Teabagger Spawn Willow Palin Has Homophobic Facebook Hissy Fit

[ponderingturtle]

.............................................................[qimg]http://i131.photobucket.com/albums/p297/ldl21/chrishansen.jpg[/qimg]

She is of the age of consent in your country.

 

[ponderingturtle]

To answer "why is this news?":

1) It probably shouldn't be.

2) The only reason anyone cares is because Sarah Palin is so sanctimonious about her "family values."

She wines about the American education system, about out of control kids, about broken families, about gays having families...all while parading about her children and using her position as "Mama Grizzly" to say she will "fix" the problems that ail America.

Were she less overtly condescending, this would be even less news than it is. But when you hold yourself out as an exemplar of "family values," some people might decide to scrutinize the results of your wonderful system.

Same reason why it's interesting her daughter had a child out of wedlock while she condescends and slams single mothers.

Personally, I would argue that there's no reason to descend to this level when reporting about Palin. Her views and ideas are insane and/or incoherent. There's absolutely no reason to deal with her personal life. However, we live in a dumb *********** country. This is the level of political discourse we understand.

And remember it is not a parental failing if your daughter breaks into houses to vandalize them if you have the political clout to crush the charges. That is teabagger logic.

 

[ponderingturtle]

I don't really disagree with that. I strongly doubt that young Willow meant the word in the same way the people who killed Matthew Shepherd meant it.

As a slur on their sexuality it would seem to have exactly the same meaning, it would be different from say when Dan Savage uses the term, but in context the word means the same thing.

 

[ponderingturtle]

And yet it is not I who has filled 3 turgid pages (and counting) with Willow-bashing, leading to idle speculations as to the incompetence of the motherhood which gave her license to utter ze verboten "fag" epithet.

I can only hope I have responded contextually to your garbled remarks.

Think about it, if she was only in reform school like she should be, none of this would have happened.

 

[TragicMonkey]

It is, however, a very good excuse for not being subjected to national-level scrutiny and condemnation.

It is however old enough to realize that if one has a famous and controversial mother, publishing to a universally accessible website under one's own name is likely to draw such scrutiny. It's not as if this young lady has been attempting to hide from fame and/or notoriety--indeed, it appears she might be attempting to build a career for herself on it.

 

[TraneWreck]

And yet I am unable to discern any substantive difference between Obama's policy choices and Bush's. No change in homeland security, Gitmo, Iraq, Afghanistan, bailouts, taxes...

BTW, at what point does Obama plan to stop pointing out these vast policy differences?

The only discernable policy differences are the enormously unpopular and unprecedented surge in spending, after 8 years of hypocritically bemoaning the Bush-era spending while simultaneously endulging in same like a mob of drunken sailors...

ZOMBIE LIES!! Can't be killed, devour brains.

Do you read anything? Try to learn anything? Or do you just swallow the FOx News line without comment?

Here is the 2009 deficit broken down by contribution:

http://yglesias.thinkprogress.org/2009/06/what-caused-the-budget-deficit/

Look at Obama and his wild discretionary spending!!

I'm sure you know this already, but budgets are made a year ahead of time. Thus, the 2010 budget was made in 2009, 2009 in 2008...etc. Let us recall who was president in 2008 when we read this chart:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:2010_Budget_-_Deficit_and_Debt_Increases.png

Obama's first budget was much lower than Bush's last one, so please, stop this crap about him exploding the deficit. It simply isn't true. THe deficit is high because of irresponsible Bush policies. That is just a FACT.

Now let's look at government spending under Obama. Has it been an "unprecedented surge?"

http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/10/12/special-bulletin-fractions-have-denominators/

Nope, not at all. It's increasing at a fairly normal rate and most of that is due to automatic stabilizers in the economy.

To sum up: you were literally wrong about everything you wrote.

...and the enormously unpopular "Obamacare" the Democrats rammed down the peoples' throats with a broom handle, promising that they would "like it" once they got it swallowed and everyone, including Pelosi, found out what it actually does.

It really cracks me up when people just spew out propaganda so effortlessly.

"Shoved down peoples' throats?" Elected representatives used their electoral majority to vote in favor of a bill, ALL ELEMENTS OF WHICH are incredibly popular. An expensive, corporate funded PR campaign against the bill caused people to oppose it for UNTRUE reasons such as death panels and cost. And just to anticipate the next vapid talking point, the Bush Tax Cuts, trillions of dollars of unfunded liability, were "shoved down our throats" through budget reconciliation. There's nothing unusual about that procedure, especially when moron Senators are abusing the filibuster.

The bill is actually quite popular when you ask people about specific provisions.

And we know what it actually does. That's just childish quote mining.

Oh, and I almost forgot the 10% unemployment. But it was supposedly the omnipotently incompetent Bush who laid the groundwork for that as well, while the Democrats were hiding under their desks in terror of the evil omnipotent-incompetent Bush tyranny.

Do you not understand what happened to the economy? This statement is so astonishingly ignorant that I have to wonder if you even understand the basics.

Obama took office in the middle of the crisis. BEFORE A SINGLE POLICY was implemented, the economy crashed. THe initial stimulus was too small because the actual crisis turned out to be significantly worse than projected.

Now, it's Obama's fault for not dealing with the new information, of course, with goofballs like you incapable of understanding complex issues throwing tantrums and falling for the Republican *********, it became politically impossible (with the broken Senate) to go back and do more.

But not a single Obama policy CAUSED this mess. It happened years before he became president. The worst you can say is that his policies have been inadequate in the face of the total ****-storm caused by 8 years of Republican rule.

But don't get me wrong. I still want Obama's presidency to be a success. I hope the next two years are so unlike the last two that Obama gets re-elected for a second term. Because, unlike the average political junkie, I fully understand that the country can ill afford a failed presidency at this time.

But I don't give a rat about either of the parties. With the current crop of politikers stinking up the place (not to mention voters), I've concluded that, at this smelly juncture, the only good political party may well be a dead political party which has committed political suicide for the good of the country. If that's even possible. Because that's probably what it's going to take to turn this bozo-bus around, with all the passengers screaming like banshees at the driver to take off in various crazy directions.

Blah, blah, blah, false equivalency, blah, blah, blah.

It's hard to take your editorializing seriously after such a ridiculous mangling of facts and history.

I'm betting on some nonsense about inflation as your response.

 

[ZirconBlue]

Along those lines...
It is sad Bristol kicked Brandi's butt.

<OT>Objection! Bristol didn't kick anybody's butt. She should have been off the show weeks ago. I can only assume that fans of her mom are voting for her, because it certainly isn't her dancing that's kept her on the show.</OT>

 

[TragicMonkey]

<OT>Objection! Bristol didn't kick anybody's butt. She should have been off the show weeks ago. I can only assume that fans of her mom are voting for her, because it certainly isn't her dancing that's kept her on the show.</OT>

People are amusingly irrational. Many of my coworkers watch that show. I overheard a conversation in which two of them agreed that they'd never vote for Sarah Palin again because they resented her fans voting unjustly for her daughter's dancing abilities on a TV show. Both these ladies actually had voted for McCain/Palin. Neither of them has had any change in political views. They simply agreed to vote against Palin in any future election based entirely on spite about a perceived injustice favoring her daughter on a television reality show!

Kent Brockman: I've said it before, democracy simply doesn't work.

 

[AlBell]

Noticing that a number a posts which seem no more or less offensive than what else is being posted, my question is "Why isn't this entire thread in AAH?".

 

[kittynh]

hey it was probably a plant. Something that many people enjoy about teabaggers is they say stuff that they are too afraid to say (but sure are thinking).

Trust me, anything antigay coming from a Palin (and it's the child saying it...so who can be upset at a child) is just going to garner mom more votes.

 

[AvalonXQ]

Kent Brockman: I've said it before, democracy simply doesn't work.

Depends on what you think it's designed to do. If you believe the reason we have a democracy is to give the citizenry enough belief in their power to prevent them from rising against the system, I'd say democracy works quite well.
If you believe the reason we have a democracy is to determine the objectively best people and method of governing, why on earth would you believe that democracy is a good way to arrive at this?

 

[cwalner]

Depends on what you think it's designed to do. If you believe the reason we have a democracy is to give the citizenry enough belief in their power to prevent them from rising against the system, I'd say democracy works quite well.
If you believe the reason we have a democracy is to determine the objectively best people and method of governing, why on earth would you believe that democracy is a good way to arrive at this?

AXQ, you do realize, don't you, that Kent Brockman is a character on the Simpsons. I don't think TM was being entirely serious.

 

[TragicMonkey]

I don't think TM was being entirely serious.

It's almost impossible to tell, even I have trouble with that.

 

[AvalonXQ]

AXQ, you do realize, don't you, that Kent Brockman is a character on the Simpsons. I don't think TM was being entirely serious.

I did not know that.

 

[ZirconBlue]

People are amusingly irrational. Many of my coworkers watch that show. I overheard a conversation in which two of them agreed that they'd never vote for Sarah Palin again because they resented her fans voting unjustly for her daughter's dancing abilities on a TV show. Both these ladies actually had voted for McCain/Palin. Neither of them has had any change in political views. They simply agreed to vote against Palin in any future election based entirely on spite about a perceived injustice favoring her daughter on a television reality show!

Well, I know that I'll never vote for Sarah Palin.

Noticing that a number a posts which seem no more or less offensive than what else is being posted, my question is "Why isn't this entire thread in AAH?".

"Offensiveness" is not the criterion by which posts are moved to AAH.

It's almost impossible to tell, even I have trouble with that.

I just assume you're never being entirely serious.

 

[boooeee]

I just assume you're never being entirely serious.

The alternative is too disturbing to contemplate.

 

[brenn]

I don't expect you to believe anything. You're the one insisting that this is some sort of trumped up outrage over nothing. I, for one, don't think some kid calling some other kid a fag is a big deal, but I'm not wasting my valuable psychic powers trying to figure out why people are upset about it.

The fantastic irony here is that the heart of your complaint is people throwing around unwarranted accusations and hatred towards others, yet you so liberally make sweeping accusations towards "the lefties" in your posts. Try setting a better example.

Paragraph 1 - I agree.

Paragraph 2 - Did you read this thread? It starts with "Teabagger spawn..." and goes downhill from there, regarding ignorant generalizations toward conservatives. No one has come even remotely close to returning anything as harsh against the left.

 

[BenBurch]

In a Democracy, people get the government they deserve.

Which ought to frighten you.

 

[Toontown]

Paragraph 1 - I agree.

Paragraph 2 - Did you read this thread? It starts with "Teabagger spawn..." and goes downhill from there, regarding ignorant generalizations toward conservatives. No one has come even remotely close to returning anything as harsh against the left.

Exactly. Cacaphonous finger-pointings and lurid accusations of bigotry directed against "conservatives" invariably serve as a Trojan horse for an avalanche of leftist bigotry directed against "conservatards" and "teabaggers".

And downhill it goes from there.

 

[TraneWreck]

Exactly. Cacaphonous finger-pointings and lurid accusations of bigotry directed against "conservatives" invariably serve as a Trojan horse for an avalanche of leftist bigotry directed against "conservatards" and "teabaggers".

And downhill it goes from there.

Reading this thread, can you find anyone who's actually upset about Young Palin's rant? I can't find a single one.

But in the fevered-imagination of the perpetually victimized right (poor little fellas), indifference is equivalent to "lurid accusations of bigotry."

Willow was the one using "faggot" to insult someone. No one on the left tricked her into it.