I didn't know it. I am shamed. Actually, if memory serves you've told me this before and I simply have pushed it from my memory.

 

 

:lol: Like most other things I say, huh? :lol: Must be a natural response.

I'm still waiting for proof Albright is a woman.

I guess you've never seen a female troll.

I guess you've never seen a female troll.

 

 

If there were not female trolls, there would be no male trolls.

 

 

 

Seriously...what is this obsession with a woman's appearance, relative to judging her abilities? :confused:

If there were not female trolls, there would be no male trolls.

 

 

 

Seriously...what is this obsession with a woman's appearance, relative to judging her abilities? :confused:

In this case, Albrights appearance was all she had going for her.

In this case, Albrights appearance was all she had going for her.

 

Thanks a lot, you just made me spit coke out on my screen.

I'm still waiting for proof Albright is a woman.

 

 

I'll let you take the lead in that investigation.

I’ve given a lot of thought to this article today. And I feel compelled to share some of my thoughts (although I do realize it will mostly fall on blind eyes )

I resent that ANY woman, Sarah Palin, Madeline Albright, whomever would think that just because there is a woman in the position to possibly be elected, that I as a woman are obligated genetically to vote for her. I resent that men take it as some sort of evidence of my (that dreaded word) “feminism” that I may not feel that woman is qualified for that elected position. The new “f” word for women is feminazi. It’s loosely applied, though, to any woman who thinks differently than what men feel they should.

Men seem to think that simply because a woman has somehow reached a point of power, she has sacrificed, somehow, her femininity. Interesting, though, that Sarah Palin does not evoke such a response in most men. Apparently that has to do with her attractiveness. Hilary Clinton was disparaged for her looks, her decision to remain married, her decision to enter politics. In one simple way, she represented one of the values most espoused by conservatives…only married to one man. Yet, instead of applauding her decision, she’s berated for it, and aspersions cast upon her motives. She couldn’t possibly have stayed married because she believes in marriage, or loves her husband. She must ONLY have stayed married to advance her own political career.

I read comments about Hilary Clinton, Nancy Peolsi and Madeline Albright, and most everythread has at least one mention of their looks, or apparent lack thereof. I read a thread about Ann Coulter and there’s a mention of her great looks. Why is that? Why can’t a thread discuss a female political figure without throwing the “attractiveness” factor into the conversation? Men, you are not at all near “granting” women equality until you can discuss a woman, any woman, without considering her looks.

I have this to say to ANY woman who feels I owe them anything because we share a chromosome….I judge a person, man or woman, based upon values, ethics, morals and potential to make things happen that I also believe in. I do not, and WILL not support someone simply because of their gender, race or religion. And to ask me to do so is to discredit the decades of inequities and disparagement of women past who literally fought for the rights we now have…including the right to vote. To cast a vote for any reason other than I feel a woman represents my beliefs the best of all possible candidates is to do a great disservice to their battles.

^ I agree, RM, on all points!

So Palin gets her wisdom from Starbucks coffee cups? Now THAT'S the leadership we need.

 

Maybe she was served coffee last Thursday in a cup that said troop deployments in Iraq were at pre-Surge levels.

I can't find Albright's quote anywhere except for the Starbuck's snippet. What was she talking about? Anyone?

I can't find Albright's quote anywhere except for the Starbuck's snippet. What was she talking about? Anyone?

Palin misquoted her by saying she said "'There's a place in Hell reserved for women who don't support other women.'"

 

What Albright actually said was, "There's a place in Hell reserved for women who don't help other women."

 

I'm not exactly sure what the difference is.

Palin misquoted her by saying she said "'There's a place in Hell reserved for women who don't support other women.'"

 

What Albright actually said was, "There's a place in Hell reserved for women who don't help other women."

 

I'm not exactly sure what the difference is.

 

"Helping" can't be misunderstood for "voting".

I'll let you take the lead in that investigation.

 

Bench me or trade me.

The misinterpretation is that she (Palin) implied that Albright meant that females were somehow obligated to vote for other women.

Palin misquoted her by saying she said "'There's a place in Hell reserved for women who don't support other women.'"

 

What Albright actually said was, "There's a place in Hell reserved for women who don't help other women."

 

I'm not exactly sure what the difference is.

 

Yeah, I've gotten that far. I'm trying to find the context of what Albright was talking about.