Lord Help Us, Palin Is Running For President

[IBCoupe]

Missed this part of your post:

Fixed that for you. Some of us abhor it. One need only look at television to see that the lowest common denominator is being pandered to tirelessly.

Of course some of us do. People on the internet are there because they're smart enough to get there. Now you're talking about a group of people intelligent enough to make their way to a web forum, make accounts, and become regular posters. We're also people intelligent enough to comprehend, analyze, and participate in political discussion on that message board. We're a product of selective sampling to begin with.

And your source for your determination that it's the young who prefer dumb doesn't seem to hold much water: I really don't think that Desperate Housewives and Survivor are aimed at the young. Neither is (was?) 24. There's all kinds of mindless crap on TV, and to suggest that it's only being consumed by young people is pretty myopic, given the demographics of TV viewers (predominantly older). There's a lot of stuff targeted at the young, but that's not who's mostly watching it.

[IBCoupe]

Ninja edits!

[AZhitman]

And your source for your determination that it's the young who prefer dumb doesn't seem to hold much water: I really don't think that Desperate Housewives and Survivor are aimed at the young. Neither is (was?) 24. There's all kinds of mindless crap on TV, and to suggest that it's only being consumed by young people is pretty myopic, given the demographics of TV viewers (predominantly older). There's a lot of stuff targeted at the young, but that's not who's mostly watching it.

Jersey Shore, and anything on SpikeTV / MTV. I win.

"Demographic of TV viewers" is a flawed measure. Of course the majority of viewers are older... Statistically, I'm sure the 70+ crowd does little else, which blows your curve. That doesn't mean they're watching the crap. On the rare occasions I click on the tube, it's Discovery, History, ESPN or a little news.

I'd have a hard time criticizing the "Survivor" and "24" watchers (even though I've seen neither). I was talking about the REALLY retarded stuff. Remember, I said LOWEST common denominator.

[heliochrome85]

you are just bitter that Dynasty and Dallas ended.

wasnt it diamond jim who first hinted that you may be a bit fabulous?

[stebo0728]

Hey, theres term durations here. Its gonna take AT LEAST one whole term to fix this mess we are in, if not TWO or THREE. So even if the Tea Partiers dont have anything to say about anything other than the economy, SO WHAT! Once the economy is worked out, and believe me, its PRIORITY ONE! Then if someone else suits the populous better for the other issues, then the vote will prevail. BUT I dont think the Tea Partiers are mute on other issues because they have no position, its just not important at the moment, because again, smaller government and fiscally responsible governmnet and fixing this economy is PRIORITY ONE! When its time to deal with other things, these are conservative minds, that will inevitably have conservative positions on these issues. The point is, the voters arent asking about the other issues, because they just dont care right now, compared to the economy, everything else is negligable in the minds of the voters.

[heliochrome85]

the world doesnt work that way stebo. Whats to say that in january some major pipeline doesnt explode in the arctic, or a civil war breaks out in Iran where nukes are used? Those events wont wait until the economy is worked out. They NEED to have positions on these possibilites.

[IBCoupe]

^ This.

You're acting like Congress only tackles one issue in a two-year period, Stebo. And I agree with you that nobody's talking about the other issues because the voters are too focused. I'm saying, however, that this is a bad thing.

[stebo0728]

T and IB, I understand what you are saying, and I agree, I know Congress has to multi-task, but I guess I am getting a bit perturbed that the Tea Partiers get labeled as "one issue" people, when in reality, no one is "one issue". Like I said before, the focus of the voters has caused the side stepping of other issues. If the voters want to know where these people stand on the other issues, then they need to be asking. Again, these are conservative minds, a reasonable assumption would be that they hold conservative positions on most if not all issues. As we well learned from this last election, elections have consequences, voting based solely on race, or intransitive hope, is at best a crap shoot. Is that what we are doing again now, only in reverse? Maybe so, I guess only time will tell.

[heliochrome85]

Im sorry, you wanna give them the benefit of doubt, but i honest to god dont think the average tea party voter gives a rats a** about anything that goes on beyond the borders of their property, let alone what goes on abroad. America does not function as a singular state. It relies on the world to maintain its dominance. Everything from how we handle Taiwan, to the middle east conflict, affects America as a whole.

EXAMPLE
How does the tea party handle the FACT that china has us by the short ones? If we support Taiwan in any way, they cut exports, or severely tax imports. That means everything from the happy meal you consume, to the cars you buy go up in price.

What about a little civil strife in Nigeria causing a disruption to their oil pipeline, causing gas to sky rocket. How would the small government tea partiers handle that?

The issue here is that you want to ascribe to these people, more thought and refinement, than they have previously shown. Everything from their party leaders own down, has proven otherwise.

Oh, and stop trying to make the case that people voted for Barry O, solely because of his skin. It may have added to their conviction, but in a time of bleak economic disparity, generally, people vote for the happy message. Lets not so easily forget McCain's "Bomb Bomb Bomb Iran."

[IBCoupe]

Again, these are conservative minds, a reasonable assumption would be that they hold conservative positions on most if not all issues.

I don't know that it's a reasonable assumption, Stebo. The Tea Party started with libertarians. Remember Scott Brown? Who hasn't towed the Republican party line? It's anybody's guess as to what composes the Tea Party and their ideal candidate these days.

Because the Tea Party is such a varied group ideologically (beyond that one issue), it's impossible to guess what a "tea party candidate" will say about any other issue. You've got everything from anarcho-capitalists to evangelicals in there. It's going to be a messy election if the Tea Party remains as prominent a force as it is now.

It's not like we're calling the tea partiers all one-issue people... we're talking about the tea party as a one-issue movement. And political opportunism is taking advantage of the fact that most of America can't think to look more than six months out.

[AZhitman]

How does the tea party handle the FACT that china has us by the short ones? If we support Taiwan in any way, they cut exports, or severely tax imports. That means everything from the happy meal you consume, to the cars you buy go up in price.

What about a little civil strife in Nigeria causing a disruption to their oil pipeline, causing gas to sky rocket. How would the small government tea partiers handle that?

Dunno. Can it be any worse than our current apologist Administration, continually throwing its predecessor under the bus to the world?

Real leaders don't do that. Ever.

[IBCoupe]

Yes, Greg, it can be any worse. It can because what Helio pointed out are substantive issues that actually impact the world. Getting those wrong hurts people.

This in contrast to entirely subjective issues like "real leadership." Getting those wrong makes you look bad.

[AZhitman]

...and yet we've seen no proof that the current Administration would / could / will / can do any better.

He's been lucky.

I'm not a TP apologist, nor am I looking to see our POTUS step in something icky. I'm just countering the assertion that somehow this Administration has a handle on something any firmer than another one would.

[IBCoupe]

Certainly not, but we can get a sense and predict what the President would do or how he would respond in such a situation, based on what we know about him, his Party, his past actions, etc. On the other hand, we have the Tea Party who can accurately be be illustrated by making the world's most complicated Venn diagram with the only common intersection for all the thousands of circles is that they want a smaller government. How do you get a reasonably predictable candidate out of that? How do you get well-rounded policy?

And I want to be clear: I'm not bashing the Tea Party. It's not entirely their fault that they've been lumped together by everyone who's trying to accommodate with what they collectively want, as if they collectively want anything more than smaller government.

[AZhitman]

Agreed, and I'm not defending their [lack of] position.

Since there's no cohesive leadership, I fear they'll be a blip on the radar, and a politicaly harmful one at that.

Hell, the Ron Paul people organized better than the TP folks.

[Bubba1]

I'm stunned about Teabaggery's success. I also wonder what they are putting in the water in Delaware that led Republicans to vote for Christine O'Donnell as their Republican Senate nominee.

The more you read about her and her bizarre quotes, the more wacky she is. And she's a Tea Bagger.


She dabbles in witchcraft (said it on Bill Mahers show)
She misused campaign funds for personal expenses like her apartment rent, gas, and a bowling company. Criminal charges are being considered by the Delaware AG.
She is anti masturbatlon
she is anti-gay


Among her quotes
"American scientific companies are cross-breeding humans and animals and coming up with mice with fully functioning human brains,"

Wow.

[heliochrome85]

but she looks like palin, esp with the glasses on. so therefore, she is qualified.

[AZhitman]

I guess what it boils dow to is this:

There's a TON more people in politics who are less-qualified, more certifiably insane, hold the Constitution in much lower regard, represent a greater overall risk to the country, and are more outright dangerous than SP.

Let's be reasonable and concern ourelves with them... some of whom ALREADY hold high public office. Hmmm?

[heliochrome85]

you know why im not worried about america?

because this exists.

thats it, im moving. wherever this angel lives, im moving there.
[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K1PsDyhNFBI[/youtube]

THESE COLORS DONT RUN

[AZhitman]

You're not allowed to live in her neighborhood.

Arizona maybe, but Savannah, GA? No.

[heliochrome85]

A-RAB MONEY

[AZhitman]

....and, IB4IBCoupeberg...

[Bubba1]

I guess what it boils dow to is this:

There's a TON more people in politics who are less-qualified, more certifiably insane, hold the Constitution in much lower regard, represent a greater overall risk to the country, and are more outright dangerous than SP.

Let's be reasonable and concern ourelves with them... some of whom ALREADY hold high public office. Hmmm?

I totally agree with the "throw the bums out" course, but we also have to be equally careful about replacing them with people that appear harmless and kooky but could easily do even more harm.

I'm not from Delaware, but you gotta wonder what kinda vetting the Republicans in Delaware did. She's attractive but seems to be a train wreck otherwise. Perhaps someone from Delaware could enlighten how she won that primary. I don't recall hearing anything awful about Mike Castle, whom she defeated. He was not the incumbant.

[heliochrome85]

i prefer this shirt, which i truthfully happen to be earing right now.

[IBCoupe]

Greg, you killed me and the goy sitting next to me in Tax.

[AZhitman]