Sarah Palin Speaking at Tea Party Convention

It's on the news networks right now, giving a speech. If you know anything about the Tea Party Protests, you can guess what it's about.

http://www.rightpundits.com/?p=5483

I don't get why she's the one who gets asked to speak. Does she have any credibility at all?

To me she does. I don't cringe everytime I hear her speak, as opposed to our President.

Apparently the tea party thinks so as well.

To me she does. I don't cringe everytime I hear her speak, as opposed to our President.

Apparently the tea party thinks so as well.

airshocker

To me she does. I don't cringe everytime I hear her speak, as opposed to our President.

Apparently the tea party thinks so as well.

airshocker

She's an ex-VP candidate, ex-governor of Alaska, and a Fox News pundit, so like it or not she does have credibility. Now, whether or not she's an intelligent person and have her thoughts on anything entertained by anyone is an entirely different matter...

Anyway, I hate the Tea Party movement. Not because of its ideals, but rather because everyone involved with it is a tool. The whole thing was started by a TV pundit (arguably the dumbest one of them all) and is heavily supported/organized by corporations, most notably HMOs. The people involved have been tricked into thinking they're protesting for their own interests when in reality they're being used by the elite of America to protest for the interests of corporations and the richest 1% of Americans who get enough tax breaks as it is.

"We need a Commander in Chief, not a student of law!" What the hell does that even mean?PannicAtack

It means that Sarah Palin is butthurt that she has only has a BA in journalism which she struggled to earn after attending six different bottom-tier colleges (three of which were community colleges) whereas her running mate's opponent and the current president of the USA graduated Harvard Law School with a JD.

In other words, it's typical conservative anti-intellectualism.

I find it a little ironic that one of the things these tea-party people are against is higher taxes yet they have no problem shelling out $350 a ticket to hear Sarah Palin talk. JML897

She's an ex-VP candidate, ex-governor of Alaska, and a Fox News pundit, so like it or not she does have credibility. Now, whether or not she's an intelligent person and have her thoughts on anything entertained by anyone is an entirely different matter...

Anyway, I hate the Tea Party movement. Not because of its ideals, but rather because everyone involved with it is a tool. The whole thing was started by a TV pundit (arguably the dumbest one of them all) and is heavily supported/organized by corporations, most notably HMOs. The people involved have been tricked into thinking they're protesting for their own interests when in reality they're being used by the elite of America to protest for the interests of corporations and the richest 1% of Americans who get enough tax breaks as it is.

gameguy6700

Since when has anything not been run by people with lots of money? Obama is owned by big money. Though why he endeavors to cripple us with taxes boggles my mind.

It means that Sarah Palin is butthurt that she has only has a BA in journalism which she struggled to earn after attending six different bottom-tier colleges (three of which were community colleges) whereas her running mate's opponent and the current president of the USA graduated Harvard Law School with a JD.

In other words, it's typical conservative anti-intellectualism.

gameguy6700

Conservatives don't hate intellectuals. They hate socialists and liberals and statists.

How's that socialism working out for you, by the way? Not very well, it seems. California up to it's neck in debt, Massachussetts losing to a Republican, and New Jersey losing to a Republican governor all point to people not liking their taxes going up to pay for things that don't even have anything to do with them, among many other ridiculous socialist ideals.

Unfortunately most liberal intellectuals seems to believe we can pay for everything when we can't.

What else does one expect her to do now that she's unemployed?

[QUOTE="JML897"]I find it a little ironic that one of the things these tea-party people are against is higher taxes yet they have no problem shelling out $350 a ticket to hear Sarah Palin talk. Pirate700

It's not because there's no socialism, derpT_P_O

Where did I say there wasn't any socialism?

I'm pretty sure I said all of these things are happening because there's socialism.

[QUOTE="T_P_O"]It's not because there's no socialism, derpairshocker

Where did I say there wasn't any socialism?

I'm pretty sure I said all of these things are happening because there's socialism.

And my point was that you're just using hyperbole, since there's no real socialism (oh McCarthyism, you so redundant). Socialism can't just be pinned down to equal statism, that's just ignoring how broad socialism actually is as a political philosophy.T_P_O

Say that next time. I don't think I'm overly-exaggerating anything. Scott Brown won by going against universal healthcare. That is socialism. Christie won by opposing socialism. Are you seriously going to try and argue with me that Corzine wasn't a socialist and that's the reason NJ is in debt? Because that's what Christie ran on.

I honestly don't care if my terminology isn't 100% politically correct. I try and keep things simple in a world where elitists think the best ways have to be complicated.

Retard speaks at retard convention. News at 11.

bigfootstew

lolwut?

What else does one expect her to do now that she's unemployed?

coolbeans90

[QUOTE="coolbeans90"]

What else does one expect her to do now that she's unemployed?

-Sun_Tzu-

T'was a bad attempt at a joke. And until then, one could otherwise technically consider her "unemployed."

[QUOTE="-Sun_Tzu-"][QUOTE="coolbeans90"]

What else does one expect her to do now that she's unemployed?

coolbeans90

T'was a bad attempt at a joke. And until then, one could otherwise technically consider her "unemployed."

[QUOTE="-Sun_Tzu-"][QUOTE="coolbeans90"]

What else does one expect her to do now that she's unemployed?

coolbeans90

T'was a bad attempt at a joke. And until then, one could otherwise technically consider her "unemployed."

[QUOTE="gameguy6700"]

She's an ex-VP candidate, ex-governor of Alaska, and a Fox News pundit, so like it or not she does have credibility. Now, whether or not she's an intelligent person and have her thoughts on anything entertained by anyone is an entirely different matter...

Anyway, I hate the Tea Party movement. Not because of its ideals, but rather because everyone involved with it is a tool. The whole thing was started by a TV pundit (arguably the dumbest one of them all) and is heavily supported/organized by corporations, most notably HMOs. The people involved have been tricked into thinking they're protesting for their own interests when in reality they're being used by the elite of America to protest for the interests of corporations and the richest 1% of Americans who get enough tax breaks as it is.

airshocker

Since when has anything not been run by people with lots of money? Obama is owned by big money. Though why he endeavors to cripple us with taxes boggles my mind.

It means that Sarah Palin is butthurt that she has only has a BA in journalism which she struggled to earn after attending six different bottom-tier colleges (three of which were community colleges) whereas her running mate's opponent and the current president of the USA graduated Harvard Law School with a JD.

In other words, it's typical conservative anti-intellectualism.

gameguy6700

Conservatives don't hate intellectuals. They hate socialists and liberals and statists.

How's that socialism working out for you, by the way? Not very well, it seems. California up to it's neck in debt, Massachussetts losing to a Republican, and New Jersey losing to a Republican governor all point to people not liking their taxes going up to pay for things that don't even have anything to do with them, among many other ridiculous socialist ideals.

Unfortunately most liberal intellectuals seems to believe we can pay for everything when we can't.

There's no socialism in this country. If you think there is then you need to do some serious research into what socialism really is, and probably learn more about politics in general.

As for conservatives being anti-intellectuals, oh you bet your ass they are. I remember back during the 2008 election Fox News was deriding "republican intellectuals" for being against Sarah Palin for example. You also saw intellectuals being portrayed as communist spies/sympathizers back during McCarthyism. Not that these are the only examples, just the two examples that came to mind first.

Also, there's a difference between a politician being owned by big money and an entire political movement being controlled behind the scenes by big money (and honestly Obama isn't in the pockets of corporate interests nearly as much as other presidents, like Bush who probably set a new standard for corporate political puppets). I liken the Tea Party movement to a certain type of parasitic barnacle that infects sea crabs. The barnacle renders them sexually impotent, turns them into female crabs (if the crab is male), and actually controls their mind, making them care for the barnacle as if it were one of their offspring. The crab makes a nest for the barnacle, feeds the barnacle, and even actively and consciously helps to spread the barnacle's offspring. Just like the crab, these Tea Partiers are emphatically supporting interests of entities that run completely counter to their own interests. They are unable to see anything wrong with this because they are led to believe that they are acting in their own self interests by media personalities who so politically biased that they may as well be the propaganda arm of the Republican party.

Republians are anti-intellectual?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Fig_57_-_men_4-yr_college_degrees.JPG

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Fig_58_women_with_4-yr_college_degs.JPG

Explain how a higher percenatge have college degress then?

You sound like her target demographic. Nice job on being a little tattle tale to the admins btw douchewaffle.

bigfootstew

I usually don't report people. I would much rather people see the stupidity of your statement than have it removed by the mods.

Republians are anti-intellectual?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Fig_57_-_men_4-yr_college_degrees.JPG

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Fig_58_women_with_4-yr_college_degs.JPG

Explain how a higher percenatge have college degress then?

Mafiree

I can't help but feel that this movement ha been completely hijacked and misrepresented by both the left and the right. The Tea Party movement was originally a libertarian movement in response to the stimulus package. It was a protest against high taxes and rampant spending. The GOP has hijacked the movement to forward their own agenda while the left leaning media and the Democratic party have labeled the movement as a racist and fear mongering right wing fundamentalist uprising. Now i don't mind people of different political ideologies getting behind this movement. Obviously both Libertarians, Republicans, and many middle-class Americans are for low taxes and fiscal responsibility and that is what this movement is about. I take issue with the movement being manipulated to further different political group's agendas.

[QUOTE="coolbeans90"]

[QUOTE="-Sun_Tzu-"] She's not unemployed...these "tea party" organizers paid her to come to their for-profit convention. Mafiree

T'was a bad attempt at a joke. And until then, one could otherwise technically consider her "unemployed."

I wouldn't know whether or not if that's considered unemployed. What about before she released her book? Regardless, it was a poorly posed joke. Please have mercy on me, and not give the post more publicity.

[QUOTE="Mafiree"]

Republians are anti-intellectual?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Fig_57_-_men_4-yr_college_degrees.JPG

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Fig_58_women_with_4-yr_college_degs.JPG

Explain how a higher percenatge have college degress then?

Nethrana465

[QUOTE="T_P_O"]And my point was that you're just using hyperbole, since there's no real socialism (oh McCarthyism, you so redundant). Socialism can't just be pinned down to equal statism, that's just ignoring how broad socialism actually is as a political philosophy.airshocker

Say that next time. I don't think I'm overly-exaggerating anything. Scott Brown won by going against universal healthcare. That is socialism. Christie won by opposing socialism. Are you seriously going to try and argue with me that Corzine wasn't a socialist and that's the reason NJ is in debt? Because that's what Christie ran on.

I honestly don't care if my terminology isn't 100% politically correct. I try and keep things simple in a world where elitists think the best ways have to be complicated.

Scott Brown was against Obama's version of universal healthcare. He has said he wants healthcare changes, but just not Obama's style. Oh, and having Universal Healthcare is not "Socialism".

[QUOTE="Nethrana465"][QUOTE="Mafiree"]

Republians are anti-intellectual?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Fig_57_-_men_4-yr_college_degrees.JPG

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Fig_58_women_with_4-yr_college_degs.JPG

Explain how a higher percenatge have college degress then?

Mafiree

There's no socialism in this country. If you think there is then you need to do some serious research into what socialism really is, and probably learn more about politics in general.

As for conservatives being anti-intellectuals, oh you bet your ass they are. I remember back during the 2008 election Fox News was deriding "republican intellectuals" for being against Sarah Palin for example. You also saw intellectuals being portrayed as communist spies/sympathizers back during McCarthyism. Not that these are the only examples, just the two examples that came to mind first.

Also, there's a difference between a politician being owned by big money and an entire political movement being controlled behind the scenes by big money (and honestly Obama isn't in the pockets of corporate interests nearly as much as other presidents, like Bush who probably set a new standard for corporate political puppets). I liken the Tea Party movement to a certain type of parasitic barnacle that infects sea crabs. The barnacle renders them sexually impotent, turns them into female crabs (if the crab is male), and actually controls their mind, making them care for the barnacle as if it were one of their offspring. The crab makes a nest for the barnacle, feeds the barnacle, and even actively and consciously helps to spread the barnacle's offspring. Just like the crab, these Tea Partiers are emphatically supporting interests of entities that run completely counter to their own interests. They are unable to see anything wrong with this because they are led to believe that they are acting in their own self interests by media personalities who so politically biased that they may as well be the propaganda arm of the Republican party.

gameguy6700

What do you call welfare and social security, slick? No matter how you much you dress it up with pretty-words, it's still socialism.

If you're going to mince my words, I'm going to do the same with you: Not all conservatives are anti-intellectuals. I'm a conservative and I only have disdain for people who dress up their words so as to intentionally confuse/mislead the people they talk with.

All political parties are like that. It's all about the lesser evil.

[QUOTE="airshocker"]

[QUOTE="gameguy6700"]

Since when has anything not been run by people with lots of money? Obama is owned by big money. Though why he endeavors to cripple us with taxes boggles my mind.

[QUOTE="gameguy6700"]

It means that Sarah Palin is butthurt that she has only has a BA in journalism which she struggled to earn after attending six different bottom-tier colleges (three of which were community colleges) whereas her running mate's opponent and the current president of the USA graduated Harvard Law School with a JD.

In other words, it's typical conservative anti-intellectualism.

gameguy6700

Conservatives don't hate intellectuals. They hate socialists and liberals and statists.

How's that socialism working out for you, by the way? Not very well, it seems. California up to it's neck in debt, Massachussetts losing to a Republican, and New Jersey losing to a Republican governor all point to people not liking their taxes going up to pay for things that don't even have anything to do with them, among many other ridiculous socialist ideals.

Unfortunately most liberal intellectuals seems to believe we can pay for everything when we can't.

There's no socialism in this country. If you think there is then you need to do some serious research into what socialism really is, and probably learn more about politics in general.

As for conservatives being anti-intellectuals, oh you bet your ass they are. I remember back during the 2008 election Fox News was deriding "republican intellectuals" for being against Sarah Palin for example. You also saw intellectuals being portrayed as communist spies/sympathizers back during McCarthyism. Not that these are the only examples, just the two examples that came to mind first.

Also, there's a difference between a politician being owned by big money and an entire political movement being controlled behind the scenes by big money (and honestly Obama isn't in the pockets of corporate interests nearly as much as other presidents, like Bush who probably set a new standard for corporate political puppets). I liken the Tea Party movement to a certain type of parasitic barnacle that infects sea crabs. The barnacle renders them sexually impotent, turns them into female crabs (if the crab is male), and actually controls their mind, making them care for the barnacle as if it were one of their offspring. The crab makes a nest for the barnacle, feeds the barnacle, and even actively and consciously helps to spread the barnacle's offspring. Just like the crab, these Tea Partiers are emphatically supporting interests of entities that run completely counter to their own interests. They are unable to see anything wrong with this because they are led to believe that they are acting in their own self interests by media personalities who so politically biased that they may as well be the propaganda arm of the Republican party.

On another note, here's some advice. Try to stay away from the insulting remarks. All you've done is discredit your own argument.

Scott Brown was against Obama's version of universal healthcare. He has said he wants healthcare changes, but just not Obama's style. Oh, and having Universal Healthcare is not "Socialism".

taj7575

He said he wants healthcare reform. As in positive change. Not an overhaul that would put us into more debt and require more taxes so that the lazy orunwilling can be paid for by hard-working Americans.

Yes, it is socialism.

Anyway, I hate the Tea Party movement. Not because of its ideals, but rather because everyone involved with it is a tool. The whole thing was started by a TV pundit (arguably the dumbest one of them all) and is heavily supported/organized by corporations, most notably HMOs. The people involved have been tricked into thinking they're protesting for their own interests when in reality they're being used by the elite of America to protest for the interests of corporations and the richest 1% of Americans who get enough tax breaks as it is.gameguy6700

How can you say that unequal payment for equal service is not socialism?Mafiree

[QUOTE="Mafiree"]How can you say that unequal payment for equal service is not socialism?Nethrana465

[QUOTE="taj7575"]

Scott Brown was against Obama's version of universal healthcare. He has said he wants healthcare changes, but just not Obama's style. Oh, and having Universal Healthcare is not "Socialism".

airshocker

He said he wants healthcare reform. As in positive change. Not an overhaul that would put us into more debt and require more taxes so that the lazy orunwilling can be paid for by hard-working Americans.

Yes, it is socialism.

[QUOTE="taj7575"]

Scott Brown was against Obama's version of universal healthcare. He has said he wants healthcare changes, but just not Obama's style. Oh, and having Universal Healthcare is not "Socialism".

airshocker

He said he wants healthcare reform. As in positive change. Not an overhaul that would put us into more debt and require more taxes so that the lazy orunwilling can be paid for by hard-working Americans.

Yes, it is socialism.

First of all, good way of thinking shallow. We're in a recession where many are loosing their jobs daily. Is it their fault they loose their employer healthcare? No. There are even some who are working and paying for healthcare. This right wing view of every person without healthcare is just a lazy person who just relies on the Government is pathetic.

Getting back to topic, I don't agree with Obama's overhaul either. We are just in a situation that although our healthcare system is pretty crappy, it just needs some tweaking and it will be fine. I personally like India's way of healthcare (search that up and check it out). It works pretty well, and it is cheap enough for everyone to afford.

By the way, there is nothing wrong with Universal Healthcare in a Capitalistic society. It doesn't automatically make you "Socialist". Obama is nothing close to being a socialist at all. You have to be a pretty big idiot if you really think Obama is a socialist (I'm not calling you an idiot, don't worry).

Some of the people in hear make me hate politics. Why the **** do some of you people have to sterotype everything?

"Oh you share some conservative views? You must be dumbass, redneck, anti-intellectual."

"Oh you share some liberal views? Get the **** out of the United States you Socialist prick Capitalism **** YEAH!"

:|

I mean Jesus Christ people, just because some people share views with one party does not mean you can go and sterotype them or that party's beliefs. Our two main parties (Republican and Democrat) are catch-all parties, they are so vast and big that people that belong to one party, may share very different views from other people within that party because the party's goal is to simply get the most members and win the most elections. So sterotyping that party is rediculious and idiotic. /rant.

That's a massive generalization about people who get welfare! And it offends me.T_P_O

I apologize for offending you, that wasn't my intent. The fact is there are many who abuse the system.

I shouldn't have to pay for such a fraudulent and untrustworthy system.

That's why socialism is ridiculous.

[QUOTE="airshocker"]

[QUOTE="taj7575"]

Scott Brown was against Obama's version of universal healthcare. He has said he wants healthcare changes, but just not Obama's style. Oh, and having Universal Healthcare is not "Socialism".

T_P_O

He said he wants healthcare reform. As in positive change. Not an overhaul that would put us into more debt and require more taxes so that the lazy orunwilling can be paid for by hard-working Americans.

Yes, it is socialism.

Extreme conservatives really look at welfare with a very shallow viewpoint. It's like they completely ignore the unemployment levels in America at the moment and just proceed to call everyone on welfare "lazy".

[QUOTE="T_P_O"]That's a massive generalization about people who get welfare! And it offends me.airshocker

I apologize for offending you, that wasn't my intent. The fact is there are many who abuse the system.

I shouldn't have to pay for such a fraudulent and untrustworthy system.

That's why socialism is ridiculous.

[QUOTE="T_P_O"]That's a massive generalization about people who get welfare! And it offends me.airshocker

I apologize for offending you, that wasn't my intent. The fact is there are many who abuse the system.

I shouldn't have to pay for such a fraudulent and untrustworthy system.

That's why socialism is ridiculous.