Sarah Palin to host a show on the Discovery Channel?

[Gaf The Horse With Tears]

yes... I do....

What color is the sky in your world?

[phee]

What color is the sky in your world?

Yay for the play nice rules! (thank you btw... I needed to remember who I was talking to)

[freydis]

[Gaf The Horse With Tears]

OK, let me rephrase...

In what reality does adding the cost burden of 32million people to an underfunded program while cutting funding 30%, in which bureaucrats decide who gets what medical procedures and treatments not cause people to die?

[phee]

OK, let me rephrase...

In what reality does adding the cost burden of 32million people to an underfunded program while cutting funding 30%, in which bureaucrats decide who gets what medical procedures and treatments not cause people to die?

Let me rephrase then...

It will kill less people then the system does now.

[Gaf The Horse With Tears]

Let me rephrase then...

It will kill less people then the system does now.

again.. in what reality does denial of care kill less people than careing for them?

[phee]

again.. in what reality does denial of care kill less people than careing for them?

Exactly... more people covered = more lives saved.... less people covered = more death.

[Epic_Fail_Guy]

Why is the medical care being brought up in this thread when there's already another thread for that? I'm smelling a troll...

Also, Sarah Palin in my opinion, is just retarded. And this whole tv show stinks of trolls, trying to troll eachother.

For once, the sponsors seem to have the gist of fail that comes our way. Wether the show gets aired or not is no difference to me, It just doesn't spark my interests if Palin's leadin the fail train.

[Gaf The Horse With Tears]

So much hatred can't be good for you.

[Destroit]

I have no issues with Palin because she is a woman... I have issues with her because I think she is terrible for the country.

I would assume that most DGNrs who are against Obama it has nothing to do with the fact that he is black right? (No I didn't think so...) So if I understand the reasoning here... When a "liberal" like me has a problem with Palin, I AM being sexist... but when a "conservative" like you has an issue with Obama, it's NOT because you are racist....

(Can anyone else see the problem here?)

And by the way... that "Hopey Changy" stuff is working out great for me Miss Palin.... thanks for asking you Maverick you!

YOU have no issues with her being a woman. But liberals pull that card on her CONSTANTLY and get mad when someone mentions Obama is black insinuating that all republicans are closed-minded bible-thumping racist hillbillies. I was simply pointing out the hypocrisy, so thank you for your approval

Difference I have seen? When republicans hate Obama for being black they generally have no problem voicing their opinion on such. Liberals are sexist against Palin and pretend they aren't. If you're going to be openly sexist, and that is your HONEST to goodness opinion, at least own up to it like an adult. But I couldn't expect that out of a party where a good majority of its members, as I have witnessed and in my opinion, act like children.

YOU have no issues with her being a woman. But liberals pull that card on her CONSTANTLY and get mad when someone mentions Obama is black insinuating that all republicans are closed-minded bible-thumping racist hillbillies. I was simply pointing out the hypocrisy, so thank you for your approval

Difference I have seen? When republicans hate Obama for being black they generally have no problem voicing their opinion on such. Liberals are sexist against Palin and pretend they aren't. If you're going to be openly sexist, and that is your HONEST to goodness opinion, at least own up to it like an adult. But I couldn't expect that out of a party where a good majority of its members, as I have witnessed and in my opinion, act like children.

Edited April 20, 2010 by Chernobyl

[IsleofRhodesEnt]

It makes perfect sense that the Discovery Channel is giving Palin the job to host a show about Alaska....so we can all discover how much of a moron she is.

Beyond oil and the fact that it is the closest American State to Russia, I'd be shocked to find out if Palin personally knows anything else about Alaska. I can hear the briefing before every show.

Network Intern: "Now, Mrs. Palin, we need to inform you that Alaska was home to one of the largest gold rushes in American history and that it is the 49th state added to the Union. It is also home to lots of tons of great North American wildlife and one of two states that are not connected to any other state."

Palin: "Golly gosh...really?"

Network Intern: *facepalm* "Exactly how did you become Governor of Alaska again?"

Palin: "Cuz I'm a Hockey Mom!"

Network Intern: *gunhead*

[Destroit]

Network Intern: "Now, Mrs. Palin, we need to inform you that Alaska was home to one of the largest gold rushes in American history and that it is the 49th state added to the Union. It is also home to lots of tons of great North American wildlife and one of two states that are not connected to any other state."

Palin: "Golly gosh...really?"

Network Intern: *facepalm* "Exactly how did you become Governor of Alaska again?"

Palin: "Cuz I'm a Hockey Mom!"

Network Intern: *gunhead*

To support my post I JUST posted: See Phee? Childish remarks such as this that are intended for kiddish mud-slinging and not founded on anything factual or logical. Starting to understand my side of the argument here?

Thank you for the awesomely timed example to support my case IRE, you rule .

I can also add in Epic Fail Guy's unfounded remark made twice of Palin being "retarded". So she's mentally challenged? So you're going to degrade to grade school slurs like this is junior high? Meh, same shit I've been hearing out of liberals since I was born...continue! Remarks like this make the republican party look better to sound-minded individuals ALL the time !

To support my post I JUST posted: See Phee? Childish remarks such as this that are intended for kiddish mud-slinging and not founded on anything factual or logical. Starting to understand my side of the argument here?

Thank you for the awesomely timed example to support my case IRE, you rule .

I can also add in Epic Fail Guy's unfounded remark made twice of Palin being "retarded". So she's mentally challenged? So you're going to degrade to grade school slurs like this is junior high? Pissing off people who know or are caretakers for mentally challenged individuals is going to win your side of the battle?

Meh, same shit I've been hearing out of liberals since I was born...continue! Remarks like this make the republican party look better to sound-minded individuals ALL the time ! Too bad America seems to be running out of sound-minded individuals. Once again, the last sentence is sheerly my opinion based on a lifetime of observation.

Edited April 20, 2010 by Chernobyl

[Epic_Fail_Guy]

To support my post I JUST posted: See Phee? Childish remarks such as this that are intended for kiddish mud-slinging and not founded on anything factual or logical. Starting to understand my side of the argument here?

Thank you for the awesomely timed example to support my case IRE, you rule .

I can also add in Epic Fail Guy's unfounded remark made twice of Palin being "retarded". So she's mentally challenged? So you're going to degrade to grade school slurs like this is junior high? Meh, same shit I've been hearing out of liberals since I was born...continue! Remarks like this make the republican party look better to sound-minded individuals ALL the time !

Ok you want to get in on this? I'll pick a better term by saying, she seems like an airhead. I really do not have much faith in her comprehension of what is going on around her. I place her in the same category of intelligence as G.W. Bush.

And It does look like you really are scraping the bottom of the barrel picking apart opposing opinions to validate your point when you really haven't mentioned anything she's done herself to prove her own "credibility" when in fact, she's done many things to really give her the bad rep herself. It isn't "sexist liberals" hating on her that she's a female.. because if I remember correctly.. Hillary Clinton gave Obama a good challenge for the Democratic spot on the elections and had she beaten him, would still have most likely won against McCain and had been our President. No "liberal" has been bashing Clinton like they do Palin. The chick proved herself to be dumb.

Also, if you really want to go tit for tat, just read alot of smart-alek posts from gaf that tends to "troll" liberal minded people. Yeah.. makes you "republicans" look just as bad now huh? Backed into a corner? Lets get off topic! Lets act insulting!

And yeah what about all the gay hating republicans too eh? Then some turn around and get caught in the act like that fool in the public bathroom (forgot his name) So if liberals are in the "closet" about being "sexist", well yeah.. apples to apples with the republicans.

Too long, didn't read: Pots are calling kettles black up in this thread!

Edited April 20, 2010 by Epic_Fail_Guy

[Destroit]

Ok you want to get in on this? I'll pick a better term by saying, she seems like an airhead. I really do not have much faith in her comprehension of what is going on around her. I place her in the same category of intelligence as G.W. Bush.

And It does look like you really are scraping the bottom of the barrel picking apart opposing opinions to validate your point when you really haven't mentioned anything she's done herself to prove her own "credibility" when in fact, she's done many things to really give her the bad rep herself. It isn't "sexist liberals" hating on her that she's a female.. because if I remember correctly.. Hillary Clinton gave Obama a good challenge for the Democratic spot on the elections and had she beaten him, would still have most likely won against McCain and had been our President. No "liberal" has been bashing Clinton like they do Palin. The chick proved herself to be dumb.

Also, if you really want to go tit for tat, just read alot of smart-alek posts from gaf that tends to "troll" liberal minded people. Yeah.. makes you "republicans" look just as bad now huh? Backed into a corner? Lets get off topic! Lets act insulting!

Too long, didn't read: Pots are calling kettles black in this thread!

...liberals didn't pull the gender card with Clinton because she was running for office in their favor. That's pretty plain as day.

I still want to know how "The chick proved herself to be dumb" and "Ok you want to get in on this? I'll pick a better term by saying, she seems like an airhead. I really do not have much faith in her comprehension of what is going on around her. I place her in the same category of intelligence as G.W. Bush." is, according to you, backed up by fact or actual events. Explain and I'll concede.

When did I ever claim that she was credible? I wanted you to prove that is she medically mentally challenged. You have not done so yet. Why try to bend this around the other direction when neither of us even went there to begin with? Seems like "scrapping the bottom of the barrel" as you put it, I could be wrong, but logic based on human psychology, behavior, and reactions would insinuate such.

Also, Gaf, almost ALWAYS says things that are backed up by legitimate sources. Whenever someone asks to see such legitimate source, he provides it (to which they ignore it usually because they find he is correct). That seems a little unfounded. I point out the fact that liberals (as a MAJORITY) tend to sling mud childishly and provide remarks that have no proof, logic, or fact to back it up. I also said this was based on the observations I've witnessed over a lifetime. So...as a last ditch attempt to appear correct you try to pull in other DGNers who are not involved in this? Keep up stuff like that and I'll throw you in the same category as the offending liberals I'm talking about .

And what was behind rhetorically asking "Okay, you wanna get in on this?" Well...I mean yeah; I'm in the thread, aren't I? I don't understand what you were trying to convey with that, explain please.

...liberals didn't pull the gender card with Clinton because she was running for office in their favor. That's pretty plain as day.

I still want to know how "The chick proved herself to be dumb" and "Ok you want to get in on this? I'll pick a better term by saying, she seems like an airhead. I really do not have much faith in her comprehension of what is going on around her. I place her in the same category of intelligence as G.W. Bush." is, according to you, backed up by fact or actual events. Explain and I'll concede.

When did I ever claim that she was credible? I wanted you to prove that is she medically mentally challenged. You have not done so yet. Why try to bend this around the other direction when neither of us even went there to begin with? Seems like "scrapping the bottom of the barrel" as you put it, I could be wrong, but logic based on human psychology, behavior, and reactions would insinuate such.

Also, Gaf, almost ALWAYS says things that are backed up by legitimate sources. Whenever someone asks to see such legitimate source, he provides it (to which they ignore it usually because they find he is correct). That seems a little unfounded. I point out the fact that liberals (as a MAJORITY) tend to sling mud childishly and provide remarks that have no proof, logic, or fact to back it up. I also said this was based on the observations I've witnessed over a lifetime. So...as a last ditch attempt to appear correct you try to pull in other DGNers who are not involved in this? Keep up stuff like that and I'll throw you in the same category as the offending liberals I'm talking about .

And what was behind rhetorically asking "Okay, you wanna get in on this?" Well...I mean yeah; I'm in the thread, aren't I? I don't understand what you were trying to convey with that, explain please.

Edited April 20, 2010 by Chernobyl

[Epic_Fail_Guy]

...liberals didn't pull the gender card with Clinton because she was running for office in their favor. That's pretty plain as day.

I still want to know how "The chick proved herself to be dumb" and "Ok you want to get in on this? I'll pick a better term by saying, she seems like an airhead. I really do not have much faith in her comprehension of what is going on around her. I place her in the same category of intelligence as G.W. Bush." is, according to you, backed up by fact or actual events. Explain and I'll concede.

When did I ever claim that she was credible? I wanted you to prove that is she medically mentally challenged. You have not done so yet. Why try to bend this around the other direction when neither of us even went there to begin with? Seems like "scrapping the bottom of the barrel" as you put it, I could be wrong, but logic based on human psychology, behavior, and reactions would insinuate such.

Also, Gaf, almost ALWAYS says things that are backed up by legitimate sources. Whenever someone asks to see such legitimate source, he provides it (to which they ignore it usually because they find he is correct). That seems a little unfounded. I point out the fact that liberals (as a MAJORITY) tend to sling mud childishly and provide remarks that have no proof, logic, or fact to back it up. I also said this was based on the observations I've witnessed over a lifetime. So...as a last ditch attempt to appear correct you try to pull in other DGNers who are not involved in this? Keep up stuff like that and I'll throw you in the same category as the offending liberals I'm talking about .

And what was behind rhetorically asking "Okay, you wanna get in on this?" Well...I mean yeah; I'm in the thread, aren't I? I don't understand what you were trying to convey with that, explain please.

Eh to put it bluntly as possible to keep things simple...

I'm just saying that you're calling out "liberals" for being jerkasses when republicans are guilty of the same crap for different reasons. That was my point, pots calling kettles black. I was only using gaf as an example because i put him on ignore for being rather insulting and sarcastic.

Trust me, if i see a liberal say, "hur durrrr palin iz stuupeed becuz she a woman, I R NOT SEXIST!", I'm going to not have anything to do with them just like the republican saying, "hur durrrr HATE GAYS! (try to suck dick anonymously in public bathroom)"

I'm simply pointing out this, "better than them" attitude is invalid since republicans have just as many dumbasses as democrats. Same goes for liberals and conservatives.

[Gaf The Horse With Tears]

Ok you want to get in on this? I'll pick a better term by saying, she seems like an airhead. I really do not have much faith in her comprehension of what is going on around her. I place her in the same category of intelligence as G.W. Bush.

And It does look like you really are scraping the bottom of the barrel picking apart opposing opinions to validate your point when you really haven't mentioned anything she's done herself to prove her own "credibility" when in fact, she's done many things to really give her the bad rep herself. It isn't "sexist liberals" hating on her that she's a female.. because if I remember correctly.. Hillary Clinton gave Obama a good challenge for the Democratic spot on the elections and had she beaten him, would still have most likely won against McCain and had been our President. No "liberal" has been bashing Clinton like they do Palin. The chick proved herself to be dumb.

Also, if you really want to go tit for tat, just read alot of smart-alek posts from gaf that tends to "troll" liberal minded people. Yeah.. makes you "republicans" look just as bad now huh? Backed into a corner? Lets get off topic! Lets act insulting!

Too long, didn't read: Pots are calling kettles black in this thread!

Hah! Clinton did beat him... the good old boys in the Democratic party decided Obama was going to be the canidate no matter what the populace said... so they used thier party rules to override Primary votes. I even saw a few liberals saying that the USA was not ready for a women as President.

As for Palin... when exactly was she given a chance during the election to prove anything. The moment she was announced the people are Daily KOS and Huffington Post were publishing false stories about her to discredit her.

You have as yet to back me into a corner... unless putting me on ignore when I prove you wrong counts.

[Destroit]

Eh to put it bluntly as possible to keep things simple...

I'm just saying that you're calling out "liberals" for being jerkasses when republicans are guilty of the same crap for different reasons. That was my point, pots calling kettles black. I was only using gaf as an example because i put him on ignore for being rather insulting and sarcastic.

Trust me, if i see a liberal say, "hur durrrr palin iz stuupeed becuz she a woman, I R NOT SEXIST!", I'm going to not have anything to do with them just like the republican saying, "hur durrrr HATE GAYS! (try to suck dick anonymously in public bathroom)"

I'm simply pointing out this, "better than them" attitude is invalid since republicans have just as many dumbasses as democrats. Same goes for liberals and conservatives.

Uhmmm...you put Gaf on ignore for being insulting and sarcastic? In this thread alone you've been more sarcastic and insulting than Gaf by FAR. Pot, meet kettle.

Using "retard" as a word to describe someone? Nawww...that's tame! (really...? That doesn't insult people who actually have mentally challenged individuals in their life? Bullshit.) Insinuating that republicans are all against gays and are in the closet because they "try to suck dick anonymously in public bathroom". You're going to tell me that's not supposed to be insulting and sarcastic?

Like I said earlier, keep posting entries in this thread similar to the posts you've already contributed to the topic. So far everything you've said helps republicans and hinders liberals, I like that . Thank you for helping me get my point across. And no, that WASN'T sarcastic .

Uhmmm...you put Gaf on ignore for being insulting and sarcastic? In this thread alone you've been more sarcastic and insulting than Gaf by FAR. Pot, meet kettle.

Using "retard" as a word to describe someone? Nawww...that's tame! (really...? That doesn't insult people who actually have mentally challenged individuals in their life? Bullshit. Insinuating that republicans are all against gays and are in the closet because they "try to suck dick anonymously in public bathroom". You're going to tell me that's not supposed to be insulting and sarcastic?

Like I said earlier, keep posting entries in this thread similar to the posts you've already contributed to the topic. So far everything you've said helps republicans and hinders liberals, I like that . Thank you for helping me get my point across. And no, that WASN'T sarcastic .

Edited April 20, 2010 by Chernobyl

[torn asunder]

hey, i've got a great idea...

how about we get back to the topic at hand, regarding palin's new show? if you want to discuss liberals vs. conservatives, make a new thread about it. we can move all these post over there, then...

[Destroit]

hey, i've got a great idea...

how about we get back to the topic at hand, regarding palin's new show? if you want to discuss liberals vs. conservatives, make a new thread about it. we can move all these post over there, then...

I like your logic. I won't be seeing the show because I don't have cable and haven't for years. If I had cable and caught it on TV, I'd probably watch it to see how it is.

I like your logic. I won't be seeing the show because I don't have cable and haven't for years. If I had cable and caught it on TV, I'd probably watch it to see how it is.

[IsleofRhodesEnt]

To support my post I JUST posted: See Phee? Childish remarks such as this that are intended for kiddish mud-slinging and not founded on anything factual or logical. Starting to understand my side of the argument here?

Thank you for the awesomely timed example to support my case IRE, you rule .

I can also add in Epic Fail Guy's unfounded remark made twice of Palin being "retarded". So she's mentally challenged? So you're going to degrade to grade school slurs like this is junior high? Meh, same shit I've been hearing out of liberals since I was born...continue! Remarks like this make the republican party look better to sound-minded individuals ALL the time !

*snore* When you get off your high horse, Cher...please, let us know.

You call it childish....I call it re-introducing the same kind of stupid stuff she has done in the past. Anyone that things she is a "right minded and intelligent individual" needs to go look up both terms, then go look at Palin's career and her quotes.

She's a rock..not because she is stable and strong...because she's thick and has a lack of mental processing.

[torn asunder]

*snore* When you get off your high horse, Cher...please, let us know.

You call it childish....I call it re-introducing the same kind of stupid stuff she has done in the past. Anyone that things she is a "right minded and intelligent individual" needs to go look up both terms, then go look at Palin's career and her quotes.

She's a rock..not because she is stable and strong...because she's thick and has a lack of mental processing.

hey, i've got a great idea...

how about we get back to the topic at hand, regarding palin's new show? if you want to discuss liberals vs. conservatives, make a new thread about it. we can move all these post over there, then...

[Epic_Fail_Guy]

*snore* When you get off your high horse, Cher...please, let us know.

You call it childish....I call it re-introducing the same kind of stupid stuff she has done in the past. Anyone that things she is a "right minded and intelligent individual" needs to go look up both terms, then go look at Palin's career and her quotes.

She's a rock..not because she is stable and strong...because she's thick and has a lack of mental processing.

that's what I've been trying to say.

This may go off topic but I really should try to stay away from these sorts of threads.. people pick and chose parts of what you say to reply to, often dodging out of the point you're trying to make, and will either take something you say literally (even if obviously intended not for literal use) if it can be used that way to support their argument... (kinda like twisting ones words to distract them from sticking to their point wich is valid by distracting them with trying to make them defend pointless detailed pokes)

I've really seen a side to people in these types of threads that I honestly don't like and is kinda out of their normal posting habits. All that happens is squabbling, insult flinging (wich whether valid point or not, i will NOT listen to someone who belittles and is insulting to someone else) from a bunch of people that really, even if proven "right" by everyone else on dgn, win absolutely nothing, and change absolutely nothing.

I'm starting to see less and less of a point in arguing over this stuff anymore.

Edited April 21, 2010 by Epic_Fail_Guy

[IsleofRhodesEnt]

Sorry Torn...my bad

I do however think that Palin will make a mockery of herself on the show, because she has a past history of it, especially when it comes to doing it on television. And she will make a mockery of herself because she is no-where near intelligent or prominent that everyone wants her to be. Lets face it: more people know about the porno parody of Palin then actually give a rats ass about the women herself, and if you talk to the majority of the people in the US, and yes...I do have a 200 people poll that I did myself, from people all over the US, most consider her a moron, or at least irritatingly stupid. Thats not my words...those are QUOTES.

P.S. Poll was done without asking, or knowing, people's political standings/affiliations.

[freydis]

/facepalm

Good grief, guys.

And Gaf, you didnt address my response about the whales.

How do they not qualify as in the least threatened, if not endangered, as theyve been classified?

I can see where youd argue on the polar bears, as much of that argument is built on the whole global warming theory. But whatever... my main issue with that is, attack the theory if youve a problem with it.... why go to such lengths to sue to get them off the lists? Not as though theres a huge polar bear problem, where they need to *not* be protected.

And the info on the Beluga Whales is legit. Shrinking numbers in Cook Inlet. Less than 300 left...

If you've a good source that says otherwise, lets see it.

Has Palin backed any important environmental initiatives? The reason this matters at all is whithin the context of the conversation-- is someone who has shown a very noticeable track record of supporting ill-favored stances toward environmental issues in her state the best choice to host a show about her state's wild outdoors on a network that champions responsible environmental stewardship and initiatives?

I actually like and watch Discovery channel programs, and thats why the whole topic even matters to me at all.

Edited April 21, 2010 by freydis

[Gaf The Horse With Tears]

/facepalm

Good grief, guys.

And Gaf, you didnt address my response about the whales.

How do they not qualify as in the least threatened, if not endangered, as theyve been classified?

I can see where youd argue on the polar bears, as much of that argument is built on the whole global warming theory. But whatever... my main issue with that is, attack the theory if youve a problem with it.... why go to such lengths to sue to get them off the lists? Not as though theres a huge polar bear problem, where they need to *not* be protected.

And the info on the Beluga Whales is legit. Shrinking numbers in Cook Inlet. Less than 300 left...

If you've a good source that says otherwise, lets see it.

Has Palin backed any important environmental initiatives? The reason this matters at all is whithin the context of the conversation-- is someone who has shown a very noticeable track record of supporting ill-favored stances toward environmental issues in her state the best choice to host a show about her state's wild outdoors on a network that champions responsible environmental stewardship and initiatives?

I actually like and watch Discovery channel programs, and thats why the whole topic even matters to me at all.

Sorry... I never said they didn't qualify as threatened in the Cook Inlet. I said they don't qualify as endangered. The distiction is not minor. Do you know what group is the most opposed making them endangerd? Just a short search finds that the natives, who under the current laws and treatys with thier tribes are allowed to hunt them without restrictions, are adamantly opposed to any more regulation or restrictions on the killing of the whales.