Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
The Military News Politics

Sarah Palin 'Target WikiLeaks Like Taliban' 1425

Posted by CmdrTaco
from the name-calling dept.
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.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Sarah Palin 'Target WikiLeaks Like Taliban'

Comments Filter:
  • by orphiuchus (1146483) on Wednesday December 01, 2010 @01:48PM (#34406318)
    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.
  • by kimvette (919543) on Wednesday December 01, 2010 @01:50PM (#34406342) Homepage Journal

    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.

  • by wernox1987 (1362105) on Wednesday December 01, 2010 @01:50PM (#34406358)
    And then I voted for him in 2008.....things change. Still, I agree, she's pretty much unelectable in my mind.
  • by mozumder (178398) on Wednesday December 01, 2010 @01:53PM (#34406402)

    Keep her in the spotlight. I'd prefer having 4 more years of Obama, instead of any Republican "small government" type.

  • by jeffmeden (135043) on Wednesday December 01, 2010 @01:53PM (#34406416) Homepage Journal

    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.

    You made your own point. Almost everyone from the right and left agrees she is un-electable. However there is still a bitter minority clinging to her as the next great hope for a "tea-party takeover" of government's highest office. In essence, she is the new Ron Paul. He got a lot of worthless attention, why shouldn't she?

  • by StikyPad (445176) on Wednesday December 01, 2010 @01:58PM (#34406512) Homepage

    It's entertainment not politics.

    There's a difference?

  • by Nidi62 (1525137) on Wednesday December 01, 2010 @02:01PM (#34406560)
    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.
  • by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday December 01, 2010 @02:06PM (#34406664)

    People are watching her, reading her books and identifying with her at an alarming rate.

    It's the same down South. As a matter of fact, back in 2008, someone wrote to the editor of the Economist saying how they liked Sarah because "she is just like me."

    To write Palin off as a "nut" or as "unelectable" would be a mistake. I see a lot of Democrats hoping that Palin runs in '12 - they should be careful of what they wish for.

  • by digitig (1056110) on Wednesday December 01, 2010 @02:06PM (#34406672)
    Nope. Bread and circuses [wikipedia.org].
  • by Sonny Yatsen (603655) * on Wednesday December 01, 2010 @02:06PM (#34406676) Journal

    Alaska balances their budget by taking more federal dollars than the other states. They are the number one recipient of federal pork.

    http://www.nytimes.com/2010/08/19/business/19stimulus.html [nytimes.com]

    Plus, she is only a supporter of the Constitution when it's the parts of the Constitution she likes.

  • by Sycraft-fu (314770) on Wednesday December 01, 2010 @02:08PM (#34406702)

    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.

  • by MDillenbeck (1739920) on Wednesday December 01, 2010 @02:19PM (#34406932)

    On the contrary, I feel it is News for Nerds. It directly addresses the way technology is facilitating the globalization of information and how it conflicts with regional/local laws. The message was delivered by Facebook, so nerds should appreciate the irony that Palin is advocating censorship of information on a site that believes in opening up private information for all to view. Finally, the fact that a mainstream political figure (one does not have to hold office to be a current politician) is advocating the use of potentially illegal internet warfare (From the article: She [Palin] said “cyber tools" should be used to "permanently dismantle WikiLeaks") should also be of interest to nerds.

    I don't think the topic is flamebait, I think it is controversial. The internet is a force of globalization, especially in the realm of information distribution. When that distribution starts to threaten state secrets, how far do we (the US) go? How about the UK, Germany, or France? How about China or India? How about Iran, Syria, or Saudi Arabia? If it is legitimate for the US to do a DDoS against Wikileaks, what about Venezuela attacking US news websites that it feels are threatening its State secrets?

    Yes, I already dislike Palin, but as a nerd who tries to pay attention to the news, I want to know who is siding with Palin on this issue... and to some extent, it appears that is the current administration (who once advocated an open government).

  • by mswhippingboy (754599) on Wednesday December 01, 2010 @02:23PM (#34407014)

    unfairly redistributing wealth (healthcare).

    Huh? How is providing healtcare to those that can't afford it wealth redistribution?

    And while we're on that topic, why is always considered a bad thing when wealth redistribution benefits the lower-middle income, but it's a good thing when it benefits the upper 2% (e.g. tax breaks for the wealthy)?

  • Re:first! (Score:1, Interesting)

    by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday December 01, 2010 @02:28PM (#34407120)
    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).
  • by DragonWriter (970822) on Wednesday December 01, 2010 @02:43PM (#34407392)

    Because the Clinton candidacy was strong when he chose Palin, and McCain assumed (with good reason) that if Clinton got the Democratic nomination that the election would end up being about opening up a new era of equality in politics with regards to female candidates. By making Palin his running mate he got a physically attractive woman on the ticket who I presume he thought would make the election less about whether women were qualified to be President (and who would want to be on the wrong side of that historical judgement?) and more about whether you wanted to guarantee the "old guard" of women Democrats a place at the table or whether you wanted some eye candy in a politician who presumably had a decent future ahead of her.

    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.)

  • by eldavojohn (898314) * <eldavojohnNO@SPAMgmail.com> on Wednesday December 01, 2010 @02:44PM (#34407418) Journal

    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 [seattlepi.com] 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 [twitter.com] that sports so many errors, she might actually be the person running it! From a classic Bush-esque prescriptive versus descriptive linguistics error [huliq.com] to making accusations [thestatecolumn.com] and weird religious remarks [examiner.com]. 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.

  • by PitaBred (632671) <slashdotNO@SPAMpitabred.dyndns.org> on Wednesday December 01, 2010 @02:45PM (#34407450) Homepage

    I don't see how her Constitutional support is an issue. I mean, it's just like her (and most of the Republican party's) support of the Bible, cherry-picking what she wants to adhere to. At least she's consistently inconsistent.

  • by fermion (181285) on Wednesday December 01, 2010 @02:46PM (#34407468) Homepage Journal
    This is a fiction put forth by 'Fox News' and others that want to promote the lie that Obama did not win the election. There is a very small number of Americans that potentially vote on the person, most vote on the party. Of those, only a percentage goes and votes. This results in a small margin in popular votes. The reality is that the McCain/Palin ticket lost and lost big. The reality is that Palin and the Tea Party lost Republicans the chance to take over the Senate, and was not even able to get a congressperson elected from het own state.

    Obama gained over 52% of the popular votes. I am not sure that any non-sitting president has gotten elected with this margin in 50 years. Bush I did but he was following Reagan. Even getting a simple majority is a significant event for a democrat. The only reasonable conclusion, given the McCain was a very popular candidate, and many independents wanted to vote for him, and a large number of Americans seem to hate Obama, is that Palin killed the ticket.

    The sad thing is that so many people base conclusion on faith, not facts.

  • Re:I'd say... (Score:2, Interesting)

    by huckamania (533052) on Wednesday December 01, 2010 @03:31PM (#34408346) Journal

    Biden looks intelligent. He's tall and has executive style hair, probably inherited from his Daddy, much like his political career.

    "Crazy" Joe should be selling used cars, not a heartbeat away from the oval office. It's one thing to be deluded that Obama is The One, but to think Joe Biden displays intelligence is to disregard virtually everything he says and the fact that he doesn't even realize what or why the things he says might be regarded as pathological.

  • by tres (151637) on Wednesday December 01, 2010 @03:48PM (#34408636) Homepage

    The problem is that American politics is a team sport. The bigger problem is that team sport mentality is just accepted as the norm.

    Politics -- as voting -- should be a dry, boring act. Back when 30% of the electorate was actually engaged, it was. Now, demagogues fill the airwaves with outlandish accusations, turning countrymen against each other.

    After all the demagoguery that is constantly being used to rile some people who are genuinely distressed because they've lost their job/house/life, I worry some of these people are genuinely confused; the enemy is no longer Osama -- it's now Obama.

  • by tmassa99 (889186) <tmassa99@@@hotmail...com> on Wednesday December 01, 2010 @03:54PM (#34408706)
    Thanks to Wikileaks, we now know that the Saudis (some of them) are sponsoring terrorists. http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2010/11/shocker-admits-saudi-donors-chief-financiers-al-qaeda-leaked-cable/ [rawstory.com] The US government has given rise to just about every original terrorist out there: Taliban-Al Qaeda, Bin Laden, Saddam... http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB82/ [gwu.edu] http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2002/dec/31/iraq.politics [guardian.co.uk] More recently, the FBI created a "terrorist" (Christmas Tree) almost from whole cloth. http://wonkette.com/431185/u-s-government-now-creating-terrorists-so-it-can-arrest-them [wonkette.com] Since we're kinda making terrorists ourselves, but ignorant policy and a more ignorant populace will keep the terror dream alive. I welcome the Wikileaks dumps. Our government has done more "harm" where terrorists are concerned than any other country on the planet. It's our own fault we keep doing this to ourselves, then ignoring it. Every administration since Regan has lead us to where we are.
  • by raw-sewage (679226) on Wednesday December 01, 2010 @04:07PM (#34408926)

    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.

    So how do you approach it?

    I think you are (at least indirectly) speaking to something that scares the crap out of me: the growing influence of Christian Fundamentalists in the USA. In other words, the people who refuse to believe anything that is incompatible with their faith. By definition, these people are incapable of rational discussion. And when you try to point out their logical errors, they basically say, "that can't be, because the Bible says so," or, as you say, write you off as a fancy pants intellectual. Either way, you are left in a situation where you might as well be speaking two different languages. Actually, if one person refuses to deal in facts and reason, you might as well be speaking to a crazy person, or a dog, or a tree, because the conversation will go nowhere.

    I spent the first 27 years of my life in small-town, midwestern USA. I hate to be cliche, but "blinded by faith" quite literally describes a significant number of people I've encountered---within my family, at school, at work, and in the community.

    So how do you approach these people, who are either unable or unwilling to communicate rationally? I've thought about this long and hard, but I can't come up with any solution. 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). And just as soon as they can, I guarantee you they will try as hard as possible to eradicate all the "fancy pants intellectuals".

    I have a friend who teaches 7th grade math at a public school in a small town in central Illinois. She teaches there because, from a student quality and compensation point of view, it's one of the better schools. But the community is small enough that the overwhelming majority of the residents are fundamentalist Christians. Evolution is not taught at this school; school billboards have Christian propaganda all over them; Wednesday is "giving alms" day, and as such, there are no scheduled activities outside of normal classes. On the surface, it looks like a normal public school, but when you get in, you realize it might as well be a private Christian school. And that goes for the community as a whole---on the surface, it is a nice town, mostly upper-middle class residents, low crime, close to a bigger town with all the bigger-town attractions, etc. I always thought it would be a nice place to live until my friend told me about her school. I wonder how many unsuspecting non-Christians end up there, and are quickly run out because of their differences?

  • Re:first! (Score:5, Interesting)

    by sgt_doom (655561) on Wednesday December 01, 2010 @04:27PM (#34409282)
    From this site here [crikey.com.au] we find some interesting background info:

    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 [rigorousintuition.ca] 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.

  • by HiMorons (1951132) on Wednesday December 01, 2010 @05:04PM (#34409944)
    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. ;)
  • Re:first! (Score:5, Interesting)

    by Opportunist (166417) on Wednesday December 01, 2010 @05:43PM (#34410554)

    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.

  • Re:first! (Score:4, Interesting)

    by AlamedaStone (114462) on Wednesday December 01, 2010 @06:39PM (#34411328)

    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.

  • Re:first! (Score:2, Interesting)

    by sumdumass (711423) on Wednesday December 01, 2010 @10:08PM (#34413056) Journal

    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.

The only thing cheaper than hardware is talk.

Working...