I'm just impressed that you were able to post a video NOT of Ron Paul. That must be a first. I hope they don't dock your pay for that.

Well in a serious topic RP would be the go to but after all we are discussing comedy here aren't we?

RP is just not funny in a haha kinda way.

Sarah on the other hand hahahahah

I have nothing against her as a human & have even seen her reality show once. She seems like a family type person

Does she have 1 cent of political intelligence....Not even 1 satang

I tell you truly when she was nominated I really thought the Republican party wanted to loose the election on purpose.

They saw it was a no win four years ahead so gave it away knowing none could help shield America from the coming storm.

Figured they would like to come in four years later when it will be so easy to say....... see?

Then again I think the last laugh will still be on them as the mess will take much longer to sort than four years if sortable at all.

Palin's attraction is her values, which the majority of the country appreciate. And, she is brilliant when it comes to accumulating wealth via private sector entrepreneurship. She is lacking in political experience, however has more than BO. Some people unfortunately believe that since BO was able to become president with less experience, perhaps Palin has a shot. In short, she is more qualified than BO, but that's not saying much.

she is more qualified than BO, but that's not saying much.

Debatable but it is a shame isn't it? Surely America has better candidates.....Then again the ventriloquists dummy need only be dynamic & adorable.

While We The People like to believe we are voting in a person with his/her idea's/ideals... as most of us grow older & see it occur over & over we tend to get a little cynical in our realizations of how it all works.

A simple search of the top contributors to both Obama & McCains presidential bids will confirm it.

It's hard to know which is worse. A well educated constitutional scholar who ignores it at every opportunity, or an ignoramous who doesn't know the first thing about the constitution. Not too good.

It's hard to know which is worse. A well educated constitutional scholar who ignores it at every opportunity, or an ignoramous who doesn't know the first thing about the constitution. Not too good.

Palin is no ignoramus. She has played the system - keeping her name out there as a possible candidate, which in turn has brought her significant financial success.

It's hard to know which is worse. A well educated constitutional scholar who ignores it at every opportunity, or an ignoramous who doesn't know the first thing about the constitution. Not too good.

Palin is no ignoramus. She has played the system - keeping her name out there as a possible candidate, which in turn has brought her significant financial success.

I think you give her too much credit.

I suspect it is whoever is running her campaign behind the scenes that has spotted the opportunity and is taking it. No real product but an image that sells.

Kind of like US politics' equivalent of the spice girls.

It's hard to know which is worse. A well educated constitutional scholar who ignores it at every opportunity, or an ignoramous who doesn't know the first thing about the constitution. Not too good.

Palin is no ignoramus. She has played the system - keeping her name out there as a possible candidate, which in turn has brought her significant financial success.

Ok, you've explained her motives, working the system to make some money. She's looking for Paul Lynde's old seat on Hollywood Squares. I get it. Now, explain to me why anybody should care about or support her goal of working the system to make money. What kinjd of rube would buy into that? Hey and if you can answer that question, maybe you can tell me wyhy people watch jerry springer type shows. I just can't fathom that kind of thing.

It's hard to know which is worse. A well educated constitutional scholar who ignores it at every opportunity, or an ignoramous who doesn't know the first thing about the constitution. Not too good.

Palin is no ignoramus. She has played the system - keeping her name out there as a possible candidate, which in turn has brought her significant financial success.

Ok, you've explained her motives, working the system to make some money. She's looking for Paul Lynde's old seat on Hollywood Squares. I get it. Now, explain to me why anybody should care about or support her goal of working the system to make money. What kinjd of rube would buy into that? Hey and if you can answer that question, maybe you can tell me wyhy people watch jerry springer type shows. I just can't fathom that kind of thing.

Working the system to make money. What kind of rube would buy into that you ask? It's what Obama most successfully accomplished - with an additional motive - to ruin the system while exercising Czar like control in the process. However, there were plenty of people who voted for him even though his motives were clear. All one had to do was pay attention to the character (or more accurately 'lack' of character) of the people with whom he was surrounded (and denied knowing) during his campaign.

It's hard to know which is worse. A well educated constitutional scholar who ignores it at every opportunity, or an ignoramous who doesn't know the first thing about the constitution. Not too good.

Palin is no ignoramus. She has played the system - keeping her name out there as a possible candidate, which in turn has brought her significant financial success.

Ok, you've explained her motives, working the system to make some money. She's looking for Paul Lynde's old seat on Hollywood Squares. I get it. Now, explain to me why anybody should care about or support her goal of working the system to make money. What kinjd of rube would buy into that? Hey and if you can answer that question, maybe you can tell me wyhy people watch jerry springer type shows. I just can't fathom that kind of thing.

Working the system to make money. What kind of rube would buy into that you ask? It's what Obama most successfully accomplished - with an additional motive - to ruin the system while exercising Czar like control in the process. However, there were plenty of people who voted for him even though his motives were clear. All one had to do was pay attention to the character (or more accurately 'lack' of character) of the people with whom he was surrounded (and denied knowing) during his campaign.

Well you didn't answer my question counselor, but I'll not move that it be stricken from the record due to its irrelevance. Give it another shot and try not to mention what other parties may or may not be doing.

It's hard to know which is worse. A well educated constitutional scholar who ignores it at every opportunity, or an ignoramous who doesn't know the first thing about the constitution. Not too good.

Palin is no ignoramus. She has played the system - keeping her name out there as a possible candidate, which in turn has brought her significant financial success.

Ok, you've explained her motives, working the system to make some money. She's looking for Paul Lynde's old seat on Hollywood Squares. I get it. Now, explain to me why anybody should care about or support her goal of working the system to make money. What kinjd of rube would buy into that? Hey and if you can answer that question, maybe you can tell me wyhy people watch jerry springer type shows. I just can't fathom that kind of thing.

Fair enough. To answer your first question (actually it's a statement, not a question): "Now, explain to me why anybody should care about or support her goal of working the system to make money."

It's a free country (at least so far, but some are determined to change that). Presently, people are allowed to support whoever they wish - even if according to others, they are 'rubes' for so doing.

Question 2: "What kinjd of rube would buy into that?" - I did not know that there were a variety of rubes. Therefore, I am unable to answer.

Question 3 (actually another statement, not a question): "Hey and if you can answer that question, maybe you can tell me wyhy people watch jerry springer type shows." Unable to answer question no. 2. However, I can answer question 3 as I did not agree that if I am unable to answer 2 that I am unable to answer question no. 3. My answer to question 3 is that a lower intelligencia is drawn to the 'Jerry Springer' type of entertainment. First, he's a liberal. Secondly, it's all pretty much staged. Third, there is no educational value. However, why would you include question no. 3 in a discussion about people who support Palin's values? People who would be entertained by Jerry Springer clearly have nothing in common with those who share the core values of Palin.

It's hard to know which is worse. A well educated constitutional scholar who ignores it at every opportunity, or an ignoramous who doesn't know the first thing about the constitution. Not too good.

Palin is no ignoramus. She has played the system - keeping her name out there as a possible candidate, which in turn has brought her significant financial success.

Ok, you've explained her motives, working the system to make some money. She's looking for Paul Lynde's old seat on Hollywood Squares. I get it. Now, explain to me why anybody should care about or support her goal of working the system to make money. What kinjd of rube would buy into that? Hey and if you can answer that question, maybe you can tell me wyhy people watch jerry springer type shows. I just can't fathom that kind of thing.

Fair enough. To answer your first question (actually it's a statement, not a question): "Now, explain to me why anybody should care about or support her goal of working the system to make money."

It's a free country (at least so far, but some are determined to change that). Presently, people are allowed to support whoever they wish - even if according to others, they are 'rubes' for so doing.

Question 2: "What kinjd of rube would buy into that?" - I did not know that there were a variety of rubes. Therefore, I am unable to answer.

Question 3 (actually another statement, not a question): "Hey and if you can answer that question, maybe you can tell me wyhy people watch jerry springer type shows." Unable to answer question no. 2. However, I can answer question 3 as I did not agree that if I am unable to answer 2 that I am unable to answer question no. 3. My answer to question 3 is that a lower intelligencia is drawn to the 'Jerry Springer' type of entertainment. First, he's a liberal. Secondly, it's all pretty much staged. Third, there is no educational value. However, why would you include question no. 3 in a discussion about people who support Palin's values? People who would be entertained by Jerry Springer clearly have nothing in common with those who share the core values of Palin.

What do i know? I got my legal training from James Woods in "True Believer". Anyway thanks for taking the time to answer my questions

I'll tell you why I brought up Jerry Springer. Palin reminds me of him as I consider both of them kind of like sideshow geeks. As you say they can make a lot of money pandering to people's baser instincts but I'm always surprised that people give them any attention at all because they are basically making fools of the people who show them any regard at all.

What do i know? I got my legal training from James Woods in "True Believer". Anyway thanks for taking the time to answer my questions

I'll tell you why I brought up Jerry Springer. Palin reminds me of him as I consider both of them kind of like sideshow geeks. As you say they can make a lot of money pandering to people's baser instincts but I'm always surprised that people give them any attention at all because they are basically making fools of the people who show them any regard at all.

You basically are saying that Palin and Springer are the same. Such analysis to me is the same as calling two men, one who pushes an elderly lady out of the way of an oncoming bus, and the other who pushes an elderly lady in front of an oncoming bus, as men who make a practice of pushing around elderly ladies.

Sarah Palin is much hotter than Jerry Springer.

What do i know? I got my legal training from James Woods in "True Believer". Anyway thanks for taking the time to answer my questions

I'll tell you why I brought up Jerry Springer. Palin reminds me of him as I consider both of them kind of like sideshow geeks. As you say they can make a lot of money pandering to people's baser instincts but I'm always surprised that people give them any attention at all because they are basically making fools of the people who show them any regard at all.

You basically are saying that Palin and Springer are the same. Such analysis to me is the same as calling two men, one who pushes an elderly lady out of the way of an oncoming bus, and the other who pushes an elderly lady in front of an oncoming bus, as men who make a practice of pushing around elderly ladies.

I'm saying they are the same as far as being media sideshows. As politicians I'm gonna give the nod to Springer who was a former Mayor of Cincinnati. Sure he had a little call girl issue, but who hasn't?

What do i know? I got my legal training from James Woods in "True Believer". Anyway thanks for taking the time to answer my questions

I'll tell you why I brought up Jerry Springer. Palin reminds me of him as I consider both of them kind of like sideshow geeks. As you say they can make a lot of money pandering to people's baser instincts but I'm always surprised that people give them any attention at all because they are basically making fools of the people who show them any regard at all.

You basically are saying that Palin and Springer are the same. Such analysis to me is the same as calling two men, one who pushes an elderly lady out of the way of an oncoming bus, and the other who pushes an elderly lady in front of an oncoming bus, as men who make a practice of pushing around elderly ladies.

I'm saying they are the same as far as being media sideshows. As politicians I'm gonna give the nod to Springer who was a former Mayor of Cincinnati. Sure he had a little call girl issue, but who hasn't?

Quite a few politicians have not. However, in Springer's case, his lack of character qualified him for the trash show that he hosts.

What do i know? I got my legal training from James Woods in "True Believer". Anyway thanks for taking the time to answer my questions

I'll tell you why I brought up Jerry Springer. Palin reminds me of him as I consider both of them kind of like sideshow geeks. As you say they can make a lot of money pandering to people's baser instincts but I'm always surprised that people give them any attention at all because they are basically making fools of the people who show them any regard at all.

You basically are saying that Palin and Springer are the same. Such analysis to me is the same as calling two men, one who pushes an elderly lady out of the way of an oncoming bus, and the other who pushes an elderly lady in front of an oncoming bus, as men who make a practice of pushing around elderly ladies.

I'm saying they are the same as far as being media sideshows. As politicians I'm gonna give the nod to Springer who was a former Mayor of Cincinnati. Sure he had a little call girl issue, but who hasn't?

Jerry is a nice guy. I used to drink with him back when I drank at a place called Dos Amigos. Where do you think he got most of his early ideas?

I had been talking to him about doing an Aussie show but he says they might be too much for the American audience. I suggested Pattaya as an alternative and am writing a script.

While We The People like to believe we are voting in a person with his/her idea's/ideals... as most of us grow older & see it occur over & over we tend to get a little cynical in our realizations of how it all works.

Mostly I agree, yet older Americans have a higher voter turnout than younger ones. Why is that?

While We The People like to believe we are voting in a person with his/her idea's/ideals... as most of us grow older & see it occur over & over we tend to get a little cynical in our realizations of how it all works.

Mostly I agree, yet older Americans have a higher voter turnout than younger ones. Why is that?

Well older as in my parents age/generation actually still believe in the system. There you will find the die hard Dem's & Republicans

that will tow the party line. Regardless if their personal opinion is that their parties candidate is useless. They tend not to cross the line/ballot

Folks like myself/next generation down still vote too as there is at times a choice.

Yes our selection is but a handful to choose from but speaking for myself I still go.

After that the next generation...yes they do not vote as much as they could & that is a shame as it could effect a change.

But I will admit when I was that age I also did not vote regularly.

As I have mentioned before the system is broken & I do have a simple patch/fix

Become a true democratic process & add one thing to all ballots

NONE OF THE ABOVE

If enough folks vote none of the above so be it.

Let them re-run the nomination process & produce someone the people really back.

As it stands we are usually trying to decide which one will be the lesser of two evils

Again as I said look at the top campaign contributors for both Obama & McCain

Then look at the contributors for someone like Ron Paul.

Of course he was not going to get in much less invited to the debates where he would have cleaned their clocks.

Besides if by some chance RP did get in he would be assassinated shortly afterwords.

None of the above... That would be a start...Next abolish the electoral college. Make it one man one vote period.

Just IMO...YMMV

As I have mentioned before the system is broken & I do have a simple patch/fix

Become a true democratic process & add one thing to all ballots

NONE OF THE ABOVE

If enough folks vote none of the above so be it.

Let them re-run the nomination process & produce someone the people really back.

That'll start to get dam_n expensive.

That'll start to get dam_n expensive.

A relative Bargain

We spend 700 Million a DAY in Afghanistan

We GIVE Israel 3 Billion a year

We Give Egyppt 1.5-2 Billion a year

The list goes on & on

We spend a TRILLION bailing out the to big to fail banks ( aka biggest campaign contributors )

So....yeah I guess we could spend a little to fix our system & I really do not think there would be many

go-rounds of finding someone. Because the parties might no longer decide among themselves & their sponsors

who to put up if they know we have the power to reject them.

But..... who am I kidding eh? They dont call them the To Big To Fail for nothing

We are bought & paid for with campaigns that are slick ad's of what will never be.

For the most part We The People have become Fat & Lazy & unlikely to ever water the tree of liberty again.

June 2011 ATLANTIC MAGAZINE

The Tragedy of Sarah Palin

From the moment Sarah Palin's acceptance speech electrified the Republican convention, she was seen as an unbending, hard-charging, red-meat ideologue—to which soon was added "thin-skinned" and "vindictive." But a look at what Palin did while in office in Alaska—the only record she has—shows a very different politician: one who worked with Democrats to tame Big Oil and solve the great problem at the heart of the state's politics. That Sarah Palin might have set the nation on a different course. What went wrong?

Continues:

http://www.theatlant...rah-palin/8492/

LaoPo

What went wrong?

there's nothing wrong with Sarah Palin. she has the right paddings at the right places.

What went wrong? Character assassination by the liberal mainstream media.

Sarah Palin - running for the office of Vice President, a mostly symbolic postion. The "only record she has" showed she "worked with Democrats to tame Big Oil and solve the great problem at the heart of the state's politics". Not bad actually.

Barak Obama - running for the office of President, the most powerful position on the planet. The only record he had (that isn't sealed) is that of a Community Organizer. To paraphrase an old, white male politician, Obama is articulate, bright and clean as well as nice-looking black guy.

There's a tragedy here all right.

I don't have time now to read the entire thread, other than the OP, but couldn't resist commenting on Palin.

Palin is obviously representative, or a reflection of, much of the sentiment of a very broad band of the American population; if that were not a fact then she would not be receiving the magnitude of attention that she does. In that sense she is then, in my view, a barometer of the state of the psyche of so many Americans. Which leaves me astounded, stupified, aghast, dismayed, shocked, and appalled at the defective, fallacious, and unhealthy ideology which is so prevalent in America (of course, I wouldn't pick on only the Americans as the rest of the west is not, in my opinion, much further behind).

In my opinion, anyone with even a thimbleful of critical thinking skills wouldn't give her the sliver of a sliver of a sliver of a sliver of a sliver of attention. Is she truly the best that America, a nation of over 300,000,000 souls, can come up with???? How very sad that anyone would even for a nanosecond consider her as a viable choice to lead in these deeply troubled and immensely challenging times.

I don't have time now to read the entire thread, other than the OP, but couldn't resist commenting on Palin.

Palin is obviously representative, or a reflection of, much of the sentiment of a very broad band of the American population; if that were not a fact then she would not be receiving the magnitude of attention that she does. In that sense she is then, in my view, a barometer of the state of the psyche of so many Americans. Which leaves me astounded, stupified, aghast, dismayed, shocked, and appalled at the defective, fallacious, and unhealthy ideology which is so prevalent in America (of course, I wouldn't pick on only the Americans as the rest of the west is not, in my opinion, much further behind).

In my opinion, anyone with even a thimbleful of critical thinking skills wouldn't give her the sliver of a sliver of a sliver of a sliver of a sliver of attention. Is she truly the best that America, a nation of over 300,000,000 souls, can come up with???? How very sad that anyone would even for a nanosecond consider her as a viable choice to lead in these deeply troubled and immensely challenging times.

Indeed, and the fact that many DO consider her....... to quote koheesti's words, "There's a tragedy here all right"!

I don't have time now to read the entire thread, other than the OP, but couldn't resist commenting on Plain.

Plain is obviously representative, or a reflection of, much of the sentiment of a very broad band of the American population; if that were not a fact then she would not be receiving the magnitude of attention that she does. In that sense she is then, in my view, a barometer of the state of the psyche of so many Americans. Which leaves me astounded, stupefied, aghast, dismayed, shocked, and appalled at the defective, fallacious, and unhealthy ideology which is so prevalent in America (of course, I wouldn't pick on only the Americans as the rest of the west is not, in my opinion, much further behind).

In my opinion, anyone with even a thimbleful of critical thinking skills wouldn't give her the sliver of a sliver of a sliver of a sliver of a sliver of attention. Is she truly the best that America, a nation of over 300,000,000 souls, can come up with???? How very sad that anyone would even for a nanosecond consider her as a viable choice to lead in these deeply troubled and immensely challenging times.

Indeed, and the fact that many DO consider her....... to quote Kirsti's words, "There's a tragedy here all right"!

I'd be interested in hearing your comments after reading the link that Loop posted. I think 99.5% of the non-Americans here weren't aware of what she did before and based their opinions on caricatures in the liberal press that had everything to gain by making her look as bad as possible. Honestly, if they went after Obama like that, no one today would even remember his name. He is a much richer target.

'Topspin'? Do I have a new nick now?

The attention paid to people is not necessarily indicative of much--otherwise Lindsey Lohan would be running for President as well.

No you don't have a new nic and the perpetrator has been warned.

Posts deleted for violation of rules.

No you don't have a new nic and the perpetrator has been warned.

Posts deleted for violation of rules.

For those of you who use the Thaivisa spellchecker, you'll notice that if you accidentally press "change" instead of "ignore" it will change most the names.

I can't get the spell checker to work - even though my download manager says it has already been installed.

The attention paid to people is not necessarily indicative of much--otherwise Lindsey Lohan would be running for President as well.

I beg to differ, and I don't agree that the above rational is valid - one idea does not lead to the other due to a host of differences. I maintain that the attention is most indicative. I see the notoriety given Lindsey as telling of how many people are engrossed with the lives of others. Perhaps as diversion to the task of creating something for themselves in their own lives? I'm sure the reasons for the fascination of the intimate aspects of the lives of celebrities and other well-known people is varied. Certainly it's never been my cup of tea.

In the case of Palin she has her share of supporters, however many, who subscribe to her ideologies (if not wholly then at least in part) and feel she is worth listening to. She represents their unified, and often unspoken, voice. Granted, too, that there is a goodly amount of engineered sales involved in pitching her to the public.

I have no doubt at all that were I to express my views from a lectern in public I would not make the nightly news. Why? Because there would not be enough shared sentiment amongst the population to attract even a handful of folks wanting to hear more. I fancy I might rather be stoned (yes, I left myself open there).