Rob's House Posted November 12, 2010 Posted November 12, 2010 I mean I know she had a few less than stellar moments and a couple of awkward comments in her first 15 minutes on the national stage, but honestly, who hasn't? I'd like for some Palin hating lib (or anyone for that matter) to explain to me what it is that makes her the object of such intense disdain. It seems like Bush derangement syndrome redirected. And please don't tell me it's because she said she can see Russia from her house, didn't have any controversial Supreme court decisions to drop off the top of her head, or b/c she was awkward in the Katie Couric "gotcha" interview.
LeviF Posted November 12, 2010 Posted November 12, 2010 I mean I know she had a few less than stellar moments and a couple of awkward comments in her first 15 minutes on the national stage, but honestly, who hasn't? I'd like for some Palin hating lib (or anyone for that matter) to explain to me what it is that makes her the object of such intense disdain. It seems like Bush derangement syndrome redirected. And please don't tell me it's because she said she can see Russia from her house, didn't have any controversial Supreme court decisions to drop off the top of her head, or b/c she was awkward in the Katie Couric "gotcha" interview. I know a lot of people are put off by the whole Earth being 6,000 years old bit. In my mind, if you believe that then you are either willfully ignorant or woefully stupid. I don't know enough about her to make a judgment, but if she falls under the former category and is only willfully ignorant about that particular thing (and it didn't influence policy-making), then it wouldn't make her a bad public official.
bobblehead Posted November 12, 2010 Posted November 12, 2010 Palin is not as laughable as the shut-ins who consider the police scanner in their basement as their prime media outlet who mastur... i mean "support" her.
IDBillzFan Posted November 12, 2010 Posted November 12, 2010 For better or worse, rightly or wrongly, she has been defined as stupid. You can not turn on virtually any type of media without hearing some liberal talking head and/or their celebrity friends call her stupid. When you have a person like Chris Matthews, on election night, seriously and genuinely asking a congressman who knows Palin if he has ever seen her reading something, then the gig is up on her. At this point, the only thing that will help her is if the vitriol becomes so loud and mean that it turns most Americans toward her out of sympathy, and I can't imagine enough people are paying attention for that to happen. There are enough people listening to accept that she's stupid, but not enough to become sympathetic. Now one thing I have learned is that you can always tell you when someone scares the left because they throw bombs at them regardless of their current situation (i.e. Holder releasing 6-year-old expense reports over Chris Christie's head when he has no intention of doing anything with the information), but in the case of Palin, it doesn't matter becauseas long as the left holds the media microphone, a conservative pro-life female doesn't have a chance any more than a black conservative gay.
Rob's House Posted November 12, 2010 Author Posted November 12, 2010 I know a lot of people are put off by the whole Earth being 6,000 years old bit. In my mind, if you believe that then you are either willfully ignorant or woefully stupid. I don't know enough about her to make a judgment, but if she falls under the former category and is only willfully ignorant about that particular thing (and it didn't influence policy-making), then it wouldn't make her a bad public official. I had heard that, but wasn't sure if it was true or rumor (like the book burning stuff). I used to make fun of those people, but I now just chalk it up to a relatively harmless belief system that gives them comfort and helps them deal with the fact that they're eventually going to die [and presumably go to hell].
Gary M Posted November 12, 2010 Posted November 12, 2010 For better or worse, rightly or wrongly, she has been defined as stupid. You can not turn on virtually any type of media without hearing some liberal talking head and/or their celebrity friends call her stupid. When you have a person like Chris Matthews, on election night, seriously and genuinely asking a congressman who knows Palin if he has ever seen her reading something, then the gig is up on her. At this point, the only thing that will help her is if the vitriol becomes so loud and mean that it turns most Americans toward her out of sympathy, and I can't imagine enough people are paying attention for that to happen. There are enough people listening to accept that she's stupid, but not enough to become sympathetic. Now one thing I have learned is that you can always tell you when someone scares the left because they throw bombs at them regardless of their current situation (i.e. Holder releasing 6-year-old expense reports over Chris Christie's head when he has no intention of doing anything with the information), but in the case of Palin, it doesn't matter becauseas long as the left holds the media microphone, a conservative pro-life female doesn't have a chance any more than a black conservative gay. After Obama won, I told my wife that Palin will not run for President, her main purpose now is to make the statements/accusations about the Lib/Dems that the real GOP candidates can't. She can be the mud flinger. This belief was reinforced over the weekend, she was on Fox and they asked if she would run in 2012, she said she would have to discuss it with the family, the whole being dragged throught the mud. Then she followed that with , well maybe I can play a support roll of some fashion. I think she is looking for a cabinet position in 2012.
1billsfan Posted November 12, 2010 Posted November 12, 2010 What's more dangerous? Obama's radical policies aimed to transform America into a socialist country, or Sarah Palin's religious beliefs? The reason the left hate her is because she's a strong, sexy, attractive, feminine women. The left hate anything that looks feminine unless it's a high-priced hooker from new jersey...and even that is done behind closed doors. Don't know if I'd vote for her, but she definitely has that "it" factor that all American icons have. The left being so completely obsessed with hate over her says a lot about this woman's innate charisma power.
OCinBuffalo Posted November 12, 2010 Posted November 12, 2010 (edited) I know a lot of people are put off by the whole Earth being 6,000 years old bit. In my mind, if you believe that then you are either willfully ignorant or woefully stupid. I don't know enough about her to make a judgment, but if she falls under the former category and is only willfully ignorant about that particular thing (and it didn't influence policy-making), then it wouldn't make her a bad public official. That is no more offensive than being willfully ignorant or woefully stupid, about the "science" of global warming, or the "science" of Scientology, or the "science" that Affirmative Action has been effective(let me guess, we just haven't had it long enough ), or the "science" that says that Federal control of health care will cut costs, or the "science" that says Communism works(again, "the only reason it has failed is because lesser people have tired it and they didn't know what they were doing. If the better countries were to implement it, it would work". :wallbash: Is there anything more racist than this position? Is it a surprise where it comes from?) Watch the comments to this: they won't be about seeking the truth, hell they won't even be about the topic. They will be personal attacks on me, because that's all the stooges can muster.... I don't think we should be voting for anybody that is willfully ignorant or woefully stupid about anything. Edited November 12, 2010 by OCinBuffalo
OCinBuffalo Posted November 12, 2010 Posted November 12, 2010 Don't know if I'd vote for her, but she definitely has that "it" factor that all American icons have. The left being so completely obsessed with hate over her says a lot about this woman's innate charisma power. IF I was in charge at the RNC, I would absolutely move Palin to the front and center. So far I have been right: Palin is slowly becoming immune to attack. If this continues, she will become like a black hole, with all leftist attacks on her being absorbed, along with all the money that was raised to produce them, never to be heard from again. This process has already begun. Palin has the potential to consume so many Democrat resources as to leave them fighting others with leaflets and calls, and only in handful of areas. That's why I move her to the front, especially early on. Make no mistake: Obama will raise a lot of money based on the "Palin threat"...but then he will have to spend all of it. Then, I slowly fade Palin out, and let the real candidate move in. Think about it. The Democrats tried to do this with Dean, and then move in Kerry. It didn't work because Dean didn't cost the Republicans anything by self-destructing. This will work, even if Democrats anticipate it, because they can't help themselves when it comes to Palin, and there is hardly anything she can say that causes her to pull a Dean. AEEEEHHIII!
Clip Smith Posted November 12, 2010 Posted November 12, 2010 Mr. LA has it. The Republicans are going to pull a bait and switch. Let Palin be the lightning rod this whole time, while prepping Christie to come in at the last minute so he can hold momentum into the general election. Christie has more charisma and common sense than anyone on both sides. His shoot from the hip style might scare off some traditionalists, but you can see a measured neocon put underneath to balance it out for the base. The kids and the reality show crowd will love him. Christie/Newt '12.
LeviF Posted November 12, 2010 Posted November 12, 2010 (edited) That is no more offensive than being willfully ignorant or woefully stupid, about the "science" of global warming, or the "science" of Scientology, or the "science" that Affirmative Action has been effective(let me guess, we just haven't had it long enough ), or the "science" that says that Federal control of health care will cut costs, or the "science" that says Communism works(again, "the only reason it has failed is because lesser people have tired it and they didn't know what they were doing. If the better countries were to implement it, it would work". :wallbash: Is there anything more racist than this position? Is it a surprise where it comes from?) I don't disagree. The hypocrisy perpetuated by some on the "American left" absolutely astounds me sometimes. Edit: I'm curious as to why you included Scientology. Edited November 12, 2010 by LeviF91
RkFast Posted November 12, 2010 Posted November 12, 2010 (edited) And you dont love her....why? Edited November 12, 2010 by RkFast
Magox Posted November 12, 2010 Posted November 12, 2010 As LA pointed out, the damage has been done. She has been successfully portrayed as a dumbass and there is no going back. But it's really not just that, she is also a very polarizing figure and much of that has to do with her own comments. 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. Lets face it, she is a lightning rod and she is much better served as a campaigner in conservative districts and fundraiser for conservative causes. She would be crazy to throw her hat in the ring, not only would she get crushed in a general election, but it would be a national disaster for conservatives, simply because we'd all have to go through another four years of amateur hour at the white house. Who wants to go through this again? I was for Romney and still am, but now that I am seeing the emergence of the Tea Party, I just don't see how he will make it out of the primaries. RomneyCare will do him in. I also like Mitch Daniels, without a doubt he would be the best candidate out there to place good fiscal and economic policy, but he's just too honest. He has spoken about giving a truce to social causes and also a VAT tax that would work as a replacement for the income tax code. The mention of VAT tax and social truce will be a nonstarter for him and I just don't see him rebounding from this as well. So my next best hope, who I like a lot is John Thune. Once America gets to know him, they will love him. His only downfall is that he voted for TARP and with the TEA PARTY, that is a no no. So we'll see. But a John Thune/Marco Rubio ticket wins, hands down.
Peace Posted November 12, 2010 Posted November 12, 2010 How about that she quit her job before the heat even started? And yes, I am a crazy person who likes his president to be smart. Christie looks great right now if he doesn't have a heart attack first. He is one fat !@#$.
KD in CA Posted November 12, 2010 Posted November 12, 2010 For better or worse, rightly or wrongly, she has been defined as stupid. End of discussion. She can not and will not -- under any circumstances -- be elected President.
DC Tom Posted November 12, 2010 Posted November 12, 2010 I'd still hit it. Although Kari Byron is much hotter with a gun.
Rob's House Posted November 12, 2010 Author Posted November 12, 2010 (edited) I'm not really asking about her viability as a national candidate. Libtards rail against her with vitriolic passion, but for what I have yet to figure out. It's like they watched SNL, heard them (or maybe "J-Stew") making fun of her, and took their orders like obedient little puppies. I'm trying to figure out what it is she's done or said to earn this label she's been tagged with as an extremist and a polarizing dunce. Edited November 12, 2010 by Rob's House
OCinBuffalo Posted November 12, 2010 Posted November 12, 2010 (edited) I don't disagree. The hypocrisy perpetuated by some on the "American left" absolutely astounds me sometimes. Edit: I'm curious as to why you included Scientology. Because the very same groupthink, shout down(pie in the face, anyone?), immediately attack tactics used by scientology is being used by the far-left. In fact L. Ron Hubbard studied the tactics of radicals, and incorporated them into his cult. Take a look at how Tom Cruise behaves when talking about scientology, and then look at how Keith Olbermann behaves when talking about the leftist agenda. Not much difference. In fact, watch this: (Every time I need a laugh, I click on this link) If you deny what they "know", and especially if you can back it up, they go after you personally. Then, think about some of the posts we have seen here in the last 5 years. There are people on this board that are just as committed to crazy, and honestly believe that the reason we scoff at them is because we are trying to keep the truth from coming out. The fact that we correctly identify them as both ignorant and nuts is incomprehensible to them, and the source of much hilarity for us. In both cases, these people have deluded themselves into thinking that not only what they believe is actually useful, but in fact they are the only ones who can "help", because somehow they have "advanced" more than the rest of us. Therefore, they have "a responsibility to educate" us, and that anyone who correctly identifies their lunacy is a "suppressive person". Every time conner says "you hate facts", I think "Tom Cruise, on Tom Cruise, scientologist". The fact that their whole belief system is patently laughable, doesn't cause them to reconsider when soundly challenged, and instead causes them to lash out. Both are examples of cult behavior, and therefore we must free ourselves from these blights on reason. Edited November 12, 2010 by OCinBuffalo
/dev/null Posted November 12, 2010 Posted November 12, 2010 (edited) I'd still hit it. Although Kari Byron is much hotter with a gun. Palin/Byron '12 MILF you can believe in! Edited November 12, 2010 by /dev/null
RkFast Posted November 12, 2010 Posted November 12, 2010 I'd still hit it. Although Kari Byron is much hotter with a gun. Did you see the pic I posted? Mucho hotness.
Recommended Posts