Sarah Palin Can't Name Any Founding Fathers!
POSTED BY: Niki2
UPDATED: Tuesday, January 19, 2010 23:06
VIEWED: 7011
PAGE 3 of 11
Shees! Well, I'm just waking up, so just catching up. Geezer, you're the one who started the mess with Chris by making a snark "Looks to me like the posters of this criticism of Mrs. Palin are 'left loonies' and there are folks buying their loonyness." I do wish you'd not lump everyone together and call them all loonie; it's bound to start something.
Okay, my point: There is nothing wrong with lampooning a political figure when they do/say something stupid. Jo Biden is a prime exmple. The POINT is that Palin couldn't come up with the name of a founding father to save her soul. Of COURSE what she said about Washington himself was valid and all were good points. But he's not a founding father! Beck asked her TWICE, and even pointedly indicates that she was trying to avoid the question, then she comes out with Washington!
THAT's the funny part, and any public figure who does or says something idiotic is going to be laughed at, okay? Doesn't make anyone a loonie except HER! And Palin has made herself such a target of ridicule almost since day one, it's perfectly predictable that each time she does it, people notice and people laugh.
River: thank you. I definitely give the guys on Faux News points for that, and I'm glad to hear it. It shows common sense and recognition of reality, that's something I can applaud whenever they do it. And I adored your concepts of her new "show"...whatever she does WILL be hysterical if they do it, but I've the feeling they won't...as you said, it would hurt them to much to chance giving her an entire show to illustrate her stupidity. It's just possible that, like McCain, they're regretting their choice somewhat.
They need to give her a script, which MIGHT help if she could read it off a teleprompter and if she'd be willing to, or else REALLY give her softball questions even SHE can answer...what those would be, I'll leave to your imagination.
Interesting: McCain let her do some interviews then his team pulled her when her brainlessness showed; Fox Noise might be doing the same thing, y'think? Heaven help them if they try to EDUCATE her...look what happened with that attempt by the McCain team!
Maybe they could give her questions about Alaska next time, or let her spout the stuff she's been saying and getting paid for? They sure gotta do SOMETHING with her, now they've got her, to use her to rile up the base. Even their audience will start seeing how stupid she is if they keep letting her get herself into messes like this.
Wish I'd seen that clip, would have been interesting.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by Niki2:
Shees! Well, I'm just waking up, so just catching up. Geezer, you're the one who started the mess with Chris by making a snark "Looks to me like the posters of this criticism of Mrs. Palin are 'left loonies' and there are folks buying their loonyness."
Not a snark, just an observation.
Seems to me the folks who put the video you posted together are loonies on a par with pundits like Limbaugh, the folks who put 'birther' sites up, and those who create pictures of Pres. Obama in Joker makeup.
If I consider the folks who repost Limbaugh, 'birther' stuff, and doctored pictures of the President to be loonies, how can I not consider folk who repost character assassination of Palin in the same light?
Any of course you'll reply that your stuff isn't bad at all - just funny or highlighting the truth - which is exactly what the conservative loonies would say of their stuff.
Quote:
But he's not a founding father!
BTW, George Washington was a Founding Father, and is listed as such in many references.
For example:
The Founding Fathers of the United States were the political leaders who signed the Declaration of Independence in 1776 or otherwise took part in the American Revolution in winning American independence from Great Britain, or who participated in framing and adopting the United States Constitution in 1787-1788, or in putting the new government under the Constitution into effect. Within the large group known as "the founding fathers," there are two key subsets, the Signers (who signed the Declaration of Independence in 1776) and the Framers (who were delegates to the Federal Convention and took part in framing or drafting the proposed Constitution of the United States). Most historians define the "founding fathers" to mean a larger group, including not only the Signers and the Framers but also all those who, whether as politicians or jurists or statesmen or soldiers or diplomats or ordinary citizens, took part in winning American independence and creating the United States of America.[2] The eminent American historian Richard B. Morris, in his 1973 book Seven Who Shaped Our Destiny: The Founding Fathers as Revolutionaries, identified the following seven figures as the key founding fathers: Benjamin Franklin, George Washington, John Adams, Thomas Jefferson, John Jay, James Madison, and Alexander Hamilton.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Founding_Fathers_of_the_United_States
So Palin got that right and you didn't.
Edit to remove stuff.
"Keep the Shiny side up"
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Yeah, I gotta agree that faulting Palin for calling Washington a "founding father" really does make the argument seem merely partisan. It's a quibble at best. Washington, his character and style of leadership, his FOUNDING of the Presidency as the first man to hold the office fer cryin' out loud qualifies him as a founder in my book. Hey, look! I'm as dumb as Sarah Palin!!!
HKCavalier
Hey, hey, hey, don't be mean. We don't have to be mean, because, remember, no matter where you go, there you are.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:Before Washington took the oath, he was assassinated & replaced by a look-alike working for the same organization that would evolve into what we know today as the Skull & Bones boys. Ivan L. Schwartzman, a Russian JEW, was our REAL first President, steering our country towards corporate imperialism & world domination.
Originally posted by HKCavalier:
his FOUNDING of the Presidency as the first man to hold the office fer cryin' out loud qualifies him as a founder in my book. Hey, look! I'm as dumb as Sarah Palin!!!
So, technically, both you & Palin FAIL, HK.
The PN-like Chrisisall
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
UNCLE!!! 
HKCavalier
Hey, hey, hey, don't be mean. We don't have to be mean, because, remember, no matter where you go, there you are.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:Calling peeps on partisanship is an observation, labeling them loonies is snark.
Originally posted by Geezer:
Not a snark, just an observation.
I know snark.
So, I can't laff at Palin for being an idiot without you labeling me a loonie, huh?
But if I laff at Clinton for being an arrested adolescent who couldn't keep it in his pants, is THAT acceptable?
Just curious is all.
The laughing Chrisisall
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Nope, it was a snark.
Seems to me the folks who put the video you posted together are loonies on a par with pundits like Limbaugh, the folks who put 'birther' sites up, and those who create pictures of Pres. Obama in Joker makeup. You just made an argument for me...there are tons more examples like the ones you listed than there are of lefties acting stupidly.
If I consider the folks who repost Limbaugh, 'birther' stuff, and doctored pictures of the President to be loonies, how can I not consider folk who repost character assassination of Palin in the same light?
Any of course you'll reply that your stuff isn't bad at all - just funny or highlighting the truth - which is exactly what the conservative loonies would say of their stuff.Quote:
Any time you call someone loony, it's a put-down and a snark. Simple as that.
Calling peeps on partisanship is an observation, labeling them loonies is snark.
The fact is, the question was about the signing and who signed. The fact that was intended is confirmed by what River wrote:Quote:
If THEY think her answer was silly, why would they talk like that? They'd be lauding her to the sky.
....they brought it up front and center. There was no attempt at all to hide or whitewash it. They actually chuckled about it in a condescending and disappointed manner.
Quoting the idea that everyone involved in the revolution was a "founding father" doesn't change what people BELIEVE and what people mean when they refer to the "founding fathers". If Beck and O'Reily picked up on it, it's not being seen through some partisan veil. Or are you saying they're loonies too?
As to what we find humor in, Palin provides it herself. The clip stands on its own merits; nobody changed her words, made out she was a terrorist, hated white people, a socialist, an illegal alien, a Nazi, or any of the other things those on the right have hurled.
You need to show a clip where someone actually makes a foolish statement on the left to make a comparison. Actually, for your claim to be accurate, you have to show MANY to equate the left to the right in these times. Because there are tons and tons of clips from the people saying health reform will "put grandma to death" to the birthers, the worst tea party nutcases, Faux News fraudulently and all-too-obviously using clips from an entirely different season to make it look like their "protest" drew more people than it actually did, and on and on. All that is fair game.
I don't know how it was in past times, but right now, there are an awful lot of people out there providing clips of their own words making themselves look stupid.
And, uh, we DO laugh at Clinton...and Biden, and Letterman, and other people on the left who make stupid remarks or do stupid things. If you can't see that, then your partisan blinders are on, in which case your argument doesn't stand. Just because there are more right-wingers out right now providing humor via clips of their own words doesn't make laughing at them partisan. Can you understand the difference and what I'm trying to say?
I guess it's basically: Showing a clip of someone saying something stupid does not equate to faking something to laugh at/make your point/attack someone. Showing someone's own actions/words does not equate to calling people names or faking stuff to make your point. Doesn't make whoever puts the clip up a "loony".
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Cause I been just waitin for an excuse to drop this one...
Only Bill can make "sleazy" look so awesome.
I for one, do not feel one bit guilty about mocking ANY public figure who deliberately and intentionally stepped onto the public stage by entering national politics - if folk got a problem with that, maybe the person shoulda stayed home, and to espouse the idea that ridiculing public figures should be off-limits is just asking for the kind of radical nuttery which leads to some seriously dark places.
And BECAUSE OF THAT, we need to *treasure* ridicule, no matter how partisan it is, cause taking these people seriously leads to them taking themselves seriously, and that's a damned bad idea.
All that said, I mock her not cause she's a dimwit, but because I believe her to be IMHO, insane and potentially dangerous given even the slightest bit of power, and making her a laughingstock is the surest way to make well sure that it never, EVER happens...
Of course, when she does half the job for me I don't worry so much.
-F
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:Bingo! ...or, YAHTZEE!
Originally posted by Fremdfirma: taking these people seriously leads to them taking themselves seriously, and that's a damned bad idea.
Whatever... I agree.
The laughing Chrisisall
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME