examinator, what do you mean, "these sorts of obscenities should NOT be allowed"?

Do you believe in free speech or not? You really do sound like a communist/fascist here.

This is why populist politics is so dangerous and destructive politics. Because a sector of the voting population are absolute @!#$ing retards and their vote is equal to yours, no matter how knowledgable or experienced you are, their ignorance is not questioned or impugned by our media or politicians.

More dark ironies.

His dreadfully sane grey eminence Greg Sheridan wrote an article in todays OZ titled Character versus Celebrity----MCCain supposedly having "character".

By contrast the impeccably conservative, balanced, sane and Christian, Andrew Sullivan wrote an essay on the conservative Atlantic website re the integrity of the MCCain.

1. http://www.truthout.org/article/mccains-integrity

It is obvious to me which opinion is more accurate.

And isnt Sarah Palin pure celebrity.

I much prefer Michael Palin from Monty Python.

Steel,
Clearly I do believe in freedom of speech. It's not at issue here. What is at stake is do we really want someone THAT far out of the statistical two standard deviations (SD) straddling the mean of the of public opinion in a position of such immense power?

The issue is PARTICIPATION (with good intent).Theoretically in any mass opinion the 'mean' will determine balance (the average).

The ‘flaw’ in the US system is "voter apathy" consistently less than 60% of the franchised actually vote. Coupled with this is the observation that the most motivated tend to be those at the extremes (I suspect the most paranoid) hence battles are between the extremes.

They tend to be out side the two immediate standard deviations of opinion around the mean. It is also these people in the SD either side of the mean that are the hardest to get motivated. Hence political parties’ obsession with the middle ground.

Therefore in the US elections those furtherest from the centre tend to outweigh the middle voters skewing the vote towards the right.

It is only through participation that the statistical middle can even up the race giving the result somewhere acceptable to a MAJORITY of both sides.

EXAMINATOR SAYS

Frank, it’s what she’s saying that is fearful and where those hateful ideas might end up that causes my disquiet.

woooo :) so.. err.. Exy.. you mean you care about 'ideas' and ...where they might lead?

ummm... so.. 'kill the jews/curse the Christians' is an 'idea' you might have some disquiet about? I hope so.

BRAAAVO!
finally you are on my side :)

You better watch it matey.. or the 'Klan' (Celivia Spikey CJ Pericles,Foxy and others) will be 'after you' :)

We'll have NONE of this 'ideas can lead to bad things happening" rubbish around here..no no no... that will never do :)

cheers cobber.

I don't think Palin referring to eskimos as "Arctic Arabs" or saying " so sambo beat the bitch" when Obama beat Clinton is particularly Politically Correct but it seems that it's what some people love to hear.

Meanwhile when she suggested that her local Church should be getting ready to receive and minister to all those refugees who will "flee to Alaska during the End Days" I realised that at least she's got a plan for the Apocalypse and must know sometime that we all don't.

Exterminator

Your view of US politics is a biased left wistful wing view. It is simply wrong.

Participants in the political system are not from extremes. The vast majority of US voters are middle class or rich. It's never a classic battle between Rich and Poor nor Advantaged or Disadvantaged... it's a contest between rich individuals who both champion the rights of individuals over government interference but differ only in their claims to represent different sections of the US community.

'...consistently less than 60% of the franchised actually vote...'

True however

'the most motivated tend to be those at the extremes ... hence battles are between the extremes.' is completely wrong and shows scant understanding of how the US works.

The vast majority of the 40% who don't vote are poor and disadvantaged, because neither the Republicans nor the Democrats represent nor reflect them or their circumstance.

Both parties and all candidates tailor their campaigns to appeal to middle America as represented by the mid western states. People in those states are mostly not poor nor disadvantaged. With a little research you'd find them to be middle class, white, working people who are not committed to either party.

Sarah Palin of all the candidates is closest to them ... and for that fact they will elect her and McCain.

In the last three democrat candidates the Dems have made a fatal mistake. None of them sufficiently appeal to mid Western people but have pandered to the left wing extremists. This element has infiltrated the Democrat Party after the election of Bill Clinton... who was a great President in many ways. Especially in his bi-partisanship and economic management. The Democrat Party in pandering to the left is much the poorer for that action and will continue to reject candidates of the calibre of Hillary and choose candidates who are acceptable to the lefties ... but not to the US electorate.

The US system is worse off for the Dems deviation from their original aims and intent.