Sarah Palin 'Target WikiLeaks Like Taliban' 1425
DMandPenfold writes "Sarah Palin, who is widely tipped as a possible Republican candidate for president in 2012, has said WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange should be hunted down in the way armed forces are targeting the Taliban and Al-Qaeda." So that means we should spend billions of dollars and not catch him? Good plan.
Why do we keep talking about her? (Score:5, Interesting)
I said the same thing about Barak Obama in 2006 (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:I said the same thing about Barak Obama in 2006 (Score:5, Insightful)
And then I voted for him in 2008.....things change. Still, I agree, she's pretty much unelectable in my mind.
Obama's only real problem was overcoming racism. He was a barely left of center (for the US at least) charasmatic politician running against that party that America was fed up with. In the 2008 election, his race and his name were really the only things that anyone focused on when attacking him.
Palin's problem was, and still remains overcoming the bad press she generates by being a mouth breathing half-wit (although the coaching she received while sequestered for a month after completely whiffing all the softballs Katie Couric was lobbing at her helped a bit). She really only appeals to people who are just as backwards, authoritarian and unintelligent as she is. Unfortunately, that demographic seems to be taking over this country.
Re:I said the same thing about Barak Obama in 2006 (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Why do we keep talking about her? (Score:5, Insightful)
She is unelectable, why the hell does the media pay so much attention to her? She has to be the most hated political figure in the US for the left/left leaning middle. The dumbest thing the republicans could possibly do is run her in 2012.
What she and her supporters have not figured out is that they get so much attention because it's like watching a train wreck in slow motion. It's entertainment not politics.
Re:Why do we keep talking about her? (Score:5, Interesting)
It's entertainment not politics.
There's a difference?
Re:Why do we keep talking about her? (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Why do we keep talking about her? (Score:5, Funny)
It's entertainment not politics.
There's a difference?
Yeah. Entertainment is funny.
Re:Why do we keep talking about her? (Score:5, Insightful)
Entertainment is fun but you go home afterwards. Politics wrecks lives, like a show where you are forced to live with the bad outcome
I Disagree with Your Assessment (Score:5, Insightful)
What she and her supporters have not figured out is that they get so much attention because it's like watching a train wreck in slow motion. It's entertainment not politics.
Well, to her credit, she has a lot of followers. Despite many faux pas she's made that would have left anyone else gelded, she somehow keeps drumming up support. I'm not too educated on the numbers now for tea partiers versus non-tea partying Republicans but I think it would be a deathly schism for the Republican party. The two large parties can't afford to break off into chunks and therefore it's going to be the most supported candidate that gets the nod. Right now, who else is there?
There have been countless stupid quotes and moves by Sarah Palin where I've thought "Wow, well, at least she's finally done for." And yet she comes out of it. She starts working for Fox News and injects her own little two cents into everything and I'm thinking, "Look at all this material for a potential opponent to use against her." Yet she grows in popularity! She gets a reality show on some cable TV show called "Sarah Palin's Alaska" (like she owns the state) and I think "Well, finally, she's jumping the shark." Yet people are watching it in respectable TV viewing numbers! She releases a book that rips apart JFK and yet somehow she comes out still being followed. What gives?
In my humble opinion, as someone coming from the rural mid-west and now living in the urban east coast, you are talking about a populace you don't understand. People are watching her, reading her books and identifying with her at an alarming rate. To claim that everyone one of her supporters is driving from Ohio and other states to see her and Glenn Beck on the mall just to 'observe a train wreck' only exacerbates the problem and further removes you from what's really going on. America is just as polarized as they were during the elections and the Republican party -- though strong -- is encountering a weird kind of fragmentation for better or for worse.
Politics is entertainment just like sports are entertainment. But most spectators are cheering for someone.
It's easy for us to dismiss them but that only adds to their persecution complex. I don't know what the answer is but I prefer to listen to them and then try to reason with them instead of writing them off. There's bigger numbers in different parts of the country and I'm not a fan of watching Glenn Beck prey on people who are suffering right now. It downright sickens me.
Re:I Disagree with Your Assessment (Score:5, Interesting)
People are watching her, reading her books and identifying with her at an alarming rate.
It's the same down South. As a matter of fact, back in 2008, someone wrote to the editor of the Economist saying how they liked Sarah because "she is just like me."
To write Palin off as a "nut" or as "unelectable" would be a mistake. I see a lot of Democrats hoping that Palin runs in '12 - they should be careful of what they wish for.
Re:I Disagree with Your Assessment (Score:5, Insightful)
Well, to her credit, she has a lot of followers.
So did Christine O'Donell and Joe Miller. Fortunately, all the hardcore Tea Party activists seem to have been defeated. Yes, there were a lot of old-style republicans who hopped on the Tea Party bandwagon, but it seems to me that the ones that were truly on the fringe like Sarah Palin were defeated at the polls. Considering that this was an election year in which republicans and tea partiers will have had had their high point for many years to come, I'm not too worried.
Can Sarah Palin get about 30% of the vote in a nationwide election?Quite possible. Will she win the presidency? I'm betting my citizenship that she doesn't.
Re:I Disagree with Your Assessment (Score:5, Funny)
Oh don't worry. Even if she won the Presidency, she'd just get frustrated and quit after two years.
Re:I Disagree with Your Assessment (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:I Disagree with Your Assessment (Score:5, Insightful)
Problem is, and to use a car analogy, we are watching two teams fight and jostle for access to the steering wheel of a bus that already ate a guard rail, has careened off the road, across the median, and is now into oncoming traffic with nobody really watching where it is going.
Re:I Disagree with Your Assessment (Score:5, Funny)
You're Probably Right But ... (Score:5, Interesting)
Actually, the Kennedy's in general and JFK in particular DESERVE to be ripped apart--but not for the vapid reasons that Sarah Palin's ghost writer came up with.
Look, I'm not here to turn this into some JFK and RFK and Ted Kennedy did all this horrible crap and killed a woman and got away with it and were womanizing nepotistic rich bastards ... all or or some of these things could be said. But what I was trying to say here was that nobody has ever run on that platform. You can write a book of dirt when you're done with politics but writing such a book before you become president is sort of like asking your future opponent if they'd like to have their way with you right now. I mean JFK, though flawed, was a hero to a lot of Americans. And his martyrdom was just icing on the cake. And to call into question [seattlepi.com] one of his most loved and cherished speeches is more than ballsy, it's downright dangerous.
Sarah Palin is a new kind of political monster, unlike the ones I'm used to watching comfortably from my armchair. She's got a twitter feed [twitter.com] that sports so many errors, she might actually be the person running it! From a classic Bush-esque prescriptive versus descriptive linguistics error [huliq.com] to making accusations [thestatecolumn.com] and weird religious remarks [examiner.com]. It's a microblogging service! Look at what the rest of the politicians use it for: a paid staff techie is told what to put on it and what goes on it is only tepid words praising safe topics for that candidate to like. And those are usually reviewed seventy times before they go up. She has broken the rules of and committed fouls in politics many times and yet people embrace her.
All I wanted to say in my post was that from what I've seen of Sarah Palin, we should have stuck a fork in her long ago yet she remains. And why is that? Well, she's a dangerously well liked and amicable to a large part of the population that you are not familiar with. If she makes a mistake they seem to forgive her and say "I've made that mistake too." If she uses cracked logic or argument tactics long ago written off by academics, her followers just write off the academics. Trust me, as someone who's tried to reason with a supporter with some fairly simple debate analysis of Glenn Beck's logic, I can tell you that you don't want to approach this as some fancy pants intellectual telling them how dumb they are.
Don't confuse this with praise of Sarah Palin or defense of JFK. This is just me trying to warn people about how I see the situation at present. What happens when she runs for president and her opposition preys on some stupid social gaffe of hers? If it's any less than what she's already done, it's merely going to be ignored by or reinforce her supporter's commitment.
Re:You're Probably Right But ... (Score:4, Interesting)
The problem is that American politics is a team sport. The bigger problem is that team sport mentality is just accepted as the norm.
Politics -- as voting -- should be a dry, boring act. Back when 30% of the electorate was actually engaged, it was. Now, demagogues fill the airwaves with outlandish accusations, turning countrymen against each other.
After all the demagoguery that is constantly being used to rile some people who are genuinely distressed because they've lost their job/house/life, I worry some of these people are genuinely confused; the enemy is no longer Osama -- it's now Obama.
Re:You're Probably Right But ... (Score:5, Interesting)
All I wanted to say in my post was that from what I've seen of Sarah Palin, we should have stuck a fork in her long ago yet she remains. And why is that? Well, she's a dangerously well liked and amicable to a large part of the population that you are not familiar with. If she makes a mistake they seem to forgive her and say "I've made that mistake too." If she uses cracked logic or argument tactics long ago written off by academics, her followers just write off the academics. Trust me, as someone who's tried to reason with a supporter with some fairly simple debate analysis of Glenn Beck's logic, I can tell you that you don't want to approach this as some fancy pants intellectual telling them how dumb they are.
So how do you approach it?
I think you are (at least indirectly) speaking to something that scares the crap out of me: the growing influence of Christian Fundamentalists in the USA. In other words, the people who refuse to believe anything that is incompatible with their faith. By definition, these people are incapable of rational discussion. And when you try to point out their logical errors, they basically say, "that can't be, because the Bible says so," or, as you say, write you off as a fancy pants intellectual. Either way, you are left in a situation where you might as well be speaking two different languages. Actually, if one person refuses to deal in facts and reason, you might as well be speaking to a crazy person, or a dog, or a tree, because the conversation will go nowhere.
I spent the first 27 years of my life in small-town, midwestern USA. I hate to be cliche, but "blinded by faith" quite literally describes a significant number of people I've encountered---within my family, at school, at work, and in the community.
So how do you approach these people, who are either unable or unwilling to communicate rationally? I've thought about this long and hard, but I can't come up with any solution. And I keep seeing suggestions that their numbers, power, and influence are growing. It's conceivable that they will eventually wield some real power (or you could argue they do already). And just as soon as they can, I guarantee you they will try as hard as possible to eradicate all the "fancy pants intellectuals".
I have a friend who teaches 7th grade math at a public school in a small town in central Illinois. She teaches there because, from a student quality and compensation point of view, it's one of the better schools. But the community is small enough that the overwhelming majority of the residents are fundamentalist Christians. Evolution is not taught at this school; school billboards have Christian propaganda all over them; Wednesday is "giving alms" day, and as such, there are no scheduled activities outside of normal classes. On the surface, it looks like a normal public school, but when you get in, you realize it might as well be a private Christian school. And that goes for the community as a whole---on the surface, it is a nice town, mostly upper-middle class residents, low crime, close to a bigger town with all the bigger-town attractions, etc. I always thought it would be a nice place to live until my friend told me about her school. I wonder how many unsuspecting non-Christians end up there, and are quickly run out because of their differences?
Re:I Disagree with Your Assessment (Score:5, Insightful)
What is wrong about Palin ripping apart JFK, do some REAL research about him and him during his presidency and how he played with America's economy.
Frankly, it doesn't matter if everything she said about him is 100% true -- it's politically stupid to attack him, in a general-election sense, because he's a heroic martyr figure to too many Americans. It'd be like writing a book about what jerks Martin Luther King or John Lennon were -- there's virtually no chance of it not seriously alienating a lot more people than it wins over.
I HATE big government and I believe slowly we should be reducing our government size (such as agencies) by about half. Too many agencies do nothing but to provide jobs, where the private sector could be doing the same thing. In doing such a thing, our deficit will be reduced and by eliminating government slowly, jobs will be gained as they are lost
Don't take this the wrong way, but you don't seem to understand how or where the government is actually spending the vast majority of its money. Doing so is a pre-requisite for offering any realistic budgetary solution. (So is understand how the government gets its revenue, but that's another discussion entirely.)
Re:Why do we keep talking about her? (Score:5, Funny)
why the hell does the media pay so much attention to her?
Because she is even more hilarious than when Tina Fey makes fun of her.
Re:Why do we keep talking about her? (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Why do we keep talking about her? (Score:4, Insightful)
Because we want the Republicans to lose? (Score:4, Interesting)
Keep her in the spotlight. I'd prefer having 4 more years of Obama, instead of any Republican "small government" type.
Re:Because we want the Republicans to lose? (Score:5, Insightful)
I just wish "small government" weren't such a huge lie. All of these "small government" republicans are saying is that they want to spend more money on their things and less on everyone else's.
Re:Because we want the Republicans to lose? (Score:5, Insightful)
To me the emphasis on quantity and not quality shows how stupid people are.
Making all that effort to solve the wrong problem. What good is it if you have achieved a government of size X, but it's still bad?
Sad really that so many supposedly smart people are that stupid.
Re:Because we want the Republicans to lose? (Score:5, Insightful)
That's just it, there is no such animal as a small government type, in government. Whatever they were before they got into government, once they are there, they are for "big government." Republicans do not want a small government, they just want to do away with the parts they don't want (social programs, regulatory agencies, pork for other states) and increase the parts they do want (farm subsidies, the military, pork for their state.) If Republicans wanted small government, they could have it. Al they would have to do is stop taking federal money taken from the taxes of the rich, blue states. They could have their small government quite easily.
Take a look at who pays, and who receives. Poor Republican states are leaching off the rich Democratic states. If Republicans wanted small government and fiscal responsibility, they would pay their own way in their own states.
http://www.taxfoundation.org/research/show/266.html [taxfoundation.org]
Re: (Score:3)
She is unelectable, why the hell does the media pay so much attention to her?
She's unelectable specifically because they keep her stupidity in the news. If she doesn't know her role she's going to be sad one day when she finds out. I'm pretty sure she does, though.
The dumbest thing the republicans could possibly do is run her in 2012.
If they do, then you will know their role is to throw another election via an unelectable ticket, which is what they did in the last election.
Re:Why do we keep talking about her? (Score:5, Insightful)
I once thought some guy from Texas born with a silver foot in his mouth, who had basically relied on daddy's friends and connections his entire adult life, would have been equally unelectable. I was disastrously wrong.
Re:Why do we keep talking about her? (Score:5, Insightful)
I had never been ashamed of the American people (not to be confused with the American government) until the day Bush was re-elected.
Re:Why do we keep talking about her? (Score:5, Insightful)
I don't care for Kerry, although any average amphibian would be a better choice than Bush, but to say you're being subjective about what Kerry did in 1971 (not 1973.)
Kerry went to Paris and met with BOTH sides that were attempting to negotiate peace. He went there in the presence of other US government officials, for example Senator Vance Hartke. He didn't attempt to negotiate anything with the North Vietnamese as you so clearly allude. He came back and told congress that his primary concern was getting back POWs and that he believed setting a timetable for a withdrawal from Vietnam would result in the immediate return of POWs.
He didn't commit treason, he did less than a US Senator did in meeting with the same parties FOR THE SAME REASON.
FFS, isn't anyone capable of being objective anymore? I don't want Kerry running the government, but I don't have to lie/slander/deceive people about him (a la Ann Coulter.)
Re:Why do we keep talking about her? (Score:5, Insightful)
8 years as Illinois Senator. 4 years as US Senator. President of Harvard Law Review. Civil rights attourney. Teacher at UChicago law school ... Ignoring his other community works, what exactly counts as being "productive" in your world?
Re:Why do we keep talking about her? (Score:5, Informative)
Ron Paul is worthless?
He's anti-war.
Anti-global US empire.
Anti-US acting as world's policeman.
And pro-balance the budget and pay off the enormous debt.
I'd like to clone him about 435 times and let them run the Congress.
Re:Why do we keep talking about her? (Score:5, Insightful)
Ron Paul is worthless?
In the sense that what he wants has roughly zero bearing on what Congress actually does, yeah.
Re:Not Just Hateb by the Left (Score:5, Interesting)
unfairly redistributing wealth (healthcare).
Huh? How is providing healtcare to those that can't afford it wealth redistribution?
And while we're on that topic, why is always considered a bad thing when wealth redistribution benefits the lower-middle income, but it's a good thing when it benefits the upper 2% (e.g. tax breaks for the wealthy)?
Re:Not Just Hateb by the Left (Score:4, Funny)
>> And while we're on that topic, why is always considered a bad thing
Correction: Always is considered a bad thing only sometimes, but never is considered a bad thing always. On the other hand, sometimes is never considered a good thing, so it's always considered a bad thing.
Oh wait, I guess you were right.
-dZ.
Re:Not Just Hateb by the Left (Score:5, Informative)
For the last time (you'd know if you switched away from Fox News once in a while), the Obama healthcare reform is budget neutral. The reforms will result in $622 billion in savings over 10 years (preventative care vs emergency care) so there is no wealth redistribution involved.
I won't even comment on the second part regarding tax breaks as I've done this a dozen times already so you can just read my other posts if you are interested.
Re:Not Just Hateb by the Left (Score:5, Insightful)
I voted for Al Gore in 2000 (I had just turned 18). I didn't vote in 2004, as there were no good candidates, and I voted for Obama in 2008 (and will vote for him again in 2012). I'm not happy with GM being bailed out (I own a huge amount of Toyota stock, and now Tesla Motors stock), but understand it was necessary to prevent the loss of millions of auto supply chain jobs. I like universal healthcare (you live in a society you twit, the wealth you have is only available to you because of the structure of society, and society has a cost) vs people going bankrupt and for-profit companies reaping hundreds of millions of dollars.
It appears though that we both agree that Palin would be a destructive force if put into office. Shall we roll up our sleeves and work together on this? I'm for fiscal responsibility and smaller government, but am also pro-choice, pro-gay marriage, and pro-universal healthcare.
Regular people like us can try to compromise, or we can take the nuclear option and use our resources to try to hammer the other folks into the ground. I'd much prefer the former over the latter.
Re:Not Just Hateb by the Left (Score:5, Informative)
Yes, it is.
Alas, it's not one of the Federal government's basic responsibilities. The Constitution pretty clearly outlines what the Feds may do, and what they may not do.
And "wealth redistribution" or "taking care of the poor" isn't on the list of "what the Feds may do".
Which makes it a matter for the individual States. Each of which may handle the matter at hand in any way they desire, so long as what they do doesn't violate either the Federal Constitution or their own Constitution.
Hunt Assange like Al Qaeda? (Score:5, Funny)
After 9 years of hunting Bin Laden.. Assange is safe from the US for a while!
Welll, on the other hand... (Score:5, Insightful)
After 9 years of hunting Bin Laden.. Assange is safe from the US for a while!
But I don't now about US Army's external sub-contractors illegally arresting, detaining and torturing half of the Swedish population.
Nor the US Army overthrowing the government of Norway, on the grounds that they might have had supported Sweden and might also have servers for mass-hosting of leaks in possession (although independent reports from the UN deny both of these fears).
billions ? (Score:4, Funny)
Trillions! and thousands of civilian deaths.
Sarah Palin... (Score:5, Insightful)
You know who we have to blame for her, right?
John McCain. What the heck was the man thinking? If he'd picked his VP candidate with an eye to win, instead of just throwing a dart then we'd be far better off. Even though I wouldn't have wanted his hypocritical, principal betraying, lying ass in the Oval Office, at least with a decent VP we'd not have had the horror that is Sarah Palin inflicted on the nation at large. She'd just be some obscure Alaska Governor waiting for the snows to come in and counting all the oil money.
Curse you!
Re:Sarah Palin... (Score:4, Insightful)
Because the Clinton candidacy was strong when he chose Palin, and McCain assumed (with good reason) that if Clinton got the Democratic nomination that the election would end up being about opening up a new era of equality in politics with regards to female candidates. By making Palin his running mate he got a physically attractive woman on the ticket who I presume he thought would make the election less about whether women were qualified to be President (and who would want to be on the wrong side of that historical judgement?) and more about whether you wanted to guarantee the "old guard" of women Democrats a place at the table or whether you wanted some eye candy in a politician who presumably had a decent future ahead of her.
I have no doubt that he kicked himself not for picking a woman running mate, but rather picking an idiot running mate with delusions of stardom. Then, instead of the election being about whether it was time for a female on the ticket, it became about whether America was ready for a person with a different racial background as President. He not only brought a knife to a gun fight, but it was a spectacularly dull knife.
Revising recent history (Score:5, Interesting)
That's an interesting theory. The problem is that the August 24, 2008 meeting with advisors at which Sarah Palin became the top choice to be McCain's running mate occurred several months after Clinton's conceded the race for the Democratic nomination and endorsed Barack Obama on June 7, 2008; the August 27 meeting at which she was offered the #2 spot on the ticket took place during the Democratic Convention, on the same day Barack Obama was formally nominated as the Democratic Party's candidate for the Presidency.
So, its historically indefensible to claim that the McCain campaign was nominating Palin in response to the perceived current strength of the Clinton campaign at the time.
It's more defensible to claim that they did it in response to the defeat of Hillary Clinton, in belief that that defeat might provide an opening to pick up some disappointed Clinton supporters that really were focussed on seeing a woman on the ticket. (I'm not saying this is true, or that, if true, it was a reasonable expectation on their part -- but its an argument I've heard that is certainly more plausible than the explanation that the choice was made because they thought the Clinton campaign was still going strong and that that is who they would have to face in the general.)
Chomsky on pentagon papers, wikileaks and palin (Score:5, Informative)
Very good interview done within the last few days. Why can't we have this guy running the country, not the bozo teams we get over and over?
http://www.democracynow.org/2010/11/30/noam_chomsky_wikileaks_cables_reveal_profound [democracynow.org]
Palin against government transparency? (Score:4, Interesting)
Palin just lost my vote. I liked her because she managed to balance the budget in Alaska and is supposedly a supporter of the Constitution. With her support of trying to take down wikileaks, it indicates she is actually a supporter of ongoing government waste and corruption.
Government of the people, by the people, for the people should be completely transparent. Every dime should be able to be accounted for, and all bills before Congress should be made publicly available before they are voted on - not hidden the way Romney/Obamacare was.
Re:Palin against government transparency? (Score:5, Insightful)
Palin just lost my vote.
Seriously? *This* is what did it for you?
Re:Palin against government transparency? (Score:5, Insightful)
Never insult someone when they've publicly stated they agree with you. It makes you look petty and discourages others from changing their opinions in favor of yours in the future.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Palin just lost my vote. I liked her because she managed to balance the budget in Alaska and is supposedly a supporter of the Constitution.
You get that Alaska's budget is balanced thanks to huge oil revenues and a small population and given that the state needs to GIVE the money away just to not appear too self-interested that her "work" as governor has NOTHING to do with it, right? Her constitutional rhetoric is similarly disappointing.
Re:Palin against government transparency? (Score:5, Interesting)
Alaska balances their budget by taking more federal dollars than the other states. They are the number one recipient of federal pork.
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/08/19/business/19stimulus.html [nytimes.com]
Plus, she is only a supporter of the Constitution when it's the parts of the Constitution she likes.
So what (Score:5, Insightful)
Who cares what Sarah Palin thinks? This isn't news, for anybody.
Re: (Score:3)
Who cares what Sarah Palin thinks? This isn't news, for anybody.
Oh, but it is entertainment. Watching smug retards make fools of themselves is always funny, especially when they don't even realize, we are not laughing with them, we are laughing at them. If she stood any chance of being elected to any public office anywhere, she would be scary rather than funny, but as it is, she is just hilarious.
Re:So what (Score:5, Insightful)
LOL at Palin calling Julian Assange "Unamerican". What's so bad about that when he isn't in fact American in the first place? /can't commit treason against a country where you aren't a citizen //proud to be unamerican
Death, huh? (Score:3, Insightful)
The Taliban is responsible, directly and demonstrably, for a great many deaths, both in the US and abroad.
The number of deaths that can be traced to Assange is... how many? How indirectly?
If he is in fact guilty of the actual physical crimes of which he's accused, he should be pursued and prosecuted proportionally to them. But when you equate "taking America down a peg" with mass murder... it makes you realize why Assange is doing what he's doing.
It feels as if America has lost its glory, pursuing its reputation like a bully. I think we're still better than that. But the last election didn't tell me so as clearly as I'd like, and the next election may explicitly contradict me.
Re:Death, huh? (Score:5, Informative)
The Taliban is responsible, directly and demonstrably, for a great many deaths, both in the US and abroad.
I'd like to point out the propaganda success here. The Taliban is the former government of Afghanistan. They have never committed international aggression (though I'm sure they did some nasty stuff internally while in power). They are not responsible for deaths outside of Afghanistan. "al Qaeda" is not the same as "The Taliban."
Re:Death, huh? (Score:5, Informative)
The Taliban aren't responsible for deaths in the US. They're a local power in Afghanistan, and did not take part in Al Qaeda's activities. The reason the US invaded Afghanistan was for their refusal to extradite Bin Laden, not for any Taliban-led attack.
Re:Death, huh? (Score:5, Insightful)
The reason the US invaded Afghanistan was for their refusal to extradite Bin Laden
The US invaded Afghanistan because there was money in it, for someone other then the American people that is. I think that the idea that invading a country and occupying it for 9 years just to secure the extradition of a single man is preposterous. I mean seriously, why the fuck do you have Delta/Seals/Rangers/SAD if you need to deploy a whole army to catch a singly person?
Not to mention the fact that the Taliban publicly agreed to extradite Bin Laden if the US supplied some sort of evidence. Later they relinquished that request and offered to extradite Bin Laden to Pakistan, but Pakistan refused to take him due to Musharf feeling that "He can not guarantee his safety". Yep. Pakistan, your "Ally in the War on Terror".
Anyone perpetuating the myth that Afghanistan is the just, necessary war (in contrast to the Iraq war) is either disingenuous or tragically ignorant of the facts.
Tom Lehrer time (Score:4, Insightful)
When someone makes a move
Of which we don't approve,
Who is it that always intervenes?
U.N. and O.A.S.,
They have their place, I guess,
But first send the Marines!
We'll send them all we've got,
John Wayne and Randolph Scott,
Remember those exciting fighting scenes?
To the shores of Tripoli,
But not to Mississippoli,
What do we do? We send the Marines!
For might makes right,
And till they've seen the light,
They've got to be protected,
All their rights respected,
'Till somebody we like can be elected.
Members of the corps
All hate the thought of war,
They'd rather kill them off by peaceful means.
Stop calling it aggression,
O we hate that expression.
We only want the world to know
That we support the status quo.
They love us everywhere we go,
So when in doubt,
Send the Marines!
Land of the Free Indeed (Score:5, Insightful)
This is a good thing (Score:3)
Is there any reason for this article? (Score:5, Funny)
Sarah Palin's commentary on anything deeper than an Alaskan salmon stream is wasted air. She is not a political mind worthy of quoting. I'd be more interested in Britney Spears commentary on the escalating North Korea situation since we might at least get some good cleavage pics.
Two reasons that I can figure she get coverage (Score:5, Interesting)
One is just that it is kinda funny to hear crazies talk. I mean let's face it, she is nuts and she says some amazingly stupid shit. It can be amusing to read that. So that is part of it is people just going "What? She REALLY said that? Hell we need to print that shit!"
The other is that there are more than a few democrats who really, REALLY want her to be a forerunner in the republican party. Reason is of course that she is crazy and has basically no chance. Now realistically she isn't going to be a Republican contender. However the Democrats sure hope she is because man would that make for an easy election. That leads to more coverage than you'd normally get since not only is she trying to make herself heard, her opponents are trying to make sure she'd heard.
The problem with both parties ... (Score:5, Insightful)
The problem with both parties is that we can't keep the dumbest 2% of us off the television.
Why the hating on Assange? (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Why the hating on Assange? (Score:5, Insightful)
Yes, yes, but now they've charged him with SEXUAL crimes, you see, so none of that matters. Once tarred with the SEXUAL brush, one is pretty well finished as a public figure in society, because people get really, really stupid when the word sex is brought up. So don't worry about the treason thing. They're beyond that already. He must be brought to (cough) "justice" FOR THE CHILDREN!
Re:Why the hating on Assange? (Score:4, Insightful)
I haven't figured out all the blame is trying to focus on Wikileaks/Assange.
People like Palin believe in the epistemology of violence, just like the persecutors of Galileo did. They think that by threatening anyone who fails to see things their way with torture and death they can actually make the world that way.
It's a tricky problem to deal with, because their condition is stable against empirical disproof: you can show them how it fails any number of times, and their only response will be to proclaim that the people demonstrating the falisity of their beliefs ought to be tortured and killed.
Still one can dream it might be otherwise. [cindylooyou.com]
She was already nearly elected Vice-President (Score:5, Insightful)
Remember? And the Tea Party dipshits hadn't even gotten started then. If you don't think this clown is electable, you haven't spent enough time in the flyover states.
Re:She was already nearly elected Vice-President (Score:4, Interesting)
Obama gained over 52% of the popular votes. I am not sure that any non-sitting president has gotten elected with this margin in 50 years. Bush I did but he was following Reagan. Even getting a simple majority is a significant event for a democrat. The only reasonable conclusion, given the McCain was a very popular candidate, and many independents wanted to vote for him, and a large number of Americans seem to hate Obama, is that Palin killed the ticket.
The sad thing is that so many people base conclusion on faith, not facts.
Interpol alert rescinded? (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Interpol alert rescinded? (Score:4, Insightful)
You betcha (Score:4, Funny)
Correction: a winkin' smiley
The part that gets me... (Score:5, Insightful)
Does anyone -seriously- think that if Assange were locked up / killed / whatever, that this sort of thing would stop?
While he's more than "just a public face" in this issue, it isn't like Wikileaks would die with him, or that some successor wouldn't be spawned.
She wants him hunted down.. (Score:3)
Who To Invade? (Score:3)
>"Sarah Palin ... has said WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange should be hunted down in the way armed forces are targeting the Taliban and Al-Qaeda."
So does this mean the US is going to invade Venezuela?
Free country? (Score:5, Insightful)
You know, it's things like that that tend to set me off. Open information is essential to freedom, and the US found it quite delightful when WL exposed other countries. But now that it's coming to light that our own country has a lot to hide, it must be stopped? I don't think so. Get the information out there, shame the ones knowingly acting dishonestly and work to let them know it is not acceptable. People in power are always willing to bend the rules for what they feel is 'good reason'. Problem is, that so called good reason tends to expand quickly. I don't know what the fix is for the situation, but I do know that it will involve a lot more sites like WL. If you have nothing to hide, then you have nothing to fear. Or so the government tells us. Interesting how that doesn't seem to go both ways, that needs to change, in a big way.
She may be unelectable... (Score:5, Informative)
But there are those that are in power (already elected) who feel the same way. Rep. Pete King (R-N.Y.), the incoming chairman of the House Homeland Security Committee wants to classify wikileaks as a terrorist organization. [thehill.com]. I believe that this would make contributing money a federal felony. In addition, the Interpol connection has been ratcheted up. Assange is now on the most wanted list. [washingtonpost.com]
It's not just Sarah Palin, there are those in power that are clearly using their power on this matter. Kind of scary, actually. (Though not surprising, considering what Assange is doing).
You Gonna Do the Job Yourself Sarah? (Score:5, Insightful)
No, honestly Sarah, what in the hell does your statement mean? Are you going to commit troops and military resources to "get him?" How are you going to do that since you are not in charge of any executive branch of any government in the entire world? Or does your current employer (isn't it Fox News nowadays?) have it's own private army that you can summon up just as easily as dipping into the petty cash?
Here's an idea, Sweetheart, instead of all the political grandstanding about what you are going to do to some dude on the other side of the world, why don't you put your money where your mouth is and actually try to go after him yourself? You don't want to break a nail? You don't want to put in the money or effort of conducting a manhunt? Well neither do the rest of us, nor do the citizens of the rest of the world, nor do most members of the U.S. military from what I can gather. We are tired of you politico retards, whom seem so adept at living with your heads on a completely different plain of reality, committing our resources, time, and efforts to some wild goose-chases that don't seem to produce any results anyways (Where is that last guy we went on a manhunt for? What was his name again? Osama Bin Something?). Nah, if you're really so outraged at Assange, go do your dirty work yourself. The rest of us are sick and tired of shoveling the shit for you student-body president, prom queen, princes and princesses that seem to think world politics is a popularity contest and a game.
For the tl:dr crowd, "Sarah, you're a stuck up, dolled up, dumb shit that isn't fit to find the path for getting your head out of your ass, much less hunting down a man on the other side of the world."
Demotivator (Score:5, Insightful)
Palin's goals are summed up by my favorite demotivator.
"Consulting: Because if you're not part of the solution, there's good money in prolonging the problem."
She very quickly / shrewdly realized that sitting on the sidelines jabbering away about "what's wrong with America" is an *insanely* profitable career. A career where your decisions can never be proven wrong. (Obama can make the wrong decisions, but Palin, Moore, Limbaugh, et al. never have that problem because they just offer *opinions* about decisions someone else makes.)
In short, she's exactly where she belongs and I wonder if she's smart enough to know it. Armchair Quarterbacks never, ever, ever get sacked. The only truly stupid thing could do would be to actually run for office again.
OP is Misquoting... (Score:4, Informative)
I can't believe you're going making me defend Sarah Palin, but the OP is misquoting her.
What she actually said was, "Why was he not pursued with the same urgency we pursue al Qaeda and Taliban leaders? [emphasis added]". She then goes on to say "Were individuals working for Wikileaks on these document leaks investigated? Shouldn’t they at least have had their financial assets frozen". It's clear she's advocating a legal response, not a military one.
Re:first! (Score:5, Funny)
This discussion is about Sarah Palin. I think you meant to say "fence post."
Re:first! (Score:5, Interesting)
Increasingly, attention has been focused on the role of Anna Ardin, the more visible of the two complainants. Her apparent mix of establishment cred, together with her varied activist/political career radical feminist, Christian social democrat, ambitious political intern seems to flummox non-Swedish commentators, who don’t understand that that is an establishment career in Sweden. Ardin has not only worked as an intern in the Swedish foreign affairs department, including a tour of DC and Cuba (from which she was allegedly deported), but has also interned on the op-ed page of the Gothenburg afternoon paper GT, part of the Expressen stable, owned by the right-wing Bonnier family (yep, Sweden has right-wingers).
It was to the relentlessly anti-left Expressen that the story of the initial charges of rape against Assange were released (a breach of Swedish law), in the small window of time before they were rescinded by a higher prosecutor.
Were there accusations of violent rape involved in this case, I’d be a lot more circumspect about reporting some of this, but it seems no one is asserting physical coercion. So here goes: two separate sources from the Swedish left have told me that they regard Ardin as more than a little over-the-top, and subject to some compelling obsessions. Another source said he was pretty sure of the identity of SW, the other complainant, and that some people had held suspicions about her bona fides as a member of the left.
And from this site here [rigorousintuition.ca] we find some very interesting info:
Someone in the police station rings up the prosecutor on duty - who just happens to be Maria Kjellstrand, whose husband works in the office of Beatrice Ask, who is Sweden's minister of justice, a position previously held by Thomas Bodström who gave away The Pirate Bay to the White House and who today runs a law firm with Claes Borgström who's made a career out of supporting militant radical feminist ideas - and who magically appears out of nowhere later on to become the two girls' legal counsel, despite being obscenely expensive.
Re:first! (Score:4, Funny)
Re:first! (Score:5, Informative)
You should be extremely careful what you wish for: Democrats were expressing similar sentiments when Ronald Reagan put himself up for the Republican nomination in 1980.
Re:first! (Score:5, Insightful)
Speaking as a non-american, I'd call it a win-win. Either she loses the race for the GOP or the rest of the world has incontrovertible proof that the US has become a nation that worships morons. Besides, can you imagine what John Stewart could do with 4 years of Palin? :)
Re:first! (Score:5, Funny)
Re:first! (Score:4, Insightful)
i would respectfully say that those who run aid the rise of ignorance. you should stay and fight for your country. because when you run away from problems they only grow. soon you'll be running away from wherever you ran to, when a palin pops up there too
people who run away from problems like palin, or avoid the subject, or don't vote out of ambivalence or cynicism: they aid the rise of ignorance. because if you don't fight ignorance, who will? take responsibility for YOUR country, and mold YOUR country in your image. or someone else will. and then you have no right to complain, because you didn't exert any effort. the image of the usa is up for grabs, its always up for grabs. and its image is claimed by those who exert effort to mold that image
if you give up in cynicism and do nothing or run away, then you are perhaps even worse than the idiots who follow palin: at least they are DOING something, even if a false cause. those who exert effort in a false cause are better than those who know what is right, but do nothing. i firmly believe that
there is no excuse for lack of effort, and then complaining when things don't go your way. your enemies are rich and powerful, yes. as if that should stop you in the noble fight for what is right. so get fighting, or be worse than a palin supporter, in my eyes at least
Re:IN SOVIET AMERIKA (Score:5, Insightful)
Still is. False dichotomy? CNN vs. Fox.
They both support a corporate kleptocratic power, which masquerades behind statist rhetoric, to subvert both the functional sovereignty of government and the republican enfranchisement of the people.
The "divide and conquer" tactic of using false right/left pseudo-ideology pits the population against itself, and diverts its energy into fighting non-issues, with no hope of affecting meaningful outcomes.
oh (Score:5, Informative)
Re:first! (Score:5, Interesting)
You're not alone. That's a world wide phenomenon, and no country is exempt. We're all mostly greedy bastards, no matter what people. Maybe not you, maybe not me, but 90% of the people, no matter if French, Italian, Indian or American. All the same shit all over.
For some odd reason, though, people here (in Europe) want people smarter than themselves in a public office. People here do elect people so someone else can do that brain work for them. And they want someone who can (ok, who looks like he probably could) do that. People here want to vote for "smart" people. Not necessarily brainy people, but people who have "made their way", who led a successful business or who can show off some other proof that they can "manage".
When Schwarzenegger was elected Governor of California people here (including those that usually vote for the "best looking guy") were stunned with disbelief. What? How's he a politician? Only thing he accomplished is movies. And movies are NOT taken serious around here. As much as we like celebrities, they have NO place in politics. Politics is serious matter. Movies are entertainment. They don't mix.
That doesn't mean that we got better politicians in any way. But it means that we get more intelligent ones because they have to "prove" that they got the brains and can talk level headed enough to appeal to the general consensus that politics is "serious business". No radical ideas allowed. No show gimmicks allowed. I didn't think I'd ever say it, but having a fairly conservative population that shuns changes has its benefits.
At least the weirdos like Palin have no chance to ever wield power.
Re:first! (Score:5, Insightful)
Speaking as a mostly leftist, I would rather see Obama on the republican nomination, so that maybe we can get a real left candidate.
Re:first! (Score:4, Interesting)
Ok scared guy, demonstrate it.
"All of 'em, any of 'em that have been in front of me over all these years." --Sarah Palin, unable to name a single newspaper or magazine she reads, interview with Katie Couric, CBS News, Oct. 1, 2008
"'Refudiate,' 'misunderestimate,' 'wee-wee'd up.' English is a living language. Shakespeare liked to coin new words too. Got to celebrate it!'" --a Tweet sent by Sarah Palin in response to being ridiculed for inventing the word "refudiate," proudly mistaking her illiteracy for literary genius, July 18, 2010 (NOTE: after attending 5 different colleges, she eventually graduated from the University of Idaho with a degree in journalism - "before her selection to run on the GOP ticket, she explained that her curiosity and love of writing made journalism a natural choice.")
"But obviously, we've got to stand with our North Korean allies." --Sarah Palin, after being asked how she would handle the current hostilities between the two Koreas, interview on Glenn Beck's radio show, Nov. 24, 2010
"[T]hey're in charge of the U.S. Senate so if they want to they can really get in there with the senators and make a lot of good policy changes that will make life better for Brandon and his family and his classroom." --Sarah Palin, getting the vice president's constitutional role wrong after being asked by a third grader what the vice president does, interview with NBC affiliate KUSA in Colorado, Oct. 21, 2008
''Dr. Laura: don't retreat...reload! (Steps aside bc her 1st Amend. rights ceased 2exist thx 2activists trying 2silence'' isn't American, not fair'')'' —Sarah Palin, in a Twitter message coming to the defense of Dr. Laura Schlessinger, the talk radio host who apologized and decided to retire from her highly-rated program after using the N-word on the air 11 times in 5 minutes, Aug. 18, 2010
I could continue, but I just don't have time to list all the examples of her poor intellectual qualifications.
Re:first! (Score:5, Insightful)
She couldn't even handle serving out her term as governor of Alaska. How does anything think she's qualified to be President?
Re:If Sarah Palin looked like Janet Reno (Score:5, Insightful)
What do you think she'd be doing with her life? Truck stop waitress?
No, truck stop waitresses have to have personality and organizational skills and some sense of reality.
Re:If Sarah Palin looked like Janet Reno (Score:5, Insightful)
What do you think she'd be doing with her life? Truck stop waitress?
No, truck stop waitresses have to have personality and organizational skills and some sense of reality.
And they generally finish their shifts.
I'd say... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:I'd say... (Score:5, Funny)
You don't need to hunt fame whores. Just set up a camera and they'll come to you.
Re:Martyrdom (Score:5, Insightful)
She speaks to the mob. She tells the mob what it wants to hear, rather than what needs saying. This will get her a big following, but it doesn't mean a good mob leader is capable of much beyond causing noise and damage. On the other hand I wonder how much this differs from many people involved in politics?
Re:What's the real damage? (Score:5, Informative)
"In the first big leak, the names of actual informants was leaked and it was reported one later died and a few disappeared."
Citation needed. And if you can provide evidence for this, I bet the DoD would really like to have it too, 'cos they think the number's zero [slashdot.org].
Re:This Is NOT News For Nerds (Score:5, Interesting)
On the contrary, I feel it is News for Nerds. It directly addresses the way technology is facilitating the globalization of information and how it conflicts with regional/local laws. The message was delivered by Facebook, so nerds should appreciate the irony that Palin is advocating censorship of information on a site that believes in opening up private information for all to view. Finally, the fact that a mainstream political figure (one does not have to hold office to be a current politician) is advocating the use of potentially illegal internet warfare (From the article: She [Palin] said “cyber tools" should be used to "permanently dismantle WikiLeaks") should also be of interest to nerds.
I don't think the topic is flamebait, I think it is controversial. The internet is a force of globalization, especially in the realm of information distribution. When that distribution starts to threaten state secrets, how far do we (the US) go? How about the UK, Germany, or France? How about China or India? How about Iran, Syria, or Saudi Arabia? If it is legitimate for the US to do a DDoS against Wikileaks, what about Venezuela attacking US news websites that it feels are threatening its State secrets?
Yes, I already dislike Palin, but as a nerd who tries to pay attention to the news, I want to know who is siding with Palin on this issue... and to some extent, it appears that is the current administration (who once advocated an open government).