And I say, forget about Ron Paul, we want Ru Paul.
And I say, forget about Ron Paul, we want Ru Paul.
if Sarah Palin becomes the president of the United States of America we would all be fucked, she would probably nuke Russia, take back Georgia thinking its an american state that the Russians stole.. then invade France because they didnt support out invasion of Iraq.
The only worthwhile show I've seen on history in a while is The Universe. Why is that even on the history channel? lol.
EDIT: I wrote all of this before I even read Rabbi Satan's post... Glad to see lot sof people are seeing the same thing as me.
All this talk of her attacking Russia and and other such nonsense is pure ideological delusion. I'm not a fan of hers per se, but people need to get a grip.
"All this talk of her attacking Russia and and other such nonsense is pure ideological delusion."
Agree. We can only thank the Goddess that she hasn't been accused of being a Muslim, a Socialist/communist, too intelligent, or not born in the US...that would be too low even for US politics...
No position or belief, whether religious, political or social, is valid if one has to lie to support it.--Alj Mary
Ironically, the concept of SIMPLICITY is most often misunderstood by simple-minded people. --Alj Mary
...a state with 19 people in it, and how well was she overseeing that state when she had to resign due to the filing of ethics complaints as for a while there her teenage daughter's baby's daddy was on Entertainment Tonight as often as she was on the Glenn Beck show. If quitting on your state while your family becomes an internationally televised circus (a forum she's hardly shied away from) ...if that constitutes more executive experience than someone who left his 12 years in the state senate due to being elected to the US Senate which he in turn left to become the Fucking President Of The Country...
I forget what I was saying but Palin has more place next to Kate Goselin on Dancing With the Stars than being anywhere near Congress or The White House.
Sorry for the cheap indignation... I know it's an easy rant to make, but seriously...
The amount of hate in this thread is astounding.
So uh yeah, you can claim she has "more executive experience" but she couldn't even handle Alaska, you expect people to believe she can run the nation?
You can argue that real world experience doing a job doesn't matter.. if that's your argument, go for it. Next time you go for a concept job interview with a big company and your boss asks you if you have any on the job experience, just tell them "yes I do, but it doesn't matter. Please don't count that in my favor. It was only a small company and I left after 8 years to make way more money. So that time learning the ropes doesn't matter at all. Please hire some other guy with no experience in drawing but 12 years as a 3D artist from a top flight school." Once you put it that way.. yea the 3D guy sounds better than you.
It's fine if you don't like her for her views or policies, but don't try and argue she wasn't more experienced dealing with the kind of tasks and responsibilities that presidents do than anyone else in the final race. Again.. I'm not a fan of hers, so I find it annoying that I have to defend her like this but fair is fair, and pretending as if she were no more prepared to govern than a bum off the street is pathetic. Like I said, I'm no fan of Obama or Bush but when people demonize them and compare them to nazis or Hitler or whatever I have to speak up because those people those are letting their ideological passions cloud all sense of reason. When people refuse to accept ANY good traits a candidate has, or disregard and belittle their accomplishments no matter what, they look like immature fools.
Last edited by DamnDirtyApe; April 18th, 2010 at 04:40 AM.
Yes, the size of the state matters, as well as the economy of that state. Imagine the difference in managing New York or California. Logistical issues grow in complexity as population grows, and as disparities between people increase. Alaska is not only small, but homogenous. Quitting a typical job for more money is normal. Quitting on an elected position to make more money is a scandal. Especially, although not so much in Palin's case, if you show political favoratism to people who give you that fancy job afterwards.
If Sarah Palin were president, she wouldn't invade France. Remember people, the best humor is based on the truth. George Carlin said that. What'd really happen would be a spat between her and her GOP puppet masters. She doesn't just want to be a face of the party with no say in the matter. But she has no ideas of her own to counter it. So she'd be stuck in a role she'd hate, and we'd all just watch her turn grey and fat really fast, while parroting the usual "less taxes, government bad, code orange, gays bad, atheists bad, war good, church good, etc." Then, if she could last four years, she'd be so unpopular she wouldn't run for re-election, and she'd gripe about it the rest of her life to anyone willing to listen, about how both parties are fucked up. It's the only part she'd be right about, but no one would want to listen. The irony.
In a way, if this country wasn't split so evenly things would be so much simpler.. and less fun to watch.
That's one of the problems with a third party candidate - even if the people are behind you, you still have twice the enemies on Capital Hill. The established Dems and Republicans would do everything in their power to bring you down at all costs. As it stands now, either candidate gets cover and support from roughly 1/2 of the money and power in Washington.
Now, as for her being on cable TV doing nature shows.. better there than running for president, which I really really hope she doesn't do.
Last edited by DamnDirtyApe; April 18th, 2010 at 04:39 AM.
If half the country is always pissed and half is always happy no matter who's in office then how the hell do people get elected by majority? At some point over half had to support the candidate.
What we have is very loud minorities. Minorities who have friends in media-outlets who want to play up their own numbers and/or play down the opponent's size. I would like to see a scientific poll on where people stand right now in terms of their political ideas.
"Astronomy offers an aesthetic indulgence not duplicated in any other field. This is not an academic or hypothetical attraction and should require no apologies, for the beauty to be found in the skies has been universally appreciated for unrecorded centuries."
In 2008: 52.9% vs 45.7%
2004: 50.7% vs 48.3%
2000: 47.9% vs 48.4%
So while there is always a technical majority, in any given election roughly 1/2 the population is going to be somewhat unhappy. Naturally other social factors like jobless rates, deficits and war play a big part. If the economy is strong people are more forgiving even if they disagree ideologically.
If we had a situation where guys won by 70-75+% or more things would probably go smoother since that means a strong, clear majority of people wanted that person to be there. That's not going to happen in the current political climate, but that's what I meant by things being easier. Less drama, less social friction, less attention to people at each other's throats marching with Hitler signs and nooses (that goes for Tea Party and Left rallies both. I have pics of signs from both right and left rallies and they are equally hateful, stupid, vile, racist, and counter-productive)
If you are bored, check out http://www.pollster.com/polls/us/ which aggregates all the major polls (Rasmussen, Gallop etc). Right now Obama's National Job Approval averages out to Approve: 48% to Disapprove 47.7% LOL..
Last edited by DamnDirtyApe; April 18th, 2010 at 05:34 AM.
Developed Actively by the makers of the Best Amazon Podcast