Sara Palin wasn’t really being nominated for woman of the year,you do understand that, right? It was the title the writer chose for his EDITORIAL meant to grab attention. The SUBJECT of this thread is the CONTENT of the editorial, which was Palin getting under the skin of this union thug. To my knowledge Michelle Bachman didn’t post a response to the comments he made about Sara in her own state, nor did the union boss speak in Michelle’s state. Your picture WAS disruptive as people were talking about the CONTENT of the editorial. It in no way had anything to do with a contest between the 2 women. You really need to get over your silly obsession with disrupting threads about Sara Palin or at least learn to follow along with the subject of said thread. For instance, you could argue her words weren’t getting under anyone’s skin (with your reasons why). Or, why Mr. Union Thug was right (with your reasons why). That way, you could still say negative things about her without disrupting a thread. You see, that’s what makes people mad. NOT that you have a negative opinion, just that you continue to post irrelevant (to the SUBJECT) things in order to have everyone notice you. Perhaps if you want to be an attention whore you could start your very own thread posting as many negative things about her as you want.
Cindie
Well, posting a pic of Bachmann, why golly gee, that there is the epitome of negativity, I tell ya.
Sara Palin wasn’t really being nominated for woman of the year,you do understand that, right? It was the title the writer chose for his EDITORIAL meant to grab attention. The SUBJECT of this thread is the CONTENT of the editorial, which was Palin getting under the skin of this union thug. To my knowledge Michelle Bachman didn’t post a response to the comments he made about Sara in her own state, nor did the union boss speak in Michelle’s state. Your picture WAS disruptive as people were talking about the CONTENT of the editorial. It in no way had anything to do with a contest between the 2 women. You really need to get over your silly obsession with disrupting threads about Sara Palin or at least learn to follow along with the subject of said thread. For instance, you could argue her words weren’t getting under anyone’s skin (with your reasons why). Or, why Mr. Union Thug was right (with your reasons why). That way, you could still say negative things about her without disrupting a thread. You see, that’s what makes people mad. NOT that you have a negative opinion, just that you continue to post irrelevant (to the SUBJECT) things in order to have everyone notice you. Perhaps if you want to be an attention whore you could start your very own thread posting as many negative things about her as you want.
Cindie
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Standing Ovation for you, Cindie!