From ConservativeAmericanBy Peter Andrew
One of the most annoying things about liberals is their hypocrisy. It drives me crazy how they can consistently say one thing, then do another or have one opinion on an issue when a democrat is involved and another when a republican is involved. This story is a perfect example of the absolute rubbish the left spews unanswered by the power of the press.
Now they say Alaska Governor Sarah Palin was too pretty!!
It was okay for them to talk about what a hunk Obama was, with his abs and swimsuit in Hawaii. Being good looking helped him. It was a good thing (see: With Obama, Sexism is Okay) . He was smart AND good looking! Amazing.
One of the most annoying things about liberals is their hypocrisy. It drives me crazy how they can consistently say one thing, then do another or have one opinion on an issue when a democrat is involved and another when a republican is involved. This story is a perfect example of the absolute rubbish the left spews unanswered by the power of the press.
Now they say Alaska Governor Sarah Palin was too pretty!!
It was okay for them to talk about what a hunk Obama was, with his abs and swimsuit in Hawaii. Being good looking helped him. It was a good thing (see: With Obama, Sexism is Okay) . He was smart AND good looking! Amazing.
Better vote for him with that kind of combination, right? That’s the story we were sold.
And what about the younger and more fit Billy Bob Clinton? Remember all the stories about how women thought he was so good looking? We were told he had strong support from women voters because he was handsome. That was okay then.
Whatever happened to what is good for the goose is good for the gander?
Even the candidacy of Dick Gephart of Missouri was given more credence because they said he looked like Robert Redford. I seem to remember people talking about how handsome JFK was too. So, for guys it is okay to be good looking and talk about it.
However, for Sarah Palin, you cannot talk about her beauty (see: Palin is Hot, Clinton is Not.)
Now, Jim Galloway at the Atlanta Journal reports on a recent study:
“…published in the Journal of Experimental Social Psychology…with Jamie Goldenberg, an associate professor over at USF who co-authored the article with Nathan Heflick. The two researchers had theorized a correlation between looks and competence. “We were shocked that we got any movement on the voting,” Goldenberg said Thursday. “It didn’t affect Democrats. They were all going to vote for Obama no matter what.”
Stop the tape! Stop the tape. Wait just a minute! So, did either Heflick or Goldenberg bother to stop and think (just for a tiny moment) that the Democrats ONLY voted for Obama because of his looks? This guy clearly won ONLY because of his partially-black LOOKS!! These bafoon jealous-women researches don’t point that out though! Democrats are “ABOVE” that!! Give me a freakin’ break. These two liberal nut jobs say a person’s appearance ONLY effected republicans and independents. Gag. Okay, roll the tape…
“It was only Republicans and independents who were moved.” Basically, the students were asked to write about each woman — whether about her accomplishments as a person, or about her looks. “What we found is that in both cases, whether they wrote about Palin or Angelina Jolie,…”
Stop the tape! Stop the darn tape! Angelina Jolie? Brangelina? Uhm, excuse me, but did she or it run for anything? Is she a politician now? They lump her lumps in with Sarah Palin?! These people are pathetic. Roll the tape, let’s get this over with.
“…when they wrote about her appearance rather than the person, they evaluated her to be less competent, less fully human. And in the case of the Palin prime, they were less likely to vote for the McCain-Palin ticket,” Goldenberg said.”
Less than fully human?? So these idiot college types think Sarah Palin is “less fully human?!!” So, is Sarah Palin an alien? Is she from some pretty planet where all the pretty people come from? What kind of absolute nonsense is this, that it gets national media coverage? So, now Obama 2012 wants you to think Palin is “less than fully human.”
ConservativeAmerican.org believes Sarah Palin is, in fact, pretty. But too pretty? Oh C’mon!
And what about the younger and more fit Billy Bob Clinton? Remember all the stories about how women thought he was so good looking? We were told he had strong support from women voters because he was handsome. That was okay then.
Whatever happened to what is good for the goose is good for the gander?
Even the candidacy of Dick Gephart of Missouri was given more credence because they said he looked like Robert Redford. I seem to remember people talking about how handsome JFK was too. So, for guys it is okay to be good looking and talk about it.
However, for Sarah Palin, you cannot talk about her beauty (see: Palin is Hot, Clinton is Not.)
Now, Jim Galloway at the Atlanta Journal reports on a recent study:
“…published in the Journal of Experimental Social Psychology…with Jamie Goldenberg, an associate professor over at USF who co-authored the article with Nathan Heflick. The two researchers had theorized a correlation between looks and competence. “We were shocked that we got any movement on the voting,” Goldenberg said Thursday. “It didn’t affect Democrats. They were all going to vote for Obama no matter what.”
Stop the tape! Stop the tape. Wait just a minute! So, did either Heflick or Goldenberg bother to stop and think (just for a tiny moment) that the Democrats ONLY voted for Obama because of his looks? This guy clearly won ONLY because of his partially-black LOOKS!! These bafoon jealous-women researches don’t point that out though! Democrats are “ABOVE” that!! Give me a freakin’ break. These two liberal nut jobs say a person’s appearance ONLY effected republicans and independents. Gag. Okay, roll the tape…
“It was only Republicans and independents who were moved.” Basically, the students were asked to write about each woman — whether about her accomplishments as a person, or about her looks. “What we found is that in both cases, whether they wrote about Palin or Angelina Jolie,…”
Stop the tape! Stop the darn tape! Angelina Jolie? Brangelina? Uhm, excuse me, but did she or it run for anything? Is she a politician now? They lump her lumps in with Sarah Palin?! These people are pathetic. Roll the tape, let’s get this over with.
“…when they wrote about her appearance rather than the person, they evaluated her to be less competent, less fully human. And in the case of the Palin prime, they were less likely to vote for the McCain-Palin ticket,” Goldenberg said.”
Less than fully human?? So these idiot college types think Sarah Palin is “less fully human?!!” So, is Sarah Palin an alien? Is she from some pretty planet where all the pretty people come from? What kind of absolute nonsense is this, that it gets national media coverage? So, now Obama 2012 wants you to think Palin is “less than fully human.”
ConservativeAmerican.org believes Sarah Palin is, in fact, pretty. But too pretty? Oh C’mon!
Posts
0 comments:
Post a Comment