office.
June 25th, 2009 at 5:38 pmI would bet that is
June 25th, 2009 at 5:39 pmgummitch. I agree with you.
June 25th, 2009 at 5:39 pmangels81 Says:
——————————————————————————–
JohnM, and I think alot of women would disagree. More men will admitt they had an affair, because for some of them it becomes bragging rights. Most women I know aren’t interested in bragging rights, and tend to keep things like affairs to themseleves.
You may be right, and women may be better at concealing their affairs which would mean less scandals.
June 25th, 2009 at 5:40 pmJohnM Says:
Actually that statement is not correct. In order to look at percentages like this you need to only relate the two percentages to one another. If the number is 8% more you need to relate that to what percentage of women commit adultry.
Which is all predicated on the assumption that the single survey you cite is correct or reliable. If you dig a little deeper, you’ll find results all over the mark, including a general consensus that roughly 50% of married people in this country, men and women, have an affair at some point during their marriage.
June 25th, 2009 at 5:42 pm
hoodathunk, you’re right. But, wouldn’t you agree that some very qualified people don’t run for office because they would take a pay cut?
(sidebar: the rest don’t run because of the press scrutiny of their private lives. If we paid them more and made their personal lives off limits – maybe would could attract the best of the best).
June 25th, 2009 at 5:43 pmJohnM Says: You may be right, and women may be better at concealing their affairs which would mean less scandals.
Oh yeah, if you can’t see it, it can’t be dirty. It has worked so well so far.
Why should election to Congress be an open ticket to less than admirable behavior?
June 25th, 2009 at 5:43 pmJohnM, so if I am possibly right, it makes this poll worthless as a poll. There is no scientfic way to put any worth in the numbers. It just ends up being meaningless.
June 25th, 2009 at 5:45 pmYes, we need more women in elective office because in a representative democracy, the elected officials should be somewhat proportional to the population they represent.
June 25th, 2009 at 5:50 pmNot because of some B.S. crap that Dana Purina is chowing down.
angels81 Says:
——————————————————————————–
JohnM, so if I am possibly right, it makes this poll worthless as a poll. There is no scientfic way to put any worth in the numbers. It just ends up being meaningless.
If you are right then every poll would be meaningless because you can’t trust answers.
June 25th, 2009 at 5:51 pmCan we really stand tall and proud these days when we are arguing about the degree of wrong involved in whether a MOC paid for a prostitute (whether it was to change a diaper or get laid), cheated on their spouse ( whether it was an employee or a foreign national) or decided to ignore polls and constituents to accept money from lobbyists?
Where is the benefit when we say on a regular basis, they are in Congress, they lie, cheat, accept money and bribes but that is the way things go.
Yes, Susy, that (public official) did do things we have told you are wrong but they must have had a good reason.
June 25th, 2009 at 5:51 pmHoodathunktick Says:
——————————————————————————–
JohnM Says: You may be right, and women may be better at concealing their affairs which would mean less scandals.
Oh yeah, if you can’t see it, it can’t be dirty. It has worked so well so far.
Why should election to Congress be an open ticket to less than admirable behavior?
I was being sarcastic. Get over yourself.
June 25th, 2009 at 5:51 pmJohnM, sarcastic doesn’t work for you. And I have noticed not much else does either.
June 25th, 2009 at 5:54 pmHoodathunktick Says:
——————————————————————————–
JohnM, sarcastic doesn’t work for you. And I have noticed not much else does either.
The fact that it is over your head does not mean it does not work.
June 25th, 2009 at 6:01 pmJohnM, Most polls worth their salt has a control question, this has none. This has got to be one of the most worthless arguments you’ve brought to this site.
June 25th, 2009 at 6:03 pmangels81 Says:
JohnM, Most polls worth their salt has a control question, this has none
Well, almost every study on the subject notes that it’s almost impossible to get accurate data on adultery since so many people have such a high incentive to lie about it. But various different studies all tend to find the ratio of cheating higher for men, by about a 2:3 ratio. I don’t find that result surprising in any way, given the messages from our culture aimed at different genders.
Speaking of which, here’s a funny video I saw today.
June 25th, 2009 at 6:07 pmangels81 Says:
——————————————————————————–
JohnM, Most polls worth their salt has a control question, this has none. This has got to be one of the most worthless arguments you’ve brought to this site.
What control question would have worked on this poll?
June 25th, 2009 at 6:12 pmPerino, you are so right!!! But who can blame them for not running. Look at Bachman, she is smarter than all of MN men put together.
June 25th, 2009 at 6:14 pmI’ve noticed JohnM has a much higher opinion of himself than the quality of his contributions here would warrant.
June 25th, 2009 at 6:14 pmJohnM, none. The question is so meaningless that you will never get anything close to whats real.
June 25th, 2009 at 6:16 pmElBruce Says:
——————————————————————————–
Well, I’m all for electing more women even if it’s for stupid reasons. If this gives sexist wingnuts an excuse to vote for more women at all levels, that’s fine with me.
Even stupid women? Wow a true Demo!
Yet another Demo that votes for race and/or gender rather than qualifications. Big surprise!
June 25th, 2009 at 6:19 pmangels81 Says:
——————————————————————————–
JohnM, none. The question is so meaningless that you will never get anything close to whats real.
I disagree, it is as fair a question as any other poll question. It actually is better because it asks whether or not somebody that is married has had an affair, a very simple question. While other questions are based on hypotheticals.
June 25th, 2009 at 6:22 pmpink Says:
——————————————————————————–
ElBruce Says:
——————————————————————————–
Well, I’m all for electing more women even if it’s for stupid reasons. If this gives sexist wingnuts an excuse to vote for more women at all levels, that’s fine with me.
Even stupid women? Wow a true Demo!
Yet another Demo that votes for race and/or gender rather than qualifications. Big surprise!
Most dems can’t see past things like race and gender.
June 25th, 2009 at 6:24 pmralph the wonder locust Says:
——————————————————————————–
JohnM Says:
Hoodathunktick Says:
JohnM, sarcastic doesn’t work for you. And I have noticed not much else does either.
The fact that it is over your head does not mean it does not work.
I’ve noticed JohnM has a much higher opinion of himself than the quality of his contributions here would warrant.
I’ve smacked you around enough in the past couple days. It’s too easy!
June 25th, 2009 at 6:25 pmWhich is why the first African-American president is a Democrat, right?
June 25th, 2009 at 6:26 pm“It does indicate that men who oppose federal spending at the local level are irresistible to women,” he said.
Oh, come on. This is a rare example of a conservative actually saying something funny.
that the impetus to women in office is because they’re too busy (read: too sexless) to be having affairs?”
I’m not sure how “not having an affair” equates to being “sexless”. There are many women who are very busy, haven’t had an affair, and yet are far from being sexless.
June 25th, 2009 at 6:27 pmralph the wonder locust Says:
——————————————————————————–
JohnM Says:
Most dems can’t see past things like race and gender.
Which is why the first African-American president is a Democrat, right?
Exactly my point. Who cares that he has no experience, he is African American, so you must vote for him.
June 25th, 2009 at 6:28 pmJohnM, Its like taking a poll asking men how many women they have had sexual intercourse with. Would you believe the numbers of that poll?
June 25th, 2009 at 6:28 pmrepublicans hate facts Says:
——————————————————————————–
JohnM Says:
I was being sarcastic. Get over yourself.
Actually you were being a b*tchy princess. Get over yourself.
JohnM Says:
I’ve smacked you around enough in the past couple days. It’s too easy!
Yawn, the SCRATCHING CLAWING PRINCESS thinks she’s SMACKED PEOPLE AROUND by *WHINING* them to death!! ROTFL!!
What a BRAIN DEAD LUNATIC! ;)
Scooby Doo must be over, you better get your posts in before Sponge Bob is on.
June 25th, 2009 at 6:28 pmangels81 Says:
——————————————————————————–
JohnM, Its like taking a poll asking men how many women they have had sexual intercourse with. Would you believe the numbers of that poll?
If it is anonymous, yes. If it is face to face, no.
June 25th, 2009 at 6:30 pm“Smacked me around”? Hehehe… keep telling yourself that, johnM. Eventually maybe you’ll convince at least yourself.
(You know… your inflated idea of yourself convinces no one here but you. If it even convinces you. Most folks I know how puff themselves up before others, do so to overcome crippling self-esteem issues. Might be worth looking into. just a thought.)
June 25th, 2009 at 6:30 pmJohnM, who say’s Obama has no experience? And while your at it, please tell us what experience Obama was lacking to be President.
June 25th, 2009 at 6:31 pmrepublicans hate facts Says:
——————————————————————————–
JohnM Says:
Exactly my point. Who cares that he has no experience, he is African American, so you must vote for him.
Who cares if he has no experience, he’s a white guy from Tejas.
Sound familiar – KKKracker? ;)
Governor of a large state or a first term senator? Hmmm, who could have had more experience?
June 25th, 2009 at 6:31 pmSo your argument is that Democrats voted for Obama BECAUSE he is black, and no other reason, correct? That Democrats could not see beyond the man’s race and so voted on that basis?
June 25th, 2009 at 6:32 pm——————————————————————————–
angels81 Says:
——————————————————————————–
JohnM, who say’s Obama has no experience? And while your at it, please tell us what experience Obama was lacking to be President.
A much easier question is what experience does he have that would make him qualified to be president.
June 25th, 2009 at 6:32 pmJohn M, I thought you were busy jumping sharks?
June 25th, 2009 at 6:32 pmralph the wonder locust Says:
——————————————————————————–
JohnM Says:
Most dems can’t see past things like race and gender.
Which is why the first African-American president is a Democrat, right?
Thank you for making my point, Demo vote for a president who looks good for the party, but yet has very little experience to back up his good looks and well written speeches.
June 25th, 2009 at 6:33 pmralph the wonder locust Says:
——————————————————————————–
JohnM Says:
ralph the wonder locust Says:
Which is why the first African-American president is a Democrat, right?
Exactly my point. Who cares that he has no experience, he is African American, so you must vote for him.
So your argument is that Democrats voted for Obama BECAUSE he is black, and no other reason, correct? That Democrats could not see beyond the man’s race and so voted on that basis?
Yes
June 25th, 2009 at 6:33 pmpink Says:
Yet another Demo that votes for race and/or gender rather than qualifications. Big surprise!
The implied assumption behind your retort is that there are no qualified women or racial minorities.
Big surprise.
.
JohnM Says:
Exactly my point. Who cares that he has no experience, he is African American, so you must vote for him.
His experience was just fine, and his campaign was brilliant. He’s doing an excellent job so far. And his race was a hindrance, not a help, to him getting elected. Up until then the conventional wisdom has always been that black people have a harder time getting elected at all. So, the exact opposite of what you’re claiming is actually the case.
Again, big surprise.
June 25th, 2009 at 6:33 pmExplain how that makes your point?
What do “good looks and well-written speeches” have to do with his race?
June 25th, 2009 at 6:34 pmAnd is this a new phenomenon?
say, one that emerged over the past couple of years? Or would you say it is a more deeply-rooted element of the Democratic Party?
June 25th, 2009 at 6:36 pmrepublicans hate facts Says:
——————————————————————————–
angels81 Says:
JohnM, who say’s Obama has no experience? And while your at it, please tell us what experience Obama was lacking to be President.
Or better yet what experience *BUSH* was in possession of that Obama is lacking? Maybe the SKILL to *MISSPEAK* every english word and construct your OWN VOCABULARY? ;)
5 years of executive leadership as governor of a large state.
June 25th, 2009 at 6:36 pmrepublicans hate facts Says:
——————————————————————————–
JohnM Says:
ralph the wonder locust Says:
——————————————————————————–
JohnM Says:
ralph the wonder locust Says:
Which is why the first African-American president is a Democrat, right?
Exactly my point. Who cares that he has no experience, he is African American, so you must vote for him.
So your argument is that Democrats voted for Obama BECAUSE he is black, and no other reason, correct? That Democrats could not see beyond the man’s race and so voted on that basis?
Yes
YAWN, the *RACIST* thinks EVERYONE ELSE is as RACIST AS SHE IS!! ROTFL!!
You’re BORING IN YOUR PREDICTABLE PROJECTION – KKKracker!
I personally voted for him because he WASN’T A DUM BASS KKKracker like McCain/Palin.
WOW, I am sorry I thought a Sentor with more than ONE term and a Vet would allow for the “white” to be overseen. *RACIST* eh?
June 25th, 2009 at 6:38 pmrepublicans hate facts Says:
I personally voted for him because he WASN’T A DUM BASS KKKracker like McCain/Palin.
All that you needed to say to show your inability to vote based on qualifications. Thanks for being so obviously shallow with your vote.
June 25th, 2009 at 6:39 pm——————————————————————————–
republicans hate facts Says:
——————————————————————————–
ralph the wonder locust Says:
JohnM Says:
ralph the wonder locust Says:
So your argument is that Democrats voted for Obama BECAUSE he is black, and no other reason, correct? That Democrats could not see beyond the man’s race and so voted on that basis?
Yes
And is this a new phenomenon?
say, one that emerged over the past couple of years? Or would you say it is a more deeply-rooted element of the Democratic Party?
The OBVIOUS CONCLUSION is that JohnM DIDN’T vote for Obama because he was Black… ;)
I didn’t vote for him, because he had no experience and as he has shown was not ready for the job.
June 25th, 2009 at 6:40 pmJohnM Says:
5 years of executive leadership as governor of a large state.
And Obama had 7 years as a state legislator and 4 more as a Senator. So who are you to wave away that experience just doesn’t exist. Oh, did we mention he’s doing a good job? Yeah. Bush didn’t.
June 25th, 2009 at 6:41 pm.
Nah, then the dude pol’s’ll just start boinkin’ the chick pol’s.
Anyway, these affairs were with married women, so, Perrino, maybe it’s just you, or maybe you’re trying to cover something up that you don’t want your husband to know…
It’s just how those people are, you know? They can’t help but self-destruct. Their own lying hypocritical bullsh*t just gets to them eventually.
Too bad it takes so long.
June 25th, 2009 at 6:41 pm.
republicans hate facts Says:
JoanM just said that *BOTH* candidates had no *RELEVANT* experience… ;)
When did I say that?
June 25th, 2009 at 6:42 pmSpeaking of crazy women…
Check this clip out of Mika Brzezinski essentially saying that Sanford’s affair is not as bad as Clinton’s because at least Sanford was in love with the person he was cheating on his wife with.
This is crazy!!!
http://progressnotcongress.org/?p=1946
June 25th, 2009 at 6:42 pmrepublicans hate facts Says:
——————————————————————————–
JohnM Says:
republicans hate facts Says:
I personally voted for him because he WASN’T A DUM BASS KKKracker like McCain/Palin.
All that you needed to say to show your inability to vote based on qualifications. Thanks for being so obviously shallow with your vote.
They were BOTH SENATORS, neither had *BETTER* qualifications – DUM BASS.
Thanks for being SO SHALLOW on your VOTE that it boiled down for the WHITE GUY for you..
You just said that you did not vote for McCain because he was a cracker. Maybe if I dumb this down to your level, it might help, no-take-backs. You already said you only voted for Obama because he was not white, sorry.
June 25th, 2009 at 6:43 pmrepublicans hate facts Says:
——————————————————————————–
Joan thinks being a *SENATOR* makes you UNQUALIFIED to be PRESIDENT…
Too bad that the CONSTITUTION has no such *LITMUS* test for president… ;)
Sorry, never said that. But you have always been loose with the facts, so I would expect nothing else from you.
June 25th, 2009 at 6:44 pmrepublicans hate facts Says:
——————————————————————————–
JohnM Says:
republicans hate facts Says:
JoanM just said that *BOTH* candidates had no *RELEVANT* experience… ;)
When did I say that?
You said that Obama had *NO* experience, yet the *ONLY* experience that was different from McCain’s was his *DURATION* in the Senate… ;)
Did you see when I said first term senator? I know reading is not your strong suit, but please try and keep up. Does your 3rd grade teacher get mad when you hold up the whole class like this?
June 25th, 2009 at 6:46 pmrepublicans hate facts Says:
——————————————————————————–
JohnM Says:
republicans hate facts Says:
JoanM just said that *BOTH* candidates had no *RELEVANT* experience… ;)
When did I say that?
You said that Obama had *NO* experience, yet the *ONLY* experience that was different from McCain’s was his *DURATION* in the Senate… ;)
June 25th, 2009 at 6:42 pm Recommend (0) | Report Abuse
——————————————————————————–
JohnM Says:
——————————————————————————–
republicans hate facts Says:
——————————————————————————–
JohnM Says:
republicans hate facts Says:
I personally voted for him because he WASN’T A DUM BASS KKKracker like McCain/Palin.
All that you needed to say to show your inability to vote based on qualifications. Thanks for being so obviously shallow with your vote.
They were BOTH SENATORS, neither had *BETTER* qualifications – DUM BASS.
Thanks for being SO SHALLOW on your VOTE that it boiled down for the WHITE GUY for you..
You just said that you did not vote for McCain because he was a cracker. Maybe if I dumb this down to your level, it might help, no-take-backs. You already said you only voted for Obama because he was not white, sorry.
I guess I am Old school too….since I want someone who actually served in our military to be Commander and Chief, since it is my husband fighting for all the social programs that the Demos are voting for….. Again, sorry and you are welcome for our sacrifice. For me it came down to WHO would have the better judement when Korea decides to go Nuc.
June 25th, 2009 at 6:48 pmrepublicans hate facts Says:
——————————————————————————–
JohnM Says:
I didn’t vote for him, because he had no experience and as he has shown was not ready for the job.
NO means *ZERO*, so either being a SENATOR counts as *ZERO* and BOTH WERE UNQUALIFIED. Or you’ve TAKEN YOUR HABIT of *EXAGGERATING* (LYING) into THIS ASSUMPTION… ;)
A senator in his first year will not have any relevant experience preparing him for the job. On the other hand a senator with 15+ years experience would have experience preparing him for the job. So yes, Obama had no relevant experience from his one year on the senate before he started his campaign.
June 25th, 2009 at 6:49 pmrepublicans hate facts Says:
——————————————————————————–
JohnM Says:
republicans hate facts Says:
——————————————————————————–
Joan thinks being a *SENATOR* makes you UNQUALIFIED to be PRESIDENT…
Too bad that the CONSTITUTION has no such *LITMUS* test for president… ;)
Sorry, never said that. But you have always been loose with the facts, so I would expect nothing else from you.
ACTUALLY you *DID*. You said he wasn’t QUALIFIED, yet you’ve never QUANTIFIED WHAT THAT MEANS. The *CONSTITUTION* defines what it means – but YOU seem to have your OWN RULES AGAIN.. ;)
Yes, the constitution only requires him to be 35 and born in the United States. I guess the framers of the constitution expected the voting public to be a little brighter than you and actually vote for somebody that is ready for the job.
June 25th, 2009 at 6:50 pmrepublicans hate facts Says:
——————————————————————————–
pink Says:
I guess I am Old school too….since I want someone who actually served in our military to be Commander and Chief, since it is my husband fighting for all the social programs that the Demos are voting for….. Again, sorry and you are welcome for our sacrifice. For me it came down to WHO would have the better judement when Korea decides to go Nuc.
It’s NOT A FEDERAL or CONSTITUTIONAL REQUIREMENT and in fact having a *MILITARY* ruler as president has a long history of problems throughout the world. That’s why the MILITARY falls under *CIVILIAN* CONTROL. Fascist freak.
When he has no argument he jumps on the minimum requirement that anybody in this country over 35 can meet. So I guess that means in about 18 years he will be qualified to be president?
June 25th, 2009 at 6:53 pm——————————————————————————–
republicans hate facts Says:
——————————————————————————–
JohnM Says:
republicans hate facts Says:
——————————————————————————–
JohnM Says:
I didn’t vote for him, because he had no experience and as he has shown was not ready for the job.
NO means *ZERO*, so either being a SENATOR counts as *ZERO* and BOTH WERE UNQUALIFIED. Or you’ve TAKEN YOUR HABIT of *EXAGGERATING* (LYING) into THIS ASSUMPTION… ;)
A senator in his first year will not have any relevant experience preparing him for the job. On the other hand a senator with 15+ years experience would have experience preparing him for the job. So yes, Obama had no relevant experience from his one year on the senate before he started his campaign.
What about in their FOURTH YEAR? Because he wasn’t ELECTED after his FIRST YEAR, he was ELECTED after serving for FOUR YEARS… ;)
Just like BUSH served for what – TWO YEARS as a WEAK GOVERNOR before HE RAN? See your LOGIC SMACKS YOU because you aren’t a LOGICAL PERSON PRINCESS… Go play some more with those barbies…
FACTS aren’t your STRONG SUIT are they PRINCESS…
Again you are showing your ignorance. If you actually think that a first term senator’s experience is equivalent to leading a large state for 5 years, then you are less intelligent than I gave you credit for.
June 25th, 2009 at 6:55 pmpink Says:
I guess I am Old school too….since I want someone who actually served in our military to be Commander and Chief, since it is my husband fighting for all the social programs that the Demos are voting for….. Again, sorry and you are welcome for our sacrifice. For me it came down to WHO would have the better judement when Korea decides to go Nuc.
It’s NOT A FEDERAL or CONSTITUTIONAL REQUIREMENT and in fact having a *MILITARY* ruler as president has a long history of problems throughout the world. That’s why the MILITARY falls under *CIVILIAN* CONTROL. Fascist freak.
I am sorry, again, however I never said it was a requirement, I said I wanted someone who served……Oh I am sorry I forgot…. you prefer non-experience. If I recall McCain is NO LONGER in the Military…. and Socialist countries have a great history?
June 25th, 2009 at 6:57 pmI do have actual reasons for my votes…. with out the slurs.
republicans hate facts Says:
——————————————————————————–
JohnM Says:
republicans hate facts Says:
——————————————————————————–
JohnM Says:
republicans hate facts Says:
——————————————————————————–
Joan thinks being a *SENATOR* makes you UNQUALIFIED to be PRESIDENT…
Too bad that the CONSTITUTION has no such *LITMUS* test for president… ;)
Sorry, never said that. But you have always been loose with the facts, so I would expect nothing else from you.
ACTUALLY you *DID*. You said he wasn’t QUALIFIED, yet you’ve never QUANTIFIED WHAT THAT MEANS. The *CONSTITUTION* defines what it means – but YOU seem to have your OWN RULES AGAIN.. ;)
Yes, the constitution only requires him to be 35 and born in the United States. I guess the framers of the constitution expected the voting public to be a little brighter than you and actually vote for somebody that is ready for the job.
Actually it only requires that you be a NATURAL BORN CITIZEN, otherwise McCain wouldn’t QUALIFY because he was BORN IN PANAMA.
I’m sure the framers did think the PUBLIC and the CANDIDATES WOULD BE BRIGHTER. Then BUSH SHOWED now DUMB BOTH CAN BE! ;)
I hope in 10 years when you can vote you understand a little more about the world. By the way McCain was born on a military installation which is considered U.S. soil.
June 25th, 2009 at 6:57 pmJohnM, For all that experince you say McCain had, he couldn’t even get a good chunk of repugs to vote for him. Sitting on your hands for 15 years in the Senate really doesn’t mean much. His big claim to fame in the Senate was he was part of the Keating Five.
June 25th, 2009 at 7:00 pmrepublicans hate facts Says:
——————————————————————————–
Here JoanM, go learn something about the Texas “EXECUTIVE” office…
http://texaspolitics.laits.utexas.edu/1_1_0.html
Compared to the U.S. President or the chief executives of other states, the Texas Governor occupies a “weak” office.
Bush was WEAK and LAME, just like you – PRINCESS… ;)
Would you like to talk about the office of a first term senator from Illinois? The fact that you can try and compare the two shows just how naive you are.
June 25th, 2009 at 7:02 pmrepublicans hate facts Says:
——————————————————————————–
pink Says:
I am sorry, again, however I never said it was a requirement, I said I wanted someone who served……Oh I am sorry I forgot…. you prefer non-experience. If I recall McCain is NO LONGER in the Military…. and Socialist countries have a great history?
I do have actual reasons for my votes…. with out the slurs.
This is NOT a MILITARY JUNTA and what YOU and your SS BUDDIES WANT I could CARE LESS ABOUT. FREAK.
As for your WHINING AND B*TCHING ABOUT SOCIALISM! YAWN!! FASCIST FREAKS like YOU are the THREAT TO HUMANITY and DEMOCRACY. F*KKK OFF B*TCH.
Thanks!! Yet again you prove my point. I am glad there are Americans( you are American?) that have such great passion for using foul lang to express your opinion. I will try not to allow those “scare” tactics to persuade me from my beliefs. It has been fun, try to take care we don’t want you getting ill with all that pent up anger.
June 25th, 2009 at 7:06 pmSince I am a woman and of non-white persuasion maybe I will run for office….and I’ll get voted in just for having tits!!
JohnM, McCain was not born on a military installation, he was born outside in a hospital that was off the military insallation.
June 25th, 2009 at 7:06 pmThank god McCain and the queen of the north are not in the white house now. Bombs would be falling on Iran as we speak.
June 25th, 2009 at 7:08 pmThat might be a decent thought were this not a heterosexual affair. The funny thing about heterosexual affairs is the same number of women as men happen to be infidels.
The reality is we need more gay politicians. They are much better at monogamy, and could teach fake Christians a thing or two about family values.
June 25th, 2009 at 7:08 pm——————————————————————————–
angels81 Says:
——————————————————————————–
JohnM, McCain was not born on a military installation, he was born outside in a hospital that was off the military insallation.
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/28/us/politics/28mccain.html
June 25th, 2009 at 7:09 pmMr. McCain was born on a military installation in the Canal Zone, where his mother and father, a Navy officer, were stationed.
So, JohnM… do you think this characteristic of Demcorats to fail to look past race, and just to vote for teh black man is a recent thing? You never said.
June 25th, 2009 at 7:11 pmJohnM, He was born off base idiot.
June 25th, 2009 at 7:14 pmrepublicans hate facts Says:
——————————————————————————–
pink Says:
Thanks!! Yet again you prove my point.
What POINT? That you IGNORANT RUBES vote against your OWN SELF INTERESTS because you’re a bunch of FASCIST FREAKS?
pink Says:
I am glad there are Americans( you are American?)
YAWN.. There is *NOTHING* AMERICAN about you. You could GOOSE STEP WITH THE THIRD REICH and NOT MISS A BEAT.
pink Says:
that have such great passion for using foul lang to express your opinion.
Your ENTIRE POST is nothing but FOUL ATTACKS on EVERYONE that isn’t an RIGHT WING MORON, and you fixate on *FOUL LANGUAGE* like a GOOD LITTLE DELUSIONAL LUNATIC.
pink Says:
I will try not to allow those “scare” tactics to persuade me from my beliefs.
ROTFL! If you are *SCARED* then why did YOU COME to B*TCH on a PROGRESSIVE BOARD? You could stay over at the RED STATE and STOP STALKING EVERYONE HERE you PASSIVE AGGRESSIVE JACK BOOTED B*TCH.
pink Says:
It has been fun, try to take care we don’t want you getting ill with all that pent up anger.
PROJECT MUCH FASCIST FREAK?
pink Says:
Since I am a woman and of non-white persuasion maybe I will run for office….and I’ll get voted in just for having tits!!
YAWN… You are DEFINITELY A B*TCH, but as to what GENDER YOU ARE, that’s ANYBODY’S GUESS SOCKPUPPET.
Ladies and gentleman a true progressive!
June 25th, 2009 at 7:14 pmangels81 Says:
——————————————————————————–
JohnM, He was born off base idiot.
That is not what the article from the NY Times said.
June 25th, 2009 at 7:15 pmrepublicans hate facts Says:
——————————————————————————–
JohnM Says:
Ladies and gentleman a true progressive!
You mean SOMEONE that TELLS A FASCIST SOCK PUPPET to F*KKK off because she wants a MILITARY JUNTA to CONTROL OUR COUNTRY?
ROTFL! Princess you NEED TO TRY HARDER or go BACK TO THE BARBIES! ;)
I just wish more progressives were like you, it would make elections much easier, but unfortunately you are the drunk uncle they hide when company is over.
June 25th, 2009 at 7:19 pmJohnM, pinky, you wingnuts are so f”"ked up. You dolts have no idea why democrats and progressives voted the way we voted. Here’s a hint…We had two strong candidates, and whoever won would have gotten our vote. So you clowns would have been out of luck either way. It would have been President Clinton or President Obama. McCain was not even an after thought.
June 25th, 2009 at 7:20 pmSorry Perino, you lying hateful Bush-lover & apologizer, while I agree we need more women, it’s not because of Sanford. You continue to make ridiculous comments. Go away.
June 25th, 2009 at 7:20 pmrepublicans hate facts Says:
——————————————————————————–
JohnM Says:
angels81 Says:
——————————————————————————–
JohnM, He was born off base idiot.
That is not what the article from the NY Times said.
A place that’s NOW in the COUNTRY OF PANAMA BECAUSE THE LEASE RAN OUT. Doesn’t sound like AMERICAN SOIL TO ME!
What is your point? It was a U.S. military installation when he was born there. You do realize that countries buy and sell land quite often?
June 25th, 2009 at 7:21 pmrepublicans hate facts Says:
——————————————————————————–
JohnM Says:
I just wish more progressives were like you, it would make elections much easier, but unfortunately you are the drunk uncle they hide when company is over.
For US? You’re RIGHT! We’d SHOVE YOUR NOSES IN YOUR OWN LIES instead of letting FAUX NEWS SPEW THE FILTH and B*LLSH*T that you are so DUMB you REPEAT AS THOUGH IT WERE TRUE! ;)
You are the RETARDED DAUGHTER that your INBRED FATHER PRODUCE by f*KKKing his OWN CHILD.
It really is sad that progressives are ashamed to call you one of their own. Does it make you feel sad? Is that why you act out in class? Do you need to see the school psychologist?
June 25th, 2009 at 7:22 pmJohnM, my point was, your original post was wrong.
June 25th, 2009 at 7:23 pmangels81 Says:
——————————————————————————–
JohnM, my point was, your original post was wrong.
The point that he was born on a military installation, which I backed up with an article from the NY Times?
June 25th, 2009 at 7:24 pmFor some reason, JohnM seems to want to drop the whole “Dems vote for the black man because he’s black” idea.
June 25th, 2009 at 7:24 pmJohnM, so now you like the NYT? If you remember, some of you wingnuts went after McCain, because the hospital was not on the base, and they questioned if he was Natural born. I agree that it was as dumb as the Obama birth claim, but that was the argument by some of your wingnuts.
June 25th, 2009 at 7:29 pm——————————————————————————–
ralph the wonder locust Says:
——————————————————————————–
For some reason, JohnM seems to want to drop the whole “Dems vote for the black man because he’s black” idea.
Nope, still believe that. This was been proven when Republicans Hate Facts flat out said he did not vote for McCain because he was white.
June 25th, 2009 at 7:29 pm——————————————————————————–
angels81 Says:
——————————————————————————–
JohnM, so now you like the NYT? If you remember, some of you wingnuts went after McCain, because the hospital was not on the base, and they questioned if he was Natural born. I agree that it was as dumb as the Obama birth claim, but that was the argument by some of your wingnuts.
I’ve never complained about the NYT. Are you saying the article is incorrect?
June 25th, 2009 at 7:31 pmPerhaps you can explain then, why Al Sharpton failed to win the nomination in 2004?
June 25th, 2009 at 7:31 pmJohnM, you really are a dolt. Republicans Hate Facts speaks for no one but himself. You really are a tin foil hat gal or guy, whatever the F**k you are.
June 25th, 2009 at 7:32 pmWhich does not make you a natural born citizen. Go to the State Department website.
June 25th, 2009 at 7:33 pm——————————————————————————–
ralph the wonder locust Says:
——————————————————————————–
JohnM Says:
ralph the wonder locust Says:
For some reason, JohnM seems to want to drop the whole “Dems vote for the black man because he’s black” idea.
Nope, still believe that. This was been proven when Republicans Hate Facts flat out said he did not vote for McCain because he was white.
Perhaps you can explain then, why Al Sharpton failed to win the nomination in 2004?
Al Sharpton was too extreme and they knew that they could not market him. If he would have toned down his rhetoric the dems would have been all over him, but they new he was not electable.
June 25th, 2009 at 7:34 pmI love the fact that we have a rightwing nut job like JohnM telling all us progressive’s and democrats how we think and why we vote for who we vote for. Bahahahahahahaha!!!
June 25th, 2009 at 7:41 pmHmm… so you’re saying that Democratic voters assessed the candidate beyond his racial character?
After all, if Democrats are unable to look past race, as you insisted, they would have simply voted for the black man regardless of his character or attributes. The Democratic Party would have had a steady string of black nominees for President, if your supposition had a basis in fact.
But in Sharpton’s case, they did not do so. In no other case did the Democratic Party nominate a black man to run for President.
This makes it appear as though the nomination of Barack Obama was NOT based on his racial identity and on the inability of Democrats to see beyond race. It provides strong evidence that his nomination was based on his ability to communicate with and inspire voters of all races.
But JohnM will go on believing that the exception not only proves the rule but IS the rule.
His only evidence for his assertion is:
10 the nomination of Obama
and
2) the intemperate remarks of an anonymous commenter on a blog.
Sounds about right for JohnM’s standard of proof for his pet theories.
June 25th, 2009 at 7:42 pmPerino is a babe but she’s a dumb blonde.
June 25th, 2009 at 7:44 pmIf I were the type of commenter that JohnM is, I might go ahead and pronounce JohnM “officially pwned”.
But that’s not how I roll.
I let others decide for themselves how it went.
June 25th, 2009 at 7:44 pmJohnM Says:
So yes, Obama had no relevant experience from his one year on the senate before he started his campaign.
Simple fact: nobody ever wins the Presidency on the “experience” argument. In fact, usually it goes the other way. Kennedy vs. Nixon. Carter vs. Ford. Reagon vs. Carter. Clinton vs. Bush. Clinton vs. Dole. Bush vs. Gore. The less experienced guy historically has the edge, if for no other reason than because he has less of a record to do oppositional research on. Sometimes that works in favor of the R’s, sometimes it works in favor of the D’s.
But generally you win based on how you handle things during your campaign, not before.
McCain should have known better than to stand on experience and should have instead focuesed on presenting a clear vision for the country’s future, like Obama did. Obama’s campaign was brilliant, innovative, and effective. During that campaign he demonstrated exactly the qualities the electorate was looking for in a President – prudent caution where warranted, strong oratorical ability, strategic thinking, and innovative approaches to reaching people and getting them involved. During the same period, McCain demonstrated a number of qualities that no President should ever have – a short temper, short-term thinking, high-risk tactics and general cluelessness.
If Obama had been a white guy, he would have won by a much wider margin than he did.
June 25th, 2009 at 7:59 pmWhat the hell is John M doing here, I thought he was going jump a shark, or hike the trail, or shake off the devil or something.
June 25th, 2009 at 8:26 pmOkay, AB, I cop to it — I’m one of the worst enablers of JohnM’s particular brand of troll dung.
mea culpa. My bad.
I’m off him… starting…. NOW.
June 25th, 2009 at 8:46 pmGrover Norquist is a dirty dog.
Tonight, hundreds of professional playboys will be hitting the bottle because Mr. Norquist revealed one of their biggest secrets:
“…men who oppose federal spending at the local level are irresistible to women.”
Now, every dork in the country will be picking up women.
Thanks, pal.
June 25th, 2009 at 9:13 pmPerino is a sexist bigot. She thinks men are less qualified to be in politics than woman because men are more likely to cheat.
That is sexual bigotry. I think Perino owes an apology to every man in America.
June 25th, 2009 at 9:22 pmEgad! Poor li’l Bimborino just can’t help herself. But one would hope that even she would be able to realize that trying to sound philosophical makes her sound like a whole new level of idiot.
June 25th, 2009 at 9:43 pmObviously a lot of mane know women who have the time for trysts. So, what reality is Perino living in?
June 25th, 2009 at 9:44 pmAmericasBack Says:
June 25th, 2009 at 8:28 pm
Amen…
June 25th, 2009 at 9:50 pmHeh! Maybe Bimborino thinks all those GOoPers are having affairs with men? Last time I checked, it takes two to canoodle. Even for GOoPers.
June 25th, 2009 at 9:59 pmDidn’t that Republican woman governor… what WAS her name?…. oh yeah, Palin, didn’t she also have an affair with her husband’s business partner?
Thought so.
June 26th, 2009 at 12:58 amI think the lot of you are a joke, lol. Hilarious. Democrats “never” cheat eh? Hmm, I know a certain fat chic and and ugly one with a big nose who might disagree. The difference is that its expected that a moral-less Democrat would cheat. It isn’t so expected that a Republican cheats. It happens but unlike the dem’s, the right will rip on him for it because he isn’t supposed to do it.
BTW, I voted for Ron Paul, then John McCain. Not because they were white men, because Obama is an effing idiot who has no place being in charge of anything. I have never seen someone lie so bad and shyt all over people and still have people loving it because it is coming from a black man who can read a teleprompter. Ooh goody, a brother with less than no experience is in charge because the uneducated population is growing at an exponential rate. The dem’s are more racist than white people could ever be. But think what you will. Idiocracy was a great movie truly reflective of the dumbing down of America. America voted for Obama, and now the country is in more of a shythole than when Bush left it. Hell, I didn’t even think that was possible. The Fed is even scared of Obama, he just plain doesn’t know what he is allowing to happen. Sad. And we will all pay for it.
June 26th, 2009 at 1:12 am“Libertarian,”
Please point out where anyone said Democrats “never” cheat. We’ll wait…
June 26th, 2009 at 2:14 amLibertarian Says:
I think the lot of you are a joke, lol. Hilarious. Democrats “never” cheat eh?
Nobody ever said that. Now stop beating up those straw men over there. The real army is behind you. And it’s not made of straw.
.
Libertarian Says:
Not because they were white men … because it is coming from a black man…
Either get over the race thing or admit you’re not over the race thing, dude. You can’t have both.
.
Libertarian Says:
America voted for Obama, and now the country is in more of a shythole than when Bush left it.
Bush left it at 11:59:59 AM EST, Jan 20th 2009. Things are better now than they were at that time.
June 26th, 2009 at 3:06 amYep, And again,
Who was Sanford having an affair with?
And Perino says elect more females?
I bet Dana can see the same picturesque view of Russia from her porch that Sarah palin sees from her porch.
June 26th, 2009 at 3:14 amElecting Dana Perino to any office would be detrimental to our country. The End.
June 26th, 2009 at 7:35 amI guess this means that Perino is gearing to run for office to prove her point.
June 26th, 2009 at 8:02 amOnly if they are NOT like you!
June 26th, 2009 at 10:48 amWhen is the mainstream media going to tell these folks who make these statements that what they say may be the stupidest thing we’ve ever heard? All the press does is validate the insanity. THus our children grow up thinking they can say all kinds of stupid, insane, assinine things.
June 26th, 2009 at 11:29 amWht does the Media give this No-Nothing a Forum?
June 26th, 2009 at 12:19 pmUrban Dictionary – perino’d
Hit by anything Karmic you didn’t see coming.
Dana Perino was perino’d by an invisible microphone during ex-President Bush’s attempted Shoe Assassination in Iraq on Dec 14, 2008.
I thought I had gotten away clean running my money laundering operation when the IRS perino’d me.
http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=perino%27d
June 26th, 2009 at 1:34 pmSo I wonder who Perino thinks all these hetero men are having affairs with?
Apparently not with women.
CHRIST IS SHE DUMB!
June 27th, 2009 at 12:15 pm‘Can we get smarter Republicans, PLEASE?’
If you have to ask, the answer is no.
June 27th, 2009 at 12:18 pm