Rep U.s. Rep. Gabrielle Giffords Of Arizona Shot

[Jesus_lol]

[quote name='notardillacid' timestamp='1294942001' post='2199689']
Hmm...I had Sternhauser pegged as the one who would bring up Nazis first. Congrats on beating him to it. No easy feat!
[/quote]

My comment had nothing to do with Nazi policies or politics. It was framed only as a well known military action of a country expanding past it's own borders and taking over another. I could have used the recent invasion of Georgia by Russia, but analogies work much better when people have heard of what you are referring to.

[Sternhauser]

[quote name='dominicansoul' timestamp='1294965678' post='2199853']
Hey, Stern...it's too bad the police, so overloaded with steroid rage, didn't get a hand on this guy before he went on this shooting spree...[/quote]

Real criminals? They're too busy killing small-time potheads. "6 seconds from "Police" to Dead."
[media]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WV6Bq8xeQrU&feature=player_embedded[/media]

Guy had no idea what was going on. No chance to respond before they drilled him and killed him. Poor blighter. Probably thought his house was getting invaded by criminal thugs with guns. Serves him right for having marijuana.

~Sternhauser

Edited January 14, 2011 by Sternhauser

[4588686]

[quote name='Sternhauser' timestamp='1294949001' post='2199746']
I guess I'm just a slave who wants to get beat as little as possible. Nothing necessarily altruistic about it. Why would I want to move to another plantation, under a different slavemaster? There are worse slavemasters out there, but that is certainly not to say that this slavemaster is good. In addition, I already know [i]this [/i]slavemaster's routines, so I can avoid his influence as much as possible. [/QUOTE]

A slave does not have a choice which plantation he works on. You like to use explosive rhetoric like this but neither your activities, as far as I know, nor the way you seem to conceptualize the points behind this rhetoric, correspond to what one would expect from someone who truly held such radical views.



[QUOTE]My arguments in favor/against what? What gives you the impression I don't believe what I say I believe?





Still not seeing what "hypocrisy" you're trying to point out, Hassan.

~Sternhauser
[/quote]

Please don't let me be misunderstood. I don't think either you or Tolstoy are hypocrates. I think that at an abstract level you both believe the radical views that you hold. I don't think that you have internalized these beliefs or that you have really embraced them to your core. Why? Because your praxis doesn't seem to line up with your theory.

Osama Bin Laden follows Sayyed Qutb in advocating a radical anarchism, though one presented through the prism of Islamic culture rather than Western enlightenment culture. I believe that both of them truly believe in the inherent violence and wickedness of the existing international nation-state system. Why? Because Qutb went to the hangman's noose for his beliefs and Osama Bin Laden gave up fabulous wealth and luxury to live a rough and dangerous life on the Afghan-Pakistan boarder fighting hopelessly against global superpowers.

That is behavior consistent with somebody who truly embraces radicalism to their core.

Do you truly believe that the state system you live under is an illegitimate system founded on illegitimate violence and aggression? Do you truly believe that taxes are a form of theft? That the situation is truly that of a man giving his wallet to a man holding a gun to his head? These are beliefs in the fundamental evilness and illegitimacy of the national and international political system on par with Osama Bin Laden's. Compare how Osama Bin Laden has carried on from these conclusions with the way you have. That's what I mean.

I can point to individuals who hold radical beliefs on par with yours. All of them followed these radical conclusions with radical actions. Not necessairly mass atrocities like Bin Laden, or even targeted violence, like the Russian anarchists of the 19th century, but usually radical, life transforming actions on some scale. Something that fundamentally removes them from the illegitimate society they seek to transform.

[Sternhauser]

[quote name='Hasan' timestamp='1294969785' post='2199875']
A slave does not have a choice which plantation he works on. You like to use explosive rhetoric like this but neither your activities, as far as I know, nor the way you seem to conceptualize the points behind this rhetoric, correspond to what one would expect from someone who truly held such radical views. [/quote]

What would you have me do? Follow in John Brown's footsteps? I just laughed out loud. Literally.


[quote]Please don't let me be misunderstood. I don't think either you or Tolstoy are hypocrates. I think that at an abstract level you both believe the radical views that you hold. I don't think that you have internalized these beliefs or that you have really embraced them to your core. Why? Because your praxis doesn't seem to line up with your theory.

Osama Bin Laden follows Sayyed Qutb in advocating a radical anarchism, though one presented through the prism of Islamic culture rather than Western enlightenment culture. I believe that both of them truly believe in the inherent violence and wickedness of the existing international nation-state system. Why? Because Qutb went to the hangman's noose for his beliefs and Osama Bin Laden gave up fabulous wealth and luxury to live a rough and dangerous life on the Afghan-Pakistan boarder fighting hopelessly against global superpowers.

That is behavior consistent with somebody who truly embraces radicalism to their core.[/quote]

And precisely what have they got to show for it? They helped get tens of thousands of their innocent countrymen buried under rubble. Bravo. Those men merely want to impose their own violent rule on other people. That is not anarchism.

[quote]Do you truly believe that the state system you live under is an illegitimate system founded on illegitimate violence and aggression? Do you truly believe that taxes are a form of theft? That the situation is truly that of a man giving his wallet to a man holding a gun to his head? These are beliefs in the fundamental evilness and illegitimacy of the national and international political system on par with Osama Bin Laden's. Compare how Osama Bin Laden has carried on from these conclusions with the way you have. That's what I mean.[/quote]

In other words, I can commit suicide by resisting the system, or kill innocents in order to bring about an anarchism founded on the [i]principle of non-aggression[/i]? Then I would be "ideologically consistent?"

[quote]I can point to individuals who hold radical beliefs on par with yours. All of them followed these radical conclusions with radical actions. Not necessairly mass atrocities like Bin Laden, or even targeted violence, like the Russian anarchists of the 19th century, but usually radical, life transforming actions on some scale. Something that fundamentally removes them from the illegitimate society they seek to transform.[/quote]

Hassan, I ask again, what do you propose I do to be "ideologically consistent?" I really have no idea what kind of things you would expect a voluntaryist to do in order to get his point across in an effective manner. I'm not trying to change the entire world all at once. I'm trying to change individual minds. I don't have delusions that I'll be phenomenally successful in that. All a [i]Catholic[/i] has to do to "fundamentally remove himself from the society he seeks to transform is" live [i]in [/i]that society by being a representative of Christ's love, by living according to Christ's teachings and those of His Church. I do a pretty poor job of that most of the time, but I'm certainly trying.

All I need to do to do as an [i]anarchist [/i]to fundamentally remove myself from the illegitimate "society" is say, "Aggression is wrong," and explain why that is, over and over again. You start telling people that torture is wrong, you'll be shunned even by some "Catholics." I live the change I wish to see, to the furthest degree possible.

But ideas precede any action, Hassan. John Brown's problem was that the country was not ready for an end to slavery. It took [i]millenia[/i] for humankind (in civilized countries) to get to the point where they rejected the institution of 100% slavery. And the rejection of slavery was based on the truth of what it means to be human, and how human beings ought to interact with each other. The world as a whole isn't ready for the truth that anarchism/voluntaryism is the "system" most in accord with human nature. It will only flourish in an already-virtuous society. When the body is sick, it won't be able to smell the food you offer it, and it will vomit up any food you try to give it. When it is well, it can smell, taste [i]and[/i] digest it. The world isn't ready to embrace anarchism. Force-feeding it will not help.

~Sternhauser

Edited January 14, 2011 by Sternhauser

[ardillacid]

[quote name='Jesus_lol' timestamp='1294967409' post='2199859']
My comment had nothing to do with Nazi policies or politics.
[/quote]
I didn't say it did. All I said is that you brought up Nazis 1st. This is not the normal. Congrats.

[rachael]

Uggggggh

[Jesus_lol]

[quote name='notardillacid' timestamp='1294971364' post='2199890']
I didn't say it did. All I said is that you brought up Nazis 1st. This is not the normal. Congrats.
[/quote]

Ah, well in that case i take it as a compliment.

As an explanation, i am watching Band of Brothers back to back right now...

[4588686]

[quote name='Sternhauser' timestamp='1294970976' post='2199887']
What would you have me do? Follow in John Brown's footsteps? I just laughed out loud. Literally.




And precisely what have they got to show for it? They helped get tens of thousands of their innocent countrymen buried under rubble. Bravo. Those men merely want to impose their own violent rule on other people. That is not anarchism. [/QUOTE]

Well. Osama Bin Laden helped bring down the Soviet Union and has managed to ensnare America in a protracted war in South Asia and provoke America into actions that have turned popular opinion in the Muslim world against Americans as a whole rather than just American policies. Qutb's followers in his country, which is Egypt, not Afghanistan as your post seems to imply, are one of the most influential political factions in Egypt, and the Brotherhood has influence across the Muslim world.

The world would be a batter place had neither of them been born, but let's not try to pretend that they have not profoundly influenced the course of world events.

As to their being Anarchsits. I was very careful to qualify them, particularly Qutb, as anarchists formed in a specifically Muslim cultural context. Read Qutb's milestones. It reads like an anarchist document. All about fighting tyrants and freeing men from any subservience save to the law of God.

[QUOTE]In other words, I can commit suicide by resisting the system, or kill innocents in order to bring about an anarchism founded on the [i]principle of non-aggression[/i]? Then I would be "ideologically consistent?" [/QUOTE]

You are hardly a pacifist. Fighting an unjust system and dying in that fight isn't suicide it's martyrdom and Osama Bin Laden started off fighting Russian soldiers, soldiers who regularly committed atrocities, in Afghanistan. You could embrace active resistance. I believe that you've said that fighting against aggression is morally permissible.



[QUOTE]Hassan, I ask again, what do you propose I do to be "ideologically consistent?" I really have no idea what kind of things you would expect a voluntaryist to do in order to get his point across in an effective manner. I'm not trying to change the entire world all at once. I'm trying to change individual minds. I don't have delusions that I'll be phenomenally successful in that. All a [i]Catholic[/i] has to do to "fundamentally remove himself from the society he seeks to transform is" live [i]in [/i]that society by being a representative of Christ's love, by living according to Christ's teachings and those of His Church. I do a pretty poor job of that most of the time, but I'm certainly trying.

All I need to do to do as an [i]anarchist [/i]to fundamentally remove myself from the illegitimate "society" is say, "Aggression is wrong," and explain why that is, over and over again. You start telling people that torture is wrong, you'll be shunned even by some "Catholics." I live the change I wish to see, to the furthest degree possible. [/QUOTE]

Right, to the furthest possible degree that you can espouse radical ideas and make shocking statements online without having to live an abnormal life. How many times have you been to jail for refusing to pay taxes? Complaining about the situation is not removing yourself from it. Other than what is absolutely necessary to preach your ideals, do you reject taking part in the fruits of an evil system? I don't know. Maybe you live in a hut in the middle of the Alaskan wilderness with only a wireless device to connect you to the outside world. In which case I retract what I have said. But you give off the impression of a nice, normal, intelligent man who went to school, has a job, and pays his taxes. That's not a promotion of your your ideals. Tolstoy, like you, made interesting points about the nature of society in thought provoking ways. Did he really believe in the glories of life as a Russian peasant? Sure, on some level. But if he [i]really[/i] believed what he said wouldn't he give up his wealth and title, burn all his bridges, and actually live the life of a Russian peasant? The same applies to you. Do you [i]really[/i] believe that taxation is a form of robbery that funds an evil and illegitimate, coercive power? If so then why do you continue to pay taxes? Why do you participate in evil?

[QUOTE]But ideas precede any action, Hassan. John Brown's problem was that the country was not ready for an end to slavery. It took [i]millenia[/i] for humankind (in civilized countries) to get to the point where they rejected the institution of 100% slavery. And the rejection of slavery was based on the truth. The world as a whole isn't ready for the truth that anarchism/voluntaryism is the "system" most in accord with human nature. It will only flourish in an already-virtuous society. When the body is sick, it won't be able to smell the food you offer it, and it will vomit up any food you try to give it. When it is well, it can smell, taste [i]and[/i] digest it. The world isn't ready to embrace anarchism. Force-feeding it will not help.

~Sternhauser
[/quote]

American society wasn't ready to end slavery in 1859 but it was in 1865?

Obviously I don't want you to either violently rebel or go to prison. I think you have interesting, thought-provoking things to say about society. But you overdo it with rhetoric that is so explosive that it is difficult to take seriously because you yourself seem to clearly either not fully believe what you are saying or are unwilling to live a life that corresponds to your radical beliefs.

[Winchester]

[quote name='Jesus_lol' timestamp='1294972449' post='2199901']
Ah, well in that case i take it as a compliment.

As an explanation, i am watching Band of Brothers back to back right now...
[/quote]
That's a Republican show.

[Sternhauser]

[quote name='Hasan' timestamp='1294972924' post='2199910']
Well. Osama Bin Laden helped bring down the Soviet Union and has managed to ensnare America in a protracted war in South Asia and provoke America into actions that have turned popular opinion in the Muslim world against Americans as a whole rather than just American policies. Qutb's followers in his country, which is Egypt, not Afghanistan as your post seems to imply, are one of the most influential political factions in Egypt, and the Brotherhood has influence across the Muslim world.

The world would be a batter place had neither of them been born, but let's not try to pretend that they have not profoundly influenced the course of world events.[/quote]

They helped unnecessarily slaughter tens of thousands. The Soviet Union was collapsing because of its very nature, as a system contradictory to human nature.

[quote]As to their being Anarchsits. I was very careful to qualify them, particularly Qutb, as anarchists formed in a specifically Muslim cultural context. Read Qutb's milestones. It reads like an anarchist document. All about fighting tyrants and freeing men from any subservience save to the law of God. [/quote]

Shariah law is incompatible with voluntaryism.

[quote]You are hardly a pacifist. Fighting an unjust system and dying in that fight isn't suicide it's martyrdom and Osama Bin Laden started off fighting Russian soldiers, soldiers who regularly committed atrocities, in Afghanistan. You could embrace active resistance. I believe that you've said that fighting against aggression is morally permissible.[/quote]

Violent resistance at this stage would be counterproductive.

[quote]Right, to the furthest possible degree that you can espouse radical ideas and make shocking statements online without having to live an abnormal life. How many times have you been to jail for refusing to pay taxes? Complaining about the situation is not removing yourself from it.[/quote]

What abnormal life would you have me live? I want specifics, Hassan. What do I have to do in order to live up to your idea of what a voluntaryist should accomplish?

[quote]Other than what is absolutely necessary to preach your ideals, do you reject taking part in the fruits of an evil system? I don't know. Maybe you live in a hut in the middle of the Alaskan wilderness with only a wireless device to connect you to the outside world. In which case I retract what I have said. But you give off the impression of a nice, normal, intelligent man who went to school, has a job, and pays his taxes. That's not a promotion of your your ideals. Tolstoy, like you, made interesting points about the nature of society in thought provoking ways. Did he really believe in the glories of life as a Russian peasant? Sure, on some level. But if he [i]really[/i] believed what he said wouldn't he give up his wealth and title, burn all his bridges, and actually live the life of a Russian peasant? The same applies to you. Do you [i]really[/i] believe that taxation is a form of robbery that funds an evil and illegitimate, coercive power? If so then why do you continue to pay taxes? Why do you participate in evil?[/quote]

Ever heard the phrase, "more useful alive than dead?" Is it a compromise of your belief that robbery is wrong if you surrender [i]your[/i] money to a thug with a gun to your head? Would you take the radical route of saying, "Blackguard! Rogue! You have no moral right to do this to me! Fiend! Unhand me, I say," whereupon you would receive a somewhat less-than-eloquent response in the form of a bullet in your head?

I do not see how living in a hut in the boonies (while admittedly quaint and picturesque) would further the spread of voluntaryist thought, any more than Ted Kaczynski living in a hut and performing his "radical" actions furthered [i]luddite[/i] thought. I don't think Tolstoy's love of the peasants contradicted his detestation of the State that helped keep them impoverished. One can love cats, but one does not have to eat mice in order to become "consistent" with one's love of cats. Am I a hypocrite if I say that the religious life is the most preferable course of action, yet do not myself become a priest? Certainly not. Not all are called to the priesthood or the religious life. That does not mean that it is not true that the religious life is the most preferable state of life. It is not for everyone. But I do not see how these comparisons are applicable to an ideologically and practically synthesized anarchist life. Jesus lived 33 years before he died. He had things he needed to accomplish before it was time for him to be killed. (Not directed at you, Hassan, as you are a bit more logical than the average bear: "Uh oh, I'm obviously comparing the importance of my beliefs and "teachings" to those of Jesus, Our Lord and Savior.")

[quote]American society wasn't ready to end slavery in 1859 but it was in 1865?[/quote]

American society probably would have abolished slavery without bloodshed by the 1870's. (As evidenced by every other country in the Western hemisphere which had done so with little to no bloodshed.) But by 1865, American society was a bit too fatigued to keep the institution going, as you can probably imagine.

[quote]Obviously I don't want you to either violently rebel or go to prison. I think you have interesting, thought-provoking things to say about society. But you overdo it with rhetoric that is so explosive that it is difficult to take seriously because you yourself seem to clearly either not fully believe what you are saying or are unwilling to live a life that corresponds to your radical beliefs.[/quote]

So, Hassan, specifics. What do you think a "good anarchist" must do in order to be consistent? Should everyone be a John Brown and get slaughtered, or are there other, more effective ways of undermining and eradicating immoral institutions? Should "Publius" have acted in different ways than they did, or would you not agree that the publication of the Federalist Papers was, in itself, a tremendous contribution to their common cause? Should Harriet Beecher Stowe have written [i]Uncle Tom's Cabin, [/i]or should she have gone the John Brown route and gotten killed beforehand? Is Ed Brown doing a lot for the anti-tax movement sitting in prison, separated from his wife? Hassan, what do I have to do in order to correspond to my "radical beliefs?" Keep in mind that efficacy, not showboating, is of the essence.

~Sternhauser

Edited January 14, 2011 by Sternhauser

[Ed Normile]

Did you hear about that shooting in Arizona .......

ed

[AudreyGrace]

[quote name='Ed Normile' timestamp='1294977374' post='2199939']
Did you hear about that shooting in Arizona .......

ed
[/quote]

shooting? in Arizona? what is this madness you speak of?

[4588686]

[quote name='Sternhauser' timestamp='1294975002' post='2199926']
They helped unnecessarily slaughter tens of thousands. The Soviet Union was collapsing because of its very nature, as a system contradictory to human nature.[/QUOTE]

Which is why China also collapsed in the 1990's? The Soviet Union collapsed for a number of reasons. The Afghan war was not the single cause of the collapse but it was a significant factor. It drained the USSR of money, had important effects on the political topology of the Soviet Union, and demonstrated deterioration of the once mighty Red Army.



[QUOTE]Shariah law is incompatible with voluntaryism.[/QUOTE]

I understand that. Qutb was a strange mixture of Islamic theocracy, Leninist Utopianism, and other forces. He was not an anarchist in the sense as has been developed by modern day, post-enlightenment, Western thought, but he was a theocratic anarchists of sorts. A central piece of his mission was that Islam is an absolute uncoerced choice and that the mission of Islam was to rid the world of all oppression and tyrrany. No man should ever have to be subject to any law save God's. I'm not saying that his theory was internally consistent.


[QUOTE]Violent resistance at this stage would be counterproductive.[/QUOTE]

At what stage would it be productive?



[QUOTE]What abnormal life would you have me live? I want specifics, Hassan. What do I have to do in order to live up to your idea of what a voluntaryist should accomplish?



Ever heard the phrase, "more useful alive than dead?" Is it a compromise of your belief that robbery is wrong if you surrender [i]your[/i] money to a thug with a gun to your head? Would you take the radical route of saying, "Blackguard! Rogue! You have no moral right to do this to me! Fiend! Unhand me, I say," whereupon you would receive a somewhat less-than-eloquent response in the form of a bullet in your head?

I do not see how living in a hut in the boonies (while admittedly quaint and picturesque) would further the spread of voluntaryist thought, any more than Ted Kaczynski living in a hut and performing his "radical" actions furthered [i]luddite[/i] thought. I don't think Tolstoy's love of the peasants contradicted his detestation of the State that helped keep them impoverished. One can love cats, but one does not have to eat mice in order to become "consistent" with one's love of cats. Am I a hypocrite if I say that the religious life is the most preferable course of action, yet do not myself become a priest? Certainly not. Not all are called to the priesthood or the religious life. That does not mean that it is not true that the religious life is the most preferable state of life. It is not for everyone. But I do not see how these comparisons are applicable to an ideologically and practically synthesized anarchist life. Jesus lived 33 years before he died. He had things he needed to accomplish before it was time for him to be killed. (Not directed at you, Hassan, as you are a bit more logical than the average bear: "Uh oh, I'm obviously comparing the importance of my beliefs and "teachings" to those of Jesus, Our Lord and Savior.")



American society probably would have abolished slavery without bloodshed by the 1870's. (As evidenced by every other country in the Western hemisphere which had done so with little to no bloodshed.) But by 1865, American society was a bit too fatigued to keep the institution going, as you can probably imagine.



So, Hassan, specifics. What do you think a "good anarchist" must do in order to be consistent? Should everyone be a John Brown and get slaughtered, or are there other, more effective ways of undermining and eradicating immoral institutions? Should "Publius" have acted in different ways than they did, or would you not agree that the publication of the Federalist Papers was, in itself, a tremendous contribution to their common cause? Should Harriet Beecher Stowe have written [i]Uncle Tom's Cabin, [/i]or should she have gone the John Brown route and gotten killed beforehand? Is Ed Brown doing a lot for the anti-tax movement sitting in prison, separated from his wife? Hassan, what do I have to do in order to correspond to my "radical beliefs?" Keep in mind that efficacy, not showboating, is of the essence.

~Sternhauser
[/quote]

Alright. I'm pretty tired right now, so I may regret this tomorrow, but point(s) taken (regarding the role of the anarchist in modern society, not the comments about slavery in America and the civil war, which I do disagree with). I was wrong and presumptuous to suggest that your actions were logically inconsistent with your professed beliefs and to question how 'deeply' you 'felt' your beliefs.

Edited January 14, 2011 by Hasan

[liseski]

[quote name='Jesus_lol' timestamp='1294967226' post='2199858']
Liberal and Conservative expectations and policies are so far off those of canadian ones, they really only share a name, my ideas on politics far from mirror those of the american Liberals, they just line up a bit better than those of the American Conservatives.
[/quote]

True dat.
I find even liberal Democrats a bit tight.

[Socrates]

[quote name='Jesus_lol' timestamp='1294967226' post='2199858']
Cool story bro. Lets face facts, the only way you would ever consider my opinion "informed" is if it mirrored yours exactly.[/quote]
Well, that would certainly be a step in the right direction!

At least you wouldn't babble about regular calls for beheadings on FOX news and Christian plots to overthrow the Constitution.

[quote]My concern over Obama? honestly, he is majorly disappointing to me. And i have said that many many times here, glad you were listening. I dont think he is the worldly embodiment of Satan and Stalin's lovechild like most of you guys do, so when you post your opinions on the guy, mine dont often line up. the fact that I defend Obama against accusations of being Hitler-Stalin does not mean that i approve of the guy.[/quote]
Now that's just silly. We all know you're right and George W. Bush is the worldly embodiment of Satan and Sarah Palin is Hitler's lovechild.

Note that I never accused you of Obama-worship. I'm just saying that for someone so worried about America's world policies, you largely ignore the people actually in charge, and focus a lot instead on people who really have no say in federal government policy.

[quote]In 2008 i would have voted for Obama(more likely a 3rd party independent) but only as the lesser(in my mind) of two evils. Liberal and Conservative expectations and policies are so far off those of canadian ones, they really only share a name, my ideas on politics far from mirror those of the american Liberals, they just line up a bit better than those of the American Conservatives.
[/quote]
Funny, from what I've seen, the main difference between American and Canadian liberals is geography.
Of course, some day you might post something to change my mind.

[quote]I have posted several times recently(well, before my month long vacation) about recent policy changes, in most of them i expressed disappointment with the actions of both sides, with the nod going to the republicans for being a bit worse(Gee what a freaking surprise, a liberal disliking conservative policy. like that is some sort of bias, if i liked conservative policy, then i wouldnt be a liberal). However, given the general lack of major policy changes recently, due to political deadlock, all that is really left to discuss is the conduct of the various parties. I am quite happy tohttp://www.phatmass.com/phorum/index.php?showtopic=110214 comment on conduct, because unlike policy, being a jerk is universal, canadian and american.
[/quote]
Your postings are public for all to see. I can read them. All there is to discuss is silly cheap-shots at Sarah Palin. Nothing else out there.

Yes, we're all jerks on both sides of the border. Gives me a warm feeling of universal brotherhood.

[quote]The conservatives set Sarah Palin up as a media darling, hype her every word, get her a TV show, spot on a news channel, and put her a heart attack away from being a potential president, and people are surprised when she is talked about.[/quote]
Sarah Palin set herself up as a public media figure. I last saw of cover story about her on [i]Time[/i] magazine, not exactly known as a right-wing mouthpiece. And you seem determined to do your part to aid the media saturation y bringing her up in every thread you can. As for "the conservatives," some like her, some don't. My feelings are mixed myself, but I'd vote for her over Obama or any other lib-Dem clown they run.
As a media darling, she ain't got nothin' on Dear Leader, of course, though his star is fast fading.

[quote]Tea Party? heck i probably would have voted for Ron Paul, the libertarian founder of the original Tea Party, had i known more about him. The basic ideals he put into place, i find a good bit of common ground with. to a certain extent, the modern Tea Party pays lipservice to those ideas, but I have yet to see evidence that the majority of the Tea Party nowadays arent just Fringe GOP members.
[/quote]
Interesting. Maybe I'm wrong and your politics aren't so much leftist as schizoid.
Ron Paul's libertarian laissez-faire limited government ideals are pretty much the polar opposite of what you post on here.
You can correct me if I'm wrong, but it seems that you generally see more government regulation, involvement and "oversight" to be the cure to all our ills - at least on the economic level.

But then, maybe you've seen the light since then.