The never-ending "Sarah Palin should STFU" thread

That may be the biggest strawman argument leap I've ever read. Bravo!

 

I don't need to watch any video. In my opinion, "celebrity faux politicians" have no fucking business questioning the motives or actions of any governmental official, let alone the President of the United States, ESPECIALLY when it comes to foreign policy matters.

 

So, in other words, it's a personal issue with Palin. She was the GOP candidate for VP, and is mentioned as a potential presidential contender.

If Palin isn't allowed to question "any government official", who is?

What a stupid fucking post, Chris. Really.

 

More students = more $$$ = higher wages.

You do realize how a private school works compared to a public school, right?

 

What in God's name does that have anything to do with agoo's post? Nothing. It's just you deflecting the conversation to something that promotes your viewpoints.

 

Her opinion means as much to me as yours, Papa, at least on political matters: nothing. However, when either of you spout off a viewpoint born of ignorance and portray it as fact, I'm gonna call it what it is.

 

Someone with an inkling of what's actually going on.

 

He was stating that his girlfriend only makes $20k w/out health benefits. Increasing the pool of potential students would bring more money to that school. It's simple economics. What do you have against less-fortunate students having the opportunity, via vouchers, to go to private schools, with an ancillary benefit being more tuition money to filter to the staff?

 

You're yet to actually address the substance of her words, which the Diane Feinstein video basically parrots. I can only assume that yours is the viewpoint born of ignorance, since you won't adress Palin's questions, and you won't watch the short video of Feinstein stating some of the same concerns.

I get it. Whatever she says is irrelevant to you because you don't like her. That doesn't mean that a less-rabid partisan can't read through their own bias and realize that she has some legitimate concerns.

 

Such as ... ?

If not the most recent GOP VP candidate, and a person who may run in the GOP primaries, then who can ask questions of the Obama administration.

Also, how old are you, Chris? I'm curious.

 

Who decides who has "an inkling of what's actually going on"? It look to me as if you think all animals are equal, but some are more equal than others. I think the First Amendment should hold sway, there should be vigorous debate and the best ideas should win. We'll agree to disagree.

 

Agreeing to disagree is all fine and dandy, however, it seems to be the style into todays 24/7 news machines for talking heads (which I equate Palin to) to bleat out semi-outrageous claims based on nothing more than ignorance and intended to "reframe the discussion" in a manner that intelligence and common sense takes a back seat to fear and emotion. And as someone who feels that, if left unchallenged and unchecked, that line of action will lead this country and this world to what Mike Judge described (tounge-in-cheek) in his movie "Idiocracy", I am less inclined to let it slide. If that makes me a "hater" or an opponant of the First Amendment in your worldview, then so be it.

 

You are absolutely correct, and I admit that I am not some role-model when it comes to such behavior. However, no one shoves a microphone in my face at every opportunity and asks my opinion about everything and broadcasts it to millions of people who use my opinions as the basis of their own out of laziness or disinteretst. Such people in my mind have a responsibility to measure their remarks and opinions in the realm of facts and learned opinions, rather than kneejerk statements based on faulty or biased assumptions. Fairly old-school and naiive of me, I agree.

 

Are you going to address Palin's comments, or are you just going to continue with this emotional hissy fit? It seems to me that this would be a great opportunity to illustrate how Palin's concerns about the transfer of leadership in Egypt are "dangerous", yet Diane Feinstein's words are not.

 

Feinstein is the Senate Intelligence Committee chair, and she has a right to voice a learned opinion on the matter, which she did, voicing legitimate concerns of minority radical Islamic factions using the crisis to seize control, and that the US had an interest in making sure that didn't happen.

She didn't use the crisis to score political points against a potential future election opponant by making accusations that the White House was "asleep at the wheel" and "avoiding informing the American people" about the Egyptian situation, which was about as far away from the truth as humanly possible. But for the millions of idiots that think Palin's opinions means more than a pile of shit, her words become their gospel. And that's what's dangerous.

 

How many times does an idiot have to make idiotic statements before you decide that they are an idiot and view anything they say in such a light?

And if you reply with "every time I read one of your posts", I'll rep you as correct

 

Chris seems to be unwilling to actually address anything substantive. I'm not sure if the reason why he won't is an example cognitive dissonance, wilful ignorance, or is merely 100% emotional.

If it's the latter, he should probably start a thread each time Sarah Palin comments on anything, to be consistent. If it's the first or second, I wonder why that is the case.