Ok, so Sarah Palin got paid beaucoup denaro to speak at University of California UC) Stanislaus. God forbid the controversy leading up (protests) and coverage of the speech itself should be "enough" for the media. Oh no!
Our local NBC affiliate is looking and sounding more Fox-like every day.
Tonight's 6pm broadcast featured this "hard news" story of Palin getting her hair done for the speech. They interviewed her stylist and everything.
The main part of this segment that really caught my eye, tho, was the shot of Palin LEAVING the salon. Surrounded by bodyguards in suits and ties. And she is sporting what looks like yoga attire. Is it me, or are politicians supposed to dress like professionals?
What exactly is Palin selling?
Hey Mighty Mom, nice to see you.
I think the jury is still out on her...
Do we think they will reach a verdict before or after she declares her candidacy for a 2012 run...?
Well, if anyone wants to know what Sarah Palin is selling merely do some research. Rather than believe the systematic character assassination by the media since she decided to run against the Obama machine... She is for smaller government, less taxes, better border security, and more transparency in government. Basically, she wants government to represent the people and not the other way around.
It's funny, she used the "more transparency," approach as Governor well before Obama started in on the same sentiment. I watched his campaign, and it was not until Sarah Palin had gained some traction did Obama start with the same line. Unfortunately, as Governor Palin practiced what she preached, Obama has done the opposite.
Like the 'Bridge to Nowhere" that she SUPPORTED before it became obvious the Senate was going to kill the project. Then (and for the election) she was opposed.. She's a classic two-faced politician.
Sorry Ru, that is not what Sarah Palin is about. She is a dominionist. She believes in holy wars for oil. She said the war in Iraq was holy. She is a liar, a false believer and an opportunist.
You can't be for eternal war without breaking the budget Ru. She is, in a word, a liar.
Still, the truth is I might put money on her for being next president. It should be an epic showdown if she runs. God knows Obama might want to try to be a little less underwhelming between then and now if he wants to put up a fight.
Don't have children, because it is likely they will not survive if she becomes President. There will be nuclear war. That is her belief, that war is good and that America is a Christian nation. Jesus said his kingdom was not of this world, but Palin can't grasp that. She is a phony and a dangerous one at that.
I don't speak about religion much on Hubpages, but when someone as evil as Sarah Palin comes along I am forced to speak out. She is a false dominionist and that disqualifies her from anything Christian. (As well as many others in the US)
Well, I mean, I would never vote for her even if I could ( which I can't, which is a whole other debate in itself). I am not sure that those around her (the Pentagon, for example) would simply let her start a nuclear war. I'd say there could be a nuclear war under ANY president, and that most likely it would be started by accident; I actually think that is quite likely.
I still think she stands a good chance of winning an election...
I don't think so. You can't win an election by having your supporters pull harder on the voting lever.
There is a relatively small core of social conservatives and Jacksonians that absolutely adore her. Almost the rest of the country either loathes her or thinks she is just not up to the job (that includes lots of self-identified conservatives and Republicans). And since she doesn't really seem like she wants to learn anything, I don't think she's serious about running for President.
She'd rather continue to rake in millions, fabricate lies left and right, and have her endorsement carry more weight in the Republican primaries than any other. She's the new Jerry Falwell.
I seem to remember similar things being said about....
- Dan Quayle
- Ronald Reagan (though admittedly perhaps not until after he was in the latter years of office)
- Mr. George W. Bush... who once pointed out that General Musharraf of Pakistan was known as -- The General. A two-termer, twice as long as his infinitely smarter, more experienced, and more worldly-wise war-hero father, former head of the CIA, and former ambassador to China.
"I still think she stands a good chance of winning an election..."
I'm not sure about that...
"Don't have children, because it is likely they will not survive if she becomes President. There will be nuclear war. She is a phony and a dangerous one at that."
This kind of rhetoric is empty and unproductive.
No, you are wrong Sab. Under Palin the US will attempt to expand Nato into the old Soviet Union. This will cause major conflict in the region. This will destabilize the world. As Nato finds itself fighting Russians on old Soviet soil you better dig a very deep hole. Study the neocons on Wikipedia. You will see that they want the US to be the head of the world empire. Bill Krystol of Fox News was cofounder of PNAC. Read about PNAC. In 2000 they wanted a new Pearl Harbor type event to propel the US into the middle east. One year later they got what they wanted.
Palin knows that the Taliban went to Texas in 1997, Dec. Google it with the date. The Taliban refused to allow Unocal to build a pipeline to the Caspian Sea and Bush/Halliburton investments. That became the motive for US involvement in 911 and for the Afghan pipeline war.
Don't be fooled, Sab. You just have to be willing to research the underbelly of Satan's kingdom, the USA. Who is fighting more wars as a nation? NO ONE.
This is not the same USA as existed with the WW2 generation. It is much different.
Yeah, well, no offense to your ability to predict alternate futures (doomsday scenario included!), nifty collection of conspiracy theories, and really very sane references to satan and all but...
... check please ...
enjoy whatever it is you are experiencing
Sab, you need to do independent study. I guarantee you that this woman is courted by the neocons precisely because they both want world domination.
BTW, the neocons are not true conservatives. True conservatives believe in balanced budgets, and are slow to war. That is why a historically true conserviative, Pat Buchanan, called the neocons the "War Party". And Palin would be her girl of choice. They would control her all the way into major confrontation with Russia. And Russia will not back down this time.
Ah, "you need to do independent study"! That's right up there with "wake up!" "grow up!" "open your eyes" and "think for yourself" among favorite liberalspeak expressions that really mean "You gotta agree with me no matter how crazy, extreme, or bluntly partisan what I'm saying is! You gotta, you just gotta!!!"
Man, I really like this guy!!! He's always spot on.
Sarah should be doing toothpaste commercials. She has a nice set, of teeth, that is.
Why do you people hate her so? She's been under attack since she came onto the scene? Is it because she's and attractive woman with conservative views? Is that reason enough to harass her and her family? Is it that those on the left simply can't tolerate anyone with conservative values and views, or is it because the left can mount an acceptable argument to counter her common sense approach to politics?
By the way why has most of the main stream the media failed to report shes' fought off and been cleared of every ethics charge filed against her, all at great personal cost to herself?
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/200 … t-since-0/
read my post just above yours and you will see the real Sarah Palin. I have been following this perverted human being for a long time.
I don't think it's because she is an attractive woman with conservative views (unless she is being attacked by *conservatives* for that reason; that I could see).
Neither do I think this is about argumentation. She doesn't really deal in argumentation (not saying that Democrats do either, mind you), so I am not sure that's the reason. She deals instead with appeal to people's deeper sensibilities: which is fine; I mean, our deeper sensibilities is where our values live.
And we want representatives, by definition, who represent our own values.
So if she appeals to people's heartfelt values, fine; don't we want politicians who mirror our own values, as I say. (Mind you, this is assuming everything she says is sincere - I do not believe that, any more than I believe it about Obama, Clinton, or anyone else in politics; That whole Joe the Plumber thing, I mean, reporting from the Gaza Strip.. pleeezeee).
Some of it is snobbery. Some of it is elitism. No question. This is befouling the debate. Snobbery, elitism, ridicule, mockery, these simply get in the way of things that actually matter, if you ask me.
So, people don't like her for reasons like that, to some degree. For sure. And frankly, I don't think that that is cool. Not at all, in fact.
I don't like her for other reasons. I don't like her policies, I am not 100 percent sure she understands her own policies actually, and I am frightened by her lack of knowledge about the world. But not liking her because of her accent, or because she's from Alaska, or whatever. Come on; that's not how adults do politics.
War is a deeper sensibility? Desire for world domination, which is the neocon stated aim, a deeper sensibility?
This woman has a deeper sensibility, but you all just have not seen it yet. I have. You need to look for it. She is bar none the most dangerous woman on the face of the earth.
She is not dangerous if she can't get elected, which I happen to think she can. She is also not dangerous if she is not taken seriously by the Pentagon, which, frankly, I'd be surprised if she ever was, or if one of the other checks and balances within the system check her or balance her (like, for example, a stronger personality in the personage of the Secretary of State).
The general principle that a Neo-Con is dangerous is, however, indisputable. If Richard Perle is ever vice-president, I think we can expect a nuclear attack on Iran, or somewhere else not really capable of hitting back. So, in general I agree with you.
No one knows what Sarah Pailin bought to California, she only talked in tongues while she was there.
The woman is a 5 star religious fruitcake!
Okay, so you hate her for her religious beliefs and practices. I guess you aren't tolerant of those kinds of people. Next!
You mean snake swingin floor rollin psychotic people, yeh, I lack tolerance for that level of stupidity.
Sorry, Leebertea, it isn't that she is religious that is the danger. It is what she believes. Lets get down to it. Jesus said his kingdom was not of this world. He said his servants would not fight for him. Yet Sarah Palin says that God wants to take land for himself. Like he doesn't own it already?
Sarah Palin is a dominionist. Google it. She plays into the hands of the atheistic necons who also want world domination for a different reason.
This is the most dangerous woman on the planet. If you want WW3, or the brink of it, keep listening to Sarah and her types.
"This is the most dangerous woman on the planet."
... http://media.photobucket.com/image/face … cePalm.jpg
Funny how selective (and utterly shameless) some folks are in their bigotry and intolerance.
The only bigots I know are the Tea Party. Not all of them, but many of them. The official Tea Party position is that subprime poor people caused the credit crisis.
I have explained above with proofs why this is a lie. You defend bigots yet you claim people are bigots? I am all for tolerance myself, but dominionists are against tolerance. Starting a Physical war is not holy. This is the New Covenant age, where starting wars for land is NOT holy. Sarah Palin is evil in her beliefs.
Not to mention she was asked what the duties of the VP were four times and got it wrong every time! She couldn't remember what newspapers she read and didn't know how many countries there were in North America. She also has trouble making a complete sentence when speaking and is dumb as a post. I hope the right has someone better to offer their party even though she is typical of many republicans.
To the "bridge to nowhere person." You are factually incorrect as is the media you pay attention to. She first supported the bridge to Ketchikan before the estimated price doubled. The bridge was doable at initial bid, as well as job creating. When it became obvious costs were not realistic she nixed the project. Of course the media, or should is say the Obama machine ran that story into the ground because of the catchy "bridge to nowhere" phrase.
Sarah Palin devoted her time as governor at fighting corruption, which is evident in the people in her own party thrown out of office, and in some cases jailed. She also cut spending, and for the first time in a long time made alaskans feel as if government worked for them instead of oil companies.
Does anyone think Biden really knows what the Vice President's duties are? Moreover, the position is highly fluid. Meaning, duties vary greatly from administration. Anyone think Obama is letting Biden do much of anything other than run his mouth.
Sarah Palin would have run the response to the Gulf in much a different matter. She would have gotten to the bottom of the disaster the first day. This is evident in her vast dealings with oil companies in Alaska.
I'm going to stop here as i believe the topic deserves a whole article rather than just a few words. Just know this: Sarah Palin enjoyed an eighty percent approval rating here in Alaska. The only thing that changed was the unbelievable assault upon her character by the media. An assault that would have ruined lesser individuals. I think people are starting to realize this more and more. At least people that are able to see things objectively.
There are a lot of deceived people in Alaska.
Apparently a lot fewer than before:
http://blog.seattlepi.com/seattlepoliti … 205559.asp
Why oh why didn't the people of the great state of Alaska check with someone superior like yourself before deciding what to think and who to support?
Among the pearls of wisdom Lady Dimwit shared with her California audience:
"This is Reagan country, and perhaps it was destiny that the man who went to California's Eureka College would become so woven within and interlinked to the Golden State."
Ummmmm, there is no Eureka College in California. Reagan famously grew up in the midwest (Eureka College is in Illinois)and often spoke about the region's influence on his values. How could someone who claims to revere Reagan as she does be so unaware of the basic facts of his life? How could her painstaking research through "all" of the news magazines (from the Couric interview) miss such basic information?
Her supporters seem to be equally unaware of well documented facts. (maybe that's why they are supporters?) The multiple charges against her have not all been "fought off". Part of that "great cost" to her was a cash settlement (ala Michael Jackson) to have charges dropped against her. Other inquiries found ethical violations in her "troopergate" scandal though no legal charges have yet been filed.
Hate Sarah Palin? How could any Democrat hate Sarah Palin? She's doing more to destroy the GOP than any politician since Nixon.
Drill baby drill!
"Who calls a shot like that? Who makes a decision like that? It's a disturbing trend." –Sarah Palin, pushing a conspiracy theory that "In God We Trust" had been moved to the edge of coins by the Obama administration (the change was made by the Bush administration in 2007 and was later reversed by Congress, before Obama took office), West Allis, Wisconsin, Nov. 6, 2009
"They are kooks, so I agree with Rush Limbaugh. Rush Limbaugh was using satire ... I didn't hear Rush Limbaugh calling a group of people whom he did not agree with 'f-ing retards,' and we did know that Rahm Emanuel, as has been reported, did say that. There is a big difference there." –Sarah Palin, attempting to rationalize why it's okay for Limbaugh to use the word "retards" but not Emanuel, FOX News Sunday interview, Feb. 7, 2010
These wonderful quotes go on and on and on...
Not sure if we can call what comes out of Mrs. Palin's mouth "malapropisms" but she does seem to be the new Dan Quayle/George Bush of the political scene/fodder for comedians.
But my main question was would anyone be paying the slightest bit of attention to her if she WASN"T an attractive woman? How many senators or governors do you know (male or female) who walk around in short shorts or tank tops and yoga pants???
I am not even talking here about the *wink wink you betcha*
She is "hated" to about the same degree as Barney the dinosaur or Larry the Cable Guy is "hated".
The stupidity is cute and folksy at first, but damned annoying when she doesn't know when her time is up. Her time was up long ago, but as long as she sticks around we'll have many laughs at her expense.
What's really amusing is how many "laugh" from positions of utter insignificance, apparently in the rather pathetic delusion that it makes them one inch taller. It's funny because the underlying inferiority she for some reason inspires in them is so darn obvious!
All the "laughing" aside, 99.999% of these ant-sized hyenas will never come within a thousand miles of accomplishing anything she already has.
Disagree on policies? Fine.
Dislike personality? It happens.
Dispute conclusions? Why not?
One can even understand and pity those suffering from a terrible fear of faith and religion (though it's still annoying)
And of course there is always simple political partisanship
But calling "stupid," indulging in blatant sexism, spiteful vulgarity and silly photoshop crap is just childish, pathetic and pointless and not 'funny' in the way some insecure souls wish it to appear.
All of which has just about nothing to do with what if any political future she may have.
Please continue. We have a pool going as to when you will be banned again. You seem very close to the edge.
I have done none of the Sab, because I know what Sarah Palin is all about. The others just have an uneasy feeling. They should have. She is a very dangerous woman. I suggest you quite arguing with the people who are getting under your feminist skin and realize there are substantial, damning arguments against Sarah Palin. She is driven by world domination.
Ah, you "know." That must be comforting.
And I never knew I had "feminist skin" before.
World domination you say? http://skepacabra.files.wordpress.com/2 … cepalm.jpg
Yes, from a fellow who has been following her, a very clear statement of Palin's anti new testament stance on world dominion. http://www.apostolicfriendsforum.com/sh … hp?t=18320
You know, these days they make decaf that tastes as good as regular coffee...
Sab, both parties sold out America with the repeal of Glass-Steagall. That allowed swaps to be written to offset crappy loans that drove up house prices unnaturally. But Palin and the Republicans always talk of war and are itching for a fight. WW3 is the only fight left.
"The America I know and love is not one in which my parents or my baby with Down Syndrome will have to stand in front of Obama's "death panel" so his bureaucrats can decide, based on a subjective judgment of their "level of productivity in society," whether they are worthy of health care. Such a system is downright evil." 
The accuracy of Palin's comment was disputed by every impartial fact-checking organization who researched Section 1233 of HR 3200, the House version of health care reform. In a huge bill, Palin finds fault with the one section that allows payment to Medicare doctors for voluntary end-of-life counselling. Let me explain 'voluntary' - nothing in the bill requires the doctor to offer the consultation - and nothing requires the patient accept if the consultation is offered. Section 1233 lists topics that must be included the discussion in order to qualify for payment, including the living will and advance directives.
Sarah Palin's facebook claim (Aug 12) in defense of her original claim does not dispute:
1) There are no 'death panels'.
2) Her child with Down Syndrome wouldn't be affected.
(until 2074 when he qualifies for Medicare)
3) There are no 'bureaucrats' anywhere in Section 1233 - only a doctor and patient in consultation.
4) There's no subjective judgement of anybody's
'level of production in society'.
Sarah Palin did what she set out to do - she scared the crap out of senior citizens and galvanized them into opposition to health care reform out of fear for their lives. But she told an enormous lie. Hub Pages won't let me use the words I would use to describe her.
the message she brought to california was how out of touch she actually is . it was not evanston california where reagan went to school.
Pathetic as usual eh Sabby?
Like Palin's unabashedly nonsensical drive to be politically relevant.....
"But she's for small government" <---typical point of support for "conservatives"...
Government has increased as private enterprise has either over stepped it bounds (needing regulation) or has completely failed..
Government has also increased as the exploitive drive for foreign resources and "markets" has grown.
The military budget needs to be cut dramatically....our presence in Afghanistan and Iraq needs to vanish. (Imagine the savings!)
It is time oil companies pay their fair share of taxes for the resources they steal from us... California is oil rich, but receives almost nil from the companies that pump out and sell our natural wealth....
"Drill baby drill"?
Sorry Palin.....the actual message needs to go to the oil companies.... "Pay baby pay" for our treasure you are stealing...
"By the way why has most of the main stream the media failed to report shes' fought off and been cleared of every ethics charge filed against her, all at great personal cost to herself? "
Mostly because it's not true...
"Oct 11, 2008 ... Sarah Palin, John McCain's running mate, unlawfully abused her power as Alaska's governor by trying to have her former brother-in-law fired ..."
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/w … 924041.ece
"Nearly a year after she quit her governorship of Alaska, Sarah Palin was found guilty today of another breach of the Alaska Executive Branch Ethics Act ..."
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/geoffrey- … 24863.html
From what I remember the report said as governor of the State she had the right to hire and fire at will. The findings were based on the fact that she somehow personally gained from the firing, I'm not sure how she gained from it, but they said she did.
The other ethics charge you refer to sounds like she received bad advice from her lawyers.
In any event it is all politically motivated.
I have noticed quite a few insults on the forums, I'm not sure why. On other forums I have been on it seems the reason was to hide the fact that they had no reasonable argument to counter with. I suspect that is true here also.
Some are direct, some people insult others indirectly and then complain about receiving insults.
It would certainly be more productive if we could have discussions without all the personal insults.
I don't believe that it is possible for some people to do that, Its really sad.
It does seem too much to ask of certain people.
If only everyone could at least make an effort at some kind of self control in that regard think how much more positive and productive our discussions could be.
True dat, but your current MO is so much more entertaining.
WOW that is word for word what I told you when you first started pestering me !!
So let's all make an effort and help make HP a better place!
Sarah Palin, is a typical Republican she makes me puke, no more needs to be said.
Sab....you are the last person who should be complaining about negative comments....
If everyone worries about his or her own self and makes an effort not to engage in personal insults the tone here should improve in no time.
Let me guess! Born again, again? You are turning over a new leaf and want to start being nice and cordial to folks?
Get outta here you old kidder! You almost had me convinced you were serious
You don't believe in the new and improved TK?
I have to say that I have noticed a change in him. Following a post where he came out and asked for more discussion and less insult (that was almost word for word what I told him when he first started attacking me around my fourth post on Hubpages forum). you all know that I share your opinion about him, perhaps more than most, but he is starting to actually post argument, I have not seen any facts yet but it is early days !
I am willing to give him a chance and engage him in rational argument, time will tell if it results in more discussion I guess, but I am willing to try.
Predictably, there will be some who just can't go so far as to even try and the negative cycle will start again. It's a shame.
You expressed your shame already. Please share some new feelings with us.
"Funny how selective (and utterly shameless) some folks are in their bigotry and intolerance."
Pretty nasty comment - somebody said somethng rude about Sarah Palin. so the writer hit back. Say anything about Israel's policies and you will automatically be called an anti-semete. Guess who the author is.
(hint - Friday the 13th)
In the Category "Loves dishing it out but doesn't want to take it" he wins the Oscar despite stiff competition.
It's true I'm no fan of bigotry and intolerance, but I try to direct my criticisms toward the unfortunate comments in question and not the individuals who for some reason make them. I'm not perfect but I'm willing to try. I wonder if everyone is willing to try.
Without these pillars of your philosophy, how would you be able to post?
Without EVERYONE at least bothering to give an effort we will be left with the same old vitriol.
Have you considered the story about the 'Boy Who Ctied 'Wolf'. Despite your cries for us to 'make an effort', those of us who know you - know exactly what to expect from you. We therefore aren't giving you the benefit of a doubt that doesn't exist.
Do the other online forums give you another chance before your inevitable permanent banning.
I think you and Sarah have the same problem: Do as I say, not as I do.
by woolman607 years ago
Just be honest, do you really think she could run America?
by Alem Belton6 years ago
These supporters of Sarah Palin must know something I don't know, if so please enlighten me. Otherwise all I have seen from this women is incompetence. In my opinion, this women might be the most unqualified...
by BJC8 years ago
Why are some people afraid of Sarah Palin?? For sure she doesn't flow with the media and is definitly going upstream. Could be that some folks are concerned because she has the gonads to speak truth and the...
by Leta S8 years ago
Currently under 13 ethics investigations...McCain and staff now full-on against her.Aren't you glad we voted Obama in?
by marinealways248 years ago
All opinions respected. Who would win a debate between Obama and Limbaugh?
by rhamson7 years ago
This past election there was a lot of energy created in the choice by John McCain to have Sarah Palin as his running mate. What do you feel was the reason for this choice and how do you think she was qualified to...
Copyright © 2017 HubPages Inc. and respective owners.
Other product and company names shown may be trademarks of their respective owners.
HubPages® is a registered Service Mark of HubPages, Inc.
HubPages and Hubbers (authors) may earn revenue on this page based on affiliate relationships and advertisements with partners including Amazon, Google, and others.