Why Palin?

[dawp]

I don't care for her and would never vote for her. I do think she will run in '12 but she will never get the nomination. I don't think repubs are that stupid. as far as who will, that is still open and it is far too early to even venture a guess. It could be someone out of left field that isn't even on the radar.

And no, I don't think she drives the left crazy. As far as I'm concerned, I'm just astonished that the repubs give her and credence at all. It's pretty obvious she just in it for the money and is milking it for all it's worth until her 15 minutes is up. I think that is the only reason she quit in the first place. To get going while the going is good.

 

[child of wonder]

If there's one thing that gives Palin appeal it's that she absolutely drives the Dems up a wall

This argument is akin to shooting ones self in the foot because your opponent gets squeamish at the sight of blood.

Imagine if the Democrats wildly followed someone who represented their most radical left wing views but, to top it off, made sure this person was ignorant of world events, news, and history plus had a sub 100 IQ. Then, when Republicans criticize the candidate and point out his obvious flaws, Democrats respond with:

"Why are you so concerned about him? He must be doing something right! I LOVE it that he drives you crazy!"

WTF?

 

[Londo_Jowo]

If Palin is so bad for the Republican party why do the Democrats/Liberal worry so much about her? It seems like it would be in the Democrat's/Liberal's best interest to have her involved.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

That's an idiotic reason. Should they like Hitler because the left hates him?



Define 'elitist'. It's a buzzword for, again, idiots, fed to them by... the machine of the elite.

Godwin!

She's an idiot not a Hitler any more than Obama is Mao. Some republicans support her but the ones I know IRL shake their head and see her as a distraction.

She hasn't a chance IMO. In fact I have a hundred dollar bet and I'll offer you the same as I have with Eric.

 

[dmcowen674]

I do think she will run in '12 but she will never get the nomination.

Who is going to rise up over her in the GOP?

 

[Keeper]

Isnt she the number one (or two) GILF in the nation?

Thats why....

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

While the Reps are likely to shoot themselves in the foot, I don't think it will be her. It's possible but I believe unlikely enough that I'll take you up.

The bet is that Palin is or is not the Republican Presidential candidate in 2012.

You say she is, and I say not.

I'm in for a $100 US dollars, payable upon Election Day.

We need a third party to record this and make it official.

Just a reminder- I'm owed $100

 

[xj0hnx]

Just a reminder- I'm owed $100

Really think he'll pay up?

 

[trenchfoot]

I'd just love it if Palin ran for office again. Especially high office, for I'd like to know just how many FOXbots and Limbaughleeches vote for her because noone in a lucid, cognizant state of mind would. I doubt that there's even a handful of P&N members that would put a mark next to her name on a ballot.

BTW, what happened to all of those armed Tea Party rabble rousers that held all of those anti-government rallys in campaigns of recent vintage? Why aren't they out in force hoisting Palin around on their sholders like she was the messiah come to strike down the evil no-birth-certy Kenyan muslim communist hitler-ish heathen black anti-christ? I miss them because they were so much fun to watch and listen to, especially from the Jon Stewart point of view.

 

[BonzaiDuck]

Wow. This thread has had a long life. Of course -- one might have imagined it would.

I have a friend at U of Alaska Fairbanks, who claimed he met "Sister Sarah." He was kind, even for admitting that she had been one of their worst governors.

Alaska has a land-mass almost rivaling the lower 48, yet its population is about the same as that of my county of residence.

As I'd said in another post, I can imagine that 50% of the electorate is either out to lunch, or their brains aren't firing on all cylinders. We have an economy which evolved from that of the 1950s when only a single breadwinner was sufficient to support a family. Now, two is not sufficient. Ignoring "women's liberation" and the impact on the labor market (we don't even need to discuss it, but there are "imperatives") -- the two-breadwinner family impacts "leisure time." It is a signal that we have less household leisure time to do "family management," and keep abreast of politics, history and news such that we're even close -- remotely close -- to the democratic ideal of electorates that have access to "perfect information" and the ability to process enough of it toward common-sense, rational, logical decisions.

We vote for candidates -- or many voters do -- on impressions. "Do we like so-and-so?" "Do they 'represent our beliefs?'" WEll -- beliefs are often hogwash. You can say that "I believe the economy or the political system should work in thus and such a way, and that's the end of it." But it may never, ever work according to somebody's naive conceptions.

Enter someone like Palin. Not much different in some respects as Joe McCarthy. Or that Louisiana politician (forgot his name) who promised "Every man a King!" She's interested in power, exposure . . . . self-interest. How did the Republicans choose her as running mate to probably one of their better presidential candidates for the last 12 years?

They assume that voters are as I have already described them, and they are willing and ready to manipulate every corn-pone loose joint and paranoid who's registered to vote. So they proceeded according to a strategy of the superficial. They decided that since Hillary had come close to winning the Democratic nomination, they could win if they had a woman on the ticket. Now -- that's not a bad idea, since half the voters in the country are women. But you'd have to be a loose screw of a woman to make that your sole criterion. There is no lack of loose screws among either sex.

What almost had me dumbfounded was a progressive perception as follows. GOP's favorite government agencies during the 1950s included CIA. For 15 years -- from 1945 to 1960 -- the "Company" had funded and promoted projects in propaganda, seeding money to scholars who published articles in Public Opinion Quarterly by day, working on these secret government contracts by night. What emerged was the so-called "domination paradigm" of media manipulation -- deployed during the 50s and 60s in countries around the world.

It then leaked out into the advertising media, even as conservative CIA veterans associated with some of those projects turned up seeking bail after the Watergate arrests.

Now you'd think that the GOP would have its head screwed on properly after all this history.

Instead, you have this half-lunatic woman with a shrill voice telling everybody how she subordinated the oil industry on behalf of Alaska's citizens, and anyone with half a brain would see that her affiliation with the oil-industry centered on Alaskan mineral extraction was probably a factor in her getting on the ticket.

And she gets out there stirring up the public with all these "dangerous metaphors," symbols (like the cross-hairs on the map), photo-ops showing her with a Weatherby .457 or some such rifle, or even an assault rifle. She's stirring the pot.

Now this woman had spent six years through some four university institutions to get a BA in journalism. So you'd think she'd know about both manipulating the public, and the consequences of . . . . saying stuff . . . .

So when Gabbie Giffords was shot in early 2011, you could sit in front of your TV for the next three months while Palin -- who should've been seeking a lower profile at that time -- insists on thrusting herself into the public limelight and back-pedaling like crazy to convince the public that [she] "didn' do it! Loughner was crazy! (Right?)"

So I'll tell you. You let people like this hold public office, and the long-run of the nation's well-being will just continue to get worse.

 

[Lemon law]

Pardon me if I observe, the original post on this thread was dated 10/17/2010, and the fool thread died should have and basically did die a merciful death on 10/18/2010.
Maybe and Sadly until Haybasusa revived a long dead thread just a few hours ago, to remind us someone owes Haybasusa a $100.00, not now but in fact 3.5 months into the future.

As I simply ask, how can Haybasusa call someone a bet welsher when payment is not due until 11/8/2012.

But still in due respects to Haybasusa who I believe is a man of integrity, and would not fail to pay off a bet he lost, did you really think you had a bet with a person of integrity? As silly me, here I thought gambling was frowned on by the rules of this forum.

And now, oh piffle, the Palinites are back with new life on this forum, as ole Sarah has those old books she needs to sell.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

Pardon me if I observe, the original post on this thread was dated 10/17/2010, and the fool thread died should have and basically did die a merciful death on 10/18/2010.
Maybe and Sadly until Haybasusa revived a long dead thread just a few hours ago, to remind us someone owes Haybasusa a $100.00, not now but in fact 3.5 months into the future.

As I simply ask, how can Haybasusa call someone a bet welsher when payment is not due until 11/8/2012.

But still in due respects to Haybasusa who I believe is a man of integrity, and would not fail to pay off a bet he lost, did you really think you had a bet with a person of integrity? As silly me, here I thought gambling was frowned on by the rules of this forum.

And now, oh piffle, the Palinites are back with new life on this forum, as ole Sarah has those old books she needs to sell.

I never said he welshed on a bet. I said that someone owed me, payable election day.

What actually happened is that I have too many bookmarks and was deleting them. I found this and was reminded of all the claims about Palin who is certainly out of the running. An amusing memory

 

[BonzaiDuck]

I never said he welshed on a bet. I said that someone owed me, payable election day.

What actually happened is that I have too many bookmarks and was deleting them. I found this and was reminded of all the claims about Palin who is certainly out of the running. An amusing memory

Well -- the thread jumped to the top of the pile today, and gave me an opportunity to vent.

So here's an observation. You're already saying Palin is a "has-been" and that's probably true. [Or . . . somebody else in this thread said it.]

There had been an episode I remember from "South Park." The boys discover the equivlaent of a Neanderthal Man (a frozen corpse actually discovered in the Alps over the last decade or two), except that it was a man who went missing in Colorado about three years earlier. They thaw out the man, and he revives. He goes to his home -- his wife -- remarried -- doesn't recognize him. Everybody is laughing because his clothes are so "ancient," probably purchased at the Gap three years earlier just before he disappeared.

I call it a phenomenon of "mass historical myopia of news-zombies" -- of which I am first to admit I was one until about 1999. Everything is connected, many things to a more significant degree than people want to admit. The seeds for the housing and banking bubble were sown in the Clinton administration, more than 15 years ago. On average, people have a recollection of things and impart a significance to them that is negative-exponentially weighted.

I spoke to a young lady a few months ago -- very intelligent, or so it seemed -- and I mentioned "The Cold War." She replied "The Cold War? What was that? When was that?"

So -- whether or not Palin is a has-been, or the Tea-Party seems like a big joke, it is all part of a trend. For instance, we've heard about the Koch brothers -- key players in the concentrated energy extraction industry. They've been in recent news pertaining to their contributions to the Romney campaign, Super-PACs and the support for Wisconsin's Governor Walker.

But go back to the Tea-Party demonstrations of 2010. Unlike leftist anti-war demonstrations of the '60s, the Tea Party demonstrations were subsidized. Bus transportation had been paid by . . . Who? The Koch Brothers and Freedom Works.

Now what about those 2010 demonstrations? In 2008, PBS had aired a documentary (damn good one, too) entitled "Chicago 10." It was essentially about the trial that followed the mass-demonstration in 1968 Chicago at the Democratic Convention. It interspersed news coverage and interviews of Abbie Hoffman, Rennie Davis, Tom Hayden and the other organizers -- with the court proceedings. But they couldn't allow cameras in Judge Hoffman's courtroom, so they animated the documentary -- a sort of cartoon presentation of court transcripts.

The Tea Party demonstrations looked suspiciously like the '68 Anti-War movement and demonstration in Chicago. The documentary provided an inside look at how the demonstration had been successful -- had made a major impact in American history; about how the organizers had taken Rev. King's "Creative Non-Violence" a leap-forward step further.

Looking at the news footage of the 2010 Tea Party, I can only speculate -- hypothesize -- that the Kochs and Dick Armey's Freedom Works had seen "Chicago Ten," and aimed at creating their own counter-revolution.

So it's funny, but it's not so funny. Sarah Palin may now just be collecting royalties from the books, looking wistfully at her wardrobe as it slowly becomes obsolete. But she was still just part of a trend pandering to what one commentator has called "The Paranoid Streak in American Politics."

And now we have "Citizens United" Supreme Court decision about money in politics. What we're missing is the unfunded, unsubsidized activism of ordinary people with both eyes open. That's why Palin and the Tea Party are not as funny as would make me comfortable.

 

[monovillage]

A necro thread, but then some dumbfuck was saying in another post that this was still Bush's economy. I should have checked the date on that post also, I bet the dumbfuck is just lost in time and tired of drinking the sour, bitter dregs of the Obama administration's kool-aid.

 

[feralkid]

If she weren't a politician I bet she would be a fun wife/girlfriend

No thanks; unless you like the Wisconsin nymphomaniac who used to live upstairs..."oh god, oh crap, oh crap, oh crap!"

 

[BonzaiDuck]

A necro thread, but then some dumbfuck was saying in another post that this was still Bush's economy. I should have checked the date on that post also, I bet the dumbfuck is just lost in time and tired of drinking the sour, bitter dregs of the Obama administration's kool-aid.

Oh, yeah . .. . I'm the dumb****. On this one, someone just brought it to the top. On the other one, I already made my point: You probably think anything that happened before 2008 is "ancient history." That's your eyesight -- not mine. . . .

 

[Perknose]

Bingo! :thumbsup:

 

[werepossum]

As far as Palin's intelligence, she isn't the one who thanked herself for inviting herself to the White House to meet herself. Just sayin . . .

 

[Perknose]

I never said he welshed on a bet. I said that someone owed me, payable election day.

What actually happened is that I have too many bookmarks and was deleting them. I found this and was reminded of all the claims about Palin who is certainly out of the running. An amusing memory

Lol, Rich, let me join in the fun here! :biggrin:

You didn't say that someone owed you [some actual amount?], payable election day. You didn't say anything about election day at all! Here's what you did say:

Just a reminder- I'm owed $100

Nobody owes you $100. Not now, and not on election day. In fact, no one owes you any amount, let alone a Franklin, even come election day.

Here's what erclip said:

I bet anyone in here they repubs will make her the front runner and she is going to run with that ticket all the way to the top.

Here's how you responded:

The bet is that Palin is or is not the Republican Presidential candidate in 2012.

You say she is, and I say not.

I'm in for a $100 US dollars, payable upon Election Day.

We need a third party to record this and make it official.

Third parties can "record this" until the cows come home, but there is no $100 bet between you and erclip until erclip agrees to that amount, which he never did.

Indeed, no one took you up on your offer of a $100 wager. Therefore, you are owed nothing.

You will win the bet, all glory unto you!

But when you say, as you did, "Just a reminder- I'm owed $100 ," you are incorrect.

And when you try to "clarify" and say, "I never said he welshed on a bet. I said that someone owed me, payable election day," you are also wrong, because what you said was not merely that someone owed you, but that someone owed you $100.

No one owes you anything but a good laugh for yanking erclip's chain.

Thanks, Rich!

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

Lol, Rich, let me join in the fun here! :biggrin:

You didn't say that someone owed you [some actual amount?], payable election day. You didn't say anything about election day at all! Here's what you did say:



Nobody owes you $100. Not now, and not on election day. In fact, no one owes you any amount, let alone a Franklin, even come election day.

Here's what erclip said:



Here's how you responded:



Third parties can "record this" until the cows come home, but there is no $100 bet between you and erclip until erclip agrees to that amount, which he never did.

Indeed, no one took you up on your offer of a $100 wager. Therefore, you are owed nothing.

You will win the bet, all glory unto you!

But when you say, as you did, "Just a reminder- I'm owed $100 ," you are incorrect.

And when you try to "clarify" and say, "I never said he welshed on a bet. I said that someone owed me, payable election day," you are also wrong, because what you said was not merely that someone owed you, but that someone owed you $100.

No one owes you anything but a good laugh for yanking erclip's chain.

Thanks, Rich!

No prob.
As I said I found this accidentally and I'm not posting for the money, but the amusement.

Still, it's interesting to occasionally bring things up from the relatively recent past to see how predictions match with reality. I think it is safe to say that Palin is more curiousity than threat. Heaven knows I didn't want her. The Couric interview had her crossed off my list for, well, almost everything. Maybe we'll have a choice of decent candidates in my lifetime, but you know I'm not especially optimistic.

Anyway, one ought to be careful of what one is willing to "bet" on, eh?

 

[monovillage]

Bingo! :thumbsup:

Nah, I was making fun of the asshole, i'd actually read the dates.

 

[Jhhnn]

I never said he welshed on a bet. I said that someone owed me, payable election day.

You're being generous. I'd say the day Romney & his non- Sarah! VP candidate are nominated.

Why Sarah? Maybe flyboy Johnnie was hoping she'd be so grateful that he'd get a little of the strange. It's the only thing that makes sense...

 

[bfdd]

The Reagan love and Nixon hate blows my mind. I honestly believe it should be reversed.