Originally posted by ADarksideJedi
She is smart and never stupid.I have no idea why people would even think that about her.
Because she says incredibly stupid, misinformed things. She doesn't understand the most basic concepts. Even other Republicans tend to shake their heads at her stupidity. The problem is she's really popular, probably because she's the only woman in the Republican party.
Originally posted by ADarksideJedi
I disargee that the only reason she is popular is because she is the only woman in the Republican party she has sence and I think that she would be a great President if she rans.
But she factually, scientifically provably, does not have sense or any knowledge about anything. I mean she's even more stupid than Christine O'Donnell...if you can believe that. And on top of that she's a pathetic, opportunistic quitter, abandoning the people she fooled into voting for her for money and fame (though, admittedly they are better off for it).
She's like Hitler, with worse ideas.
Originally posted by ADarksideJediThat's not true. The Dems have always been for the little guy. The latest point is the unemployment extention issue. The Republicans have shot it down 3 times now leaving over 18 million unemployed with no hope. 18 MILLION!
I think the Dems are hitlers for there ideas of keeping control of the USA and taking alot of rights away from us every chance we get.
Originally posted by ADarksideJedi
I think the Dems are hitlers for there ideas of keeping control of the USA and taking alot of rights away from us every chance we get.
I don't see the Hitler connections, as the Democrats are a bunch of useless, ineffective idiots, but I agree with you that they suck a lot.
Honestly I think the Democrats and Republicans want to equally **** the American public over, the Democrats just play the good cop and the Republicans the bad cop.
Originally posted by Deja~vu
She may not know the issues well, but she is far from stupid in getting her name out there, even on her daughters back. She's quickly becoming a celebrity.
Yeah...so is Snookie.
Originally posted by Zeal Ex Nihilo
That was Ann Coulter, you retard. She also happens to be incredibly sharp. Whatever wingnuttery you see from her is very clearly a profitable ploy.
They don't get it. They are being played, and they don't see it. The more they say that she is stupid, the more angry the right gets (the only people she is talking too, and cares about).
How did the Republicans get control of the House? Hmmmmm
😆 😆 😆 😆
Originally posted by Shakyamunison
They don't get it. They are being played, and they don't see it. The more they say that she is stupid, the more angry the right gets (the only people she is talking too, and cares about).How did the Republicans get control of the House? Hmmmmm
😆 😆 😆 😆
By Obama being bipartisan, and the Republicans playing an amazingly agressive, smear campaign for the whole 2 years, with little to no reaction from the democrats at all.
Not sure why you laugh though, it's you who's getting bend over and taken to brown town after all.
They are being played, and they don't see it.
The only consolation I have is that the idiotic 18-25 crowd who voted for hope 'n' change have been shat on. It is a hollow victory, though, as I would rather have had Obama succeed and return America to its former strength. Unfortunately, the rest of the Republican party has decided the opposite. (Not that anything that Obama has done has been particularly revolutionary or different from his predecessor, mind you.)
And speaking of Ann Trollter:
The two biggest stories this week are WikiLeaks' continued publication of classified government documents, which did untold damage to America's national security interests, and the Democrats' fanatical determination to repeal "don't ask, don't tell" and allow gays to serve openly in the military.The mole who allegedly gave WikiLeaks the mountains of secret documents is Pfc. Bradley Manning, Army intelligence analyst and angry gay.
We've heard 1 billion times about the Army translator who just wanted to serve his country, but was cashiered because of whom he loved.
I'll see your Army translator and raise you one Bradley Manning.
According to Bradley's online chats, he was in "an awkward place" both "emotionally and psychologically." So in a snit, he betrayed his country by orchestrating the greatest leak of classified intelligence in U.S. history.
Isn't that in the Army Code of Conduct? You must follow orders at all times. Exceptions will be made for servicemen in an awkward place. Now, who wants a hug? Waitress! Three more apple-tinis!"
According to The New York Times, Bradley sought "moral support" from his "self-described drag queen" boyfriend. Alas, he still felt out of sorts. So why not sell out his country?
In an online chat with a computer hacker, Bradley said he lifted the hundreds of thousands of classified documents by pretending to be listening to a CD labeled "Lady Gaga." Then he acted as if he were singing along with her hit song "Telephone" while frantically downloading classified documents.
I'm not a military man, but I think singing along to Lady Gaga would constitute "telling" under "don't ask, don't tell."
Do you have to actually wear a dress to be captured by the Army's "don't ask, don't tell" dragnet?
What constitutes being "openly" gay now? Bringing a spice rack to basic training? Attending morning drills decked out as a Cher impersonator? Following Anderson Cooper on Twitter?
Also, U.S. military, have you seen a picture of Bradley Manning? The photo I've seen is only from the waist up, but you get the feeling that he's wearing butt-less chaps underneath. He looks like a guy in a soldier costume at the Greenwich Village Halloween parade.
With any luck, Bradley's court-martial will be gayer than a Liza Minelli wedding. It could be the first court-martial in U.S. history to feature ice sculptures and a "Wizard of Oz"-themed gazebo. "Are you going to Bradley's court-martial? I hear Patti LaBelle is going to sing!"
Maybe there's a reason gays have traditionally been kept out of the intelligence services, apart from the fact that closeted gay men are easy to blackmail. Gays have always been suspicious of that rationale and perhaps they're right.
The most damaging spies in British history were the Cambridge Five, also called "the "Magnificent Five": Kim Philby, Guy Burgess, Anthony Blunt, Donald Maclean and John Cairncross. They were highly placed members of British intelligence, all secretly working for the KGB.
The only one who wasn't gay was Philby. Burgess and Blunt were flamboyantly gay. Indeed, the Russians set Burgess up with a boyfriend as soon as he defected to the Soviet Union.
The Magnificent Five's American compatriot Michael Straight was -- ironically -- bisexual, as was Whittaker Chambers, at least during the period that he was a spy. And of course, there's David Brock.
So many Soviet spies were gay that, according to intelligence reporter Phillip Knightley, the Comintern was referred to as "the Homintern." (I would have called it the "Gay G.B."😉
Bradley's friends told the Times they suspected "his desperation for acceptance -- or delusions of grandeur" may have prompted his document dump.
Let's check our "Gay Profile at a Glance" and ... let's see ... desperate for acceptance ... delusions of grandeur ... yep, they're both on the gay subset list!
Obviously, the vast majority of gays are loyal Americans -- and witty and stylish to boot! But a small percentage of gays are going to be narcissistic hothouse flowers like Bradley Manning.
Couldn't they just work for JetBlue? America would be a lot safer right now if gays in an "awkward place" psychologically could do no more damage than grabbing a couple of beers and sliding down the emergency chute.
Look at the disaster one gay created under our punishing "don't ask, don't tell" policy. What else awaits America with the overturning of a policy that was probably put there for a reason (apart from being the only thing Bill Clinton ever did that I agreed with)?
Liberals don't care. Their approach is to rip out society's foundations without asking if they serve any purpose.
Why do we have immigration laws? What's with these borders? Why do we have the institution of marriage, anyway? What do we need standardized tests for? Hey, I like Keith Richards -- why not make heroin legal? Let's take a sledgehammer to all these load-bearing walls and just see what happens!
For liberals, gays in the military is a win-win proposition. Either gays in the military works, or it wrecks the military, both of which outcomes they enthusiastically support.
But since you brought up gays in the military, liberals, let's talk about Bradley Manning. He apparently released hundreds of thousands of classified government documents as a result of being a gay man in "an awkward place."
Any discussion of "don't ask, don't tell" should begin with Bradley Manning. Live by the sad anecdote, die by the sad anecdote.
Originally posted by Bardock42Honestly I think the Democrats and Republicans want to equally **** the American public over, the Democrats just play the good cop and the Republicans the bad cop.
Correct, both of their goals is to screw the the taxpayer right in the ass, while smiling at his/her face.
I don't do see the 'good cop / bad cop' angle, they both try to play the savior role while condemning the other as the villain.
The difference between Republicans and Democrats is that Democratic policies and laws usually appear, on the surface, to be more about helping the public, whereas Republicans are pretty blatant about their pro-corporate agenda. (This was not helped by Reagan, who made corporatism the party line.) The FDA, for instance, is a government agency that exists to ensure that Americans are kept safe from potentially hazardous products. In theory. In reality, the oversight it provides concentrates power in the hands of corporations by preventing meaningful competition. It is illegal, for instance, to import prescription drugs from Canada. This artificially limits the supply and gives a form of monopoly power to drug companies in the United States, allowing them to increase their profit margins at the expense of everyone else.
Likewise, other Democratic institutions are often well-meaning but terrible in execution. Medicaid/Medicare are a prime example. When Republicans oppose these two forms of the welfare state, the Democrats can paint them as evil, money-hungry bastards who care nothing for the poor. (Which is, in part, true, but that's beside the point.) What Democrats fail to understand is that these bloated government agencies suck up tax dollars, subsidize the health care industry's ridiculous prices, and are going to lead to financial ruin.
On the contrasting side, Republicans do the exact to Democrats. When Democrats want to do something like reduce military spending (which is something that desperately needs to be done in addition to Medicare/Medicaid/Social Security reform), the Republican response is simple: "Why do you want the terrorists to win?" A strong military ensures American security, after all. And, again, that's partially true. But it's also gigantic handouts to companies who make military weapons.
TL;DR: Corruption should be tried as treason.
is palin good at answering question or showing a nuanced understanding of world events or even in possession of a bredth of knowledge concerning international affairs: no
is palin an opportunist who knows what to say to get a small (but over reported) section of the Republican party to go apeshit: yes
whichever of those you want to take as a measure of intelligence, the answer is fairly clear