Palin in 2012? Yeah Right

Off Topic Politics and World Issues
21

[quote]Gambit_Lost wrote:

Hey Steely, did you realize that, according to the news report you posted, the “hoax” was the name of the source…not the information, right? You also realize Fox news, not msnbc broke the story, right?

[/quote]

Absolutely (I’s kin akshually reed).

Just posted the story as published.

‘News’ is a farce especially with ‘anonymous’ sources. This story, in addition to others, are more gossip and hearsay than hard fact news.

For the record, I’m no fan of any of the MSM tv news broadcasts, FoxNews included.

22

[quote]Brayton wrote:
Anyone else expecting a Playboy spread down the road? [/quote]

She apparently has been offered 2M to do a porn flick.
http://current.com/items/89511785/palin_offered_2m_to_appear_in_porn_movie.htm

Not sure if this is true though.

23

You guys are crazy! Since when did lack of knowledge and unusual beliefs disqualify someone from public office?

24

[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
You guys are crazy! Since when did lack of knowledge and unusual beliefs disqualify someone from public office?[/quote]

I thought it was a requirement

25

[quote]apbt55 wrote:
Neuromancer wrote:
She’s waiting to see what God tells her to do.

Obama is on video saying there are 57 states, now he is the moron.

I can think of other candidates that would be better suited to run, but you treat her like she is a horrible person, she ismore qualified to be in the whitehouse then the president elect as far as executive experience.

Oh I know you don’t like her cuz she isn’t some ugly upity bitch like hillary, the clinton with the balls.[/quote]

Did I say anything about Obama?Did I say anything about Clinton?

I didn’t think so.So stop telling me what I did and didn’t say,and address what I did write.

I don’t think she would be a good candidate because she is ignorant.Simple as that.

That is my opinion,nothing more,nothing less.

26

[quote]Neuromancer wrote:
apbt55 wrote:
Neuromancer wrote:
She’s waiting to see what God tells her to do.

Obama is on video saying there are 57 states, now he is the moron.

I can think of other candidates that would be better suited to run, but you treat her like she is a horrible person, she ismore qualified to be in the whitehouse then the president elect as far as executive experience.

Oh I know you don’t like her cuz she isn’t some ugly upity bitch like hillary, the clinton with the balls.

Did I say anything about Obama?Did I say anything about Clinton?

I didn’t think so.So stop telling me what I did and didn’t say,and address what I did write.

I don’t think she would be a good candidate because she is ignorant.Simple as that.

That is my opinion,nothing more,nothing less.

[/quote]

In what way is she ignorant?

Just curious, because I have heard her talk in person on 2 separate occasions, and would say she actually is quite intelligent, she is not ivy league prepped to sound more intelligent than she actually is. And she is christian and tries to uphold her values so that makes her ignorant. So in that case anyone who upholds the values systems they believe in is ignorant.

And I was using those tools as an example. Sorry It was a direct attack on you.

27

I caught an interview with her yesterday on CNN.

She came across as much more “herself” and much smarter than when she had to stick to some pre-fabricated message. I think the worst mistake of the John McCain Campaign was to try and “reshape” their two candidates to fit what focus groups and internal polls told them “their base” wanted.

Anyway, Palin came across as reasonable, smart (gasp!) and quite able to competently hold public office. She might be ignorant of some important facts, but ignorance can be remedied. Stupidity is a lot harder to overcome.

Same thing happened with McCain who was on Leno two days ago: We got the old McCain back, the likeable, trustable one. Not Grampa McDoofus parroting some negative ad slogan…

Hopefully campaign organizers will get a collective clue and we can move on from the era of bullshit politics with puppet candidate who aren’t allowed to go off script.

28

[quote]Demiajax wrote:
I think she hasn’t released her medical records because she’s had an abortion.

Now that would be the nail in her coffin. [/quote]

Where are Obama’s medical records? Where are his Harvard transcripts? Why aren’t you libs searching down his drug dealer instead of seeing if she’s ever had an unpaid parking ticket?

Jeez, you fucking libs suck donkey balls, plain and simple.

29

[quote]apbt55 wrote:
Gambit_Lost wrote:
SteelyD wrote:
Odogg wrote:

Didn’t know Africa was a CONTINENT?? WTF?! She is Done.

Wrong.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20081113/ap_en_tv/palin_hoax_1

MSNBC retracts false Palin story; others duped

NEW YORK ? MSNBC was the victim of a hoax when it reported that an adviser to John McCain had identified himself as the source of an embarrassing story about former vice presidential candidate Sarah Palin, the network said Wednesday.

"

Hey Steely, did you realize that, according to the news report you posted, the “hoax” was the name of the source…not the information, right? You also realize Fox news, not msnbc broke the story, right?

Generally when a source is not considered credible the information is not credible.

[/quote]

Why do you think the source wasn’t credible? I’ve not heard that from anyone. The fox news reporter stands by his source, has this changed.

Put it another way, you did realize the article he posted has little to do with the original story, right?

30

[quote] SteelyD wrote:
Gambit_Lost wrote:
SteelyD wrote:
Odogg wrote:

Didn’t know Africa was a CONTINENT?? WTF?! She is Done.

Wrong.

MSNBC retracts false Palin story; others duped

NEW YORK ? MSNBC was the victim of a hoax when it reported that an adviser to John McCain had identified himself as the source of an embarrassing story about former vice presidential candidate Sarah Palin, the network said Wednesday.

"

Hey Steely, did you realize that, according to the news report you posted, the “hoax” was the name of the source…not the information, right? You also realize Fox news, not msnbc broke the story, right?

Absolutely (I’s kin akshually reed).

Just posted the story as published.

‘News’ is a farce especially with ‘anonymous’ sources. This story, in addition to others, are more gossip and hearsay than hard fact news.

For the record, I’m no fan of any of the MSM tv news broadcasts, FoxNews included.
[/quote]

If you knew that (kuz u kin aksully reed) then why did you say “wrong”? The article you posted had little to do with the content of the argument.

I’m glad you don’t like fox, etc, I don’t much like them either. But anonymous sources are pretty standard fair and normally accurate. If we didn’t have these types of leaks we’d lose a lot of news.

Now I think it’s pretty hard to believe that Palin really didn’t know some of this stuff…it’s definitely eye-poppingly shocking. Lets hope these were slander and McCain wasn’t really putting the country at that level of risk. But if you’re going to say “wrong” you should probably list an article that actually backs that argument up, not one that has nothing to do with it (or is only tangential to it)

31

[quote]Gambit_Lost wrote:
Why do you think the source wasn’t credible? I’ve not heard that from anyone. The fox news reporter stands by his source, has this changed.

Put it another way, you did realize the article he posted has little to do with the original story, right?
[/quote]

Defending Fox News? How badly are you addicted to your kool-aid?

Believing a discredited source? Aren’t you the same liberal asswipe who was laughing out loud about “conspiracy theories” just a few weeks ago?

If you ever had any credibility in this forum, you just destroyed it.

32

[quote]Gambit_Lost wrote:
apbt55 wrote:
Gambit_Lost wrote:
SteelyD wrote:
Odogg wrote:

Didn’t know Africa was a CONTINENT?? WTF?! She is Done.

Wrong.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20081113/ap_en_tv/palin_hoax_1

MSNBC retracts false Palin story; others duped

NEW YORK ? MSNBC was the victim of a hoax when it reported that an adviser to John McCain had identified himself as the source of an embarrassing story about former vice presidential candidate Sarah Palin, the network said Wednesday.

"

Hey Steely, did you realize that, according to the news report you posted, the “hoax” was the name of the source…not the information, right? You also realize Fox news, not msnbc broke the story, right?

Generally when a source is not considered credible the information is not credible.

Why do you think the source wasn’t credible? I’ve not heard that from anyone. The fox news reporter stands by his source, has this changed.

Put it another way, you did realize the article he posted has little to do with the original story, right?
[/quote]

Nope guess everyone is just not as smart as you.

So we should just believe every uncredible source sounds good.

his source was the same as msnbc

http://elections.foxnews.com/2008/11/13/msnbc-retracts-false-palin-story-duped/

33

[quote]apbt55 wrote:

his source was the same as msnbc

http://elections.foxnews.com/2008/11/13/msnbc-retracts-false-palin-story-duped/

[/quote]

Your article doesn’t say this.

34

[quote]rainjack wrote:
Gambit_Lost wrote:
Why do you think the source wasn’t credible? I’ve not heard that from anyone. The fox news reporter stands by his source, has this changed.

Put it another way, you did realize the article he posted has little to do with the original story, right?

Defending Fox News? How badly are you addicted to your kool-aid?

Believing a discredited source? Aren’t you the same liberal asswipe who was laughing out loud about “conspiracy theories” just a few weeks ago?

If you ever had any credibility in this forum, you just destroyed it.

[/quote]

Your not a very good reader. I defended the use of anonymous sources, not fox news. Who discredited the source? Please post an article. The article posted talks about a “fake source” not the actual one.

35

ok your an idiot then, it says the source isn’t who it said it was, meaning they lied.

36

difference between being anonymous and pretending to be someone esle.

37

[quote]Gambit_Lost wrote:
rainjack wrote:
Gambit_Lost wrote:
Why do you think the source wasn’t credible? I’ve not heard that from anyone. The fox news reporter stands by his source, has this changed.

Put it another way, you did realize the article he posted has little to do with the original story, right?

Defending Fox News? How badly are you addicted to your kool-aid?

Believing a discredited source? Aren’t you the same liberal asswipe who was laughing out loud about “conspiracy theories” just a few weeks ago?

If you ever had any credibility in this forum, you just destroyed it.

Your not a very good reader. I defended the use of anonymous sources, not fox news. Who discredited the source? Please post an article. The article posted talks about a “fake source” not the actual one.
[/quote]

Defend whatever you need to keep the kool-aid flowing, kiddo.

38

[quote]Gambit_Lost wrote:

Put it another way, you did realize the article he posted has little to do with the original story, right?
[/quote]

How is it not related?

  • Fox reports an anonymously sourced, uncredible rumor.
  • MSNBC runs a report that they found the source of the anonymous rumor.
  • MSNBC retracts story. Still an unsourced, unproven rumor.
  • Those with Palin Derangement Syndrome still frothing at the mouth.

I didn’t feel the need to start a new thread.

The accusation is still proven untrue.

Let me guess-- you still think that Dan Rather’s anonymous Bush National Guard Papers are real.

39

[quote]SteelyD wrote:
Gambit_Lost wrote:

Put it another way, you did realize the article he posted has little to do with the original story, right?

How is it not related?

  • Fox reports an anonymously sourced, uncredible rumor.
  • MSNBC runs a report that they found the source of the anonymous rumor.
  • MSNBC retracts story. Still an unsourced, unproven rumor.
  • Those with Palin Derangement Syndrome still frothing at the mouth.

I didn’t feel the need to start a new thread.

The accusation is still proven untrue.

Let me guess-- you still think that Dan Rather’s anonymous Bush National Guard Papers are real.[/quote]

“unproven” does not equal “proven untrue”
It’s an anonymous source. Also, normally newspapers have at least one “back-up” source. Did fox news only have one source or were there multiple?

Let me guess-- you still think that deep throat was making up lies.

40

He said “insiders,” “they,” “folks,” “them” “sources” etc. This is not one source.