Wednesday, March 03, 2010

Watch Skippy's head explode ....

We all know how much he loves her.

45 comments:

AW1 Tim said...

Man, but I LOOOOOVE that woman! She's gonna make a GREAT President!

Byron said...

Better call the corpspman now, Phib, I can hear the cracking already :)

One HELL OF A WOMAN!!!!

Kristen said...

Wow.  "My dad will tell me what kind of ammunition to use...."  Tim, I don't know if she's electable or not, but she is truly an American original, and I love her for that.  She is the pioneer woman who set out in a covered wagon and made it all the way to the West.  Her strength and optimism are so appealing!

Anonymous said...

Degree in communications and she says "mediums".  I don't know how people manage to take her seriously.

AW1 Tim said...

you'd rather elect a Chicago street thug to the Presidency than someone with proven executive ability? Is that what you are saying?

UltimaRatioRegis said...

Unlike news commentators who broadcast for a living that use the word "valuability"?

Anonymous said...

Anyone taking bets on whether we'll actually see her standing by McCain's side during his re-election campaign?

Anonymous said...

Tim, I simply said that I don't understand how people take her seriously.  I'm not sure what that has to do with Chicago, or executive ability.  If you'd like to discuss those aspects, that would be a different conversation.

Byron said...

Hey, Guest, get ready for what's coming. We (as in us who actually have to work for a living and aren't lawyers, teachers, or goverment servants) speak the same language. Laugh at the Tea Party folks all you want. That's the civilized rumble of an angry electorate tired of getting screwed by a government who claims to be screwing us for our own good. No, I don't have a gun, so that takes me out of that category you'd like to put me in. But I do have a rather large steel toed shoe I'll gladly put in a politicians ass to get him out of office...

UltimaRatioRegis said...

Guest,

I take her seriously because of how good she looks in heels. 

Kidding aside, I don't know if she is a serious national candidate.  But ignore her resonating comment at your own peril.  Americans' sense of fairness is very strong.  it can manifest itself in the most magnanimous gestures of kindness and understanding to those legitimately downtrodden.  But it also can raise hackles when their own government is arrogant and deaf enough to perpetuate expansion of a welfare state, and believes the citizens only are entitled to rights the GOVERNMENT deems appropriate, instead of vice-versa. 

Case in point is the dissenting opinion from Chicago's 2nd Amendment challenge.  Justice Ginsburg was more than happy to opine that this Constitutional Amendment was unneccessary and should be discarded.  To wit:

<span>"If the notion is that these are principles that any free society would adopt, well, a lot of free societies have rejected the right to keep and bear arms,"

Yeah? Name one.

Wonder if she would have said:

"If the notion is that these are principles that any free society would adopt, well, a lot of free societies have rejected the right freedom of speech and religion."

Or she might have said:

"If the notion is that these are principles that any free society would adopt, well, a lot of free societies have rejected the right to be secure in their persons, papers,
and effects."

Or perhaps:

"If the notion is that these are principles that any free society would adopt, well, a lot of free societies have rejected the right to trial by a jury of your peers."

Or even:

"If the notion is that these are principles that any free society would adopt, well, a lot of free societies have rejected the right against self-incrimination."

Beware those who would decide for us which of our Constitutional guarantees they would deign to allow us to have. They are anti-democratic and would have us as subjects lorded over by their benevolent totalitarian dictatorship, for our own good.
</span>

Butch said...

Guest, one word: corpse-man.

Jay said...

If Sarah P. runs...she'll likely do as well as she did last time.

The last time we elected (either party) someone who lost in a previous election -- was Pres Nixon, I think...

None in the possible Republican field look too strong right now (I can only encourage Mitt R. to keep spending his own money -- lol...). 

URR -- <span>"If the notion is that these are principles that any free society would adopt, well, a lot of free societies have rejected the right to keep and bear arms,"  
 
Yeah? Name one."</span>
<span></span>
<span>Shall we start with the UK?</span>
<span>I guess I could look at other European countries & their gun laws -- but you'd prob just dismiss them as Socialists...</span>

UltimaRatioRegis said...

Jay, 

Would this be the UK with the spiraling violent crime rate, (far higher than ours), Muslim extremists, where home invasion, rape, assault, murder, and robbery have increased almost 500% in ten years?  That UK? 

Perhaps you mean Holland, where Mr van Gogh was murdered for his troubles, but criticism of the Islamists that did it can land on ein jail for "incitement and offensive speech". 

SCOTTtheBADGER said...

I believe I would vote for her, but alas, I believe her to to be unelectable, the media have done too good of a job of Quayling her.  I have family who actually believe the things that Tina Fey said were actually said by Mrs. Palin.  I did notice that in her monologe, she was not condesending to anyone.  The Left would never miss the oppourtunity to condecend.   She should have attributed "wee-wee off" to it's source, since the source is the smarted human that ever lived.

BostonMaggie said...

Butch shoots!  He scores!

BostonMaggie said...

Good start, but after making us read "The Evil of Ordinary People" I think we need a few more funny posts here please.

art said...

Yeah, maybe in 2016. At the earliest. Instead of just mocking people who supported Hope and Change ("how's that hope-y change-y thing"), let's see her articulate what her plans are to really alleviate people's suffering. And more than just reading (literally) GOP talking points. If she's got a plan, then let's hear it.

That whole "executive experience" argument stopped when she ca$hed out of the Gov. office.

Casey Tompkins said...

That's gonna leave a mark. Heh.

Casey Tompkins said...

Yep, the UK is looking freer and safer every year. I especially enjoy how the authorities prosecute homeowners who defend themselves.

CDR Salamander said...

Jay,
You can have a gun in the UK - it is just very difficult.

Oh, and how is that crime rate in the UK doing since they clamped down hard on guns.  You may want to do a llittle research on that...

Casey Tompkins said...

<span><span>"I guess I could look at other European countries & their gun laws -- but you'd prob just dismiss them as Socialists..."</span></span>

Nice little passive-aggressive work there, Jay. ;)

It would be more accurate to "dismiss" other examples as unfree. For all their verbal worship of democracy, Euros have been culturally acclimated to a far more statist & controlled society over the last 5 or 10 centuries. Note that the solution to very nearly problem is more government control and more regulation. Even their speech is less free, as the EU Parliament has recently demonstrated.

Andrewdb said...

art -

>let's see her articulate what her plans are to really alleviate people's suffering

What does that have to do with government under a Constitution with specificly enumerated powers.

Jay said...

LOL...I don't have time for that googling...

Of course, you know, CDR S -- that there isn't a simple, direct correlation between guns (ability of citizens to carry/concealed or other) & crime rates.

Crime has fallen in all US cities quite a bit (see DC's rates from 1993 to today on the MPD website) -- gun bans or no gun bans...

So, "Dr." Lott's studies aside -- it is much more complicated than that.

Jay said...

Just because you don't agree with how they run their democracies, their ideals, or their approach to their challenges, doesn't make them any less free...

OnceAMarine said...

Whenever a government assumes powers that are not specifically enumerated to that government by their chartering documents the citizen becomes less free.

UltimaRatioRegis said...

"<span>doesn't make them any less free..."</span>

Well, Jay, the Founding Fathers thought it did. 

Britain has a state religion.  Should we can the First Amendment because a supposedly "free" society doesn't have it? 

Did you catch Phib's post about the EU parliament (a collection of those socialis.. er... democracies) fining for voicing disagreement?

UltimaRatioRegis said...

So, Jay, if as you claim there is no correlation between guns and crime rates, why do we have restrictive gun laws (particularly handguns) at all? 

Old NFO said...

The last politician the lap dog media attacked like this was also a former governor.  This one had been beaten out for the nomination by an appointed president.  He was demeaned, laughed at and written off by all the "Smart" people.  Perhaps you remember Ronald Reagan.  There is a reason the leftists hate her so much, they're terrified of her.  

BostonMaggie said...

Be that way?  Ok, I will.

Anonymous said...

<span>I take her seriously because of how good she looks in heels.   </span>
****
Well at least you know what your standards are.

Anonymous said...

<span>Laugh at the Tea Party folks all you want.</span>
****
Any group that calls themselves "tea baggers" is comical.

Anonymous said...

<span>No, I don't have a gun, so that takes me out of that category you'd like to put me in.</span>
****
How presumptuous of you.  You know what they say about people that assume.

Anonymous said...

<span>But I do have a rather large steel toed shoe I'll gladly put in a politicians ass to get him out of office...</span>
****
Good luck with that one.

Anonymous said...

<span>Guest, one word: corpse-man.</span>
****
Did Obama major in the Navy in college?  She's a Communications major.  How could she not have been familiar with the plural of medium?

SCOTTtheBADGER said...

Who calls themselves teabaggers?

Anonymous said...

<span>There is a reason the leftists hate her so much, they're terrified of her. </span>
****
Is that why Republicans hate Terrorists?

SCOTTtheBADGER said...

Mr. Obama is 48 years old. In those 48 years, he has never heard of the Marine Corps?  He is a cultured man, he has never heard of a Corps de Ballet?  He is from Chicago, which is a major US port, in the US, Ports  are maintained by the Corps of Engineers. The man has heard  the word "Corps" before, unless he wasn't paying any attention. 

SCOTTtheBADGER said...

Oxford American English Dictionary & Thesaurus, page 951, column 2, line 3:
Medium, n&adj. pl media or mediums

It appears that the Comm grad knows the plural.

Anonymous said...

Scott Maybe you're right.  Mediums would be right in this case:
<span> plural mediums : an individual held to be a channel of communication between the earthly world and a world of spirits</span>
Perhaps she was channeling the spirits, and appealing to the base.

Anonymous said...

<span>The Left would never miss the oppourtunity to condecend. </span>
***
That's pretty condescending.

Casey Tompkins said...

URR, you missed the subtle thrust of his approach, relating to classic relativsm. It's not about which countries are free; it's about which countries "you ... agree" are free that makes the difference. The simple fact that Europe has laws which enable farcial slander suits (the UK is the slander capital of the world in that respect) based on "hate" speech, "insult," and "respect for multi-culturalism" bounce right off Jay, since he incapable of grasping the irony. The American concept that "politicians are fair game," and "if you can't play with the big dogs, stay on the porch" are beyond his comprehension. The whinge that comments are "hateful," or "insulting" beg the question as to whether they are "accurate."

The simple fact that Europe has done nothing but exemplify statism since the Second Reich bounces right off him. The elemental idea that Americans see government as a source of bother, not boons, is beyond his comprehension. It is simple history that Bismarck's Imperial Germany established the standard for European paternalism. From Wiki: "Bismarck, working closely with big industry and aiming to head off the Socialists, implemented the world's first welfare state in the 1880s." (my emphasis) British emphasis on "Tory Democracy" came from Benjamin Disraeli, whose 1874 government gave rise to the quote that "The Conservative party have done more for the working classes in five years than the Liberals have in fifty."

I'd be willing to bet money that Jay not only believes that more government is good for you seriously, he takes the idea that "I'm from the government, and I'm here to help you" seriously...

The State is the source of all power, and is the source of all wisdom. This is not too far off from the earlier European idea that the Monarch is the source of all power & wisdom.

ewok40k said...

Well, strong nation-state was only solution to rampant warlordism of the medieval era - private armies, marauding mercenaries etc.. Those that destroy their own states end up being conquered by states that are strong and organised. Read the history of Poland XVI-XVIII century... The gentry so feared absolutism it paralysed all efforts to strengthen the central government, which resulted eventually in partitions of the country. If you cant trust your own government, you will end up forced to obey foreign one.
Here endeth the lesson :)

Skippy-san said...

Ronald Reagan actually did something while he was governor. And he actually finished his two terms.

Wharf Rat said...

Agreed, she should have stayed in office, but since the Presidency regardless is such a risk (whether she's the candidate) I suspect she checked out when she compared the Gov. salary, and the book, FOX News salary, and it made an easy decision for her.

That said, if she wants to be the top dog, staying in office is the best bet. 

Skippy-san said...

If you look arefully at her history-its always been about the money and getting even with her. I'll let a real conservative, George Will talk about Ms. Palin:

Yet <span>Sarah Palin</span>, who with 17 months remaining in her single term as Alaska's governor quit the only serious office she has ever held, is obsessively discussed as a possible candidate in 2012. Why? She is not going to be president and will not be the Republican nominee unless the party wants to lose at least 44 states.
Conservatives, who rightly respect markets as generally reliable gauges of consumer preferences, should notice that the political market is speaking clearly: The more attention Palin receives, the fewer Americans consider her presidential timber. The <span>latest Post-ABC News poll</span> shows that 71
percent of Americans -- including 52 percent of Republicans -- think she is not qualified to be president.