Palin's Sailin' - Page 3

Originally Posted by screener

Possibly, but constantly whining ad-hom, sometimes multiple times when replying to a post is as bad as complaining about Jon Stuart, or the left wing media conspiracy or the socialism scare tactic more than one poster constantly brings up and the favorite of mine, stealing my money.

Fucking hell.

Originally Posted by talksense101

Too much trash going around in the media these days. Here is a response by Palin's attorney.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...070502700.html

Originally Posted by Bergermeister

Reading the fallout over her resignation is pretty funny, especially how her supporters support her by, well, not saying anything good about her but trying desperately to keep the attack on the media and Obama. Many critics, on the other hand, have offered well-argued points, often citing her own words and positions.

Add to it her amazing July 4th disappearing act and memo and comedy doesn't get any better.

If she is the best the GOP can put forward, the GOP has some serious problems. Hopefully, her exit will help them learn a little and grow from the experience.


Just read that she will likely easily pull $60,000 per speaking engagement from here on; wow. What happened to that ordinary hockey mom?

Originally Posted by SDW2001

Here's my question...why should her "supporters" have to defend this action at all? Why should she have to defend herself from some truly brutal personal attacks, often from those that claim to support women's rights and advancement?



See, there you go. You get to lob a below-the-belt blow. Then, when somebody tried to defend it, you say "see! You can't say anything good about her...you're just attacking the attacker!" However, the real issue is those (like you) lobbing ridiculous attacks to begin with. God forbid a politician resigns to focus on a possible presidential run, speaking engagements for which she actually gets paid, and an end to the horrible and unprecedented personal attacks against her and her family.

Tell me, why I have I not heard about anyone taking issue with the money making enterprises of Clinton, Gore, etc?

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...022202189.html

Righto, because that's different. They're Democrats. She's a dim-witted right wing nutjob witha fake accent and a slutty stewardess look.

She's a dim-witted right wing nutjob witha fake accent and a slutty stewardess look

Originally Posted by dfiler

Did anyone see Karl Rove on Fox "News" this weekend?

It's interesting to note that he did basically what amounted to a backhanded smear segment on Palin. In other words, the Republican machine is now distancing itself from Palin. Or at least the Rove influenced portion of the machine is already doing so. It was already somewhat that way, but the comments by Karl Rove this weekend really cemented their position.

So now I'm left wondering, do they simply have someone else in mind, or is there a scandal waiting to break?

Originally Posted by trumptman

This is pretty much summed up by the threads on this board which shows near hysteria by the left created by Sarah Palin. It is clear by the number of drummed ethics charges and by the nastiest comments for a public figure I've ever seen that they fear her to the point of not just hating her, but possibly harming her. So I hope she takes her break, keeps her family safe and will re-engage at some point when people won't be treated credibly for hoping that her daughter is raped, posting nasty caricatures about her son with Down sydrome, and can pay for the charges they allege.

In the meantime, shrug Sarah, shrug.

This is pretty much summed up by the threads on this board which shows near hysteria by the left created by Sarah Palin

Originally Posted by trumptman

This is pretty much summed up by the threads on this board which shows near hysteria by the left created by Sarah Palin. It is clear by the number of drummed ethics charges and by the nastiest comments for a public figure I've ever seen that they fear her to the point of not just hating her, but possibly harming her. So I hope she takes her break, keeps her family safe and will re-engage at some point when people won't be treated credibly for hoping that her daughter is raped, posting nasty caricatures about her son with Down sydrome, and can pay for the charges they allege.

In the meantime, shrug Sarah, shrug.

Originally Posted by SDW2001

Here's my question...why should her "supporters" have to defend this action at all? Why should she have to defend herself from some truly brutal personal attacks, often from those that claim to support women's rights and advancement?

See, there you go. You get to lob a below-the-belt blow. Then, when somebody tried to defend it, you say "see! You can't say anything good about her...you're just attacking the attacker!" However, the real issue is those (like you) lobbing ridiculous attacks to begin with. God forbid a politician resigns to focus on a possible presidential run, speaking engagements for which she actually gets paid, and an end to the horrible and unprecedented personal attacks against her and her family.

Tell me, why I have I not heard about anyone taking issue with the money making enterprises of Clinton, Gore, etc?

Righto, because that's different. They're Democrats. She's a dim-witted right wing nutjob witha fake accent and a slutty stewardess look.

Originally Posted by dfiler

Sure, nut jobs are out there for all political parties or ideologies. But there was no abnormal hysteria over Palin.

Originally Posted by trumptman

Perhaps that level of hysteria is normal for the left, but for the right it would be abnormal.

Originally Posted by dfiler

I was hoping we could stick to discussing Sarah Palin instead of turning this into a more generalized right vs left thing. Did you notice that my post in this thread talked about Karl Rove and the Republicans without insulting either? Instead, it was addressed Palin's support from the GOP. It must not have been a very interesting topic I guess.

My second post explained why Palin has heavily scrutinized, also without any partison finger pointing. Basically, the nation had to evaluate a complete stranger very late in the campaign. All the attention was merited because she was an unknown.

And yet the rebutal was just "well the left is hysterical". So who's hysterical? Who brought up "wanting to rape", "down syndrom", etc? If anyone is hysterical, it is isolated individuals, not everyone who happens to disagree with us.

Originally Posted by dfiler

The scrutiny she received has been exactly inline with what is normal for our country. Sometimes the public and the press go too far. This is true no matter which person is involved. Her claiming to be singled out is preposterous.

But really, isn't all of this just an attempted distraction from the real issues? Shouldn't we be talking about her legacy as Governor? I'd sure like to hear more about the corruption charges. Yep, I was one of the few people who care enough to have read the entire trooper-gate report. Actually pretty good reading as far as dramas go.

Originally Posted by trumptman

Exhibit A for why this is pointless.

I'll be happy to read any articles you care to link to challenging the paternity or maternity of Malia or Sasha or any other politicians and their claimed children. I'll be happy to read any fashion critiques you have of any female politician other than Palin that has "slutty" as an adjective followed by a noun/occupation clearly meant to be derisive.

14 year olds cannot consent to sex. All sex with them is rape and thus I characterize joking about such sex as joking about rape. Defending it just makes it worse because trying to claim that you were wishing the sex on a different daughter just shows how bad and low the whole thing has gone.

Address the first couple bits and we might have grounds for a discussion. Otherwise the claim for standing out stands due to no other politician being given the same level of treatment.



Actually the real point of discussion should be the handy new tool that might be now used in the future to the detriment of the country. Imagine if someone had applied the same tactic to oh... Barack Obama a few years back when he was still a mostly broke State Senator and a guy with a big mortgage and a small paycheck. Suppose someone buried him under false charges back then instead of hearing him out?

The ramifications of this are important and go far beyond a Sarah Palin. It says to folks, unless you are big money or willing to cater to it, don't step into the light or be prepared to get buried by the legal process even if you are right. This is more like the Tucker motors of politics. Kill the competition before they become competition.

Given such an environment, I feel no one is under an obligation to sacrifice themselves for the public good. Let them shrug and let the public handle the harm.

Originally Posted by jimmac

trumptman it's more than that. She couldn't even do simple interviews on the issues! Please.

Originally Posted by trumptman

I'm not very impressed with the way Biden has handled his interviews. Perhaps I should begin referring to him as "Cumbucket" Biden.

I mean that reasoning is impressive! If I think someone is incompetent, we can treat them in any manner we desire.

Originally Posted by trumptman

I really don't care if you claim to be trying to discuss this in some claimed objective or neutral manner. I'm not neutral on hate. I'm not neutral on treating her family this way. I'm not neutral on false allegations.

Originally Posted by trumptman

Actually the real point of discussion should be the handy new tool that might be now used in the future to the detriment of the country. Imagine if someone had applied the same tactic to oh... Barack Obama a few years back when he was still a mostly broke State Senator and a guy with a big mortgage and a small paycheck. Suppose someone buried him under false charges back then instead of hearing him out?

The ramifications of this are important and go far beyond a Sarah Palin. It says to folks, unless you are big money or willing to cater to it, don't step into the light or be prepared to get buried by the legal process even if you are right. This is more like the Tucker motors of politics. Kill the competition before they become competition.

Given such an environment, I feel no one is under an obligation to sacrifice themselves for the public good. Let them shrug and let the public handle the harm.

Originally Posted by vinea

Are you questioning his motives? Why not just discuss the issues eh?

But after youve had a few of these myth-dispelling conversations, you start to realize that it doesnt matter. These people dont hate Palin because of the lies; the lies exist to justify the hate. Thats why they keep reaching and reaching for something else, until they finally get to she winked on TV! (And by the way: Ive been winked at my whole life by my grandmother, aunts, and great-aunts. Who knew it was such a despicable act?)

The only thing Palin is commonly accused of that is actually true is her anti-abortion stance, though, as Ive pointed out several times, her political position is that the will of the people should decide the law. She has also expressed sympathy for women choosing abortion and has said that she is totally opposed to any woman ever being criminalized for it. Im not pretending shes anything other than what she is (an adamant pro-lifer), but I am trying to be as clear and honest as I can be about her actual stance.

The fact is, that stance alone is not enough to explain the kind of frenzied hatred and feminist repudiation that Palin has attracted. Notice the example of Hugo Schwyzer, who, as I pointed out in my comment at IBTP, is allowed to call himself a feminist and even cross-post at RH Reality Check while Sarah Palin is endlessly ridiculed and reviled for having the same beliefs. Notice, too, that the Republican Party (and even the Democratic Party) is full of other pro-life politicians, none of whom have ever been crucified and slandered Palin-style.

Speaking of slander, that brings me to my next big puzzlement: what is it with the feminists who just freely make shit up about Palin? The lies had to start somewhere, and they didnt all hatch in the bowels of the Obama campaign (though a bunch of them did). Some of them were incubated by feminists, particularly the ones about Palin being an anti-sex purity queen, the kind of batshit Christian who believes in Purity Balls and abstinence pledges and is opposed to sex ed. None of that is true.

When I first started investigating Palin, I was very relieved to discover that shes not nearly as nutty as she might be, given that shes a Christian. I was pleased to learn that shes not one of those fundies who thinks wives have to submit or that Adam and Eve rode on dinosaurs. Shes not into that whacked-out purity or abstinence-only stuff. Thats good. Its good that shes not a nutjob. Sowhy arent other feminists also happy that shes not a nutjob? Why do they, in fact, spread lies to make her seem worse than she is?

Are people simply confused about the differences between Christians? Do they think all Christians are alike? I doubt it. Im no godbag and I personally wish that Christianity would evaporate from the face of the earth, but I still recognize that not all Christians are alike. I think most other people do, too. I think most people in this country understand that Tennessee snake handlers dont go to Catholic mass, and that the Quiverfull people are not the same as the Episcopalians. Being a Christian, even a conservative Christian, doesnt automatically mean youre a young earth creationist in a calico dress with a purity ring on your finger.

Besides, I know for a fact that the feminists spreading the lies about Palin knew they were spreading lies. Not to tell tales out of school, but: they knew. They were supplied with the correct information, and they chose to lie anyway. Why?

Was it just about electing Obama? Were feminists simply willing to commit any slander necessary to elect the Chosen One? Thats a likely explanation, but here again: were talking about feminists. Feminists doing this slandering a woman, and doing so in unmistakably sexist terms. After all, caricaturing Palin as a purity queen (Bible Spice, Sexy Puritan) is just the flip side of caricaturing her as a porn queen. As Ive said before, its like the NAACP sponsoring a lynching. The mind boggles.

Even more mind-boggling are the attacks that dont even bother with false claims about policy or beliefs, but just go straight for free-floating misogynistic rage. Ridiculing her hair, clothes, makeup, voice, body, womb. Sarah Palin is a cunt good one! Calling her a bimbo good one! Calling her a fucking whore good one! Fantasizing about her being gang-raped good one! And all this from feminists. Forget the NAACP sponsoring a lynching; this is like the NAACP ripping off their masks to reveal that theyve been replaced by white supremacist pod people.

Think back to the reactions to Sarah Palins speech at the convention. Remember the gal at Jezebel whose head throbbed with hate blood as she listened to Palin speak? The one who said she wanted to murk that cunt? What the hell is that? I cannot figure it out. I look and look, and its like trying to see someone elses hallucination. No matter how hard I squint, I cant see whatever it is theyre looking at. What is so horrifying?

Her speech also delivered some welcome punctures to the national gasbag known as Obama. And thats another thing: it has not escaped my attention that many of the things Palin is accused of, falsely, are actually true of Obama. This is a guy who, as a U.S. senator from Illinois, didnt even know which Senate committees he was on or which states bordered his own. (And dont even get me started on Joe The Talking Donkey Biden, who thinks FDR was president during the stock market crash and that people watched TV in those days.) Im not saying Obamas a moron, but hes sure as hell no genius. People say Sarah Palin rambles; excuse me, but have you actually heard Obama speak extemporaneously? As for being a diva, surely we all remember the Possomus sign and the special embroidered pillow on the Obama campaign plane. The fact is, Obama is an intellectually mediocre narcissist with a thin resume whos lost without a teleprompter and whose entire campaign had all the substance and gravity of a Pepsi commercial. Yet people say Sarah Palin is a fluffy bunny diva.

Whats alarming is that the need for a female Hate Receptacle exists, even with feminists. But that would explain why Palin haters are so reluctant to give up hating her. It would explain why theyre so resistant to the truth. They dont want to find out that the lies are lies; they dont want to be disabused. They need a hate receptacle, and so they need Palin to be the sum of all things they fear.

Originally Posted by trumptman

Does this explain how when she is no longer running for an office we still keep getting remarks about slutty, banging her daughter, or her doing porn several months after the election?

Originally Posted by trumptman

You've got it backwards. He was claiming good motives excuse the issues.

Claiming, "listen I'm a centrist and you're not" doesn't excuse calling a political figure slutty for example.

NEWSWEEK: Sarah Palin, you are a Republican and a conservative one at that. It's unlikely that you and Hillary would agree on too many issues. But, yet, as a woman, chief executivesomeone who's been through the grinderwhen you look at the coverage and you listen to the conversations, what do you see?
Sarah Palin: Fair or unfairand I do think that it's a more concentrated criticism that Hillary gets on so many fronts; I think that's unfortunate. But fair or unfair, I think she does herself a disservice to even mention it, really. You have to plow through that and know what you're getting into. I say this with all due respect to Hillary Clinton and to her experience and to her passion for changing the status quo. But when I hear a statement like that coming from a women candidate with any kind of perceived whine about that excess criticism or a sharper microscope put on her, I think, man, that doesn't do us any good. Women in politics, women in general wanting to progress this country, I don't think it bodes well for her, a statement like that. Because, again, fair or not fair it is there. I think it's reality and it's a given, people just accept that she's going to be under a sharper microscope. So be it. Work harder, prove to yourself to an even greater degree that you're capable, that you're going to be the best candidate. That's what she wants us to believe at this point. So it bothers me a little bit to hear her bring that attention to herself on that level.

Originally Posted by dfiler

What the fuck are you talking about? I never claimed good motives excuse the issues. Nor did I call her slutty. In fact, I've never done anything of the sort. Never once have I brought up anything but the issues with regard to Palin.

She was introduced to the national public very late during this last election. The public had to find out everything about her as quickly as possible in order to make an informed decision before the election. This was the reason for the intense scrutiny.

And what's this about hoping her daughter is raped? Not even Letterman mentioned anything about that. Let's stick to subjects that matter, like policy debate and corruption investigation.

My second post explained why Palin has heavily scrutinized, also without any partison finger pointing. Basically, the nation had to evaluate a complete stranger very late in the campaign. All the attention was merited because she was an unknown.

And yet the rebutal was just "well the left is hysterical". So who's hysterical? Who brought up "wanting to rape", "down syndrom", etc? If anyone is hysterical, it is isolated individuals, not everyone who happens to disagree with us.

You're the one who keeps bringing up things like "slutty", "rape", "down syndrom", "porn". If you don't think those are worthy of discussion, why are you the one who keeps bringing them up? I've even tried to steer the conversation in a different direction, having brought up who Karl Rove and the GOP machine might be backing.

But no, you keep bringing up the very subjects you claim are not worthy of discussion.

Your exhibit A happens to be a single joke out of the hundreds of jokes told in one week by one comedian. He already apologized for it on national TV. The apology was given much more air time than the joke. He never intended to involve the subject of rape in the joke. He thought he was talking about the 18 year old having sex. But yet here you are going on and on and on about "rape". This is despite the fact that he explained in length on national TV about how joking about sex with a 14 year old is not appropriate.

Her family has been relatively untouched by all of this. And its not like she has tried to keep them out of the limelight. She dressed them up in fancy clothes and paraded them around on national TV. They could have watched from home or have been to the side of the stage, off camera. But no, the campaign bought the family (and minor boyfriend) designer clothes and put them right up front for our national viewing pleasure. She carried her kid around on stage. The kid could have waited ten more minutes if family life were supposed to be private. She also gave interviews from home instead of the office.

Originally Posted by screener

http://www.politico.com/blogs/bensmi...ved_whine.html

Palin flashback: "Perceived whine"

Originally Posted by trumptman


I've linked to the sources. People caricaturing her down syndrome child, and claiming her platform for 2012 would be more retardation.

Originally Posted by trumptman

Do you honestly think the campaigns didn't do this for any other family? Did Sasha and Malia somehow go into hiding? Did someone miss the father's day custard run? Did we miss the Obama girls and their question about when they would be getting that puppy? Did we miss Michelle Obama, fashion plate? It was no different during the campaign. It has been no different after the campaign. Stop justifying and rationalizing hate.

Originally Posted by trumptman


Sorry... try again.



There is no corruption investigation. The other bit was just spin to justify the hateful behavior displayed toward her.

Then we have this.



It is not appropriate to conflate hate and attention. Her qualifications for VP had nothing to do with questioning the maternity of her own child and having leftist sources demand that medical privacy be ignored and DNA tests be demanded and given. Such items were coming from the left along with all manner of claim of corruption, etc. There is not a single ethics claim that has been found valid. Not one. So claiming it is still about that is nonsense. When the agencies that would investigate put out news releases declaring there is no investigation, anyone still talking about it is just trying to spin and cover for hate.

I've linked to the sources. People caricaturing her down syndrome child, and claiming her platform for 2012 would be more retardation.



You mean I keep bringing up the things that exist instead of repeating the things that don't while claiming good intentions? It is right there underlined for you to see. "Oh look here is my good intention and why this issue should be valid."

It is valid because it is supported, not because you want it to be or feel like you are taking some middle ground or any other nonsense. Why do I give a crap about who spun what and whether they are Karl Rove or not? That was my point from the get go. I don't care if it is Andrew Sullivan demanding the DNA test or Nancy Pelosi, no other politician has had people declare they have a right to demand proof that something came out her vagina. THAT is an issue. Spin and who did it and why they did it is INTENT which I could give a crap about. Claiming good intentions in bringing up the spin I could care even less than a crap about.



The lies aren't worthy of discussion. The hate that drives people to make them, repeat them and continue to act this way is worthy of discussion. I'm not diving into what would make someone act this way, I'm saying the actions are wrong and proof of different treatment.



Yes, yes he apologized for the joke. Big deal. Letterman had Drew Barrymore flash her tits at him on national television. Did he ever call her slutty? In fact WHO else has Letterman EVER called slutty in his jokes?

See the point is that when this misogyny is brought up, it is EXCUSED by folks with reasoning like "the public had to find out everything about her as quickly as possible in order to make an informed decision before the election." It shouldn't have been excused even then. Now we are several months past the election and the hate continues.

You claim this is a smoke screen to stop discussion of the "real issues." What the hell are you talking about? Is there an election going on? Is Palin somehow now going to push some law onto someone that you don't like? You dismissed the hate by claiming it was just typical. I've brought up examples and asked for them to be shown as typical. You haven't done that. You've shown how an apology was issued. That doesn't show how it is typical in fact using your own reasoning, given the fact that Letterman tells hundreds of jokes across hundreds of days per year, the fact that he had to apologize for this one shows it was ATYPICAL.

Please feel free to again, show where Letterman had to apologize for calling someone else slutty, for wishing sexual hook ups on their 14 oops, I meant 18 year old daughter. Go ahead find it.

Please show that this is typical.

That was in response to this bit of spin.



Do you honestly think the campaigns didn't do this for any other family? Did Sasha and Malia somehow go into hiding? Did someone miss the father's day custard run? Did we miss the Obama girls and their question about when they would be getting that puppy? Did we miss Michelle Obama, fashion plate? It was no different during the campaign. It has been no different after the campaign. Stop justifying and rationalizing hate.

Originally Posted by jamac

Women in their 40s are much more likely to bear Down babies. Maybe it had to do with her exorcism?

During the campaign the Obama children were not used as puppets.

The Obamazing kids did not travel with their father to events like Palin's and were not put into to the spot light. Mr. Obama is now president and his children are of interest. Even conservatives praise the way he deals with the extremely difficult task to run the US and be a father.

Mrs. Palin is a stupid bitch. That's why we hate her. Not because she is Republinsane or Alaskan or a woman or a religious freak or uneducated or thinks that Russian planes will fly over Alaska and she will protect us. Mrs. point guard got an elbow in the ribs and went crying to the coach. Wahhhhhhhsilla.

She is by far the most unintelligent person to ever be presented to the US public for high office. This is entirely John McCain's problem. She really had nothing to do with it other than being stupid enough to accept the nomination. Where was her family and her "higher calling" then?

God forbid a politician resigns to focus on a possible presidential run, speaking engagements for which she actually gets paid, and an end to the horrible and unprecedented personal attacks against her and her family.

It is clear by the number of drummed ethics charges and by the nastiest comments for a public figure I've ever seen that they fear her to the point of not just hating her, but possibly harming her.

Perhaps that level of hysteria is normal for the left, but for the right it would be abnormal.

14 year olds cannot consent to sex. All sex with them is rape and thus I characterize joking about such sex as joking about rape. Defending it just makes it worse because trying to claim that you were wishing the sex on a different daughter just shows how bad and low the whole thing has gone.

Imagine if someone had applied the same tactic to oh... Barack Obama a few years back when he was still a mostly broke State Senator and a guy with a big mortgage and a small paycheck. Suppose someone buried him under false charges back then instead of hearing him out?

Did Sasha and Malia somehow go into hiding?

I must have missed that quote when reading about Hillary being asked about if she thinks Alex Rodriguez would fuck Chelsea her in the ass or mouth.

Maybe it had to do with the fact that she didn't scoop him out with a wire hanger and mount him as a trophy of feminist virtue!

Originally Posted by groverat

She was found guilty last year of abusing her executive power by a state ethics committee. The accusations against her are hardly "drummed up".

The #1 most supported Republican 2012 candidate just quit her job as governor because people were mean to her in the media. You might want to re-think that sentence.

Palin specifically chose to make it about the 14-year-old so that she could play the victim. Letterman didn't say it was the 14-year-old and there was no reason to make that assumption except to act outraged a bout it.

There was a huge movement (and there still is) dedicated entirely to "burying" Obama under false charges (Kenya! Birth Certificate! Slum lord! Rezko! Racist! Coke Addict! Gay sex in limos!).

Did Sasha or Malia get knocked up under the watchful eye of a moralistic father?
Did Obama trot out baby daddy onto the national stage an present a marriage farce for the sole purpose of pursuing his own political advancement to the detriment of his own child?

People laughed about her pregnant daughter and the meathead fiance because it was obvious to everyone that it was a huge political smokescreen.

I don't remember a powerful senator from Arizona joking that Chelsea's father was Janet Reno... oh wait.
I don't remember the most powerful radio host in the nation calling Chelsea a dog... oh wait.

You are raving, my friend. Positively raving.