"Sarah Palin is offering words of encouragement to Dr. Laura Schlessinger through her Twitter account.
Dr. Laura, as she's known on her radio program, has come under fire in the past week for using the N-word eleven times while on the air with a caller to her show. She quickly apologized and then announced that she would end the program once her contract expires later this year.
Palin, once the governor of Alaska and Republican nominee for vice president in 2008, has used social media to push her messages in recent months. Her latest offering comes out in support of Dr. Laura. Her first of two tweets on Wednesday night read:
Dr.Laura:don't retreat...reload! (Steps aside bc her 1st Amend.rights ceased 2exist thx 2activists trying 2silence"isn't American,not fair")
That was followed quickly with:
Dr.Laura=even more powerful & effective w/out the shackles, so watch out Constitutional obstructionists. And b thankful 4 her voice,America!"
1000 pounds of ignorance in a 120 pound bag.
If you're going to cuntpaste articles from Huffpo or other "news" outlets you should at least cite the source. Better yet, just don't post it at all since its not an original thought, takes absolutely no effort or input on your part, and we could read Huffpo for ourselves if we want.
Or not. "1000 pounds of ignorance in a 120 pound bag" was my own commentary. The sole point of the post was to present an idiot's tweets in support of another idiot. The source is scarcely relevant.
What is this "cuntpaste," though? Is that what Palin and Dr Laura brush their teeth with?
I figured you already followed her. Like Stuart Smalley's daily affirmations.
I don't even know who she is. But what I do know, is that cutting and pasting without noting the source is weak and so do you.
I'm sure you wish you'd never heard of Sarah Palin. But those were definitely her tweets - what news site he got them from is irrelevant.
Dr. Laura on Sarah Palin, 2008:
[blockquote]I???m stunned ??? couldn???t the Republican Party find one competent female with adult children to run for Vice President with McCain? I realize his advisors probably didn???t want a ???mature??? woman, as the Democrats keep harping on his age. But really, what kind of role model is a woman whose fifth child was recently born with a serious issue, Down Syndrome, and then goes back to the job of Governor within days of the birth?[/blockquote]
Still think she should reload, Sarah? What if she called Li'l Trigger a tard--reload?
DocMcCoy"Go and laugh in your own country!" 5,917 Posts
Jonny_Paycheck said:
sabadabada said:
Jonny_Paycheck said:
sabadabada said:
you should at least cite the source.
Do you need a screen grab of the tweets?
I figured you already followed her. Like Stuart Smalley's daily affirmations.
I don't even know who she is. But what I do know, is that cutting and pasting without noting the source is weak and so do you.
I'm sure you wish you'd never heard of Sarah Palin. But those were definitely her tweets - what news site he got them from is irrelevant.
Dr. Laura on Sarah Palin, 2008:
[blockquote]I???m stunned ??? couldn???t the Republican Party find one competent female with adult children to run for Vice President with McCain? I realize his advisors probably didn???t want a ???mature??? woman, as the Democrats keep harping on his age. But really, what kind of role model is a woman whose fifth child was recently born with a serious issue, Down Syndrome, and then goes back to the job of Governor within days of the birth?[/blockquote]
Still think she should reload, Sarah? What if she called Li'l Trigger a tard--reload?
The tweets made up only a small portion of the post. In fact the preface to the tweet is more than twice as long as the tweets themselves. Regardless, the entire text of the post, including the tweets, was lifted, verbatim from the Huffington Post. I'm not interested in rading the Huffington Post. If I was, I would go over to HuffPo and read it. By reasonable extension, I'm not interested in reading HuffPo presented as an original thought from someone else either. If you think HuffPo expressed your thoughts perfectly, fine. Just note that fact, it's not hard. You've already shown that you know how to cut and paste, just do the same with the http address.
I don't understand why one would cut and paste news sources like HuffPo as some kind of authority though. Maybe that's why you didn't reveal that fact. It's not like anyone is going to say, "oh, well, if this is what HuffPo says, than it must be acurate." Even if that's what you might think. Or you may think that the article is just stating indisputable facts, but all writing is persuasive writing, and when you hide the author you rob the reader of the opportunity to judge for him or herself of the credibility of the true source.
Finally, cutting and pasting without revealing the source isn't engaging in a discussion, its just distributing propaganda. So you can make all the jokes you want, but you're the one that wastes everyone's time and loses credibility when you just cut and paste.
The tweets made up only a small portion of the post. In fact the preface to the tweet is more than twice as long as the tweets themselves. Regardless, the entire text of the post, including the tweets, was lifted, verbatim from the Huffington Post. I'm not interested in rading the Huffington Post. If I was, I would go over to HuffPo and read it. By reasonable extension, I'm not interested in reading HuffPo presented as an original thought from someone else either. If you think HuffPo expressed your thoughts perfectly, fine. Just note that fact, it's not hard. You've already shown that you know how to cut and paste, just do the same with the http address.
I don't understand why one would cut and paste news sources like HuffPo as some kind of authority though. Maybe that's why you didn't reveal that fact. It's not like anyone is going to say, "oh, well, if this is what HuffPo says, than it must be acurate." Even if that's what you might think. Or you may think that the article is just stating indisputable facts, but all writing is persuasive writing, and when you hide the author you rob the reader of the opportunity to judge for him or herself of the credibility of the true source.
Finally, cutting and pasting without revealing the source isn't engaging in a discussion, its just distributing propaganda. So you can make all the jokes you want, but you're the one that wastes everyone's time and loses credibility when you just cut and paste.
The tweets made up only a small portion of the post. In fact the preface to the tweet is more than twice as long as the tweets themselves. Regardless, the entire text of the post, including the tweets, was lifted, verbatim from the Huffington Post. I'm not interested in rading the Huffington Post. If I was, I would go over to HuffPo and read it. By reasonable extension, I'm not interested in reading HuffPo presented as an original thought from someone else either. If you think HuffPo expressed your thoughts perfectly, fine. Just note that fact, it's not hard. You've already shown that you know how to cut and paste, just do the same with the http address.
I don't understand why one would cut and paste news sources like HuffPo as some kind of authority though. Maybe that's why you didn't reveal that fact. It's not like anyone is going to say, "oh, well, if this is what HuffPo says, than it must be acurate." Even if that's what you might think. Or you may think that the article is just stating indisputable facts, but all writing is persuasive writing, and when you hide the author you rob the reader of the opportunity to judge for him or herself of the credibility of the true source.
Finally, cutting and pasting without revealing the source isn't engaging in a discussion, its just distributing propaganda. So you can make all the jokes you want, but you're the one that wastes everyone's time and loses credibility when you just cut and paste.
Cut and Paste. Don't Do It.
Are you having your period?
That's funny. I wonder if you made that up, or just cut and pasted it from somewhere?
The tweets made up only a small portion of the post. In fact the preface to the tweet is more than twice as long as the tweets themselves. Regardless, the entire text of the post, including the tweets, was lifted, verbatim from the Huffington Post. I'm not interested in rading the Huffington Post. If I was, I would go over to HuffPo and read it. By reasonable extension, I'm not interested in reading HuffPo presented as an original thought from someone else either. If you think HuffPo expressed your thoughts perfectly, fine. Just note that fact, it's not hard. You've already shown that you know how to cut and paste, just do the same with the http address.
I don't understand why one would cut and paste news sources like HuffPo as some kind of authority though. Maybe that's why you didn't reveal that fact. It's not like anyone is going to say, "oh, well, if this is what HuffPo says, than it must be acurate." Even if that's what you might think. Or you may think that the article is just stating indisputable facts, but all writing is persuasive writing, and when you hide the author you rob the reader of the opportunity to judge for him or herself of the credibility of the true source.
Finally, cutting and pasting without revealing the source isn't engaging in a discussion, its just distributing propaganda. So you can make all the jokes you want, but you're the one that wastes everyone's time and loses credibility when you just cut and paste.
Don't want to take sides here, but it always a good idea to post a link when quoting.
Most posters here do that and it is appreciated.
I generally do it. If I thought it made even the slightest bit of difference in this case - if the surrounding text hadn't been so utterly generic - then I would certainly have done it.
But it didn't matter even a tiny little bit in this instance.
Comments
I don't even know who she is. But what I do know, is that cutting and pasting without noting the source is weak and so do you.
I'm sure you wish you'd never heard of Sarah Palin. But those were definitely her tweets - what news site he got them from is irrelevant.
Or not. "1000 pounds of ignorance in a 120 pound bag" was my own commentary. The sole point of the post was to present an idiot's tweets in support of another idiot. The source is scarcely relevant.
What is this "cuntpaste," though? Is that what Palin and Dr Laura brush their teeth with?
Dr. Laura on Sarah Palin, 2008:
[blockquote]I???m stunned ??? couldn???t the Republican Party find one competent female with adult children to run for Vice President with McCain? I realize his advisors probably didn???t want a ???mature??? woman, as the Democrats keep harping on his age. But really, what kind of role model is a woman whose fifth child was recently born with a serious issue, Down Syndrome, and then goes back to the job of Governor within days of the birth?[/blockquote]
Still think she should reload, Sarah? What if she called Li'l Trigger a tard--reload?
My enemy's enemy is my friend.
The tweets made up only a small portion of the post. In fact the preface to the tweet is more than twice as long as the tweets themselves. Regardless, the entire text of the post, including the tweets, was lifted, verbatim from the Huffington Post. I'm not interested in rading the Huffington Post. If I was, I would go over to HuffPo and read it. By reasonable extension, I'm not interested in reading HuffPo presented as an original thought from someone else either. If you think HuffPo expressed your thoughts perfectly, fine. Just note that fact, it's not hard. You've already shown that you know how to cut and paste, just do the same with the http address.
I don't understand why one would cut and paste news sources like HuffPo as some kind of authority though. Maybe that's why you didn't reveal that fact. It's not like anyone is going to say, "oh, well, if this is what HuffPo says, than it must be acurate." Even if that's what you might think. Or you may think that the article is just stating indisputable facts, but all writing is persuasive writing, and when you hide the author you rob the reader of the opportunity to judge for him or herself of the credibility of the true source.
Finally, cutting and pasting without revealing the source isn't engaging in a discussion, its just distributing propaganda. So you can make all the jokes you want, but you're the one that wastes everyone's time and loses credibility when you just cut and paste.
Cut and Paste. Don't Do It.
Are you having your period?
That's funny. I wonder if you made that up, or just cut and pasted it from somewhere?
Most posters here do that and it is appreciated.
I generally do it. If I thought it made even the slightest bit of difference in this case - if the surrounding text hadn't been so utterly generic - then I would certainly have done it.
But it didn't matter even a tiny little bit in this instance.
When you cite, you let the reader make that determination.
right back at ya.