This thread has reinforced two convictions of mine.
(1) Sarah Palin is very stupid
(2) Sarah Palin causes members of this board to become stupid
Assuming (1) is self-evident, (2) seems to arise because commentators here, faced with ten idiotic things Palin says, often choose to focus on the eleventh thing, one they fabricate or infer – a task made easy by her bumbling, incoherent words, which of course takes us back to (1).
That’s OK. Sarah Palin’s stupidity? Also the fault of Democrats.
“Palin gave interviews — terrible, terrible interviews. She was in over her head. Her own paranoia took center stage. She became her critics’ caricature, embracing a mix of willful ignorance and proud ressentiment.”
I’d hate to fabricate or infer your point, so would you mind stating it plainly?
inb4:
“Palin never explicitly said that Track suffers with PTSD, and never explicitly blamed that on Obama; the OP is a fabrication.”
Palin most definitely was drawing a line between her son’s anger issues and Obama. It’s not hard to see.
Or is it an inference? The skillful way that Bricker lumps together “outright lying” and “recognizing something that is clearly implied” leaves it ambiguous.
ahem
I think you guys may be giving her too much credit.
If her son’s domestic assault problems comes as a result of his not getting professional treatment for any post-military mental issues (PTSD or otherwise), then why the fuck doesn’t she get him treatment? She’s worth $12 million dollars for fuck’s sake. He still lives at home, so it’s not like she’s cut him off. She’s always crowing about socialism BAD and personal responsibility and getting the government out of our lives-- well put your money where your mouth is bitch. If your son is suffering from mental problems, and you’ve got the resources to help him, DO IT!
Or blame Obama when your family continues to make headlines for all the wrong reasons, and look like a fucking douchetube.
Her daughter should also look into the availability of contraception thanks to Obamacares.
You know who gives kids a bad name?
Are we perhaps referring to different speeches? Here is the text of her Trump endorsement speech, where she doesn’t mention her son, but she made a different speech after Track was arrested, which seems to clearly lay blame for veterans’ woes on “our own President.”
*New research from Center of Disease Control (CDC) suggests that stupidity is highly contagious and is easily contracted. The survey was a result of a year of research and a study of over 3,400 participants across several major cities in the United States. *
Well, he *is *a lawyer…
Wait, Bricker’s a lawyer? He told ME he worked down at the factory where they make the little straw hats for the horses.
Palin made two speeches over the past two days.
The Trump speech was on Tuesday.
She bagged her first scheduled appearance on Wednesday (hung-over or still drunk? It would be irresponsible not to speculate).
Then she showed up later Wednesday and made the PTSD speech.
That is a partial transcript. If you look at the whole thing (I don’t know where a full transcript is available) she said some stuff in between. But again, this is Palin. Whatever it is you think she’s trying to say is almost certainly not what she had in mind, because WURDS ERR HARD.
Which again, is not her fault. It’s the “Lamestream Media’s” fault for misunderstanding her intent. :rolleyes:
No. She simply mentioned both those things. You cannot blame her for what she did not say. You created that link, not her.
Okay… except that it’s labeled “the full text of Sarah Palin’s bizarre Trump speech” and was given on Tuesday, whereas the second speech was delivered on Wednesday.
The full text link is to the one that doesn’t mention Trap or Trunk or whatever the fuck the idiot son is called.
[QUOTE=Palin]
“My son came back different, hardened, and wondering if people have respect for service members and the sacrifices they have made. Military members wonder if the President knows what it is that they do and if he respects their hard work. I can relate to families who have ex service members who have suffered damage, including PTSD, from their war experience. We need a President who respects the military.”
[/QUOTE]
Drawing an inference is a perfectly reasonable thing to do; indeed, someone incapable of drawing an inference is a very poor reader.
“My son came back different, hardened,”–suggestion that he’s got PTSD or something.
“Military members wonder if the President knows what it is that they do and if he respects their hard work.”–suggestion that the President doesn’t respect their hard work. Following the “different, hardened” line, suggestion that there’ some link between the two.
“I can relate to families who have ex service members who have suffered damage, including PTSD, from their war experience”–suggestion that she can relate to them because she’s in a similar position.
“We need a President who respects the military.”–suggestion that our current president doesn’t respect the military.
Now, it’s possible that her ABAB approach to speaking, where A is “Track has PTSD!” and B is “Our president hates soldiers!”, is entirely unconnected. But it’s also possible that she’s implying a link between A and B. It’s not at all unreasonable to draw such an inference. I’d suggest it’s stupid NOT to draw it.