More fun with Sarah
 

"thunder" wrote in message
t...
On Tue, 07 Jul 2009 06:27:57 -0400, Eisboch wrote:


What are you liberals so worried about?

Nothing for nothing, but she is a potential Presidential candidate. I
would expect media coverage of her, especially when she does something as
unusual as resigning in mid-term. As for those 16 ethics complaints, one
of which she filed against herself, they haven't all been without
foundation. She did have to repay moneys for her children's travel. A
minor offense I'll grant you, but most of the complaints are the result
of political infighting in one of our more dysfunctional and corrupt
states. Still, none of this would be news worthy on a national level, if
she wasn't a potential Presidential candidate.

Objectively speaking, I don't personally believe she is qualified to be
POTUS.
But sometimes it takes an earthquake or something to slow the swing of the
pendulum from it's current direction. The faddish momentum currently
enjoyed by some of the extreme left persuasion needs to be slowed a bit and
then brought back to a more moderate position, IMO. She might be the
annoying and frustrating earthquake to accomplish just that.

Meanwhile, it will be fun to watch some people continue their hissy fits as
she makes news everyday.

Eisboch

More fun with Sarah
 

On Tue, 07 Jul 2009 07:52:58 -0400, HK wrote:


Palin is a hypocrite. She knew she was carrying a fetus that would turn
out to be a seriously challenged child if born, and also knew that if
she aborted it, she'd lose "cred" with the right-wing simpies.

I don't know Harry, I don't think there are any women who would make that
decision, that lightly.

More fun with Sarah
 

On Jul 7, 6:52*am, HK wrote:
Captain Marvel of Woodstock wrote:



On Tue, 7 Jul 2009 06:27:57 -0400, "Eisboch"
wrote:

What are you liberals so worried about?

She's everything they claim they like in women - strong personality,
effective leadership, mother, interesting life story, good looking and
smart, but...

She's also a hunter, fisherman, Pro-Lifer, gun advocate which is
everything they hate - in particular the Pro-Life thing.

And she had the audacity to actually give birth to what they consider
a defective human being.

Guys like Jon and Harry are Nazi's when it comes to challenged or
physically handicapped children - eugenisists actually. Just as bad as
Goering or Hitler or Spangler. They don't see value in "defective"
children - they consider them "mistakes" and some how not worthy of
life.

Both of them are very sad bitter men.

Unfortunate.

Wow...you really swallowed the 8' asparagus, eh?



Herr Krause. 8" nor asparagus isn't close to what you have swallowed.

More fun with Sarah
 

Eisboch wrote:
"thunder" wrote in message
t...
On Tue, 07 Jul 2009 06:27:57 -0400, Eisboch wrote:


What are you liberals so worried about?
Nothing for nothing, but she is a potential Presidential candidate. I
would expect media coverage of her, especially when she does something as
unusual as resigning in mid-term. As for those 16 ethics complaints, one
of which she filed against herself, they haven't all been without
foundation. She did have to repay moneys for her children's travel. A
minor offense I'll grant you, but most of the complaints are the result
of political infighting in one of our more dysfunctional and corrupt
states. Still, none of this would be news worthy on a national level, if
she wasn't a potential Presidential candidate.

Objectively speaking, I don't personally believe she is qualified to be
POTUS.
But sometimes it takes an earthquake or something to slow the swing of the
pendulum from it's current direction. The faddish momentum currently
enjoyed by some of the extreme left persuasion needs to be slowed a bit and
then brought back to a more moderate position, IMO. She might be the
annoying and frustrating earthquake to accomplish just that.

Meanwhile, it will be fun to watch some people continue their hissy fits as
she makes news everyday.

Eisboch



Some of us are really enjoying her almost daily explosions and
implosions, because they hurt the "Republican brand." Some of us got the
same kick out of Governor Sanford's trials and tribulations for the same
reasons. I don't give a crap about the governor of South Carolina or his
problems, beyond what harm they can cause the GOP.

I guess that's hard for you and others here to understand.

Oh...speaking of Sarah, I suppose she and her lawyer have never heard of
New York Times v. Sullivan. Elected public officials, basically, cannot
use the courts effectively to attempt to chill criticism or reportage
about how they handle their jobs.

More fun with Sarah
 

"HK" wrote in message
...

Captain Marvel of Woodstock wrote:

On Tue, 7 Jul 2009 06:27:57 -0400, "Eisboch"
wrote:

What are you liberals so worried about?

She's everything they claim they like in women - strong personality,
effective leadership, mother, interesting life story, good looking and
smart, but...

She's also a hunter, fisherman, Pro-Lifer, gun advocate which is
everything they hate - in particular the Pro-Life thing.

And she had the audacity to actually give birth to what they consider
a defective human being.

Guys like Jon and Harry are Nazi's when it comes to challenged or
physically handicapped children - eugenisists actually. Just as bad as
Goering or Hitler or Spangler. They don't see value in "defective"
children - they consider them "mistakes" and some how not worthy of
life.

Both of them are very sad bitter men.

Unfortunate.






Wow...you really swallowed the 8' asparagus, eh?

Using your terms, I would charactize her as having an extremely flawed
personality, ineffective leadership abilities, being a bad mother, and
being no better than average looking. I've not seen any indicator she is
smart. She's better than ok, though, delivering a teleprompted speech, but
she sure as hell is lost in space without a script.


Yet, you remain infatuated by her, cutting and pasting media articles on
almost a daily basis.



I don't hate people who hunt, fish, or like guns, though I have no respect
for those who hunt with guns and call it "sport."


You live in Maryland. She lives in Alaska. Different culture.



I also have no respect for moms who do not teach their daughters (and sons)
about effective ways to prevent venereal diseases and unwanted pregnancies.

How do you know she didn't "teach"? I taught my kids a lot of things.
Some of it they listened to. Some, they didn't. They make mistakes.
So do I.




Palin is a hypocrite. She knew she was carrying a fetus that would turn
out to be a seriously challenged child if born, and also knew that if she
aborted it, she'd lose "cred" with the right-wing simpies.

Another biased Harry assumption. You have no idea what she thought
but proclaim your conclusion, as expected, as being "fact".



For you to claim I see no value in challenged kids says a lot more about
you than it does about me. For starters, it shows you to be completely
clueless.

All of us are clueless about some things. Tom's just trying to help you
out.

Eisboch

More fun with Sarah
 

Eisboch wrote:
"HK" wrote in message
...

Captain Marvel of Woodstock wrote:

On Tue, 7 Jul 2009 06:27:57 -0400, "Eisboch"
wrote:

What are you liberals so worried about?
She's everything they claim they like in women - strong personality,
effective leadership, mother, interesting life story, good looking and
smart, but...

She's also a hunter, fisherman, Pro-Lifer, gun advocate which is
everything they hate - in particular the Pro-Life thing.

And she had the audacity to actually give birth to what they consider
a defective human being.

Guys like Jon and Harry are Nazi's when it comes to challenged or
physically handicapped children - eugenisists actually. Just as bad as
Goering or Hitler or Spangler. They don't see value in "defective"
children - they consider them "mistakes" and some how not worthy of
life.

Both of them are very sad bitter men.

Unfortunate.





Wow...you really swallowed the 8' asparagus, eh?

Using your terms, I would charactize her as having an extremely flawed
personality, ineffective leadership abilities, being a bad mother, and
being no better than average looking. I've not seen any indicator she is
smart. She's better than ok, though, delivering a teleprompted speech, but
she sure as hell is lost in space without a script.


Yet, you remain infatuated by her, cutting and pasting media articles on
almost a daily basis.


Once again, my interest in Palin is in seeing she remains an anchor
dragging down the GOP ship of state, as it were.




I don't hate people who hunt, fish, or like guns, though I have no respect
for those who hunt with guns and call it "sport."


You live in Maryland. She lives in Alaska. Different culture.


We have plenty of "hunters" in Maryland. I don't consider hunting with
guns a sport.





I also have no respect for moms who do not teach their daughters (and sons)
about effective ways to prevent venereal diseases and unwanted pregnancies.

How do you know she didn't "teach"?

snerk








Palin is a hypocrite. She knew she was carrying a fetus that would turn
out to be a seriously challenged child if born, and also knew that if she
aborted it, she'd lose "cred" with the right-wing simpies.

Another biased Harry assumption. You have no idea what she thought
but proclaim your conclusion, as expected, as being "fact".



For you to claim I see no value in challenged kids says a lot more about
you than it does about me. For starters, it shows you to be completely
clueless.

All of us are clueless about some things. Tom's just trying to help you
out.

Eisboch



Tom should help himself out, and see a counselor about his bipolar
symptoms.

More fun with Sarah
 

thunder wrote:
On Tue, 07 Jul 2009 07:52:58 -0400, HK wrote:


Palin is a hypocrite. She knew she was carrying a fetus that would turn
out to be a seriously challenged child if born, and also knew that if
she aborted it, she'd lose "cred" with the right-wing simpies.

I don't know Harry, I don't think there are any women who would make that
decision, that lightly.


I didn't mean to imply she made the decision lightly. It was very
deliberate.

More fun with Sarah
 

"HK" wrote in message
m...

I guess that's hard for you and others here to understand.

Oh...speaking of Sarah, I suppose she and her lawyer have never heard of
New York Times v. Sullivan. Elected public officials, basically, cannot
use the courts effectively to attempt to chill criticism or reportage
about how they handle their jobs.


You really need a new angle. There's a difference between legality and
common decency.
Those of the extreme left persuasion are walking away from the difference.

Eisboch

More fun with Sarah
 

Eisboch wrote:
"HK" wrote in message
m...
I guess that's hard for you and others here to understand.

Oh...speaking of Sarah, I suppose she and her lawyer have never heard of
New York Times v. Sullivan. Elected public officials, basically, cannot
use the courts effectively to attempt to chill criticism or reportage
about how they handle their jobs.


You really need a new angle. There's a difference between legality and
common decency.
Those of the extreme left persuasion are walking away from the difference.

Eisboch




Uh...the point here is that Sarah and her legal beagle last saturday
threatened a reporter specifically with a lawsuit and other news
organizations generally with lawsuits if they reported there were
"rumors" floating around about her and potential legal problems.

That's the "legality" here.

Palin doesn't even have a stump to stand on in attempting to chill such
reportage. Perhaps if she calmed down some, and stopped playing "poor,
poor pitiful me" and the perpetual victim, she wouldn't be so obviously
earning the reputation as a nutcase she now has.

You know, if the internet had been around in the days of Joe McCarthy,
he would have lasted about a week. It's important to stomp political
demogogues into the ground, over and over and over and over, until they
show no possibilities of being revived for future political games. Palin
is a demogogue.

More fun with Sarah
 

"HK" wrote in message
m...
Eisboch wrote:
"HK" wrote in message
m...
I guess that's hard for you and others here to understand.

Oh...speaking of Sarah, I suppose she and her lawyer have never heard of
New York Times v. Sullivan. Elected public officials, basically, cannot
use the courts effectively to attempt to chill criticism or reportage
about how they handle their jobs.


You really need a new angle. There's a difference between legality and
common decency.
Those of the extreme left persuasion are walking away from the
difference.

Eisboch


Uh...the point here is that Sarah and her legal beagle last saturday
threatened a reporter specifically with a lawsuit and other news
organizations generally with lawsuits if they reported there were "rumors"
floating around about her and potential legal problems.

That's the "legality" here.

Palin doesn't even have a stump to stand on in attempting to chill such
reportage. Perhaps if she calmed down some, and stopped playing "poor,
poor pitiful me" and the perpetual victim, she wouldn't be so obviously
earning the reputation as a nutcase she now has.

You know, if the internet had been around in the days of Joe McCarthy, he
would have lasted about a week. It's important to stomp political
demogogues into the ground, over and over and over and over, until they
show no possibilities of being revived for future political games. Palin
is a demogogue.



Yada, yada, yada.

You have fun. I have to go put the charger on the VW bus, then go sell some
guitars.

Eisboch