A Stampede of "RINOs"

|

It's going to be difficult to denounce conservative columnist Mona Charen as a another cocktail circuit "RINO" (and why do these ideological enforcers hate cocktails?), but judging by the reader comments on her latest Townhall.com column, in which she urges Sarah Palin not to run for president, she too has been exposed as a phony conservative. Sample comment: "[Palin] has more QUALIOFICATIONS than obama ever did." And the key graf:

After the 2008 campaign revealed her weaknesses on substance, Palin was advised by those who admire her natural gifts to bone up on policy and devote herself to governing Alaska successfully. Instead, she quit her job as governor after two and a half years, published a book (another is due next week), and seemed to chase money and empty celebrity. Now, rather than being able to highlight the accomplishments of Sarah Palin's Alaska, we get "Sarah Palin's Alaska," another cheesy entrant in the reality show genre. She'd so much rather be out dog sledding than in some "dull political office," she tells the audience. File that.

Now that she is flirting with a 2012 run, expect more conservative writers and strategists to follow the lead of Karl Rove and publically express reservations about a Palin candidacy. Stay tuned.

NEXT: Reason.tv: The Great TSA "My Ding-a-Ling" Sing-Along!

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. You know who else had more QUALIOFICATIONS than Obama ever did…

    1. OT: Still no reason story about the racist railroading of Wesley Snipes into a 3 year jail sentence on a trumped up tax charge.

      1. Good morning Suki!

        I agree that the IRS is racist. It is also sexist and homophobic.

            1. *eleutherophobic

              1. Thanks, yes, I forgot an “e”.

                🙂

      2. While I despise the IRS, the charges were not trumped up. Snipes drank the tax conspiracy koolaid, and now he’s paying the price for it

        1. I need to study that history again. There are “conspiracies” I once rejected but now accept. For example I once did not believe that FDR knew about Pearl Harbor ahead of time and let it happen. I now know that is the case for a fact. Perhpas these people who reject the way in which the 16th Amendment was passed are actually correct.

          1. But then again, you believe in a mythical “free market”.

            1. What is a myth is the idea that the government can act without coercion.

          2. There are much more important conspiracies than FDR/Pearl Harbor.

            1. God I love what Palin does to liberals.

              1. She’s learned to play them, like they played her early on. It’s obvious to me she’s having fun at it too. She will never run for president unless someone asked her to be on their ticket and only then, if she believed in what they were asking her to do.
                Look, the Left were relentless in their attacks on her, right up till she left the Governors Office. Now she’s a little older and a whole lot smarter. What principles this lady lives by. What a leader she’ll make some day…..I’m going to sit back and watch the show…..

            2. True, the outcome of a reality TV show can lead to war.

        2. He is a patriot who will fight the man from inside the federal prison system!

          1. You know that would be a great movie;
            Some actor playing Wesley Snipes, full of conspiracy theories and how the actor is the hero against the evil tax conspiracists of the government. He fights them from outside prison, then inside prison.

            Sounds way better than ‘Prison Break’

      3. I thought Snipes got in with those “you don’t have to pay taxes if you don’t want to” nutters and proceeded to not file any tax returns for years.

        That’s about the opposite of trumped up.

        1. Why do you call these people “nutters”? Have you looked deeply into their claims and objectively come to the conclusion that their claims are incorrect?

        2. He paid his taxes in the 1990’s, then filed to get that money back with false claims. Something about giving fraudulent checks to the IRS too.

          He is only being persecuted because he is darker skinned than Rangel

    2. Great refutiation A.

      1. Personally, I “refudiate”

  2. ?

    Not sure why you think Palin is a worthy candidate, but her decision to ‘cut and run’ on her job as Alaska Governor was not only politically dumb, it made her ability to take on responsibility highly questionable.

    She is practically the only Republican candidate who could virtually guarantee an Obama win in 2012.

    1. Oh, I’m sure the GOP can come up with a number of candidates who could virtually guarantee an Obama win. Ever four years, we see the Republicans as well as the Democrats trot out some people who are hard to believe…

      1. “2016 was the year that several million Americans committed suicide in the polling booth, when presented with ballots showing a choice between Joe Biden and Sarah Palin.”

        – The Decline & Fall of the USA, Edward Gibbon XXIV

        1. Uh, if we didn’t shoot ourselves over Obama vs. McCain, we won’t do it then.

          It seemed like a lot of people just talked themselves into believing in Obama long enough to vote. Personally, I never saw any reason I’d want to vote for him. He always seemed to me just as he apparently is seen by the majority of people now. But McCain? Didn’t like that idea either.

          1. Eh, McCain the politician is a tool with a lot of ideas ranging from useless to harmless, but I marginally preferred him over Obama because I have an immense amount of respect for McCain the man. Anyone who spends years in a North Vietnamese prison and elects to stay rather than grant his tormentors a propaganda victory gets my respect. Not my vote, but my respect.

            1. *useless to dangerous. Not sure how that cropped up.

            2. “Anyone who spends years in a North Vietnamese prison and elects to stay rather than grant his tormentors a propaganda victory gets my respect.”

              You hand out your respect rather easily. It was easier for him to say “no” to the NV than to say yes. Can you imagine having to live with what others would say about you if you used a get-out-of-prison-free card because your daddy was an admiral?

              I doubt the truth of the story anyway. If the NV really wanted to get him to give in, they could have executed one of the other prisoners every day until McCain relented.

              1. Above comment is such a pile of stupid that I have nothing to add.

              2. Oh Please, you are a fool if you think being in a POW camp is a cakewalk. As a former Marine, I would like very much to teach you some respect for a man who is a far better man than you will ever be.

                You are nothing but a sorry POS.

                1. I never said that being in a POW camp is a cakewalk; don’t put words in my mouth. Just because McCain spent time as a POW doesn’t change the fact that he is a reprehensible pile of dogshit. His transgressions are legion. His character nonexistent. Sorry, he doesn’t get a free pass for his behavior in the latter 60 years of his life just because of what he had to endure during his youth. He is a horrible man. He has no respect for others. His word means nothing. The rights of the American People are to him but straw to be trampled. I am sure he is pleased that his supporters mindlessly accept his own narrative about his military service, but given his deceitfulness and sleaziness as a politician, there is every reason to suspect any word he has ever spoken on any subject. For God’s sake, the man has built his career on backstabbing his own party on the few occasions when it looks like it might be trying to do something of a limited government nature. Semper Fi my ass.

                  1. No a_hole, you said you doubt the story about his refusing to be realsed. Another prisioner at that camp comfirmed the story. Whether or not you like the way he votes is irrelevant and a matter for the voters in Arizona, not some hack on Reason’s forum.

                    Semper Fi

                    I guess Liberman is also sleazy because he sometimes votes with the Republicans?

                    1. realsed = Released

                    2. Who is Liberman? If you are referring to Joe Lieberman, then, no, he is not sleazy because he sometimes votes with the Republicans, he is an asshole because he is a statist.

                      You don’t have to dislike McCain for partisan reasons. He is just a shitty person.

                    3. Oh, please,

                      Don’t you know that anyone who has ever been in the military is an inherently wonderful person who deserves an endless supply of respect, praise, and blowjobs from us inferior, selfish assholes who were too smart to have to join the military?

                    4. I have nothing against those who serve in the military. In fact, I honor and appreciate their service. But their service is not the sum total of their lives and there is nothing about serving in the military that guarantees good character although I do think it increases the odds substantially.

            3. McCain did what almost any soldier would do in that position. Soldiers of any kind for the most part do not abandon their comrades. John McCain was not especially brave when in comparison to other soldiers. He was heroic, but post that he has not anything special, other than being one of the strongest proponents of free trade, and has expressed some ideas on foreign policy that are also quite frankly dangerous. That being said I may have voted for him if it was not for Palin. Also, I think the whole DADT bull he has been pulling has killed any respect I used to hold for him.

          2. Obama won mostly because the country hated Cheney/Bush/GOP, and Obama’s voter motivation outdid Rove. The Couric interview revealed Palin’s “qualifications” – she had benefit of doubt before that (no wonder Schmidt kept her penned up). Many voted AGAINST McCain instead of FOR Obama , though some voted for McCain BECAUSE of Palin, saying McCain was too wishy-washy (or maybe they just voted for the skirt). I hope we get a good Republican candidate – someone who knows money “trickles up” from a working/spending middle class and puts boring social issues on the back burner (they don’t create jobs or revenue).

        2. How about this one:

          “2012 was the year that several million Americans committed suicide in the polling booth when presented with ballots showing a choice between the jackass responsible for RomneyCare and the jackass responsible for ObamaCare.”

          Shudder.

          1. RomneyCare was popular in the jurisdiction where it was put in force, and the government responsible for it is not capable of printing money.

            Big difference.

            1. So if only a minority of people are oppressed the oppression is just fine?

        3. Actually, in 2016 the Demos and the Pubs are going to run a national reconciliation ticket of Biden and Palin, the only question being, who will be at the top.

          1. I just puked like Linda Blair at the thought of that.

          2. Actually it would be nice if the Democrats and Republicans stopped pretending they were too different parties and just came out of the closet with it.

          3. *Eeeech*. Now I have a headache.

      2. Rick Santorum comes to mind. Were Tom Delay to somehow come out of the woodwork, I think Palin wood start lookin good.

        1. You said “Santorum”

    2. Who’s thinking Palin is a worthy candidate?

          1. It’s his turn.

      1. She has a lot of dipshit KULTUR WAR fans. Don’t discount how many idiots might vote for her based on just “but I like her”.

        1. This was amusing when it was lefties with the hots who couldn’t get their minds off of her. And, hey, no wonder; taken a gander at that hag Pelosi recently?
          But it’s *not* funny that she’s even mentioned as a candidate.

        2. So true. Look how far Obama got with a Bob the Builder ‘Stuart Smalley for toddlers’ slogan.

        3. …and “she’s so pretty”.

          1. good looking but ditzy… she has this vacant look in her eyes, like nothing’s behind them

            1. Sorta like she’s about three shots of tequila away from dancing on a table and losing the tank top she wore on Fox the other day. . .

              1. You say that as if that’s a BAD thing? I have the utmost respect for women 3 shots away from …

      2. Who’s thinking Palin is a worthy candidate?

        Stop by some “Conservative” blogs, they have that same glazed over admiration for her that the left had for 0bama.

      3. Sista Sarah has 99% of the redneck vote in the meth-bag already.

        1. …but I’m not a liberal elitist. I swear.

      4. I would take Palin over Obama as president any day of the week.

        1. For the upgrade in ‘wardrobe malfunctions’ at least. Obama WM = Mom Jeans. Palin WM = HOOTERS!

    3. How come no one every says that Obama cut and run on his job as senator?

      The fucker barely got his seat warm before he left to go a campanin.

      1. You think them oceans were going to recede all by themselves?

      2. Plenty of people do (you among them), but that doesn’t make Palin any better.

      3. Because he won the election and got the ultimate promotion rather than losing and quitting, you criminally stupid lumpen hit&runpublican; moron. Good lord!

      4. Uh, there is a difference between taking a promotion and taking a powder.

        1. Are you saying Palin didnt get a promotion?

          1. Money for nothing is definitely better than actually having to make choices with significance. At least Obama took a job with far more responsibility, even if he was not ready for it.

            1. But, but he’s not responsible.

              It’s all Bush’s fault!

      5. how dare you disparage Obama. He’s a better man than any of you Christ-fags.

        1. How dare you call Obama a man.

          He’s clearly a god that walks amongst us.

          One of your fellow socialists told us.

    4. her decision to ‘cut and run’ on her job as Alaska Governor was not only politically dumb, it made her ability to take on responsibility highly questionable.

      You really should look at the full story. She wasn’t bailing on her responsibilities; she was protecting her family from financial ruin.

      1. Yeah, she removed herself from office, fought off ethics charges running her family hundreds of thousands, had her defense fund declared illegal by some fuckstick judge, but she’s still a publicity whore for making money on TV to feed her family. God, what a bitch, right?

  3. I love those precious moments when you can almost hear the last blood platelets draining from the dusty hearts of the SoCons.

    1. …which means I support the exact opposite of the SoCons.

  4. She’s better than Romney, Huckabee, Newt…

    The Republican nominee should be someone with vast and impressive experience in government and the private sector — and a proven record.

    Now who would that be…?

    1. Mona Charen:

      It is difficult to find any significant weakness in Romney. He is refreshingly articulate, exceedingly well prepared and self-disciplined, clearly an excellent manager with both private and government experience, happily married with a large, supportive family, and well within the mainstream of conservatism on every major issue. His nomination would not divide the base.

      That was perhaps the best political speech of the year. It was well-crafted and delivered with conviction and ? this is unusual for Romney ? considerable emotion. I thought his contrast of the empty cathedrals of Europe with the violent jihadis was particularly adroit. He managed to make this a speech about patriotism as much as about religion. Brilliant.

      And…

      No, Ron Paul is not my candidate. Not for president. He might make a dandy new leader for the Branch Davidians.

      1. Oh. In that case, fuck her.

        1. I still don’t get why people still think Mitt Romney, The Cardboard Cutout Candidate who pioneered MassCare, and was smacked silly in the scrape the bottom of the barrel race for mediocrity that was Election 08, should be anywhere near being elected even for dog catcher.

          1. But…it’s his turn!

          2. MassCare is the albatross around Romney’s neck. Particularly now when it is the GOP’s stated goal to repeal ObamaCare. MassCare proves that he’s got no small-government principles and will just do whatever is politically expedient.

          3. Curious to know where you got the idea that Romney was “smacked silly.” He finished only seven delegates behind Huckabee even though he officially dropped out of the race more than a month earlier (and given that most Republican primaries are “winner take all,” everyone except the final nominee will usually have a pretty low delegate count).

          4. Because he LOOKS like a president. Tall, not too old, not too young, attractive (no homo).

            We are an American Idol country. The odds of a fat, ugly (but capable) president being elected are about nill.

            No charisma = no job.

            1. Be careful. New Jersey has a charismatic fat man.

              1. Tony Soprano’s running?

              2. We can only hope.

            2. How does that explain Mitch McConnell?

      2. Fuck that statist Romney and every bootlicking parasite pushing him.

        1. what’s wrong with statist bootlickers?

          1. I thought you had a problem with private competition.

      3. Mitt Romney – Romneycare. Has anyone ever seen that dumbass try to defend that shit. That will be difficult to overcome. Fuck him and his magical underpants.

        1. What would be cool would be if Romney was to say “hey guys? With Romneycare I did it for two reasons. First, to fuck over Massachusettes. I mean, fuck those statist jerkoffs. Second, because I wanted everyone to get a front row seat as to what an evil monstrosity state run healthcare is, in a small state that everyone hates anyway. I was willing to fall on my sword to help Americans understand what a disaster they might have on their hands by providing it in demo mode.”

          1. If that was his goal it didn’t work very well.

            1. It did, but he underestimated the medacity of the media. Both on the left for quietly ignoring what a disaster it’s been, and the right, for pretending it’s not a disaster because a Republican did it.

              1. “the right, for pretending it’s not a disaster because a Republican did it”

          2. To quote Tom Woods, Mitt Romney is a plastic man with no brain, so I doubt he’d ever say that. Instead, he’ll just come up for some excuse of how the Democratic Party made him do it and then ripped apart in the debates by the other candidates.

            1. and then GET ripped apart…

            2. My health care policy was cool because it was at the state level. As long as it’s federalist, socialism and bad economics is truly conservative, ya’ll.

              Now, can’t we talk about how Presidential I look?

            3. Guys, RomneyCare was actually conservative because it was done at the state level. Don’t you guys support federalism?

              Now can we stop talking about economics and get back to talking about how presidential he looks?

    2. Bloomberg. That’s it, slim pickings for sure.

      (He has no chance of course)

      Hell, I’m not sure if he is still a Republican.

      1. Bloomberg? The evil nanny?

        1. Because he doesn’t want food stamp recipients buying soda on the public’s dime?

          1. How about because he wants to ban salt.

            1. IS that Bloomberg or some state legislator?

              http://blogs.villagevoice.com/….._ridic.php

          2. No, because he doesn’t want anyone eating salt ever. He probably also wants the same for soda, but that’s unsubstantiated.

    3. God, let it be Gary Johnson.

  5. What about her qualiAfications?

    What does it feel like to be Sarah Palin?

    1. So far, her greatest asset seem so to be the ability to choose her enemies well.

      I’m convinced that 90% of why the right loves her so much is because the left hates her so much. If everybody would just ignore her, she’d probably go away.

      1. Her greatest asset continues to be her Newcular Titties. I’d hit that.

        Politically, I’d off myself before voting her anything but MILF of the Month.

      2. The enemy of my enemy is my friend.

      3. From Wikipedia:
        “Qualia (pronounced /?kw??li?/ or ?kwe?li?), singular “quale” (Latin pronunciation: /?kwa?le/), from a Latin word meaning for “what sort” or “what kind,” is a term used in philosophy to describe the subjective quality of conscious experience. Examples of qualia are the pain of a headache, the taste of wine, or the redness of an evening sky.”

  6. I can’t stand Palin, but she has made a very effective conservative/GOP/TEA Party cheerleader, has she not?

    Rah-Rah-Ree! Kick ’em in the knee!
    Rah-Rah-Rass! Kick ’em in the other knee!
    GOOOOOOO Team Elephant!!!

    1. I think she should stick to the cheerleading. She’s become a punchline, partly unfairly so, but partly not. Once the media has done a Dan Quayle job on someone, they’re doomed as a Presidential candidate.

      1. And when you get right down to it, it would be bad for the country. If Bush took the left to eleventy Palin is going to take them to I can’t count that high. The country needs to elect a candidate that everyone hates, but not enough to spit at.

        1. Moreover, if Bush went left on medicare part D, Palin will probably change her mind and advocate free government provided day-care for working moms.

          Palin is a populist, not a libertarian, and she will say and do whatever pleases her crowd.

          1. You’re fucking retarded if you think their is any constituency in the Tea Party for “free government provided day-care for working moms”.

            1. There, there seems to be one for keeping government’s dirty hands off their medicare.

              The Tea Party is not exclusively composed of libertarians, or even small government conservatives. It is also composed of Palinites, which is to say, mentally deficient TEAM RED partisans.

              1. There’s a big difference between wanting to keep a program and wanting to add a new one.

                1. Palin is oblivious to such differences.

              2. Hazel, I went and looked for this–for a picture of the infamous sign that gets quoted so often that we take it as the truth.

                What I find is a lot of leftist blather about it–and about how it accurately sums up ‘teabagger’ ideas.

                Even better, many commenters on leftist sites believe that the sign is being done by infiltrators–BUT is still a valid representation of Tea Party ideals. I imagine this works in the same way leftist-faked hate crimes are valid evidence of racism.

                I don’t find it as an idea on Tea Party sites. I haven’t seen it expressed at the rallies I’ve attended.

                I think it’s an urban legend. I think it’s part of the ‘Tea Partiers are stupid’ meme the left(and I include liberaltarians in this) desperately wants to repeat often enough to make truth of.

  7. what is with all the focus on spelling and speaking anyway? The articulate class in Washington certainly hasn’t supported the premise that how you speak (or spell) is how you think.

  8. QUALIOFICATIONS? Please.

    2012 is going to be “Anybody but Obama” the way 2008 was “Anybody but Bush”.

    Experience, if Obama is used as a baseline, is irrelevant to the electorate at large.

    1. After this go-round we might see voters actually consider experience – executive experience – a must for the Oval. (No tapping Congress for the job, please.)

      Having said that, the Repugs could easily put up a turd so unappealing that there’s little choice but to give Obama another four.

      1. They do seem to have a talent to come up with the most unappealing choice when not taken by surprise by an ‘outsider’. Jindal? Christie?

        They’re notching the ‘experience’ points, and neither of them really seem to want the job, which is actually a plus in my book.

        1. I like Mitch Daniels. (I read somewhere that he decertified state public sector unions[!] but haven’t confirmed that.) Unfortunately short, bald guys are at a disadvantage when running for President.

          1. Yeah, but he’d probably be running against Obama, who is even shorter and balder in spirit.

            1. Maybe there would be some sort of charisma backlash, with voters preferring the less-charismatic candidate. Sort of like someone having a bad relationship with a vain and arrogant and crazy beauty, and then deciding to only date plainer women from then on.

              1. I honestly think charisma won’t play into the next general election that much. Unfortunately, it could well play into the primary. I still remember some old, stupid dowager on the local news saying she voted for Romney because he “looked Presidential”.

                1. Romney is the worst sort of establishment Republican, but I gotta admit, he does look Presidential.

          2. “I read somewhere that he decertified state public sector unions[!] but haven’t confirmed that.) Unfortunately short, bald guys are at a disadvantage when running for President.”

            I read same, but think the workers voted to end the union (sometimes is too much union dues/not enough benefit) – Reagan busted the air traffic controller union with pure force. Yeah, Daniels is short, bald, and uncharismatic but that might not matter so much. He flipped Indiana’s $600M deficit into a $300M surplus within his first year – voters are hungry for results with numbers. The “noose” I’ve heard about is an unfinished Duke Energy plant (expensive, sticks ratepayers, scandals involved) – will see what happens. The Cheney/Bush deficit might follow him, but he didn’t write the budget (Cheney and the GOP “machine” did that).

            1. http://www.time.com/time/natio…..-3,00.html

              Indiana Governor Mitch Daniels, a budget czar in the free-spending Bush Administration, has proved an efficiency fiend at the state level, privatizing bureaucracies, selling a poorly managed toll road, even harvesting the paper clips from state tax returns for reuse in government offices. Daniels took the controversial step of decertifying Indiana’s public-employee unions, a move that may endear him to Republican voters should he decide to run for President in 2012.

              http://www.futureofcapitalism……the-nation

              On Mr. Daniels’s first day in office, he decertified the state government employee unions; in the first eight months, 92% of government employees quit paying their union dues.

              Which, of course, meant less money for the unions to use to get more power and money by funding Democrats. So what I want to know is, what would it take to decertify federal public employee unions?

              1. what would it take to decertify federal public employee unions?

                A civil war.

              2. It sounds bad to “decertify” unions but one has to know the details (which I still don’t). My buddy is a union drywall taper and he says it sucks because he still pays dues, but gets no benefit (many out of work, seniors get work, etc) – it’s different during good times, but he can make the same pay with non-union shops. People were also griping about Daniels selling a “steady income” toll-road, but they don’t know details (some follow). Time will tell. If you find more about the union deal, post it. Also remember Reagan busted the air traffic controllers union by force – not sure what happened then. Unions aren’t what they used to be – OSHA took care of much – companies pay comparable wages and employees don’t have to pay union dues. Few get raises now – if they do (with strikes, etc), the company often goes broke, shuts down, and declares bankruptcy.

                “Along the way, Daniels decertified the public service unions, reduced the number of those employed by the state by 14% to a level last seen in 1982, shifted most state employees to health savings accounts, introduced a pay-for-performance plan within the bureaucracy, reorganized the Bureau of Motor Vehicles, brought an end to social promotion within Indiana schools, and leased the interstate turnpike stretching across the northern reaches of the state between Ohio and Illinois to outside investors for a cool $3.9 billion, which was immediately sequestered in an escrow account, where it is used for road construction elsewhere in the state (and nothing else).”

              3. One has to consider article sources…some want all, some want government to cut jobs/reduce taxes, etc and the article will be biased – gotta consider the big picture. I (and those remaining at my work) took a 5% pay cut, and forced 2 weeks/year off, for two years to keep jobs – the other half of the company got lost jobs for good. Some pay was lost, but I kept my job. GM here laid off a whole shift, and they’ve not come back. Daniels got rid of 14% of the state’s work force, but there are often too many slacker state workers – I haven’t read if there were pay cuts (big issue is health coverage). Not sure if whiners here are communists, socialists, or Japanese where one is guaranteed a job/benefits, but times have changed – no guaranteed jobs in Japan anymore and unions take concessions. And I dealt with some dimwits working at title companies during the heydays who shouldn’t have been copy boys – mistakes, completely incompetent – they should be fired by now. Point is not everyone will be happy with solutions, but it benefits most in the end. I have no idea how the national debt will be paid, but patriotic Americans should be happy to live here – and part of the cost is paying taxes. But I want them to be used wisely – nixing earmarks is good (unless it affects YOUR job), but that’s a drop in the bucket (token by GOP to Tea Parties). As it’s going we might not collect the Social Security we’ve paid in (or your company could do what United Airlines did – reorganize and nix your pension).

          3. This is it – sorry if boring, but I’m a numbers freak – I find whining/no solutions boring… to each his own. (Daniels was a “high level suit” at Eli Lilly before politics, so he knows business efficiency, which most polits don’t). And for those wanting to pin Bush deficit on Daniels, Cheney, Halliburton, and Bechtel wrote the budget – Daniels and Bush were necessary tokens.

            “In November 2008 ? when Barack Obama defeated John McCain and the Democrats took the state house and senate in Indiana ? Daniels bucked the trend and was re-elected Governor by an 18% margin. In the process, he picked up 20% of the African American vote, and he won a majority among younger voters.

            These days, Daniels’ approval rating oscillates between 60 and 70% ? which is remarkable given that he is a balding, mild-mannered, unassuming man inclined to travel through the state on a Harley, stop at a diner, and sit down to chat with the patrons. His political success may have something to do with Daniels’ mastery of the technology of communications. His personal version of Reality TV ? which is called MitchTV ? is a local hit. But his popularity has even more to do with his achievements.

            Mitch Daniels may have the demeanor of a staffer, and he has, indeed, done a great deal of work in that capacity. But ? like Bobby Jindal, who is 39, and Chris Christie, who is 47 ? “The Blade,” who is 61, is a man of executive temperament ready, willing, and able to take charge. Thanks to his stewardship, Indiana is solvent, and it is one of the nine American states with a triple-A bond rating. Moreover, it has begun attracting venture capital; for the first time in decades, people are moving into state; and, though it has only 2% of the national population, Indiana can boast that it garnered 7% of the new jobs created in the United States in the last year.”

      2. It’s Romney’s turn.

      3. Obama isn’t a shitty president because he lacks experience. He is a shitty president because he’s a progressive/fascist douchebag.

        We should all consider ourselves lucky he did lack experience. With more experience he might actually been able to convince Americans that stealing more of their freedoms was a good idea.

        1. Very good point!

        2. It was the incongruity of the people rejecting Palin on the basis that she did not have enough experience to be Vice President while apparently being satisified that Obama had enough to be President.

          1. The difference, as I see it, is that Obama demonstrated enough understanding of national issues while Palin seemed like she didn’t know jack shit about federal and foreign policy and couldn’t name a single Supreme Court case. Frankly, it is true that time in elected office is less important than knowledge of the issues. The media helped this dialogue along, ignoring the fact that Obama did not, in fact, know wtf he was talking about either.

            1. Your right – Obama can learn and knew more than Palin about most everything. Many are still pissed a black guy defeated the Great White Maverick and the MILF, so (trying not to appear racist), they have whine about something without offering any solutions – that must be Chapter 1 in Palin’s “True Americans Rightwing Social Conservative” rulebook. Palin may have known supreme court cases, but she’s still a ditz. However she does know how to shoot and skin a moose, should the White House ever get invaded by a herd.

        3. ++++++++
          ++++++++ …

          I love that Obama is an incompetent.

          1. He got thru ObamaCare. He isnt nearly incompetent enough.

            1. Obama rubber stamped ObamaCare. It was Nancy who got the bill done, unless you are crediting Obama for winning over the American People (hardy har har).

              1. “PelosiCare” is actually more accurate – and more damning. But I suppose hanging that yoke around cheerleader Obama’s neck makes more sense for the Right from a political perspective.

            2. Suicide bombers also kill others.

              Once.

            3. Suicide bombers also kill others.

              Once.

              1. Unless they post twice.

          2. Although I have serious doubts she would have won (too many skeletons in her closet compared to McCain), I still think a competent President Hillary could have been even worse. She wasn’t even pretending to be anti-war, was milking a populist trade stance and supported a more hardcore public option, in addition to sharing all the rest of Obama’s bad beliefs. I didn’t see anything redeeming about her at all, unlike Obama who (like Bush) had potential in certain areas and will fail to execute on any of the good stuff.

        4. You’re not getting any invites to cosmopolitan cocktail parties with that kind of talk young lady.

    2. Obama won because Paulson crashed the stock market, not because the voters loved Obama. Check the tape. Don’t fall for the BS narrative about BO’s election.

      1. Obama won because no one in their right mind really wanted to vote for Hillary.

        Who ran on the GOP side was irrelevant because G screwed up so badly that they were right out of it.

        The pundits all predicted that HRC was going to be the nominee and every red blooded man in the USA said “I’m voting for anyone but.”

        Obama gave those guys (and a lot of gals, I’m guessing) a way out. Not only could they vote against Hillary, but they could vote for a black guy! Win-Win.

        1. McCain was ahead in the polls. Paulson gave his press conference. The stock market crashed. Obama leaped ahead in the polls.

          It says a great deal that with the fawning coverage of Obama, the disgust with the behavior of the R controlled congress under Bush, the dissatisfaction with Bush and the lack of enthusiasm for McCain amongst team red voters that McCain was leading Obama. It also shows that Obama was not elected because he fooled the electorate or that he mesmerized voters or that McCain lost because he ran a bad campaign.

          1. McCain was ahead in the polls. I had a hardboiled egg for breakfast. Obama leaped ahead in the polls.

            Who knew my breakfast choices could be so influential.

            1. Your breakfast choices don’t crash the stock market.

            2. If McCain was ahead at all, it was right after the Republican Convention and he fell behind again as soon as people got to know his VP selection better. It’s called a convention bounce. He was falling behind even before the stock market crash and his strange behavior right before the debates finished him.

        2. I don’t say this very often, but the Pope is right.

      2. Obama won because he wasn’t Bush.
        Neither was McCain, but McCain came with Sarah Palin attached.

        1. The choice of Palin boosted McCain’s poll numbers, IIRC.

          1. Temporarily. They started falling again as soon as she opened her mouth.

          2. McCain never really had a chance. He had to both show Republican voters that he is not a liberal in disguise, and show independent voters that he is not Bush.

    3. 2004 was also Anybody but Bush, when Bush was actually running. Assuming your opponent can’t win is a dangerous and self-defeating political strategy.

  9. You know who else was QUALIOFIED?

  10. Probably the best chance Palin has will be the relentless mocking of the liberal punditocracy, MSM, and Democrats. I don’t think she will win the primary, though. But, hey, Barack only had two books too.

    The sad truth of the matter is, just like Obama being a “clean” black man, Sarah P wouldn’t be given any consideration without being a somewhat attractive female.

    We are in a shitty war with a shitty economy, and the best candidate to address these two juggernauts is the Ron Paul. Hopefully, Gary Johnson can carry that torch.

    1. If giving a kidney to Gary Johnson’s campaign meant the difference for him having a legitimate shot, I’d probably do it.

      Which is why I’m certain he has no chance at all, because most Americans don’t actually share my beliefs and values, and that includes many who insist that they do.

      1. I hear that. But I am an eternal optimist and a libertarian. Which makes me Charlie Brown.

      2. giving a kidney to Gary Johnson’s campaign … most Americans don’t actually share my beliefs and values

        Organ donation to a political campaign – yeah, your values are a little unusual.

    2. It’s not oing to be Ron Paul. It mgiht be Rand Paul. If he can keep his mouth shut about the civil rights act.

      1. It would be even better if the public in general understood his position on the CRA. The libs hooted and hand-wrung that he was advocating the Second Coming of Jim Crow, and the gullible masses lapped it up right on cue.

        1. That would be nice, but you can’t do that and still have a hairs chance of winning a presidential election.

          Even if you “won”, you would lose, because you would alienate and piss off too many people.

          1. Even if you “won”, you would lose, because you would alienate and piss off too many people.

            Promoting liberty pisses off and alienates statists, but it is still a win.

            1. Arguing against the civil rights act, even just Title II, pisses of lots of people who aren’t necessarily statists.

              I think libertarians can pick a better hill to die on.

            2. It’s not a win if your people never get elected. Remember the Fabian socialists, folks: they got the Western world remade according to their wishes, but they didn’t do it by highlighting their most unpopular ideas and demanding everything all at once.

        2. It’s not going to be Rand. I don’t think america is going to replace a 2 year senator turned president with another 2 year senator turned president.

        3. That’s a pretty good description of what happened. The default arguing mode of Democrats lately seems to be pretending to be so profoundly stupid that they can’t even fathom the arguments being presented to them. E.g., hooting like a bunch of ignorant hillbillies.

      2. My memory is that Rand Paul wasn’t really interested in talking about the Civil Rights Act. Rachel Maddow decided to go after him on it because, like always, the Democratic Party decided the only way to beat a popular (at least quasi-) libertarian is to brand him or her as a racist.

  11. In that case, fuck her. [Charen]

    Not even with Shriek’s dick.

  12. If the GOP nominated either Sarah Palin or Ron Paul, Obama is assured of re-election.

    The ignorant hillbilly whackjob preacher has a better chance than those two.

    I’ll be voting third party anyway.

    1. As unlikely as it is for Ron Paul to win the primary, I think you are incorrect about the general. The Republican base will vote for anyone who isn’t Obama, so that leaves independents and quite possibly the MIA anti-war left. And, if the war gets worse, as it is likely to do, and it gets the attention the Iraq war did, Ron Paul (hopefully Johnson) is the only candidate that will bring the troops home.

      1. Johnson has the remarkable advantage of being able to run on Obama’s left on almost every issue the left is upset with Obama about, with the possible exception of GLBT issues, where it’s kind of a push between them.

        But we’re talking about the GOP here. We had a “my turn” guy last time around, so I don’t think it will be Romney or Huck.

        It is my genuine fear that the next GOP presidential candidate will come from my home state of Minnesota, and no I’m not talking about Governor Tim Pawlenty. There’s a certain Congresswoman who is more ambitious than I think most of the nation yet realizes. An Oral Roberts University grad with Tea Party street cred. Once she gets the idea into peoples’ heads that she’s “the next Reagan”… look out.

        1. Jesse Ventura didn’t go to Oral Roberts.

        2. You mean Michelle Bachmann?

          Oh God, that woman’s face still haunts my nightmares….

        3. Tara,

          I’m from Sunny Minnesota too, and I have to remind you that we specialize in breeding the “Happy Also-Ran”.

          Humphrey, Mondale, Gus Hall, etc.

          Michelle B is a complete loon. Somehow, the DFL in MN had decided that the key to unseating her is to run and even crazier opponent.

          Jesse would be preferable to Michelle. At least he could unite Team Blue/Team Red into a cohesive group opposing anything he proposed.

    2. Obama? Vote for Obama? I use to get first rate medical care and had great insurance, but then my employer had to cut it out of the benefit package. Obama is the reason I’m stuck going to the free clinic like a damn vagrant.

    3. Your voting 3rd party is good news.

      1. Im trying to figure out why all the GOP-Dem discussion here.

        Who the fuck is going to be the LP candidate?

        Barring a crazy ass miracle, that is who Im voting for.

        1. It’s just that people are always kind of interested in who has a plausible shot at running the country.

        2. There you go. Instead of voting for more of the same, you’ll be voting for more of the same with hookers and blow.

        3. Who the fuck is going to be the LP candidate … that is who Im voting for.

          Write in whomever you want. It will make about as much difference.

          1. The best chance a LP candidate for president would have would be to run credibly in the GOP primary and then when they lose, go third party. At least that way they could start out with some media.

            1. There are some states that won’t let you run in the general if you ran in the primary for a different party.

            2. All that would do is split the GOP and libertarian vote, and help get a Democrat elected. It’s happened many times at the state level.

  13. The KULTUR WAR isn’t really all that much fun to watch. And who the fuck thought universal suffrage was a good idea, anyway?

    Teufelhunden Wrote: 49 minutes ago (6:39 PM)
    fight? you cowards cant fight! you tjhink cause you run around in a mob that that will intimidate Americans.

    news flash. those of us who have been in HARMSWAY for this country laugh at you.

    obama gave 800 million US taxdollars to hamas on jan of 09

    obama gave 8 million US taxdollars to refurbish foreign mosques

    obama on nov of 10 gave 200 million to hamas to impot terrorists

    and you want to re-elect him??

    that means you are not a TRUE AMERICAN!

    1. Where is this from, dipshit?

      1. The comments, cockdreamer.

      2. Based on the erudition on display, I’m guessing it’s from the YouTube comments section.

    2. obama on nov of 10 gave 200 million to hamas to impot terrorists

      Why would Obama give money to Hamas to tax terrorists?

      http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/imp?t

  14. Playing Devil’s advocate here – for those of us who want the government out of our lives – wouldn’t it actually be an improvement to have someone in the White House who is unable to – well govern? We might actually get less governing from someone who cannot govern???

    1. They all can’t govern. That doesn’t stop them from trying, fucking up with nasty, freedom-destroying legislation, and then demanding more legislation when their initial fuck ups don’t work as planned.

      1. Practice makes perfect?

    2. No, they will always have to manage an enormous federal government and they will just fuck it up more.

    3. I agree with you. If any good could come from Clinton to Bush to Obama to Palin is that its causing the American people to lose faith in the ability of federal government to do anything competantly.

    4. I’ve always liked Ulysses S Grant. Right about now we could use a president who stays drunk for eight straight years.

      1. Dig him up – In his current state he’d probably be better than any of the other nominees.

  15. (and why do these ideological enforcers hate cocktails?)

    OK. So.

    Are you pretending not to know how pars pro toto works, or are you pretending to pretend not to know? Do you even know?

    Because, see, you have to choose the level at which your “Unfrozen Pre-Rhetorical Man” shtick is going to operate?decide what kind of irony it is?before you make it your whole act.

    I mean, you’re using the “cocktail” rhetoric, not quoting it, then you’re WTF?-ing it. This new character of yours, the one who at any mention of Palin becomes so mentally primitive that it can’t understand any kind of non-literal speech, can’t do both.

    Tighten yo shit, yo.

    1. Beautiful. More posts like this, please.

    2. Yes, everyone, *this* is how you do contrarianism.
      (‘Unfrozen Pre-Rhetorical Man’ is a keeper)

  16. I used to like Palin because she drove the left bat shit crazy.

    But now there’s an even better reason:
    She smokes out pseudo conservative sophisticates, or more accurately gets them to out themselves.

    1. It’s Romney’s turn.

      1. Why not Christie or Jindal?

        1. It’s not their turn!

          1. Yup. The fat guy and the dark guy need to go to the back of the bus. Can I say that?

            1. Sure you can We don’t mind Christie or Jindal joining us. They can come for the ride, but they gotta sit in back.

              1. Me, I’ll be in the box with the other tools.

      2. Romney will have a hard time escaping his record as the Governor of Mass. who signed an Obamacare prototype into law.

        1. Yeah, I think that kills any support from tea party types, which means he can’t win the primaries.

        2. The Repub primary voters didn’t want Romney last time. Why would they want him in 2012? One of the main reasons that some people warm up to Palin is that she is authentic – she seems like a real person. Romney is the polar opposite. He is a walking, talking product of polls, focus groups and professional campaign managers. Voting for Romney would be like voting for Mr. Clean except without the pirate earring.

          1. OH, I agree. Romney scares me for the same reason that John Kerrey scared me.

            Why would you want to be president? It is a fairly shitty job. Anyone who seems to crave the job as bad as Kerry or Romney needs to be watched especially carerfully.

            The only saving grace for Obama is that he seems to like the partying in 5 star hotels and fancy rides in Marine 1 as much as I would.

            If I was POTUS, I would use Marine 1 to fly to a local 7-11 and then drop a basket down and demand that they fill it with 4-L0k0 (the grape, not that other shit).

            Oh, and I would also specify that Marine 1 would be serviced, flown and etc only by officers. No reason that a decent enlisted dude be kept up all night with my nonsense. Let those buttlickers from Annapolis pull some real duty.

            1. Oh, and I would also specify that Marine 1 would be serviced, flown and etc only by officers.

              You want to fly in a helicopter serviced exclusively by officers? Do you have a death wish?

                1. (J sub D, that is.)

                2. Do the Marines have Maintenance Warrant Officers?

                  1. SB,

                    The Marines have warrant officers. The section in my squadron were run by them. The only real officers we had were in S1 & S4 (HQ & Supply).

                    I’m sure the maintenance shops were run by the WO’s too.

              1. Whoa! Who said I was going to be on Marine 1?

                I just said it was going to be serviced, flown and etc by officers. (I’d probably give the First Lady full time passenger duties. Maybe a few of the First Kids too when they are acting up).

                My order would be mostly for my amusement as I watched the zeros try to accomplish some basic task without any enlisted men to order around.

          2. A lot of conservitives (like me) think Romney is a Republican John Kerry.

            1. Romney speaks French?

              1. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xyP2M0DTch8

                Not that it matters.

                But he does…

                1. Well, hee-haw. Don’t I feel silly now.

        3. Romney will have a hard time escaping his record as the Governor of Mass. who signed an Obamacare prototype into law.

          It was a state law, not a federal law. All he has to do is say he was experimenting, laboratories of democracy and all, and the experiment didn’t work. and he will be forgiven.

          1. Yeah, I cut him some slack for that. Imagine if “health care reform” was 50 states trying 50 different approaches across the ideological spectrum. Small-government types would have a lot of hard evidence to point to in just a few years.

            1. That’s the ideal. Of course, while at this early stage I’m provisionally supporting Romney among the likely candidates, like most politicians his ego will probably prevent him from admitting he made a mistake. So he’ll try to ignore/sidestep questions about RomneyCare rather than owning up to it.

          2. Thing is, that WOULD be used against him any time he said he wanted to repeal Obamacare.

            You know it would.

            And it WOULD hurt his case.

            1. If you’re talking about Democrat opponents trying to use that against him, that would backfire massively. It would portray him as someone who was serious about expanding health insurance and open to the possibility of government involvement to do so, contrary to the image of the dogmatic “party of no” that the Dems try to paint Republicans as.

    2. What makes me laugh? The way she drives the left absolutely ape-$#!+ crazy.
      What scares me? If she wins the republican nomination.

      1. She won’t.

        1. It’s politics. Never say never.

  17. I must admit to some schadenfreude with the melt down on display over ‘Dancing With The Stars’. I don’t think anyone got half that upset when Obama received the freakin’ Nobel Peace Prize without accomplishing anything diplomatically (or, ANYTHING, PERIOD).

    However a Palin presidency. Run. for. the. fucking. hills. if you haven’t already done so over the Obama presidency.

    My best guess, she wont win in Iowa or New Hampshire, both tend to buck national trends, but if she comes in a respectable second in those states then sweeps Lesser Carolina, she will have real chance at it.

    However she may seem poised at that point, after SC., should be a good indication of whether you need to fence yourself in and stock up for a few years. I say this not because I believe she to be anymore dumb or incompetent than the next politician, but because she is far more comfortable with the hawks than even Bush, who didn’t always roll over for them. She will.

    1. Weren’t they talking about shaking up this whole “Iowa and New Hampshire having way too much fucking sway over the primary process” thing for 2012?

      1. Particularly Iowa – where Team Barry bussed in out of staters to basically bum rush the ‘caucuses’ and make the hayseeds convince themselves they would all look like racists to the old lady from down the block if they didn’t vote for that nice black man.

      2. Interesting… looks like it’s not changing (significantly) for 2012, but there are moves afoot to transform this stuff:

        http://www.washingtonpost.com/…..02649.html

        1. Let’s hope it doesn’t change. Listening to the whining from California every primary season is fun.

    2. If I were able to, I would love to mandate that Sunny Minnesota hold its primaries the week after the presidential election.

      Not only would you see every political whore trot themselves out onto the prairie while the votes were still being counted, but you could bet your last dollar that Iowa and New Hampshire would move their primaries up to the week before the election.

  18. They all can’t govern. That doesn’t stop them from trying, fucking up with nasty, freedom-destroying legislation, and then demanding more legislation when their initial fuck ups don’t work as planned.

    Funny you should say that, when I just was reading this:

    But you can be very courteous, professional, helpful, and nice while you’re wasting people’s time and making them worse off. As Jagdish Bhagwati said at the Southern Economic Association meetings last year, the world is full of people who are doing absolutely horrible things to others, all the while thinking that they are helping. The problem isn’t that the TSA is run by the wrong people. The problem is that the TSA exists in the first place. As I tell my students, when the incentives are right, good things happen in spite of bad people. When the incentives are wrong, bad things happen in spite of good people.

  19. SFed my link

    Try this

  20. qualiofication

    qual?i?o?fi?ca?tion  noun  \?kw?-l?-?-f?-?k?-sh?n\

    1. An exceptional qualification.
    2. Given a set of qualifications, the superlative instance.

    ex. Quietly surveying her fellow interviewees she began to realize, with a comforting satisfaction, that none could possibly match her qualiofication.

    1. 3. Qualifications as good as “O”bama’s.

  21. Sarah Palin is to conservatives what Obama was to liberals. She’s not really ever said that much about specific policy but conservatives love her anyway. Palin has the ability to throw up the right buzzwords to connect with the zeitgeist of the Right. It’s the same as HOPE and CHANGE was in 2008 for the Left.

    1. That is fucking stupid.

      Obama is a quant and a damned good one. He has no pole planted. He hired a Hayek scholar and a NY FRB as his chief econ peeps.

      Don’t listen to right-wing rednecks – they lose every time.

      See Kenny-Boy, Bernie-Boy, and Bushy-Boy.

      1. Shrike, so let us look at the results. Is inflation higher or lower than before he became POTUS? Is the unemployment rate higher or lower than before he became POTUS?

        NOTE: The new Congress has not yet taken office so you cannot blame them yet. If, as you claim, he is a good quantitative analyst this must mean what he is inflicting upon this once-great nation is deliberate.

        1. Inflation = 0.6 (insignificant).

          Dow/NAZ/S&P up 20-25%.

          UE up 200 basis points.

          More important – capital is being preserved through Fin Reg. Capital is a public/private partnership.

          Obama on econ = B+

          Bushy-boy on econ = D-

          1. shrike|11.19.10 @ 9:54PM|#
            “Obama on econ = B+”

            Says ignoramus-boy. Yep, those jobs just keep on comin’

            1. We know you want this —

              “I am HAI-LEY BAR-BOURRR! Southron Redneck!

              I AM THE GOP!

              AND I HATE SCIENCE AND WOMEN AND NIGGERS!

              Bask in your short-live gloryhole.

              Its not the future.

              1. Shrike,

                The last KKK member to be a member of Congress was a Democrat – his name was Robert Byrd and he served for many decades there.

                For the record I do not feel comfortable using the “N word” even when I am quoting someone. Strangely enough you apparently do in order to make unsubstantiated claims.

                1. Prior to Byrd there was Senator Theodore Bilbo, Democrat, Mississippi 1935-1947 (also Democrat governor of Mississippi 1916-1932). Quelle surprise, Bilbo The Builder was a Progressive. As governor, he pushed through many public works projects, regulated banks, mandated compulsory schooling, & eliminated public hangings.

                  1. l0b0t,

                    Thanks! It is important to remind people of the origins of progressivism.

          2. shrike|11.19.10 @ 9:54PM|#
            “More important – capital is being preserved through Fin Reg. Capital is a public/private partnership.”

            Oh, and here we have a *real* gem! Can anyone explain why capital should be “preserved”?
            Hey, ignoramus-boy, why not bury it in the back yard?

          3. You won’t catch me defending Bush on economics – he signed the TARP bill (which Obama also voted for).

            Here is the real story on inflation:
            http://www.cnbc.com/id/4013509…..ready_Here

            As for the stock market, of course it is going “up” – “up” with inflated dollars.

            As for unemployment?
            http://www.upi.com/Daily-Brief…..283518236/

            Notice I provide actual sources for my claims

            1. “Notice I provide actual sources for my claims”
              Ignoramus-boy can’t be bothered with that; he’s got a career in cherry-picking:
              “Dow/NAZ/S&P up 20-25%”
              Compared to?

              1. Shut up, redneck.

                Markets love capital stabilization.

                See SCAP March 2009 that kicked this rally off.

                1. If markets “love capital stabilization” then they would stabilize capital by themselves, wouldn’t they shrike?

                  It doesn’t make sense to say that a market benefits from someone taking capital stabilization OUT of the market system.

                2. Shrike,

                  Do you even understand what the word redneck means? Why would you assume that I am one?

                  And I cannot improve upon heller’s statement on capital stablization in response to your claim about that subject. Do you think before you type?

                  1. Do you even understand what the word redneck means? Why would you assume that I am one?

                    Because you disagreed with him and his patron ain’t.

                    For those who haven’t gotten it yet: shrike is the TEAM BLUE version of Dondero. Just as Donderrrrrooooo!!! could claim Giuliani was really the best libertarian choice, shriek claims the same for Obama.

                3. shrike|11.19.10 @ 9:23PM|#
                  That is fucking stupid.

                  Obama is a quant and a damned good one.

                  You spelled that wrong. The word is “qwent”. And I would not have guessed that you were Scottish…

            2. The part of TARP that deals with banks ? the big banks, anyway ? has largely been repaid: Goldman Sachs, Morgan, Wells Fargo, BONY, and the other bigfoot banks have paid back their loans. – Kevin Williamson, NRO.

              As for the auto companies – NO. We will never see most of that money again.

              1. Bullshit.

                The AIG bailout was a $20+ billion bailout of Goldman Sachs. They have yet to pay back that money.

          4. Inflation = 0.6 (insignificant).

            [Russian accent] “Next they’ll be telling us the grain crops are good, this year.” [/Russian accent]

          5. I don’t see how capital is being preserved when we are blowing it on unemployment benefits and other stimulus spending.

            And anyway, in the context of TARP “capital stabilization” means “helping a wealthy elite avoid losing their money in the housing market”.

            A better set of policies would let the wealthy fail and encourage everyone else to grow private capital by encouraging savings at the lowest level.

            Making everyone a ward of the state doesn’t help. Neither does printing money to give to the government. And ESPECIALLY not printing money to buy up the rich people’s toxic assets at above market rates.

          6. Wait until Bernacke causes a run on Treasuries with all his quantitative easing bulls**t and see if you are still happy with the Obama adminstration.

          7. And isn’t it interesting that Bush’s bad economic record started shortly after the Democrats took over Congress in 2006? But I guess that means nothing because we know that Congress has absolutely nothing to do with spending and taxation and regulation, right?

      2. A quant? WTF?
        This is the guy who credited Selma for the fact his parents got together. Do I have to explain to you why that is beyond even a Dan Quayle level of idiocy? To have made that error, Obama would have had to have flunked the day care on Sesame Street. Obama is a mangly ass politician and nothing of value. To call him a quant is an insult to anybody who passed Calculus with a D or better.

        1. Let me fill you in.

          Conservatives are eggplants. Stupid. hanging on to the past. As Hayek said “ignorant”.

          Now a quant is a generative engine – think Google or Apple.

          I know you eggplants don’t get this.

          But we move on – we capitalize – we change and win. You Arab Kochsuckers will never win over liberalism in the true Locke/Jefferson tradition.

          So fuck you.

          Clear?

          1. I’m not laughing with you. I’m laughing at you, as is the rest of the crew. Please, stop trying to be serious because you will never be taken seriously, you have proved on too many occasions you don’t have the cognitive capacity to put shit together into a cohesive pattern to try to start now, and put the jester hat back on for another round of jokes and jigs for our amusement, you silly goof.

            1. I accept your curtsy.

              Now wasn’t that easy?

            2. I posted this above, but it probably can’t be said enough:

              For those who haven’t gotten it yet: shrike is the TEAM BLUE version of Dondero. Just as Donderrrrrooooo!!! could claim Giuliani was really the best libertarian choice, shriek claims the same for Obama.

              Shreeeeeeeeeeeeik!!!!!!!!!!!!!

          2. Hey, look, it’s John Locke!

            If you look at the victories and failures of the civil rights movement and its litigation strategy in the court. I think where it succeeded was to invest formal rights in previously dispossessed people, so that now I would have the right to vote. I would now be able to sit at the lunch counter and order as long as I could pay for it I’d be o.k. But, the Supreme Court never ventured into the issues of redistribution of wealth, and of more basic issues such as political and economic justice in society. To that extent, as radical as I think people try to characterize the Warren Court, it wasn’t that radical. It didn’t break free from the essential constraints that were placed by the founding fathers in the Constitution, at least as its been interpreted and Warren Court interpreted in the same way, that generally the Constitution is a charter of negative liberties. Says what the states can’t do to you. Says what the Federal government can’t do to you, but doesn’t say what the Federal government or State government must do on your behalf, and that hasn’t shifted and one of the, I think, tragedies of the civil rights movement was, um, because the civil rights movement became so court focused I think there was a tendancy to lose track of the political and community organizing and activities on the ground that are able to put together the actual coalition of powers through which you bring about redistributive change. In some ways we still suffer from that.

            1. What fucking communist wrote that?

              1. That was no communist; it was a Kenyan!

          3. Shrike,

            A quant is a quantitative analyst.

            You are aware this is not a conservive site are you not? You are aware we a libertarians here for the most part, not Conservatives? You quote Hayek – you know he was also a libertarian?

            Do you think before you type?

            1. Incidentally, the Koch brothers are also libertarians, not conservatives.

      3. Obama is a quant

        Is that what you kids call a dumbfuck nowadays?

        1. Evidentaly that is what dumbfucks call the dumbfucks who inspire them to dumbfuckery call it these days. Jesus, they see a word that has nothing to do with their goofy ass day trader e-dick swinging existence and latch on it before they have any idea what it means. ‘Quant’ replaced ‘computer’ because the later took on an entirely different meaning.

          1. Evidentaly

            Quayle be praised. When I’m aghast I get the Johns.

        2. It is actually short for “quantitative analyst”. If Obama is a quantitative analyst George W. Bush was a grammarian.

          1. True that, and that is what computers use to do. A generation was skipped in usage, of course, but that is often the way with etymology. Old word goes is no longer used, but the social function still exist, hence a new term is born.

      4. That is fucking stupid.

        Obama is a quant and a damned good one. He has no pole planted. He hired a Hayek scholar and a NY FRB as his chief econ peeps.

        Goddamn. This stupid sumbitch really does need a weather man to know which way the wind blows. You are just ignorant, son. Pure, sheer pulling it out of your ass ignorant.

        1. Another fucking Rush “King of the Rednecks” Limbaugh fan.

          Vote for Palin then. I want to see Pigboy squeel when she loses in a landslide.

          Enjoy your F-150.

          1. You quite simply don’t know what the fuck you are talking about. You almost put words semi randomly together in a Gaussian gray matter splatter if it weren’t for the consistency of the hatred for all things Bush to give it a semi-cohesive theme.

            Also, you suck at insults. You are the worst. You called me a Limbaugh lover. I thought you might find something half way clever from Dylan to taint the air, but, no, like an idled fool with no creative instincts you went with Limbaugh. On no level do I even feel that attempt at a comeback. Why do you even bother to try?

            1. You don’t understand what I want.

              I want fiscal responsibility. But we won’t get that until the SoCon Aborto-Freaks are chased from the GOP.

              1. Well then, was that really so fucking hard to say until now? You had to go through a shit tunnel of ‘Obama is a quant and a damned good one’ that noone but a fucking cult member could possibly believe, and top that with ‘right-wing rednecks’, ‘Arab Kochsuckers’, ‘christfaggots’ aimed at people you obviously don’t understand, people who can put two phrases together before the entire enterprise of writing incinerates in their hands, who are obviously more sophisticated than you on a whole range of subjects, not to mention demeanor? Sit down, shut up and fucking try to learn something for a change. Do you really enjoy being joke?

                I’m only asking that you make the attempt to communicate like a goddamn human being and not a moron. If that is asking to much, just get the fuck out of here.

                1. Easy there, fella. Shrike insults us, but he doesn’t insult us by expecting us to take what he says too seriously. We got Tony for that. Shrike is part of what makes this an entertaining site. Don’t let it get to you by getting caught up in the e-dick swinging.

                2. No.

                  And you know my history because I like to retain it – but ‘fancylad’ is new to us.

                3. From his grace with the English language, I assume a “fancylad” is a knuckle-dragging neo-con.

                  1. From his grace with the English language, I assume a “fancylad” is a knuckle-dragging neo-con.

                    A rolling iambic with a physical density in the phrasing. My best guess is someone with an Iliad fetish. Victor Hanson is that you?

                  2. chris87654|11.20.10 @ 4:38AM|#

                    From his grace with the English language, I assume a “fancylad” is a knuckle-dragging neo-con.

                    I really can’t take your ‘critique’ seriously as you are the type of pussy who has to wait until the sort of rancid contagion of rhetorical banality you find appealing has crawled out of the mouths of thirty million niggaz before you dare risk chewing on it and spitting it out yourself. You could not possibly be more conventional in your world view. Keep grazing, sheep.

              2. Ditto – Mitch Daniels for president.

              3. yet, somehow, I believe we’ll have fiscal responsibility after Obama raises taxes and imposes forced health care, which I am in favor of.

              4. I agree. But I don’t think bootlicking everything Ben Bernanke does is a valid position either.

                Fuck the SoCons and fuck the Goldman Sachs/Federal Reserve/Hedge fund trifecta too.

              5. You want “fiscal responsibility” and yet think Obama is helping that happen? Talk about cognitive dissonance….

            2. “The pumps don’t work cause the vandals took the handles.”

          2. The first sign of mental deficiency is repetitive fixation that ignores context, shrike. Did Rush (King of the Rednecks) Limbaugh touch you when you were young?

      5. shrike, is “quant” how you spell “cunt” in your country?

        1. I am for the free market price on pussy too.

          1. shrike seems to think that providing his inane rantings free of charge makes him pro-market.

      6. you SHOULD be listening to the left-wingers. WE know what’s best. you stupid Christ-fags can’t run your own lives, nor should you be allowed to.

      7. There is a reason he didn’t release his test scores…they aren’t very high.

        Obama is the first Affirmative Action President.

  22. (or, the case against democracy)

    —————————————————————-
    a study just came out confirming lesbians as most apt to raise the best adjusted kids.
    —————————————————————-
    a similar study has shown homosexuals to be the most likely to ABUSE children!
    —————————————————————-
    nope. not up for debate. These are studies that will influence governmental policy. Because you know, when it comes to policy, they just commission ten grade statistics students to get their findings.

    You’re an idiot.
    —————————————————————-
    That is false. The percentage of children sexually abused by lesbians in a family is zero. Whereas, the highest percentage of sexual abuse in heterosexual couples is the highest. You may not like other definitions of family, but they work.
    —————————————————————-
    NO, IT’S NOT UP FOR DEBATE. Benchmarks of well-being were tested for. DONE BY PEOPLE WHO KNOW WHAT THEY’RE DOING AND WHOSE LIVES ARE SPENT STUDYING THIS KIND OF THING. I KNOW YOU’RE JUST GOING TO DISCOUNT *SCIENCE* BECAUSE IT CONFLATES YOUR WORLDVIEW, BUT IT DOESNT CHANGE FACT.

    DENY ALL YOU WANT, IT DOESNT CHANGE THE REAL WORLD. SOME PEOPLE STILL BELIEVE THE EARTH IS FLAT.
    —————————————————————-
    wrong! fagboys are the most likely to molest little children. NAMBLA! i rest my case!
    —————————————————————-

    1. COMMANDER? Is that you?

      1. I THINK IT IS! Oops, sorry. I think it is.

        1. I can’t even tell whether it’s pro- or anti-molestation.

            1. No, sorry for the confusion — what that is, is a randomly-selected conversation fragment from the comments on the townhall.com article mentioned in the above Reason article.

              The topic of which, you may recall, was Sarah Palin.

              Go figure.

              1. “wrong! fagboys are the most likely to molest little children. NAMBLA! i rest my case!”

                Codes!!! Give me the fucking launch codes!!!!!!!

    2. NAMBLA CONFLATES MY WORLDVIEW

      What does the National Association of Marlon Brando Look-Alikes have to do with anything?

    3. Marlon Brando look-alikes are just trying to live their lives!

      Leave the Marlon Brando look-alikes alone!

  23. Said loudly: “If we keep talking about and harshing on Palin, she will stay popular and perhaps get the 2012 GOP nomination. Then, Obama can’t lose.”

    Whispered: “Sarah Palin is terrible, and she can’t disappear from the national scene quickly enough.”

    Thought: “Oh shit, we said the loud part soft and the soft part loud.”

  24. Anyone who blames Palin for quitting as governor of Alaska is clearly just a hater. She and her family were being ruined financially by bogus ethics violation charges and unlike Gringrich or WJC, she didn’t have a bunch of rich friends willing to help her pay her legal bills. She would have been stupid to finish her term.

    1. My Grandaddy always told me, “never quit a job until you have one to replace it”.

    2. Sarah is thin-skinned – one who can shovel it, but not take it. And worse, she is arrogant (in a hillbilly kinda way) and vindictive when someone says anything that touches her ego – especially when it’s true. Though a quitter (mostly over issues of her own making), she did Alaska a great favor by resigning. The woman looks good, but is 10 pounds of bullshit in a 5 pound bag.

    3. She would have been stupid to finish her term.

      It was too late by then

    4. Actually, I’m glad for Sarah. She found her place, and went through a lot to get there. I can’t see her family giving a resounding yes to running for prez as she “discusses this matter with the most important people in her life”, like they did when she asked them if she should quit AK – and I quote: “It was four “yes’s” and one “hell yeah!” The “hell yeah” sealed it”. It would be selfish if she drags them from AK to DC – but Sarah will do it if Sarah wants to (run, not win), esp now that Rove and others say/imply she’s not qualified. Personally I don’t think she’ll run – she’d break after doing a few non-Fox interviews. Sarah can bow out gracefully by saying “I can do more for real Americans outside the confines of public office” … basically the same as when quitting AK.

    5. Palin was actually pretty smart to quit. She has paid off her huge legal debts and she has become a force to be reckoned with on the political stage. I wouldn’t want her as president, although she has much better qualifications then Obama, Biden and Hillary (combined).

      She will have tremendous influence on the 2012 elections. She would not have accomplished that as governor of Alaska. Deal with it Palin haters.

      1. Yeah, she was smart to quit, and was probably alright until she became governor – then seemed like the job got to her head. She’s too self-centered to work with others (good in a way – she wouldn’t be a puppet like Bush to Cheney/GOP), defensive and vindictive even when wrong, and has the demeanor of a spoiled Prom Queen. I think she did okay for a mayor (if left Wasilla fiscal situation good), but got over her head with the gov job (Peter Principal – reached a level of incompetence).

    6. A question for you: if these were personal lawsuits against her that would have bankrupted her family, why would they go away by her quitting? If they were lawsuits against her office as a representative of the state, she would not pay out of her own pocket, or nobody would ever be governor as governors get sues all the time.

      And if she can’t take the heat as governor, how would being President be any easier?

      1. *get sued

      2. Palin claims that the lawsuits were against her personally for ethics violations she allegedly committed while serving as governor and so could not be defended against using state money. The allegations were not directed against the office of governor and were filed in a steady stream, one after another. By resigning, she could no longer be accused of committing new ethics atrocities. If what she says is true, then it was clearly an abuse of the ethics process.

        If she were President, then the national Republican Party would have a stake in making sure she wasn’t being inundated with false accusations, although the fact that the RP didn’t defend Gringrich and the fact that Palin first built her political reputation by challenging the cozy corporatism of the Alaska Republican Party may indicate that the national RP would be willing to passively watch her get wrecked politically by false accusations even if she did get elected POTUS.

        In any case, the higher profile of being President versus being Governor of Alaska would invite much greater scrutiny of the accusations against her and of who was making them. The higher profile would also allow Palin to solicit funds from supporters. Of course, by now, Palin has raked in enough cash to finance a fair defense with her own money.

        1. But the personal suits that were about to bankrupt her family didn’t magically go away when she resigned, did they? As others have pointed out, conservatives were setting up a legal fund to help her battle the claims. If she DID actually commit ethics violations (and the ex-brother-in-law policeman case certainly seemed like one at face value) she deserved to be sued. If they were all false, she would have garnered more sympathy by fighting them out and proving that there was a vendetta against her (which most people intuitively thought to some degree). Now we really have no clue whether she’s actually a wronged martyr or if she’s just a quitter, an unethical executive and a liar (or both?). Of course, we know which one she and her supporters would claim her to be, and which one the media and the Left will claim her to be.

          1. The existing suits didn’t go away when she resigned, but resigning did prevent the filing of new complaints. I don’t know if all of the complaints have been resolved, but most of them probably have. Most of them were just BS complaints about minor expense account items or complaints about her wearing a snow suit with its manufacturer’s logo on it at one of her husband’s races. (Does an Alaskan Governor really need to somehow conceal the logo on every article of winter clothing that she buys? Absurd.)

            Her contention is that the reporting about the ex-brother-in-law cop incident by the media contained a number of whopping factual inaccuracies. The lefty media has certainly proven willing to make stuff up (ask Dan Rather about Bush’s national guard service or some of the more rabid Palin haters about who Trig’s real mother is) as part of one of their campaigns of personal destruction so it is entirely conceivable that the media version of events is almost totally fabricated.

            Ultimately, most people will believe what they want to believe, but I don’t see any evidence that Palin is some sinister, evil, manipulative, dreadfully corrupt monster. She is a politician and very good at attracting media attention, but she is neither the idiot nor the Machiavellian caricature that her detractors portray her to be.

  25. Whether or not “more conservative writers and strategists express reservations about a Palin candidacy” depends on whether they want to please the extreme right conservative base, or give the GOP a shot at winning the presidency with a viable alternative to Obama (and at the same time, are willing to lose her fans’ votes …. if Sarah’s not on the ballot, many will stay home on election day banging their highchairs and throwing cookies). Sarah is not qualified for public office – you make an excellent point: she’s accomplished nothing to make one think she is capable of anything more than walking off a job if she doesn’t like some aspect of it. All the rabble rousing and loud fan base mean nothing toward solving the nation’s relevant problems, or appealing to enough voters to win a general election. Sarah should stay on TV, give speeches before those who care to hear her, and stay off the ballot.

    1. chris87654 is a paid Republican Establishment mouthpiece is he not?

    1. Reason, who managed to get 168 and counting comments and God knows how many hits on an article by a writer few people care about.

      The Palin threads are a delightful content free mix of snobbery and cultural revenge.

      168 comments and not a single quote from the woman or specific thing she does or does not support. The Palin are now worse than the “you just hate Mexicans” immigration threads.

      1. John
        I wonder if you can now agree that Palin’s quitting as governor was part of a calculated ploy to further her run in 2012 (as sitting governor she would have had to make decisions that would have lessened her popularity as well as weather an unfriendly legislature)? Far from being “authentic” “a maverick” or a “rogue” she’s one of the more pandering, calculated candidates to come through in a long time. This explains some of her more pathetic experiences (answering “all of them” to what magazines do you read, which clearly was a mindless attempt to not say something that would peel off any voter).

        The Palin love fest is worse than the Obama love fest. The latter was a naive, uncritical “feel good/make history” moment, the former is based on “I like her because she makes liberals mad with her conservative cultural creds!”

        1. If you read the NYT article on her this week, it explains why she left. After the 2008 she went around and talked to Republican operatives and got advice on what to do. They all told her to stay as governor. She told them it was impossible for two reasons.

          First, in Alaska whenever someone files a lawsuit against you over ethics, you have to pay to defend it yourself. She was going broke. She didn’t have any money.

          Second, Alaska doesn’t give their governors security. That is fine normally. But once she became a celbrity, it was untenable. She talks about people just coming up to her door. In this day and age, you cannot be somoene with her celebrity and not have security. All it takes is one Andrew Sullivan to buy a gun. There is no way if I were as famous and as polarizing as she is, that I would live without some kind of security. But she was going broke and couldn’t afford that.

          Instead she quit and went on the speaking tour, wrote a book and made millions instead of staying as governor and facing bankruptcy and hoping that the next Mark David Chapman doesn’t obsesssed with her or one of her kids.

          When you read the reasons I can’t see how you blame her. That doesn’t mean she is qualified to be President. But the whole “she is a quitter meme” is just unfair bullshit.

          1. Is there anything that woman would sell that you would not buy?

            1. Lots. But that sounds pretty reasonable to me. It is not like she said that she did because God called her to do it or because she knew America needed her to write some goofy book. And it is not like that explination appeared in a friendly source or anything.

              Is there anything the woman could say no matter how reasonable or reported by what source, that you would buy?

              What about the NYT article do you think is a lie? And why is the NYT of all sources printing Palin propeganda?

              1. If these reasons were so reasonable then whey did she give different ones, ones that you defended, at the time she resigned?

                She’s just retconning her past.

                1. She has always said she couldn’t afford the legal fees. And it is a pretty stupid idea to advertise to the world how you can’t afford personal security.

                  1. She mentioned the legal fees the state was having to pay, that she did not want state resources (time and money) going into this, that she would step aside for the good of the state in that regard.

                    Just to stop up the memory hole here:

                    http://tpmlivewire.talkingpoin…..speech.php

          2. Like I mentioned above, if they are personal lawsuits, why would they go away by her quitting? Moreover, if they were such obvious b.s. and she did nothing wrong she could counter-sue and get her legal fees back plus damages.

            If they were against “the office” why would the lawsuit be dropped because Palin is no longer the executive? Her shoddy excuse was that her quitting was the only way to save Alaska taxpayer money and time.

            1. Her shoddy excuse was that her quitting was the only way to save Alaska taxpayer money and time.

              In her book, she claims that her office staff was spending a large portion of its time answering subpoenas.

              1. Um, I think a lot of governor’s offices do. And besides, I thought the lawsuits were against her personally and not her office? Why was she using state/office resources to respond to personal lawsuits?

                1. Why was she using state/office resources to respond to personal lawsuits?

                  Because the subpoenas were for records of her alleged unethical behavior as Governor, dumbass. No doubt obtaining as much of her office’s records as possible was also part of a fishing expedition to try to find something to base new frivolous complaints on. This is how the left operates.

          3. It would have helped *a lot* if she had covered these points in her resignation speech in a concise and professional way. Instead it came off as rambling and confused.

        2. And I don’t think you can say that it was a calculated move when every political operative she talked to told her to stay as governor. All of them did. No one told her to leave. Now maybe she is some political genius who went with her gut. I doubt it. I think she probably wanted to follow the advice. But it just wasn’t possible. And indeed, they were proven right. Leaving the governorship has given her critics cheap points to score.

          1. Critics using her leaving as a point scoring cheap shot only make points with uninformed fools. Seems to be a few of those on this forum.

          2. Yeah, she says the operatives told her to stay and she decided otherwise.

            So the evidence you have is her word on this. Oh, and that word makes her look like what she is selling: a maverick who is trying to put her family and gut ahead of those stinky establishment operatives.

            Every time a governor makes a decision they piss off someone. Leaving her post allowed her to only take positions she wanted to when she wanted to. It’s like the whole “hide from unfriendly media” thing with her, to carefully put forward the image she wants. She knows conservatives are largely guillible in this sense, they are deprived of cultural role models in the media and hungrily want one. She found she could wink, drop her r’s and go fishing on camera and would look like a conservatives dream come true, a Nugent-esque hot secretary.

            Liberals, being trapped in their urban bubble, of course helped this along by making fun of her on the wrong things (that she likes guns and the outdoors).

            1. “Leaving her post allowed her to only take positions she wanted to when she wanted to.”

              That sounds pretty smart to me. I thought she was stupid. And I am hiding in the conservative bubble of the NYT Magazine?

              If I were in her position, I would have quit to. Why go broke paying legal bills and living without security as a huge national celebrity when you can leave make millions.

              Can you honestly say you wouldn’t do the same thing? I can’t.

              As I said above. It doesn’t mean that she is qualified to be President. It doesn’t mean anytying really other than she made a reasonable decision.

              Again, is there anything she could do that you wouldn’t bitch about? If she had stayed you would be on here saying how craven she is to live without security and endanger her family for her political ambitions.

              1. As the article said a legal defense fund was being set up for her (with her establishment buddies, neat for such a rogue maverick), and false conservative media darling that she was, she could have hired security easily (Joe Miller could have put her in touch with some). And are we to beleive the Alaska State Police doesn’t provide security for their executive?

                And there is plenty she could do that I wouldn’t bitch about. If you go back to H&R when she was nominated I talked about how she had an impressive record of reaching across the aisle and standing up to the GOP establishment in Alaska. As for your claims of cultural snobbery in her critics, well, I’ve long expressed here that I like Huckabee among the GOP frontrunners. He strikes me as much more authentic and a very, very smart guy and well spoken candidate (Arkansas can really put these guys out). If the GOP would give Huckabee a chance and let him be Huck he would peel many a voter off the Democrats a la Reagan.

                1. Huckabee also got like an “F” from Cato Institute on increases to spending and taxes during his term as governor. Romney had a “D” if I remember right.

                  People need to stop electing presidential candidates simply because they are “likeable”.

                  1. I agree, Hobo, but have to admit Huckabee is charming. When asked by a woman if he was one of those narrow-minded Baptists who thought only Baptists go to Heaven, he replied “Oh, I’m worse than that. I don’t even think all Baptists go to Heaven.” LOL.

            2. Jesus, I just read the article and it’s worse than Palin’s word, it’s “her friend Fred Malek…the former White House aide to Presidents Richard Nixon and Gerald Ford”‘s word!

              1. Yeah. wasn’t it pretty obvious that staying governor was the smart thing to do? It was to me.

                I don’t see what your positon here is. Was leaving being governor politically smart or dumb? It seems to have been pretty smart. She is a huge figure now. She is like the conservative oparah. I doubt she could have pulled that off as governor. And she did it when the conventional wisdom said to stay as governor.

                That means one of two things. Either she is really smart and knew better than the conventional wisdom or she went agaisnt conventional wisdom because she had no other choice. Which is it?

                You can’t say she is a moron on Mondays Wednesdays and Fridays, and an evil new wave poltical genius the rest of the week. I don’t see what your point here is. I dont’ think she is a poltical genius. So I think she left being governor because she really had no choice. What do you think? If you say she is some craven opportunist, then you have to admit she is a pretty damned smart one and the whole, she is a moron thing goes out the window.

                1. “wasn’t it pretty obvious that staying governor was the smart thing to do? It was to me.”

                  Oh no, I don’t have the memory hole you count on, so no you don’t. You loudly and strongly defended her walking away, saying that only jerks stay in office and that it was a noble thing to become a citizen. I’m giving you this chance to walk back down that hill John.

                  1. And at the same time that you defended her I pointed out that it was just common sense that if she stayed governor she would have to make tough decisions and that she had become all about dodging tough decisions (hell, even tough interviews!). So she wasn’t bucking any conventional wisdom. That’s all part of the recton you either are falling for or trying to enable.

                    1. So, you hate her because she is a smart politician who made the right decision? If 1035 am posting is your position MNG, you have to admit the woman is pretty smart and it is game over on the whole she is stupid meme. I don’t think you really want to do that.

                    2. It doesn’t make her brilliant to choose a common sense decision John. Anyone not mesmerized by her hot for teacher look knew what she was up to, despite the retconning.

                      She was involved in a careful self promotion to movement conservatives. She sold herself well to them, yes. But that’s like saying the guy who marketed Britney Spears to tweens was brilliant. You know, your own description of her as the conservative Oprah is very fitting in that way.

                      More importantly what it does is destroy the “maverick” “authentic” meme for her. She’s been a shameless, calculating self promoter for a while now…

                    3. “It doesn’t make her brilliant to choose a common sense decision John.”

                      If it was a “common sense decision” how does it reflect poorly on her? You just admitted my point. If it was the common sense thing to do, you can’t hold it against her, which all I am saying.

                      Thanks for playing.

                    4. It can be a common sense decision and yet indicate deceptiveness and self promotion and cowardice.

                    5. “It can be a common sense decision and yet indicate deceptiveness and self promotion and cowardice.”

                      So common sense decsions are the cowardly thing to do? We have to ignore our common sense to keep from being self deceptive and cowardly?

                      Admit it MNG. You are so insane on this subject, you painted yourself into a corner. Just stop digging.

                    6. There’s no contradiction. I admire political courage. Palin’s decision was common sense if her goal was shameless self promotion among the movement conservatives. But why would I admire that? I find movement conservatives to be pretty dim bulbs, so what sells to them, even what obviously, common sense sells to them is pathetic to me (much like a “clever” producer who knows how to get tweens to see his movies or recording artist).

                      Contrast someone like Palin to someone like Jim Webb.

                    7. “She’s been a shameless, calculating self promoter for a while now…”

                      And every other politician who has ever lived wasn’t the same? Your real problem with her seems to be that she is good at it. If you diqualified shameless self promoters from national office, there wouldn’t be anyone left to fill them.

                    8. Suddenly John is ok with shameless self promotion…

                    9. I can’t think of a single national politician in my life time who couldn’t be described as a shameless self promoter. You have to be to get to national office.

                    10. MNG-“It doesn’t make her brilliant to choose a common sense decision…

                      Why are you and the media establishment attacking her decision to quit if it was ‘common sense’ to do so.

                      Your Palin derangement is on full display in this thread.

                2. Now who’s winning?

              2. It has turned out to be a politically smart move to leave the goernorship. But it certainly didn’t look like that at the time. So either you have to give her credit for doing something really bold or you have to admit she did it out of necessity and got lucky. I think it is the latter.

                1. It was a no-brainer. The people who value public service and competence (or at least its appearance) were not the crowd she was going for, she knew she had lost that. She was going for conservative media darling. Those people, like you did at the time, deride public service and call the appearance of professional competence “elitism.”

                  What she did need was to avoid making pronouncements on anything that might peel off support. Managing her image has been her raison d’etre, and her quitting fits in perfectly with that.

                  1. So what you are saying MNG, is she should have stayed governor even though you admit staying there would have done nothing to convince the people who didn’t like her and do her no good with the ones who already did. And she should have done so even though you admit it was a no-brainer to leave. And the fact that she made this no brainer decision should be held against her and be a sign that she is stupid.

                    That is really what you are saying here.

                    1. Yes, I admire her less for putting her own self promotion above doing the job she said she wanted to do. I said that at the time.

                      What’s interesting is that at the time you defended what she was doing on the grounds that she was doing a noble, self-less thing, and now you want to say it was OK because it was shrewd politics.

                      You’re like a weather vane that moves with every blow from Sarah’s lips John, hoping against all hope in technological age in which comments are preserved and easily accessible that your past, conflicting positions go down the memory hole…

                    2. “What’s interesting is that at the time you defended what she was doing on the grounds that she was doing a noble, self-less thing, and now you want to say it was OK because it was shrewd politics.”

                      Where did I do that? In your head? I don’t remember saying anything of the sort. And I also would have advised her to stay governor. But what do I know?

                      If you are going to say that she is this brilliant self prmoter than you have to stop saying she is stupid and out of her depth. Becuase she is most assuredly not out of her depth on the national scene. She does something that our President is incapable of, move the polls. How many other out of work politicians could give the Whitehouse such headaches and get them responding to her? Isn’t that how politics is played.

                      It is interesting to listen to your opinion change because you pretty much reflect Democratic opinion. Even you are now being forced to admit she is not stupid. Now she is a shamless self premoter. The whole she is a dingbat housewife meme is going by the wayside. That has really got to hurt.

                      Love her or hate her, she really does seem unstoppable.

                    3. This is a silly pissing match.

                      I appreciate that you are perhaps trying to just counter what is admittedly at times an irrational and over-the-top knee jerk hate of Palin. I try to do the same with Obama at times.

                      My position is that one doesn’t have to be brilliant to “play” movement conservatives*, hungry for a “conservative Oprah” to use your words (*or liberals for that matter [hope and change!]). What is shrewd for playing them though often involves saying and doing things lacking in intellectual heft and integrity. I think Palin’s quitting at the time, and more so now, reflected such a ploy, cutting and running and undercutting her insistent claims to be a no-fear maverick.

                      Now on to better things, a full day of college football, a subject which to give you your due you’ve done well predicting this year. My picks for today’s big games are wins for Virginia Tech and Nebraska and a loss for Iowa at home…

                    4. Re: Sarah Pilin quitting.

                      It was a dumb move if she wanted to be president. It was a smart move if she wanted to be a media personality.

                      Considering the fact that her first job was as a news anchor, her drive to become a TV pundit is perfectly logical.

                      If she does make a run for president, it will only be to enhance her celebrity status. it will not be a seriuous effort to actually win.

    1. In fairness, they are just slubs trying to pay the bills in a 15% unemployment economy. It is not like they thought up the system.

      The people to hate here are Pistole, Napolatano and Obama. They are the ones who are responsible, not the drones sent out to do it. I watched the Pistole hearing on CSPAN this week. He is just fucking awful. The Onion couldn’t write a better charactature of the arrogant bureaucrat.

        1. That is great.

      1. I agree. I would not hate on the employees, especially if they are going to join in on the criticism of the policy. Good for them.

        1. TSA employees just pawns in game of life.

        2. Those same TSA apes could, to the last of them, refuse to engage in copping feels and making people uncomfortable.

          Unfortunately, some of them like making little kids cry and enjoy humiliating 30-year veteran flight attendants with breast prosthetics.

          1. Insubordination gets you fired, and others merely take your place. Doing your job isn’t “copping a feel,” whether you’re a TSA agent or a doctor or a cop. Grow up.

            1. If you go into a doctor’s office for, to give an example, have him examine you for cancer, you expect him to touch you in sensitive areas. There is a trade off. Doctors are professionals and they are treating you as a patient who might need their help. They are not treating you like a criminal who might need to be arrested.

              1. If you go into a doctor’s office…you expect him to touch you in sensitive areas

                Likewise during the new “enhanced” pat-downs, not that there is anything right with that. This touching in “sensitive areas” does not constitute “copping a feel,” as Mr. FIFY put it. It’s merely fellow Americans–your neighbors–doing their jobs according to their job descriptions, irrespective of their own opinions on the subject. To blame them for TSA policies is unfair and cheap and intellectually lazy.

                1. Yep, we’re mandated to shoot those dogs.

                  Don’t blame us for the policies!

                2. “It’s merely fellow Americans–your neighbors–doing their jobs according to their job descriptions, irrespective of their own opinions on the subject. To blame them for TSA policies is unfair and cheap and intellectually lazy.”

                  Befehl ist Befehl

                3. It’s merely fellow Americans–your neighbors–doing their jobs according to their job descriptions, irrespective of their own opinions on the subject. To blame them for TSA policies is unfair and cheap and intellectually lazy.

                  That defense didn’t work at Nuremberg either. I know that’s taking it to the extreme, but aren’t we rapidly approaching the extreme when it comes to the erosion of our rights anyway?

                  1. “I know that’s taking it to the extreme, but aren’t we rapidly approaching the extreme when it comes to the erosion of our rights anyway?”

                    Well said. It’s pretty effing extreme when the government can touch your crotch. I remember when the airport security just started to ramp up in the months after 9/11 there were JOKES about things like this. People laughed at them because it was an extreme EXAGERATION of what was actually going on. Well, ladies and gentleman, it is not a joke anymore. Big Brother is here and he wants to look at your genitals. That is effing extreme!

      2. The people to hate here are Pistole, Napolatano and Obama.

        Bush accepted the federalization of airport screening. Don’t let him off the hook.

  26. Mona Charen is a power-worshiping, Jewish cunt. Always has been, always will be. So, I would fuck her with Hitler’s dick . . . just sayin.

    1. Yay! Class hate and racism!
      Ladies and gentlemen: the blogosphere.

  27. http://hotair.com/archives/201…..on-bubble/

    We can have a higher education repeat of the sub prime mortgage meltdown. oh goody.

    1. You mean private actors are rushing to bundle borderline school loans and sell them to other private actors, private analysts are rating them higher than they should and other private actors are rushing to insure the dealers against loss with money they don’t have?

      1. I mean, that’s what happened in the sub-prime meltdown…

        1. Err, it isn’t a private market when you have a government underwriting these debt instruments, so that the losses can be socialized.

          1. I’m not fan of underwriting the private school loans, which is why I support wholeheartedly the move under Clinton to just have the Dept. of Ed make the loans.

            I loved that time. The banks were bitching about how much of a burden these regulated loans to students were, and then when the Ed dept. said “ok we’ll just do it ourselves” they squeeled like pigs!

            1. Let’s count the errors in this post.

              The loan program phase out occurred under Obama, not under Clinton.

              The banks never bitched about “having” to make the loans. The banks were delighted to make them, because they didn’t have to care if they were ever paid. The Federal government was on the hook. The only bitching done about student loans in the last 25 years was done by the Congress – Congress was outraged that people would declare bankruptcy, to force the government to pay off their student loans for them [lenders got paid in all defaults; the only one who had to care was the government], and so they changed the law to exclude student loans from bankruptcy and force students to carry them forever, thus taking one large step back towards peonage.

              1. “exclude student loans from bankruptcy and force students to carry them forever, thus taking one large step back towards peonage”

                Ah, yes, the poor peons, fretting about their college loans so much that they couldn’t doze off during siesta.

              2. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/F…..an_Program

                One of the first bills Clinton signed, the direct student loan program.

                1. There were still non-federal student loans available circa 2003. I know because I built a website (now gone) for a financial services company that offered them.

            2. I’m not fan of underwriting the private school loans, which is why I support wholeheartedly the move under Clinton to just have the Dept. of Ed make the loans.

              And this doesn’t count as underwriting because it’s the taxpayers covering the defaults? Surely defaulting on loans from the government could never reach a point where they would be “too big to fail”.

              Right?

  28. What the fuck, exactly, is a RINO? I know what the acronym means, but I’ll be damned if I figure out what it is supposed to mean to be a RINO. It suggests there are some defining principles for which the GOP stands and I’ll be damned if I know what they are supposed to be.

    1. A Republican that is actually liberal instead of conservitive.

    2. A RINO is a Republican who sometimes breaks from the conservative wing of his party. Nothing infuriates a conservative Republican worse than this, even though they usually do this to remain politically viable in the district they are in. No matter though. Authoritarians hate dissent from the party line…And I guess this is an example of where conservatives allow principle (albeit authoritarian principle) to trump political strategy.

      1. “Authoritarians hate dissent from the party line…”

        People identified as RINOs usually are themselves authoritarians of one sort or another. McCain is very authoritarian. So are the two U.S. Senators from Maine. So is Congressman Uptun who wanted to ban the lightbulb.

        1. Each faction describes its opposition as authoritarian. It never applies the same label to itself; it cannot be authoritarian. It is moral. It is just. It is right.

          1. 0x90, do you believe that I am aurhoritarian? If so, why? If not, why not?

            1. I could not say. Which manifestations of authority do you advocate, and on what basis?

              1. None. I am a Rothbardian Anarcho-Capitalist.

                1. Yes, now I recall. Absent authority, what then of property, or of rights? What is your opinion as to the derivation and nature of these?

                  1. Absent authority? You assume there would be no authority? There would, it would simply not be coercive in nature.

                    In my view it is from nature. Or what Jefferson called “Nature’s God”. Every species of animal considers its own surroundings to be its “own”. My dog barks when another dog walks by this house. In humans this is the result of combining the materials of nature with one’s own effort. In Austrian Economics this is called “homesteading”. If, by force, I take what another has homesteaded without that person’s consent this is called theft. This includes a person’s own body as well but we usually use other terms such as “assault” or “murder” to refer to that. If I use another person’s property without that person’s consent that is called “trespass”; again this includes another persons body but once again we usually use other terms for that such as rape or kidnapping.

                    1. My answer to your question, then, would depend on how you would deal with such infractions. If they are to be self-regulated solely by means of the self-preservational drive apparent in humans (i.e. an inverse of the golden rule: do not unto others what you would not have done to you), then I fail to see how you could possibly be termed an authoritarian.

                      Put in terms of my original statement: though you conceive of a system of societal organization which you have likely chosen to consider moral, just, and right, just as the authoritarian does, it appears that, unlike the authoritarian, you do not seek to superimpose that conception on humankind in general by means of appeals to any coercive, outside authority.

                    2. “it appears that, unlike the authoritarian, you do not seek to superimpose that conception on humankind in general by means of appeals to any coercive, outside authority.”

                      Thank you.

          2. Except there is one faction – if it can be called that – that is fundamentally unauthoritarian and that’s the libertarians. As I have continually contended, there are those who believe in liberty and those who do not. In my book, those who do not can all be lumped together as the opposition. Of course, you always get the lame ass argument that libertarians are authoritarian because they want to force people to be free and want to deny people the right to enforce their values on others.

            I am personally a very liberal person. Has nothing whatsoever to do with my politics. Likewise, conservatives have every right to be conservative and to apply their conservative values to their own lives. I just wish the people who detest liberty – both on the left and the right – would have enough character to be honest about it. Don’t pretend that you believe in the principles on which the country was founded when you really don’t. Self ownership, live and let live, the non-aggression principle – how these could possible be construed as authoritarian in anyway completely escapes me.

            1. I agree. The point was basically that people hate to think of themselves as authoritarian, but when push comes to shove, they capitulate (usually the result of some form of fear), wishing to be, but never to be called by the name of, the thing which they have chosen to be.

              By my observation, the hard and ugly facts of the situation are generally pushed so far down the below consciousness as to become completely invisible to the practitioner. All that is allowed to remain at the surface are the noble placeholder sentiments.

    3. Anyone who doesn’t toe the party line.

      Ron Paul is often referred to as a RINO.

      1. Though I have never heard Paul called that, in his case it is probably true — he’s a libertarian who realizes that being a Libertarian candidate doesn’t get you very far.

        (Not sure exactlty how far he’s got, but at least he fairly consistantly stands for libertarian principles — broadly defined.)

      2. I have never heard Paul called that.

        1. Me neither. RINO usually means “a Republican who votes with the Democrats too often”: Specter, Snowe, Collins, Lincoln Chafee, etc.

      3. Ron Paul is often referred to as a RINO. an extremist.

  29. I watched Al Hunt “interviewing” the eunuch Napolitano, this morning.

    He did everything but get down on his knees and lick the soles of her shoes. One more candidate for Radley’s “Media Enablers of Authoritarianism” Hall of Fame.

  30. From the government accountability files:
    Subway Signal Inspections Found to Be Falsified

    Safety workers at New York City Transit falsified thousands of inspections of the track signals that direct trains in the subway system, deeming the signals safe even though those inspections had never taken place, according to an investigation by the inspector general of the Metropolitan Transportation Authority.

    The falsified reports have been a problem for years and may have stemmed from pressure from managers trying to meet in-house inspection quotas, according to officials with knowledge of the investigation. It is possible the investigation could lead to criminal charges*, said the officials, who asked to be anonymous because of the continuing inquiry.

    After learning of the problems, the transit agency this month reassigned the manager** in charge of overseeing signal maintenance, Tracy Bowdwin. [italics added]

    * It is also possible, and equally likely, that swine will develop flight capabilities.
    ** That’ll teach him for sure.

    1. Also from the same article (with a link):

      It is not the first time that safety workers in the subway have been found to have falsified such inspections. A nearly identical situation was revealed by the inspector general in 2000.

      1. Well, the solution is obvious: we need to take control of the subways away from greedy capitalists who don’t care about the public good, and unionize the workers so that they have an established level of professionalism and competence.

        Oh, wait…

  31. What the fuck, exactly, is a RINO?

    I think the Senate delegation from Maine might be a good place to look.

    I, personally, think those two women are just garden-variety imbeciles, because I despise Republicans and democrats equally.

    1. I would say RINO is a name for political concern troll. People like the moron twins from Maine spend their careers being concern trolls for the Republican Party. They go on the news shows and look concerned and explain how much better off Republicans would be if they would just embrace whatever the beltway establishment conventional wisdom is that day and stop listening to all of those crazy small government extremists.

      1. And the question for the GOP is: would you rather run Tea Party Republicans instead of two MOR Senators who will vote with you about half the time and end up in reality with two Democratic Senators? Can’t see Christine O’Donnell doing any better in Maine than she did in Delaware.

  32. If a TSA agent with some tiny vestige shred of human decency and self-respect refuses to participate in the gate rapist clown show, will Pistole have him arrested for treason?

    1. will Pistole have him arrested for treason?

      No, that bad boy will be Pistole whipped and fired.

    2. Oh God, I’d love to see that. That would put the stake in the heart of it.

      1. With that guy’s ego? He’d put a bullet between his eyes at his grimace performing a patdown, claiming dereliction of duty or some such nonsense.

  33. From Warty’s link:

    I don’t know how much longer I can withstand this taunting. I go home and I cry. I am serving my country, I should not have to go home and cry after a day of honorably serving my country.”

    Boo hoo.

    I suggest cutting.

    And lots and lots of Four Loko Drano.

    1. Nice. You’re worse than they are. Congratulations.

      1. I don’t think ridiculing an appeal to emotion is in any way worse than violating traveler’s constitutional right against unreasonable searches – especially when there are many security professionals actively testifying to the absolute inefficacy of the search procedures.

    2. IOW, her tears are yummy and sweet?

      … Hobbit

  34. For more fun:

    Analysis of a coal plant based on jobs created vs energy company investment.

    http://thegreenmiles.blogspot……plant.html

    1. we could pay 75 Wise County residents $100,000 per year and give the county $6 million a year for the next 133 years with the $1.8 billion it will take to build the plant. And in that scenario, we wouldn’t have to deal with the 5.4 million tons of carbon dioxide, thousands of tons of other air pollutants & dozens of pounds of mercury the plant will release.

      And as a bonus, sit in the fucking dark freezing your asses off with useless electric cars in your driveway because you don’t have any fucking power. WIN!!!!!

      1. But who needs power or consumer goods when you have money. And of course that giant coal plant would only benefit Wise County. Wow people are stupid.

        1. While it doesn’t do anything towards making me condone it, it sure lends some understanding as to why reactionary right wingers in South America used to just take leftoids for one way helicopter rides over the ocean.

    2. Of course don’t even speak to them about the idea of a nuclear plant. The don’t want nuclear plants. They don’t want coal plants. They don’t want any kind of power plants other than those varieties of power plants that do not actually produce significant amounts of power.

      1. It has been over 40 years sinceI read Future Shock, but I seem to remember the theme being that people would become alienated from society and the complexity of technology they don’t understand. I think some people are actually exhibiting irrational certainties about technologies they are totally ignorant about. I talk to many people who are convinced that; genetically engineered food is BAD; nuclear energy is BAD; climate change caused by BAD people.

        They have no idea that food has been genetically engineered since the dawn of agriculture; the SUN is nuclear energy; climate change has been a fact throughout the history of man, and we’ve survived it quite nicely. Mainly thanks to a hardier breed of people.

        Sorry to vent.

        1. “food has been genetically engineered since the dawn of agriculture”

          Man has not twiddled the bits of life before in such a precipitous way. Phosphorescent cats can’t be produced by selective breeding.

          “the SUN is nuclear energy”

          Fission, not fusion and the sun doesn’t have potential containment problems that could wreck an area of land for generations.

          “climate change has been a fact throughout the history of man”

          Never before has the world been brought to the brink of a climatic race condition. Rapid climate change is deadly climate change.

          1. “Never before has the world been brought to the brink of a climatic race condition.”

            You make this statement as though we are supposed to just accept it without question. What actual evidence do you have for this claim?

            For the sake of clarity what I am questioning is that we are now on “the brink of a climatic race condition”.

          2. Do you even understand what a race condition is? Clearly not, considering what you just wrote. Why is H&R infested with fucking morons on this fine Saturday morning?

            1. Maybe he works in Hollywood. People who work in Hollywood, especially if they produce Science Fiction movies do not need to understand science to make claims about it.

              Here is what tech-faq.com says:

              “A race condition occurs when multiple processes access and manipulate the same data concurrently, and the outcome of the execution depends on the particular order in which the access takes place.”
              http://www.tech-faq.com/race-condition.html

              1. Dude, there are a lot of morons here today. Did we get linked by someone big?

              2. That is an IS-centric definition, PIRS. Clearly, the climate is not a computer.

                1. “That is an IS-centric definition, PIRS. Clearly, the climate is not a computer.”

                  OK past, as you are not using the only recognized definition I could find in a glossary of any sort (yes, I googled it) what is the definition that you are using?

                  1. race condition – state of a system which is not at equilibrium and is rapidly evolving toward an uncertain final stable state. In the case of climate change, that path to the final state will be catastrophic since civilizations cannot adjust to very rapid climatic variations. That is way we must act now.

                    1. Wow, we have the stupidest fucking trolls on the planet today.

                      Basically, you’ve taken a computer science definition and turned it into something that works perfectly for your alarmist argument, with no validity or relation.

                      Congratulations, you have proven your idiocy to the world.

                    2. Computer science is not the only field of study in the world. Any attempt to find definitions on the web is highly prejudiced toward computer science definitions. I’m sure you can figure out why.

                      In computer science, the phrase was adopted because it fit with the intuitive notion of multiple processes competing with one another. In climate science, the phrase is used because it suggests rapid change, the climate, viewed as a system, is “racing” out of control. This is how scientific and engineering jargon is developed. There is nothing unusual about it.

                    3. “Any attempt to find definitions on the web is highly prejudiced toward computer science definitions.”

                      The world wide web is now massive enough that it should be possible to find a reference that is not related to the field of computers. I could not. I think you pulled this one out of your buttocks.

                    4. HAHAHAHAHAHAHA

                      It’s an execution order issue, you fucking ape. The fact that you are so fucking stupid that you think that because it’s a “race” condition, that it is “racing out of control”, shows that you neither understand the actual concept nor are intelligent enough to even attempt to apply it to another science.

                      Please, describe ACID compliance to me. I’d guess that you’ll describe it as leaking batteries destroying the world. My god, your stupidity is like cocaine to me. Please continue.

                    5. Episarch, it is hilarious when people pretend to be much more intelligent than they actually are.

                    6. Dude, when he said “racing out of control”, I almost shot Rockstar out of my mouth. I couldn’t; nay, wouldn’t have written something so stupid even if parodying someone like him/her, because I’d have thought it was going too far.

                    7. Best sub-thread ever.

                    8. It’s an execution order issue

                      It is in computer science. You should read my posts more carefully. “race condition” is used in a different sense when discussing climate change.

                      Why should I describe ACID compliance to you? What do databases have to do with the processes of climate change? You sound like an academic, always trying to talk about what you know instead of the subject at hand.

                    9. So in other words, you’ve taken a CS definition, and completely made up a climate definition for it. And we are supposed to take you seriously?

                      HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

                      The “Global Grilling” episode of Aqua Teen Hunger Force is more credible than you.

                      “Here’s whats different about this my friends, it uses actual pieces of the sun, combined with some radioactive vials from Chernobyl, and I know this is interesting also to the ladies out there, it uses heat to cook burgers, steak, chicken, no problem. And best of all, its not even supposed to be inside this country!”

                    10. So in other words, you’ve taken a CS definition, and completely made up a climate definition for it

                      On the contrary, it is you who is trying to apply a computer science term out of context and then attempting to ridicule me for your misrepresentation. I admit the fact that you can quote Aqua Teen Hunger Force does intimidate me intellectually, but it doesn’t really advance the debate.

                      The same word can have different meanings in different contexts. For instance, the word “troll” has a very different meaning in the context of fishing than it does in the context of fairy tales. That doesn’t make its use in either context illegitimate.

                    11. So in other words, things mean what you say they mean, not what they actually mean.

                      Could you at least attempt to be credible?

                    12. So in other words, things mean what you say they mean, not what they actually mean.

                      Episiarch, you flatter me by suggesting that I am the first to use the phrase “race condition” in the context of climate change. Why do you continue to insist that CS has a monopoly on the use of the term? Can I not call a creepy, crawly thing a bug? If I fall ill, can I not say that I have contracted a virus? If I compete in track and field, can I not tell people that I throw a hard disk for fun? Must spiders rename the silken structures that they spin?

                    13. Some creepy crawly things are arachnids, not bugs, moron. If you fall ill, it may be for a variety of reason, including bacteria, auto-immune issues, etc., and not a virus.

                      So…no. You cannot just say things are something with no evidence to back it up. But geniuses like you will try, and you will get called out for it.

                    14. “Some creepy crawly things are arachnids, not bugs”

                      “bug” has a generic meaning as well as a particular technical meaning. The generic meaning encompasses arachnids. In any case, you are sidestepping my point that words and phrases can be used in different contexts.

                    15. “The same word can have different meanings in different contexts. For instance, the word “troll” has a very different meaning in the context of fishing than it does in the context of fairy tales.”

                      A quick google search, or dictionary search could find both definitions. I could find your “definition” nowhere.

                    16. A quick google search, or dictionary search could find both definitions. I could find your “definition” nowhere.

                      So, because a definition doesn’t exist on the internet, it doesn’t exist? What will happen if there is a permanent power outage? How will you live?

                      Language evolves rapidly. People invent new words and new usages to cope with new concepts or to clarify ideas. Just because the OED hasn’t updated their database doesn’t mean a new word or usage doesn’t exist.

                    17. “So, because a definition doesn’t exist on the internet, it doesn’t exist? What will happen if there is a permanent power outage? How will you live?”

                      I happen to be a librarian. I know how to search. Can you tell me the citation for your definition or did you pull it out of your buttocks?

                    18. “Can you tell me the citation for your definition ”

                      What a narrow, static world you live in where nothing is new, nothing is created.

                    19. “What a narrow, static world you live in where nothing is new, nothing is created.”

                      So can I take this as an admission that you invented it yourself?

                      I do not live in such a world. But words mean things. Language can and does evolve but what you have done is misapply an existing term in a way that only makes you look foolish.

                    20. “what you have done is misapply an existing term in a way that only makes you look foolish”

                      I am adapting language and you are unable to follow me. Why is that a negative reflection on me? Doesn’t it speak more to your limitations?

                    21. “I am adapting language and you are unable to follow me. Why is that a negative reflection on me? Doesn’t it speak more to your limitations?”

                      Oh, I AM able to follow you but your use of the term is absurd. No, it is a reflection on you.

                    22. By the way, you still have not provided any actual evidence of your claim.

                    23. “I don’t know what you mean by ‘glory,’ ” Alice said.

                      Humpty Dumpty smiled contemptuously. “Of course you don’t?till I tell you. I meant ‘there’s a nice knock-down argument for you!’ ”

                      “But ‘glory’ doesn’t mean ‘a nice knock-down argument’,” Alice objected.

                      “When I use a word,” Humpty Dumpty said, in a rather a scornful tone, “it means just what I choose it to mean?neither more nor less.”

                      “The question is,” said Alice, “whether you can make words mean so many different things.”

                      “The question is,” said Humpty Dumpty, “which is to be master that’s all.”

                    24. “You sound like an academic, always trying to talk about what you know instead of the subject at hand.”

                      So, tell us what is it that YOU know? You still have yet to present any actual evidence to back up your claims? But I guess that does not matter because religion does not require any evidence.

                    25. Past,

                      What you are arguing is Pascal’s wager. The difference of course is that instead of mere belief you are also demanding restrictions on our freedoms and our economy. Your arguments fall more into the realm of religion than science. Call me a heretic. I do not want to ruin our economy or restrict anyone’s liberty for the sake of your goddess Gaia.

                    26. I do not want to ruin our economy or restrict anyone’s liberty for the sake of your goddess Gaia.

                      It is interesting that you bring up religion at the very moment when you suggest that sensible attention to the problem of climate change will, without a doubt and in a completely deterministic way, “ruin our economy”, as if the only choices are a blind allegiance to the free market or economic peril.

                    27. The free market does not need anyone’s “allegiance” in order to work. It merely needs to be left alone.

                      The free market is what happens when people are free. If the free market leads to solar pannels, fine, no problem. If not, they should not be forced on us.
                      http://mises.org/daily/4673

                    28. The free market does not need anyone’s “allegiance” in order to work.

                      I think I can clear up the misunderstanding. When I wrote “blind allegiance to the free market”, I should have written “blind allegiance to the promotion of free market policies”. My mistake.

                    29. Past,

                      Before we go further in this part of the debate I have a question. Do you understand what the free market actually “is”. If not, we will be talking in circles and getting nowhere.

                    30. Sorry, I had to respond to Mr. Aqua Teen Hunger Force above.

                      All this typing is making me hungry. I’m going to have to break for a snack and to fix a flat tire.

                    31. free market – economic environment in which all participants are unrestricted as to the economic choices that they make.

                      Close enough?

                    32. “free market – economic environment in which all participants are unrestricted as to the economic choices that they make.”

                      Good. Now just to clear up a common misunderstanding socialism can exist within this context as long as it is VOLUNTARY socialism. Most households act in a “socialist” manner without government force. No one cares who bought the milk, all household members can drink it. Why do I say government imposed environmental regulations would ruin the economy? It would create imbalance by creating an artificial demand. Whenever an outside force imposes a demand or restricts a product this creates unintended consequences: consequences that the supporters did not predict. SEE ALSO: WAR ON DRUGS.

                    33. “Why do I say government imposed environmental regulations would ruin the economy? It would create imbalance by creating an artificial demand.”

                      The US economy already has regulations, environmental and otherwise, imposed on it and has had for a long time. Was the US economy “ruined” 50 years ago? Was it “ruined” 25 years ago? Is it “ruined” now? If you answered yes to the last 3 questions, then you must maintain an idealized notion of a free market that has never existed.

                    34. “The US economy already has regulations, environmental and otherwise, imposed on it and has had for a long time. Was the US economy “ruined” 50 years ago? Was it “ruined” 25 years ago? Is it “ruined” now?”

                      The economic system in the United States has become progressively less free. Our economic system really started to go downhill when the Federal Reserve was created in 1913 with the enactment of the Federal Reserve Act,

                    35. “The economic system in the United States has become progressively less free.”

                      Ok. Now we are getting somewhere. Your objection is to the tainting of your treasured free economy. Really, you are just making a values based argument. The free economy trumps all other concerns, even the destruction of the environment.

                      “Our economic system really started to go downhill when the Federal Reserve was created in 1913”

                      Oh, really? I was under the impression that the American standard of living has dramatically improved since 1913. Things must be much worse than I perceive them to be.

                    36. “Really, you are just making a values based argument.”

                      Unlike you, I have no desire to impose my values upon you. If you want to buy a mercury infused light bulb have at it. My objection is you want to restrict my light bulb choices.

                      “The free economy trumps all other concerns, even the destruction of the environment.”

                      Let us suppose I were debating a religious fanatic on the subject of pornography I might here a line something like this “The free economy trumps all other concerns, even the destruction of moral values.” How would you respond to such a person?

                      “Oh, really? I was under the impression that the American standard of living has dramatically improved since 1913. Things must be much worse than I perceive them to be.”

                      The improvements you are seeing are the results of technology. Sometimes the technology is even allowing people to escape the restrictions of government imposed regulations. For example, it has allowed people in places that restrict pornography to view it on their computers. It has enabled people in places like China and Iran to be exposed to new ideas. It has allowed national barriers to become less important.

                    37. “Unlike you, I have no desire to impose my values upon you.”

                      By insisting that government take no action, you are trying to impose your values on me. If I want the government to prevent the manufacturing plant a couple of miles away from me from dumping lead into my water supply and you stop the government from preventing it, then you are devaluing my property and putting my health at risk in order to satisfy your desire for a society free of all government regulations.

                    38. These things constitute trespass. There was a period of time in American law when, for example, a farmer could demand compensation for harm caused by the pollution of trains. It is this concept that I advocate a return to.

                    39. “It is this concept that I advocate a return to.”

                      And if I don’t agree, then you are advocating imposing your desires, based on your values, on me. My point is still proven.

                    40. “And if I don’t agree, then you are advocating imposing your desires, based on your values, on me. My point is still proven.”

                      Do you understand the concepts of harm and compensation for harm? This is the difference.

                    41. There was a period of time in American law when, for example, a farmer could demand compensation for harm caused by the pollution of trains. It is this concept that I advocate a return to.

                      Then why am I the only libertarian arguing for this on all those AGW threads

                    42. “Then why am I the only libertarian arguing for this on all those AGW threads”

                      I don’t know. I would have to see the context in which you were arguing for it. AGW itself I do not believe in. But I do support this concept for ACTUAL harm done by ACTUAL pollution. Carbon dioxide is NOT polution.

                    43. Obviously it’s conditional on whether AGW is actually harmful or not.

                    44. By insisting that government take no action, you are trying to impose your values on me.

                      More likely, he is only protesting the fact that you are unwilling to allow him to exist without participating materially in the operations of your government; some of with which he strongly disagrees, on personal moral grounds which are, by definition, every bit as valid as those upon which your own judgment stands.

                      This being the case, i.e. that nobody likes to be forced into funding the moral crusades of someone else, a very middle-ground solution might be: the adoption of an itemized invoice style of taxation. If PIRS doesn’t like the idea of regulation, then he doesn’t fund it. If you think NASA serves a valuable function, then you fund it.

                      Even assuming that taxes remain compulsory, the concept has worth. An individual might still be assigned a certain minimum tax liability, but be empowered to personally direct how the monies surrendered are allowed to be employed. It would not take a large number of funding categories for this idea to make fundamental improvements in both the direction and efficacy of government.

                      Either way, the point is to establish a more effective feedback loop, in contrast to the meaningless vote, with respect to the motivation lawmakers have for practicing what the people really consider to be good governance.

                      Could you support such an idea? If not, why? Are you afraid that your ideas aren’t really as universally-supported as you portray?

                      And after answering that, you might entertain again the question: who is imposing their values upon whom?

                    45. a very middle-ground solution might be: the adoption of an itemized invoice style of taxation

                      I’m pretty sure I never want to see an itemized list of all the things that my taxes are spent on. My heart is not that strong.

                    46. Yeah, and proposing an alternate system of taxation was not the point of the post. Let’s see if past due pastry is willing to identify what it was.

                    47. “More likely, he is only protesting the fact that you are unwilling to allow him to exist without participating materially in the operations of your government”

                      Precisely

                    48. PIRS, you said you are a librarian and you seem to take a great interest in pornography and its dissemination. Just what is it that you do at work?

                    49. “PIRS, you said you are a librarian and you seem to take a great interest in pornography and its dissemination. Just what is it that you do at work?”

                      LOL, I am only using it as an example of something you probably do not want to prohibit but some people do.

                    50. “I am only using it as an example”

                      I’m glad to hear that since most libraries are funded with tax dollars and I wouldn’t want you stroking on my dime unless you were my galley slave.

                    51. “I’m glad to hear that since most libraries are funded with tax dollars and I wouldn’t want you stroking on my dime unless you were my galley slave.”

                      Actually I am a librarian in a private college.

                    52. So this guy is arguing that my asking him not to oppress me is an unfair imposition on him? Fucking retarded statist.

            2. race condition – a phrase that sends climate change deniers into a frenzy

              1. Race condition – a phrase that morons who use it for climate don’t understand, thereby exposing how fucking stupid they are from the get go.

                1. Race condition – something that will get my ass kicked if it shows up in a design review.

                  1. Ragin,

                    Is that because someone who reads it and is not familiar with the actual definition might assume you were being racist?

                    1. Or are you the person being reviewed?

                    2. A race condition is something that is bad to have in a circuit design. Poor timing and all that. However, if there are those inclined to be racially-sensitive about such terminology, then the whole “master-slave” thing would probably get them first.

              2. Um, why would a computer science term send climate change deniers into a frenzy?

            3. Why is H&R infested with fucking morons

              It should be different than any other blog?

          3. I agree with you on the first two points but the third is totally bullshit: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v…..re=related

          4. “the SUN is nuclear energy”

            Fission, not fusion and the sun doesn’t have potential containment problems that could wreck an area of land for generations.

            On the contrary – the sun opperates by means of nuclear fusion, not fission. Hydrogen atoms or nuclei are fused together to become helium. We’ve not yet been able to harness the process, although if we could, it would be much cleaner than the fission reactors we currently use. I would have thought all this would be generally known.

          5. “food has been genetically engineered since the dawn of agriculture”

            Man has not twiddled the bits of life before in such a precipitous way. Phosphorescent cats can’t be produced by selective breeding.

            Man has twiddled with the bits of life in exactly such a precipitous way since the dawn of agriculture. Now he has finer control over the process.

            “the SUN is nuclear energy”

            Fission, not fusion and the sun doesn’t have potential containment problems that could wreck an area of land for generations.

            The sun doesn’t have containment issues? It can’t wreck an area of land? You do know we’re talking about that huge fusioning ball of gas in the sky, right?

            “climate change has been a fact throughout the history of man”

            Never before has the world been brought to the brink of a climatic race condition. Rapid climate change is deadly climate change.

            We don’t know we’re on the ‘brink’ of anything. And humanity has survived both rapid and slow climate change already.

      2. They don’t want any kind of power plants other than those varieties of power plants that do not actually produce significant amounts of power.

        Exactly. Because their agenda isn’t saving the planet. Their agenda is remaking society. Getting rid of the energy supplies is an easy way to force us all to “radically change our lifestyles”, and climate change is a convient lie* to get us to go along with it.

        *Not that AGW might not be real, but that reducing our energy consumption is the ONLY solution. (As opposed to building a bunch of nuclear plants).

  35. Sad Panda is sad.

  36. Democrat, Repbulican, DINO, RINO, I don’t care–this country needs a leader who can get things done, who can revive our middle class by making things in America again at middle class wages, and who can win the green energy race.

    If we fail to do this, we will see our middle class die within 10 years and our prominince in the world will be replaced by countries that still make things like Japan, China, India, and Germany.

    1. OK, but just so you know, China and India will not be winning any “green energy races”.

      1. I graded the overall troll as an “F” with the “+” as extra-credit for “win the green energy race.”

    2. Yes, because “making things” is so relevant now! Wait, this isn’t 1970? What is this crazy thing we’re communicating on?!?

      1. Making things is the difference between prosperity and Detroit.

        You can’t have an economy based on cutting hair, flipping burgers, and changing bedpans.

        And where manufacturing goes, R&D follows. Its already being outsourced to China, just like our manufacturing jobs were 20 years ago.

        Why do you think the financial sector grew to an unsustainable size in relation to our economy? To mask our manufacturing decline. The last 30 years have been based on smoke-and-mirrors, and the chickens are coming home to roost–declining wages and structural unemployment while China gets rich.

        1. You “we must manufacture shit” morons endlessly amuse me. Get your head out of your 50’s ass and realize we live in a completely different world.

          Wait, are you union scum? Because that would explain everything.

          1. Don’t you think the fact that we have 10.2% (closer to 20%+ using real figures) unemployment has something to do with our loss of manufacturing?

            Or that real wages have been stagnant since 1973?

            Or that after inflation median income FELL for the first time in the 2000s? The first time in American history that’s happened?

            Or our over-reliance on the financial sector? People can’t make money making things anymore, so they have to use their houses as ATMs and its all based on smoke and mirrors and ends in tears.

            http://www.spiegel.de/internat…..47,00.html

            Some education reading for you.

            1. Does Google manufacture anything? Does Microsoft?

              You are a fucking union stooge, aren’t you. And by the way, moronic articles by Der Spiegel jizzing about “the decline of the American dream” are about as credible as…you. Which is to say, not at all.

              Fuck off.

              1. All you have to offer is vitriolic profanity. Why don’t you actually read the article?

                No, I’m not in a union and I could care less about uinions. Non-unionized states aren’t going to end off any better. All those automobile plants in Alabama will go to Mexico and then China, too.

                Giant sucking sound, indeed. Where are you when we need you, Ross?

                1. Fuck you, jerkoff. I’ll be as profane as I want to be.

                  I’m still waiting for you to answer my question: does Google manufacture anything? Does Microsoft? Does American Express? Does Amazon? Please explain to me how the jobs and money generated by these companies are somehow not valid because they don’t manufacture anything.

                  1. How many jobs does Microsoft generate today vs. General Motors in 1965? A whole hell of a lot less.

                    1. Are you fucking retarded? Have you ever seen the Redmond campus? Do you have any conception of how many people Microsoft employs?

                      You are a one fucking entertaining moron, I’ll give you that.

                    2. 20% real unemployment. 20%

                      Stagnant wages, declining median income.

                      That is the facts,and what this neolib “post-industrial” free trade economy has gotten us.

              2. All those white collar jobs in Microsoft and Google are the next to go.

                R&D follows manufacturing. GM and Ford, for example, are already moving their R&D to China as we speak.

                1. HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

                  You are a fucking moron. Microsoft fucking recruits foreigners to come to Seattle (Redmond, really) and pays them a shit ton of money. It’s the exact opposite of what you describe. Do you actually know anything about what you spew, or did you just learn it from daddy?

                  1. Why can’t they recruit American students?

                    Because our schools are failing, that’s why. Soon we’re going to run out of money and Mircosoft will relocate to Shanghai.

                    R&D follows manufacturing. That’s just a fact.

                    1. Really? It’s a fact? Because you say so, right? OK, my turn: you are a retard. Full retard. And that’s just a fact.

                      Why do they have to recruit Americans? What’s wrong with foreigners coming here and making a life?

                      Oh…I get it. You’re a racist. Now it all makes sense.

                  2. Why can’t they recruit American students?

                    Because our schools are failing, that’s why. Soon we’re going to run out of money and Mircosoft will relocate to Shanghai.

                    R&D follows manufacturing. That’s just a fact.

                  3. Maybe the first article I sent you was too long for your attention span.

                    Look at this one:

                    http://www.inthesetimes.com/ar…..nd-switch/

                    That will address your “but google and microsoft!” stuff.

                    1. HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

                      Every link you post is pure comedy. Thank you.

                    2. Aaaaand you didn’t read it, I see.

                      Your switching between laughing and cursing is beginning to make me think that the truth makes you uncomfortable.

                    3. I read it, moron. And I LOL’d at it. Again, it’s clear you don’t understand how stupid the links you post make you look. That’s fine with me; it just increases my amusement. But your constant references to “truth” and “facts” are what really put the icing on the cake.

                      You do understand that you saying something is a fact doesn’t make it so, right? You get that, little buddy? You can grasp that concept, big guy?

                    4. Wow, you really took that link down! (sarcasm)

                      Do you dispute anything either of my links said? Do you dispute we have 20% unemployment, that we’re up to our necks in credit card debit, that we have massive trade deficits, rotting inner cities, full prisons, and failing schools?

                      Or are you just going to curse and laugh some more?

                    5. And why do we have full prisons, genius? Maybe the drug war has something to do with that?

                      We have 10% unemployment…because we’re in a fucking recession, and the government won’t allow the market failures to happen that need to happen. They insist on propping up house prices. Just saying 20% unemployment and not supporting it shows that…you are a fucking dipshit, as I’ve already pointed out.

                      Failing schools? Rotting inner cities? Jesus fucking tapdancing Christ, you’re just a fucking moronic conservative asshole, aren’t you. Everything was better 50 years ago! The world’s gone to hell! Get off my lawn!

                    6. Why have real wages not rising since the 1970s EVEN DURING the so-called “booms”?

                      The only brief exception to this was 1995-2001, but that was mostly because people were working more jobs and longer hours and was based on a smoke-and-mirrors dot com asset bubbles.

                      China is getting wealthy on making real, tangible goods. The US is trying to hide its decline behind Wall St./Federal Reserve asset bubbles.

                    7. Try this on for size:
                      Real wages havn’t been rising because the world is finite, and when your rising wages are dependent on increasing exports to a finite world, there’s only so far those exports can increase.

                      We’ve hit an inevitable plateau. The rest of thye world is coming up to our living standards and is beginning to make things for themselves.

                      Do we respond to that by (A) going to our room, locking the door and pouting, or (B) acccepting that Americans aren’t morally entitled to earn more money than people in other countries?

                    8. http://www.alternet.org/econom…..lass_–_it‘s_not_far_away_as_you_might_think

                      Try to respond to that link in a mature, adult manner rather than flinging about profanity and personal insults or talking about “LOL”ing.

                    9. Alternet?!? HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

                      You have gone beyond parody. Whoever is trolling me, I salute you. And if you’re real…you are a fucking protectionist scumbag who deserves to lose your shitty job to someone who can do it better.

            2. good call Kenneth….smoke and mirrors is about what America has been about for decades now…not just in manufacturing but in everything….the foundation of this country was rebuilt with smoke and mirrors some time back….when this leeches into every facet of a nation it is over

              1. Smoke and mirrors, and, like, the Illuminati and stuff.

      2. Making things is the difference between prosperity and Detroit.

        You can’t have an economy based on cutting hair, flipping burgers, and changing bedpans.

        And where manufacturing goes, R&D follows. Its already being outsourced to China, just like our manufacturing jobs were 20 years ago.

        Why do you think the financial sector grew to an unsustainable size in relation to our economy? To mask our manufacturing decline. The last 30 years have been based on smoke-and-mirrors, and the chickens are coming home to roost–declining wages and structural unemployment while China gets rich.

        1. Kenneth, if I’ve learned anything form THX1138, and I haven’t, it’s that the future is very clean and there are many white walls, and we don’t have to get dirty making things at all. What kind of future do you want to live in?

      3. I cannot respond. I make nothing. I push papers. I find that when it is just one sheet, it is hard to push. So I try to stack them.

      4. For every ONE Apple job in the USA, there are TEN in China!

        1. They have harder working hookers there I guess. Or maybe apple jobs are more expensive here. I’m married so obviously my wife gives me apple jobs for “free”, so I don’t know the market on the street.

        2. DER TERK ER JERBS!

          1. RRRRRR TTTKKKKK RRRRRRRR JJJJJJBBBBZZZZ!!!111!!!11!!!1

          2. RRRR TTTKKK RRRR JJJJJB BBZZZ!!!!1!!

        3. Because Chinese workers get paid 1/10th of what Americans do, and do lots of shitty unskilled labor.

          Why is it that people think the guy who hovers over a stop button on a robotic assembly line deserves $70,000 a year for that?
          Our manufacturing is so automatied that it’s practically idiot proof. And people still think they should get paid like it’s skilled labor.

    3. Let me speak specifically about a credential that I do bring to this table, Charlie, and that’s with the energy independence that I’ve been working on for these years as the governor of this state that produces nearly 20 percent of the U.S. domestic supply of energy.

    4. Did you think all of that up yourself?

      1. Well since he linked to alternet, I’m thinking no.

        1. If he linked to alternet, it wasn’t in the original comment.

          1. He did later.

    5. Kenneth, the value of US manufactured goods in constant dollars nearly tripled from 1970 to 2008.

      There is not now and never has been a manufacturing crisis in this country.

      Manufacturing employment has declined, but that’s not the same thing. We don’t employ as many people in agriculture now as we did a century ago, but nobody goes around saying that we have a crisis of production in agriculture.

      1. “Value of manufactured goods”? What about TOTAL MANUFACTURING OUTPUT?

        What about manufacturing output as a percentage of total capacity?

        Japan and Germany both make more than us with only a fraction of our population. That’s why they don’t have cities that look like Detroit, Flint, or Newark.

        1. have you been to East Germany?

          1. I don’t think saying “hey, Detroit, Newark, Flint, Youngstown etc. are about in the same condition as a formerly Communist area!” is supposed to make us feel better.

            1. Right, and the former communist states were very big on factory work.

              Have you seen what soviet propaganda used to look like? It was all about muscular men wielding hammers and wrenches.

              Socialists love manufacturing jobs. They love standardization and unions and uniformity. It’s easier for the state to manage. And they love talk of protecting “infant industries” and export driven growth in the manufacturing sector.

              But In the end state subsidization of the manufacturing sector doesn’t get you anything.

              If the economy has shed manufacturing jobs and output has been ofshored, maybe that’s because there are better things for Americans to be doing than working a factory line.

              Maybe the job for the next century isn’t about wielding a hammer, or a large machine tool, but using a keyboard.

              1. Maybe the job for the next century isn’t about wielding a hammer, or a large machine tool, but using a keyboard.

                Er, as someone who’s earned their living with a keyboard for quite a few years, allow me to point out those jobs are getting off-shored as well.

                Now what, genius? Are we supposed to earn our livings selling each other esoteric financial instruments, or what?

                1. I’m sorry you have to compete with people in other countries who are just as smart and capable as you are.

                  What a shame.

                  1. Hey, I’m not worrying about my job (they still need a few people around to clean up the mess made by those people in other countries who are just as smart and capable as I am).

                    But you don’t get my job fresh out of college. If the lower skilled jobs hadn’t been available to allow me to acquire the skills I have for my current job, I’d be in the same position as some of my less fortunate colleagues.

                    I notice you’re unable to address the point: where are those “better things for Americans to be doing than working a factory line” coming from? Without the lower level jobs needed to acquire the skills needed to move to the higher level jobs, where is that expertise going to be developed?

                    Not in a country that exports all of it’s lower level jobs overseas.

                    1. A manufacturing job is a prerequisite to what exactly?

                    2. A manufacturing job is a prerequisite to what exactly?

                    3. Yes, those machine tool skills definitely help you become a computer scientist.

                2. BOO-fucking-HOOOOOOOO

                  Mommy, those mean kids from across the street are selling more lemonade than me, make ’em stop!

      2. I’ll also add that weapons manufacturing doesn’t count. It adds nothing of value, ask the Russians how only making weapons works out in the end!

        1. This is rubbish! Speak to the curs who have fallen before my sword!

        2. But Kenneth, if we just nuke the rest of the world our percentage of global manufacturing output would skyrocket!

        3. Kenneth, the global economy is a board game, and America is losing. We must be number one in the categories all those cool kids are talking about. If America isn’t number 1, we’ll be number 2, or worse. Think of the children!

    6. Did someone say something about an idiot infestation? The spokesidiot has arrived.

    7. Our prominence! Our precious prominence is at stake!!

      1. It’s precious to some of us, jackass. If it isn’t to you, that’s your problem.

  37. Not sure why you’d want someone that would rather be in Washington governing, but OK. Murkowski had the same take, that Palin didn’t even enjoy governing or whatever. I see that as a positive.

    I need to look back and see how much work went into explaining how much of an idiot John Kerry was, or how sad it is to see a president reading everything off a screen. But knocking Palin as some sort of dimwit just comes so easily, everyone probably agrees around you and the laughs come easy and everyone feels like they belong. Great incisive stuff.

    Nobody dislikes cocktails, by the way, they dislike the need to fit in that it symbolizes. But whatever.

  38. Palin specifically said she DOESN’T WANT TO BE STUCK IN AN OFFICE. Isn’t that pretty much the job description for President?

    1. If she DOES run for President I can assure you that quote will find its way into a commecial by the opposition.

    2. And do you actually believe one word that a politician says? Because if you do, you are a fucking idiot.

    3. “STUCK IN AN OFFICE. Isn’t that pretty much the job description for President?”

      Go find Obama (if you can) and ask him.

    4. Obama has not exactly been stuck in the office so far. Martha’s Vineyard, Spain, the opera in NYC, etc. He seems to have gotten out of the office quite regularly.

      1. Yes I know politicians lie but I find it hard to believe even Palin is stupid enough to make a comment like that and then run for a political office a year later.

        1. Reagan worked nine to five four days a week. He seemed to do allright. It is collectivist geniuses who are trying to reorder the entire society who have to work hard. And I think we have had enough of them.

  39. Palin only gets to be the voice of the Tea Party and of the GOP in exile if she steps up and acknowledges that the Tea Party exists as a reaction to the missteps of the Bush administration, and if she renounces the Bush legacy and pledges that a Palin administration will not recycle any Bush administration personnel.

    I’ll cut her slack once she does that. Until she does that, she’s just a lying opportunist whore.

    1. Fluffy,

      I will give you credit. If she did such a thing, you should give her credit. But you are about the on here who would have enough integrity to do so. You are certainly ahead of the entire Reason staff

    2. Of course nothing short of getting the US out of North America now and forever will satisfy you. But at least you are consistent.

      1. Am I the only one here who really has no fucking idea what clever thing John thinks he’s saying when he uses the “US out of North America” line?

        1. Ey tuk rrrr jerbs??

        2. I personally love that line. I saw it on a bumper sticker once and it made my day.

    3. There’s is no chance of her doing that, and even if she did, it would only be because she found it to be opportunistic at the time.

      Palin is not a libertarian. She is a populist Republican. When and if disliking Bush becomes a popular Republican position, she might say such a thing, but then she’ll still be a lying opportunistic whore.

      1. She is a whore? You mean she fucks for money? And how do you know she is lying? Have you ever met the women? What specifically has she ever said that offends you so much? Or do you just say this shit because it is an easy way for stupid people to feel smart?

        1. Palin has attempted to position herself as a key spokesperson / weathergirl for the Tea Party.

          She has done this without ever really biting the bullet and explicitly acknowledging that the reason the Tea Party exists is because Bush was a no good rat bastard.

          She’s using her celebrity to get credit for integrity that she hasn’t demonstrated.

          She’s perfectly entitled to be a Republican first. That’s fine. What’s she’s not entitled to do is pretend she’s a daring outsider, without actually paying the price to be one. It’s pretty clear that she’s trying to “triangulate” things so she can maneuver herself to do a three-way with the Tea Party on one end of her and the neocons on the other. And yeah, that makes her a whore in my book. As soon as she picks ONE, that won’t be the case any more.

          1. As soon as she picks ONE, that won’t be the case any more.

            One is only not a whore when one surrenders one’s identity to a group. Got it.

            1. Not a group, a set of ideas.

          2. Or maybe she realizes that half of the Tea Party has no problem with neocons and she’s just trying to play them all for the maximum amount of airtime.

  40. the more articles and publicity Palin gets….the more interest she garners from the American Public…come on people we got stupid ass shows like American Idol, and all these get ‘instant’ fame shows…millions of American people watch and worship this crap ….don’t be surprised if the American public turns the next presidential election into a bad episode of American Idol….and Palin winds up getting a slew of votes in her favor

    Palin is the right age, is fairly attractive, she is slowly winning over the American public….the real concern should be on her ‘crew’/staff who are most likely ‘working’ on the HOR and /electoral voters …..The HOR and electoral votes is where the presidency is really won

    1. This. I think she is going to walk to the Republican nomination. None of the lsoers in the party are going to stop her. People like Charen don’t like her because Palin’s entire existence shows how little the opinion of people like Charen means to anyone.

  41. So, assuming Palin’s handlers could actually get her through a primary victoriously, I think it will simply boil down to star power. Obama will clearly have Hollywood on his side, but Palin will have Dancing with the Stars and American Idol. Obama is clearly the most brilliant man on the planet (I doubt I could even carry on a conversation with him) but Palin has good ole fashion “you betcha” common sense. No one has mad telepromptic skillz like Big O, but Palin can wink an orgasm out of most. Should be entertaining.

    It will be convenient for the First Dude to just call the Secret Service when Levi and Bristol are fighting out the front lawn of the White House, though. Lots of things to consider.

    1. but Palin has good ole fashion “you betcha” common sense.

      It’s just dawned on me that Sarah Palin = Marge from Fargo; maybe that’s the secret to her otherwise inexplicable appeal.

      1. Does that mean Obama is William H. Macy?

        1. I don’t want any damn True Coat!

      2. The key to Palin’s appeal is that the media, the left, and establishment republicans have made her into a martyr with their attacks. The average person knows that pretty much everyone in Washington is an idiot and is unqualified for their jobs, so when they single out Sarah just because they see her as some flyover state rube, that just makes people who normally wouldn’t give a rat’s ass about her, rally around her. The problem with making someone a martyr is it’s very hard to unmake them, because all new criticism is viewed with skepticism. Had they not attacked her so vociferously, and singled her out like they did, she would have been forgotten by now.

        1. “The average person knows that pretty much everyone in Washington is an idiot and is unqualified for their jobs, so when they single out Sarah just because they see her as some flyover state rube, that just makes people who normally wouldn’t give a rat’s ass about her, rally around her.”

          Well said. This is why part of me would actually cheer if she won the general election in 2012. That is the degree to which I HATE the mainstream media. It would be one of the few times I would actually watch MSNBC just to see their depressed faces after she got enough electoral votes to put her over the top.

  42. Episiarch labeled everyone who disagreed with him as “fucking retarded” and “fucking entertaining morons.” The “fucking retards” disagreed. There was much rhetorical flailing, hyperbole, sarcasm and irony. Now, back to the action!

    1. I , for one , enjoy it when the horde of troll unleash the Profane Epi. Some of the trolls that he’s dealt with should have their posts saved here

      1. I wanna be in your circle jerk!

    2. Oh look, MotherInLaw is complaining that I used profanity! Oh noes! Fuck you, pussy. Considering that I also discussed the validity of race condition–something you undoubtedly know nothing about–and the utility of manufacturing jobs is lost on you, I guess. Because the presence of “fucking retarded” totally invalidates anything else, right?

      God, you are a total wuss. “Passive aggressive” was invented for you.

      And TeamBarstool, I’m glad you enjoyed.

      1. I also discussed the validity of race condition–something you undoubtedly know nothing about

        I am a profane and arrogant IT faggot. Look at me! Look at me!

      2. We feel your pain, “Episiarch.” Preaching the gospel to all the freaks and misfits is a thankless task, and you perform your duties so humbly and graciously, without any pretext of superiority. Such are the makings of saints.

      3. Why do you have fucking use profanity, dude? That’s not fucking cool.

  43. http://web.inter.nl.net/users/…..arian.html

    Here is some stomach turning stupidity

    1. http://web.inter.nl.net/users/…..arian.html

      Try again fucking spam filter

        1. “A free market in the libertarian sense needs at least three parties: with only one buyer and one seller there is no competition. In a free market with multiple parties and mutual competition, all parties influence the final state of affairs. No individual can decide that outcome alone. While claiming to reject autocracy, libertarianism has in fact abandoned autonomy.”

          Translation: I don’t have individual automony under a libertarian regime because that means other people have autonomy and therefore I cannot force them to do what I want.

          How can soemone get that twisted in their thinking?

    2. “Libertarians claim to value the moral autonomy of the individual. However, in the free market which they advocate, there is no connection between individual action and social outcome. A one-person boycott of meat will not stop the slaughter of animals. In reality, the individual is powerless in the face of the market – and without some decision-making power there is no real moral autonomy. The implicit position of most libertarians is that this must be accepted – that the outcome of the market is morally legitimate, even if it does not correspond to the conscience of the individual. Certainly, all libertarians distrust even limited interference with the market: many reject it entirely.”

      If you don’t use the government to control others, you are powerless. God I hate these fuckheads.

      1. They just can’t accept the idea that no individual should have autonomy over another.

        “But, but, you mean I CAN’T force my opinions on someone else? Fuck that, free markets are too restrictive!”

      2. How is an individual not similarly powerless in the face of government action? Even in a pure democracy, the individual vote is just one among multitudes. Individual choice can be overwhelmed by the choices of the aggregrate. But it is more likely that under a free market an individual can find someone who will accommodate his desires. A fundamental confusion of the right to pursue happiness and the right to acheive happiness.

  44. While I agree with Mr. Moynihan’s assessment I found it amusing that he obviously was poking fun at a poster’s misspelling of “qualifications”. Not 30 seconds later I was reading another post by Reason (https://reason.com/blog/2010/11/19/new-at-reason-brian-doherty-on) in which Reason misspelled Senator as Seantor. Sucks to point out a screw up only to make the same kind of mistake. 🙂

  45. Instead, she quit her job as governor after two and a half years, published a book (another is due next week), and seemed to chase money and empty celebrity.

    So Palin is being criticized for leaving a government job for much better-paying opportunities in the private sector? Sounds like admirable behavior for a politician.

    And saying she is chasing “empty celebrity”, while implying that that ISN’T the norm for politicians?

    Plenty of things to knock Palin about, but criticizing her for acting like a free market capitalist takes a statist mindset.

    1. It really does. I tell you the other thing that bugs me. This whole idea that what books someone reads should determine their fitness for office. All I care about is what people think and what their values are. If you told me tommorow that say Ran Paul didn’t and played video games as his hobby, I wouldn’t care. If you told me Obama reads Plato in Greek as a hobby, I would still hate the bastard.

      Progressives are the ones who want geniuses to build Rube Goldberg bureacracies to save the world. I just want someone to tear down what is there. It doesn’t take a genius to write “no money shall be drown from the treasury to fund (insert cabinet agency here)”.

      To me the whole thing is politics reduced to sports. People want their guy to be cool so they can brag about how great they are by extension.

      1. The two are virtually indistinguishable by now. In your car, switch stations between the sports station, and the left/rightwing station. Cull any domain-specific language. Now compare what remains: the general tone, the patterns of reasoning, and the methods of argumentation. Or, substitute political language for sports-related language, as appropriate. You should find that a sportscaster makes a fine political commentator, and vice versa.

        Seriously, try it — it’s actually kind of fun. Sick and sad, but fun nonetheless.

        1. I don’t have to try it. I have no doubt that you are exactly right.

        2. 0x6F disagrees completely.

          1. 0x2A knows what the real answer is.

            1. 0x2B always feels left out.

              1. “0x2B always feels left out.”

                I don’t get it.

            2. I see what you did there.

          2. I see what you did there.

      2. “All I care about is what people think and what their values are.”

        I would add “what their personalities are like” although things like strength of character could be considered to fall under “values”.

        What America needs now is a very stubborn, forceful personality to fight through the opposition to rolling back the government. Christie is demonstrating that type of personality. Most of the other potential 2012 contenders have not.

    2. And saying she is chasing “empty celebrity”, while implying that that ISN’T the norm for politicians?

      Keep us out of this.

      1. Actually, there’s something strangely similar in the comparison of the attempt to recruit Caroline Kennedy and the Saga of Sarah P.

        American Idol FTW.

    3. Disagree. She was hired by the people of Alaska to do the job, not by a private company and therefore has a greater obligation than simply fulfilling an employment contract. Not legally, but ethically.

      1. Why does working for the government force you to keep working there if a better offer comes up, else you are unethical, but it’s ethical to quit your job and go work elsewhere in the private sector?

        Are you saying that there’s a shortage of politicians wanting to be governor of Alaska, and if Palin quits, the job will go unfilled?

        Seriously?

  46. “I understand people’s frustrations, and what I’ve said to the TSA is that you have to constantly refine and measure whether what we’re doing is the only way to assure the American people’s safety. And you also have to think through are there other ways of doing it that are less intrusive,” Obama said.

    “But at this point, TSA in consultation with counterterrorism experts have indicated to me that the procedures that they have been putting in place are the only ones right now that they consider to be effective against the kind of threat that we saw in the Christmas Day bombing.”

    The science is settled. We know what’s best for you. Bend over and take it, you smelly, whining peasants!

    We believe in freedom and rights, except when we can’t be bothered.

    (somewhere at MSNBC.com)

    1. “Get yer stinkin’ hands off me, you damn dirty ape!”

  47. This is racism straight up.

    1. No, this is Spinal Hit & Run!

  48. What I want to see is an early Republican debate where instead of Ron Paul and a cast of idiots, you have Ron Paul, Gary Johnson, Andrew Napolitano, Peter Schiff, and two or three more liberty candidates all shredding the neocons. As the campaign proceeds and we see the early primary returns, they could bow out and endorse whichever of them is leading at that point.

    I want to see a Paul/Johnson ticket or vice versa, so that we can get Peter Schiff appointed as the secretary of the treasury, and get Napolitano on the supreme court.

    -jcr

    1. What I want to see is a flash debate. No one knows where the debate will be until 6 AM the morning of. All candidates have to fly coach to get there. First question will be about TSA.

    2. Dude, and I want a pony.

    3. Herman Cain might run. I’d vote for him.

  49. I enjoy Kenneth. He’s so earnest.

    And have we established that Anonopussy/MotherInLaw is rctl? It fits too well to be untrue.

    Last: The horrible truth starts to dawn on Europe’s leaders

    1. from Warty’s link:

      EU President Herman Van Rompuy (poet, and writer of Japanese and Latin verse)

      And people think Obama is hyper-qualified?

      We had the first eruption earlier this year when Greece’s deputy premier accused the Germans of stealing Greek gold from the vaults of the central bank and killing 300,000 people during the Nazi occupation.

      Those silly Europeans. They just can’t let bygones be bygones.

  50. Moynihan, when you’ve been the target of a baseless lawsuit, then you can talk about Palin’s resigning as governor of Alaska.

    1. That Andrea Whats-her-name chick who filed almost all of those ethics complaints is a total cunt-stain, but if she’s really the reason Palin quit, she did us a huge favor, and I would propose each of our 600,000 residents sending her a couple of dollars. That’s a nice chunk of change. She deserves it.

  51. You’ll never truly understand Palin, until you understand Wasilla and the rest of the Mat-Su Valley ‘culture’. Basically, it’s our Arkansas, except that thousands of our hillbillies put bumper stickers on their rusty pickups (with duct tape!), declaring themselves “Proud Valley Trash”. I’m not making this up. Junk yards, cars on blocks, mobile homes, meth labs, indoor weed farms, defunct appliances in the yard, and I’m pretty sure the dogs outnumber the people by a good margin. They’re sled dogs instead of pit bulls and rotties, but still.

    1. I think there’s just one kind of folks. Folks.” ~Scout (Harper Lee, To Kill a Mockingbird, 1960)

      1. This sounds like some parts of Licking County, Ohio. Except for the breed of dog.

  52. Anyone who wears the flag of another country on her blouse while running for public office isn’t fit to be president.

    Imagine if Palin had worn the lapel pin of a country that WASN’T Israel, and the outrage that would have ensued.

    1. Yeah I’m sure the anti-semites on the Left would have been just as outraged if she had another ally’s flag like the UK or Canada…….

    2. For as small of a country as Israel is, I find it funny how many people get upset when someone defends it.

      Here is a question for you – would you have been upset if she wore a lapel pin of Vatican City’s flag?

      1. Absolutely. It’s fucked up for a candidate to show any loyalty or patriotism towards a country other than the United States. Whose interests do you think she’d serve in office?

        1. In the cases of Vatican City and Israel they are more than mere countries. They are very small countries that have immense religious symbolism intertwined with them.

          1. Well, that makes it even more disturbing. You think Kennedy would have been elected if he’d worn a Vatican city flag during his campaign?

            And Israel isn’t “special” at all, except in the amount of grief they cause us. They are another country, and it’s sick that candidates have to show their loyalty to Israel first, America second in today’s elections.

            1. The reason that people want their elected officials to support Israel is that they are aware the anti-Semitism around the world is rising and Israel is increasingly being demonized not only by her neighbors but also in Europe and elsewhere. There are many things about our foreign policy I would like to change. The fact that we have historically supported Israel is not one of those things. There is a reason that the modern state of Israel was created. Do you remember what that reason was?

              1. The rising tide of anti-semitism is a direct result of Israel’s actions. Maybe you haven’t noticed the current batch of lunatics running the show in Israel – they are just as deranged as Ahmadinejad, but much more dangerous.

                And dragging out the holocaust when it really has nothing to do with the issue at hand – politicians who put Israel before America and the wisdom of our Israel policies, reveals a lot about your knee-jerk character. And if you like Israel so much, either move there or support them with your own cash. Don’t lobby and vote to have MY cash sent to a country I don’t give a shit about

                1. “Maybe you haven’t noticed the current batch of lunatics running the show in Israel – they are just as deranged as Ahmadinejad, but much more dangerous.”

                  All politicians are lunatics by nature. No sane person would want to be one.

                  “Don’t lobby and vote to have MY cash sent to a country I don’t give a shit about”

                  Let me know when we stop giving money to Israel’s enemies. When that happens I will be right there with you.

              2. “There is a reason that the modern state of Israel was created. Do you remember what that reason was?”

                Sure. After WWII, there were a million jewish refugees that no one wanted to deal with, but who couldn’t be swept under the rug because of all the published concentration camp images. Also, creating Israel allowed the leaders in Europe to largely ethnically cleanse their nations of jews without getting their hands dirty.

                Of course, the effort to create the modern state of Israel actually began in earnest just after WWI during which Britain wrested control of Palestine from Turkey. Zionists just reinforced their efforts by playing on the sympathy for jews created by the holocaust.

            2. And Israel is no “ally,” either. When we have to pay them billions in bribes just to get them to CONSIDER stopping illegal settlements that we have told them harm our interests in the region, it’s time to have a long talk about our “relationship.”

              1. “And Israel is no “ally,” either. When we have to pay them billions in bribes just to get them to CONSIDER stopping illegal settlements that we have told them harm our interests in the region, it’s time to have a long talk about our “relationship.””

                These settlemants you call “illegal”. Do you know what the term “illegal” means? Illegal by who’s law?

                1. I guess only America and Israel get to decide what’s legal and what isn’t? Because the rest of the world pretty much agrees on this.

                  The Obama administration even called them “illegitimate” last year. But even if they aren’t “illegal” according to some minority reading of international law, they still endanger our security (ask Petraeus). Not that Israel has ever cared about that

                  1. “I guess only America and Israel get to decide what’s legal and what isn’t? Because the rest of the world pretty much agrees on this.”

                    Within Israel, only Israel gets to decide …

                    “The Obama administration even called them “illegitimate” last year.”

                    And I’m supposed to give a flying crap what Obama says about anything on any topic whatsoever???? Why?

                    1. “they still endanger our security (ask Petraeus)”

                      Right, because it is SO believable that Palestinians are going to cross into the United States and blow up a building here because they are pissed off that new settlemants are being built there.

                    2. Ever read any of Al Qaeda’s manifestos? Or bin Laden’s 2004 explanation of WHY 9/11 happened? Israel has EVERYTHING to do with it.

                      There’s clearly no getting to you. I suppose the rest of the wolrd is wrong, and Israel is right (“It’s not me – it’s everyone else!”)

                    3. “I suppose the rest of the wolrd is wrong, and Israel is right”

                      Why should we or anyone else have a right to tell Israel what to do in their own country?

                    4. Uh, because we subsidize them like it’s going out of style? I agree, if we cut off all foreign aid they should be able to do whatever they want. But that aint’ the world we live in, is it?

                    5. We give foreign aid to many countries – some of whom are enemies of Israel. Why choose this one particular country to pick on? See, that is what I object to.

                    6. “Why should we or anyone else have a right to tell Israel what to do in their own country?”

                      Britain, Germany, the US and the Swiss banking industry all send billions of dollars every year to Israel. Beggars can’t be choosers. If Israel is going to live as an international welfare queen, then it should abide by the rules of whoever is paying the bills.

                    7. We give foreign aid to many countries – some of whom are enemies of Israel. Why choose this one particular country to pick on? See, that is what I object to.

                    8. Death to Isreal!!

                    9. ^Idiotic much?

                2. It has been US policy for decades that foreign aid to Israel can’t be used to build settlements in the occupied territories. It is a little game that is played. The US complains about new settlements to Israel and Israel flips the US off.

                  1. “The US complains about new settlements to Israel and Israel flips the US off.”

                    I flip Obama off whenever I see his face on TV. I can’t blame them for flipping our government off

                  2. how fewer Arabs get killed under right wing Netanyahu than his left wing counterparts? In spite of rhetoric or expectations, he has done a better job of keeping the peace than any other Israelis leader when compared year to year. actually, the more saintly the reputation the worse they have tended to be.

      2. PIRS, would you please explain how your support of Israel is consistent with being a “Rothbardian Anarcho-Capitalist”? Do you acknowledge that others might not like having their nation’s wealth and blood squandered in order to prop up another nation? Is it really permissible in your worldview for the US government steal hundreds of billions of dollars from US citizens in order to fight two long and senseless wars in the ME on behalf of Israel?

        1. left hijab,

          I want to see ALL nation-states end. Until that happens however, I will support Israel as one of these least horrible of the lot.

          1. You aren’t paying attention if you think our foreign aid to Israel is just like any other country. I agree, it should ALL be scuttled, but they are a VERY special case – the single largest recipient, and one of the least compliant

          2. IOW, you don’t mind government coercion as long as it is used to support your preferred causes.

  53. Q: How is H&R like an AOL chat-room?

    A:

    1. Both are accessed using computers and the Internet?

  54. Latest installment of WashPo investigative story tracing guns used in killings focuses on guns used in police slayings:

    Excerpts
    “The Washington Post did a year-long investigation, including building a database of every police officer shot to death in the past decade. (More than 1,900 officers were wounded by firearms during the same period.) Through documents and interviews, The Post was able to track how the suspects obtained their weapons in 341 of the deaths.

    This kind of analysis is made more difficult by a law passed by Congress in 2003 that bars federal law enforcement from releasing information that links guns used in crimes back to the original purchasers. To penetrate that secrecy, The Post interviewed more than 350 police officials, prosecutors, defense attorneys, judges, gun dealers, gun buyers, suspects and survivors. In 30 cases, the newspaper obtained confidential firearms traces generated by the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives.”

    “Legal purchase was the leading source of weapons used to kill police officers. In 107 slayings, the killers acquired their firearms legally. In 170 deaths, The Post could not determine how the shooters got their guns, including 29 killings in which weapons were not recovered.”

    “Stolen guns turned up in 77 deaths. Separately, guns obtained or taken from relatives or friends who legally owned them were used in 46 killings. Fifty-one officers were killed when their department-issued firearms or another officer’s gun were turned against them. In 41 instances, guns were illegally obtained on the streets through sale or barter. Sixteen times, someone bought a weapon for a person prohibited from having a gun, an unlawful transaction known as a straw purchase. The straw buyers were federally prosecuted in fewer than half of those cases. Three were illegally purchased at gun shows or from private sellers.”

    “More than 200 of the shooters were felons who were prohibited by federal law from possessing firearms. Many had spent time in prison for illegal handgun possession.”

    “To some extent, the geographic distribution of the killings tracks population size and the violent-crime rate…One notable exception to the population trend appears to be New York, which has the third-largest number of residents but is tied for 13th in police killings with 16. New York is known for having some of the toughest gun laws in the country.”

    http://www.washingtonpost.com/…..id=topnews

    1. So, you noticed what a degenerated heap of rotting troll mucus this thread is and decided to improve it with a threadjack?

      1. Sorry, I thought this was the closest thing to the “weekend thread” and that the article contained interesting information…

        1. Sorry, I meant that in a humorous way.
          This thread is pretty degenerate.

          1. Starting with the article.

  55. Pancakes or Waffles? Bacon or Sausage? Orange Juice or Apple Juice? Blueberries or Strawberries? A quest for 1K comments or the Reason Staff abducted by aliens?

  56. Another article from today’s WashPo on geographical aspects of election’s political polarization:

    Excerpts:
    “Results from November’s midterm elections have exposed a deepening political divide between cities on the coasts and the less-dense areas in the middle of the country. The Republican Party’s big gains in the House came largely from districts that were older, less diverse and less educated than the nation as a whole. Democrats kept their big majorities in the cities.

    That’s a contrast to the last GOP wave in 1994, when Republicans’ share of the vote was consistent inside and outside metropolitan areas, according to a Washington Post analysis.”

    “Democrats largely held on to their high share of the vote in the country’s densest places. The party captured 54 percent in counties with populations of more than 500,000 people, compared with only 49 percent in 1994. In smaller counties, Democrats’ share of the vote slid to 39 percent this year from 43 percent in 1994.

    Exit polls showed that Democrats lost white voters without a college degree – one way to measure blue-collar voters – by almost 30 percentage points in House races.

    The Republican victories were concentrated in districts with those voters. In the 63 districts that Republicans won, 39 were older than the nation as a whole and 40 had a higher percentage of people without college degrees. The starkest difference was in racial composition: 47 of the 63 districts won by the GOP had a higher percentage of white people than the national average.”

    http://www.washingtonpost.com/…..id=topnews

    1. The Dems got destroyed in the suburbs and rural areas and pretty much everywhere outside of big center cities and the coasts. Funny. Two years ago the talk was how it was the Republicans who were a geographically limited party confined to a few areas. Now it looks like the Democrats are.

      1. Naw, both parties are geographically limited and supported by their own special brand of teh stoopid.

    2. Thanks for the link, MNG

    3. Michigan, considered a blue state by many in the pundisphere, went totally red in state government. State ouse and Senate, Governor, Attorney General and Secretary of State.

      Redistricting is coming up, expect them to try to cement their gains redistricting.

      1. Similar thing happened in New Hampshire. We went from a majority of Democrats in the state house to a veto-proof Republican majority. I know the Democratic GOTV effort had an impact in the election, but it does seem like the ball was dropped at the state level.

      2. Michigan wretched (figuratively) mostly thanks to Granholm, and her craptacularness.

  57. I cant see how palin wins, she might have a sure 30, 35% of the vote (I doubt but assuming every conservative shithead believes in her) but no way she gets independent…

  58. Here’s a question:

    Will the beefed-up security presence in airports this week include armed uniformed military personnel?

    1. Well, it damned sure should! Nothing makes me feel more secure than being in an enclosed area with people in BDU’s with loaded ARs and Berettas.

      God, I despise flying commercial airline travel anymore…

  59. “Fuck you America. I drink your fear. I drink it up.”

    John Pistole told CNN’s “State of the Union” that, despite the public uproar over new screening techniques, “we are not changing the policies” that he said were the best ways of keeping the traveling public safe. TSA screeners, he said, are “the last line of defense” in protecting air travelers.

    …..

    But Pistole stressed that that balance now requires steps to confront “a determined enemy” that has proven adept in devising new ways to conceal weapons. “We know through intelligence there are determined people, terrorists, trying to kill not only Americans but innocent people around the world,” he said.

    1. “But Pistole stressed that that balance now requires steps to confront “a determined enemy””

      And more and more Americans are recognizing that this determined enemy is the government that claims to “serve” them.

      1. YAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAYYYY!!! WHAT PIRS SAID!!!!

    2. TSA screeners, [Pistole] said, are “the last line of defense” in protecting air travelers.

      Kinda scary, ain’t it?

      1. Example #3283 why Pistole is a clueless tool. The actual passengers on the plane are the last line of defense – It wasn’t the TSA (or anyone else) that successfully interdicted the fourth plane on 9/11, the shoe stunt, or the underwear kid. It was the passengers themselves.

        1. Yeah how come we have never heard of the TSA actually catching a terrorist?

  60. I think there should be a rule that says congressman are not allowed to fly with small charter planes, but have to take scheduled flights. The system would collapse when TSA agents are frisking the likes of Pelosi or Frank.

    1. The day they tell me to rub Barney Frank’s crotch is the day I quit.

      1. The fact that they`re a congressionally chartered group should no more incline people to give to that group than the fact that it`s National Pickle Month should make them eat more pickles.

  61. I think there should be a rule that says congressman are not allowed to fly with small charter planes, but have to take scheduled flights.

    Sadly…

    On Friday, the GOP’s John Boehner was guided past the metal detectors and hand inspections given to other passengers on his flight home to Ohio.

    Boehner’s spokesman Michael Steel said his boss followed procedures set by Capitol Police and the Transportation Security Administration. Steel said the same rules apply to other congressional leaders.

    Furor over airline passenger checks has grown with more airports installing full-body digital scanners and TSA adding a more intrusive pat-down for those opting out of the scans.

    Boehner, R-Ohio, has pledged to fly commercial airlines back to his home district.

    “Look everybody! I’m a regular guy! I’m just better, and more important than you. Guards! That peasant looked directly at me. Away with him.”

    1. His Lordship, the honorable Speaker of the House, is approaching! Clear a path you degenerate commoners!

    2. If he had to go through the line with everyone else, a terrorist detonating a bomb in the midst of the long security line would threaten the leadership of our country.

      These procedures ensure that the worst that can happen in that scenario is a few dozen “civilians” being spared the indignity of being patted down (well, until the morticians get a hold of them).

      1. You being serious?

        1. To die in place of the queen is the highest honor a drone can attain.

  62. Palin won’t run. That’s the beauty of it. She is way too much into the substance-free, reality-TV/book tour circuit to give it all up for the high-pressure, intellectually challenging task of running for prez.

    BUT, she is also savvy enough to know that the party’s over if she ever says she ISN’T running. She would become irrelevant almost instantly. The mystery that drives liberals mad and entices social conservatives -“Will she run?” – is the single biggest factor in her success

  63. And Palin’s celebrity grows…..

    Final predictions: Palin probably doesn’t run, she’s doesn’t get the nomination anyway, and before she becomes as irrelevant as Walter Mondale, it’s discovered that the First Dude has previously been, or is, getting some on the side. Ideally, it’s a cousin.

    1. Or a moose. Which is such a balls out stunt in and of itself, it almost makes ya pause before going ‘eww’.

  64. Love her or hate her, Palin seems to own america’s consciousness – and Reason’s….

    She seems to be the ultimate threadbait.

    I don’t think she’d be a great president, possibly not even an ‘ok’ one, but I find it funny how, for many people, she seems uniquely unqualified while Obama, Hillary, and every stinking congresscritter are just fine.

    I saw her net worth now listed as 12 million and rising. How is it again that she’s stupid? I wish I could be that stupid! Her first book sold well and her new book will probably repeat that.
    (from HC)
    Harper Collins published Palin’s autobiography Going Rogue: An American Life, which sold over a million copies within two weeks of hitting shelves, one of only four political memoirs to do so, and Palin signed a multi-year contract (minus financial details) with FOX News.

    Yeah, she’s quite a moron! She’d be much more respectable if she graduated from an Ivy League college with a degree in women’s studies or something.
    What a hillbilly!

    1. I also remember a few Reason contributor’s who couldn’t help but vote for Mr. Hope & Change? due to the thrilling wonderfullness of having our FIRST BLACK PRESIDENT! (yay!) Would they also hold their nose and vote for Palin to have our FIRST WOMAN PRESIDENT!! (double yay) ?

      1. Was Cavanaugh serious with that shit? I totally would have voted for Sharpton. Anyone who found religion and their blackness late in life is not to be trusted.

      2. No, because Hillary was *supposed* to be The First Woman President. Palin doesn’t count, because she’s not a man-hating socialist harridan.

      3. Would they also hold their nose and vote for Palin to have our FIRST WOMAN PRESIDENT!!

        No, but they probably would for Hillary Clinton.

    2. Can we kill the meme that because someone makes a lot of money they must be intelligent? By that criteria Britney Spears is a frigging genius.

  65. Speaking of the Wicked Witch of the North, she has given Frank Rich Roger Elizabeth de Bris the the vapors again.

    Meow, meow.

  66. If he had to go through the line with everyone else, a terrorist detonating a bomb in the midst of the long security line would threaten the leadership of our country.

    Hahahaha, good one, Tulpa.

  67. WashPo review of Palin and Obama’s insipid books

    Excerpts:

    “For Palin, however, Washington has another resonance: He is one of her pillars for arguing that religion should be centerstage in American civil society. The founding fathers, she writes, “created a country that, in George Washington’s words, relies on faith as an ‘indispensable support.’ . . . And this, I firmly believe, is one of the things that has always made us an exceptional nation.”

    “While Obama, the first black president, depicts Lincoln as a man who “promised freedom to enslaved sisters and brothers,” Palin stresses how Lincoln’s second inaugural address “is just 703 words long, yet it mentions God 14 times and quotes the Bible twice.”

    “Palin flashes her trademark, common-sense sass when discussing, say, the virtues of hard work, as revealed on “American Idol.” “[Simon] Cowell can be a little harsh at times,” she writes, “but he upholds the highest standards, and something in us recognizes and responds to that.”

    1. Those quotes inform me on why someone like John with his dislike of erudite intellectual elites with their fancy book-learnin’ likes Palin so much. No erudite intellectual book learning going on between those pretty ears!

      1. What you don’t hear is usually the most profound. Your focus is the pretty ears and not what’s between them. It’s not your fault, lots of chickens think with their peckers first.

        1. Yeah Palin is fucking genius. She’s just too modest to show it.

      2. Those quotes inform me on why someone like John with his dislike of erudite intellectual elites with their fancy book-learnin’ likes Palin so much…

        The real question is why anyone gives any credence to the steaming heaps of bullshit and political correctness that is a ‘liberal arts education’ nowadays.

        Four years at taco bell or walmart will better prepare an 18yo for success than a humanities degree from an ivy league “school”.

        1. Academe sure has silly parts to it. But I think your argument goes way to far.

          To make it into an Ivy League school you have to have excelled at your high school, and usually at a pre-eminent high school at that, as well as excelled on standardized tests. The same can be said for the instructors there, though they then turned around and excelled in some field (the Ivy’s hire not only successful doctorates from other Ivy’s but successful CEO’s, government officials, politicians, etc).

          To say that getting accepted to and excelling at an Ivy is not generally indicative of excellence is to say that high school and standardized test performance, as well as many “real world” successes, are worthless.

          1. to far

            too far

            To make it into an Ivy League school you have to have excelled at your high school, and usually at a pre-eminent high school

            The pre-eminent high school part isn’t really true.

            excelled on standardized tests

            True unless you are very wealthy, a legacy or let in by affirmative action. Some of the kids let in to enhance “diversity” are truly lazy, ignorant dumbshits.

            Ivy’s hire not only successful doctorates from other Ivy’s but successful CEO’s, government officials, politicians, etc

            Doctorates are rarely hired; postdoctorate work is usually required. There are some exceptions. I know of one case of a lesbian who had not yet completed her MS being offered a tenure track position in history, although it was conditional on her finishing her PhD. Almost certainly her radical political views were what got her the job offer; it certainly wasn’t her intellect or her scholarship.

            Most of the professors at first and second tier schools are products of other first tier schools. Professors at lower tier schools and community colleges are a mixed bag.

            On balance, Ivy League and other first tier schools do get a more talented crop of students, but these days the political conditioning that students at highly selective schools receive cripples a lot of their natural talent.

  68. Epic fucking thread! Reminds me of The Battle of Epping Forest.

  69. holy WTF 742 comments but count me among those who thought she was more interesting than McCain but really needed a couple years proving she govern a state.

    It’s tragically unfortunate that she was forced from office by her political opponents, but them’s the breaks. I’m not voting for someone based on woulda/coulda/shoulda.

    Yes, Obama had similar qualifications. How’d that turn out?

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.