Posted on May 1, 2016
3
3
0
Isn't the usual problem that no one wants to pick you to be on their team, not the reverse?
Oh well, there's always "The Dream Team" of Trump/Palin.
After all Mrs. Palin isn't one of those wacko "Feminazis" who insist of that stupid "Ms" (and yell at you if you spell it "M - s - .") and she obviously has more foreign affairs experience than Ms Clinton because she can see Russia from here front porch. Right?
Oh well, there's always "The Dream Team" of Trump/Palin.
After all Mrs. Palin isn't one of those wacko "Feminazis" who insist of that stupid "Ms" (and yell at you if you spell it "M - s - .") and she obviously has more foreign affairs experience than Ms Clinton because she can see Russia from here front porch. Right?
Run on a Ticket With Donald Trump? No, Thanks, Many Republicans Say
Posted from nytimes.com
Election 2016
Republicans
Donald Trump
Posted >1 y ago
Responses: 2
0
0
0
Origin of Ms. (Mizz) came from the 1700's it was used like for women no matter what marital status. Just thought I would throw a little history into the mix
Femnazis' really
Femnazis' really
(0)
(0)
COL Ted Mc
MSgt Michael Bischoff - Master Sergeant; I'll give you that Ms. " M - s - . " is, indeed of impeccable Etymological provenance and is an abbreviation for "Mistress".
However " M - s " (as originally proposed [and as insisted upon by "ardent feminists" {happier?}]) does NOT have the period to indicate that it is an abbreviation. The period was deliberately excluded for two reasons:
[1] "Mistress" has a distinctly louche and sexist connotation (as well as being a "socially unacceptable occupation");
and
[2] "Mistress" is/was generally regarded as the "Feminine" of "Master" ("Mastress" simply sounded just a bit TOO silly) and was therefore regarded as "non-egalitarian".
Why the "ardent feminists" should insist that the period be omitted when the very first cover of Ms. Magazine had the word spelled " M - s - . " and continues to do so today - I have absolutely no idea (if you exclude the general theory of proliferation of argument which holds that the less substantial and relevant the point is the more debate it will engender).
" M - r - . " (pronounced "mister") of course IS the accepted abbreviation for "Master" and, as such was indicative of social superiority/inferiority when used. (The FULL term was, of course, used to reference a male child under the age of majority, was pronounced "master" and abbreviated " M - s - t - . ".)
However " M - s " (as originally proposed [and as insisted upon by "ardent feminists" {happier?}]) does NOT have the period to indicate that it is an abbreviation. The period was deliberately excluded for two reasons:
[1] "Mistress" has a distinctly louche and sexist connotation (as well as being a "socially unacceptable occupation");
and
[2] "Mistress" is/was generally regarded as the "Feminine" of "Master" ("Mastress" simply sounded just a bit TOO silly) and was therefore regarded as "non-egalitarian".
Why the "ardent feminists" should insist that the period be omitted when the very first cover of Ms. Magazine had the word spelled " M - s - . " and continues to do so today - I have absolutely no idea (if you exclude the general theory of proliferation of argument which holds that the less substantial and relevant the point is the more debate it will engender).
" M - r - . " (pronounced "mister") of course IS the accepted abbreviation for "Master" and, as such was indicative of social superiority/inferiority when used. (The FULL term was, of course, used to reference a male child under the age of majority, was pronounced "master" and abbreviated " M - s - t - . ".)
(0)
(0)
0
0
0
I do find it interesting that losers early on would be a bit put off by Trump's success. Some of them are/were good people that can't understand the reasoning for Trump's success. It would be nice for the NYT to establish just who turned him down, so far. These people (first grade establishment types) are the one that picked Romney, McCain, and Dole, that were so successful. I would bet dollars to doughnuts that none of those mentioned in the article will be offered the job, as running mate. Lindsey Graham? Now there is a buffoon.
(0)
(0)
COL Ted Mc
MCPO Roger Collins - Master Chief; My suspicion is that it is more likely that the "big name" potential running mates see the 2016 election as being almost certain to be a disaster for the Republicans than it is that they don't agree with Mr. Trump's positions (whatever they are this week) and that those same "big name" people REALLY aren't listed on hopping about the train known as "The Train Wreck Express".
They could well be wrong about Mr. Trump and his possibility of winning, but they simply aren't prepared to bet the entirety of their political future on being wrong.
They could well be wrong about Mr. Trump and his possibility of winning, but they simply aren't prepared to bet the entirety of their political future on being wrong.
(0)
(0)
Read This Next
Continue with Facebook 
Continue with Google