chimneylooker: PDX Ghost Hunter: chimneylooker: I really love the compassionate tolerant position everyone takes on Mrs. Palin. That and the use of words such as "retard" "twunt" "tard" "tranny chipmunk" shows the lack of intellectual prowess it takes to have a serious discussion on a political figure you don't agree with. I'm not here to defend her, just to point out the sorry state liberals are in where they merely attack/make fun/demean a human being merely for having different opinions. Now, bring on your lowly, classless attacks on me since I now disagree with you.

Your profile says you've only been a Farkers since 2007. Go away troll.

HAHAHA I love it. That's your response? To call me a troll? Thanks for proving I'm right.

We're through the looking glass here... trolls staring each other down...

Morpheses: We're through the looking glass here... trolls staring each other down...

Think they'll fight if we toss some table scraps on the ground between them? I got two bucks on the one on the left.

Justiceforme: chimneylooker: I really love the compassionate tolerant position everyone takes on Mrs. Palin. That and the use of words such as "retard" "twunt" "tard" "tranny chipmunk" shows the lack of intellectual prowess it takes to have a serious discussion on a political figure you don't agree with. I'm not here to defend her, just to point out the sorry state liberals are in where they merely attack/make fun/demean a human being merely for having different opinions. Now, bring on your lowly, classless attacks on me since I now disagree with you.

If you think that liberals are the only ones that "attack" people for having different opinions, then you must not spend a whole lot of time on fark/the internet/life.

Didn't say that. Just making an obvious observation on this thread.

seadoo2006:
A strong military runs counter to your small government argument. Why should the American people pay to have a strong standing army and NOT a strong public school system, a strong public healthcare system, a strong social safety net.

You seem to be under the impression that citizens of our country would just accept death over large hospital or health care bills. I'm here to inform you that you'd have a revolution if Medicaid, Medicare, and Social Security were taken away. Crime would skyrocket as desperation became the ultimate driving force. Those with means would become increasingly victimized as those without steal, rob, and kill to gain what they rightfully deserve.

/Not my image of a perfect nation.

A strong military is perfectly aligned with my view of government as it is provided for in the Constitution. Remember the Constitution? The supreme law of the land?

Nice try in setting up your straw man of the result of taking away Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security. That's one mighty lazy debate tactic, right there. Are you actually suggesting that Grandma is gettin' her shotgun and headin' down to the grocery store if those programs are trifled with?

I have never in my life - much less this little thread - advocated taking those programs from those who are legitimately receiving them. I would certainly like to phase them out through natural attenuation, however. Other answers are possible for those with the wit to see them. For starters, we could go with, "Get your hand out of my pocket and get your ass to work."

As for a skyrocketing crime rate - what do you think has been happening in this country for the past 40 years? Have you been to Detroit? St. Louis? Chicago? Cincinnati? Boston? Oakland? As individuals in this nation take less and less responsibility for their own lives, they feel more and more entitled to take what they want from whoever has it. Your nightmare scenario is already happening. Look around you.

How about a law that requires every citizen to be armed when they go in public? That could do wonders for your skyrocketing crime rate.

Another thing that I think we should do (now that it occurs to me)...
Make campaign funding illegal. Across the freakin' board, man. You wanna run for office? The government foots the bill for your campaign. You get (just throwing a random figure out there) $100,000 to run for senator. You cannot spend more than that, and you goddamn better have receipts to show for everything at the end of it all.

What would this fix? Well, think about it. How are things now? Company A give a ton of money to senatorial wanna-be B who happens to get elected for pandering to the right people. Senator B now has to throw enough bones to company A to ensure campaign contributions sufficient enough to allow for a moderate chance at re-election. Right from the get-go Senator B's focus is somewhere other than the welfare of his or her constituents. fark that. Also, rich people can pay for their own campaigns. So, to summarize here because I'm prone to angry rambling, the current system shows heavy preference towards rich people who pander to rich special interest groups and whoring out their votes to companies who top off the campaign food bowl and garnish it with a milk-bone.

Under the everyone-gets-the-same-damn-money deal, it's equal across the board. Companies can't buy off people, and when elected, the new government official doesn't start their terms "owing one" to anyone but their constituents. And the companies could hand out the food bowls and milk bones somewhere else. Like their workers. Wishful thinking, yeah, I know.

(The above isn't my idea, it's been floated out there long before, I just stole it and wrote my name all over it with a sharpie)

logophile: Please tell me i didnt just see a grandma punting a baby. Please. it's important for my psyche that someone comes along to tell me that's a clever shoop.

*Shudder*

I ... well, I have no answer...

logophile: Please tell me i didnt just see a grandma punting a baby. Please. it's important for my psyche that someone comes along to tell me that's a clever shoop.

It is. The baby was photoshopped in. It was originally a midget nun.

/Sorry, I meant "Little person".

ChipNASA: Gold Five: Stay on target.
Gold Leader: *We're too close!*
Gold Five: Stay on target!
Gold Leader: [shouts] Loosen up!
/focus people, focus.

I wonder if that book is a publication of the whacked out religious fanatic group she belongs to. Anyone around with photoshop handy? Zoom in! Enhance! Vertical hold! Tint knob!

Flab: Cpl.D: Make campaign funding illegal.

The Supremes won't like it anymore than they liked McCain-Feingold.

I have a natural distrust of anyone who has absolute say in any matter in a job position that's guaranteed for life.

Committee_For_Aesthetic_Deletions: seadoo2006:
A strong military runs counter to your small government argument. Why should the American people pay to have a strong standing army and NOT a strong public school system, a strong public healthcare system, a strong social safety net.

You seem to be under the impression that citizens of our country would just accept death over large hospital or health care bills. I'm here to inform you that you'd have a revolution if Medicaid, Medicare, and Social Security were taken away. Crime would skyrocket as desperation became the ultimate driving force. Those with means would become increasingly victimized as those without steal, rob, and kill to gain what they rightfully deserve.

/Not my image of a perfect nation.

A strong military is perfectly aligned with my view of government as it is provided for in the Constitution. Remember the Constitution? The supreme law of the land?

Nice try in setting up your straw man of the result of taking away Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security. That's one mighty lazy debate tactic, right there. Are you actually suggesting that Grandma is gettin' her shotgun and headin' down to the grocery store if those programs are trifled with?

I have never in my life - much less this little thread - advocated taking those programs from those who are legitimately receiving them. I would certainly like to phase them out through natural attenuation, however. Other answers are possible for those with the wit to see them. For starters, we could go with, "Get your hand out of my pocket and get your ass to work."

As for a skyrocketing crime rate - what do you think has been happening in this country for the past 40 years? Have you been to Detroit? St. Louis? Chicago? Cincinnati? Boston? Oakland? As individuals in this nation take less and less responsibility for their own lives, they feel more and more entitled to take what they want from whoever has it. Your nightmare scenario is already happening. Look around you.

How about a law that requires every citizen to be armed when they go in public? That could do wonders for your skyrocketing crime rate.

Crime hasn't skyrocketed your moran.

Came for unadulterated wharrgrbled derp from those who take seriously that this election was won and or lost because of Sarah Palin.

Leaving satisfied and vindicated in my prediction.

My vote was not based on Palin, Obama, Gingerich, Pelosi (well a little) or whatever... I looked at my bank account and voted against anything and anyone who did or promised to keep chipping away at what I have to spend on me and my family. My insurance was fine until Obamacare passed now my company is talking about dropping coverage. Since whatever else my company stopped matching my 401k at 4% dropped us to a 2% match etc...

Nothing else really mattered in my decision making. If I cannot keep spending more than I make or have on my credit cards then why should my government get a free pass to do exactly that on the money I earn working 10 hours a day?

Committee_For_Aesthetic_Deletions: I have never in my life - much less this little thread - advocated taking those programs from those who are legitimately receiving them. I would certainly like to phase them out through natural attenuation, however. Other answers are possible for those with the wit to see them. For starters, we could go with, "Get your hand out of my pocket and get your ass to work."

Ah, there's always that qualifier. And, of course, it's always the coloreds who don't "deserve" it.

Natural attenuation is, I assume, code for "let them starve to death".

The Why Not Guy: chimneylooker: I'm not here to defend her, just to point out the sorry state liberals are in where they merely attack/make fun/demean a human being merely for having different opinions.

Which is vastly different than when she implies I'm not a "Real American" simply because I have different political views. Actually, it is vastly different. I do it in a Fark thread. She did it on international tv at the Republican Convention.

Implied butthurt results in real butthurt?

Imagined offense is imagined.

AshHousewares18:
Crime hasn't skyrocketed your moran.

The hell you say!!?? NBC, CBS, CNN, MSNBC, and Fox News tell me every day that everything is going to hell in a handbasket!

Aren't we in the worst economic era since the Great Depression? Don't we have double-digit unemployment and record home foreclosures? These haven't driven people to the point of desperation and sent the crime rate to previously-unseen levels?

See how easy it is to set up a straw man? Intellectual laziness at its finest. Go ahead and mention it to seadoo2006 when you see him.

/seriously, though - stay out of the Hyde Park area of St. Louis

GT_bike: ...Obamacare...

I read your post as a serious one up until this point, at which you revealed that you have a political axe to grind, and backed it up with feeble anecdotes and hearsay. Do you have proof that your company is dropping your coverage as a direct result to recent health care regulation changes? Or is this an assumption on your part? How do you know your company executives just aren't being greedy dicks?

Huggermugger: Committee_For_Aesthetic_Deletions: I have never in my life - much less this little thread - advocated taking those programs from those who are legitimately receiving them. I would certainly like to phase them out through natural attenuation, however. Other answers are possible for those with the wit to see them. For starters, we could go with, "Get your hand out of my pocket and get your ass to work."

Ah, there's always that qualifier. And, of course, it's always the coloreds who don't "deserve" it.

Natural attenuation is, I assume, code for "let them starve to death".

Wow, project much? Why would you assume, from anything I've said, that color would play any role? Your assumptions show you for who you are.

I don't have a racist bone in my body. If someone is, under the law, entitled under a program now - then their benefits continue throughout their lives. Color is not part of the equation. Period.

Natural attenuation means that they continue to receive their benefits for the rest of their lives. Are we starving people to death with Social Security now? If not, then there is no reason for them to starve. Eventually, yes they will die. Guess what? So will you and I. Sorry to break it to you, but even government programs won't stop it. Oh, and Santa Claus isn't real either.

Flab: Where?

Unfortunately, that's a very good question right now. There are a lot of people going through a real crisis today.

I've been there. In 1995, I had to take a harship discharge from the military, move my family into subsidized housing and accept food stamps. I couldn't find a job anywhere. It was horrible.

I'm glad that society had that safety net for me. For a year, I waited tables and attended another year of school. It launched me into a career that has paid me very well ever since. The down-side is that I've had to move all around the country to do it. The up-side is that I've kept my family fed and paid back well over one hundred-fold what I received when I really needed it.

Ideally, that's how I'd like to see things like welfare work. A safety net when needed, and the recipients back to work as quickly as possible. That often doesn't happen in America today.

/Don't everyone start flaming me that Medicare, Medicade, and Social Security aren't welfare (since that's what seadoo2006 first started going on about). I know that. They're social programs that are poorly structured and unsustainable in their current form. Especially when the baby boomers start to hit them in big numbers over the next few years.

Committee_For_Aesthetic_Deletions: The up-side is that I've kept my family fed and paid back well over one hundred-fold what I received when I really needed it.

I doubt that. Even if you want to count "all the taxes I paid went to paying back my benefits"... the situation would have to be highly abnormal for that to be true.

Committee_For_Aesthetic_Deletions: Ah, there's always that qualifier. And, of course, it's always the coloreds who don't "deserve" it.

Natural attenuation is, I assume, code for "let them starve to death".

Wow, project much? Why would you assume, from anything I've said, that color would play any role? Your assumptions show you for who you are.

I don't have a racist bone in my body. If someone is, under the law, entitled under a program now - then their benefits continue throughout their lives. Color is not part of the equation. Period.

Natural attenuation means that they continue to receive their benefits for the rest of their lives. Are we starving people to death with Social Security now? If not, then there is no reason for them to starve. Eventually, yes they will die. Guess what? So will you and I. Sorry to break it to you, but even government programs won't stop it. Oh, and Santa Claus isn't real either.

I've never, ever, met anyone who was obsessed with "deserving" who didn't drop the racism bomb fairly early in their blather of qualification.

Racists very rarely admit to it, and it's a quality that goes hand-in-hand with myopia and self-delusion.

And you've already tipped your Hat of Hypocrisy with the Craig T. Nelson "I was on public assistance, but no one ever helped me, and I deserved it!"

One of the most irritating lies that is spread by teabaggers is that "qualifications" are not currently being instituted for things like SSDI, Medicaid, AFDC. You just assume that black people can waltz into an office, and then waltz out with a bag of cash. Do you not think that we didn't get to this point in time because people were not blatantly starving in the past, and that these programs were not created for a valid reason?

And you assume that people on public assistance are wallowing in wealth and riches? God, get real, man. Wake up. Stop listening to Limbaugh telling you how you're getting ripped off by some jet-black Mama in Philly who's wearing a mink coat and buying smoked salmon for her 37 bastard children.

Say what you want but I would still plow Sarah Palin like a fallow field.

mcsestretch: Say what you want but I would still plow Sarah Palin like a fallow field.

One that grows retarded crops. You forgot that part.

PDX Ghost Hunter: CUNextTuesday:
There we go. So what's your point?

Nice try. The vast majority of Farkers would take a load in the mouth for Obama and ask for seconds.

And yet your bunch feasts on her verbal diarrhea. So what's your point?

GT_bike: Imagined offense is imagined.

So I imagined Sarah Palin calling her supporters the Real Americans? I imagined her mocking community organizers in her Republican Convention speech? Are you sure this is the claim you want to make?

Ah yes, here it is:

Sarah was tweeting on a very small keyboard, and hit the "f" instead of the "d" which is right next to it,
so "repudiate" comes out as "refudiate."

Therefore, because of that one typo she is unfit to be Pesident.

Meanwhile, candidate Barack Obama says: "---I have campaigned in all 57 States---" and no one notices.

Double standard as usual?

olddinosaur:
Sarah was tweeting on a very small keyboard, and hit the "f" instead of the "d" which is right next to it,
so "repudiate" comes out as "refudiate."

Let's see...
Refudiate
Repudiate
That's F instead of P, not D. Your excuse for her fails.

Therefore, because of that one typo she is unfit to be Pesident.

Yes. Sarah Palin is unfit to be Pesident.

olddinosaur: Sarah was tweeting on a very small keyboard, and hit the "f" instead of the "d" which is right next to it,
so "repudiate" comes out as "refudiate."

That's funny, because "F" and "P" are nowhere near each other, which is the letter you were trying to mention before some derp got in your eyes.

It's no wonder you think Sarah Palin is fit to run anything more than a McDonald's, being illiterate and all...

Huggermugger:
I've never, ever, met anyone who was obsessed with "deserving" who didn't drop the racism bomb fairly early in their blather of qualification.

Racists very rarely admit to it, and it's a quality that goes hand-in-hand with myopia and self-delusion.

And you've already tipped your Hat of Hypocrisy with the Craig T. Nelson "I was on public assistance, but no one ever helped me, and I deserved it!"

One of the most irritating lies that is spread by teabaggers is that "qualifications" are not currently being instituted for things like SSDI, Medicaid, AFDC. You just assume that black people can waltz into an office, and then waltz out with a bag of cash. Do you not think that we didn't get to this point in time because people were not blatantly starving in the past, and that these programs were not created for a valid reason?

And you assume that people on public assistance are wallowing in wealth and riches? God, get real, man. Wake up. Stop listening to Limbaugh telling you how you're getting ripped off by some jet-black Mama in Philly who's wearing a mink coat and buying smoked salmon for her 37 bastard children.

Well, you've hardly characterized me well as I'm not obsessed with "deserving" anything. I spoke of legality. And you can feel free to count this as the first time you've spoken with anyone for whom neither race, ethnicity, gender, nor sexual orientation mean a thing.

You can keep trying to put words in my mouth, but it's not going to work. Of course racist people often claim to not be racist today. They are correctly ostracized by society if they show their true nature. On the other hand, there are people like you who throw around accusations of racism with no merit. You believe either 1) that you can read the mind of another and see their racism; or 2) that an accusation of racism will shut the other person up. If you are case #1, then I feel sorry for you. If you are case #2, then I detest you as much as I detest racism itself - for you are no different.

I don't really care whether you believe it in my case. I've been lucky in my life to have worked, lived, and been great friends with people of many different racial and ethnic backgrounds. I don't have to convince you. My friends know better and don't need my reassurance.

Your caricature of me would be humorous, if it weren't so boring, stereotypical, and predictable. Of course there's no black mama in Philly wearing mink on welfare, etc. Of course these programs evolved due to a need.

However, are you going to try to tell me that there aren't millions and millions and MILLIONS of dollars given to people who are abusing the system? You can't, because I've seen it.

I had never known anybody who abused welfare until about two years ago. Then, I had the misfortune to meet someone whose entire extended family is doing just that. Intrigued and disgusted, I met many more who are abusing the system. These are able-bodied WHITE people who are perfectly happy living off the tax dollars of you, me and anyone else with a job. These are not people who lost their jobs due to the recession. Many of them haven't worked in over a decade.

Don't bother continuing with the hypocrisy angle. It doesn't fly. I mentioned my own experience to say that yes, we need to maintain a safety net. Yes, I was on welfare. I was ashamed to enroll in it, and embarrassed every time I used a food stamp. But I did it to feed my kids and myself.

Obviously, I know that you don't walk out of that office with a bag of cash.

I also mentioned it to say that when people like me find that they need to accept public assistance, they owe it to the public, their families, and themselves to work to get back into the workforce and pay it back.

That's what I did, and millions more have as well. To them, a tip of my hat. To those that I've known - and the many that I don't - who deliberately work the system and take money that others actually need, I offer a wag of my middle finger.

And to condescending, race-baiting finger-pointers like yourself, I say, "Good day."

/I said, "Good Day."

Fine headline - my sincerest contrafibularities.

Cpl.D: GT_bike: ...Obamacare...

I read your post as a serious one up until this point, at which you revealed that you have a political axe to grind, and backed it up with feeble anecdotes and hearsay. Do you have proof that your company is dropping your coverage as a direct result to recent health care regulation changes? Or is this an assumption on your part? How do you know your company executives just aren't being greedy dicks?

Don't worry. Obamacare is free. Just show up at the hospital and you're 100% covered. You won't even get a bill. The gubment pays for all of it. One day people will be singing hymns about him. God bless America.

logophile: Please tell me i didnt just see a grandma punting a baby. Please. it's important for my psyche that someone comes along to tell me that's a clever shoop.

You did not see a grandma punting a baby.

That's a "place kick", not a "punt".

And she's no Grandma.