Posted on 12/14/2010 6:44:17 AM PST by Kaslin
EDITORS NOTE: THERE IS LANGUAGE THROUGHOUT THE COLUMN THAT MAY BE OFFENSIVE TO SOME READERS. THANK YOU.
On CNN recently, Screenwriter Aaron Sorkin ("The Social Network," "West Wing") called Sarah Palin an "idiot."
Let's see to whom that label applies.
Last week in the Huffington Post, Sorkin wrote a column attacking the ex-governor of Alaska and her TLC mini-series reality TV show, "Sarah Palin's Alaska."
Sorkin opened with a quote from Palin on the hypocrisy of meat-eaters who condemn hunting for food. He then proceeded with this response:
"You're right, Sarah, we'll all just go f--- ourselves now."
That non sequitur was the high point of Sorkin's column. (Also, as I noted in my last column on the Grammy Awards nominees for Record of the Year, while most people use expletives in private conversation or in a rare uncontrolled outburst, the Hollywood and art-world left uses expletives in public discourse and in writing as a matter of course.)
Sorkin was furious that the documentary showed Palin hunting and killing a caribou. Although she made it clear that she intended to eat the animal, according to Sorkin she had committed an act of murder and torture. To quote Sorkin:
"I don't relish the idea of torturing animals."
"I don't watch snuff films and you (Palin) make them."
"I've tried and tried and for the life of me, I can't make a distinction between what you (Palin) get paid to do and what Michael Vick went to prison for doing."
"I get happy every time one of you faux-macho s---heads accidentally shoots another one of you in the face."
"That was the first moose ever murdered for political gain."
"Sarah Palin is deranged."
Sorkin admits that he eats meat and wears leather. So while he and almost any of us in the affluent West can eat healthfully without eating any meat, Sorkin chooses to have animals killed solely for his culinary pleasure. In other words, he is morally at peace with paying others to kill animals for what is in fact the "fun" of eating meat. But when Palin hunts and kills an animal for food, she is a murderer and torturer.
And while on the subject of torture, isn't there more torture in the way in which most animals are confined and killed in the slaughter mills of modern society than in the killing of an individual animal while it freely roams in the wild?
As for comparing Palin's TV show to a "snuff film," what kind of mind likens the murder of an innocent person on film to hunting a caribou? There is an answer: the Hollywood leftist mind.
Likewise, Sorkin's use of the word "murdered." Outside of his confused moral universe, humanity has always reserved that word "murder" exclusively to describe the deliberate killing of an innocent human being. It has never been used to describe the killing of an animal. By Sorkin's logic, his eating meat renders him a mass murderer.
No wonder, then, that Sorkin sees no difference between shooting a caribou and Vick's using dogs to kill one another in a sadistic sporting event.
I return to the question: Does Sorkin really not see a difference between hunting an animal for food, torturing an animal or murdering a human being -- especially given the fact that he pays people to kill animals for his joy in eating them?
If he sees no difference, then it is he --- not Palin --- who best fits the description of her he wrote in his column. The only other explanation would be that he so hates her that he will say anything, including turning moral standards upside down, in order to insult her.
Good people can differ on Palin's political positions or on whether she should run for president in the next election. But what has she ever said, written or done to justify Sorkin's hatred and cruelty? Indeed, what has she ever said or written that was as infantile or morally foolish as what Sorkin wrote about her?
Ironically, all Sorkin's column achieves is an elevation of Palin's status. If people can be judged by those who hate them, Palin must be more impressive than many people have realized.
So, how does one explain Sorkin's irrational hatred and morally twisted thinking?
As noted earlier, it is indicative of the Hollywood Leftist mindset. Members of Hollywood's left generally live in a left-wing cocoon. What strikes most people who live outside of that cocoon as irrational and immoral is often regarded as brilliant in that world. To the rest of us, comparing shooting a caribou to a snuff film, to murder and to torture is the ranting of an immature and morally confused mind. But among many of Sorkin's peers on the cultural left, Sorkin's column is not merely brilliant, it is f---ing brilliant.
On CNN recently, Screenwriter Aaron Sorkin ("The Social Network," "West Wing") called Sarah Palin an "idiot."
Let's see to whom that label applies.
Last week in the Huffington Post, Sorkin wrote a column attacking the ex-governor of Alaska and her TLC mini-series reality TV show, "Sarah Palin's Alaska."
Sorkin opened with a quote from Palin on the hypocrisy of meat-eaters who condemn hunting for food. He then proceeded with this response:
"You're right, Sarah, we'll all just go f--- ourselves now."
That non sequitur was the high point of Sorkin's column. (Also, as I noted in my last column on the Grammy Awards nominees for Record of the Year, while most people use expletives in private conversation or in a rare uncontrolled outburst, the Hollywood and art-world left uses expletives in public discourse and in writing as a matter of course.)
Sorkin was furious that the documentary showed Palin hunting and killing a caribou. Although she made it clear that she intended to eat the animal, according to Sorkin she had committed an act of murder and torture. To quote Sorkin:
"I don't relish the idea of torturing animals."
"I don't watch snuff films and you (Palin) make them."
"I've tried and tried and for the life of me, I can't make a distinction between what you (Palin) get paid to do and what Michael Vick went to prison for doing."
"I get happy every time one of you faux-macho s---heads accidentally shoots another one of you in the face."
"That was the first moose ever murdered for political gain."
"Sarah Palin is deranged."
Sorkin admits that he eats meat and wears leather. So while he and almost any of us in the affluent West can eat healthfully without eating any meat, Sorkin chooses to have animals killed solely for his culinary pleasure. In other words, he is morally at peace with paying others to kill animals for what is in fact the "fun" of eating meat. But when Palin hunts and kills an animal for food, she is a murderer and torturer.
And while on the subject of torture, isn't there more torture in the way in which most animals are confined and killed in the slaughter mills of modern society than in the killing of an individual animal while it freely roams in the wild?
As for comparing Palin's TV show to a "snuff film," what kind of mind likens the murder of an innocent person on film to hunting a caribou? There is an answer: the Hollywood leftist mind.
Likewise, Sorkin's use of the word "murdered." Outside of his confused moral universe, humanity has always reserved that word "murder" exclusively to describe the deliberate killing of an innocent human being. It has never been used to describe the killing of an animal. By Sorkin's logic, his eating meat renders him a mass murderer.
No wonder, then, that Sorkin sees no difference between shooting a caribou and Vick's using dogs to kill one another in a sadistic sporting event.
I return to the question: Does Sorkin really not see a difference between hunting an animal for food, torturing an animal or murdering a human being -- especially given the fact that he pays people to kill animals for his joy in eating them?
If he sees no difference, then it is he --- not Palin --- who best fits the description of her he wrote in his column. The only other explanation would be that he so hates her that he will say anything, including turning moral standards upside down, in order to insult her.
Good people can differ on Palin's political positions or on whether she should run for president in the next election. But what has she ever said, written or done to justify Sorkin's hatred and cruelty? Indeed, what has she ever said or written that was as infantile or morally foolish as what Sorkin wrote about her?
Ironically, all Sorkin's column achieves is an elevation of Palin's status. If people can be judged by those who hate them, Palin must be more impressive than many people have realized.
So, how does one explain Sorkin's irrational hatred and morally twisted thinking?
As noted earlier, it is indicative of the Hollywood Leftist mindset. Members of Hollywood's left generally live in a left-wing cocoon. What strikes most people who live outside of that cocoon as irrational and immoral is often regarded as brilliant in that world. To the rest of us, comparing shooting a caribou to a snuff film, to murder and to torture is the ranting of an immature and morally confused mind. But among many of Sorkin's peers on the cultural left, Sorkin's column is not merely brilliant, it is f---ing brilliant.
I love that poster! I feel like printing it off and hanging it up in my cube just to hack off the libtards.
Another foul mouthed person heard from.
Palin is smarter than you give her credit for. You are falling for the anti-Palin hype.
Some adults in this person’s extended family ought to tell him that the culture of critique worked when America was a more unitary nation, but now that we more resemble Yugoslavia he should shut up and wisely pick his fights.
Sarah Palin is the epitome of the 'average' American. She comes from a solid middle-class background, worked her way through college and graduated from a non-ivy-league school. She isn't a lawyer and she hasn't spent her adult life climbing the corporate or political ladder. She is, first and foremost, a proud wife and mother who loves God, family and country, in that order. When her kids were small, she volunteered and was elected to the local PTA leadership and she found that she enjoyed the work and was a natural leader. She ran for mayor of her small town in Alaska and was successful in that election and as mayor. She lost an election but eventually was elected Governor of Alaska and did an outstanding job, which, had she not written a book detailing that period in her life, few would know about. She has held other responsible positions that are usually ignored by her detractors. The left routinely mock and ridicule Sarah Palin, partly from a deep-seated animus at her 'average' roots and mostly in the hope of ruining any chance that the public will take her seriously as a potential presidential candidate. The 'not qualified' meme that comes from the left (and some on the right) is odd considering that Barack Obama was without any kind of governing experience and was celebrated by the media for speech-making and his Ivy League education...and the fact that he wasn't an Anglo-Saxon.
Sarah Palin, like most conservatives, does not rely on a degree from the 'right' university or spending decades warming a seat in congress as her 'resume' for her qualifications to be president. She is obviously intelligent, politically shrewd and getting better every month as the attacks roll in on her and Palin does not waver or fold in the heat of the assaults constantly waged against her. She doesn't try to 'court' the press or the left by diluting her positions and backpedaling away from her core values, as some politicians do. Instead, she exults in her family and her rugged Alaskan lifestyle...and she remains true to who she is, which is why she admired by many Americans as 'authentic', almost an anti-politician when compared to Hillary Clinton, Obama and other two-faced politicians that the left deems 'qualified' while they insult Sarah Palin.
Aaron Sorkin is irrelevant and Sarah Palin is not. That is what most rankles Hollywood lefties, for whom Sorkin likely speaks. Sarah Palin may or may not run for the Republican party nomination for president in 2012 and if she does, there are many Republicans adamantly opposed to her so it will be an uphill battle for the former Alaska governor but one she is more than able to fight and win, God willing.
Right on target.
It’s amazing, though it shouldn’t be, that you can take every value of a Biblical Christian worldview,
write down the opposite of that value,
and you have EXACTLY what the left/world calls “truth”.
I stopped hunting for a while as well, however, I found that hunting and returning into the normal realm and role of hunter/killer for noble and ancient practice of providing for my family helped me understand the horror of war better-and the need to never avoid conflict for the sake of comfort. It is horrible, ableit, often necessary, to kill another human in combat (whether in self-defense or national defense), but not immoral to kill and eat the creatures provided for our needs.
Many vets stop hunting after facing the steel and blood of war, but there is no comparison to normal, healthy killing of animals for sustenance-you eat meat, therefore you kill, if by proxy.
I pass up more than I kill, though. But I kill enought to make it purposful and an honor.
Best wishes, and Godspeed.
Just crazy...
An who says we are not talking about a grand conspiracy? Funny, huh?
Jesus Christ-apart from Him there is no hope for the world. (and it won’t end the way most folks want it to, all pretty and kumbaya).
Best;
You are correct in all you posted. The above hit me as a sincere truth, where our nation fights with unholy ghosts and shadows. Shaking head, as I reach for protection in my defensive posture. I would rather not have to do such, ever.
Animals are obviously thinking beings and need to be protected. We are way behind the times. In Europe, laws have been passed protecting the inhuman treatment of plants. The study of Plant Consciousness has come to mean that plants are sentient life forms that feel, know, and are conscious.
Although Europe has spawned two world wars resulting in the deaths of over one hundred million people, they can be proud that dandelions, crab grass and bushes have a right to exist too. How many countless millions of weeds in this country of been tortured and killed without a second thought?
If the cradle of democracy, the Enlightenment, the printing press, beurre blanc sauce and the bikini have realized the need for respecting the rights of kudzu, I would suggest that caribou without question should be given the right to vote and be part of the Obama health care initiative.
Chrissy (thrill up his leg) Matthews was talking about Sarah’s caribou hunt and showing her video last week. He laughed and acted like what she was doing was about the dumbest thing a person could possibly do.
I shook my head and said these poor, deceived, liberal Dimwits really don’t have a clue. Sarah going HUNTING on national TV and bringing down a caribou to put meat on the table just related and endeared herself to hundreds of thousands if not millions more hunters and sportsmen and women around America.
Imagine Obammy trying to load and shoot a rifle, go fishing, or climb a mountain. What a joke - he is the ultimate wimpy metrosexual male - with no cojones period.
Sarah Palin is a true American conservative and would make a great POTUS.
I have watched every episode of her show. I like her now more than ever. She is just like me and my family. They hate her because she is America and the left despises us!!!
He must not have heard the caribou whisper, as it was dying, “At least I don’t have to live another winter in Alaska”. Rewind the DVR and turn up the volume. I could hear it when she was posing for pictures plain as day!
“f-—ing brilliant.”
It’s not even coherent.
Isn't that what the liberals tell us all the time when we find shows offensive?
“f-—ing brilliant.”
It’s not even coherent.
Palin is smarter than you give her credit for. You are falling for the anti-Palin hype.
No she isn’t. She is not dumb and she is smart enough to be an effective governor. She does not try to present herself as such. I also appreciate that Jimmy Carter and Woodrow Wilson were two of the smartest Presidents we ever had.
I give her credit for her values, her commitment to her family, her faith, her staying on point and ignoring the storm around her. I worry about her lack of experience and ability to unite a party and co-opt a Congress the way Reagan did. Leadership at the national level is very different from that at the state level.
But, that is what primaries are for. If she runs, I will vote for someone else by saying positive things for the candidate of my choice and nothing against Palin. If she wins, I will support her in November.
Your thought does make Sarah sound Presidential.
I worry about her lack of experience and ability to unite a party and co-opt a Congress the way Reagan did.
Ronald Reagan was disliked or worse by democrats, because he left their party, and Ronald Reagan gave the democrats total grief, for the democrats knew he was an effective leader. The republican establishment, of the time, thought of Ronald Reagan in much the same way as the democrats. Now substitute Sarah Palin in place of Ronald Reagan's name and there is the same picture again.
Leadership at the national level is very different from that at the state level.
imho...this is not valid given many governors have served as President of the United States. One state or fifty states, Leadership is Leadership. Zer0 has near Zer0. Zer0 could not be in the same room with Sarah. Zer0 is near nonhuman or maybe completely nonhuman. Sarah is human. mho....I will take a human over a nonhuman any day, anytime.
If anything I typed offended you, that was not my intent.
“There are some very mentally deranged people out here...” ~ mo-to-illegals
Yes, and these LOSERS find representation in one particular political party.
“...the psychologically unattractive. And you can well understand why the Democrat party would attract such people, because unlike conservatism, it does not mainly consist of ideas but of promises made to various constituencies of dysfunctional losers, weirdos, cranks, misfits, and malcontents. It is the party of the Unhappy who imagine that the state can make them happy.”
Friday, June 19, 2009
Progressive Personality Disorder
http://onecosmos.blogspot.com/2009/06/progressive-personality-disorder_21.html
<>
The Children of Light vs. the Communist Maninfestation
http://onecosmos.blogspot.com/2006/10/children-of-light-vs-communist.html
<>
The “utilitarian” LOSER Peter Singer, would applaud Obama and his soul-mates’ “Death Panels”
WSJ
AUGUST 13, 2009
Emanuel’s Brother Becomes a Target
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB125012376373527721.html
WASHINGTON — Ezekiel Emanuel, a top health-care adviser to President Barack Obama and older brother of White House Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel, is emerging as a target of conservatives critical of Democrats’ health-care effort.
[snip]
Ms. Palin warned Friday on Facebook that “my parents or my baby with Down syndrome will have to stand in front of Obama’s death panel.” Mr. Gingrich said on ABC’s “This Week” that “you’re asking us to trust turning power over to the government, when there clearly are people in America who believe in establishing euthanasia.”
<>
November 14, 2010
Paul Krugman Recommends ‘Death Panels’ to Help Balance Budget
http://www.newsbusters.org/blogs/noel-sheppard/2010/11/14/paul-krugman-recommends-death-panels-help-balance-budget
Former Clinton labor secretary Robert Reich made a similar observation back in 2007:
We’re going to have to, if you’re very old, we’re not going to give you all that technology and all those drugs for the last couple of years of your life to keep you maybe going for another couple of months. It’s too expensive...so we’re going to let you die.
[snip]
<>
December 2, 2010
Palin vindicated? Obama’s Debt Commission: Obamacare needs “Death Panels” to survive
http://redwhitebluenews.com/?p=13083
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.