View Thread

Atheists Today » Easy Reading » The Lounge
Who is here? 1 guest(s)
 Print Thread
That Hope-y change-y tea party
Sinny
Of course Palin wanting to win the popularity contest among the voting public had to show up and give her speech. Well what the hell being a celebrity did work for Reagan and Schwarzenegger. She sounds like she wants to run but at the same time, to me, she looks like she either isn't ready or doesn't really intend to. To me she wants more favorable popularity and to show running mates she can dish it out too. She did deserve the ass whooping she got but I don't think she deserved to have criminal accusations and charges when she was Governor simply because people didn't like her or b/c she was so uneducated. I think all the attacks stirred up a hornets nest in her and now we may never see her go away.

http://www.msnbc..../35271030/

http://www.msnbc....9#35282002
 
Hypatia
Palin always comes across to me like a high schooler running for some school office.

She's so flaky that it's hard to tell what she'll decide to do at any given time, much less predict what she'll do. She's certainly consistently flaky though.
 
catman
You betcha! She'll not go away as long as she can get $100K per appearance.

She's a lightweight. That's all there is to it. I don't blame her for that. She can't help it. Unfortunately, there are a lot of people in this country who don't want to think overmuch either and are easily manipulated. The so-called "tea parties" are testimony to it.
"If I owned both Hell and Texas, I'd live in Hell and rent out Texas." - General Sheridan
 
Sinny
Hypatia wrote:
Palin always comes across to me like a high schooler running for some school office.

She's so flaky that it's hard to tell what she'll decide to do at any given time, much less predict what she'll do. She's certainly consistently flaky though.


That's a good description of her. Maybe that's why she looks like she either doesn't want to run again or isn't sure she want's to. I noticed that look on her face when her fans cheered her on in one of the video clips. I think she definently wants to get back at them and wants to win over the public more favorably like I said before but I'm not convinced it's to run again....yet. I think she angry that she had to resign as Governor due to the constant accusations and to some extent harassment even when she and McCain lost the election.
 
Sinny
catman wrote:
You betcha! She'll not go away as long as she can get $100K per appearance.

She's a lightweight. That's all there is to it. I don't blame her for that. She can't help it. Unfortunately, there are a lot of people in this country who don't want to think overmuch either and are easily manipulated. The so-called "tea parties" are testimony to it.


Well that's a nice little sum to save up for campaigning. I was surprised to see how many people support her even more now than I was before when her fans shouted out run for president. Maybe that's her game get the money her own way without asking for donations then surprise the public by trying to run again. I can't help but think she is committing political suicide if she does try to run for President. Even if she did straighten up and fly right being a mom and christian isn't enough to win. BTW what happened to christian women staying home to take care of the children? Unless she is a distraction for whomever they really intend to run next time around. As I recall I didn't see Obama in the race until later on when it came down to him and Hillary then him and McCain. Funny I don't remember him before then. From what I remember it was Hillary and John most people thought would have the chance to win and shown the most on TV. Then the others and all of a sudden Obama showed up and pretty much left them in the dust LOL.
 
Hypatia
Have you seen this?

http://www.google...d25ab3ea1e

Closer inspection of a photo of Sarah Palin, during a speech in which she mocked President Obama for his use of a teleprompter, reveals several notes written on her left hand. The words "Energy", "Tax" and "Lift American Spirits" are clearly visible. There's also what appears to read as "Budget cuts" with the word Budget crossed out.
 
Sinny
OMG Patia that is hilarious. Hellooooo Pot. ha ha ha. Serves her right getting caught after bitching about Obama using a teleprompter.

She does have that High School mentality. Sheesh man at least write down a few notes on paper for F sakes. She couldn't after what she said about Obama so she ends up doing something so stupid like this and then even worse she opens her hands on camera for everyone to catch on film.
 
catman
I think the worst thing we can do is make the assumption that Sarah Palin can't possibly be elected President. Sure, she's not too bright, but neither is much of the electorate. Don't forget who was President before Obama.

And remember the anger that some felt toward that filthy liberal media establishment representative Katie Couric for making their heroine look bad. We should proceed on the assumption that she could possibly be elected. After all, many in Germany thought Hitler could never come to power, and that even if he did he could be controlled.
"If I owned both Hell and Texas, I'd live in Hell and rent out Texas." - General Sheridan
 
derF
Yep. Presidential material for sure! You betcha!
I'll drink to that. Or anything else for that matter.
 
Hypatia
catman wrote:
I think the worst thing we can do is make the assumption that Sarah Palin can't possibly be elected President. Sure, she's not too bright, but neither is much of the electorate. Don't forget who was President before Obama.

And remember the anger that some felt toward that filthy liberal media establishment representative Katie Couric for making their heroine look bad. We should proceed on the assumption that she could possibly be elected. After all, many in Germany thought Hitler could never come to power, and that even if he did he could be controlled.


*shudder*
 
JohnH
I will preface this with the statement that I very much dislike Sarah Palin. She is the sort of scum that uses the most base of american instincts to cause them to take actions which harm themselves.

I actually listened to all of her speech. Not the Q and A but I will look for that later.

I must say that she in her speech and some of the Tea Party Movement in general make one excellent point. The US government tends to ignore the general populous in favor of certain groups. One can argue who those groups are. One cannot argue that this is not the case.

I would suggest that all of us should get behind the notion that it is time for the people to take control of the state and decide later which way that state should proceed.
 
Cynic
JohnH wrote:I must say that she in her speech and some of the Tea Party Movement in general make one excellent point. The US government tends to ignore the general populous in favor of certain groups. One can argue who those groups are. One cannot argue that this is not the case.

I would suggest that all of us should get behind the notion that it is time for the people to take control of the state and decide later which way that state should proceed.



One can try. First, can you elaborate on what it is you mean and why it's a problem? I don't want to proceed from misunderstanding.
 
JohnH
Cynic, I am not sure where to begin. My point primarily remains that the american people have in general been divorced from the workings of government. In some cases, civil liberties for minorities comes to mind, that has been a good thing. In far too many cases the interests of the moneyed classes have been furthered to the detriment of the bulk of the population.

The recent Supreme Court decision in the case of Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission opened the way for corporate monies to buy elections.

The Whiskey Rebellion was started because small producers were taxed differently than large producers.

The Palmer Raids specifically targeted the left because they opposed an imperial war in Europe that most americans opposed. A war that was very beneficial to american industry.

It is even international.

The democratically elected government of Guatemala was overthrown for the benefit of the United Fruit Company.

NAFTA was passed even if it damaged american workers because it benefited US companies. Cheap american corn then ruined small farmers in Mexico.

I could go on forever. Actions of the US government are very often in opposition to and result in negative impacts to the american people. Are actions in opposition always wrong, no. Are actions with negative impacts wrong, most often yes.
 
catman
JohnH wrote:I would suggest that all of us should get behind the notion that it is time for the people to take control of the state and decide later which way that state should proceed.


That seems very risky to me. While the people are deciding, someone will decide for them. It all needs to be worked out in advance. The state can't be left to drift for any time at all.
"If I owned both Hell and Texas, I'd live in Hell and rent out Texas." - General Sheridan
 
seeker
John - While it sounds great to say the problem is that the majority of people are never going to have enough passion for the administration of the state to prevent the same kinds of idiots that run things now from gaining power. The people most interested in running things are generally the ones with an agenda
 
Kowboy
If given the opportunity, I would have sexual relations with Sara Palin.

Kowboy
 
JohnH
catman, I phrased my comment in such a way as to imply revolutionary change. That was poor word choice on my part and not at all what I intended. I think there are far too many historic examples of failed revolutions, which is why I have shied away from ever suggesting that or from the people who advocate it.

seeker, I agree that under the current conditions of human understanding the people have little interest in assuming control of the state. It is even arguable that they will never. I retain hope however that over time the people will. Not for several generations I am afraid.

As far as under current circumstances legislators tend to have a personal agend,a you are absolutely correct. In my youth the suburb of San Francisco I grew up in went from a population of about 13,500 in 1950 to about 45,000 in 1970. Sometime during that period I noticed that a significant majority of the City Council were people who had a stake in the real estate business. The whole region grew a lot during that same period so much of that growth was organic. Still I am sure the fact of who was making the local laws at the time made that growth much more profitable.

It is also interesting to note that the great majority of state and federal legislators are lawyers by training. I have often felt that this is a huge mistake for a variety of reasons and tend to vote against lawyers wherever I have a ligitimate alternative.
 
Cynic
While I'm all for massive uprisings when the majority of a population are being wronged by their government, I think what we have right now is a case of a majority complaining because their government is trying to do right by a minority.
 
JohnH
Cynic, as I confused you earlier you have confused me now.
 
Kowboy
I am proud to be a Tea Partier. Despite the MSM's attempts to paint me as racist, I am not. I am, however, concerned at the reckless spending by the Democratic liberal majority running, I mean ruining, this great country.

Let's just get back to and stick to the Constitution.

Kowboy
 
Jump to Forum:

Similar Threads

Thread Forum Replies Last Post
What exactly is "Obamacare" and what did it change? U.S. Politics 5 07/21/2013 11:50
Tea Party Less Popular Than Muslims, Atheists, 21 Other Groups U.S. Politics 6 08/22/2011 09:59
Crash the Tea Party The Lounge 14 04/15/2010 17:10
Coffee Party The Lounge 21 04/04/2010 00:07
There may be hope The Lounge 8 02/13/2010 22:08