Gothamist: Palin Gives Only NYC Interview to My9

Politburo

Tue, 21 Oct 2008 10:16:18 -0500

"going to the moon did nothing to advance society as a whole." Actually stepping on the moon did nothing, that's correct. But the act of going there, and other space program missions, required many technological advances that we use to this day.

ndevelopment

Tue, 21 Oct 2008 00:39:14 -0500

What a joke! McCain's camp is so embarrassed they dont dare put her on a real news show again for fear of another Katie Couric repeat.

cucarachita

Mon, 20 Oct 2008 19:13:10 -0500

Hey, all you Palin haters -- I hope you're planning on voting! Nothing else will keep her and that rotting corpse McCain out of the White House! Let's not be all talk no vote Dems, as in the past. (not me)

cucarachita

Mon, 20 Oct 2008 19:11:23 -0500

Look how big her shoes are on her! Ha ha.

longacre

Mon, 20 Oct 2008 17:33:58 -0500

Guys, we get it, she sucks. Relax. The fact that she did ANY local TV appearance is amazing to me...not like she's going to earn any electoral votes by talking to NYers, especially black NYers. That being the case, she did anyway, so I don't think the channel it was on really should be held against her.

huffybike

Mon, 20 Oct 2008 17:09:15 -0500

Well, I'm convinced.

ma bell

Mon, 20 Oct 2008 16:01:41 -0500

we beat them to the moon so i don't really know what that means. even still, that was more of a my weiner is bigger then yours type situation. going to the moon did nothing to advance society as a whole. there was no profit to be had from going there, therefore the free market model just doesn't work from that sort of perspective. clearly there is room for some sort of regulation. i don't think that is any more clear then it is today. but people need to be motivated and you motivate them by providing a pot of gold at the end of the rainbow. its just human nature to want more for yourself. and what achievements? they use our technology. our drugs. name a major pharmaceutical advancement that has come from japan or canada. the british have some but they are from private businesses. just because they all have health care doesn't mean that they came up with the methods they are using.

shovel

Mon, 20 Oct 2008 15:48:12 -0500

i ask again. what socialist country has shown the ability to be a technological leader. Remember the race to the moon between the Soviets and US? :) In terms of health care, Germany and Japan have social insurance, and you can't dispute their achievements. Other medical advancements have been made in Canada and England. Even if you believe that profit is the sole motivation for discovery, you can still include profit in a socialized health insurance model. People tend to think in extremes...that's like comparing unregulated laissez faire capitalism to communism. Judicious socialism in certain instances is beneficial.

ma bell

Mon, 20 Oct 2008 15:16:05 -0500

ambiguous? i think not. that public money was given to private businesses that then went forward with the technological advances. no one said there wasn't a need to use public money. private business has just shown the ability to be a much more efficient user of that money. the payback to society has been the advancement of many of the products that we use today. the government doesn't build the products that our military uses, but they fund the products. because they know they're job is to make laws and govern, not design. the govt can't even get their act together to make a law without stuffing it full of extra un-needed expenses. i ask again. what socialist country has shown the ability to be a technological leader. where are all the innovations coming from? is the govt of china or the govt of france coming up with breaking technological advances? or is private business doing that? i would rather give my money to apple and let them come up with the next best thing then to give my money to uncle sam to piss away on added programs. even still...this lady is a disaster. i think we can at least agree on that.

starrygordon

Mon, 20 Oct 2008 14:47:17 -0500

I don't see why the so-called free market would necessarily produce technological advances. A lot of the advances in the United States were originally brought about in secret with government money on behalf of the military, including nuclear energy, computers, and the Internet. Furthermore, any market introduces the need for property law, and property introduces the need for repression. One example of this is the recent expansion of intellectual property laws, which, by sequestering scientific information on behalf of corporate owners, is stifling discovery and innovation (as well as art and culture, but who cares about the fluffy stuff?) The influence of markets on technology is, I think, pretty ambiguous.

grifforama

Mon, 20 Oct 2008 14:37:25 -0500

..and as regulator of oil and gas ..and as regulator of oil and gas ..and as regulator of oil and gas ..and as regulator of oil and gas ..and as regulator of oil and gas ..and as regulator of oil and gas Make this fucking woman go away.

ma bell

Mon, 20 Oct 2008 14:28:03 -0500

tingo your whole idea stinks. first of all, protectionism is liberal at its core. as in, democrats set up higher trade barriers and bash NAFTA to protect our jobs from going overseas. democracts are protectionists, republicans are free traders. where are you getting your info? yeah the republicans are the creepy religious folk, that much is true. and technological powerhouses? show me a socialist country that is a "technological powerhouse." the technology comes from the free markets. while china is king at manufacturing, i would hardly call them a technological powerhouse. they just know how to make the stuff after someone else desings it. and yes lets just split up. we'll be like palentine. the blue states will be on the coasts and the red in the middle...like a divided country system. foolishness. stomp your feet and cry cause not everyone feels like you do. mature.

JavySan

Mon, 20 Oct 2008 14:04:33 -0500

Ah makes me miss the days of Richard Bey and the "Ms. Thunder Thighs" Contest...

tingo

Mon, 20 Oct 2008 13:25:51 -0500

Can't we just all agree to disagree and secede the blues from the reds already? We'll all be much happier. The blue can feel free to be the economic, cultural and technological powerhouse is yearns to be. The red states can plunder their agricultural and energy resources and create the protectionist, fundamentilist religious state they've always wanted. It's like we're staying together for the kids or something.

hslaton

Mon, 20 Oct 2008 13:21:02 -0500

Why oh why couldn't Pat Kiernan interview her?

Mr Mel

Mon, 20 Oct 2008 13:01:26 -0500

Watch what happens. After the election, she packs in Wasilla, dumps Todd, gathers her kids and looks to move to Soho. Levi will then be free.

matty

Mon, 20 Oct 2008 12:32:54 -0500

It's sad that the highlight of her campaign has been appearing on SNL

billybob

Mon, 20 Oct 2008 12:27:11 -0500

Done with this devil of a person, anti gay, anti choice, anti environment, anti stem-cell, her 15 minutes of fame are up in 15 days

Rocknrope

Mon, 20 Oct 2008 12:17:58 -0500

They should have gotten Lloyd Lindsay Young to do the interview. "HelllllllOOOOOOO FAIRBANKS!"

captainblackout

Mon, 20 Oct 2008 12:14:04 -0500

Maybe if she doesn't want her kids to have "shots taken against them" she shouldn't bring them on the campaign with her. It's like her mouthing to someone that she cannot believe Piper was getting booed at the Flyers puck drop. They aren't booing your kid, they are booing you, and if you don't want them to see it, don't bring them to the event.

starrygordon

Mon, 20 Oct 2008 12:11:17 -0500

I haven't been following the election news closely, but it was my impression that after a certain amount of jocularity about Palin's daughter's trailer-trash breeding arrangements, they had dropped out of sight and no one gave a rat about them any more -- attention has passed on to Palin's constituency and their howls for blood. Grizzly bear is wrong; hyena would be more apt. Fortunately this one is small and winks a lot.

Amanda Harlech

Mon, 20 Oct 2008 12:04:58 -0500

She is the most public sacrificial lamb of republicans! Victimizing this incompetent candidate and victimizing those that throw the terrorist/antiamerican card is the the new strategy.

JMH

Mon, 20 Oct 2008 12:02:13 -0500

A) Shocking that she gave her only interview to a network that falls under the Fox umbrella. B) Does that really count as an NYC interview? Isn't 9 still technically a NJ station?

Billiamsburg

Mon, 20 Oct 2008 11:38:55 -0500

unfit for the office. she needs to be able to throw her kids under the bus if shes to succeed.

nomnomnom

Mon, 20 Oct 2008 11:36:19 -0500

Seriously, could that skirt be any shorter? And we all know that Palin was thinking, "Brenda, you're voting for Obama."

soleilseven

Mon, 20 Oct 2008 11:34:22 -0500

Palin just wants to have fun.

Sleepy

Mon, 20 Oct 2008 11:29:21 -0500

I was hiking in the woods this weekend and suddenly found myself between a mama grizzly bear and her cubs. The bear reared up on its hind legs and said "Wait a minute."

edEx

Mon, 20 Oct 2008 11:23:52 -0500

Good strategy since my9's demographic is primarily black.

truthtruthtruth

Mon, 20 Oct 2008 11:12:33 -0500

when did pfalin's head get so effin gigantic? who good move, send pfalin over to fox... *cough* i mean my9 news. yeah, good idea. have her sit down with the toughest anchor, *cough* not, in nyc. brenda blackmon was nearly pissing herself in disbelief that she had someone not from newark new jersey on her show. i would not have been surprised to see brenda offer to massage pfalin's corns.

cncrocket

Mon, 20 Oct 2008 11:05:50 -0500

yeah seriously. MILF and MILF-er.

jonathan

Mon, 20 Oct 2008 10:56:10 -0500

Where does she get all those mandarin collared evil genius lackey skirt-suits?

RoDogg

Mon, 20 Oct 2008 10:54:53 -0500

The article title should read "Battle For Best Legs!"