If you intresting in sport Buy trenbolone and Buy testosterone enanthate you find place where you can find information about steroids
  • Resources

  • Book of the Month

  • Shopping on Amazon? Use this search box and support Dangerous Talk at the same time.
  • Blog Directories

    blog search directory Religion Top Blogs
  • AdSense

Letterman Chases Palin Out of Office

Over the Independence Day weekend, Governor Sarah Palin announced her early retirement from the Governor’s position with a year and a half still left in her term. There has been much speculation on why she would do this when she is also raising money for a possible race to the White House.

Palin’s announcement was unfocused and seemed rushed. This fueled the speculation about a looming scandal or even possible legal charges. The FBI has claimed that no legal investigation was going on from their end and so the Palin’s resignation remains a mystery.

Today, Palin’s lawyer, Thomas Van Flein claims, “No legal ‘bombshell’ or personal scandal lies behind Palin’s resignation, but off-color jokes by talk-show host David Letterman contributed to her decision to step down.” He also claimed that the governor needed a break after being “on duty now for two and a half years solid.” Considering that the job is a four-year term, I guess two and a half years “solid” is supposed to be considered a pretty good run. Palin continues to tell everyone that she is “not a quitter” even as she was announcing that she was quitting early.

The fact that Sarah Palin needed a break and that talk show host David Letterman helped to run her out of office are two very big strikes against a possible White House run. This is good news for secular Americans because Palin is considered by many to be even more of a religious fundamentalist than George W. Bush. When John McCain added Palin to his ticket, it energized the Religious Right who saw him as too secular, but it also alienated most Americans who saw her as way too religious and a heartbeat about the “Big Chair.”

For me, the interesting part of this story is that Letterman’s jokes weren’t even that mean. They were pretty obvious and easy jokes. Letterman also apologized for those jokes and stopped making Palin the punch line. Many other comedians have told far meaner jokes at the Governor’s expense and had the Governor called them out on those jokes, many would escalate the situation rather than back down so quickly. Just look at poor Governor Mark Stanford. He is getting joked about much more than Palin was and in a much shorter span of time. Is he quitting? Hell no, not even when Democrats and Republicans alike are actively pushing him to leave.

So I think Palin’s announcement should be a lesson to everyone, keep telling jokes about Republican politicians they talk a big game about being fighters and not quitters, but a lot of them are quitters and few of them are actual fighters. They just like to wear the fighter pilot suit and announce, “Mission Accomplished.”

Related Posts Plugin for WordPress, Blogger...
  • http://www.myspace.com/agnosticanarch AgnosticAnarch

    I should send Letterman a fruit basket or something! Thanks, Dave!

    So, did you hear the one about the right-wing neo-conservative Republican Christian fucktard? *sly grin*

  • Robb

    Good job, Mr. Lettermean, we need more like you, or really the opposition needs more luke warm simpletons like Palin. She makes it a cake walk.

  • Azadeth

    I really don’t think that Letterman had anything to do with it. His jokes were misinterpreted by Palin and the Right on purpose, in order to cause the sort of meaningless ruckus that seems to get them excited. So a few lines from this dorky comedian are enough to make her say, “I CAN’T TAKE IT ANYMORE!” Really? She suffered far worse and more significant jokes being made about her and her family during her election. No, this just doesn’t add up for me. I think this is just a continuation of the earlier nonsense in using Letterman as a scapegoat or excuse.

    • http://www.dangeroustalk.net Staks

      That’s what her Lawyer said.

  • http://www.myspace.com/itsahicke Her3tiK

    The less power she has the better. She’s the last person we need in office. Anywhere.

  • Soul Rebel

    The FBI says no investigation and yet they’ve seized civil records in Alaska and there IS an active investigation into Todd Palin’s dealings with the construction company that built their house for free…which they believe may have been a trade off for sending lucrative contracts their way.

  • http://www.poweressence.com/ Maxwell Jennings

    Maybe this will be the death-knell to her political career. I can only hope. What happens if she becomes president or vice president and needs a break from the ‘pressure’?

  • Scott

    Palin is a horrid horrid person and Alaska will thank her for leaving office. I watched her during the Vice Presidential debates and she spent too much time trying to be down to earth talking about soccer moms and dodging questions. Who gives a flying fuck about soccer moms? Why do moms have their kids play soccer when professional soccer is unpopular in the US? Seriously, I am a single male that loathes sports and by talking about soccer moms you are insulting my intelligence. It is blatantly obvious she is trying so hard to appeal to the woman of the US. She has no secular values whatsoever.

    “This is good news for secular Americans because Palin is considered by many to be even more of a religious fundamentalist than George W. Bush.”

    When Palin was mayor she allegedly told the librarian to get rid of some books because they were too secular. She also has abused her political power using it to get revenge on a former brother in law. She isn’t qualified to be president. So far at this point I don’t think Obama will lose to the Republicans in 2012 so long as Obama remains popular. Whatever damage Bush did will look insignificant compared to what Palin could do.

  • Scuba Steve

    That’s wild Dave!

  • Hittman

    The A-plussers aren’t looking for resolution, they’re looking for vindication. Disusing anything with any of them is like discussing evolution with creationists. It wastes your time and annoys the pig.

    But it takes two people to fight. I suggest that we respond to anything they say or do with a dismissive, “Pfft. It’s just an a-plusser. Ho hum, what’s for dinner?” Then refuse to acknowledge them any further. These people thrive on attention – let’s take it away from them.

    Let them do their little superior dances for each other, knowing that no one else is bothering to watch.

  • http://BitchSpot.JadeDragonOnline.com Cephus

    You say that A+ views this as a campaign against evil, I don’t even know that’s true. Certainly, most of the low-end grunts probably feel that way, but when it gets to the leadership of FtB and Skepchicks, I doubt they really care much, they’re in it for the money and notoriety. It’s obvious by watching them work, the second people stop talking about them, the second people stop flooding to their sites and generating ad revenue, one of them will go out and create controversy and start the cycle all over again. It happens like clockwork. It gets a lot of atheists on our side of the fence riled up, it gets the faithful’s righteous anger re-invigorated and it all goes on over and over.

    The only way to stop this is, as you said, to ignore them. That’s what I started doing as a New Year’s Resolution. I don’t look at them on Twitter, I don’t read blogs that spend an inordinate amount of time talking about A+, I don’t listen to podcasts that spend a lot of time dealing with this nonsense, I have largely successfully excised them from my life and I’m a lot happier. Unfortunately, there are far too many people who thrive on drama, drama, drama, who are drawn to any controversy like a moth to the flame. Those are the people who are largely the problem and those are the people who I fear reason and logic will never reach.

    We need to stop talking about A+ so they’ll slink back into their hole and find something else to do with themselves. They thrive on attention. Unless we can deprive them of such, this will probably still be going on in the future when Cartman shows up.

    • http://skepticink.com/dangeroustalk Dangerous Talk

      To clarify, I didn’t single out A+.

      • http://BitchSpot.JadeDragonOnline.com Cephus

        Yeah, but we know that’s the overwhelming majority problem. I don’t see any other form of infighting going on in the atheist community right now, do you?

        • http://skepticink.com/dangeroustalk Dangerous Talk

          My point is even some people who are opposed to A+ are guilty of the same thing. I want us all to step back and work out our differences together. Oh, and accommodantionalists are still out there talking smack about more confrontational atheist like me. See my post from yesterday.

          • http://BitchSpot.JadeDragonOnline.com Cephus

            Absolutely and without question! There are trolls on both sides, but if Atheism+ had never shown up, I don’t think those trolls would be out harassing people, I certainly don’t remember there being such an issue before Elevatorgate supposedly happened. There may be tons of blame to go around, it was just a particular incident and movement that grew up around it that sparked the debacle.

        • http://twitter.com/GerhardPrinslo1 Gerhard Prinsloo

          A+ is an irrelevance. The FTB bigwigs are the problem. A+ is a vicious hellhole of petty tyrants looking for vulnerable individuals to torture and it’s effectively been dumped by it’s creator.

  • http://twitter.com/GerhardPrinslo1 Gerhard Prinsloo

    The big rift is over real differences. I believe that I have every right not to take a woman’s word for something without evidence. I will not accept that being male means that I should suffer for the actions of any other male. I will not accept anyone’s projection of misogynistic intent onto society or individual men when there are a host of other interpretations. I will not accept anyone’s demands that I renounce crimes I have not committed. I do not appreciate uninformed attacks on scientific fields purely because they don’t fall in line with the view that gender is a social construct.

  • http://twitter.com/iamcuriousblue iamcuriousblue

    I’m not so sure we have the same goals. The “social justice” crowd seems to want secularism joined at the hip to a very narrow ideological perspective, and I can’t respect that goal. I really don’t want to be part of a secular movement that is on one hand fighting against religious hegemony only to be promoting ideological hegemony with the other. I think we’ve had enough of that model with the whole ugly history of 20th Century Marxism, and to me what the Aplussers are promoting simply looks like that rebranded as “feminism”.

    • http://skepticink.com/dangeroustalk Dangerous Talk

      I have no problem with social justice. I think most of the secular community values social justice issues. I you would be hard pressed to find an atheist who doesn’t support equality for gays, women, and racial minorities. While they do exist of course, they aren’t generally involved in our community of reason. The issue from my prospective isn’t social justice, but rather political correctness. Also, the way we treat people of reason who disagree. If the person has shown that they are generally reasonable and value reason, then there is no reason why their can’t be a dialog about hot button issues without resorting to ugly labels that just don’t fit. For example, claiming that Sam Harris is a racist is just ridiculous.

      • http://BitchSpot.JadeDragonOnline.com Cephus

        I’ve got no problem with social justice either, but it has nothing to do with atheism. Atheism is the lack of belief in gods, period. If these people want to also, as a separate thing, have views on social justice, fine. They can go have a big social justice parade for all I care. What they cannot do, and what they are trying to do, is declare that anyone who doesn’t support their causes, exactly as they define them, cannot be an atheist.

        That’s simply incorrect.

        • http://skepticink.com/dangeroustalk Dangerous Talk

          I’m not one to defend A+, but they aren’t saying that you can’t be atheists. My issue is that they want to drum out anyone who they perceive a disagreement with and they perceive disagreements everywhere even when they don’t really exist. So I think your claim would be more accurate to say that they declare that anyone who they perceive doesn’t support their causes, exactly as they define them, cannot be part of the atheist movement. That I would agree with you on and I do have a problem with such an attitude.

          On the other hand, I wouldn’t want someone who actually is homophobic, racist, and/or misogynist to be out there in the public as a voice for our community. So I can somewhat see where they are coming from. But I think they are too quick to throw those labels around where they don’t actually belong. That is my main grievance.

          I think there is a big difference between Sam Harris’s view on profiling and Pastor Terry Jones’s view on profiling and it isn’t that Harris is an atheist and Jones is a believer. I object to painting them with the same brush.

          • http://BitchSpot.JadeDragonOnline.com Cephus

            Personally, I wouldn’t want anyone with a political agenda to be out there as the voice for our “community” either. We’re atheists. That’s all we really share in common. If people want to be socially conscious, fine. Go over there, call yourself humanists and do what you do. Don’t try to krazy-glue yourself to atheism, atheism is one thing and one thing only. It certainly wasn’t mainline atheism that started calling everyone misogynists and suggesting that anyone that didn’t buy into the Atheism+ (or extremist feminism) position ought to slink back into the sewers. The whole “you’re either with us or you’re subhuman sleaze unworthy of consideration” nonsense is what caused the whole mess. Atheism+ was never about people who wanted to be involved with social justice causes doing so, it was about forcing everyone, whether they agreed or not, to do what they wanted them to do.

            That’s a problem.

            • http://skepticink.com/dangeroustalk Dangerous Talk

              Yeah, I mostly agree with you. But I do think that most atheists do share some common values and if we had someone speaking to the public who is diametrically opposed to those values, it would work against us in the mainstream media. Still, I am talking about extreme cases. I supported Edwina Rogers even though she was a Republican because she shares the majority of our values. I didn’t consider her an extreme choice at all. But I wouldn’t want Karl Rove to be the head of the SCA even though he too is an atheist. That’s all I’m saying.