The never-ending "Sarah Palin should STFU" thread

[barfo]

Also, labeling health care review panels as "death panels" was pretty damn smart if you ask me. She won the argument by defining the debate.

julius, she never said she could see Russia from her house. Tina Fey said it.

Tina Fey won the argument by defining the debate.

barfo

 

[Denny Crane]

[video=youtube;oXeHeGrjji8]

 

[Colonel Ronan]

 

[PtldPlatypus]

[video=youtube;oXeHeGrjji8]

Bill O'Reilly comes off terribly in that video. I understand his "In any private concern, you're out" comment, but the rest of it just makes me feel sorry for Frank for even having to endure that "interview".

 

[julius]

julius, she never said she could see Russia from her house. Tina Fey said it.

She did say she could see Russia from Alaska. So with that comment corrected, I notice it doesn't change anything of what I said. She says nutty things and people commenting on it has very little to do with her being a woman, being a leader in the "tea party" or whatever else was implied.

Also, labeling health care review panels as "death panels" was pretty damn smart if you ask me. She won the argument by defining the debate.

So she made something up to characterize the debate to fit her overall p.o.v., in essence making shit up to argue, and you think that's a positive attribute? Sure, that's something most politicians do, but I find it strange that you're in favor of it here. Seems if you're truly a centrist as you suggest you are, you'd find that behavior by her appalling. You know, since what she "redefined" the debate with, didn't actually meet any ounce of truth.

There are all kinds of intelligence. Certainly, she's no intellectual. However, I think she has a great deal of common sense. I think the fact that she doesn't possess the kind of intelligence held so dear by the decision-shapers in this country and still has a massive following drives those people crazy.

you're right, the fact she is smart enough to see suckers for the $$ they are, and her followers are too stupid to see she's using them as sheep, that does drive people crazy. Because having a big following can be a dangerous thing, especially when you espouse crap.

 

[PapaG]

She did say she could see Russia from Alaska. So with that comment corrected.

Which is true. You're the one who confused the words from an SNL skit with what was actually said, yet Palin and her "followers" are "too stupid"?

 

[PapaG]

WASHINGTON – Sarah Palin says the Obama administration must tell Americans what it knows about who will be Egypt's next leader.

In a Christian Broadcasting Network interview released Saturday, the 2008 vice presidential candidate says the administration should level with the American people on what it knows about the Egyptian crisis.

Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak wants to rule until September elections.

Palin said the U.S. must find out who is "behind all the turmoil" and that "we should not stand" for a government led by the Muslim Brotherhood.

Still wondering what is so outrageous and dangerous about the above. People do realize that if Mubarak steps down, the Egyptian constitution mandates that an election needs to be held within 60 days of that occurence, right? Who are the candidates? How should the election be structured? What type of security will there be in 60 days?

There are a lot of questions that need to be answered. The White House demanding Mubarak to step down is easy and sounds tough, but the reality of that happening is what is potentially dangerous, not Sarah Palin asking questions about it.

 

[maxiep]

Tina Fey won the argument by defining the debate.

barfo

Cute, but there's a difference between Ms. Palin's opponents being so stupid as not to discover that line was from an SNL skit and Ms. Palin's being so stupid as to not have a retort to terming those review boards "death panels".

 

[julius]

Which is true. You're the one who confused the words from an SNL skit with what was actually said, yet Palin and her "followers" are "too stupid"?

Well, for starters, seeing an Island that the US shares with Russia (or close proximity too), is not really seeing "Russia" in an important sense. There aren't bases there, there aren't planes that take off from there. It's a small island that doesn't harbor any threat.

She'd be better off pointing out that she can see a foreign land from their back yard (Canada).

 

[Colonel Ronan]

 

[julius]

Cute, but there's a difference between Ms. Palin's opponents being so stupid as not to discover that line was from an SNL skit and Ms. Palin's being so stupid as to not have a retort to terming those review boards "death panels".

Yeah, one was based on an actual comment she made, and the other was done to scare people into thinking the goverment was going to kill grandma.

 

[PapaG]

Tina Fey won the argument by defining the debate.

barfo

I think that says more about the stupidity of those who allowed the debate to be defined by a comedy show than it says anything about Palin.

Yet Palin's the stupid one.

 

[maxiep]

She did say she could see Russia from Alaska. So with that comment corrected, I notice it doesn't change anything of what I said. She says nutty things and people commenting on it has very little to do with her being a woman, being a leader in the "tea party" or whatever else was implied.

But you can see Russia from Alaska. So, I guess I'm wondering why saying something that's true is "nutty"?

So she made something up to characterize the debate to fit her overall p.o.v., in essence making shit up to argue, and you think that's a positive attribute? Sure, that's something most politicians do, but I find it strange that you're in favor of it here. Seems if you're truly a centrist as you suggest you are, you'd find that behavior by her appalling. You know, since what she "redefined" the debate with, didn't actually meet any ounce of truth.

When you manage and ration care, some people won't receive the health care they desired and will die. Again, I'm wondering why you don't think there's an "ounce of truth" to her labeling. In the UK, people are denied cancer treatment and expensive drugs all the time by these kinds of boards, simply because the NHS decides they aren't going to meet the minimum standard to contribute to society. As a result, these people are denied care and die earlier than they might. It sounds like a death panel to me.

you're right, the fact she is smart enough to see suckers for the $$ they are, and her followers are too stupid to see she's using them as sheep, that does drive people crazy. Because having a big following can be a dangerous thing, especially when you espouse crap.

Uh, yeah. She's a politician. Do you think Obama or Gore are any different?

 

[Colonel Ronan]

 

[maxiep]

Well, for starters, seeing an Island that the US shares with Russia (or close proximity too), is not really seeing "Russia" in an important sense. There aren't bases there, there aren't planes that take off from there. It's a small island that doesn't harbor any threat.

She'd be better off pointing out that she can see a foreign land from their back yard (Canada).

It's Big Diomede and Little Diomede. And if you believe you have to see Russia to have it be a threat, then we'll just have to agree to disagree.

It would be easier if you just said that you learned something and you were mistaken about a quote misattributed to her. People make mistakes all the time; I certainly do.

 

[PapaG]

Yeah, one was based on an actual comment she made, and the other was done to scare people into thinking the goverment was going to kill grandma.

You do realize that the " end-of-life advisory" panels were recently removed from the bill after the "death panel" accusations, right? If you would take the time to educate yourself, instead of watching comedy shows, perhaps you'd have a more complete understanding of a complex issue.

http://voices.washingtonpost.com/ri...tent_death_panels_removed_from_obamacare.html

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/01/05/health/policy/05health.html?_r=1&ref=us

Supposedly non-existent death panels removed from ObamaCare
By Jennifer Rubin

The New York Times reports:

The Obama administration, reversing course, will revise a Medicare regulation to delete references to end-of-life planning as part of the annual physical examinations covered under the new health care law, administration officials said Tuesday.

The move is an abrupt shift, coming just days after the new policy took effect on Jan. 1.

Many doctors and providers of hospice care had praised the regulation, which listed "advance care planning" as one of the services that could be offered in the "annual wellness visit" for Medicare beneficiaries.

While administration officials cited procedural reasons for changing the rule, it was clear that political concerns were also a factor. The renewed debate over advance care planning threatened to become a distraction to administration officials who were gearing up to defend the health law against attack by the new Republican majority in the House

.

In other words, the administration "refudiated" its own regulation. Oh, yes, you have to read down to the eleventh paragraph (a classic case of burying the lede) to find out that it was Sarah Palin who "said in the summer of 2009 that 'Obama's death panel' would decide who was worthy of health care." (She more widely referred to the prospect of rationing, which severe cuts in Medicare and price controls would, in her view, inevitably entail.)

The Times notes that the measure, in a firestorm of criticism, was pulled by the bill but then slipped back in as a regulatory provision. But once again, it proved to be more trouble than it was worth.

The New York Sun editorializes that the about-face should be dubbed "the Palin patch" in honor of the gal who raised the issue in the first place. I would suspect that unlike those who object to "ObamaCare," Palin would gladly accept that designation as a badge of honor.

But the larger issue with regard to ObamaCare is not whether this specific provision would have transformed itself from a voluntary service into a coercive one. Rather, it is whether, as Palin and other conservative critics argued during the debate over the bill, the inevitable result of ObamaCare (indeed, a necessary component of this and other government-directed plans) will be to squeeze providers, eliminate services and ultimately deny coverage to those who in the past would have received care. Last April James Capretta, a fellow at the Ethics and Public Policy Center and a former White House budget adviser on health care, wrote:

Look at the recently enacted health-care bill. It includes large cuts in Medicare's payments to hospitals, nursing homes, and others. These cuts aren't calibrated based on quality or efficiency. They are across-the-board cuts hitting every service provider. And the bill also stands up a new independent board that is charged with essentially enforcing a cap on overall Medicare spending beginning in 2015. But the only changes in Medicare the board can recommend to stay within the cap are more reductions in provider-payment rates. The board can't touch the Medicare benefit, much less propose a Ryan-style move toward more choice and market competition. No, the only option is more and deeper price controls.

So, it is entirely predictable where Democrats will turn when they need show their willingness to cut entitlement spending. They will push to broaden the reach of Medicare's price controls to parts of the health system currently beyond their reach, including prescription drugs and the federally subsidized insurance arrangements enacted as part of the new health-care law. It will be one more step toward their ultimate goal, which is a fully government-run health system, with all that entails - including waiting lists and restricted access to care

.

In the scramble to jam through a bill, the Democrats declined to fully air these and other concerns about the "historic" legislation. We were told the time for debate was "over." Actually, it's just begun

 

[maxiep]

Yeah, one was based on an actual comment she made, and the other was done to scare people into thinking the goverment was going to kill grandma.

No, one was based on an SNL skit, and the other was helping to define a debate. I'm just wondering, when Democrats claim that cutting Social Security will condemn seniors to eating dog food and going without medication, how would you describe that tactic?

 

[julius]

But you can see Russia from Alaska. So, I guess I'm wondering why saying something that's true is "nutty"?

Because it is factually true, does not therefore, mean she had some kind of diplomatic experience or that it gave her some kind of credibility. As that was the context of her original quote/reference, that is why it's nutty.

If you ask someone what kind of foreign experience they have and their best answer is that they can see another country from their state, that is a bad answer.

You can say all sorts of "true" things and still be true. For example, barfo says things that while they are true (or at least, a part of them is true), they are nutty.

When you manage and ration care, some people won't receive the health care they desired and will die. Again, I'm wondering why you don't think there's an "ounce of truth" to her labeling.

because there weren't death panels. there were groups who would offer end of life options. They weren't death panels.

In the UK, people are denied cancer treatment and expensive drugs all the time by these kinds of boards, simply because the NHS decides they aren't going to meet the minimum standard to contribute to society. As a result, these people are denied care and die earlier than they might. It sounds like a death panel to me.

Shame thing she wasn't talking about people in the UK then.

Uh, yeah. She's a politician. Do you think Obama or Gore are any different?

Nope.

 

[maxiep]

You do realize that the " end-of-life advisory" panels were removed from the bill after the "death panel" accusations, right? If you would take the time to educate yourself, instead of watching comedy shows, perhaps you'd have a more complete understanding of a complex issue.

http://voices.washingtonpost.com/ri...tent_death_panels_removed_from_obamacare.html

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/01/05/health/policy/05health.html?_r=1&ref=us

And you're aware that Kathleen Sebelius put them back in, right?

http://www.tulsaworld.com/news/arti...cleid=20101230_11_A13_CUTLIN299860&rss_lnk=11

But the fact that the language defined the issue so strongly, and had them removed temporarily, showed how much Ms. Palin defined the debate.

As for that skit, I never saw it. However, I'm politically aware enough to know that Tina Fey said it and not Sarah Palin.

 

[PapaG]

Still wondering what is so outrageous and dangerous about the above. People do realize that if Mubarak steps down, the Egyptian constitution mandates that an election needs to be held within 60 days of that occurence, right? Who are the candidates? How should the election be structured? What type of security will there be in 60 days?

There are a lot of questions that need to be answered. The White House demanding Mubarak to step down is easy and sounds tough, but the reality of that happening is what is potentially dangerous, not Sarah Palin asking questions about it.

Anybody going to try and tackle this one? So far, we have Palin's biggest critic quoting Tina Fey as proof of Palin's alleged stupidity, we have the "death panels" that have recently been removed from the bill (and the NYT, of all places, credits Palin for her impact), and we have a vague transitional process in Egypt that has constitutional ramifications that must be addressed.

If the idea of this thread is to point out Palin's stupidity, how about actually addressing the subject matter?

 

[julius]

No, one was based on an SNL skit, and the other was helping to define a debate.

You mean define to fit narrower parameters.

I'm just wondering, when Democrats claim that cutting Social Security will condemn seniors to eating dog food and going without medication, how would you describe that tactic?

pathetic, lazy, and scare tactic. I hate politicians that scare people/trick people/feed on their ignorant fears to solely feed their pocket books/personal gains. Whenever I hear a politicians (And Gore was good at this...well, D's used it waaaay too much in 00 and 04) talk about (do this in your best Al Gore voice, btw) "I'm reminded of Ann Schatz, a single mother of 12 in Tucson Arizona, who has to fight zombies and werewolves to feed her cats because Republican candidate Cal Gore took away her right to having more children. I met with her at a local star bucks, with non of my security near by, just the two of us. And we talked for 18 straight hours about what I want to do when I'm president, and how i'll help her continue to live a free an American life. I looked her straight in the eyes (tear up), and I said that I would help her with all of my powers, even if it meant I was a 1 term president. Lock box. Global climate change. Lock climate. Global Box. God bless her and God Bless America, and don't forget the coffee Billy Joel"... it makes me want to kick a puppy.

 

[maxiep]

Because it is factually true, does not therefore, mean she had some kind of diplomatic experience or that it gave her some kind of credibility. As that was the context of her original quote/reference, that is why it's nutty.

If you ask someone what kind of foreign experience they have and their best answer is that they can see another country from their state, that is a bad answer.

You're changing the debate. First you said she was stupid because she said she could see Russia from her house. Next you said it wasn't materially important because the Diomedes were too small to contain weapons. Now you're saying that it was weak to attach foreign policy experience simply by having two countries contiguous to you. On that point I agree, but that wasn't your argument.

It's sad that you're so intellectually insecure, you can't admit you were wrong.

You can say all sorts of "true" things and still be true. For example, barfo says things that while they are true (or at least, a part of them is true), they are nutty.

Again, you were intimating that she was stating a falsehood. What she said was true. Whether it was an important point to make or not doesn't factor in to initial point you were trying to make.

because there weren't death panels. there were groups who would offer end of life options. They weren't death panels.

Aw, how cute. You actually believe that these panels wouldn't advocate to pass on procedures that would cost the government money. And now you've hit on the biggest reason why government should not be involved in health care: when you make it the business of the government, every action you take in regards to health (diet, fitness, activities) become the business of the government, because we all pay for everyone else's decisions. I prefer to be responsible for own life. It's none of your business what I decide to do with my life. You know, that whole "Life, Liberty and Persuit of Happiness..." thing.

Shame thing she wasn't talking about people in the UK then.

Donald Berwick.

Nope.

Yet you hold them to a different standard. Obama states he's visited 57 states, Gore claimed he was responsible for the invention of the Internet and they get a pass.

 

[julius]

It's Big Diomede and Little Diomede. And if you believe you have to see Russia to have it be a threat, then we'll just have to agree to disagree.

it's more that I don't think seeing it gives her any credibility. If she had said that she has had diplomatic discussions with Russia, or Canada, in regards to helping the state, that'd be far more credible.

It would be easier if you just said that you learned something and you were mistaken about a quote misattributed to her. People make mistakes all the time; I certainly do.

I was redefining the debate.

 

[julius]

You're changing the debate. First you said she was stupid because she said she could see Russia from her house. Next you said it wasn't materially important because the Diomedes were too small to contain weapons. Now you're saying that it was weak to attach foreign policy experience simply by having two countries contiguous to you. On that point I agree, but that wasn't your argument.

I didn't change the debate. I said saying it was stupid, because it prove anything. If she had to deal with a military base or any chances of them coming over, that would be good.

It's sad that you're so intellectually insecure, you can't admit you were wrong.

Funny what you did there. You took 1 point of what I said, which was only slightly wrong (instead of "from my house" it was "from Alaska") and you're pulling out one of the best fallacies in the world. Good work, and I'm sure you'd get the response you wanted from most people. But I'm not taking the bait.

Again, you were intimating that she was stating a falsehood. What she said was true. Whether it was an important point to make or not doesn't factor in to initial point you were trying to make.

When you're asked if you have any diplomatic experience, stating you can see another country doesn't prove it.

Aw, how cute. You actually believe that these panels wouldn't advocate to pass on procedures that would cost the government money. And now you've hit on the biggest reason why government should not be involved in health care: when you make it the business of the government, every action you take in regards to health (diet, fitness, activities) become the business of the government, because we all pay for everyone else's decisions. I prefer to be responsible for own life. It's none of your business what I decide to do with my life. You know, that whole "Life, Liberty and Persuit of Happiness..." thing.

Aww...how "cute", you actually think there were "death panels", instead of people offering advice for what to do late in life.

Who do you think was the party that wanted to end the Oregon law that allowed people to make their own end of life decisions (something I agree with. If I want to end it because you're suffering, stay out of my right to do so)? Seems they want us not have the Government tell us how to live our lives, but want to make it so the same Government doesn't let you end it.

Yet you hold them to a different standard. Obama states he's visited 57 states, Gore claimed he was responsible for the invention of the Internet and they get a pass.

Hold the phone, you're flipping me shit for getting the Russia thing wrong, when Al Gore never said he was responsible for the invention of the internet.

 

[maxiep]

I didn't change the debate. I said saying it was stupid, because it prove anything. If she had to deal with a military base or any chances of them coming over, that would be good.

Funny what you did there. You took 1 point of what I said, which was only slightly wrong (instead of "from my house" it was "from Alaska") and you're pulling out one of the best fallacies in the world. Good work, and I'm sure you'd get the response you wanted from most people. But I'm not taking the bait.

When you're asked if you have any diplomatic experience, stating you can see another country doesn't prove it.

You said SHE was stupid, for allegedly saying she could see Russia from her house. You were wrong. Tina Fey said it. I'm amazed you can't simply admit you were wrong.

She was asked a question about her foreign policy experience and she discussed her role with the National Guard and then brought up that from parts of Alaska you could see Russia, which meant that the Alaskan National Guard had more responsibility than other states. Was it a weak answer? Sure. Did she simply say she had foreign policy experience because she could see Russia from her house? Only in your mind and others that simply wish to believe the worst in her.

Aww...how "cute", you actually think there were "death panels", instead of people offering advice for what to do late in life.

Are you aware of what end-of-life counseling is? I am. My mom was the Administrator at Tuality, Meridian Park and Emanuel, and has graduate degrees in Nursing and Public Health Administration. I had a discussion with her about these very boards, because she was amazed they were put in the bill. They're basically hospice advocates. Give up, and stop asking for additional medical resources.

Who do you think was the party that wanted to end the Oregon law that allowed people to make their own end of life decisions (something I agree with. If I want to end it because you're suffering, stay out of my right to do so)? Seems they want us not have the Government tell us how to live our lives, but want to make it so the same Government doesn't let you end it.

You and I agree. If I want to kill myself, it's none of the government's business. Conversely, it's none of the government's business when and how I wish to end my life, if I want to continue fighting or if I want to give up. When the government is hiring in essence a lobbyist for you to give up, I have a problem with it. Defining it as simply as "death panels" was genius, IMO. Yet to you, it's evidence that Sarah Palin is stupid.

Hold the phone, you're flipping me shit for getting the Russia thing wrong, when Al Gore never said he was responsible for the invention of the internet.

As you well know, he did claim responsibility for invention of the internet, because he was on the Senate committee that funded it. He didn't say, "I served on the committee to help fund the Internet", he claimed he helped invent the Internet. Regardless of what he meant, it's what he said. Just like Obama knows there are only 50 states. Yet, they're brilliant, but Sarah Palin is stupid. I'm simply pointing out the double standard.

 

[PtldPlatypus]

UGH--Maxie & Julius, with all due respect, no offense intended, but this is getting tedious.

So far, I think PapaG is the alluding to the most significant idea in this thread. Specifically, should the existence of previous "nutty comments" completely override the legitimacy of a question being asked now? Do we have the ability to sift through crap to identify value? Should everything Palin (or Rush, or Carville, or Frank, or...) says be immediately dismissed out of hand because of its source, regardless of the validity of its content?

It seems like an intellectually lazy position to take, but it seems increasingly, frustratingly common.

 

[PapaG]

Diane Feinstein warns of a potential Islamic takeover in Egypt this morning on MSNBC.

I suppose this could be considered an answer to the concerns and questions that Palin raised, couldn't it? In other words, not even the head of the Senate Intel Committee has a clue on what the transitional process in Egypt would hold if Mubarak stepped down immediately. I'm still waiting for somebody, but especially chrisinpdx, to explain why Palin's questions were "dangerous".

[video=youtube;FFZzc5OY0pg]

 

[SlyPokerDog]

I've asked before but no one seems to know but who are Palin's handlers? They're good. Very good. The Death Panels, brilliant. Some of her sound bites and speeches well written. I think personally she's as dumb as a box of rocks but she has very good people loading her lips.

 

[barfo]

Do we have the ability to sift through crap to identify value?

We read S2, don't we?

barfo

 

[barfo]

For example, barfo says things that while they are true (or at least, a part of them is true), they are nutty.

Link?

barfo