Palin... Palin... Palin...

[Wry Catcher]

Seriously? Why would a majority of the American people vote for someone divisive? Even if she were interested in learning the art of diplomacy, she has alienated most Democrats, most journalists, academia and our allies and advisaries around the world.
What would she bring to the Oval Office? As well as I can see little more than platitudes and the 'talent' to demagogue issues.

Are you talking about Palin?

Or Obama?

NO ONE could be more divisive than our current president. It is an impossibility, because to go beyond where he is, you actually begin to unite all sides against your stance.

You're so wrong.

 

[Publius1787]

The talk in political circles has been that Sarah Palin had a rare opportunity in the wake of the Tucson tragedy to reach out beyond her base and recalibrate her image beyond that of a gun-toting mama grizzly.

After all, the strategists said, there was some sympathy for her—beyond the Palin-haters—for being tied to the shooting of Gabrielle Giffords, even if she had erred with her “reload” talk and by posting that map with the gun-sight targets last year.

In a nearly eight-minute video, Sarah Palin says “journalists and pundits should not manufacture a blood libel that serves only to incite the very hatred and violence.” Howard Kurtz on her un-presidential move.

The talk in political circles has been that Sarah Palin had a rare opportunity in the wake of the Tucson tragedy to reach out beyond her base and recalibrate her image beyond that of a gun-toting mama grizzly.

After all, the strategists said, there was some sympathy for her—beyond the Palin-haters—for being tied to the shooting of Gabrielle Giffords, even if she had erred with her “reload” talk and by posting that map with the gun-sight targets last year.

Instead, Palin chose to throw kerosene on the embers of a smoldering national controversy.

Whole article


Without debate, without criticism, no Administration and no country can succeed -- and no republic can survive. That is why the Athenian lawmaker Solon decreed it a crime for any citizen to shrink from controversy. And that is why our press was protected by the First Amendment -- the only business in America specifically protected by the Constitution -- not primarily to amuse and entertain, not to emphasize the trivial and the sentimental, not to simply "give the public what it wants" -- but to inform, to arouse, to reflect, to state our dangers and our opportunities, to indicate our crises and our choices, to lead, mold, educate, and sometimes even anger public opinion.
President John F. Kennedy - 27 April 1961

Let me get this straight. Its ok for liberals to use the blood of the innocent victems in a horrible event to falsly slander conservatives in the effort to silence their speech, but it is not ok for conservatives to defend themselves from the obvious false, unfactual, unbased, unproven, preempted before they even knew who did it, slanderous attack, because that is an attempt to silence the speech of their opposition. Got it. Thanks for clearing that up.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

The only way Obama would have called to tone down the rhetoric was is the shooters name was Jared bin Loughner

 

[Truthmatters]

So one side words matter and the other sides dont?

 

[uscitizen]

After too years of a teleprompter reader, I see no downside to a Sarah Palin Presidency.

bush used a teleprompter and index cards....

and I believe he wrote notes on the back of his arm

apparently, once again, it's ok for a repub but BAD for a dem

Reagan also used Teleprompters. I personally know one Reagans teleprompter operators.

 

[Stephanie]

Seriously? Why would a majority of the American people vote for someone divisive? Even if she were interested in learning the art of diplomacy, she has alienated most Democrats, most journalists, academia and our allies and advisaries around the world.
What would she bring to the Oval Office? As well as I can see little more than platitudes and the 'talent' to demagogue issues.

Are you talking about Palin?

Or Obama?

NO ONE could be more divisive than our current president. It is an impossibility, because to go beyond where he is, you actually begin to unite all sides against your stance.

You're so wrong.

The hell they are.
Obama IS THE MOST DIVISIVE President, EVER.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

So one side words matter and the other sides dont?

LOL

Yes Obama is lucky to be considered to be on par with Palin

 

[Avatar4321]

more attacks on sarah palin.

why can't you leave her alone?

because palin can attack obama and mrs obama and the obama girls but NOBODY had better say ANYTHING BAD about our queen!

if palin and limbaugh and beck and YOU have a right to be vitriolic about liberals and dems then libs and dems have the SAME RIGHT to tekk the truth about you and palin

So you dont like that Limbaugh, Beck, and Palin quote your own words and use their ability to persuade people to defeat your politics. So according to you it's completely justified to use the murder of a 9 year old girl and public officials to attack your opponents based on zero evidence connecting the two of them.

And yet you have no clue why anyone reading that finds you to be despicable people.

I wish there was a single left leaning person here who would denounce this bullcrap for what it is. But it looks like there is no integrity on the left and only some integrity on the right. With the Integrity deficit in this country is it any wonder we are so screwed right now?

 

[Avatar4321]

Why should she sit by silently while the left lies and uses a national tragedy to gin up support for their efforts to silence the opposition? She called them on their BS and told them to fuck off. Good for her!

Yea...more kerosene on the fire. She is the victim...poor, poor Sarah.

Perhaps you would like to explain how you can attack her with no justification and she not be a victim.

 

[Avatar4321]

because palin can attack obama and mrs obama and the obama girls but NOBODY had better say ANYTHING BAD about our queen!

if palin and limbaugh and beck and YOU have a right to be vitriolic about liberals and dems then libs and dems have the SAME RIGHT to tekk the truth about you and palin

Oh palease. She has attacked Obama's policies and actions, she has never attacked Obama or his family.

Nope she attacked his character. At least McCain had the balls to stand up to the nutters saying crazy things from the crowd. Palin didn't say a word when the crowd cried "Terrorist" and "Kill Him" did she?

What crowd cried "terrorist" or "kill him"?

Does it ever bother you guys that you need to make things up to argue your politics?

 

[Wry Catcher]

She didn't pull the trigger, and she's not the first to use the language of combat. But the Alaskan's career will certainly suffer


Until Saturday, it was a fair working assumption that Sarah Palin was just a few weeks away from announcing her candidacy for the presidency of the United States. Barack Obama launched his campaign in February 2007, a full 21 months before polling day in November 2008, making February 2011 the obvious time for anyone with an eye on 2012. But if Palin had pencilled an imminent date in her diary, she's certainly rubbed it out now. Events outside a Safeway in Tucson have seen to that.


Sarah Palin's presidential hopes surely can't survive this assassin's bullet | Jonathan Freedland | Comment is free | The Guardian

Loughner's actions are utterly unrelated to the possible Palin Presidential bid.

Americans (by and large -- I don't count too much on the intellectual prowess of all the libbies, of course) do not accept the idiotic notion that anything EVER said or posted by Gov. Palin has anything to do with what Loughner did.

If she runs and loses, it will be due mostly to her individual weaknesses as a candidate. If she has a shot of winning, the insanity and depravity of scum like Loughner will have no discernible impact on her candidacy.

Lieability pretends to know the truth. As is the case on all issues he offers his opinion, biased as it is, as an immutable truth.
No one knows what was in the mind of the killer, we know only the results of his actions. We also know, as Congresswoman Gifford's said, words have consequences.

 

[WillowTree]

You have it bas-ackward Bfgrn. You and your left wing (Soros inspired?) blogs have been throwing kerosene on the political fire for the last two years. Too bad you don't have the capacity for reasoning to understand it.

If I need to hear propaganda, I'll tune in to Fox news here at home.

I heard Ray McGovern, a retired CIA agent whose expertise was the old Soviet Union and the Eastern Bloc countries say the propaganda coming out of Fox News is at the same level as Pravda. But I suspect most Russians knew Pravda was propaganda.

why are left wingers so paranoid. Everybody is your enemy. You must punish your enemies musn't you?

 

[Avatar4321]

I've been reading these threads since the weekend, and I have yet to see one shred of proof where the words of another was the cause of Loughner's actions. Or, a shred of proof where he was a left wingnut, or a right wingnut. All I've seen is a lot of projecting for political points.

That's just it. There is no proof. Zero proof. They make attacks and then pretend to act offended when the people they attack defend themselves. It's freakin ridiculous.

The only evidence of any rhetoric influencing this shooter is the fact that some of his favorate books are Mein Kampf and The Communist Manifesto. Those are the only books we even have evidence he's read.

 

[uscitizen]

Are you talking about Palin?

Or Obama?

NO ONE could be more divisive than our current president. It is an impossibility, because to go beyond where he is, you actually begin to unite all sides against your stance.

You're so wrong.

The hell they are.
Obama IS THE MOST DIVISIVE President, EVER.

[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cpPABLW6F_A"]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cpPABLW6F_A[/ame]

 

[Stephanie]

You're so wrong.

The hell they are.
Obama IS THE MOST DIVISIVE President, EVER.

[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cpPABLW6F_A"]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cpPABLW6F_A[/ame]

even for us.

 

[Revere]

You have it bas-ackward Bfgrn. You and your left wing (Soros inspired?) blogs have been throwing kerosene on the political fire for the last two years. Too bad you don't have the capacity for reasoning to understand it.

If I need to hear propaganda, I'll tune in to Fox news here at home.

I heard Ray McGovern, a retired CIA agent whose expertise was the old Soviet Union and the Eastern Bloc countries say the propaganda coming out of Fox News is at the same level as Pravda. But I suspect most Russians knew Pravda was propaganda.

How would the Russians know? Did the Soviets have a dozen other media outlets picking apart Pravda 24/7, as happens with Fox?

Oh, and Pravda was an arm of the government, like, say MSNBC or NPR.

 

[daveman]

Each country deserves his leaders. If Bush wasn´t enough, she´ll find her way. The americans accepted a stolen election once, why they shouldn´t do it again? Sharron Angel already tattled.

Provide a shred of evidence any election was ever stolen.

we haven´t forgotten the election from 2000 and entire europe hasn´t any doubts that this election was a shame for your country.

Remind me again why we should give a shit what Europe thinks about our affairs...?

 

[Truthmatters]

because we are thinking people

 

[Capitalist]

The "blood libel" metaphor is spot on.

do you think the calls for non violent speach in our poltical sphere are equal with saying jews kill people to make dinner?

If it was Cheney's blood, you would be back for a refill..........

 

[California Girl]

I do, however, find it very fucking funny that people who link to the Huff are the same who rant about the bias and lies of Fox. That just slays me.

Then I assume that you recognize the bias and lies of Fox since you recognize the same of Huff.

Certainly I do. I tend not to watch 'comment' programs regularly. Mainly because I find forming my own opinion is more appropriate.