Slashdot Mirror
Sarah Palin 'Target WikiLeaks Like Taliban'
DMandPenfold writes "Sarah Palin, who is widely tipped as a possible Republican candidate for president in 2012, has said WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange should be hunted down in the way armed forces are targeting the Taliban and Al-Qaeda." So that means we should spend billions of dollars and not catch him? Good plan.
Thanks for your cutting edge, witty commentary.
She is unelectable, why the hell does the media pay so much attention to her? She has to be the most hated political figure in the US for the left/left leaning middle. The dumbest thing the republicans could possibly do is run her in 2012.
After 9 years of hunting Bin Laden.. Assange is safe from the US for a while!
Let's not all suck at the same time please
Trillions! and thousands of civilian deaths.
Yes, I'm left. You have a problem with that?
Right or wrong, if you kill him becomes a martyr. What a surprise that Sarah Palin didn't think before she spoke.
You know who we have to blame for her, right?
John McCain. What the heck was the man thinking? If he'd picked his VP candidate with an eye to win, instead of just throwing a dart then we'd be far better off. Even though I wouldn't have wanted his hypocritical, principal betraying, lying ass in the Oval Office, at least with a decent VP we'd not have had the horror that is Sarah Palin inflicted on the nation at large. She'd just be some obscure Alaska Governor waiting for the snows to come in and counting all the oil money.
Curse you!
Very good interview done within the last few days. Why can't we have this guy running the country, not the bozo teams we get over and over?
http://www.democracynow.org/2010/11/30/noam_chomsky_wikileaks_cables_reveal_profound
But if you are not doing anything wrong, you have nothing to hide? Right? Right??? That's what the government keeps telling me!
Palin just lost my vote. I liked her because she managed to balance the budget in Alaska and is supposedly a supporter of the Constitution. With her support of trying to take down wikileaks, it indicates she is actually a supporter of ongoing government waste and corruption.
Government of the people, by the people, for the people should be completely transparent. Every dime should be able to be accounted for, and all bills before Congress should be made publicly available before they are voted on - not hidden the way Romney/Obamacare was.
The Christian Right is Neither (Christian nor right). See: Matthew 23, Matthew 25, Ezekiel 16:48-50
Who cares what Sarah Palin thinks? This isn't news, for anybody.
Gone!
And then I voted for him in 2008.....things change. Still, I agree, she's pretty much unelectable in my mind.
The Taliban is responsible, directly and demonstrably, for a great many deaths, both in the US and abroad.
The number of deaths that can be traced to Assange is... how many? How indirectly?
If he is in fact guilty of the actual physical crimes of which he's accused, he should be pursued and prosecuted proportionally to them. But when you equate "taking America down a peg" with mass murder... it makes you realize why Assange is doing what he's doing.
It feels as if America has lost its glory, pursuing its reputation like a bully. I think we're still better than that. But the last election didn't tell me so as clearly as I'd like, and the next election may explicitly contradict me.
Nothing says "land of the free, home of the brave" than a quitter comparing a journalistic outfit that leaks embarassing data that the US and others don't want to be revealed to a theocratic government that opposes most fundamental freedoms. And yet, her base will eat this up.
My Sysadmin Blog
This is the best thing we could do. It means that the governments will attack unrelated targets, and Wikileaks will remain unscathed. He will be safe to do as he pleased and post other materials. Now if he Palin were going after him like he was Obama, then there might be some worry. But even then she would probably endorse some wako for the job who be so distracted with the Aqua Buddha, or who was doing what in the privacy of their own home, or would mistakenly travel to Sweden instead of Switzerland, or not realize that US laws did not apply in Europe.
"She's a scientist and a lesbian. She's not going to let it slide." Orphan Black
Sarah Palin's commentary on anything deeper than an Alaskan salmon stream is wasted air. She is not a political mind worthy of quoting. I'd be more interested in Britney Spears commentary on the escalating North Korea situation since we might at least get some good cleavage pics.
I swear to God...I swear to God! That is NOT how you treat your human!
I bet there's a decent percentage of people-power being thrown at finding the guy and bringing him to a US-friendly court in a way that doesn't make it look like a CIA snatch-and-grab.
Don't believe anything I say. I crash test crack pipes for a living.
Keep her in the spotlight. I'd prefer having 4 more years of Obama, instead of any Republican "small government" type.
Taco, you should be ashamed for posting this obviouls flamebait article to drum up the clicks and flamewars.
Sarah Palin isn't a politician currently, and her opinion on this issue does not matter. So why even post this here?
Obviously, you want to continue to get the pagehits goings, but its obvious there is no value or substance that should be on this site.
The problem with both parties is that we can't keep the dumbest 2% of us off the television.
"Man is nothing without the works of man" -- Helvetius
I haven't figured out all the blame is trying to focus on Wikileaks/Assange. To the point where people are being polled on if Assange should be charged with treason. I'm almost certain you need to be a US citizen before you can be charged with treason against the US.... Further, Assange didn't sign any agreements with the US gov't that he wouldn't release their information, that was the original informant. The information isn't (or shouldn't be) copyrighted, so the only thing to prevent anyone from distributing it is signing what is essentially an NDA.
This discussion is about Sarah Palin. I think you meant to say "fence post."
Eloi are stupid, throw morlocks at them!
The layer of obfuscation sickens me. Media controls so many people and they are so busy debating on non-topics that the real issues are never even touched. Put a new target on TV and tell people they are bad. Masses buy into it and then the population is directed how they want. This place is ripe for revolution. Nothing today seems to be the way the founding fathers intended. I think they'd be very upset with the state of things.
Sarah Palin, who is widely tipped as a possible Republican candidate for president in 2012, has said WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange should be hunted down in the way armed forces are targeting the Taliban and Al-Qaeda.
But luckily, Julian Assange watched her reality show, and decided to keep his hairy ass out of Alaska . . .
Hell, I can't really remember . . . are the tactical shotguns for shooting bears or salmon . . . I guess it don't matter . . .
Schroedinger's Brexit: The UK is both in and out of the EU at the same time!
Still giving a fuck what a borderline moron has to say.
Remember? And the Tea Party dipshits hadn't even gotten started then. If you don't think this clown is electable, you haven't spent enough time in the flyover states.
Sent from the iPad I found in your car.
Please enjoy the upcoming Wikileaks of YOUR CABLES to Huckabee !
Slut !
Yours In Novosibirsk,
Kilgore T.
Great, I'm happy for you. Now you will pay with your karma. Git him, mods!
if the US were to send armed forces roaming our countryside looking for him.. Not to mention the great success the US have had in capturing Bin Ladin (or did you just give up on him, I can't recall)
I've fallen off your lawn, and I can't get up.
I just saw a headline teaser on the TV that suggested that the Interpol alert on Assange has been lifted. Perhaps someone at Interpol was finally clued in that Assange was not the sort of person they are supposed to be looking for?
I am Slashdot. Are you Slashdot as well?
Correction: a winkin' smiley
You never expect irony, do you?
Want to be a professional wrestler? Visit www.iyfwrestling.com
@iyfwrestling
I voted for Bush in 2004. I would have voted for him in 2000 if I was old enough. Voted for McCain in 2008. Never voted Democrat in my life. But if the Republicans nominate Palin in 2012, I will vote Obama. I don't like what he's doing to this country. He's given way too much power to unions (GM) and unfairly redistributing wealth (healthcare). But the damage he can do is minuscule when compared to what Palin would do. There is only one possible benefit I can see of Palin getting elected, and the is the complete dismantlement of the Republican party as we know it. Maybe we can finally get a party that is center-right, instead of overrun with right-wing radicals and religious nutjobs.
The only thing necessary for evil to triumph is for it to be pitted against a slightly greater evil
Does anyone -seriously- think that if Assange were locked up / killed / whatever, that this sort of thing would stop?
While he's more than "just a public face" in this issue, it isn't like Wikileaks would die with him, or that some successor wouldn't be spawned.
I like you, Stuart. You're not like everyone else, here, at Slashdot.
What she and her supporters have not figured out is that they get so much attention because it's like watching a train wreck in slow motion. It's entertainment not politics.
Well, to her credit, she has a lot of followers. Despite many faux pas she's made that would have left anyone else gelded, she somehow keeps drumming up support. I'm not too educated on the numbers now for tea partiers versus non-tea partying Republicans but I think it would be a deathly schism for the Republican party. The two large parties can't afford to break off into chunks and therefore it's going to be the most supported candidate that gets the nod. Right now, who else is there?
There have been countless stupid quotes and moves by Sarah Palin where I've thought "Wow, well, at least she's finally done for." And yet she comes out of it. She starts working for Fox News and injects her own little two cents into everything and I'm thinking, "Look at all this material for a potential opponent to use against her." Yet she grows in popularity! She gets a reality show on some cable TV show called "Sarah Palin's Alaska" (like she owns the state) and I think "Well, finally, she's jumping the shark." Yet people are watching it in respectable TV viewing numbers! She releases a book that rips apart JFK and yet somehow she comes out still being followed. What gives?
In my humble opinion, as someone coming from the rural mid-west and now living in the urban east coast, you are talking about a populace you don't understand. People are watching her, reading her books and identifying with her at an alarming rate. To claim that everyone one of her supporters is driving from Ohio and other states to see her and Glenn Beck on the mall just to 'observe a train wreck' only exacerbates the problem and further removes you from what's really going on. America is just as polarized as they were during the elections and the Republican party -- though strong -- is encountering a weird kind of fragmentation for better or for worse.
Politics is entertainment just like sports are entertainment. But most spectators are cheering for someone.
It's easy for us to dismiss them but that only adds to their persecution complex. I don't know what the answer is but I prefer to listen to them and then try to reason with them instead of writing them off. There's bigger numbers in different parts of the country and I'm not a fan of watching Glenn Beck prey on people who are suffering right now. It downright sickens me.
My work here is dung.
Why do we give this person a platform to speak? We should just all ignore her and move on.
Maybe Sweden and other countries where WIkileaks have a presence should pre-emptively "target" Palin for threatening the invasion on their countries by US forces. She's CLEARLY a terrorist, no?
Sarah Palin assumes communist regime is US ally. If you vote for Palin and republicans, you're voting for communists!
There are no atheists when recovering from tape backup.
... like a moose
The world is how you make it
I hope for your sake America, that the biting analysis and smart analogies I've read here is replicated in your national newspapers for the masses to digest.
Jonathanjk.com
>"Sarah Palin ... has said WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange should be hunted down in the way armed forces are targeting the Taliban and Al-Qaeda."
So does this mean the US is going to invade Venezuela?
Some mornings it's hardly worth chewing through the restraints to get out of bed.
The funny thing is, if Palin should ever become a president or not, vice or no vice, I'll definitely look into learning to pray. I guess Palin would approve ..
Hey don't blame me, IANAB
should just be labeled "flame bait".
.
.
.
.
Is it ratings time again already?
If you've never been modded as "flamebait" or "troll," you've never tried to argue a minority viewpoint here!
She is unelectable, why the hell does the media pay so much attention to her?
Because like her or not, people are attracted to news stories about her. Therefore she generates readers/viewers and in turn revenue. You yourself were attracted to a story about her.
To answer your question: even if unelectable she will be able to steer the debate, force certain topics to be discussed. Many an unelectable candidate thought such influence justified their campaign. Also, with enough followers she may be able to influence viable candidates, basically act as a "king maker".
You know, it's things like that that tend to set me off. Open information is essential to freedom, and the US found it quite delightful when WL exposed other countries. But now that it's coming to light that our own country has a lot to hide, it must be stopped? I don't think so. Get the information out there, shame the ones knowingly acting dishonestly and work to let them know it is not acceptable. People in power are always willing to bend the rules for what they feel is 'good reason'. Problem is, that so called good reason tends to expand quickly. I don't know what the fix is for the situation, but I do know that it will involve a lot more sites like WL. If you have nothing to hide, then you have nothing to fear. Or so the government tells us. Interesting how that doesn't seem to go both ways, that needs to change, in a big way.
Question reality.
I continue to wonder who still takes Sara Palin seriously. She's a painted up china doll paraded in the face of the American public in hopes that the sheeple will look at her while the puppeteers are busy further ruining our democracy.
...this one is not fake. People have actually seen him on the street.
On the other site: WTF is wrong with you, USA people? Targeting a man just because he released some documents showing how bad mouthing everyone in the world is with each other? I bet you can do better with the resources you'd put into that.
Cheers!
But there are those that are in power (already elected) who feel the same way. Rep. Pete King (R-N.Y.), the incoming chairman of the House Homeland Security Committee wants to classify wikileaks as a terrorist organization.. I believe that this would make contributing money a federal felony. In addition, the Interpol connection has been ratcheted up. Assange is now on the most wanted list.
It's not just Sarah Palin, there are those in power that are clearly using their power on this matter. Kind of scary, actually. (Though not surprising, considering what Assange is doing).
Rhymes that keep their secrets will unfold behind the clouds.There upon the rainbow is the answer to a neverending story
Does anyone else think that Sarah Palin is completely worthless?
One is just that it is kinda funny to hear crazies talk. I mean let's face it, she is nuts and she says some amazingly stupid shit. It can be amusing to read that. So that is part of it is people just going "What? She REALLY said that? Hell we need to print that shit!"
The other is that there are more than a few democrats who really, REALLY want her to be a forerunner in the republican party. Reason is of course that she is crazy and has basically no chance. Now realistically she isn't going to be a Republican contender. However the Democrats sure hope she is because man would that make for an easy election. That leads to more coverage than you'd normally get since not only is she trying to make herself heard, her opponents are trying to make sure she'd heard.
I guess Palin is jealous on him for having "blood on his hands” while she doesn't. I further guess she's doing all she can to change that.
I hadn't known there were so many idiots in the world until I started using the Internet -Stanislaw Lem
Why should we listen to screeches of a quitter?
He who knows best knows how little he knows. - Thomas Jefferson
I think Assange is a hero of the people, standing up like that to the fascists in power.
I hope that if he gets taken down, a billion other heroes will stand in his place.
He should be top dog in any of those dumb "vote for your hero" things that news sites like CNN tend to do, too!
This story is tagged both Palin and retard. Haven't those become synonyms already (my apologies to all the retards out there)?
While that is funny, it's also very appropriate. Back in '08, Palin said she had little to no interest in running for President in 2012, a statement she backed up by quiting her job as a politician and going on a media rampage (numerous interviews and appearances, as well as her own TV show.) Now she's dropping hints that she would in fact run in 2012.
Assuming that she was on the fence about the idea, I wonder what changed her mind...
Living With a Nerd
What exactly does freedom have to do with releasing state secrets? It's never good to reveal the content of diplomatic communications, especially without any specific reason for doing so. Releasing the private communications means less diplomacy, and without making you think too hard, please tell me what happens when diplomacy fails!
So great job, we've now discovered though the release of these documents... well nothing really that we didn't already assume. We spy on our enemies at the U.N.? Well I should hope so! China is pissed at DPRK? Big surprise! Iran is fucking evil, who knew! And the cost? We have soured diplomacy as we know it and can use it less to prevent bloodshed! I don't care how much less we can use it, the fact stands that diplomacy as an enterprise to prevent bloodshed has been damaged and for what? So wiki leaks can have their name in the paper? Where is the crime that was being exposed by leaking these documents? So all you Monday morning quarterbacks who are trumpeting the release of these documents, don't forget that now we will move to war that much faster because diplomacy has been dealt a blow by your so-called "right to see state secrets".
Speaking as a mostly-leftist American, I would like nothing better than seeing Palin win the Republican nomination.
Why not just seed rumors that Wikileaks will be releasing a substantial amount of Israeli intelligence and have Mossad do the job for you?
I can already see Sarah Palin dressed in a hunting outfit with a bolt-action rifle going after Mr. Assange just like a Moose in Alsaka. Maybe she will have him stuffed and mounted in her den next to the singing trout.
After 9 years of hunting Bin Laden.. Assange is safe from the US for a while!
But I don't now about US Army's external sub-contractors illegally arresting, detaining and torturing half of the Swedish population.
Nor the US Army overthrowing the government of Norway, on the grounds that they might have had supported Sweden and might also have servers for mass-hosting of leaks in possession (although independent reports from the UN deny both of these fears).
"Sufficiently advanced satire is indistinguishable from reality." - [Tips: 1DrYakQDKCQ6y52z6QbnkxHXAocMZJE61o ]
I think she means using UAV drones.
From the Daily Mash:
UNMANNED WIKILEAKS DRONE DESTROYS AFGHAN VILLAGE
"Because - and you might want to write this down and keep it somewhere safe - the key thing that has undermined the safety of soldiers in Iraq and Afghanistan is them firing their big fucking guns at Iraqis and Afghans."
http://rocknerd.co.uk
What do you think she'd be doing with her life? Truck stop waitress?
- None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license. -- John Milton
In the first big leak, the names of actual informants was leaked and it was reported one later died and a few disappeared. However, the actual impact on human lives because of this seems inconsequential or non-existent since there has been nothing actually substantiated as a direct result in the media.
It seems to me that the only real damage is to the government's ego by exposing it's lack of security and it's dirty laundry. On the whole, Wikileaks is doing the public a service by making the government take a hard look at it's security protocol. As for the information leaked, what's been the real impact in regards to national security concerns? So far, I don't see how the leaks have jeopardized our military efforts or global standings.
You get that Alaska's budget is balanced thanks to huge oil revenues and a small population and given that the state needs to GIVE the money away just to not appear too self-interested that her "work" as governor has NOTHING to do with it, right?
You are literally correct but essentially mistaken? Prior to being governor wasn't she some kind of oil commissioner and negotiated fees/taxes/payments made by the oil companies? If so she did have something to do with Alaska's windfall.
She doesn't want to run but will do her duty if they can bullshit enough support for her.
You should be extremely careful what you wish for: Democrats were expressing similar sentiments when Ronald Reagan put himself up for the Republican nomination in 1980.
http://rocknerd.co.uk
I wouldn't. She might actually win.
I, for one, am looking forward to the inevitable
I'm a republican, and that is by far the most stupid thing to come out of her mouth. Palin needs to get the hell back to Alaska and out of the lives of us in the inner states.
"They confiscated everything, even the stuff we didn't steal!"
There always have been good reasons for government secrecy. Exposing certain secrets really can cost lives, don't kid yourself. This was true during WWII, and during the revolutionary war, and it's still true today.
That said, it's also true that governments will keep secrets for the wrong reasons. But, I am not sure we should applaud every person who exposes secrets.
Disclosure: US military vet, and have worked for major defense contractors. Hold a current DoD secret clearance, and have held an SSBI top secret clearance.
Speaking as a non-american, I'd call it a win-win. Either she loses the race for the GOP or the rest of the world has incontrovertible proof that the US has become a nation that worships morons. Besides, can you imagine what John Stewart could do with 4 years of Palin? :)
People replying to my sig annoy me. That's why I change it all the time.
Assange is a total twat, and it boggles my mind how he can do such a service to humanity with leaking of sensitive information that actually ends up showing whats really going on in government. When did government get the authority to keep its activities from the people? After all, the people are what made government.
That brings me to an interesting point, / . is just "the ramblings of socially-inept, technology-literate news-mongers".
She couldn't even handle serving out her term as governor of Alaska. How does anything think she's qualified to be President?
-- Give me ambiguity or give me something else!
Sarah Palin is going to target Julian Assange? With what sweetheart? Your caribou hunting rifle? Somehow I don't think it has the range to reach the UK, or wherever he is sitting these days.
No, honestly Sarah, what in the hell does your statement mean? Are you going to commit troops and military resources to "get him?" How are you going to do that since you are not in charge of any executive branch of any government in the entire world? Or does your current employer (isn't it Fox News nowadays?) have it's own private army that you can summon up just as easily as dipping into the petty cash?
Here's an idea, Sweetheart, instead of all the political grandstanding about what you are going to do to some dude on the other side of the world, why don't you put your money where your mouth is and actually try to go after him yourself? You don't want to break a nail? You don't want to put in the money or effort of conducting a manhunt? Well neither do the rest of us, nor do the citizens of the rest of the world, nor do most members of the U.S. military from what I can gather. We are tired of you politico retards, whom seem so adept at living with your heads on a completely different plain of reality, committing our resources, time, and efforts to some wild goose-chases that don't seem to produce any results anyways (Where is that last guy we went on a manhunt for? What was his name again? Osama Bin Something?). Nah, if you're really so outraged at Assange, go do your dirty work yourself. The rest of us are sick and tired of shoveling the shit for you student-body president, prom queen, princes and princesses that seem to think world politics is a popularity contest and a game.
For the tl:dr crowd, "Sarah, you're a stuck up, dolled up, dumb shit that isn't fit to find the path for getting your head out of your ass, much less hunting down a man on the other side of the world."
Motorcycles, Robots, Space Gossip and More!
I suspect that the Wiki-Leaks founder will meet with an untimly acceident at some point in the future. If he wants to live a long life he might want to go to the Swiss and turn himself in might extend his life expectancy. I for one would suffer not tears for this jerk.
Semper Fi Ronald Ausman USMC Ret
Pretty soon we'll hear that Iran is developing an AMD (Assange of Mass Dissemination). We have no choice but to invade.
Does diplomacy still need to be played out as a game of princes?
What the leaks have shown so far is that there is no compelling reason to keep analysis and meeting minutes secret in the first place. Most of it already makes the evening news in one form or another and the veil of secrecy only serves to leave a void of suspicion and paranoia that chattering voices can fill with nonsense. In a democracy, the ultimate judges of policy are the voting public - so should not the rule be "talk to our leaders, talk to all of us"? Is stability and democracy of the world really served in the long run by allowing friendly leaders to say one thing to "us" and another thing to their own people? Isn't that the root problem of a lot of the instability in the first place?
I'm not expecting change, but the leak feels like is a rare opportunity to debate if there might be a better way to build the very foundations of diplomacy.
In the past, candidates and candidate would be 's used to at least speak in the people's interest even if they intended something else. Nowadays, the openly and shamelessly appease the hands that are trying to suppress the people.
I think he meant to say "post turtle"
the preceding comment is my own and in no way reflects the opinion of the Joint Chiefs of Staff
I don't think anyone can argue that most of what makes the US government bad is a direct result of the ruling elite having too much money and too much power. With less money and less power, they wouldn't be able to cause as much destruction and injustice, whether home or abroad. History shows that as long as government has money and power in excess, destruction and injustice will result.
Whether you agree with his policies or not, Ron Paul wants to cut spending and cut political power, not increase it like 99% of all other politicians. Unless the runaway train of government is stopped, we WILL continue on the same exact path to yet even more destruction and injustice.
New to Earth? Pretty much anyone whose been around for the past oh, 16 years could tell you that. They don't give a shit, she's a female Republican and convenient foil to those who claim the neo-cons have forgotten the common man.
Stupid, 'rural', and willing to play up her ignorance as a plus. If she wins a GOP nomination and Obama doesn't up his game dramticly soon, he'd have to announce having caught Osama bare handed while fighting off a bare chested Putin for the honor of killing the terrorist to avoid being buried by the wave.
Speaking as a mostly-right leaning American, I wanted nothing more than for Obama to win the Democrat primary since, with his inexperience and lack of name recognition, he was going to be trivial to beat compared to Hillary.
Then when the Republicans (check that, large, early open primary states) nominated McCain, I knew a good chunk of Rs, myself included, wouldn't turn out for him and we'd lose to whomever won the D primary.
In short, be careful what you wish for, especially if your party is currently hated (as the Rs were in 2006 and 2008 and the Ds were in 2010) and you put up a turd sandwich (as people are increasingly seeing Obama).
I'm no Palin fan, but sometimes I wonder if you guys read the article before posting....
'Palin continued: “His past posting of classified documents revealed the identity of more than 100 Afghan sources to the Taliban. Why was he not pursued with the same urgency we pursue al-Qaeda and Taliban leaders?"'
Her point is that he went beyond whistleblowing. I don't see how that's any dumber that what some of you are posting here.
Instead of paying billions failing to catch Assange, pay some of that to Assange so that we can find out who's responsible for failing so hard at catching Bin Laden.
'course, there's a certain risk that this info would embarrass the GOP echelon, so let's not risk it. In the name of national security!
They're mostly obsessed with her for one reason that they dare not utter: she refused to abort her son when she discovered that he had Down's Syndrome. For a liberal, humans are just chattel, so if they have any sort of defect that makes them less productive then their life is worthless. Liberals are also obsessed with Sarah Palin because she dared to step out of the pre-scripted role that liberals have created for women and minorities. If you want to understand why liberals are obsessed with Sarah Palin, just take a look at how the media treats any member of a "protected" class (women, minorities, gays, jews) that dares to step off of the liberal ideological plantation.
That said, I agree that she's unelectable. She seems to be of average intelligence (yes, average. Many of you think far too highly of yourselves), and I would like to have a leader that is of superior intelligence. Obama doesn't fall into the latter category. In his case, white liberals in academia saw a promising, articulate young black man, and they basically kept telling him how great he was until they dragged him across the finish line.
If the US hunts Assange like Bin-Laden then he has nothing to worry about!
Visit my Forums?
I dunno, he might leave the country. I would.
"Coffee is for closers."
I will give her one thing, she knows how to capitalize on an emerging trend. She has no viability, yet, of making it to the White House. I know quite a few independents who are starting to think "she has got to be better than what we have". I don't think she would succeed because too many are overly invested in seeing her fail or worse, suffer from PDS, the equivalent of the BDS that was prevalent a few years ago.
That she sparks such reaction from both sides of the aisle is her greatest asset, to herself and us. She has the ability to draw focus to events and issues that has rarely been seen. While many many like her or even some of the items she brings up, she is getting them discussed. I, like many others, think that the government is way beyond control, it certainly proves it when it cannot run anything close to a balanced budget. Both parties are dysfunctional. She has called them out. Hence their allies will do what is necessary to minimize the damage, which in politics that means character assassination. For all those who thinks she is a loon there are as many who think no better of Obama.
Its a given the Republicans, if they run her, by choice or force, will sink their chances in 2012. Yet we don't know what the next two years will bring. She has caused a lot of people to take an interest in politics and their government, something for which I thank her for. Too many people just brushed off critical thinking about their government and their politicians. Too many had no hope. The Tea Party (WHICH IS NOT HERS!) showed the even established politicians can still be taken down, even from within the party most attributed to the Tea Party. That alone is worth the price of bearing with her.
I hope that what she does end up being is a catalyst for people waking up and electing those who will change the system. When senior members of Congress starts to mean people with only two terms in the Senate for a few in the House then perhaps the parties will understand they are supposed to serve us, not the other way around
* Winners compare their achievements to their goals, losers compare theirs to that of others.
What's disturbing is that PBS News Hour reported 20%+ of people polled thinks she's presidential material.
The good news I guess is that over half of the people with "below average" intelligence still have enough sense to conclude she's totally a politically agitating airhead. God(s) help us if she gets elected...
ELOI, ELOI, LAMA SABACHTHANI!?
that article was so biased it was ridiculous. It would be obvious to anyone with a modicum of intelligence what they were trying to do.
Back in '08, Palin said she had little to no interest in running for President in 2012, a statement she backed up by quiting her job as a politician and going on a media rampage (numerous interviews and appearances, as well as her own TV show.) Now she's dropping hints that she would in fact run in 2012.
And in 2006, Hilary Clinton stated uncategorically that she would not run for president. So what, people can't change their minds?
Sarah Palin Targets YOU!!!
...That's CNN's journalism: uncritically passing on one government claim after the next -- without any contradiction, challenge, or scrutiny. ...what would an overtly state-run media do differently? Absolutely nothing. ...the sole criticism of the Government allowed to be heard is that they haven't done enough to keep us all in the dark...
http://www.salon.com/news/opinion/glenn_greenwald/2010/11/30/wikileaks/index.html
"Flyin' in just a sweet place,
Never been known to fail..."
They way everyone, Republicans and Democrats alike, talk about Assange you'd think he actually broke into the State Department and stole these cables himself. Assange shouldn't be the main focus of this story. It should be how a PFC was given complete access to an entire database of every cable sent from 1966-2010, complete with the ability to save a complete copy of said database. Assuming these cables are really as damaging as a terrorist attack, as everyone seems to be implying, you'd think they'd take better measures to secure it. For the record, I don't think this leak is as important as anyone, including Assange, have hyped it to be. But if we take the State Department at their word, that people will die as the result of this leak and that our relations with other nations will be significantly damaged, then the responsibility lies with them for their lax and incompetent security procedures.
that would be the golden age of comedy in united states.
Read radical news here
It seems to me that if we should hunt him down for what he released then we should certainly hunt down all members of the media who have published stories detailing what it was he released. Personally, I haven't seen anything directly from Wiki-leaks, everything I've read has been from the national media (Fox, CNN, ABC, CBS, etc etc). If we condemn him for releasing this information then what gives them the right to release and report the same information? I doubt 99% of the people who know anything about the released material didn't get it from him, but from a 'respected' third party source.
so good if I could donate to her PAC account with a negative amount - the first thing that stops me is I'm not merkin and don't reside there; oh well, I suppose I could just "go on a hunt with her" and twitch when I take my shot........
(capcha was "partriots")
Speaking as a mostly leftist, I would rather see Obama on the republican nomination, so that maybe we can get a real left candidate.
"I opened my eyes, and everything went dark again"
That's an interesting theory. The problem is that the August 24, 2008 meeting with advisors at which Sarah Palin became the top choice to be McCain's running mate occurred several months after Clinton's conceded the race for the Democratic nomination and endorsed Barack Obama on June 7, 2008; the August 27 meeting at which she was offered the #2 spot on the ticket took place during the Democratic Convention, on the same day Barack Obama was formally nominated as the Democratic Party's candidate for the Presidency.
So, its historically indefensible to claim that the McCain campaign was nominating Palin in response to the perceived current strength of the Clinton campaign at the time.
It's more defensible to claim that they did it in response to the defeat of Hillary Clinton, in belief that that defeat might provide an opening to pick up some disappointed Clinton supporters that really were focussed on seeing a woman on the ticket. (I'm not saying this is true, or that, if true, it was a reasonable expectation on their part -- but its an argument I've heard that is certainly more plausible than the explanation that the choice was made because they thought the Clinton campaign was still going strong and that that is who they would have to face in the general.)
incontrovertible proof that the US has become a nation that worships morons.
There's still doubt after Bush? Anyway, I would like to point out that it's not the whole country, just 49%.
can you imagine what John Stewart could do with 4 years of Palin?
After a month she'll probably have him 'targeted like the Taliban', which means, if she 'targets' as well as Bush did, that 4 years later he would still be making videos.
Actually, the Kennedy's in general and JFK in particular DESERVE to be ripped apart--but not for the vapid reasons that Sarah Palin's ghost writer came up with.
Look, I'm not here to turn this into some JFK and RFK and Ted Kennedy did all this horrible crap and killed a woman and got away with it and were womanizing nepotistic rich bastards ... all or or some of these things could be said. But what I was trying to say here was that nobody has ever run on that platform. You can write a book of dirt when you're done with politics but writing such a book before you become president is sort of like asking your future opponent if they'd like to have their way with you right now. I mean JFK, though flawed, was a hero to a lot of Americans. And his martyrdom was just icing on the cake. And to call into question one of his most loved and cherished speeches is more than ballsy, it's downright dangerous.
Sarah Palin is a new kind of political monster, unlike the ones I'm used to watching comfortably from my armchair. She's got a twitter feed that sports so many errors, she might actually be the person running it! From a classic Bush-esque prescriptive versus descriptive linguistics error to making accusations and weird religious remarks. It's a microblogging service! Look at what the rest of the politicians use it for: a paid staff techie is told what to put on it and what goes on it is only tepid words praising safe topics for that candidate to like. And those are usually reviewed seventy times before they go up. She has broken the rules of and committed fouls in politics many times and yet people embrace her.
All I wanted to say in my post was that from what I've seen of Sarah Palin, we should have stuck a fork in her long ago yet she remains. And why is that? Well, she's a dangerously well liked and amicable to a large part of the population that you are not familiar with. If she makes a mistake they seem to forgive her and say "I've made that mistake too." If she uses cracked logic or argument tactics long ago written off by academics, her followers just write off the academics. Trust me, as someone who's tried to reason with a supporter with some fairly simple debate analysis of Glenn Beck's logic, I can tell you that you don't want to approach this as some fancy pants intellectual telling them how dumb they are.
Don't confuse this with praise of Sarah Palin or defense of JFK. This is just me trying to warn people about how I see the situation at present. What happens when she runs for president and her opposition preys on some stupid social gaffe of hers? If it's any less than what she's already done, it's merely going to be ignored by or reinforce her supporter's commitment.
My work here is dung.
just saying...
Come the revolution, the Bourgeois, Capitalistic, "A PARKING STICKER HOLDERS", will be first against the wall!
Do a google image search for: palin fascism
This is going too far. If something happens to him, she will have blood on her hands.
So, what's your plan Commander Douchebag?
It was the Pentagon that failed to secure this material. I'd rather see it on wikileaks and know what is compromised than not know what some foreign intelligence agency has acquired. Wikileaks shows us the security holes we have while also showing us the scope of required damage control. Thanks to wikileaks for decoy work.
Palin had some of her email posted on wikileaks a while back but really she should have secured here account better since her password was guessed from publicly available information. The emails would have ended up in a tabloid if they had not gone to wikileaks. She is just confused I think.
If she is indeed planning to run in 2012, she probably has good reason to fear wikileaks. I, for one, would love to see what wikileaks has found out about this... "person".
Free Martian Whores!
hey, 'plans', like that are what keep the 'military-industrial complex' in "business" ... as warned by Eisenhower !
Sarah Palin's commentary on anything deeper than an Alaskan salmon stream is wasted air.
Actually prior to being picked as the VP nominee she was one of the people interviewed for a CNBC (a business/financial cable TV channel in the US) investigative report on oil policy. In her interview she offered useful commentary on that topic. I only recall this because I saw the show a couple of weeks before McCain picked her; I actually recognized her and at the time thought this could be an interesting choice given the debate over oil drilling. Well things certainly turned out to be interesting.
Let's see:
An incompetent governor that couldn't even complete one term in Alaska.
Dumber that most rocks.
Communication skills so poor she's incapable of handling even a 'soft' interview that only has one unscripted question.
Comes across as even more fake than Tammy Faes face with full makeup.
Seems to think competence is based on worn out sex appeal when your opponents are 60+ year old fat bald men in hundred year old dust covered suits.
Can't even get a coherent simile more than 2/3 of the time.
I could go on and on, but why bother, every adult with any cognitive capability above that of a 4th grader already hates her, the rest are too stupid to understand why...
>After 9 years of hunting Bin Laden.. Assange is safe from the US for a while!
No useful purpose would be solved in capturing Bin Laden. It would probably cause calls for the "war on terror" to be over, and that would make lots of military spending go away. Can't have that. No, it is far far better to have that boogey man out there as an excuse to carry on.
Assange, on the other hand, is nothing but a loose cannon bringing public embarrassment to people in power.
His ass is toast.
A work that expires before its copyright never enters the public domain and thus enjoys eternal copyright protection.
Sure, she has a lot of followers, but that's because we have a big electorate. In percentage terms, her numbers ain't so hot. The latest number I saw was "unfavorable" of around 38% and "favorable" less than 25%, with lots of undecided, don't know enough to say, etc. And with so much negative material available, you can bet that in the heat of a campaign, the balance would likely tip even further against her.
The tricky part is that her numbers are highly skewed by party - potential GOP voters like her a lot better than the electorate at large (at this stage of the game they haven't figured out likely voter models yet, so these are registered voter numbers). We could end up in a situation where she manages a victory in the Republican primaries on the strength of tea-party votes, but then gets crushed in the general.
t. Every dime should be able to be accounted for, and all bills before Congress should be made publicly available before they are voted on - not hidden the way Romney/Obamacare was.
yeah cause we dont list out all our bills anywhere for the people to read.....buy a clue...all bills are listed for ANYONE to read prior to them being voted on.
She should be president.
Never underestimate the stupidity of the average American voter!
Please read my Canon EOS tech blog at http://www.everyothershot.com
Let us not forget this quote: "He acted stupidly..."
FYI - Palin didn't say this.
This article is written in such a biased manner that it makes me ill.
Palin's goals are summed up by my favorite demotivator.
"Consulting: Because if you're not part of the solution, there's good money in prolonging the problem."
She very quickly / shrewdly realized that sitting on the sidelines jabbering away about "what's wrong with America" is an *insanely* profitable career. A career where your decisions can never be proven wrong. (Obama can make the wrong decisions, but Palin, Moore, Limbaugh, et al. never have that problem because they just offer *opinions* about decisions someone else makes.)
In short, she's exactly where she belongs and I wonder if she's smart enough to know it. Armchair Quarterbacks never, ever, ever get sacked. The only truly stupid thing could do would be to actually run for office again.
There are some people that if they don't know, you can't tell 'em.
She should be hunted down the way we went after the rest of the fascists in 1945.
not al-qaeda and the taliban.
that means we should go after them, do some damage but never actually catch/destroy wikileaks, make it more popular with "commonfolk" in poor parts of the world, and kill hundreds of thousands of civilians in the process.
then, in a few years, wikileaks can release the wikigate docs, revealing the staggering civilian death toll caused by US troops in the quest to bring down julian assange and wikileaks.
we could probably tap the defense industry for some high-dollar, high-tech, high-fail-rate crap. and we probably need more security on the internet anyway, to combat the growing threat that wikileaks poses to the american way of life.
not only is time travel possible, it's irrelevant.
I'm pretty sure that the Constitution does not allow for the government to assassinate people with trial, for example. I'm pretty sure that she doesn't even understand the Constitution well enough to decide whether her beliefs are in accordance with it.
And not even that. More like 49% of the folks who bothered to vote.
[John]
Shit better not happen!
I would rather see her completely forgotten. She is not going away until nobody cares anymore for her. Stop giving her press.
Ms Palin should pit a quarter slot in her ear,
so every time you put a quarter in,
she says something stupid.
WAIT, we have been getting so many freebee's lately.
Nope, sorry, you do not understand what even the most idiotic person looks for in a leader. People want energy in a leader, they want someone who will follow through, who will work hard and never quit. Palin has demonstrated she is a quitter. No one, not even the stupidest, want a quitter for a leader.
- None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license. -- John Milton
You're like a 3 year old, doing and saying anything to get that camera.
I think a better use of US funds would be to staple your big mouth shut, as it's far more dangerous that wikileaks.
A university professor who is the ex-advisor for the Canadian Prime Minister also advocated the assassination of Julian Assange. He later "regretted" the remark.
2bits.com, Inc: Drupal, WordPress, and LAMP performance tuning.
Yesh, but then it would get too hard & she would quit.
09 F9 11 02 9D 74 E3 5B D8 41 56 C5 63 56 88 C0
And in 2006, Hilary Clinton stated uncategorically that she would not run for president. So what, people can't change their minds?
If you had actually quoted my entire post instead of leaving off the last sentence, you would see that I finished up with this:
"Assuming that she was on the fence about the idea, I wonder what changed her mind..."
I never said anything remotely close to "people can't change their minds."
Living With a Nerd
Who cares what Palin thinks?
The idea of US and other governments making up charges against Assange because they don't like him broadcasting information **others** have leaked is the very basis of thuggery and lawlessness. In the US noone is supposed to be above the law including the government and the rumblings to the contrary are worse than the sum of everything ever leaked by Wikileaks.
Interviews with people waiting for her book signing:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mKKKgua7wQk
Let me present to you a little scenario. You are in a room with 100 people. Two people in the room are "influential". The room is on fire and they are trying to figure out the best way to escape. One "leader" is intelligent but not very vocal or devious. He's all about facts and logic and he presents the best plan to escape the room. The other, she is all about being loud, using logical fallacies, and baffle-gook that sounds persuasive if you don't think too deep about it.
So each presents their case and leaves it up to a vote as to which plan is enacted.
Now here's the scary part... you have 98 people deciding the vote. If a majority of them are too stupid to think critically and understand the plans properly they just might vote for the plan that kills them.
That's my long winded way of say to not dismiss Palin too easily. If the stupid out-number the intelligent, it is absolutely possible for her to end up as president, especially with people stupid enough to just vote based on party affiliation and nothing else. Think about this, aren't intelligent people in a minority already?
She's hardly in a position to start talking about bombing after religious maniacs..
I wrote my first program at the age of six, and I still can't work out how this website works.
It scares the hell out of me that she could actually be president. She's one big bag of retard and yet people listen to her!
Might be the time to get the fuck out of the country and never look back. We're the worst of what the world has to offer these days.
.. that if the US were to target Assange in this way that he's living next door to Palin when the drone orders in the strike. We could take sollace in his death if the collateral damage took out this deeply stupid and offensive woman at the same time.
One was to solidify the hard righty base. They were NOT happy with McCain as a candidate since he is (or perhaps more accurately was) a more moderate Republican, and not a fundy. They had convinced themselves that the Democrats were a has been party (funny enough just like the Democrats did about the Republicans before the last election) and that they could have their crazy fundy candidate. Well that didn't happen, a larger, more moderate group spoke p and McCain got the ticket. Ok so the hard core fundy-righties would never vote for a Democrat, but they might just decide not to vote. Her as a running mate made them happy and ensured they'd turn out to the pools.
Then there was the diversity issue. Obama had that in spades, obviously, McCain did not. Each of their VPs were selected to shore up their political weaknesses so to speak. In Obama's case he wasn't an old, established, insider white guy. Hence Biden, a guy as entrenched in the system as they come. McCain, being that already, needed diversity. So an attractive, younger, female running mate. In the beginning, it seemed like a great idea and garnered the kind of attention he wanted (till she opened her mouth).
Final reason was to woo Hillary supporters. There were a lot of feminist types that were FURIOUS that Obama won the primary. Their main issue was women in positions of power, not any particular ideology. So Palin was a way to woo them over. Again it seemed to work at first, she had a lot of support and defense against attacks about inexperience and so on from them.
They mistake McCain's campaign made was that she didn't stay a non-entity. Normally VPs really are not much in the way of news. You hear about them as a nomination, they say a few word in support of the candidate a few times and that is it. They just aren't something the media focuses on. Even when they do some silly shit it doesn't matter much. Remember Dan Quayle? Had that been the case with Palin, then nobody would really have been made aware of her views. She'd just have been a pretty face to help McCain get elected.
McCain and company either did not know just how batshit loony Palin was, figured that she could keep her mouth shut so it wouldn't be an issue, or that the media just wouldn't care. Whatever the reasons they were wrong, and she got a lot of focus, and it cost his campaign dearly in the long run.
However there were strong strategic reasons to nominate her, they just miscalculated on the damage her level of crazy would cause.
Bush was appointed to the Presidency in 2000 by the SCOTUS.
Bush was elected to the Presidency in 2004 by the Electorate College.
-Rick
"Most people in the U.S. wouldn't know they live in a tyrannical state if it walked up and grabbed their junk." - MyFirs
You want your country and its people thoroughly fucked just so that you can say "I told you so!"?
I'm nobody! Who are you?
Are you nobody, too?
Then there's a pair of us -- don't tell!
They'd banish us, you know.
How dreary to be somebody!
How public, like a frog
To tell your name the livelong day
To an admiring bog!
For all intensive purposes, "whom" is no longer a word. That begs the question, "who cares"?
Speaking as a libertarian American I sure hope she does not win a nomination and I am pretty sure that she won't. Still, the sheer amount of vicious hatred and unadulterated bile that comes out of most liberals mouths the moment her name is mentioned makes her useful in exposing the true nature of those people and presents some interesting questions for psychologists. Sure, a few things she said were kinda dumb, but that's really the worst I can think of when I really look at her as objectively as I can, so the amount of vitriol is totally baffling to me. For example, I can't imagine that a male who did and said exactly the same things she did would be hated as much.
Negative moral value of force outweighs the positive value of good intentions.
You have no party of the left.
Your Democrats have some allies elsewhere. Here in the UK, our Conservatives seem to like them.
BTW - Brisish Conservatives are accused of being the most extreme major party in Europe. They are regularly seen as the "Nasty Party".
"Liberal" means middle of the road. Anyone who regards the middle as way to their left must be a long way right of the centre.
I'll see your Constitution and raise you a Queen.
She wrote: “Assange is not a 'journalist', any more than the 'editor' of al-Qaeda's new English-language magazine Inspire is a 'journalist'." But in a 2008 US television interview with presenter Katie Couric, Palin herself appeared unable to name the newspapers she reads.
Did anyone else notice this non sequitur in the article? What do her views on Assange's journalistic credentials have to do with her ability to name the newspapers she reads?
I'm no fan of Palin, but what the hell is this garbage?
But then I realized the cable was blue, so I only gave it one star. I hate blue.
As long as the rest of the world has a visa program for those of us who are educated and intelligent who want to leave if the morons elect her leader, I'm cool with that.
Seriously. She quit her job as governor. Who wants a quitter in the White House?
The Dem's are holding back. They have plenty to use in campaigns against her if she does get the nomination (which may be why Big Media loves her), but expect to see other GOP candidates seeking nomination to use it first.
-- Alastair
The number of deaths that can be traced to Assange is... how many? How indirectly?
This makes me think of a hot topic that has been a bit more prevalent lately: that of file-sharing and the subsequent legal implications. Whatever happened to "don't kill the messenger"? But it really isn't just that, it is the finger-pointing that really gets me today.
...
Several years ago, if you had asked me if I cared about nuts like Sarah Palin, net neutrality, and other issues involving basic fundamental liberties, I would have answered: "those topics annoy me but I do not feel extremely passionate towards any of the issues". Having one side (mother's) of my family exhibit a strong Christian foundation during my youth, they always would look at skeptics and call them fanatics, liberals and call them atheists, and other terms I usually ignored.
But I believe anyone who has any sort of moral code will be compelled, due the very nature of his or her character, after seeing countless acts of insanity from humanity, to act or become passionate on issues. People say "I don't vote because it won't matter." I used to be that way. But now I see even if my vote or opinion is one in a million or even on the losing side, "restoring sanity" and voting is no longer just a civil obligation, but rather a moral obligation: if Sarah Palin wins any sort of election for presidency and I did not vote for an opposing party, I will have trouble sleeping at night.
It feels as if America has lost its glory, pursuing its reputation like a bully. I think we're still better than that. But the last election didn't tell me so as clearly as I'd like, and the next election may explicitly contradict me.
We're better than that because we expose and actively pursue the lunatics and borderline mentally insane and protest social injustice. We are better than that because the majority or even "large enough percentage" of the population holds pride to their neglect of ignorant thought. I love free thought and I am fascinated by the idea of globalization... but just like the side-effect of a drug, if I can say something stupid so can another individual. And who knows if his or her stupid idea has enough backing, it could become a concept. It is to this end I have learned that there will always be idiots and it is our moral duty to ensure that they do not write all the history books.
We're still better than that because there are people still who know better and have at least a chance to better the whole. (Sorry for the long read haha, just hyperbolic politics today tend to ignite long discussion board posts...)
cheers
We should start a new Slashdot and return control to the geeks. It actually wouldn't be that hard to get some users to
Why worry? Sweden wants him in regard to a sexual assault; let Interpol handle it. He'll turn up eventually.
In America today you can murder land for private profit. You can leave the corpse for all to see, and nobody calls the c
http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_Oe7ul3c8tYc/SicX8rVT_YI/AAAAAAAAAg8/APvQB3vZW2U/s1600-h/roadside-pv-6.jpg
"Flyin' in just a sweet place,
Never been known to fail..."
Sarah Palin is an stupid moron. News at 11.
Assorted stuff I do sometimes: Lemuria.org
In a recent survey, 40% of the American public said they would vote for her in a race against Obama. Apparently, the message that she's a quitter hasn't reached those folks. Wonder why.
Check out my sci-fi/humor trilogy at PatriotsBooks.
I am a US citizen and we are largely a nation of idiots and people so greedy that they are willing to do anything to make a dollar or get a leg up on others. We have some good people but there are less and less all the time.
I want quitters to fill all government positions. The less they do the better.
Palin is an alien? Who knew. :-D
Check out my sci-fi/humor trilogy at PatriotsBooks.
That's not always the case, otherwise she wouldn't have 5 children.
+1
You sound like a really irresponsible guy, actually. Sarah Palin is demonstrably unprepared mentally to lead the United States. She has neither the basic intelligence, the educator, nor now the experience, to run the country. I didn't like Bush's policies, but I viewed him as consciously implementing things I didn't like. He wasn't a moron. Sarah Palin might, in fact, be a moron, in the dictionary sense. She scares me. You scare me.
Seriously, I hope /. is getting advertising funds from WikiLeaks. Is there really nothing else important enough that we have to see five articles on them?
Just another day in Paradise
This is the last place I'd see "news" about that half-baked politician who doesn't have the 3 brain cells she was born with. It's a good thing slashdot let me remove the "Politics" category just now, or our long relationship would be at an end.
he still thinks an economic life without any rules and regulations can be real. whereas this is actually similar to abolishing all courts of law, judiciary, and laws, and then saying 'people will regulate themselves', in social life.
Read radical news here
She probably quitted counting fertile days because it was too hard.
Sarah Palin is demonstrably unprepared mentally to lead the United States
Ok scared guy, demonstrate it.
Negative moral value of force outweighs the positive value of good intentions.
You can't "do nothing" in government. You see, we already have a system in place. Doing nothing is the same thing as supporting the status quo. You are still doing something. In fact, you are actively saying "We must keep doing EXACTLY the same thing!"
- None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license. -- John Milton
And not even that. More like 49% of the folks who bothered to vote.
Which, in the case of Bush in 2000, actually equates to roughly 18% of all Americans.
"You cannot simultaneously prevent and prepare for war." -- Albert Einstein
That would be a reason for me to look for a country with good public transit and a high english speaking population, as I am not very good at learning languages unless it's a programing language.
Additionally, I think instead of voting for Palin we should vote for John Stewart. Sad though the idea of electing a political pundit into office is, I think he would be a huge improvement.
I second this!
d
all language nazi's will burne in heil!
How about target Sarah Palin like the Talaban ? For sure she can do more damage to America than the Talaban (just like Bush)
So that means we should spend billions of dollars and not catch him? Good plan.
Know what? Fuck you, Taco. I don't see you stepping up to the plate.
With her track record of quitting and going after revenge...she will last about 2 years before impeachment proceedings begin against her. That happens...she folds since she doesn't have the balls to stand up against the truth.
Don't worry about the world coming to an end today. It's already tomorrow in Australia. - Charles M. Schulz
They ought to do the same thing to spammers that they've done to the diplomats. Why doesn't someone post the emails the spammers are sending around? It's about time someone put those bastards in their place.
It's interesting that there's more pissing and moaning about Palin than there is about whether or not Assange should be pursued like the Taliban.
if shara palin beomes president the world as we know it will end.
Speaking as a mostly leftist, my main fear of Palin is that the Democrats won't then say "hey we can get like 90% of the vote if we just select a moderate". Instead they will say "this is our chance to nominate an equally batty left-wing extremist!"
An Obama-like moderate in the republicans would be a very good thing because the Democrats would also go moderate.
Why do people push the "experience" card in politics? As far as I can tell more experience for a politician means more corruption and more backsliding from whatever ideals they originally ran for. Don't get me wrong, I do understand how experience can be a good thing. Anything which is difficult can be done better with experience and I'm sure running a country isn't easy. I would take a doctor with experience over one without any day. Power is so corrupting though, I'd rather live with an inexperienced politician's blunders than one whose been indoctrinated by his lobbyists for decades.
Then again... corruption happens so fast! Perhaps it just doesn't matter.
If any harm comes to Assange then I suspect the Commonwealth legal crowd would be delighted to extradite her as an accessory to a crime?
Yeah... a hell of a lot of Europeans thought the same thing back in 00/01 about Bush jnr. That he was so damn stupid/daft/incompetent that there's no way he would pull enough votes. But then a whole bunch of Americans went and voted for him anyway - gave us a right bloody shock.
Now you're all talking the same way about Palin, and it's scaring the shit out of us. Please Do Not let it get that far this time.
The only good thing is that she's been rejected once. McCain's number went up... then crashed when people learned that Palin is incompetent. I used to vote Republican most of the time, but I sure won't vote for her.
So I don't doubt that she'll run, but I think that she'll split the party enough that she won't get elected. God help us if she does, though.
Careful... you might offend the greys. Been probed lately?
Sounds like she's planning to invade Europe.
Yes... but most adults in this country are NOT smarter than a 4th grader.
How else are you gonna hold the world governments accountable ? I just wish data that is of real concern gets intercepted. I'd like to see the way governments really operate exposed. I don't trust the World Bank, I don't trust the Wold Health Organization .. I'd like to see if the link to the Stone Masons to a secret underworld government exists.. check to see if the Illuminati link is there..
We gotta keep our governments honest. keep up the good work, and perhaps step it up a notch ?
the first thing we'll do is invade Wikipedia
read "education" for "educator", goddamn it.
Speaking as a mostly leftist, I would rather see Obama on the republican nomination, so that maybe we can get a real left candidate.
Yeah.. because pushing this country left has worked out soooooo well....
How are all those left wing, compared to the US, economies and governments in Europe doing these days? Bailout what?
I was raised on the command line, bitch
"Nemo me impune lacesset"
Setting aside the accusations of rape in Sweden, what US law has Assange been accused of breaking?
In the current Wikileaks drama, it's interesting to note that Wikileaks has only presented the exact same documents with the same redactions as the New York Times, who has done so with the cooperation and informed consent of the State Department. As far as I know, he hasn't even been accused of a crime, and has certainly not been convicted of a crime that has a punishment consistent with what Ms. Palin is suggesting.
-fb Everything not expressly forbidden is now mandatory.
Careful... you might offend the greys. Been probed lately?
So, that is what the TSA people really are.
This space unintentionally left blank.
Some percentage of voters will vote for her as long as she always says, "I'm a Christian and I oppose abortion". One of my coworkers is like that. With Bush, someone else people said was, "At least he always did what he said he was going to do" even if this is not true. Some people like a simple, straightforward person, who they think is honest. She's a real life Forest Gump, with some heavy duty Americana, Christianity, and "we're always right" and "bomb the living hell out of them" mixed in. But I don't think she can win a primary, and I don't think she can beat Obama. They will tell her what to say, and give her a hidden wire for the debates, but I still think she will flub things. People ultimately concluded that Bush was not quite as dumb as he came across. With Palin, it's pretty obvious that she's an idiot. It reminds of Michigan, in 2006, Dick DeVos vs. Jennifer Granholm. People were really unhappy with Granholm but terrified of DeVos. The republican should have won. But because it was DeVos, Granholm actually won re-election. Of course, the rest of the country is not all like Michigan....
It's the cognitive equivalent of shouting because you have nothing to say worth listening to,or grabbing a bigger hammer when the small one won't drive the screw.
It's one rung on the ladder below the mentality that says things like "That's so crazy it might just work!" It confuses "drastic" with "vigorous ".
You can' even mock people who "think" this way because making of stupid people isn't politically correct. People feel sorry for them, like you're beating up an old lady in a wheelchair.
Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
And not even that. More like 49% of the folks who bothered to vote.
Which, in the case of Bush in 2000, actually equates to roughly 18% of all Americans.
So from this we can conclude that: 18% worship morons, slightly more than 18% can identify morons and just under 64% are morons for not voting in the first place.
The difference is Ronald Wilson Reagon (666) had a working economy when he entered the office.
Increasingly, attention has been focused on the role of Anna Ardin, the more visible of the two complainants. Her apparent mix of establishment cred, together with her varied activist/political career radical feminist, Christian social democrat, ambitious political intern seems to flummox non-Swedish commentators, who don’t understand that that is an establishment career in Sweden. Ardin has not only worked as an intern in the Swedish foreign affairs department, including a tour of DC and Cuba (from which she was allegedly deported), but has also interned on the op-ed page of the Gothenburg afternoon paper GT, part of the Expressen stable, owned by the right-wing Bonnier family (yep, Sweden has right-wingers).
It was to the relentlessly anti-left Expressen that the story of the initial charges of rape against Assange were released (a breach of Swedish law), in the small window of time before they were rescinded by a higher prosecutor.
Were there accusations of violent rape involved in this case, I’d be a lot more circumspect about reporting some of this, but it seems no one is asserting physical coercion. So here goes: two separate sources from the Swedish left have told me that they regard Ardin as more than a little over-the-top, and subject to some compelling obsessions. Another source said he was pretty sure of the identity of SW, the other complainant, and that some people had held suspicions about her bona fides as a member of the left.
And from this site here we find some very interesting info:
Someone in the police station rings up the prosecutor on duty - who just happens to be Maria Kjellstrand, whose husband works in the office of Beatrice Ask, who is Sweden's minister of justice, a position previously held by Thomas Bodström who gave away The Pirate Bay to the White House and who today runs a law firm with Claes Borgström who's made a career out of supporting militant radical feminist ideas - and who magically appears out of nowhere later on to become the two girls' legal counsel, despite being obscenely expensive.
Experience doesn't have to mean as a professional politician... it could be as a business executive (a small business owner, a CEO, etc), a military officer, etc. It's about having the experience that comes with making tough decisions, given the constraints of those decisions and the politics involved (be they government politics or simple office politics) and then being responsible for those decisions (ok, every politician/executive tries to claim responsibility for good stuff that wasn't their doing and denies responsibility for the bad even if it was solely their own doing, but I digress).
In the history of the Presidency, only 3 were elected without previously being a governor, general or cabinet officer - Lincoln, Kennedy and Obama, and to their credit, Lincoln at least ran his own business as a lawyer and JFK was a military officer that commanded his own ship.
Obama had virtually no executive experience and much of his legislative experience consisted of voting present (in order to not have to take a controversial stand that would hurt his future aspirations) or campaigning for a higher office. That doesn't have to be a bad thing, but it doesn't exactly inspire confidence in a candidate's leadership abilities.
Stop Koolaid Politics
Besides, can you imagine what John Stewart could do with 4 years of Palin?
Hide under the sheets and sob softly to himself until it's all over?
Wow .. so that means we should "hunt" him down and 9 or 10 years later, after changing directions 50000 times and lying non-stop, still not have captured him?
Way to be a fascist, Sarah. You never were the brightest bulb on the string.
Speaking as a non-american, I'd call it a win-win. Either she loses the race for the GOP or the rest of the world has incontrovertible proof that the US has become a nation that worships morons.
How would that second one be a win exactly? I know we like to make fun of Europeans as being a bit snobbish, but are you saying that Sarah Palin having nuclear weapons is a small price to pay for the ability to say "Ha ha, you zee, no? Ze Americans are EEEDIOTS!!!"
First of all .. wiki leaks is not the problem here ..
The problem that everyone seems to forget is that he/they "GOT THE DOCUMENTS IN THE FIRST PLACE" ..
If wiki leaks has access to "top secrete" or what was supposed to be secured documents .. Guess what , we did not do a very good job of securing them.
Having wiki leaks release them is not the idea situation .. Best would be for the documents to be returned without being made public.
But guess what , the simple fact that we can examine the docs and figure out how they were leaked ..
Hunting the man down is just stupid.
Has everyone in the government forgotten the simple concept of "root cause analysis"
i would respectfully say that those who run aid the rise of ignorance. you should stay and fight for your country. because when you run away from problems they only grow. soon you'll be running away from wherever you ran to, when a palin pops up there too
people who run away from problems like palin, or avoid the subject, or don't vote out of ambivalence or cynicism: they aid the rise of ignorance. because if you don't fight ignorance, who will? take responsibility for YOUR country, and mold YOUR country in your image. or someone else will. and then you have no right to complain, because you didn't exert any effort. the image of the usa is up for grabs, its always up for grabs. and its image is claimed by those who exert effort to mold that image
if you give up in cynicism and do nothing or run away, then you are perhaps even worse than the idiots who follow palin: at least they are DOING something, even if a false cause. those who exert effort in a false cause are better than those who know what is right, but do nothing. i firmly believe that
there is no excuse for lack of effort, and then complaining when things don't go your way. your enemies are rich and powerful, yes. as if that should stop you in the noble fight for what is right. so get fighting, or be worse than a palin supporter, in my eyes at least
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
While I didn't read every post on this article, this is the first one I've seen that is objective. Regardless of her qualifications, an evil part of me wants her to win the nomination and Presidency, simply so I can watch the nervous breakdown of some of my liberal friends. Sometimes that same part of me will mention Bush and WMD to get them all worked up like terriers.
She's hated because the media told us we should hate her. I don't really see any other reason why she would be so hated. I don't know if she's libertarian or fiscally conservative enough for my tastes.
Good judgment comes from experience, and a lot of that comes from bad judgment.
Firstly, they said the EXACT same thing about Bob Dole, than ran him against Clinton, insuring that Clinton would win a second term to sign into law the Telecommunications, allowing for ever more super-concentration of the "media" (your term, definitely not mine as there is no media in the USA today), and to sign off on the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Financial Services Modernization Act and the Commodity Futures Modernization Act, allowing for the absolute theft of the US Treasury and the American people, and the global meltdown still going on (as in Latvia, Greece, Ireland, Portugal, Spain, Iceland, etc., and yes, they are all connected to the 1 to 2 plus quadrillion dollars worth of credit derivatives churned out by the banksters.
Clinton also appointed public enemy number one, billionaire leveraged buyout king, Peter G. Peterson (also known as Davy Rockefeller's boy), for the "end-welfare-as-we-know-it" commission, which made the year for Peterson, who has long strived to privatize Social Security, Medicare and Medicare and end all possibilities of any safety net, while doing leveraged buyouts on all companies to destroy them and their jobs, and offshoring all American jobs.
Now, it's no coincidence that one of Obama's first appointments was the notorious and nefarious jobs-offshoring queen, Diane Farrell (formerly with Goldman Sachs, still with McKinsey Global Institute, and the Bretton Woods Committee, etc.).
Dude, get with the program: there is no difference between one party or the other, they are ALL the bankster party, owned by the bank-oil cartel, and paid off to do their bidding. Every prez since Nixon on has been the banksters' choice.
What does Jimmy Carter keep repeating over and over again on his book tour?
"George H.W. Bush was the best qualified, most experienced president in my lifetime, and I have a great deal of respect for James Baker."
And who just awarded George H.W. Bush the Presidential Freedom Medal? (Hint: Barack Obama!)
Is this really the best the US can do? Someone who is thick as shit possibly running (and being elected) for POTUS? Seriously?
How far the mighty have fallen. 24x7 Fox News must be doing its job.
Brains, people - brains! There is nothing wrong (or weak or whatever is the derogatory term of the day) with using them. Stand up for your republic before it is too late.
(Yeah, I know, a bit melodramatic, but honestly, this woman receives far too much coverage for her own (and the worlds) good - quite frankly, it does my head in.)
Medieval kings, though near-absolute monarchs in other respects, recognized and respected the office of the Court Jester - the only person who could openly mock the King.
Jon Stewart is today's Court Jester, and filling the office admirably.
The living have better things to do than to continue hating the dead.
If Palin gets elected, moving back to Canada might be on the radar, depending how things get. Besides, if my wife and I have kids, Canada does have numerous advantages.
It's better to vote for what you want and not get it than to vote for what you don't want and get it.
- E. Debs
Dood, Obama spent 12 years in the University of Chicago academia, as in the university that John D. Rockefeller built. The same academic system that vomited up Milton Friedman and Antonin Scalia.
mr_bubb probably thinks that all of the SNL spoof lines were actual things that Palin said/believes.
Yes, hunt him down like Al Qaeda, because that went so well. Does the US have another $100billion to spend on finding him?
Can we stop this theatralics about the leaked cables? Seriously, with 3 million people having access to SIPRNET, does anyone seriously believe that any major power has not at least 10 informants in there who had access to this data all along? There is nothing in the leaked documents that is new to any major intelligence service. Now, that it has become public though, everyone has to go through the motions, posture, and show righteous indignation.
Ubi solitudinem faciunt, pacem appellant.
Here's what Loki has been up to, in the guise of women and Swedish prosecutors: http://www.abacus-news.co.uk/news/10/wikileaksconspiracy7.php http://rixstep.com/1/20100914,00.shtml http://rixstep.com/2/1/20101018,00.shtml http://radsoft.net/rants/20100905,00.shtml http://rixstep.com/1/20100917,00.shtml http://www.theregister.co.uk/2010/03/16/army_wikileaks/ http://rigorousintuition.ca/board2/viewtopic.php?f=8&t=29320
It would take a hell of a lot more than that. Basically someone both good and popular has to come up from a lower level of politics. Hasn't happened in quite some time.
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
Speaking as a non-american, I'd call it a win-win. Either she loses the race for the GOP or the rest of the world has incontrovertible proof that the US has become a nation that worships morons. Besides, can you imagine what John Stewart could do with 4 years of Palin? :)
The world already has incontrovertable proof that the US is a nation that worships morons. They made Dubya president not once, but twice. THEN they idolized Palin. The best reason for NOT running Palin is that the US apparently has enough moron-worshippers that she'd win.
Haven't we screwed up the world enough already?
Perhaps it escaped your attention, but Americans already (debatably) elected the dumbest lying finger puppet on the planet to preside over two terms of slow-motion disaster creation. Then they elected a smart guy to fix the dumb guy's mess but don't like the fact that they have help clean the dumb guy's mess up. So they'll be knee-jerking back to wanting to elect the dumbest lying clown anyone can find and so far Palin is her name.
Speaking as a non-american
Nobody here cares what you think. Take a shower and brush your teeth, you heathen.
Love,
America :)
a lot of Europeans thought the same thing back in 00/01 about Bush jnr. That he was so damn stupid/daft/incompetent that there's no way he would pull enough votes.
Because he spoke with a pseudo-texan accent? Because he was governor of a state larger than the entire UK? Or because he occasionally stumbled over words, as most geniuses I know do?
First, some idiot republican congressman (I forgot his name unfortunately). Then some idiot canadian professor (who happens to be senior advisor to canadian PM). Now Sarah Palin. Lie repeated hundreds of times becomes a truth. It looks like preparing ground for Assange elimination, so I wonder if he makes it to the next leak.
Now it seems that next leak will target corruption in a big US bank. I'm curious what really make all those folks so amok: already leaked diplomatic cables or a future leak of a BANK (propably BoA). Assuming that banks retain nearly absolute control of all political systems of the West my bet is that they'll try to stop it at all costs. But maybe I'm wrong. Let's wait and see...
A couple European countries haven't done so well, they're the ones in the news. Greek and Irish bailouts don't change the accomplishments of the rest of the continent. I also encourage you to look at little closer to home at Canada. In many ways we're farther left than Europe, and not so coincidentally have a very stable financial sector (Europe deregulated under US pressure, Canada didn't).
Remember, the rest of the developed world is politically left of the US. Globally there's more success stories than failures, and the US economy isn't looking so great these days.
There's also more than just the economy. I'd still take living in Ireland over living in the US. Any country where more than 5% of people think Sarah Palin is anything but a complete moron scares me.
"imagine what John Stewart could do with 4 years of Palin? "
Suicide?
It's amazing the vitriol reserved only for a strong female social conservative Republican. I just want to thank you all for your participation. You may not think she's the sharpest knife; we're OK with that. You may think she's an idiot, unelectable, foolish, a fascist... we're OK with that too. The smugness and supposed intellectual superiority exuding from the trenches of Slashdot always amazes me. This one especially so. I'll enunciate why below:
;)
1] You believe that Assange is a hero of some sort.
While this may be the case if he were solely releasing secret information from tyrannical governments, he is more focused on damaging the credibility and security of nations in the west, most specifically the United States. In order to believe that this is good that he is releasing secret information during a war, you have to believe some of the following:
a) The United States (Administration/Government/Military) is corrupt and/or tyrannical and/or evil
b) The information released will harm no one just embarrass our elected officials in an almost amusing or chastising way
c) You disagree with the mission and therefore will support anything that can have an impact in arranging a retreat/redeployment/victory lap out of the engaged country
d) The information released will harm people but you don't care about those people because they're not your friends or political allies
e) You don't believe that there is such a thing as Treason or Espionage and that spies are just heroes in disguise in every instance (or just when they are targeting the west)
f) Only when engaged in Total War should we ever care about operational security.
2] You are deathly afraid of Sarah Palin
This one bemuses most conservatives and it's a prime reason as to why she's still around. We're not terribly keen on her abilities but we are keen on her ideology and her core fundamentals. Her voice is kind of obnoxious and she misspeaks now and then or she brain farts in front of the world. We know that. We're not oblivious. We acknowledge this and move past it because it's very superficial. You guys bought up your well packaged Perfect Man. Not quite the Perfect Man you thought he was, I'd imagine. What does resonate.. and tremendously so.. is her message.
What you don't understand is; the more you resist her the stronger she's going to get. Your inability to be civil.. to keep race and gender out of the equation.. to continue to use childish and personal attacks against her..just fuels her, because you see, she just mirrors you back to conservatives. *You* are Sarah Palin's fuel. Your injustice breeds this brand of politics. Conservatives outnumber you and every time they're shown by her what knuckle dragging comments come to her, they see the bias and jump your ship. You will see that if conservatives can not muster up a proper challenger, we may indeed have Sarah Palin in the running and she may indeed be victorious. She would not be our ideal candidate but she's definitely not your ideal candidate. We like that you think she's stupid because she's not.. you just think anyone that disagrees with your philosophy or view point is stupid. (By virtue of the logic of: Well, only an idiot could think my political point of view is wrong!) Such arrogance and pompous remarks fill this column. We like that you're afraid of her because we don't like your advocacy of tyranny against the individual by the majority, and what causes a tyrant to wake up in a cold sweat is something to attain. And you see, we'd do all we could to make it happen, just to humble you ivory tower elitists who say it's impossible or that she would be a terrible president because of anything, her proving you wrong, that certainly would. You've put all your eggs in one basket. A grave (and desperate) political strategy mistake. You can't fight Bush anymore.. lost to Fox News.. and need something to focus your rage on. We gave you something, good luck.
just how much vile and hatred there is towards her. Just look at the comments on here, most of them are half thought-out spews of emotion. I don't care who she is (for what it's worth, I wouldn't vote for her, yet I shouldn't have to say that to avoid flames...), letting your emotions run wild like that makes you look more crazy than she could ever be.
Seriously, grow up and stop letting your emotions rule your life. Nobody will take you seriously if the first words out of your mouth are always "OMG I HAAATE HER!!!".
So there are three ways to go. (1) Add more legislation/increase gov't (our current path), (2) do nothing (maintain status quo as you said) or (3) undo legislation /reduce gov't. Since it seems virtually impossible to do (3), some people would prefer (2) to (1), since (1) keeps making things worse.
...the future crusty old bastards are already drinking the Kool-Aid.
putting stupid and harmful people in a position of power is no laughing matter, son.
you may think its funny but we all have to live with the results of your joke.
--
"It is now safe to switch off your computer."
I'd rather have someone who quit public office to run for another one (allowing that office to be filled by someone else and actually used), than someone who spends two years campaigning for another office while voting "present", wasting constituents' time.
Whereas the push to the right that preceded our own bailouts was a rousing success?
He meant that the last time a write-in won a major election was just 18 years ago.
Wait, that's wrong too...I have no explanation for it.
I side with Palin most of the time and find the anti-Palin diatribe in the majority of the comments depressing. The mob on Slashdot is just like mobs everywhere. Now, while I don't side with Palin on this issue, because I have a small fondness for anarchy, she has a very legitimate position. When two people talk, they talk with a level of trust. Wikileaks shattered a lot of the mutual trust. People seem to think that everything government does should be out in the open. What foolishness. There is no perfect form of government. Assuming that having everything out in the open would work better is a long long shot. You just change one system of corruption for another.
The economy was in the crapper when Reagan took office. He popularized the phrase "Are you better off today than you were four years ago?", if I recall. See also: "National malaise speech" by Carter.
Irony: Agile development has too much intertia to be abandoned now.
It's kind of ironic how the Left goes on and on whining about how "dumb" Palin is, yet picked Joe Biden for a vice president, a guy that would make even Dan Quayle look like a brilliant statesman by comparison.
see its proof the parent was right how stupid americans are
Reading comprehension failure. "ironic how the Left goes on and on whining ..., yet [the Left] picked Joe Biden"
'Jon Stewart is today's Court Jester, and filling the office admirably'
Some people think he's the grand vizier and Colbert is the Jester.
Slightly incorrect. More people voted for Bush's opponent in one election, and then he was actually made president by the courts in the other one. So it isn't prudent to lump 100% of the people in the US into one category. Only about half the nation is flat out idiots. (Although the jury is still out on the other half...)
Nor the US Army overthrowing the government of Norway
People might get the impression that the US was after the Norwegian North Sea oil in the first place...
Reducing government may actually be an example of preserving the status quo, if the parts you are reducing (regulatory agencies) are in fact trying to change the status quo. One part of the status quo is, polluters generally get away with it. Removing the EPA would not be changing the status quo, it would be preserving it.
- None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license. -- John Milton
I think we're missing the point here....I'd still do her.
Oh, so that is why Palin quit? She couldn't legislate and run for office at the same time? So, by that logic, anyone running for re-election should quit their current office.
Politicians have been doing their jobs and campaigning at the same time since politics was invented. Why can't Failin' Palin do what every other politician in the history of the world did?
Seriously, that's the worst excuse I have ever heard.
- None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license. -- John Milton
...incontrovertible proof that the US has become a nation that worships morons.
You clearly have not been paying attention. Otherwise, you'd know that you already have that.
anyone running for re-election should quit their current office.
Capital idea!
Politicians have been doing their jobs and campaigning at the same time since politics was invented.
And they really should stop doing that. A rule of "one-term and you're out, but you can run again when you're out of office; no campaigning while in office" would do wonders on getting them to actually buckle down.
She couldn't even handle serving out her term as governor of Alaska. How does anything think she's qualified to be President?
No one thinks she's qualified, no one. But there are millions who feel that, in truhtiness, she will be the best president that the best country in the world will have ever had in the whole history of time. You betcha.
You can't take the sky from me...
Maybe, and if you wanna, and all that, but that's still no reason to make the jester king! Ain't 8 years of Bush enough idiocracy? Do you really want to top if off with 4 (or more *shudder*) years of Palin?
The only people who'd want Palin as president are those that liked Bush enough that they don't want him to be remembered as the stupidest president of all times and want someone else to point at for that title.
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
As a Canadian I'm sad to inform you that despite an English population that is high we have lousy public transit. Maybe try England?
The show must go on!...and every bullet shot comes from the people's taxes!....of course...is MUCH better short term investment to shot bullets and pay providers (and receive nice presents!) than to give education to the people...because, when they start understanding what's going on, they turn against the people in power! If Julian wants to shake the "power", he should publish Switzerland's and Luxembourg's banking statements. That's a guarantee of at least 10 or 15 revolutions around the globe.
It's not risky at all. Read the Alaska Department of Revenue's forecast report.
You are correct. Unlike other states Alaska does increase the tax as oil prices rise. But guess who is responsible for that, Palin:
"Under Palin's plan, called ``Alaska's Clear and Equitable Share,'' oil company profits are taxed at a 25 percent base rate, up from the previous 22.5 percent. When the price rises to $30 over cost, or about $52 a barrel, the tax rate rises 0.2 percent for each dollar."
http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=newsarchive&sid=aYdZoyTvFrTc&refer=home
Folks should flame her when she does something silly, but folks should also give her credit for things she got right.
Be that as it may, every other politician in the history of politics has managed to campaign while they worked. Sarah Palin didn't.
By your logic, she should never have been running for another office, she should have been "buckling down" and doing the duty that the citizens of Alaska elected her to do. You did say "one term" not "Half a term," right? I mean, the idea that a politician would serve half a term, then quit to run for another office, that is pretty much the exact opposite of buckling down.
But please, do go on defending her. It's quite amusing to watch you twist yourself into a pretzel of illogical cognitive dissonance while doing so.
- None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license. -- John Milton
You're not alone. That's a world wide phenomenon, and no country is exempt. We're all mostly greedy bastards, no matter what people. Maybe not you, maybe not me, but 90% of the people, no matter if French, Italian, Indian or American. All the same shit all over.
For some odd reason, though, people here (in Europe) want people smarter than themselves in a public office. People here do elect people so someone else can do that brain work for them. And they want someone who can (ok, who looks like he probably could) do that. People here want to vote for "smart" people. Not necessarily brainy people, but people who have "made their way", who led a successful business or who can show off some other proof that they can "manage".
When Schwarzenegger was elected Governor of California people here (including those that usually vote for the "best looking guy") were stunned with disbelief. What? How's he a politician? Only thing he accomplished is movies. And movies are NOT taken serious around here. As much as we like celebrities, they have NO place in politics. Politics is serious matter. Movies are entertainment. They don't mix.
That doesn't mean that we got better politicians in any way. But it means that we get more intelligent ones because they have to "prove" that they got the brains and can talk level headed enough to appeal to the general consensus that politics is "serious business". No radical ideas allowed. No show gimmicks allowed. I didn't think I'd ever say it, but having a fairly conservative population that shuns changes has its benefits.
At least the weirdos like Palin have no chance to ever wield power.
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
She thinks living in Alaska gives her foreign policy experience because its near Russia. She's a moron. Q.E.D.
mediocrity rules, man
Billions? Try Trillions. Theory -- The Mayans somehow knew that Sarah Palin will be elected President in November 2012, which is why their calendar ends in in December 2012.
When someone makes a move
Of which we don't approve,
Who is it that always intervenes?
U.N. and O.A.S.,
They have their place, I guess,
But first send the Marines!
We'll send them all we've got,
John Wayne and Randolph Scott,
Remember those exciting fighting scenes?
To the shores of Tripoli,
But not to Mississippoli,
What do we do? We send the Marines!
For might makes right,
And till they've seen the light,
They've got to be protected,
All their rights respected,
'Till somebody we like can be elected.
Members of the corps
All hate the thought of war,
They'd rather kill them off by peaceful means.
Stop calling it aggression,
O we hate that expression.
We only want the world to know
That we support the status quo.
They love us everywhere we go,
So when in doubt,
Send the Marines!
You are not a brain: http://books.google.com/books?id=2oV61CeDx-YC
By your logic, she should never have been running for another office, she should have been "buckling down" and doing the duty that the citizens of Alaska elected her to do. You did say "one term" not "Half a term," right? I mean, the idea that a politician would serve half a term, then quit to run for another office, that is pretty much the exact opposite of buckling down.
At least there is a governor now, and yes, she should have quit when she started campaigning with McCain. I think once she realized how much more campaigning she had to do on the federal level instead of state level, she realized that she had to let someone else govern Alaska.
It's quite amusing to watch you twist yourself into a pretzel of illogical cognitive dissonance while doing so.
You're almost as much fun as MichaelKristopeit.
What's worst about it is that her most die-hard supporters would see the general disdain of bimbos like Palin abroad as a positive property, since if she's not liked abroad, it must mean that she's good for the US, because the only reason why another country would not like her is that she can't be swayed to compromise US interests.
The idea that people abroad generally don't like to negotiate with bimbos who have control over nuclear weapons because you never know what the loonie does... I mean, would you wanna discuss whatever matters with a nuclear ICBM armed version of li'l Kim? Who is enough of a loose cannon to throw a tantrum like a 3 year old if she doesn't get what she wants and threatens to hold her breath 'til she gets it... or to drop a few ICBMs? It's not a matter of "national interest", it's a matter of "fuck, these loonies can drop a nuke on my head, I can't do shit against it, and they're supposed to be my friends. I ... dunno, Russia, you look more and more appealing, how about we go snuggle?"
At least that loonie is more interested in my money than me cowering and groveling.
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
"Don't know 'bout yer, but dis president O-bama pisses me off! I found out dis president O-bama wants to put a bigger tax on gasoline. What's up with dat?! Dis is gay as hell!"
Thanks to South Park, US rednecks are known even outside US.
Can someone buy her a humain brain ? She's a Cylon.
What? Did Palin get elected already?
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
As opposed to the current President, who didn't finish his Senate term?
Last time I checked mommy nature doesn't give a shit whether you consider labour and birth too hard if you're too stupid for contraception.
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
Speaking as a "real", Europe-style, leftist, I can assure you that the US does not have a single "leftist" party. You have a conservative right wing party and a liberal right wing party as the two main parties, plus a few fringe groups, none of which I have identified as "left" so far.
What we consider "left" would probably be deemed impossible as a political party, heck, it would be considered impossible as a politically sound concept that anyone sane could vote for.
But trust me, we think like that about your GOP, too.
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
Seriously, she is the political troll version of SCO.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alaska_Public_Safety_Commissioner_dismissal
She stepped down not to campaign, but to duck legal troubles. She was in some serious hot water for abusing her powers as governor. She is a coward and a quitter, and sadly for you and her chances in politics, I'm solidly in the majority in that belief. She will continue to have a nice career as a pundit and media celebrity on Fox News, though, and like all spoiled princesses, fame is all she ever really wanted.
(Sorry, I just have to) Your mom's face is almost as much fun as MichaelKristopeit.
- None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license. -- John Milton
Unfortunately, just that last decade, pretty much all of Europe moved to the right because of how successful the economy in the US was and of course we wanted some of that sweet nectar. Now, well, we got it...
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
liberals focusing their hatred (or dislike or distrust or whathaveyou) on a person who seems worthy of it based on the pure battiness that spews from her mouth is indicative of a general nature of liberals as hateful? if i used a similar example polarizing figure, oh say, Obama, it appears that conservatives, and maybe libertarians, i don't pay much attention to them, are equally identifiable as such. you're gonna need a larger sample size than one if you're gonna generalize about such a large population.
it seems to me that even if some conservatives are trying to distance themselves from Palin, along with all the unadulterated bile coming from liberals, then it's Palin who is the cause of the maliciousness, not demonstrative of a general viciousness in liberals. even so, no one said that liberals can't hate someone. if they hate someone or sometwo or three or four? so what? conservatives complain about p.c. mushing everything up. perhaps they should be happy that liberals aren't p.c. about something for once.
"To stop the terrorists."
Well, you have to admit, it's hard to tell the SNL spoofs from the real barf that fell out of her maw.
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
She's such an incredibly incompetent, pathetic, stupid, worthless cunt... and yet.. unlike what people seem to think.. she might very well be electable. Remember Dubya stayed in office for two-terms after the elections were fixed in his favor.. could happen with the pathetic cunt as well.
Mr. A should start calling himself Ossama Bin Laden and hide out in Afghanistan, no one would ever find him!
is with Palin, please let her win the nomination. please please please please please please
Well then I nominate Sarah Palin....
It gives me another chance to publicize what those 'baseless' lawsuits were.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alaska_Public_Safety_Commissioner_dismissal
Read about the lawsuit and make up your own mind how 'baseless' they were.
Now thynk, aren't you glad you mentioned those 'baseless' lawsuits? Getting the truth out there feels pretty good, doesn't it?
- None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license. -- John Milton
I don't know why you'd hate her. I hate her because I hate stupid people who think they are for some odd reason allowed to make laws that affect me. Now, fortunately, the laws of Mrs. Palin would only affect me a brief time per year, i.e. every time I have to haul my carcass into the US, but still I'd consider it very unfortunate for those that are affected by it for any length of time.
This woman is, objectively speaking, dumb. She has neither a well rounded education nor the smarts to compensate for it. She is in no way media savvy and does not know how to handle the media (look at Obama for an example how a complete tool with media savvy can become the darling of a nation). She's a religious nutjob, and while I think everyone may have the religion (or lack thereof) that he pleases, if it means so incredibly much to you, you are unfit for a public office in my books because you will be tempted to make decisions based on your religion instead of reality. And this is unacceptable in the leader of a world dominating power.
Now, her interviews may be rigged to make her look stupid. Granted. Her press statements SHOULD be something that she issues without interference from the media. Her blog is CERTAINLY something she writes without interference from any media outlets. And considering that the really big blunders and "wtf"s come from press statements and blog entries, I'd guess the media are quite kind to Mrs. Palin...
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
At least his IQ is greater than his shoe size, which is a clear difference between him and the bitch of the north.
Fascism: An authoritarian and nationalistic right-wing system of government and social organization. See also: NAZI's
Would like the republican party to give us our term back. It's OK to be republican, but it doesn't mean you are conservative, it just means you are a republican. the reason a lot of republicans use conservative is for the same reason Liberal has become a dirty word. There is nothing Conservative about warrantless wire taps, pro life stances, stem cell research restrictions, drug wars, price fixing, oil company subsidies, invasion of sovereign nations, torturing fellow humans, no bid military contracts, manufacturing evidence, outing CIA agents... obviously there are Conservative Republicans, but just becuase someone goes to church doesn't mean they're conservative, it means they are Christian. Sarah Palin is a Republican who is attractive, has a certain charisma, and is not very intelligent. Nothing particularly conservative that I can see
I don't think so. All mam-made systems seem to fall into a state of disrepair without continuing intervention. I hope that after a while the government will go away and I won't have to worry about it anymore. I suspect, however, that the people who want to keep it going will win out.
"...and all bills before Congress should be made publicly available before they are voted on - not hidden the way Romney/Obamacare was."
Seriously? I recall some Republican on Jon Stewarts show dropping a huge pile of paper on Stewarts desk and saying "I have the bill right here", and that was months before it was passed. And how did Palin know about the Death Panels if she never saw the bill?
Please, the "Obamacare was passed in secret" meme has to die, it's beyond stupid.
Never let a lack of data get in the way of a good rant.
Ok scared guy, demonstrate it.
"All of 'em, any of 'em that have been in front of me over all these years." --Sarah Palin, unable to name a single newspaper or magazine she reads, interview with Katie Couric, CBS News, Oct. 1, 2008
"'Refudiate,' 'misunderestimate,' 'wee-wee'd up.' English is a living language. Shakespeare liked to coin new words too. Got to celebrate it!'" --a Tweet sent by Sarah Palin in response to being ridiculed for inventing the word "refudiate," proudly mistaking her illiteracy for literary genius, July 18, 2010 (NOTE: after attending 5 different colleges, she eventually graduated from the University of Idaho with a degree in journalism - "before her selection to run on the GOP ticket, she explained that her curiosity and love of writing made journalism a natural choice.")
"But obviously, we've got to stand with our North Korean allies." --Sarah Palin, after being asked how she would handle the current hostilities between the two Koreas, interview on Glenn Beck's radio show, Nov. 24, 2010
"[T]hey're in charge of the U.S. Senate so if they want to they can really get in there with the senators and make a lot of good policy changes that will make life better for Brandon and his family and his classroom." --Sarah Palin, getting the vice president's constitutional role wrong after being asked by a third grader what the vice president does, interview with NBC affiliate KUSA in Colorado, Oct. 21, 2008
''Dr. Laura: don't retreat...reload! (Steps aside bc her 1st Amend. rights ceased 2exist thx 2activists trying 2silence'' isn't American, not fair'')'' —Sarah Palin, in a Twitter message coming to the defense of Dr. Laura Schlessinger, the talk radio host who apologized and decided to retire from her highly-rated program after using the N-word on the air 11 times in 5 minutes, Aug. 18, 2010
I could continue, but I just don't have time to list all the examples of her poor intellectual qualifications.
"All these years believing you're the signified monkey, only to find out you're just a big hunk of nobody cares."
Yeah... a hell of a lot of Europeans thought the same thing back in 00/01 about Bush jnr. That he was so damn stupid/daft/incompetent that there's no way he would pull enough votes.
And he didn't.
"All these years believing you're the signified monkey, only to find out you're just a big hunk of nobody cares."
Does this mean we will turn around and start a war with Wikipedia?
you need more proof?
"People don't want to learn linux" hasn't been a valid excuse since '03.
Careful... you might offend the greys. Been probed lately?
No, but I'm going out tonight. Fingers crossed!
"All these years believing you're the signified monkey, only to find out you're just a big hunk of nobody cares."
I can assure you, over here in Western Europe, we are all equally broke.
Except for maybe Germany, but everyone else is completely and fully broke. They just keep telling money lenders that they will be able to pay their dues, but the new credit taken out every year is just enough to pay interest on the loans already on the books.
Europe's key mistakes are, in my largely conservative viewpoint:
- not deciding between the two ultimate leftist utopias, completely open borders and completely sufficient welfare state,
- not recognizing that both are absolutely mutually exclusive lest a few remaining taxpayers in Europe pay welfare to the entire planet
- not acknowledging that politics are nothing without financing
- overly focusing on properly distributing state money, but largely disrespecting how to increase state income (simply increasing this or that tax rate until everyone is strangled by them doesn't really count)
- steadily reducing individual discomfort for bad luck and bad decisions AND steadily reducing individual profit from luck and good decisions
- not daring to decide between bad luck (eg. 1 year unemployed) and bad decisions (eg. 10 years unemployed) and act accordingly
Any of these facts are a suicide pact for state finances. As no Western European country except maybe Switzerland and Norway are even daring to name one of these as potentially problematic to say the least, I fully expect all of them making the news sooner or later.
With Germany bailing them out of course, then they waste some more, get bailed out and rinse, repeat until German bonds and credit rating are as wasted as Greece's. Then Germany raises their taxes, pension ages and the cycle continues once a again. Redistribution of wealth will never stop on this continent and if all Hell breaks loose, it is of course blamed on Capitalism.
Squandering more funds in a year than the previous generation earned in a lifetime doesn't sound like an accomplishment to me, but that's why I'm conservative. Financially, first and foremost. Or it could be that I'm German and hate working full-time until I'm 70 while losing half my income in taxes.
I don't want it to keep going in its present state, but "government" is just a group of people banding together to protect their interests. I hope that doesn't go away.
- None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license. -- John Milton
"Idiocracy" is the name of the movie. Live it. Breath it. Embrace it. Anyone up for lunch tomorrow at ButtFuckers? I'm buying...
What I don't get is how WikiLeaks is anymore a terrorist organization than a tabloid or newspaper or news cannel that airs government dirty laundry.
In which case they're morons for twice not demanding electoral change after said events. Fool me twice....
*tens of thousands* civilian deaths
.....as a lobotomy survivor. But she must never be permitted around children, sharp objects, or multi-syllable words.
Nah, there is a difference. Tina Fey is better looking.
what exactly did wikileaks do wrong, nothing I can think of. They are not part of the United States, they don't have to follow our laws Have we de-evolved as a country to attack anyone around the world who speaks anything bad about our country. Does this mean we should declare war on anyone or any country that ever gets their hands on evidence the us did something wrong or questionable and then reports on it.
The US elects the leaders it deserves. I'm beginning to understand why the ruling classes cheerfully fuck the American public.
It's because most of that public are viciously, wilfully ignorant and deserve to be robbed blind.
If Palin runs, I'll vote for her out of spite.
"This post is an artistic work of fiction and falsehood. Only a fool would take anything posted here as fact."
Assanginate: v. to attempt to neutralize a person's message and effectiveness by means of character assassination, esp. involving sexual slanders or trumped up sex crime charges.
Assangination: n. the act of having one's character assassinated in the manner purported to be done to Julian Assange, a prominent peace activist and opponent of unethical and abusive government authority.
My point was that Bush was Elected in 2004, he wasn't RE-Elected in 2004.
Clinton was elected in 1992, and re-elected in 1996. Reagan was elected in 1980, and re-elected in 1984.
Bush Jr was only elected once. His initial term as POTUS was delivered by the SCOTUS, not the electoral college.
-Rick
"Most people in the U.S. wouldn't know they live in a tyrannical state if it walked up and grabbed their junk." - MyFirs
You obviously dont remember the 2000 election then. Many people laughed at bush and said the usa would get what they deserved if they put another chip into the idiot bush dynasty. I personally knew many people that followed american politics and thought "nah they arent stupid enough to elect bush, no one is that stupid!", and yet... Then in 2004, many people said the same thing, that americans wouldnt be stupid enough to RE ELECT bush. Are you starting to see a pattern?
Americanw ARE stupid. They WILL elect sarah palin in 2012. Nothing matters as long as shes positive about the "good" americans, and negative about the "bad" americans. She doesnt even really have to define them. Good americans have american values and BAD americans live in the eastcoast and westcoast cities. Everyone, even non americans know the rhetoric by now. It has been repeatedly proven that these stereotypes exist in america. Just look at how the repubs are now blocking EVERYTHING because they arent getting a tax cut for american who make more than 250k/yr!!!! two hundred and fifty k!!! your country is fucking fucked.
-
> So that means we should spend billions of dollars and not catch him? Good plan.
Sure.
Otherwise one wouldn't be able to justify the spending of billions needed to feed those consumer zombies that make youtube videos that show nothing more than the _unboxing_ of their newest gadget.
Or otherwise the rest of the world would laugh their *ss off, when somebody comparing the increase in spending to sustain californian agriculture to a BIP that is in great parts nothing more than expenses for war and more than 800billion(!!!) of lawyer "service" -- that's one big pile of h*t air, but don't tell the investors! -- and still finds its way to hacker news to impress... well, impress who?
And, as I look at my government, I have to disagree. Unfortunately.
I can't believe you're going making me defend Sarah Palin, but the OP is misquoting her.
What she actually said was, "Why was he not pursued with the same urgency we pursue al Qaeda and Taliban leaders? [emphasis added]". She then goes on to say "Were individuals working for Wikileaks on these document leaks investigated? Shouldn’t they at least have had their financial assets frozen". It's clear she's advocating a legal response, not a military one.
Obama didn't quit. He got a promotion, stupid.
Except that Bush WAS elected by the Electoral College. The only thing SCOTUS did was to rule that the selective recount process in Florida, as well as the post-election modification of Florida election laws, was unconstitutional. Therefore, the electoral votes of Florida were awarded based upon the results certified according to Florida law.
Congress certified the electoral votes on January 6, 2001. Objections that were filed at that time by House members (22 of them) were overruled by Al Gore as being out of order.
When Schwarzenegger was elected Governor of California people here (including those that usually vote for the "best looking guy") were stunned with disbelief. What? How's he a politician? Only thing he accomplished is movies. And movies are NOT taken serious around here. As much as we like celebrities, they have NO place in politics. Politics is serious matter. Movies are entertainment. They don't mix.
*cough* Ronald Reagan *cough*
There's a reason why they haven't captured terrorists.... The pentagon runs them....
Palin is in effect stating that we should be able to treat citizens w/o due process of law as prescribed in the constitution...
And then you realize that neither party wants to repeal the Patriot act....
All the world is a stage .... while we are distracted by a bimbo w/ high heels running for president, and yet, no one I know thinks she is electable .... and the 'free' press continues to promote her...
Its time to wake up.....
of the republican elector's stupidity
A couple European countries haven't done so well, they're the ones in the news. Greek and Irish bailouts don't change the accomplishments of the rest of the continent. I also encourage you to look at little closer to home at Canada. In many ways we're farther left than Europe, and not so coincidentally have a very stable financial sector (Europe deregulated under US pressure, Canada didn't).
Remember, the rest of the developed world is politically left of the US. Globally there's more success stories than failures, and the US economy isn't looking so great these days.
There's also more than just the economy. I'd still take living in Ireland over living in the US. Any country where more than 5% of people think Sarah Palin is anything but a complete moron scares me.
Whereas Canada is a nice place and all, it doesn't change the point any. It also doesn't prove that Socialism, that is what we're talking about here isn't it, works in the long run. Further, the economic problems that Europe is having may or may not be caused by financial deregulation, I tend to think they aren't, but financial deregulation doesn't bankrupt governments by itself. Spending far more money than you have does. So, if a country wants to try for a socialist utopia you just have to come to grips with the idea that you'll have to hand over most of your money and such to the State. When that isn't even enough, what then?
I don't know enough about Palin to honestly say whether she's a moron or not. I do know she says some pretty odd things from time to time and that I honestly wish she'd say less of them. I like her more than Obama, but that's slight praise really.
You're right, the US economy isn't looking too great these days. So the question is, how did we get here? Sure, it started with the financial sector and some of that silliness. However, they aren't talking about government debt and deficits that run into numbers that are hard to even imagine for nothing.
You speak of the accomplishments of the rest of the continent. What accomplishments are they to be so proud of? "Free" healthcare paid for by stealing from everyone else? A tax rate that is crushing? I mean really, not to say they're the worst place on earth, but what are they to be so proud of?
Final note. Simply because the rest of the developed world is politically left of the US doesn't make it correct or the best way. It merely means they all got suckered into the same bit of smoke and mirrors. Sadly, the disease infected us here too and that is a good part of the reason we're having these issues now and will have worse ones to come.
I was raised on the command line, bitch
"Nemo me impune lacesset"
I can assure you, over here in Western Europe, we are all equally broke.
Except for maybe Germany, but everyone else is completely and fully broke. They just keep telling money lenders that they will be able to pay their dues, but the new credit taken out every year is just enough to pay interest on the loans already on the books.
Europe's key mistakes are, in my largely conservative viewpoint: - not deciding between the two ultimate leftist utopias, completely open borders and completely sufficient welfare state, - not recognizing that both are absolutely mutually exclusive lest a few remaining taxpayers in Europe pay welfare to the entire planet - not acknowledging that politics are nothing without financing - overly focusing on properly distributing state money, but largely disrespecting how to increase state income (simply increasing this or that tax rate until everyone is strangled by them doesn't really count) - steadily reducing individual discomfort for bad luck and bad decisions AND steadily reducing individual profit from luck and good decisions - not daring to decide between bad luck (eg. 1 year unemployed) and bad decisions (eg. 10 years unemployed) and act accordingly
Any of these facts are a suicide pact for state finances. As no Western European country except maybe Switzerland and Norway are even daring to name one of these as potentially problematic to say the least, I fully expect all of them making the news sooner or later.
With Germany bailing them out of course, then they waste some more, get bailed out and rinse, repeat until German bonds and credit rating are as wasted as Greece's. Then Germany raises their taxes, pension ages and the cycle continues once a again. Redistribution of wealth will never stop on this continent and if all Hell breaks loose, it is of course blamed on Capitalism.
Squandering more funds in a year than the previous generation earned in a lifetime doesn't sound like an accomplishment to me, but that's why I'm conservative. Financially, first and foremost. Or it could be that I'm German and hate working full-time until I'm 70 while losing half my income in taxes.
And there it is, right there. I quoted all of it but the real money line is this: "Or it could be that I'm German and hate working full-time until I'm 70 while losing half my income in taxes."
When all is said, either a person believes that what they earn and create is theirs to do with as they please, or they believe that theft can be made honorable and just by calling it "tax". I won't say that all taxes are true theft. Some things do need to be paid for. Yet, when the true purpose of the "tax" is nothing more than to take my wealth, which represents my time and very life, and give it to another with neither my consent nor control it is theft and calling it "tax" does not change it.
I was raised on the command line, bitch
"Nemo me impune lacesset"
I should have added: You're right -- I did miss part of your point in that I thought you were implying that he wasn't elected at all. Sorry for the wrong inference.
Unfortunately, just that last decade, pretty much all of Europe moved to the right because of how successful the economy in the US was and of course we wanted some of that sweet nectar. Now, well, we got it...
They only kinda sorta moved to the right. At best they moved "right" for Europe, which still puts them generally far left of the US.
I'm still waiting for someone to come along who is "left wing" socially, and "right wing" fiscally. That would be nice. Maximum real liberty (not that so called liberals really want liberty anyway) combined with maximum amounts of economic freedom. Doesn't sound too bad to me. What do you think?
I was raised on the command line, bitch
"Nemo me impune lacesset"
What if you actually believe that Palin could be no worse then the current and last administration no matter how ignorant you think she is and just welcome someone who is straightforward. At least when I saw here speak, she just said it like she saw it. There was no say one thing and do another.
You know, you complain about 8 years of Bush but do not consider the alternative at all. Was 8 years of bush better then 8 years of Gore, most likely, was 8 years of bush better then 4-8 years of Kerry, most likely.
Is 4 years of Palin better then 8 years of obama, it seems to look like it.
Don't think everyone supports a idiots and jackasses when idiots and jackasses are all we get to choose from. I can't stand McCain and ended up voting for him over obamma.
Sarah Palin is a non-issue. Until she decides to get off the fence, we don't give a shit about her anymore than anybody else.
If she's brain dead enough to decide she want's the job, then she'd better be prepared to have NO SECRETS.
Go Julian Assange.
You're like a glove the TSA uses.
MSBPodcast.com The opinions expressed here are my own. If you don't like 'em... Think up your own stuff.
Wow.. Will you listen to yourself?
I mean seriously, do you really think people are educated and intelligent if they want to flee a country instead of fix it's problems and make it better? Do you really think people who claim to be educated and intelligent, actually are if they can't beat some idiot in an election?
I mean hell, if they are so much smarter, so much more intelligent, then why are they losing? I find it funny that every wants to claim Bush was the dumbest president in the history of the US, but at the same time, he was crafting some conspiracy to screw everything over. It seems like most people should be kicking themselves in the head for having such a conspiracy orchestrated on them by someone as stupid as Bush is made out to be. And here it's already getting warmed up to accept another failure when Palin gets elected.
I'm not really sure that educated and intelligent actually means what you think it means.
....By completely ignoring her.
there's people who also say gore and bush- no difference. but gore would not have invaded iraq. gore would not have nominated that asshole john g roberts to the supremes who spearheaded the ruling earlier this year that corporate cash in elections is free speech(!)
in other words, policy matters, a hell of a lot more than your take home feelings about her personality, and palin would do more of the same asshole policy
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
You are forgetting the dolt that Bush was running against. He wrote in one of his books that we should get rid of the internal combustion engine, wanted to sell the US out under the guise of global warming, and had many other flaws that made Bush appear more attractive then Gore for the most part.
And yes, if Sarah Palin is on the ballot, a lot of people will elect her over Obama for obvious reasons. That doesn't mean we are stupid, it means we don't like the other choice more.
Yea, I don't know why people idolize Carter as the president he was. They must be clueless idiots who didn't bother checking into something they weren't around to experience.
Don't get me wrong, Carter is a great human being outside of his term as president and he had a lot going against him going in. But he simply was the worst president I can remember in my lifetime.
Schwarzenegger was a self-made millionaire before he became a movie star.
You don't know that Gore wouldn't have invaded Iraq. He has championed military action on Iraq in the past as well as spoke about the need to remove Saddam from power.
He very well could have invaded Iraq. What I think would have transpired would have gone something more like this. Iraq would have started it's saber rattling again, Gore would have ordered a stategic strike on an aspirin factory in Iraq- killing a janitor, Saddam would have retaliated by giving some of it's old WMDs to terrorist who would have used them on western targets, Gore would have invaded.
And BTW, the was the logic behind Bush's neccesity for the invasion of Iraq. I know people want to concentrate on WMDs and the connection to Al Qaeda that both seemed to be missing, but we couldn't verify it's absence and Bush sides on the side that protected us.
UK has over twice the population of Texas, which matters more than land area.
But I think most thought he was an idiot because he was drunk until he was forty, managed to drive oil businesses into the ground, and never demonstrated any sort of intellectual curiosity.
bush was in the pocket of big oil, gore wasn't. you are forgetting the pentagon memos about "full spectrum dominance" from that era: dominating all petroleum resources, such as invading iraq. iraq had NOTHING to do with 9/11, it was completely fabricated bullshit
i could be diplomatic about it, but i was never good at that: you are a complete moron if you think gore would have invaded iraq. afghanistan yes, but not iraq. that's a special bush-oil industry scheme
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
I don't think Obama has been particularly bad. His policies haven't fixed the economy, but at least the fall has been arrested. We've been building the current mess we're in for many years, and NONE of the fundamentals have been fixed, nor do the current economic movers and shakers in the private sector want to do what it will take to fix it. To even dream of some sort of fix, let alone a return to prosperity in only 2 years is silly.
I suspect that his worst move is daring to tell the American people that times are going to be challenging/difficult. The American people would much rather hear something like, "Cut taxes and everyone will prosper," even if it doesn't really make any sense, and if it's likely to make the problems worse.
The living have better things to do than to continue hating the dead.
Democracy needs a well educated populace to survive. Europeans are generally more educated and less likely to grow ass roots into the couch for a free TV lobotomy than their US counterparts.
Democracy does not elect the best leaders. It elects the leaders the populace believes are the best. Unfortunately, these things can be very different.
Now in defense of the Governator, he wasn't just an actor. He's also a fairly shrewd businessman. He navigated the turd-field of Hollywood and came out smelling like roses. I'm not saying I agree with the way he has run things, but to discredit his abilities entirely is a bit much.
~X~
Don't get me wrong: I disliked Reagan a great deal, and I think his policies were horrible. But he wasn't a vapid movie star. He had considerable experience in industry, was an active union organizer, and had plenty of professional and executive experience. He was reasonably intelligent and well-informed. He was probably dealing with Alzheimer's by his second term, however.
Nonetheless, he wasn't a career celebrity the way that Schwarzenegger was, or that Palin was and is. And Palin's CV is an utter joke: she is stunningly intellectually under-equipped. She makes Chance the Gardener look like President Bartlett.
You seem to consider yourself intelligent and educated. How do you suggest the rest of us intelligent, educated folk overcome the epically gargantuan financial advantage of major corporate interests, convince more than 1 in 5 people to vote at all, let alone to vote on the issues and not on a party ticket, and somehow fix our corrupt 2-party system in such a way that other motivated, intelligent, educated people stand a snowball's chance in a working blast furnace of getting elected? How then do we make sure that those people are and remain ethical and committed to fulfilling the will of the people?
The whole Bush is dumb vs. Bush is conspiring is not so hard really; he was a figurehead in many ways, and the power of his office was sorely misused by his advisors. In reality, Bush is quite intelligent and charismatic, and he chose people to run things that were intelligent and motivated. Unfortunately for his reputation, most of those people turned out to be power-mad psychos. For the record, I disagreed with nearly every major piece of legislation he authorized, numerous executive orders, appointments and nominations. I believe our nation would be a better place if he had not been elected. With that said, he's neither a moron nor a conspirator on the scale that is often implied. I could easily believe that he was in bed with the oil interests, though. Palin on the other hand may actually qualify as the dumbest decision in US history if elected.
-1 raving lunatic; +6 subGenius... Things even out...
Why do you believe in Fascism, Feudalism and Theocracy and more importantly if you hate America so much, why do you live here?
Who said facism, feudalism or theocracy = right wing? I'm an atheist with strong libertarian leanings that believes in minimalist government intervention in our lives. That's right wing... and in modern parlance, that makes me a member of the extreme right since the Republicans are just as into big government as the Democrats are. How you ended up equating me with facism based onto me saying I consider myself to be right wing and oppose Hillary and Obama is comical.
Perhaps you don't know what "Right" means in a political context? It's big oppressive authoritarian government for the rich and by the rich and the only way to get ahead is to be born ahead.
And see, there's your problem. You're indoctrinated to believe that the right is about authoritarianism and the left is about freedom. Tell me how the government telling you what light bulbs you can use in your bedroom is any less authoritarian than the government telling you who you can sleep with is...
If you're just deeply ignorant, please take this opportunity to learn what words mean before applying them to yourself. If you really mean that you are a fascist scumbag, please go die. We fought WW2 to destroy you rat bastard animals and it's shameful that you're here pissing in the face of every person who made such tremendous sacrifices on the correct side (Left and Liberal) of that war against the Right. It is a fact that nothing at all not even a scrap of right wing ideology is in any way compatible with American values or our constitution. We're a Liberal nation by design.
You might want to lay off the crack...
oh, and one last thing... Facism, the government controlled economy with wealth redistribution in the name of nationalism, is a leftist movement very similar to socialism, simply with a different motivation (socialism in the name of the nation rather than in the name of the people). Right wingers, especially in terms of economies, favor free markets not command economies.
Please.. You elected Cicciolina, explain that!
US-UK-Israel: The real Axis of Evil
I kind of hope she DOES get elected in 2012. Maybe it will be the final straw in stopping my government from pandering the the US.
*runs*
We experienced a 'first' with the election of President Obama. -Nobody really wanted the job at this time. At the next election, will our situation be any brighter ? - Someone will still be there to run for election. . . .
I hear people say that Sarah Palin does not fit in, is weird, does not do the 'right' thing, does not have the 'right' (or in this case, left) opinion. And alarmingly, there is a large number of people across the US who seem to identify with her, like her and will vote for her.
Does this sound like a familiar pattern to the people in the open source community??
O this learning! What a thing it is - William Shakespeare
Wait what, Canada as an example for what?
1/ We have a Conservative government that gutted Federal spending room and wants to downsize government except for the military.
2/ We have some of the lowest corporate income taxes around
What makes us socialist? Health Care? And you want to make health care a centre piece? With Obama in the White House, and the new health care bill, where AM I SUPPOSED to go for good health care now??
Canada isn't socialist, and universal health care as run in Canada is not sustainable.
Wikileaks would be slammed by everyone if the leaks weren't edited - remember Amnesty International's response to the war logs? I don't like some of his practices any more than you do, but it's a "damned if you do, damned if you don't" situation with editing the leaks - if it isn't edited, then you could be actually endangering lives. If it is, then you get slammed for pushing your own agenda.
I know that wikileaks has it's own adgenda, but so does everybody. In cases like the "collateral murder" video, the spin put on it was a bit much. But the original, full-length video was also available for anyone who didn't want to see the annotated and edited version.
That said, I do agree that the trickle of leaks is irresponsible - it does seem to be purely to piss off the US Government, something that should be a side affect of Wikileak's work rather than a deliberate act.
Our culture doesn't get smarter, it just finds new ways of being retarded.
We have more to fear from the bungling of the incompetent than from the machinations of the wicked.
Principally because the distraction of the former covers the evil of the latter... (cf. Bush & Cheney)
Anyone can put a hooker in a suit, slap some glasses on her, and have an instant political rival to Sarah Palin.
The fact nobody hasn't yet, stymies me.
To make illegal dead threats publicly and with total impunity.
And get more votes just because of that.
Conservative mindset, I love you so much.
AFAIK, neither the Talibans nor Al-Qaeda have been eliminated or beaten. Palin being the intelligent person she is, is just supporting Wikileaks, knowing they will never be able to hunt them down efficiently.
Sorry but I think that your claim the be highly educated is false. Kindergarden does NOT count as higher education even if you stayed in it till 18.
So basically you want the guy that says "Oh, you Chinese claim you are our friends, well sure you can buy our army for a buck, anything for a friend" as your nations leader.
It sure as hell explains a LOT.
Hate to break it to you, but unless rocks can stand for president, we can't find anything dumber then you to run the country. Or is that your plan? Show to more stupid then Palin and get elected?
MMO Quests are like orgasms:
You may solo them, I prefer them in a group.
will this help?
"The hands that help are better far than lips that pray." - Robert Ingersoll (1833-1899)
ooops that post is missing a link to Sarah Palins support of North Korea note to self: preview before submitting
"The hands that help are better far than lips that pray." - Robert Ingersoll (1833-1899)
our world is run by mentally challenged people voted by mentally challenged people, money and violence.
“When facism comes to America it will be wrapped in the flag and carrying a cross.”
America is a lie. Always has been, always will be. Land of the free. Except for the niggers, the kikes, the chinks, women. One man one vote? Not in the US of A of the founding fathers.
There is currently a BBC documentary running that has as one of the tales about the lie of the American Dream and negro pilot who flew for the US in WW2, shot down and made prisoner he had more rights as a black officer in nazi germany then as a black man in the US for a very long time after WW2.
THIS is the real USA, were a black doctor was refused a blood transfusion because of his color. THIS is the America of Sarah Palin. A bigoted nation in which more states allow marriage between first cousins then between members of the same sex. Where blacks can still be shot by the police without consequence. A nation whose appetite for drugs is causing civil war in a neighbouring country but drugs are not dealt with other then creating the largest prison population.
It is a country in which lack of control causing a bank collapse, industry collapse, housing collapse and a oil disaster, so the popular vote is for LESS government control. Whoo!
The US is fundementally a country in which the American Dream has such an appeal that rational thought has no place. The fact is that governments ain't sexy, efficient or cheap. You can't run a country on a wish because you can never control the rest of the world enough to stop them interfering with your plans. America HAD been withdrawing from the world stage pre-9/11 then a dozen Muslims changed the world stage and the US had to shelve any budget cuts to the armed forces it might have used to pay for the lack of banking/housing oversight.
There is another story on Slashdot, the selling of HMS Invinceble that shows just how hard it is to run a country with any sort of ideology. The carrier wasn't meant to be used this long, it was for sale to the Aussies. Then Argentine invaded the Falklands and British plans had to be changed.
In Holland a move is being made to raise the speed limit in some areas to 130 kilometers per hour. Nobody is in favor except the kind of people that support Sarah Palin. It is an environmental disaster, the will cause a lot of confusion, the sections it can even be done on are tiny and it will kill an additional 13 people per year. Holland is a tiny country and our highway system is basically one long on/off ramp. Traffic constantly weaves from lane to lane, but now with an even high speed difference. The sections it is proposed to raise the speed limit on often have traffic jams making a higher speed pointless. BUT it is the only thing they can do, because everything else is bogged down in procedure. They want to show they are having an effect and so come up with a plan has a negative effect just to show they can do something.
Sarah Palin does the same. She can't fight the Taliban, can't change the economy, can't revitalize American industry, so lets make a pull on the old patriotic heartstrings and we all sing the anthem as the USS America sinks beneath the waves.
In times of crisis we need smart leaders who do what is right, not popular. And the only way to get them is with a popularity contest.
Thank you so very very much Greek. Democracy, never meant for the common man (Meaning everyone who doesn't agree with me).
MMO Quests are like orgasms:
You may solo them, I prefer them in a group.
>
When Schwarzenegger was elected Governor of California people here (including those that usually vote for the "best looking guy") were stunned with disbelief. What? How's he a politician? Only thing he accomplished is movies. And movies are NOT taken serious around here. As much as we like celebrities, they have NO place in politics. Politics is serious matter. Movies are entertainment. They don't mix.
At least here in Finland we have been getting more and more celebrities as politicians. OK, maybe it's just one a year but some of them (ex Miss Finland) even made it to a minister post. There's plenty of ex-Olympic athletes and others who have made it to the parliament.
She has a degree in journalism yet she has this rampage against WikiLeaks for posting the truth? lol
What if you actually believe that Palin could be no worse then the current and last administration no matter how ignorant you think she is and just welcome someone who is straightforward. At least when I saw here speak, she just said it like she saw it. There was no say one thing and do another.
As the saying goes, sincerity is very important: once you can fake that you've got it made.
To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
.And BTW, the was the logic behind Bush's neccesity for the invasion of Iraq. I know people want to concentrate on WMDs and the connection to Al Qaeda that both seemed to be missing, but we couldn't verify it's absence and Bush sides on the side that protected us.
We can't verify the absence of nuclear weapons in Iran, so we should obliterate them just to be on the safe side?
That is a fucking dangerous line of argument.
To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
incontrovertible proof that the US has become a nation that worships morons.
There's still doubt after Bush? Anyway, I would like to point out that it's not the whole country, just 49%.
Why, that's over half the country!
To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
"Fewer and fewer all the time."
You have less bread or salt, fewer loaves of bread or grains of salt..
To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
Schwarzenegger was a self-made millionaire before he became a movie star.
So you equate who equate material success with intelligence? No wonder you keep voting for idiots.
To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
Public transport is crap in England now. To be clearer, it's poor in London and other major cities, and practically non-existent outside large urban areas.
To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
A man was found in a the remote jungle of New Guinea who actually cared what Palin had to say. Scientists are studying this hitherto unknown phenomenon and hope to soon discover why the world media views him as their central audience, as he doesn't have a television and can't read.
Here's Tom with the weather
Yea, I don't know why people idolize Carter as the president he was. They must be clueless idiots who didn't bother checking into something they weren't around to experience.
Don't get me wrong, Carter is a great human being outside of his term as president and he had a lot going against him going in. But he simply was the worst president I can remember in my lifetime.
I take it you weren't born when Nixon was in office?
To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
The fact that you don't know what fascism is, don't understand the evils of unfettered capitalism, and obviously find the word theocracy hard to understand does not change the truth of things.
To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
Get rid of the army, then. Sack all the armed forces. The fed has no constitutional responsibility to pay for one. It's supposed to be a millitia, I.e. unpaid people who have guns and are assembled to fight for the country when needed.
Also get rid of the police forces (not in there), firemen (ditto) and all infrastructure.
Build your own roads, protect your own property and defend your own country.
WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange should be hunted down in the way armed forces are targeting the Taliban and Al-Qaeda."
What - getting into interesting bedtime situations with several Swedish women? That's how Osama bin Assange is being hunted?
I could handle some of that hunting - and I hope that my person-handling skills are better than Assange's to lead to a more satisfactory outcome. For the three of us.
Birds are not dinosaur descendants;birds are dinosaurs, for all useful meanings of "birds", "are" and "dinosaurs"
"So that means we should spend billions of dollars and not catch him? Good plan."
Nice way to troll there Taco. Worked too I see. Good job.
But Yeah, I agree. Wikileaks peoples should be hunted down and captured. What to do with them after that? Hard question. After they edited the helicopter video to try to depict the US army as shooting civilians for fun I say hang every one of them.
Hurricane Island Outward Bound
OB
or the rest of the world has incontrovertible proof that the US has become a nation that worships morons.
And here I thought you folks had already figured that out. I mean really, if American Idol and Geraldo Rivera weren't enough, I don't think anything will be.
But just for the record, there are a fair number of us who don't worship at the Altar of the two major political parties. Unfortunately there aren't enough of us to make much of a difference.
... And I keep seeing suggestions that their numbers, power, and influence are growing. It's conceivable that they will eventually wield some real power (or you could argue they do already) ...
They already wield a lot of power.
There is not a single openly atheist/agnostic representative in high office in the US. I'm not saying that has anything to do with "The Family", just the nature of politics in the US.
Some privacy policy Slashdot.
So "Twat" would have been OK? Or is that still too feminine and therefore verboten? So how about instead of "sweetheart", he said "harridan"? Or just a few more "retard"s. Apparently, the only way to refer to a woman is to either kid on their a bloke or insult them, else you get called sexist.
Well, if that's what women really want, asshole...
she is the first and only (R) anyone has ever fantasized about doing.
I reiterate: fantasized
Only proves that financial success are not dependent on smarts, intellect or the ability to plan ahead and organize.
Your point being?
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
Well, two main reasons:
1. Italian government was a joke. Even if this government blows, who cares? Next election in 6-12 months, it's not like they can cause too much havoc in that time.
2. She promised to show her tits if elected.
3. Hmm... free tits for electing someone who at least looks good (ok, who has TITS!), even if she's just as inapt as the rest, she at least still HAS TITS!
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
Ok, but given the average education level of the average Finn, you still come out ahead against the rest of the world.
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
You mean, like, an old school Rep? The kind you had before the religious loonies took over?
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
Well, the alternatives ain't so shiny, but let's consider.
Gore, a bland, droning stereotype, better or worse than monkeyboy? Maybe he would have handled the whole 9/11 situation with more brain and less brawn. Leave out the Iraq, make sure to get the whole world up in arms against the terrorism, yes, I think he would have handled that situation better. The US are now pretty much alone in their "War on terror", every government in every country can easily lean back and spend the absolutely least amount of money on the whole terror theater, knowing that the population wants nothing of it. Now they throw just enough money at it to humor the US. A more internationally oriented president could have easily gotten the UN and NATO up in arms about it, not only the various governments but also the people there, which would first of all have shifted the burden away from the US and onto other countries, and it would have allowed the US to withdraw easily once the general interest and the publicity gained from the war there wanes and shift the whole problem onto the UN.
I haven't seen much of Kerry so I cannot really say whether he would've handled the situations better. And about Obama, well, when you hand over a collapsing house to a new owner after running it down and deliberately chopping the load bearing beams, is the new owner to blame because it happens to crumble under his ownership? Obama has very, very little leeway right now to make the "change". Whatever that may mean. He's running a country that lacks the money for reforms, that is fighting a never ending war that has less and less support (but cannot be ended without creating MUCH worse problems) and that is dealing with disasters striking left and right, as if this was at any rate still necessary to make it worse. The question for Obama is not what he can do better. The question is, what can he STILL do AT ALL?
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
Personally, I think it's funny how every American (ok, it's not limited to the US, I gotta admit it, it's different here at all) always cheers when he hears "tax cut". Hello? Do you earn 200k a year? No? Then a tax cut is the LAST thing you want! And if it's less than 50k, you should start demanding higher taxes. Much higher.
What is tax? Tax ain't just money the country steals from you. It may surprise a lot of people, but the treasury head does not just take the money and eat it. Tax money is spent on "government stuff". Stuff that you want, need and like. Where do these people think how things like police, army, social security, communal buildings, administration and so on are funded and staffed? By some magical government man who prints more money when he needs it?
That's where your taxes go. And yes, I may not necessarily benefit directly from much of it. I don't need social security and food stamps. Ok. But let's assume the bum next door does not get his food stamps and, hungry and freezing because he can't afford food or heating, he decides to put a bullet in my head and take my stuff because, well, HE WANTS TO EAT! It's kinda more interesting for me to just pay for his effing food. I don't really need the police a lot, but it's nice to know that they're around and that I don't have to hire a private security guard just to make sure I don't get mugged on my way to work routinely, because I don't really look like the stereotypical bully and no, I don't carry a gun with me all the time. I can't afford that security guy, so it's a lot more interesting for me that a few bucks from my tax money go into funding the police man standing at the corner, eating his donut if he has to, but he IS THERE.
We don't need to lower taxes. We need to pay taxes. Just imagine what we could afford if everyone just paid his taxes, especially if he earns enough to make it count!
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
Center is all a matter of relativity (you'd think people at someplace like Slashdot would understand that)... Just because America is to the right of Europe doesn't mean Europe is the true center of politics. There are plenty of despotic nations that make America look extremely left wing. However, most Europeans are so wrapped around the idea that the world revolves around them after centuries of imperialism, that they still think the world revolves around them.
Capitalism and fascism aren't the same thing... In fact, unfettered capitalism and fascism are near opposites of each other. Facism relies on government and business being in direct collusion, while unfettered capitalism would mean the complete lack of government interference in the market.
Similarly, the belief in a god has nothing to do with being right wing or left wing. The American left has strong ties to religion, using the churches to lure urbanites and minorities into their fold to stoke race riots in the 60s (and actually, they came close to doing so just a couple years ago in Rochester, NY too), advocate for amnesty for illegal aliens, etc.
I think you might want to educate yourself a little more rather than simply rely on what you've been programmed to think. Then again, cognitive dissonance can be a bitch and it's easier to attack others than re-evaluate your own beliefs.
She can almost see the Internets!
You mean like the genus Heinz-Christian Strache head of the FPO party in Austria? The guy is an bigoted idiot and totally ignorant of even the most basic things for his line of work. Yet more than 20% of the people voted for him.
If information wants to be free, why does my internet connection cost so much?
Europeans are generally more educated and less likely to grow ass roots into the couch for a free TV lobotomy than their US counterparts.
I wish this were true. We are not better than the US, but we are a lot older...... You would think we would learn something from all the extra experience. But it just isn't true.
If information wants to be free, why does my internet connection cost so much?
You insensitive clod!
Seriously, both she and Glen Beck are possibly the ultimate trolls, who live to provoke the masses. Witness the number of comments in this topic - this is *exactly* what she wants to see. To her it's not the contents of the replies to her remarks that matters, it's the quantity. She no doubt gets a certain sexual thrill knowing that she caused well over a thousand people to pitch in with their opinions.
In truth what she is doing doesn't really require a great deal of talent or brains, just the desire to do it. However it's particularly effective during times of uncertainty and unrest. Very simply, one needs to affirm people's insecurities about the current situation, get them good and angry about it, and then position yourself as the only one who can save them from this malaise. Allow me to officially Godwin this discussion by positing that Adolf Hitler himself was perhaps the greatest troll of all times by this standard.
Who is this delectable creature with an insatiable love of the dead?
You said "So that means we should spend billions of dollars and not catch him? Good plan." No, we spend a little money, so that we can find him and kill him. That should also serve as a nice deterrent to the jacka$$es lining up to follow his example.
I dunno, he might leave the country. I would.
Anyone else tired of fair-weather Americans? I know I am.
Who said facism, feudalism or theocracy = right wing?
It happened when the word was defined. Well, feudal theocracy anyhow. Fascism didn't exist at the tinme, but it's clearly right wing.
You see, in the French assembly, the reps of the people sat on the left, the reps of the elite sat on the right.
So, yes, right by definition is authoritarian, elitist, oppressive and uses the power of the state to keep the masses under the thumb of the elite rulers.
After these words were coined, Liberalism, the founding principle of America, was developed. This is neither right nor left, and is the idea that individual liberty is paramount and government should be constructed to promote that. This isn't left or right, it's what the left and right can agree to hate as they are both big government ideologies, it's what you're right or left *of* but they are vastly different ideologies.
That's right wing
No, that's Liberal. Look up Liberalism. The right has successfully convinced a bunch of ignorant people that they're right wing when they're really Liberal, but if you take a minute and think about it you'll realise that that leaves an entire side of the political spectrum (the real right) out of the discussion. This was intentional.
and in modern parlance, that makes me a member of the extreme right since the Republicans are just as into big government as the Democrats are.
No, it makes you a Liberal. The extreme right is the Republicans. It's also a big government ideology, but one dedicated to robbing the people for the benefit of the elite.
You're indoctrinated to believe that the right is about authoritarianism and the left is about freedom.
No, I'm not indoctrinated into shit. I know that idiotic nonsense you just spewed is bullshit. You certainly seem quite indoctrinated since I never said anything about the left being about freedom and you just made up that stupid nonsense.
Both the left and the right are anti-freedom in different ways. Liberalism is the philosophy of freedom and it is despised by the right and always has been. Because the right, by definition is about the rich, the elite and everybody else exists only to serve them.
Right wingers, especially in terms of economies, favor free markets not command economies.
You're an idiot. Right wingers favor corporate welfare, wealth redistribution from the bottom to the top and the like.
The left favors wealth redistribution from the top to the bottom, welfare for people and the like.
Liberalism, which is the only small government ideology out of these three, doesn't favor any of that.
Now, where your definitions fail is that in your world, the right as it's defined doesn't even exist. Yet, we've had feudalism, we've had Fascism and we've had the Nazis. All of these are very much right wing as defined. In your world most of human history never existed. That's how we can tell that your ideas are dumb and aren't viable for use in any political discussion since they don't even come close to covering the major political ideologies.
The fact that you're too stupid to understand that fascism is right wing really puts that in perspective.
Hey, 20% idiots is pretty tame for a country, don't you think?
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
No please!
I remember David Letterman, right after Bush Jr had won, thanking the country for picking the dumb guy.
8 years of jokes is not worth the damage a dumb president can do.
Really? Because Gore thought he owned a significant share of Occidental oil and declared that personally on his investment statements filed with the various government ethics entities. Gore actually benefited from oil prices increasing.
I'm sorry but if you think Iraq had something to do with 9/11, or if you think that is the reason we invaded Iraq, you are a moron. It's actually the inverse where 9/11 had something to do with Iraq. Do not confuse the two as they are not the same. After 9/11, the threat that Iraq was became increasingly larger due to the actions of 9/11. It's because of 9/11 that George Bush wouldn't tolerate Iraq's non-compliance and hostile actions toward the US.
I can understand why your not diplomatic, you still havn't master the shift key or punctuation yet. But hey, it's a learning process, it just takes a little longer for some I guess. It might even take you longer to understand history and the stated reasons for doing things like invading Iraq. Gore most likely would have invaded Iraq given the same circumstances if not upon further developments due to the lack of action.
You should probably refrain from calling other people a moron when you can't quite reach that level.
You mean, like, an old school Rep? The kind you had before the religious loonies took over?
Yeah, pretty much that. I'd be very happy if the Repubs would give the "Religious Right" a boot in the ass and tell them to go form their own party. Most of their ideals are not compatible with the true Republican platform.
I was raised on the command line, bitch
"Nemo me impune lacesset"
You know what, you are right that this is a dangerous line of argument. And it's a line that already has been made by other countries in the middle east. Just look at the released diplomat cables.
Anyways, there is a strong difference between the threat of Iraq and Iran. Historically Iraq has been a defender not an aggressor in conflicts. They do more talking then action outside of supplying a few terrorist groups with funding that they then spend on conventional weapons. Iraq on the other hand has invaded two counties since 1970, they had used WMDs on both, the enemy forces and it's own citizens when the ruler felt threatened, and Iraq has been in armed conflict with the US within the previous 2 decades.
So obviously, there is a lot more to that line of reasoning as in the motivations behind the reasoning. I do not intend to demonstrate that as an absolute in reasoning, just a logical path to conclude with given the unique circumstances.
You must have dated a stripper...
Don't worry, I thought I was too once.
i apologize. you've shown me the light
all politicians are the same, no one is different. my prejudices do not have to be examined. cynicism is a suitable replacement for actual intelligence. my opinions never have to be examined
wow, you're awesome dude
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
I simply do not understand this logic. If I earn less, I should want the government to take more of my pay. And if I earn a lot less, they should take a lot more?
The problem is that not everyone thinks all the government stuff is needed- all the time. Obviously you need some support network for indigent people who need a hand up and not a hand out. You need police and fire and roads and a few other services, but not all of them and not to the levels they are at or some want them to be.
Here is an example, In my former home town, they claimed they needed to pass a tax to repair the roads as the economic down turn was depleting their coffers. It went on the ballot, was passed last year during a may election session, and what construction project did they spend the extra tax on? A fucking scenic bike path on some abandoned rail road right of way that the city purchased with the bulk of the previous years road fund. And this bike path doesn't even go near the current commercial zoned property which is a large reason why it was abandoned in the first place. I hope you aren't trying to say that I should ask the government to take more because I earn less when they are doing crap like this are you?
My god, you're right, we could build useless bike paths all over the world. Almost everyone see unneeded service in the government that they don't want to pay for. We need lower taxes because (at least in America) it seems like if the government has enough to cover what it spends, they will only spend more, even if they know they won't be able to cover it. It's a never ending story, the more you give them, the more they take, the more they take, the more different people want because they no longer have, to the more they spend. Rinse, Repeat, and tell me what a circular argument is.
I was born, just not old enough to pay much attention. Ford was president when I started knowing about the little things like economy, foreign policy and so on. Carter was president when I started paying attention to it because it all the sudden started to suck.
Those are small "L" Libertarians. Granted, a majority of them seem protectors of corporatism (I've never understood why, though it's perhaps knee-jerk anti-unionism). One of their mantras is F. Bastiat's "Laissez nous faire!" [paraphrased "Leave us alone."]
They don't care what consenting adults do with themselves in private, they're convinced the drug war is far worse than the alternative, and they love legislative paralysis (hard to screw anybody over when none can agree who to screw or how to do it). They're big on small gov't, non-interventionism, usually consider Wall St. a corrupt Ponzi game, etc.
"Tongue tied and twisted, just an Earth bound misfit
We can only hope on both counts.
At least when I saw here speak, she just said it like she saw it. There was no say one thing and do another.
What did you think about that weird pseudo-Wisconsin accent she affected? Doesn't that accent (which cropped up only after she made the national stage) kind of point to a deep, underlying dishonesty?
I've listened to Beck's radio show a couple times, and the common theme that emerges is he encourages people to have a mindset of "I am capable, I don't need a nanny state to provide for me."
How exactly is that "preying" on them?
Well put and good point. My comment was obviously a joke (someone must have picked up on that with the "funny" mod). I don't think I would stay in the US because of Palin, but I wouldn't leave either. I do like this country and there are plenty of idiots in power in other countries I would consider--Palin is not unique to the US.
That said, I have been recently looking to move away from the US, not because I don't like it, but because I hold three citizenships and most of my family still lives in Europe. It'd be nice to live closer to them. Besides, it would make flying to France and England a hell of a lot easier and the TSA wouldn't have to take naked pictures of me--they never want to see the ones I take of me anyway :)
"Coffee is for closers."
Your fallacy is that it is money taken away from you and that this money is then gone poof. It's not. It is spent on something you and I use together. Just that the "rich" has to pay more for the same service.
Let's imagine I earn 1000 and you earn 100. At 10 percent tax, I'd have to pay 100 and you'd have to pay 10. Let's now say that a policeman costs conveniently 110. So the two of us together could "buy" one policeman with our tax. Now, this policeman is in no way more "mine" than it's yours. Even though we don't pay 55 each, I pay a whooping 100 and you only 10! I sponsor your policeman.
Ok, you may now argue that you don't really get a lot out of a cop. How about this: With higher tax, we could make the school books for your kids free. 5% more tax and we get free books. What does that mean? Now, the books cost 25 per child. I pay 50 tax more, you pay 5 more. Both, your and my kid, will get their books now. Only that I had to pay 50 for them and you got them for a fiver.
Does that show how higher tax benefits the lower incomes? Yes, you have less money in your pocket. But this money is spent again. It may be news for you, but the guy at the treasury doesn't just eat your taxes. He spends it. And the higher the income, the higher the tax and the higher the share they have to pay.
Your example of a road is not one against high taxes, it's one against crappy spending policies. Instead of lowering taxes, elect politicians with an effing clue how to spend money sensibly.
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
Your notion that we punish those who fall in our nation's jurisdiction (ie, our citizens and our agencies that helped leak the information) and not a foreign entity (such as wikileaks) was the same conclusion my coworkers and I reached the other day.
As to those individuals, they have some questions they must ask themselves: 1) Is this secret covering up immoral or illegal activities? and 2) Am I willing to accept a punishment that may include death for leaking this information?
For example, if you knew of the Tuskegee Experiment or the similar experiment in Guatemala, would you be willing to risk death for treason to reveal this state secret? If you were a German in 1943, would you risk death for treason to reveal what happened at Auschwitz?
Yes, these are extreme cases. I recognize some of the information may actually harm diplomatic relations, especially when they are official records on one person's personal opinion on a topic and not a representation of the State's view - and I would hope that foreign leaders could recognize that. Publishing those "secrets" seems trivial - but should revealing such things be considered treason? This is something I am still weighing, as I know perception and respect is vital for stable friendly international relations.
In the end, there are times where I find those that leak information to be very patriotic. Of course, I then have to look at corner cases - do I find those who assassinate doctors who perform abortions patriotic? No. So I still need to look at where this fuzzy line of morality falls - and whether an individual has a right to define it for themselves or it should be based on the majority of a society. It has been something I've milled over for many years...
It's politicians with business experience that I trust the least. At the very least they are guaranteed to come with a social network already in place filled with lobbyists for whatever industry they come from. Sure, they can get more done but it won't be in MY interest. Most probably still have a financial interest in their industries.
Do I want the oil industry deciding environment regulation? How about a Comcast Exec deciding on net neutrality? Maybe a Philip Morrison VP could head the FDA?
Don't get me wrong, I'm no fan of Obama. I think he is a big disappointment. I'm not trying to defend him or any other politician specifically. My point is only that I think that experience in politics is a bad omen. Pushing 'experience' for politicians puts the people with the most to gain from harming the public interest in the best position to do so.
There is no fallacy at all. Well, unless you are intentionally missing one of the most important point in my post, Not all government services are wanted, needed, or available to everyone. The money is gone as it is taken from us and used for unnecessary things. The point is, that not everyone agrees on what is needed or even wanted so it is a loss to them when it's taken and spent on something not needed or wanted.
I don't think anyone has claimed that government services is more of someone's then another'. Either way the point I was making is that it's not just the policeman, it's the "well, here is your policeman, now you have to hire a baker, a street sweeper, someone to run the shoulders of secretaries doing transcriptions, build a park, and so on". Lets say all this extra now makes our tax burden 35%. You now need to pay $350 while I pay $35. You are still sponsoring my policeman, plus all the stuff I don't want.
Well, I don't have a kid so now I'm sponsoring your kids education.
You see, again you missed my earlier point completely. You seem to be arguing about necessary expenses and services that we can agree on. The problem is that there are a ton of unnecessary expense and services that we cannot agree is necessary. But yet you seem to ignore that and say I should want the government to take more of my less because of a percentage difference. Well, they shouldn't be taking to cover some of that stuff to begin with, my taxes should just be lower.
What happens when government takes more taxes in then they have in expenses? Outside of a small rainy day accumulation, they all (at least in the US) have to spend it or give it back. Guess what they do most of the time, they spend it, this creates a fiscal liability which means they will need to raise taxes if they want or need to do something else. SO now we have all these unnecessary costs and programs or services that no matter how they are construed, only benefit a certain few citizens. Should the government still tax you more?
I guess what I'm trying to say is, I don't care if you are paying 100 times more for something and sponsoring me in it, if it something that I don't want, need, or think should be part of the government's duties. If we are overspending on crap that isn't necessary, then that spending should stop and the taxes should be lowered to reflect it.
Here, try this mental exercise. Suppose you and I had our hypothetical roles reverses. I make the $1000 and you make the $100. Now suppose I offered to take you out to eat if you paid
My point is only that I think that experience in politics is a bad omen. Pushing 'experience' for politicians puts the people with the most to gain from harming the public interest in the best position to do so.
The problem is, the Presidency is a massive, massive job that, at this point in time, hell, even during the founding, no one person can handle alone... and to top it off, it's not a job that lends lightly to making mistakes. It's just as likely, maybe even more likely, that ignorance (in the "simply doesn't know" sense) will cause as many severe problems as those friends that you worry about doing it out of malice. And lets also face the fact that NOBODY is going to be elected President without knowing and owing a lot of people, regardless of their experience because they all need a massive campaign staff, including existing entrenched politicians, to promote their candidacy.
So, ultimately, experience is a factor important to a lot of people, which is why we've historically elected people that have had some form of previous executive experience at a high level.
I think it's easy to say that Obama is the President with the least amount of executive experience ever elected (mods: argue with my point above where I showed only 3 people were ever elected without executive government experience, don't downmod me simply because you disagree) and many would argue that he relied too heavily on Rahm, Pelosi and Reid to do the dirty work for him, which mired down his agenda and got him off track (regardless of whether you think his policies are beneficial or harmful to us, I don't think anyone can argue that he got knocked off his agenda by expecting everyone else to just bow down and give him what he wanted after passing the baton off to three of the most partisan people in DC to act on his behalf).
Stop Koolaid Politics
and again, the Euroweenies think that the world revolves around them. In a story about an American politician on an American centric site, they think only the European labels apply. Enjoy fapping over your past glory, history has moved on.
are you female?
pics or it didn't happen 8-)
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
If you look at it that way, yes, lowering taxes is a good idea. Let's try that other extreme. Bare minimum public spending, absolute minimal taxes. Let's see who wins out.
So we do away everything the government does "for the public" and make them a business. You want something, you pay. You want nothing, you don't pay. No taxes anymore. Pay what you use. Want a passport? Go there and pay for it. Want police protection? Go hire a policeman (or let's make it a "security service fee" and for that they care when you get mugged. If you have no coverage, you'll have to pay for the incident, a bit like with health insurance, let's call it a security insurance). Want to use a road? Pay toll to the one who built it. Not just highways, but communal (or then, no longer communal) roads. Pay toll or pay the fine for misuse. Want your kids to have an education? Pay for the school. From elementary up. And so on.
Now, if you do not use any of those services, this is a perfect scenario for you. No kids? Why pay for schools? No car and working from home? Why pay for roads? Need nothing from your bureaucracy? Why pay for the administration? Hey, you could even end up with more money after paying for the security service so the police doesn't ignore your house when it gets emptied out.
On the other end of the spectrum are families with 3+ kids who need to drive a lot to get to work. It's fairly likely that they cannot afford to exist at all unless they happen to have jobs that pay them REALLY well. And no leftover loans to pay for education, buying that house and so on. That will probably work out for the top 10% of the income bracket. The rest? Well, the rest won't have kids until MUCH later in life because they just simply can't afford to have them AND provide for them in a way that doesn't instantly alert CPS.
This means fewer families having kids, and having them later in life. In other words, the birth rate plummets. Someone has to do the work, though. Immigration can solve this problem, but only to some degree because there are quite a few jobs immigrants cannot sensibly take (everything touching national security comes to mind), jobs they lack the education for (because they're coming from poorer countries and have inferior education) or, if they'd have the education, they don't want to come because the country lacks the infrastructure they're used to from their home country. Because, and that's the next problem, certain services can only be run (cost) efficiently if there is enough demand. And in our scenario, this means not only "people who want it" but "people who can and want to afford it". If there is no need for schools, they will be shut down and you will have to transport your kids further away because now there is one school per 100.000 people instead of the one school per 10.000 it used to be when everyone was able to send their kids there. That in turn costs more money because, you remember, no communal roads.
To make a long story short, yes, you don't directly benefit from all those services you pay for. That does not mean you don't benefit from them indirectly. Social security, even if you don't use it, means that someone living off it has something to lose and something to convince him not to steal your stuff. Public schools, even if you have no kids, mean that all children have access to education and thus later access to better paying jobs (or jobs at all), increasing the tax paid by them (and hence not you) and lowering the chance that you'll have to pay for their living because they can't get a job without any qualification. A public health insurance, even if you don't get sick and have no accidents, first of all lets you rest easily (I can't imagine NOT having one, to be blunt) and also means that someone who needs an operation that keeps him in a shape where he can earn a living can get it and hence can return to being productive, work for his living and pay tax instead of becoming a cripple living of social security that I'd have to pay in the end.
I live in a country that
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
Current pension age in Germany is 67. Was raised from 65 a few years ago.
Currently, politicians test the waters every few months in demanding a raise to 69 years. (see German magazine Focus (large MSM news) in 2009 http://www.focus.de/politik/weitere-meldungen/rentenalter-anhebung-auf-69-jahre-sei-schlechter-scherz_aid_418805.html)
How people outside of a comfy office are expected to work when 67 years old is beyond my imagination. Grandpas doing construction work, on scaffolding 500m above ground, at 7am in the morning, in 4 degree cold and rain? Who would or could do that?
I mostly agree except, I do have to point out... a socialized single payer system, that is built on the backs of everyone by stealing everyones money....
Well thats exactly what it is. However, let us put that into perspective, it is no worst than what every other country does. Its no different from how we fund our military here in the US, or our other social programs, or social security. Its all done through institutionalized, rationalized, theft.
I am ALL FOR changing the funding models. I am a big proponent of fixing taxes and even eliminating them entirely, if we can, towards an entirely voluntary system.
In the mean time, a working healthcare system that isn't breaking the bank is a step in the right direction, and accomplishing it by not doing anything worst than what you are already doing is, at least no worst.
-Steve
"I opened my eyes, and everything went dark again"
Well, yea we should look at it that way. I mean seriously, I think we can all admit that there are some services and products the government provides that are essential. I see no reason to get rid of those, or to increase taxes forever so the government either gets rich or spends more then it needs to. there needs to be a ballance of what is agreed apon and needed and the rest can pretty much be tossed out unless some need can be shown.
I'm betting your in Ireland and really don't know much about it. The low taxes- for businesses at least, started back in the 1980's. Businesses shouldn't be paying most taxes anyways as all it does is cost the consumer more money when purchasing the products. But lets take your high taxes for instance, what if they raise the taxes to 90%? Would you really be comfortable with 90% taxes? How about when I find excuse after excuse to not work and when I do, it's under the table so I'm essentially paying no taxes and living better off then you?
I'm willing to bet that there is a cut off point where taking money from you to provide services for others is just too much- especially when others are taking advantage of the system and therefor you too. While you might think more government services are necessary then what is in the US, I'm sure there if you paid enough money, you would probably start disliking some of them too. Like, would you mind giving Israel and several other countries in hot spots around the world billions of dollars a year in support? Would you mind your taxes being raised higher to do that? I mean sure, the person making more money is sponsoring your giving crap loads away to foreign countries. The problem is that you don't have the choice to give the money to foreigners or not, the government decided it had too much money and instead of giving it back to the people it took it from, it gave it to another country entirely.
Being elected to a higher office and just quitting are slightly different things.
-- Give me ambiguity or give me something else!