Any question she can't answer is a "gotcha" type of question.

Do you read any newspapers? GOTCHA!
Do you know that Africa is a continent? GOTCHA!
Do you know what the vice president's job is? GOTCHA!

Did you seriously just say Obama's intellect is comparable to Palin's?!

Palin has a far better grasp on what it means to be an American than a bitter leftist who sat in a hate-Whitey church for 20-plus years. His Earness is endlessly promoted by His media lackeys, so a fair comparison is not possible.

SERIOUSLY?!?!?!? Look, gaffes aside, Obama graduated from Harvard Law School with a JD magna cum laude. Palin took six years to get a bachelor's degree in communications bouncing around from school to school to get it!

You might have had a point when Harvard wasn't a politically-correct degree mill. Speaking of kollij, we will never see Obama's kollij papers to know his genius even then. Community organizer? Do you even need higher education to become a rabble-rousing 'activist'?

Dude, if the conservative/libertarian ideology concluded the world is flat, would you spout that crap, too?! In fact, your beloved Ron Paul wouldn't tell Obama he's not smart enough to be president.

I don't need any labels to denounce His Earness. I merely observe the results of his incompetence (or genius, for those promoting the one-world illuminati worldview). His results are indefensible by any metric you care to name.

Just ridiculous. I get you don't like Obama, but that doesn't mean you should ignore basic fact. And I'm sorry, but she's simply not smart enough to be president. This has nothing to do with her ideology. Plenty of conservative politicians are out there who have the intellectual capacity to be president, but she's not one of them.

Due to an unfortunate media-created outbreak of Palin Derangement Syndrome, your observation cannot be quantified. Anyone here think Joe Biden is smart enough to operate a doorknob much less be President?

BONUS NO. 2 -- "Who are these people?" -- mid-90s Vice President and supergenius Al Gore, referring to the busts of Jefferson, Washington and Franklin during a tour of Monticello, home of Thomas Jefferson.

So you have to have worked in the financial industry to be qualified to make recommendations on making laws to regulate it?

You know what experience can be very valuable as a regulator? Knowing and being involved in regulatory laws on the industry, because you tend to see what laws have been effective, what haven't, etc. It also means you might know a thing or two about what makes a good, well written law vs. a bad one. Now, you got Warren on that one. She doesn't have squat for experience there...

Except of course a BS in law from University of Houston...
...and JD from Rutgers Law...
Editor of Rutgers Law Review...
Decades of experience working as a lawyer involved in financial transactions such as wills, real estate, commercial law...
Over a decade of experience teaching in five universities, one including some crappy college called Harvard Law
Over 100 peer reviewed academic articles
Six academic books on the subject
Vice President of American Law Institute
Best selling author/co-author on personal finance
National Law Journal's 50 most influential female lawyers
Multiple award winner for both practicing law and as a teacher on the same subject

Other than that, she's completely unqualified!

Is this what America has come to? If you accomplish the above, you're in no shape qualified to make recommendations for regulations to help protect American consumers financially?! I get you disagree with her, but disagreeing with her doesn't make her unqualified.

>> ^quantumushroom:

Maybe you ought to do a little research on Ms. Warren, the newest unelected tyranocrat who will be "protecting" the consumer from Wall Street.
Who protects the average man from having everything stolen by vote-buying socialists?
"Ms. Warren had never worked in financial services – in fact, she had never held a job in any financial industry – but as a Harvard law professor, she had written a variety of articles and books."
In other words, unqualified. Just like you-know-who.

I'd like him as a vice president, not president.

I did, but it seemed like you said the reason we shouldn't care about Libya is because of Iraq. And then turned around and said this isn't like Iraq, even though it is clearly like Iraq. In other words, you were mad because this is just like Iraq, and because it isn't like Iraq.

>> ^Ryjkyj:

>> ^GeeSussFreeK:
>> ^Ryjkyj:
Give me a fucking break.
If anything we should be pissed that he continued the bullshit in Iraq and Afghanistan. Focusing on Libya is just distracting from MAJOR, LONG TERM problems.
The UN, including America, is in Libya to prevent civilians from being murdered for protesting their government. Maybe someday someone will show that we shouldn't have done it but this video is pathetic journalism that distracts from larger and more pressing issues.
It's fucking bullshit.
Upvote to illuminate ignorance.

You mean like Iraq? We didn't already learn that lesson? I don't see how the UN removes that previous lesson...to error in crowds don't make it any less an error. Are you saying that whenever a country kills its citizens, it should be bombed? If so, then you approve of Iraq.
Edit, as an addendum, I am not sure this is an impeachable offence.
""The President, Vice President, and all civil officers of the United States" who may only be impeached and removed for "treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors"." Being that the context of the War Powers Act is vague and congress hasn't repealed it, I don't see any real justification for the charge of treason or high crimes, just playing by the rules of poorly formed laws.

Hey Geesuss,
Next time, when you're going to reply to one of my comments, try reading it first. Christ on a shitwagon, you even quoted me as saying that the Libya thing is just distracting from the major, long term problem in Iraq. Why am I even repeating myself?.

>> ^Ryjkyj:

>> ^GeeSussFreeK:
>> ^Ryjkyj:
Give me a fucking break.
If anything we should be pissed that he continued the bullshit in Iraq and Afghanistan. Focusing on Libya is just distracting from MAJOR, LONG TERM problems.
The UN, including America, is in Libya to prevent civilians from being murdered for protesting their government. Maybe someday someone will show that we shouldn't have done it but this video is pathetic journalism that distracts from larger and more pressing issues.
It's fucking bullshit.
Upvote to illuminate ignorance.

You mean like Iraq? We didn't already learn that lesson? I don't see how the UN removes that previous lesson...to error in crowds don't make it any less an error. Are you saying that whenever a country kills its citizens, it should be bombed? If so, then you approve of Iraq.
Edit, as an addendum, I am not sure this is an impeachable offence.
""The President, Vice President, and all civil officers of the United States" who may only be impeached and removed for "treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors"." Being that the context of the War Powers Act is vague and congress hasn't repealed it, I don't see any real justification for the charge of treason or high crimes, just playing by the rules of poorly formed laws.

Hey Geesuss,
Next time, when you're going to reply to one of my comments, try reading it first. Christ on a shitwagon, you even quoted me as saying that the Libya thing is just distracting from the major, long term problem in Iraq. Why am I even repeating myself?.

>> ^GeeSussFreeK:

>> ^Ryjkyj:
Give me a fucking break.
If anything we should be pissed that he continued the bullshit in Iraq and Afghanistan. Focusing on Libya is just distracting from MAJOR, LONG TERM problems.
The UN, including America, is in Libya to prevent civilians from being murdered for protesting their government. Maybe someday someone will show that we shouldn't have done it but this video is pathetic journalism that distracts from larger and more pressing issues.
It's fucking bullshit.
Upvote to illuminate ignorance.

You mean like Iraq? We didn't already learn that lesson? I don't see how the UN removes that previous lesson...to error in crowds don't make it any less an error. Are you saying that whenever a country kills its citizens, it should be bombed? If so, then you approve of Iraq.
Edit, as an addendum, I am not sure this is an impeachable offence.
""The President, Vice President, and all civil officers of the United States" who may only be impeached and removed for "treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors"." Being that the context of the War Powers Act is vague and congress hasn't repealed it, I don't see any real justification for the charge of treason or high crimes, just playing by the rules of poorly formed laws.


Hey Geesuss,

Next time, when you're going to reply to one of my comments, try reading it first. Christ on a shitwagon, you even quoted me as saying that the Libya thing is just distracting from the major, long term problem in Iraq. Why am I even repeating myself?.

>> ^Ryjkyj:

Give me a fucking break.
If anything we should be pissed that he continued the bullshit in Iraq and Afghanistan. Focusing on Libya is just distracting from MAJOR, LONG TERM problems.
The UN, including America, is in Libya to prevent civilians from being murdered for protesting their government. Maybe someday someone will show that we shouldn't have done it but this video is pathetic journalism that distracts from larger and more pressing issues.
It's fucking bullshit.
Upvote to illuminate ignorance.


You mean like Iraq? We didn't already learn that lesson? I don't see how the UN removes that previous lesson...to error in crowds don't make it any less an error. Are you saying that whenever a country kills its citizens, it should be bombed? If so, then you approve of Iraq.

Edit, as an addendum, I am not sure this is an impeachable offence.

""The President, Vice President, and all civil officers of the United States" who may only be impeached and removed for "treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors"." Being that the context of the War Powers Act is vague and congress hasn't repealed it, I don't see any real justification for the charge of treason or high crimes, just playing by the rules of poorly formed laws.

From Wiki:

Their song "One Toke Over The Line" was performed on The Lawrence Welk Show, a television program known for its conservative, family-oriented bent, by a duo known as "Gail and Dale." At the conclusion of the performance of the song, Welk remarked, without any hint of humor, "There you've heard a modern spiritual by Gail and Dale."

This led Michael Brewer to comment:

The Vice President of the United States, Spiro Agnew, named us personally as a subversive to American youth, but at exactly the same time Lawrence Welk performed the crazy thing and introduced it as a gospel song. That shows how absurd it really is. Of course, we got more publicity than we could have paid for.

This woman could be the vice-president.

Fuck Peta, fuck them right off, they have completely lost the fucking plot. Yes, this is Actually a Peta Ad, which they market as being 'banned' and 'too hot to show'... yeah, no shit, did you even bother submitting it? I'm sure you really thought it would get on the air.

So, it's not OK to eat meat, but it IS OK to objectify human women and have them perform sexual acts with vegetables (and fruit, let's not forget the tomatoes) for the camera in a wholly dirty feeling way?

THIS is how you expect to make people want to not eat meat?

Sorry Peta but you have gone mental and seem to think that you are just in doing fricken anything at all in the name of 'saving animals'.

Ha... this is hilarious. There is a site called Myths about Peta debunked and it's number 2 myth is the one I fricking love about Peta and the 'debunking' is hilarious.

OK so...
'Myth': PETA's vice-president is a hypocrite because she uses insulin, a medication derived from animal testing. (But wait, it's better... the insulin she takes actually CONTAINS an animal product derived from pigs).

And their so called 'debunking' of this is:

# Insulin has already been found, and the test animals have already suffered, so there's no point boycotting it now.
# She needs it to live, and she needs her life to fight for the rights of animals. What would her ghost do? Rattle chains at KFC until they die of laughter?

I'm not even going to comment, it's stupidity speaks for itself.

Peta are horrible, this 'ad' is horrible.

I kind of want to upvote this to get lots of videosift comments on it, but kind of don't because I hate for them to get any coverage thanks to it, which is what they really want... no, fuck it, I think most people will find this to be fucking pathetic and disgusting and it will hopefully see a decline in support for Peta and their militant ways.

BTW: If you are a vegetarian or vegan, good for you, I have no issue, but it's a personal thing, not something to be forced on others. Kind of like religion in that regard.

This video has been seconded as a duplicate; transferring votes to the original video and killing this dupe - dupeof seconded with isdupe by chicchorea.

*isdupe
>> ^Stingray:

dupeof=http://videosift.com/video/A-harmless-prank-on-the-USC-Student-Body-Vice-President-goes-horribly-wrong

*dupeof=http://videosift.com/video/A-harmless-prank-on-the-USC-Student-Body-Vice-President-goes-horribly-wrong

This video has been nominated as a duplicate of this video by Stingray. If this nomination is seconded with *isdupe, the video will be killed and its votes transferred to the original.