Wednesday, August 19, 2009

The Side Show

If Sarah Palin is the main attraction - here are some stories from the side show:

Levi Johnston has stated that he would pose nude for the right amount of money. Now money has been offered. Will he take it? He has date Kathy Griffin for money and lied for money - so why not? It isn't like he has any pride left. Click here for the story.

Levi's Mom pleads guilty - click here.

Is Sarah Moving to Rhode island - click here.

What to give the woman that has everything? Here's a list - click here.

71 comments:

Anonymous said...

Hmmm. Makes you want to think about William Ayers, don't it, Sarah. You called Obama a terrorist cuz he associated with Bill Ayers. Your almost-in-law's mother is a drug dealer. I guess you must be a drug dealer too, Ms. Palin.

Michael April said...

Germany's Merkel again most powerful woman:
Forbes Wed Aug 19, 2009 6:14pm EDT

I am posting this opinion by Forbes because it corroborates Sarah Palins actions as a leader.

"Women in power are rising to leadership positions in business, government and philanthropy by making daring and unconventional moves," Forbes said. "Gone are the days of women feeling they must stick with one employer and patiently wait for promotions."

"Highly ambitious women ... are moving across companies and industries, making big leaps with each change, and repositioning themselves for opportunities that allow them to gain a breadth of experience," the business magazine said.

Palin 2012 Go! Sarah Go!

Anonymous said...

Has anyone taken a look at Shannyn Moore's background? This chick is a poster child for trailer trash. She has at least 4 judgements in Alaksa against her for defaulting on loans/credit; 1 no-contest plea for felony theft; several for motor vehicle violations including failing to report an accident and driving with a suspended license.
Check it out her criminal history at http://www.courtrecords.alaska.gov/
DOB 6/12/1970 under the names Shannyn F Moore and Shannon F Moore on the old and new indexes. I am absolutely stunned that the liberals and democrats are willing to associate their names with her.

Michael April said...

Sarah Palin was Right

"No one ever accused Sarah Palin of being a health policy expert, and many found her hyperbolic term “death panel” off-putting. But that should not distract voters from this reality: President Obama has proposed a new body that would enhance Medicare’s ability to deny care to the elderly and disabled based on government bureaucrats’ arbitrary valuations of those patients’ lives.
Whatever one thinks of Sarah Palin should not distract from this truth: President Obama proposes to let government bureaucrats decide who gets medical care and who does not.
It is right there in the legislation now before Congress, and it is called the Independent Medicare Advisory Council."
[IMAC is short for ‘DP”]

Michael F. Cannon is director of health policy studies at the Cato Institute and co-author of Health Competition: What's Holding Back Health Care and How to Free It.

Palin 2012 Go! Sarah Go!

Anonymous said...

I ADMIT I'M A LITTLE CONFUSED. CAN SOMEONE HERE HELP ME OUT?

THE PRESIDENT IS TRYING TO EXTEND COVERAGE TO MILLIONS OF AMERICANS WHO DON'T HAVE HEALTH CARE, AND THAT MAKES HIM A NAZI......HOW?? PLEASE EXPLAIN. THANKS.

Anonymous said...

Hey Anonymous, if your president wants to extend health care to every tom, dick and harry, and joe, he is more than welcome to. Let him raise that money via charitable PRIVATE donations, not my taxes. Does that explain it, or are you too stupid a troll?

Anonymous said...

Check out Sarah's Facebook page.
804,517 supporters and growing!

http://www.facebook.com/sarahpalin?v=wall&viewas=0&ref=search

Anonymous said...

That really is something about Shannyn Moore's background.
Criminal - Statute: AS11.46.130(A)(1) (Theft In The Second Degree)

AMC9.10.060(A): Failure To Give Immediate Notice Of Accident

Byron said...

Anonymous said Hmmm. Makes you want to think about William Ayers, don't it, Sarah. You called Obama a terrorist cuz he associated with Bill Ayers. Your almost-in-law's mother is a drug dealer. I guess you must be a drug dealer too, Ms. Palin....

You must be high to even make that connection.

Anonymous said...

It's simple, the people who do not like President Obama will not support anything he initiates, no matter how beneficial it may prove to them. They will blatantly make up lies and distort the facts to get others to agree with them.

Anonymous said...

I wouldn't mind my taxes being raised (especially, if I made $250,000) to help pay for health care for those in need. I would certainly rather have the money go to the gov't than insurance companies CEOs.
Do you mind paying taxes so every child can have a public school education? I dare you to answer that question.

Handsome said...

Byron said...
Anonymous said Hmmm. Makes you want to think about William Ayers, don't it, Sarah. You called Obama a terrorist cuz he associated with Bill Ayers. Your almost-in-law's mother is a drug dealer. I guess you must be a drug dealer too, Ms. Palin....

You must be high to even make that connection.



No, what is being asked is fairly
simple and logical: If a person can
be labeled based upon whom they know or nominally associate with, fair is fair. Mrs. Palin distorted a New York Times piece which said that there was only a passing or nominal acquaintance between Obama and Bill Ayers (whom, by the way, was never convicted and the bombings of the
Pentagon, NYPD headquarters and other properties were simply heinous acts of...VANDALISM)!
No fatalities came of these
actions and Ayers was let off on
legal grounds.

Based upon Mrs. Palin's logic, the fact she knew and associated with
Sherry Johnston must have meant she
either was a latent drug dealer or
at least supported Mrs. Johnston's actions up the point when Levi
and Bristol broke up and then
Mrs. Johnston was arrested. Hmm?

The fact she is married to a man who was a member of a party that advocated secession from the U.S; founded by a man killed in an arms sale gone wrong (Joe Vogler) who
was slated to give a speech AGAINST the U.S at the U.N. sponsored by Iran speaks must mean
she is a latent America hater who
is supported by regimes hostile to
the United States. The Alaska
Independence Party calls her
beloved American soldiers "occupation forces" and
has expressed desire to fight said
"occupation forces."

As for Levi, yeah, it may be somewhat tasteless to take off his clothes for cash but in this economy, desparate times sometimes
call for desparate measures. He
has a kid to support. I do not know
what his experience is but in Alaska, because of who he is, he may find getting a "real job"
a chore, especially if many
employers are sympathetic to his
would be mother in law or her
husband. Besides, he has a good
role model in knowing how to milk
his 15 minutes into celebrity
and some cash. People who ball on Levi for his interview style have to know he is still a teenager who
happened to be put in spotlight by
his girlfriend's mother for
political purposes and when it
was done, so was he. He was
simply a prop in a play and now
he wants his pay. Any teen not
a star or celebrity is going to be
nervous on camera or in media.
At least he is not a politician wanting the voters to put full faith in him and then relying on soundbites, talking points and
word salad to deal with substantive issues.

Anonymous said...

Of course it was ridiculous for someone to use the guilt by association argument to call Sarah Palin a drug dealer. THAT WAS THE POINT. I'm not going to call any bloggers names, but I think some of you least should be able to get it.

Anonymous said...

Handsome, you use too many words for this group. They loose attention after two, e.g. "death panel".

narciso said...

Ayers, was a trust fund terrorist, who Obama associated precisely because of his background, on the Joyce Foundation (which disarms American citizens) and the CAC (because it underwrote their common pet projects) Vogler, was the long dead, leader of a splinter
portion of the AIP, the local third
force, which had actually elected a governor, the cantankerous Wally
Hickel. Reading comprehension isn't a strong suit with this one.

Anonymous said...

Sarah Palin showed her ignorance again. She doesn't even understand how the World Bank works.

Anonymous said...

handsome, your posts read like a gossip column and are a sad statement on your pathetic life.

Anonymous said...

TO POSTER BELOW: JUST WONDERING IF IT OCCURS TO YOU THAT YOUR HEALTH INSURANCE IS PAID BY THE CUSTOMERS OF THE COMPANY YOU WORK FOR? KIND OF A TAX, NO? THE ONLY DIFFERENCE IS THAT IT ONLY BENEFITS YOU, WHILE LOTS OF OTHER PEOPLE HAVE TO PAY FOR THEIR OWN INSURANCE OR GO WITHOUT.

if your president wants to extend health care to every tom, dick and harry, and joe, he is more than welcome to. Let him raise that money via charitable PRIVATE donations, not my taxes. Does that explain it, or are you too stupid a troll?

Anonymous said...

Handsome: Bravo! Well said!

Anonymous said...

Handsome...as you say, Sarah Palin is much more culpable than Obama. We're not talking about casual acquaintances, but FAMILY members.

Grizzled said...

"Handsome"[sic] spewed "talking points and word salad to deal with substantive issues."

The president may have a "nominal" association with Ayers, but just the fact that they are on speaking terms is enough to discredit Obama.
Ayers is largely responsible for the deaths of Ted Gold, Terry Robbins and Diana Oughton, who were killed while making bombs for Ayers to blow up "government property", (AKA Taxpayer property).
Being killed by a nail bomb is a high price to pay for Ayers "VANDALISM".

Anyone not under the influence of Obama kool-aid would recognize Ayers true nature, and act accordingly. Unfortunately, you need to hew to the Liberal line on Palin, which amounts to character assassination, and catty gossip worthy of frustrated teenagers.
Your supportive fascination of "Levi" is ample proof of this.

So, spare us the usual feces slinging and instead share your Daily Democrat Talking Points and Indoctrination Briefing. That way we can ALL know which correct Liberal "opinions" we should be expressing today.
Oh, that's right, your stated purpose is "to invade a right wing forum and see how people appreciate being attacked."

Nice.

Well, good luck and thanks for the laughs.

Anonymous said...

looks like handsome has invited his friends from Daily Kooks...

Anonymous said...

anonymous: It's simple, the people who do not like President Obama will not support anything he initiates, no matter how beneficial it may prove to them.

we got along fine w/out this guy for 233 yrs.

Byron said...

Handsome you're wrong and it's as simple as that. Fortunately I don't need to take up a page to relay my opinion. Mrs. Palin tried to treat Levy as a member of her family for her daughters' sake and because of a baby. It's what a parent does in that situation. You're not knowing that doesn't speak very highly of your parents. Obama decided to associate with a known terrorists that got off on a technicality and wished he'd done more. Even being someone on the left I can see that, so I have to assume ideology has nothing to do with you not being able to put this together yourself. This leads me to believe because you can't get past being spoon fed what to believe is the basis for your misinformed opinion when comparing apples and oranges.

Handsome said...

Byron,

Ayers' remarks about doing more
have been explained in full; he
said that the Weathermen's
approach was foolish but that
he wished he had done more to
end the Vietnam War, which he admitted to failing because it went on.

In a November 2008 interview with The New Yorker, Ayers said that he had not meant to imply that he wished he and the Weathermen had committed further acts of violence. Instead, he said, “I wish I had done more, but it doesn’t mean I wish we’d bombed more shit.” Ayers said that he had never been responsible for violence against other people and was acting to end a war in Vietnam in which “thousands of people were being killed every week.” He also stated, "While we did claim several extreme acts, they were acts of extreme radicalism against property,” and “We killed no one and hurt no one. Three of our people killed themselves."

In a NY Times article Ayers himself wrote on December 6, 2008, he wrote:

"The Weather Underground crossed lines of legality, of propriety and perhaps even of common sense. Our effectiveness can be — and still is being — debated."

He also reiterated his rebuttal to the charge of terrorism:

"The Weather Underground went on to take responsibility for placing several small bombs in empty offices.... We did carry out symbolic acts of extreme vandalism directed at monuments to war and racism, and the attacks on property, never on people, were meant to respect human life and convey outrage and determination to end the Vietnam war."


The damage he caused was NOT
terrorism. Terrorism is the use
of violence against civilian or
non-military persons; actual HUMANS, fuckface!. The
only fatalities that arose from
the Weather Underground's "vanguard
revolution" were their own
members.

Furthermore, the Times article
Palin cited, along with FactCheck and other sources claimed
Palin distorted the article; that
the maximum association between the two was nominal. So, your
argument he associated with a known terrorist was already debunked, especially by the publishers of the article Palin cited. He served on two boards
with the man and the man hosted
a political forum and fundraiser.
BTW, for your lack of legal
expertise or insight into the
Constitution, Ayers was NEVER FUCKING CONVICTED of any act of
terrorism, domestic or otherwise; unlike Tim McVeigh, who killed
168 people; or Scott Roeder, whom
no doubt exists he murdered George Tiller.

Based on Palin's logic, is she
or is she not a drug dealer or
at least sympathizer. After all, she nominally associated with a woman arrested and who plead guilty to possession and distribution of narcotics without
the proper regulation and licensing. What does that say about her judgment?

Levi (not Levy, genius) was a political prop. Pure and simple.

Now, step back and literally FUCK YOUR OWN FACE! Or, your sister, whichever makes you feel better.

Anonymous said...

All the ad hominid arguments. Gee, if you can't debate reasonably, call the other guy an idiot or a racist. No matter what you tell yourselves, you are not the majority and Sarah Palin is not going to amount to anything. To be a world leader you have to have intelligence and knowledge. That pretty much disqualifies your Sarah.

Dianne said...

"All the ad hominid arguments. Gee, if you can't debate reasonably, call the other guy an idiot or a racist. No matter what you tell yourselves, you are not the majority and Sarah Palin is not going to amount to anything."

"Now, step back and literally FUCK YOUR OWN FACE! Or, your sister, whichever makes you feel better."

You lefties should take a good look @ yourselves. It isn't pretty.

Byron said...

Handsome Have you read the NY Times article?

No Regrets for a Love Of Explosives; In a Memoir of Sorts, a War Protester Talks of Life With the Weathermen

Apart from the contradictory things he's said then and since what he did say in his disclaimer that stood out to me, and I think to most would make very clear what we're talking about here

''Even though I didn't actually bomb the Pentagon -- we bombed it, in the sense that Weathermen organized it and claimed it.'' He goes on to provide details about the manufacture of the bomb and how a woman he calls Anna placed the bomb in a restroom."

He also went on to tell of two other people that were killed when bombs they were making exploded in a Greenwich Village town house, who were part of the group he was involved in. I don't think the group was making bombs just for fun and regardless of if anyone was killed or not, is not what made him a terrorist at the time. Saying he wasn't a terrorist is similar to saying Manson isn't a murderer, because he wasn't there when Tate and the others were murdered.

Anonymous said...

Handsome Are you capable of stating an opinion instead of the copy/paste that you're using now?

Anonymous said...

Handsome said Based on Palin's logic, is she
or is she not a drug dealer or
at least sympathizer. After all, she nominally associated with a woman arrested and who plead guilty to possession and distribution of narcotics without
the proper regulation and licensing. What does that say about her judgment?

It would apply if she knew, which she didn't, and is the difference you seem to be missing.

narciso said...

Right, he was generally an incompetent terrorist, he managed to set off a small explosive in the Pentagon, his girlfriend died in the Greenwich Village bomb that would have struck the NCO club at Ft. Dix, but his intent was quite clear. The word is adhominem, which is the character of much of the attacks one sees here.

Handsome said...

Handsome Are you capable of stating an opinion instead of the copy/paste that you're using now?

Fuckstick, I am simply providing direct fucking citations and quotes to demonstrate how fucking inept certain people are when they
bring up the Obama-Ayers "connection" which has been
discredited time and fucking again
yet dumbfounded dipshits
seem to try and revive it.

Yes, I can think for myself, fuckface! I just also know how to
provide direct quotes and sources, unlike SP, who just makes it up as she goes along and even continues
after her lies have been exposed.

Also refer to this article by FactCheck.org, dated 10/10/2008,
8 days after Palin's shaky
debate with Biden.

http://www.factcheck.org/elections-2008/he_lied_about_bill_ayers.html

In the meantime, as usual. GO FUCK YOURSELF!

Anonymous said...

handsome is here to educate us. we are so fortunate to have a wise young punk to teach us the ways of the obamabot. now we can pal around with terrorists too.

Anonymous said...

Dianne said...
You lefties should take a good look @ yourselves. It isn't pretty.

I agree it is telling. I also notice as others have, Handsome's opinions seem to be juvenile attacks on others that are reminiscent of a playground fight. The rest, as admitted by Handsome are arguments that fit what he wants to believe. So much easier for Handsome to shape an opinion in his echo chamber rather than investigating on one's own to verify what is being said by both sides.

BTW Handsome you are using something said in a campaign in 2008 to explain an interview in 2001. Also from the very page you list
It would be correct to call him a "former terrorist," " which show me at least, you're not even reading what you are using as an example.

Handsome said...

Anonymous said...
handsome is here to educate us. we are so fortunate to have a wise young punk to teach us the ways of the obamabot. now we can pal around with terrorists too.


Prove me wrong fuckface! Name one
OBJECTIVE, CREDIBLE SOURCE THAT OBAMA "PALLED" WITH TERRORISTS. Fox, Hannity, Limpballs, the anchor baby Malkin or Coulter; cite
an actual news source or FactCheck.

That issue has been litigated to fucking death and discredited yet
mouth breathing sister fuckers keep
trying to revive it.

It's quite simple, as another poster wrote: You are not the majority and to be the President,
you have to:

-Be intelligent

-Possess in depth knowledge or
at least curiosity about many
issues

-Be able to communicate clearly and
concisely; speak correct grammar.

-Have an understanding of the
greater world beyond the United States. Palin could not even understand the dynamics of her own country, alienating people who live in cities and/or urban/suburban areas by calling small town and rural Americans the
"real Americans." Gee, I guess people in Los Angeles, NYC, Chicago, Cleveland, Miami, Dallas and Houston all just suck donkey dick in her mind. If she cannot
even appreciate the nuances of and within her own nation's borders, how will she appreciate the
complexities of the greater world?

-Be able to clearly identify or define your sources of info, e.g. what newspapers do you read? That was a simple question that she could not answer.

BTW, I am not a Dem or a lefty. I am an independent voter who is not
enamoured of either party. I just believe at this time, given the
breadth and depth of problems this
country has, flag draped jingoism and bumper sticker slogans and
talking points were not solutions or even policies; that this country needs intellectuals who grasp nuance and the grey areas of the world and of politics. I believe Jesse Ventura is right when he says if you put None of the
Above on a ballot, None of the Above would likely win out.

So, put that one in your blowhole and smoke it!

Handsome said...

Alright, dipshit: There is NO FUCKING AGREED ON DEFINITION OF TERRORIST.

Second, Ayers did not kill anyone;
generally, terrorism is marked by
actual civilian deaths or acts against actual persons-kidnapping, hostage taking, etc, that are
deliberate and intend to produce an outcome favorable to the terrorist.

Ayers was a militant, not a terrorist.

I did not intend to get into
a history of the 1960s and 1970s but rather point out that the whole
Obama-Ayers thing has been discredited time and again yet
certain people wish to keep
harping on it. Wishing something
does not make it so. Obama is
President. Deal with it.

"Do what thou wilt shall be the whole of the law." Aleister Crowley: Liber Legalis: 1904

"Satan represents undefiled wisdom instead of hypocritical self-deceit! "

Anton LaVey: The Satanic Statements

Anonymous said...

Handsome your arguements are falling apart. Your examples are crap, the facts have been laid in front of you (read the thread again) and you still go on. Stop making a fool of yourself now, and maybe many more won't notice.

Michael April said...

Anonymous said...
Sarah Palin showed her ignorance again. She doesn't even understand how the World Bank works.

It wasn't the World Bank.

It was the Export-Import Bank of the United States (Ex-Im Bank) is the official export credit agency of the United States federal government.

Sarah is right, you are ignorant.

Michael April said...

Source Watch - CMD

The Export-Import Bank of the United States is "a federally subsidized institution whose official purpose is to lend money to overseas business ventures as a means of creating a market for U.S. exports. That's the official mission." Another perspective is that of "a federal slush fund that gives away massive low-interest loans to companies that a) don't need the money and b) have recently made gigantic contributions to the right people."

Michael April said...

U.S. Loan to Brazilian Oil Company Riles Conservatives in Favor of Offshore Drilling
By James Rosen

FOXNews.com

Thursday, August 20, 2009

Fox News Stated in this article
“But former Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin, a vocal proponent of offshore drilling, had plenty to say.

"So why is it that during these tough times, when we have great needs at home, the Obama White House is prepared to send more than $2 billion of your hard-earned tax dollars to Brazil so that the nation's state-owned oil company, Petrobas, can drill off shore and create jobs developing its own resources?" she asked on her Facebook page.

In fact, the Export-Import bank receives no appropriations from Congress and thus does not rely on American taxpayer dollars and is also not "sending" $2 billion to the Brazilian company but offering lines of credit to U.S. firms so they can compete to land contracts as part of Petrobras' drilling operations.”

Wrong!

For Immediate Release: Thursday, June 28, 2007
Contact: David Carle, Chairman Leahy, (202) 224-4242
John Bray, Full Committee, (202) 224-3904
Senate Appropriations Committee Passes Fiscal Year 2008 State
and Foreign Operations Appropriations Bill
Full Committee Mark

Export-Import Bank. The Committee provides $146 million for Export-Import Bank, including $68 million for Export-Import Bank subsidy appropriations, the
amount requested by the President, and $41.6 million above the FY 07 enacted
level. The Committee provides $78 million for Export-Import Bank administrative expenses, an amount equal to the President’s request and $5.5 million above the
FY 07 enacted level.

Fox News is wrong – Sarah Palin is right.
Apology expected.

Grizzled said...

"Handsome"[sic] says:
"Do what thou wilt shall be the whole of the law." Aleister Crowley: Liber Legalis: 1904"

Good Lord, a Crowley-ite.
Well that explains your vulgarity and misogynistic viewpoint.
So, Crowley and Ayers are your heroes.
Your parents must be SO proud....

Crowley was an admitted drug addict, racist and sexual deviant.
It all makes sense now.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aleister_Crowley

But, thanks for letting us know who you are and what you stand for.


BTW- tell your buddy Obama to stop palling around with terrorists like Bill Ayers.
You know, the whole guilt by association thing....

Byron said...

Handsome I've read in another thread you've said you're only here to attack republicans so really your statement,

"but rather point out that the whole Obama-Ayers thing"

I think is just more of your BS. I can't imagine how you could possibly believe everyone here hasn't already seen in blogs on the web all the (what you call), "proof" you continually cite, so really I have to believe you serve no purpose other than to stoke your ego with nonsense that's not going to change anyone's mind here. The people's words you copy and paste here are the ones that would have a better shot at changing someone's mind, but since many here have been there done that, I don't see that happening either.

I was a Dem for 30+ years but people like you are what helped to convince me to leave the party (that and IMO the party has it's problems too and did have an influence) and become Independent. This really had not as much to do with Obama (though I do believe he is corrupt so that did play into it) running for and being President. I voted for HRC and after that I didn't vote for Obama. Not only because of Obama being a phony, but folks like you. If you're an example of what Independents are I'll be leaving that party as soon as I'm convinced your type is a majority in the party, and just go unaffiliated.

Being spiteful isn't something to aspire to, and at some point when it may effect you the most, it might catch up with you.

Anonymous said...

And you thought death panels were gone.
The Death Book for Veterans

Handsome said...

Byron,

WHAT FUCKING PROOF HAS BEEN PRESENTED! Present an objective source or a FactCheck piece in which your case is proven! Same with GrizzleFace! Show me an actual link that PROVES Obama
was "palling around with terrorists." The NY Times piece that stupid fucking whore cited
actually was an article that
demonstrated their "relationship"
was nominal; they were not asshole buddies.

Grizzleface, I am NOT a msiogynist! I do not hate women or discriminate based on race, gender, etc. My vulgarity is because I have been attacked simply for raising questions and pointing out that maybe SP is not the one to hitch your hopes to in 2012; does not poll well with
independents, young voters and
minorities. She also did imply
people like me, who live in
an urban are less American or
are not real Americans; statements
that small town America is the
Real America (nevermind that
nearly 3/4 of nation's population live in urban centers or cities)
and that she was proud to be in
the Pro America part of the
nation (I guess Los Angeles,
Miami, Cleveland and Chicago are
anti-American).

My "misogyny" is simply your way
of deflecting the issue because
I have used harsh language to describe Palin the Pinhead. Memo:
More women voted for OBAMA in 2008.
Or, did that one evade your pea sized brain as well? The overall
percentage was 56% to 43%:
Source:
http://www.usnews.com/articles/news/2008/11/05/behind-obamas-victory-women-open-up-a-record-marriage-gap.html

Plus, the fact that the town of Wasilla charged rape victims for kits while she was mayor and she supposedly did not know, even though she appointed the police chief who fought tooth and nail to make victims pay and Wasilla is not Dallas or Chicago, where mayors are often consumed with tons of issues and have layers of red tape under them makes Palin
far more of a misogynist than a blogger who uses some harsh terms.
Source: amhttp://www.usatoday.com/news/politics/election2008/2008-09-10-rape-exams_N.htm

My vulgarity is a response when I'm attacked with ad hominems
a la "get a life" or that I do not know how to read.

Byron, there is no FUCKING PARTY
CALLED INDEPENDENT! Fuckface, it is like this: When you register to vote or change registrations, you
register (based on state or locality)

Republican
Democrat
Green
Libertarian
Decline to State or No Affiliation(independent).

Independent just means that: You do not belong to or identify with
any party or affiliation at ALL.
So, how can you leave a party that does not exist, fuckstick?!

Aleister Crowley was a flawed
person. But, he also was an interesting and eclectic person with many unique observations and
insights (once one gets beyond the
occultic esoterism or mumbo jumbo) and the man had more intellect in
his drug addled veins than
most Palinistas have in their
entire cranium or body for that
matter.

At days end, someone said once a person gets beyond 2 words with
you people, it's over. Do not bother you with the facts or with objective sources; you've already made up your mind. After all,
the gut has more nerve endings than the brain.

I leave with a paraphrase of a
bit by the late George Carlin:
All the assholes (Grizzled, Byron,
Anonymous fuckfaces, Palin,
Boehner, Cantor, McConnell, Limpballs, anchor baby Malkin, etc) are placed into an arena or
colliseum and then turn on each other and kill each other off and the last person standing just gets a doube tap. Or, just for 7-11
convenience, all the fucksticks are
placed in an arena and hungry lions are let out to feed. For Wal-Mart level convenience and cost effectiveness, just place all the
dumbfounded dipshits in an arena
and have a bomber bomb the
place to holy hell. That would be
worth a PPV, dontcha think?

Phil said...

Anonymous said...
Also from the very page you list
It would be correct to call him a "former terrorist,"
http://www.factcheck.org/elections-2008/he_lied_about_bill_ayers.html

LOL, that's really funny. So even the people that Handsome is trying to use think Ayers was a terrorist and an unapologetic one as well. That really is an interesting spin Handsome has going there.

Handsome said...
Alright, dipshit: There is NO FUCKING AGREED ON DEFINITION OF TERRORIST.

Looking like more spin. You come in here insisting that Ayers isn't a terrorist and then now proclaim there's no way to define terrorist. :-P Maybe it's just you that can't. Just a thought, but if you can't define it, then by that statement alone you are admitting there's the possibility he is a terrorist.
But we'll play along here for a minute with your spin. Since the people you quote are dipshits for thinking they know what a terrorist is, I guess it can be assumed everything they said @ factcheck.org is misinformation too. How about instead of giving other people's talking points, (obvious dipshits by your standards) you show some intellect and post something that shows you have any comprehension of what you're talking about. The only thing you are confirming when posting what other people have written so far, is that you've mastered being a parrot and really bring nothing original to the discussion.

Anonymous said...

I try to get both sides of the story ... so I visit a number of blogs weekly

One has always been C4Palin.. the comments get so twisted and hateful when anyone brings up any questionable things about Palin.. do now I just go there for the articles and skip the comments

Then I found this site.. another insightful spin on Palin.. I dared peek at the comments as this article had 46

I am seeing the same twisted hate.. is there a blog out there that can have a normal "debate" without people getting all twisted up and calling people (that you know nothing about .. we are all just bloggers.. real people and not all of us evil just because we have an opinion) stupid and troll?

Ive left some Anti Palin sites for this very reason.. I just wanna hear people TALK about issues..
Not have my day drained by a virtual fistfight/bar room brawl

since I spoke enough already .. one more thing
People who may be snooping around for Palin information might actually stick around and listen to things being said .. if they didn't turn into such hate.. this goes BOTH ways

Anonymous said...

still waiting for an answer to my question...do you mind paying so every child can have a public school education?

Anonymous said...

The whole point was GUILT BY ASSOCIATION! I guess there isn't anyone out there who gets this. I'm sad no one understands the concept.

Byron said...

Handsome said...
Byron, there is no FUCKING PARTY
CALLED INDEPENDENT!

This just makes me wonder if you've ever voted since I'm already sure by the other things you've said you have no idea what you're talking about.

Byron said...

Handsome I wasn't going to but just so you might learn something beyond your fromt door.

The American Independent Party is a ballot-qualified party recognized by the California Secretary of State, with a registered I.D.# 742371

Unaffiliated voters are called Decline to State out here and have nothing to do with the Independents.

Grizzled said...

"Handsome"[sic] says:
"My vulgarity is because I have been attacked simply for raising questions..."

Really?
How does that square with this?

"Handsome"[sic] says:
"I have decided to invade a right wing forum and see how people appreciate being attacked."

Your attacks preceded anything negative said about you. You brought this on yourself with your misogynistic rantings, profanity and your obsession with certain sex acts.

"Handsome"[sic] says:
"Present an objective source or a FactCheck piece blah, blah, New York Times, blah, blah Factcheck.org, blah, blah.

While it is obvious you can read and write, the other blogger was right; you lack comprehension.
Sources have been presented, but you keep worshipping at the Hackcheck.org altar.
Try looking at other "objective" sources. You might learn something.

"Handsome"[sic] says:
""Do what thou wilt shall be the whole of the law." Aleister Crowley: Liber Legalis: 1904
"Satan represents undefiled wisdom instead of hypocritical self-deceit! "
Anton LaVey: The Satanic Statements"

It's clear from your occult interests and associations you are an Anarchist, which is the cool, trendy thing for a 20-25 yr. old. (Don't worry, you'll grow out of it; just don't break too many windows.)
Crowley was a self-centered, narcissistic hedonist obsessed with his own power/pleasure fantasies. It's easy to see from your writings why you relate to him.

One question:
What does factcheck.org say about "Magick"?


PS- Your buddy Obama shouldn't be advocating Death Panels or palling around with terrorists like Bill Ayers.

Anonymous said...

JUST SO YOU KNOW....

WILLIAM AYERS IS A RESPECTED MEMBER OF THE CHICAGO COMMUNITY. HE SERVES ON CHARITABLE BOARDS, IS A PROFESSOR AT THE UNIVERSITY OF ILLINOIS, AND IS IN THE FOREFRONT OF EDUCATIONAL REFORM. MANY PEOPLE, DEMOCRATS AND REPUBLICANS ALIKE, ASSOCIATE WITH THE MAN. THIS WAS SUCH A CHEAP SHOT FROM MS PALIN.

BUT THEN, THAT'S WHY THEY CALLED HER SARAH BARRACUDA, RIGHT? I'LL BET SHE COMMITTED A LOT OF CHEAP FOULS....

Anonymous said...

Handsome....too bad about the vicious attacks on you made simply because you made some logical points. No wonder we get people like Reagan and Bush in the White House. People listen to Rush and attack anyone who disagrees. Scary.

Anonymous said...

Grizzled: What planet do you live on? Just wondering.

Anne said...

"this country needs intellectuals who grasp nuance and the grey areas of the world and of politics. I believe Jesse Ventura is right"

hope you are not counting jesse as 1 of those intellectuals!

Anonymous said...

*Handsome....too bad about the vicious attacks on you made simply because you made some logical points. No wonder we get people like Reagan and Bush in the White House. People listen to Rush and attack anyone who disagrees. Scary.*
**********************************
The only vicious attacks are coming from Handsome!!!
You either didn't read the thread, or don't have a clue!!!

Anonymous said...

Thanks Michael April for catching my mistake. You're right, of course. As you wrote: Palin knows nothing about the Export Import Bank.

Anonymous said...

My goodness are we still talking about Pres. Obama and William Ayers? Haven't we made up enough funny names and made enough crude comments so we can smirk along with our friends. We are soooo witty. Puts Noel Coward to shame.

Handsome said...

Grizzleface,

Hackcheck.org altar. Lol! You come up with that all by yourself?

I have read all objective sources.
While there is no agreed on international definition of terrorism, the generic definition is the use of violence against
persons, either through murder/bombings/shootings or
kidnapping/hostagetaking; to
use such tactics to advance a
political aim (how's that for
comprehension, fuckstick?).

Based upon Ayers' acts, he would be
a militant or radical, who comitted
gross acts of vandalism and property damage; to achieve
a political goal.

The issue was, whether or not
Obama had substantial associations
with the man. The Times article
Palin cited actually was pointing
out their association was nominal.
She herself was using a Times piece
to make a point that all INTELLIGENT readers found that
the article was DEBUNKING her point!

You have presented no facts, no
objective sourecs and the articles
you have linked to actually prove MY point; that Ayers was a radical
who has since come to believe his
methods were wrong but his
ideas were correct(whether they
are or not is for another
discussion).

I simply pointed out Palin cannot
win based on all current
statistics; numbers are not there.
You said I was a rock thrower
throwing rocks where I was not invited and to get a life.
I simply replied to that attack
because my initial post was
to show that as much as she is
loved by a segment of voters,
they may want to reassess the
data and proceed from there; hitching WH hopes to SP may not
be the best action right now.

When I was attacked, I responded.
Profane, yes but at least to
the point. As far as my point
about invading a forum, that
was part of the reply. My initial
post was in June when she was
beefing with Letterman; pointing out that, where was tghe outrage
when Limbaugh called Chelsea Clinton the WH dog and when McCain said Chelsea's father was Janet Reno? I also wanted to post that
she could not be taken seriously as
a leader by opting to use energy to
feud with a comic. Hillary Clinton did not spend the years 2006-2007 feuding with comics and
satirists. She used her time in
Senate building relationships with
Republicans like Lindsey Graham
to improve vet healthcare; building
relationships with leaders like
Bhutto, Ariel Sharon and Tony Blair and building advisory
relationships with military men
like Sestak and Clark and
her economic team. My point
in that post was to compare
and contrast two high profile
and often controversial female
politicos and how one elected
to drop the right wing conspiracy
talk and go to work while the
other opted to engage in soap opera
feuds and grab the limelight.

Anyone who has watched her objectively knows she cannot
articulate beyond sound bites.
Her interviews and debate showed
she did not have the policy chops
to be compared to Hillary
Clinton, Margaret Thatcher,
Golda Meir, et al.

Anne, Jesse Ventura may be rough
around his edges. But (and
give the man his due: He served
in Vietnam as a Navy SEAL {or Frogman; up for discussion} unlike
GW Bush or Dick "5 Deferments"
Cheney or Norm Coleman or Rush
Limbaugh), he has made reasonable
arguments about politics and the 2
party system. He has said that
many Americans likely (not guaranteed) would vote None of the
Above if that were an actual
ballot option. He has argued
that states do not have uniform
ballot access, therefore
restricting political choices to
two parties that in may ways represent the status quo and
special interests. The only
differences are marginal and
which special interests get access to the goody room at any one time.

Byron, point taken. Some states,
like Minnesota and California do
have Independent parties of some sort. Just that there is no
national Independent party
or commmittee a la the RNC
or DNC. I thought you were
arguing a national party so
I erred there. I believe you to
be wrong on the whole Ayers-Obama
issue but that is that.

Handsome said...

As far as saying I only parrot, no, that is what Palinistas do:
Parrot talking points from
openly avowed partisans. I
make my point but try to refer
readers to an objective, third
party source so I do not just
pull things out of air; there
is some objective or unbiased
source. FactCheck is the best
source right now because they
do not have a dog in the fight.
Other fair sources I consider
are NY Times, Wall Street
Journal, Reuters, AP and BBC. I
do not link to sites that
are overtly slanted one way or other: DailyKos, HuffPo,
ALternet (Left) or Fox,
Malkin, Coulter or Limbaugh (right).

FactCheck does not have any articles on Magick, dipshit Grizzleface! I just happen to have
an interest in the ideas of both
Crowley and LaVey, which is more
than what I can say for people who say America was founded on Christianity (read the Treaty of
Tripoli and the words of John Adams; the Letters of Thomas Jefferson and the Federalist Papers, mainly James Madison). In no way is this assumption borne out. BTW, Washington was reputedly
a Mason. Was he an "occultist?"

I am not an anarchist; just a person with interest in people and ideas about life and spirituality
beyond some narrow dogma. Both
Crowley and LaVey had interesting ideas about many areas, including politics (both hated democracy; had an elitism about them but recall Churchill: Greatest case against democracy: 5 minutes with the average voter). If one gets beyond their esoterism, their writings do raise good questions.
I freely admit Crowley was a drug user, a bisexual and a hedonist.
He also embodied the cultural norms of his period, which included
racism (man of his time, as
conservatives say about slavery,
the acts of Columbus and the
New World explorers and
the racism of some of this nation's
lumninaries). But, he also was
a very intellectual man with a great curiosity about the world and
the afterworld; climbed mountains
in Switzerland and Ceylon; has
SP climbed mountains in exotic locales or explored various
spots in the world a la the Valley of the Kings? Has she associated
with other great intellects a la
Bram Stoker and WB Yeats (both
were associates of Crowley in Golden dawn)?

LaVey, though he preached hedonism and claimed the mantle of Satanism, was actually more along
your lines: Law and order and
he had no use for the hippies,
whom he regarded as self important
middle class counter elitists.
He thought of as drug indulgent
candy asses who believed they could change the world. His ideas were to appreciate the real world as it was within his framework.
He also advocated responsibility to
the responsible, a concept that
evades most politicians (including SP; she is always the victim and
never responsible).

At day's end, my initial point was
to point out that the whole
Obama-Ayers issue has been done to death, was proven to be overblown
and that guilt by association is
not a good thing. After all, a certain politician's spouse was
married to a man who belonged
to a seccessionist party. Or, is
that off limits. Oops, I went there. Oh well.

Anonymous said...

Anonymous, we DO pay for children to have an education. It comes out of our property taxes.

As far as paying for others health insurance. I am sure that if there is a tax break for donating to a pool to cover the uninsured, a lot of people would donate to that fund.

Handsome, do you what Ayers said when he left court. I will paraphrase, because I am not sure of the order:

What a country, guilty as hell but free as a bird.

In other words, he, himself admitted that he was guilty of being a terrorist. Regarding never having killed anyone, how about the policeman that were killed when that police precint was bombed?

I wouldn't feel sorry for poor Levi. He does not have to pose naked (eeuww) to make money. The irony is that he had a job and when he and Bristol were together the left made sure that he did not keep it. Now, that they are no longer together he has become the left's "darling".

In any event, I am pretty sure that Gov. Palin's acquaintance with Ms. Johnston was marginal at best and she only dealt with her because of Bristol. I am sure that she would have thought twice before having Ms. Johnston babysit her children.

Anonymous said...

Anonymous @12:34 pm

I guess the Wall Street Journal is also ignorant of the Ex-Im Bank since the article originally came from that publication.

It's OK, you just can't help the fact that you are a parrot that can only regurgitate the facts that are indoctrinated.

Byron said...

Hansome said..
Byron, point taken. Some states,
like Minnesota and California do
have Independent parties of some sort. Just that there is no
national Independent party


It is a National third party. What do you think Alan Keyes ran on?

Anonymous said...

Handsome said...
there is no national Independent party or commmittee a la the RNC
or DNC
.
Wrong!
America's Independent Party National Committee

Anonymous said...

Handsome [sic]said...
terrorism, the generic definition is the use of violence against persons, either through murder/bombings/shootings or kidnapping/hostagetaking; to use such tactics to advance a political aim

Terrorist
a person who terrorizes or frightens others.
a person, usually a member of a group, who uses or advocates terrorism.

terrorism
the systematic use of terror especially as a means of coercion

terror
1 : a state of intense fear
2 a : one that inspires fear : scourge b : a frightening aspect (the terrors of invasion) c : a cause of anxiety : worry d : an appalling person or thing; especially : brat
3 : reign of terror
4 : violent or destructive acts (as bombing) committed by groups in order to intimidate a population or government into granting their demands

Handsome said...

In other words, he, himself admitted that he was guilty of being a terrorist. Regarding never having killed anyone, how about the policeman that were killed when that police precint was bombed?


I have searched all over for this
info and the only sources I have found are partisan sources such
as Free Republic, National Review, etc. The only halfway unbiased
info I could find on the NYPD
bombing was the Wikiepdia entry for
Jane Alpert and all of the
info on her does not list her as
a full on member of the Weather
Underground.

Sorry, I cannot accept sources that
are obviously biased, with an
axe to grind. If you can
refer me to a link of an actual
clip or news headline of the period in question, I will
give consideration to this point.

Dollars to donuts, yin to yang and
the bada to the bing, Willow Palin will be knocked up out of wedlock in 2012. Whether it is by A-Rod is
to be determined. Lol!

Anonymous said...

Handsome, Here is a little background of the Weathermen for you to digest. First the Time interview in 1975 with Larry Grathwohl the FBI informant you may have heard of. The Weathermen portion with Grathwohl starts about the middle of page 4.
And then Larry Grathwohl describing the mind set of Ayers and the Weatherman in what they were planing in an Excerpt from
No Place to Hide an 80's documentary.

Anonymous said...

Oh and you might want to watch The Real Story of the Weathermen as well. This is an excerpt from a 1982 CBC documentary on the KGB activities in North America.

Anonymous said...

I'm glad you're out of that coma. Whoever believes that there is no federal funding of public education must have been asleep for a very long time. There is now a Department of Education in the federal gov't. WOW! Did you ever hear of "no child left behind"? Glad you're doing better, you have a lot of catching up to do.

Anonymous said...

Anonymous said...
Handsome, do you what Ayers said when he left court. I will paraphrase, because I am not sure of the order: What a country, guilty as hell but free as a bird.

It doesn't appear to me you have the facts correct there. Ayers said “Guilty as hell, free as a bird. America is a great country", in an interview with David Horowitz and Peter Collier in the early eighties. AFAIK Ayers didn't deny it when it was published.

Anonymous said...

POSTER BELOW (AND THE PALIN CROWD) TOTALLY MISSES THE POINT. WHATEVER YOU MIGHT THINK ABOUT WHAT AYERS DID FORTY YEARS AGO, HE IS REHABILITATED. HE IS NOW VERY RESPECTED, AND LOTS OF PEOPLE IN ILLINOIS ASSOCIATE WITH THE MAN. UNLESS YOU ARE WILLING TO PIN THE "TERRORIST LABEL ON ALL THE PEOPLE AT THE UNIVERSITY OF IL, AYERS' EMPLOYER, THEN YOU ARE TOTALLY OFFBASE PINNING IT ON OBAMA. IT WAS A CHEAP SHOT. SARAH KNEW IT. MCCAIN KNEW IT. THEY DID IT ANYWAY. THEY ARE JERKS.
It doesn't appear to me you have the facts correct there. Ayers said “Guilty as hell, free as a bird. America is a great country", in an interview with David Horowitz and Peter Collier in the early eighties. AFAIK Ayers didn't deny it when it was published.