Without a single "you betcha" in any of his responses, it's no wonder McCain is edging toward a landslide victory in 10 days.

Wow, Palin is sure getting nailed my the media. You gotta love it. You betcha! By the way, here is a website I found that shares all the Sarah Palin Pictures and supports Barack Obama!

>> ^Drachen_Jager:
could be fake, but it seems about right to me

Hmm. I don't know. Sounds high to me.

>> ^budzos:
>> ^Trancecoach:
a maverick, by definition, is one who does not play on a team. "a team of mavericks" is an oxymoron.

That has been bugging the shit out of me since I first heard it!
I might write an entire blog post about this elsewhere, but I think it all comes down to the word "nuclear." Saying "nukular" in the hopes of coming off as folksy and unpretentious is cynical and is exactly why I hate most people, especially politicians. Saying "nukular" because you've never looked at the word closely, or because you're just a sloppy speaker, is prima fascia evidence that you're a fucking MORON and shouldn't be trusted with the keys to the car nevermind the codes to the nuclear football.


Sigh. Son, this is no way to get back at the world for that stuttering problem you had as a child. Let it go...

Thanks for the promote! =)

In reply to this comment by dystopianfuturetoday:
*promote

>> ^Trancecoach:
a maverick, by definition, is one who does not play on a team. "a team of mavericks" is an oxymoron.


That has been bugging the shit out of me since I first heard it!

I might write an entire blog post about this elsewhere, but I think it all comes down to the word "nuclear." Saying "nukular" in the hopes of coming off as folksy and unpretentious is cynical and is exactly why I hate most people, especially politicians. Saying "nukular" because you've never looked at the word closely, or because you're just a sloppy speaker, is prima fascia evidence that you're a fucking MORON and shouldn't be trusted with the keys to the car nevermind the codes to the nuclear football.

Its not a slip of the tongue - he accidentally revealed his four year! Enslave! You Betcha!

*wink*

I think this deserves a *comedy tag just in case someone actually thinks he meant it!

^doogle - my personal response to you is in your profile.

But, for the rest of this wonderful studio audience, all I have to say is "Talk to the booty, ’cause the hands off-duty! You betcha!"

>> ^ShakyJake:
She's been to college and had a full education, right? Maybe everyone up there really does talk like that, but it just strikes me as an effected method of speech. It's like having Yosemite Sam up there speaking.


Quoth the Wikipedia:
Palin attended several colleges and universities. In 1982, she enrolled at Hawaii Pacific College but left after her first semester. She transferred to North Idaho community college, where she spent two semesters as a general studies major. From there, she transferred to the University of Idaho for two semesters.[11][12] During this time Palin won the Miss Wasilla Pageant beauty contest,[13][14] then finished third (second runner-up) in the Miss Alaska pageant,[15][16] at which she won a college scholarship and the "Miss Congeniality" award.[17] She then left the University of Idaho and attended Matanuska-Susitna community college in Alaska for one term. The next year she returned to the University of Idaho where she spent three semesters completing her Bachelor of Science degree in communications-journalism, graduating in 1987.[11][12]
---

So it took her around 5 years to get a 4-year degree. In Communications-Journalism. Where she would have (hopefully)learned to speak without an accent.

I think her handlers have told her to play it up, as if an accent is all it takes to sound "folksy."

That movie was on last night. When she says "Ya, you betcha and doggonit" I think of that movie. I wonder if she use "darn tootin" too?

You betcha.. keep up the great posts like this

In reply to this comment by eric3579:
Thanks for the promote

In reply to this comment by Constitutional_Patriot:
*promote

gorgon and qm.. why the downvote on this? it exposes the fact that ppl were lied to and cheated their votes by corrupt officials. Only a neocon shill would oppose and oppress the truth!

Alright. You made some good points. Like I said, I don't know much about it and I was honestly asking because I know I'm ignorant.

It's not about healthcare as much as it's about the principle behind this whole thing.

Let me tell you about some of my religious beliefs, since you brought that up. In the New Testament, Paul's epistles to the members of the early Christian church (following Christ's death) reveal that the early church practiced what Mormons call "The Law of Consecration". It is similar to Marxism in that everyone's needs are taken care of and capitalism doesn't exist (for the sake of the public good).

I believe that there are God's laws and then there are Satan's counterfeits. Here is a little quote about it: "To me that means that whenever God creates something that is good, true, and beautiful, Satan, in his devious way, comes up with something that is false, counterfeit, and ugly, yet appears to be similar to our Father’s creation." In this case, the eternal law is consecration. You share everything you have with others. Satan's counterfeit is communism. Are you following me? I promise I'm going somewhere with this.

In the early days of my church, they tried to practice the Law of Consecration. For a while, it worked, but people began to be jealous and resentful because some people weren't working as hard or sharing fairly etc., etc. and Joseph Smith did away with it in favor of tithing. Tithing is the lower law and the law of consecration is the higher law. (I don't know how much you know about Christian theology, but it's like Moses' Law being lower until Jesus came and gave a higher law. Jesus said "turn the other cheek" and Moses said "an eye for an eye.") We pay tithing for the greater good ("us") as a sacrifice to prepare us for a time when we are righteous enough to be given the higher law again.


Tithing is 10% of our income and is used for many things. We know that our money is being used where we want it to be used and we give it voluntarily. We also give what are called Fast Offerings. That is, we fast once a month and have the choice to give the money that we saved on food to the church and the money is distributed to the needy. Most people give a lot more than they saved on food, though.

The way it works is that the Bishop interviews people who aren't doing well financially and helps them become self-reliant if they possibly can. If they can't, the church gives them money to support them until they can find a way to support themselves. Also, the Bishop will often give the person the opportunity to serve the church in some way so that they can feel as if they're earning the money. This is a good system. Satan's counterfeit is socialism. The government takes our money by force and does with it what it pleases and we have no idea what happens to most of it. Much of it goes to the rich and to those who don't deserve it and who didn't work for it. Often, our welfare system helps people who really need help and I'm delighted about that, but much of the time my money goes to the lazy, to those who abuse their own bodies with smoking and unhealthy lifestyles, to those who want a vasectomy because other forms of contraception are just too difficult for them to handle, to those whose fathers and grandfathers were on welfare, to those who won't do what it takes to get/hold a job, to corrupt politicians and rich corporations, and so many others.

Like I said before, I give a huge chunk of my money to charity. I give it VOLUNTARILY. It's not all about me, me, me. It's about what is just and what is unjust. It is unjust for people to get free handouts unless they are really in need and cannot possibly take care of themlselves. To give people stuff that they don't deserve is not doing them a favor. Indeed, it is perpetuating ignorance and laziness and co-dependency instead of the things that truly make people feel like worthwhile human beings like self-reliance and hard work. The Lord's way of service and sacrifice and benefitting the greater good makes people happy. Socialism isn't right for that reason.

But I really do believe that we need government programs for those that cannot help themselves. I just don't like the way things are looking right now. We're slipping into socialism and I don't like it one bit. I wish there was a way to fix healthcare without privatizing.

Those were my opinions, by the way. Not church doctrines. The church doesn't take a stand on political topics.

I have more to say but I'm sick of typing and I don't think you want to read it, anyway.

In reply to this comment by spoco2:
Have you watched Sicko (Michael Moore, who I'm going to guess you don't like), if not, do so, it demonstrates the differences between the US and countries like ours.

I see that you have the usual right wing view of "How does it work besides you having to pay for somebody else's elective surgery?" You're coming from the viewpoint of me, me, me, rather than us, us, us.

Which, considering your strong religious views is odd, as the Christian ethos is 'do unto others as you would have done unto you'... which to me I would read 'If I were sick and couldn't afford to pay for a heart operation, I would hope that others might help me.'

Really, do you think we notice the money that goes towards public health? Nope.

Do we notice the huge difference in the cost of medicine and health care day to day for all of us here compared to places like the states? You betcha.

Really, even though you have private health cover, you should check out Sicko, it shows that just having cover doesn't mean things are going to be covered. And do you think it's right that before a doctor will perform LIFE saving procedures on you they ask about your cover, whether they'll get paid for it?

It's disgusting.

And breeding excellence is a load of absolute toss.

As I mentioned, one of my sons has a host of heart conditions, what we discovered is that we, right here in Melbourne Australia, with its public health system, not having to pay for it... we have one of the absolute BEST heart care centres in the world. The care we get for our son is second to none... really, they are superb, and we've read a lot on it, and talked to many, many people in the same boat around the world, and the quality of care in the states is no better, and the cost is far, far more.

I know which health care system I'd want.

And, by the way, I DO have private health care also, because we can afford it, and because you benefit for doing so and helping out further. And if you think that the rest of the country is paying for people to have boob jobs and the like you're very mistaken. By elective surgery, I mean things like vasectomies (very handy in keeping the ol' population down in this overcrowded world), and other things that are not life threatening, but impede the quality of life. (Um... warts being removed, wisdom teeth extracted, things like that)

In reply to this comment by thepinky:
In reply to this comment by spoco2:
In reply to this comment by thepinky:
?

Have you watched Sicko (Michael Moore, who I'm going to guess you don't like), if not, do so, it demonstrates the differences between the US and countries like ours.

I see that you have the usual right wing view of "How does it work besides you having to pay for somebody else's elective surgery?" You're coming from the viewpoint of me, me, me, rather than us, us, us.

Which, considering your strong religious views is odd, as the Christian ethos is 'do unto others as you would have done unto you'... which to me I would read 'If I were sick and couldn't afford to pay for a heart operation, I would hope that others might help me.'

Really, do you think we notice the money that goes towards public health? Nope.

Do we notice the huge difference in the cost of medicine and health care day to day for all of us here compared to places like the states? You betcha.

Really, even though you have private health cover, you should check out Sicko, it shows that just having cover doesn't mean things are going to be covered. And do you think it's right that before a doctor will perform LIFE saving procedures on you they ask about your cover, whether they'll get paid for it?

It's disgusting.

And breeding excellence is a load of absolute toss.

As I mentioned, one of my sons has a host of heart conditions, what we discovered is that we, right here in Melbourne Australia, with its public health system, not having to pay for it... we have one of the absolute BEST heart care centres in the world. The care we get for our son is second to none... really, they are superb, and we've read a lot on it, and talked to many, many people in the same boat around the world, and the quality of care in the states is no better, and the cost is far, far more.

I know which health care system I'd want.

And, by the way, I DO have private health care also, because we can afford it, and because you benefit for doing so and helping out further. And if you think that the rest of the country is paying for people to have boob jobs and the like you're very mistaken. By elective surgery, I mean things like vasectomies (very handy in keeping the ol' population down in this overcrowded world), and other things that are not life threatening, but impede the quality of life. (Um... warts being removed, wisdom teeth extracted, things like that)

In reply to this comment by thepinky:
In reply to this comment by spoco2:
In reply to this comment by thepinky:
Ah, capitalism. I could really get into that. I donno, Spoco. I'm terribly wary of a public health care system. The US doesn't always handle its public programs in the best way. Prime example: Education. Also: Welfare. I'm afraid that the quality of our health care will go down. We do have social programs for free healthcare. The government will pay and it really isn't that hard to obtain. Just ask my brother.

So if you were to break you leg tomorrow and went to an emergency room and didn't have private health cover, would you have to pay for treatment?

That's my question really... In Australia we just don't have to think about the cost of health issues really, unless it's an elective surgery, and even then most of that is covered as well, it just takes longer on public than private. Having health care so very closely entwined with private enterprise is a scary, scary thing.

Providing health care to people shouldn't be a for profit game.

No, because I wouldn't be stupid enough not to have health insurance.

No, no, no, no, no. You DO have to worry about the cost of health issues. It comes out of your paycheck every single month of your life. I'm just spewing opinions here because I've never witnessed what socialized healthcare looks like, but I believe that competition breeds excellence and innovation most of the time.

Tell me about your healthcare. How does it work besides you having to pay for somebody else's elective surgery?

I'll upvote anything with an ukulele in it. or an octopus. not that either has anything to do with the other. but show me a video with an octopus playing the ukulele and I'll show you some fine entertainment, you betcha.

Okay: let's trying to be "honest" about all of this:

Bush screwed the pooch by invading Iraq. No arguement there. He would have been better off riding the wave of anger after 9-11 and simply making the entire mid-east a sheet of black glass. We could be debating the ethnic morals of wasting an entire culture after they were gone right now instead of this current fight.

I seem to recall most of the Democrats bitching about what Bush is doing voted to do it and continue to vote to fund it. They also voted for it when Clinton made a half-assed attempt in 1998, and called it a good idea (so did the Republicans).

Bush lied to the American people. Fact. So did Clinton. Fact. Oddly enough, both of them (along with all their political buddies on BOTH sides) lied about the same thing . . . Iraq and weapons of mass destruction.

Bush means to kill anyone threatening the US, fair or foul. Shame Clinton and Bush's father didn't have the same resolve. Then we could argue about Bush's tax cuts because all the terrorists would be dead or afraid of us and hiding.

Our soldiers are dying in a far away land over something that isn't really a threat to us anymore. Same arguement that people made to keep us out of WW II. It took Pearl Harbor to get us into THAT one, and we lost a lot more troops in that war under the great Democrat leader Roosevelt (no sarcasm: he was a great man, like Kennedy). Too bad more Democrats don't follow their fine example. In those days, the Democrats knew the stakes and were willing to pay the price.

Bush is stomping on freedoms and liberties of Americans. True. So did Roosevelt by the internment camps. So did Lincoln by fighting a war clearly against the Constitution.

Bush is stomping on the rights of our extra-national enemies we hold in prisons around the world. You betcha! I don't remember 19 terrorists reading anyone else their rights on 9-11. And since they AREN'T Americans . . . when did they get rights like us?

Are we in a bad spot right now? Bet your ass we are. Same when the Atlantic War was fought in early 1942 that Roosevelt covered up (research the Tenth Fleet actions to find out about that one), when we couldn't win a battle under McClellan in the Civil War (great doctoring of news releases, though), and when Carter had us so weak on defense in the 1970's that a Soviet victory in the Cold War seemed inevitable. Thankfully, both of those past Presidents (one Democrat and one Republican) knew enough to stick to the fight because it was all that they had left to do, and Carter got the floor mopped with his political corpse by Reagan.

I think that, baring some great shift in common sense, history will bear this President out as well. History tells us that the others were great for doing the same thing.

PS: A mojority elected Bush and the Republicans in 2004. I guess we are doing what the majority wants. Like it or not: by your rules, Bush wins that arguement. (Please don't rehash 2000: it's a dead horse)