I have to share this
Tesseract
share it.
You should be able to see it at colbertnation.com except in Canada
where
you have to go to
http://watch.thecomedynetwork.ca/the-colbert-report/full-episodes/the-colbert-report---january-18-2011/#clip402672
And I draw your attention to the first item (it's about Palin).
I think this is Colbert at his best.
--
Tesseract
Harry Mary Andruschak
> And I draw your attention to the first item (it's about Palin).
What IS it about Palin that has so many people obsessing over her?
Morgan
Why do people rubberneck at crashes? It's a morbid fascination.
Morgan /|\
invalidd
In a gray world, she polarizes people.
Most look on in horror, and most certainly wouldn't entrust her with the
kids' pet goldfish while on vacation.
The rest worship her as representing everything that is good about America.
Fred Brown
"Harry Mary Andruschak" <adopts...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:5c4eb5ca-67ca-4ae9...@z26g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
On Jan 19, 9:19 pm, Tesseract <HyperTesser...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> And I draw your attention to the first item (it's about Palin).
>What IS it about Palin that has so many people obsessing over her?
She's not afraid to speak out against the Progressive agenda.
What worries Progressives the most is Palin is a likely presidential
candidate in 2012 and is keeping her face in the public arena and
garnering publicity way before any other candidate.
Progressives also hate FOX NEWS, Glenn Beck, Bill O'Reilly, Rush
Limbaugh and other conservatives that they so desperately want to silence.
It's why the Obama administration and a bunch of politicians are
clamoring for "Net Neutrality." It's not about "fairness" on the airwaves,
it's about giving the government the power to silence conservative critics.
It's also why the Progressives are so outraged over the Citizens United
court decision last year. While the Progressives rant about "corporations"
giving money and influencing politicians, they carefully ignore the fact
that
by law for profit corporations can only donate to a politician's PAC, not
directly to a politician. What Citizens United does is allow groups of
citizens to form not for profit corporations and pool their money to pay
for advertising that advocates for or against politicians. This is what
helped
the Tea Party and Republicans capture some 63 House seats and several
in the Senate. And it's what the Progressives fear will happen in 2012.
Fred Brown
"invalidd" <inva...@invalidd.invalidd> wrote in message
news:ih94pm$gg0$1...@speranza.aioe.org...
> Harry Mary Andruschak wrote:
>> On Jan 19, 9:19 pm, Tesseract <HyperTesser...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>>>And I draw your attention to the first item (it's about Palin).
>>
>>
>> What IS it about Palin that has so many people obsessing over her?
>
> In a gray world, she polarizes people.
She polarizes people because they are looking for leaders they can trust.
It's readily apparant that the ones they have been electing in the past are
not trustworthy. Nov 2, 2010 proved that.
> Most look on in horror, and most certainly wouldn't entrust her with the
> kids' pet goldfish while on vacation.
Speak for youself John Alden, Palin is immensely popular. That's why the
Democrats and Progressives fear her so much. If she wasn't a threat to
them, they would ignore her instead of jumping on everything she says and
does and attacking her children.
> The rest worship her as representing everything that is good about
> America.
You got that part right, and she stands a better chance of gaining the White
House
than Hillary Clinton ever did.
Clothahump
Palin because she's smart, she's outspoken, she's conservative and she's
female. They know that if she seriously throws her hat in the ring for
the Presidency, they don't stand a chance in hell of beating her.
But if she does, the amount of lies, hatred and vitriol they will
release against her will make what's currently going on look like
children having a spat in the sandbox.
Margo
Oh, yes . please...Palin/Gingrich 2012!
LOL!
David
typed:
I hope that Americans are not that stupid. You must have a very low
opinion of your countrymen.
--
David
No email replies please.
FORTUNE PROVIDES QUESTIONS FOR THE GREAT ANSWERS: #19 A:To be or not to
be. Q:What is the square root of 4b^2?
invalidd
> Oh, yes . please...Palin/Gingrich 2012!
> LOL!
The world knows how corrupt and self-serving Palin is, but what's wrong
with Gingrich? I thought he was a relatively inoffensive conservative
(deliberately spelled with a small 'c').
Clothahump
> The world knows how corrupt and self-serving Palin is
Cite?
Clothahump
...snip...
>> Well stated and very accurate. The progressives are scared shitless of
>> Palin because she's smart, she's outspoken, she's conservative and she's
>> female. They know that if she seriously throws her hat in the ring for
>> the Presidency, they don't stand a chance in hell of beating her.
>>
>> But if she does, the amount of lies, hatred and vitriol they will
>> release against her will make what's currently going on look like
>> children having a spat in the sandbox.
>
> I hope that Americans are not that stupid. You must have a very low
> opinion of your countrymen.
Have you seen what the libs have been doing to her since she was
announced as VP candidate in 2008? Yes, I do have a very low opinion of
them. They cannot argue or debate from a position of knowledge or
facts, they can only debate with ad hominem attacks and outright lies.
Frank McCoy
>Well stated and very accurate. The progressives are scared shitless of
>Palin because she's smart, she's outspoken, she's conservative and she's
>female. They know that if she seriously throws her hat in the ring for
I suppose three out of four ain't too bad ... For some people.
The first ... Not a chance.
>the Presidency, they don't stand a chance in hell of beating her.
>
Actually, the conservatives are more scared of Palin.
They know that if she decides to RUN, then there's a very good chance
she'll become the Republican candidate.
What scares them, is they KNOW she'll lose in a landslide.
It would be a worse defeat than if Dan Quayle ran.
Most Democrats would love to see her run.
She's WAY too easy a target.
Most people think SHE was what lost McCain the job.
If she did THAT bad just as VP candidate ....
The Rabid Right though, since she echoes their views, think the
Public will love her since they do.
Rather like those who watch Fox News think THAT is "middle stream".
They can't understand why Obama got elected; and misinterpret why
there was a backlash in the mid-term elections.
America as a whole doesn't WANT extremism in Politics.
And Palin is about as extreme as you get.
That makes her loved by the Extreme Right.
Exactly what you NEED to get to be a Republican Candidate.
(OK: Being Extreme-Left helps get you to be a Democratic one.)
But the country ELECTS middle-of-the-road types, if they are there.
My FEAR is that in reaction, the Demos will put up a Leftist candidate
as extreme as Sarah Palin ... and THAT would be a disaster, no matter
which one wins.
>But if she does, the amount of lies, hatred and vitriol they will
>release against her will make what's currently going on look like
>children having a spat in the sandbox.
What lies?
All they'll have to do is run her own quotes from previous campaigns.
(The ones she either denies saying; or "didn't mean that way.")
Too bad for her, they're all recorded.
Luckily for the country, they are.
Just Google "Sara Palin Idiot" to get several hundred examples.
All from her own mouth.
Of course, in one thing you're right.
Those who despise her will probably run a smear campaign.
I don't despise her.
I just shudder to think of an idiot like THAT ever being elected.
Of course: Other idiots have been elected; so ....
How much damage can a complete idiot, certain that (s)he is selected
by God (not the Public) to bring about The Golden Age .....
Oh ... Right ... We've had that before.
A lot of damage.
--
_____
/ ' / ™
,-/-, __ __. ____ /_
(_/ / (_(_/|_/ / <_/ <_
Frank McCoy
>Oh, yes . please...Palin/Gingrich 2012!
>LOL!
AAAAGRRRRGGGGHHHH!!!!!
Now I'm going to have nightmares.
Frank McCoy
No ... Just of our politicians and especially most of their extreme
supporters. The unofficial slogan of most candidates being, "Anything
to Win." or "Victory at any cost."
The
<Sigh.>
Of course, it's nothing new, either.
The 2000 presidential debacle in Florida being a case-in-point.
Pick your side ... It was STILL something neither side could be proud
of.
(Of course, blaming the OTHER side, and saying, "THEY did it too!")
Frank McCoy
I'm anything BUT a Palin fan, but ....
Corrupt?
Self-serving?
No more so than just about any political candidate.
Idiot, extremist, and almost as convinced of her own wonderfulness as
Cassius Clay, perhaps.
Those aren't particularly bad things these days in getting to be a
candidate. Getting *elected*, yes, but not getting Party Support.
Frank McCoy
They don't NEED to.
All they need to do is run clips of her own proclamations.
Of course, to the True Believers, those are unsupported attacks and
lies.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NrzXLYA_e6E&feature=related
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sEZITdTFfPY&feature=channel
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tgWqz95JDcU&feature=channel
MajorOz
> Clothahump <hookkic...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >invalidd wrote:
> >> The world knows how corrupt and self-serving Palin is
> >------------
> >Cite?
>
> I'm anything BUT a Palin fan, but ....
> Corrupt?
> Self-serving?
> No more so than just about any political candidate.
>
> Idiot, extremist, and almost as convinced of her own wonderfulness as
> Cassius Clay, perhaps.
> Those aren't particularly bad things these days in getting to be a
> candidate. Getting *elected*, yes, but not getting Party Support.
Speaking as not much of a Palin fan, I find Frank's statement to be
typical of Palin haters.
Lots of opinion, but no factual information IN ITS FULL CONTEXT.
Palin is to conservatives, what Ted Kennedy was to liberals -- loud,
obnoxious, narrow-minded, appealing to the "choir", and REALLY pissed
off the other side. But nobody ever seriously considered Teddy as a
prez candidate. He would lose, and lose big, polarizing the nation in
really nasty ways.
They are/were useful as attack dogs, fund raisers, and as foci for the
dummies while REAL candidates solidified their candidacy.
Watching the media -- and some here -- is really fun.
cheers
oz
Clothahump
> Clothahump<hookk...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>> David wrote:
>>> On Thu, 20 Jan 2011 09:21:13 -0600, Clothahump<hookk...@yahoo.com>
>>> typed:
>>>
>>
>> ...snip...
>>>> Well stated and very accurate. The progressives are scared shitless of
>>>> Palin because she's smart, she's outspoken, she's conservative and she's
>>>> female. They know that if she seriously throws her hat in the ring for
>>>> the Presidency, they don't stand a chance in hell of beating her.
>>>>
>>>> But if she does, the amount of lies, hatred and vitriol they will
>>>> release against her will make what's currently going on look like
>>>> children having a spat in the sandbox.
>>>
>>> I hope that Americans are not that stupid. You must have a very low
>>> opinion of your countrymen.
>> Have you seen what the libs have been doing to her since she was
>> announced as VP candidate in 2008? Yes, I do have a very low opinion of
>> them. They cannot argue or debate from a position of knowledge or
>> facts, they can only debate with ad hominem attacks and outright lies.
>
> They don't NEED to.
> All they need to do is run clips of her own proclamations.
> Of course, to the True Believers, those are unsupported attacks and
> lies.
>
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NrzXLYA_e6E&feature=related
very first sound bite is supposed to show what? It is a statement of
fact, and the libs are playing it as somehow showing a shortcoming of
Palin's.
Of course, libs do tend to consider stating facts as being shortcomings,
so I guess this just follows along those lines. And as such, it's
worthy of being ignored.
Clothahump
> I just shudder to think of an idiot like THAT ever being elected.
in the last Pres/VP race, Palin was the only one even remotely qualified
to hold the office, having been the chief executive officer of a state.
Margo
Good ol' Newt is a morally bankrupt hypocrite. He was also the first
Speaker of the House of Reps. to be sanctioned for ethics violations
just over a decade ago.
(Don't harass me for a 'cite'. It is readily available on-line.)
Tim Merrigan
You have heard of the Contract on America, haven't you?
Take one less than perfectly effective safety net, shred same.
--
I pledge allegiance to the Constitution of the United States of America,
and to the republic which it established, one nation, from many peoples,
promising liberty and justice for all.
Feel free to use the above variant pledge in your own postings.
Tim Merrigan
Tim Merrigan
wrote:
I don't know about corrupt, that probably does need a citation, but
for self serving look at every word she's uttered since she came to
national attention.
MajorOz
Once again, the WWotN shows her ignorance of PPOR.
...ah, well...
oz
Tim Merrigan
wrote:
>Margo <saa...@sympatico.ca> wrote:
>
>>Oh, yes . please...Palin/Gingrich 2012!
>>LOL!
>
>AAAAGRRRRGGGGHHHH!!!!!
>Now I'm going to have nightmares.
As a good Liberal Democrat, I could support that ticket. It would
practically guarantee Obama winning a second term.
Frank McCoy
>On Thu, 20 Jan 2011 11:53:21 -0600, Frank McCoy <mcc...@millcomm.com>
>wrote:
>
>>Margo <saa...@sympatico.ca> wrote:
>>
>>>Oh, yes . please...Palin/Gingrich 2012!
>>>LOL!
>>
>>AAAAGRRRRGGGGHHHH!!!!!
>>Now I'm going to have nightmares.
>
>As a good Liberal Democrat, I could support that ticket. It would
>practically guarantee Obama winning a second term.
Well ... Yeah, but ....
I'd much rather Obama won on his own record than because he ran
against those two. Otherwise he might think he DID win on the record.
(Rather like the Republicans think THEY won on the Democratic record.)
That would give him little incentive to be more moderate.
Just because you win an election as a reaction to bad news, does NOT
mean people favor your politics.
Also, in this case, just because people would much rather have you
than an obviously terrible choice by the other party, doesn't mean
they like you and what you stand for all that much either.
But, in both cases, those elected seem to take that for granted.
In many such elections it's a case of: "Hold your nose, and vote for
the one whose stink is less than the other's stench."
Compared to Palin, Obama looks positively wonderful.
(Of course, compared to some of his own party, he looks great too.)
And isn't THAT a sad statement?
Tim Merrigan
wrote:
A job she quit half way through. Even were I a conservative I would
say that alone would disqualify here from holding any other elective
office.
Margo
Don't be any more of an ass than necessary, Oz. Both You and
Clothahump lived through that particular piece of current events and
you know very well what I'm talking about, and how to refresh your
memory if necessary.
invalidd
Thanks.
Old Timer's disease, but fragments of related memories are started to
seep back. I'll have to Google to turn the seep into the required flood.
It wouldn't be the first time a 'disgraced' politician had made a comeback.
Marten Kemp
> Margo<saa...@sympatico.ca> wrote:
>
>> Oh, yes . please...Palin/Gingrich 2012!
>> LOL!
>
> AAAAGRRRRGGGGHHHH!!!!!
> Now I'm going to have nightmares.
Mondays and Thursdays MSNBC will list the self-serving,
hypocritical and stupid things Palin has done and said.
Tuesdays and Fridays MSNBC will list the self-serving,
hypocritical and stupid things Gingrich has done and said.
Wednesdays will be spent reviewing the things that Pres.
Obama has done in the past week and his plans for the
coming one.
I think the best political ads for Pres. Obama would be
to simply state something good he's done or something
stupid or hypocritical his opponents have done or said,
followed by the simple statement, "And *this* isn't a lie."
--
-- Marten Kemp (Fix ISP to reply)
"Nothing bad can happen if you're wearing purple socks." -Mom
Barry Gold
>> Good ol' Newt is a morally bankrupt hypocrite. He was also the first
>> Speaker of the House of Reps. to be sanctioned for ethics violations
>> just over a decade ago.
>>
>> (Don't harass me for a 'cite'. It is readily available on-line.)
MajorOz <Maj...@centurytel.net> wrote:
>Once again, the WWotN shows her ignorance of PPOR.
I have no idea of what PPOR is. But this is a case where it was easy
to check -- I looked up Newt Gingrich in Wikipedia. 84 charges were
filed against Gingrich. 83 were dropped. The House reprimanded
Gingrich for the last one, two counts of "failure to seek legal
advice(*)" and one count of "providing the committee with information
which he knew or should have known was inaccurate". They also
assessed $300K in costs against him for the investigation.
There's a bit of mountain/molehill here. OTOH, he should have
provided accurate information. That last charge is a little bit like
a plea bargain down from Perjury.
However, the barrage of charges against Gingrich _do_ rather remind me
of the (mostly equally stupid) charges that Ken Starr levelled against
Bill clinton.
(*) I wasn't aware that one was _required_ to see legal advice.
--
Barry Gold, webmaster for:
Conchord: http://www.conchord.org
Los Angeles Science Fantasy Society: http://www.lasfsinc.org
My blog: http://goldslaw.livejournal.com/
Frank McCoy
Some have been *QUITE* ridiculously not just embarrassed, but tried
and convicted ... and yet got re-elected.
Don't remember offhand just who; but know there were several from both
sides of the aisle.
Frank McCoy
>On 1/20/2011 12:53 PM, Frank McCoy wrote:
>> Margo<saa...@sympatico.ca> wrote:
>>
>>> Oh, yes . please...Palin/Gingrich 2012!
>>> LOL!
>>
>> AAAAGRRRRGGGGHHHH!!!!!
>> Now I'm going to have nightmares.
>
>Mondays and Thursdays MSNBC will list the self-serving,
>hypocritical and stupid things Palin has done and said.
>Tuesdays and Fridays MSNBC will list the self-serving,
>hypocritical and stupid things Gingrich has done and said.
>Wednesdays will be spent reviewing the things that Pres.
>Obama has done in the past week and his plans for the
>coming one.
>
>I think the best political ads for Pres. Obama would be
>to simply state something good he's done or something
>stupid or hypocritical his opponents have done or said,
>followed by the simple statement, "And *this* isn't a lie."
But the opposition WILL post lies ... if not about HIM, then about his
policies.
It's so EASY to say that this or that policy "has ruined the nation".
Tesseract
There are some interesting bits in those clips but
overall Colbert is much more entertaining.
--
Tesseract
Marten Kemp
And it's so easy for a certain fraction to believe it.
Fred Brown
"Clothahump" <hookk...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:ih9jt1$jq7$1...@speranza.aioe.org...
> Palin because she's smart, she's outspoken, she's conservative and she's
> female. They know that if she seriously throws her hat in the ring for
> the Presidency, they don't stand a chance in hell of beating her.
>
> But if she does, the amount of lies, hatred and vitriol they will release
> against her will make what's currently going on look like children having
> a spat in the sandbox.
The funny thing is, the more the progressives vilify her the more publicity
she gets responding to whatever she's been accused of. It just works to
her political advantage. Her TV show is a major brainstorm, whoever
thought that up will probably get a medal. She's a year ahead of any
Democratic candidate without actually campaigning.
Margo
> >On Jan 20, 2:13 pm, Margo <saa...@sympatico.ca> wrote:
> >> Good ol' Newt is a morally bankrupt hypocrite. He was also the first
> >> Speaker of the House of Reps. to be sanctioned for ethics violations
> >> just over a decade ago.
>
> >> (Don't harass me for a 'cite'. It is readily available on-line.)
> >Once again, the WWotN shows her ignorance of PPOR.
>
> I have no idea of what PPOR is. But this is a case where it was easy
> to check -- I looked up Newt Gingrich in Wikipedia. 84 charges were
> filed against Gingrich. 83 were dropped. The House reprimanded
> Gingrich for the last one, two counts of "failure to seek legal
> advice(*)" and one count of "providing the committee with information
> which he knew or should have known was inaccurate". They also
> assessed $300K in costs against him for the investigation.
>
> There's a bit of mountain/molehill here. OTOH, he should have
> provided accurate information. That last charge is a little bit like
> a plea bargain down from Perjury.
>
> However, the barrage of charges against Gingrich _do_ rather remind me
> of the (mostly equally stupid) charges that Ken Starr levelled against
> Bill clinton.
>
> (*) I wasn't aware that one was _required_ to see legal advice.
>
> --
> Barry Gold, webmaster for:
> Conchord: http://www.conchord.org
> Los Angeles Science Fantasy Society:http://www.lasfsinc.org
> My blog:http://goldslaw.livejournal.com/
There is more...
"His two previous marriages ended in divorce after he had affairs with
younger women and when his wives were seriously ill. "
and his credo is "do as I say and not as I do...
"Newt when asked how he could be unfaithful and give a speech on
family values: "It doesn't matter what I do," he answered. "People
need to hear what I have to say. There's no one else who can say what
I can say. It doesn't matter what I live."
In this case, here is the cite,(although other sources are
available):
http://marriage.about.com/od/politics/a/gingrichn.htm
(In any event, Oz and Clothahump would have been aware of this too by
virtue of living through the times.)
Frank McCoy
Um ... Not to her *political* advantage. Her personal one, true.
>Her TV show is a major brainstorm, whoever
>thought that up will probably get a medal. She's a year ahead of any
>Democratic candidate without actually campaigning.
--
Fred Brown
"Margo" <saa...@sympatico.ca> wrote in message
news:d714993f-702e-4c90...@s9g2000vby.googlegroups.com...> > "Harry Mary Andruschak" <adoptsoldc...@aol.com> wrote in message
Oh, yes . please...Palin/Gingrich 2012!
LOL!
Yeah, just like the Democrats said the Tea Party would not amount to
anything.
63 incumbents unseated in the House and some 6 Senate seats captured.
Hmmmmm?
Fred Brown
"invalidd" <inva...@invalidd.invalidd> wrote in message
news:ih9nrv$u0r$1...@speranza.aioe.org...
> Margo wrote:
>
>> Oh, yes . please...Palin/Gingrich 2012!
>> LOL!
>
> with Gingrich? I thought he was a relatively inoffensive conservative
> (deliberately spelled with a small 'c').
>
Your proof Palin is corrupt?
Other than your personal opinion.
Fred Brown
"Frank McCoy" <mcc...@millcomm.com> wrote in message
news:44ugj65bffcjqr1rp...@4ax.com...
>>------------
>>Cite?
>
> I'm anything BUT a Palin fan, but ....
> Corrupt?
> Self-serving?
> No more so than just about any political candidate.
>
> Idiot, extremist, and almost as convinced of her own wonderfulness as
> Cassius Clay, perhaps.
An apt description of Barak Obama.
Obama smart, people stupid.
> Those aren't particularly bad things these days in getting to be a
> candidate. Getting *elected*, yes, but not getting Party Support.
>
Fred Brown
"Tim Merrigan" <tp...@ca.rr.com> wrote in message
news:318hj6ps5brsrh264...@4ax.com...
> On Thu, 20 Jan 2011 11:36:08 -0600, Clothahump <hookk...@yahoo.com>
> wrote:
>
>>invalidd wrote:
>>> The world knows how corrupt and self-serving Palin is
>>------------
>>Cite?
>
> I don't know about corrupt, that probably does need a citation, but
> for self serving look at every word she's uttered since she came to
> national attention.
If you think criticizing the Progressive left is self serving.
The problem with Democrats is they think they are the
only ones who are right, everybody else should "sit
down and shut up." No critics allowed.
Democrats don't beleive that the right of Free Speech
applies to political discourse.
Fred Brown
> Now I'm going to have nightmares.
>
> _____
> / ' / ™
> ,-/-, __ __. ____ /_
> (_/ / (_(_/|_/ / <_/ <_
Calm down, Krazy will shortly be announcing his bid for
the Presidency. He'll be promising a chicken in every pot,
free healthcare and a Yugo in every garage.
A sure fire winner.
Fred Brown
"Marten Kemp" <marte...@thisplanet-link.net> wrote in message
news:ihak0b$v5i$1...@speranza.aioe.org...
> On 1/20/2011 12:53 PM, Frank McCoy wrote:
>> Margo<saa...@sympatico.ca> wrote:
>>
>>> Oh, yes . please...Palin/Gingrich 2012!
>>> LOL!
>>
>> AAAAGRRRRGGGGHHHH!!!!!
>> Now I'm going to have nightmares.
>
> Mondays and Thursdays MSNBC will list the self-serving,
> hypocritical and stupid things Palin has done and said.
> Tuesdays and Fridays MSNBC will list the self-serving,
> hypocritical and stupid things Gingrich has done and said.
> Wednesdays will be spent reviewing the things that Pres.
> Obama has done in the past week and his plans for the
> coming one.
At least Keith Olbermann won't be hosting the show.
> I think the best political ads for Pres. Obama would be
> to simply state something good he's done or something
> stupid or hypocritical his opponents have done or said,
> followed by the simple statement, "And *this* isn't a lie."
That will be a little difficult for someone who drove the
country into unsustainable debt.
Fred Brown
That's because all the proof is there.
Fred Brown
"David" <faro...@picknowl.com.au> wrote in message
news:hvngj6589fbv6itvd...@4ax.com...>>Fred Brown wrote:
>>>
>>> "Harry Mary Andruschak" <adopts...@aol.com> wrote in message
> opinion of your countrymen.
The results of the November 2 elections proves that Americans are
not stupid. 63 House seats captured and some 6 Senate seats.
My 4 term representitive was kicked out of office by a Tea Party
candidate with no political experience who came out of nowhere,
in a heavily Democratic state and district.
> David
> No email replies please.
> FORTUNE PROVIDES QUESTIONS FOR THE GREAT ANSWERS: #19 A:To be or not to
> be. Q:What is the square root of 4b^2?
>
Fred Brown
>>>>> Well stated and very accurate. The progressives are scared shitless
>>>>> of
>>>>> Palin because she's smart, she's outspoken, she's conservative and
>>>>> she's
>>>>> female. They know that if she seriously throws her hat in the ring
>>>>> for
>>>>> the Presidency, they don't stand a chance in hell of beating her.
>>>>>
>>>>> But if she does, the amount of lies, hatred and vitriol they will
>>>>> release against her will make what's currently going on look like
>>>>> children having a spat in the sandbox.
>>>>
>>>> I hope that Americans are not that stupid. You must have a very low
>>>> opinion of your countrymen.
>>> announced as VP candidate in 2008? Yes, I do have a very low opinion of
>>> them. They cannot argue or debate from a position of knowledge or
>>> facts, they can only debate with ad hominem attacks and outright lies.
>>
>> They don't NEED to.
>> All they need to do is run clips of her own proclamations.
>> Of course, to the True Believers, those are unsupported attacks and
>> lies.
>>
>> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NrzXLYA_e6E&feature=related
> first sound bite is supposed to show what? It is a statement of fact, and
> the libs are playing it as somehow showing a shortcoming of Palin's.
I thought she handled herself extreemly well, particularly with some of
the interviewers trying to sandbag her.
> Of course, libs do tend to consider stating facts as being shortcomings,
> so I guess this just follows along those lines. And as such, it's worthy
> of being ignored.
Liberals don't like facts, they confuse easily and facts give them
headaches.
Fred Brown
> On Thu, 20 Jan 2011 14:01:46 -0600, Clothahump <hookk...@yahoo.com>
> wrote:
>
>>Frank McCoy wrote:
>>> I just shudder to think of an idiot like THAT ever being elected.
>>Look at who is sitting in the White House right now. Of the four people
>>in the last Pres/VP race, Palin was the only one even remotely qualified
>>to hold the office, having been the chief executive officer of a state.
>
> A job she quit half way through. Even were I a conservative I would
> say that alone would disqualify here from holding any other elective
> office.
Why would it disquallify her?
It gives her a chance to get a head start on the 2012 campaign.
The left attacking her constantly and her TV show gives her plenty of
publicity without violating the campaign laws.
None of the potental democratic candidates, including Obama are
getting her type of publicity and won't until the end of this year.
One thing about attacking someone the Democrats haven't figured
out yet is that the viterol tends to generate sympathy rather than
animosity towards the person being attacked.
Fred Brown
The two are co-joined.
A successful politician keeps his/her face constantly in the news.
This is something Palin would not have been able to do if she
had remained governor.
David
typed:
Are you talking about Bush?
--
invalidd
>
>> I think the best political ads for Pres. Obama would be
>> to simply state something good he's done or something
>> stupid or hypocritical his opponents have done or said,
>> followed by the simple statement, "And *this* isn't a lie."
>
>
> That will be a little difficult for someone who drove the
> country into unsustainable debt.
Wow, Obama is Dubya with his face blacked!
What a sneaky way to circumvent the limit of two terms in office.
Frank McCoy
>
>"Tim Merrigan" <tp...@ca.rr.com> wrote in message
>news:318hj6ps5brsrh264...@4ax.com...
>> On Thu, 20 Jan 2011 11:36:08 -0600, Clothahump <hookk...@yahoo.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>>invalidd wrote:
>>>> The world knows how corrupt and self-serving Palin is
>>>------------
>>>Cite?
>>
>> I don't know about corrupt, that probably does need a citation, but
>> for self serving look at every word she's uttered since she came to
>> national attention.
>
>If you think criticizing the Progressive left is self serving.
>The problem with Democrats is they think they are the
>only ones who are right, everybody else should "sit
>down and shut up." No critics allowed.
>Democrats don't beleive that the right of Free Speech
The Republicans are just as bad ... or worse.
Frank McCoy
Not difficult at all.
EVERY bill, no matter how bad, has good effects to some people.
Just like every bill, no matter how good, has BAD effects for some.
Frank McCoy
>
>"Frank McCoy" <mcc...@millcomm.com> wrote in message
>news:cjtgj6tqo5b0c1lbi...@4ax.com...
>> Margo <saa...@sympatico.ca> wrote:
>>
>>>Oh, yes . please...Palin/Gingrich 2012!
>>>LOL!
>>
>> AAAAGRRRRGGGGHHHH!!!!!
>> Now I'm going to have nightmares.
>>
>Calm down, Krazy will shortly be announcing his bid for
>the Presidency. He'll be promising a chicken in every pot,
>free healthcare and a Yugo in every garage.
>A sure fire winner.
Urk! ;-{
The trouble is: It just *might* be.
Margo
I guess it's a good thing there are perpetual elections in the USA
(every 2 years).
Oh yeah, Republicans...Where are the JOBS you promised?
Marten Kemp
>
> "Marten Kemp" <marte...@thisplanet-link.net> wrote in message
> news:ihak0b$v5i$1...@speranza.aioe.org...
>> On 1/20/2011 12:53 PM, Frank McCoy wrote:
>>> Margo<saa...@sympatico.ca> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Oh, yes . please...Palin/Gingrich 2012!
>>>> LOL!
>>>
>>> AAAAGRRRRGGGGHHHH!!!!!
>>> Now I'm going to have nightmares.
>>
>> Mondays and Thursdays MSNBC will list the self-serving,
>> hypocritical and stupid things Palin has done and said.
>> Tuesdays and Fridays MSNBC will list the self-serving,
>> hypocritical and stupid things Gingrich has done and said.
>> Wednesdays will be spent reviewing the things that Pres.
>> Obama has done in the past week and his plans for the
>> coming one.
>
> At least Keith Olbermann won't be hosting the show.
Rachael Maddow and Lawrence O'Donnell will pick up the
slack. Perhaps not with the fire and style of Keith
Olbermann, but they'll be there.
>> I think the best political ads for Pres. Obama would be
>> to simply state something good he's done or something
>> stupid or hypocritical his opponents have done or said,
>> followed by the simple statement, "And *this* isn't a lie."
>
> That will be a little difficult for someone who drove the
> country into unsustainable debt.
Look at the National Debt over time, noting which party
was in control at the time. One reason that there's been
such a monsterous deficit since Bush the Lesser left
office is that his wars got accounted for in budget.
And his TARP bailout. Plus his tax cuts.
Bush the Lesser started with a surplus left by Clinton.
Chris Zakes
caused David <faro...@picknowl.com.au> to write:
>On 22 Jan 2011 11:08:02 -0600, "Fred Brown" <fredb...@nowhere.com>
>typed:
(snip)
>>That will be a little difficult for someone who drove the
>>country into unsustainable debt.
>>
>Are you talking about Bush?
Bush only started the current debt mess, Obama picked it up and *ran*
with it. How many trillions are we up to now?
-Chris Zakes
Texas
--
First research the facts. Then distort them to prove your case.
-Mark Twain
Canth
wrote:
>
>"Clothahump" <hookk...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>news:iha47m$smn$1...@speranza.aioe.org...
<Snip>
>> Of course, libs do tend to consider stating facts as being shortcomings,
>> so I guess this just follows along those lines. And as such, it's worthy
>> of being ignored.
>
>Liberals don't like facts, they confuse easily and facts give them
>headaches.
Looks like science is going to prove you wrong here.
A recent study in the UK (paper undergoing peer review) shows that
conservative have an enlarged amygdala (emotional processing area),
while liberals have an enlarged anterior cingulate (error & conflict
detection processing area). This is taken to mean that conservatives
react emotionally to issues, whereas liberals react logically.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/today/tomfeilden/2010/12/are_political_beliefs_hard_wir.html
AS! ds++:+++ a++ c+++ p++ t+ f-- S+ p+ e++ h++ r++ n++ i+ P+ m++ M
I've been ignored by better people than you.
John W. Vinson
>On Sun, 23 Jan 2011 06:58:12 +1030, an orbital mind-control laser
>caused David <faro...@picknowl.com.au> to write:
>
>>On 22 Jan 2011 11:08:02 -0600, "Fred Brown" <fredb...@nowhere.com>
>>typed:
>
>(snip)
>
>>>That will be a little difficult for someone who drove the
>>>country into unsustainable debt.
>>>
>>Are you talking about Bush?
>
>Bush only started the current debt mess, Obama picked it up and *ran*
>with it. How many trillions are we up to now?
Of course the recession, the financial market collapse, and so on had nothing
to do with this. It's all Obama's fault; he used his dictatorial power to
override the congress and spent all this money by himself.
<SPIT>
--
John the Wysard JVinson *at* Wysard Of Info *dot* com
Tim Merrigan
wrote:
Actually, it's because, to quote a Republican source, "You can fool
some of the people all of the time...." --- Abraham Lincoln
>
>> --
>> -- Marten Kemp (Fix ISP to reply)
>> "Nothing bad can happen if you're wearing purple socks." -Mom
--
Tim Merrigan
wrote:
>
I though Bush had retired.
>
>> --
>> -- Marten Kemp (Fix ISP to reply)
>> "Nothing bad can happen if you're wearing purple socks." -Mom
Tim Merrigan
wrote:
Yeah, you've been in office for 22 days and we haven't got full
employment and a budget surplus yet.
(Of course I don't think the Republican approach for attaining
recovery will work, based simply on the fact that it never has in the
dozens of times they've tried it before.)
Tim Merrigan
wrote:
>
>"Tim Merrigan" <tp...@ca.rr.com> wrote in message
>news:li9hj69obotq4un67...@4ax.com...
>> On Thu, 20 Jan 2011 14:01:46 -0600, Clothahump <hookk...@yahoo.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>>Frank McCoy wrote:
>>>> I just shudder to think of an idiot like THAT ever being elected.
>>>Look at who is sitting in the White House right now. Of the four people
>>>in the last Pres/VP race, Palin was the only one even remotely qualified
>>>to hold the office, having been the chief executive officer of a state.
>>
>> A job she quit half way through. Even were I a conservative I would
>> say that alone would disqualify here from holding any other elective
>> office.
>
>Why would it disquallify her?
Because it clearly indicates that she won't finish the job she was
hired to do.
>It gives her a chance to get a head start on the 2012 campaign.
>The left attacking her constantly and her TV show gives her plenty of
>publicity without violating the campaign laws.
>None of the potental democratic candidates, including Obama are
>getting her type of publicity and won't until the end of this year.
>One thing about attacking someone the Democrats haven't figured
>out yet is that the viterol tends to generate sympathy rather than
>animosity towards the person being attacked.
>
>>
>> I pledge allegiance to the Constitution of the United States of America,
>> and to the republic which it established, one nation, from many peoples,
>> promising liberty and justice for all.
>> Feel free to use the above variant pledge in your own postings.
>>
>> Tim Merrigan
--
Tim Merrigan
wrote:
>
You seem to have inserted a superfluous "not" in your first sentence.
My proof is the same as yours.
>
>> David
>> No email replies please.
>> FORTUNE PROVIDES QUESTIONS FOR THE GREAT ANSWERS: #19 A:To be or not to
>> be. Q:What is the square root of 4b^2?
>>
MajorOz
They have been moving to countries where the corporate income tax is
half or less than the US -- where its (total of fed, state and local
comes out to about 40%, twice the level of the NEXT HIGHEST INDUSTRIAL
COUNTRY.
Canada just lowered it to 17%, so look for much of the vehicle
resurgence to cross the river to Windsor.
enjoy...
oz, who figgers folks get what they deserve...eventually
Fred Brown
I'll agree with that. McCain was co-author of the Bipartisan
Campaign Reform Act that was designed to protect incumbents
and silence political dissent. No champion of free speech there.
He's also just as Progressive as Obama, if he had been elected
he would have pushed the healthcare law too. He voted for it
and then at election time flip-flopped when faced with the public
opposition.
What we need is 'good' Republicans and 'good' Democrats who
will work in the best interests of the nation and not the special
interest groups that dominate the government now.
Fred Brown
No, Obama. The man who promised change and then became
worse than Bush.
Monkey see, Monkey do.
Fred Brown
What Lincoln said was;
"You can fool some of the people all of the time, and all of the people some
of the time, but you can NOT fool all of the people all of the time."
The Tea Partiers are the ones who are not being fooled anymore.
Fred Brown
"John W. Vinson" <jvinson@STOP_SPAM.WysardOfInfo.com> wrote in message
news:kovmj6dq0iumuovfp...@4ax.com...
Congress didn't dream up the Healthcare bill, the Stimulus Bill, the Bank
Bailouts,
the Cars For Clunkers Bill, the takeover of GM and Chrysler. These were all
crafted by special interest groups who saw Obama would win the presidency
and had them waiting for his innaugeration so he could send them to Congress
for quick passage.
Frank McCoy
Flip-flopping because of current Public Opinion waffling or Party
Opposition, seems to be the order of the day.
"Whatever gets you re-elected," seems to be the watch-word.
>What we need is 'good' Republicans and 'good' Democrats who
>will work in the best interests of the nation and not the special
>interest groups that dominate the government now.
>
And then one of the best examples of middle-of-the-road gets shot.
;-{
--
Frank McCoy
Nope ... Just being fooled by a different crop of politicians.
Frank McCoy
I don't know about "worse than Bush"; but he certainly wasn't shy
about keeping-in-place some of Bush's worst policies.
Of course, he can *claim*, that he didn't originate them ....
David
typed:
Funny. I thought they were the ones who are fooled.
--
Fred Brown
Like the Healthcare bill, good for a few, bad for the majority.
Or the Free Choice Act, which fortunatly didn't become law,
which would have allowed unions to take over companies by
the simple espediant of having a minorty of employees simply
sign a card. Good for the unions, bad for the workers who
prefered not to unionize but would be forced to pay dues anyway.
Or Carbon Credits which would have raised the prices of fuel
and electricity so a handful of investors could reap billions of
dollars buying and selling carbon credits. Good for the investors,
bad for the consumers, not to mention that it would not have
had any impact on any potential "global warming."
David
typed:
Funny. Our Government is being labelled in just the same way. The only
problem is our government actually inherited a healthy surplus and
turned it into a deficit in their first year of office whereas Obama
inherited a huge deficit and an economic meltdown which could only be
fixed by slightly increasing the deficit. He is effecting change but
previous conditions make his job very difficult. Bush is the devil here
not Obama. It was Bush who started wars in Afghanistan and Iraq. Obama
has to now attempt to finish those unfinished wars.
--
Fred Brown
And Obama kept right on spending. It doesn't matter
which political party is in office if they are not fiscally
responsible.
Fred Brown
He did, it's a case of Monkey see, Monkey do.
Fred Brown
Gee lady, they have only been in office some 20 days, Obama
had two years and didn't create any jobs.
Unless you count all those new Czars.
Fred Brown
What they have to do is create an environment that stops sending jobs
overseas and finding ways for mauufacturers to be competitive with
foreign producers. This won't be easy when we compete with products
made in low paying third world sweat shops.
What Congress needs to do is consult and listen to major business
leaders like one of the founders of Home Depot who have excellent
ideas on what needs to be done.
Fred Brown
"MajorOz" <Maj...@centurytel.net> wrote in message
news:be23aad1-3290-4b42...@k3g2000yqc.googlegroups.com...
enjoy...
Unfortunately Congress and state legislatures see businesses as "deep
pockets."
When they need more money to spend, they tax businesses more.
invalidd
>
> "Marten Kemp" <marte...@thisplanet-link.net> wrote in message
> news:ihfr0i$35u$1...@speranza.aioe.org...
>
>>
>> Look at the National Debt over time, noting which party
>> was in control at the time. One reason that there's been
>> such a monsterous deficit since Bush the Lesser left
>> office is that his wars got accounted for in budget.
>> And his TARP bailout. Plus his tax cuts.
>>
>> Bush the Lesser started with a surplus left by Clinton.
>
>
> And Obama kept right on spending. It doesn't matter
> which political party is in office if they are not fiscally
> responsible.
There appear to be two alternatives for governments which find
themselves in the position of the USA and UK ie not basket bail-out
cases like Greece or Ireland but not healthy enough to weather the storm
like Germany.
They can either reign in spending and send the country into full-blown
depression, or they can print and spend money, saving jobs and financial
institutions and warding off a full-scale depression but leaving the
country facing decades of economic stagnation like Japan.
Whichever option they choose, the root cause is still the same - Freddie
Mac and Fannie Mae and the likes of Goldman Sachs ("doing God's work")
who flogged worthless CDOs across the planet.
Fred Brown
"Canth" <kwar...@bigpond.net.au> wrote in message
news:o6umj6h7nk3as5tm4...@4ax.com...
> On 22 Jan 2011 11:24:02 -0600, "Fred Brown" <fredb...@nowhere.com>
> wrote:
>
>>
>>"Clothahump" <hookk...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>>news:iha47m$smn$1...@speranza.aioe.org...
>
>
> <Snip>
>
>
>>> Of course, libs do tend to consider stating facts as being shortcomings,
>>> so I guess this just follows along those lines. And as such, it's
>>> worthy
>>> of being ignored.
>>
>>Liberals don't like facts, they confuse easily and facts give them
>>headaches.
>
> Looks like science is going to prove you wrong here.
>
> A recent study in the UK (paper undergoing peer review) shows that
> conservative have an enlarged amygdala (emotional processing area),
> while liberals have an enlarged anterior cingulate (error & conflict
> detection processing area). This is taken to mean that conservatives
> react emotionally to issues, whereas liberals react logically.
After the Global Warming fiasco any study coming from the UK is highly
suspect. Let's wait until Wikileaks releases the e-mails.
Jette Goldie
ok, that's twice you've called President Obama a "monkey". Want to
rethink that epithet?
--
Jette Goldie jette....@gmail.com
http://www.flickr.com/photos/wolfette/ http://wolfette.livejournal.com/
("reply to" is spamblocked - use the email addy in sig)
Fred Brown
No, my proof trumps your proof.
Fred Brown
> On 22 Jan 2011 11:37:01 -0600, "Fred Brown" <fredb...@nowhere.com>
> wrote:
>
>>
>>"Tim Merrigan" <tp...@ca.rr.com> wrote in message
>>news:li9hj69obotq4un67...@4ax.com...
>>> On Thu, 20 Jan 2011 14:01:46 -0600, Clothahump <hookk...@yahoo.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>>Frank McCoy wrote:
>>>>> I just shudder to think of an idiot like THAT ever being elected.
>>>>Look at who is sitting in the White House right now. Of the four people
>>>>in the last Pres/VP race, Palin was the only one even remotely qualified
>>>>to hold the office, having been the chief executive officer of a state.
>>>
>>> A job she quit half way through. Even were I a conservative I would
>>> say that alone would disqualify here from holding any other elective
>>> office.
>>
>>Why would it disquallify her?
>
> Because it clearly indicates that she won't finish the job she was
> hired to do.
Read below.
invalidd
>
> There appear to be two alternatives for governments which find
> themselves in the position of the USA and UK ie not basket bail-out
> cases like Greece or Ireland but not healthy enough to weather the storm
> like Germany.
>
> They can either reign in spending and send the country into full-blown
> depression, or they can print and spend money, saving jobs and financial
> institutions and warding off a full-scale depression but leaving the
> country facing decades of economic stagnation like Japan.
>
> Whichever option they choose, the root cause is still the same - Freddie
> Mac and Fannie Mae and the likes of Goldman Sachs ("doing God's work")
> who flogged worthless CDOs across the planet.
>
And I should add that the chief beneficiaries are China, rapidly on it's
way to overtaking the USA as the world's leading economic superpower.
Obama seems comfortable with that, happy to condone the Chinese illegal
occupation of Tibet, and happy to do business with them despite their
appalling human rights' record.
I guess Obama thinks the way China is buying up vast swathes of Africa,
his spiritual native continent, is better than the colonial rule of the
Europeans.
invalidd
> On 22 Jan 2011 11:24:02 -0600, "Fred Brown" <fredb...@nowhere.com>
> wrote:
>
>>
>>Liberals don't like facts, they confuse easily and facts give them
>>headaches.
>
>
> Looks like science is going to prove you wrong here.
>
> A recent study in the UK (paper undergoing peer review) shows that
> conservative have an enlarged amygdala (emotional processing area),
> while liberals have an enlarged anterior cingulate (error & conflict
> detection processing area). This is taken to mean that conservatives
> react emotionally to issues, whereas liberals react logically.
>
> http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/today/tomfeilden/2010/12/are_political_beliefs_hard_wir.html
The sample size reduces the study proper to minor anecdotal status. They
don't mention the size of the larger pool but questioning the subjects
retrospectively is not a valid technique. This study deserves to fail
peer review but instead is likely to contribute to the 80% of papers
published which are actually bad science.
The Conservative, Alan Duncan, is a known incompetent who has bungled
several times since taking office.
The Socialist, Stephen Pound, was a time-server in the most illiberal
government in UK history since the vote was extended to the whole
population; they now have more CCTV cameras per citizen than any other
country in the world.
The true liberals, the Liberal Democrat Party, came up with a completely
illogical manifesto for the last election based on pandering to every
possible pressure group ie no new fossil fuel or nuclear reactors but
they'd keep the power supply going despite the predicted surge in need
with the growing population and the decommissioning of obsolete power
stations. How logical is that?
The TheatrElf
news:4d3c13e4$0$79871$bb4e...@newscene.com:
>>>>> It's so EASY to say that this or that policy "has ruined
>>>>> the nation".
>>>>
>>>> And it's so easy for a certain fraction to believe it.
>>>
>>>That's because all the proof is there.
>>
>>
>> Actually, it's because, to quote a Republican source, "You
>> can fool some of the people all of the time...." --- Abraham
>> Lincoln
>
> What Lincoln said was;
>
>
> "You can fool some of the people all of the time, and all of
> the people some of the time, but you can NOT fool all of the
> people all of the time."
>
> The Tea Partiers are the ones who are not being fooled
> anymore.
So they'd like us to believe; I haven't seen any evidence of
that.
--
Xjahn
The TheatrElf
http://manormaniac.blogspot.com/
The future ain't what it used to be.
The TheatrElf
>
> "Tim Merrigan" <tp...@ca.rr.com> wrote in message
> news:nocnj614gv38nfkfi...@4ax.com...
>> On Sat, 22 Jan 2011 14:37:59 -0800 (PST), Margo
>> <saa...@sympatico.ca> wrote:
>>
>>>On Jan 22, 11:40 am, "Fred Brown" <fredbbr...@nowhere.com>
>>>wrote:
>>>> "Margo" <saa...@sympatico.ca> wrote in message
>>>>
>>>> news:d714993f-702e-4c90...@s9g2000vby.googleg
>>>> roups.com... On Jan 20, 10:21 am, Clothahump
If Home Depot hadn't decayed into a wretched excuse of a
business, that would have more "oomph" to it. Me, I drive the
extra distance to Lowes rather than deal with the layers of
incompetence and apathy that are drowning Home Depot.
--
Xjahn
The TheatrElf
http://manormaniac.blogspot.com/
All men have the right to dig their own graves, and I have the
right to sell them the shovels.
The TheatrElf
>>>>>Look at who is sitting in the White House right now. Of
>>>>>the four people in the last Pres/VP race, Palin was the
>>>>>only one even remotely qualified to hold the office, having
>>>>>been the chief executive officer of a state.
>>>>
>>>> A job she quit half way through. Even were I a
>>>> conservative I would say that alone would disqualify here
>>>> from holding any other elective office.
>>>
>>>Why would it disquallify her?
>>
>> Because it clearly indicates that she won't finish the job
>> she was hired to do.
>
> Read below.
>
>> It gives her a chance to get a head start on the 2012
>> campaign.The left attacking her constantly and her TV show
>> gives her plenty of publicity without violating the campaign
>> laws.
She couldn't do the job she was entrusted to do while planning on
the next one? Every other Presidential candidate has stuck with
their current job while planning their next campaign. That Palin
can't only underscores how unsuitable for the most stressful job
in the nation she really is.
--
Xjahn
The TheatrElf
http://manormaniac.blogspot.com/
Any shrine is better than self-worship.
Canth
<inva...@invalidd.invalidd> wrote:
>Canth wrote:
>
>> On 22 Jan 2011 11:24:02 -0600, "Fred Brown" <fredb...@nowhere.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>
>
>
>>>
>>>Liberals don't like facts, they confuse easily and facts give them
>>>headaches.
>>
>>
>> Looks like science is going to prove you wrong here.
>>
>> A recent study in the UK (paper undergoing peer review) shows that
>> conservative have an enlarged amygdala (emotional processing area),
>> while liberals have an enlarged anterior cingulate (error & conflict
>> detection processing area). This is taken to mean that conservatives
>> react emotionally to issues, whereas liberals react logically.
>>
>> http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/today/tomfeilden/2010/12/are_political_beliefs_hard_wir.html
>
>The sample size reduces the study proper to minor anecdotal status. They
>don't mention the size of the larger pool but questioning the subjects
>retrospectively is not a valid technique. This study deserves to fail
>peer review but instead is likely to contribute to the 80% of papers
>published which are actually bad science.
>
Will be interesting to read the actual study methodology.
Retrospective questionnaires are valid if double blind techniques are
used.
>The Conservative, Alan Duncan, is a known incompetent who has bungled
>several times since taking office.
>
>The Socialist, Stephen Pound, was a time-server in the most illiberal
>government in UK history since the vote was extended to the whole
>population; they now have more CCTV cameras per citizen than any other
>country in the world.
>
The competence or otherwise of the subjects is irrelevant to the
study. It is the subjects political beliefs which are linked, not
their ability to translate those beliefs into actions.
>The true liberals, the Liberal Democrat Party, came up with a completely
>illogical manifesto for the last election based on pandering to every
>possible pressure group ie no new fossil fuel or nuclear reactors but
>they'd keep the power supply going despite the predicted surge in need
>with the growing population and the decommissioning of obsolete power
>stations. How logical is that?
The area of the brain associated with liberals is used for complex
go/no-go decisions. Thickening and elaboration of this region implies
to me a much greater use of this particular area in the liberals to
that in non-liberals [who may not be conservatives.] In other words,
a liberal subjects much more of the decision making to this go/no-go
analysis. It says nothing about the quality of the data used in the
process, nor the quality of the outcome.
It has been my observation that the Wooly Headed Liberal is the most
fearsome beast in the political zoo. Give me a conservative any day;
they are predictable and can be worked around. The WHL is so
unpredictable nothing can be used to control the beast. The
conservative is honest enough to accept that his driver is self
interest, and tends to fall into Heinlein's definition of an honest
politician - once bought, stays bought. The WHL believe he is acting
in the best interests of everyone, and cannot be bought for more than
a minute or two.
The TheatrElf
news:ih9jt1$jq7$1...@speranza.aioe.org:
> The progressives are scared shitless of Palin because she's
> smart, she's outspoken, she's conservative and she's female.
>
Well, 3 out of four ain't bad. She's certainly outspoken, she's
certainly conservative, and undeniably female.
Palin will lose a Presidential bid. And if the Republicans run
her, it will be the end of their credibility.
--
Xjahn
The TheatrElf
http://manormaniac.blogspot.com/
Giving money and power to government is like giving whiskey and
car
keys to teenage boys.
-P.J. O'Rourke, Civil Libertarian
The TheatrElf
>
> "Margo" <saa...@sympatico.ca> wrote in message
> news:b87d5a17-7b19-4924...@s5g2000yqm.googlegrou
> ps.com... On Jan 22, 11:40 am, "Fred Brown"
> <fredbbr...@nowhere.com> wrote:
>> "Margo" <saa...@sympatico.ca> wrote in message
>>
>> news:d714993f-702e-4c90...@s9g2000vby.googlegro
>> ups.com... On Jan 20, 10:21 am, Clothahump
That's simply a lie, Fred. It's a flat-out lie, and it's
astonishingly easy to show that it's a lie
http://www.bls.gov/news.release/empsit.nr0.htm
"The unemployment rate fell by 0.4 percentage point to 9.4 percent
in December, and nonfarm payroll employment increased by 103,000,
the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics reported today."
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/01/23/magazine/23Economy-t.html
"The American Recovery and Reinvestment Act, known as the stimulus,
produced or saved at least 1.9 million jobs and as many as 4.7
million last year, according to the Congressional Budget Office."
> Unless you count all those new Czars.
Ignoring, once again, that GW Bush appointed more czars than any
president before or since.
http://www.factcheck.org/2009/09/czar-search/
--
}:-) Christopher Jahn
{:-( http://www.southfloridatheatrescene.com/
All things are possible, except skiing thru a revolving door.
The TheatrElf
> Liberals don't like facts, they confuse easily and facts give
> them headaches.
Actually, we're quite fond of facts. I've posted a few facts;
when will you do the same?
--
Xjahn
The TheatrElf
http://manormaniac.blogspot.com/
And on the seventh day, He exited from append mode.
invalidd
> On Sun, 23 Jan 2011 13:17:30 +0000, invalidd
> <inva...@invalidd.invalidd> wrote:
>
> Retrospective questionnaires are valid if double blind techniques are
> used.
"What were your opinions about X five years ago before you left academia
and got a job in the real world?"
I don't think so.
>>The Conservative, Alan Duncan, is a known incompetent who has bungled
>>several times since taking office.
>>
>>The Socialist, Stephen Pound, was a time-server in the most illiberal
>>government in UK history since the vote was extended to the whole
>>population; they now have more CCTV cameras per citizen than any other
>>country in the world.
>>
>
> The competence or otherwise of the subjects is irrelevant to the
> study. It is the subjects political beliefs which are linked, not
> their ability to translate those beliefs into actions.
I disagree. Alan Duncan is not a representative Conservative. He has
shown himself prone to emotional outbursts.
The TheatrElf
news:ihhhvq$o70$1...@speranza.aioe.org:
Just like John Boehner and Glenn Beck.
--
Xjahn
The TheatrElf
http://manormaniac.blogspot.com/
Yield to oncoming traffic.
Tim Merrigan
wrote:
>
>"Tim Merrigan" <tp...@ca.rr.com> wrote in message
>news:19cnj65v9can9gj3s...@4ax.com...
>> On 22 Jan 2011 11:10:01 -0600, "Fred Brown" <fredb...@nowhere.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>"Marten Kemp" <marte...@thisplanet-link.net> wrote in message
>>>news:ihc6m9$c16$1...@speranza.aioe.org...
>>>> On 1/20/2011 8:09 PM, Frank McCoy wrote:
>>>>> Marten Kemp<marte...@thisplanet-link.net> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On 1/20/2011 12:53 PM, Frank McCoy wrote:
>>>>>>> Margo<saa...@sympatico.ca> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Oh, yes . please...Palin/Gingrich 2012!
>>>>>>>> LOL!
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> AAAAGRRRRGGGGHHHH!!!!!
>>>>>>> Now I'm going to have nightmares.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Mondays and Thursdays MSNBC will list the self-serving,
>>>>>> hypocritical and stupid things Palin has done and said.
>>>>>> Tuesdays and Fridays MSNBC will list the self-serving,
>>>>>> hypocritical and stupid things Gingrich has done and said.
>>>>>> Wednesdays will be spent reviewing the things that Pres.
>>>>>> Obama has done in the past week and his plans for the
>>>>>> coming one.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I think the best political ads for Pres. Obama would be
>>>>>> to simply state something good he's done or something
>>>>>> stupid or hypocritical his opponents have done or said,
>>>>>> followed by the simple statement, "And *this* isn't a lie."
>>>>>
>>>>> But the opposition WILL post lies ... if not about HIM, then about his
>>>>> policies.
>>>>>
>>>>> It's so EASY to say that this or that policy "has ruined the nation".
>>>>
>>>> And it's so easy for a certain fraction to believe it.
>>>
>>>That's because all the proof is there.
>>
>>
>> Actually, it's because, to quote a Republican source, "You can fool
>> some of the people all of the time...." --- Abraham Lincoln
>
>What Lincoln said was;
>
>
>"You can fool some of the people all of the time, and all of the people some
>of the time, but you can NOT fool all of the people all of the time."
True, but only the first clause was relevant to the discussion at
hand.
>
>The Tea Partiers are the ones who are not being fooled anymore.
Again with the superfluous "not".
>
>>>
>>>> --
>>>> -- Marten Kemp (Fix ISP to reply)
>>>> "Nothing bad can happen if you're wearing purple socks." -Mom
Tim Merrigan
Jette, note that I disagree with Mr. Brown on just about everything,
but I don't think he's using that phrase as a racial epithet, merely
that he's claiming that Obama is doing the same things Bush did.
(Considering his proclaimed opinion of Obama, this reflects badly on
Bush.)
Tim Merrigan
wrote:
>
So the way to become competitive is to bring us down to their level,
i.e. by building low paying third world sweat shops here. Gods forbid
we should try to get the rest of the world to treat their workers half
way humanely.
(We do operate at a slight disadvantage there, in that the 13th and
14th amendments specifically outlaw slavery.)
>What Congress needs to do is consult and listen to major business
>leaders like one of the founders of Home Depot who have excellent
>ideas on what needs to be done.
>
>>
>> I pledge allegiance to the Constitution of the United States of America,
>> and to the republic which it established, one nation, from many peoples,
>> promising liberty and justice for all.
>> Feel free to use the above variant pledge in your own postings.
>>
>> Tim Merrigan
--