Gay Patriot Header Image

Sarah Palin: The Official Left-Wing Panty Buncher

Last September, Glenn Reynolds linked Shannon Love’s post, Palin and the Left’s Status-Anxiety where that blogress observed:

The left’s obsession with Sarah Palin is one of the most interesting political and social phenomena of our time. The degree and volume of venom directed at her staggers the imagination. It is unprecedented in recent times especially for someone who does not currently hold office.

I saved the link for a post on how Sarah Palin merely by opening her mouth causes a number of lefties to bunch up their panties.  This weekend, we learned, she doesn’t even need open her mouth for that to cause certain left-wing pundits to get their panties all in a bunch.  Some left-wing pundits were blaming her for the Arizona shooting before she had even offered her opinion on the horrific act.

As Blogress Diva Regent neoneocon put it,

What the left has done to Sarah Palin has been disgusting right from the start. But the accusation that she is responsible for the Tucson killings might just be a new low.

It seems Palin-haters have been heading toward this low for some time.  This sage blogress also defend Palin from the attacks against her for her use of the expression blood libel in her video message on the shooting and its aftermath.  (Read both posts.)

Wondering again at the power the former Alaska Governor has over various left-of-center pundits, bloggers and elected officials.

UPDATE:  In a similar vein, Glenn Reynolds quips, “She’s living in their heads, rent-free, 24-7.

Share

152 Comments

  1. ‘Sarah Palin is TOO STUPID to understand our brainy, insightful Critical Studies 102 connection of her with shootings that she objectively had nothing to do with… TOO STUPID to have scored such a point on us, when she rightly tagged our ravings as a new blood libel… ‘

    Yes, the Left has reached a new low.

    But in a weird way, it’s almost kinda fun to watch. Kinda. At least it teaches me how low people can go; how badly people can twist their minds, when they need to. And the solution, as always, is “more speech”. I hope Palin keeps going. I hope we all keep going!

    Comment by ILoveCapitalism — January 12, 2011 @ 6:53 pm - January 12, 2011

  2. Yea, it makes me wonder too why so many people care about/attack her. So far, she isn’t a threat to anything. She is the most politically polarizing serious contender for the republicans in 2012 and she currently polls terribly against Obama. If anything, I feel like the left should just let her go. Heck, if the Media really wants Obama to win, they should be supporting her.

    I feel like people just really really don’t like her. I don’t know why really. I mean I’m not a huge fan of her, but she is so unimportant in the grand scheme of things. All she amounts to right now is a pop culture icon/tv personality tantamount to Justin Bieber or Snooki. She obviously has some political influence among the right, but not nearly enough to bolster her chances. Seeing as it’s unlikely she’ll win any national election anytime soon, all the media is doing is increasing her celebrity status. They really should just learn to ignore her, it’d serve them well.

    Comment by AJ — January 12, 2011 @ 7:27 pm - January 12, 2011

  3. Oh god I just had the image of Barney Frank in panties…. Need bucket STAT!

    They fear her, they really do. And it’s this primal level of fear. Every day it gets deeper and stronger and most don’t even know why.

    Honestly I think she likes the fact that she freaks them out so badly. I think that little smirk of hers comes from knowing that at any moment some one is literally ripping their hair out for no reason other than that she exists.

    Personally I would love that level of influence on my opposition.

    Comment by Stone K — January 12, 2011 @ 7:35 pm - January 12, 2011

  4. I don’t understand it. I haven’t understood it since she was tapped as McCain’s running mate. On gardening boards, yes, gardening boards, they go berserk about her. I’ve hidden several friends on FB because of the vitriol directed her way. They don’t have any real reasons except they regurgitate what they’ve read on other blogs. I’ve begun calling them the Sisterhood of Perpetually Outraged.

    Comment by jaliranchr — January 12, 2011 @ 7:35 pm - January 12, 2011

  5. As long as I was doing representational dialog (comment 1), here is some from Ace, that also fits:

    MEDIA: Sarah Palin directly and knowingly caused the murders of six innocent human beings.

    PALIN: No, I didn’t.

    MEDIA: Stop making it all about you!!!

    Comment by ILoveCapitalism — January 12, 2011 @ 7:38 pm - January 12, 2011

  6. Damb your eyes, ILC, I was going to post that.

    (So true, tho’)

    Comment by V the K — January 12, 2011 @ 8:21 pm - January 12, 2011

  7. Your defense of Sarah Palin almost makes me ashamed to be gay. Her maps and her anti-semitic video today prove that she is contributing to the atmosphere of hate in America today. Your defense of her reminds me of the many years of self-hating gay people in this country. Do you also think gay bashers are ok and those that yell “fag” upon seeing a gay person should be the norm?

    Comment by Stephen Wolper — January 12, 2011 @ 8:30 pm - January 12, 2011

  8. Hey, Mrs Palin is improving with age and exposure… her initial silence and eloquently simple video presentation prove she’s finally climbed on to that ol’ learning curve she was avoiding or missing for so very, very long. I wish McCain had had the Palin of today as a running mate; maybe the McCain-Palin team wouldn’t have been laughed off so many stages and discounted as credible so quickly.

    As long as the Left and Democrats have Palin to kick around, they’ll leave W and Cheney and Rumsfeld alone… and that’s not all bad. “Sacrificial” Sarah is maturing, seasoning… too bad she wasn’t ready for PrimeTime when it counted most in her career.

    I’m actually growing to like the New Sarah sis. I just hope she stays away from the next survivor show… or a Food Channel gig… or QVC.

    Comment by Michigan-Matt — January 12, 2011 @ 8:41 pm - January 12, 2011

  9. It’s been 48 min and Obama is still droning on…..
    His faux sensitivity is painful.

    Comment by Gene in Pennsylvania — January 12, 2011 @ 9:08 pm - January 12, 2011

  10. Palin is getting unprecedented numbers of death threats: http://hotair.com/archives/2011/01/12/palin-aide-shes-getting-death-threats-at-unprecedented-levels/

    How can that be? I thought left-liberals were wonderful happy-lovey people who would never ever ever be like that, which is the whole reason “it’s all her fault”.

    Comment by ILoveCapitalism — January 12, 2011 @ 9:17 pm - January 12, 2011

  11. Sarah Palin burst on the scene in 2008 as John McCains
    Vice Presidential choice. Can anyone tell me why the left absolutely hates her so? Seriously, what on earth did she do to engender such malace hatred? Did she shoot someone. Drown someone, embezzel thousands of dollars, worship the devil, what, what is it?

    Comment by Gene in Pennsylvania — January 12, 2011 @ 9:25 pm - January 12, 2011

  12. That’s truly sweet coming from the very misogynists who couldn’t get their panties bunched up enough over Pelosi and Boxer.

    Come on. Do you ever listen to yourselves or read own posts?

    Comment by Auntie Dogma — January 12, 2011 @ 9:28 pm - January 12, 2011

  13. I think part of the reason the left hates Palin is….
    Imagine these women on a stage all at once…
    Hillary/Barbara McKulski/Michelle/Debbie Stabenow representing the liberal left.
    On the other side of the stage is
    Palin/Nikki Haley

    I think the old white, old time media types don’ t know how to react to a hot female polititian who weighs under 210 lbs.

    Comment by Gene in Pennsylvania — January 12, 2011 @ 9:43 pm - January 12, 2011

  14. Pelosi and Boxer….unlike a lot of my friends I had hoped the Cali electorate would continue to elect the dumb as a stump
    representatives they’ve been electing for years.
    Boxer, Pelosi, Brown. Let the leftist deal with the dissaster that is now California. Just like in ILL. They elected a dummy Democrat Governor, and their legislature today passed a 67% increase in the personal income tax and a 25% increase in the business tax. Leftist states getting more nutty.
    The surrounding govenors next to ILL are rejoycing asking business and residents to flee ILL for their red states.

    Comment by Gene in Pennsylvania — January 12, 2011 @ 9:51 pm - January 12, 2011

  15. Can anyone tell me why the left absolutely hates her so?

    Gene, they hate Palin for what she didn’t do. She didn’t have an abortion. That, more than anything else, is “it”. The one marker for “lefty tribe” membership that is non-negotiable, never ever to be compromised on, is that you either have had an abortion, or that you would have one if you were in a position to – if, say, you were carrying a Downs Syndrome baby.

    It’s not for nothing that Margaret Sanger, the mother of Planned Parenthood, was a leftist – and, a preacher of eugenics. Lefties would forgive all the other things they hate about Palin – her happiness, her beauty, her success at being a wife and having a loving (and hot!) husband, her Alaska twang, her fiscal-conservative views, her working-class background, her cheerful meat-eating and hunting, even her religiosity – if only Palin had showed that she was one of “them”, by having aborted her Downs Syndrome baby.

    Comment by ILoveCapitalism — January 12, 2011 @ 9:52 pm - January 12, 2011

  16. Is it too much to ask about the other Republican women in the Congress who actually have constituents to serve? The only one I can speak of is Mary Bono Mack out in the Palm Springs area, and she performs well for her district and for California. There are so few members of Congress who are female and Republican, e.g., in TN, KS, ME, TX. What about them? And what about all the women who serve in state and municipal elected positions? Really I think the Right’s obsession to defend Sarah Palin is just as tedious as the Left’s to cut her down. She can well defend herself with whatever she has to say. Though I suppose if we all let Sarah go, then we would have to talk about the real issues. And then we might actually get something done.

    Comment by Bryan — January 12, 2011 @ 9:55 pm - January 12, 2011

  17. Bryan, Palin is the only leading politician that I know of, who is talking about America’s one real domestic issue: http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/252715/palin-bernanke-cease-and-desist-robert-costa

    But, to understand what I mean about that being the one real domestic issue, there is a whole discussion about economic policy and what really drives the economy forward and the world, that is probably too long to get into here.

    Comment by ILoveCapitalism — January 12, 2011 @ 10:06 pm - January 12, 2011

  18. ILC I think you may be onto something there.
    Abortion is at the altar of true lefist liberalism.
    She is also proud to be a Christian. She wears it on her sleve so to speak which drives Dems nutts as well.

    Comment by Gene in Pennsylvania — January 12, 2011 @ 10:29 pm - January 12, 2011

  19. In #2, AJ ponders about Palin with these words:

    I feel like people just really really don’t like her. I don’t know why really. I mean I’m not a huge fan of her, but she is so unimportant in the grand scheme of things. All she amounts to right now is a pop culture icon/tv personality tantamount to Justin Bieber or Snooki.

    Really, if we could just go back 40 years this comment would be about Ronald Reagan.

    AJ, what you clearly do not understand is that Sarah Palin has bedrock conservative principles. She does not waver. That makes her just like Bedtime For Bonzo Reagan to those who look to moral relativism and statist ideas fluttering about on gossamer wings in their political faeries.

    Sarah Palin is a “rustic” to leftists. She does not have panache and the savoir faire of the Eastern elite who is the comfortable habitue of the salon. She does not please either Vanity Fair or The New Yorker set. She is so, well, Alaska Outdoors. Those who felt Kate Gosselin’s misery while “playing like homeless people” on her Alaska trip with the Palins will never like Sarah Palin or even begin to understand her.

    Exit question: If you had to choose someone to help you survive which one would it be: Barack Obama, Joe Biden, Nancy Pelosi, Sarah Palin.

    Comment by Heliotrope — January 12, 2011 @ 10:33 pm - January 12, 2011

  20. Um, re: AuntieDo in #10, I know our California resident co-moderator would frequently mock Boxer with the “Madame” meme but from what I saw, he pretty much kept to listing the facts about her record which consisted mainly of what she was NOT doing. Sorry never saw anything that approached the way the Left are trying to paint Sarah Palin as a modern day Lady MacBeth.

    Comment by PopArt — January 12, 2011 @ 10:36 pm - January 12, 2011

  21. The left’s obsession costs them. Thanks to their knuckleheaded weekend, Sarah is gonna be the new face of “free speech.”

    Comment by Savannah — January 12, 2011 @ 11:37 pm - January 12, 2011

  22. What I found interesting was that in a private forum I set up, the predominant responses I got when I posted Sarah’s video response for discussion came from those who, while not ferocious haters, weren’t particular fans of hers. They all agreed that the intense reaction was clearly unwarranted and were truly baffled with why she is being connected in the least to the motivations behind the shooter’s mindset. If the Left isn’t careful, the responses of some of these folks “in the middle” who wouldn’t have particularly cared for her as President, might translate into votes for her a year from now if they keep this up.

    Comment by PopArt — January 12, 2011 @ 11:45 pm - January 12, 2011

  23. I feel like people just really really don’t like her. I don’t know why really.

    Because liberals always tell you who they fear. At the same time, we’re learning that a loud minority has no capacity for shame. Loughner hasn’t shown any signs of remorse and neither do the liberal left.

    Comment by ThatGayConservative — January 13, 2011 @ 12:04 am - January 13, 2011

  24. Gene, they hate Palin for what she didn’t do. She didn’t have an abortion.

    It’d be 10x worse if she were black and didn’t have an abortion.

    Comment by ThatGayConservative — January 13, 2011 @ 12:13 am - January 13, 2011

  25. I did not take time read all the posts here so I hope I’m not repeating anyone. The left WANTS to keep Palin front-and-center as the representative of conservatism and republicanism because they think she’s an idiot. Same reason they like to keep bringing up Bush. Keep him as the face of the republican party as long as possible because he was unpopular and screwed up everything. That’s their goal. They are not afraid of Palin at all. They are afraid that someone else who is more palatable to more voters will take her spot if she disappears from the limelight and there are a myriad of choices in the GOP for that. Anytime I talk politics with my liberal gay friends (which is pretty much all of them) they bring up Palin first. She’s the GOP face….sorry to go off topic but I actually overheard two gay guys slamming Boehner for crying all the time. They LOVE to attack Rep’s for being cold and heartless and then when one of us is sensitive and emotional they don’t like that either…sorry, just had to rant!

    Comment by Eddie — January 13, 2011 @ 12:52 am - January 13, 2011

  26. You’re all so hopelessly delusional. Palin embodies everything that’s wrong with the Republican Party and perfectly demonstrates that the conservative movement learned absolutely nothing from the Bush years. Conservatives have done some terrible things in recent history and are desperate to get back into power so they can do some more terrible things. I don’t like Sarah Palin because I don’t like conservatives, and it takes a lot less time to criticize the anointed figurehead of your party then it is to name you all individually.

    Ten years from now, even conservatives will catch up to the rest of the country and the world and realize that this woman is about nothing more than pulling money out of American political industry and massaging her own hyper-inflated ego. She’s stupid, she’s mean, she’s condescending, she lies, she’s unprincipled, she’s cowardly, she’s insular – it actually makes perfect sense that the conservative movement has elevated someone with those characteristics to such high esteem. The monster that the conservative movement created with Sarah Palin is simply a reflection of the conservative movement itself.

    Comment by Levi — January 13, 2011 @ 2:37 am - January 13, 2011

  27. Stephen in #7, thanks for helping make my point as did Levi in #27 Did you even read the post? I’m not defending her, only noting how the mere mention of her name sends certain lefties into a fever frenzy.

    Please gentlemen, read the post again. It’s not a defense of Sarah Palin, but a statement of amazement at the power she has over folks like you — how you rush to criticize her at the drop of a hat.

    Comment by B. Daniel Blatt — January 13, 2011 @ 3:30 am - January 13, 2011

  28. She’s stupid, she’s mean, she’s condescending, she lies, she’s unprincipled, she’s cowardly, she’s insular –

    All the traits of the dumb sonofabitch you put in the WH. Project much?

    Just how many liberal careers are you assholes gonna destroy, Levi? Palin’s still standing. Sheriff Apparatchik is toast. Krugman SHOULD be done.

    And please explain to me where is the principle in turning a memorial service into a pep rally complete with banners and t-shirts? Where’s the princible in exploiting a mass murder event for profit? Where’s the principle in a political group actively writing the defense for a mass murderer?

    Please explain to the whole class the principle that you shit
    bags are displaying? I eagerly await your explanation.

    Comment by ThatGayConservative — January 13, 2011 @ 4:25 am - January 13, 2011

  29. Your defense of her reminds me of the many years of self-hating gay people in this country.

    See if maybe Google Translate has a “dumbass” selection and try again.

    Comment by ThatGayConservative — January 13, 2011 @ 4:27 am - January 13, 2011

  30. As soon as I saw this post, I knew Levi would be a long to throw a frothing tantrum. He did not disappoint.

    Comment by V the K — January 13, 2011 @ 5:43 am - January 13, 2011

  31. Best of all:

    She’s stupid, she’s mean, she’s condescending, she lies, she’s unprincipled, she’s cowardly, she’s insular

    Wow Levi, I know you like to talk about yourself, but that’s a bit much.

    More seriously, the hatred and bile you spend on Sarah Palin seems to match the rhetoric that the Tuscon shooter saved for Rep Giffords. Why do you hate women, Levi?

    Actually the answer in Levi’s case is clear. He can’t admit that Sarah Palin is smarter and more sucessful than him by any standard. Because he believes it’s the duty of those who are smarter to drag the dumber kicking and screaming into the future.

    Comment by The_Livewire — January 13, 2011 @ 6:57 am - January 13, 2011

  32. poor Sarah might have quite the challenge ahead of her.. . trying to distance herself from this. The fact that 6 other people died, including a young girl is gonna get stuck in the mind of the public and certainly won’t be left on the back burner in the days/weeks/months of 2012

    the guy pretty much sounds like a individual with some serious mental health issues, but it won’t be easy to eliminate the images of those targets posted by Palin and the fact that 6 are dead, the 12 others were shot and the politician hopefully will recover. Seems like the folk in DC are putting things on hold until Wednesday.

    Comment by rusty — January 9, 2011 @ 1:01 am – January 9, 2011

    Comment by rusty — January 13, 2011 @ 8:20 am - January 13, 2011

  33. poor Sarah might have quite the challenge ahead of her.. . trying to distance herself from this.

    Wishful thinking. It is actually the left that have beclowned themselves in their zeal to politicize a tragedy.

    Comment by V the K — January 13, 2011 @ 8:38 am - January 13, 2011

  34. Actually, “beclown themselves” is far too kind to describe people who are trafficking in death threats.

    Comment by V the K — January 13, 2011 @ 8:47 am - January 13, 2011

  35. Levi mans up and tells us:

    I don’t like Sarah Palin because I don’t like conservatives, and it takes a lot less time to criticize the anointed figurehead of your party then it is to name you all individually.

    And why does he not like conservatives?

    …Conservatives have done some terrible things in recent history
    …are desperate to get back into power so they can do some more terrible things
    … (they are) pulling money out of American political industry
    … (they are) massaging (their) own hyper-inflated ego
    … (they are) stupid
    … (they are) mean
    … (they are) condescending
    … (they are) liars
    … (they are) unprincipled
    … (they are) cowardly
    … (they are) insular
    … and because the monster that the conservative movement created with Sarah Palin is simply a reflection of the conservative movement itself.

    Please print this list out and clip it to your monitor so that when Levi comes by, you know exactly why.

    Comment by Heliotrope — January 13, 2011 @ 9:21 am - January 13, 2011

  36. I agree. Palin *has* distanced herself from it already, except in the mind of lefties, only 20-30% of the population.

    Comment by ILoveCapitalism — January 13, 2011 @ 9:22 am - January 13, 2011

  37. Still waiting, Levi.

    Comment by ThatGayConservative — January 13, 2011 @ 9:33 am - January 13, 2011

  38. Well, 35%. New poll shows Americans still not buying media spin on Tucson shootings. 35% buy it, 53% don’t. The 35%, again, would be the Levis, the ones that have their panties in a bunch no matter what Palin does.

    Comment by ILoveCapitalism — January 13, 2011 @ 9:38 am - January 13, 2011

  39. Also Levi, if it’s not too much to ask, could you explain the principle in ignoring the fact that a liberal representative called for the assassination of my governor?

    Thanks.

    Comment by ThatGayConservative — January 13, 2011 @ 10:21 am - January 13, 2011

  40. Are Levi and Adam from Legal Insurrection the same person, or just two nodes of the same leftist, Palin-hating hivemind?

    Comment by V the K — January 13, 2011 @ 10:23 am - January 13, 2011

  41. Sarah Palin is a politician and it means she may not be crystally pure or ideal but even hatred should have some limits, I reckon. And speaking about this woman the attitude she gets is close to the one of the devil from Christians. These people may not like her of course but to say such things as they do is inhumane.

    Comment by Collin@Israel — January 13, 2011 @ 10:28 am - January 13, 2011

  42. You’re all so hopelessly delusional.

    Right. That’s why we all have jobs and respected professional status, and why you, the super-genius who knows everything, is running the cash register for a Verizon outlet — which somehow magically sells books, since you insist Sarah Palin was holding a signing at your store and bashed her for it.

    Now, since you are completely unable to identify when or where it happened, I think it only fair to state that you are delusional. Perhaps you should consider getting psychiatric help for your insistence that Sarah Palin was holding book signings in a Verizon store. You are clearly hallucinating and not in your right mind.

    Unless, of course, you want to simply admit that you were lying.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — January 13, 2011 @ 11:08 am - January 13, 2011

  43. You’re all so hopelessly delusional

    LOL :-) Tell that to my brokerage account.

    Comment by ILoveCapitalism — January 13, 2011 @ 11:11 am - January 13, 2011

  44. Krauthammer hits the NYT and Krugman: http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/256935/massacre-followed-libel-charles-krauthammer

    He did also blather yesterday about Palin having re-injected herself into the debate or something, which was sad. I believe everyone has a right to defend themselves against blood libels.

    Comment by ILoveCapitalism — January 13, 2011 @ 11:18 am - January 13, 2011

  45. Gentlemen all,

    Asking Levi to “explain” is a misguided, tacit understanding that Levi will apply common sense, logic, principle, intelligence, and thoughtfulness to his “reasoned” response.

    After many long exchanges with Levi, I sadly conclude that Levi has no cause or intent other than to bluster, whimper, bemoan, twist, blame, cower, and run like a turkey with here a gobble, there a gobble, gobble-gobble everywhere. He is without substance or validity. He speaks, therefore he is. As soon as what he speaks is addressed thoughtfully, he is at a near total disadvantage and he must resort to blowing smoke, hiding behind mirrors, denying reality and threatening with cosmic powers. Levi thinks tadpoles are bull sperm.

    Comment by Heliotrope — January 13, 2011 @ 11:20 am - January 13, 2011

  46. Stephen in #7, thanks for helping make my point as did Levi in #27 Did you even read the post? I’m not defending her, only noting how the mere mention of her name sends certain lefties into a fever frenzy.

    Please gentlemen, read the post again. It’s not a defense of Sarah Palin, but a statement of amazement at the power she has over folks like you — how you rush to criticize her at the drop of a hat.

    Why shouldn’t we rush to criticize her, if we think she’s wrong, and if she’s been elevated to a position of prestige in the eyes of the conservative movement? That’s what politics is all about, isn’t it?

    Now, as far as this self-serving line of bullsh*t about how she has power over liberals, I just don’t even know how to respond to something so childish and pointless. It’s extremely telling that you repeat over and over again how you’re not defending her – well why aren’t you? Why resort to these taunts about how my panties are in a bunch? I think the answers to those questions are pretty clear – it’s a lot harder to defend Sarah Palin than it is to pretend like her legions and legions of critics have the same kind of personality defect. And just like everything else with you Dan, excusing the party and the movement is more important than real issues.

    Lastly, and for the hundredth time now, I read your post. If I am commenting in your thread, I read your post, and probably most if not all of the links. This seems to be your initial response to most liberal feedback, and it doesn’t make you look good. Try not doing it anymore?

    Comment by Levi — January 13, 2011 @ 11:28 am - January 13, 2011

  47. That’s truly sweet coming from the very misogynists who couldn’t get their panties bunched up enough over Pelosi and Boxer.

    Come on. Do you ever listen to yourselves or read own posts?

    Yup. And in not one of them have I ever seen Dan or Bruce calling for Pelosi or Boxer to be raped, shot, hung, or die in a plane crash.

    All of which we have seen the Obama Party, gays and lesbians, and you and your fellow “progressives” do.

    So why do you and Levi want to rape and murder Palin and her family, “Auntie Dogma”?

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — January 13, 2011 @ 11:29 am - January 13, 2011

  48. Right. That’s why we all have jobs and respected professional status, and why you, the super-genius who knows everything, is running the cash register for a Verizon outlet — which somehow magically sells books, since you insist Sarah Palin was holding a signing at your store and bashed her for it.

    Now, since you are completely unable to identify when or where it happened, I think it only fair to state that you are delusional. Perhaps you should consider getting psychiatric help for your insistence that Sarah Palin was holding book signings in a Verizon store. You are clearly hallucinating and not in your right mind.

    Unless, of course, you want to simply admit that you were lying.

    lol

    Comment by Levi — January 13, 2011 @ 11:33 am - January 13, 2011

  49. I think the answers to those questions are pretty clear – it’s a lot harder to defend Sarah Palin than it is to pretend like her legions and legions of critics have the same kind of personality defect.

    And the projector in Levi’s head flashes on once again.

    You’re all so hopelessly delusional.

    Actually, Levi, the fact that you’re delusional and obsessed with Sarah Palin is obvious in that you hallucinate her everywhere, including in your own workplace. If she had come to visit mine and do a book signing, as you claimed she did for yours, I could certainly tell you the location and date. Your inability to do that most basic thing shows clearly that you’re not in your right mind and really should seek treatment.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — January 13, 2011 @ 11:34 am - January 13, 2011

  50. Also Levi, if it’s not too much to ask, could you explain the principle in ignoring the fact that a liberal representative called for the assassination of my governor?

    Thanks.

    Well, without knowing any of the details (am I supposed to know who your governor is?), I think that’s a stupid thing to say. I think most politicians say stupid things most of the time.

    Satisfied?

    Comment by Levi — January 13, 2011 @ 11:35 am - January 13, 2011

  51. Actually, Levi, the fact that you’re delusional and obsessed with Sarah Palin is obvious in that you hallucinate her everywhere, including in your own workplace. If she had come to visit mine and do a book signing, as you claimed she did for yours, I could certainly tell you the location and date. Your inability to do that most basic thing shows clearly that you’re not in your right mind and really should seek treatment.

    lol

    I’m not going to post detailed information about where I work and live on the internet. That’s just a stupid thing to do, and I simply don’t care that you think I’m a liar. So keep on screaming into the wind – maybe if you post this goofy nonsense another hundred times in every thread for the next couple of months I’ll break down and tell you?

    (No. I won’t.)

    Comment by Levi — January 13, 2011 @ 11:40 am - January 13, 2011

  52. Gentlemen all,

    Asking Levi to “explain” is a misguided, tacit understanding that Levi will apply common sense, logic, principle, intelligence, and thoughtfulness to his “reasoned” response.

    After many long exchanges with Levi, I sadly conclude that Levi has no cause or intent other than to bluster, whimper, bemoan, twist, blame, cower, and run like a turkey with here a gobble, there a gobble, gobble-gobble everywhere. He is without substance or validity. He speaks, therefore he is. As soon as what he speaks is addressed thoughtfully, he is at a near total disadvantage and he must resort to blowing smoke, hiding behind mirrors, denying reality and threatening with cosmic powers. Levi thinks tadpoles are bull sperm.

    You’re getting awfully boring.

    Comment by Levi — January 13, 2011 @ 11:41 am - January 13, 2011

  53. Like I said, Levi’s afarid of Sarah Palin, since, like most of us when we show he’s not as bright as he thinks he is, we make him question his world view.

    Levi just doesn’t want her to drag him kicking and screaming into the future, as his belief system says she’s entitled to.

    Comment by The_Livewire — January 13, 2011 @ 12:00 pm - January 13, 2011

  54. Gotta love Levi’s response when challenged to present facts: “Facts? But facts are so boring.”

    Comment by V the K — January 13, 2011 @ 12:05 pm - January 13, 2011

  55. Ladies and Gentlemen, for your amusement and entertainment, I bring you the Magnificent Levi from #47:

    Why shouldn’t we rush to criticize her, if we think she’s wrong, and if she’s been elevated to a position of prestige in the eyes of the conservative movement? That’s what politics is all about, isn’t it?

    Translation: She must be stopped.

    Now, as far as this self-serving line of bullsh*t about how she has power over liberals, I just don’t even know how to respond to something so childish and pointless.

    Translation: Liberals don’t feel the need to stop her.

    Further Translation: any inference of a fixation on Saral Palin is childish and pointless.

    Final Translation: If you would stop placing her in a position of prestige, we liberals would find another target to obsess over.

    P.S. Translation: Sarah Palin means nothing to me. I never give her a thought. You make me attack her because you are pointless children. Also, you are stupid, insular, mean, condescending, cowardly, unprincipled liars.

    P.P.S. Translation: Don’t make me say what I really think.

    Comment by Heliotrope — January 13, 2011 @ 12:13 pm - January 13, 2011

  56. Now, as far as this self-serving line of bullsh*t about how she has power over liberals

    She does have the power to make liberals post long rants about how much they hate her.

    I mean, there are a lot of liberals I find repugnant… most of them, actually… but are they worth trolling left-wing blogs so I can post long diatribes about how much I hate them? No. They have no power to make me waste my time in such a manner.

    Comment by V the K — January 13, 2011 @ 12:28 pm - January 13, 2011

  57. I’m not going to post detailed information about where I work and live on the internet.

    Levi, I understand that the mentally ill like yourself see and hear things that are not there, so I’ll simply repost what I asked for the first time.

    Wh was Sarah Palin having book-signing at a Verizon store?

    Even better, why don’t you tell us at what store and on what day this took place?

    Can you do that?

    You really need to focus. For some reason, you hallucinated that people were asking you about where you live, which wasn’t anywhere in the question. Furthermore, you seemingly thought that there were detailed questions being asked about you, when it’s clear that the only ones being asked are about where Sarah Palin was and on what day this alleged signing took place.

    Your illness apparently includes paranoia along with hallucinations. Please get psychiatric help. Granted, you do live among liberals, who go onto public Twitter and Facebook posts to make death threats against Sarah Palin with your encouragement, so it’s no surprise that you are extremely frightened of the same being done to you, but still, your inability to separate reality from delusions and hallucinations of your own making is indicative of significant physical and emotional issues.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — January 13, 2011 @ 12:34 pm - January 13, 2011

  58. Also, have you ever thought what a credit it is to Sarah Palin that she is so clean that the left has to resort to making up outrageous sh-t in order to slam her? They can’t find anything concrete in her public or private life that rises to the level of scandal, so they have to… essentially… call her dumb and accuse her of political voodoo.

    Comment by V the K — January 13, 2011 @ 12:34 pm - January 13, 2011

  59. You know, Levi is a human crockpot. He stews in his own juices all day. When he is fully steeped, you end up with a crock of shifty Levi distilled to his essence.

    Comment by Heliotrope — January 13, 2011 @ 12:35 pm - January 13, 2011

  60. [TGC] a liberal representative called for the assassination of my governor

    Obvious reference to Rep. Kanjorski, D-PA, having said that Gov. Scott should be shot. It has been in the news and blogs again, these last few days.

    [Levi] Well, without knowing any of the details (am I supposed to know who your governor is?), I think that’s a stupid thing to say. I think most politicians say stupid things most of the time.

    No one’s excuses combine depravity with lameness – “calling for the violent death of another is just another dumb thing any politician would say” – quite like Levi’s.

    But what I really love here is: Levi playing dumb. It sets up a recursive joke. You see, when Levi **pretends** to be dumb, the joke is on him… and he doesn’t know it… which is another joke on him… that he doesn’t know… which is yet another joke on him… etc. :-)

    Comment by ILoveCapitalism — January 13, 2011 @ 12:38 pm - January 13, 2011

  61. “That Scott down there that’s running for governor of Florida,” Mr. Kanjorski said. “Instead of running for governor of Florida, they ought to have him and shoot him. Put him against the wall and shoot him.”

    Luckily for decent Americans, Kanjorski was not re-elected.

    Comment by ILoveCapitalism — January 13, 2011 @ 12:43 pm - January 13, 2011

  62. Sarah Palin is going to destroy the next election for us. She has no credit in my book as a conservative. She may have a large following, but she does not have the political weight and qualities that I would like to see in a presidential candidate. I know a lot (most I reckon’) will disagree, but this is my p.o.v.

    Some of you wil claim that Reagan or Eisenhower weren’t “true” conservatives either and I would agree 100%, – but they were both very abled politicians in the pragmatic sense. Can you honestly see Palin in that role?

    I could go on stepping on peoples toes with my views of the whole teaparty-movement, – but I will save that for later.

    Anyway, shouldn’t the gop candidates begin to announce their candidacy soon?

    Comment by Johnny G — January 13, 2011 @ 2:38 pm - January 13, 2011

  63. #17 To ILoveCapitalism. I should have liked to read the whole of Sarah’s address rather than just NR’s excerpt. Monetary policy has as many theories as there are economists. Bernanke’s a fan of Milton and Anna of Chicago, and may wish to apply their reading of the lessons of the American Great Depression, hence the “quantitative easing.” Of course, repurchasing Treasuries, like a company’s repurchasing its shares, is not necessarily a positive move.

    If Sarah is now using her time to inform herself, to read about and listen to others’ thoughts on economic policy, then good on her. Sustained study tends to prevent one making “shoot from the hip” and erratic answers. Perhaps she is taking a tack similar to Reagan’s when he sought to plot his course in national topics. It’s a bit of a stretch for me to see her now as a politician since she no longer holds political office (I see her as a political commentator). Still the Republican Party needs all the help it can get, though it’s sad if, as you put it, she’s “the only leading politician [you] know of…”. What are the others doing?

    Comment by Bryan — January 13, 2011 @ 2:56 pm - January 13, 2011

  64. Bernanke’s a fan of Milton and Anna of Chicago

    I disagree. I mean, OK, maybe he says he is, or cites them as rationale. But Bernanke’s actions are the actions of the central banker of a banana republic. Friedman criticized the contraction of the U.S. money supply in the Great Depression, but I don’t think Friedman’s answer would necessarily have been Bernanke’s answer, to expand the monetary base (M0) to the point where the currency’s viability will soon be in question, if it is not already.

    it’s sad if, as you put it, she’s “the only leading politician [you] know of…”. What are the others doing?

    Spouting Keynesian nonsense. The Tea Party has sent a message that the wild spending and deficits have to stop. That message has been registered… reluctantly.

    Comment by ILoveCapitalism — January 13, 2011 @ 3:09 pm - January 13, 2011

  65. Levi, you are one of the very few people who actually makes any sense on this blog. I don’t know how you do it day-in and day-out. But I’m thankful that you and a few others are willing to come here and counter the delusion that generally permeates this blog.

    Your comment #26 was superb. The only thing I would have added to your otherwise complete list of Sarah Palin’s attributes is, “she’s ignorant.”

    Comment by Richard R — January 13, 2011 @ 3:23 pm - January 13, 2011

  66. Awwww, Levi has a fan.

    Irrationality is contagious? Of course finding proof of their allegations would be amusing.

    Comment by The_Livewire — January 13, 2011 @ 3:35 pm - January 13, 2011

  67. The reason I dislike SP’s actions is because she is smart i& effectiven terms of her political thinking. I do not think she is book smart or well educated (her interview with CC showed that really clearly). She understands and uses media that are to her advantage–twitter (and facebook), for example, because it doesn’t rely on her having to sustain a long argument or present a lot of evidence in a structured manner. She is not good at that. But, she can read a teleprompter as well as anyone. She looks good. She is able to see the faultline in an idea, and by giving it an imaginative name, turn discourse to her advantage. It doesn’t have to be true (death panels nonsense), but she has the knack for resonating with voter fears that is really effective.

    So, I want her to fail because she is too beholden to an ideology, and ignorant of the context and nuance that I think a good President needs to have, in this increasingly complex world. And I want her to fail, because she is very effective, in shaping discourse. So, seeing her stumble, makes me breathe easier that she won’t become President. I don’t think she would be good for the country; too polarizing, too limited, with positions that are too simplistic.

    Comment by Cas — January 13, 2011 @ 3:50 pm - January 13, 2011

  68. “Awwww, Levi has a fan.”

    ————-

    Sock puppet?
    .

    Comment by gastorgrab — January 13, 2011 @ 4:15 pm - January 13, 2011

  69. Apparently the threats against Sarah Palin have hit record levels. The left is becoming even more unhinged.
    Let’s hope and pray the police are taking note and tracking down all these nutts who are threatening her and her family.
    The Tucson law enforcement didn’t do such a good job when they were warned about how unbalanced JL was.
    I would hope Levis hatred is just words and he would never take or condone actions against Palin.

    Comment by Gene in Pennsylvania — January 13, 2011 @ 4:28 pm - January 13, 2011

  70. http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_162-20028458-503544.html

    I wonder if at places like MSNBC they would discontinue the hateful tirades against Palin until we can get more of the leftie nut cases back in custody.

    Comment by Gene in Pennsylvania — January 13, 2011 @ 4:32 pm - January 13, 2011

  71. Translation: Liberals don’t feel the need to stop her.

    Further Translation: any inference of a fixation on Saral Palin is childish and pointless.

    Final Translation: If you would stop placing her in a position of prestige, we liberals would find another target to obsess over.

    P.S. Translation: Sarah Palin means nothing to me. I never give her a thought. You make me attack her because you are pointless children. Also, you are stupid, insular, mean, condescending, cowardly, unprincipled liars.

    P.P.S. Translation: Don’t make me say what I really think.

    Sigh.

    I don’t know why you’re getting so excited about this. Couldn’t I say that Obama has power over conservatives? Couldn’t I say that you’re obsessed with Obama by the way you fixate on him? I can’t begin to express how uninteresting that sounds to me. Again, it works for you guys because there is literally no way to mount a reasonable defense of Palin; you literally have no recourse but to accuse all her critics of being manic depressives who are just so jealous of her fame and success! Your choices are to try to make sense of her various ramblings – why she quit as governor, why she thinks Alaska being close to Russia gives her foreign policy experience, and more recently, her completely unaware co-opting of the term blood libel – or you can dioagnose me with psychological disorders. What is the path of least resistence there?

    I’d also note that I’m not the proprietor of this blog, and I’m not the one that keeps putting up articles about Sarah Palin. I’m only responding here – if anyone is to be accused of obsessing over Sarah Palin, it’s Dan.

    Comment by Levi — January 13, 2011 @ 4:37 pm - January 13, 2011

  72. Levi would you disavow all the attacks and threats of physical harm to Sarah Palin. I think coming from a leftist to other leftists, it might be actually helpful at this time. In the past the police have worried about copy cat crimes. With Tucson still fresh in peoples minds I’m hoping Sarah is smart and doesn’t do any public speaking until the left settles down a bit.

    Comment by Gene in Pennsylvania — January 13, 2011 @ 4:52 pm - January 13, 2011

  73. I don’t know why you’re getting so excited about this.

    Because, Levi, we want to know why “progressives” like yourself are so threatened by Palin that you want to rape, shoot, and hang her and her family.

    We assume you are mentally ill because conservatives simply do not understand why political differences would drive a sane person to plot the murder of a woman and her family. You, of course, support political murder, which is why you and your Obama Party jumped to the immediate conclusion that the shootings on Saturday were Sarah Palin’s fault.

    The whole fiasco on the Left’s part has revealed a very dark and disturbing underbelly of their thought: they believe that a normal person could be exhorted to commit murder by politicians and ideologues, because they can justify murder based on politics and ideology.

    That’s all you’re doing. Your ranting about Sarah Palin is based on one thing; you hate her politics and her ideology, so you hate everything about her — to the point where you completely devalue her life and the life of her family.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — January 13, 2011 @ 5:03 pm - January 13, 2011

  74. Cas, I have to agree with most of what you said. Palin is essentially a conservative mad lib. She is too beholden to her conservative ideology as you say.

    In contrast, the more I hear Chris Christie speak, the more I like him as a candidate, if I had to have a republican as a president. He’s beholden to his constituents, the people he serves. He is one of the few politicians out there right now that unapologetically does what he believes is best for his constituents. Sure we don’t see eye to eye on a lot of things, but he’s been making the talk show rounds a lot lately and the more I hear him speak, the more I like him. Even though he won’t, here’s to hoping he runs in 2012 and saves us from anymore of this Sara Palin nonsense.

    Comment by AJ — January 13, 2011 @ 5:20 pm - January 13, 2011

  75. Hmm, ‘co opting blood libel’? This coming from the boy who doesn’t think brown people can understand democracy?

    I’m sure Levi can point to where he condemned MSNBC accusing the Swift Boaters of ‘Blood Libel’

    Or Rep Deutsch doing the same to people pointing out Al Gore’s fraud
    link link.

    Like I said, Levi’s afraid of Sarah Palin because she is smarter than him, and he can’t handle it.

    Comment by The_Livewire — January 13, 2011 @ 5:21 pm - January 13, 2011

  76. In fact Chris Christie made a great point, have we ever really seen Palin unscripted? See her sit down with a “fair” reporter and have an open, honest and detailed policy discussion? She really need to start doing this if she is going to be taken seriously as a potential presidential candidate.

    http://hotair.com/archives/2011/01/13/chris-christie-obamas-speech-was-excellent-palin-needs-to-be-more-unscripted/

    Comment by AJ — January 13, 2011 @ 5:26 pm - January 13, 2011

  77. I believe I asked Levi what’s the principle behind liberals exploiting dead Americans for financial gain. Can’t help but noticed he dodged that post I made.

    Just think, Levi, you’re little sockpuppet could read that bit of brilliance and spend the evening masturbating furiously to your bilge.

    Comment by ThatGayConservative — January 13, 2011 @ 5:31 pm - January 13, 2011

  78. The reason I dislike SP’s actions is because she is smart i& effectiven terms of her political thinking.

    Of course. Competence and intelligence tend to scare people when their opponents so obviously show them.

    I do not think she is book smart or well educated (her interview with CC showed that really clearly).

    As far as “book smart”, given that she has a four-year college degree, she has more “book education” than 70% of the US population.

    Furthermore, given how the liberal community has deliberately smeared her, claiming that lines like “I can see Russia from my house” were true when they were not, one can see why someone like yourself who is not inclined to objectively review her in the first place would think she was stupid.

    The cognitive dissonance of your position is more obvious in the next few lines.

    She understands and uses media that are to her advantage–twitter (and facebook), for example, because it doesn’t rely on her having to sustain a long argument or present a lot of evidence in a structured manner…..She is able to see the faultline in an idea, and by giving it an imaginative name, turn discourse to her advantage. It doesn’t have to be true (death panels nonsense), but she has the knack for resonating with voter fears that is really effective.

    So she not only understands, but can effectively utilize media and communications tools at a level beyond the vast and overwhelming majority of adults.

    Furthermore, she can analyze and identify weak spots in an argument, then effectively exploit them using a simple and basic argument to the point that they overwhelm those who are allegedly more “book smart” and “well-educated” than she is.

    In short, what you are saying is that the most brilliant and well-educated minds in history (or so they claim) are not only being stopped, but knocked backwards, by an uneducated idiot.

    Your argument really isn’t much different than the “Bush is a moron whose evil schemes destroyed everything” argument that the left has been deploying for years. You’ve just switched the target from Bush to Palin.

    The interesting thing is that it’s vanishing like sugar in a fire. For some reason, people are no longer believing the “Palin is an idiot” line nearly as effectively as they were the “Bush is an idiot” line.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — January 13, 2011 @ 5:36 pm - January 13, 2011

  79. …for your insistence that Sarah Palin was holding book signings in a Verizon store.

    I’m thinking he’s one of those losers at a VZ kiosk at the mall. Those are run by independent retailers and not VZ.

    Comment by ThatGayConservative — January 13, 2011 @ 5:38 pm - January 13, 2011

  80. She really need to start doing this if she is going to be taken seriously as a potential presidential candidate.

    Why?

    Palin is essentially a conservative mad lib. She is too beholden to her conservative ideology as you say.

    Sounds like your mind is already made up. So why should Palin waste effort on someone like you who’s already condemning her BEFORE she says anything?

    All this is really demonstrating is how liberals run frantically around the field moving goalposts to avoid having to treat a conservative by the same standards to which they hold a liberal. No one seriously believes you can be convinced by anything Palin says, AJ; you’ve demonstrated in all of your commenting here that, when you’re presented with facts, you just change the argument.

    Palin has made the wise decision not to bother chasing the goalposts and to simply plow forward. She has learned that liberals like you, AJ, hate her, simply because of who she is and what she represents, and has made peace with that fact. You can either take her or leave her.

    And she knows the most basic truth: no one ever became a leader by following. She leads, and if you like, you may choose to follow.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — January 13, 2011 @ 5:47 pm - January 13, 2011

  81. Sounds like Sarah Palin will be sitting down with Sean Hannity next Monday. . .kinda unscripted.

    Comment by rusty — January 13, 2011 @ 5:49 pm - January 13, 2011

  82. There you go again NDT with your strawman arguments and ad hominem attacks. You really are ridiculous, find where I said I hate Sara Palin or conservatives in general. Funnily enough I even praised on in Chris Christie. You prove yet again, that you have no idea how to formulate an argument without inserting your own lies and nonsense. I’m not going to defend myself against arguments you make up. Have fun spreading lies and misinformation instead of actually formulating solid arguments, it’s what you do best after all.

    Comment by AJ — January 13, 2011 @ 5:53 pm - January 13, 2011

  83. So just now I wanted to see if the nutts at MSNBC took the Presidents advice about settling down the tone.
    NOPE.
    Chris Matthews spent at least 32 minutes ripping into Palin.
    I kept flipping back to see if it was just a min or two, but no, he’s spent most of his show so far in an anti Palin rant with two other lefties.
    Guess the President will have to give far more than one speech to rein in the far left to prevent any furthur violence.

    Comment by Gene in Pennsylvania — January 13, 2011 @ 5:53 pm - January 13, 2011

  84. Levi would you disavow all the attacks and threats of physical harm to Sarah Palin. I think coming from a leftist to other leftists, it might be actually helpful at this time. In the past the police have worried about copy cat crimes. With Tucson still fresh in peoples minds I’m hoping Sarah is smart and doesn’t do any public speaking until the left settles down a bit.

    I don’t wish physical harm on anybody. People who threaten other people deserve to be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law. But as far as the left needing to settle down? Please. This isn’t the Jets versus the Sharks. I don’t think anyone is going to retaliate. It wasn’t a leftist that flew his plane into an IRS building last year, it wasn’t a leftist that shot up a unitarian church the year before that, and it wasn’t a leftist that sits unrepetant in jail for killing an abortion provider. There wasn’t retaliation for those murders, and I don’t expect this to be any different. Right wing extremism has a pretty high body count already in the past few years, and it seems to me that people such as yourself need to be doing a better job of disavowing threats and attacks.

    Comment by Levi — January 13, 2011 @ 5:53 pm - January 13, 2011

  85. You really are ridiculous, find where I said I hate Sara Palin or conservatives in general.

    And off go the goalposts, running frantically up and down the field.

    Again, we see the basic irrational hatred shown by the left for Palin. AJ demands that she go on TV and prove she’s not an idiot, after he’s already whined that she is an idiot.

    Bigots and children get frustrated when adults refuse to be manipulated by their tantrums. AJ is already whining and crying and screaming how mean and awful Sarah Palin is because she won’t do exactly what AJ says, even though AJ’s over here namecalling her and insulting her intelligence.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — January 13, 2011 @ 6:13 pm - January 13, 2011

  86. “Awwww, Levi has a fan.”

    ————-

    Sock puppet?

    He wouldn’t be the first. Let’s put it this way: If, by the reckoning of some Spock-has-a-beard alternate evil universe, Levi actually is the sane one here… then there would be absolutely no point in “Richard R” coming here “day in day out” to read the blog comments, now would there? So the comment is self-disproving. Either that, or it was perhaps intended as humor :-)

    Comment by ILoveCapitalism — January 13, 2011 @ 6:14 pm - January 13, 2011

  87. Right wing extremism has a pretty high body count already in the past few years, and it seems to me that people such as yourself need to be doing a better job of disavowing threats and attacks.

    So Levi won’t disavow threats and attacks by the left.

    Again proving the point. Levi and the Obama Party have no problem with threats or murders as long as they are committed by people of the correct ideology.

    That shows you how psychotic and desperate Levi is. He can’t even condemn the death threats being made against Palin. Instead he whines and screams and bleats about how everyone else should do what he won’t.

    And here’s the real hypocrisy; Levi screams and whines that failure to repudiate and disavow statements shows that you want violence to happen. Since Levi refuses to repudiate and disavow the statements being made by Barack Obama and “progressives” that Palin committed the murders and should be punished, he clearly is encouraging people to shoot and kill Palin.

    Dan, you’d better publish Levi’s email address. The boy needs to have some sort of psychiatric evaluation done before he follows through with the death threats and death orders from his leftist owners.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — January 13, 2011 @ 6:18 pm - January 13, 2011

  88. NDT, are you delusional or just willfully ignorant? I’m going to assume it’s the ladder and say that people like you are definitely contributing to things that are wrong with the country. Like some of the Media has done with Sara Palin, you take people’s words out of context, make up your own meanings and push forward your own narrative of what it is you think/wish they said. If you ever learn how to formulate an argument without lying or making stuff up, it would be great to have an honest, logical discussion with you. Otherwise, there really is no point in constantly defending myself against your delusions.

    Comment by AJ — January 13, 2011 @ 6:22 pm - January 13, 2011

  89. So Levi won’t disavow threats and attacks by the left… [having] no problem with threats or murders as long as they are committed by people of the correct ideology.

    And, believes that government by a highly dominant cadre of “the right people” – one which will organize and direct business – is the answer to our problems. And, believes that brown people can’t understand or handle democracy. Let’s see. Who does that remind me of? Who does all that remind me of?

    Comment by ILoveCapitalism — January 13, 2011 @ 6:24 pm - January 13, 2011

  90. Actually, ILC, Richard R pops up here every now and again, whining about “Stockholm syndrome” and claiming that the troll du jour is the only sane one here.

    Once you read his rantings as “Richard Rush” on other boards, where he is already among the thousands blaming Sarah Palin for the shootings and demonstrating quite convincingly that his master Obama is a liar, you get the idea. Shill, no independent thought, really doesn’t do much other than demonstrate Obama’s lies and duplicity with his addiction to incivil rhetoric and attacks.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — January 13, 2011 @ 6:24 pm - January 13, 2011

  91. Hi NDT,
    Thank you for your response.

    “In short, what you are saying is that the most brilliant and well-educated minds in history (or so they claim) are not only being stopped, but knocked backwards, by an uneducated idiot.”

    No. You need to reread my post I think. Hyperbole doesn’t help you here. I argue that she is effective and politically smart. She has a great set of skills for campaigning, but that doesn’t mean she has a great set of skills for governing. You can disagree with my opinion, if you like. But leaving office after less than two years–that doesn’t look good to me; her rationalizations not withstanding. She isn’t that well educated. Sorry, a four year degree is not a pinnacle of knowledge. Its a step on the way. And having a 4-year degree doesn’t guarantee that you are book smart. You don’t need to have a degree to be an effective campaigner.

    I also notice that you don’t address the issue of the death panel smear. I think that sort of thing matters. It hurts rational discourse, devolving things to animal level fears; drawing us away from dealing with issues that have to be dealt with. Yes–it is effective, politically; and cynical, as it appeals to our basest instincts (like fear!). It tears down, but offers nothing in its place. So, rather than “brilliant minds” I would say “rational discourse” and “uneducated idiot” I would say “effective appealer to base instincts.” And there is a lot of evidence that that contest often ends with rational discourse getting its butt kicked!

    Comment by cas — January 13, 2011 @ 6:26 pm - January 13, 2011

  92. Hi AJ,
    Thanks for the tip on Christie. I have no real idea about him, so, I will keep an eye on what he does, so I can have an informed opinion.
    Thanks.

    Comment by cas — January 13, 2011 @ 6:31 pm - January 13, 2011

  93. The funniest part is when the leftists run into the goalposts they moved.

    Remember what AJ was saying before?

    Palin is essentially a conservative mad lib. She is too beholden to her conservative ideology as you say.

    Based on media portrayals of her, of course.

    But now?

    Like some of the Media has done with Sara Palin, you take people’s words out of context, make up your own meanings and push forward your own narrative of what it is you think/wish they said.

    So we now have the spectacle of AJ acknowledging that the media portrayals he has pointed to in order to demonstrate that Sarah Palin is an idiot were in fact rigged to make her look like one because that’s what the left wanted.

    But is AJ changing his mind? No. Even though he acknowledges that the media portrayals of Sarah Palin were rigged, he still clings to them as evidence for his statements about her.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — January 13, 2011 @ 6:32 pm - January 13, 2011

  94. Thanks Levi, I for one appreciate you disavowing any violence directed at Palin someone you disagree with.
    I remember a few leftists who have resorted to violence during the last election cycle, the congressman roughing up a student asking questions on the sidewalk for example. The SEIU guy roughing up people at the tea party rally.
    I’m glad you are not of that ilk.
    But as I stated earlier, MSNBC has not taken Obamas advice to tone down the language and be more civil to each other. They hour after hour are attacking Palin like she was an islamo terrorist. If anything happens to her, the back lash against NBC could be furrious.

    Comment by Gene in Pennsylvania — January 13, 2011 @ 6:37 pm - January 13, 2011

  95. I’m not going to defend myself against arguments you make up.

    Well then it seems to my, by your own standard, that you should apologize to NDT.

    Comment by ThatGayConservative — January 13, 2011 @ 6:49 pm - January 13, 2011

  96. People who threaten other people deserve to be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law.

    Even blacks and New Black Panthers?

    Comment by ThatGayConservative — January 13, 2011 @ 6:49 pm - January 13, 2011

  97. +1 for Levi.

    And please stay civil everyone.

    Comment by Johnny G — January 13, 2011 @ 6:50 pm - January 13, 2011

  98. Even Chairman Obama, Rahm Emmanuel, Keith Uberfrau etc.?

    Comment by ThatGayConservative — January 13, 2011 @ 6:50 pm - January 13, 2011

  99. +1 for Levi.

    Oh HELL no! Levi’s been making excuses for the despicable left for the last several days, and he did so again just now. He deserves only condemnation and ridicule at BEST.

    Comment by ThatGayConservative — January 13, 2011 @ 6:59 pm - January 13, 2011

  100. I do so love these well-illustrated examples.

    First they start off with an argument:

    I do not think she is book smart or well educated (her interview with CC showed that really clearly).

    Then, when you point out several facts, surprise! The goalposts move.

    She isn’t that well educated. Sorry, a four year degree is not a pinnacle of knowledge. Its a step on the way. And having a 4-year degree doesn’t guarantee that you are book smart. You don’t need to have a degree to be an effective campaigner.

    In short, education is important, except when it isn’t. And facts or statements don’t matter in the face of your opinion, as you demonstrate here:

    But leaving office after less than two years–that doesn’t look good to me; her rationalizations not withstanding.

    Well, of course it’s not going to look good to you. Nothing she does looks good to you because she’s a bad person. Next.

    I also notice that you don’t address the issue of the death panel smear. I think that sort of thing matters.

    Yes, just like a person’s educational attainment mattered, until the facts disagreed with your predetermined conclusion. But do carry on.

    It hurts rational discourse, devolving things to animal level fears; drawing us away from dealing with issues that have to be dealt with.

    Incorrect. It hurts your attempt to impose your solution on everyone else.

    Palin hit exactly the point to be made, and did it well; the left screams and cries and whines that denying a health insurance claim constitutes a “death panel” for private companies, and here they were planning to impose the same through government — where there is no choice or chance of appeal.

    The problem with our health care system is twofold: one, government dictates minimum coverage limits, and two, government refuses to allow natural competition. The secret is for government to loosen its grip on private insurance, allow the price of insurance to rise and fall based on the coverage the individual chooses to purchase and allow insurance companies to sell policies across state lines.

    This isn’t rocket science. People do it daily with auto insurance. Furthermore, they understand the basic truth with auto insurance: it is meant to cover accidents, not everyday maintenance. The insurance companies will gladly sell you a policy that does, but you will pay more for it — something unheard of in health care.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — January 13, 2011 @ 7:11 pm - January 13, 2011

  101. But as far as the left needing to settle down? Please.

    How about taking an office building hostage? How about calling for the death of Palin? How about radio hosts calling for the death of Limbaugh, Beck and O’Reilly? How about kicking the shit out of a black man? How about biting a man’s finger off? How about assaulting senior citizens? How about vandalizing private property? How about shooting at campaign buses? How about shooting at campaign offices? How about rushing into campaign offices, vandalizing the joint and punching one of the workers? How about death threats against multiple Republicans? How about the many instances where liberals blamed Republicans for somebody’s death and it turned out to be false?

    Yes, not only does the left need to settle down, they need to shut the f*ck up.

    Comment by ThatGayConservative — January 13, 2011 @ 7:31 pm - January 13, 2011

  102. Hi NDT,
    Thank you for your reply. I can see why you might think I am moving the goalposts on education, but let me ask you this question: Why do you think a four year degree means that you are well educated; or more appropriately, educated enough? And more so, not all four year degrees are the same. You appear to assume that “4 year degree” is an homogenous product. I feel uncomfortable with that claim. Not all four year degrees are equal. Is a 4 year degree with a “C” average the same as one with an “A” average/ Should it matter. Is it enough for you that someone has a credential–”4 Year Degree”?

    Comment by cas — January 13, 2011 @ 7:38 pm - January 13, 2011

  103. I’m going to assume that somewhere in this original blog post there’s a sincere question –an honest effort to understand what it is that sets some people off about Sarah – rather than just another invitation to the same old don’t-lefties-suck echo chamber. I can offer my own opinions, as a self-described center-left person (which makes me something like a raving Trotskyite Islamist radical by the standards of many in this comment section) who like to give an honest try now and then to understand how people with other viewpoints think. Here goes: For me, it all began at the Republican convention, when Sarah made her first big speech. What stood out to me was the code-words – the sneering references to “San Francisco” and “community organizer” and the whole pit bull with lipstick thing (I know someone who was gravely injured by a pit bull, and I didn’t think it was funny at all). She struck me then – and still strikes me – as the girl in high school who was head of the cheerleading squad and had no time for anyone who wasn’t at the top of the popularity charts. I like my politicians to have a touch of humanity, and humility, and occasionally at least look like they’re reaching out to the “other” side – even though I know it’s always fake, for some reason I think it’s important that they at least know how to play the role. I’ve never seen her show anything remotely resembling these qualities. I actually cut her a lot of slack because of Trig, the Down Syndrome son – I had a Down’s brother, so we actually have that connection. I don’t hate her, and I actually feel bad for her from time to time since she a lot of unfair stuff does get thrown at her. She may even by a good person. But I just think she’s shown herself time and again to be woefully unprepared for anything remotely resembling statesmanship. Actually, if I were a Republican, I’d be working toward the day when she left the scene, because to be honest, I think she’s one of the best things to have happened to Barack Obama.

    Comment by BenD — January 13, 2011 @ 7:48 pm - January 13, 2011

  104. Levi says he eshews violence. So he just rhetorically wants to drag people kicking and screaming into the future then? He doesn’t endorse and support a belief system that has killed hundreds of millions? Really?

    Comment by The_Livewire — January 13, 2011 @ 8:08 pm - January 13, 2011

  105. The answer to the question is simple: the left feels threatened by her. I think she’s relatively harmless. All she really does is speak for candidates and talk about issues for a certain audience. But she has a very strong voice and she’s fearless with her “rhetoric”. To say she’s more scripted than Obama is crap, because I guarantee you he didn’t write that four-days-too-late sobfest. Liberals were high and mighty for two years, then their power was taken from them and they’re in a panic mode; and for many of them, Sarah is the poster child for Conservative America, though most conservatives don’t see her that way.

    And if she wasn’t a threat, then she never would have had blame thrown at her. It was attempt to tear her down, but all they did was give more sympathizers and a new platform.

    Comment by Savannah — January 13, 2011 @ 8:18 pm - January 13, 2011

  106. I hear you on the threat thing, but I don’t see it so clearly. What is she a threat of exactly? As it stands, she would have no chance against Obama in 2012 IF she made it out of the Republican primary. If anything, like you said, all this attention is just helping her. If the liberals feel threatened, shouldn’t they be attacking Huckabee or Romney or someone who actually has a chance to threaten Obama in 2012?

    Comment by AJ — January 13, 2011 @ 8:30 pm - January 13, 2011

  107. the issue of the death panel smear

    Huh? What “death panel smear”? Palin correctly reminded people that government-controlled health care – because it is fundamentally incapable of bending the cost curve – must *inevitably end* in government rationing of care, especially end-of-life care. Not only is it true logically, it’s true in the experience of country after country that has government-controlled medicine.

    I guess, in the left-wing lexicon, you call something a “smear” when it’s inconveniently true.

    Comment by ILoveCapitalism — January 13, 2011 @ 8:38 pm - January 13, 2011

  108. I think she’s one of the best things to have happened to Barack Obama.

    She is or the liberal caricature is?

    What is she a threat of exactly? As it stands, she would have no chance against Obama in 2012

    She holds the same position as the majority of Americans re: spending and bloated government. There’s no way in hell Chairman Obama will win that debate.

    Comment by ThatGayConservative — January 13, 2011 @ 8:44 pm - January 13, 2011

  109. ILC, it’s a smear because it relies on a loaded term to describe something not particularly meaningful. Before Obamacare, health care was rationed in this country by a combination of insurance companies, government regulation and the size of your pocketbook. After Obamacaree, health care will be rationed by a combination of insurance companies, government regulation and the size of your pocketbook. Different emphasis. Turning a change to that mix into a death panel is just a scare tactic. You could hardly describe what we have today as a free-for-all of unlimited healthcare, after all.

    Comment by BenD — January 13, 2011 @ 8:46 pm - January 13, 2011

  110. Continuing on with NDT,

    As per your issue on death panels: “Palin hit exactly the point to be made, and did it well; the left screams and cries and whines that denying a health insurance claim constitutes a “death panel” for private companies, and here they were planning to impose the same through government — where there is no choice or chance of appeal.”

    I urge you to check out, http://politifact.com/, on the “death panel issue. It is a non-partisan organization which would take exception to your characterization. See, http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/article/2009/dec/18/politifact-lie-year-death-panels/, specifically.

    As per health insurance issues more generally, this is not germane to the topic at hand (Sarah Palin). I am sure we will be able to discuss it in a more appropriate future blog entry on this site.

    Comment by Cas — January 13, 2011 @ 8:48 pm - January 13, 2011

  111. ILC, it’s a smear because it relies on a loaded term to describe something not particularly meaningful.

    BenD, last time I checked, that was not the definition of “smear”. This was: “Vilification or slander; a vilifying or slanderous remark.” To vilify, in turn, is “To make vicious and defamatory statements about.” To defame, in turn, is to slander, which involves false statements. Thus, a smear must be a false statement. If it’s true, it isn’t a smear.

    Also, I disagree that “death panel” is a “loaded term to describe something not particularly meaningful.” I find it an insightful term to describe something terribly meaningful: issues of life and death, and the bad things that happen to all our lives when government rations medicine.

    Before Obamacare, health care was rationed in this country by a combination of insurance companies, government regulation and the size of your pocketbook. After Obamacaree, health care will be rationed by a combination of insurance companies, government regulation and the size of your pocketbook. Different emphasis.

    No: Loss of freedom, which is both morally wrong in itself, and practically wrong as well, as it means (even greater) loss of efficiency and progress in health care.

    Turning a change to that mix into a death panel is just a scare tactic.

    We’ll have to agree to disagree. I find it an accurate description of what must inevitably result, from increases in government control over health care. I’m sorry you’re afraid (perhaps) to see it.

    Comment by ILoveCapitalism — January 13, 2011 @ 9:02 pm - January 13, 2011

  112. She holds the same position as the majority of Americans re: spending and bloated government. There’s no way in hell Chairman Obama will win that debate.

    Doubtful, nothing, no polls or anything, have shown that she has a chance so far. Obviously that can change, but there is a very very small chance she will be president anytime soon, and that’s being generous. She probably won’t even win the nomination anyways.

    Comment by AJ — January 13, 2011 @ 9:03 pm - January 13, 2011

  113. I’m actually more afraid of a healthcare decision made by an insurance company executive whose bonus is dependent on giving me as little care as possible than a decision made by a bureaucrat who, while likely inefficient and bumbling, is at least to some degree politically accountable. But we each have our own preferences. :)

    Comment by BenD — January 13, 2011 @ 9:08 pm - January 13, 2011

  114. Hey, remember last week when Levi was ridiculing the notion that the Obama Regime had destroyed any jobs through extreme regulation, and a few of us provided a whole list of examples of industries devastated by Obama’s regulatory policies? Well,add another one to the list.

    Comment by V the K — January 13, 2011 @ 9:30 pm - January 13, 2011

  115. I’m late to this party, but Clyburn is a dipshit of the first order. He’s proven that a hundred times.

    While in line at Starbucks today I glanced at the Washington Post, which had a front page article taking Palin to task for the use of “blood libel.” So let me get this straight: The left, including some of columnists at the Post, villify Palin beyond all reason, and when she responds, they pick apart her statement and decide that the real sin is her use of “blood libel.” What utter B.S.

    What’s happening here is obvious; the left lost an election and is madder than hell about it. They’re venting their rage at Palin, the Tea Party movement, Fox News, and conservatives in general as a means of getting even. They want to silence their opponents. All this talk about “civility” is just so much political opportunism. We didn’t hear any of it during the “Bush lied, people died” days.

    Comment by Tom the Redhunter — January 13, 2011 @ 10:03 pm - January 13, 2011

  116. And now we see phase two of the liberal argument style: once moving the goalposts has failed, deny gravity.

    I can see why you might think I am moving the goalposts on education, but let me ask you this question: Why do you think a four year degree means that you are well educated; or more appropriately, educated enough?

    Of course. Now, since facts contradict the liberal’s statement that Palin is uneducated and lacks book smarts, the liberal tries to change the facts and argue that college degrees are meaningless.

    This liberal is trying to argue that Palin is uneducated, but this liberal lacks even the most basic ability to define what educated means; the liberal simply knows that Palin is not, and therefore nothing, no fact, no piece of information, is going to change their mind. This is not rational; it is pure prejudice and bigotry.

    This is how to deal with liberals. Force them to demonstrate that they cannot keep their stories, definitions, or facts straight. Show that what they are doing is establishing a belief and then trying to manipulate and twist reality around it.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — January 13, 2011 @ 10:05 pm - January 13, 2011

  117. BTW, Tom, now that it’s been conclusively proven that “heated political rhetoric” had nothing to do with this event, why are the political elites still using this event to lecture us on how we need to curb heated political rhetoric?

    Comment by V the K — January 13, 2011 @ 10:06 pm - January 13, 2011

  118. I’m going to assume that somewhere in this original blog post there’s a sincere question –an honest effort to understand what it is that sets some people off about Sarah – rather than just another invitation to the same old don’t-lefties-suck echo chamber.

    Sorry, the martyrdom department is over there. No need for you to scourge yourself, because we don’t really give a damn.

    I can offer my own opinions, as a self-described center-left person (which makes me something like a raving Trotskyite Islamist radical by the standards of many in this comment section) who like to give an honest try now and then to understand how people with other viewpoints think.

    Which is, of course, why, before anyone has spoken, you’re already saying that we’re going to call you a “raving Trotskyite Islamist radical”.

    Here goes: For me, it all began at the Republican convention, when Sarah made her first big speech. What stood out to me was the code-words – the sneering references to “San Francisco” and “community organizer” and the whole pit bull with lipstick thing (I know someone who was gravely injured by a pit bull, and I didn’t think it was funny at all).

    Ah yes. So it wasn’t the words she actually said, it was the mysterious code that you were deducing from them that told you what she actually MEANT.

    Is the fact that liberals are convinced no one ever really means what they say and is instead insulting their opponents a commentary on their own practices with language? Can we assume, then, that Obama was lying last night, since the attacks on Palin accusing her of murder continue even today from Obama’s supporters and paid political operatives?

    She struck me then – and still strikes me – as the girl in high school who was head of the cheerleading squad and had no time for anyone who wasn’t at the top of the popularity charts.

    Ah, there’s no surprise. You reacted to Palin in the fashion of an immature teenager making value judgments about someone you didn’t like. And now you’re doing what you would have done in high school, which is spreading nasty gossip and lies and trying to destroy her reputation.

    Some of us grew up after high school. You and your fellow Obama Party members clearly did not.

    I like my politicians to have a touch of humanity, and humility, and occasionally at least look like they’re reaching out to the “other” side – even though I know it’s always fake, for some reason I think it’s important that they at least know how to play the role. I’ve never seen her show anything remotely resembling these qualities.

    So you want Palin to lie and be fake — even as you’re criticizing her for being a liar and a fake.

    Again, this speaks volumes about why you’re so wedded to Obama. He’s simply a very effective liar, and that’s what you value.

    I actually cut her a lot of slack because of Trig, the Down Syndrome son – I had a Down’s brother, so we actually have that connection. I don’t hate her, and I actually feel bad for her from time to time since she a lot of unfair stuff does get thrown at her. She may even by a good person.

    Oh, how nice! You just got done ripping on her and being nasty, and then you try to pretend that you think, maybe, just maybe, she might be a nice person.

    But I just think she’s shown herself time and again to be woefully unprepared for anything remotely resembling statesmanship.

    Of course. The definition is always “not what Palin did” and “what Obama did”. No one really expects Palin to live up to a standard that has no fixed basis and is always interpreted negatively on her. We’re just amused to watch you and your fellow liberals run around the field moving the goalposts.

    Actually, if I were a Republican, I’d be working toward the day when she left the scene, because to be honest, I think she’s one of the best things to have happened to Barack Obama.

    But you’re not; you’re an Obama supporter who wants her gone, and is making up all sorts of convenient excuses for why you and yours spread nasty gossip and accusations about her.

    I fail to see why or how accusing an innocent woman of murder is somehow a good thing, but it clearly is among liberals, “progressives”, the Obama Party, and Barack Obama himself. And that’s really what we’re trying to get to, BenD — the reason that liberals like yourself support raping, shooting, and hanging Sarah Palin.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — January 13, 2011 @ 10:26 pm - January 13, 2011

  119. It is a non-partisan organization which would take exception to your characterization.

    I’m sure it would.

    I’m actually more afraid of a healthcare decision made by an insurance company executive whose bonus is dependent on giving me as little care as possible than a decision made by a bureaucrat who, while likely inefficient and bumbling, is at least to some degree politically accountable.

    Which is silly, because you can’t sue the bureaucrat, nor do you have the choice to change companies and get away from it.

    The question is basically this: which gives better service, AAA or the DMV?

    Personally, I think individuals like BenD who want the government to make their health care decisions for them should do exactly that. Let them sign up for Medicaid, since they want it so badly, and pay premiums for it.

    I give it three months or a major sickness.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — January 13, 2011 @ 10:38 pm - January 13, 2011

  120. Here’s a great example of how Barack Obama simply lies and lies and lies to smear Sarah Palin.

    Nothing contradictory about praising Obama’s speech and simultaneously warning that one side’s language of incitement risks more tragedies

    Um, hello? Last night Obama said that language “did not” cause this tragedy. And here one of Barack Obama’s mouthpieces is claiming that it did.

    Why does Barack Obama lie so much about Sarah Palin? Why can’t the super-genius Barack Obama tell the truth?

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — January 13, 2011 @ 10:45 pm - January 13, 2011

  121. This nuttiness is rampant over at all the comment threads at Fox News, CNN, MSNBC, CBS, all of them. ‘Splodin heads. It’s hilarious, pathetic and scary.

    Comment by Iig — January 13, 2011 @ 11:28 pm - January 13, 2011

  122. Hi NDT,
    Thanks for the reply.
    “This liberal is trying to argue that Palin is uneducated,”
    Afraid not. You need to reread what I say. I said that she wasn’t “that well educated…” You commit the Fallacy of the Excluded Middle. And you fixate on this imagined sleight because other evidence I raise doesn’t agree with what you believe. OK.
    Second, it is not enough to assert that I think that AP is a “bad person”. It is usually considered good form to provide evidence for one’s position. I have attempted to do that. You haven’t as yet. Argument by assertion and misdirection are techniques of argument, and I appreciate that you use them well, but they are not rational techniques, but emotive ones.

    As per education, I must admit that attending six colleges before getting one’s degree is intriguing. It might be relevant. It might not. Her culumative and individual GPA might be a useful indicator. But she hasn’t released that information.

    Comment by Cas — January 13, 2011 @ 11:37 pm - January 13, 2011

  123. PS. The link you offer at 119 is about the 2010 “lie of the year.” If you check my link, you will see it deals with the 2009 “death panels” issue, not the 2010 issue.

    Comment by Cas — January 13, 2011 @ 11:42 pm - January 13, 2011

  124. [...] This post was mentioned on Twitter by GayPatriot, Right Juris, JimWilemon and others. JimWilemon said: GayPatriot how Sarah Palin merely by opening her mouth causes a number of lefties to bunch up their panties http://t.co/ZRURNR8 [...]

    Pingback by Tweets that mention GayPatriot » Sarah Palin: The Official Left-Wing Panty Buncher -- Topsy.com — January 14, 2011 @ 1:01 am - January 14, 2011

  125. And the third attempt in the liberal argumentation style; when goalposts are solid, and gravity still remains, start whining.

    It is usually considered good form to provide evidence for one’s position. I have attempted to do that.

    Indeed you have. You originally tried to claim Sarah Palin was uneducated. When confronted with evidence of her degree, you tried to claim four-year-degrees were meaningless. And then, when caught with spin on that, you tried to argue that attending multiple colleges and not releasing your GPA to the public makes you uneducated.

    The problem here, cas, is that you started from the assertion and have tried to spin the facts to “prove” it. All I am doing is simply pointing out how your assertions work — or more precisely, how ludicrously they don’t work — when applied to people other than Sarah Palin.

    The question here is consistency. You seem like a rather normal fellow, but Palin seems to drive you to complete irrationality. We’re trying to figure out what particular problem it is that liberals like yourself apparently have with her, since it seems to be grounded in a complete and irrational hatred that they would never apply to another human being.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — January 14, 2011 @ 1:13 am - January 14, 2011

  126. PS. The link you offer at 119 is about the 2010 “lie of the year.” If you check my link, you will see it deals with the 2009 “death panels” issue, not the 2010 issue.

    Actually, it was because that post nicely showed the bigoted and partisan nature of Politifact in choosing its “lie of the year”.

    Personally, given the fact that Politifact seemingly didn’t care one whit about the Obama Party’s assertion that the Republican plan was to “die quickly”, I think we can see that their interest in the health care debate was little more than being typical attack drones for the Obama Party.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — January 14, 2011 @ 1:15 am - January 14, 2011

  127. No need for you to scourge yourself, because we don’t really give a damn.

    Apparently you do, since you spent an awful lot of time refuting my post. Either that or you like to waste your own time.

    You reacted to Palin in the fashion of an immature teenager making value judgments about someone you didn’t like. And now you’re doing what you would have done in high school, which is spreading nasty gossip and lies and trying to destroy her reputation.

    No nasty gossip, lies or blood libel here. I just don’t think she handled the aftermath of the Tucson shooting as well as she could have.

    So it wasn’t the words she actually said, it was the mysterious code that you were deducing from them that told you what she actually MEANT.

    LOL. Kind of reminds me of how you know that since I am allegedly a liberal I therefore must support raping, shooting, and hanging Sarah Palin. Ooops. That one kind of proved a bit too much, didn’t it?

    Some of us grew up after high school. You and your fellow Obama Party members clearly did not.

    At least I tried to find something nice to say about her. I guess that was my problem in high school. Too much of a wimp.

    Comment by BenD — January 14, 2011 @ 2:41 am - January 14, 2011

  128. Oh, and about

    So you want Palin to lie and be fake — even as you’re criticizing her for being a liar and a fake.

    Actually, I’d rather all politicians (and all cheerleading captains) were truthful and genuine. And I wish I had Warren Buffet’s money too, and George Clooney’s looks. But sadly all politicians (including Palin *and* Obama) are liars and fakes, to some degree. It’s what they do. But given the choice, I’d still prefer a politician (or the cheerleading captain) who at least sounds like he or she cares about my concerns. That’s the problem with her – it seems like she only cares about *some* of the people. If you want to be President (or at least a President I would support), you have be able to convince some of the great big middle. Reagan was great at that. There are some GOP folks today who have a shot at that – McCain used to be one of them.

    Comment by BenD — January 14, 2011 @ 3:20 am - January 14, 2011

  129. I just don’t think she handled the aftermath of the Tucson shooting as well as she could have.

    What was to handle?

    She wasn’t involved. She had nothing to do with it. She didn’t cause it, and there was nothing she could have done to prevent it.

    But before the bodies cooled, she was being dragged in by your Barack Obama, your Barack Obama Party, and your fellow liberals and “progressives”, all of whom were accusing her of the murder without a shred of evidence or sense.

    And now you’re complaining that she didn’t handle it well?

    At least I tried to find something nice to say about her.

    And you failed, as we see here:

    I don’t hate her, and I actually feel bad for her from time to time since she a lot of unfair stuff does get thrown at her. She may even by a good person.

    The cost is a lot higher than that now. I think Slublog says it best:

    This is not the first time Democrats have tried to atone for their ugly behavior on the cheap, but that doesn’t make Udall’s suggestion any less cowardly. Senator Udall, members of your party and your base have accused me and those who share my ideology of murder. If you want to show me that you’re serious about unity, you have to be willing to offer more than empty symbolism.

    You want unity? Prove it. Now’s the time for your Sister Souljah moment. Name names.

    Repudiate this. And this. And this, this, this, this, and this. The time for posturing is past – if civility is what you want, Senator, then first demand it of those who agree with you, donate to you and vote for you.

    And while you’re at it, here’s some nice links to the raping, hanging, shooting, and hoping the Palins all die in a plane crash, Trig included.

    Somehow, I don’t know what to think of a party that endorses and supports raping, hanging, and shooting a Down syndrome child, but then again, when you consider that the Barack Obama Party thinks Trig should have been killed in the first place because they think he’s defective and can never have a meaningful life, it shouldn’t be unexpected.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — January 14, 2011 @ 3:28 am - January 14, 2011

  130. Look. I don’t have any obligation to atone for the sins of every Democrat any more than you have an obligation to atone for the sins of every conservative. Ideally you would be able to distinguish among her critics and understand that not all of them view her as the spawn of Satan. There’s a spectrum, and she’s human, and some of the criticism of her has merit and some of it doesn’t. I find your reflexive defense of her as baffling as I find some of the demonization of her on the left. But you seem to put all of her opponents in one box, and attribute the worst excesses of the worst to all of them. It may make for an easy straw man to argue against, but don’t kid yourself that your dealing with reality.

    Comment by BenD — January 14, 2011 @ 3:43 am - January 14, 2011

  131. PS. The link you offer at 119 is about the 2010 “lie of the year.” If you check my link, you will see it deals with the 2009 “death panels” issue, not the 2010 issue.

    The Stalingrad Times is the usually leftist newspaper. Politifact, I’ve found, is mostly decent and, like Wikipedia, is a good place to start when looking for information. However, it should not be relied upon solely. Their bias does tend to shine through.

    Items for example:

    (Obama)Promise: Require plug-in fleet at the White House
    Update: Efforts continue, but one-year clock for creating all-plug-in White House fleet expired a year ago

    This is classified as “Promise Broken. However,

    (Obama)Promise: Close the Guantanamo Bay Detention Center
    Update: Obama and Congress remain at odds on closing Guantanamo

    The one-year clock for closing Club Gitmo expired a year ago, but they have it listed as Stalled

    I think it’s safe to say that that promise is broken as well, wouldn’t you?

    Comment by ThatGayConservative — January 14, 2011 @ 6:29 am - January 14, 2011

  132. and the bad things that happen to all our lives when government rations medicine.

    Same thing that happens when government takes over BP payouts.

    Fishermen, Businesses Beg for BP Spill Money

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Oeftb-uHSaY&feature=player_embedded

    And:

    (FL) House Speaker orders investigation into oil spill claims system

    http://www.postonpolitics.com/2011/01/house-speaker-orders-investigation-into-oil-spill-claims-system/

    Before the Obama/Holder shakedown, BP was approving nearly all claims and had cut the wait time for checks from 2 weeks to five days. Should Americans have to get down on their knees and beg some federal bureaucrat for health care coverage? Or do we “just take a pill”?

    Comment by ThatGayConservative — January 14, 2011 @ 6:37 am - January 14, 2011

  133. Right wing extremism has a pretty high body count already in the past few years,

    Levi and liberals have a pretty high bullshit count already in the past few years:

    http://tinyurl.com/4q57v2l

    That’s right, Levi. You’re full of shit as usual.

    Comment by ThatGayConservative — January 14, 2011 @ 8:28 am - January 14, 2011

  134. Sarah Palin said “death panels” and the leftists when crazy. For that phrase alone, the leftists must destroy Palin

    Obamacare has “death panels” built into it. Insurance policies have “death panels” built into them. Medicare/Medicaid has built in “death panels.”

    Liberals are so busy denying this that they have made asses of themselves. There have been end of life medical decisions made going back to triage on the battlefield in the caveman wars.

    When Obamacare was jammed past scrutiny and crammed into law, every special interest connected with medicine whet searching through it to find gold or what they most feared. Was abortion funded or denied? Were pre-existing conditions covered? How about cosmetic surgery? What does it say about “end of life” and organ transplants for the elderly? It there an age specific cut off date for certain medical procedures?

    Sarah Palin used the term “death panels” as a metaphor for bureaucrats and regulations perhaps ruling that a Down fetus should be aborted or that her elderly parents should be denied life sustaining treatment.

    Palin was shining a light on the dark truth that end of life medicine and the ending of life is an everyday reality. To deny this is to deny death itself. So, the issue is how does Obamacare manage these issues of death?

    On some recent post, there was a long string of foolishness about how Obamacare does not touch on end of life care (death panels) in any way, shape or manner. If, in fact, that is true, then Obamacare has totally ignored the single most costly part of medical care. That would make Obamacare the dumbest solution imaginable.

    The truth is, the Obamanauts want to deflect the issue, because it is doubtlessly the most sensitive issue in all of healthcare. The liberals have made great politics out of accusing Republicans of making granny eat dog food, starving children, causing people to go without medicines, and all other manner of demagoguery.

    So the Republicans pop up and ask the Obamanauts to tell us how they have planned to kill the fetus or old folks through medical intervention or restraining medical intervention and the leftists start yelling “liar, liar, liar.”

    Let me be clear: “life sustaining medicine” includes keeping a body alive just to keep it alive, or so you can harvest organs, or because there is a measured change for improvement or recovery. The Congresswoman is receiving “life sustaining medical care.” She may have a miraculous recovery or she may survive for a very, very long time in a vegetative state. Or she may be trapped somewhere in between where people can chatter endlessly about “the quality of life” she sustains.

    Well, “death panels” are nothing more than a systemized way of dealing with realities of medicine. Can your car be repaired and returned, not as new, but serviceable – or – has it been “totaled” and dragged off to the graveyard. It is often a judgement call. With death panels, we are not talking about broken hoses and bent metal.

    Wouldn’t everyone want to know how these life or death judgement calls are directed to be made? Do the Obamanauts really believe that Obamacare has provided a blank check for end of life care and that medicine is free to keep the body going until it just won’t cooperate? Does Obamacare encourage doctors to keep cutting out cancer cells until the patient dies on the table or is chemically killed or burned to a crisp from radiation? Of course not. There is an uncertain tipping point between doing healing and doing harm in medicine. What is the interaction between the regulators and check writers and the people who make the decisions about the tipping point? That is more than a fair question. It is a fundamental question. And the leftists insist it is not embedded in Obamacare, because they simply do not want the conversation. Socialists, statists create actuary tables and they thin the herd and send people off to wards and mechanize their procedures. That is the conversation the Obamanauts most want to escape.

    One more thing: there is a huge difference between an insurance policy not covering certain procedures and the government promising the best medical care for everyone. Insurance deals with cold reality. Obamacare promises what it can not, will not and probably should not deliver.

    Comment by Heliotrope — January 14, 2011 @ 10:42 am - January 14, 2011

  135. Insurance policies have “death panels” built into them. Medicare/Medicaid has built in “death panels.”

    But, for some reason, we are supposed to feel better that the bureaucrat denying care is paid by tax dollars instead of corporate revenues.

    Comment by V the K — January 14, 2011 @ 10:48 am - January 14, 2011

  136. Look. I don’t have any obligation to atone for the sins of every Democrat any more than you have an obligation to atone for the sins of every conservative.

    Funny, that’s not what you were demanding of Palin earlier this week.

    70.Silly me. I just thought that acknowledging the inappropriateness of, you know, previously publicly putting their loved in the crosshairs, just might be the right thing to do to as a show of support and respect for the families who have been so hurt by this tragedy.

    If you’re going to demand that Palin make some sort of atonement because of the actions of a psychotic to whom she’s not related, who has never once mentioned her as inspiration, and who apparently has no link to her whatsoever, including not even being a conservative, then it seems you would be obligated to atone for the sins of the party and ideology for which you vote, which you support, and which you endorse.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — January 14, 2011 @ 12:40 pm - January 14, 2011

  137. If you’re going to demand that Palin make some sort of atonement because of the actions of a psychotic to whom she’s not related

    See, there you go again. The thing I thought she should acknowledge was not that she had any responsibilty for the actions of the shooter whatsoever. What I think she should have done is made some sort of acknowledgement that her own crosshairs graphic was unfortunate or regrettable in light of the tragedy – or that she at least could understand why people would feel that it was unfortunate or regrettable. I understand your position – that that’s tantamount to acknowledging complicity in the shooting itself, and she should have no obligation to discuss her graphic whatsoever. I think you’re right, as far as her not having any obligation to go further, but I think she had an opportunity there to mend some fences and missed it. That’s all. And if my having that view makes you think I need to atone for every sin committed by the left wing, then you’re entitled to your opinion, but you’re not going to convince me.

    Comment by BenD — January 14, 2011 @ 3:23 pm - January 14, 2011

  138. What I think she should have done is made some sort of acknowledgement that her own crosshairs graphic was unfortunate or regrettable in light of the tragedy

    Okey, Dokey. How about right after Obama acknowledges that his statement that if “you bring a knife, I’ll bring a gun” was unfortunate or regrettable in light of the tragedy.”

    And isn’t it time for Dick Dubin to reveal how the Democrats have succeeded in weaning the troops from acting like Naziis? And perhaps John F’n Kerry might come forth and tell us how he has cleaned up that problem of troops breaking into homes in the dead of night and terrorizing women and children. (Or is that all still going on?)

    In light of ……. Well, actually, in light of the fact that the Democrats own the economy, soaring food prices, sky-rocketing fuel prices, the housing collapse, shouldn’t Obama, Frank, Durbin, Pelosi, Reid, et. al. make some sort of acknowledgement that their blaming Republicans was unfortunate and regrettable?

    Comment by Heliotrope — January 14, 2011 @ 3:56 pm - January 14, 2011

  139. So if Obama had directed his statement to specific persons, and one of those specific persons had come to harm in the way his statement had suggested, even if the statement was hyperbole and he had no responsibility for the actual act, then yes, I would have expected him to somehow at least acknowledge that his prior statement was regrettable. Not because he had to, but because it would show humanity. In general, I think the whole blame game is pretty pointless. These days there’s no shortage of righteous indignation in the world, on all sides. And most of it is just hot air.

    Comment by BenD — January 14, 2011 @ 4:12 pm - January 14, 2011

  140. Okey, Dokey. How about right after Obama acknowledges that his statement that if “you bring a knife, I’ll bring a gun” was unfortunate or regrettable in light of the tragedy.”

    Eggsssactly.

    Comment by ILoveCapitalism — January 14, 2011 @ 4:19 pm - January 14, 2011

  141. What I think she should have done is made some sort of acknowledgement that her own crosshairs graphic was unfortunate or regrettable in light of the tragedy

    Why? It didn’t have a damb thing to do with the tragedy!

    Maybe Bush should have apologized for blowing up the levees after Katrina. He didn’t do it, of course, but when people accuse you of doing something I guess you’re supposed to automatically apologize for it even if you didn’t do it.

    Comment by V the K — January 14, 2011 @ 4:31 pm - January 14, 2011

  142. I’ve taken firearms training and own a gun. I’ve also written public blog comments where Giffords’ name was present. If I’d known of her in November and if she’d been defeated, I might have rejoiced in her defeat. All that had nothing whatever to do with the tragedy. So I guess I should be expected to apologize!

    Comment by ILoveCapitalism — January 14, 2011 @ 4:44 pm - January 14, 2011

  143. BenD in #139:

    In general, I think the whole blame game is pretty pointless. These days there’s no shortage of righteous indignation in the world, on all sides. And most of it is just hot air.

    Now what comes next depends on “what the meaning of blame is.”

    BenD in #137:

    What I think she should have done is made some sort of acknowledgement that her own crosshairs graphic was unfortunate or regrettable in light of the tragedy

    Well, “blaming” Palin for not “acknowleding” what happened in light of the tragedy is pretty pointless, as you concluded in #139.

    Comment by Heliotrope — January 14, 2011 @ 5:36 pm - January 14, 2011

  144. The distinction between finding her response to the event lacking and actually blaming her for the event itself is just too subtle for some. I make point A and I get criticized for saying B. I’m learning about futility.

    Comment by BenD — January 14, 2011 @ 6:03 pm - January 14, 2011

  145. So if Obama had directed his statement to specific persons, and one of those specific persons had come to harm in the way his statement had suggested

    So now BenD is claiming that Sarah Palin told people to go shoot Gabrielle Giffords.

    That figures; it’s the new meme of the Obama Party and Barack Obama.

    “It looks like Palin, Beck, Sharron Angle and the rest got their first target,” Eric Fuller said in an interview with Democracy NOW.

    “Their wish for Second Amendment activism has been fulfilled — senseless hatred leading to murder, lunatic fringe anarchism, subscribed to by John Boehner, mainstream rebels with vengeance for all, even 9-year-old girls,” he added, referring to the death of Christina Taylor Green.

    This shows you just how desperate BenD and the rest of the Obama Party are getting. You’d think they would be intelligent enough not to directly contradict their Obama’s statement that such rhetoric “did not” cause the shootings.

    But then again, it’s pretty obvious that Obama was lying anyway, given their reactions.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — January 14, 2011 @ 6:08 pm - January 14, 2011

  146. So now BenD is claiming that Sarah Palin told people to go shoot Gabrielle Giffords.

    I absolutely unequivocally did no such thing.

    Comment by BenD — January 14, 2011 @ 6:16 pm - January 14, 2011

  147. The distinction between finding her response to the event lacking and actually blaming her for the event itself is just too subtle for some.

    There it is! “We liberals are just smarter… more nuanced.” I knew it was coming.

    Actually, BenD: the distinction between failling to grasp a distinction and grasping it fully but then just honestly finding it to be worthless horse manure anyway, is just too subtle for… some.

    Comment by ILoveCapitalism — January 14, 2011 @ 7:10 pm - January 14, 2011

  148. To be clear: Why should Palin be required to have *any* response to the event, if it is true that she had nothing to do with it and deserves no blame whatever for it?

    It *is* true, that she had nothing to do with it and deserves no blame for it. Therefore, you can have no reason to want any response from her; much less a response that must meet your particulars before you will be satisfied.

    Since you are dissatisfied anyway – since you manage to fault her anyway, for not rising to meet your particulars – it follows that, yes, you have another feeling toward her that you are not copping to. Such as (perhaps) animosity, or blame.

    Comment by ILoveCapitalism — January 14, 2011 @ 7:17 pm - January 14, 2011

  149. (continued) Thus bringing us full circle to Dan’s theme:

    Sarah Palin: The Official Left-Wing Panty Buncher

    Comment by ILoveCapitalism — January 14, 2011 @ 7:23 pm - January 14, 2011

  150. Actually, BenD: the distinction between failling to grasp a distinction and grasping it fully but then just honestly finding it to be worthless horse manure anyway, is just too subtle for… some.

    There it is! The first acknowledgement that there is, in fact, a distinction, even if you disagree with it, or, as you so charitably put it, think it is horse manure. I’m fine with just disagreeing.

    It almost got lost amidst all the insults, ad hominems and straw men.

    Comment by BenD — January 14, 2011 @ 7:29 pm - January 14, 2011

  151. Whew! Now we are down to a distinction without a difference and a distinction with a difference or a distinction that is not a distinction.

    “In light of the tragedy” is the qualifier. So, Palin is “guilty” automatically of anything she should have done, could have done or would have done by virtue of having been caught in the light of the tragedy.

    In light of the tragedy, Palin is guilty until she proves herself innocent in the eyes of those whose view is illuminated by the light of the tragedy.

    She did not attend the memorial pep rally which she should have done “in light of the tragedy.”

    She did not cancel her NRA membership, which she should have done “in light of the tragedy.”

    She did not grant an interview with Katie Couric, which she should have done “in light of the tragedy.”

    This is not to say that there is no reason for sensitivity after a tragedy. If Palin were to react coldly, sarcastically, capriciously, mockingly to what happened in Tucson, she should certainly be rebuked.

    In light of the need of leftists to smack Palin just one more time, I will cease and desist.

    Comment by Heliotrope — January 14, 2011 @ 11:27 pm - January 14, 2011

  152. Hi NDT,
    “Actually, it was because that post nicely showed the bigoted and partisan nature of Politifact in choosing its “lie of the year”.

    Personally, given the fact that Politifact seemingly didn’t care one whit about the Obama Party’s assertion that the Republican plan was to “die quickly”, I think we can see that their interest in the health care debate was little more than being typical attack drones for the Obama Party.”

    Sorry, I have no idea how this relates to the evidence I presented. If at some point you wish to address that issue (i.e., the one I raised in response to your initial assertions), that would be great.

    Comment by Cas — January 14, 2011 @ 11:38 pm - January 14, 2011

RSS feed for comments on this post.

Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.