Sorry, Fred. Letterman wins the ratings race, Palin quits.
Matt Silberstein
nothing about why she was leaving or what she was going to do. I'm
betting that there is some really nasty story coming, either in the
emails she is forced to release or something about her husband's
treasonous (or illegal or adulterous) activities.
(There is another possibility, which I have made up all on my own.
Romney is paying off his potential 2012 rivals. It is cheaper to give
them each a million or so now than to use that money during the
campaign to try to beat them. It is a nonsensical idea and there is
not a tiny bit of evidence for it, but if it turns out to be true
remember that I said it first.)
--
Matt Silberstein
Do something today about the Darfur Genocide
http://www.beawitness.org
http://www.darfurgenocide.org
http://www.savedarfur.org
"Darfur: A Genocide We can Stop"
Davej
> What more is there to say? She gave a 18 minute long speech that said
> nothing about why she was leaving or what she was going to do. I'm
> betting that there is some really nasty story coming, either in the
> emails she is forced to release or something about her husband's
> treasonous (or illegal or adulterous) activities.
>
She's a flake and someday even Fred is going to accept that.
Olrik
He'll never do that. At best, he'll think that Palin is a MILF, as I do.
:-)
O.
John Baker
I'll pass. I couldn't handle having to talk to her afterward. <G>
panam...@hotmail.com
<RemoveThisPrefixmatts2nos...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
> What more is there to say? She gave a 18 minute long speech that said
> nothing about why she was leaving or what she was going to do. I'm
> betting that there is some really nasty story coming, either in the
> emails she is forced to release or something about her husband's
> treasonous (or illegal or adulterous) activities.
>
> (There is another possibility, which I have made up all on my own.
> Romney is paying off his potential 2012 rivals. It is cheaper to give
> them each a million or so now than to use that money during the
> campaign to try to beat them. It is a nonsensical idea and there is
> not a tiny bit of evidence for it, but if it turns out to be true
> remember that I said it first.)
ROFL!
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/07/03/sarah-palin-resignation-s_n_225557.html
Transcript below the video link, translation is here:
"Wah! Waaaah! I fought BIG GUB'MINT in a state with a little one! As
part of my fight, I created *new* gub'mint offices! I quit, because I
don't know how to clean up this mess. Here's a sports analogy, so that
the stupid among you won't hate me. And now I'm gonna go raise my
grandchildren, since my children were too fucking stupid to use birth
control."
-PF, Atl.
2015/KoBAAWA!
Fred Stone
news:kfgt45l3nhr84fjlj...@4ax.com:
> What more is there to say? She gave a 18 minute long speech that said
> nothing about why she was leaving or what she was going to do. I'm
> betting that there is some really nasty story coming,
Nastier than all the lies the Democrats spread around about Palin's
daughters? Nastier than that pervert Letterman's rape fantasy?
--
Fred Stone
aa# 1369
A government that robs Peter to pay Paul can always depend on the support
of Paul. - George Bernard Shaw
Matt Silberstein
<fsto...@earthling.com> in
<0097c93b$0$28965$c3e...@news.astraweb.com> wrote:
>Matt Silberstein <RemoveThisPref...@ix.netcom.com> wrote in
>news:kfgt45l3nhr84fjlj...@4ax.com:
>
>> What more is there to say? She gave a 18 minute long speech that said
>> nothing about why she was leaving or what she was going to do. I'm
>> betting that there is some really nasty story coming,
>
>Nastier than all the lies the Democrats spread around about Palin's
>daughters? Nastier than that pervert Letterman's rape fantasy?
Fred, you have gone over the edge. You have not simply drank the
kool-aid, you are using it for blood transfusions. I don't know of
what lies about Palin's daughters you mean, but the truths about the
whole family are pretty nasty on their own. Nor does anyone (except,
perhaps you) think that Letterman was not referring to Bristol, who is
18.
But, yes, nastier. There is talk of federal indictment regarding
corruption. I don't know if it is true, but there sure is something
squirrelly about their finances and about their house. If you can
think of a better reason for her apparently sudden decision, let us
know. If you can make sense of that speech, rather than seeing it as
the infantile almost incomprehensible blather it appeared, explain it.
(Here is the text, in all of its wonderful idiosyncratic typographic
glory: http://www.gov.state.ak.us/exec-column.php)
I am sorry that you lost your standard bearer. She was the front
runner crazy woman in the party and you now have to find another wacko
to fall for. You do have Rep. Bachmann, perhaps you can promote her
for governor, that would be fun.
Don Martin
>And now I'm gonna go raise my
>grandchildren, since my children were too fucking stupid to use birth
>control."
When all is said and done, genetics bites us in the arse every time.
-
aa #2278 If you can't be a dirty old man, what is the point of being an old man?
Fidei defensor (Hon. Antipodean)
The Squeeky Wheel: http://home.comcast.net/~drdonmartin/
duke
<RemoveThisPref...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>What more is there to say? She gave a 18 minute long speech that said
>nothing about why she was leaving or what she was going to do. I'm
>betting that there is some really nasty story coming, either in the
>emails she is forced to release or something about her husband's
>treasonous (or illegal or adulterous) activities.
Or she's getting read to burn some 'rats.
The Dukester, American-American
*****
"The Mass is the most perfect form of Prayer."
Pope Paul VI
*****
Fred Stone
> On 04 Jul 2009 12:16:13 GMT, in alt.atheism , Fred Stone
> <fsto...@earthling.com> in
> <0097c93b$0$28965$c3e...@news.astraweb.com> wrote:
>
>>Matt Silberstein <RemoveThisPref...@ix.netcom.com> wrote in
>>news:kfgt45l3nhr84fjlj...@4ax.com:
>>
>>> What more is there to say? She gave a 18 minute long speech that said
>>> nothing about why she was leaving or what she was going to do. I'm
>>> betting that there is some really nasty story coming,
>>
>>Nastier than all the lies the Democrats spread around about Palin's
>>daughters? Nastier than that pervert Letterman's rape fantasy?
>
> Fred, you have gone over the edge. You have not simply drank the
> kool-aid, you are using it for blood transfusions. I don't know of
> what lies about Palin's daughters you mean, but the truths about the
> whole family are pretty nasty on their own. Nor does anyone (except,
> perhaps you) think that Letterman was not referring to Bristol, who is
> 18.
>
It's still rape, unless you think that a sexually active 18-year-old
woman doesn't have a right to choose who she fucks.
You are a sick, disgusting individual Matt Silberstein.
Enkidu
> On Fri, 03 Jul 2009 22:47:58 -0400, Matt Silberstein
> <RemoveThisPref...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>
>>What more is there to say? She gave a 18 minute long speech that said
>>nothing about why she was leaving or what she was going to do. I'm
>>betting that there is some really nasty story coming, either in the
>>emails she is forced to release or something about her husband's
>>treasonous (or illegal or adulterous) activities.
>
> Or she's getting read to burn some 'rats.
Even the most rabid Republicans know she'll never win a national
election. The math is clear . . . more people lean liberal than
conservative. If the Republicans can't attract some liberals, they can't
win nationally, and Palin can't attract liberals.
--
Enkidu AA#2165
EAC Chaplain and ordained minister,
ULC, Modesto, CA
"Don't you know there ain't no devil, it's just god when he's drunk."
-- Tom Waits
Syd
> On Fri, 03 Jul 2009 22:47:58 -0400, Matt Silberstein
>
> >What more is there to say? She gave a 18 minute long speech that said
> >nothing about why she was leaving or what she was going to do. I'm
> >betting that there is some really nasty story coming, either in the
> >emails she is forced to release or something about her husband's
> >treasonous (or illegal or adulterous) activities.
>
> Or she's getting read to burn some 'rats.
>
Nope. Still not stand-up material.
Try again. Write some wittier jokes.
PDW
Fred Stone
news:7b972jF...@mid.individual.net:
> On Sat, 04 Jul 2009 08:19:27 -0500, duke wrote:
>
>> On Fri, 03 Jul 2009 22:47:58 -0400, Matt Silberstein
>> <RemoveThisPref...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>>
>>>What more is there to say? She gave a 18 minute long speech that said
>>>nothing about why she was leaving or what she was going to do. I'm
>>>betting that there is some really nasty story coming, either in the
>>>emails she is forced to release or something about her husband's
>>>treasonous (or illegal or adulterous) activities.
>>
>> Or she's getting read to burn some 'rats.
>
> Even the most rabid Republicans know she'll never win a national
> election. The math is clear . . . more people lean liberal than
> conservative. If the Republicans can't attract some liberals, they
> can't win nationally, and Palin can't attract liberals.
>
We now know that any politician's family is fair game for every kind of
personal destruction. Don't complain to me when your favorite Democrat's
children end up on the block.
Enkidu
> Enkidu <enk...@nogodhere.net> wrote in
> news:7b972jF...@mid.individual.net:
>
>> On Sat, 04 Jul 2009 08:19:27 -0500, duke wrote:
>>
>>> On Fri, 03 Jul 2009 22:47:58 -0400, Matt Silberstein
>>> <RemoveThisPref...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>>What more is there to say? She gave a 18 minute long speech that said
>>>>nothing about why she was leaving or what she was going to do. I'm
>>>>betting that there is some really nasty story coming, either in the
>>>>emails she is forced to release or something about her husband's
>>>>treasonous (or illegal or adulterous) activities.
>>>
>>> Or she's getting read to burn some 'rats.
>>
>> Even the most rabid Republicans know she'll never win a national
>> election. The math is clear . . . more people lean liberal than
>> conservative. If the Republicans can't attract some liberals, they
>> can't win nationally, and Palin can't attract liberals.
>>
>>
> We now know that any politician's family is fair game for every kind of
> personal destruction. Don't complain to me when your favorite Democrat's
> children end up on the block.
True, a politician's family is fair game. It shouldn't be, but it is.
However, it's the Republicans who trumpet their "family values" and
denigrate Democrats, so one might expect the Republicans to show a little
more respect for family. They clearly don't. They attack their political
opponents' families at every opportunity.
So where are those conservative "family values"? If they had showed by
their actions that they value what they say they value, they might earn a
bit of respect.
--
Enkidu AA#2165
EAC Chaplain and ordained minister,
ULC, Modesto, CA
You know your god is man-made when he hates all the same people you do.
--[from Usenet]
Fred Stone
news:7b99juF...@mid.individual.net:
> On Sat, 04 Jul 2009 14:44:47 +0000, Fred Stone wrote:
>
>> Enkidu <enk...@nogodhere.net> wrote in
>> news:7b972jF...@mid.individual.net:
>>
>>> On Sat, 04 Jul 2009 08:19:27 -0500, duke wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Fri, 03 Jul 2009 22:47:58 -0400, Matt Silberstein
>>>> <RemoveThisPref...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>What more is there to say? She gave a 18 minute long speech that
>>>>>said nothing about why she was leaving or what she was going to do.
>>>>>I'm betting that there is some really nasty story coming, either in
>>>>>the emails she is forced to release or something about her
>>>>>husband's treasonous (or illegal or adulterous) activities.
>>>>
>>>> Or she's getting read to burn some 'rats.
>>>
>>> Even the most rabid Republicans know she'll never win a national
>>> election. The math is clear . . . more people lean liberal than
>>> conservative. If the Republicans can't attract some liberals, they
>>> can't win nationally, and Palin can't attract liberals.
>>>
>>>
>> We now know that any politician's family is fair game for every kind
>> of personal destruction. Don't complain to me when your favorite
>> Democrat's children end up on the block.
>
> True, a politician's family is fair game. It shouldn't be, but it is.
> However, it's the Republicans who trumpet their "family values" and
> denigrate Democrats, so one might expect the Republicans to show a
> little more respect for family. They clearly don't.
Sorry, but that line doesn't hold water at all. Democrats have
consistently attacked political opponents with the most despicable smears
and vile slanders for as long as I have been cognizant of politics. There
is no profit to holding back when your opponents demonstrate that they
will not.
> They attack their
> political opponents' families at every opportunity.
>
So do Democrats, and always have, clear back to Abraham Lincoln.
> So where are those conservative "family values"? If they had showed by
> their actions that they value what they say they value, they might
> earn a bit of respect.
>
They disappeared when the Democrats decided that "family values" were
only for use in attacking Republicans.
Dr. Smartass, Troll Veterinarian
> What more is there to say? She gave a 18 minute long speech that said
> nothing about why she was leaving or what she was going to do. I'm
> betting that there is some really nasty story coming, either in the
> emails she is forced to release or something about her husband's
> treasonous (or illegal or adulterous) activities.
I blame Something Awful:
http://www.somethingawful.com/d/news/sorry-sarah-palin.php
(a few weeks back she blasted an Alaska blogger for Photoshopping a pic
of one of her staunches stupporters into the publicity pic of her with
her new kid...and the SA folks responded with more 'shopped pics for her
to hate):
http://forums.somethingawful.com/showthread.php?threadid=3160064
--
Doc Smartass, BAAWA Knight of Troll Medication
aa # 1939
Book reviews: http://jw-bookblog.blogspot.com/
Diploma Mill: a religious facility where minds are ground into powder.
Enkidu
Of course not. But the Republicans have claimed to be something
different, something new, the defenders of decency and morality, and
prove in practice to be merely politicians like all other politicians.
I'm not disappointed in them any more than in the Democrats. It isn't the
fucking on the side, its the hypocrisy of claiming to support marriage
and family on Monday and Wednesday while fucking the mistress on Tuesday.
If they didn't claim to have a lock on morality, I wouldn't care when
they showed human weakness. I don't expect them to be better than I am
unless they run on a platform of being better than I am.
>> They attack their
>> political opponents' families at every opportunity.
>>
> So do Democrats, and always have, clear back to Abraham Lincoln.
It isn't a Republican thing or a Democratic thing, its a political thing
and always has been. But the Republicans claim the moral high ground, and
that's where they are wrong, and that's where they deserve to be hammered.
>> So where are those conservative "family values"? If they had showed by
>> their actions that they value what they say they value, they might earn
>> a bit of respect.
>>
> They disappeared when the Democrats decided that "family values" were
> only for use in attacking Republicans.
When was that? 4004BC?
Fred Stone
news:7b9bliF...@mid.individual.net:
Aren't you also being hypocritical then? Because you judge Republicans on
things that you excuse Democrats for.
>>> They attack their
>>> political opponents' families at every opportunity.
>>>
>> So do Democrats, and always have, clear back to Abraham Lincoln.
>
> It isn't a Republican thing or a Democratic thing, its a political
> thing and always has been. But the Republicans claim the moral high
> ground, and that's where they are wrong, and that's where they deserve
> to be hammered.
>
That is, and always has been, merely a poor justification for holding a
double standard. You choose to judge Republicans and excuse Democrats for
doing the same sorts of things.
>>> So where are those conservative "family values"? If they had showed
>>> by their actions that they value what they say they value, they
>>> might earn a bit of respect.
>>>
>> They disappeared when the Democrats decided that "family values" were
>> only for use in attacking Republicans.
>
> When was that? 4004BC?
>
No, more like the Clinton administration, after Bubba got caught with his
pants down. Democrats have been going absolutely apeshit ever since,
trying to get back at those eeeevul Republicans.
![TRUECRISTIAN[READ THE BIBLE VOte republican=Jesus]'s profile photo](http://lh3.googleusercontent.com/a-/ALV-UjUSX3cHCX_yd7ZKPtBFnLqkwdUHbS2dZ8cfDHe6p1wOEbSEXVM=s40-c)
TRUECRISTIAN[READ THE BIBLE VOte republican=Jesus]
> Enkidu <enk...@nogodhere.net> wrote innews:7b9bliF...@mid.individual.net:
oh well i hope you're not sending that to me because you're fucked up
for hitting your dus..
lol
anyways, after reading your message again for the second time, i think
you still dont see what
the problem is. im not talking here not just the america's... but it's
a good thing to find
out that there are people like you who are aware that we have to do
something. and tell you it
is not just about the illiteracy, level of education etc etc. those
are nonsense.
i've never checked the thoughts, ideas of the present forums here, and
what can i say, there
are for sure stupidity in it. but the question here is do we really
understand why they are
posting such?
have you ever tried confronting them?
you know, english btw is not my first language. When I was in
elementary and high school, I was
not aware of the proper English usage etc, not even interested until I
joined the student
newspaper in college. I still struggle sometimes to write and express
my thoughts in English.
Grammar is a big thing to me. I have been humiliated because of this
but I am over with that.
It is my fascination and at the same time my frustration. Sometimes, I
think of myself that I
am lazy, lazy to study my fascination. My fascination because of the
ideas I can create which
can touch other’s, my frustration – hahahaha will always my
frustration if I continue to be
this lazy.
I dreamt of becoming a news reporter but due to competition I found
myself working in
advertising and marketing which is still good.
and knowing your views etc, i know you may say i dont have to say all
these because you are
spotting lots of grammar error as you read this. and you may sense
that im so third world or
something. oh yes i am from a third world country, Philippines and so.
and i am the product of
the poorest educational system in the world. i was educated in a
public school, both in
elementary and high school. the books that the school provided to me
were totally disgusting,
missing pages, and I could imagine now, there are grammar errors and
senseless content.
however, despite of my school deficiencies, i can proudly tell this
experience to the next
generation and to my kids for I can still share something, good
monster stories, sweet crushes
moments, my love to local healthy “junk” foods etc. The simplicity and
beauty of living. That
you can still find beauty in “third world” educational system.
As a matter of fact, I don’t want to label my education as third world
for I don’t feel
inferior to any culture or educational system.
I am contented with what I have and I am happy. Actually, ever since,
I have been contented
with what I have and I have always been happy in struggling with my
life.
Now, what I can do to change the system? Appreciate simple things in
life, understand our
stupidity, and stop labeling and judging people.
And hey if you still have time, can you edit this and send me a copy.
Thanks.
I look forward to hearing you later.
duke
>On Sat, 04 Jul 2009 08:19:27 -0500, duke wrote:
>
>> On Fri, 03 Jul 2009 22:47:58 -0400, Matt Silberstein
>> <RemoveThisPref...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>>
>>>What more is there to say? She gave a 18 minute long speech that said
>>>nothing about why she was leaving or what she was going to do. I'm
>>>betting that there is some really nasty story coming, either in the
>>>emails she is forced to release or something about her husband's
>>>treasonous (or illegal or adulterous) activities.
>>
>> Or she's getting read to burn some 'rats.
>
>Even the most rabid Republicans know she'll never win a national
>election.
The national election is not the issue - necessarily. She going out to support
the conservative issue - slamming the door in buckwheat's face.
>The math is clear . . . more people lean liberal than
>conservative. If the Republicans can't attract some liberals, they can't
>win nationally, and Palin can't attract liberals.
What you don't get is the middle up for grabs. And buckwheat is proudly losing
them. He won by 5% popular vote. A drop i 3% popular vote totally transforms
the electoral college count. Buckwheat is packing to get his butt back to
Chicago, land of crooks and crooks.
tirebiter
> nothing about why she was leaving or what she was going to do.
Talking about lipstick on a pig. All this sugary blather to try and
(and failing at to) put a positive spin on quitting. Any hopes she
has of reentering political life will be tainted by her cut and run
decision. My wife is convinced that she's not going to ever be a
politician again, and instead try and unseat Limbaugh and get his $10
million a month salary.
---
a.a. #2273
tirebiter
> We now know that any politician's family is fair game for every kind of
> personal destruction. Don't complain to me when your favorite Democrat's
> children end up on the block.
>
only everybody else's. I recall John McCain said some horrific and
totally uncalled for insults of Chelsea Clinton.
---
a.a. #2273
Enkidu
Clinton never claimed to be American culture's moral guardian. I don't
care about his family life, just his public positions. Any politician who
puts himself and his morality forward as part of his political agenda has
made his private life part of his public position on the issues.
Mike Painter
> Matt Silberstein <RemoveThisPref...@ix.netcom.com> wrote in
> news:0viu45dp31nuja2uq...@4ax.com:
>
>> On 04 Jul 2009 12:16:13 GMT, in alt.atheism , Fred Stone
>> <fsto...@earthling.com> in
>> <0097c93b$0$28965$c3e...@news.astraweb.com> wrote:
>>
>>> Matt Silberstein <RemoveThisPref...@ix.netcom.com> wrote
>>> in news:kfgt45l3nhr84fjlj...@4ax.com:
>>>
>>>> What more is there to say? She gave a 18 minute long speech that
>>>> said nothing about why she was leaving or what she was going to
>>>> do. I'm betting that there is some really nasty story coming,
>>>
>>> Nastier than all the lies the Democrats spread around about Palin's
>>> daughters? Nastier than that pervert Letterman's rape fantasy?
>>
>> Fred, you have gone over the edge. You have not simply drank the
>> kool-aid, you are using it for blood transfusions. I don't know of
>> what lies about Palin's daughters you mean, but the truths about the
>> whole family are pretty nasty on their own. Nor does anyone (except,
>> perhaps you) think that Letterman was not referring to Bristol, who
>> is
>> 18.
>>
>
> It's still rape, unless you think that a sexually active 18-year-old
> woman doesn't have a right to choose who she fucks.
>
> You are a sick, disgusting individual Matt Silberstein.
Rape is well defined in law and thinking about sex with a woman does not
appear under any of those definitions.
Fred Stone
news:7b9fsuF...@mid.individual.net:
Yeah, like I said, it's OK if you're a Democrat.
> I don't
> care about his family life, just his public positions. Any politician
> who puts himself and his morality forward as part of his political
> agenda has made his private life part of his public position on the
> issues.
>
Any President should be putting his morality forward, or he's not fit to
BE President. Because his own agenda is not the whole of the job.
Greg G.
> nothing about why she was leaving or what she was going to do. I'm
> betting that there is some really nasty story coming, either in the
> emails she is forced to release or something about her husband's
> treasonous (or illegal or adulterous) activities.
>
> (There is another possibility, which I have made up all on my own.
> Romney is paying off his potential 2012 rivals. It is cheaper to give
> them each a million or so now than to use that money during the
> campaign to try to beat them. It is a nonsensical idea and there is
> not a tiny bit of evidence for it, but if it turns out to be true
> remember that I said it first.)
But if it is true, I will promise to not seek the Republican
nomination for $500,000.
Dr. Smartass, Troll Veterinarian
015a22...@18g2000yqa.googlegroups.com:
I like his logic. She's gonna quit her job...to go full-time busting
Dems?
She, who got (deliberately) flustered over a Letterman joke, then blew up
over a bad Photoshop job on a blog--which unleashed a storm of 'shopped
pics on her:
http://forums.somethingawful.com/showthread.php?threadid=3160064
That stupid woman couldn't burn a Dem. She'd have the flame thrower
pointed the wrong way.
She's a firing squad of one, and she's smoking her last ciggie right now.
Damn shame, too. This means the Pubbies will have to dredge up another
idiot to match the standard for douchebaggery their last 5 presidents set
(Nixon...Ford...Reagan...Bush........Bush, yeah, five), if their plan to
destroy the party is to succeed.
*ponder*
Duke in '10! Duke in '10!
Matt Silberstein
<duckg...@cox.net> in <gglu45df34jsk4n1i...@4ax.com>
wrote:
>On Fri, 03 Jul 2009 22:47:58 -0400, Matt Silberstein
><RemoveThisPref...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>
>>What more is there to say? She gave a 18 minute long speech that said
>>nothing about why she was leaving or what she was going to do. I'm
>>betting that there is some really nasty story coming, either in the
>>emails she is forced to release or something about her husband's
>>treasonous (or illegal or adulterous) activities.
>
>Or she's getting read to burn some 'rats.
Denial, it looks good on you. Perhaps, though, you can elaborate how
this incomprehensible quitter is going to burn anyone.
Matt Silberstein
<fsto...@earthling.com> in
<Xns9C3E7329C6...@216.151.153.161> wrote:
Truth hurts, doesn't it? I guess when you support a party with
institutionalized corruption, with Abramoff and all of his tentacles,
a party with official after official in jail, all you can do is say
"your another" and hope it sticks.
>There
>is no profit to holding back when your opponents demonstrate that they
>will not.
>
>> They attack their
>> political opponents' families at every opportunity.
>>
>
>So do Democrats, and always have, clear back to Abraham Lincoln.
>
>> So where are those conservative "family values"? If they had showed by
>> their actions that they value what they say they value, they might
>> earn a bit of respect.
>>
>
>They disappeared when the Democrats decided that "family values" were
>only for use in attacking Republicans.
I see. So you pretty much agree with Limbaugh that Sanford's affair
was Obama's fault. He really did believe all of the statements he made
about Clinton, but Obama so ruined the world that Sanford went and had
an affair a year before Obama got elected. And Ensign corruption and
theft and affair, that was because the Democrats attacked Republicans.
And Gingrich and Hyde and all of them did it because Democrats
attacked Republicans. I mean, they tried to maintain morality, they
talked about how the government need to impose morality on people, but
they just fell under the onslaught of Democratic attacks.
Syd
<gek...@astroskivviesboymail.com> wrote:
> Syd <pdwrigh...@yahoo.com> wrote in news:43f93a3d-e0b1-4e90-b860-
> 015a2209f...@18g2000yqa.googlegroups.com:
>
> > On Jul 4, 9:19 am, duke <duckgumb...@cox.net> wrote:
> >> On Fri, 03 Jul 2009 22:47:58 -0400, Matt Silberstein
>
> >> <RemoveThisPrefixmatts2nos...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
> >> >What more is there to say? She gave a 18 minute long speech that said
> >> >nothing about why she was leaving or what she was going to do. I'm
> >> >betting that there is some really nasty story coming, either in the
> >> >emails she is forced to release or something about her husband's
> >> >treasonous (or illegal or adulterous) activities.
>
> >> Or she's getting read to burn some 'rats.
>
> > Nope. Still not stand-up material.
> > Try again. Write some wittier jokes.
>
> I like his logic. She's gonna quit her job...to go full-time busting
> Dems?
>
> She, who got (deliberately) flustered over a Letterman joke, then blew up
> over a bad Photoshop job on a blog--which unleashed a storm of 'shopped
> pics on her:
>
> http://forums.somethingawful.com/showthread.php?threadid=3160064
>
> That stupid woman couldn't burn a Dem. She'd have the flame thrower
> pointed the wrong way.
>
> She's a firing squad of one, and she's smoking her last ciggie right now.
>
Agreed. Any other politician would have recognized it for what it was.
That woman just has no damn sense. More looks then brains.
Typical beauty contestant material.
> Damn shame, too. This means the Pubbies will have to dredge up another
> idiot to match the standard for douchebaggery their last 5 presidents set
> (Nixon...Ford...Reagan...Bush........Bush, yeah, five), if their plan to
> destroy the party is to succeed.
>
> *ponder*
>
> Duke in '10! Duke in '10!
>
That WOULD definitely do it, yeah.
PDW
Matt Silberstein
<fsto...@earthling.com> in
<0097ec22$0$28694$c3e...@news.astraweb.com> wrote:
>Enkidu <enk...@nogodhere.net> wrote in
>news:7b972jF...@mid.individual.net:
>
>> On Sat, 04 Jul 2009 08:19:27 -0500, duke wrote:
>>
>>> On Fri, 03 Jul 2009 22:47:58 -0400, Matt Silberstein
>>> <RemoveThisPref...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>>What more is there to say? She gave a 18 minute long speech that said
>>>>nothing about why she was leaving or what she was going to do. I'm
>>>>betting that there is some really nasty story coming, either in the
>>>>emails she is forced to release or something about her husband's
>>>>treasonous (or illegal or adulterous) activities.
>>>
>>> Or she's getting read to burn some 'rats.
>>
>> Even the most rabid Republicans know she'll never win a national
>> election. The math is clear . . . more people lean liberal than
>> conservative. If the Republicans can't attract some liberals, they
>> can't win nationally, and Palin can't attract liberals.
>>
>
>We now know that any politician's family is fair game for every kind of
>personal destruction. Don't complain to me when your favorite Democrat's
>children end up on the block.
Given that she stood up there with her children as a shield and told
how the world needs more children with Down's Syndrome I don't see how
your blame the Democrats. I guess you are holding on to this line
because Palin has pretty much cut all of the rest. But this is
nonsense as well. Her family was talked about, but that is largely
because she made her family so much of her campaign. It is not the
Democrats fault that Palin took her kids to every photo op she could,
even if they were not invited (and charged the state for the travel).
It is not the Democrats fault that Palin presented herself as an
"unconventional" politician, one who was this great mother and valiant
crusader. That was her narrative and it is entirely reasonable to look
at her narrative. Obama kept his kids at home, he worked to keep them
from the media, Palin paraded her family at every opportunity: she
made them political material.
But the problem you have is not with the media, it is with the facts.
In fact Palin's daughter did get pregnant at 17 and the story broke
*after* she was picked. In fact Palin interfered with her
ex-brother-in-laws employment. Her sister in law did break in a house
and stole, her daughter's almost mother-in-law did plead guilty to
drug felonies. And, worst of all, he husband is bloody secessionist.
Be glad they talk about her family, though, the other stories are
worse for her. Seriously, what did she say in that speech? Did you
understand her objection to lame duck status? Or why we need more kids
with Down's Syndrome? Or any of it?
Matt Silberstein
<fsto...@earthling.com> in
<Xns9C3E666665...@216.151.153.60> wrote:
>Matt Silberstein <RemoveThisPref...@ix.netcom.com> wrote in
>news:0viu45dp31nuja2uq...@4ax.com:
>
>> On 04 Jul 2009 12:16:13 GMT, in alt.atheism , Fred Stone
>> <fsto...@earthling.com> in
>> <0097c93b$0$28965$c3e...@news.astraweb.com> wrote:
>>
>>>Matt Silberstein <RemoveThisPref...@ix.netcom.com> wrote in
>>>news:kfgt45l3nhr84fjlj...@4ax.com:
>>>
>>>> What more is there to say? She gave a 18 minute long speech that said
>>>> nothing about why she was leaving or what she was going to do. I'm
>>>> betting that there is some really nasty story coming,
>>>
>>>Nastier than all the lies the Democrats spread around about Palin's
>>>daughters? Nastier than that pervert Letterman's rape fantasy?
>>
>> Fred, you have gone over the edge. You have not simply drank the
>> kool-aid, you are using it for blood transfusions. I don't know of
>> what lies about Palin's daughters you mean, but the truths about the
>> whole family are pretty nasty on their own. Nor does anyone (except,
>> perhaps you) think that Letterman was not referring to Bristol, who is
>> 18.
>>
>
>It's still rape, unless you think that a sexually active 18-year-old
>woman doesn't have a right to choose who she fucks.
How as the joke rape? How was it even suggesting rape?
>You are a sick, disgusting individual Matt Silberstein.
Letterman tells a joke and somehow that make me disgusting? Tell you
what, you take responsibility for all of the crazy Republican nonsense
from Party Leader Limbaugh and I will take responsibility for the
comments by talk show host Letterman.
But all that attempt to make this about me is a failure. The facts
remain: you bragged too early about Letterman. He won his time slot
and your Palin is out of government and out of politics.
Fred Stone
> On 04 Jul 2009 14:03:58 GMT, in alt.atheism , Fred Stone
> <fsto...@earthling.com> in
> <Xns9C3E666665...@216.151.153.60> wrote:
>
<...>
>>It's still rape, unless you think that a sexually active 18-year-old
>>woman doesn't have a right to choose who she fucks.
>
> How as the joke rape? How was it even suggesting rape?
>
Read what I wrote.
>>You are a sick, disgusting individual Matt Silberstein.
>
> Letterman tells a joke and somehow that make me disgusting? Tell you
> what, you take responsibility for all of the crazy Republican nonsense
> from Party Leader Limbaugh and I will take responsibility for the
> comments by talk show host Letterman.
>
> But all that attempt to make this about me is a failure. The facts
> remain: you bragged too early about Letterman. He won his time slot
> and your Palin is out of government and out of politics.
>
I'm not bragging about anything, Matt, you disgusting twerp. I merely
reported the facts. Too bad about your support for the pervert.
Matt Silberstein
<dontsp...@bigfoot.com> in
<8c10e8c6-028a-4020...@h2g2000yqg.googlegroups.com>
wrote:
At least he did not call for her to be killed.
Matt Silberstein
<duckg...@cox.net> in <s91v45l33c4lsmsqb...@4ax.com>
wrote:
>On 4 Jul 2009 14:25:24 GMT, Enkidu <enk...@nogodhere.net> wrote:
>
>>On Sat, 04 Jul 2009 08:19:27 -0500, duke wrote:
>>
>>> On Fri, 03 Jul 2009 22:47:58 -0400, Matt Silberstein
>>> <RemoveThisPref...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>>What more is there to say? She gave a 18 minute long speech that said
>>>>nothing about why she was leaving or what she was going to do. I'm
>>>>betting that there is some really nasty story coming, either in the
>>>>emails she is forced to release or something about her husband's
>>>>treasonous (or illegal or adulterous) activities.
>>>
>>> Or she's getting read to burn some 'rats.
>>
>>Even the most rabid Republicans know she'll never win a national
>>election.
>
>The national election is not the issue - necessarily. She going out to support
>the conservative issue - slamming the door in buckwheat's face.
Like what issue? Increasing the number of Down's Syndrome children?
Running away from a fight?
>>The math is clear . . . more people lean liberal than
>>conservative. If the Republicans can't attract some liberals, they can't
>>win nationally, and Palin can't attract liberals.
>
>What you don't get is the middle up for grabs.
Not really it isn't, you lost it.
>And buckwheat
And Fred has yet to say a thing about your racism.
>is proudly losing
>them. He won by 5% popular vote. A drop i 3% popular vote totally transforms
>the electoral college count. Buckwheat is packing to get his butt back to
>Chicago, land of crooks and crooks.
Want to bet?
Matt Silberstein
<fsto...@earthling.com> in
<Xns9C3EA9F2E8...@216.151.153.62> wrote:
>Matt Silberstein <RemoveThisPref...@ix.netcom.com> wrote in
>news:ieev45lp2fuut8glo...@4ax.com:
>
>> On 04 Jul 2009 14:03:58 GMT, in alt.atheism , Fred Stone
>> <fsto...@earthling.com> in
>> <Xns9C3E666665...@216.151.153.60> wrote:
>>
>
><...>
>
>>>It's still rape, unless you think that a sexually active 18-year-old
>>>woman doesn't have a right to choose who she fucks.
>>
>> How as the joke rape? How was it even suggesting rape?
>>
>
>Read what I wrote.
And what about the joke said that she did not have a choice?
>>>You are a sick, disgusting individual Matt Silberstein.
>>
>> Letterman tells a joke and somehow that make me disgusting? Tell you
>> what, you take responsibility for all of the crazy Republican nonsense
>> from Party Leader Limbaugh and I will take responsibility for the
>> comments by talk show host Letterman.
>>
>> But all that attempt to make this about me is a failure. The facts
>> remain: you bragged too early about Letterman. He won his time slot
>> and your Palin is out of government and out of politics.
>>
>
>I'm not bragging about anything, Matt, you disgusting twerp.
Yes, you were you Republican.
>I merely
>reported the facts. Too bad about your support for the pervert.
Do you really believe this? It is one thing that you are just playing
a political game, but to actually think that somehow I am a pervert
because I think that some joke was about an 18 year old is too
amazing. I am not supporting Letterman, I have not actually ever
watched the show (no big deal, I am not a fan of the concept and do
not watch such shows at all). I was just pointing out that your
"facts" were quite irrelevant.
Matt Silberstein
<fsto...@earthling.com> in
<0096899a$0$23716$c3e...@news.astraweb.com> wrote:
You don't get that we look at what they say and what they do and use
both to judge them. If Ron Paul had an affair I would not care, he
does not spend much time saying how the government should decide how
families work. (Admittedly I have plenty of other reasons for
disliking his policies.)
>>>> They attack their
>>>> political opponents' families at every opportunity.
>>>>
>>> So do Democrats, and always have, clear back to Abraham Lincoln.
>>
>> It isn't a Republican thing or a Democratic thing, its a political
>> thing and always has been. But the Republicans claim the moral high
>> ground, and that's where they are wrong, and that's where they deserve
>> to be hammered.
>>
>
>That is, and always has been, merely a poor justification for holding a
>double standard. You choose to judge Republicans and excuse Democrats for
>doing the same sorts of things.
No. I judge them both on what they say and what they do. And when
Sanford repeatedly says that other politicians (either Democrats or
Republicans in his way) should resign for having an affair, then I
think that Sanford should be held to his own standard and should
resign for having an affair. I did not care that Spitzer paid for sex,
I cared that Spitzer paid for sex while prosecuting others for paying
for sex. See, Fred, same standard.
>>>> So where are those conservative "family values"? If they had showed
>>>> by their actions that they value what they say they value, they
>>>> might earn a bit of respect.
>>>>
>>> They disappeared when the Democrats decided that "family values" were
>>> only for use in attacking Republicans.
>>
>> When was that? 4004BC?
>>
>
>No, more like the Clinton administration, after Bubba got caught with his
>pants down. Democrats have been going absolutely apeshit ever since,
>trying to get back at those eeeevul Republicans.
You mean it is the Democrats fault that Hyde had an affair. And the
Democrats fault that Gingrich cheated on his wife. The funny thing is,
you somehow think you can wave away the Bush administration you so
strongly supported by saying it is in the past. Yet you still suffer
from Clinton Derangement Syndrome.
Matt Silberstein
<fsto...@earthling.com> in
<Xns9C3E88CC82...@216.151.153.139> wrote:
[snip]
>Any President should be putting his morality forward, or he's not fit to
>BE President. Because his own agenda is not the whole of the job.
For some people whether or not someone has an affair is not a
government issue, for some people choice of sexual partner between
adults is not a government issue. But I will remember that you think
that all politicians should be using the government to impose their
morality on others.
Dr. Smartass, Troll Veterinarian
news:3ed4bd07-b00d-46c5...@b9g2000yqm.googlegroups.com:
Here's a good call on it:
http://theplumline.whorunsgov.com/political-media/bailin-barracuda-or-
the-quitah-from-wasilla/
Bailin� Barracuda, Or The Quitah From Wasilla
Not such a slow-news holiday weekend after all. Here�s a rundown of Sarah
Palin-related developments and opinion:
* First, my quickie prediction: Though she probably does envision a role
in national public life of some kind, I don�t believe she intends to run
in 2012. She may end up doing that, but my bet is that�s not what is
driving the resignation.
This is a woman who appears to crave dominance, and gets visibly
frustrated and deeply rattled when it eludes her or when her self-mastery
wavers. She can�t dominate or control the national media or her national
image. This was borne out again with the flap over the Vanity Fair
article. She quit in a huff, and doesn�t have any intention of coming
back.
One other thought: How could someone who resigned as Governor of Alaska
possibly present herself as ready for the presidency?
* By the way, it�s worth recalling that among rank-and-file Republicans,
the woman who resigned at that rambling press conference yesterday is the
most popular figure by a mile. What�s that say about today�s GOP?
* Jonathan Martin says her oddball presser and resignation reflect her
own ambivalence over how to leverage her national fame and frustration
with her missteps amid the scrutiny her renown has brought.
* Josh Marshall is less charitable:
Either Palin is resigning ahead of some titanic scandal (which should
emerge in short order if it exists) or her resignation was triggered by
an even more extreme mental instability than we�d previously suspected.
Just to reiterate, I don�t think this has anything to do with 2012.
* Indeed, Andrea Mitchell says that she �has told some of her biggest
backers in the national Republican Party that they are free to choose
other candidates for 2012,� which, if true, would mean she ain�t running.
* Although that�s not what fellow Alaska Republican Lyda Green (who had a
falling out with Palin) says: She believes this is a sign Palin�s running
for president, because her continued tenure as governor had been badly
tarnishing her image.
* Glenn Thrush wonders:
If you�re leaving your elected position with more than a year to go
because you can�t handle negative publicity, personal attacks and GOP
back-biting, how could you possibly handle the rigors of running for
president � much less being President?
I�ll tell you how, Glenn: She doesn�t intend to run.
* The head of the Republican Governors Association blames nettlesome
Alaska bloggers and activists for hounding her from office � but then
claims she didn�t buckle to pressure.
* The Weekly Standard�s Matthew Continetti reminds us that her
resignation smacks of the equally-impetuous decision by John McCain to
abruptly suspend his campaign. Oh, what might have been�
* Whatever her motives, Dan Balz delicately sums it up by arguing that
her resignation �demonstrated once again yesterday that she is one of
America�s most unconventional politicians.�
* And if you missed yesterday�s presser, or want to watch it again for
some reason, video is right here.
</quote>
Fred Stone
> On 04 Jul 2009 20:42:24 GMT, in alt.atheism , Fred Stone
> <fsto...@earthling.com> in
> <Xns9C3EA9F2E8...@216.151.153.62> wrote:
>
>>Matt Silberstein <RemoveThisPref...@ix.netcom.com> wrote in
>>news:ieev45lp2fuut8glo...@4ax.com:
>>
>>> On 04 Jul 2009 14:03:58 GMT, in alt.atheism , Fred Stone
>>> <fsto...@earthling.com> in
>>> <Xns9C3E666665...@216.151.153.60> wrote:
>>>
>>
>><...>
>>
>>>>It's still rape, unless you think that a sexually active 18-year-old
>>>>woman doesn't have a right to choose who she fucks.
>>>
>>> How as the joke rape? How was it even suggesting rape?
>>>
>>
>>Read what I wrote.
>
> And what about the joke said that she did not have a choice?
>
What about it said that she did?
Fred Stone
> On 04 Jul 2009 17:26:53 GMT, in alt.atheism , Fred Stone
> <fsto...@earthling.com> in
> <Xns9C3E88CC82...@216.151.153.139> wrote:
> [snip]
>
>>Any President should be putting his morality forward, or he's not fit to
>>BE President. Because his own agenda is not the whole of the job.
>
> For some people whether or not someone has an affair is not a
> government issue, for some people choice of sexual partner between
> adults is not a government issue. But I will remember that you think
> that all politicians should be using the government to impose their
> morality on others.
>
No, as usual Matt you project your own values on me.
Syd
<gek...@astroskivviesboymail.com> wrote:
Good stuff, Doc!!
It'd be amusing if she did run, but her little stunt prolly showed how
unprepared she was anyway.
Thanks for the stuff. Good prospective on the empty-headed twit.
PDW
Syd
> Matt Silberstein <RemoveThisPrefixmatts2nos...@ix.netcom.com> wrote innews:5mgv4594id96r4h0b...@4ax.com:
>
>
>
> > On 04 Jul 2009 20:42:24 GMT, in alt.atheism , Fred Stone
> > <Xns9C3EA9F2E8BD6freddyb...@216.151.153.62> wrote:
>
> >>Matt Silberstein <RemoveThisPrefixmatts2nos...@ix.netcom.com> wrote in
> >>news:ieev45lp2fuut8glo...@4ax.com:
>
> >>> On 04 Jul 2009 14:03:58 GMT, in alt.atheism , Fred Stone
> >>> <Xns9C3E66666556Ffreddyb...@216.151.153.60> wrote:
>
> >><...>
>
> >>>>It's still rape, unless you think that a sexually active 18-year-old
> >>>>woman doesn't have a right to choose who she fucks.
>
> >>> How as the joke rape? How was it even suggesting rape?
>
> >>Read what I wrote.
>
> > And what about the joke said that she did not have a choice?
>
> What about it said that she did?
>
Now your just being argumentative.
Nothing new there, though.
PDW
Mike Painter
>>
>> If they didn't claim to have a lock on morality, I wouldn't care when
>> they showed human weakness. I don't expect them to be better than I
>> am unless they run on a platform of being better than I am.
>>
>
> Aren't you also being hypocritical then? Because you judge
> Republicans on things that you excuse Democrats for.
You are the one who calimed teh mortal highground for your party and always
claimed the Democrats were the opposite.
There is no hypocracy in asking that they live up to the standards they
claim.
>
>>>> They attack their
>>>> political opponents' families at every opportunity.
>>>>
>>> So do Democrats, and always have, clear back to Abraham Lincoln.
>>
>> It isn't a Republican thing or a Democratic thing, its a political
>> thing and always has been. But the Republicans claim the moral high
>> ground, and that's where they are wrong, and that's where they
>> deserve to be hammered.
>>
>
> That is, and always has been, merely a poor justification for holding
> a double standard. You choose to judge Republicans and excuse
> Democrats for doing the same sorts of things.
>
>>>> So where are those conservative "family values"? If they had showed
>>>> by their actions that they value what they say they value, they
>>>> might earn a bit of respect.
>>>>
>>> They disappeared when the Democrats decided that "family values"
>>> were only for use in attacking Republicans.
>>
>> When was that? 4004BC?
>>
>
> No, more like the Clinton administration, after Bubba got caught with
> his pants down. Democrats have been going absolutely apeshit ever
> since, trying to get back at those eeeevul Republicans.
Clinton gort a blow job and did the work. Bush blew people up.
I'll take sex over deth at any point in time.
Dr. Smartass, Troll Veterinarian
news:380cd177-aaff-4687...@18g2000yqa.googlegroups.com:
> On Jul 4, 5:54�pm, "Dr. Smartass, Troll Veterinarian"
> <gek...@astroskivviesboymail.com> wrote:
>> Syd <pdwrigh...@yahoo.com> wrote
>> innews:3ed4bd07-b00d-46c5-a981-9a9c220b1
> 3...@b9g2000yqm.googlegroups.com:
<snippy>
> Good stuff, Doc!!
> It'd be amusing if she did run, but her little stunt prolly showed how
> unprepared she was anyway.
> Thanks for the stuff. Good prospective on the empty-headed twit.
Welcome; I loves the Interwebs.
Dr. Smartass, Troll Veterinarian
news:380cd177-aaff-4687...@18g2000yqa.googlegroups.com:
> On Jul 4, 5:54�pm, "Dr. Smartass, Troll Veterinarian"
> <gek...@astroskivviesboymail.com> wrote:
<snippy>
>> Here's a good call on it:
>>
>> http://theplumline.whorunsgov.com/political-media/bailin-barracuda-or-
>> the-quitah-from-wasilla/
>>
>> Bailin� Barracuda, Or The Quitah From Wasilla
<snippy>
> Good stuff, Doc!!
> It'd be amusing if she did run, but her little stunt prolly showed how
> unprepared she was anyway.
From the Mudflats Blog--possible indictments:
*******************************UPDATES
Okay, I�ve now been able to get independent information from multiple
sources that all of this precedes what are said to be possible federal
indictments against Palin, concerning an embezzlement scandal related to
the building of Palin�s house and the Wasilla Sports Complex built during
her tenure. Both structures, it is said, feature the �same windows, same
wood, same products.� Federal investigators have been looking into this
for some time, and indictments could be imminent, according to the Alaska
sources. From Brad Blog [ http://www.bradblog.com/?p=7280 ]
and...
What we are seeing here is either a preface to some indictment, or the
final chapter in the career of what has been the biggest political joke
of the 21st century. She is so obviously a combination of extreme
narcissism and even more extremely bad advice by really, really
pathetically bad advisors.
Andrea Mitchell is now being reported as claiming Palin has told some
close to her that she is through with politics. From Firedoglake
[ http://oxdown.firedoglake.com/diary/6105#more-41525 ]
Matt Silberstein
<fsto...@earthling.com> in
<Xns9C3EBF0C6F...@216.151.153.161> wrote:
>Matt Silberstein <RemoveThisPref...@ix.netcom.com> wrote in
>news:5mgv4594id96r4h0b...@4ax.com:
>
>> On 04 Jul 2009 20:42:24 GMT, in alt.atheism , Fred Stone
>> <fsto...@earthling.com> in
>> <Xns9C3EA9F2E8...@216.151.153.62> wrote:
>>
>>>Matt Silberstein <RemoveThisPref...@ix.netcom.com> wrote in
>>>news:ieev45lp2fuut8glo...@4ax.com:
>>>
>>>> On 04 Jul 2009 14:03:58 GMT, in alt.atheism , Fred Stone
>>>> <fsto...@earthling.com> in
>>>> <Xns9C3E666665...@216.151.153.60> wrote:
>>>>
>>>
>>><...>
>>>
>>>>>It's still rape, unless you think that a sexually active 18-year-old
>>>>>woman doesn't have a right to choose who she fucks.
>>>>
>>>> How as the joke rape? How was it even suggesting rape?
>>>>
>>>
>>>Read what I wrote.
>>
>> And what about the joke said that she did not have a choice?
>>
>
>What about it said that she did?
Huh? So absent a joke discussing in detail the behaviors at all times
of all parties you conclude rape. That gives far more insight into
your views that you might have wanted. That you then call me a pervert
is most amusing. I do not assume rape every time I hear a joke
involving sex.
Budikka
<RemoveThisPrefixmatts2nos...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
> On Sat, 04 Jul 2009 11:40:07 -0500, in alt.atheism , duke
> wrote:
>
>
>
> >On 4 Jul 2009 14:25:24 GMT, Enkidu <enk...@nogodhere.net> wrote:
>
> >>On Sat, 04 Jul 2009 08:19:27 -0500, duke wrote:
>
> >>> On Fri, 03 Jul 2009 22:47:58 -0400, Matt Silberstein
> >>> <RemoveThisPrefixmatts2nos...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>
> >>>>What more is there to say? She gave a 18 minute long speech that said
> >>>>nothing about why she was leaving or what she was going to do. I'm
> >>>>betting that there is some really nasty story coming, either in the
> >>>>emails she is forced to release or something about her husband's
> >>>>treasonous (or illegal or adulterous) activities.
>
> >>> Or she's getting read to burn some 'rats.
>
> >>Even the most rabid Republicans know she'll never win a national
> >>election.
>
> >The national election is not the issue - necessarily. She going out to support
> >the conservative issue - slamming the door in buckwheat's face.
>
> Like what issue? Increasing the number of Down's Syndrome children?
> Running away from a fight?
>
> >>The math is clear . . . more people lean liberal than
> >>conservative. If the Republicans can't attract some liberals, they can't
> >>win nationally, and Palin can't attract liberals.
>
> >What you don't get is the middle up for grabs.
>
> Not really it isn't, you lost it.
>
> >And buckwheat
>
> And Fred has yet to say a thing about your racism.
Point of Order, Matt:
It isn't racism to Fred Stone when it's aimed at what he defines as a
liberal.
It isn't racism to Duck-Egg Duke because Jesus himself was a racist
and therefore it's OK.
Sorry for the interruption. Please continue.
Budikka
Dr. Smartass, Troll Veterinarian
Bailin' Palin is the one who spun this into "rape" during her post-Top-
Ten "Everyone feel sorry for me! That bad man's mocking me!" whinefest.
She did it again when an Alaska blogger poked fun at her relationship
with a rightie radio boy (put his face on the Downs kid)--and she was
promptly mocked by dozens more at Something Awful when she wigged out
over that.
Then Michael Jackson died, taking her spotlight away for more than a
week. Funny if she resigned because of that, but at this point nothing
that Wasillabilly does would surprise me. "What? She screwed a MOOSE?
Huh." *thoughtful pause for a sip of orange juice* "Did the moose kill
itself yet?"
NOW she's got a lawyer working on July 4th to threaten bloggers and media
outlets for speculating as to why she resigned, and playing the same
"Everyone feel sorry for me! That bad man's mocking me!" card.
It's the only card in her deck, really.
Matt Silberstein
Troll Veterinarian" <gek...@astroskivviesboymail.com> in
<Xns9C3F113F5EAA...@216.77.188.18> wrote:
Well, it worked with Fred and Duke.
Syd
<gek...@astroskivviesboymail.com> wrote:
> Syd <pdwrigh...@yahoo.com> wrote innews:380cd177-aaff-4687...@18g2000yqa.googlegroups.com:
>
> > On Jul 4, 5:54 pm, "Dr. Smartass, Troll Veterinarian"
> > <gek...@astroskivviesboymail.com> wrote:
>
> <snippy>
>
> >> Here's a good call on it:
>
> >>http://theplumline.whorunsgov.com/political-media/bailin-barracuda-or-
> >> the-quitah-from-wasilla/
>
> >> Bailin’ Barracuda, Or The Quitah From Wasilla
>
> <snippy>
>
> > Good stuff, Doc!!
> > It'd be amusing if she did run, but her little stunt prolly showed how
> > unprepared she was anyway.
>
> From the Mudflats Blog--possible indictments:
>
> http://www.themudflats.net/
>
> *******************************UPDATES
> Okay, I’ve now been able to get independent information from multiple
> sources that all of this precedes what are said to be possible federal
> indictments against Palin, concerning an embezzlement scandal related to
> the building of Palin’s house and the Wasilla Sports Complex built during
> her tenure. Both structures, it is said, feature the “same windows, same
> wood, same products.” Federal investigators have been looking into this
> for some time, and indictments could be imminent, according to the Alaska
> sources. From Brad Blog [http://www.bradblog.com/?p=7280]
>
Ha! I knew it!
> and...
>
> What we are seeing here is either a preface to some indictment, or the
> final chapter in the career of what has been the biggest political joke
> of the 21st century. She is so obviously a combination of extreme
> narcissism and even more extremely bad advice by really, really
> pathetically bad advisors.
>
> Andrea Mitchell is now being reported as claiming Palin has told some
> close to her that she is through with politics. From Firedoglake
> [http://oxdown.firedoglake.com/diary/6105#more-41525]
>
I just read on Yahoo that she's 'devoting herself to a higher
calling,' 'healing this country along conservative lines.' Yep, she's
just as deluded as ever.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090705/ap_on_re_us/us_palin_resigning
'JUNEAU, Alaska – Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin didn't wait long to give
some hint of what her political life might look like after she leaves
office at the end of the month.
After staying out of the public eye for most of Saturday, a day after
abruptly announcing she would soon give up her job as governor, Palin
indicated on a social networking site that she would take on a larger,
national role, citing a "higher calling" to unite the country along
conservative lines.
"I am now looking ahead and how we can advance this country together
with our values of less government intervention, greater energy
independence, stronger national security, and much-needed fiscal
restraint," the former Republican vice presidential candidate wrote in
a posting on her Facebook page. Palin's spokeswoman, Meghan Stapleton,
confirmed Palin wrote the entry.
Palin shocked even her closest friends on Friday when she announced
she would resign July 26, more than a year before her first term ends.
But the controversial hockey mom has not revealed many details of
bigger plans and national agenda.
Palin instead cast herself as a victim and blasted the media, calling
the response to her announcement "predictable" and out of touch.'
'The abruptness of her announcement and the mystery surrounding her
plans have fed widespread speculation. But Palin attorney Thomas Van
Flein on Saturday warned legal action may be taken against bloggers
and publications that reprint what he calls fraudulent claims.
"To the extent several websites, most notably liberal Alaska blogger
Shannyn Moore, are now claiming as 'fact' that Governor Palin resigned
because she is 'under federal investigation' for embezzlement or other
criminal wrongdoing, we will be exploring legal options this week to
address such defamation," Van Flein said in a statement. "This is to
provide notice to Ms. Moore, and those who re-publish the defamation,
such as Huffington Post, MSNBC, the New York Times and The Washington
Post, that the Palins will not allow them to propagate defamatory
material without answering to this in a court of law."'
And arrogant. Can't be conservative without a whole truckload of
arrogance.
PDW
Fred Stone
news:4nV3m.1875$cl4...@flpi150.ffdc.sbc.com:
> Fred Stone wrote:
> >>
>>> If they didn't claim to have a lock on morality, I wouldn't care
>>> when they showed human weakness. I don't expect them to be better
>>> than I am unless they run on a platform of being better than I am.
>>>
>>
>> Aren't you also being hypocritical then? Because you judge
>> Republicans on things that you excuse Democrats for.
>
> You are the one who calimed teh mortal highground for your party and
> always claimed the Democrats were the opposite.
Democrats aren't exactly shy about claiming the "moral high ground", and I
don't see you worrying about their hypocrisy on race or environmentalism.
Dr. Smartass, Troll Veterinarian
Yup. Fortunately it's not working with The Public.
Mike Painter
2013
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_c00_QkXUd8
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NrzXLYA_e6E
(And you thought it was me that was wrong about 2013)
Matt Silberstein
<fsto...@earthling.com> in
<Xns9C3E666665...@216.151.153.60> wrote:
>Matt Silberstein <RemoveThisPref...@ix.netcom.com> wrote in
>news:0viu45dp31nuja2uq...@4ax.com:
>
>> On 04 Jul 2009 12:16:13 GMT, in alt.atheism , Fred Stone
>> <fsto...@earthling.com> in
>> <0097c93b$0$28965$c3e...@news.astraweb.com> wrote:
>>
>>>Matt Silberstein <RemoveThisPref...@ix.netcom.com> wrote in
>>>news:kfgt45l3nhr84fjlj...@4ax.com:
>>>
>>>> What more is there to say? She gave a 18 minute long speech that said
>>>> nothing about why she was leaving or what she was going to do. I'm
>>>> betting that there is some really nasty story coming,
>>>
>>>Nastier than all the lies the Democrats spread around about Palin's
>>>daughters? Nastier than that pervert Letterman's rape fantasy?
>>
>> Fred, you have gone over the edge. You have not simply drank the
>> kool-aid, you are using it for blood transfusions. I don't know of
>> what lies about Palin's daughters you mean, but the truths about the
>> whole family are pretty nasty on their own. Nor does anyone (except,
>> perhaps you) think that Letterman was not referring to Bristol, who is
>> 18.
>>
>
>It's still rape, unless you think that a sexually active 18-year-old
>woman doesn't have a right to choose who she fucks.
And what did the joke have to do with rape?
>You are a sick, disgusting individual Matt Silberstein.
Letterman tells some joke and you try to make it about me. Yet again
you show more about yourself than about me.
Dr. Smartass, Troll Veterinarian
Bailin' Palin spun it that way during her media sermon just after
TopTenGate--and so the faithful must dutifully parrot her.
Matt Silberstein
Troll Veterinarian" <gek...@astroskivviesboymail.com> in
<Xns9C43C19B5A31...@216.77.188.18> wrote:
I wonder if Fred is not against term limits like Palin and thinks the
world needs more children with Down's Syndrome. Probably.
Mike Painter
<snip>
>>>
>>> And what did the joke have to do with rape?
>>
>> Bailin' Palin spun it that way during her media sermon just after
>> TopTenGate--and so the faithful must dutifully parrot her.
>
> I wonder if Fred is not against term limits like Palin and thinks the
> world needs more children with Down's Syndrome. Probably.
Unlikely. If there were to many of them it might take away from what he
wants the government to provide for him.
He's like the three or four year old at the older sibling's birthday party,
doing everything in his power to have people pay attention to him.