Love It! Sarah Palin Brings Her Own Big Gulp With Her to CPAC Speech (Video)

[Jarhead]

I also loved what she said about background checks, and that maybe the liberal media should have done a "background check" on Obama's inept ass, long before he made it into the primaries.

That was the stupidest things she said. How appropriate that you, "loved it".

The right wing bat crap crazies have tried so hard to find a scandal in President Obama's past and have been unable to do it. There is nothing in his background to "find out". Idiots.

Wrong.

Americans who were trying to vett a candidate hoped the media would do thier job.

You see, when a candidate has little experience to read up on, we are forced to determine the character of an individual by looking into his/her past...you know....who did they relate to; who did they associate with...etc.

Sadly, those that blindly supported this candidate.,...and yes...I say blindly becuase many supported him strictly based on the fact that he was Black, charismatic and potential "history making".....but I digress......anyway...those that blindly supported the man did not seem to care about hisd past associations....his past relations.....and instead of repscting OTHERS that DID want to know of those things, they decided to brand them as racists for wanting to know those things.

So you can say all you want about how "little" was found out about the man. The truth is, plenty was....but people like you didnt give a rats ass becuase you are "bold and able to vote for a black man"

ANd look where we are as a result.

1) We sold arms to the enemy of an ally and no one is responsible
2) we have a dead ambassador and no one was responsible
3) we are supposed to cheer at a 1% increase in economic growth after 4 years of a shattered economy
4) we have 6 trillion more in debt over 4 years


I can go on.....but why? So you can call me a racist?

You will anyway.

 

[Jarhead]

You missed the point entirely. I was not supporting Bloomberg like bans on the ever increasing size of sodas. I was suggesting that instead of quipping about it, Palin could have taken the opportunity to point out that there is an obesity problem and what conservatives could be offering as a solution. She didn't. She went low ball which is what is expected of her.

I was not supporting Bloomberg like bans but you do support them right? on the ever increasing size of sodas. yeah, it's a real epidemic I was suggesting that instead of quipping about it, Palin could have taken the opportunity to point out that there is an obesity problem and what conservatives could be offering as a solution. have you seen the pic of her in that sporty mini-skirt? She didn't. She went low ball which is what is expected of her

it's called "theatrics", like tingle guy, showing just how large the obamacare care bill was, calling everyone that disagrees with you an extremist.

No, I don't support them. I do, however, acknowledge that there is a problem and am eager to hear solutions from all sides.

Palin offered none...as is expected of her. Cute and dumb, she plays it well. Great for fucking, not for governing.

Palin knows it is not governemnts role to get involved in the bad decisions individuals make in regard to diet.

People know they are fat due to driniking too much soda; or fast food; or whatever. They decide to drink and eat it anyway. That is their decision.

I know driving on New Years eve is not a great idea. Too great a risk of my wife dying in a car accident...so we give up the pleasure of a New Years eve party and stay at home.

You dont see me out there campaigning for a law prhibiting parties on New Years Eve....do you?

If people do not wish to sacrifice pleasure for health, so be it. Why must I ALSO be forced to drink a smaller soda becuase they refuse to stop themselves?

It is not an overly difficult concept to understand.

 

[Foxfyre]

I was not supporting Bloomberg like bans but you do support them right? on the ever increasing size of sodas. yeah, it's a real epidemic I was suggesting that instead of quipping about it, Palin could have taken the opportunity to point out that there is an obesity problem and what conservatives could be offering as a solution. have you seen the pic of her in that sporty mini-skirt? She didn't. She went low ball which is what is expected of her

it's called "theatrics", like tingle guy, showing just how large the obamacare care bill was, calling everyone that disagrees with you an extremist.

No, I don't support them. I do, however, acknowledge that there is a problem and am eager to hear solutions from all sides.

Palin offered none...as is expected of her. Cute and dumb, she plays it well. Great for fucking, not for governing.

Palin knows it is not governemnts role to get involved in the bad decisions individuals make in regard to diet.

People know they are fat due to driniking too much soda; or fast food; or whatever. They decide to drink and eat it anyway. That is their decision.

I know driving on New Years eve is not a great idea. Too great a risk of my wife dying in a car accident...so we give up the pleasure of a New Years eve party and stay at home.

You dont see me out there campaigning for a law prhibiting parties on New Years Eve....do you?

If people do not wish to sacrifice pleasure for health, so be it. Why must I ALSO be forced to drink a smaller soda becuase they refuse to stop themselves?

It is not an overly difficult concept to understand.

Exactly. If they were serious about health issues, and thought limiting the size of a fountain drink would accomplish that, they would limit whiskey to 1/2 pint bottles and you couldn't buy more than a serving of wine. They would require ground beef to be sold in single servings--the serving size to be established by the government of course. To limit the size of a fountain drink while allowing the sale of full liters in the same store along with big bags of candy and potato chips is the height of government ridiculousness and overreach and nanny state.

But the haters won't give Sarah credit for illustrating that with her own Big Gulp. The haters even accuse her of being a hypocrite because there was probably a diet soda or 'gasp' water in that cup. How much more petty can you get than that?

 

[Jarhead]

No, I don't support them. I do, however, acknowledge that there is a problem and am eager to hear solutions from all sides.

Palin offered none...as is expected of her. Cute and dumb, she plays it well. Great for fucking, not for governing.

Palin knows it is not governemnts role to get involved in the bad decisions individuals make in regard to diet.

People know they are fat due to driniking too much soda; or fast food; or whatever. They decide to drink and eat it anyway. That is their decision.

I know driving on New Years eve is not a great idea. Too great a risk of my wife dying in a car accident...so we give up the pleasure of a New Years eve party and stay at home.

You dont see me out there campaigning for a law prhibiting parties on New Years Eve....do you?

If people do not wish to sacrifice pleasure for health, so be it. Why must I ALSO be forced to drink a smaller soda becuase they refuse to stop themselves?

It is not an overly difficult concept to understand.

Exactly. If they were serious about health issues, and thought limiting the size of a fountain drink would accomplish that, they would limit whiskey to 1/2 pint bottles and you couldn't buy more than a serving of wine. They would require ground beef to be sold in single servings--the serving size to be established by the government of course. To limit the size of a fountain drink while allowing the sale of full liters in the same store along with big bags of candy and potato chips is the height of government ridiculousness and overreach and nanny state.

But the haters won't give Sarah credit for illustrating that with her own Big Gulp. The haters even accuse her of being a hypocrite because there was probably a diet soda or 'gasp' water in that cup. How much more petty can you get than that?

Ironically....people like Seawytch actually criticized Palin for not offering a solution to obesity.

There IS NO GOVERNMENT solution to obesity.......and Palin knows it.

If you want to lose weight, dont drink lots of soda.

Why should I be forced to drink less? I am 185, 5"10"" and work out everyday. My reward is being able to eat what I want. I dont have government forcing me to cut down on my intake of high colestrerol products....I dont want to die....so I watch those things.

 

[Stephanie]

Palin knows it is not governemnts role to get involved in the bad decisions individuals make in regard to diet.

People know they are fat due to driniking too much soda; or fast food; or whatever. They decide to drink and eat it anyway. That is their decision.

I know driving on New Years eve is not a great idea. Too great a risk of my wife dying in a car accident...so we give up the pleasure of a New Years eve party and stay at home.

You dont see me out there campaigning for a law prhibiting parties on New Years Eve....do you?

If people do not wish to sacrifice pleasure for health, so be it. Why must I ALSO be forced to drink a smaller soda becuase they refuse to stop themselves?

It is not an overly difficult concept to understand.

Exactly. If they were serious about health issues, and thought limiting the size of a fountain drink would accomplish that, they would limit whiskey to 1/2 pint bottles and you couldn't buy more than a serving of wine. They would require ground beef to be sold in single servings--the serving size to be established by the government of course. To limit the size of a fountain drink while allowing the sale of full liters in the same store along with big bags of candy and potato chips is the height of government ridiculousness and overreach and nanny state.

But the haters won't give Sarah credit for illustrating that with her own Big Gulp. The haters even accuse her of being a hypocrite because there was probably a diet soda or 'gasp' water in that cup. How much more petty can you get than that?

Ironically....people like Seawytch actually criticized Palin for not offering a solution to obesity.

There IS NO GOVERNMENT solution to obesity.......and Palin knows it.

If you want to lose weight, dont drink lots of soda.

Why should I be forced to drink less? I am 185, 5"10"" and work out everyday. My reward is being able to eat what I want. I dont have government forcing me to cut down on my intake of high colestrerol products....I dont want to die....so I watch those things.

They've become used to their politicians making their decisions for them it seems..
criticizing Palin for not PREACHING to people...that is scary

 

[Mr. Shaman]

I also loved what she said about background checks, and that maybe the liberal media should have done a "background check" on Obama's inept ass, long before he made it into the primaries.

That was the stupidest things she said. How appropriate that you, "loved it".

The right wing bat crap crazies have tried so hard to find a scandal in President Obama's past and have been unable to do it. There is nothing in his background to "find out". Idiots.

aside from the fact that he's chums with people that openly hate America, you're right, there really is not a damn thing else. mostly b/c he's done nothing of merit

That's what Porky Limbaugh says, huh??

*

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rnoPpWdlG3A]Rachel Maddow (1) 111th Congress put policy before politics - YouTube[/ame]
*
[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tBHK7zsz7xU]Rachel Maddow (2) 111th Congress put policy before politics - YouTube[/ame]

 

[Mr. Shaman]

I also loved what she said about background checks, and that maybe the liberal media should have done a "background check" on Obama's inept ass, long before he made it into the primaries.

That was the stupidest things she said. How appropriate that you, "loved it".

The right wing bat crap crazies have tried so hard to find a scandal in President Obama's past and have been unable to do it. There is nothing in his background to "find out". Idiots.

Wrong.

Americans who were trying to vett a candidate hoped the media would do thier job.

You see, when a candidate has little experience to read up on, we are forced to determine the character of an individual by looking into his/her past...you know....who did they relate to; who did they associate with...etc.

Sadly, those that blindly supported this candidate.,...and yes...I say blindly becuase many supported him strictly based on the fact that he was Black, charismatic and potential "history making".....but I digress......anyway...those that blindly supported the man did not seem to care about hisd past associations....his past relations.....and instead of repscting OTHERS that DID want to know of those things, they decided to brand them as racists for wanting to know those things.

Yeah....sure.....Teabaggers are constantly.....

....in-search-of The Truth!!!!

 

[candycorn]

so? Hillary lost the Presidency and resigned her position as SoS, that makes a LOSER

The most admired woman in the world for something like 18 years running is not what many would call a loser.

Oh sure. She was so admired by her own party during the primaries that she was trashed for being a woman,trashed for being white,called racist and THEN had her delegates stolen from her. Love the double standard the left tries to pull off when it comes to women in politics. When they eat their own just as fast when the mood strikes them (while pretending it never happens).

Back onto the topic...

The GOP has earned their anti-woman reputation. Look at Indiana as a case study:

(CNN) - A controversial Indiana law that would keep low-income women from using federal Medicaid benefits to receive any kind of reproductive medical care from Planned Parenthood is unacceptable because it denies women the freedom to choose their health care providers, according to a federal hearing officer.

In June 2011, the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) of the Department of Health and Human Services ruled the state law, which would alter the way Medicaid is run in Indiana, violates federal laws, making it unacceptable.

Indiana abortion law ruled illegal ? CNN Political Ticker - CNN.com Blogs

Anti-choice activists will go to great lengths to justify their intrusion into the doctor/patient relationship. The latest example? Indiana Right to Life legislative director Sue Swayze, who yesterday joined in with a number of Indiana Right to Life members to testify in favor of restrictions on RU-486 that would require the Lafayette, Indiana Planned Parenthood clinic to rebuild and reclassify as a surgical abortion center in order to continue providing medication abortions.

As part of the new protocol for administering a medication abortion, legislative bill SB 371 would require not only that a patient undergo a likely mandatory forced trans-vaginal ultrasound prior to receiving the medication to induce abortion, but another vaginal ultrasound during her mandated follow up two weeks after the abortion.
- See more at: Indiana Right To Life Says Vaginal Probes Aren't Intrusive Because "I Got Pregnant Vaginally" - RH Reality Check

For those who dont' know, that's not the doppler "across the tummy" ultrasound, we're talking Roto-Rooter; not once, but twice. Forced. By lawmakers. In Indiana.

Here's a picture of what the State of Indiana wants to force into you for taking RU-486.

Not once, but twice.​

In other states, the GOP is hard at work in punishing women who exercise their right to choose...

Michigan:

The most threatening part of the new legislation is the need to conform to hospital-like standards, says Chelian (The Owner). One stipulation requires abortion clinics to install special gooseneck scrub sinks. Another says recovery rooms must provide 80 square feet of floor space per bed, three feet between each, and one lavatory for every six patients. Corridors must have a minimum width of six feet—Chelian estimates most are currently closer to five, which is large enough to fit a stretcher.
How State Governments Are Regulating Away Abortion - Businessweek

Virginia:

In December, McDonnell issued a prepared statement declaring that the law will help ensure the safety of all patients. Some of the regulations for the 20 Virginia clinics include public hallways that must be at least 5 feet wide, exam rooms that must be at least 80 square feet, and at least four parking spaces for each surgical room.
New Regulations Could Treat Virginia Abortion Clinics Like Hospitals | KUNC

Thats right, the "hands off of business" GOP all of the sudden is passing laws that require 4 parking spaces for each room. Sort of like requireing McDonalds to have X number of parking spots for each table.

If the GOP appears to be vicious, stupid, and two-faced it's only because at the end of the day, some of their members are vicious, stupid and two-faced. This is why single women voted overwhelmingly for President Obama and he nearly broke even with married women as well.

It's really that simple.

 

[Misty]

She really socked it to that... formerly Republican, Independent...

It was very funny.

 

[Misty]

Rush has lost a lot of weight.

Where is your tolerance?

 

[Jarhead]

The most admired woman in the world for something like 18 years running is not what many would call a loser.

Oh sure. She was so admired by her own party during the primaries that she was trashed for being a woman,trashed for being white,called racist and THEN had her delegates stolen from her. Love the double standard the left tries to pull off when it comes to women in politics. When they eat their own just as fast when the mood strikes them (while pretending it never happens).

Back onto the topic...

The GOP has earned their anti-woman reputation.

you left out this part:

The state has argued the law, HEA 1210, simply intended to block Medicaid money from going toward abortions, and filed an administrative appeal to CMS to reassess the ruling

You may want to say it is evidence of a war on women....but in reality, the motive of the legislators was to ensure that tax payer money was not paying for abortions. Now, sure, you may want to argue that motive...debate it if you will....and that is a good debate....

But instead, the debate is about the GOP waging war on women.

You see...when you spin the motives of a legislator, it compromises the integrity of our legislative process.

It is sad that our elected leaders feel they can spin the motive of the other side in an effort to "win".....

But now, we the people are doing it?

Why?

Wouldnt you prefer an honest debate so we can come to terms for what is best for Americans?

 

[Foxfyre]

Sarah Palin at least knows the difference between banning something and not requiring people to pay for somebody else to have something. That the federal government does not buy something for you is very different than telling you that you are not allowed to have something.

I only wish more of our leftist friends were that smart.

 

[Dot Com]

Rightists and their soda wars. What will they whine about next? STOP NINNYHAMMERING!!!

 

[candycorn]

Oh sure. She was so admired by her own party during the primaries that she was trashed for being a woman,trashed for being white,called racist and THEN had her delegates stolen from her. Love the double standard the left tries to pull off when it comes to women in politics. When they eat their own just as fast when the mood strikes them (while pretending it never happens).

Back onto the topic...

The GOP has earned their anti-woman reputation.

you left out this part:

The state has argued the law, HEA 1210, simply intended to block Medicaid money from going toward abortions, and filed an administrative appeal to CMS to reassess the ruling

You may want to say it is evidence of a war on women....but in reality, the motive of the legislators was to ensure that tax payer money was not paying for abortions. Now, sure, you may want to argue that motive...debate it if you will....and that is a good debate....

But instead, the debate is about the GOP waging war on women.

You see...when you spin the motives of a legislator, it compromises the integrity of our legislative process.

It is sad that our elected leaders feel they can spin the motive of the other side in an effort to "win".....

But now, we the people are doing it?

Why?

Wouldnt you prefer an honest debate so we can come to terms for what is best for Americans?

Not sure if you're asking rhetorical questions or not. What I illustrated needs no spin.

The law in Indiana required two (not one but two) invasive (not the nearly as effective "over the belly) sonograms if you took a prescribed drug, RU486. There is no spin to that. It's simply spiteful abuses of power.

From the political viewpoint, the "war on women" is seen as being waged by conservatives. This is why. It requires no spin on my part whatsoever.

I left out about 10 examples I can come up with off the top of my head such as the liability insurance that must be carried by these facilities, the requirement that there be constant staffing by a physician, etc...

 

[candycorn]

Sarah Palin at least knows the difference between banning something and not requiring people to pay for somebody else to have something. That the federal government does not buy something for you is very different than telling you that you are not allowed to have something.

I only wish more of our leftist friends were that smart.

Perhaps they're smart enough to know it's a local NYC ordinance and not the Federal Government.

 

[Seawytch]

Palin knows it is not governemnts role to get involved in the bad decisions individuals make in regard to diet.

People know they are fat due to driniking too much soda; or fast food; or whatever. They decide to drink and eat it anyway. That is their decision.

I know driving on New Years eve is not a great idea. Too great a risk of my wife dying in a car accident...so we give up the pleasure of a New Years eve party and stay at home.

You dont see me out there campaigning for a law prhibiting parties on New Years Eve....do you?

If people do not wish to sacrifice pleasure for health, so be it. Why must I ALSO be forced to drink a smaller soda becuase they refuse to stop themselves?

It is not an overly difficult concept to understand.

Exactly. If they were serious about health issues, and thought limiting the size of a fountain drink would accomplish that, they would limit whiskey to 1/2 pint bottles and you couldn't buy more than a serving of wine. They would require ground beef to be sold in single servings--the serving size to be established by the government of course. To limit the size of a fountain drink while allowing the sale of full liters in the same store along with big bags of candy and potato chips is the height of government ridiculousness and overreach and nanny state.

But the haters won't give Sarah credit for illustrating that with her own Big Gulp. The haters even accuse her of being a hypocrite because there was probably a diet soda or 'gasp' water in that cup. How much more petty can you get than that?

Ironically....people like Seawytch actually criticized Palin for not offering a solution to obesity.

There IS NO GOVERNMENT solution to obesity.......and Palin knows it.

If you want to lose weight, dont drink lots of soda.

Why should I be forced to drink less? I am 185, 5"10"" and work out everyday. My reward is being able to eat what I want. I dont have government forcing me to cut down on my intake of high colestrerol products....I dont want to die....so I watch those things.

Obesity killed more people than smoking last year. The health of the nation is a "Gubmint issue" and absolutely should be addressed by the leaders of our Nation.

 

[Jarhead]

Back onto the topic...

The GOP has earned their anti-woman reputation.

you left out this part:

The state has argued the law, HEA 1210, simply intended to block Medicaid money from going toward abortions, and filed an administrative appeal to CMS to reassess the ruling

You may want to say it is evidence of a war on women....but in reality, the motive of the legislators was to ensure that tax payer money was not paying for abortions. Now, sure, you may want to argue that motive...debate it if you will....and that is a good debate....

But instead, the debate is about the GOP waging war on women.

You see...when you spin the motives of a legislator, it compromises the integrity of our legislative process.

It is sad that our elected leaders feel they can spin the motive of the other side in an effort to "win".....

But now, we the people are doing it?

Why?

Wouldnt you prefer an honest debate so we can come to terms for what is best for Americans?

Not sure if you're asking rhetorical questions or not. What I illustrated needs no spin.

The law in Indiana required two (not one but two) invasive (not the nearly as effective "over the belly) sonograms if you took a prescribed drug, RU486. There is no spin to that. It's simply spiteful abuses of power.

From the political viewpoint, the "war on women" is seen as being waged by conservatives. This is why. It requires no spin on my part whatsoever.

I left out about 10 examples I can come up with off the top of my head such as the liability insurance that must be carried by these facilities, the requirement that there be constant staffing by a physician, etc...

you are an ideologue who reads and interprets what you want and refuse to put any credence to the motives of the legislator.

It is who you are. You are not worthy of my time to debate.

 

[Foxfyre]

Sarah Palin at least knows the difference between banning something and not requiring people to pay for somebody else to have something. That the federal government does not buy something for you is very different than telling you that you are not allowed to have something.

I only wish more of our leftist friends were that smart.

Perhaps they're smart enough to know it's a local NYC ordinance and not the Federal Government.

I'm sure she knows that and is still smart enough to see it as a huge overreach of government regulation. Which she chose to use as illustration of what such overreach looks like.

Most of the leftists however are apparently not smart enough to see the prop she used as an overreach by government but chose instead to attack her and the values she spoke to.

I wonder if we will ever get back to a principle of actually discussing the principle of something instead of always turning any discussion about a value or principle to a food fight over whose sin in blackest?

 

[sfcalifornia]

Exactly. If they were serious about health issues, and thought limiting the size of a fountain drink would accomplish that, they would limit whiskey to 1/2 pint bottles and you couldn't buy more than a serving of wine. They would require ground beef to be sold in single servings--the serving size to be established by the government of course. To limit the size of a fountain drink while allowing the sale of full liters in the same store along with big bags of candy and potato chips is the height of government ridiculousness and overreach and nanny state.

But the haters won't give Sarah credit for illustrating that with her own Big Gulp. The haters even accuse her of being a hypocrite because there was probably a diet soda or 'gasp' water in that cup. How much more petty can you get than that?

Ironically....people like Seawytch actually criticized Palin for not offering a solution to obesity.

There IS NO GOVERNMENT solution to obesity.......and Palin knows it.

If you want to lose weight, dont drink lots of soda.

Why should I be forced to drink less? I am 185, 5"10"" and work out everyday. My reward is being able to eat what I want. I dont have government forcing me to cut down on my intake of high colestrerol products....I dont want to die....so I watch those things.

Obesity killed more people than smoking last year. The health of the nation is a "Gubmint issue" and absolutely should be addressed by the leaders of our Nation.

If Palin is any kind of leader wannabe, she should be coming up with answers to the nation's obesity problem instead of blatantly chugging calories on national TV in some kind of inane mockery of those who are at least attempting to do something about the problem.

Soda bans for adults may not be the answer but "Fat, baby, Fat" isn't either.

 

[candycorn]

you left out this part:

The state has argued the law, HEA 1210, simply intended to block Medicaid money from going toward abortions, and filed an administrative appeal to CMS to reassess the ruling

You may want to say it is evidence of a war on women....but in reality, the motive of the legislators was to ensure that tax payer money was not paying for abortions. Now, sure, you may want to argue that motive...debate it if you will....and that is a good debate....

But instead, the debate is about the GOP waging war on women.

You see...when you spin the motives of a legislator, it compromises the integrity of our legislative process.

It is sad that our elected leaders feel they can spin the motive of the other side in an effort to "win".....

But now, we the people are doing it?

Why?

Wouldnt you prefer an honest debate so we can come to terms for what is best for Americans?

Not sure if you're asking rhetorical questions or not. What I illustrated needs no spin.

The law in Indiana required two (not one but two) invasive (not the nearly as effective "over the belly) sonograms if you took a prescribed drug, RU486. There is no spin to that. It's simply spiteful abuses of power.

From the political viewpoint, the "war on women" is seen as being waged by conservatives. This is why. It requires no spin on my part whatsoever.

I left out about 10 examples I can come up with off the top of my head such as the liability insurance that must be carried by these facilities, the requirement that there be constant staffing by a physician, etc...

you are an ideologue who reads and interprets what you want and refuse to put any credence to the motives of the legislator.

It is who you are. You are not worthy of my time to debate.

Okay...explain the motives if you can find the time. If not, well, that speaks volumes. 332-206 speaks equally as loud.