Vaderisnothayden said:

Textbook sexism. If Sarah Palin weren't female she wouldn't get the degree or sort of attacks that she does. Dismissing her as nothing like the above post does is falling into the classic sexist pattern of dismissing women as being nothings who are utterly dependent on men and have nothing to offer themselves. Sarah Palin is a hugely capable woman and only prejudice, whether political or gender-based, prevents people from seeing that. That is not to say I agree with her views. But I have no trouble seeing the ability and force of the woman.

If Sarah Palin weren't female, I'd be saying the exact same thing, but you wouldn't be able to accuse me of sexism. I don't give a shit what reproductive organs she has, I don't take her seriously because she's a moron. Only ignorance causes you to assume that the only reason people could possibly disapprove of her is because of something as petty as gender difference.

You're guilty of the exact same thing as every two-bit TV pundit from Beck to Olbermann, from O'Reilly to Maddow, which is trying to dismiss someone's opinion by affixing a label to it in order to diminish it's over-all value. Responding to someone's idea by saying "That's just 'cause you're sexist", or "Cause she's a woman", or "Because he's a liberal!", "Because he's a Republican!", or any other bullshit like that is not a debate or a reasoned reply; it's an ad hominem argument and it makes you look like a fool.

Now go the fuck back to bed. Adults are talking.