Join In On The Action "Register Here" To View The Forums

Already a Member Login Here

Board index Forum Index
User avatar
Dignitary
 
Posts: 3239
Joined: 29 Jan 2003, 9:54 am

Post 13 Jun 2011, 10:56 am

rickyp wrote:Really Tom? You'd like to go back through the vaults and review all the Palinisms to se which ones were taken out of context and which ones are "free range". The reason the majority of Americans have a negative opinion of Palin is that they've been exposed to the unvarnished (and unedited) Palin repeatedly...

Q: Brandon Garcia wants to know, “What does the Vice President do?”

PALIN: That’s something that Piper would ask me! … [T]hey’re in charge of the U.S. Senate so if they want to they can really get in there with the senators and make a lot of good policy changes that will make life better for Brandon and his family and his classroom


Uhm.....Isn't this very similar to what Joe Biden said during the Presidential debates....... As a matter of fact isn't it what Joe Biden is doing right now in mediating budget meetings in the Senate?

Please elucidate Ricky. How is the answer wrong?
User avatar
Administrator
 
Posts: 11284
Joined: 14 Feb 2000, 8:40 am

Post 13 Jun 2011, 11:51 am

It isn't quite 100% correct, it was oversimplified for children, that's apparently how it's wrong.

as far as media frenzy, Danivon himself already said there was no constant media attention like their is now way back when, so he himself already has agreed nobody has compared to Palin. Palin also is not President, has not declared to be running for office, in fact even dropped out of the Alaskan Governorship and STILL she faces media attention like no others have. I would love to see your example of how bad it was as compared to Palin, one can state it's equal, yet we all know there was no 24 hour media coverage 100 years ago, there was no internet blogosphere, there was no TV and no Entertainment tonight or Saturday Night Live or John Stewart. Nope, criticism from newspapers and some political cartoons that reached a far less percentage of populace just doesn't stack up to the Palin nonsense, not even close.
User avatar
Administrator
 
Posts: 11284
Joined: 14 Feb 2000, 8:40 am

Post 13 Jun 2011, 11:59 am

To claim "facts" like that are a bit of a stretch. Yes there was a lot of vitriol and many papers picked up on it as well:
Before the advent of electronic media, Thomas Jefferson waged his 1800 campaign for President against John Adams with the help of widely distributed pamphlets and the support of sympathetic newspapers. In 1828, candidates Andrew Jackson and John Quincy Adams lambasted one another in pamphlets, often with personal attacks.

again, 24 hour news, blogs, tv, etc....
Not the same thing, not even close.
maybe in comparison for their time, this could be an equivalent? But that would be like comparing Aspirin to Oxycoton, in it's time aspirin was effective as could be but when compared to painkillers of today, it's not the same thing now is it?
User avatar
Ambassador
 
Posts: 15994
Joined: 15 Apr 2004, 6:29 am

Post 13 Jun 2011, 12:40 pm

Aspirin is still a very good painkiller. Nowhere near as addictive as Oxycontin either. Also, aspirin has a load of other health benefits. In it's day, though, aspirin was still not as good as morphine. Morphine is still pretty one of the best painkillers there are. But there are reasons why it's not freely available, or even a prescription drug.

It's a valid comparison though - if a fair proportion of the media of the day was devoted to attacking a politician for quite some time. I guess the point is that in another 10 years (or 50, or 100) we'll have people complaining that Zuckerberg gets' all the flak and comparisons with Palin back in the day are stupid...
User avatar
Statesman
 
Posts: 11324
Joined: 15 Aug 2000, 8:59 am

Post 13 Jun 2011, 1:01 pm

archduke
Please elucidate Ricky. How is the answer wrong?

The vice president doesn't "run the senate" does he/she?
As President of the Senate (Article I, Section 3, Clause 4), the Vice President oversees procedural matters (rarely occurs in fact) and may cast a tie-breaking vote. There is a strong convention within the U.S. Senate that the Vice President not use his position as President of the Senate to influence the passage of legislation or act in a partisan manner, except in the case of breaking tie votes.
That the Vice President has been assigned executive duties by Presidents is a fairly modern ocurrence. That Palin was confused there is little doubt.
User avatar
Administrator
 
Posts: 11284
Joined: 14 Feb 2000, 8:40 am

Post 13 Jun 2011, 1:12 pm

Was she confused or was she speaking to children and oversimplifying for their sake.
Or should she have addressed the youngsters with "(Article I, Section 3, Clause 4), the Vice President oversees procedural matters...."
Yeah, ok

I happen to understand she was speaking to children, I happen to appreciate her oversimplifying for their benefit, you wish to read into things and tear her apart, oh wait, YOU are not tearing her apart for this, you are simply buying into what your left leaning, media biased, Sara Palin haters are telling you. Just as posted before, some people only know her position from the limited soundbites they get. You are doing no real thinking of your own since it is so obvious SHE WAS TALKING TO KIDS! Her position was not 100% factual but was close enough to have them understand and that my friend is good communication is it not?
User avatar
Ambassador
 
Posts: 21062
Joined: 15 Jun 2002, 6:53 am

Post 13 Jun 2011, 2:22 pm

GMTom wrote:SHE WAS TALKING TO KIDS! Her position was not 100% factual but was close enough to have them understand and that my friend is good communication is it not?


You don't get it, Tom. For a liberal, context only matters when a liberal is speaking. In those cases, any refutation of a liberal's statement (such as facts completely refuting their thesis) means the liberal's words were "taken out of context."

Does that help?
User avatar
Dignitary
 
Posts: 3239
Joined: 29 Jan 2003, 9:54 am

Post 13 Jun 2011, 4:59 pm

rickyp wrote:The vice president doesn't "run the senate" does he/she?
As President of the Senate (Article I, Section 3, Clause 4), the Vice President oversees procedural matters (rarely occurs in fact) and may cast a tie-breaking vote.


Well technically it says he presides over the Senate. So explain that to a child.

rickyp wrote:That the Vice President has been assigned executive duties by Presidents is a fairly modern ocurrence.


True but explain that to a child

Further, since Sarah Palin is a modern politician talking to children, couldn't it be correct that she was discussing the modern impact of a Vice President to a group of childern and not the legal description of the office.


rickyp wrote:That Palin was confused there is little doubt.

Only to those with a particular hate for Palin.
User avatar
Ambassador
 
Posts: 4966
Joined: 08 Jun 2000, 10:26 am

Post 14 Jun 2011, 6:45 am

I wonder how the press will treat Ms. Bachmann. She is every bit as conservative as Ms. Palin, and every bit as attractive (or more so). But she is a very bright woman and more professional than Ms. Palin. If she is treated more fairly by the MSM it would suggest that it is Ms. Palin's style that is the issue. If she is treated unfairly, we can attribute it to sexism against attractive women or unfair bias against the right wing by the MSM. I'm guessing all of the above.
User avatar
Ambassador
 
Posts: 21062
Joined: 15 Jun 2002, 6:53 am

Post 14 Jun 2011, 8:32 am

Ray Jay wrote:I wonder how the press will treat Ms. Bachmann. She is every bit as conservative as Ms. Palin, and every bit as attractive (or more so). But she is a very bright woman and more professional than Ms. Palin. If she is treated more fairly by the MSM it would suggest that it is Ms. Palin's style that is the issue. If she is treated unfairly, we can attribute it to sexism against attractive women or unfair bias against the right wing by the MSM. I'm guessing all of the above.


I can tell you how, based on how very intelligent liberals I am FB friends with (and friends in RL) treat her. She is "a moron." She has said some things that are incorrect. She has said some things that are debatable. Therefore, she is, as are all conservatives how reach a certain level of power, "dumb."

What liberals won't focus on is the foster-parenting she's done. The fact that she's tax attorney and a successful small business owner won't come up.

Google her. She is "bat *bleep* crazy." Huffpo lists the "craziest" things she's said. Watch how she is denigrated on MSNBC. See how she is marginalized by the MSM. After all, she gave a third "State of the Union" speech, so obviously she is "out of the mainstream."

If she catches an updraft during this primary process, like if she wins Iowa, watch how it all intensifies. She will become the "craziest woman in American history."

That is how liberals and the MSM (a subset of "liberals") treat conservatives, especially those who "should" be liberals--like women and minorities.
User avatar
Administrator
 
Posts: 11284
Joined: 14 Feb 2000, 8:40 am

Post 14 Jun 2011, 8:58 am

Not that it matters but Both are attractive women but I think Palin is a bit better looking. But why does looks even come into play? Yet it has for a long while, think back to how Kennedy won based on a large part due to his looks. He used (gasp) makeup on TV when Nixon did not. Many women I speak to think Obama is a good looking man as do many think Romney is as well. First wives are constantly paraded around as eye candy (I liked how Barbara Bush avoided that and maintained a matronly appearance in all ways) We can't avoid it, we like "pretty" people, sad sad sad (but true)
User avatar
Ambassador
 
Posts: 21062
Joined: 15 Jun 2002, 6:53 am

Post 14 Jun 2011, 3:31 pm

I think Stewart nails it.
User avatar
Ambassador
 
Posts: 4966
Joined: 08 Jun 2000, 10:26 am

Post 14 Jun 2011, 5:20 pm

Not that it matters but Both are attractive women but I think Palin is a bit better looking.


Now that's just crazy talk.
User avatar
Ambassador
 
Posts: 15994
Joined: 15 Apr 2004, 6:29 am

Post 15 Jun 2011, 1:00 am

Aye. Bachmann is better looking.

Personally, I think both should be opposed based on their policies, not their personality (or their cuteness)
User avatar
Ambassador
 
Posts: 21062
Joined: 15 Jun 2002, 6:53 am

Post 15 Jun 2011, 9:36 am

danivon wrote:Aye. Bachmann is better looking.

Personally, I think both should be opposed based on their policies, not their personality (or their cuteness)


A fully rational position.

However, this is not what has happened with either. And, the longer Bachmann is in the race, the more this will become evident.

Did you watch that Jon Stewart video? He really did nail it. There are a lot of important things happening right now in the US, and the press gives them minimal coverage. On some items, I think it is because they are uncomfortably embarrassing for the President.

For example, remember all the hubbub about guns in Mexico coming from the US and why we needed to tighten up our gun laws to prevent it?

Yeah, or the Obama/Holder Justice Department was pulling a "sting" in which guns were transported to Mexico, sold to criminals, and then turned on US agents. It's really pretty sick:

Malkin quoting the LA Times:

Federal gun agents in Arizona — convinced that “someone was going to die” when their agency allowed weapons sales to suspected Mexican drug traffickers — made anguished pleas to be permitted to make arrests but were rebuffed, according to a new congressional report on the controversial law enforcement probe.

Agents from the federal Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives told congressional investigators that there was “a state of panic” that the guns used in the shooting of U.S. Rep. Gabrielle Giffords in Tucson in January and two U.S. agents in Mexico a month later might have been sold under the U.S. surveillance operation.

“I used the word anxiety. The term I used amongst my peers is pucker factor,” Larry Alt, special agent with ATF’s Phoenix field division, told investigators preparing a joint staff report for Rep. Darrell Issa (R-Vista), chairman of the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, and Sen. Charles E. Grassley (R-Iowa), ranking member of the Senate Judiciary Committee. The report will be released Wednesday in Washington, D.C.

Neither of those shootings was ultimately linked to the “Fast and Furious” probe, though two weapons sold to a suspect under surveillance were found at the scene of the fatal shooting of Border Patrol Agent Brian Terry near Nogales, Ariz., in December.

Terry’s family will be among the key witnesses at an oversight committee hearing Wednesday on the ATF operation, under which the bureau allowed purchases of high-powered weapons in an attempt to track their progress into the hands of Mexican drug cartels. According to the report and numerous interviews with The Times, several ATF agents regarded the operation as dangerous and misguided…


So, you might say, "Well, looks like they're looking into it."

Really? Where have they been? Where's the outrage on ABC, NBC, CBS, CNN?

The government sold guns to gangsters and then tried to cover it up, after trying to blame gun laws here? To solve the violence, the US government sold guns to the bad guys?

Brilliant.

Read the article--check out the link:

Democrat Senators Dianne Feinstein, Sheldon Whitehouse and Charles Schumer – the latter whose one-time protégé Anthony Weiner has been making so much news lately on a different subject – issued a report that essentially accuses U.S. gun manufacturers and dealers of arming Mexican drug cartels. They got some timely help from Mexican President Felipe Calderon, and American gun owners are furious.

“I accuse the U.S. weapons industry of (responsibility for) the deaths of thousands of people that are occurring in Mexico. It is for profit, for the profits that it makes for the weapons industry.”—President Filipe Calderon, Mexico


The Feinstein-Schumer-Whitehouse (FSW) report offers the following remedies to Mexico’s violent drug wars:

Conclusions of the report:

It will be very difficult to successfully reduce drug-related violence in Mexico without starving the country’s drug trafficking organizations of their military-style weapons.

To do this, the United States must strengthen current firearms laws and regulations. This can be done through a number of key actions by the Obama Administration and Congress, including:

Enactment of legislation to close the gun show loophole;
Better enforcement of the existing ban on imports of military-style weapons;
Reinstatement of the expired Assault Weapons Ban;
Reporting by Federal Firearms Licensees on all multiple firearms sales; and
Senate ratification of the Inter-American Convention Against the Illicit Manufacturing of and Trafficking of Firearms, Ammunition, Explosives and Other Related Materials (CIFTA).


There are so many things the press should be investigating. Palin's emails? Not so much.