What's the knock on Palin?

[OCinBuffalo]

I wouldn't go as far as you by calling it amateur hour. Yes, he has made mistakes like past Presidents and he hasn't been as strong of a leader as he should at times. I also believe that even though the mistakes he has made have not helped, our stature in the world hasn't been lost solely by him. None of our leaders have been very strong for years.

 

I do love how you can state all of those items above and truly believe he caused everything. Kind of funny to me.

Yes. This is hysterical. Absolutely hysterical. After all the blaming/character assassination/conspiracy spreading/insane babble and outright lying you and your ilk did and does when it comes to Bush, now, you expect everyone to take an egalitarian approach to Obama? This is exactly as funny to me as the posts I was reading here from 2005 on.

 

Of course we know that some of this isn't Obama's fault. We also knew that some of it wasn't Bush's fault. You were too childish to acknowledge that. So, have you grown up and learned anything? Or are you just trying to cover your ass?

 

Maybe you and Obama will get lucky. Maybe you both can depend on the grace of those people you and he chose to vilify. Maybe not. Maybe you have learned something, maybe not.

[MattM]

Palin never actually said she could see Russia from her house. That would be Tina Fey on SNL.

 

I'm not so sure about that--some of the early stuff Tina Fey did on Palin were almost word for word reenactments of Palin's own speeches. I remember watching the Katie Couric interviews on Youtube and then Fey as Palin at the time, and for a while it seemed like old Sarah was about to put a lot of comedy writers out of work....

 

Which answers (to me, at least) Rob's original question. Anyone watching those Couric interviews, where Palin couldn't even list a publication that she read, among many other examples too numerous to mention here (including her free flowing word association of big sounding words strung together in an almost incomprehensible way), could not help but come away thinking she was dumber than a rock (unless you were incredibly partisan).

[Wacka]

I'm not so sure about that--some of the early stuff Tina Fey did on Palin were almost word for word reenactments of Palin's own speeches. I remember watching the Katie Couric interviews on Youtube and then Fey as Palin at the time, and for a while it seemed like old Sarah was about to put a lot of comedy writers out of work....

 

Which answers (to me, at least) Rob's original question. Anyone watching those Couric interviews, where Palin couldn't even list a publication that she read, among many other examples too numerous to mention here (including her free flowing word association of big sounding words strung together in an almost incomprehensible way), could not help but come away thinking she was dumber than a rock (unless you were incredibly partisan).

 

Sounds like Obama to me. Without TOTUS, he is dumber than a rock.

[ExiledInIllinois]

Obama is hokey. There is no substance behind him. What he says he can do, he really can't. He is a puppet for the elite, and not a very good one...Just good looking while doing a lot of things the elite person would do in their life.

 

It isn't hatred...He is in over his head yet people keep pushing him along. The thing that gets many people is that the MSM (pushing him along) is so obvious and blatant.

 

 

 

 

Sarah Palin strikes me as someone who's a much stronger individual than Obama. The one area he's got her on is academics, and after two years we can see how little that mattered in his real world decision making. Not saying I want her as the next president or not, but I'd take her in a split second over the joker we have in there now.

 

See... That is the thing... I can totally respect your POV and opinion!

 

I have a harder time with Palin... Because I am a working man and know nothing of the elite academians pencil-pushers of the world... So I tend to give them the benefit of doubt. Maybe that is wrong... I can't see through Obama because I know nothing of that side of the elites. I may be easily snowed by Obama, but not Palin.

 

Palin strikes me as one group leader (at work) I had... No substance... Swoops in to tell some BS on what needs to be done... Dabbles a bit before his hands gets dirty... Then swoops away for the office while the others finish the job and get it done. I suppose the same can be said about Obama... But I know nothing of being a community organizer and what that entails... To me that seems hard and I would NEVER want to do a job like that.

[pBills]

Yes. This is hysterical. Absolutely hysterical. After all the blaming/character assassination/conspiracy spreading/insane babble and outright lying you and your ilk did and does when it comes to Bush, now, you expect everyone to take an egalitarian approach to Obama? This is exactly as funny to me as the posts I was reading here from 2005 on.

 

Of course we know that some of this isn't Obama's fault. We also knew that some of it wasn't Bush's fault. You were too childish to acknowledge that. So, have you grown up and learned anything? Or are you just trying to cover your ass?

 

Maybe you and Obama will get lucky. Maybe you both can depend on the grace of those people you and he chose to vilify. Maybe not. Maybe you have learned something, maybe not.

 

 

 

Yes, I made fun of George Bush. Dear god who didn't? He sucked as a public speaker, always acted as though he had a nervous tick and yes, got us into Iraq when we didn't need to be there. His Presidency as a whole was one of the worst ever. Many will say the same thing about Obama's as well. Unless the economy comes around and jobs pick up.

 

Did both Presidents do some good while in office? YES. Did I ever say anything about conspiracies with Bush. No. Did I ever go after his character? No. Hell talk about character assassinations and vilifying... dear lord. Some people still believe Obama's not an American. Some people say he's a Nazi, out to put people threw death panels, just a mere community organizer - not good enough, he doesn't care about small business - jobs - or the economy as a whole, doesn't care about senior citizens and my favorite is that in 18 months everything wrong with this country is Obama's fault. Probably the dumbest and most closed minded statement from the right EVER. All in all, I for one can see the good both Presidents have done and the bad. Can you or will you believe and continue to spew nonsense?

 

Finally... sit there and say I'm childish, I need to grow up, learn something... me and my ilk, blah, blah, blah... just shows who the childish one is. You.

[Rob's House]

I'm not so sure about that--some of the early stuff Tina Fey did on Palin were almost word for word reenactments of Palin's own speeches. I remember watching the Katie Couric interviews on Youtube and then Fey as Palin at the time, and for a while it seemed like old Sarah was about to put a lot of comedy writers out of work....

 

Which answers (to me, at least) Rob's original question. Anyone watching those Couric interviews, where Palin couldn't even list a publication that she read, among many other examples too numerous to mention here (including her free flowing word association of big sounding words strung together in an almost incomprehensible way), could not help but come away thinking she was dumber than a rock (unless you were incredibly partisan).

This fits into the catagory of "gotcha" interviews that only show me she wasn't immediately polished and ready to be thrust into the national political campaign scene with virtually no preparation. That, by the way, is a loaded question, and it actually shows a level of awareness in not answering outright. The real tards are the one's who can't see that angle. I mean seriously, do you think she can't rattle off the names of a few news publications?

 

These criticisms are especially rich when coming from people who defend Obama. He might have looked pretty stupid too if he'd been grilled for hours only to have the interview edited to be as unflattering as possible. The only questions I ever heard him asked by "news media" were variations of "do you want me to take the whole shaft or just suck on the head?" In fact, the only tough question he ever got along the affirmative action fast track to the White House was from some plumber named Joe.

Edited November 16, 2010 by Rob's House

[Peace]

This fits into the catagory of "gotcha" interviews that only show me she wasn't immediately polished and ready to be thrust into the national political campaign scene with virtually no preparation. That, by the way, is a loaded question, and it actually shows a level of awareness in not answering outright. The real tards are the one's who can't see that angle. I mean seriously, do you think she can't rattle off the names of a few news publications?

 

These criticisms are especially rich when coming from people who defend Obama. He might have looked pretty stupid too if he'd been grilled for hours only to have the interview edited to be as unflattering as possible. The only questions I ever heard him asked by "news media" were variations of "do you want me to take the whole shaft or just suck on the head?" In fact, the only tough question he ever got along the affirmative action fast track to the White House was from some plumber named Joe.

 

Grilled? Loaded question? She was asked what publications she reads. A reasonably intelligent person can rattle off a few. "I read quite a few. The New York Times, Wall Street Journal, Alaskan Dispatch, USA Today. I also try to keep an eye on Newsweek and the Economist. And I peruse a few online sites like Google News and Yahoo News that run stories from all over." I typed all that as it flowed from my head. She's not very bright. And no, I don't think she could rattle off those publications because she was not reading them. That was VERY clear before she entered the national spotlight. She was a provincial figure with no eye on the national pulse. That was and is, frankly, her charm. But it is also a problem when you're going to be 2nd in line for the president.

 

Palin proved over and over again that she was not adept and well-thought-out on the national scene. She gave great speeches (my wife and I were blown away by her acceptance speech when she appeared in Ohio). But when asked to think for herself in debates or in interviews, she consistently floundered unless she had the correct cue-card ready. In the debates, she was a robot, trotting out her prepared responses and never ad-libbing a single point or reacting to what Biden was saying.

 

Palin's down-home common sense is appealing. As I've said before, I agree with a fair amount of what she says. But she is NOT worthy of serious political office.

Edited November 16, 2010 by Peace

[Rob's House]

Grilled? Loaded question? She was asked what publications she reads. A reasonably intelligent person can rattle off a few. "I read quite a few. The New York Times, Wall Street Journal, Alaskan Dispatch, USA Today. I also try to keep an eye on Newsweek and the Economist. And I peruse a few online sites like Google News and Yahoo News that run stories from all over." I typed all that as it flowed from my head. She's not very bright. And no, I don't think she could rattle off those publications because she was not reading them. That was VERY clear before she entered the national spotlight. She was a provincial figure with no eye on the national pulse. That was and is, frankly, her charm. But it is also a problem when you're going to be 2nd in line for the president.

 

Palin proved over and over again that she was not adept and well-thought-out on the national scene. She gave great speeches (my wife and I were blown away by her acceptance speech when she appeared in Ohio). But when asked to think for herself in debates or in interviews, she consistently floundered unless she had the correct cue-card ready. In the debates, she was a robot, trotting out her prepared responses and never ad-libbing a single point or reacting to what Biden was saying.

 

Palin's down-home common sense is appealing. As I've said before, I agree with a fair amount of what she says. But she is NOT worthy of serious political office.

I'm just saying, with pre-scripted ?s by an adoring fanbase and a teleprompter I think she'd have done fine.

 

And that was 3 hrs of interview edited down, and it's alleged it was edited to make her look as bad as possible, and I don't doubt that.

Edited November 16, 2010 by Rob's House

[Magox]

She's not very bright.

 

I reject this shallow observation. As DC Tom pointed out, there are a number of things that she has done that don't support this argument. Her debate performance is a perfect illustration of this. She also has consistently been able to manipulate the masses, anyone who is able to achieve this is on such a successful level is no dummy. I've seen her speak a number of times, and I've heard her responses to questions doing post election interviews and I can tell you that she is quick on her feet. The lady knows what she is doing, she knows how to move the debate in the direction that she wants. She knows what topics to talk about to get the base riled up. You have fallen trap to the caricature that has been portrayed. It isn't all that surprising, afterall you believe that Jon Stewart's show is a legitimate outlet for news. The guy is funny, but lets be real here, he is more like a Siskel & Ebert, a critic of "news" outlets, except he does it in masterful comedic form. But that is where it ends.

 

The reason for Palin's poor performance with those interviews simply has to do with the micromanaging of McCain's team. She felt handcuffed, confused, not knowing that what she could say would not fall in line with McCain's team's strategy. If you are naive enough to believe that she can't spout off a few news publications and chalk it up to her being a nitwit, well then that speaks to your naivete', and that you are easily manipulated into believing the direction of what the media wants you to believe.

 

You have to see that there was a concerted and coordinated effort by the media to denigrate this lady. It is well documented that there was a coordinated effort by the media ( see journalist files) to do everything they possibly could to prop up the chosen one. They recognized her star power, and they did everything they could to tear her down. Having said that, she gave them plenty of material to work with and she definitely didn't do herself any favors in those interviews.

 

Oh and the Death Panels thingy, I actually believe that this health insurance bill will eventually create those "Death Panels". Even Paul Krugman goes on to say this past weekend:

 

Economist and New York Times columnist Paul Krugman says the only way the U.S. will get its debt crisis under control is by the use of "death panels" and a national sales tax.

 

The national sales tax, referred to as value-added tax (VAT)m which governments across Europe use widely, will help cut the U.S deficit, Krugman argues.

 

Krugman made his comments on ABC's “This Week with Christiane Amanpour” during a roundtable discussion about the economy and the recent findings of the U.S. Debt Reduction Commission.

 

Here's the key excerpt:

 

"Some years down the pike, we're going to get the real solution, which is going to be a combination of death panels and sales taxes. It's going to be that we're actually going to take Medicare under control, and we're going to have to get some additional revenue, probably from a VAT. But it's not going to happen now."

 

I wonder if anyone will criticize him for saying the same thing that Sarah did.

 

I doubt it.

 

I think the better question would be; Does she show a level of ignorance on certain worldly matters? Or Does she lack sophistication? I believe you could make a strong argument that she does to both accounts.

 

But is she dumb? Of course not, only a mindless tool or a hyperpartisan wingnut or an easily manipulated person actually would believe this.

 

There is a difference between lacking sophistication and being a nitwit. You see, Conner for example is an unsophisticated nitwit. He combines the best of both. Sarah is no nitwit, but she lacks sophistication. You see the difference between the two?

 

But she is NOT worthy of serious political office.

 

I agree with this. Probably not for the same reasons you do, my main concern with her is her polarizing style of politics. It's ok that she is a perennial bomb thrower from the sidelines, but as our president of the U.S, I find that to be unacceptable. Having said that, if I had to choose between the lesser of two evils, I take her over Obama in a heartbeat.

Edited November 16, 2010 by Magox

[Dave_In_Norfolk]

Listen, I think she is great, great in the sense that she is able to get progressives all "wee wee'd up" and any time there is an article written about her, it seems to bring out all the vitriol filled spew from the left.

Ya, that's great! You must also love Bush, too. He gets us partisan leftist all fired up, too.

 

The funny thing about this board is that all you far right, hard core Conservo nuts actually think you are fooling people into believing you are anti-partisan, moderate level headed thinkers. You have done a good job of convincing this boards right wing circle jerk committee of that, but no one else.

[Magox]

You have done a good job of convincing this boards right wing circle jerk committee of that, but no one else.

Says the lefty self-jerking wingnut.

[Dave_In_Norfolk]

Says the lefty self-jerking wingnut.

Yes, exactly...your turn

[1billsfan]

See... That is the thing... I can totally respect your POV and opinion!

 

I have a harder time with Palin... Because I am a working man and know nothing of the elite academians pencil-pushers of the world... So I tend to give them the benefit of doubt. Maybe that is wrong... I can't see through Obama because I know nothing of that side of the elites. I may be easily snowed by Obama, but not Palin.

 

Palin strikes me as one group leader (at work) I had... No substance... Swoops in to tell some BS on what needs to be done... Dabbles a bit before his hands gets dirty... Then swoops away for the office while the others finish the job and get it done. I suppose the same can be said about Obama... But I know nothing of being a community organizer and what that entails... To me that seems hard and I would NEVER want to do a job like that.

 

Hey, I respect your opinion too! But you're telling me that you think that community organizing sounds like hard work to you? Basically you try getting a bunch of people together to brow beat the government for some more free stuff. Begging doesn't sound all that hard to me.

 

Palin was the governor of a state. Reading up on what she did, it sounds like she was a very good governor bent on weeding out corruption and cutting budgets.

 

The difference between these two people is that one thinks government is the answer, while the other believes in the freedoms and power of the individual.

 

Palin has more real leadership skills in her little finger than Obama has in his entire body. I don't see her bowing down, apologizing, or letting rival nations dictate terms for the US.

 

Does that mean she's presidential material? Not necessarily, but to claim she has the substance of a group leader is to just blindly buy into the Bill Maher far left view that any American who's not from New York, Chicago or California is nothing but a dumbass hillbilly.

 

I was listening to Hannity on the radio yesterday and he had the two democratic pundits who wrote the "One and Done" article in the Washington Post. Hannity said that he's heard from people inside the white house that Obama obsesses over Fox News, sports and blows a gasket every time a daily poor economic number comes in. Is it true? Even though it came from Hannity, I tend to believe that it is. I don't think Hannity needs to lie and make up stuff about Obama.

 

The guy's clearly over his head in a job he really doesn't want to do anymore. He just wanted the love and adjuration, but now that he's knee deep in the swamp and things are going horribly, it seems that he's not equipped to run anything let alone an entire country. Obama strikes me as the guy who just says a bunch of nonsense stuff then walks away not wanting to do the actual work. At least Palin is equipped with the skills to do the job. My first choice is Chris Christie because he would be much less polarizing, but if he doesn't run then I'll give Palin a fair shot among the remaining candidates. Reagan was once a polarizing figure also. The next two years will no doubt shake out who's the best person to send Obama packing. If it's Palin then so be it.

Edited November 16, 2010 by 1billsfan

[IDBillzFan]

You have fallen trap to the caricature that has been portrayed.

 

It's amazing to me how many people fall into this category. I try to give most people the benefit of the doubt, because you'd like to think they're not stupid enough to follow the self-serving Chris Matthews "Have you ever seen her read?" narrative, but maybe I need to rethink that. It's just so damn simple to say "she's not very bright" because, after all, if you hear it enough times, it must be true.

 

Oh and the Death Panels thingy, I actually believe that this health insurance bill will eventually create those "Death Panels". Even Paul Krugman goes on to say this past weekend:

 

I've come to the conclusion that what Paul Krugman really wants is to take every dime earned by every working person and dole it out equally to everyone, with the option of killing anyone too old to contribute.

[Peace]

I reject this shallow observation. As DC Tom pointed out, there are a number of things that she has done that don't support this argument. Her debate performance is a perfect illustration of this. She also has consistently been able to manipulate the masses, anyone who is able to achieve this is on such a successful level is no dummy. I've seen her speak a number of times, and I've heard her responses to questions doing post election interviews and I can tell you that she is quick on her feet. The lady knows what she is doing, she knows how to move the debate in the direction that she wants. She knows what topics to talk about to get the base riled up. You have fallen trap to the caricature that has been portrayed. It isn't all that surprising, afterall you believe that Jon Stewart's show is a legitimate outlet for news. The guy is funny, but lets be real here, he is more like a Siskel & Ebert, a critic of "news" outlets, except he does it in masterful comedic form. But that is where it ends.

 

The reason for Palin's poor performance with those interviews simply has to do with the micromanaging of McCain's team. She felt handcuffed, confused, not knowing that what she could say would not fall in line with McCain's team's strategy. If you are naive enough to believe that she can't spout off a few news publications and chalk it up to her being a nitwit, well then that speaks to your naivete', and that you are easily manipulated into believing the direction of what the media wants you to believe.

 

You have to see that there was a concerted and coordinated effort by the media to denigrate this lady. It is well documented that there was a coordinated effort by the media ( see journalist files) to do everything they possibly could to prop up the chosen one. They recognized her star power, and they did everything they could to tear her down. Having said that, she gave them plenty of material to work with and she definitely didn't do herself any favors in those interviews.

 

Oh and the Death Panels thingy, I actually believe that this health insurance bill will eventually create those "Death Panels". Even Paul Krugman goes on to say this past weekend:

 

 

I know you love the neverending one on one thread (You and TPS have pioneered the art). Please don't take my short response as agreeing with the points I don't fire back on. I'm just picking a few things.

 

I stick to my statement that she is NOT bright but perhaps I should be more specific. Somewhere in this thread I give her credit for being driven and power hungry in a pretty insane way. She is smart enough to tap into her populism and take full advantage of it. Where she's dumb is in her understanding of world events, economics, history, etc. It is NOT hard to list the publications you read--how is that in any way the fault of McCain's handlers. "What publications do you read?" {Palin: Oh wait, what should I say? I could really hurt McCain with this answer.} Really? Seriously?

 

The media conspiracy thing is lame. Palin opened the door to the characterizations. She delivers a really good speech. I have seen her in person and in interviews and she CANNOT think on her feet. If the answers are drilled into her head, she pops out a good response. If not, the eyes glass up and she pops out a prepared answer to some other question.

 

Of course a socialized system would have something like a death panel.

 

Don't do your douchey thing of putting words in my mouth. I never said Stewart is a legitimate news outlet. I expect this kind of crap from you but every once in a while I hope for better. Guess I was wrong.

Edited November 16, 2010 by Peace

[pBills]

I reject this shallow observation. As DC Tom pointed out, there are a number of things that she has done that don't support this argument. Her debate performance is a perfect illustration of this. She also has consistently been able to manipulate the masses, anyone who is able to achieve this is on such a successful level is no dummy. I've seen her speak a number of times, and I've heard her responses to questions doing post election interviews and I can tell you that she is quick on her feet. The lady knows what she is doing, she knows how to move the debate in the direction that she wants. She knows what topics to talk about to get the base riled up. You have fallen trap to the caricature that has been portrayed. It isn't all that surprising, afterall you believe that Jon Stewart's show is a legitimate outlet for news. The guy is funny, but lets be real here, he is more like a Siskel & Ebert, a critic of "news" outlets, except he does it in masterful comedic form. But that is where it ends.

 

The reason for Palin's poor performance with those interviews simply has to do with the micromanaging of McCain's team. She felt handcuffed, confused, not knowing that what she could say would not fall in line with McCain's team's strategy. If you are naive enough to believe that she can't spout off a few news publications and chalk it up to her being a nitwit, well then that speaks to your naivete', and that you are easily manipulated into believing the direction of what the media wants you to believe.

 

You have to see that there was a concerted and coordinated effort by the media to denigrate this lady. It is well documented that there was a coordinated effort by the media ( see journalist files) to do everything they possibly could to prop up the chosen one. They recognized her star power, and they did everything they could to tear her down. Having said that, she gave them plenty of material to work with and she definitely didn't do herself any favors in those interviews.

 

Oh and the Death Panels thingy, I actually believe that this health insurance bill will eventually create those "Death Panels". Even Paul Krugman goes on to say this past weekend:

 

 

 

I wonder if anyone will criticize him for saying the same thing that Sarah did.

 

I doubt it.

 

I think the better question would be; Does she show a level of ignorance on certain worldly matters? Or Does she lack sophistication? I believe you could make a strong argument that she does to both accounts.

 

But is she dumb? Of course not, only a mindless tool or a hyperpartisan wingnut or an easily manipulated person actually would believe this.

 

There is a difference between lacking sophistication and being a nitwit. You see, Conner for example is an unsophisticated nitwit. He combines the best of both. Sarah is no nitwit, but she lacks sophistication. You see the difference between the two?

 

 

 

I agree with this. Probably not for the same reasons you do, my main concern with her is her polarizing style of politics. It's ok that she is a perennial bomb thrower from the sidelines, but as our president of the U.S, I find that to be unacceptable. Having said that, if I had to choose between the lesser of two evils, I take her over Obama in a heartbeat.

 

 

 

I wouldn't say that Sarah Palin's debate performance is anything more than her being coached pretty well. Not a shining example of her brilliance. She is in no way a great public speaker. She has some not so whitty lines or sayings like "Hockey Mom" or "Grizzly Mama" that somehow help her connect. If anything I would give credit to who ever coaches her and writes her speeches.

 

As far as Jon Stewart is concerned... legit news source? No. Is it funny how he takes politicians own words and use them against whatever statement they are currently making. He must have a great research team.

 

Personally I believe she lacks ignorance to worldly matters and sophistication. She is a pretty face that is easily coachable. Knowing that she is perennial bomb thrower, you would take someone like that over Obama? You lost me on that.

[Magox]

Don't do your douchey thing of putting words in my mouth.

 

 

Guess I was wrong.

 

Ohhh, don't say it's soooo

[IDBillzFan]

She is in no way a great public speaker.

There's plenty to criticize about Palin, and you pick the one thing for which she can't be criticized. She's a great public speaker. You may not like the speech, which wouldn't surprise anyone here, but she is outstanding in front of a mic.

 

Unfortunately, being a great speaker means nothing without substance, and is in no way a single reason to vote for someone, as is evidenced by the current dolt-in-chief, whose pathway to the presidency began with a singularly outstanding speech that he has since pissed all over with his inability to lead.

[1billsfan]

I know you love the neverending one on one thread (You and TPS have pioneered the art). Please don't take my short response as agreeing with the points I don't fire back on. I'm just picking a few things.

 

I stick to my statement that she is NOT bright but perhaps I should be more specific. Somewhere in this thread I give her credit for being driven and power hungry in a pretty insane way. She is smart enough to tap into her populism and take full advantage of it. Where she's dumb is in her understanding of world events, economics, history, etc. It is NOT hard to list the publications you read--how is that in any way the fault of McCain's handlers. "What publications do you read?" {Palin: Oh wait, what should I say? I could really hurt McCain with this answer.} Really? Seriously?

 

The media conspiracy thing is lame. Palin opened the door to the characterizations. She delivers a really good speech. I have seen her in person and in interviews and she CANNOT think on her feet. If the answers are drilled into her head, she pops out a good response. If not, the eyes glass up and she pops out a prepared answer to some other question.

 

Of course a socialized system would have something like a death panel.

 

Don't do your douchey thing of putting words in my mouth. I never said Stewart is a legitimate news outlet. I expect this kind of crap from you but every once in a while I hope for better. Guess I was wrong.

 

 

One year ago...

Palin: "There are death panels in the healthcare bill."

Liberals: "How dare this stupid lying whore say that there are death panels in the healthcare bill."

 

 

Today...

Liberals: "Well yes, of course there are death panels in the healthcare bill."

 

 

Palin has the bull**t detector, the megaphone, and arguably now has a bigger influence on the current direction of this country than Obama does. It's no wonder you guys hate her so much...she's winning.

Edited November 16, 2010 by 1billsfan

[drnykterstein]

One year ago...

Palin: "There are death panels in the healthcare bill."

Liberals: "How dare this stupid lying whore say that there are death panels in the healthcare bill."

 

 

Today...

Liberals: "Well yes, of course there are death panels in the healthcare bill."

 

Ok Alan Grayson, whatever you say. There are no death panels, get a grip man.