Sarah Palin joins Fox News

[Hurlshort]

well based on the number of scandals she's been involved in, how she handled her governor job and her general appearance and rhetoric i'd say she's a bit stupid. but i guess thats nothing new to the country who had george w. bush as president for 8 years.

 

Bush was a skilled domestic politician. I haven't seen any of the qualities that Bush possessed in Palin.

 

I'm not a fan of Bush, I just don't think he was a terrible president. When we look back on his terms in 20 years, I think he will be decidedly average. From a foreign policy perspective, he was very weak, so I can see where you are coming from though.

[Gorgon]

Give it 50 years and he will be a saint, just look at the myth they created out of Reagan.

[Meshugger]

Compared to Bush though, i have to give it Reagan. He was good at giving speeches/writing them.

 

[WILL THE ALMIGHTY]

Sarah Palin won't be the most idiotic person there though.

 

 

I'll let you think about that for a second.

[Kelverin]

Give it 50 years and he will be a saint, just look at the myth they created out of Reagan.

that a stretch, even from you.

[taks]

well based on the number of scandals she's been involved in, how she handled her governor job and her general appearance and rhetoric i'd say she's a bit stupid.

as reported by left wing news sources.

 

but i guess thats nothing new to the country who had george w. bush as president for 8 years.

stones and glass houses.

 

btw, i would like to ask all of you castigating fox news about their "fair and balanced reporting" claim one question: do you know the difference between a reporter and an analyst? really, it's not a tough question. curious, too, if any of you ever actually watch fox news? of course not, you're all hypocrites.

 

taks

 

edit: originally i had "commentator" (instead of "analyst") which is potentially ambiguous since reporters are sometimes referred to as commentators.

Edited January 12, 2010 by taks

[Hurlshort]

Mostly I watch Fox News through Daily Show clips.

 

But I really only watch my local news folks, I don't care much for CNN or MSNBC either.

[Deadly_Nightshade]

At least you get the whole story...

 

 

EDIT: For the record I only mainly watch my local news and the BBC.

Edited January 12, 2010 by Deadly_Nightshade

[Kelverin]

Personally I avoid the news all together. I form my own opinions from daily life.

[Lare Kikkeli]

as reported by left wing news sources.

are you that familiar with finnish news agencies? oh right, if they report stupid **** she's done they HAVE to be left wing...

 

 

stones and glass houses.

 

[Humodour]

Of course he hasn't got any research. How do you investigate media bias without being accused of the same crime. Can't be done. All anybody has got are opinions.

 

Mine is that the BBC is reasonably professional and a reliable agency. Aren't they public service by the way, that should help in theory at least against political agendas in the boardroom.

 

The BBC and the ABC (British and Australian public broadcasters) are the least biased news agencies I know of in both countries. Not only are they less likely to take sides politically, but are also able to avoid falling into the vapid pitfalls of commercialism due to public funding.

 

In America, it'd probably be the Voice of America. Which I just discovered is also publically funded by America. Hah.

[Humodour]

Sarah Palin won't be the most idiotic person there though.

 

 

I'll let you think about that for a second.

 

Hahahaha that's epic.

 

well based on the number of scandals she's been involved in, how she handled her governor job and her general appearance and rhetoric i'd say she's a bit stupid. but i guess thats nothing new to the country who had george w. bush as president for 8 years.

 

Bush was a skilled domestic politician. I haven't seen any of the qualities that Bush possessed in Palin.

 

I'm not a fan of Bush, I just don't think he was a terrible president. When we look back on his terms in 20 years, I think he will be decidedly average. From a foreign policy perspective, he was very weak, so I can see where you are coming from though.

 

Yeah, that's how it'll go down. And to be honest, I guess it's appropriate. He ****ed up royally a lot, and America is better off without him, but he wasn't all bad.

[Guest The Architect]

Never mind.

Edited January 13, 2010 by The Architect

[Lare Kikkeli]

Sarah Palin on Fox says she thought Iraq was behind 9/11

 

 

fox lets palin make herself look like an idiot! they must be turning liberal!

[Wrath of Dagon]

That's misleading, what she said was in preparation for the VP debates she asked questions about who was responsible for 9/11.

[Humodour]

That's misleading, what she said was in preparation for the VP debates she asked questions about who was responsible for 9/11.

 

That's the point. She didn't have a ****ing clue. She didn't even care - only bothering to try and figure it because you risked looking like even more of a moron if her opponent brought it up and she got it wrong.

[Wrath of Dagon]

My point was she wasn't saying she now thinks Iraq is behind 9/11, like the previous post made it look. I already said she was ignorant, that doesn't mean she's stupid and can't learn.

 

Edit: Obama and Biden, especially Biden, even in that debate, said plenty of ignorant things as well.

Edited January 13, 2010 by Wrath of Dagon

[Lare Kikkeli]

My point was she wasn't saying she now thinks Iraq is behind 9/11, like the previous post made it look. I already said she was ignorant, that doesn't mean she's stupid and can't learn.

Actually Politico says she thought Iraq was behind 9/11, not me. The way I understand it they're not considered to have liberal bias, right? Anyway I haven't seen the actual show, but judging from the article what she meant by "I asked a lot of questions" is down to the context of the discussion. If for example the interviewer asked her who she thought was behind 9/11 and her response was "I asked a lot of questions about it" without any mention of Iraq, then yeah the article is misleading. If the interviewer asked whether she thought Iraq was behind the attacks and she responded the same way, it's reasonable to assume she did think Saddam had something to do with it.

 

If anyone actually watched the show please lighten us up.

 

Edit: Obama and Biden, especially Biden, even in that debate, said plenty of ignorant things as well.

 

1. Give us an example. You're not the most trustworthy source of information on, well, any area.

2. How's that relevant to Sarah Palin making an ass of herself on TV?

Edited January 13, 2010 by Lare Kikkeli

[Wrath of Dagon]

What I was saying she probably did think Iraq could be behind 9/11 back then, but she doesn't think that now.

 

As far as Biden's mistakes during the debate, they're documented here: http://iusbvision.wordpress.com/2008/10/03...inbiden-debate/

 

As far as Obama, he's said things like there are 47 states, but I'll be generous and assume he misspoke.

 

How is that relevant? It just goes to show that her opponents are as gaffe prone as she is, Biden much more so, but of course only her missteps are widely publicisized. And again, she didn't make an ass of herself on Fox, she simply admitted (indirectly) she wasn't well informed during the debate prep.

[Lare Kikkeli]

What I was saying she probably did think Iraq could be behind 9/11 back then, but she doesn't think that now.

It's pretty damn embarrassing that she did, since it was pretty damn obvious to anyone with half a brain that Iraq had nothing to do with it.

 

How is that relevant? It just goes to show that her opponents are as gaffe prone as she is, Biden much more so, but of course only her missteps are widely publicisized. And again, she didn't make an ass of herself on Fox, she simply admitted (indirectly) she wasn't well informed during the debate prep.

 

Eh, what Biden or Obama said is not relevant to this thread at all since all politicians misspeak and bend the truth, but most don't go on national television and admit to being ignorant about basic facts as a VP candidate.

 

Agreeing to VP candidacy while having no clue about anything relevant to the job is a pretty sure sign that she's either not even abled to understand politics or that she's so sure of her own woefully lacking skills that one could say it makes her an idiot.

Edited January 13, 2010 by Lare Kikkeli

[Raithe]

Ah the trouble with the BBC.. it does have a fair amount of political bias. It's just as governments come and go the bias can change.

At the present time.. there are craploads of qwongocrats put in positions of executive control in the BBC due to old Tony Blairs policies..

 

This is a man who was very good at arranging for large segments of governance being put in the hands of non-elected officials in the background..

 

(Not that Conservatives are much of a great shake either but still, they never tried it when they were in power.)

[Wrath of Dagon]

What I was saying she probably did think Iraq could be behind 9/11 back then, but she doesn't think that now.

It's pretty damn embarrassing that she did, since it was pretty damn obvious to anyone with half a brain that Iraq had nothing to do with it.

I don't think Iraq was behind 9/11, but it's not so obvious Saddam had nothing to do with Al Qaeda

 

http://pajamasmedia.com/blog/new-evidence-...errorism-links/

[Lare Kikkeli]

What I was saying she probably did think Iraq could be behind 9/11 back then, but she doesn't think that now.

It's pretty damn embarrassing that she did, since it was pretty damn obvious to anyone with half a brain that Iraq had nothing to do with it.

I don't think Iraq was behind 9/11, but it's not so obvious Saddam had nothing to do with Al Qaeda

 

http://pajamasmedia.com/blog/new-evidence-...errorism-links/

 

Ah yes, Pajamas media.

 

(the writer of that article) Ryan Mauro is the founder of WorldThreats.com and the director of intelligence at the Asymmetrical Warfare and Intelligence Center (AWIC). He’s also the national security researcher for the Christian Action Network and a published author.

 

WorldThreats.com seems to be some sort of a patriotic blog of sorts that lists military experiments and terrorist attacks from countries or groups "hostile" to the US. AWIC's website is down. Christian Action Network sounds like a joke.

 

All of his "sources" are other right wing blogs that link to each other.

 

Forgive me if I don't consider your little article to have any credibility.

 

Edited January 13, 2010 by Lare Kikkeli

[Wrath of Dagon]

One of the links has this quote from 2008 Pentagon study of captured Iraqi documents:

"Saddam supported groups that either associated directly with al Qaeda (such as the Egyptian Islamic Jihad, led at one time by bin Laden's deputy, Ayman al-Zawahiri) or that generally shared al Qaeda's stated goals and objectives."

[Lare Kikkeli]

So did basically all of the Middle Eastern goverments. You know it was a bogus claim and that the real reason is most likely something else entirely, this was just a good time to execute the attack on Iraq and make it seem legit.