USVI-On-Line Travel Forums
https://usvi-on-line.com/travel-forum/
Thanks Maryanne for the link to that very interesting site.Maryanne wrote:Here you will find many female voices articulating why they are not for Sarah Palin:
http://womenagainstsarahpalin.blogspot.com/
SJfromNJ wrote:I think the more difficult explaination to your kids would be Obama's elitist comment about rural voters "clinging to their guns and religion." Please read the 1st and 2nd amendment to the constitution before answering.Pete (Mr. Marcia) wrote:Terry wrote:Folks,
I'm embarassed as a woman that women would back Palin.
End of topic.
"There is a place in hell reserved for women who don't support other women" - Madleine Albright, Sec. of State under Bill Clinton
You guys can't follow any logic...It is why I have entered post after post with factual data, and none of you have responded to any of my posts (which is fine, BTW).aroobagirl wrote:SJ - Can't follow your Hezbollah train of logic. Sorry.
Yeah, because it's crazy to think that a member of the media would be in the tank for Barry.Pete (Mr. Marcia) wrote: On the days leading up to the debate, you accused the moderator of being biased in favor of Obama.
Wat's your point?Maryanne wrote:Here you will find many female voices articulating why they are not for Sarah Palin:
http://womenagainstsarahpalin.blogspot.com/
Okay, if it isn't liberals pushing this adgenda, then who is it?Kathyzhere wrote:Aww c'mon soxfan, the narrow mindedness comment
was in response to your generalization comment: that Liberals want God removed from the Pledge in schools.
I for one, who leans to the Liberal side, do not wish that.
That's all I meant.
Kathy
This one kind of baffled my mind. It seems from your quote up there, that a woman should support another woman no matter what. If she doesn't, she's setting the woman's movement back? Correct me if I'm wrong, Honestly. I think everyones take on this whole mess is very interesting.soxfan22 wrote:It's a joke. A woman has a chance to ascend to the 2nd highest poisition in the land, but because she does not agree with your personal ideology, you condemn her.
Women's movement my ass.
Because the republicans obviously picked Palin solely because she is a woman. It's pretty clear that she was not selected based on her intellect or qualifications. I think that sends a bad message to our daughters.cypressgirl wrote:Hey Pete, Hillary is out because her party turned on her. You can't blame that on the GOP.
I have 2 daughters. Explain again why I'm suppose to be ashamed????
Pete - I feel for anyone that has young impressionable daughters right now. I agree, this would be hard to explain. I feel that the Republican Party has put Palin in an awful situation here. Her confidence far exceeds her ability. Clearly she has "book smarts", just no "street smarts". I'm sure the idea of VP sounded very grand at first. I don't agree with using her the way they are, but she should have known better as well.Pete (Mr. Marcia) wrote:Because the republicans obviously picked Palin solely because she is a woman. It's pretty clear that she was not selected based on her intellect or qualifications. I think that sends a bad message to our daughters.cypressgirl wrote:Hey Pete, Hillary is out because her party turned on her. You can't blame that on the GOP.
I have 2 daughters. Explain again why I'm suppose to be ashamed????
No, that was a tongue in cheek references to the Sally Quinn's of the world who have actually said that Sarah Palin cannot do this job because "she has a daughter at home who needs her". And that "The job is too difficult for a woman with five kids".cass wrote: This one kind of baffled my mind. It seems from your quote up there, that a woman should support another woman no matter what. If she doesn't, she's setting the woman's movement back? Correct me if I'm wrong, Honestly. I think everyones take on this whole mess is very interesting.
Those who opposed Clarence Thomas' nomination did so because he was so obviously unqualified...still is. There's your answer. It's a pretty simple one.soxfan22 wrote:No, that was a tongue in cheek references to the Sally Quinn's of the world who have actually said that Sarah Palin cannot do this job because "she has a daughter at home who needs her". And that "The job is too difficult for a woman with five kids".cass wrote: This one kind of baffled my mind. It seems from your quote up there, that a woman should support another woman no matter what. If she doesn't, she's setting the woman's movement back? Correct me if I'm wrong, Honestly. I think everyones take on this whole mess is very interesting.
Read here http://www.hybridmom.com/blog/?p=253
Isn't she actually the poster child for the women's movement?
Isn't she a woman who works and has a family?
Isn't she a woman who is paid the same as her male contemporaries?
Oh, but she doesn't support abortion, son no, she can NOT be supported by "Feminists" like sally quinn.
What a disgrace.
Again, just like in the 80's when the NAACP didn't support the nomination of Clarence Thomas. Because he is a conservative judge who did not in any way benefit from Affirmative Action.
None of you liberals have yet to answer for that.
She certainly is an accomplished woman, I don't think anyone can argue with that,(or has argued with that). -casssoxfan22 wrote:Isn't she actually the poster child for the women's movement?
A lot of woman do that. It's commendable, but not exactly the cornerstone of the women's movement any longer. - casssoxfan22 wrote:Isn't she a woman who works and has a family?
Bravo for her. Equal pay for equal work. And I'm sure it is quite a bit more than what her "joe sixpack" friends (that she no doubt shotguns beers with on a Friday night) bring home to their families. -casssoxfan22 wrote:Isn't she a woman who is paid the same as her male contemporaries?
