0
ianmdrennan

Latest Palin Gaffe

Recommended Posts

Looks like she is doing a make over. Quite a expensive one to, so I guess your "firist" lady will be a expensive one.

Since her selection as John McCain's running mate, the Republican National Committee spent more than $150,000 on clothing and make-up for Gov. Sarah Palin, her husband, and even her infant son, it was reported on Tuesday evening.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/10/22/palin-clothes-spending-ha_n_136740.html

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

At least she doesn't hang out with domestic terrorists.



Why is it necessary to include "domestic?"

Just being a terrorist, pretty much any type, would seem to be all you need.

Unless it is a very special terrorist; maybe a nanny with a pipe bomb?
" . . . the lust for power can be just as completely satisfied by suggesting people into loving their servitude as by flogging them and kicking them into obedience." -- Aldous Huxley

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

Quote

At least she doesn't hang out with domestic terrorists.



Why is it necessary to include "domestic?"



Because they have the potential to be anyone. Foreign terrorists can, in theory, be stopped at the border or fought abroad. They are somewhat more easily identified. For all you really know, a domestic terrorist could be your next door neighbor and you wouldn't know until he did something overt like blowing up a building in Oklahoma City.

It's "easier" to fight the foreigners. It's "easier" to whip up hatred for them. It's "easier" to keep the 1984ish sense of a "war on terror" against foreign terrorists.

It's a shit ton scarier to think about the domestic ones.
quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

I remember a few Republicans shortly after Palin's nomination crowing that she had the Dem's "running scared."

Anyone still think that's the case?:P



Seeing all the effort being expended to discredit her? Absolutely.
Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

....simply pointing out when she 'discredits' HERself......:|

is a lot different than actively trying to discredit her. ( which apparently insn't needed)

the former seems to occur at least a few times a week, so the latter is unnecessary...

for example, Her willingless to be on SNL, seemed to me, to be trivializing the seriousness of the current campaign process.
It's one thing for a standing Pres, or V P , to appear on a comedy show in order to demonstrate that the person has, " a good sense of humor"... and can "poke fun at themselves" example Richard Nixon On Laugh-In,, or B Clinton on Arsenio or Letterman...

but when a "not likely to be elected " CANDIDATE does it... then i feel that it is in BAD taste..,,and denigrates that person...AND those who support them...
Sure our country thrives on satire, and current events parody... but SNL is NOT the proper platform for someone who is 'courting the favor' of the electorate...
instead she ought to be responding to requests for serious interviews, by probing and professional newspersons....
OH yeah.... she DID speak to Katie Couric....

THAT went well... :S
but as for now...
" i'll look into it,, and Get back to ya' "...

:P;)B|

jt

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

Quote

I remember a few Republicans shortly after Palin's nomination crowing that she had the Dem's "running scared."

Anyone still think that's the case?:P



Seeing all the effort being expended to discredit her? Absolutely.


It must be tough to maintain that level of optimism in the face of stark reality!

If Palin is actually a good electoral weapon for the Reps then I'd hate to see what state McCain's campaign would be in without her:P
Do you want to have an ideagasm?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

....simply pointing out when she 'discredits' HERself......:|

is a lot different than actively trying to discredit her. ( which apparently insn't needed)

the former seems to occur at least a few times a week, so the latter is unnecessary...

for example, Her willingless to be on SNL, seemed to me, to be trivializing the seriousness of the current campaign process.
It's one thing for a standing Pres, or V P , to appear on a comedy show in order to demonstrate that the person has, " a good sense of humor"... and can "poke fun at themselves" example Richard Nixon On Laugh-In,, or B Clinton on Arsenio or Letterman...

but when a "not likely to be elected " CANDIDATE does it... then i feel that it is in BAD taste..,,and denigrates that person...AND those who support them...
Sure our country thrives on satire, and current events parody... but SNL is NOT the proper platform for someone who is 'courting the favor' of the electorate...
instead she ought to be responding to requests for serious interviews, by probing and professional newspersons....
OH yeah.... she DID speak to Katie Couric....

THAT went well... :S
but as for now...
" i'll look into it,, and Get back to ya' "...

:P;)B|

jt



And having a running mate that says that if my guy gets elected, there will be at least one international crisis placed on him to test his "inexperience" isn't a problem.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

0