Who do you support for Governor in Ohio in 2010?

[Hugh Victor Thompson III]

Duke for Mayor wrote:

<quoted text>
If I recall correctly (I do), the person holding that great big spoon was a handsome middle aged fool named Mittens, and he doled it out during a nationally televised debate in front of the entire electorate.
What did you expect the "media" to do?
Cut the sound whenever the fool spoke to protect the GOP?
I suppose you blame Jimmy Carter's nephew for opening Mitt's mouth during dinner too, huh?
woof
woof

As with Che, you don't even know the context of the story, do you?

[Duke for Mayor]

Hugh Victor Thompson III wrote:

<quoted text>As with Che, you don't even know the context of the story, do you?

I watched every one of the debates in their entirety.

I got all of the "context" that the messenger intended to deliver during the debate he delivered it in.

It was an idiotic statement, and it damaged his credibility, just like his "47%" statement delivered on secret camera.

But go ahead...defend it. It should be fun.

woof

[Che Reagan Christ]

Hugh Victor Thompson III wrote:

<quoted text>The phrase "Binders of women." I'm betting you don't even know the truth behind it.

I know what Mitt said. He said that when he was elected governor, he didn't know any women that he thought were qualified to be in his cabinet and women's groups and democrats had to provide him with binders of resumes of women because he couldn't manage to find any qualified women himself. Being a Mormon, no one should be that surprised.

I also know that he said in the debate that he created a female friendly workplace by allowing women to leave work at 5 so they could go home and make dinner.

I'm sure you have some sort of alternate reality created by Rush or Glenn that you ascribe to, though.

[Hugh Victor Thompson III]

Che Reagan Christ wrote:

<quoted text>
I know what Mitt said. He said that when he was elected governor, he didn't know any women that he thought were qualified to be in his cabinet and women's groups and democrats had to provide him with binders of resumes of women because he couldn't manage to find any qualified women himself. Being a Mormon, no one should be that surprised.
I also know that he said in the debate that he created a female friendly workplace by allowing women to leave work at 5 so they could go home and make dinner.
I'm sure you have some sort of alternate reality created by Rush or Glenn that you ascribe to, though.

The man acted in an open-minded and bipartisan manner and you people still twisted it into an attack. Yet never a mention of the discrimination in Obama's White House salary structure that leaves women at a disadvantage.

[Hugh Victor Thompson III]

Duke for Mayor wrote:

<quoted text>
I watched every one of the debates in their entirety.
I got all of the "context" that the messenger intended to deliver during the debate he delivered it in.
It was an idiotic statement, and it damaged his credibility, just like his "47%" statement delivered on secret camera.
But go ahead...defend it. It should be fun.
woof

See my response to Che. And then let's hear your take on Obama's White House pay for women.

[Duke for Mayor]

Hugh Victor Thompson III wrote:

<quoted text>See my response to Che. And then let's hear your take on Obama's White House pay for women.

I didn't "twist" anything. I said it was an idiotic statement that hurt his credibility.

As for your other assertion, that's all I see.

woof

[Che Reagan Christ]

Hugh Victor Thompson III wrote:

<quoted text>The man acted in an open-minded and bipartisan manner and you people still twisted it into an attack. Yet never a mention of the discrimination in Obama's White House salary structure that leaves women at a disadvantage.

Archie Bunker has become a champion of women's rights? And just a few hours ago he was writing this,

Hugh Victor Thompson III wrote:

<quoted text>Really? They wouldn't let women or those under 21 vote. That was pretty sensible; look what's happened since.

[Thomas Scutillo]

after obamas term he is going to take all the white girls home and put them in the kitchen.... they dont need pay

[xxxrayted]

Che Reagan Christ wrote:

<quoted text>
Archie Bunker has become a champion of women's rights? And just a few hours ago he was writing this,
<quoted text>

Well, I think he has a point. Women are less secure than men in general. They like having problems solved for them instead of running head on into solving problems themselves. DumBama had great strength in single women voters. People who don't want the complications of problem solving will vote for the person that promises to solve their problems: healthcare, gun restrictions, government bankruptcy aid, government child care, school lunches, free cell phones, food stamps and so on.

Men (white men in particular) are more confident with solving their own problems. Romney had a good percentage of married women voters because those women already have the security they desire.

In my opinion, it boils down to this: responsible people generally vote Republican while irresponsible people generally vote Democrat. Secure people generally vote Republican while insecure people generally vote Democrat. If you remove the irresponsible and insecure voters, liberalism would take it's proper place in history books and not in our politics today.

[Che Reagan Christ]

xxxrayted wrote:

<quoted text>
Well, I think he has a point. Women are less secure than men in general. They like having problems solved for them instead of running head on into solving problems themselves. DumBama had great strength in single women voters. People who don't want the complications of problem solving will vote for the person that promises to solve their problems: healthcare, gun restrictions, government bankruptcy aid, government child care, school lunches, free cell phones, food stamps and so on.
Men (white men in particular) are more confident with solving their own problems. Romney had a good percentage of married women voters because those women already have the security they desire.
In my opinion, it boils down to this: responsible people generally vote Republican while irresponsible people generally vote Democrat. Secure people generally vote Republican while insecure people generally vote Democrat. If you remove the irresponsible and insecure voters, liberalism would take it's proper place in history books and not in our politics today.

Wow. You and I, thankfully, know much different types of women. That is probably because I respect women and you are a misogynistic ass.

[xxxrayted]

Che Reagan Christ wrote:

<quoted text>
Wow. You and I, thankfully, know much different types of women. That is probably because I respect women and you are a misogynistic ass.

No, it's because you are a liberal, and as such, refuse to acknowledge truth. Instead, you wear those rose-colored glasses and pretend stereotypes don't exist. I know conservative women and minorities too. What I'm saying though is they are not the majority of their race or gender. Democrats rely on government dependent people. So what they do when in power is try to create more of such people. Lower standards for Obama Phones, lower standards for SS disability, lower standards for food stamps and so on. Now half of the people in our country rely on government assistance in one form or another, and it's making us broke.

[titonton divaunte pants]

Che Reagan Christ wrote:

<quoted text>
I know what Mitt said. He said that when he was elected governor, he didn't know any women that he thought were qualified to be in his cabinet and women's groups and democrats had to provide him with binders of resumes of women because he couldn't manage to find any qualified women himself. Being a Mormon, no one should be that surprised.
I also know that he said in the debate that he created a female friendly workplace by allowing women to leave work at 5 so they could go home and make dinner.
I'm sure you have some sort of alternate reality created by Rush or Glenn that you ascribe to, though.

I see you guys are still arguing ab out stuff that dosent even fing matter.

[titonton divaunte pants]

http://m.guardiannews.com/world/2012/dec/28/s...

[titonton divaunte pants]

" Civil rights campaigners voiced dismay on Friday over the US Senate's re-authorization of the government's warrantless surveillance program, and the defeat of two amendments that would have provided for basic oversight of the eavesdropping.

The Senate voted 73-23 to extend the law, called the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act Amendments Act, for five years. The House of Representatives has already passed the measure, which President Obama has said he will sign."
Much more important tan when you're allowed to make/eat dinner che.
Why is everything obama signs the fault of republicans?

[woo-boy]

xxxrayted wrote:

<quoted text>
No, it's because you are a liberal, and as such, refuse to acknowledge truth. Instead, you wear those rose-colored glasses and pretend stereotypes don't exist. I know conservative women and minorities too. What I'm saying though is they are not the majority of their race or gender. Democrats rely on government dependent people. So what they do when in power is try to create more of such people. Lower standards for Obama Phones, lower standards for SS disability, lower standards for food stamps and so on. Now half of the people in our country rely on government assistance in one form or another, and it's making us broke.

There is no such thing as a Obama phone,

www.factcheck.org/2009/10/the-obama-phone/

[xxxrayted]

titonton divaunte pants wrote:

" Civil rights campaigners voiced dismay on Friday over the US Senate's re-authorization of the government's warrantless surveillance program, and the defeat of two amendments that would have provided for basic oversight of the eavesdropping.
The Senate voted 73-23 to extend the law, called the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act Amendments Act, for five years. The House of Representatives has already passed the measure, which President Obama has said he will sign."
Much more important tan when you're allowed to make/eat dinner che.
Why is everything obama signs the fault of republicans?

That's unconstitutional. That's un-American. Now Obama is going to be able to listen to my pizza orders on Friday night or me talking with my mother. LOL.

Isn't it funny how the liberals stop screaming when it's one of their own???

[Che Reagan Christ]

xxxrayted wrote:

<quoted text>
No, it's because you are a liberal, and as such, refuse to acknowledge truth. Instead, you wear those rose-colored glasses and pretend stereotypes don't exist. I know conservative women and minorities too. What I'm saying though is they are not the majority of their race or gender. Democrats rely on government dependent people. So what they do when in power is try to create more of such people. Lower standards for Obama Phones, lower standards for SS disability, lower standards for food stamps and so on. Now half of the people in our country rely on government assistance in one form or another, and it's making us broke.

That is an entirely fales premise and not what I was basing my opinion on the quality of the women you know versus the women I know.

The women I know would fight your redneck ass if you ever said to them, "women are less secure than men and need to have their problems solved for them." That is a ridiculous statement and perfect evidence of why the GOP is bleeding out.

[Che Reagan Christ]

woo-boy wrote:

<quoted text>There is no such thing as a Obama phone,
www.factcheck.org/2009/10/the-obama-phone/

He doesn't care about facts. He saw a black woman on a cell phone. In his mind, there is no possible way a black woman could have a phone unless the government (or her pimp) gave it to her.

[Anonymous of Indy]

xxxrayted wrote:

<quoted text>
That's unconstitutional. That's un-American. Now Obama is going to be able to listen to my pizza orders on Friday night or me talking with my mother. LOL.
Isn't it funny how the liberals stop screaming when it's one of their own???

I said once Bush signed the Patriot Act into law we were heading toward Stalinism and there would be no end to it and it would become the normal.

[tranpsosition]

I'm not sure I really understand the logic behind the statement. Were women looking to have someone take care of their problems, it seems rather unusual to have the trends we're seeing today. Fewer women marrying, women graduating higher education at higher rates than men, women having children alone...it would rather seem that women are reducing their traditional dependence on male partners to help them achieve their goals and instead working to directly address their own needs.

The incredible and rapid growth of unmarried women as a demographic and their divergence to vote as a block on issues important to them seems to point to a development of agency, rather than the lack of it.