she is a gook lookin gal, though, the one to her right is a close second.

__________________

From the other posters in this thread, I have learned that it wasn't her. That explains my wonder as to why she had her hair up while in a bikini.

As far as your other comment, talk (especially yours on this thread) is cheap. Anyway, it is interesting that you posted the picture of a physically attractive male instead of a physically attractive female. Is there something that you want to come out (of) and say to the forum, Knute?

Warning please; I could have been eating.

Apropos of nothing, does any of the modern 'utes really have any idea of how many really, REALLY nasty things that two fingered gesture in the picture is actually supposed to mean? It makes the middle finger look like a friendly salute among nuns, and it's not just a pejorative, it's MAGICK. I wondered why they didn't put it in Borat, because it is still seriously bad juju in lots of the world.

Or is that the whole point?

__________________
Alizee Jacotay, the reason god invented hips

So, do you have the same problems with Obama's lying to the voters to get elected? I believe I've asked you a couple times. Since we're in a thread discussing lying/corruption for personal gain, I figured I'd ask here.

OOOH please.... Be kind mate.

The political process to get into office is so restrictive by voters. You need to lie to get into office.

You know, I don't think Obama is a christian. I think he's an agnostic.

But your next President will probably be Obama's vice president in 2014.
I highly doubt Biden will be the vice president then. He'll either step down in 2011 before the campaign. Or he'll step down in 2014. Either way. I don't think we'll see him in office after 2015.

I really don't see anyone from the GOP who can put up a fight against Obama in 2012 and win, for that they have messed up to much. Right now its Mitt Romney who is the most likely candidate. It looked like it was going to be Standford. But I'm going to say Pete Hegseth, it might be to soon. But that guy is going places, there is just something about him. Hell, even I respect him.

I think Mark Warner will run in 2016 for the democrats. But I don't think he'll get the nomination. I hope Rahm Emanuel will run then, but I doubt it. Maybe John Lynch who seem to be very popular in NH. Martin O'Malley could be another. Basically, I have no idea. It will be a white mid aged man at least. =)

If your real policies are shit, then yes, you need to lie to get into office. And Bernie M. needed to lie to get lots of money. Etc... Etc...

It is still totally inexcusable, but I doubt Drake is going to do anything but apply unforgivably biased double standards.

i would venture that americans don't elect on policy, they elect on simplified values.

__________________

Stated policies suggest values. Thus, politicians' lies about policies are lies to get elected.

Lemme give you a big wet kiss, sweety.
You know you want it.

Suggesting I am gay will get you nowhere with me. If I were I'd be proud of it. Not like closeted RW homophobes.

That is the hole point.
Say someone is cheating on his wife. Or don't have time to be a family guy.
Can that person not govern a state? Or a country? Of course they can. Its just that you hold them up to a higher standard as glorified people. What you instead need to ensure is that they have an appreciation of that value. Not necessarily that they follow it themselves. There is a difference. Thats why you get politicians who lie to get into office. Its no other way to get there.

It's not a matter of ability to govern. What ever gave you that idea? Anybody can govern. It is another question of being able to govern well and yet another of being able to govern justly or in accordance with the will of the people.

The idea behind elections or any democracy-based system of selecting policies is that the people get to decide their own laws. When a candidate lies or tells the truth, the people theoretically elect him based on their assumption that those statements will be turned into policy. However, if it is a lie, then the people basically did not vote for those policies. They voted for different policies. When this happens, a candidate gets into office when, in reality, a false/made up candidate was the one elected. It is not too different from voting for one man and having some other guy put into office. It would be like voting for certain policies, and then having someone say "too bad, you're not getting those policies." Allowing candidates to lie defeats the entire point of such a democratic process as it ceases to be democracy.

In our case, we have it the worst. Not only is our system not democratic, it is also not just or even competent! You can, in theory, have all three, but we lack the will of the people, competence and justice. What we have is some silly "election," followed by the creation of policies that are unjust, inefficient and not what we want. We could probably do better with a ruthless dictator. At least then we could be oppressed and without control, but in an efficient way.

I personally prefer justice with a somewhat lesser focus on efficiency.I don't hold them to a "higher standard" anymore than I would hold an employee to a higher standard. If someone promises me something in exchange from something from me, and I give it to them, I expect them to follow through with their end of the bargain. During his campaign, Obama provided a number of promises. He presented to us a candidate who would withdraw from Iraq by a certain date, etc... That candidate won (a few election-related quirks aside). However, that apparently will not happen. So, a different candidate is the one who is actually in power.

What kills me is when people actually believe that "liberals" do not like Palin because they are scared of her. Nothing could be further from the truth.
There is absolutely nothing to be afraid of, she's not going anywhere, nobody's more aware of that than "liberals." They view her more as a punching bag at worst and comedy relief at best, and this is all due to her lack of intellectual curiosity to put it mildly and nicely. I mean, a person at the stage of national politics who can't even tell an interview what magazines they read, after bringing up the fact themselves absolutely takes the cake. Its the height of stupidity. In fact, "liberals" would absolutely LOVE it if the Republicans would put her up as the national candidate in 2012, that would be a hoot. Is there record of any other stupid political of this magnitude in the history of American politics? I'd really like to know.

I think "conservatives" know this, but somehow feel it a duty to falsely hold on to that belief that her critics are afraid of her, I think it gives them personal comfort to hold on to that belief. The latest poll asked Repunlicans what's the role they'd most like to see her in and the highest percentage was "Home Maker" was on FOXNews, as well as other news networks/sources.

Its like the more she opens her mouth, the more stupider she appears. Have you guys seen the latest joke? William Shatner doing Palin's literal words in poetry? Classic!

Anyone who thinks Micheal Jackson was a great human being shouldn't have any problems with Palin.

Trust me, I don't want to get anywhere with you.

I was merely pointing out that when I doubted that you had had better than the woman in the bikini (now confirmed not to be Palin), that instead of posting a picture of an attractive female, you instead chose to post a picture of an attractive male. I am not exactly sure what that means, but Freud could probably shed some light on the situation.