Enjoy your insight into the foolish way people are taught to believe labels.

Two great comments.

repeat after me in 2016…

PRESIDENT SARAH PALIN!!!!!

Get used to it now.

I love your comments about "the educated." Reminds me of Bill Buckley jr's comment. Palin is a joke, though. You are being led around by the media who is TELLING you Palin has any standing at all. The media chooses losers like Dole and McCain for you to support because even if they win they are so weak and easily manipulated the media still wins.

"Sarah Palin is the most uninformed and illequipped person to ever hold a public office."

And after three more years of what we have now, she will look like the most "informed and experienced" person to ever hold office.

Muslim states surrounding Israel? LOL!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! No one asked the Jews to take over the Palestinian's land. And the Jews don't care about you in the slightest.

YOUR tax dollars at work. Rabbi endorses killing GENTILE babies. Where are the pro-choice people…hmmmmmmm? I guess the Zionist-lunatic-finge has them scared into silence.
http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/1128767.html

Aye!!!

It's really hard to take anything someone going by the handle "TonyTwoShoes" has to say seriously. And then he goes and confirms that feeling by opening his mouth via the keyboard.

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA! I feel sooo sorry for you! To what end? And if you say "oil", then freakin' PROVE it!

Zo, you struck a nerve. Tony's head exploded.

Boo-yah, Zo — another great one. Thanks!

Tony Two IQ is obviously a clueless hack, er…I mean, a typical LIB. Same thing.

Zo you're making Two Shoes cry.

That was my reason not to vote for Obama.

I'm keepin' all my Gentile babies in da HOUSE!! I sure don't want some hinky Rabbi spilling that precious Gentile blood!

HEY, TONYTWOSHOES — Stop the hate, OK? It's unnecessary; it's unbecoming, and it's boring as hell.

Jews are our friends. If there's a particular Jew you hate, more power to you. Maybe he or she is an ass, and richly deserves your hatred. But, if you hate all Jews, there is something majorly wrong with your hardwiring. Stop it, you dumb-mass.

Are you aware that Jewish doctors and nurses, all across the U.S., work extra shifts during the week of Christmas, to allow their Christian colleagues to take the holiday off? I don't think you know a whole lot, brother. Study up. Let go of the hate.

Tony Two Shoes… in the mouth? The amount you can fit in your mouth at once? The amount of pairs owned? What women say to you, but spelled all cutesy?

Answer whenever you can. I know you are busy being a racist, waste of flesh, hack-wacko. Paranoia/hate is very time/life consuming.

What of the Muslim doctors?

Oh, look, a little junkie what needs to wipe 'is nose!

Zo I hope you can get on Fox news like Crowder has.

Once again, you are sadly mistaken.

"IF it is Ron Paul 2012, this country is finished."

There, fixed it for you.

"Also, the Patriot Act had no bearing on the slow reaction to the 9/11 planes. That was simply because 9/11 was an inside job."

Or perhaps (as Occam's Razor sez), the Patriot Act WASN'T EVEN IN FORCE during 9/11?

"Muslim states surrounding Israel? LOL!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!"

Look. At. A. Goddamn. Map.

"No one asked the Jews to take over the Palestinian's land."

Because they DIDN'T. The Jews were easily the oldest Palestinians in existence, having lived there continuously for two millenia, far longer than the Arabs, and even if we buy into the idea that the Palestinians are descended at least in part from the Philistines, they still have a roughly tied count.

And the territory of most of the modern state of Israel and much of Mandatory Palestine was in fact purchased after WWI LEGALLY. By the Zionists. From the Arab elite.

You were saying?

"And the Jews don't care about you in the slightest."

And to be honest, I don't particularly care about them. I am concerned about their endangerment by our mutual enemy, the Islamists, and their rights as individuals, and their loyalty to a nation or cause where applicable, but those things aside, I honestly wouldn't think about them that much.

"YOUR tax dollars at work. Rabbi endorses killing GENTILE babies. Where are the pro-choice people…hmmmmmmm? I guess the Zionist-lunatic-finge has them scared into silence."

So, we have one kooky Rabbi who richly deserves the Rotten Tomato treatment. At least.

Has he actually been able to get anybody to do it? And is he humored by the mainstream?

Those are the REAL questions.

I think you will find that the gap between him and the Islamist clerics is quite different. Because for whatever that waste of skin has said, he at least has hardly been able to get people to do it.

I love you, Zo!

I like M.Minnesota's idea about Zo on Fox. So, for those of you who enjoy Zo's commentary like I do, why don't you send an email to Fox News and let them know you would like to see Zo on their network. I will and hope you will too. I watch Zo on Pajamas TV, but with his talent he needs a more expansive venue that can deliver his unique political and social perspectives to a larger audience.

tonytwoshoe is rahm emmauel doing his ballet dance in drag

obozo has all his staff and czars watching the Real Americans – they are the new thought nazis

you should have been around for carter – he did a real sneak, peek and dump on America

at least with obozo – he did not slip up on the Real Americans as we saw him coming before he left chitown

we can count on jesse jackson to condem ZO for not be a real bro

Aye

Better than normal sir. VERY pointed and accurate assessments.

Keep it up!

Zo…. you are too cool! Hey, how can we get you to replace Katie Couric… wait… scratch that… we need you in Congress! … or maybe teaching in the schools! Keep up the good work.

Yeah, we really need a quitter. Let's not forget that she blew town when the going got tough. And as far as rooting out corruption goes, you mean like….. when your town gives a no-bid multi-million dollar contract to your husband's pal's construction company, and you just *happen* to get a new house at the same time, built from the same materials that your local recreational facility was just made out of? Hmmmm…. When it comes to her "energy policy," all she knows how to do is consume it, not conserve it, or invest in alternative sources. This woman is a complete walking disaster, which is why I hope the Republicans as stupid enough to nominate her. Talk about ensuring another Democratic landslide. Not that they've done anything useful with their new-found political capital, but still….

To the Right of him? What does that mean? Define "Left" and "Right." It isn't Left vs. Right – that is a shell game to fool you. It is the State vs. YOU.

Yeah, non-stop talking about her to keep her in the public eye. "Oh, no, Republicans don't throw us in the briar patch by picking Palin next time." You are so easily manipulated. If they didn't like her, they would ignore her like they do real conservatives like Paul Craig Roberts, Joe Sobran, and the like.

See above. You really do need to find different sources for your information.

Bwahahahahaha!

you libs are a scream.

ZO, you REMAIN THE BEST!

See above. And do you REALLY think there's nothing suspicious about this recreation center deal? Her husband's drinking buddy gets a multi-million dollar no-bid contract and she winds up with a new house made from the same building materials that she is unable to financially account for? If this was a liberal, you and the conservative media would be putting her on a pillory on a daily basis, and you know it. That the "liberal" U.S. media hasn't, only reflects just how boring, corporate, and centrist they've become. This woman is a political atrocity, and if that's the best that your party can come up with then you really might as well just disband and start over. You're close enough to implosion as it is…

Since you apparently cannot find a diccionary or the time to google it…

Right-Wing: Noun, Adjective

1. The Physical Right wing of something (bird, house, etc). Noun

2. A piece of political vernacular. Refers to an organization, individual, or other group that tends to be more nationalistic, trusting of the military, supportive of Individual ecconomic rights, and social restrictions based on traditional (usually religious) morality, and (in Democratic cases), suspicious of government intervention in the political sphere, supportive of equality of opportunity over equality of result, opposed to attempts to induce unnatural economic or social equality (welfare, quota system), etc.

Used in contrast to the Left Wing, which is usually more internationalist, more trusting of the political establishment as opposed to the military, and more in favor of economic restrictions without social restrictions, in favor of government intervention to try and "fix" society, and who tend to support equality of outcome over equality of opportunity. Originated from the sitting of French Monarchists in the Right side of the National Assembly, while the Moderates sat in the center and the Revolutionary die-hards sat in the Left. Noun, Adjective.

Left-Wing: Noun, Adjective

1. The physical Left wing of something (Bird, House, etc.). Noun

2. Apiece of political vernacular used for political identification, refers to groups, organizations, or individuals, usually more internationalist, more trusting of the political establishment as opposed to the military, and more in favor of economic restrictions without social restrictions, in favor of government intervention to try and "fix" society, and who tend to support equality of outcome over equality of opportunity. Used in contrast to the Right Wing, which usually refers to an organization, individual, or other group that tends to be more nationalistic, trusting of the military, supportive of Individual ecconomic rights, and social restrictions based on traditional (usually religious) morality, and (in Democratic cases), suspicious of government intervention in the political sphere, supportive of equality of opportunity over equality of result, opposed to attempts to induce unnatural economic or social equality (welfare, quota system), etc.

Derives from the French Revolution, where the Monarchists sat in the Right of the National Assembly, the Die-Hard Revolutionaries sat in the Left, and the Moderates sat in the center.

HAPPY NOW?

And while I can agree that it is a political shell game, it is unfortunately a political shell game that is very much authentic, and very much relevant.

I forgot to add "In favor of International Intervention" in the Right Wing definition, and "opposed to International Intervention" in the Left Wing definition. And I am sure I overlooked some other matters.

However, that is still a fairly adequate definition.

"Yeah, non-stop talking about her to keep her in the public eye."

So, am I supposed to believe the media supported NIXON and BUSH? Yeah, you had a LOT of talking , all secretly in support of her, in order to build her up and keep her in the public eye.

And keep in mind this in in between accusations of lying about who the father of Trig is (which is not merely not a political issue, it is flatly refuted by photographs taken and almost certainly the medical records).

" "Oh, no, Republicans don't throw us in the briar patch by picking Palin next time."
You are so easily manipulated."

No, you are SO easily deluded. Sometimes, the angry media scraping for dirt and human blood is… actually the angry media scraping for dirt and human blood. And when they want to truly attack someone, they will do exactly as they have been doing, as we saw in 2004 and 2000 and even far earlier.

" If they didn't like her, they would ignore her like they do real conservatives like Paul Craig Roberts, Joe Sobran, and the like."

A. GAH! You think THOSE idiots are real Conservatives? Sorry, but in that case, I will have to alter the definition to "mentally handicapped people with no concept of history." Seriously, these people can see a multi-continental Israeli conspiracy, but they NEVER can open a book on 19th or early 20th century history to learn about things like, oh, the Russian conquest of the Caucasus and the guerilla war between the USSR and Georgian nationalists during the 1920's, or the evolution of the Modern Jihad. That, and there is the fact that as a movement, you have far more bark than you do bite: a lot of talking and ranting, but no numbers to back that up. Perhaps the reason the media hasn't reported on you is because THEY DON'T VIEW YOU AS A THREAT? I know, scary thought that you will probably seek to ignore to the best of your ability.

B. Again, the fact remains that Palin largely came to the top not because her jurisdiction was important, but because she did have one and she assumed a leadership role in the powwows held by the RNC, and because she attracted a large national constituency via the Conservative radio and blog medias. Your side has failed to do that. So cut your petty whining out and stop blaming us for the inability of your own idiotic ideology to attract a large audience.

Andrea2929, you're not the sharpest knife in the drawer now area you? Complaining about Palin "abandoning her constituents" for the reasons she did is EXACTLY why libs/dims/socialists such as yourself are clueless to exactly how a politician should act. You see, knowing she was working at the whim of the people, and realizing she couldn't do that without 1) being distracted by lamestream media continually challenging her 2) libs/dims/socialists filing frivilous lawsuit after frivilous lawsuit thereby causing her constituents financial harm, she did the right and noble thing. Resigned. Just out of curiousity, what was it BJ Clinton did after being caught getting a hummer in the WH? What was it William Jefferson Davis did after being found with some cold hard cash? What was it Marion Berry did after being caught doing coke? What did the magical negro do after being found to have strong associations with known terrorists? Yeah, that's right girl, you got it. NOTHING. Continued playing the game as if nothing ever happened. Pathetic is the word for these morons.

Funny indeed. So, international intervention is WHICH one, now. Buy a clue. Both are in favor of internationalism. Look at Bush and the North American Union!!!! Look at CAFTA, etc….. Look at him and illegal immigration. You can define things however you want but defining it your way just means the Right Wing is non-existant in our two political parties.

We need someone who will stop all imports (except maybe oil) to spur domestic industrial capacity. Stop all immigration legal or otherwise. Stop all these wars for Israel. See, all these things would benefit the AMERICAN people and not satisfy some global interests yet no one is even talking about that. Our whole political system is co-opted. And it shows. Quality of life is dropping like a rock and this is only the beginning.

I don't waste my time on Fox, but I read Drudge and Breitbart every day. Drudge has, sadly, gone the tabloid route in the last year or so, and his unwillingness to admit any success on the part of this administration (few and far between though it might be) really undercuts his ability to call himself an objective news clearinghouse. The day the dow re-crested 10k, it was a minor, small-print mention on the bottom left of the page. If McCain had been president, it would have been the huge font headline. I realize that's a rather loose example, but you know what I'm saying. I like this site, because it's quick on the draw for political headlines, and there is always room for some good discourse on these boards, even if I find myself to usually be a lone liberal in a see of red.

"Yeah, she did a GREAT job with Bristol, eh? What a role model…. for hypocrites."

So.. do you have children? And if not, do you know ANYBODY who does? Have those children ever rebelled against their parent in spite of the parent's best efforts and intentions, resulting in something bad happening?

Are we REALLY supposed to blame Palin for the "youghful indiscretion" (to use a euphemism) of her daughter doing EXACTLY THE OPPOSITE of what she was told?
If so, than you need to join the real world.

" Actually, I'd rather denigrate the media and the book publishers for even giving this idiot a platform to spew forth her ignorant venom."

I smell projection. So, what "ignorant venom" are you referring to?

" That she has somehow slipped through the cracks is a testament to how low we have sunk in this country when real political discourse is replaced by reality tv-style personalities who pose as serious politicians despite their complete lack of knowledge about even the most fundamental issues that are affecting us globally."

So, I take you you voted for Obama, Ja? Pot kettle black.

"To think that I'm "scared" of her is 180 degrees wrong."

Perhaps not scared, but the outright hysterics from you on this issue means that we can hardly discount the possibility. And even if that is actually not true, it matters litte.

" I'd like to see nothing more than her get the Republican nomination in 2012. It will be Reagan/Mondale in reverse, particularly since the Dems are gonna get this health bill through and will pretty much be unstoppable after that."

GAH! Obviously, you have NOT NOTICED what has happened in Europe and Canada recently, HAVE YOU? So much for the BBC.

" This was the last chance for the Republicans to turn the tide, and they blew it"

Blah blah blah blah blah. I have seen records of similar projections of doom since the 1930's (when the Democrats had the FDR-Truman run), and have been hearing it since the 60's and 70's, and actually for the Dems in the 80's and in 2004.

And I have long since learned to not believe any of it. Because if you actually KNEW anything about how politics work, it is that the pendulum tends not to shift one way for to long, and the Dems on Health Care will HARDLY guarantee them the everlasting loyalty of the nation. Just the opposite, if the lessons of Europe and Canada are anything to go by.

"(bear in mind, I'm not a Democrat and I didn't vote for Obama, Kerry, Gore, OR Clinton)."

I will believe it when I see your voting record.

"Yeah, us liberals…. hell-bent on destroying America."

Honestly, even if you do not intend to do so, it sure as hell seems like you are trying. Law of Unintended consequences familiar to you?

"God forbid we should aspire to do better than 37th in the world on healthcare,"

Which we actually ARE. Oh, are you referring to the oh-so-scientific "studies" that grant high prizes to those nations with unaffordable social security/public healthcare debts that cannot even afford to operate all their equipment and have largely depended on bringing foreign medical staff in, like Britain and France? The private system is not perfect, but it is infinitely more efficient and sustainable than your public model. Canada and Europe are LIVING examples of that.

" 18th in education,"

And pray tell me how do you intend to fix that? Supporting the teachers unions? HOW?

"or to extend full civil rights to all our citizens,"

Um, newsflash: WE HAVE. What "full civil rights" have we denied to "our citizens?" Marriage? Not a civil right, even though I DO support homosexual marriage. What do you mean.

"make our water, land, and air cleaner,"

At WHAT cost? And HOW?

"and stop allying ourselves with terrorist states so that we can grab as much oil as we want."

Proof? Examples? More slander?

"God forbid that we gain the respect of the rest of the world because we earn it, rather than through threats and intimidation."

Don't worry. He has, apparently. Because those who cower to other nations and who beg their enemies to be liked tend not to last long. Take a look at Iran revealing that its nuclear weapons program actually HAS been working. Or Russia's movements to evict us from our Central Asian bases.

Your model of diplomacy failed in 1936. And in 1956. And in 1976. And it will fail again and again and again. Those who cannot learn history shall be destroyed by those who have, and who have taken the lessons they learned to heart.

" What a pipe dream, eh?"

Yes. Because you obviously have never studied much history or current events, for all your high-and-might declarations to the contrary.

" We should probably just quit voting and kick back in the lazy boy with some freedom fries and cherry coke, watch nascar, and let jesus take care of everything. "

Are you mentally handicapped? Because that is by FAR the most immature use of a strawman I have seen on this thread yet. And considering that Tony the Holocaust denier is here, that is saying a LOT.

But even so, I would actually endorse that over your pipe dreams. Because while both would fail, at least sitting down watching NASCAR would be far more relaxing and less inexpensive. And I don't LIKE racing, only moderately like Cherry Coke, and am not a Christian.

Or perhaps you thought your proposition actually made SENSE in comparison to that? Think again.

"And again, you seem to think that these lawsuits just came from nowhere."

They didn't, but you are assuming they are all justified.

"PALIN'S shady deals caused them to happen."

Do you have any PROOF? If not, that is libel.

"The "frivolous" lawsuits were an attempt to bring her to justice for her abuse of tax payers money.
Get it straight."

Oh puh-leeaze. When even the NYT comes out and all but admits that aside from one incident, that is true, perhaps it is YOU that needs to get out of the whole.

And look who was calling people hypocritical and uninformed.

"you mean like….. when your town gives a no-bid multi-million dollar contract to your husband's pal's construction company, and you just *happen* to get a new house at the same time, built from the same materials that your local recreational facility was just made out of? "

A serious charge. Got any proof?

"When it comes to her "energy policy," all she knows how to do is consume it, not conserve it, or invest in alternative sources. "

Perhaps. But she at least has been pushing to have our reserves in ANWAR drilled, so that we can buy some time from the evils of foreign oil (isn't that what you have protested against in the past) so that we can actually research better ways to conserve and alternative energy sources to develop.

But you, of course, never mention that. How fitting.

And as for the rest of your post, it is mere slander and AH without a whit of evidence. Particularly ironic, because you are supposed to be the "educated." one.

How ironic.

"So, international intervention is WHICH one, now."

Can you read?.

"Buy a clue."

I would, but I do not know how to ship it to you.

"Both are in favor of internationalism."

Interesting.

Define Internationalism.

"Look at Bush and the North American Union!!!!"

You cannot truly look at a mirage. And NAFTA, contrary to your accusations, was hardly plans for the North American Union.

"Look at CAFTA,"

There isn't much to look at.

"Look at him and illegal immigration."

I have. And I was not happy, but that still is hardly proof.

" You can define things however you want but defining it your way just means the Right Wing is non-existant in our two political parties."

Not so. Have you actually ever walked out of your hole and looked at the mainstream? I never SAID that every Right winger subscribed to every single last one of the points I mentioned, only that they subscribe to a good deal of them. Your point is?

"We need someone who will stop all imports (except maybe oil)
to spur domestic industrial capacity."

Great idea. Because hitting the consumer with artificially high prices shall do WONDERS for economic growth and industrial strength, ja?

Oh, and pray tell me HOW industrial strength will grow if access to foreign resources that we need but do not have is cut off?

"Stop all immigration legal or otherwise."

I will ignore a cheap-shot regarding legal immigration and ask how this will work? And why will it be beneficial?

"Stop all these wars for Israel."

Don't we actually have to HAVE one before we can stop it?

" See, all these things would benefit the AMERICAN people and not satisfy some global interests"

Nope. Particularly not in the Digital era. Insular isolationism is rarely a good recipe for prosperity or strength. See Spain and Portugal 1945-1970.

" yet no one is even talking about that. "

Because it makes no sense.

"Our whole political system is co-opted. And it shows."

Perhaps.

" Quality of life is dropping like a rock and this is only the beginning."

Got any proof?

The Governor has more executive experience in one of her eyelashes that the Affirmative Action President has in his entire body including the Teleprompter.

In times when Politicians are like leeches (they will never let go) and are looking after their own interest first, it is REFRESHING that Governor Palin resigned for the good of her State and to better serve America.

Yes, there will be people with the brains of Tina Fey or Katie Couric who will hate Sarah Palin regardless…these are ‘zombies’: they will do as told.

But the fact is that We The People are fed up with the Washington slimes, the Media knows Sarah Palin has the ability and the support to –if she wants- become President and clean both houses!

Ahhh…. well done Turtler. This is why I come here. Now if you'll allow me to retort.

1) You are correct that children rebelling against their parents is nothing new, nor is it grounds for condemning your average parent. HOWEVER, when you have a sanctimonious politician who publicly makes moral judgments against a large section of the population (for instance, gays), and who relies very heavily on the "family values" political ticket, I believe they must be held to a higher scrutiny with regards to their own personal life. If she was just another moose-hunting housewife clipping coupons, I wouldn't have a problem with her daughter having a whole little Alaskan brood out of wedlock or whatever.

2) Ignorant venom? How about the fact that she has accused Obama of being a Socialist? Or that she is a creationist? Or that she things homosexuality is not a choice and gays should be religiously "reprogrammed?" Shall I continue?

3) As stated, I did NOT vote for Obama, my presidential votes since 1992 have been: Perot, Nader, Nader, Nader, Nader.

4) Comparing European and Canadian politics with what is happening in America is inane. We may be inextricably tied economically, but a swing right in one country, doesn't ensure a matching swing in the other. After 8 years of Bush/Cheney, this country DECISIVELY moved left, although "left" is what "center" used to be 30 years ago. In any case, 2016 might be a different story altogether, but the Republicans don't have a prayer in 2012. They don't have a consistent platform other than "the Democrats are ruining the country," they actually consider Palin to be a viable candidate, and whether or nor he was responsible for it, the economy will recover on Obama's watch. Icing on the cake will be the passage of the health care bill. 2012 is a slam dunk for the Dems. Count on it. Political pendulums only shift when there is failure by one party and a cogent solution by the other. That ain't happening here.

5) The private healthcare system is MORE efficient?! *doubled over with laughter*. 25% percent administrative costs, 16% of GDP, we have 45 million uninsured and another 25 underinsured, 45k die each year due to lack of coverage, and 800,000 go bankrupt from medical bills they can't pay and you say it's BETTER than Canada's system?!? I have some real estate in between Brooklyn and Manhattan I'd like to sell you. I have lived in England, and spent a lot of time in the rest of Europe and Canada. I can tell you first hand that for the average, working class person (who make up the bulk of the population), our system is a travesty in comparison. Single payer is the only real solution.

6) How do you improve education? How about funding public schools equally and ensuring that the worst, inner-city school still has modern infrastructure, heating, air conditioning, working plumbing, enough desks, computers, and books for every student, along with food programs so that no student goes hungry (read Jonathan Kozol's "Savage Inequalities" for an expansion of that suggestion), and make public universities free, just like our public schools, and pay teachers a living, progressive wage. If we can throw hundreds of billions of tax dollars at corrupt, inept banks and corporations to prop them up and bail them out, we can certainly make sure that Johnny from the projects has a decent lunch and internet access.

6) Full civil rights… yes, I was referring to gay marriage. Glad we're on the same page on that one. We can split hairs over the use of the word "civil", but since it is a legal institution that requires court documents, I suppose we could make an equal case on either side……

7) Make our land, air, and water cleaner? To answer this would take a whole dissertation, but ultimately, the power rests with the consumer. I don't like the idea of mandating all these things, when the responsible choices should be obvious to us. Buy fuel efficient cars, drive less, take more public transportation, and carpool whenever possible. Recycle. Compost. Use energy efficient appliances, lightbulbs, etc. Buy locally, eat seasonally, support local organic farmers, eat less animal products, use biodegradable products. If you have land, grow a garden. If everyone made a personal effort to do all of these things, we wouldn't need the government to step in. But hey, we live in super-sized American, and trying to get Americans to stop eating Big Macs is like trying to take away a chew toy from a pit bull.
Terrorist states? Saudi Arabia is the largest supplier of oil in the world. We buy more oil from Saudi Arabia than any other country. Saudi Arabia spends more money in the financing of extremist terrorist groups than any other country. If we stop buying Saudi Arabian oil, we hit them where it it hurts, and we aren't chained to a country whose draconian political system makes a mockery of all things Democratic. That's one example, the footnotes of which I'm happy to provide, should you require them.

Tu quoque. And I never supported Obama, period. But just because HE might be dirty, doesn't make it ok for Palin to be, now does it?

"Consumption is not the economy, PRODUCTION is."

False. BOTH are. The former influences and ultimately determines the latter. Basicbasicbasic Economics.

"We produce less and less and the economy is shrinking rapidly. "

And that is hardly something I like, and we should try to rectify that by putting the feet of the unions and those who take government subsidiaries to the fire. But I STILL fail to see how cutting ourselves off from the world market will work. Protectionism has a damn lousy track record, and I have no idea how it will magically work better today, in the digital era of rapid communication and rapid transportation.

"You need proof quality of life is decreasing? It is you that needs to get out of your hole and look around."

As I sit and notice the gross income rising well ahead of inflation and note the considerable increase in high-tech sales, I must ask you to think again.

Oh yes, and define "Quality of Life" and how you determine it.

Right after you get around to defining "Internationalism."

"You haven't heard me defend Obama, have you?"

Why yes, yes I have. Just because it is in an indirect, "I really couldn't care less" fashion doesn't change what it is, at its heart.

"That doesn't make Palin any better, just because she didn't inhale (well… who
knows, actually)."

Irrelevant, juvenile charge that I would expect to see on a Kampuzz newsletter trying to be witty. The main thing relevations about Palin's drug usage would be about her integrity, rather than her current suitability to discharge the office. And none of us have really hammered Barry for his juvenile drug habits, have we? No, we've been hammering him for his mistakes in the here and now. Big difference.

"Also, have you ever spent time in Alaska?"

Actually, yes. Decent place, but I honestly can't say I would be happy to go again.

" If you had, you'd know that their legal system, along with most of their city and state politics are run with the political equivalent of a bootleggers respect for the laws during prohibition."

Examples? Proof? Definitions?

"I have relative who live in Nome, and the stories you hear about how deals are made, and who receives justice would make your head spin."

Hey, I've got some from California that would make your head fly to Venus and back, PARTICULARLY i n the South. Every district has corruption. The question becomes what the reaction of the higher-ups is.

"The saddest thing about Palin's scandal is that it's ginger beer compared to the kind of corruption that happens in that state.
But then, when half of the cities don't have roads connecting them to anywhere else……."

….the result honestly isn't much. Because Sacramento is also a den of scum and villainy, and I would wager that most politicians at any level have indulged in something. Perhaps nothing on the Don Young "Bridge to Nowhere" scale, but with far more of it more frequently.

Your point would be?

Next time, I implore you to start commenting when the acid runs its course for everyone's sake.

"Ahhh…. well done Turtler. This is why I come here."

Thank you for the compliment.

"Now if you'll allow me to retort."

Alright.

"1) You are correct that children rebelling against their parents is nothing new, nor is it grounds for condemning your average parent HOWEVER, when you have a sanctimonious politician who publicly makes moral judgments against a large section of the population (for instance, gays), and who relies very heavily on the "family values" political ticket, I believe they must be held to a higher scrutiny with regards to their own personal life."

Correct. On THEIR own personal life. Now, while I do have quibbles with "sanctimonious" part making judgements (most politicians Left or Right do share her stance on that. So why cherry pick? And while I do not approve of an outright ban on gay marriage, I would have to say attempts to further annex the institution of marriage are- if anything- more disturbing, if for no other reason than because unannexed, Homosexuals may be able to slowly open the doors of the Church, but annexed, the Church will hardly be able to repair the doors), my main issue over the idea is that this entire point hinges upon holding Palin more responsible than the average parent, something I find- quite simply- reprehensible and foolish.

For instance, Al Gore has arguably been as influential as a politician for promoting the theory of MMGW, arguing that Carbon Dioxide is the leading cause for heat increases, and doing so in a way I personally (and many others, I might add) find sanctimonious. His son, Al Gore Jr., was arrested for Speeding and driving under the influence, endangering god knows how many lives and presumably generating a good deal of the supposedly humanity-dooming CO2. Does Al Gore Sr. deserve to be blamed for the drugged-out insanities of his son? That depends, but probably not. Because a parent CANNOT always control their children, because said children have minds of their own, minds that do not always tend towards their parents, particularly in the hell-borne creation known as "the teen years." As such, we cannot hold Al Gore Sr. responsible for the misbehavior of Al Gore Jr. without further proof, and much depends on how he is treated after the fact.

(now, Al Gore Sr.'s home and movement habits, on the other hand…)

So, what is your criteria for determining those who should be held to superhuman standards and tried for the sins of their children? All politicians? All politicians who you judge to be self-righteous? All politicians you disagree with? All politicians who are Conservative? All politicians who are religious? All politicians named Sarah Palin?

This point does not stand up to scrutiny.

2. "How about the fact that she has accused Obama of being a Socialist?"

Honestly, you could make a fairly decent argument for that, particularly if you were to go by European standards (granted, said standards have been watered down, but still..).

"Or that she is a creationist?"

And so are most religious people, in one shade or another. And they are the vast majority of the global population. Even within the American Left. The only relevant question is what shade of creationist she is (those radical anti-Darwinians, those who do not believe evolution is incompatible with the Divine, etc, etc ,etc). And even then, I would have to ask whether this will affect her behavior to, say, evolutionary theory in classrooms (which, for the record, she has not opposed, or even tried to restrict).

And it is well worth noting that even science has not been able to discount it. Anything at this point is one's personal beliefs. The question is how one expresses them, and what actions one takes. And Palin has been far saner than many on both Right and Left about it.

Your point is?

"Or that she things homosexuality is not a choice and gays should be religiously "reprogrammed?""

Even science has not been able to determine that one way or the other. I personally believe it is a combination of choice and genetics, though I could, naturally, be wrong. In any event, the jury is still out, and you can hardly classify that as ignorant yet.

As for the reprograming, that is not something I find particularly attractive, but it is hardly an uncommon opinion, even on the Left. So you are going to have to find something more alarming, for instance evidence that she would use her government office to try and force that issue. Which she hasn't, as of yet.

"Shall I continue? "

Certainly. You might be amazed at reality.

"3) As stated, I did NOT vote for Obama, my presidential votes since 1992 have been: Perot, Nader, Nader, Nader, Nader. "

A. Fair enough.

B. You think that will really make you look better on these forums?

"6) Full civil rights… yes, I was referring to gay marriage. Glad we're on the same page on that one. We can split hairs over the use of the word "civil", but since it is a legal institution that requires court documents, I suppose we could make an equal case on either side…… "

Actually, we are NOT ont he same page. Because it is not about spliting hairs over the definition of "civil"- which I really see no issue with- but splitting hairs over the definition of "rights." The actual Civil Rights movement stated that they had been denied the Rights promised to them in the Constitution as American citizens because of their color and gender. This is not the same thing. Because nowhere does the Constitution grant the right to marriage, and indeed, it strictly denies such a right based on the Separation of Church and State.

Because marriage is a religious institution that was partially annexed by the state to prevent legal issues. And unfortunately, if you are not married by a legally recognized church, you can't be married in the eyes of the law. And this is sad, but with the current stance of organized religions, it is unavoidable. That is why I have always advocated an up-gunned variation of Civil Unions (to deal with the legal issues that this discrepancy has created) and pressure to eventually get the doors of the church open.

But I will never stomach government intervention to force acceptance of gay marriage by religious groups save possibly for legal benefit in a court of law. Because that would be a violation of the first amendment, which- unlike the right to marriage- actually DOES exist.
"7) Make our land, air, and water cleaner? To answer this would take a whole dissertation,"

And why not? Hell, I'm trying it.

"but ultimately, the power rests with the consumer."

Absolutely. And that is why attempts to mandate the issue will fail. Because the invisible hand does not like attempts to sew puppet strings on it.

"I don't like the idea of mandating all these things, when the responsible choices should be obvious to us."

Sorry, but you are forgetting that there is responsible, and then there is EFFICIENT and CHEAP. And the invisible hand likes the latter. And you are also forgetting, particularly in a corporate environment, that the corporations are also responsible to their consumers and to the board. And if forced to choose between being responsible to the environment or being responsible to the board, they will- almost ot a man- choose the latter.

Which means that any attempts to bring about a green revolution by counting on the virtues of humanity is foolish, particularly when it is counterintuitive on the market.

True responsibility will rest on the scientists, for who will develop a clean energy that is COST EFFECTIVE? Do THAT, and then everybody- corporations, consumers, Corrupt Neanderthal Moose Hunters from Alaska, etc- will rush to you. Save perhaps some of those more vested with oil, but the invisible hand of inefficiency and bad PR would likely fix that rather quickly.

And this is without talking geopolitics, about how one must acquire a safe and efficient source of energy or face disaster, as we came within inches of learning in WWI, WWII, and various points in the Cold War.

In such a case, uneconomic green technology (or even economic green tech one can't access readily) is suicide, but economic green technology (that one can access readily and safely) would be a godsend. And unfortunately, most modern green tech falls into the former category.

"If everyone made a personal effort to do all of these things, we wouldn't need the government to step in."

Again, you are looking at things the wrong way: the solution is NOT to get government involved (Spain tried that, and they still haven't finished calculating the damage), but to get the invisible hand to give you a thumbs up: develop cost-efficient green power that you can widely distribute, and your dream may come into reality.

Until then, some of us would like the idea of having a source of power that is NOT in potentially hostile hands (Arabia, Central Asia, etc). And cheap fuel is needed for the research for technological advances to even occur barring a miracle.
Oh, I knew about our dear friends the House of Saud. It is good that somebody else does. But while I agree with your point, the question becomes how does your distrust of the Sauds and their hold on oil mesh with your apparent hostility to talking domestic drilling? Even if Palin and her successors are petty and corrupt politicians, would it be better to have our oil in their hands close to home rather than halfway across the world in the heart of a strategic nightmare?

What you call "Protectionism" is what the Japanese and now Chinese are using to destroy us economically and grow by leaps and bounds. What we practice, this strange religion of self-destruction YOU no doubt call "Free Trade" has resulted in a glide path to 3rd world status for us if we don't turn it around. Funny, our most prosperous years were with the Protectionism. "Free Trade" is nothing more than a race to the bottom – an averaging of our standard of living with those living on dirt floors. It is hard to admit you have bought in to a lie but there is nowhere else you can run now. Nearly everything we have is imported which is not only draining away our capital but leaving the consumer with junkier and junkier products. Funny, your kind likes to talk about "competition" but not only are domestic industries competing with foreign work forces living on dirt floors 20 to a home but their GOVERNMENT is subsidizing the company. Indeed, people like you with a BASIC understanding of textbook theory on economics are a menace to the well-being of this country. Obviously the book doesn't cover the topic of "dumping."

If you want to hear some good AMERICAN music go to http://www.myspace.com/blistur and listen to 'Relifion of Sin'…great stuff!!!

Turtler, said it before I could. The Patriot Act was developed as a response to 9/11. What a poop-stick.

Harumph!

I love it when pathetic non-entities like yourself love to pretend they are "in the know". Yeah – you have it all figured out. Why I bet you are probably a self-made millionaire, Rhodes scholar, Olympic athlete and part time brain surgeon. This is just your hobby right? Your are the joke. Get used to saying "President Palin".