Which is from this big (windy) Vanity Fair article about Sarah Palin.
June 30, 2009
"Palin and Cindy McCain, never soulmates."
Funny caption, for this picture:
Which is from this big (windy) Vanity Fair article about Sarah Palin.
Which is from this big (windy) Vanity Fair article about Sarah Palin.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
246 comments:
«Oldest ‹Older 201 – 246 of 246"Conservatives speak a different language full of value for individual rights over government control, the oppression of big government and the virtue of small government, and personal responsibility being preferable to collective guilt."
Now if the politicians who call themselves conservative could just get a clue.
Bah.
Let's all try and get along and focus on something we can all agree upon.
Sarah has nice jugs. They bounce. They are fun. They have milk in them. Yummy. I am hungry.
Alex said..."It doesn't matter really. You can point out a million anecdotes about how the free market is solving the problems but Jeremy will insist on single payer for ALL."
I don't "insist" on anything.
I just think we should have the choice.
If YOU feel your insurance coverage is good and affordable, keep it.
A majority of Americans do not ageee with YOU...they agree with ME.
June 20, 2009
(CBS) A clear majority of Americans -- 72 percent -- support a government-sponsored health care plan to compete with private insurers, a new CBS News/New York Times poll finds. Most also think the government would do a better job than private industry at keeping down costs and believe that the government should guarantee health care for all Americans.
Titus -
Here you go: a fun interview with Sarah and some pics to go along with it at Runner's World.
Gully said..."I think Ann posts about Palin because she knows it will cause a jeremygasm."
I can't believe you're that gullyble.
Jim - The only "running" Princess Sarah does is off at the mouth.
jeremy -
Didn't your mother tell you that NYT/CBS poll was discredited the same day it was published? It oversampled Obama voters 2-to-1, and unemployed voters by 2-to-1, amongst other things.
Once you parse out all the "ballot stuffing" done by the pollsters, support drops to 40%. Other polls have additionally shown that support drops to 27% if people are asked to even pay a single dime to get it. Given that's not going to be the case, even according to the Democrats, this plan is starting with the support of 1 in 4.
It helps when you're working with accurate poll numbers. You're welcome.
I know quite a few people who, despite being quite liberal, are otherwise generally sane, but on the topic of Palin they just lose their sh*t so badly it is actually funny. For the women it comes down, as always, to the Big A - they cannot grasp why a woman would be anti-abortion - they expect it from old white men, but not EVER from a woman - and the fact that she carried Trig to term shows that she actually means it, which is even scarier.
Most [straight] men don't seem to fee so strongly - there is some elitist snobbery, but nothing so visceral, especially since they tend to acknowledge that Joe Biden is at best an amiable moron.
It's true enough that many of us simply could never relate to feminism being born during a conversation punctuated by the sounds of the maid doing laundry in the back-ground.
I get it even if Invisible Man will never understand. The division between mainstream feminism as represented by the wealthy, urbanite, college bred, elites never caught on amongst those of us who came from a less privileged family background.
You know....where the women had to get up and go to work in unglamorous jobs like working in restaurants, bookkeepping for a lumber yard company, establishing their own day care businesses, standing on their feet all day as a lowly bank teller, clerking at a retail establishment like Wal Mart, cleaning the house of people like Gloria Steinem, or in the case of my mother running a linotype machine and printing press.......and then coming home to take care of the family and household chores.
The whining and ranting about inconsequential and imagined wrongs by the 'elite' feminists had (and still has) no real relevance to the majority of women. Women who are busy working and don't carry a big grudge against men and who in fact pretty much love the men in their lives and don't look upon their children as burdens or little trophies to validate their own self worth.
Sarah Palin represents those women like my mother and other hard working middle class women. it has nothing to do with party affiliation either.
You want to know what really scares them the most. Look at the internals of the poll: Palin actually dropped a few points with Republicans, but she made up for it and more with +6 and +7 with Democrats and Independents. In six months while the Leftists have done everything in their power to slander her and smear her family. And she's still making inroads with their base.
And what poll are you looking at? Alaska? Palin has no chance in a general election against anyone in the Democratic camp except maybe Kucinich.
And stop with the destroying Palin stuff. You (the Right) called Obama a Marxist. You called Obama a Socialist. You called Obama a black racist. She called Obama a friend of terrorists. Yet despite these slurs which I'm sorry, are far worse than what Palin has been called, Obama was still able to win and has 65% approval. Stop acting like Palin is some victim, while on the other hand sitting back while the Right levels every charge they can think of. These are the political games that the Right seems to want, don't act coy now.
holdfast -
" For the women it comes down, as always, to the Big A - they cannot grasp why a woman would be anti-abortion - they expect it from old white men, but not EVER from a woman - and the fact that she carried Trig to term shows that she actually means it, which is even scarier."
Ask them what Sarah Palin's position on abortion is, and I'd bet you that they are 90% likely to get it wrong.
Although we are all familiar with her personal views on abortion, she has said that she would not seek to impose them on others. She would prefer to see abortion handled at the state level, so that each state can decide for itself whether abortion should be legal. If New York wants it, they would be able to have it. If Utah doesn't, they wouldn't.
I've seen more than one woman change their mind about Palin once they heard the truth of her abortion position rather than just the lies that the Left would have them believe.
Invisible -
You (the Right) called Obama a Marxist. You called Obama a Socialist. You called Obama a black racist. She called Obama a friend of terrorists.
Here's the problem for you: Every one of those things is undeniably true, and not one of them constitutes a smear on his family or his children.
He did sit for 20 years in the church of man who preached racism and anti-Semitism, and even bought his tapes and used them to practice his oratory. Just because he then lied about whether he knew Wright's views doesn't mean anyone with an independent thought in his head actually believed him. The fact that he was willing to lie about it rather than say "Yeah I heard him say those things, but I was there for the greater message of God" made him less - rather than more - credible on the subject.
In his own book, he was the one who said he was attracted to the Marxists and that was who he hung out with. He was the one who talked about his roots in Marxism and Leftist ideology. He is the one whose slim legislative record bears out his support for Leftist causes. Are you calling him a liar here too?
If you don't think nationalizing Chrysler and GM was socialism, then you simply don't understand the meaning of the word.
Bill Ayers is an unrepentant terrorist. Obama did hang out with him. He did launch his career in Ayers living room, and it's even likely that Ayers - at the very least - ghostwrote Obama's first book. None of that is untrue.
But all of that is beside the point. What is the point is that no one has gone after his children despite the fact that - in Leftist parlance - he has "used them as props" from Day One and has continued to do so since being in office. Quite simply, the family is off limits. Except to Leftists who think that the rules of common decency are supposed to bind everybody but them. When you're willing to say that going after Palin's family is wrong now and was wrong before the election, then we have something to talk about. Until then, you're exactly the kind of Leftist I'm talking about.
Jim said..."Didn't your mother tell you that NYT/CBS poll was discredited the same day it was published?"
Provide link.
Jim said..."...not one of them constitutes a smear on his family or his children."
Of course not.
What wife, child or family member would consider their husband, father or relative being called a Marxist, a racist or the friend of a terrorist...a smear?
Jim - You keep getting dumber by the minute.
And why no more of your inane Jeremy's Mother comments?
Jeremy -
Link here.
It was the first Google result. If you want more in-depth info, try Google.
My caption:
"Whew, this thread rotted into a stinking pile."
Jeremy -
As usual, you're not even trying to be honest.
Not one of those things was a personal attack on Michelle or Malia or Sasha.
You are one of the slimy, disgusting animals who have gone after Palin's family - personally - because you are so narcissistic you think the rules of decent society don't apply to you.
I made the mistake of correcting your lies about the NYT/CBS poll, you're now back on ignore.
So go run the smokes to your mother, she's having nicotine withdrawal.
"And stop with the destroying Palin stuff. You (the Right) called Obama a Marxist."
A gross exaggeration.
"You called Obama a Socialist."
Arguably true.
"You called Obama a black racist."
Wright seems to be. Is Obama? He was certainly willing to use racism and pre-emptively accuse his opponents of racism and then explain how the anger over that slander proved he was right.
If being called a racist is a terrible slander, it's one he spread far and wide... naming both of the Clintons as well as Geraldine Ferraro and any number of nameless and faceless Republicans over what they were *going* to say about him.
"She called Obama a friend of terrorists."
Arguably true, in the specific.
"Yet despite these slurs which I'm sorry, are far worse than what Palin has been called,"
Well now, see... it's not what Palin has been called... she's a big girl.
It was the all out effort to totally destroy her *and* her family by any means necessary.
I've traveled and worked throughout the world, have had lengthy discussions about the care provided in many of these countries and have NEVER heard a discouraging word.
And that's supposed to bolster your credibility?
Never?
To be fair, Michelle was criticized for never having been proud of her country before in her entire adult life and having angry eye-brows. There was also a good bit of suggestion that her extremely well paying job might have been a political payoff.
I'm sure that I recall a few unkind words about Cindy McCain as well.
Obama was still able to win and has 65% approval.
Um ...no. Try to keep up
His numbers are falling
An organization called "Feminists for Life" would never be accepted no matter what the members did for a living
Really? I must not be getting the memos. The small Women's Studies faculty that I belong to includes a Catholic, anti-abortion member who is very active in our program. Abortion is one issue, and I agree that it marginalizes feminists when we make it THE issue.
I don't feel that any national identity-focused groups really represent me, not as a feminist, nor as a lesbian. But real people, acting on their principles and finding common ground with other people, often get a lot of good things done in their own communities. That's enough for me, generally.
The difference: Kyl did not merely announce he would vote against the President's nominees. By threatening filibuster, Kyl warned that he would not let the President's nominees even come up for a vote.
Obama voted to filibuster justice nominees.
But unlike Kyl, Obama didn't threaten a filibuster
No, he DID one. That is markedly worse.
Chase said...
Sorry, I meant we rank 77Th in "life expectancy."
Really, Liar Jeremy?
His 77th place is off, but most figures put the US, which pays 50% more per capita than any other modern nation for health care, in a range of 45th to 55th amongst nations. That is still pretty bad.
And Jeremy the troll's statements on health care are no more inaccurate than Jim's - which sound like they were written by a hack working for the billionaire owner of a healthcare insurance Co.
-------------------
Jim - "Ted Kennedy's illness is proof of his own lack of belief in the system. He's eligible for Medicare. Did he use it to get the best treatment in the country? Would Medicare have covered it? No and no. He used his family wealth to opt out of a system that wasn't good enough for him."
Well, I agree that it is indeed wonderful that Teddy can access healthcare beyond what Medicare or being a normal worker with employer or private health insurance can obtain. Same with his fellow member of the richest 0.1%, Steve Jobs, who could afford all his Lear jet flights (12 at least in just 3 weeks) and millions in incidental expenses looking to jump the line for a liver transplant.
Best in the world America care!! (if you can afford it as a very, very wealthy person..)
Is that your point Jim?
PS - Your states disputing 47 million uninsured are wrong..The 47 million is a good number that doesn't include illegals and someone making 20,000 dollars a year or a young person making 28K on an entry-level job with 80,000 in student loans to pay off doesn't "opt-out" of a 5K-10K dollar private health insurance and voluntarily become uninsured.
They can't afford it.
And add another 50 million workers that healthcare reformers from Gingrich to Romney to Gov Pawlentey say are seriously deficient and expose tens of millions to medical bankruptcy (1,000,000 in 2005, the latest year stats are compiled for)
---------------------------
"72 percent -- support a government-sponsored health care plan to compete with private insurers, a new CBS News/New York Times poll finds."
Other polls show a little lower, in the mid-60s. But now you have business owners now warning employees that international competition is making employer-provided health care unsustainable - the trade deficit and exemption of healthcare expenses from being considered income are going to end. Many offer healthcare savings accounts, but the rub on them is that it is no big deal for a construction business owner to sock away 10K a year in one, but very difficult for one of his concrete worker employees.
What office did Cindy ever run for?
What state did Cindy govern, I forgot?
Cindy, another beer, please.
Cedarford -
"Is that your point Jim?"
My point is that creating a single-payer system - which is Obama's stated goal (even he admits that the "public option" is merely a camel's nose under the tent Trojan Horse) creates a two-tier healthcare system in which the very best doctors will simply opt out of the health system and only treat those who can pay cash. The doctors who remain in the system will be the least qualified, and you and I will no longer have any option to see anyone else.
With regard to life expectancy rates, see my previous post on the subject to see why that "statistic" has pretty much little or nothing to do with our healthcare system and everything to do with our culture.
I don't know where you get your information that 47 million doesn't include illegal aliens, but every single piece of data that I've seen - including from the Democratic Party and other Leftist group who are advocating the single-payer system - says it does. In fact, the only deviations from this number are on the lower side not the high side, so your entire calculation starts from a flawed basis and the errors flow from there.
Your stats on the medical bankruptcies is likewise flawed. The study from which the data is derived has been widely discredited as the criteria used to define a "medical bankruptcy" essentially included every single person with a medical bill in their bankruptcy rather than one in which medical bills and related costs constituted a majority of their debt which would be the actual definition of a medical bankruptcy.
With regard to the poll numbers, citing poll numbers like these is like saying that 60% would like it to rain Skittles and to poop lemon drops. Every poll that actually asks questions about if they would support a public option, if they would be willing to pay extra, and so on show that once you start asking questions about reality rather than a hypothetical pipe dream the support actually falls completely apart.
The numbers I cited with regard to public opinion breaks down on ObamaCare (public-option, some additional cost) are accurate: it's 27%. It falls even further as the price tag goes higher than "a single penny more." Once you start talking about what the actual costs would be under ObamaCare you're talking about a very small core of "true believers" with absolutely zero widespread support.
Cindy McCain calls to mind the Argentina Latina Wallis Simpson going after a married man.
Can't blame her though. OMG John McCain was H.A.W.T. as a younger man.
Jeremy & Chase... I've deleted a lot of your posts. You bored me. Chase, you shouldn't be talking to Jeremy if you think he's a troll. Jeremy, you're boring. Go away. I'll be deleting you whenever you write multiple posts.
Good lord, the Republicans just assigned the "leader" of the party designation to a radio talk show "entertainer" and you think they're going to suddenly jump on the Princess Sarah bandwagon?
Another lie, Jeremy? You really know how to haul them out.
Limbaugh was "assigned" that designation by none other than Rahm Emanuel on March 1, 2009, on Face The Nation. And the Dems just ran with it, part of their failed attempt to damage Limbaugh. Republicans had nothing to do with it.
Your lies are tedious, Jeremy.
I bow down to THE ALTHOUSE, who finally figured out that some trolls need deleting!
Other polls show a little lower, in the mid-60s. But now you have business owners now warning employees that international competition is making employer-provided health care unsustainable - the trade deficit and exemption of healthcare expenses from being considered income are going to end. Many offer healthcare savings accounts, but the rub on them is that it is no big deal for a construction business owner to sock away 10K a year in one, but very difficult for one of his concrete worker employees.
You're aware that THIS is exactly why many, such as me, are saying a public plan will kill private plans. Companies want to dump the expense on the gov't.
You won't HAVE a choice.
As for stats on life expectancy, you take a lot of our births where the baby dies soon afterwards and count them as the rest of the world does (you know, as stillbirths) and our expectancy skyrockets. A bunch of deaths in the first month will skew your numbers awfully low.
These studies are basically useless.
There is nothing new here. Leftists assimilate this ideology because it allows them to dupe themselves into thinking that they are actually correct. It's too bad that not only do they lie to themselves about it, but they lie about it to other too. Leftism is nothing but a lie anyway, so why would putting someone like Palin in their cross-hairs be any different? They have to lie about their ideology, otherwise how can they even begin to rationally explain it and how it works. I defy any liberals or leftists here to explain why they are leftists or liberals and to highlight the great things that the leftist/liberal ideologies have bestowed on the world. Hasn't happened here yet and i've put this challenge out for a along time with no response.
So come on lefties, let's see how you can lie about the greatness of your ideology.
Many offer healthcare savings accounts, but the rub on them is that it is no big deal for a construction business owner to sock away 10K a year in one, but very difficult for one of his concrete worker employees.
I'm on a Board of Directors of a small utility district. We currently have a "government" health insurance plan for the employees which costs $1380 a month for a full family coverage for a total of $182,000 a year. We are now going to cover only the employee at 100% and 50% of additional family coverage until we can get the Hell out of the Government plan.
In exchange we will cover under an HSA plan the employee 50% of family coverage AND prove pre tax the funding for the employee's HSA deductible amount $2250. This will save us almost $100,000 annually and still give the worker a savings account. It may not sound like a large amount but with employee wages, benefits and retirement plan (also government) employee costs are over 68% of revenues. Unsustainable.
If we are forced into another Government plan...God help us.
Jeremy said...
(CBS) A clear majority of Americans -- 72 percent -- support a government-sponsored health care plan to compete with private insurers, a new CBS News/New York Times poll finds. Most also think the government would do a better job than private industry at keeping down costs and believe that the government should guarantee health care for all Americans.
Clearly Gene here believes these lies because they are perpetrated by other leftist liars who tell lies to their cadre of other leftist liars, so you have an entire segment of the population that is so ideologically inclined to believe these fictions that are made up by, you guessed it, leftists. Hey Gene, did you actually read the study or was the cut and paste sufficient to satisfy the liar within you? Where did these 72 percent of the population come from, what was the methodology of determining the sample size, what was the socio-economic cross-section of those that were asked the question, what was the actual series of questions asked? How were they asked? You see Gene, when you believe in lies, then there is nothing to stop you from accepting those lies and when you accept lies from your fellow liar(s) you are nothing more than a collaborator in fostering and forwarding those lies. Once a liar, always a liar, Gene.
fls -
I just noticed your previous post, and it deserves an answer:
"As long as they're here and they use medical care, we cannot ignore the illegals."
1) You presume that we are obligated in some way to illegal aliens. I do not. They are here breaking the law, and I don't condone rewarding criminal behavior - by them or those that induce them to come over the border to employ them.
2) If Mexico (or whatever country from which they originated) would like to pick up the tab for their citizens (which, let's not forget, they still are), then by all means let them. It is not up to the American people to pick up a huge tab and risk our healthcare system for the benefit of people who are incapable of obeying our immigration laws.
"What happens to the 24 year old diagnosed with ALL? The 28 year old with testicular cancer? Who pays for their chemo, when they have no insurance?"
Those bills are their personal responsibility. That's the way our entire country works. What happens to the guy who bought a big screen TV and then loses his job? Are we then obligated to pay his bills?
That person engaged in risky behavior, but counting him as "uninsured" because he made a choice not to have health insurance is fundamentally dishonest. Unless we just became a police state, people in this country are free to make their own decisions and have the responsibility to live up to them. It's not my responsibility, or anybody else's, to subsidize poor decisions. Why should I have to take food out of my family's mouth because he wanted a nicer car, or some extra beer money, instead of paying for health care insurance? Answer: I shouldn't, and neither should anybody else.
"- 12 million who would be covered by currently existing state and federal health care benefits if they actually filed for them.
I have read this but I do not understand where this comes from."
This comes from people who legally qualify for some form of state assistance but have not filed for it because of reasons such as:
a) they're not aware they're eligible
b) they don't know how to go about getting it
c) due to habitual drug use or mental illness, they lack the mental wherewithal to go get it
d) those who voluntarily choose to forego government services because of their personal convictions,
etc.
There are already solutions for dealing with these people. If you wanted to argue that we should do a better job of informing them or reaching out to them, again, that's a different argument. But the answer is most certainly not a wholesale remastering of our healthcare system.
"And does that number even include all the people with preexisting conditions? Does that include all the people dropped by their health care insurers for being unprofitable? Does that include all the people who have used up their lifetime benefit?"
To all of the above questions, the answer is yes. And again we're talking about 1-1.5% of the population. A trivial number compared to jamming 300 million Americans with a new health care system. As I stated in my post, if Obama and the Democratic Party were proposing some sort of solution which targeted only these people, then we'd be having a different discussion. But we're not.
My overall point is that the 47 million number that is thrown around incessantly as proof of the magnitude of the problem is dishonest hackery. The real numbers are the ones we talked about in the last item: the ones who slip through the cracks.
Tell you what: get on the phone to Democratic Party HQ and tell them to limit their ObamaCare to that 1-1.5% and I'll be happy to say that they care about them. But the reality is that they don't. They want socialized medicine, and they're trying to use the Big Lie to sell it.
"2) If Mexico (or whatever country from which they originated) would like to pick up the tab for their citizens (which, let's not forget, they still are), then by all means let them."
Bill them.
Like other hospital bills it may never get paid, but it would be worth it just to *bill* them.
"We also see this now with Michelle Obama who has played down her role as a savvy and extremely accomplished advisor to Barack, so that people won't be threatened about the non-traditional aspects of her life."
But we have heard in the last day that she is unhappy with her role and wants more to do in the administration. And that other Democrats are nervous about her.
So who are the threatened ones?
And did people vote for Michelle (id she write the book?) or Barack?
(She is more authentically black, that's for sure. Just a random thought.)
I am one of the fictitious 47 million.
I take care of myself, and I have another arrangement whereby some of my medical bills, should I have them, will be taken care of through a voluntary participation -- like a co-op. I help others monthly, they can help me if I need it.
Listen up Lefty Guys and Gals: I.do.not.want.Obamacare.
Signed:
Me
One of the supposed 47 million. (<---that's so wrong.)
No, he DID one [a filibuster]. That is markedly worse.
This Obama-created filibuster: how much delay in confirmation did it cause, for Roberts as well as for Alito?
What happens to the guy who bought a big screen TV and then loses his job?
So a person who loses his job should lose his life? The price of a big screen TV would cover about the first four hours of chemo for ALL.
Harsh but consistent, I guess.
Didn't your mother tell you that NYT/CBS poll was discredited the same day it was published? It oversampled Obama voters 2-to-1, and unemployed voters by 2-to-1, amongst other things.
Jim's sources like to jump to conclusions. Let's pick at the Obama number a bit. 73% of respondents claimed to have voted in November 2008. But voter turnout was only 62.6% of eligible voters, according to the Washington Times. While the NYTimes poll may be oversampling actual voters, my gut feeling is that people are lying. They wanted to vote for Obama but they just didn't make it to the polls, or they procrastinated registering, or they might even have voted for McCain and now wish they hadn't. Basically they're lying to avoid embarrasment. (If Obama ends up falling on his ass, a hell of a lot of people will suddently switch to claiming to have voted for McCain. Self-esteem happens.) So trying to correlate who people said they voted for with actual Obama/McCain voters cannot be done with this limited amount of data.
I did not see the cite to unemployed, but I have a thought regarding any apparent discrepancy: More people are actually unemployed than the statistics show, because if you are unemployed long enough, you fall out of the "unemployed" category. And if demand for employees rises high enough, these non-unemployed people will take jobs.
Another 200+ thread...It must be about Palin whom Progressives say no one cares anything about.
"But we have heard in the last day that [Michelle] is unhappy with her role and wants more to do in the administration. And that other Democrats are nervous about her."
People don't want a co-president. They didn't hire a team. Likely enough, part of the reason Hillary didn't do better is that people didn't want Bill back in the White House (likely enough, even including those who liked him).
The question of the proper role of the First Lady as our ideas about supportive and decorative presidential spouses changes (which includes eventual First Dudes) isn't likely to go the way of further involvement in government and the administration for the spouse in question. And it shouldn't, and for a lot of good reasons.
We could start with how anyone running for President really *would* become important only in the context of spouse and family due to the expectation that voters would actually be electing both spouses.
And go from there.
I do have a measure of sympathy, however, having briefly done the Dependent Wife thing in the military. (Which really and truly sucks.) If the sorts of public events and what-all available to Michelle to occupy her time are annoying (and they pretty much must be so) is there any legal barrier to her taking a *job* someplace?
(If Obama ends up falling on his ass, a hell of a lot of people will suddently switch to claiming to have voted for McCain. Self-esteem happens.)
Nahhh ... they'll just claim they don't remember who they voted for. Or if they voted.
Sort of like more than half the Minnesotans these days.
After all this time and what's taken place since January 20, some of them are seriously beginning to realize the joke is on them.
I know I'm late to the party, but here's my caption:
Mary Ann and Ginger: Island Reunion
Post a Comment