Dickipedia, a Wiki of Dicks (dicks like Dick Cheney, George Bush, Joe Biden, Hillary Clinton, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, Hugo Chávez, and many others), has a very interesting entry about Sarah Palin.
According to Dickipedia, Sarah Palin’s political views are totally cribbed from the "Focus on the Family" website.
She is pro-life, "unless you’re talking about the life of a criminal; limited government involvement in people’s lives, unless those people have a uterus or are gay and want to get married; and guns for whoever wants them, as many as they like, unless they look Islamic, in which case they should be detained indefinitely, preferably naked and arranged in a human pyramid."
Sadly, instead of being funny, the above is actually true and not funny at all.
But don't worry, the rest of the entry about Sarah Palin is quite hilarious...
recommend this
email
print
link to this page
Comments: 21
That said, Palin is stupid. I'm a die hard conservative, but I would never vote for her. I don't understand why she left office as governor, she doesn't have a chance as a political candidate, not because she is a woman but because she seems to lack any common sense of information about important political issues. I blame Sarah Palin for the huge defeat the Republicans had last November. I think if we had had a reasonable running mate for McCain, i.e. Mitt Romney we still might have lost but not near as bad as what actually happened. Sarah Palin deserves not place in politics, I hope that's something we can all agree upon whether you are a conservative or a liberal.
I completely agree that the woman is a vapid twit with the political acumen and public speaking abilities of arugula, but if you acknowledge that the Republicans were doomed to lose anyway, you must admit that Palin made much better fodder of SNL, Leno, ect. than Romney would have.
That's because none of those people have entries in the Dickipedia. If it were a real wiki, you could write entries for those people. Well, I would imagine that it would be highly unlikely that you could actually write them, but you could copy things other people had written and pretend that you'd written it yourself. Like you do with so many of your Gather articles. Dick.
An unborn child has no choice when aborted...a criminal that did heinous crimes had a choice to do them or not. That is the difference.
"limited government involvement in people’s lives, unless those people have a uterus or are gay and want to get married"
Sorry, but just because someone is gay doesnt mean they can redefine a term that has been used since the beginning of time. If the movement had half a brain, they would have created their own term and had the rights ages ago.
"guns for whoever wants them, as many as they like, unless they look Islamic, in which case they should be detained indefinitely, preferably naked and arranged in a human pyramid."
Gun rights even for Islamics are guaranteed by the Constitution. Im not sure what your point was here....
Obama, Pelosi, Holden, and a large handful of others you forgot to add here.
~M
I'm not going to go near the pro-choice issue because I believe that this is a private decision solely up to the woman making it. However, capital punishment has never and will never make any sense to me. We demonstrate that killing people is wrong, by killing people, who kill people. What if I said I'm going to prove that smoking cigarettes causes cancer, by smoking until I get cancer? It's illogical. And so is the barbaric practice of capital punishment.
Gay marriage is another instance where conservatives have trouble minding thier own business. If you don't want a gay marriage, don't get one, no one is going to make you, I promise. But to deny a specific sect of the population the same rights you enjoy, is text book discrimination.
I know from experience that you like to play fast and lose with the rules of grammar, so you will recognize that the word "marriage" does not represent a finite concept. Marriage as we know it today has not been around since the beginning of time. Sex, lust, babies, etc.? Yes. Conventional marriage? No. Marriage used to mean strategic alliances between families to share land, money, power, whatever. Marriage used to mean binding two strangers, of equal class, race, and importance together for life, no divorce allowed. Marriage used to mean that a woman ceased to exist as an independent entity. Everything she owned and was, including her body, became the property of her "lord and master" a.k.a. her husband. Today the marriage you can enjoy is a committed union between two individuals who love each other and want to build a life together. You have no right to deny this same privilege to anyone else because you think the relationship the share is "icky." Like I said, you don't have to do it.
I may need to get a better death penalty analogy, though. The smoking one seems a bit lacking, but not bad for spur of the moment, if I do say so myself.