Monday, June 15, 2009

Oh, how I love to hate on Sarah Palin

As I've been relatively busy as of late, some things have tempted me, but nothing has prompted me to return to the blogosphere. Now, however, since Sarah Palin's back in the media ranting nonsensically, I've decided it's time for me to write something again. First and foremost, I must admit that I love to hate Sarah Palin. So while I'm ranting about her, I guess I can't complain too much that this moron is back in the news because it gives me so much joy to trash her. I guess I like easy targets. What can I say? ;)

Ahem, now then. Well, we all know that Sarah Palin is an idiot. If you'd like to know precisely why, you should check out earlier posts of mine. This time her idiocy isn't regarding science...although, I think I might be able to make a case for that. No, this time, she's all fired up about some remarks David Letterman made regarding her daughter Bristol. Apparently, Palin is not familiar with the format of the jokes presented on the late-night talk shows because she first mistakenly assumed that when Letterman implied A-Rod impregnated her daughter that Letterman was referring to her daughter Willow who was at the game. Letterman later said he was referring to Bristol which makes more sense given that um...well...there's living proof that Bristol's had sex...and could probably be coaxed into more of it with an oh-so-famous baseball player. The fact that Bristol wasn't present doesn't really matter as jokes on these late-night shows sometimes don't quite fit the situation. Palin's second erroneous assumption is that Letterman was implying rape and/or statutory rape which is clearly not what he said...and um, once again, Bristol certainly isn't a virgin (and we've already cleared up that the comment was about Bristol, not Willow), so what evidence is there that Letterman was implying rape?

Now, as much as I hate Sarah Palin's gun-toting, conservative, environment-hating, science-ignoring attitude, I'll put on my feminist hat for just a second. I do think that she has a point about the comments. They were a bit over the top. Saying that someone is knocked up could imply that the woman has little control over the matter (although, I think you could make the case that it doesn't imply anything other than that conception took place as a result of intercourse). However, I am confused by Palin's hypocrisy. How can she decry Letterman's comments as degrading to women, yet be anti-abortion? She would have a woman's ultimate right stripped away from her, yet complain about comments that may or may not have been degrading towards women depending on how you look at it. To me, this is what gives her away. To me, it seems that she's missing her 15 minutes of fame and doing everything she can (including dragging her family into all this crap) and stirring people up to try to get Letterman fired to get back into the limelight. I would just say that she needs to toughen up her skin and learn to take a freaking joke, but like I said, I think she's just using this to put herself back into the mainstream media that she loves to complain about even though she secretly actually loves them. Anyway, as I said before, I'm not exactly complaining that she wants her 15 minutes back because that means I here ranting to you all about her and oh, how I love to hate on Sarah Palin. ;)

Now, if you want to know how I turn this into an argument about'll have to comment or something because I don't think I want to be quite that mean and deface the "clean" image of my blog. ;)


Anonymous said...


David Letterman's hate is as old as some ancient Hebrew prophets.
Speaking of anti-Semitism, it's Jerry Falwell and other fundy leaders who've gleefully predicted that in the future EVERY nation will be against Israel (an international first?) and that TWO-THIRDS of all Jews will be killed, right?
Wrong! It's the ancient Hebrew prophet Zechariah who predicted all this in the 13th and 14th chapters of his book! The last prophet, Malachi, explains the reason for this future Holocaust that'll outdo even Hitler's by stating that "Judah hath dealt treacherously" and "the Lord will cut off the man that doeth this" and asks "Why do we deal treacherously every man against his brother?"
Haven't evangelicals generally been the best friends of Israel and Jewish persons? Then please explain the recent filthy, hate-filled, back-stabbing tirades by David Letterman (and Sandra Bernhard) against a leading evangelical named Sarah Palin, and explain why most Jewish leaders have seemingly condoned Palin's continuing "crucifixion"!
While David and Sandra are tragically turning comedy into tragedy, they are also helping to speed up and fulfill the Final Holocaust a la Zechariah and Malachi, thus helping to make the Bible even more believable!
(For even more stunning information, visit MSN and type in "Separation of Raunch and State" and "Bible Verses Obama Avoids.")

Anna Banana said...

Clearly, you are of far higher intellect than I, Anonymous. My hat's off to you.

Stig Martyr said...

Hey, Anonymous,

I couldn't help but notice a redundant word in your last sentence (before the parentheses). I think you could have left out the word "more" when talking about the Bible's believability.

The "Final Holocaust" will only happen if fundamentalist nutjobs like yourself, Sarah Palin, George W. Bush et al have control over the big red buttons. I thank your non-existent god that there's finally some intelligence and reason in the White House. Perhaps we won't all perish in a hail of nuclear weapons after all.

When you guys actually start providing some historical evidence supporting the "believability" of your document, perhaps we might take you guys a little more seriously. Until then, enjoy your fairy tales and leave politics to those who don't have the final destruction of this planet as their ultimate goal.

Jonathan said...

Wow Anonymous, that's an interesting post. Strange that you don't see the need to put your name on it, since clearly you believe what you are saying.

Anonymous said...

Why can't someone tell us what year her dad Charles (Chuck) Heath ran the boston marathon. Did he qualify or did he run it illegally. No one can confirm it. To run it legally you have to qualify in a run sanctioned by the Boston Marathon Association. I contacted them and they had no information on this.

Frankus said...

Anonymous is a nutjob.
Here is a little treat: