Slashdot Mirror
Sarah Palin 'Target WikiLeaks Like Taliban'
DMandPenfold writes "Sarah Palin, who is widely tipped as a possible Republican candidate for president in 2012, has said WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange should be hunted down in the way armed forces are targeting the Taliban and Al-Qaeda." So that means we should spend billions of dollars and not catch him? Good plan.
She is unelectable, why the hell does the media pay so much attention to her? She has to be the most hated political figure in the US for the left/left leaning middle. The dumbest thing the republicans could possibly do is run her in 2012.
After 9 years of hunting Bin Laden.. Assange is safe from the US for a while!
Let's not all suck at the same time please
You know who we have to blame for her, right?
John McCain. What the heck was the man thinking? If he'd picked his VP candidate with an eye to win, instead of just throwing a dart then we'd be far better off. Even though I wouldn't have wanted his hypocritical, principal betraying, lying ass in the Oval Office, at least with a decent VP we'd not have had the horror that is Sarah Palin inflicted on the nation at large. She'd just be some obscure Alaska Governor waiting for the snows to come in and counting all the oil money.
Curse you!
Very good interview done within the last few days. Why can't we have this guy running the country, not the bozo teams we get over and over?
http://www.democracynow.org/2010/11/30/noam_chomsky_wikileaks_cables_reveal_profound
Who cares what Sarah Palin thinks? This isn't news, for anybody.
Gone!
The problem with both parties is that we can't keep the dumbest 2% of us off the television.
"Man is nothing without the works of man" -- Helvetius
Palin just lost my vote.
Seriously? *This* is what did it for you?
"He may look like an idiot, and talk like an idiot, but don't let that fool you. He really is an idiot." - Duck Soup
This discussion is about Sarah Palin. I think you meant to say "fence post."
Eloi are stupid, throw morlocks at them!
I've fallen off your lawn, and I can't get up.
What she and her supporters have not figured out is that they get so much attention because it's like watching a train wreck in slow motion. It's entertainment not politics.
Well, to her credit, she has a lot of followers. Despite many faux pas she's made that would have left anyone else gelded, she somehow keeps drumming up support. I'm not too educated on the numbers now for tea partiers versus non-tea partying Republicans but I think it would be a deathly schism for the Republican party. The two large parties can't afford to break off into chunks and therefore it's going to be the most supported candidate that gets the nod. Right now, who else is there?
There have been countless stupid quotes and moves by Sarah Palin where I've thought "Wow, well, at least she's finally done for." And yet she comes out of it. She starts working for Fox News and injects her own little two cents into everything and I'm thinking, "Look at all this material for a potential opponent to use against her." Yet she grows in popularity! She gets a reality show on some cable TV show called "Sarah Palin's Alaska" (like she owns the state) and I think "Well, finally, she's jumping the shark." Yet people are watching it in respectable TV viewing numbers! She releases a book that rips apart JFK and yet somehow she comes out still being followed. What gives?
In my humble opinion, as someone coming from the rural mid-west and now living in the urban east coast, you are talking about a populace you don't understand. People are watching her, reading her books and identifying with her at an alarming rate. To claim that everyone one of her supporters is driving from Ohio and other states to see her and Glenn Beck on the mall just to 'observe a train wreck' only exacerbates the problem and further removes you from what's really going on. America is just as polarized as they were during the elections and the Republican party -- though strong -- is encountering a weird kind of fragmentation for better or for worse.
Politics is entertainment just like sports are entertainment. But most spectators are cheering for someone.
It's easy for us to dismiss them but that only adds to their persecution complex. I don't know what the answer is but I prefer to listen to them and then try to reason with them instead of writing them off. There's bigger numbers in different parts of the country and I'm not a fan of watching Glenn Beck prey on people who are suffering right now. It downright sickens me.
My work here is dung.
You know, it's things like that that tend to set me off. Open information is essential to freedom, and the US found it quite delightful when WL exposed other countries. But now that it's coming to light that our own country has a lot to hide, it must be stopped? I don't think so. Get the information out there, shame the ones knowingly acting dishonestly and work to let them know it is not acceptable. People in power are always willing to bend the rules for what they feel is 'good reason'. Problem is, that so called good reason tends to expand quickly. I don't know what the fix is for the situation, but I do know that it will involve a lot more sites like WL. If you have nothing to hide, then you have nothing to fear. Or so the government tells us. Interesting how that doesn't seem to go both ways, that needs to change, in a big way.
Question reality.
She speaks to the mob. She tells the mob what it wants to hear, rather than what needs saying. This will get her a big following, but it doesn't mean a good mob leader is capable of much beyond causing noise and damage. On the other hand I wonder how much this differs from many people involved in politics?
Jumpstart the tartan drive.
Yes, yes, but now they've charged him with SEXUAL crimes, you see, so none of that matters. Once tarred with the SEXUAL brush, one is pretty well finished as a public figure in society, because people get really, really stupid when the word sex is brought up. So don't worry about the treason thing. They're beyond that already. He must be brought to (cough) "justice" FOR THE CHILDREN!
I've fallen off your lawn, and I can't get up.
Alaska balances their budget by taking more federal dollars than the other states. They are the number one recipient of federal pork.
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/08/19/business/19stimulus.html
Plus, she is only a supporter of the Constitution when it's the parts of the Constitution she likes.
My postings are informational and does not constitute legal advice. Act on it at your risk.
But there are those that are in power (already elected) who feel the same way. Rep. Pete King (R-N.Y.), the incoming chairman of the House Homeland Security Committee wants to classify wikileaks as a terrorist organization.. I believe that this would make contributing money a federal felony. In addition, the Interpol connection has been ratcheted up. Assange is now on the most wanted list.
It's not just Sarah Palin, there are those in power that are clearly using their power on this matter. Kind of scary, actually. (Though not surprising, considering what Assange is doing).
Rhymes that keep their secrets will unfold behind the clouds.There upon the rainbow is the answer to a neverending story
The Taliban is responsible, directly and demonstrably, for a great many deaths, both in the US and abroad.
I'd like to point out the propaganda success here. The Taliban is the former government of Afghanistan. They have never committed international aggression (though I'm sure they did some nasty stuff internally while in power). They are not responsible for deaths outside of Afghanistan. "al Qaeda" is not the same as "The Taliban."
Just keep swimming.
I just wish "small government" weren't such a huge lie. All of these "small government" republicans are saying is that they want to spend more money on their things and less on everyone else's.
After 9 years of hunting Bin Laden.. Assange is safe from the US for a while!
But I don't now about US Army's external sub-contractors illegally arresting, detaining and torturing half of the Swedish population.
Nor the US Army overthrowing the government of Norway, on the grounds that they might have had supported Sweden and might also have servers for mass-hosting of leaks in possession (although independent reports from the UN deny both of these fears).
"Sufficiently advanced satire is indistinguishable from reality." - [Tips: 1DrYakQDKCQ6y52z6QbnkxHXAocMZJE61o ]
You should be extremely careful what you wish for: Democrats were expressing similar sentiments when Ronald Reagan put himself up for the Republican nomination in 1980.
http://rocknerd.co.uk
The Taliban aren't responsible for deaths in the US. They're a local power in Afghanistan, and did not take part in Al Qaeda's activities. The reason the US invaded Afghanistan was for their refusal to extradite Bin Laden, not for any Taliban-led attack.
And then I voted for him in 2008.....things change. Still, I agree, she's pretty much unelectable in my mind.
Obama's only real problem was overcoming racism. He was a barely left of center (for the US at least) charasmatic politician running against that party that America was fed up with. In the 2008 election, his race and his name were really the only things that anyone focused on when attacking him.
Palin's problem was, and still remains overcoming the bad press she generates by being a mouth breathing half-wit (although the coaching she received while sequestered for a month after completely whiffing all the softballs Katie Couric was lobbing at her helped a bit). She really only appeals to people who are just as backwards, authoritarian and unintelligent as she is. Unfortunately, that demographic seems to be taking over this country.
Speaking as a non-american, I'd call it a win-win. Either she loses the race for the GOP or the rest of the world has incontrovertible proof that the US has become a nation that worships morons. Besides, can you imagine what John Stewart could do with 4 years of Palin? :)
People replying to my sig annoy me. That's why I change it all the time.
On the contrary, I feel it is News for Nerds. It directly addresses the way technology is facilitating the globalization of information and how it conflicts with regional/local laws. The message was delivered by Facebook, so nerds should appreciate the irony that Palin is advocating censorship of information on a site that believes in opening up private information for all to view. Finally, the fact that a mainstream political figure (one does not have to hold office to be a current politician) is advocating the use of potentially illegal internet warfare (From the article: She [Palin] said “cyber tools" should be used to "permanently dismantle WikiLeaks") should also be of interest to nerds.
I don't think the topic is flamebait, I think it is controversial. The internet is a force of globalization, especially in the realm of information distribution. When that distribution starts to threaten state secrets, how far do we (the US) go? How about the UK, Germany, or France? How about China or India? How about Iran, Syria, or Saudi Arabia? If it is legitimate for the US to do a DDoS against Wikileaks, what about Venezuela attacking US news websites that it feels are threatening its State secrets?
Yes, I already dislike Palin, but as a nerd who tries to pay attention to the news, I want to know who is siding with Palin on this issue... and to some extent, it appears that is the current administration (who once advocated an open government).
Never insult someone when they've publicly stated they agree with you. It makes you look petty and discourages others from changing their opinions in favor of yours in the future.
God invented whiskey so the Irish would not rule the world.
I dunno, he might leave the country. I would.
"Coffee is for closers."
That's an interesting theory. The problem is that the August 24, 2008 meeting with advisors at which Sarah Palin became the top choice to be McCain's running mate occurred several months after Clinton's conceded the race for the Democratic nomination and endorsed Barack Obama on June 7, 2008; the August 27 meeting at which she was offered the #2 spot on the ticket took place during the Democratic Convention, on the same day Barack Obama was formally nominated as the Democratic Party's candidate for the Presidency.
So, its historically indefensible to claim that the McCain campaign was nominating Palin in response to the perceived current strength of the Clinton campaign at the time.
It's more defensible to claim that they did it in response to the defeat of Hillary Clinton, in belief that that defeat might provide an opening to pick up some disappointed Clinton supporters that really were focussed on seeing a woman on the ticket. (I'm not saying this is true, or that, if true, it was a reasonable expectation on their part -- but its an argument I've heard that is certainly more plausible than the explanation that the choice was made because they thought the Clinton campaign was still going strong and that that is who they would have to face in the general.)
Actually, the Kennedy's in general and JFK in particular DESERVE to be ripped apart--but not for the vapid reasons that Sarah Palin's ghost writer came up with.
Look, I'm not here to turn this into some JFK and RFK and Ted Kennedy did all this horrible crap and killed a woman and got away with it and were womanizing nepotistic rich bastards ... all or or some of these things could be said. But what I was trying to say here was that nobody has ever run on that platform. You can write a book of dirt when you're done with politics but writing such a book before you become president is sort of like asking your future opponent if they'd like to have their way with you right now. I mean JFK, though flawed, was a hero to a lot of Americans. And his martyrdom was just icing on the cake. And to call into question one of his most loved and cherished speeches is more than ballsy, it's downright dangerous.
Sarah Palin is a new kind of political monster, unlike the ones I'm used to watching comfortably from my armchair. She's got a twitter feed that sports so many errors, she might actually be the person running it! From a classic Bush-esque prescriptive versus descriptive linguistics error to making accusations and weird religious remarks. It's a microblogging service! Look at what the rest of the politicians use it for: a paid staff techie is told what to put on it and what goes on it is only tepid words praising safe topics for that candidate to like. And those are usually reviewed seventy times before they go up. She has broken the rules of and committed fouls in politics many times and yet people embrace her.
All I wanted to say in my post was that from what I've seen of Sarah Palin, we should have stuck a fork in her long ago yet she remains. And why is that? Well, she's a dangerously well liked and amicable to a large part of the population that you are not familiar with. If she makes a mistake they seem to forgive her and say "I've made that mistake too." If she uses cracked logic or argument tactics long ago written off by academics, her followers just write off the academics. Trust me, as someone who's tried to reason with a supporter with some fairly simple debate analysis of Glenn Beck's logic, I can tell you that you don't want to approach this as some fancy pants intellectual telling them how dumb they are.
Don't confuse this with praise of Sarah Palin or defense of JFK. This is just me trying to warn people about how I see the situation at present. What happens when she runs for president and her opposition preys on some stupid social gaffe of hers? If it's any less than what she's already done, it's merely going to be ignored by or reinforce her supporter's commitment.
My work here is dung.
What do you think she'd be doing with her life? Truck stop waitress?
No, truck stop waitresses have to have personality and organizational skills and some sense of reality.
And they generally finish their shifts.
Drill baby drill - on Mars
I voted for Al Gore in 2000 (I had just turned 18). I didn't vote in 2004, as there were no good candidates, and I voted for Obama in 2008 (and will vote for him again in 2012). I'm not happy with GM being bailed out (I own a huge amount of Toyota stock, and now Tesla Motors stock), but understand it was necessary to prevent the loss of millions of auto supply chain jobs. I like universal healthcare (you live in a society you twit, the wealth you have is only available to you because of the structure of society, and society has a cost) vs people going bankrupt and for-profit companies reaping hundreds of millions of dollars.
It appears though that we both agree that Palin would be a destructive force if put into office. Shall we roll up our sleeves and work together on this? I'm for fiscal responsibility and smaller government, but am also pro-choice, pro-gay marriage, and pro-universal healthcare.
Regular people like us can try to compromise, or we can take the nuclear option and use our resources to try to hammer the other folks into the ground. I'd much prefer the former over the latter.
Yes, it is.
Alas, it's not one of the Federal government's basic responsibilities. The Constitution pretty clearly outlines what the Feds may do, and what they may not do.
And "wealth redistribution" or "taking care of the poor" isn't on the list of "what the Feds may do".
Which makes it a matter for the individual States. Each of which may handle the matter at hand in any way they desire, so long as what they do doesn't violate either the Federal Constitution or their own Constitution.
"I do not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it"
Palin's popularity is just an extension of the trend started by Bush - the celebration of naiveté and simplemindedness. Somehow, critical thought and intelligence have become "elitist" traits, while simpletons like Palin are good, honest folk who can be trusted. Until America gets past this unfortunate and destructive paradigm, things will only get worse.
If libertarians are so opposed to effective government, why don't they all move to Somalia?
The reason the US invaded Afghanistan was for their refusal to extradite Bin Laden
The US invaded Afghanistan because there was money in it, for someone other then the American people that is. I think that the idea that invading a country and occupying it for 9 years just to secure the extradition of a single man is preposterous. I mean seriously, why the fuck do you have Delta/Seals/Rangers/SAD if you need to deploy a whole army to catch a singly person?
Not to mention the fact that the Taliban publicly agreed to extradite Bin Laden if the US supplied some sort of evidence. Later they relinquished that request and offered to extradite Bin Laden to Pakistan, but Pakistan refused to take him due to Musharf feeling that "He can not guarantee his safety". Yep. Pakistan, your "Ally in the War on Terror".
Anyone perpetuating the myth that Afghanistan is the just, necessary war (in contrast to the Iraq war) is either disingenuous or tragically ignorant of the facts.