Sarah Palin is an evil idiot

[Ally]

We've had presidents with illegitimate children before. It is not a requirement to being president to have no illegitimate children.

So once again I ask you: how much of one's personal private sexual history should one be forced to confess prior to choosing to run for office. Give me a detailed list of what you think is exclusionary for running for office.

Is anything that anyone else in the world might find offensive automatically exclusionary? If you and your wife like to play tie me up and spank me games, and Bob Smith finds that morally repugnant, should he get to know before he decides whether to vote for you?

So once again, what precisely about people's private sexual lives is fair game to the public when one is deciding to run for office?

[jason_c]

Or have I recently knowingly fathered an illegitimate child? Knowing fine well aforementioned child will ruin my Presidential ambitions but still I ask for and accept campaign money while electioneering with my wife?

Ally, can you please send me that $500 cheque?

[Ally]

Ah I see. So anyone who has ever cheated on a partner is automatically to be denied anyone's trust, ever, no matter what the circumstances? I presume you've never strayed? No one in your family? None of your friends ever cheated on their partners? If any of them have, I can presume that you have completely cut them out of your life entirely for all time, as they are untrustworthy people? Ever been told a lie by your mom? Did she tell you about Santa Claus? Can I presume when you found out, you cut her out of your life for deceiving you? Or do you admit that context matters?

Just how much disclosure on people's personal private lives does one have to broadcast when one runs for public office?

Your every sex position so the morality monitors know how much of a deviant you are? Whether you or your high school girlfriend or your current wife ever had an abortion? How old you were when you lost your virginity? If you ever had an erotic thought about a member of the same sex? Your kinkiest, most perverse sex dream you ever had?

If someone is donating money and time to your campaign, it should be because they believe in your political message and goals and they should trust you to fulfill your oath of office to the best of your ability. That doesn't mean they have the right to every aspect and detail of your personal sexual history because they cut you a check.

However, once you take that check, and you take that oath, then yes, you are duty bound to uphold that oath of office and not toss it aside to chase the television cameras.

[jason_c]

John Edwards was not married to every single one of his constituents. He did not promise faithfulness to every single one of his constituents. He did not violate an oath to thousands, and millions. His oath was a personal one, to one woman, and the violation of that oath is between the two of them.

Sarah palin took an oath of office. She made that oath to every person who resides in the state of Alaska and who she represents. She broke a promise to hundreds of thousands.

Sarah palin was elected to a public office and she tossed it away for something shiny and glittery. Any one who elects her for a public office now, knowing her history is an idiot. Much like I imagine anyone who marries John Edwards could be seen as similarly stupid knowing how he treats his marriage. But his marriage and his suitablility for public office are not one and the same. I would never marry John Edwards knowing his history, and I would never trust Palin in a political office knowing hers.

The question is whether Palin is suitable to hold the highest office in the land. Seeing how she treated and disregarded the highest office in her home state, the answer is clearly, no.

Trust is now purely a legal oath, fair enough.

I never mentioned his constituents in my previous post. I mentioned financial contributors, both big and small, and the volunteers who worked for him. Your correct, theres no oath there so he didnt violate anyones trust in him. Evil is now a legal issue.

[Ally]

John Edwards was not married to every single one of his constituents. He did not promise faithfulness to every single one of his constituents. He did not violate an oath to thousands, and millions. His oath was a personal one, to one woman, and the violation of that oath is between the two of them.

Sarah palin took an oath of office. She made that oath to every person who resides in the state of Alaska and who she represents. She broke a promise to hundreds of thousands.

Sarah palin was elected to a public office and she tossed it away for something shiny and glittery. Any one who elects her for a public office now, knowing her history is an idiot. Much like I imagine anyone who marries John Edwards could be seen as similarly stupid knowing how he treats his marriage. But his marriage and his suitablility for public office are not one and the same. I would never marry John Edwards knowing his history, and I would never trust Palin in a political office knowing hers.

The question is whether Palin is suitable to hold the highest office in the land. Seeing how she treated and disregarded the highest office in her home state, the answer is clearly, no.

[jason_c]

"I'd agree with that. Crazy and stupid is self-evident but what else but evil can you call someone who violates the trust of thousands to pursue their own selfish, monetary interests."

"She was an elected public official. People spent their time, effort and money helping her get into office. She made a promise to the people she swore to represent. And when it was no longer fun, when she had a better opportunity to whore herself as a celebretart on reality tv, she quit. That's selfish to the point of being evil. When you make and break promises of that magnitude, what do you call it? No one forced her to run. Basic decency and honor required that she fulfill her term as governor."


Ally,
How do you square this with Edwards knowing he had fathered a child - meanwhile millions put their trust in him politically and financially, thousands of people volunteered their time for his campaign, many working tirelessly.

The terms "trust of thousands" "effort and money" "break promises of that magnitude" are just as apt in the whole Edwards saga.

Do you still refuse to use the term evil(politically) in the Edwards case?

Or is it still simply a case of he "can't keep his dick in his pants" which you stated earlier?

[Ally]

This same John Edwards was running for President. He had thousands of volunteers working hour after hour for him. Many people gave him their hard money. All the time he was playing away from home and had an illegitimate child. Elizabeth Edwards, an important cog in his election wheel, likely knew of this. Politically does this make them an evil pair? Or is Edwards simply morally evil for cheating on his wife?

You are comparing apples and oranges. You view of personal morality and ethics involved in a profession. If an inability to keep ones dick in ones pants is sufficient to disqualify one from public office, then I would presume that no President we have ever had makes the grade. I don't care what John Edwards does with his personal life, that's between him and his wife and is none of our business.

"I am sorry what office did Elizabeth Edwards hold again?"

Using this logic its impossible to politically judge Karl Rove, Alistair Campbell or Dick Morris.

No it's actually not. But you need to judge them based on the criteria that holds for their offices and their positions--According to the duties and the responsibilities of their jobs and what is required. It is the same way that I don't care if my gynecologist cheats on his wife, but I'd have a problem if he cheated on his wife with his patients. Ones personal morality (and not everyone professes the same sexual morality as Christians --although anyone noticed that Christians who trumpet family values the loudest are always the ones caught with their hands in the cookie jar) are only in play when they affect your ability to do your job.

Here are the basic facts: Sarah Palin CHOSE to run for political office. She CHOSE to quit, not for any noble reason, not for any acceptable reason. She chose to quit because she wanted to be a TV whore. So in short, why would anyone ever vote for her for political office ever again, since she seems willing to trade it in when something shinier comes along?

[Errata]

I disagree with this: rightfully so. I disagree because I am frankly tired of people co-opting words for their own agenda, and then deciding no one else can use them as they were meant. Blood libel originated as a term regarding Jews so they get to keep it and be offended if it is misused by some shrieking drama queen trying to inflate her sense of persecution. Retarded was a word in use long before "they" decided to apply it as the official designation for mentally handicapped children and I am going to keep using it. They don't use imbecile any more to refer to those people with mental deficiencies, which they used to do as well, but no one shrieks their nut off every time someone uses the word imbecile now. They aren't even calling the mentally handicapped retarded now, but you still can't use the word! Now they are calling them "challenged" and of course the kids are already using "challenged" as a pejorative for the mentally slow, so pretty soon they are going to have to call the challenged people something else! I will continue to use the word retard as its definition and origin intended. As you said, words do have meaning, and you don't get to change or define a word against its origin and then decide no one else can use it.

I don't see it as a situation of "ownership" as much as a need to recognize a sensitivity. "Retarded" has been a long standing word for developmental delay, whatever the cause. If you want to say that a lack of sunlight has retarded the growth of your begonias, that's fine. If you want to call a football player retarded because he fumbled a ball... kinda not cool. When people say "retarded" when they mean stupid, or ill advised, or clumsy, that's incorrect, and it becomes a pejorative. People accidentally use it correctly all the time. Calling the FDA retarded is completely correct, as even they will admit they are developmentally delayed. Of course, just because something is correct doesn't mean it isn't pejorative.

I was on a plane recently where they loaded the wrong flights baggage onto our plane, and the pilot announced that they were going to have to "abort takeoff and return to the gate". Perfectly correct use of the term abort, but several people around us looked shocked and started whispering about the word "abort". I would never tell a pilot to stop using the word "abort" because of a generally accepted alternate definition. However I am told that doctors used to use the word all the time for when a procedure had to be unexpectedly halted, and now they don't say that anymore, especially to patients, since it creates panic and confusion. And I think this was probably a correct decision.

I'm not going to be the word police. If something offends me, I am fairly good about either saying so, or recognizing that my discomfort with a word or phrase is not a cultural or societal constant. I am of an age where I and all my friends grew up using "retard" as a pejorative, and I still haven't successfully purged it from my own use.

Of course, a politician should strive to offend with ideas, not with words. And I am afraid that the self proclaimed "Caribou Barbie" hasn't had that many ideas, either to acclaim or offend.

One thing I have absolutely detested since she came on the political scene is the use of her daughter as a punchline or a weapon. I don't like Sarah Palin. I think she is a hypocrite, I think she is a slow thinker, I think she is manipulative, and I think she is egotistical. Bristol has nothing to do with any of that. I have known a lot of girls who got pregnant in high school, and a lot of them had great parents. A lot of them were raised really well. They just made a series of bad decisions. I have no reason to think that Bristol Palin is any different, I don't think that her mistakes necessarily reflect on her parents, on her education, or on her moral character. I don't think she should mocked on national television because of her Mother's career. I don't think she should be mocked at all. Was it an unusual situation? Yeah. Shocking even? Maybe. Is it a punchline? Absolutely not. Does a young girl deserve to get picked on by 50 year old men with a national audience? Christ no.

There was a young pregnant girl here who tried to kill herself because she thought she would be mocked and gossiped about like Bristol Palin, and her parents would be mocked because of it. And maybe she would have. But she didn't get to see the side where they all dealt with it and moved on. The late night hosts didn't talk about that part. And it's not their fault she tried to commit suicide, anymore than it's Sarah Palin's fault Loughner tried to kill Giffords. But it both cases, somebody stepping up and showing us the other side of the issue could have done a world of good.

[jason_c]

"I am sorry what office did Elizabeth Edwards hold again? Or are you just throwing in an another red herring. As for John, any guy who cheats on his cancer stricken wife is a selfish douche to the point of being evil yes. If we are talking about politics purely he didn't chuck his responsibilities. He lost, went back and fulfilled his senate term and then ....he chose not to run again. He fulfilled his term, then decided not to run again. He did not go, aw man this crap is too boring and I want to be on Fox News nightly so screw it, I quit."


This same John Edwards was running for President. He had thousands of volunteers working hour after hour for him. Many people gave him their hard money. All the time he was playing away from home and had an illegitimate child. Elizabeth Edwards, an important cog in his election wheel, likely knew of this. Politically does this make them an evil pair? Or is Edwards simply morally evil for cheating on his wife?


"I am sorry what office did Elizabeth Edwards hold again?"

Using this logic its impossible to politically judge Karl Rove, Alistair Campbell or Dick Morris.

[Ally]

first of all, left and right no longer apply in their currently used form, so we may as well abandon the terms.

I agree with this actually. If Republicans would give up their god squad crusade and quit hinging the party on tenets of Christian moral superiority, I'd probably be a republican. I believe in small government, but I also believe it's the role of government to step in and protect its people from abuses. I consider myself fairly in the middle of politics, however you define them, but Politics have become a religious crusade in America and it's really starting to piss on my freedom.

But as someone who deals with the public, a person has to be aware that certain words or phrases have certain connotations, meanings, or unpleasant histories that you have to respect. 50% of people who use the word "retarded" as a pejorative term use it correctly. They use it to mean slow, or developmentally delayed. That certainly didn't prevent Sarah Palin from blasting people (rightfully so) for using the word.

I disagree with this: rightfully so. I disagree because I am frankly tired of people co-opting words for their own agenda, and then deciding no one else can use them as they were meant. Blood libel originated as a term regarding Jews so they get to keep it and be offended if it is misused by some shrieking drama queen trying to inflate her sense of persecution. Retarded was a word in use long before "they" decided to apply it as the official designation for mentally handicapped children and I am going to keep using it. They don't use imbecile any more to refer to those people with mental deficiencies, which they used to do as well, but no one shrieks their nut off every time someone uses the word imbecile now. They aren't even calling the mentally handicapped retarded now, but you still can't use the word! Now they are calling them "challenged" and of course the kids are already using "challenged" as a pejorative for the mentally slow, so pretty soon they are going to have to call the challenged people something else! I will continue to use the word retard as its definition and origin intended. As you said, words do have meaning, and you don't get to change or define a word against its origin and then decide no one else can use it.

No one uses Negro, or the bastardization of the French Negre (******) as a legitimate term to describe black people, despite the fact that both words simply mean "black". People respect the history, and don't use those words.

No now we are calling them the retarded "African American" over here, which is pure stupidity because most of the black people I know are neither African nor American.


As for my being in sole charge of your opinion, didn't you know? On Casebook I control all, I rule all, I decide all. Thou shall hast no opinion not sanctioned by me. So sayeth the book of Ally.

"I'm the Decider." <---back to political right wing nuttery.

And I am making chili for lunch today. Chock full of tasty onions.

[Ally]

Do you claim the same about Barack Obama, John Kerry, John McCain etc? All of whom were elected representatives in the Senate. All went Presidential, Barack Obama's seat was then offered to the highest bidder by its Governor. Basic decency and honor required that they fulfill their terms as senator.

I knew you were going to walk into that one. You do realize that motives count, right? If you are an elected public official, sworn to serve the people of alaska, and you get the opportunity to run for a higher office, one can argue you will be able to serve your home state even better being the vice-president or president of the United States. You are not abandoning your responsibilities, you are increasing them. You are still fulfilling your oath to serve the people, you are just increasing the number of people that falls under.

Now of course, I actually believe that no one who is currently elected as anything should run for a different office, but that's my personal belief, and I recognize political realities that would prevent that from happening.

She did not quit being the governor to become vice-president. She LOST. Then she went back to BFE Alaska, realized that if she spent the next 2 years there serving out her term as she should have done, and as every other candidate who LOST did in fact do, she would fade into political obscurity and lose her chance to cash in on her recent fame, and the money making opportunities it presented. So she quit. Packed her bags and chased fame and money rather than buckling down and fulfilling her term as governor.

You want to compare her to McCain or Kerry? They lost and went back and fulfilled their obligations. Those people apparently understood what serving entailed. In other words, they fulfilled their responsibilities. They didn't chuck it to play the leading role on Real Housewives of Alaska.

Do you believe John and Elizabeth Edwards are/were selfish to the point of being evil?

I am sorry what office did Elizabeth Edwards hold again? Or are you just throwing in an another red herring. As for John, any guy who cheats on his cancer stricken wife is a selfish douche to the point of being evil yes. If we are talking about politics purely he didn't chuck his responsibilities. He lost, went back and fulfilled his senate term and then ....he chose not to run again. He fulfilled his term, then decided not to run again. He did not go, aw man this crap is too boring and I want to be on Fox News nightly so screw it, I quit.

I realize you guys who are blinded by the glitter of the celebretart don't like those pesky facts to confuse your dogged belief, but there is a basic difference between her, and others. She is a fame whore. Period. And while I believe most politicians are fame whores, they at least have enough intelligence and ability to look outside their own selfish motives to realize that certain things you just don't do. She can't pull her head out of her own selfish butt to realize that much.

[jason_c]

"She was an elected public official. People spent their time, effort and money helping her get into office. She made a promise to the people she swore to represent. And when it was no longer fun, when she had a better opportunity to whore herself as a celebretart on reality tv, she quit. That's selfish to the point of being evil. When you make and break promises of that magnitude, what do you call it? No one forced her to run. Basic decency and honor required that she fulfill her term as governor."


Ally,
Do you claim the same about Barack Obama, John Kerry, John McCain etc? All of whom were elected representatives in the Senate. All went Presidential, Barack Obama's seat was then offered to the highest bidder by its Governor. Basic decency and honor required that they fulfill their terms as senator.

Do you believe John and Elizabeth Edwards are/were selfish to the point of being evil?

[jason_c]

Hi Roy,

So let me get this straight. "Hizbollah" (sic.) is, according to you Roy, on the far left of the political spectrum??? WOW!!! It sure is a shame that nobody told them about this!!! "Hezbollah", as they are known in the real world, are an ultra-conservative, Islamofascist movement who are actually so deluded that they honestly believe that "Once upon a time" there was this guy called Abraham who "met" and "had knowledge of and conversation with" some kind of... err... delusion, oh sorry, I mean "Supreme Being" who went by the name of "YAHWEH", or Jehovah, or Allah, or, to his close personal friends "God". They seriously believe that their faith in this "God of Abraham" and his subsequent "Prophets" both guides and justifies their actions!!! Hey, I'll admit that its been awhile since I read up on my Marx and Engels, but I'm pretty damn sure that Hezbollah's brand of "Theistic" Islamofascism is about as far removed from "left wing" as it is possible to get!!! Heck, you can't get any more right wing and conservative than Hezbollah, literally, "The Party of God". Unless you happened to believe in such delusional "God" type nonsence yourselves!!!

The following extract may, or may not, prove instructive, either way, I cannot be held responsible for your ability, or lack thereof, to grasp the historical and polictical realities of the world we live in.

"In fact, the Islamic Republican forces did supervise Hezbollah. Hojjat al-Islam Hadi Ghaffari, "a young protegee of Khomeini," being in charge of them. Hezbollah was instrumental in the Islamic Cultural Revolution against SECULARISTS and MODERNISTS at Iran's universities.
After Friday prayers on 18 April 1980, Khomeini harshly attacked the universities. `We are not afraid of economic sanctions or military intervention. What we are afraid of is Western universities and the training of our youth in the interests of West or East.` His remarks served as a signal for an attack that evening on the Tehran Teachers Training College. One student was reportedly lynched, and according to a British correspondent, the campus was left looking like `a combat zone.` THE NEXT DAY, HEZBOLLAHIS RANSACKED LEFT-WING STUDENT OFFICES AT SHIRAZ UNIVERSITY. SOME 300 STUDENTS REQUIRED HOSPITAL TREATMENT. Attacks on student groups also took place at Mashad and Isfahan Universities"` Attacks continued April 21 and "the next day at the Universities at Ahwaz and Rasht. Over 20 people lost their lives in these university confrontations. ... The universities closed soon after the April confrontation for Islamization`. They were not to open for another two years."

Link to the full article.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hezbollah_of_Iran

Best wishes,
Zodiac.

In the West, HEZBOLLAH (and its aims )have become a left wing cause celebre.

[Errata]

Errata, that's an impressive, far reaching post you made. But it's irrelevant now, because Ally said:



Have a nice evening,

Roy

I'm sorry, did I miss the post where it was determined that I would speak for Ally and that Ally would speak for me? If you would like to give me that link, I would love to find out where else she gets to speak for me. Ally, in case I somehow lost all rights to my own opinion, I would ask you to bear in mind during lunch tomorrow that I am allergic to onions.

[mariab]

I'm pretty damn sure that Hezbollah's brand of "Theistic" Islamofascism is about as far removed from "left wing" as it is possible to get!!! Heck, you can't get any more right wing and conservative than Hezbollah, literally, "The Party of God".

Zodiac, I wanted to make this point myself since yesterday, but then I thought, why the heck should I get entangled in such a discussion?
Apparently, (conservative) Americans frequently mix up “anti-Americanism“ with “left wing“.