For 2012 if it were: Obama vs Palin?

Post Reply New Topic

It is called being a politician. Are you surprised?

ruveyn

Politicians at least pretend to have political platforms.

Funny I've found Palin is more trustworthy than the mainstream media. Also quite frankly, she's been vetted. Alaska had to change its laws regarding lawsuits due to all the frivolous lawsuits she had to endure. I would say that was part of the reason she resigned so that those laws could come into play and no accusations of abusing the system could be made.

Fact is, the frivolous lawsuits left her half a million dollars in debt due to all the legal fees to defend herself.

The real kicker is the shear derangement the left has whenever her name comes up. The sheer hatred towards a private citizen. You don't see people on the right spewing hatred towards Bill Clinton now that he is a private citizen.

I think the point is that this is especially egregious with Palin. Yes, she is a politician, but she quit half-way through her first term as governor. In the meanwhile has she joined a think tank or advocacy group (the tea party does not count). No. She has spent her time hunting for a book deal, which she finally found, a reality TV show which is now in production, and she is a mouth piece on Fox. She did not do any of these things out of the kindness of her heart. She did it for the money. That sounds more like a fame and wealth seeker than it does a politician.

Now you can love her as much as you want, but she left the job she was ELECTED to by the people of Alaska to seek fortune and fame. Palin was elected governor for four years. Period. This is not a jobs that you wake up one morning and go, you know, I think I am going to quit. She was not flipping burgers. She was responsible to all the citizens of Alaska and jumped ship when things were starting to get difficult in Alaska and the shine of her governorship had worn off.

Now I am all for bashin' politicians, but her actions go far beyond the pale of mere politics. What is going to happen if she gets elected president and decides one day she has accomplished everything and resigns?

Actually she left office $500,000 dollars in debt due to frivolous lawsuits financed by the left. Last I checked she wasn't convicted of anything either. However more lawsuits were coming her way and in order to keep from being any further in debt she resigned. Also Alaska's laws concerning lawsuits were changed immediantly after she left office.



How would you like to be $500,000 in debt due to junk lawsuits? Her writing books and everything else keeping her in the spotlight all started cause she had to pay her legal fees for all the junk suits.



I actually wouldn't mind a politician willing to give up power, however the thing with junk lawsuits in that situation is part of the White House budget not the President's own pocket. Part of the reason she left office was for the Alaska laws regarding lawsuits to be changed and so she couldn't be accused of being corrupt she resigned.

Fact is though, it is hilarious how the left goes into a frothing rage whenever she posts something on Facebook.

She's more like the octomom or snooky. Bill Clinton doesn't have a reality TV show.

He should.

Then he'd no longer be a private citizen.

She had to make money somehow to cover the legal fees and that is due entirely to the Left. The fact she has come up with a way to make money and be successful is bad because she isn't a left wing ideologue is that it?

Is it the fact she chose to have Trig rather than have an abortion. You know there are groups out there that advocate abortion as the solution for people like us. Seriously, her view that we're people and deserve to live is the biggest threat to the Left cause it delegitimizes organizations like NOW, etc.

How so?

Are you talking about him being a public figure? He's already one being a former president. Sarah Palin is one too. You can be a public figure while still being a private citizen. A private citizen is just someone who does not hold any official or public position such as a politician, judge, police officer, military, etc.

It was a play on words with public figure. He's already one but so long as he's inactive and not drawing attention to himself then he doesn't get much flak, right? There's a slight difference between Clinton's level of activity and Palin's in terms of visibility and forcing oneself into the spotlight.

Well, I'd have to disagree with that. Clinton has been very visible these last two election seasons. He hasn't ventured into reality TV yet I suppose but he's still a very public figure.

Are you f*****g kidding me? Apparently you have not visited to many right wing blogs ... Bill Clinton is demonized on these sites every day. Second, Palin is not a "private" citizen. She is exactly what she wanted to be -- a celebrity.

How is she trustworthy? Because she comes of with divisive catchphrases. Well vetted? She was governor for four two years of her own choosing, but she was elected to four years. Do you really know what her position on international trade is? Social security? Education reform? The US's role in the international arena? What should be the monetary policy of the US? Beyond a few platitudes, she has not provided anything in the way of substantive discussion of domestic or international policy issues.

Frankly, I do not give a s**t about Palin. However, I do care when somebody's only intention are to be decisive and deceptive for financial gain.

And I am just curious, how do you know that she is more trustworthy that the fourth estate?

What right wing blogs are you referring to? I haven't seen that many posts concerning Clinton on the sites I visit. Nothing near the derangement I see coming from politico and other left-wing sites whenever Palin posts something on Facebook.



She doesn't have to, last I checked she hasn't announced she is running for President. She currently isn't even in office due to junk lawsuits. You think it is okay to maliciously abuse the system to run up so many legal bills that someone's life is destroyed and the can't get out of debt?



How do you know she's being deceptive? Is it because the left wing blogs and mainstream media told you that? Seriously, Alaska changed its laws regarding lawsuits because of the way people abused the courts to maliciously target someone.



The fact a CBS affiliate tried to come up with a bogus story about a candidate running for office being a pedophile (they got caught at it too). Then there was back in 2004 the phony story about President Bush using phony documents. The font used wasn't in existance until years after the document was supposedly made, further it had variable space typing (only found on modern computers). This is just stuff in regard to CBS that I remember off the top of my head. Oh and before you start about Fox News and the Swift Boat Vets, those Veterans were who they said they were. If they are claiming that Senator Kerry did such and such then yeah it should be reported unless you want to claim those Veterans are liars.

First, I don't care about the "swift boat crew" at all. That is long over with.

Second, so two screw ups indite the entire media? I sense somebody who likes to say "lamestream media." And come on, what about Fox, and only Fox, running with the story that the president's trip to East Asia is costing 200 million dollars a day. Even Anderson Cooper had to call them on that one. If you are going to the media is not trust worthy, then you can't cherry pick.

Third, she was deceptive about her family during the election, she was deceptive about provisions in the health care law passed by congress "death panels, she lied about "trooper gate" in Alaska, she lied she was set up by the media, she lied she had massive amounts of "executive experience, etc. If you are running for Vice President of the US you should be able to give specifics to Katie Couric.

Fourth, she resigned her office because of frivolous lawsuits. Really, you believe that?

Fifth, she is treated as a commentator and analyst at Fox. Shouldn't some one like that be able to answer questions like I brought up before: Do you really know what her position on international trade is? Social security? Education reform? The US's role in the international arena? What should be the monetary policy of the US? Beyond a few platitudes, she has not provided anything in the way of substantive discussion of domestic or international policy issues.

Sixth, I typed in Bill Clinton into Google and this came up right away. I didn't even have to find a blog, this is from ABC News.

Rush Limbaugh, Bill Clinton Square Off: Who's Encouraging Domestic Terror?
Former President Worries Anti-Obama Rancor Could Turn Violent; Limbaugh Shoots Back
By TEDDY DAVIS and STEVEN PORTNOY

April 16, 2010

Do right-wingers fuel domestic terror? Or is conservative radio host Rush Limbaugh right -- that former President Clinton and President Obama soon could have blood on their hands?

Saying "right-wing, radio talk-show hosts" kept people in "white heat" nearly 15 years ago before the deadly Oklahoma City bombing, Clinton today warned against similar anger in the age of Obama.

But Limbaugh said Clinton and the Obama "regime" are the ones that have "set the stage for violence."

"Bill Clinton ... just gave the kooks out there an excuse to be violent," Limbaugh told radio listeners today. "He just offered them an opportunity to be violent."

Clinton has drawn parallels between the anti-government tone that preceded Tim McVeigh's bombing of the Alfred P. Murrah Building April 19, 1995, which killed 168 people, and the political rancor that greeted President Obama's administration.

Speaking to the liberal Center for American Progress in Washington, D.C., today, Clinton urged political and media leaders to remember that "words matter" and that they fall on the "serious and the delirious and the connected and the unhinged alike."

"We can't let the debate veer so far into hatred that we lose sight of our humanity," Clinton said.

But playing three extended sound bites from Clinton's speech, Limbaugh flipped the script, saying any domestic terror violence this time would be "squarely on the shoulders of Bill Clinton and Barack Obama."

Tune into ABC's "This Week" Sunday: ABC's Jake Tapper interviews former President Bill Clinton.

In one of Limbaugh's sound bites, Clinton said, "We didn't have blog sites back then so the instrument of carrying this forward were basically the right-wing, radio talk-show hosts, and they understood clearly that emotion was more powerful than reason most of the time, and it happened that they got much bigger listenership and more advertisers and more commercial success if they kept people in the white heat.

"For 99 percent of them, it was just that, turn on the radio, listen to them say something you agree with, vent your anger, go on with your life and make the best of it. But it shaped the environment in which we were in."

At another point in his speech, Clinton said: "By the '80s, we began to have the rise of violence from the fringe I suppose you could call right-wing, but it was basically uncritical hatred of the government and belief that all taxes were illegitimate."
Limbaugh Calls Out 'the Regime'

Limbaugh, referring to Bush-era national security leaks to reporters, accused liberals, whom he is now calling "the regime," of "setting the stage" for violence.

"They have given up our military secrets in Iraq and Afghanistan, and yet they sit here, Clinton and Obama, and try to blame me and us on the radio for something that has not happened, while setting the stage for it to happen," Limbaugh said.

Limbaugh was incredulous that anyone would associate the Tea Party movement, "genuine, peace-loving, middle-American citizens of this country," with future acts of terrorism.

"What have I missed here?" Limbaugh asked. "What Tea Party has engaged in acts of violence?"

Playing a much-publicized 2003 soundbite of then-Sen. Hillary Clinton rather loudly saying at a Democratic party fundraiser that she is "sick and tired of people who say that if you debate and disagree with this administration, than you are not patriotic."

Limbaugh said, "She sounds angrier than any Tea Party person I have ever heard."

Turning again to her husband, Limbaugh said: "With this comment, you have just set the stage for violence in this country. Any future acts of violence are on your shoulders, Mr. Clinton. You just gave the kooks in this country an excuse to go be violent. Nobody on the right's doing this. Nobody on talk radio is advocating anything of the sort of that you are predicting. You, sir, are predicting it.

"Maybe 'the regime' wants something like that to happen?" Limbaugh said, as he segued to a commercial break.

Recalling '95 Bombing, Clinton Says Don't Let Debate Veer into Hatred

Clinton's Friday speech, which was co-sponsored by the centrist Democratic Leadership Council, came shortly before the former president was scheduled to travel to Oklahoma City to participate in a remembrance of the attack, which claimed the lives of 19 children under age 6.

The attack was carried out by McVeigh, a Gulf War veteran turned extremist who was later convicted of planning and implementing the attack. He was sentenced to death and was executed at a federal prison in Indiana in June 2001. McVeigh timed his attack to coincide with the two-year anniversary of the federal government's siege on the Branch Davidian compound in Waco, Texas, April 19, 1993. Seventy-six people died in the resulting fire that destroyed the compound.

Addressing the anti-tax and anti-spending Tea Party movement that has developed since President Obama took office, Clinton said in his Friday speech that it could be a "healthy thing," but only if its leaders do not demonize their political opponents.
Clinton 'Not Trying to Muzzle Anybody'

"This Tea Party movement can be a healthy thing if they're making us justify every penny of taxes we've raised and every dollar of public money we spend," Clinton said.

At the same time, Clinton suggested that some of the Republicans that Tea Party activists want to vote into office played a role in converting the budget surpluses of his administration into deficits during the Bush years.

"They say they're for limited government and a balanced budget," Clinton said. "When I left office, we had the smallest workforce since Eisenhower and we had four surpluses for the first time in 70 years and if the people they say should be elected had not gotten elected, we would be out of debt in just a couple years for the first time since the 1830s.

"But when you get mad," Clinton said, "sometimes you wind up producing exactly the reverse result of what you say you are for."

Going beyond the Tea Party movement, Clinton highlighted an anti-immigration law in Arizona, the return of Confederate History month in Virginia and the rise of the "cowboy latte" at Starbucks as evidence that people are looking for overly simplistic answers.

"People are looking for answers to make life simple, and understandable and digestible again, and sometimes with the idea that they need to go back to an idyllic time that never existed," Clinton said. "That's a big part of the explanation for this anti-immigration law in Arizona that just passed or the idea that we ought to bring back the Confederate month in Virginia without saying anything about slavery or the idea that you ought to be able to pack a loaded six-gun into a Starbucks and order a cowboy latte."

Clinton said his intent was not to stifle critics of government but to encourage them to consider the potential fallout from their words.

"I am not trying to muzzle anybody," Clinton said. "But one of the things conservatives have always brought to the table in America is the reminder that no law can replace personal responsibility and the more power you have and the more influence you have, the more responsibility you have.

"Look," he continued, "I'm glad they're fighting over health care and everything else. Let them have at it. But I think that that all you have to do is read the paper everyday to see how many people there are that are deeply troubled."

Clinton said that there were three big lessons from the Oklahoma City bombing: living in a time of change and adversity is difficult, so be sensitive; people can't let the debate veer so far into hatred that they lose their humanity; and it's always a mistake to bet against America.

Copyright © 2010 ABC News Internet Ventures

Seventh, we are not going to agree on Palin, Obama or the media. If she runs for President, good for her. If Obama is a candidate for president, good for him. Let's just hope that who ever gets elected has the best interests of the nation at heart when they take the oath of office. And maybe even more importantly, lets hope that we all get the information we need to make an informed decision about the candidates running for any office.

P.S. I actually like Palin. I admire her moxy and I love the catch phases she come up with, like "Momma Grizzlies." That is wonderful. So basically I have been f*****g around tonight because I am just pissed at the world. But it has been cathartic. Ain't I a little devil.

Sorry if I pissed anybody off. You can curse my name in perpetuity.

I was pointing out the difference in the situation compared to using fraudulent documents.



Those were two incidents off the top of my head, I have a lot of others I didn't bother to bring up. One such incident was 2006, during the Israeli/Lebanon war. It had to do with doctored pictures that were so blatently doctored I could do a better job in 5 minutes and my area is manufacturing graphics not photography.



First, she did not lie about troopergate in fact the suit directed towards her on that was thrown out. Second, I can see where she is coming from in regards to "death panels." Third, compared to everyone else running she had massive amounts of executive experience. She was a mayor, a business owner, and a Governor. (Owning and running a business is executive experience). Also we have never seen the full Couric interview, we've only seen what CBS chose to release.



Considering she was having to pay legal fees to defend herself from each lawsuit and when she resigned she was already half a million in debt. Lawyers are expensive and the state wasn't picking up the tab.



She is being a commentator and analyst, she doesn't have to come up with how to run the nation because it isn't her job. Your argument on this would only be legitimate if she were currently running for office (and even then, that is pushing it because you don't have all the facts available to you until you are elected).



Okay first Limbaugh said something in response to Clinton essentially calling the American people a bunch of violent kooks. I haven't seen anything in there where Limbaugh is saying he hoped Clinton died or anything of that nature. Limbaugh was essentially calling Clinton's speech stupid. Limbaugh has actually sat down with Bill Clinton before and there wasn't a fist fight that broke out or anything. There is a difference between saying what someone said is stupid and calling that individual stupid. There is a difference.