Going Rogue by dreamtrove

I was wondering ever since I posted this who was going to do this.

The sexism award goes to Mike, the sensitivity award goes to Jongsstraw and Fremdfirma, I think observant people know what I'm talking about.

Correct me if I'm wrong. There were a few others who went both ways, sorry, I had to chalk this up to "unobservant."

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, November 18, 2009 6:36 PM

"We'll know our disinformation program is complete when everything the American public believes is false." -- William Casey, Reagan's presidential campaign manager & CIA Director (from first staff meeting in 1981)

Ah, so people who don't like Palin and don't take her seriously are sexist, eh?

I take it you freely admit your sexism where Hillary Clinton is concerned, yes?

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, November 18, 2009 6:46 PM

Quote:
Correct me if I'm wrong. There were a few others who went both ways, sorry, I had to chalk this up to "unobservant."

It was the Stepford Wives comment and the Sound of Music, wasn't it?

In fairness, the Stepford Wives comment was my attempt at describing how forced Palin would be acting after she was put into place by TPTB, not saying that she IS a Stepford Wife, but I can see how that could be misinterpreted.

The Sound of Music I just started singing because I'm pretty sure the magazine article title was making a reference to it.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, November 19, 2009 4:06 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Kwicko:
That would probably be a much more cutting remark if you punctuated it correctly. YOU, who can't spell the word "intelligence", are going to lecture others about being able to read? Really?

You can't argue the issue, so you make a personal attack. Which, ironically, was my point all along.

Quote:

I don't plan on reading Miss Mooselini's book simply because I have no intention of putting money in her pocket.

I can uderstand that. Don't want to support her cause by giving her money from the sale of the book...

Shame they don't have places where folks can go and borrow books to read for free, perhaps making use of some sort of card and a decimal-based organizational system.

H

"Hero. I have come to respect you." "I am forced to agree with Hero here."- Chrisisall, 2009.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, November 19, 2009 4:11 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Kwicko:
Also, what does the GOP call the abortion coverage that's provided by its insurer of choice? You did know that those covered by insurance paid for by the GOP have their abortions 100% covered by the health plan the GOP pays for, right?

There is no such coverage in the plan. It was there, but when it was brought to the attention of Michael Steele it was immediately removed. I believe he thanked those who discovered the oversight as do I.

So liberals find and publish information that results in women being denied the coverage the liberals advocate for them to have. Again, my personal thanks to them for helping us correct the error and deny abortion coverage to more women.

I urge them to continue their support for our goal of removing all funding for abortion coverage.

H

"Hero. I have come to respect you." "I am forced to agree with Hero here."- Chrisisall, 2009.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, November 19, 2009 4:16 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by kpo:
Quote:
Why is it the Libs are so up in arms about Palin?

Seriously?

Because she was a candidate for Vice President of the United States!!

Female, conservative, Republican, white, mother...so much hate, so little tolerance.

H

"Hero. I have come to respect you." "I am forced to agree with Hero here."- Chrisisall, 2009.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, November 19, 2009 4:18 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Fremdfirma:
Know why ?
I *been* that guy, and they ran my ass out of town on a rail, and DAMNED quickly, too.

No, you were that other guy...

H

"Hero. I have come to respect you." "I am forced to agree with Hero here."- Chrisisall, 2009.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, November 19, 2009 4:18 AM

Quote:
Byte:
It was the Stepford Wives comment and the Sound of Music, wasn't it?

In fairness, the Stepford Wives comment was my attempt at describing how forced Palin would be acting after she was put into place by TPTB, not saying that she IS a Stepford Wife, but I can see how that could be misinterpreted.

The Sound of Music I just started singing because I'm pretty sure the magazine article title was making a reference to it.

Mike, Byte

This was not a reference to anything in the *content* of the thread. Say whatever you want about Sarah Palin, even the "Stepford Wife" thing is fair. The pure sexism I was waiting for was for someone to change the thread title from "Going Rogue" to "Going Rouge."

While I recognize that it's clever, it's also sexist. I knew that one of you was going to do it, because the temptation was pretty irresistible, only the pure sexism of it stopped me.

After that, it bounced randomly back and forth. I can't be sure that Jong and Frem *deliberately* changed it back, but that was just what it looked like.

No shame in being oblivious here.

Mike,

Not a personal attack, it was clever. But going rouge is also not a personal attack, it's sexism, like if I had said that Hillary had her panties in a bunch. I don't think "gender identifiers" are necessarily sexist: You can call a woman a cunt if you call a man a dick, and there's nothing wrong with calling Hillary a banshee anymore than calling Karl Rove Jabba the Hut.

But what it was, was a little shiny fish-like object dangling at the end of a hook, just waiting for someone to chomp on it. Thank you for obliging. (I was actually surprised that it was you.)

Oh, and this has been an extended snark.

This snark is © Sarah Palin 2012. After all, what good is an apocalypse without an antichrist?

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, November 19, 2009 4:31 AM

I saw Palin on Hannity last night for one hour. I thought the interview went very well for her. She came across as sincere and intelligent. Her knowledge of issues and current events was remarkably clear.

She proceeded to rip into Obama's policies and programs, and she made very strong arguments why he and his policies have been a failure. She said she wanted to help conservatives get elected in 2010 and will campaign for them against Democrats, and thats just one of her goals.

I feel kind of sorry for the Palin haters. They thought it was over with her after the election. They kept up their attacks on her long after, but she is so dynamic that all their efforts only seemed to strengthen her resolve to do better. She is going to be the biggest thorn in their side, and I'll bet they just went ballistic last night at the White House listening to her for one hour. Then Greta replayed about half of it. That's a lot of exposure for her.

So the Dems & Palin bashers are going to need to decide what to do. The real question is What is it with her that send them all into a frenzy?

Some say they just hate her beliefs.
Some say they are amused by her as a distraction.
Some say she is not relevant anymore.
But none say they fear her political future, and potential cultural impact.

If that's the case, then why why why why why does the lamestream media continue to give her top billing all the time?

Why did the AP assign 11 "fact checkers" to read her book? Gee, how many fact checkers reviewed Obama's book?; or Hillary's book?; or anybody elses book? It's as ideological demented as when she was first announced for VP. The liberal media outlets along with the Obama campaign sent hundred of investigators up to Alaska to dig up any dirt they could. How many did the media send to dig up stuff on Obama & his Chicago relationships? Again I ask, why the fear from them? Why the over-the-top investigating of her? Why the outrageous double standard for everything surrounding this woman, this mother of five? Liberals deny the fear, the hatred is obvious, but why try to wipe out someone who is not viable or serious in your view to begin with?

p.s. Later I saw James Carville on CNN. He looked seriously distraught. He watched Palin on Hannity, and HE said she was a powerful force who can either take over the Party, or perhaps even lead a third party revolution into the White House. He was extremely flattering and gracious towards her. It sort of blew me away to be honest. Carville is a smart and charming guy in his own right. One has to wonder if he said all that tongue-in-cheek, meaning actually that he wants Republicans to nominate her. She seems to be coming on as a real force, just at a time when Obama & Holder' policies are causing Americans, mostly Independents to abandon them.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, November 19, 2009 4:55 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Riverlove:
Liberals deny the fear, the hatred is obvious, but why try to wipe out someone who is not viable or serious in your view to begin with?

Its the only argument they are capable of. They lost the policy debate years ago, so the personal attack is all they have left. They also lack imagination, so every Republican is attacked the same way.

Its obvious with every decision this President makes or fails to make. Its obvious with every plan the Congressional leaders put foreward. Liberalism does not work, Jimmy Carter and Barrack Obama are bookends to an age of American strength and prosperity.

They can't argue the issues, so she must be stupid.

'But Bush' they'll say and rightfully so. His policies failed when he broke from his conservative instincts and spent like a drunken sailor. That does not change the fact that Obama spent more in his first hundred days then every President in history combined and on a policy that has failed. 'But Bush' again, and yes, he did focus on Iraq and let Afganistan fester. But Obama promised to concentrate our effort there, hand picked a commander to turn things around, and then didn't speak to him for about ten months and ignored his troop request, and has been showing a shocking lack of ability to make a decision on a life and death issue he considered of paramount importance. Obama's answer to the 3am phone call is to let it ring until the machine picks it up, then maybe he'll call you back if he's not busy.

You can 'But Bush' all you want and talk about Palin's appearance and lack of intellegence and gender, but the fact is every decision Obama has made (or not made) has resulted in a miserable failure.

H

"Hero. I have come to respect you." "I am forced to agree with Hero here."- Chrisisall, 2009.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, November 19, 2009 5:31 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Hero:
Quote:
Originally posted by Riverlove:
Liberals deny the fear, the hatred is obvious, but why try to wipe out someone who is not viable or serious in your view to begin with?

Its the only argument they are capable of. They lost the policy debate years ago, so the personal attack is all they have left. They also lack imagination, so every Republican is attacked the same way.

If they "lost the debate" why did they win Congress & the White House?

Quote:
Its obvious with every decision this President makes or fails to make. Its obvious with every plan the Congressional leaders put foreward. Liberalism does not work, Jimmy Carter and Barrack Obama are bookends to an age of American strength and prosperity.

They don't believe that. The majority of the media doesn't believe that. So is it just stubborn ideology, or is it coordinated deception and fraud?

Quote:
They can't argue the issues, so she must be stupid.

'But Bush' they'll say and rightfully so. His policies failed when he broke from his conservative instincts and spent like a drunken sailor. That does not change the fact that Obama spent more in his first hundred days then every President in history combined and on a policy that has failed. 'But Bush' again, and yes, he did focus on Iraq and let Afganistan fester. But Obama promised to concentrate our effort there, hand picked a commander to turn things around, and then didn't speak to him for about ten months and ignored his troop request, and has been showing a shocking lack of ability to make a decision on a life and death issue he considered of paramount importance. Obama's answer to the 3am phone call is to let it ring until the machine picks it up, then maybe he'll call you back if he's not busy.

You can 'But Bush' all you want and talk about Palin's appearance and lack of intellegence and gender, but the fact is every decision Obama has made (or not made) has resulted in a miserable failure.

H

"Hero. I have come to respect you." "I am forced to agree with Hero here."- Chrisisall, 2009.

Obama won't seem to budge from his hard-left beliefs. He doesn't seem to care that his poll numbers are tanking, his support from Independents is gone, and Americans are fed up with everything they are shoving down our throats like Govt HC, Terror trials in civilian court, failure to acknowledge terror war, Cap & Tax potential debacle, and leftist radicals running around the White House. Everything they want is not want the people want. They won an election, but they have grossly over-extended themselves in embracing the far-left Pelosi visions, and they have failed on every level to govern in a moderate and sensible manner. They have only caused futher divisiveness and partisan hatred. They have not been transparent, in fact they've been as secretive and non-forthcoming as one might expect from a dictatorship or fascist state. But the worst is their un-apologetic demands and plans to screw with real things in my life. This pathetic 25% approval Congress led by Pelosi & Reid have the f'ing nerve to lecture to me? They're smarter than me? They're smarter than everyone else? What a joke.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, November 19, 2009 5:42 AM

Pretty much, except for your take on the Sarah Palin thing.

Both political parties attack each other, not policy. There are few people on either side who ONLY discuss policy. Joe Wilson calls Obama a liar. Glen, Beck, Hannity, O'Reilly, Limbaugh, I can't even REPEAT what they call him. Palin gets called a pig in lipstick and even her children get attacked (which ain't kosher rules). Everyone attacks everyone, no side is innocent. Politics is mudslinging to distract the public, because they don't want to understand the issues, it's too much effort, they're too busy with jobs and raising kids.

Liberals have such a reaction to Sarah Palin, because 1) she's the "enemy", 2) they really wanted John McCain to lose, 3) they see Sarah Palin as the reason WHY John McCain lost, and 4) they believed Katie Couric's interview painting Palin as clueless on the issues.

More and more, even if her speeches still have too much fluff for my tastes, I'm thinking Plain knows exactly what she's doing.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, November 19, 2009 5:51 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Bytemite:
More and more, even if her speeches still have too much fluff for my tastes, I'm thinking Plain knows exactly what she's doing.

I agree with you on that. As her tour continues, and as we get into next year's Congressional races, the "fluff" will go away, and she will be talking issues only in front of the huge crowds she can attract. I believe she is going to be a juggernaut out there, but who knows.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, November 19, 2009 5:56 AM

Quote:
Obama won't seem to budge from his hard-left beliefs. He doesn't seem to care that his poll numbers are tanking, his support from Independents is gone, and Americans are fed up with everything they are shoving down our throats like Govt HC, Terror trials in civilian court, failure to acknowledge terror war, Cap & Tax potential debacle, and leftist radicals running around the White House. Everything they want is not want the people want. They won an election, but they have grossly over-extended themselves in embracing the far-left Pelosi visions, and they have failed on every level to govern in a moderate and sensible manner. They have only caused futher divisiveness and partisan hatred. They have not been transparent, in fact they've been as secretive and non-forthcoming as one might expect from a dictatorship or fascist state. But the worst is their un-apologetic demands and plans to screw with real things in my life. This pathetic 25% approval Congress led by Pelosi & Reid have the f'ing nerve to lecture to me? They're smarter than me? They're smarter than everyone else? What a joke.

Obama is hard-left? News to me. All non-biased political analysis puts him at right of center, only slightly more left than most members of the Republican party and Democratic party. The only politician in the democratic party who seems to be genuinely left-wing is Dennis Kuchinich. All other Democrats just push socialism for economic fascism. Including Pelosi, who is kind of a bitch.

Republicans just don't push the socialism part.

Granted the transparency part, though, and the partisanism.

The War on Terror... Can't we just call England "Airstrip One" already? Christ.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, November 19, 2009 6:51 AM

BLUESUNCOMPANYMAN

Right now, 20 minutes from my house there is a line wrapped around a Borders in Nobelsville IN. Sarah is scheduled to sign copies of her Book at 1pm.

I have no interest in such an event. I only stand in line for 3 Autographs:
Big Damn Heros
Stephen King
Neil Gaiman
(There would be 5, but Frank Herbert is 20+ years dead, and Ron Paul doesn't autograph academic papers)

My point: people are going to have to come to grips with a fact I see with my own eyes. Common folk in fly-over states adore this woman. Like it or not, she is loved. Logical or not, she is loved. Otherwise there would be no line around my local bookstore.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, November 19, 2009 6:59 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by dreamtrove:
Quote:
Byte:
It was the Stepford Wives comment and the Sound of Music, wasn't it?

In fairness, the Stepford Wives comment was my attempt at describing how forced Palin would be acting after she was put into place by TPTB, not saying that she IS a Stepford Wife, but I can see how that could be misinterpreted.

The Sound of Music I just started singing because I'm pretty sure the magazine article title was making a reference to it.

Mike, Byte

This was not a reference to anything in the *content* of the thread. Say whatever you want about Sarah Palin, even the "Stepford Wife" thing is fair. The pure sexism I was waiting for was for someone to change the thread title from "Going Rogue" to "Going Rouge."

While I recognize that it's clever, it's also sexist. I knew that one of you was going to do it, because the temptation was pretty irresistible, only the pure sexism of it stopped me.

After that, it bounced randomly back and forth. I can't be sure that Jong and Frem *deliberately* changed it back, but that was just what it looked like.

No shame in being oblivious here.

Mike,

Not a personal attack, it was clever. But going rouge is also not a personal attack, it's sexism, like if I had said that Hillary had her panties in a bunch. I don't think "gender identifiers" are necessarily sexist: You can call a woman a cunt if you call a man a dick, and there's nothing wrong with calling Hillary a banshee anymore than calling Karl Rove Jabba the Hut.

But what it was, was a little shiny fish-like object dangling at the end of a hook, just waiting for someone to chomp on it. Thank you for obliging. (I was actually surprised that it was you.)

Oh, and this has been an extended snark.

This snark is © Sarah Palin 2012. After all, what good is an apocalypse without an antichrist?

Ah, so you just naturally assumed it was me, eh?

Although I should note for the record that the editors of The Nation *DID* publish a book called "Going Rouge: Sarah Palin - An American Nightmare" on the same day her book came out.

But surely I'm not the only one on this site who was aware of that?

By the way, I'm still eagerly awaiting an explanation - some explanation, ANY explanation - of what it is exactly that's so "sexist" about that magazine cover. Is it because you can see that Palin is (ostensibly, at least) a woman? Is that wrong that you can tell she's a woman? Should she not be seen as such? Is it because she's showing a bit of leg in that Hooter's-style panty-hose under running shorts outfit she's wearing? Is THAT the sexist part?

I guess at this point, I just have to ask: Where was all your outrage when photos of Barack Obama shirtless at the beach were published? Can you please point out to me where y'all were posting about how "sexist" it was to show his manliness in such a blatant way? I mean, you wouldn't tolerate someone posting topless pix of Sarah, would you?

And don't you DARE try to tell me that they're not the same thing. How SEXIST of you! You should be ashamed at yourself for trying to apply different standards to women than you would to men!

So I'll keep waiting for that explanation. I doubt it will be coming, though.

Mike

Work is the curse of the Drinking Class.
- Oscar Wilde

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, November 19, 2009 7:11 AM

Quote:

Its the only argument they are capable of. They lost the policy debate years ago, so the personal attack is all they have left. They also lack imagination, so every Republican is attacked the same way.

Just a quick note of reply to this tripe.

"Hero", you've been trying this exact same argument since the election last year. It seems to be the only argument you Republicans are capable of. You have no plans, you have no answers, you have no tangible position on the issues, other than to say, "Oh, NO - NOT THAT!" You offer NOTHING. You bring to the table NOTHING. You ARE... nothing.

I've asked you for months now if you want to have a substantive discussion about "the issues". Every single time, you've run away and hid for a week or so, and then come back in another thread and vomited forth the same tired saw: "Yeah, that's all they have - the same old argument and tactics." And what you've shown, with a rigid consistency that your party is dependable for, is that you quite simply HAVE nothing else to offer.

You claim Bush lost his way - but ignore the fact that he did so within 8 months of taking office.

You claim that Obama spent more in his first 100 days than all other presidents combined, a statement which is categorically untrue. If you had any interest at all in honesty, you'd be forced to admit that Obama spent marginally more in his first hundred days than Bush spent in his last hundred. How quickly you Republicans want to forget about him, eh?

You claim that Carter and Obama bookended a period of great American prosperity. In short, you lie. Unemployment in modern times reached its peak in 1983 - THREE YEARS INTO REAGAN'S FIRST TERM. Before you try to whip out the favored excuse of "conservatives" everywhere, and claim that that was all residual damage done by the Carter years, bear in mind that the unemployment peaks we've recently seen, the highest since Reagan's "prosperity" years, are coming less than a year into his term.

Mike

Work is the curse of the Drinking Class.
- Oscar Wilde

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, November 19, 2009 7:17 AM

ANTHONYT

Freedom is Important because People are Important

"Although I should note for the record that the editors of The Nation *DID* publish a book called "Going Rouge: Sarah Palin - An American Nightmare" on the same day her book came out.

But surely I'm not the only one on this site who was aware of that?"

Hello,

I didn't know that, but it gave me a chuckle when you informed me of it here.

--Anthony

"Liberty must not be purchased at the cost of Humanity." --Captain Robert Henner

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, November 19, 2009 7:53 AM

River,

Thanks for the heads up, I'll check out the interview.

I know the partisan game is a sham, but I do have to comment on this, simply because there is something at stake, so first a little reservation, from the Rev. Al Sharpton, which IMHO is very on target:

"What matters is not *who* walks into the whitehouse, but *what* walks into the whitehouse"

He was talking about the connections, influence peddlers and preset agendas that politicians sell out to. Sarah Palin by herself bothers me not at all, what she's connected to, well we'll see, when we get there. Obama also bothered me not at all, but I'm presently pretty disturbed by what he's connected to, and which one of those, Obama or his advisors, win out will be one of my main judging criteria.

All of that said, re: Palin haters, here's what is really going on, that they won't admit to:

Fear.

It's an awfully healthy sign for your candidate when the opposition is terrified 3 years out. I humbly propose again, organizing for the reality of Sarah, should it happen, so that *what* walks into the whitehouse is more rogue, more firefly in essence, and less politics as usual.

Byte,

Quote:
Joe Wilson calls Obama a liar.

Much was made of this, Faux Joe Wilson has issues, (Displacing the real Joe Wilson, a neat media trick) but I sure hope that Obama *was* lying at the time. The thought that people would be refused medical care based on citizenship status is appalling, and would not happen anywhere else in the civilized world, and yet this was the very policy that Obama was supporting: the banning of funding for medical treatment of non-citizens, when "Joe" Wilson called him a liar. Well, I wouldn't agree with Wilson, who probably was actually supporting Obama's position, and was afraid that Obama was only paying it lip service, but WTF? Why they hell was *that* the story? I mean, there's another story here, which is Obama was stating support for a pretty extreme position.

This however was beautiful:

Quote:

Liberals have such a reaction to Sarah Palin, because 1) she's the "enemy", 2) they really wanted John McCain to lose, 3) they see Sarah Palin as the reason WHY John McCain lost, and 4) they believed Katie Couric's interview painting Palin as clueless on the issues.

That's just priceless. Liberals blame Palin for making McCain lose while desperately wanting McCain to lose. So true. Also, to quote John McCain: "They're not the enemy, they're the opposition."

Yes, I go to the local meetings of both parties, and I have to say that it is very true: the animosity on the left towards the right vastly outstrips their animosity towards Al Qaeda,the Taliban, Communism, Goldman/Sachs, NWO... I mean, I'm not sure I believe in enemies, but it's surreal to see people saying "well, Osama kind of has a point" and then "Newt Gingrich must be stopped at all costs. Do you even know what this man intends to do with govt: He wants to kill it, or to quote Newt: to weaken it to the point where the people can drag it into the tub and drown it if need be." <-- well this, said at my local county democrat meeting by the head democrat appears to be a future that the party really truly fears. Personally, I think it sounds like a good idea. Which I said, while winning no fans ;) But the hostility towards Gingrich did vastly outstrip that towards Osama, and was nothing compared to what was reserved for Mrs. Palin, which seemed to be pure abject terror.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, November 19, 2009 7:55 AM

NIKI2

Gettin' old, but still a hippie at heart...

Interesting.

Hero, the only reason there is now no abortion provisions is that it WAS discovered, and the hypocrisy is obvious. The fact it was there actually shows they don't want to provide for others what they get for themselves.

At least there WERE no "death panels" or other ridiculous things in the health plan initially--something even Republicans were in favor of had to be pulled because it was lied about and the masses bought it, so better to take it out, since trying to explain it didn’t overcome the propaganda, andit wasn’t worth fighting over with more important things at stake at the time. A Republican initially suggested it years ago, and they've been in favor of it for a long time; it was just one more thing to lie about to try and kill the bill, and they glomed onto it to fit their agenda.

So thank you, right wing, for taking away paid end-of-life counseling about hospice care, etc., which never WAS a death panel in the first place.

Also, when listing your reasons we "hate" Palin, I notice you didn't list any of the VIABLE reasons I gave, just threw out the reasons ALWAYS given to excuse our disdain for her as a viable candidate. And you forgot "quitter".

River, I never thought she was done after the election, nor did many--as is obvious from the skit on Saturday Night Live.

Quote:
she is so dynamic that all their efforts only seemed to strengthen her resolve to do better

I would change "dynamic" to "popular", and I hope she's resolved to do better...if she were better educated and knowledgeable, I would find her less an affront. And goodness, if she hadn't learned enough about how to handle an interview by now, she'd be truly pathetic.

Hannity? Don't you think they went over everything with her so she'd have a "safe" interview? I can't imagine Faux News doing any less...they're her boosters. If you don't think the whole thing was carefully scripted ahead of time, you're buying their line.

I for one certainly don't consider her a thorn...more like a burr; one of those little round things that gets stuck in the dogs' coats. Irritating, but not painful, and easily removed eventually. She will be, once her game plays out, she'll continue hanging out on the fringes with the other extremists. Unless she attracts a big enough bunch to cause the party to eat its own as she has been doing, in which case she'll only prolong the Democrats' winning races.

Quote:
Some say they just hate her beliefs.
Some say they are amused by her as a distraction.
Some say she is not relevant anymore.
But none say they fear her political future, and potential cultural impact.

If that's the case, then why why why why why does the lamestream media continue to give her top billing all the time?

All the things you listed are valid, and exactly why we don't "fear" her. We fear her splitting the Republican party and making them look even more foolish than they have themselves, and as for cultural impact; she's glomed onto a mood and is playing it for all it's worth, the cultural impact certainly doesn't "belong" to her.

As to the media; I think I covered the reasons for that already. But as before, she certainly doesn't get "top billing all the time"; aside from when she does something to call attention to herself, she either gets no media or little. I don't know where you guys get the idea she's the focus of the media...I watched several stations last night, and on network news and cable both, saw only small mention of her, and that only because her book came out.

Remember, Sanford and Ensign got lots of exposure too, but that didn't make them media darlings. Media covers whatever's "hot" at the moment; she was during the campaign, she makes a splash whenever she sticks her nose out in public, and so far the only coverage I've seen of her book is the lines of people waiting to buy it and LOTS about the fact that it's backbiting and has little actual policy in it. She's getting coverage, but I doubt she likes a lot of it.

As to fact checkers, my goodness, are you kidding? The right sent people all OVER the place to dig up stuff on Obama, Clinton, and anyone else on the left in the news. It’s what opponents do. Her propensity for lying made it obvious that she could be caught in her lies--which in most cases she did by her own words--and she has been shown up for those lies, which she set HERSELF up for.

There certainly is no fear from me, except for the chaos she is causing in the Republican party and how she's using her pawns to propagandize people...because as Byte said, the majority of Americans are “too busy with jobs and raising kids.” So they swallow everything fed to them and don’t realize what pap it is. THAT’s scary, and sad. She’s neither viable nor serious, but she can do harm nonetheless. There have been others like her, there will be again; people who grab the spotlight despite not being viable in the long term, grab attention by appealing to some emotion current at the time. Republicans seem to be convinced that the answer to reversing Dumbya’s idiocy is to adhere even tighter to their ideology, which will end up purging the party and making it smaller. Thus they are able to win nominations, but not elections. I want VIABLE parties and candidates, Palin won’t provide them.

From what you say, I can therefore assume you’d rather he rushed into wars without considering the dangers and expenditure of troops’ lives and money, sinking us further into debt, like Dumbya did. If we can avoid another Vietnam or Iraq (in the long run, watch what happens there) by thoughtful consideration of the options, you disapprove, which is a shame.

Quote:
They lost the policy debate years ago, so the personal attack is all they have left. They also lack imagination, so every Republican is attacked the same way.

As River pointed out, if they’d “lost” the policy debate, how did they win all three powers? You’re saying that Democrats aren’t attacked the same way time after time? You must be joking! The same things are hurled at them over and over…if by “imagination” you mean calling people socialists, Nazis, racists, etc., well, that’s not the kind of imagination to be proud of.

Byte, you got the main point:

Quote:
Everyone attacks everyone, no side is innocent. Politics is mudslinging to distract the public, because they don't want to understand the issues

and for exactly the reasons you put forth. But I disagree why Dems dislike her; I already gave my reasons, and it has nothing to do with her being the enemy or anything else you listed. It’s contradictory; we react negatively to Palin because we wanted McCain to lose, yet we also react negatively because she’s the reason he lost…isn’t that contradictory? Sure, I wanted McCain to lose because I thought he’d carry on where Bush left off, but the truth is I RESPECTED McCain, and to have such a joke as a running mate was sad to see. As to Couric’s interview, it was only one of several which showed the true colors of her ignorance and unwillingness to educate herself on the issues. She has made “fluff” her trademark, with the winks and catch phrases…don’t expect it to disappear, it’s what she’s made of and she plays it to the hilt.

I fully agree about your disbelief at Obama being hard left, but Republicans don’t push the socialism part? You’ve GOT to be kidding; we get that practically every time one opens his or her mouth! As to poll numbers, every President (I believe) sees his poll numbers slip once the “honeymoon” is over, and his popularity is still just fine, thank you. What his policies bring will be seen; I’m not happy either, but I’m still willing to wait and see, and if the right weren’t so dead set on fighting him tooth and nail for everything, who knows what he could have accomplished? As mentioned, they've offered no real solutions but "cut taxes, cut taxes"--if they offered anything of any substance, I'd love to hear it.

Dumbya let us be attacked by not paying attention, THEN led us into a useless war because of his own agenda, again not paying attention, when we should have been going after the actual people who attacked us all this time. At least Obama is paying attention.

I, too, didn't know about that other book, and got a giggle out of the ENTIRE title. Thanx Mike

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, November 19, 2009 8:04 AM

Quote:
But I disagree why Dems dislike her; I already gave my reasons, and it has nothing to do with her being the enemy or anything else you listed. It’s contradictory; we react negatively to Palin because we wanted McCain to lose, yet we also react negatively because she’s the reason he lost…isn’t that contradictory?

I believe the word I used was reaction. Laughter and scorn I consider examples of such.

Quote:
She has made “fluff” her trademark, with the winks and catch phrases…don’t expect it to disappear, it’s what she’s made of and she plays it to the hilt.

Be wary of underestimating anyone in the political arena. They're all snakes.

Quote:
Republicans don’t push the socialism part? You’ve GOT to be kidding; we get that practically every time one opens his or her mouth!

Push FOR socialism. At least outwardly, the Republicans are very against social programs. Neo Cons not so much, though you won't ever catch them admitting it in public.

Quote:
THEN led us into a useless war because of his own agenda, again not paying attention, when we should have been going after the actual people who attacked us all this time.

..Saudi Arabia, or Al Queda? Either way, destabilizing the middle east has some pretty serious consequences for the west versus the east, which is what I eventually see everything heading for. I think knowing what we were getting into would have been the biggest help, though I think some people did.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, November 19, 2009 8:24 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Riverlove:
If they "lost the debate" why did they win Congress & the White House?

They won the election last year because Obama ran as a moderate and benefited from the credit crisis.

Republicans had the momentum and Obama fatigue was at its height when the crisis hit. McCain fumbled his response and the campaign never recovered.

They won Congress two years before that because Congressional Republicans had long since abandoned the conservative principals that got them the majority in 1994.

H

"Hero. I have come to respect you." "I am forced to agree with Hero here."- Chrisisall, 2009.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, November 19, 2009 8:27 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by bluesuncompanyman:
I have no interest in such an event. I only stand in line for 3 Autographs:
Big Damn Heros
Stephen King
Neil Gaiman
(There would be 5, but Frank Herbert is 20+ years dead,

Common ground...didn't see that coming.

Quote:

and Ron Paul

Who?

H

"Hero. I have come to respect you." "I am forced to agree with Hero here."- Chrisisall, 2009.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, November 19, 2009 8:31 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by bluesuncompanyman:
Right now, 20 minutes from my house there is a line wrapped around a Borders in Nobelsville IN. Sarah is scheduled to sign copies of her Book at 1pm.

I have no interest in such an event. I only stand in line for 3 Autographs:
Big Damn Heros
Stephen King
Neil Gaiman
(There would be 5, but Frank Herbert is 20+ years dead, and Ron Paul doesn't autograph academic papers)

My point: people are going to have to come to grips with a fact I see with my own eyes. Common folk in fly-over states adore this woman. Like it or not, she is loved. Logical or not, she is loved. Otherwise there would be no line around my local bookstore.

There are two problems with this line of logic.

1) By using this kind of logic, the new Twilight movie must be the best movie of the year. After all, there are lines around the theatre waiting for its opening.

What it REALLY means is that SOME people love her, and are willing to stand in line to see her or buy her book. Same can be said of Madonna, but I don't see you holding her up as a beacon of greatness, do I?

2) Latest poll numbers don't back up what you claim to see. Latest CBS polling shows her favorable/unfavorable ratings at almost exactly where they were when she walked out on her day job in July, to pursue a career as an unemployed right-wing blogger. Her favorables are at 23%, her unfavorables are at 38%. That's hardly evidence that she's "loved". In fact, if those 23% "love" her, then a full fifteen percent more "hate" her.

Mike

Work is the curse of the Drinking Class.
- Oscar Wilde

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, November 19, 2009 8:41 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Hero:
Quote:
Originally posted by Kwicko:
That would probably be a much more cutting remark if you punctuated it correctly. YOU, who can't spell the word "intelligence", are going to lecture others about being able to read? Really?

You can't argue the issue, so you make a personal attack. Which, ironically, was my point all along.

WHO made it "personal"? WHO was the one who brought up whether or not I could read? WHO was that?

So, since you can't argue issues, you go for the personal attack. Yes, you proved your point, that you can't argue issues, and that your ONLY tactic is the personal attack. I think we can all plainly see that.

Quote:

Quote:

I don't plan on reading Miss Mooselini's book simply because I have no intention of putting money in her pocket.

I can uderstand that. Don't want to support her cause by giving her money from the sale of the book...

Shame they don't have places where folks can go and borrow books to read for free, perhaps making use of some sort of card and a decimal-based organizational system.

Have you ever read Mein Kampf? How about Das Kapital? If not, why not? And how can you argue against them if you've not read them? I'm sure your library has them. Well, unless you and Sarah decided to go ahead and ban those kinds of "subversive" books from your library.

Hey, maybe I can find a copy of Sarah's book in the George Dubya Bush "Libary", right next to his favorite copy of "My Pet Goat". If so, those would likely be the ONLY two books in that library. :)

Mike

Work is the curse of the Drinking Class.
- Oscar Wilde

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, November 19, 2009 8:45 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Hero:
Quote:
Originally posted by Kwicko:
Also, what does the GOP call the abortion coverage that's provided by its insurer of choice? You did know that those covered by insurance paid for by the GOP have their abortions 100% covered by the health plan the GOP pays for, right?

There is no such coverage in the plan. It was there, but when it was brought to the attention of Michael Steele it was immediately removed. I believe he thanked those who discovered the oversight as do I.

It was there for over 18 years. How many abortions did the Republican party fund during those 18 years, and for whom did they fund them?

Mike

Work is the curse of the Drinking Class.
- Oscar Wilde

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, November 19, 2009 8:47 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Hero:
Quote:
Originally posted by Riverlove:
If they "lost the debate" why did they win Congress & the White House?

They won the election last year because Obama ran as a moderate and benefited from the credit crisis.

Republicans had the momentum and Obama fatigue was at its height when the crisis hit. McCain fumbled his response and the campaign never recovered.

They won Congress two years before that because Congressional Republicans had long since abandoned the conservative principals that got them the majority in 1994.

H

"Hero. I have come to respect you." "I am forced to agree with Hero here."- Chrisisall, 2009.

Thank you for your response. I seem to recall only once when McCain was briefly ahead of Obama, and that was the Convention bounce with Palin. She was never better than that night, and it was disappointing to see her flail and falter during the rest of the campaign. And I don't mean just the interviews that went bad, I mean the incoherence of her part of their campaign in relation to McCain. It seemed to me like they were taking opposite tactics in their attempt to defeat Obama, and not working well as a team. I do not see her fitting in any more in the Republican Party. She is bigger than the RNC. I see her leading a 3rd Party candidacy, either Conservative or some other populist movement. This will not be good for Republicans, but may be exactly what the majority of Americans will want in a few years.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, November 19, 2009 8:51 AM

Quote:

Why did the AP assign 11 "fact checkers" to read her book? Gee, how many fact checkers reviewed Obama's book?; or Hillary's book?; or anybody elses book?

Good questions. We eagerly await your answers. Last I heard, the AP employs around 3000 fact-checkers, so 11 isn't really a high number, I wouldn't think.

Mike

Work is the curse of the Drinking Class.
- Oscar Wilde

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, November 19, 2009 8:57 AM

Quote:

You can 'But Bush' all you want and talk about Palin's appearance and lack of intellegence and gender, but the fact is every decision Obama has made (or not made) has resulted in a miserable failure.

Maybe you could point out for us all those great decisions which your beloved Ms. Palin has made that didn't turn out to be miserable failures. Run for VP in 2008? Yeah, that didn't work out so well... Finish her term in Alaska? Ooooh - nope. Quit early and blame "the media"? That hasn't exactly gone as planned. Go shopping for new clothes? Whoopsie! Leave Bristol home alone? What's the worst that could happen? Do an interview with Katie Couric? Heck, she's just another workin' gal, right? No danger there! Do an interview with Charlie Gibson? He's a morning softball kind of interviewer, right? Can't see that one going wrong...

Yeah, when you put it that way, Sarah and her decisions really DO seem smart!

[/snarcasm]

Mike

Work is the curse of the Drinking Class.
- Oscar Wilde

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, November 19, 2009 9:26 AM

Quote:
Leave Bristol home alone? What's the worst that could happen?

Gotta cry foul on that one.

1) Bristol's eighteen, it's her choice. 2) Attacking Palin's family isn't attacking Palin's policy.

The pregnancy is a non-issue except as an ironic commentary on Palin's position on abstinence only sex-ed. But as for Palin's parenting style, it's not fair to that poor girl to take potshots. Remember, she lives in Alaska in a low pop area, pretty enough scenery, but nothing to do. We all know where boredom in teens leads to. And frankly, I have sympathy for this girl just for who her mother is, I imagine Sarah Palin can be... overbearing.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, November 19, 2009 9:28 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Kwicko:
You offer NOTHING. You bring to the table NOTHING. You ARE... nothing.

"You offer NOTHING."

The Republicans have offered alternative health care, stimulas, and war plans. Those plans are uniformly rejected without review or comment and Republican input into Democratic plans is also uniformly rejected. In fact to only bi-partisan plans are the Republican ones.

"You ARE... nothing." Well, there you go. Thats the argument. You see me, Republicans, anyone who disagrees as "nothing". Its personal, emotional, and irrational and completely justifies anything you might say or do.

Its ok to make personal attacks, because we're not really people. We have no human rights, our opinions are not worthy of your respect, our plans simply don't exist, our input is meaningless.

Thats why its ok to be sexist toward Palin and racist towards black Republicans (and Democrats) who disagree with you.

The President told Congress that his door was open...but his door was not open. He said negotiations would be on CSPAN, they were behind those closed doors. "You Lie!" was really just bad timing. He should have waited a week.

Quote:

I've asked you for months now if you want to have a substantive discussion about "the issues". Every single time, you've run away and hid for a week or so

I don't post every day. I work for a living. Next week a vacation. Never the less over the last few years I have engaged in numerous substantial debates most of which end the same way (I win, names get called).

Quote:

You claim Bush lost his way - but ignore the fact that he did so within 8 months of taking office.

I ignore nothing. I agree Bush lost his way, I disagree with when and how.

Quote:

You claim that Obama spent more in his first 100 days than all other presidents combined, a statement which is categorically untrue. If you had any interest at all in honesty, you'd be forced to admit that Obama spent marginally more in his first hundred days than Bush spent in his last hundred. How quickly you Republicans want to forget about him, eh?

Trillion is a big number, Obama used it more then anybody else. He quadrupled the debt in the first hundred days...to the tune of trillions.

Quote:

You claim that Carter and Obama bookended a period of great American prosperity. In short, you lie. Unemployment in modern times reached its peak in 1983 - THREE YEARS INTO REAGAN'S FIRST TERM.

I agree, it was bad in 1983. I'm reading the Reagan diaries, he was fighting a huge battle in 1981 and 1982 to get his economic reforms in place. The difference is by 1983 faith in our system had been restored, people were working again, new innovations and industries were in the works, a new age of prosperity was in place. People had more money, they were using it to start businesses, go to school, consume, create, and innovate. None of that energy is present in the current economic climate. Mostly its folks praying their job isn't next.

The Republicans offered a stimulas package. It cost about a quarter of Obama's and was comprised mostly of tax incentives and infrastructure improvements. The Republicans offered a health plan, it focused on tax incentives, easing restrictions on states to allow for a more diverse marketplace for insurance and drugs, and easing restriction on small businesses to allow for pooled resources...and tort reform. I don't think anybody doubts that Republicans would have been closely involved with responding to the Afgan troop requests. I suspect given similar conditions McCain would have gotten the troop request in August and responded...in August.

The Republicans would not have spent valuable time and resources in a pissing match with FOX (or MSNBC). They would not have wanted to bring Gitmo terrorist to middle America or wanted a show trial for KSM in New York. Alternative...Gitmo and military tribunals (although I think Bush should have got off his ass and gotten those trials done, after all its not inventing the wheel, they've been done before).

'You are nothing' is you opinion of me and Republicans and Sarah Palin. Thats why you can't win the argument. You've forgotten there are two teams on the field (I know, I see the Browns do the same thing from my plush club-level seats). You are like a guy who thinks he a champion poker player because he does real good playing the computer.

Now me, I love a good debate. I remember on thread were I got so frustrated with your side's inability to argue the merits...I did it for you and did a hell of a job. Look at your post, you tried to give me one just now, once I sifted through the personal attacks and insults. Imagine if you'd not had the personal attacks and insults. You could make a point, I could respond, next thing you know its a debate on the merits of an issue and we're all the better for it.

This whole thread proves my point. An entire thread to attack a book by a person you don't like by people who have not read the book. You have not read the book so you spend all your time attacking the person. Read it...I dare you.

I read Obama's book...heck, I read 'Earth in the Balance' and Hillary's 'Village'. Go to the place with the free books and borrow it and read it then tell us what you think and why you disagree with her and who knows? Maybe you'll learn something even if that something is just to respect your opponants as people.

H

"Hero. I have come to respect you." "I am forced to agree with Hero here."- Chrisisall, 2009.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, November 19, 2009 9:30 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Kwicko:
Good questions. We eagerly await your answers. Last I heard, the AP employs around 3000 fact-checkers, so 11 isn't really a high number, I wouldn't think.

Thats true...it was only 11 more then they used to fact check Obama's book.

H

"Hero. I have come to respect you." "I am forced to agree with Hero here."- Chrisisall, 2009.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, November 19, 2009 9:33 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Kwicko:
It was there for over 18 years. How many abortions did the Republican party fund during those 18 years, and for whom did they fund them?

None. (of anyone's business)

Again, thanks to whoever brought this out into the open so we could deal with it in the proper fashion. You have done a great service to advancing the cause.

H

"Hero. I have come to respect you." "I am forced to agree with Hero here."- Chrisisall, 2009.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, November 19, 2009 9:42 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Kwicko:
WHO made it "personal"? WHO was the one who brought up whether or not I could read? WHO was that?

Your inability to read has nothing to do with literacy, which is a personal problem. Its about your intolerance, which goes to further my point. I stand by my statement.

If my comment offended anyone out there who is illiterate...they just need to get over it. I also don't consult the blind when color coordinating my tie.

You can't read Palin's book. I believe you incapable of picking it up, even for free, and reading it cover to cover. You can't do it, you can't read.

I suspect you prefer pictures...like Newsweek.

H

"Hero. I have come to respect you." "I am forced to agree with Hero here."- Chrisisall, 2009.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, November 19, 2009 9:51 AM

http://youtu.be/VUnGTXRxGHg

Again,

Whats the big deal about Palin?

I think shes an idiot.

But I do have an ultra-lib friend, and hes freaking out about her too...

I would hazard that the reasons he can't stand her are because she stands against everything his liberal beliefs teach... and shes hot...

Again, not that what she stands for is right...

I just find the whole idea of libs sitting alone, having wet-dreams about Palin, and hating themselves for it..

HIGHLY AMUSING

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, November 19, 2009 9:56 AM

http://youtu.be/VUnGTXRxGHg

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, November 19, 2009 9:58 AM

http://youtu.be/VUnGTXRxGHg

hehehehehehe

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, November 19, 2009 10:02 AM

http://youtu.be/VUnGTXRxGHg

"If my comment offended anyone out there who is illiterate...they just need to get over it. I also don't consult the blind when color coordinating my tie."

Ok, great... I just spewed coffee all over my keyboard when I read that... I was laughing so hard.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, November 19, 2009 10:32 AM

Your video leaves out a lot of great looking conservative gals like S.E. Cupp, Andrea Tantaros, Megan Kelly, Kimberly Guilfoyle, Margaret Hoover, Lis Weihl, Jane Skinner, Monica Crowley, Gretchen Carlson, Dana Perino, and Lauren Savan to name as few.

S.E. Cupp : Voice of Conservatism

Jeanine Garafalo : Voice of Liberalism

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, November 19, 2009 10:37 AM

http://youtu.be/VUnGTXRxGHg

Not really MY video... just something amusing I found.

I was trying to make the point that the reason libs hate Palin has a simpler, baser, reason.

Shes the cheerleader.

They are the ones who couldn't get with the cheerleader.

Or the ones who wished they WERE the cheerleader.

Its sad.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, November 19, 2009 10:39 AM

CHRISISALL

Quote:
Originally posted by Hero:

You can't read Palin's book. I believe you incapable of picking it up, even for free, and reading it cover to cover. You can't do it, you can't read.

Now you're just being a big silly.

And yeah, I'm afraid of Palin! In 1924 peeps were laughing at Hitler as they tossed his ass in prison, and he became a threat to the world later on. Palin has peeps laughing at her now, in her own, self-designed prison of fame. I fear the world threat SHE might easily become, too.
Heil Palin!

The laughing Chrisisall

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, November 19, 2009 10:43 AM

http://youtu.be/VUnGTXRxGHg

"And yeah, I'm afraid of Palin! In 1924 peeps were laughing at Hitler as they tossed his ass in prison, and he became a threat to the world later on. Palin has peeps laughing at her now, in her own, self-designed prison of fame. I fear the world threat SHE might easily become, too.
Heil Palin!"

Lol

Good point.

The cheerleaders who are dumb as a sack of hammers... good God! Who should ever give them power?

Napolean Dynamite for Prez.

(Im actually being serious about that.)

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, November 19, 2009 10:43 AM

http://youtu.be/VUnGTXRxGHg

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, November 19, 2009 10:53 AM

Correction: This isn't Jeanine Garafalo as stated above. It's actually acclaimed film director Michael Moore. It was an honest mistake, as they look so much alike, except Moore's boobies are nicer.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, November 19, 2009 10:59 AM

Wulf,

Palin's most viceral opponents are jealous and afraid, sure, but they tend to be female. I think it's psychological. But also, of course, there are a lot of people who either oppose or are skeptical of Sarah for political reasons. I'm personally always skeptical of everyone, and so that includes Sarah Palin.

That said, I have to face reality. I'd love to have Ron Paul as a candidate. That's not going to happen. Sarah Palin is a strong possibility. The other ones are Mitt Romney, maybe Mike Huckabee, and God I hope not Pawlenty and a whole host of others. If people had to choose to work on a campaign to influence the resulting product, would be best to do so fairly soon.

The only influence that anyone is going to have is if they can determine the base. I think Sarah is playing to the GOP base right now, but that's a pretty small base. In a recent poll 20% of the population identified themselves as "republican" vs. about 35% "democrat" and the rest "independent." That's the extension of a long term trend, but it does make you stop and say "huh," because in the senate there are 60 democrats, 38 republicans and two independents IIRC.

My thought here is still, what if.

Okay, suppose I'm wrong, and the economy turns around, the FED is cracked down on, the debt diminshed or dissolved, defaults, taxes decline so people are able to hire again, and there's no market crash, and we get out of these wars. Or at least make serious headway towards those goals. Then, okay, vote Obama, give him a second term.

But if I'm right, and things fall to pieces, the Clintonistas and Goldman Sachs run the show, then a dead rabbit would win against Obama in 2012, or as I put it before, Mark Sanford. Take your pick really. Then it becomes a primary campaign game.

The only way to alter a platform is to create a base. If there were a strong libertarian GOP primary base to play to, Palin would have to play to it, and we might get something decent as a platform.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, November 19, 2009 11:00 AM

Chris,

If it's sarcasm, does Godwin still apply?

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, November 19, 2009 11:05 AM

NIKI2

Gettin' old, but still a hippie at heart...

Quote:
The Republicans have offered alternative health care, stimulas, and war plans.

Can you tell us exactly what those plans were, beyond "cut taxes" and "tax incentives", the all-time Republican cry to fix everything? Does no good to ease restrictions across state lines when there are no viable OPTIONS, the insurance companies' monopoly having cut out all opportunity for co-ops and smaller companies...

Quote:
...freaking out about her too...

I would hazard that the reasons he can't stand her are because she stands against everything his liberal beliefs teach... and shes hot...

Again, not that what she stands for is right...

I just find the whole idea of libs sitting alone, having wet-dreams about Palin, and hating themselves for it..

HIGHLY AMUSING

That's bullcrap, and contradictory...all over it says that Republican men adore Palin because she's hot, so why would your friend hate her for that?

Secondly, I don't think anyone's "freaking out" about her. Funny that we've had threads that go much longer than this one, debating this point or that, and nobody's considered it "freaking out". Haven't seen anyone freaking out about Palin, just people disgusted with her and disdainful of her lying and ignorance.

You guys reeeely have something invested in believing dems dislike her because they fear her or something, it's like you've latched onto it and won't let go. All the way down the thread nobody's said they're scared of her--except Chris, and I'd be scared too, if I thought she had a chance in hell. Why do you keep wanting (needing?) to believe that, despite numerous people telling you we don't fear her, we're just disgusted by her?

And I think you made a mistake there--you said he was freaking out about her not because "what she stands for is right" I think you meant "what she stands for is WRONG", didn't you?

Quote:
Thats true...it was only 11 more then they used to fact check Obama's book.

Cite, please...can you prove that?

By the way, I disdained cheerleading, but was pretty damned hot when I was younger...and know quite a few hot democrats; that one's an old joke, and if nothing else, shows that good-looking bimbos get attention, little more. Wulf, for once we agree--at least on your second remark:

Quote:
The cheerleaders who are dumb as a sack of hammers... good God! Who should ever give them power?

Quote:
Palin's most viceral opponents are jealous and afraid, sure, but they tend to be female.

DT, where do you GET that? I've seen many "visceral" opponents of Palin who are male, and once again, I don't get where people come up with jealous and afraid. Is it to avoid contemplating the idea that people might just be offended by her, disgusted by her lying and tactics, her playing to the evangelical mob, using her looks and cutsey winks and stuff to appeal, without any substance behind them? Is that SO inconceivable? Or are Obama's most visceral opponents mostly male and envious of him because he's "hot"?

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, November 19, 2009 11:21 AM