Sarah Palin's palm notes during speech

  • Context: News 
  • Thread starter Thread starter Evo
  • Start date Start date
Join the discussion
Registration is free. Ask a follow-up in this thread, or start your own.
Sign up Log in
91 replies · 12K views
Evo
Staff Emeritus
Messages
24,114
Reaction score
3,277
This is really funny. Ooops, keep that hand down Sara!

Watch the video.

http://buzz.yahoo.com/buzzlog/93375?fp=1
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Discussion

Physics news on Phys.org
she likes to write notes on her hands. She should be a little more subtle with it next time though!
 
Palin correlates to 'Joe the plumber' to me-

-milk it, baby, milk it
 
This was in an appearance in which she chided our very detailed, articulate President for using Tele-Prompters. That's OK. She has defended Rush Limbaugh's use of the word "retards" while calling for Rahm Emmanual's head for doing the same. She is the very model of consistency.

To point out the desperation and lack of political sophistication of the tea-baggers, notice that she crib-noted key-words that they would respond to. With that crowd, it's sufficient to say Washington is not listening to us! Don't make the US socialist!, etc, in order to deliver a popularly-acclaimed stem-winder of a speech.
 
Palin is trying out for Conan's spot
 
She needs to realize that when one is in a hole, you have to stop digging. I don't know who is more moronic; Palin or the people that think she would ever get close to being nominated to run for president.
 
Oops a little wrinkle that had not been covered in the reports I had seen earlier. The crib notes were meant to be memory-joggers to help her answer a question in a Q&A session. A question that obviously had not been asked yet, and that she had not been coached to answer without help. I think the happy chipmunk lady (Couric) should be granted another informal Q&A with Palin to show us just how much Palin has learned in the last couple of years.
 
FredGarvin said:
She needs to realize that when one is in a hole, you have to stop digging. I don't know who is more moronic; Palin or the people that think she would ever get close to being nominated to run for president.
Republicans that I know are scared to death that she will get seriously considered for the GOP nomination. Not just that she would shear off the tea baggers, but that she would stain any segment of the GOP that continued to support her after she torpedoed McCain's chances.
 
turbo-1 said:
Republicans that I know are scared to death that she will get seriously considered for the GOP nomination. Not just that she would shear off the tea baggers, but that she would stain any segment of the GOP that continued to support her after she torpedoed McCain's chances.

They should also be scared that she will run as a third party candidate - that would pretty much seal the election for the Dems, I think.
 
After this, will future Presidential candidates be required to wear mittens during speeches?
 
lisab said:
They should also be scared that she will run as a third party candidate - that would pretty much seal the election for the Dems, I think.

I think I'll tell my republican friends how wonderful she is then.
 
lisab said:
They should also be scared that she will run as a third party candidate - that would pretty much seal the election for the Dems, I think.
That is a possibility. If she wants to run in 2012, George Soros would probably help finance the tea baggers. There would be all kinds of generous donations coming in from seemingly nowhere, and with the recent SCOTUS decision lifting financial limits on corporate donations, the GOP would be wrecked on the rocks, and it would take a couple of years to sort it all out afterward. As much as I dislike the current 2-party system, it wouldn't benefit the citizens of the US to have one party systematically dismantled in this way.
 
The word tea-baggers is so wrong for this situation.

Leave the tea-bagging to parties and video games!
 
MotoH said:
The word tea-baggers is so wrong for this situation.

Leave the tea-bagging to parties and video games!
The term was widely used by the people who initiated the movement, and there have been countless images of (often old) proponents with teabags stapled to their hat-brims, collars, lapels, cuffs...

Don't like the term? Don't criticize opponents who use it. Help the proponents re-establish their movement with a name that they can be proud of. Using old people on Medicare and SS to rant against "socialism" is really sick and needs to be called out.
 
Evo said:
This is really funny. Ooops, keep that hand down Sara!

Watch the video.

http://buzz.yahoo.com/buzzlog/93375?fp=1

Turning her kitchen into a FOX studio?! :eek: :rolleyes:

https://www.physicsforums.com/attachment.php?attachmentid=22464&stc=1&d=1260728326
 
Last edited by a moderator:
turbo-1 said:
The term was widely used by the people who initiated the movement, and there have been countless images of (often old) proponents with teabags stapled to their hat-brims, collars, lapels, cuffs...

Don't like the term? Don't criticize opponents who use it. Help the proponents re-establish their movement with a name that they can be proud of. Using old people on Medicare and SS to rant against "socialism" is really sick and needs to be called out.


They can call themselves whatever the hell they want, but naming yourself the tea-baggers in this generation is just going to get you laughed at. The reason: http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=tea+bagger"
Sure the name has good intentions, but getting a young crowd to follow you with a name like that is. . . well yeah.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
She was politician, of course she has built a habit of inconsistency.
 
Could we call this the Palin telepromter?
 
Redneck teleprompter?

I laughed at the tea-baggers comment too... and I aint that young.
 
I like how she tries to wipe the notes off on her leg while speaking, too.
 
Sigh. I really don't know how to comment on this. I mean wtf. I could understand we elected Bush because we were afraid, we elected Obama because we were annoyed, and we elected Clinton because we were infatuated.. But Sarah Palin? Unless we all become retarded and pop out 6 kids between now and 2012, I can't see how anyone would ever vote for her, or why.
 
putin-sarah-come-back.jpg
 
cronxeh said:
Sigh. I really don't know how to comment on this. I mean wtf. I could understand we elected Bush because we were afraid,

The first time? Also, I would say the second election was won through a successful disinformation campaign. To this day there are people who think we were attacked by Saddam. Others were sure that "the wmds" were secreted away; nevermind that Saddam didn't use them even after many threats and a public deadline for the invasion. At the time that Bush was reelected, generally, he still had the confidence of the public. It was a sales job executed in large part by Cheney.

we elected Obama because we were annoyed,

We elected Obama because he is a fantastically skilled and capable person; so much so that he was able to defeat racism with hope.

and we elected Clinton because we were infatuated..

We elected Clinton because he knew "It's the economy stupid!". And he delivered.
Ross Perot also helped quite a bit. Bush the father would have won but for Perot. Go Sarah!

But Sarah Palin? Unless we all become retarded and pop out 6 kids between now and 2012, I can't see how anyone would ever vote for her, or why.

Sarah [Betty Boop] Palin. How can any man resist those winks; those catchy words like "chancy" and "hopey"; that shrill voice; the ability to see Russia from her back yard. GAWD she makes my skin crawl! But the reason I think people like her because they want to believe that we would be better off with Joe the Plummer in a skirt, in the WH. They want to believe that the world is really very simple. They want to believe that all would be well but for the evil intellects with teleprompters. They want to believe that averageness trumps intellect, skill, and a lifetime of preparation.

Go Sarah! I would love to see you take down the Republicans for the next decade or so by running for office.
 
Last edited:
And with that, I think we've officially left the realm of good humor.


We elected Obama because he is a fantastically skilled and capable person; so much so that he was able to defeat racism with hope.
I bet a large part of it was because he wasn't running as a Republican.

Go Sarah! I would love to see you take down the Republicans for the next decade or so by running for office.
Case in point.
 
Hurkyl said:
I bet a large part of it was because he wasn't running as a Republican.
That's possible, but it wouldn't explain how a political newbie was able to overthrow the Clinton machine.
 
Political forum, please.

Thank you.
 
Chi, I've been waiting for that post from you!
 
Ivan Seeking said:
They want to believe that the world is really very simple. They want to believe that all would be well but for the evil intellects with teleprompters. They want to believe that averageness trumps intellect, skill, and a lifetime of preparation.

There's a lot of truth in that.

The same truth that leaves a divorced spouse wondering what she did to make her husband beat her and then leave her. The same truth that makes fighter pilots make fun of the fighter pilot that gets shot down and then awarded a medal for it. If it's the woman's fault for being beaten, then she can do something to fix it. If the fighter pilot got shot down because he was an idiot, then a good fighter pilot won't get shot down.

Everyone wants to feel like they're in control of their own life - to the point that they'll blame themselves unjustly for any bad luck that comes their way, let alone blame other people for their own bad luck.

And if they're not in control of their own life, then it must be someone else's fault. If that person can be pushed out of the way then they can get their life back on track.

The important thing is that there be a way for the world to be controllable and not have it be a random string of good or bad luck.

Some politicians understand how to tap into that (Reagan, Obama) and I guess some still understand how to tap into that, even if on a less sophisticated level (Bush, Palin).
 
BobG said:
...
Everyone wants to feel like they're in control of their own life - to the point that they'll blame themselves unjustly for any bad luck that comes their way, let alone blame other people for their own bad luck.

And if they're not in control of their own life, then it must be someone else's fault. If that person can be pushed out of the way then they can get their life back on track.

The important thing is that there be a way for the world to be controllable and not have it be a random string of good or bad luck.
I don't know about American politics
I like to add into the quote above that anger caused by anything can be obviously led to any sort of possible behaviors. Many people once getting stressful or furious can kick a bypassing dog, violently throw a glass into the wall, slam the door etc. Are they mad ?
Of course no! So what happens when someone enters to tell you that it's the guy that does the tricks to play you completely down. World political issues aren't generated by random controllers. Who knows if they are the bosses of the games in the underlying systems ? I find a drip of solvents to saturate the current political issues in hot areas like Middle East or Northeast Asia seems infeasible.