Why do people hate Sarah Palin so much?

Originally posted by undo
reply to post by Angus123

 

Define weak-minded, if you'd be so kind.
This should prove interesting.

Oh sweetie let's not upset you. I'm sure there's an Ernest Angeley rerun on somewhere that will reassure you I'm going to burn in hell.

Originally posted by CSIfan
reply to post by Thirty_Foot_Smurf

 

I'm so sorry, and I know the Palinites here will be angry with me,

but, out of all the politicians I have ever seen present themselves

(except for Dumya) that Palin is as Dumb as Dirt!

Sorry, but that's my opinion.

And, please stop comparing her to Obama--he is brilliant--she is dull
very dull. And she can't handle public office.

And, very importantly, she has never been POTUS, and she never
will be. That's just the way it is.

I didnt say they presented themselves as dumb so much as they were presented as dumb by the media. That became the mantra.

reply to post by Angus123


I don't believe hell is a fiery place in the sense that most people do. they associated the word "glowing" or "shining" with "fiery" during translation into english. in addition, the concept was originally derived from an amalgam of things. previous references to the sumerian underworld, were combined into a singular place that was originally thru a glowing, "watery" gate not fiery lake. translation problems, i think. in fact, i have my own views on scripture. you just keep making assumptions about me, most of which are inaccurate. why do you feel as if this is necessary? are you trying to humiliate me?

in addition, i wouldn't wish for you to be anywhere you don't want to be. so rather than suggesting i would, perhaps you should ask me first? might be a wise choice on your part.

reply to post by Ahabstar


I'll admit it she's a mystery to me. Do I think she's the right candidate to mop out our current domestic and international issues. I don't know. She really doesn't seem to have enough experience. But then again Biden is the last person I'd want talking to anyone internationally, I just dont trust his judgment. I'd send Hilliary before him easy. Its not that I question his intelligence but I question his judgment. And that is where she has me interested. Do I know enough about her true self based upon what I've read from credible sources to say that she has the proper judgment and temperance to make sane and sound decisions? I think so. Do I have a good feeling as to what her agenda is. I think so

So in my case it boils down to judgment. From what I've seen so far she has the capability to make sound decisions. I am not partisan, am not a Palinite as the term is now. I guess we need to name the monster so were not scared of it. I'm never looking for that one candidate that will usher in the age of Aquarius or Utopia. It's foolish. Do I hope someone greater will pop up ( as unlikely as it seems since everyone looks like they are just trying to save their political ass)? Absolutely! She seems to be the only one willing to get out there right now and mix it up.

I also think something isn't quite right about the movement behind her. Or better yet I don't think it is behind her squarley. Be it because she hasn't been fully embraced, or whether she is reluctant to embrace it fully. Either way I think they are dancing to a sightly different tune and I cant put my finger on it.

reply to post by undo


Wasn't my video so I did not title it. It was the first video that came up on a youtube search for Obama without teleprompter. Sure he was tired, more than likely where the 57 states comment came from. The superman origin was Obama being funny though and in response to Rush's Messiah references.

Originally posted by undo
reply to post by Angus123

 

I don't believe hell is a fiery place in the sense that most people do. they associated the word "glowing" or "shining" with "fiery" during translation into english. in addition, the concept was originally derived from an amalgam of things. previous references to the sumerian underworld, were combined into a singular place that was originally thru a glowing, "watery" gate not fiery lake. translation problems, i think. in fact, i have my own views on scripture. you just keep making assumptions about me, most of which are inaccurate. why do you feel as if this is necessary? are you trying to humiliate me?

in addition, i wouldn't wish for you to be anywhere you don't want to be. so rather than suggesting i would, perhaps you should ask me first? might be a wise choice on your part.

The general idea you should take away from all this is your ridiculous first post as well as your subsequent attempts to fix it have made it impossible for me to take you seriously. You began by trying to justify your statements by arguing in favor of making assumptions and now you're trying to tell me I shouldn't do the same.

Seriously... go away.

reply to post by Angus123


YOU came to this thread. Do you typically walk into a room of strangers, make inflammatory remarks about a subject as controversial as politics, and then tell any people who disagree with you, for WHATEVER reason, to "go away" ? What, is this YOUR forum? Am I at your door bugging you?

reply to post by Thirty_Foot_Smurf


Your post reminded me of a thread that I wrote 6 months ago. Note that there is no mention of Palin there. Sure there was Palin hate six months ago, but she doesn't fit anywhere in that timeline back to Nixon.

Both Palin and Obama represented one thing in 2008. A change from the same old distrust of government. Obama has earned his mistrust by letting down how people saw him. Sure he never said he was the end all be all, but he never corrected people that claimed it. Hence the "empty suit" moniker that was applied by those that were a little wiser than the youth and the politically inexperienced that voted him in.

I would hazard the guess that without Palin, McCain would have been more soundly defeated than just 7.26%

Originally posted by Ahabstar


I would hazard the guess that without Palin, McCain would have been more soundly defeated than just 7.26%

I wonder where Huckabee would've ran out of gas without Chuck Norris? Maybe that's a topic for another thread. Who would a candidate need to pick as a running mate to remain relevant in the long run.

I say Giuliani would need carrot top. Obviously Palin would need Stephen Hawking.

Originally posted by Ahabstar
reply to post by Thirty_Foot_Smurf

 

Your post reminded me of a thread that I wrote 6 months ago. Note that there is no mention of Palin there. Sure there was Palin hate six months ago, but she doesn't fit anywhere in that timeline back to Nixon.

Very very nice post. You laid it out pretty well.


[edit on 14-2-2010 by Thirty_Foot_Smurf]

Originally posted by undo
reply to post by Angus123

 

YOU came to this thread. Do you typically walk into a room of strangers, make inflammatory remarks about a subject as controversial as politics, and then tell any people who disagree with you, for WHATEVER reason, to "go away" ? What, is this YOUR forum? Am I at your door bugging you?

I think there's something wrong with your keyboard. Every time you type something it shows up on my monitor as "click click whistle, gibberish, nonsense, blah blah, juvenile logic, squeak squeak bark"

Not going to read the whole thread.

I do not hate anyone, including Palin, but the reason people like me will not support her is that she represents the anti-intellectual subculture of the U.S.

She is simply not intelligent enough to be a national leader.

Not that this has ever stopped anyone else.

Is there a relative point between back and forth personal jabs? Or has it become a point of personal honor? Oh wait, let me guess, you can not like someone that a person that you disagree with likes and you attack the one to get back at the other?

Almost makes as much sense as pitching horseshoes while playing croquet.

SIMPLE... the reason you read this and that about people hating her is SIMPLE... it isnt individual claims,.,, you are reading all the publicity mumbojumbo from the big archives of info... if I tell you eggs are bad for your health you tell me to stfu.. if CNN drops a report that eggs are bad for your health you will at least consider the info given... the source is the reason for belief... higher sources means more belief and more info is spread further from that... that is the key to your lock sir mam.

reply to post by Grumble


she doesn't represent the anti-intellectual subculture, any more than any other politician does. believe it or not, there are intellectuals from all political, religious and scientific viewpoints. review the history of women in political office. here, this should help

I don't feel that it is people hating her as much and they think that she is UNFIT to be president. Also, you have to admit that she brings most of the anger directed at her upon herself - if you shovel it you have to take it. You can't stand up there and claim to be holier than thou and not take the criticism when you are found out performing the same things you are criticizing. I think they call that - Hypocrisy.

reply to post by ShadoMan


problem is, literally everyone is a hypocrite at some level. if somebody decides to prove someone else is a hypocrite, they can. what happens then is there's a general concensus in separate groups, about who is allowed to be hypocritical and who is not. meanwhile, women just keep getting shut out on some of the most nit picky, exacting, sexist comments you can imagine. they are examined with a magnifying glass ten times more powerful and any flaw is exaggerated and blown up to outrageous proportions.

historically, the democratic party has been supportive of women's issues. but now i hear democrats saying things like "oh you're one of those feminists!" because i disapprove of the hatchet job done on ladies in the media and political arena. say what? in fact, i think political discourse, needs a revamp.

[edit on 15-2-2010 by undo]

Originally posted by Angus123

She talks smack about people using a teleprompter while she has notes written on her hand like a 5th grader.

Yeah, she talks a lot of smack and then whines when her mouth gets her into trouble.

The people who love her like that "smack talk". And then they say they are Christians. What a joke!

Anyway, I don't like that sort of talk from politicians--or news pundits. It's inflammatory and divisive. And coming from a politician, it's called a cheap shot, especially when she and her supporters get all defensive when someone calls her out on the nasty things she says (over and over).

When I look at her I can only pray that she does not get any political power in this country...we've been through enough of that Rove-type of open hatred in this country. Even in wartime, here we are at each other's throats!

For God's sake, she's a Journalism major--and not a very successful student from the reports that she flunked out of a few schools and actually attended 5 colleges before she could earn a degree--in Journalism, for God's sake. I guess she has always been a quitter who was also a bad actor.

Where were all these yelling people when Dumya was in office?

I have seen Alaska blogs where the Alaskans she once governed are extremely happy to see her go. I understand their feeling and I wonder
when she will just go away from the national stage.

Her prepackaged talking points are starting to bore many serious minded Americans who want to see our country move forward.

Originally posted by undo
reply to post by Angus123

 

YOU came to this thread. Do you typically walk into a room of strangers, make inflammatory remarks about a subject as controversial as politics, and then tell any people who disagree with you, for WHATEVER reason, to "go away" ? What, is this YOUR forum? Am I at your door bugging you?

He did

and then you put words in his mouth for him.

He didnt mention Christians, YOU did.

And his remarks were his opinion, which he is entitled to- I didnt see anything inflammatory about his OP

- someone just wants to argue by the looks.

reply to post by lifecitizen


perhaps you're right.
getting a little edgy in here.