'Stupid' Sarah - Right All Along

You must have read the law differently than others:

http://littlegreenfootballs.com/article/35416_Palin_Twitters-_The_Return_of_Death_Panels

Sarah Palin is an experienced loonie who cannot even remember her own opinions from a year ago.

If the Republican party and conservatives in general should have any hope to regain power they ought to stay clear of people like her and the crowd that is even worse than she.

http://littlegreenfootballs.com/article/35418_John_Birch_Society_Rides_Again_at_CPAC

As it stands _I_ wouldn't vote Republican at this moment, if I were an American citizen. And if you know me from JU you know what that means.

You and others are under a weird spell just like the Obama fans. But in contrast to Palin Obama has become more normal and mainstream over the past year.

You can resent me for saying this or you can think about my point. It's up to you.

But it's clear to me that if _I_ have a problem with a certain nut, left-wingers and moderates probably won't want to eat it either.

Last year Palin seemed like a dumb but presentable vice-presidential candidate. Since then she has lost it completely. You don't see senator McCain stand by her side or campaign for her, do you? Why do you think is? Has McCain become a traitor to the conservative cause or did he simply remain sane while so many Republicans turned into the same type of complete and utter loonies as were those lefties who protested George Bush's policies?

It's no wonder Colin Powell finally decided to support Barack Obama. He saw what was happening in the GOP. And at some point somebody must step up and stop these things, before it's too late.

Powell has been awful quiet lately.

He is in a difficult situation, just like last year.

Obama isn't the Messiah people thought he would be, and neither is the Stalinist catastrophe others exspected.

Powell probably misses his Republican party.

LGF?  You think he's objective?  I usually agree with your logical approach to things, but your reply here is all logic-free emotionalism.

??? She's not running for anything.  Bit disingenuous.

Having never been a conservative, there's been nothing to betray.

I have no sympathy for that position.  Powell could have had the Republican Party at one time.

I don't think Charles (of LGF) is objective at all. I was referring to his site because he is right, not because he is objective.

The fact that Sarah Palin is an idiot who cannot remember her own opinions of one year ago is plainly visible to both the logical and the emotional. I realised it some time ago and my logical approach allowed me to form an opinion of her.

She's definitely running for President in a few years. That's her plan. She is constantly campaigning. That's what politicians do when they don't shut up.

Senator McCain represents the very values of a great America that I admire. If he is not a conservative and if it is not his values that conservatives want to conserve, then perhaps there is nothing good about conservatism in America.

That's true. And he could have run for President. And perhaps he should have. a black Republican President would have been the very symbolism the world needed.

But the party of Lincoln are now teaming up with white supremacists and morons. (You can find the connections documented by LGF.) That's not the Republican party I support. And I doubt that such a Republican party will gain lots of votes from the centre.

I am sure the Republicans will win a few seats next year (or whenever those elections are), but I doubt it will be the Tea Party crowd that will attract many votes in undecided districts. It will be sane Republicans who will get votes from Democrats, not Sarah Palin.

You think Democrats hat an irrational hatred for George Bush? Well, they did, but for Sarah Palin sane Democrats add to the number.

LMAO, citing LGF as a rational, factual defense of an opinion is so damn laughable it's pathetic. Try tossing out some actual documented facts if you want to be taken seriously.

Really? I found LGF to be very rational and an excellent source for all matters political. Charles Johnson discovered Dan Rather's lie about George Bush's time in the National Guard and the manipulated photographs during the Lebanon war. He is also one of the founders of Pajamas Media.

Not exactly a site that I would consider laughable when it comes to rational, factual defence of an opinion. LGF is instead the best example of rationality that I have seen on the Web.

You might want to read the Wikipedia page about LGF to get an idea of what LGF is and who Charles Johnson is:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lgf

And he rightly calls out politician's connections to white supremacists and European neo-Nazi groups.

Maybe you fell for the same lie that the National Review wrote about:

"I'm losing patience with this notion, surely one of the most successful media Big Lies of the past few years, that Charles runs a racist hate site. By now it's been repeated so often that even normally reasonable people believe it."

The truth is that LGF is simply the most rational blog I know. And while I do not always agree with Charles, I find it utterly ridiculous to claim that "citing LGF as a rational, factual defense of an opinion is so damn laughable it's pathetic". In fact it is pathetic to make that claim, utterly and absolutely pathetic. It has no basis in reality.

That's what LGF is constantly doing. Take it seriously, if you want to follow your principle.

The incidents I mentioned which I read about on LGF did happen and LGF did have the links to prove it. Perhaps YOU should offer something to disprove LGF's links rather than attack the messenger or ignore the fact that documented facts were given?

Or is that too much to ask?

Please cite the facts depicted in this, which you linked:

http://littlegreenfootballs.com/article/35416_Palin_Twitters-_The_Return_of_Death_Panels

It doesn't in any way factually deal with the issue you were trying to deride. There is nothing there that actually states anything factual to dispute the death panel idea (which I personally think is hyperbole anyway but that is beside the point here).

Very well. If it's difficult to find.

First he points out that Sarah Palin indeed mentions "death panels":

..merged bill may b unrecognizable from what assumed was a done deal:R death panels back in?what’s punishment 4not purchasing mandated HC?

Then he links to his previous article where he wrote about it:

http://littlegreenfootballs.com/article/35400_Politifacts_Lie_of_the_Year-_Death_Panels

In that article he linked to PolitiFact:

http://politifact.com/truth-o-meter/article/2009/dec/18/politifact-lie-year-death-panels/

That article quotes Palin's original statement about the "death panels":

Seniors and the disabled "will have to stand in front of Obama's 'death panel' so his bureaucrats can decide, based on a subjective judgment of their 'level of productivity in society,' whether they are worthy of health care."

The rest of the article explains why and how Sarah Palin's assertion is wrong.

What else do you need for facts?

You really ought to follow the links in articles. I hope you follow my links above.

I also doubt that the new health care law specifically mentions that nobody ought to be painted green but that doesn't mean that it demands that people paint themselves in that colour.

Obviously.

And his stance on "Intelligent Design" and Creationism also does. As does his stance on American foreign policy and everything else where he diligently follows up on claims and finds the facts.

I was, as I said before, also quite impressed by the fact that he uncovered Dan Rather's lie about George Bush a few days before the 2004 elections and that he regularly points out manipulated photographs.

To claim that LGF is a Web site known for not delivering facts is just ridiculous.

I don't know of any other blog that links to so many sites and cites so many facts as LGF. And that includes other blogs I reading including those that are more pro-Israel, in case you think that matters.

The fact is that Sarah Palin said something stupid about a law not backed up by the text of the law. LGF pointed that out and linked to articles proving that Palin was wrong. Attacking LGF won't change that fact and is instead simply a strategy of losers.

Gail Wilensky, a health adviser to President George H.W. Bush, said the charge was untrue and upsetting.

I would really like to know which particular text in the proposed law actually backs up the claim that there will be "death panels".

But for some reason that particular text is never cited and instead those who reject Palin's silly claims are attacked. Is that really the politician people want? That's just sick.

This in particular is really silly:

"There is nothing there that actually states anything factual to dispute the death panel idea"

What an idiotic statement. Seriously, and as I said, there is probably nothing in the law that disputes that everyone must paint themselves green. But that doesn't mean (or even imply) that there will be committees that will force people to paint themselves in that colour.

If one wants to scream "death panels", one better finds where that law mentions them or something that would work like a "death panel". Just making the claim and then complaining that the text doesn't specifically reject the idea is just silly.

(In Ireland we have a law that states that one must not climb a fence and enter a public park when the park is closed. The law does not specifically mention that there won't be death panels. But that doesn't mean that we can assume that that law recommends or allowed death panels.)

And the idea that I shouldn't be swayed by a site's previous performance is just ridiculous also. OF COURSE my opinion is influenced by the fact that LGF has in the past also been right and knew all the facts and presented lots of evidence.

Sarah Palin also didn't say that the panel members would be armed & would shoot 'unworthies' on sight.

Her basic point is correct - you don't need LGF to interpret the bill for you, it's right there in plain language.  The only thing she got technically wrong was the 'go before' part, which was of course not intended literally in the first place.

I am embarrassed for you Leauki.  That was the most contorted session of circular logic that provided no facts, just opinion!  It is indeed the opinion of the noblesse oblige in the US that there are no such things as "Death Panels", and that it is a lie - IN THEIR OPINION.  Since Palin never stated that the term "death Panel" was anywhere in the legislation, only that the end result was that, we are dealing with each and every one's opinions.  NOT FACTS.

And while you may want to call a Committee to Decide End of Life Care Eligibility as a Committee to Decide End of Life Care Eligibilty, some of us - again in our OPINION - prefer the easier to use term - death panel.

The biggest lie of the year was not Sarah's.  It was the State Media and their failure to do their job.  Call it what you will, but opinions are not lies.  They may be wrong, but not lies.

Oh and one more question Leauki.  YOu spent a lot of time trying to justify an opinion of others,. how about justifying your own.  Where did Sarah Palin do as you say?  I would love to read your justification.  I strongly suspect that none of it is fact, just opinion, and based upon your moderate to left leaning, that is why you dont like Palin, do like McCain and tolerate Obama (however only people who love narcistics can love Obama).

IN my opinion, you are suffering from State Media Propaganda instituted by the state run MSM.  They hate Palin because she is a real threat to Obama - their messiah.  You dont like her positions (being too conservative for your tastes) so you of course glom onto anything negative about her and regurgitate it, without any critical thinking or questioning of what they are telling you.  Or further research into why perhaps they want people to think of her the way you do.

This is a truly idiotic statement. If the government is in control of health care decisions then it stands to reason that someone whether it be a board, panel, or other such body will also be making the decisions as to when it is no longer economical to continue to pay to keep someone alive. Perhaps simple logical reasoning is beyond your capability.

I also agree that such things are already in place via insurance companies. If reform is truly needed that is where it should be directed. Far too often insurance companies either refuse to pay for care or cancel a policy to get out of paying for care. If the premiums are paid they should be forced to pay up for the care. I would go along with that completely. I just don't think the government should be running the thing outright as they have a track record for screwing things up completely.

Yes, Palin's statements about "death panels" are hyperbole, but they do address a serious concern (one of many) with government run health care. Believe me, I would love to not have to pay for health insurance any more, but I sure as hell don't trust those idiots in Washington with my personal health care. I don't care which side of the aisle they are on, I don't trust any of them.

I'm not a big Palin fan, but she does garner a large potion of my respect. A woman that has hunted for food, raised a family and still has a career. Those womans movement phonies, that seem to only represent women on the left, can't hold a candle to what she has accomplished in her life so far. She isn't some ambulance chase or married herself into a political career like many of the others, both right and left. It's so easy to label her as backward or unintelligent, that what elitists do best. No one is their mental equal. The left is responsible for creating her in her present form. They hounded her relentlessly, filing frivolous lawsuits, and the whole thing backfired on them. I suppose it would have worked on a weaker woman. My thanks to the left for showing all women what they really think of women that don't support them 100%. 

BTW Mason, I don't often see you comment much on these types of issues. This one must have touched a nerve on some level. Kind of cool to see your post(s) here.  

:LOL: Not at all, I actually couldn't care less. I am just holed up in a hotel over the holiday and fending off boredom. The truth is that I think both the far left and far right are two sides of the same loony coin.

Ah!  But what is your definition of the far left and the far right?

I wouldn't cite LGF as a credible source anymore than I would the Democratic underground... both are filled with crackpot hackery and would have to be backed up by more credible sources.

I provided links to back up my opinion.

People here dismissed them simply by claiming that they don't accept LGF as a source of facts.

There is nothing I can do about that.

Now you see why I find the same logic questionable when Palin uses it. But anyway, I was replying to the argument that the law doesn't specifically rule out death panels. And why would it? The authors of the law didn't intend to create death panels and hence probably saw little need to rule them out specifically. Who would have foreseen that some loonie would make them up?

According to the majority of conservatives here on JU it never was, until I contradicted them here. Make of that what you will.

Well, I would.

As I said LGF always gives links and facts to back up the claims the site makes and Charles Johnson became famous for uncovering Dan Rather's lies as well as the doctored photographs from Lebanon.

To claim that LGF is specifically known for not providing facts after the site became famous for uncovering Dan Rather's lies is just ridiculous.

Plus I notice that none of you even addressed anything LGF said or linked to.

You just said LGF doesn't provide facts and were then unimpressed by the links I gave and never addressed a single one of them.

That's behaviour I have rarely seen even from the liberals here on JU. Coming from more than one person I think it was a first.

I see.

_I_ have to provide justification.

For what? What did I say? What do you want me to justify? Quite the statement of mine and I'll justify it.

Is this about my arguing that moderates won't vote for Palin? I don't have statistics or facts about that. I said it was what I believe. But I would bet on it.

I don't like Sarah Palin because she is turning into a moron.

The death panel story is just one of the problems. The other is her support for Creationism and her flip-flopping about global warming. She is clearly forming her opinions around what her supporters want her to believe, not what she knows.

A little over a year ago she seemed reasonably smart. Since then she descended into lunacy.

And you can believe this or not but I am pretty sure this is how pretty much everyone left of me thinks about her. And from that it is easy to deduce that she probably won't attract votes from any group beyond the group that wouldn't vote for Obama anyway.

Whenever one part is in power it seems the other party descends unto lunacy.

And for the record, I like senator John McCain because he personifies the values that I regard as important: he was in the military, did not make use of special privileges to abandon his comrades, his sons fight in Iraq, he and his wife adopted orphans and he is generally against abortion. He criticises the religious right but is himself a believing Christian and believes that the US were founded on ultimately Christian values.

I found that impressive and it exactly represents my beliefs. Call that "moderate to left leaning" if you will, but that's my opinion.

Anyone proposes an objective method to count how many facts a blog links to?

I bet if we use a metric that doesn't allow for simply ignoring or disregarding links to articles LGF would win against most blogs.

That would make Glen Beck a genius, with Van Jones and Acorn under his belt.

NO Leauki, you provided a link to a statement (not backed up with any documentation) on LGF that agreed with CNN that Palin's statement was the biggest lie.  There was no corroborating evidence other than personal opinion.  Again, you can link to opinions all day, but that does not make your opinion more valid (or the lack of links to opinions make it less valid).

No you do not have to justify your opinion.  But I guess I expect to see some rationale from you (not from most) when you state a strong opinion.  I just assumed you had some justification for it beyond the biased rhetoric (mostly misleading and false) found in the press (both domestic and abroad).  You do not have to justify anything.  But I had come to expect a reasoned analysis from you when you did come to a strong opinion.

No, this was just again a reference to your strong opinion about how bad Palin is.  As for moderates, look how many voted for Obama, and contrary to what you hear in the MSM, he is as close to a marxist as the governing laws of this nation will allow.  INdeed, to call him a socialist is accurate, but you will not find that in the press.

Ok, the death panels are a short hand way of describing "Committee to Decide End of Life Care Eligibility", but if you want to believe she said that the term "death Panels" was literally in the legislation, then no amount of arguing will sway you since you will never find the source for that belief.

ON Global warming, her stand has not changed.  She is a skeptic.  Always has been.  As am I.  I guess to some that makes us evil and reprehensible, but I am more a scientist than apparently most of the faithful are on that subject.

But a skeptic is not some ignoramus.  We see an hypothesis that could have merit, but needs testing.  We also see a lot of attempts to silence any doubters and (as has been demonstarted in East Anglia) attempts to "cook the books" to prove a point instead of doing real science and studying what is happening.

And creationism? It is part of her faith, but not her mandate.  Yes, I am aware you have read where she was pushing it to be taught, but the sad fact is she never did.  A little research would show you that.  I do not believe you agree with her on any of these issues (and I dont agree with her belief of creationism), but those are not her politics or policies. 

And this is what I was asking (apparently in several different ways) of why you are so fearful of her.  Again, you do not have to prove anything to me, but you did prove something to me.

If you are representative of most of the educated of the rest of the world, I can readily see why they fear anyone not endorsed by the american MSM and love anyone who is.  WHile the US is weaning itself from teh MSM due to the blatant and in many cases slanderous bias, the rest of the world still has not grown beyond believing what they read, hook line and sinker.

In a way it is kind of funny.  The liberals here look to the rest of the world for their affirmation (as you saw from his deeds, Bush was nothing like what the MSM portrayed him as) of their actions.  By writing the copy the MSM prints and is used to form the opinions of those abroad, they are just looking at their own reflection.