The-Hogs.net - Washington Football Discussion, Redskins to Commanders Era

As much as I opposed McCain and Palin as prospective elected officials I now protest the absurd and unkind defamation of Palin in regard to her character and intelligence.

I simply do not believe she thought Africa to be a country-- the story seems unfounded and malicious.

Also, the NAFTA story seems to be unfounded.

Further, in relation to the Bush Doctrine, there have been other definitions than the one commonly accepted.

In regard to clothes. She didn't do the shopping herself and appears to have been merely cooperating with the GOP. Any relative novice suddenly put into a national election would, to a great extent, do as told in regard to dress. Blame the GOP.

I also do not blame her for biting McCain and the GOP now. She's at least smart enough to know when she's being offered as a scapegoat.

She's also smart enough to known she was cynically played from the beginning, and mean enough to want to play payback.

Good for her. I don't wish her power, but I wish her well.

I also wish the GOP in ashes so that a true conservative party can be built
that doesn't rely on corporate greed, war, and fooling the knuckle draggers.

crazyhorse1 wrote:I simply do not believe she thought Africa to be a country-- the story seems unfounded and malicious.

Apparently, she asked if South Africa was just a region in the country, or a state unto itself. Take from that what you will.

I do agree that she is getting more of the blame than she deserves for the Republican loss. It had as much, if not more, to do with Bush and the economy, as it did with Palin. That being said, she was still woefully inadequate as a candidate for national office.

JSPB22 wrote:

crazyhorse1 wrote:I simply do not believe she thought Africa to be a country-- the story seems unfounded and malicious.

Apparently, she asked if South Africa was just a region in the country, or a state unto itself. Take from that what you will.

I do agree that she is getting more of the blame than she deserves for the Republican loss. It had as much, if not more, to do with Bush and the economy, as it did with Palin. That being said, she was still woefully inadequate as a candidate for national office.

No doubt she is and was and will be inadequate for the position. Still, I do not like to hear of anyone's remarks and deeds gleefully misrepresented, nor of anyone being made a scapegoat of by the powerful-- in this case, John McCain and the GOP.

I don't have any sympathy for her, if she was such a pitbull she should be able to bite back.

Chris Luva Luva wrote:I don't have any sympathy for her, if she was such a pitbull she should be able to bite back.

Agreed, she's brought all of this on herself. Why have sympathy now? (Disclaimer. . .I really don't care about these people's problems because I really don't care much for the people themselves.)

Hey crazyhorse, as long as we're on the 'supporting Republicans to be consistent', how about the theft that's currently under way in Minnesota? Al Franken and the Democrats there are something else. . .or should I say business as usual?

Politics is a ROUGH business.

McCain and Palin did not work as a Team. She had her own personal advancement agenda and ideas.

I do believe that she made statements that could be legitimately interpreted in the context of a preparation brief as not knowing the geography of Africa as a continent or South Africa as opposed to a region versus country.

It is a common mistake for people who have not traveled or studied basic geography to confuse the terms Southern Africa versus South Africa. A similar scenario occurs among those who cannot distinguish between West Africa (from Morocco to Cameroon) and the West Coast of Africa (from Morocco to South Africa). I do believe that she expressed ignorance based on her poor judgment to say that she had insight into Russian politics because she "could see that country from Alaska". She did not have a passport all of her life with the exception of the last couple of years.

The most fundamental mistake that she made was her unwillingness to prepare for interviews and the campaign in general. She is not stupid. She is VERY ambitious. But poor judgment, arrogance and laziness will destroy ANYBODY.

Talking about cynical behaviour, how about Carzyhorse1 USING the "victimization" of Sarah Palin to knock the Republicans? You see guys, in war and love anything goes. This is an example of the political cynicism and hypocrisy at its best! or worst?

Irn-Bru wrote:

Chris Luva Luva wrote:I don't have any sympathy for her, if she was such a pitbull she should be able to bite back.

Agreed, she's brought all of this on herself. Why have sympathy now? (Disclaimer. . .I really don't care about these people's problems because I really don't care much for the people themselves.)

Hey crazyhorse, as long as we're on the 'supporting Republicans to be consistent', how about the theft that's currently under way in Minnesota? Al Franken and the Democrats there are something else. . .or should I say business as usual?

Have you seen credible news reports about about misbehavior of dems in Minnesota. The recount itself is required by state law, you know. What have you heard that I haven't?

Piling on Palin... In lieu of recent announcements regarding her, this thread title is rather fitting...

Irn-Bru wrote:

Chris Luva Luva wrote:I don't have any sympathy for her, if she was such a pitbull she should be able to bite back.

Agreed, she's brought all of this on herself. Why have sympathy now? (Disclaimer. . .I really don't care about these people's problems because I really don't care much for the people themselves.)

At least she understands the 1st amendment.

"If [the media] convince enough voters that that is negative campaigning, for me to call Barack Obama out on his associations," Palin told host Chris Plante, "then I don't know what the future of our country would be in terms of First Amendment rights and our ability to ask questions without fear of attacks by the mainstream media."

Or...maybe not.

She's made so many erroneous statements (the VP is in charge of the Senate and can make legislation! Or...not.), that I think it's not just piling on her. Some of it is warranted.

Irn-Bru wrote:Hey crazyhorse, as long as we're on the 'supporting Republicans to be consistent', how about the theft that's currently under way in Minnesota? Al Franken and the Democrats there are something else. . .or should I say business as usual?

It looks like there will now be a hand recount (the official auto recount has Coleman ahead by 206 votes). This is also mandated under state law, because of the current margin. Here is a breakdown of the undervotes that shows why Franken will probably be the eventual winner.

Edit: Here is another breakdown that expains it even better.

If Franken wins, I think he should have to wear his satellite helmet from SNL.

JansenFan wrote:If Franken wins, I think he should have to wear his satellite helmet from SNL.

"Send your donations to me, Al Franken."

Palin is stuck in quick sand. The more she moves, the more she sinks.

If she was smart, she just had her spokesperson deny all anonymous allegations. But she is not. So, she is where she is.

She is pretty HOT....imo
I would pile on her anytime......oh sorry, those were private thoughts....

JSPB22 wrote:I do agree that she is getting more of the blame than she deserves for the Republican loss. It had as much, if not more, to do with Bush and the economy, as it did with Palin. That being said, she was still woefully inadequate as a candidate for national office.

So was Obama, that didn't matter. He has no history of having accomplished or run anything significant in his life and I've seen him compared to Lincoln, JFK and Reagan. Wow. But PALIN is too inexperienced. At least she's dealt with a budget before.

PulpExposure wrote:

"If [the media] convince enough voters that that is negative campaigning, for me to call Barack Obama out on his associations," Palin told host Chris Plante, "then I don't know what the future of our country would be in terms of First Amendment rights and our ability to ask questions without fear of attacks by the mainstream media."

Did she really say that? Wow, that is stupid.

That being said, she was still woefully inadequate as a candidate for national office.

I have to laugh every time I see this... And the TOP of the Dem ticket was more qualified because... oh, yeah... because the DNC said so... I get it.

Countertrey wrote: And the TOP of the Dem ticket was more qualified because...

He is very intelligent and has a knowledge of current events.

Palin's inexperience is a good thing, because she is not a career politician, but for Obama that's a liability.

I'm not naive enough to believe Obama wasn't installed for a reason yet to be revealed, just as I'm not naive enough to believe Palin wasn't added to the Rep ticket to insure Obama's installation.

JSPB22 wrote:

Countertrey wrote: And the TOP of the Dem ticket was more qualified because...

He is very intelligent and has a knowledge of current events.

Palin's inexperience is a good thing, because she is not a career politician, but for Obama that's a liability.

When the topic was "experience" for the Republican and switch to the Democrat, bam, it was "intelligence" and "knowledge!!!"

Saying Obama is inexperienced ALSO is saying it IS an issue for Obama and NOT for Palin even when you DON'T say that.

Keep em coming! This post is a scream. Just the illogic of it.

So, JSPB22, when you read this post, do you see it logically defending Palin and attacking Obama? Do you see that in this post? Is that my point?

KazooSkinsFan wrote:

JSPB22 wrote:

Countertrey wrote: And the TOP of the Dem ticket was more qualified because...

He is very intelligent and has a knowledge of current events.

Palin's inexperience is a good thing, because she is not a career politician, but for Obama that's a liability.

When the topic was "experience" for the Republican and switch to the Democrat, bam, it was "intelligence" and "knowledge!!!"

Saying Obama is inexperienced ALSO is saying it IS an issue for Obama and NOT for Palin even when you DON'T say that.

Keep em coming! This post is a scream. Just the illogic of it.

So, JSPB22, when you read this post, do you see it logically defending Palin and attacking Obama? Do you see that in this post? Is that my point?

I'm glad you can laugh at yourself, but the topic was not "experience," it was qualification.
And I was not defending Obama, which was patently obvious from the final sentence of my post (which you conveniently omitted from your quote, because it did not serve your purpose), but rather pointing out the hypocrisy of CT's position.

Well, they need to stop bashing Palin.
She is trying to live a quiet life in Alaska.
Just let her be!

JSPB22 wrote:I'm glad you can laugh at yourself, but the topic was not "experience," it was qualification

I'll let Trey address if he wants to, but I think the hypocrisy you're citing exists in your twisting of his point, but back to yours...

JSPB22 wrote:

Countertrey wrote: And the TOP of the Dem ticket was more qualified because...

He is very intelligent and has a knowledge of current events.

Wow, intelligent and knowledgeable. A trained monkey who's intelligent for recognizing the inherent truth of liberalism and knowledgeable because he's able to memorize and repeat each and every liberal position. So prove me wrong by telling me ANYTHING he's ever said NOT out of the liberal playbook. Or is studying standard liberalism all it takes to be intelligent and knowledgeable?

Then we can pat the white elitist liberals who gave up NOTHING on the back for their greatness overcoming prejudice. Obama agrees with them on EVERY issue. They had to sacrifice nary a thing. And yet they are great for "overcoming" prejudice AND he gets to be intelligent and knowledgeable. It's a great cluster liberalism is. And because I'm not one I'm unemployed (welch), declaring bankrupcy (RIC), weird (Fios), a fascist (Ray) and you're rubber and I'm glue because everything I say bounces off you and sticks to me (prior post).

This is so cool. I like arguing with liberals. Sure it's pointless, but this country has sold out. Freedom was work. But we can at least argue about it. That is until the fairness doctrine is applied to the Internet to protect liberal speech from being questioned by unemployed, bankrupt, weird, fascist globs of glue.

JSPB22 wrote:

KazooSkinsFan wrote:

JSPB22 wrote:

Countertrey wrote: And the TOP of the Dem ticket was more qualified because...

He is very intelligent and has a knowledge of current events.

Palin's inexperience is a good thing, because she is not a career politician, but for Obama that's a liability.

When the topic was "experience" for the Republican and switch to the Democrat, bam, it was "intelligence" and "knowledge!!!"

Saying Obama is inexperienced ALSO is saying it IS an issue for Obama and NOT for Palin even when you DON'T say that.

Keep em coming! This post is a scream. Just the illogic of it.

So, JSPB22, when you read this post, do you see it logically defending Palin and attacking Obama? Do you see that in this post? Is that my point?

I'm glad you can laugh at yourself, but the topic was not "experience," it was qualification.
And I was not defending Obama, which was patently obvious from the final sentence of my post (which you conveniently omitted from your quote, because it did not serve your purpose), but rather pointing out the hypocrisy of CT's position.

This is a riot... my post is hypocritical... you make the assumption that Obama is intelligent... now, I have no reason to believe otherwise, but, yet, I am completely at the mercy of those who assert he is, with no practical evidence through the demonstration of accomplishments. His accomplishments? He earned a Law Degree from Harvard. He led the Harvard Law Review. He was a community activist. He was a state senator. He was a United States Senator. He followed a bigoted preacher. He is (according to the terrorist) friends with an unrepentant terrorist.

Well... there is some evidence of intelligence there... also some evidence of utter stupidity for one who sees his future as a "unifier"...

A considerable body of personal accomplishment... yet not one serious accomplishment of national, regional, state, or city value. Winning the Presidency does not make him an experienced executive. The man has never run anything of consequence. We don't even know if he knows how to balance his checkbook, yet you give him a pass.

You continue to fail to demonstrate that he is more qualified than Palin. Intelligence alone is not a qualification. The gift of Blarney alone does not make one a leader. How is my doubting of his qualifications hypocritical? The hypocrite is the one who can look at two candidates short on experience, and declare the one they like to be qualified, while the other is painted with innuendo.

Nice.

Countertrey wrote:you make the assumption that Obama is intelligent... now, I have no reason to believe otherwise, but, yet, I am completely at the mercy of those who assert he is, with no practical evidence through the demonstration of accomplishments. His accomplishments? He earned a Law Degree from Harvard.

Not just earned a law degree, he graduated magna cum laude, right at the top of his class. A pretty good sign of his intelligence, I'd say.

But you continue to assume I am an Obama supporter, when I've never made any such claim. I can still dispassionately say he is heads and shoulders more qualified than Sarah Palin.

JSPB22 wrote:

Countertrey wrote:you make the assumption that Obama is intelligent... now, I have no reason to believe otherwise, but, yet, I am completely at the mercy of those who assert he is, with no practical evidence through the demonstration of accomplishments. His accomplishments? He earned a Law Degree from Harvard.

Not just earned a law degree, he graduated magna cum laude, right at the top of his class. A pretty good sign of his intelligence, I'd say.

But you continue to assume I am an Obama supporter, when I've never made any such claim. I can still dispassionately say he is heads and shoulders more qualified than Sarah Palin.

I don't dispute his college credentials... great, Magna Cum Laude... and, just what, besides essentially nothing, did he do with all that potential? Intelligence is nothing if not applied.

I really don't care whom you supported, though I suspect you did pull the O lever... I will continue to say that intelligence alone is not a qualifier for the Presidency... and that is all any of you have as assurance that he is not completely incompetent.

Jimmy Carter was intelligent, too, before he became completely senile. He was a disaster as President (unless you actually enjoyed 18% inflation). Keep in mind that HE had actually accomplished something, and was actually an experienced executive.

Bottom line... a 24 year old 2nd Lieutenant Platoon leader has more executive experience than Obama. Yet, you wouldn't want to elect him president. Minimize Palin all you want, she has successful executive experience. Obama, big brain and all, has never run anything. How my impression makes me a hypocrite, well, that's just amazing.