Why I hate Sarah Palin
Dec 20th, 2009 | By Nunzia Rider | Read more in: Politics
OK, so maybe hate is too strong a word, or the wrong word, or something. I don’t like to say that I hate anyone, particularly someone I’ve never met. But something happened last night when I read Sarah Palin’s half-intelligible Tweets about climate change.
Copenhgen=arrogance of man2think we can change nature’s ways.MUST b good stewards of God’s earth,but arrogant&naive2say man overpwers nature
Earth saw clmate chnge4 ions;will cont 2 c chnges.R duty2responsbly devlop resorces4humankind/not pollute&destroy;but cant alter naturl chng
I’m tempted to say something rude and insulting like, “How nice that the half-term Alaska governor found Twitter and now has a legitimate reason to ignore spelling, grammar and sentence structure.”
CNN tells us these Tweets are aimed at climate change “believers,” as if climate change is Santa Claus or the Tooth Fairy. I feel the same way when people — often people like Sarah Palin — tell me they don’t “believe” in homosexuality. Is that like, “If I ignore it, it’ll go away?”
I read these Tweets and felt sick, not so much for the grammar and such (although mistaking molecular science for historic time was a bit like fingernails on a chalkboard), because they were, after all, Tweets. Some of us can squeeze a coherent thought into 140 characters with ease. And despite the mistakes, Palin got coherent thought into those Tweets. And that’s what tied my stomach into knots.
Arrogant and naive to say man overpowers nature? I’ve been hoping that nature takes Glen Canyon Dam down for decades now so I can see the wonder that was that canyon, but so far, tons of concrete poured into place by man has kept the waters of the Colorado River stored up in Lake Powell because “sport fishermen” and jet skiers don’t want their ”recreation” ruined.
And then there’s Hoover Dam, creating Lake Mead further down the Colorado, keeping the river from running its natural wild course. That’s caused a few problems downstream, too, where man has altered natural change quite nicely, thank you, dumping silt all through the Grand Canyon and putting species that can’t live in muddy water at risk. Guess it’s only natural it’s named after one of the worst presidents in American history.
Can’t alter natural change? Right. Tell that to the Mississippi Delta, too, where years of Army Corps of Engineers work (you may remember them from the New Orleans levees) have altered the course of the river to “tame” it and control flooding, meanwhile destroying the Delta with tons of silt and debris that would have normally been dealt with by the very natural floods.
What I hate about Sarah Palin is what she represents — the willfully ignorant, the sheeple, those who believe what they’re told without any thought of their own. And then change their beliefs at the drop of the hat — with even less thought — when their puppetmasters tell them something different.
I believe that man’s activities certainly can be contributing to the issue of global warming. I believe that man’s activities certainly can be contributing to the issue of global warming, climate change. Here in Alaska, the only Arctic state in our union, of course, we see the effects of climate change more so than any other area with ice pack melting. Regardless though of the reason for climate change, whether it’s entirely, wholly caused by man’s activities or is part of the cyclical nature of our planet, the warming and the cooling trends, regardless of that, John McCain and I agree that we’ve got to do something about it and we have to make sure that we’re doing all we can to cut down on pollution.
That’s what Sarah Palin told ABC’s Charlie Gibson while she was John McCain’s running mate, ironically on September 11, 2008. Or what she told Katie Couric on CBS later that month:
You know there are — there are man’s activities that can be contributed to the issues that we’re dealing with now, these impacts. I’m not going to solely blame all of man’s activities on changes in climate. Because the world’s weather patterns are cyclical. And over history we have seen change there. But kind of doesn’t matter at this point, as we debate what caused it. The point is: it’s real; we need to do something about it.
We need to do something about it. Don’t we though?
But this isn’t just about climate change. There’s Sarah Palin and the Death Panels, Sarah Palin and Evolution, Sarah Palin and the Public Option Will Bankrupt Us, Sarah Palin and the Socialist President. Sarah Palin and Keep the Government Out Of My Medicare.
Sarah Palin represents the worst in Americans — the reason we have lost so much credibility on the world stage. She is the Queen of the people the New Republicans consider their base — the “real” Americans, as Palin herself told us during the last year’s election. Not us. We think to much, know too much, understand too much.
Palin’s been sent out to rile the base, to assure them that the smart people really don’t know the truth, that we’ve just gotten arrogant thinking that we know better than, well, god. She laughs at us, seeking to belittle us to the ignorant masses who are too afraid to know anything. Far easier to just believe what the puppetmasters say, and that usually boils down to “god’s will.”
I watched Wanda Sykes last night. She sent Portia out to a Sarah Palin booksigning out at some CostCo in Michigan or somewhere. Portia asked people standing in line why they liked Palin. “Because she’s real.” “Because she’s one of us.” “Because she’s smart.” “I love her glasses. I’ve got to find out where she got her glasses.”
They were enthusiastic, smiling, and probably perfectly nice people. But they will shove this country down a very nasty path, enthusiastically smiling as they do it, and with Sarah Palin waving the flag at their front.
Don’t get me wrong, here. I know Palin’s not in charge of this bullshit. She’s just a pawn, like every other woman on the conservative side. But she is willfully playing her role. It’s cynical and disgusting, just like McCain’s selection of her as his running mate in the first place.
It’s a cynical ploy, yes, and one that’s been used for centuries to keep despots in power because it works. Eventually, of course, the sheeple — or enough of them — wise up to dump the despots, and the cycle starts over.
Unless, of course, intellectual evolution has advanced enough that more people see the bullshit now than buy it. It’s awfully close. Awfully close.
The health care bill and Afghanistan (and a lot of other issues) have put an bad taste in our mouths, for sure. But now is not the time to quit. That’s what the other side is counting on. Yeah, yeah, Sarah Palin quit, but she quit because we were mean to her.
If we quit, it’ll be because they’re right.
Don’t give the people who would rather read about Tiger Woods sex life (and guess what that’s doing for the racist crowd) than how the insurance companies are literally killing us what they want. We know they’re wrong. Tell them.
AWOP contributing editor, politics
On Facebook
Subscribe by RSS feed
Follow on Twitter
Got Kindle?
Me Too!
Nothing irks me more than to see influential people so blatantly displaying their illiteracy. Sister Sarah is the textbook example.
[Reply]
You know, I never click on any more Sarah Palin article links. I don’t want to send my traffic in that direction. I want her to fade away into the nether regions, the Alaskan tundra, to live with the Mooses. Or something. But I had to see what you were saying.
I commend you for even reading her tweets. That would send me into an Exorcist-style head spin..and…I can’t afford to lose my head at this moment in time. I read yesterday that when Inhofe went to Copenhagen, a reporter said to him, “You’re ridiculous.” I so much wish the same for Palin, but she probably is afraid to step out of the ewe-ess-of-eh, in case reality hits her like a cave man’s club.
[Reply]
I only read NW on Palin too, Lisa. I, like you, can only handle her in small well done pieces but she is so destructive it bears keeping at least one eye or ear on her. Thanks goodness NW can do that for AWOP without losing her cookies.
Congrats NW… you got picked up at Huffington Post, again!
kim g.
[Reply]
GAWD! I feel so “Norman Bates at the end of Psycho” each time I’m sitting here alone at my computer and very consciously decline any and all Sarah the Sycophant links. Very happy to know I’m not the only one.
And, uh, I actually do hate her.
Nice work here, buddy.
[Reply]
Thanks y’all. I wrote that in haste yesterday as I was trying to get ready to leave the parental units and head back home. Then I worried about it the whole drive. Good to know I hit the mark.
[Reply]
Copenhagen=arrogance. Wow. That one is priceless.
One of the most ignorant people I have ever known once called me “conceited” for saying “you reap what you sow” in regard to the Palin-esque ideology. The world according to people like this is nothing to aspire to and yet they do with a fervor that boggles the mind.
kim g.
[Reply]
Yup, Sister Sarah is one special kind of stupid………
Sarah Palin-Fabio 2012!
[Reply]
I’ve only really felt what I consider true hatred for a handful of people in my life, and Palin hasn’t got the ability to generate but two feelings other than irritation and contempt. The 1st is pity, not for her, but for those who worship at her mythical altar; and fear!! Yep!! Actual, perceptable, genuine, bone shaking FEAR!!! We just rid ourselves of one such mindless puppet orchestrated by truly evil forces such as Cheney and his group of those who profit and reap joy only from the pain & suffering of others. Palin is the PERFECT mindless puppet to put in place to likewise do the bidding of this seemingly immortal cabal. I mean, REALLY!! Just how many major heart malfunctions can that monster be reanimated from??? And at what cost???
[Reply]
Excellent post!!! You are so right on with this…thank you! Keep up the great work!
[Reply]
I think now that her book tour is over and she has made her millions, she can fade into obscurity. At least let’s hope so. She’s a freaking lunatic..and so is anyone who thinks she should run for prez…wouldn’t THAT be a hoot? You betcha!
[Reply]
Margo Moon
Reply:
December 22nd, 20092009-12-22T20:23:17ZF jS, Y at 3:23 pm2009-12-22T20:23:17Zg:i a
I agree about her being a lunatic, Mary, but can’t quite make myself feel all that amused anymore about the possibility of her running for office in 2012. That’s a fear that’s mainly a product of looking around at our nation full of thepeopleofwalmart.
[Reply]
Despite the fact that I can’t even abide to look at images of her or listen to anything she says, “climate change” has always been happening on Earth, ever since there has been a “climate”. This planet is NOT static. Nothing is ever going to stay the same, weather, land masses, what have you. To think that “we” are the sole creators of “climate change” IS arrogant–and silly. I believe we certainly do have an impact, but so do many other factors.
After all, who was burning the fossil fuel that melted the first ice age??
Just a thought,
GG
[Reply]
I agree, GG, but I’m not arguing that we are the sole creators of climate change. I am arguing against Palin’s new position that we have nothing to do with it. We are – and have been for many decades now – been hurrying it along at an ever-increasing pace.
[Reply]
Her positions are like our Maine weather, if you don’t like it, just wait ten minutes and it’ll change dramatically. It was a really good post and one of many I hope to see from many sources until the 2012 danger is passed.
The wife asked why I wrote my comment based so much on ‘fear’ of her becomming a ‘G. Dumbya Bush take II’ and her timing was priceless as we were watching The Wanda Sykes Show on the DVR, and immediately after she asked, the screen had a Sarah Palin book signing at Costco in the west & there was a woman who was literally ’screaming’ her praises, REALLY!! It’s not JUST the Wal*Mart voters that vote for the best commercial & cleverest lies seen in our TV campaigns.
Between struggling just to buy at those discount stores, survive our lousy health system, and too poor to afford college for many, they don’t have a lot of time for lengthy explanations of the issues. They work, eat, tend to necessities, and raise kids, all while struggling to survive. Their political knowledge too often comes from the TV blurbs & the ‘management’ of their companies, neither of which usually have a thing to do with their personal reality. Then comes a Sarah ‘Good Times Ahead with ME in Charge!’.
Yup, FEAR, as there are all too many deep pockets willing to use her for their own means. Most of them reside in that unreal world of the top 5% that own (and want to keep or increase) 90%+ of the USA’s wealth!!
Old Injun go watch valiant pioneers tame the ‘New World’ on TV;-)
[Reply]
Wow, Newswriter, I stopped by to see if you had responded to my last comment and, lo and behold, someone’s been doing some housecleaning!
Now why would someone want to do that?
Could it be that someone doesn’t have the courage of their convictions?
Or could it be that, deep down, they realize that they can’t construct a cogent argument on the subject that stands up to scrutiny?
I am sure it wasn’t you, NW. You were perfectly pleasant in our conversation and did a good job defending your side of the topic- that’s why I came back to check for your comment.
Guess it goes to show that someone fears the ‘cuda!
Happy New Year, NW!
[Reply]
newswriter
Reply:
January 1st, 20102010-01-02T00:08:36ZF jS, Y at 7:08 pm2010-01-02T00:08:36Zg:i a
There are indeed two copies of just about all our posts, because they all appear first in their respective section and then later as a feature. Occasionally there’s the post that debuts both in its section and as a feature, in which case there is only one copy.
But so far I’ve been unable to figure out how to take the original post, which posts under whatever section it’s from (for me it’s politics), and get it to post on a different, newer date as a feature with all the comments, without moving to the top of the section queue again and without losing its section designation. We can get it done, but it requires an awful lot of manual posting and reposting and moving comments, and we’re just not into that.
Interestingly, when I searched for the article, the only one I found was the Feature article that has the c4p comments on it. Have no idea why this one came up for you, and I don’t know how come only one of ‘em is coming up in the search either.
As for the rest of what’s going on in this thread, I’m a tad disappointed. I worried when I first engaged you that you might be a troll, or if not, yet another sheeple. Still not convinced on the sheeple part, and, I decided, if you were in fact a troll, you at least could put a sentence together
You and I fundamentally disagree. As best as I can tell, each of us thinks the other’s beliefs will plunge us back into the dark ages, or something akin to it, in a 21st century kind of way. There’s little little, if any at all, common ground. And yet, I chose to counter what ill-informed statements you made, although your answers made me suspect you weren’t buying it. No matter.
One of the prime characteristics of a troll, however, is the need to respond to every single comment to him or her. This can be problematic when an author also chooses to respond to all the troll’s comments. It creates a never ending thread.
Another characteristic is that trolls tend to insist on engaging with people who very clearly do not like them, for whatever reason.
Lesson for you, t-dude: If you don’t want to be perceived as a troll, don’t act like one.
I have in the past advised my friends here to ignore people they don’t like, and I try to follow that advice myself. I have, though, been known to engage in some pretty rough treatment of visitors here, and I certainly understand where it comes from. I can’t say I’ll never go there again either. Sometimes I do get pretty fucking pissed off.
There does come a point where discussions must end, however. I probably let ours go on longer than it should, after it was clear we were gonna get caught in an endless game of “what about this.” Gotta get on to other things, t-mann.
I am happy about our conversation on the ex-gov, though. Maybe we’ll have another one at some point, preferably not about her, because, really, it’s not worth it.
And happy new year.
[Reply]
turfmann
Reply:
January 1st, 20102010-01-02T01:59:26ZF jS, Y at 8:59 pm2010-01-02T01:59:26Zg:i a
In our conversation, you remind me of my sister-in-law, a high compliment as she is a progressive and as smart (scary smart, brilliant) a person as I have ever met. Thanks for your kind words. Nah, I’m no troll. I live on Cape Cod so my day is filled with encounters with people and their lifestyles that do not agree with me whatsoever on any (all) subjects. When you have these kinds of conversations with people in person it is far more amicable than the rough and tumble of the anonymous internets. I think that if you and I were to talk over cocktails & cigars (ok, maybe not the cigars) we would have great fun; I think that even kim would have a good time, if only to beat me over the head with a nerf bat!
I won’t bother you further (unless you’d like) and a very happy new year to you, too.
Say, you wouldn’t want to talk about Scott Brown for Senate, would you?
[Reply]
News Writer
Reply:
January 1st, 20102010-01-02T02:16:46ZF jS, Y at 9:16 pm2010-01-02T02:16:46Zg:i a
Well, thanks for the compliment then. And you’re welcome on my posts. Unless you annoy me. But I promise I’ll warn you.
I really can’t speak for Kim, although I love her like the sister I don’t have (I do, in fact, have a sister, but she’s nothing like Kim), but I totally understand where she and Margo are coming from. Like I said, I’ve been known to go there myself and probably will again. There are days when I just don’t have the time or energy to put into argument at all, much less civil discussion.
I guess I must think there’s hope for you.
As for Scott Brown, I don’t yet know much of anything about him, and probably won’t until after he wins the primary. So maybe later.
A Progressive Girl
Reply:
January 1st, 20102010-01-02T03:54:07ZF jS, Y at 10:54 pm2010-01-02T03:54:07Zg:i a
Oh I think you most definitely fit the definition of “troll”
again I say, Fuck Off.
*********
Progressives/Liberals are utterly flummoxed by the spectre of Sarah Palin; she is the devil incarnate…
(play Bach’s Toccata and Fugue in D minor here)
As a regular visitor to the C4P website, I was clued into a diatribe by a progressive blogger entitled “Why I Hate Sarah Palin”. As a dutiful Palin supporter, I meandered over for a look.
Interested individuals may peruse my conversations by looking first here, then here. Let’s just say that they are a wee bit less than tolerant of opposing points of view. *snicker*
Of course, if you care to interject your own point of view while there I am sure you’ll be treated much the same as I was treated.
Fear the ‘Cuda!
turfmann on January 1, 2010 at 6:57 PM
There were two posts dumb ass. One was in politics and one ran in feature. You really make yourself look stupid by accusing people of shit they didn’t do. Your commentary speaks so well to your narrow mindedness I have no need to delete it.
http://aworldofprogress.com/why-i-hate-sarah-palin-2/
kim g.
[Reply]
turfmann
Reply:
January 1st, 20102010-01-01T19:21:54ZF jS, Y at 2:21 pm2010-01-01T19:21:54Zg:i a
Happy New Year, Kim!
I stand corrected and apologize but why two posts? And what evidence would there be that there were two? Is there something at the top of the article or your blog that states “Hey, dumb ass! Around here, we do something that no one else on the internet does: when we post an article, we actually post it twice!”
And thank you so much for your colorful language and biting insults. You will rightly note that at no time did I ever assault or you or NW with insults or profanity.
But I am quite convinced that you would not be able to hold up your side of the argument without invoking such nonsense.
In fact, I think that I could do a better job articulating your argument than you could.
Want to give it a go? You argue for the point of view that Sarah Palin would make an excellent President of the United States. I will argue that Sarah Palin would not.
Here I am, the very embodiment of everything that you complain about in your blog. I understand my position, I understand yours. I am not afraid to admit that I am wrong.
[Reply]
So, Kim. I’m thinkin’ to myself, what’s the formal definition of a troll? Found this to be a fairly standard, well presented answer:
What Is A Troll?
The term derives from “trolling”, a style of fishing which involves trailing bait through a likely spot hoping for a bite. The troll posts a message, often in response to an honest question, that is intended to upset, disrupt or simply insult the group.
Usually, it will fail, as the troll rarely bothers to match the tone or style of the group, and usually its ignorance shows.
Why do trolls do it?
I believe that most trolls are sad people, living their lonely lives vicariously through those they see as strong and successful.
Disrupting a stable newsgroup gives the illusion of power, just as for a few, stalking a strong person allows them to think they are strong, too.
For trolls, any response is ‘recognition’; they are unable to distinguish between irritation and admiration; their ego grows directly in proportion to the response, regardless of the form or content of that response.
Trolls, rather surprisingly, dispute this, claiming that it’s a game or joke; this merely confirms the diagnosis; how sad do you have to be to find such mind-numbingly trivial time-wasting to be funny?
Remember that trolls are cowards; they’ll usually post just enough to get an argument going, then sit back and count the responses (Yes, that’s what they do!).
Troll – Angler or Underbridge Dweller?
How can troll posts be recognised?
* No Imagination – Most are frighteningly obvious; sexist comments on nurses’ groups, blasphemy on religious groups .. I kid you not.
* Pedantic in the Extreme – Many trolls’ preparation is so thorough, that while they waste time, they appear so ludicrous from the start that they elicit sympathetic mail – the danger is that once the group takes sides, the damage is done.
* False Identity – Because they are cowards, trolls virtually never write over their own name, and often reveal their trolliness (and lack of imagination) in the chosen ID. As so many folk these days use false ID, this is not a strong indicator on its own!
* Crossposting – Any post that is crossposted to several groups should be viewed as suspicious, particularly if unrelated or of opposing perspective. Why would someone do that?
* Off-topic posting – Often genuine errors, but, if from an ‘outsider’ they deserve matter-of-fact response; if genuine, a brief apposite response is simply netiquette; if it’s a troll post, you have denied it its reward.
* Repetition of a question or statement is either a troll – or a pedant; either way, treatment as a troll is effective.
* Missing The Point – Trolls rarely answer a direct question – they cannot, if asked to justify their twaddle – so they develop a fine line in missing the point.
* Thick or Sad – Trolls are usually sad, lonely folk, with few social skills; they rarely make what most people would consider intelligent conversation. However, they frequently have an obsession with their IQ and feel the need to tell everyone. This is so frequent, that it is diagnostic! Somewhere on the web there must be an Intelligence Test for Trolls – rigged to always say “above 150″
Who is at risk?
Any newsgroup, bulletin board, forum or chatroom can attract trolls, but they don’t have the brains to attack nuclear physicists, and they are drawn to the quick response where sex, religion and race are found; so politics is easy prey.
One troll famously tried to infiltrate a mensa group; the results read like 100 trolls and one regular, it didn’t have a chance – but it was stupid enough to persist until removed.
Should You Be Concerned?
Usually, no, though fractured funny bones and occasional waves of nausea have been reported.
When a troll becomes persistent and personal, you may need to consider the possibility that it has fermented into an Internet Stalker – equally pathetic, if not more so – but sometimes requiring weedkiller.
[Reply]
turfmann
Reply:
January 1st, 20102010-01-01T20:13:03ZF jS, Y at 3:13 pm2010-01-01T20:13:03Zg:i a
Weedkiller! I get it. Very good!
I’m sorry to disappoint but I am a very happy, well adjusted guy.
And I really have no desire to hijack your thread and make it about me – I’m really not that interesting.
This thread (oops, these threads) are about Sarah Palin and why NW hates her.
In fact, NW and I were having a very nice conversation about her until I stumbled into the other Why I Hate Sarah Palin thread.
So, I would be happy to converse with you, too, about Sarah.
But I will not yell, scream, swear or otherwise insult you or your friends here.
Can you do the same?
[Reply]
A Progressive Girl
Reply:
January 1st, 20102010-01-01T20:52:36ZF jS, Y at 3:52 pm2010-01-01T20:52:36Zg:i a
fuck off.
[Reply]
turfmann
Reply:
January 1st, 20102010-01-01T22:10:25ZF jS, Y at 5:10 pm2010-01-01T22:10:25Zg:i a
OK. I know when I’m not wanted. But remember that the biggest problem that we all face is that there is far to much vitriol in our public discourse. I think you’ll agree with me on that.
I came by with honest intentions and had a good discussion with your friend, Newswriter. Unfortunately, all you’ve managed to do is sully yourself with exactly the accusations that you’re so intent upon smearing me with, which is too bad because she does your site proud. When you treat a guest as you’ve treated me, well, that doesn’t exactly reflect well upon you.
The other thing I cannot for the life of me figure out is that right now the happiest people on the planet should be those on the progressive side of the spectrum. The world is your oyster right now. It is those of us in the Republican/Conservative camp that should be down in the dumps (I have my moments, believe me). I wish I knew why that is so. I would think that you’d be thrilled with the prospect of two terms with Obama and solid majorities in both houses of Congress. Not only that, there are more than just a couple of really, really old Supreme Court justices that will likely retire/die during his term of office. I think we can assume that Obama will appoint justices that will be right in line with the Progressive train of thought (and conversely give strict constructionists fits). Everything is coming up roses for the progressive.
Why should you care a wit about some private citizen from Alaska that quit her job and now presumes to speak on behalf of a great swath of the American populace? I thought progressives deemed her to be stupid, a rube, unqualified, a religious zealot, an anti-abortion book burner, etc., etc. Would not your attention be more wisely attuned to Mitt Romney or Tim Pawlenty?
I think that progressives, rightly, see great peril in a Palin candidacy. I think she’s laying the groundwork for a populist revolution against the entrenchment of both parties in Washington. That’s where her record is strongest, that and energy self-sufficiency.
And that’s why she garners the anger and derision of the left.
No matter.
I wish you a Happy New Year.
and I think your are an idiot.
simple enough.
kim g.
[Reply]
turfmann
Reply:
January 1st, 20102010-01-01T20:16:28ZF jS, Y at 3:16 pm2010-01-01T20:16:28Zg:i a
Oh, come on Kim. My wife says the same thing. She’s probably right but she still loves me.
But like I said above. This isn’t about me. This post is about Sarah.
So, do you want to debate Sarah?
[Reply]
@ A Progressive Girl Reply:
January 1st, 2010 at 10:54 pm…
HT! Well played, kim! I’m sure that you’ll enjoy the traffic. I know that they enjoy yours at Hot Air.
Did you google that or are you a poster there? I don’t recall a kim or progressive girl.
Nice to know that you cared enough to go to all the trouble for little ol’ me.
[Reply]
Wow! Almost like having Bob back, but equipped with intelligence & clarity.
I notice one funny thing in all this, SP was the subject, yet there is actually little mentioned in the comments about her beyond the most superficial.
I mis-spoke too. I DO NOT fear SP; I worry about the Evil Richards that will manipulate her into doing their will, and that will have but one of few optional results. They get her into the WH (hey! Rove, Dumbya??) and she becomes their rubber stamper; they get her in & she insists on ‘doing it my way, you betcha’; or she gets in, refuses to bend, over-taxes her tiny brain, and quits in 2014 ‘for the good of the American People’ amid reams of ethics & criminal charges against her.
Old Injun starting to think illegal immigrants should take this silly-assed discussion back to their homelands. Just kidding, gotta keep you here long enough for casinos to drain your bank accounts, THEN can go home. hehehe;-)
[Reply]
A Progressive Girl
Reply:
January 2nd, 20102010-01-02T13:12:39ZF jS, Y at 8:12 am2010-01-02T13:12:39Zg:i a
lol and quit for another book tour? Narcissism is such a prevalent trait among conservatives but there is not much to debate where Palin is concerned… at least for me anyway.
kim g.
[Reply]
turfmann
Reply:
January 2nd, 20102010-01-02T15:54:47ZF jS, Y at 10:54 am2010-01-02T15:54:47Zg:i a
I’ll bite, Mike. I’m all for peeling back the superficial and getting to the heart of the matter. As a conservative, that is what I found so distressing about the Obama campaign – that the vetting was at best superficial. I don’t want to belabor Obama but you get my point. We really need to know, all of us, what the candidates think even if we disagree.
For the sake of argument, let’s say that it is midsummer 2012 and Palin has captured the nomination. Let’s also say that Obama is not in the picture so that we can neutralize that dynamic; let’s say that Hillary mounted a campaign and she was the Democrat nominee. I think that is an apples to apples comparison – a solidly conservative candidate vs. a solidly liberal one, both of whom are women, so we don’t have to consider the dynamic of ‘the nation’s first female president’.
(Digression: I have come to respect Mrs. Clinton. She surprised me with her excellent work ethic in the Senate and her grittiness and resolve in her presidential campaign. I think that she got the shaft from some questionable campaign practices by certain organizations that supported the eventual nominee. I also think that the way she is being treated by the Obama administration as Secretary of State is despicable towards her and disrespects greatly the office. I guess I would be in solidarity with the guys at Hillbuzz on this.)
What issue would be illustrative of what we might want in a Palin administration that we could really dive in and explore.
I think that energy is an excellent topic. We really need to explore how we can solve myriad problems with the way we power our economy by looking to divorce ourselves from reliance upon supplies coming from hostile countries. To me that is at the crux of some of our most pressing problems. Reliance upon crude oil that traverses the Persian Gulf puts us in the position where we feel it necessary to secure those trade routes with military forces. Eventually, those forces get used as in the attacks on the Iranian Navy by Reagan, to the Gulf Wars to the present, where we fear an attack on Iran by Israel might send the price of crude into the stratosphere. Where I might be in favor of using military force to maintain the status quo, I might imagine that you may not. Put that aside for a moment and let’s look at how Palin’s past performance in Alaska might translate into a national energy policy that is realistic, workable and places us in a position to grow our economy while taking every and all precautions to protect and remediate the environment.
How does that sound?
[Reply]
newswriter
Reply:
January 2nd, 20102010-01-02T17:59:24ZF jS, Y at 12:59 pm2010-01-02T17:59:24Zg:i a
You must be kidding. Sarah Palin’s idea of an energy policy is to have someone research a list of alternative energy resources that might be available to communities and say that’ll reduce dependence on fossil fuels by 2017. Even the guy she had write that up said it wasn’t a plan, just a list.
There was no thought into how to make that work, how to get communities to use those resources, how viable those resources are or where the communities would get the money to use them.
And then, of course, she quit a few months later.
But Palin’s real energy policy, we all know quite well, is drill, baby drill. Which means that she did a little lip service job to the folks who know we need to get off fossil fuels with no real intentions of actually doing anything about it. And why should she? Alaska’s rich in oil and gas, as long as you’re willing to destroy the place for it.
And, back to the original point of my article — Sarah Palin believes that nothing humankind does has any effect whatsoever on the climate. I don’t want someone who believes that anywhere near national energy policy. An energy plan that doesn’t come “clean” is no plan at all.
That alone is enough of a deal breaker, but Palin is a walking, talking deal breaker. Palin does not have one position that would even come close to mitigating the many, many positions she has that mean she’d be an even worse president than GW Bush.
Where you people get the idea that we’re “afraid” of Palin is beyond me. She’s nothing. Just a pawn for true evil — the kind that wakes up every morning trying to figure out how to pull the next one over on simple, good people they know will drink up every lying word.
And that I am afraid of. We humans have come upon a split in the path. One way is darkness, but in that darkness is everything we’ve ever thought was true. The other way is bright, but completely unknown, and from what we can see so far, some of our closely held “truths” don’t stand up to the light. But I’m this for the light.
For the record, I don’t hate Sarah Palin. I despise what she represents – ignorance, cynicism, anti-intellectualism, theocracy, lies. Those have no place in a progressive world, and whether people like you like it or not, this IS a progressive world.
You get to choose. Go with it, or obstruct it and go anyway. The best you can do is delay. We will move forward.
When I talk about “progressive,” you see, I’m not talking about politics. I’m talking about the very essence of life. That’s why you find that many progressives are none too happy with the current crop of Democrats running this place. Although they at least have some concern for the people of this country, they don’t have enough. But they, too, have that same choice.
Seriously, though, I’m done with this topic. I was having fun for a while, but now it’s boring me to tears. Theoretical arguments about future political races are useless, and I’m not even going to start on your out to lunch comments on Clinton (although I do congratulate you for seeing what many of us have seen for a long time — that Hillary Clinton is a far better human being than her husband).
Just for the record, t-mann, I get annoyed when the conversation gets stuck on a topic for the sake of being on the topic. It feels so much like beating the proverbial dead horse to me. I don’t make my decisions about people based on what anyone else says, and neither do my friends here. We do, indeed, know the value of research and making up our own minds. I probably know infinitely more about Sarah Palin and the ways of her mind than you do, and I didn’t get it from liberal or conservative blogs.
Anyway, I’m off to other topics. I may even come back to this one again, when something comes along that captures my attention like those Tweets.
In the meantime, comfort yourself knowing that I don’t like Palin for the very same reasons you like her.
[Reply]
Turfmann, as Kim said, I too tire of this nonsene. However, I do have to make one or two comments here.
1st, I don’t know how old you were (or care) when Reagan was in power. I was a tad younger & worked directly for the man, or about as close to direct as one can achieve. I take real issue with your comment “..where we feel it necessary to secure…” as I know for certain that ‘we’ did not agree with Reagan and made that clear directly to him. Using the military to maintain status quo of ANYTHING OTHER THAN the physical (not economic) protection of the USA and our allies is exactly what gets us into trouble every time. You likely ARE young enough to think in terms of energy, but the mis-use of the military has been a problem for decades. The 1950s it was sugar, and so on, so you’re right, I don’t agree with you about military force, but NOT for the reason you seem to imply. When we use the military for anything other than defending ourselves REAL PEOPLE DIE. But unlike Cheney, Bush, Reagan, Palin, Rove, et al I speak from personal experience of war. Those who would use military force to enforce trade, political, or any agenda other than defending ourselves without experiencing the gore, fear, grief, etc of war generally have little or no flexibility, although they’ll be the 1st to lay claim to being as flexible as a rubber band. War is the LAST resort to even defend ourselves, and any military commander worth anything will tell you that, and ALL the commanding officers I’ve worked with will tell you the same.
As for comparing Palin to Hillary? Easy, forget personalities and personal lives and judge solely on merits and you get intelligence, thoughtfullness, education, experience, judgement on Hillary’s side and the polar opposite on Palin’s. Nerd vs Bimbo, strong-willed vs headstrong, etc. Hillary got the smarts, Palin got the same as Dumbya, cheering, jeering, and grinning. Sage vs fool. Too innane to even try to conceive a debate on the subject.
Like Kim, I get my ideas from experience, research, and thinking things through. The majority of true progressives do as well. If I have a committee meeting involving genuine Independents like myself, conservatives, and liberals on deciding truly contentious issues I much prefer a committee full of conservatives as if you get one con vote, you got all the con votes in most cases. Liberals, progressives, and independents have that nasty habit of thinking for themselves in all but the far left circles.
As for ‘biting’, I really didn’t anticipate ANY continuance of the discussion(?) by ANYONE. I waited until I thought any semblence of debate was over. I forgot, conservatives genetically MUST respond. Not having that particular problem, I join Kim in leaving further diatribes to others.
[Reply]
A Progressive Girl
Reply:
January 3rd, 20102010-01-03T06:01:27ZF jS, Y at 1:01 am2010-01-03T06:01:27Zg:i a
lol… that was NW’s comment, Mike. Unless you were referring to my far more succinct one earlier. NW is far better with words than I but I think we were saying just about the same thing ; )
kim g.
[Reply]
Insert following in place of “Sarah Palin” to truly understand the ugliness and hatred that are the foundations of the so-called “Progressives”:
“Religion” (especially those filthy Christians…)
“Rednecks” (how dare they question East and West Coast elites who always know better…)
“Teapartiers- er, teabaggers” (disgusting that they use the 1st Amendment, it belongs to US…)
“Constitutionalists” (um, the Constitution is whatever WE want it to be, screw what’s written…)
“Republicans” (dog turds, all of them)
“Conservatives” (ditto to all of the above…)
“Democrats” (stand in our way and we’ll vote you out of office <Michael Moore, Oct. '09)
[Reply]
News Writer
Reply:
January 19th, 20102010-01-19T23:12:36ZF jS, Y at 6:12 pm2010-01-19T23:12:36Zg:i a
Not to open this can of worms again, but your post came very very close to getting an ignorant comment warning, for the simple fact that it makes no sense. I didn’t say a single one of those things you put after all your words (and they are just words). OK, I do regularly use teabagger. It fits. Wear it. But other than that, I really have no problem swapping out the words, although it does get a little confusing when it comes to parts of my post that actually refer specifically to Palin and her antics. Unless of course you think that she and all those things you list are exactly the same thing, and that’s just crazy. I am really concerned about your addition of “Democrats” at the end there, with some weird quote from Michael Moore. I really kinda prefer his quote, “Stand in our way and we’ll vote you out of office” (if he really said that — I seriously just can’t be bothered to check) to the right wing extremists “Stand in our way and we’ll shoot you dead.” Call me crazy, but the ballot box just seems more civilized than the point of an automatic rifle.
Really, Chris. You’re the one who said all the vile and hateful things. All I said was that you and your kind are sheeple.
[Reply]
A Progressive Girl
Reply:
January 19th, 20102010-01-19T23:21:44ZF jS, Y at 6:21 pm2010-01-19T23:21:44Zg:i a
That’s a good one coming from a guy who was using the search phrase ” I hate Progressives” when he found this post. Dude. Wake the fuck up.
[Reply]
Barbara
Reply:
March 1st, 20102010-03-02T03:55:04ZF jS, Y at 10:55 pm2010-03-02T03:55:04Zg:i a
This dude is awesome.
[Reply]
Nunzia Rider
Reply:
March 1st, 20102010-03-02T04:15:26ZF jS, Y at 11:15 pm2010-03-02T04:15:26Zg:i a
Really? You think morons are awesome. That’s just sad.
[Reply]
I really LOVE America, I really DON’T like sarah palin.
[Reply]
Amen Sister Nunzia Rider!!!! Summed up much of my own opinion. Thank you!!!
[Reply]
I do not care for Palin. I really do not care for liberal elitists, however. Do not use the term “sheeple” too loosely. Isn’t jumping on the “I hate Sarah Palin” band wagon part of the liberal mantra…much like like the tired excuse, “It’s Bush’s fault”? The problem is most Americans on the right and left side of the spectrum are “sheeple.” The right are too ignorant to see themselves this way while the left are too arrogant to admit they are just as “sheepilish” (made up word from a made up word) as the right. Just sayin’.
[Reply]
Nunzia Rider
Reply:
February 20th, 20102010-02-20T16:26:38ZF jS, Y at 11:26 am2010-02-20T16:26:38Zg:i a
Aw, lighten up dan. The “liberal elitists” thing is startin to really get on my nervous. Liberals are arrogant? I dunno, man, but to me it takes a helluva lotta arrogance to proclaim a mandate when you win a disputed election or to reject every single offering by a guy who won the election by 4 or 5 percentage points. As usual, it seems to me that conservatives like to try to label liberals with the tar they’re usin themselves. but thanks for dropping by.
oh, and sheepilish is a perfectly fine word. i may use it myself some day.
[Reply]
Sarah Palin is a threat to you and that’s why you hate her. You ALWAYS say republicans are so DUMB. We’re so uneducated. Get a new line.
[Reply]
Nunzia Rider
Reply:
March 1st, 20102010-03-02T04:17:41ZF jS, Y at 11:17 pm2010-03-02T04:17:41Zg:i a
1. Sarah Palin is no threat to me, personally. Nor do I actually hate her. I do hate what she represents, and that is a threat to us all, not just to me.
I never said Republicans are dumb or uneducated (although some most definitely are). I did say that supporters of the kind of nonsense Palin spews are willfully ignorant. Maybe you should look up the word.
Thanks for dropping by, though, Barbara, late to the game as you are.
[Reply]
Kim G.
Reply:
March 2nd, 20102010-03-02T14:13:29ZF jS, Y at 9:13 am2010-03-02T14:13:29Zg:i a
Barbara… There is only one thing I miss about Houston and it isn’t conservatives. How ’bout that Anise, huh? I bet that one cracked your face…lol. Stupid people in power is a threat to everyone. Even people who are too dense to see it.
[Reply]