Sarah Palin is an evil idiot

[jason_c]

Ally, my main arguement is not aimed at avoiding a Palin discussion, or throwing mud at others. Im simply trying to establish how often you throw around the word evil.

Evil seems to be mainly an oath thing.

[Ally]

No. It's mainly a magnitude thing. I am talking about Sarah Palin's oathbreaking because that's what counts in so far as her suitability to run for public office. I do not care about her personal relationship failings because they are IRRELEVANT. But America seems to feel that what occurs in the bedroom is more relevant to a person's candidacy than what they do with their office and their professional behavior.

You want to get into Sarah Palin's personal evil? One could ask why she agreed to the nomination knowing it would put her unwed, underage, accidentally pregnant daughter in the spotlight and under the glare of all those lights. Unlike when Edwards ran for office, she had prior knowledge that there was a pregnancy bomb waiting to go off. Especially when she knew she'd be standing up there preaching abstinence only sex education with her daughter as a glaring example of that policy failure for all to point at. At least with Edwards there is absolutely no public policy concerned with extramarital affairs he'd be required to stand up and give a hypocritical speech about. Palin actually lectured on abstinence only education, despite a personal glaring failure of that policy. She knew going in what doing so would mean. I don't believe her daughter should have been brought into it, but everyone knew it was going to happen with Palin up there preaching abstinence only. Does her choosing to run over the well-being of her daughter mean she is unsuitable to be President? No. It says nothing about her professionally (except perhaps it's hard to believe anyone that clueless could be a good president) though it says loads about her as a mother.

If you want to talk about her professional evil, there's a lot more, but once again, it comes down to magnitude: Trying to fire a trooper who was engaged in a custody dispute with her sister shows how she uses her office for personal gain. Trying to fire a librarian for refusing to ban books shows she's a petty tyrant. There are numerous examples of her using her office for personal gain, which is not unusual, in and of itself but shows the kind of grasping, self-absorbed person that she is.

But there is a flat bottom line that sets her apart from all the other grasping politicians: She chucked her oath and her responsibilities when a better opportunity presented.

She abandoned the highest office in her state for more money and more fame, and people want to reward her for that with the highest office in the country. Anyone who actually believes this woman deserves the highest power in our land, seeing how she tossed aside the highest office in her state, has absolutely no fingers to point when it comes to holding people accountable for their actions.

[protohistorian]

Seems like Simple Sarah fits all three definitions, regardless of how often Ally uses the word.

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/evil

[jason_c]

No. It's mainly a magnitude thing. I am talking about Sarah Palin's oathbreaking because that's what counts in so far as her suitability to run for public office. I do not care about her personal relationship failings because they are IRRELEVANT. But America seems to feel that what occurs in the bedroom is more relevant to a person's candidacy than what they do with their office and their professional behavior.

You want to get into Sarah Palin's personal evil? One could ask why she agreed to the nomination knowing it would put her unwed, underage, accidentally pregnant daughter in the spotlight and under the glare of all those lights. Unlike when Edwards ran for office, she had prior knowledge that there was a pregnancy bomb waiting to go off. Especially when she knew she'd be standing up there preaching abstinence only sex education with her daughter as a glaring example of that policy failure for all to point at. At least with Edwards there is absolutely no public policy concerned with extramarital affairs he'd be required to stand up and give a hypocritical speech about. Palin actually lectured on abstinence only education, despite a personal glaring failure of that policy. She knew going in what doing so would mean. I don't believe her daughter should have been brought into it, but everyone knew it was going to happen with Palin up there preaching abstinence only. Does her choosing to run over the well-being of her daughter mean she is unsuitable to be President? No. It says nothing about her professionally (except perhaps it's hard to believe anyone that clueless could be a good president) though it says loads about her as a mother.

If you want to talk about her professional evil, there's a lot more, but once again, it comes down to magnitude: Trying to fire a trooper who was engaged in a custody dispute with her sister shows how she uses her office for personal gain. Trying to fire a librarian for refusing to ban books shows she's a petty tyrant. There are numerous examples of her using her office for personal gain, which is not unusual, in and of itself but shows the kind of grasping, self-absorbed person that she is.

But there is a flat bottom line that sets her apart from all the other grasping politicians: She chucked her oath and her responsibilities when a better opportunity presented.

She abandoned the highest office in her state for more money and more fame, and people want to reward her for that with the highest office in the country. Anyone who actually believes this woman deserves the highest power in our land, seeing how she tossed aside the highest office in her state, has absolutely no fingers to point when it comes to holding people accountable for their actions.

Illegaly using campaign contributions to finance his lovers lifesyle.


This officer she tried to fire tasered an 11 year old boy. But yeah, she's the evil one.

[Ally]

She used her political office to try get her sisters ex fired. I don't care if he is guilty of cold-blooded murder, one abuse of power does not excuse another. First of all the kid asked to be tased to see what it felt like. Was it stupid on the dad's part, yes beyond doubt. But it was hardly a cold blooded act of evil. She fired the head of the police for refusing to fire her brother in law. She is a skank. IF the guy had actually done something illegal and that wrong, he would have been fired. He clearly didn't.

Palin has also used campaign contributions illegally. I understand you want to keep pointing at Edwards, because he's about all you got, but notice, no democrat considers him a candidate any more. Maybe democrats hold people to higher ethics than Republicans do, despite all that Republican preaching about values.

[jason_c]

She used her political office to try get her sisters ex fired. I don't care if he is guilty of cold-blooded murder, one abuse of power does not excuse another. First of all the kid asked to be tased to see what it felt like. Was it stupid on the dad's part, yes beyond doubt. But it was hardly a cold blooded act of evil. She fired the head of the police for refusing to fire her brother in law. She is a skank. IF the guy had actually done something illegal and that wrong, he would have been fired. He clearly didn't.

Palin has also used campaign contributions illegally. I understand you want to keep pointing at Edwards, because he's about all you got, but notice, no democrat considers him a candidate any more. Maybe democrats hold people to higher ethics than Republicans do, despite all that Republican preaching about values.

Charles Rangel suggests otherwise.

[Ally]

True enough however unlike Palinites, there's no one on here bitching about how he's wrongly perceived as being a dirtbag.

Palin is just as much a scumbag as Rangel and I suppose there will always be those groups who really don't care what a person has done, it's all about who they are.

And again, I do notice you aren't able to defend a single thing Palin has actually done, just continue to drag in anyone else who's ever done wrong to try and deflect.

Which means, you know she's a piece of pathetic slime and there is no real defense of her possible.

[jason_c]

No. It's mainly a magnitude thing. I am talking about Sarah Palin's oathbreaking because that's what counts in so far as her suitability to run for public office. I do not care about her personal relationship failings because they are IRRELEVANT. But America seems to feel that what occurs in the bedroom is more relevant to a person's candidacy than what they do with their office and their professional behavior.

You want to get into Sarah Palin's personal evil? One could ask why she agreed to the nomination knowing it would put her unwed, underage, accidentally pregnant daughter in the spotlight and under the glare of all those lights. Unlike when Edwards ran for office, she had prior knowledge that there was a pregnancy bomb waiting to go off. Especially when she knew she'd be standing up there preaching abstinence only sex education with her daughter as a glaring example of that policy failure for all to point at. At least with Edwards there is absolutely no public policy concerned with extramarital affairs he'd be required to stand up and give a hypocritical speech about. Palin actually lectured on abstinence only education, despite a personal glaring failure of that policy. She knew going in what doing so would mean. I don't believe her daughter should have been brought into it, but everyone knew it was going to happen with Palin up there preaching abstinence only. Does her choosing to run over the well-being of her daughter mean she is unsuitable to be President? No. It says nothing about her professionally (except perhaps it's hard to believe anyone that clueless could be a good president) though it says loads about her as a mother.

If you want to talk about her professional evil, there's a lot more, but once again, it comes down to magnitude: Trying to fire a trooper who was engaged in a custody dispute with her sister shows how she uses her office for personal gain. Trying to fire a librarian for refusing to ban books shows she's a petty tyrant. There are numerous examples of her using her office for personal gain, which is not unusual, in and of itself but shows the kind of grasping, self-absorbed person that she is.

But there is a flat bottom line that sets her apart from all the other grasping politicians: She chucked her oath and her responsibilities when a better opportunity presented.

She abandoned the highest office in her state for more money and more fame, and people want to reward her for that with the highest office in the country. Anyone who actually believes this woman deserves the highest power in our land, seeing how she tossed aside the highest office in her state, has absolutely no fingers to point when it comes to holding people accountable for their actions.

This quote is where I drop out. Your clearly unhinged on the subject of Sarah Palin.

[Ally]

LOL..so what you didn't read it the first time you responded to that post? You waited a few more posts before reading it and then deciding to drop out? I am not the one unhinged. That'd be you.

You do realize you have the option of deleting within the quote tags so you don't have to quote an entire forty paragraph post to respond to one line? Always glad to educate the unlearned.

Ta.

[protohistorian]

Idiot anyway!

http://www.facebook.com/l.php?u=http%3A%2F%2Fnews.yahoo.com%2Fs%2Fnm%2F20110204%2Fus_nm%2Fus_palin_trademark&h=a05cf

[ChainzCooper]

This is why I don't like politics. You can disagree with someone without calling them harsh names like evil and idiot.Would you like someone calling you that?Once you've personally insulted someone in a debate I think the other person has won the discussion
Jordan

[Limehouse]

This is why I don't like politics. You can disagree with someone without calling them harsh names like evil and idiot.Would you like someone calling you that?Once you've personally insulted someone in a debate I think the other person has won the discussion
Jordan

Well Hitler was evil - that's for sure. I suppose the best plan is not to give anyone a reason to call you evil or idiotic.

[The Good Michael]

Palin is supported by the Teabaggers and the NRA and the closed-minded Christian Right (as opposed to open-minded Christians (oxy-moron?)).

If this nutjob can become president, it shows us how easily led the American populace is. A few words from Limbaugh (dirtbag), Hannity (disingenuous lump of dung), and Beck (Satan's disciple who may be dumber than Palin), and anything can happen.

Mike

[mariab]

"Teabaggers“ has to be the most unfortunate nickname for a so-called “protest movement“ in the history of politics, and Palin most certainly will not be nominated a presidential candidate, after having already lost once to Obama in 2008, and after having stupidly resigned her governor post mid term.

[protohistorian]

Yes Maria, but she will not be nominated by the choice of others. Her dip **** ass believes she should, nay rightfully, should be nominated.She is an idiot, and since idiocy of moral standard could make one evil, I believe we have to leave the door open on that one as well. It is not a matter of being mean. She does this to herself. Dave