The Newsweek response:

This week, to coincide with the release of Sarah Palin's book "Going Rogue", Newsweek's editors decided to print two essays (one by Evan Thomas, the other by Christopher Hitchens) about the former Alaska Governor and have her image grace our cover. The photo chosen was from a shoot Palin had participated in for Runner's World magazine.

To note that choosing that particular photograph has ruffled a few feathers is perhaps an understatement. Palin denounced it - and us - to her million-strong Facebook following last night. "The choice of photo for the cover of this week's Newsweek is unfortunate. When it comes to Sarah Palin, this "news" magazine has relished focusing on the irrelevant rather than the relevant," she wrote on her fan page, adding, "The out-of-context Newsweek approach is sexist and oh-so-expected by now." She also told ABC's Barbara Walters that she found the cover "a wee bit degrading." Others, like CBN's David Brody, said our cover was a new low: "biased and sexist at the same time."

Today, Newsweek's Editor Jon Meacham has responded to critics. "We chose the most interesting image available to us to illustrate the theme of the cover, which is what we always try to do," Meacham said. "We apply the same test to photographs of any public figure, male or female: does the image convey what we are saying? That is a gender-neutral standard."

That's the same photo that's a U.S. Flag Code violation, as I wrote in August:

nice support hose on those legs.

It's probably about time to remove the "News" from Newsweek.

The Christopher Hitchens ZNewsweek piece, "Palin's Base Appeal" -- which, if you actually read, comes across as far more damaging to Palin than the mag's cover; a photograph that is all the more remarkable for not being photoshopped but actually posed for by the subject herself (what was she thinking?) -- is a beaut which ends with:

Good Grief Charlie Brown! Have a little cheese with your wine! No one would've thought twice about the 'PropagandaWeek' photo if she hadn't opened her trap and caused another liberal "Sarah Sure's Stupid" orgasm!

up with alliteration ;P

Didn't she voluntarily pose for this photo?
I know it was for a different publication, but
you can't take advantage of your sex appeal
only when it suits you.

Sarah, Sarah, storms are brewing in those eyes ...

sorry to sound sexist, but she's definitely a great looking future POTUS

I like Palin for a variety of reasons. One core reason is that she gives off the same 'vibe' as Reagan.

(on a more negative note, a hearty feast of schadenfreude at the wailing and gnashing of teeth on the loony left would wonderful if she was President....)

I, for one, am looking forward to watching the loony left pee themselves over Sarah for the next 19 years. (That's three between now and the next election, 8 as VP, and 8 as the Pres) Yippee!

#11 - in your wettest of dreams, Jim.

running alongside a US fag? Is Bawney Fwank on the cover too?

Funny, she didn't have a problem with that picture being all over the place when she believed it would help her get elected.

"One core reason is that she gives off the same 'vibe' as Reagan."

If you mean the 1988 Reagan-brain eaten by alzheimers, I'm with you. Let's be honest if she was 10 years older or weighed 50 pounds more, would she have even be noticed by the GOP? She gives fluff a bad name.

Doesn't sound to me like she's angry--just made a point that they'll do what it takes to sell magazines. And to do that, you have to notice the cover.

She looks hot. As usual.

running alongside a US fag? Is Bawney Fwank on the cover too?

#13 | Posted by rightisright at 2009-11-17 05:06 PM | Reply | Flag: Gay-hating Christian

alongside a U.S. fag

Posted by Doc_Sarvis at 04:36 PM | Flag: Dr. Freud is ready to see you now

"Didn't she voluntarily pose for this photo?"

Yes.

"I know it was for a different publication"

And therein lies the problem. Usually the cover subjects have notice (at least of the possibility), and a shoot specifically for the cover. It was a shitty choice by Newsweek, and has nothing to do with the story itself.

" It was a shitty choice by Newsweek, and has nothing to do with the story itself."

Yes, this was a lousy choice, and it plays into the victimization rant of the right.

Let's be honest if she was 10 years older or weighed 50 pounds more, would she have even be noticed by the GOP? She gives fluff a bad name.

#14 | Posted by northguy3
* * * *

That would make her Obama's Secretary of State.

That would make her Obama's Secretary of State.

That and experience, brains and ability. Palin couldn't even handle running a state with half the population of Detroit.

alongside a U.S. fag
Posted by Doc_Sarvis at 04:36 PM | Flag: Dr. Freud is ready to see you now
#17 | Posted by JOE at 2009-11-17 05:09 PM

Dr. Cadenhead should consider paying you a visit, Joe -- if he can locate the closet in the bar where you conduct your business for LegalBoomerang.com -- for lying about a post.

Oh, and that obsession you have with homosexuality? Don't worry, Joe, it's a preoccupation that's been recognized for years. Eventually you'll come stumbling out of that closet and into the bar where, I'm sure, your compadres will treat you to a nice welcome.

What have Hillary Clinton's "experience, brains and ability" accomplished so far as Secretary of State?

for lying about a post.

Nobody lied about your post, you dumb fucking whiner.

Newsweek has all of the relevance of Us magazine.

This was a piss-poor choice of cover picture and an obvious low blow from a lefty mag.

you dumb fucking whiner.
#24 | Posted by JOE | Flag: Outed

Doc, your byline says that Palin was posing alongside a US fag. Physician, heal thyself.

Starvis, any time you want to show me where I lied about your post is a-ok with me. Until then, your posts are meaningless.

#29 | Posted by rightisright | Flag: Closet Hugger

In case any of us needed reminding, Doc Sarvis is a fully tenured university professor. That explains why he has so much time on his hands, and why he can't handle a spell check.

I made a spelling mistake, Joe, and somehow it tripped your inner demons. Hardly my problem. You, on the other hand, clearly need some professional help. I'm sure it doesn't do much for you that you've crapped on in the legal arena, but, hey, there must be something else you can do to restore your self-esteem.

How did you make that mistake anyhow? Usually you highlight the selected passage, copy it, and paste it into Rcade's page. It's easy. Did you go back and excise the 'l' from flag, making it read 'fag'? Or do you just type in the whole first sentence, because you can't figure out how to highlight a block of text?

Hardly my problem.

Based on your two-paragraph response, I'd say you considered it a problem. If not, then STFU already.

Oh, boy, massive Palin deflection underway. The accolytes converge in defense of their modern Sistern Aimee. Because this program doesn't have a spell check for the internet? What a hoot!

Palin is a classic example of self imposed mediocrity. Newsweek had her number. Now, she's pissy. Big Deal. Typical spoiled American woman.

STFUbr />
#36 | Posted by JOE

Joe, you're the poor, dumb bastard who got his trigger tripped. All you have to do is uncock it. You'll feel better. Oh, and try to lay off the booze. It's done nothing good for you in the past and doesn't bode well for the future. In the meantime.

"Usually you highlight the selected passage, copy it, and paste it into Rcade's page.
#35 | Posted by rightisright"

You know how Doc usually makes a post? That's creepy. And very gay.

Typing in "fag" instead of "flag" is funny, especially when you were too stupid to realize it after four posts of pointing it out.

But to misspell "acolytes" is just ignorant. So I'll help you: if you're typing, and a squiggly little red line appears under the word, you've probably messed up.

you're the poor, dumb bastard who got his trigger tripped.

By writing out a flag for your post? Again, if this is no problem to you, then why do you keep defending yourself by way of ad hominem? You seem awfully defensive given the nature of the original post.

You know how Doc usually makes a post? That's creepy. And very gay.

#40 | Posted by mOntecOre
* * * *

I don't. I meant "you" in the second-person plural, as in, "usually you drive on the right side of the road."

I love all the gay jokes though. When I used to make them, I was homophobic. Now it's all gay, all the time, and all funny. Not that there's anything wrong with that, of course. Are there any teabag threads up? How about Barney Frank?

RiR, I'm sorry you too thick to comprehend what I wrote earlier, but on this computer that red-says-misspelled doesn't happen. There, I've said it twice. Do you need it repeated? How's that reading comprehension class you've been told you need coming along?

"But to misspell "acolytes" is just ignorant," writes RiR. Okay, Pandora, check your own posts:

Kim Jong Il is the leader of the Korean Worker's Party. Another lefty. Quite an honor roll you guys have going.
Posted by rightisright at 2009-11-17 05:14 PM

"Korean Worker's Party"? Uh oh, there's an apostrophe danging in the air where it shouldn't be. Quick, call out the guard!

LOL, fool.

You seem awfully defensive given the nature of the original post.
#42 | Posted by JOE

Over a typo? What's that I smell? Oh, riiiight, Joe, "Obsession."

When I used to make them, I was homophobic. Now it's all gay, all the time...
#43 | Posted by rightisright

Quelle sooprise.

"Korean Worker's Party"? Uh oh, there's an apostrophe danging in the air where it shouldn't be. Quick, call out the guard!

LOL, fool.

#44 | Posted by Doc_Sarvis
* * * *

You mean "dangling"? Or was it saying "dang" alot?

Squiggly red lines, Professor. Save you from looking stupid.

This must be the typo thread. Nothing to see here folks, move along...

Christ almighty, this bitch would be angered by her own orgasm.

#49 - Now that's angry.

Continued obsession with all things Palin is a nice deflection from the 'community organizers' lack of any progress on the unemployment situation in this country.

"I, for one, am looking forward to watching the loony left pee themselves over Sarah for the next 19 years. (That's three between now and the next election, 8 as VP, and 8 as the Pres) Yippee!

#11 | Posted by SpokaneJimtheIntellectualGiant at 2009-11-17 04:58 PM"

I, for one, am looking forward to watching the loony left pee themselves over Sarah for the next 19 years. (That's three between now and the next election, 8 as VP, and 8 as the Pres) Yippee!

#11 | Posted by SpokaneJim

RIGHHHHHTTT....

A Little TOO forward looking there dreamer ha ha ha ha hah

Palin could not win election to WHOREHOUSE owner much less any other kind of elected office.

Moose Mama is attempting media manipulation and there is no way she will get away with that.

Usually the cover subjects have notice (at least of the possibility), and a shoot specifically for the cover. It was a shitty choice by Newsweek, and has nothing to do with the story itself.

Photographs of politicians are resold all the time. If Palin and her publicity team didn't realize that might happen with her Runner's World photo, it is yet another example of how they are unschooled bumpkins. As I said the last time we discussed this flag code-violating photo, the staff she surrounds herself must be complete idiots.

"Photographs of politicians are resold all the time."

True.

But not usually to Newsweek for the cover shot.

Prozacboi, your amazingly deft ability to edit an otherwise copy and pasted comment knows no bounds. You are truly the intellectual giant that I can merely hope to be.

Squiggly red lines
#47 | Posted by rightisright

You're so thick you don't comprehend after being told about that three times? You must've gotten burned by the fire a lot as a kid.

Monstman, Sarah's past elections belie your post, be those offices what they may be. She did beat the pants off the incombant Republican Gov, who was once one of the state's most important Senators (an absolute dweeb by the name of Frank Murkowski). The continuing fanatic and salavic attention given to her by the MSM is not unimportant. Newsweek, an admittedly leftist rag, would not bother with someone who had no chance of retaining an importance within the GOP. Clearly this is an attempt to discredit her. If she is such a nothing and nobody, why are so many here continuing to crap their pants whenever she is mentioned. My comment above of course is merely hyperbole, but she's not out of the game yet.

Photographs of politicians are resold all the time. If Palin and her publicity team didn't realize that might happen with her Runner's World photo, it is yet another example of how they are unschooled bumpkins. As I said the last time we discussed this flag code-violating photo, the staff she surrounds herself must be complete idiots.

#54 | Posted by rcade
* * * *

That's kind of a stretch, don't you think? With all the hundreds of thousands of photos Newsweek could have used, including some that were their own, what was the point?
It's a very striking and flattering photo, and promises to sell more magazines than Newsweek's poorly written articles could have managed on their own. And that was Palin's point. I read her blog entry, and she's not angry, just pointing out that Newsweek is less a news magazine, than a hustler looking for sales. I just wonder whether Newsweek would be as cavalier if one of their covers were used to sell, say, Car and Driver, assuming C&D would be that stupid to think so?

Continued obsession with all things Palin is a nice deflection...
#51 | Posted by midtowncowboy

It's also what Sarah of the Long Con is banking on. Not from the lefties, who won't buy her book no matter how much of a loss-leader role it's assigned and simply hold her up as an object of (well deserved) ridicule; also as an indicator of how brain dead the GOP's sheeple have become. No, she's counting on riiightiest boobs for whom she's the equivalent of a centerfold.

"I don't care what they say, as long as they spell me name right" is a phrase that really finds it's home with Sister Sarah, patron saint of the Long Con.

"a hustler looking for sales"

Yup, that's me. You betcha!
~Sister Sarah

Sarah!'s facebook page is a real hoot.

'Clearly this is an attempt to discredit her. If she is such a nothing and nobody, why are so many here continuing to crap their pants whenever she is mentioned. My comment above of course is merely hyperbole, but she's not out of the game yet.'

#58 | Posted by SpokaneJim

I want her to be discredited and out of the game, thus all the crapping in the pants.

It starts to dribble out when I imagine Moose mama actually in charge of the button, you know that BIG shiny RED one the President gets?

It is a dangerous game of chicken, but I will be supporting her if for no other reason than I wish to scuttle GOP chances of defeating Obama in the next election.

Actually Sarah Palin is top rate presidential timber. As a Democrat my knees are shaking at the prospect of having Obama forced to run against her in 2012. Please don't nominate her. Her political abilities are just too much for us.

On a separate note, has RIR come out of the closet yet?

It's a very striking and flattering photo ...

It's a goofy photo, and I'm guessing Newsweek chose it because it shows the amount of stagecraft she employs to promote herself.

#60 | Posted by Doc_Sarvis at 2009-11-17 06:35 PM | Reply | Flag

Yet, the lefties obsession with her continues.

Yet, the lefties obsession with her continues.
#66 | Posted by midtowncowboy

Here's what I find funny, I mean aside from Sistah Sarah herself: Post a Palin story on the DR -- you know how bashful she's been, shunning the limelight, not interested in conning riiightie marks into buying her book and all -- and the wackdoodles go wild, yammering about how the left's "obsessed" with the character about whom they obsess.

Don't you buffoons get it? For the left, Sistah Sarah's the gift that keeps giving.

For you riiighties, she's a potential problem of massive proportions.

But you don't get it, do you?

Which makes her and your inability to disconnect from her all that much more hilarious.

"usually you drive on the right side of the road.
#43 | Posted by rightisright"

You know what side of the road I usually drive on? Because it implies you know something about where I live, that's creepy. And very gay.

Newsweek is the bottom of the barrell for magazines.

They should sell a ton of this issue though.

Even with the wrong photo--lol

It was a dig--and Sarah threw the dirt right back.

;o)

They should sell a ton of this issue though.

Even with the wrong photo--lol

It was a dig--and Sarah threw the dirt right back.

;o)

#69 | Posted by MURPHY at 2009-11-17 07:14 PM | Reply

Muffy no doubt pissed away a sizeable part of her paycheck on the Sarah! cover.

It is a sexist cover. No doubt it. And the rightwingers can and should make a lot of noise about it, so that everyone in America sees that cover.

And the lasting fallout will be the image of Sarah! The Babe seared into the public consciousness, not Sarah! The Serious. Hahahaha.

"It's a goofy photo, and I'm guessing Newsweek chose it because it shows the amount of stagecraft she employs to promote herself."--Rcade

Now that you mentioned it, the photo could be a playbill cover "Of Thee I Sing"

You lefty girlie boy cowards are definitely afraid of that woman. Give it a rest, you show your true intentions by all the onslaughts. If she is so bad, then why all the attacks? She makes yourbama look like a total moron. She has a greater grasp of the world and country's issues than your cluster fuck obama. He is an embarrasment and disgrace, along with being a worthless piece of shit marxist. Totally a clueless dimwited dunce that has no business in American government.

the cover should be MORE sexist in my opinion. she should be more than half naked, have a leash around her neck, wearing kneepads, and doing dishes in a pigtrough full of a steaming concoction of festering afterbirth and splooge. the headline should be, "why electing sarah palin would bring new respect to the oval office"

"She has a greater grasp of the world and country's issues than your cluster fuck obama."-Rightnut

Irony, right?

"She [Palin] has a greater grasp of the world and country's issues than your cluster fuck obama."

-Rightnut, AKA Delusional Moron With NO Credibility

Newsweek's demise is not too far off. They've run off any advertisers of consequence; alienated a lot of their potential readership; and have become sophomoric to the point of it being offensive to actual high school sophomores. They've just laid off a dozen more hacks; and they're concerned about a "problem like Sarah Palin".

In all fairness I believe they should run an article of obama with this picture on the cover:

sued=used

"This was a piss-poor choice of cover picture and an obvious low blow from a lefty mag."

I thought that was Monica's domain, dangit, now they are stealing intellectual property ;)

Now, "PropagandaWeek" with a pic of Barry and Willy sparking a blunt while sitting in the Astroturf covered bed of an El Camino in Portland Maine together would be the shit...

Anyone who thinks Sarah Palin isn't enjoying the hell of that photo doesn't know Sarah.

"Definitely afraid of that woman (Palin)..."

In the sense one worries about a sixteen-year-old getting keys to the Ferrari.

Apparently the AP also believes that Palin is a real issue. They've assigned 11 reporters to review and fact check her book. The number of AP reporters assigned to Biden's book during the election? 0

Number of AP reporters for Sarah Palin's book - 11
Number of AP reporters for Joe Biden's book - 0
Number of Retorters crapping themselves over Sarah Palin - 989

Everything Sarah Palin - Priceless

Everything Palin is right....just as it was during the election. It's not the media's fault she's a total airhead loser/quitter, eh? They did their part putting her first and foremost on every network back then, as now.

And yet, I'm guessing some of these rwrs believes the corporate media is "liberal"....

LOL

"Anyone who thinks Sarah Palin isn't enjoying the hell of that photo doesn't know Sarah."

Seriously. How quickly we forget she is an ex beauty queen at heart. What future Presidential candidate puts on those booty shorts and makes sultry poses in front of an American flag without the little voice in thier head piping up? Well, it did work for Paris Hilton and Kim Kardashian...... just waiting for the sex tape now......

Which makes her and your inability to disconnect from her all that much more hilarious.

#67 | Posted by Doc_Sarvis at 2009-11-17 07:08 PM | Reply

Yet, you posted the article. And another lefty posted the other Palin article that is current on this blog. So who is having trouble with the disconnect?

#86 | Posted by woke at 2009-11-17 08:33 PM | Reply | Flag

Yet, she has the book deal, was governor of AK...

And your accomplishments? Acting like you have superior intellect while posting on a two-bit blog.

And your accomplishments?

PTSD and prolific lying.

I feel like I'm in some kinda Twilight Zone version of the Drudge Retort after reading Danforth's unprejudiced and rational comments in this thread.

the cover should be MORE sexist in my opinion. she should be more than half naked, have a leash around her neck, wearing kneepads, and doing dishes in a pigtrough full of a steaming concoction of festering afterbirth and splooge. the headline should be, "why electing sarah palin would bring new respect to the oval office"

#74 | Posted by NerfHerder

Is this how you treat your spouse?

How's that working for ya'?

I feel like I'm in some kinda Twilight Zone version of the Drudge Retort after reading Danforth's unprejudiced and rational comments in this thread.

Just read Starvis' and all the other lefty retards. You'll be back to reality (or at least this site's version of it) in no time.

The right is full of sour grapes, whining, bitches..

why should this twat be any different?

"I feel like I'm in some kinda Twilight Zone version of the Drudge Retort after reading Danforth's unprejudiced and rational comments in this thread."

I've actually defended Palin at least twice before: once when she was accused of selling the prior governor's plane at a loss (depreciation hadn't been factored), and another when folks suggested all her per diem should have been taxable (somewhere had to be "away from home overnight").

Okay...now I've gone and vomited a little in my mouth.

It's probably about time to remove the "News" from Newsweek.

---------

It is a national embarrassment that this cunt isn't confined to the tabloids.

Oh wait.

My bad.

And that was Palin's point. I read her blog entry, and she's not angry, just pointing out that Newsweek is less a news magazine, than a hustler looking for sales."

And of course, Caribou Barbie wasn't hustling anything when she elected to pose in those shorts instead of sweats.

rcade has it right. The woman is a public figure and any image she poses for is subject to slicing, dicing, manipulation and Lord-knows-what-all else. Don't want an image misused? Then don't fucking pose for it in the first place.

For a woman who has seen her head pasted onto the body of some bimbo wearing a flag-themed bikini and brandishing a weapon not to have seen this coming is absurd. Make that pathetic.

Palin's like the tallest midget at the 'little people's' party.

Palin's like the tallest midget at the 'little people's' party.

I always thought of her as a sexy joke.

She is definitely a joke. An old one by now. Love the McCain camp's responses.

She is definitely a joke. An old one by now. Love the McCain camp's responses.

Ah, whatever. Put it on mute and watch her smile. She looks better than Oprah.

This is true lol.

This is true lol.

You betcha!

She looks better than Oprah.

I dunno man, she looked like shit in that interview.

If half a term as governor and an unsuccessful VP run made her age that much, what's going to happen if she DOES win the Pres spot?

She'd probably end up like this guy.

Sarah, Sarah, storms are brewing in those eyes ...

sorry to sound sexist, but she's definitely a great looking future POTUS

#9 | Posted by mookie at 2009-11-17 04:55 PM | Reply | Flag: Flag: (Choose)
FunnyNewsworthyOffensiveAbusiv
e

POTUS?? President Of The Ultra Stupid??

I dunno man, she looked like shit in that interview.

I didn't see her on Oprah, but I've seen pictures of both and Sarah's got the edge. Maybe all that worrying about the future of America put some more lines on her face.

If half a term as governor and an unsuccessful VP run made her age that much, what's going to happen if she DOES win the Pres spot?

Hahahahahaha Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade? I was thinking the same thing. Does that mean Dick Cheney will rip hearts out of people like that guy in the Temple of Doom?

Does that mean Dick Cheney will rip hearts out of people like that guy in the Temple of Doom?

Fuck yeah.

Most people make the mistake of thinking he's running on a bionic heart.

Nope. He just steals a fresh one when his current one kicks it.

Nope. He just steals a fresh one when his current one kicks it.

...and eats the old one raw just for the hell of it.

you know.. i really cant tell.. is Newsweek Pro or Anti Palin...

LoL..

I guess they wont get front row seats or first dibs on Interviews if she does land herself in the Oval Office.

#107 | POSTED BY JPW AT 2009-11-18 02:28 AM | REPLY | FLAG:

Kali-mah... Kali-mah... KALI-MAH!

#108 | POSTED BY ZOMBIEHUNTER AT 2009-11-18 02:29 AM | REPLY | FLAG:

Also have you ever watched SuperNews?

yeah i get its on Current, and i Get that Al Gore is the sum of All that is Evil in the minds of the right wing..

But Super News is funny as hell.

They had Rom Emanuel Making the Kali Mah! Suggestion as a solution to some problem or another.

its either the first or 2nd episode from this year.

"You lefty girlie boy cowards are definitely afraid of that woman. Give it a rest, you show your true intentions by all the onslaughts. If she is so bad, then why all the attacks?
#73 | Posted by rightnut"

"If she is so bad, then why all the attacks?" You've answered your own question. There's a bonus, though: the more wackdoodles sing her praises, the loonier both she and the wackdoodles she's trapped in the Long Con look. Plus, she's such a ridiculous figure there's the comedy element to consider.

"Yet, you posted the article. And another lefty posted the other Palin article that is current on this blog. So who is having trouble with the disconnect?
#88 | Posted by midtowncowboy"

Who said anything about "disconnect"? The more the Riiight gets put in the same bucket as Sistah Sarah, the better. Then, too, there's no "disconnect" because Palin won't allow it. The Long Con is all she's got now and she's milking the Rubes for every dollar she can garner.

The continuing denigrations of Sarah this early in the game (if she does indeed decide to run for president) can only help her. After four years of listening to it, the public will be quite jaded. "Sarah is a quitter? *yawn* Sarah is a moose lover? *yawn* Sarah's daughter's boyfriend's mother did what? *yawn*" Not only will further like attacks reach deaf ears, they may actually invoke sympathy.

You don't play your trump cards early in the game, much less before the game even starts. I think that is why Newt is getting his face back into the cameras. He wants there to be a couple of years worth of stories of his infidelity to be behind him so that when it is brought up when the race heats up he will just be another cheatin' politician. *yawn*

IF she runs?

What kinda grass you been smoking GOAT?

She posed for that picture.

How she can be upset about it after it was published is beyond me.

At least they airbrushed it.

She posed for that picture.
#114 | Posted by Lisa

And that, boys and girls, says it all.

What kinda grass you been smoking GOAT?

None. We get piss tested regularly

Well, I do think people who love Sarah love her ever so much more when she is critiqued. That's more a function of their hating liberals than anything else.

Yes, the people who love Sarah are fanatics but Sarah and her followers won't permit there to be enough Republican voters to have her elected to national office.

That's more a function of their hating Republicans than anything else.

The Left sure is scared where this woman is concerned. She has become their target because they know she has power for change. Unlike the 0, who would like to be strong, but never will be.

scared??

haaha please please please make her your nominee

then we'll see who is scared

"Please, please make her (Palin) your nominee...."

You betcha. I'd register as a Republican just to vote in the primary for her, to help give her the shot at failing she so desires. Learned that from Rush Limbaugh.

Learned that from Rush Limbaugh.

We Texans (who don't have to register a party) have been using that tactic long before anyone ever heard of Rush.

#86 | Posted by woke at 2009-11-17 08:33 PM | Reply | Flag
Yet, she has the book deal, was governor of AK...
And your accomplishments? Acting like you have superior intellect while posting on a two-bit blog.

#89 | POSTED BY MIDTOWNCOWBOY AT 2009-11-17 08:48 PM | REPLY | FLAG:

And your accomplishments?
PTSD and prolific lying.

#90 | POSTED BY GOATMAN AT 2009-11-17 08:57 PM

Dear Midnight Cowboy and Ratso Rizzo.....

1. High School Graduate
2. 4 year military volunteer, including 2 tours overseas, with a year in a war/occupation.
3. College graduate
4. Worked 40 years including teaching for 30 of those.
5. Own own home, 3 vehicles, .
6. Married for 38 years
7. Father of 5 children, grandfather to 7
8. Prolific reader/writer who does research and posts links to it BEFORE posting on this or other blogs.
9. Owns own business which I work at when I feel like it, rather than out of necessity.
10. Retired with good pension, so as not to be posting on this blog while supposed to be working for someone else.

Your turn.

Everything Palin is right....just as it was during the election. It's not the media's fault she's a total airhead loser/quitter, eh? They did their part putting her first and foremost on every network back then, as now.

And yet, I'm guessing some of these rwrs believes the corporate media is "liberal"....
LOL

#86 | POSTED BY WOKE AT 2009-11-17 08:33 PM

So, these(89/90) were your "responses" to my original post on this thread, eh? No content, no response to what I posted.

Apparently, either you AGREE with that content and/or cannot debate it, hence the pathetic personal attack instead.

Oh, yes, a couple of other accomplishments, PTSD or not:1. I'm not a QUITTER, like Palin, 2. nor someone who cannot debate content on a blog and instead personally attacks other posters unsolicited, ie STALKER.

Your turn.

#123 | Posted by woke at 2009-11-18 09:20 AM

For what?

Your turn.

Posted by woke

For what?

Posted by goatman

I can guess, but I know you're not that kinda guy.

Scary's mad again?

LOL!

Wot is it this week?

A running magazine took a picture of her in her office in her running gear is now she is mad that they published the picture she posed for?

WTF?

This former beauty queen and former teevee eye candy/sportsbabe also complained that the picture is "sexist"?

Farking Hilarious!

Is there a Cherry of Absolute Irony we put on top of this stupendous FAILcake?

FTA: Scary Failin: "The media will do anything to draw attention -- even if out of context."

This attention whore who's notorious for making up her own facts on the spot actually went there?

Perfect!

*golf clap*

Be Well.

/Nice to see she supports Title IX anyways.

Too bad she's not a Democrat. If she were, the libbies here would have excused a lifetime of racism (like Byrd's) and celebrated her determination to get her degree even though she moved around alot. But no. Only silver-spoon liberals like Hillary get those kind of accolades.

Liberals are really funny. Never ceases to amaze me how beholden they are to rich Democrats like Feinstein, Kennedy, Boxer, Kerry, Rockefeller, Byrd et al--all of whom were either born into it or married into it--, and they're too stupid to even realize it. Stupid.

Too bad she's not a Democrat.
#128 | Posted by rightisright

If I was a Republican, that's probably what I'd be whining about, too.

125/126

Your turn to share all the life accomplishments you wanted me to share.

What's that?

You have none you want to share?

Then, why did you solicit mine and/or interject about it?

And btw, I'm not ashamed of having some PTSD issues in my life, so if you think repeatedly bringing that up upsets me in any way, you are full of crapola sonnyboy. I'm in some good company having that malady.

And Lisa, did you ever decide whether you are a Protestant or not?

Or whether abortion is murder or just an "elective procedure like a face lift"?

Don't worry Lisa, your goatboy will now defend your honor, since I'm picking on a woman. Oh, wait, you are the one who just had to put your 1 1/2 cents in eh?

LMFAO

Oh, and some advice:

Don't start nuthin', won't be nuthin'

If she offered up the booty to Levi would he hit it?

Everybody complaining about that pic is just jealous...you just wish you were that hot!!

you just wish you were that hot!!

GILF Flag.

Because a semi retarded grandmother with a cooch so loose the sides don't even touch anymore is yer idear of hawt?

Grew up on a farm, did ya?

Be Well.

Everybody complaining about that pic is just jealous.

Umm, you do realise the article is about Scary herself complaining about that pic, right?

So Failin is "just jealous" of herself?

Riiiiiiight!

Be Well.

Everybody complaining about that pic is just jealous...you just wish you were that hot!!

#132 | Posted by spabell at 2009

just heard a local radio guy say that NeWSWEEK just had thier liberal skirt blown up by this picture and we know now they are the fat girl in shorts so they are jealous

also JOHN whats his name..the editor has said that this was the pic available and thier covers are 'gender neutral'

what???????

'Everybody complaining about that pic is just jealous...you just wish you were that hot!!'

#132 | Posted by spabell

Poodle BITES!

Come on Frenchie!

Poodle CHEWS it!

and yesterday on cnn carvile and some ugly liberal bitch were railing against her for posing for the pic and then comlaining and of course they wanted to hear NOTHING about the fact that it was for runners world.............

and its so transparent that this was just another DIEING liberal jounrnal looking for a spike in rating and since no liberal bitch could 'fit the bill'....well I guess there is always GARAFALO>..(hee hee ha ha ha ha).............

so did hillary ever pose for "ugly as shit pantsuit daily"

There is no way Sarah! is articulate enough to have written that Facebook entry. The RNC is running her until they can find someone else.

I think they should have used the cover photo from Quitters World instead.

'I think they should have used the cover photo from Quitters World instead.'

#139 | Posted by Corky

Ha ha hah nice magazine!

I bet many Republicans subscribe to THAT magazine.

Starting with Newt Gingcreep.

Your turn to share all the life accomplishments you wanted me to share.

What's that?

You have none you want to share?

Specifically what do you want to know (and why?) I'm not going to spend three posts relating my life's accomplishments.

Newt Gingcreep.

Now there's that intelligent liberal discourse I often hear about. So refreshing to see the progressive, original thought that comes out of this website.

you bozos can bring up the so called quitting of governor is you want
of course you are used to politicians sucking off the govt teet while they are out looking for another job and just cant get over the fact that she was looking out for alaska by moving on to other things

BUT I can predict with some certainity that this wont be the last time you try this lame stuff.
( WOW>.really going out on a limb here arent I???)

That MUST be why you visit so often JOE.

AND JUST finished reading her interview with rush from yesterday and one main reason the left is SHAKING IN THIER BOOTS WITH FEAR is her straight talking common sense approach to policy issues which is what rush focused on ..

not what she wears when she runs or what the LEACH/predator named levi is doing.

GET READY BOYS

campaign of 2012 is gonna be REAL FUN!!!!!!!

"and one main reason the left is SHAKING IN THIER BOOTS WITH FEAR is her straight talking common sense approach to policy issues"

I think you're using the bizarro-world version of the dictionary or something, bibble, because the way I understand the English language, that statement is complete nonsense.

Yes sir Brer Rusty!

Please don't throw us'ens in dat brar patch!

I think its funny that her fans insist that her critics "fear" her. This woman literally could not name a single newspaper or magazine right after she claimed to read "all of them". Every time most Americans see this woman, she's making a fool of herself. How is this someone to fear?

LEACH/predator

#145 | Posted by afkabl2 at 2009-11-18 12:15 PM

Something I'm sure you know plenty about, Dipshit.

Afkababble listens to Rushbo - wowo what a shocker that is!

Ha ha ha ha hah ha hah a ditto head that is where he gets all his BS babble.

Ok you keep listening to leader RUSHBO afkababble, and dont forget to volunteer for the Palin campaign.

OF COURSE that is after you get done making you ammo quota for the day.

RUSHBO is gonna pee his pants when he sees what happens to the Republicans once Palin comes to Florida and whips all the third party conservatives into a frenzy! Like she did in NY.

This is just TOO GOOD, you cannot script a failure this big.

EPIC FAIL! Republicans for office in 2010!

Bloodbath yep that sounds accurate.

sure monstman..

and have you noticed that you sound an awfully lot like jerry tark......
that COULDNT be good news for you.

you must be new here because I am one of the most well read posters here who also listens to all sorts of views

even caught show of ellias whatshisname the other night..

and in fact its time to get back to reading

america...the last best hope.
covering america in the late 1930's now and the simularity to today is worrisome.
english and french were just about to give into hitler all of his demands on 'rheineland' and chunking the treaty of versailes.

so rag on someone else about only listening or using one source.

you know like JERRY T who only knows what he can hear from olberman or matthews

WE all sound the same to YOU don't WE?

HA ha ha ha ha hah hah

What was MOOSE MAMA complaining about last year?

Didn't she bitch and moan about Newsweek running her picture with a hairlip or some such BS?

Where's the poster size available? I'll hang Sarah next to Farah.

Gawd, but I do love cheesecake!

From the Runner's World website:

On the cover of this week's issue of Newsweek is a photo that was shot exclusively for the August 2009 issue of Runner's World, in which Sarah Palin was featured on the monthly "I'm a Runner" back page. The photos from that shoot are still under a one-year embargo, and Runner's World did not provide Newsweek with its cover image. It was provided to Newsweek by the photographer's stock agency, without Runner's World's knowledge or permission.

I'm NO fan of Palin, but I have to agree that this is an unprofessional move by the publication ... she posed for this photo for Runners World true. It's newsweek choosing to use it though, it's their judgement that is in question.

I've seen plenty of photo's of Obama dressed in clothing that isn't professional...but I've never seen one of those photos on the cover of Newsweek (just did a google image search to back up my memory too). After doing that search none of the photos portray him in anything other than a presidential/political light.

So if Palin should realize that once she poses for a photo it's fair game, why haven't I seen the un-presidential photos of Obama or any other politician on their cover recently? I can dig up those photos...so can newsweek, but they don't seem to be doing that.

Is it really whining by Palin then to point this out? I don't think so, and I don't like her.

There is nothing unprofessional in a journalistic sense about running a photo - period. Unless it is doctored, which this photo IS NOT.

There may be a legal issue with licensing but it is a real photo she posed for. As far as whether or not Newsweek decided to run this photo or that photo those are legitimate editorial decisions.

If you perceive the photo is not fair game then I have a solution for you - DON'T BUY A NEWSWEEK!

Just like I have much distaste for the editorial decisions of FAUX News so guess what? I don't watch them. No one is forcing me to.

No one is forcing you to look at Newsweek. There is no ethical issue involved here!

"I'm NO fan of Palin, but I have to agree that this is an unprofessional move by the publication ... she posed for this photo for Runners World true. It's newsweek choosing to use it though, it's their judgement that is in question."

Why wouldn't you question Runners World using your same objection? How does News Week know what Runners World has in their picture archives? Seems to me you should include Runners World when claiming unprofessionalism.

"I've seen plenty of photo's of Obama dressed in clothing that isn't professional...but I've never seen one of those photos on the cover of Newsweek (just did a google image search to back up my memory too). After doing that search none of the photos portray him in anything other than a presidential/political light. "

Did you cause a stir when Bush had pictures published in his running clothes? Or on his bike?

To me, it makes them seem more human, showing a more personal side to them.

So if Palin should realize that once she poses for a photo it's fair game, why haven't I seen the un-presidential photos of Obama or any other politician on their cover recently? I can dig up those photos...so can newsweek, but they don't seem to be doing that."

I take it you don't like News Week. That seems to be the issue with you on this thread.

"Is it really whining by Palin then to point this out? I don't think so, and I don't like her."

I actually like Palin on a personal level.

But she did pose for those pictures. If she's going to now claim it's sexist...why would she pose like that in the first place?

But she did pose for those pictures. If she's going to now claim it's sexist...why would she pose like that in the first place?

#158 | Posted by Lisa at 2009-11-18 02:19 PM | Reply

Do you not see the difference between that picture on the cover of "Runners World" vs. "Newsweek"?
Seriously, how can you possibly expect anyone to think you're being serious with that question?

I haven't seen the pic from Runners World, 101.

But honestly...what could possibly make a difference.

Are you saying that News Week altered the picture?

If you are, then she has a valid complaint about it's authenticity.....but not being sexist.

And don't pretend you ever take me seriously anyway!! : )

#160 | Posted by Lisa at 2009-11-18 02:24 PM | Reply

Honestly, the least you could do before spouting off on the subject is look at the picture. It should be obvious to you.

Runner's World would usually have people in work-out gear showing off a toned physique. NewsWeek would usually have somebody in a business suit. Are you starting to get the picture?

Exactly Chairborne,

it's the context Lisa... So why would I question Runners World? There is nothing wrong with the picture itself, just like there is nothing wrong with the pic of Obama riding his bike, or Bush running, but I wouldn't expect to find those as cover shots on Newsweek either. I would expect Obama to be angry if a publication with an agenda against him ran a pic on their cover using a photo that was inappropriately out of context too.

Well 101...if the picture was taken for Runners World, then why would Palin strike a pose with a desk, American Flag draped on the chair while holding a book????

Not very outdoorsy now is it???

Her intent was to show running alright, wasn't it??

Just not in the outdoors.

She has no reason to complain since it is obvious she was making a statement.

You're right KWR...it's about context.

What do you see in that picture with Palin?

Anything about toning a body? Anything about her running for excersize?

Nope.

Take away her shorts, put a business suit on her and that picture is a presidental inspiring pose, wouldn't you say?

I think it's quite apropos. She's much better at running away than governing..... obviously.

Though I still think they should have used the Quitters World mag cover pic.

you nailed it there perfectly Chair.

That's it in a nutshell...

Runners World cover expectation:
... Athletic clothing, showing toned physique

Newsweek cover expectation...
.... Business proper attire, if that is the world the person is coming from. (meaning I wouldn't expect a cover photo illustrating the atrocities in some country to have someone in a business suit in the photo)

So by running a photo of her, wearing appropriate clothing for running, that highlight a pleasing physical form is not in the realm of expectations. So the next question is are there photos they could use that are in the realm of expectation???? well yes there are, so why that one? why one that shows her underdressed for expectations...why one where she is showing alot of leg? they had other choices. In most cases the penalty called is sexism. I don't usually go there...is it demeaning to women? I don't know...but it certainly doesn't portray her as a serious Politician. Which I think we all realize is what the goal was. Pretending differently is being obtuse.

Not very outdoorsy now is it???

Her intent was to show running alright, wasn't it??

Just not in the outdoors.

#164 | Posted by Lisa at 2009-11-18 02:35 PM | Reply

Why would it need to be "outdoorsy"? It needs to be about fitness. Obviously (well to anyone but you I guess) wearing workout gear is apropos on a cover of runners world.
On Newsweek, it would be business attire. Why don't they run photos of CEO's or Presidents wearing their work-out gear (or Erkel Jeans)?

Surely you see the difference, but for some "non-partisan" reason you're pretending not to.

The lady is an embarrassment, and overwhelmingly underqualified to run for President, but her point is dead-on.

Really, KWR?? 101 nailed it perfectly???

She did not portray herself as an athlete, training or running for her health.

She approved of that picture being taken next to a desk, with the American flag draped over the chair holding a book.

How is THAT toning up????

That was all about her making a political statement.

In which case...she should have been dressed more appropriately for that picture so she has no reason to be crying sexist.

She brought it on herself.

"Yyou nailed it there perfectly Chair!" - Queen Latifah

101:

Why would Runners World take a picture of Palin in an office setting with an American flag right next to her?

"Yyou nailed it there perfectly Chair!" - Queen Latifah

#170 | Posted by Corky at 2009-11-18 02:45 PM | Reply

You should see the email Mao sent me of two Nell Carter look-a-likes rubbing their giant breats on eachother in the shower....GRrrrrrrrrrrrrrr!

I think Newsweek should have re-touched the photo to make it look like she is wearing an apron and holding a tray of cookies in front of her.

'Do you not see the difference between that picture on the cover of "Runners World" vs. "Newsweek"?
Seriously, how can you possibly expect anyone to think you're being serious with that question?'

#159 | Posted by 101Chairborne

FU DipShit!

No one except a right wing nut LIKE YOURSELF sees ANY DIFFERENCE WHATSOEVER.

The picture is not sexist no matter WHAT magazine cover it appears on! That POINT is obvious - as obvious as the point on the top of your little head.

But GLAD you DID notice how UNQUALIFIED she is for office. Guess you CAN come to the right conclusions when you try hard.

Why would Runners World take a picture of Palin in an office setting with an American flag right next to her?

#171 | Posted by Lisa at 2009-11-18 02:45 PM | Reply

Did you want her to stand there in her shorts and work-out gear behind a khaki wall?
What would you have had her standing by, and why would it be appropriate for a Newsweek cover?

Either quit playing stupid or open your eyes. This isn't rocket science.

They may as well have, Sully.

The picture they took didn't have anything to do with the purpose of their magazine either.

Who's idea do you think it was to photograph her with those props surrounding her?

Palin's or Runners World?

#174 | Posted by Monstman at 2009-11-18 02:47 PM | Reply | Flag: Calls in sick with the sniffles

Nell Carter. Damn! I couldn't think of her name.

The lady is an embarrassment, and overwhelmingly underqualified to run for President, but her point is dead-on.

#168 | Posted by 101Chairborne

A moment of clarity award.

" This isn't rocket science."

Then I'm suprised you haven't figured it out yet, 101.

"Did you want her to stand there in her shorts and work-out gear behind a khaki wall?
What would you have had her standing by, and why would it be appropriate for a Newsweek cover?"

If she were doing the photo for Runners World, I would expect to see her doing something that would be beneficial to her health, her body or here's a a novel idea...how about actually RUNNING....not for her political aspirations.

It's appropriate for News Week because she obviously wanted to portray herself in that presidental/political setting with the props that were used.

-rubbing their giant breats

You mean Brats, right?

"Why would Runners World take a picture of Palin in an office setting with an American flag right next to her?"

My guess is because she was a governor and the outfit was meant to demonstrate that she's a modern woman, a grandmother whose body hasn't gone to the wood chipper yet, and who holds executive office.

It's appropriate for News Week because she obviously wanted to portray herself in that presidental/political setting with the props that were used.

#180 | Posted by Lisa at 2009-11-18 02:53 PM | Reply

Wearing short shorts and showing off leg on a fitness mag...

Jesus you're intentionally slow on the uptake.

"a grandmother whose body hasn't gone to the wood chipper yet"

Why are women like dogshit?

The older they get, the easier they are to pick up.

"My guess is because she was a governor and the outfit was meant to demonstrate that she's a modern woman, a grandmother whose body hasn't gone to the wood chipper yet, and who holds executive office."

Hmmm...then News Week was acting properly when using that picture, in your opinion?

If people didn't already know she was unqualified presidental material, everything you just said about her would be to her benefit and I would think she would be thanking News Week.

"Wearing short shorts and showing off leg on a fitness mag..."

.....in a government looking office setting!!!

You still haven't answered my questions.

It's not me who's slow on the uptake, 101. : )

Sarah Palin posed for that photograph. She will do or say anything to get attention. She should be flattered to be on the cover of anything, other than The Globe.

I want to see President Palin in 2012 for several reasons:

1. She gives off a vibe more like Reagan than anyone in a long time.
2. Given her nature, she CAN'T be any worse than what we've had.
3. Pure delicious schadenfreude. The wailing and gnashing of teeth from the filthy bigots on the left will be as sweet as the Ambrosia of the Gods.

Every one on the left including main stream media is working full time trying to drag up rumors, dirt, and outright lies against
Palin's character hoping to discredit her reputation so badly that she never has a chance to win any political office.

Why are the left such evil cowards, and so afraid of Sarah Palin???
Is it because she might have a good chance of defeating the failing democratic dictatorship in 2012???

I'm NO fan of Palin, but I have to agree that this is an unprofessional move by the publication ... she posed for this photo for Runners World true. It's newsweek choosing to use it though, it's their judgement that is in question.

Spud disagrees.

The articles inside this particular Newsweek were not National Review puff pieces. They were solid, reasoned critiques of the woman, her words, her actions and her choices.

One of those choices was to pose for that photo.

She basically did there wot she's been doing practically her whole life and that's using her body to "sell" herself.

She's done so a number of times now.

As a failed Booty Queen.

As a teevee Newsbabe.

As Mayor of a flyspeck town.

As a National Candidate fer the desperate GOPhers.

*Wink*

Her complaining about the mere use of that particular picture aside from being the height of hypocrisy also deflected beautifully away from the legitimate criticisms of her found inside the magazine.

The point that picture underscored beautifully was that this woman is not bright enough or politically savvy enuff to ever be considered a viable candidate fer POTUS.

Her perenial victim schtick is getting old with many but some RWers can't seem to get enuff.

Remember the first time she took Newsweek to task fer not retouching her cover photo before the election?

This week's Newsweek cover is causing a stir for featuring Republican Vice Presidential candidate Sarah Palin blown up large without any photo retouching.

The result is a big scary Sarah Palin face, but anyone would look this scary at this size without a little Photoshop thrown in. Critics say it's a low blow for Newsweek to go out of its way to show every imperfection on the Alaska governor's face, and that it shows the media's bias for Barack Obama.

"Every one on the left including main stream media is working full time trying to drag up rumors, dirt, and outright lies against
Palin's character hoping to discredit her reputation so badly that she never has a chance to win any political office."

Dr? She didn't stand a chance last election and she certainly doesn't stand a chance on her own behalf as a presidental nominee.

She is now and will be know as a quitter. If she couldn't handle the pressures of a governors office, she most certainly couldn't handle those of a presidental office.

Had she not quit...had she gotten more experience and knowledge, I would strongly consider voting for her in the future.

"Why are the left such evil cowards, and so afraid of Sarah Palin???"

Seriously??? You think it's FEAR???

LOL

.....in a government looking office setting!!!

You still haven't answered my questions.

It's not me who's slow on the uptake, 101. : )

#186 | Posted by Lisa at 2009-11-18 03:02 PM | Reply

Honestly, your complete lack of intelligence on this matter is mind boggling. I have no other choice than to believe you're purposefully being obtuse.

"The Left" are actually encouraging Sarah Palin to run. They don't have to dig up rumors etc., she does it all by herself and her co-author whom she barely mentions. I am hoping for a Palin Presidential run with all my heart.

It will be one more nail in the Republican corpse.

Why are the left such evil cowards, and so afraid of Sarah Palin???

That is the new mantra chant from the GOPologists for the rights newest victim Sarah! The thought is that based on saying we are scared of her, to prove that we aren't we will leave her alone.

Bwhahahahaha.

She is a train wreck. The fact that she was the GNOP's nominee for the second most powerful position in this country proves just how out of touch the right really is.

Sarah Palin posed for that photograph.

#187 | Posted by sitdown at 2009-11-18 03:05 PM | Reply

No shit, retard. That "photograph" was for a fitness mag.

They have plenty of photos of her wearing a suit that would be appropriate for Newsweek.

All in all, the gripe doesn't amount to much, but seeing tools pretend that there isn't anything odd about it is hilarious.

'But GLAD you DID notice how UNQUALIFIED she is for office. Guess you CAN come to the right conclusions when you try hard

#174 | Posted by Monstman at 2009-11-18 02:47 PM | Reply | Flag: Calls in sick with the sniffles'

#177 | Posted by 101Chairborne

I usually get quite ill when I find myself in agreement with any of your political viewpoints.

But for ONCE you are correct - Palin is very much UNQUALIFIED to hold the office of President of the USA.

Sarah Palin....yawn.

That they chose that particular photograph for a reason seems beyond debate. What that reason is can be easily identified by the content of the magazine itself. It's a left-wing rag, and will never be anything more than that. The text next to her picture reads "She's bad for the GOP, and for everyone else too." Her previous Newsweek cover read "She's one of the folks (and that's the problem)." If anyone thinks this magazine is engaging in unslanted coverage of this woman, they are mentally retarded.

What's the matter, 101?

Someone not addressing you with insults so you don't know how to respond therefore calling me stupid makes up for your lack of meanspiritedness fun today?

I bring up very valid points.

Because you can't reasonably answer any of the questions I have asked, you're going to insult me?

Whatever.

Palin was making a political statement in that picture. How you can not see that especially when the photo's were suppose to be about running...as in for health, a toned body, etc, not politically speaking but yet that photo clearly screams "opportunity motive"....and now she's crying foul, is beyond me.

The republican party saw that this country was ready to vote in a female president after the positive reaction about Hillary. So, they picked a much prettier female to run as VP, even though she was grossly under qualified, the republican party thought they would appeal to men's visual senses rather than their common sense and had her as a running mate.

And now, here Palin is, posing to show off her body with political props trying to make her appear that she is the best of both worlds and when a news magazine puts that picture up, she gets upset.

She's eye candy. She knows it. The country knows it.

She's always getting upset about something. And although I like her as a person outside of the political arena, her whining is wearing thin on my nerves especially when she brought it on herself.

If she didn't want to be portrayed that way, she shouldn't have posed for the picture.

They have plenty of photos of her wearing a suit that would be appropriate for Newsweek.

All in all, the gripe doesn't amount to much, but seeing tools pretend that there isn't anything odd about it is hilarious.

101Chairborne - your point is taken - and taken for the utterly meaningless nonsense it is. You want a different "code" for a "news" magazine and a "sports" magazine? get yourself a job as a censor, you old fart.

"appropriate" for Newsweek? The mind boggles. Perhaps you are actually Nancy Reagan.

Also funny is the fact that the large heading reads "How do you solve a problem like Sarah?" Essentially they're taking a tone of "what do we do, this woman won't go away" - yet they're putting her on the cover of their magazine.

All the cover does is state the obvious. It's no secret that she's a mildly retarded MILF.

#199 | Posted by Lisa at 2009-11-18 03:22 PM | Reply

Save it. A fitness mag and Newsweek are two completely different entities, and even a moron knows that the cover pictures shouldn't be the same.
You had your mind made up (being the non-partisan you are...) prior to even seeing the fucking picture.

Danni...after 196 posts that you probably read (yawn).

Must be something about her (Palin) that worries you guys so much.

"Danni...after 196 posts that you probably read (yawn)."

Not hardly. A few. I don't even have an opinion about her any more. I just don't care about her any more. She's never going to be President so really why should I care about her any more?
When she was McCain's Vee Pee she mattered, now she's irrelevant. I think the media is going to begin ignoring her pretty soon.

"A fitness mag and Newsweek are two completely different entities, and even a moron knows that the cover pictures shouldn't be the same."

Well, since Palin obviously posed in a political office setting which had nothing to do with the intent of a running magazine I would say she couldn't tell the difference then...right??

And partisan standings have nothing to do with this.

But since you are not winning your case, you'll resort to anything.

The fact newsweek gave potus so many flattering covers, this should be an issue for anyone:

"A fitness mag and Newsweek are two completely different entities, and even a moron knows that the cover pictures shouldn't be the same"

That is simply amazing, 101.

If you really have to put out such bilge as this, I'd look forward to knowing how ANY two magazines CAN possibly have "completely different entities".

What Newsweek was probably doing is saving money on another photo-shoot since this one was exactly what they wanted, and as I have said, clearly she posed for it, no matter where or how or what for.

What on earth was Sarah Palin thinking when she posed in a pair of teeny-tiny gym shorts for a photograph that ended up on the cover of Newsweek -- a cover she has called "sexist"? Perhaps she was thinking that her image would only appear in the magazine she was posing for, Runner's World, and nowhere else, at least not for months and months.

If so, she had good reason -- since, as DailyFinance has learned, the photographer who shot the picture violated his contract by reselling them to Newsweek.

But since you are not winning your case, you'll resort to anything.

#206 | Posted by Lisa at 2009-11-18 03:38 PM | Reply

Uh huh.
You can't possibly expect anyone to believe that you're stupid enough to not see the difference between posing in short running shorts/work-out gear for a specific fitness magazine, and having that photo appear on Newsweek.
Had the other Mag been the AARP Fitness addition, SI, Good Eating, etc then there wouldn't be a peep.

But you know that, and just can't bring yourself to admit it. Hell, you never even looked at the fucking picture until you were called on it. Your mind was made up without so much as looking in to it. Don't be mad that you got called on it.

That photographer, Brian Adams, could not immediately be reached, and his agent, Kelly Price, declined to comment, saying, "I keep all of my clients' business private." But a spokeswoman for Runner's World confirms that Adams's contract contained a clause stipulating that his photos of Palin would be under embargo for a period of one year following publication -- meaning until August 2010. "Runner's World did not provide Newsweek with its cover image," the spokeswoman said. "It was provided to Newsweek by the photographer's stock agency, without Runner's World's knowledge or permission." The spokeswoman declined to say whether Runner's World intends to respond to Adams's breach of contract with legal action.

"What Newsweek was probably doing is saving money on another photo-shoot"

Riiight.

Newsweek was trying to sell magazines with controversy. It is working well for them, this thread demonstrates it. We wouldn't be talking about it otherwise.

What Newsweek was probably doing is saving money on another photo-shoot since this one was exactly what they wanted, and as I have said, clearly she posed for it, no matter where or how or what for.

#208 | Posted by sitdown at 2009-11-18 03:39 PM | Reply

So Newsweek didn't have any photos from the campaign trail in which she was wearing a business suit? Damn! Does that mean barack poses for all of those "Time" covers?

Surely you see the difference between say "Time" and "Hustler", right? Are those two completely seprate entities?

Don't be a dumbfuck, if you can help it.

Oh, and check out #209...Ouch, huh?

shitdown,
Danni pretty much sums it up in #212.
Why is it so hard for you and tools like Lisa to understand it?

No one can fathom the depths of the CHAIRMIND!

From the clips of interviews of her in the past week, she didn't seem angry at all. Why the "angry" title?

She just wondered why men or liberal women get better treatment - natural reaction - they even made Hillary look good on a number of occasions.

Remember - Newsweek also put that full half face of Sarah up on one of their covers. They have lost credibility and will more than likely lose many subscriptions over the matter.

"They have lost credibility and will more than likely lose many subscriptions over the matter."

Doubtful. How many Palin supporters are subscribers???
Actually, I sort of wonder how many people subscribe these days???

"You can't possibly expect anyone to believe that you're stupid enough to not see the difference between posing in short running shorts/work-out gear for a specific fitness magazine, and having that photo appear on Newsweek.
Had the other Mag been the AARP Fitness addition, SI, Good Eating, etc then there wouldn't be a peep."

You obviously can't see the difference between a picture for a running magazine having nothing to do with a political office setting and those that do.

What does a political office setting have to do with running?? Why do you keep avoiding that question?? And why shouldn't News Week use that picture when it clearly shows politics in that picture?

"But you know that, and just can't bring yourself to admit it. Hell, you never even looked at the fucking picture until you were called on it."

Wrong.

You asked this:

"'Do you not see the difference between that picture on the cover of "Runners World" vs. "Newsweek"?"

I saw the News Week photo, but thought by the way you worded that sentence that there was a difference in the actual picture itself. THAT'S when I googled Runners World to look at the photo there.

"Your mind was made up without so much as looking in to it. Don't be mad that you got called on it"

I made my very first comment this morning based on the fact she took the photo, she shouldn't cry sexist because it was used.

LOL

You have called me out on nothing!!

You can't spin this into anything that it actually is, 101. And that's the fact you keep screaming it's a picture taken for a running magazine and ignore the fact it was taken in a political office, therefore it's fair game to be used outside of health, sports, apparel reasons.

Don't be mad because the difference has been pointed out and you can't admit you see it nor can you justify it.

The opposite of a voyeur shot is to be fully aware that your picture is being taken. It kinf of looks like a pose to me. Question for Sarah, when someone is holding a camera and they say cheese to you, do you really think they talking about a government produce line in a ghetto somewhere. Get that guvment cheese ya'll. No Sarah, they were tlaking to you and they wanted you to pose for a picture that could someday show up somewhere other than Todds walet. Goodness, how do you folks luv this woman?

And that's the fact you keep screaming it's a picture taken for a running magazine and ignore the fact it was taken in a political office, therefore it's fair game to be used outside of health, sports, apparel reasons.

#218 | Posted by Lisa at 2009-11-18 03:59 PM | Reply

What's a "political office"?
Why wouldn't an executive take a photo in an office? Hagbard answered the question perfectly in #182.
Her intent was to show off the fact she was fit, after having a baby no less. Standing in an office with a flag and wearing short running shorts doesn't make it "political".

I'm done trying to explain common sense to you. You're either being obtuse or you're really stupid. I tend to believe you're being obtuse.

Actually, I sort of wonder how many people subscribe these days???
#217 | Posted by danni

Newsweek has a big problem here. I was wondering how they could simply use a Runner's World cover, but assumed that they had some kind of relationship with RW. But no--they used the cover without RW permission, and the photo itself was protected for another 10 months.

Sounds like several people at Newsweek sat on their ass, when it came down to a very simple question: are we allowed to use this cover photo that will be hitting hundreds of thousands of newsstands this week? What a bunch of dumbasses.

"Why wouldn't an executive take a photo in an office?"

Then she shouldn't cry sexism when she isn't dressed appropriately for it then!!!

"Hagbard answered the question perfectly in #182.
Her intent was to show off the fact she was fit, after having a baby no less."

LOL

Conviniently left out this part, huh 101?

"My guess is because she was a governor and the outfit was meant to demonstrate that she's a modern woman, a grandmother whose body hasn't gone to the wood chipper yet, and who holds executive office."

Puts a slightly different spin on things in regards to this topic when it involves a news magazine and not just a running mag, doesn't it?

"Standing in an office with a flag and wearing short running shorts doesn't make it "political""

Well let's see...we are talking Sarah Palin, ex governor, who ran for VP, is considering a run for pres, standing next to an American flag which we all know politicians always are seen next to a flag, etc....

Nawwww....I don't see how anyone can take that as political!

"I'm done trying to explain common sense to you. You're either being obtuse or you're really stupid. I tend to believe you're being obtuse"

LMBO

You were explaining common sense?? Your argument would have been common sense had News Week used one of the other photos of Palin outside, stretching, etc.

But that is not the case.

And neither is your argument being one of common sense,

Now see 101...RIR has a valid argument for News Week NOT using the picture.

Yours doesn't hold water.

You're a full blown retard. Posing in shorts for a running mag cover, and having that picture appear on the cover, makes sense.
Having that picture on Newsweek doesn't (unless your intent is to be unfair to her), especially considering the plethora of options they have.

Honestly, only a fool wouldn't know this.
If you'd bothered to notice, most agree on that, except you and a few other retards.

RIIIGGGHHHTTTTT...

It is SO unfair boo hoo hoo.

Hairlips and Shorts - Newsweek is bending over backwards to show how the liberal dominated media is unfair to Republicans.

What minor issue will you find to complain about next?

Katie Couric! Thats it - complain about THEM.

Lets call her COMPalin because all she wants to do is COMPALIN about the liberal media biased against her.

BOO HOO HOO

Jesus F-ing Christ.

For all of her faults, Sarah Palin is a physically-attractive woman.

So sue her.

This is ridiculous.

She lands a spot wearing sports gear and in the process looks quite good in doing so???

The only reason Hillary hasn't done a similar ad is that she has fat ankles, and certain other physical deficiencies that preclude her from doing so.

Look, I am tired as hell of Sarah Palin and I think she, at this stage of the game, is ill-equipped for POTUS, or VP, for that matter.

Having said that, this shit is ridiculous.

No camel-toe.

No aleola - hell, no cleavage of any kind.

No ass-cheek (damn!)

Just a physically-attractive conservative female dressed in work-ut attire that just so happens to show off at least a modicum of her figure.

Be honest - if you can - if you lefties saw an identical picture of Cemeron Diaz, you wouldn't think anything of it other than a casual appraisal of her figure that is revealed by her clothing.

A long-sleeve shirt and reasonable shorts?

You douchebags are worse than the 'I-hate-all-things-Obama' crowd.

Lets call her COMPalin because all she wants to do is COMPALIN

Frank? Is that you?

"You're a full blown retard."

Of course I am, 101...you think anyone who disagrees with you is. You are incapable of having a conversation without insults when cornered or otherwise.

"Posing in shorts for a running mag cover, and having that picture appear on the cover, makes sense.
Having that picture on Newsweek doesn't"

Was she "running"? No. Was she working out? No. Was she doing ANYTHING besides wearing shorts that could remotely resemble anthing for a running magazine? NOOOOO..

If that picture is taken with the intent of portraying a government office...which it was, then News Week has every right to use that picture. If News Week had used any of the other photos, you would have a point.

"(unless your intent is to be unfair to her)"

LOL...partisan card. Too funny! Especially since I have defended her in every other case, except for this one.

"Honestly, only a fool wouldn't know this.
If you'd bothered to notice, most agree on that, except you and a few other retards."

Of those who have responded since you and I started this discussion, RIR said it shouldn't be used for a different reason, not supporting yours and he would be correct, BTW. KWR ran. Joe took your same stand..outside of that..who jumped in to say you were correct?? Oh wait...Nanc seems to have jumped in but that is nothing new to see her defend anything a republican does or shout out against anything that is said or done negatively to a republican.

Nice try though!

Jeff:

This is not about Palin being attract...she is!

This is not abut Palin being a republican...it isn't.

It's about wanting a picture portrayed in a certain light, then crying foul when it's taken the way it was meant.

It's that simple.

The only case for News Week NOT using that picture is RIR's.

It's about wanting a picture portrayed in a certain light, then crying foul when it's taken the way it was meant.

Sounds awfully stupid to me given the fact that Newsweek uses nothing but professional-looking photos for everyone else. If you could say that half the covers they did for other politicians were photos from magazines of entirely different genres, you might have a point, but you know that isn't true. So why did Newsweek deviate from their standard practice in this particular instance?

If Michelle Obama took a photo for Better Homes and Gardens in which she was wearing an apron and presenting a platter of cookies, would Newsweek be justified in using it as a cover for their magazine?

Those noted Neo-cons Danforth, Hagbard, and Nullifidan seem to agree with me (or actually, me with them, seeing as though they posted here prior to me).

Let's see, you, Monstman, and shitdown...

But don't worry, nobody would expect the average adult to understand that a posed picture in workout gear is appropriate for a running mag, but not Newsweek. That's some pretty heady stuff there...

Common sense isn't so common I guess.

"You're a full blown retard."
Of course I am, 101...you think anyone who disagrees with you is. You are incapable of having a conversation without insults when cornered or otherwise.

#229 | POSTED BY LISA AT 2009-11-18 04:52 PM |

Yeah, YOU never do that, eh? LOL

_Your turn.=Posted by woke

_For what?=Posted by goatman

_I can guess, but I know you're not that kinda guy.

#126 | POSTED BY LISA AT 2009-11-18 09:38 AM |125/126

LMFAO

Lay down with dogs, get up with fleas sista

"Sounds awfully stupid to me given the fact that Newsweek uses nothing but professional-looking photos for everyone else. If you could say that half the covers they did for other politicians were photos from magazines of entirely different genres, you might have a point, but you know that isn't true. So why did Newsweek deviate from their standard practice in this particular instance?"

I guess it depends on your definition of professional looking. She's obviously in a government office, holding a book....trying to look all professional.

Just a thought.

However, I can't tell you WHY they used that picture. I am just taking the side that the picture in question did not portray anything regarding a running mag outside of her wearing shorts and the intent on which that picture was obviously made for was more politically motivated therefore, she shouldn't be screaming about it.

"If Michelle Obama took a photo for Better Homes and Gardens in which she was wearing an apron and presenting a platter of cookies, would Newsweek be justified in using it as a cover for their magazine?"

Would she be standing in the White House? : )

I wouldn't be upset about that. She is a mother, she probably does bake....so what?

"Lay down with dogs, get up with fleas sista"

I have nothing to fear.

I wasn't laying down with you!! : )

I guess it depends on your definition of professional looking. She's obviously in a government office, holding a book....trying to look all professional.

She is a mother, she probably does bake....so what?

Give me a break. At least now we know you're lying. Peace out.

"Give me a break. At least now we know you're lying. Peace out."

How am I lying, Joe?

LOL

Too funny.

I sincerely don't see anything wrong with a picture of Michelle holding a tray of cookies wearing an apron in a picture on a mag.

You forget...I would have LOVED to have been June Cleaver!

Now take back the lying stuff!! : )

235

How could you be laying down with me after insinuating i'm gay?

You seem to be in a bit of a snit with everyone today deary....

LOL

Sarah became angry at the mirror, this morning.

She must be appalled at the thought of progressive men beating off to her photo. Rush would be happy to do the same if Sarah only looked more like a prepubescent boy.

Lay down with dogs, get up with fleas sista

What a self-righteous prick

LOL no snit sweetie!

I was actually teasing with you.

I apologize.

But I am very serious about Palin.

She blasts the picture was out of context when NW used it but fails to see how "out of context" it was to take a pic for a running mag using the background she did...a political office.

See the hypocricy??

Lay down with dogs, get up with fleas sista

What a self-righteous prick

#241 | Posted by goatman

DON'T YOU HAVE A BOTTLE TO GO PISS IN?

242

I totally agree with your assessment of Palin. She asks for it and wants it.....ATTENTION,.....then when it's given, she realizes "it" belongs to the public, not her......She cannot TELL others what to think about her and that drives her nuts.....which makes little sense considering her actions.....being a politician, then quitting....etc.

My point about the fleas was meant in a good way also. You have allowed rw scummy trolls (both 101 & Goatman have repeatedly denigrated war hero, triple amputee, Max Cleland, for instance) who denigrate others to "back" you against me in several previous threads. Now, perhaps you can begin to see that a person is known by the company they keep and associated with those people. That one of them turned on you is not suprising.....

What is suprising to me, is that from the beginning of my posting, you have misunderstood my posts regarding abortion, religion, etc....

We are actually closer to being on the same page than you realize.

For my part, I'm willing to apologize for anything I've said that you felt denigrated you, and begin again.

Umm I didn't run, it's called a job and I do have one.

two further points, related but viewed one way I feel it strengthens my position another it weakens it.

weak view: Looking at previous Runners World covers, most show an 'active' look, while Palin's cover is most static in nature...what strengthens my a bit though is that I found other shots from that photo shoot that would have been more "runners-worldish" and I'll tie this back in with my next point:

strong view: I was planning on making the point that RW would have there celebrity cover person in that persons 'environment' and having Palin in an office setting is the equivalent of having Lance Armstong in shorts on bike, or Dale Jr in shorts with his foot on the bumper of his race car, etc... This is where I came across all of the more actiony cover shots. Where I feel this actually strengthens my point a little is in what I didn't find, any other cover with a celebrity. All there covers are fit people, running in some setting or posing in a stance showing their physique with no background...just a color.

to tie it all together taking Lisa's comment about her being in an office with a Flag... RW doesn't have a celeb covers...she since to be the corner case, and to me at least it feels like they were doing one of their more static covers with a person showing their physique, but tied the background into her career, where normally it would be a blank color.

I have to agree a bit though, that to Lisa's point this whole thing varies from RW's M-O of covers... Does it open it up to the point that that the cover screams political? I don't know that I can agree fully with that, it certainly is trying to tie her to that career to lend a context to the celeb on the cover, so....

That's RW's track record with covers. What about NW's track record. I went back through those for political figures. At least for the pages of google image search results that I paged through, every political figure was tastefully posed, or on the stump, or a candid...all professionally dressed with no deviation from that. Except for this cover.

So I thought, what does google images bring back for Sarah Palin. Pretty standard fare, I'd have to say the RW photo was among the more "racy" photo's out there.

new tidbit, seems NW used the image illegally. That leads me to conclude that of all the photos they could have used to keep with the history of types of covers they run, that they played eenie meenie miney moe, and pointed at that picture and thought "this is just as political a picture of her in a business suit, let use it even though it's illegal to do so". No, they had to have had an agenda to use it.

Specifically what do you want to know (and why?) I'm not going to spend three posts relating my life's accomplishments.
#141 | POSTED BY GOATMAN AT 2009-11-18 11:45 AM

I want to know where you take a stand in your life?

What you actually value enough to speak truth to power about?

(since you tend to denigrate others who've not only done so, but fought for the right to do so)

What you actually value enough to speak truth to power about?

#247 | Posted by woke
* * * *

Are you a black woman?

248

No, but I'm married to one. Does that make me a race traitor in your eyes, mf?

On the contrary. I love ethnic women of all types.

Don't get so touchy. When you stop talking like a woman, I'll stop assuming you are one.

I'm just curious if any of you rwr trolleyboys who post day and night on this liberal blog, have the actual cajones to man up, meet with your elected representatives and tell them what you think, or if you just hide behind your computer pissing into the wind?

I love ethnic women of all types.

When you stop talking like a woman, I'll stop assuming you are one.

#250 | POSTED BY RIGHTISRIGHT AT 2009-11-18 06:40 PM

Love, eh? How many "ethnic" women have you married?

I see, you think speaking truth to power is a "woman only" kind of thing.

I don't think it matters.

Truth is truth.

Courage is courage.

And you either have the courage to share your VALUES/BELIEFS with your representatives or you don't.

As opposed to pissing into the wind daily here on DR....eh?

No, but calling it that is. But whatever makes you feel empowered, and makes you roar.

I'm just curious if any of you rwr trolleyboys who post day and night on this liberal blog, have the actual cajones to man up, meet with your elected representatives and tell them what you think, or if you just hide behind your computer pissing into the wind?

#251 | Posted by woke
* * * *

I do. Two weeks ago I met with a guy running for the Senate; on Thursday we'll meet with the guy running for Governor. And I tell them that I'm sick of liberals asking for free stuff. That's the truth. Hopefully they'll have the power to do something about that.

I love ethnic women of all types.

If you were a woman, that would have a genetic basis. Who knows about us guys.

The immune system of your offspring can recognize a more diverse group of pathogens if you mate with someone who is genetically dissimilar from you at a place in your genome called the HLA locus. Women can perceive this difference by smell, strangely enough, and they find the scents of men who are genetically dissimilar from them at the HLA locus to be "sexier".

When you stop talking like a woman, I'll stop assuming you are one.

#250 | POSTED BY RIGHTISRIGHT AT 2009-11-18 06:40 PM

Hmm. And just what do women "talk like" anyway?

While I don't have the chance to meet many politicians in person, I was emailing back and forth with Senator Patty Murray this morning regarding a judicial nominee, Rosanna Peterson, an ex law school professor of mine. She's of a liberal bent, but still an excellent choice for a district court judge.

I am a liberal. Where is my free stuff?

It's in the mail. Postage due.

Where is my free stuff?

It got redistributed to me. Tough shit. Some fuckers are more equal than other fuckers.

Sarah Palin got a lot of free stuff from Neiman Marcus and she's not a liberal.

What you actually value enough to speak truth to power about?

ANything worth talking about is worth telling the truth about. I know you don't agree with this, woke, but that's how I am.

But you couldn't answer the question could you Goatman? Just more of your usual insults and bullshit.....pissing into the DR wind.

Why doesn't that suprise me?

Try again:

I want to know where you take a stand in your life?
What you actually value enough to speak truth to power about?

(since you tend to denigrate others who've not only done so, but fought for the right to do so)

fk it, just forget it goatman, you just aren't intelligent enough to understand the question, i guess.....

for me, it's standing up for those unable to stand up for themselves....ie.....advocatin
g for those unable to do so for themselves....

For my part, I'm willing to apologize for anything I've said...

Just like you said you would apologize if you were ever shown a post of yours where you denigrated a war veteran?

LOL

#261 | Posted by woke

Hey woke, you need to follow the lead of Corky and Bob and others and just ignore Goatman. Nothing will piss him off more than being ignored. lol

After actually reading the articles and seeing ALL the pictures of palin in this newsweek issue it becomes abundantly clear why she prefers to focus everyone's attention on just the cover.......she most likely is hoping no one actually opens and reads the articles, etc....

especially if they read about the moderate republican opinions of her....(modreps being the only remaining hope to revive the failed party that has been run by extremist rw neocons and evangelical fundies since the nixon regime.....

Nothing will piss him off more than being ignored. lol

???

I wouldn't know. You are unable to do so. LOL

Who is Sarah Palin?

Unfortunately no one can be told exactly who Sarah Palin really is. You have to experience it for yourself. You can take the blue pill, wake up in your bed tomorrow and believe whatever you want to believe. Or you can take the red pill and see how deep the rabbit hole goes.

Thank god America took the blue pill.

I have come to the conclusion that posting to him IS just like not posting to him, NULL......a total waste of time and bandwidth.....

A liar, who claims others lie

A pos who denigrates war veteran's service for some supposed political gain and tries to claim others do so.....

Even tried to claim I KNEW his wife died....but couldn't post the archive to prove it as he claimed......

Who the fk would do shit like that?

A sad, pathetic person...eh?

And whenever confronted with his own bullshit, he cuts and runs.....eh?

too funny

And whenever confronted with his own bullshit, he cuts and runs

???

A liar, who claims others lie

Link Mr "I stood by Kerry, Cleland, and John Glenn, my personal friends"? LOL

but couldn't post the archive to prove it as he claimed......

Because you never accepted the challenge I presented several times. Will you take it up, or pretend you never saw it?

I'll produce the post (I have it and the link in a word file) as soon as you agree to leave the DR forever if I am right.

Deal?

I didn't think so. LOL!

BTW, you and dull are a match made in heaven.

Challenge?

What kind of a moron are you?

You are the one who tried to claim you could prove I KNEW about your wife being dead. That you told me and I responded to the post, proving I knew about it. Yet, you cannot show those posts can you?

If you can prove it, do so, otherwise, you are pretty damned pathetic to try to say someone is victimizing you over your wife being dead...

You cannot show those posts, cause they don't exist. If they did, you'd be posting them everytime i post, instead of the pathetic little mosquito buzzing you do.....

Just like if you could show one post where I've ever denigrated a war veteran's service, for political gain, you'd do so, instead of just claiming I've done so, eh?

But you have, several times, including this post about Max Cleland:

Woke pulls Max around by his dick if that didn't get blown off. It probably did though -- by woke
#140 | POSTED BY GOATMAN AT 2009-11-04 11:11

You are the one who tried to claim you could prove I KNEW about your wife being dead. That you told me and I responded to the post, proving I knew about it. Yet, you cannot show those posts can you?

If I produce it will you leave the DR forever?

Why won't you answer the question woke? LOL Chicken? Yep, sure seems to be. You want to see the post, accept my challenge.

But you won't, will you? Because you know I am right and you not only will be caught lying again, but you will never be able to post here again, either.

What a fucking little chicken shit coward. OOPS. Hope I didn't aggravate your PTSD flyboy.

SO -- accept the challenge or not?

I didn't think so. LOL

Tell you what...if you CAN"T post any archived posts, proving i knew your wife died and how she died and my response indicating I saw and knew that....then perhaps YOU should never post here again....

because that LIE is so fkn pathetic, you should be too ashamed to ever post here again, eh?

But anyone who could post the shit you did about Cleland, shows you have no shame at all, eh?

The date you claimed I already knew about your wife was: Nov 5th, 2009, at 2:29pm

But you have, several times,

As have you. And you never apologized for it as you promised you would if it was produced. LOL

Why do you lie so much?

BTW, Max Cleland sucks.

If I produce the post, will you leave the DR?

I didn't think so. LOL

Too much of a coward to type the three letters Y E S, huh,woke? No wonder you lost it in vietnam, loser. LOL Someone to afraid to accept a simple challenge like that would wimp out in vietnam. A flyboy with PTSD? Pathetic. LOL

You are a coward.

BTW, Max Cleland sucks.

Posted by goatman

Why?

Ok, now you will have two archives to post to PROVE your assertions about me...otherwise, the entire DR will be easily able to see what a fkn pathetic LIAR you are (as if they don't already know)

1. Archived posts before Nov 5th, 2009 at 2:29 pm showing you told me about your wife's death and my response

and

2. Any post I've ever made denigrating a war veteran's service record for political gain.

If you cannot do so, and you cannot, I suggest you should cut and run like you have in the past...eh?

If you cannot do so, and you cannot, I suggest you should cut and run like you have in the past...eh?

I've done #2. Your response was that you would not apologize as you promised.

I'll do #1 if you promise to leave the DR after I do. Do you accept the challenge?

I didn't think so. LOL

suggest you should cut and run like you have in the past...

???

I'm still wondering how a flyboy can develop PTSD unless he was already very fucked up and scared to death of even his own shadow and puppies. LOL You must've been even a bigger loser in vietnam than you make yourself out to be on the DR, though I can't fathom how that would be possible. LOL

You've done so? You say you have a post showing me denigrating a war veteran's service record for political gain....???

Bullshit.

I'll not be interacting with you anymore simpleton.....unless you can prove your lies about me....

And we both know you cannot....eh?

And now, everyone on this thread, as with the last one, will also know what a liar you are.....not to mention someone who would stoop to using your wife's death to denigrate someone else....

Only thing I can think of that would be more pathetic is denigrating Max Cleland......and everyone knows you are doing that, eh?

"Umm I didn't run, it's called a job and I do have one."

I apologize then.

"I was planning on making the point that RW would have there celebrity cover person in that persons 'environment' and having Palin in an office setting is the equivalent of having Lance Armstong in shorts on bike, or Dale Jr in shorts with his foot on the bumper of his race car"

Well, KWR...Lances "environment" is athletic, Dale's is also a sport. Both would be fitting in a running magazine where sports, fitness are the "environment" of the mag. A political office is different.

"This is where I came across all of the more actiony cover shots. Where I feel this actually strengthens my point a little is in what I didn't find, any other cover with a celebrity. All there covers are fit people, running in some setting or posing in a stance showing their physique with no background...just a color.

to tie it all together taking Lisa's comment about her being in an office with a Flag... RW doesn't have a celeb covers...she since to be the corner case, and to me at least it feels like they were doing one of their more static covers with a person showing their physique, but tied the background into her career, where normally it would be a blank color."

How does that strengthen your point? You just stated the pics were either actionary or blank with just a color for everyone else.

Seems to me it would strengthen my point since I have stated Palin had her picture in that setting for political motivation, and since that was the case, I felt NW had every right to use that picture.

"I have to agree a bit though, that to Lisa's point this whole thing varies from RW's M-O of covers... Does it open it up to the point that that the cover screams political?"

Yes it does. 101 didn't want to admit that.

"I don't know that I can agree fully with that, it certainly is trying to tie her to that career to lend a context to the celeb on the cover"

So then how can Palin claim it was taken out of context even YOU admit that it certainly did attempt to tie her to her career and therefore, there should have been no problem with NW using that photo.

You can't make a shot with a particular purpose intended and then turn around and scream that someone took that photo in the exact context it was made for and cry foul!!

"That's RW's track record with covers. What about NW's track record. I went back through those for political figures. At least for the pages of google image search results that I paged through, every political figure was tastefully posed, or on the stump, or a candid...all professionally dressed with no deviation from that. Except for this cover."

Sitting on a stump? Who was it of? Paul Bunyon?? Because if it wasn't, where is the outrage over that pic?

"new tidbit, seems NW used the image illegally."

THAT would be my only objection to the usage of that picture!!

Only thing I can think of that would be more pathetic is denigrating Max Cleland......and everyone knows you are doing that, eh?

Every chance I get!

I see the cowardly lying flyboy won't accept my challenge, tacitly proving he once again got caught in another lie.

Why do you lie so much, joe? Did the PTSD do it? What a pussy. A flyboy with PTSD. What happened? Did you spill coffee on that gay powder blue uniform? LOL

Oh yea, I meant to ask -- any response from your personal friend max when you sent him my post? (you do remember you said you sent him my post you keep repeating?) LOL

Air Force Provides Convoy Security for Army, Marines in Iraq

By Donna Miles
American Forces Press Service
CAMP BULLIS, Texas, Feb. 8, 2005

Flyboys are pussies

I'm still wondering how a flyboy can develop PTSD

The remote pilots of armed drones experience some of the highest rates of PTSD in the entire military. Why do you think this is?

suggest you should cut and run like you have in the past...
???
#278 | POSTED BY GOATMAN AT 2009-11-18 09:18 PM

>>>The record is there and easily obtained of you cutting and running from your other lies in the past.....and here it is.....so I suggest you just stfu like you did the last time, eh?

>>

Other lies? So you are saying I am lying about my wife dying of cancer?
Does your sickness know no boundaries, woke?
#335 | POSTED BY GOATMAN AT 2009-11-05 02:29 PM

I have no knowledge now or ever before about your wife.
if it's true, you have my condolences
_if it's not, i'll just file it along all the other inane shit you post,,..k?
#336 | POSTED BY WOKE AT 2009-11-05 02:33 PM

I have no knowledge now or ever before about your wife.=woke
Liar
You asked two other times (once I specifically remember was as a response to when I asked you how many times you were married) and I told both times.
You are one sick lying fuck.
#338 | POSTED BY GOATMAN AT 2009-11-05 02:35 PM |

...if it's not...
If not?
You answered my question. Your sickness indeed knows no boundaries.
#339 | POSTED BY GOATMAN AT 2009-11-05 02:36 PM

I have never seen any posts about your wife dying of cancer before today goat....
for you to say so is apparently just more of the same lies and smears you've stalked me with since i began posting here....
#342 | POSTED BY WOKE AT 2009-11-05 02:43 PM

I have never seen any posts about your wife dying of cancer before today goat....=woke

Perhaps not specifically how she died, but you were well aware she was dead. I told you twice.
You are a sick fucking liar.
I'll tell you what. If I can produce the post that I told you that, will you leave the DR forever and never come back -- even under an assumed name?
Well?
#344 | POSTED BY GOATMAN AT 2009-11-05 02:45 PM

Sorry about your wife for the second time, but I NEVER knew about it until today.
Hope you recover soon.
God bless.
#345 | POSTED BY WOKE AT 2009-11-05 02:52 PM

Sorry about your wife for the second time, but I NEVER knew about it until today.=woke
So does this mean you accept my challenge in post 344?
BTW, while searching, I stumbled on a post where you actually apologized for bringing her up and I replied, No harm, no foul. Just a couple of days ago.
Do you accept my challenge in post 344 or not, liar?
#350 | POSTED BY GOATMAN AT 2009-11-05 02:55 PM

Tell you what goat,
Why don't you write to rcade and see if there is someway for you to bring up the posts you claim you made to me before today that your wife died of cancer.
if there is an archive on DR, it should be easy enough to do...
and actually, if true, i'd think you'd be doing it to prove your point, eh?

i'll check back sometime soon to see those alleged posts and the context of myself responding/acknowledging seeing them...
#354 | POSTED BY WOKE AT 2009-11-05 03:00 PM

Why don't you write to rcade and see if there is someway for you to bring up the posts you claim you made to me before today that your wife died of cancer.=woke

Because I don't have to, that's why. I'm smart enough to search the archives, and I have.
#363 | POSTED BY GOATMAN AT 2009-11-05 03:51 PM

Haven't done it yet?
_i'll check back sometime soon to see those alleged posts and the context of myself responding/acknowledging seeing them...proving i knew about your wife's passing
_till then
#365 | POSTED BY WOKE AT 2009-11-05 04:01 PM

>>>Seems like maybe you never got the help you needed 30 years ago.

It's not too late..

Sorry about your wife.

God Bless.

I agree with RisR on one point: she's hot.

Now, can we talk about someone else-someone who actually would be QUALIFIED to be President in 2012?

Do you accept my challenge, woke?

I didn't think so. LOL

Goatman: so you did get out of prison!? LOL
and as usual, you have nothing to do but post on DR LOL
well, while you're unemployed/underemployed, why not also troll for jobs? LOL

oh yeah, forgot...LOL

>>>Seems like maybe you never got the help you needed 30 years ago.

???

30 years ago I was in the service. The only thing I can remember needing help with in 1979 was during a trans-country trip from San Diego to Jacksonville. The front tire of my Suzuki 750 blew out near Las Cruces NM. But I got help, so once again you are wrong, woke.

Goatman: so you did get out of prison!? LOL

duh. They don't allow inmates internet access.

and as usual, you have nothing to do but post on DR LOL

At this time, yep. I don't watch TV and I've finished the three books I brought to the rig this time.

well, while you're unemployed/underemployed, why not also troll for jobs? LOL

I'm not unemployed. And since one job is enough, I don't feel I am underemployed either.

oh yeah, forgot...LOL

You've a very poor memory, then. You LOLed three times previously in that post. Scroll up if you don't believe me

Why don't you write to rcade and see if there is someway for you to bring up the posts you claim you made to me before today that your wife died of cancer.=woke
Because I don't have to, that's why. I'm smart enough to search the archives, and I have.
#363 | POSTED BY GOATMAN AT 2009-11-05 03:51 PM

Haven't done it yet?
_i'll check back sometime soon to see those alleged posts and the context of myself responding/acknowledging seeing them...proving i knew about your wife's passing
_till then
#365 | POSTED BY WOKE AT 2009-11-05 04:01 PM

Let's see now, that's 13 days and 7 1/2 hours and still no archived posts....and that is the CHALLENGE for you....to back up your bullshit with some action backing up what you claim you can do.....

Let's see now, that's 13 days and 7 1/2 hours and still no archived posts

If I produce them, do you promise to leave the DR forever?

I didn't think so. LOL

If you really want to see them, you would accept my challenge woke. The reason you don't accept the challenge is because you know I am right, eh? LOL

If?

You cannot do it.

End of story.

Goatman is a bullshit artist, rw trolleyboy and war vet denigrator.

It's your posted and saved, textual......"legacy" on DR.

LMFAO

You cannot do it.

Prove you are right. Accept my challenge? No? I didn't think so. LOL

Poor woke keeps on losing. How's it feel to be a loser flyboy with PTSD? LOL

Your challenge is to back up your own words.....but you cannot do that, so, you make up some challenge bullshit to cover up the fact that you need some mental health help.

It's never too late.

God Bless

Your challenge is to back up your own words

???

No, the challenge was "Will you leave the DR if I produce the post". (how could you not know? I've made it dozens of times and you, like a coward, won't take it. Must be that PTSD you got when you spilled that coffee on that pretty blue pressed uniform. LOL)

Just say you'll accept and I'll have the link in seconds.

Ball's in your court little man. LOL

No, the challenge was "Will you leave the DR if I produce the post".

WOKE

Not to interrupt your banter with Goat, but I haven't been following this month long debate verbatim so I'm in the dark about the reference to you being a "flyboy." Were you a pilot when you were in the military? Just curious.

Okay, now exiting. Continue to bash away.

WOKE

Not to interrupt your banter with Goat, "

Woke,

Ignore Goatman. Nothing will annoy him more.

Ignore Goatman. Nothing will annoy him more.

???

I wouldn't know since you are unable to do so. LOL

"Don't want an image misused? Then don't fucking pose for it in the first place."

Oh, please....

I've posed for literally thousands of shots. Sometimes, yes, I do sign the First Born Male Child release. But usually the agreement is for a particular usage, with other usage either limited or prohibited.

Not that it always stops them: one contract specifically didn't allow further use than the original purpose, and I later found the shot on a poster and a coffee mug. But while it broke the contract, at least it was for the same product as the original image. Another time, however, a shoot for the local newspaper ended up appearing as some company's logo on the web. That was completely unfair usage, as it didn't allow me to decide if I wanted my image connected to that company. Palin had every right to choose to be connected to Runner's World. She also has every right to be upset with it's idiotic re-use. Newsweek using that image is embarrassingly stupid.

Christ almighty, this bitch would be angered by her own orgasm.

I've got a video that kind of goes along with that... I don't think RCade would appreciate it though.

Agreed, DAN.
Just another instance of how the lib media helps shape public perception. They purposefully selected the pic with, likely, two things in mind. 1. Portray her negatively as has been colorfully explained in numerous above posts.
2. Create the inevitable firestorm, thus bumping up sales.

A win-win for Newsweek.

Portray her negatively

No story by Newsweek could hope to top the damage that Palin does to her own credibility each time she opens her mouth.

The "liberal media" didn't destroy Palin. They just sold her the rope she would eventually use to hang herself.

They purposefully selected the pic with, likely, two things in mind. 1. Portray her negatively as has been colorfully explained in numerous above posts.

Did she pose for the thing or not?

They probably should have gone with a different photo.

And probably no matter which photo it was there would be much wailing and gnashing of teeth.

Poor Sarah. She just can't catch a break.

300

No Chris, I was what is known as a "ground pounder" in the USAF.....Security....for flightline, perimeter, and convoys.....in III Corps, Bien Hoa, Tay Nihn and the Quan Loi Trail.

When someone says something hideous about someone else, (in this case goatman saying: 1. I knew his wife ha died of cancer before he told me on Nov 5th, and that 2. I've denigrated war veteran's service record for political gain...

the onus is on THEM to PROVE their lies with facts, which in this case would be the archived posts he claims he can post.

Still waiting going on two weeks now for those posts that don't exist.

Null, I agree with you, but it isn't you he's smearing, tho I'm sure you've had your turn, eh?

It's all he does here on DR. Stalk and Smear. While I've never flagged anyone's posts here, I believe he should be the one who is banned due to repeatedly not following the moderation policy. But, that is rcade's business, not mine, since it's his blog.

the onus is on THEM to PROVE their lies with facts, which in this case would be the archived posts he claims he can post.

I'll provide the posts and links when you agree that you will leave the DR forever when I prove you a liar. Do you accept my challenge, coward?

I didn't think so.

LOL

"Null, I agree with you, but it isn't you he's smearing,"

You don't get it. He wants to bait you into a marathon of mindless back and forth about who said what and why and bla bla bla. The troll lives for that. Ask BuffaloBob.

2. I've denigrated war veteran's service record for political gain...

I proved that and your prompt reply was that you wouldn't apologize as promised.

Or do you deny that you denigrated Bush 41 or that he is a war vet? LOL

Why do you lie so much, woke? Why do you repeat the same lies? That is truly pathetic. You need to get that pathos examined the next time your shrink addresses you PTSD issues. Is pathological lying a symptom of PTSD?

Ask BuffaloBob.

bOoB, dull, and joke. A triumvirate of idiots if there ever was one. LOL

Oh, I get it Null,

I've been posting on blogs since 04. On newshounds.us, the same kind of diversionary, stalking trolls existed and they did something about it using the trolls IP addresses.

Thanks for your concern.

Your point is well taken.

I believe anyone reading this blog can clearly see who backs up their assertions with facts and who cannot do so.

Nuff said.

Fox Again Uses Old Footage To Beef Up Crowd Numbers -- This Time For Palin

During a short segment about Palin "drawing crowds" on the tour, Fox played several clips that are obviously from rallies on the campaign trail last year. While the clips played, host Gregg Jarrett said, "These are some of the pictures just coming in to us. ... There's a crowd of folks."

To be fair, this could have been an honest mistake of the wrong footage playing at the wrong time.

But it's notable when just last week, Jon Stewart caught Fox News personality Sean Hannity using footage from the 9/12 rally in order to show the "huge crowds" at the much less-attended Capitol Hill tea party this month. Hannity then issued an on-air apology to Stewart.

It's also worth nothing that while Hannity counts as one of Fox's opinion programmers, Jarrett is one of their straight news guys.

It's also worth nothing that while Hannity counts as one of Fox's opinion programmers, Jarrett is one of their straight news guys.
#314 | POSTED BY DOC_SARVIS AT 2009-11-19 08:45 AM

straight news on fox?

Naw, they went to court and won a case suppporting their "right" to lie and misinform.....propagandize for the failed neocons...real "news" would not do such a thing.

faux neocon network

Think Progress is a great site that documents right wing lies/misinformation. Mediamatters does an even better job.
Both provide actual transcripts of all rw bias in corporate msm.

But newshounds.us focuses soley on outing faux neocon network lies.

Ever see "Outfoxed" which documents all their lies/misinformation in the runup to the iraqnam invasion? The eight ladies who studied faux for that documentary then started newshounds.us.

Check em out and stop by the forum. No registration needed to post on the mains and you won't see any of the (ahem) troll droppings seen here.

Always appreciate your posts, Doc

Will do, Woke. Thanks for the tip.

To be fair, this could have been an honest mistake of the wrong footage playing at the wrong time.

A mistake is a mistake.

However, there is a pattern of Faux doing this and any respectible news organization if caught doing this would make damn well sure they would not do it again.

They have to be extremely stupid to believe they can get away with this knowing that people will be double checking them based on their prior "mistakes".

WOKE -
When you say "forum," which do you mean? Newshounds?

Palin On Muslims In The Military After Fort Hood: I Say, Profile Away'

I've been posting on blogs since 04

Got you beat by 20 years.

Or maybe our govt ought to "profile" and incarcerate those who denigrate our country's finest=our war veterans?

I'm sure Mrs. Palin would support that.....especially if the war vet gave up his legs and an arm for his country.

I'm sure Mrs. Palin would support that.....especially if the war vet gave up his legs and an arm for his country.

#323 | Posted by woke at 2009-11-19 09:43 AM | Reply

Speaking of legs, I bet Cleland was looking at her legs on that cover and thinking "Fuck! I wish I hadn't shot my own legs off in Vietnam! I'm so stupid! I'd like to pull my hair out right now but it would take me twice as long as somebody with 2 arms!"

Tell us again how you're personal friends with that man even though you've never met him or had contact with him in any way, shape, or form. Come on, I can't wait to point and laugh at you some more, retard.

Or maybe our govt ought to "profile" and incarcerate those who denigrate our country's finest=our war veterans

You really want to go to jail that badly, woke?

Excerpt: 'Heart of a Patriot'
by MAX CLELAND

Foreword

An Open Letter to America's Veterans

America sends the flower of its youth abroad to fight its wars. Because of that, America's military is always staffed with the stoutest, finest, most courageous people in the country.

read the rest here, then buy the book:

read the rest here, then buy the book:

www.npr.org

and oh, yeah, if you got nuthin new to say, stfu...eh?

#62 | Posted by woke at 2009-11-03 04:00 PM |

If enough people buy the book, will Cleland's legs grow back?

Does he talk about Kerry shooting that unarmed mentally challenged vietnemese kid in the back? How about the time Kerry lied about being in Cambodia on Christmas Eve? It was seared in his memory, don't ya know.

I like Palin for a variety of reasons. One core reason is that she gives off the same 'vibe' as Reagan.
.......#9 | Posted by USAF242

......you mean the Alzheimeresque fog ?.......

....I get that "early-onset" vibe from her also....

The more I read the anti-Palin arguments, the more I want her to be President.

When the anti-Palin folks try and focus on some piece of information they think will end their Alaskan nightmare, all it does tell about the anti-Palin folks themselves and what they are limited to.

Sarah Palin "IS" a moderately quirky conservative soccer mom with the gumption to seek public office.

Its that simple. She ACTS LIKE exactly WHAT SHE IS.

She ACTS LIKE exactly WHAT SHE IS.
.....#330 | Posted by USAF242

......she is a simpleton.......

....unfit for public office.....she could'nt handle being governer of a state with a smaller population than my TOWN......had to quit, cause she fucked it up so bad, all the ethics investigations were going to bury her..........

Where did you go, joke? Maybe you're taking a walk with Max Cleland...

I "WANT" an argry conservative soccer mom running Washington. If the leftist view her as a 'simpleton', that probably means "brushes off the bullshit issues to get at the meat of the real issues".

I "WANT" an argry conservative soccer mom running Washington.

#333 | POSTED BY USAF242 AT 2009-11-19 10:54 AM

That's a keeper and one of the reasons those neocon failures were put in office twice, eh?

No one is forcing you to look at Newsweek. There is no ethical issue involved here!

#154 | Posted by Monstman at 2009-11-18 02:19 PM | Reply | Flag

nonsense....

and an even more in depth look into this piece of trash can liner is the line itself..

the "PROBLEM" of sarah.......

she IS a problem all right..for liberals everywhere.

And you really have to laugh at the idea that she claims that everything that happens to her was ordained by God while simultaneously writing a book that blames everything that happened during the campaign on other people. But weren't they just acting out God's will, Sarah?

But she did pose for those pictures. If she's going to now claim it's sexist...why would she pose like that in the first place?

#155 | Posted by Lisa at 2009-11-18

so the fact that it was for runner's world makes no difference to you that newsweek put it there to attack her and to further demean her?

hhhhmmmmmm

interesting

I would think a woman would be upset that they used that image to depict a woman
AH BUt the difference is simple....if she were liberal you and NOW would be enraged at the obvious sexism

"But weren't they just acting out God's will, Sarah?"

Ah, well, therein lies the rub. That's why Jesuits will never completely disappear, those knotty questions about divine omniscience, free will, the Trinity, and how many pixies can prance on the head of a Rollerball pen.

Newsweek should have used her college photo.
Of course, they would have needed six different
covers.

This is the picture that Newsweek really wanted to use.

#241 | Posted by Hagbard_Celine

I feel confident that you know that this pic is doctored.which tells us even more about the total fear that the dems and libs have of this woman

I would think a woman would be upset that they used that image to depict a woman
AH BUt the difference is simple....if she were liberal you and NOW would be enraged at the obvious sexism
#337 | Posted by afkabl2

It know it's hopeless, but here's a reality check for you:

Sarah Palin posed for that picture. She knows what cheesecake is. Hell, she thrives on it.

If the leftist view her as a 'simpleton', that probably means "brushes off the bullshit issues to get at the meat of the real issues".
......#333 | Posted by USAF242

.......yeah.....like stalking her ex-brother-in-law......

......ripping off the state by filing false per diem reports, filing for false travel allowances.......

.......yup.....sounds like a Republican that Republicans can be proud of.......

"Sarah Palin posed for that picture."

As a runner, for Runner's World.

Newsweek usually shoots its own covers. Buying another magazine's photo to put on their cover is bush league.

I feel confident that you know that this pic is doctored.which tells us even more about the total fear that the dems and libs have of this woman
Posted by afkabl2

Yes, I'm aware of that. The first two sites the image came from where debunking websites. I chose an alternative on purpose.

"I feel confident that you know that this pic is doctored.which tells us even more about the total fear that the dems and libs have of this woman"

Typical rightwing projection, they are noted for this. No, dear winger dems don't fear Palin,they consider her a joke, actually they laugh at her!

The "libs are afraid of Palin" line is beyond ludicrous. For the Left, she's a gift that just keeps on giving.

I think the problem for some of the posters here is that while their perception of Obama is clearly ruled by some form of psychosis, they, too, sense that she's a poor vehicle for returning to power; more like a time bomb just waiting to blow up in their faces.

Sarah Palin posed for that picture. She knows what cheesecake is. Hell, she thrives on it.

#341 | Posted by Doc_Sarvis at 2009

and maybe you will finnaly get it

there is a difference between runners world photos and newsweek..

do you think she would have agreed to pose that way for newsweek???

I think not.
and the attempt at demeaning her by meacum and newsweek is obvious.

then the AP doesnt need to use 11 people scouring the book for anything they can find and reports are that they have also sent out people to contact all of the people in the book she talks about.
when was the last time that shit happened.

and as the other site asks...will the AP do the same investigations into al gores claims and FUND RAISING crap?
I wouldnt look for it if I were you.

#346 | Posted by Doc_Sarvis

The more I hear her talk, the more I agree.

She had some nice accomplishments as governor, she has a set of politics that resonate with >50% of America, and she is capable of delivering a very good prepared speech.

She needs to drop this 'folksy'-lingo.

She needs to downplay her family - it's cool to display the family to a point. However, when it becomes central it morphs into a soap-opera.

She needs to get her facts straight.

When interviewed, she needs to slow-down a bit and answer the proposed question without rambling off-topic.

She has a long way to go before becoming an influential national figure IMO.

336
"But weren't they just acting out God's will, Sarah?"

Ah, well, therein lies the rub. That's why Jesuits will never completely disappear, those knotty questions about divine omniscience, free will, the Trinity, and how many pixies can prance on the head of a Rollerball pen.

#338 | POSTED BY DOC_SARVIS AT 2009-11-19 11:12 AM

Not to mention all the WHINING.....does God love whiners?

Mat 5:11
Blessed are ye, when [men] shall revile you, and persecute [you], and shall say all manner of evil against you falsely, for my sake.

Luk 6:22
Blessed are ye, when men shall hate you, and when they shall separate you [from their company], and shall reproach [you], and cast out your name as evil, for the Son of man's sake.

One has to wonder which Bible the evangelical fundies like SP read, eh?

one palin issue from libs

death panels

hmmm

GOVT TASK FORCE previews obamacare rationing with release that woman under age of 50 dont need the mamograms as they have previously talked about.

a GOVT Panel which by the way had NO ONCOLOGISTS or RADIOLOGISTS on it..,.

again..a little foreshadowing perhaps??????

hhhhhhhhmmmmmmmmmmm

More bullshit from the babbler..

LMFAO

These wingnuts are foaming at the mouth trying to make Obama look as bad as their neocon heroes....only, they don't bother waiting until the failure occurs.....eh?

If it wasn't so pathetic, it would be funny.

and yet
if you are wrong, women will die

if IM wrong you will just rant on a little more.
which one would be better for the country???

AND WHAT are you doing up

I didnt think "you people' could get around in the sunlight.

"We got the Babe."

Much ado, as usual from the babbler.....desperate for something/anything to paint Obama negatively....

Wednesday, Nov 18, 2009 @02:27pm CST
(Washington, DC) -- The Secretary of Health and Human Services is distancing herself from controversial new federal advisory board recommendations on mammograms.

Kathleen Sebelius said the guidelines from the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force are not part of government policy.

She said mammograms are still an important life-saving tool and advised women to speak to their doctors about the frequency of the diagnostic procedure.

The new guidelines say women in their 40s shouldn't get routine mammograms for diagnosis of breast cancer.

Sebelius stated she would be "very surprised" if private insurance companies change mammography coverage decisions as a result of the proposal.

(Copyright 2009 by VERTEXNews/Newsroom Solutions)

'Goatman is a bullshit artist, rw trolleyboy and war vet denigrator.'

#295 | Posted by woke

Stop wasting time on this POS troll, Woke!

'Goatman is a bullshit artist, rw trolleyboy and war vet denigrator.'

#295 | Posted by woke

hmm --- all those labels apply to you too, woke, but we can add "liar" and "hypocrite" to your list. You beat me. I'll bet you are proud. LOL

You know seeing as how COMPalin bitched and moaned about the hairlip on the Newsweek cover LAST year one wonders WHY she agreed to ANOTHER cover photo for this year?

#1 | Posted by Doc_Sarvis

I'm just curious.

Why does the Left hate intelligent, beautiful, and successful women?

I thought that the left supported this idea!

Eddie thinks a woman who cannot cite which magazines and books she reads, spent time in 6 different colleges and thinks being able to see russia from her home in the far distant tundra is foreign policy experience....

Now, that's funny right there, I don't care who you are....

But, judging from the rw comments on this thread, that is what is left of the once proud republican party...eh?

LOL

She is hot! Women should worry more about the way they look and stay out of politics. Cudos to NW.

She is hot! Women should worry more about the way they look and stay out of politics. Cudos to NW.

She is hot! Women should worry more about the way they look and stay out of politics. Cudos to NW.

She is hot! Women should worry more about the way they look and stay out of politics. Cudos to NW.

It's probably about time to remove the "News" from Newsweek.

#4 | Posted by SpokaneJim at 2009-11-17 04:46 PM | Reply | Flag:

I disagree. If any change in name is due, it should be to "Newsweak."

I actually found a copy of Newsweek at the check-out; it is so skinny and they want like $3.95 for it - who the heck buys this crap?

I actually found a copy of Newsweek at the check-out; it is so skinny and they want like $3.95 for it - who the heck buys this crap?

Subscribers. It is $24/yr or < 50c/copy

We use Newsweek to line our hamster cages and they keep on dying.

When we asked our vet what was up he told us even hamsters can only take so much crap.

Palin's tour of the hotbeds of 'conservatism' began in Hanky Fork, Mississippi today. Next: Fosure, Idaho

Doc Sarvis

Just saw your post sorry.

Yes, newshounds.us has both a mains section, where the owners post the lies/misinformation/inanity of faux neocon network and anyone can comment with no registration. However, there is a delay since all comments are moderated by a code that removes trolls=those there only to divert threads off topic, attack other posters or otherwise act badly. Repeat offenders are banned by IP, location, etc. Moderation is done by volunteers who follow a script and a list of known trolls. At one time, newshounds was infested much like this blog, but now actual, civil debate on issues occur without all the troll droppings.

However, there is a forum also, where anyone who registers can post, make their own threads and it is not moderated like the mains.

attack other posters or otherwise act badly... but now actual, civil debate on issues occur without all the troll droppings.

I saw the most where the moderator (what was her name) dropped you for acting badly, woke. I also heard that you denigrated a war vet there simply because of his politics -- something you claim you never do. Of course we all on the DR know that is a lie since you denigrate Bush 41 frequently.

Why do you lie so much, woke?