DescentBB

It seems that Palin has running mouth before engaging brain syndrome. And woody wonders why she's a target of comedians.

http://www.digitaljournal.com/news/poli ... cle/364615

I guess that puts her on a par with all of those congresspersons who vote for laws without reading them.

(a far more serious offence…btw)

If she knew he was being condemned for his opinion and defended his right to express his opinion where did she go wrong? I stand up for anyone's right to express their opinion BEFORE they even offer it!

Has anyone anywhere actually suggested that Robinson not have the right to express his opinion? The First Amendment obviously guarantees as much. But it doesn't offer any guarantees against people thinking your opinion is ★■◆●ing stupid, and expressing as much themselves.

Apparently TC thinks one shouldn't give blanket support for another's right to express their opinion because she ridicules Palin's for doing so without being able to quote the opinion that was expressed...

To be fair, I don't think this is the first time Sarah Palin has spoken on a topic without knowing enough about what she's addressing. I think on a certain level it's understandable--you can read a lot of news articles without knowing exactly what was said. From a Biblical perspective it's "folly". From a public figure it really leaves something to be desired...

Sergeant Thorne wrote:To be fair, I don't think this is the first time Sarah Palin has spoken on a topic without knowing enough about what she's addressing.

congratulations, Sarge!!! With less than 5 days to go in the regular season, you make it under the wire with, easily, the Understatement of the Year!

Heh, and how many times has Obama said something he was clueless about?

woodchip wrote:Heh, and how many times has Obama said something he was clueless about?

nowhere near YOUR rate, Woody.....let's just leave it at that, huh?

callmeslick wrote:

woodchip wrote:Heh, and how many times has Obama said something he was clueless about?

nowhere near YOUR rate, Woody.....let's just leave it at that, huh?

Well let's don't just...because even if your metric is correct and Woody actually has had it wrong more than Obama....a point I don't concede...but even if so, when Woody gets it wrong it has no impact on my wallet or freedom or my countries place in the world power ranking...

If Palin's counts as a public figure that has to do her homework before ever uttering anything then Obama really needs a team of tutors and a host of handlers and a whole new team in the Cabinet by comparrison! Because his getting it wrong hurts!!!

callmeslick wrote:

woodchip wrote:Heh, and how many times has Obama said something he was clueless about?

nowhere near YOUR rate, Woody.....let's just leave it at that, huh?

This from the guy who has a hard time telling the difference between a Bluefish and a Blue-fin Tuna. Lets face it slick, you're wrong a fair amount of times also.

woodchip wrote:This from the guy who has a hard time telling the difference between a Bluefish and a Blue-fin Tuna. Lets face it slick, you're wrong a fair amount of times also.

pretty sure I could get that one right, blindfolded(with gloves on, in case it were a bluefish).

In a return to the original topic, you all may be surprised to learn that one of my small Christmas gifts, from my wife, was a copy of Phil's book, that has been republished under the title, "Happy Happy Happy". I was glad to get it, because while I don't agree with his Fundamentalist religious views, and I don't share the archaic view of black people in the South, pre-1965, I DO share much of Phil's philosophy on modern life, and the modern family. Far too little time spent outdoors, far too little appreciation of family or the many other little things that make up a complete life. It has been a fun read, so far. Not too preachy, lots of insight into how the business started, and how Phil used to behave in the bad old days.

Will Robinson wrote:Apparently TC thinks one shouldn't give blanket support for another's right to express their opinion because she ridicules Palin's for doing so without being able to quote the opinion that was expressed...

There's a difference between an informed opinion, and a reactionary opinion. Palin's opinions are always reactionary and without any thought behind them, probably because she has NO connection between her brain and her mouth. Actually, is there even a brain in there....

tunnelcat wrote:

Will Robinson wrote:Apparently TC thinks one shouldn't give blanket support for another's right to express their opinion because she ridicules Palin's for doing so without being able to quote the opinion that was expressed...

There's a difference between an informed opinion, and a reactionary opinion. Palin's opinions are always reactionary and without any thought behind them, probably because she has NO connection between her brain and her mouth. Actually, is there even a brain in there....

She is one of the most informed and experienced people in modern times with regard to political hacks in the media distorting someone's words and inserting their interpretation into the report as if it was verified at the source.

So she's entitled and quite qualified to react on the feeding frenzy that erupts when a conservative or Christian swims too close to the chum that is maintained by the mainstream media.

tunnelcat wrote:

Will Robinson wrote:Apparently TC thinks one shouldn't give blanket support for another's right to express their opinion because she ridicules Palin's for doing so without being able to quote the opinion that was expressed...

There's a difference between an informed opinion, and a reactionary opinion. Palin's opinions are always reactionary and without any thought behind them, probably because she has NO connection between her brain and her mouth. Actually, is there even a brain in there....

Maybe we could point out some of the stupid ★■◆● the democrats say. Biden, Pelosi, Reid, just for starters.

You are so blind you couldn't see reality if it hit you in the head with a 2x4

Will Robinson wrote:She is one of the most informed and experienced people in modern times with regard to political hacks in the media distorting someone's words and inserting their interpretation into the report as if it was verified at the source.

So she's entitled and quite qualified to react on the feeding frenzy that erupts when a conservative or Christian swims too close to the chum that is maintained by the mainstream media.

Yeah, on what planet? She's got to be the most uninformed idiot out there pontificating on things she's know absolutely nothing about, nor even bothers, it seems, to READ about. That notorious Katie Couric interview pretty much exposed Palin's stupidity. If you thinks she's smart, I've got a bridge to sell you...........

CUDA wrote:Maybe we could point out some of the stupid **** the democrats say. Biden, Pelosi, Reid, just for starters.

I'm not disagreeing with you there. Motormouth syndrome knows no party affiliation.

You know TC, there's a reason Obama only accepts interviews by newsies that ask soft ball questions

woodchip wrote:You know TC, there's a reason Obama only accepts interviews by newsies that ask soft ball questions

like Fox? He's been interviewed there at least 4 times I know of. More fiction from the master.

tunnelcat wrote:

Will Robinson wrote:She is one of the most informed and experienced people in modern times with regard to political hacks in the media distorting someone's words and inserting their interpretation into the report as if it was verified at the source.

So she's entitled and quite qualified to react on the feeding frenzy that erupts when a conservative or Christian swims too close to the chum that is maintained by the mainstream media.

Yeah, on what planet? She's got to be the most uninformed idiot out there pontificating on things she's know absolutely nothing about, nor even bothers, it seems, to READ about. That notorious Katie Couric interview pretty much exposed Palin's stupidity. If you thinks she's smart, I've got a bridge to sell you...........
...

The irony is so rich with you, complaining about Palin commenting on the issue!
You obviously didn't read/comprehend my comment based on your reply....yet you have lots to say about what you assert I said...

You are like a Palin lite on the D team.

Will Robinson wrote:So she's entitled and quite qualified to react on the feeding frenzy that erupts when a conservative or Christian swims too close to the chum that is maintained by the mainstream media.

I love when I read the words "mainstream media" as if there is some sort of conspiracy against Christians who make up 3/4 of the population [1] and Conservatives who amount to at least 40% [2]. Oh dear, whatever can we do to help the poor, persecuted majority? Blame the Jews?

Ahhh, the mainstream media. Like Rep.Issa told a member of the administration recently, "you need to watch more Fox".....

vision wrote:

Will Robinson wrote:So she's entitled and quite qualified to react on the feeding frenzy that erupts when a conservative or Christian swims too close to the chum that is maintained by the mainstream media.

I love when I read the words "mainstream media" as if there is some sort of conspiracy against Christians who make up 3/4 of the population [1] and Conservatives who amount to at least 40% [2]. Oh dear, whatever can we do to help the poor, persecuted majority? Blame the Jews?

You can call it mainstream or anything else if it makes you feel better but regardless of the label the behavior is documented! The label dominated by left leaning hacks with no objectivity' is perhaps more accurate but doesn't roll off the tongue so smoothly and those of us not in denial already know what their character is so mainstream works better. The facts are they collectively maintain a double standard when certain issues or entities are being 'reported'.

Toss up all the red herrings you want, like slick just did, they all fall smack in the middle of the road called reality.

Like the reality that Waleed also owns a big chunk of Time Warner and Disney. He suffers criticism from traditional Muslim circles for his investments in Fox who, in spite of his investment, is much harder on Muslim interests than left leaning outlets(mainstream media)!
Fox, for example, was the one place where the plan of a Muslim outfit building a mosque at ground zero was challenged. That outfit was Waleed beneficiary as well...
So the fact he owns stock in media companies doesn't prove diddly squat in spite of slicks back handed allegation.

The fact that mainstream media leans left in national elections and certain key issues on the other hand is well documented....

Will Robinson wrote: Toss up all the red herrings you want, like slick just did, they all fall smack in the middle of the road called reality.

the unquoted part was pretty much gibberish, but this bit looks as if you are saying my observation about Fox is a reflection of reality. Thanks.

callmeslick wrote:

Will Robinson wrote: Toss up all the red herrings you want, like slick just did, they all fall smack in the middle of the road called reality.

the unquoted part was pretty much gibberish, but this bit looks as if you are saying my observation about Fox is a reflection of reality. Thanks.

No, the red herrings you toss up and try to hide behind are laid bare for all to see them for what they are when contrasted with reality. (Not my best verbal picture but coffee hasn't kicked in this morning)

The bulk of the comments you left out is the inconvenient truth you are trying to deflect attention from. As usual.

gibberish is neither inconvenient, nor truthful. Media abound out there, it's up to the intelligent individual to compare and contrast the host of reports, and sort through the mistruths, half-truths and outright nonsense. It's work, admittedly, but can be done. Simply whining about 'liberals' dominating 'the media' and showing utterly no proof of same isn't inconvenient.....it's disingenuous.

Now do that with all of them Slick

callmeslick wrote:

Will Robinson wrote: Toss up all the red herrings you want, like slick just did, they all fall smack in the middle of the road called reality.

the unquoted part was pretty much gibberish,

Anything not flattering the left is gibberish to you. Perhaps you need to re-learn your reading comprehension skills someplace other than where the leftist professors originally taught you.

callmeslick wrote:Simply whining about 'liberals' dominating 'the media' and showing utterly no proof of same isn't inconvenient.....it's disingenuous.

If I claimed FOX News leaned to the right…would you ask for proof…no because anybody with proper observational skills can see it.

Proof...give me a break, all the liberals on earth seem to be in denial...

Next you'll be making wild claims about liberals dominating our education system...

or,more appropriately, to quote Colbert: Reality has a liberal bias.

Sergeant Thorne wrote:Next you'll be making wild claims about liberals dominating our education system...

Will Robinson wrote:

tunnelcat wrote:

Will Robinson wrote:She is one of the most informed and experienced people in modern times with regard to political hacks in the media distorting someone's words and inserting their interpretation into the report as if it was verified at the source.

So she's entitled and quite qualified to react on the feeding frenzy that erupts when a conservative or Christian swims too close to the chum that is maintained by the mainstream media.

Yeah, on what planet? She's got to be the most uninformed idiot out there pontificating on things she's know absolutely nothing about, nor even bothers, it seems, to READ about. That notorious Katie Couric interview pretty much exposed Palin's stupidity. If you thinks she's smart, I've got a bridge to sell you...........
...

The irony is so rich with you, complaining about Palin commenting on the issue!
You obviously didn't read/comprehend my comment based on your reply....yet you have lots to say about what you assert I said...

You are like a Palin lite on the D team.

Oh, I understood your original reply. She may NOW be savvy enough to avoid the media, but that was after she made an idiot of herself in a softball interview of all things. Palin has the same brain activity as a block of wood, so any statement made by her about ANYTHING, especially anything she hasn't read, has about the same value.

callmeslick wrote:or,more appropriately, to quote Colbert: Reality has a liberal bias.

That's the liberal level of humility which gives them such an in with reality...

tunnelcat wrote:

Will Robinson wrote:

tunnelcat wrote:

Will Robinson wrote:She is one of the most informed and experienced people in modern times with regard to political hacks in the media distorting someone's words and inserting their interpretation into the report as if it was verified at the source.

So she's entitled and quite qualified to react on the feeding frenzy that erupts when a conservative or Christian swims too close to the chum that is maintained by the mainstream media.

Yeah, on what planet? She's got to be the most uninformed idiot out there pontificating on things she's know absolutely nothing about, nor even bothers, it seems, to READ about. That notorious Katie Couric interview pretty much exposed Palin's stupidity. If you thinks she's smart, I've got a bridge to sell you...........
...

The irony is so rich with you, complaining about Palin commenting on the issue!
You obviously didn't read/comprehend my comment based on your reply....yet you have lots to say about what you assert I said...

You are like a Palin lite on the D team.

Oh, I understood your original reply. She may NOW be savvy enough to avoid the media, but that was after she made an idiot of herself in a softball interview of all things. Palin has the same brain activity as a block of wood, so any statement made by her about ANYTHING, especially anything she hasn't read, has about the same value.

No, in fact you just made it abundantly clear you still don't get it.

Or you are being purposely obtuse because you can't bring your self to acknowledge she does have a ton of first hand experience of being where Phil Robertson was in the media's attempt to destroy him and quite qualified to comment on that process without having to know the comments verbatim.

The media isn't destroying Phil Robertson. He's doing pretty good at that all by himself. He's an effing moron. And Palin's a moron who can't even answer a simple question about what newspapers she reads, if she reads them at all.

http://omg.yahoo.com/news/duck-dynasty- ... 04400.html

Actually TC, while the media is trying to destroy the guy, he is in fact becoming a cult hero to a good size segment of the country. The only people being destroyed are those who call Robertson a racist and a homophobe. Why they would want to jump on a Robertson when there are far more egregious comments by liberal commentators than what Robertson could ever hope to utter.

He's not only an idiot, he's a pervert. Approving of young men marrying 15 year old girls, who aren't even of the age of consent in most states, shows a startling lack of smarts in the big head department and too much cogitating in the little head department.

You're pretty quick with the names when you disagree with someone, TC. I don't see how that's perverted. It seems a little young to me, but there are a lot of variables involved there, socially speaking. I don't know his audience... People used to mature a lot faster, with the way they were raised a long time ago. I think what he says sounds a lot less perverted than providing 15-year-olds with access to birth-control or abortion in a culture which drives them to be sexually active at a young age.

My sister married just before her 17th birthday. My parents allowed it, and my relatives were horrified. Said relatives' own children have now been divorced after having been married, after having had multiple relationships beforehand... not that it's the only factor, but the point is my sister has a family and has done well for herself. Maybe it would be perverted in your world, TC, but in ours it's just a good idea to marry young if you're responsible. A lot of modern ideas about relationships are so contrived, selfish, and injurious, and they sure don't seem to work from where I'm standing.

Older men marrying teenagers. It may be some society's norm, Muslim societies and some African societies by the way, all poor and backward generally. But in my opinion, teenaged girls are too young and immature to care for an infant properly, AND, it's perverted IMHO. Maybe in the past when we needed a lot of babies fast when there was high infant and adult mortality, but not today. We've got a few polygamist sects in this country that the single husband will add to his harem by marrying teenaged wives. Why? Do these guys just get tired of old pussy or something? Perverts.