The Palin Bot
September 11, 2008 at 10:50 pm | Posted in American politics | 13 CommentsThat’s my new nickname for Sarah Palin. After all, she’s not going to be telling Americans what she, herself, actually thinks, but what is programmed in her by McCain’s handlers. Just look at the report of her first interview with softballer Charlie Gibson. She got confused by the “Bush Doctrine” question (which anyone who has been paying the least attention to national politics knows exactly what that is), and couldn’t answer it. That’s because whoever was programming her forgot to insert that code into the matrix. Here’s the video:
It also appears that they forgot to clear out the old programming in her memory about how Iraq and 9/11 were not related in any way. That’s gonna come back to bite them in the butt later on if she keeps repeating Iraq Propaganda Programming software verson 1.9. Everybody has already discarded that, even George W. Bush. We’re now on Iraq Propaganda Programming 3.2 or so.
I wonder how Mrs. Palin (the real person, the one hidden behind the robot) feels about all this. Does she even realize what a mockery Mr. McCain is making of her? Does she get it? Is it more that she is using HIM a la the following perfect youtube flick (warning foul language ahead).
I don’t know. But I do wonder if most Americans realize yet how badly they are being played by John McCain…
13 Comments »
RSS feed for comments on this post. TrackBack URI
Leave a comment
Comments
Create a free website or blog at WordPress.com.
Entries and comments feeds.
The Good Democrat 
Interesting claims. If you are correct, why then is Palin higher in the polls then Obama? Does that scare you perhaps???
You’re golden boy is having two years of campaigning washed away in mere weeks by a conservative governer from Alaska…
Comment by knighthospitaller— September 12, 2008 #
hospitaller,
Frankly because most Americans are more interested in personality dramatics than in properly running the country. It is very sad, indeed, but there it is.
Comment by Daniel— September 13, 2008 #
There in lays the flaw of total democracy…
Comment by knighthospitaller— September 13, 2008 #
Indeed. But, well, hospitaller, we aren’t a “total democracy,” now are we…
Comment by Daniel— September 13, 2008 #
No, we were actually founded as a Republic under a strong central government.
Comment by knighthospitaller— September 14, 2008 #
a strong central government? really? Maybe that’s what it is today, but that certainly was NOT what it was back in the 1700s.
So far you are 0 for 2 in properly describing your own country dude. What’s going on? Aren’t you taking politics, or even civics classes in college right now?
Comment by Daniel— September 14, 2008 #
“a strong central government? really? Maybe that’s what it is today, but that certainly was NOT what it was back in the 1700s.”
Daniel, I believe it’s time for a little lesson in history. 🙂
http://usinfo.state.gov/products/pubs/histryotln/national.htm
The articles of confederation didn’t work buddy. They functioned on the idea of a weak central government. That is why in the time leading up to 1787 key founders like; Hamilton, Jay, Madison, Washington, and Adams pressed for strong central government under the Constitution. Which as you know (hopefully) was ratified in 1788.
Unlike you, the founders were smart, and realized we needed a strong centralized government if the US was to survive in the world. What they did was to make sure there were a system of checks and balances to contain the strength of the government, not weaken it (as you seem to believe).
Sort of like the containment of a nuclear reactor. It doesn’t weaken the reaction, it just keeps it from killing everybody. 😉
You disappoint me Daniel, I thought, even you were smarter than that… You don’t even understand your own country’s history…. sad…
Comment by knighthospitaller— September 15, 2008 #
hospitaller,
Uh, here we go again. The original central government may have tied together all the loose pieces (like states taking the helm at making deals with foreign governments and all), but the central state was fairly weak, at least until the events of the Civil War, wherein it was proved beyond doubt who had control of the country. The Southern states thought that most control should have been at the state level. This is where I find your argument ironic. In previous debates about the Civil War, you seem to side quite strongly with the Southern states and their argument that the state was to have supreme power of decisions. This means the federal is weak if it cannot control the states within the union. Now you argue that the federal government was indeed strong. Which is it dude? Or do you side with whatever side fits the argument of the minute? You truly are a modern Republican.
Comment by Daniel— September 15, 2008 #
I do not side with the south you obtuse piece of flotsam… I simply recognize the elements in their (the south) argument that led them to believe they could brake away, never did I say there breaking away was a good idea nor did I say I advocated it. I have always been an advocate of a strong central government. But I don’t “take sides” in judging American history as you seem to do.
Besides, you are spinning Daniel. I am not here to debate the civil war, I am telling you that the US after the constitution was ratified, was a Republic with a strong central government. Just read the federalist papers, they lay out all the reasons for creating the constitution in the first place, and I assure you it was not to have the states run the joint.
Jefferson, as an anti-federalist, even tried to undo the deeds by Washington’s administration and himself acknowledged that if he messed with anything the whole damn thing would come crashing down… (Compliments of Alexander Hamilton, who practically formed the country himself).
So you still have not explained yourself. Why do you believe the US did not have a strong central government??? Let us all hear from the enlightened one who can speak no wrong and make no errors in judgment. 😛
Comment by knighthospitaller— September 15, 2008 #
What I am saying is that it wasn’t a strong central government until Andrew Jackson when the federal government’s actual authority was tested. Before he took that stand for the federal, the federal was not very strong at all, no matter what it looked like on paper.
Back in those days, the Federal government was constantly at the mercy of what each individual state would want. This only changed after the Civil War when the Federal government won by beating the crap out of petulant southern states that never learned that lesson. It may have ended up as a strong central government, but in practice, it wasn’t until nearly 100 years later.
Comment by Daniel— September 15, 2008 #
You are partially correct. The 1800’s were a great test for the federal government to show its strength. But that strength was already there. Set up by the founding fathers when the Constitution was ratified. Just as I said before…
“After thirteen years (from 1776) of relatively loose Confederation, the U.S. government, fearing foreign invasion and domestic insurrection, replaced the governing Articles of Confederation to strengthen the federal government’s powers of defense and taxation with the Constitution of the United States in 1789, still in effect today.” (Wikipedia).
Comment by knighthospitaller— September 15, 2008 #
wow, that’s quite an improvement. You say, I am “partially correct.” I’m making headway…
Comment by Daniel— September 16, 2008 #
hi GD,
Here is the real Palin Bot:
http://palinbot.sequencefactory.com
Cheers
Comment by palin bot— October 6, 2008 #