14
   

"Sarah Palin is a F***ing Retard!"

 
 
djjd62
 
  3  
Reply Thu 11 Feb, 2010 06:26 pm
@engineer,
http://stuffwhitetrashpeoplelike.files.wordpress.com/2008/03/cletus-1.jpg
intelecshooals ain't like us
0 Replies
 
dyslexia
 
  2  
Reply Thu 11 Feb, 2010 06:29 pm
@hawkeye10,
Quote:
The direction is anti elite, anti Washington, and pro looking out for the little guy. This is clear and consistent.

Yeah, just like James Dobson, what's he doing these days?
0 Replies
 
roger
 
  5  
Reply Thu 11 Feb, 2010 06:49 pm
@hawkeye10,
What I see there is what we are supposed to lead from. The to is conspicuous by its absence.
hawkeye10
 
  0  
Reply Thu 11 Feb, 2010 07:08 pm
@roger,
Quote:
What I see there is what we are supposed to lead from. The to is conspicuous by its absence.


a nation where hard work and character are rewarded, and where social programs are sustainable.

this is no mystery
0 Replies
 
hawkeye10
 
  0  
Reply Thu 11 Feb, 2010 07:11 pm
@engineer,
Quote:
How come you want to elect people who aren't elite? I would think you would want the best of the best to lead the country. Average Joe doesn't really cut it.


I cant stand palin, and it saddens me that America has come to this. I do however take the rise of Palin seriously.
Cycloptichorn
 
  2  
Reply Thu 11 Feb, 2010 07:15 pm
@hawkeye10,
hawkeye10 wrote:

Quote:
How come you want to elect people who aren't elite? I would think you would want the best of the best to lead the country. Average Joe doesn't really cut it.


I cant stand palin, and it saddens me that America has come to this. I do however take the rise of Palin seriously.


What rise?!?! She hasn't risen at all. She doesn't do anything, propose anything or run for anything. She has no power.

Face it - she's a pretty face that a bunch of morons have glommed onto because she repeats their bullshit back to them. And the more exposure she has gotten, the WORSE people feel about her being able to do the job!

So, no. She hasn't risen. And I think you are completely wrong about her.

Cycloptichorn
0 Replies
 
sozobe
 
  1  
Reply Thu 11 Feb, 2010 07:18 pm
@roger,
Up-thumbed.
0 Replies
 
hawkeye10
 
  0  
Reply Thu 11 Feb, 2010 07:44 pm
Quote:

So how's that hopey-changey stuff working out for you? The Obama presidency certainly hasn't ushered in an era of comity and prosperity. In the end, though, Palin is offering the opposite of hope and change: despair and stasis. The despair is histrionic and purposefully distorted; the stasis proved disastrous during the Bush Administration. But is Sarah Palin the favorite to win the Republican presidential nomination and therefore someone to be taken absolutely seriously? You betcha.

Read more: http://www.time.com/time/politics/article/0,8599,1963564,00.html?xid=rss-topstories#ixzz0fHXWQlt1
0 Replies
 
Setanta
 
  2  
Reply Fri 12 Feb, 2010 05:56 am
Palin would be so far from being able to "build consensus" and capture a constituency sufficient to get elected to the presidency, that she should only be taken seriously if she actually managed to get the Republican nod. In that case, she should be taken seriously in the sense of an inevitably fatal disease which were incurable. Palin should only be taken seriously by Republicans who don't want their party to be marginalized. To the rest of the country, she's completely unimportant.
0 Replies
 
Merry Andrew
 
  2  
Reply Fri 12 Feb, 2010 11:14 am
Here's another POV:

By Ruben Navarrette Jr., Special to CNN
February 12, 2010 11:44 a.m. EST

Editor's note: Ruben Navarrette Jr. is a member of the San Diego Union-Tribune editorial board, a nationally syndicated columnist and a regular contributor to CNN.com.

San Diego, California (CNN) -- There's (still) something about Sarah.

What is it about Sarah Palin -- former mayor, governor, GOP vice-presidential candidate -- that drives so many Americans, supporters and critics so far around the bend?

Love her or hate her, you can't ignore her. Palin won't let you. And neither will your curiosity. You want to know what she's going to do next. What does she want? Will she run or won't she? What's her angle? Is she going back into politics or she is content to build a platform for herself outside of politics?

This much is certain: Palin should be really grateful -- for her critics, especially those in academia and the media.

Look what happened when Palin blasted President Obama during a speech at the recent Tea Party Convention by saying that -- in the war on terror -- Americans "need a commander-in-chief and not a professor of law."

Harvard Law Professor Charles Ogletree quickly fired back at Palin by playing the race card and complaining that the reference to Obama being likened to a professor came close to calling him "uppity."

Unbelievable. I bet you never thought of the word "professor" as a racial slur. You learn something every day. Someone should tell Ogletree: "That's not a good look."

Palin's critics can be oversensitive, dismissive and condescending, but they're also a blessing.

Every time they attack her, mock her or belittle her, she only gets more popular. Her fans get defensive and want to fight. And folks who weren't fans before get intrigued and want to find out what these powerful people in the media and the Democratic Party (if you'll forgive the redundancy) are so afraid of?

In turn, Palin has translated her notoriety into monster sales of her memoir, six-figure speaking engagements, a slew of requests to stump for Republican across the country, a paid-contributor deal as a cable television commentator and countless other opportunities. Since bursting onto the national stage as Sen. John McCain's running mate in the 2008 presidential election, Palin has acquired influence, wealth and a thick skin. All three are useful to those who run for president.

She also has an amusing knack for tweaking her critics. When liberal blogs posted photos of Palin glancing at her palm during a question-and-answer session at the Tea Party Convention and more photos showing crib notes in her palm with words such as "energy," "tax cuts," "budget" and "lift American spirits," her detractors pounced. The incident fed into their preconstructed narrative about Palin: That she's not very smart and not as genuine as she pretends to be for public consumption.

Palin took the attacks in stride, making sure that in later photos of her campaigning with Texas Gov. Rick Perry, she showed off her palm scrawled with a new message: "Hi Mom."

New York Times reporter Kate Zernike started her article about Palin's "seventh-grade style" notes with this snarky jab: "Ask conservatives why they love Sarah Palin so and they will often say it is because she is so 'authentic.' So will her crib sheet make her less so in their eyes?"

This is just sad. No, Kate. Sometimes, outside the hallowed halls of The New York Times, real people use notes -- when they go to the grocery store, make a presentation at work, speak at the Rotary Club or have a parent-teacher conference. And it doesn't make them any less authentic.

What you should worry about is whether fewer of those people are reading your newspaper because you've lost the ability to connect with them.

That's what Palin has that makes her stand out. People who run for president should know about politics and policy, but they can be taught that. What can't be taught is the ability to connect with people. Bill Clinton had it, Al Gore didn't. Barack Obama has it, John Kerry didn't. Mike Huckabee seems to have some of it, but Mitt Romney sure doesn't.

Sarah Palin has it. She connects.

So here's a warning to the Democratic Party and other supporters of Barack Obama who love to criticize Palin. They can have their fun. But they do so at their peril. Whether they realize it or not, every time they attack her, they attack the kind of voter to whom she appeals.

These people aren't part of the elite establishment. They may have not have gone to Ivy League schools. They're just everyday folks who go to work and support families. They go to church. They love their country. They're the kind of people the Democratic Party used to represent. And, at the moment, they're enjoying a breath of fresh air blowing in from Alaska.

The opinions in this commentary are solely those of Ruben Navarette Jr.

source:

http://www.cnn.com/2010/OPINION/02/11/navarrette.palin.politics/index.html?eref=igoogle_cnn
Setanta
 
  2  
Reply Fri 12 Feb, 2010 11:25 am
That's pure right-wing party line, there, MA. But i suspect you knew that when you posted it. Right-wingers wish Palin were that important.
DrewDad
 
  2  
Reply Fri 12 Feb, 2010 11:31 am
@Merry Andrew,
Quote:
Love her or hate her, you can't ignore her.

Only because people keep shoving her in the limelight. She's the political equivalent of Britney Spears or the Octomom.

Quote:
And neither will your curiosity.

I have zero curiosity about Sarah Palin. I do have curiosity about Stephen Colbert.

Quote:
You want to know what she's going to do next.

Nope. I forgot to mention Lady Gaga as another of her equivalencies.
0 Replies
 
Merry Andrew
 
  2  
Reply Fri 12 Feb, 2010 11:36 am
@Setanta,
Setanta wrote:

That's pure right-wing party line, there, MA. But i suspect you knew that when you posted it. Right-wingers wish Palin were that important.


Absolutely. I posted that with no editorial comment of my own.
0 Replies
 
Setanta
 
  2  
Reply Fri 12 Feb, 2010 11:41 am
Really, it would tragic for the Republicans if Palin supporters steam roller the 2012 campaign. Even if she didn't win the nomination (Dog forbid, from the party power brokers point of view), she could seriously wound the party.

I may be wrong, but i think if she actually did get the nomination, she'd set the party back for at least one, and maybe two election cycles.
0 Replies
 
hawkeye10
 
  0  
Reply Sat 13 Feb, 2010 09:47 pm
Please repeat after me........"Sarah Palin must be taken seriously"
Quote:
Liberals had a blast mocking Sarah Palin last weekend when she was caught addressing the Tea Party Convention with a cheat sheet scrawled on her hand. Even the president’s press secretary, Robert Gibbs, couldn’t resist getting into the act and treated a White House briefing to a Palin hand gag of his own.


Yet the laughter rang hollow. You had to wonder if Palin, who is nothing if not cunning, had sprung a trap. She knows all too well that the more the so-called elites lampoon her, the more she cements her cred with the third of the country that is her base. Her hand hieroglyphics may not have been speaking aids but bait.

If so, mission accomplished. Her sleight of hand gave the anti-Palin chorus another prod to deride her as an empty-headed, subliterate clown, and her fans another cue to rally. The only problem is that the serious import of Palin’s overriding political message got lost in this distracting sideshow. That message has the power to upend the Obama presidency " even if Palin, with her record-low approval ratings, never gets anywhere near the White House.

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/02/14/opinion/14rich.html
0 Replies
 
georgeob1
 
  1  
Reply Sat 13 Feb, 2010 11:50 pm
I am bemused by the expressions of certainty, coming from people here and in the media who should know better, that Sarah Palin is, beyond doubt, some variety of cretin who certainly doesn't understand the arcane issues of economics, political, and social policy in the way that real intellectuals such as Barack Obama, Joe Biden, Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid, Chris Dodd and, for us Californians, Barbara Boxer all do .

The earnest, somewhat forced and de rigeur, quality of these pronouncements leaves the listener with the impression that the various speakers are offering them as a somewhat ritualistic demonstration that they too are "with it", and therefore in the know - able to see the emperors grand new clothes. It's almost like the rote statements offered by the characters in the now old film, "The Manchurian Candidate".

It is becoming increasingly clear that the esteemed Harvard law grad and token law review editor, and intellectual par excellence - Barack Obama, thinks that raising government taxation and spending as a fraction of GDP is a good way to stimulate economic growth. When we get to the end of this road, when everyone is employed by the government and paid with taxes colllected from their wages we may find a few contradictions here that escaped this obviously gifted "intellectual".

I could go on with a litany of the obviously intellectual characteristics of these other political luminaries, .... but I think you altready get the point.
hawkeye10
 
  0  
Reply Sun 14 Feb, 2010 12:35 am
@georgeob1,
Quote:
I am bemused by the expressions of certainty, coming from people here and in the media who should know better, that Sarah Palin is, beyond doubt, some variety of cretin who certainly doesn't understand the arcane issues of economics, political, and social policy in the way that real intellectuals such as Barack Obama, Joe Biden, Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid, Chris Dodd and, for us Californians, Barbara Boxer all do


What she understands and does not understand makes for an interesting discussion, however, it is beyond debate that she knows how to whip up a crowd and knows where to plant the knife for maximum effectiveness. These skills will take her far....already have in fact.
0 Replies
 
plainoldme
 
  1  
Reply Tue 1 Jun, 2010 10:54 pm
Since sarah was said to have used the same word Stephen Colbert used, I felt this is an appropriate place for this blog from Ms.


Not to dismiss Shakespeare, but in some cases what’s in a name really does matter. Former Alaska governor Sarah Palin is pushing the boundaries of what it can possibly mean to be a feminist by boldly dropping the f-bomb in a speech to the Susan B. Anthony List, a PAC that supports anti-choice congressional candidates. According to Palin, and some surprising supporters, she has every right to consider herself a feminist"all she has to do is call herself one. Is that all it takes? Can anyone be a feminist, no matter their political agenda?
Granted, there has always been disagreement among feminists on certain issues. I’m thinking here about some of the Great Debates, discussions that still come up with regularity in my women’s studies classroom. These conversations center on issues like prostitution, pornography, religion"or maybe if feminists can wear makeup and high heels. On these issues, it seems to me, most feminists have agreed to continue talking"or have agreed to disagree. These are issues of personal interest and, for the most part, rest on personal values. But on other issues, there is no room for dissent. When it comes to taking away other women’s freedoms, other women’s rights, there is no room for debate. And let there be no doubt, Palin and company are all about making women’s choices for them.
In her speech, Palin focused on her own experiences"first finding out in 2007 that the child she was carrying had Down syndrome, later becoming the mother of a pregnant teen"as touch points in her stance against abortion rights. Because for Palin, her personal experiences are universally applicable. Never mind that she has resources (race, class, education, income) unavailable to many, if not most, American women.
That’s the problem with Palin and those like her who would take away abortion rights. They can’t see that the choices they have made are not necessarily options for someone else. Additionally, they can’t see that no one is asking them to make different choices, only asking that others be allowed to make their own decisions of conscience. When it comes down to it, that is what feminism is about"leaving everything on the table and respecting people enough to make informed choices for themselves.
But some feminists are giving Palin a pass in spite of her anti-choice stance. Los Angeles Times columnist Meghan Daum writes that if Palin “has the guts to call herself a feminist, then she’s entitled to be accepted as one.” That’s it. That’s the criteria. Daum defends her claim with the suggestion that more liberal feminists have dropped the ball, noting that many young women are more likely to adhere to feminist ideals without going so far as to call themselves feminists. Daum suggests that those who align themselves with a more traditional, liberal feminism have only themselves to blame for the current situation: “I’m not surprised Palin has seen fit to seize this dying nomenclature and rehabilitate it to meet her needs.”
That’s just wrong. A movement isn’t built on numbers, it’s built on values. And Palin’s “needs” are garnering votes for a political party that is at odds with the best interests of women.
Jessica Valenti responded to Palin, and those like Daum who support her claim to feminism in a recent Washington Post column, offering a definition of feminism that addresses what they seem to missing, or misunderstanding. Valenti writes, “Feminism is a social justice movement with values and goals that benefit women. It’s a structural analysis of a world that oppresses women, an ideology based on the notion that patriarchy exists and that it needs to end.”
By that, and any other reasonable definition, conservative politicians, particularly those who would deny women reproductive choice, can’t just find the “guts” to call themselves feminists and make it so. Sarah Palin is not a feminist. Feminism isn’t something one can merely claim. It is something one has to earn by virtue of one’s actions, and Palin has done nothing to earn the title.
hawkeye10
 
  -1  
Reply Wed 2 Jun, 2010 12:36 am
@plainoldme,
Quote:
, she has every right to consider herself a feminist"all she has to do is call herself one. Is that all it takes? Can anyone be a feminist, no matter their political agenda?
You betcha, and it is all the fault of the liberals. You folks are the ones who insisted that people are what ever they say they are. A person can be as white as me but if they want to be black then they are. Two chicks can be husband and wife and if they have kids be a family. a person with any grievance, real or imagined, are a victim if they say they are. and so on and so on....

What.....are you having second thoughts about this plan being a great idea?? Maybe, just possibly, standards are a good idea.
plainoldme
 
  1  
Reply Wed 2 Jun, 2010 08:55 am
@hawkeye10,
If we "have" to consider palin a feminist "because" of her self-labeling, than why bother to have dictionaries? Why bother to express philosophical concern for the meaning of words? Why not accept wholesale that whack-a-doo definitions of the okies and om sigs of the world?

You do understand, don't you, that a discussion is impossible without a consensus of defining terms?
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

 
Copyright © 2021 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 04/12/2021 at 09:02:09