Why is Sarah Palin so disliked?

Post Reply New Topic

Proof that trolling is an accepted practice on this forum.....

How so those are defend-able opinions on the woman.
If I were a republican I would hate her for losing the 2008 election
for McCain.

http://www.amazon.com/Deer-Headlights-Sarah-Palins-Crosshairs/dp/1451651651

This book seems like it might be amusing

She was McCain's choice. The blame is entirely his.

ruveyn

and it lost him the election the maverick took a brand

The problem was McCain's campaign staff were either secretly pulling for Obama or a bunch of incompetitent idiots.

Anyone remember all those e-mails in Alaska.
http://sayanythingblog.com/entry/jon-st ... ins-email/

Agreed, she clinched it any moderates that where going to vote for John changed their minds when
Palin showed up.

Inuyasha wrote:

That was pretty much my conclusion, too.

Her voice is really annoying.

Actually, it is somewhat more complicated than that:

First, let us look at the core terms in modern world politics:

"Liberals" are people who want liberty, freedom and choice. True liberals are generally for the free market, or at least some form of market economy, as it allows individual economic choice and freedom. They also are for Democracy, especially liberal democracy (as opposed to the illiberal democracy in a few states such as Singapore.) Thus, a true liberal is one who values freedom and individual choice over all. Good examples of liberals in the 20th and 21st centuries are Friedrich Hayek and, in a less pure form, Ron Paul.

"Conservatives" are those who want to preserve the current order or restore an old order. There is nothing wrong with preserving in theory, so long as what one is preserving is good and just: The desire to preserve a liberal society is a form of conservatism. Thus, many so-called "liberals" actually are very conservative with regards to the environment and towards people of other cultures, as they think it is "none of our business" to tell other cultures what to do even when that something is clearly unethical and barbaric, such as forcing women to wear the hijab, banning girls from going to school or permitting bride kidnapping. They look to the past for guidance and primarily see the future as something that should be similar to an idealized past. Good examples of conservatives are in the 20th century are Ruhollah Khomeini and, in a less pure form, Tenzin Gyatso (the 14th Dalai Lama.)

"Progressives" are those who want forward motion in society and embrace change, so long as it is an advancement. They put little if any value on tradition and primarily work for a better future, seeing the past mainly as lessons to be understood to build this better future. For progressives, "progress" can be defined as a variety of things, from industrialization and modernization in economic terms to the establishment of a better form of government, whatever that may be. Good examples of progressives in the 20th century include Vladimir Lenin and, in a less pure form, Adolf Hitler.

I most closely ally with the progressive and I probably actually least sympathize with the liberal: I want an orderly, well-educated, forward-thinking collectivist society that puts value on knowledge as opposed to material goods and that assimilates people into this idealized culture.

Last edited by Abgal64 on 28 Sep 2011, 9:05 pm, edited 1 time in total.

west Canadian accent its evil stretches like annoying tendrils as far as northern Utah

Hate to break it to you, but Liberals are not pro-democracy, they are not pro-free market, and are not for people having rights. Maybe they were once but they quite frankly aren't anymore.



Are we talking about Conservatives or libertarians? Looks like you have them confused.



Progressives are for change for the sake of change, and usually it is the wrong kind of change. There is a change for the better and a change for the worst, and progressives in America have been pushing in the wrong direction.



Well here is the problem, the progressives are not as knowledgeable as they claim, look at the idiocy that has come out of Washington and the fact people here can't recognize it is idiocy. I don't know if people no longer have common sense, or if they don't teach basic math, history, etc.

What Progressives say they are for looks good on paper and probably sounds good when they say it, but when you dig deeper you find that all that "hope and change," is really a bunch of lies and chains.

I am not talking about any country specifically but about the entire world. The world is bigger than the USA now just as much as it was bigger than Europe during the Siege of Port Arthur.

Yes, Classical Liberalism, as exemplified by Adam Smith and Fredrick Hayek, is not what modern Americans think of as "Liberals"; Hayek himself pointed this out and thus termed himself an "old Whig." Modern Libertarians are most like Classical Liberals in their love of freedom and the negative rights of the individual.

When you refer to "progressives" in high positions in the United States government, I simply do not see any (other than the self-declared Socialist senator Bernie Sanders from Vermont); true progressivism in the USA is mostly limited to large cities in the Northeast, Hawaii and Vermont, the central and Northern California coast and the Pacific Northwest coast; there are really very few of us in the true sense, certainly no one of the likes of Lenin or Hồ in the federal government. Most of what mainstream Americans see as "progressives" are really a moderated mixture of weak progressives, moderate liberals and weak conservatives at most: For all intensive purposes, no politician in Washington seriously challenges the capitalist system (no one in power suggested nationalizing the banks instead of bailing them out or letting them fail), fights for the equal rights amendment as a top priority or has any other radical policies. In point of fact, Barack Obama, who you and I both despise (at least I assume you do, as a typical American conservative), is not a socialist: He is such a moderate that he even tried to deal with the Teapartiers in an attempt to be everyone's president and to be politically correct. Nor does he even support a real WPA-style solution to this Great Recession/Depression, the kind that got us out of the last one and probably saved the USA from a progressive revolution (be it Communist or Fascist) nor did he publicly fight for equal rights for LGBTs to get married, solutions that are at most weak progressive-level in their extremeness. And his healthcare reform is laughable in how pathetic it is, given all the evidence for the success of single payer systems in virtually every other country with a high or very high HDI in the world, such as in France, Australia, Japan, the UK, Canada...

I am not pro-democracy, being for a meritocracy, nor am I pro-free market, being for a centrally-planned economy. I am for "rights" but not in the way that true liberals are: They want rights to be free from things whereas I, being pro-authoritative government (not authoritarian, but authoritative) as exemplified best by Singapore in contemporary times and historically probably best by mid-Imperial China (when compared to contemporary states), want guarantees for things: I want rights to housing, a job, education and food, for example, as opposed to rights to bare arms and have privateschooling and homeschooling. This is why I am not a liberal, nor a Democrat (I vote for with the Socialist Party, and my canidate of choice is the doomed but righteous Stewart Alexander; he is not perfect but honest, thoughtful, assertive and far better than Obama, Perry, Palin or Romney.)

Also, you see to be confusing may use of the term "liberal" with the mainstream American media's use of the term: I am using it in the sense of Classical liberals, not politically correct, slightly forward thinking mixed and moderated weak progressive, moderate liberal, moderate conservatives as you seem to be.

Stewart Alexander may be better than President Obama. However, the Evango-Fascists are a far worse choice. The way our electoral system works, it is unthinkable not to support President Obama against the vile forces of evil.

Jabba the Hutt would be a better President than Obama, at least Jabba could run something effectively.