Sarah Palin: The Sound and the Fury

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
81

[quote]AlisaV wrote:
To those of you who like Palin, what did you think of the article?
Do you think the unflattering anecdotes are fabricated, or do you think they’re true but not important?[/quote]

The article reminded me a lot of the sort of things that were written about Hillary Clinton during the election. This article is almost like looking into a crystal ball in the sense that if Palin does run for president, the same things written in the article will be harped on over and over again in the media. The author seems to think that internet bloggers are more a more credible “source” than actual journalism, I think many of the attacks on Palin in the article are completely made up or extremely exaggerated.

I have a really tough time understanding why people hate her so much. They all claim that she’s “irrelevant” and “unimportant”, but they can’t stop talking about her. The people that hate her so much are the ones giving her so much attention. Then they say stuff like “it’s because the people that take her seriously actually go and vote!” It shouldn’t be an issue anyways if that’s the case - but they just keep going around in these circles that never end in actually making a valid point or argument, it all just ends in “she’s an idiot”.

At the same time, I have a tough time understanding why people fawn over her. I like her and think she’s refreshing, but I’m not going to go read her book. If she ran for president, I wouldn’t vote for her either. But the argument could be made that if Obama or W are presidential material, she definitely could hold the office as well.

The next election should be interesting and fun, I’ll probably just sit the whole thing out next time.

82

[quote]pittbulll wrote:

[quote]ZEB wrote:

[quote]pittbulll wrote:

[quote]ZEB wrote:

[quote]pittbulll wrote:

[quote]ZEB wrote:

[quote]pittbulll wrote:

This is the technique you use when you can’t negotiate an opposing opinion . The facts seem pretty clear to me . Obama got good press because IMO he was a good Candidate . And McCain got mediocre press because he is IMO Mediocre . Where did I lose you
[/quote]

You lost me where you lost every other adult with an IQ larger than their shoe size. What happened to the media being non-biased? What happened to both candidates getting equal treatment. The medias job is not to sit in judgement of who the better candidate is. They’re supposed to report the facts and then let we the people decide. Unless someone is doing an editorial piece. That’s where they can point out who they think is the better of the two candidates.

You don’t understand any of this do you? [/quote]

I understand you are incapable of a conversation , you state your opinion as fact attack everyone with an opinion different than yours . You have yet to state a fact for me to comment on [/quote]

LOL, You don’t know the difference between fact and opinion. If I say that I think the Steelers will go to the Superbowl this year, that’s an opinion. But, if I say that the Saints won the Super Bowl, that’s a fact.

Got it now?

Fact: Obama received more favorable coverage than did McCain. I have offered evidence to back up that fact.

You began this debate by calling what I was claiming to be fact, rhetoric. When I backed up my claims you then switched to saying that Obama was just a better candidate so he received more favorable coverage.

Take my advice and stick to the training sections on this site.

[/quote]

You lose track of your self , don’t you . I agree Obama got more favorable coverage than McCain , That is fact.[/quote]

You can add short-term memory loss to your many political faults. You said earlier that my posts were merely “republican rhetoric.”

Yea, I got it, you’ve changed your argument. Not that it matters, as I said whether he was superior or not, he should not have gotten favorable treatment for it. By the way, Mondale was favored over Reagan, would you say that Carter was a better candidate than the “Great Communicator?”

No problem Pit, I know you have a blind spot. What ever is republican is bad, what ever is democrat is good. At least the truth won out this time.

Got it.
[/quote]

I would have this conversation with you but as soon as you are put against the wall you will start your personal attacks (THEY DON"T HURT BUT THEY WASTE TIME) and we will accomplish nothing . If you ever learn how to communicate like a big boy let me know and I will tell you my opinion and why I have my opinion. Then you can tell me your opinion and why you have it
Gee Wiz just like adults [/quote]

Already been there with you and you offered nothing in return. You bring up points that you cannot defend. In fact, that is your trademark.

83

[quote]Schwarzfahrer wrote:
not a fair crack? eyeroll

So you put someone who never should have had a shot because of utterly transparent shortcomings in the fight and protest afterwards?

Strange, all of you guys are usually quick to point out how feminine and socialist society has become. Children are taught that participating is worth more then winning.
But Palin, somehow, is an exception.

She lost and that game wasn’t supposed to be fair- it’s supposed to be high stakes, high risk.
If you try to play president you have to be able to cope with journalists.
Palin wasn’t able to do that, she even couldn’t handle her own daugher. I wonder how she’d cope with Hu and Putin?

Guys, if she was any good, she would have won that charade. Granted, her dimwit qualities appeal to a lot of people, guess what, Obama, too has charisma, only that his bs appeals to even more people.

[/quote]

Great post.

84

[quote]ZEB wrote:

[quote]Otep wrote:

President Clinton is an amazingly unbiased source for this dispute.[/quote]

Actually for Bill Clinton to attack the press something had to go very, very wrong. Maybe you’re too young to remember how the press fawned over Bill Clinton in 92’ and then again in 96’. But I remember it well. Also, how do you defend the media when even SNL pointed out how biased the mainstream liberal media was toward Obama? Everyone new it, it is a fact. There is a web site which tracks favorable news stories. Obama had more than Hillary, and McCain put together. He’s a manufactured candidate, and really, really bad President. But of course you won’t admit that either. [/quote]

I was told a different story about why George H’s attack campaigns were relatively mild against Clinton, but that is neither here nor there. I agree with your first sentence, I just think that ‘something that went very, very wrong.’ was Hillary not getting the nomination.

I agree, he was a good campaigner. When did I ever say that he wasn’t. But, keep in mind that when the media is your PR department that too plays into the scheme of things. Now run along and do your research. Obama received more favorable news coverage, and less unfavorable than any other candidate by far.

Now why is that?
[/quote]

No, you misunderstood. You can complain about Obama not being vetted until halfway through his first term and beyond, and you probably will, but even with all that, his campaign was the slickest. Spin is a part of that. He did something to have the media eat out of the palm of his hand. Now, you blame that on the media being direlect in its duties, but I call it excellent campaigning. The game is the game. Since you describe the media ‘fawning’ over Clinton, and use similar vergiage to describe its relationship with Obama, surely you don’t think they liked Gore and Kerry less. Hell, they probably liked Dukakis. But George H/W Bush still managed to win. Why? Because the media was more unbiased?

No. Because they ran better campaigns.

America does not have state media. Its media are not required to be unbiased. Welcome to the Market we all know and love.

85

[quote]Rockscar wrote:
Palin is a political pawn, and she’s doing a great job. As long as the left only has Palin hate while their own party forcefully rapes American citizens and taxpayers, the democrats are doomed for a good 15-20 years. [/quote]

Keep dreaming. The Democrats will lose the next election or the one after that, then the Republicans will be in for a term or two, then the Dems for another term or two, rinse and repeat the insanity…It’s not that hard guys, it’s just a cycle between the two, right now we happen to be in the Democrat cycle.

86

Anyone ever notice how Bush and Palin are known to be “Dumb”. Thats the VERY FIRST critique that you hear of them. I think it’s cause their policies aren’t that bad that people can’t attack them for that reason so they settle for calling them Dumb.

87

[quote]Schwarzfahrer wrote:
I know, democrats = immoral, evil

I don’t know about you, but now I feel great having concluded how EASY this actually is![/quote]

I call this the DREAM TEAM:

Rangel (ethics violation)
Waters (ethics violation)
Geitner (taxes)
Daschle (taxes)
Franken (taxes)
Van Jones (a few reasons)
Obama (birth certificate)
Helen Thomas (biased and anti-semitic)

yes, they are immoral, good to see we agree!

Don’t forget Reid and Pelosi, but everyone hates them, even liberals so I know I don’t have to convince you.

88

[quote]carbiduis wrote:

[quote]Schwarzfahrer wrote:
I know, democrats = immoral, evil

I don’t know about you, but now I feel great having concluded how EASY this actually is![/quote]

I call this the DREAM TEAM:

Rangel (ethics violation)
Waters (ethics violation)
Geitner (taxes)
Daschle (taxes)
Franken (taxes)
Van Jones (a few reasons)
Obama (birth certificate)
Helen Thomas (biased and anti-semitic)

yes, they are immoral, good to see we agree!

Don’t forget Reid and Pelosi, but everyone hates them, even liberals so I know I don’t have to convince you.[/quote]

Hey there now. This is America. Little is more American that Tax Evasion.

89

[quote]Dabba wrote:

[quote]Rockscar wrote:
Palin is a political pawn, and she’s doing a great job. As long as the left only has Palin hate while their own party forcefully rapes American citizens and taxpayers, the democrats are doomed for a good 15-20 years. [/quote]

Keep dreaming. The Democrats will lose the next election or the one after that, then the Republicans will be in for a term or two, then the Dems for another term or two, rinse and repeat the insanity…It’s not that hard guys, it’s just a cycle between the two, right now we happen to be in the Democrat cycle.[/quote]

If the GOP starts doing massive cuts then yes they will have a long future ahead of them, they will talk about how they destroyed an oppressive government and pulled us out of the worst recession since the great depression. But if they go back in and do as they did last time they where in office don’t be surprised if you see a 3rd party come in.

90

[quote]John S. wrote:

[quote]Dabba wrote:

[quote]Rockscar wrote:
Palin is a political pawn, and she’s doing a great job. As long as the left only has Palin hate while their own party forcefully rapes American citizens and taxpayers, the democrats are doomed for a good 15-20 years. [/quote]

Keep dreaming. The Democrats will lose the next election or the one after that, then the Republicans will be in for a term or two, then the Dems for another term or two, rinse and repeat the insanity…It’s not that hard guys, it’s just a cycle between the two, right now we happen to be in the Democrat cycle.[/quote]

If the GOP starts doing massive cuts then yes they will have a long future ahead of them, they will talk about how they destroyed an oppressive government and pulled us out of the worst recession since the great depression. But if they go back in and do as they did last time they where in office don’t be surprised if you see a 3rd party come in.[/quote]

I will be. I don’t doubt for a second that either the Dems or the GOP are going to engage in their usual “Hope and Change!” or “Reclaim America’s Honor!” campaigns and convince most people that they are actually going to do something this time. People will buy into it again. I highly doubt a third party could actually gain any serious following.

91

[quote]Dabba wrote:

I will be. I don’t doubt for a second that either the Dems or the GOP are going to engage in their usual “Hope and Change!” or “Reclaim America’s Honor!” campaigns and convince most people that they are actually going to do something this time. People will buy into it again. I highly doubt a third party could actually gain any serious following.[/quote]

Did you see the tea party turn on Scott Brown? I highly doubt they will go to the democrats if the GOP pulls there usual shit. Then again, people always seem to be flip flopping on their beliefs.

92

[quote]Dabba wrote:

[quote]Rockscar wrote:
Palin is a political pawn, and she’s doing a great job. As long as the left only has Palin hate while their own party forcefully rapes American citizens and taxpayers, the democrats are doomed for a good 15-20 years. [/quote]

Keep dreaming. The Democrats will lose the next election or the one after that, then the Republicans will be in for a term or two, then the Dems for another term or two, rinse and repeat the insanity…It’s not that hard guys, it’s just a cycle between the two, right now we happen to be in the Democrat cycle.[/quote]

Been happening that way since I been around

93

[quote]skaz05 wrote:

[quote]AlisaV wrote:
To those of you who like Palin, what did you think of the article?
Do you think the unflattering anecdotes are fabricated, or do you think they’re true but not important?[/quote]

The article reminded me a lot of the sort of things that were written about Hillary Clinton during the election. This article is almost like looking into a crystal ball in the sense that if Palin does run for president, the same things written in the article will be harped on over and over again in the media. The author seems to think that internet bloggers are more a more credible “source” than actual journalism, I think many of the attacks on Palin in the article are completely made up or extremely exaggerated.

I have a really tough time understanding why people hate her so much. They all claim that she’s “irrelevant” and “unimportant”, but they can’t stop talking about her. The people that hate her so much are the ones giving her so much attention. Then they say stuff like “it’s because the people that take her seriously actually go and vote!” It shouldn’t be an issue anyways if that’s the case - but they just keep going around in these circles that never end in actually making a valid point or argument, it all just ends in “she’s an idiot”.

At the same time, I have a tough time understanding why people fawn over her. I like her and think she’s refreshing, but I’m not going to go read her book. If she ran for president, I wouldn’t vote for her either. But the argument could be made that if Obama or W are presidential material, she definitely could hold the office as well.

The next election should be interesting and fun, I’ll probably just sit the whole thing out next time.[/quote]

But neither Obama nor W were presidential material…

94

[quote]Otep wrote:

He did something to have the media eat out of the palm of his hand.[/quote]

Yes he did, he was black and more liberal than Hillary. That’s all the media needed to end Hillary’s chances.

When you can say anything that you want and there’s never a fact finding mission as there usually is with any politician, it’s easy to look good.

And the game is never fair when the mainstream liberal media want one particular candidate to win.

They favored both of them over Bush. If you check the news stories you will see that both Gore and Kerry got more favorable news coverage than did Bush. Yes, Bush won anyway, but it’s pretty much a known fact that a republican has to be a solid 5 pts. better to win by even 2pts. In Obama’s case it was just off the charts bias. He could have come out spit on the floor, smiled at the camera and the media would have spun in some fashion to his favor. Every single person (democrats alike) who are in the know, knows this to be true.

Now you’re talking sense. The media does not have to be unbiased and they are not. The majority of them are registered as democrats and they favor democrats. Very simple, glad we had this talk.

95

[quote]carbiduis wrote:
Anyone ever notice how Bush and Palin are known to be “Dumb”. Thats the VERY FIRST critique that you hear of them. I think it’s cause their policies aren’t that bad that people can’t attack them for that reason so they settle for calling them Dumb. [/quote]

That’s been the media bias against every republican as far back as Eisenhower. Reagan was supposed to be dumb too. It’s a shame that Obama is not “dumb” like Reagan was, we’d be on our way out of this mess by now.

96

[quote]John S. wrote:

[quote]Dabba wrote:

I will be. I don’t doubt for a second that either the Dems or the GOP are going to engage in their usual “Hope and Change!” or “Reclaim America’s Honor!” campaigns and convince most people that they are actually going to do something this time. People will buy into it again. I highly doubt a third party could actually gain any serious following.[/quote]

Did you see the tea party turn on Scott Brown? I highly doubt they will go to the democrats if the GOP pulls there usual shit. Then again, people always seem to be flip flopping on their beliefs.[/quote]

If the republicans don’t play the tea party correctly they will be in gigantic trouble, no question.

97

[quote]jsbrook wrote:

[quote]skaz05 wrote:

[quote]AlisaV wrote:
To those of you who like Palin, what did you think of the article?
Do you think the unflattering anecdotes are fabricated, or do you think they’re true but not important?[/quote]

The article reminded me a lot of the sort of things that were written about Hillary Clinton during the election. This article is almost like looking into a crystal ball in the sense that if Palin does run for president, the same things written in the article will be harped on over and over again in the media. The author seems to think that internet bloggers are more a more credible “source” than actual journalism, I think many of the attacks on Palin in the article are completely made up or extremely exaggerated.

I have a really tough time understanding why people hate her so much. They all claim that she’s “irrelevant” and “unimportant”, but they can’t stop talking about her. The people that hate her so much are the ones giving her so much attention. Then they say stuff like “it’s because the people that take her seriously actually go and vote!” It shouldn’t be an issue anyways if that’s the case - but they just keep going around in these circles that never end in actually making a valid point or argument, it all just ends in “she’s an idiot”.

At the same time, I have a tough time understanding why people fawn over her. I like her and think she’s refreshing, but I’m not going to go read her book. If she ran for president, I wouldn’t vote for her either. But the argument could be made that if Obama or W are presidential material, she definitely could hold the office as well.

The next election should be interesting and fun, I’ll probably just sit the whole thing out next time.[/quote]

But neither Obama nor W were presidential material…[/quote]

I think this is twice now that we’ve agreed.

98

[quote]John S. wrote:

[quote]Dabba wrote:

I will be. I don’t doubt for a second that either the Dems or the GOP are going to engage in their usual “Hope and Change!” or “Reclaim America’s Honor!” campaigns and convince most people that they are actually going to do something this time. People will buy into it again. I highly doubt a third party could actually gain any serious following.[/quote]

Did you see the tea party turn on Scott Brown? I highly doubt they will go to the democrats if the GOP pulls there usual shit. Then again, people always seem to be flip flopping on their beliefs.[/quote]

It’s more like, “Did you see Scott Brown turn against the tea party?”…and that’s kind of my point. I didn’t mean that tea partiers or conservatives will become Democrats, in fact I meant that they will likely stay Republicans. I meant that the people in general will likely again be seduced by slogans come election time from the big two.

99

[quote]jsbrook wrote:

[quote]skaz05 wrote:

[quote]AlisaV wrote:
To those of you who like Palin, what did you think of the article?
Do you think the unflattering anecdotes are fabricated, or do you think they’re true but not important?[/quote]

The article reminded me a lot of the sort of things that were written about Hillary Clinton during the election. This article is almost like looking into a crystal ball in the sense that if Palin does run for president, the same things written in the article will be harped on over and over again in the media. The author seems to think that internet bloggers are more a more credible “source” than actual journalism, I think many of the attacks on Palin in the article are completely made up or extremely exaggerated.

I have a really tough time understanding why people hate her so much. They all claim that she’s “irrelevant” and “unimportant”, but they can’t stop talking about her. The people that hate her so much are the ones giving her so much attention. Then they say stuff like “it’s because the people that take her seriously actually go and vote!” It shouldn’t be an issue anyways if that’s the case - but they just keep going around in these circles that never end in actually making a valid point or argument, it all just ends in “she’s an idiot”.

At the same time, I have a tough time understanding why people fawn over her. I like her and think she’s refreshing, but I’m not going to go read her book. If she ran for president, I wouldn’t vote for her either. But the argument could be made that if Obama or W are presidential material, she definitely could hold the office as well.

The next election should be interesting and fun, I’ll probably just sit the whole thing out next time.[/quote]

But neither Obama nor W were presidential material…[/quote]

Exactly.

100

[quote]Dabba wrote:

[quote]John S. wrote:

[quote]Dabba wrote:

I will be. I don’t doubt for a second that either the Dems or the GOP are going to engage in their usual “Hope and Change!” or “Reclaim America’s Honor!” campaigns and convince most people that they are actually going to do something this time. People will buy into it again. I highly doubt a third party could actually gain any serious following.[/quote]

Did you see the tea party turn on Scott Brown? I highly doubt they will go to the democrats if the GOP pulls there usual shit. Then again, people always seem to be flip flopping on their beliefs.[/quote]

It’s more like, “Did you see Scott Brown turn against the tea party?”…and that’s kind of my point. I didn’t mean that tea partiers or conservatives will become Democrats, in fact I meant that they will likely stay Republicans. I meant that the people in general will likely again be seduced by slogans come election time from the big two.[/quote]

No, Scott tried pulling some shit and the tea party called him out on it. See it isn’t like the democrats who suddenly love war now that there guy is in office, the tea party actually keeps to its values.

You are right, come election time there will be a few people getting in through invoking the tea party or claiming they have changed and then go back to doing the same ol same ol, but if too many get in and the republican party turns back into the bush party, expect to see an uproar from the tea party, this time with the left joining them.

I personally don’t see the republican party starting to cut medicare/social security and the bases around the world, thus we will have no meaningful cut’s and the debt situation won’t improve. So when the republicans fuck them over, as they feel the democrats have where will they go? More then likely a third party will be created, or at the very least a Ross Perot type candidate will come.