Zamboni Palin: Track’s Missing Sibling

Ok, I will miss her. Gov. Sarah Palin today not only stated that she is an intellectual (despite all outward appearances and available tests would indicate) but that she wanted a sixth child named Zamboni. I have been searching for video of this interview to determine if the Zamboni thing was a joke, but it appears that most viewers concluded that she was serious.

I have inserted a picture of a Zamboni to see how the sixth addition would fit within the Palin family photo. This is so much better that Paver Palin or Scraper Palin.

In the meantime, polls are now showing that Palin is leading as the most negative influence for the ticket — more negative that the radioactive association of McCain with President Bush.

Given names like Trig and Track and Piper, it could be serious. If anyone can confirm whether it was a joke or serious, let me know. Frankly, if it was a joke, Palin would go up dramatically in my view. I place humor pretty high in ranking a person’s character. If this was a joke, it would be a hilarious response to the past digs about the family names.

For the full story, click here.

25 thoughts on “Zamboni Palin: Track’s Missing Sibling”

  1. mespo727272 1, October 24, 2008 at 12:04 am

    Gino:
    “Why all the Jill bashing? She’s a regular contributor to this blog like many other fine minds, and her opinion matters to me. I find her reasonable and willing to discuss many topics. She always has something relevant to say and I like her style. That’s enough for me.”

    *****
    As always mespo you are very gallant, but Jill can stand to get bashed once in a while. And while it is quite unusual, in this instance, I disagree with practically everything you just said.

    And the next time she quotes me, my ideas, or steals my jokes, I’ll nail her.

    It’s nice to be validated, but we all grow weary of the constant regurgitation of the latest podcast and the incessant hand-wringing
    over the latest suggestion rumored based on fear from some book, article, just devoured.

    Or am I the only one? Seriously.

    And Gino, I think you made an elegant speech in your penultimate post and some really good points that might be applied to a different conversation not having to do with the present administration.

    What Michael pointed out, as I do often, is that what is most troublesome is clearly against the Constitution, violates the rule of law, and is not simply attributable to just political differences, given the great lengths achieved to cover it all up and deny opportunities to investigate the truth about what’s really gone on for years – without our knowledge or permission, and even now,over our repeated objections.

  2. H,

    I support the rule of law in America. As part of this support I feel obligated to speak out against anyone who shows the sort of contempt for the U.S. Constistution that our sitting President has. He surrounds himself with people that tell him that the system of checks and balances in the Constitution only apply some of the time. Both he and others in his administration have supported methods of interigation that can only be called torture. That some ‘good’ came out of these actions because they were done against bad people is no defense, only a rationinalization.

    It’s been said many times; our reaction to the Terrorists says nothing about them, and everything about us. It has been claimed they want to destroy the American way of life. If we ignore our own laws, the very foundation of our way of life, in an attempt to get revenge they have won.

  3. Mespo,

    I didn’t mean to harsh on Jill personally. If I came across that way, my apologies to Jill.

  4. Gino:

    Why all the Jill bashing? She’s a regular contributor to this blog like many other fine minds, and her opinion matters to me. I find her reasonable and willing to discuss many topics. She always has something relevant to say and I like her style. That’s enough for me.

  5. Mike Spindell,

    I did consider, after the post, that Hitler and Stalin should be excepted from the proposition. But we aren’t talking about Hitler or Stalin. And such comparisons don’t really have a place in modern American political discourse, except to reveal who the extremists are. Yours is the kind of overheated rhetoric that divides us as people and coarsens our society. You can be angry and frustrated, and write your screeds on every blog you want, but if you don’t understand that very few people are motivated by true evil, and that our deepest differences are really only political in nature, then you’re a fool. You’re part of the problem that you decry. You have to understand that the labels you apply to others are being applied to you in equal measure, and nothing good can come from it. The resolution to the impasse isn’t to demand that the other guy stand down; it’s for you to consider your words and actions.

  6. I have to echo Gyges’ and Mike Spindell’s support of Jill’s reasoning and her questions to Gino. I think “H” needs ot look at some of the facts that Gino seems to discount. Saddam Hussein was a brutal dictator, but if that was the sole reason to attack a country, we would be even busier than we are now. Under your theory we would had to attack Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, and many other of our so-called allies. Secondly, Bush and Cheney convinced many people to support the call for war against Iraq by using false and distorted evidence of Wmd’s. Those that had the full facts and still voted for the war deserve the same fate as Bush/Cheney. It was Bush and Cheney who authorized our illegal torture of our prisoners. We complain about Saddam being a brutal dictator who abused his own people and then the Bush/Cheney regime has tortured many prisoners even an American citizen and held them without due process. Even after the conservative Supreme Court ordered that the prisoners were entitled to Habeas protections, they have purposely dragged their feet in respecting that decision. I could go on and on, but Gino will say that I am just throwing out facts and saying negative things about Bush/Cheney or McCain/Palin. Don’t forget who is caling Democrats Un-American and who is spreading lies and distortions about Obama’s trying to advance the lie that he is in favor of terrorism. Jill, save your efforts. I don’t think Gino wants to discuss issues.

  7. H,

    Nobody needs to go to any other country to experience being on the wrong side of “correct” thought. Just try wearing a liberal T-shirt at a republican rally.

    Many of us are here because we’re interested in Prof. Turley’s take on the law. Many of us believe that Bush and Cheney have broken the law to the point where if people STILL defend them, the defenders must either think they have something to gain from the Neocon movement, or else they are suckered into supporting it by whatever hatred/fear of the day sticks and manipulates them.

  8. Yep, terrorists and insurgents kill civilians, but of course Bush/Cheney are responsible. Saddam Hussein, a true butcher, is no longer terrorizing his people, but that Bush/Cheney are the real bad guys.

    Violating oath of office? eash, Congress, with the support of many democrats, approved the war. That’s the standard that has always existed in the USA.

    FYI, soldiers aren’t idiots. They know what they are getting themselves into. They accept the risks and the way the chain of command works.

    Go live in Cuba and North Korea. You might like the uniformity of thought (and severe consequences if anyone breaks the “correct” thought).

  9. “Moreover, if you cannot find something you like or admire about your political or philosophical opponents, then you have to question whether you really understand them at all.”

    Gino,
    So what exactly do you think I should like or admire about Hitler, or Stalin for that matter? I’m searching my consciousness and emotions to find something likable and admirable about them, but gosh somehow nothing comes to mind. By your formulation i guess I should question my ability to understand them.

    As for Bush and Cheney, well there we have another instance of my not being able to empathize with or find something likable about either of them. To my mind Bush wanted to attack Iraq because he felt he needed a war to solidify the legacy of his presidency and also to prove himself more of a man than his father. Cheney wanted to because of his greed and because he enjoys giving pain to others.
    To my biased(at least by your lights)mind these men are war criminals and have broken their oaths of office. Now while the argument would be valid that Hitler/Stalin worked on a larger scale of murderousness than Bush/Cheney, over 4,000 troops dead, 30,000 maimed and at the least two hundred thousand Iraqi’s killed, qualifies them for similar contempt. Guess what? I think that through my contempt I understand them very well.

    You generally deal in false equivalencies, claiming in many instances the guilt of both sides. While it is no doubt true that Democrats/Leftists/Liberals in general have many ignoble people on their side, in this era, far more of their opponents on the Right have nearly monopolized hypocrisy, greed and despicable activity.

  10. Gino,

    I just don’t know what to say. I asked you a specific question based on your original post. You have yet to answer me on why you think cheney/bush and palin are admirable. Instead you come back with a rant of personal attacks. I think you are not interested in real discourse or you would lay out your reasoning and let others respond. I have changed my mind due to reading what others had to say, but you have to address the issue. Unless you will address the question squarely we can’t get anywhere. Please tell me your thoughts on why you think bush/cheney and palin are admirable. I will consider them as I’m certain others will as well. We may not agree but I will tell you why I agree or disagree with you, sans personal attack of any kind!

    Gyges,

    Thank you!

  11. Gino,

    I have to stick up for Jill here. She’s often asked questions and seems genuinely interested in others opinions. On the few times we’ve disagreed, she always seemed to carefully consider what I had to say and responded with reasonable arguments.

    It’s true that she often brings up Bush and Cheney, even on seemingly unrelated topics. However I think this is because they she sees them as symbolic (and leaders) of a cultural movement that she is very concerned about.

    You’d also be interested to know that she has repeatedly expressed concerns over the rationalization that goes on within both political parties, even singling out the Dem. on occasion.

  12. Jill,

    I don’t doubt that you have facts. We’re all up to our asses in facts. Your facts have led you to conclusions that you can’t back down from, not an inch. When I observed that every post, even the ones having nothing to do with them, resulted in unwarranted anti-Bush/Cheney comments, that told me something. When I suggested that, like Palin, Biden also makes a lot of gaffes, and that might tell us something about him and his intelligence, no one wanted to hear it. That told me something else. Your closed-mindedness is laid bare. You’re not here for discourse, you’re here for reinforcement. What’s the point in talking to you about anything?

    P.S. – I’m still not McCain/Palin supporter.

  13. Gino,

    Thanks for address the post, you still haven’t addressed what I asked. What do you find admirable about bush/cheney/and palin?. It’s a relevant question because you made it one in your original post, so please follow your own advice and tell me what you think are their admirable qualities.

    You are also claiming something about me that you have no evidence for. When I say I don’t admire any of these people I base that on valid information. Facts aren’t the same as labels. You are ducking with your answer. Failure to respond directly to questions is one reason why many of us don’t believe you when you say you aren’t a McCain/Palin supporter.

  14. Gino, I thought your post to ‘H’ was very funny – it made me laugh!

    Just so you know, I tried to make the point weeks ago, which was completely lost here on the blog, but, thankfully, not by the Obama campaign, that Democrats could blow it, once again, if they focus on making their message what ‘stupid’ idiots our opponents are.

    Other than that, I happen to like the name ‘Piper’!

  15. Jill, Jill, Jill. What I think of Bush/Cheney/Palin is irrelevant. What I think that is relevant is that the original post was essentially an ad hominem attack against Palin for a statement that Professor Turley admits may or may not have been taken in context. That is objectionable on its own. Silly really. Moreover, if you cannot find something you like or admire about your political or philosophical opponents, then you have to question whether you really understand them at all. You can reduce everything you think you know to labels, but that is not real understanding.

  16. Gino,

    I feel you spend much time here complaining instead of stating your own ideas. I am interested in what you think, so please tell me the good things you see in Bush/Cheney/Palin. You know I don’t like any of them, but I would like to know the good things you see in them. I may not agree with you, but so what? Why not step up and state your own positions instead of mostly trashing the other posters ideas.

  17. >If you don’t have anything bad to say about Bush/Cheney/Palin, >don’t say anything at all.

    As if there’s anything good to say about any of them…..
    As if any of those named are relevant to anything relevant….

  18. H,

    Man are you in the wrong forum. If you don’t have anything bad to say about Bush/Cheney/Palin, don’t say anything at all.

  19. Could you publish the names of your children?

    We need to make fun of them as well. And go their school and make sure their classmates make fun of them as well.

    You know, just to be fair.

Comments are closed.