Elisabeth Hasselbeck finally called out some of "The View"co-hosts on the Sarah Palin bashing she finally proclaimed September 25 as "Hate Sarah Palin Day." Immediately the other co-hosts defensively swarmed over the comment denying there is any hate for Governor Palin. Joy Behar claimed "it’s not personal. It’s my country that I’m worried about."
Hasselbeck’s remark was sparked by a discussion over a new YouTube video displaying a Kenyan preacher praying to protect a woman, who resembles Gov. Palin, from witchcraft. Sherri Shepherd and Elisabeth Hasselbeck explained to the other two theologically challenged co-hosts that this is simply a prayer to protect this woman, possibly Sarah Palin, from evil.
Whoopi also defended playing and discussing the video stating "if Barack Obama had been in that church and somebody was praying over him to keep him free from witchcraft, we’d be having this discussion, okay?" However, the previous day, Whoopi sang a different tune responding to Elisabeth’s mention of Joe Biden’s many gaffes.
Story Continues Below Ad ↓"I know it is very hard for you to accept that fact that just because someone makes a gaffe, whether it is President Bush waving at somebody who can’t see or Joe Biden gesturing to someone who can’t stand up because they’re in a wheel chair. These are not, these are not the issues. What we want to know is what does Sarah Palin speak- I want to hear her speak. And that to me from now on- I don’t want to hear any more talking heads like you [Elisabeth Hasselbeck] saying- no more BS. Let’s get to what the real facts are."
Elisabeth also tested Joy Behar’s consistency quoting Biden citing "Catholic social doctrine" in his defense on tax increases. Behar responded "I don’t like any discussion of God and religion in the political conversation."
Paris Hilton appeared in the show’s first segment. In a humorous moment, just as she did on the Constitution, Joy Behar demonstrated her lack of basic knowledge of our legal system.
JOY BEHAR: You’re not going to be able to vote are you? I have a friend who was in the slammer. He can’t vote. Weren’t you in jail?
PARIS HILTON: I’m allowed to vote.
BEHAR: You are? I thought you couldn’t vote if you’re-
WHOOPI GOLDBERG: Only for felonies.
BEHAR: Oh, only felonies. What was your thing? Was it a misdemeanor or something?
HILTON: No, it was driving without a- with a suspended license.
SHERRI SHEPHERD: Yes, she can still vote.
BEHAR: You can still vote with that?
GOLDBERG: Yeah, you’re still American, yeah.
The relevant transcript follows.
GOLDBERG: There’s a YouTube video of a Kenyan bishop supposedly given Sarah Palin a blessing against every form of witchcraft at her home town church in 2005. I, I don’t know if it’s her, it looks like her. You take a look and tell me what you think.
[Play video]
SHEPHERD: If that is her, I think it’s very cool that they prayed over her. You know, churches, typically when you’re at a church and you go to do something big, the church will pray over you. They did it for me-
GOLDBERG: But is it usually for witchcraft?
HASSELBECK: Well, for anything, any evil.
SHEPHERD: Any evil, to protect you from any evil.
GOLDBERG: I’m not being facetious. I’m asking, I’m asking a question.
BEHAR: He’s holding her hands open as he asks Jesus Christ to help keep her safe from every form of witchcraft. So it’s not just moose we have to worry about up there. It’s also witches.
HASSELBECK: We would just like to formally welcome everyone to hate Sarah Palin day on "The View."
SHEPHERD: No, no, we do not hate Sarah Palin. Understand us, nobody’s hating on her.
GOLDBERG: It wasn’t hating on Sarah Palin.
HASSELBECK: This is just something that people pray about. They pray for all evil including witchcraft, hate.
GOLDBERG: Okay, you know, I’m a heathen. So it’s why I ask those questions.
SHEPHERD: You’re talking to somebody who’s unfamiliar-
HASSELBECK: You have a place in Heaven Whoopi.
SHEPHERD: But Elisabeth you’re talking to somebody who’s not real familiar with ceremonies that they do in church. I don’t think it’s fair to say that she’s hating on Sarah Palin.
HASSELBECK: No I’m just putting together all of the things we said so far.
BEHAR: Is that what you said? That I’m hating on her? It’s not personal. It’s my country that I’m worried about. Don’t you get that yet? I’m worried about the country.
[applause]
HASSELBECK: Why is it- so let’s talk-
BEHAR: I don’t care about Sarah Palin personally.
HASSELBECK: No, no. I know you don’t but what about what Joe Biden said that he believes in taxes because the Catholic doctrine that he’s been a part of- wait wait. When he says that taxes are appropriate because his Roman Catholic doctrine has stated that for years, why does that not bother you?
BEHAR: It does. You’re bringing it up now. I’ll answer that. It bothers me a lot. I don’t like any discussion of God and religion in the political conversation. I don’t like it
[applause]
HASSELBECK: You get really fired up about Sarah Palin.
GOLDBERG: I do have to say this before we go. If Barack Obama had been in that church and somebody was praying over him to keep him free from witchcraft, we’d be having this discussion, okay? This would be a discussion-
BEHAR: And we wouldn’t be defending it.
Editor at Large
Comments Policy
The way they scurry and
September 25, 2008 - 15:49 ET by mattmThe way they scurry and scramble when they're called out for their hatred and their bigotry and their blatant ignorance demonstrates why conservatives should relentlessly hammer the Left every chance they get - instead of trying to get along with them.
And the thing is....
September 25, 2008 - 15:54 ET by Prester John...our side doesn't need to yell and scream and sneer and drool all over itself like the Left does. We just need to be bold and clear and put things in terms people can understand, then smile as we watch the roaches scatter.
Complete fools. Enough said.
September 25, 2008 - 15:52 ET by ontherightComplete fools. Enough said.
Blohar is a monumental moron
September 25, 2008 - 15:54 ET by SickofLibsBlohar is a monumental moron and the ultimate lib hypocrite.
[applause]
Anybody ever been in the studio audience of this show? They must hand out 12 oz. cups of vodka as you come in, because there just CANNOT be that many stupid women out there, day after day, who buy this garbage. Maybe it's just about being at a 'real' TV show?
Someone
September 25, 2008 - 16:30 ET by Gothampc"because there just CANNOT be that many stupid women out there"
Look how long Oprah's been shovelling the crapola.
I don't know whether it's stupid women, stupid men or stupid martians, but someone is going to these shows and supporting them and clapping loudly.
Behar and felons
September 25, 2008 - 15:54 ET by Mica the MagnificentBehar: WOW! So you can still vote with a suspended driver's license?
Whoopi: Yes, you can't vote if you're a felon.
Behar: How stupid do you think I am? I know cats can't vote!
(audience applauds in agreement)
But I called McCain first (sniff sniff) it's not fair! I'm not going to Washington, I'm not, I'm not, I'm not! (wipes nose) I want to debate nowwww! (stomps foot) - - - Obama, fearless leader
More musings from the
September 25, 2008 - 15:59 ET by bigtimerMore musings from the mindless.
"America isn't the problem...America is the solution." ~ Rush Limbaugh
Lie
September 25, 2008 - 16:17 ET by txco"BEHAR: Is that what you said? That I’m hating on her? It’s not personal. It’s my country that I’m worried about. Don’t you get that yet? I’m worried about the country."
Obivious lie,,,if she was really worried about the country she'd take her lying face off of national TV.
MacView by Shakespeare
September 25, 2008 - 16:18 ET by AgentAmericanWhat happens when Sweet Elizabeth is not around the other three...
Sheppard
Thrice the brinded cat hath mew'd.
Goldberg
Thrice and once the hedge-pig whined.
Behar
Harpier cries "'Tis time, 'tis time."
Sheppard
Round about the cauldron go;
In the poison'd entrails throw.
Toad, that under cold stone
Days and nights has thirty-one
Swelter'd venom sleeping got,
Boil thou first i' the charmed pot.
ALL
Double, double toil and trouble;
Fire burn, and cauldron bubble.
Goldberg
Fillet of a fenny snake,
In the cauldron boil and bake;
Eye of newt and toe of frog,
Wool of bat and tongue of dog,
Adder's fork and blind-worm's sting,
Lizard's leg and howlet's wing,
For a charm of powerful trouble,
Like a hell-broth boil and bubble.
If only Henry V came to her rescue...
Drill ANWAR
Very nice, AA
September 25, 2008 - 18:03 ET by Indiana JoeA little class makes the joint look good.
;^)
"... smells like... victory." - Robert Duvall
AA... Maggie, is that
September 25, 2008 - 18:10 ET by bigtimerAA...
Maggie, is that you?
I keep meaning to ask you that.
Nevertheless...thanks for the enjoyment with that great post.
"America isn't the problem...America is the solution." ~ Rush Limbaugh
"If Barack Obama had been
September 25, 2008 - 16:22 ET by Jerry"If Barack Obama had been in that church and somebody was praying over him to keep him free from witchcraft, we’d be having this discussion, okay?"
Riiiigggghhhtttt!
"U.S. of KKK A."
"God Bless America??? No! No! No! G-D America... G-D America... G-D America!"
"Government created Aids and infected the black community as a means of mass genocide.."
"Government supplies the black community with drugs and then creates a 3-strikes law to imprison the black people."
"Jesus was a poor black man living in a land controlled by rich WHITE folks."
"9/11 was just America's chickens coming home to roost"
Obama sat through these sermons for TWENTY years.
Obama's wedding was performed by this pastor.
Obama's children were baptized by this pastor.
This pastor was a close friend and mentor of Obama's.
I think these are much more troubling than a prayer for protection from witches. Especially since the prayer had no effect on the View's witches.
When asked if he went to war with Iraq to derail the impeachment vote: “I don’t think any serious person would believe that any President would do such a thing." - President Clinton (Dec 1998).
Don't forget, Jerry,
September 25, 2008 - 18:06 ET by Indiana JoeWe are NOT supposed to "be having this discussion, okay?"
Lying pond-scum. No other words for it.
Just... lying pond-scum.
"... smells like... victory." - Robert Duvall
"What we want to know is
September 25, 2008 - 16:29 ET by Chris Norman"What we want to know is what does Sarah Palin speak- I want to hear her speak..."
Yes, so you can deliberately misinterpret her words and unfairly cut her to ribbons.
McNotObama '08
Keep up the good work
September 25, 2008 - 16:57 ET by CoolShadesKeep up the good work Elisabeth.
what is a gaffe?
September 25, 2008 - 17:07 ET by nicholas nicklebyJustin, I just wanted to point out where you seem to not understand the word "gaffe."
You note However, the previous day, Whoopi sang a different tune responding to Elisabeth’s mention of Joe Biden’s many gaffes.
Biden certainly does make gaffes, and Whoopi lists a few things that could be considered gaffes--waving at someone who you don't know is blind certainly counts.
But you seem to think that Whoopi is showing some double-standard by excusing Biden's gaffes and excoriating Palin's gaffe of going to a church and getting prayed over.
Except there's no definition of "gaffe" that would cover that last example. Going into a church to get prayed over could only be a gaffe if Palin somehow misheard or misunderstood what was happening. If Palin said, "Oh, I thought he said it was a prayer against World of Warcraft, to which I am addicted" then it would be a gaffe.
As it is, her going to a church and getting prayed over (if that is indeed her, a point which you seem to be uncomfortable about) is not a gaffe to be excused, but a choice she might want to explain.
Justin is not confused, you are
September 25, 2008 - 18:17 ET by Indiana JoeA gaffe is a mistake, pure and simple; a "social blunder." It can be verbal, or it can be physical. Knocking over a vase can be a gaffe. If you mistakenly walk into a place by accident, step on a bride's train, trip over a chair in public; all gaffes.
I'm more interested in why you think she "might want to explain [...] going to a church and getting prayed over."
I understand there is some doubt this is really Palin in the video. You seem ready to accept that it is. So, why do you feel it needs explanation? Religious litmus test, maybe?
"... smells like... victory." - Robert Duvall
Joe, you made my point for me!
September 25, 2008 - 18:32 ET by nicholas nicklebyHeya, like you said, "A gaffe is a mistake"--so, if Palin accidentally walked into a church, that would be a gaffe. But nobody is arguing that it was an accident that she was at that church--so it's not a gaffe, so Justin's "gotcha" on Whoopi doesn't work: it's not a double standard to say "Biden's gaffes are different from Palin's choices."
As for whether that actually is Palin, all I wanted to point out is that Justin seemed to want to hedge his bets on that.
As for me having a religious litmus test, I really have a constitutional litmus test: if someone thinks that we have freedom of religion according to the constitution, then their religion is their own issue--in other words, religion is a personal matter as long as people don't try to make it a public matter.
NN... Particulate
September 25, 2008 - 18:42 ET by bigtimerNN...
Particulate matter.
Picky, picky, picky....bet you were a blast in school to be around, let alone now.
Do you not ever lighten up in life?
"America isn't the problem...America is the solution." ~ Rush Limbaugh
The point missed by all the
September 26, 2008 - 19:24 ET by cocodrieThe point missed by all the points put forward is the point that the NEA will only support "art" that is anti-American, Anti -Christian, Immoral, or offensive to normal people. I object to my tax dollars being used to pay for such filth. The NEA should change its name to National Endowment Of Welfare for Degenerates.
hmm
September 25, 2008 - 18:43 ET by ScandimanIf religion is not to be public then why is the left always shoving "their" religion down the throats of the American people?
could you give me some instances?
September 25, 2008 - 18:56 ET by nicholas nicklebyScandiman,
Could you give me some instances that you're thinking of when you mention the left shoving their religion down people's throats? Like, for instance, are you thinking of Obama's sex-ed bill--do you think that's an example of the left forcing their "religion" onto people? (In this case, forcing kids to learn about sex.)
Nicky,
September 25, 2008 - 19:04 ET by RESTLESS 1You're right. It's more about the left shoving their hatred of religion down everyone's throat. That's why religion was in quotes in the comment above yours.
Geez, take an english class will you?
"This
liberal would be all about socialize -- uh, uh, would be about
basically taking over and the government running all of your companies."-Maxine Waters 2008
yo
September 25, 2008 - 19:22 ET by nicholas nicklebyI think you might want to reread--carefully!--the posts above (pay attention to who put quotation marks where--there will be a quiz!).
As for hatred of religion, I know a lot of Christian liberals who try to take seriously Christ's commands to love and care for our brothers and sisters, and who love their religion as much as the next Christian.
But that doesn't mean that everyone on the left loves religion, so I'll ask you the same question: can you give me a particular instance of someone shoving their hatred of religion down anyone's throat?
Here's one
September 25, 2008 - 19:50 ET by RESTLESS 1Here's one instance.
And another.
And another.
"This
liberal would be all about socialize -- uh, uh, would be about
basically taking over and the government running all of your companies."-Maxine Waters 2008
do you see that little button on your tv--that's the off switch
September 25, 2008 - 20:12 ET by nicholas nicklebyhey restless,
Yes, Bill Maher does not like religion. Yes, he makes fun of it on his show. And yes, according to the Constitution, you have to watch his show.
No, wait, that can't be right. In fact, I don't think you have to watch his show. In fact, he doesn't teach in schools, or hold any government office, so...
What exactly is your definition of "shoving" when you say that the left is "shoving their hatred of religion down everyone's throat"? If you turn on the tv, and you don't like what you see, who exactly is forcing you to watch? What policy is Bill Maher in charge of that gets in the way of you enjoying your religion?
And another. And
September 25, 2008 - 23:16 ET by RESTLESS 1And another.
And another.
"This
liberal would be all about socialize -- uh, uh, would be about
basically taking over and the government running all of your companies."-Maxine Waters 2008
And another. And noone is
September 25, 2008 - 23:22 ET by RESTLESS 1And another.
And noone is forcing anyone to see this huh? It' all over t.v., in magazines, at the movies, on the radio. What do you propose, all religious people stay at home, throw away the televisions, cancel the paper and mag subscriptions, use the radio as a planter, and just disappear from the world? I bet you would like that, huh? Ain't gonna happen.
"This
liberal would be all about socialize -- uh, uh, would be about
basically taking over and the government running all of your companies."-Maxine Waters 2008
oh my god!
September 26, 2008 - 14:27 ET by nicholas nicklebyYou are an A1 moron! Special gold star for you!
Restless1, you have pointed to Bill Maher 3 times, Piss Christ, an article on using dung on religious artifacts, and Margaret Cho's rant against people who challenge her religious feeling.
Ok. Let's check this out. Maher has one show on HBO, the artworks are in museums, and Margaret Cho has a website.
Is anybody else here embarrassed for Restless1 making this argument? The argument that this is "all over t.v., in magazines, at the movies, on the radio"? I mean, Restless, baby, seriously--you're evidence in no way supports your claim. You haven't provided any magazines, movies, radio shows, and you've only provided one instance of a tv show that's on premium cable.
If you don't want to go see Piss Christ, you don't have to barricade yourself indoors, moron, you just have to not go to that one exhibit, if it offends your sensibilities.
It's not like Cho is the secretary of education, sneaking in her ideology into textbooks. (I also think this is a super dumb example on your part: she's not attacking religion, she's attacking people who claim to be Christian and then don't act Christ-like. And--who cares what she's attacking, she's not forcing it down your throat: you had to go actively looking for that to find it.)
I'll ask it again, what's your definition of "shoving" when it comes to shoving ideas down people's throats?
little nicky, "shoving "is when I pay for it,
September 26, 2008 - 14:42 ET by upcountrywaterMy tax dollars went to pay for that pissed on "art" !
I didn't want it, yet I PAID FOR IT!!
Your gold star is saved for youself.
CLIMATE CRISIS
IranianUranium
better point that restless's
September 26, 2008 - 15:12 ET by nicholas nicklebyupcountry, that's a good point, although it only works for 1 out of Restless1's 6 examples. Also, do you know how much tax money went to that? $15,000, I think, which is the cost of, what, a half-hour of the Iraq war?
Yes, taxes do get wasted, and we should work on that; but nobody is forcing you to go see that art. When the nation installs a draft that makes you go into the museum, then we can talk about that as forcing something down your throat.
(p.s. you know that Thoreau was imprisoned for refusing to pay taxes because he was against the 1848 Mexican-American war. Not paying taxes could be an interesting tactic.)
n n, I didn't see any other posters links, just saw your pee
September 26, 2008 - 15:27 ET by upcountrywatercomment.
$15,000 like i said i PAID FOR THAT. Now you want me to pay an ADDITIONAL FEE at the museum door too?
One correct comment is better than ZERO form you.
Iraq is cheeper than YOUR BAIL OUT PLAN of 0.7 TRILLION !
CLIMATE CRISIS
IranianUranium
i'm unmasked... as Paulson/Bernanke?
September 26, 2008 - 15:35 ET by nicholas nicklebydude, your comment re: bailout plan makes no sense since I haven't said anything about that.
and I think you missed my point about Piss Christ being in the museum--I didn't mean that you should pay to go see it, but only that no one was forcing you to go see it--no one is shoving it down your throat.
Nick, while I don't like to
September 26, 2008 - 17:21 ET by JasonCNick, while I don't like to see an otherwise-intelligent and ideologically likeminded poster calling others 'morons,' you remarks are exactly correct. What conservatives deride as "liberal values being shoved down [their] throats" is in fact nothing more than good old free speech which has been validated in one way or another by the particular tastes and cultural approval inherent in the free market. No one is any more required to watch Maher than I am to listen to people like Savage and Limbaugh - though I often do anyway because it gives me a sense of what some people who don't think like me are approaching certain issues. And while the one exception to the free market point (oh, and I'm still laughing at the idea that anyone imagines Margaret Cho to be some sort of cultural arbiter) is indeed the Piss Christ thing (which was what, 20 years ago?), there are two points to be made here.
1. As you correctly point out, that artist's funding was peanuts in the grand scheme of something. Forget half an hour, that amount was spent on Iraq in the time it took me to type the previous sentence.
2. How do all the people who bitch about how their tax dollars are dispersed for the arts (which again, is a piddling, negligible amount anyway) propose we regulate who gets to decide what does or does not get funded? Should we just have Americans vote on every piece that should or should not be created with tax money? We'd get nothing but paintings of eagles superimposed over American flags and Ronald Reagan's face. The whole point of the endowment for the arts is to get away from crass mass culture. That's what the free market is for.
As for Sarah Palin, McCain et al made the choice to pick a woefully unqualified candidate in order to appeal to women and evangelicals. Those who are downright terrified at the prospect of that woman running the country, and who are not bashful about pointing out her personal and moral hypocrisies, have every right to analyze and scrutinize her. Contrary to current popular belief, running for VP - even if you are a "strong and successful" hockey mom - does not insulate you against criticism; quite the opposite, in fact.
Oh Sarah P... http://www.theonion....
Jason,
September 26, 2008 - 18:30 ET by RESTLESS 1How about funding NO ART. Not what the fed. govt. is for. If one's art doesn't sell, oh well. Should I get a handout from Uncle Sam because I don't have a gold record. Guitars get expensive don't you know. Oh wait, I paid for them, without any govt. assistance.
"This
liberal would be all about socialize -- uh, uh, would be about
basically taking over and the government running all of your companies."-Maxine Waters 2008
Well that, of course, is a
September 26, 2008 - 18:38 ET by JasonCWell that, of course, is a different argument entirely. And a somewhat legitimate one. But you know, my fellow guitarist, the whole idea is that if you, as an artist, properly applied for and demosntrated yourself worthy of funding, you too could get an NEA grant.
Oh Sarah P... http://www.theonion....
My whole point, Jason
September 26, 2008 - 20:30 ET by RESTLESS 1If one properly applies themself, and proves themself worthy, the private sector would be much more profitable. Govt. shouldn't be in the business of keeping talentless hacks in business, but then again, look at congress.
"This
liberal would be all about socialize -- uh, uh, would be about
basically taking over and the government running all of your companies."-Maxine Waters 2008
And that's a somewhat
September 26, 2008 - 21:03 ET by JasonCAnd that's a somewhat legitimate argument...certainly more so than the idea that individual citizens should have veto power over which particular artists get NEA funding and what they use it to create, since:
1. It is highly impractical
2. It defeats the purpose of the NEA
3. Any individual taxpayers contribution to the arts (via their paid taxes) is a matter of a fraction of a penny.
However, your final statement - "Govt. shouldn't be in the business of keeping talentless hacks in business" - presupposes that commercially unsuccessful artists are inherently untalented, which is unmitigated nonsense. Compare, for instance, the guys who directed American Pie and its noxious sequels and made millions off of them with a director like Neil LaBute or David Lynch - auteurs who made brilliant, serious films and are renowned for refusing to compromise their art even though it would have guaranteed them more money (although LaBute did just make Lakeview Terrace, but I'm hoping/assuming it's better than what it's being marketed as). The point is, the market does not bestow artistic worth, only appeal. The two are not interchangeable.
Oh Sarah P... http://www.theonion....
"...presupposes that
September 26, 2008 - 23:39 ET by RESTLESS 1"...presupposes that commercially unsuccessful artists are inherently untalented, which is unmitigated nonsense."
Would agree Jason. Some of the most putrid bs in the world makes more money than beautiful works of art, film, music. Life isn't fair, and it is NOT govt.'s job to make it so.
"This
liberal would be all about socialize -- uh, uh, would be about
basically taking over and the government running all of your companies."-Maxine Waters 2008
Well as I said, that's an
September 27, 2008 - 10:51 ET by JasonCWell as I said, that's an argument I can respect, and it is fundamentally different from the far-more-problematic argument that citizens should have veto power over the NEA's dispersement of funds.
Oh Sarah P... http://www.theonion....
RESLESS you are the 1, tell you what, patience you have that.
September 28, 2008 - 02:59 ET by upcountrywaterpatience
with the twisters,
opinion over data
wafting away. like the FDIC..
someone is having fun STILL
CLIMATE CRISIS
IranianUranium
Jason
September 26, 2008 - 18:40 ET by well99"The whole point of the endowment for the arts is to get away from crass mass culture. That's what the free market is for."
Thank God for you elitist.
"As for Sarah Palin, McCain et al made the choice to pick a woefully unqualified candidate in order to appeal to women and evangelicals. Those who are downright terrified at the prospect of that woman running the country, and who are not bashful about pointing out her personal and moral hypocrisies, have every right to analyze and scrutinize her. Contrary to current popular belief, running for VP - even if you are a "strong and successful" hockey mom - does not insulate you against criticism; quite the opposite, in fact."
They have done a good job of lying about it.There is nothing wrong with analyzeing and scrutinizeing her.There is something wrong with distorting info about her.
"Contrary to current popular belief, running for VP - even if you are a "strong and successful" hockey mom - does not insulate you against criticism; quite the opposite, in fact."
Sara has been put over the coals more than any VP from any party.Her children and husband have been attack.That is ok because your doing it for the countries good.
Point 1: It's not elitist,
September 26, 2008 - 18:56 ET by JasonCPoint 1: It's not elitist, it's just true. Think about it. The point of the NEA is the idea that art can be above standards of mass culture. That just because a million people buy it, doesn't make it sublime. That succeeding in the free market does not make a person more of an artist.
Point 2: While there is some distortion involved, I'm sure, I think that the majority of it has been legitimate criticism of both the disaster that her victory would be and the less-than-encouraging reasons most of her supporters cite for their enthusiasm. And I don't think that her critics, in general, are exactly having to stretch any standard of truth or objectivity in order to find fault.
Point 3: Justifiably so. Her daughter has been a minutely-orchestrated component of the campaign. The whole situation does not interest me on a personal level, but because Palin's handlers chose to deal with her daughter in the way that they did, it is perfectly fair to point out the contradictions and hypocrisies that the narrative of her daughters pregnancy illuminates in the governor's platform.
As for Trig, it's just unfortunate. And I don't feel that Palin's camp has exploited him to the same degree. But one way or another, by the fault of both sides, he has become part of the campaign. And I have yet to hear a commentator pick on the 6-month-old child personally; it's not about Trig, it's about the role he has been assigned to play. Sad, indeed, and shame on both sides for not just leaving him out of it.
Oh Sarah P... http://www.theonion....
Jason
September 26, 2008 - 21:08 ET by well991.Yes it is elitist and why should the masses pay for it.
2.So that creative editing by ABC and msm picking up Kos Kid and Huff trash and printed it as a legitmate source is ok.Must be nice for the Dem ticket to play softball with the msm while Charlie keeps misquoteing Sara or cutting part of her response.
3.Disagree.Oh since Obama had his children on at the convention does that mean it is "minutely-orchestrated component of the campaign".I guess there are two standards.
1. I am not defending the
September 27, 2008 - 11:21 ET by JasonC1. I am not defending the existence of the NEA. As I've said several times, arguing against it altogether makes sense. Arguing that taxpayers should all have an equal say to be sure they're getting the fraction of a fraction of a penny's worth is absurd.
2. So that creative editing by ABC and msm picking up Kos Kid and Huff trash and printed it as a legitmate source is ok.
First of all, please proofread. This sentence makes no semantic sense. Second, the right-wing new media needs to make up its mind regarding blogs as legitimate media forms. You all freak out when blogging is denounced as inherently sub-standard journalism, but if a left-leaning blog is cited on the MSM, it's automatic proof of bias. Yes, some things about Sarah Palin have been inaccurate; what do you expect? When corrected, the press has moved on. But most of those things have been superficial at best. Her atrocious policies, hypocritically-hyped family life, and mindblowing lack of real-world acumen speak for themselves.
3. If Obama had had a pregnant daughter accompanied by the black teenage father who intended to marry her, there would have been a firestorm of accusations about Obama's paternal failures and the implosion of the black community in general. It is undeniable. And if the Obama camp had turned that very personal issue into a nonsensical justification certain theological/political stances (ie Palin's oxymoronic "My daughter chose life - but other women should not even have such a choice") then I would be highly critical of that as well. Obama's children standing on the stage waving is not in the same ballpark.
Oh Sarah P... http://www.theonion....
I dont need to proof read
September 28, 2008 - 00:45 ET by well99That is what your here for.
"Yes, some things about Sarah Palin have been inaccurate; what do you expect? When corrected, the press has moved on. But most of those things have been superficial at best. Her atrocious policies, hypocritically-hyped family life, and mindblowing lack of real-world acumen speak for themselves."
I keep forgetting that journalist arent suppose to do reseach on stories.There is nothing wrong with getting info from blogs.There is something wrong when you dont check to make sure it is the truth and not a lie.
3. If Obama had had a pregnant daughter accompanied by the black teenage father who intended to marry her, there would have been a firestorm of accusations about Obama's paternal failures and the implosion of the black community in general. It is undeniable.
Actually that is a lie.Because you think it is so dont make it a fact.
And if the Obama camp had turned that very personal issue into a nonsensical justification certain theological/political stances (ie Palin's oxymoronic "My daughter chose life - but other women should not even have such a choice") then I would be highly critical of that as well. Obama's children standing on the stage waving is not in the same ballpark.
So your saying she doesnt have the right to her beliefs?You want to post the link on this
"My daughter chose life - but other women should not even have such a choice".
Please refrain from making stuff up to make a point.Maybe you should do some proof reading.
Oh I forgot because you think it so it must be.Are you a journalist perhaps?
Actually that is a
September 28, 2008 - 10:29 ET by JasonCActually that is a lie.Because you think it is so dont make it a fact.
You are tremendously deluded if you don't think that would happen. And positing hypotheticals for the sake of argument is perfectly legitimate around here. Just think how often an NB story poses the question "how would the media react differently if a [insert "conservative" or "liberal" here based on the nature of the action] had done this?"
Yes, Palin has a right to her beliefs. But the issue of her daughter demonstrates hypocrisy - as well as an unfortunate willingness to exploit her daughter's pregnancy - and in case you've forgotten, Palin is running for VP, which makes her beliefs everybody's business.
Your last two paragraphs crack me up with their desperation. "I think it so it must be so"? That's pretty much the nature of political punditry, isn't it? I'd be open to a legitimate counter-argument if anyone cared to offer one. And I think you're suggesting that I do some revision not proofreading.
Oh Sarah P... http://www.theonion....
Jason
September 28, 2008 - 13:05 ET by well99"I think it so it must be so"?That basically has to with your creative lies.You have no facts to back them up with.Keep up the good work.The New York Times is looking for a few good man.You have shown the aptitude to be a modern journalist.You dont let facts get in the way of a story.Oh just who were you trying to emulate?Matthews or Olbermann?
You're hilarious. I do
September 28, 2008 - 13:18 ET by JasonCYou're hilarious.
I do think it's so. That doesn't mean I'm promoting it as fact. It means I'm putting it out there as an argument.
In case you've never noticed, that is the cornerstone of what people do when they discuss political and cultural developments, here and elsewhere. I'm arguing that if Obama's family had been in Palin's family's position of having a knocked up teenage daughter, it would be analyzed as a family values issue and scrutinized concurrently with the candidate's stance on certain relevant issues; and also, that the subject of race would be interjected into it, since conservatives have so often characterized inner-city/lower class teenage pregnancies as a moral failure - and one often aligned with blackness. Cf. The right's approval of Bill Cosby's campaign of aligning blackness with those very things.
Thus, I am arguing, Palin's daughter's pregnancy, in and of itself, is a non-issue; but taken in conjunction with Palin's stance on abortion - as well as the mere tastelessness of parading her daughter around to begin with - I take it as fair game. As I said above, I would like for Trig to be left out of it, but I also will not buy into the narrative that by giving birth to him, Palin is Mother of the Year, or that a liberal couple is less likely to love a Down Syndrome-afflicted child.
So...terribly sorry for being glib before. Now you have my detailed argument. Feel free to argue against it, hopefully in terms other than "OMG JasonC thinks his opinions are true!", which, if you think about it, was pretty much all you had there.
Who would have dreamed that when socialism came to the U.S.A.
it would be brought not by Bolsheviks in blue jeans but Wall Street
bankers in Gucci loafers?
Jason
September 28, 2008 - 15:58 ET by well99Cool I hilarious.No charge.This is spiffy
"OMG JasonC thinks his opinions are true!" Wrong generation dude.It would be more like"Dude you cant be for real with those opinions.They are totally bogus!" There is no need to argue since neither of us will change our opinions.Your wrong I am right.You have the right to be wrong.Just for you Jason
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dMH0bHeiRNg
WRONG JASON
September 26, 2008 - 19:17 ET by MrShy"The whole point of the endowment for the arts is to get away from crass mass culture. That's what the free market is for."
No, Jason, wrong again...
That's what Mr. Shy is for!
:D
And are you ready for a bone-crushing take-down of The One by The Postponer? :)
NOW PLAYING:
Governor Palin Get Your Gun
Let me guess...you coined
September 26, 2008 - 20:57 ET by JasonCLet me guess...you coined the term "delusions of grandeur"?
Oh Sarah P... http://www.theonion....
you're right when you're right
September 27, 2008 - 11:00 ET by nicholas nicklebyJasonC, I shouldn't have made any personal attacks by calling anyone a moron--for one thing, it makes my argument look more personal and petty.
But the whole rhetoric of "we're under siege" is one that gets me really annoyed. For one thing, it's a conservative standpoint that has a long and ugly history in the US. (For instance, in the South, where the threat of black power was used to beat up terror campaigns to kill and intimidate blacks. Dixon's 1900 Clan novels really show this clearly, the idea that the white south is a colony being exploited by an imperial northern/black power. As I said, it's an ugly history.)
This rhetoric of being under-siege is the kind that always gets used to take away the rights of others--to put others under-siege first. I don't doubt that people actually believe their way of life is under attack, but I think people need to see how ridiculous it is: no one is going to come to your house and make you deny god, no one is going to make you have an abortion, no one is going to make you divorce your wife/husband and make you have a gay marriage, no one etc., etc.
(On a lighter note, this rhetoric does remind me of Mencken's definition of "puritanism": "The haunting fear that someone, somewhere, may be happy.")
Yes, upcountry, as one of
September 27, 2008 - 10:59 ET by JasonCYes, upcountry, as one of approximately 138,000,000 taxpayers in the United States, you personally contributed .00001 dollars to the NEA. The art world thanks you. It is rather astounding the entitlement that some people think they gain by the mere act of paying taxes just like everyone else. Earlier this week it was the right to ban library books. Very amusing. Perhaps we should all have a say in tactical operations in Iraq too? Hell, we paid for it, right? Who cares about what those fancy-pants, elitist West Point officers say is best?
[sarc off]
Oh Sarah P... http://www.theonion....
other taxes
September 27, 2008 - 11:02 ET by nicholas nicklebydon't tell him that some of his taxes went to make bike trails--there was a big argument here a few months ago about that.
God d--n bike-riding hippie
September 27, 2008 - 11:09 ET by JasonCGod d--n bike-riding hippie queers. Why don't they just buy SUVs like normal people? Why should my tax dollars go to providing public recreation areas that promote health and fitness? [and so forth...]
Oh Sarah P... http://www.theonion....
Actually
September 27, 2008 - 13:24 ET by RESTLESS 1You're more correct than you think. If states and communities want to build bike trails out of their general funds, then fine. I shouldn't pay for bike trails in Mn. when I live in Tx.
"This
liberal would be all about socialize -- uh, uh, would be about
basically taking over and the government running all of your companies."-Maxine Waters 2008
I'm a moron???? You asked
September 26, 2008 - 18:34 ET by RESTLESS 1I'm a moron???? You asked for instances of "shoving" the liberal anti-religion down our throats. I gave you some, the tip of the iceberg. Now you want to hide behind dodgy definitions of what "shoving" is. I could post links to public educators riddling our children's minds with their anti-religion bullshit, making fun of Christian student's beliefs, but then you can do that as well. You are being willfully ignorant, and that is being charitable, as I'm not sure you have a choice in the matter.
"This
liberal would be all about socialize -- uh, uh, would be about
basically taking over and the government running all of your companies."-Maxine Waters 2008
yo, restless1, about "shoving"
September 27, 2008 - 10:53 ET by nicholas nicklebyJasonC has already taken me to some task in calling you a moron, and while I regret making it a personal attack (I shouldn't have called you a moron, check my above response to JasonC), I think your argument is moronic, and here's why:
The part that we're disagreeing on is what it means for something to be shoved down your throat--and this isn't the dodgy part, it's an integral part of the argument, since what you're basically saying is that people are going out of their way to attack your religious feelings. (We agree that there are people who don't like religion (including a lot of religious people who don't like other people's religion).
And the examples you gave were, give or take a little, fine examples of people making fun of (Maher) or questioning religion (Piss Christ).
But that other people hold different opinions than you do--in fact, that other people feel free to express those opinions--does not constitute "shoving" it down your throat. As I pointed out, you yourself would have to do some work to expose yourself to those points of views, either turning on Bill Maher or going to the museum to see Piss Christ or following a link to Margaret Cho's website.
Those are all choices that you make--no one comes to your house and waves Bill Maher's tv show in your face. And if you don't want to watch Bill Maher, there's a lot else that's on. You don't have to, as you said, cut yourself off from all media.
So, what I think is moronic in your argument is that you haven't made a solid case for "shoving"--rather than make an argument that shows that other people go out of their way to attack your religious feelings, you've made the argument that you go out of the way to have your feelings attacked. Upcountrywater made a smarter argument in bringing in the taxation issue, but that has been answered above.
And yes, for the record, if you had evidence of public educators taking an anti-religion stance, that would count as "shoving" for me. (Similarly, if you had evidence of teachers pushing one religion over another in a public setting, that would also count as shoving. For instance, the teaching of Creationism in public school--I guess Jews, Christians, and Muslims are ok with that from a religious standpoint, but how would Hindus, Buddhists, Taoists, Scientologists feel about it?)
Heads up, NBers! Nicholas nickleby's real name is.....
September 26, 2008 - 20:49 ET by R D HelmRichard Cranium.
-Dave
Politicians are the only people in the world who create problems and then campaign against them - Rick Roberts
My troll fuse length today: 0.003mm
Nick, your mask is slipping
September 26, 2008 - 14:59 ET by Indiana JoeYou ask for an example, then dismiss examples as meaningless.
Squirming like a troll. Condescending and insulting, to boot.
Yeah, you've thrown away any goodwill you generated around here.
"... smells like... victory." - Robert Duvall
the examples are meaningless!
September 26, 2008 - 15:06 ET by nicholas nicklebyJoe, I dismissed Restless1's examples because they don't really prove his point. How does it shove anything down anyone's throat for Maher to be against religion? (And you're right, I am being insulting, but that's because I really think Restless1 might be an idiot. Seriously--do you think he's made a good point here? Or is he just throwing things at the wall to see what sticks?)
(Whereas upcountrywater has a much better point, to which I am responding.)
Look idiot, you asked for
September 26, 2008 - 19:43 ET by RESTLESS 1Look idiot, you asked for examples, I gave them. Your original request did not ask for govt. supported examples, yet, they were explicit in the links given for answer. Anyone with half a brain could read in the link about the piss christ that govt. funding went to it. They do prove my point, which is why you so quickly turned to ad homs as some sort of rebuttal. You are truly unworthy of my time, and yes, I am being elitist here. You are not up to my standards. You are just too dumb.
"This
liberal would be all about socialize -- uh, uh, would be about
basically taking over and the government running all of your companies."-Maxine Waters 2008
Nick,
September 26, 2008 - 14:56 ET by Indiana JoeNick, Nick....
WHO is making it a "public matter?"
Look in the mirror, dude.
You disappoint me. Such a closed mind for one so young (supposedly, of course). You are just another troll, desperately clinging to the meme you've been fed. Jumping on the bandwagon. Relentlessly torquing discussions, just to score supposed "points." Why aren't you praising your candidate? Why aren't you attacking McCain? Because that's not the current talking point, that's why.
Such a good little follower.
Such a waste.
<and just btw, has it been verified that it IS Palin? I don't really care enough to have researched that. But you, obviously, do!>
Thirty
"... smells like... victory." - Robert Duvall
public vs governmental
September 26, 2008 - 14:57 ET by nicholas nicklebyhey joe,
People worship in public, and god bless America that they can--and that we can talk about it in public too. There's no harm in that.
But there's a difference between something done in public and something done in the public's name--i.e., something done governmentally. If Palin makes governmental decisions based on her religion, then her religion has become a public matter.
(To be clear, if she took communion in the street, that would be a private matter, even though it took place in public; if she wanted to make a law to restrict Catholics from taking communion because her religious leader declared that the Pope is the Anti-Christ, that would be a public, governmental matter--and hence, her religious beliefs that led her to desire that law would also be open for public debate.)
Nick, you are a waste of time
September 26, 2008 - 15:06 ET by Indiana Joe"To be clear, if she took communion in the street, that would be a private matter, even though it took place in public."
But her appearance in a church (if it is her; ever find out?) is open for public debate and ridicule, and justifies your inventing a scenario where she can be assumed to institute some kind of "theocracy" in America? Your type made the same case against George Bush, remember? Or are you too "young?"
In my first contacts with you, you seemed to at least stay away from flatly contradicting yourself within the same post.
Give it up. I'm not bothering to reply to senseless circular arguments anymore. I have better things to do.
THIRTY!!!
"... smells like... victory." - Robert Duvall
I'm not ridiculing Palin!
September 26, 2008 - 15:19 ET by nicholas nicklebyJoe, her appearance in a private place of worship would only be an issue for public debate if we thought she might bring her private worship into public government.
I don't think I'm making any arguments here that weren't made about Obama in regards to Jeremiah Wright, right? It's not circular logic to say "hey, maybe X's politics will be influenced by his/her religious advisor."
Seriously, it's the same situation: I'm curious to know who influenced her and how that influence might affect her policies. (Just like conservatives are curious as to how Ayers and Wright influenced Obama's policies and beliefs--there's nothing wrong with that, was there? So, what's with the double-standard? I can't ask questions about Palin's minister but people can ask questions about Obama's? Also, to be clear, I'm in no way ridiculing Palin's religion, but I am asking how it might affect her politics.)
Okay, Nick, last time
September 26, 2008 - 15:47 ET by Indiana JoeI really have to run now. But you can't compare your questioning of Palin's religion to questioning of Obama's pastor. With Wright it wasn't so much what religious teachings he preached, it was the political ramifications. His teachings spoke more to politics and society than religion. The ones that bothered me, anyway.
You draw inferences from the "fact" that Palin (you still haven't verified that it was Palin, guess there is some question) appeared in a church and was "prayed over" as something that implies some sort of desire to control everyone's religion. That's not a valid point. I fully expect you to "explain" that's not what you meant, but it's what you said. You are trying to engender fear of this woman based on her religion. That got some people burnt up in Salem a few hundred years ago. Get it?
Finally, you selectively discounted any "examples" of people shoving their viewpoints down others' throats. I don't care if it's religious or societal. Lots of stuff is shoved down the throats of people who don't like it every day in this society. Paying for "art" that ridicules religion is as wrong as paying for art that elevates it. Doesn't matter what your personal opinion of the "art" in question is. Staying out of museums that you are expected to finance is your idea of an option?
Obviously, we don't agree on definitions here. But I rest comfortably knowing that my definitions are based on real fairness. Fairness and principle does not depend on what works for your "side." I would never suggest that those who don't like something in a museum should pay for it, but should just not go see it. That's selfish, petty, and beneath anyone who calls themselves fair.
Can you point to one instance of someone forcing their religion on you? Not "attempting" to. Not trying to introduce "diversity" by wanting an "alternate viewpoint" taught, as in Darwin vs. Bible. Somewhere that creationism actually supplanted Darwinism in a public school?
You can't, I know it, you know it, so drop it.
Now that's it. I have to go. You either get it, or you don't. But if you did, this post wouldn't have been necessary.
"... smells like... victory." - Robert Duvall
But you can't compare your
September 26, 2008 - 18:48 ET by JasonCBut you can't compare your questioning of Palin's religion to questioning of Obama's pastor.
We most certainly can. I kept quiet all through the Rev. Wright debacle because there was no viable argument against what conservatives were saying, other than that I just didn't particularly care. Likewise, I don't particularly care about Palin's religion - there are myriad other problems I have with her candidacy - but I find it hypocritical that those who do have a problem with it are being lambasted by those who reveled in Wright's ability to harm and embarass Obama.
Lots of stuff is shoved down the throats of people who don't like it every day in this society.
Indeed. And while we have the right to speak out against it, we do not have the right to demand that we not be offended. As for what should and should not be funded, I invoke my above response to N.N. and Restless; how on earth could we democratically regulate what arts do or do not get funding. I say leave it up to the people on the NEA committee. Putting it to a vote would, first, probably result in a lot of bad art (I say again, that is what the free market is for) and second, be an absolute clusterf--k of wasted time. My tax dollars go to a war that I disagreed with from the get-go and you don't see me claiming that my singular opinion on tactical strategy or uniform protocol should be taken into account.
Oh Sarah P... http://www.theonion....
oh, mirrors, where are they when we need them
September 26, 2008 - 15:09 ET by nicholas nicklebyHi Joe,
I was in the middle of responding when you edited your response to add some personal comments, which we, of course, disagree on.
First, in my experience, a troll just says things to derail the conversation, often using inappropriate language, and/or ad hominem attacks (that are both inappropriate and derailing). On the other hand, I always try to bring up things that need to be discussed. I know NB isn't a debating society, so I understand that offering opposite opinions often comes off like trolling, but I try to phrase things so that I come off as little like a troll as possible. And if I still do seem like a troll, I don't care--at some point, you've got to say, "I've done all I can honestly do, and if other people's feelings get hurt, then maybe they should toughen up."
(Heh, did you ever imagine a liberal would say that?)
Second, I would discuss the benefits of McCain's policies vs. the benefits of Obama's policies, but I also think it's useful to look at some of the ideas behind this. You ever notice how people like to cast themselves as underdogs or under-seige? Like, the RNC was all about how they would take back Washington, even though they had been in charge for 6 of the last 8 years.
So, Restless1 had a good topic: how the left hates religion and shoves that hatred down people's throats. So, let's discuss.
Nick
September 25, 2008 - 19:58 ET by well99"As it is, her going to a church and getting prayed over (if that is indeed her, a point which you seem to be uncomfortable about) is not a gaffe to be excused, but a choice she might want to explain."
She owes no one a explaination.This is still a free country and allows freedom of religion and speech.I know the left is wetting their pants because of it.Get over it.So this Reverend blessed her.That is her buisness.I know as much as it causes leftist to get their panties in a twist they dont have the right to control people.What happen in that church did not harm others.As far as witchcraft maybe the Reverend has forsight and knew how the msm would constantly lie and distort whatever Sara said or did.Maybe he knew the msm would use magic(creative editing)to alter the truth.
who has a right to know?
September 25, 2008 - 20:05 ET by nicholas nicklebyYou're right that, as long as Sarah's religion remains her business, it is her business, and she doesn't owe me an explanation of her religion.
However, since she has made a few statements about the role of God in politics/war, then she maybe does need to make known what her feelings are; in other words, if she makes public, governmental decisions based on her religion, her religion has become a public matter. On the other hand, if she made a statement about believing in the separation of church and state, then it would not be a public matter what her private worship is.
Nick
September 25, 2008 - 20:09 ET by well99Which laws did she did she create which were because of her religious beliefs?Specifics now(Couric moment).
I could debate Couric
September 25, 2008 - 20:15 ET by nicholas nicklebywell99, she's opposed to abortion because of her religious belief that life begins at conception, right? She probably supports the aerial hunting of wolves as an instance of man's "dominion" over nature, right?
(Although, did you ever read the book "Dominion" that argues that Christians should be ecologically-minded--that "dominion" in Genesis actually doesn't mean "mastery" but something more like "stewardship," i.e., we have to take care of nature.)
Nick
September 25, 2008 - 20:25 ET by well99You can be pro-life for reasons that have nothing to do with religion.Your also stretching it on the wolfs.I am against murder,genocide whatever it has nothing to do with religion.It has to do with basic human beliefs of right and wrong.That can apply to prolife also.As far as wolfs well they will cull them due to the fact they will attack domestic animals.At least in my state.We have a bigger problem with coyotes then wolves but same principal.
prolife atheist?
September 25, 2008 - 20:47 ET by nicholas nicklebyhi well99,
I don't think I've ever seen an argument for a pro-life that didn't implicitly rest on a religious assumption that life begins at conception. (For instance, there's no scientific standard of what "life" is, which is why we get into scientific (as well as religious) arguments about people who are technically brain-dead but not heart-dead, like Terry Schiavo.)
And, more to the point, I've never seen or heard Palin discuss this issue in a way that would show that it's not a religiously-motivated political decision. So, if Palin wants to argue that her private religion remains private, she might have to make clear how her public policy decisions come from a consideration of the public issues rather than a personal religious decision on her part.
(But you're right about the wolves--while I could argue that her policy has a deeper, religious meaning, the immediate cause of that policy does have to do with population control. Although, from what I can gather, not to save domestic stock, but to save wild herds for human hunting.)
Nick
September 25, 2008 - 21:19 ET by well99I think your right on the wolves.I dont live in Alaska so I can only go by my state and the reason we cull certain predators.As far as Pro life well that isnt just about religious beliefs.If it was then all those that say they are religious would not be pro choice.
whose religion?
September 25, 2008 - 21:36 ET by nicholas nicklebyhey well, good pt--not everyone who says they are religious is pro-life. Or put another way, maybe not all religious groups are anti-abortion--that's why people/MSM might seem a little curious/nervous about Palin's Pentecostalism (or ex-Pentecostalism): because she hasn't made clear exactly how far her private religion affects her public decisions. Which is one of the many reasons why she has got to start giving more and more interviews--she doesn't have a long record and she only joined the campaign a few weeks ago, so people don't know enough about her political style. (I, for one, am tired of people talking about tanning beds and families, and if she gave more interviews, maybe we could get onto the real issues.)
Nick
September 25, 2008 - 22:34 ET by well99It would be good but look at what has happened when she has.Charlie and Katie playing gotcha games.Do you serious think that Obama can give you specifics on Joe Biden on a particular subject.How about Bush doctrine.I know of Monroe and Truman doctrine.Also why were Obama and Biden treated different by those 2 supposed journalist?Their is nothing wrong with tough questions but it shouldnt be one sided and obviously bias.No creative editing such as ABC did.They just as well had Kos Kids or Huff and Puff do it.In this day and age it is hard to find a nonpartisan journalist with I think it is called journalistic integrity to do a honest interview.
THE VIEW
September 25, 2008 - 17:13 ET by ZachJonesIsHomeHow good can The View be when they have their heads up their butts.
zachjonesishome.wordpress.com
now,now... be nice to the handicapped
September 25, 2008 - 17:29 ET by wizardjrIt's not proper to say "heads up their butts". They are suffering from Cranial-Rectal Convergence Syndrome - CRCS. Please take note and use the proper appellation.
*snark off*
Thank you Charlie Rangel.
September 25, 2008 - 17:38 ET by BlondeDavid Gregory, do you know which damn network you lie for? ~ Uncle Jimbo, @Blackfive
I think the 'heads up their
September 25, 2008 - 17:43 ET by bigtimerI think the 'heads up their butts' fits Barney Frank much better...lol!
"America isn't the problem...America is the solution." ~ Rush Limbaugh
True, BT
September 25, 2008 - 19:50 ET by BlondeBut that dumb bunny Rangel referred to Sarah Palin as handicapped the other day....."we must be nice to the handicapped....mentally handicapped."
Moron!
David Gregory, do you know which damn network you lie for? ~ Uncle Jimbo, @Blackfive
NOBODY KNOWS THE TROUBLES AH SEEN.
September 25, 2008 - 17:27 ET by FC DOBBSTHIS HAS GOT TO BE THE MOST LOP SIDED SHOW
ON TV. YOU HAVE TO WATCH ONE CONSERVATIVE
WOMAN, DAILY TRY TO CONVERSE WITH THREE HAGS
WHO TURN INTO SYCHOPHANTS WHENEVER A
LEFTIST APPEARS ON THE SHOW. BABS PROMISED
TO RETIRE LONG AGO BUT SHE'S STILL AROUND.
JOY SHOULD BE EMCEEING AT A LOCAL STRIP SHOW.
WHOOPI OUGHT TO BE STILL GRABBING HER CROTCH
AND CALLING OUT "BUSH.
I CAN'T SAY MUCH ABOUT SHERRI AS I DON'T KNOW
MUCH ABOUT HER,BUT SHE SEEMS NICE ENOUGH.
I ADMIRE ELISABETH FOR HER FORTITUDE UNDER
FIRE, FROM THREE VICIOUS OVER THE HILLS DAMES,
WHO OUGHT TO HANG UP THEIR THONGS AND WAIT
SOCIAL SECURITY CHECKS TO BE APPROVED."
"NOBODY PUTS ONE OVER ON FRED C DOBBS"
B.TRAVEN
I always laugh at that
September 25, 2008 - 20:44 ET by general companyI always laugh at that show, the only sane one is the only only one I can look at. The others are remarkably ugly. To be fair a lot of their ugly come from within.
I have learned from expereance, from being ugly, the least you can do is be pleasant, : ]
"Television is a freak show" Bernie Goldberg
The View
September 25, 2008 - 17:37 ET by well99Because a preacher blessed her and ask Jesus to protect her from witchcraft this is a big deal?Shoot I wish a preacher would bless me and protect me from left wing losers.Maybe that was the preachers way of protecting her from those liars of the msm.The msm seem to have a way of making the truth disappear.
You Be the Judge
September 25, 2008 - 18:05 ET by NotafraidWhich statement sounds worse: "Sarah Palin was once prayed over by a Kenyan preacher to protect her from evil" or "Sarah Palin sat in front of a preacher for 20 years whose stock in trade was saying that God should damn America." Okay, Joy, go to it.
FYI, Jon Stewart brought up
September 25, 2008 - 18:28 ET by balboaFYI, Jon Stewart brought up Biden's gaffes last night on The Daily Show. Very funny bit.
Most be quota time Bal
September 25, 2008 - 20:30 ET by well99His one shot per 100 against Dems to show he isnt non partisan.The other 99 cheap shots against republicans are ok.See he took a shot at dems.Wow fair and balanced.
Don't really give a hoot
September 25, 2008 - 20:55 ET by balboaDon't really give a hoot about "fair and balanced." Just mentioning that even Stewart has picked up on Biden's goofs.
balboa
September 25, 2008 - 21:25 ET by well99I never thought you did.Jon is a shill for the Dems.That was my point.Also a hypocrite.Partisan Hacks.Jon Steward is one but ripped those on crossfire for the same thing.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vmj6JADOZ-8
The point of Jon's show
September 25, 2008 - 21:35 ET by balboaThe point of Jon's show isn't to help or be neutral.
not to help or be neutral?
September 25, 2008 - 22:12 ET by general companyReally? Who knew. Snotty jerks very rarely help.
"Television is a freak show" Bernie Goldberg
EXACTLY.
September 25, 2008 - 22:22 ET by balboaEXACTLY.
balboa
September 25, 2008 - 23:54 ET by well99I disagree.He has been very helpful to the Dems.My point is he is a hypocrite.He blast Crossfire then does a one sided version.That is fine if he wants to shill for the Dems.He can do all the creative editing to make a false point in support of the DNC.He can lie all he wants and call it comedy.The bottom line is he is pushing the DNC agenda but yet he whimpered at those folks at crossfire for doing the same thing.Oh I forgot two standards.Just like racist.Dems are allowed to do it.
No wonder he had to plagiarize...
September 25, 2008 - 19:08 ET by Chris NormanJoe Biden's "gaffe" regarding "Franklin Roosevelt's 1929 stock market crash televised fireside chat" wasn't a mere "gaffe". He didn't simply mis-speak - he demonstrated a lack of knowledge of American history that would be breathtaking for anyone, let alone a prominent Senator who is running for Vice President. He also demonstrated a worrisome ability to make up something that couldn't possibly have happened and speak it with confidence in public. He really resembles a pathological liar.
Good grief, if Dan Quayle had uttered this Cliff Clavin - type rewriting of American history he would have been literally laughed and humiliated out of office.
McNotObama '08
Cliff Clavin Biden
September 25, 2008 - 19:15 ET by BlondeExcellent, Chris.
You ought to e-mail that to Sarah Palin for the debate, LOL.
David Gregory, do you know which damn network you lie for? ~ Uncle Jimbo, @Blackfive
Every day
September 25, 2008 - 19:26 ET by ToddonCapeCodI thought every day was "Hate Sarah Palin Day" on "The View," except when it isn't "Hate Bush Day," that is
Thanks Blonde. I vacillated
September 25, 2008 - 19:54 ET by Chris NormanThanks Blonde. I vacillated between that and a comparison to the pathological liar character Jon Lovitz used to play on SNL ("Yeah, that's the ticket"). I finally decided the Lovitz character was too crafty to compare to Biden. Biden is too feeble and clumsy to compare.
McNotObama '08
So true, Chris
September 25, 2008 - 20:00 ET by BlondeBiden is like the goofy old uncle or crazy old aunt...he means well, but he says and does the stupidest stuff at the most inappropriate moment.
I'm going to post my gaffe gaff again, real soon. Maybe like the next time Uncle Joe stuffs both feet in his mouth.
David Gregory, do you know which damn network you lie for? ~ Uncle Jimbo, @Blackfive
One really has to wonder
September 25, 2008 - 20:09 ET by Chris NormanOne really has to wonder what would make someone think they give such a cockamamie version of history on national television and get away with it (does he really believe that FDR was president in 1929 and the Fireside Chats were on television?). It's so bad, it's cartoon-like ("Fractured History"?). Biden reminds me of those airheads Leno questions on the street for the Tonight Show. Yet, the MSM doesn't make much of a peep about it. Grrrrrrr.
McNotObama '08
One really has to wonder
September 25, 2008 - 21:42 ET by motherbeltOne really has to wonder what would make someone think they give such a
cockamamie version of history on national television and get away with
it
It's called delusional thinking. He thinks if he says it, that makes it so. Either that, or he thinks people will take everything he says on faith, and it never occurs to him that anyone would question or check up on him.
Anybody feel like being
September 25, 2008 - 19:58 ET by JasonCAnybody feel like being outraged?
(Be sure to scroll down to Palin's rebuttal.)
Jason
September 25, 2008 - 20:01 ET by well99You mean the fake one made up by Onion?
Um, yes, obviously, it is
September 25, 2008 - 20:11 ET by JasonCUm, yes, obviously, it is made up. I didn't want to give away the punchline in my post.
Oh Sarah P... http://www.theonion....
Jason
September 25, 2008 - 20:27 ET by well99I wondered about that.Oh well good luck on your next try.I will try not to let the cat out of the bag.
OUTRAGE !!!!
September 25, 2008 - 20:18 ET by MrShyI think we're all outraged-out here. We're pooped, at this point.
We are outraged daily, hourly, even by the minute, by the lies, spins, twists, pandering, shilling, water-carrying, and defending of all things Democrat/liberal by the hoards of left-leaning men and women who have over-taken the mainstream news and media of this fine country in a monstrously corrupt and overt attempt to push through one ideological agenda.
Meanwhile, it's fun and games by JasonC.
NOW PLAYING:
Governor Palin Get Your Gun
Serioulsy, does anyone know
September 25, 2008 - 20:12 ET by Jack BauerSerioulsy, does anyone know anyone who regularly tunes into these hags? And why?
(Excepting for the hagfree and fragrant conservfauxtive Elizabeth.)
Whoopie Play the Lawrence Sinclair Video on Obama then
September 25, 2008 - 21:17 ET by Lame CherryIf You Tube videos are Whoopie fodder, how about playing the video of Lawrence Sinclair describing his dope and sexual encounter with Barack Obama in Chicago.
Ms. Goldberg, you started this now carry through with it and Mrs. Hasselbeck how about inviting Lawrence Sinclair on The View to discuss Mr. Obama's Michael Jackson moment in he knows what Mr. Obama's married appendage looks like and how Joe Biden threw Mr. Sinclair illegally into prison to try to keep Mr. Sinclair quiet.
Go on the offensive Mrs. Hasselbeck.
*HIC IACET ARTORIVS REX QVONDAM REXQVE FVTVRVS
I have something to say to The View
September 25, 2008 - 21:21 ET by KTI have something to say to The View. It is a free country. we all know that. That's what's so great about this country. you cansay whatever you want and you won't go to jail or get your tounge cut off. You can disagree with conservative views, That's perfectly fine. But When you lie, or personally attack someone who opposes your view, that is not ok. I have a feeling I will have to post this again and again.
Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it.- George Santayana
Since her smackdown of
September 26, 2008 - 01:41 ET by Rush FanSince her smackdown of Rosie O'Donnell, Elisabeth Hasselbeck has gained experience and come into her own on "The View". She is more articulate, and is not afraid to speak her mind.
Compare Republican and conservative women such as Elisabeth Hasselbeck and Sarah Palin to any Democrat and liberal such as Rosie O'Donnell, Joy Behar, Sen Barbara Boxer, Susan Sarandon, and House Speaker Nancy Pelosi. Notice the difference in the quality of character. Republican women are beautiful on the inside as well as the outside!
-------------------------------------------------------------------
You want change? I’ll give you change. The most important change we can make is to vote out the Democrats and RINOs in Congress!
Drivel....
September 26, 2008 - 11:33 ET by ArtisteThis is just drivel. I can actually feel my head about to explode just reading their nonsense. Hasselback must be able to trade up to a better job. She certainly shouldn't have to listen to those hags. Does anyone watch this show and if so, why?