Why do you hate Sarah Palin?

[BeachGurl2]

Join Team Sarah!

Wow. Just, wow.

 

[midwestyankee]

Dude. Chill.

I am not bashing the Republican ticket or the financially successful (which Obama qualifies as, as well); neither is Netz or Beach. We're simply having a bit of fiscal-gap chat, that's all. I had a similar conversation the other day with a friend who just spent more on a brake job than I make in a year. He doesn't understand the gap [from my perspective], either. LOL

Interesting friends, there CM. Those must have been some serious brakes - like Maserati or Lear Jet serious.

I find it interesting that people in the political conversation - and by this I mean the global "people" and not just folks on this forum - like to impute that the Obamas are rich in the sense of always been that way. Barack wrote a couple of good memoirs that sold very well because of his political popularity and so the family has been well off for about five years. Before that, though, they were paying off nearly 6-digit student loans (ever check out the tuition at Harvard Law?). They're better off than most of us for sure, but it's also instructive to remember that Obama won a ton of votes in downstate Illinois when he ran for the Senate because he could talk with people on their own terms. In his words, "so many of the people I met there were just like my grandparents" (with whom he lived while growing up). The notion that he can't connect with ordinary people is a construct of national media and does not register with local people at all. For cryin' out loud, the guy gets his haircuts in Chicago at a place that's just down the street from where I lived as a poor grad student.

As an addendum, it's also fascinating for me to see folks make the claim that Joe Biden is rich and isolated and clueless about everyday life. Sorry, folks, but it's not the case. The majority of his net worth (which is about $200,000) is the equity in his home. He never had a high-paying legal career and his wife is a teacher. In the week before his selection was announced, he famously was caught on video talking with a reporter after making a run to the local dump while doing housework. Sound like an elite so-wealthy-I-don't-know-the-price-of-milk guy to you?

 

[EmpressFi]

3) I love how I hear the democrates scream when it's brought that Obama has a working relationship to an addmitted terrorest and how his campaign tried to keep quite his poor job of addministating of one hundred million dollars.
Yet his campain all go marching up to Alaska to dig up as much dirt as possible on Palin.

So give me a break.

How can I start an Obama is going to be bad for the country thread ?

He has a working relationship with a terrorist, do you know the political/legal past of everyone you work with. How about the fact that Palin is married to someone who once worked to get Alaska to secede from the United States. If she's not responsible for her husband's politics, someone she sleeps with and lives with, then how is he responsible for the politics of someone he worked with and hasnt spoken to in 3 years?

 

[WriterDom]

I can see a woman being interested in how many houses her husband owns, but why would man be interested if his wife was worth over 100 million dollars? He could probably name his favorite 3. Other than that, why should he give a fuck?

Ask Cindy, not him. She owns them.

 

[midwestyankee]

Any discussion of meme is "bashing." Don't you ladies know that?

We're supposed to friend Sarah and make a pink page or something and I'm supposed to be all "go blue" and CM is supposed to be all "go red bitch" and then we're supposed to fight and pull each other's boobs.

Cool. I'll go get my camera so we can get the pics posted chez Team Sarah.


Gawd all fucking mighty....she may not be one of the four horesemen of the apocalypse, but I think she well could be the electric bunny sent out ahead of them on the racetrack to make the dogs run faster.

 

[Netzach]

I can see a woman being interested in how many houses her husband owns, but why would man be interested if his wife was worth over 100 million dollars? He could probably name his favorite 3. Other than that, why should he give a fuck?

Ask Cindy, not him. She owns them.

Uh, 'cause they're his. At least the way most of us do it, without the 30,000 page prenup they must have.

 

[Netzach]

He has a working relationship with a terrorist, do you know the political/legal past of everyone you work with. How about the fact that Palin is married to someone who once worked to get Alaska to secede from the United States. If she's not responsible for her husband's politics, someone she sleeps with and lives with, then how is he responsible for the politics of someone he worked with and hasnt spoken to in 3 years?

It's not a working relationship. Debunked.

Unlike the thing I posted, seems not to be debunked. If Johnnie Mac can convince me that the boat carrying Deripaska was actually Blackbeard's ghost or something...

 

[Netzach]

Why do I keep going on about this Russian thing?

Because it's FUCKING SCARY! Honestly! These people aren't cuddly little IsraelCanadaweloveyou ALLIES, these are russian mafia, these are russians poisoning each other over aluminum interests, you think they're not going to be doing it to US businessmen?

McCain's top staffers are helping them maintain conrtrol of the Ukraine, back off everything in Montenegro except the aluminum plant that's actually worth money

while McCain mouths something about how bad naughty and totalitarian it is on the lectern, and we're all fooled? That's it? Go home now?

Uh, if this were a DEMOCRAT (especially a black one) we'd call it treason.

I mean this really sent me over my personal edge. You want to call McCain a patriot, ok ok, if it makes you feel good. Fine - now there are serious and reasonable questions to that effect. Not "Weather Underground" ones about people (a citizens group against establishement and taxes, sounds kinda maverick secessionist to me, actually) 40 years ago, but seriously scary mofos now.


I lack confidence about our national security if this is fine and "excercise restraint" is naive.

 

[bridgeburner]

Perhaps what bothers me most about certain conservatives is not even so much the views they hold as the manner in which they push and defend them.

You ask a Palin supporter why they think she's qualified and they respond with "Why is Obama qualified" and then they want to just call you a liar and a spendthrift whacko for the next half hour and never actually answer the question.

If they're too ashamed to say "I just like her because she's not one of yours" then perhaps they ought to quit calling names about who can't be objective or analytical.

Seriously, did Elizabeth Hasselbeck have anything substantive to say about Palin? No. Has anyone shown anything substantive about her in her own right? No.

You could be the best small-town mayor in the world --- which nobody is claiming that Palin is, btw --- and that still doesn't qualify you for executive decision making on a national and global level.

Additionally, you have to look at the state that she's just begun being governor of. It is the state least like any other in our union. It has a population of less than half that of the county I live in. Their revenues, tax system, infrastructure needs ---- none of it is even remotely like any other place in the U.S. and yet, folks are insisting that being able to dole out oil money revenues to a populace of just over half a million people somehow gives Palin experience in how to deal with a massive budget shortfall and an economic crisis the likes of which this country hasn't seen since the 1930's. The woman has never even been out of the country or met a foreign head of state and yet she's going to go and represent our entire nation in negotiations with other countries?

And when you point these things out what you get is "You just don't like her because she's pretty." What kind of baseless, irrelevant point is that? We're talking about qualifications to lead a global superpower and last time I checked there was no swimsuit competition qualifier.

 

[00Syd]

We're talking about qualifications to lead a global superpower and last time I checked there was no swimsuit competition qualifier.

There should be. McCain in a speedo would be quite a sight.

 

[Sir_Winston54]

There should be. McCain in a speedo would be quite a sight.

Ack! No spew warning... that comment deserves a http://i183.photobucket.com/albums/x95/Sir_Winston54/mrs_puke.gif warning!

 

[00Syd]

Ack! No spew warning... that comment deserves a http://i183.photobucket.com/albums/x95/Sir_Winston54/mrs_puke.gif warning!

Heh heh heh, sorry.

But I mean, imagine it... I don't think even Palin in a bikini would be able to save the campaign after that!

 

[00Syd]

And yes, Huffpo, liberal propaganda, yadda yadda, but still:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/10/05/palin-misquotes-albright_n_131967.html?view=print

Ugh.

 

[midwestyankee]

And yes, Huffpo, liberal propaganda, yadda yadda, but still:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/10/05/palin-misquotes-albright_n_131967.html?view=print

Ugh.

I figured out, by the way, why she wouldn't admit to Katie Couric the names of any of the newspapers that she reads. It's because the only one that came to mind was The Weekly Reader - Third Grade Edition. Just a shout-out for extra credit, doncha know?

 

[Netzach]

I figured out, by the way, why she wouldn't admit to Katie Couric the names of any of the newspapers that she reads. It's because the only one that came to mind was The Weekly Reader - Third Grade Edition. Just a shout-out for extra credit, doncha know?

I actually disagree. She can't be that stupid or that *kind* of stupid. She's that subdued and that terrified that she can't say anything because any level of criticism is unacceptable from within her own cadre - if she reads anything useful it's not right wing enough. If she reads anything right wing she looks too myopic.

 

[WriterDom]

Or maybe it was just a stupid question.

 

[midwestyankee]

I actually disagree. She can't be that stupid or that *kind* of stupid. She's that subdued and that terrified that she can't say anything because any level of criticism is unacceptable from within her own cadre - if she reads anything useful it's not right wing enough. If she reads anything right wing she looks too myopic.

So do I, in fact, and I figure that your interpretation is right on. But I had a taste for some snark.

Or maybe it was just a stupid question.

Of course, because the last thing the American people want to know about their leaders is where they get the information that informs their judgments. Christ on a write-in, can't you ever admit that your side screws up once in a while?

 

[RJMasters]

So, my support for Obama and critical thinking automatically disqualify me from ever respecting McCain?

You're way off the mark, RJ. You have no idea how I felt about McCain until this election cycle. With all due respect, you're not a mindreader, and just because you declare something doesn't make it so.

Furthermore, I was not trying to "conjure up some credibility" by saying I used to respect McCain, or anything else; I WAS simply responding to your post with my thoughts. In fact, I was agreeing with your sentiment and giving a personal example (to the general audience; my post was NOT directed at you, specifically). And you even seem to share the views I expressed, at least in part.

So what's the problem? I honestly don't know why you've taken issue with something we seemingly agree on.

Because I'm not a mindreader either, I won't even venture a guess on how you might respond, but I will hope it's with the same respect and civility I've always shown you.

I never said that at some time in the past you had respect for McCain, and that because of or partly because of his negative attacks, you formed a different view. I think in this we do both agree in that we both at one time had some higher view of McCain's character but the negativity of some of the ads have lowered that.

My point in posting what I did was to say I found it humorious that in the here and now, when you are obviously in the tank for Obama, that you would single out McCain in how you lost respect for him or raise the question of his character. Then when I point out it seems a bit funny that your motive in doing so appears to have some bais to it. Now you want to claim that it is part of your critical thinking skills.

I find this funny as well. The reason its funny is because Obama has run simillar negative ads to distort and lie about McCain. Simple logic or reason dictates that if they are both guilty of the same thing, then you also must share the same feelings towards Obama, yet you didn't make that part of your overall appeal.

You could have simply said, that a good example of how politics tends to make people act in unbecoming ways would be how both McCain and Obama have run negative ads against one another when they "BOTH" siad they wouldn't do it.

You see, had you done that I would have not had any grounds to question your motives regardless of whether you had Obama painted over your tit or not. The fact you chose to call McCain a person who went form a honorable statesmen to an angry, spiteful, old man who would do anything to win, and then omit Obama who you obviously support and who has done the same thing, is just biased. A person can lie by omission and a person distort the facts by omission as well.

I am not inferring that in order to point out anything negative about McCain you have to find some equal counterpart in Obama so as to appear to be no biased, but when they both share the same exact negative, and you omit any mention of this, then for me the bottom of credibility falls out.

Whether you did it with intent or whether it was just an natural outflow of your support for Obama in the here and now is something only you really know. So I will apoligize for throwing the little sacastic barb on the end, I didn't need to do that. But I won't change my opinion that your entire post was baised in nature. It created a distortion of the truth that only McCain was guilty of such activity, when in reality, both McCain and Obama deserve the same condemnation for running negative personal attack ads against one another.

 

[WriterDom]

So do I, in fact, and I figure that your interpretation is right on. But I had a taste for some snark.



Of course, because the last thing the American people want to know about their leaders is where they get the information that informs their judgments. Christ on a write-in, can't you ever admit that your side screws up once in a while?

If it is so important why wasn't anyone else in the entire world of politics ever asked that question? How can I vote for Obama if I don't know what he reads?

Never mind, I voted last week.

 

[FurryFury]

Cool. I'll go get my camera so we can get the pics posted chez Team Sarah.


Gawd all fucking mighty....she may not be one of the four horesemen of the apocalypse, but I think she well could be the electric bunny sent out ahead of them on the racetrack to make the dogs run faster.

LMFAO!

 

[Netzach]

If it is so important why wasn't anyone else in the entire world of politics ever asked that question? How can I vote for Obama if I don't know what he reads?

Never mind, I voted last week.

Well there was the total "gotcha" potato spelling bee moment. Terrible conspiracy.

 

[Netzach]

I never said that at some time in the past you had respect for McCain, and that because of or partly because of his negative attacks, you formed a different view. I think in this we do both agree in that we both at one time had some higher view of McCain's character but the negativity of some of the ads have lowered that.

My point in posting what I did was to say I found it humorious that in the here and now, when you are obviously in the tank for Obama, that you would single out McCain in how you lost respect for him or raise the question of his character. Then when I point out it seems a bit funny that your motive in doing so appears to have some bais to it. Now you want to claim that it is part of your critical thinking skills.

I find this funny as well. The reason its funny is because Obama has run simillar negative ads to distort and lie about McCain. Simple logic or reason dictates that if they are both guilty of the same thing, then you also must share the same feelings towards Obama, yet you didn't make that part of your overall appeal.

You could have simply said, that a good example of how politics tends to make people act in unbecoming ways would be how both McCain and Obama have run negative ads against one another when they "BOTH" siad they wouldn't do it.

You see, had you done that I would have not had any grounds to question your motives regardless of whether you had Obama painted over your tit or not. The fact you chose to call McCain a person who went form a honorable statesmen to an angry, spiteful, old man who would do anything to win, and then omit Obama who you obviously support and who has done the same thing, is just biased. A person can lie by omission and a person distort the facts by omission as well.

I am not inferring that in order to point out anything negative about McCain you have to find some equal counterpart in Obama so as to appear to be no biased, but when they both share the same exact negative, and you omit any mention of this, then for me the bottom of credibility falls out.

Whether you did it with intent or whether it was just an natural outflow of your support for Obama in the here and now is something only you really know. So I will apoligize for throwing the little sacastic barb on the end, I didn't need to do that. But I won't change my opinion that your entire post was baised in nature. It created a distortion of the truth that only McCain was guilty of such activity, when in reality, both McCain and Obama deserve the same condemnation for running negative personal attack ads against one another.

Because an attack ad is an attack ad isn't an attack ad.

"He's not one of us and he's hanging with terrorists"

even Karl Rove thinks this is far fetched.

"His behavior has been erratic."

Well?

Hasn't it???

 

[midwestyankee]

If it is so important why wasn't anyone else in the entire world of politics ever asked that question? How can I vote for Obama if I don't know what he reads?

Never mind, I voted last week.

You could, you know, read his books and see what works he chooses to quote or to list as having been influential. But that's probably against the law in your town, isn't it? Reading a book by a liberal, I mean.

The other thing is that no serious journalist has any doubt that Obama is a well informed man on both history and current events. We don't know enough about Palin, since she doesn't talk to the press except under hermetically sealed conditions, to make the same judgment about her.

Obama regularly cites newspaper articles from the Times and the Post and the WSJ in his speeches and while some of his citations might come from aides, it's doubtful that they all do.

 

[BeachGurl2]

Or maybe it was just a stupid question.

When someone claims knowledge they clearly don't have, there is nothing stupid about asking how they came about that knowledge. Jeez, WD, really. You can't possibly be this closed minded. The woman hasn't said anything that wasn't drilled into her by her handlers, and that is evident in the fact that she cannot come up with anything original when asked a direct question. I think Netz has a good point about why she refused to answer the question. Unless she truly doesn't keep up with things. But either way, it's a valid question for her. It's not as valid for the other candidates because they do talk about the things they read. Why do we need to ask them when we already know what they read?

 

[WriterDom]

CAMERON: OK. So, at the risk of annoying you, when you are asked, what do you read? Which papers and magazines? You didn't answer it.
Or, you said, I have all kinds of resources.
PALIN: Right, right, right.
CAMERON: Well, what do you read?
PALIN: I read the same things that other people across the country read, including the "New York Times" and the "Wall Street Journal" and the "Economist" and some of these publications that we've recently even been interviewed through up there in Alaska.
Because, of everything that we're doing with oil and gas, a lot of the investment publications especially are interviewing us, asking us how are being so successful up there in contributing to our nation's step towards energy independence.
CAMERON: Sure.
PALIN: So, my response to her. I guess it was kind of filtered.
But, I was sort of taken aback, like, the suggestion was, you're way up there in a far away place in Alaska. You know, that there are publications in the rest of the world that are read by many. And I was taken aback by that because I don't know, the suggestion that this was a little bit of perhaps we're not in tune with the rest of the world.