The St. Louis Post-Dispatch released this yesterday:
Democrats:
- Obama: 51%
- Clinton: 22%
Republicans:
- McCain: 31%
- Romney: 20%
- Giuliani: 13%
- Huckabee: 11%
- Paul: 7%
There's a also a poll of state issues which was released today, including new approval and job performance numbers for Gov. Blagojevich.
Hillary *linton
All 22%
"Men" 11%
Women 30%
One expects that even a Demo*rat "Man" would oppose the Bit*h,
but it is interesting that even the Women dont want to vote for her.
I love polls; this isn't a loaded question;
QUESTION: All in all, do you think going to war against Iraq for regime change was worth it, or not?
I am sure we will hear about how the people of Illinois or everyone in general never (all in all?) wanted to go to Iraq based on this question of "regime change". I thought there have been many good reasons mostly that Iraq had violated the UN resolutions and was a threat to the world because of WMD'S.
Sheesh, ewjohnson. You have such a sweet way with words. There's no vagina litmus test when it comes to presidential primaries and I can think (yes, all by my girly self) and make these strange things called "choices" based on, you know, the ideas her campaign puts forth. I'm not a Clinton backer, but the sexist rhetoric is starting to piss me off. One can disagree with a woman without saying she's a "b*tch".
Would you like it if I referred to L. Ron Paul as a d*ckless b*astard?
I'm not a Clinton backer, but the sexist rhetoric is starting to piss me off. One can disagree with a woman without saying she's a "b*tch".
Thanks for saying this - I prefer Obama, but the sexist garbage about Clinton is tiresome.
I agree with Wayward and moon_grrl.
Moon_grrl sez:
There's no vagina litmus test when it comes to presidential primaries.
Gosh I never heard of such a thing either at the polling place or other wise associated with a presidential primary,
and although the practice might have some merit, I perceive some real difficulty in implementation.
The ladies can likely do this at home or in consultation with their health care providers.
Litmus" itself, as in "litmus paper" per se, is actually too insensitive an indicator of vaginal health.
But it is indeed true that a healthy vagina will turn Blue litmus paper to Red. On the other hand, even a unhealthy
vagina will not usually modify the red litmus to a blue color.
It's an interesting political metaphor,is it not?
Because litmus is a kind of pH indicator
(acid/base), there is a tendency to call all sorts of pH paper "litmus" even though litmus strictly
speaking usually gives only the familiar red/blue for acid base testing.
A pH paper that is sensitive in the 3.5 to 5 range is a much better choice for assessment of healthy/suspicious/non-healthy
and pH across the 3.5 to 5 range is highly correlated with vaginal health.
A "normal" vagina will have a low pH, below 4.5 usually because of
lactic-acid producing normal flora. Infection with yeast or trichomonads tends to produce a pH above 4.5.
findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0689/is_1_49/ai_60043468
I smell a tiresome troll.
let's all pretend he's won. It'll make him feel special.
I agree with Wayward and moon_grrl.
But maybe not about preferring Obama? :)
Litmus" itself, as in "litmus paper" per se, is actually too insensitive an indicator of vaginal health.
But it is indeed true that a healthy vagina will turn Blue litmus paper to Red. On the other hand, even a unhealthy
vagina will not usually modify the red litmus to a blue color.
It's an interesting political metaphor,is it not?
Yeah, what color will annoying trolls turn litmus paper?
I am sure that you are imagining a pale yellow,
but in the case of this "troll", a deep shade of scarlet.
Wayward, :-) I do like the hope that he generates in people, there is way too much fighting and “got you” politics going on in both parties.
I am sure that you are imagining a pale yellow,
but in the case of this "troll", a deep shade of scarlet.
Sort of like puce?
<blockquote>Litmus" itself, as in "litmus paper" per se, is actually too insensitive an indicator of vaginal health.</blockquote>
Unfortunately, "metaphor", as in "language that directly compares seemingly unrelated subjects", can be lost on some people.
no,
nothing like that
no foregone conclusions, 0^10 or white ducks.
gee, I'm glad i clicked into this thread.
ewjohnson continues to make a worthy effort to make Ron Paul supporters look like insane bigots. Still nothing quite tops the support of executing homosexuals... but a worthy effort nonetheless
Criminey...
--
Glock21 Op/Ed
Moon_ grrl -
Men and women vote differently.
They perceive the world differently.
That's why the polls differentiate the vote on gender.
Are the polls sexist because they ask the voters for their gender
and then report the demographics?
Who we are is a function of our genetics, our enviroment, and what we decide to be.
About a hundred years ago, researchers imagined that who we are is all about our genetics.
Now it is anathema to even suggest that genetics has a influence on our behaviour.
People are made male and female and the difference is interesting,
and it originates at the molecular level (or deeper?).
I found this website www.eqsq.com
Not until after the 3rd offence....
and I would favour finding medical and psychiatric treatment/therapy
for them.
get it right if you are going to quote me.
You know, Glock, I have a feeling that the point I was trying to make with my original post would be better served if I'd presented it to your pet rock first.
I think your feeding this troll way to much.
Not until after the 3rd offence....
and I would favour finding medical and psychiatric treatment/therapy
for them.
get it right if you are going to quote me