WTF? Sentences? Who needs ‘em.

I believe this was from earlier today.

Comments

  1. #1 Ick of the East
    October 26, 2008

    So she’ll be returning the money that she and every other Alaskan receives from taxes levied on oil companies?

    Yeah, I didn’t think so.

  2. #2 george.wiman
    October 26, 2008

    Wait, what? They don’t like government making decisions for us? So Palin is pro-choice? Pro gay marriage? Pro legalization?

    Damn, who knew?

    Scratch the surface and it boils down to selfishness, to “I got mine, hell with you”, and to petulant refusal to bend at all in the interest of the common good. (No problem reaping the benefits of the common good, though. Drive on those roads, live in that safe neighborhood, enjoy those safe, effective medicines, hire those educated kids, but don’t raise my taxes!)

  3. #3 clinteas
    October 26, 2008

    It has really boiled down to appealing to instincts now,hasnt it.

  4. #4 Stephanie Z
    October 26, 2008

    clinteas, they call it the “base” for a reason.

  5. #5 LiquidThinker
    October 26, 2008

    Huh? That’s quite a blizzard of words there. So, o.k. I guess I could help work on maintaining the information highway, but if I have to start building my own physical roads, we’re all in trouble. U-betcha!

  6. #6 IasonOuabache
    October 27, 2008

    I almost expected her to say, “Is our children learning?”

  7. #7 caerbannog
    October 27, 2008

    Palin represents the Timothy McVeigh wing of the Republican party.

  8. #8 Richard Parker
    October 27, 2008

    Comments like: “Palin is a maniac, a moron, and a mental defective.”

    are not the product of rational thinking (although you’re probably right) and are not worth trading-in your scientist’ reason for.

  9. #9 Richard Parker
    October 27, 2008

    Comments like: “Palin is a maniac, a moron, and a mental defective.”

    are not the product of rational thinking (although you’re probably right) and are not worth trading-in your scientist’s reason for.

  10. #10 Greg Laden
    October 27, 2008

    Richard,

    Let’s say the Senate (one day in a future in which Palin is Vice President) is trying to keep a balanced budget, and two bills come before the Senate, each with a 50-50 vote, each costing the same amount of money, where only one or the other could be passed to keep in budget.

    Bill A: 100 million dollars for an upgrade for space telescope technology that would significantly enhance the ability for the Near Earth Object project to detect 10 km objects that are 100 years out, thus far enough in advance to do something about them.

    Bill B: 100 million dollars to fund a “faith based initiative” program in each state.

    Sarah gets to decide because she’s VP. We know she picks B, not only because it is a Fundy proposal and she’ a fundy, but ALSO because she knows the 100-year-out asteroid is not a issue because the apocalypse/rapture will surely happen before that.

    Richard, my statement is accurate and rational, with a poetic twist that happens to be a reference to a piece of literature. I changed psychopaths to maniac because I think it is more accurate.

    I know, I know, a lot of people don’t get my allusions. That is no my concern.

  11. #11 bloop
    October 27, 2008

    It is if you wish to communicate effectively.

  12. #12 bloop
    October 27, 2008

    It is if you wish to communicate effectively.

  13. #13 Greg Laden
    October 27, 2008

    Bloop:
    “It is if you wish to communicate effectively.”

    With all due respect, there are so many ways in which I disagree with this that I’m not sure where to start. There is an implied understanding of what my objective is that may not be correct. What is this blog? Why do I write it, why do people read it? I am not Highlights magazine, nor am I CNN. There is an assumption that effective communication as an attribute must reside alone and not along side other interesting or fun things. A very clear statement about something that includes semi-hidden references to the nuanced netherworld of thought does not mean that the communication was not “effective.” In other words, does “effective communication” mean that “everybody gets everything”? Does this mean that I can’t also make you squirm or get mad or cry? Because if I can’t write the occasional phrase or paragraph to one out of 100 or even 1000 readers, or in some cases to just one reader, then I’m not really all that interested in doing this. Nobody is paying me enough to be the guy who writes the copy!

    Oh, by the way, Bloop, using an anonimizer actually leaves a visible signal under certain conditions. Gotha.

  14. #14 bloop
    October 27, 2008

    I’ve enjoyed your blog in the past,but you seem to be becoming more high strung and reactive. So I won’t bother any more.

  15. #15 Greg Laden
    October 27, 2008

    bloop:

    No way. I’m much less high strung and reactive then I used to be. What helped was banning a couple of rolls who could not stop telling me how to blog. (That is not why I banned them, but the result is the same. It’s rather hard to get banned from commenting here.)

    I’ll truly miss you.

    Greg

  16. #16 SimonG
    October 27, 2008

    As a subject of one of those non-free countries Sarah refers to I am inspired. I have seen the light.
    Please send me guns.