Palin: Open Mouth, Insert Foot, part 9,754,773

Now Palin is trying to say that the Dems think the terrorists are the good guys. Here. Is anyone buying this shit?

I drove home past a guy who has been parked on the side of the road for the last two months selling Obama merchandise. Today he had new signs that I was sorely tempted to buy.



Actually, she used a rhetorical device to suggest that the Democrats would behave as though they’re the good guys. Not quite the same thing.

This, of course, is a Molden Oldie–that Obama’s soft on the Enemy.

But I wouldn’t call this a gaffe (which “foot-in-mouth” suggests). She is fully aware of exactly what she’s saying and the complete dishonesty of the assertion.

Damn she sounds a lot like Bush (I know there’s a reason for that). This sort of crap is precisely why they’re losing. It only works on the people who’re already voting for them.

aside: The word Dingbat is NOT used enough.

Personally, my favorite so far has been her mocking Drosophila research as frivolous spending.
(Obligatory YouTube. A touch melodramatic, but gives cites as to why you should care.)

Can anyone really imagine her becoming president some day? How can this election be so damn close? I just don’t get it. I guess I overestmated the intelligence of the average american voter.

No she’s not. As was already noted, that was obviously a rhetorical question. Politicians (and debaters around here) do this sort of thing all the time. You saw an attention grabbing headline and rushed to the Pit before you even understood what the article said.

And people around here keep harping on what an idiot Palin is…

Of all the stupid shit that woman has spewed over the last few months, that’s the one that pissed off this biology major the most.

Shouldn’t a rhetorical question have some rhetorical value, some possibility, some furtherance of a worthwhile argument? Does anyone even remotely think that Democrats consider terrorists to be the good guys?

To suggest that that might be the case, even for the sake of rhetoric, is insulting.

I know better than to be surprised, but…holy fucking hell, the ignorance she oozes is like the slime excreted by a bucket of hagfish.

Why? If you’re preaching to the choir (which is what these guys do at their rallies), then over-the-top stuff like this is meant to be something that will get a rise out of the audience. I’m sure it works, too, in that context. It wouldn’t work if she was talking to an opposition audience-- she would just put them on the defensive.

I’m well aware of what she was doing and what sort of a tactic this is, people.

Rhetorical Device or not, it’s a knowingly false statement that convinces no one but your closest supporters and makes you look like an asshole to everyone else.

“open mouth, insert foot” doesn’t just apply to making stupid statements that you think are true but are not, but to all manner of stupid statements, from the extremely insensitive to the blatantly and stupidly false slander that this kind of statement comprises.

Good thing she’s doing this the day before the election, because as they’ve already done to him in this election, I can just picture John McCain being asked by a reporter if he thought that Obama really believed the terrorists were “the good guys” and him having to mumble “no, not really” on camera.

I’m sorry, but I have seen Bush use that trick so many times. He put or smashed 9/11 and Iraq together in his speeches to make it sound they were related, many people then fell for it and you know what that got us.

This business of putting terrorists and Democrats together has to end and be condemned, the republicans do not show any shame, so we must shame them at the ballot box now.

First, a rhetorical question isn’t a statement-- it’s your title that is knowingly false. The statement she made was that the Democrats would gut defense spending. As noted in the article, Barny Frank wants to cut it by 25%. That’ probably rates as “gutting”. Now, frankly I agree with him and I want to see defense spending “gutted”. But I’m sure the GOP regulars don’t.

The rhetorical question is put in there, as I said before, to get a rise out of a sympathetic crowd. I don’t think it was a particularly clever rhetorical question, but she’s not a particularly clever person, so there you go.

I guess it’s no surprise that Palin is utterly ignorant about science; but who the hell’s writing her speeches?

Geezer/Dingbat! I love it. I wish I’d known about such a sign a month ago. Kind of pointless to buy it now. :frowning:

Yes, but hagfish is at least useful, and performs a valuable function in nature.

Strike that. Your thread title isn’t so much “knowingly false” as simply incorrect. She said exactly what she wanted to say-- no foot in mouth here. Nothing that she’s going to have to explain or take back later. No “oops” moment for her in this instance.

Well, if the polls are to be believed, it doesn’t appear that close.

Oh, but it’s just a title, a message-board formality, designed to attract attention and get people to read the thread and get the true details.