Friday, November 7, 2008

Assassinating Sarah

Last night CTV "News" anchor Lloyd Robertson ran with a story about Sarah Palin being attacked slandered by McCain campaign aides:

Months of bubbling frustration with Sarah Palin from within the McCain campaign finally exploded in the wake of their ticket's crushing defeat as Republican insiders began making embarrassing allegations about the Alaskan Governor.

Unnamed McCain aides have told the media that Palin ... [I decline
to repeat the slander]

"Months" of frustration? Palin was nominated on August 29th. She had a brief honeymoon of a couple of weeks before the hatchet job began in earnest. So make that ‘a month and a half’.

And these "unnamed McCain ‘aides’" - would they be the ones responsible for screening Palin’s incoming calls and letting those two moronic so-called "comedians" from Montreal spoof a call from French president Nicolas Sarkozy? The same ones who set up her interview with Katie Couric?

To have this kind of crap repeated on CTV national "news" is a disgrace. "Unnamed" sources can say anything. For example: Lloyd Robertson, here’s a couple of ‘stories’ you might want to consider running in your upcoming "news" casts:

... highly placed but unnamed sources within the Obama campaign allege that Obama’s father was a cannibal; and
... unnamed sources within CTV have alleged that news anchor Lloyd Robertson is a pedophile with a huge kiddy porn collection;
Sarah Palin has had a real job done on her. First by the Dems, backed up by a ruthless Obama cheering MSM that didn’t hesitate to repeat every rumour/slur/lie - the same media that virtually ignored Obama’s many serious political liabilities but swarmed Alaska to dig for dirt on Palin. Now Sarah Palin is being targeted, apparently by campaign aides who continue the slanderous rumour mongering, again backed by a scummy MSM.

Wasn’t Palin picked by McCain and his top aides? Wasn’t the McCAin campaign stalled and unable to bring in the Republican base? Didn’t Sarah Palin energize that base? To now scapegoat her for McCain’s loss (McCain's incompetent campaign), assuming media reports are anywhere near true, is beyond despicable. This is mean, nasty stuff. If McCain’s aides are behind it then the scum-bags should be rooted out and crucified. As for the media, repeating slander about conservatives is even worse but, sadly, par for the course.

And one last question. Where’s McCain? Isn’t he going to defend his running mate? C’mon, John, let’s see some of that vaunted honour and courage.

18 comments:

Deep CTV anonymous source said...

Now that you have published the Lloyd Robertson pedophile tip it can now be safely repeated anywhere by anyone all without the fear of libel
just as the MSM did with the Palin story.

See how it works Lloyd.

Jen said...

When the MSM attacks Sarah Palin a governor with an 89% approval ratings above all governors and not say a peep about their 'chosen one' goes to show that they have something major to hide about OBAMA.

Can you imagine that you, endorsing someone like CNN is to OBAMA and all you can talk about is Sarah Palin and her past. what gives here, I thought the MSM would have bragged out OBAMA where he worked his association with radicals friends.
Now that the american MSM had allowed this man to enter the white house under false pretenses instead of letting people decide who/what is the real OBAMA.I don't think many americans would vote for a man with a radical past.
The MSM like the MSM here manipulate the public for the MSM own personal agenda.
Foreign medias already know who OBAMA really is and he will face a major huddle ahead 'WITHOUT' the protection of HIS MSM.
2001 tape of OBAMA; another tape of OBAMA which LAtimes have are been kept from the public. WHY is that-even Joe Biden interview with Fox news was banned from the public. How many more tapes will be banned before the american people realized that they were used.

David said...

There are two factions forming in the GOP - one will attempt to revive intellectual traditional conservatism, and the other will form behind Palin, and back the same anti-intellectual nonsense we've been subjected to, courtesy of the right wing fundamentalist and evangelical branch.

Thankfully, the GOP is divorcing the fundagelicals, and the US will finally get back to having meaningful political discourse. Hopefully.

In the meantime, you are free to join whatever faction you wish, but be warned that joining the Palin faction is joining the anti-intellectual moron faction. If that's your thing, then have at it.

Donald said...

"same anti-intellectual nonsense we've been subjected to, courtesy of the right wing fundamentalist and evangelical branch..."
Actually, there are a significant theological difference between Christian Fundamentalists and Evangelical Christians, with evangelicals having a fairly rich intellectual tradition. Unfortunately many people (including political commentators) lump the two groups together because they don't know any better. I know many evangelicals who cringe everytime somebody equates them with Fundamentalists.

David said...

I'm grouping them both together inasmuch as they both represent belief systems based on at least one major irrational, subjective, supernatural, untestable and, overall, ad hoc ontological hypothesis - the existence of God. Both groups also extend this ridiculous assertion to a belief in a monopoly on morality, which taints their political views, making them incapable of recognizing that all of us in society, while we may not share their religious views, are human beings and our laws and public institutions - if they strive to be equally representative - should be based on secular human rights alone.

Also, I'm pretty sure there are some intellectual branches of astrology too, but it's still all nonsense.

Anonymous said...

This started out looking very good for the McCain & Palin team , but by the time the media got through with them in turned into a comedy of errors .
I was reminded of the Tim Conway show McCalin's Navy with Ernest Borghnine.

Anonymous said...

David

Your Dem assert an irrational belief that they are the chosen secular fundamentalist (strss the 'mental') ones.

You are both equally as bad.

Steve L. said...

David demonstrated his idiocy by stating that the Republicans would polarize into pro-Palin and anti-Palin sides.

come 2012 there would most likely be another dogpile of Republicans vying for the White House, including but not limited to familiar names (like Mitt Romney and Mike Huckabee - they're the most likely ones to take another crack at 2012) and possible newcomers (especially Bobby Jindal). to center the whole thing around Sarah Palin shows that David:

a) knows little to nothing about the Republican Party (never mind his obsessions against Christian fundamentalists)
b) is probably not Republican
c) would probably never vote Republican anyway if he were American (which i doubt)
d) all of the above

and if he's not a Republican, then we can forget about him. because advising a political party on how it should handle its future (especially in a vitriolic manner like David's) is one of the most insulting things you can encounter when such "advice" comes from someone who would never vote for you anyway.

oh and did i mention i'm, like, totally anti-intellectual?

suck it, JERK.

David said...

anon 5:35:

I don't understand your comment. May be a language barrier. I speak English. What's your first language?

steve:

Of course there will be others vying for the throne, and I don't really care if you don't listen to me. I also don't care if you run Palin - in fact, PLEASE PLEASE do so. I guarantee she'll never get the nomination from the GOP. I'll bet $100 on it - if you're on, message me back here and we can arrange the details of the bet.

As for the rest of your rant, I wasn't aware that this blog was only looking for Republican viewpoints. The owner should maybe put a disclaimer at the top so other people can avoid it too. I daresay that's a pretty crappy way to run a blog, though. What's the point?

Regarding your admission that you're anti-intellectual: You didn't have to say it. It's obvious that's the image you want to portray. Good for you, too. You're a *proud* ignoramus - and if you're not, you're proud to play the part. You're a very special person.

suck it, JERK.

Bedtime now, junior. Goodnight.

David said...

Oh..almost forgot: PLEASE also run Bobby Jindal if possible. I'm sure the US is just dying to elect *dum dum dum!* THE EXORCIST!!!

If he runs, I'd love to see the Dem commercials. I can only hope they license some scenes from the movie.

What a nutbar... and please refrain from telling me all of his academic achievements. I know of them, and they don't impress me as much as they impress his supporters. I mean, let's get real: he's an EXORCIST! That's enough idiocy for me.

Steve L. said...

don't offer up a bet all of a sudden to take attention away from your apparent lack of a functioning brain, David. that is what we're focusing on here.

since this is a blog on Canadian politics, let me ask you this: should the Liberal Party of Canada ever seek advice from Stephen Harper on how the Liberals can improve their stature in the next federal election? if your answer is "yes," i nominate your for the next leader of the Liberal Party of Canada. and if you don't speak French, it makes your leadership credentials 10 times more awesome.

this is just to say that, as conservatives with an interest in the state of political discourse in North America, it's our job to identify who is genuinely interested in moving the party forward and who takes pleasure in being a histrionically condescending imbecile. like yourself.

and since you did not scramble to shore up your conservative credentials with your initial response to my previous post, it shows that you, er, are indeed overqualified to be the next leader of the Liberal Party of Canada.

David said...

steve:

So you're not taking the bet. Noted.

You also draw a comparison between me giving advice to the GOP and Harper giving advice to the LPC. This analogy is retarded for at least two reasons:

1) I wonder if you have reading comprehension problems, since I made *descriptive* statements, not *normative* statements - I assume you know the difference. As such, comparing my descriptive statements of what WILL happen, with Harper's normative statements to the LPC about what SHOULD happen is pointless.

2) In case you didn't realize, I'm not the leader of the governing opposition, so you fail in the degree of your comparison as well.

I won't even comment on the tone of your post, suffice it to say that it doesn't help your position - particularly the ad hominems. I might also suggest you take a few critical thinking courses before we talk again.

On that note, why are we still talking?

Anonymous said...

I'm starting to understand what is happening here. When Pallin came forth, the left was horrified. They had to destroy her and they did. Now McCain has to destroy her to save his own ass. The media has to kill her again in case she dares to come back. How can somebody that sucks that bad make so many people afraid of her? The answer is obvious. You have a friend in me Sarah. Please come back! (real conservative)

JR said...

Re. the 'debate' with David, in general I agree with Donald and Steve. I don’t claim to be any grand expert on American politics but I seriously doubt there’s a factional split developing along religious lines within the Republican party. The religious right is a huge block that the Republican party could not do without and they’ll always be accommodated. It’s likely why McCain (who’s ideologically closer to the Dems than the Republicans) picked Sarah Palin in the first place. Any difficulty Palin may have experienced within the McCain campaign, fomented with the help of the media, would be due mostly to the ‘brain’ trust (“aides”) who botched the McCain campaign from the beginning.

As for the “anti-intellectual moron faction”, the religious right, that David so charmingly refers to, I find I have little problem with most of their political positions. And I’m a scientifically inclined agnostic. Though I don’t subscribe to their specific religious beliefs I think the values they bring to society (family, community, etc) are very positive. Militant atheistic socialists, on the other hand, are very problematic.

And, David, if you pluralize “Dem” the comment by anon (5:35) makes good sense. Try not to be so rudely dismissive.

ctv anonymous source, Jen, real conservative - thanks for your comments.

David said...

I find I have little problem with most of their political positions

Really? Off the top of my head, you don't support stem-cell research? Gay marriage? Euthanasia? Teaching evolution in school? You support their ridiculous interpretations of scripture to justify military action? Their disdain for the poor?

I’m a scientifically inclined agnostic

Ok, you're inclined. I'm not sure what that means. The scientific issues are pretty cut-and-dry, as science tends to be.

Militant atheistic socialists, on the other hand, are very problematic

Really? Why? Are they more problematic than militant religious fundamentalists? Or more problematic than militant religious fascists? Tell me, why DID you use the term militant in there, when you don't apply it to any other reference to religion in your reply? Are you not comparing an extreme of my position to a nice moderate middle of the opposing position? Try to at least be consistent.

JR said...

David, I said "most of" for a reason.

Do I support: Gay marriage? No. Euthanasia? No. Stem cell research? Yes, with some reservation.

"Their interpretation of scripture..." Did you miss where I said I was agnostic and didn't share their religious beliefs?

"Their disdain for the poor?" Where'd you get that idea? Don't be ridiculous.

By "scientifically inclined" I mean I'm scientifically literate though not employed as a scientist, I like science, admire scientists, etc. There's very little in science that's "cut and dry".

In some of your comments you came across a bit like Christopher Hitchens and Richard Dawkins who I consider militant proselytizing atheists. I have no particular quarrel with atheists - everyone is entitled to their religious beliefs. But the militant, proselytizing variety tend to arrogance and intolerance and thus more problematic than most Christians. And if they're socialists to boot then they really become problematic. As for fascism see Liberal Fascism.

It's good to see that you consider atheism to be a religious belief.

David said...

I don't consider it so. I asked why you argued against my position in an extreme form, but didn't elevate your position (religious supporter) to its extreme form - where we find all manner of kooks, all of them far more militant than Hitchens or Dawkins. Also, there are far more militant religious nutbars than there are equally 'militant' atheists. Further, I would argue that your idea of militancy vis-a-vis atheism is not the same sort of irrantional militancy we get from religious groups.

Anyway, there really is no point in continuing the discussion. I suspect we will disagree on a lot, and I've no interest in wasting my time. You don't believe in equal rights for gay couples. You think you should be able to tell me how to end my life, if I wish. I didn't even ask the abortion question, but you seem to by wishy washy on stem cell research, too. You also seem to think that you know enough science to both understand the issues, and lecture me on its nature. This is surprising, since you don't know me, and you don't know how scientifically literate I am or am not.

Did you miss where I said I was agnostic and didn't share their religious beliefs?

No. I was asking you if you support their militaristic attitude in light of their interpretation of scripture that, in most respects, was not itself militaristic. I was asking you if you are equally hypocritical as they are.

Where'd you get that idea? Don't be ridiculous.
Really? I think supporting the party of the wealthy, and justifying questionable economic schemes with scripture is reprehensible and could be classified as disdainful. Churches are in business for the benefit of the people making the money, and it sure isn't the congregation.

I'm glad to hear you admire science, and you like it. Perhaps you should let scientists do their job - after all they are MUCH better at it than you are.

Liberal Fascism? Really? Now you're being ridiculous. Goldberg is an intellectual insect, and his outrageous contortions of the term 'liberal' and 'fascist' to get them to fit just demonstrates that I can put any two terms together and equate them. Ever heard of 'Conservative Marxists'? I could find enough examples where a tenuous and idiotic link could be drawn between them. Goldberg wouldn't know a decent piece of scholarship if it drove a Mac truck into his fat ass. He wouldn't last an hour in academia, under the spotlight of people who actually know what they're talking about.

Who are you going to reference next? Coulter? Limbaugh?

JR said...

"... there really is no point in continuing the discussion."

Well, at least we agree on that.