Posted on 02/14/2011 7:42:57 AM PST by pissant
I applaud Sarah Palin’s passion, her adroit sense of humor, and her you-go-girl! gumption. But the more I learn about Sarah Palin, the more I become perplexed by her over-heated gender-bending rhetoric.
I believe we can all agree that men and women should have equal opportunities. But let’s not confuse equal opportunities with identical outcomes. Just because a woman has the same right to an education and a decent job doesn’t mean she will pursue the identical career path, toil as long, or work as many years as a man.
Men and women have differing proclivities and interests — most Americans understand this fact. But then there is the small band of disaffected feminists who adamantly insist any and all social differences are the product of gender discrimination.
So where does the former vice-presidential candidate stand on all of this?
Let’s take the gender wage gap. Dozens of studies show that when the relevant factors are taken into account — training, experience, hours worked, and so forth — any salary difference is smaller than a twinkle in Nancy Pelosi’s eye.
But during the 2008 presidential campaign, Palin used the myth to skewer her Democratic opponent. Ignoring the fact that most of the top-level staffers in Obama’s former Senate office were male, she made this charge: “Out on the stump he talks a good game about equal pay for equal work, but according to the Senate payroll records, women on his own staff get just 83 cents for every dollar that the men get.”
Ratcheting up women’s sense of resentment, Palin then asked, “Does he think that the women aren’t working as hard? Does he think they are 17% less productive?”
(Excerpt) Read more at dailycaller.com ...
Nobody is “trashing” Palin. You are confusing our opinions based on your bias and emotional discourse, with something you claim as abusive. Yet you fail to see your own abuse in the countless and rash unrestricted insults you throw around at long time members of this forum.
In retrospect, you might be a bit more careful of how you attack people.
We’re talking about the AZ GOP primary, which is not exactly a replica of the U.S. as a whole.
She definitely helped him in the primary by endorsing him. He would have won anyway, but JD was viable. She should have kept her mouth shut.
On the other hand, she didn’t help Joe Miller beat Murkowski in a write-in, so her influence may have diminished between March and November.
Her mistake was endorsing McCain. Inexcusable.
Then they wonder why there is so much to doubt about their champion.
Which begs the question of why Teh Awesome couldn’t be bothered to hire more fierce feminist women for senior staff positions. Which goes back to Alinsky’s Fourth and Fifth.
And ThinkRegress? Dude? Really?
I can see that your part of the debate is going downhill, so I'll let you know she RESIGNED as Governor.
If you'd followed what was going on you'd probably encouraged her to do so. She was being attacked by George Sorros' anti-Palin brigade with a series of irrational and unsubstantiated "ethics charges". Alaskan law apparently allowed for that sort of thing ~ just anybody could file a complaint that had to be litigated.
My criticism of her critics regarding her resignation is that THEY don't know enough about the events leading up to that to have an opinion, and the fact they are voicing one proves they are TOO IGNANT to be listened to.
Fecking blowhard.
Let’s start with your buddies at the Daily Green that screams “she doesn’t beleive in global warming”.
Not a single quote regarding Palin on GW except the Newsmax interview- “A changing environment will affect Alaska more than any other state, because of our location. I’m not one though who would attribute it to being man-made”. That was her strongest protestation against “man-made” global baloney she ever has made.
http://www.newsmax.com/Headline/sarah-palin-vp/2008/08/29/id/325086
Nowhere does she say she doesn’t believe in warming, just that she won’t attribute it to being “man-made”. The fact that she IS attributing “it” at all means she believes its real, as you will see. And she obviously is catering to Newsmax’s conservative readers. Lying would be more like it, actually.
So what does she say to other audiences? Well, she created a bondoggle of a bureacracy called the “Alaska Climate CHange Sub-Cabinet” on Sept 14, 2007.
http://www.climatestrategies.us/library/view/638
And just what did she instruct them to do and to look for besides waste $$ studying an ALgorian wetdream fairytale?
10. Opportunities to reduce greenhouse gas emmissions (I thought it wasn’t man-made) from Alaskan sources, including the expanded use of alternative fuels, energy efficiency, renewable energy, land use management and transportation planning.
12. The Opportunites to reduce greenhouse gas emissions from the operations of State Government. (wait, aren’t those man-made so called greenhouse gasses?)
13. The opportunities for Alaska to particpate in carbon trading markets, including the offering of carbon sequestration. (That evil manmade CO2!)
Strange, huh, how she would worry about carbon so much, yet she wasn’t talking about the natural CO2 from plants, unless they were planning on trading pine trees to California for oranges or somesuch.
And in a December 18 op-ed in teh Anchorage Daily News about the Polar Bears, Palin said THIS:
“What is justified is worldwide concern over the proven impacts of climate change.
“The group asking for the polar bear listing recently disclosed that its goal is to force the government to either stop or severely limit any public or private action that produces, or even allows, the production of greenhouse gases. Such limits should be adopted through an open process where environmental issues are weighed against economic and social needs, and where scientists debate and present information that policymakers need to make the best decisions. But the Endangered Species Act is not the correct tool to address climate change — the act actually prohibits any consideration of broader issues.
“There is little doubt that the world’s climate is warming. I established a Cabinet-level task force to address the effects of climate change in Alaska, charging the task force with developing recommendations to deal with the effects of climate change.
“Climate change is a serious issue. I urge all Alaskans to become involved by offering comments and suggestions to the task force for constructive action by the state. Listing the polar bear as threatened is the wrong way to get to the right answer.”
If she sounded any more alarmist, you’d think she was a better looking version of Henry Waxman.
Then there’s this classic with Katie Couric:
http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/Vote2008/story?id=5778018&page=1
Couric: Is it man-made, though in your view?
Palin: “You know there are — there are man’s activities that can be contributed to the issues that we’re dealing with now, these impacts. I’m not going to solely blame all of man’s activities on changes in climate. Because the world’s weather patterns are cyclical. And over history we have seen change there. But kind of doesn’t matter at this point, as we debate what caused it. The point is: it’s real; we need to do something about it.”
WTF? LOL
Then there’s this little nugget from her interview with Uncle Charlie:
http://www.salon.com/news/politics/war_room/2008/09/12/palin_global_warming
Gibson asked Palin whether she still believed that global warming was not the result of human behavior.
Palin responded, “I believe that man’s activities certainly can be contributing to the issue of global warming, climate change.” When Gibson then asked her whether this marked a change on her stance on the issue, Palin replied, “Show me where I have ever said that there’s absolute proof that nothing that man has ever conducted or engaged in has had any effect or no effect on climate change. I have not said that.”
ROFLMAO.
But it gets funnier. Because the Palintards like you will say “she said many of those things during her short tenure as McCain’s VP protege, that some of those don’t count.
Well, what did she say in her book, which came out long after McCain and Palin were beaten like red-headed stepchildren by the boy marxist?
Here she is bitching in her book about the COuric interview, bemoaning the fact that she was really algore in a skirt but Katie edited it out. From Going Rogue on page 272-273. Read CAREFULLY:
“I couldn’t have known it then, but what transpired during the series of interviews and what CBS actually aired were two different breeds of cat. ...
“For example, when John and I sat down with Katie for a segment in kColumbus, Ohio, she started with an energy-related question. “Governor Palin, it will take about ten years for domestic drilling to have an impact on consumers,” the anchor said. “So isn’t the notion of ‘drill, baby, drill’ a little misleading to people who think this will automatically lower their gas prices and quickly?”
“I said, “And it’s why we should have started ten years ago tapping into domestic supplies that America is so rich in. Alasca has billions of barrels of oil and hundreds of trillions of cubic feet of clean, green natural gas onshore and offshore. Should have started doing it ten years ago, but better late than never.”
“That’s the part CBS left in. They edited *out* a discussion of the need to wean ourselves off hydrocarbons and a call for America to stop spending billions of dollars on foreign oil when we could be investing it at home. Did Katie think Americans wouldn’t be interested to know that I was in favor of alternative energy sources and reducing our carbon footprint? Or that I might be a conservative who was both pro-development *and* pro-environment. Perhaps my answer didn’t fit her agenda.”
Damn that’s funny.
***********************************
And your article from Feb 9, 2010 was AFTER ClimateGate was exposed and she rightly called the East Anglia’s research “snake oil”.
As did every other global warming pimp under the sun. Newt Pelosi-Gingrich called them out saying “they paint an ugly picture of a willingness on the part of these influential scientists to suppress research that calls into question the accuracy of supposed warming trends”. Even old RINO Smerconish wanted to “put the science on trial”.
ANd finally, here’s what she was babbling about as post VP, pre-Climate Gate gubner when Obama flunky Interior stooge Ken Salazar visited Alaska in 2009:
http://scienceblogs.com/islandofdoubt/2009/04/sarah_palin_global_warming_con.php
“Many believe that in order to mitigate these long term and systematic changes it will require a national and global effort to decrease the release of human produced greenhouse gases into the atmosphere. However, simply waiting for low carbon emitting renewable capacity to be large enough will mean that it will be too late to meet the mitigation goals for reducing CO2 that will be required under most credible climate change models, including the International Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) modeled scenarios.
“Meeting these goals will require a dramatic increase, in the very near term, to preferred available fuels - including natural gas - that have a very low carbon footprint and that can be used within the existing energy infrastructure. These available fuels are required to supply the nation’s energy needs during the transition to green energy alternatives. ... Stopping domestic energy production of preferred fuels does not solve the issues associated with global warming and threatened or endangered species, but it can make them worse.”
IOW, you lose. Palin is Newt Pelosi-Gingrich in a skirt.
Ping to a fairly thorough, but by no means exhaustive, thumping.
From your own sources. Fecking liar that you are you can't admit it...
ROFLOL! Harsh feminist rhetoric? LOLOL!
Thumping?
http://climateprogress.org/2009/11/18/sarah-palin-to-rush-limbaugh-are-we-warming-or-are-we-cooling/
Not hardly. Being concerned for the environment in an oil producing State does not automatically put you in the EPA/Greenie camp no matter how much you want to take her statements out of context.
Try again Pissy...
Re-read her words more carefully. And she can play the bimbo on Rush’s show (post ClimateGate, mind you) but that does not negate her Algorian past.
When you regain consciousness... Well, it'd be better if you just took some time off to think about how much of a moron you are.
Well done.
I like to add, Alaska allows nuisance lawsuits while at the same time does NOT provide for the governor’s defense in such cases. The dims knew what they were doing and the suits were NOT going to stop. So Sarah had a choice, keep spending her own funds to defend herself — which would have destroyed her financially — or stop the madness.
Of course, spending herself into oblivion would not only have damaged her, it would have totally compromised her the future of her children.
Who among us was forsake our children for the “reward” of remaining governor?
I mean, other than pissant, who would do that? Unless, of course, you don’t care about your children.
Your PDS has gotten to a point where not even electro-convulsive therapy could help you.
meanwhile, during the Palin Climate Panic, what was actually going on?
Area of thick Arctic ice doubled in two years
http://www.iceagenow.com/Area_of_thick_arctic_ice_doubled_in_two_years.htm
Glaciers in Norway, Alaska, growing again
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2008/11/27/glaciers-in-norway-alaska-growing-again/
Media Ignore Near-Record Cold in Alaska
http://newsbusters.org/node/11847
Record Cold Expected in Alaska | StarTribune.com
http://www.google.com/#q=alaska+record+cold&hl=en&prmd=ivns&ei=NpFZTaT5GYz2swOzlcyiDA&start=10&sa=N&fp=92188ee12107320c
Anchorage Alaska has Record Cold Summer
http://www.churchofglobalwarming.com/2008/07/anchorage-alaska-has-record-cold-summer/
LOL. It’s the equivalent of the morbidly stupid tactic of waving around Palin’s suppport for AZ’s SB1070 as proof she doesn’t support amnesty, when in fact she absolutely does.
McCain supports SB1070 too. Calling the science from East Anglia “snake oil” after they get busted is MEANINGLESS, and railing on the politics at Copenhagen is within the wheelhouse of any semi-right leaning stooge.
SHe did not refer to AGW as snake oil. She was refering to the Climate Gate researchers of East Anglia and Penn State. WHere does she call global warming itself “snake oil”. She doesn’t. And if she did, she’d pull a flip flop of Romnian proportions.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.