MSNBC Interviews Clueless Sarah Palin Supporters At Book Signing

Maybe I'm mistaken from reading all the posts, but I don't think J_Jammer is a Palin supporter. I think he's just trying to bring some balance to this extremely one sided argument about a woman who would probably go away if everyone stopped paying attention to her.

You're smarter than the average Current poster....that's for sure.

"Maybe I'm mistaken from reading all the posts, but I don't think J_Jammer is a Palin supporter. I think he's just trying to bring some balance to this extremely one sided argument about a woman who would probably go away if everyone stopped paying attention to her."

I see your point, but there are several issues to be had with this line of reasoning:

1. The Mainstream Media is the culprit behind Sarah's visibility, not Current posters. The tend to post what stories from other news sources, after all. Although they are responsible for Current's flood of Palin stories, most either gloss over them or comment and move on. Perhaps Jammer's time would be better spent writing MSNBC, CNN, and FOX and requesting she stop receiving so much press coverage when there are more important stories to cover.

2. Perhaps there is a reason to people's dislike of Palin beyond the surface charm she displays and the pageant beauty she possesses. It may be that people truthfully do not see her as able to lead because she lacks true leadership skills. That could contribute to the vehement opposition she has been dealing with since the 2008 election cycle.

3. The fact that Jammer is being contrary not out of support but instead to play Devil's Advocate screams trollish behavior. If you're going to bother voicing an opinion, perhaps you should at least believe in it yourself. Otherwise your no better than a spam bot of slightly higher intelligence.

I agree with you on points one and two, which is why I visit the website, Current. I come here looking for news from sources that people may post that I can't readily access including local news from around the US and the world, scientific news, and whatever other quirky or interesting news there may be. While I respect this as a forum for debate about the mainstream media as well, I just get a little tired of the same videos being played ad nauseum of this woman and her supporters when, like you said, I can get the same info from every other MSM news outlet. I come here for a breath of fresh air, so to speak, and it's just a little irritating when this sort of 'news' is my 'top news' in iGoogle almost every day.

The 'trolling' idea, though, I have to disagree with. If this is a debate forum where people really come to explore ideas, then people shouldn't have a problem with so-called 'trolls'. Who cares if he believes in his ideas? Maybe he and others like him are just trying to elicit responses from people in order to better understand, or to help other readers understand, how people think about this and other subjects and WHY they choose to think the way they do. Unless it gets into name calling or personal attacks, I don't see anything wrong with long discussions on this website and exploration of all sides of ideas or equations.

Obama thought there were 56 States in America. So?
And Presidents have been Governors more than they have been senators.
Thomas Jefferson and John Adams both helped write the Constitution and yet they are not seen as the best Presidents. Being a lawyer who studied it doesn't make for a better President.

His resume is impressive but thus far has not lent itself to leadership.

What?
Quitting is a matter of liberal bias. They want to say she quit even though that is not what she did. It's like people saying Obama quit instead of finishing his term has a no good senator who voted yes to war.

She does not have an empty resume. It's lying like that....that makes people's opinions lackluster.

That was poor wasn't it?

Couldn't help it. After reading you saying "quit" as if you stole that from a liberal TV show with low ratings....what could I do? Out shine you?

BBC is liberal news.

If she's a joke stop talking about her. Then she'll go away. The only reason she's around is because of people like you. These articles about her? Posted by who? Liberals. And I can't take you seriously when you use (and you didn't' deny it) a liberal comment about quitting.

Interesting fact - Harvard, Yale, Brown and many other ivy league schools were not only built by slaves (suck on that, Northern 'progressive elites'), but Harvard's halls are also all still named after slaveowners.

As mayor of a town and governor she made executive decisions. No where in his resume does he have executive experience. Ivy League? Big deal. So he is privileged and miseducated. Ivy Leaguers tend to have that same antiAmerican streak that Obama and his appointees have.

As far as Slarabee getting his news from only lefty sources----why not get them from all sources? I read righty sources I disagree with just to continually update my understanding of my opponents arguments. I read lefty sources for the same reason. One could make the argument that the left and right covered the same issues from different sides, but that is not the case anymore. The stories covered by each side are different with many stories only being covered by one side. If you don't read both, your vision will be myopic.

This is a show by the liberals to pretend they want her to stay as they talk about her continuously. If they wanted her to stay and try to win in 2012 they wouldn't bother attacking her. They'd just watch and see. But attacking = fear. Liberals are like squirrels--they make a lot of noise but run when someone brings their foot down.

lol...that was funny.

But the same could be said about Hilary Clinton.

Keep throwing stones in your glass house, but don't be surprised when it all comes crashing down on you.

What are you trying to suggest with the old "glass house" idiom?

Are there not as many dumb Obama supporters as there are dumb Palin supporters or not?

And who's to talk about glass houses anyway? We have a bunch of people here of a liberal persuasion making fun of dumb people of a conservative persuasion, fully ignoring the folly of their totally ignorant liberal peers.

On Bush's watch with a Democratic Congress?

Dem Congress for 2 out of 8 years remember.

The relate looks to women. Do you speak of men that way?

If men's looks didn't matter, Kucinich would be president.

"I voted for him because he was black"

Those Obama supporters are so smart.

Nice generalizing.

Every single thread about Palin does that.

I'm just one commenter. I can't balance that out.

Palin being stupid and clueless are not generalizations when she's been demonstrating that she is at every chance she gets. I have not heard her make one intelligent comment since the news stations, magazines, and newspapers started interviewing/quoting her. I'm waiting for her to prove me wrong. Not holding my breath on it though.

You cannot point to something smart that she has said not because she hasn't, but because you just don't like her and the clouds your vision. Your actions speak louder than your well chosen words.

I see you're using only when she was on the campaign trail a whole year ago. Everyone knows that Obama said things then that he's totally changed now. I guess that was the change he was whoring then. Speaking of change....guess what? She's no longer held on a short leash.

Still nothing recent?

Yeah...broken record.

Idiocy is not something that changes overnight.

Prove me wrong with current clips/soundbytes, if you can.

You're stuck in the past and using it as proof of now. That's like using Lincoln as proof that Republicans are awesome. It doesn't work that way, does it? Why do I want to look for anything when you made up your mind that she's an idiot. I think this would be like trying to convince an Obama hater to like Obama.

I don't want to prove you wrong because you won't admit to being wrong, for one.

And two, I am not invested in her. I just don't think she's as stupid as you wish me to think.

That has nothing to do with you hating her or not liking her or whatever soft shoe response you have in that regard. Guess that proves I have nothing against Obama. I wouldn't spend that much time doing anything to prove him wrong no matter if I knew he was.

I don't try. I mock. There's a difference. Name women republicans you like. These women better not be sitting too close to the middle.

I have nothing else to prove to someone who gets off on mocking people who don't think like they do. You can't even give me one post to the contrary on how Palin is supposedly intelligent, however, you demand I give you an opinion about a particular party I dislike on who I do like from said party. Apparently, your attempting to bait me, and will continue to ask a question because of a need to get the last word in out of some morbid sense of political masochism. I already know how this works, Jammer.

The reason you have stooped to this level of discourse is because you have run out of points to debate on topic, and now wish to defer the argument to another subject entirely. You seem to be good at attempting a red herring fallacy when the argument looks bad for you. Taking a shot at my character or political persuasion does little to detract from the video postings that depict Palin as less than intelligent. My point stills stands in all it's validity, therefore answering your question would only serve to confuse the point and detract from the original topic.

Can you prove that Palin isn't a sub-par thinker and politician? Given the fact you are attempting to re-route the conversation, and your outright refusal to offer any proof to support your argument, you cannot.

It was a simple question. You said you not liking her has nothing to do with her looks or the like and has to do with how she handles herself. I ask what women republicans do you like? Reasonable question, but since you can't answer it that totally puts into question your statement about why you don't like her.

Prove what? you don't like her because she's not on the same side as you. Simple as that.

So predictable...

It a simple question that has virtually nothing to do with the topic. You're making an assumption based on my non-answer. You're also assuming I should have no problem answering your question yet you have no intention on answering the one I asked based directly on the topic. It because of the relevance and lack of courtesy you showed my line of questioning that ultimately led to denying you an answer of refusal.

Even now, you associate a non-answer with a direct answer, more or less mimicking what I have concluded. Yet, the fact that I did not answer is not a correlation between my non-answer and your conclusion. However, your situation is a bit different.

I have given you proof in both past and present setting supporting my conclusion, however you have not and even outright refused to respond with any evidence to support your argument besides personal opinion and mere conjecture. This would support my response that you do not have any proof against what I have said, because you either have none, or wish not to present it. Either way, had this been a court of law, I would have won the verdict hours ago. However, given this is an internet forum, you persist in attempting to belittle my augmentative point with no factual basis of your own.

To this point, I have proven not to like Palin based on an lack of intelligence, integrity, and political prowess. I have maintained this point throughout my posting, and it should be obvious to most everyone that this has nothing to do with party affiliation. Your attempt at creating both an ad hommein attack and a red herring fallacy against me have fallen flat and failed. Please either prove my points wrong or I can assume that you have no factual basis to stand on, and I can move on from this tedious and unproductive debate.

You would not have won. Your mistake, good sir, is that the majority of your evidence has an expiration date....statute of limitations. Sorry. As for the rest of them that have happened with this time frame that is acceptable...I don't have any issue with it and therefore it proves nothing to me.

And it does have something to do with your political affiliation. You would have realized that the interviews during the campaign they had her on a leash keeping her from sharing her opinions. But instead of realizing that you used it as evidence...even though it expired.

The reason for my question is because I want to see if you like Republicans at all. You're stating it has nothing to do with your affiliation has no backing no matter how many videos you post. That is painfully obvious to anyone that isn't bias.

Just to entertain this "statute of limitations" argument:

Let's say this was a felony case of official misconduct. I would have 2 to 3 years after her offense or employment under my state's (Missouri's) law to bring any evidence of crime to trial. All that material would fall under within that time limit, and therefore be valid.

Alaska has a maximum of 3 years extension. All that evidence would still be valid.

The only clip I would question is the church video, however, that still leaves everything else.

However, since you don't care about any of the evidence I have brought forth or to even register the validity of my or anyone else's commentary, what is your purpose to coming here and responding?

I actually kind of pity your inability to see past your own line of reasoning, to the point where I find it worthless to converse with you any further. Please, the next time you post to one of my comments, don't bother.

The problem is my thoughts have backing. Hence the video clips. Nice try though, and thanks for playing.

That is not backing. That's cherry picking to prove what you already thought is true. Then you decided about me before this conversation and pretend that this proved something more about what you already knew. You just like proving your own views and not learning anything new. Hence the boring.

In both literary and educational circles, the presentation of facts to support an argument is not "cherry picking". It's "supporting evidence". Those are video clip examples that support my viewpoint. I have evidence to support my claims, which removes virtually any bias from my responses. You claim I am stubborn, but have offered nothing to convince me I am mistaken other libelous attacks against my character and personality.

If you were to provide evidence to the contrary, I could at least entertain the possibility of your statements having validity. However, you haven't proven anything and continue to try and detract from my credibility. Since you have not established your own, this is a fruitless effort.

Really, this is ridiculous. 30+ posts and you can't even manage to bring any proof to back your opinions into the debate. Just personal opinion, conjecture, ad hommein attacks, red herring fallacy, attacking my character, and calling my integrity into question. How can you expect to convince anyone of anything when the moment you begin to type, you are already talking down to them? Furthermore, why do you choose to come back to this site when the people here only disagree with your viewpoints to the point where you have to attack their character?

You're really not fooling anyone, and your exercise in futility is counter-productive to say the least. I would think that instead of getting on here for 8 hours a day, you would be better off honing your writing skills or doing something you can get some joy out of that isn't at the expense of other people.

Just a thought.

You honestly think that evidence that you picked removes bias? How do you prove that you picked said evidence without bias? By your predetermined opinion? The rest of what you said is just lawyer speak....I have a friend who is a lawyer and he debates like you. That crap doesn't work on me. I'm not charmed by that mess.

Cherry Picking isn't in reference to evidence in general. It's in reference to your choices. I do not attack people with comments like "you're stupid" which is what you're referring to with your attack. If anything I'm attacking your claims of being objective and your debating style.

Yep!

Of course...black people are not republicans.

Michael Steele is black, Jammer.

He's people?

I did post the links up above.

Well, neither of your videos where very funny. And these people where not hardcore fans of the the person they where supporting to the point of wearing shirts and getting books signed. Thanks for trying. Ok, the kids at the rock show were kind of funny but they did not state who they supported.

Obama has a few of his own. Note that.

Sure, but Obama's are all superior to the Republicans in every way.

I guess today lying is ok.
It's good people know that.

Ah, that explains all your posts, then, JJ!

Stopping people like you from spreading them.

Since I do no such thing, your efforts with regard to my posts are nothing but an exercise in idiocy. Why waste your time and life this way?

Did you just say that it's a waste of time to read your post?

That's being far too cruel to yourself. There, there.

Of course not - what I said meant that you are wasting your time trying to stop me spreading lies since I don't spread nor post lies. But you knew that already, despite your feeble response.

I think the harder I push the more you believe your attacks on conservatives and republicans and that's pretty petty. It's just amusing to watch you hold on to such hollow views of people you don't really know (other than through liberal media) and not allowing a small sliver of you being wrong to exist.

How utterly and mistakenly presumptuous of you. I know a great many conservatives and Republicans personally, my opinion of them is absolutely correct.

You don't know all.

Exceptions do exist, but they only confirm the rule.

Quotes are wisdom, but they are never clever.

Naa man it's more fun to poke fun at palin. She has no business being in politics.

Neither does Obama.

Lets just elect J_Jammer to office. Maybe he'll do a better job than Obama.

You know what I would do? Nothing. Apparently that makes people like Obama. Anyone can do that.

Here's my problem with the naysayers on all sides. The "us vs. them" mentality is really just a product of the same system one would criticize. All these comments and thoughts are really just distractions from moving forward. Obama's not perfect. Palin's not perfect. The system is definitely not perfect, but we're so fucking blind to the real issues that we fail to realize the potential of changing ourselves. It's not like I'm separate from this, but I think it's important to point out because if everyone here would simply DO what they SAY, I think we would naturally gravitate towards what is right.

I love how "conclusively" they target 15 Obama supporters to determine that they didn't know any better. Further, without a comparable study of McCain supporters they simply make an assumption that Obama supporters are stupid and that must be why they voted for him. How scientific.

I get what you are saying, that the Palin supporters aren't fairly represented as a whole in the NBC broadcast. I would like to note that they were then informed about the truth of matter and went on to deny it. That's something the Obama supporters didn't do.

Regardless, there has been plenty of research to show that conservatives are typically less educated than progressives.

It's a good point, though. Our "press" isn't doing its damn job when you have to go online to get good information.