Comments
Please wait...
Comments are closed.
Commenting on this item is available only to members of the site. You can sign in here or create an account here.
More In News
Editors' Picks
Popular Articles
is a proud member of the
network
network
All contents © Noisy Creek, Inc.
800 Maynard Ave S, Suite 200, Seattle, WA 98134
800 Maynard Ave S, Suite 200, Seattle, WA 98134
Oh, come on. You live for this shit.
Kinda makes you wonder how many kids she started with...
They're also drama queens, probably because they have such dreary lives and live vicariously through TV. This sort of reaction will play well with them.
The good news is that there's not that many of them. The bad news is that they enthusiastically and consistently vote.
84.7 thousand views and 54 "likes".
I feel like there were some 8-bit video game creatures descending onto her face the whole time.
It scares me as a sane person to watch my fellow Americans not even ponder their own acceptance of craziness. Really? He only shot her because he was crazy? Did booth only shoot Lincoln, because he was crazy?
It's the Mexicans, not the banks. Everyone should have the right to bare arms, even when we can't provide adequate treatment for all mentally unstable people. The government is taxing us to death, but at the same time, responsible for saving all our jobs.
We sit and watch as atrocities of all our human rights are violated in name of the state. Please object. Please voice concern. This is getting way too fucking scary....
Indefensible.
Amateur.
Hack.
Your absolutely right! Giffords should issue an apology for putting her head in the way of Palins ambitions.
And like hell SOME (not all) lefties haven't been more than happy to point fingers.
Pro-tip Sara: A blood libel is less what people have been saying about your rhetoric and more YOUR ACTUAL RHETORIC.
Intelligence gathering.
Surveillance.
Fight domestic terror.
These are the watchwords that Barack Obama should have followed.
But under his helm, a deadly killer -- who broadcast his intentions for months...years... -- acted out his desires.
The blame rests squarely on the head of the executive branch...
Whoever is writing this stuff doesn't appreciate how implausible that vocabulary is, coming from the mouths of Sarah and her clan.
2001, "Bin Laden Determined to Strike US" and telling the analyst to go fuck off.
No, it's entirely the fault of whatever Democrat holds a high national office.
Sheesh!
I tried to watch it but when she invoked 9/11 I lost my shit and had to turn it off. All I want to do is scream and scream and scream and scream. I'm living in a nightmare from which I am unable to wake!!!!!!
I'm pretty sure the quoted paragraph can be constructed as a clear and present danger to the neurological health of anyone with more than three brain cells to rub together. Sort of like yelling "FIRE" in a crowded cerebrum.
She's becoming something close to a living martyr to the sheep who hang on to her.
Second, we're seeing the scratching and clawing of someone going down the hole of the end of their political career. She's going to get more and more desperate and say even more stupid, ignorant things (wait for it).
Third, she's the worst example of Americans who can't think. She knows what she knows and it's good enough for her.
Bye, bye Sarah.
On a scale of 1 to 10, my outrage-o-meter stopped at 4.8 and is slipping back. After all, I have my blood pressure to consider.
The true lesson of 9-11 is "we must give up our freedoms in order to preserve them", along with "perceived, but fake, security is as good or better than real security".
Palin is using the language of her opponents here, to promote a position in direct opposition to that language. This is masterful stupidity. She's creating a whole new class of rhetoric here.
Potatoe or RELOAD! Please choose, Doctor.
Of course, her name has been dragged up a lot this week, so I guess she felt that she had to say something. I just wish she'd been bright enough to say something that actually made sense.
Dr Laura, Anne Coulter, Sarah Palin, and all these other assholes that whine about their freedom of speech being violated simply because they're being called out really need to have it pointed out to them that nobody has thrown them in jail for their beliefs.
1. "[J]ournalists and pundits should not manufacture a blood libel that serves only to incite the very hatred and violence . . ."
How is it again that pundits incite violence and hatred? Thought they couldn't do that to a crazy person??
2. [A]cts like the shootings in Arizona “begin and end with the criminals who commit them, not collectively with: (1) all the citizens of a state, (2) those who listen to talk radio, (3) law-abiding citizens who respectfully exercise their First Amendment rights at campaign rallies or (4) those who proudly voted in the last election."
Uh, I haven't heard a single person who is blaming (1) all citizens, (2) those who listen to talk radio, (3) law-abiding citizens who respectfully speak at campaign rallies or (4) those who voted. Has anyone else heard a single person blame any one of these?
So, this entire statement is just a huge big lie. A crazy lie, but a clever one, a lie that makes it seem as though commentators who are requesting more civil discourse (i.e., that attendees at campaign rallies not yell "Kill him," or that Senatorial candidates not suggest the need for "Second Amendment remedies" or that Congressional candidates not pose with an M-16 on their lap) are actually attacking normal people.
If, during the 2012 elections, President Obama were to urge left-wingers to "send the 'bullet of your vote' through the 'head' of [opponent's] chances at the Presidency (wink wink nudge nudge)," do you think she'd still be saying that rhetoric has nothing to do with action? What if the opponent then got shot? Would right-wing pundits still insist that creepy gun rhetoric in politics has nothing to do with political assassinations? That it was all a big coincidence and that the gunman was probably just a lone nutcase with no influence beyond his own craziness? Absolutely not.
These idiots don't even try to hide their hypocrisy anymore. They will condemn something a Democrat does and then turn right around and defend it when a Republican does it, and they won't even try to think up an excuse. Their defense will simply be, "well this time it's a Republican!" It's like a party of 5-year-olds; they can't grasp the concept of "consistency."
What was really sad, though, was a question asked of candidates in the debate over the next RNC chair: "Do you think Palen can be a strong contender for the presidency?" And every single one of those spineless bastards said yes. Just goes to show there is no leadership--none at all--left in the Republican Party.
How on earth did this woman convince the people of Alaska to elect her in the first place?
And more importantly, what drugs were McCain and his advisors (heavily) abusing when they concluded that this woman deserved to be VP ??? Is meth really that commonplace these days?
http://i83.photobucket.com/albums/j315/c…
Enjoy.
Let's pick out any right wing nutjob speech. That speech is rhetoric *if* it is given to a rightwing audience disposed to be sympathetic to its arguments. The very same speech delivered to a liberal audience would not be rhetoric, as that audience would not be disposed to perform the exhorted action. (If they *did*, then you call the speaker charismatic :) ).
It's not necessarily a term applied to any inflammatory speech or speech you don't like, or speech, period...
Of course another wag pointed out this would effectively ban guns in D.C. completely.
Wankers. The lot of them.
RE: "..we had to fight the tendency to trade our freedoms for perceived security."
THE RIGHT WINGERS WERE DOING ANYTHING BUT DEFENDING FREEDOMS INFRINGED UPON US BY THE BUSH ADMIN IN AFTERMATH OF 9/11!! GAHHH!!!
I mean, I know it's fruitless to just bitch about Sarah Palin, but the worse she gets over time, the harder it is to constructively ignore her. I just can't wait until she gets addicted to something other than attention, runs out of money, and fades into obscurity where she belongs.
@63 Great shot bullwinkle, thanks, made my day!
I can't take sitting here headdesking all damn day long, but WHUT? Just WHUT?
Take note, she didn't even bother to detail why she'd associated the press with that particular term. She didn't qualify it. She didn't draw any analogies. She just used it and moved on, as if it were perfectly normal to do so. I doubt that she had any idea where the phrase came from at the time, although she's almost certainly getting an education about it now.
One of my favorite quotes? "If men and women were angels, there would be no need for government."
My, aren't you a funny man. Care to make any jokes about the dead child now?
Reading over all this group's hateful, bigoted comments that are usually mysoginistic, ill-informed, and spit-feckled, I find myself reminded why I avoid the political commentary here, and stick with Mr. Savage's explorations of bodily functions and the emotions tied thereto.
We both find it offensive that the "Right" continue to wrap themselves in the flag and use 9/11 as a political tool. IF YOU WEREN'T THERE THEN SHOULDN'T MAKE IT YOUR TALKING POINT!
Besides on 9/11 Palin was probably skinning an Elk, or maybe one of her aides...
The same voting base that would cheer Palin would not be bothered with tedious, nitpicky tasks like keeping track of facts and forming coherent positions or boring, linear thought.
... and she can shoot a moose!
Palin 2012!