Palin is such an idiot

by Anonymous 12 years ago

*ignorant can she

by Anonymous 12 years ago

Whoops. Is that the only reason you voted this down?

by Anonymous 12 years ago

No, although I do find that part ironic

by Anonymous 12 years ago

How could you possibly disagree? I am completely baffled as to why anyone could vote for her after all the ignorance she has displayed, not just with this, but in general.

by Anonymous 12 years ago

I don't "support" her, but I like her as a person and think she's either fairly intelligent or has a lot of motivation (shown by her ability to bank on book deals and her reality show, which intrigued the hell out of me). I also support some of her values like the 2nd amendment. I watched her hunt like a BADASS on the first episode, really the only one I watched, of her show, and the idea that people want to limit her/US citizens personal gun collection is annoying. Plus it's pretty cool although her baby has downs (which I think they test for pretty early in pregnancy) and her daughter got pregnant early, they didn't abort or try to hide/deny. Practice what you preach, ya kno? She's OBVIOUSLY not going to have political power again, she apparently doesn't even want it (why would she?), so I don't really see the harm in any of it. This post is the equivalent to a "Donald Trump's birthers" rant: Moot. I think that's the most I've ever thought about this woman..

by Anonymous 12 years ago

Well if those are the only two options, it is definitely the motivation, as there certainly isn't any intelligence there. I don't want to get into the gun debate (again). I just want to say that I think giving everyone a gun is just a horrible idea and there has to be some regulation for guns, as letting it go completely unregulated is a horrible idea.

by Anonymous 12 years ago

They regulate drug dealers guns? That said, I think that once you commit a felony, you do lose that right. So no felons or crazies ("mental health record"). There should also be a wait, like a week or so, maybe more if they're suspicious.

by Anonymous 12 years ago

I'm also anti-gun because the governor of my state wants to have a concealed carry law where no permits or background checks are required to carry a gun in public.

by Anonymous 12 years ago

Where do you live? I'm more pro-gun because Mayor Daley literally outlawed guns in Chicago. Yes, that is illegal against the constitution.

by Anonymous 12 years ago

I live in Wisconsin

by Anonymous 12 years ago

This is a great example of how local authorized figures can influence your political views. That's why you should all come and join my country, Mother Russia! We brainwash all of our citizens to be loyal to Mother Russia. So come join, comrades!

by Anonymous 12 years ago

So, let me get this straight, Walker wants a law that allows people to carry a concealed weapon in public without a permit or background check. That's ridiculous.

by Anonymous 12 years ago

Yes, that is precisely what he wants to do.

by Anonymous 12 years ago

And no lessons on top of that

by Anonymous 12 years ago

I always thought you were an idiot. Thought=confirmed.

by Anonymous 12 years ago

(Your+name+(optional)): Being called an idiot by an Anon > Being too much of a bitch to comment under my username I mean it's the fucking internet. Are you really that scared of what I'll do to you. Grow some balls and we'll talk.

by Anonymous 12 years ago

Bannnin guns may go against the Constitution, but if we really wanted to live to par with the Constitution, we'd be living the 18th century world. Is that wahat you want? Some things in the constitution made sens back then, but not anymore. Especially since the second amendment was written was written under the sense that the British was going invade at any moment. I don't think we still have to worry about that.

by Anonymous 12 years ago

The current law, in California at least, is that you have to wait several weeks or so before you can pick up your gun after buying it. Not allowing convicted felons and legally insane people to buy guns would be logical imo.

by Anonymous 12 years ago

So where would you draw the line for "crazy people"... Say someone has OCD, so they can't hae a gun? That's unconstitutional because it's completely biased and prejudiced. Let's just give everyone a gun! So another ww2 can happen!

by Anonymous 12 years ago

Don't be considered dangerous/mentally unstable and we won't have a problem.

by Anonymous 12 years ago

What? WHAT?!

by Anonymous 12 years ago

http://www.amirite.net/602543 oh Colbert...

by Anonymous 12 years ago

I'm surprised her supporters know how to edit a wikipedia article

by Anonymous 12 years ago

You do realize that saying Paul Revere warned the British isn't wrong. America was a British colony at the time, so they were just as British as the people they were fighting.

by Anonymous 12 years ago

While that is technically true, the people in America would be the colonists, a specific type of British. The colonists were the ones he was warning

by Anonymous 12 years ago

Still, you could call them the British, it's just less specific.

by Anonymous 12 years ago

Yes, but saying British is too general, it more specific than British For a different example of the same principle: If there was an outbreak of slamonella in spinach, You could say that there was a salmonella outbreak in vegetables. It isn't wrong, per se, but it isn't exactly right either

by Anonymous 12 years ago

But you shouldn't say that they are totally wrong, you could say that they could be more specific, but not wrong. In your example, if someone said that the salmonella outbreak was in vegetables, and then someone went up and said that they were totally, completely wrong, it would be incorrect. (Sorry if that was a little rambling.)

by Anonymous 12 years ago

I still would think that that level of vagueness could be considered right. You could also say a salmonella outbreak on Earth, and while technically right, is in reality, not specific enough to be right. Or it could also be that she is completely wrong and the people who Revere was warning identified themselves as Colonists and not British, as they wanted separation, so they may not have identified themselves as British, rather Colonists. Yes, I realize I was kind of Redundant Captain Redundancy Captain there.

by Anonymous 12 years ago

If you feel the wikipedia article is being used for vandalism, ask the one on the Wikipedia Admin to protect the page from editing in the talk page.

by Anonymous 7 years ago