The reason Palin is demonized, and you're not sure why you don't like her

[Jarod]

President Obama clearly mispoke when discussing the 57 states.

Palin had a conversation with Couric which illistrated that she knew nuthing about forign policy or American history!

 

[DamnYankee]

President Obama clearly mispoke[sic] when discussing the 57 states.

Palin had a conversation with Couric which illistrated[sic] that she knew nuthing[sic] about forign[sic] policy or American history!

How ironic.

 

[Minister of Truth]

President Obama clearly mispoke when discussing the 57 states.

Palin had a conversation with Couric which illistrated that she knew nuthing about forign policy or American history!

Obama was clearly thinking about the number of Islamic states in the world instead of United States in America. Oh, well, maybe he is a Muslim afterall.

 

[Taichiliberal]

Your blatant double standard.

I asked you for proof, you ignorant coward...not a repeat of your opinion.

If you can't provide quotes, facts, to prove your accusation, then that makes you a liar.

Put up or STFU.

 

[Taichiliberal]

Originally Posted by Taichiliberal
Oh look, our willfully ignorant neocon parrot cannot disprove or refute the facts presented. Or maybe he's just too much of a coward to admit error?

No matter, McClatchy knows a that bonafide newsman can also "blog".....here genius, FYI about the author of the material you dare not discuss at any length or depth

Sean Cockerham

Sean Cockerham writes about Alaska state politics. He's worked for the ADN in Anchorage and Juneau, covered the legislature for the Fairbanks Daily News-Miner, and covered Washington state politics for the Tacoma News Tribune. E-mail Sean at scockerham@adn.com

Again, it is an opinion piece that doesn't say what you claim it says. Nor does it dispute my argument.

Again, once faced with proof that the man is a journalist and not just some amateur blogger, you stubbornly repeat an accusation that does not stand up to the FACTS.

That's your problem, Southie...you're just too fucking stupid to realize that a printed, documented fact that you cannot disprove is not an "opinion"...no matter how many times you say it is.

You have no "argument", just an assinine adherence to being a stubborn neocon stooge.

 

[DamnYankee]

Again, once faced with proof that the man is a journalist and not just some amateur blogger, you stubbornly repeat an accusation that does not stand up to the FACTS.

That's your problem, Southie...you're just too fucking stupid to realize that a printed, documented fact that you cannot disprove is not an "opinion"...no matter how many times you say it is.

You have no "argument", just an assinine adherence to being a stubborn neocon stooge.

He's a journalist and what he wrote is printed; so what? It's still his opinion, and again does not dispute my facts.

That's your problem, Libby...you're just too fucking stupid to realize that.

 

[Taichiliberal]

Originally Posted by Taichiliberal
Oh look, our willfully ignorant neocon parrot cannot disprove or refute the facts presented. Or maybe he's just too much of a coward to admit error?

No matter, McClatchy knows a that bonafide newsman can also "blog".....here genius, FYI about the author of the material you dare not discuss at any length or depth

Sean Cockerham

Sean Cockerham writes about Alaska state politics. He's worked for the ADN in Anchorage and Juneau, covered the legislature for the Fairbanks Daily News-Miner, and covered Washington state politics for the Tacoma News Tribune. E-mail Sean at scockerham@adn.com

He's a journalist and what he wrote is printed; so what? It's still his opinion, and again does not dispute my facts.

That's your problem, Libby...you're just too fucking stupid to realize that.

What "facts" did you present? Because the recorded posts only shows YOUR SUPPOSITION AND CONJECTURE. The reality is that YOU cannot refute the FACTS that the journalist presents. As I said before, McClatchy knows a good journalist when it sees one.

Like all defeated neocons, you just lie about what is being presented...so anything that you don't like or can't refute becomes "opinion" to you. Yet we're suppose to readily accept your opinion as gospel truth. Can you say "double standard" boys and girls?

Once again, the recorded posts of the thread exposes you for the delusional and intellectually bankrupt neocon liar that you are.

 

[DamnYankee]

What "facts" did you present? Because the recorded posts only shows YOUR SUPPOSITION AND CONJECTURE. The reality is that YOU cannot refute the FACTS that the journalist presents. As I said before, McClatchy knows a good journalist when it sees one.

Like all defeated neocons, you just lie about what is being presented...so anything that you don't like or can't refute becomes "opinion" to you. Yet we're suppose to readily accept your opinion as gospel truth. Can you say "double standard" boys and girls?

Once again, the recorded posts of the thread exposes you for the delusional and intellectually bankrupt neocon liar that you are.

I'm beginning to wonder if you can read. Just in case, I've made the link from my fact filled post from three days ago larger for you.

I'll take that as a "no". As such, you can't comprehend the time and treasure involved to fight a lawsuit. I assure you, and anyone who has been sued will confirm, that the efforts consume much of both.

And no, the State of Alaska has no obligation to provide legal protection against the suits that were filed.

Knowing this, her detractors filed ten lawsuits against her, and each one required significant resources, regardless of merit. Her total legal fees exceeded $500,000, well in excess of her family's life savings, and the time involved seriously affected her ability to perform her duties as governor.

This is all documented by the AP here.

Her only recourse was to step down and make some cash to pay the expenses. Every legal challenge against her has now been shown to be without merit, and her book has been a wild success.

So back to my point, Palin's detractors manufactured her "quitting", and now folks like you, willfully oblivious to the facts, parrot that by quitting she is unqualified to hold an elected position.

 

[Taichiliberal]

I'm beginning to wonder if you can read. Just in case, I've made the link from my fact filled post from three days ago larger for you.

Originally Posted by Southern Man
I'll take that as a "no". As such, you can't comprehend the time and treasure involved to fight a lawsuit. I assure you, and anyone who has been sued will confirm, that the efforts consume much of both.

And no, the State of Alaska has no obligation to provide legal protection against the suits that were filed.

Knowing this, her detractors filed ten lawsuits against her, and each one required significant resources, regardless of merit. Her total legal fees exceeded $500,000, well in excess of her family's life savings, and the time involved seriously affected her ability to perform her duties as governor.

This is all documented by the AP here.

Her only recourse was to step down and make some cash to pay the expenses. Every legal challenge against her has now been shown to be without merit, and her book has been a wild success.

So back to my point, Palin's detractors manufactured her "quitting", and now folks like you, willfully oblivious to the facts, parrot that by quitting she is unqualified to hold an elected position.

And here's the little FACT that I posted earlier for YOU that blows that article to shreds:

There's some double counting and other problems with a spreadsheet outlining $1.9 million in state costs for ethics complaints, public records requests and lawsuits directed at Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin.

The administrative director in the governor's office, Linda Perez, conceded that some costs were counted twice and said "the total cost is overstated by $26,849." She said she missed that the Department of Law's updated numbers included costs that were already counted.

"It was my error . . . mea culpa," said Perez, who has worked for governors of both parties since the 1980s.


http://www.mcclatchydc.com/310/story/71675.html

Not opinion, bunky...FACT. The article you presented was countered. Deal with it.

 

[signalmankenneth]

Winners never quit, and quitters never win!

 

[DamnYankee]

And here's the little FACT that I posted earlier for YOU that blows that article to shreds:

There's some double counting and other problems with a spreadsheet outlining $1.9 million in state costs for ethics complaints, public records requests and lawsuits directed at Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin.

The administrative director in the governor's office, Linda Perez, conceded that some costs were counted twice and said "the total cost is overstated by $26,849." She said she missed that the Department of Law's updated numbers included costs that were already counted.

"It was my error . . . mea culpa," said Perez, who has worked for governors of both parties since the 1980s.


http://www.mcclatchydc.com/310/story/71675.html

Not opinion, bunky...FACT. The article you presented was countered. Deal with it.

Wow so the bookkeeper made a 1.4% error that she later corrected. How does that prove your point?

Per usual, your links don't prove what you claim that they prove.

 

[Taichiliberal]

Originally Posted by Taichiliberal
And here's the little FACT that I posted earlier for YOU that blows that article to shreds:

There's some double counting and other problems with a spreadsheet outlining $1.9 million in state costs for ethics complaints, public records requests and lawsuits directed at Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin.

The administrative director in the governor's office, Linda Perez, conceded that some costs were counted twice and said "the total cost is overstated by $26,849." She said she missed that the Department of Law's updated numbers included costs that were already counted.

"It was my error . . . mea culpa," said Perez, who has worked for governors of both parties since the 1980s.


http://www.mcclatchydc.com/310/story/71675.html

Not opinion, bunky...FACT. The article you presented was countered. Deal with it.

Wow so the bookkeeper made a 1.4% error that she later corrected. How does that prove your point?

Per usual, your links don't prove what you claim that they prove.

As the chronology of the posts shows, YOU weren't aware of or were in denial of the FACTS regarding Palin's dubious legal claims. As the article shows, the "book keeper" as you erroneously labled her, was STILL investigating as to just how much error was entailed...so as usual, your conclusion is premature. And here's another tidbit as to why little Sarah's claims are so suspicious:

http://palingates.blogspot.com/2009/07/looking-at-arah-palins-legal-fund-from.html

Bottom line: the majority of politicians lie or hedge the truth to one degree or another. Little Sarah just wasn't very good at it. And since there is factual information that is available to contradict your article, you trying to excuse or deny such is just pure folly on your part.

 

[DamnYankee]

As the chronology of the posts shows, YOU weren't aware of or were in denial of the FACTS regarding Palin's dubious legal claims. As the article shows, the "book keeper" as you erroneously labled her, was STILL investigating as to just how much error was entailed...so as usual, your conclusion is premature. And here's another tidbit as to why little Sarah's claims are so suspicious:

http://palingates.blogspot.com/2009/07/looking-at-arah-palins-legal-fund-from.html

Bottom line: the majority of politicians lie or hedge the truth to one degree or another. Little Sarah just wasn't very good at it. And since there is factual information that is available to contradict your article, you trying to excuse or deny such is just pure folly on your part.

The fact is, Libby, That Palin had 10 lawsuits that she was defending with her own resources. Those were generated by her detractors for the purpose of clogging her schedule and financially bankrupting her. She did the prudent thing by resigning and making some money to keep her family financially stable. And of course, all ten suits were dismissed as the bullshit that they were.

 

[Taichiliberal]

Originally Posted by Taichiliberal
As the chronology of the posts shows, YOU weren't aware of or were in denial of the FACTS regarding Palin's dubious legal claims. As the article shows, the "book keeper" as you erroneously labled her, was STILL investigating as to just how much error was entailed...so as usual, your conclusion is premature. And here's another tidbit as to why little Sarah's claims are so suspicious:

http://palingates.blogspot.com/2009/...fund-from.html

Bottom line: the majority of politicians lie or hedge the truth to one degree or another. Little Sarah just wasn't very good at it. And since there is factual information that is available to contradict your article, you trying to excuse or deny such is just pure folly on your part.

The fact is, Libby, That Palin had 10 lawsuits that she was defending with her own resources. Those were generated by her detractors for the purpose of clogging her schedule and financially bankrupting her. She did the prudent thing by resigning and making some money to keep her family financially stable. And of course, all ten suits were dismissed as the bullshit that they were.

We already did this dance, Southie.......repeating yourself ad nauseum and adding on more supposition and conjecture won't change the contrary FACTS that make yours and Palins claims dubious at best, malarky at worst. The chronology of the post bares me out on this....so your willful ignorance combined with your insipid stubborness is irrelevent. Have the last word...but you can't erase facts that prove you wrong...just deny them. Carry on.

 

[DamnYankee]

We already did this dance, Southie.........

Yes, and you failed the first time. I'm trying to be fair and give you another swing.

 

[Taichiliberal]

Yes, and you failed the first time. I'm trying to be fair and give you another swing.

Just Plain Politics! - View Single Post - The reason Palin is demonized, and you're not sure why you don't like her

Now you're just stubbornly lying. I'm done with you here...you may have the last predictable, useless word.

 

[DamnYankee]

Just Plain Politics! - View Single Post - The reason Palin is demonized, and you're not sure why you don't like her

Now you're just stubbornly lying. I'm done with you here...you may have the last predictable, useless word.

How ironic, since your link doesn't prove what you claim. Yet again.

 

[Ashes of a Global Pariah]

When ever I run into a no talent liberal that does not like Palin, they can never tell me exactly why with any substance.

I don't like her policies. I don't like the fact that she tried right off the bat to appeal to Hillary Clinton supporters, assuming that they were interested in gender politics rather than Clinton's ideas. I don't like the fact that she stands against abortions and sexual education in public schools despite her daughter's sexual promiscuity that shows what could happen to all of our children without that education. I don't appreciate the fact that she's now on Fox News and the audacity of that ex-sports reporter claiming Fox News is "fair and balanced," which not only amounts to shitting on her old credentials but also is just her way of saying she appreciates the softballs Hannity and O'Riely have been giving her all this time until they gave her a job. I don't like the fact that she resigned her governorship in order to take that job.

If that isn't substantive enough, I got all day to give other examples.

Most of them say--She is stupid or not ready after uber progressive Currik and Charlie "the principal" Wilson offensive interviews.

You forget she's an ex-journalist. If she was able to dish out questions then damnit if she can't field them.

Thos interviews and Sat night live seem to be all they really know about her---after 13 or so ethics charges all were found false.

That's just 13 of about a thousand other issues I have with her.

They don't know why Sarah Palin had the biggest approval rating of any state in the union--if they know that fact.

Alaska. Population: 663,200, approximately, and heavily Republican. And back in the 90s, mayor Marion Barry of Washington D.C., with slightly more people than that, is also overwhelmingly popular, and that guy has a publicly known crack addiction before he was re-elected in 1995, but if popularity matters to you when it comes to a politician's character, then I guess there's no arguing it any further with you.

They don't know she tore down a fat cat Republican that was corrupt---from her own party--and she left as a Independant. Have you ever seen anybody tear down corruption from the inside (not exposed to the public before tearing down the corruption) in their own party?

Yeah, she did. Good for her. Now how does this make her vice-presidential material? This happens more often than you think in local politics, it's just that many of the people responsible for exposing this kind of thing don't get any media recognition.

That is a good trait---since corruption is a huge problem in both parties (not that you fine core valued progressive folks would recognize corruption).

Drivel.

They don't know that she put together a cracker jack team to build a gas pipe line---until the EPA and others blocked the construction with a obstickle course. Most would not know why she was very successful in Alaska, unless they actually lives there and experienced her representation of them.

... I don't care.

OK--that is the majority of the people (and many here) that do not like her.

Why does most of the media, the Dem party and the elites in the Rep party not like her?

The reason is simple--but not taught in your university. She is not part of the progrerssive/Washington elite. They know she can not be bought off (unless she makes one mistake--she will not make it again), and that she does not share their progressive worldy views of a world of cheap labor and little opportuity for the unwashed working class--the people who built the USA--and can do it again if not leashed.

They know she has the ability to excite a lot of people--the min McShame picked her, and it only took minutes after her excellent acceptance speech to find things to elaborate on---or lie about--to try to destroy her ASAP.

I hate to break this to you but her acceptance speech was what is commonly referred to as "red meat." She basically took what any talk radio pundit would say and gave it some slight polish. Was it a bad speech? No, not if you're trying to appeal to the talk radio circuit, and that she did, the ratings went up, she became a hero to people like you and that was probably a wise approach given the fact that she and McCain's campaign had virtually nothing to lose given the overall political climate, which frankly was VERY HEAVILY favoring anyone with a D at the end of his or her name. To anyone left of OMFG-everyone-is-a-socialist-Marxist-pig ultra-right, though, she came off as Rush Limbaugh with tits, who said "you betcha" to the point of nausea.

It did not work. There are too many people that are wise enough to give a real citizen with a excellent track record who represent the people who vote for her like no other--a shot of leadership. These people are smart enough to know that Palin is not a wild spender of our money, as she actually bought her clothes at the same stores anybody else in Alaska went to. These people are smart enough to realize that the progressive media was very desperate to make the clothes the GOP bought her (which I think went to charity) was needed---because this tough American lady, who will win at anything she does---simply did not have a wardrobe for a suprise national campaign.

You guys can stick with the over spenders of your money, the people who want to force you to buy health care--or go to jailwhile the people you support have much better health care--on your bill-- the people who you can't trust--if there is enough of your kids money offered to them as a bribe, the people who say one thing to you--and do another, because they have no integrity, the people who probably druged up or drunk in Congress making decisions that effect the rest of your life.

No thanks--Palin has my vote anytime she asks for it. And she is as tough as John Wayne and Clint Eastwood together---yea---if you want to communize the USA--you better be scared--and you are. You just don't know how Palin is going to paly the game---do you? She will not play your game--so you have to guess, which looks a lot more desperate--since she is just a private citizen now---who sold a shit load of books.

I think McCain is a progressive dope (to a lesser degree than say--Sol Alinski or obama)--

McCain is progressive? Yep.

but he did the USA a huge favor when he putPalin in the spot light. She just needs a bit more confidance so she does not choke during tough questions (which obama never got--they had a list of what not to talk about)---then--she will help a great deal to try to preserve the fundamentals of the best nation in the world. That is the USA--if you did not know.

Well you clearly have been, shall I say, won-over. If you're looking to vote her in somewhere though, can you tell me how many Fox News Contributors went back on the campaign trail since they took their jobs there? Shame, really. She would have revived Obama's campaign with her entry.

 

[Kamala Trump]

Ashes. You still gave no specifics. Not really. Just more unwarranted palin bashing.

Why does she scare you so much?

 

[Ashes of a Global Pariah]

Ashes. You still gave no specifics. Not really. Just more unwarranted palin bashing.

Why does she scare you so much?

That entire first paragraph had plenty of specifics. If that doesn't qualify for you and you can't address any of that then I can tell the Palin Kool-Aid Katheter (c) in your right arm is in good working order, and answering your question wouldn't be worth my time.