Lucky...

And that is wrong how? It's a fun thread, fun poking at GWB, the eternal moronic president. People will be throwing out Bushisms and using him as a low standard for decades to come, welcome to your personal hell. I bet he is used as an insult metaphor in most future presidential debates in the future.

Oh, I see, his stupidity is only relevant if he's president. Beauty is, his stupidity still lives on today; thx GWB voters.

http://thestar.blogs.com/.a/6a00d8341bf8f353ef0120a777a846970b-pi

I don't know about that: http://img.chan4chan.com/img/2009-02-26/1235657994831.jpg

Yes, but according to the OP she is gutsy and apparently that is all that matters to GOPers.

And still can't address an issue.

Well, when the posting is riddled with obvious lies, Snope's stories, and likely exaggerations (let's see how much money the feds sent to Alaska versus how much the state sent to DC), you can expect some sort of response. Never said any of it was correct Right, you wrote Palin has guts. I responded by saying so did Hitler and PolPot, for which you have not responded. Nice backing out; keep going.

It's just inherently BS, esp when a person claims that: - She has guts And fails to show anything but aimless guts coupled with noting like intelliegence, compassion for other than the rich, etc. Basically she is a big-mouthed fool. She was a journalism major, took her years too long to get it between beauty pageants and then can't name 1 media publication or SCOTUS decision. Now you're irked because we won't just accept she's a gutsy young filly; get real.

Hitler, Pol Pot and the rest had guts, you've made no valid point; guts w/o compassion and intelligence is meaningless. Way to debate the words in the post and not make some emotionally charged nonsensical reply......Oh wait, I think I got that backwards. No, I'm actually responding to the few words of his in his post, I usually don't read 10-word posts with 300-word cut-n-pastes. So he wrote: Whether you like Sarah Palin or not, you've got to admit she's got more guts than most of the male and/or female politicians in state or federal offices!!! I referring to the assertion about guts, this is not an emotional response, it's a response to the guts reference. Reading is fundamental. In here, a person should make his or her own assertion and use external data to support that point. From teh right we usually see 1 sentence and then some huge cut-n-paste. I don't care to comment on most of these long cut-n-pastes, just the poster's take on this. So the words I was responding to WERE THE WORDS IN HIS POST, APPARENTLY YOU DIDN'T READ THE OP.

Hitler, Pol Pot and the rest had guts, you've made no valid point; guts w/o compassion and intelligence is meaningless. Prove it! Prove what? Hiutler and Pol Pot had guts? Or that guts w/o compassion and intelligence is meaningless? It's not really a prove it situation, I think we know killing millions is a gutsy thing that laed to Hitler's forced suicide and Pol Pot kinda skated. Point is, it's not passive, it's ballsy, so to say guts and guts alone is an admirable attribute is ridiculous.

Ohhhhhhhh, is that why they call it, stare decisis? I'm glad you're here to teach me stuff.

This pretty much sums up the south.

And that something was blanket amnesty, is that what you're referring to, or another hypocrisy?

OMG, who would ever do blanket amnesty??????? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Immigration_Reform_and_Control_Act_of_1986 And remember, other than fasicst Ronnie signing it, the R's controlled the Senate too. Looks like more talking out of both sides of the face again.

Hitler, Pol Pot and the rest had guts, you've made no valid point; guts w/o compassion and intelligence is meaningless. I would say that self imposed ignorance can have a strong showing in posts like this one Yes, I agree, your posts come off that way.

The boringly trypical thing is that if these guys had their day in court you would be bitching about that, so it's a great day for you depending upon which side the coin lands. He went after Bush for as long as I can remember Political humor with at bite and a touch of truth Hurts sometimes Becomes boring when the purveyors of it talk from both sides of their mouth...... *YAWN*

Who thinks that? That was more a slap at Carter than a fear of Reagan. Though if you want to believe the October Surprise... Right and Carter worked the Algiers Accord to clean up his mess before he handed off the presidency, something your beloved Republcians think is unneccessary.

Hitler, Pol Pot and the rest had guts, you've made no valid point; guts w/o compassion and intelligence is meaningless.

Right, because the ignorant Americans think the Iranian hoastages were released as a result of fear of fascist Ronnie. No one feared FR, just ask the perpetrators of the Beirut barracks bombing. And when people saw a total disaster Reaganomics was/is. According to whom; you? http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-500803_162-4645638-500803.html I think he has become a bigger scumbag thru time as the tapes are released. "Never forget. The press is the enemy. The establishment is the enemy. The professors are the enemy." Almost shouting he repeated, "professors are the enemy!" He told former Harvard professor Kissinger, "Write that on a blackboard 100 times and never forget it." Esp amongst the Dems, the R's think he was too liberal with his tiny tax increase he was forced to implement due to Reagan's mess. I think more D's like him than do R's. Agreed, he will just try to stay low. He's stolen enough money that he won't need to do the whole book circuit thing. Right and memories need to fade. That's the beauty of a 4-year term; memories still recall a disaster like GWB.

Carter did a great job with the Algier's Accord that crusty fascist pig Ronnie received credit for.

The boringly trypical thing is that if these guys had their day in court you would be bitching about that, so it's a great day for you depending upon which side the coin lands.

So what do you call cutting social svs and having masses of poor and elderly homeless? Thsi is the Libertarian dream, right? And there inlies the rub, most Libertarians I encounter are 90% about the property aspect, 10% the personal rts aspect. Right and the actions of nature are not your fault and as a Libertarian yours is to show no compassion. So your answer is to do nothing, defaulting to the GOP mindset of no legal gay marriage, exposing your true GOP beliefs with a hint of, "Gee, can't we lower taxes and keep everything else the same?"

I don't think that is a libertarian response. As somebody who leans libertarian myself I would like to see governement completely out of the business of regulating personal relationships--no state sanctioned marriage for anybody, we don't need it. But you would probably attend a tea-bagger taxation rally, never consider attending an abortion rights rally or a gay marriage rally, right? So you would, "check the box" but that's about it other than feeling really strong about tax cuts, rendering you more GOP with compassion for personal rights. This is what I'm talking about when I call some Libertarian, "Coca-Cola Libetarians."

Wrong, way more than property: - Power of attny - Power of life/death with medical matters - Mutual 5th Ammend right against self-incrim You become one in the same person in all aspects when you get married.

From what I see on these forums, a libertarian is a conservative without the balls to stand up for the whole platform. They are generally very vocal against the left, yet when a misstep is pointed out on the right they state: "I am a Libertarian" Exactly, or as I call them, a digruntled Republican. To say the 2 are far off is ludicrous.