DescentBB

Glenn Beck, of all people, actually said it to her face! Palin tried stalling him because she couldn't think of the name of even ONE Founding Father when he asked the question \"Who's your favorite Founder?\" Doh!

Palin the Airhead

.

Why should we defend her?

1 - She's clearly going after some things to 'cement' her own future ... and it doesn't bode well for a future in politics.

2 - Glen Beck (despite the millions who adore him) makes his living out of trying to show the weaknesses and downfalls of politicians and political efforts (with the intent of trying to help the general public).

... So when he manages to make a public \"hole\" with a currently high profile person ... It's only \"business as usual\".

I give it a \"Meh\"

Makes me wonder how she would score on the test immigrants have to pass to become citizens..

Hearing her speak makes me want to give more of my money to Obama. It's like a reflex or somthin' *shrug*

Gooberman wrote:Hearing her speak makes me want to give more of my money to Obama. It's like a reflex or somthin' *shrug*

When you voted for him you gave up your right to it anyway so I guess it's the right thing for all Obama voters to do.

i didn't hear a voice.

i heard fingers on a blackboard.

While her reply was disappointing, still we all have momentary lapses. Take away Obama's teleprompter and I suspect you would any number of head scratching replies. Far better in my view point, would be to have someone like Palin in office that may not know every detail of our constitution and who participated in forming it, to someone who knows all the details very well but thinks it is a \"living breathing document\" and formable to any agenda by what ever power block is in office.

Grendel wrote:Makes me wonder how she would score on the test immigrants have to pass to become citizens..

THAT would be a most excellent experiment to pull on ALL politicians.

Imagine, just go up to capitol hill and take the house, the senate, the president, vp, and perhaps even the judicial branch. Sit them all in front of the test, then report the results to the public.

Wow!

Will Robinson wrote: When you voted for him you gave up your right to it anyway so I guess it's the right thing for all Obama voters to do.

Agree!

woodchip wrote:While her reply was disappointing, still we all have momentary lapses. Take away Obama's teleprompter and I suspect you would any number of head scratching replies. Far better in my view point, would be to have someone like Palin in office that may not know every detail of our constitution and who participated in forming it, to someone who knows all the details very well but thinks it is a "living breathing document" and formable to any agenda by what ever power block is in office.

Also Agree!

woodchip wrote:While her reply was disappointing, still we all have momentary lapses. Take away Obama's teleprompter and I suspect you would any number of head scratching replies. Far better in my view point, would be to have someone like Palin in office that may not know every detail of our constitution and who participated in forming it, to someone who knows all the details very well but thinks it is a "living breathing document" and formable to any agenda by what ever power block is in office.

Oh come on! She could have said "George Washington" or even "John Adams" off the top of her head if she'd learned ANYTHING in American History class! All she could sputter was "ALL OF THEM" to try and cover her ignorant butt. Maybe she slept through that class or skipped school that day. Woodchip, she knows absolutely NOTHING about ANYTHING from what I've heard from her! Every speech or interview she's given is a rambling trash heap!

Yes, Obama uses the teleprompter crutch, I agree there. He obviously has trouble with public speaking. He tends to sprinkle "umms" and "ohhhs' around when he talks off script. But at least he can usually come up with a cogent answer when asked a question. Palin AWAYS tries to bluff her way out of revealing her ignorance instead of just showing some humility when she doesn't KNOW the answer to a question. It's called 'not wanting to tell the truth' to advance her public persona.

Obama is bad enough with his butt kissing favoritism for the special corporate interests lurking around Washington, but Palin as president would be an absolute nightmare. She would toss out the Constitution all together as an inconvenient power restriction to the executive office.

tunnelcat wrote:Glenn Beck, of all people, actually said it to her face! Palin tried stalling him because she couldn't think of the name of even ONE Founding Father when he asked the question "Who's your favorite Founder?" Doh!

I don't quite get what you're talking about. Did you even click on the link you posted? Palin settles fairly quickly on Washington as the central founding father, among the group of "all of them". Arguments can be made for any of Madison, Adams, Jefferson, Franklin or Hamilton, and probably others. As Palin points out, it was Washington that proved to be the provident central character in those early days - hardly an ignorant answer at all.

tunnelcat wrote:She would toss out the Constitution all together as an inconvenient power restriction to the executive office.

You means kind of like Obama and his team are trying to do right now?

If Palin ever became President there would be a nuclear war within six months.

.

I have \"momentary lapses\" everyday too. I don't think she's as \"polished\" as the rest and may be more like me and you than anyone else there. I'm tired of people listening to crap just because it sounds good and it's eloquently put. Answer me this. How many people do you know like Obama and how many do you know like Palin? I would guess more than likely most people you know are more like Palin than Obama is. His speeches are \"ear tickling\" and \"obscured\" by his carefully chosen words. Someone that speaks from the heart may not have an answer immediately but at least you know when they answer they meant what they said. Unlike most that prepare themselves constantly to always have an \"acceptable\" answer. No I think we need \"real\" representatives. People more like me and you. Not people who have learned how to gain a \"following\".

Is George Washington even one of the founding fathers? He was the first POTUS sure, but a founding father? I always viewed the Founders as the guys who wrote and signed the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution. Maybe I'm wrong, I've never professed to being a history buff.

Dedman wrote:Is George Washington even one of the founding fathers? He was the first POTUS sure, but a founding father? I always viewed the Founders as the guys who wrote and signed the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution. Maybe I'm wrong, I've never professed to being a history buff.

George Washington was indeed a founding father as he was a constitutional delegate to the Constitutional Convention from the state of Virginia:

http://www.archives.gov/exhibits/charte ... thers.html

Fair enough. See, you can learn something new every day.

And there you thought I was just another pretty face.

dissent wrote:I don't quite get what you're talking about. Did you even click on the link you posted? Palin settles fairly quickly on Washington as the central founding father, among the group of "all of them". Arguments can be made for any of Madison, Adams, Jefferson, Franklin or Hamilton, and probably others. As Palin points out, it was Washington that proved to be the provident central character in those early days - hardly an ignorant answer at all.

Yep, she did mention Washington near the end of the clip, I missed it the first time. I'll admit my mistake, unlike Palin. I do notice that it took her a little bit of jawing to come up with his name, but of course it's the most common name people remember! But it shows that she has the need to BS FIRST as a stalling tactic whenever she can't come up with an answer right away. She could have looked Beck in the eye and said "Let me think for a moment on who I think was the most influential", but instead she had to blurt out "All of them" in an attempt to cover her bases and not come off as complete idiot! If you listen to her whenever she speaks, she fills most of her little pontifications with nonsensical sing-song filler and absolutely no substance. All potatoes and no meat. If the Republicans want to run a woman for president, get someone with half-an-ounce of brains for our country's sake!

dissent wrote:

tunnelcat wrote:She would toss out the Constitution all together as an inconvenient power restriction to the executive office.

You means kind of like Obama and his team are trying to do right now?

If you're referring to the 'czars' that he's appointed, Obama's not the first president to use them, he's just doing the same as our last president. I didn't hear the Republicans gripe one wit about the constitutionality of the 35 czars Bush appointed in his 2 terms. So why is it subverting the Constitution when Obama's doing it NOW (38 czars)?

CZARS

The only other thing I can think of is that mandate to buy health insurance in the present health care bill. I DO agree with you that piece of crap proposed law IS a subversion the constitution! It's forcing us to buy EXPENSIVE private-for-profit insurance just in order to LIVE in this country! Please enlighten me if I've missed something else Obama's done that's subverting the Constitution, other than the illegal stuff he's still allowing on his watch that lil' Bushie started originally in the name of anti-terrorism/security.

tunnelcat wrote:If the Republicans want to run [..] for president, get someone with half-an-ounce of brains for our country's sake!

But, but, that would break the tradition .. !

If someone asked me who my favorite founding father was…I would have to take a minute to think, do I even have a favorite founding father, I sure wouldn’t simply blurt one out, just to prove I knew one.

I have a favorite color…ice cream, but I don’t recall having a favorite founding father…

After some thinking, I would have to go with Ben Franklin…but, I had to actually create a favorite to answer the question.

Some people really know how to create a whole lot of something, from a whole lot of nothing.

Will Robinson wrote: When you voted for him you gave up your right to it anyway so I guess it's the right thing for all Obama voters to do.

I did think you would drive that one a bit further.

I didn't find her answer that wrong, off the top of my head I couldn't name a favorite founding father either!

It's the way she speaks, a shotgun blast full of buzz-words, that is just difficult to listen to. Yes, all politicians rely on them -- but with her its pretty much the only thing your hit with.

tunnelcat wrote:

dissent wrote:

tunnelcat wrote:She would toss out the Constitution all together as an inconvenient power restriction to the executive office.

You means kind of like Obama and his team are trying to do right now?

If you're referring to the 'czars' that he's appointed, Obama's not the first president to use them, he's just doing the same as our last president. I didn't hear the Republicans gripe one wit about the constitutionality of the 35 czars Bush appointed in his 2 terms. So why is it subverting the Constitution when Obama's doing it NOW (38 czars)?

CZARS

The only other thing I can think of is that mandate to buy health insurance in the present health care bill. I DO agree with you that piece of crap proposed law IS a subversion the constitution! It's forcing us to buy EXPENSIVE private-for-profit insurance just in order to LIVE in this country! Please enlighten me if I've missed something else Obama's done that's subverting the Constitution, other than the illegal stuff he's still allowing on his watch that lil' Bushie started originally in the name of anti-terrorism/security.

actually my first thought was how he stole GM and Chrysler from the stock holders that owned it and gave it to the Unions.

and when he took on his position of chairman of the security council with the UN

Section 9 of the Constitution says:

No Title of Nobility shall be granted by the United States: And no Person holding any Office of Profit or Trust under them, shall, without the Consent of the Congress, accept of any present, Emolument, Office, or Title, of any kind whatever, from any King, Prince, or foreign State.

and when he appointed Hillary to be SOS immediately after she had voted as a Senator to give the position a pay increase.

Article 1, Section 6 of the U.S. Constitution:

No Senator or Representative shall, during the Time for which he was elected, be appointed to any civil Office under the Authority of the United States which shall have been created, or the Emoluments whereof shall have been increased during such time…"

and Sixteen days into his tenure, signed an executive order limiting executive compensation for companies who receive TARP funding from the Treasury Department. a violation of

Article I, Section 10 of the U.S. Constitution which reads "No State shall... make any... Law impairing Obligation of Contracts".

shall I go on????????

Cuda, I'd be interested if anyone takes any of the three items you pointed out to the courts.

woodchip wrote:Cuda, I'd be interested if anyone takes any of the three items you pointed out to the courts.

that will probably never happen. and since the DNC has complete controll over the government there will never be any form of congressional investigation either.
but TC said

Please enlighten me if I've missed something else Obama's done that's subverting the Constitution

so these are just 4 quick things I could remember I can look up the constitutional violation of the GM, Chrysler fiasco if you'd like.

tunnelcat wrote:

woodchip wrote:While her reply was disappointing, still we all have momentary lapses. Take away Obama's teleprompter and I suspect you would any number of head scratching replies. Far better in my view point, would be to have someone like Palin in office that may not know every detail of our constitution and who participated in forming it, to someone who knows all the details very well but thinks it is a "living breathing document" and formable to any agenda by what ever power block is in office.

Oh come on! She could have said "George Washington"...

And she would have been wrong in many peoples eyes since George isn't counted among those who actually authored the documents...and you can bet that distinction would have become gospel to every liberal the minute it could be used to discredit Palin in some way. So, off the top of your head, you and Palin have something in common

I’m going to go out on a limb here, and assume the “founding fathers” would include people outside those who actually wrote the “documents”.

hmmm, I can't stand Palin, but I also don't see what's so bad about this clip. She named Washington, and also honored the others. One question not blundered, well done!

tunnelcat wrote:
If you're referring to the 'czars' that he's appointed, Obama's not the first president to use them, he's just doing the same as our last president. I didn't hear the Republicans gripe one wit about the constitutionality of the 35 czars Bush appointed in his 2 terms. So why is it subverting the Constitution when Obama's doing it NOW (38 czars)?

[

Defending the indefensible?