"I'll back inquiries into Sarah Palin's background as soon as somebody investigates Obama's."

Where the hell have you been for the last year? Per the MSM (and FOX):

Obama is a registered Muslim.

Obama attended a madrassa.

Obama loves Willie Ayers.

Obama hates the USA because he doesn't wear a flag pin.

Michelle O. isn't proud of America.

Obama is too young.

Obama is in bed with Rezko.

Biden is a plaigiarist.

Obama is the most liberal Senator living or dead.

Obama will raise your taxes.

Obama hates the troops.

Obama wants to take your guns away.

Obama is a secret communist.

Obama has an angry black radical preacher.

Obama has an anti-white agenda.

Sorry, the Republicans think they can pull a fast one on the American people and expect to nominate a RADICAL right-winger without anybody asking questions. Fuck the Republicans. If Palin/McCain can't handle media scrutiny, then they should drop out of the race right now.

I don't think there's any question that the conservative media would have a field day with such a scenario. It would reinforce a multitude of negative stereotypes about blacks, liberals, Democrats' morals, etc. They would immediately criticize Obama's parenting skills and values - "What does this say about the values the Obamas passed on to their children..."

As it is, the Republicans seem almost giddy that a 17-year-old unwed child is going to have a baby; as if teen pregnancy is no big deal.

Thanks for making me laugh!

then how can they handle the terrorists?

Man, I really don't know what to say anymore. It seems like every hour there's some new embarassing detail. Did they seriously not expect the media to focus on a relative unkown?

I'm trying to figure out what Team McCain was thinking in choosing Palin. Of course, that would assume that they were thinking...

T. Suarez is a radical fact-challenged right-wing troll, probably one of those Operation Chaos types. I don't trust one single word of what Suarez says.

I think it was closer to 38 million who watch Obama's acceptance speech. I heard that from a number of sources.

"...despite having little money and little establishment backing. (Unlike Obama)"

Obama got where he is despite the Democratic machine politics in Chicago/Illinois. You clearly know nothing about Obama. If you want to be taken seriously, at least know what the hell you're talking about.

then how is she gonna handle somebody like Bin Laden?

Is the governorship of AK a full-time job? How about the mayorship of Wasilla? Does anybody know - I've been searching and I haven't found those answers yet.

Does being a beauty queen (runner-up) or hottie or a MILF qulaify one to be (V)/POTUS? If so, I nominate Christy Canyon, even if her tits might be sagging a bit these days.

Palin is pro-drilling alright - she has 5 kids....

but I must admit that the spats on MSNBC were more fun to watch than the more staid coverage on CNN. It wouldn't surprise me if the talking heads were told by the producers to mix it up a bit on the air. People love to watch others fight.

give a speech once. Let me tell you, Barack Obama is no Dan Quayle.

You might be better off posting the gay NAZI Dems for Christ thing over at the Conservapedia. Theirs is a unique reality, to say the least.

Conservapedia - "The Trustworthy Encyclopedia"

http://www.conservapedia.com/Main_Page

"We can't ascertain the factual reality of anything. All opinions are equally valid, it's all just deconstructivism, so why bother trying anyhow."

What's the difference between reality and perceived reality? How do we "know" anything?

What is a stated fact, but that which is supported by evidence and peer review?

True, one can spew out misinformation and simply declare it to be factual (see FOX News), so please go ahead with your entry on gay NAZI Democrats for Christ. The power of Wikipedia is in that given the sheer number of peers who review your work any errors or omissions are likely to be corrected over time. This is in contrast to traditional hard copy where once something is in print, it cannot be updated. There's no way to experience everything first-hand, so for better or worse we are at the mercy of the accounts that others have to offer.

You seem to think that you know a lot more than anybody else, living or dead. I'm curious as to how you achieved such an elightened state. Please share.

Your thinking is so 20th Century.

Who/what exactly is the one single infallible source of information? Even the most informed sources only know what they know, which is to say that they don't know everything.

What's great about Wikipedia is that if YOU see an error or if YOU have something to add that isn't there, YOU can go ahead and make a correction/addition.

There was a book that came out about a year or so ago called "Wikinomics." I suggest you read it. The book talks about how the proliferation of information is changing business and culture, but among other things, it details how Wikipedia is actually as accurate or more accurate than traditional encyclopedias because so many people have editorial access. That might sound counterintuitive at first, but who better to define the minute details of the world we live in - the (6,000,000,000+) individuals with the most intimate knowledge of those details or a select panel of individuals tasked with being experts on everything?

Every information source will have its share of inaccuracies, but on average, inaccuracies on Wikipedia last about 5 minutes. Why? - Because so many people have the ability to make corrections.

... because Obama isn't running against Bush.

After reading one ignorant post after another from you, I feel like donating to Obama's campaign. People like you keep me from even considering voting Republican.

You're wasting your time here.