Kelly the Dog Posted January 28, 2009 Share Posted January 28, 2009 2. Simple, because they didn't need to, so why bother? Again, the Oprah standing order is to complement women doing anything, whether they deserve it or not. The bottom line is: they have been Oprah-trained to nod their head whenever the subject of any woman comes up no matter what they do. That training isn't broken because of party affiliation. The legions of bobbleheads by and large most likely aren't going to change their minds. The real drop in opinion of Palin more likely comes from: MEN. The minute she went from Hot-ass Governor to Hot-ass Hooter Girl who doesn't know the game, men stopped taking her seriously. And, women aren't going to start telling their husbands, or anyone, that they should take a Hooter Girl seriously...hence the lie. All polls that I saw that were close to the election showed that women liked Palin less than men by a few percentage points. I just looked at three of them and they were all the same. This one was just after the election. http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2008/...inion-of-palin/ So these women always lie to pollsters that ask them questions? Like, say, they actually hate Mother Teresa, but they love people like Casey Anthony who killed her daughter? They hate shows like American Idol but love Friday Night Lights? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OCinBuffalo Posted January 28, 2009 Share Posted January 28, 2009 All polls that I saw that were close to the election showed that women liked Palin less than men by a few percentage points. I just looked at three of them and they were all the same. This one was just after the election.http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2008/...inion-of-palin/ So these women always lie to pollsters that ask them questions? Like, say, they actually hate Mother Teresa, but they love people like Casey Anthony who killed her daughter? They hate shows like American Idol but love Friday Night Lights? No, and no, and women don't lie in general, but they will about this specific issue. To not lie is to admit the truth. The truth = biologically women aren't as likely to succeed on the whole as men, due to kids, hormones, you name it. There are individual exceptions as there is with most everything. But generally women are at a serious biological, and therefore psychological disadvantage, when it comes to success outside the home. It's not an indictment of their character, it's just the way it is. This truth however, is something that that cannot be accepted, or admitted to, because it is tantamount to surrendering to nature/god/whoever decided to make women be the ones who carry the babies. The real "lie", that women are actually "equal" to men, must be supported at all cost, however nuts. So, yeah, there's every reason to assume that they lied, and, the election results, not the polls, prove that. The actual results were a lot closer than the polls I saw on RCP right before the election = lies, lies, lies. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Steely Dan Posted January 28, 2009 Share Posted January 28, 2009 No, and no, and women don't lie in general, but they will about this specific issue. To not lie is to admit the truth. The truth = biologically women aren't as likely to succeed on the whole as men, due to kids, hormones, you name it. There are individual exceptions as there is with most everything. But generally women are at a serious biological, and therefore psychological disadvantage, when it comes to success outside the home. It's not an indictment of their character, it's just the way it is. This truth however, is something that that cannot be accepted, or admitted to, because it is tantamount to surrendering to nature/god/whoever decided to make women be the ones who carry the babies. The real "lie", that women are actually "equal" to men, must be supported at all cost, however nuts. So, yeah, there's every reason to assume that they lied, and, the election results, not the polls, prove that. The actual results were a lot closer than the polls I saw on RCP right before the election = lies, lies, lies. Hey OC it's the 20's calling they want their prejudices back. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wacka Posted January 28, 2009 Share Posted January 28, 2009 The dems have PMS- Palin Mania Syndrome. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kelly the Dog Posted January 28, 2009 Share Posted January 28, 2009 No, and no, and women don't lie in general, but they will about this specific issue. To not lie is to admit the truth. The truth = biologically women aren't as likely to succeed on the whole as men, due to kids, hormones, you name it. There are individual exceptions as there is with most everything. But generally women are at a serious biological, and therefore psychological disadvantage, when it comes to success outside the home. It's not an indictment of their character, it's just the way it is. This truth however, is something that that cannot be accepted, or admitted to, because it is tantamount to surrendering to nature/god/whoever decided to make women be the ones who carry the babies. The real "lie", that women are actually "equal" to men, must be supported at all cost, however nuts. So, yeah, there's every reason to assume that they lied, and, the election results, not the polls, prove that. The actual results were a lot closer than the polls I saw on RCP right before the election = lies, lies, lies. Don't you get sick of always being completely wrong? Obama won by 7.3 points. The RCP final results averaged 7.6. http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/20..._obama-225.html The main polls were mostly extremely close to the final result. Rasmussen. Fox. CBS. NBC. ABC, CNN. McLatchy. Pew. Only Gallup was off, and they used somewhat of a different criterion. These polls were amazingly accurate overall. Where is all this lying? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blzrul Posted January 28, 2009 Author Share Posted January 28, 2009 No, and no, and women don't lie in general, but they will about this specific issue. To not lie is to admit the truth. The truth = biologically women aren't as likely to succeed on the whole as men, due to kids, hormones, you name it. There are individual exceptions as there is with most everything. But generally women are at a serious biological, and therefore psychological disadvantage, when it comes to success outside the home. It's not an indictment of their character, it's just the way it is. This truth however, is something that that cannot be accepted, or admitted to, because it is tantamount to surrendering to nature/god/whoever decided to make women be the ones who carry the babies. The real "lie", that women are actually "equal" to men, must be supported at all cost, however nuts. So, yeah, there's every reason to assume that they lied, and, the election results, not the polls, prove that. The actual results were a lot closer than the polls I saw on RCP right before the election = lies, lies, lies. Oh Holy Oracle, since you know what women think and what motivates them...something that has eluded males for centures...after you're done writing your book and getting rich and famous, explain to us the thought process and voting habits of Jews, Hispanics, African-Americans and other minorities. Because it really takes a white boy from worldly western New York to know; well actually a white boy from East Podunk, Alaska too, but you're the one who's running with this one now while the others are probably hunting moose or something. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OCinBuffalo Posted January 28, 2009 Share Posted January 28, 2009 Did Palin go to Harvard? Franken did. I have yet to meet somebody in my business that went to Harvard who is actually really good at our job. I have never worked for someone who went there, or Stanford for that matter, but plenty have worked for me. Suffice it to say Harvard does not impress me. Maybe they are good elsewhere, but they suck in general at what we do. So invoking "Harvard" isn't a good way to make your point, especially to guy who was accepted at Harvard, but instead went to a school that is 20 times harder to get into. If you think Palin is smarter than Franken then there's no need to continue this conversation because you are incapable of rational thought. How many books about politics has Palin written? What do I win if I think they are both idiots compared to many of the people on this board? The better question is: how many of Fanken's arguments in those books can pass the common sense test? how many take all facts into account, proportionately, and still pass the smell test? I surmise that you/50% of us could write a book, given time, does that mean it would be any good? And how impressive is it if half of us can do it too? You really think the Palin interview was edited to make her look bad!!!! Yeah they edited her inability to say what magazines she reads, what the Bush doctrine is and what her foreign policy experience is. That's the point there, genius, of course she was edited to look bad. According to her, that's precisely what they did. SO who am I supposed to believe? A case can be made for both. Now, understand that I'm not saying Palin is smart. I am saying that Katie Couric and her show have been proven beyond all doubt to be completely in the tank for "your team". The most likely explanation is Couric set her up, Palin screwed up, and then Couric chopped up the tape to make it look even worse. How about seeing little Johnny killing hundreds of thousands of people and stealing other peoples money to fund it and it's ok for me to try and stop it. Yeah, that's coherent. Been taking writing lessons from Franken? Learn how to write at Harvard maybe? How about we make it simple for you: stop trying to excuse bad behavior, period, regardless of who does it. Six year olds know better. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OCinBuffalo Posted January 28, 2009 Share Posted January 28, 2009 Oh Holy Oracle, since you know what women think and what motivates them...something that has eluded males for centures...after you're done writing your book and getting rich and famous, explain to us the thought process and voting habits of Jews, Hispanics, African-Americans and other minorities. Because it really takes a white boy from worldly western New York to know; well actually a white boy from East Podunk, Alaska too, but you're the one who's running with this one now while the others are probably hunting moose or something. Can't help but notice that your not taking issue with/denying any of the specifics of what I wrote. Rather you are just lamely, and wrongly, making assumptions about my origins. Hmmm. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OCinBuffalo Posted January 28, 2009 Share Posted January 28, 2009 :rolleyes: Hey OC it's the 20's calling they want their prejudices back. "You've heard of rewriting history, but that's passe. Introducing "new and improved" rewriting Biology, and Psychology." Brought to you by the Corporation for Far-Left Retarded Broadcasting. Yes, I am "biased". I believe in genetics, hormones, and the psychological effects they have. Quick, Call Oprah! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jim in Anchorage Posted January 28, 2009 Share Posted January 28, 2009 Can't help but notice that your not taking issue with/denying any of the specifics of what I wrote. Rather you are just lamely, and wrongly, making assumptions about my origins. Hmmm. Don't stop her. I find the Alaska stuff hysterical. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SageAgainstTheMachine Posted January 28, 2009 Share Posted January 28, 2009 I have yet to meet somebody in my business that went to Harvard who is actually really good at our job. I have never worked for someone who went there, or Stanford for that matter, but plenty have worked for me. Suffice it to say Harvard does not impress me. Maybe they are good elsewhere, but they suck in general at what we do. So invoking "Harvard" isn't a good way to make your point, especially to guy who was accepted at Harvard, but instead went to a school that is 20 times harder to get into. Harvard's acceptance rate is currently 9.1% Would you mind informing us which school you went to with an acceptance rate of .45%? As far as I know, such a school does not exist. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OCinBuffalo Posted January 28, 2009 Share Posted January 28, 2009 Harvard's acceptance rate is currently 9.1% Would you mind informing us which school you went to with an acceptance rate of .45%? As far as I know, such a school does not exist. Certainly. The United States Military Academy. It receives around 160,000 applications/nominations a year and up to 1500 are accepted, so I guess it's only 10 times harder to get into than Harvard, huh? My mistake. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SageAgainstTheMachine Posted January 28, 2009 Share Posted January 28, 2009 Certainly. The United States Military Academy. It receives around 160,000 applications/nominations a year and up to 1500 are accepted, so I guess it's only 10 times harder to get into than Harvard, huh? My mistake. Haha, well I guess I win on a technicality, but I wasn't expecting a good answer. Sorry if I offended. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OCinBuffalo Posted January 28, 2009 Share Posted January 28, 2009 Haha, well I guess I win on a technicality, but I wasn't expecting a good answer. Sorry if I offended. You're just the first poster to ask me directly. No reason for me to be offended, really. If I'm going to be a smart-ass, I have to be prepared for getting smart-ass back at me. Besides, I certainly have been "hazed"....OMG! Call Oprah! The bad man said the H word! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted January 28, 2009 Share Posted January 28, 2009 Certainly. The United States Military Academy. It receives around 160,000 applications/nominations a year and up to 1500 are accepted, so I guess it's only 10 times harder to get into than Harvard, huh? My mistake. According to the numbers I just found, it's more like 15%. West Point's site itself says 12.8% for the most recent year. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kelly the Dog Posted January 28, 2009 Share Posted January 28, 2009 You're just the first poster to ask me directly. No reason for me to be offended, really. If I'm going to be a smart-ass, I have to be prepared for getting smart-ass back at me. Besides, I certainly have been "hazed"....OMG! Call Oprah! The bad man said the H word! 12.75% of applicants were admitted last year. Do you just make these numbers up? http://www.usma.edu/Class/2012/profile.asp The year before it was 1310 admitted and 10,800 applicants. http://www.usma.edu/Class/2011/RDay/NR21-07.pdf The year before that was 1320 out of 10,300 http://www.usma.edu/Dcomm/PressReleasesbd/...Classof2010.htm Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kelly the Dog Posted January 28, 2009 Share Posted January 28, 2009 According to the numbers I just found, it's more like 15%. West Point's site itself says 12.8% for the most recent year. He was only off by about 150,000 applicants though. It seems like its 10,000 a year and not 160,000. So when he says it's 20x harder to get in, what he means is that it's easier. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OCinBuffalo Posted January 28, 2009 Share Posted January 28, 2009 According to the numbers I just found, it's more like 15%. West Point's site itself says 12.8% for the most recent year. Ahh, but I'm quoting #s from my class. They are different every year. I heard they were talking about accepting more too. I imagine reporting to the Cadet in the Red Sash is not quite as popular an option nowadays. Besides, I'm just telling you what they told me. This is '= to a regular college application. Supposedly 160,000 kids started the process my year, but how the F would I really know? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OCinBuffalo Posted January 28, 2009 Share Posted January 28, 2009 He was only off by about 150,000 applicants though. It seems like its 10,000 a year and not 160,000. So when he says it's 20x harder to get in, what he means is that it's easier. Yeah. Keep talking about something you know nothing about. Good plan. Oh, wait, don't you talk about economics too? I guess you're used to it, huh? Or am I getting you confused with Molson/Eliott/whatever? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kelly the Dog Posted January 28, 2009 Share Posted January 28, 2009 Ahh, but I'm quoting #s from my class. They are different every year. I heard they were talking about accepting more too. I imagine reporting to the Cadet in the Red Sash is not quite as popular an option nowadays. Besides, I'm just telling you what they told me. This is '= to a regular college application. Supposedly 160,000 kids started the process my year, but how the F would I really know? It was 13.5% acceptance rate for the class of 1995, too. Seems pretty consistent. http://eric.ed.gov/ERICDocs/data/ericdocs2...80/15/9b/12.pdf Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts