Haley wins primary in Sc

thaiboxerken said:
Is hotness part of the qualifications to be a female Republican candidate?
Click to expand...

leftysergeant said:
They consider it a prerequist for entry into the mainstream of society.
Click to expand...

leftysergeant said:
Now call up a picture of Meg Whitman and see whether you can tell me with a straight face that most of her charm is not in her stock portfolio.
Click to expand...

Howie Felterbush said:
I can't believe it, but you're actually right about something.
Click to expand...

Yes, but he can only be right by contradicting himself.
 
Ziggurat said:
Yes, but he can only be right by contradicting himself.
Click to expand...

I stated that the only way a woman makes it in Republicant circles is if she is a babe or rich enough to buy her way in.

We all know why Whitman is a major contender.

We know why Palin is not just laughed down and told to go away

If Condi Rice were not so good-looking, she would have been stuck teaching high school civics.

There would be no place in the GOP for a Patty Murray.
 
leftysergeant said:
I stated that the only way a woman makes it in Republicant circles is if she is a babe or rich enough to buy her way in.
Click to expand...

No you didn't. You said nothing about wealth in that original post about looks being a requirement. Why do you lie so shamelessly and obviously when caught in a contradiction? Do you think nobody will notice?

If Condi Rice were not so good-looking, she would have been stuck teaching high school civics.
Click to expand...

You have no clue about Rice's academic qualifications or her performance as a professor and a university administrator. Instead, solely because she's an ideological opponent, you resort to crude sexist accusations. Does your wife know what a lout you are about such things? Does she have a clue about your pattern of misogynistic attacks against conservative women?
 
Ziggurat said:
No you didn't. You said nothing about wealth in that original post about looks being a requirement. Why do you lie so shamelessly and obviously when caught in a contradiction? Do you think nobody will notice?
Click to expand...

Parse this, from post number 6:"(unless money is a substitute for looks.)"

You have no clue about Rice's academic qualifications or her performance as a professor and a university administrator. Instead, solely because she's an ideological opponent, you resort to crude sexist accusations.
Click to expand...

Rightwingers and high-level administrators (even in academia, since the right-leaning tend to go more for administrative positions rather than actual teaching) have always made the most opportunities open to white men, white women, black men and black women in that order. Better-looking people always have an advantage.

Just listening to the gap-toothed fascist speak, I cannot see how she got ahead of some brighter women. That the Shrub thought he needed her talents is, a mystery to rational people. We reallly don't need experts in the structure of the Soviet Union nowadays like we did back in the early 1980s.

Does she have a clue about your pattern of misogynistic attacks against conservative women?
Click to expand...

There is nothing misogynistic about having utter contempt for idiots who want to undo all the progress that feminists have made over the last 40 years.
 
leftysergeant said:
Parse this, from post number 6:"(unless money is a substitute for looks.)"
Click to expand...

Oh looky, you changed your position from post #3, where no such criteria were listed!

Like I said, you're only right when you contradict yourself.

Rightwingers and high-level administrators (even in academia, since the right-leaning tend to go more for administrative positions rather than actual teaching) have always made the most opportunities open to white men, white women, black men and black women in that order.
Click to expand...

And that tells us what, exactly, about Rice's acadamic qualifications, performance, or achievements? Oh, that's right: it tells us nothing.

Just listening to the gap-toothed fascist speak, I cannot see how she got ahead of some brighter women.
Click to expand...

Have you ever heard her teach a class?

That the Shrub thought he needed her talents is, a mystery to rational people. We reallly don't need experts in the structure of the Soviet Union nowadays like we did back in the early 1980s.
Click to expand...

Once again, irrelevant to her success at Stanford. Do you know when she was hired? 1981. Oops. Looks like you stepped in it again, lefty.

There is nothing misogynistic about having utter contempt for idiots who want to undo all the progress that feminists have made over the last 40 years.
Click to expand...

When you continually couch that contempt in terms of female sexuality, yes, actually, there rather is. It's funny that you claim the mantle of "feminism" while attacking women you disagree with ideologically by basically suggesting that they are sluts. I can't help but conclude that "feminism" for you is just a convenient substitute term for your ideology in general, which is basically authoritarian progressivism. After all, if women don't do what they're told (ie, become progressives), then they deserve to be crushed. There's nothing feminist about you. You're really just a mirror image of Archie Bunker.
 
Ziggurat said:
And that tells us what, exactly, about Rice's acadamic qualifications, performance, or achievements? Oh, that's right: it tells us nothing.
Click to expand...

I have just known too many bright women who got passed over in favor of great-looking bubble brains, even in academia.

Have you ever heard her teach a class?
Click to expand...

No, but I have heard her defending the Shreub's policies. That tells me all I need to know about her intelligence. (Actually, her lack thereof.) And then, there is the integrity problem. There are a lot of brighter, less attractive women than her getting dumped on by the old-boy systems.

When you continually couch that contempt in terms of female sexuality, yes, actually, there rather is. It's funny that you claim the mantle of "feminism" while attacking women you disagree with ideologically by basically suggesting that they are sluts.
Click to expand...

No, I do not consider them sluts. ( I do have some problems with Haley's sexual ethics, though.) It just looks to me like a lot of Republicant women get where they are on the basis of their looks. Are you going to tell me that a woman who talks like Michelle Bachmann but looks like Helen Thomas would still get elected even in her whacked-out district?

After all, if women don't do what they're told (ie, become progressives), then they deserve to be crushed.
Click to expand...

Right whacker women who fight against feminist positions are gaining the benefits of previous efforts of feminist women but not extending the same advantages to other women. They are taking advantage of the system that others created, then telling the rest, "I've got mine so screw you."
 
Last edited:
leftysergeant said:
I have just known too many bright women who got passed over in favor of great-looking bubble brains, even in academia.
Click to expand...

Again, what exactly does this tell us about Rice? Again, the answer is nothing.

No, but I have heard her defending the Shreub's policies.
Click to expand...

Again, that is irrelevant to her academic career, and to the fact that she was hired and tenured by Stanford University long before W. Bush even decided to run for President.

That tells me all I need to know about her intelligence.
Click to expand...

You have no idea whether any Secretary says what they say because they believe it or because it's their job to say it. So no, that tells you nothing about her intelligence.

And then, there is the integrity problem.
Click to expand...

No, there isn't. Her academic integrity is not in dispute, and what she did outside of her role as a professor and administrator has no relevance. Especially since time travel hasn't been invented yet.

No, I do not consider them sluts. ( I do have some problems with Haley's sexual ethics, though.)
Click to expand...

I don't consider them sluts. But they're sluts.

You're a class act, lefty.

It just looks to me like a lot of Republicant women get where they are on the basis of their looks.
Click to expand...

Good looks help everyone in every facet of life. And it's unfair. Boo hoo. Everybody judges partly on looks. Including Democrats. You're just jealous that there aren't enough hot chicks in your party.
 
Rika said:
What is wrong with Haley's sexual ethics, lefty?
Click to expand...

Same as with most high-caliber Republicans.

(Also, you DO realize Rice was doing her job, right? No, wait, that makes her dumb for wanting to ... NRGH BRAIN HURT.)
Click to expand...

Okay, maybe more of a sociopath than a moron, but she did seem to believe the crap she was selling. That's the best explanmation for the look on her face when someone dared to press her for details.
 
Lefty.. we only know that she's been accused, not that she's guilty. If she is guilty, and has questionable sex ethics, I would really like to discuss it with her.
 
thaiboxerken said:
I don't know much about this lady other than she's been called a raghead by another SC Republican and that a couple of guys have said they've thrown down with her. I do know this, she's freakin hot. What is it with Republican candidate women? Is hotness part of the qualifications to be a female Republican candidate?
Click to expand...

Raghead? Does that mean an Indian from India?

Do the White people of South Carolina know about this?
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom