Interwebs page channels Palin twaddle US vice presidential candidate Sarah Palin doesn't give many interviews. They tend to expose her inability to form coherent sentences. Just one example: Katie Couric: Why isn't it better, Governor Palin, to spend $700 billion helping middle-class families struggling with health care, housing, gas, and groceries? Allow them …
Before the assorted American Christian Nutters, Gun Freaks, Rightwing Fanatics and Faux News Believer commentards awake, allow me the luxury of saying this:
Speaking as a proud European, do you realise how much the Republican Party makes us laugh at your country?
Thank you for the gift of Sarah Palin. She even makes George W. Bush look good (who has now become the biggest Socialist in American history by the way. Got any financial institutions left to nationalise over there? No, thought not).
Is Alaska another one of these States full of inbred banjo playing pig f$ckers?
That may explain how she was voted in as Governor and why she is so incredibly dim. Still, for those that regard Palin as a Milf, there is no having to worry about talking afterwards, at least not in any meaningful way!
Just one other thought is it legal for an American president to nuke a bear because it's tipping out your dustbins?
.....for real?
I know that republicans get the greatest support in the redneck, hillbilly regions, so I can only assume that Palin is an attempt to pacify them with someone as dumb as they are. After all, it worked with Bush.
It reminds me of a film called "Idiocracy" (hilarious by the way), where somebody is frozen in time and wakes to find that America (and its people) has been getting more and more stupid over time, to a point that they have a cage fighter (I think) as their president and you can get a "gentlemans latte" from Starbucks. As the republicans are obviously trying to appeal to the lowest echelons of society, it looks like we might only be a few elections away from this becoming reality, where anyone with a hint of intelligence will be branded a "fairy" and a traitor to the country.
Well, ineptitude has been proven not to be a problem in getting yourself elected as a USA president. All you need is the support of the Evangelical Taleban Elders and Red Necks and if she cannot get it dunno who will.
1. Pro-Life to the hilt? - tick, got a kid with a birth defect and kept it to show it proudly around as a proof of her pro-life credentials.
2. Red-Neck isolationist anti-foreigner to the hilt? - tick, has not been corrupted by that pesky European influence and has not had a passport till last year.
3. Shoots everything in sight? - tick, life member of the NRA.
Gawd, compared to her we will pray for the return of George Bush and his harmless fake ineptitude. After all, once transferring of national wealth to Haliburton is done and dusted, he was mostly harmless. At least, he will be considered mostly harmless compared to her when the Palintologists of the future dig out our still slightly glowing radioactive remains.
Me coat, the one with "Volunteers to build a Communal Nuclear Shelter needed" on it.
I see the pretence at a balanced view has gone completely out the window. Will we be seeing an article addressing Obama's inability to talk without his teleprompter and scripts written for him? Maybe the YouTube vid of him talking for ten minutes of which almost five minutes are taken up by the use of "erm", "uh" and "ah"? It's YouTube, does that add the smidgen of a technical angle so that it can go up on The Reg with an "ineptitude" biline? Or "Supergaffe" Biden making any of his many idiotic statements, there's a great vid showing Biden making statements the very next day after Obama has made a completely contradictory statement. It does have funny music, does it qualify? Maybe Couric is the qualifying angle, so how about the vid of Biden's interview with Couric where he says he completely disagrees with a Supreme Court decision (United States v Morrison et al) on Federal recompence for a violent rape of a women, when he was on the main instigator of the piece of poorly written legislation that forced the SCOTUS to decide against the woman, legislation so bad that it is used by many American universities as the example of poor law making? Does that qualify for an ineptitude piece? Oh, hold on a sec, I have to find a website with some stupid "quote-generator" before it's worthy of Mr Metz's attention, and I suspect Supreme Court decisions are a tad beyond Mr Metz's journalistic capabilities. So let's get to an easy one - Biden admitting that Hillary Clinton would be a better VP choice than himself;
http://newsbusters.org/blogs/noel-sheppard/2008/09/10/wednesday-funnies-biden-says-hillary-better-vp-pick-him
Please don't try dressing up your propaganda as a web interest piece, I'd rather see the space used for real technical journalism.
The Republican Party seem to have a fondness for fielding candidates who don't quite fit the conventional public persona. Bush Junior often has problems stringing sentences together. Ford came across as slow-witted. And then there was Reagan...
Nixon, by contrast, was all persona. Not merely deceitful, he spoke in soundbites. Sports and celebrity manager Mark H McCormack recalls Nixon, prior to becoming president, speaking to two of the celebrity golfers that he was managing on two separate occasions. What he said to them sounded, normal, natural and unrehearsed. But he said the same thing - the exact same words - on both occasions.
Calvin Coolidge, a Republican president from the 1920s, was known for *not* talking. One time, at a formal dinner, one fellow greeted Coolidge, and added that another fellow had bet him that Coolidge wouldn't say more than five words all evening. Coolidge replied "You lose." He refused to speak again that evening.
She says what she thinks, the times she's incoherent is when she's defending what her minders have told her to say or what she's required to believe*.
e.g. the "Alaska is near Russia therefore she has foreign policy experience" was supposedly made up by one of McCains speech writers and parrot-ed by a Fox mouthpiece at his request. So she's put in a position where she has to defend a stupid thing like that, or undermine her boss.
She'd be a lot better off without McCain (and the GOP goons he fronts for), he's another speech reader like Bush, says whatever his minders tell him to say. But "that's not leadership, that's bad acting"....
* 'Creationism' is a test of faith created by Carl Rove & Fox. He's pumped it up as a test of belief that he knows the Democrats can't pass. i.e. Rove: "to truely believe in God you have to believe in creationism..... do you?", Republican: "erm well, gee I guess, at least we can teach it as a theory", Democrat: "no way and that's a false dichotomy". Rove: "Hah see them Democrats are Godless", Fox: "The Democrats admit their Godlessness, we ask Reverend Screaming Moonunit hot much their soles will burn in hell!"
You can't have a VP like Palin and not expect the rest of the world to piss themselves laughing...
It's the Old " You set 'em up, we'll knock em' down" scenario, Palin just makes it too damn easy.
Yes Biden has made some dubious policy decisions, but at least he is coherent and seems to have half a brain.
We thought that Bush was unsurpassable... Seems we were wrong.
I don't "like" Palin, but I agree, I have never seen anything she has said saying she is a Creationist, only that she dose not appose its teaching alongside Evolution. Wrong, but not THAT bad. Somehow I think she doesn’t believe it... But then I’m sure I will get a torrent of abuse from Atheists’ who take the stance "well she believes in God, that’s good enough for me" crap.
McCain, however, seems dangerous, and seems to want to continue with the US's insular and aggressive world view.
Or at least show some respect. I would imagine that most of the readers of The Register although not necessarily well balanced individuals, are intelligent, well educated and erudite professionals.
Is it really fair to make fun of a retard, does one take this piss out of a paraplegic because one is able to walk?
Obviously the story has no IT angle, and the majority of the readership of The Register do have a dim view of the potential of such a person becoming the US president. Our editor surely knows this and this story is merely provocation for response. It isn't The Register readership that needs convincing that this woman is a puppet dangling from the strings of her masters. It's all the ignorant Americans who believe that politicians act in selfless best interest of the people and are not manipulated from the sidelines. Americans who believe that the desire for power does not corrupt the integrity of those seeking it. Americans who believe high level politicians are honest, truthful and do not have corporate connections. These are the people that need convincing. Unfortunately an ability to believe in creationism, implies an ability to believe anything that that is said.
"You can't have a VP like Palin and not expect the rest of the world to piss themselves laughing..." Actually, we had a gormless Vice Prime Minister, "Two Jags" Prscott, who was more noted for clouting people than thinking, who didn't get to be Prime Minister when Blair stepped down, instead we got an unelected PM that has long made no secret of his over-reaching ambition. Gorodn Brown has since been shown up to be supremely unqualified for the job, to the point where most people I know here in the UK would rather have the option of Palin because she reminds them of Maggie Thatcher! Love her or hate her, at least with Maggie she said what she thought and didn't waste time on fools, unlike our current crop of politicians that are happy to promise anything to anyone for a vote. Mind you, it's never got bad enough I've heard anyone say they'd rather replace Brown with Obama. To be honest, the majority of UK voters are too busy laughing at NuLabout imploding to realise the selection of the US prez will probably have a bigger impact on our economy and hence our daily lives than the next UK PM.
Most politicians will try and not answer embarrassing question (and when you're a Rep, anyrelevant question is embarrassing). But for feck's sake, she can't even dodge a question properly. She is as witted as a dead-drunk 80-yo hobo. And McCain is only marginally better. Chances are they will be elected, though. The drunken rednecks can identify, and that's the key. At least there's something the US are doing right: down, not across.
Apologies to the somewhat brained merkins around. You're going down too, dragged by your dumber fellows. And chances are, a significant part of the world will go down too as a result (good doggie UK first, I suspect).
Jesus, Metz. Can't you write a single article without delving into your ignorant anti-Google ranting? Your fascination with Google is remarkable, both for its invasion into every aspect of your life and for your complete ignorance of literally anything having to do with Google.
Just so you know ... the Google AdSense algorithm (which is far less robust than the AdWords algorithm) takes the text found on its parent page as input, determines which terms within that text are used most frequently, and then serves up ads based on that simple factor. It's not too hard to understand, really. See, that explains why ads for Republican organizations are being shown on a page with lots of instances of the word "Republican". Ohhh those Googlers ... I know it's very confusing to you, but maybe one day you will be able to understand how it works.
Sorry. To be eligible for President, you must be a native born American citizen. aManfromMars wasn't even born on this planet! He probably hasn't atained the minimum age requirement either.
Brings up an interesting question though. Suppose he were an American. For purposes of eligibility, would his age be measured in Earth years or Mars years?
So what are we to say, Matt?
Against all fairness, the grey goo is not evenly distributed and it looks loke some got more when it was handed out. Obama is clearly some leagues above the rest of the field when it comes to speaking with or without prompter.
But not to worry, I am sure Fox and Friends will come up with something nicely balanced to make up for it -- might involve big black dongles and poor children ...
Tony Blair was elected to Parliament by 24,421 people in Sedgefield, and was elected to the position of Prime Minister by the members of the House of Parliament.
Gordon Brown was elected to Parliament by 24,278 people in Kirkcaldy and Cowdenbeath, and was elected to the position of Prime Minister by the members of the House of Parliament.
Whatever else Gordon Brown might be, he's not an "unelected PM". If you want to elect a president, go live in France - you don't even need a visa!
"....Gordon Brown was elected to Parliament by 24,278 people in Kirkcaldy and Cowdenbeath, and was elected to the position of Prime Minister by the members of the House of Parliament...."
Tony Blair was elected in a general election where he stood as the Labour choice of Prime Ministerial candidate. By your own admission, Brown was elected by less than 0.0004% of the UK population for a different job, and then by an even lesser number of Labour Party representatives to be PM, a decision that did not include anyone outside the Labour Party heirarchy. To say he was "elected to the position of Prime Minister by the members of the House of Parliament" is just stupidity or dishonesty.
John Prescott was given the role of Deputy Prime Minister, a role not normally used in the UK government setup as it is honorific and has no constitutional powers, other than if Tony Blair was "incapaitated or unavailable", that John Prescott would take on the duties as an Acting PM. The public widely accepted it as a snub to Gordon Brown. When Tony Blair was unavailable on foreign trips, Prescott acted as PM. However, the fragility of the Labour Party, rent by Brown's posturing, would not allow Precott to become PM as he should have automatically when Blair resigned.
John Prescott was very "old Labour" and - despite his many gaffes - was reasonably respected even outside his own party. At the time Blair stepped down, general polls of the public confirmed John Prescott as the person people thought should be taking over as PM until the next general election allowed the people to make THEIR CHOICE of PM. Brown was the unpopular choice of his own unhappy party, was not elected by the members of the House of Parliament, and definately not elected by the general public. He has no public mandate to govern and he knows it, hence his delaying a popular election for as long as possible. At least Obama, Biden, McCain and Palin are standing openly for public election.
We have plenty of gallows humour available her from the conniving, posturing and deceit of our own political parties. Compared to them, the American VP race has minor comedy value. But if you want a political laugh:
Barrack Obama, Tony Rezko (convicted racketeer, friend and Obama fund-rasier), Reverend Wright (Obama's racist pastor for twenty years), Bill Ayers (terrorist bomber, Obama mentor) and Franklin Raines (disgraced Fannie Mae CEO and Obama housing advisor) are walking through the slums of Harare, Zimbabwe, when Obama stops and asks them: "Guys, do you think brother Mugabe has wandered from the true path to social justice?" Ayers smiles and replies; "No, but given half a chance we can make a bigger mess than this!"
Thank you for your erudite input. I'm assuming you somehow disagreed with my comments, as your stunningly eloquent reply - whilst also mercifully short - did not contain any form of rebuttal, leaving me to also assume the use of the English language has been a life-long challenge to you. Either that or you simply don't have the faculties to form a coherent argument. At this point can I also inform you that the colloquialism "nuf said" is usually spelt "nuff said", even in the comics you obviously spend a large portion of your time persuing. Can I ask you to spare the time to elaborate as to which statement caused offence - the assertion that Brown has no public mandate to govern; or that Obama seems to enjoy the company of thieves, racists and terrorists? But first, please ask Mommy if you can remain longer on the PC whilst you hunt for a dictionary to help you formulate a reply.
In other words, are you just stupid but think you're cool, or just really stupid?
In the UK the elcetion is for the party to form a government, the prime minister is tyically the elected leader of that party- elected by the parties membership according to their own internal rules.
Example, when Margaret Thatcher faced a leadership challenge, the vote was taken within the Conservative members of parliament, who ventually replaced her with John Major.
The goverment didn't change, it was still the Conservative party, who decided to change leader. Another example would be the succession of Churchill by Eden, who in turn was replaced by McMillan. Neither of these events triggered a general election, the newly elected leaders felt honour bound to ask for one.
Incidentally, could you please provide a source for this poll which stated the UK public wanted Prescott to act as stand in untilan election could be called? I can't find it anywhere, and honestly can't believe that anyone outside his own house would want that clown running the country.
"Actually I don't bother with newspapers and rarely watch Fox."
gracious god. You mean, when you read an article demonstrating how much of a fool Palin is, you _naturally_ post a comment about how Obama sleeps with terr'ists and kiddie-fiddlers? Wow. It's not all black or white* you know. All four major playas are tools anyway. Only the whole McCain ticket is so totally clueless that it's downright scaryy. The other two are are just the common type of lusers.
On a sidenote, and as I'm probably of French descent, I'd like to thank the UK (as a whole) for its major contribution to Human civilisation: Big. Soft. Bazookies. Ha, memories....
* Sorry
RE: David Neil - sorry, can't find the we-would-prefer-Clown poll either, but I remember it being quoted on the BBC at the time so it might be worth searching the Beeb archives. As to "ignoring the facts", I challenged AC over his claim that Brown was "elected by the members of the House of Parliament", when in fact the Labour members of the House were the only ones involved in his selection, not the members from other parties, and the Labour MPs were a minority of selectees compared with the unelected and therefore unrepresentative mass of the Labour Party and associated unions that did select him. Gordon Brown was elected as a constituency MP, not as PM. Please tell me which fact that ignores?
But the mention of honour is interesting, are you implying that Mr Brown is less than honourable in his desire to avoid a general election at any cost? Personally I wouldn't describe him as dishonourable, just stupid - he could have taken the shine from the Blair years and used it in a snap election to gain five years of mandate, but instead he left himself open to claims he feared an election and has since removed any Blair shine by a series of staggeringly incompetent decisions by himself and his administration, leaving him at real risk of losing the next election. I for one would rather vote for Paris than Gormless Brown.
RE: Pierre - isn't it past your bedtime? Obama hasn't been accused of sleeping with terrorists (not unless you're making some new allegation about Michelle Obama?) or kiddie-fiddlers (OK, she is a scary lady, but I find it a real stretch to believe that of her!). But he does have some very unsavoury connections in his past which he seems to spend a lot of time first denying and then admitting to but saying "but that really isn't what/who I am now". A simple example of his hypocracy in associating with such people as Edward Said, Khalid Al-Mansour, Louis Farrakhan and Rashid Khalidi, whilst at the same time trying to paint himself as a defender of Israel to try and capture the Jewish vote. Or by choosing to make a speach in Germany rather than visiting wounded US soldiers in military hospitals in Germany, then making up some fairytale about how he thought about joining the military. The old Benny Hill joke that you can always tell when a politician is lying by checking if his lips are moving has never seemed more appropriate!
In short, he seems the type of greasy politician that will promise anything to anyone, so what is there left of what Obama says that can be believed? There is a complete absence of any real accomplishments to measure the man against, and his voting record is mainly "present" and shows an avoidance to deal with any issues. A good example is that whilst McCain was on Capitol Hill involved in the first round of the recent bail-out negotiations, probably the single most important issue of the day, Obama stayed in his hotel room and just turned up to vote "present" again, finally only voting for the revised measures when he was sure they would go through. In short, he dodged the issue again rather than risk courting controversy, and concentrated on his election campaign instead. Hardly a ringing endorsement for a man who claims he is ready to lead the US in these troubled times.
Which brings us to the "black and white" bit. The sad truth is the next US prez will have a serious knock on effect for our economy here, and Obama is the empty suit standing at the head of the Democrat party that's well-intentioned social engineering led to the current worldwide financial disaster. Even Brown the Clown would think twice about the idea of forcing banks to give out bad mortgages to low- or no-income people, but that's effectively what Clinton's Democrat administration did, and what Obama endorsed and made worse through his work with people like ACORN. I'm not too keen to see the mess he can make, given his record (or lack of it) so far. To my mind, McCain is not ideal, but I'd rather have him in the Whitehouse with Palin as backup. So, no black or white choice, just which shade of grey is going to cause the least amount of brown in my life. So why not try thnking about the issues before posting any more poor attempts at humour.
PS: I was going to think of a joke about great French accomplishments, but with so little material to work on I just decided to let the Fwench do it themselves. ;)
"whilst McCain was on Capitol Hill involved in the first round of the recent bail-out negotiations, probably the single most important issue of the day, Obama stayed in his hotel room and just turned up to vote "present" again" and "McCain is not ideal, but I'd rather have him in the Whitehouse with Palin as backup."
Are you really talking bout the same McCain? The billionnaire who admitted knowing nothing about economy or technology? You'd feel good with him in charge? Or maybe you think that Palin is good enough at economy and computers to make up for it?
Of course, all this fancy writing is still irrelevant, the article being on Palin.
As for the French legacy to the world, pure awesomeness aside -it's a given, current prez notwithstanding-, I hear that they humiliate the 15 guys in white whith a rose on the chest on a regular basis...
About bedtime, because you mentionned it, I think you'll find that America's eastern time is quite a bit different from GMT.
"....Are you really talking bout the same McCain? The billionnaire who admitted knowing nothing about economy or technology?..." As I said, McCain is not perfect, but then a "perfect President" is unlikely seeing as history shows all previous ones have had faults or areas where they needed help and advice. But McCain has a far greater experience of working in politics, of the Washington machine, and has a track record that can be reviewed, going right back to his time as a US Navy pilot in Vietnam. Has McCain had to operate under pressure? Yes. Has McCain had to lead men, does he understand the military and the efefcts of military action? Yes. Has he stood up to corruption and tried to implement measures to restrict pork barrel politics? Yes. Has he experience of foreign policy? Yes. Did he foresee the economic disaster-in-waiting of subprime mortgages and the Fannie and Freddie setup, and try to stop it? Oh yes! Can Obama put a tick against any of those? No, in fact he was instrumental in creating the subprime mess. McCain at least has the foundations of a real leader, and has shown he has the gumption to seek advice and include those with specific knowledge in his work, such as Lieberman, even when it upset his own party. Obama does exceed McCain in one area, and that's arrogance, which does not mix well with poor experience. Will Obama have the humility to seek the right assistance when things get tough? If so, who will he turn to? His list of advisors so far - Ayers, Raines, Rev Wright, et al - don't exactly inspire confidence!
Palin has a track record of leadership (mayor and state governor) and anti-corruption and anti-pork-barrel measures, and the experience of running a real business. Obama just seems to have exaggerated his "poor, black and deprived" background to cadge a free ride off some less than savoury parties all the way from law school through the backstabbing politics of Chicago (Google up on Alice Palmer for an eye-opener on Obama's style) to the Senate. Have you even checked his voting record, as you don't seem to disagree with my assessment that he has NEVER dealt with a real issue, ever? Or were you just going to vote for whichever candidate seemed more "fashionable"?
And regarding female relatives, I think you'll find the surname Bryant is quite popular, the Bryants must have got busy with quite a few people. There was even a US Senator for Tennessee (Ed Bryant, a Republican, naturally), an actor in M.A.S.H. ("Scully"), a psycopath (Australian Martin Bryant), an actress from Doctor Who (Nicola Bryant - yummie!), and a North Carolina Court of Appeals Judge (Wanda Bryant) to name a few. Unfortuantely, I have been unable to track down any reference to a Bryant "with great tits done by the froggies", maybe I should check the type of publication that passes for reading material in your household - Playboy, perhaps? As you say, nothing to do with Palin or even McCain, but then I notice you can't offer any argument for Obama or Biden as a better choice.
And don't you Yanks have to put on body armour and take breaks every five seconds to play your poor rugby clone "American football"? If I recall correctly, your own rugby team isn't anything to shout about.
I don't think so.
Also, no I have no argument FOR Obama, as he and his sidekick Gaffeboy are self-serving tools, too. Palin is a bit more: a record-breaking tool, I would say. McCain is just the ordinary self-serving greasy waste of oxygen.
Have to go, "Paris in Wonkerland" is about to begin.
The Register 
Biting the hand that feeds IT
Copyright. All rights reserved © 1998–2024
