Site Presented By
Sunday, Nov 8, 2009
You are either a McCain supporter or you think Obama LOSE FIFTY POUNDS OF UGLY FAT, palin, CUT OFF YER STINKING HEAD!!!!!
IF mcPAIN & FAILIN' palin ARE THE BEST THE repugnicant-rethug-repubs HAVE TO OFFER,
THEY ARE DOOMED TO SUFFER THE FATE OF THE MALLET-SMASHED HEADS OF THE UP-POPPING GOPHER!!!!!
TWO MORE BOMBASTIC IGNORAMUS IMBECILE FEEBLE-MINDED DUNCES I HAVE NEVER SEEN!!!!!!
AND LEST YOU THINK I AM BEING VICIOUSLY & UNNECESSARILY CRUEL AND MEAN,
PARDON ME WHILST I LOOK FOR SOME TINY PEAS FOR THEIR BRAIN-TRANSPLANTS TO PROFFER!!!!!
HAH(^0^)V!!!!!
-- raymundohpl
[Read raymundohpl's
Raymundohpl, are you trully this incapable of intelligent discourse. If Obama and Biden thought as you do, they could not get my vote. I have no clue as to why such sick-o as your self would support the right ticket. Thanks for your vote but please keep your abusive remarks to yourself. I would never vote for Sarah Palin but she is clearly a very admirable lady. Something I guess you would not know anything about.
...of "PROGRESSIVE" the euphemism favored by libscum for Marxism, socialism, communism.
Zoltan Newberry (?) is right, as many lefty critics have been saying for years (let me say that again: warning us for years), that Dems are also to blame for the deregulatory disaster that we created.
I don't address this letter to Newberry as the tone of the letter makes clear that this isn't someone with whom I'd like to engage - or that this might even be possible.
It's correct to condemn Barney Frank and others for being asleep at the wheel about Freddie and Fanny Mac.
It's correct to ask Bill Clinton not only about his appalling record on deregulation, but to ask him why he did not veto some of the worst of these measures. [Paging Senator Gramm.]
But let's also be clear about two things. Bad mortgages are the trigger, but are not the ultimate cause of this collapse. If basic regulation has not been changed since 2002, we would not be in this situation today. There would be vast losses related to mortgages, but not all the other real problems related to credit.
In case folks missed this really key piece on the cover of the NYT this week, this really says it all.
In case the link doesn't work, people can also search for the story under its title: The Reckoning: Agency's '04 Rule Lets Banks Pile Up New Debt.
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/10/03/business/03sec.html?em=&adxnnl=1&adxnnlx=1223090153-T8Bp7MCo5hxOU+w7IqteNQ
Both Dems and the GOP have blood on their hands, but at the same time, all of these things are not equivalent. It's not enough, as Newberry did here, to get up on soapbox and scream you hypocrites. We need to understand with more precision and care who did what in order for there to be justice and to fix the problem. (Note to Palin re global warming.)
The Regan Revolution must be rolled back.
By now everyone has become aware of the effort that ABC's snooty and supercilious Charles Gibson made to disparage Sarah Palin under the guise of conducting an interview of her. It clearly was not an interview as Mr. Gibson sought merely to ridicule her rather than to elicit any meaningful information from her.
Ms. Palin did just fine, thank you. On the other hand the ABC snot showed himself to be a haughty ignoranus (sic) further debasing -- if that is still possible -- the profession of journalism.
Why did the usually bland talking head attempt the hit on the estimable Ms. Palin?
The very intelligent and highly perceptive blogger who publishes the Gunslingers Journal believes -- correctly, in my opinion -- that Mr. Gibson was trying to raise his professional standing and esteem with his BOM (Big Old Media) cohorts and those with whom they mingle and identify. And that, in turn, raises the larger question of why these smug, sanctimonious elitists harbor so much rage toward Ms. Palin.
To get and understand the answer, in my opinion, one need only look at the attitude that old line Tories exhibited toward Margaret Thatcher even as she led them to one victory after another and successive glorious successes in England. After all, they sniffed, she was "a shopkeeper's daughter." Ultimately, the upper crusters brought the Iron Lady down, preferring defeat to being led by a commoner, irrespective of how able and accomplished.
We in America also have among us those who consider themselves superior to, and entitled to rule their ordinary countrymen. Here the attitude goes even further. As was noted by the Benjamin Franklin character in the play 1776: "We've spawned a new race here -- rougher, simpler, more violent, more enterprising, and less refined."
The eltists among us are embarrassed by this. They identify with and seek to emulate European patricians -- to be gentler, more sophisticated, never violent no matter how great the provocation, certainly less enterprising, and of course more refined. They would transform our vibrant culture into one resembling the terminally lethargic one of modern Europe in which people believe in nothing other than their own comforts and are devoid of values worth defending.
Sarah Palin is a threat, and a potentially lethal one, to the un-American and often even anti American dominance over our institutions enjoyed by those who hold such attitudes. The effrontery, the temerity, the sheer gall of that woman to presume that she can participate in the country's governance . . . the very idea that commoners, ordinary people not members of the elite establishment can govern themselves.
No matter what the cost, she has to stopped and the idea she represents must be nipped in the bud. Both have to be not just defeated in the election but totally discredited . . . destroyed.
There is more to the vicious and emotional anti-Palin hysteria than the political challenge of her candidacy that is described below in my prior letter.
Ms. Palin, because of the clear contrast that she presents, is a living rebuke and threat to all of the nation's many sexually inadequate and envious women. Her obviously happy and mutually fulfilling relationship with her alpha male husband also focuses attention on the shortcomings of, and creates similar insecurities and angst among impotent and metro sexual males.
Members of both these androgynous groups populate the corrupt academic, media, and other elitist institutions and chichi enclaves from which the irrational rage against Ms. Palin emanates. It is not an accident that neither of two notably sexually adventurous Democrat leaders who share none of Ms. Palin's political views has participated in the vehement hate spewing personal attacks against her. Notwithstanding their other personal shortcomings and foibles, neither Bill Clinton nor Ted Kennedy appears to feel personally threatened or enraged by Ms. Palin's participation in the nation's public life and political process.
Much of the initial coverage about Fort Hood turned out to be wrong. Is there anything wrong with that?
The accountability imposed by another country for the CIA's kidnapping and torture reveals much about our own.
Fox News' morning show plays to type, talking about whether Muslims in the Army should face "special debriefings"
The survivor and author is upset about comparisons some on the right are making to genocide
Once seen as a lunatic fringe, reactionary anti-women groups are courting respectability
Salon headlines in your mailbox
