Why do you hate Sarah Palin?

[midwestyankee]

Why are a lot of republicans up in arms over the unretouched photo of Palin on Newsweek? (Example here, pic below, link to larger pic HERE.)

She's all about being "real" and "just folks," right? If that's the case, then what's the problem of a photo that shows she has wrinkles, pores and a little facial hair, just like nearly every woman over 35 in the country? Regular "flaws" and all, she looks great for a woman around 45 with five kids.

The republicans could use this to their advantage by saying it further supports she's an everyday woman and is a good example of how unretouched women can be beautiful. I just don't get why many of them are raising a big stink over this, insisting the truth of her face is unflattering and she needs to be airbrushed.

http://www.rightpundits.com/wp-content/photos/palin_newsweek_cover.jpg

They're complaining about this picture? Good grief.

 

[KinkyBoyUK]

They're complaining about this picture? Good grief.

best laugh ive had all day!

 

[00Syd]

They're complaining about this picture? Good grief.

They were running out of ways to say that the MSM is picking on her maybe?

 

[LockDownBadBoy]

I wouldn't say I hate her. I'd fuck her but I wouldn't vote for her. She comes across as to smug for my taste.

 

[midwestyankee]

They were running out of ways to say that the MSM is picking on her maybe?

Maybe honesty is the newest weapon of sexism ver. 2.008. Gawd, maybe next they'll claim that the MSM thinks that she looks fat in that black sparkly suit that gave so many conservatives a hard-on.

 

[Homburg]

http://www.b3ta.cr3ation.co.uk/data/jpg/dztob9.jpg

 

[BeachGurl2]

Why are a lot of republicans up in arms over the unretouched photo of Palin on Newsweek? (Example here, pic below, link to larger pic HERE.)

She's all about being "real" and "just folks," right? If that's the case, then what's the problem of a photo that shows she has wrinkles, pores and a little facial hair, just like nearly every woman over 35 in the country? Regular "flaws" and all, she looks great for a woman around 45 with five kids.

The republicans could use this to their advantage by saying it further supports she's an everyday woman and is a good example of how unretouched women can be beautiful. I just don't get why many of them are raising a big stink over this, insisting the truth of her face is unflattering and she needs to be airbrushed.

http://www.rightpundits.com/wp-content/photos/palin_newsweek_cover.jpg

Oh, for shit's sake.

 

[BeachGurl2]

As if the thought of McCain/Palin weren't frightening enough before, now there is this. What does this slip mean? "My fellow prisoners". Is he losing it?

 

[midwestyankee]

As if the thought of McCain/Palin weren't frightening enough before, now there is this. What does this slip mean? "My fellow prisoners". Is he losing it?

I'm not sure that the present tense is the most appropriate here.

 

[midwestyankee]

What's good for the gander....

http://i53.photobucket.com/albums/g68/mwy_photos/PalinandtheAIP210-9-08.jpg

 

[midwestyankee]

Palinex - the morning-after running-mate pill

Palinex ad

 

[fishercat]

A little fun for the next time we get to see Sarah speak in public:

http://www.palinbingo.com/

 

[KinkyBoyUK]

the uk daily mail newspaper has found out that princess diana and palin are related

mybe they have found someone new to worship!

http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2008/06/24/article-0-01BB0A9F00000578-546_468x286.jpg

 

[bambikiller]

Boy and girls you think obama's got it.
But this election will be closer then you think.
Even with Obamas ACORN group stuffing the ballot boxes in 5 states.
And if Obama wins, You will see oil prices rise and employment fall and you'll all cry.
Then of course you scream for your man to help which of course he will do by raising your taxes higher and making you pay even more for oil and you lemings will thank him.

 

[Homburg]

Boy and girls you think obama's got it.
But this election will be closer then you think.
Even with Obamas ACORN group stuffing the ballot boxes in 5 states.
And if Obama wins, You will see oil prices rise and employment fall and you'll all cry.
Then of course you scream for your man to help which of course he will do by raising your taxes higher and making you pay even more for oil and you lemings will thank him.

It must be so awesome when everyone else is a lemming but you.

You are an individualist that Emerson would surely envy.

 

[Netzach]

It must be so awesome when everyone else is a lemming but you.

You are an individualist that Emerson would surely envy.

It's true. Obama is going to be the most powerfullest president ever. He's going to summarily institute Islam as the new state religion and we'll be eating babies on toast. Fear for your children. Fear for your very life.

Don't worry about those malfunctioning voting machines in NM. Just fear for the american way.

 

[bridgeburner]

It's true. Obama is going to be the most powerfullest president ever. He's going to summarily institute Islam as the new state religion and we'll be eating babies on toast. Fear for your children. Fear for your very life.

Don't worry about those malfunctioning voting machines in NM. Just fear for the american way.

Clearly I must not vote for Obama because regular servings of toast would exceed my allowable carb intake.

 

[jockdom]

Clearly I must not vote for Obama because regular servings of toast would exceed my allowable carb intake.

Just plant a tree every time a baby on toast is consumed, problem solved my man.
Personaly I prefer my babies served on a bed of the poor and downtrodden.

 

[midwestyankee]

It's true. Obama is going to be the most powerfullest president ever. He's going to summarily institute Islam as the new state religion and we'll be eating babies on toast. Fear for your children. Fear for your very life.

Don't worry about those malfunctioning voting machines in NM. Just fear for the American way.

You forgot the arugula and organic tea.

 

[bridgeburner]

Just plant a tree every time a baby on toast is consumed, problem solved my man.
Personaly I prefer my babies served on a bed of the poor and downtrodden.

But if I plant trees they might attract some of those pesky owls. Aw, hell, it's not like I have to worry at this point. Clearly the McCain/Palin ticket is the way to go and I'll be barefoot and pregnant by this time December and I won't have to worry my pretty head about anything.

 

[Sir_Winston54]

Interesting. Even though it's from Slate, a notoriously liberal arm of the MSM, I think the source materials are fairly reliable... and the article asks some thoughtful questions and makes some thought-provoking points.

Is Petraeus "Beyond Naive"?
He thinks we should negotiate with our enemies—just like Obama.
By Fred Kaplan
Posted Friday, Oct. 10, 2008, at 11:56 AM ET

If Gov. Sarah Palin ever becomes president, will she tell Gen. David Petraeus that he's "beyond naive" and "dangerous"?

That, you may recall, was how she characterized Sen. Barack Obama's advocacy of talking to our enemies "without preconditions."

Yet look at what Petraeus—not just the architect of the Iraqi counterinsurgency strategy but also Sen. John McCain's demigod—said on Oct. 8, toward the end of an hourlong address to the neocon elite at the Heritage Foundation.

Asked about a British officer's recent statement that at some point, we'll have to strike a deal with the Taliban in Afghanistan, Petraeus said, matter-of-factly, "You have to talk to enemies." He added that the British know this especially well, as they've "sat down with thugs throughout their history, including us, I suspect."

Petraeus quickly added that, of course, you have to go into the talks with an agenda, and you have to know what your objectives are. But his point and these particular caveats are consistent with the distinction that Obama has repeatedly made between "preparations" and "preconditions"—the former being common sense and the latter being an insistence that the other side satisfy our demands before we so much as sit down with them (a position that even President Bush, its most dogmatic advocate, has recently begun to reconsider, especially in North Korea).

Palin's condemnation of Obama was no freelance swipe. McCain, too, has shaken his head in grave condescension and muttered that the junior senator from Illinois simply doesn't understand the world. Would he dare say the same of Petraeus?

In Iraq, the general recalled in his Heritage speech, "we sat down with some of those who were shooting at us"—a painful task but "an explicit part of our campaign." These talks formed the basis for the Anbar Awakening—in which Sunni insurgents allied themselves with U.S. forces to beat back the common foe of al-Qaida in Iraq—and for the tactical success of the "surge" itself.

Petraeus, the former commander of multinational forces in Iraq and soon the chief of U.S. Central Command, added that he didn't know how much of his Iraq strategy would work in Afghanistan. Some of its concepts are "transplantable," he said, while "others perhaps are not." (Here, too, the general contradicted McCain, who has said in two debates that Petraeus will win in Afghanistan by replicating his Iraq strategy.) However, one concept that Petraeus said he will try to transplant is precisely this idea of talking with those enemies who might share, or be persuaded to share, some of our strategic goals. "This is how you end these kinds of conflicts," he said at the Heritage Foundation. There is "no alternative to reconciliation."

Some insurgents, of course, are irreconcilable—al-Qaida, for instance, and the more militant Taliban fighters. If we're at war with them, they must be killed and defeated; any other option is a pipe dream. But one aspect of counterinsurgency involves identifying and co-opting those insurgents who are not so hard-line or who might be weary of fighting or leery of their more ideological comrades. Petraeus noted that Afghan President Hamad Karzai is already doing this, reaching out to certain Taliban factions, using the Saudis as intermediaries.

Will this work? Is there any basis for a "Pashtun Awakening" in Afghanistan to match the Sunni alliance-of-convenience in Iraq? Do the Taliban factions break down along tribal lines, whose fissures might be exploited? Some Afghanistan-watchers have their doubts.

Yet one implication of Petraeus' remarks is that if there are no such openings for maneuver, then this war—which, our senior military leaders say, is going badly and getting worse—may be hopeless. In any case, the strategic goal—to keep Afghanistan from once again becoming a base for international terrorists—will probably require broader, regional cooperation to beat down al-Qaida in neighboring Pakistan. It's the jihadis in northwestern Pakistan who are keeping the Taliban going in Afghanistan. And compared with the dangers of an unstable Pakistan, Afghanistan is a sideshow.

The point here, though, is that according to the soldier-strategist whom John McCain admires most, talking to at least some enemies is a necessary ingredient of success.

A Republican partisan might note that the Taliban in Afghanistan are not the same as the mullahs of Iran. That's true. But from the McCain-Palin point of view, the Taliban are worse. They're killing American soldiers now, and they're trying to recapture an unstable sovereign state by force. It would be more repugnant to engage in face-to-face talks with them than with most other bad guys in the world. Yet if Petraeus is right—if we're going to have to do this with the Taliban—then why is it naive and dangerous to do the same with the leadership of Iran? ​

Source link

 

[BiaTcHiNFiRe]

xxxxx

 

[Netzach]

Interesting. Even though it's from Slate, a notoriously liberal arm of the MSM, I think the source materials are fairly reliable... and the article asks some thoughtful questions and makes some thought-provoking points.

Is Petraeus "Beyond Naive"?
He thinks we should negotiate with our enemies—just like Obama.
By Fred Kaplan
Posted Friday, Oct. 10, 2008, at 11:56 AM ET

If Gov. Sarah Palin ever becomes president, will she tell Gen. David Petraeus that he's "beyond naive" and "dangerous"?

That, you may recall, was how she characterized Sen. Barack Obama's advocacy of talking to our enemies "without preconditions."

Yet look at what Petraeus—not just the architect of the Iraqi counterinsurgency strategy but also Sen. John McCain's demigod—said on Oct. 8, toward the end of an hourlong address to the neocon elite at the Heritage Foundation.

Asked about a British officer's recent statement that at some point, we'll have to strike a deal with the Taliban in Afghanistan, Petraeus said, matter-of-factly, "You have to talk to enemies." He added that the British know this especially well, as they've "sat down with thugs throughout their history, including us, I suspect."

Petraeus quickly added that, of course, you have to go into the talks with an agenda, and you have to know what your objectives are. But his point and these particular caveats are consistent with the distinction that Obama has repeatedly made between "preparations" and "preconditions"—the former being common sense and the latter being an insistence that the other side satisfy our demands before we so much as sit down with them (a position that even President Bush, its most dogmatic advocate, has recently begun to reconsider, especially in North Korea).

Palin's condemnation of Obama was no freelance swipe. McCain, too, has shaken his head in grave condescension and muttered that the junior senator from Illinois simply doesn't understand the world. Would he dare say the same of Petraeus?

In Iraq, the general recalled in his Heritage speech, "we sat down with some of those who were shooting at us"—a painful task but "an explicit part of our campaign." These talks formed the basis for the Anbar Awakening—in which Sunni insurgents allied themselves with U.S. forces to beat back the common foe of al-Qaida in Iraq—and for the tactical success of the "surge" itself.

Petraeus, the former commander of multinational forces in Iraq and soon the chief of U.S. Central Command, added that he didn't know how much of his Iraq strategy would work in Afghanistan. Some of its concepts are "transplantable," he said, while "others perhaps are not." (Here, too, the general contradicted McCain, who has said in two debates that Petraeus will win in Afghanistan by replicating his Iraq strategy.) However, one concept that Petraeus said he will try to transplant is precisely this idea of talking with those enemies who might share, or be persuaded to share, some of our strategic goals. "This is how you end these kinds of conflicts," he said at the Heritage Foundation. There is "no alternative to reconciliation."

Some insurgents, of course, are irreconcilable—al-Qaida, for instance, and the more militant Taliban fighters. If we're at war with them, they must be killed and defeated; any other option is a pipe dream. But one aspect of counterinsurgency involves identifying and co-opting those insurgents who are not so hard-line or who might be weary of fighting or leery of their more ideological comrades. Petraeus noted that Afghan President Hamad Karzai is already doing this, reaching out to certain Taliban factions, using the Saudis as intermediaries.

Will this work? Is there any basis for a "Pashtun Awakening" in Afghanistan to match the Sunni alliance-of-convenience in Iraq? Do the Taliban factions break down along tribal lines, whose fissures might be exploited? Some Afghanistan-watchers have their doubts.

Yet one implication of Petraeus' remarks is that if there are no such openings for maneuver, then this war—which, our senior military leaders say, is going badly and getting worse—may be hopeless. In any case, the strategic goal—to keep Afghanistan from once again becoming a base for international terrorists—will probably require broader, regional cooperation to beat down al-Qaida in neighboring Pakistan. It's the jihadis in northwestern Pakistan who are keeping the Taliban going in Afghanistan. And compared with the dangers of an unstable Pakistan, Afghanistan is a sideshow.

The point here, though, is that according to the soldier-strategist whom John McCain admires most, talking to at least some enemies is a necessary ingredient of success.

A Republican partisan might note that the Taliban in Afghanistan are not the same as the mullahs of Iran. That's true. But from the McCain-Palin point of view, the Taliban are worse. They're killing American soldiers now, and they're trying to recapture an unstable sovereign state by force. It would be more repugnant to engage in face-to-face talks with them than with most other bad guys in the world. Yet if Petraeus is right—if we're going to have to do this with the Taliban—then why is it naive and dangerous to do the same with the leadership of Iran? ​

Source link

SLATE is MSM now? What next the Progressive? *has hipster headache*

Actually McCain is two people, too. He was in agreement over going into Pakistan with limited surgical-strike force if Bin Laden were a known target prior to the campaigns getting like this, himself. Only when he does it it's responsible and when Obama discusses it it's "attacking pakistan, you don't say that out loud" His veep was also saying it out loud, but we all know she's insane.

 

[Netzach]

You forgot the arugula and organic tea.

Santa Di Terrosa Pinot Grigio has the best nose to match the veal-like quality of Chistian baby, in my extensive experience. You're all just latecomers on this scene.

 

[Sir_Winston54]

SLATE is MSM now? What next the Progressive? *has hipster headache*

Well, it's more MSM than some of the sources that have been quoted here, on both sides of the aisle. And I did say a "liberal arm," implying that it's on the periphery of the MSM, not center mass.