jump to last post 1-12 of 12 discussions (61 posts)

OMG...was Palin right??

  1. habee profile image90
    habeeposted 5 years ago

    Do I have egg on my face? Read this - not from a conservative media outlet. It's from NPR.

    http://www.npr.org/2011/06/06/137011636 … aul-revere

    1. profile image70
      logic,commonsenseposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      Unfortunately, too many people do not know the reality about our history.  They have been brainwashed by school textbooks that gloss over the facts.  Lots of what has happened from the birth of our country until this very moment in time is not as pretty as we have been led to believe.
      It is fascinating to dig into the realities and get the real dirt on out past.

    2. Jo_Goldsmith11 profile image60
      Jo_Goldsmith11posted 5 years ago in reply to this

      I don't know about Palin. I listened to the audio link of the NPR. Yes, I suppose it was an "off the cuff" remark. And the professor did make some interesting points. Palin is definitely a “lightening rod”. I can’t seem to get past hearing her voice and comments. I cringe every time she makes the news. She really needs to educate herself and prove that she will not bail out of her post the way she did as Governor of Alaska. I don’t even want to think about what kind of damage she would cause if she was voted in as President. I remember her comment about “seeing Russia from her backyard”. I will force myself to watch the debate that she will appear in soon with some of the others who are running. I think she needs to stick at what she is good at. Being a mom and wife!

      1. habee profile image90
        habeeposted 5 years ago in reply to this

        In all fairness, Palin didn't say she could see Russia from her back yard. She said it's possible to see Russia from Alaska, and you can see a portion of Russia from Alaska. Still, it was a dumb response to the question asked.

        I don't think Palin is smarter than she appears, although I do believe that about W. Palin is cunning, though. She came from being pretty much a nobody to being in the media spotlight all the time and bringing in the big $$$. What I dislike most about her is her closed-mindedness. It's her way or the highway. I do think sometimes, however, that she's been treated unfairly by the MSM. I take up for people when that happens, whether I agree with them or not. If you recall, I've defended Obama, the FLOTUS, and others when that's happened.

        I don't want Palin to run for POTUS. Most Americans see the economy as our biggest problem, so we need someone with a lot of business experience. Palin would be a disaster.

      2. uncorrectedvision profile image60
        uncorrectedvisionposted 5 years ago in reply to this

        "seeing Russia from my back yard" was a line spoken by Tina Fey portraying Sarah Palin on Saturday Night Live.  It is incumbent upon each of us to educate ourselves before offering an ill considered opinion.

    3. uncorrectedvision profile image60
      uncorrectedvisionposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      People underestimate Sarah Palin at their peril.  Though not as grounded in experience as Ronald Reagan, who had spent decades writing, speaking and thinking about America, she is nonetheless, not a fool or an idiot.  The mistake is to take a folksy idiom as a sign of idiocy.  I can tell you as a well educated man is an agricultural state that you never underestimate people of simple speech.

      It is easy to conceal a shallow mind behind a complex vocabulary and a haughty attitude, just examine the ideas and opinions of Joe Biden or John Kerry.  Although many claim genius for Barry, I am a skeptic about that word.  History proves the genius not the contemporary political climate.  In fact, I question that he is in the top ten of intellectual presidents, at all.  If one watches a Barry teleprompter speech it is like watching a neophyte at the US Open.

  2. Evan G Rogers profile image81
    Evan G Rogersposted 5 years ago

    Any time the British were doing anything to the colonists, it was likely about guns.

    I still stand by my remarks that she's an idiot.

  3. profile image0
    Motown2Chitownposted 5 years ago

    I'm starting to wonder if she's smarter than we give her credit for and is just incredibly inarticulate.  That happens sometimes.  Pretty much like she knows her stuff, but doesn't speak well enough for that to really come through, you know?  Hmmm.  It is food for thought. Interesting post habee.

    1. Anolinde profile image88
      Anolindeposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      Wow .. I think you're brave for saying this!  I don't think that she's all that inarticulate, though.  I mean she gives long speeches all the time without a teleprompter and I've never heard her speak with any more "ums" or "uhs" than a normal person does.  Her sentence structures can be jumbled up sometimes, but I don't know of anyone (politician or not) who doesn't do that sometimes.  The only "problem" with Palin is that anything she says gets scrutinized and any gaffes, no matter how minute, get blown up out of proportions because many people seem to take immense pleasure in deriding and ridiculing her.

      1. lovemychris profile image79
        lovemychrisposted 5 years ago in reply to this

        "people seem to take immense pleasure in deriding and ridiculing her."

        Actually, it's because of the pleasure SHE takes in ridiculing and deriding others that I have a problem with her. She is one NASTY person.
        Also, her "real" Americans comments....as if the rest of us can suck dirt.

        She is one of the most snobby, snide, stuck-up politicians to come along in a long while, IMO....and THAT is why she deserves to take what she dishes out.

        1. profile image70
          logic,commonsenseposted 5 years ago in reply to this

          What has she said that is "nasty"?  Anything that wasn't the truth?
          And Weiner isn't worse?  He is far more arrogant and elitist than Palin on her worst day!

          1. lovemychris profile image79
            lovemychrisposted 5 years ago in reply to this

            She won't speak for less than $100,000.
            Far as I know, Weiner speaks for free.

            She had the citizens of Alaska buying fancy clothes and airline tickets for her and her whole family....

            But she's not elitist....uh huh. Tell me another one gramma.

            1. profile image70
              logic,commonsenseposted 5 years ago in reply to this

              First of all, I am not your gramma.  If I was, you'd have a lot better manners and a lot less vitriol.
              Second, if someone was stupid enough to give you a $100,000 for a speech, you'd do it in a New York minute and tell them whatever they wanted to hear.  Which is what Palin does.  Weiner lies for free.  Bet you money, he'll go on the speech circuit and take the suckers for all they have ala Clinton and Edwards.  Speaking of which how much of a snake in the grass do you have to be to take money from a 99 year old woman to give to your mistress?  Especially when you have tens of millions of your own.

              1. lovemychris profile image79
                lovemychrisposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                "If I was, you'd have a lot better manners and a lot less vitriol."

                Maybe you could be Palin's gramma then...she could use some manners and less vitriol herself.
                But HER vitriol is great patriotism!!! Classic double-standard. I hate, but she's a patriot. Blech....go tell it to CPAC...they LOVE all the criminal Rethugs.

                1. profile image70
                  logic,commonsenseposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                  You do hate.  It is blatant in every post you make.  You cannot comment on anything without your extreme hatred coming through.
                  To you every Republican is a criminal or worse, every conservative, a madman or worse.  Not all conservatives are bad and not all liberals are good, but you'll never see that because you do not want to.
                  You are consumed by your hatred.  Don't know the root cause of it and really don't care.  Feel sorry for you that your life is so consumed by extreme hatred.

                  1. lovemychris profile image79
                    lovemychrisposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                    Thank you Sigmund Freud.

        2. Disturbia profile image61
          Disturbiaposted 5 years ago in reply to this

          I'm not the world's biggest Sarah Palin fan but on exactly what do you base your opinion that she's nasty, snobby, snide and stuck-up.  If anything her problem is the exact opposite.  She's too far down to earth and honest about her feelings and opinions.

          1. Mighty Mom profile image91
            Mighty Momposted 5 years ago in reply to this

            Read her books. Then you will see.

          2. lovemychris profile image79
            lovemychrisposted 5 years ago in reply to this

            Because I watch her speeches.
            She is snide about anyone not just like her, stuck-up in thinking only her audience are "real" Americans, and nasty as all hell about my president.

            Her audience walks away calling him a terrorist, a muslim, one even shouted "kill him!"...allegedly.

            She promotes "my way or the highway" politics, hate and anger, and has an "you are not as good as me" attitude.

            IMO

            1. profile image70
              logic,commonsenseposted 5 years ago in reply to this

              You are so hilarious!  If you read what you write, you'd see that you are attacking Palin in the same manner as you accuse her of attacking Obama!  Apparently in your mind it's okay if they are Republican but not if they are a Democrat?

      2. profile image0
        Motown2Chitownposted 5 years ago in reply to this

        Anolinde, that's the other thing.  I think people WANT her to mess up, and scrutinize every little thing she says and how she says it.  I have always been frustrated listening to her because she has a tendency to come off as...well...sort of dumb.  But, I'm starting to be a little more open minded about her now, I think, and I don't know if she is that dumb.

        Thanks for acknowledging my bravery...lol  I expect others won't necessarily call it THAT...lol

      3. Evan G Rogers profile image81
        Evan G Rogersposted 5 years ago in reply to this

        Every sentence she says is a mindless weave of slogans, propaganda, and buzz words.

        It's impossible to listen to her and actually comprehend what she says.

        I can only digest information from her in the written form, and when you see it written out, you realize how hollow her statements are.

        She got this one right, but I just can't listen to her.

        1. Disturbia profile image61
          Disturbiaposted 5 years ago in reply to this

          I think the "mindless wave of slogans, propaganda, and buzz words" is just her attempt to make her speech appear more polished.  Unfortunately it also makes what she says sound very empty not ring very true.  She really can't win because everything she says gets picked apart by somebody wanting to make her look bad.

          1. Anolinde profile image88
            Anolindeposted 5 years ago in reply to this

            And that caricature of her is something that she will have to overcome IF she chooses to run.  She's been underestimated and dismissed as a serious candidate when she ran for mayor and governor, but she still managed to win, so it'll be interesting to see what happens.

  4. Anolinde profile image88
    Anolindeposted 5 years ago

    Thanks, Habee, for putting this up.  Most people would just slink away hoping nobody notices. I've posted a couple of links on other threads about this issue, so I won't spam it and put them here.

    I'd like to add, though, that according to Palin, the reason for this One Nation bus tour was "for Americans to learn about our past so we can clearly see our way forward in challenging times; so we're bringing attention to our great nation's foundation."  Well .. she certainly did that with her very short comment about Paul Revere!  Like the professor in your link said, "I just was thinking about how many times, you know, I've spoken about Paul Revere. I've organized events about the American Revolution. No one ever pays any attention. Suddenly, Sarah Palin comes to town, makes an off-the-cuff remark about what she learned, and suddenly, you're calling me to find out what I think about Paul Revere and the American Revolution."  Well, it seems Sarah Palin accomplished what she set out to do, and I don't think it's a bad thing!

  5. Aficionada profile image92
    Aficionadaposted 5 years ago

    Thanks for the link!

    Elsewhere I had read something about Revere encountering British troops during his ride and giving statements to them.  But this linked interview gave a clearer picture of his ride.

  6. Stump Parrish profile image60
    Stump Parrishposted 5 years ago

    Part of his ride was to warn the British that we're already there, I am suprised the British weren't aware of this before. Plenty of Americans were loyal to the King and reported to the British Soldiers.The british had an decent system of spies settled across teh country. The name loyalist comes to mind.

    The fact that it was an army on the move indicates they were expecting trouble. The supposed message that stated "Part of his ride was to warn the British that we're already there, that, hey, you're not going to succeed. You're not going to take American arms. You are not going to beat our own well-armed persons, individual, private militia that we have".  For the ringing of bells to have relayed all of this information to the british Army,  a preplanned message be required. Wouldn't Revere have needed to contact the British before the ride for this amount of information to be passed? Ringing of the church bells was a commonly used form of drawing the people into the towns center and in from the outlying farms. The ringing of the bells that night could have been caused by any number of things. Nothing to indicate to the British it was a warning, IMO.

    Well, he's not firing warning shots.

    But he personally is not getting off his horse and going to ring bells.

    These statements say it all.

    I still don't see a lot of her statement that's historically accurate and when that fact is added to the second amendment references, it looks like typical Palinese to me.

    Perhaps her people are getting better at fixing her mistakes. This made sense at first glance but didn't stand up to a closer examination. It is enough for a large portion of this country to run the streets screamin. Speak, Baby, Speak. Palin was correct.

    1. Stump Parrish profile image60
      Stump Parrishposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      Sorry missed this part when I copied it. This should have been at the top of mt response.

      What I got out of that is that there were some vague references to history and a lot of palin in her comments. I agree that she is a politician and not a historian. Oh wait a minute, do you get to claim to be a politican when you quit mid way thru your term to avoid a bunch of ethics violations? You do if you are a Republican.

      If Palin is smarter than she pretendes to be I have to ask why the sham. We are out of the dark ages and Women run countries around the world. However, most of them know that Africa is a continent and not a country. The dumb Blonde Beauty Pagent routine is getting a little old. To the link from npr.

      And, you know, he who warned the British that they weren't going to be taking away our arms by ringing those bells and making sure, as he is riding his horse through town, to send those warning shots and bells, that we were going to be secure and we were going to be free.

      1. Anolinde profile image88
        Anolindeposted 5 years ago in reply to this

        You are entitled to your opinion and I can respect a differing viewpoint, but your claims that she "quit mid way thru your term to avoid a bunch of ethics violations" and that she doesn't "know that Africa is a continent and not a country" aren't true.  She resigned to avoid going bankrupt (she wasn't wealthy) from having to defend herself from FRIVOLOUS ethics complaints, most of which have been dismissed.  She couldn't even set up a legal defense fund ... they were going to hit her with an ethics violation on that, too.   And if you really believe Sarah Palin thinks Africa is a country,  then I assume you also believe Obama thinks Austrian is a language?

        1. Stump Parrish profile image60
          Stump Parrishposted 5 years ago in reply to this

          My biggest problem with Palin is this, there is a large number of educated,  intelligent, women in America capable of leading this country. Why is Palin all we get? I doubt she will give up the 100k speaking paychecks any time soon. I figure she will decide to run for prwesident when the private market dries up. Most of what I remember about Palins accomplishments as gov is helping the oil industry open up previously closed oil sites. I know the local indians or maybe all citizens got a check for $1000. Most of the ethics violation charges were dropped. It was the one's she knew they wouldn't drop that caused her to quit. She got lucky when the rest of the charges showed up. She hid the truth in the smoke screen her apponents provided.Palin simply reminds me of a Dubya in a dress and this country can not survive another hardcore christian with a gunany time soon. By the time Dubya was done even our allies were pissed at us. I see the same type of leadership being all Palin has to offer. She is a bought and paid for republican and will follow the script provided. No original thoughts of her own and that would actually be a positive thing.

          1. Stump Parrish profile image60
            Stump Parrishposted 5 years ago in reply to this

            In regards to the Austrian language, I have watched several films from down under and I think they speak a heavily accented english. G'Day Mate and things like that.

            1. Anolinde profile image88
              Anolindeposted 5 years ago in reply to this

              LOL .. this is actually funny! tongue

              1. wilderness profile image96
                wildernessposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                Hmmm.  Maybe Africa really is just a country, not a continent?

                Or maybe I shouldn't pick on someone for simple errors of misunderstanding or spelling?  You know - errors from mis-speaking when the speaker knows different but just says something really dumb and everybody jumps all over it? big_smile:

      2. profile image0
        Motown2Chitownposted 5 years ago in reply to this

        I actually said that I believe she may be smarter than she appears to me - not pretends to be...just to clarify.

      3. profile image70
        logic,commonsenseposted 5 years ago in reply to this

        Let's see, remind me again, is Weiner a democrat or republican?
        True he hasn't quit, but I'm pretty sure if he doesn't before the next election, he will be 'Trumped'.  As in 'you're fired!'
        I'll take Palin's transgressions over Weiner any day.  He is truly deluded and thinks he is above the rest of us.  Just another elitist that thinks we should do as he says, but he can do whatever he wants and it's okay.
        Palin will never be elected to a high office again.  She may misspeak or may try to use 'polspeak' to gloss over things, but as far as we know she has not outright lied on national news, with the evidence in plain sight and then fessed up a week later.
        I like her as  a person, but would not vote for her as a candidate.  She is not afraid to say what is on her mind, but the problem I have, is she will backpedal when attacked even if she is right.  Or close to being right as the case may be.

        1. Jo_Goldsmith11 profile image60
          Jo_Goldsmith11posted 5 years ago in reply to this

          Weiner is a democrat, he really did make a "donkey" out of himself. As far as Palin. I have yet to hear any meanigful change she is willing and able to bring to the White house. I am not "bashing" her. I just wish very much that someone would come forward and help her with all she really needs to know about "real world" issues. She gives the impression that she is "better" than any other candidate. I would vote for Hillary before I would Palin or Bachman! Bachman is another story. Palin needs to quit with her "gotcha" statements. We need real solutions for the REAL problems this country is facing. Can we agree on this point? Take care

          1. Evan G Rogers profile image81
            Evan G Rogersposted 5 years ago in reply to this

            If you want someone who's talking about real issues, check out Ron Paul.

            1. S Leretseh profile image59
              S Leretsehposted 5 years ago in reply to this

              I wish R. Paul was 20 years younger! I I would gladly give up most of my sizable bank acct to see him president smile.  However, he has no chance.

              1. Evan G Rogers profile image81
                Evan G Rogersposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                The only reason he doesn't have a chance is because everyone demands he has no chance.

                The guy could easily win. Romney's a cliche, and Palin is ... well, Palin!

                He's the third most likely candidate, and the other two are jokes.

                1. profile image70
                  logic,commonsenseposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                  Ron Paul has no chance because he is Ross Perot.  Yes, he does have some good ideas, and then he goes off the wall and out into left field with some cuckoo idea.  If it wasn't for that, he'd have a lot more credibility and a lot better chance.

                  1. Evan G Rogers profile image81
                    Evan G Rogersposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                    Ron Paul comes in very high in all the polls. Romney is a schill and Palin is dumb as dirt.

                    Ron Paul is the most likely candidate to de-throne Obama.

                2. uncorrectedvision profile image60
                  uncorrectedvisionposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                  Ron Paul can't win because he is a nut and lost in an ideology that bares little resemblance to the real world except the historical quotations.  Ron Paul consistently demonstrates a rather shallow understanding of what the founders actually stood for.  The founders were not isolationists and supported, even rejoiced at the idea of the revolution finding its way around the world.

                  Ron Paul is a foolish isolationist and that isolationism promises nothing but disaster.

                  1. Evan G Rogers profile image81
                    Evan G Rogersposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                    Ron Paul isn't an isolationist. The fact that you would argue that shows that you have not looked at Ron Paul seriously as a candidate.

                    Since you've made an incorrect statement, I'll proceed to make one as well:

                    You're clearly getting your discussion points from Bill O'Reilly and Glenn Beck.

                    Good job on completely misrepresenting Paul. I look forward to correcting every single mistake you say about him on these forums.

                    ***Here's the correct Ron Paul stance on Foreign Policy: Quit giving money to everyone; bring our troops home from around the 150+ countries we have troops in; quit invading countries that pose no threat to us; and start abolishing trade barriers so that we can trade with other countries as freely as possible.

                    Only nincumpoops who thinks that "bombing other countries for no reason" is a 'good foreign policy strategy' would think that "freely trading with other countries" is 'isolationist'.

                    Find out more about Ron Paul's views by simply searching his name in a google.video search!

              2. Jo_Goldsmith11 profile image60
                Jo_Goldsmith11posted 5 years ago in reply to this

                Ron Paul is a oxymoron like father like son! I didn't vote for the kid because he stills acts like a kid. During his campaign an innocent person was accousted by one of his "guys". The man is crazy in his thinking and beliefs. If you disagree with him, he will have you "beat up" or will throw a temper tantrum so Palin and Bachman will come running to "save him". So sad..the people that actually are in Washington!

                1. Evan G Rogers profile image81
                  Evan G Rogersposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                  "Ron Paul is a oxymoron like father like son!"

                  ... the hell does this sentence even mean?

                  You do realize that "oxymoron" means "two words put next to each other with opposite meaning", right?

                  You also realize that, when writing a noun in the singular that begins with a vowel, you are to use "an" before it, right?

                  Anyway, let's put aside "horrible grammar" for now.

                  I hope you're aware that one person's actions are not the same as another's actions. For example, if your husband murders someone, then you aren't guilty of the same offense.

                  Thus, if someone who supports Paul is a violent person, Paul is not also a violent person.

                  Oh well. I guess that guilty-by-association until proven innocent is the new system of law in the US.

                  1. Jo_Goldsmith11 profile image60
                    Jo_Goldsmith11posted 5 years ago in reply to this

                    Evan! What would I do with out you!? Thank you so very much for correcting me! Ron Paul is A MORON! is this better? have a great day!

  7. profile image0
    Phoebe Pikeposted 5 years ago

    Her "mistake" made people more aware of history, which isn't a bad thing, but then she defended her remarks on a news station saying she was completely accurate in her description. She's a smart person, but clearly very stubborn.

  8. Hugh Williamson profile image87
    Hugh Williamsonposted 5 years ago

    As far as considering Sarah Palin for any high office, this illustrates how she doesn't think before she speaks, and that's a problem. This won't wash in debates or, if elected, in dealing with foreign leaders.

    If she's a serious candidate, she'll need to concentrate on avoiding the gaff, not doing damage control afterward.

  9. Evan G Rogers profile image81
    Evan G Rogersposted 5 years ago

    Just a reminder about this "OMG was palin right?" stuff...

    Don't forget that she also claimed that Revere was *ringing bells* and *shooting off guns* to *warn the British that they couldn't win*.

    So...

    ... no, she's an idiot.

    1. Mighty Mom profile image91
      Mighty Momposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      Yeah, but...
      That Suffolk University professor said it wasn't even about "winning." That at that point we (America) were still were part of the British Empire and were trying to preserve it.
      So then what, Paul Revere was WARNING the British that there were people in this country who were mad at them?

      Not for anything, but if his plan was to warn the British, he could have done so much more efficiently by riding TOWARD them and stopping where they were in Cambridge. Why, then, did he and his compatriots ride all the way out to Lexington and Concord and then down to CT and the eastern seaboard?
      Don't tell me they were on an excursion to warn any other British soldiers who might be in any of those states that they (the British) didn't stand a chance against our well armed private militia.

    2. S Leretseh profile image59
      S Leretsehposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      "... no, she's an idiot."

      E. Rodgers, why don't you give it a rest/? She's NOT going to win.  She has no chance to win.  Barry O is public enemy #1.  If he gets reelected, there very likely will not be a conservative majority on the S. Court. Every conservative should see THAT as  issue number # - not sarah P's IQ level. .

      1. Evan G Rogers profile image81
        Evan G Rogersposted 5 years ago in reply to this

        I refuse to vote for the lesser of two evils. I will not vote for someone just because an R is next to their name.

        But I know countless others will.

        Thus, it makes perfect sense to make as damned sure as I can that someone with such brick-like qualities as Palin does NOT become the Republican nominee.

  10. Hugh Williamson profile image87
    Hugh Williamsonposted 5 years ago

    Neither Sarah Palin nor anyone else is going to walk into the oval office and solve everything by applying their flawless political philosophy. The changes that are needed are too big and too politically risky to expect that to happen.

    Our anemic voter involvement allows the pols to cater to their donors with impunity, instead of serving the public interest. We need to become fed up, become informed and become involved. A big voter turnout which sweeps incumbents from their comfy lairs will make a real difference.

    The U.S. isn't some Red dictatorship - our founders and framers gave us the means to make our gov't into anything we want it to be. If we don't get what we want, it probably isn't because of Sarah Palin or Paul Revere.

    1. Aficionada profile image92
      Aficionadaposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      Good post!

      I hope you will incorporate this into a Hub, if you haven't already done so.

      1. Hugh Williamson profile image87
        Hugh Williamsonposted 5 years ago in reply to this

        Thanks A. I might just do that.

        1. Aficionada profile image92
          Aficionadaposted 5 years ago in reply to this

          Excellent!  Thumbs up and ... I will watch for it. smile

    2. dutchman1951 profile image60
      dutchman1951posted 5 years ago in reply to this

      excelent Hugh, good words

    3. dutchman1951 profile image60
      dutchman1951posted 5 years ago

      Please Pardon me for thinking devious here, But this feels like a set-up.

      To me she is neither wrong or right deliberately. If you think about it. back then many towns and cities had British sympathisers, some held offices. So as He rode to warn folks, Messengers to the British were also in route to make them aware of what was happening in Concord and Lexington.

      His ride was not exclusive to the People in the Colonies. And It also took us a long time before we started winning against the British. Warned or not..!

      The Milita, and those people who wanted free of Britian, were up against a stacked deck in many cases and fought through the adversity.

      So of course the Brits would know about it..? So what..?

      To Me she is speaking in Political half truth's to sucker a response? The Media jumps her, then backs off saying it could be true. Her folks claim she is Historical schooled, and she may or may not be in truth. But she is advised how to use us well.

      I think her PAC has enough monies to study the sociology of American Voters, and she plays those statistics and facts for her own devias use in calculated ways.

      I think she is attempting to make this into a Gun rights issue for fear and smear.

      Hoping she can Goat the NRA and its influence involved against her political adversaries, both Republican and Democrate. And we are suckering into it.

      The Individual Citizen is not under armed attack in the USA..!

      The things under attack here is our individual rights, and the Middle class. Because of a For sale Congress and Senate, and an Executive branch circumventing the Constitution for the personal gain, of its idealist planning and college professor like conjuring and experimenting.

      We are being had by progressive power plays from "Both parties"
      and stuff like this takes our eyes off of what is being done to us.

      Neither Party is good for Americans right now, and they know the messages we try to send, and- they know how to play us well.

      we are falling for emotional causes and not truth, and we all are loosing.

      She in not only half right, but also_ "half wrong"   soooo what!
      Lets get our eyes back on the real problems and isues we need to fix.

      1. Hugh Williamson profile image87
        Hugh Williamsonposted 5 years ago in reply to this

        Like the post. Thumbs up.

    4. lovemychris profile image79
      lovemychrisposted 5 years ago

      "Rick Perry's running for president on the "I hate America but keep the FEMA dollars flowing" ticket"--a blogger

      LOTS of so-called patriots hate America these days....MOST of the Teatards! "I hate this dam gvt...but let me in it!!!"
      ***
      "One Thatcher ally told the Guardian: "Lady Thatcher will not be seeing Sarah Palin. That would be belittling for Margaret. Sarah Palin is nuts."

      "Sarah Palin snub by Margaret Thatcher aides infuriates US rightwing. Rush Limbaugh joins supporters accusing Thatcher's circle of disgracing former PM with 'Palin is nuts' comment.

      Andrew Sullivan, of The Dish blog, which chronicles Palin's weaknesses, wrote : "As usual, the tired old bigoted comedian Rush Limbaugh took offence that anyone could call Sarah Palin 'nuts,' even though she is quite obviously a few sandwiches short of a picnic, and her grip on reality is, shall we say, tenuous. And as usual, Limbaugh blamed it on the left, ie the Guardian's Wintour/Watt blog.

      "What he doesn't understand is that Palin's nutsiness is not a partisan matter in Britain, or anywhere else in the world. It is an obvious truth marvelled at by all. Palin's emergence as a serious figure in American politics has made the country a laughing stock across the world. The idea that a stateswoman like Thatcher, in advanced dementia, would be used by such a crackpot is simply unseemly."

      http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/ju … in-meeting
      ****

      Didn't Russshhhh call president Obama a Jack-A$$??

      And worse, I'm sure.
      But no one, I say No One can criticize his darling Palin....even a foremr British Prime Minister.

      Limbaugh: Perveyor of double-standard politics. As are most right wingers....big babies, and always dish it out, but can never take it.

      1. uncorrectedvision profile image60
        uncorrectedvisionposted 5 years ago in reply to this

        Wipe off your glasses you have something nasty on them.  Limbaugh said, rather plainly, that Margaret Tatcher was unlikely to call anyone nuts. He also said that the reason Tatcher isn't seeing anyone except family and close friends is she is very ill.  If you bothered to look beyond the tiny, bitter, dark, hateful liberal blogger world you would have taken note that Tatcher was ill when Reagan died and it was a difficulty coming here for his funeral.

        http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0610/38505.html

        http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/06/1 … 11561.html

        You should know as well as anyone that anonymous sources can say anything.  Like the one who said that the reason Barry has never fooled around on Michelle is because he has unresolved mother issues

     
    working