• Welcome to the PopMalt Forums! Whether you're new to forums or a veteran, welcome to our humble home on the web! We're a 20-year old forum community with thousands of discussions on entertainment, lifestyle, leisure, and more.

    Our rules are simple. Be nice and don't spam. Registration is free, so what are you waiting for? Join today!.

Why are liberals so frightened of Sarah Palin?

Fearandloathing

Registered Member
All she has to do is utter one sentence and liberals far and wide set their hair on fire, go ballistic and start hemorrhaging hate fueled propaganda.

She made one comment to the effect that it is not too late for "folks" to join the Republican presidential primary. In less than 20 minutes no less than three threads were created on another forum, each of which attacking her.

Now, this is a woman who had had her entire life under a microscope by the liberal media for three years! After thousands of hours of investigation, a freedom of information suit [which she did not contest] NPR, the LA Times and MSNBC discovered that, holy Watergate Scandal, she had used her private email account to conduct government business when she was governor of Alaska.

Tired after a 12 hour day in which she was literally chased by a cavalcade of news vans, she made a comment that Paul Revere "warned" the British back there in 1776. The media went into fits of glee and jumped on that like a pack of starving, pestilent sewer rats. And, when it turned out that in Paul Revere's own account he had indeed warned the British not to advance of they would encounter 500 militia....all the media stopped reporting it.

To this day, the liberals insist she was wrong even though no less than seven American history experts have documented the facts.

So, would someone please fill us in on what it is that terrifies liberals so much. They say she is stupid, but hang on her every word. They say she is unqualified for office but cannot find one documented fault with her record as governor of Alaska.

She is a private citizen. She is not running for anything. She has stated categorically that she does not intend to seek the Republican nomination...

But one sentence attracts more vitriolic reaction than all the Republican candidates put together.

Why is that?
 

Beevee

Registered Member
She is a private citizen. She is not running for anything. She has stated categorically that she does not intend to seek the Republican nomination...
She is a person who cannot be believed.

She is a person who touts for money.

She is a person who has no interest in the Presidency, probably never did, but realised she could make millions of dollars from gullible Republicans and that's the only thing I can give her credit for.

She used her Down's Syndrome baby to tout for votes when pushing for VP to McCain. In case you are unaware of it, a Down's Syndrome child has to be handled with extreme care in the early years. She did the opposite.

Not my cup of tea and since I cannot vote for anyone in the US, I have no axe to grind other than her treatment of her child.
 

Fearandloathing

Registered Member
She is a person who cannot be believed.

She is a person who touts for money.

She is a person who has no interest in the Presidency, probably never did, but realised she could make millions of dollars from gullible Republicans and that's the only thing I can give her credit for.

She used her Down's Syndrome baby to tout for votes when pushing for VP to McCain. In case you are unaware of it, a Down's Syndrome child has to be handled with extreme care in the early years. She did the opposite.

Not my cup of tea and since I cannot vote for anyone in the US, I have no axe to grind other than her treatment of her child.
No axe to grind, but you do seem to have a very strong opinion of her. And, you are entitled to that, but it is irrelevant to the topic.
 

oxyMORON

A Darker Knight
Well here's an little article about the whole Paul Revere deal.

Is Sarah Palin right about Paul Revere's ride? - Los Angeles Times

A letter written by Revere can be read online at the site of the Massachusetts Historical Society, and it provides some insight into the episode later made famous by Henry Wadsworth Longfellow. In the letter, which Revere wrote in 1798, he said he set out from Boston and worked to evade some British officers. Revere, according to the historical record, was trying to be stealthy, so as not to attract British attention.

Later, however, after warning about 100 houses, Revere was captured by British officers. One put a pistol to his head and asked Revere what he knew.

“He demanded what time I left Boston? I told him; and aded, that their troops had catched aground in passing the River, and that There would be five hundred Americans there in a short time, for I had alarmed the Country all the way up,” Revere wrote.

So was Revere warning the British that he had warned the Colonists? Is that what the prospective presidential candidate meant? Was Revere serving notice (at gunpoint)?
So I guess he warned the Americans first, and then was forced to tell the British what he was doing. Technically she was right, but somehow I doubt that's what she knew or meant. It doesn't really bother me though. I'm more amused by Colbert trying recreate her account by riding a horse while ringing a bell while trying to fire shots from a front loading musket.


Anyways, I don't think "liberals" are afraid of her. They're more afraid of her holding any influential public office.

To me, she just regurgitates Republican key words. I don't get the sense that she really knows how to implement them. Also I don't agree with her on some social issues. That's enough to dislike her right? I don't think I'd necessarily be afraid if she were President. I'd be more cautiously curious. :lol:
 

SmilinSilhouette

Registered Member
Liberals and democrats hate her because she is a woman and has rejected them. Liberals and democrats hate it when a woman, minority, or a mamber of any other group they pander to comes out as a republican. They find this a mortal sin that must be punished as an example to others. Any member of these groups that has the nerve to identify themselves as a republican will be subject to the high tech lynching that democrats and their friends in the media are famous for.

Then there are the country club republicans and their ruling class buddies. The establishment republicans don't like the country class republicans who don't share their blue blood. They expect country class republicans to vote for their ruling class candidates, but they hate it when the country class embarrasses them in front of their democrat buddies.

People like Palin fall into that group that rejects the ruling class republicans. Therefore she gets it from democrats, beltway republicans, and especially the media which is dominated by liberal douchebags.

So when letterman jokes about Palin's 14 year old daughter getting "knocked up" by A-Rod during the 7th inning stretch, that's a funny joke. But 0bama' daughters are "off limits".

As for the Revere comment Palin was asked "what did you learn" not what did you already know. But that is just how our media works.

Class is now over, the sheeple may return to the herd.
 
Last edited:

Beevee

Registered Member
No axe to grind, but you do seem to have a very strong opinion of her. And, you are entitled to that, but it is irrelevant to the topic.
But not irrelevant to the title. Which is why liberals may be frightened of what she may do to US standing in the world in addition to her contribution to the demise of America when she has already shown herself to be totally untrustworthy.

Does that serve your purpose regarding being on topic?
 

MyFingID

Registered Member
Well here's an little article about the whole Paul Revere deal.

Is Sarah Palin right about Paul Revere's ride? - Los Angeles Times



So I guess he warned the Americans first, and then was forced to tell the British what he was doing. Technically she was right, but somehow I doubt that's what she knew or meant. It doesn't really bother me though. I'm more amused by Colbert trying recreate her account by riding a horse while ringing a bell while trying to fire shots from a front loading musket.
That guy is having way too much fun lol.

Anyways, I don't think "liberals" are afraid of her. They're more afraid of her holding any influential public office.

To me, she just regurgitates Republican key words. I don't get the sense that she really knows how to implement them. Also I don't agree with her on some social issues. That's enough to dislike her right? I don't think I'd necessarily be afraid if she were President. I'd be more cautiously curious. :lol:
Yeah I think this is the key. She comes off as, well an idiot. She spouts a lot of keywords and phrases and then spouts off some ridiculous stuff like the Russia thing or "I read all magazines". It's like she's a complete ditz who can parrot well. That's the impression I've gotten anyway, and I'm sure the impression most liberals have gotten of her too. It's frightening to think that someone who doesn't seem to be all that coherent can end up in charge of the most powerful nation in the world.
 

MenInTights

not a plastic bag
I've been through this 5000 times and don't feel like regurgitating it, but I lived in Alaska during the rise of Palin and she was the best governor I've ever seen. That doesn't necessarily make her a good president, but the idea that she's dumb is a media creation. If I ran SNL, it would take me 5 minutes to come up with skits that would place into the American psyche that Obama is a complete and utter dumbass. (I'm not saying he is, just saying it would be incredibly easy to do).
 

Babe_Ruth

Sultan of Swat
Staff member
V.I.P.
Not sure if I'm reading this correctly, MiT, but are you saying that people believe she's stupid because media outlets make her out to be?

If so, I'll have to disagree with that, she's said some stuff in the past that left you puzzled, not saying that she's the only one, but I wouldn't blame this all on the media either, she hasn't helped her cause.
 
Top