If you are not a subscriber please do join us! Click here for more details about the perks of becoming a TAM including exclusive access to special media like this Weekend Update, the weekly “Palin Report,” the 3rd Hour of Tammy Radio each day and much, much, more.

Click here for direct access to this podcast.

This section is for comments from tammybruce.com's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Tammy agrees with or endorses any particular comment just because she lets it stand.
16 Comments | Leave a comment
  1. If Sarah runs and wins the nomination, she’s going to look like a mighty lion coming out of the convention. I pity the fool who stands in her way. On second thought, if it’s Obama, I don’t pity him at all.

  2. dennisl59 says:

    The Historic Madison Tea Party Rally and other stuff:

    A.B.’s intro of Palin had that barely detectable pause, right after he said,
    “Ladies and Gentlemen…” where my brain inserted:“The next President of the United States…”

    1) “We’re here, we’re CLEAR, get used to it!!!” Takes the chant to a ‘new place’ doesn’t it? A very clever turn of the phrase.(Who’s idea was it?…genius)
    2) Ignore: She used the word or combo Twelve(12) times. (I counted)
    3) Sarah’s ‘Conditioning the battlefield environment’ on her terms. A wise woman.
    4) Cage was screaming drunk: “where’s my hairpiece and/or career?”
    5) Phffft! (Yeah, I caught that Tammy…my favorite dismissive sound too)
    6) The Obama’s are like the idiots jumping up and down behind the ‘on scene reporter’ at the house fire, just to get their faces on TV.
    7) Just Thank God the Obama’s don’t have a son.Think about it.(Cue ‘Tubular Bells’)
    *) Lunch: PB&J, chips, an apple in a paperbag.done.
    9)Schrödinger’s cat is a thought experiment, usually described as a paradox, devised by Austrian physicist Erwin Schrödinger in 1935. MY latest thought experiment? “Should I stay or should I go?”…Rimshot/Cymbal Crash.

    Goodnight from Texas. Take care TAMS.

  3. Maynard says:

    I’ll take issue with Tammy’s assertion that it’s time to end the English rule of succession of monarchs that favors male children. Sure, the rule is discriminatory. But so is the entire notion of hereditary monarchy. You cannot “modernize” this institution without eliminating it entirely. It is what it is, an ancient venerable tradition that either does or does not serve to unify the nation. It’s a bit of living history that stands in contrast to modern sensibilities. Either leave it be or dump it entirely. Personally I favor the former. But I’m not a Brit, so my opinion doesn’t really matter.

    As a practical matter, Prince Charles is a twit, and it would be nice to have him skipped over. But that’s a detail, not a principle.

    As the man of reason said: “Strange women lyin’ in ponds distributin’ swords is no basis for a system of government. Supreme executive power derives from a mandate from the masses, not from some farcical aquatic ceremony.” But the man of reason is no poet.

    • ShArKy666 says:

      i think the whole monarchy thing is a big dam joke. and really outrageous that those folks just taxed the people, got lots of money and live high on the hog…that wud NEVER happen if our founders were around.
      i know why tammy likes them for certain stability reasons, but that doesn’t make their whole existence right…or good for the people.
      in this modern age, to have KINGS & QUEENS is a dam joke and is a last ditch effort to divide people by class…THE ROYALS…and everyone else…..it just promotes classifications of people’s financial status which is a marxist tenant….now IF the royal family NEVER TOOK A PENNY of tax payer money…then fine..do whatever the hell u want..but not off the people’s dime.

      • sandyl says:

        Sharky, you are right. Look at the wealth of the royal family. I heard that they don’t even know how much money they have, and then the healthcare in England is refusing to pay for statin and other drugs for the commoners, because they have no money. Romanticism is one thing, but Elitism in a time of financial ruin around the globe is quite another thing.

    • dennisl59 says:

      As for the British Monarchy discussion, I would ask Sir Winston Churchill’s opinion, if he were alive today, since I have none.

  4. ShArKy666 says:

    i’ve said all along that trump could NEVER be a good prestident cos his ego is much too big for the whitehouse…palin puts the country FIRST…she’s the only one with the character, honesty and conservative ideals who can wipe the floor with obastard

    • aggedor says:

      Werd, Sharky. I never really did trust the guy.

    • sandyl says:

      Sharky, you are right again. Now that I have become a conspiracy theorist, 🙂 I believe Trump is the stalking horse for Obama. He said that if he didn’t win the Repub. nomination, he would run as an Independent. That made me think that he is doing this for Obama, because that would split the Republican vote and Obama would win.

      Think about it, the left thinks the Tea Party is extreme, and that we are all birthers. So what does Trump do, right out of the gate? He becomes a birther, and gets the Tea Party’s attention. Then he says all the right things about Obama, and conservatives are loving it. It is the same thing Obama did in 2008, tell the people what they want to hear, not your honest opinions or intentions.

      It is hard to believe Trump now when he says Obama is the worst President in history, even over Jimmy Carter, because a few years ago, he said Bush was the worst President in history, and should be impeached for lying and getting us into Iraq. He never mentioned Jimmy as the worst President. Now he never mentions that he thought Bush was the worst President, just a couple years ago.

      This plus all the money he gave to Democrats, just recently, that he says was for the sake of his businesses. Did he get favors for this money? He is willing to “do business” with snakes that want to destroy America because he gains financially? That’s not tea party conservatism, that’s the same old, same old. Many of his top people that surround him are democrats that voted for Obama in 2008. They don’t seem to be leaving Trump’s organization right now.

      I smell a Rat!!

  5. Maynard says:

    Here’s my nutshell take on Schrödinger’s cat. In the world of subatomic (“quantum”) physics, your commonsense intuition must be discarded. A quantum particle, such as a photon or an electron, doesn’t exist in one place like a marble. Rather, as it flits through space alone, it exists as a probability wave…maybe it’s here, or maybe it’s there, and there’s shadowy evidence that it’s in all places and no places. But then, when it interacts with the greater world, one of its possible realities will “stick”, and the final reality is determined. This finalization is called the “wave function collapse”, meaning that what existed as a probability wave is now a done deal.

    Some people look at the wave function collapse as a matter of observance. That is to say, an event is not real until noted by an observer; until that point it’s merely a potential event. I have some trouble with that, because what is an “observer”? I might think the reality is finalized as the “true” reality spreads and affects a critical mass of quantum particles. A “quorum” of particles might be necessary to agree upon a reality that is final and cannot be rescinded. (I told you quantum mechanics was weird.)

    Anyway, Schrödinger considered the notion of quantum uncertainty and asked this question: If our underlying reality exists as a probability wave, then is our greater reality in fact real and stable? Can we imagine our uncertain foundation bubbling up into our greater lives?

    Therefore, Schrödinger postulated this experiment (and it’s only a thought-experiment to illustrate a concept; nobody would ever actually do this): You prepare a box with a single unstable isotope atom and a sensor to determine when that atom breaks down, at which point it releases poison gas inside the box. Then you put a cat in the box and seal it.

    This isolated unstable atom will break down as a probability function (as opposed to as a result of an external cause). In other words, the breakdown is one of those shadowy quantum events that exists as something that has both happened and not happened simultaneously. The breakdown has only actually happened when it is “observed” (whatever that means).

    So…the atom’s state is uncertain. But with the cat sealed in the box, does that mean the cat’s state is likewise uncertain? The stable-and-broken state of the atom is a reality of quantum physics. But a cat cannot exist in a life-and-death state of probability, can it?

    When you open the box, you will find a live cat or a dead cat. But what was the state of the cat before you opened the box? Was the cat caught up in a quantum probability vector, and its fate was indeterminate until you opened the box and collapsed the wave function? Or was it always in a clearly-defined state of life or death?

    Personally I don’t see quantum uncertainty as creeping up into the macro-world. I think this is the stuff of isolated particles, and reality has settled in with massive reactions. But the thought-experiment of Schrödinger’s cat is for the purpose of contemplating the question.

    • ShArKy666 says:

      hi maynard…i’m one NOT to agree with the theory that just because people may not perceive something it doesn’t exist…i mean look at all that was created before mankind ever walked the earth…just because we weren’t here to witness it, does that mean it never happened…i think that’s a rediculous theory with zero evidence to support it….oh by the way…are u a PALINISTA yet???? ..after today i can’t imagine u wudn’t be 🙂 ,,,lol

  6. aggedor says:

    ‘Back’ in the 90s when I was more active in amateur (ham) radio one of my friends would sometimes reach his destination and prepare for turning off his mobile rig by saying, “I’m here. I’m clear. Get used to it.”

    Such a good like I HAD to steal it. 🙂

  7. […] I was a bit skeptical that Palin was going to mount a 2012 challenge. That was, until I saw this speech. She is obviously in it to win it. I am glad, as the rest of the likely field has failed to move me — or others. To out it in perspective: North of 8,000 people came to the Madison event, vs 50 people for a Trump event and 200 for a Pawlenty speech. […]

  8. BostonBruin says:

    Yup, Madame 45 was wearing purple boots on Saturday!
    [sorry, redacted twitpic link]

  9. houstongracie says:

    Tammy, you called it!! The boots are purple. SEIU/Ukel butt kicking boots. RUN SARAH RUN! [redacted link to iowntheworld dot com]

You must be logged in to post a comment.