Stupid Sarah Palin at it again

Welcome to our community

Be a part of something great, join today!

Register Log in
 
maxiep said:
Read post 22 of this thread: http://sportstwo.com/threads/188165-Stupid-Sarah-Palin-at-it-again?p=2622264&viewfull=1#post2622264
Click to expand...

Sarah Palin is teaching Amurrricans their real history. I do agree that her delivery lacked penache, but she could have read it off of a screen and been hailed a rhetorical genius. I'll take a pliticia who at least attempts to speak extemporaneously on a daily basis, as opposed to a President who seems to get himself off-message whenever he isn't reading words from a teleprompter.
 
PapaG said:
Sarah Palin is teaching Amurrricans their real history. I do agree that her delivery lacked penache, but she could have read it off of a screen and been hailed a rhetorical genius. I'll take a pliticia who at least attempts to speak extemporaneously on a daily basis, as opposed to a President who seems to get himself off-message whenever he isn't reading words from a teleprompter.
Click to expand...

I'll take a politician who doesn't quit their job halfway through their term (and didn't do it because they were running for President at the time).
 
julius said:
I'll take a politician who doesn't quit their job halfway through their term (and didn't do it because they were running for President at the time).
Click to expand...

Me too. That's one of Palin's many fatal flaws as a candidate. Of course, our current President only served a year or so to the job that he was elected to do by the people of Illinois before he declared his candidacy for President, and he even admitted that he wasn't ready to be President.

So, you kind of do take politicians who quit their job, regardless of the reason why. Tort law in Alaska meant that any civil lawsuits against the governor had to be paid by the governor, and not the state, so I can see why Palin quit with all of the frivilous lawsuits being filed against her by Democrats. That said, the majority of the public doesn't care about the reason (like you, apparently), and that's why it's a flaw that Palin won't be able to overcome.
 
Last edited:
Wait a second, the right hates educated elites...does this mean Palin is an educated elite!?!
 
Denny Crane said:
"I think" is saying "I believe"
Click to expand...

My point exactly.

Followers and paid shills "think/believe".

Leaders know.

Denny Crane said:
And "re-look" is a word:

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/relook

Time for a relook at media stocks?

I'm guessing you had a public school education.
Click to expand...

I'm guessing you were home-schooled, which would explain your reading comprehension difficulties.

I never said it wasn't a word.

I "kidded" it might be Inuit because it's not exactly a word commonly used, and promptly used it in a sentence for demonstration.

Your weak sense of humor is likely a by-product of an isolated upbringing also.
 
chris_in_pdx said:
Yes, because I'm sure Sarah Palin is such a student of American History that she knew about some obscure letter written by Revere that my neice who has a degree in US History barely knew about.
Click to expand...

So, your niece blew how many tens of thousands of dollars on a degree that didn't fully educate her on a crucial aspect of American history?

She should sue her university for her own ignorance.
 
I don't think the point is about what Revere wrote. She was saying he fired a shot across the Brits' bow; that the colonies weren't going to just sit there and take it anymore.
 
Denny Crane said:
I don't think the point is about what Revere wrote. She was saying he fired a shot across the Brits' bow; that the colonies weren't going to just sit there and take it anymore.
Click to expand...

Hm, I'm fairly certain that's what I said 8000 messages ago.
 
PapaG said:
So, your niece blew how many tens of thousands of dollars on a degree that didn't fully educate her on a crucial aspect of American history?

She should sue her university for her own ignorance.
Click to expand...

Or the more likely case is that Palin was talking out of her ass, as usual, and a team of her handlers had to google everything they could to find a plausable excuse for her stupidity.
 
If anything, I'd say that video shows the incredible media bias against Palin. The way it was presented was completely misleading.
 
Natebishop3 said:
If anything, I'd say that video shows the incredible media bias against Palin. The way it was presented was completely misleading.
Click to expand...

It's funny how every time she says something stupid/odd/dumb/silly/factually void, it's because of the media.
 
julius said:
It's funny how every time she says something stupid/odd/dumb/silly/factually void, it's because of the media.
Click to expand...

You don't see any bias there? It's not like she was saying that Revere warned the British in the way that he warned the colonists. She was making some broad statement about sending a warning to the British that they weren't going to be able to take away our arms. Sure, the statement wasn't exactly history professor worthy, but I've seen far worse generalizations about history made by politicians. I don't think it was news worthy and they were presenting it in a way to make her look as bad as possible.
 
Natebishop3 said:
You don't see any bias there? It's not like she was saying that Revere warned the British in the way that he warned the colonists. She was making some broad statement about sending a warning to the British that they weren't going to be able to take away our arms. Sure, the statement wasn't exactly history professor worthy, but I've seen far worse generalizations about history made by politicians. I don't think it was news worthy and they were presenting it in a way to make her look as bad as possible.
Click to expand...

I'd say she presented it in a way that made her look as bad as possible, it's hardly evidence of bias to film her saying it. She was, after all, talking to the press. Press coverage is what she was looking for, otherwise she wouldn't have been talking to them (and wouldn't be on the bus tour).

barfo
 
Natebishop3 said:
You don't see any bias there? It's not like she was saying that Revere warned the British in the way that he warned the colonists. She was making some broad statement about sending a warning to the British that they weren't going to be able to take away our arms. Sure, the statement wasn't exactly history professor worthy, but I've seen far worse generalizations about history made by politicians. I don't think it was news worthy and they were presenting it in a way to make her look as bad as possible.
Click to expand...

You think there's a left bias, I think there's a lazy bias.

btw, Sarah Palin on her own does a good enough job to look as bad as possible. She doesn't need the press to do that. And the medias response to her talking to the press and saying stupid things (the validity of this statement, yet to be determined, withstanding) make it a bias.
 
barfo said:
I'd say she presented it in a way that made her look as bad as possible, it's hardly evidence of bias to film her saying it. She was, after all, talking to the press. Press coverage is what she was looking for, otherwise she wouldn't have been talking to them (and wouldn't be on the bus tour).

barfo
Click to expand...

I didn't say anything about filming her saying it... the talking head that presented the story was pretty biased in how he presented the story.

"Palin may need to brush up on her American history" and "it sounds like she got a bit confused on the details"...

I didn't see anything in what she said as especially inaccurate, except for maybe the part about the bells... I don't remember anything about Revere and bells, but that's not what they're talking about. They're portraying it as if she was saying that Revere warned the British, not the Americans, on his historic ride.
 
julius said:
You think there's a left bias, I think there's a lazy bias.

btw, Sarah Palin on her own does a good enough job to look as bad as possible. She doesn't need the press to do that. And the medias response to her talking to the press and saying stupid things (the validity of this statement, yet to be determined, withstanding) make it a bias.
Click to expand...
I remember a story where she was 'viewed in a poor light' by the mainstream media b/c she had 3 words written on her hand in a half-hour speech. That was a difference b/w "unvarnished truth as seen by the camera" and spin.

I don't particularly care--she wants to be in a political race, she should be doing things to make herself look good. And if that means overcoming a bias, that's among the smaller problems the next president will have. But to maintain that there isn't a sizable block of media outlets out to disparage her is not being intellectually honest.

Edit: you may be right, julius, that it's more "lazy" than "left", but there's some precedent for a lot of vitriol coming her way from the more liberally-based media sources. I'm not saying Fox doesn't do that, either, but generally it seems like the stuff there (at least, from the article of the Fox CEO someone posted earlier) is dug up and factual, rather than spewn and spun.
 
Last edited:
julius said:
You think there's a left bias, I think there's a lazy bias.

btw, Sarah Palin on her own does a good enough job to look as bad as possible.
Click to expand...

I think there's a bias in that the media knows that people on the left love to hear things that make her sound/look stupid... just as they liked to hear and see things that made Bush look stupid. It's simply a money thing. They want to put stories on the news that are going to attract the most viewers. If Palin was widely loved, they wouldn't say shit.

I'm not especially impressed with her, and I don't think she's a very good public speaker by any means, but I think it's unfair how she's been picked on since she came into the national spotlight. The left has gone after her mercilessly with the jokes and the sexual innuendos, which I think is pretty fucked up. I would say the left would be more supportive of women's rights and equality, yet they are attacking a woman who ran for VP and wants to be a strong and powerful woman. I guess I don't get it.
 
Natebishop3 said:
I didn't say anything about filming her saying it... the talking head that presented the story was pretty biased in how he presented the story.

"Palin may need to brush up on her American history" and "it sounds like she got a bit confused on the details"...

I didn't see anything in what she said as especially inaccurate, except for maybe the part about the bells... I don't remember anything about Revere and bells, but that's not what they're talking about. They're portraying it as if she was saying that Revere warned the British, not the Americans, on his historic ride.
Click to expand...

Ok. I only watched a clip of her talking, I didn't review the press coverage. In any case, she sounds like a idiot, so I'm not sure what sort of unbiased coverage you'd be looking for on that.

Unbiased commentary would be to say "Wow, Sarah Palin sure is a fucking idiot, isn't she, George? Now over to Lanny with the weather."

barfo
 
BrianFromWA said:
I remember a story where she was 'viewed in a poor light' by the mainstream media b/c she had 3 words written on her hand in a half-hour speech. That was a difference b/w "unvarnished truth as seen by the camera" and spin.
Click to expand...

Writing things on your hand - no matter how many - is extremely lame for a politician, or any adult, for that matter. It's fine if you are in 8th grade.

I don't particularly care--she wants to be in a political race, she should be doing things to make herself look good. And if that means overcoming a bias, that's among the smaller problems the next president will have. But to maintain that there isn't a sizable block of media outlets out to disparage her is not being intellectually honest.
Click to expand...

Reality is out to disparage her. She doesn't know anything about anything. You can hardly blame the media for highlighting that fact.

Edit: you may be right, julius, that it's more "lazy" than "left", but there's some precedent for a lot of vitriol coming her way from the more liberally-based media sources. I'm not saying Fox doesn't do that, either, but generally it seems like the stuff there (at least, from the article of the Fox CEO someone posted earlier) is dug up and factual, rather than spewn and spun.
Click to expand...

Hell, even Roger Ailes thinks she's a moron.

barfo
 
Why are you such a hater barfo? Stop the hate. Quit drinking the haterade. End the hateration.
 
Natebishop3 said:
Why are you such a hater barfo? Stop the hate. Quit drinking the haterade. End the hateration.
Click to expand...

Now, now. I don't hate her. In fact, I hope she runs and wins the nomination. She's exactly what the Republican party needs.

barfo
 
barfo said:
Now, now. I don't hate her. In fact, I hope she runs and wins the nomination. She's exactly what the Republican party needs.

barfo
Click to expand...

You guys need Hillary.

edit: actually, I wish old Nancy would run and win your nomination.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 1 (members: 0, guests: 1)
Back
Top