Was Goldberg speaking Austrian? I had a hard time understanding him.

Has Fox News finally turned on Sarah Palin?

After a lengthy segment on the ongoing Rep. Anthony Weiner story, Bill O’Reilly introduced the other most important story in the media, clarifying, “we like Mr. Revere, he was a good patriot and a good horseback rider.” While O’Reilly appeared to be comfortable giving Palin the benefit of the doubt, Goldberg didn’t mince words: “Sarah Palin mangled Paul Revere. I don’t care if she said she didn’t– she did.”

Or to put in context, Goldberg said Palin mangled the Revere story before O’Reilly told how Revere did warn the British that going after our weapons would be a big mistake. When O’Reilly finished up and Goldberg had to go, Goldberg confesses (rather sheepishly) that he did not know this.

I am glad that Sarah used this opportunity to bring attention to guns and the 2nd amendment which is something that Paul Revere cared deeply about because he was a true american just like Sarah.

SuburbanPatriot said:
I am glad that Sarah used this opportunity to bring attention to guns and the 2nd amendment which is something that Paul Revere cared deeply about because he was a true american just like Sarah.

you do know the second amendment was written 13 years after his midnight ride

Just because Mr. O’Reilly said it doesn’t make it true, people. Palin is an idiot and if you don’t know it by now, you will in the future. Imagine her finger on a button to send missiles! Eeek!

O’Reilly is a pinhead! What the heck was he talking about there at the end, Revere said no such thing. Goldberg’s reaction is classic at the end of that clip! :-D

kvon said:
Has Fox News finally turned on Sarah Palin?

Not quite yet.

Here’s the difference between Fox and MSNBC. Fox will criticize both conservatives and liberals, and doesn’t take a predictable party line. Not so, over at the kneejerk news network.

Why are these people trying to rewrite history. The headline shouldn’t be “Bernie Goldberg saying Palin mangled the Revere story”, but the absurd defense O’Reilly comes up with!

O’Reilly: “Now I’m gonna stick up for the governor, ’cause I know something about Paul Revere I actually have his signature. He did tell the British, you better knock it off, you better not try to seize the guns because if you do there’s gonna be a big problem which of course ensued. So we’ll give her the benefit of the doubt, as we try to do with everybody Bernie”

Bernie Goldberg: “OK .. uh … I … I wansn’t aware of that. Thank you”

O’Reilly: “It’s true”

WTF?!?!

felixw said:
Here’s the difference between Fox and MSNBC. Fox will criticize both conservatives and liberals, and doesn’t take a predictable party line. Not so, over at the kneejerk news network.

That’s the funniest thing I’ve ever heard in a long time…your denial of reality is almost cute….
You definitely should be a comedian.

kvon said:
Has Fox News finally turned on Sarah Palin?

valkyrie101 said:
Not quite yet.

This is one of a series of warnings to her. She is damaging the FOX “News”/Ailes/RNC brand. Of course, she’s too dim to understand. Abandon subtle, Roger. The house has to fall in on her.

SuburbanPatriot said:
I am glad that Sarah used this opportunity to bring attention to guns and the 2nd amendment which is something that Paul Revere cared deeply about because he was a true american just like Sarah.

I bet the British were really confused by that Second Amendment reference.

The LA Times agrees with Palin:

http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/washington/2011/06/sarah-palin-says-paul-revere-warned-the-british.html

As does the Boston Herald:

http://www.bostonherald.com/news/us_politics/view.bg?articleid=1343353&srvc=rss

DavidKramer said:
Was Goldberg speaking Austrian? I had a hard time understanding him.

I see what you did there. :)

kvon said:
Has Fox News finally turned on Sarah Palin?

They’ve been against her for awhile.

SuburbanPatriot said:
I am glad that Sarah used this opportunity to bring attention to guns and the 2nd amendment which is something that Paul Revere cared deeply about because he was a true american just like Sarah.

cjd ohio 1 said:
you do know the second amendment was written 13 years after his midnight ride

Sarah never said anything about the second amendment and Paul Revere had never heard of it.

Goldberg..you RINO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

valkyrie101 said:
Not quite yet.

It’s already been documented that Fox is against Palin. People from her supporter site even want her out of Fox.

WCinWI said:
The LA Times agrees with Palin:

http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/washington/2011/06/sarah-palin-says-paul-revere-warned-the-british.html

As does the Boston Herald:

http://www.bostonherald.com/news/us_politics/view.bg?articleid=1343353&srvc=rss

That article from the LA times is embarrassing.

WCinWI said:
The LA Times agrees with Palin:

http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/washington/2011/06/sarah-palin-says-paul-revere-warned-the-british.html

As does the Boston Herald:

http://www.bostonherald.com/news/us_politics/view.bg?articleid=1343353&srvc=rss

*sad trombone sound*
http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2011/jun/06/sarah-palin/was-trash-talking-british-part-paul-reveres-ride/

WCinWI said:
It’s already been documented that Fox is against Palin. People from her supporter site even want her out of Fox.

In other words, Palin is a victim. Again. When will it all end? When, at last, will it be over?

In her Fox interview, she said they asked her a gotcha question. Today the full video was shown, here is the gotcha question from the liberal media:

“What have you seen so far today, and what are you going to take away from your visit?”

Yeah…she was so right, her fans tried to CHANGE Paul Revere’s wiki page entries. LOL. History revisionism much? Goldberg was right. She mangled it.

Gasket said:
*sad trombone sound*
http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2011/jun/06/sarah-palin/was-trash-talking-british-part-paul-reveres-ride/

Having played an instrument, trombones don’t make sad sounds. Sorry!

ElCapitanAmerica said:
In her Fox interview, she said they asked her a gotcha question. Today the full video was shown, here is the gotcha question from the liberal media:

Gotta love those tricky manipulative libs!

Gasket said:
Yeah…she was so right, her fans tried to CHANGE Paul Revere’s wiki page entries. LOL. History revisionism much? Goldberg was right. She mangled it.

http://conservatives4palin.com/2011/06/michelle-malkin-talks-about-media-scrutiny-and-governor-palin.html

Skip to about 4 mins in. :)

57 states
2008
thinking that arabic was the afghan language
europe is a country
wrangler joke at a wrangler plant

I can go on…..

http://www.paul-revere-heritage.com/

Gasket said:
Gotta love those tricky manipulative libs!

Yes….gotta love Weinergate!!!

This is what you did last night, post that link over and over. It doesn’t prove that “part of his ride was about warning the British”. Bill O’Reilly also messed up the story tonight.

BTW the 57 comment, I’m not sure how the president’s gaffe on 57 states when he clearly meant 47 is equivalent. Did the double down days later, insisting he was right about 57 states? Did his followers try to edit wikipedia and conservopedia to make it so the US has 57 states and bend reality to his gaffe?

How are these statements even comparable?

Also, do you agree this was a “gotcha question”?

WCinWI said:
Yes….gotta love Weinergate!!!

What does that have to do with the question? Do you agree that was a gotcha question?

What does the question asked of Palin have to do with Weinergate?

Please, rational answers, no more slogans, posting linkes over and over and dumb cut and pasting. Let’s see some original and independent thinking for once. (don’t have my hopes up)

ElCapitanAmerica said:
That article from the LA times is embarrassing.

More Dems/Moderates side with Palin:

http://althouse.blogspot.com/2011/06/boston-university-history-professor.html

ElCapitanAmerica said:
This is what you did last night, post that link over and over. It doesn’t prove that “part of his ride was about warning the British”. Bill O’Reilly also messed up the story tonight.

BTW the 57 comment, I’m not sure how the president’s gaffe on 57 states when he clearly meant 47 is equivalent. Did the double down days later, insisting he was right about 57 states? Did his followers try to edit wikipedia and conservopedia to make it so the US has 57 states and bend reality to his gaffe?

How are these statements even comparable?

Also, do you agree this was a “gotcha question”?

You implied intent to Palin’s statements. What did she say that was wrong? Her response on the short clip was a word salad answer. Her answer on Sunday was just fine. I understood both. Perhaps if the Democratic Party looked at their own Party and what came out of your own mouths, you wouldn’t paint Palin with such a wide brush.

You are harping on someone that is MORE pro-GLBT than YOUR own candidate. HAHAHAHAHAHAHA

WCinWI said:
http://conservatives4palin.com/2011/06/michelle-malkin-talks-about-media-scrutiny-and-governor-palin.html

Skip to about 4 mins in. :)

57 states
2008
thinking that arabic was the afghan language
europe is a country
wrangler joke at a wrangler plant

I can go on…..

Please go on. Your ice queen is the matriarch of sophistry, distortions, misinterpretations and plain ol’ specious lies.
http://www.politifact.com/personalities/sarah-palin/

Please…don’t link us to C4P. Those pedantic and servile ass-kissers are probably the same losers who were hacking Paul Revere’s Wiki page earlier to re-invent history. We rely on OBJECTIVE and RELIABLE news sources. BTW…this is a sad trombone sound.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sC75aU47GRk
LOL. Kick rocks!

ElCapitanAmerica said:
What does that have to do with the question? Do you agree that was a gotcha question?

What does the question asked of Palin have to do with Weinergate?

Please, rational answers, no more slogans, posting linkes over and over and dumb cut and pasting. Let’s see some original and independent thinking for once. (don’t have my hopes up)

All of my thoughts are independent. I wouldn’t support Palin if it weren’t for my libertarian leanings. Just because you don’t like what I have to say or cut and paste doesn’t make what I said wrong.

Did Obama say 57 states? Was he yelled at for it? Did he retract? Case solved.

Gasket

What are you? 12? Who the heck types LOL? What a weirdo.

ElCapitanAmerica said:
What does that have to do with the question? Do you agree that was a gotcha question?

What does the question asked of Palin have to do with Weinergate?

It’s elaborate deflection. Just ignore it. She does that all the time. The same reason why when Bachmann’s busted making stupid dumbass comments — she starts talking about Obama’s teleprompter. They are vacuous dittoheads.

WCinWI said:
What are you? 12? Who the heck types LOL? What a weirdo.

LOL. Woman, I would eat your lunch any day. That is metaphorical, not literal.
http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2011/jun/06/sarah-palin/was-trash-talking-british-part-paul-reveres-ride/
Kick rocks!

Gasket said:
It’s elaborate deflection. Just ignore it. She does that all the time. The same reason why when Bachmann’s busted making stupid dumbass comments — she starts talking about Obama’s teleprompter. They are vacuous dittoheads.

I know, I’m used to debating with rational human beings, but geez this person is something else.

Gasket said:
It’s elaborate deflection. Just ignore it. She does that all the time. The same reason why when Bachmann’s busted making stupid dumbass comments — she starts talking about Obama’s teleprompter. They are vacuous dittoheads.

Dude – Don’t answer questions not directed at you. You must really be bored. That’s sad.

ElCapitanAmerica said:
That article from the LA times is embarrassing.

It seriously was, Andrew Malcolm is known as a bigtime Palin apologist spinner.

Gasket said:
LOL. Woman, I would eat your lunch any day. That is metaphorical, not literal.
http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2011/jun/06/sarah-palin/was-trash-talking-british-part-paul-reveres-ride/
Kick rocks!

You’d eat my lunch because you have no other hobbies. Liberal hate is surely rich. I hope that you know in flyover country that local radio djs are loving the fact that Palin made the media eat their own words. LOVING IT!!!!!

ElCapitanAmerica said:
I know, I’m used to debating with rational human beings, but geez this person is something else.

What was truly the most awesome part of Weinergate was that Ed Schulz come out in Anti-Weiner mode.

It was truly a classic. Mediaite better put that up.

Nacho said:
It seriously was, Andrew Malcolm is known as a bigtime Palin apologist spinner.

What I find depressing is they’re willing to lie about history to make her look good!

Look at what they’ve done in Conservopedia …

Paul Revere (1734-1818) was a silversmith in colonial America who was very active in Boston-area revolutionary groups such as the Sons of Liberty. He is famous for riding from Boston to Lexington, Massachusetts with William Dawes on the night of April 18, 1775 ringing bells to warn the British that colonists would exercise their natural rights to both bear arms and use them in an effort secede from the United Kingdom in response to Big Government bullying and interfering with Colony’s Rights[1]. Coincidentally, this also served to warn the minutemen the British were coming[Citation Needed]. Revere was captured before he could reach Concord, but managed to escape. His midnight ride was immortalized by a poem by Henry Wadsworth Longfellow.[2]

COINCIDENTALLY!!!

Why isn’t the headline of this article:

“Bill O’Reilly: Sarah Palin Got The Paul Revere Story Right”

It’s not “The Goldberg Factor” after all, and O’Reilly agreed with Palin.

WCinWI said:
Dude – Don’t answer questions not directed at you. You must really be bored. That’s sad.

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2011/jun/06/sarah-palin/was-trash-talking-british-part-paul-reveres-ride/
Kick rocks. It’s a free country.

OxyCon said:
Why isn’t the headline of this article:

“Bill O’Reilly: Sarah Palin Got The Paul Revere Story Right”

It’s not “The Goldberg Factor” after all, and O’Reilly agreed with Palin.

You’re right, that should be the headline, we agree on that.

Now O’Reilly got it his history wrong too!!!!

WCinWI said:
You’d eat my lunch because you have no other hobbies. Liberal hate is surely rich. I hope that you know in flyover country that local radio djs are loving the fact that Palin made the media eat their own words. LOVING IT!!!!!

I have plenty of hobbies….woman. Eating your lunch is just one of them.
http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2011/jun/06/sarah-palin/was-trash-talking-british-part-paul-reveres-ride/
Still no comment? Disabuse that factcheck or shut your pie hole.

Gasket said:
http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2011/jun/06/sarah-palin/was-trash-talking-british-part-paul-reveres-ride/
Kick rocks. It’s a free country.

And it’s my free country to not care a patootie what politifact says. Like normal people don’t care what Politifact has to say.

Now go enjoy Weinergate like the rest of us. In all of the 57 states.

http://conservatives4palin.com/2011/06/roundup-of-reviews-for-the-undefeated-part-ii.html

Ajolily said:
Sarah never said anything about the second amendment and Paul Revere had never heard of it.

never said she did, i think suburban here is a plant

A normal person would debate the merits of what politifact actually says.

BTW even one of the links you provide one of the persons saying she got the “facts right” says she probably did so in a random accidental manner, faint praise at best.

So what did politifact get wrong?

Do you think O’Reilly described the historical account too?

WCinWI said:
You’d eat my lunch because you have no other hobbies. Liberal hate is surely rich. I hope that you know in flyover country that local radio djs are loving the fact that Palin made the media eat their own words. LOVING IT!!!!!

No way you could eat her lunch. She eats “Man vs, Food” sized portions. I takes a lot of calories to keep her weight up. If you listen closely you can hear the sweat and jowls between each of her key strokes.

Sorry is this news? Palin is terrible on substance. so what she is popular and we elect based on number of votes not number of correct answers. You think Ronnie would have done any better on the the question ‘what will you take away from your visit’ Those of us old enough to remember understand the answer is no.

Regan was Worse than Palin – he served two terms.

ElCapitanAmerica said:
A normal person would debate the merits of what politifact actually says.

BTW even one of the links you provide one of the persons saying she got the “facts right” says she probably did so in a random accidental manner, faint praise at best.

So what did politifact get wrong?

Do you think O’Reilly described the historical account too?

I don’t care what O’Reilly or Politifact said. Politifact gets A LOT of things wrong to me and so I don’t use them as a credible outlet. That’s like using ThinkProgress or Kos as a credible outlet.

I agree to two Palin points.

1. Her initial statement was word salad.
2. It wasn’t a gotcha question.

Other than that Palin > Obama hands down. Simple as that.

WCinWI said:
And it’s my free country to not care a patootie what politifact says. Like normal people don’t care what Politifact has to say.

Now go enjoy Weinergate like the rest of us. In all of the 57 states.

That’s what I thought a lying sycophantic coward like you would say. Priceless. My work is done here.

catfishjuggling said:

I don’t know why you talk to me. But when you do, you continue to make liberals look like nutters so keep it up!

Gasket said:
That’s what I thought a lying sycophantic coward like you would say. Priceless. My work is done here.

Once you can show me what Palin said that was wrong, then yes your work is done. However, I think you would find more to talk about in the Weinergate scandals!!!!!!

WCinWI said:
1. Her initial statement was word salad.P>

Yeah, like you’ve ever even seen a salad.

Hey guys, no need for fat jokes and insults. Why don’t we all stick to the facts in a polite and respectful way?

catfishjuggling said:
Yeah, like you’ve ever even seen a salad.

Dude – Salads for the most part are fattening. Why you have a fascination with food and cats, I have not a clue.

Have a nice evening.

ElCapitanAmerica said:
Hey guys, no need for fat jokes and insults. Why don’t we all stick to the facts in a polite and respectful way?

You’re expecting too much from the liberals on this site.

Gasket
BFD
Catfish
and a few others….
are some of the worst.

I come back because the libertarians and conservatives are HILARIOUS. Check out HotAir. It’s full of tons of jokes in a lighthearted way.

WCinWI said:
I don’t care what O’Reilly or Politifact said. Politifact gets A LOT of things wrong to me and so I don’t use them as a credible outlet. That’s like using ThinkProgress or Kos as a credible outlet.

I agree to two Palin points.

1. Her initial statement was word salad.
2. It wasn’t a gotcha question.

Other than that Palin > Obama hands down. Simple as that.

OK, great some progress. It wasn’t a “gotcha” question, the whole point of her saying that is to excuse what you call a “word salad”.

She did get key points wrong though, part of his ride was not about warning the “British” as she said, everybody acknowledges that (well O’Reilly doesn’t).

She also made it sound like Revere was firing shots and ringing bells, or was in charge of making sure those things happened, that’s not true at all.

She focused on the wrong thing, and the tone of Reveres brief interaction with the soldiers was not to deliver a warning about their arms, it was about exagerating numbers in the hope they’d be scared of the militia. That wasn’t a goal, that’s something that happened by circumstance.

WCinWI said:
Once you can show me what Palin said that was wrong, then yes your work is done. However, I think you would find more to talk about in the Weinergate scandals!!!!!!

I have….if you actually do use the material packed between your ears ad ignorantiam. What a waste of space you are.

WCinWI said:
Dude – Salads for the most part are fattening.

Spoken like someone who doesn’t know anything about food. Not all salads are chicken strip specials at your local Applebee’s.

WCinWI said:
I have not a clue.

Stating the obvious.

Gasket said:
I have….if you actually do use the material packed between your ears ad ignorantiam. What a waste of space you are.

And quite a lot of space at that.

Palin always gets into these problems because she assumes her audience is stupid. This is the very same crap she tried to pull during the Couric interview. You know….it’s sometimes better to say you are not sure or do not know something than open your mouth and prove what a buffoon you really are. We do not expect politicians to be geniuses.

A darling to the left is circling the drain as we speak and the far left loons are obsessing over Palin…ROFL!

Gasket said:
Palin always gets into these problems because she assumes her audience is stupid. This is the very same crap she tried to pull during the Couric interview. You know….it’s sometimes better to say you are not sure or do not know something than open your mouth and prove what a buffoon you really are. We do not expect politicians to be geniuses.

Her audience is. Just look at the Dairyland Heffer. She claims to be down the northern grifter because of the libertarian leanings. The same woman who, as Governor, raised taxes on teh oil companies to balance the budget. Taxes which we passed on to you and me in the lower 48. And then the windfall from that great wealth transfer? Every Alaskan got a check from the government.

Remember all the stupid crap about Joe the Plumber throwing a fit over the spreading the wealth around? Well, no one did it better than Sarah.

The Badger state chubby lady on likes her because of the cult of her crazy lady personality. It has nothing to do with policy.

Yeah, and I am a liberal in her crazy mind, yet I said multiple times that I wanted nothing more than for Mitch Daniels to run. I am pratically Chairman Mao. I am actually leaning toward voting for TPaw, but I doubt he can make it out of the circular firing squad that is that party,

Jaurez said:
A darling to the left is circling the drain as we speak and the far left loons are obsessing over Palin…ROFL!

Hey chunky. You changed your log-in to your cranky old man personality. This should be fun.

ElBruce says:

What’s up, brucie?

ElCapitanAmerica said:
OK, great some progress. It wasn’t a “gotcha” question, the whole point of her saying that is to excuse what you call a “word salad”.

She did get key points wrong though, part of his ride was not about warning the “British” as she said, everybody acknowledges that (well O’Reilly doesn’t).

She also made it sound like Revere was firing shots and ringing bells, or was in charge of making sure those things happened, that’s not true at all.

She focused on the wrong thing, and the tone of Reveres brief interaction with the soldiers was not to deliver a warning about their arms, it was about exagerating numbers in the hope they’d be scared of the militia. That wasn’t a goal, that’s something that happened by circumstance.

Dude – it’s called metaphor. You are assigning all of this intent for what you think Palin meant. Was Palin wrong when she said 1773 with the tea party statement when the media was wrong about that too? Please quote a historian that says point blank how the Paul Revere story happened. From what I’ve read, there are multiple accounts. No one can get a legit story. Even historians don’t have the same story.

I’ve posted links and so if you’d like to refute those statements go ahead and do so.

What you are posting now, I attribute to what Palin said. You are trying to read and hear everything that she says verbatim. If you’d like to do that, then I will put that onto EVERY politician and we can go discuss Obama and his gaffes. There are many. Would you like to open that can?

Gasket said:
I have….if you actually do use the material packed between your ears ad ignorantiam. What a waste of space you are.

Then heed my advice and STOP TALKING TO ME. You’re beyond annoying. You remind me of Kosites.

Jaurez said:
ElBruce says:

What’s up, brucie?

HAHAHAHA Hello me! :)

cjd ohio 1 said:
never said she did, i think suburban here is a plant

I got that you didn’t. That is why I quoted both of you. He made the mistake you corrected him and I made a second comment. I don’t know if he is a plant or just got confused, I haven’t paid that much attention to his post.

Palin said something about Paul Revere…Stop the presses!

Ajolily said:
I got that you didn’t. That is why I quoted both of you. He made the mistake you corrected him and I made a second comment. I don’t know if he is a plant or just got confused, I haven’t paid that much attention to his post.

You, cjd, turk, pablo, liberal, sarainitaly and a few others are fair posters on both sides of the angle.

Thank you for that.

Jaurez said:
Palin said something about Paul Revere…Stop the presses!

Are you trying to tell me that Palin isn’t god and can’t already do that? No way!

WCinWI said:
HAHAHAHA Hello me! :)

Hello to you, too! Brucie is a thinkprogress know it all going by elcaptainmexicaamerican.

WCinWI said:
Dude – it’s called metaphor. You are assigning all of this intent for what you think Palin meant.

Please point me to the part of her statement that is supposed to be a metaphor.

Was Palin wrong when she said 1773 with the tea party statement when the media was wrong about that too? Please quote a historian that says point blank how the Paul Revere story happened. From what I’ve read, there are multiple accounts. No one can get a legit story. Even historians don’t have the same story.

There’s actually a pretty agreed upon narrative with some variations, but most don’t agree with what Palin said.

BTW what does the 1773 thing have to do with what I’m saying? Please stop the misdirection.

Jaurez said:
Hello to you, too! Brucie is a thinkprogress know it all going by elcaptainmexicaamerican.

Yes, all Hispanics are Mexican.

Wow.

Elbruce, which public office does Palin hold?

ElCapitanAmerica said:
Please point me to the part of her statement that is supposed to be a metaphor.

There’s actually a pretty agreed upon narrative with some variations, but most don’t agree with what Palin said.

BTW what does the 1773 thing have to do with what I’m saying? Please stop the misdirection.

Point out the line that you have issues with. Then I will find a historian to refute such claim. :) It’s quite an easy process.

ElCapitanAmerica said:
Yes, all Hispanics are Mexican.

Wow.

Ok, elcaptainhispanicamerican…LOL! Hate mexicans much?

ElCapitanAmerica said:

http://hotair.com/archives/2011/06/06/historians-agree-palin-was-right-about-revere/

Ed’s a straight shooter. He doesn’t hold any punches and is a fair conservative. So do you take issue with him? Bear in mind that Stewart also goes to HotAir. :)

WCinWI said:
Point out the line that you have issues with. Then I will find a historian to refute such claim. :) It’s quite an easy process.

Cite anybody who claims: “He who warned uh, the British that they weren’t gonna be takin’ away our arms”
Cite a source who claims Revers’s mission was to: “Part of his ride was to warn the British that were already there that, ‘Hey, you’re not going to succeed. You’re not going to take American arms. You are not going to beat our own well-armed persons, individual, private militia that we have”
Cite a source who claims Revere was personally shooting and ringing bells while riding: “uh, by ringing those bells, and um, makin’ sure as he’s riding his horse through town to send those warning shots and bells “

WCinWI said:
http://hotair.com/archives/2011/06/06/historians-agree-palin-was-right-about-revere/

Ed’s a straight shooter. He doesn’t hold any punches and is a fair conservative. So do you take issue with him? Bear in mind that Stewart also goes to HotAir. :)

In that article;

“I suppose you could say that,” Leehey said. “But I don’t know if that’s really what Mrs. Palin was referring to.”

McConville said he also is not convinced that Palin’s remarks reflect scholarship.

“I would call her lucky in her comments,” McConville said.

She threw a bunch of stuff that is tangentially true, but when you put the sentence together don’t make sense at all.

elbruce, is it any skin off your ass what palin said or didn’t say? She was right and you know it. Stfu about the bells!

Jaurez said:
Ok, elcaptainhispanicamerican…LOL! Hate mexicans much?

I love how you dishonestly turn things around, you change my name to come up with a nationality … because my name has a Spanish component your limited brain guesses I must be Mexican.

When I point out how silly that is, you try to turn it around me by saying I “hate” Mexicans. Really, can’t people here debate things without this idiocy, and stay on topic?

I was hoping with the moderation system the quality of the threads would go up, but it looks like mediaite gave up on that or they stopped moderating totally. It’s really not worth posting here anymore as people resort to personal insults and a very low level of intellectual discourse.

ElCapitanAmerica said:
She did get key points wrong though, part of his ride was not about warning the “British” as she said, everybody acknowledges that (well O’Reilly doesn’t). She also made it sound like Revere was firing shots and ringing bells, or was in charge of making sure those things happened, that’s not true at all. She focused on the wrong thing, and the tone of Reveres brief interaction with the soldiers was not to deliver a warning about their arms, it was about exagerating numbers in the hope they’d be scared of the militia. That wasn’t a goal, that’s something that happened by circumstance.

Funny, I don’t remember her stating that the purpose of the ride was to warn the British only that he did. Thing is she didn’t do a great job of saying it but what she said was factual. He may not have rung the bells or fired the shots himself but he got the ball rolling with the intent that when he gave the first warning the bells would be rung and the shots would be fired. Focused on the wrong thing? I think Reveres purpose after being caught was to tell the British it was too late and that they weren’t going to get the arms. Exaggerating the numbers was a big part of that. So how did she focus on the wrong thing. It happening by circumstance doesn’t make what she said less factual it is what happened.

Interesting thing to me is how ignorant the reporters were that jumped on this saying she was saying that it was about the 2nd amendment. She said it was about not getting the arms and the reporter made a giant ignorant leap thinking she had gotten Palin because the reporter didn’t know that it was about the arms store at Concord.

ElCapitanAmerica said:
Cite anybody who claims: “He who warned uh, the British that they weren’t gonna be takin’ away our arms”
Cite a source who claims Revers’s mission was to: “Part of his ride was to warn the British that were already there that, ‘Hey, you’re not going to succeed. You’re not going to take American arms. You are not going to beat our own well-armed persons, individual, private militia that we have”
Cite a source who claims Revere was personally shooting and ringing bells while riding: “uh, by ringing those bells, and um, makin’ sure as he’s riding his horse through town to send those warning shots and bells ”

Why are we talking about Palin’s word salad answer? What issues do you have with her SUNDAY comment? That’s the relevant statement, which has been stated to be true MANY times. So which part of THAT statement do you have?

Ajolily said:
Funny, I don’t remember her stating that the purpose of the ride was to warn the British only that he did.

Read her statement from her interview on Fox Sunday, she said “part of the ride was about warning the British …”

Interesting thing to me is how ignorant the reporters were that jumped on this saying she was saying that it was about the 2nd amendment. She said it was about not getting the arms and the reporter made a giant ignorant leap thinking she had gotten Palin because the reporter didn’t know that it was about the arms store at Concord.

“the reporter”, what reporter? The one who asked the “gotcha” question? What you’re saying here doesn’t make much sense.

ElCapitanAmerica said:
In that article;

She threw a bunch of stuff that is tangentially true, but when you put the sentence together don’t make sense at all.

So then do you want to talk about all of Obama’s gaffes? Seriously. Do you want me to bring up all of Obama’s gaffes because they will hands down beat Palin’s. Such as, can you tell me any historian that said that in the year of 2011 that it was actually 2008? Find that one for me.

This is how absurd you sound.

WCinWI said:
Why are we talking about Palin’s word salad answer? What issues do you have with her SUNDAY comment? That’s the relevant statement, which has been stated to be true MANY times. So which part of THAT statement do you have?

The “word salad” comment is the one being defended by the articles you posted. Did you read them?

I did ask a question about one of her statements from Sunday, did you read the question?

poor whittle elbruce….

Ajolily said:
Funny, I don’t remember her stating that the purpose of the ride was to warn the British only that he did. Thing is she didn’t do a great job of saying it but what she said was factual. He may not have rung the bells or fired the shots himself but he got the ball rolling with the intent that when he gave the first warning the bells would be rung and the shots would be fired. Focused on the wrong thing? I think Reveres purpose after being caught was to tell the British it was too late and that they weren’t going to get the arms. Exaggerating the numbers was a big part of that. So how did she focus on the wrong thing. It happening by circumstance doesn’t make what she said less factual it is what happened.

Interesting thing to me is how ignorant the reporters were that jumped on this saying she was saying that it was about the 2nd amendment. She said it was about not getting the arms and the reporter made a giant ignorant leap thinking she had gotten Palin because the reporter didn’t know that it was about the arms store at Concord.

Well-reasoned post. I feel like I’m defending such an easy point of contention.

Was Palin the most effective in how she answered the question? No.
Was Palin wrong? By and large, no.
Has Obama made significant gaffes….and as a President? Yes.
Where’s the true scrutiny? Frum covered Mitt tonight on O’Donnell.

Ugh to Frum. :)

WCinWI said:
So then do you want to talk about all of Obama’s gaffes? Seriously. Do you want me to bring up all of Obama’s gaffes because they will hands down beat Palin’s. Such as, can you tell me any historian that said that in the year of 2011 that it was actually 2008? Find that one for me.

This is how absurd you sound.

What about Obama’s gaffes, what do they have to do with Palin refusing to admit she got Revere’s story wrong?

On the year, thing. He obviously made a mistake on the year. What do you want me to say, that he was right or he has a time machine?

Like the 57 states thing, I think everybody knows he meant to say he had visited 47 states. Did he go on national TV to defend this gaffe? Did he really say he believes there are 57 states?

See that’s the difference. Also those are minor gaffes, that everybody makes, like when Romney and every other reporter called Obama Osama, they didn’t really mean to say the president is Osama bin Laden.

We adults can understand the differences.

Now on this one, she screwed up the narrative. Was offered a chance to clear it up and refused to do so. Big difference.

Even Michelle Bachmann for all she’s criticized, admits when she mispeaks about historical facts.

You don’t see Bachmann supporters trying to change history by editing wiki and conservopedia.

ElCapitanAmerica said:
Read her statement from her interview on Fox Sunday, she said “part of the ride was about warning the British …”

“the reporter”, what reporter? The one who asked the “gotcha” question? What you’re saying here doesn’t make much sense.

You are reading far too much into her response? Seriously, with the level of scrutiny that you are paying this particular answer, it’s a shocker that you’re not more critical of democratic scare tactics on medicare.

ElCapitanAmerica said:
The “word salad” comment is the one being defended by the articles you posted. Did you read them?

I did ask a question about one of her statements from Sunday, did you read the question?

No it isn’t. At least not in this conversation.

And I’ve already said why your assessment on Sunday is wrong in the fact that you’re being too literal with words.This isn’t a legal proceeding. Did you have this same sense of urgency when Obama made his gaffes? Seriously. It’s just odd behavior.

ElCapitanAmerica said:
What about Obama’s gaffes, what do they have to do with Palin refusing to admit she got Revere’s story wrong?

On the year, thing. He obviously made a mistake on the year. What do you want me to say, that he was right or he has a time machine?

Like the 57 states thing, I think everybody knows he meant to say he had visited 47 states. Did he go on national TV to defend this gaffe? Did he really say he believes there are 57 states?

See that’s the difference. Also those are minor gaffes, that everybody makes, like when Romney and every other reporter called Obama Osama, they didn’t really mean to say the president is Osama bin Laden.

We adults can understand the differences.

Now on this one, she screwed up the narrative. Was offered a chance to clear it up and refused to do so. Big difference.

Even Michelle Bachmann for all she’s criticized, admits when she mispeaks about historical facts.

You don’t see Bachmann supporters trying to change history by editing wiki and conservopedia.

Until Obama comes out and apologizes for every gaffe that he has made, this convo is moot.

Who cares what Bachmann has to say? The only people that care are those within the media.

The difference? OBAMA IS PRESIDENT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Seriously, you need to get over being such an overly analytical person when it comes to something so foolish as this. You think Palin said something that others didn’t see. It’s as simple as that. Once you realize that, you can turn your rage to someone else.

All of the Palin rage is just so shocking.

WCinWI said:

And I’ve already said why your assessment on Sunday is wrong in the fact that you’re being too literal with words.This isn’t a legal proceeding. Did you have this same sense of urgency when Obama made his gaffes? Seriously. It’s just odd behavior.

Again, the difference is that in her clarification she didn’t admit it was a gaffe and tried to pass misinformation as factual historical information, which it is not. And her words are very clear, which is why people at conservapedia are reflecting exactly what she said in detail.

If she didn’t mean to say that was part of his mission, she should clarify it, that’s how most people are interpreting it.

Part of being a public speaker is making sure your ideas are clearly understood, if you mean something else, don’t blame the audience and try to be more clear in your message.

WCinWI said:
Until Obama comes out and apologizes for every gaffe that he has made, this convo is moot.

So you think Obama is asserting there are 57 states. Did somebody ask him about the 57 states and he said he was correct?

All of the Palin rage is just so shocking.

I have zero Palin rage, I’ve personally shaken her hand and attended 2 of her rallies in 2008, even have a poster I drew for her signed by her and the photos to prove it.

However, I think she has revealed to be intellectually unqualified to be president, but what does irk me is she trying to confuse the story of Paul Revere which is fundamental to our nation. See, that’s really what I think is the patriotic thing, standing up for true historical facts and not fudge them to not admit mistakes.

WCinWI said:
Until Obama comes out and apologizes for every gaffe that he has made, this convo is moot.

Who cares what Bachmann has to say? The only people that care are those within the media.

The difference? OBAMA IS PRESIDENT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Seriously, you need to get over being such an overly analytical person when it comes to something so foolish as this. You think Palin said something that others didn’t see. It’s as simple as that. Once you realize that, you can turn your rage to someone else.

All of the Palin rage is just so shocking.

Rage?
Nobody is enraged at Palin.
We all have a good laugh with her.
A very hard,long,good laugh.

ElCapitanAmerica said:
Again, the difference is that in her clarification she didn’t admit it was a gaffe and tried to pass misinformation as factual historical information, which it is not. And her words are very clear, which is why people at conservapedia are reflecting exactly what she said in detail.

If she didn’t mean to say that was part of his mission, she should clarify it, that’s how most people are interpreting it.

Part of being a public speaker is making sure your ideas are clearly understood, if you mean something else, don’t blame the audience and try to be more clear in your message.

That’s how YOU are interpreting it. As I said, you are transferring what she said as a literal translation.

So now Palin blamed the audience? Wowsa. You just pull things out of left field.

Seriously. I don’t get where you’re coming from on any of this. It’s quite a simple situation. Either Palin was right or she was wrong. Most people say that she was 60-70% right, just not quite as clear as she could be.

Now, can you should me where Obama has apologized for all of his gaffes? Do show me where he’s done this.I thought he was supposed to be such an effective public speaker.

ElCapitanAmerica said:
So you think Obama is asserting there are 57 states. Did somebody ask him about the 57 states and he said he was correct?

I have zero Palin rage, I’ve personally shaken her hand and attended 2 of her rallies in 2008, even have a poster I drew for her signed by her and the photos to prove it.

However, I think she has revealed to be intellectually unqualified to be president, but what does irk me is she trying to confuse the story of Paul Revere which is fundamental to our nation. See, that’s really what I think is the patriotic thing, standing up for true historical facts and not fudge them to not admit mistakes.

Ok. We got that the first 500 comments. Anything new to add? It doesn’t seem like it. You keep repeating the same talking points over and over and over and over and over. Broken record.

You know what? Then don’t vote for her. And stop talking about her. Simple as that. It’s a clear obsession when someone doesn’t like someone yet they post incessantly on that person.

I don’t like Michael Moore or Maher but I don’t write dozens of posts on ONE thread post about them.

Self-reflection is needed in your case.

ElCapitanAmerica said:
So you think Obama is asserting there are 57 states. Did somebody ask him about the 57 states and he said he was correct?

I have zero Palin rage, I’ve personally shaken her hand and attended 2 of her rallies in 2008, even have a poster I drew for her signed by her and the photos to prove it.

However, I think she has revealed to be intellectually unqualified to be president, but what does irk me is she trying to confuse the story of Paul Revere which is fundamental to our nation. See, that’s really what I think is the patriotic thing, standing up for true historical facts and not fudge them to not admit mistakes.

I think someone that says 57 states and doesn’t think it’s odd that he just said 57 states is far more of a big issue than anything Palin has said.

WCinWI said:
Either Palin was right or she was wrong. Most people say that she was 60-70% right, just not quite as clear as she could be.

60-70% right = 30 %wrong.

So that means she is not either right or wrong. By your sentence she is both right and wrong.

It’s English. Look into it.

Bennybombom said:
Rage?
Nobody is enraged at Palin.
We all have a good laugh with her.
A very hard,long,good laugh.

Weinergate!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

catfishjuggling said:
60-70% right = 30 %wrong.

So that means she is not either right or wrong. By your sentence she is both right and wrong.

It’s English. Look into it.

Did I ever say that I thought Palin was perfect in her statement? No. Case solved.

Now, stop talking to me. You have some weird obsession. It’s beyond creepy.

WCinWI said:
That’s how YOU are interpreting it. As I said, you are transferring what she said as a literal translation.

So now Palin blamed the audience? Wowsa. You just pull things out of left field.

Seriously. I don’t get where you’re coming from on any of this. It’s quite a simple situation. Either Palin was right or she was wrong. Most people say that she was 60-70% right, just not quite as clear as she could be.

Now, can you should me where Obama has apologized for all of his gaffes? Do show me where he’s done this.I thought he was supposed to be such an effective public speaker.

I don’t see any Palin “rage” around here…we’re just having a laugh.
And now I’m laughing at you for talking about “Palin Rage” but all you do is changing the subject and asking why Obama doesn’t apologize….about what?
The only “rage” in here seems to be an “Obama Rage”
And it’s coming straight from you.

WCinWI said:
Ok. We got that the first 500 comments. Anything new to add? It doesn’t seem like it. You keep repeating the same talking points over and over and over and over and over. Broken record. You know what? Then don’t vote for her. And stop talking about her. Simple as that. It’s a clear obsession when someone doesn’t like someone yet they post incessantly on that person. I don’t like Michael Moore or Maher but I don’t write dozens of posts on ONE thread post about them. Self-reflection is needed in your case.

Says a woman who has written hundreds of posts about Obama.

You know what, Miss Piggy. Don’t vote for him. And stop talking about him. It’s as simple as that.

ElBruce said:
I’ve personally shaken her hand and attended 2 of her rallies in 2008, even have a poster I drew for her signed by her and the photos to prove it.

Suuuuure, you do!

ElCapitanAmerica said:
Read her statement from her interview on Fox Sunday, she said “part of the ride was about warning the British …” “the reporter”, what reporter? The one who asked the “gotcha” question? What you’re saying here doesn’t make much sense.

Wasn’t the plan but in fact because he was captured he did. Yes the reporter who asked the gotcha question and then others. Wasn’t a gotcha question, did Palin say it was or some bloggers? I thought she said a shout out question she answered candidly.

I find people like WCinWI incredibly frustrating. She’s saying I’m repeating the same points over and over, I’m trying to answer all her questions and being very respectful. But she keeps it up with the insults and misdirection (Weinergate, 57 states, etc)

The thread is about O’Reilly talking about Sarah Palin’s statements. Why in the world would you ask why I want to talk about that in the thread about O’Reilly talking about her statements on Paul Revere?

Be respectful and just stick to your opinions, don’t question why people want to talk about it. I don’t tell you what topic to be interested in, you don’t tell me either.

Also I don’t know how many times I have to explain the 57 states thing, which btw is totally irrelevant in this topic. It was a gaffe that he meant to say 47 because 47 is exactly the number of states he had visited and meant to say.

Here we’re talking about a long sentence, that was a mess and the clarification didn’t correct the statement. I mean I don’t know how else to express how different both statements are. Even brought up examples (Osama/Obama) about gaffes that people make and how they’re not the same.

I mean wow …

Ajolily said:
Wasn’t the plan but in fact because he was captured he did. Yes the reporter who asked the gotcha question and then others. Wasn’t a gotcha question, did Palin say it was or some bloggers? I thought she said a shout out question she answered candidly.

See, I interpreted the gotcha not to mean like “gotcha – you’re on candid camera” but “gotcha – like simplistic question” and as you said a shout out type question.

Jaurez said:
Suuuuure, you do!

Don’t fear – CATMAN is here!

Ajolily said:
Wasn’t the plan but in fact because he was captured he did. Yes the reporter who asked the gotcha question and then others. Wasn’t a gotcha question, did Palin say it was or some bloggers? I thought she said a shout out question she answered candidly.

Watch the video yourself;
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AjJgcDaOlbQ&feature=player_embedded

“In a shout-out gotcha-type of question that was asked of me I answer candidly … and I know my American History”

Ajolily said:
Wasn’t the plan but in fact because he was captured he did. Yes the reporter who asked the gotcha question and then others. Wasn’t a gotcha question, did Palin say it was or some bloggers? I thought she said a shout out question she answered candidly.

She said a “Shout out gotcha type of question”
And Revere didn’t warn the British…he answered a question at the point of a gun…that’s very different from:
“Riding through town and warning the British with those bells and gunshots that they wouldn’t take our arms”

Just saying……..

ElCapitanAmerica said:
I find people like WCinWI incredibly frustrating. She’s saying I’m repeating the same points over and over, I’m trying to answer all her questions and being very respectful. But she keeps it up with the insults and misdirection (Weinergate, 57 states, etc)

The thread is about O’Reilly talking about Sarah Palin’s statements. Why in the world would you ask why I want to talk about that in the thread about O’Reilly talking about her statements on Paul Revere?

Be respectful and just stick to your opinions, don’t question why people want to talk about it. I don’t tell you what topic to be interested in, you don’t tell me either.

Also I don’t know how many times I have to explain the 57 states thing, which btw is totally irrelevant in this topic. It was a gaffe that he meant to say 47 because 47 is exactly the number of states he had visited and meant to say.

Here we’re talking about a long sentence, that was a mess and the clarification didn’t correct the statement. I mean I don’t know how else to express how different both statements are. Even brought up examples (Osama/Obama) about gaffes that people make and how they’re not the same.

I mean wow …

Actually the post was about what Goldberg said. O’Reilly said that Palin was correct.

End of story.

You keep typing the same thing over and over trying to explain yourself in a different way when you have both me and Ajolily trying to explain to you where we’re coming from.

It’s a simple concept. If you don’t like Palin, then don’t vote for her in any primaries or in any election cycles. Other than that, if you don’t get where Palin is coming from, just accept that you don’t get it and move on.

You are trying to hold a private citizen to the standard that you don’t apply to the actual President AND Vice President.

Just wow.

WCinWI said:
Don’t fear – CATMAN is here!

Funny the fishjuggler who said he was “never coming back” a while back keeps calling you fat. If he only knew. ;)

Jaurez said:
Funny the fishjuggler who said he was “never coming back” a while back keeps calling you fat. If he only knew. ;)

I lied. I can’t quit you.

ElCapitanAmerica said:
Watch the video yourself;
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AjJgcDaOlbQ&feature=player_embedded

“In a shout-out gotcha-type of question that was asked of me I answer candidly … and I know my American History”

Stick to talking points. You go allllllllllllllllllllllll over. First it’s what Palin says, then I can’t bring up Obama or Weiner, then it’s what O’Reilly said. Stick to ONE issue.

I’m sorry if you feel personally offended that Palin didn’t apologize to you and the rest of the world for saying the word gotcha. Seriously, if you are such a nitpicky person, I fear you have bigger issues in life. It’s like Weiner – you’re just going to hit a brick and have to explode with the truth.

Jaurez said:
Funny the fishjuggler who said he was “never coming back” a while back keeps calling you fat. If he only knew. ;)

So wait. You’re “claiming” your female personality isn’t a fattie? That is just wonderful. You are a national treasure.

WCinWI said:
Stick to talking points. You go allllllllllllllllllllllll over. First it’s what Palin says, then I can’t bring up Obama or Weiner, then it’s what O’Reilly said. Stick to ONE issue. I’m sorry if you feel personally offended that Palin didn’t apologize to you and the rest of the world for saying the word gotcha. Seriously, if you are such a nitpicky person, I fear you have bigger issues in life. It’s like Weiner – you’re just going to hit a brick and have to explode with the truth.

And if anyone would know about exploding bricks it would be this large lady.

catfishjuggling said:
I lied. I can’t quit you.

Jaurez said:
Funny the fishjuggler who said he was “never coming back” a while back keeps calling you fat. If he only knew. ;)

Typical liberal – always lies. :)

Jaurez said:
Funny the fishjuggler who said he was “never coming back” a while back keeps calling you fat. If he only knew. ;)

The voices have truly gotten to him. :)

WCinWI said:
Typical liberal – always lies. :)

Typical fat girl. Wears sweat pants.

How is the job search going? Have one yet?

WCinWI said:
Stick to talking points. You go allllllllllllllllllllllll over. First it’s what Palin says, then I can’t bring up Obama or Weiner, then it’s what O’Reilly said. Stick to ONE issue.

I’m sorry if you feel personally offended that Palin didn’t apologize to you and the rest of the world for saying the word gotcha. Seriously, if you are such a nitpicky person, I fear you have bigger issues in life. It’s like Weiner – you’re just going to hit a brick and have to explode with the truth.

I was exactly answering his question about saying he didn’t think Palin said “gotcha”. Do you even read the posts, I quoted him so it’s very clear. Why are you complaining I was answering his question?????

Guys is WCinWI a real person or am I talking with a php script implemeting the ELIZA fake AI program!?!?!?!

WCinWI said:
The voices have truly gotten to him. :)

How long does it take to switch out between this log-in and your Juarez one?

WCinWI said:
Typical liberal – always lies. :)

Yep, see weiner the whiner. ;)

WCinWI said:
Typical liberal – always lies. :)

Wow.
You’re hopeless aren’t you.
It doesn’t matter what anybody says about anything right?
You’re right…and that’s it…and “Liberals always lie” huh……….
Way to have a conversation…oh wait that’s not a conversation that’s just you being a vindicative b….
Good to know.

catfishjuggling said:
How long does it take to switch out between this log-in and your Juarez one?

Don’t know. Time yourself next time you switch. ;)

ElCapitanAmerica said:
I was exactly answering his question about saying he didn’t think Palin said “gotcha”. Do you even read the posts, I quoted him so it’s very clear. Why are you complaining I was answering his question?????

Guys is WCinWI a real person or am I talking with a php script implemeting the ELIZA fake AI program!?!?!?!

HAHAHAHA don’t mind Cat. I just reported him. He needs to stop his rude comments. He thinks (wrongly) that I am Juarez and that Juarez is me. Apparently there were some people on this site that have been banned and have returned numerous times. The regulars can tell by their tone and written style. I can’t. But that’s the general info I have on the matter. I have never had multiple personalities and have only ever had one SN and email account on this site. So pay Catfish no attention or mind. I truly mean that. :)

And I really have tried to see the reasoning behind your thinking in the whole Palin thing. However, I just don’t get it. Not because of not trying but purely because you’ve said the same thing about 50 times and I’ve responded and clearly we’re not going to agree on that.

It’s more simple to just say that you were mad that Palin didn’t come out and say that she made a mistake. Case solved. However, when you go on what appears to be a Palin Rage Tour with what seems like a billion comments talking about ONE thing, then it just doesn’t reflect well on you. I don’t want that to come off as offensive so if it does, I’m sorry. However, I wish you would hold Obama to the same bar of perfection that you think Palin should achieve.

Bennybombom said:
Wow.You’re hopeless aren’t you.It doesn’t matter what anybody says about anything right?You’re right…and that’s it…and “Liberals always lie” huh……….Way to have a conversation…oh wait that’s not a conversation that’s just you being a vindicative b….Good to know.

Yeah, we’ve all been trying to figure out if she is a crazy person who also logs in as the cranky old man Juarez or if he is just pretending to be a gal. The WC character always talks about her M.A., yet strangely has no job at all. The best I can tell Juarez lives in a trailer down by the railroad tracks and lives mainly on hobo beans.

Either way they can’t deal with someone in reality who doesn’t blindly follow a team. You’re either agree with the two of them or you are a liberal. They can’t process a world wherein one dilikes Palin, yet would vote for a sane Republican.

Bennybombom said:
Wow.
You’re hopeless aren’t you.
It doesn’t matter what anybody says about anything right?
You’re right…and that’s it…and “Liberals always lie” huh……….
Way to have a conversation…oh wait that’s not a conversation that’s just you being a vindicative b….
Good to know.

You defended Weiner so where the heck are you coming from in all of this! Hilarious!

Jaurez said:
Don’t know. Time yourself next time you switch. ;)

Dude – Cat says he votes Republican. HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

WCinWI said:
Dude – Cat says he votes Republican. HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

Yea, and elbruce drew a picture of Palin and she signed it for him. LOL!

Jaurez said:
Yea, and elbruce drew a picture of Palin and she signed it for him. LOL!

And the Palin “love” fell down because of Palin using words like Gotcha…..ohhhhh no. Gosh forbid that she wasn’t right on issues such as war policy and QE2 and oil. And oh yeah, taxation and budgeting. You can’t beat someone that left their state $12 billion.

ElCapitanAmerica said:
Watch the video yourself;http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AjJgcDaOlbQ&feature=player_embedded “In a shout-out gotcha-type of question that was asked of me I answer candidly … and I know my American History”

Thanks, your right. I had only caught the shout out part the first time. Do you think she considers it a gotcha-type question after the fact since that’s the way they used it in the end and they are often trying to get her? I am of the opinion that most questions by the media are meant to catch politicians in a gotcha.

Bennybombom said:
She said a “Shout out gotcha type of question”And Revere didn’t warn the British…he answered a question at the point of a gun…that’s very different from:“Riding through town and warning the British with those bells and gunshots that they wouldn’t take our arms” Just saying……..

How does answering the question at the point of a gun make the outcome different. He told/warned them and as ElCaptainAmerica said exaggerated it to warn them they couldn’t win. Same outcome as Palin outlined. You guys are splitting hairs and talking semantics. Perhaps she should take a clue from Obama and always use a teleprompter so she can not only be factual but have it well scripted. Would she do better than Obama that way? He messes up even when he uses one.

Jaurez said:
Yea, and elbruce drew a picture of Palin and she signed it for him. LOL!

Cat the R is just mad that I have a masters and still like Palin. :)

I really see no problem with her messing this Paul Revere thing up. I think she sounded dopey talking about this crap but being an open minded lib im taking a different take on this. Do I like Sara? Nope. Do I think she’s gonna run nope. If she runs will she lose yep. But im gonna defend her on this bad reciting of american history. Its sooooo easy for us sitting back and listening to every word she says about certain subjects to hammer her. Im not out there reciting Paul Revere and I know a little about American history. Probably more than most of these critics who are jumping all over her. But she is out there saying these things, all they are doing is sitting back with there wikipedia and fact checking on her. I could do that to anyone and crush them. Not because im smarter but because I have that information available at my fingertips. Most of the media probably had no idea what she originally said was not accurate but 5 minutes after ohhhhhhh gotcha! She’s attempting to bring perspective and historical sites back into our minds. I see nothing wrong with that, I hope she just does a little more research into these historical sites and monuments in the future. She should be smarter than that and if she plans on running (which I don’t think she is) at least have some research done for her. Other than that I don’t see the big deal.

insideguy said:

We disagree on political principles alone but I agree with your general assessment. Except that I do think that Palin is running. Else everything else was a fair assessment. :)

WCinWI said:
Cat the R is just mad that I have a masters and still like Palin. :)

Notice no mention of a job.

catfishjuggling said:
Notice no mention of a job.

I’ve already reported you. There’s no need to deal with you any further. Carry on.

Well WCinWI if she does run she needs a good team around her to research cause the media will fry her over an open camp fire. Not only that but the right will very quickly lose confidence in her, not because they think she’s dumb but because she has not invested the time and effort to say things accurately.

insideguy said:
She should be smarter than that and if she plans on running (which I don’t think she is)

Concern troll much?

http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/tobyharnden/9245087/Top_10_gaffes_by_Barack_Obama_and_Joe_Biden_/

http://politicalhumor.about.com/od/barackobama/a/obama-isms.htm

WCinWI said:
I’ve already reported you. There’s no need to deal with you any further. Carry on.

Report me all you want. Still doesn’t make you employed.

Call all of us once you’re actually in the real world.

insideguy said:
Well WCinWI if she does run she needs a good team around her to research cause the media will fry her over an open camp fire. Not only that but the right will very quickly lose confidence in her, not because they think she’s dumb but because she has not invested the time and effort to say things accurately.

No offense, but the old guard is losing its swagger. Palin is the new brand of libertarianism. I personally love it. She’s not perfect. However, I accept that going into it.

Logic says: You’ve tried the Harvard and Columbia guy and he has failed. Now try the mainstream libertarian. She left her state with $12 billion in excess funds and she worked with Democrats more than she worked with R’s. Her movie will be a game changer.

catfishjuggling said:
Report me all you want. Still doesn’t make you employed.

Call all of us once you’re actually in the real world.

:)

WCinWI said:
She left her state with $12 billion in excess funds

And then wrote checks from the government to every citizen.

She is no more a libertarian than you are employed.

Jaurez said:
Concern troll much?

J-money- Make Cat stop. He’s like the Energizer Bunny. He keeps going and going and going.

And he doesn’t understand the creepster factor.

catfishjuggling said:
And then wrote checks from the government to every citizen.

She is no more a libertarian than you are employed.

:)

WCinWI said:
J-money- Make Cat stop. He’s like the Energizer Bunny. He keeps going and going and going. And he doesn’t understand the creepster factor.

Well you’re in luck. I’m bored now.

I don’t understand the creepster factor. You don’t understand the word libertarian.

Night. Take care, Dream of bacon WC.

catfishjuggling said:
Well you’re in luck. I’m bored now.

I don’t understand the creepster factor. You don’t understand the word libertarian.

Night. Take care, Dream of bacon WC.

:)

WCinWI said:
J-money- Make Cat stop. He’s like the Energizer Bunny. He keeps going and going and going.

And he doesn’t understand the creepster factor.

The internet is the closest he ever gets to women. He’s creepy in a weiner kinda way…

Oh joy….Sarah Palin again. And look….the same comments over and over and over……

How does this woman do it? Why are so many people so obsessed with either defaming or defending her? Nothing she does has any relevance on anyone’s life. She never says anything substantive or thought provoking. She’s a former reality TV star who quit her job as governor and blew kisses at a vice presidential debate. I mean…….what is going on here?!?!

catfishjuggling said:
And then wrote checks from the government to every citizen.

Isn’t that what Obomber wants to do? Spread the wealth?

Jaurez I truly never know what you are talking about. And WCinWI you may be right I really cant argue with you on the future of Mrs. Palin. I think she does make both sides nervous( almost like a ron paul), And like ron paul i think she makes the mainstream right as nervous as the mainstream left. Her difference is she has much more charisma than Ron Paul and less radical ideas. I use to think that there wasn’t a way in the world the the republicans would nominate her but not so sure anymore. She says dumb things sure, but so did George Bush and he got two terms. Hell she may be more articulate than Bush was. I don’t know though her baggage is so extensive and deep, I think she can have an influential outcome on who gets nominated but for her to run and get the nomination seems far out to me, but hell vie been wrong before!

im_lovin_it said:
She never says anything substantive or thought provoking.

Might wanna ask elbruce that same question as he just spent at least 2 hrs trying to “prove” her wrong. ;)

Jaurez said:
The internet is the closest he ever gets to women. He’s creepy in a weiner kinda way…

I’m married. Have 3 kids. Work. Run marathons. And am only on here sometimes.

You live in a van down by the river and post here 24/7.

I am good with me.

Jaurez said:
Isn’t that what Obomber wants to do? Spread the wealth?

Well it may be what he wants to do, but it is what Palin actually did.

insideguy said:
I really cant argue with you on the future of Mrs. Palin.

You can’t?

catfishjuggling said:
Well it may be what he wants to do, but it is what Palin actually did.

Well, you far lefties should lover her, right? Doesn’t that make her a socialist like the wanna be Obomber?

Jaurez said:
Well, you far lefties should lover her, right? Doesn’t that make her a socialist like the wanna be Obomber?

You really do bring a lot to the conversation.

The benefit of the doubt? O’Reilly aka Ted Baxter really gets on my nerves lately. I thought this one was already settled, and these gas bags are still talking about it. Although she mangled the syntax, what she said was historically accurate. Local Boston historians agree:

http://bostonherald.com/news/us_politics/view.bg?articleid=1343353

catfishjuggling said:
You really do bring a lot to the conversation.

Waiving the white flag?

Jaurez said:
Might wanna ask elbruce that same question as he just spent at least 2 hrs trying to “prove” her wrong. ;)

I read the comments. He, God Bless his naive heart, was trying to argue a point about Sarah Palin with WCinWI. With you acting like some kind of weird cheerleading section. I’m impressed he made it as far as he did. Sarah Palin is Sarah Palin. She signed her name on an American flag. She blew kisses at a vice Presidential debate. A question about what she’s taking away from this trip is a “gotcha” question. She complains the media is out to get her and complains when they don’t cover her. What can anyone say about Sarah Palin that hasn’t already been said?

Jaurez said:
Waiving the white flag?

Sure. You win the Internets.

Congrats to you.

insideguy said:
Jaurez I truly never know what you are talking about. And WCinWI you may be right I really cant argue with you on the future of Mrs. Palin. I think she does make both sides nervous( almost like a ron paul), And like ron paul i think she makes the mainstream right as nervous as the mainstream left. Her difference is she has much more charisma than Ron Paul and less radical ideas. I use to think that there wasn’t a way in the world the the republicans would nominate her but not so sure anymore. She says dumb things sure, but so did George Bush and he got two terms. Hell she may be more articulate than Bush was. I don’t know though her baggage is so extensive and deep, I think she can have an influential outcome on who gets nominated but for her to run and get the nomination seems far out to me, but hell vie been wrong before!

Since you’re a liberal, I can understand where you’re coming from on that (sorta). However, politically speaking, I don’t think she’s got many negatives. She does have libertarian leanings that are just more mainstream. I can guarantee you that she is the most LGBT friendly candidate – Tammy Bruce and old Hillary supporters (Hillbuzz) love her, along with the standards (GOPROUD). She’s backed Ryan’s plan and she’s the only candidate that Obama doesn’t bring up. Therefore you KNOW that the WH fears a run from her. Would she get it? I don’t know. I know that in the state of WI, we like our Governor (despite what’s being shown on national media). And Ryan always goes to Tea Party events. I just wouldn’t discount Palin so easily. If there are legit policy disagreements then I respect that. But her gaffes pale in comparison to Obama’s. Obama’s merely don’t get covered.

catfishjuggling said:
Palin wrote checks from the government to every citizen.

What’s your beef, fishy? Seems you far left loons would be throwing yourselves at her for spreading the wealth. Why is that not the case?

Jaurez said:
Might wanna ask elbruce that same question as he just spent at least 2 hrs trying to “prove” her wrong. ;)

AHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH Cat returned. He keeps saying that he’s going to go and then he returns!!!!!!!!!!!

He’s totally like all of those Children of the Corn or Halloween sequels. You think they’re over then BOOOOOOOOOOM! Another one gets made.

badnewzbearz said:
The benefit of the doubt? O’Reilly aka Ted Baxter really gets on my nerves lately. I thought this one was already settled, and these gas bags are still talking about it. Although she mangled the syntax, what she said was historically accurate. Local Boston historians agree:

http://bostonherald.com/news/us_politics/view.bg?articleid=1343353

Wouldn’t your life be easier if you didn’t have to defend Sarah Palin all the time? Sure, there are lots of people ready to pounce on her. She had it bad after the shootings in Tucson. In that singular moment she could have really shown some grace, poise, and leadership. Instead she told us she was a victim of a blood libel. Why even bother with her?

im_lovin_it said:
What can anyone say about Sarah Palin that hasn’t already been said?

Another good question for elbruce.

im_lovin_it said:
Wouldn’t your life be easier if you didn’t have to defend Sarah Palin all the time?

Why attack the messenger?

im_lovin_it said:
I read the comments. He, God Bless his naive heart, was trying to argue a point about Sarah Palin with WCinWI. With you acting like some kind of weird cheerleading section. I’m impressed he made it as far as he did. Sarah Palin is Sarah Palin. She signed her name on an American flag. She blew kisses at a vice Presidential debate. A question about what she’s taking away from this trip is a “gotcha” question. She complains the media is out to get her and complains when they don’t cover her. What can anyone say about Sarah Palin that hasn’t already been said?

There’s a point when arguing for something becomes counterproductive though. I understand that the same could be said for/against me, but I at least acknowledge that fact. If someone feels like Palin needs to apologize too them over something, that lets you know how far someone is into the Palin love/rage. As someone that likes Palin (among others), I don’t expect Palin to be perfect and frankly would hate it if she were. The real rage should be with Obama and his lack of a budget.

im_lovin_it said:
Wouldn’t your life be easier if you didn’t have to defend Sarah Palin all the time? Sure, there are lots of people ready to pounce on her. She had it bad after the shootings in Tucson. In that singular moment she could have really shown some grace, poise, and leadership. Instead she told us she was a victim of a blood libel. Why even bother with her?

She was a victim of blood libel. She’s been told her son isn’t hers. You can’t take back the craziness of liberals – seriously. She exists to show the rage of the Left. And the Right thanks her for it. Daily.

Jaurez said:
Why attack the messenger?

Didn’t you know? Your life is totally full of nothingness and your purpose is ONLY to defend Palin.

That’s what McD’s implies at least.

WCinWI said:
There’s a point when arguing for something becomes counterproductive though. I understand that the same could be said for/against me, but I at least acknowledge that fact. If someone feels like Palin needs to apologize too them over something, that lets you know how far someone is into the Palin love/rage. As someone that likes Palin (among others), I don’t expect Palin to be perfect and frankly would hate it if she were. The real rage should be with Obama and his lack of a budget.

*to not too

Jaurez said:
What’s your beef, fishy? Seems you far left loons would be throwing yourselves at her for spreading the wealth. Why is that not the case?

Ok. I’ll take a trip down the rabbit hole.

Since I am a far lefty, I shouldn’t have a problem with it.

But you are a supposedly Conservative, so you should.

Of course none of you do.

It isn’t t about actualy conservative thought. It’s a cult of personality. Every invictive you throw out about the Obama supporters you then immediately emulate in loving this completely non-serious person.

I have said dozens of times that here is reality land people can admit that Obama didn’t get it done AND that she is unqualified to be dogcatcher.

ElCapitanAmerica said:
You’re right, that should be the headline, we agree on that.

Now O’Reilly got it his history wrong too!!!!

What Palin said certainly isn’t what we were taught in grade school, but it is still factually correct.

Historians agree: Palin was right about Revere

POSTED AT 9:25 AM ON JUNE 6, 2011 BY ED MORRISSEY
PRINTER-FRIENDLY

One if by land, and two if by sea … and then what? According to historians interviewed by the Boston Herald, Paul Revere then warned the British not to challenge a roused and armed populace. That came as news to many observers who had rushed to criticize Sarah Palin for her response to a gotcha question at the Old North Church:

Sarah Palin yesterday insisted her claim at the Old North Church last week that Paul Revere “warned the British” during his famed 1775 ride — remarks that Democrats and the media roundly ridiculed — is actually historically accurate. And local historians are backing her up.

Palin prompted howls of partisan derision when she said on Boston’s Freedom Trail that Revere “warned the British that they weren’t going to be taking away our arms by ringing those bells and making sure as he’s riding his horse through town to send those warning shots and bells that we were going to be secure and we were going to be free.”

Jaurez said:
Why attack the messenger?

Do not feed the fur ball.

WCinWI said:
AHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH Cat returned. He keeps saying that he’s going to go and then he returns!!!!!!!!!!! He’s totally like all of those Children of the Corn or Halloween sequels. You think they’re over then BOOOOOOOOOOM! Another one gets made.

Yeah. The Juarez sidetracked me. I’m actually out now. I have to work in the morning.

Hopefully someday you’ll know that feeling.

Sleep well. Remember your CPAP.

I dont discount her and would actually love if she were the republican nominee. Talk about an entertaining election season holy crap! Ill disagree with you on the fact that she’s the only candidate Obama is not bringing up because she isn’t a candidate as we speak. I Truly believe that Obama would smoke her in a general election, and I think the mainstream right thinks this is the case as well. However I will say that if this economy keep puttering along like a turtle with constipation many republicans can beat Obama. I read something today that stated only one president in history has won with an unEmployment rate over 9% and that was FDR. Not sure if thats accurate but sounds like it to me. Don’t know if they kept employment rates very accurately before the 20th century but still I don’t discount anyone on the republican side with an economy like this.

http://sweetness-light.com/archive/obamacpusa-and-the-statue-of-liberty

http://www.palinaspresident.us/

insideguy said:
I dont discount her and would actually love if she were the republican nominee. Talk about an entertaining election season holy crap! Ill disagree with you on the fact that she’s the only candidate Obama is not bringing up because she isn’t a candidate as we speak. I Truly believe that Obama would smoke her in a general election, and I think the mainstream right thinks this is the case as well. However I will say that if this economy keep puttering along like a turtle with constipation many republicans can beat Obama. I read something today that stated only one president in history has won with an unEmployment rate over 9% and that was FDR. Not sure if thats accurate but sounds like it to me. Don’t know if they kept employment rates very accurately before the 20th century but still I don’t discount anyone on the republican side with an economy like this.

I am saying that because Obama is punting on actually being a leader, he will lose on that account. People voted for him (young people, African Americans, folks that were mad at Bush and his wars and Bush and his RINO tendencies) but he’s not going to have that save fever pitch. He’s no longer the first Black President to run. He now has a record. And a failing one. A shoe will beat him.

im_lovin_it said:
>http://www.palinaspresident.us/

http://www.nydailynews.com/news/national/2011/06/04/2011-06-04_mcdonalds_april_hiring_spree_could_have_accounted_for_half_of_mays_job_growth_re.html

Palin to the American press is like Israel to the Palestinians. If she lays down her weapons, she’ll be obliterated in short order.

- philwynk (HotAir)

WCinWI said:
I can guarantee you that she is the most LGBT friendly candidate –

By the way……

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-502443_162-4531945-502443.html

Soooo……ummmm…….

?

im_lovin_it said:
By the way……

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-502443_162-4531945-502443.html

Soooo……ummmm…….

?

“I’m not going to be out there judging individuals, sitting in a seat of judgment telling what they can and can’t do, should and should not do, but I certainly can express my own opinion here and take actions that I believe would be best for traditional marriage and that’s casting my votes and speaking up for traditional marriage that, that instrument that it’s the foundation of our society is that strong family and that’s based on that traditional definition of marriage, so I do support that.”

No way……Obama and Palin agree……..OMGGGGGGGGGGGGG

insideguy said:
I dont discount her and would actually love if she were the republican nominee. Talk about an entertaining election season holy crap! Ill disagree with you on the fact that she’s the only candidate Obama is not bringing up because she isn’t a candidate as we speak. I Truly believe that Obama would smoke her in a general election, and I think the mainstream right thinks this is the case as well. However I will say that if this economy keep puttering along like a turtle with constipation many republicans can beat Obama. I read something today that stated only one president in history has won with an unEmployment rate over 9% and that was FDR. Not sure if thats accurate but sounds like it to me. Don’t know if they kept employment rates very accurately before the 20th century but still I don’t discount anyone on the republican side with an economy like this.

At the time, I selfishly hoped Bush would get re-elected because I knew everything he did in his first term would catch up to him and his second term would be an unmitigated disaster and I wanted to see his face rubbed in the pile a chit that he created.

I’ve come to regret feeling that way and now I’m hoping and praying that Obama doesn’t get re-elected because, after 12 solid years of failure, I really don’t like our chances of surviving as country with another 4 year term of failed, rudderless leadership.

We need someone who has a clue in 2012, who isn’t an ideologue and isn’t caught up in all the hyper partisanship, or we’re toast. Our next President has to have a plan for saving our country. It’s obvious that the only plan Barack iBama ever had was to become famous. Mission accomplished…now go and host your own show on the Oprah Network.

im_lovin_it said:
By the way……

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-502443_162-4531945-502443.html

Soooo……ummmm…….

?

There’s this thing called DOMA. Has Obama changed that Federal law yet? I think that Palin is for applying laws on the books and keeping traditional marriage in place. But she’s also said that she thinks that the personal lives of people should be of their own accord and she voted for LGBT rights within Alaska so uhhhhhhhhhhhhhh and ummmmmmmmmmmmmm. Awesome.

im_lovin_it said:
By the way……

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-502443_162-4531945-502443.html

Soooo……ummmm…….

?

BTW – If Palin hadn’t endorsed McCain in 2010, he’d be gone. So uhhhhhhhhhhh yeah….add some more ummmmmmms there too.

Naaa WCinCI as james carvel said famously its the economy stupid. If the employment rate drops to 7 percent or so before the election no shoe is gonna beat Obama. Thats a big if,but he’s a great campaigner and there is no way in hell hell he will lose if the economy is on the upswing. If its like it is? Well maybe a very expensive shoe could beat him:)

@WCinWI

Good job! Now, she still said she was in favor of banning gay marriage in 2008. You left that quote out. Let me help you…..

“I am, in my own, state, I have voted along with the vast majority of Alaskans who had the opportunity to vote to amend our Constitution defining marriage as between one man and one woman. I wish on a federal level that that’s where we would go because I don’t support gay marriage,” Palin said.

That’s not very libertarian or LGBT-friendly is it? I guess you’re right though. She sure sounds like a real hero for gay rights….

But this hypocrisy is just truly too much. Enuf already—the more someone complains about the homos the more we should look under their bed

I’m sure “the homos” thank you, Sarah.

She will not be the nominee. Stop being dumb…folks. Look at this — fresh from Rasmussen, the GOP friendly pollster.

Rasmussen said:However, voters feel strongest that Palin, the Republican vice presidential nominee in 2008, is not qualified. Twenty-three percent (23%) say the former Alaska governor is qualified to serve as the nation’s chief executive, but 63% say she is not qualified. Palin is the best-known of the Republicans with just 15% undecided about her.

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/elections/election_2012/election_2012_presidential_election/49_see_romney_as_qualified_to_be_president_less_confident_of_other_gop_candidates

Then you look at this…
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2012/president/president_obama_vs_republican_candidates.html

Only people who are delusional think she has a snowball’s chance in hell to get to the WH. Losers.

OxyCon said:
At the time, I selfishly hoped Bush would get re-elected because I knew everything he did in his first term would catch up to him and his second term would be an unmitigated disaster and I wanted to see his face rubbed in the pile a chit that he created. I’ve come to regret feeling that way and now I’m hoping and praying that Obama doesn’t get re-elected because, after 12 solid years of failure, I really don’t like our chances of surviving as country with another 4 year term of failed, rudderless leadership. We need someone who has a clue in 2012, who isn’t an ideologue and isn’t caught up in all the hyper partisanship, or we’re toast. Our next President has to have a plan for saving our country. It’s obvious that the only plan Barack iBama ever had was to become famous. Mission accomplished…now go and host your own show on the Oprah Network.

Which candidate interest you so far?

Oops…I wouldn’t want people to think I’d type something like the bottom paragraph….

http://gawker.com/5723950/

By the way, WCinWI, when you bring up Obama it shows you’re losing your argument.

im_lovin_it said:
@WCinWI

Good job! Now, she still said she was in favor of banning gay marriage in 2008. You left that quote out. Let me help you…..

“I am, in my own, state, I have voted along with the vast majority of Alaskans who had the opportunity to vote to amend our Constitution defining marriage as between one man and one woman. I wish on a federal level that that’s where we would go because I don’t support gay marriage,” Palin said.

That’s not very libertarian or LGBT-friendly is it? I guess you’re right though. She sure sounds like a real hero for gay rights….

But this hypocrisy is just truly too much. Enuf already—the more someone complains about the homos the more we should look under their bed

I’m sure “the homos” thank you, Sarah.

I’m not for changing the institution of marriage either. That doesn’t mean that I don’t think gays have rights. I think Palin would be for some sort of new hybrid term. She applied the same rights that Obama did but at the state level. Check her record. Don’t make me do your lazy work. And yes, she has a hybrid libertarian mix when it applies to traditional marriage and I understand her “dilemma” surrounding it.

Studies do exist that show that traditional marriage is the best for kids. Plain and simple.

She’s loved by the gay community. Hillbuzz, GOPROUD, Tammy Bruce, etc.. Many of her supporters on HotAir and C4P are gay. Deal with it. :)

Would you like to show me when Palin herself uttered that term? It doesn’t exist. Much like everything else you claim.

im_lovin_it said:
Oops…I wouldn’t want people to think I’d type something like the bottom paragraph….

http://gawker.com/5723950/

By the way, WCinWI, when you bring up Obama it shows you’re losing your argument.

HAHAHAHAHA when you have to post a link to a site that has housed a person that talked about Trig in the way that they did, you have lost your argument.

I had no argument to lose. That’s just wishful thinking.

im_lovin_it said:
@WCinWI

Good job! Now, she still said she was in favor of banning gay marriage in 2008. You left that quote out. Let me help you…..

“I am, in my own, state, I have voted along with the vast majority of Alaskans who had the opportunity to vote to amend our Constitution defining marriage as between one man and one woman. I wish on a federal level that that’s where we would go because I don’t support gay marriage,” Palin said.

That’s not very libertarian or LGBT-friendly is it? I guess you’re right though. She sure sounds like a real hero for gay rights….

But this hypocrisy is just truly too much. Enuf already—the more someone complains about the homos the more we should look under their bed

I’m sure “the homos” thank you, Sarah.

She’s a sophist. Palin is no libertarian. She is a social conservative whose every whim is to legislate morality. She is for DOMA. Just like she didn’t say a damn thing to support repeal of DADT. You know…that’s what pro-LGBT-rights people (including Obama) did.

WCinWI said:
There’s this thing called DOMA. Has Obama changed that Federal law yet?

BTW, WC, Presidents do not make laws. Congress does. Learn some civics. BTW, that Obama administration DOJ refused to defend DOMA in federal court. There’s no clearer sign than that that the executive does not like that law even though it’s their duty to enforce it. Comparing Obama to Palin on LGBT rights is being disingenuous.

im_lovin_it said:>

By the way, WCinWI, when you bring up Obama it shows you’re losing your argument.

Obama gaffes so much that I rarely talk about his gaffes. I primarily do when someone wishes to bash Palin for the same concept.

WCinWI said:
DERP!

You said Sarah Palin is LGBT friendly.

“I am, in my own, state, I have voted along with the vast majority of Alaskans who had the opportunity to vote to amend our Constitution defining marriage as between one man and one woman. I wish on a federal level that that’s where we would go because I don’t support gay marriage,” Palin said.

How can you be LGBT friendly and support a federal ban on gay marriage?

Gasket said:
She’s a sophist. Palin is no libertarian. She is a social conservative whose every whim is to legislate morality. She is for DOMA. Just like she didn’t say a damn thing to support repeal of DADT. You know…that’s what pro-LGBT-rights people (including Obama) did.

BTW, WC, Presidents do not make laws. Congress does. Learn some civics. BTW, that Obama administration DOJ refused to defend DOMA in federal court. There’s no clearer sign than that that the executive does not like that law even though it’s their duty to enforce it. Comparing Obama to Palin on LGBT rights is being disingenuous.

Actually Palin did talk about DADT. :) Now please, keep me out of your convos. It’s creepy.

HAHAHAHAHA Obama the constitutional lawyer doesn’t defend a constitutional law. Man you are too rich Gasket. Really. Too. Rich.

im_lovin_it said:
You said Sarah Palin is LGBT friendly.

“I am, in my own, state, I have voted along with the vast majority of Alaskans who had the opportunity to vote to amend our Constitution defining marriage as between one man and one woman. I wish on a federal level that that’s where we would go because I don’t support gay marriage,” Palin said.

How can you be LGBT friendly and support a federal ban on gay marriage?

Quite easily.

im_lovin_it said:
You said Sarah Palin is LGBT friendly.

“I am, in my own, state, I have voted along with the vast majority of Alaskans who had the opportunity to vote to amend our Constitution defining marriage as between one man and one woman. I wish on a federal level that that’s where we would go because I don’t support gay marriage,” Palin said.

How can you be LGBT friendly and support a federal ban on gay marriage?

If gay marriage is accepted, then I don’t see why someone couldn’t marry their pet or so on. It sets a precedent in law. DOMA is the law on the books. Accept it. Move on.

WCinWI said:
HAHAHAHAHA when you have to post a link to a site that has housed a person that talked about Trig in the way that they did, you have lost your argument.

I had no argument to lose. That’s just wishful thinking.

Oh…okay….

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2651205/posts

I’d hate to offend your sensibilities. Sorry.

WCinWI said:
Studies do exist that show that traditional marriage is the best for kids. Plain and simple.

No…there are NOT. I asked you to prove this claim about a month or two ago and you could not! There’s no evidence that kids growing in a home with gay parents is detrimental to them or disadvantageous compared to an equally loving straight family. That is just junk “science” or propaganda by a sham psychiatric group that was funded by Tony Perkins of FRC. The major and official psychiatric body of the USA (you know — actual scientists) have never validated such claims. Prove it.

im_lovin_it said:
You said Sarah Palin is LGBT friendly.

“I am, in my own, state, I have voted along with the vast majority of Alaskans who had the opportunity to vote to amend our Constitution defining marriage as between one man and one woman. I wish on a federal level that that’s where we would go because I don’t support gay marriage,” Palin said.

How can you be LGBT friendly and support a federal ban on gay marriage?

My logic is the same reason why I look forward to May/June of next year in regards to the Health Care Law. :)

im_lovin_it said:
Oh…okay….

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2651205/posts

I’d hate to offend your sensibilities. Sorry.

You can post a billion websites. I still won’t go to them. Unless it’s HotAir. I consider them fair.

WCinWI said:
If gay marriage is accepted, then I don’t see why someone couldn’t marry their pet or so on. It sets a precedent in law. DOMA is the law on the books. Accept it. Move on.

Where have I heard this before…….Hmmm….are you santorum?

So, would Sarah Palin, friend of “the homos,” go to the gay community and say if we don’t ban you marrying the people you love it’s a slippery slope into someone marrying the dog?

WCinWI said:
You can post a billion websites. I still won’t go to them. Unless it’s HotAir. I consider them fair.

http://hotair.com/archives/2011/01/04/palin-backs-dadt-repeal/

WCinWI said:
If gay marriage is accepted, then I don’t see why someone couldn’t marry their pet or so on. It sets a precedent in law. DOMA is the law on the books. Accept it. Move on.

Pets aka animals are not sentient human beings. You are inherently insinuating or comparing gay people (yes, they are humans too with inalienable rights just like you do) to animals. Bangs. Head. On. Wall.

im_lovin_it said:
http://hotair.com/archives/2011/01/04/palin-backs-dadt-repeal/

LOL!

Gasket said:
No…there are NOT. I asked you to prove this claim about a month or two ago and you could not! There’s no evidence that kids growing in a home with gay parents is detrimental to them or disadvantageous compared to an equally loving straight family. That is just junk “science” or propaganda by a sham psychiatric group that was funded by Tony Perkins of FRC. The major and official psychiatric body of the USA (you know — actual scientists) have never validated such claims. Prove it.

http://www.mdrc.org/publications/386/testimony.html

http://www.slate.com/id/2097048/

im_lovin_it said:
Where have I heard this before…….Hmmm….are you santorum?

So, would Sarah Palin, friend of “the homos,” go to the gay community and say if we don’t ban you marrying the people you love it’s a slippery slope into someone marrying the dog?

You could stop using derogatory terms now.

WCinWI said:
Actually Palin did talk about DADT. :) Now please, keep me out of your convos. It’s creepy.

HAHAHAHAHA Obama the constitutional lawyer doesn’t defend a constitutional law. Man you are too rich Gasket. Really. Too. Rich.

Constitutional law? Wow! The USSC has never ruled on DOMA. BTW…unless you are completely misinformed or uninformed, DOMA’s constitutionality has been challenged in a federal district court. To infer a federal law is constitutional because it has never been addressed by the USSC is stupidity.

WCinWI said:
You can post a billion websites. I still won’t go to them. Unless it’s HotAir. I consider them fair.

WCinWI said:
http://www.mdrc.org/publications/386/testimony.html

http://www.slate.com/id/2097048/

Gasket said:
Pets aka animals are not sentient human beings. You are inherently insinuating or comparing gay people (yes, they are humans too with inalienable rights just like you do) to animals. Bangs. Head. On. Wall.

I saw an MTV special, one of those True Life episodes, where it was about both gay relationships (3 guys living together wanting to add a 4th guy to the mix) and people that were bisexual. One of the girls in the bisexual relationship said that it was about falling in love with one’s spirit (she was dating both a female and a male) – something like polysexuality I believe. That was also discussed on a Bravo TV show (Millionaire Matchmaker).

It’s not that outlandish of an idea. There are people that fall in love with souls/spirits and not the physical body.

Honestly WCinWi you are fighting a losing battle on this. It may not happen in 2 years or 5 years or 10 but gay marriage will happen. Conservatives always fight these social issues to the last dying breath but they will lose. Society will pick up move on and leave them behind in the dust. Its been done over and over. Just like don’t ask don’t tell. It took years for this to be overturned but it did happen and I haven’t heard a thing about it since. Its just a memory and the conservatives who fought against it are as well. Same with the civil rights era, or blacks in the military or interracial marriage. Did Dems fight against these things sure. But they were socially conservative dems. You can see it with all these issues, marijuana being legal it hasn’t happened yet but it is happening and it will eventually happen. The politicians get pushed to the side.

WCinWI said:
http://www.slate.com/id/2097048/

Was this supposed to support your hypothesis? It does not. remember, you made a claim, you are supposed to support that claim. Unless you didn’t read said article. . I’m reading the other article you linked and I will comment on it in short order. .

im_lovin_it said:
http://hotair.com/archives/2011/01/04/palin-backs-dadt-repeal/

She evolved on that. She also had a tweet with a libertarian bent about it that Tammy Bruce retweeted. I think Palin was more angry that it was being forced so all of a sudden versus the actual act/law that it was trying to rescind itself.

Gasket said:
Constitutional law? Wow! The USSC has never ruled on DOMA. BTW…unless you are completely misinformed or uninformed, DOMA’s constitutionality has been challenged in a federal district court. To infer a federal law is constitutional because it has never been addressed by the USSC is stupidity.

Fine, the fact that a lawyer would not back a federal law of any sort speaks bounds. Case solved.

insideguy said:
Honestly WCinWi you are fighting a losing battle on this. It may not happen in 2 years or 5 years or 10 but gay marriage will happen. Conservatives always fight these social issues to the last dying breath but they will lose. Society will pick up move on and leave them behind in the dust. Its been done over and over. Just like don’t ask don’t tell. It took years for this to be overturned but it did happen and I haven’t heard a thing about it since. Its just a memory and the conservatives who fought against it are as well. Same with the civil rights era, or blacks in the military or interracial marriage. Did Dems fight against these things sure. But they were socially conservative dems. You can see it with all these issues, marijuana being legal it hasn’t happened yet but it is happening and it will eventually happen. The politicians get pushed to the side.

Seriously, if you wish the US to be Europe, just move to Europe. I’ve been there. Nice people. Different standard of living. Go there.

Gasket said:
Was this supposed to support your hypothesis? It does not. remember, you made a claim, you are supposed to support that claim. Unless you didn’t read said article. . I’m reading the other article you linked and I will comment on it in short order. .

I never said that gay parenting was wrong or bad. I just said that traditional marriage was ideal. So until you can provide me study data that provides otherwise, I’m allowed my personal thought on the matter.

Liberal policies fail the world yet you want to instill them on America. That’s idiotic.

WCinWI said:
http://www.mdrc.org/publications/386/testimony.html

This is an article comparing households with married couples and those with single parent families. It has absolutely nothing to do with comparing families of married families with gay or straight couples. This is absolutely irrelevant. The words “gay” “straight” “same-sex” “homosexual” or even “lesbian” do not even appear AT ALL in the entire article. It’s absolutely ridiculous to use this article as some sort of source supporting document. Case closed.

Gasket said:
Pets aka animals are not sentient human beings. You are inherently insinuating or comparing gay people (yes, they are humans too with inalienable rights just like you do) to animals. Bangs. Head. On. Wall.

Duly noted. And now the response………

WCinWI said:
I saw an MTV special, one of those True Life episodes, where it was about both gay relationships (3 guys living together wanting to add a 4th guy to the mix) and people that were bisexual. One of the girls in the bisexual relationship said that it was about falling in love with one’s spirit (she was dating both a female and a male) – something like polysexuality I believe. That was also discussed on a Bravo TV show (Millionaire Matchmaker).

It’s not that outlandish of an idea. There are people that fall in love with souls/spirits and not the physical body.

…………..?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5hfYJsQAhl0

Gasket said:
This is an article comparing households with married couples and those with single parent families. It has absolutely nothing to do with comparing families of married families with gay or straight couples. This is absolutely irrelevant. The words “gay” “straight” “same-sex” “homosexual” or even “lesbian” do not even appear AT ALL in the entire article. It’s absolutely ridiculous to use this article as some sort of source supporting document. Case closed.

Read statement above. We’re not going to agree on this issue.

I still want to know why men find other men attractive and vice versa with females. What about transgendered. Are they allowed gay marriage too? As I said, people will marry animals and robots that can talk back.

WCinWI says:
June 7, 2011 at 2:55 am (Quote)

Seriously, if you wish the US to be Europe, just move to Europe. I’ve been there. Nice people. Different standard of living. Go there.

Huh? not sure what you mean by this. Ive never said I want to move to europe not my point at all

WCinWI said:
Fine, the fact that a lawyer would not back a federal law of any sort speaks bounds. Case solved.

Are you kidding? It’s not always a lawyer’s job to defend a federal statute. That is what government lawyers do. You do realize that in criminal law, lawyers defend people who have been accused of breaking the law….right? Obama’s job as potus is to ENFORCE the law — which he is constitutionally obligated to do. He is however not constitutionally obligated to defend the law in court. If Obama loses in 2012, and the USSC upholds the ACA law, the Republican potus MUST enforce that law whether they like it or not. They however do not need to defend it in federal court if the government is sued by a state or other aggrieved party. This is not exactly anything new.

insideguy said:
WCinWI says:
June 7, 2011 at 2:55 am (Quote)

Seriously, if you wish the US to be Europe, just move to Europe. I’ve been there. Nice people. Different standard of living. Go there.

Huh? not sure what you mean by this. Ive never said I want to move to europe not my point at all

You vote for liberals. If you don’t like America, then why don’t you just move to Europe? I’ve been there and it’s lovely. Liberal policies, tons of debt…..you defend 9.1% unemployment and a failed leadership policy on everything else.

Gasket said:
Are you kidding? It’s not always a lawyer’s job to defend a federal statute. That is what government lawyers do. You do realize that in criminal law, lawyers defend people who have been accused of breaking the law….right? Obama’s job as potus is to ENFORCE the law — which he is constitutionally obligated to do. He is however not constitutionally obligated to defend the law in court. If Obama loses in 2012, and the USSC upholds the ACA law, the Republican potus MUST enforce that law whether they like it or not. They however do not need to defend it in federal court if the government is sued by a state or other aggrieved party. This is not exactly anything new.

Yes. Agreed. Now we can go back to this whole not talking to each other thing. You keep voting for liberals that fail the country and I’ll keep fighting the cause as a young chick in her 20s fighting the good fight. :) CIAO!

Name the number of times Obama has admitted a mistake. Go ahead, take your time, we’ll wait.

He has insisted that the U.S. is one of the largest Muslim nations in the world, that Americans invented the automobile, and so many other factually incorrect statements that it boggles the mind, but he’s never admitted to being wrong.

But being a Democrat, especially a black Democrat, means never having to say you’re sorry (or wrong) about anything, right Tommy?

AZCoyote (HotAir)

Bill, your ratings are dropping by the day, week and even month. You have become a Chris Matthews clone…you talk over your guests and you have become very arrogant of late. You tend to talk down to Conservative women in politics and it is showing with your ratings. Many of us Independents as well as those on the Right have just tuned you out and turned you off. I rarely watch you anymore because like Chris Tingles I don’t need either of you telling me how I should believe, much less vote. I know you and Matthews both think you are smarter than your viewers but, you are not. In fact I don’t think either of you are as smart as your average viewer. But, both of you are lucky that you have a chance to voice your opinions and collect a few million dollars doing so.

I dont defend 9.1% unemployment rates? Where did you get that from? I voted for Clinton when the unemployment rate was 5 % was that defending liberal policies? You probably would have voted for Reagan when the unemployment rate was 7% were you defending his policies? How can you possibly blame this employment rate soley on Obama? It was at least 7.5 % when he took freaking office. You are not thinking logically go read the history of the time between Carter and Reagans first term. The economy sucked. Was that Reagans fault? Im sure you would say no, so why do you blame Obama alone for this? Oh and by the way Go look at Germanys gdp to debt ratio and explain how this “socialist communist godless country is kicking our ass”. Doesn’t make a lot of sense since they have such a socialist economy and there is no way it should be growing according to conservatives.

insideguy said:
I dont defend 9.1% unemployment rates? Where did you get that from? I voted for Clinton when the unemployment rate was 5 % was that defending liberal policies? You probably would have voted for Reagan when the unemployment rate was 7% were you defending his policies? How can you possibly blame this employment rate soley on Obama? It was at least 7.5 % when he took freaking office. You are not thinking logically go read the history of the time between Carter and Reagans first term. The economy sucked. Was that Reagans fault? Im sure you would say no, so why do you blame Obama alone for this? Oh and by the way Go look at Germanys gdp to debt ratio and explain how this “socialist communist godless country is kicking our ass”. Doesn’t make a lot of sense since they have such a socialist economy and there is no way it should be growing according to conservatives.

I never said that it was only Obama’s fault. I said that it was primarily his fault for enacting failed policies.

You vote for liberals. If you don’t like America, then why don’t you just move to Europe? I’ve been there and it’s lovely. Liberal policies, tons of debt…..you defend 9.1% unemployment and a failed leadership policy on everything else.

Thats not what i got out of this quote dear. You have put the blame on all of Americas problems based soley on a liberal mindset and policies. This is ignorant and foolish. Since Reagans election in 1980 the republicans have had the white house 20 out of the last 30 years. If you go back to nixon in 68 its been 28 out of the last 42. We have had high debt in everyone of your conservative administrations. The only one who managed to balance the budget was Clinton. Is the Debt higher under Obama? Sure it is, but Bush ran up higher deficits than any president before him. This appears to be a trend based on government policy in general and not a certain political party or individual who gets the blame.

THE REAL ROYAL KING said:
I bet the British were really confused by that Second Amendment reference.

Fact: The British spent allot of time disarming Americans at every chance they got. Back then the liberals were still in the closet and didn’t open their mouths. When they did Americans saw the threat and came up with the second Admendment and sent them packing back to their closets.

Gasket said:
That’s what I thought a lying sycophantic coward like you would say. Priceless. My work is done here.

Fact: George Soros internet fact check mouthpiece. Only thing is that Georgie boy is a sore loser and doesn’t know squat. Ask Glenn Beck for help or even Rush. So being your mentor (Georgie) that shows me dude that you also don’t know squat either. Sorry retool and try again later. Next time try to make sense of any topic here at Mediaite because even you are entitled to show us the others view.

What the heck is Bernie talking about? I <3 watching Bill's show but I always skip the segments with Bernie as he can be such a buffoon.

I like Bernie Goldberg but I have never seen him look so much like an idiot. He says Sarah Palin Mangled The Paul Revere Story, but at the end the stupid old man admits he was not aware that Palin’s account of the Paul Revere Story for historically ACCURATE. Judgements before knowing the facts, and judging historic references without thorough knowledge of history.

Who looks more foolish? Palin or Goldberg?

http://www.bostonherald.com/news/us_politics/view.bg?articleid=1343353&srvc=rss

Palin was right and Bernie didn’t know the whole story. Nice try.

LOGICandREASON said:
I like Bernie Goldberg but I have never seen him look so much like an idiot. He says Sarah Palin Mangled The Paul Revere Story, but at the end the stupid old man admits he was not aware that Palin’s account of the Paul Revere Story for historically ACCURATE. Judgements before knowing the facts, and judging historic references without thorough knowledge of history.

Who looks more foolish? Palin or Goldberg?

http://www.bostonherald.com/news/us_politics/view.bg?articleid=1343353&srvc=rss

Here’s what you get when you get intellectually challenged individuals trying to justify the idiotic statements of someone they back, politically. They start this game of semantics. Paul Revere did not “Warn” the British, that the colonists had a militia of 500 coming to engage them. If he did he was a traitor. Can you imagine an American soldier telling a German officer, we have 500 troops waiting for you in that French town, over there? That would be treason. Now maybe Revere was captured and gave up the information, for whatever reason, fear for his life, to mislead the British, whatever, but he certainly “Warn” the British. It is all a semantical game, to twist words. If what Palin said was true, then Revere “Warned” the British just as Benedict Arnold warned the British, by joining their cause. Revere may have indeed informed the British about the American militia, and there are many reasons he may have had for doing so, but if the true reason was to “Warn” the British of American strength and location, then Revere is a traitor. Ask any military man what he thinks of “Warning” the enemy, and where that stands as far a patriotism is concerned.

The other and more obvious retort to this idiotic justification of what Palin said is that in reality she didn’t even know that part of history. That even if you suscribed to the notion that Revere was “Warning” the British, which is absurd, Palin certainly had no clue that Revere was even detained or captured by the British. So don’t pass this game of semantic off as “LOGICand REASON”, because it is a far cry from that.

I originally thought the governor was right, but on second thought, after researching the LSM facts, Sarah Palin was wrong.

I mean, like the LSM points out 24/7, everyone knows that it was an Austrian speaking corpse man named Barack Obama who rode his trusty steed throughout the 57 states that dark night. (and was hoping to also ride through the country of Europe, but then the Brits caught him) ) And when captured by the British, Obama signed a written confession and dated it 2008.

“Do not fear the enemy, for your enemy can only take your life. It is far better that you fear the media, for they will steal your honor. That awful power, the public opinion of a nation, is created in America by a horde of ignorant, self-complacent simpletons who failed at ditching and shoemaking and fetched up in journalism on their way to the poorhouse.” Mark Twain

OMG. Weiner now says he did not have test with Obama.

But he did have text with him occasionaly

Old Duffer said:
But he did have text with him occasionaly

Thanks for the clarification there “OLD” Duffer. I thought maybe you had lost it.

First here is the “gotcha” question, exact words;

“What have you seen so far today, and what are you going to take away from your visit?”

She wasn’t even asked about Paul Revere in the first place!!

This is her reply, these are her EXACT words;
~~~~~~~~~~­~~~~~~~~
“He who warned, uh, the British that they weren’t going to be taking away our arms uh by ringing those bells and making sure as he’s riding his horse through town to send those warning shots and bells that we were going to be secure and we were going to be free and we were going to be armed.”
~~~~~~~~~~­~~~~~~~~~~­~~~~~~~~~~­~~~~
I challenge ANYONE to find anything historically correct in this statement, with the exception that he rode a horse.

AND…..She could not even remember Paul Revere’s NAME!!;

“He who warned, uh, the British”

Pathetic!

THEN she doubles down with this;

“Part of his ride was to warn the British that were already there that ‘hey, you’re not going to take American arms, you are not going to beat our own well-armed persons individual private militia that we have.’”

Palin further claimed ” I know my American history”.

She doesn’t know “history” from a “hysterectomy”

Keep in mind this is after she said THIS most recently about the Staue of Liberty;

~~~~~~~~~~­~~~~~~~~~~­~~~~~~~~~~­~~~~~~~~
“Lady Liberty is the symbol of unity and friendship we have with other freedom-lo­ving nations. It’s also a “warning” of sorts, as France encouraged us to keep democracy alive as the recipient of this gift… basically telling us not to blow it. Thank you for this reminder, France!” she wrote on her SarahPAC.c­om website.

~~~~~~~~~~­~~~~~~~~~~­~~~~~~~~~~­~~~~~~~~~~­~~~~~~~~~~­~~~~~~~~~~­~~~~~~~~~

AND …THIS last September;
~~~~~~~~~~­~~~~~~~~~~­~~~~~~~~~~­~~~~~
Sarah Palin appeared this weekend in Anchorage with her pal Glenn Beck. People waited in long lines to pay up to $225 for tickets, as the Anchorage Daily News reported. During the show, Palin said to the cheers of the crowd:

“This Statue of Liberty was gifted to us by foreign leaders, really as a warning to us. It was a warning to us to stay unique and to stay exceptiona­l from other countries. Certainly not to go down the path of other countries that adopted socialist policies,” Palin said to cheers from the crowd.”

WHAT countries had “socialist policies” in 1870

Clearly and well stated truth Angus and yet my fellow Rep/Cons will continue to back and support this dim bulb for reasons I just can’t understand.