Bad punditry = Good romance writing? "Liberals Hate Palin Because She's Beautiful"

[Loring2]

Well now DZ

If Sarah Palin's behavior is ethical, you have just invented a new definition for the word.

What is it that makes Sweet Sarah Palin's behavior unethical?

 

[DeeZire]

What is it that makes Sweet Sarah Palin's behavior unethical?

After all that's been posted in this thread, if you need it explained to you, it's obviously beyond your comprehension.

 

[Boxlicker101]

Quote:
Originally Posted by Loring2
What is it that makes Sweet Sarah Palin's behavior unethical?

After all that's been posted in this thread, if you need it explained to you, it's obviously beyond your comprehension.

After reading this post, I looked back over the others. Over 100 posts so far, and the only specific example of behavior by Sarah Palin that might be considered unethical is that she quit the governorship of Alaska in order to pursue politics on a larger stage. People do that all the time. Obama did it when he resigned from the Senate. I believe it would have been MORE unethical to have remained in office even though unable to concentrate on her duties.

 

[Stella_Omega]

Let's see. there's the unethical behavior she engaged in while she was trying to defend herself against the troopergate scandal.
So that's one, or two.
I really don't want to go find documentation for any more of her stuff, it's like bathing in shit.

 

[Boxlicker101]

Quote:
Originally Posted by Loring2
What is it that makes Sweet Sarah Palin's behavior unethical?

Quote:
Originally Posted by DeeZire
After all that's been posted in this thread, if you need it explained to you, it's obviously beyond your comprehension.

After reading this post, I looked back over the others. Over 100 posts so far, and the only specific example of behavior by Sarah Palin that might be considered unethical is that she quit the governorship of Alaska in order to pursue politics on a larger stage. People do that all the time. Obama did it when he resigned from the Senate. I believe it would have been MORE unethical to have remained in office even though unable to concentrate on her duties.

Let's see. there's the unethical behavior she engaged in while she was trying to defend herself against the troopergate scandal.
So that's one, or two.
I really don't want to go find documentation for any more of her stuff, it's like bathing in shit.

The question was: "What actions or statements described on this thread thread can be considered unethical behavior?" Until now, Troopergate had not been mentioned. I'm sure that if I dig hard enough, I can find plenty of unethical acts by Obama or any other pol.

 

[Guest]

. . . .

 

[Huckleman2000]

[...]
The question was: "What actions or statements described on this thread thread can be considered unethical behavior?" Until now, Troopergate had not been mentioned. I'm sure that if I dig hard enough, I can find plenty of unethical acts by Obama or any other pol.

Box, that's the first time you or anyone has said "described in this thread", so don't act as if you'd never heard of Troopergate before this. It was an ongoing issue through the Presidential election. Moreover, she cited the numerous ethics complaints against her when she quit her job. She even formed a "legal defense fund", which was found to be illegal two days ago.

Furthermore, while you don't seem to regard it as an ethics issue, I and others have brought up the way she uses her children as props in a way that goes far beyond other politicians, particularly Trig, who she (and the Right) treats as her very own poster-child. The article referred to in the OP said as much, saying that he is a reason that liberals hate her.

 

[DeeZire]

Box - here are two highlights of S. P.'s unethical behavior:

"Death Panels" (there were no death panels.)

"Paling around with terrorists" (1. There was only one alleged terrorist, while she used the plural form of the word. 2. He was not pals with the alleged terrorist.)

If you think it's ethical to make shit up and slander your opponent with bald-faced lies, you are referencing a unique and contradictory definition of the word "ethical".

 

[Boxlicker101]

Ah, but in true Box logic, let me add - that was NOT the question, was it?

It was about Palin, not the president.

This was the query and the posts that led to it:

Quote:
Originally Posted by Loring2
What is it that makes Sweet Sarah Palin's behavior unethical?

Quote:
Originally Posted by DeeZire
After all that's been posted in this thread, if you need it explained to you, it's obviously beyond your comprehension.

After reading this post, I looked back over the others. Over 100 posts so far, and the only specific example of behavior by Sarah Palin that might be considered unethical is that she quit the governorship of Alaska in order to pursue politics on a larger stage. People do that all the time. Obama did it when he resigned from the Senate. I believe it would have been MORE unethical to have remained in office even though unable to concentrate on her duties.

I ask it again. What posts on this thread describe unethical behaviour by Sarah Palin?

BTW as far as I am concerned, ethical politicians are extremely rare, although SP is probably less unethical than most. I would never claim she has never done anything unethical. I would say she is probably less unethical than our current president. Have you heard about his offering plum government positions to people in exchange for their dropping out of primary contests?

 

[Boxlicker101]

Box, that's the first time you or anyone has said "described in this thread", so don't act as if you'd never heard of Troopergate before this. It was an ongoing issue through the Presidential election. Moreover, she cited the numerous ethics complaints against her when she quit her job. She even formed a "legal defense fund", which was found to be illegal two days ago.

Furthermore, while you don't seem to regard it as an ethics issue, I and others have brought up the way she uses her children as props in a way that goes far beyond other politicians, particularly Trig, who she (and the Right) treats as her very own poster-child. The article referred to in the OP said as much, saying that he is a reason that liberals hate her.

I was responding to this comment by Dee:

After all that's been posted in this thread, if you need it explained to you, it's obviously beyond your comprehension.

Of course I have heard of Troopergate. It may or not have been unethical. I do not consider posing for photo ops with one's children as being the wrong thing to do. Obama does it all the time, and he included them in his acceptance of McCain's concession. That's not a complaint; as I said, I see nothing wrong with doing so.

 

[Boxlicker101]

Box - here are two highlights of S. P.'s unethical behavior:

"Death Panels" (there were no death panels.)

"Paling around with terrorists" (1. There was only one alleged terrorist, while she used the plural form of the word. 2. He was not pals with the alleged terrorist.)

If you think it's ethical to make shit up and slander your opponent with bald-faced lies, you are referencing a unique and contradictory definition of the word "ethical".

The "Death Panel" reference would apply after medical care starts being rationed under Obamacare. Whether it will happen or not remains to be seen, but with millions more demanding medical care and less available, it probably will come to pass, at least to some degree.

The specific terrorists were Bill Ayers and his wife, Bernardine Dohrn, and there may have been others. Those two were terrorists, and they admitted to the terrorist acts, but claimed they were not terrorists. Whether they are pals or not is iffy, but Ayers was influential in getting Obama into politics in Chicago.

What shit has Sarah Palin ever made up about a political opponent. I know, you will probably reply by saying something like, "You wouldn't believe it anyhow." That is certainly easier than giving an answer.

 

[DeeZire]

The "Death Panel" reference would apply after medical care starts being rationed under Obamacare. Whether it will happen or not remains to be seen, but with millions more demanding medical care and less available, it probably will come to pass, at least to some degree.

The specific terrorists were Bill Ayers and his wife, Bernardine Dohrn, and there may have been others. Those two were terrorists, and they admitted to the terrorist acts, but claimed they were not terrorists. Whether they are pals or not is iffy, but Ayers was influential in getting Obama into politics in Chicago.

What shit has Sarah Palin ever made up about a political opponent. I know, you will probably reply by saying something like, "You wouldn't believe it anyhow." That is certainly easier than giving an answer.

The shit you referenced in the previous two paragraphs are examples of shit S. P. lied about. The lies are proven by your own recounting of the events.

....the only specific example of behavior by Sarah Palin that might be considered unethical is that she quit the governorship of Alaska in order to pursue politics on a larger stage. People do that all the time. Obama did it when he resigned from the Senate. I believe it would have been MORE unethical to have remained in office even though unable to concentrate on her duties.

As you pointed out, Obama quit the Senate - to become president.

S. P. quit in the middle of her term as governor - to become a millionaire. She is not running for public office.

Both politicians took an oath to serve the public. Obama kept his oath, S. P. broke hers.

 

[IrezumiKiss]

"Whether it will happen or not remains to be seen"

"it probably will"

"there may have been others."

"Whether they are pals or not is iffy"

Lovely absolutes of proof you got going there, guy.

They could be song lyrics, even. I'll go get my lyre!

 

[Boxlicker101]

Quote:
Originally Posted by Boxlicker101
The "Death Panel" reference would apply after medical care starts being rationed under Obamacare. Whether it will happen or not remains to be seen, but with millions more demanding medical care and less available, it probably will come to pass, at least to some degree.

The specific terrorists were Bill Ayers and his wife, Bernardine Dohrn, and there may have been others. Those two were terrorists, and they admitted to the terrorist acts, but claimed they were not terrorists. Whether they are pals or not is iffy, but Ayers was influential in getting Obama into politics in Chicago.

What shit has Sarah Palin ever made up about a political opponent. I know, you will probably reply by saying something like, "You wouldn't believe it anyhow." That is certainly easier than giving an answer.

The shit you referenced in the previous two paragraphs are examples of shit S. P. lied about. The lies are proven by your own recounting of the events.

I still don't know what you mean. The "Death Panels" was a prediction, and a lot of people agree with her, including myself. "Death Panel" might be hyperbolic, but there will be rationing of medical care when the demand increases and the supply decreases. Obama did associate with at least two unrepentant terrorists, Bill Ayers and Bernardine Dohrn, both of the Weather Underground. Two represents a plural, so plural verbs and pronouns are properly used. There were probably others, but not as well know as those two.

Originally Posted by Boxlicker101
....the only specific example of behavior by Sarah Palin that might be considered unethical is that she quit the governorship of Alaska in order to pursue politics on a larger stage. People do that all the time. Obama did it when he resigned from the Senate. I believe it would have been MORE unethical to have remained in office even though unable to concentrate on her duties.

As you pointed out, Obama quit the Senate - to become president.

S. P. quit in the middle of her term as governor - to become a millionaire. She is not running for public office.

Both politicians took an oath to serve the public. Obama kept his oath, S. P. broke hers.

Everybody retires or resigns sooner or later. Are you certain that SP will not be running for public office. I predicted a while ago she will run for sen. from Alaska in the primary in Aug.

Whether Obama is serving the public or not is a matter of opinion.

 

[Stella_Omega]

I suspect we are seeing the beginnings of Alzheimers. I really do. We have watched Box disintegrate online, in the past five years. This is not the man that once I called friend. This is some minimalist wind-up toy.

Raise a glass to the old fuck, my friends, and come away to greener pastures, cleaner air.

I'm so sorry you're gone, Box. I'll miss you.

 

[Boxlicker101]

I suspect we are seeing the beginnings of Alzheimers. I really do. We have watched Box disintegrate online, in the past five years. This is not the man that once I called friend. This is some minimalist wind-up toy.

Raise a glass to the old fuck, my friends, and come away to greener pastures, cleaner air.

I'm so sorry you're gone, Box. I'll miss you.

That's an old trick. When your logic runs out in an argument, resort to personal insults. The Usual Suspects do it all the time.

 

[Guest]

. . . .

 

[Boxlicker101]

Box, as it seems you can't remember, the "Usual Suspects" originally referred to amicus and the right wing rabids.

JBJ, who was kicked off many forums, took that term and used it in the AH on anyone who opposed his views.

Several sheep picked it up, you and Zeb and amicus included, and have used it since.

So I am always amused to see it, since I know the origin.

As for people resorting to insults with you? They have no choice. You are intentionally obtuse.

It is too frustrating to debate or discuss because you can't quite seem to grasp the simplest of concepts.

Logic fails you.

The insults are natural because people probably want to beat you over the head with a stick.

I use nothing but facts and logic in my posts. Sometimes I make a prediction, and I clearly identify these as predictions. Sometimes I present an opinion, and these are supported by facts and logic, but I am not always right. On this thread, I am limiting myself to facts and logic. Can you tell me anything I said that was untrue? I know, I know, you will just say something like "Too many to count" or something like that, because you will not be able to find one.

 

[Stella_Omega]

That's an old trick. When your logic runs out in an argument, resort to personal insults. The Usual Suspects do it all the time.

If I wanted to insult you, dude, I would talk about your braindead custom title. My handle is boxlicker and I'm a Licker of boxes durrrr... That's an insult.

Not my comment about Alzheimers.

I really honestly mean it, you are not the man you once were.

This is not sarcasm. This is not me being funny. This is me watching you lose your marbles, right before our eyes.

 

[Guest]

. . . .

 

[Huckleman2000]

I use nothing but facts and logic in my posts. Sometimes I make a prediction, and I clearly identify these as predictions. Sometimes I present an opinion, and these are supported by facts and logic, but I am not always right. On this thread, I am limiting myself to facts and logic. Can you tell me anything I said that was untrue? I know, I know, you will just say something like "Too many to count" or something like that, because you will not be able to find one.

Box, you may think you use facts and logic, but you really don't. You simply obfuscate. You ask for examples of ethics violations, even though these are common knowledge, and when people post them, first you protest that they weren't brought up before in this thread (as if that makes a difference), then you rationalize the facts by saying 'all politicians are unethical' (they're not), or you attack the source as biased, or you point fingers at Obama and make unsubstantiated charges. You draw false equivalences, for example, between Obama bringing his family onstage at a few speeches and Palin, who makes them symbols of her own selflessness while gutting programs (for special-needs kids and sensible sex-education) that actually DO something to help people in similar circumstances - that's hypocrisy. You hide behind weasel-words and phrases, such as Sarahh pointed out. You attack "the Usual Suspects" with ridiculous straw-men arguments. It's like arguing with a fifth-grader!

 

[IrezumiKiss]

Look back to post #113.

You always post opinion, then back it up by using one of these statements.

"Whether it will happen or not remains to be seen"

"it probably will"

"there may have been others."

"Whether they are pals or not is iffy"

http://www.thecoast.ca/images/blogimages/2010/03/29/1269881537-clapping-gif.gif

Thank you. Tried to tell 'im this before. Anybody who has to resort to these always-within-reach, Easy-Bake oven cushions to prop their fall, ain't no real stuntman.

 

[Stella_Omega]

http://www.thecoast.ca/images/blogimages/2010/03/29/1269881537-clapping-gif.gif

Thank you. Tried to tell 'im this before. Anybody who has to resort to these always-within-reach, Easy-Bake oven cushions to prop their fall, ain't no real stuntman.

I want gifs of the audience from the original "Producers" during the "springtime for hitler" scenes. At first they are stonefaced and shocked, and later they are hanging onto thier bellies and falling out of their chairs from laughing...

 

[amicus]

Box, as it seems you can't remember, the "Usual Suspects" originally referred to amicus and the right wing rabids.

JBJ, who was kicked off many forums, took that term and used it in the AH on anyone who opposed his views.

Several sheep picked it up, you and Zeb and amicus included, and have used it since.

So I am always amused to see it, since I know the origin.

As for people resorting to insults with you? They have no choice. You are intentionally obtuse.

It is too frustrating to debate or discuss because you can't quite seem to grasp the simplest of concepts.

Logic fails you.

The insults are natural because people probably want to beat you over the head with a stick.

~~~

SweetSubSarahh...along with 'SheReads" (are you still out there?) formed the basis of a left wing clique that I named, 'The Usual Suspects', years and years ago and the name stuck and all who participate here know the origin of the catch phrase.

A little 'revisionist' history, SSS? You folks are well practiced in that.

'Move on.Org' bought an advertisement in the New York Times, "General Petraeus now General Betray Us? The left glommed onto that 'catch phrase' as well. Now, the Petraeus is the darling of the White House and the far left, he becomes the "Brilliant Choice" of the far left Obama administration.

As you and your corhorts function on belief only and the world is only as you see it...you forget that other objective obersvers surround you and will remind you of your continuing faux pas conerning historical events, large and small.

So, plank member of the Usual Suspects, in that I recall even you claiming pride in that distinction, of being included in the group, do you still claim otherwise?

Amicus...sole creator of "The Usual Suspects"...

 

[DeeZire]

'Move on.Org' bought an advertisement in the New York Times, "General Petraeus now General Betray Us? The left glommed onto that 'catch phrase' as well...

As usual, you're making assumptions that have no basis in fact. I do recall the General Betray Us ad. That's when I quit contributing to Move on.org. I was disgusted that a liberal organization would adopt the tactics of Right Wingers like you who think political discourse benefits from name-calling. That fact that you're proud of your origination of the Usual Suspects label only confirms the shallowness of your intellect.