Theo? are you still a Sarah Palin apologist?

[Dave]

 

[Sox]

It should be illegal to be that stupid. And to think she was the GOP VP nominee in 2008. The GOP is full of morons, but she is the Queen of the morons.

 

[Deleted member 1074]

I wish they would pan down to that rack...

 

[I am a Ghost]

She's very do-able. I wouldn't mind a midnight ride and ringing her bells.

 

[Deleted member 1074]

She's very do-able. I wouldn't mind a midnight ride and ringing her bells.

She MUST also whisper "Say it ain't so, Joe" in your ear...makes my toes curl.

 

[Theo]

It should be illegal to be that stupid. And to think she was the GOP VP nominee in 2008. The GOP is full of morons, but she is the Queen of the morons.

Unlike those geniuses of the Democratic Party who pushed John Kerry/John Edwards in 2004 and Barack Obama/Joe Biden in 2008.

Hey, did ya see that Edwards was indicted? Do ya think the man you wanted me to vote for for VP will be going to prison soon?

CNN:

If convicted on all counts, Edwards would face up to 30 years in prison and a maximum fine of $1.5 million.

What a piece of shit.

Now, as for this thread, I guess someone wanted to smoke me out? I haven't seen this latest "Look how stupid Palin is!" clip yet, but I'll get to it in a sec. I'm not plugged into the Democratic propaganda machine, and I really haven't been watching the news much at all. Pretty much sticking to following my first-place Cleveland Indians because the news is too upsetting. You know, with that genius Obama wrecking my country's economy and all. But I did check on whether he got Congressional authorization for his war in Libya within 60 days, as the law requires. Turns out he blew that off. So much for Democrats caring about the legality of wars.

 

[Deleted member 1074]

Unlike those geniuses of the Democratic Party who pushed John Kerry/John Edwards in 2004 and Barack Obama/Joe Biden in 2008.

Hey, did ya see that Edwards was indicted? Do ya think the man you wanted me to vote for for VP will be going to prison soon?

CNN:

What a piece of shit.

Now, as for this thread, I guess someone wanted to smoke me out? I haven't seen this latest "Look how stupid Palin is!" clip yet, but I'll get to it in a sec. I'm not plugged into the Democratic propaganda machine, and I really haven't been watching the news much at all. Pretty much sticking to following my first-place Cleveland Indians because the news is too upsetting. You know, with that genius Obama wrecking my country's economy and all. But I did check on whether he got Congressional authorization for his war in Libya within 60 days, as the law requires. Turns out he blew that off. So much for Democrats caring about the legality of wars.

Tell 'em baby.

 

[Theo]

Okay, I'm about to watch this clip that I guess has re-confirmed for you all that Sarah Palin is the dumbest person in America.

Sarah Palin is someone I've never voted for for any office, and I find it unlikely I'd ever back her in the future. I didn't buy into either of the "rock star" cult of personality politicians of 2008, Palin and Obama. "Obama's the biggest fairy tale I've ever seen" as Bill Clinton put it, and McCain snatched Palin out of Alaska before she was ready in a desperate attempt to counter the media hype of Obama. Two lightweights, IMO. Though only one of those lightweights ran for the presidency -- the one many of you considered your Messiah during the last election.

But I have gone out of my way to defend Palin here and there. Any decent person would, given the level of unfairness and hatefulness she has received from so many scummy people. And, frankly, a lot of it is overtly sexist. For example, there are journalists-who-lie writing for major news outlets who literally sit around concocting deranged conspiracy theories in their sick minds about Palin's pregnancy and infant child. Sarah Palin's enemies are some of the worst people in America.

So, I'll say upfront: My assumption is that this'll be another example of Palin being treated unfairly.

Now I'm pressing play.....

 

[Theo]

Paul Revere, eh?

Well, I have two first reactions.

1. So, this is the latest from the folks pre-occupied with passing around every gaffe and blooper from Sarah Palin? Doesn't seem like much. "Get a life" is my first thought. But, I can see she's not in her best form. She looks like she's trying to get through a long day and is spewing some random gibberish about Revere into a mic that was shoved in her face, trying to just get the question over with. All politicians do that sometimes, and so would you if you were in their shoes. I'm not sure what all she's going on about and referring to, but why is she talking about Revere warning the British? But, again, is this really all that this fuss is about? A whole thread calling me out as if the evidence posted is some major blunder by Palin that will make me regret something I defended her over in the past?

2. I know immediately that I'm in terrible hands with this TV newsman. He presents this as if he knows everything about Paul Revere, and Sarah Palin knows nothing, and we should all point and laugh at her. But, while I know hardly anything about Paul Revere, one of the only things I know is something the TV newsman gets wrong. When I was little I was taught that Paul Revere road around screaming, "The redcoats are coming!" Then, others told me it was, as this TV newsman says, "The British are coming!" I once looked it up and it turned out that neither was correct. I forget what was actually said, so let me check on it.

Ok, from Wikipedia:

Revere did not shout the phrase later attributed to him ("The British are coming!"), largely because the mission depended on secrecy and the countryside was filled with British army patrols; also, most colonial residents at the time considered themselves British as they were all legally British subjects. Revere's warning, according to eyewitness accounts of the ride and Revere's own descriptions, was "The Regulars are coming out."

So, the TV guy who presents himself as knowing the real facts actually doesn't. You'd think if you were doing a segment on TV where you mock someone else as having inaccurate facts that you'd make sure you got your own facts right.

I also know I'm in bad hands because the TV newsman sounds like such a smug asshole. Furthermore, we don't see what question Palin was asked.

Since I know I'm in bad hands, and I don't actually know very much about Paul Revere myself, I guess I'll Google and see if anyone fact-checked her statement.

Okay, I found a blog that I'm familiar with and like that did some fact-checking.

It quotes some words from one of Paul Revere's own letters:

I observed a Wood at a Small distance, & made for that. When I got there, out Started Six officers, on Horse back,and orderd me to dismount;-one of them, who appeared to have the command, examined me, where I came from,& what my Name Was? I told him. it was Revere, he asked if it was Paul? I told him yes He asked me if I was an express? I answered in the afirmative. He demanded what time I left Boston? I told him; and aded, that their troops had catched aground in passing the River, and that There would be five hundred Americans there in a short time, for I had alarmed the Country all the way up. He imediately rode towards those who stoppd us, when all five of them came down upon a full gallop; one of them, whom I afterwards found to be Major Mitchel, of the 5th Regiment, Clapped his pistol to my head, called me by name, & told me he was going to ask me some questions, & if I did not give him true answers, he would blow my brains out. He then asked me similar questions to those above. He then orderd me to mount my Horse, after searching me for arms

Turns out Sarah Palin is correct that Paul Revere warned the British. Not sure if Palin still made a gaffe there and just accidentally got lucky that it turned out to be true, or if Palin knows more about the history of Paul Revere than just about any of us. But there ya go. Paul Revere's own letter backs up her claim.

That blog also quotes from "Paul Revere's Ride" by David Hackett Fischer (Oxford University Press 1994):

"A townsman remembered that 'repeated gunshots, the beating of drums and the ringing of bells filled the air.'.... Along the North Shore of Massachusetts, church bells began to toll and the heavy beat of drums could be heard for many miles in the night air."

Turns out the smug TV newsman had a little trouble with his history and was wrong when he claimed "there were not any bells".

This leads me to think Sarah Palin probably read that book, whereas the rest of us only know the "history" of Paul Revere from whatever we remember or was passed on to us from the poem "Paul Revere's Ride". That's why she had the detail about the bells in her mind that most of us -- including everyone in this thread -- were ignorant about. So, it looks like she does actually know more about Paul Revere than just about any of us.

Conclusion: This thread is an embarrassing FAIL.

Sarah Palin whored ya again, folks.

 

[Theo]

Browsing around on this: I see that while all the Democrat outlets and sites have spent the last day or so laughing at Sarah Palin, the Palin-friendly sites are laughing even harder at the people laughing at her.

This has happened before. And some of these sites are referring to one of their favorite examples. Sarah Palin once spoke at a tea party event and told the crowd that they can't "party like it's 1773" yet because there's more work to be done. Right on cue, Democrats across the internet and on MSNBC went into a tizzy pointing and laughing at her. They were completely oblivious of the fact that she was referring to the date of the Boston Tea Party.

Palin did that on purpose to expose her haters as the worst kinds of fools - those who combine arrogance with their ignorance.

They're saying Palin did it to 'em again this time. I'm not so sure about that. If she was up to her old tricks I think she would have been more articulate in that clip. Instead, I think she simply has a lot of little factual details about Paul Revere swimming around in her head that most people are unaware of, and some of those tidbits just happened to come out as she was trying to keep herself talking.

In either case, her attackers made fools of themselves. As usual.

For the rest of us, well, we got to learn a few fun facts about Paul Revere that we'd never heard before. Thanks, Sarah!

 

[I am a Ghost]

I wish they would pan down to that rack...

And those legs, HUBBA HUBBA!

Anyhow, what is this thread about?

 

[Dave]

She is speaking at Paul Revere's house, a stop on a non-campaign trip, and she can't bother to have someone tell her a couple of lines about who he was? This should be a hero of the Tea Party.

What she says is another of many stupid things she has said. She was never intended to be in office by the powers that be and this is her function. She's acting like she's campaigning but she's not. She's dishonest and pointless and it's going to be hard for her to maintain her position as more of her old friends abandon her to her lunacy.

 

[I am a Ghost]

So it's about tea? I like tea, especially Earl Grey.

 

[Dave]

So it's about tea? I like tea, especially Earl Grey.

yes, it's about tea. we don't know how to make it so in frustration and because we were feeling dramatic, dressed up like Lady Gaga and poured it into the harbo(u)r.

 

[I am a Ghost]

yes, it's about tea. we don't know how to make it so in frustration and because we were feeling dramatic, dressed up like Lady Gaga and poured it into the harbo(u)r.

Is this you, Dave?

 

[Deleted member 1074]

Is this you, Dave?

 

[Deleted member 1074]

And those legs, HUBBA HUBBA!

Bow wow chika chika bow wow

 

[I am a Ghost]

bow wow chika chika bow wow

yowza!

 

[Theo]

She is speaking at Paul Revere's house, a stop on a non-campaign trip, and she can't bother to have someone tell her a couple of lines about who he was? This should be a hero of the Tea Party.

What she says is another of many stupid things she has said. She was never intended to be in office by the powers that be and this is her function. She's acting like she's campaigning but she's not. She's dishonest and pointless and it's going to be hard for her to maintain her position as more of her old friends abandon her to her lunacy.

Well!

You expose the game of the Democrats here. The reason the "lamestream media", as Palin puts it, treat her so unfairly, and have armies out there trying to find any little thing they can to paint her as a moron and a lunatic, is because they are hell-bent on stopping her from maintaining her position. They fear her, and they know she has a lot going for her and that a lot of Americans feel a connection with her, and they keep thinking that they can get her supporters and friends to reject her if they keep at it with a massive smear campaign, witch hunt, and all this hyper-intense scrutiny of everything she says and does that no one else in politics is hit with.

But, while those who hate Palin and were never gonna vote for her to begin with, latch on to these "stories" and post them on each other's Facebook walls, they play into her hands. And they also make it a battle in the culture war of America, and make Palin something bigger than she ought to be.

Why don't they treat Sarah Palin with the basic level of respect, fairness, and journalistic integrity that she deserves? That doesn't mean they can't strongly attack her. It's how she's being attacked that's appalling.

And isn't that similar to how the media tried so hard to smear tea party rallies made up of average, ordinary Americans concerned about their country? We wonder why every word that comes out of her mouth is parsed so closely by the media when she doesn't even hold a public office, but they don't apply anything close to that sort of scrutiny to, say, the President of the United States. And we remember how the media invented stories at tea party events of congressmen being spit on by racists, which never happened. We remember how we were accused of causing the shooting of a congresswoman because the media told us we neded to tone down our rhetoric and that we were not being submissive enough to the Obama White House.

 

[Theo]

Upthread someone said how on earth could the GOP run Sarah Palin as a VP candidate.

And I asked how on earth could the Democratic Party run John Edwards as a VP candidate.

Today, John Edwards has been indicted on very serious charges that could land him in prison. That's beyond all the disgusting behavior in his personal life with respect to hismistress he had a child with and his treatment of his wife whule she was dying of cancer. I saw Alan Dershowitz on Fox News' Geraldo Rivera show last night and he said he thinks Edwards is going to have to make a plea bargain because a jury will be too sickened by him as a human being.

This man was almost Vice President. Hell, he was almost President.

But what's interesting for purposes of this thread is that when the scandals about John Edwards were coming out in the tabloids, the mainstream media did not want to cover it. They did not want to scrutinize John Edwards too closely. They were worried it would be UNFAIR to him, a politician they LIKED and had so much RESPECT for.

WHILE HE WAS RUNNING FOR PRESIDENT IN 2008.

Compare that with how they treat Sarah Palin and you'll understand why we're entirely correct to view the treatment of Palin as a matter to take up arms over. Metaphorically speaking.

In fact, if you look at Wikipedia, you even find this:

On 25 July, Mickey Kaus at Slate published a 24 July e-mail from Tony Pierce, an editor at the Los Angeles Times, to the Times in-house bloggers, which referred to the Edwards allegations and said "...I am asking you all not to blog about this topic until further notified." Kaus portrayed the e-mail as a "gag" order.

Of course it was a gag order. The mainstream media in America was attempting to brush the scandals about John Edwards under the rug. The international media and some blogs started to look into things, but the mainstream media in America were engaging in an orchestrated blackout. Wiki notes that, for example, CNN was refusing to mention it at all.

How nice for John Edwards to be so loved and protected by the journalists who were supposed to be scrutinizing him.

Now you tell me how it can be that after Sarah Palin stepped down from public office and went to Alaska to write a book they were still hounding her more than they hound people in the highest offices of government?

If they gave President Obama half the scrutiny on what he's doing in the White House that they give Sarah Palin on how, say, she eats a piece of pizza at a restaurant, that would something to see.