Jump to content
The Education Forum

Sarah Palin


John Simkin
 Share

Recommended Posts

Here's an expose on Al Gore that cuts through all the B.S.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 178
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Here's an expose on Al Gore that cuts through all the B.S.

That was one of the stupidest videos I’ve ever seen, how does a “film maker” who makes flatulence jokes expect to be taken seriously? Absolutely no evidence is presented for the myriad of claims, though for the “true believers” none is needed the pronouncements of their messiah and his leading disciples is taken as gospel. The “expert” interviewed is a LaRouchite, no mention is made of his scientific qualifications on his website so it’s safe to assume he doesn’t have any.

The overwhelming consensus among qualified scientists is that global warming is a serious problem and that human activity is a major factor. Though many on the right resisted these notions many if not most now accept this. Opposition is mostly limited to those on the political fringes, people who work for carbon emitting industries and a handful of scientists many/most of whom are associated with the aforementioned companies.

Bangladesh increasing in size due to silting doesn't disprove the potential for the country to be swallowed up if sea levels rise. To the contrary silt deposits tend to low lying.

From what I gather though I haven’t looked into this in quite a while, opinions concerning nuclear energy are more divided the principle dangers being potential accidents and what to do with the waste. Last time I checked (but that was decades ago) the high cost of constructing plants meant that nuclear power often was’t economically viable

LaRouche and his followers love comparing people they don’t like to Hitler or other Nazis but the two have a lot in common. Both:

  • Are/were leaders of messianic like personality cults based on the notion that only they offer the solutions for their nations’ problems
  • Have/had a paranoid fixation on Jewish bankers and financiers
  • Have/had “Youth Movements” named after them

  • Are/were Germanophiles
  • Hate(d) Communists (though LaRouche used to be one).
  • Used violence against political opponents.

Edited by Len Colby
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Here's an expose on Al Gore that cuts through all the B.S.

That was one of the stupidest videos I’ve ever seen, how does a “film maker” who makes flatulence jokes expect to be taken seriously? Absolutely no evidence is presented for the myriad of claims, though for the “true believers” none is needed the pronouncements of their messiah and his leading disciples is taken as gospel. The “expert” interviewed is a LaRouchite, no mention is made of his scientific qualifications on his website so it’s safe to assume he doesn’t have any.

The overwhelming consensus among qualified scientists is that global warming is a serious problem and that human activity is a major factor. Though many on the right resisted these notions many if not most now accept this. Opposition is mostly limited to those on the political fringes, people who work for carbon emitting industries and a handful of scientists many/most of whom are associated with the aforementioned companies.

Bangladesh increasing in size due to silting doesn't disprove the potential for the country to be swallowed up if sea levels rise. To the contrary silt deposits tend to low lying.

From what I gather though I haven’t looked into this in quite a while, opinions concerning nuclear energy are more divided the principle dangers being potential accidents and what to do with the waste. Last time I checked (but that was decades ago) the high cost of constructing plants meant that nuclear power often was’t economically viable

LaRouche and his followers love comparing people they don’t like to Hitler or other Nazis but the two have a lot in common. Both:

  • Are/were leaders of messianic like personality cults based on the notion that only they offer the solutions for their nations’ problems
  • Have/had a paranoid fixation on Jewish bankers and financiers
  • Have/had “Youth Movements” named after them

  • Are/were Germanophiles
  • Hate(d) Communists (though LaRouche used to be one).
  • Used violence against political opponents.

Speaking of stupid video's this one takes the cake. Your taste in art, politics, and economics is without equal.

http://video.aol.com/video-detail/gg-allin...ylon/2637330701

Here is another "artist" straight out of the Len Colby school of modern art. You get some great insight into the mind of Len Colby by reviewing what he calls "art". Next we'll get the argument that Yoko Ono is a great artist.

http://www.cynthiaplastercaster.com/

Keep selling those T-Shirts!

Edited by Terry Mauro
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Len,

It's true that I am usually a stickler about our leaders at least speaking English proficiently. I am also not normally offended by language, but "retarded" is one word I take offense to. If you had someone you love very much that was born with Downs Syndrome, you might be troubled by the cavalier use of that word, too.

Cynthia McKinney was expressing a view that most people would find outrageous. That's one of the reasons I find her so refreshing; she doesn't shy away from those dreaded "conspiracy theories." I think there is much to investigate about what happened in the aftermath of Katrina. At the very least, the snail-like response from the government was inexcusable.

If you don't think the mainstream media (outside of Fox News) is biased in favor of Democrats, what do you say to all those polls that indicate an overwhelming majority of journalists vote Democratic? If I remember correctly, I believe that about 90% of all reporters voted for Bill Clinton in 1992. The entertainment industry is even worse. Just watch a show like "Saturday Night Live"- it will never accord any liberal public figure the kind of treatment that a Linda Tripp received back in the 1990s, or that Sarah Palin is receiving now. Al Gore has a stiff, pompous air about him that is perfect for satire; instead, he is portrayed as some kind of superhero on t.v. shows like "The Simpsons" and "Family Guy."

Remember, I am pointing this out as a total independent. I was raised as a Democrat, and I have no affinity for Republicans. Fox News is obviously biased in favor of Republicans. That being said, I am no fan of mainstream Democrats, epitomized by the likes of Gore or Joe

Biden. I don't agree with everything Larouche says, but his views are original and thought provoking. He'd certainly make a better president than the ones we've had since JFK.

Edited by Don Jeffries
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Here's an expose on Al Gore that cuts through all the B.S.

That was one of the stupidest videos I’ve ever seen, how does a “film maker” who makes flatulence jokes expect to be taken seriously? Absolutely no evidence is presented for the myriad of claims, though for the “true believers” none is needed the pronouncements of their messiah and his leading disciples is taken as gospel. The “expert” interviewed is a LaRouchite, no mention is made of his scientific qualifications on his website so it’s safe to assume he doesn’t have any.

The overwhelming consensus among qualified scientists is that global warming is a serious problem and that human activity is a major factor. Though many on the right resisted these notions many if not most now accept this. Opposition is mostly limited to those on the political fringes, people who work for carbon emitting industries and a handful of scientists many/most of whom are associated with the aforementioned companies.

Bangladesh increasing in size due to silting doesn't disprove the potential for the country to be swallowed up if sea levels rise. To the contrary silt deposits tend to low lying.

From what I gather though I haven’t looked into this in quite a while, opinions concerning nuclear energy are more divided the principle dangers being potential accidents and what to do with the waste. Last time I checked (but that was decades ago) the high cost of constructing plants meant that nuclear power often was’t economically viable

LaRouche and his followers love comparing people they don’t like to Hitler or other Nazis but the two have a lot in common. Both:

  • Are/were leaders of messianic like personality cults based on the notion that only they offer the solutions for their nations’ problems
  • Have/had a paranoid fixation on Jewish bankers and financiers
  • Have/had “Youth Movements” named after them

  • Are/were Germanophiles
  • Hate(d) Communists (though LaRouche used to be one).
  • Used violence against political opponents.

Speaking of stupid video's this one takes the cake. Your taste in art, politics, and economics is without equal.

http://video.aol.com/video-detail/gg-allin...ylon/2637330701

Pretty lame, when you can’t rebut me you dredge up GG, someone I’ve not been associated with for 15 – 16 years, (not that I’m ashamed of it).

Here is another "artist" straight out of the Len Colby school of modern art. You get some great insight into the mind of Len Colby by reviewing what he calls "art". Next we'll get the argument that Yoko Ono is a great artist.

http://www.cynthiaplastercaster.com/

Pure strawman you suppose I am fan of “Ms. Plastercaster” then presume to attack me based on your mistaken assumption. But since you missed the obvious her shtick is supposed to be a joke. I do think I detect a degree of jealousy.

I don’t find what she does offensive, you are quite the prude. It is mildly amusing but I don’t consider it “art”.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Len,

It's true that I am usually a stickler about our leaders at least speaking English proficiently.

I think numerous more important factors to take into account when evaluating a candidate, # 1 for me is the policies they will support # 2 their intelligence and ability to think clearly and third their personal character. During the general election those are the big three when voting in a primary electability would be a major concern and perhaps the main factor. Verbal flubs especially those when speaking spontaneously, wouldn’t ‘make it on the radar’.
I am also not normally offended by language, but "retarded" is one word I take offense to. If you had someone you love very much that was born with Downs Syndrome, you might be troubled by the cavalier use of that word, too.

Sorry I didn’t use of the word would cause personal offense, I won’t use it again.

Cynthia McKinney was expressing a view that most people would find outrageous. That's one of the reasons I find her so refreshing; she doesn't shy away from those dreaded "conspiracy theories." I think there is much to investigate about what happened in the aftermath of Katrina. At the very least, the snail-like response from the government was inexcusable.

Holding controversial views and subscribing to some conspiracy theories is one thing but believing something completely illogical is another. I don’t want to drag this thread further astray, I though you’d realizes the nonsensicality of her “theory”. This calls her critical thinking into question as much as if she back “no plane” theories.

If you don't think the mainstream media (outside of Fox News) is biased in favor of Democrats, what do you say to all those polls that indicate an overwhelming majority of journalists vote Democratic? If I remember correctly, I believe that about 90% of all reporters voted for Bill Clinton in 1992.

That was 90% of the DC press corps nationwide the percentage were less but still tilted Democrat so you have a point. That in and of itself does not demonstrate they act in a biased fashion. If that were the case why is McCain’s checkered passed virtually ignored and why was no effort made to point out that most times he gave his stump speech he gave Kinnock credit? Why has the evidence the Bush Administration steered intelligence on Iraq gotten so little press?

IMO Liberals tend to idealists and try to put their passions aside, the liberal ACLU fights just as hard (if not harder) for the 1st amendment rights of rightwing fringe groups as it does for leftist ones. It you watch any of the “left”/right pundit shows the liberals tend to be more neutral and examine both sides of the issue, the conservatives have no qualms about flaunting their biases.

The entertainment industry is even worse. Just watch a show like "Saturday Night Live"- it will never accord any liberal public figure the kind of treatment that a Linda Tripp received back in the 1990s, or that Sarah Palin is receiving now.

Al Gore has a stiff, pompous air about him that is perfect for satire; instead, he is portrayed as some kind of superhero on t.v. shows like "The Simpsons" and "Family Guy."

I’ll take your word for it perhaps the makers are more concerned with the future of the planet than personality. Oh and now that we’re on the subject Gore never claimed to have “invented the Internet”, that was a rightwing myth. He was mocked on Futurama made by the same people as the Simpsons

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-2...qK5HuqAKQhrybDA

I don't agree with everything Larouche says, but his views are original and thought provoking. He'd certainly make a better president than the ones we've had since JFK.

No Larouche has a 2nd rate mind, is a paranoid megalomaniac and probably suffers from Narcissistic Personality Disorder. He expressed racist views in the past against Blacks, Latinos, Jews and Native Americans, though he no longer expresses them publicly he has never AFAIK renounced or apologized for them.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Len,

It's true that I am usually a stickler about our leaders at least speaking English proficiently.

I think numerous more important factors to take into account when evaluating a candidate, # 1 for me is the policies they will support # 2 their intelligence and ability to think clearly and third their personal character. During the general election those are the big three when voting in a primary electability would be a major concern and perhaps the main factor. Verbal flubs especially those when speaking spontaneously, wouldn’t ‘make it on the radar’.
I am also not normally offended by language, but "retarded" is one word I take offense to. If you had someone you love very much that was born with Downs Syndrome, you might be troubled by the cavalier use of that word, too.

Sorry I didn’t use of the word would cause personal offense, I won’t use it again.

Cynthia McKinney was expressing a view that most people would find outrageous. That's one of the reasons I find her so refreshing; she doesn't shy away from those dreaded "conspiracy theories." I think there is much to investigate about what happened in the aftermath of Katrina. At the very least, the snail-like response from the government was inexcusable.

Holding controversial views and subscribing to some conspiracy theories is one thing but believing something completely illogical is another. I don’t want to drag this thread further astray, I though you’d realizes the nonsensicality of her “theory”. This calls her critical thinking into question as much as if she back “no plane” theories.

If you don't think the mainstream media (outside of Fox News) is biased in favor of Democrats, what do you say to all those polls that indicate an overwhelming majority of journalists vote Democratic? If I remember correctly, I believe that about 90% of all reporters voted for Bill Clinton in 1992.

That was 90% of the DC press corps nationwide the percentage were less but still tilted Democrat so you have a point. That in and of itself does not demonstrate they act in a biased fashion. If that were the case why is McCain’s checkered passed virtually ignored and why was no effort made to point out that most times he gave his stump speech he gave Kinnock credit? Why has the evidence the Bush Administration steered intelligence on Iraq gotten so little press?

IMO Liberals tend to idealists and try to put their passions aside, the liberal ACLU fights just as hard (if not harder) for the 1st amendment rights of rightwing fringe groups as it does for leftist ones. It you watch any of the “left”/right pundit shows the liberals tend to be more neutral and examine both sides of the issue, the conservatives have no qualms about flaunting their biases.

The entertainment industry is even worse. Just watch a show like "Saturday Night Live"- it will never accord any liberal public figure the kind of treatment that a Linda Tripp received back in the 1990s, or that Sarah Palin is receiving now.

Al Gore has a stiff, pompous air about him that is perfect for satire; instead, he is portrayed as some kind of superhero on t.v. shows like "The Simpsons" and "Family Guy."

I’ll take your word for it perhaps the makers are more concerned with the future of the planet than personality. Oh and now that we’re on the subject Gore never claimed to have “invented the Internet”, that was a rightwing myth. He was mocked on Futurama made by the same people as the Simpsons

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-2...qK5HuqAKQhrybDA

I don't agree with everything Larouche says, but his views are original and thought provoking. He'd certainly make a better president than the ones we've had since JFK.

No Larouche has a 2nd rate mind, is a paranoid megalomaniac and probably suffers from Narcissistic Personality Disorder. He expressed racist views in the past against Blacks, Latinos, Jews and Native Americans, though he no longer expresses them publicly he has never AFAIK renounced or apologized for them.

Classic. "He has expressed racist views in the past against Blacks, Latinos, Jews and Native Americans, though he no longer expresses them publicly......

That's like saying "GG Allins audience was over the age of 21, "for the most part".

You bring me one racist quote made by LaRouche and I'll purchase $1,000.00 worth of native Brazilian Art. 3rd party gossip does not qualify.

Edited by Terry Mauro
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The choice of Alaska Governor Sarah Palin as Republican vice presidential nominee at first seemed a bit unusual but possibly very shrewd. It would help solidify the GOP base of ultra-conservative voters concerned about abortion, gun rights, etc, as well as theoretically appealing to Hillary Clinton supporters, and there was supposedly a "populist" appeal to "regular folks" in general.

But this would be a miscalculation if this were an election in which the stakes were very high for the Republican base -- say, one in which a somewhat liberal African American who openly opposed the Iraq adventure had a realistic chance of being president; under those circumstances, GOP voters turning out would be a foregone conclusion and there would be little need to "solidify" or "energize" them. (Who else are they going to vote for?) It would also be a miscalculation if it were based on a mistaken assumption that many who voted for Hillary Clinton in Democratic primaries were doing so out of some ardent liking for and identification with Clinton, as opposed to merely voting against Barack Obama. (And so will vote "for" John McCain for the same reason they voted "for" Clinton.) It would also be a miscalculation if it was assumed that sincere supporters of Clinton would support Governor Palin just because she's a woman and in spite of enormous disagreements they would have to have with the Governor's political-ideological positions and philosophy. And finally, it would be a miscalculation if "appealing to regular folks" carried an assumption that regular folks don't mind their potential presidents being virtually oblivious about the details of various national issues. (The issue being less about lack of experience as such than lack of knowledge and understanding.)

So Senator McCain's choice appears to have been a miscalculation in many respects, one which raises questions about his judgment and cynicism, about the extent to which he would make responsible decisions for his country. A further issue is the lack of substantive vetting of the vice presidential candidate and her background. In the past few days we've seen some of what Governor Palin and the McCain campaign in general are now appealing to: the conviction among some that Senator Obama's campaign for the presidency represents some sort of danger to the Republic.

http://voices.washingtonpost.com/the-trail...r_the_roug.html

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/conte...8100602935.html

Governor Palin has not only taken on the traditional attack-dog role assigned to vice presidential running mates but is looking more and more like a fear-mongering demagogue. This is an indication of how desperate the McCain campaign is, and something that could result in the complete discrediting of the Republican Party for a generation. But it's also dangerous and irresponsible under the circumstances. It's clear that Senator McCain did not do a very good job of vetting his running mate; it's not clear whether he's aware of, or cares about, the implications. In the article below, David Talbot points out the irony of Governor Palin's recent emphasis on themes of Obama as un-American and "associations with extremists." Unfortunately for her and the McCain campaign, this opens the door for their own past associations to be given more of a look.

http://www.salon.com/opinion/feature/2008/...ins_unamerican/

"The Palins' un-American activities

By David Talbot

Oct. 7, 2008

"My government is my worst enemy. I'm going to fight them with any means at hand."

This was former revolutionary terrorist Bill Ayers back in his old Weather Underground days, right? Imagine what Sarah Palin is going to do with this incendiary quote as she tears into Barack Obama this week.

Only one problem. The quote is from Joe Vogler, the raging anti-American who founded the Alaska Independence Party. Inconveniently for Palin, that's the very same secessionist party that her husband, Todd, belonged to for seven years and that she sent a shout-out to as Alaska governor earlier this year. ("Keep up the good work," Palin told AIP members. "And God bless you.")

AIP chairwoman Lynette Clark told me recently that Sarah Palin is her kind of gal. "She's Alaskan to the bone...she sounds just like Joe Vogler."

So who are these America-haters that the Palins are pallin' around with?

Before his strange murder in 1993, party founder Vogler preached armed insurrection against the United States of America. Vogler, who always carried a Magnum with him, was fond of saying, "When the [federal] bureaucrats come after me, I suggest they wear red coats. They make better targets. In the federal government are the biggest liars in the United States, and I hate them with a passion. They think they own [Alaska]. There comes a time when people will choose to die with honor rather than live with dishonor. That time may be coming here. Our goal is ultimate independence by peaceful means under a minimal government fully responsive to the people. I hope we don't have to take human life, but if they go on tramping on our property rights, look out, we're ready to die."

This quote is from "Coming Into the Country," by John McPhee, who traipsed around Alaska's remote gold mining country with Vogler for his 1991 book. The violent-tempered secessionist vowed to McPhee that if any federal official tried to stop him from polluting Alaska's rivers with his earth-moving equipment, he would "run over him with a Cat and turn mosquitoes loose on him while he dies."

Vogler wasn't just a blowhard either. He put his secessionist ideas into action, working to build AIP membership to 20,000 -- an impressive figure by Alaska standards -- and to elect party member Walter Hickel as governor in 1990.

Vogler's greatest moment of glory was to be his 1993 appearance before the United Nations to denounce United States "tyranny" before the entire world and to demand Alaska's freedom. The Alaska secessionist had persuaded the government of Iran to sponsor his anti-American harangue.

That's right...Iran. The Islamic dictatorship. The taker of American hostages. The rogue nation that McCain and Palin have excoriated Obama for suggesting we diplomatically engage. That Iran.

AIP leaders allege that Vogler, who was murdered that year by a fellow secessionist, was taken out by powerful forces in the U.S. before he could reach his U.N. platform. "The United States government would have been deeply embarrassed," by Vogler's U.N. speech, darkly suggests Clark. "And we can't have that, can we?"

The Republican ticket is working hard this week to make Barack Obama's tenuous connection to graying, '60s revolutionary Bill Ayers a major campaign issue. But the Palins' connection to anti-American extremism is much more central to their political biographies.

Imagine the uproar if Michelle Obama was revealed to have joined a black nationalist party whose founder preached armed secession from the United States and who enlisted the government of Iran in his cause? The Obama campaign would probably not have survived such an explosive revelation. Particularly if Barack Obama himself was videotaped giving the anti-American secessionists his wholehearted support just months ago.

Where's the outrage, Sarah Palin has been asking this week, in her attacks on Obama's fuzzy ties to Ayers? The question is more appropriate when applied to her own disturbing associations.

For some background on McCain's own prior "association with extremists" issues:

http://www.examiner.com/a-1627100~McCain_l...tra_affair.html

http://www.thestar.com/News/World/article/513387

http://www.publiceye.org/foreign_policy/covert/wacl.html

Thank you for posting this. It is clear that the selection of Palin was a terrible mistake and raises serious issues about McCain's judgement.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2008/oct/1...008-johnmccain2

John McCain's election campaign last night suffered the body blow which Republicans had been bracing themselves for when his vice-presidential candidate, Sarah Palin, was found to have abused her powers in pursuit of a personal feud with her former brother-in-law.

At the end of the 10-week investigation into the so-called Troopergate affair, Palin was found to have breached the ethics rules which govern her conduct as governor of Alaska. The findings, delivered by an investigator who had been hired by the Alaskan state legislature before she was picked as McCain's running mate, are certain to lead to questions over his judgment, and to queries and challenges as to her suitability for national office.

Stephen Branchflower, a former prosecutor, found that Palin had breached the Alaska executive branch ethics act, which states that "each public officer holds office as a public trust, and any effort to benefit a personal or financial interest through official action is a violation of that trust".

Branchflower also concluded that Palin's feud with her former brother-in-law, an officer of the Alaskan state police, was "likely a contributory factor" in her decision to dismiss the head of that force, Walt Monegan. However, he did also conclude that the action had been carried out in a "proper and lawful" fashion.

A committee of the Alaskan state legislature voted to make much of Branchflower's report public after a closed discussion of more than six hours which ended early this morning. The committee, eight Republicans and four Democrats, did not endorse the report, but voted unanimously to release it.

Palin will probably not face impeachment proceedings, with both local Democrats and Repubicans saying they have little appetite for such a move.

With McCain struggling to overtake Barack Obama in the polls, however, and less than four weeks before the election, the report's findings could barely have been worse for the Republicans.

Palin had denied all wrong-doing; her husband, Todd, sought to shoulder some of the blame by admitting that he had he repeatedly complained about the trooper, Mike Wooten, believing him to be a danger to the public. Wooten had been through an acrimonious divorce and custody battle with the governor's younger sister. A number of complaints that the Palin family made about him at that time were upheld, and in March 2006 he was disciplined but allowed to keep his job.

Palin came into office as governor of Alaska nine months later, and then put Monegan immediately under pressure to fire Wooten.

A further finding of Branchflower's 263-page report was that the Alaska state attorney general failed to comply with his request to release information about the case held in various emails.

A number of Alaskan Republicans attempted to halt publication of the report with a series of court cases, but the state's supreme court dismissed their final bid on Thursday, paving the way for its publication.

Alaskan state senator Gary Stevens, a Republican, objected to the report while agreeing that its contents should be made public. "I would encourage people to be very cautious, to look at this with a jaundiced eye," he said.

With Barack Obama building up significant poll leads all week as a result of the public anxiety over the economic crisis, McCain could have done with a weekend free to concentrate on attacking his rival rather than having to deal with Troopergate.

If the election were to be held today, polls suggest Obama would win by a landslide, but the gap could still narrow. A poll published yesterday gave Obama an 8% lead over McCain in Florida, which was pivotal for the Republicans in 2000 and held by them again in 2004.

McCain is resting much of his election hopes on taking Pennsylvania from the Democrats, but polls over the last few days give Obama double-digit leads, including one of 13%. The third of the big three swing states, Ohio, is tighter but Obama has leads of between 4-6% in four polls and McCain is ahead by 1% in another.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

At a recent Palin rally, the crowd started chanting, “We want Fox!” McCain has given them just that. But how isolated and out-of-touch is this audience? At the end of each debate, a sure-fire way to decide who won was to look at the Fox viewers poll — typically showing a landslide for McCain. Within a day, scientific surveys found big wins for Obama.

Whether Americans are real or fake, they can see through Palin, a woman who couldn’t correctly answer a third grader a few days ago when asked to explain the duties of vice president. Somewhere, between the shuffling to costume and accessorize Palin with a $150,000 wardrobe, her handlers never handed her a copy of the Constitution.

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/10/26/opinion/...amp;oref=slogin

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Many of you might have heard about this but 2 French-Canadian radio comedians called “Sweet Sarah” and pretended to be President Sarkozy and an aide. Sadly the Govenor of Alaska who apparently thinks being able to see Russia from her state qualifies as foreign policy experience didn’t know the name of the Prime Minister of Canada.

“FAKE SARKOZY: Some people said in the last days, and I thought that was mean, that you weren't experienced enough in foreign relations and you know, that's completely false. That's what I said to my great friend, Prime Minister of Canada, (says French-sounding name).

GOV. PALIN: Well, you know, he's doing fine too, when you come into a position underestimated, it gives you an opportunity to prove the pundits and the critics wrong. You work that much harder”

But the PM of Canada since before she became governor of the state whose only land border is to that country has the very Anglo name “Steve Harper”.

She didn’t even become suspicious when “Sarkozy” told her

“you know we have a lot in common because from my house I can see Belgium.”

OR

“I just love killing those animals, mm mm, taking away life, that is so fun.”

OR even after my favorite

“You know my wife if is a singer and a former hot top model. And she's so hot in bed,”

http://voices.washingtonpost.com/sleuth/20...by_sarkozy.html

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Please sign in to comment

You will be able to leave a comment after signing in



Sign In Now
 Share


×
×
  • Create New...