• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Such hatred for Palin

jj said:
As somebody said, it was a confluence of two absolute jerks. My suspicion, given Jude Brando's emphatic touting of this is that the male jerk was a conservative plant, put there to try to create a sympathy vote for Sarah Palin.
Click to expand...
I'd consider it far more likely that the guy was a plant placed there to create an "interesting situation" for the upcoming reality* show. After all, as far as I know there are no Palins running for anything.

*Ha!
 
Malcolm Kirkpatrick said:
Dunno what Dachasor means by "theinterviews". S/he wrote: "...in general she's just not very smart and it shows. You just have to look at her trying to answer unfiltered questions."
What interviews presented "unfiltered" questions? The CBS Couric interview left five hours on the cutting room floor. Charles Gibson asked her opinion of "the Bush doctrine" and people act shocked that she could not respond concisely to such an ambiguous question. Gibson outright lied, "exact words", about something she did not say (Palin quoted Lincoln to the effect that "we should pray that we are on God's" and Gibson made it Palin's assertion that "God is on our side".
Journalists can make anyone look bad if they follow you around and record every time you stumble, pick your nose, scratch your ass, or speak after too little sleep. With Sarah Palin, they have to lie.
Click to expand...

That's great whitewashing of history. You just ignore the fact that she can't answer simple questions about what she reads? Btw, anyone in politics would know what the Bush Doctrine was. While not as clearly defined as some doctrine is presidential history, there was certainly enough for anyone keeping track of what was going on for the previous 8 years to have some idea of what was meant. As I recall it, she was completely clueless. There's a difference between disagreeing on the precise meaning of something with a fuzzy definition and not being aware of the term at all.

Malcolm Kirkpatrick said:
The government cannot pay for medical care without a definition of "medical care". Inevitably, barring accident, for each one of us, somebody or some body must decide whether an additional __X__ days of life are worth the expenditure of __$Y__ dollars. Yes, there will be a death panel: the Independent Payment Advisory Board.
Click to expand...

We've been over this in another thread, Kirkpatrick. Medical care is pretty well defined. The vast, vast, vast majority of the medical care anyone needs is really easy enough for society to pay for (and at cheaper rates than private industry). The rest of it is just easy.

It isn't like unlimited money can be spent on someone's medical care. Like I said before to you, the rich don't live decades longer than the poor. Lots of money doesn't make much of a difference in an arbitrary way like you imply. You act like there is a big problem here when there isn't.

The closest thing to a "death panel" you'd see would be a transplant committee.
 
Last edited:
Malcolm Kirkpatrick said:
The government cannot pay for medical care without a definition of "medical care". Inevitably, barring accident, for each one of us, somebody or some body must decide whether an additional __X__ days of life are worth the expenditure of __$Y__ dollars. Yes, there will be a death panel: the Independent Payment Advisory Board.
Click to expand...

There we have it, a false syllogism in defense of the scurrilous, utterly unethical, profoundly malicious "death panel" lie.

Your attempt to reduce a highly stoichastic variable to a falsely represented equation is just as bad. Medicine isn't that simple.

And, of course, you omit the fact that the only thing you're doing is shifting the death panels from the government to for-profit private industry, something that has already been shown to be dishonest and unethical.
 
Last edited:
Malcolm Kirkpatrick said:
Establishment Republicans and Democrats set out to diminish her in a smear campaign that continues to this day.
Click to expand...
Wow, actual history has no relevance in your world. Bill Kristol (you can't more Establishment Republican) has been and ardent, outspoken supporter of hers for years. He, probably more than any single person, is why she got the VP nod. Fox News (you can't get more Establishment right-wing media) gave her extensive, uncritical face time and finally put her on the payroll. Add in Malkin, Hume, and many others and your quote above becomes absolute nonsense.
 
JudeBrando said:
Watch this video.

http://www.tmz.com/videos/0_723b2buf

Bristol Palin stood face to face with a very ANGRY Sarah Palin hater at the Saddle Ranch on the Sunset Strip last night ... after he screamed at her, "Your mother's a whore."

It all went down after Bristol rode the mechanical bull -- when the man shouted, "Did you ride Levi like that?"

During the confrontation, the man called Sarah "evil" -- and Bristol replied, "Is it because you're a homosexual and that's why you hate her?"

The man responded, "Pretty much ... and why'd you say I'm a homosexual?"

Bristol shot back -- "Because I can tell you are."

Bristol -- with her reality TV crew in tow -- eventually stormed out of the bar with her friends.
http://www.tmz.com/2011/09/23/brist...reality-tv-show-mechanical-bull/#.Tn1epezp1JF
Click to expand...

Well... my response to this, Jude Brando and the rest of you JREFfers, is every now and then Sarah Palin and her family needs a taste of their own medicine! 'Nuff said!
 
And by the way, as for Bristol Palin, the guy is right... SHE IS A *********** BITCH!
 
Drachasor said:
Btw, anyone in politics would know what the Bush Doctrine was. While not as clearly defined as some doctrine is presidential history, there was certainly enough for anyone keeping track of what was going on for the previous 8 years to have some idea of what was meant.
Click to expand...
No.
Charlie Gibson's Gaffe
By Charles Krauthammer
Saturday, September 13, 2008

"At times visibly nervous . . . Ms. Palin most visibly stumbled when she was asked by Mr. Gibson if she agreed with the Bush doctrine. Ms. Palin did not seem to know what he was talking about. Mr. Gibson, sounding like an impatient teacher, informed her that it meant the right of 'anticipatory self-defense.' "

-- New York Times, Sept. 12

Informed her? Rubbish.

The New York Times got it wrong. And Charlie Gibson got it wrong.

There is no single meaning of the Bush doctrine. In fact, there have been four distinct meanings, each one succeeding another over the eight years of this administration -- and the one Charlie Gibson cited is not the one in common usage today. It is utterly different.

He asked Palin, "Do you agree with the Bush doctrine?"

She responded, quite sensibly to a question that is ambiguous, "In what respect, Charlie?"


Sensing his "gotcha" moment, Gibson refused to tell her. After making her fish for the answer, Gibson grudgingly explained to the moose-hunting rube that the Bush doctrine "is that we have the right of anticipatory self-defense."

Wrong.

I know something about the subject because, as the Wikipedia entry on the Bush doctrine notes, I was the first to use the term. In the cover essay of the June 4, 2001, issue of the Weekly Standard entitled, "The Bush Doctrine: ABM, Kyoto, and the New American Unilateralism," I suggested that the Bush administration policies of unilaterally withdrawing from the ABM treaty and rejecting the Kyoto protocol, together with others, amounted to a radical change in foreign policy that should be called the Bush doctrine.

Then came 9/11, and that notion was immediately superseded by the advent of the war on terror. In his address to the joint session of Congress nine days after 9/11, President Bush declared: "Either you are with us or you are with the terrorists. From this day forward any nation that continues to harbor or support terrorism will be regarded by the United States as a hostile regime." This "with us or against us" policy regarding terror -- first deployed against Pakistan when Secretary of State Colin Powell gave President Musharraf that seven-point ultimatum to end support for the Taliban and support our attack on Afghanistan -- became the essence of the Bush doctrine.

Until Iraq. A year later, when the Iraq war was looming, Bush offered his major justification by enunciating a doctrine of preemptive war. This is the one Charlie Gibson thinks is the Bush doctrine.
Click to expand...
Why should Governor Palin subscribe to or predict Gibson's private language?
 
dc1971 said:
Well... my response to this, Jude Brando and the rest of you JREFfers, is every now and then Sarah Palin and her family needs a taste of their own medicine! 'Nuff said!
Click to expand...
When has Sarah Palin or Bristol Palin been rude to a stranger out of the blue? And "every now and then"? They have endured an incessant deluge of slime since the 2008 Republican convention.
 
Last edited:
Malcolm Kirkpatrick said:
Why should Governor Palin subscribe to or predict Gibson's private language?
Click to expand...

I will grant you could have the interpretation that Palin had heard of the Bush Doctrine there (even though I think it was fairly obvious she had never heard the term). I've already said the definition is fuzzy.

That's only one example of her less than stellar intellect though. Again, she couldn't answer a simple question about what she READ intelligently. She couldn't answer a simple question about what she learned while visiting a city intelligently. There's more stuff than that, but she just isn't that smart.

Malcolm Kirkpatrick said:
When has Sarah Palin or Bristol Palin been rude to a stranger out of the blue? And "every now and then"? They have endured an incessant deluge of slime since the 2008 Republican convention.
Click to expand...

I don't agree that either deserved treatment like that. However, she has implied liberals aren't "real Americans" more than once. That's pretty rude.
 
Cleon said:
Unacceptable, sexist behavior.



Unacceptable, homophobic behavior.
Click to expand...
I agree with both, perfectly well said. I feel in perfect agreement with anyone disliking her mother and feeling her mother has been responsible for a lot of wasted time, electricity and paper -as well as for pumping up a lot of idiots who need mental health services badly - but that is NO excuse for jumping on others who are forced to be related to her unless they do the equivalent or worse.
 
TheAnachronism said:
Perhaps this will be considered Godwin-ing the thread, but I've often wondered what the results would be if a large number of far-right conservatives were polled as to what "the final solution to the gay question" should be, so to speak. I'm not sure I'd have the heart to find out; I'm teetering on the edge of misanthropic as it is.

Just like last week, when I heard someone on TV refer to America, in all sincerity, as the "greatest country that has ever existed," I wondered how people would react if he had said that in German, about Germany. (Deutschland ist das berühmteste Land der Welt! Gott mit uns!!) What a different perspective some people would take, if my thoughts on the subject are to be believed. Context is everything, I guess.
Click to expand...
Or, perhaps, Deutschland uber Alles! Got mitt uns! (sorry I can' um the laut with my wp).

Used to have the belt (with Gmu) on it. War souvenier of my father's.
 
Malcolm Kirkpatrick said:
When has Sarah Palin or Bristol Palin been rude to a stranger out of the blue? And "every now and then"? They have endured an incessant deluge of slime since the 2008 Republican convention.
Click to expand...

Sarah Palin's campaign speeches were incredibly rude to entire catagories of people she didn't know. The fist-pumping in the air, working the crowd into a frenzy of dangerous proportions, the utterly insane attacks on science, all of those were rude to entire classes of people from scientists through law enforcement people to historians, just for starters.

Now, the whole Palin clan has been in fact subject to a sliming of their own making ever since they hit the public eye. There is no doubt they have in fact been slimed, and no doubt that the slime stuck because it was in most part true.
 
jj said:
Sarah Palin's campaign speeches were incredibly rude to entire catagories of people she didn't know. The fist-pumping in the air, working the crowd into a frenzy of dangerous proportions, the utterly insane attacks on science, all of those were rude to entire classes of people from scientists through law enforcement people to historians, just for starters.
Click to expand...

Let´s not forget the urban population, who according to Palin are "not the real America".
 
bikerdruid said:
i certainly don't hate palin, but i certainly find her amusing.
what's scary is that so many of the american abysmally far right see her as presidential material.
Click to expand...

It's also scary that I agree with you. :D
I definitely DON'T want her in any high public office. Every time I think of that church video of her when she was running for governor of Alaska, my skin crawls.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom