The Sarah Palin Thread: 'Controversial Controversy' Edition

[Kelly]

Willow Palin is 16 years old.

Her opinion is irrelevant to anyone that cares about issues.

She is relevant ONLY if you are looking to talk about politics without dealing with actual issues. She is relevant ONLY if you want to MANUFACTURE a political story.

She is not relevant to anyone with any integrity.

Amen....

 

[DACrowe]

Exactly. Palin's as much a creation of the liberal media as she is anything.

Yep. She is a creation of the liberal media who works for Fox News and goes through conservative publishing houses for the books that she "writes." And it was the liberal media who picked her for VP form obscurity.

Your party's insiders may hate her now, but they created this mess and endangered America by making her an icon. Oh well.

 

[StorminNorman]

I don't have a party, I have an ideology.

As bad as Palin is, you are bordering on the absurd when you make her out to be some great threat to America. I think she would be awful for the country, but not much more than any candidate the GOP nominates outside of Gary Johnson or Ron Paul.

There is no criticism of Palin that can't be made about Obama. Both were too inexperienced in 2008, both are politicians of style and not substance, both rely upon their handlers far more than any leader should and both are equally clueless about the true magnitude of the problems facing this country. Furthermore, both advocated the escalation of combat, both advocated against equal treatment for gays, both support drug cartels and gang violence.

 

[DACrowe]

I was under the impression you planned to run for Congress as a Republican. That would infer you have a party, even if you disapprove of its leadership (of who I wrote).

And Palin would be a disaster in this country. Neocons said they could control Bush...and they did. And his smart "decisions" included starting an unnecessary war that cost us $1 trillion, 4,000+ dead Americans, and at least tens of thousands dead Iraqis. This also weakened us internationally as we lost the support and respect of our allies and were left weak to deal with problems like Darfur genocide, Iranian nuclear objectives and putting our full efforts in Afghanistan.

That was one of America's greatest blunders and that does not even mentioned the worthless Bush tax cuts that put another $3 trillion on the credit card, the fact that he disgraced American principles with torture, and he won his reelection, in part, by purporting bigotry and unconstitutional state laws that promoted discrimination.

Yes, ignorant people in the WH are very dangerous, in fact.

 

[bell110]

Palin "haters," want her to go away but they are the ones always bumping the thread, posting the stories, talking about her on MSNBC, etc.

It's something to talk about. It's what people do. It's the people who buy her books, and go to her public appearances, and watch her on tv that keep her in the spot light where she continues to make a fool of herself, that we will all laugh at.

I would say it goes the same for pretty much any media story. If there's one thing the media loves talking about more than the story, is how the media reacted to the story. (Balloon Boy, Katrina, etc)

Exactly. I always laugh when Fox "covers" how the liberal media covers a story rather than the story it's self.

Like it or not, Willow Palin isn't a 'nobody'. She is the daughter of a former vice-presidential candidate. She used a gay slur and she was called on it. What made the situation worse was the Palins handling of it. Your use of the same excuse the Palins used isn't good man. This had nothing to with the 'big bad liberal media'.

Yes. Like I said, she's the butt of her own joke. As soon as she shuts up, she won't have to worry about the media.

I honestly don't want Palin to go away. She's some good entertainment. But I don't want her to be President either. I hope she stays in the celebrity spotlight and not move back to politics. I don't trust the American public. I have a feeling a lot would vote for her if she were to run.

The 2010 elections were an obvious example of that.

 

[StorminNorman]

I was under the impression you planned to run for Congress as a Republican. That would infer you have a party, even if you disapprove of its leadership (of who I wrote).

Conceded.

And Palin would be a disaster in this country. Neocons said they could control Bush...and they did. And his smart "decisions" included starting an unnecessary war that cost us $1 trillion, 4,000+ dead Americans, and at least tens of thousands dead Iraqis. This also weakened us internationally as we lost the support and respect of our allies and were left weak to deal with problems like Darfur genocide, Iranian nuclear objectives and putting our full efforts in Afghanistan.

You know that I would contend that Obama's policies are even more dangerous than Bush's Neoconservatism with Palin's Conservativism (would you agree there are ideological differences?) And then you consider the other known candidates the GOP has. Mike Huckabee, Mitt Romney, Tim Pawlenty. Are any of them much better than Sarah Palin?

She is bad, but she isn't the cartoon character the left seems to think she is.

 

[DACrowe]

I do not like Romney due to his neoconservative tendencies, but he, Palwenty, Mitch Daniels and Haley Barbour would all be far superior choices than Palin. I give you that Huckabee is just as out there as Palin (he just doesn't wear it like a badge of honor). I think the Bush years showed what happens when you have somebody intellectually incurious or intentionally (and proudly) ignorant in the White House. I consider Bush to be one of the worst presidents in US history and no, I do not think Obama is near that level. In fact, I think Obama has done a decent job and may have a Truman-styled rise in the history books that Bush so longs for.

But ideology aside, narrow minded people should not be in the WH. That is why I find Palin as president a frightening concept. I can stomach (bitterly) the idea of Romeny or Daniels as president. With that said, I want Palin to get the nomination because it will ensure the GOP does not get the WH and it will give Obama more time to protect his policies that need half a decade to really take root.

 

[Kelly]

I do not like Romney due to his neoconservative tendencies, but he, Palwenty, Mitch Daniels and Haley Barbour would all be far superior choices than Palin. I give you that Huckabee is just as out there as Palin (he just doesn't wear it like a badge of honor). I think the Bush years showed what happens when you have somebody intellectually incurious or intentionally (and proudly) ignorant in the White House. I consider Bush to be one of the worst presidents in US history and no, I do not think Obama is near that level. In fact, I think Obama has done a decent job and may have a Truman-styled rise in the history books that Bush so longs for.

But ideology aside, narrow minded people should not be in the WH. That is why I find Palin as president a frightening concept. I can stomach (bitterly) the idea of Romeny or Daniels as president. With that said, I want Palin to get the nomination because it will ensure the GOP does not get the WH and it will give Obama more time to protect his policies that need half a decade to really take root.

Same thing said about FDR's policies....

Here's the thing I see....

I see our economy as givers and takers....you are a taker when you are born, for about 20 years you are then a giver once you begin paying taxes, and when you retire you become a taker once again. I'm a simple person, that is how I see it.

When FDR started his gifts to the takers programs....the takers at the top of the population pyramid, were living to about 70 on average, meaning they were takers for about 5 years. So people were givers for around 40 to 45 years, and takers for about 25 years.....government was looking good with that.

That is not the case today....your takers at the top end are living into their 80's now....AND as the baby boomers begin to retire that top end is HUGE....for the next 20 years with fewer and fewer givers being born.

Europe is going through this at a much faster rate, and with astronomical taxes. We need to really watch Europe. We could learn from their mistakes.

I don't look at ideology, I look at reality......our government needs to do that as well.

 

[Marx]

Sarah Palin is coming to SW Ohio again tomorrow for her new real american book tour.

 

[Hobgoblin]

Sarah Palin is coming to SW Ohio again tomorrow for her new real american book tour.

I'm sorry.

 

[Alex The Great]

Throw a shoe at her

 

[bell110]

Same thing said about FDR's policies....

Here's the thing I see....

I see our economy as givers and takers....you are a taker when you are born, for about 20 years you are then a giver once you begin paying taxes, and when you retire you become a taker once again. I'm a simple person, that is how I see it.

When FDR started his gifts to the takers programs....the takers at the top of the population pyramid, were living to about 70 on average, meaning they were takers for about 5 years. So people were givers for around 40 to 45 years, and takers for about 25 years.....government was looking good with that.

That is not the case today....your takers at the top end are living into their 80's now....AND as the baby boomers begin to retire that top end is HUGE....for the next 20 years with fewer and fewer givers being born.

Europe is going through this at a much faster rate, and with astronomical taxes. We need to really watch Europe. We could learn from their mistakes.

I don't look at ideology, I look at reality......our government needs to do that as well.

I think we should get rid of social security. Let the Tea Partiers put their money were their mouth is. After all, I don't feel like my money should go to let old people live into their 80's, especially if they are not contributing to society.

 

[Kelly]

Well, we pretty much have gotten rid of Social Security. It isn't doing what it was put in place to do now anyway...so it is pretty much obsolete as far as being a security for anyone.

Social Security wouldn't be a bad thing....IF what "you" were paying into it, comes back to "you" when you retire. It doesn't.....it has already been spent a couple of times over.....

 

[chaseter]

I agree that what you pay into it is what you should get out. The government should be able to keep the interest. However, social security is another safety net set up by the government when people should be setting up their own safety net and not relying on the government. How hard is it to put away 50-100 bucks a paycheck instead of it coming directly out of your paycheck and going to the government?

 

[Ghostvirus]

I do enjoy her rebellious attitude. Handing out unhealthy lunches just to piss off the democrats. & on her show she said she likes clubbing halibut for various reasons, but also because if pisses off the dems. I kind of dig that attitude. I wish the democrats had that.

 

[Marx]

I'm sorry.

Thanks man.

Throw a shoe at her

She's not worth the arrest record...or the loss of my shoe.

 

[Hobgoblin]

I do enjoy her rebellious attitude. Handing out unhealthy lunches just to piss off the democrats. & on her show she said she likes clubbing halibut for various reasons, but also because if pisses off the dems. I kind of dig that attitude. I wish the democrats had that.

Blatantly ticking off the opposing party. That exactly what I want in a leader.

 

[Kelly]

Blatantly ticking off the opposing party. That exactly what I want in a leader.

That's what we have right now.....

 

[TimBisley]

Oh god, you people are absolutely ridiculous.

 

[Kelly]

...

 

[Ghostvirus]

Blatantly ticking off the opposing party. That exactly what I want in a leader.

If the opposition is stupid enough to fall for it. Then yes.

Its like when PETA got all pissy about Gaga wearing that meat dress. What the hell do you think she wore it fore! If you can't recognise when you are being lured, then you aren't a leader I want.

 

[Youk]

That's what we have right now.....

wow...

 

[Hobgoblin]

If the opposition is stupid enough to fall for it. Then yes.

Its like when PETA got all pissy about Gaga wearing that meat dress. What the hell do you think she wore it fore! If you can't recognise when you are being lured, then you aren't a leader I want.

Of course a leader should know when they are being lured. It doesnt mean I want them to do the luring for political points. Its cheap and divisive.

 

[imdaly]

Surprise: Sarah Palin's Ratings Rise
Nov. 30, 2010

Sarah Palin's fortunes are improving on TLC.

Ratings for the politician's Alaska-based reality show grew for her third episode, reversing course after dropping sharply last week.

Sarah Palin's Alaska delivered 3.5 million viewers Sunday night, rising 17% at the conclusion of the holiday weekend.

Normally when ratings go down double digits for a second episode, the third outing generally falls at least a little, but not in this case. Palin may also have benefited from some weaker competition (ABC had the Country Music Awards the previous week). Even so, this is great news for TLC.

The Alaska episode to watch will be in two weeks, when Kate Gosselin guest stars.

News wasn't all positive for freshman Sunday shows: The second week of History's Top Gear dropped 32% to only 1.3 million viewers.

Source

Apparently ratings rose 42% in the 18-49 yr-old demographic.

 

[Kelly]

Last weeks was probably due to Thanksgiving week, which is not unusual. But, damn....18 -- 49 year olds? THAT is the demographic that keeps you on the air.


*sighs*