Sarah Palin thoughts

dblboggie wrote:

TexasBlue wrote:You guys gave me something to do.... dig up myths of Sarah Palin.

Now.... I've pointed out repeatedly that I don't think she's electable. I don't think she'd make a good president. What she is good at is pissing off the left.

I had fun digging all of this up.

Good job Tex. Again, we see how some how bought into the myths circulated not just in cyberspace, but in the mainstream media itself, and have run with it without so much as a nod toward objective research to see if what they were parroting was true or not.

Some of what I dug up even surprised me... if you can believe that!

TexasBlue wrote:

i_luv_miley wrote:As for the stuff you posted, that's all well and good and perhaps some of the criticism against her is unwarranted. But one thing cannot be disputed: she quit as governor and then went on to become a celebrity. That is not the mark of someone we should trust. IMO, she's nothing more than an attention seeker.

And to think John McCain chose her to be his running mate.

Much of the criticism towards her was unwarranted. Are there things that the left disagrees with on her policies? Of course! I wouldn't suggest otherwise. It would make me a hypocrite in my criticism of Obama and other Democrats.

She quit. So what? The bullshit she had to listen to for the duration of the campaign was relentless. The fucked up shit people said about her daughter (Bristol) was beyond the pale. Not even conservatives went after Obama's kid. When she resigned, it didn't bother me. So, why should it bother anyone else? Unless people are obsessed with what she does, nobody should care. I personally believe she did it to deflect the shit she was going to be hammered on. She's still being hammered and she's not even running for any political office for Christ sake!

I sincerely tire of criticism of people who aren't in office setting national policy. Half the shit people accused her of is false. Another facet is how people say things like 'she'd roll back Roe v Wade.' Saying something of that stature is such bullshit that I can't let stuff like that go unanswered. Presidents and VP's can't change a law that has been ruled on by the USSC with a stroke of a pen. It's like Cable saying that "At least 16 states still have pre-1973 anti-abortion laws on the books even though they are clearly unconstitutional and nullified under Roe v. Wade." That was a blatant misrepresentation of the truth.

IMO, the reason that she quit as governor is irrelevant. The fact is, she quit. And it's only my opinion but I think she quit, not because of the pressure on herself or her family, but IMO, she quit because she saw that she could make more money as a celebrity. IMO, that speaks volumes about her priorities. And we still can't deny that she just wasn't ready (or prepared) for the job. Ultimately, as much as us lefties criticize Palin, it was McCain that chose her in the first place. Clearly he hadn't done his homework.

She did quit and I don't care. Why should you or anyone else? It seems to add to the PDS (Palin Derangement Syndrome). I don't care what Carter or Clinton do since they've become private citizens and nobody else should either.

Again, I believe she did it because she felt that all the bullshit in the media (leftist attacks) would have clouded anything she would've done up there. But that's my opinion as much as it is your opinion that she can make more money. That is an opinion not based on anything but that.

Don't confuse me with being a Palin supporter. You'd be awfully hard-pressed to find anything posted by me on her other than relevant news articles.

TexasBlue wrote:She did quit and I don't care. Why should you or anyone else? It seems to add to the PDS (Palin Derangement Syndrome). I don't care what Carter or Clinton do since they've become private citizens and nobody else should either.

Again, I believe she did it because she felt that all the bullshit in the media (leftist attacks) would have clouded anything she would've done up there. But that's my opinion as much as it is your opinion that she can make more money. That is an opinion not based on anything but that.

Don't confuse me with being a Palin supporter. You'd be awfully hard-pressed to find anything posted by me on her other than relevant news articles.

I don't care what Carter or Clinton have done either. But that's irrelevant. The point is, neither of them quit. Both of them finished their terms and then moved on. Palin, on the other hand, quit - in the middle of her term. The fact is, before McCain chose her as his running mate, nobody outside of Alaska had even heard of her. But McCain chose her anyway and she quickly became a "star". And as a result of that, she quit the governorship. IMO, that speaks volumes about her priorities. She's nothing more than a celebrity.

Had the media committed just half of the resources it committed to Wasilla for a VP candidate to the man at the top of the opposing ticket, perhaps voters might have thought twice about putting an untested legislative backbencher into the toughest executive position in the world.

TexasBlue wrote:Well Matt, put your money where your mouth is and throw out the evidence on Palin. I have already busted the myth of the "see Russia from my house" line. Turns out that was a fabrication by the left.

Sarah Palin, religious nut (on a mission from God), jingoistic warmonger:



Yeah, she's so neutral on climate change: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/12/08/AR2009120803402.html. http://www.salon.com/technology/how_the_world_works/2009/12/09/sarah_palin_and_climate_change

Sarah Palin is anti science, thinks money is wasted on fruitfly research. Research, incidentally, that has helped several charities she is a patron of:



Hitchens responds: http://www.slate.com/id/2203120/

Teach both: http://www.wired.com/wiredscience/2008/08/mccains-vp-want/ No. both should not be taught because there is no evidence for creationism, no evidence that the planet is 6000 years old and evolutionary theory has already given us so much.

TexasBlue wrote:Had the media committed just half of the resources it committed to Wasilla for a VP candidate to the man at the top of the opposing ticket, perhaps voters might have thought twice about putting an untested legislative backbencher into the toughest executive position in the world.

So you're equating a community organizer, activist, lecturer, Harvard graduate, author with someone who's contribution was being a beauty queen? Yeah, okay. Whatever.

And once again, this thread is about Palin, not Obama.

The_Amber_Spyglass wrote:Sarah Palin, religious nut (on a mission from God), jingoistic warmonger:

Regarding the war monger bit.... this was in answer to the question on the Bush "doctrine." It's a phrase made up by the media. People have defined it as taking "pre-emptive" action, but nothing is written down. There is no official "doctrine" on paper or gov't policy.

Religious nut?

Palin wrote:I believe that there is a plan for this world, and that plan for this world is for good.

And the point would be??????????

The_Amber_Spyglass wrote:Sarah Palin is anti science, thinks money is wasted on fruitfly research. Research, incidentally, that has helped several charities she is a patron of:

I've seen this before. It was taken out of context of gov't spending. Not research in itself.

The_Amber_Spyglass wrote:Teach both: http://www.wired.com/wiredscience/2008/08/mccains-vp-want/ No. both should not be taught because there is no evidence for creationism, no evidence that the planet is 6000 years old and evolutionary theory has already given us so much.

This a part I disagree with Palin on (surprise!). But my question is why people are against it? Over here, people screech about separation of church and state. But the very same people shit on the rest of the constitution regarding the 8th, 9th and 10th sections of Article One of the constitution.

This is what galls me about the anti-religion people. Keep in mind, I have no use for religion personally. But many of those on that side make their case regarding the gov't and religion (and are mostly correct about it) but at the same time circumvent other parts of of our constitution. Explain.

i_luv_miley wrote:So you're equating a community organizer, activist, lecturer, Harvard graduate, author with someone who's contribution was being a beauty queen? Yeah, okay. Whatever.

What kind of executive experience does Obama have? None. Zero. Nada.

i_luv_miley wrote:And once again, this thread is about Palin, not Obama.

Stop backseat modding. Moonman isn't setting the rules of debate here.

TexasBlue wrote:

i_luv_miley wrote:So you're equating a community organizer, activist, lecturer, Harvard graduate, author with someone who's contribution was being a beauty queen? Yeah, okay. Whatever.

What kind of executive experience does Obama have? None. Zero. Nada.

i_luv_miley wrote:And once again, this thread is about Palin, not Obama.

Stop backseat modding. Moonman isn't setting the rules of debate here.

Actually having been President for the past two years, I would say that Obama has plenty of executive experience. And yes, I'm being stinky... But the point is, what experience did Palin have two years ago? None, except for being a beauty queen. So I would submit that, at that time, given what they both had done, Obama was far more qualified. Again, it all comes down to McCain not doing his homework.

And I'm not trying to mod. I'm simply calling out your deflection of the topic.

i_luv_miley wrote:Actually having been President for the past two years, I would say that Obama has plenty of executive experience. And yes, I'm being stinky... But the point is, what experience did Palin have two years ago? None, except for being a beauty queen. So I would submit that, at that time, given what they both had done, Obama was far more qualified. Again, it all comes down to McCain not doing his homework.

Of course he has experience.... now. Before, he had none. Zero. Nada. Palin was a councilperson. Bama was not. Palin was a mayor. Bama was not. Palin was on the Alaska Oil and Gas Conservation Commission, which oversees Alaska's oil and gas fields. Bama had no similar appointment. She served as a state governor. Bama had no experience in that. Like it or not, being a mayor and a governor are executive positions. To belittle her governorship based on the state population is like saying that the CEO of Tri-Dal Ltd isn't an executive position like being the CEO of Best Buy. Sure, there's more things to deal with as far as larger corporations/states go but to make light of her job as governor is dishonest. Bama had no executive experience. Period.

i_luv_miley wrote:And I'm not trying to mod. I'm simply calling out your deflection of the topic.

Then say that then. Just remember though.... deflecting an issue goes both ways. Also, I wasn't deflecting squat. I was pointing out an opinion based on fact.

i_luv_miley wrote:

TexasBlue wrote:

i_luv_miley wrote:So you're equating a community organizer, activist, lecturer, Harvard graduate, author with someone who's contribution was being a beauty queen? Yeah, okay. Whatever.

What kind of executive experience does Obama have? None. Zero. Nada.

i_luv_miley wrote:And once again, this thread is about Palin, not Obama.

Stop backseat modding. Moonman isn't setting the rules of debate here.

Actually having been President for the past two years, I would say that Obama has plenty of executive experience. And yes, I'm being stinky... But the point is, what experience did Palin have two years ago? None, except for being a beauty queen. So I would submit that, at that time, given what they both had done, Obama was far more qualified. Again, it all comes down to McCain not doing his homework.

And I'm not trying to mod. I'm simply calling out your deflection of the topic.

You really like harping on the beauty queen thing don't you? You do realize she done a few more things since those 2 pageants way back in 1984 while she was still in school right? Perhaps you weren't aware because the mainstream media, or far left blogger you follow don't mention these sorts of things, but Palin has done a lot more than a couple of beauty pageants.

Let's see, she graduated with a BA in communications, with an emphasis on journalism. Worked at a couple of TV stations as a sportscaster and sports reporter. She got married, and then worked in her husbands commercial fishing business (a REAL job, unlike Obama). She was the blow-out winner of a Wasilla City Council twice, then she ran for Mayor of Wasilla, twice, with overwhelming majorities both times btw. Then she was appointed to the Alaska Oil and Gas Conservation Commission, where she actually exposed unethical activities by a fellow commission member (a Republican btw), like leaking confidential information to oil-industry insiders. Then she was elected Governor of Alaska (the youngest person to win that seat and the first woman to ever hold that post), her 3rd stint as an executive.

All in all, I'd say Sarah's work record makes her FAR more qualified than Obama, who was, as you so hilariously pointed out was a "community organizer, activist, lecturer, Harvard graduate, author ." Right, being a rabble-rousing "activist" and "community organizer" (a-la Rules for Radicals author Saul Alinksky) are just top-notch qualifications to be the senior executive of America. The same goes being a Harvard graduate, lecturer and author. Obama's never worked a real job in his entire life. And he has NEVER been an executive of so much as a hotdog stand, never mind for a city (no matter how small) or a state.

I don't know what sort of hallucinatory world one would have to live in to consider Obama's resume as fitting him for the job of President of the United States of America, but it is a world I want no part of for sure.

TexasBlue wrote:

The_Amber_Spyglass wrote:Sarah Palin, religious nut (on a mission from God), jingoistic warmonger:

Regarding the war monger bit.... this was in answer to the question on the Bush "doctrine."

No, the mission from God to invade Iran.

TexasBlue wrote:And the point would be??????????

Tied to the above point. Not only is Uncle Sam right to invade Iran, but you have a mandate from God. And she is still a rapture cultist. Dangerous combination.

TexasBlue wrote:I've seen this before. It was taken out of context of gov't spending. Not research in itself

no, she referred to pet projects "in Paris, France I kid you not". Why would your government be giving money to French universities for 'pet projects'? And why would she be criticising the Bush administration for doing that? She didn't know what the money was for or how it has benefited humanity, nor did she care. She just wanted to show scientists (and those quaint Europeans with their big government and Orwellian healthcare) up for clueless money wasters.

TexasBlue wrote:This is what galls me about the anti-religion people.

Creationism is not science. There is no evidence and no controversy and no anti-Christian conspiracy. Evolution is fact and until there is testable evidence that the planet is 6000 years old, that Jesus had a pet dinosaur, and until there is evidence of supernatural design, such a concept does not belong in science classes.

dblboggie wrote:

i_luv_miley wrote:

TexasBlue wrote:

i_luv_miley wrote:So you're equating a community organizer, activist, lecturer, Harvard graduate, author with someone who's contribution was being a beauty queen? Yeah, okay. Whatever.

What kind of executive experience does Obama have? None. Zero. Nada.

i_luv_miley wrote:And once again, this thread is about Palin, not Obama.

Stop backseat modding. Moonman isn't setting the rules of debate here.

Actually having been President for the past two years, I would say that Obama has plenty of executive experience. And yes, I'm being stinky... But the point is, what experience did Palin have two years ago? None, except for being a beauty queen. So I would submit that, at that time, given what they both had done, Obama was far more qualified. Again, it all comes down to McCain not doing his homework.

And I'm not trying to mod. I'm simply calling out your deflection of the topic.

You really like harping on the beauty queen thing don't you? You do realize she done a few more things since those 2 pageants way back in 1984 while she was still in school right? Perhaps you weren't aware because the mainstream media, or far left blogger you follow don't mention these sorts of things, but Palin has done a lot more than a couple of beauty pageants.

Let's see, she graduated with a BA in communications, with an emphasis on journalism. Worked at a couple of TV stations as a sportscaster and sports reporter. She got married, and then worked in her husbands commercial fishing business (a REAL job, unlike Obama). She was the blow-out winner of a Wasilla City Council twice, then she ran for Mayor of Wasilla, twice, with overwhelming majorities both times btw. Then she was appointed to the Alaska Oil and Gas Conservation Commission, where she actually exposed unethical activities by a fellow commission member (a Republican btw), like leaking confidential information to oil-industry insiders. Then she was elected Governor of Alaska (the youngest person to win that seat and the first woman to ever hold that post), her 3rd stint as an executive.

All in all, I'd say Sarah's work record makes her FAR more qualified than Obama, who was, as you so hilariously pointed out was a "community organizer, activist, lecturer, Harvard graduate, author ." Right, being a rabble-rousing "activist" and "community organizer" (a-la Rules for Radicals author Saul Alinksky) are just top-notch qualifications to be the senior executive of America. The same goes being a Harvard graduate, lecturer and author. Obama's never worked a real job in his entire life. And he has NEVER been an executive of so much as a hotdog stand, never mind for a city (no matter how small) or a state.

I don't know what sort of hallucinatory world one would have to live in to consider Obama's resume as fitting him for the job of President of the United States of America, but it is a world I want no part of for sure.

Oh, I stand corrected. She's got a BA in Communications and worked on TV as a sportscaster. Yup, that qualifies her alright. Hey I know, let's elect Keith Olbermann to office! At least what he says is based in a semblance of truth.

And quit it with the personal attacks, dblboggie. I'm beyond tired of them - especially from you.

i_luv_miley wrote:

dblboggie wrote:

i_luv_miley wrote:

TexasBlue wrote:

i_luv_miley wrote:So you're equating a community organizer, activist, lecturer, Harvard graduate, author with someone who's contribution was being a beauty queen? Yeah, okay. Whatever.

What kind of executive experience does Obama have? None. Zero. Nada.

i_luv_miley wrote:And once again, this thread is about Palin, not Obama.

Stop backseat modding. Moonman isn't setting the rules of debate here.

Actually having been President for the past two years, I would say that Obama has plenty of executive experience. And yes, I'm being stinky... But the point is, what experience did Palin have two years ago? None, except for being a beauty queen. So I would submit that, at that time, given what they both had done, Obama was far more qualified. Again, it all comes down to McCain not doing his homework.

And I'm not trying to mod. I'm simply calling out your deflection of the topic.

You really like harping on the beauty queen thing don't you? You do realize she done a few more things since those 2 pageants way back in 1984 while she was still in school right? Perhaps you weren't aware because the mainstream media, or far left blogger you follow don't mention these sorts of things, but Palin has done a lot more than a couple of beauty pageants.

Let's see, she graduated with a BA in communications, with an emphasis on journalism. Worked at a couple of TV stations as a sportscaster and sports reporter. She got married, and then worked in her husbands commercial fishing business (a REAL job, unlike Obama). She was the blow-out winner of a Wasilla City Council twice, then she ran for Mayor of Wasilla, twice, with overwhelming majorities both times btw. Then she was appointed to the Alaska Oil and Gas Conservation Commission, where she actually exposed unethical activities by a fellow commission member (a Republican btw), like leaking confidential information to oil-industry insiders. Then she was elected Governor of Alaska (the youngest person to win that seat and the first woman to ever hold that post), her 3rd stint as an executive.

All in all, I'd say Sarah's work record makes her FAR more qualified than Obama, who was, as you so hilariously pointed out was a "community organizer, activist, lecturer, Harvard graduate, author ." Right, being a rabble-rousing "activist" and "community organizer" (a-la Rules for Radicals author Saul Alinksky) are just top-notch qualifications to be the senior executive of America. The same goes being a Harvard graduate, lecturer and author. Obama's never worked a real job in his entire life. And he has NEVER been an executive of so much as a hotdog stand, never mind for a city (no matter how small) or a state.

I don't know what sort of hallucinatory world one would have to live in to consider Obama's resume as fitting him for the job of President of the United States of America, but it is a world I want no part of for sure.

Oh, I stand corrected. She's got a BA in Communications and worked on TV as a sportscaster. Yup, that qualifies her alright.

I see, so this is how you are going to debate the point, eh? Just IGNORE the fact that she was on the city council 2 times, did 2 stints as a Mayor, served on the Alaska Oil and Gas Conservation Commission, and served as Governor of Alaska, right?

Your bias is so nakedly obvious it should be embarrassing for you to display it thus. After ALL that I and Tex laid out, you reduce it to her BA in communications and her TV gigs. It must just GALL you that she is so much more qualified than Obama ever will be to be President. So you hide this in belittling her actual record by IGNORING huge swaths of it.

Real clever there.

i_luv_miley wrote:Hey I know, let's elect Keith Olbermann to office! At least what he says is based in a semblance of truth.

Wow! If you think that ANYTHING that Olbermann says has even a distant semblance of truth, you are seriously deluding yourself.

i_luv_miley wrote:And quit it with the personal attacks, dblboggie. I'm beyond tired of them - especially from you.

I'll tell ya what sport, when you become the moderator, I'll listen. In the meantime, if you can't hack political debate, then I suggest you not engage in it.

And if there is ANYTHING in my post that you could interpret as a "personal attack," then you really should seriously rethink engaging in political debate.

My main problem with you dblboggie is, and has always been, that your premise is wrong - always. You start with the idea that Obama out to destroy America. So no matter what, given that, everything you say is irrelevant. Why not just stick with the topic at hand and then go from there???

And don't call me "sport". It is demeaning to me.

I'm going to reply to the bit here directed at me. I do have to defend myself you know

If I point out that Obama isn't qualified while discussing Palin's qualifications, that's not changing the subject. It is a relevant piece of this Palin discussion since she was on the ticket running against Obama. It's an interchangeable issue. No, it's not an issue to just go off on an Obama tangent completely, but to discuss it in context of the topic... it is relevant.

By the way, I think we're all friends here. Let's act like it. I have hardly anything in common with liberal ideology but we all probably have other things in common that bind us together. This is what the community chat thread is for... to get away from the political bullshit and see each other for what we really are outside of politics.

i_luv_miley wrote:My main problem with you dblboggie is, and has always been, that your premise is wrong - always. You start with the idea that Obama out to destroy America. So no matter what, given that, everything you say is irrelevant. Why not just stick with the topic at hand and then go from there???

And don't call me "sport". It is demeaning to me.

Your main problem as I see it is that you take things far too personally, something that is not a good thing in a political debate - or any debate for that matter. I don't dislike you in the least, and I have friends who are even more liberal than you. But I'd hate to think that I have to tread on eggshells every time we have an exchange.

Now then, that out of the way, you say my premise is "always" wrong, but we were not debating this alleged premise, we were debating who had better qualifications, Palin or Obama.

Rather than acknowledge Palins' many accomplishments, you made this patently and provably false statement:

i_luv_miley wrote:But the point is, what experience did Palin have two years ago? None, except for being a beauty queen.

You KNEW this statement was blatantly false, yet you persisted on making it twice! And when confronted with her ACTUAL record, you relented a tiny bit and said, and I quote:

i_luv_miley wrote:Oh, I stand corrected. She's got a BA in Communications and worked on TV as a sportscaster. Yup, that qualifies her alright.

Both of these were purposely condescending in their syntax, and you knew this, but I refused to rise to the bait.

The point is, you refuse to debate the facts here. You refused to be honest about her EXECUTIVE experience and Obama's complete LACK of ANY executive experience on ANY level.

At no time during this short exchange had I mentioned the "premise" you allege above.

If we are going to debate issues, then we should debate the facts. And the fact is that Obama had NO executive experience before being elected, and had actually never held a real world job in his life. No job that he has ever held produced a single product that anyone would want to buy. Well, to be fair, he did ONE job that produced a product, he did produce 2 books (unless the allegations that the books were ghost written are true).

TexasBlue wrote:By the way, I think we're all friends here. Let's act like it. I have hardly anything in common with liberal ideology but we all probably have other things in common that bind us together. This is what the community chat thread is for... to get away from the political bullshit and see each other for what we really are outside of politics.

I agree... we should use the chat more for the very reason you suggest!

Ok I have just reviewed the thread. I'm not going to lock it, for now because it is not beyond saving. It has descended into petty bickering rather than outright flame war.

dbl, you need to stop accusing people you disagree with of being a Communist. I thought that attitude died in the 1970s? Though I don't think that it constitutes a personal attack, it was incredibly petty. It is neither mature, constructive or accurate and it is no wonder he acted the way he did. But ilm, dbl gave a mini biography that you picked at in order to make an equally childish point

Everyone needs to focus on the subject of the thread. The next remark that I think even approaches being snide or petty and I will lock the thread.

So, everybody take a deep breath and carry on.

The_Amber_Spyglass wrote:Ok I have just reviewed the thread. I'm not going to lock it, for now because it is not beyond saving. It has descended into petty bickering rather than outright flame war.

dbl, you need to stop accusing people you disagree with of being a Communist. I thought that attitude died in the 1970s? Though I don't think that it constitutes a personal attack, it was incredibly petty. It is neither mature, constructive or accurate and it is no wonder he acted the way he did. But ilm, dbl gave a mini biography that you picked at in order to make an equally childish point

Everyone needs to focus on the subject of the thread. The next remark that I think even approaches being snide or petty and I will lock the thread.

So, everybody take a deep breath and carry on.

Where did I accuse anyone in this thread of being a communist???

The comments about ILM reading "far left blogs". It isn't the first time you have done that. It is neither accurate nor mature. Someone of your age ought to know better.