Sarah Palin??

Originally posted by KidRock
Who views Palin as a dominatrix that could be represented as spread out on the hood of a car? Also again how does Frau, a german word for woman, fit into all this? I mean who besides the Democrats that like to view her as that because shes a scary woman that doesn't believe what they believe?

A lot of you; sadly a lot of you that actually have a public voice. They write for publications like the Washingtom Post and the New York Times...

It might be a waste of type, but only because people like yourself aren't willing to admit they want to be spanked. See, that's the whole point.

Originally posted by KidRock
People in "your campaign" have called him that plenty. You would be fine with someone calling Obama retarded then, correct? Since everyones perception is different one could clearly perceive Obama as being a retard and call him one. Am I upset Obama will become president? Not so much, that means Hillary cant run in 2012..zing. And the whole Obama negro thing..not all of us harbor your racist views. Go fly your confederate flag some more, redneck.

I have yet to hear anyone calling him senile or "Kill Him" or Terrorist!". Sadly, no one has called him retarded because so many people on your side think he's a focused terrorist. How sad, you're so obsessed with the Clintons after a decade that you think a terrorist will be able to run in her place. What does that say for your realization that there's a difference between the two? I'm sorry, are you married to that democrat-supporter you were at the Obama rally to ****? No, you weren't. She was just an Unmarried piece of ass you thought you could tap. Tell us, how did that work out? Or did she run screaming as soon as she saw your avatar? Tell us, American Badass, where are your morals when you aren't defending your Badassness? Where is the condemnatin of Bill Clinton when you suppose you're at a Obama-terrorist rally trying to **** the schools local democrat-treasurer? Where is your "not in my oval office" politics, then?

Originally posted by KidRock
losing* by the way.

Who is losing? Not Obama. Actually, I'm suprised you're on McCain's side, since he's supposedly running on tax-payer money and Obama is running on the money he's earned from millions of citizens. I thought the bail-out was bad because it involved tax-payers money; like your parents who foot the bill for your dorm room. This will be a very close race, no matter what the polls say. One of them is running off the money they've raised from the people, the other is running off funds matched by your tax dollars. What did you have to say about the bail-out?

Originally posted by KidRock
Still waiting for your answer. Why should we spend 500 billion dollars on the Peace Corps?

You aren't waiting for my answer, you're waiting for Obama to adress it. Why is that? Because he's never said that the Peace Corps should cost America 500 billion dollars. "As well funded" does not imply that he will spend 500 billion dollars on a volunteer organization. Unless, of course, you hate the peace corps. You see a difference between those who join the peace corps and go to the sick, sad, desperate places in the world and not your brave, America fighting men and woman? You're pissing on American integrity while rewarding it on the other side of your face. Obama has never said he'd spend 500 billion dollars on the peace corps, espeically when their enlistment is so much smaller than that of the US army. He is simply saying that they should be rewarded for improving all our lives, just as you are saying he does not imply about the American military.

Originally posted by KidRock
Quote to where I said "everyone is carrying a weapon"

I'm sorry, quote where you haven't said the majority are carrying a weapon they don't want taken from them.

Originally posted by KidRock
Of course you're a racist, you look at everything in color. Hell you claim I am upset that a man might be president because hes black and not because of his policies. Either you're a racist, or at the very least an idiot..you can choose.

Calling me an idiot is a fun way to think you've proven me wrong, but I'm not the one posting clips from the Howard Stern show that only asks black guys about Obama and then laughing about how it illustrates the stupidity of black people. I have never once said that I supported Obama because he WAS black or because he WASN'T white. But you seem to have no issue buying into the McCain campiagn's technique. He's a terrorist because he was 8 in the sixties; he's a mobster because he's from Chicago; he's stealing the election because he was a pundant of ACORN 12 years ago, the same organization that Mr. McCain supported as recently as 2006? Bringing up the same bullshit over and over again hasn't workd for McCain, what makes you think it will change minds when you do it?

Originally posted by KidRock
Did you not say your grandfather is voting for Obama?

Nope. I said he didn't like Bush.

Originally posted by KidRock
Of course it was what you said. I cut the useless bullshit out.

You call it bullshit, I call it the substance of the issue. How very McCain of you.

Originally posted by KidRock
As opposed to what? Him not having a gun if guns were banned? Thats a nice joke.

How many law-abiding citizens have illeagal guns? Judging by the attendance at gun shows, I'd say a lot do. You might not be able to kill a deer with a tazer and eat it, but you can stop it from stealing your pretend wife's jewelry.

Originally posted by KidRock
I get one shot with a tazer, if I miss, I get shot dead. A tazer would do nothing for home protection if the criminal has a gun.

A tazer would do nothing? Is that why so many cops use them? Because they're useless?

Originally posted by KidRock
Uhh, exactly. People can fight off a tazer and use their guns..so why would I want to use a tazer for my protection when the criminal has a gun?

As often as you think you use it, apparently you have a lot to learn about sarcasm.

Originally posted by KidRock
Thats great for him, but pointless information since it proves nothing as there are plenty of people a year who do have to use them for protection.

Is that why America has more gun deaths than any other country in the West? Because the law-abiding are evenly matched with the roving hoards of criminals? Not that there's a reason to do anything about illegal weapons.

Originally posted by KidRock
All irrelevant information, that's why I wont post it. The cost of my mortgage has nothing to do with the morons that defaulted on theirs since they knew they had bad credit, knew they had unstable jobs and knew they couldn't afford it. Now me and you have to pay for their bill.

Is it irrelevent because it addesses your argument? Your mortgage is irrelevant because it doesn't exist? That's what I thought.

Originally posted by KidRock
For the 5th time: Banning guns in general..any gun, legally owned guns, illegally owned guns..all guns will be illegal if they are banned, ace.
Here is a lovely gem: "While a complete ban on handguns is not [B]politically practicable, I believe reasonable restrictions on the sale and possession of handguns are necessary to protect the public safety. " - Obama[/B]

Do you even realize what you're saying? Banning "any" gun is an afront to the idea that there is no situation where having a gun is unreasonable or that the gun companies are selling weapons to the very people you are trying to protect yourself from should be allowed to happen because you have a second amendment right? What, you support selling firearms to the mentally unstable or crack heads? That's when Thompson chimes in and says that if everyone on the VT campus would have been fine if they'd all have had guns in their pockets.

Originally posted by KidRock
why didn't the Constitutional Law professor just say "I don't support a gun ban, because it would Unconstitutional?

Because he's lived in a city that has no regulation on illegal guns. Just like you think you have.

Originally posted by KidRock
We can see by his support of the DC gun ban and Chicago gun ban he is a supporter of it.

No where in his comments can you find a position that says that a gun ban should be carried over to all Americans. Rather than being the American Badass you see yourself as, perhaps you should try being the mother of 3 that got robbed by a criminal carrying an illegaly purchased weapon he got off his dead friend? You're the one that made it about private property and ignored that every city street in this country isn't yours to be so American Badass on while you're walking down it.

Originally posted by KidRock
No, they are just saying they would support it if brought up.

Hasn't happened once in the link you posted. If your link was chaulked full of supporting quotes, why haven't you posted them?

Originally posted by KidRock
It doesnt matter whether someone carrys a gun around or not or even owns one..they still want their right to do so protected. Like I said, I don't protest or petition or any of that, does that mean I cant support it?

And please tell me: What guns should be allowed and what guns
shouldnt be? How does the Right to bear arms apply to the citizens of this country?

Woldn't it just be easier to admit that you're a ber-drinking, pot-smoking American badass that doesn't own a gun because you've never had reason to own one? I suppose your next claim is going to be that you won't vote because you don't really like McCain or that you will because you dislike Obama? Vote third, more applicable, party. Guess what, I'm not a member of the NRA, but I support the second amendment. We have more in common than you might think. Other than smoking pot or having a few drinks, you're realistically more in line with me than you are with Mr. McCain.

Originally posted by Devil King
Is that why America has more gun deaths than any other country in the West? Because the law-abiding are evenly matched with the roving hoards of criminals? Not that there's a reason to do anything about illegal weapons.

You should cite your sources.

Since I'm here to help..

http://www.medicinenet.com/script/main/art.asp?articlekey=6166

And here's one about gun deaths in "pro-gun" states. Freaky.

http://www.vpc.org/press/0602rank.htm

But is that a misrepresentation of deaths per capita? What about murder per capita? What about a correlation of murder per gun per capita? (Showing that murder or attempted murder is greater than, equal to, or less than countries with anti-gun laws.)

Originally posted by dadudemon

But is that a misrepresentation of deaths per capita? What about murder per capita? What about a correlation of murder per gun per capita? (Showing that murder or attempted murder is greater than, equal to, or less than countries with anti-gun laws.)

Exactly, suicide via gun makes up over one-half of the suicides in the U.S., factoring those out, since banning all guns isn't going to stop the suicidal people, would lower that 'gun death per capita'.

Edit: http://www.guncite.com/gun_control_gcgvintl.html

I don't know if anyone posted this yet, but this is awesome.

http://www.palinaspresident.us/

Some guy in my egm magazine thought sara looked a lot like the girl from bayonetta. creepy.

Originally posted by Devil King
A lot of you; sadly a lot of you that actually have a public voice. They write for publications like the Washingtom Post and the New York Times...

Are you calling the New York Post and Washington Post Republican? 😆

Originally posted by Devil King

I have yet to hear anyone calling him senile or "Kill Him" or Terrorist!". Sadly, no one has called him retarded because so many people on your side think he's a focused terrorist. How sad, you're so obsessed with the Clintons after a decade that you think a terrorist will be able to run in her place. What does that say for your realization that there's a difference between the two? I'm sorry, are you married to that democrat-supporter you were at the Obama rally to ****? No, you weren't. She was just an Unmarried piece of ass you thought you could tap. Tell us, how did that work out? Or did she run screaming as soon as she saw your avatar? Tell us, American Badass, where are your morals when you aren't defending your Badassness? Where is the condemnatin of Bill Clinton when you suppose you're at a Obama-terrorist rally trying to **** the schools local democrat-treasurer? Where is your "not in my oval office" politics, then?

You have yet to hear anyone call him Senile? That alone kills any of your credibility and I wont be so kind as to grant you a reply for that.

Originally posted by Devil King

Who is losing? Not Obama. Actually, I'm suprised you're on McCain's side, since he's supposedly running on tax-payer money and Obama is running on the money he's earned from millions of citizens. I thought the bail-out was bad because it involved tax-payers money; like your parents who foot the bill for your dorm room. This will be a very close race, no matter what the polls say. One of them is running off the money they've raised from the people, the other is running off funds matched by your tax dollars. What did you have to say about the bail-out?

It is quite ironic. Obama believes in the people to be able to raise money themselves through personal donations to his campaign..yet he doesnt have faith in the people to donate money to charity's to help the poor and belives it must be taken by force through taxes. Even more ironic is that Democrats typically donate less money to charity then their counterparts.

Originally posted by Devil King
You aren't waiting for my answer, you're waiting for Obama to adress it. Why is that? Because he's never said that the Peace Corps should cost America 500 billion dollars. "As well funded" does not imply that he will spend 500 billion dollars on a volunteer organization. Unless, of course, you hate the peace corps. You see a difference between those who join the peace corps and go to the sick, sad, desperate places in the world and not your brave, America fighting men and woman? You're pissing on American integrity while rewarding it on the other side of your face. Obama has never said he'd spend 500 billion dollars on the peace corps, espeically when their enlistment is so much smaller than that of the US army. He is simply saying that they should be rewarded for improving all our lives, just as you are saying he does not imply about the American military.

You said it yourself "He must mean the peace corps". So please tell me what is a "Civilian Security Force" just as strong as the military and just as well funded..you said "PEACE CORPS!". I am still waiting "Why should billions of dollars be spent on this mysterious organization/THE PEACE CORPS"?

If you wish to change your original answer of "he must mean the peace corps" feel free to answer that again as well.

Originally posted by Devil King

I'm sorry, quote where you haven't said the majority are carrying a weapon they don't want taken from them.

How can I quote something I didnt say? I am still waiting for you to point out where I said "Everybody carries guns". Or admit you were wrong.

Originally posted by Devil King

A tazer would do nothing? Is that why so many cops use them? Because they're useless?

You believe cops use tazers against guys with guns walking around? Thats why tazers were the main weapons used again the men in the North Hollywood shootout, right? How sheltered of a life do you live to think cops use tazers against criminals carrying guns around?

Originally posted by Devil King

Is that why America has more gun deaths than any other country in the West? Because the law-abiding are evenly matched with the roving hoards of criminals? Not that there's a reason to do anything about illegal weapons.

Guns must be the only factor affecting crime in this country..that has to be it. Guns have plenty of restrictions on them already..seems to be doing wonders for gun crime.

Originally posted by Devil King

Is it irrelevent because it addesses your argument? Your mortgage is irrelevant because it doesn't exist? That's what I thought.

I will ask again: Why is my mortgage relevant to the conversation of morons who cannot pay theirs off?

I will also repeat it for your next reply: Why is my mortgage relevent to the conversation of morons who cannot pay theirs off?

Originally posted by Devil King

Do you even realize what you're saying? Banning "any" gun is an afront to the idea that there is no situation where having a gun is unreasonable or that the gun companies are selling weapons to the very people you are trying to protect yourself from should be allowed to happen because you have a second amendment right? What, you support selling firearms to the mentally unstable or crack heads? That's when Thompson chimes in and says that if everyone on the VT campus would have been fine if they'd all have had guns in their pockets.

Yeah, because the majority of gang bangers get their guns by walking into gun stores, passing the background check and waiting for 7 days to get one.

Originally posted by Devil King

No where in his comments can you find a position that says that a gun ban should be carried over to all Americans. Rather than being the American Badass you see yourself as, perhaps you should try being the mother of 3 that got robbed by a criminal carrying an illegaly purchased weapon he got off his dead friend? You're the one that made it about private property and ignored that every city street in this country isn't yours to be so American Badass on while you're walking down it.

Would that woman have not got robbed at gun point if handguns were illegal? No, she still would have. So that is irrelevant. And again..banning guns in inner cities would hurt the law abiding citizens..the criminals will get them anyway.

Originally posted by Devil King

Hasn't happened once in the link you posted. If your link was chaulked full of supporting quotes, why haven't you posted them?

Actually, Obama's writing was on the 1996 document, which was filed when Obama was running for the Illinois state Senate. A Chicago nonprofit, Independent Voters of Illinois, had this question, and Obama took hard line:

35. Do you support state legislation to:
a. ban the manufacture, sale and possession of handguns? Yes.

http://www.ontheissues.org/domestic/Barack_Obama_Gun_Control.htm

Originally posted by Devil King

Woldn't it just be easier to admit that you're a ber-drinking, pot-smoking American badass that doesn't own a gun because you've never had reason to own one? I suppose your next claim is going to be that you won't vote because you don't really like McCain or that you will because you dislike Obama? Vote third, more applicable, party. Guess what, I'm not a member of the NRA, but I support the second amendment. We have more in common than you might think. Other than smoking pot or having a few drinks, you're realistically more in line with me than you are with Mr. McCain.

It doesnt matter whether someone carrys a gun around or not or even owns one..they still want their right to do so protected. Like I said, I don't protest or petition or any of that, does that mean I cant support it?

And please tell me: What guns should be allowed and what guns
shouldnt be? How does the Right to bear arms apply to the citizens of this country?

Originally posted by KidRock
Are you calling the New York Post and Washington Post Republican? 😆

Yes I am. Just like the Chicago Sun Times and the plethora of other historically conservative publications that make come out in support of Mr. Obama.

Originally posted by KidRock
You have yet to hear anyone call him Senile? That alone kills any of your credibility and I wont be so kind as to grant you a reply for that.

Nope. I've not heard one actual member of the Obama campaign that has called him senile. My credibility has been killed by your presumption, over and over again in this thread. It simply doesn't seem to mean what you think it does.

Originally posted by KidRock
It is quite ironic. Obama believes in the people to be able to raise money themselves through personal donations to his campaign..yet he doesnt have faith in the people to donate money to charity's to help the poor and belives it must be taken by force through taxes. Even more ironic is that Democrats typically donate less money to charity then their counterparts.

I'm sorry, your candidate is saying that Obama refused tax-payers money, but that's where his historic fund raising dollars are coming from. From the ordinary citizens you are now calling "Joe the Plumber". Public funding involves using tax payer's money, not actually waiting for those people to have a say in where their money goes. Sadly, for you, Mr. Obama has gotten his money from a willing populace. You're saying that republicans donate the most to charity. Is that like Mr. Buffet, who gave the most to charity, despite "TAX WRITE OFFs" or hte 300 million Americans who had no say in the bailout your candidate hated but voted for and mine that says it was likely a necessity...as proposed by the administration you've spent the last 8 years supporting, blindly?

I'd love for you to post how democrats v. republicans donate to charity, as thought tax laws weren't on the books to shelter the contributions of the super rich and middle-class poor when it comes to tax advantages for charitable donations.

Originally posted by KidRock
You said it yourself "He must mean the peace corps". So please tell me what is a "Civilian Security Force" just as strong as the military and just as well funded..you said "PEACE CORPS!". I am still waiting "Why should billions of dollars be spent on this mysterious organization/THE PEACE CORPS"?

As well funded, again, does not mean spending 500 billion dollars on a civil organization v. the national security budget. You are making a bullshit argument.

Originally posted by KidRock
If you wish to change your original answer of "he must mean the peace corps" feel free to answer that again as well.

I didnt say he "MUST MEAN"...you did. I said he has spoken about open support of the Peace Corps, not the Black Water Corporation, as you so studiously turned it into.

Originally posted by KidRock
How can I quote something I didnt say? I am still waiting for you to point out where I said "Everybody carries guns". Or admit you were wrong.

I'm not asking you to quote something you said, I'm asking you to substantiate something you've claimed. That claim is that you are speaking out for this vacant majority of Americans who tote around guns and are waiting for the boogey man around every corner. What you're basically saying is that you have opened your face and spoken for this supposed majority that are concerned their rights are in danger only to find out you are addressing a failed stereotype you think you belong to. How many guns do you own again?

Originally posted by KidRock
You believe cops use tazers against guys with guns walking around? Thats why tazers were the main weapons used again the men in the North Hollywood shootout, right? How sheltered of a life do you live to think cops use tazers against criminals carrying guns around?

Check out the latest news stories, oh so informed neo-con. Women are having Lady Tazer Parties because Tazer manufactureres are trying to sell women personal, effective, non-leathal weapons that provide personal and effective personal protection while catering to your idea that a woman can't aim a weapon. Sorry, if a gun is more effective and obvious, then women can't possibly be offered a false solution to their personal protection alternatives. Sadly, the same companies are targeting the public sector because gun manufacturers are loosing ground in open-market share because it's hard to make long term money off dead people. The manufacturer has made so much off the public sector by selling their product to the municipalities that they're now focusing on the private, personal protection demographic. That is their sell-line! That using a tazer requires much less focus and results in much greater stopping power than a gun that requires focus and determination? It's cool for a non-leathal weapons seller, but not for a gun manufacturer? Which side of your mouth do you feel like talking out of now?

Originally posted by KidRock
Guns must be the only factor affecting crime in this country..that has to be it. Guns have plenty of restrictions on them already..seems to be doing wonders for gun crime.

Does it seem to be doing wonders? Because you and your candidate have mocked Obama for the tighter restrictions on illegal gun sales that you have just spent the last 2 pages saying Obama is using to rob you of your second amendment rights? Do you even know where you stand on this issue?

Originally posted by KidRock
I will ask again: Why is my mortgage relevant to the conversation of morons who cannot pay theirs off?

I don't know anyone here who is unwilling to post a 3 or 4 digit number that has no implications. Only you, you hard core American Badass. No one here is not willing to post the amount of their mortgage, only you.

Originally posted by KidRock
I will also repeat it for your next reply: Why is my mortgage relevent to the conversation of morons who cannot pay theirs off?

See above.

Originally posted by KidRock
Yeah, because the majority of gang bangers get their guns by walking into gun stores, passing the background check and waiting for 7 days to get one.

I'm not the one who's equating regulation of illegal gun sales with a socialist stripping of second amendment rights.

Originally posted by KidRock
Would that woman have not got robbed at gun point if handguns were illegal? No, she still would have. So that is irrelevant. And again..banning guns in inner cities would hurt the law abiding citizens..the criminals will get them anyway.

See above.

Originally posted by KidRock
Actually, Obama's writing was on the 1996 document, which was filed when Obama was running for the Illinois state Senate. A Chicago nonprofit, Independent Voters of Illinois, had this question, and Obama took hard line:

So, post a specific link where he says that he's against the 2nd Amendment.

Originally posted by KidRock
35. Do you support state legislation to:
a. ban the manufacture, sale and possession of handguns? Yes.

http://www.ontheissues.org/domestic/Barack_Obama_Gun_Control.htm

So, your answer is to repost the same unsubstantiating link that you've already posted which proves nothing? You leave out a lot of words in your re-telling of the question.

Originally posted by KidRock
It doesnt matter whether someone carrys a gun around or not or even owns one..they still want their right to do so protected. Like I said, I don't protest or petition or any of that, does that mean I cant support it?

No, it doesn't mean you can't support it. I support it. You think you know you do. But you don't see me speaking for those people, but everyone sees you doing it. I know for a fact that this majority of Americans you profess to speak for do not exist. But you keep espousing them as though they're right outside your door. Most Americans don't carry a handgun or a fire arm. They might have them at home in a locked cabinet and do so because they are affraid they might need then to defend their home. But stop acting like every man you pass on the street is strapped becaue they're as intentionally paranoid as you have chosen to be. Where is this vast majority of gun-toting Americans that exist and can,by virtue of sheer numbers, support your claim, but aren't stepping up to justify your position? Where are all these people you're speaking for but won't speak up for themselves. Guess where they are? They're walking around, living their lives, not carrying their guns to the bathroom or picking out a light fixture at Home Depot with a Colt .45 strapped to their hip.

Originally posted by KidRock
And please tell me: What guns should be allowed and what guns
shouldnt be? How does the Right to bear arms apply to the citizens of this country?

Reasonable. Can you protect yourself with a beretta? Yes. Can you defend yourself with an AK-47? Sure, as long as you have no issue with "collateral damage". Can you protect ourself with a tazer? Yes. Can you hnt with one or repel an uppity government No. Will you actually repel an uppity government with an AK-47? No. What does it take to repell that government? At least a few tanks, a dozen armed helicopters, heavy weapons, hundreds of footsoldiers, communications technology, uniforms, napalm, etc, etc, etc. How long is that last stand against the uppity government going to last when you have enough weapons to kill hundreds of the public, but not nearly enough to effect change in that uppity government? You vote for a party that spends the majority of the budget on national defense that can crush your local, personal uprising against uppity government, but hate the party that wants to cut that uppity government's weapons budget?

EDIT

Hmmm... does have some resemblance. PM where the orginals are, want to do some more investigating. If true, she goes down, should earn her a few extra votes.

Edit: The ears look way too similar.

LOL @ the paint bikini.

Originally posted by Devil King
No, it doesn't mean you can't support it. I support it. You think you know you do. But you don't see me speaking for those people, but everyone sees you doing it. I know for a fact that this majority of Americans you profess to speak for do not exist. But you keep espousing them as though they're right outside your door. Most Americans don't carry a handgun or a fire arm. They might have them at home in a locked cabinet and do so because they are affraid they might need then to defend their home. But stop acting like every man you pass on the street is strapped becaue they're as intentionally paranoid as you have chosen to be. Where is this vast majority of gun-toting Americans that exist and can,by virtue of sheer numbers, support your claim, but aren't stepping up to justify your position? Where are all these people you're speaking for but won't speak up for themselves. Guess where they are? They're walking around, living their lives, not carrying their guns to the bathroom or picking out a light fixture at Home Depot with a Colt .45 strapped to their hip.

Reasonable. Can you protect yourself with a beretta? Yes. Can you defend yourself with an AK-47? Sure, as long as you have no issue with "collateral damage". Can you protect ourself with a tazer? Yes. Can you hnt with one or repel an uppity government No. Will you actually repel an uppity government with an AK-47? No. What does it take to repell that government? At least a few tanks, a dozen armed helicopters, heavy weapons, hundreds of footsoldiers, communications technology, uniforms, napalm, etc, etc, etc. How long is that last stand against the uppity government going to last when you have enough weapons to kill hundreds of the public, but not nearly enough to effect change in that uppity government? You vote for a party that spends the majority of the budget on national defense that can crush your local, personal uprising against uppity government, but hate the party that wants to cut that uppity government's weapons budget?

Originally posted by tsscls
You've obviously never fired an AK on it's semi-auto setting, which is all that's legal in the US without a extensive check by the FBI and a long wait for a license in the right state. You're uninformed, and not very "gun-smart." Get a grip.

You are such an alpha male! I'm sure all other penises shrivel up and fall off when you enter the room.

Just a tidbit of information for you:

An adult gorilla's erect penis is about 4 cm (1.5 in) in length

I think this might beat Biden's "TV/Roosevelt" gaff.

Palin tells kids the vice president 'runs' Senate

WASHINGTON (AP) — Asked by a third-grader what a vice president does, Republican candidate Sarah Palin responded that the vice president is the president's "team mate" but also "runs the Senate" and "can really get in there with the senators and make a lot of good policy changes." -end snip

YouTube video

I saw that and laughed, apparently that's the third or fourth time she's got it wrong on what the vice president's responsibilities are.

Well, it would be more accurate to say "side kick" to the president. She was explaining it to a third grader........but the VP really is president of the senate.

What was so wrong with what she said that makes her look like an idiot?

I actually agree with douchebag here.

It's not all that wrong.

Originally posted by Bardock42
I actually agree with douchebag here.

It's not all that wrong.

"Bardock42, you're such an a**hole that when you walk down the street, people go "God damn it, that's a big a**hole!"

Originally posted by dadudemon
Well, it would be more accurate to say "side kick" to the president. She was explaining it to a third grader........but the VP really is president of the senate.

What was so wrong with what she said that makes her look like an idiot?

Yes, she would be the President of the Senate, should they win. The VP doesn't "run" the Senate though. It was poor wording on her part, but sure, she was talking to a 3rd grader.