AZ Gov. Jan Brewer

AZ Gov. Jan Brewer

  • Idiot

    Votes: 7 28.0%
  • Alcoholic

    Votes: 2 8.0%
  • Both

    Votes: 10 40.0%
  • Too close to call

    Votes: 6 24.0%

  • Total voters
    25
Thank you. It's amazing. We agree on all counts. Rep to you my leftie friend.

:glugglug:

C'mon C4TB..you know we agree on occasion. I hope this doesn't hurt your reputation among your "side" here.:o
 

Jagger69

Three lullabies in an ancient tongue
The only reason I speak of "sides" is because the lefties on this site are so cliche in their postings. They lean on tired old sound bites that they hear from their friends and other left thinkers.

So do the "righties". Look in the mirror....it's you that you see.
 
If Al Gore had been elected in 2000, what do you think he would have done in response to 9/11?

Well, he sure as hell wouldn't have invaded a sovereign nation that had nothing to do with it.

The lowest common denominator of the left are those who sit around waiting for the government to provide a living for them because they feel it is owed to them due to some injustice that was done to their great, great, great grandparents.

My goodness that's an enormously broad brush you're using, but then again it's not atypical for white conservatives to claim to be experts on what it's like to be black.

The truth is, generations of black people learned the hardest way possible that conservatism was their enemy. That's the overwhelming reason they vote, en masse (including the non-welfare recipients, who of course are the majority) for democrats.

I ask you Bodie54, which common denominator is lower?

Well, in the '08 presidential election, of the 17% of all voters who'd attained post graduate degrees, 59% voted for Obama.
Obama also won the majority of votes from those with H.S. and college educations. And while the lowest income earners (and low income obviously doesn't necessarily equate to low intelligence) supported Obama, so did the highest income earners, 52% to 46% - despite the foreknowledge he was going to return their income taxes to Clinton era levels.

Beyond that, the GOP has clearly embraced an anti-intellectual, party-of-the-common-man philosophy/guise that's intended to appeal to the lowest common denominator. And it works! ...though not with minorities, who know better, from hard experience.

Also, it takes a lot of guts for any Obama supporter to take shots at Sarah Palin for looking at notes when she is speaking publicly. Is it not the President who has the well deserved reputation for leaning on the aid of a teleprompter?

Well deserved? :rofl:
As has been repeatedly pointed out, anybody who claims Obama is lost without a prompter obviously gets their "news" from youtube and the right wing echo chamber. Please take the time to view the four presidential debates and/or his January Q&A session with House Republicans http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w1-jasxb7NY and tell me again how helpless he is without a teleprompter :rolleyes: :rolleyes:

Meanwhile Palin actually thought she could get away undetected using her black ink palm crib notes :o - what a pathetic display that was :anonymous ....and hardly her first of that kind.
She's obviously come a long way since junior high school :rofl:
 
So do the "righties". Look in the mirror....it's you that you see.

I agree. Wouldn't it be nice if people could actually talk about why they feel a certain way instead of just knocking the elected officials of a particular party?

I looked in the mirror, and I sure didn't see a left wing liberal.
 
Well, he sure as hell wouldn't have invaded a sovereign nation that had nothing to do with it.

Well, now that we've established that he wouldn't have done what Bush did, what would he have done?



My goodness that's an enormously broad brush you're using, but then again it's not atypical for white conservatives to claim to be experts on what it's like to be black.

The truth is, generations of black people learned the hardest way possible that conservatism was their enemy. That's the overwhelming reason they vote, en masse (including the non-welfare recipients, who of course are the majority) for democrats.

Actually, the brush I was using was far more broad than that. Because I mentioned the "great, great grandparents", it makes sense for you to assume that I was speaking only of black people, but my comments included far more than just a race of people. There are many, many people of all races who could be lumped into the "lowest common denominator" I spoke of - including plenty of white people.

It should also be added that the brush I used was NOT so broad as to include all people of any race or any other group. I'm not a racist, a sexist, a homophobe, or a hater of any other group, in case there was such an inference in your "broad brush" statement.

I never claimed to be an expert on what it's like to be black. I will respond to you by saying also that neither is it uncommon to hear white liberals claiming to know what obstacles one faces as a black American either.



Well, in the '08 presidential election, of the 17% of all voters who'd attained post graduate degrees, 59% voted for Obama.
Obama also won the majority of votes from those with H.S. and college educations. And while the lowest income earners (and low income obviously doesn't necessarily equate to low intelligence) supported Obama, so did the highest income earners, 52% to 46% - despite the foreknowledge he was going to return their income taxes to Clinton era levels.

Beyond that, the GOP has clearly embraced an anti-intellectual, party-of-the-common-man philosophy/guise that's intended to appeal to the lowest common denominator. And it works! ...though not with minorities, who know better, from hard experience.

You can quote voter statistics if you want, but I think we both know that in the last presidential election, after two terms with an unpopular president, a floundering economy, an ongoing war, and a candidate from the incumbent party who, although once a war hero, was really just a wishy-washy centrist who represented more of the same.

Well deserved? :rofl:
As has been repeatedly pointed out, anybody who claims Obama is lost without a prompter obviously gets their "news" from youtube and the right wing echo chamber. Please take the time to view the four presidential debates and/or his January Q&A session with House Republicans http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w1-jasxb7NY and tell me again how helpless he is without a teleprompter :rolleyes: :rolleyes:

Meanwhile Palin actually thought she could get away undetected using her black ink palm crib notes :o - what a pathetic display that was :anonymous ....and hardly her first of that kind.
She's obviously come a long way since junior high school :rofl:

I'll give you that Obama is a decent public speaker, although he is nowhere near the likes of Bill Clinton or Ronald Reagan. Since both of these former two term presidents were great behind a microphone, does that mean you give BOTH of them credit for being extremely intelligent, like you do with Obama?

As for Sarah Palin, do you really consider that a "pathetic display"? I think you're making a mountain out of a molehill, and I also think that if Mrs. Palin was a democrat, we wouldn't even be talking about this because you would have given her a pass on it.

I have already gone on the record on this site and said that I don't think Sarah was ready to be the Vice President of the United States. At the same time, I think it's highly unfair to label her as unintelligent.

She has served on the City Council, was a successful mayor, and was elected as Governor of the State of Alaska. You don't get that far being a dummy. Come on. :rolleyes:
 
Well, now that we've established that he wouldn't have done what Bush did, what would he have done?
Uh, he was referring to Iraq...I assume since most people tended to agree with Bush in going after AQ in Afghanistan that part isn't in dispute.
You can quote voter statistics if you want, but I think we both know that in the last presidential election, after two terms with an unpopular president, a floundering economy, an ongoing war, and a candidate from the incumbent party who, although once a war hero, was really just a wishy-washy centrist who represented more of the same.
The guy beat McCain straight up on the merits of the two candidates. The only reason why it was even that close (not that it was particularly) was because of all the negatives Obama had to wade through. Don't you have to consider what it might have been like without Wright, the negatives some associated with his name, the nightly attacks Fox "created" about so called terrorist ties and the burned feelings of those in his own party who were Clinton (Bill and Hill) supporters. The same guy with a different name sans the other nonsense cleans McCain's clock even more and probably any ten candidates the GOPers line up.
I'll give you that Obama is a decent public speaker, although he is nowhere near the likes of Bill Clinton or Ronald Reagan. Since both of these former two term presidents were great behind a microphone, does that mean you give BOTH of them credit for being extremely intelligent, like you do with Obama?
Anyone can stand in front of a podium with a speech someone else prepared and articulate it. That doesn't (or shouldn't) represent someone as particularly or "extremely intelligent". The American people and people in general give people far to much credit for that IMO.

More important is how lucidly they are able to articulated their beliefs (not panned talking points), reason their beliefs in the context of the circumstances we face and respond on point to random questioning on their feet. In that sense, Obama is head and shoulders over anyone we've had in my lifetime..including Reagan and Clinton. For this, I don't go by their speeches, I go by their interviews. And to a lesser degree their debates.

Sure Reagan was charming and responded often times with funny quips designed to charm. But the guy was an actor for crying out loud. Who wouldn't expect someone with all his years in Hollywood to be able to act like a credible president (something done by Hollywood actors all the time)? Now I don't want to tear away at Reagan too much but I really do see him as merely the charming facade over the policies and speeches of others. Did he believe in things on his own? Of course but I don't think he was the philosophical champion revisionists are trying to paint him as.
As for Sarah Palin, do you really consider that a "pathetic display"? I think you're making a mountain out of a molehill, and I also think that if Mrs. Palin was a democrat, we wouldn't even be talking about this because you would have given her a pass on it.
Okay...name one Demo who is comparable to Palin and consistently comes off as she has and has gotten the pass.
I have already gone on the record on this site and said that I don't think Sarah was ready to be the Vice President of the United States. At the same time, I think it's highly unfair to label her as unintelligent.

She has served on the City Council, was a successful mayor, and was elected as Governor of the State of Alaska. You don't get that far being a dummy. Come on. :rolleyes:

Well, I don't know how she made it that far because if she is intelligent she's done an excellent job of concealing it. Some might attribute it to looks and that would appear to be the most apparent reason she's made it that far. To be sure, she was a mayor of a very small town. Something several 19 and 20 year olds have accomplished. Couple her mayoral background with her looks...and I can see her stumbling her way into a governorship of a fairly unsophisticated place like Alaska.

Palin has fairly earned her labeling by what's come out of her mouth when the only members in attendance were her, her thoughts her mouth and an interviewer.

She is popular among GOPers because that is just simply what they do. The more the mainstream rejects one of "theirs" the more galvanized the support among GOPers becomes. I mean honestly, how much intelligence must someone suspend (assuming they have any to begin with) to actually listen to Palin toss a salad of words for any duration of time??

Besides, don't tell me dummies don't get far nowadays.:o
 

roronoa3000

Banned
Originally Posted by Crazy4theBrat View Post
I have already gone on the record on this site and said that I don't think Sarah was ready to be the Vice President of the United States. At the same time, I think it's highly unfair to label her as unintelligent.
Really? Have you heard her speak. A step above George Bush in the forming a sentence before opening mouth department. She ain't a dummy but she ain't very smart either. Jan Brewer is by far worse though.

She has served on the City Council, was a successful mayor, and was elected as Governor of the State of Alaska. You don't get that far being a dummy. Come on.

Most people had forgotten Alaska existed. It can that hard to govern a bunch of eskimos, klondike bars, polar bears and the occasionally sneaky Russian.
 
Jan Brewer is by far worse though.

Gotta admit one thing...these clowns know how to play the politics of getting elected.

Jan Brewer on her own merits was sinking desperately in the polls before this legislation...now she's skyrocketed in AZ.

These idiots in AZ are going to put this apparent drunkard back in charge until 2015. Bearing in mind, she didn't get elected to Gov. in the first place. It landed in her lap when Obama appointed Napolitano to DHS and being Secy. of State Brewer was next in line.

Unfucking-believable.
 
AAAH Idiots in AZ. At least my governor has the nads to do something about the illegal immigration problem. Your fucking worthless president sits on his fucking hands and doesn't do shit to help this country out. Drunk or not she has a solid vote in my house. If she is a drunk then I would love to have a drink with her.
 
Top