Sarah Palin is the Dumbest Woman on Earth

[TerpsMustDie]

You do know nazi's were socialists right? That means left. Think about that.

The Nazis were facists. Which is the furthest to the RIGHT you can get. While they had the word "socialist" in their party name, it was due to the worker's union that formed them. The Nazis were staunch anti-Communism--which is to the left of socialism.

I was a History major/Political Science minor at UK, I would be kinda screwed if I didn't know that lol

And for visual emphasis:

Although your chart says so, facism is not necessarily a "right" way of thinking. Nazi's and other were in many ways hard left, and definitely authoritarian. I find Obama to be in many ways a fascit. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fascism

[TerpsMustDie]

http://la-gun.com/email/manning

This is just hilarious...between the "Long legged mack daddy" and "White folks are gonna rise up", it kept me entertained.

[OracleHCR]

Although your chart says so, facism is not necessarily a "right" way of thinking. Nazi's and other were in many ways hard left, and definitely authoritarian. I find Obama to be in many ways a fascit. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fascism

Thank you.

[jsence2]

First of all, if you think Obama is a facist in ANY way, then I can't really have any kind of educated discussion with you.

Secondly, I'm going to take what ACADEMIC SCHOLARS say (that facism is far right) over what WIKIPEDIA says (that facism is far left) any day of the week and twice on Sunday. Do some scholarly research instead of reading an "encyclopedia" that has been proven numerous times to be full of false information--and a source that most professors will FAIL you for using in scholarly writings.

By the way, please tell me which of these facist traits are held by Obama, or Democrats in general?:

Nationalism (Sounds like Bush to me)
Imperialism (again, sounds like Bush to me)
Racial superiority
Racial cleansing/creation of a new race
Banning birth control/abortion (a MAJOR tenant of facism that many people do not know about)
Authoritarianism (Obama has fought with members of his own party, so that's kinda hard to see)

The ONLY policies of Obama's that you could tie to facism would be his economic policies, and even THAT is a stretch, because none of us know what he would be doing if we weren't in the worst recession since the Depression.

And btw, being "authoritarian" has nothing to do with whether someone is far left or far right; there have been authoritarian leaders on both sides. That's why the spectrum is a DUAL AXIS spectrum, not a single axis. Just as you have progressive to conservative, you have libertariansim to authoritarianism. Hitler and the facists were not economic hard-right, but they WERE to the right; whereas Stalin was hard left on economic policies, AND displayed facist tendencies. Both were authoritarian, though....but again, on different sides of the spectrum socially.

[AntDogg1963]

Well J you can say you don't like abortions, immigrants, or whatever, but i don't care. nobody would defend Obama except a liberal. period, the man has no credentials to be president. plus most liberal's love to argue so i'll bow outta this one. my parting statement is "if Bush f'd shit up that bad & we're fighting wars on 2 fronts, why would you nominate a man with no experience to be your president?" it's called desperation , this blog should be called "Hillary Clinton = the stupidest woman in America for trusting her own party"

[shel311]

my parting statement is "if Bush f'd shit up that bad & we're fighting wars on 2 fronts, why would you nominate a man with no experience to be your president?"

I'm no political expert, but I'm pretty sure the answer to this is because Bush and the rest of the Republicans(when they had the majority in Congress) fucked shit up so bad, that America didn't trust another Republican President.

They didnt trust the Republican Party so much to the point that they trusted a President with little experience over the Republican nominee.

You can hate on Obama, but that says something about how the Republican party fared over the previous 8 years, doesn't it?

[AntDogg1963]

Shel my point was not to defend Bush, just to show how Dems love to bicker, i voted for Bush, did he make mistakes yes, but at least he had experience running a state, among other things worth millions, what's Obama ever ran? Hillary had at least lived in the whitehouse and has been in politics for well over 15 years, the Dems can't even get along with they're self. and McCain was coveted by the Dems for speaking out on mistakes the Bush administration made till he ran for president, then all of a sudden they hate him. who's really looking out for the better?

[shel311]

Shel my point was not to defend Bush, just to show how Dems love to bicker

who's really looking out for the better?

I am neither democrat or republican and I don't like/dislike either party any more than the other, so I'm pretty neutral on the topic.

But let's be honest with ourselves, both parties LOVE to bicker fairly equally.

And neither is looking out for the better, per se. Rest assured if the republicans had a democrat they coveted for speaking out against Obama, if that democrat ran for president 4 years from now, the republicans would all of a sudden hate him as well.

BOTH parties will do what is best for there party first and foremost, IMO, FWIW, IMHO.

[AntDogg1963]

i agree

[jsence2]

Well J you can say you don't like abortions, immigrants, or whatever, but i don't care. nobody would defend Obama except a liberal. period, the man has no credentials to be president. plus most liberal's love to argue so i'll bow outta this one. my parting statement is "if Bush f'd shit up that bad & we're fighting wars on 2 fronts, why would you nominate a man with no experience to be your president?" it's called desperation , this blog should be called "Hillary Clinton = the stupidest woman in America for trusting her own party"

I know Republicans who voted for Obama and still defend him...but it's ok, keep throwing around blanket terms like "liberal".

What experience did McCain have, by the way? Did he run a state? While you're at it, do me a favor--tell me what credentials or "experience" these men had to be President:

Abraham Lincoln (was also a Senator from Illinois...hmmm)
George Washington (no government experience at ALL)
Franklin Roosevelt
John Adams
Thomas Jefferson

The "experience" argument is so tired and worn out. And if you want to talk about "desperation", please refer to John McCain naming Sarah Palin as his running mate simply to try to get the woman vote--he did more damage to his campaign with that one move, than anything else that happened. Tell me, what did George W. Bush's experience do for our nation? Oh yeah, that's right--a war that wasn't finished and now must be refought (Afghanistan), a "mission accomplished" (HA!), a war that is still going on (Iraq), the relaxation of government oversight in the financial field (leading to the subprime mortgage crisis), sky-high oil prices, a crippling recession, and a cabinet filled with cronies who turned into total morons (see Rumsfeld, Ashcroft). Oh--and Dick Cheney.

And another thing....before you try to put all the "arguing" on "liberals", let me remind you of all these people who love to argue and are nowhere near liberal:

Rush Limbaugh
Bill O'Reilly
Sean Hannity
Michael Savage
SARAH PALIN

[shel311]

i agree

I knew you were cool!!!

[jsence2]

Shel my point was not to defend Bush, just to show how Dems love to bicker

who's really looking out for the better?

I am neither democrat or republican and I don't like/dislike either party any more than the other, so I'm pretty neutral on the topic.

But let's be honest with ourselves, both parties LOVE to bicker fairly equally.

And neither is looking out for the better, per se. Rest assured if the republicans had a democrat they coveted for speaking out against Obama, if that democrat ran for president 4 years from now, the republicans would all of a sudden hate him as well.

BOTH parties will do what is best for there party first and foremost, IMO, FWIW, IMHO.

Wonderfully stated, Shel.

Every single damn one of these guys is looking out not for their party, not for the people of the US, but THEMSELVES. They get elected...and immediately start working on getting re-elected in a few years.

The biggest mistake in the Constitution (other than the second amendment not being more clear) is that there are no term limits on Congressional figures. That has led to the majority of the waste that goes on in Washington.

These tools should be forced to live in barracks (like our TROOPS do) and not these fancy houses, because they are there to SERVE US, not themselves!

But unfortunately, we are a nation full of sheeple who can't think for themselves, and simply do whatever their party's talking heads tell them, instead of educating themselves. And until that changes, nothing else will.

[oldschoola]

my parting statement is "if Bush f'd shit up that bad & we're fighting wars on 2 fronts, why would you nominate a man with no experience to be your president?"

I'm no political expert, but I'm pretty sure the answer to this is because Bush and the rest of the Republicans(when they had the majority in Congress) fucked shit up so bad, that America didn't trust another Republican President.

They didnt trust the Republican Party so much to the point that they trusted a President with little experience over the Republican nominee.

You can hate on Obama, but that says something about how the Republican party fared over the previous 8 years, doesn't it?

i am a shel hater now but i do endorse this post just this once

[shel311]

my parting statement is "if Bush f'd shit up that bad & we're fighting wars on 2 fronts, why would you nominate a man with no experience to be your president?"

I'm no political expert, but I'm pretty sure the answer to this is because Bush and the rest of the Republicans(when they had the majority in Congress) fucked shit up so bad, that America didn't trust another Republican President.

They didnt trust the Republican Party so much to the point that they trusted a President with little experience over the Republican nominee.

You can hate on Obama, but that says something about how the Republican party fared over the previous 8 years, doesn't it?

i am a shel hater now but i do endorse this post just this once

No amount of agreeing with me will change the fact that you're DEAD to me, DEAD!!!


Oh, and I'm glad I could change this rep-dem debate into a "let's hate on both parties' Debate. Go me!!!

[oldschoola]

my parting statement is "if Bush f'd shit up that bad & we're fighting wars on 2 fronts, why would you nominate a man with no experience to be your president?"

I'm no political expert, but I'm pretty sure the answer to this is because Bush and the rest of the Republicans(when they had the majority in Congress) fucked shit up so bad, that America didn't trust another Republican President.

They didnt trust the Republican Party so much to the point that they trusted a President with little experience over the Republican nominee.

You can hate on Obama, but that says something about how the Republican party fared over the previous 8 years, doesn't it?

i am a shel hater now but i do endorse this post just this once

No amount of agreeing with me will change the fact that you're DEAD to me, DEAD!!!


Oh, and I'm glad I could change this rep-dem debate into a "let's hate on both parties' Debate. Go me!!!

Well atleast i know vegas will be that much better

[trendon]

"encyclopedia"

That is where I lost you because as an "editor" of Wikipedia, I assure you there is NO - re: NONE NEVER NOWHERE ELSE - more respectable source of knowledge than Wiki; for two reasons:

1) There are these things, yeah ... called footnotes. And very few books, encyclopedias, newspapers, etc care to employ them

2) I once created my own planet - the old NDL saw it - and they deleted it in two days.

Anyone who says Wikipedia is not the end all be all of information has a cramp in their index finger. So, you might have said some poignant shit after that, but you just exposed your own inability to want to learn with that. It is the same as the fools who start every conversation with , "They say..."

[TerpsMustDie]

Well J you can say you don't like abortions, immigrants, or whatever, but i don't care. nobody would defend Obama except a liberal. period, the man has no credentials to be president. plus most liberal's love to argue so i'll bow outta this one. my parting statement is "if Bush f'd shit up that bad & we're fighting wars on 2 fronts, why would you nominate a man with no experience to be your president?" it's called desperation , this blog should be called "Hillary Clinton = the stupidest woman in America for trusting her own party"

I know Republicans who voted for Obama and still defend him...but it's ok, keep throwing around blanket terms like "liberal".

What experience did McCain have, by the way? Did he run a state? While you're at it, do me a favor--tell me what credentials or "experience" these men had to be President:

Abraham Lincoln (was also a Senator from Illinois...hmmm)
George Washington (no government experience at ALL)
Franklin Roosevelt
John Adams
Thomas Jefferson

The "experience" argument is so tired and worn out. And if you want to talk about "desperation", please refer to John McCain naming Sarah Palin as his running mate simply to try to get the woman vote--he did more damage to his campaign with that one move, than anything else that happened. Tell me, what did George W. Bush's experience do for our nation? Oh yeah, that's right--a war that wasn't finished and now must be refought (Afghanistan), a "mission accomplished" (HA!), a war that is still going on (Iraq), the relaxation of government oversight in the financial field (leading to the subprime mortgage crisis), sky-high oil prices, a crippling recession, and a cabinet filled with cronies who turned into total morons (see Rumsfeld, Ashcroft). Oh--and Dick Cheney.

And another thing....before you try to put all the "arguing" on "liberals", let me remind you of all these people who love to argue and are nowhere near liberal:

Rush Limbaugh
Bill O'Reilly
Sean Hannity
Michael Savage
SARAH PALIN

First, let me state that you are added to the ignore everything this guy says list from here on out. If you want to debate, fine, but don't start attacking me like a grade school child. You act as if I'm talking from an uneducated standing...if you want education, I have a Bachelor's of Science in Management Information Systems, a Master's of Science in Safety Management, and a Master's of Science in Labor Relations. I also attended law school on a scholarship before deciding in the fall semester that it was not the career for me. This is not bragging, just pointing out to you that I'm not some slobbering fool. I also read about current events and political history everyday, from both sides. While I will admittedly be more apt to read a right-leaning article, I will force myself to read the left's side to make sure I understand the argument. I also talk daily with friends from college who are on both sides of the aisle, one of which is a staffer for a high level lefty Democrat on the house judiciary committee.

So please, spare me the attacks and the spewing of garbage. In the future, I will attempt to ignore your ramblings and only respond to others.

Abraham Lincoln (was also a Senator from Illinois...hmmm) - Illinois state legislature and US House of Representatives. He was in politics 29 years before becoming President.

George Washington (no government experience at ALL) - Commander of the Continental Army in the Revolutionary War...I'd say he had to lead once or twice during that stint.

Franklin Roosevelt - Don't like what he did, but I'll give it a whirl: He was in politics 23 years before becoming President, and also served as the Governor of New York, Assistant Secretary of the Navy, and in the New York Senate.

John Adams - In politics 23 years prior to becoming President, and also served as Vice President under George Washington.

Thomas Jefferson - In politics 32 years prior to the Presidency, and served as John Adams' Vice President.

Man, if I were going to throw names against the wall, I probably wouldn't use 5 of the most famous President's as my foundation, because we all know it's difficult to find information on them to disprove your argument.

[TerpsMustDie]

my parting statement is "if Bush f'd shit up that bad & we're fighting wars on 2 fronts, why would you nominate a man with no experience to be your president?"

I'm no political expert, but I'm pretty sure the answer to this is because Bush and the rest of the Republicans(when they had the majority in Congress) fucked shit up so bad, that America didn't trust another Republican President.

They didnt trust the Republican Party so much to the point that they trusted a President with little experience over the Republican nominee.

You can hate on Obama, but that says something about how the Republican party fared over the previous 8 years, doesn't it?

It's more the nature of politics Shel...it constantly changes, and control fluctuates from one party to the other. It's the same way with law. Also, Democrats controlled Congress since 2006, so it's hard to say that the Republicans are the ones to blame for the laws coming through that branch for those two years. Aside from the most recent economic meltdown and the time after 9/11, the decade of 2000's were pretty prosperous. The blame is definitely to be shared for the latest crisis as well...there were things from both sides that led to this.

[TerpsMustDie]

Shel my point was not to defend Bush, just to show how Dems love to bicker

who's really looking out for the better?

I am neither democrat or republican and I don't like/dislike either party any more than the other, so I'm pretty neutral on the topic.

But let's be honest with ourselves, both parties LOVE to bicker fairly equally.

And neither is looking out for the better, per se. Rest assured if the republicans had a democrat they coveted for speaking out against Obama, if that democrat ran for president 4 years from now, the republicans would all of a sudden hate him as well.

BOTH parties will do what is best for there party first and foremost, IMO, FWIW, IMHO.

You are correct there...Democrats definitely don't have the market cornered in this arena. Both parties do things to harm the others. I'll give an example: the Democrats were crying foul when so many Republicans crossed over to the Democratic party just to vote for Hilliary and create chaos. Well, the Democrats have been doing that for years. In many states, the Democrat primary is closed, while the GOP is open. Also, Democrats had a role in getting McCain the nod. It's just how the game's played. I'm a registered Independent, which means that in WV I can't vote in either party's primary.

[TerpsMustDie]

"encyclopedia"

So, you might have said some poignant shit after that

Don't fret Trendon, that didn't happen.