This week's Quote of the Week sounds like it can from the captain of the high school cheerleading team, but, surprisingly, it came from former Republican Vice-Presidential nominee Sarah Palin.
She was lashing out at a report from Faux News that she did not know Africa was a continent and what countries were part of the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA). The reports from the McCain campaign were just confirming what glimpses we saw from the very few media interviews she did. Palin, of course, used the old GOP standby of blaming the media for her lack of intelligence, or maybe for daring to report it.
The weird thing is that during the campaign the press could not get within 10 feet of her to ask an impromptu question, but after the election I can't turn on the TV and not see her face. Granted, most of her appearances are on Entertainment Tonight and other show biz type shows, but isn't her 15 minutes up? We can only hope.
Her excuse for the more than $150,000 spent on her for clothes and makeup is laughable. Republican Party lawyers are still trying to determine exactly what clothing was purchased for Palin at such high-end stores as Saks Fifth Avenue and Neiman Marcus, what was returned and what has become of the rest.
But here is our Quote of the Week:
"That’s cruel. It’s mean-spirited. It’s immature. It’s unprofessional, and those guys are jerks if they came away with it, taking things out of context, and then tried to spread something on national news.”
50 comments:
I'm not a Palin fan, but come on. Unnamed people in McCain's camp came out and said she didn't know if Africa was a continent or a country. How crappy is that?
An unnamed source told me that Guru doesn't know his ass from a hole in the ground. Doesn't make it true.
I think this says more about the losers in the McCain camp than it says about Palin.
It doesn't make it true, nor does it make it untrue. Her past performances put it in the realm of possibility. I have been called a lot worse by right-wingers on this blog than "I don't know my ass from a hole in the ground." I think I know the difference, but I also know Africa is a continent and where North America is. I don't know how the people in the McCain camp are any more losers than those in the Palin camp. Their biggest mistake seems to be picking her as the running mate.
She was a poor pick, but I only ask you to be fair and consistent.
Is Biden an idiot? After all, he said that FDR went on TV to calm the nation when the stock market crashed. Only problems were that FDR wasn't president when the market crashed, and there wasn't TV then.
So, using your logic, I can say I heard from an unnamed source that Biden doesn't know if Serbia is a country or a province. It doesn't make it true, but it doesn't make it untrue. And given Biden's history, it's surely possible. After all, he doesn't even know what life he lived, since he stole a British politician's life in an admitted bit of plagiarism.
There are enough reasons to criticize Palin without relying on unnamed sources who are trying to cover their own behinds for losing the election.
I'll tell you what; post that on your blog. It was more than a poor pick. Polls show people are more comfortable with Joe Biden that Sarah Palin in the Oval Office if a tragedy ever occurred, including that big one on Nov. 4
So...are you saying Nov. 4 was a tragedy? That's odd.
So...are you saying Nov. 4 was a tragedy? That's odd.
No. If either VP candidate reached the Oval Office from that position a tragedy would have had to occur. The big poll on Nov. 4 conformed earlier polls that said people are more comfortable with Joe Biden instead of Sarah Palin in the Oval Office if a tragedy ever occurred.
That poll, meaning the election, was about Obama and McCain. I don't know if there ever has been election where a VP candidate was a factor. After all, Bush won after picking Dan Quayle.
Still, I don't think McCain helped himself by choosing Palin...I think some swing voters might have understandably wondered about his judgement.
It's funny, though. You accept the voters choice for president, but you scream about illegalities rather than accepting the voters choice on the Brighton school tax. On a percentage basis, the no voters spoke much more convincingly than did the Obama voters.
I think you are correct, to a point. Polls specifically asked who they would feel more comfortable with in the Oval Office, Palin or Biden, and people said Biden. The election confirmed that, but you are correct that the majority, maybe as much as 95 percent, voted for Obama or McCain, not the VP candidates.
But McCain chose Palin to shore up his conservative base, and for a while it really worked, until people learned more about her. Still, I'll bet just as many people voted for him because she was on the ticket as voted against him because she was on the ticket; keeping in mind the majority of voters were more concerned with who was at the top of the ticket.
I also accept the voter's choice in the Brighton school election. I don't have to like it or agree with it, which I don't, but of course I accept it. I'm not aware I have any other choice. However, what ticks me off more than the election that I didn’t have much of s stake in is the illegal and unethical way the county Republican Party acted.
You keep saying it was illegal. What was illegal?
And even if they as individuals were sympathetic to its defeat, why is that unethical? Are they not allowed an opinion in elections?
Were the people who voted against Obama unethical? You are sounding like Republicans who say liberals are unAmerican.
It was a ballot question which means that people have the option of voting yes or no.
Why do you keep saying they did something illegal? Does it make you feel smug to do that? I don't believe they even came out against it (which would be their right), and I have seen no evidence that the party did anything illegal.
(If the Parents group that paid for the signs failed to put their group's name on it, that was a mistake. But my experience with elections officials is that they don't consider that very serious, especially with novices and especially if there seemed to be no devious attempt. At most, election officials would ask the group to remedy the omission. And it's not as though the Parents group was going underground. The individuals made it clear who they were.)
Why do you feel the need to make knowingly false claims about the local Republican party?
How many times do I have to answer that? See the post called "Newspaper fails to find real cause for failure of bond milage" for that answer.
As I have said repeatedly, individuals can have an opinion and can do all they want, like donate to the committee legally formed to influence the election, phone bank for them or go door-to-door for them. But if a group is spending money to influence that election then they must be a registered ballot committee.
I never, ever said the people who voted against the ballot proposal are unethical, only that I disagree with them.
Why is OK for a partisan group to come out against a nonpartisan ballot issue? Even worse, they actively campaigned against it, so you went from unethical to illegal.
You are right that election officials don’t consider it very serious, and you can bet with a Republican county clerk and Secretary of State nothing will come of it. But for you to suggest it was an innocent mistake is ridiculous. Two members of the group are members of the county GOP executive committee and one is one of the best attorney's in the state. To say it was a mistake is ridiculous. How do you remedy it after the fact?
As for going underground, I don't believe I heard about this group until after the election. This was a front group for the Livingston County Republican Party, and that's where the evidence points.
I saw them on the front page of the paper at least a week before the election. John Conely was standing next to one of the signs. Hardly the way to hide your identity.
You keep saying you've proved something when you haven't. Where is the proof that the Livingston County Republicans actively campaigned against the issue?
The fact that someone who campaigned against it is also a member of the party is not proof. I'm a member of a church. A pretty active member. I'm on the church council. If I go out and campaign for or against someone, does that mean the church actively and illegally campaigned in a political race? Of course not.
You didn't like the fact that the issue lost. You didn't like the fact that signs were stored at the Republican office. You don't like the Republican party. So you made a leap and made a false accusation and you won't back down from it.
I don't doubt that those in the Republican leadership were sympathetic to the anti-tax campaign. I can respect your opinion. I see no evidence, though, that they even endorse a "no" vote, which they would have every right to do. But they didn't. You cross the line when you accuse them of illegal actions. I've read your posts. You accuse them of illegally spending money on the campaign and you say they must have been campaigning against the tax with their phone calls. You offer no proof; you are as bad as Hannity and Limbaugh...and that's saying a lot.
seems like a trend here. When someone proves you wrong, you get angry at them, you insult them, you lie about what you've said in the past or you ignore them. Well, at least you didn't pull my post.
The Republican GOP in Livingston County did nothing illegal. Even if everything you say is true...which is a stretch...they did nothing illegal.
Signs were left at their building. not illegal.
Signs were placed in the community without proper identification. A mistake, but since the county GOP didn't pay for them, they did nothing illegal.
Some members of the group behind the anti-tax push are also members of the county GOP. Big whoop.
Face it. You think it's okay for Democrats to do anything but if the weather isn't to your liking, somehow it's the Republicans' fault.
You are weak. Unworthy of my time.
Well, there would be a trend if you had actually proved me wrong, but that's not the case. And just for the sake of argument and you acutely did prove me wrong; a trend is something that has to happen more than once. No wonder you refuse to take ownership of the crap you write with a screen name.
The only posts that were deleted were the ones that used the ugly smear that you have been warned about repeatedly. The fact is you only do it so the post will be deleted so you can claim some kind of victory or something.
The Republican GOP in Livingston County did do something illegal. The evidence is there. You refuse to believe it, but what else can you expect from a rightwing troll.
Signs were not just "left at their building? They were distributed out of their building. Yes, I agree with you, signs were placed in the community without proper identification, but that was no mistake and that's just one violation.
Wow. What a rebuke. Some cowardly anonymous troll says I'm weak and unworthy of his time. Thank you for the compliment. Good. That means I won't hear from you again.
You still have not shown that the Republican Party did anything illegal. Is storing signs at their building illegal? And, to take a page from your playbook, if it's illegal, then why don't you report it to the authorities? You know the answer: there was nothing illegal.
You said they spent money actively opposing the issue. What money? How much? Where is your proof? I read your original post...which was pretty lame...and there is absolutely no proof...just stupid, unsubstantiated allegations.
You wrote that the so-called stealth campaign was underground until after the election. Yet I pointed out to you a front page story with picture that appeared well before the election. No response...as usual.
The facts are simple: A number of people formed a group to oppose the tax. The group included Republicans; perhaps most or all were Republicans. Of those Republicans, some are on the party executive committee (or so you say; you've not provided the proof or links that you demand from others). One member of the Parents Union group asked if their signs could be stored at the republican center and passed out to those who wanted them. The party agreed. That's it. From that you've alleged they broke campaign laws, spent money to defeat the millage, illegally failed to identify themselves on the sign (you ignore the obvious..they weren't their signs), and you even allege that they campaigned against the school tax in their phone banks. No facts, no backing up and, from what I know, everything you allege is false.
Yes, if there is no identification on the signs, it is a violation. My experience is that state election officials (regardless of the party) don't get too upset at this as long as it doesn't continue or if there was no ill intent involved. There has been no complaint filed that I know of, so we won't know who the state election officials would react. But since the organizers clearly and publicly stated who they are, there was obviously no intent to deceive. Had there been a complaint, my guess the officials would have: a) explained the law to them and told them to abide by it next time: b) or, at the worst, asked them to tape their organization's name on the signs. I've seen that happen multiple times in the past.
You never cease to be stupid. You keep saying a partisan group should get involved in a nonpartisan ballot issue. That's stupid in so many ways.
First, they have every right to get involved. You may disagree with their position, and that's your right. But they have every right. Just like Democrats supported Hathaway, stem cell research and medical marijuana. That's their right. In fact, it was Democrats who put the so-called reform issue on the ballot in an effort to get rid of Republican judges and control legislative redistricting. That was totally a Democratic-backed ballot issue. And they lied about their involvement and failed to acknowledge it, even after taped power points emerged showing their involvement and their strategy. Where is your outrage there? (By the way, the voters are a lot smarter than you give them credit for. Despite the Democrats' deception, voters soundly defeated the ballot issue.)
And what exactly do you mean by "nonpartisan" ballot issues? All ballot issue are nonpartisan. So are you saying that the Republican party can never take a position on any ballot issue?
I go back to my original claim. You have absolutely no use for demcracy.
A lot of words to say nothing. I have debated this back and forth, and you have nothing new.
I'll waste few wards. The Livingston County Republicans illegally and unethically spent money to influence a nonpartisan ballot question in violation of campaign finance law.
One other thing. This has nothing to do with the Quote of the Week, and these comments do not belong here.
What I have no use for is trolls.
Again, when I clearly debunk your obvious lies, you pull my post and lie about the reason. You are pathethic,
What money did the Republicans spend?
Did you approve of the Democratic stealth act when the party tried to pull a fast one on the state's voters?
What do you have against Democracy? The Brighton voters defeated the school tax and the state voters defeated the Democratic ruse ballot issue. You ignore the Democrats' slime and you falsely...and groundlessly...accuse the Republicans of illegal acts.
And when I prove my point, you accuse me of things I never did.
What a loser.
For the hundredth time, your posts are only deleted when you use the false, cowardly smear you have been repeatedly waned about. You are also invited to repost your comments minus the words you were warned not to use. Instead, you falsely cry about being censored.
The county spent money on the signs, and that's just what we know about.
The Democrats never tried to "pull a fast one on the state's voters" stealthily or otherwise.
I have nothing against Democracy. I understand the Brighton voters defeated the mileage, but the Constitution says I have the right to disagree and can express that opinion. I have no idea what "Democrats' slime" you are talking about. The only point you have proved is how stupid, stubborn and cowardly you are.
And once again, your comments have nothing to do with the original post. I will not let a cowardly troll afraid to take ownership of the slim he writes hijack this thread.
Now you say the county paid for the signs?
What proof do you have that either the county or the Republicans paid for those sign? None...you haven't offered any. You've just pulled down my posts under false pretenses.
Of course you have the right to your opinion. But you have stated allegations as facts, and they aren't true.
You say I have made a false, cowardly smear. That's a lie. That's a total lie. And the one time you tried to prove it, another poster quickly called you on it.
No, I meant to say the County GOP paid for the signs. Since no one had the courage to put the proper disclaimer to say who paid for the signs, it says to me the GOP paid for them. Again, don't tell me it was an unintentional mistake because two members of the front group are on the county GOP executive committee and the third of the four alleged members is one of the best attorneys in the state. They know they are required to do that.
Are fucking serous? Some ass posting as anonymous made a false, cowardly smear. Are you not anonymous?
Last warning, troll. Your comments have nothing to do with the original post. I will not let a cowardly troll afraid to take ownership of the slim he writes hijack this thread. Understand?
Last warning? OOOOOO. Will Guru not like me anymore?
All I asked was that you prove that anyone made a false smear against you. I don't see it. Neither do others. If it's so obvious, point it out.
According to you: Since no one put their name on it, that's proof that it must have been the Republicans? You are such a moron to even make that argument.
Hey...no one put their name on the Mona Lisa...so the Republicans must have done that as well.
oh..oh...is guru going to cry, or is he going to throw out another f-bomb...or is he going to give me another "last warning/"
Or what...are you threatening physical violence? Or are you just going to lie and distort some more?
I try to talk about the original post. I provide specific, documented facts. And rather than debate, you dismiss them as "opinion", repeat your unsubstantiated claims and remove my posts for reasons as false as your other arguments.
It's pretty simple, but I will make it easy even for a cowardly troll to understand. Stay on topic or your comments will be deleted. You can post your lies on the post where I call you and your Republican friends out on your illegal and unethical campaign tactics.
I guess you didn't understand.
Clearly, you don't understand. Bye, troll.
I understand that you are the liar and the coward. You have to live with that.
Look, the coward who anonymous smears me is calling me a coward and liar. That's funny. Thanks for the compliment, troll. I let your comment stay this time, but make sure the next one stays on topic. You can continue to call me all the names you want; just make sure it's in context with the post, and that means the Quote of the Week or Caribou Barbie.
That's fair, actually.
Censorship. The Democrat way. Get used to it. This is how Obama and his henchmen will be running the country for the next two years.
Who was censored?
From 2:47: Stay on topic or your comments will be deleted.
From 4:22: I let your comment stay this time,
From 11:23am: For the hundredth time, your posts are only deleted
From 8:11am: The only posts that were deleted
All of the above sound like censorship to me. Good liberal.
Dems like guru are all for free speech...as long as they get to decide which speech is free.
Wrong again, troll. Only the government can censor, troll. All you had to do was follow the rules, and nothing would have been deleted. You also had the opportunity to repost them minus the words you were asked not to use. Plus, you can post all those comments on your own blog, and no one can stop you. Of course, I can sue you for libel.
so i posted, following the rules, and he deletes again. What a loser.
I also gave him a brief but accurate lesson about libel and censorship...which is ironic since he libels the Republican party and censors my posts. The dumbest thing he does...and that's saying a lot...is take advice from dargo.
Once again, governments can censor, but there are forms of censorship that don't involve governments. It's pretty simple really. If you try real hard, even you could understand.
It appears someone needs some attention.
Momma not giving you the tit again?
Really, you should grow up and SAY NO to the boobie.
That is a complete lie, troll. You were warned repeatedly not to use the false smear I warned you about, and I also warned you, repeatedly, that if you used the words the post would be deleted. It didn’t come out of the blue. Then I repeatedly warned you to stay on topic, and again you refused. I also gave you the option of both posting the remarks minus the two words, and reposting it on the proper thread. You refused both offers so you could make this ridiculous and false claim of censorship.
I agree you gave a brief description of censorship and libel, but it was not accurate. I didn’t “libels (sic) the Republican party” for two reasons. First, what I said was true, or at the very least true as I currently know it. Second, you can’t libel an organization, especially a public one.
Here is the 1st Amendment: “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech.”
Perhaps you can explain how that is extended to me? I am not congress. You can repost your comments following the established rules. Or better yet, post that garbage on your own blog. With those options how can it possibly be censorship?”
It's pretty simple really. If you try real hard, even you could understand.
It's amazing what these guys resort to when they are getting intellectually clobbered. Guru goes for BS and f-bombs; dargo apparently has some unsettled issues with his mother's sexuality. Get some help, guys.
Meanwhile, Guru invents an interesting line of logic. When he makes a claim, it's accurate as long as he thinks that maybe it coulda, shoulda, mighta been possibly true in some nonexistent universe.
Meanwhile, others who stick to the truth are booted off his site.
You keep saying I made a false smear. But I didn't. I did use an example of how it is possible to smear someone, but I specifically pointed out that it was an example and it wasn't true. In fact, I've asked you to produce the smear that I supposedly made, and you can't. Another poster pulled my quotes (one who isn't "anonymous" and also pointed out that there wasn't a smear.) Yet, I make posts that debunk your assertions and you pull them under the premise that they contain smears that don't exist.
But let's say I want to smear you. Will you allow it as long as I say I think it's true? Or is that a right you reserve only for yourself?
What are amazing are your claims. Some troll that can’t win an argument and makes false, anonymous smears is claiming I am getting “intellectually clobbered.” I would make the same claim about about your language or sexuality, but you’re too cowardly to even identify yourself with a screen name.
No one has ever been booted off this site. I have deleted comments after repeated warnings to follow the rules. One person has had his comments deleted, but he knows what he has to do to get his posts on. Hell, I’m sure he posts her anonymously anyway, and for all I know it’s you.
I can’t make heads or tails of this rant:
“You keep saying I made a false smear. But I didn't. I did use an example of how it is possible to smear someone, but I specifically pointed out that it was an example and it wasn't true. In fact, I've asked you to produce the smear that I supposedly made, and you can't. Another poster pulled my quotes (one who isn't "anonymous" and also pointed out that there wasn't a smear.) Yet, I make posts that debunk your assertions and you pull them under the premise that they contain smears that don't exist.”
Who are you, and how do I tell you apart from the other anonymous troll who allegedly pulled your quotes?
This is so simple that even a cowardly, troll like you who hides behind anonymity can understand. When you make smears that you were warned about your posts will be deleted. You know what it is because you post it on four posts at the same time. You will not be allowed to highjack a thread. If you try, your posts will be deleted. But that’s after being warned at least twice.
Wow. Nice long post. And lots of name-calling. But no substance.
Where is that example of an unwarranted smear? Why won't you produce it?
Plus, I offered to identify myself...but it was a wager that you were unwilling to accept. Given the fact that it would have exposed your lies, I don't blame you.
That’s news to me. Make the wager again. I have never asked you to identify yourself. I said register a screen name with Google so people know who is posting what.
Someone posts here as "anonymous" which is apparently permitted by the guy running the blog, but the guy running the blog complains about someone posting as "anonymous". He even goes so far as to call the person named "anonymous" cowardly for not revealing his name. Meanwhile, he posts as "communications guru". If we follow communications guru's rules, the only thing that I can say about this is that I feel sorry for him. Mrs. Guru gave him a strange name. I wonder of Mr. Guru is listed in the phone book. That's a name I'd like to see listed.
The “guy running the blog” is me, and the person posting anonymous is you, anonymous, troll. Let me explain this to you, troll. You can click on my name and Dargo’s name, and it takes you to our profiles. That profile is available to anyone who clicks on our name, no mater where we comment. That way, you don’t give away your real name, but you take ownership of what you write. Plus, my real name is common knowledge, and I post the same stuff using my real name over at Opinion Artillery.
If you can’t understand that, I’ll explain it using smaller words.
News to you? Funny, when I made the offer, you asked if I was stupid. Now you feign ignorance. Well, in your case, you probably don't have to pretend that much.
Then someone else posts and asks fair questions and you immediately spew at him/her. There is at least one "anonymous" and perhaps more and one "not anonymous" who either question your logic or ask reasonable questions...and you take off on them indiscriminately.
I've asked in several places for you to show where I've accused you of these horrible words that offend you so much. I used them to make a point, that was probably beyond your sophistication. But I never accused you of anything. Another poster listed all the quotes and came to the same conclusion...that I didn't accuse you of the dastardly deed. But you ignored his point and then insulted him.
I have no idea who "not anonymous" is. But he/she politetly asks a question and you attack him/her with an insult.
Yes, news to me, troll. There is only one anonymous, and it’s you, troll.
Once again, you are asked to put up..you won't. Unfortunately, you won't shut up either.
Where is the example that you were accused of something sinister?
You lied. I clicked on Ka dargo's name. What it says is that his name is Ka Dargo and he's in Howell. In fact, he could be you using a different name. In fact, I think he is you using a different name. The point is though that he is anonymous as well.
Man, are you really that stupid, troll? Look at the 8:41 comment. I’ll reproduce it because I don’t think you’re smart enough to find it on you own:
“The “guy running the blog” is me, and the person posting anonymous is you, anonymous, troll. Let me explain this to you, troll. You can click on my name and Dargo’s name, and it takes you to our profiles. That profile is available to anyone who clicks on our name, no mater where we comment. That way, you don’t give away your real name, but you take ownership of what you write. Plus, my real name is common knowledge, and I post the same stuff using my real name over at Opinion Artillery.”
You click on his profile. No matter where he posts, that screen name is what he posts under. Is it not anonymous. To get your screen name you have to register and sign in every time you want to comment. That way, genius, what you write is associated with your unique screen name. No one else can post under that screen name. Millions of people can post anonymously.
I’ve heard the ridiculous claim that Dargo and I are the same person, so this must be brett. It’s not true. I don’t see the point. What would he say that I wouldn’t say?
So, it's fair to attribute to you a comment like, "Momma's not giving you the tit again," since you would say whatever he says.
Real nice.
But it proves your hypocrisy. You decline to debate real issues presented to you and hide behind a fabricated excuse of forbidden words and non-thread arguments. But dargo (who is virtually you, by your own admission) can spew hate...and you drop f-bombs as you as you are cornered by the foolishness of your own arguments.
So I guess I can say that you are still sucking mothers' tits...and you won't pull my post. Or is it only you/dargo who get to do that?
Now I'm brett? You must have a real obsession with brett. You've accused everyone of being him. Brett must be a pretty smart fella if you hate him so much to keep accusing everyone of being him. You still continue to fixate on people and who they are than you do on the words that are written here in response to your delusions.
Here's a suggestion for you. Just delete anyone that doesn't agree with you then you can save yourself the trouble of having to defend your indefensible positions without worry of the intelligent thinkers daring to question your BS.
Post a Comment