This is just to note what a disingenuous little turd you are–I only hope you actually will leave the SDMB forever, which will be far richer for your leaving it. If someone draws a perfectly reasonable conclusion from your vile, stupid, malicious posting, you make a huge deal out of their perfectly reasonable (and essentially irrelevant) point, exactly as if you were actually pointing out something useful or germane to the discussion. It’s inessential because, wherever drug abuse or gang warfare is going on in the US, it’s still the same point being made–the location of drug
abuse and gang warfare is the smallest part of its relevance to this discussion–and your point is itself laughable, since you and I and everyone in the US understands correctly that both problems are very largely inner city problems, even if you show us a photograph of a crip shooting up in a Nebraska cornfield, you imbecile.
Who said anything about my leaving? Just because I get fed up with stupid lies about conservatives and assertions that we’re evil, it doesn’t mean I’m going anywhere. This is a great board once you separate the wheat from the chaff.
A huge deal? I hardly think so.
It was however the one point in her post where people who didn’t already know better might have been fooled.
And how about you travel around to small and medium sized towns and cities around this country and do a little investigating, talk to some crime reporters and policemen, and come back here and tell me it’s largely an inner-city problem.
Perhaps bluecanary, with his rapturous description or the purity of the British political process, is blind to the fact that we Colonials have seen what goes on during Question Time. I’m used to blowhards, grandstanding, and rude noises directed at political figures, but I was embarassed for the Brits the first time I watched. Makes Congress look like a collection of Solons.
I’m wondering what I’ve lied about, personally.
I will immediately withdraw any lies or misrepresentations I’ve made here.
That would be you, numbnuts. As I quoted you above
Now I realize that I’ve wrenched those words out of context, that they actually mean the opposite of what they usually mean, that I’m deliberately misinterpreting you, that I’m a nasty liberal liar and wah wah wah all the way home, so don’t waste your time giving me your usual bullshit response. I can write it in my sleep.
Better yet, how about you stick your head up your rectum and report back if you find any sign of intelligent life there? If you like, open a GQ topic entitled “Are Drugs and Gangs largely an inner city problem?” and see what kind of answers a schmucky waste of time question like that gets, nitwit.
Two different things (I’m well aware of Question Time, and I think it’s great). I’m referring to the polarisation of the political debate in society at large, not in the Houses of Parliament/Congress.
:dubious: I think you got whooshed.
In Canada, of course, we have the worst of both worlds. Our politicians give speeches as well as the Brits and debate as well as Americans.
Al Purdy (I think – my google-fu is failing) got it right: We could have had American know-how, French culture and British government. We got British know-how, French government and American culture.
As birthplace of Thomas Paine, and arguably America herself, Britain’s honor is secure.
All I’m saying is, that was over the top. Way too harsh. Lots of good stuff came of GB besides Monty Python, like, for example, the Beatles, the Stones, fish n chips, mint sauce, the Spice Girls, the British Raj, very small pebbles… the list just goes on and on.
I think he was worried that liberals were only going to take responsibility for drug abuse in the inner cities, leaving a bewildering vacuum of responsibility for all those meth labs in rural Montana.
Or Meth Lab Capital of Alaska, Wasilla.
I guess that’s all us damn tree-hugging, drug-pushing, gang-banging libruls’ fault, too, huh?
I think it went wrong with this seemingly great question. It’s a good start. Asking for facts to support a position, that’s what the SDMB is all about. But why these particular three questions? No one ever particularly focused on “executive” experience until Palin was selected. Russia is important of course, but not to the exclusion of other countries. Think of all the possible questions that **could **be asked, just on foreign policy. (I’ve tried to phrase these neutrally and similar to the first three above.)
d. How does Obama appear stronger and more able to deal with Kim Jong Il, Osama Bin Laden, Hugo Chavez, Gordon Brown, Quaddafi, etc. than Palin?
e. What evidence is there that Obama has a well-developed political philosophy that will lead to a coherent set of policies on the world stage?
f. What evidence is there that Obama’s stance on G8, the United Nations, NATO, The World Bank, The World Court or any of the many international organizations is any better than Palins?
g. What evidence is there that Obama’s economic policies will improve or degrade the US’s standing in the world?
h. Why might we think that Obama as commander in chief might result in greater or lesser military capabilities?
i. What evidence is there that Obama would be more or less likely to use military power than Palin?
j. What evidence is there that Obama will be better or worse than Palin at using soft power to achieve US aims?
k. What evidence is there that Obama will honor existing treaties?
l. What evidence is there that Obama will be familiar with the history and motives of other world leaders he most deal with?
m. What evidence is there that Obama will understand the ideological components of Congress with regard to foreign policy more or less than Palin?
n. What evidence is there that Obama is more willing to learn from mistakes than Palin?
o. What evidence is there that Obama will proceed with the Bush administrations Millenium project?
and so on and so on.
Now reread all of them and switch Palin’s name with Obama’s.
The point is, the particular three questions that SA asked are all geared towards the only places that Palin can even conceivably be thought of as having an advanatage. The only question that SA missed was a question about energy oil and drilling. It’s a trick question. SA has gotten to direct the dialogue towards a very particular subset of how evaluate a candidates competence and experience. If you step back and look at all the ways you might evaluate a candidate, you get a different picture.
Not bad, Starv. Been a long time fan of right wing venom, loathe, these many years, so, not bad. Still, you could definitely take some pointers from real masters of the genre.
Newt Gangrene is always considered in the front ranks of the rank and rotten. His crowning moment? Well, some say it was the list of accepted terms for discussing liberals - “pathetic, corrupt” etc. - but I demur, but softly. When that woman drove her kids into the lake to drown, and Newt loudly proclaimed it the obvious result of a liberal administration - ah! Sublime venom, that! To reach with scaly fingers to grasp tragedy and horror, and bend it to his political agenda? Breathtaking!
Now, some would suggest Robert Bork as a role model for the ambitious purveyor of toxic verbiage - you’ve read Slouching to Gomorrah, I’ve no doubt? - but I think it falls short in comparison to Newt. Succinct economy of poisonous drivel is as important in humorless slander as it is in humor, does one really need hundreds of pages to simply say “dirty fucking hippies ruined America!”? Flattering, to be sure, but wide of the mark. And hundreds of pages of same? Inconsiderate of the target audience, who’s lips will tire.
And cliche-ridden, you are plagued with worn out phrases. “Do gooders”, for instance, is a phrase best stored up in the attic with a deranged cousin, the one nobody talks about. The contempt for the well-intended is probably an attitude best kept to oneself, don’t you think, as there are millions of Christians in America and quite a few sincere ones. It is a tired, toothless, and forlorn cliche, have mercy upon the poor thing, leave it die in peace. Don’t force it into harness again, all bony, mangy and poxed.
Anyway, seek out new and fresher models for your diatribes. And let them steep a while, and age, gain substance, don’t just fling out the first malignant phrase that come to mind, let it marinate in your venom sac for a few hours.
(I would recommend PJ O’Rourke to you, but all he can seem to talk about is how he used to be a hippie and now he’s an alcoholic. He seems to think this shows he’s smart. It escapes me.)
Hi, I’m sinaijon. I’m a Palin defender, and I’m fucking stupid. I’m also evil, btw.
Why to sane people insist on participating on liberal circle jerk hate threads like this one? You just get liberal spew all over you, and that’s just plain gross. It wouldn’t be so bad, but you just know they are picturing Palin’s face in place of your own, and that just shows a lack of respect.
Do you dislike Bush?
If so, why?
Do you not see these qualities in Palin?
Are you not bothered by her abuse of power? Her unnecessary secrecy, her cronyism, her massive abuse of earmarks?
Or is it because she’s sexy and likes guns?
Here’s one for you Sinaijon. Palin believes that humans and dinosaurs walked the earth at the same time. I guess I just don’t have the same understanding of science she has, but then we disagree on the economy, the war, and what a barracuda is too.
http://mudflats.wordpress.com/
Dino fossils with human footprints in them = coexistence. Go Sarah.
My friend, you are lucky enough to live in a country where a book full of lies about Obama is not on the top of the best seller list. One written by a 9/11 conspiracy theorist, by the way. Me being pissed off at one asshole (and not all Republicans or conservatives, as he’d like you to think) isn’t that surprising.
In GD I responded with data disproving these contentions, with no rants. Did he respond? Does he have evidence that Democrats foster either crime or drugs? Hah!
If you get HBO, watch the most recent ep of Bill Maher’s show. He has a mock-up of a Disney-esque movie about Palin called “President Mom,” which follows the basic storyline you came up with. Pretty funny.
Just in general interest:
Palin Aides blames Obama backers for politicizing Alaska Investigation
Yeah, because if it were Obama or Biden, the republicans surely wouldn’t have jumped all over it like starving wolves. Not that I actually think Palin’s aides are speaking truth, but boo fuckin’ hoo.