So... What are they afraid of?

[SteamWake]

In reaction to Sarah Palin's book AP assigns a task force to 'fact checking' in an attempt to impune the source.


The AP claims Palin misstated her record with regard to travel expenses and taxpayer-funded bailouts, using statements widely reported elsewhere. But it also speculated into Palin's motives for writing "Going Rogue: An American Life," stating as fact that the book "has all the characteristics of a pre-campaign manifesto."

Palin quickly hit back on a Facebook post titled "Really? Still Making Things Up?"


http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/11/17/ap-turns-heads-devoting-reporters-palin-book-fact-check/

[AVGWarhawk]

As much as people think she is a twit this woman has the potential to make a very strong run for President.

[SteamWake]

As much as people think she is a twit this woman has the potential to make a very strong run for President.

I dont think thats her plan. She can do more to expose the fraud and hypocrisy of both parties as a 'rouge'.

[AVGWarhawk]

Look up www.sarahpac.com (http://www.sarahpac.com)

Sure she is looking to uncover the corruption and who better to run the joint after that is done?

BTW, this donation site of hers is a precursor to getting campaign money. :03:

[antikristuseke]

So here is the article by AP on the book
http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/2009/11/13/us/politics/AP-US-Palin-Book-Fact-Check.html?_r=1&pagewanted=1

Here is Media Matters taken on said book
http://mediamatters.org/research/200911150011

Allso there is this
there were 10 others who contributed to the story in varying degrees because they had knowledge of one or more areas covered by the text.


While 11 staffers sounds excessive, it's true that the AP's deep reserves allow for reporters with specific areas of expertise -- such as the Alaska pipeline or incidents from the campaign trail -- to address a handful of pages dealing with those specific topics, while not necessarily dropping everything to read the entire book.
Could it be that Fox s just trying to add more spin to a story already spinning quite enough, besides this controversy is something Palin probably loves, this will do nothing but help sell her crap. Just another politician, nothing special here.

[SteamWake]

How many reporters were assigned to 'fact check' Obama's book? :03:

[AVGWarhawk]

She got her cavities searched during the Presidential campaign. I do not think they will find misnomers in this book. I think she will be someone who uncovers alot of graft.

[mookiemookie]

Look up www.sarahpac.com (http://www.sarahpac.com)

Sure she is looking to uncover the corruption and who better to run the joint after that is done?

BTW, this donation site of hers is a precursor to getting campaign money. :03:

More of the same outlandish excuses for every screwup of her now-ended political career. She can't string together a coherent sentence? Oh, the media's out to get her. She writes a book full of fabrications and lies? Oh, the media's scared of her. She goes on a hillbilly-who-done-won-the-lotto shopping spree during the campaign? The McCain folks held a gun to her head and made her do it, you see? The luxury hotel stays with her daughter that the Alaskan taxpayer footed the bill for?It never happened and if it did I usually didn't stay in ritzy places!It's very entertaining to see you all contort yourself into making up progressively more and more outlandish excuses for this woman.

It's not about uncovering any fraud. It's about the money. The more inflammatory garbage she spews, the more money she makes. It's the Limbaugh/Beck business model.

Sarah Palin's quest to uncover "corruption" is on the same level as O.J.'s "search for the real killers."

[AVGWarhawk]

More of the same outlandish excuses for every screwup of her now-ended political career. She can't string together a coherent sentence? Oh, the media's out to get her. She writes a book full of fabrications and lies? Oh, the media's scared of her. She goes on a hillbilly-who-done-won-the-lotto shopping spree during the campaign? The McCain folks held a gun to her head and made her do it, you see? The luxury hotel stays with her daughter that the Alaskan taxpayer footed the bill for?It never happened and if it did I usually didn't stay in ritzy places!It's very entertaining to see you all contort yourself into making up progressively more and more outlandish excuses for this woman.

It's not about uncovering any fraud. It's about the money. The more inflammatory garbage she spews, the more money she makes. It's the Limbaugh/Beck business model.

Sarah Palin's quest to uncover "corruption" is on the same level as O.J.'s "search for the real killers."

With exception of the OJ comment, you only know what the media told you at that time concerning Palin. At that time the media was in such a frenzy to discredit everyone they could and let everyone know Obama does infact lay golden eggs. It was almost criminal. It just sent 'shivers up my leg' reporting during the campaign . Do you really know what happened? Was she allowed to tell her side of the story? Well, no. To be honest, looks to me she has lost complete and utter faith in this system of government and or she has lost faith in how it is run. I would guess it is the latter. If she is so boring and uninspiring why is she scheduled on top shows around the country? :hmmm:

[SteamWake]

She writes a book full of fabrications and lies?

Source?

[mookiemookie]

Was she allowed to tell her side of the story?

What are you even talking about? She was on TV every day for 6 months or so and made a complete fool of herself. What story does she need to tell about it? What justification can there be for her celebration of ignorance and self-aggrandizement?

Source?

You posted it yourself.

[AVGWarhawk]

What are you even talking about? She was on TV every day for 6 months or so and made a complete fool of herself. What story does she need to tell about it? What justification can there be for her celebration of ignorance and self-aggrandizement?



You posted it yourself.

Mookie, how do you know this is a book of fabrication and lies? You have a source stating she lied in this book? She has not begun to tell her story. She was made to look the fool Mookie. She was viciously attacked by the media and her family as well. Doing this created ratings. Sorry state of affairs concerning the media these days. To me the media is forever tainted as a result of their actions during the elections. I never witnessed the media surround anyone like they did with Palin. ALL of them, not just one. Say what you like, many a jester made a fool of themselves but still made it to top billing.

[mookiemookie]

Mookie, how do you know this is a book of fabrication and lies? You have a source stating she lied in this book?

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/us_palin_book_fact_check

Eagerly awaiting the Palin Apologist Squad's explanation.

[Sea Demon]

She can't string together a coherent sentence?

Well, she also doesn't need a teleprompter to put together a grouping of coherent sentences like the menace currently in the WH. And talk about making a fool out of yourself during the campaign, I wonder if Obama still thinks the USA is comprised of 57 states.

Mookie, it's apparent that people like you are deathly afraid of this woman. For nno other reason than she has an ability to energize people of conservative values to donate money and go out and vote. The "She's stupid" thing doesn't work. Liberals do this with every Republican politician....like GW Bush for example and he got re-elected.

I also think you're scared because as she is out there energizing conservatives, the Democrat Party has kicked guys like you to the curb. And you know that ain't going to play well with your base next cycle. ;)

[AVGWarhawk]

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/us_palin_book_fact_check

Eagerly awaiting the Palin Apologist Squad's explanation.

This is no worse then what we already knew. No new, 'fabrications.' Furthermore, the book is no worse than what anyone with her position or stature would write. There is no apology coming. Again, if it was truly discredited at that time why would she write it again? It makes no sense. We will chalk this up to the an oversight such as Gore had seen with, "An Inconvienent Truth". No wait, the some sort of prize for this book.:shifty: Again, for such a simpering bag of crap that most think she is why do they flock to buy the book? Why is she scheduled on every talk show? Why did Hillary Clinton agree to sit with Palin and talk?

[mookiemookie]

And talk about making a fool out of yourself during the campaign, I wonder if Obama still thinks the USA is comprised of 57 states. You're still hanging on to that? Good grief. The guy had been to 47 states, and misspoke and said 57 instead of 47. Do you honestly believe he thought there were 57 states? Really? Honestly? If this is the petty crap that energizes your party, then your party has nothing of substance to add to the national discourse.

Mookie, it's apparent that people like you are deathly afraid of this woman.

Oh please. It's easy and comforting, I'm sure, to say that people who dislike her are scared of her. But it's just not true. I dislike her because she's a disgrace.

There's this fantasy that you people that she shouldn't be underestimated like Reagan blah blah. But the difference is that it was the Washington insiders who underestimated Reagan. However in this case the vast majority believes Palin is a nitwit. (http://www.upi.com/Top_News/US/2009/11/17/Poll-Palin-not-qualified-to-be-president/UPI-97441258470965/)

This is no worse then what we already knew. Exactly. We already knew she was an idiot. She just reconfirmed it for us yet again.

Again, for such a simpering bag of crap that most think she is why do they flock to buy the book? For the same reason that Jonas Brothers CD sell millions and Transformers movies make gobs of money. Americans have an insatiable appetite for pablum crap.

[AVGWarhawk]

Oh please. It's easy and comforting, I'm sure, to say that people who dislike her are scared of her. But it's just not true. I dislike her because she's a disgrace.

There's this fantasy that you people that she shouldn't be underestimated like Reagan blah blah. But the difference is that it was the Washington insiders who underestimated Reagan. However in this case the vast majority believes Palin is a nitwit. (http://www.upi.com/Top_News/US/2009/11/17/Poll-Palin-not-qualified-to-be-president/UPI-97441258470965/)


That's a good one Mookie, Palin not qualified to be President! Obama was? :har: Bush was? Carter? For someone who is such a nitwit she certainly has the podium as of late. :hmmm:

[mookiemookie]

That's a good one Mookie, Palin not qualified to be President! Obama was? :har: Bush was? Carter? For someone who is such a nitwit she certainly has the podium as of late. :hmmm:

You can deflect all you want and try to muddy the waters of debate, but the point remains. She is not qualified to be president and the vast majority of Americans share that opinion. She has the podium because everyone loves watching a trainwreck. Which is exactly what her political career is. And I love watching you all explain away and try to justify every clank and rattle of that wreck.

[AVGWarhawk]

You can deflect all you want and try to muddy the waters of debate, but the point remains. She is not qualified to be president and the vast majority of Americans share that opinion. She has the podium because everyone loves watching a trainwreck. Which is exactly what her political career is. And I love watching you all explain away and try to justify every clank and rattle of that wreck.

I justified nothing Mookie. I deflect nothing. I pointed out there must be something here because she is in the news, scheduled on every major talk show, has an open invitation to meet with Hillary Clinton and has a number one best seller. :hmmm: There must be more that just a twit on heels. And again, what is it that Obama has that qualified him for President? I agree that her political career is a trainwreck. She got a whole lot of help in that area.

[SteamWake]

Exactly. We already knew she was an idiot. .

Good then you underestimate her.

[Tribesman]

She writes a book full of fabrications and lies?
That simply isn't correct
Firstly some of it might be true and secondly she got someone else to write.
Anyway she doesn't lie she just mis-speaks, like a recent revisit this week to when there was controversy about allegations over banning books in Wassila.
According to herself....
It was a fabrication by the media, illustrated by the specific fact that one of the books they mention hadn't even been published then.

Convincing stuff, except that she was very wrong with her illustration and the book had not only been published but had been followed by 3 sequels and been made into a film in the time she claimed it hadn't been published.
I would have thought given her religious views at that time(before she changed church) she would at least have remembered the fundamentalists burning books as they were national and international news.

[Sea Demon]

You're still hanging on to that? Good grief. The guy had been to 47 states, and misspoke and said 57 instead of 47. Do you honestly believe he thought there were 57 states? Really? Honestly? If this is the petty crap that energizes your party, then your party has nothing of substance to add to the national discourse.

Calling Palin stupid adds nothing to the national discourse. But I think that's all you have left. The fact is, Obama has made alot of idiotic missteps, and has said alot of stupid things himself. He also can't seem to say anything of substance unless it is a pre-prepared speech with the aid of teleprompters. It is what it is.

Liberals are a disingenuous bunch. They love to call people names and point out flaws in their opponents that their own people make. Sometimes even more. It's useless mookie. You merely waste your breath. This is like when liberals pointed out that Palin had "no experience" despite being a mayor of a town, and governor of a state. But couldn't explain how their guy had any experience when he has no record of running anything. :doh:

Simply put, Liberals are moonbats.......

Oh yeah, and Obama's giving your leftwing base nothing for their vote. That's the cherry on top for me.

Oh please. It's easy and comforting, I'm sure, to say that people who dislike her are scared of her. But it's just not true. I dislike her because she's a disgrace.

Dude, she scares the the brown squeeze out of ya. It's as obvious as gravity. While Obama continues to fail our nation both in national security issues, and economically, Palin is out trumpeting an alternative. And people respond to her. As we sit at greater than 10 % unemployment....this scares you. Admit it. I actually find it hilarious how nutty liberals get with just the mere mention of her name.

[mookiemookie]

Liberals are a disingenuous bunch. They love to call people names...

Simply put, Liberals are moonbats.......

Hypocritical much?

Dude, she scares the the brown squeeze out of ya. It's as obvious as gravity. Wonderful. You've just taken the debate down to the level of "yuh-huh!" "nuh-uh!"

[AVGWarhawk]

Epic fail!

http://assets.nydailynews.com/img/2009/11/18/alg_bow_barack-obama.jpg

Hey nitwit...you are the leader of what country? :doh: The teleprompter said not to bow Barry! He likes to bow to everyone. I do not get it. Muuuuuhhhaaaahhhhhaa!

[AVGWarhawk]

I’ve read some misguided partisan ranting before, but the piece (http://www.newsweek.com/id/222786), “Gone Rogue” (how original) by Newsweek’s Evan Thomas is in a class by itself. That it passes for a news story is telling of how detached the elitists in media really are.

Nothing exceptionally newsworthy is going on (a book tour!), yet we are witnessing a foaming hysteria from all fronts of the liberal establishment. And, we must ask: Why? Sarah Palin is merely promoting her book.

The former governor isn’t even talking about running for office and yet Newsweek proactively displays Palin on its cover in running shorts with the flattering words: “She’s Bad News for the GOP—And for Everyone Else, Too.” She’s bad and it’s driving liberals mad.


The Associated Press assembled (http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20091113/ap_on_el_pr/us_palin_book_fact_check) 11 “journalists” to “fact check” Palin’s book. (Conservatives are still waiting for the AP dream team to fact check Obama’s, Clinton’s and Gore’s books.) The New York Times (http://www.nytimes.com/2009/11/15/books/15book.html?_r=1&hpw) summarized the 432 pages as a “payback” to the McCain campaign. And the Huffington Post (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/11/17/going-rogue-the-18-bigges_n_359837.html) pointed to the book’s 18 “biggest falsehoods.” These operatives are fast! Maybe they could gather the needed “facts” to assist Obama in his Afghanistan decision.

:har: Yeah, good point!

Demeaning Palin makes a statement. “She’s really dumb and I’m really smart for believing she’s really dumb.”






http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2009/11/palin_on_the_run.html

[antikristuseke]

Epic fail!

http://assets.nydailynews.com/img/2009/11/18/alg_bow_barack-obama.jpg

Hey nitwit...you are the leader of what country? :doh: The teleprompter said not to bow Barry! He likes to bow to everyone. I do not get it. Muuuuuhhhaaaahhhhhaa!

Am I the only one who fails to see what the hell this post has to do with anything? Is this supposed to be a joke? If so, what about?

Edit: I am being completely serious here.

[Sea Demon]

Wonderful. You've just taken the debate down to the level of "yuh-huh!" "nuh-uh!"

Yet, you can't rebut any of it. Simple fact, Obama makes a whole lot of idiotic mistakes, had no experience running anything before his election, and is now in a world of a mess and leading this country to economic hell and an unemployment nightmare. The independents are bailing on the Democrats, and the Democrats are bailing on their own base. And this frightens you as you see Palin talking alternatives that actually energize people. Hence your frantic name-calling against Palin. Liberals have to minimize her, yet it doesn't work. The "Palin is a nitwit" stuff (without actually debating against her point of view) is what's taking the debate down to the pre-school level. Not people who are calling you out on it.

Mookie, a crap sandwich doesn't taste good if it's served from a Democrat kitchen. Even if you want it to. Quit pretending it does. :DL

[AVGWarhawk]

Am I the only one who fails to see what the hell this post has to do with anything? Is this supposed to be a joke? If so, what about?

Edit: I am being completely serious here.

Seriously, since when does the President of the US bow to other world leaders? Plenty here have said Palin is not presidential material. Obama is any different? Well no, he bows to all. As many bungles as Obama has done he gets the free pass. Here is a woman just promoting a friggin book and everyone is climbing up her a-hole. She does not aspire to be President but all think she is. She said point blank it is not in her plans. WTH is wrong with this picture? Why is everyone belittling a woman who did not want to run for president?

[antikristuseke]

Seriously, since when does the President of the US bow to other world leaders? Plenty here have said Palin is not presidential material. Obama is any different? Well no, he bows to all. As many bungles as Obama has done he gets the free pass. Here is a woman just promoting a friggin book and everyone is climbing up her a-hole. She does not aspire to be President but all think she is. She said point blank it is not in her plans. WTH is wrong with this picture? Why is everyone belittling a woman who did not want to run for president?

Oh no, a president who shows respect to other world leaders by bowing, all is surely lost:doh:. And no, he does not get a free pass for ****ups, aparently there are plenty of people keeping track, as they should be. And one reason to belittle Palin would be the fact that she is a bloody creationist. But like every other politician she takes unjustified flak as well, thats a politicians life for you.

[Tribesman]

Seriously, since when does the President of the US bow to other world leaders?
When they are a guest if diplomatic protocol calls for it, unless they just want to appear ignorant or arrogant.

Why is everyone belittling a woman who did not want to run for president?
Because she is such an easy target, she lies over even the silliest little issues and holds up aspects of her life to publicise herself then runs crying foul that poeple are looking at what she put up for them to look at.

[Schroeder]

Seriously, since when does the President of the US bow to other world leaders?
You haven't been to Asia yet, have you?:o

[Sea Demon]

You haven't been to Asia yet, have you?:o

This link shows other world leaders meeting the Emperor of Japan. All of them, including Dick Cheney meet him with a handshake and a little dignity. Very respectful without the disgraceful subservience displayed by Obama. Looks right to me. I guess in your world only Obama knows the correct protocol and everyone else is screwed up??? Uhhhh...I don't think so.

http://hotairpundit.blogspot.com/2009/11/president-obama-vs-rest-of-world.html

[Platapus]

Rogue: n.

An unprincipled, deceitful, and unreliable person; a scoundrel or rascal.

Rogue: adj


Vicious and solitary. Used of an animal, especially an elephant.
Large, destructive, and anomalous or unpredictable
Operating outside normal or desirable controls

http://www.answers.com/rogue

Good title for her book. Hope she sells a lot of copies :up:

[Sea Demon]

Good title for her book. Hope she sells a lot of copies :up:

Apparently sales for her book are sky high at this point. :salute:

[Platapus]

It is my wish that she make a lot of money with this book, enough for her to retire on and spend time with her family. I truly want her to live happily ever after.

I just don't want her in The Executive Branch of the Federal Government. :nope:

She might make a pretty good Representative though. :yep:

[AVGWarhawk]

You haven't been to Asia yet, have you?:o


Yeah, my aunt and uncle did in WW2. Since then I do not bow.

[August]

Seriously, since when does the President of the US bow to other world leaders?

Eh I don't care if he has to strip naked and run around with a orange traffic cone stuck up his butt if it helps the country. After all he's really just a temp worker and easily replaced.

A better question is when do our national colors, which represent us all, bow (dip) for other world leaders? Answer: Never!

[AVGWarhawk]

When they are a guest if diplomatic protocol calls for it, unless they just want to appear ignorant or arrogant.


Because she is such an easy target, she lies over even the silliest little issues and holds up aspects of her life to publicise herself then runs crying foul that poeple are looking at what she put up for them to look at.

Bowing is servitude in my book. But you may take that any way you like.

[AVGWarhawk]

After all he's really just a temp worker and easily replaced.



:har: Good one and true!:up:

[Tribesman]

Apparently sales for her book are sky high at this point.
A fool and his money are soon parted as there's a sucker born every minute

[AVGWarhawk]

A fool and his money are soon parted as there's a sucker born every minute

I always wondered how the fool got the money in the first place :hmmm:

[geetrue]

. If she is so boring and uninspiring why is she scheduled on top shows around the country? :hmmm:

Because they (meaning the media world) want to chastise her and get her to say something stupid with her during the interview ...

so they can put another feather in their cap for customizeed news reporting to increase revenues down between news stories about big stars passing away like Jackson.

I like her ... I think she wrote the book to make money like everyone else, but she sure grabs a lot of attention wherever she goes.

I like her better than Ophrey thats for sure ... she could be trying for a talk show host never know for sure, but one things for sure with her down home folksy ways she good be the next Will Rogers.

A thorn in Obama's plans for sure :smug:

[AVGWarhawk]

Because they (meaning the media world) want to chastise her and get her to say something stupid with her during the interview ...

so they can put another feather in their cap for customizeed news reporting to increase revenues down between news stories about big stars passing away like Jackson.

I like her ... I think she wrote the book to make money like everyone else, but she sure grabs a lot of attention wherever she goes.

I like her better than Ophrey thats for sure ... she could be trying for a talk show host never know for sure, but one things for sure with her down home folksy ways she good be the next Will Rogers.

A thorn in Obama's plans for sure :smug:

I believe you are correct on all points. Really, the woman promoting a book and you would think the elections have started again. So what is it that she possesses that make the media do this? Are Liberals scared of this woman?

[Platapus]

A better question is when do our national colors, which represent us all, bow (dip) for other world leaders? Answer: Never!

You sure about that?

US Navy Regulations, Chapter 12, section 1263:

"1. When any vessel, under United States registry or the registry of a nation formally recognized by the Government of the United States, salutes a ship of the Navy by dipping her ensign, it shall be answered dip for dip. If not already being displayed, the national ensign shall be hoisted for the purpose of answering the dip. An ensign being displayed at half-mast shall be hoisted to the truck or peak before a dip is answered.
2. No ship of the Navy shall dip the national ensign unless in return for such compliment.
3. Of the colors carried by a naval force on shore, only the battalion or regimental colors shall be dipped in renderiag or acknowledging a salute.
4. Submarines, or other ships of the line in which it would be considered hazardous for
personnel to do so, shall not be required to dip the ensign."

doni.daps.dla.mil/US%20Navy%20Regulations/Chapter%2012%20-%20Flags,%20Pennants,%20Honors,%20Ceremonies%20and %20Customs.pdf

[AVGWarhawk]

You sure about that?

US Navy Regulations, Chapter 12, section 1263:

"1. When any vessel, under United States registry or the registry of a nation formally recognized by the Government of the United States, salutes a ship of the Navy by dipping her ensign, it shall be answered dip for dip. If not already being displayed, the national ensign shall be hoisted for the purpose of answering the dip. An ensign being displayed at half-mast shall be hoisted to the truck or peak before a dip is answered.

2. No ship of the Navy shall dip the national ensign unless in return for such compliment.

3. Of the colors carried by a naval force on shore, only the battalion or regimental colors shall be dipped in renderiag or acknowledging a salute.
4. Submarines, or other ships of the line in which it would be considered hazardous for
personnel to do so, shall not be required to dip the ensign."

doni.daps.dla.mil/US%20Navy%20Regulations/Chapter%2012%20-%20Flags,%20Pennants,%20Honors,%20Ceremonies%20and %20Customs.pdf


This is not remotely close to bowing to another leader. In this instance the person Obama is bowing to does not bow to anyone! WTH? Bowing to a person shows servitude. Dipping your ensign is done by both parties in your example. Mutual respect in this instance. :03:

[AVGWarhawk]

Funny part is, the media is only reinforcing exactly what she has been protesting since the election.

[Platapus]

This is not remotely close to bowing to another leader. In this instance the person Obama is bowing to does not bow to anyone! WTH? Bowing to a person shows servitude. Dipping your ensign is done by both parties in your example. Mutual respect in this instance.

Your comment would be appropriate if my post was address the topic of bowing to heads of state. However my post was not in response to the issue of bowing to a head of state, it was in response to August's post on dipping the national flag, hence the use of the quote function quoting portions of August's post where he made a statement about dipping the national flag.

But thanks for sharing your opinion. :)

[CaptainHaplo]

A fool and his money are soon parted as there's a sucker born every minute

I finally agreed with something this guy said - he explained perfectly the "Elect Obama - and you will get change - in your pocket - and thats all you will have left....." situation that many fools have created by voting for a vapid salesman.

The facts are Palin is a person the normal American voter can relate to and understand. Want to make fun of her travel expenses? This is the governer who got rid of the private jet her predecessor had. Think that might have saved a few bucks that the taxpayers aren't on the hook for any longer? Oh, but some would rather look at the little negatives than the big positives - because the voting public has expressed firm disapproval over the direction the country is headed, and its easier to try and point out other's flaws, that accept your own.

Right now, the thing that has most liberals scared beyond belief is a Gingrich/Palin ticket. The architect of the 94 trouncing of the Democratic led house - changing the face of politics for well over a decade, teamed with a "popular" running mate - both espousing alternatives to bigger government, higher taxes and larger debts, as well as some basic comon sense - is the largest threat to liberals in power right now.

The people have seen what the liberals in power are trying to do, and the people have said NO. The power players even state that they hear the people - but it won't make a difference. That elitism doesn't sit well - and the people will speak again soon. Line liberals see that the base is now the extreme left, and are bailing on the party.

2010 will create a shift in Congress, and it will open the door for an even larger one away from right or left, but toward common sense and respect for individual freedoms in 2012.

[Tribesman]

The facts are Palin is a person the normal American voter can relate to and understand.
For every normal American that relates to her there is probably a normal American who thinks she is just plain dumb.

This is the governer who got rid of the private jet her predecessor had. Think that might have saved a few bucks that the taxpayers aren't on the hook for any longer?
Well done, a perfect example of Palin telling silly lies.
Good move that they got rid of the plane, bad move to make false claims about the nature of the sale and turning a profit on it.

The people have seen what the liberals in power are trying to do, and the people have said NO.
Have they? I thought both sides claimed victory in that last round of local elections. And didn't that GOP fella say those elections were meaningless as a gauge of public opinion.
Line liberals see that the base is now the extreme left, and are bailing on the party
Do you mean the base is being abandoned for the extremes and people are bailing on the party just like the republican base did when the party was pandering to the extremes?

[August]

You sure about that?

Actually yes.

A. A foreign ship is not a foreign potentate. We might give the Queen of England a 21 gun salute but Old Glory will remain flying proudly from the masthead.

B. Technically a ships ensign is not it's nations flag, although it may look exactly the same, which is why dipping during the rendering of passing honors is the lone exception to the standard.

C. Line 3 of the regulations you posted clearly states that you don't dip the national colors ashore. This is because once it is removed from the mast of a ship it's no longer a ships ensign.

;)

[mookiemookie]

Seriously, since when does the President of the US bow to other world leaders?

Oh good grief, is this what you people are left to criticize? Is this seriously the most important issue that you on he right are worried about? No wonder no one takes you seriously anymore.

Did you get your panties in a bunch like this when Nixon bowed to Mao? Of course not:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kI0GMR2w59Y (0:18 seconds in)

I'd love to see how the Republican apologists spin this one.

[August]

I'd love to see how the Republican apologists spin this one.

Republicans wanted Nixon out as much as Democrats.

[mookiemookie]

Republicans wanted Nixon out as much as Democrats.

Yep, there it is...you've proved my point. Republicans back then wanted Nixon out because he bowed to Chairman Mao. That's just how it went down. :roll:

[August]

Yep, there it is...you've proved my point. Republicans back then wanted Nixon out because he bowed to Chairman Mao. That's just how it went down. :roll:

Yeah right because nobody, especially you, ever does anything for more than one single reason right?

[AngusJS]

She got her cavities searched during the Presidential campaign. I do not think they will find misnomers in this book. I think she will be someone who uncovers alot of graft.The woman who spent $150,000 of RNC money on clothes in 2 months is going to uncover graft?

The fact is, Obama has made alot of idiotic missteps, and has said alot of stupid things himself.

Smart people sometimes slip and say stupid things. When you're a politician and your job is to talk constantly, it's inevitable. Palin is a stupid person, hence she says stupid things almost exclusively.

Calling Palin stupid adds nothing to the national discourse.Calling a spade a spade adds something to the national discourse. Refusing to do so because the truth hurts does not.

http://rawstory.com/2009/11/palin-evolution/

Elsewhere in this volume, she talks about creationism, saying she “didn’t believe in the theory that human beings — thinking, loving beings — originated from fish that sprouted legs and crawled out of the sea” or from “monkeys who eventually swung down from the trees.”She knows that every expert in this field would say she's dead wrong, and she doesn't care. Why bother to question your beliefs? Why bother to expand your knowledge?

Very respectful without the disgraceful subservience displayed by Obama.:roll: While a bit of a faux pas, I think the Japanese will take it as a sign of respect. It doesn't matter how we see it. Unless you think Bush puckering up for the Saudi king meant he had feelings for him.

[Sea Demon]

Smart people sometimes slip and say stupid things. When you're a politician and your job is to talk constantly, it's inevitable. Palin is a stupid person, hence she says stupid things almost exclusively.

Calling a spade a spade adds something to the national discourse. Refusing to do so because the truth hurts does not.


And you illustrate perfectly with this nonsense why the Independents are bailing out on the Democrats. :up: Well, this is one of many reasons.

[Stealth Hunter]

http://rawstory.com/2009/11/palin-evolution/

Former Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin, Sen. John McCain's (R-AZ) vice presidential running mate, signals in her new book Going Rogue that she doesn't believe in evolution, panning it as theory that human beings "originated from fish that sprouted legs and crawled out of the sea."

:har:

I think her lightbulb might have a busted socket...

[Tribesman]

I think her lightbulb might have a busted socket...
But did you know that exorcisms can get rid of witches and reduce crime.

[Tribesman]

Technically a ships ensign is not it's nations flag, although it may look exactly the same, which is why dipping during the rendering of passing honors is the lone exception to the standard.
Technically a ships ensign is its nations flag whether it looks the same or not, just as a naval jack is also its nations flag whether it looks the same or not.

[CaptainHaplo]

....as theory that human beings "originated from fish that sprouted legs and crawled out of the sea."

:har:

I think her lightbulb might have a busted socket...

Stealth Hunter - while the comment is an oversimplification of evolution, the theory does state that mammillian life (of which Homo Sapien is a member of) did not originate on land, but initially was in water. It was from water dwelling creatures that mammals "evolved" from, and thus the statement is generally correct. The fact that it took a supposed number of hundreds of millions of years for the legs to "sprout" doesn't mitigate its accuracy.

Your either ignorant of that evolutionary theory, or want to find fault with someone because they were not scientifically detailed in a comment, or simply because you dislike them. Either way, your being petty in an attempt to marginalize and discredit someone. This is exactly the behavior many people point to when they say some people fear Palin.

[goldorak]

Well, she also doesn't need a teleprompter to put together a grouping of coherent sentences like the menace currently in the WH. And talk about making a fool out of yourself during the campaign, I wonder if Obama still thinks the USA is comprised of 57 states.

Mookie, it's apparent that people like you are deathly afraid of this woman. For nno other reason than she has an ability to energize people of conservative values to donate money and go out and vote. The "She's stupid" thing doesn't work. Liberals do this with every Republican politician....like GW Bush for example and he got re-elected.

I also think you're scared because as she is out there energizing conservatives, the Democrat Party has kicked guys like you to the curb. And you know that ain't going to play well with your base next cycle. ;)

Sarah Palin is no idiot.
She is a genuine political animal with a killer instinct.
The problem is twofold : she is too much of a polarizer (and burning bridges left and right is not a good thing to do when you aspire to the presidential seat).
And second : some of her actions don't make sense (in whatever way you want to look at it). How can you RESIGN from governor of Alaska and still think you've got a political capital to spend ?
Do republicans want to vote someone like Palin that could quit being president because of a tantrum ?
She could have a possibility to become a mainstay of american politics, and maybe even win a sentor seat in congress.
But president ? It will never happen unless she opens up to independants and maybe a sector of the democrats. But relying only on the republican base won't get her in the white house.
Just my .02 €

[August]

And second : some of her actions don't make sense (in whatever way you want to look at it). How can you RESIGN from governor of Alaska and still think you've got a political capital to spend ?
Do republicans want to vote someone like Palin that could quit being president because of a tantrum ?

This would be my biggest reason not to vote for her.

[SteamWake]

Now that we have the petty bickering over bowing and name calling out of the way...

Perhaps this is at the root of the fear.... People seem to like her.


Thousands gathered outside a Barnes & Noble and chanted "Palin! Palin! Palin!" for the kickoff of the former Republican vice presidential candidate's "Going Rogue" book tour, which has taken on the feel of a political pep rally.


http://apnews.myway.com/article/20091119/D9C28MC00.html

[goldorak]

Now that we have the petty bickering over bowing and name calling out of the way...

Perhaps this is at the root of the fear.... People seem to like her.



http://apnews.myway.com/article/20091119/D9C28MC00.html

No, the republican base loves her.
Others not so much. She would be much more dangerous if she had the consensus not only of the party base, but also the independants or at least a large part of the independant voters and some democrats. And that is not happening because of her one-sided views. Stuborness 'till the end.
So there is no need to be afraid of her, as it stands right now she has 0 possibility of being in the race for the white house (unless she tries again as vice presidential candidate).
Oh and she has to explain clearly WHY she resigned from the governer's office.
Maybe it was justified, but untill she explains clearly why she did it, it will appear as if she wasn't tough enough for the job.

[AVGWarhawk]

Oh good grief, is this what you people are left to criticize? Is this seriously the most important issue that you on he right are worried about? No wonder no one takes you seriously anymore.

Did you get your panties in a bunch like this when Nixon bowed to Mao? Of course not:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kI0GMR2w59Y (0:18 seconds in)

I'd love to see how the Republican apologists spin this one.

No one takes me seriously anymore? In the large scheme of things who gives a rats a$$? I will not go down that road with what anyone thinks of anyone on the forums or otherwise. When Nixon bowed to Mao I was still riding my Big Wheel and watching cartoons. :salute: It has been real fun at the SS forums. Enjoy!

[SteamWake]

Dirty little secret not covered during the campaigns by the 'mainstream media' is that Palins appearance attendance was greater than that of Obama's.

I only wonder what might have happened if Palin had not been squelched by her own party.

[mookiemookie]

No one takes me seriously anymore? In the large scheme of things who gives a rats a$$? I will not go down that road with what anyone thinks of anyone on the forums or otherwise. When Nixon bowed to Mao I was still riding my Big Wheel and watching cartoons. :salute: It has been real fun at the SS forums. Enjoy!

For clarification's sake, the "you" I was referring to was the Republican Party, not you personally. Sorry for the confusion as I do try and keep things non-personal.

[goldorak]

Dirty little secret not covered during the campaigns by the 'mainstream media' is that Palins appearance attendance was greater than that of Obama's.

I only wonder what might have happened if Palin had not been squelched by her own party.


I've always thought that the republican campaign officials purposely mismanaged Sarah Palin. Maybe they honestly didn't know what to do with her. If she had been prepared better and not at the last minute, who knows what could have happened. As vice presidential candiate you have the luxury of having "extremist" views as long as the presidential candidate has a more "moderate" bi-partisan approach. In all of this, her rhetoric (or rather the absense of it) didn't really help her or the main candidate.
The press just went along for the ride as always.

[mookiemookie]

So there is no need to be afraid of her, as it stands right now she has 0 possibility of being in the race for the white house (unless she tries again as vice presidential candidate).


Exactly. Who is scared of someone who probably won't win their own party's primary, much less the presidency?

[SteamWake]

Exactly. Who is scared of someone who probably won't win their own party's primary, much less the presidency?

Again I do not believe a presidential run is her impetious.

That alone should put the liberal agenda proponents on notice.

[AngusJS]

Sarah Palin is no idiot. I just don't know how an intelligent person could say the things she's said. And the evidence that she's a creationist bodes even worse for her IQ, regardless of how many right wingers will lap it up.

http://img40.imageshack.us/img40/6620/creationistsg.jpg

[August]

No, the republican base loves her.

Not really. There are some within the GoP who like her but many more don't. Her resignation from the Governorship was not taken very well.

[Sea Demon]

Exactly. Who is scared of someone who probably won't win their own party's primary, much less the presidency?

Oh, I can guarantee she won't win any primary. I like her personally, yet would find it hard to vote for her for a number of reasons. Her value, and what has people like you crapping their pants, is that she articulates a viewpoint completely 180 degrees out of phase with the attempted current failed leftist ideology permeating the scene in Washington DC. And she's effective and is popular in doing it. She also has a knack for fundraising. This is why liberals are frantic in their ...."She's a nitwit" type of nonsense. It absolutely has no impact BTW, but I enjoy watching liberals huff and puff over this woman who apparently to them is an idiot. If she's such a moron...why the feeble attempts to destroy her? Why the desperate name-calling? It's comical. :rotfl2:

[ETR3(SS)]

http://rawstory.com/2009/11/palin-evolution/

She knows that every expert in this field would say she's dead wrong, and she doesn't care. Why bother to question your beliefs? Why bother to expand your knowledge?

I just don't know how an intelligent person could say the things she's said. And the evidence that she's a creationist bodes even worse for her IQ, regardless of how many right wingers will lap it up.

http://img40.imageshack.us/img40/6620/creationistsg.jpgLet me remind you that there is just as much proof that evolution is the answer as there is that creation is the answer. They are both theories if you really look at it. And the fact that you belittle creationists makes you no different than the creationists that belittle evolutionists. Sarah Palin has a strong belief in God, good for her! :up:

And for the record I am indifferent of Plain. Also I do not believe in God or the Theory of Evolution. Man is not wise enough to know his origin, and won't be for some time.

[antikristuseke]

Let me remind you that there is just as much proof that evolution is the answer as there is that creation is the answer. They are both theories if you really look at it. And the fact that you belittle creationists makes you no different than the creationists that belittle evolutionists. Sarah Palin has a strong belief in God, good for her! :up:

And for the record I am indifferent of Plain. Also I do not believe in God or the Theory of Evolution. Man is not wise enough to know his origin, and won't be for some time.

Are you serious or are you just so badly misinformed that you actualy believe that the theory of evolution and creationism have equal amounts of supporting evidence?
Hell, even calling creationism a theory is completely wrong, since it isn't one, it is a hypothesis at best. A theory, in the scientific sense of the word, is an analytic structure designed to explain a set of empirical observations. Also theories have to be falsifiable and have to make testable predictions, the toe does that while creationism, not being a theory does not.
Now a request for you, in your own words, describe what the theory of evolution is, please.

[SteamWake]

I'd rather have a creationist than a Marxist 'community orginizer'.

[antikristuseke]

I'd rather have both shot.

[August]

I'd rather have both shot.

If you were my neighbor I'd have to shoot you just in case you expand your hit list to include me... :DL

[antikristuseke]

If you were my neighbor I'd have to shoot you just in case you expand your hit list to include me... :DL

If I was my own neighbor I would have myself shot as well.

[Dowly]

If I was my own neighbor I would have myself shot as well.

http://omglol.kerrolisaa.com/1/11017.gif

[SteamWake]

Makes me proud to see such tolerance on display. :88)

[antikristuseke]

I am quite tolerant, just not of willful ignorance.

[ETR3(SS)]

Are you serious or are you just so badly misinformed that you actualy believe that the theory of evolution and creationism have equal amounts of supporting evidence?
Hell, even calling creationism a theory is completely wrong, since it isn't one, it is a hypothesis at best. A theory, in the scientific sense of the word, is an analytic structure designed to explain a set of empirical observations. Also theories have to be falsifiable and have to make testable predictions, the toe does that while creationism, not being a theory does not.
Now a request for you, in your own words, describe what the theory of evolution is, please.Upon re-reading my post, after reading your post, I realize a clarification of my position is in order. In my opinion the amount of supporting evidence for one or the other is irrelevant. This isn't a football game. When the timer runs out the team with the most "points" doesn't win. Both sides have the coup de grace that they have to provide to irrefutably prove their side correct. Creationist's would have to provide direct proof of God's existence, and likewise evolutionist's would have to provide the common ancestor as proof to win the argument.

Clearly evolution is a scientific argument that adheres to the rules of scientific theory much better and easier than creationism does. As we all know creationism relies upon faith, and faith can not be measured in any scientific manner. So in that sense, yes using the word theory in conjunction with creationism is like trying to put the square peg in a round hole. A word devised by science can not be applied to religion. My intent was to put them on par with each other as far as proof goes.

Now as you have requested my description of the Theory of Evolution. The Theory of Evolution is the belief that all organisms evolved from a common ancestor. This evolution was brought about by processes such as mutation, natural selection, and genetic drift.

[antikristuseke]

Upon re-reading my post, after reading your post, I realize a clarification of my position is in order. In my opinion the amount of supporting evidence for one or the other is irrelevant. This isn't a football game. When the timer runs out the team with the most "points" doesn't win. Both sides have the coup de grace that they have to provide to irrefutably prove their side correct. Creationist's would have to provide direct proof of God's existence, and likewise evolutionist's would have to provide the common ancestor as proof to win the argument.

Clearly evolution is a scientific argument that adheres to the rules of scientific theory much better and easier than creationism does. As we all know creationism relies upon faith, and faith can not be measured in any scientific manner. So in that sense, yes using the word theory in conjunction with creationism is like trying to put the square peg in a round hole. A word devised by science can not be applied to religion. My intent was to put them on par with each other as far as proof goes.

Now as you have requested my description of the Theory of Evolution. The Theory of Evolution is the belief that all organisms evolved from a common ancestor. This evolution was brought about by processes such as mutation, natural selection, and genetic drift.

Fair enough, I did misunderstand your position at first.
Still I believe you to be mistaken where evidence is concerned, we have plenty of common ancestors for humans and other species that are alive today or extinct by now.
Or are you asking for the last common ancestor to all the species alive on Earth right now? If so, there might not have been just one.
You could also be talking about the origins of life, but from your post that does not appear to be so, regardless that is the department of abiogenesis, a completely different theory, that has far less evidence for it than the theory of evolution does, for now anyway.
As evidence of evolution we have the fossil record for one thing, observed instances of speciation, genetics and due to that ERVs. Thw following link leads to a website with information about everything I mentioned and more, all well sourced, usually from peer reviewed papers. http://www.talkorigins.org/

But now that I have dragged this very far off topic, I think we should end this discussion here, if you like would be glad to continue in PM.

[Torvald Von Mansee]

I'd rather have a creationist than a Marxist 'community orginizer'.

Good thing Obama isn't a Marxist, than. I don't know his status as an orginizer, though. I don't even know what that word means!!!

[SteamWake]

Good thing Obama isn't a Marxist, than. I don't know his status as an orginizer, though. I don't even know what that word means!!!

Usually Liberal left wing community activist.

The likes of Jessie Jackson, Reverend Wright, acorn and such.

[Tribesman]

I don't even know what that word means!!!
Its net shorthand for Original Tizer
http://www.tizer.co.uk/
You can call it marxist original tizer because it is red

[CaptainHaplo]

I just don't know how an intelligent person could say the things she's said. And the evidence that she's a creationist bodes even worse for her IQ, regardless of how many right wingers will lap it up.

http://img40.imageshack.us/img40/6620/creationistsg.jpg

I am amazed you don't see the irony in your own post....
You belittle someone who has a belief in something you disagree with...
But you do so, claiming they are somehow less than intelligent, and you try to prove your point with:

A cartoon.

Most people recognize that a cartoon is meant to poke fun at things, not be a true medical standard. The irony that you somehow think a drawing from a cartoon comedy makes your statement irrefutable fact is epic.

What is even more amazing is that those who are scared of people like Palin are also the same ones that cannot let people be because they don't follow along believing evolution.

Know why evolutionists can't stand the thought of creationism? Because that means they have to answer for their actions ultimately. Notice creationists are not here bashing people who believe in evolution. Instead, its the "all accepting, inclusive" liberals that deride anything they don't agree with, even though evolution lacks any major evidence when looking at life above a certain (and very small) size.

[antikristuseke]

I am amazed you don't see the irony in your own post....
You belittle someone who has a belief in something you disagree with...
But you do so, claiming they are somehow less than intelligent, and you try to prove your point with:

A cartoon.

Most people recognize that a cartoon is meant to poke fun at things, not be a true medical standard. The irony that you somehow think a drawing from a cartoon comedy makes your statement irrefutable fact is epic.
You are putting words in another posters mouth, what you are stating was not posted by the poster you quoted.
What is even more amazing is that those who are scared of people like Palin are also the same ones that cannot let people be because they don't follow along believing evolution.

Know why evolutionists can't stand the thought of creationism? Because that means they have to answer for their actions ultimately. Notice creationists are not here bashing people who believe in evolution. Instead, its the "all accepting, inclusive" liberals that deride anything they don't agree with, even though evolution lacks any major evidence when looking at life above a certain (and very small) size.

No that is not why people who accept evolution have a problem with creationism, we have a problem with it because it disagrees with observable reality, that is all. What you just did there was to create a strawman argument, which is a logical fallacy and a really dick thing to do. And on the front of evidence you could not be more wrong, you just close your eyes to the evidence or you have not looked for it, given your intellectual honesty, I would assume it be the former rather than the later. But for my own damned curiosity, what evidence does it lack? Be specific because unless you are going to ask for evidence for some strawman version of evolution I can put money on it that there is evidence for it.

And another question, what the **** is an evolutionist? Do you call people who accept the theory of gravity gravitationalists? Or is it just the theory of evolution only scientific theory, which has been helpful in many ways, the one you single out because you disagree with it?

[CaptainHaplo]

Antikrist - I did not put words in his mouth...

I quoted Angus - as follows:

"I just don't know how an intelligent person could say the things she's said. And the evidence that she's a creationist bodes even worse for her IQ, regardless of how many right wingers will lap it up."

Now - if he doesn't know how an intelligent person could say certain things, logic dictates he does know how a NON-intelligent person could. The comment of "creationist" boding even worse for her IQ - your saying that ISN'T an indictement of her intelligence?

How did I put words in his mouth? I simply took his statements above - along with the cartoon HE posted, quoted them, and replied by pointing out the irony of him insulting someones intelligence, then trying to use a cartoon to prove his point.

Now as for the "strawman" arguement, I simply gave what I see as a logical and reasonable reason for the absolute mockery that has been tossd out against those who believe in creationism. I pointed out that those who are so against such a belief have a very good MORALISTIC reason for not wanting to accept it. Its unfortunate that you think its a "really dick thing to do", but its simply put out there as a point of view for people to consider. The hostility that those who embrace evolution have shown on this board to anyone who disagrees demonstrates that there must be some reason behind it. A discussion of scientific ideas shouldn't degenerate into people calling other people stupid just because they disagree. Yet that is what, so far, has happened - creationists are insulted as lacking intelligence because they choose not to agree. I would call that a "really dick thing to do", and not the other way around, but your entitled to your opinion.

Now - as for the evidence of evolution and the evidence for biblical history, I will make a thread for that so we can discuss it, hopefully with some majority and real points, instead of insults. No reason to take this post farther off topic than it is.

I will address your "evolutionists/gravitationalists" question though. Evolution is a theory that, to my knowledge, lacks truly credible evidence. Perhaps in the coming thread I will learn something, as I hope you will as well. However, gravity is rather apparent to each and every person, and thus its rather hard to say something doesnt exist when you personally experience it every moment (or nearly every moment) of your life.

I have found that you tend to be a reasonable person Antikrist - especially compared to some others, and so I look forward to a mature
discussion of the pros and cons of both sides of this issue.

[AngusJS]

Upon re-reading my post, after reading your post, I realize a clarification of my position is in order. In my opinion the amount of supporting evidence for one or the other is irrelevant.:o Then how do you decide anything at all? Determining the amount and quality of evidence for one side or another is kind of the way people decide things.

Both sides have the coup de grace that they have to provide to irrefutably prove their side correct. Creationist's would have to provide direct proof of God's existence,Tell that to Ken Miller, a Catholic biologist and ardent supporter of evolution. If it was proven tomorrow that god existed, that wouldn't change the evidence for evolution in the slightest. Evolution does not equal atheism, no matter how much the creationists say so.

and likewise evolutionist's would have to provide the common ancestor as proof to win the argument.No, evolution has already been proven. The entire fossil record proves evolution, along with the fact that we have actually observed speciation occurring. I don't know what more you could ask for. You might as well insist that the Big Bang theory hasn't been proven yet until we actually go back in time to witness the Big Bang.

A word devised by science can not be applied to religion. My intent was to put them on par with each other as far as proof goes.So, Young Earth creationism, which states that the universe is 6,000-10,000 years old, and proves this with a) the bible and b) lies, is somehow on an equal footing with everything we know about the universe today gained from astronomy, geology, archeology, biology, physics, chemistry, etc. ? :o

The thing is, modern creationism isn't just the belief in a supernatural being which is supposedly beyond the purview of science. It's the reaction to facts by people who don't like those facts because they conflict with their favorite idea, and who then either propagate or accept lies and distortions to try and wish those inconvenient facts away. It makes falsifiable claims about the natural world. That those claims have been continuously falsified for the past 150 years hasn't quite gotten through to creationists, however.

I think the problem that Palin and others have is that if they refuse to accept the facts of primate evolution, it will seem odd to put humans in with the rest of the animal kingdom. However, if they accepted the fact that evolution led from Lucy to to the Neanderthals, who made clothes and controlled fire, then suddenly our place among all the other animals on the planet makes a lot more sense.

Evolution is not a left/right issue or an atheist/theist issue. It's a fact, supported by boatloads of evidence.

People who persist in denying facts solely because they contradict their favorite idea are unfit to govern.

[AngusJS]

I am amazed you don't see the irony in your own post....
You belittle someone who has a belief in something you disagree with...
But you do so, claiming they are somehow less than intelligent, and you try to prove your point with:

A cartoon.

Most people recognize that a cartoon is meant to poke fun at things, not be a true medical standard. The irony that you somehow think a drawing from a cartoon comedy makes your statement irrefutable fact is epic.The fact that you mistook that picture as an argument, rather than a bit of humor, is pathetic.

What is even more amazing is that those who are scared of people like Palin are also the same ones that cannot let people be because they don't follow along believing evolution.The only thing fearful about Palin is the damage someone that dumb would wreak upon the country if they ever attained power.

Know why evolutionists can't stand the thought of creationism? Because that means they have to answer for their actions ultimately.Wrong. Evolution is not atheism. Evolution is completely silent on theism or atheism.

And so you're saying that all those Christian scientists who accept evolution think they have no one to answer to ultimately?

even though evolution lacks any major evidence when looking at life above a certain (and very small) size.Wrong again. Why don't you look at Talk Origins

http://www.talkorigins.org/origins/faqs-qa.html

or watch AronRa's video series on the foundational flaws of creationism. Though I disagree with some of the claims he makes about the bible, his overall point is good, and he absolutely eviscerates the claims of creationists. Plus, it's pretty funny.

http://www.youtube.com/user/aronra?blend=1&ob=4#p/c/126AFB53A6F002CC/0/KnJX68ELbAY

[August]

The only thing fearful about Palin is the damage someone that dumb would wreak upon the country if they ever attained power.

What kind of dumb are you talking about? 57 states kind of dumb?

[AngusJS]

What kind of dumb are you talking about? 57 states kind of dumb?This is one gaffe. I'm sure Obama has said other things that silly as well. It's inevitable when you spend every day talking endlessly.

Watch those Palin interviews. Those aren't gaffes. That's Palin being unable to speak coherently, and during those moments when she can, she doesn't know what the hell she's talking about.

[Thomen]

This is one gaffe. I'm sure Obama has said other things that silly as well. It's inevitable when you spend every day talking endlessly.

Watch those Palin interviews. Those aren't gaffes. That's Palin being unable to speak coherently, and during those moments when she can, she doesn't know what the hell she's talking about.

And those two comedians that got elected into the Wh are better speakers? Let me guess, you have never seen or rather heard Obama speak without a teleprompter? Now, that is in-coherent speaking at its best.
Lay the cool aid off, dude.. :D seems it impairs your hearing.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=omHUsRTYFAU

[August]

This is one gaffe. I'm sure Obama has said other things that silly as well. It's inevitable when you spend every day talking endlessly.

Watch those Palin interviews. Those aren't gaffes. That's Palin being unable to speak coherently, and during those moments when she can, she doesn't know what the hell she's talking about.

Well it's more than one instance as Thomen points out. I believe that, had it so chosen, the press could have portrayed Joe Biden at least just as negatively as it did Sarah Palin.

Note that is not to say that either of them would deserve it. It just sucks when it's so one sided.

[Sea Demon]

And those two comedians that got elected into the Wh are better speakers? Let me guess, you have never seen or rather heard Obama speak without a teleprompter? Now, that is in-coherent speaking at its best.
Lay the cool aid off, dude.. :D seems it impairs your hearing.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=omHUsRTYFAU

Not to mention Obama just saying plain stupid things like when he said a vast problem exists where doctors are pulling unnecessary procedures just to make an extra buck. Complete and utter nonsense.

Or his saying that his parents were united at the march in Selma, Alabama. Big clue, that march happened in 1965. Obama was born in 1961. Or how about referring to his "Muslim faith" on ABC before George Stephanopolous quickly intervened to save his neck. And much more....

Obama is a walking, talking gaffe machine....

[August]

To be fair anyone can be and has been a walking gaffe machine at some point in their lives, and it's become very easy for modern media to record them.

I sometimes wonder how different our perceptions of various historical figures would be if they were exposed to the same level of scrutiny modern politicians are subjected to.

[Sea Demon]

To be fair anyone can be and has been a walking gaffe machine at some point in their lives, and it's become very easy for modern media to record them.

I sometimes wonder how different our perceptions of various historical figures would be if they were exposed to the same level of scrutiny modern politicians are subjected to.

Very true. And I agree completely. My response is merely to point out that liberals can't call Palin stupid for making gaffes, and then turn around and claim their guy is a genius despite the amount of idiotic things he says and other types of gaffes he makes.

Liberal "Democrats" always want it both ways. And it simply doesn't work logically, no matter how deserving they think they are.

[AVGWarhawk]

Not bad for a twit as some see fit to call Palin:


Harper Collins initially announced a first printing of 1.5 million copies, half a million more than the first printing of Hillary Clinton's long-anticipated memoir, "Living History." But by last Friday, just three days after its release, the publisher announced it would increase those numbers by 1 million.



http://www.foxnews.com/entertainment/2009/11/23/rogue-politician-best-selling-author-defining-sarah-palins-factor/

What is it about Sarah that sells?

[Stealth Hunter]

Probably her soccer mom looks, which are pretty good for a woman of nearly 50.

[AVGWarhawk]

Probably her soccer mom looks, which are pretty good for a woman of nearly 50.

Well there is that and I agree but the book is not about how she applies make up. :har: Not a romance novel! So, what is it?

[Takeda Shingen]

I don't care what she believes about creaton or evolution. In fact, I don't care what she believes at all. The fact remains that she is still a poor spokesperson for conservatism. She gaffes far too often, misquotes the truth and continues to give a poor interview. What frusturates me is that this comes just when conservatism is poised to make a comeback. People have grown frusturaed and disenchanted with Barack Obama and the Democtatic Party. Just when it appears that pendulum is about to swing, Sarah Palin decides that it is a good time to attempt a run at office. People see her and, rightfully, laugh. Here's a woman that cannot speak, write, or even stand and stare, and yet who's ego has given her the notion that she deserves higher public office. Humanity is doomed.

We, the fiscal conservatives, have become the Democratic Party of 2002. We just can't seem to catch a break or do anything right. Damn you, Sarah Palin. :down:

[Tribesman]

So, what is it? It is the empty rhetoric of populism.
It sells well even if it has no substance.
"I don't know about you, but I call a pornographic publication pornography, you betcha:up:"

[AVGWarhawk]

It is the empty rhetoric of populism.
It sells well even if it has no substance.
"I don't know about you, but I call a pornographic publication pornography, you betcha:up:"

How do you know? You have read the book?
How do you know it does not have substance? Again, you read the book?
Is there pornography in the book?

[AVGWarhawk]

I don't care what she believes about creaton or evolution. In fact, I don't care what she believes at all. The fact remains that she is still a poor spokesperson for conservatism. She gaffes far too often, misquotes the truth and continues to give a poor interview. What frusturates me is that this comes just when conservatism is poised to make a comeback. People have grown frusturaed and disenchanted with Barack Obama and the Democtatic Party. Just when it appears that pendulum is about to swing, Sarah Palin decides that it is a good time to attempt a run at office. People see her and, rightfully, laugh. Here's a woman that cannot speak, write, or even stand and stare, and yet who's ego has given her the notion that she deserves higher public office. Humanity is doomed.

We, the fiscal conservatives, have become the Democratic Party of 2002. We just can't seem to catch a break or do anything right. Damn you, Sarah Palin. :down:

Funny you should say disenchanted and frustrated with the Democratic party/Obama. It is time to strike for Sarah. Much the same at the end of Bush's term. Opportunity to do the most damage as it were. The Democrates did just that. BTW, Sarah said she is not running for office. She has said this repeatedly. Why would she when she makes millions doing basically nothing? It is the same as Al Gore. He has ZERO interest in being president. Why? He is making millions peddeling global warming. Why would these two want the headache of running the entire country from one chair in DC? As far as I can tell Sarah is just mixing up the crap and having a good time at it.

I'm still seeking the answer to why she is popular and this book has done well. Tribesman thinks it pornography. As much as many tried during the campaign to find a compromising picture of Sarah to plaster on the net all seemed to have failed. So what did the good media do instead? They went for her daughters throat. What is fueling this Palin storm?

[Skybird]

Back in the good old times I used to say that things cannot become worse than Bush, and that any president after him, no matter who, necessarily would not be able to avoid doing better.

Then Sarah Palin stepped onto the stage, proving me wrong.

If she makes it into the WH, then I am all for shutting down all cultural and diplomatic relations with North America and impose a quarantine around it, hoping the thought-virus making this disaster possible could be contained before infesting all the planet.

Maybe we could get Ronald Emmerich for telling her story. :D

[AVGWarhawk]

She said she is not running! So what is she doing and why are people paying for her to do it?

[AVGWarhawk]

She said she is not running! You can rest easy Skybird. Deep breaths!:D So what is she doing and why are people paying for her to do it?

[Skybird]

I believe it when the next two elections are over.

[AVGWarhawk]

I believe it when the next two elections are over.

I really do think she is of the mind she does not have a figthing chance. If I were in her high heels I would not run either. I would make a career out of rocking the boat. Rush Limbaugh, Beck, O'Reilly all do it. Anyway, perhaps in 2012 we will be dicussing this very matter. :hmmm:

[Takeda Shingen]

Funny you should say disenchanted and frustrated with the Democratic party/Obama. It is time to strike for Sarah. Much the same at the end of Bush's term. Opportunity to do the most damage as it were. The Democrates did just that. BTW, Sarah said she is not running for office. She has said this repeatedly. Why would she when she makes millions doing basically nothing? It is the same as Al Gore. He has ZERO interest in being president. Why? He is making millions peddeling global warming. Why would these two want the headache of running the entire country from one chair in DC? As far as I can tell Sarah is just mixing up the crap and having a good time at it.

I'm still seeking the answer to why she is popular and this book has done well. Tribesman thinks it pornography. As much as many tried during the campaign to find a compromising picture of Sarah to plaster on the net all seemed to have failed. So what did the good media do instead? They went for her daughters throat. What is fueling this Palin storm?

Many, many politicians say one thing only to turn around and do another. Ms. Palin said that one of the reasons for her leaving office was that she was tired of being in the limelight. So much for that, no?

The comparison with Al Gore does not match up as neatly for several reasons. First, Gore has already had a failed run for president, and a run that ended in, as you may recall, in a fair amount of controversy. Those that fail tend to have more difficulty running again and being sucessful. Nixon was the exception, not the rule. Also, Gore is nearly 20 years older than Palin. This gives her conserably longer political longevity than he.

Oh, and for the record, Palin repeatedly said that she was not thinking about the Presidency, not that she was not interested in the Presidency. That tends to be political code for 'I'll be running in the future'. She'll run; you can bank on it.

In terms of her book sales, I think that it is pretty simple: Palin is a figure without middle ground. You either love her or hate her. Accordingly, both her most rabid fans and most scathing critics will purchase her book. This will make for excellent sales. Personally, I will neither buy nor read her book, as I refuse to feed the monster.

[Tribesman]

I'm still seeking the answer to why she is popular and this book has done well.
Because she sells empty populist rhetoric, muppets lap it up which is why its called populist.
Tribesman thinks it pornography
:har: That line I used is an example of Palins brainless rhetoric, it is her talking about some photos in a pornographic magazine while giving a speech on abortion and health reform, though on her TV interview she described the porn as aspiring porn.

She said she is not running!
You actually believe what politicians say????????:rotfl2:

[AVGWarhawk]

You actually believe what politicians say????????:rotfl2:


In this particular instance, yes. After all, the book sports 'Rogue' in the title. This would indicate she has lost faith in the system. She did resign her govenorship. She is walking away from the establishment. And really, she can make millions on a book deal and talk shows. Why would she want to run a country for 4 years for far less then what she could make doing what she is now? I think we can find the same answer from Al Gore.