Posted on 11/10/2014 3:40:03 AM PST by Kaslin
Maybe it’s time for Democrats to consider that perhaps some women have children, which they didn’t figure to either abort or smother in their sleep, and are now concerned about their growing child finding a DECENT JOB, and not just any minimum wage job?
Spot on.
Not clear what she's talking about. Fox pretty obviously plasters women all over the screen.
Admittedly, the women in question are often mainly eye candy (of generally high quality!, but it's just not possible to claim that Fox excludes women.
To me, a very poorly written article. First paragraph talks about someone saying something about Republican women but doesn’t specifically name the person (until later on, I guess - still not clear). Actually I quit reading halfway through it because it seemed disjointed and muddled.
I love it that Mark Udall will now and forever be known as “former senator Mark Uterus”.
Gee,and all this time I thought the Rats were demanding that we get more women involved in the GOP.Somehow,we never seem to get it right! (end sarcasm)
They certainly let them speak their minds. That’s for sure!
Hangs out in the wrong part of town with no clothes on, does she? Seriesly, who writes this dreck?
What bothers these lib “womyn” is there doesn’t exist beyond the realm of their own fantasies a monolothic bloc of women who will, on command, vote as told by liberal opinion-makers. Libs will “allow” for women to channeled into one of two tracks:
1) The angry, hairy-legged, bald-headed, tattood lesbos sauntering from place to place (for some reason, as if it applied to them) squawking for abortion rights for all.
2) The lifelong government-worshipping drone, aka “Julia,” who, from cradle to grave, depends on government assistance to meet every need. These women are inculcated into believing the milk and honey of life are provided only through government largesse.
The idea of a strong, independent-thinking, conservative member of the female species is absolutely abhorrent and downright befuddling to them.
tattood=tattooed
My wife wasn’t going to vote in these past elections....till she saw the ad featuring none other than Michelle Nunn advocating abortion for late term babies. We’re expecting our 3rd child...that was enough for her to cuss up a storm and vote against the bit*h for David Perdue.
“...they’re a horrid subset of the human species beholden to their patriarchal masters…”
LOL…what about Hillary, who lied for her adulterous husband (in her Betty Crocker pink suit under the portrait of Lincoln no less), to keep her position in the Democrat Party? No Republican woman in the public eye has never stooped as low as Hillary did. She set the standard for groveling.
“are often mainly eye candy”
oh really?
“Mainly”?
Which ones are incompetent?
Which ones are less competent than their liberal counterparts?
This always grinds me. Whenever I encounter some malcontent liberal scream about people having the audacity to want their taxes lowered, I always tell them, "I'm sure the federal government will be happy to accept a check in any amount you care to send them to make up for taxes you seem to think aren't high enough". I never hear a retort.
If you don’t read Stacy McCain at his The Other McCain blog, you’ve have missed his fantastic work doing a necropsy on “Feminism”. Basically a feminist is a crazy (mentally ill) lesbian, who blames the world for her difficulties.
Sigh.
Do you seriously contend they were hired primarily for their competence and incisive analysis?
I don’t see Fox often, mostly because I don’t have a TV or cable, but I’m generally impressed by how intelligent as well as beautiful their female commentators are. I think Megyn Kelly, what I’ve seen of her, is excellent.
But I really, really doubt any of them would have been hired were their looks not as specified.
I find it very sad that all females on TV now apparently have to look like refugees from Planet Gorgeous. Even newspeople.
Much prefer Brit TV, where the humans look like actual humans much of the time.
I have nothing against beautiful women, quite the reverse, but don’t you find the absence of normal looking females a trifle wearing?
He could have stated her name before the link, thus allowing readers to avoid from having to follow the link to "The Guardian" which I personally find to be a useless left-wing piece of trash to begin with.
While I agree with him to provide the link, he could have mentioned her name so the reader would have know who he was talking about and could make the choice to follow the link or not.
Clicking on links in an article willy nilly is like standing in a crowded bar kissing ever girl there to see if she is the right one.
One gambles with all manner of Herpes and other related maladies - as with clicking on foreign links whose prologue doesn’t even provide basic information. Poor organization, still disjointed and poorly written, IMO.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.