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 12

post #441 of 626
10/1/08 at 11:27am
Quote:
Originally Posted by dmz View Post

Not at all, this sort of angry reaction -- again -- starting her coverage with a conspiracy theory about her pregnancy, says everything about how they are approaching her

It says nothing, because that's not what happened. There was virtually no coverage of what was a very brief, blog derived speculation, beyond some commentary on how vile and scurrilous some blogs are.

Maybe I can dredge up some blogs that raved about how having a nigger in the White House would be the end of America, and claim that that set the standard for the coverage of Obama. Would that be OK with you?

Quote:
At first it was "evil genius,"

What press coverage took that tone? Cite some, please.

Quote:
then it slipped into "dragon lady with an enemies list",

If you mean the bad liberal media had the temerity to talk about an ongoing abuse of power investigation in her home state, yes, there was and is that coverage. Are you saying they should have ignored it? And which press coverage made of her a "dragon lady"? Citations, please.

Quote:
which has settled into the default "she's and idiot" coverage, edited for maximum effect.

Default? For what? People from Alaska? Women? Republicans? Vice-presidential candidates?

Her answers to questions in interviews are gibberish. It's a fact. They're not editing words together to make new sentences, we've all seen her answers at length. Are you saying that the liberal media is editing out the parts where she says "Just kidding, that's my hilarious brain-damaged person imitation"?

Just because a conservative comes off badly in the press doesn't make that an artifact of the liberal media. Some conservatives have actual liabilities. Your ideology is not served by pretending otherwise. Pretending otherwise means that all kinds of poorly prepared, ignorant, malign or fraudulent types can claim to be carrying the conservative banner, and if they come off that way it actually increases their popularity with conservatives, because it "proves" the liberal press is out to get them. Do that for a while, and you have a political ideology choked off by being represented by the least worthy. Oh wait, I guess that's already happened.

Quote:
The press, and BHO's team of attorneys have been crawling all over the state for over a month now -- I guess the bimbo angle is all they could collectively manage.

I guess by now you might have figured out that's not true, and is just another fucked-up right wing fabrication. A fucked-up right wing fabrication, I might add, designed to move attention from the fact that the McCain campaign is currently running Alaska-- much to the growing fury of its citizens.

Quote:
It's not arguable any other way, and it's obvious to registered Independents, and other nominally objective spectators

You mean the registered independents among whom support for Palin is collapsing? Apparently there is at least one other way to argue it.

Quote:
What she has accomplished is literally right out of an BHO ad. I made, and have made, salient points about what she accomplished in Alaska -- how it would be played by a favorable press, you guys wont touch it with a ten-foot pole. I'm left with quote mining and gaffe strafing.

Lame!

Guys, for your part, this doesn't have the ingredients for a meaningful discussion. Take a look at her past, and tell me she's has the accomplishments of an idiot. (?)

She has the accomplishments of a politician who has done well within her limited purview. She's an attractive woman with a down-home manner, and, it would appear, something of a ruthless streak. I'm sure she's a hard worker and I'm sure, to the people of Alaska, she seemed likable and easy to relate to. She had the advantage of being able to run as a "reformer" against a deeply corrupt and disliked incumbent.

None of that has anything to do with her apparent ignorance of the larger world and her inability to even fake it.
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 #442 of 626
10/1/08 at 11:41am
Bares repeating:

Palin's stumbling in Alasksa
http://www.adn.com/sarah-palin/story/542179.html

Troopergate
http://www.adn.com/opinion/story/532372.html

http://www.adn.com/opinion/story/542082.html


Palin's Abdication
http://www.adn.com/opinion/story/531725.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 #443 of 626
10/1/08 at 11:42am
Palin fans, 2011: "Of course the Palin presidency has been a disaster, no one is arguing otherwise, but what you people don't seem to get is that real conservatives never trusted her.

And, anyway, it's pointless to rehash the reasons for invading France at this point, the important thing is allocating the non-irradiated water without all the petty partisanship."
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 #444 of 626
10/1/08 at 11:46am
Quote:
Originally Posted by Flounder View Post

Well, I don't have sound at work, but I certainly didn't see any "look of disgust" on her face. The other big complaint seems to be that she kept Cheney on the time schedule in the VP debate in 2004. The horror!:

The horror is that she didn't have enough integrity to volunteer that she may have a financial interest in an Obama win in November. How can conduct like that possibly be defended?
The evil that we fight is but the shadow of the evil that we do.
Reply
The evil that we fight is but the shadow of the evil that we do.
Reply
post #445 of 626
10/1/08 at 11:57am
Now I guess we will be told the Commission on Presidential Debates is in the tank for Obama and blah blah blah blah blah.

Interesting that someone has already edited wikipedia to say that her selection has been vigorously criticized (even though I read the news daily and this was the first I saw of it). Sorta like how Palin's entry was updated the day before McCain announced her selection. Operatives is busy, ain't them?

 

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 #446 of 626
10/1/08 at 11:59am
Quote:
Originally Posted by Frank777 View Post

The horror is that she didn't have enough integrity to volunteer that she may have a financial interest in an Obama win in November. How can conduct like that possibly be defended?

It seems quite a stretch to say she has a financial interest in Obama winning just because she wrote a book about black politicians. She's in politics, she writes books about politics.

Tom Brokaw's recent book is about the 1960s and is all about Vietnam. If Obama wins, no one is going to talk about the 1960s, whereas McCain is all about that time period. His book will surely do better if McCain wins. Should he step down as moderator?

Bob Schieffer, another debate moderator, is close family friends with the Bush family. His brother has been in business with Bush and was later appointed an ambassador by Bush. Does he have a financial and family interest in McCain winning?

Come on, this is just Republicans doing what they always do.
Reply
Reply
post #447 of 626
10/1/08 at 12:00pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bergermeister View Post

Now I guess we will be told the Commission on Presidential Debates is in the tank for Obama and blah blah blah blah blah.

No one has alleged anything of the kind. This is simply a journalist who did not disclose she had a conflict of interest, violating all kinds of ethical rules.
The evil that we fight is but the shadow of the evil that we do.
Reply
The evil that we fight is but the shadow of the evil that we do.
Reply
post #448 of 626
10/1/08 at 12:02pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by BRussell View Post

It seems quite a stretch to say she has a financial interest in Obama winning just because she wrote a book about black politicians. She's in politics, she writes books about politics.

Tom Brokaw's recent book is about the 1960s and is all about Vietnam. If Obama wins, no one is going to talk about the 1960s, whereas McCain is all about that time period. His book will surely do better if McCain wins. Should he step down as moderator?

Bob Schieffer, another debate moderator, is close family friends with the Bush family. His brother has been in business with Bush and was later appointed an ambassador by Bush. Does he have a financial and family interest in McCain winning?

Come on, this is just Republicans doing what they always do.

That's weak. The book in question directly references Obama and is being released to coincide with Inauguration Day. If he's not standing on the podium, don't you think that will influence sales?

Either way, it should have been disclosed. That it was hidden from the McCain camp speaks volumes.
The evil that we fight is but the shadow of the evil that we do.
Reply
The evil that we fight is but the shadow of the evil that we do.
Reply
post #449 of 626
10/1/08 at 12:03pm
Ya gotta luv it.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/1..._n_130913.html

Hasselbeck is incredible.

How does the US produce people like this?

 

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 #450 of 626
10/1/08 at 12:04pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Frank777 View Post

That's weak. The book in question directly references Obama and is being released to coincide with Inauguration Day. If he's not standing on the podium, don't you think that will influence sales?

Either way, it should have been disclosed. That it was hidden from the McCain camp speaks volumes.

Weak.

Speaks volumes about what exactly?
"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 #451 of 626
10/1/08 at 12:27pm
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/...es-blog-anger/

The book was mentioned in this article on July 23rd.

McCain cannot claim they didn't know because it would just raise an old question about proper vetting...

These people are proving daily that they are idiots and they seem proud of it.

 

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 #452 of 626
10/1/08 at 12:44pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Frank777 View Post

The horror is that she didn't have enough integrity to volunteer that she may have a financial interest in an Obama win in November. How can conduct like that possibly be defended?

Well, the problem is she never tried to hide it, and as it has been pointed out by others already, it's been a known quantity for months.

http://tpmelectioncentral.talkingpoi...no_problem.php

The money quotes

Quote:
"I think that Gwen Ifill is a professional, and I think she will do a totally objective job, because she is a highly-respected professional," McCain said.

Quote:
What's more, as a Republican operative points out to me in a moment of candor, the existence of the book is potentially helpful to McCain, because it gives McCain supporters a way of retroactively cushioning the blow for Palin, should she pull yet another homina homina homina in response to any Ifill question, as is her wont.

Lo, the predictions are already coming true, even before the debate. The proactive cushioning is already well underway.
A good brain ain't diddly if you don't have the facts
Reply
A good brain ain't diddly if you don't have the facts
Reply
post #453 of 626
10/1/08 at 12:44pm
I think the problem is that Gwen Ifill didn't go to McCain's room and explain all this to him very, very slowly, while stroking his head.

Johnny is very angry, these days, and you have to be patient. He tends to set his jaw and turn his back and mutter "don't wanna" when you tell him stuff he doesn't like.
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 #454 of 626
10/1/08 at 12:52pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bergermeister View Post

These people are proving daily that they are idiots and they seem proud of it.

Yeah? Yeah!
Reply
Reply
post #455 of 626
10/1/08 at 1:17pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Frank777 View Post

That's weak. The book in question directly references Obama and is being released to coincide with Inauguration Day. If he's not standing on the podium, don't you think that will influence sales?

Either way, it should have been disclosed. That it was hidden from the McCain camp speaks volumes.

1) It may be even more interesting if Obama loses, I don't know. I'd be very surprised if a book about black politicians didn't talk extensively about the difficulties they face in getting elected.

2. I'd be very surprised if it was "hidden." The fact that it's on Amazon.com suggests it was publicly available information.

3. You do know that this is just the typical Republican ploy of playing the refs, right? That they're preemptively bringing this up in case Palin answers some questions poorly, so they'll have an excuse? Do you think they're honestly concerned about a conflict of interest?
Reply
Reply
post #456 of 626
10/1/08 at 1:26pm
McCain even said to basically shut up.
"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 #457 of 626
10/1/08 at 1:35pm
Man. I'm glad Ifill's book isn't called "Why Hitler Sucks," because then she'd be totally in the tank for Hitler.
Gangs are not seen as legitimate, because they don't have control over public schools.
Reply
Gangs are not seen as legitimate, because they don't have control over public schools.
Reply
post #458 of 626
10/1/08 at 1:40pm
This is another example that if we did two small things, the world would be fixed. End corporate personhood and give the debates back to the League of Women Voters.

That and make pot mandatory.
Reply
Reply
post #459 of 626
10/1/08 at 1:44pm
[Moved to other VP debate thread]
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 #460 of 626
10/1/08 at 5:16pm
Good lord

http://talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/221277.php

She doesn't even grasp what the conservative argument against Roe v. Wade is.

This is just so brutal. I think I really am starting to feel sorry for her. She was brought in to put McCain over the top, and she's now an enormous anchor.
A good brain ain't diddly if you don't have the facts
Reply
A good brain ain't diddly if you don't have the facts
Reply
post #461 of 626
10/1/08 at 5:53pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Flounder View Post

Good lord

http://talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/221277.php

She doesn't even grasp what the conservative argument against Roe v. Wade is.

This is just so brutal. I think I really am starting to feel sorry for her. She was brought in to put McCain over the top, and she's now an enormous anchor.

I had to watch that twice to make sure I heard her say that she was a "federalist" who supported more power and independence for individual states.

Seriously - WTF?
eye
bee
BEE
Reply
eye
bee
BEE
Reply
post #462 of 626
10/1/08 at 5:56pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by FormerLurker View Post

I had to watch that twice to make sure I heard her say that she was a "federalist" who supported more power and independence for individual states.

Seriously - WTF?

Ah - I see - she was echoing McCain spouting the same gibberish about Roe vs. Wade... in 2006.

Quote:
McCain appeared on George Stephanopoulos's show on Sunday and was asked how he felt about Roe V Wade. He said he would support the decision being returned to the states instead of the Federal government deciding because "I'm a federalist." Only supporting state's rights is not Federalism, it is the exact opposite of it. A Federalist is one who supports a strong central government by definition. McCain wanting the states to decide on their own is a very strong anti-Federalist position, not a Federalist one.

http://blogcritics.org/archives/2006/11/21/160426.php

Google RULEZ!
eye
bee
BEE
Reply
eye
bee
BEE
Reply
post #463 of 626
10/1/08 at 6:10pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by FormerLurker View Post

I had to watch that twice to make sure I heard her say that she was a "federalist" who supported more power and independence for individual states.

Seriously - WTF?

You know what, I actually wasn't paying that much attention at the beginning of the answer and didn't even notice that

I was actually referring to the fact that she thinks a right to privacy is in the constitution, which is the precise argument FOR Roe v. Wade, and conservatives assert that no right to privacy exsists under the 14th amendment.
A good brain ain't diddly if you don't have the facts
Reply
A good brain ain't diddly if you don't have the facts
Reply
post #464 of 626
10/1/08 at 6:14pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Flounder View Post

I was actually referring to the fact that she think a right to privacy is in the constitution, which is the precise argument FOR Roe v. Wade, and conservatives assert that no right to privacy exsists under the 14th amendment.

Yeah, I got that... but I noticed the "I'm a federalist" statement on the videoand went back to check it. After the first post, I went to Google to make sure I wasn't completely wrong about what "federalism" is, and sure enough, there was a link to McCain saying the same thing with the same apparently glaring contradiction in nearly the exact same words in 2006.
eye
bee
BEE
Reply
eye
bee
BEE
Reply
post #465 of 626
10/1/08 at 6:18pm
Yeah I've noticed that's a pretty common usage of the term, even if it's not historically accurate.
Reply
Reply
post #466 of 626
10/1/08 at 6:19pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by hardeeharhar View Post

Fact: Obama sent no lawyers to Alaska.

I looked for a retraction on the WSJ's site, I didn't see anything.

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 #467 of 626
10/1/08 at 6:24pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by dmz View Post

I looked for a retraction on the WSJ's site, I didn't see anything.

That may well be but the Obama campaign asked for a retraction.

http://www.factcheck.org/elections-2...r_finding.html
"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 #468 of 626
10/1/08 at 6:25pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by addabox View Post

She has the accomplishments of a politician who has done well within her limited purview. She's an attractive woman with a down-home manner, and, it would appear, something of a ruthless streak. I'm sure she's a hard worker and I'm sure, to the people of Alaska, she seemed likable and easy to relate to. She had the advantage of being able to run as a "reformer" against a deeply corrupt and disliked incumbent.

Ah ha! The truth comes out. Many politicians have the ability to run against the machine, few do.


Still no takers on the BP/ConocoPhillips emasculation, and why that story has gone begging.

Quote:
Imagine that, instead of playing go-along, get-along with the Daley machine, a certain candidate had run an anti-corruption campaign in Chicago, won upset in an election, then driven a hard bargain with Big Oil, then raised taxes on Big Oil, then gave all his constituents a check for $1200 dollars**? That might -- just maybe -- get some coverage.

So, when a story as juicy as what she pulled off in Alaska goes begging, so that she can be played as a bimbo -- maybe there's little point in participating in a low-brow game. The press' antics lack the same integrity now, as it did when they did this to Bork, Reagan, Quayle, etc. Nothing new (and still pretty tame by 19th century standards, so go figure.)

Just don't ask me to look at all this a see a single network journalist who is "just covering Palin". It's a ridiculous notion.

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 #469 of 626
10/1/08 at 6:27pm
Palin couldn't even mention another Supreme Court ruling besides Roe vs. Wade.

Obama could spend a couple of hours on this fucking subject.

That clinches it for me, if no one's gotten it yet, I'll tell you how I've finally reached a decision...

New School vs. New School and Old School vs. Old School.

New School - Obama and Palin. They both are new to Washington, national, world politics and haven't experienced much yet within them. Which one would excel better in this situation and what qualifications would indicate that?

Obama.

Old School - McCain and Biden. Two respected, experienced Washington insiders who know the ins and outs of the system within all aspects of government and world politics. It takes a lot to get to where both of them have. Which one did it more honorably?

Biden.

I'm pretty much locked on this now. Call it a sanity vote.

Obama/Biden 2008
Reply
Reply
post #470 of 626
10/1/08 at 6:29pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by hardeeharhar View Post

That may well be but the Obama campaign asked for a retraction.

http://www.factcheck.org/elections-2...r_finding.html

Well, for all BHO's pathos, the WSJ seems to think otherwise. Maybe something will come out.

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 #471 of 626
10/1/08 at 6:33pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by dmz View Post

Well, for all BHO's pathos, the WSJ seems to think otherwise. Maybe something will come out.

The WSJ's editors don't care to make Obama look any better than the dirt they try to toss onto him. Do you honestly expect them to retract the hit piece? Wasn't it an opinion anyway and he would have to retract it himself?

This is just foolish.

McCain carpet bombed Indonesia with 500 lawyers trying to find the golden slip that proved Obama became a muslim.

Its in print -- now it is fact.
"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 #472 of 626
10/1/08 at 6:45pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by @_@ Artman View Post

Palin couldn't even mention another Supreme Court ruling besides Roe vs. Wade.

Hold on there, she didn't mention another case that she disagreed with. What, did you expect here to bring up Brown v. The Board of Education? She came back on the Jefferson quote, too. (and no, she's not anywhere near as therapeutic or polished as someone who can make it in the Daley machine -- she's not that kind of "change")


And what religious wars were the founding fathers "in the middle of" that Biden mentioned -- or what state in the country doesn't have a wall of separation between church and state? His answer as to 'every single country where religion bears directly on the state is in turmoil' does not stand up to scrutiny. Nice and truthy, meant to shine on an ignorant audience? Yes. Is he dealing with the facts? Not quite.

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 #473 of 626
10/1/08 at 6:56pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by dmz View Post

Hold on there, she didn't mention another case that she disagreed with.

But Obama could. Get it?*

Quote:
And what religious wars were the founding fathers "in the middle of" that Biden mentioned -- or what state in the country doesn't have a wall of separation between church and state? His answer as to 'every single country where religion bears directly on the state is in turmoil' does not stand up to scrutiny. Nice and truthy, meant to shine on an ignorant audience? Yes. Is he dealing with the facts? Not quite.

Citations DMZ, citations. And in contrast to whom, McCain? Please.

* and it wasn't that she didn't, it was because she couldn't.
Reply
Reply
post #474 of 626
10/1/08 at 7:00pm
Well, you can rationalize her stunning ignorance all you like, but independents aren't wearing the rose-colored glasses, and they are horrified.
A good brain ain't diddly if you don't have the facts
Reply
A good brain ain't diddly if you don't have the facts
Reply
post #475 of 626
10/1/08 at 7:04pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by @_@ Artman View Post

But Obama could. Get it?*



Citations DMZ, citations. And in contrast to whom, McCain? Please.

* and it wasn't that she didn't, it was because she couldn't.

Oh stop it, you're speculating, and you know it. Besides, Palin is in the executive branch, and BHO has formal training in the judicial branch.

Citations for what? Biden, per usual, embellished his answer in that video clip to the point of being disconnected with reality.

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 #476 of 626
10/1/08 at 7:10pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Flounder View Post

Well, you can rationalize her stunning ignorance all you like, but independents aren't wearing the rose-colored glasses, and they are horrified.

Well, Murkowski, and the guys at BP/ConocoPhillips might have a different take on her "stunning ignorance" -- probably more than a few others, too.

Quote:
Major Strasser: You give him credit for too much cleverness. My impression was that he's just another blundering American.

Captain Renault: We musn't underestimate "American blundering". I was with them when they "blundered" into Berlin in 1918.

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 #477 of 626
10/1/08 at 7:12pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by dmz View Post

Oh stop it, you're speculating, and you know it. Besides, Palin is in the executive branch, and BHO has formal training in the judicial branch.

He has experience in both. And that's a good thing. Check for Obama. Next?*

Quote:
Citations for what? Biden, per usual, embellished his answer in that video clip to the point of being disconnected with reality.

WHAT video clip.

Good night. Too tired to run into brick walls anymore tonight.

* He still doesn't get it.
Reply
Reply
post #478 of 626
10/1/08 at 7:15pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by @_@ Artman View Post

He has experience in both. And that's a good thing. Check for Obama. Next?*



WHAT video clip.

Good night. Too tired to run into brick walls anymore tonight.

* He still doesn't get it.

No, that would be the legislative and judicial. You see, we have three branches of....


As to the video clip -- the one you linked to! You Ninny!!

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 #479 of 626
10/1/08 at 7:19pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by dmz View Post

No, that would be the legislative and judicial. You see, we have three branches of....
As to the video clip -- the one you linked to! You Ninny!!

ZZZZzzzzzlink it...tomorrow...goodnight.

"You must be Confused"

Reply
Reply
post #480 of 626
10/1/08 at 7:22pm
Fine.




...um, I mean, okay.

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