@NetRunner

I second longde's reply above. I haven't seen anything from Reverend Wright that sounds racist to me. On the contrary, when I listen to Rev. Wright speak, he seems to be someone deeply interested in bridging racial divides.

Some criticism of "Black Liberation Theology"


I certainly don't think Obama is a racist, which is what you're trying to say as well.

>>> Well, aren't you claiming Dr. Paul is a racist? The man is not a fool, and knows that the libmedia is against him. Yet he continues to run for office and suffer what is assuredly unfair scrutiny.

>>> What's truly in Obama's heart no one knows. I see either a closet racist--more concerned with accruing power than skin color--or a crafty politician--more concerned with accruing power than anything else.

As for my problem really being with libertarianism, it's both. One can be libertarian without being racist, and one can be racist without being libertarian, but the self-identified American white supremacists really adore libertarianism and Ron Paul.

>>> You may very well be making a fair statement about a majority of "self-identified American white supremacists", to which I reply, "So what?" Don't those people have a right to vote for whomever they wish? It's obvious they are not a large or serious base. Those people wear shoes, right? If they favor Keds, is everyone who wears Keds a racist?

Why? Because instituting libertarianism would legalize racial discrimination, religious discrimination, sexual discrimination (both gender and orientation). Depending on the type of libertarianism, they might even get slavery back via indentured servitude.

>>> Rather far-fetched. I can't seriously believe you're worried about this. You think the only thing holding the system together--guiding the economic, religious and moral decisions of 300 million people--are a few recent laws on the books?

So smart racists get really, really solidly behind libertarianism. Even smarter racists pretend not to be racist, they're just libertarians...who just happen to believe the Civil Rights Act is an unconscionable exercise of state power, and oh yeah, used to have this newsletter they published saying all kinds of racist crap.

Ooops.

It's actually Ron Paul who helped me realize that the true lineage of libertarianism can be traced right back to the South's self-serving claims that fighting for slavery was actually a fight for freedom. Basically everything having to do with State's Rights, property rights, right to contract, all that crap was used to justify slavery.

It was used again to defend Jim Crow, separate but equal, opposition to the Civil Rights Act, etc.

IMO, any legal or moral framework which can justify that rogue's gallery of policies should just be discarded, not whitewashed, spun, and resold to people as some bright vision of the future.

>>> The Civil War was far more complex than "slavery". For at least the first 18 months of the war, slavery was not THE issue, and the South had every right to secede.

Any people anywhere, being inclined and having the power, have the right to rise up and shake off the existing government and to form one that suits them better. Nor is this right confined to cases in which the people of an existing government may choose to exercise it. Any portion of such people that can, may make their own of such territory as they inhabit. More than this, a majority of any portion of such people may revolutionize, putting down a minority intermingling with or near them who oppose their movement.

Lincoln on the floor of Congress, 13 January 1848
Congressional Globe, Appendix
1st Session 30th Congress, page 94

>>> Lincoln made the war primarily about slavery, but slavery was already on the way out before the War even began. Slavery had been abolished in most of Europe. Only wealthy Southerners owned slaves, and industrialization made plantations less and less able to compete with the North.

>>> I have to take this moment to remind that it was Republicans who ended slavery, and Democrats who donned the white sheets.

>>> The alternative to a proper balance of power between States' Rights and the feds is what we have now: an all-powerful federal mafia, ruling without the rule of law, made all the more dangerous when Democrats are in power due to their mainstream media media lackeys.

>>> There's plenty of valid criticism of Dr. Paul out there without the non-issue of some 20-year-old newsletters. Because our time and interests are finite, I assume this charge of racism is just an easy way for the left to refute the libertarian message, though it be simple, neat and wrong.


>> ^NetRunner:

I second longde's reply above. I haven't seen anything from Reverend Wright that sounds racist to me. On the contrary, when I listen to Rev. Wright speak, he seems to be someone deeply interested in bridging racial divides.
I certainly don't think Obama is a racist, which is what you're trying to say as well.
As for my problem really being with libertarianism, it's both. One can be libertarian without being racist, and one can be racist without being libertarian, but the self-identified American white supremacists really adore libertarianism and Ron Paul.
Why? Because instituting libertarianism would legalize racial discrimination, religious discrimination, sexual discrimination (both gender and orientation). Depending on the type of libertarianism, they might even get slavery back via indentured servitude.
So smart racists get really, really solidly behind libertarianism. Even smarter racists pretend not to be racist, they're just libertarians...who just happen to believe the Civil Rights Act is an unconscionable exercise of state power, and oh yeah, used to have this newsletter they published saying all kinds of racist crap.
Ooops.
It's actually Ron Paul who helped me realize that the true lineage of libertarianism can be traced right back to the South's self-serving claims that fighting for slavery was actually a fight for freedom. Basically everything having to do with State's Rights, property rights, right to contract, all that crap was used to justify slavery.
It was used again to defend Jim Crow, separate but equal, opposition to the Civil Rights Act, etc.
IMO, any legal or moral framework which can justify that rogue's gallery of policies should just be discarded, not whitewashed, spun, and resold to people as some bright vision of the future.
>> ^quantumushroom:


@NetRunner and others, I question your collective "concern" over this non-issue, which is comical considering Dr. Paul has no chance of wining the nomination (or does he)?
I don't know if you voted for Chicago Jesus, but if the facts that he spent 20 years in the Church of Hate Whitey under the tutelage of the deranged Jeremiah Wright, got married in said church and also gave it 20Gs doesn't bother you, then your problem with Dr. Paul isn't "racism", it's libertarianism.

I second longde's reply above. I haven't seen anything from Reverend Wright that sounds racist to me. On the contrary, when I listen to Rev. Wright speak, he seems to be someone deeply interested in bridging racial divides.

I certainly don't think Obama is a racist, which is what you're trying to say as well.

As for my problem really being with libertarianism, it's both. One can be libertarian without being racist, and one can be racist without being libertarian, but the self-identified American white supremacists really adore libertarianism and Ron Paul.

Why? Because instituting libertarianism would legalize racial discrimination, religious discrimination, sexual discrimination (both gender and orientation). Depending on the type of libertarianism, they might even get slavery back via indentured servitude.

So smart racists get really, really solidly behind libertarianism. Even smarter racists pretend not to be racist, they're just libertarians...who just happen to believe the Civil Rights Act is an unconscionable exercise of state power, and oh yeah, used to have this newsletter they published saying all kinds of racist crap.

Ooops.

It's actually Ron Paul who helped me realize that the true lineage of libertarianism can be traced right back to the South's self-serving claims that fighting for slavery was actually a fight for freedom. Basically everything having to do with State's Rights, property rights, right to contract, all that crap was used to justify slavery.

It was used again to defend Jim Crow, separate but equal, opposition to the Civil Rights Act, etc.

IMO, any legal or moral framework which can justify that rogue's gallery of policies should just be discarded, not whitewashed, spun, and resold to people as some bright vision of the future.

>> ^quantumushroom:

@NetRunner and others, I question your collective "concern" over this non-issue, which is comical considering Dr. Paul has no chance of wining the nomination (or does he)?
I don't know if you voted for Chicago Jesus, but if the facts that he spent 20 years in the Church of Hate Whitey under the tutelage of the deranged Jeremiah Wright, got married in said church and also gave it 20Gs doesn't bother you, then your problem with Dr. Paul isn't "racism", it's libertarianism.

As much as people bemoan Reverend Wright, I never really got the controversy.

Can you please give me a direct quote where the pastor denigrates white people? Or says that black people are superior? While he talks about about race, complains about racial issues, and blasts the government, what racist thing did he say? 'Cause I can pull out reams of quotes from those Ron Paul newletters that denigrate blacks and push white supremacy.

You do know that that church recorded years of its Sunday services? That's how journalists could find a few choice quotes in years of sermons. But even with all that material to sift through, they found alot of nothing.

Where's the video where Reverend Wright stands in front of a black power flag and spouts off revisionist history to a the black version of neo-confederates?

I think its a shame that Obama had to ditch that church because some of his white supporters don't realize that black americans still complain loudly about racism in America.>> ^quantumushroom:

@NetRunner and others, I question your collective "concern" over this non-issue, which is comical considering Dr. Paul has no chance of wining the nomination (or does he)?
I don't know if you voted for Chicago Jesus, but if the facts that he spent 20 years in the Church of Hate Whitey under the tutelage of the deranged Jeremiah Wright, got married in said church and also gave it 20Gs doesn't bother you, then your problem with Dr. Paul isn't "racism", it's libertarianism.
As soon as his loyal Democrat mainstream media lackeys warned him, Obama abandoned the church he "loved" like a true politician. If that satisfied you enough to consider him electable, than a few ragged newsletters no one has seen isn't going to throw off Dr. Paul's base.
I don't know who among you voted for The One way back in 2008, but even if you did not, if you lost no sleep over Obama's questionable past (the parts the loyal MSM lackeys didn't or couldn't hide) then your arguments against Dr. Paul's past are moot.


>> ^NetRunner:
@Lawdeedaw I think there are several problems with that rant:

1. It assumes Ron Paul has changed
   
2. It assumes Ron Paul would be "neutral" on race
   
3. It assumes John Edwards cheating on his wife is worse than stoking racial animosity for personal gain
   
4. It expects us to forgive Ron Paul's sins, when Paul still denies having made them in the first place
   
5. It expects us to forgive Ron Paul's sins, when Paul hasn't really acted as though this sort of thing is something you need to apologize for and be contrite about
   
6. It expects us to have not forgiven John Edwards, even though he's publicly confessed, and been both contrite and repentant
   

@NetRunner and others, I question your collective "concern" over this non-issue, which is comical considering Dr. Paul has no chance of wining the nomination (or does he)?

I don't know if you voted for Chicago Jesus, but if the facts that he spent 20 years in the Church of Hate Whitey under the tutelage of the deranged Jeremiah Wright, got married in said church and also gave it 20Gs doesn't bother you, then your problem with Dr. Paul isn't "racism", it's libertarianism.

As soon as his loyal Democrat mainstream media lackeys warned him, Obama abandoned the church he "loved" like a true politician. If that satisfied you enough to consider him electable, than a few ragged newsletters no one has seen isn't going to throw off Dr. Paul's base.

I don't know who among you voted for The One way back in 2008, but even if you did not, if you lost no sleep over Obama's questionable past (the parts the loyal MSM lackeys didn't or couldn't hide) then your arguments against Dr. Paul's past are moot.




>> ^NetRunner:

@Lawdeedaw I think there are several problems with that rant:

1. It assumes Ron Paul has changed
   
2. It assumes Ron Paul would be "neutral" on race
   
3. It assumes John Edwards cheating on his wife is worse than stoking racial animosity for personal gain
   
4. It expects us to forgive Ron Paul's sins, when Paul still denies having made them in the first place
   
5. It expects us to forgive Ron Paul's sins, when Paul hasn't really acted as though this sort of thing is something you need to apologize for and be contrite about
   
6. It expects us to have not forgiven John Edwards, even though he's publicly confessed, and been both contrite and repentant
   

After realizing what I'm missing out on currently am reading The Hitchhiker's Guide To The Galaxy which is one of those books making me cry laughing.
Hitchen's God Is Not Great is definitely worth the read for his articulate mind alone.
And I can't really say I'm finished reading The Wheel Of Time while the last book is still missing.
For all the fantasy-junkies out there: Robert Jordan.
I came across a lot of critics that his books are boring and slow paced, which is absolutely, mind bogglingly deranged to say in my opinion.
For what I know of the fantasy world one of the most interesting and best thought out universes in existence.

>> ^alien_concept:

>> ^Yogi:
Buffy vs Twilight would be amazing...mostly because Twilight is sexist as hell.

Why is Twilight sexist, out of interest?


Kinda what ssprinkles said. This all powerful man protecting the poor scared helpless little girl and basically she's his toy. It's kind of deranged and also...Buffy is just great.

Thanks for the promote!

In reply to this comment by shuac:
Love the Dick Cavett slam. *promote

>> ^AdrianBlack:

The drawer full of muppet eyes was my favorite part.


Yeah it's like he's a deranged collector of eyes...pretty cool.

Sin is the cause of evil. It causes a derangement and moral depravity in the heart and mind. From this, wicked intentions and desires arise. Sin is also the cause of death. We are born predisposed towards sin because our nature is inherently corrupt.

Jeremiah 17:9

The heart is deceitful above all things, and desperately sick; who can understand it?


>> ^Ryjkyj:
>> ^shinyblurry:
Sin is an immoral act which transgresses Gods law. It isn't an absence of God, it is disobedience against His laws.
>> ^Ryjkyj:
>> ^kir_mokum:
and according to your myth, who created evil and lucifer?

This is where you get the fascinating explanation that "evil" is the absence of god. But god didn't create evil and there was nothing in the universe before god. But god didn't create evil.
Get it? Simple right?


I didn't say sin did I? Quit changing the subject.

I take that as a compliment, as I respect Hitchens as a writer and speaker (though we disagree on some politics). I haven't read any of his work beyond news oriented articles on Slate (and some videos here), though, so I can't say how well we agree on this in particular. In any case, lack of originality is a pretty sad point to make against an argument. I'm fairly sure, for example, that I couldn't make an original case for the Pythagoran theorem - though I could probably submit 10 different proofs, they've all been done (and 100 others).

Your prose was matching his word for word, point for point..particularly about "thought crime". Also with the ridiculous comparisons between scientology and Christianity. It was so egregious that I couldn't help but feel I should just go to youtube and find a Hitchens video and comment there as my reply.

It's a certitude that the biggest mouths against Scientology have an agenda. It comes from a heart polluted by Thetans. Hey, this is fun!

To be fair, I'm sure many critics of Christianity (or Scientology) have some axe to grind, or are angry because the church makes them feel guilty about bad things they've done. That doesn't mean they're wrong. Similarly, most people posting bad reviews of Kias are probably people who had a bad Kia (or auto reviewers, but there aren't a lot of professional reviewers for religion). What you're doing here is an actual ad hominem fallacy (as opposed to the times you call it, when it's just you complaining because someone was mean to you). As with most fallacies, there's a grain of truth - it does make sense here to question arguments from people with a bone to pick. But you still question their points, not their backgrounds.

It's not the church that is making someone feel guilty, it's their own God given conscience that does so. People don't come to believe in Christ because they were guilted into doing so; that in itself is a ridiculous premise. People come to Christ in part because of personal conviction from their own conscience; they already knew they were guilty. They realize that it is not just other people they have offended but God Himself, and without a mediator they have no hope of standing on their own merits.

Yes, I know what you're implying, since you already shared your history with me. It's true many previous believers strike out in anger because they feel wronged for being indoctrinated. In your case, it's probably justifiable. However, it goes much farther than that. This kind of person tends to get disillusioned and emboldened, and goes to the other extreme, feeling cocky and self assured because they now perceive themselves as being elevated and enlightened over anyone who believes.

2 Peter 2:20-22

For if, after they have escaped the defilements of the world by the knowledge of the Lord and Savior Jesus Christ, they are again entangled in them and are overcome, the last state has become worse for them than the first. For it would be better for them not to have known the way of righteousness, than having known it, to turn away from the holy commandment handed on to them. It has happened to them according to the true proverb, “A DOG RETURNS TO ITS OWN VOMIT,” and, “A sow, after washing, returns to wallowing in the mire.”

These sorts of people usually become worse sinners than anyone else because they feel above Gods laws. They treasure this new found "freedom" and don't want to give it up in their self righteouness. What they perceive as freedom from the law is really mental and emotional derangement from sin. So in the same manner they still hate Gods authority because they prefer their sins.

Mr. Hubbard, obviously. It is a certainty that Dianetics perfectly describes the human condition. If you disagree, it's Thetans. Maybe I'll shorten that to IYDIT.

But yeah, people are bad. That was one of my premises, and it's why shame is so effective. Were you agreeing with me as a ploy? You know, make me feel like a moron for being on your side? Or maybe you're being like on Bugs Bunny where he would throw in "Rabbit Season" after a few rounds?

Chewbacca is a wookie from the planet Kashyyk. He has soft brown hair and talks with kind of like a growling, elk-call sound. IYDIT.

Your entire premise here is a fallacy. You are falsely equivilcating Christianity to Scientology, and then using attacks upon your Scientology strawman (which are easily refuted) to try to knock it down. Scientology was a story authored by a science fiction writer trying to deify himself.

"The way to make a million dollars is to start a religion."

L. Ron Hubbard

Dude, when I disagree with Scientology, it doesn't matter that L. Ron Hubbard really existed. Similarly, most people are happy to believe that there was a guy name Jesus who preached at that time. Also, this is a fantastically stupid point to bring up. With Jesus or Hubbard, the question isn't whether they existed, it's whether what they said was true (and, to a lesser extent, whether they or their celebrity endorsers could perform miracles).

And no, Christianity isn't a conspiracy to control people. Usually. The fact that it works like this isn't by design, it's by evolution. The churches and denominations that survive are the ones that approach things in a certain way. The people who try to be non-judgmental, independent followers of Christ? They're cool, but their churches don't last or franchise out. The ones that survive and flourish (like Scientology) in modern times tend to work this way.

Further in the past, they had more strategies available, like just killing people who didn't believe - now they have to be a bit more subtle.

What's completely stupid here is your chain of reasoning. Christianity is centered on Christ; whether or not He existed is central. Most of what Christ said centered around His claim to be God, and judge of the entire world. If He didn't exist it isn't true. This is just babble at this point, dude.

Regardless of how people may have abused Christianity in the past does not speak to its truth. If anything it confirms it, as the bible warns countless times of false teachers and prophets who will try to distort the message and use it for gain. The early church flourished under heavy persecution, and Christians were murdered continually for the truth they shared. Do you think the church was so successful in controlling people that they could make them sing praises to Jesus while they were being burned alive? Give me a break.

What you're talking about is the catholic church, and they aren't Christians. They are basically a pagan religion that worships Mary and the Pope. There is a conspiracy in that so called church, a will to power. Among Christians, however, we exist in fellowship. You were part of a church once and you still apparently want to stay that way, so I think you understand about fellowship.

>> ^heropsycho:

Right, so here's an idea. Just agree to disagree, and move the fu% on! Teach evolution like the theory it is in science class, and let people make up their own minds. Teach christian ideas in the subjects where its relevant, like when it's being alluded to in a literature class. I don't understand why this is so hard for people to do or understand. Just because an idea is taught, comprehended, and understood, it doesn't mean it's believed in by any involved. I taught communism; I'm not a communist. I taught capitalism; I'm not a capitalist. There's value for everyone to learn and understand other ideas you disagree with.
I fully understand that knowledge is derived from multiple sources, and multiple sources conflict. Different religions conflict about the origins of man. Different people within the same religion disagree. Different scientists disagree. Why is it religious people can respectfully disagree about the origins of man, but a creationist and an evolutionist can't without biting each other's heads off?


You can "agree to disagree" all you want, but it doesn't change the fact that there are things that are demonstrably true and things that are demonstrably false.

Besides, in the context of the video, this is not something where we can "all just get along". These are two particularly deranged individuals who are (potentially in Palins case) running for the most powerful position on earth. Hell, I don't even live in the US and the thought of wither of these two being president gives me nightmares.

As for teaching evolution in science class and creationism in religious studies/history/literature, I have no problem with that. In fact, I believe you cannot understand most great works of culture without understanding the society that gave rise to them and that means knowing the bible. And you should always seek to understand position you do not agree with, even if only to "understand the ways of ones enemy".

But it never ends there. Religions always try to push their agenda onto other parts of life, often using the tools of science to do so. (see the video of the WBC with iphones) People often deride Dawkins for being hostile and argumentative, but if an organised group spent millions trying to refute my lifes work with arguments that only an idiot like shinyblurry would believe, I'd be hostile too.

Lyrics:


deifniteively, spittin venom vigorously-
comin in ya speaker system, leavin victims, in the streets-
Im just here the feed the wisdom, feast the rhythm, from the beats-
shouts to my fellow colleagues, like alyssa miss marie-
how you doin, yeah I see you, you killin the game-
we got femcees galore, restorin images meng-
because the image to these critics, is a little deranged-
so let us paint the picture, fix it with the vividest flame-
in which we spit, cause this shit isnt delivered in vain-
its just means of our survival, rivals get in ya lanes-
cause the competition stomped, and I squash em again-
my inkin thinkin scientific like the quantum of pens-
you want it again? fine let me drop another mixtape-
rappers always mean muggin, buggin with that pissed face-
spit straight fire though, no dungen dragon,
Just a J to my face and a blunt for draggin-

It's the mindset of "It's just business." If someone does it because they want to do it and act like he does on TV they are deranged. However if that person gets paid for it, business-men like themselves can see their motives (Money).

I mean can't you understand that they are getting 7 digit salaries to act like a complete asshole? Wouldn't you do that if were offered that kind of money? Why can't people understand it's business, it doesn't reflect his TRUE beliefs, morality, etc etc etc.

And they just keep telling themselves that until someone gets tired of them harping at them one too many times and pretending like they didn't just insult them for cash. Somehow they are supposed to keep their "Im a human too" card, but get to behave however they want.

If he didn't have people to take care of shit for him in a semi-anonymous fashion with lawyers to back them up if something gets squirrely...I think Beck would have a hard time operating on a daily basis when he's likely offended/insulted every other person out there. Would you like spit in that coffee?

As for the wife, she married, stayed married and had a kid with this guy.....no one in their right mind can say that she doesn't know what her husband does on a daily basis like he's some kind of secretive mobster.

Daughter......perhaps she is so far removed from reality through his money that she thinks it's normal, but I still find that hard to believe. It'd be pretty hard not to see your father on TV crying, ranting, drawing weird circular chalk diagrams plus doing gold investment commercials and not get a pretty good idea of what he does. So, either she has the "it's just business" mindset down, or she's a nut too.

And the boyfriend? Dunno if his daughter is hot, but hey girl with a rich family......he probably has the "I do it for the money, not because I agree with it." mindset down.

But, I think he just uses a played up version of events to make him look "right". I mean he doesn't mention his security at all. And if he has security, he knows there's the potential for people to decide his face needs a few more lumps.

Man has a fallen nature and sin causes peoples hearts and minds to become deranged.

Jerimiah 17:9

The heart is deceitful above all things, and desperately sick; who can understand it?

Mark 7:21-22

For from within, out of the heart of man, come evil thoughts, sexual immorality, theft, murder, adultery, coveting, wickedness, deceit, sensuality, envy, slander, pride, foolishness.

Romans 3:10

As it is written: "There is no one righteous, not even one;

It only took one sin to cause creation to fall so it isnt a small thing. Anyone who won't turn from their evil deserves what they get.

Yes, yes. Any school with famous liberals who graduated are now completely invalid as educational institutions. That's how you get around that one. Harvard Law is a crap school. So here are the conservative graduates who also don't have a valid degree according to you:

Chief Justice John Roberts
Former Chief Justice William Rehnquist
Justice Antonin Scalia
George W. Bush
William Bennett
Henry Paulson
Bill Frist
Ted "Series of Tubes" Stevens
Mitt Romney
Alan Keyes
Lou Dobbs
Bill O'Reilly

Man... too bad they must all be idiots... and they clearly don't have a grasp on being "American".

Do you ever stop and think before you say things like that?

You don't get to invalidate someone's academic achievement because you politically disagree with them... Well, you can, but it just makes you look incredibly stupid. There's something horribly wrong with people who look down on someone's intelligence despite graduating from one of the elite colleges in the US because they disagree with them. Ridiculous...

Sarah Palin can really galvanize and lead, eh?

http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2011/04/07/palin-unfavorable-rating-reaches-new-high/

What, are all polls now liberally biased, too?!

And nice try attempting to make this about how well Obama has done as President. That wasn't the debate. You said Palin is just as smart, if not smarter, than Obama. She's not. Period. You can't even sanely argue that she is. She's of average to above average intelligence overall, but sorely lacks knowledge of the economy, foreign policy, and other crucial topics needed to be a good president. Plain and simple. Your political leanings shouldn't cloud that assessment. There are plenty of right wingers who also can accept Palin just isn't smart, and Obama is.

Bonus: The only person who brought up Al Gore is you. This isn't a liberal vs conservative thing. This is you saying idiotic things flying in the face of simple facts.

>> ^quantumushroom:

Did you seriously just say Obama's intellect is comparable to Palin's?!
Palin has a far better grasp on what it means to be an American than a bitter leftist who sat in a hate-Whitey church for 20-plus years. His Earness is endlessly promoted by His media lackeys, so a fair comparison is not possible.
SERIOUSLY?!?!?!? Look, gaffes aside, Obama graduated from Harvard Law School with a JD magna cum laude. Palin took six years to get a bachelor's degree in communications bouncing around from school to school to get it!
You might have had a point when Harvard wasn't a politically-correct degree mill. Speaking of kollij, we will never see Obama's kollij papers to know his genius even then. Community organizer? Do you even need higher education to become a rabble-rousing 'activist'?
Dude, if the conservative/libertarian ideology concluded the world is flat, would you spout that crap, too?! In fact, your beloved Ron Paul wouldn't tell Obama he's not smart enough to be president.
I don't need any labels to denounce His Earness. I merely observe the results of his incompetence (or genius, for those promoting the one-world illuminati worldview). His results are indefensible by any metric you care to name.
Just ridiculous. I get you don't like Obama, but that doesn't mean you should ignore basic fact. And I'm sorry, but she's simply not smart enough to be president. This has nothing to do with her ideology. Plenty of conservative politicians are out there who have the intellectual capacity to be president, but she's not one of them.
Due to an unfortunate media-created outbreak of Palin Derangement Syndrome, your observation cannot be quantified. Anyone here think Joe Biden is smart enough to operate a doorknob much less be President?
BONUS NO. 2 -- "Who are these people?" -- mid-90s Vice President and supergenius Al Gore, referring to the busts of Jefferson, Washington and Franklin during a tour of Monticello, home of Thomas Jefferson.