Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
The Military News Politics

Sarah Palin 'Target WikiLeaks Like Taliban' 1425

Posted by CmdrTaco
from the name-calling dept.
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.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Sarah Palin 'Target WikiLeaks Like Taliban'

Comments Filter:
  • by orphiuchus (1146483) on Wednesday December 01, 2010 @12:48PM (#34406318)
    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.
    • by wernox1987 (1362105) on Wednesday December 01, 2010 @12:50PM (#34406358)
      And then I voted for him in 2008.....things change. Still, I agree, she's pretty much unelectable in my mind.
      • by Zeek40 (1017978) on Wednesday December 01, 2010 @01:19PM (#34406926)

        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.

    • by H0p313ss (811249) on Wednesday December 01, 2010 @12:50PM (#34406364)

      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.

      • by StikyPad (445176) on Wednesday December 01, 2010 @12:58PM (#34406512) Homepage

        It's entertainment not politics.

        There's a difference?

      • by eldavojohn (898314) * <eldavojohn@gm[ ].com ['ail' in gap]> on Wednesday December 01, 2010 @01:01PM (#34406566) Journal

        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.

        • by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday December 01, 2010 @01:06PM (#34406664)

          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.

        • by NeutronCowboy (896098) on Wednesday December 01, 2010 @01:17PM (#34406882)

          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.

        • by mlts (1038732) * on Wednesday December 01, 2010 @01:19PM (#34406936)

          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.

    • by Monkeedude1212 (1560403) on Wednesday December 01, 2010 @12:51PM (#34406372) Journal

      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.

    • by Dyinobal (1427207) on Wednesday December 01, 2010 @12:53PM (#34406400)
      I think people keep talking about her as proof that they aren't lying when they tell their kids they be anything when the grow up.
    • by mozumder (178398) on Wednesday December 01, 2010 @12:53PM (#34406402)

      Keep her in the spotlight. I'd prefer having 4 more years of Obama, instead of any Republican "small government" type.

      • by erroneus (253617) on Wednesday December 01, 2010 @01:13PM (#34406798) Homepage

        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.

    • by drinkypoo (153816)

      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.

    • by dkleinsc (563838) on Wednesday December 01, 2010 @01:02PM (#34406580) Homepage

      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.

      • by Assmasher (456699) on Wednesday December 01, 2010 @01:23PM (#34407008) Journal

        I had never been ashamed of the American people (not to be confused with the American government) until the day Bush was re-elected.

  • by draggy (30660) on Wednesday December 01, 2010 @12:48PM (#34406320) Homepage

    After 9 years of hunting Bin Laden.. Assange is safe from the US for a while!

    • by DrYak (748999) on Wednesday December 01, 2010 @01:14PM (#34406814) Homepage

      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)

    by polar red (215081) on Wednesday December 01, 2010 @12:48PM (#34406322)

    Trillions! and thousands of civilian deaths.

  • Sarah Palin... (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday December 01, 2010 @12:49PM (#34406332)

    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)

      by Delusion_ (56114) on Wednesday December 01, 2010 @01:15PM (#34406822) Homepage

      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.

      • by DragonWriter (970822) on Wednesday December 01, 2010 @01:43PM (#34407392)

        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.

        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.)

  • by DeadlyBattleRobot (130509) on Wednesday December 01, 2010 @12:49PM (#34406336)

    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]

  • by kimvette (919543) on Wednesday December 01, 2010 @12:50PM (#34406342) Homepage Journal

    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.

  • So what (Score:5, Insightful)

    by schnikies79 (788746) on Wednesday December 01, 2010 @12:50PM (#34406354)

    Who cares what Sarah Palin thinks? This isn't news, for anybody.

    • by spun (1352)

      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)

      by ross.w (87751) <{moc.liamg} {ta} {yelrednowr}> on Wednesday December 01, 2010 @05:54PM (#34411476) Journal

      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)

    by jfengel (409917) on Wednesday December 01, 2010 @12:50PM (#34406368) Homepage Journal

    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)

      by FencingLion (1553981) on Wednesday December 01, 2010 @01:09PM (#34406726)

      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)

      by mr100percent (57156) on Wednesday December 01, 2010 @01:18PM (#34406900) Homepage Journal

      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)

        by rkd2110 (992694) on Wednesday December 01, 2010 @02:39PM (#34408484)

        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.

  • by masdog (794316) <masdog@@@gmail...com> on Wednesday December 01, 2010 @12:51PM (#34406378)
    Nothing says "land of the free, home of the brave" than a quitter comparing a journalistic outfit that leaks embarassing data that the US and others don't want to be revealed to a theocratic government that opposes most fundamental freedoms. And yet, her base will eat this up.
  • by fermion (181285) on Wednesday December 01, 2010 @12:51PM (#34406380) Homepage Journal
    This is the best thing we could do. It means that the governments will attack unrelated targets, and Wikileaks will remain unscathed. He will be safe to do as he pleased and post other materials. Now if he Palin were going after him like he was Obama, then there might be some worry. But even then she would probably endorse some wako for the job who be so distracted with the Aqua Buddha, or who was doing what in the privacy of their own home, or would mistakenly travel to Sweden instead of Switzerland, or not realize that US laws did not apply in Europe.
  • by GodfatherofSoul (174979) on Wednesday December 01, 2010 @12:52PM (#34406396)

    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.

    • by Sycraft-fu (314770) on Wednesday December 01, 2010 @01:08PM (#34406702)

      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.

  • by Syncerus (213609) on Wednesday December 01, 2010 @12:53PM (#34406412)

    The problem with both parties is that we can't keep the dumbest 2% of us off the television.

  • by cdombroski (1075539) <cdombroski@icanttype.org> on Wednesday December 01, 2010 @12:53PM (#34406420) Homepage
    I haven't figured out all the blame is trying to focus on Wikileaks/Assange. To the point where people are being polled on if Assange should be charged with treason. I'm almost certain you need to be a US citizen before you can be charged with treason against the US.... Further, Assange didn't sign any agreements with the US gov't that he wouldn't release their information, that was the original informant. The information isn't (or shouldn't be) copyrighted, so the only thing to prevent anyone from distributing it is signing what is essentially an NDA.
    • by fyngyrz (762201) on Wednesday December 01, 2010 @01:06PM (#34406666) Homepage Journal

      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!

    • by radtea (464814) on Wednesday December 01, 2010 @01:50PM (#34407524)

      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]

  • by wordsnyc (956034) on Wednesday December 01, 2010 @12:56PM (#34406472) Homepage

    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.

    • by fermion (181285) on Wednesday December 01, 2010 @01:46PM (#34407468) Homepage Journal
      This is a fiction put forth by 'Fox News' and others that want to promote the lie that Obama did not win the election. There is a very small number of Americans that potentially vote on the person, most vote on the party. Of those, only a percentage goes and votes. This results in a small margin in popular votes. The reality is that the McCain/Palin ticket lost and lost big. The reality is that Palin and the Tea Party lost Republicans the chance to take over the Senate, and was not even able to get a congressperson elected from het own state.

      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.

  • by OzPeter (195038) on Wednesday December 01, 2010 @12:59PM (#34406520)
    I just saw a headline teaser on the TV that suggested that the Interpol alert on Assange has been lifted. Perhaps someone at Interpol was finally clued in that Assange was not the sort of person they are supposed to be looking for?
  • You betcha (Score:4, Funny)

    by SoundGuyNoise (864550) on Wednesday December 01, 2010 @01:00PM (#34406546) Homepage
    I hereby propose, that just like in all her public speaking events, any and all quotes from Sarah Palin must be appended with a winking smiley

    ;)

    Correction: a winkin' smiley

  • by NecroPuppy (222648) on Wednesday December 01, 2010 @01:01PM (#34406564) Homepage

    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.

  • by Stregano (1285764) on Wednesday December 01, 2010 @01:03PM (#34406596)
    ... like a moose
  • by Kozar_The_Malignant (738483) on Wednesday December 01, 2010 @01:03PM (#34406600)

    >"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)

    by MstrFool (127346) on Wednesday December 01, 2010 @01:04PM (#34406636)

    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.

  • by nebaz (453974) on Wednesday December 01, 2010 @01:07PM (#34406692)

    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).

  • by BJ_Covert_Action (1499847) on Wednesday December 01, 2010 @01:21PM (#34406966) Homepage Journal
    Sarah Palin is going to target Julian Assange? With what sweetheart? Your caribou hunting rifle? Somehow I don't think it has the range to reach the UK, or wherever he is sitting these days.

    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)

    by Darth_brooks (180756) * <clipper377@nOSPAm.gmail.com> on Wednesday December 01, 2010 @01:55PM (#34407640) Homepage

    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)

    by Stormy Dragon (800799) on Wednesday December 01, 2010 @07:46PM (#34412546) Homepage

    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.

The most exciting phrase to hear in science, the one that heralds new discoveries, is not "Eureka!" (I found it!) but "That's funny ..." -- Isaac Asimov

Working...