Use access key #2 to skip to page content.

Varchild2008 (84.26)

Markos Moulitsas Deletes 2 Daily Kos Articles Trashing Sarah Palin

Recs

2

September 06, 2008 – Comments (11)

First of all I didn't decide to post up every single article that has gotten my blood boiling so here's one of the attack ADs on Sarah Palin floating around:
http://www.laprogressive.com/2008/09/05/alaskans-speak-in-a-frightened-whisper-palin-is-%E2%80%9Cracist-sexist-vindictive-and-mean%E2%80%9D/

The other 2 attack articles which were displayed this morning before subsequently getting deleted were on Daily Kos's website.

I commend Markos Moulitsas for doing the right thing in deleting those articles but I have absolutely no confidence that we won't continue to see several more articles get posted up.  2 so far that I know of in 24 hrs.

This is completely out of control behavior coming from the left and I mean every word when I say that we wouldn't see this if there wasn't any *fear* in our left leaners of society.

And it ain't an insult to label left leaners as Man-Children when they refuse to debate the issues and instead want to trash a respectable woman and VP candidate like Sarah Palin.

Why can't the arguments be about Taxes, Energy, Economy, Healthcare, Hospital Care, Medicine....   You know... Things us Wall Street Investors actually CARE about?

11 Comments – Post Your Own

#1) On September 06, 2008 at 8:25 PM, devoish (98.81) wrote:

That link goes to a deleted web page also. Next time you read a blood boiling post you want to share, copy it and post it.

What did you learn about Mrs Palins handling of the National Guard or what she plans to do to advocate for special needs children? Other than unstubstantiated BS, that was the only value from your last post, I believe. If you do not want trashy politics then don't do it.

"Why can't the arguments be about Taxes, Energy, Economy, Healthcare, Hospital Care, Medicine....   You know... Things us Wall Street Investors actually CARE about"?

Because you are not discussing those issues. You are trying to continue what appears to me to be the pretense that the left is standing in the way of such duscussions.

Anyway rather than do it over again, here is my response to your last post:

I guess you know what you are getting when start reading a blog with informative name calling in the title and claiming to know the motivations of others.

Instantly upon reading phrases such as "It seems the MAN-CHILDREN of Society known as the run-of-the-mill Adult, Child-Like, American Male Humanoid Liberal Leftist Vote" you know you are getting unemotional well thought out reasoned opinion.

"Sarah Palin's record is impeccable'' Is an excellent claim to make before going into detail about that record and telling us about a waitress and and an enertainment rag called Us Magazine, not US Weekly and certainly not a "Liberal magazine". By the way thanks for taking the time to check that for us before you echoed.

Likewise the statement "She's accomplished far more than the entire Democratic Senate (which has been historically the most unpopular bunch of do-nothings in American History), and the liberals know it" is a little short on Sarahs detailed accomplishments, untrue, and inflammatory. Be reminded the Dems are unpopular for not impeaching the President and getting out of Iraq. A war that failed to catch Bin Laden.

"But they have derailed from that line to pointless smears about how Sarah can't be VP when she has to raise children or she can't deal with being a VP because she has a baby with down syndrome"  Maybe you can find one or two, but working moms are not unusual today. You know that. We know that. Who is telling you this crap anyway, and why aren't you thinking about it? Also in her speech she claimed she would be and "advocate" for special needs children. Have you learned any details about what that means? Is she promoting funding to prevent pollution from hurting kids? Is she strengthening the EPA? Has she promoted the health department in her own state? You talk alot, but not about alot. While chastising the left for the same thing. Lame-O.

"She has plenty of experience, though, considering she's a mother of Track whose going to deploy to Iraq and Commander over the Alaska National Guard.  She is mother of Casey whose in the Navy."

If that is her experience to be Vice President you should probably look for a little more. Perhaps the mother of someone who has died in the war, or the mother of someone who has served 3 or 4 tours would be more qualified. Perhaps Cindy Sheehan also meets that standard?

" Should any disaster occur in her state, she commands over the Alaska National Guard by way of granting them permission to take care of the problem (like we saw in Louisiana with the Hurricanes)."

This is better, let us know how, when, and where she deployed them. How she equipped them, how she funded them and what she did to train them. Just being in charge does not mean she's good at it. Remember "nice job brownie"? I would do it, but I spend too much time responding to emotional blogs.

"It's certaintly more meaningful that Barack Obama's experience being a Community Organizer"

Barack Obama began his career as a Community Organizer. It is not where he is today. Sarah Palin began her career as a PTA parent, she has also moved on. I have heard it suggested it would help increase the number of Doctors if paying for college could be mitigated by Community service. Are you against community service?

"Read the article below and tell me that "Liberals" are debating the Issues"

Tell me you are. Tell me you are not regurgitating emotional Republican talking points. In fact find out about the Nat Guard for us. Maybe she has done some good work. And your Kos link goes to a blank page.

Ramen

Report this comment
#2) On September 06, 2008 at 8:37 PM, DemonDoug (98.85) wrote:

You know, I bet you don't even realize the irony in your own post.

Why can't the arguments be about Taxes, Energy, Economy, Healthcare, Hospital Care, Medicine....   You know... Things us Wall Street Investors actually CARE about?

And yet you use a stock investing website to smear certain people of a political inclination.

Why don't you go over and read my latest blog where I specifically avoid partisanship and address the effects of the election on stocks.  Because my sentiments are exactly what you state in the quoted comment, but your own partisanship shows in the 2 sentences before that quoted statement.

Report this comment
#3) On September 06, 2008 at 9:37 PM, jahbu (86.24) wrote:

I dont care if her past job was working as a clown for birthday parties at a roller rink.   All I care about is if she will defend the Constitution from enemies foreign and domestic.  But so far all she has done is deliver a speech written by Neocons who wrote the same speeches for Georgy Bush, who has definitely not defended the Constitution.

Basically she seems like the perfect Bulldog to replace Dicky Cheney in the Neocon dreamland.

In this election we have to choose between Neocons/Big oil/military industrial complex or the Socialist Globalist agenda.

Either way we lose as a nation.  Until We the People cast out these puppets and reject their propaganda news, nuthing will change.  Doesnt matter if Ron Paul, Ronald Reagan or George Washington himself came back to lead the country.   We have to put an end to the FED, the corporate Media, and the stranglehold of Globalist, multinational corporations and thier henchmen.

Wether you vote for McCain or Obamy, nuthing really changes.  More loss of freedoms and liberties, more debt, more survellience, more fear mongering, more wars, and more centralization of power.  The Constitution and our national soveriengty are under attack, and we will lose them both if people of this great nation do not wake up and fast.

But hey go ahead, keep bickering between republicans and democrats, blacks, hispanics, whites.  Christians, muslims,  old people, young people,  conservative, liberal, rich and poor.   THIS IS WHAT THEY WANT.   They would all scurry like cockroaches if people stood up together and tossed out the true enemies, that destroy our constitution, strangle our liberties, and drench us all in debt.

GROW UP, WAKE UP, And Stand together to fight tyranny before it is to late.

Jahbu

Report this comment
#4) On September 06, 2008 at 10:15 PM, Varchild2008 (84.26) wrote:

Unforunately,

http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2008/9/6/132930/1384/745/589125

That was written by Markos Moulitsas and is just the type of disgusting that I mean.
Markos is completely jumping the shark big time. Report this comment
#5) On September 06, 2008 at 10:15 PM, Varchild2008 (84.26) wrote:

Unforunately,

http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2008/9/6/132930/1384/745/589125

That was written by Markos Moulitsas and is just the type of disgusting that I mean.
Markos is completely jumping the shark big time. Report this comment
#6) On September 06, 2008 at 10:19 PM, Varchild2008 (84.26) wrote:

Defending the Constitution means standing up to terrorists.

Barack Obama voted against funding our troops so that we could do the fighting and protecting of our constitution.

Barack Obama opposed the surge and still opposes it even after admitting that it worked beyond ones wildest dreams.

That's not a commander in chief that you want in the White House no matter how much you don't like the current President.

John McCain isn't President Bush... I should know.  It wasn't too long ago that I said I wasn't going to vote for John McCain or Barack Obama.

That's changed compeltely because Sarah Palin adds some sanity in an otherwise insane presidential race in which somehow Barack thinks "Joe Biden" is qualified for the white house.  Qualified for what?  You can't find anyone more partisan than Biden other than Harry Reid or Nancy Pelosi.

Report this comment
#7) On September 06, 2008 at 10:20 PM, Varchild2008 (84.26) wrote:

Defending the Constitution means standing up to terrorists.

Barack Obama voted against funding our troops so that we could do the fighting and protecting of our constitution.

Barack Obama opposed the surge and still opposes it even after admitting that it worked beyond ones wildest dreams.

That's not a commander in chief that you want in the White House no matter how much you don't like the current President.

John McCain isn't President Bush... I should know.  It wasn't too long ago that I said I wasn't going to vote for John McCain or Barack Obama.

That's changed compeltely because Sarah Palin adds some sanity in an otherwise insane presidential race in which somehow Barack thinks "Joe Biden" is qualified for the white house.  Qualified for what?  You can't find anyone more partisan than Biden other than Harry Reid or Nancy Pelosi.

Report this comment
#8) On September 06, 2008 at 10:22 PM, dinodelaurentis (58.11) wrote:

let's not argue about who's shark jumped who...

there is PLENTY of shark jumping left to do...

Report this comment
#9) On September 06, 2008 at 10:53 PM, devoish (98.81) wrote:

Ok now I get it. Your just making a joke. I thought the videos were funny the first time I saw them. Lets set up the story, I'll post the videos as the punch line.

The Dailykos article points out that Bill O'Reilly said of Jamie Lynn Spears who, like Bristol Palin is a pregnant teenager "the blame falls squarely on the parents shoulders". Then when speaking of Bristol Palin who, like Jamie Lynn Spears is a pregnant teenager said "as long as society doesn't have to support the baby it is a personal matter". No mention of squarely placing blame or such. Then in the dailykos article O'reilly's film crew chases Cynthia Tucker to her house upset that she called him a hypocrite. Please note that she had nothing negative to say about Bristol, but you knew that because that is what makes O'reilly hypocritical. Anyway for a daily dose of republican hypocrisy I give you the Comedy central. O'reilly is about 1:45 in.

Report this comment
#10) On September 07, 2008 at 12:00 AM, Jhana9 (< 20) wrote:

Why all the stress over the Daily Kos? The only people who take everything put out by left or right bent sources as gospel, are the people who are pretty much blind to any OTHER view. It makes no difference whether they are liberal or conservative. Getting upset over it is like me being aghast at Rush Limbaugh or Fox News. I know what they are, and I know what to expect from them. This concept that one side or the other is pure is running rampant. It may be comforting to take that stance, but it's just so bogus that you can't even begin to have a discussion with anyone whose there.

People on the more liberal end of the spectrum get their own belly full. Fox News' reference to the "terrorist fist bump" was just such excellent journalism, right? But I won't invent some ridiculous name for people who don't share my political view because of it. And I don't really care if the other side makes a habit of it, I'm still not going there.

You'll reach more eyes in your blogs if you don't either. 

 

 

 

Report this comment
#11) On September 07, 2008 at 12:03 AM, Jhana9 (< 20) wrote:

One point: in no way am I implying that conservatives resort to name calling MORE than liberals. I'm saying that I'm not joining specific individuals who do, just to event the score, which is a complete waste of time.

Report this comment

Featured Broker Partners


Advertisement