About Palin, you libs are full of bullpucky.

[rickshaw1]

I am not addressing most of what you guys are spouting cause its all bs. But, here are some things to think about.

1) As governor of alaska, she is responsible for one of america's lines of defense against attack. Like it or not, Russia is close to america in alaska, about 12 miles, if i remember correctly. Because of this, as governor she has been included in the loop of "people in the know" when it comes to tighter government security. In some cases, she will have much more intimate and working knowledge that some junior senator, no matter how much the dems try to "god-ize" him.

2) Her kids as "props", i believe Grant said. Well, i have also seen Obama's kids trotted out, quite a few humorous remarks about his younger daughter holding things up with her "Hi daddy" remarks. Kinda cheesy of you to leave that out, but you are, after all, toting a lot of water for the dems.

3) Her pregnant daughter- Okay, so Obama would have no problem with one of his daughters having an abortion if she got pregnant. Now, if Palin's daughter had had an abortion, you would have a) crapped yourself because you would have a poster child for "spread'em and kill'em" or b) said "well, every parent should be aware at all times of what their children are doing, no matter what and since her daughter is pregnant, that means that she cannot be a good governor or VP!" as if somehow the two equate. Well, anyone remember Billy Carter, or Clinton's brother? How 'bout rumors of E. Roosevelt's being a lesbian? But, lets take it another notch, and just go with the actual candidates themselves. Roosevelt's mistriss in georgia was widely known, but the press covered for him, as the did for the innumerable mistriss' of notorious whore hopper Kennedy. And the only reason they didn't hide dear sweet Monica was because the press had given up the ludicrus notion that they were impartial and not in it for the money and gone completely Jerry Springer on us.

But, since Palin's daughter is not killing an innocent, unborn life, she isn't shown as someone that made a mistake and is dealing with it and getting on with life and the consequences of it, instead she is being used to show that dems are somehow better than others. Funny, but the dems/libs have no problem killing innocents whose only qualification for being murdered is being concieved, but will demonstrate and protest at the death of someone like Ted Bundy, a proven homicidal maniac. She isn't respected for doing what most people in america do each day, which is try to figure a way to muddle through life, but instead is villified for "NOT KILLING AN INNOCENT CHILD".

Not only that, but, she isn't even a politician or AN ADULT, but an underage girl. So, grown adults are attacking children in the name of politican expediency to push a candidate for PRESIDENT that has far less executive leadership than the VP candidate of the other party.

And then there is the "economy" thing. TAXES TAXES TAXES. Man, it sure would be nice if some of the bloviating blowhards here actually understood what was involved in the economy. But, since so many of you claim to understand everything from the nightly news, lets drop into this.

First, the economy is having a hard time right now thanks to socialist and communist policies pushed by the left. Why, you ask? Okay. For one thing, there haven't been any new refineries in this country in about 30 years. That means that the amount of oil being processed is the same as back in the seventies. Someone, anyone, please do a check on the national census and lets see how much the population has GROWN in the last thirty years. It might just shock you.
Second, have any of you ever heard of China and India and Pakistan? In case you haven't, here is a little refresher course. They have some of the largest populations on earth, and in one case, THE largest on earth. Oh, and EACH ONE OF THEM is currently going through an INDUSTRIAL REVOLUTION. And because of this, their own demand for oil has skyrocketed. Which means that the supply of oil, heavily controlled in one region by OPEC, is about the same as thirty years ago, comparatively. What this means is...follow me closely now...THE SUPPLY HAS NOT INCREASED TO MEET DEMAND. AND WHEN DEMAND IS GREATER THAN SUPPLY, THE COST OF SAID ITEM GOES UP! I can retype this slowly if you need me too. So, if the cost of a barrel of oil goes from...for example...one dollar to four dollars, and the oil company makes the same PERCENTAGE of profit, say for example, 10%, then the profit will go from $.10 per barrel to $.40 per barrel. This would explain the socialist/communist hated RECORD PROFITS. Everyone wants lower prices now (supposedly, but i will get to that in a moment) but no lib wants to admit that it is the LIBS/DEMS policies when they were in control of congress thirty years ago that caused this problem. By the way, does anyone else remember AL GORE AND OTHER LIBERALS saying just a few years ago that they wanted the price of a gallon of gas to hit $5 DOLLARS A BARREL? I do.

Now, as to the "drilling in alaska and destroying the environment" arguement that the lib/dems want to use. Now, say there are 40 acres in a mile and roughly 586,400 square miles in alaska, then that means that there are roughly 23,456, 000 acres in alaska. Now, if they need 1,900 acres to do their drilling and pipelines, oh heck, lets be generous and say 2,000 acres, that leaves us with... 23,454,000 acres that would not be touched. So, that means that the acreage needed is 0.00008%. Now, that isn't 8% for those of you with no math skills, that is millionths of 1 percent. Pretty danged small, any way you look at it.

But, being the lib/dem/socialist/communist/green party, you will say "what about the carribou?". I mean, that was the popular refrain I heard so much in the news several years ago. No problem. You see, they seem to love the pipeline that is there. And when i say love, i mean it. Turns out they love the warmth etc...of the pipeline and it is something of a carribou mating hangout, like lovers lane.

Course, knowing what we know, you don't have a problem killing human unborn babies, but they are only human and don't count. But unborn baby animals? Bet you wouldn't want any of them killed.

So, there are some arguements from someone that doesnt' watch the nightly news anymore, any of them.

Oh, and if you want to claim that the "free press" is still the fourth estate, it think it time that there be some reality to that claim. And by that i mean, I think it only right that when we get some writer claiming to see no problem with legalizing marijuana, they should have to have on record their beliefs about it, and whether or not they use it. you see, far too many times so called reporters, collumnists, etc... use their position to favor things that they secretly favor, or will benefit from. But whereas someone like the conservative Armstrong Williams is exposed and basically shut down, too many on the left are never exposed, never have to suffer the consequences of their beliefs or actions, but are the first to scream about first amendment protections. I'm willing to bet quite a few of you don't have the courage of your convictions. Thank god millions of men and women in the armed services have enough for themselves and you.

Thanks for listening.

[NatGertler]

As governor of alaska, she is responsible for one of america's lines of defense against attack.

No, she's not. Alaska has military bases, which are under federal control, not state. In the event that they're being used to defend against a foreign attack, the National Guard also falls under federal control. And as it is, we are not currently under strong direct conflict with Russia.

Her kids as "props", i believe Grant said. Well, i have also seen Obama's kids trotted out, quite a few humorous remarks about his younger daughter holding things up with her "Hi daddy" remarks. Kinda cheesy of you to leave that out, but you are, after all, toting a lot of water for the dems.

Obama wasn't simultaneous trotting them out and calling for them to be kept out of it.

Okay, so Obama would have no problem with one of his daughters having an abortion if she got pregnant.

Sez who? Sounds an awful lot like something you just made up. (Being in favor of something being legal does not mean you're happy whenever it occurs.)

Not only that, but, she isn't even a politician or AN ADULT, but an underage girl. So, grown adults are attacking children in the name of politican expediency to push a candidate for PRESIDENT that has far less executive leadership than the VP candidate of the other party.

I have yet to hear anyone criticize the daughter. Really. Sounds like something else you're making up.

[rickshaw1]

"No, she's not. Alaska has military bases, which are under federal control, not state. In the event that they're being used to defend against a foreign attack, the National Guard also falls under federal control. And as it is, we are not currently under strong direct conflict with Russia."

check again. Yes, they are federal, but Alaska has a different setup with the National Guard and the federal government than the lower 48.

"Obama wasn't simultaneous trotting them out and calling for them to be kept out of it."

Name a politician that hasn't had their kids up on the big stage when accepting. Its one thing to have your family present for one of the biggest events of your life, professional or personal, its another to have sleazy reporters digging into the life of a teenager. Or breaking federal law and digging into emails. Hypocracy, thy name is lib.

"Sez who? Sounds an awful lot like something you just made up. (Being in favor of something being legal does not mean you're happy whenever it occurs.)

He did when he said he wouldn't want his daughter to be punished for making a mistake and having it hang on her for the rest of her life. Children aren't mistakes. People not taking responsibility for their actions is the mistake.

"I have yet to hear anyone criticize the daughter. Really. Sounds like something else you're making up."

I would refer you to the various liberal blogs, as well as one thread i participated in for the less than noble opposition on the Wonder Woman board at DC, but the cowardly mods deleted that particular one. Not to mention the not so sly remarks made on the talking head circuits. And just because YOU may not have heard it doesn't mean it isn't accurate. You just haven't heard it.

I don't make things up, bubby. I prefer to club your arguements to death with the reality of things. I'm not for any of the four candidates, most especially Biden, Mr. King of Pork, far more than lil' miss Palin could ever have been as governor of alaska, but the hypocritical bullpucky coming out of the left side is just too easy to stick with a pin and watch the balloon explode.

[NatGertler]

First, the economy is having a hard time right now thanks to socialist and communist policies pushed by the left. Why, you ask? Okay. For one thing, there haven't been any new refineries in this country in about 30 years.

The price of oil is a small part of the current economic stresses (most of the current mess is fallout from the uncontrolled issuance of mortgages in the careless hands of the free market. To the degree that the price of oil is involved in the current situation, the production in the US -- which has something on the scale of 2% of the world's known oil reserves -- ain't a significant contributor.

And it's kind of hard to push declining oil production as a mark of the effect of "socialism/communism". For one thing, environmental law isn't socialist or communist. For another, where we see actual communism ended -- oil production in Russia has dropped by over 30% over the past two decades.

That means that the amount of oil being processed is the same as back in the seventies. Someone, anyone, please do a check on the national census and lets see how much the population has GROWN in the last thirty years.

...and is largely balanced out by the dip in per-capita oil usage in this country.

So, if the cost of a barrel of oil goes from...for example...one dollar to four dollars, and the oil company makes the same PERCENTAGE of profit, say for example, 10%, then the profit will go from $.10 per barrel to $.40 per barrel.

Yes. So? When they exploit the shortage, they make more money. People tend to note this when the oil company is acting as the victim of the price increase rather than the profiteer, or when they're asking for special government support.

Now, if they need 1,900 acres to do their drilling and pipelines, oh heck, lets be generous and say 2,000 acres, that leaves us with... 23,454,000 acres that would not be touched. So, that means that the acreage needed is 0.00008%. Now, that isn't 8% for those of you with no math skills, that is millionths of 1 percent.

No, it isn't. Before you presume to critique others math skills, you may want to work on your own. 0.00008% is eight hundred-thousandths of a percent.... but that isn't what it comes to. It comes to 0.008%... eight thousands of a percent.

And by that i mean, I think it only right that when we get some writer claiming to see no problem with legalizing marijuana, they should have to have on record their beliefs about it, and whether or not they use it.

If they write claiming to see no problem with legalizing marijuana, then they are putting on the record their beliefs. That's what writing is.

But whereas someone like the conservative Armstrong Williams is exposed and basically shut down, too many on the left are never exposed, never have to suffer the consequences of their beliefs or actions, but are the first to scream about first amendment protections.

If you want to accuse someone specific, put forth the evidence. This just makes it look like a complaint that because a conservative commentator was caught selling his opinion, there must be something wrong with liberals.

If you really want to make points for whatever it is you support, you may want to build your arguments more strongly.

[K'Nort]

"No, she's not. Alaska has military bases, which are under federal control, not state. In the event that they're being used to defend against a foreign attack, the National Guard also falls under federal control. And as it is, we are not currently under strong direct conflict with Russia."

check again. Yes, they are federal, but Alaska has a different setup with the National Guard and the federal government than the lower 48.

No. Speaking as an Alaskan, they really do not.

The only thing in the state that's even vaguely more Russian-related than the rest of the US is the fact that a significant portion of the Natives belong to the Russian Orthodox church.

On a security level, it's zilch.

And I'm a Republican. I just hate disinformation.

[NatGertler]

check again. Yes, they are federal, but Alaska has a different setup with the National Guard and the federal government than the lower 48.

You may want to explain that to Major General Craig Campbell of the ANG, who pointed out that the governor actually has no control when it comes to the Guard when it comes to national defense activities. But then, he probably also knows that there are now 49 states lower than Alaska on the map...

Its one thing to have your family present for one of the biggest events of your life, professional or personal, its another to have sleazy reporters digging into the life of a teenager. Or breaking federal law and digging into emails. Hypocracy, thy name is lib.

I miss how all the reporters covering this and the folks digging into the emails are automatically liberal, much less representatives of liberals. I sure don't assume that all conservatives are pro-killing, pro-torture folks like some very visible ones are.

He did when he said he wouldn't want his daughter to be punished for making a mistake and having it hang on her for the rest of her life.

Ah, so he didn't say he'd have "no problem", he just said that he'd prefer it over the option of her being punished, if that was the situation she was in. I see. You made something up.

I would refer you to the various liberal blogs, as well as one thread i participated in for the less than noble opposition on the Wonder Woman board at DC, but the cowardly mods deleted that particular one.

Ah, so you would back up your claims, except that you won't.

And just because YOU may not have heard it doesn't mean it isn't accurate. You just haven't heard it.

It certainly suggests that it's not some loud, unified voice from the various factions that you seem eager to lump together.

I don't make things up, bubby. I prefer to club your arguements to death with the reality of things.

I'm sure you would prefer to. You don't seem to have the equipment to do so. You've got various claims without any reality behind them to show, including things that are demonstrably false.

I'm not for any of the four candidates, most especially Biden, Mr. King of Pork, far more than lil' miss Palin could ever have been as governor of alaska

Why yes, Senator Biden does have considerable federal experience...

[K'Nort]

You may want to explain that to Major General Craig Campbell of the ANG, who pointed out that the governor actually has no control when it comes to the Guard when it comes to national defense activities. But then, he probably also knows that there are now 49 states lower than Alaska on the map...

Everyone does call it the Lower 48. Even the PhDs.

[The Crime Dentist]

I love how you're taking blogger nobodies to task as somehow part of the Democratic apparatus. I also love how you're criticizing these guys for the exact same nonsense Republicans have been spewing for decades.

http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=wQK1al...eature=related

If you can't see how ridiculous it all is after that, I don't know what else to say.

[mattx110]

If Russia wants a war with CANADA, they'll nuke Alaska. If they want a war with the US, they'll aim for Washington, Virginia, New York, California, our interests in Eastern Europe, London, our troops in Afghanistan, and probably Paris.

They're not sitting there, "how do we trek through Alaska, Canada, and then take on those stoners in Seattle, we're out of flanel and our coffee sucks?"

edit: accidentily typed "russia would nuke russia" which doesn't make sense...

[badMike]

I prefer to club your arguements to death with the reality of things.

If by "clubbing arguements" (sic) you actually mean being insulting and argumentative, use specious reasoning, bitterly debate straw men propositions and challenge thoughts you put into other people's heads, then you're well on your way to joining the Dave Sim Fan Club.

[Michael P]

I prefer to club your arguements to death with the reality of things.

In that case, you might want to get an actual club, instead of that Nerf bat you seem to be wielding.

[NatGertler]

Everyone does call it the Lower 48. Even the PhDs.

Yeah, I've certainly heard it used -- although the Alaska folks I've hung with were more likely to simply call it "outside". I think it's a funny anachronism (always makes it sounds like they're excluding Alaska and Maine.)

[Buzz Dixon]

The Governor of the State of Alaska doesn't even know how much energy her state contributes to the U.S. She spouts an innaccurate figure and even after the correct figure is known, she keeps spouting it.

So far she has demonstrated that she is a marginally less-corrupt small time/small town politico with an instinct for jumping off a sinking ship at the last best possible moment.

She is nothing but the snooty stuck up cheerleader in high school who snubbed everybody not in her tiny clique and kissed up to the teachers while dissing them behind their backs.

But she has achieved something unique in American political history: With the possible exception of Thomas Eagleton, the worst effect any other VP candidate had on the presidential candidate was to be such a non-entity that he (or the lone she) added nothing of value to the ticket. Palin has actually managed to depress McCain's post convention bounce all by her lonesome; Obama has regained a small but significant lead in most polls and is statistically tied in all the rest.

Partisans vote for a candidate, independents vote against. Palin is making independents realize that while they may not like Obama, they sure as hell don't want McCain if his judgment is so faulty as to nominate a VP like her.

[NatGertler]

It's telling that the level of discussion almost across the board is on whether she is even at a basic level qualified to be veep. It is far, far from whether she is the best-qualified person he could have chosen. Biden may not be the best possible choice over on the Dems, but in terms of experience and impact, he looks a lot like the sort of person one chooses a serious veep from. Palin comes across looking like a blatant novelty act, chosen for her her-ness. (And to make it sillier, party folks have been acting like she's broken a glass ceiling, as though she's been named the first woman president. No, she's just been made a candidate, and not the first female to be named that. If that's considered breaking a glass ceiling, then that's just attesting to the hideboundness of that party, hitting that point a quarter century later.)

[NatGertler]

(deleted double post)