Obamas pleas ignored...

Who is more polarizing? Bush?

And there is no worse line than "think for yourself". Someone telling you to think for yourself means they're telling you to think like they do.

Ok you want one example. Her use of the term blood libel. I've never even heard that term. Who uses that? She was wrongly blamed for this sick kids behavior for three days. Now when she responds it once again becomes all about her as the media fixates on whether she was deliberately provacative with the term or clueless about it. Was she being anti-semetic with it?

Hey you are free to support her 100%. But because she isn't the top candidate for other Republicans doesn't mean they aren't thinking or aren't real Republicans.

Bush is a good example. Gingrich is another. Until,The Obama came around, Hillary was probably the best example.

Actually, me telling you to think for yourself is asking you to explain your reasoning with someone other than what someone else stated without basis in fact.

Suddenly "blood libel" is an 11th century term and now somehow anti Semitic instead of a more modern vernacular. You falling for that shit is a perfect example of you listening to the pundits instead of thinking for yourself.
 
Tell me why you hate her.

Because it's the thing to do.

Sheeple. Plain and simple.

If it's not Palin, it's the Conservative Christians. Whatever the pablum of the day from HuffPo, Media Matters, or Mark Crispen Miller is what you will see her spew.

She can't stand her own family members who are in her opinion too right wing Christian
 
Who is more polarizing? Bush?

And there is no worse line than "think for yourself". Someone telling you to think for yourself means they're telling you to think like they do.

Ok you want one example. Her use of the term blood libel. I've never even heard that term. Who uses that? She was wrongly blamed for this sick kids behavior for three days. Now when she responds it once again becomes all about her as the media fixates on whether she was deliberately provacative with the term or clueless about it. Was she being anti-semetic with it?

Hey you are free to support her 100%. But because she isn't the top candidate for other Republicans doesn't mean they aren't thinking or aren't real Republicans.

But you are blaming her for what the MSM made out of her comment! She was merely trying to defend herself against the three-day bashfest she had been enduring, and she should have used much more inflammatory rhetoric, I would have! She wasn't being anti-Semitic, you said yourself, you had never heard of the term "blood libel" and that should confirm that this was a manufactured complaint. That term is not commonly used in our lexicon, to denote hate for Jews, or in any sort of derogatory way. The MSM picked up on it, and that's all we've heard for a week... apparently, their brainwashing technique works on people like you, who are too weak to think for yourself.

So, are you just going to line up like a sheep and vote for whichever Republican candidate the MSM selects for you? Oh... they are LIKED by the MSM, I can support them! Is that how you are going to make your choice? Well I am sorry, I don't trust CNN, MSNBC, or even Fox News, to select who is appropriate to get my vote. Sorry, I don't think we can leave that choice up to the beltway establishment republicans who caused us to be in the situation we are presently in! If you will stop yourself from listening to what the PUNDITS say about Palin, and start actually listening to what Palin has to say, perhaps you could develop a different perspective... but, that's not something you can do, it's easier to go with whoever is LIKED the most by the talking heads, that makes you look smart like them!
 
Bush is a good example. Gingrich is another. Until,The Obama came around, Hillary was probably the best example.

Actually, me telling you to think for yourself is asking you to explain your reasoning with someone other than what someone else stated without basis in fact.

Suddenly "blood libel" is an 11th century term and now somehow anti Semitic instead of a more modern vernacular. You falling for that shit is a perfect example of you listening to the pundits instead of thinking for yourself.

Back in the '90's I'd say Newt was the most polarizing Republican but because he's been out of the limelight for awhile I'd argue today Bush and Palin would be ahead of him. From a Democratic perspective no doubt Obama would be number one. Hillary was but I don't find her as polarizing as she used to be.

I think Palin got pushed into the limelight too early. She was not ready. Had she been able to stay under the radar longer she would have had a better chance to hone her skills needed to compete and perform on a national level. I don't think she's ready to be President in 2012 and thus in a Republican primary I wouldn't support her if she decided to run. You or anyone else are obviously free to disagree with that. That is where I'm coming from.

I'm a Christian but I'm no theologian. When I first read her quote yesterday without anyone's feedback I said to myself WTF is that? So I had to go look up the term. Now I can't speak for anyone else but I will strongly surmise I'm not the only one who didn't know that term. And did she need to respond using such a potentially controversial phrase? Again just my honest thoughts.
 
But you are blaming her for what the MSM made out of her comment! She was merely trying to defend herself against the three-day bashfest she had been enduring, and she should have used much more inflammatory rhetoric, I would have! She wasn't being anti-Semitic, you said yourself, you had never heard of the term "blood libel" and that should confirm that this was a manufactured complaint. That term is not commonly used in our lexicon, to denote hate for Jews, or in any sort of derogatory way. The MSM picked up on it, and that's all we've heard for a week... apparently, their brainwashing technique works on people like you, who are too weak to think for yourself.

So, are you just going to line up like a sheep and vote for whichever Republican candidate the MSM selects for you? Oh... they are LIKED by the MSM, I can support them! Is that how you are going to make your choice? Well I am sorry, I don't trust CNN, MSNBC, or even Fox News, to select who is appropriate to get my vote. Sorry, I don't think we can leave that choice up to the beltway establishment republicans who caused us to be in the situation we are presently in! If you will stop yourself from listening to what the PUNDITS say about Palin, and start actually listening to what Palin has to say, perhaps you could develop a different perspective... but, that's not something you can do, it's easier to go with whoever is LIKED the most by the talking heads, that makes you look smart like them!

Well seeing that I live in California the 2012 Republican nominee will probably already be selected by the time we Republicans in California get to vote. Semantics aside I have no idea who I'll choose in the primary. I can't say anyone stands out to me. The person I so far like the most is Chris Christie from New Jersey. No idea if he is running or not. And why do I need to paper to tell me who to vote for? Because I'm not Palin's number one fan?

If I cared what pundits and what people around me thought about my political views do you think I would be a Republican living in San Francisco? I live in a City where it is more acceptable to come out and say you are gay than to say you are a Republican. This is a City with 800,000 people and maybe 12% are registered Republican. If I was trying to win a popularity contest do you think I would be a fucking Republican living here? How much shit do you get in Alabama for being a Republican? I'm going to surmise not too much. So please don't lecture me about not being able to think for myself or form my own opinions on issues or people.
 
Back in the '90's I'd say Newt was the most polarizing Republican but because he's been out of the limelight for awhile I'd argue today Bush and Palin would be ahead of him. From a Democratic perspective no doubt Obama would be number one. Hillary was but I don't find her as polarizing as she used to be.

I think Palin got pushed into the limelight too early. She was not ready. Had she been able to stay under the radar longer she would have had a better chance to hone her skills needed to compete and perform on a national level. I don't think she's ready to be President in 2012 and thus in a Republican primary I wouldn't support her if she decided to run. You or anyone else are obviously free to disagree with that. That is where I'm coming from.

I'm a Christian but I'm no theologian. When I first read her quote yesterday without anyone's feedback I said to myself WTF is that? So I had to go look up the term. Now I can't speak for anyone else but I will strongly surmise I'm not the only one who didn't know that term. And did she need to respond using such a potentially controversial phrase? Again just my honest thoughts.

I appreciate your perspective and honest thoughts Cwacko. I would probably support her in a primary since I typically support the most conservative candidate in that type of contest regardless of their popularity. That's why I supported Alan Keyes in 2008.

I suspect when you looked up the term you did so using Goggle. Google's results depend on the latest entries into its index along with which ones got the first clicks. Literally hours after Palin's speech her elitist attackers manufactured another "example of divisiveness" by insisting that she used an anti Semitic use of a phrase from the 11th century instead of its modern use, which is: "a false charge intended to generate anger made by people with a political agenda. (source) Within hours the popular use of the term, as understood to those who had never used the term, changed.

I'm a little surprised and disappointed that you fell for this.
 
I appreciate your perspective and honest thoughts Cwacko. I would probably support her in a primary since I typically support the most conservative candidate in that type of contest regardless of their popularity. That's why I supported Alan Keyes in 2008.

I suspect when you looked up the term you did so using Goggle. Google's results depend on the latest entries into its index along with which ones got the first clicks. Literally hours after Palin's speech her elitist attackers manufactured another "example of divisiveness" by insisting that she used an anti Semitic use of a phrase from the 11th century instead of its modern use, which is: "a false charge intended to generate anger made by people with a political agenda. (source) Within hours the popular use of the term, as understood to those who had never used the term, changed.

I'm a little surprised and disappointed that you fell for this.

My thoughts on her didn't change yesterday with the use of the term it was just the first thing that came to mind. Other than reading the comments section of my paper online regarding the shootings and laughing at how many people blamed her from the get go I don't think about her much. She may get more attention but I don't think of her anymore than I think of Romney, Hucklebee or any other potential 2012 Republican candidate. I don't dislike her I'm just not her number one supporter.
 
My thoughts on her didn't change yesterday with the use of the term it was just the first thing that came to mind. Other than reading the comments section of my paper online regarding the shootings and laughing at how many people blamed her from the get go I don't think about her much. She may get more attention but I don't think of her anymore than I think of Romney, Hucklebee or any other potential 2012 Republican candidate. I don't dislike her I'm just not her number one supporter.

You have joined the pinheads on the bandwagon of bash, when it comes to Palin. You're sitting right up there with Karl Rove! And hey, it's fine to have your own opinion and like or dislike whoever you want to, that's what makes us all different. But the point that you keep missing is, you can't present a legitimate reason for your angst toward Palin. It's understandable, you live in a Liberal Koolaid Tank! If I lived at Pinhead Ground Zero, I probably wouldn't like Palin much either, and I probably couldn't tell you why... just from the osmosis of breathing liberal air or something...

What is frustrating to me, is the way some righties join in with the liberals to bash the woman, with absolutely no reason or justification, just because they think it makes them smarter or whatever. She has literally said nothing that Romney hasn't said about the economy or business, she has about the same stance on social conservatism as Huckabee, and ironically, I like her and Christie for the very same reasons! They both speak from the heart and tell it like it is, whether it's what you want to hear or not.

You see, I believe this is at the core of what separates us as liberals and conservatives, for the most part. We've become a spoiled society of nitwits, who think government is the answer to our problems, because government has always been the answer! We've been raised in a big government entitlement system for so long, we've come to expect it and depend on it. When someone comes along, like a Christie or a Palin, and tells us we have to change this, we can't afford it anymore, people don't like to hear that... so we demonize these people, who are merely telling us the truth. Some of us just don't want to hear the truth.
 
You have joined the pinheads on the bandwagon of bash, when it comes to Palin. You're sitting right up there with Karl Rove! And hey, it's fine to have your own opinion and like or dislike whoever you want to, that's what makes us all different. But the point that you keep missing is, you can't present a legitimate reason for your angst toward Palin. It's understandable, you live in a Liberal Koolaid Tank! If I lived at Pinhead Ground Zero, I probably wouldn't like Palin much either, and I probably couldn't tell you why... just from the osmosis of breathing liberal air or something...

What is frustrating to me, is the way some righties join in with the liberals to bash the woman, with absolutely no reason or justification, just because they think it makes them smarter or whatever. She has literally said nothing that Romney hasn't said about the economy or business, she has about the same stance on social conservatism as Huckabee, and ironically, I like her and Christie for the very same reasons! They both speak from the heart and tell it like it is, whether it's what you want to hear or not.

You see, I believe this is at the core of what separates us as liberals and conservatives, for the most part. We've become a spoiled society of nitwits, who think government is the answer to our problems, because government has always been the answer! We've been raised in a big government entitlement system for so long, we've come to expect it and depend on it. When someone comes along, like a Christie or a Palin, and tells us we have to change this, we can't afford it anymore, people don't like to hear that... so we demonize these people, who are merely telling us the truth. Some of us just don't want to hear the truth.

Globalization is destroying the lives of a majority of americans. can you handle that truth, mr. truth-seeker? Fuck no you can't, because you're a brainwashed moronic fascist.
 
You are right but she plays the game as well. She puts herself out there to draw attention to her self. She makes controversial comments because she knows it draws attention. There's no doubt the media unfairly goes after her but she is not an unwilling victim because she plays the game as well.

I'm not comparing Palin to Paris Hilton but just using Hilton as an example. Many people say Paris Hilton is a stupid bimbo blond, which she may be, but she is a genius at marketing herself and is rich and famous as a result of having done almost nothing.

Palin knows how to market herself and it has made her and her family rich in the last two years. But part of drawing all that attention to herself produces some of the backlash we see.

You're absolutely wrong, and really don't get the point at all....

Bill O'Reilly, Beck, Limbaugh, Palin, all draw attention to themselves...
Olbermann, Ed Schulz, Tony Weiner, Barney Frank, all draw attention to themselves...

Who gets the negative attention, attempted character assassination, comic ridicule....not silly jokes, not poking fun...but nasty hurtful ridicule.
Every politician want to get themselves into the news....

I'm talking about the quantity and the quality of the cruel and bitter criticism each one gets....the very personal vitriol ......not even associated with issues in most cases...
Where an innocent slip up like "the country of Africa" gets over the top coverage and gets you labeled a an idiot
but
saying "I visited all 57 states" gets a giggle and nod and is recognized for the common screw up it is....

There is a world of difference out there if your open-minded enough to see the plain unvarnished truth....
 
Globalization is destroying the lives of a majority of americans. can you handle that truth, mr. truth-seeker? Fuck no you can't, because you're a brainwashed moronic fascist.

I can't help but think about you, when they start talking about the nut in Arizona, I'm sorry... I know you are probably not really that kind of monster, and would never do something like that, but the way you have obsessed with the 'globalist fascist' thing... it's kind of eerie now, in light of what we're learning of Loughner.

I'm going to say this to you in all sincerity, if you have a problem, please seek help. Don't let this obsession consume you to the point of doing something crazy. At some point, you need to do some introspection, and try to understand how far out of touch you are with reality. This is not healthy for you.
 
My thoughts on her didn't change yesterday with the use of the term it was just the first thing that came to mind. Other than reading the comments section of my paper online regarding the shootings and laughing at how many people blamed her from the get go I don't think about her much. She may get more attention but I don't think of her anymore than I think of Romney, Hucklebee or any other potential 2012 Republican candidate. I don't dislike her I'm just not her number one supporter.

Not to worry wacko. You're in large company with the other millions of sheeple in the world that just open up and cry: "Ahhhh" when they see the spoon coming towards their lips.

Of course you're even more at a disadvantage as you live in the heart of Gray Area, where no shade of gray goes unnoticed.
 
Isn't it a politician's job to attract attention to himself?

If you're talking about this: Palin knows how to market herself and it has made her and her family rich in the last two years. But part of drawing all that attention to herself produces some of the backlash we see.

You guys keep telling us she's not a politician, therefore she shouldn't be scrutinized so closely.
 
I appreciate your perspective and honest thoughts Cwacko. I would probably support her in a primary since I typically support the most conservative candidate in that type of contest regardless of their popularity. That's why I supported Alan Keyes in 2008.

I suspect when you looked up the term you did so using Goggle. Google's results depend on the latest entries into its index along with which ones got the first clicks. Literally hours after Palin's speech her elitist attackers manufactured another "example of divisiveness" by insisting that she used an anti Semitic use of a phrase from the 11th century instead of its modern use, which is: "a false charge intended to generate anger made by people with a political agenda. (source) Within hours the popular use of the term, as understood to those who had never used the term, changed.

I'm a little surprised and disappointed that you fell for this.

I don't think she's anti-Semitic, just that the phrase was over the top and did the exact opposite of what she intended. Why couldn't she just say "libel", without the blood?
 
<snip>

What is frustrating to me, is the way some righties join in with the liberals to bash the woman, with absolutely no reason or justification, just because they think it makes them smarter or whatever. She has literally said nothing that Romney hasn't said about the economy or business, she has about the same stance on social conservatism as Huckabee, and ironically, I like her and Christie for the very same reasons! They both speak from the heart and tell it like it is, whether it's what you want to hear or not.

You've said this numerous times and I've answered it a few times. The problem is that you don't like or agree with the reasons you're given, so you keep asking the question over and over hoping to get a different answer.

I (and most liberals) don't HATE her. I don't think she's very smart or savvy about politics outside her village. I think she uses "us versus them" language that is guaranteed to divide people. She doesn't speak of the country like we're all Americans; she uses phrases like "take our country back", "liberal elites", "real values", etc. She plays to her supporters and basically ignores or insults those who differ with her.

If I sent her a campaign contribution, she'd accept my filthy liberal lucre with a printed thank-you note, not return it out of principle. I read her memoir and tried (but failed) to read her second book. She's thin-skinned and critical and fails to acknowledge the validity of viewpoints different from hers. She doesn't even give them lip service.

I want a leader who talks to the country like we're all united as Americans, not like liberals are a plague she has to put down.
 
If you're talking about this: Palin knows how to market herself and it has made her and her family rich in the last two years. But part of drawing all that attention to herself produces some of the backlash we see.

You guys keep telling us she's not a politician, therefore she shouldn't be scrutinized so closely.

When did I claim she wasn't a politician?
 
You have joined the pinheads on the bandwagon of bash, when it comes to Palin. You're sitting right up there with Karl Rove! And hey, it's fine to have your own opinion and like or dislike whoever you want to, that's what makes us all different. But the point that you keep missing is, you can't present a legitimate reason for your angst toward Palin. It's understandable, you live in a Liberal Koolaid Tank! If I lived at Pinhead Ground Zero, I probably wouldn't like Palin much either, and I probably couldn't tell you why... just from the osmosis of breathing liberal air or something...

What is frustrating to me, is the way some righties join in with the liberals to bash the woman, with absolutely no reason or justification, just because they think it makes them smarter or whatever. She has literally said nothing that Romney hasn't said about the economy or business, she has about the same stance on social conservatism as Huckabee, and ironically, I like her and Christie for the very same reasons! They both speak from the heart and tell it like it is, whether it's what you want to hear or not.

You see, I believe this is at the core of what separates us as liberals and conservatives, for the most part. We've become a spoiled society of nitwits, who think government is the answer to our problems, because government has always been the answer! We've been raised in a big government entitlement system for so long, we've come to expect it and depend on it. When someone comes along, like a Christie or a Palin, and tells us we have to change this, we can't afford it anymore, people don't like to hear that... so we demonize these people, who are merely telling us the truth. Some of us just don't want to hear the truth.

I'm not, nor have I, bashed her though. I don't consider giving someone honest criticism is bashing them.

In my opinion deciding who to vote for for President contains far more than just policy positions. Obviously those are important but if there are say eight Republicans in a primary who for most part share the same policy decisions how do you differentiate them? You can say leadership you can say vision but how do you define that on a piece of paper? Maybe you can write that down. For me that's something I more internalize. So I don't have something to write down as for why Palin isn't my number one choice that you can then look at and say 'you're wrong' and see she should be your number one choice.

To me Hillary's primary ad with the 'who do you trust with the 3am phone call' was a perfect political ad because it is so true. No matter who the candidate or the party deep down would you trust them with that call? That's for each voter to decide.
 
I don't think she's anti-Semitic, just that the phrase was over the top and did the exact opposite of what she intended. Why couldn't she just say "libel", without the blood?

According to the modern, generic definition of the word that you just commented on, it fits perfectly for the point that she made. With great irony, it also fits with the new slander complaining about her using the term: "a false charge intended to generate anger made by people with a political agenda".

She predicted the reaction from the Left exactly, which was brilliant.
 
Back
Top