26
   

Guys? You're not helping (Palin sexism watch)

 
 
spendius
 
  1  
Reply Sat 4 Oct, 2008 05:29 pm
@spendius,
And a granny.
spendius
 
  1  
Reply Sat 4 Oct, 2008 05:30 pm
@spendius,
It's comical.
0 Replies
 
hawkeye10
 
  0  
Reply Sat 4 Oct, 2008 05:38 pm
@spendius,
Quote:
Rich is just trying to pretend he's a randy young buck.

A five kid woman sexy!!?? Come off it.


You can't possibly be over 30 years old, given this statement. Hopefully your pending maturity will bring with it a more refined sense of sexy.
spendius
 
  1  
Reply Sat 4 Oct, 2008 05:41 pm
@hawkeye10,
Do you seriously think I haven't explored that last cul-de-sac of desperation?
hawkeye10
 
  0  
Reply Sat 4 Oct, 2008 05:48 pm
@spendius,
I am sure that you think that you have. In ten or twenty years you will know better.
spendius
 
  1  
Reply Sat 4 Oct, 2008 05:52 pm
@hawkeye10,
Hope springs eternal.
0 Replies
 
Region Philbis
 
  2  
Reply Mon 6 Oct, 2008 02:20 pm
(hope these are legible...)


http://img177.imageshack.us/img177/4195/palinsdebatenotesww6.jpg


http://img375.imageshack.us/img375/503/bidensdebatenotesgc3.jpg
0 Replies
 
nimh
 
  4  
Reply Thu 30 Oct, 2008 03:04 pm
@Foxfyre,
It's been a couple of weeks, but do you remember when Foxfyre came up with this stunner?

Foxfyre wrote:
It has been noted that the Obama campaign has been doing the same with Obama. They will no longer allow him to speak without a teleprompter and I think he probably wears a listening device at all times so they can feed him information to help him look smarter.

Foxfyre wrote:
sozobe wrote:
What are you talking about, Foxfyre? [..]

Soz, he recently dragged the teleprompter out in the middle of a rodeo arena where it looked really strange. We've seen him get flustered when his listening device stopped working. I don't know that he uses or needs these at all times--most likely he doesn't.

So Fox thought Obama "probably wears a listening device at all times," evidenced by how "we've seen him get flustered when his listening device stopped working," although "most likely," if confusingly, he doesnt actually use or need it "at all times".

Were you wondering where in heaven's name she came up with something as outlandish as that?

I happened to come across what the source must have been ...

Quote:
During the primaries, [Ann] Althouse discovered that a Hillary Clinton ad included the subliminal message “Nig” written on a child's pajamas. Then during the debates, Althouse noticed on her high definition television that Obama was wearing a clear plastic hearing aid in his ear and noted that he spoke haltingly as if someone was giving him the answers in the debate. “It's clearly there, a crescent of clear plastic,” she said in response to some skeptical comments [..].

Note, the first link goes to Ann's post, where you'll only find the original assertion in heavily edited version, as she replaced it with the reversals she added later. But the second link shows her original post and some of the original comments in which she still stood by her theory.

Not that she's quite given up on the theory that Obama wore an earpiece; instead, maybe they all do! This is from her rewrite of the post - and check the sheer irrefutable beauty of that first sentence:

Quote:
You know, just because the thing I saw wasn't there doesn't mean there wasn't something there that I didn't see. I would not be surprised to learn some day that all or most politicians have for years had their advisors helping them from deep inside their ear canals. Maybe the best politicians are just those who are most adept at translating the voice in their ear into fluid speech.

There you go ...

I wonder what Fox now thinks? I also wonder, more in general, about the complete absence of an internal nuttiness filter in many people - the absence of that part of your critical thinking competence that warns you that, oy, this is too nutty - look at it, not just is it wholly improbable, it's also transparently based on nothing but sheer, irrational speculation. You come across that absence on the left too -- just listen to all those 9/11 Truthers. But if Obama's going to be elected, it's mostly from the right that you can expect a lot of this stuff to keep pouring forth... it'll be Vince Fostergate-hysteria all over again. Oh joy.
dlowan
 
  3  
Reply Thu 30 Oct, 2008 03:20 pm
@nimh,
Well done.

One is amused but utterly unsurprised.

Been wondering where she gets the nuttier stuff from.

Too lazy to google.


This is a gem: (She's not a secret satirist??????????? It's very funny.)

You know, just because the thing I saw wasn't there doesn't mean there wasn't something there that I didn't see. I would not be surprised to learn some day that all or most politicians have for years had their advisors helping them from deep inside their ear canals. Maybe the best politicians are just those who are most adept at translating the voice in their ear into fluid speech.


Yeppers...we want folk with auditory hallucinations running countries.
0 Replies
 
Thomas
 
  1  
Reply Thu 30 Oct, 2008 04:01 pm
@nimh,
Although Ann Althouse is conserative, I have known her as reasonable, so I'm inclined to give her the benefit of the doubt. My guess is that this was one of those impulse posts that embarrass you shortly after you submit them. Except that Althouse, a well read blogger, couldn't make her post go away. And that her readers, unlike her, didn't catch up with her corrections.
dlowan
 
  1  
Reply Thu 30 Oct, 2008 04:03 pm
@Thomas,
So you think this IS satire?

"You know, just because the thing I saw wasn't there doesn't mean there wasn't something there that I didn't see. I would not be surprised to learn some day that all or most politicians have for years had their advisors helping them from deep inside their ear canals. Maybe the best politicians are just those who are most adept at translating the voice in their ear into fluid speech."
Thomas
 
  1  
Reply Thu 30 Oct, 2008 04:13 pm
@dlowan,
I'm guessing the original post followed an impulse, and the passage you quote was an attempt to reduce her embarrassment with satire. But I don't know, and I haven't researched the issue with any intensity.
0 Replies
 
spendius
 
  1  
Reply Thu 30 Oct, 2008 04:30 pm
@dlowan,
Quote:
You know, just because the thing I saw wasn't there doesn't mean there wasn't something there that I didn't see.


The loss in money values of stocks and properties, a rather vast amount, could have been what she meant. Where did it go? Where did it come from?

Then it might be satire.
0 Replies
 
Foxfyre
 
  0  
Reply Thu 30 Oct, 2008 05:29 pm
@nimh,
What Fox thinks is that Fox doesn't know. But Fox does poke around the fringe conversations picking up on what the lesser known pundits are saying that doesn't make it into the lead story of the 10 o'clock news or onto the front page of the New York Times. Some of these are in more obscure publications as you found or turn up on late night radio and such as that.

And Fox has spent quite a bit of time in professions that required a bit of reading (and teaching) body language, tone of voice, inflection, etc. I am certainly no expert, but it has made me conscious of stuff like that.

I have posted a number of YouTube clips and have seen others showing Obama turn from a smooth, polished speaker into practically a blithering idiot in a Town Hall meeting within a few seconds time. Why? Could he have lost his feed at that time? Other times it seems that he pauses uncomfortably long to 'think' and/or meanders through too long a lead in for his remarks when other times he gets to the point quickly. Is his staff scrambling to find the correct answer?

I don't know and I know it sounds like looney tunes conspiracy theory stuff. But it is one possible explanation for why his campaign handlers have been steering clear of almost all uncontrolled situations these days. They let their guard down with Joe the Plumber and we all know what happened there.

It may be much to do about nothing. Probably is. But if it isn't, it would be a good thing to know that the Messiah speaks well only with a script. That might make a difference to some. Maybe not.
nimh
 
  1  
Reply Thu 30 Oct, 2008 05:45 pm
@Foxfyre,
Well, you went from "I think he probably wears a listening device at all times" to "I don't know [..] It may be much to do about nothing. Probably is. [..] But it is one possible explanation". That's progress I guess.

Thomas wrote:

I'm guessing the [..] passage you quote was an attempt to reduce her embarrassment with satire.

You should read at least the page it's from. I could be missing something of course, but it sure doesnt sound like satire to me. Well, not the intentional kind, anyhow. Wink
spendius
 
  1  
Reply Thu 30 Oct, 2008 06:45 pm
@nimh,
I presume you think the lady too dumb to have had in mind what I suggested?
0 Replies
 
OCCOM BILL
 
  1  
Reply Thu 30 Oct, 2008 08:43 pm
@nimh,
Great work, Nimh.

And this was as hilarious as it was insightful:
nimh wrote:
I also wonder, more in general, about the complete absence of an internal nuttiness filter in many people - the absence of that part of your critical thinking competence that warns you that, oy, this is too nutty - look at it, not just is it wholly improbable, it's also transparently based on nothing but sheer, irrational speculation.
Now that you’ve pinpointed the disorder; you should contact Glaxo Smith Kline about making a drug that corrects it. If A2K is any kind of sample group; there's Billions in it!
dlowan
 
  2  
Reply Thu 30 Oct, 2008 09:16 pm
@OCCOM BILL,
OCCOM BILL wrote:

Great work, Nimh.

And this was as hilarious as it was insightful:
nimh wrote:
I also wonder, more in general, about the complete absence of an internal nuttiness filter in many people - the absence of that part of your critical thinking competence that warns you that, oy, this is too nutty - look at it, not just is it wholly improbable, it's also transparently based on nothing but sheer, irrational speculation.
Now that you’ve pinpointed the disorder; you should contact Glaxo Smith Kline about making a drug that corrects it. If A2K is any kind of sample group; there's Billions in it!




I have a name for it....NDD...Nuttiness Detection Disorder......or CTHAFHITG.

Can't tell her/his arse from a hole in the ground.
Thomas
 
  2  
Reply Thu 30 Oct, 2008 10:04 pm
@nimh,
nimh wrote:
I could be missing something of course.

Your false modesty is unconvincing. Wink
OCCOM BILL
 
  1  
Reply Fri 31 Oct, 2008 12:16 am
@dlowan,
Laughing
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

Lipstick vs. Uppity - Discussion by A Lone Voice
Where is the outrage? - Discussion by Gelisgesti
Sarah Palin lies - Discussion by nimh
McCain's VP: - Discussion by Cycloptichorn
Sarah Palin, too weird. - Discussion by dyslexia
Troopergate report: Palin abused power - Discussion by blueflame1
"I fear for my country" - Discussion by BumbleBeeBoogie
 
Copyright © 2014 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.07 seconds on 10/25/2014 at 03:09:53