Incidently, we (liberals, left, and centerists) =still= think Sarah Palin is a moron

Originally posted by Xtrozero

Originally posted by Grimpachi
reply to post by Xtrozero

 

So in essence you are saying he is a liar and lies and lies some more but you are not going to give us any specifics we should just trust you.

O-Kay

Do some research...but hell....

Lie

edit on 1-11-2012 by Xtrozero because: (no reason given)

Reports say he plagiarized a speech he also said he finished higher in his college class than he did and your source is from Sept 23 1987 Have you looked at the republican candidates at all? FYI if you are big on lies they have some big lies.

You do realize because we wan't to see Romney's taxes for more than 2 years the right screems in indignation and you are bringing up 1987.

BTW your assertion that I should find information to back up your claims is a logical fallacy.

Ya.. This post from someone who would probably think Biden is a mis-understood genius.

No really... Biden was a MUCH MUCH more intelligent choice for a frontrunner to make for a VP.

That demonstrably stupid decision alone should have disqualified Obama from the presidency.

reply to post by SaturnFX


I really hated the way the media and liberals treated Palin and her family, I just can't tolerate bullies, the smug arrogant attitudes,

It just never made much sense to me, if she was such an idiot why worry about her and vilify her to the extent that they did, and why bring her up now?

They still get death threats, have fun I hope making fun of Palin and her family makes you all feel superior.

What goes around, comes around, eventually,

reply to post by SaturnFX


I disagree with your premise.

Obama runs by smearing his opponents. He did it in Illinois, he did it in 08.

This is the first time in his life that he's had to run on his previous record.

And it ain't doing so well.

reply to post by SaturnFX




Im a Independent Conservative.

I wont go as far as to call her an outright Moron, but she isn't anywhere near the likes of Nancy Pelosi.


Just MHO.

Actually I do think Palin is a fool and I think most of her supporters are fools as well; mainly because they buy into the right wing media hype of her being a conservative superstar when in reality she is just a tool to be used and discarded when her popularity wanes.



Ex gov. Palin is now a viable resource to sell books, speaking engagements, TV shows, media appearance, and all sorts of kitch. www.cafepress.com... for big bucks, to a well researched and selected demographic.

Sarah is still a fool, but the marketing/PR people that transformed her into a celebrity and capitalize on her looks and persona are true geniuses in the American entrepreneurial spirit.

I just wish I had of been on the ground floor of the Sarah experience; I would be writing this from my condo in Cabo instead of my hovel in the desert.

Who wants some white bread and tickets to the circus?

AS the OP stated

Sarah Palin was made fun of because she was dumb and said dumb things. She hurt McCain's run to such a degree many people would not vote for the party in fear that he may die and leave her as POTUS.

That certainly affected my vote.

In contrast no one is calling Ryan out for being an idiot so that would prove the OPs assertion that Palin was not being unfairly portrayed as imbecilic.

Call a spade a spade in this case and there is evidence now to back it up.

Originally posted by Stormdancer777
reply to post by SaturnFX

 

I really hated the way the media and liberals treated Palin and her family, I just can't tolerate bullies, the smug arrogant attitudes,

Cry me a river.
You know who the media doesn't rip apart?
Condi Rice, Hillary Clinton, Ann Coulter, etc. I can point to tons of women on both sides and no sides that the media may be harsh with and rightfully so, but don't make them look like idiots.
You know why?
Because the media didn't make her look like an idiot...she did. Why don't you understand this? Are you truely so breathlessly sexist that you demand all women are required to be seen as intelligent and the media should never simply roll film when someone is a twit?

It just never made much sense to me, if she was such an idiot why worry about her and vilify her to the extent that they did, and why bring her up now?

It made sense to me. The repubs wanted to sit this woman behind the most powerful military force on earth...weeeee.
The VPOTUS isn't a fun joke you give to the town idiot!
And its brought up now for a couple reasons. First off, when everyone is saying that person is a idiot..the right needs to come off BS mountain for a half second and see what the debate is about verses just auto-defend.
Second off, ultimately she isn't villified as a person (not really). Her in any political office above PTA starts effecting the safety of people..and people damn well have the right to speak up about who is trying to grab the wheel.

Again, when Ann Coulter, the madwoman from connecticut, makes me feel safer if she were in charge than her, sommething is wrong!

They still get death threats, have fun I hope making fun of Palin and her family makes you all feel superior.

See, now thats wrong
Thats the opposite side of the coin. there are morons on both sides...trick is to not try to put the morons in power on either side.
To the left, we are embarassed at our idiots and try to tuck them under couches and throw rugs. The right seems to give them talk shows and get them in some office.

Paul Ryan (to belabor a point) is not a idiot..his ideas and ideals are idiotic in my opinion, but the man is not. Same with Condi, same with etc etc etc...
Palin was dangerously crazy and silly to the likes that made Joe Biden look look like a soft spoken professor. Joe I wonder at times about his ability to control himself, but I do not fear for my safety should he become potus. I know he wouldn't come out one day and say god told him last night to attack China or whatnot.

Question to you:
Do you believe Paul Ryan and Sarah Palin are equal in representive quality for conservatism? Simple yes or no

Originally posted by beezzer
reply to post by SaturnFX

 

I disagree with your premise.

Obama runs by smearing his opponents. He did it in Illinois, he did it in 08.

This is the first time in his life that he's had to run on his previous record.

And it ain't doing so well.

The worst part is, he is running against Romney. So you would expect that with the scoundrel that most generally agree that Romney is, that Obama would be running away with the election. He isn't.

This just puts a big red underline on your point. Even like in this thread, most people who are voting for Obama aren't really voting for Obama. They are voting against Romney And even that doesn't really give him much hope.

So the answer to your question Saturn is No.
They will STILL not admit they voted for a moron.
They never will.

Originally posted by bigfatfurrytexan

Originally posted by beezzer
reply to post by SaturnFX

 

I disagree with your premise.

Obama runs by smearing his opponents. He did it in Illinois, he did it in 08.

This is the first time in his life that he's had to run on his previous record.

And it ain't doing so well.

The worst part is, he is running against Romney. So you would expect that with the scoundrel that most generally agree that Romney is, that Obama would be running away with the election. He isn't.

This just puts a big red underline on your point. Even like in this thread, most people who are voting for Obama aren't really voting for Obama. They are voting against Romney And even that doesn't really give him much hope.

edit on 2-11-2012 by bigfatfurrytexan because: (no reason given)

The concern from some Obama supporters is if Obama is going to be ineffective still. If the opposite party will simply crash the economy verses make the dems look good for a moment, then eventually you have to start weighing in the pros and cons of keeping a good man in office. If your held hostage, there comes a time when you consider just giving into the demands in order to get things back to a sense of normal.

How sad is that if you consider it. It proves the political warfare against the people is in fact effective. That is my concern though. It sets a precidence that all the other side needs to do is block everything and the low information voters will blame the potus 100% of the time regardless of facts..and even high info voters will potentially cave to the tactic out of necessity.

This election means a lot actually. This is a citizens united election. a election about what will win. Not liberals V conservatives, but a new form of tactics being employed..this is what the election is...either justifying endless filibusters to block any and everything, or maybe dull this method a little bit from it being ineffective.

I am cautiously optimistic that Obama is pulling ahead again and likely going to win, but it was too close. a resounding landslide victory would have sent a better message that collapsing government will not win you an election a couple years later.

This new political environment is something that I am almost certain will corrupt our government beyond any repair...time to look at immigration policys of Denmark.

reply to post by SaturnFX

You need about 30 stars for that last post.
Well said. I couldn't agree more.

I am a liberal democrat, but I don't think Palin is a moron. I just think her track record shows high potential for ending up in the White House.

Originally posted by bigfatfurrytexan
The worst part is, he is running against Romney. So you would expect that with the scoundrel that most generally agree that Romney is, that Obama would be running away with the election. He isn't.

This just puts a big red underline on your point. Even like in this thread, most people who are voting for Obama aren't really voting for Obama. They are voting against Romney And even that doesn't really give him much hope.

Valid points, BFFT. Still, I think you would admit that the times are hard, and people feel disenfranchised. It's hard to preside over this mess even when you are making an honest effort to fix it, because it will out of necessity take too long...

So yeah, very few are happy with Obama. And you are right, I'm voting for O because it's just impossible to vote for R unless I'm very drunk.

Originally posted by Grimpachi

BTW your assertion that I should find information to back up your claims is a logical fallacy.

It wasn't that he was lieing about being in the top of his Law class and actually was in the bottom, it was he was NEVER even in law school...ever.... The fact was that he was in the bottom of his grad class POLLY SCI grad class...lol.... He left the Presidential race because of that lie...

He didn't just steal others works in some paper, he used them as his OWN for a LONG time. He lied so much that he started to change his personal history to what was in the works he was plagiarizing.

This is not just a few little lies, but actions of a habitual liar.... He further lies as will when he gives speeches....many call them gaffs and other things to save him face.

BTW we are not in a debate and just because you make a small post that I'm wrong because I don't list a string of links, things you can also google in 30 seconds too, doesn't suggest I'm acting on a burden of proof fallacy....it would be like you ask me for proof and I hand you a stack of papers and you want me to read it to you too.

Geez people today are so damn lazy...lol

reply to post by SaturnFX


You forgot something. (liberals, left, centerists, and racist). Accuracy is everything. How quickly you all forget you alusterious history. Being so brilliant, and so much smarter than everyone else and geniuses compared to conservitive, right, morons as you put it. Well, read this breif history and let me know who the moron is when you are finished.

This is the accurate history that Democrats fail to remember. I did an article about this many years ago and I was unable to find it so I am using the writing from two recent articles that reflect history correctly. What I find amusing is when I published my first article about this I actually had Democrats claim that the Republican and Democratic party switched. I about fell out of my chair. My response was...I asked my grandmother if she remembered or realized the Democrat and Republican parties switched. She said she was unaware of this event but would greatly appreciate a phone call the next time it happens so she can re-designate her party affiliation.
Well here is the history that every Democrat needs to know when claiming that Republicans are racist. Once and for all it would be nice to put this crap to bed but I know it will not.

* The number of Democratic Party platforms supporting slavery. There were six from 1840 through 1860.

* The number of Democratic presidents who owned slaves. There were seven from 1800 through 1861

* The number of Democratic Party platforms that either supported segregation outright or were silent on the subject. There were 20, from 1868 through 1948.

* "Jim Crow" as in "Jim Crow laws and the role Democrats played in creating them. These were the post-Civil War laws passed enthusiastically by Democrats in that pesky 52-year part of the DNC's missing years. These laws segregated public schools, public transportation, restaurants, rest rooms and public places in general (everything from water coolers to beaches). The reason Rosa Parks became famous is that she sat in the "whites only" front section of a bus, the "whites only" designation the direct result of Democrats.

* The formation of the Ku Klux Klan, which, according to Columbia University historian Eric Foner, became "a military force serving the interests of the Democratic Party." Nor is there reference to University of North Carolina historian Allen Trelease's description of the Klan as the "terrorist arm of the Democratic Party."

* Democrats opposed the 13th, 14th and 15th amendments to the Constitution. The 13th banned slavery. The 14th effectively overturned the infamous 1857 Dred Scott decision (made by Democratic pro-slavery Supreme Court justices) by guaranteeing due process and equal protection to former slaves. The 15th gave black Americans the right to vote.

* Democrats opposed the Civil Rights Act of 1866. It was passed by the Republican Congress over the veto of President Andrew Johnson, who had been a Democrat before joining Lincoln's ticket in 1864. The law was designed to provide blacks with the right to own private property, sign contracts, sue and serve as witnesses in a legal proceeding.

* Democrats' opposition to the Civil Rights Act of 1875. It was passed by a Republican Congress and signed into law by President Ulysses Grant. The law prohibited racial discrimination in public places and public accommodations.

* Democrats' 1904 platform, which devotes a section to "Sectional and Racial Agitation," claiming the GOP's protests against segregation and the denial of voting rights to blacks sought to "revive the dead and hateful race and sectional animosities in any part of our common country," which in turn "means confusion, distraction of business, and the reopening of wounds now happily healed."

* Four Democratic platforms, 1908-20, that are silent on blacks, segregation, lynching and voting rights as racial problems in the country mount. By contrast the GOP platforms of those years specifically address "Rights of the Negro" (1908), oppose lynching (in 1912, 1920, 1924, and 1928) and, as the New Deal kicks in, speak out about the dangers of making blacks "wards of the state."

* Democratic Convention of 1924, known to history as the "Klanbake." The 103-ballot convention was held in Madison Square Garden. Hundreds of delegates were members of the Ku Klux Klan, the Klan so powerful that a plank condemning Klan violence was defeated outright. To celebrate, the Klan staged a rally with 10,000 hooded Klansmen in a field in New Jersey directly across the Hudson from the site of the convention. Attended by hundreds of cheering convention delegates, the rally featured burning crosses and calls for violence against African-Americans and Catholics.

reply to post by SaturnFX

continued


* Democrats segregated the federal government, at the direction of President Woodrow Wilson upon taking office in 1913. There \is a reference to the fact that President Harry Truman integrated the military after World War II.

* Democrats created the Federal Reserve Board, passed labor and child welfare laws, and created Social Security with Wilson's New Freedom and FDR's New Deal. There is no mention that these programs were created as the result of an agreement to ignore segregation and the lynching of blacks. Neither is there a reference to the thousands of local officials, state legislators, state governors, U.S. congressmen and U.S. senators who were elected as supporters of slavery and then segregation between 1800 and 1965. Nor is there reference to the deal with the devil that left segregation and lynching as a way of life in return for election support for three post-Civil War Democratic presidents, Grover Cleveland, Woodrow Wilson and Franklin Roosevelt

* Three-fourths of the opposition to the 1964 Civil Rights Bill in the U.S. House came from Democrats, or that 80% of the "nay" vote in the Senate came from Democrats. Certainly there is no reference to the fact that the opposition included future Democratic Senate leader Robert Byrd of West Virginia (a former Klan member) and Tennessee Senator Albert Gore Sr., father of Vice President Al Gore.

* In Birmingham, Ala., Public Safety Commissioner Bull Connor, who infamously unleashed dogs and fire hoses on civil rights protestors, was in fact--yes indeed--a member of both the Democratic National Committee and the Ku Klux Klan.

* The fact that Republican President Dwight D. Eisenhower was the first to initiate the legislation which finally passed and was enacted under Democrat Presidents JFK and LBJ), the party of the left has somehow hoodwinked much of the black community into thinking they are its savior. In fact until the passing of the 1964 Civil Rights Act,

* Martin Luther King was a Republican, re-registering as a Democrat as part of the negotiations, and so were most blacks Republicans (the party of Abraham Lincoln) until that time. Facts like these are part of the reason the Progressives consistently fight to re-write and edit the history that is taught and skew media productions.
Democrats will likely say they led the fight for civil rights throughout the years, though a cursory review of the party will prove this assertion wrong. For instance, this was the party that established the Ku Klux Klan as its enforcement arm. Powerful Democrat politicians have appointed Klansmen to high-ranking positions in American government for a century, yet have somehow convinced the vast majority of blacks that Republicans are the bad guys! The KKK was used to intimidate voters, black and white, into voting Democrat – or not voting at all. Through violence, property damage, rape, and murder, Democrats were able to secure a huge majority of the black vote comprised of those afraid to cast an alternate ballot. Disgustingly, they have somehow been able to maintain that death-grip on the African-American community to this day.
* The GOP, which was the first to name a black Supreme Court Justice and Secretary of State, must defend itself against accusations based purely in the imagination of Democrats, often with figurative or literal blood on their own hands.

This last part is a very powerful and well written truth. I lived in Birmingham Alabama in 1965. I witnessed racism first hand.

Written by Louis DeBroux

reply to post by SaturnFX


continued

For too long Americans, ignorant of history, have bought into this liberal libel, and Republicans, to their everlasting shame; have been relatively spineless in combating these nefarious lies. Republicans hold the moral high ground here. Democrats on the other hand, taking a break from their absolute fealty to the false doctrine of separation of church and state, run to the black churches just before every election to plant fear into their hearts of Republicans dragging them back to the days of slavery. On the bright side, as hypocritical as it is, every minute Democrats spend in a black church is a minute they are not shoveling hundreds of millions of taxpayer dollars into the pockets of Planned Parenthood, funding the slaughter of millions of unborn black children.
The hypocrisy truly is stunning. Democrats pretend to be the protectorate for poor blacks who would otherwise become victims from the scheming, evil, white Republicans. They usurp the mantel of the civil rights movement, when the truth is nothing close. The Prevaricator-in-Chief, His Royal Lie-ness Barack Obama, famously claimed that his very conception was a result of the love affair between his father and mother during the civil rights march on Selma, Alabama in 1965. The problem? Obama was born in 1961, four years before that historic event. You know who DID join a civil rights march? That would be Mitt Romney’s father, Governor George Romney, who led a procession of 10,000 marchers in Detroit two days after Bloody Sunday in a show of solidarity with Martin Luther King, Jr. and the marchers at Selma.

For a list of prominent politicians NOT supportive of civil rights for black Americans, look no further than the Democrat Party. The most vocal opponents of the Civil Rights Act were all Democrats, including Albert Gore, Sr., father of former Vice President and 2000 Democrat presidential nominee Al Gore, and the Methuselah of the Senate, former Senate Majority Leader Robert Byrd, former “Kleagle” and “Grand Cyclops” of the Ku Klux Klan, who personally spoke for an astonishing fourteen hours straight in the Senate in an attempt to block passage of the 1964 Civil Rights Act. This was the same Robert Byrd that called MLK a “troublemaker” and a “coward,” and the same Byrd who vociferously opposed integrating the military, proclaiming he would “…rather die a thousand times and see Old Glory trampled in the dirt, never to rise again, than see this beloved land of ours become degraded by race mongrels, a throwback to the blackest specimen of the wilds…”

It was Democrat Alabama Governor George Wallace who said in his inaugural speech, “I draw the line in the dust and toss the gauntlet before the feet of tyranny, and I say segregation now, segregation tomorrow, segregation forever!” He would attempt to keep his promise by physically blocking the desegregation of Alabama schools. He would later run for president on the American Independent Party ticket, seeing as how the racist Democrat Party was still not quite racist enough for him.

And what about the KKK? Is it fair to tie the racist Klan to the Democrat Party? Why yes, yes it is. As historian Bruce Bartlett reveals, during an 1872 Congressional investigation, Democrats admitted to forming the Ku Klux Klan as a way to stop the growth of the Republican Party. He continues,“As PBS’s ‘American Experience’ notes, ‘In outright defiance of the Republican-led federal government, Southern Democrats formed organizations that violently intimidated blacks and Republicans who tried to win political power. The most prominent of these, the Ku Klux Klan, was formed in Pulaski, Tennessee, in 1865.”
It is literally impossible to cover all of the racist history of the Democrat Party in this confined space, but even a cursory review tells the story. Jim Crow laws? Passed by Democrats. Harry Truman, member of the Kansas City chapter of the KKK? Democrat. Fugitive slave laws which returned runaway slaves to their owners? Democrats. 1856 Supreme Court decision in the Dred Scott case, legally defining blacks as the property of their masters? A 7-2 decision, written by Chief Justice Roger Taney, a Democrat, with every concurring vote cast by a Democrat. The two opposing? One Republican and one Whig (a portion of which party had split to form the Republican Party). Passage of the Kansas-Nebraska Act, which repealed the slavery-limiting Missouri Compromise? That would be, you guessed it, Democrats.

Now, to be fair, the extensive proof of deeply-held racism by the Democrat Party is not de facto proof that the Republican Party is not itself full of racists. So once again, let’s take a look at the facts:

reply to post by SaturnFX


continued

The Republican Party was formed in 1854 for the specific purpose of ending slavery. Less than a decade later, the first Republican president, Abraham Lincoln, would issue the Emancipation Proclamation, freeing the slaves in the Southern states, and see the blood of hundreds of thousands shed to insure that victory. In 1865, the 13th Amendment formally and legally freeing the slaves was passed with every Republican in the House and Senate voting in favor, but only 19 Democrats supporting it (less than one quarter). It was Republicans, against vicious Democrat opposition, that passed the 14th Amendment (establishing citizenship for former black slaves), and the 15th Amendment (granting blacks the right to vote). It was Republicans who first passed Civil Rights Acts (in 1866 and in 1875), which would be rescinded by Democrats with the passage of the Repeal Act of 1894. A little over half a century later, it would be Republicans that would push through the Civil Rights Acts again, with 80% of Republicans voting for the 1964 law compared to only 64% of Democrats.

Disingenuous Democrats unbelievably claim the racists in the Democrat Party fled to the Republican Party in recent years, but that doesn’t come close to passing the smell test. For one, why would racist Democrats flee to the party that formed to end slavery, and which had only recently voted in overwhelming numbers to pass laws protecting blacks from this very racist ideology? Why would they flee to the party that is trying to end the holocaust of abortion, which kills off about half of all black babies? Why flee to the party that fights for educational choice so that poor blacks aren’t forced to send their kids to failing schools?

Notoriously corrupt Obama Attorney General Eric Holder famously claimed that America is a “nation of cowards” when it comes to talking about race. To that I’d simply reply, “Whenever you’re ready, dear.”