Martin Bashir: I think Palin might be breaking federal law by putting the flag on her bus or something; Update: MSNBC flag videos added

posted at 4:19 pm on June 1, 2011 by Allahpundit

In case you missed it yesterday at Newsbusters. No surprises here, of course: If you saw Bashir’s ridiculous interview with Breitbart last month, you already know what he thinks of outspoken conservatives. Palin must be guilty of something; all he needs to do is come up with some offense and charge her for it. I’m surprised he didn’t go ABC’s route and obliquely accuse her of financial hypocrisy instead. Via JWF:

When asked, twice, how much her “One Nation Tour” has cost four days into the trip, she got visibly irritated.

“Check SarahPAC.com,” she said. “I don’t know why in the world you would ask a question like that. I’m just thinking about America and our foundations and our freedoms and our opportunities. Why would you ask something …”

ABC News pointed out that she often talks about the economy and how much money we’re spending.

“What does our economy have to do with how much we’re — I’m not asking you to pay for a penny of this trip,” she said.

Ending tourism as we know it is a core plank of the fiscal conservative message according to ABC, I guess. As for Bashir’s mumbling, his own network was known in recent years to intertwine its corporate logo with a graphic of a fluttering American flag. But maybe MSNBC’s exempt from the “no flag advertisements” rule, since they’re standing up for truth ‘n stuff. Exit question: Seriously, is she running or isn’t she? RCP’s sources said this morning that the bus tour will now include stops in South Carolina along with Iowa and New Hampshire. Later Palin herself told ABC that she plans to return to Alaska after the east coast swing of the tour ends and then to re-launch it on the west coast. Sure sounds like she’s in — except that, according to Ben Smith, she met with Fox News execs this afternoon and there’s still no change in her status as a contributor “right now.” Maybe she told them she’s still genuinely undecided but leaning towards yes, with a decision to come shortly? Over/under on an announcement: July 1.

Update: Reason TV administers the coup de grace.


Related Posts:

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

Comment pages: 1 3 4 5

Her electability, and Daniels electability, are legitimate issues of debate, BTW, but those debates at HA these days pretty much don’t get any more in depth than “she’s an unelectable hayseed” and “he’s a cuckolded loser”.

Which you always based on polls, and those polls always showed Daniels with about 3% support among Republicans. That looks like “unelectable” to me.

And b-t-dubs, climb off your high horse on the “enthusiastic support must be belittled!” remark. If you’ve been on this blog long enough, you have to have read the gary4205 posts on Palin. Dude would literally write a novella, you’d have to scroll down and down and down to get to the next comment.

Vyce on June 2, 2011 at 12:17 AM

“My God, I hope gary4205 doesn’t force me to read this screed…I swear, if some poor reader gets an astigmatism from reading this, someone’s going to pay…”

pseudoforce on June 2, 2011 at 12:22 AM

Vyce on June 2, 2011 at 12:17 AM

a you admitted to trolling, dam nit just troll, don’t make excuses. you are here to troll be proud, I don’t see Hollowpoint making excuses.

djohn669 on June 2, 2011 at 12:23 AM

Suddenly my opinion matters? Specifically on how YOU are going to vote in the primaries?

No, I’m just curious since you are accusing Palin supporters of engaging in behavior that I specifically and consciously refrain from engaging in (like long-winded emotional screeds).

I suppose my answer is…..good for you? I won’t be voting for her in the primaries. I’ll have to see who’s left in the field by that point and make a choice, I guess.

Now this just SCREAMS “chickensh!t troll.” I don’t expect you to make up your mind any certain way about Palin. But I do think you should be able to make up your own damn mind one way or the other and quit being such an ankle-biting a$$hat while you give me the whole “the field hasn’t solidified yet” garbage.

Of course, as I’ve reiterated many times before, if she does manage to win the nomination, I’ll vote for her over Obama (or the third option, sitting the election out). What say you to THAT, sunshine?

Vyce on June 2, 2011 at 12:17 AM

I say that’s the most gutless and brainless tack you can possibly take, given how harshly critical you have been of me lately (and I say “me” precisely because I am a Palin supporter).

gryphon202 on June 2, 2011 at 12:23 AM

Ha, I love how you guys engage in this sort of paranoia. We say a million times that electability IS the primary driving force behind our skepticism of her, and a million and one times you guys will go, “No, it CAN’T be that, it must be some other, nefarious reason….”

Vyce on June 2, 2011 at 12:17 AM

If you’re so concerned about electability, why did you so eagerly latch on to Daniels, who wouldn’t have been elected president in a million years?

pseudoforce on June 2, 2011 at 12:25 AM

Look, once you’ve come on here admitting in so many words that your goal is to make things difficult for a fellow poster, I don’t care how “unhinged” or “uncvil” your rival is. You’ve lost me, and I’m not terribly apt to take anything else you say from that point on seriously.

gryphon202 on June 2, 2011 at 12:27 AM

or maybe I’ll just stick to thread-jacking the QOTD.

annoyinglittletwerp on June 1, 2011 at 11:24 PM

Impossible. QOTD is a HA open thread and veritable thread-jacking fountain of goodness.

alwaysfiredup on June 2, 2011 at 12:27 AM

If you’re so concerned about electability, why did you so eagerly latch on to Daniels, who wouldn’t have been elected president in a million years?

pseudoforce on June 2, 2011 at 12:25 AM

Because he’s not concerned about electability. He’s concerned about trolling. He’s pretty much admitted to it in this very thread.

gryphon202 on June 2, 2011 at 12:27 AM

We say a million times that electability IS the primary driving force behind our skepticism of her, and a million and one times you guys will go, “No, it CAN’T be that, it must be some other, nefarious reason….”

Vyce on June 2, 2011 at 12:17 AM

No, we think it’s a dumb reason and, as you seem smart, it makes no sense that you would hide your head in the sand like that. But I”m perfectly willing to believe you aren’t as smart as you seem, if you want to be so insistent.

alwaysfiredup on June 2, 2011 at 12:29 AM

We say a million times that electability IS the primary driving force behind our skepticism of her, and a million and one times you guys will go, “No, it CAN’T be that, it must be some other, nefarious reason….”

Vyce on June 2, 2011 at 12:17 AM

And then there are guys like me who just don’t care about “electability” or any other reason you may not like her. I have my reasons, you have yours, and that’s good enough for me. So when you’re interested in serious debate, let me know. I won’t hold my breath.

gryphon202 on June 2, 2011 at 12:31 AM

Do they think they’re going to make converts? What’s the motive?

pseudoforce on June 1, 2011 at 11:51 PM

IMO, the effort is to cow, intimidate and shut Palin supporters up.

This discussion reminds me of Tucson. The left called Sarah and the right mass murderers. When she, some commenters and bloggers called them on it, all of a sudden there was this progressive call for civility. When the left is exposed, they do everything in their power to ‘appear’ to be reasonable and shut us the frik up.

Similarly at HA. I don’t for one minute believe the ABPers who suggest it’s the Palin supporters fault and we should police our own. Truly, what a joke.

Soros paid trolls are pitiful. Those who come here and spout the same, tired, lefty talking points about Sarah are not conservative. I highly doubt they’re Mitch supporters either.

Any person who repeatedly calls Sarah supporters cultists, crazies and the like are trolling in my book. Any person who uses the word abdicate in literally hundreds of posts is not ‘debating’ in good faith.

We will not be cowed, intimidated or silenced, ABPers.

To Gary, unseen, and so many others here who offer facts in support of our gal, those of us who comment rarely owe you a debt of gratitude. Thank you!

Opinionator on June 2, 2011 at 12:58 AM

But perhaps the corner is being turned. Now that people like JetBoy are joining the Palinista ranks, perhaps they can gradually marginalize people like into the fringe, where you clearly belong. And still make Palin look good in the process.

Vyce on June 2, 2011 at 12:03 AM

ROFLMAO….the day you the admitted troll can marginlize me is the day I die. you offer nothing, you attack, smear slander, harp, and bitc* on every thread. You troll the threads to start arguments and then try to blame others when they defend themselves. You my friend are a class A moron that could not debate yourself out of a wet paper bag. Hell you can’t even win a debate on a immature site like ace’s. You give trolls a bad name and hopefully as Palin’s power and influence continues to grow the other trolls can replace you with a better more knowledgable troll.

unseen on June 2, 2011 at 1:22 AM

it is that little give and take at hot air that I oh so love. :)

djohn669 on June 2, 2011 at 12:11 AM

I haven’t seen give and take like this since the Little Round Top scene in Gettysburg.

IMO, the effort is to cow, intimidate and shut Palin supporters up.

This discussion reminds me of Tucson. The left called Sarah and the right mass murderers. When she, some commenters and bloggers called them on it, all of a sudden there was this progressive call for civility. When the left is exposed, they do everything in their power to ‘appear’ to be reasonable and shut us the frik up.

Similarly at HA. I don’t for one minute believe the ABPers who suggest it’s the Palin supporters fault and we should police our own. Truly, what a joke.

Soros paid trolls are pitiful. Those who come here and spout the same, tired, lefty talking points about Sarah are not conservative. I highly doubt they’re Mitch supporters either.

Any person who repeatedly calls Sarah supporters cultists, crazies and the like are trolling in my book. Any person who uses the word abdicate in literally hundreds of posts is not ‘debating’ in good faith.

We will not be cowed, intimidated or silenced, ABPers.

To Gary, unseen, and so many others here who offer facts in support of our gal, those of us who comment rarely owe you a debt of gratitude. Thank you!

Opinionator on June 2, 2011 at 12:58 AM

Aaaaand Opinionator shoots and scores.

Nailed it.

It’s a Gretz ’81-’82 shot right there. Net might as well have been empty, there was no stopping it.

Nicely put.

SuperCool on June 2, 2011 at 1:22 AM

SuperCool on June 2, 2011 at 1:22 AM

Thank you kind sir or madame. .

Opinionator on June 2, 2011 at 1:25 AM

To Gary, unseen, and so many others here who offer facts in support of our gal, those of us who comment rarely owe you a debt of gratitude. Thank you!

Opinionator on June 2, 2011 at 12:58 AM

thanks for the backup and good post

unseen on June 2, 2011 at 1:26 AM

We will not be cowed, intimidated or silenced, ABPers.

To Gary, unseen, and so many others here who offer facts in support of our gal, those of us who comment rarely owe you a debt of gratitude. Thank you!

Opinionator on June 2, 2011 at 12:58 AM

Amen!

The Hatefilled Left and the Soros funded trolls must be frustrated that we never give up, grow weary or drop an iota of support for Palin…and we won’t

Martin Bashir is now officailly a laughingstock! And to lecture us in an accent? Please!

CCRWM on June 2, 2011 at 1:39 AM

The Hatefilled Left and the Soros funded trolls must be frustrated that we never give up, grow weary or drop an iota of support for Palin…and we won’t

Martin Bashir is now officailly a laughingstock! And to lecture us in an accent? Please!

CCRWM on June 2, 2011 at 1:39 AM

get this Vanity fair has now offically gone after Piper. these freaking scum need to back the hell off the kids. And I mean that.

Then it hit me.

Piper in that shot looks like Grace, the elder daughter played by Ruby Jerins in Nurse Jackie.

The one afflicted with anxiety disorder who aspires to be a saint.

I’m not up on the latest trends on Catholic theology but my guess is that being a daughter of Sarah Palin’s might automatically qualify a kid for sainthood.

My “sources” tell me is that a future stop on Palin’s bus tour will at Randy’s Rodeo in San Antonio, Texas, the site of the Sex Pistols’ infamous gig in 1978. Todd Palin intends to stand on the very spot where Sid Vicious staggered. I had no idea Todd was so “into” punk history, and wish I could be there when he explains to Piper what Sid and Johnny Rotten meant to America, and from there they’ll all be heading to the Alamo to find the basement where Pee Wee Herman’s bike is reputed to be.

How all of this impacts the 2012 presidential race, I have no idea.

These are the peopel our resident trolls have choosen to make common cause with, the same peopel that attack Trig are now going after Piper. these inhuman pond scum need to lose there jobs. they need to be shamed into early retirement just like the idiot that attacked trig

unseen on June 2, 2011 at 1:52 AM

Thanks to unseen and CCRWM as well. I read HA easily four hours a day and have for several years.

Y’all are doing the work here. I know you won’t forget, but we need to remember that the Chinese water torture posts from the Soros/NWO crew are actually a laughable experiment which isn’t working. They’re counting on us to sit down and shut up – or go crazy in the streets.

We will do neither. We will instead restore America, restore the rule of law/our Constitution, and bring ‘some people’ to justice when the time is right.

Thank you again for speaking so eloquently on behalf of Sarah – our next President, unseen, and ALL who do so here.

I will do what I can as well.

Meanwhile, we will not be cowed or intimidated or bamboozled by the idiot media matters, organizing for america/soros crew/trolls. Stand strong.

G’night now. Sleep well.

Opinionator on June 2, 2011 at 2:06 AM

These are the peopel our resident trolls have choosen to make common cause with, the same peopel that attack Trig are now going after Piper. these inhuman pond scum need to lose there jobs. they need to be shamed into early retirement just like the idiot that attacked trig

unseen on June 2, 2011 at 1:52 AM

This is why we can’t backdown, if we do then the evil that they are wins against the good that the Palin’s are… and by extension, us…

CCRWM on June 2, 2011 at 2:10 AM

G’night now. Sleep well.

Opinionator on June 2, 2011 at 2:06 AM

You too… and this is a fight that is worth it for me. I have two kids and I’m hearbroken about the country they will inherit from my generation if we don’t do something now!

CCRWM on June 2, 2011 at 2:13 AM

Any person who uses the word abdicate in literally hundreds of posts is not ‘debating’ in good faith.

Opinionator on June 2, 2011 at 12:58 AM

Explain why the word abdicate is not a perfectly valid description of what she did. I have read the complaints about how the word makes people FEEL, but that isn’t the issue.

Many Palin supporters minimize her resignation with long drawn out explanations. That is offensive to me, but I don’t call them dirty names over it. I respond by calling what she did as an abdication. Which is the perfect description of what she did. Here is the definition.

Abdicate: to renounce or relinquish a throne, right, power, claim, responsibility, or the like, especially in a formal manner: The aging founder of the firm decided to abdicate.

Sarah Palin renounced her responsibility as governor of Alaska in a formal press conference.

So, please explain why the word abdicate is so terrible when that is exactly what she did.

csdeven on June 2, 2011 at 2:20 AM

csdeven on June 2, 2011 at 2:20 AM

How did I know it was you in your first sentence? I didn’t need to read the rest of your post.

How did you know that it was you I was referring to in my earlier post, eh? Yes, you recognized yourself and couldn’t help but try and continue your destroyed meme.

You’re like a dog with a bone. NO FACTS will ever clue you into reality. They’ve been explained to you too many times to count.

And please. Your calls for civility are truly a joke in the face of your Chinese water torture style ‘debate’.

I, for one, won’t be reeled into your game. Period.

Opinionator on June 2, 2011 at 2:42 AM

You too… and this is a fight that is worth it for me. I have two kids and I’m hearbroken about the country they will inherit from my generation if we don’t do something now!

CCRWM on June 2, 2011 at 2:13 AM

We are Americans! We will restore our exceptional country. I have no doubt. It is people like you, here and now, who give me the most hope of all!

Sarah/West……

Opinionator on June 2, 2011 at 3:15 AM

I didn’t think that Bashir could become a bigger @$$hole than he was but I was so wrong.

hamradio on June 2, 2011 at 3:23 AM

You know, I have been missing some great threads lately, working too much. Just trying to catch up takes forever! If someone has already posted this…I’m sorry.
http://conservatives4palin.com/2010/11/10-qualifications-sarah-palin-has-over-five-recent-presidents-part-one.html

lovingmyUSA on June 2, 2011 at 5:54 AM

Bashir and the boys have received a Palinoscopy.

kingsjester on June 2, 2011 at 6:10 AM

“How much did it cost?”

What she wanted to say:

“Gosh,Martin, unlike you and your socialist media friends, I chose not to believe that all private spending is using government property, or is somehow the business of the media. Next gottcha question.”

Don L on June 2, 2011 at 6:12 AM

csdeven

Abdicate? Wow you think now she’s royalty?

Apparently you libs fail to comprehend the wise concept of falling back to a better postion in the face of overwhelming enemy fire? She wisely did – and because of her abilty to see the trap and avoid it – she’s lived to fight another day, while you’re still foolishly chasing her shadow from back when you thought you had her trapped. Yup she abdicated -like MacArthur did in the Phillipines – remember him as the abdicator who came back at Leyte and then later stood victorious on the “Big Mo” when Japan was forced to sign a formal unconditional surrender in disgrace. So Sorry! See you on her inauguration day.

Don L on June 2, 2011 at 6:22 AM

The author on that VF piece: Julie Weiner.

Rest my case.

ProudPalinFan on June 2, 2011 at 7:25 AM

Abdicate? Wow you think now she’s royalty?

Apparently you libs fail to comprehend the wise concept of falling back to a better postion in the face of overwhelming enemy fire? She wisely did – and because of her abilty to see the trap and avoid it – she’s lived to fight another day, while you’re still foolishly chasing her shadow from back when you thought you had her trapped. Yup she abdicated -like MacArthur did in the Phillipines – remember him as the abdicator who came back at Leyte and then later stood victorious on the “Big Mo” when Japan was forced to sign a formal unconditional surrender in disgrace. So Sorry! See you on her inauguration day.

Don L on June 2, 2011 at 6:22 AM

Did you read the definition of abdicate? Sarah gave up her responsibility. The example used in the definition points to the aging founder of a firm, NOT A MEMBER OF ROYALTY.

And all the explanations in the world about why she resigned are not even part of the definition of abdicate. She simply gave up her right, or power, or responsibility, or claim, or THE LIKE. That is all that is necessary to define her actions as an abdication.

Now, what is so hard about accepting that?

csdeven on June 2, 2011 at 7:36 AM

Martin Bashir is mentally ill. That’s all…..

adamsmith on June 2, 2011 at 7:43 AM

Did you read the definition of abdicate? Sarah gave up her responsibility. The example used in the definition points to the aging founder of a firm, NOT A MEMBER OF ROYALTY.

And all the explanations in the world about why she resigned are not even part of the definition of abdicate. She simply gave up her right, or power, or responsibility, or claim, or THE LIKE. That is all that is necessary to define her actions as an abdication.

Now, what is so hard about accepting that?

csdeven on June 2, 2011 at 7:36 AM

Looks like you retreated in the face of his overwhelming argument, back to your original position of carping about the definition of a word, instead of actually responding to his entire comment.

So, you abdicated.

fossten on June 2, 2011 at 7:47 AM

She simply gave up her right, or power, or responsibility, or claim, or THE LIKE. That is all that is necessary to define her actions as an abdication.

Now, what is so hard about accepting that?

csdeven on June 2, 2011 at 7:36 AM

You tell me. You’re the one who seems to think that a significant number of chickensh!t “independent voters” are going to have a hard time accepting that, and that’s why Palin’s electability is in question. How do we know that? Ahh, the polls. And you know what I think about polls. Besides, there was nothing “simple” about it. To say that she “simply” did, or does anything is a willful gloss.

gryphon202 on June 2, 2011 at 7:47 AM

PMSNBC — “Let’s trot out a British Muslim to lecture Sarah Palin on proper flag etiquette! That would be really great!”

Jaibones on June 2, 2011 at 7:47 AM

My rants were directed at only certain Palin supporters…and they know who they are.
I count Palin supporters among my HA friends. My rants were most certainly NOT directed at them.

annoyinglittletwerp on June 1, 2011 at 11:41 PM

Huh.

My criticism isn’t of Palin…it’s of true-believers like you.

annoyinglittletwerp on May 24, 2011 at 11:58 PM

i do have things to criticize about Palin-but I don’t dislike the woman.
I loathe some of her supporters

annoyinglittletwerp on May 25, 2011 at 12:11 AM

I don’t have a problem with Palin supporters.

annoyinglittletwerp on May 25, 2011 at 12:36 AM

fossten on June 2, 2011 at 7:56 AM

How did I know it was you in your first sentence? I didn’t need to read the rest of your post.

How did you know that it was you I was referring to in my earlier post, eh? Yes, you recognized yourself and couldn’t help but try and continue your destroyed meme.

You’re like a dog with a bone. NO FACTS will ever clue you into reality. They’ve been explained to you too many times to count.

And please. Your calls for civility are truly a joke in the face of your Chinese water torture style ‘debate’.

I, for one, won’t be reeled into your game. Period.

Opinionator on June 2, 2011 at 2:42 AM

Okay, so what does that have to do with the definition of the word “abdicate”? It’s pretty clear you would rather practice more incivility than deal with the actual definition of a word.

Exactly how am I torturing you? Chinese water torture requires that I have total control over what you feel. As you have stated, you don’t have to read my comments. And by extension, you do not have to be tortured by the word “abdicate”. You choose to be tortured because I refuse to accept your minimization of her abdication of her responsibility as governor. You also choose to be tortured by my calls for civility.

So you see, the person torturing you is YOU. And that is a very unflattering view that you have revealed about yourself.

YOU REFUSE TO BE REELED IN? Partner, you aren’t being reeled into anything, you are rushing in with wholehearted desire. The desire to feel hurt and frustrated. I cannot accept that responsibility over your actions. And if I could, I would not spend my time with petty crap like making you feel bad. What is the value in trying to make people feel bad? Heck, if I had the power to make you do anything, I’d make you send me money. HEY, I know, lets see if I do have that kind of power over you.

I csdeven, through the power that I hold, do hereby order Opinionator to send me lots and lots of cash today.

Let me know when you need the address. Unless of course you aren’t going to send me cash because YOU CHOOSE NOT TO.

And if you choose not to, then you certainly can choose not to be tortured.

csdeven on June 2, 2011 at 8:02 AM

Okay, so what does that have to do with the definition of the word “abdicate”? It’s pretty clear you would rather practice more incivility than deal with the actual definition of a word.

csdeven on June 2, 2011 at 8:02 AM

Incivility: I do not think that word means what you think it means.

gryphon202 on June 2, 2011 at 8:05 AM

I propose we now refer to a Beclowning as “Bashiring yourself.”

PJ Emeritus on June 2, 2011 at 8:14 AM

hanzblinx on June 1, 2011 at 4:22 PM

Wrong, she know, Sparky, she’s just not sharing the knowledge. Troll elsewhere.

PJ Emeritus on June 2, 2011 at 8:17 AM

I’m waiting for Mr. Bashir to have a cow over this flag display.
*crickets*

mizflame98 on June 2, 2011 at 8:30 AM

csdeven on June 2, 2011 at 8:02 AM

Your long convoluted explanations mean nothing to me. :)

Brian1972 on June 2, 2011 at 8:33 AM

Incivility: I do not think that word means what you think it means.

gryphon202 on June 2, 2011 at 8:05 AM

Incivility: the quality or condition of being uncivil; discourteous behavior or treatment.

I certainly do know the definition. What you are referring to is the level of incivility I tolerate as opposed to what you tolerate. You tolerate a greater level of incivility because you engage in uncivil behavior. You like doing it so therefore tolerate it.

csdeven on June 2, 2011 at 9:09 AM

It’s pretty clear you would rather practice more incivility than deal with the actual definition of a word.

csdeven on June 2, 2011 at 8:02 AM

incivility
Definition
in·ci·vil·i·ty[ ìnssi víllətee ]in·ci·vil·i·ties Plural

NOUN
1. rude behavior or language: rude or impolite behavior or language
2. rude act or remark: a rude or impolite act or remark

Synonyms: rudeness, impoliteness, discourteousness, discourtesy, lack of respect, bad manners, coarseness, vulgarity

It’s rude and disrespectful of you to continually and repeatedly spam Palin threads with the exact same talking point while ignoring/dismissing the points others make. Thus, you are being incivil.

fossten on June 2, 2011 at 9:12 AM

*uncivil

fossten on June 2, 2011 at 9:13 AM

It’s rude and disrespectful of you to continually and repeatedly spam Palin threads with the exact same talking point while ignoring/dismissing the points others make. Thus, you are being incivil.

fossten on June 2, 2011 at 9:12 AM

This is a discussion forum. I make my points and others make their points. My continued skepticism in the face of the same Palin supporter talking points is not spam. It is responding to the talking points. I also make comments about Sarah’s latest actions on a daily basis. Each day she provides new information about her motivation. That either confirms, belays, or has a null affect on the discussion.

Disagreement is not incivility. Name calling, insulting people, and demeaning accusations are in fact uncivil. This comment from you is the first reasoned response I have read from you in several days. We disagree, but you are civil about it. You have controlled how you process my disagreement. If you can do it once, you can do it every time. That is your choice and your responsibility and you and only you will be judged by your responses.

csdeven on June 2, 2011 at 9:23 AM

———-
16-1020. Signing of petitions; violation; classification

A person knowingly signing any name other than his own to a nomination petition or a petition for formation, alteration or dissolution of a special district [...] or who is not at the time of signing a qualified elector entitled to vote at the election initiated by the petition, is guilty of a class 1 misdemeanor.
———-

Palin signed someone’s mayoral petition even though she doesn’t live there.

Oh well.

Dave Rywall on June 2, 2011 at 9:28 AM

Palin signed someone’s mayoral petition even though she doesn’t live there.

Oh well.

Dave Rywall on June 2, 2011 at 9:28 AM

Try holding your breath until you turn blue and jumping up and down. Then, someone might pay attention to you, Dave.

kingsjester on June 2, 2011 at 9:32 AM

This is a discussion forum. I make my points and others make their points. My continued skepticism in the face of……..

csdeven on June 2, 2011 at 9:23 AM

That is as far as I got, because your explanation is far too long and convoluted. The perception of your incivility has now been set in stone, and the more you try to explain it away the less anyone will listen to you.

Quite the dilemma, isn’t it?

lol

Brian1972 on June 2, 2011 at 9:36 AM

Explain why the word abdicate is not a perfectly valid description of what she did. I have read the complaints about how the word makes people FEEL, but that isn’t the issue.

Many Palin supporters minimize her resignation with long drawn out explanations.

Let’s throw this back on you. You do deserve this as anyone else that ignores one point. Do you have proof that YOU personally sent her money to help her with the frivolous lawsuits that were bankrupting her? DID YOU personally get with other people that hate her for any reason and STATE in a public way that what was going on was unfair?
DID YOU NOTICE in anyway why the decision to leave the governors office was getting to be a necessity because other people like YOU kept hitting her with lawsuits and then feel guilt for how wrong that was?
“””CRICKETS”””” Abdicate my foot. get over yourself and your phony outrage.

Noelie on June 2, 2011 at 9:37 AM

Try holding your breath until you turn blue and jumping up and down. Then, someone might pay attention to you, Dave.

kingsjester on June 2, 2011 at 9:32 AM
——
People must say that about your gasbag blog.

Dave Rywall on June 2, 2011 at 9:38 AM

alin signed someone’s mayoral petition even though she doesn’t live there.

Oh well.

Dave Rywall on June 2, 2011 at 9:28 AM

Are you and the other phony outrage king csdeven related or something? This is ridiculous. What a total lower attitude you both have. Get over yourselves.

Noelie on June 2, 2011 at 9:39 AM

People must say that about your gasbag blog.

Dave Rywall on June 2, 2011 at 9:38 AM

Nope. The overwhelming majority don’t. However, Libs, such as yourself, get torqued off by it.

kingsjester on June 2, 2011 at 9:47 AM

Disagreement is not incivility. Name calling, insulting people, and demeaning accusations are in fact uncivil. This comment from you is the first reasoned response I have read from you in several days. We disagree, but you are civil about it. You have controlled how you process my disagreement. If you can do it once, you can do it every time. That is your choice and your responsibility and you and only you will be judged by your responses.

csdeven on June 2, 2011 at 9:23 AM

Refusing to respond directly to others’ comments and instead spamming the same sentences over and over is rude and uncivil.

fossten on June 2, 2011 at 9:48 AM

csdeven on June 2, 2011 at 9:23 AM

And by the way, I saw your comment when you got called out for your comments at Huffpo. You called names. Hypocrite.

fossten on June 2, 2011 at 9:49 AM

Let’s throw this back on you. You do deserve this as anyone else that ignores one point. Do you have proof that YOU personally sent her money to help her with the frivolous lawsuits that were bankrupting her? DID YOU personally get with other people that hate her for any reason and STATE in a public way that what was going on was unfair?
DID YOU NOTICE in anyway why the decision to leave the governors office was getting to be a necessity because other people like YOU kept hitting her with lawsuits and then feel guilt for how wrong that was?
“””CRICKETS”””” Abdicate my foot. get over yourself and your phony outrage.

Noelie on June 2, 2011 at 9:37 AM

Exactly where in the definition of abdicate does it specify that a certain motivation need be stated?

Resign: 3)to give up (an office, position, etc.), often formally.
4) to relinquish (a right, claim, agreement, etc.).

Quit: to give up or resign; let go; relinquish: He quit his claim to the throne. She quit her job.

Relinquish: to renounce or surrender (a possession, right, etc.): to relinquish the throne.

Renounce: 1) to give up or put aside voluntarily: to renounce worldly pleasures.
2) to give up by formal declaration: to renounce a claim.

Abdicate: to renounce or relinquish a throne, right, power, claim, responsibility, or the like, especially in a formal manner: The aging founder of the firm decided to abdicate.

Those are several definitions for what Sarah did. NONE of them require a valid or invalid, excused or unexcused, justified or unjustified reason for the abdication, renouncement, relinquishment, quitting, or resignation.
So your argument is a straw man argument and I utterly reject it in the context of what word is used to describe what Sarah did when she abdicated her governorship of Alaska.

csdeven on June 2, 2011 at 9:53 AM

Unseen, there is a “full-on” flag on the front of the bus.

http://www.csmonitor.com/var/ezflow_site/storage/images/media/images/csm-photo-galleries-images/in-pictures-images/2011/06/sarah-palin-bus-tour/01/10272244-1-eng-US/01_full_600x400.jpg

And, by Bashir “logic” what exactly is she selling? She is touring historic sites with her family in a bus. The media are the ones blowing this into something else. She’s not setting up merchandise stands, not advertising her books, nothing, nada.

PJ Emeritus on June 2, 2011 at 9:55 AM

Refusing to respond directly to others’ comments and instead spamming the same sentences over and over is rude and uncivil.

fossten on June 2, 2011 at 9:48 AM

I have responded to their comments. I am not convinced by them. That is not uncivil. Check the definition I provided for you. Disagreeing is not in the definition.

csdeven on June 2, 2011 at 9:55 AM

This comment from you is the first reasoned response I have read from you in several days.

csdeven on June 2, 2011 at 9:23 AM

Another fact-free assertion by you. I and many others have offered several reasoned responses. Your tactic is to spam the same word (abdicate) over and over, while admitting that you are trying to do so as a tactic to annoy people.

You dismiss others’ arguments and move the goalposts constantly when you aren’t just repeating yourself.

In short, you don’t debate in good faith. In failing to debate in good faith, you are being rude and disrespectful, and deserve any names you get called, such as “troll.”

fossten on June 2, 2011 at 9:55 AM

I have responded to their comments. I am not convinced by them. That is not uncivil. Check the definition I provided for you. Disagreeing is not in the definition.

csdeven on June 2, 2011 at 9:55 AM

Responding to their comments by simply repeating yourself is not a response, but is rude and uncivil.

fossten on June 2, 2011 at 9:56 AM

Exactly where in the definition of abdicate does it specify that a certain motivation need be stated?

Resign: 3)to give up (an office, position, etc.), often formally.
4) to relinquish (a right, claim, agreement, etc.).

Quit: to give up or resign; let go; relinquish: He quit his claim to the throne. She quit her job.

Relinquish: to renounce or surrender (a possession, right, etc.): to relinquish the throne.

Renounce: 1) to give up or put aside voluntarily: to renounce worldly pleasures.
2) to give up by formal declaration: to renounce a claim.

Abdicate: to renounce or relinquish a throne, right, power, claim, responsibility, or the like, especially in a formal manner: The aging founder of the firm decided to abdicate.

Those are several definitions for what Sarah did. NONE of them require a valid or invalid, excused or unexcused, justified or unjustified reason for the abdication, renouncement, relinquishment, quitting, or resignation.
So your argument is a straw man argument and I utterly reject it in the context of what word is used to describe what Sarah did when she abdicated her governorship of Alaska.

csdeven on June 2, 2011 at 9:53 AM

Yet another example of a canned, repetitive, proof by assertion, dismissive, uncivil response.

fossten on June 2, 2011 at 9:57 AM

And by the way, I saw your comment when you got called out for your comments at Huffpo. You called names. Hypocrite.

fossten on June 2, 2011 at 9:49 AM

Yes I did. And I have done it since then and as recently as last weekend (although that was designed as an experiment in a theory I had. Which was borne out by the responses I received). I do not use name calling, personal insults, and demeaning accusations toward fellow commentators as a debate style.

And if you follow true to your past behavior, you will eventually put aside the rational debate and return to using uncivil comments.

csdeven on June 2, 2011 at 10:01 AM

Yes I did. And I have done it since then and as recently as last weekend (although that was designed as an experiment in a theory I had. Which was borne out by the responses I received). I do not use name calling, personal insults, and demeaning accusations toward fellow commentators as a debate style.

And if you follow true to your past behavior, you will eventually put aside the rational debate and return to using uncivil comments.

csdeven on June 2, 2011 at 10:01 AM

Please stay on topic. This thread is about MSNBC. You are being uncivil.

fossten on June 2, 2011 at 10:06 AM

Yet another example of a canned, repetitive, proof by assertion, dismissive, uncivil response.

fossten on June 2, 2011 at 9:57 AM

The facts are the facts. The definitions I provided you are not proof by assertion, they are proof demonstrated by fact. I dismiss you claims that facts are opinions, but that is not uncivil. Sure it’s a canned response. There is no reason for me to abandon the facts that demonstrate my comment as truth because you cannot refute it. The more you reject it, the more proof I gather to bolster the truth. And yes it is repetitive. You keep trying to support your position with straw man arguments. If you would stop defending your argument, I would have no reason to continue to present my counter argument.

csdeven on June 2, 2011 at 10:07 AM

If you would stop defending your argument, I would have no reason to continue to present my counter argument.

csdeven on June 2, 2011 at 10:07 AM

“Shut up,” he explained.

fossten on June 2, 2011 at 10:11 AM

Palin signed someone’s mayoral petition even though she doesn’t live there.

Oh well.

Dave Rywall on June 2, 2011 at 9:28 AM

I love it when Canadians lecture Americans on US law.

mizflame98 on June 2, 2011 at 10:11 AM

Please stay on topic. This thread is about MSNBC. You are being uncivil.

fossten on June 2, 2011 at 10:06 AM

The topic is Sarah Palin and her renouncement of her governorship. You have taken up another commentators issue about the word being used to describe Sarah Palin’s relinquishment of her governorship. Because you are being civil, I am presenting my case for using any factually defined word to describe the resignation of her governorship.

If you would like to agree to disagree, I’m fine with that.

csdeven on June 2, 2011 at 10:12 AM

Sure it’s a canned response.

csdeven on June 2, 2011 at 10:07 AM

Thanks for admitting that you’re a troll.

Now, can we get back on topic, please?

Anybody else have a comment? I believe we’ve exhausted csdeven’s entire repertoire several times.

fossten on June 2, 2011 at 10:14 AM

The facts are the facts.

csdeven on June 2, 2011 at 10:07 AM

No they are not. The facts are the perceptions created by others about you. It doesn’t matter what you say the facts are. :)

Brian1972 on June 2, 2011 at 10:14 AM

The topic is Sarah Palin and her renouncement of her governorship. You have taken up another commentators issue about the word being used to describe Sarah Palin’s relinquishment of her governorship. Because you are being civil, I am presenting my case for using any factually defined word to describe the resignation of her governorship.

If you would like to agree to disagree, I’m fine with that.

csdeven on June 2, 2011 at 10:12 AM

The topic is MSNBC, despite your desperate assertion to the contrary. It’s not my fault that you cannot read headlines.

Get back on topic.

fossten on June 2, 2011 at 10:15 AM

The topic is Sarah Palin and her renouncement of her governorship…
csdeven on June 2, 2011 at 10:12 AM

Actually, the topic is how Martin Bashir is whining about the flag on her bus. Check the title of this thread.

mizflame98 on June 2, 2011 at 10:27 AM

The topic is Sarah Palin and her renouncement of her governorship.
csdeven on June 2, 2011 at 10:12 AM

Then why is this the title of the thread?

Martin Bashir: I think Palin might be breaking federal law by putting the flag on her bus or something; Update: MSNBC flag videos added

kingsjester on June 2, 2011 at 10:30 AM

Dave Rywall on June 2, 2011 at 9:28 AM

If Obama can get away with a BC that a Photoshop-savvy 8th-grader could have created, Palin can get away with a piddly little thing like that.

Uncle Sams Nephew on June 2, 2011 at 10:39 AM

fossten on June 2, 2011 at 10:14 AM

Canned: Informal . prepared in advance: a canned speech.

Considering your argument is the same thing over and over again, you fit your definition of a canned talking point and thereby apply the same label of “troll” to yourself. You have an opinion that you feel no need to change and continue to repeat it.

csdeven on June 2, 2011 at 10:45 AM

mizflame98 on June 2, 2011 at 10:27 AM

kingsjester on June 2, 2011 at 10:30 AM

The topic migrated to the topic of civil discussion way before Opinionator derided the use of the word “abdicate”. That was the context of my comment. If that was unclear, I’ll try to be more specific in the future.

Opinionator on June 2, 2011 at 12:58 AM

csdeven on June 2, 2011 at 10:57 AM

csdeven on June 2, 2011 at 10:57 AM

Continue to beat that horse, if you must. Meanwhile, the bus rolls on.

littleguy on June 2, 2011 at 11:34 AM

csdeven, you have made your “point” ad infinitum ad nauseum. You have not influenced a single opinion yay or nay. You continue to repeat the EXACT same thing in EVERY thread about Palin. Here’s a suggestion, save us all the crap and simply post “ditto.”

The particular type of troll you are is known as a Contrarian:

The Contrarian Troll. A sophisticated breed, Contrarian Trolls frequent boards whose predominant opinions are contrary to their own. A forum dominated by those who support firearms and knife rights, for example, will invariably be visited by Contrarian Trolls espousing their beliefs in the benefits of gun control. It is important to distinguish between dissenters and actual Contrarian Trolls, however; the Contrarian is not categorized as a troll because of his or her dissenting opinions, but due to the manner in which he or she behaves:

– Contrarian Warning Sign Number One: The most important indicator of a poster’s Contrarian Troll status is his constant use of subtle and not-so-subtle insults, a technique intended to make people angry. Contrarians will resist the urge to be insulting at first, but as their post count increases, they become more and more abusive of those with whom they disagree. Most often they initiate the insults in the course of what has been a civil, if heated, debate to that point.

– Contrarian Warning Sign Number Two: Constant references to the forum membership as monolithic. “You guys are all just [descriptor].” “You’re a lynch mob.” “You all just want to ridicule anyone who disagrees with you.”

– Contrarian Warning Sign Number Three: Intellectual dishonesty. This is only a mild indicator that is not limited to trolls, but Contrarians display it to a high degree. They will lie about things they’ve said, pull posts out of context in a manner that changes their meanings significantly, and generally ignore any points for which they have no ready answers.

– Contrarian Warning Sign Number Four: Accusing the accusers. When confronted with their trolling, trolls immediately respond that it is the accusers who are trolls (see Natural Predators below). Often the Contrarian will single out his most vocal opponent and claim that while he can respect his other opponents, this one in particular is beneath his notice.

– Contrarian Warning Sign Number Five: Attempts to condescend. Pursued by Troll Bashers (see Natural Predators below), the Contrarian will seek refuge in condescending remarks that repeatedly scorn his or her critics as beneath notice – all the while continuing to respond to them.

– Contrarian Warning Sign Number Six: One distinctive mark of Contrarian Trolls is that every thread in which they dissent quickly devolves into a debate about who is trolling whom. In the course of such a debate the Contrarian will display many of the other Warning Signs mentioned above.

So, since we ALL know what you are going to say before you even navigate to the thread, why bother? You are identified, noted, and ignored from here out.

PJ Emeritus on June 2, 2011 at 11:45 AM

why bother?

PJ Emeritus on June 2, 2011 at 11:45 AM

Because you are wrong in every point you made.

csdeven on June 2, 2011 at 11:59 AM

PJ Emeritus on June 2, 2011 at 9:55 AM

Yeah a couple other posters pointed it out to me. Thanks.

unseen on June 2, 2011 at 11:59 AM

The topic migrated to I started trolling about the topic of civil discussion way before Opinionator derided the use of the word “abdicate”. That was the context of my comment. If that was unclear, I’ll try to be more specific in the future.

csdeven on June 2, 2011 at 10:57 AM

FIFY and it’s clear now.

fossten on June 2, 2011 at 12:01 PM

Because you are wrong in every point you made.

csdeven on June 2, 2011 at 11:59 AM

Wow, what a great comeback, complete with illustrations, examples, logic, and constructed arguments to back it up proof by assertion.

fossten on June 2, 2011 at 12:03 PM

PJ Emeritus on June 2, 2011 at 11:45 AM

It’s worse than that – not only has csdeven failed to convert anybody to his thinking, he’s actually lost ground, as JetBoy has moved over to the ranks of the Palinistas.

So much fail.

I hope it was worth it.

fossten on June 2, 2011 at 12:05 PM

Let’s take some of that TARP

nkviking75 on June 2, 2011 at 12:43 PM

Sorry, bumped the enter button…

Let’s take some of that leftover TARP money and use it to build a bunch of minimum security prisons to house all of the people who violate the flag code. That should probably send every politician in America to jail.

nkviking75 on June 2, 2011 at 12:46 PM

“I’m surprised he didn’t go ABC’s route and obliquely accuse her of financial hypocrisy instead.”

When asked, twice, how much her “One Nation Tour” has cost four days into the trip, she got visibly irritated.
“Check SarahPAC.com,” she said. “I don’t know why in the world you would ask a question like that. Why would you ask something …”

ABC News pointed out that she often talks about the economy and how much money we’re spending.
“What does our economy have to do with how much we’re — I’m not asking you to pay for a penny of this trip,” she said.”

I live in San Diego, this is SOP for ABC.

ABC always, daily, goes up and down the beaches here with camera in had asking people how are they paying for this, where did they get the money to pay for this trip.

In fact when the ABC news crews see “out of state plates” on a car they will use several vans and cars to coral and force those drivers off the road and interrogate them. They have only used that pit maneuver a couple dozen times this year!

They surround the car and use high powered spotlights, demand that the tourist present tax returns for the last 5 years, a copy of their bank statements, a list of credit cards and so on!

Sometimes ABC will go into restaurants, lock all exit doors, place armed guards outside the doors (just in case ya know) get up on a table and question everybody in the restaurant, once they determine who are the tourist they round those people up for further questioning.

Who could have a problem with this? Are they Racist?

DSchoen on June 2, 2011 at 7:47 PM

Unseen, there is a “full-on” flag on the front of the bus

.

And I have a flag on my Jeep.
This means what exactly?

DSchoen on June 2, 2011 at 8:22 PM

DSchoen on June 2, 2011 at 8:22 PM

Nothing, to me. I was just pointing it out to unseen who seemed to think the stripes on the side were the extent of it (and had posted so.)

Put it back in your pants, I’m on your side.

PJ Emeritus on June 2, 2011 at 8:40 PM

I think the White House is ignoring Federal law ignoring the illegals coming into the United States.

mixplix on June 3, 2011 at 7:44 PM

Let’s keep this simple. The problem is the hypocrisy of the Left, who have suddenly found a shred of respect for Old Glory. Well, if they can use it as a brickbat against their most feared nemesis, they will feign respect just long enough to publish a hit piece with it.

How much concern will they show over a flag being burned or stepped on? None, of course, in fact they will ardently defend that America-hater’s First Amendment liberty. But Palin is a criminal for loving her country.

Sup big D.

Freelancer on June 3, 2011 at 8:56 PM

THEPC Group has struck again. Using the Flag to demigod U.S., while they wear it as clothing (shirts, pants, hats), tattoos, etc. all the time.

MSGTAS on June 5, 2011 at 9:43 AM

Comment pages: 1 3 4 5