Palin calls blacks unpatriotic for pointing out inequality

As someone who bitches about America's faults ALL DAY, EVERY DAY, Palin gives new meaning to the label "hypocrite".

Her new book unintentionally proves the Tea Party is nothing more than another run-of-the-mill, racist-based hate group.

http://www.theroot.com/views/palins...ef=obinsite&wpsrc=OB00000001&wpisrc=obnetwork

 

I don't know why anyone cares about Sarah Palin... she's just another attention whore trying to make a buck. You know, if the liberals didn't spend so much time hating her, I bet she wouldn't make a dime.

 

Amen, I for one am tired of hearing about her.

 

I think many blacks do use racism as a crutch in society. Probably more than they are actually the victims of racism themselves. White america is the "enemy" to be conquered.

 

Sadly, she will be the Republican candidate in 2012.

 

I'd bet you she isn't.

 

Romney/Jindal 2012.

 

I'm still waiting for "The rent is too damn high" guy to announce his candidacy for president.

 

that guy was an anti-semite.

 

I agree here. I frequently get into "discussions" with some of my family members about it.

The article referenced in this post though, I found myself looking for a quote or something from the book which pointed to "palin calling blacks unpatriotic". All I saw was a small blurb about her trading liberal for African-American.

Did I miss something? Or is this just an opinion piece on Palin's book with no direct reference to what they are talking about?

 

One of their best choices no doubt, but still kinda gross if you ask me.

 

It would be the triumph of the management consultants. Romney was a BCG and Bain guy and one of the founders of Bain Capital while Jindal toiled at McKinsey.

What a refreshing change it would be to have competency back in the White House.

 

Provide the quote from the book?

 

Didn't we just try that 'run the government like a business' thing with Mr. Yale MBA? Sure had some real competence there.

Government and business are not remotely similar and have different goals, agendas, means, resources, and desired outcomes.

 

The best thing to come out of the Palin 15 minutes

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x34G0h7R__Y

 

Who was that "run the government like a business" guy? There's a difference between getting a Yale MBA (or Harvard Law degree for example) through legacy or Affirmative Action and actually using that degree to become the CEO of a major consulting firm/equity group through one's own merits.

 

If so, that is just sad. I found some images from that video and I wonder if Sarah has a better body in real life. Hope so. Not that the woman in the video is horribly nasty, just not hot enough to make videos IMO.

 

There's a big difference betweeen George W. Bush (a Harvard MBA, BTW) and Mitt Romney or Bobby Jindal. President Bush was elected and supported by a highly-ideological base--evangelical social conservatives. President Obama, despite running as a moderate, has been even more ideological although in the opposite direction. Romney and Jindal are both pragmatists in governance, much more like Presidents George H.W. Bush and Bill Clinton. I am of the opinion that this country wants to be ruled from the center rather from the fringes and are weary of the kind of pitched ideological battles that have occurred over the past decade.

Furthermore, unlike Presidents Bush and Obama, Mitt Romney and Bobby Jindal both come from states where their chosen party is a minority, so they've had to reach across the aisle to find agreement. It's pretty easy to be a Republican in Texas or a Democrat in Chicago. It's tougher to be a Republican in Boston or in Huey Long's back yard.

Finally, both have a record of achievement in both the private and public sector. Both were/are effective governors, Jindal was by all accounts an excellent Congressman and Romney improved the operations and saved many companies from bankruptcy when he was involved with Bain.

I appreciate your idea that the public and private sectors are different in outlook and goals, but I don't believe that to be the case any longer. We've stretched our limit of deficit spending; our credit limit is up. What we need in the public sector is precisely the kind of fiscal discipline you see in the private sector every day. That objective wasn't the mandate for President Bush; his was the fuzzy "Compassionate Conservatism". President Obama's was "Hope", "Change" and "Yes We Can". Our next president's objective will be less lofty: "Live within our means".

While I like both Romney and Jindal, the guy I really like is Mitch Daniels from Indiana.