Poster of the Day

Published on March 2nd, 2010

43 users responded in " Poster of the Day "

Subscribe to this post comment rss or trackback url

# 1 bobbo, even the hebephrenics aren't laughing said, on March 2nd, 2010 at 7:43 pm

The real joke is watching her believe she is qualified. But that is only one person. The 30% of Repukes who would vote for her?—once again, reds voting against their own personal interests over emotional/ideology.

Too many people truly don’t deserve the vote. Stroke em, yoke em, rebait the hook.

# 2 Greg Allen said, on March 2nd, 2010 at 7:49 pm

>> bobbo, even the hebephrenics aren’t laughing said, on March 2nd, 2010 at 7:43 pm
>> The real joke is watching her believe she is qualified. But that is only one person. The 30% of Repukes who would vote for her?

If she won the nomination, 100% of Republicans would enthusiastically vote for her because they’d be utterly convinced that the Democrat is a socialist, Muslim, Nazi, atheist, terrorist-loving, gay, radical anti-American. (even if the candidate where Jesus himself.)

Conservatives believe whatever their leaders tell them, no matter how idiotic.

# 3 bobbo, even the hebephrenics aren't laughing said, on March 2nd, 2010 at 7:56 pm

#2–Greg==as much as I doubt the wisdom or even common sense of the American Voter, I would agree. Thankfully, that first “if” is a big one as poor Sarah is not respected even by the majority of self deluded Republicans.

Then, if she did get the nomination, I would hope if not assume that the Dems and Independents would vote in massive numbers to prevent such an obvious corrupt and incompetent person from getting the office, however, there is always Bush-Term 2 to worry and fret over.

Its enough to register Repug and vote for Ron Paul.

# 4 jccalhoun said, on March 2nd, 2010 at 8:04 pm

If she runs as a Republican candidate it will be a bloodbath — from other Republicans who are running. During the primaries other Republicans who are running will hammer home the “quitter” message and make sure she doesn’t have a chance of getting elected.

# 5 Greg Allen said, on March 2nd, 2010 at 8:10 pm

bobbo,

One part of me would like to see Palin run, just for the yucks. She typifies modern conservatism so perfectly.

But she is such a hateful, reckless, scorched-politics candidate.

Here mocking and derision of community organising, for example, was a huge hit on volunteerism, one of our America’s greatest strengths. She didn’t give two craps since she got a little political gain from it.

Far worse, her accusing Obama of “palin’ around with terrorists” was horrid. I believe Palin’s accusing Obama of being pro-terrorist contributed to the huge increase of death threats on our president. He’s an enemy of America, you betcha!

I will give her this much credit — she might not be smart enough to realise the damage she had done to America and democracy with her VP candidacy.

# 6 bobbo, even the hebephrenics aren't laughing said, on March 2nd, 2010 at 8:14 pm

Greg–don’t forget the Death Panel meme. Its says something about our species that Palin has any traction at all.

Dylan Ratigan had a TeaBagger on today. He couldn’t even say that Race Baiting wasn’t part of their platform.

Now all good Americans have been TEA-bagged enough, as in Taxed Enough Already, but from good initial impluse to nutbaggery is a short hike in american politics. In fact, no hike at all—just roll off the couch.

# 7 honeyman said, on March 2nd, 2010 at 8:25 pm

if you thought America was a laughing stock under Bush and pretty funny under Obama, get ready for some truly monumental giggles come 2012.

# 8 impressionist said, on March 2nd, 2010 at 8:31 pm

Well, I thought there was no way Reagan could be elected, but people vote on personality and looks. Seems like Palin has a high score there.

# 9 bobbo, even the hebephrenics aren't laughing said, on March 2nd, 2010 at 8:38 pm

How to unintentionally reveal too much:

“Palin has a high score on personality and looks.”

Looks–only if you like the high maintenance artificially poofed up look.

Personality–what small aspect of her personality do you find attractive?

Sure you ain’t besotted by her looks and therefore don’t look too deeply at the personality? Good looking babes been getting away with that for ever. I do like her willingness to work the fishing boat, but I sold my boat . . . . .

# 10 Micromike said, on March 2nd, 2010 at 8:46 pm

I think she would look good sucking my dick, and that is what she would have to do to get my vote.

# 11 bobbo, even the hebephrenics aren't laughing said, on March 2nd, 2010 at 8:56 pm

I don’t know about that. She seems to choke pretty easily, but usually just goes all dead fish but who knows when the brain goes into shell shock?

# 12 sargasso said, on March 2nd, 2010 at 8:57 pm

#10. Micromike. Sir, you are a poet, philosopher and a gentleman.

# 13 yankinwaoz said, on March 2nd, 2010 at 9:41 pm

I’m no fan of Palin, but I were a Lincoln Republican, then I would let her run as the candidate in 2012. Here is why:

Unless Obama is dead, or screws up big time before 2012, then he is going to be the incumbent they have to defeat. So 2012 is going to be tough for them, no matter who they run.

I don’t see any strong Republicans ready to compete against Obama in 2012. So if the give Obama a 2012 victory, they can set themselves up for a 2016 sweep.

If they run Palin, knowing full well she will get her ass kicked in 2012, it will purge the part of her and her idiotic supports. In other words, the centrist republicans can give the radical right enough rope to hang themselves with.

Her defeat will allow them purge the part of her and likes, allowing them to run a strong centrist candidate against whomever follows Obama in 2016.

If will also give them enough time to allow the Bush legacy to fade away, and to allow the Democrats to screw things up enough that people will demand change.

In the meantime, they can focus on (a) grooming a winnable candidate for 2016, and taking as many Senate and Congress seats back as they can.

If they do this, then they will be in a strong position to do in 2016 what the Democrats did in 2008, a total sweep.

# 14 Ralph, the Bus Driver said, on March 2nd, 2010 at 10:35 pm

Palin has annoyed too many in the Republican Party. She will more than likely end up helping the party split into tea baggers and Republicans. Regardless, she is too damaged by her quitting as Governor to win any type of election.

# 15 ECA said, on March 2nd, 2010 at 11:16 pm

i HOPE that star isnt to big, when it HITS it will kill allot of people..

# 16 Grandpa said, on March 2nd, 2010 at 11:45 pm

This is almost as funny as Carly Fiorina for the Senate.

# 17 Santa Maria said, on March 3rd, 2010 at 12:46 am

She is the only hope.

Sarah Palin / Carrie Prejean for 2012

If not

at least Limbaugh/ Glenn Beck please.

# 18 The Warden said, on March 3rd, 2010 at 12:53 am

What is most hilarious is that idiots on the left are so obsessed with a woman who is not a candidate after one horrible year of the Obama administration. Why are you hate filled misogynistic lefties so fixated on her? It’s a rhetorical question so need to answer because I know why you are fixated on her.

# 19 bobbo, even the hebephrenics aren't laughing said, on March 3rd, 2010 at 5:03 am

Because she is the best the Republickans have? hee, hee!

# 20 Hmeyers said, on March 3rd, 2010 at 5:20 am

I am equally amused by lefties that are preoccupied with this lady and teabaggers that support her.

I suppose she is a net positive by being somewhat of a role model to part of the female Republican base.

Still, in a reality-check world, she uses the populist handbook far too often because she doesn’t have leadership capability and independent deep thought and needs to resort to generic populism as a result.

And when is the last time a populist got elected president? Certainly not in the last 80 years. Maybe Theodore Roosevelt? Arguably JFK.

# 21 scadragon said, on March 3rd, 2010 at 5:39 am

I say forget Palin. Forget ANY Republican candidates. And Dems also.
I say…. “ENOUGH!”.
Time to vote all of em out, and vote in the independants. Anybody but Dems or Repubs.
Time to vote all those “senators-for-life” out!
It cant go on like it is too much longer.

# 22 Dr Dodd said, on March 3rd, 2010 at 5:50 am

A sex addict president, a confused president, a black liar of a president, now possibly a woman president… how genius would it be to elect a competent president?

Yep, it’s the end of the world.

# 23 The Warden said, on March 3rd, 2010 at 6:33 am

One thing is for sure. Palin could never do as much harm and as many flip flops as Bacrack Obamao has done in just his first year as president. “Hope and Change” is just rhetoric swallowed by the insane.

# 24 Winston said, on March 3rd, 2010 at 6:36 am

DICK in 2012! Cheney is currently vacationing in England with his pals as can be seen in this video:

# 25 Dr Dodd said, on March 3rd, 2010 at 6:59 am

#23-The Warden-Palin could never do as much harm and as many flip flops as Bacrack Obamao

The same was said about Obama in reference to Bush… the rest is history.

A good rule of thumb is never underestimate the destructive power of politicians toward freedom after they are given a taste of true power.

The only recent exception to that rule as far as presidents go is Ronald Reagan.

# 26 Animal Mother said, on March 3rd, 2010 at 7:05 am

Sarah gives the Republitards endless masturbatorial fantasies, especially when she writes the answers on her hand.

# 27 bobbo, keeping the truth as a touchstone said, on March 3rd, 2010 at 7:46 am

You replubitards crack me up: “Obama is a flip flopper.” All that means is that in your low wit and tenuous grasp of reality always looking to be fed the most ludicrous of talking points, the FACT IS on those things Obamas has moderated or not performed on, in the main, have been to compromise/move towards the republifuckwits positions.

To the degree he is a flip flopper, you idiots “should be” happy. To bad he can’t change skin color and party affiliation?

This might be biases, but he hasn’t done any/enough flip flopping to the left===THATS what would make him lose in 2012 absent the Repugs nominating a teabagger to run.

How many of you idiots think Obama has raised your taxes?

# 28 bobbo, keeping the truth as a touchstone said, on March 3rd, 2010 at 7:59 am

Well, that shows I can’t multitask.

“All that means…..is you don’t like Obama, and you think the public thinks flip-flopping is bad, so you make the link.==Totally factually void.

Its horrible this thing called Zombie Political Partisanship. Media really incubates it. On tv right now, Demoncrap Charlie Wrangle. If I hear one more bobblehead say that Wrangle served in Korea and then for years in the Congress, I’m gonna puke.

They are all criminals and you idiot types that pass on their talking point BS are all enablers. Thats why our country is tanking.

# 29 GetSmart said, on March 3rd, 2010 at 8:13 am

Don’t count Palin out! Amerikans elected both Regan and Bush II twice each, if you’ll recall. They haven’t self-administered near enough chlorine in their gene pool yet!
Remember, there aren’t any seat belts on Darwin’s Bumper Car!

# 30 OvenMaster said, on March 3rd, 2010 at 9:40 am

Unfortunately, I can imagine a Obama vs Palin election in 2012. We’re f*cked either way.

# 31 FRAGaLOT said, on March 3rd, 2010 at 9:59 am

@ #1
Seems to me anyone with $100 million in their pocket, and some public popularity is qualified to run for office. Nothing else matters these days. The majority of voters at large don’t give a shit.

# 32 MrWindows said, on March 3rd, 2010 at 10:37 am

It’s humorous to see the fear displayed above by those on the left and the self-proclaimed ‘independents’ over Sarah Palin.
She’s a quitter, a tea-bagger and evidently the object of more than one cave-dweller’s puerile fantasies.
Firstly, if you are so concerned about her being a quitter, read her book, or at least a few newspaper articles. She was forced to resign for financial reasons because she couldn’t continue to afford the lawyer’s fees required by the incessant ethics complaints promulgated by those on the left seeking to destroy her out of base fear of her popularity. Every one of the ethics charges levied against her were shown to be baseless. (Except one trivial issue where she ultimately reimbursed the state of Alaska, that had she fought, she would have won also). On a Governor’s salary in most states, unless you’re a millionaire going in, which she wasn’t, anyone would be hard-pressed to come up with the funds required to defend one’s self against the tidal wave of crap lawsuits that the state of Alaska was not reimbursing the Governor for. Her only escape, and for that of several of her staff members similarly being attacked, was to resign and go off and earn some real money. They were literally hounded out of office by.
The term ‘tea-bagger’, is another obvious tag by the frightened left, a slur meant to associate a legitimate populist political movement with a sexual act well-known among the homosexual community. It’s interesting to see how the Democrats seem to throw groups of their own constituents ‘under the bus’ in aid of their political pogrom.
Now, admittedly, I’m a conservative identified with the Republican side of the aisle. An admirer of Sarah Palin, even. After reading her book, I have even more respect for her than I already had. I wouldn’t however see her as my first choice for the top slot in 2012. I could see her return as the veep candidate, but I would much rather see her as a Senate candidate. I think she would make a better alternative than Murkowski’s annointed daughter, but Alaska also has a Democrat Senator that will be coming up for re-election in 2014. Hell, if Hilary can do it and get away with it, Sarah can.
I would also echo another statement from above, that we ought to clean house, both Democrats AND Republicans. It is way past time for term limits and time for new blood. One of the reasons I’m supporting J.D. Hayworth over John McCain here in Arizona.
Regardless, I still see big gains for the GOP in this Fall’s elections, although the jury is still out on whether they can regain control over either house. Still, the Republicans need to stop spending like drunken Democrat sailors, and return to the Reagan ideal of fiscal responsibility. Otherwise, we will get rid of ALL of them, and seriously consider third parties. (Nutcases like Ron Paul excluded.)

# 33 Phydeau said, on March 3rd, 2010 at 12:49 pm

#32 Dream on, Mr Windows. Dream on.

You’re an admirer of a politician who can’t string together two coherent sentences?

Still, the Republicans need to stop spending like drunken Democrat sailors, and return to the Reagan ideal of fiscal responsibility.

Would that be the Reagan ideal that never submitted a balanced budget in 8 years? The Reagan ideal that left the country in far more debt than it started with? That Reagan ideal?

# 34 MrWindows said, on March 3rd, 2010 at 1:16 pm

#33: Yes, I mean the Reagan ideal that significantly reformed the tax code so as to enable the record surpluses that Clinton’s administration took credit for.
The Reagan that pushed for a balanced budget amendment, and seriously considered assuming the existence of a line-item veto not explicitly mentioned in the constitution in order to balance the budget unilaterally. Unfortunately, no administration has dared to seriously test that theory.
And since we’re on the subject, why don’t you mention the fact that revenues increased so dramatically during the Reagan administration specifically due to the tax cuts, that the Democrat-controlled House through all 8 years giddily increased entitlement programs (albeit with consent of a Republican-controlled Senate for 6 of 8 years) in exchange for the increases in defense spending.

# 35 Phydeau said, on March 3rd, 2010 at 1:26 pm

#34 Riiiiiiiiight… those nice Republicans wanted to balance the budget, but those mean ol’ Democrats stopped them! Yeah, that’s the ticket, sure.

And you’re giving credit to Reagan for stuff that happened four years after he left office???

Wow.

# 36 tcc3 said, on March 3rd, 2010 at 1:38 pm

Not just that Phydeau, but IIRC, there was a recession in there too. That’s some delayed reaction.

# 37 Phydeau said, on March 3rd, 2010 at 1:41 pm

…hm, but now that I think about it, it does make sense, in a twisted wingnut way. Reagan was given credit for good things happening in the Clinton era. Clinton was blamed for the bad things happening in the Dubya era. And mere months after Dubya left office, Obama is being blamed for 8 years of Republican f*ckups. I got it:

1. Anything good that happens during a Democratic administration is obviously because of some previous Republican administration.

2. Anything bad that happens during a Democratic administration is in no way related to any previous Republican administration.

3. Anything bad that happens during a Republican administration is obviously because of some previous Democratic administration.

Makes perfect sense! To a wingnut, anyway.

# 38 Shubee said, on March 3rd, 2010 at 4:05 pm

Clearly, Obama is a cowardly Bush clone when it comes to favoring Wall Street. I’m going to vote for Ralph Nader – again!

# 39 deowll said, on March 3rd, 2010 at 10:25 pm

If she wins several people posting to this news group will have strokes so I guess for them the world really will end.

# 40 amodedoma said, on March 4th, 2010 at 1:54 am

Hey, you guys might be on to something. I had exactly the same impression with Obama when he won the presidency. Oh shit, the end is near if they’re gonna let a black man be president. (not racist-just old)
Sarah Palin’s about as offensive as a fart on a pig farm. Apart from being a republican with tits, I don’t see where she’s doing anything out of place for one of those.

# 41 smartalix said, on March 4th, 2010 at 5:55 am

What I don’t get is the right-wing confusion with rhetoric. Don’t they understand complex concepts?

Those that laugh at Palin do so because they find her stupid and amusing, not because htey fear her. She is dangerous, but not because she has any talents in that direction. She is dangerous because we’ve just recently gotten past an incompetent presidency, and have no desire to plunge into another one because the GOP needs another empty suit to front for the power brokers.

Can you show me any language from any Palin despiser that shows fear? She could be any right-wing neo-fascist steath-racist poster child and get the same level of derision from me. Hell, Beck would be almost a better shot for her crown if he wasn’t mentally unstable to boot.

# 42 chris said, on March 5th, 2010 at 9:31 pm

I saw some promotional materials for her new show. The tag line is: “There’s always more on the Sarah Palin Show!”

# 43 kscbear said, on March 6th, 2010 at 6:23 pm

I think the Audio-Animatronics Ronald Reagan at the Walt Disney Hall of Presidents stands a better chance of winning than Sarah Palin. Oh, wait…that Reagan has already won… TWICE!! LOL

Leave Your Reply Below...

Comment Moderation is Active, so if your comment doesn't
show up immediately, please don't submit it again.

Special Deals 4U

25% off eHarmony subscription with code EHTECH
12-percent discount forever with code TECH
10-percent discount and free month using TECH10
10-percent or 30 dollars off weekly car rental!
Get 10-percent discount on car rental!
Get 10% off rental cars!
Get 10% off Dollar rentals!
Discounts on domain names!