POUTING
POUTING
When crying about losing isn’t enough
(Sarah Palin)
Picture by: dunno source. Caption by: dunno source via Poster Builder
Show Only: Democrats | Republicans | Media | Military
« Previous Sheesh! | Yes, I KNOW my son is “flying” this plane. Next »
» 780 comments
-
Recent Comments
Nova on RAINBOWS FadedLY on RAINBOWS forge on MRE The Eric on RAINBOWS The Eric on RAINBOWS Kracht on RAINBOWS eldritch on SPEECHLESS Ceefax on And then the nasty ol… Ceefax on SPEECHLESS Ceefax on SPEECHLESS 
Cheezburger Network Blog
At this point, I just want her to go away. Take your daughters, your grandchild, and husband back to Alaska, and stay there. People hoping for her to run for President in the next election are deluding themselves.
Agreed, and furthermore, this website should take her name off the freakin’ page title. She’s just not relevant at all any more. “Lol Sarah Palin” my arse!
Say what you want about her relevance, but she IS a polarizing figure in American Politics. I don’t think there are too many people who simply “tollerate” her… it seems to me people either love her or hate her.
Why people love her, is one of the world’s greatest mysteries.
Can any of you point out what it is about her that you find so disturbing? How is she different than any other Republican politician? Is it Republicans that you dis-like? Do you think there should only be one party in our political system?
I’m tired of the Republican whining in general… the revisionist history, the lack of support for anything “progressive”, becoming the “Rush Limbaugh” show…just to name a few. No, I don’t want a single party system… I would like to see the moderate republicans kick the neo-cons to the curb and present some Friggin’ ideas, rather than bashing whatever plans the Dems put out…
Expressing ideas or concerns is considered whining. You want to set the terms for what the opposition says, does or thinks? I noticed that you did not answer any of my questions.
david, she did answer your question if you stop to think about what she said.
expressing ideas or concerns isn’t the issue it’s how you do so. your manner above is in the “we’re such martyrs” approach that makes you seen whiny.
i half expect somewhere in your next post for you to complain about your freedom of speech being curtailed.
-applauds wallfly and Mothergoose-
Expressing ideas or concerns was considerred treason and anti-American, not so long ago.
OK, let’s answer them one at a time for you: 1. I find her Couric Interview disturbing. I find her not knowing her “Continents” disturbing. I found her avoidance of questions during the campaign disturbing.
2. I think her lack of experience at a national level makes her different from many other Republican Politicians who I feel are more qualified to run.
3. I can’t say I’m a big fan of the Republican Party; however, they do present some interesting opinions on many subject, and I do have Republican friends.
4. Answered in my earlier post.
Expressing ideas and concerns is not whining. You are correct. But what I’ve seen recently from them is more along the lines of “oppose everything, regardless”; rather than offering viable alternatives. Instead of complaining that “There’s earmarks in the Stimulus Package”…why not point out that many Republicans took them… Instead of “Sotomayor’s a racist”…why not show the entire quote rather than taking statements out of context…
-Hugs-
Good points, man.
*psssst* it’s woman.
O.o
No offense intended then, I say “man” as a term of endearment. Wow, that sounded misogynistic. Didn’t mean it that way. I don’t know, I guess it comes from being in High School too much? :/
Anyway, good points, sexylady.
it’s ok. didn’t figure there was anything meant in it. but hers is one of the easier user names to determine gender… MOTHERgoose.
at least you didn’t pull out the “dude”. that’s when we’d know you’ve been in high school too much.
Sexist!
No worries, chickiepoo! No offense taken… I’ve been called alot worse!!
If you find her not knowing her continents disturbing were you equally distressed that Obama said that there are 57 states while on the campaign trail? Or did you simply chalk that up to HIS total lack of experience?
(Crickets chirping whilst awaiting the justification…)
If it had indeed been just that one mistake we might be able to write it off as a gaffe as surely Obama’s mistake obviously was. We all know Biden has plenty of those too. However, That’s just one of MANY “simple mistakes” of Sara Palin’s. She has always seemed genuinely baffled by queations she’s faced.
“What magazines do you read”? These are questions that should be a piece of cake, but she answers “All of them.” When asked to clarify and name one, she couldn’t answer. Not a single “cosmo” even. Yet the neo-cons whine that she was given such unfair and tough questions?
Even when asked a serious question, the only answers she ever gave were circle-talk with no content.
You’re forgetting lots of others. The “Austrian” language, for one, which doesn’t exist. The fact that we need lots more “Arabic translators” in Afghanistan despite that they don’t even speak Arabic there. His father or grandfather helping to liberate Auschwitz. The breathalyzer for asthmatic children.
He has as many gaffes as Biden (and is quite surely just as stupid) – but the press doesn’t care to note it very seriously. They prefer, instead, reports about how rainbows appear (literally) when he speaks and how he has Dirty Harry moments where he kills flies. I kid you not; check out the video in the link under my name. But no, the coverage isn’t unfair at all – they’re definitely not In. The. F*cking. Tank.
I was differentiating Gaffes from actual ignorance. There’s a difference, see. Palin is uneducated and incompetent. She was UNABLE to answer those questions. She didn’t just mis-speak or exaggerate. She also thought proximity t a foreign country makes one qualified for foreign relations. Ridiculous.
Everybody mis-speaks, even you, I’m sure. Being able to correct mistakes without talking circles of talking points is where we separate the wheat from the chaff. Where are the alternative ideas the republicans are coming up with. What solutions? All they have been doing is tearing down the ideas that HAVE come out. As is stands now, the only ideas being put forward have been from progressives. If conservatives have better ideas, lets hear them.
At this point, the REpublicans are doing damage control. They know that they have to regain the credibility as far as fiscal responsibility and smaller government that they lost during the last half of the Bush years. They don’t have the chance for better plans, because, let’s face it, if they proposed one, it would be dismissed outright as either a lie or just stupid based on past performance. So they have to point out the flaws in the current Admins plans and guesswork with the economy until they get a better plan in place.
Obama’s gaffes DID demonstrate actual ignorance. And he was up for President, not VP. If you’d bother to watch the Ziegler interview with Palin (and start searching out the parts that were edited OUT of the Couric interview, which I’ve done) you’d get a thoroughly different picture of that nonsense. Couric edited out everything that made Palin look intelligent and like a foreign policy moderate with a lot of excellent and intelligent things to say about foreign policy, and her insulting questions were where Palin simply got snippy and stopped playing along. She was, to put it bluntly, p*ssed off. I don’t blame her. Now unless you actually seek out the information I’m talking about, all of which is freely available, then you really don’t have anything close to the full story to make the assessment you’re making, and I have nothing more to say. You need all the facts, and you don’t as yet have them.
And I’m not sure how you’re defining “gaffe” as opposed to “ignorance”. Not knowing what language the Afganis speak seems pretty ignorant to me. Or at least not informed.
@frou Maybe republicans could be taken more seriously if they accompanied their criticism with something, ANYTHING alternative. That answer is a cop out. Any congressperson can introduce an idea to the floor or to a committee. They shouldn’t have to run it past the whole party. That’s the problem. There’s too much partisanship. Why does any new idea have to come from the party??
@ Ainee, I may not be as omniscient as you, but I am, indeed, informed. I HAVE seen the palin interviews or read transcripts. They were not the answers of an intelligent woman refusing to play a game. She was genuinely confused, and floundering, not confident at all.
Various Republican Congresspeople have been shouted down by the likes of Barney Frank in the past few years. The answer I gave may be a bit of a cop out, but it doesn’t make it any less true. I can’t remember any viable alternatives when the Republicans were in power that were proposed by the Dems. There was a lot of shouting then too. Doesn’t make it right, but it’s understandable, especially with the shambles that the party is in right now.
No, she wasn’t floundering – I take it you actually have *not* seen the transcripts of the segments that ended up on the cutting room floor. Well, I have. It takes a little more digging to get genuinely informed these days. It’s a shame you also refuse to watch the Ziegler interview as well, which goes into a lot more detail, but again not surprising.
The Republicans don’t need some grand “new” scheme – they need to get back to the constitutional basis the party is supposed to be built on and explain what conserving liberty and the constitution and the free market actually MEAN again, so that people understand it. While it might be new to the ideologically brainwashed publik de-education crowd, it’s the old ideas that need to be returned to, not some new cockamamie scheme. This idea that everything has to be a “new idea” – where does this come from? Is it truly as it seems, some by-product of a short-attention-span tv generation or what?
@Ainee Yes, I’m well aware you’re the only one who could possibly be well informed, and are again omniscient of my age and intelligence level. Guess what? Just because someone doesn’t agree with you does not make them A) Less intelligent, B) Less educated, C) a brainwashed, idealistic automaton.
You fail to win arguments because you continue to throw insults instead of having actual discussions and refuse to be “informed” by anything besides right-wing, neo-con echo chamber “news”.
Spare me your “But I’m not conservative, I’m a libertarian” whine. We know what you are, really. You can bait me all you like, like you’ve been trying to do for months. I still won’t stoop to your childish, name-calling level. Funny how you attribute people’s opinions to being young, (TV generation is how you put it) when your antics only portray you as the playground bully.
And I’m sorry that, true to form, you didn’t actually READ my last post, but just gave me your kneejerk reaction to the first few lines. This is all as predictable as Old Faithful and as phony as ersatz diamonds. Try harder.
Well, you’ll always have the last word at least… At least there’s one thing you can win…
You try and criticize Obama for saying something bad about mentally challenged people, and then you continue on and call him a ‘retard’. Seems you don’t actually respect mentally challenged people, you just stand on a soap box and pretend to. As long as it proves your point i guess. Kind of makes you look silly and irrelevant.
nicely put, mothergoose. the consistent push of the republican party to the christian extreme is segregating their party from those who would save it. the moderates are being pushed out, rather left behind, as the party moves further and further to right.
it is this tendency that is personified by Palin – she’s the unexceptional, religiously biased leader that the far right sought. Add to that the statements of Huckabee last week about the republican party needing to avoid the “mushy middle” and stick to the guns which in itself is amusing since it’s this current tendency which is, for lack of a better word, killing their party.
“i half expect somewhere in your next post for you to complain about your freedom of speech being curtailed.” C’mon now why would say that, that is a cheap shot. The point I’m trying to make is the Democrats won everything why is Sarah Palin an issue about anything other than she is scary to the left. I was asking why she is scary and you told me. She represents the far right side of the party. This makes sense to me vote for us or this will happen. She is as scary to you as Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid are to me.
David, you’re right, it was unwarranted and I apologize. It was in reference to a debate on a different post where that was used as an excuse, which you didn’t do. I’ll keep it above the belt.
Good points on the comparison to Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid, by the way.
I think she is scary because she is so representative of a portion of extremists in the republican party- the ones who are anti-education, anti-thought, anti-anything they do not understand and they understand very little (I grew up in rural Nebraska- most of the people I grew up with were this). I refer to them as white trash. Not rednecks, cause many rednecks- all of whom are also republicans (that I know- not saying ALL everywhere), are educated and thoughtful, thinking persons.
The attitude of kill ‘em all and let God sort it out, that God is somehow choosing sides in human wars (that other peoples children are not as important to “him” as their own).
The attitude that God made earth for man to USE- so do not worry about green house gases, the apocalypse will come before that can effect us, and we are going to be saved, so use and abuse fast faster kitty kat, kill, kill, kill.
This is who she is. She is not articulate, she does not educate herself on current events, she does not think about issues- she decides on them. Her actions and verbalization show this (I obviously do not know what she does in the privacy of her own home). She is a perfect reporesentation of what has taken over the IMPORTANT ideas that the repulican party used to represent-
1) smaller govt is something to pay attention to, so that we moderate the important things govt SHOULD do for the people, the services (including defense) it should provide, with out going bat-sh*t crazy like Nixon did and abuse of powers.
2) lower taxes- hey, I do not want my taxes wasted- and I know they are in many ways, every day- but I do want the services they provide, so I think the republican viewpoint helps keep our attention of reducing waste, and that is good (when they are doing this- instead of just going bat sh*t crazy)
3) Right to life—well, I think they are nuts. But I think it is only the bat sh*t crazy few who think that anyone has an abortion for fun and recreation, and 99.99% of those on both sides would like to reduce the incidence rate- so having reasonable thoughtful ideas from this POV would be good to move that agenda (fewer abortions, but those that are happening happen safely) forward.
See? the problem is that the extremists hijacked them- I do not agree with them, but we DO need a reasonable, rationale, and VIABLE opposition party at all times! And right now that role is being played by the Blue dogs…not the republicans.
I completely disagree in your statement about what’s killing the Republican party. Trying to be Democrat Lite is what’s killing the party, not their actual core beliefs. If they dont’ differentiate themselves, and fast, they will die out. Here’s the deal: In order to differentiate themselves, they will have to take a hard line on policies that makes the other side mad. It’s up to the American people as to whether or not they will pick up and vote for those particular policies. If they remain Democrate Lite (Just One Calorie, Not Democrate Enough), then why will people even look at them?
If Republicans are trying to be Democrat Lite, how come their political platforms don’t appeal to Democrats…at all?
Because Republicans are trying to appeal to everyone while still keeping their life-long jobs in Washington, and when you try to please everyone, you please no one.
And when they didn’t try to please everyone (see: last 8 years) they failed at that too.
They have no core principles to fall back on to back themselves up. They say one thing, (“Read my lips, no new taxes!”) and do another (raise taxes). If they had anything to stiffen their spines, they may not be liked, but at least they’d be consistant, instead of this wishy washy party of today.
So their ideas don’t work then (not exactly a shoker, hindsight being 20/20 and all).
The ideas are sound, the problem is that they don’t stick to them. They preach about fiscal responsibility, lower taxes, and term limits, and then wehn they get to Washington all of that lip service goes out the window. It’s not an idea problem, it’s an implementation problem.
Why do you think they don’t stick with them? They had every opportunity before 2006 (when they lost control of the house and senate). Maybe it’s because their ideas don’t work in practice?
I think it’s more a matter of good intentions and longterm goals often (whether on the national or personal scale) being subsumed by immediate interest and lack of discipline and self-control.
Perfect explanation, Diss. That’s what I was trying to say, and failing
I think that lack of follow-through has really stabbed at the integrity of the party as a whole. For example, fiscal responsibility has not been a high point of Obama’s administration thus far. Even I’ll admit when I hear the numbers coming out of Washington I wonder “where the hell is all this money coming from?” However, when the Republicans start bashing Obama for it, many Democrats wonder, uh, have you forgotten the spending spree the Bush administration went on?
That being said, I definitely do not want to see the Republicans die off because there is nothing scarier than one party having complete control forever. There’s no balance. That’s where things would get entirely out of hand for either party. The two party system isn’t great, but it sure as hell is better than a one-party system.
One of the best things a friend and I did for each other–I listened to her grandfather’s engineering stories, and she listened to my father’s engineering stories. They SO appreciated a new audience, and we knew enough to appreciate the new stories!
And as for broken arms, Eddie’s right, Tyler. You’d be dead before you realized your arm was taken off! –and then your grave location would be classified. Intel, after all!
ARGH! Nesting fail, maximum impact.
Eeeeexactly.
Frou, I get what you’re saying but I haven’t seen the Republican party trying to be Democrat Lite at all – if anything they’re trying to condemn the Democrats by associating them with Communism or Socialism while maintaining the same political structure that won Bush in office – appeal to the evangelicals and religious right who, at the time, were the loudest and most apt to get out and move (ok, that last part was assumption based on observation, no polls or hard data to back that up). The turning point was people simply being fed up with the country being run that way and you get a turn out of the peopel who, up until then, really didn’t do enough to make their voices heard.
But, ‘cuz I trust what you say, I’ll take another look at things – I might have just been looking through tinted glasses or whatever that phrase is.
The shift in the Republican party (as far as trying NOT to be Dem Lite) has happened in the last 8 months or so. You’ll have to look further back (read: up to the last 10 years) to see how they’ve pandered to the other side to make friends and stay in Washington. They had a decent thing going with the Contract With America as far as trying to stick to a platform that was different and new and had good ideas, but they failed to hold to it. I think their new attitude lasted until the mid-term elections.
that i will, froo
for now though, it gotta get back to work, down to the dark control room from which my internet access is monitor.. heh
Actually as a former Republican I will agree with the idea that they had winning ideas. Unfortunately, even Reagan ran huge deficits while preaching “fiscal responsibility”. The problem is that supply side economics DO NOT WORK. Lower taxes=good. Limited government = good. Zero regulation on industry = bad. Unreasonably running up defecits instead of adding taxes to pay for your programs = REALLY BAD. They got chummy with the rich and the powerful. Then added the religious because it was easier than sticking to their principles. They have NEVER stuck to their principles, and when I learned the law-and-order party I loved was also torturing people (committing war crimes in my name) I left. Will not look back. Will never vote for a Republican again unless they stop defending torture and start condemning what Bush-Cheney authorized. There isn’t a rationalization on the planet that will ever make torture OK. As a veteran I can think of no greater way to betray our servicemen than putting them at risk for torture just to prove the Veep was tough.
Yup. He’s the real McCoy.
I’m assuming your conversion away from being a Republican was recent? Is the issue of torture the only thing you disagree with? Because there were a lot of Democrats in Congress that backed the torture as well. My point is, there are a lot of people in office who hands are not clean, not by a long shot.
Nice point too, Eddster.
Hit send too soon. Anyway, Chris was clear that he also disagrees with the lack of regulation and the religious angle.
It sounds like Chris may have had issues with the religeous and regulatory side of the party, but it wasn’t until torture happened that he left. That sounds like turning a blind eye to what are two major platforms of the current Republican party. If those were issues prior to the one involving torture, why stay? I mean, those two alone have had a major impact on the party, so why hang around if you disagree?
I don’t know, Eds. If I was ever a Republican I would have left the party a long time ago.
I’m still curious though, if Chris left the Republican party, did he join another or is he going to be an Indie? Personally, that would make the most sense because the Democrats have fundamental problems too, just like the GOP.
Veteran my ass. You gave it away with that last line, unfortunately. Nice try, though.
Anniee, it’s possible he was a vet. I’m not sure why his comment would have negated that.
How on Earth does being concerned about what he sees as betrayal of soldiers make him a liar all of a sudden? Is every veteran a liar if they don’t have political/military views which are the same as yours? Is this the same way that you once said I was lying about my faith because I’m not a capitalist? He can’t prove he is a veteran, (Without revealing personal details) and you can’t prove he isn’t. I don’t think “You’re a liar!” works on the internet.
Nah, talk to some real vets who’ve served real tours and get back to me. I’ve spent too much time with vets to be fooled. Maybe he made it through basic training and “broke a leg” but that’s about it.
Ok, so what’s your experience of Veterans’ views? That they never differ politically? Simply saying “trust me, I know” doesn’t really cut it. You need to add more before it qualifies as proof…
What are you babbling about proof? This is the internet. He can claim he’s the king of Jabip and all one can say is “I really don’t believe you” and “none of the kings in my common acquaintance would ever say ‘yo, b*tch, get down to it’ ” but none of it qualifies as proof for or against. It is my studied opinion from knowing many veterans (who do differ politically from one another) that he’s full of sh*t about being one, and in particular the last line convinced me. Thatisall. Though you might just as uselessly ask him for proof that he IS one. It’s just as dumb.
The “babbling” consisted of me saying that neither of you could prove it either way so calling anyone else a liar ought to be avoided as it is useless.
And you have experience with veterans? Fair enough, but just saying “trust me, I know” isn’t really adding anything to the discussion. Why not share what you have noticed rather than just having us terminate the thread by taking your word for it?
Honey, the consensus among about 30 vets so far is “leftist troll sh*t” but I’ll have to get a bigger sample. While it is possible for a US veteran to consider waterboarding torture (though not common by any means) it is pretty much unheard of for anyone who has fought in a foreign country to believe our men are safe when captured IF only we treat the captured well. That was the part that really gave it away. Vets who’ve been there know better. And like I said, don’t take my word for it – start spending time with actual combat soldiers, would you? I have.
One comment said “Um, hello, they (certain other countries) torture as a matter of course” and another asked how many head chopping jihad porn sites are there now. There’s no way this guy fought in the ME, I guarantee that much, because those who have harbor no illusions about the safety of our captured men, regardless of the actions of the US. The whole idea is preposterous when you know the mindset of the jihadis. Really preposterous.
Added to the fact that his whole post was just a lot of leftist talking points with the self-accrediting “former Repub” and “veteran too!” to lend it credence; I ain’t buying a word of it. That ain’t the real McCoy.
Ok, but I’m still not convinced that because your thirty veterans think one way that it is impossible for one to think another way. We can only speculate and it’s rather unfair of you to openly accuse someone based on that speculation.
Also, you mentioned mindset of the jihadis have you spent time around them too?
And it seems that the “leftist talking points” were what made you so suspicious. In your experience, is there no such thing as a leftist veteran? I mentioned earlier that you once said I wasn’t a Christian since I am left-wing. Is this the same school of thought?
My brother just got back from Iraq in November. He was there for a year. Most regulars know that I’m not making this up on the fly because I’ve talked about his service in the past. He voted for Obama. He definitely thinks waterboarding is torture. The military is so large. To think that they all hold the same viewpoints is fairly ludicrous.
Anniee, it’s bullsh*t that you’re even making this argument. Just because he doesn’t think the way all the other soldiers you’ve met do, does that mean he was never in combat, or in the army?
Wow. What an asinine argument for you to make. If you truly think that because someone doesn’t fit the stereotype you yourself inferenced about soldiers because you know some, that that means anyone who disagrees with your stereotype couldn’t have served?
That’s a highly narcissistic philosophy. “I’m right becaus I assumd, and you’re wrong, because you don’t fit into the group I stereotyped, you must be lying.”
Assumed and because, sorry*
And if memory serves, even CF agreed that waterboarding was torture. Personally, I have no opinion one way or the other as to whether Chris McCoy is or isn’t a vet, I can’t make that judgement call on one comment. Personally, I am in favor of interrogating prisoners, but not when it includes torture.
-
@Anniee, spending times with 30 vets doesn’t really qualify you to make a call as to whether or not someone is truly a vet. If you want to expand your horizons a bit more, hang out at your local VFW Post or even the nearest Veteran’s Hospital.
-
Now while I didn’t personally vote for Obama, and have pretty much voted a straight Republican ticket for the last 35+ years, I’m more interested in his comments about why suddenly torture caused him to bail when there have been so many other problems with the GOP.
Charlie sees himself as middle of the road. He skews left here because I think he likes to piss off trolls by being a bit trollish.
He’s also intel. What he knows about interrogation he probably couldn’t share because it’s probably classified. I only get to hear his lame stories a million times. What I suspect are really great stories he starts and then says, “I can’t tell you the rest it’s classified.” Jerk.
Jane, that’s awesome. If he breaks my arm, will my arm be stamped “CLASSIFIED‽‽”
I didn’t think Charlie swung as far left as he comes across. I would say, at least from my experience, that most vets would probably be more middle of the road. I know a few batsh*t crazy vets that are far right, but then if you knew what they indured in ‘Nam, you would understand.
[Hey Eddie, is it just me or is Anniee fighting a lost cause here? I mean, arguing that someone who says they're a vet isn't a vet? I don't think ANYONE around here will stand for that.]
@Jane St. Clair. Your telling about your father’s stories made me laugh in memory, and sniffle a bit. Give him a hug for me, ok?
I will Viking Gal! And since it’s Father’s Day I won’t tell him his stories are lame.
@Tyler: I don’t know if it’s a lost cause or not, she certainly is entitled to her opinion. But I would think you need more to qualify saying someone isn’t something based on one comment. Besides, the real gist of the post wasn’t whether he/she was a vet or not.
@Jane: For what it’s worth, you’re just to young to appreciate his ‘lame’ stories. Me, on the other hand, would probably appreciate them.
-
Pass along a HFD from me as well!
@Tyler:
He’s ex-Army, he wouldn’t break your arm. He would probably rip it off and beat you to death with it.
Jane – first of all, I KNOW some veterans are leftists; I’ve already said that. And I’ve acknowledged that some will think that waterboarding is torture. It was the last bit, pretending our boys would be safe when caught if we didn’t employ those methods, that set off the BS radar bigtime. No, I don’t believe we are in the presence of any veteran; at least not a veteran of any foreign war.
AC – “I mentioned earlier that you once said I wasn’t a Christian since I am left-wing.”
No I didn’t. I may have said something that could be twisted into that, but if you can now provide the ACTUAL quote I’ll parse it for you since you misrepresent it now.
Tyler, AC, I was called a liar because I belong to MENSA and because I’m an economist. In fact, I was called so vociferously and repeatedly, which has only died down very recently. So before you go telling me how no one will tolerate my suspicion of an alleged veteran who says things that most veterans regard with deep suspicion, just remember that, will you? Even though I DID back up my claim by saying where I would be and when (should we have any other members here – hehe, if we do) so why don’t you ask Mr. Veteran when and where he served (though – of course that won’t prove anything whereas if we have any other members here they will know after October, if they attend the gathering, that I am actually on the level.)
Anniee, you have a point. I must have been speed reading or something. After rereading it again (and in context), you could be right. Soldiers aren’t at risk because of torture, they’re at risk because it’s a war. It does seem an odd thing to say, and while I’m still not ready to say he/she isn’t a vet, it does make me wonder.
Thank you, Eddy, for acknowledging that much. Naturally none of us are proving anything one way or the other (considering the non-skeptical reaction to his claim of BEING a vet – he still can’t prove it) but there is most definitely reason to be skeptical and suspicious. And as I say, it was that last bit that set off the radar of every veteran I’ve run that by so far – 50 and counting and even the left-leaning don’t buy it. But I’m about done with that; it’s pointless and I can’t PROVE my OPINION and my BELIEF. I can only explain why I hold it. And I have every right to say that I hold it, no matter what anyone thinks. See, the soldiers have been fighting to safeguard my right to do so, God bless them. My own son included, God bless him. We don’t know where he’ll be stationed yet of course.
The point that you are not getting, Anniee, is that just because you disagree with what he said does not mean he’s not a veteran.
Also, why do you expect us to believe you’re all these things you say you are (member of MENSA, and economist, etc. etc.) but you think this guy should somehow have to “prove” his veteran status. You haven’t “proven” that you are who you say you are, so why do you hold other to a different standard?
I can say that when you’re on the receiving end of someone that truly wants to see you dead, the last thing going through your mind is, “Gee, if I get captured are they going to be pissed because we tortured their comrades?” So yes, the more I think about, the less sense it makes.
Jane – reread. Comprehend.
Eddie – yes. It’s not just that – we’ve SEEN (at least I certainly have) the beheading videos. They ought to be mandatory watching for everyone over the age of 16 to understand what we were up against. Then there was the stoning video of the Kurdish girl who fell in love with a Sunni – I forced myself to watch all of the above videos as they came out, despite how horrific they were and how they haunt my nightmares to this day. Because those were innocent civilians. How much more someone captured who is an enemy soldier by the likes of Jihadis is going to get treated with mercy? I mean Seriously? Did you SEE those beheadings? They were the most brutal, atrocious things I’ve seen in my life outside of the stoning, which was …ugh. I’m nauseated now. No, it makes no sense for someone who has met the enemy and fought the enemy to ever say something like that, which is why they don’t. But because thinking of those videos (PROUDLY put out by Zarqawi and company – WITHOUT regard to what was going on here – do you really think monsters like that gave a damn what we were doing to people here or if they had any IDEA of it? Get serious.) has made me physically ill (because I actually watched them at the time) how about we have a little humorous break. Link to a humor video about the subject. Featuring Steven’s Beheading. Sort of like Stevie’s spanking.
Well, reading through his post I doubt that’s what he meant or what was going through his mind at the time either. I took it that his time as a soldier has lent a different viewpoint to currant issues. He is saying that he believes our government’s policy on torture is putting servicemen at risk. This is the statement we can choose to agree or disagree with. The veteran qualifier was to say that since he DOES agree with that statement his time served in the military makes him even more outraged by it.
Still using insults as a last resort? Shall I take the fact that you don’t believe I could “comprehend” what I “read” that you think I’m stupid or will you call me a liar later when I say that’s exactly what you did.
The above was directed at Anniee.
You very clearly did NOT comprehend what I said, Jane, nor read it fully if you did, as proven by your retort. Reread. Understand.
I just wish Chris would come back and answer some of these burning questions.
Wouldn’t matter much, Eddie – my opinion could neither be validated or falsified by anything he will/would post. Unlike my Mensa claim, which I’ve already offered verification for should we have any other members here. Though I do think paying the $400 fee IS a sign of stupidity so there; there’s one thing I’m stupid about.
Anyway, I’m unsubscribing to this one, but I’m glad you recognized why some of our drive-by veteran’s comments were highly suspicious and deserving of some skepticism.
@Anniee, Here’s the actual quote that I’ve twisted into a pretzel:
“Jesus has been replaced,” second last thread.
Thanks, AC – that was shortly before I found out you’re just a kid and don’t know any better. I wouldn’t say it now, knowing.
Thank you for taking time out of your busy day to patronise me. After all, my age automatically makes me wrong. I should bow to the wisdom of my pharisees -sorry- elders…
AC, what’s this blasphemy? Are you suggesting that, as teenagers, we can be RIGHT about something? But… but… THAT’S IMPOSSIBLE!
Absolutely, no-one forms a proper opinion until they are 21 and 3/4. Didn’t you know that?
I know I won’t speak to you knowing what I know about what you know nothing about that is, nothing. Know what I mean?
Froo, to be honest I feel that in a lot of ways those of us who are Moderates, yet still Republican have been marginalized by the far right of the party. In that regard, yes we would appear to be Democrat Lite rather than in full partnership with the rest of the party. To be clear, the original intent of the Republican Party is a far cry from what we have today. In a nutshell, the original Lincolnian Republicans believed in:
1) A passion for civil liberties;
-
2) A disdain for conformity and suspicion of authority;
-
3) A belief that the Constitution is a living, breathing document with timeless values that must be made relevant in a modern age;
-
4) A commitment to protect the environment and not engage in mindless exploitation of the nation’s natural beauty. A spirited case must be made for reusable energy sources like solar power. Modern technology provides many options before the earth is harshly, brutally, and needlessly pillaged.
-
5) A strong belief that diversity — gender, racial, social, sexual, ethnic, and religious — should be celebrated because it gives the United States moral strength. Diversity — in the long-term, encourages respect, understanding, and a greater sense of community;
-
6) A commitment to fiscal prudence and limited government;
7) A recognition that government does have a basic social responsibility to help those in need;
A belief that the nation does have international responsibilities;
-
-
9) A belief that God and religion have a very important place in America — at the dinner table and in churches, temples, and mosques. But it should never be used by politicians to advance a narrow moral agenda;
-
10) A belief that the national government should be used in a limited manner to advance the common good;
-
11) A commitment never to put party above country; and
-
12) A responsibility to publicly criticize those who call themselves Republican when the situation merits. Moderate/Progressives have a duty to vote against the party line when it doesn’t serve the greater good. Doing so doesn’t make them less Republican; it demonstrates that they have the honor, political courage, and intellectual honesty to put nation above party.
tl/dr
More like short attention span as proven by your one word replies in earlier posts.
JK
readjust pickle.
I could live under an EddiePescettie Republican president. There would be no whining from me.
Those are the kinds of values you just don’t see in EITHER party anymore.
But I’ll bet you will find that most people, regardless of party, pretty much live by those standards.
Moral ones.
With the obvious exception of politicians. D’oh!!!
Ok, now that’s what I call a platform, Eddie. *golf claps*
Damn; give me some of that.
Freely given.. I just wish our leaders would take some too.
Yeah Eddie, well said. I’d wish EITHER party would take the time to think and discuss the issues rather than just decide on them. That’ is the saddest legacy of the neo-cons I think: To try to keep the electorate uninformed and for the government itself to remain so partisan and decisive that it rubs off on so many uninformed Americans. There’s way too much of “us vs. them” that nobody’s willing to compromise.
I mean, even at (supposedly) the toughest and most divided time in our history just before the Civil War, and even as sessions of congress were practically coming to blows, there were still statesmen willing to step up and find some compromise (Clay, Calhoun) even though they weren’t perfect solutions. Now, it’s to a point where no one will even TALK, let alone discuss and compromise.
Sadly, a lot of this was born during the “greed years” under reagan’s “I got mine” period. They managed to turn words like “liberal” and “labor union” into something dirty, scum like limbaugh took this and ran with it and turned it into something more ugly in it’s divisiveness. Neo-cons strapped social issues to their sleeves and played to the fears of the religious right, and we wind up here.
Now how to fix it?
The GREED years? Oh, wait, you mean those years during which we all lived through the end of a recession and the longest sustained economic boom in our country’s history? Where jobs were plentiful, stock market crashes had no power and anyone with half a brain could have a job the same or next day? I remember them well.
As to unions, I doubt you know the reality of the economic impact that they have on economic systems, but having lived it and knowing the theory matches the reality 100%, here’s a little education for you on that front. Link.
Yes the greed years. Here’s an old article (1988, so although it’s editorial, it’s not jaded by the intervening 20 years) I don’t agree with it’s arguments, just posted as reference for the history of it.
The wealthy became very rich during those years and the middle class showed some gains, but not nearly the same ratio as the wealthy. Classes began to become more divided. Labor unions were vilified (true, some needed reform as like any business,even not-for-profits they can become bloated), but they never existed to increase wages and promote inflation, which is what your blog suggests unions are only food for. Unions are formed to make sure companies don’t abuse the workers. Companies should be socially responsible and make sure their workers can provide for their families. If they are able to do so, and work in a safe environment, they perform better and are more productive. Don’t forget it was unions that got rid of child labor and brought in today’s safety standards. (It’s sick how companies ship jobs overseas to places where workers are NOT kept safe, just to save a buck. Are sneakers really worth someone’s health and livelihood?–that’s a different argument)
Besides that, much of the deregulation that is responsible for our modern economic crisis began with Reagan. Deregulation is one reason people made so much money then. They learned not to be accountable over the years because they no longer had a watchdog. We stopped enforcing anti-trust laws.
All in all, the reagan years were a short term growth that ended in a $150 billion DEFICIT, which grew under Bush Sr. Clinton allowed more deregulation, but it began under reagan large scale and snowballed under W.
I am over simplifying, but bottom line is that reaganomics and trickle down theory are what has so weakened our banking system, created class warfare, and instilled neo-cons with their politics of greed, with no regard for the foundation of working class people they stand on.
“Trickle down” theory only exists in the minds of the left; it’s a misnomer and was coined not by the free market practitioners but by those – i.e. the press – who were against them. And if you think I’m impressed by that article you’ve got another think coming – the press was merciless to Reagan; the only one who’s gotten it worse has been Sarah Palin. Get serious. I was there, and it was NOTHING like that. Not even close. They were some amazingly good years economically – the rising tide that lifts ALL boats, not just a few. All you had to be was willing to work.
The article was never posted to “impress” anyone. I even added my own disclaimer.
I was there too Ainee. I have seen the increasing stratification of the classes that has been going on over the last 30 years. Yes, I have indeed been alive through all of it.
I was raised to be a hard worker and have a good work ethic. Even though I’m more than willing to work, there still aren’t jobs to be had. It has nothing to do with willingness to work.
You still forget that we fought a revolution to throw off an aristocracy and remove the class barriers by giving power to the people. Modern conservatives seem more than ready to reinstall a wealthy ruling class without any regard for the destruction of the middle class. They won’t be happy until we’re back in a feudal state at the rate they’re going.
You don’t like the term trickle-down? Fine. I read someplace the term was coined in the 1930’s by Will rogers. (They knew it was a joke then too). Call it “supply-side” economic theory then. It still doesn’t work.
Neo-cons think so little of the American people, always assuming they are lazy and want a handout. It’s not true. Most are willing to work for their living and to provide health-care for their families, etc. It’s just that too many of their opportunities to do so have been taken away by shipping their jobs overseas etc. so the rich can get richer. No wonder they are frustrated.
Minerva – my post to you won’t show up. I’m putting it elsewhere and linking you to it here.
“And if you think I’m impressed by that article you’ve got another think coming…”
Anniee – you would have had the right to disregard information from articles you believe were “harsh” to the person in question had you not consistently used articles from severely biased news sources. By this I mean the article from the website that was little more than wikipedia and the one on this very thread which is a republican talking point site. I’d cite them but choose not to because you used those cites, you should know the two sites I’m talking about (as you’re obviously the one who’s most informed… on everything… always).
Oh boy. The Republicans have had “moderate” RINOS foisted on them since 1988. Bush, Dole, Bush, McCain – if they don’t start being CONSERVATIVE they’re never going to be anything ever again. The base is sick to the teeth of the moderate go-along-to-get-along and it’s time the party distinguishes itself as actually conservative or they’re never going to win again. The only time they win decisively is when they DO go conservative, and it’s the only time they will again. It’s a solid move to the right, not further to the left, that will help the party. Actually it’s cleaning time – you’ll be seeing a lot more of these so-called “moderates” kicked to the curb, even if it does mean 8 years of Obama, in order to see some actual conservatives. Me, I’m libertarian, but the left and the pseudo-left GOP is so far out there in looney-tunes land that I’ll settle for a real conservative. If it means getting the constitution back to some sort of working order, that’s the way to go.
……
I’m not even going to give this an argument. If you’re sick of politicians that are willing to compromise and get along in a civil fashion with other peoples’ opinions, you seriously need to rethink your political views.
Anniee could emigrate; China, Iran, or North Korea might suit her!
Tyler, we need principles and a man or woman who will stick by them, not someone who is willing to keep eviscerating the constitution in order to “get along” with those who will only stab them in the back. I’m sorry, but in this case your argument is ludicrous.
The thing is, Anniee, as far left as I can be, and as far right as you can be, the practical solution is somewhere in the middle. Ideally they’d balance each other out, but in this severely partisan time, it’s more like they cancel each other out instead. The hardcore left tends not to be exceptionally practical, and neither does the hardcore right.
Now now, Eric, we cant’ be havin’ facts or logic in this here argument.
I heartily and fully disagree, Eric. There is already a balancing factor, and that is the constitution as it was framed and intended to be used – both to severely LIMIT the powers placed upon federal government and to ensure those limitations by a division of powers. That is the only balancing factor that matters, the guarantor of ALL of our individual liberty which we have been endowed with by our creator. I’m sorry, but there is no “middle ground” on that – it needs to be honored once again and we need to be set free from this 70 years’ encroaching tyranny that we’re now under the yoke suffering from. I will settle for nothing less than my full autonomy and liberty and the liberty of everyone else, and the only way for that to happen is a full return to the constitution. We’ve been inching toward it and at times thrusting full throttle (right now it’s full throttle) but someone needs to hit the f*cking brakes and slam it into reverse. Period.
Froo, why in the HELL was that dig necessary? What is WRONG with you?
Dhoti, I hope you get a chance to read my last post to Eric. I’m rather fond of it. In fact, the one I linked Minerva to down at the bottom is pretty damn good too.
Im’ sorry you thought that was a dig at you, Anniee. It wasn’t.
Anniee, FWIW, I’m through fighting with you, or taking digs at you, or anything like that. If you want to have a conversation, fine, let’s do it. But the second that either of us devolves into insults or mud slinging, I’m done. I’m out of the conversation, and you’re on your own.
-
I think there are a lot of things that you and I agree on, and it’s silly to let the differences define our conversations.
Don’t insult my intelligence then. Eric was addressing me directly, and as I’m typing an honest reply, I find you’ve already taken a potshot. I don’t understand what in hell is so necessary about it or why you are denying it now, but why don’t you cut it out?
You weren’t the only one in the conversation previously. And I’m out.
So do you favor a one party system? In particular, your party? If there can be no middle ground, then what you are suggesting is that the ideologies of anyone who disagrees with you must be completely discarded.
You seem to think all liberals want to completely ignore the constitution. We have what we want to see happen, you have what you want to see happen. Why can we work together, under the constitution?
Here’s what I don’t get. Why do some people act like the constitution of the United States is some infallible holy document? It never has been, that’s why there are amendments. You want to go back to a strict interpretation of the constitution. But who’s to say the constitution doesn’t need some updating or improving? No system of government lasts forever.
Eric I’m going to repeat my post because you either didn’t read it or are deliberately misrepresenting it.
“I heartily and fully disagree, Eric. There is already a balancing factor, and that is the constitution as it was framed and intended to be used – both to severely LIMIT the powers placed upon federal government and to ensure those limitations by a division of powers. That is the only balancing factor that matters, the guarantor of ALL of our individual liberty which we have been endowed with by our creator. I’m sorry, but there is no “middle ground” on that – it needs to be honored once again and we need to be set free from this 70 years’ encroaching tyranny that we’re now under the yoke suffering from. I will settle for nothing less than my full autonomy and liberty and the liberty of everyone else, and the only way for that to happen is a full return to the constitution. We’ve been inching toward it and at times thrusting full throttle (right now it’s full throttle) but someone needs to hit the f*cking brakes and slam it into reverse. Period.”
Where in hell could you possibly have gotten anything about any party, much less “my party” (I don’t belong to ANY party) from that? I’m talking about something a hell of a lot bigger than party; I’m talking about founding intent and the constitution. THAT is the balancing factor of which you spoke – left and right most certainly do not balance each other out. The constitution balances the powers of a limited government and leaves people free to pursue their own interests so long as they harm no one else. That is what needs to be the focus of ANY political effort. The individual is the only minority that exists.
Good call; Republicans accusing the Democrats of being socialists or communists is not an idea, and if they actually knew anything about political science and philosophy(science and engineering major, not a US citizen, and still on safe ground here) they’d realise not even accurate.
To take a case from their anti-healthcare reform campaign, how is it better to refuse someone a screening test because they can’t afford it than because they’re too young for there to be a worthwhile possibility of detecting pre-cancer?
Because one has the chance of becoming available due to economies of scale, reduction of costs, and the long-term benefits of preventive care; the other is nothing more than bureaucratic rationing.
Equally, testing younger becomes more worthwhile if you can get costs down, and practicing @$$-covering medicine by testing (at cost to patient and institution) to rule out “rare but nasty” just because the patient presents with probable “common but needs diagnostic test” does nothing to reduce costs.
The Obama you worship told doctors he in no way intended to curtail frivolous lawsuits and out of control malpractice claims and awards, so don’t b!tch about @$$-covering. And as someone with half a brain, I’d rather have all the tests done and pay for them, than be treated on a “it’s most likely this so we’ll stop looking for anything else, now lets ask Obama what I’m allowed to do to treat it” basis.
I know I read this study somewhere and I would love it if someone with the time could research it. A few years ago, there was a study that demonstrated that the NUMBER of lawsuits increased at the same rate as the population- so no real change, and the SIZE of awards increased at the same rate as in inflation, so again no real change. What DID change was the AMOUNT the insurance companies charged for malpractice coverage (something like 10X the rate of inflation). If this is true (since I cannot find the cite, and cannot take more time to try, I will only say IF), then the issue is not the lawsuits, or the size of them—but the insurance companies MANIPULATING both sides of the equation….thus capping would not address the real issue- which is that pp like AIG are behaving badly because they can…again.
Wow. I would SO like to see the cite for this, because it is the first I have heard comparing malpractice rates and awards to population size…not to mention malpractice insurance rates to same. IN-teresting!
I’ll see what I can come up with as it sounds familiar to me….one thing I do remember off the top of my head (no, don’t have a cite at the moment) has to do with malpractice insurers in Texas, who GOT their damn caps, still continuing to raise rates regardless. Pigs at the trough, insurance companies. They know when they’ve got you by the short hairs.
PAST fascinating and into the my heart is throbbing because I HAVE to know there, dropping.
Is this it? Link to Consumer Affairs.
:rofl: – I’ve said often enough on here that I’m Scottish (or British, or from the UK).
Sorry, but a takeover of private industry (car companies and banks, now health care) IS socialism, no matter what you care to call it. In this case it’s not even a friendly takeover (link to smoking gun.) Just because “It’s not socialism/fascism when WE do it” doesn’t make it all right – people are still going to fight it. Get used to it and settle in. We’re not going anywhere.
From the link: It has been widely reported that Treasury Secretary Hank Paulson and Fed chief Ben Bernanke summoned the CEOs of America’s nine largest financial institutions to a meeting on October 13, 2008, at which they were told that their banks would be required to accept TARP money and give the federal government an ownership interest in their institutions, whether they wanted to do so or not. We have it on good authority that some of the bankers, at least, were told that they would not be allowed to leave the room until they signed documents that were presented to them at that meeting.
These chilling reports have now been confirmed by Treasury documents that were obtained by Judicial Watch through a FOIA request. These were Paulson and Bernanke’s “talking points” for the meeting. Click to enlarge:
State ownership of everything is state capitalism, not socialism. Why do American conservatives never learn political theory 101?
Also ISTR the auto industry and banks asking for help; call me strange, but I want a say in how a company I’ve lent that sort of money to is run! And wasn’t the president on Oct 13th one George Dubya Bush?
As for healthcare; explain how making everyone have private health insurance changes the ownership of any part of the healthcare industry!
*shrug* Those of us with fully functioning brains are sick of *both* parties. Then we turn to the “third” parties, and it’s a complete mess there as well as they tend to be even more extremist. Where’s the centrist party? The problem is that people with moderate outlooks, who are not afflicted with the mental illness of a political ideology, tend not to place much emphasis on politics.
Religion and politicial ideology are two sides of the same coin. Actually, they seem increasingly like the same side of the coin.
Yeah our founding fathers wanted to keep religion OUT of politics… but that’s a whole other discussion.
Most parliamentary countries are not so polarized in their party systems. There are very few countries with only two parties that hold all the power. Great Britain has used a multi-party system for many, many years. We in America are just stuck in the idea that there can only be “this or that” instead of also including “the other.”
Yeah, great idea, we need two parties but only if they’re indistinguishable. Let’s get this out of the way – “progressive” (misnomer) “ideas” are NOT conservative. So if you’re looking for a conservative party that embraces them, that’s just stupid. Most “progressive” ideas are wrong and anti-constitutional – why on earth would a conservative person embrace them? This make any sense at all to you? You live in bizarro world, or what?
… Anniee, you seem angry today.
If an idea is progressive, will help the country, perfectly legal and morally solid, that doesn’t mean you should hate it just because it’s “progressive”, and you’re conservative. Even conservative viewpoints can be forward-moving. The idea of conservative isn’t to keep EVERYTHING in a stagnant, unchanging puddle.
Yay! Well said. I’m going to steal that thought and use it on my sister and brother-in-law (very conservative but I love ‘em).
…today?
Oh, shhh. Anniee gets a thread-by-thread basis for me. If she’s being reasonable on one thread, then I think of her as reasonable. If she’s yelling on a thread or something, then I think oh dear Anniee is pisseedd with us
So is OK for the Republicans to always listen to the Democrats whining about stuff? It appears that both sides whine about things that are bothering them. The only problems is that the media doesn’t always treat both side the same (and I am talking about media for both sides not just one). It really depends on what you believe and what to hear. One side will be whining and the other side will be just telling it like it is. If you sit back and open yourself up to really listening you will see this.
well…think back to Pres. Ford. Do a comparison. Got your answer yet? I am not even a republican but this woman is a FAR cry from a man like Ford. With the exception of Nixon’s pardon, Ford at least had my respect. In a nutshell she is not prepared for anything beyond what she is doing now; even that is questionable. JMHO. Many of today’s republicans seem a VERY different breed. (Jindahl, Limbaugh, Coulter, et al) Vapid and/or just MEAN spirited.
That is almost exactly how Republicans see Democrats. It’s all a matter of perspective. Although the mean-spirited remark is a bit off base.
you’re all kinds of insightful today, Frou
Batshit crazy.
Now, Deep Thought, you shouldn’t talk about yourself like that. You should empower yourself, not beat yourself down.
Not you…
i still haven’t figured out if your 2-word posts are just filling us in on your current mental state or attempts at a “deep thoughts with jack handy” approach to discussion…
Hmm. It was one-word posts most of yesterday. Perhaps there’s a pattern? Will it be three-word posts tomorrow?
he’s evolving!
Don’t be ridiculous. Trolls can’t evolve. Speaking of trolls, wall, would you mind holding him down while I prep the Troll dungeon? I need to move some of the skeletons down there to make room for him.
^^^^^^^^^
Jealous trollet.
If I was a troll, Deep Thought, I’d never contribute anything to these conversations. Or at least, I’d never try to. That’s what makes me different from you.
“Keep telling yourself that, darling.”
Okay, think what you want. Be as infantile as you wish. This nest no longer gets my attention, unless it’s from wallFly.
thanks Tyler, I feel all kinds of special.
How’d that troll dungeon come along? I might have picked up a few things from the dentist’s that could go well with your collection of tools.
Forty-two.
If you drop your keys in molten lava, don’t go after them, ’cause man…they’re gone.
From Wiki:
In adults, regression to telegraphic speech may indicate a neurological problem such as multiple sclerosis …
You win!
Deep Thought if you are referring to me as batshit crazy then I suggest you view some of the people I mentioned engulfed their classic loud, snide rants. Coulter is one of my favorite examples as she loves to dangle a CHRISTIAN crucifix around her neck while spewing her venom. It is almost comical if it wasn’t so pathetic. I am sure Christ himself would approve of her actions in His name, right? Coulter would snub him and label him a wimpy liberal hippie if he returned to earth today.
I do realize one party tends to view the other as guilty of what have you…(it’s like watching a bad tennis match) BUT my original comment was to point out how the tone and message of the republican party has seemed to change starting the 1980’s. If people can’t see that they must not have been alive then and paying attention very long.
Coulter’s not Catholic; she doesn’t wear a crucifix. You’re thinking of a cross. And what venom? Last I checked, speaking the truth to power was a good thing, not “venom.”
Oh lord, you don’t actually think Coulter speaks truth, do you? I don’t even get how that woman is even famous.
Yes, she does, and in fact FrooFrou just put up an excellent post explaining why that’s a fair assessment. Her information is good; she just evaluates it differently than you or others on the left do. Now check out froo’s post on the matter, because I couldn’t have done it better, ok?
Did…did you just compliment a post from froo? WHO ARE YOU AND WHAT HAVE YOU DONE WITH ANNIEE????
Anyway, Coulter loves to degrade people she disagrees with, and that really takes away from any point she might be making. Now, if you want to say that Ann Coulter is a nasty woman who says the smart ass things conservatives usually are afraid to say and your mean side likes that about her, then fine. That’s why liberals have Keith Olbermann. I can freely admit that Olbermann is a guilty pleasure and is in no way a true journalist. If you can say the same about Coulter, then I can respect that.
Coulter doesn’t set herself up as a journalist (to my knowledge). She’s more of an entertainer, a satirist, and doesn’t even attempt to portray herself as a serious presenter of the news.
But, who doesn’t love a good smart ass?
-
As far as her being a smart ass who says things that others won’t, you’ve hit the nail on that one
-
Olberman is just nuts in a nice suit
I haven’t seen Olberman, but I would classify Coulter with Bill Maher. A lot of politics wrapped in an entertainer with a taste for nasty…
I actually agree with that assessment, VG. From my POV, Coulter is a lot easier to listen to than Maher, because Maher just grates on me. That’s because of my right of the aisle stance though, and I’ll admit that.
-
Now, listening to Maher slam Obama just tickled my black little heart
If you really want to creep yourself out–Coulter and Maher were an item at one time. ICK!!!
I thought if matter and anti-matter ever touched that the world would explode? Dammit, VG, you’re ruining my preconceived ideas!
And, in a related note, ACK! *does the icky “spider in my hair” dance to get the visions out of her head*
-
I think I’ll go die now.
Hah!!
Although the thought of them coming into contact has killed my libido for a while… *queezes quietly*
*goes to join frou froo in a quiet death*
Good idea. Better than that image in the brain!
All it made me do was turn up my music, headbang, and wonder “Why do I hang out with these oddballs?”
Oh, and the music was so that I’d go deaf so I would never hear mention of it. EVER AGAIN.
Eric, for the record I would like to state that my first *few* posts to Froo on this very board were highly complimentary until she turned and bit my head off – most likely because I was fighting with the likes of Fister and others who she likes. But I assure you it was unexpected by me. When she gets down to topics instead of personalities I quite often agree with her; it’s just never paid to mention it. But in this case, she already did the work for me, and since you asked me to back it up, I cited her.
Coulter and Maher are still good personal friends, and that is why they recently had a live debate in front of a huge audience. I can’t be the only one who knew about that.
anniee – froo didn’t bite your head off, you blew your top by acting all paranoid over an innocent comment that’s been said to and about just about everyone on here.
wallFly, I’m trying to ignore you but #1 when I cite an article FOR THE PURPOSES of explaining an opinion, a belief, then it is what it is.
#2 You have NO IDEA what incident I’m talking about with Froo, as I am talking about the first day I GOT here, ok? So let that one alone; you don’t have any idea what you’re talking about. My first posts to her were very complimentary, but you have no way of knowing that unless you were watching at the time. I’m sure she remembers but I’m not trying to drag her into an argument or bring her to where she has to acknowledge I’m right, so how about you just stay out of that which you know nothing of, all right?
Here’s the kicker. Maher grates on my nerves too. I think he’s funny, but I suppose like Coulter, he doesn’t know when to shut up and even when I agree with him I’m busy rolling my eyes at him. Don’t get me wrong. I’ll watch him if he’s on TV. I don’t have HBO so I don’t get to watch his show, but there’s usually at least one wincing moment for me when I watch him. Now, my liberal bias makes me want to ship Coulter off to Siberia.
And I still maintain that too many people consider Coulter to be the real deal, not just an entertainer or satirist.
And Froo, you’re right. Olbermann IS just nuts in a nice suit. That’s what I love about him! If you haven’t seen the SNL sketch where Ben Affleck plays Olbermann, you should see it. Olbermann himself loved it so much he played it on his show, proving even he knows how over the top he is.
sheish, anniee, doesn’t take much to get you going. i’ll admit, i didn’t realise you were talking about the very first time you and froo spoke, this was, however, i think completely legitimate on my part since there are several incidents above where you snap at her for little to no reason. so, i hold with my previous statement.
I dunno, froo. The likes of Limbaugh, Coulter, Hannity, etc, seem rather mean spirited. Not to say the Democrat side doesn’t have its fair share (Olbermann, me, etc), but for those mentioned it wouldn’t be off-base to call them mean-spirited. At least towards the other party.
Have you seen what Sean Hannity’s been saying about Jon Stewart lately? It makes me ROFL cause Hannity obviously hasn’t been watching what Stewart says, just hearing “Oh, Jon Stewart bad-mouthed you last night.”
I try to avoid Hannity as much as possible. However, if Hannity thinks he can take on Stewart, he’s wrong.
The problem is, they have different agendas. It would be like pissing in the wind for both of them.
Exactly.
Oh, and I finally decided to make an LOL. Eric like?
Not bad for your first try. I highly recommend avoiding high levels of the social message lol’s and just go for funny. That’s my experienced advice. LOL
Anyway, Hannity to me…. it’s like watching a fish out of water flail around and pray to hit something. He just… doesn’t hold any water with me.
I guess it really depends on the entire context and perspective of the listener. I’ve never taken Limbaugh as mean-spirited, more of an instigator with a satirical twist. Coulter is a straight up entertainer, along the lines of Jon Stewart to me. I know that from the other side both of those seem harsh and shrill, but Jon Stewart seems shrill to me, and Olberman just seems like a jerk with a stick up his ass
Jon Stewart seems shrill to you? Impossible, I don’t believe it.
Maybe shrill is the wrong word. A little twerpy at times?
The problem, Frou, is that MANY right-wingers these days, do NOT think of or treat these folks (limbaugh, Coulter) as entertainers. They take everything they say as bible fact. There’s no entertainment in it for them. They believe everything thse folks say, verbatim. The apathy created in the electorate over the last 8-10 years has really made too many people willing to take whatever they hear on the surface as enough information to vote with and complain to their friends about without ever trying to find out if what they’ve heard was even true to begin with.
Let’s face it, Coulter makes up 3/4 of the “facts” in her books and countless websites exist just to track and counter the lies Rush limbaugh makes on a daily basis. It wouldn’t be a big deal if they were actually treated as entertainers, but they aren’t. They have a lot of political influence.
Coulter gets most of her information (as evidenced by her footnotes and cites in the back of the books) from Lexus Nexus. Unless you consider them to be “making stuff up”, then I’d say she’s doing alright. She’s not making it up any more than Al Franken is. It’s simply a different view of what’s there.
-
And Rush has answered people like Fact Check on his “lies”, and has been dismissed as just sending more lies in answer (even though he backs up the claims with either news articles or cites from his show), so he’s just quit answering the claims.
Here you go, Eric – this is one of many reasons I said Coulter “speaks truth” even if one doesn’t agree with all her assessments OR understand her sense of humor. One of the main problems with people who have never actually listened to Limbaugh (or have just listened a little) is that they don’t understand the humor. Those that do laugh all that much harder, actually. And I’m not a big Limbaugh listener (only during certain elections) but this has become so obvious over the years. I do generally read Coulter’s columns though – hehe, she sticks facts out there and then makes me laugh until my sides literally hurt. I can’t pass that up.
The problem with what you say is the “simply a different view” part. Because of my interest in biology, I took the time to read what Coulter wrote about evolution in “Godless”. Her misrepresentations of science are legion in that part of the book, practically nothing she says there is true. *However*, if you believe creationism (ID, YEC, whatever) is “simply a different view” of reality, and it jibes with yours, then of course you will see her writing as a fine challenge to the established (but always changing, as is proper) scientific explanation for the history of life.
But science and reality don’t work that way. You don’t get to have your own set of facts; you don’t get to dismiss well-evidenced conclusions because they don’t conform to your ideology. Coulter tries to do both of these when it comes to evolution – this implies that she is lying or willfully ignorant, or both.
I actually haven’t read “Godless”, so I cant’ speak with authority on what she does or doesn’t say in it. I have, however, read “Slander”, and in it she backs herself up rather well, along with keeping her tongue firmly in her cheek about the way liberals treat conservatives.
-
I’m not going down the road of how conservatives treat liberals, because of course that sword cuts both ways. But we’re discussing Ann Coulter and her books, and in “Slander” she does a fine job of backing herself up with cites from Lexus Nexus and other news sites.
It doesn’t change the fact that she’s nasty and vicious. And like I’ve said, liberals have our own too, but she’s really nasty. And like it’s been said here as well, too many people take her attitude as the way to live, not a “tongue in cheek” sense of humor. If I thought Olbermann was gospel, I’d pretty much be a twit. But I think he’s entertaining and does make some good points as well while being a total smart ass.
Eric, I’d urge you (if you have the time and inclination) to read “Slander”. It’s a really interesting look at her view on things, and, while not making it right, does seem to explain why she comes off as mean and vicious. I personally don’t see her that way, but I tend to be a smart ass and we like our own.
Thank you for replying to my reply, though as you have not read “Godless” we obviously can’t discuss Coulter’s inaccurate (to say the least) portrayal of modern biology.
Just one question: do you agree that Coulter’s book titles, by themselves, constitute the logical fallacies of “poisoning the well” and “ad hominem”? I think they do, making discussion of their contents nigh impossible: she has already labeled those who disagree with her as evil, so how can one even begin debate?
I agree that it could be poisoning the well only in the same sense that Al Franken calling his book “Lying Liars…” is the same thing.
Coulter is very slanted, admits it, and argues her points from that slanted viewpoint. There is nothing wrong with that, as she doesn’t waver from her point, nor does she lack the cites to back herself up. So I believe there is plenty of room for debate, as long as the debaters are making the arguments in the same fashion that she is making hers, and not constructing straw dogs to tear down in her place.
-
I believe that her books are well-written and aptly titled, and no more ad hominem attacks in a title format than are any other politically slanted books are. As far as making the contents undebatable, I’d say that’s up to the reader to decide
…if that makes sense
It did when I was thinking it, but rereading it, I’m not sure if I got my point across.
2 problems with me reading said Ann Coulter book:
1. I get pissed off very easily, so the book would be in the shredder rather quickly, I’m afraid.
2. Bringing Coulter into my house would be grounds for divorce.
Your point is clear, though (and this is getting maybe a bit overly academic, but so there) I think you are committing the “tu quoque” fallacy by bringing up Al Franken’s titles. And couldn’t one also say the same thing about Franken as well, that he argues his points form his own slant? Where’s the problem in that?
My point is this: when one begins one’s arguments with the branding of one’s opponents as treasonous, slanderous, godless, guilty, and brainless (going by Coulter’s book titles), what use is there in talking? It’s not that what she says is “undebatable,” it’s that she and her fellow travelers are clearly not interested in debate, but only in shouting loud enough and long enough to make rational discussion impossible. There used to be thoughtful conservatives in the mainstream media, but their voices are drowned by the Coulters of this world.
In the words of Uncle Fester, testify!
Really, froo? You don’t see Ann Coulter as just the teeniest bit mean spirited at times? “9/11 harpies” comes to mind….and Limbaugh, well we could go on for days with poisonous quotes from him.
And I WILL stipulate that there have been and probably will be mean spirited attacks from the left/progressives/whatever. No defense for either side to say “they did it first”.
Could you give me two or three of these “poisonous quotes” from Limbaugh? I’ve listened on and off to him since his television days and never heard one of these except ONE time when he called Crystal Mangum something like a whore. That was before we knew that she was in fact a lying whore, so he apologized. But since we could go on for days, I’d settle for just a couple.
I used to watch his television show because my uncle thought he was great and I wanted fuel to use against him. Mostly what I remember about him during those days was him watching clips of Bill Clinton with this look on his face like “OMG Clinton is retarded” which for some reason got big laughs from his television audience. I fail to see how informative that is. Or entertaining.
A couple of my favorites.
“He is exaggerating the effects of the disease. He’s moving all around and shaking and it’s purely an act. … This is really shameless of Michael J. Fox. Either he didn’t take his medication or he’s acting.” –on an ad by Michael J. Fox endorsing Claire McCaskill for Senate for supporting embryonic stem cell research
“This is no different than what happens at the Skull and Bones initiation, and we’re going to ruin peoples lives over it, and we’re going to hamper our military effort, and then we are really going to hamper these people for having a good time, these people, you ever heard of emotional release? You ever heard of the need to blow some steam off?” –on the Abu Ghraib prisoner abuse scandal (3 May 2004)
These two are just funny:
“Too many whites are getting away with drug use…Too many whites are getting away with drug sales…The answer is to go out and find the ones who are getting away with it, convict them and send them up the river, too.”
(5 October 1995); also quoted in The Palm Beach Post (7 December 2003)
“I am addicted to prescription pain medication.”
(10 Oct 2003)l also quoted in The Palm Beach Post (15 February 2004)
“Kurt Cobain was, ladies and gentlemen, a worthless shred of human debris.” – 5 April 1994, the day of Cobain’s death
Thank you, suicide blond – those were some of the same things I was thinking of!
The Michael J. Fox one really enraged me – at the time my husband was suffering from what we thought was Parkinson’s Disease (he has since passed away just last month) and for Rush to be trivializing what Michael was going through just made me want to smack him.
He couldn’t really be ignorant enough to believe that MJF was exaggerating his symptoms could he? Has he never done the least research on the symptoms of PD? What am I thinking! Of course not. It was all drama for drama sake, gotta get that controversy going and keep the ratings up. What a douche.
*suicide blonde* sorry about the forgotten “e”
What a douche, indeed.
So sorry for your loss, pc, I can’t imagine.
@jean jeannie: that’s because today’s republicans are a different breed from ford and his predissessors. when reagan ran for office he embraced the ‘moral majority’ led by jerry falwell – the christian fundies have been getting a tighter and tighter death grip on the gop ever since. and their intolerance has been a breeding ground for other extremists
Oh yes I remember that well! Thanks for verifying. Back in the day you could read National Lampoon and see the Moral Majority poked fun at left and right. (***snork***no pun intended)
Besides the fact that she uses her children as political tools?
What do I dislike about her? She is the epitome of what the Republican party has become. She’s all slogans and self-contradictions with ZERO real substance behind her. She’s the scion of a rich family, but pretends she’s a poor hockey-mom from Alaska. She claims she’s against socialism and a welfare state, but has negotiated record checks to Alaskan citizens for doing nothing. She claims to be for family values, but has had an affair and has a 17 year old pregnant daughter. She has zero intellectual curiosity, but repeats Republican talking points and pretends she knows what they mean. She talks about being fiscally conservative, but spends over $100k on clothing. The reason no one votes for Republicans anymore is because they (like their poster child Sarah) no longer stand for anything. They are hypocrites.
She IS in Alaska most of the time – she’s governor there, you know. Of course even when she’s minding her own business at a winter sports event, the press can’t stop from jumping all over her for what she’s wearing – in other words, no one leaves HER alone. So your protestations are extraordinarily hollow.
Also, there’s no reason why she can’t run in the presidential primaries, and it seems rather likely she will. So don’t vote for her. That doesn’t make people who like her deluded.
What would be nice is if people got the hell over her and stopped using these old pictures to say sh*t that hasn’t meant anything for 7 or 9 MONTHS now – what loser still makes a “lol” like this?
Anniee… You know the story that’s been going around the news lately, right?
I agree. This woman is a ridiculous hypocrite. If she hadn’t trotted her kids out for her Republican dog and pony shows, and let her daughter get knocked up while Caribou Barbie was too busy being political to instill those (in)famous “Conservative moral values” there would have been no joke for Dave to tell. Sarah has nobody to blame but herself for whatever abuse her family endures. And since she’s so determined that women should stay home, shut up, and raise kids, why isn’t she???
Hmmmmm, nice post. I guess that your mother is responsible for everything you ever screwed up, too?
Well DUH!
Stuuuuuuupid. I mean, really stupid. I suppose Sasha and Malia were *sequestered* during the election process? Oh wait, they were right out there in the public eye right along with Palin’s kids. And for a lot longer, too.
Perhaps you can point to an actual quote of Palin that indicates she believes women should stay home, shut up and raise kids, though, since you made the accusation.
Ain’t any.
Agreed. The only reassurance I get is knowing that she’ll be a Trivial Pursuit question in about ten years.
I don’t know how far back PK is going for these, but I’d say it may be just a little TOO far. This is OLLLLLLLLD NEEWWWWWWS, and not especially funny either. Weak sauce.
Don’t watch the news much, do you?
I don’t do corporate media, but I do remember something about an election – seven MONTHS ago!
Google news on “David Letterman”. See what you find.
Funny…this so-called lol has nothing to do with that.
You don’t think her manufactured outrage counts as pouting? She is keeping her name in the news. She’s good at that, and the GOP is stuck with her.
Come back to us when you have a 14 year old daughter and tell us if you’d be outraged. Don’t discount a mother’s feelings because you’d rather protect a pathetic ever-more partisan ”comedian’s” attempt at a “joke”.
I was appalled when I heard that too—BUT if you actually listen to the riff, he is not specifying which daughter- he is said: “…daughter got knocked up…”; given the general news context, I think most pp took that to be Bristol- the 18 yr old with a baby on the abstinence only campaign. Especially since no one knew which daughter she had with her at the game until she made the comments—I think that Letterman has apologized enough- he was shocked that the joke was taken the way PALIN took it, and even said look, the jokes in that riff were all in bad taste, I probably went too far- but I did NOT say anything, nor would I ever about rape, sex and 14 yr old. This is manufactured from Palin, and thus the pout is referring to THIS recent event- ye the pic is 7 mo or older.
“no one knew which daughter she had with her at the game”
jeez. are you a letterman employee or something? that’s the worst excuse i’ve heard since “we didn’t know that they were really going to waterboard anyone, they just mentioned it in the briefing”
WIN! The “Limbaugh Clause.”
Of course they knew which daughter he was talking about – the one in public life, the one with the baby. Palin herself is the one who brought the younger daughter into it.
No, the one in the public with her at the game! Are you serious?
Why, yes, I am. Even lousy comics have boundaries. Do you honestly think Letterman was talking about the 14 year old?
Needs a colocrainectomy. STAT!
NO- I was all prepared to be disgusted- I am not a big Letterman fan- I think he pretty boring fo rthe most part- but it took me a few days to find all the clips and listen- seriously- it seems a bit of a stretch- given he did not NAME the younger, that it was anyone other than Bristol…now SOMEONE on that staff probably shoudl have thought about the sickest possible interpretation, and checked who (if anyone) was with her at the game—but seriously, Letterman has apologized 3 times now- (I have only seen clips), MOVE ON. He did not think he was referring to a 14 yr old, the fact that it could be misinterpreted that way never occurred to anyone—maybe it should have have how gutter do we really have to sink?. And I think this is no way compares to the WB cite- Bristol is EVERYWHERE, on tv, in magazines- why would anyone think that Letterman was referring to any other daughter? They never showed the Palins at the game or anything. If she had her littlest daughter with her instead, would every assume Letterman was talking about her? She is only 6 or so? Come on- it is because it could be misinterpreted to Palins advantage- so she ran with it to make a scene—well it is really only contributing to Letterman’s ratings.
Prep OR 2! STAT!
No, no, he’s fine. However, I need to go prep the troll-cutting room. Stay… Right… There.
When I was 15-years-old, I took off my clothes and looked in the mirror. When I stared at myself naked, I realized that to be perfectly proportioned I would need twenty-inch arms to match the rest of me.
Well then, I’ll make that happen. We’ll just take off a litttle bit… lay still… -injects-
The picture is of her pouting but the caption has nothing to do with letterman – it has to do with an election that happened better than half a year ago. Get over it and get with the times, eh? Maybe if Letterman weren’t so concerned with whether the Palins went to NY to see a baseball game, it wouldn’t have been an issue. He’s a dick, plain and simple.
Ah, yes, David Letterman, washed-up voice of the people.
If by washed up you mean still widely watched, highly paid, and (to some) incredibly funny, then I wish I could be so “washed up”.
Add “uncalled for” and you’ve got it
That joke was way out of line, and wasn’t funny. I’d like him to try a joke like that with the Obama kids and see if he stays out of a federal prison for tax evasion.
The joke was definitely in very poor taste. Letterman’s apologized twice, and rightly so.
How come no one got upset when Leno did it, though?
{http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/06/13/leno-told-similar-joke-ab_n_215261.html}
Letterman = dooshbag.
At least we agree on that!
Election’s over.
So are you.
I’m election?
Exactly. Very good. Have a cookie.
*noms cookie*
i keep hearing this all over the ‘net – that people would be reacting so different if it were about the obama girls — forgetting there is one heck of an age difference between palin’s git and the obama girls – they’re 8 & 10? the only one who’s going to make any kind of a ‘knocked-up’ joke about them at this are the real deviants — even if letterman’s joke was aimed at the 14 yr old, there are girls at that age who do get pregnant. not many, but some.
but even to compare a 14 yr old to adolescents
is just stupid.
But it was OK for John McCain to call Chelsea a dog when she was like 12 or 14. Perfectly ok when republicans do it.
You’re thinking of Limbaugh, and he did no such thing. link. God, don’t you people ever read transcripts before spouting off about urban legends like that?
You were right, it was limbaugh. I’m ok with admitting a mistake, unlike yourself.
It’s not an urban legend though. I went and did my own research as well. Rush only pretended it was a mistake to cover his own a$$ after even his own followers found it distasteful.
My main point is that it’s been done on both sides and you proved my point that it’s on when conservatives do it, just not the reverse.
So did Letterman. Duh.
Guess your research didn’t include reading the transcripts and the urban legend that has developed around the story, completely falsifying it.
But that’s not surprising; keep on spreading those lies – it’s only Limbaugh, right?
You probably think it’s something about the White House cat, Socks, and the White House dog, Chelsea, right? Except the show happened on Nov. 9, 1992 before the Clintons were in or anyone knew what Socks was and was in regard to an “in/out” story – “out” was the White House Dog, Millie, and “in” was a cute kid – he asked for a picture of the kid to be shown but they showed Millie, who everyone knew. The most you could ever accuse him of was calling Millie a cute kid. Sorry, but the Molly Ivins account of holding up pictures and discussing Socks the cat and Chelsea the dog is entirely, utterly, false from beginning to end.
Can’t prove.
Quite trying.
I never said it was ok to call a kid any name. In fact, quite the opposite, Minerva. I’ve spentmost of this LOL saying how sick I think it is to bring the kids into it, and how there seems to be an obvious double standard with the Palin kids. Either way you look at it, whatever side of the aisle you’re on, its sick and it shouldn’t happen.
I agree, the kids don’t need to be a part of it. I think in the Obamas case, he was just trying to show that he’s a family man to the conservatives who think they’ve got the market corenered on family values. Was it too much, maybem who’s to say.
Palin is singled out because of how crazy of a social conservative she is. She’d preach one thing while having the exact opposite going on in her family. She even used the baby as a prop at the GOP Convention with Cindy McCain waving him around during her speech.
Was Letterman wrong, maybe. Will comedians always say things in bad taste? Of Course. This is America. There’s free speech but not the right to not be offended. Look how much crud was flung Hillary’s way over the last 20 years. You are in the public eye, expect to get hit with some mud sometimes. Otherwise stay home.
Fling all the mud you want at Sarah Palin. She’s an adult who knew what she was getting into. As is Hillary. LEAVE THE KIDS OUT OF IT. That’s all I’m sayin’
Yep, I agree totally. Completely out of line and crude. Not funny at all. FWIW the women of NOW agree too.
You’re drinking right now, aren’t you?
Mebbe
did she die ?
TOOO SOOOOOONNNN!!!!!!
not soon enough…
(i mean that figuratively, not literally)
Yes. Happy now?
Coming from the libs that pouted for 8 years.
You are absolutely correct. Liberals pouted about Richard Clark’s memos being ignored, about the President and VP lying about Saddam’s ties to AQ so they could start a war, about prisoners being mstreated in US custody, about US attorneys being hired and fired because of their lack of loyalty to the PRESIDENTinstead of the law, about a CIA agent being outed as political retribution and then the White House lying about it while a reporter sat in jail….little piddly things like that. Nothing so big as a late-night talk show joke.
I still hear people complain about votes in Florida.
People will complain about everything – but the vote in Florida was counted by a woman on the Bush election team and certified by the man’s brother, head of the Bush election team. You cannot deny that it looked bad.
…and then there was that second gunman on the grassy knoll…
It LOOKs bad—not saying it was—jeez…. the appearance of impropriety is a legal concept?
Did I say it was? People still talk about it. As pointed out, people still talk about the grassy knoll – why? Because of the appearance of impropiety. You need go no further than to see the smile of triumph on Katherine Harris’ face at the announcement to know that any effort to consider the recount impartial was gone. The GOP handled it poorly, from shipping operatives into Dade County to disrupt the recount to not having Harris recuse herself.
That doesn’t change the results, but it did not look good.
^^^^^^^^
Gassy droll.
^^^^^
Assy mole.
^^^^^^^^
Crassy vole!
Well, when you’re right, you’re right.
^^^^^^^^^^
Brassy pole!
Leave my pole out of this, Sassy Troll.
I was defending your point, actually. I agree with you. I may have misplaced a question mark- apologies! I should have said, ISN”T appearance of impropriety a legal concept:)!
We found more WMDs in Sarah’s gun locker than we did in Iraq!!
Governor Strangelove, or: How I Learned to Stop Worrying and Love the Bombshell.
Enough already?
Unfortunately, I have a set of Republican friends whom I respect greatly, who truly feel that she is the best candidate for 2012… I STILL don’t get it. I look at her and see that look in her eyes like the porchlight is on, but no one’s home.
Everyone jumps all over Obama for the teleprompter, but this woman would have to use one more than him just to get some coherent thoughts out. That whole Katie Couric interview is all the ammunition Dems would need if she runs.
I’d personally would like to know whose great idea was it to choose this woman for a VP candidate…I thought it was an idea by the Republican Convention to one-up Obama by using a woman in the election, but maybe it was just to get her some airtime so we actually know who she is? Seriously, if they think about it, the airtime she has had so far has been more negative than positive.
I’m with you, if Palin is the BEST candidate, then you might as well say “4 more years” for Obama. I don’t care if he hasn’t been in for 6 months, I would elect him again with my eyes closed and ears plugged during the whole campaign rather than give her a second thought.
Not only was she a lousy excuse for a candidate, she directly undermined every strong point that McCain had. I still respect him a LOT, but I’d sure like to know what he was thinking when he made that choice.
Not to mention I love how the media made a big deal of how she could be “one heartbeat away from presidency”. Jesus H. Christ, you might as well punch McCain in the face and kick him in his balls while you at it; it’s better than saying “this bimbo is actually who we are voting for seeing you might die within the next 4 years if you are elected”.
A good point. With your system you always have to consider that you’re not just “voting for the president”, but also for the person who will replace them in the event that they are incapacitated.
This was the funniest comment on the entire lol, and I include the lol itself.
Wow, complimented by the famous Jane St. Clair! I see you here all the time on PK, and your comments always amuse me. This made my day!
he didn’t make the choice. right about the time that the VP nomination came in was when it became crystal clear that he wasn’t running his campaign anymore. that was the same time that “his” views changed on a lot of issues and became super fundie.
i really liked mccain but i lost a lot of respect for him when he gave up control of his campaign and let the fundies run it for him. THEY chose palin because she personified their ideals… he got stuck dragging her along behind him and hoping for the best.
On the other hand, McCain HAD to have had some say in it… If he didn’t have the cajones to tell the party “No” on her, I’d seriously question how well he’d have done as President.
i think (obviously i can’t prove it) that he did try to say no, but all his funding was coming from the fundies and they held it against him. for a republican, mccain is incredibly liberal… which made him very likeable to a lot of people but ticked off the nutjobs. when the nutjobs are the ones paying for him though, i think he had to cave in.
i know i do things at work that i don’t want to do and don’t agree with (fudging numbers in RFPs to look like we’re doing better than we are for example), but i do it because the person who is paying me tells me to do it. i honestly think that’s the situation he was put in.
they told him “you’re looking too liberal. you’re taking palin to make you more right or our money is going elsewhere”.
and of course, there is no proof of any of this… it just fits too well with how things happened. he was running a good campaign and was doing really well winning people over and then all of a sudden all of his ideas and values changed and palin showed up and his views went from really quite moderate to crazy fundie overnight. and you could even see in his eyes that he didn’t believe the BS he was saying. palin said it and she believed it… he looked like he’d just learned his lines.
my hope was that if he was elected he’d tell the money men to kiss his ass and he’d go back to his more moderate views and let palin be the sole nutjob in the administration. we’ll never know though.
My Republican friends were saying how McCain was the best Democrat running… so your point is well taken.
exactly.
Least reprehensible.
If McCain was the best we had, God help us
Meh… as opposed to whom? Fred Thompson? Rudy Giuliani? I didn’t vote for McCain, and I don’t agree with much of his position, but he seems like a decent guy and I respect him.
Fred Thompson ran a thoroughly half-hearted presidential campaign, but I will say I thought he was pretty good as my Senator. If he’d actually seemed as if he wanted to be President, he might have had a shot.
I dunno. I remember him as the mean boss on Roseanne and I don’t want that guy as my president.
I will apologetically say that if Fred Thompson had been the Republican or Independent candidate, I would have voted for him in a heartbeat
&^^^^^^^^^^^^^
That. UNapologetically.
That’s UNapologetically, sorry
For some reason I keep wanting to get him and Joe Don Baker mixed up.
“For some reason I keep wanting to get him and Joe Don Baker mixed up.”
`
Joe Don Baker is the actor who’s one of MST3K’s favorite targets.
Mitchell!
“Mitchell!”
`
“You better run… cause he’ll eat your lunch
You better hide… your lunch”
“My-my-my-my Mitchell.”
“My-my-my-my God!!!”
Since the government that governs best governs least, and the least power-hungry people are the only ones who SHOULD be given power, I thought those were Thompson’s best assets. In addition to his thorough understanding of the proper sphere and role of government, I was a huge supporter. I couldn’t have cared less about the election when he was out of it and no, he didn’t have a shot. I refused to let anyone even mention the election until Palin hit the scene.
I have always thought that anyone who wants/needs that job THAT badly shouldn’t be allowed to run for it.
anniee, although i understand the point of view with “the government that governs best, governs least” i disagree with it. like everything, it depends on the situation, if you look at just about any african country the government that governs least is usually the one who’s run by a dictator who gained power through a coup and focuses the resources of the government to the minority ruling.
the point is, i’m agreeing with you a bit here, sort of – there’s places where the government should stay the hell out of the way and places it needs to be there (i.e. look at wall street). but the point of government is to protect the people, and it needs to govern the amount necessary to best do this job. this is where it’s subjective. but, at the moment, i don’t think our government is over-governing, if anything it’s under-governing, at least in certain areas, or rather, maybe it’s just not enforcing existing laws.
One of my best friends said the exact same thing to me.
Of course, it served as a neat segue into throwing President Bush (43) under the bus, and subsequently pretending that he never existed – it’s like they had an “unperson” ceremony, then tried the Bobby Ewing trick on everybody else.
I agree 100%. I was a McCain supporter in 2000. I voted Obama in the last election.
i wasn’t sure even as i was walking into the voting place who i was going to vote for. i really disliked obama and i really disliked palin. i ended up voting mccain and hoping like hell he wouldn’t croak.
That’s a pretty wide brush you’re painting with there, but if you’re dismissing everyone you disagree with as a cog in some vast yet silent conspiracy, I guess I shouldn’t be surprised.
By your definition, Obama himself is going “super fundie”, as he backs off of some of his less realistic campaign promises. I assume “they” are pulling the strings there, too?
dhoti – are you referring to Original’s post above or someone above that? I’m not seeing where what he’s saying about McCain applies to Obama thus far in his administration and actions but I might just be overlooking which part of the discussion you’re referring to.
Yes, original’s post. I’m criticizing his “vast right-wing fundie conspiracy” theory — “he wasn’t running his campaign anymore”, “he gave up control” — and pointing out that, since he’s apparently declaring any position to the right of Candidate Obama to be “super fundie”, President Obama’s having to renege on some of his campaign promises would qualify him for the same conspiracy theory treatment.
firstly – i am not a he.
secondly – it’s not a vast right wing theory. if you’d read what i wrote to mothergoose, you’d see that this “theory” is based on the fact that all his money came from the super right (which is where palin falls). and where on earth this ties in to obama i’m not sure. i’ve said time and again i did not support obama and that i don’t think he’s doing things properly in office. but i don’t think there is anyone “pulling his strings” or that he’s turning fundie.
thirdly – i’m not dismissing anyone. go back to the archives here around the time of the election. the comments are quite volatile. but almost everyone agreed that mccain’s campaign took a very noticeable turn and that it wasn’t in agreement with the things he’d been saying and doing and supporting for YEARS. that was right about the time when the VP nominations came out. and unlike some people (read: you) i can agree to disagree with people. i have friendships (of a sort) with people on this board that i am diametrically opposed to politically. but they respect my opinion and i respect theirs because they don’t fabricate issues that aren’t there.
lay off the crack a bit and life will be a LOT easier. you’re seeing things that just AREN’T there.
You just get a smiley.
You say there’s no string pulling, but then you say his money came from the “super right”. (That’s generally considered to be string pulling.) Can you show me a donation list that shows most of McCain’s money coming from these super right donors?
And I absolutely *love* how you say you don’t dismiss people, but not four sentences later, you dismiss me out of hand for not being able to “agree to disagree”. Which is funny in and of itself, because this is the first time we’ve even been talking directly. I’ll assume “agree to disagree” is shorthand for “agree with me”, in that case.
i did not dismiss you. if i’d dismissed you i would have said to you what i’ve said to trolls before you. which is along the lines of “you’re a fecking idiot. remove your head from your ass and quit reading things that aren’t there. i’m done with you.”
instead, i tried to lay it out for you in a way that shows that you were incorrect.
and no, i’m not going to dig for campaign fund reports. the election was seven months ago. if you weren’t paying attention at that time to where the money was coming from, why start paying attention now?
and by the way… the string pulling was in reference to obama. the money from the super right was in reference to mccain. two different people. two different points. just because two points are mentioned in the same post in regards to two different people doesn’t make them interchangeable.
I applaud you on being polite, but dismissal is still dismissal. You accuse me of fabricating issues, you generalize me with “some people” that has no bearing on the discussion, you don’t back up your argument, and you refuse to cite. And then there’s “lay off the crack”. You’ll have to forgive me if I misinterpret that as dismissal.
And by the way…threatening to pull funding in response to political positions is generally considered “pulling the strings”. Just because you didn’t use the term explicitly doesn’t mean it doesn’t apply.
you’re not a raving lunatic… hence why you’re not seeing the implications that aren’t there.
“he didn’t make the choice. right about the time that the VP nomination came in was when it became crystal clear that he wasn’t running his campaign anymore.”
`
Remember when he made his concession speech, and came across so well, and people on all sides of the spectrum were saying things like “Where was that McCain *during* the campaign?”? It seems to me that he basically had a choice between doing it THEIR way and losing vs. doing it HIS way and not getting the chance to run at all.
McCain had a strong point? Really?
indeed, i would like to hear more on this as well
mccain didn’t seem too bad as some candidates went, but he was all over the place on issues, especially towards the end he was like a bouncy ball just going nuts over everything that was going on.
take a look at some of the things he said at the beginning of his campaign… when he was still following his own ideals and values. once things got out of control and he got saddled with palin his opinions changed every other day depending on who was paying for the ad space.
original, it was on a thread just above where you were talking about this, but the changes in his campaign when he became the nominee did imply he was becoming the face of the party not the leader of the party – i agree with you there. I didn’t follow him too much prior to his nomination as the republican candidate as i’ve been pretty much turned away from the republican party since George W. (his values for the most part were far off from many of mine).
But, that’s also why I didn’t see much of a concise message on the behalf of the McCain campaign – their “country first” catch phrase is about the only thing that stayed the same but the idea behind it shifted so fast they might as well have just been doing a crap shoot to decide what topic was the main platform for the week.
I guess, in short.. I think I’m agreeing with both you and Dhoti? I’m not sure…
i think you’re agreeing with both of us. and i think i kinda am too… when it was mccain he had really strong points. when it became the mccain campaign it all went out the window.
McCain has been wishy washy for almost as long as he’s been in Congress. His version of reaching across the aisle is to conceed everything he can in order that the other side will like him. There was a serious dichotomy that happened when he brought Palin on board, as she is a hard-line Right Winger and he isn’t. In order for her to toe the party line and NOT undermine McCain (as happened toward the end of the campaign when she got fed up), she had to keep her mouth shut and say things that she might not have believed. It made her appear vapid, stupid, and poorly spoken, as she had to think about her answers instead of giving her deep-rooted beliefs that she didn’t have to think about. It was a disaster. McCain never should have picked her unless he intended to go far Right in his campaign, and he never wanted to do that.
gotta agree there, too frou, for the most part – but she hasn’t really come across too much better in interviews or just basic public appearances following the election. if anything, i think she’s solidified many people’s belief that the vapid, stupid and poorly spoken woman they saw in the first couric interview is the real woman.
what confused me most with her choice as the running mate, is i would have assumed the far right aspect of the party would have been behind him regardless, especially given who the opposing candidate was. seemed like it would have made more sense to choose a more moderate person in place of palin (there were plenty to choose from, even if he still chose to pick a woman).
My GOP friend says that “the right” pretty much threw in the towel after the Palin rollout imploded. He says they never trusted McCain, and felt that IF he would be any better than Obama, it would be only marginally and mostly by accident. He even said that some of his even-farther-right buds opined that it would be better to lose in ‘08 than win with McCain.
Now THAT’S dedication to principle, or something…
Considering we got the numbers we did with the candidate we had, I’d say we did pretty good. The REpublican party isn’t in the trouble that is being portrayed, I’d wager. It’s all a PR thing, but the Dems are really good at PR
Ugh. If she is indeed the best hope for ‘12, I may have to abandon the GOP and go full moderate.
Why wait? Don’t let the door hit you on the way out
“Unfortunately, I have a set of Republican friends whom I respect greatly, who truly feel that she is the best candidate for 2012″
Oh, man I can only hope they run her again! That would be the best!
That heavily edited interview. All anyone needs to really see is Ziegler’s “Media Malpractice” detailing how Palin was smeared and Obama was elected. But I guess that’s asking too much of someone like you, right? Your friend sounds smart. You guys must not talk about this stuff too much.
again you beat a dead horse. yes yes, you love the ziegler palin piece. ok, so let’s disregard the couric interview, palin still comes across in almost every appearance be it interview or public appearance. it’s almost as if you write your posts off tid bits you find off ann coulter’s website (which, seeing what you’ve posted so far, you might consider that a compliment).
#1 If I mistakenly responded to you, sorry. I’ll try not to let it happen again.
#2 I don’t see it that way at. all. I see a highly intelligent, confident, no-nonsense woman with excellent principles and a largely good understanding (not perfect) of the proper role of government, which is what is needed in this place and at this time. That and someone who is unafraid, which, again, is what I see. You see something completely different. Whatever.
anniee, if you truly believe that and are not simply towing the party line, then in your opinion america should go back to a christian ruled religious empire, which is essentially what palin wanted. that, of course, a bit of an exaggeration, i know it but it helps to illustrate my point. she would bring her religious ideology to the forefront of her administration. not to mention, her opinion on foreign policy is that of a war hawk – if they disagree with us, bomb them. her policies and idea of government are so outdated that it would be many steps backwards from the progress this country has made.
but, i could be wrong, there is the possibility that she could do well, i’m just not seeing it myself and would rather not give her the benefit of the doubt in such an important office. of the candidates that ran for office, i was actually most supportive of Romney. Palin I think was the worst choice in the entire campaign with Thompson coming in a close second to last just barely beating out (or losing to) Huckabee (again primarily for the religious aspect).
i have a favor though, and i’ve asking this many a time with my staunch republican co-worker who talks almost verbatim like you (which is why the reference to ann coulter above) – if you can link me any articles or interviews in which palin comes across as you say, “highly intelligent, confident, no-nonsense woman with excellent principles and a largely good understanding (not perfect) of the proper role of government” then i would be happy to read it. if i’m wrong, convince me with logic, not angst.
Then you’re going only by what you saw portrayed in the mainstream media and ignoring the rich variety of resources that now exist. First of all, there is a big difference between one’s personal beliefs and one’s beliefs about what should or shouldn’t be law. Penn Jillette is a good example of this – he’s a lifelong teetotaller who can’t stand the company of Christians, but he’s dead set against the drug war or any meddling between the government and religious freedom.
There is simply no evidence from any of Palin’s actions as governor that she had intentions of enacting laws to reflect her personal beliefs (with the possible exception of abortion restrictions, which you shouldn’t be holding against her because the country is sorely divided on that front.) She said flat out that though she believed in creation that she thought evolution should be taught in the schools, as well as sex education and she was always in favor of birth control. How you get some Handmaid’s Tale out of these things I can’t surmise, except that that was the MSM’s fear.
As to being a war hawk, no, actually. And if Couric hadn’t edited OUT a lot of the foreign policy questions, you would know this – example in the link. All three answers showing her as a foreign policy moderate and an intelligent, informed woman.
Foreign leaders almost universally were blown away by her when they did meet her – from Pakistan to France, they loved her. The former editor of Ms. magazine traveled with her for three months and was completely stunned to find out that this was a highly intelligent woman — (wonder why she would have thought otherwise? Pre-biased by the media perhaps?) and even Tina Fay could barely lift her eyes when she had to admit that this was not only a really nice person, she was a highly intelligent person. “As smart as me” was the astonishing assessment.
I’ve already recommended the Ziegler interview but the Hannity interview was really good too, and there were quite a few others but to be honest I’m busy right now. Those should do well enough for a start. As well as the article by the former Ms. editor, which should be easy enough to google.
just because i don’t see what you see when i watch her in interviews, transcripts or public appearances doesn’t mean i’m blind to what’s going on. i have a more direct question now: what exactly is mainstream media? i have thus far only mentioned my profession once, and won’t again at the moment but simply state that the news i get is news from multiple sources, globally and of a variety of mediums. what exactly defines mainstream and how can republicans define CNN, MSNBC, ABC, CBS, BCC, PBS, NPR and C-SPAN as mainstream media? How is it everything can be biased but once channel? Does this mean reality is biased or just that there’s a grand conspiracy against the republicans?
i appreciate the effort to give me some sources, but the Hannity interview was a joke. It was about as hand-fed, starry-eyed, and unprofessional an interview as any i’ve ever seen.
and i did see the bit with tina fey, but my take from it was that she couldn’t bring her eye up because she knew she was lying (looking down or looking away is one of the signs for someone telling something they believe is false – if she believed the fact then she’d be more willing to look the person in the face and admit it). and, from the responses from the people from the middle east, the take on those wasn’t one of respect but one of amusement. hell, some of the guys looked like they were hitting on her and others didn’t look like they took her seriously (but then, this is personal impression from what i saw – one person’s judgement varies from another’s, and i’ll admit i could be wrong, hell both of us could be wrong)
And, for the recond, Penn Jillette is not a teetotaller, or if he is, then he took a night off. Ran into him at a bar and he was drinking like the rest of us. Using him as an example against religious freedom isn’t a useful choice as most atheists (as i believe he is) are usually for freedom of religion (or absence thereof), they just with that religion wasn’t pressed upon them (which I completely agree with – believe in what you want but leave me out of it).
I will look more into that Ziegler thing you keep talking about though, you’ve got me curious.
(on a side note, after rereading some of my posts above, my grammar is atrocious – i really need reread this stuff before i post it, some ideas get ahead of others and i end up with a sentence starting in present tense, ending in past tense with the middle missing [sigh] – just what i get for doing this quick)
correction to what i wrote above: “…of the candidates that ran for office, i was actually most supportive of Romney.” should have been “…of the REPUBLICAN candidates…”
i feel better now.
Aw! Did someone take away your pagent crown?
Well, with a face like that, what did you expect?
I’d pout too if I was the only one with executive experience and lost a potential job to someone with zero experience.
Executive experience? Does that include loyalty tests to the town librarian and running the town into debt for a sports center? That’s the administration that just left, and the country made it quite clear they didn’t want a repeat.
Now thats funny coming from a supporter of a president who is running is into debt faster than anyone in history….
Did you object during the Bush years about him running up the debt, with 6 years of a GOP congress?
I thought not.
Explain the loyalty test to the librarian, please. I’d love to hear the reason for it.
Really? We didn’t? The ‘republicans’ of the past few administrations have not been republicans that many of us expected and supported.
We want as little government interference as possible.
SO when Bush and now Obama start scooping up unconstitutional power for themselves, yeah, we have been objecting! Don’t blame us that your own self important jokes about how stupid Bush was and how smart you are compared, got in the way of you hearing our out cries! Enough is enough, stop the spending, stop the power grabs and leave us alone. Politicians are supposed to work for us, not vice versa!
My dear, we DID NOT VOTE for them (from the left)—so someone must have. It seems more likely that the republicans and those on the right did, cause trust me, we had a wake in Texas when Bush was elected —all 12 of us in the town I lived in at the time….They may not have been what you expected, but you did in fact (generally you=republicans, not YOU), vote for them twice- if they were not what you expected, perhaps a change was in order in 2004 instead of 2008 (granted Kerry was equally weak as Palin, but there were some others during primaries). SO forgive those of us who did not vote for them, not once or twice, if we assume you (again the general you) are responsible for them. If you dog pees on the floor and you give it a cookie, all you can expect is that it will pee on the floor again.
Okay, one, I didn’t say just bush, this crap has been going on before he came into the picture and was continued under him. And Kerry? Maybe republicans thought of the lesser of two evils. Neither were good choices. Much like this past election. There were no good choices.
There’s almost never any good choices; it’s like the two entrees in a school cafeteria.
Reminds me of the choices on those survivor shows.
You can either jump into a pool of electric eels or eat a bull’s penis. Choose wisely.
Is it …still attached?
Why is it that I suspect that a bull’s penis would have been better than most of the entrees my school cafeteria had to offer?
My comment was to bob, specifically.
The GOP objected to Bush so much that they nominated him for a second term, and the American people objected so much that they elected him again in 2004. Were there ‘tea parties’ to object to government spending on April 15, 2008? Why all this “we have been objecting for years” from the right side when those of us who actually have been objecting have been called traitors?
The GOP has not had republican interest at heart for many years. And I agree, those tea parties should have come way earlier, and been more specifically defined as objection to spending, not taxes, taxes come after spending inevitably. To be fair though, even though the past few admins have been spending out of control, this new regime is “unsustainable”.
Only if the economy remains as it is. It is indeed a lot, when written out, isn’t it?
Regardless of the economy. Do you not understand the amount of taxes that will be levied on us because of the spending that has already come to pass? Let alone the spending yet to come.
I grasped it last year, too. The point is that only this year have some people spoken out against it…..they seem not to have noticed until now.
I think the point is that the taxes we will have now, on top of bush’s crap, thanks to Obama, are ten times more horrendously huge then they were estimated to be last year. As much as I hated Bush’s spending spree, it was petty cash compared to Obama’s.
In a recession which was started during the previous 8 years…
More bullsh!t.
Dear god, stop the trolling already.
You first.
No, it’s alright. If you look at the rest of this thread, I’m trying to contribute. Now please, stop making two word posts. If you’re going to say something, don’t just point out other peoples’ errors- make a reasoned, logical argument too.
Blow me. Logically.
… That needed to be said. Thank you.
Future voter.
This old cow needs to dry up and blow away… Forever. And she needs to take her whorish children with her.
LEAVE LETTERMAN ALONE!
So, let me get this straight:
* Woman you don’t agree with: whore with whorish children
* Woman you do agree with: beautiful and powerful
Stay classy.
Sarah Palin is a beautiful, powerful whore.
dhoti – i didn’t see (man I must be needing glasses) where Again’s comment implied anything you just said.
perhaps it’s differnet interpretation of what she/he said – I just gathered the impression that Again has severe dislike of Palin and looks down their nose towards her pregant girl (albiet in a most rude and inappropriate manner – though her daughter got pregnant that does not maker he a whore, last i understood whores got paid).
Besides, if she didn’t (Palin this time) parade out her children as part of the campaign, followed later by her daughter taking herself out ont the campaign and getting on magazines and interviews, this probably wouldn’t have happened. She can’t use her children as props then expect people not to bring them up.
Just saying.
prostitutes get paid (hence the moniker working girls), whores give it away for free; or at least that was how i’ve always understood the difference
I always heard that whores got paid, sluts gave it away for free, and hootchies just played around without actually doing anything. I assumed that prostitute was the proper name, much like penis is the proper name for wee wee
i much prefer winky to wee wee… good thing i didn’t have boys, lol.
If that was my profession (although some might argue that attorney is pretty damn close) I think I’d go with Independent Concupiscence Consultant.
After checking a dictionary, at least in “English English” whore and prostitute are basically synonyms, although whore can be used as an insult (but Froofrou is right; if whore is used as an insult it carries the same meaning as slut).
And can I suggest you might also style yourself as a “lady of negotiable affection”.
Might be a hard row to ho
I agree – double standard. If a liberal had a teen daughter who got pregnant they would praise the family for their openness and support. But Bristol gets called a whore. The lack of self-awareness is staggering.
Are you kidding me? Chelsea was savaged because of her looks, or do you not recall that? Had it been a Democrat’s daughter who was pregnant at the convention, the GOP and conservative radio & TV would have had a field day.
Savaged, huh? I think you exaggerate. As I recall, Rush was pretty universally condemned for that comment — and didn’t he apologize? The threat of pulling White House access kept everyone else in line. (Funny how that didn’t seem to happen with the Bush girls.)
One comment? You heard only one comment?
The Bush girls – it’s hard to keep arrest records quiet. Before that, I don’t recall much mention of them – did I miss it?
In the national media? Yes.
It can be — you’d be surprised. (See Biden’s daughter.) But are you arguing that Chelsea got the same treatment as the Bush twins, appropriate to their levels of newsworthiness?
No, I’m saying Chelsea got much worse, because she did nothing to precipitate it.
In agreeance with “me”, what did Chelsea do to deserve insults from the media? If I recall, Sean Hannity made a nasty jab at her saying “Why is Chelsea Clinton so ugly? Because her father is Janet Reno.” THAT was uncalled for; Chelsea may not be my type, but to attack her because of her relation to her father is inexcusable and just right out despicable.
The Bush twins, on the other hand, were infamous for their arrest record, so they were fair game. I mean, how could anyone pass up the chance to poke fun at people who are SUPPOSED to keep face while they are the the daughters of the MOST POWERFUL MAN IN THE COUNTRY. That is relatively more newsworthy because its a reflection of how they were raised by their parents.
Comparing the treatment between Chelsea and the Bush Twins is akin to comparing Apples and Idiots.
It’s funny that you say they were “infamous” for their arrest record, and that makes them fair game in the media — isn’t that somewhat circular logic, since it’s the media who made the arrests so well-known in the first place?
Your point about directly comparing Chelsea and the Bush twins is a good one. But I think back to the coverage of the Kerry daughters, or Gore’s son’s arrest for drug possession, or the rumors about Biden’s daughter — none of those seem to get the same exposure.
You are fogetting the main difference between Chelsea and the Bush girls (besides the arrests) – the rise of the internet. How quickly did those ‘infamous’ photos of the twins falling down in the bar get out there, without the help of the mainstream media?
Excellent point.
Not just the internet, but camera phones as well. Everyone and their grandmother has a cell phone with a camera, so the chances of getting a picture of a celebrity/important figure were increased significantly.
She turned out all right too. She looks way the hell better now than she did when Clinton was elected, and I think she holds herself with way more poise than either Bill or Hillary do.
I’d expect a supportive family (never mind their political leanings) to actually be supportive, and try to help the girl get to do what she wanted to do; not try and force both her and the boy into marriage to suit their political platform.
Don’t confuse your political convenience with supporting your children!
“I agree – double standard. If a liberal had a teen daughter who got pregnant they would praise the family for their openness and support.”
`
I, personally, don’t know any liberals who think abstinence is the be-all and end-all of “morality” [insert generic Clinton joke here]. However, I do think that if any politician of any segment of the political spectrum who is so ignorant of logic, so hypocritical, and so exploitative as to drag their daughter and her bellyful of baby out onto the stage as an example of how well abstinence “works” richly deserves all the ridicule they get.
Never happened.
I think if Chelsea had turned up pregnant as some point during the Clinton presidency, it would have been a major scandal. And Bristol is *such* a whore that she ended up on the cover of People. The fact that Palin’s teenage daughter was having a baby was never the issue with the left. It was the complete hypocrisy of her having a pregnant teenage daughter while she preaches how abstinence only education is best for teens. Frankly, Bristol ended up the target of a lot of unfair attention that should have been aimed at her mother.
Parents’ fault
Huh? Please elaborate.
Blaming parents.
you forget how the media and the right heaped the vitriol on jamie lynn spears when she announced she was pregnant. granted she’s not a politicians daughter, but the outpouring of venom was astounding.
what bristol got was nothing in comparison. in fact jamie’s mother supposedly contacted palin to offer advice on how to handle the fallout and shield bristol.
furthermore, the difference between most libs and the right as portrayed by palin is we discuss sex ed with our kids and expect them to use protection if they decide to not wait, instead of just abstinence only and leaving the kids ignorant.
.
disclaimer – i had 2 teen girls living at home then and so was surrounded by hollydrama! i don’t follow celebs at all.
If a Democrat’s daughter had gotten pregnant out of wedlock the GOP bedroom police would be all over her pointing and shrieking about immorality.
But I highly doubt that her underage sister would have shown up as a statutory rape punch line on late night TV.
The younger sister wasn’t the punchline. Letterman didn’t know which one was at the game, they were talking about Bristol- I doubt they would make a joke about a 14 year old girl getting pregnant just because something like that happened to her SISTER. It’s not logical to assume that. O.o
Oh and I agree, still a highly inappropriate joke.
Bull.Sh!t.
It doesn’t make sense to act as though Bristol was screwing everything in sight, either. And the ‘I didn’t know which kid it was’ isn’t a good excuse.
Oh, well, you know if a girl (or woman) has sex with one guy (that’s not the person making the judgment), she’s a total slut who sleeps with everyone…
According to Scrubs? Yes. In reality? No.
And Froo, I agree.
I may have found one thing to agree with you Dhoti- this was out of line. Neither Palin nor Bristol are whores. Sarah is someone I believe is anti-intellectual and bigoted, but that does not make her a whore. And her daughter seems to be a little misguided (abstinence only advocate after pregnancy?), but very nice young lady, and much better spoken and articulate than her mom, imo.
Wow, Obama is allowed to protect his children, as he should, but as soon as Palin steps forward to protect hers? Wow.
Leave the kids alone. Leave the Obama girls alone leave the Palin kids alone. If you aren’t intelligent enough to tear down your opponents through their political ideals, then you should keep your mouth shut!
I agree that children should be left out of the political arena, but apparently politicians don’t feel the same way, since they trot their families out for months on end to support their own ends. I think the Obamas did an admirable job of keeping their little ones out of the spotlight as much as possible under the circumstances. I don’t think Palin did such a great job, particularly because her teen daughter’s out-of-wedlock pregnancy goes against the ideals that Palin espouses. I do think it’s worth pointing out that a late night talk show host using a politician’s child as a punchline is quite different than a political party openly attacking the children in an organized fashion.
I would say obama and palin had their children out and about the same amount.
And I would point out that i didn’t say a politician was the only one to tear down an opponent. Obama says leave my kids alone, everyone does, wether political opponent or comedian. No one, no one at all, should ever attack kids, I don’t care who you are.
Yeah, but what have Obama’s kids done that’s even vaguely joke-worthy? They’re just little kids. If they were pregnant, there would be jokes and snide remarks.
Ok, where are the incest jokes about those kids, like there were about the Palin kids (all of them, even the youngest) during the campaign? It’s despicable, regardless of which side of the aisle you’re on.
Wow, I didn’t even hear the incest jokes, I must be getting my news from decent sources
That is bad, I agree.
The incest jokes came from SNL, which is as reputable a news source as is David Letterman
The entire skit was pretty horrendous, and they played it off with a “disclaimer” at the end saying that none of it could be proven, but none of it could be DISproven either.
Okay I think I want to clarify my position here, not that it matters to anyone but me
I don’t think news shows (or shows that claim to be giving news) should attack the children of politicians for political gain. I don’t think comedy shows or late night talk shows should be held to the same standards. SNL makes fun of everybody.
I’m really upset at the taste of the joke more than anything. SNL and MadTV and other skit comedy shows, along with late night talkers, should remember that they are speaking about kids here, and it’s not appropriate. Sure, make fun of Sarah Palin all you want, but if you’re going to make an incest joke about the Palin kids, you have to go in the same direction with the Obama kids, or you’re just being another partisan TV show with an agenda.
Again, there are going to be distasteful comments made on live comedy shows, and I don’t really have a problem with that. I don’t think comedy shows should be censored for being in bad taste. I didn’t see the bit in question but I read up on it a little and it appears that the intent was to lampoon the way news is handled these days (focusing on B.S. topics like “Obama wasn’t born in Hawaii” and stuff like that). Anyway, apparently the joke fell flat, probably because it missed the mark in some way.
Me? I do think that the comedy shows get out of hand. Incest jokes about actual children is gross, period. But then most of the time I have found SNL to be un-funny, and only watch if visiting a friend who likes it–usually I’m actually reading in the same room for company, to be honest.
And, FWIW, your position and opinion matter to me, at least
I think you’re a well-spoken intelligent individual, even if we do stand on polar opposite sides of the aisle 
Aw shucks
That’s nice of you froo, right back atcha.
I remember back when Clinton was elected SNL got ripped a new one for a Wayne’s World sketch that cracked a joke about Chelsea’s looks. I even remember that joke being cut out of reruns, and SNL had to apologize for the joke. Over the years they’ve been equal opportunity distasteful. LOL
I still think that South Park is a perfect example of equal opportunity slams, hehe.
Family Guy takes its fair share at the left, but you can definitely see a liberal bias. As someone who enjoys making fun of both sides (seriously, I do), I’ve enjoyed lots of the Clinton jokes made over the years.
South Park USED to be a really funny show with lots of both insightful and crude jokes about current events, most with little or not subtlety. The whole show kind of died out for me though. That being said, I’m wearing my “Respect My Authorit-ah” boxers right now.
American Dad.
@Eric, just for you:
They like to get you in a compromising position
They like to get you there and smille in your face
They think, theyre so cute when they got you in that condition
Well I think, its a total disgrace
-
I fight authority, authority always wins
I fight authority, authority always wins
I been doing it, since I was a young kid
Ive come out grinnin
I fight authority, authority always wins
-
So I call up my preacher
I say: gimme strenght for round 5
He said: you dont need no strength, you need to grow up, son
I said: growing up leads to growing old and then to dying,
And dying to me dont sound like all that much fun
-
I fight authority, authority always wins
I fight authority, authority always wins
I been doing it, since I was a young kid
Ive come out grinnin
I fight authority, authority always wins
Cougar TYVM!!
The Mormon Episode and the one about Scientology made me fall in love with the series all over again. To have the background music for the story of Joseph Smith to be “dum dum dum dum dumdumdum dum dum dum…..” was sheer genius, hehehe. And then the subtitles on the Scientology one….”We are NOT making this up. This is ACTUALLY what they believe!”
Lice Capades
Kelleh, Kelly can ya hear me? I don’t know if you can… but… I want you to know I tried, I tried to save our beybeh, but I letcha down babe! K… k… kelleh?
Well actually if they were pregnant I think they’d be on a science magazine cover, because yes they are too young.
But that is a lousy excuse, “Yeah, but what have Obama’s kids done that’s even vaguely joke-worthy?”
So if a kid screws up, well they deserve to be made fun of by letterman? And again, Willow, the one at the game with palin, the one letterman remarked on, is not pregnant.
Ridiculous.
I’m not defending the Letterman joke (which I didn’t even hear about except on this forum, for what it’s worth). Froo was asking why Obama’s kids weren’t being mocked, and I was positing that they hadn’t done anything mock-worthy, and if they had, they would be mocked.
“why Obama’s kids weren’t being mocked, and I was positing that they hadn’t done anything mock-worthy”
`
If Obama’s daughters were a little older, and got pregnant out of wedlock, I guarantee you that the mainstream media would make a major stink about it. Not only that, but Fox would make a stink along the lines of, “Family values blah blah morals blah blah [encoded slam against black people having kids out of wedlock that is nonetheless crystal clear to every single person who hears it]“, and then indignantly deny that they meant anything racist by the comment.
Future psychic
Since you appear to be predicting that I’m a “future psychic”, does that make you a future future psychic? And if so, would you like to help me pick my bets the next time I go to the track?
IKR!
I think it’s worthy of note that Letterman has said he didn’t know Willow was at the game and he was referring to Bristol.
Bull. Sh!t.
Might be true, but still offensive. Rather Don Imus-ish.
Letterman =/= Limbaugh, then?
TO be fair- she paraded them out in front of everyone first- Obama kept his kids under exposed—Palin brought them all to every appearance, no matter how trivial…still not acceptable to say vicious things about the kids- but NOW, Bristol has stepped out into her own spotlight and Palin is open game—so Letterman is not guilty. If we are still talking about that…
I disagree completely with your first statement, there was no parading on either side, obama or palin. Each had their kids around.
Bristol had nothing to do with what Letterman said.
the bitterness by you libs, who now control everything, amuses me greatly. she lost, so what if she’s in the limelight a little? what is it hurting you if she speaks out on something? let alone the disgusting remark by that fathead Letterman aboiut her FOURTEEN YEAR OLD DAUGHTER, if she’s so disgusting and old why cut her down? If she has no chance of winning, why cut her down? scared much? your hand is showing…
If you think that remark was about her 14 year old you’re either an idiot or you’re just being wilfully ignorant.
I’d be absolutely delighted if someone as absolutely unelectable as Palin got the GOP ticket in four years.
And if you think it wasn’t — well, let’s be honest, thought doesn’t enter into it; you saw someone arguing with Palin and unquestioningly jumped in, like a loyal little foot soldier, not caring much about what was actually going on.
What other excuse is there, really, for not just taking Letterman’s apology and moving on?
The joke doesn’t make sense if it wasn’t about the daughter who got pregnant out of wedlock while her mother was campaigning on a staunchly socially conservative platform. It might be easier to have sympathy for her if Palin and her drones didn’t cynically try and exploit the situation by lying over what the joke was about.
The most reasonable interpretation would be that Letterman got his facts wrong, or was just applying the trailer trash stereotype to the whole family. But that interpretation isn’t reasonable why, because it doesn’t make Palin look bad enough?
You also seem to be confusing your positions somewhat. When faced with an unmarried, pregnant teenager, the “staunchly socially conservative” response would have been for her to have the kid, which is what she did. If it turned out that she had a hushed-up abortion in a foreign country to save the campaign the political embarrassment, then you might have a point.
Palin (and McCain) shot their wad the first week. They had the opportunity to get in front of the pregnancy thing and announce it on their own terms – and they chose not to. The National Enquirer even called Palin and gave her an hour to prepare for their headline, and she did nothing. According to the Enquirer, which was right about Monica’s dress, the reason they chose not to announce it was they hoped to pull off a shotgun marriage during the week before the convention, and Palin wasn’t cooperating.
The hypocrisy is the continued support of “abstinence only”, when there is first-hand evidence that it is ineffective.
ENQUIRER CITE!
ROFL-MAO!
Laugh all you want – they are the ones who broke the story of Bristol’s pregnancy, and they gave Palin lead time to get out in front of it. She, for whatever reason, thought that no one would find out what the entire town knew, that her unmarried daughter was with child without benefit of marriage.
Palin continues to support abstinence only, as she holds her grandchild.
they’ve been pretty accurate lately. john edwards affair was revealed in the enquirer too.
True. Know what I miss, though? Weekly World News. Who else is left to report the important stories? How will I know when Obama meets with the aliens? Who will update me on Bat Boy? *sigh* Journalistic integrity’s goin’ to hell in a handbasket, I tell you….
Hey Mom, I find it interesting that you refer to the Weekly World News as, “The paper.” The paper contains facts.
Lol. The mainstream press is just covering all that stuff up! Didn’t you ever see “Men In Black”?
MIB! I forgot…
my favorite cover story though was the national enquirer timothy mcveigh exclusive autopsy photos… when his execution hadn’t yet happened.
one of my communication profs had that framed in her office.
“Who will update me on Bat Boy?”
`
*sigh*
Oh, Bat Boy…
I’m pleased to inform you that Weekly World News is now online, and not only that, but also has a specific section devoted entirely to Bat Boy!
“This paper contains facts. And this paper has the eighth highest circulation in the whole wide world. Right? Plenty of facts. “Pregnant man gives birth.” That’s a fact.”
HEHEHE!
That they are a tabloid doesn’t negate the fact that they have been quite accurate in digging up poltical scandal. Do you dispute that they broke the national story about Bristol Palin?
Lighten up, Charlie. You’ve got a pickle up your ass again.
….. ouch.
Well, it was originally a cucumber.
You’re still criticizing her for her implied moral position — no sex before marriage — rather than her stated political position. “Abstinence only sex education” is really just a code word for “ha ha, girl got pregnant and didn’t cover it up”.
No, it’s not. It’s thinking, even with clear evidence to the contrary, that teens will abstain and don’t need to have information that will hep prevent pregnancy and disease. Abstinence is indeed the only way to prevent both, but why is withholding information and education a good thing?
Abstinence only education is not a code word. It is an educational philosophy which combines 1) encouraging students to delay sexual activity and giving them social tools to do so–something I agree with, heartily, and 2) a lack of practical or accurate information about sex, sexuality, contraception and risk factors–something which I completely DIS-agree with. Abstinence-only education programs have been associated with on average a 6 month delay in start of sexual activity (good), and also a much higher rate of not using contraception or safer sex techniques once that sexual activity is started (sooo not good).
I don’t support it, either. But that’s not what’s at issue here — the issue is calling Palin and, as Ceefax put it, the “staunchly socially conservative” types hypocrites because of Bristol’s pregnancy.
And yes, I know that it’s also an educational philosophy. But my point is that, too often, it’s used as the politically correct version of either “we don’t like her because her kid got knocked up” or “we don’t like her because she put her money where her mouth is when most politicians would have paid for a hushed-up abortion”.
I respect Palin for being consistent in actions with her stated beliefs on abortion. I don’t agree with her, and would hope that she wouldn’t impose those beliefs on others. And I think her daughter has perhaps paid the price for her mother’s support of abstinence only education.
I don’t think that Palin or her campaign handled the situation well, though, as far as protecting Bristol from the glare of the media. An unplanned, unwed pregnancy isn’t a moral failing in my eyes, but it is a life crisis for the mother or parents-to be. That poor girl was thrown to the center of a hurricane…and the ‘handlers’ had enough background that they could have protected her from the worst of it.
The hypocrisy is that she was pushing an abstinence approach to sex education which had failed to work on her own children, not what she did after the event.
If failing once in a semi-public setting is enough to scrap an entire system, then we need to rethink making beer and alcohol illegal for those under the age of 21.
For what it’s worth, I think beer and alchohol should be legal at 18. If you’re old enough to go to war, you’re old enough to drink.
I almost agree with you. I think if you have a military ID, you should be allowed to gamble, drink, or do whatever. Otherwise, you’re stuck until you’re 21
If I correctly recall my earlier years, I was a lot *less* interested in drinking once I’d reached the legal drinking age (which was then 18). But maybe that’s just me.
1984 = 43+?
There’s a significant number of people who favor limited sex ed or sex ed with an emphasis on abstinence in schools on the basis that if you want to be more graphic or detailed regarding sex in general or birth control specifically, that’s something that should be dealt with at home because families have such a wide variety of standards about the topic.
While I can understand that, looking at my local schools I see a lot of 30 year old grandmas….and clearly, before you can teach your kids about birth control, you have to have some understanding of the concept yourself. So I’m entirely in favor of giving the kids as much information as possible.
See my response to vg above — I don’t see abstinence-only sex ed as being a good proxy for social conservatism in general, and I think it’s unfair to attack the whole platform because a kid got knocked up. (Particularly when she kept the baby.)
And I really do think that a lot of the negative reaction is because the “proper” thing to do when faced with such an embarrassment — and no doubt, politically, Bristol’s pregnancy was one — is to pay for a quiet abortion. I think some people are actually angry that the Palins didn’t turn out to be hypocrites in that situation, and that’s how they express it.
The proper thing to do would have been to better supervise her child, but that’s water under the bridge at this point.
I attack abstinence only not just because it us unrealistic, but because it is depriving kids of information and education about their own bodies.
Another proper thing to do would be to look at your own family to see if the ideals you want to push on other Americans even work, and then maybe reevaluate your positions on those issues based on their feasibility.
In much the same way you’re forcing them to defend their morality against your standards?
Nope, not at all. I have no interest in their morality; it’s not even something that can be defined for another person. I’m saying that I find it appalling that they would want to create legislature based on their morality and force others to live by it.
That’s fine — but how does that make Palin, and the social conservative platform, hypocritical?
I’m not sure you’re addressing me or “me,” but if you’re addressing me, I should point out I didn’t say Palin was a hypocrite. Although I do think it’s hypocritcal to force others to adhere to a standard of morality that you can’t adhere to yourself.
Because they continue to support abstinence only. If it doesn’t work in the household of one of its strongest proponents, how can they expect it to work anywhere else?
“Better supervise her child”, me? Really? What’s she supposed to do, handcuff herself to her teenager? A 16 year old is of an age where they need to gradually be permitted more independence and autonomy as a preparation to their majority and ultimate independence. You can’t hover over your teen 27/7 and yet expect them to be able to take care of themselves and make good decisions when you ship them off to college at 18.
*sigh*….24/7, obviously. I wish there were 27 hours in the day.
Supervise her child, as in, Levi pretty much admitted that he and Bristol were intimate in the Palin home. Surprise!
^^^^^^^^^^^
Dictator-parent.
Good grief….where do you think a lot of teen pregnancies happen?
That’s nothing new for damn sure. We were pulling that stuff in the late ’70s…(and we were better at it, damn it!)
So you didn’t get pregnant because you pulled the stuff instead?
Pitty, I didn’t get pregnant (then) ‘cuz I was what we call “Damn Lucky”!
ROFL-PITTYPAT!
We get to see the kids who’ve been without autonomy at my college–and most of them crash and burn with the sudden freedom and independence. Scary stuff often happens. Eventually, the majority do get their act together, but with some lousy grades and/or traumatic dorm/party experiences under their belts.
No, the staunchly conservative approach would be to get her to lie about marrying the guy the limit the damage to the campaign until it was over.
And what a job that did — we all forgot about it and moved on, right? Because it’s not like teenage engagements or weddings are at all volatile…
Good thing that planned marriage didn’t get pushed through last September in time for the RNC, isn’t it?
Your opinion.
that was directed to ceefax.
Ignorance is no reason to sling obnoxious insults. Ignorance can be corrected. Stupidity is another issue–ignoring the evidence before you. Not everyone was aware of the whole circumstances behind Letterman’s comments. Personally, I think he was being a di(khead, regardless of which daughter he had been referring to.
And I’m not a Palin supporter.
I agree, he was being a dick when he made that joke. I strongly dislike Palin, but Awdwannabe, being an angry jerk to someone who tries to state their opinion. Letterman wasn’t aware of which daughter was at the game, from what I’ve read about the situation. So next time, if you want to sling insults, go somewhere else okay? Because if that’s what you’re interested in you’re sure as hell not wanted here.
Who died and made you king of the zombies?
??? Bruce Campbell is king of the zombies.
That’s OK, I’m well aware which direction your tantrum was directed in, kid.
So its ok and completely warranted to sling tasteless jokes at a child if they are interested in policy? You’re an ass.
Moot point, anyway, as Chelsea’s not a child anymore and certainly wasn’t during the last election.
fair enough. I find it interesting though that this person thinks she is. Also, moot point or not, From what he says it would be alright to alright to sling tasteless jokes at a child who wants be involved in policy and politics in this country. Yes, its an extrapolation but it is a logical one. So they are still an ass.
actually i think if the child who is an adult is injecting themselves into the situation as chelsea did in the last election LIKE her parents have, campaigning for her mother, i don’t see the problem in people making jokes about her either. she’s putting herself out there. although I’ve alreayd made my point more clear i’m saying the is a clear difference between an adult child who gets themselves involved and a minor or even an adult child who does not seek public forum. i love the hypocrisy, don’t make fun of chelsea clinton, but its ok to make fun of Palin’s kids of whatever age for their pregnancy. its ok to ridicule the bush daughters relentlessly for 8 years, but don’t you fvcking dare talk about chelsea who is involving herself in politics of her own free will. So by your logic, its ok to make fun of a politician’s child as long as they disagree with you. fantastic double standard.
i wonder if david letterman took his wife to a baseball game if she’d have a second bastard son to ARod?
I don’t recall there being 8 years of insults to the Bush twins, and as a feminist, I tend to be aware of gratuitous insults to women, especially minors. But maybe I don’t read the bottom-feeder sources, being a consumer mostly of mainstream media like the Boston Globe and NPR? I also don’t recall insults to Chelsea Clinton during this recent election, when she was a part of her mother’s campaign. I DO however recall rather horrid statements made about Chelsea’s appearance, while she was a minor living with her parents in the White house.
As I’ve stated above, Palin’s children were also inappropriately targeted. The kids should be off-limits, regardless.
Actually, I think I remember last year she was campaigning for her mom, and was taking questions and someone asked her about her dad and Monica Lewinsky and stuff. If memory serves she handled it very well. My memory might be fuzzy, so if anyone else remembers, please feel free to elucidate for me.
my point was it’s ok to make comments on their policy if you disagree. but thank you for at least admitting what he said was tasteless.
Then you need to learn how to write more clearly. I went back and read what you had written and it still sounds like you are saying it would be ok to make tasteless jokes about her.
in the other post that is… speaking of unclear writing…
Ooooh, did I touch a nerve? The joke was about teenage pregnancy, only one of her daughters was pregnant you simple little oik. Palin is yet again exploiting her children to try and achieve political gain by dragging her 14 year old kid into something that was never about her. Exactly what you’d expect from someone with no class though.
“simple little oik”
`
Translate “oik”, plz? Thanks.
Actually, the problem he is that Palin is using this opportunity to gain more sympathy for blowing up a situation out of proportion. Letterman apologized about the joke, saying it was intended for the 18-year-old daughter instead of the 14-year-old, and also admitted it was a tasteless joke to begin with and should have not done it. However, Palin has gone to the lengths to have her and her family be interviewed over a matter that could have been taken care of out of limelight. Now, her daughters will have to suffer because of their mom’s desire for her 15 minutes…I doubt if the 14-year-old even knew who David Letterman WAS before this occurred, but now she does because all the media is in her face about it, thanks to her mom.
Letterman did not make a joke about her 14 year old daughter, as anyone who was not hyper-sensitive would be able to figure out. The eldest daughter, the one who is kept in the news on the cover of People magazine, on the Today show, the baby daddy on Oprah and the National Enquirer…..that was the the butt of the joke that was actually an insult to Alex Rodriguez and Eliott Spitzer. But if you need to have outrage, you’ll find a reason.
The problem was that the 18 year old daughter wasn’t at the game. The 14 year old daughter was. So it’s not hyper-sensitive to conclude that he was talking about the only daughter who could have physically been “knocked up by A-Rod during the 7th inning.”
Which is why Palin took a joke about her 18-year-old daughter Bristol, who is in the news all the time, and spent a lot of time and effort to bring her 14-year-old daughter (did you know her name before last week?) and make her a figure of publicity. Great job, mom, at protecting your daughter.
Vacation? Duh.
Vacation what? Complete your thought.
Palin is the one who named the 14 year old daughter; Palin is the one who injected the word ‘rape’; Palin is the one who made a veiled accusation that Letterman was a child molestor then refused to back up her claim when asked directly. She handled it very poorly, made a mountain out of a molehill, kept it in the news for a week and exposed Willow to a lot of publicity – all in the name of keeping herself in the news and sympathetic to the right-wing conservative base…making herself a vistim of the evil liberal media. That is more of a disservice to her daughter than anything Letterman said.
Denial — not just a river in Egypt for you, is it?
That’s your completion of your thought about “Vacation? Duh.”?
Deeee-ta-dee.
No, because we want new and constructive ideas from the GOP. Not this lady.
tyler, much agree with you there – the main reason I’m opposed to the current republican party is because of their shift to the far right & religiously based spectrum of their party.
the party either needs to be reformed back to what it used to be OR a new more moderate party needs to crop up and either replace or compliment both existing parties.
yes, social conservatism needs to go the way of the dodo. economic conservatism needs to come back from the dead.
But not as undead zombie brain-eatin’ economic conservatism. As long as we’re clear on that, I’m with you 100%.
HOLY SH!T! IT’S ZOMBIE REAGAN!! Get my boomstick!!
Young Zaphod… sigh
Why are liberals so scared of her? Don’t get me wrong…I’m not a fan of her. And I’m not a republican. But I think it’s really funny that liberals are so scared of her that they are already trying to undermine her to prevent her running in 2012.
Liberals don’t have to undermine anything…she does it to herself.
I agree, but liberals definitely try to do it as well. There is some truth to the observation that they seem scared of her. I think it has to do with how much she energized the base in the election last year. Obviously wasn’t enough, but still scared some liberals. Also there is a well-documented vehemence by liberals against conservative women. They seem to think all women should be liberals.
“They” do?
Sure, “we” do think so. I don’t think so, And I’m a liberal.
But maybe we do, with our hive mind and stuff. Suuure.
I mean, don’t we all have the same opinions about everything based solely off of our political associations?
I’m not scared of Palin, merely annoyed by the fact that she’s still on the news. What we need is new, constructive ideas from the GOP, not more of her.
“I think it has to do with how much she energized the base in the election last year.”
i’m gonna have to say no. as a republican voter who couldn’t stand obama or clinton… palin almost made me vote obama. she’s vapid. she’s dumb as rocks (which is different than being unintelligent). she couldn’t string a coherent sentence together if she tried. and she made everything about her. as a poster girl (in the playboy sense of the word) for the republican party she did a great job. as a viable candidate who brought any credence to the party… she failed miserably.
Again, I agree. Making people pay for their own rape kits, even if she didn’t make the decision directly, still made me worried.
I am scared of any moron who might have that much power. She is an idiot, plain and simple. I would attack anyone, male or female, who is that foolish and incomprehensible and also might gain any kind of political power. It has NOTHING to do with her being a woman to me.
Pelosi?
Pelosi isn’t perfect–I certainly don’t think so. But she at least has consistently demonstrated effort to stay informed about the world around her. I think a better Democrat for comparison for Palin’s ignorance of the political process would be Caroline Kennedy. I’m trying to think of an equivalent Democrat–or a second Republican–who is a ‘name’ but is not informed about world news events/geography. And I can’t come up with a name.
Aside from my personal political differences of belief, the thing which frightened me about Palin was if something had happened to McCain. In this past election, Palin gave the appearance of an un-informed and in-curious person, which is not what I would want in a chief executive of any sort of institution.
I think Caroline might actually be the most apt comparison, although Palin lacks the “riding daddy’s coattails” aspect.
Or the ‘riding Uncle Ted’s coattails’, for that matter.
True.
Any moron who has the codes for the Football is reason enough to be scared. If according to you the liberals are the only ones who have the brains to see that, then be it so….
Not scared – wishing for a viable GOP that can work in partnership with the Democratic Party for the good of the nation. Having someone as polarizing as Palin doesn’t do anything to reach that goal, does it?
Not scared of her. It’s just fun trolling for American conservatives!
It’s more that it’s like shooting fish in a barrel. She makes the GOP look absolutely hideous and repugnant, so it’s good political strategy for their opponents to keep her in the public eye.
Also, what other figureheads do the GOP have to poke fun of at the moment?
Meh. I don’t like her for precisely that reason, I’m a liberal and I want a republican who’s willing to work with both parties and be constructive to the U.S. out there getting the coverage she’s receiving now. She was just funny at first, but now it’s just obnoxious and unnecessary for her to be poked like an animal in a cage anymore.
you just described mccain before the campaign was out of his control. he worked with both parties. he voted against the party line if it was for the benefit of the country and he was well liked by all.
Well, hopefully next time a candidate like that comes along for the GOP the crazies don’t get to him.
*crosses fingers*
no kidding. i really had high hopes for him…
I kinda supported him once in one election back during my brief Republican days. But he got beat out by a dunderhead from Texas, if I’m not mistaken.
I’d LOVE it if she ran in 2012. Nothing like a guaranteed victory for the Democrats to put a smile on your face.
Wow… still scraping the bottom of the barrel for election jokes? Lame. Is this woman even in the news anymore? (Other than that whole publicity stunt Letterman pulled to get his poor ratings back up.)
How about something fresh? Like one showing how awesome Obama is.
Is the woman even in the news anymore??? Seriously?
I think Fruno means regarding politics. She’s more of a celebrity now and all her new appearances seem to be about her and her family, not the political landscape.
I’m glad McCain didn’t win, but I don’t recall Palin crying about it. This is both old news and irrelevant.
PS I’d be PO’d if someone made a joke about my daughter being knocked up by A-Rod too.
Imagine what would have happened if he had made that joke about one of the Obama girls. Granted, they are a little younger, but the Palin girl who went to the game was only 14.
i only know one of palin’s daughters by name and notoriety. and i sure didn’t know which went to the ballgame with her that day. and i’d bet no-one in letterman’s audience did either. so when letterman told his joke, we all knew who he was referring to. we all did, including all the people now making a politically-motivated fuss about a tasteless joke.
now, when obama’s daughters have some sort of a personal crisis that negatively influences their father’s career to the point where he feels he has to launch a publicity snow job to assure his base that everything is hunky-dory, i’m sure we’ll hear plenty of tasteless jokes from the usual places. so don’t you worry. there’s plenty of hypocrisy to go around where cheap shots are concerned.
Bullsh!t.
great response!
Um, Letterman knew who went to the game.
And Palin knew which daughter the joke was about – but she went national with a misrepresentation of it anyway, bringing Willow’s name into it. Good for her, dragging her own daughter through the mud.
It doesn’t really matter which daughter the joke was about, it was in poor taste and uncalled for. It’s not like Bristol was sleeping around with everything that moved, she made a mistake with her boyfriend. And aside from that, if Letterman had truly intended for the joke to be about Bristol and not Willow, then he would have said that. Leaving the name unspoken just left the door open for people to make their own conclusions about whom he was speaking, and it is perfectly reasonable for people to assume he was speaking about Willow. If that was my daughter he was lampooning as a trashy slut knocked up by anything that moved, and if it were me he was calling a “slutty flight attendant”, I’d be pretty damn pissed too.
Which is precisely what he said in his apology last night. It still doesn’t excuse Palin from using “Willow” and “rape” in the same sentence – that’s on her, not Letterman.
I’m speaking to deaf ears here, I understand that, but the fact that it took so long for an actual apology to come out of his mouth is sad, as is also the fact that it was said to begin with.
And the apology didn’t come until he was lambasted in the media for it.
On that we can agree. Now, do you suppose she’ll drop it?
Are you kidding? Look up “dog with a bone” in the dictionary, it’ll have her picture next to it.
Look up douchbag and you will see picture of Letterman, hose and all. I looked for “dog with a bone”, but my dictionary only has single words.
Pft. Eddie, your dick-shunnery is broken.
“Look up douchbag and you will see picture of Letterman, hose and all.”
`
Eddie, my love, as much as it grieves me to disagree with you, David Letterman’s picture is NOT in the dictionary next to the word “douchebag”. Jerry Seinfeld’s is.
LOL.
Anyway Tessie, This area is for what I hope will become a pun-run
Hmm, for some reason I’m hungry for some synonym buns and a side of hominym grits.
Sorry, Tessie, you better look at the printing date of your Dictionary. Mine clearly says 15th printing Jan. 20th, 2009.
-
Besides, Seinfeld is no longer relevant.
Palin = telapathist!
Perhaps I’m wrong but an overwhelming majority agree that if you are speaking about people at a certain event, you are speaking about those people, not someone connected to them. And Froofrou is right, it doesn’t matter if it was about bristol or not, it was in bad taste.
Yes, it was in bad taste. What Palin did afterwards was bad parenting – intentionally misnunderstanding and bringing her un-named daughter into a very public media battle so she could get political gain.
Women = STFU.
“Deep Thought” = oxymoronic name for the poster choosing it.
“Me’s” message.
Tell me, who was the one that brought the name of the 14-year old daughter (did you know it before last week?) into the debate? Who brought the word ‘rape’ into it?
Statutory rape. :rolls:
Hee hee! I knew!
Yeah, how dare she stand up for her kids. The nerve!
Standing up for her kids would have been to make one statement saying the joke was in bad taste.
Exploiting her kids is saying that Letterman was promoting rape of her daughter Willow, and continuing to do so for a week.
According 2 YOU.
Statutory rape and rape are not always the same thing.
In most states, very different things.
Of course!
To the best of my knowledge, all she is pissed about is the allusions to statutory rape of a 14 year old, which is reprehensible regardless of your political stance. Plus, as I said before, the implication that her daughter (which ever one) would screw anything that wasn’t killing her first.
froo wins.
I didn’t hear what Letterman said, but I’ve heard enough about it to know what he said and frankly it doesn’t matter to me which daughter he was referring to, it was uncalled for. I don’t blame Palin for making a stink about it. If someone called my daughter a slut/whore/whatever, I’d be outside his house with a sniper rifle, and I don’t believe in guns. It was in poor taste, period. I have no problem with Letterman making fun of Sarah Palin, but leave her kids out of it.
That being said, I don’t think it’s really a partisan issue because like I said, if Chelsea Clinton got knocked up in the 90’s it would’ve been the scandal of the century.
There. That’s the last word. I have the last word. Let’s move on.
Word.
^^
UP!
Noooooo…I have the last word. So there.
“What Palin did afterwards was bad parenting – intentionally misnunderstanding and bringing her un-named daughter into a very public media battle”
`
See, this is why it’s a good thing I don’t have kids — I would have won the Bad Parenting of the Universe Tiara.
*imagines self as hypothetical parent yelling at David Letterman*
“Sir, I will have you know that my daughter gives the best underage head in the state. Good day, Sir!”
WIN.
McCain nor Palin cried. They succeeded with class
You mean failed with class?
Yeah – that lack of cordiality to each other at the concession speech, and the backbiting rumors about her wanting to make her own statement, was just an act.
they were classy to the public and to the obama campaign. who cares if they hated each other by the end of it. the concession speech isn’t for them, it’s for their supporters and the other candidate.
Can I drag my sac across your face?
I think that’s photoshopped.
Dear Higher Power.
Noone cares, man!
/stopfeedingtrolls
it IS photoshopped! it’s clearly palins head on palin’s body.
sorry… i fed a troll… but, i’m suffering a dilema – if one feeds a troll, one is encouraging trolls and trollish behavior meaning, at some level one is either participating or encouraging such trolldom (or both). the question is, does the feeder of a troll therefore, by perpetuating the existance of the troll, just as guilty as the troll of trollage?
So the Ordinal Post rule would become trolling.
Well, we can’t have that….Hmmm. Feeding wildlife in the national parks is discouraged for some of the same reasons feeding trolls is discouraged here, but giving Cheez-Its to a grizzly bear doesn’t make me a grizzly bear. Unless I stand too close and get eaten along with the Cheez-Its.
man my grammar was shoddy there rereading what i wrote.
i like the grizzly bear comparison. so it sounds like i’m safe insofar as i don’t get eated by a troll? also, i enjoy the Ordinal Post rule – i find the random tid bits enlightening.
i always thought the grizzlies preferred the corn twists to cheez-its.
I have not completed my bear snack food preference research (although I hear “picnic baskets” are considered a delicacy), but I can tell you that for some reason, black bears do not like Diet Coke. (Yes, I learned this by accident….)
note to self: when camping in bear territory, stock up on diet coke. place 2 liters of it – open – in a perimeter around the camp site.
diss, that’s “picka-nicka baskets.” But generally only bears who wear pants like them.
Yo, Boo-Boo!
Ties, you mean ties. Neither Yogi or Boo-Boo wore pants.
Cartoon pron.
Donald Dick.
Minnie Mouth?
Woody Woodpecker.
Peepee le pew.
Angry Beavers.
Snaggle Puss
Tom and Cherry
Oh, I get it now.. *sheesh*
-
Free Spouse Friends
Libs hate the woman because a strong female she is. Dems hating her because very afraid of her they are.
ZING…
you’re still around? stop confusing american ideals with those of saudi arabia.
Like Obama?
am i to guess from that last question that you’re one of those people who still think obama is muslim?
Zing.
What’s the zing here? I don’t really get it. How is Obama confusing American ideals with Saudi Arabia’s? I need clarification of this nonsense.
Didn’t pay attention (or comprehend) the Cairo speech, I’m guessing? Well here’s a link with a bit of an explanation as to why I said “zing.” If it doesn’t make sense to you, then our conversation is done here as there’s nothing more to say.
Anniee, I think Innocent F is following the same train of thought as he does in other posts on this thread, the “Obama is a secret muslim” one.
Personally, I think he’s full of obnoxious bullshittery, and it’ll stay that way until he begins to discuss his points, state opinions, and make a valid argument.
She knows that. She agrees with Innocent F on that point.
Ah, I can see *why* you’re zinging. It was kind of hard to find actual facts in that ridiculously biased blog you linked me to, but I at least get the gist of your zing now.
I feel dirty that the blog in question is in my browser history now. I hope my wife doesn’t find that. That’d be worse than getting caught with porn in the history.
BTW, saying that I see why you’re zinging doesn’t mean I agree with it. Just wanted to clarify.
Oh come ON, Eric – can we dispense with the melodrama? It doesn’t suit you at all. It was an explanation of a certain viewpoint; nothing more, nothing less – I thought you open-minded and tolerant lefties believe people are all entitled to their opinions?
Pfft. Melodrama is my middle name.
Actually, no, it’s Eric.
But I’m well known for my melodrama. It’s a family trait.
And that blog was ridiculous, seriously.
Facts, Eric? That “article” is just bullshit.
Well, I at least found enough information to get the zing part. I think the whole blog is nonsense.
Palin is by far the best thing that could happen to the Democrats in the election campaign
She is corrupt, dishonest, fanatical, hypocritical and dumb as a bucket of shrimp. The Reps were blinded by her sex so they failed to shut her mouth instantly. However, after the Katie Couric interview she was hermetically sealed against any journalistic threat, which shows how the Reps themselves didn’t trust her even an inch. You could actually smell their fear and shame, and that was only the beginning. I wonder how McCain’s campaign would have developed if he hadn’t hit such depths…
Anyway, without her we would at least miss a great porno and a hilarious movie trailer, so I think the world inherited her legacy already
Thank you… that was the second dumbest post today.
That!
Because in your eyes, Palin is an upright, trustworthy, reasonable, honest, intelligent politician? Well then, I can live with a negative attitude coming from a person who thinks like that. To be precise, I would rather be concerned if I met your approval
Bill Clinton.
Thank you!
Thanking him for what? Is this some kind of “Republicans vs. Democrats”-card game? And you are in the Reps-group?
It surely would help if you guys could learn to form sentences consisting of more than two words
You’re not worthy.
It’s not our fault you can’t follow. It was short, sweet and to the point.
*sigh* We know Bill Clinton was an immoral jackass. I liked him anyway. Things seemed to go so well during those times. Things have just sucked so hard since then. I would gladly take 4 more years of Clinton over anybody, even Obama.
Same. Of course, I was 7 when he left office, so times might have just been happier for me because I was…. Well, seven.
And also…. His immaculate ability to seduce anyone is just plain funny from where I stand
“His immaculate ability to seduce anyone is just plain funny from where I stand”
`
Srsly!! The man is a schlong!
Compare and contrast the following:
1. Bill Clinton
2. Some random guy who looks and talks like Bill Clinton, but isn’t (shouldn’t be all that hard to find in Arkansas).
Which one is going to bring teh sexay?
Second dumbest? I’d hate to see the dumbest.
Dumber than a bucket of shrimp? I find that offensive to shrimp.
*bows before Lilith*
Teh awsum, your post haz it.
What is “is”?
Okay, DT, we get it. You don’t like Clinton. Let it go.
Like people have let Palin or the 2000 election “go”? Nobody has let anything go for the last 30 years; why start now?
It was 2 Clinton refs in the same thread, that’s all.
She’s the best woman the GOP has? Who is ’scared’ of the governors of Arizona and Hawaii? Who is ’scared’ of the senators from Maine, Texas and Alaska?
Why is it not possible to dislike Palin on issues, and not gender? No one has yet defended her loyalty tests to department heads in Wasilla – shouldn’t that be a red flag?
I’m sure some could ask the same for obama. Why can’t we dislike him for his terrible spending habits, and not his race?
Have I accused you of that?
Address THIS!
*crickets*
I don’t think that’s a “crickets” statement so much as it’s been hashed out a bunch of times in previous LOLs.
Go on…
ELIZA? Is that you?
Why do you ask?
Maybe just a *squash* or a *croquet* then.
Butternut biscuits.
What about a *handball*?
Naw, more like a *badminton*
She’s come up clean on every single ethics violation that has been attempted against her. That’s at least 13 tries and they keep coming up empty. They’re shooting blanks, but they figure enough blanks will do some damage so keep on a shootin’. What absolute losers.
on most, you’re right (and from what I was reading, some were pretty pathetic to bring up anyway) but, she’s not coming up clean on all of them. she’s been ordered to pay $10,000 for putting her children on the state dollar for travels.
linky, btw. just figured i’d point that out since you always seem so inclined to snipe on other’s typos and what not.
“The board found no wrongdoing on Palin’s part and Petumenos said in his report there is little guidance under state rules to determine ethical standards for travel by the governor’s immediate family. But he interpreted the law to require that the state pay only if the first family serves an important state interest.
Palin is paying for the trips that were found to be of questionable state interest among 72 travel authorizations studied.”
oo, nicely played, Anniee
You have to be a troll. There is no way you can be this…. This… *Åsinine*!
So what?
So what? So Innocent F isn’t going to make any of his/her annoying points trolling around. Froo scores way more points by being intelligent and articulate with most of the same Republican arguments.
Speaking like Yoda you are. Our respect you will not get. Much fear in you I sense.
OMG you guys are such sheep. Really, what did the lady do to you? Over half of you are only saying anything because you have been spoon fed your opinion.
You don’t like Palin because it is the trendy thing to do right now. So, continue being mindless little trolls. We will enjoy taking over the top spot in the world. It is a shame that you people are this dumb.
Who is this ‘we’ that will be taking over top spot in the world?
Have you been spoon-fed your opinion? Can you explain why Palin gave a loyalty test to the Wasilla librarian? No one seems to be able to defend that one.
FAIL!
i think i might have found something on that, me:
you see, in alaska, trees get in the way of drilling, the nasty bushy things are always standing around like hippies trying to prevent workers from building derreks, you know, growing roots and all that. so, up there they slaughter the protesting buggers but then they have to deal with relocating the birds and wolves and bears and what not. so, in turn, they take to the sky to shoot them down as they run across the snowy tundras, persistently mocked by the trees in the distance. and, as we all know, paper is made from trees. so therefore, paper is mocking the alaskans, which means they’re mocking palin. books are made of hundreds of pages, bound together like a union of hippies, almost like a religion – all bound for a single purpose. and a library is almost like a church for books, but this church is evil in that it’s creating false idols in a false religion and this forever is gnawing at palin so, naturally, when she becomes aware of the Wasilla librarian, she must test her lest she have a heretic in her town!!
hm… that might still need some work, but i think i’m onto something
That urban legen has shaped up nicely – it used to be that she tried to get the librarian to burn books and when she wouldn’t, she had her fired. Except that wasn’t true either, none of it was. But deep thought has already cited one debunking of that little legend. It didn’t happen, that is why no one needs to defend that one.
I tried pasting “waaah, waaah, waaah” into bablefish but didn’t get anything, could you please repeat that without the lip wobbling?
Lol! I’m sorry, but I always have, and I think I always will, dislike her. Not because she’s a powerful woman (I love powerful women), or because of how she motivates her base (like an angry mob), or because of her “values” (valuable to whom, i’m not sure), or because it’s “trendy” (Is there supposed to be a website or something where people learn who to hate next? I mean besides Conservapedia…). I dislike her because of her hypocrisy, her fear-mongering, and her insistence on shoving religion into government. She is the fringe ideology made manifest. I had a lot of respect for Mccain, and I could have honestly voted for him. Palin came along and nailed the coffin shut on any support I had for him, however.
I suppose you have examples of where she has shoved her religion into Alaska law, perhaps? Or is that just the MSM spoonfed fear that has infected the left since they found out she was one of them craaaaazy kooky kristians? See, because she’s stated outright that she believes evolution should be taught in schools, she believes in birth control, and Alaskan schools DO teach sex education. You do understand the difference between a personal belief and a desire to make that personal belief into law, don’t you?
Well, I wish you did and I wish the left did, because they keep making all their personal beliefs into law, law that I then have to follow at the point of a gun. And I’m sick of having my liberty eroded by the thought police.
*cou-proposition8-gh*
The only reason I don’t agree with you about Prop 8 is because it was set to a vote by the people, not legislated by the government out of the public’s hands. The outcome wasn’t what the legislators wanted, but the people spoke. That’s not thought police, that’s a constitutional outcome.
OMG XD
I love that expression XD
It’s the look my friend gets when I inform him “I just lost the game.”
PWND N00B!
ROFLMAO!
Actually, pouting would be a step BEFORE crying, because crying is more dramatic. So instead it should say “Pouting: when whining about losing isn’t enough.”
The correct sequence is:
1. Whine
2. Pout
3. Cry
4. Get my way.
don´t make fun of stupid people. it isn´t nice…. actually, it´s hilarious!
“This is all thanks to our U.S. military men and women putting their lives on the line for us to secure American’s right to free speech,” she said. “In this case, may that right be used to promote equality and respect.”
Are you kidding me? Who now wants to say she isn’t making this into a campaign stunt?
I like how certain political comments are moderated out.
Like?
Didja use the “f” word in your political opinion? Sometimes PK will spit that back out later and sometimes, well, PK swallows the post.
Mostly when they contain obscenities.
Because WordPress auto-flags comments containing certain obscenities for the site team to read and judge for later.
Grow up palin would ya..Dave didn’t say he wanted to do your daughter..talk about going over board..or as we say here in canada ” picking up a nail and building a house with it. You are coming across as a b@#$% with nothing better to do than to than cause a racket for nothing. Also did you think that you are better liked than Dave ..know who your dealing with before you shoot off your mouth. This could hurt your career ya know.
This “lol” is about 8 months too late, don’t you think? Are you just sore-ass winners, still butthurt that a conservative dared even approach the race, or is it to hide the buyer’s remorse about the Teleprompter Jesus that’s at play behind this anachronistic “lol”?
-Sigh-
I think it’s more the fact that in the picture, Palin is making a funny face. And if the person captioning thought “What would Palin have to cry about… Oh! Election!” Doesn’t that make a little sense, Anniee?
Tyler, the picture is from well before the election. Back 8 months ago it was all over the place with captions. Right now it makes no sense and it’s just dumb. If it had been captioned in relation to Letterman, it would have at least been semi-relevant, if still ridiculous and stupid. As it stands it’s just ridiculous and stupid.
anniee – we’re all aware, and have been from the minute it was posted, that this picture wasn’t from the issue at hand. However, poetic license allows us to use because the expression fits the story. Get over yourself and realize this site is, at its basest level, about humor.
As a sort of “cite” if you like – watch any news program or TV show and you’ll see pictures or cutouts or what not of people that are taken from 3 months back, sometimes over a year back, but those pictures are used to reference the person to the statement they made just recently. In your own argument, none of these programs could use any picture BUT the photo of the person speaking at the time.
To summarize it, well, to summarize most of your posts tonight, you’re an uptight and angry idiot. I’d suggest you and Innocent Foreigner hook up but the repercussions we’d all have to endure might be worse than you two alone.
sorry Tyler, I know you and Anniee are friends, plus I might have been a bit more cruel than necessary – I apologize for that (I really shouldn’t type when I’m sick, I get snarkier).
There’s another 50 seconds of my life I’ll never get back. Thanks a lot. Note to self: skip wallFly’s posts.
Anniee, he has a valid point. People use old pictures of people all the time to go back and illustrate points. Palin has been in the news recently for other, non-related things, but it stands to reason that her picture would pop up here with a caption about the election. Cheney has been all over the place recently talking about torture, and I’ve seen several of his pictures on here that have nothing to do with torture, or have something to do with stealing elections. GWB shows up all the time about stealing the election, or the war, or other things that aren’t exactly timely. I personally think the picture is stupid, but I guess it really doesn’t matter to me that it’s not timely. I mean, after all, we got a “horn dog Clinton” LOL just a couple of weeks ago, and he hasn’t been relevant in what, 20 years?
-
Meh, no need to apologize to me- I try to be diplomatic as possible with Anniee, myself- otherwise my posts just get clogged due to my inability to correctly express myself in a way that doesn’t offend, sometimes.
Anyway, Innocent F is much worse than Anniee IMHO, at least she has the brass to come discuss it, make a case for her opinion, and even if she does fling the occasional insult (we all do), Innocent is the WORST person I’ve seen on here. He doesn’t even debate his accuracy, just points out other peoples’ errors. It’s like living with my little brother, but all of the sudden my little brother has become a leech who reiterates idiocy and speaks straight out of his ass.
she must be very powerful and wise for you to be so afraid of her!
…Or really stupid and a weak candidate that relies on the fears and doubts of the people that look up to her to get them to vote in her favor.
I don’t fear her. However, my worst nightmare would be her running the country. Seriously, that would make the GWB years look heavenly in comparison.
Nightmare = fear. FAIL
I don’t fear HER. I fear a future where she’d run the country. *shudder*
I fear where it’s headed now. One payer scares the sh!t out of me.
Dammit, froo! I was one post away from monopolizing the entire “recent comments” box!
Bwahahahahaaaaa!!!!!
Well, in my neck of the woods, everything is already in the toilet. When people say Obama is gonna ruin the country my first thought is “too late.”
Well, he needs to quit before he ruins the still prosperous parts of the nation. I’d rather my state secede before he bankrupts it too.
I hope you’re kidding about that whole secession thing.
Not really. My state is one of the few that could actually make it, and the fact that one of the biggest automobile makers in the state is about to be shut down pisses me off to no end. We still have jobs here, we still have prosperity here, why are we being legislated with the other states?
Holy mother of mercy. I don’t even know what to say, the idea of secession is so backwards to me. It just occurred to me, I don’t believe I’ve ever heard anyone on the left endorse secession, for any reason. Interesting.
It’s not that interesting. The left is collectivist, and depends on the earners and the productive people for their plans to work for the unproductive and non-earners – secession would be counter to their philosophy. It is not, however, counter to the American spirit in any way – where on earth do you think this country CAME from? We were under England and we severed those ties. If our own government becomes (becomes, there’s a joke) too oppressive and powerful, severing the ties becomes a matter of holding to the actual founding intent of this nation, and has to be considered. If there is no other way of stopping the too-powerful federal government, that is. The left is collectivist, the conservatives and libertarians are generally individualists – nothing puzzling there at all.
Doubt that she could triple national debt in first few months- like your Muslim Leader
Piss off, Troll. You’re an idiot, and your unbased accusations of already repeated and disproven rumors just makes you look more stupid.
Yes U R.
… Go away.
What a pussy! Waiting three days to cry about it?
Big girl panties, STAT
ROFLMAO @ pussytroll!
Yes, because going away for the weekend according to your rules? I’m sorry I take a break every now and then. By the way, if I was a troll I would’ve instantly been baited the first time I saw this. The fact that you have nothing to contribute to the conversation and the only thing you’re proving is that you can read time stamps kind of makes you look like the troll in this situation.
Responding two weeks later probably isn’t the best idea either, btw.
she might do a fine job just with her wardrobe…
at any rate, i mostly just second tyler’s comment above
I cannot wait to see the pictures of Adolf Obama’s brats bawling in November 2012, when that gorgeous conservative goddess wins the presidency in a landslide.
…. I’m not in the mood to deal with this. Any takers?
R U DUM? Seriously.
@ Exile: Please PLEASE keep thinking that! It will be so much easier to leave you in the corner with your delusions then try to convince you to join us in a world made better by true leadership and thoughtful discourse. Thank you!
sometimes, when they’re that far gone, there’s little hope for them.. looks like we’ll just have to put them down then throw the remains in the troll dungeon as food
*scolding*
Tyler, we’ve been over this before. A baseball bat is NOT a surgical instrument.
-Blush- My bad.
It’s just, but, WAAAAH -cries like a four-year old-
Can I use my *fun* tweezers?
OK, but remember to be sure to use proper sterilization procedures. Those tweezers must be heated until they’re glowing hot.
*muhahaha*
“Goddess”? Are you blaspheming? I don’t think Palin would be happy about that…
well i know Sif and Brigid are both p!ssed off over that!
“Gorgeous conservative goddess?” Who the hell are you talking about anyway?
Palin LOLs…
When controlling the House, Senate, Presidency, and Supreme Court JUST isn’t enough to cover your feelings of personal inadequacy.
LOL – good one.
Nah, we just like to rub it in. *insert evil laugh here*
Minerva – my post to you simply refuses to show up. I’m putting it elsewhere and linking you to it here.
It’s interesting to see her inner ugliness on public view. That expression of rancid disapproval is how I always saw her. Kudos to the photographer!
Wow, thanks for that fresh and original perspective. Let’s see, last time I mentioned something about inner ugliness on display I got eaten alive. I WONDER if it will happen this time? Not.
Anniee, they’re a good few days late. Of course not.
No, of course not. I knew that already.
By the way, I don’t agree with you about being “late.” For one thing, not everyone is hanging onto this board or any board daily. For another, this is how people discover and start posting at blogs – they come, see a few they like, and start going back through the pages, scattering comments here and there. There’s nothing illegitimate about that.
She should NOT pout. It makes the bottom half of her face looks like she’s 80.
First pouting, then abandoning office. What a sore loser! GO AWAY…
If you can’t take the heat, get out of office…