borisp wrote:
How do you mean "lie"? If it quacks like socialist, if it walks like socialist, if it calls itself "socialists workers party", - it is socialist.

What's not socialistic? Declaration that human rights are secondary to the "Common Good"? Check. Declaration that The Party knows what "Common Good" is? Check. Declaration that the Government should direct the economy and decide, for the sake of the "Common Good", how to allocate and redistribute? Check. Social programs? Check. Identity politics? Hell, yeah! Check!

Where's the lie? In the fact that Russian socialists went ALL THE WAY? Well, yes. This is why we call them "Communists", - because they went all the way down that road.

Quote:

Putin is the same centuries old Russian despotism and corruption with the 70 year veneer of Bolshevism ripped off. It's always all about power, money, and oligarchy.

Ah. I see. And Brezhnev was all about... True Good of The People? Khrushev was about freedom and unicorns?

Putin is more openly corrupt, and that's it. He rules with the same pronouncements that The Government must control the everything for the sake of Common Good.

Adonis wrote:
Quote:

borisp wrote:
Quote:

Vigilante wrote:
Some people try to sell her as a down home, simple truths, Mr Smith Goes to Washington type when in reality she is the Beverly Hillbillies try to fly a 747 type.

Oh, I agree. She is not true intellectual thinker like people here.

LOL!!!!

CSURugbyHooker wrote:

Youbetcha! Considering she wore the Star of David in Israel and now when touring NYC, I'd say she's (hopelessly) pandering to:
1. The large Jewish population of the city.
2. Evangelical Christians.
Solidarity with Israel is all the rage these days.

borisp wrote:
However, would you care to give an example of said "pandering and exploitative ideology"?

borisp wrote:
Quote:

Vigilante wrote:
Some people try to sell her as a down home, simple truths, Mr Smith Goes to Washington type when in reality she is the Beverly Hillbillies try to fly a 747 type.

Oh, I agree. She is not true intellectual thinker like people here.

brewster wrote:
[quote]Hitler and Putin socialists!! Good grief!! National Socialism was just another Big Lie like i was talking about!

Putin is the same centuries old Russian despotism and corruption with the 70 year veneer of Bolshevism ripped off. It's always all about power, money, and oligarchy.

Seriously? The seniors who thought they were supporting fiscal responsibility are fleeing the movement when someone actually proposes cutting SS or medicare.

According to this Marist poll 70% of tea bagger oppose cuts to Medicare & Medicaid.

borisp wrote:
Putin is not very well informed, - judging by the Dan Rather episode, for instance. And he is not all that coherent.

However, how did those socialists enter this conversion?

As far as I heard, they [tea partiers] target entitlements. Where are you getting your information from?

brewster wrote:
Ummm, there's plenty of demagogues and despots who fit that category, from Hitler to Putin.

She's incapable of actual interactive dialog, the interviews & debates made that clear, she can only regurgitate talking points, usually unrelated to the question asked.

They tell people they can cut government spending but not touch entitlements or the military.

These are all Palin's people, the ones who believe in fairies, the rapture, the birther myth, that Saddam was behind 9/11

brewster wrote:
Quote:

borisp wrote:
Yeah, right ON! Coherent and informed! Who would not despise THAT combination!

Ummm, there's plenty of demagogues and despots who fit that category, from Hitler to Putin. No one ever said being smart and educated kept one from being evil or misguided.

Quote:

"Scripted" - sure. I hate those politico's with their teleprompters!

However, would you care to give an example of said "pandering and exploitative ideology"?

She's incapable of actual interactive dialog, the interviews & debates made that clear, she can only regurgitate talking points, usually unrelated to the question asked. As for P & E, why, that's the whole leadership of the Tea Baggers. They tell people they can cut government spending but not touch entitlements or the military. If you eliminated the entire nonmilitary discretionary budget we'd still have a deficit. The USA, financially speaking, is an insurance company with an army, but the Tea Baggers think we blow it all on NPR, welfare queens and abortion clinics.

These are all Palin's people, the ones who believe in fairies, the rapture, the birther myth, that Saddam was behind 9/11, that they'll ever pay estate tax, that "Joe the Plumber" would ever make $250k, the list of crap that is shoved down their credulous throats is endless. There's an entire well financed industry devoted to using social issues and bad math to get working class people to vote against their own interest, because if they didn't, the GOP would never win an election again. That's exploitative.

borisp wrote:
Yeah, right ON! Coherent and informed! Who would not despise THAT combination!

"Scripted" - sure. I hate those politico's with their teleprompters!

However, would you care to give an example of said "pandering and exploitative ideology"?

borisp wrote:
Quote:

sepecat wrote:
What's with all the photoshops?

Vodoo.

sepecat wrote:
What's with all the photoshops?

Vigilante wrote:
Some people try to sell her as a down home, simple truths, Mr Smith Goes to Washington type when in reality she is the Beverly Hillbillies try to fly a 747 type.

brewster wrote:
Much as I despise Limbaugh, she could never do what he does, hold forth every day with relatively coherent and informed monologues

She has nothing to temper her profound ignorance but a scripted, pandering and exploitative ideology aimed directly at our citizens as ignorant as she.

T-Bird wrote:
1a. She quit so the "frivolous ethics claims" would stop. Her words.

1b. She has no "achievements" other than to become a cultural icon. She has no policy nor meaningful political achievements. Not sure what you can't understand about that.

2. I suspect you are being willfully obtuse here - you cannot deny she was put forth as a candidate because she was a woman. There were easily a dozen male Republicans with vastly greater qualifications - some of them just as conservative as Palin.

3. People get paid money for all sorts of things - doesn't mean it is earned. Farmers get paid to not grow crops.

I'm not saying she doesn't have a following and I recognize she generates some level of ratings - again, that is a reflection of her status as a popular figure. You can't honestly tell me you listen to her as a political figure/leader

4. You couldn't be more wrong - maybe two and a half years ago, but she's a stale punchline at this point.

5. I can't understand a word of this.

sepecat wrote:
What's with all the photoshops?

Um, McFly, hello?? The 2008 presidential election proved that all you need to be is a cultural icon in order to win the White House. Or at least that's all you need to be to appeal to Democratic voters.

T-Bird wrote:
If you say she is a cultural figure, in the way Rush Limbaugh, Geraldo Rivera and Simon Cowell are, that's a different equation.

T-Bird wrote:
1b. She has no "achievements" other than to become a cultural icon. She has no policy nor meaningful political achievements. Not sure what you can't understand about that.

borisp wrote:

4. I do not think that "liberals fear Palin", - I observe it. There are very, very, very few politicians that trigger this kind of hateful response from their opponents.

T-Bird wrote:
No - she wasn't forced to resign. Worse, she played the victim - a Palin hallmark. She claimed she was quitting because she had to spend too much time defending herself against "frivolous ethics claims". Clinton, Bush and Obama all dealt with this on a level probably ten to a thousand times greater, all the while running the country - a task considerably greater than running Alaska. So on what terms do we measure her "success"? Is she successful compared to other PTA presidents and town council members of 9,000 people municipalities? Sure. Is she successful compared to people on both sides of the political divide who have real accomplishments and lengthy experience at the national level? Are you really going to make that claim?

I wasn't defining her as a woman nor making any claims about her qualifications that she herself didn't make. Hockey Mom and Pit bull with lipstick were how she chose to introduce herself to the country. She could have talked about her past accomplishments, her education, her commitment to certain issues. No, she talked about her uterus.

And again with the money. Oliver Perez is making $12 million this year, even though he was cut by the Mets and is currently out of baseball. He didn't steal that money either. Is he successful? Bill Swanson of Merrillville, Indiana won $74 million last month in Powerball. Is he successful? Leona Helmsley's dog, Trouble, inherited $12 million. Is s/he successful?

My opinion of her views has nothing to do with defining her success. There are plenty on the left who I feel similarly about - Al Sharpton comes readily to mind. But you are seriously out of touch if you think liberals fear Sarah Palin. I traffic with liberals and can tell you that everyone I know salivates at the idea of Sarah Palin as the republican nominee for President. I don't really see the hateful reaction you talk about - I mostly see/hear laughter.

Let's be honest - whatever her qualifications, and I'm happy to agree to disagree on those, she is far too thin-skinned to run for President, let alone actually hold the job.

SwitchboardGirl wrote: Quote:

Crazy_Chester wrote: These millionaires were in NYC and chose La Famiglia as their pizza spot. And people want them to run this country?

Haa haa, thanks for putting my thoughts into a great post.