Wow she tweets she is on the bus yet then says she just landed. She is a real piece of work.
Here is just part of the article.
On Nov. 24, Palin's Twitter feed, @SarahPalinUSA, said she was on the bus to Jacksonville, Fla. Matched with the flight plan for the jet, this implies she flew from Birmingham to Jacksonville to Orlando the night before, and then took the bus from Orlando back to Jacksonville 140 miles north early the next morning.
But while her Twitter feed reveals some curious trip planning, it doesn't try to hide the fact that she was both on the ground and in the air during her book tour.
On Nov. 21 at 6:48 p.m. she tweeted, "Just got off flt/got word of Senate's disappointing action..." Another tweet three hours later references having "Landed in VA..."
My distaste for this is that she claims to be on a "bus tour" & claims to be a "hockey mom" keeping things simple. She even sold Alaska's jet but as a private citizen that it what she requires = she can't ride the bus....seems as if she says one thing and does another.
Are you claming she never rode the bus? I don't think so. It's her publisher that's dictating her schedule and subsequent travel requirements. She not running for office. She's trying to make money.
The Barracuda sold this as a "Bus Tour" to see American and be one of the people, not a jet setting Pol.
To further the illusion, the Barracuda gave televised interviews from the bus, including one to Greta Van Susteren en route to Fort Bragg.
Be real, she ain't hiding, she's just "projecting the image". Right???
all the while consuming more energy than a thousand average Americans.
I've got an idea, let's give Sarah Palin a Nobel Peace Prize as well.
What a fucking news flash, a politician is trying to be "one of the people" while on a promotion tour. Big fucking Deal.
Is anyone stupid enough to think that only conservatives do this? Speaking of stupid, Hey, Willie, what are your thoughts on the subject??? lmfao
The lefties act like the righties are the only ones guilty of it, and the righties do the same in reverse.
Just once, I would like to see one of these so called independents call out the hypocrisy of their own party. You will never see someone like Eddie or Willy openly criticizing the Dems, nor will you see RWU or TJ criticizing the Reps, unless its for not going far enough.
Despite all their arguments to the contrary, there are very few discussions here that have anyone breaking party ranks. So much for independent thought.
But I HAVE been critical of the dems. Not often, I'll admit, but if I disagree with them on some point, I'll readily admit it.
And you may be misunderstanding some of my points... there are times that I don't agree with dems/liberals, but I will defend them not for their position, but against ridiculous charges by the consevatives; For example, I don't think the current health plan as written is a good one, but I don't think it will lead to a lot of the doom-saying of the right; and I AM in favor or some sort of universal healthcare. So I'm not defending the dems plan as a good one, I'm defending it against absurdist claims by the cons. It's not the same thing, and if you search my posts regarding it you'll find that in NOT one of them do I say that I think the dems plan is a good one.
Defending liberal ideals in general and defending specific liberal proposals in specific are two entirely different things.
You always take the liberal position, your lukewarm criticism of specific points notwithstanding, you are a complete and total lib.
I consider myself an independent, and you can find dozens, actually hundreds of posts I have made critical of Republicans and the Republican side of an issue. Can you honestly say the same?
hold up gg...I HATE BIG GOVT ..dems or REPS, if you go back to talulajones69 you see me hammering bush..THE LIBS HAVE ALL THE POWER NOW!!! SO NO THEY GET IT....But im more anti-govt, OR ANTI BIG GOVT, than I am anti DEM or REP
-- Modified on 12/2/2009 11:48:02 AM
I will cede your point however, you have started posts critical of Bush and I have seen them. You might be a conservative, but you have more credence as an independent than do any of the libs here including FastEddie.
Your spelling, grammar, and propensity for hyperbole are a matter for another thread however. lol
Also, you know I share your views where it comes to Big Government.
I consider myself an indy, I vote Indy too...I WOULD VOTE IN A DEM, if they weren't a LIB, and they were the best guy or gal for the job..as I would vote in another independent, or rep..IF I THINK THEY'RE BEST!!!
-- Modified on 12/3/2009 5:08:27 AM
Unlike many (most) on this board, I have voted for candidates from both parties at every level, up to and including the POTUS.
See we agree on a lot of things once you drop the hysterical act. lol
Big news... I've never denied it. But being a liberal doesn't mean an inability to think for one's self, despite what TJ may think.
Does the fact that you're an "independent" make your opinions automatically superior to a liberal's? Of for that matter, if your answer to that is yes, then you'd have to follow with your opinions are superior to a conservative's as well.
You keep responding to my posts as if they're specifically directed towards you, when in fact I find your opinions generally well thought out, even if I don't agree with them. I almost never challEnge your facts; and only occasionally challenge your opinions unless they were a direct response to one of mine.
Now, you said "you can find dozens, actually hundreds of posts I have made critical of Republicans and the Republican side of an issue."
OK, let me ask you this... How many of those posts were INITIALED by you, sine that's the criteria you've placed on me?
first off, of the thousands of posts I have made only a handful were initiated by me, while you initiate posts several times on a typical day. That said, of the posts I have initiated I would wager at least 20% of them would be considered critical of a typical Republican's position, mainly to do with matters like abortion and religious freedom, 30% were critical of liberal positions, and there other half were neither liberal or conservative in nature.
Secondly I refer to you as a liberal partly because you refer to yourself as one. It's not liberals per se that I look down on, it's partisans. You have claimed since your first day here to not be a partisan, yet your posts almost exclusively follow the Democratic party line.
Yes I do believe that the opinion of an independent is superior to that of either a Democrat or a Republican. Notice that I did not say liberal or conservative. I believe that being either a Democrat or a Republican "does" mean an inability to think for one's self. Unfortunately to even be a Libertarian requires loss of independent thinking.
When you first came on this board you admitted to being a liberal, but claimed to be of an open mind and promised to be even handed in your criticisms of political behavior. So far I haven't seen the even handedness you promised. If I didn't think you were capable of better, I wouldn't bust your chops about it.
Actually, most of the posts I initiate are issues that I have an interest in. I believe in global warming... that fact that other liberals do is insignificant to me.
I think FOX news is not only biased but mean spirited. I know, I know... they ALL are, people respond; but I don't think that the other news networks are anywhere near as mean-spirited about it, so I rant. Belive me, if there was a liberal cable news network that as a whole was as bad, I'd point that out as well. I also think Keith Olberman is as bad as Beck, but he's just one guy; you can't compare MSNBC to FOX.
Also, a lot of the posts I initiate are simply observations, much like the OP of this thread. I simply made a true statement. I didn't name any names of make any conclusions. I don't editorialize about them, and often I post them to get a reaction more than anything else. They may be posts that point out the falicies of the right rather than the left, but hey, I'm a liberal... it's not my job to point out the liberal's faux pas'.
I DO have an open mind... even RWU thinks I'm a closet conservative - lol. Many of the topics discussed here have made me question my original beliefs. They may not have changed my mind, but they've made me more receptive to the idea that I need to look deeper into the specific issue. I just find it hard to be even-handed when replying to the likes of TJ, MD, howard5 or quadseasonal and one or two others.
But also consider this... maybe you "independent thinkers" need to be more critial of the nutcases regardless of political ideology so they may also have an epiphany that maybe, just maybe they need to rethink their position on certain issues... I'm not saying that they don't occasionally have a good point, but when they're really out there, independents and even moderate conservative should excoriate them for it, not just the liberals.
Still, maybe you're right... maybe I haven't been as even-handed as I should be. I'll try do do less neo-con baiting in the future.
," all of the spelling and grammatically challanged ones are on the right? "
Notice you did not use the word "most" or "many", you quite plainly said "all", that is not only an inaccurate statement as I pointed out to deafening silence, it is also an inflammatory one, designed to provoke. Your arguement to the contrary as disengenuous and you know it.
I don't mind you responding to posters like TJ in kind with the way she posts, but if you read my posts you can't argue with the fact that I do take the "nutcases" to task regardless of party affiliation. I have stated here on mulitple occassions that I don't like either the Republican or the Democratic parties, and the truth of the matter is, I don't like the Libertarian party either. They all discourage independent thought.
For spending too much money.
Not using his veto power enough.
Not recognizing soon enough that Iraq need change.
I guess I could rephrase all those using sentences implementing a "not far enough", but it really wouldn't be the same
So, she goes by bus and plane. What's the big deal?
More obsession over Palin by those that claim they hate her. What would you people do if she weren't around?
To me it's online spewing of inconsequential details by self-absorbed people with too much time on their hands. Nevertheless, they are being funded by some Silicon Valley venture capital group. Other than getting a piece of the SMS traffic, I gotta assume their is a future revenue stream I haven't figured out.
but the MSM seems intent on cramming it down our throats. I don't know a single person who "twitters" and I know several young women barely out of their teens. If twenty year olds aren't using it, then who the fuck is?
Who would give a shit about kids in college connecting with each other, but now businesses use Facebook to expand their business. Who knows? Maybe Google will buy them. But after the past couple of years of Spitzer, Sanford, Edwards, Philips, Woods, my advice to the pigs on this board (and yes that includes me), is avoid any forms of electronic media.
Linkedin is still primarily a true business social networking site, and void of all the crap of Facebook. Businesses and professionals tend to use Linkedin more for candidate searches. Plus I can understand their business model better than Twitter. Seems like everybody on planet earth is on Facebook, so it really depends upon the company, its product/service, and audience it wants to attract. A lot of large corporate entities use Facebook as a supplement to background investigations.
-- Modified on 12/2/2009 1:58:57 PM
give head at the same time.
Advertising is the most common business model for anything internet so that is always a annoying possibility.
Or, like the neighborhood drug dealer, they can start charging for the service once they feel they have addicted enough users.
The third revenue stream discussed on CNBC was googlesque- sell the right to companies to mine data extracted from the users.
But as far as I know they like You tube do not make any money - it is just a question of burn rate till the VC start to balk. Then they will have to make a decision as to the business model.
Seriously, Palin isn't even a has-been, she's more like a never was. Sure, she created alot of excitement when McCain first picked her. Hell, I was singing her praises too. Then it turned out she didn't really quite say no to the "bridge to nowhere" as was first reported. Turns out she only said no after it became clear that the bridge wasn't going to be fully funded by earmarks. After that, it was clear she was no different from any other politician after all, and my support for her evaporated as quickly as it came.
Palin has absolutely zero chance of winning even a single primary, let alone the nomination. Furthermore, she has zero chance of being picked as anyone's VP. So I just have to ask, why are you people still humping her leg?
About the only thing she can do is keep the conservative base together and focused until the election cycle hits full swing and a real, electable candidate with similar stances and appeal comes along.
Palin can't beat the Dems but someone not quite as folksy, from a bigger state and with a little more media moxey could certainly ruffle a few Dems' feathers.
I used to think the same thing, until this book tour.
The fact is the Americans vote for celebrities, often because they're the only names the recognize...
Arnold Swartzenegger (sp?), Gov. of California; Jesse Ventura, Gov. of Minnesota; several sports figures like Bill Bradley, senator from NJ; and Jack Kemp,, New York congressman to name a few examples.
I believe that had Martin Sheen run for president during the West Wing days, and gotten Adam Sorkin to write his speeches for him, he'd have won in a landslide; And I'm not kidding about this.
Never underestimate the political stupidity of most Americans...
If Palin keeps in front of the cameras from now until 2012 and doesn't do anything REALLY stupid, don't count her out.
Fasteddie's right. We should fear Palin as anyone who is that stupid, that illiterate, that arrogant and that egotistical is bound to follow in Bush's footsteps into the White House!
She'd fuck things up even worst than old "W" did, too.
See, you just proved what an ignorant sheep you are. Palin is neither stupid, nor illiterate (are you aware you repeated yourself there?). As to arrogant and egotistical, since I do not know her personally, I can't really draw an intelligent conclusion one way or another. Neither can you. And are you aware that you repeated yourself there as well?
Who exactly is the ignorant one here?
While obviously not illerate, I would agree that she's not stupid, but I would say that she isn't very smart. Then again, G.W.Bush was very smart either, and still he got elected (technically, at least) twice.
Well, you do have a bit of a point there. Hell, the last couple of elections I keep checking the ballot hopefully for the name Bartlett. I'd vote for him. If more Democrats were like Jed Bartlett, I'd like them a whole lot better 
As far as Palin goes though, I'm not all that concerned. I keep a close eye on lots of different polls, not just the mainstream ones. What I'm seeing is finally giving me a little bit of hope that the Republican Party might actually be coming back to reality. Notice that little 10 point checklist mentioned recently in the news and on this board only touched on the "family value" BS briefly with the statement about supporting DOMA, and including gov't funding for abortion in a sweeping statement about health care. That's why even I could score a 90% on it.
So although I do not at all undersestimate the power of stupidity in large groups, I do not believe Palin has any shot whatsoever.
The only reason she maintains any relevancy at all is because Dems keep her in the spotlight.
Stupidity in large groups is a given. Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid and all major religions are proof of it, but not even the collective stupidity of all of America could elect Sarah Palin to national office as the lead candidate. Her performance as a polarizing candidate, whose fault is irrelevant, in the last election was her kiss of doom