Saturday, November 22, 2008

Give Me A Break!

Palin states in the video: "It's nice to get out and do something to promote a local business and to just participate in something that isn't so heavy-handed politics that invites criticism. Certainly we"ll probably even invite criticism for doing this too, but at least this was fun."

And of course, the libs were happy to accept her invitation and criticize her. What else is interesting is this story makes national news - but most of the libs still don't even know which party runs congress, or how Obama won his first election by getting his opponents kicked off the ballot, or that Obama's economic policy will bankrupt the coal industries, or that Obama started his political career at the home of two former members of the Weather Underground, etc. It's nice to know that the media is doing such a good job of reporting stories that contain such substantial and critical issues like the one here. I guess they are still afraid of Palin running in 2012. (see:

Here some of the libs comments below: (from:

"That is just horrible to watch. Just horrible. The combination of her voice with that poor turkey being bled to death and struggling was more than I could take. I felt like I was in 'A Clockwork Orange' or something..."

"I would laugh if this wasn't so disturbing! Provoked me to reaffirm my commitment to not eating turkey on turkey day"

"How interesting...Note the action in the background as a metaphor for what Palin is saying? -I think we should call this clip, "The Sarah Palin Dark Side of the Rainbow"

"She has no reverence for animal life, which she demonstrates here. -"Fun" doesn't come to my mind when an animal is being sacrificed for consumption."

"Palin latest interview in front of the turkey slaughter simply reinforces the idea she is indeed a political dinosaur. You know, like the ones she believes were tromping around with humans 10,000 years ago with Fred Flintstone. If she is truly the best that Republicans have to offer, then the party, too, is indeed destined for extinction."

"Sarah Palin provided millions upon millions of people with one example of that brutality. The images of those two turkeys mercilessly slaughtered, struggling for their lives as she blathered on and on..."

and there are tons more comments like these....

I have to agree with this commenter: "It seems that everyone out there is reacting as though something was wrong with Sarah for not having eyes in the back of her head. In fact, there was something wrong with the producer and the camera operator. I am an amateur photographer, and I know that your picture is only as good as your background. It's like hunting... you always need to be aware of what's behind your target. This is Photography 101, and even I could have made Sarah look better than this. But the producer is even more culpable. At least the camera operator managed to get the picture. ... This is clearly a case of media incompetence, or worse, yet another instance where the media has maliciously tried to make Sarah look incompetent. It did not work on me. I know Sarah, and I also know how it works on the "safe" side of the camera. The videographer and the producer should not be so safe. KTUU should fire someone, or apologize, or both."

My comments: Give me a break!! Where do you think the turkeys on Thanksgiving come from?

ALSO, Remember most of these comments from people that are so "outraged" are from the very same people who think it is OK for a woman to "choose" to slaughter her baby and they support a president who thinks it's a perfectly acceptable "choice" and who wouldn't want to "create one more burden on women," or do anything that would "raise new hurdles to women seeking reproductive services like abortion."

A few months ago the libs were saying: "Shame on Palin for birthing a down syndrome boy when she should have slaughter him. What a burden to society" (see article below)
and now the libs are saying: "Shame on Palin for standing in front of those turkeys being slaughter - how utterly repulsive and disturbing to kill a poor defenseless creature."

Article below from Rule of Reason by Provenzo - he wasn't the first or the last to suggest Trig should have been aborted - just one of the many who said it: Palin's Down syndrome child and the right to abortion
"Like many, I am troubled by the implications of Alaska governor and Republican Vice Presidential candidate Sarah Palin's decision to knowingly give birth to a child disabled with Down syndrome. Given that Palin's decision is being celebrated in some quarters, it is crucial to reaffirm the morality of aborting a fetus diagnosed with Down syndrome (or by extension, any unborn fetus)--a freedom that anti-abortion advocates seek to deny.

A parent has a moral obligation to provide for his or her children until these children are equipped to provide for themselves. Because a person afflicted with Down syndrome is only capable of being marginally productive (if at all) and requires constant care and supervision, unless a parent enjoys the wealth to provide for the lifetime of assistance that their child will require, they are essentially stranding the cost of their child's life upon others.

So while anti-abortion commentators such as Michael Franc of the National Review sees Down syndrome's victims as "ambassadors of God" who "offer us the opportunity to rise to that greatest of all challenges," for many, that opportunity for challenge is little more than a lifetime of endless burden. In this light, it is completely legitimate for a woman to look at the circumstances of her life and decide that having a child with Down syndrome (or any child for that matter) is not an obligation that she can accept. After all, the choice to have a child is a profoundly selfish choice; that is, a choice that is an expression of the parent's personal desire to create new life.

And most parents seek to create healthy life; in the case of the unborn fetuses shown to have severe developmental disabilities, one study reports that over 90% of these fetuses are aborted prior to birth. But if you notice, the anti-abortion zealots try to attach a dirty little slur to these abortions, labeling them a form of eugenics.


[W]e need the mentally retarded to teach us how to better sacrifice our lives and divest ourselves of our self-interested ways more than they need us to care for them. At Noodlefood, Diana Hsieh condemns such a stand as "the worship of retardation." Given that Palin had complete foreknowledge of her child's severe disability yet nevertheless chose to have it, it is hard not to see her choice as anything less."


tip from Wiz Bang

Wiz Bang also states:

"So, I guess in this guy's mind... That unless you're 100% "healthy" -- and by whose standards is "healthy" defined anyway? -- you don't have a right to live? And what gives this guy the right to decide?

And just so you know, this guy is no small potatoes columnist either. He's written for the Washington Times and the Atlanta Journal-Constitution. He's been on Bill Maher's show. He isn't some minor-league columnist who no one knows and has never heard of.

Views such as his are despicable and indefensible. I can only imagine how families with disabled children must feel upon reading this. Not only does this man think that it's wrong to proceed with a pregnancy that will bear a child with a disability, but he thinks you are selfish and irresponsible. That child's life is not a blessing to him, but a burden. And not only is his position the correct position, but it's the moral one!"

Apparently, libs are outraged about poor, stupid, little turkeys that are being slaughtered; but it is "completely legitimate" for a woman to slaughter a child who is less than "perfect" or "any child for that matter."

So basically they are saying that a turkey's life is more valuable than a human life. How crazy and disgusting is that?

No comments: