Palin (almost) talks sense

[Sean]

Originally Posted by Deckard

I'm still trying to work out what on earth this means:

"Attitudes of unsuccessful campaigns r contagious,make'em worth catching"

Huh?

Well, it's very likely that she has no idea what she's saying either, so don't sweat it. But I do think we can be fairly certain that she wasn't hoping the "attitudes" of this "unsuccessful campaign" would be "contagious" or "worth catching":

"Republican Congressman Bob Inglis, who lost his primary in June to a Tea Party candidate, is now speaking out against the Republican Party. Inglis spoke to CNN's John Roberts on "American Morning" about where things may have gone wrong for himself and the rest of the GOP.

Bob Inglis: I don't think we build our party by distraction and we don't serve our country by division. The key here to pull together as Americans and to build on truth, especially to build a conservative movement, a credible conservative movement, build it on truth.

The truth is that the president is not a Muslim. He's - he was born in America. And he is not a socialist. He is left of center, I’m right of center. And, in fact, he might say very right of center. But that's okay. We can have a debate about real facts. We don't need to [be]making up things because as time goes on, that gets embarrassing when you're found out to have built something on false information and on scapegoats rather than solutions. The customer turns away and says you've got nothing for me because you're not delivering a solution.

John Roberts: Congressman, during your election campaign or the primary campaign, rather, you resisted saying some of the more charged things about the president that your opponent was. Do you think that hurt you?

Bob Inglis: Oh, yeah. People wanted me to say - calling me a socialist every other day. But the ninth commandment should constrain us. Don't bear false witness against your neighbor. That's something that we are socialist conservatives should be evidencing in our campaigns. We don't go around saying those things because it's not true. It's also not true that he's a Muslim. It's not true that he wants to take over as a dictator. These things - we need to get rid of these things so we can build on credible, solid information. We do that, we can build a credible, conservative movement in this country that shows that free enterprise and family are the solutions we're looking for.

John Roberts: Congressman, what are your thoughts on Christine O’Donnell who is a conservative? She's the republican nominee in Delaware. Some establishment conservatives like Karl Rove are saying she says a lot of nutty things, she has a checkered past an she's not a candidate that's going to win for us.

Bob Inglis: Well, I’m concerned because, you know, the things that I read, I don't know her personally. I hope it works out, and that some of these things that are reported don't turn out to be correct. But I think it's, again, very important that we be credible. And have candidates that don't - don't run in front of the flame throwers. That's a reference earlier we've got these hot microphones that want to charge up the fearful crowd and have them run toward the cliff. And if we get leaders saying you don't know the half of it ...

John Roberts: Now, candidates like Christine O’Donnell hold the position that the Republican Party over the last decade has gotten way off track. And they're just trying to put it back on track.

Bob Inglis: Yeah. Well, I think that we surely did get off track in the years that we had the majority. And we didn't balance the budget. That's for sure. That's correct. But here's the thing, there's a structural deficit. It's Medicare, Medicaid, social security. At 60 percent of what we spend now rising to 90 percent in 2050, that's a structural challenge.

That's where America needs a solution. We don't need scapegoats, don't need to blame that on the president. It's not his fault. In fact, he's just been president for two years. This thing's been decades in coming. I've got enemies, Al Qaeda, Taliban, they're not the democrats, they're my country men. They're often wrong, but we can have a debate about how to get that done. We happen to believe as conservatives it's free enterprise that's going to fix that and reliance on family." From CNN



Sad that these are the kinds of "attitudes" that are actively being driven out of the Republican Party by these Tea Party ass-hats.

[Deckard]

I probably disagree with Inglis on a whole range of things, but it's nice to read a little sanity for a change.

Those are the attitudes that I hope will be contagious.

[Deckard]

Police in Gateshead have arrested six people on suspicion of inciting racial hatred after a video appearing to show Qur'ans being burned appeared on the internet. Officers from Northumbria police detained two men on 15 September and four more yesterday, a force spokesman said. All six have been bailed pending further inquiries.

"The arrests followed the burning of what are believed to have been two Qur'ans in Gateshead on 11 September," the spokesman said. "The incident was recorded and a video placed on the internet."

In a video posted on YouTube, six young men in hooded tops and scarves can be seen pouring petrol on a book and setting it alight, before burning another. On the video, which appeared to have been filmed behind a pub, they cheer as the first book bursts into flames. Northumbria police said the men were not arrested for watching or distributing the video, but on suspicion of burning the Qur'an.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010...-quran-burning

Well, after criticizing the Pastor for his plan to burn the Qur'an, I suppose I should weigh in on this. It's one thing to oppose the burning of holy books. Surely it's quite another to make it illegal?

Would I be breaking the law if I went out into my garden and burnt a Bible or Qur'an and posted the video on YouTube? Surely there needs to be more than that to be "inciting racial hatred"? Maybe the police did take other things into account.

Either way, the anti-Muslim/anti-PC brigade will just lap this up.

[Sean]

Originally Posted by Deckard

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010...-quran-burning

Well, after criticizing the Pastor for his plan to burn the Qur'an, I suppose I should weigh in on this. It's one thing to oppose the burning of holy books. Surely it's quite another to make it illegal?

Would I be breaking the law if I went out into my garden and burnt a Bible or Qur'an and posted the video on YouTube? Surely there needs to be more than that to be "inciting racial hatred"? Maybe the police did take other things into account.

Either way, the anti-Muslim/anti-PC brigade will just lap this up.

I suppose there could be fire regulation laws regarding burning them in a public alleyway as opposed to on private property, but no, as stupid as book-burnings tend to be, I would agree that there's no need to make just being stupid illegal.

[Sean]

Palin's new website is going live, and in it, she apparently attempts to rile up the morons of the country with "death panels" yet again. From CNN:


"In the announcement on her Facebook page, entitled 'Lies, Damned Lies – Obamacare 6 Months Later,' the former GOP vice presidential nominee resurrects her claims that 'rationing "death panels"' are included in the health care bill and promotes the new site, which endorses candidates who support the bill's repeal.

Palin is unspecific as to what section of the final bill she refers to as creating 'death panels,' but does link to her original Facebook post which sparked a storm of controversy in 2009. In the post, she stated that the health care bill would create 'death panels' that would decide whether people "are worthy of health care."


She should title all her Facebook entries, Tweets, books, etc "Lies, Damned Lies".

[Deckard]

Originally Posted by Sean

Palin is unspecific as to what section of the final bill she refers to as creating 'death panels,' but does link to her original Facebook post which sparked a storm of controversy in 2009. In the post, she stated that the health care bill would create 'death panels' that would decide whether people "are worthy of health care."

Woe betide she ever gets specific about anything!

Btw, new forum rule: whenever we quote anything by Palin, we use comic sans.

[jOHN rODRIGUEZ]

I've been waiting for all the right words to fall into place to make this comment, but there's just such a web of words, comments and cacaphony to make a coherent logical path of ideas it's become a bit impossible to make it come across sensible . . .

Anyways, here goes:

Shouldn't denial of coverage be viewed as a "death panel" of a different form???

[//\/\/]

Not authorized by any candidate or candidate's committee

"well, sarah palin may be saying that, but i'm not leaving a paper-trail..."