News | Sarah Palin

Sarah Palin Launches Online Network: VIDEO

S_palin

In case your conservative hag programming isn't quite what it needs to be, there is a new channel dedicated solely to that, and it is being launched by a failed vice presidential candidate-turned wannabe reality tv player.

Said Palin in a Facebook post announcing the venture: "Tired of media filters? Well, so am I. So, let’s go rogue together and launch our own member-supported channel! This will be OUR channel, for you and for me, and we’ll all get to call it like it is."

Subscribers will pay $9.95 per month or $99.95 annually for access to hear her prattle on.

Watch the announcement video, AFTER THE JUMP...

Feed This post's comment feed

Comments

  1. so bottom feeders get to spend a $100 a yr - listening to Palin..? wow , what a bargain...LOL Hey John M...You should be FLOGGED for Unleashing that woman on the American people.

    Posted by: disgusted american | Jul 28, 2014 8:31:34 AM


  2. Dear Jesus - "tired of media filters" indeed? Would that be like FOX NEWS perhaps? (That someone would actually PAY money to listen to this virago is mind-blowing.)

    Posted by: Bill | Jul 28, 2014 8:39:00 AM


  3. Dear Jesus - "tired of media filters" indeed? Would that be like FOX NEWS perhaps? (That someone would actually PAY money to listen to this virago is mind-blowing.)

    Posted by: Bill | Jul 28, 2014 8:39:00 AM


  4. I guess she's looking for someone to pay her cable bill.

    Much like her cable TV show and her stint as a commentator on Fox and the pork sirloin I had for dinner, this too shall pass.

    Maybe she can guest star on Duck Dynasty? Oh, wait, they already snubbed her.

    I can her her next electronic conversation:

    Sarah Palin: "Obama should be IMPEACHED!!!"
    Voice: "Um... I just wanted to know if I could get a large fry with meal?"


    Posted by: Rad | Jul 28, 2014 8:44:25 AM


  5. her fans should pay by the month. you never know when she's going to quit.

    Posted by: woody | Jul 28, 2014 8:53:31 AM


  6. In the words of Pam, what a republicunt!

    Posted by: bambinoitaliano | Jul 28, 2014 8:54:07 AM


  7. In the words of Pam, what a republicunt!

    Posted by: bambinoitaliano | Jul 28, 2014 8:54:08 AM


  8. This delusional woman really thinks she has knowledge to say something so important it needs to published. Why not on FNC?

    Posted by: Matt27 | Jul 28, 2014 8:58:23 AM


  9. I think this would be called squeezing the last bit of juice from the lemon. Her sucker list must be very short by now.

    Posted by: james street james | Jul 28, 2014 9:03:09 AM


  10. It's just like her to be lost on the fact that she herself is a filter; filtering all, light, truth and sanity from reality. The detritus that remains after she's done filtering is the same drivel oozing out the mouths of the Fox news talking heads.

    Posted by: Greg | Jul 28, 2014 9:05:45 AM


  11. Who'd back this serial quitter? Better yet, who'd pay to hear her screech?

    Posted by: Gigi | Jul 28, 2014 9:05:51 AM


  12. While I’m neutral on abortion, in justness to pro-lifers they believe abortion is killing a baby-there are many women pro-lifers so it’s not men seeking to control women’s bodies. If they decided to make abortion illegal, then I would not care 1 way or another. I’m pro-abortion in some cases such as if it can be predicted an unborn baby will be deformed, transexual or gay-then go ahead and abort them. But I understand view of pro-lifers regarding abortion as murder.

    I’m against sterlizations. There’s birth control such as the pill, condoms & old fahshioned Rhythm Method. Sterilization surgeries however are mutilations. Unless it’s a hysterectomy to save a life, they must make it a crime to do sterilizations. Sterilizations are spaying & neutering people. Also they make less attractive. All things=, if you have an intact woman vs. a woman who has been spayed, most men would take the intact woman. Same thing with a man who is intact vs. a man who has had a vasectomy, most women would choose the intact man.

    I support birth control but am against sterilization surgeries. I oppose breast implants because they are fake (excludes reconstruct surgeries for women who have had breast disease). If a woman has naturally nice big boobs as singer Katy E. Perry has (she is listed as DD but there are women with bigger boobs than her), then that is good. There is nothing wrong with a woman having small boobs. Most men want a woman with natural boobs-small, medium or big vs. a woman with fake boobs. I would limit Viagra in most cases because those are performance enhancers. If a man is let’s say 25 years old and in a wheelchair, then I support him using Viagra to have sex with his wife or girlfriend and have kids with her because there’s a use to it. But I am against Viagra or any other sexual enhancement drug for old men because that’s like giving steroids to nfl player. I would also be against giving Viagra and sexual enhancement drugs to homosexuals. So I would limit Viagra or other sexual enhancement drug to straight men who are under 40 years old with a handicap to that they can father children which below a certain age it’s medicine, but after a certain age it’s perfornace enhancers comparable to Steroids as Viagra, Zestra are.

    I support fertility treatments and I support In Vitro Fertilization. There are couples who want children but because the mom has problems getting pregnant or giving birth the only way for a man and his wife to have children is by In Vitro Fertilization. Let’s say that you have a man and a wife and the wife is let’s say paralyzed so that giving birth would be dangerous. I would support that couple’s right to In Vitro Fertilization (I.V.F.) so that both can enjoy having a family, raising kids, taking kids to the zoo, fun of seeing kids raise pets and so on. While In Vitro Fertilization (I.V.F.) is not perfect, In Vitro Fertilization (I.V.F.) must be there for couples who have problems having children.

    I also support Artificial Insemination with regulations. If you have a straight couple and let’s say the husband has disease where treatment could keep him from having children. Man should have a right to have his sperm stored so that he and his wife can have children. If however, you have artificial insemination for purpose of single parenthood or homosexual parenting, then it is a problem. Of course if a woman wants to have a child without father involvement then what she can do is have a 1 night stand. Also I have a friend who is a Born Again Christian who has told me that he supports In Vitro Fertilization because I.V.F. is about creating life while abortion is about preventing life so there are pro-lifers who support I.V.F. In Vitro Fertilization must be there for people who have problems having children.

    Posted by: Anirban (aka Abner) Bhattacharya | Jul 28, 2014 9:42:31 AM


  13. Our channel, for you and me, and we can make up our own facts!

    Posted by: KevinVt | Jul 28, 2014 9:48:40 AM


  14. Are you sure she is not the one that will paying us to watch? The other way around just doesn't make sense to me.

    Posted by: Jack M | Jul 28, 2014 9:50:05 AM


  15. @ anirban

    wall of text, and none of it deals with the subject of the thread

    Posted by: saywhat | Jul 28, 2014 10:08:34 AM


  16. Clearly only a dummy would pay to listen to another dummy go on and on proving she's a dummy. Have fun dummies!!

    Posted by: Princely | Jul 28, 2014 10:10:55 AM


  17. The female perp was last seen driving a 2014 red Ford Cuntiva.

    Posted by: johnny | Jul 28, 2014 10:12:08 AM


  18. Saywhat, it does incidentally as Vice Presidential Candidate Sarah Louise Palin is pro-life. You people are mean and rest of what I have to say here is copy/paste which I have said many times on other forums. see this video done by an honest homosexual man http://americansfortruth.com/2014/02/13/homosexual-walter-lee-hampton-on-man-boy-sex-gay-pederasty-i-would-not-let-my-teenage-sons-around-gay-men/

    Though it’s repeat it must be said again. A person is homosexual or lesbian if they knowingly and willing do same sex behaviors. If a person has homosexual activities with a young boy, then they are a homosexual pedofile. Jerry A. Sandusky is a homosexual pedofile-even if J.A. Sandusky calls himself straight, he would still be gay by behavior definition. But homosexual groups say that he is not gay when his conduct defines him as such.The priests who molest young boys are gay pedophiles. If a man has sex with little girls only, then he is a straight pedophile. Rush H. Limbaugh’s right when he said Jerry A. Sandusky is gay-and columnist Patrick J. Buchanan condemns who he calls gay priests. Those priests are again gay pedophiles, pederasts or homolesters. So there are many homosexual pedophiles such as the gay priests, Jerry A. Sandusky.

    Again, it’s sexual conduct or behavior which defines if 1 is straight or homosexual. Since homosexuals and lesbians (transexuals) often suffered childhood sex abuse, it’s no surprise that homosexuals and lesbians think childhood sexual abuse is OK when it’s homosexual activities. All homosexual pedofiles are homosexuals. All transexuals are homosexual/lesbian as the act of mutilating to become false opposite sex is itself an act of homosexuality/lesbianism-sad maiming and make this illegal. homosexual groups got offended when columnist Patrick J. Buchanan condemned gay priests. What those priests did when they molest young boys is homosexuality.

    Posted by: Anirban (aka Abner) Bhattacharya | Jul 28, 2014 10:20:47 AM


  19. Anirban says, "You people are mean"
    right after it makes a post claiming "I’m pro-abortion in some cases such as if it can be predicted an unborn baby will be deformed, transexual or gay-then go ahead and abort them."

    Proof Anirban wants us dead.

    Posted by: justkeepingitreal | Jul 28, 2014 10:27:19 AM


  20. I guess her tea party supporters can use their government benfits to pay for the subscription.

    Posted by: Frank | Jul 28, 2014 10:28:20 AM


  21. In case the Comedy Channel goes belly up we'll have this as a back up.

    Posted by: jason MacBride | Jul 28, 2014 11:01:58 AM


  22. I believe this joke has already been done.

    http://youtu.be/q0MEeBzG1yw

    Posted by: notmichaeljfox | Jul 28, 2014 11:21:25 AM


  23. If you guys don't know, Abner is actually a commentor named Funissnow/funissnowfall/snowisfun.

    All he/she does is post rants about how gay people are child molesters, how Matthew Shepherd's murder was justified because he was a "mean" meth addict, and how Trans people mutilate themselves through gender reassignment surgeries.

    He/she constantly refers to all the people he references by their First name , Middle initial (or middle name) and Last name each and every time he mentions them (ex. Katy E. Perry, Jerry A. Sandusky, Sarah Louise Palin). And sometimes (under this new username) posts completely random comments. The entire paragraph about breast implants, for example.

    Abener/Funissnow/Snowisfun/Funissnowfall is mentally ill and he/she should just be ignored.

    Posted by: Tyler | Jul 28, 2014 11:22:19 AM


  24. Man! She is looking OLD!!!!

    Posted by: wct | Jul 28, 2014 11:32:29 AM


  25. I can't even bear to listen to the announcement. That voice makes me nauseous.

    Posted by: Dimitri | Jul 28, 2014 11:40:14 AM


  26. 1 2 »

Post a comment







Trending


« «Eric Stonestreet: 'Cam is a Bossy, Fussy Bottom'« «