Palin slams Fox’s ‘Family Guy’

[bodecea]

Must make you feel good to be able to laugh at others misfortunes, especially when those misfortunes were none of their doing. They were simply unfortunate enough to be born differently than you and somehow that gives you the right to make fun of them.

By the way it isn't slapstick, slapstick is a type of comedy involving exaggerated physical violence and activities which exceed the boundaries of common sense.

Slapstick is laughing at the misfortune of others...slipping on ice...etc.

But since you are so perfect, I'm sure you never told a lawyer joke, a blonde joke, a Polish joke, an Aggie joke, a gay joke.

(Of course, I don't really believe you are telling the truth here)

I just told you what slapstick is so why the fuck are you trying to redefine it?

I'm not redefining it. But you want to pretend I am.

I don't tell jokes that are hurtful to those that aren't to blame for their lot in life. I have more integrity than that and I don't need to put mentally disabled people down or use them as a tool to put others down just for a laugh. I guess that's the difference between you and I , you have no conscience and no compassion.

The difference is...you just lie about doing it.

 

[Coyote]

Yes...selective outrage is a farce.

So where is the scorn for Obama and Pelosi's outrage for the bonuses of Citi...but not for the larger bonuses for Fannie?

And seeing as Palin is a commentator...and Pelosi is a lawmaker...and Obama is President and the final decision maker for us...why is it that the commentator is the only one getting criticized for selective outrage?

You do realize that lawmakers have been making laws based on outrage as of late....yet it is OK for them to practive selective outrage but a mortal sin if a commentator does?

Why is that coyote? Huh? Why is that?

Nice attempt at deflection however, OldandTired, I'm talking about one individual (and her supporters) selective outrage. Feel free to start a topic on other forms of outrage.

In the meantime - do you think Palin is using Trig as a political prop? I really wonder. She has no issue with Limbaugh's crude statement specifically directed at "retards" and I truely can't find any indication of advocacy for the disabled outside of her political ambitions. I hope I am wrong and it's just going on quietly but I don't think so.

I have a disabled brother. When he was diagnosed in his early teens, my mother became quite an advocate for the mentally ill joining and later taking a local leadership role in NAMI fighting for changes in public policy, perceptions, how the mentally ill were treated by police etc etc. She didn't have either wealth or public power but she did the best she could.

What is Palin doing?

I agreed selective outrage is a farce...and I agree trhat Palin is a culprit.

But I ask why there is no outcry at selective outrage of others.....that is not a deflection...it is a topic of debate...directly relat4ed to the way this debate developed.

So, I again ask...why is there no outcry over the MORE DANGEROUS selective outrage of our lawmakers who are encacting laws based on outrage?

Do you truly feel Palin's use or not use of Trig as a prop is more important than lawmakers possibly enacting laws based on selective outrage?

Why is that?

Selective outrage is par for the course in politics - it's nothing new nor is it particular to any one partisan group unfortunately. As to the bonus' of Citi vs. Fanny - haven't looked into it. But I suspect the political outrage is a direct reflection of the constituent outrage.

Selective outrage is a tool to drive legislation - is it more dangerous? Depends. It's usually matched by an equally selective outrage from the other side.

I find it less despicable than using family members - particularly children - for political props and purposes.

 

[Dr Gregg]

FTR I don't watch cartoons.

That's too bad, there are some very funny ones on TV.

South Park
The Simpsons
Family Guy

There are others, but I don't watch them all. Do I watch them all the time? Nope, but when I do, i usually can't believe how far some of their writers take things. Sure they cross the line, but at the same time, if I was ever offended, I would just turn the channel. It's not that tough to do, especially since the remote control was invented.

-TSO

Some of us have a life.

Yeah, trolling a forum spreading anti liberal garbage takes all of his time

 

[Oldandtired]

Nice attempt at deflection however, OldandTired, I'm talking about one individual (and her supporters) selective outrage. Feel free to start a topic on other forms of outrage.

In the meantime - do you think Palin is using Trig as a political prop? I really wonder. She has no issue with Limbaugh's crude statement specifically directed at "retards" and I truely can't find any indication of advocacy for the disabled outside of her political ambitions. I hope I am wrong and it's just going on quietly but I don't think so.

I have a disabled brother. When he was diagnosed in his early teens, my mother became quite an advocate for the mentally ill joining and later taking a local leadership role in NAMI fighting for changes in public policy, perceptions, how the mentally ill were treated by police etc etc. She didn't have either wealth or public power but she did the best she could.

What is Palin doing?

I agreed selective outrage is a farce...and I agree trhat Palin is a culprit.

But I ask why there is no outcry at selective outrage of others.....that is not a deflection...it is a topic of debate...directly relat4ed to the way this debate developed.

So, I again ask...why is there no outcry over the MORE DANGEROUS selective outrage of our lawmakers who are encacting laws based on outrage?

Do you truly feel Palin's use or not use of Trig as a prop is more important than lawmakers possibly enacting laws based on selective outrage?

Why is that?

Ah, is this the topic of this thread?

The topic of the thread was Palins outrage over the cartoon.
The thread transofrmed as most do.
Some have now diuscussed Palin as one who is guiolty of selective outrage...and she is.
SO I expanded on that toipic...as many do.

Interestingly, the only responses I got were those saying it is not related to the thread.

Interesting....I guess that means I made a great point....but you dont have to answer to it becuase it is not DIRECTLY related to the trhread......even though most of your responses are to posts that were not directly related to the fiurst post of the thread.

You realiuze how that speaks volumes......

 

[Wicked Jester]

Fact is, they crossed the line.

They want to mock Palin herself, go for it!... She's fully proven she's above those doing the mocking. Everytime they mock her, it only makes her popularity rise further. That does you lib's no good whatsoever. KEEP THE KIDS OUT OF IT!

 

[Oldandtired]

That's too bad, there are some very funny ones on TV.

South Park
The Simpsons
Family Guy

There are others, but I don't watch them all. Do I watch them all the time? Nope, but when I do, i usually can't believe how far some of their writers take things. Sure they cross the line, but at the same time, if I was ever offended, I would just turn the channel. It's not that tough to do, especially since the remote control was invented.

-TSO

Some of us have a life.

Yeah, trolling a forum spreading anti liberal garbage takes all of his time

you offer so much to a debate Doc...

You are a great addition to the community.

 

[Lonestar_logic]

That's too bad, there are some very funny ones on TV.

South Park
The Simpsons
Family Guy

There are others, but I don't watch them all. Do I watch them all the time? Nope, but when I do, i usually can't believe how far some of their writers take things. Sure they cross the line, but at the same time, if I was ever offended, I would just turn the channel. It's not that tough to do, especially since the remote control was invented.

-TSO

Some of us have a life.

Ahhh, now I understand, if someone watches a program that you don't, they have no life. I get it. Do you own a television? If so, why? I mean, you have a life, why would you waste the money to have a television if you don't watch it.

-TSO

That's not what I said but hey, why let that little fact like that get in the way?

Did you know that you're sounding more liberal with each post?

The fact is knothead,the discussion was about cartoons and I have better things to do with my time than to watch silly cartoons.

 

[Samson]

Suppose I'll weigh in on this issue, just to add something between the Poo-throwing Posts.

I like Family Guy, and saw the episode in question, and like Palin's explaination of Tea Party Politics, and can appreciate her position on the issue of using Downs Syndrome as a humorous crutch.

What I find duplicious is that on the one hand she can be found defending free speech for the minority of radicals within the Tea Party, and on the other admonishing those that are willing to use free speech in Family Guy. The fact is, First Amendment protects Poor Taste in all media, and this is the simple message Palin needs to make.

 

[bodecea]

I agreed selective outrage is a farce...and I agree trhat Palin is a culprit.

But I ask why there is no outcry at selective outrage of others.....that is not a deflection...it is a topic of debate...directly relat4ed to the way this debate developed.

So, I again ask...why is there no outcry over the MORE DANGEROUS selective outrage of our lawmakers who are encacting laws based on outrage?

Do you truly feel Palin's use or not use of Trig as a prop is more important than lawmakers possibly enacting laws based on selective outrage?

Why is that?

Ah, is this the topic of this thread?

The topic of the thread was Palins outrage over the cartoon.

I thought so.

The thread transofrmed as most do.

It's called "deflection."

Some have now diuscussed Palin as one who is guiolty of selective outrage...and she is.
SO I expanded on that toipic...as many do.

Interestingly, the only responses I got were those saying it is not related to the thread.

Interesting....I guess that means I made a great point....but you dont have to answer to it becuase it is not DIRECTLY related to the trhread......even though most of your responses are to posts that were not directly related to the fiurst post of the thread.

You realiuze how that speaks volumes......

I 'realiuze' that, do I?

 

[Lonestar_logic]

Slapstick is laughing at the misfortune of others...slipping on ice...etc.

But since you are so perfect, I'm sure you never told a lawyer joke, a blonde joke, a Polish joke, an Aggie joke, a gay joke.

(Of course, I don't really believe you are telling the truth here)

I just told you what slapstick is so why the fuck are you trying to redefine it?

I'm not redefining it. But you want to pretend I am.

I don't tell jokes that are hurtful to those that aren't to blame for their lot in life. I have more integrity than that and I don't need to put mentally disabled people down or use them as a tool to put others down just for a laugh. I guess that's the difference between you and I , you have no conscience and no compassion.

The difference is...you just lie about doing it.

Prove I'm lying.

 

[Ravi]

Palin's business card reads:

Sarah Palin, Professional Victim

 

[Oldandtired]

Nice attempt at deflection however, OldandTired, I'm talking about one individual (and her supporters) selective outrage. Feel free to start a topic on other forms of outrage.

In the meantime - do you think Palin is using Trig as a political prop? I really wonder. She has no issue with Limbaugh's crude statement specifically directed at "retards" and I truely can't find any indication of advocacy for the disabled outside of her political ambitions. I hope I am wrong and it's just going on quietly but I don't think so.

I have a disabled brother. When he was diagnosed in his early teens, my mother became quite an advocate for the mentally ill joining and later taking a local leadership role in NAMI fighting for changes in public policy, perceptions, how the mentally ill were treated by police etc etc. She didn't have either wealth or public power but she did the best she could.

What is Palin doing?

I agreed selective outrage is a farce...and I agree trhat Palin is a culprit.

But I ask why there is no outcry at selective outrage of others.....that is not a deflection...it is a topic of debate...directly relat4ed to the way this debate developed.

So, I again ask...why is there no outcry over the MORE DANGEROUS selective outrage of our lawmakers who are encacting laws based on outrage?

Do you truly feel Palin's use or not use of Trig as a prop is more important than lawmakers possibly enacting laws based on selective outrage?

Why is that?

Selective outrage is par for the course in politics - it's nothing new nor is it particular to any one partisan group unfortunately. As to the bonus' of Citi vs. Fanny - haven't looked into it. But I suspect the political outrage is a direct reflection of the constituent outrage.

Selective outrage is a tool to drive legislation - is it more dangerous? Depends. It's usually matched by an equally selective outrage from the other side.

I find it less despicable than using family members - particularly children - for political props and purposes.

And if you look back...that is exactly what I said earlier in this thread.

Except for the children thing...Palin is a commmentator...she is no longer a plitician. I could give two shits about what she does to earn a living.

I am more concerend about those that write and pass our laws...and what drives them to make decisions.

For some reason, many on here seem to be more wrapped up in Rush and palin and seem to divert away from topics such as laws being drafted and enacted based on emotion...and selective outrage.

But whatever....this is pretty much just entertainemnt for me anyway.

 

[Oldandtired]

Ah, is this the topic of this thread?

The topic of the thread was Palins outrage over the cartoon.

I thought so.

The thread transofrmed as most do.

It's called "deflection."

Some have now diuscussed Palin as one who is guiolty of selective outrage...and she is.
SO I expanded on that toipic...as many do.

Interestingly, the only responses I got were those saying it is not related to the thread.

Interesting....I guess that means I made a great point....but you dont have to answer to it becuase it is not DIRECTLY related to the trhread......even though most of your responses are to posts that were not directly related to the fiurst post of the thread.

You realiuze how that speaks volumes......

I 'realiuze' that, do I?

Didnt expect anything more than that from you.

No substance...no answers...no debatable material.

Just the "high road"...

Good stuff Bodecea...and thanks for the spelling correction.

 

[TheSuaveOne]

Did you know that you're sounding more liberal with each post?

You see that's awesome to me. I am conservative on some issues, liberal on others. It's called being moderate. I actually am able to think for myself without the need to feign outrage whenever a party tells me to.

-TSO

 

[bodecea]

The topic of the thread was Palins outrage over the cartoon.

I thought so.


It's called "deflection."

Some have now diuscussed Palin as one who is guiolty of selective outrage...and she is.
SO I expanded on that toipic...as many do.

Interestingly, the only responses I got were those saying it is not related to the thread.

Interesting....I guess that means I made a great point....but you dont have to answer to it becuase it is not DIRECTLY related to the trhread......even though most of your responses are to posts that were not directly related to the fiurst post of the thread.

You realiuze how that speaks volumes......

I 'realiuze' that, do I?

Didnt expect anything more than that from you.

No substance...no answers...no debatable material.

Just the "high road"...

Good stuff Bodecea...and thanks for the spelling correction.

What spelling correction?

 

[Oldandtired]

Some of us have a life.

Ahhh, now I understand, if someone watches a program that you don't, they have no life. I get it. Do you own a television? If so, why? I mean, you have a life, why would you waste the money to have a television if you don't watch it.

-TSO

That's not what I said but hey, why let that little fact like that get in the way?

Did you know that you're sounding more liberal with each post?

The fact is knothead,the discussion was about cartoons and I have better things to do with my time than to watch silly cartoons.

They are ganging up on you...and with little basis other than implying you are a liar....

when one must fall back on accusation of "liar" to win a debate...without proof that one is lying...it is the same as admitting defeat.

 

[Dr Gregg]

Some of us have a life.

Yeah, trolling a forum spreading anti liberal garbage takes all of his time

you offer so much to a debate Doc...

You are a great addition to the community.

yes, since majority of posts are anti liberal rants with very little logic or reasoning to them, that's really not saying much

And really, you defend lonestar logic who never offers anything, so who gives a shit what you think is good contribution when you defend people like lonestar that every post is "liberals are morons' or some other trollish response.

Is lonestar logic your retarded child or something?

 

[Ravi]

I agreed selective outrage is a farce...and I agree trhat Palin is a culprit.

But I ask why there is no outcry at selective outrage of others.....that is not a deflection...it is a topic of debate...directly relat4ed to the way this debate developed.

So, I again ask...why is there no outcry over the MORE DANGEROUS selective outrage of our lawmakers who are encacting laws based on outrage?

Do you truly feel Palin's use or not use of Trig as a prop is more important than lawmakers possibly enacting laws based on selective outrage?

Why is that?

Selective outrage is par for the course in politics - it's nothing new nor is it particular to any one partisan group unfortunately. As to the bonus' of Citi vs. Fanny - haven't looked into it. But I suspect the political outrage is a direct reflection of the constituent outrage.

Selective outrage is a tool to drive legislation - is it more dangerous? Depends. It's usually matched by an equally selective outrage from the other side.

I find it less despicable than using family members - particularly children - for political props and purposes.

And if you look back...that is exactly what I said earlier in this thread.

Except for the children thing...Palin is a commmentator...she is no longer a plitician. I could give two shits about what she does to earn a living.

I am more concerend about those that write and pass our laws...and what drives them to make decisions.

For some reason, many on here seem to be more wrapped up in Rush and palin and seem to divert away from topics such as laws being drafted and enacted based on emotion...and selective outrage.

But whatever....this is pretty much just entertainemnt for me anyway.

Aren't you the guy that spent an entire day having a fit because someone called you a retard?

 

[Oldandtired]

I thought so.


It's called "deflection."


I 'realiuze' that, do I?

Didnt expect anything more than that from you.

No substance...no answers...no debatable material.

Just the "high road"...

Good stuff Bodecea...and thanks for the spelling correction.

What spelling correction?

you're still here?

 

[Oldandtired]

Selective outrage is par for the course in politics - it's nothing new nor is it particular to any one partisan group unfortunately. As to the bonus' of Citi vs. Fanny - haven't looked into it. But I suspect the political outrage is a direct reflection of the constituent outrage.

Selective outrage is a tool to drive legislation - is it more dangerous? Depends. It's usually matched by an equally selective outrage from the other side.

I find it less despicable than using family members - particularly children - for political props and purposes.

And if you look back...that is exactly what I said earlier in this thread.

Except for the children thing...Palin is a commmentator...she is no longer a plitician. I could give two shits about what she does to earn a living.

I am more concerend about those that write and pass our laws...and what drives them to make decisions.

For some reason, many on here seem to be more wrapped up in Rush and palin and seem to divert away from topics such as laws being drafted and enacted based on emotion...and selective outrage.

But whatever....this is pretty much just entertainemnt for me anyway.

Aren't you the guy that spent an entire day having a fit because someone called you a retard?

No. I expressed my feelings when the word was used.....as it hit home as you know....and after an hour or so of debate, I came to realize that I may have been a bit too sensitive.

Something wrong with learning from a debate?

Dont know about you, but that is why I debate. Not to confirm I am right but to find out where I may be wrong.

Is that a problem?