She obviously does know who Julian Assange was, or else why would her response be that he should be charged with treason? She must have at least known Assange’s position with regards to Wikileaks to be ignorant enough to think he’s eligible for a charge of treason.
As for Net Neutrality, the hypothetical Sam created was that Palin **didn’t **understand it.
I know she’s not the cause, but you said there was a humor factor in the way she drove some people nuts. I’m just asking if you can justify that statement in some way. I don’t find antagonism, purely for its own sake, to be all that humorous, no matter who is on the receiving end.
That’s what **Sam ***imagined *she’d say.
Er… there seem to be a lot of people who think she did actually say that, including, you may have missed it, the OP.
Indeed, Ms. Palin has also publicly stated that Assange should be hunted down like a terrorist.
While John Mace used the colloquial phrase “drive…nuts”, the reality is that Palin is not making anyone nuts. People who overreact to her silliness with expressions of horror, (rather than disdain or dismissal*), are actually causing their own grief and it is humorous to watch people inflict unnecessary aggravation on themselves. It always has been.
I vote for “dumber than dirt,” but with very skilled handlers. Nothing she has ever said or done has given me the slightest evidence that she has more than a room temperature IQ, and we are talking European rooms here. Native cunning sure. But the ability to solve a crossword puzzle or figure out the assembly instructions on a piece of Ikea furniture, no way in hell.
That’s not fair.
No one can figure out furniture assembly instructions. 
Hey., speak for yourself! My soul is curdled in impotent rage, and all joy drowned in bitter draughts of wormwood and gall. And worse, over the gnashing of my teeth and the rending of my garments, still I hear, but soft! **John Mace’s **urbane, non-partisan chortle as he gloats over my despair!
I don’t buy that. When Sarah Palin says things that are legitimately insulting to some people, proposes policies that would be detrimental if enacted, or tells outright lies, it’s not the fault of the listener if they take offense.
Which is still somewhat beside the point. Whatever the source, I guess I just don’t see the humor in someone’s unnecessary discomfort.
And I’d rather hear John’s explanation of his own words than your attempt to dismiss them.
It’s true, we don’t have much in the way of nice people here on the Boards. Sometimes nice people wander in from 4-Chan or Stormfront, but they can’t handle the caustic atmosphere, and they kind of wimp away.
You know that really mean guy on American Idol? tomndebb made him cry, once. True story.
There are medications available for that now.
If your impotent rage last more than 4 hours, see your doctor.
Boehner pills?
Side effects include orange skin and weeping.
If the condition last for more than 4 hours do not consult your doctor, follow Boehner’s example as he does consults his witch doctor, as science is not his friend.
http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/intersection/2009/04/19/john-boehners-war-on-science/
Oh, yeah? Well, refudiate that, Mr. Smarty Pants!
There is a saying I heard once that “teenage girls may be dumb, but the one thing they know is that guys want to fuck them”. IOW Palin may be an ignoramus, but she at least knows that there are a bunch of people who like what she is saying and are paying attention to her.
I don’t think she is smart nor do I think she has any particular preconceived plan. She just has the confidence of the narcissitic and dumb who happen to strike the right chord with a certain group.
In many ways, she is no different from Snookie, Paris Hilton or the Kardashians. She sets out to gain attention and as long as she is getting it she knows whatever she is doing is working.
For the record
She shows intelligence in getting people to follow her, and exploiting circumstances and popular opinion to her own benefit. She is far from the first politician to recognize and exploit popular ignorance, but she is the first to be this bold and brilliant about it.
In this sense, the OP is somewhat accurate. But heaven help us if using Twitter to pad your political fortunes is something to be admired or considered qualification for political leadership at any level. The US presidency is not supposed to be one of those gigs advertised on a roadside that says “WORK FROM HOME ON FACEBOOK AND MAKE $33000 A MONTH GUARANTEED” .
Remember when Dan Quayle announced he was running for the 2000 Presidential nomination? Early polls placed him in eighth place for the Republican nomination - among the eight Republicans who were running at that time. He soon gave it up.
I think Palin’s in the same situation. Various groups support her now because it costs them very little and she gets good publicity. But when it gets to the point of picking a serious candidate to run against Barack Obama, her reputation will keep her off the list.
Here’s a thought. The GOP can have Barry Obama, & the Dems will take the white supremacist vote back now.