AppleInsider › Forums › Other Discussion › AppleOutsider › PoliticalOutsider › Why they hate her (Sarah Palin)
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Why they hate her (Sarah Palin) - Page 7

post #241 of 626
9/23/08 at 4:35am
Quote:
Originally Posted by franksargent View Post

dmz already posted this, twice even, third time is the charm? I guess so.

Obviously you noticed he didn't have the whole thing because you read so carefully I'm sure.
The politics of charisma is so Third World. Americans were never going to buy into it for long. - Foudad Ajami
Reply
The politics of charisma is so Third World. Americans were never going to buy into it for long. - Foudad Ajami
Reply
post #242 of 626
9/23/08 at 5:35am
Quote:
Originally Posted by FloorJack View Post

Obviously you noticed he didn't have the whole thing because you read so carefully I'm sure.

2nd link same as the 3rd. 1st link has WSJ link (same as 2nd and 3rd) at top left of article.
Every eye fixed itself upon him; with parted lips and bated breath the audience hung upon his words, taking no note of time, rapt in the ghastly fascinations of the tale. NOT!
Reply
Every eye fixed itself upon him; with parted lips and bated breath the audience hung upon his words, taking no note of time, rapt in the ghastly fascinations of the tale. NOT!
Reply
post #243 of 626
9/23/08 at 6:35am
Quote:
Originally Posted by tonton View Post

All the more shocking in her hypocrisy.

In any discussion about ethics, how do you support her refusal to cooperate with troopergate investigators?
In any discussion about ethics, how do you defend the attempt to fire the librarian?

She seriously cheesed off the Republican machine [something about "loyalty" when she went after Murkowski], and the Democrats have no use for her, either. When:
Quote:
...Monegan has said no one from the administration ever told him directly to fire Wooten, but he said their repeated contacts made it clear they wanted Wooten gone.

...this sounds like people playing games -- who are shocked, shocked! that personal politics could be happening in an administration near you.

In our desire to impose form on the world we have lost the capacity to see the form that is there;
and in that lies not liberation but alienation, the cutting off from things as they really are. --...

Reply

In our desire to impose form on the world we have lost the capacity to see the form that is there;
and in that lies not liberation but alienation, the cutting off from things as they really are. --...

Reply
post #244 of 626
9/23/08 at 6:38am
Some reading on the pipeline. It ain't a done deal by a long shot, and, once again, she was for it and then agaist it, then for a different one. A very familiar pattern in her behavior.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...701984_pf.html

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-me...ess-meets-eye/

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/09/11/us...Wojxb2VnAKDNmg

 

Your = the possessive of you, as in, "Your name is Tom, right?" or "What is your name?"

 

You're = a contraction of YOU + ARE as in, "You are right" --> "You're right."

 

 

Reply

 

Your = the possessive of you, as in, "Your name is Tom, right?" or "What is your name?"

 

You're = a contraction of YOU + ARE as in, "You are right" --> "You're right."

 

 

Reply
post #245 of 626
9/23/08 at 6:48am
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bergermeister View Post

A Canadian company won the bid. Jobs and money go out of the country.

---

If she is so good as some would like us to believe, why does she lower herself to be played around like a puppet? Camp McCain completely controls her at the moment. If she were a true reformer, she wouldn't stand for it. She only wants to win, at any cost.

---

Yeah, what about Troopergate and all that talk about openness?
What about those two bridges, again?
How about the feeling in Alaska that she has basically abdicated?
Why was Todd involved like staff?

No, this girl doesn't cut it.

As to the Canadian company taking the bid, I don't think you read the article, BP and the other heavies magically came up with the money for their own pipeline, after Palin (and a few others) upset the apple cart. Things were that bad, the corruption was that bad -- so if they had to go outside for some sanity, that's tough. Frank "the bank" was out of his mind, and clamoring for new and more interesting ways of grabbing his ankles for ConocoPhillips, etc. Naturally there was more than enough pig quo pro going around to make the state sick. Like I told groverat, go back and do your homework.

As to the bridges, one would link ANC to Wasilla, hardly a bridge to nowhere -- and I heard Fred Barnes disputing the wheres and whens of when she was for it before she was against it. Regardless, she's not any more of an earmark hog than any other sane alderman. They chase federal funds, and that's how the game is played.

And what "feeling in Alaska" are you referencing -- by all indications she is adored there.

None of this addresses that WSJ article. Surprise!


I don't care if she ran a brothel in Bethel, what that article has to say gets her a spot.

In our desire to impose form on the world we have lost the capacity to see the form that is there;
and in that lies not liberation but alienation, the cutting off from things as they really are. --...

Reply

In our desire to impose form on the world we have lost the capacity to see the form that is there;
and in that lies not liberation but alienation, the cutting off from things as they really are. --...

Reply
post #246 of 626
9/23/08 at 6:52am
Ooops... accidently erased this while editing....

 

Your = the possessive of you, as in, "Your name is Tom, right?" or "What is your name?"

 

You're = a contraction of YOU + ARE as in, "You are right" --> "You're right."

 

 

Reply

 

Your = the possessive of you, as in, "Your name is Tom, right?" or "What is your name?"

 

You're = a contraction of YOU + ARE as in, "You are right" --> "You're right."

 

 

Reply
post #247 of 626
9/23/08 at 7:00am
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bergermeister View Post

Some reading on the pipeline. It ain't a done deal by a long shot, and, once again, she was for it and then agaist it, then for a different one. A very familiar pattern in her behavior.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...701984_pf.html

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-me...ess-meets-eye/

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/09/11/us...Wojxb2VnAKDNmg

{Admonishing another poster removed}

The pipeline deal was as convoluted as it could be. There are constitutional issues to require the oil companies to get the gas out of the ground, there were endless, convoluted, legal issues with that, with the oil companies playing good cop/bad cop through the whole thing. Throw in Murkowski's antics, the list goes on....most people were for, then against, which pipeline, due to the conditions changing. Let me tip my hand, I have a relative who is on the staff of Petroleum News, I've followed this for a while. Those oil companies are assh*les, and they played hardball -- would simply get up and walk out of meetings. The WSJ article nailed it. Palin, and a few others broke it off in their ass.

...or you could cherry pick here and there and do the paper doll thing.

In our desire to impose form on the world we have lost the capacity to see the form that is there;
and in that lies not liberation but alienation, the cutting off from things as they really are. --...

Reply

In our desire to impose form on the world we have lost the capacity to see the form that is there;
and in that lies not liberation but alienation, the cutting off from things as they really are. --...

Reply
post #248 of 626
9/23/08 at 7:02am
Please stop telling me to do my homework, it isn't helping convince me of anything. Welcome to my ignore list.

 

Your = the possessive of you, as in, "Your name is Tom, right?" or "What is your name?"

 

You're = a contraction of YOU + ARE as in, "You are right" --> "You're right."

 

 

Reply

 

Your = the possessive of you, as in, "Your name is Tom, right?" or "What is your name?"

 

You're = a contraction of YOU + ARE as in, "You are right" --> "You're right."

 

 

Reply
post #249 of 626
9/23/08 at 7:07am
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bergermeister View Post

Somebody suggested I do my homework; I have.

http://www.adn.com/opinion/view/story/531725.html

A simple search would show this article as #1:

http://www.google.com/search?client=...UTF-8&oe=UTF-8

Be sure to read around the ADN and also to check the comments posted by readers. They are quite good. The polls suggesting her popularity also were not taken recently; the national ones also show her dropping like a log:

http://blog.newsweek.com/blogs/stump...to-falter.aspx

I would suspect that a new poll in Alaska would show her not at 80 anymore...

I'm told that the ADN is referred to there as the "Daily Worker". It's not representative of anyone but the hard left in ANC.

In our desire to impose form on the world we have lost the capacity to see the form that is there;
and in that lies not liberation but alienation, the cutting off from things as they really are. --...

Reply

In our desire to impose form on the world we have lost the capacity to see the form that is there;
and in that lies not liberation but alienation, the cutting off from things as they really are. --...

Reply
post #250 of 626
9/23/08 at 8:24am
The "Big O" That's funny.
The politics of charisma is so Third World. Americans were never going to buy into it for long. - Foudad Ajami
Reply
The politics of charisma is so Third World. Americans were never going to buy into it for long. - Foudad Ajami
Reply
post #251 of 626
9/23/08 at 8:39am
Quote:
Originally Posted by dmz View Post

I'm told that the ADN is referred to there as the "Daily Worker". It's not representative of anyone but the hard left in ANC.

I guess that means you can dismiss their opinions without second thought...
"In a republic, voters may vote for the leaders they want, but they get the leaders they deserve."
Reply
"In a republic, voters may vote for the leaders they want, but they get the leaders they deserve."
Reply
post #252 of 626
9/23/08 at 8:51am
Quote:
Originally Posted by hardeeharhar

I guess that means you can dismiss their opinions without second thought...

I agree. I don't think people should dismiss information just because of the source. Because that would be narrow or closed minded and irrational. Instead they should examine the arguments, data, facts, evidence, logic and reasoning presented and determine whether what's being said is correct or not.

I hope you (and others) will join together to discourage people both here and elsewhere from dismissing information, arguments or viewpoints simply because the source is one they don't like or agree with, but instead take a more reasoned approach of examining the arguments, data, facts, evidence, logic and reasoning presented in a dispassionate manner.
Reply
Reply
post #253 of 626
9/23/08 at 11:35am
McCain campaign kicks press out of Palin meeting with world leaders, CNN says f-you and pulls cameras ending TV coverage of Palin publicity stunt

Quote:
Wow, CNN grew a few. Good for them. AP apparently protested as well. Yes, Virginia, there is a media. And it's starting to wake up. I'm really shocked that CNN did this. CNN was the network providing television coverage for all the networks, and after McCain's people said there would be no coverage of Palin's actual substantive (if you'd call it that) conversations with world leaders, CNN pulled the plug. Wow. Here's AP's coverage, it's good:

Quote:
Republican vice presidential candidate Sarah Palin, who has not held a press conference in nearly four weeks of campaigning, on Tuesday banned reporters from her first meetings with world leaders, allowing access only to photographers and a television crew.

CNN, which was providing the television coverage for news organizations, decided to pull its TV crew, effectively denying Palin the high visibility she had sought.

Palin planned to meet Afghan President Hamid Karzai and Colombian President Alvaro Uribe in New York on Tuesday as the United Nations General Assembly convenes this week. She also was expected to meet with former Secretary of State Henry Kissinger.

Those sessions and meetings scheduled for Wednesday are part of the Republican campaign's effort to give Palin experience in foreign affairs. She has never met a foreign head of state and first traveled outside North America just last year.

Huff Post has more, and notes that the media also seems to have gotten ticked at McCain this morning for refusing to take questions. Well here's an idea: Stop covering him. Pull your reporters on the McCain's bus (well, they're no longer in the bus at all, now they follow in vans) and stop covering McCain as there is nothing to cover. That will get his attention.

I normally agree that [insert news organization here] gives unfair coverage to [insert ideology here], but I must applaud this act. Well played.

This Palin thing is over, done. After Joe the Shark eats Ms. Barracuda.

Over. Fork. Done.
Reply
Reply
post #254 of 626
9/23/08 at 12:07pm
Amazing. How stupid are the American voters? Guess we will find out in a few months.

Piper, Trig and Willow? Are you kidding me?
Reply
Reply
post #255 of 626
9/23/08 at 12:19pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Laughing Gull View Post

Piper, Trig and Willow? Are you kidding me?

I know, it sounds like the Air Force calling in an air strike.

And I'm getting really sick of guys named Todd.
Reply
Reply
post #256 of 626
9/23/08 at 1:21pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by @_@ Artman View Post

I know, it sounds like the Air Force calling in an air strike.

And I'm getting really sick of guys named Todd.

Yeah, I knew you'd post Carlin, even before I hit the link.

... and fuck Tucker's frend K-y-y-y-y-y-y-y-l-l-l-l-l-l-e
Every eye fixed itself upon him; with parted lips and bated breath the audience hung upon his words, taking no note of time, rapt in the ghastly fascinations of the tale. NOT!
Reply
Every eye fixed itself upon him; with parted lips and bated breath the audience hung upon his words, taking no note of time, rapt in the ghastly fascinations of the tale. NOT!
Reply
post #257 of 626
9/23/08 at 1:22pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by @_@ Artman View Post

McCain campaign kicks press out of Palin meeting with world leaders, CNN says f-you and pulls cameras ending TV coverage of Palin publicity stunt



I normally agree that [insert news organization here] gives unfair coverage to [insert ideology here], but I must applaud this act. Well played.

This Palin thing is over, done. After Joe the Shark eats Ms. Barracuda.

Over. Fork. Done.

I predict a landslide in November. For the Democrats.
Every eye fixed itself upon him; with parted lips and bated breath the audience hung upon his words, taking no note of time, rapt in the ghastly fascinations of the tale. NOT!
Reply
Every eye fixed itself upon him; with parted lips and bated breath the audience hung upon his words, taking no note of time, rapt in the ghastly fascinations of the tale. NOT!
Reply
post #258 of 626
9/23/08 at 1:32pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by sslarson View Post

I agree. I don't think people should dismiss information just because of the source. Because that would be narrow or closed minded and irrational. Instead they should examine the arguments, data, facts, evidence, logic and reasoning presented and determine whether what's being said is correct or not.

I hope you (and others) will join together to discourage people both here and elsewhere from dismissing information, arguments or viewpoints simply because the source is one they don't like or agree with, but instead take a more reasoned approach of examining the arguments, data, facts, evidence, logic and reasoning presented in a dispassionate manner.

Yes we can have battling op-ed pieces, seeing as op-ed pieces only ever present half the minimum necessary information, at most.

Maybe we could even grade the one-sidedness of each other's battling op-ed pieces.

If the reference isn't extremely well sourced (with direct references to the raw data, the studies, papers, etceteras), I for one don't even bother with it.

All op-ed pieces are quite simply, biased with intent.

For example;

Quote:
The editorial page of the Journal summarizes its philosophy as being in favor of "free markets and free people". It is typically viewed as adhering to American conservatism and economic liberalism.[citation needed] The page takes a free-market view of economic issues and an often conservative view of American foreign policy.[citation needed]

Since the 1990s, the editorial page of the Journal has been criticised repeatedly for inaccuracy and dishonesty, including a summary in 1995 by Fairness and Accuracy in Reporting[1], and in 1996 by the Columbia Journalism Review[2]
Every eye fixed itself upon him; with parted lips and bated breath the audience hung upon his words, taking no note of time, rapt in the ghastly fascinations of the tale. NOT!
Reply
Every eye fixed itself upon him; with parted lips and bated breath the audience hung upon his words, taking no note of time, rapt in the ghastly fascinations of the tale. NOT!
Reply
post #259 of 626
9/23/08 at 1:48pm
Reply
Reply
post #260 of 626
9/23/08 at 1:53pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by franksargent

I predict a landslide in November. For the Democrats.

Maybe not a landslide, but certainly a victory. I think that's been clear for a while. The real trick for the Democrats will be having to govern. There will be no more room for excuses. They'll have "total control" (as we've been told, ad nauseam, the Republicans have had) for (at least) two years.

The question is whether things will look like 1977-1980 or 1993-1994.
Reply
Reply
post #261 of 626
9/23/08 at 2:11pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by dollarcollapse View Post

I thought you were the eternal optimist?

Not in regards to government (no matter which branch of the establishment party is ruling). I think I made that clear and it should be pretty obvious from my body of posts.
Reply
Reply
post #262 of 626
9/23/08 at 2:16pm
Oh look, another example of the striking difference between the parties and candidates. It seems that maybe Obama is fine with government bailouts too.
Reply
Reply
post #263 of 626
9/23/08 at 2:17pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by sslarson View Post

Maybe not a landslide, but certainly a victory. I think that's been clear for a while. The real trick for the Democrats will be having to govern. There will be no more room for excuses. They'll have "total control" (as we've been told, ad nauseam, the Republicans have had) for (at least) two years.

The question is whether things will look like 1977-1980 or 1993-1994.

And they'll inherit a country left in shambles: massive budget deficits, an economy teetering on the brink, vast amounts of money diverted to war and corporate welfare, sharply deteriorated international relations, and a Federal apparatus packed with incompetent, liberal hating Bush appointees. They have to start from scratch to begin any kind of coherent energy program at all. They'll face the right doing what the right actually knows how to do: cripple any efforts to use government to improve things.

But, rest assure, if the Dems can't magically turn it around in a year, the same people that were so oddly sanguine as the Bushies sacked the treasury and crippled our ability to respond to problems will be screaming from the rooftops that we were sold a bill of goods by fake Jesus Obama.
They spoke of the sayings and doings of their commander, the grand duke, and told stories of his kindness and irascibility.
Reply
They spoke of the sayings and doings of their commander, the grand duke, and told stories of his kindness and irascibility.
Reply
post #264 of 626
9/23/08 at 2:27pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by dollarcollapse View Post

Regarding government, I thought you {removed due to posting violation} and {removed due to posting violation} therefore {removed due to posting violation} so {removed due to posting violation}, did I understand correctly?

Well, to be honest, {removed due to posting violation}
"Stand Up for Chuck"
Reply
"Stand Up for Chuck"
Reply
post #265 of 626
9/23/08 at 2:29pm
Reply
Reply
post #266 of 626
9/23/08 at 2:39pm
I'm not ashamed... I can say it... I love the Artman.
"Stand Up for Chuck"
Reply
"Stand Up for Chuck"
Reply
post #267 of 626
9/23/08 at 4:06pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jubelum View Post

I can assure you, the BITTER discussion is alive and well. And playing quite nicely in many circles. There's nothing quite like having people in their own words, ya know.

Wow, Rome us fucking burning and you guys are still in a tizzy about a off-hand remark at a private party. Are these types of trifles really that important to you? Seriously?
"The selfishness of Ayn Rand capitalism is the equivalent of intellectual masturbation -- satisfying in an ego-stroking way, but an ethical void when it comes to our commonly shared humanity."
Reply
"The selfishness of Ayn Rand capitalism is the equivalent of intellectual masturbation -- satisfying in an ego-stroking way, but an ethical void when it comes to our commonly shared humanity."
Reply
post #268 of 626
9/23/08 at 4:09pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by @_@ Artman View Post

McCain campaign kicks press out of Palin meeting with world leaders, CNN says f-you and pulls cameras ending TV coverage of Palin publicity stunt



I normally agree that [insert news organization here] gives unfair coverage to [insert ideology here], but I must applaud this act. Well played.

This Palin thing is over, done. After Joe the Shark eats Ms. Barracuda.

Over. Fork. Done.

Yeah, well, everyone pretty much concluded that Kerry won all the debates against Mr. Internets. Lot of good that did him.

Sorry, my cynicism is turned to 10 today.
"The selfishness of Ayn Rand capitalism is the equivalent of intellectual masturbation -- satisfying in an ego-stroking way, but an ethical void when it comes to our commonly shared humanity."
Reply
"The selfishness of Ayn Rand capitalism is the equivalent of intellectual masturbation -- satisfying in an ego-stroking way, but an ethical void when it comes to our commonly shared humanity."
Reply
post #269 of 626
9/23/08 at 4:30pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Laughing Gull View Post

Amazing. How stupid are the American voters? Guess we will find out in a few months.

Piper, Trig and Willow? Are you kidding me?

Well, we all know where Palin gets her weekly entertainment.

No evidence of any Trig or Track, but Piper and Willow were both characters on Fox television shows. And both were witches. Coincidence? I think not.

Sarah Palin secretly practices Wicca. Here is your proof.
Reply
Reply
post #270 of 626
9/23/08 at 4:33pm
Wiccans don't scare me. Crazy evangelics, however, do.
"The selfishness of Ayn Rand capitalism is the equivalent of intellectual masturbation -- satisfying in an ego-stroking way, but an ethical void when it comes to our commonly shared humanity."
Reply
"The selfishness of Ayn Rand capitalism is the equivalent of intellectual masturbation -- satisfying in an ego-stroking way, but an ethical void when it comes to our commonly shared humanity."
Reply
post #271 of 626
9/23/08 at 9:08pm
If the media is not allowed to ask Palin any questions...

How about at the VP debate they just don't ask her any questions and go one-to-one for the full time with Biden? When she tries to interrupt, replay a tape of the "no questions" comments and then continue talking to Biden.

I would love to see the same at the P debate, after one first question to McCain: Could you please explain the relationship between government, the people and the media and democracy and say how it applies to government of the people, for the people and by the people.

Then "technical difficulties" prevent the cameras from showing the candidates who refuse to talk.

Also, I think the media should just stop following them around, period. Ignore them, like they are ignoring the people.


---

Palin, playing hookie:

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0908/13736.html

 

Your = the possessive of you, as in, "Your name is Tom, right?" or "What is your name?"

 

You're = a contraction of YOU + ARE as in, "You are right" --> "You're right."

 

 

Reply

 

Your = the possessive of you, as in, "Your name is Tom, right?" or "What is your name?"

 

You're = a contraction of YOU + ARE as in, "You are right" --> "You're right."

 

 

Reply
post #272 of 626
9/24/08 at 12:14am
Quote:
Originally Posted by Northgate View Post

Wow, Rome us fucking burning and you guys are still in a tizzy about a off-hand remark at a private party. Are these types of trifles really that important to you? Seriously?

It's been a huge boon to those of us mobilizing blue-collar gun owners, and really, sportsmen and women from all walks of life. Of course, it's being set up that those blue-collar bubbas are not going to vote for The Big O because a third of them are racists... which if further firing them up. People from both the GOP and Democratic party alike... people who are going to mean the election for Obama. Those middle-America bitter clingers who love the things that Obama so delightfully cited.

The words "bitter" and "cling" have built a strong esprit de corps among religious voters and gun owners... long before "lipstick" and "hockey mom."

So to answer your question... those that hear the "bitter" comments and are talking about them do not see it as your minimized, "off hand remark"- they see it as a window on Barack Obama. The fact that it was at a private San Fran function of millionaire donors makes it all the sweeter. It's far more than a "trifle"- it's an ongoing wet dream for those of us mobilizing those bitter clingers away from Obama and the left wing Democrats. Most amazing to me has been the heap big trouble Obama is having with educated sportsmen and sportswomen, especially those who call themselves Democrats. One look at his draconian anti-gun record and the "bitter clinger" passage and many of them are not voting D this cycle.

And as far as Rome... being able to rebuild after the fire is why I believe Obama should be defeated.
"Stand Up for Chuck"
Reply
"Stand Up for Chuck"
Reply
post #273 of 626
9/24/08 at 12:19am
This is the level of America?

This is the level the Republicans want?

 

Your = the possessive of you, as in, "Your name is Tom, right?" or "What is your name?"

 

You're = a contraction of YOU + ARE as in, "You are right" --> "You're right."

 

 

Reply

 

Your = the possessive of you, as in, "Your name is Tom, right?" or "What is your name?"

 

You're = a contraction of YOU + ARE as in, "You are right" --> "You're right."

 

 

Reply
post #274 of 626
9/24/08 at 12:20am
{Ad hom removed} Trumptman,

I am with you 100%, it's time that George W. Bush by executive decree, abolished the upcoming US elections to prevent attacks against McCain's running mate's character.

Then the States would be free to have the best President it has ever had for another, highly successful 3rd term.

It would give W.G. the opportunity to again lower taxes, take the economy to new heights, extend the USA's highly successful foreign policy, fix all the environmental issues by converting school lunches into oil and announce "Mission Accomplished" when he finally succeeds in rendering the USA a perpetual global laughing stock.
Reply
Reply
post #275 of 626
9/24/08 at 12:30am
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bergermeister View Post

This is the level the Republicans want?

Is this the level that Democrats want?

This is the level the parties want, to answer your question. Politics has been in the gutter since the late 80s.
"Stand Up for Chuck"
Reply
"Stand Up for Chuck"
Reply
post #276 of 626
9/24/08 at 1:24am
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jubelum View Post

It's been a huge boon to those of us mobilizing blue-collar gun owners, and really, sportsmen and women from all walks of life. Of course, it's being set up that those blue-collar bubbas are not going to vote for The Big O because a third of them are racists... which if further firing them up. People from both the GOP and Democratic party alike... people who are going to mean the election for Obama. Those middle-America bitter clingers who love the things that Obama so delightfully cited.

The words "bitter" and "cling" have built a strong esprit de corps among religious voters and gun owners... long before "lipstick" and "hockey mom."

So to answer your question... those that hear the "bitter" comments and are talking about them do not see it as your minimized, "off hand remark"- they see it as a window on Barack Obama. The fact that it was at a private San Fran function of millionaire donors makes it all the sweeter. It's far more than a "trifle"- it's an ongoing wet dream for those of us mobilizing those bitter clingers away from Obama and the left wing Democrats. Most amazing to me has been the heap big trouble Obama is having with educated sportsmen and sportswomen, especially those who call themselves Democrats. One look at his draconian anti-gun record and the "bitter clinger" passage and many of them are not voting D this cycle.

And as far as Rome... being able to rebuild after the fire is why I believe Obama should be defeated.

{Ad hom removed} You are so afraid that you might have to get background checked, etc etc, but if a Dem gets in to office you'll still be able to own all the nice hard guns that you want . . . except maybe armor piercing and fully automatic and maybe you won't be able to carry a gun into my school. Those issues are so tiny . . they are symbol, like choosing a baseball cap in stead of straw hat.

We are talking about having a man who can't think straight and who other politicians are literally physically afraind of because of his temper-outbursts and a woman who has never met a foriegn head-of-state be the leaders this country!! Wake up!!

And besides, I don't know here you live but I've spent time in Pensylvania and there are a lot of bitter people ut there and they have reason to be, its hard livin
AND
What consolation for bitterness but the sucor of religion?! Isn't that where the bitter can rest their head, in the lord? isn't religion the gift for the heart burdened with bitterness and pain and sorrow?

You just want to cling to your symbolic identity, your clothing, but this decision coming up is pretty cut and dry: incompetent and completely unsuited vs intelligent, mature and experienced
"They never stop thinking about new ways to harm our country and our people, and neither do we."
--George W Bush

"Narrative is what starts to happen after eight minutes
--Franklin Miller.

"Nothing...

Reply
"They never stop thinking about new ways to harm our country and our people, and neither do we."
--George W Bush

"Narrative is what starts to happen after eight minutes
--Franklin Miller.

"Nothing...

Reply
post #277 of 626
9/24/08 at 6:24am
Reply
Reply
post #278 of 626
9/24/08 at 6:25am
Single issue voters are the scum of Democracy. There are people who would elect the reincarnation of Hitler if his opponent supported gun control. Likewise with choice.
Reply
Reply
post #279 of 626
9/24/08 at 7:10am
Quote:
Originally Posted by tonton View Post

There are people who would elect the reincarnation of Hitler if his opponent supported gun control.

Well I think that's hardly a brain strainer as a Hitler reincarnation would be 100% pro gun. For similar reasons as the NRA.
Reply
Reply
post #280 of 626
9/24/08 at 7:58am
Quote:
Originally Posted by pfflam View Post

{Ad hom removed} You are so afraid that you might have to get background checked, etc etc, but if a Dem gets in to office you'll still be able to own all the nice hard guns that you want . . . except maybe armor piercing and fully automatic and maybe you won't be able to carry a gun into my school. Those issues are so tiny . . they are symbol, like choosing a baseball cap in stead of straw hat.

Obviously, you need to look into what Obama has voted for re: guns. It's far, far more than background checks and glazed-over innocuous "common sense" gun control. And as for handguns, you're flat wrong. Obama advocated a BAN on handguns. Yes, a BAN. As well as closing most of the gun stores in operation. And a full ban on all semi-auto firearms... effectively making illegal more than half of the guns in the country. Please read.

Quote:
You just want to cling to your symbolic identity

There is nothing "symbolic" about having the means to defend myself and my family.
And there's that word "cling" again.

Quote:
incompetent and completely unsuited

Well, at least we agree on Obama.
"Stand Up for Chuck"
Reply
"Stand Up for Chuck"
Reply
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: PoliticalOutsider
AppleInsider › Forums › Other Discussion › AppleOutsider › PoliticalOutsider › Why they hate her (Sarah Palin)