Washington Post on Sarah Palin: "she is just that good" (spokesman, vs)
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Palin knows how to play to the ignorant with sound bites instead of anything with substance. Myself, I am not impressed with snarky sound bites I want to know what you stand for. What policies or new ideas do you have to turn around the country. It is also easy to point to the problems and then offer no solutions, I am not impressed with that either. Though I lean right I have never liked Palin and from what I have seen never will.
Your comment was spot on, so spot on that simply by replacing "Palin" with "Obama", it still hits the mark:
Obama knows how to play to the ignorant with sound bites instead of anything with substance. Myself, I am not impressed with snarky sound bites I want to know what you stand for. What policies or new ideas do you have to turn around the country. It is also easy to point to the problems and then offer no solutions, I am not impressed with that either. Though I lean right I have never liked Obama and from what I have seen never will.
I think that's the problem with politics these days -- there is NOBODY of any substance. No presidential candidate in the last two elections had any game plan.
Obama was obsessed with his legacy, and told lie after lie to get elected. McCain was entirely too old to run, and had no real ideas. Romney has certainly had more success and achieved far more in life than Obama/McCain/Biden/Palin, but still, there didn't seem to be any coherent message.
I realize that Palin was thrown on to the political scene in '08 to appeal to the female vote, but does anyone really think she has the ability to be successful politically? Her resume was as thin as Obama's, and we see where that waste of donatable organs has gotten us.
I have nothing against females, but I honestly question whether Sarah Palin is a legit candidate for the highest office in the land, especially on the heels of someone who clearly is NOT cut out for being in the White House.
I've given up on voting for either D's or R's (I'm a registered Idependent), and I realize that's like throwing my vote away, as the Libertarians who I vote for rarely garner much more than 4% of any election. It seems the media, and often the electorate, is more interested in "firsts" come election time, instead of "Best".
I have a degree in Economics, you don't. That is why I am capable of understanding the Democrats are more fascist than the Republican Party. There are actually libertarian elements within the Republican Party. The Democrats are the ones who act like Mussolini.
It is good that you have a degree in Economics but this conversation has more room for someone with a major in Political Science
Gingrich was the sharpest guy running in 2012. (Also one of the most morally corrupt as well)
You know you are dealing with a poorly educated individual when they bring up Fox News when no one ever mentioned it.
Actually anyone with any grasp on the political or has any media common sense (i.e watches television) knows that Faux and Palying go hand and hand and is hard to mention one without the other.
And the media failed to state that she correctly identified North Korea as our enemy literally eight seconds before the mix-up. She then corrected her mistake seconds later but they never played that soundbite of it.
Imo, those who are so quick to criticize Palin, are of the same mentality as the media. Anytime I read something someone says about Palin that is negative, I know the source doesn't know what they are talking about. They glorify Hillary Clinton, whereas I cringe at the sound of her name. It would be wonderful beyond words if this country had a good, strong presidential candidate in the wings, but no, there isn't one. It's easier to bad mouth Sarah Palin and to gloat about a minor faux pas. Oh, the joy of hearing something negative about a politician one doesn't like! It causes her critics to salivate....
We don't know all the facts about Sarah's travel expenses, but as you attack her with accusations that she had her girls travel with her to a function that "taxpayers had to pay for", let's remember that Alaska gives back to its taxpayers a whole lot of money from its revenues every year which no other state does. So even if the girls were not "invited", the added cost was covered by Alaska taxpayers. Unlike the costs that all of us across the country have to cover for the lavish travel that the President and Mrs. do, with children and on separate planes with an entourage of secret service members for each. WE pay for that and I don't see the government giving us, the taxpayer, an annual check because there is a surplus from natural resource production. We can't even get the Pipeline approved, and Obama promised that our utility bills will "skyrocket", as if it's something everybody should be prepared for. He seems to think we have a bottomless pocket.
Would anyone like to see a list of the first family's extended, frequent and lavish vacations and their costs?
If the numbers were correct it showed that the Alaskan government gives back approx 14,000 back meanwhile she spent over 42,000 in travel expenses for her children that should not have been there in the first place. Hmmm lets see 14,000 minus 43,000, Hey a net loss of 29,000! No wonder she can't win, simple math seems to be a probelm with her and her devot followers.
Wait a minute are you comparing the travel expenses of the President of the U.S to a wannabe partial governor? You do realize that ALL of the presidents (yes even the republican ones) travel expenses are going to be high because of the security? Guess what the next president's travel will be even higher than Obama's, it is the cost of presidential travel.
Question, did you complain when G.W was going back and forth to his ranch from D.C? You do realize that cost just as much? So stop complaining over the small stuff, I'm sure that you and the Faux fanatics can dig up something else worth about
Your comment was spot on, so spot on that simply by replacing "Palin" with "Obama", it still hits the mark:
Obama knows how to play to the ignorant with sound bites instead of anything with substance. Myself, I am not impressed with snarky sound bites I want to know what you stand for. What policies or new ideas do you have to turn around the country. It is also easy to point to the problems and then offer no solutions, I am not impressed with that either. Though I lean right I have never liked Obama and from what I have seen never will.
---------------------.
Your word substitution game does not work, and you are indulging in a Karl Rove tactic designed for dissemination to his RW media mouthpieces. This states "whatever the opposition accuses you of, just turn it back around on them and, regardless of fact, accuse them of the same. The public is full of rubes who won't know the difference". It is a mindless and easy exercise which may or may not pan out.
Case in point - it is Obama and dems who propose solutions like jobs programs which are then tanked by congressional republicons. It is whiny conservatives who moan 24/7 about the nation's problems, but offer no solutions.
They and their lobbyist friends freakin' own Congress. This is Palin, Limbaugh, or just about any right-winger you can name.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rubi3
Imo, those who are so quick to criticize Palin, are of the same mentality as the media. Anytime I read something someone says about Palin that is negative, I know the source doesn't know what they are talking about. They glorify Hillary Clinton, whereas I cringe at the sound of her name. It would be wonderful beyond words if this country had a good, strong presidential candidate in the wings, but no, there isn't one. It's easier to bad mouth Sarah Palin and to gloat about a minor faux pas. Oh, the joy of hearing something negative about a politician one doesn't like! It causes her critics to salivate....
It seems like you righties don't understand the real objections to Caribou Barbie. It's not just stupidity, word salad, or a corn-popper brain.
In a time of travesties like Citizens United and creeping corporate fascism into our Congress, she, like most contemporary republicons, would be nothing but a corporate puppet looking out for herself and her rich allies.
That is what Romney was. In their neanderthal brains, they believe that we cut our way to prosperity rather than grow it. Neither she nor any republicon has a jobs plan except shovelling money to the wealthy "job creators".
Well those "job creators" have offshored their money in tax havens, outsourced jobs, and also caused the crash of 2008 while giving themselves bonuses courtesy of the taxpayer.
This is where Palin is in the political realm and you betcha she wants more of that GWB magic for America.
She complains about "handouts" to the poor, but never about handouts to the rich or herself. This tells you where she is, and it is the Ayn Rand "virtue of selfishness" openly adopted by some republicans, their supporters, their benefactors, and their media mouthpieces.
I'm sure she gave a wonderful performance at CPAC in the same way that Leonardo DiCaprio gave a wonderful performance in "Wolf of Wall Street." I wouldn't vote for either one of them for president. Just because someone give a good "performance" doesn't mean that their personalities have depth or that their knowledge of the subject is refined. I don't want leaders who give "performances," but leaders who are actually intelligent, thoughtful, understanding, and have the ability to lead. She has none of those qualities and I wouldn't vote for her for anything.
I'm sure she gave a wonderful performance at CPAC in the same way that Leonardo DiCaprio gave a wonderful performance in "Wolf of Wall Street." I wouldn't vote for either one of them for president. Just because someone give a good "performance" doesn't mean that their personalities have depth or that their knowledge of the subject is refined. I don't want leaders who give "performances," but leaders who are actually intelligent, thoughtful, understanding, and have the ability to lead. She has none of those qualities and I wouldn't vote for her for anything.
I don't understand why righties can't see that she is "all about Sarah", and they are being exploited for fun and profit.
Seems like desperation to find anybody viable in a party-for-the-wealthy which has needed to recruit "strange bedfellows" into the fold, because there are just not enough wealthy votes to put repubs in office.
In desperation they must, through blustery "performances", jerk the emotions of dim bulbs in order to gain some lower-class supporters.
As we near election time, watch for them to start lying about how they "love minorities", women, and the poor - all people they have alienated up 'til now. They are already talking about "rebranding" which just means "changing their message" to gain votes, but most of 'em are corporate fascists at heart. This includes Caribou Barbie.
I don't understand why righties can't see that she is "all about Sarah", and they are being exploited for fun and profit.
Seems like desperation to find anybody viable in a party-for-the-wealthy which has needed to recruit "strange bedfellows" into the fold, because there are just not enough wealthy votes to put repubs in office.
In desperation they must, through blustery "performances", jerk the emotions of dim bulbs in order to gain some lower-class supporters.
As we near election time, watch for them to start lying about how they "love minorities", women, and the poor - all people they have alienated up 'til now. They are already talking about "rebranding" which just means "changing their message" to gain votes, but most of 'em are corporate fascists at heart. This includes Caribou Barbie.
And before I get attacked from the people on the right, I look at Al Gore in a similar light. Although I agree with his global warming/climate change activism, and I think that he's brilliant, he's clearly all about him.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
You do realize that ALL of the presidents (yes even the republican ones) travel expenses are going to be high because of the security? Guess what the next president's travel will be even higher than Obama's, it is the cost of presidential travel. 
about
