Sincerity isn't her most shining quality....She makes me vomit  http://www.inthe00s.com/smile/08/puke.gif

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n0nnOtLYm_4

We got this from the People For The American Way (PFAW).



The bipartisan calls for a return to civility in the immediate aftermath of the tragedy in Arizona this past weekend lasted barely a day.

Americans have rightly begun to examine the recent escalation of vitriolic and incendiary rhetoric in our political discourse. While some initial speculation was too quick to point the finger of blame at specific instances of fear-mongering and violent rhetoric without knowing what actually influenced the gunman, when oft-verbally attacked elected officials are targeted for assassination, it's a matter of basic common sense to call for a toning down of the hateful accusations and hyperbolic hyping of false threats. By simply acknowledging the toxicity of this recent rhetoric, primarily by the Right Wing, Pima County Sheriff Clarence Dupnik and many others have come under relentless attack.

Unfortunately, politicians and pundits on the Right are now responding the same way they always respond to criticism: deflection and denial. They are angry that they would be held accountable and are showing bitter defensiveness by going on the offense against anyone who raises uncomfortable truths like Sheriff Dupnik and some in the media. And they've childishly resorted to their own irrational finger pointing. Newt Gingrich, Mike Huckabee, Tea Party leaders and others on the Right are now claiming that the Tucson shooter Jared Loughner is a liberal because he listed Marx's Communist Manifesto among his favorite books (a ridiculous stretch since he also listed Mein Kampf and an Ayn Rand book). Rush Limbaugh said that the gunman has the "full support" of the Democratic Party. And Republicans from Lamar Alexander to Sarah Palin are pushing the message that merely discussing examples of the violent rhetoric which has come to define our political discourse is tantamount to contributing to the ongoing rancor.

In an especially twisted, yet familiar, example of right-wing logic, Arizona State Rep. Jack Harper is actually blaming Saturday's massacre on gun laws he sees as too restrictive and Pima County Sheriff Clarence Dupnik for apparently supporting those laws -- this, despite the fact that Arizona's laws were lenient enough for the clearly disturbed Loughner to obtain the 31-round-per-clip semi-automatic weapon he used in his attack.

And media stars like Glenn Beck and Sarah Palin have been quick to use their podiums to try to make this latest debate all about them. Although she holds no official office or leadership position, Palin addressed the country in a web video yesterday in which she decried any scrutiny of recent political rhetoric and even tried to make herself out as the real victim, going so far as to compare herself to Jewish victims of "blood libels." 

Attempting to draw a line between what she sees as perfectly acceptable "free speech" and incitement, she said, "when we 'take up our arms,' we're talking about our vote." But isn't that exactly the point?  Using incendiary language, such as "taking up arms," can have consequences when there are individuals out there who might not grasp the metaphors, especially when it is accompanied by talk of "Second Amendment remedies" to an election not going the way one would like ... or campaign events at gun ranges ... or grave warnings about "death panels," a "tyrannical government," "Dangerous Liberals" and political opponents being "domestic enemies of the Constitution."

Meanwhile, as we reflect on this awful tragedy, and debate the nature of, well, our debate, the Right continues its pile-on of Sheriff Dupnik, smearing him for the supposed crime of calling it like he sees it while happening to be a registered Democrat.

The Sheriff's standing tall against the right-wing smear machine, but we encourage you to show your solidarity with him by signing on to a brief letter of support.

Thank you for your support and for all that you to defend our core values and the American Way ... it's never been needed more.

Sincerely,


Michael Keegan, President




Cat

Sarah Palin and thinking? what are you thinking?  you should know better than to associate higher brain functioning with her.

Even I'm surprised she used the phrase "blood libel" without researching its origins.  Worse yet, maybe she did! 

Palin represents a a vocal minority of reactionary white gun-toters.  She does not represent enough of a plurality of Americans to win the presidency -- if that's what she's thinking and I'm not sure it is.

She's already achieved the goals she could.  She's made her millions.  She's made her fame.  She's made liberals mad as hell.  Pretty soon we'll learn to just ignore her.  She doesn't have anything intelligent to add to the national dialog.
::)

http://theinsanityreport.com/home/wp-content/uploads/2010/02/bbnf4B.jpg

Attempting to draw a line between what she sees as perfectly acceptable "free speech" and incitement, she said, "when we 'take up our arms,' we're talking about our vote." But isn't that exactly the point?  Using incendiary language, such as "taking up arms," can have consequences when there are individuals out there who might not grasp the metaphors,
Albeit not as drastic, it's akin to describing an electronic device as "the bomb"....now, if you said it in the comfort of your own home, it might not cause distress, say it on a plane or in an airport and it's a whole different ballgame.

Of course, what else should we expect from Sarah? After all, she's the one who put crosshairs on a map, used the slogan "Don't retreat, instead reload", has been photographed and filmed using a variety of shotguns/rifles, etc.  Your target audience is a bunch of rednecks in Middle America, you use jargon and images they can relate to....at least that's one arena in which she's been intelligent, she's hired a great bunch of PR people (either that or she's gotten EXTREMELY lucky) ;)

And yes, it was PAINFUL to say she's been intelligent in one arena  http://www.inthe00s.com/smile/11/BangHead.gif

I just hope to Hell that she's able to maintain her current "popularity" for another year or so; that way she'll still have a chance at earning the Republican Presidential nomination, and liberals will be able to laugh their ways all the way to the ballot box in 2012 (while normal Conservatives will be forced to shake their heads).

Honestly, does anybody really foresee any other Republican getting the nod? Tim Pawlenty? Please. Mitt Romney? The only reason people are saying he's still popular is because he was seen as the second choice to John McCain in 2008. Mike Huckabee? Too religious to win over most.

Honestly, does anybody really foresee any other Republican getting the nod?

http://www.clubforgrowth.org/assets/image/Candidates/rubio-marco.jpg

http://www.clubforgrowth.org/assets/image/Candidates/rubio-marco.jpg


Greg Marmalard?

Greg, what is the worst fraternity on this campus?

:D

http://www.clubforgrowth.org/assets/image/Candidates/rubio-marco.jpg


Narco Bubio?  Are you kidding

Greg Marmalard?

Greg, what is the worst fraternity on this campus?

:D


No, Marco Rubio, US Senator from Florida.

No, Marco Rubio, US Senator from Florida.


No, semi-carnally...
:P

No, Marco Rubio, US Senator from Florida.


Yeah, what I said, Narco Bubio

http://www.clubforgrowth.org/assets/image/Candidates/rubio-marco.jpg


Your Grocery Manager
Marco Rubio

No, semi-carnally...
:P


No, Cyril Connolly.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2iSssOpLTPM