>> ^probie:

If it reacted that way to garbage, just imagine if you threw Sarah Palin in there...


You're right, why settle for just any old trash when we can throw in some white trash, still not a virgin though.

If it reacted that way to garbage, just imagine if you threw Sarah Palin in there...

>> ^probie:

This woman is truly clueless. I'm starting to understand how Sarah Palin got elected now.


This. 100 times. I'm pretty sure she only does what the plasmoids tell her.

This woman is truly clueless. I'm starting to understand how Sarah Palin got elected now.

It's not that Cenk is wrong about voting for McCain, that was just another Pandora's Box to be had at the table. I feel while John would "maybe" try to end this issue, as we've seen his past his stance changes from one way to the other when push comes to shove (gays in the military) he would still end up doing some if not most of the core Republican "threats". Which may mean that if it came down to the wire some sort of "law deal" would be made with house Republicans and they would force John to change his mind. I know John had a law on the books that got railroaded by this Citizens United fiasco--so he may have some actual flesh in the fight. I just need to see him commit/fight first before I believe the words.

But, anyway, you'd have to remember we'd have to deal with the pure drivel of his right hand...The Dumbass From Alaska: Sarah Palin! I'd like to say McCain was OK, he seemed fine circa 2000, but with the state of politics--no offense to Cenk as I think he's a smart guy--but I DON'T trust a damned word coming from ANY of their mouths. They say things TO GET PRESS COVERAGE for hells sake (but, this deserves press coverage)!!! So, yes, I think John is getting a hardy pass to "Go" here when he may not deserve it; John should have already made his move on the issue--if he has done more than introduce his old bill and disagree with the Citizens vs. United, that is all that I know he really did. He passed a law dealing with the subject so I'd assume he has a stake in it somewhere, it just hasn't been made all that clear--it's just talking for now (I'm going to go look for a bit myself as well, to see if I can find more direct maneuvers that he has done either against Citizens United or his bill that was ran over).

Obama talked a great talk, but we knew after two years we didn't get anything remotely close to a revolutionary or visionary president here--let alone progressive (the last progressive probably was Roosevelt to be truthful, I don't think Reagan or Clinton count at all, they just towed in the party lines and left partisanship, unchecked, to take a bigger hold in American politics and they both did a good job for THEIR parties), just a McPresident™ fully endorsed by: [list your 1000 companies here]. Obama is playing his cards close to the middle (not to the far left like oh so many think). I hate the Citizens United Decision and I'm astounded it hasn't been slapped down yet as it LITERALLY allows foreign interests to play with our politics--not funny. Just the business end of it is spooky enough. I hate Obama for a lot of issues, but just because one guy that diametrically opposes everything else he says has one VERY valid point I'm not going to take him on his offer until he commits to the point where his words cannot be swung 180 degrees. I'm betting that even now Sarah Palin thinks the Citizens United decision is either about people getting together to have a party or she thinks it's great; so really she likes it no matter what.

Imagine being in Iran right now, over having Citizens United resolved in the name of 'The People', instead we'd probably get a declaration of a third war instead--we could play this stupid game all day. I'd rather be disappointed in my president and wait for the courts to settle it, if they can--we can all thank Bush Junior for his absolute garbage taste in Justices...

I'm not a fan of John or Obama that much, but I WILL take Obama any-day over a Republican--right now in our current political climate; Republicans are toxic. Personally, I think John's main involvement does go back to the law he passed in 2002 for campaign finance reform. That of course was on the books when Citizens United came about and forced them to take that law into account and the prevailing Justices basically just sneered at it as they seemed to have a malicious view of the other side as their responses gave that away. They were snide and sarcastic in a matter which is neither, except to them--so did they get paid off? I'm thinking, somehow, YES, they did. I'm assuming someone cares at the level of government, it is getting harder to tell every year. Obama certainly doesn't help that issue. I really don't think John would have either, he may have saved us on finance reform for elections--electioneering--but, he would have enacted so many ridiculously TERRIBLE laws in place of the ONE bad law that we'd cry for our country. Plus, we might be in Iran considering the level of vitriolic talk from him and Sarah...

Rolling the dice with World War 3 looming...



That is the one thing that MAY keep John on your side throughout all of this as he did try the first time to try and sway their opinion and he also had an old law on the books that dealt with some of the issues presented.

31 seconds in... that's not what freedom of speech is.
I'm pretty sure Sarah Palin has said the exact same thing, the same exact error.
I guess they had to hire writers. Maybe they hired Sarah's writers?

Lets rewind:

Last presidential election, early on Hillary Clinton was considered the likely Democrat candidate. Republicans assumed (rather offensively) that anyone female would be practically guaranteed to vote for her due to some sort of "vaginal solidarity". What did they do? They pushed McCain into naming Sarah Palin as his veep, in spite of the fact that nobody really knew anything about her. The only reason for doing that was that they assumed that they would be hemorrhaging women voters, and Palin would magically solve that. How'd that work out? Not well.

So what is Mitt doing here? Failing to learn from that mistake. Mitt thought that having a gay spokesperson might make it possible for him to steal some of that demographic. He failed to remember that an election is a high school popularity contest, and you have to lock down your base before you can go for the swing vote. He stands to lose way more votes from the religious right-wing bigots that would take offense to his working with an "unclean" homosexual than the votes that he could potentially gain from moderates and liberals who are impressed with this "open minded" appointment of a gay staffer.

I would somewhat disagree with Cenk that that makes Romney the bad guy here, though. And it sounds to me like the spokesperson himself wasn't offended by being "fired"; he just realized that unfortunately his presence was going to have a negative effect on Romney's campaign. If he really did want Romney to get elected, he probably would have resigned once that became apparent -- but on the other hand if he is "fired" it can be seen as an attempt to mollify the right-wing nuts that took offense in the first place. Anyway, I'd say that the whole mess reflects much more poorly on the Republican party and the religious right wing than it does on Romney himself. At least he (sorta) tried, and showed that he is probably less of a bigot than his base...

Michael Palin or Sarah Palin? And what exactly is this action which causes it to be "ex"?

I hope it's Michael instead of Sarah... It makes me think that it will be funny instead of sad.

>> ^NetRunner:

Part of the problem? That means people like Sarah Palin get the black hat, and people like you & me get white ones, right?
Just goes to show that the liberal media tries to demonize conservatives.
Seriously though, do you think Sarah Palin will take your advice? Or that anyone who idolizes Sarah Palin would? Do you think telling liberals to stop condemning the immoral actions of conservatives would help solve "the problem"?
This isn't some childish bout of namecalling that just got out of hand. They really mean it when they say liberals aren't real Americans. They really mean it when they say they think they're engaged in a noble battle for freedom against an enemy who is trying to take it away.
I think the non-conservatives really need to wake up to the fact that they're not just saying this stuff to get our goats. They really mean it.
>> ^VoodooV:
That's one thing, but when you honestly seem to believe that you're the white hat and the opposition is the black hat, then you've ceased to become part of the solution and have become part of the problem.



Then how do you propose one should go about convincing the right that the left are not mustache twirlers and that the left's fiendishly clever plan for world domination....just doesn't exist. Or are you suggesting that the left just don't give a shit and say fuck'em if they don't be more reasonable, walk away from the negotiating table and commit to a 2nd American Civil War? Which, yes, I am quite fearful will happen in my lifetime the way the vitriol and hate are building. Hell I wouldn't at all be surprised that Obama getting re-elected would tip some of the far right into an armed frenzy.

I'm sorry, but everyone paints themselves as the plucky rebellion fighting the evil empire, everyone thinks their god is the right god. When you step back and realize that all sides think the same thing about the other side, you start to realize just how absurd this shit is and that BOTH SIDES ARE FUCKED UP!!!! If you can't at least be aware of that absurdity...then we're doomed.

Part of the problem? That means people like Sarah Palin get the black hat, and people like you & me get white ones, right?

Just goes to show that the liberal media tries to demonize conservatives.

Seriously though, do you think Sarah Palin will take your advice? Or that anyone who idolizes Sarah Palin would? Do you think telling liberals to stop condemning the immoral actions of conservatives would help solve "the problem"?

This isn't some childish bout of namecalling that just got out of hand. They really mean it when they say liberals aren't real Americans. They really mean it when they say they think they're engaged in a noble battle for freedom against an enemy who is trying to take it away.

I think the non-conservatives really need to wake up to the fact that they're not just saying this stuff to get our goats. They really mean it.
>> ^VoodooV:
That's one thing, but when you honestly seem to believe that you're the white hat and the opposition is the black hat, then you've ceased to become part of the solution and have become part of the problem.

Sarah Palin vs Julianne Moore vs Tina Fey...now that I would pay to see.

>> ^deathcow:

This starts to get weird after a while and you cant tell who is acting more.


People like Palin are actors really...they just really want to believe that they're not.

This clip confirms a couple of things for me. First that I want to see this movie. Second, it confirms that Julianne Moore is a very,very talented actor. I've enjoyed most every role I've seen her in- she's certainly got a handle on channeling Palin in this flick.

I've seen interviews with Moore and she comes across as intelligent, charming, and both self-aware and self deprecating at the same time It is also true that she is overwhelmingly attractive. Sarah Palin on the other hand, well let's just say that there is nothing at all attractive about mean-spirited and ignorant.

Julianne Moore's only fault seems to be that she actually sounds sincere. To capture the true Sarah Palin she needed to play it more like a bad actress who didn't study her lines.

Sarah Palin has more daughters?