• If you are having problems logging in please use the Contact Us in the lower right hand corner of the forum page for assistance.

Double Standard

hypocritexposer

Well-known member
Our Condolences on the Passing of Eunice Kennedy Shriver
Today at 4:37pm
On behalf of the Palin family, we are saddened by the passing of Eunice Kennedy Shriver. Her passionate dedication to improving the lives of so many people created new opportunities and hope around the world, including for our precious miracle, Trig.

With sympathy to the Kennedy and Shriver families,

Sarah Palin
 

hypocritexposer

Well-known member
I thought it was because she is a Racist. You Liberals got so many "labels" going around you can't keep your stories straight.

CHRIS MATTHEWS: We`re back. Time for the politics fix with syndicated columnist Kathleen Parker and Salon.com`s editor-in-chief, Joan Walsh. I`m not sure you two are going to argue much, but let me tell you, I`ve never seen a stronger column in the newspapers than what I read this morning when I got up. And the reason I`m so glad Kathleen is joining us, Joan, is that she wrote this column basically backing up Senator George Voinovich of Ohio, saying the Republican party, which has done pretty well over the last half century, has been basically getting destroyed by the right wingers in the South.

And we`ve talked a lot about the obsession with this birth movement down in, birther thing down in the South and all the rest of the ethnic potential here. Here`s a quote that really grabbed me: "That same rage was on display again in the fall of 2008, but this time the frenzy was stimulated by a pretty gal with a mocking little wink. Sarah Palin may not have realized what she was doing. But southerners, weaned on Harper Lee, heard the dog whistle."

Kathleen, "heard the dog whistle." Is Sarah Palin a poster girl for racism? Yes or no?

KATHLEEN PARKER, SYNDICATED COLUMNIST: Not consciously.

MATTHEWS: Not consciously?

PARKER: Not consciously. I don`t think -- I certainly don`t think she, Sarah Palin, knows anything about Harper Lee or this deep history in the South, where you don`t position a white woman and a black male and pretend like there`s nothing happening there. There`s a deep, deep history. That`s why I mentioned, dropped the Harper Lee in there. You want to talk about the Southern Strategy?

MATTHEWS: Well, it’s like To Kill a Mockingbird. I just saw it again, one of the great movies ever, where the white woman claimed that she’d been, you know, molested by this totally innocent black guy.

PARKER: Right.

MATTHEWS: And she was believed for no reason, except she said so.

PARKER: Right. Look -- and please let me be really, really clear. I`m not saying Sarah Palin did that. I`m just saying that there`s this subliminal level, subliminal level of communication that goes on. The Southern Strategy has always been -- well, since they stopped using the N-word and being explicit about what they`re trying to do with race and, you know, creating this “us versus them” dynamic, it became increasingly vague through the years. You started talking about states rights at a certain point. Then you started talking about, you know, these wedge issues like gay marriage and on and on. But ultimately, it`s always about an "us and them" dynamic.

JOAN WALSH, SALON.COM: Right.

PARKER: And Sarah Palin`s really very good at that. And she is, you know, when she plays her populist role, there`s no one better at it.

MATTHEWS: Is she connecting the dots, Joan, among Henry Louis Gates, the birther movement, the Sotomayor testimony and confirmation questioning, so tribalistic? There`s no doubt about it. All that stuff has become very tribalistic, something we thought we`d begun to crack in this country. Is Sarah the dog whistle that says, yeah, that`s what it`s about?

WALSH: I think Sarah Palin`s overall message is one of “us versus them.” I think that she took the lead on the campaign trail -- and you and I talked about it back in September and October, Chris -- in really making Obama the other. She would literally say things like, you know, we don`t know enough about him. We`re not sure where he`s from. She would talk about the regular America, you know, and palling around with terrorists. We`ve taken that apart. So she was the person, not John McCain -- maybe behind the scenes the McCain people were encouraging her. But she had a real zest for it, you know. She did it with a real zing and panache.

She really, you know, she had that visceral appearance of enjoying it when she was really saying some pretty hateful and not-founded things. Barack Obama is one of us. He`s very much so. The only thing different about him is he`s black. He`s our first black President. And, you know, I think we`ve made enormous racial progress. I don`t want to, and I know Kathleen doesn`t want to overstate what`s going on right now.

But we`re in a moment right now with the birthers, with the reaction to the Gates` affair, with the trashing of Sonia Sotomayor, and, you know, even John McCain saying he`s not going to vote for her, where the Republican party seems, seems to believe that its best route is tribalism and scaring people. Whether they`re scaring people about Obama is going to take away your health care or they`re scaring you about we don`t know what he`s about; he`s a Muslim, he`s a socialist, it`s fear. The tactic is fear and fear alone. And I loved Kathleen`s column. It was awesome.

PARKER: Thank you.

MATTHEWS: I`m struck by the numbers. This new poll that came out and showed that the southerners, a majority of them are not willing to commit - - a majority of southerners, including blacks -- obviously the blacks aren`t part of this, I assume -- don`t have any reason to believe he`s an American. They either don`t believe it or they`re --

WALSH: It`s stunning. They`re not sure.

MATTHEWS: A majority of them are not willing to say, yeah, he`s one of us. And the rest of the country is overwhelming. Nine out of 10 say sure, he`s one of us. So why is the South alone in this regard? Not Northeast, not Midwest, not West. But the South stands out there uniquely and regionally and racially opposed to this guy.

PARKER: One word, Chris, one word: Confederacy. I mean, you know, the South is very, I live there, okay? I want to make that clear, too, because I`m not bashing southerners. I love the South and I am a southerner. But-

MATTHEWS: But 40 percent of those states like yours are black.

PARKER: It’s part of the history.

MATTHEWS: So it`s the 60 percent that are white.

PARKER: It`s part of the culture to be secessionist.

MATTHEWS: Like Rick Perry effectively is?

PARKER: To always view the federal government as the enemy. And it`s very, yeah, yes, I can`t, I can`t-

MATTHEWS: How about Palin? Let`s talk about Palin. Palin has attacked New York, Washington and Los Angeles. She goes after the government, after the media, after Hollywood.

PARKER: Yes.

MATTHEWS: Anything that`s on the coast is evil to her. She`s an Alaskan who, I bet you any money, is going to spend most of her time down in the middle parts of the country, the rural white parts. She`s going to find those cul de sacs of whitedom, and exploit the hell out of them, right?

WALSH: But wasn`t she in New York last night at Michael`s, the big media and celebrity-

MATTHEWS: (UNINTELLIGIBLE) because she`s got a lawyer who is smart enough, Robert Barnett, to take her to the one place she`s going to get a hell of a lot of publicity.
 

alice

Well-known member
reader (the Second) said:
Who is injecting the concept of racism into this discussion?

I think the commentator who said that Palin is adopting the political tactics of Phyllis Schlafly may be correct actually. That's in another thread so hopefully you'll run over there and comment on it.

This time however could you actually read what I post and comment on it instead of changing the subject?

He can't, R2...his hardwiring won't allow it...

Alice
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
reader (the Second) said:
From the fine upstanding young man you all love(d). He was on the arm of late 30's Kathy Griffin at Teen Choice Awards (talk about exploitation).

Sarah Palin has marital woes, almost-son-in-law Levi Johnston says

BY Leo Standora
DAILY NEWS STAFF WRITER

Updated Tuesday, August 11th 2009, 10:03 AM

Sarah Palin skipped out as Alaska's governor due to marital problems she and hubby Todd have had "from day one," Levi Johnston said Monday.

The father of the Palins' grandson Tripp and their daughter Bristol's ex-fiancé declined to give details of what was wrong, but emphatically told RadarOnline.com no infidelity was involved (Click here to watch interview).

"No!" the hockey hunk replied when asked if he thought there was cheating, adding, "I'm not going to get into that."

But asked if he believed the marital problems were serious enough to prompt Palin to step down, Johnston answered just as firmly, "Yeah, I do."

And why did Palin jump from the statehouse to the lecture circuit?

"She's taking the money," Johnston said. "That's what she's talked about, that's what I'm gathering, and I think that's what she's doing."

Read more: http://www.nydailynews.com/news/politics/2009/08/11/2009-08-11_palin_has_marital_woes.html#ixzz0Nve8k2Ge

Interesting that you brought this up-- and that it is coming from a "family member".....Because that has been the talk for months on some of the websites (apparently been some quite public displays of problems)--and been speculation lately as a major factor of her resigning early- with some even saying the "Family Values and Holier than Thou" Party is going to get hit with another "family values" scandal....
 

burnt

Well-known member
And you, r2, are the one who keeps bringing it here. But maybe you don't have the perception to see how it reflects on you. :roll:
 

hypocritexposer

Well-known member
Governor Palin provided a comprehensive list of articles, editorials, and a video which formed the basis of her cogent and excellent statement on health care. Following is her complete entry from her FaceBook page:

As Americans spend the next few weeks discussing health care reform, I thought it might be helpful to share some articles (and one panel discussion video) that I’ve found especially insightful (Palin, 2009, ¶1).

Washington Post editorial, July 26, 2009
“The Health-Care Sacrifice: What President Obama needs to tell the public about the cost of reform”

But Mr. Obama's soothing bedside manner masks the reality that getting health costs under control will require making difficult choices about what procedures and medications to cover. It will require saying no, or having the patient pay more, at times when the extra expense is not justified by the marginal improvement in care.

*********

Betsey McCaughey, Wall Street Journal, July 30, 2009
“GovernmentCare’s Assault on Seniors”

But legislation now being rushed through Congress—H.R. 3200 and the Senate Health Committee Bill—will reduce access to care, pressure the elderly to end their lives prematurely, and doom baby boomers to painful later years.

The Congressional majority wants to pay for its $1 trillion to $1.6 trillion health bills with new taxes and a $500 billion cut to Medicare. This cut will come just as baby boomers turn 65 and increase Medicare enrollment by 30%. Less money and more patients will necessitate rationing. The Congressional Budget Office estimates that only 1% of Medicare cuts will come from eliminating fraud, waste and abuse.

[See also Dr. McCaughey’s rebuttal of PolitiFact’s Truth-O-Meter re: “End of Life Counseling” here.]

*********

Senator Sam Brownback, National Review, August 3, 2009
“Don’t Punish Seniors for Health-Care Reform: Denying care options to retirees is necessarily a part of the Democrats plan”

One particular provision in the Democratic bill has seniors worried, and rightly so. A new “Center for Health Outcomes Research and Evaluation” could ration access to medicines and treatments based on the government’s assessment of the value of a human life and the “cost-effectiveness” of treatment.

*********

Raymond Arroyo, EWTN, July 25, 2009
“What You Need To Know About the Health Care Reform Bills”

Here’s to your health, unless you are too old, too young, too disabled or any combination of the above. The health care reform bills wending their way through Congress should be focused on the well being of each citizen. Instead, it seems the bills, designed to contain costs while simultaneously extending health coverage to everyone, target certain vulnerable groups including the elderly, the pre-born, and the disabled. It all comes down to cost. How to pay for this colossus remains a question on the Hill. But the consensus seems to be: raise taxes and ration care. Both ideas have been woven into the current health care bills.

*********

Betsey McCaughey, New York Post, July 24, 2009
“Deadly Doctors”

[Obama health policy advisor Dr. Ezekiel] Emanuel, however, believes that "communitarianism" should guide decisions on who gets care. He says medical care should be reserved for the non-disabled, not given to those "who are irreversibly prevented from being or becoming participating citizens... An obvious example is not guaranteeing health services to patients with dementia" (Hastings Center Report, Nov.-Dec. '96).

Translation: Don't give much care to a grandmother with Parkinson's or a child with cerebral palsy.

He explicitly defends discrimination against older patients: "Unlike allocation by sex or race, allocation by age is not invidious discrimination; every person lives through different life stages rather than being a single age. Even if 25-year-olds receive priority over 65-year-olds, everyone who is 65 years now was previously 25 years" (Lancet, Jan. 31).

*********

Thomas Sowell, Real Clear Politics, August 4, 2009
“Utopia Versus Freedom”

If we can be so easily stampeded by rhetoric that neither the public nor the Congress can be bothered to read, much less analyze, bills making massive changes in medical care, then do not be surprised when life and death decisions about you or your family are taken out of your hands-- and out of the hands of your doctor-- and transferred to bureaucrats in Washington.

*********

David S. Broder, Washington Post, July 26, 2009
“Our New Medical Judges?”

If President Obama has his way, another such unelected authority will be created -- a manager and monitor for the vast and expensive American health-care system. As part of his health-reform effort, he is seeking to launch the Independent Medicare Advisory Council, or IMAC, a bland title for a body that could become as much an arbiter of medicine as the Fed is of the economy or the Supreme Court of the law.

*********

The Heritage Foundation, July 30, 2009
“Obamacare: One Pill, Two Pill, Red Pill, Blue Pill; Top 10 Reasons Obamacare Is Wrong for America”

7. Who Makes Medical Decisions? What is the right medical treatment and should bureaucrats determine what Americans can or cannot have? While the House and Senate language is vague, amendments offered in House and Senate committees to block government rationing of care were routinely defeated. Cost or a federal health board could be the deciding factors. President Obama himself admitted this when he said, "Maybe you're better off not having the surgery, but taking the painkiller," when asked about an elderly woman who needed a pacemaker.

*********

National Review editorial, July 30, 2009
“Incurable”

The public option is certainly a weakness of the current House Democrats’ bill, one that could destroy the private-insurance market over time. But the rest of the bill takes the same federal-government-knows-best approach. It uses mandates on employers and individuals to force tens of millions of Americans to buy the level of insurance coverage the federal government demands. For those who cannot afford this level, it offers subsidies in the form of a new entitlement. And it increases the federal role in telling doctors and hospitals what constitutes appropriate medical practice.

The mandates -- effectively, they are taxes -- will reduce wages, limit new hires, and increase prices. The subsidies, enormously expensive from the outset, can be expected to grow with time to cover a larger and larger share of the population, just as Medicaid has done, and for the same political reasons. And having the government dictate medical practice worsens care and will inevitably lead to rationing.

*********

Thomas L. DiLorenzo, Mises Daily, July 28, 2009
“Socialized Healthcare vs. The Laws of Economics”

Price controls, or laws that force prices down below market-clearing levels (where supply and demand are coordinated), artificially stimulate the amount demanded by consumers while reducing supply by making it unprofitable to supply as much as previously. The result of increased demand and reduced supply is shortages. Non-price rationing becomes necessary. This means that government bureaucrats, not individuals and their doctors, inevitably determine who will get medical treatment and who will not, what kind of medical technology will be available, how many doctors there will be, and so forth.

All countries that have adopted socialized healthcare have suffered from the disease of price-control-induced shortages. If a Canadian, for instance, suffers third-degree burns in an automobile crash and is in need of reconstructive plastic surgery, the average waiting time for treatment is more than 19 weeks, or nearly five months. The waiting time for orthopaedic surgery is also almost five months; for neurosurgery it's three full months; and it is even more than a month for heart surgery (see The Fraser Institute publication, Waiting Your Turn: Hospital Waiting Lists in Canada). Think about that one: if your doctor discovers that your arteries are clogged, you must wait in line for more than a month, with death by heart attack an imminent possibility. That's why so many Canadians travel to the United States for healthcare.

*********

Thomas Sowell, Real Clear Politics, August 5, 2009
“Care Versus Control”

If this new medical scheme is so wonderful, why can’t it stand the light of day or a little time to think about it?

The obvious answer is that the administration doesn’t want us to know what it is all about or else we would not go along with it. Far better to say that we can’t wait, that things are just too urgent. This tactic worked with whizzing the “stimulus” package through Congress, even though the stimulus package itself has not worked.

Any serious discussion of government-run medical care would have to look at other countries where there is government-run medical care. As someone who has done some research on this for my book, “Applied Economics,” I can tell you that the actual consequences of government-controlled medical care are not a pretty picture, however inspiring the rhetoric that accompanies it.

*********

The Cato Institute Policy Forum
“What Government-Run Health Care Really Means”

*********

Michael D. Tanner, Cato Institute, August 2009
“Not Enough Health Care to Go Around”

The reality, however, is that every government-run healthcare system around the world rations care.

In Great Britain, the National Institute on Clinical Effectiveness makes such decisions, including a controversial determination that certain cancer drugs are "too expensive." The government effectively puts a price tag on each citizen's life...

Free-market healthcare reformers, on the other hand, want to shift more of the decisions (and therefore the financial responsibility) back to the individual.

*********

Arthur B. Laffer, Wall Street Journal, August 5, 2009
“How to Fix the Health-Care ‘Wedge’: There is an alternative to ObamaCare”

Rather than expanding the role of government in the health-care market, Congress should implement a patient-centered approach to health-care reform. A patient-centered approach focuses on the patient-doctor relationship and empowers the patient and the doctor to make effective and economical choices.

A patient-centered health-care reform begins with individual ownership of insurance policies and leverages Health Savings Accounts, a low-premium, high-deductible alternative to traditional insurance that includes a tax-advantaged savings account. It allows people to purchase insurance policies across state lines and reduces the number of mandated benefits insurers are required to cover. It reallocates the majority of Medicaid spending into a simple voucher for low-income individuals to purchase their own insurance. And it reduces the cost of medical procedures by reforming tort liability laws.

*********

Deroy Murdock, National Review, July 20, 2009
“Health-Care Reform: Why Not Try Ownership?”

Health-care reform should give Americans the option of using money tax-free to purchase whatever kinds of health insurance make them happy. If employers offer such plans, lovely. If not, individuals should be encouraged, through tax-free Health Savings Accounts, to buy their own policies and maintain them throughout their careers. This dramatically would reduce the tragedy of “job lock,” whereby employees put up with bosses and duties they cannot stand, merely to keep employer-furnished health coverage.

*********

Mark Steyn, Orange County Register, July 31, 2009
“No turning back from Obamacare”

How did the health-care debate decay to the point where we think it entirely natural for the central government to fix a collective figure for what 300 million freeborn citizens ought to be spending on something as basic to individual liberty as their own bodies?

*********


There is a lot of wisdom in the above articles, but I’m most impressed by the common sense of ordinary Americans, like the citizen from Pennsylvania who told Senator Spector: (Palin, 2009, ¶2)

“What I see is a bureaucratic nightmare, Senator. Medicaid is broke. Medicare is broke. Social Security is broke. And you want us to believe that a government that can’t even run a Cash for Clunkers program is going to run 1/7th of our U.S. economy?” (Palin, 2009, ¶3)

I couldn’t have said it better myself (Palin, 2009, ¶4).
 

Nalen

Well-known member
reader (the Second) said:
"Here's the problem, Matt. It's the double standard that's been applied here...[R]emember in the campaign, Barack Obama said "Family's off limits. You don't talk about my family," and...everybody adhered to that, and they did leave his family alone, and they haven't done that on the other side of the ticket, and it has continued to this day. So that's a political double standard."

-- Sarah Palin, on the Today show. June 12, 2009


"The America I know and love is not one in which my parents or my baby with Down Syndrome will have to stand in front of Obama's "death panel" so his bureaucrats can decide...whether they are worthy of health care. Such a system is downright evil."

-- Sarah Palin, on her Facebook page. August 7, 2009


Well, at least we learned one thing about Sarah Palin: She doesn't understand the meaning of, "double standard."

The good news is that it only took us 56 days to discover this. Some people can go years before they make such diametrically opposed, egregiously contradictory statements. Okay, to be fair, some people can go a lifetime.

And to be fair, we already knew this about Sarah Palin. But it's always good to have it this clearly in black-and-white for those who had their eyes closed the previous times. (At least now when they ignore it, they can look as foolish as her.)

What Sarah Palin has never understood because she's too small-minded -- or what she's understood perfectly and is a demagogue -- is that there is no double-standard. That if you don't want people talking about your children because they're off-limits...then they're off-limits. To everyone. And "everyone" includes yourself.

Except at the Democratic Convention and one instance where he allowed his children on camera, which he immediately regretted and said it would not happen again (and it didn't happen again), Barack Obama said his children were off-limits, and kept them off-limits. So, the press saw him living by the standards he was asking of others, and kept Mr. Obama's family off-limits.

Sarah Palin, on the other hand, has found few events she couldn't shove her children into - during the campaign and after. Sarah Palin used her children so much that they not only became circus props, but Barnum & Bailey probably took lessons.

Wherever she went, she seemed to have her youngest child on her shoulder. Whenever she could talk about her child having Down Syndrome, she did. When invited to drop a puck at an NHL hockey game, she dragged a child onto the ice with her (subjecting the girl to a rousing chorus of boo's.) Sarah Palin shined a light on her family during her first, major national appearance - making a notable reference to the world at the Republican Convention of being a "hockey mom." She brought her children with her on campaign stops. She dragged her daughter and temporary prop faux-son-in-law where she went. She was right there in the TV studio when her daughter gave an interview on national television. And there was her daughter, dressed in a fire engine-red graduation gown and holding her newborn baby on the cover of People magazine, one of recent year's most questionable Role Model Moments.

And Sarah Palin wants to lecture anyone about double-standards? Sarah Palin wants to cry that her children are off-limits?

Sarah Palin not only put her children so far on-limits, that if she hadn't, it sometimes seemed she wouldn't have had anything to talk about. Sarah Palin so-repeatedly made her children objects of attention that it was like being locked in a room with the world's most annoying theater parents. ("Here, Janie, show the nice stranger how you can tap dance. And then we'll bring out the home movies.") At times, it felt like you were watching the live-action version of "The Sound of Music," with the Von Trapp Family children singing, "So Long, Farewell" - except that they wouldn't leave. The only parents more liable to serial child-endangerment abuse on TV were Jon and Kate.

Yet despite all that, Sarah Palin just accomplished what some thought impossible. She outdid herself.

The person who has been putting her children on stage, while shedding crocodile tears for a year how they are off-limits - just used her Down Syndrome baby as another circus prop by writing for a national audience how he could be killed by the government.

I was going to call this disingenuous, but that's wrong. It's unconscionable. It's pathetic.

How pathetic is it? Even if Sarah Palin had never complained about double-standards and off-limits, it still would have been pathetic.

And this doesn't even touch on the reality that what she said wasn't remotely true. And she either knows it isn't remotely true and was despicably riling up an unthinking mob into imagining that the government is going to kill the weak, or she's such an idiot that she shouldn't be allowed to chew gum without supervision.

And she did it by making her Down Syndrome baby the issue. She put him on the table. She made him and his condition the object of national debate. She did it. Herself.

Again.

And you know that some time in the future she's going to cry about double-standards and how her children are off-limits again. And put them centerstage under a bright light. Again.

Again and again and again.

Hey, every circus has a merry-go-round. And a clown.

wow you pulled something off of Keith Olbermans show way to go. If you didn't believe that she poses a threat to your liberalistic views you would not attack her. Thats why we attack Obama but we don't have to twist facts to get what we want out of them because we use exactly what your savior says to try and make you see. But you can't make the blind see I guess.
 
Top