Are you honestly claiming someone who is a fan of Sara Palin is likely to have reasonable thought out beliefs to back up their support of her? ... So WP, can you elaborate more on why you semi-kinda-sorta support Palin?

I VERY much agree with Palin's 'small government' talking point. We need more politicians discussing reductions as opposed to increases. The USA is in a 'government bubble' just as dangerous as the dot.com or housing bubbles. Like it or not, Palin is about the only person in the GOP today that is pushing the 'scale back government' talking point. McCain sure wasn't. I'm a 'fan' of any politician who has a record of cutting, and who considers government scaleback as a major issue.

I also VERY much like it when when Congress is held by the opposing political party to the President. That check & balance works fantastically. When one party is running the whole show it is always a bad thing (Bush & Obama's agendas are prime examples). I'm not a GOP party member. I tend to vote 3rd party. But in off-year elections as a matter of principle I will always vote for the Congressman/Senator who is of the major opposing party to the sitting President. So I'm in favor of anything that gooses the GOP into the House & Senate in 2010 if only to throw the whole system into complete gridlock. If Palin motivates Independants and the GOP base (and it seems that she does) then I support it.

fundamentalist-neo-con camp

The true 'neo-cons' are left-wing politicians who support the military. Joe Liberman is a neo-con. You are using the lazy, propoganda definition of neo-con, which is to use it as an epithet similar to denigratory racial or sexual terms. To a left-wing liberal, 'neo-con' is a word you can slap on anyone who tilts right on any issue. Less spending? Neo-con. Limits on late-term abortion? Neo-con. Tax cuts? Neo-con. This stems from the practice in the 1990s when Bill Clinton's War Room posse would run out and call all political opponents 'neo-cons' in order to conjure of images of Timothy McVeigh or other people that live on compounds. It isn't your fault perhaps to have fallen into this trap. However, now that I've revealed the truth it will be your fault if you choose to remain in the lie. Palin supporters are not 'neo cons'. They are plain folk who agree with her on issues which disagree with radical left-wing politics.

So you too are in the iron grip of Big Fast Food?

I enjoy the occasional indulgence, but as a user of the P90-X system I am not an abuser. At 6 foot 1 and 170 pounds with a 32" waist at age 40, I consider myself in reasonable shape and therefore able to partake of a pizza now and then without shame.

>> ^alizarin:
Are you honestly claiming someone who is a fan of Sara Palin is likely to have reasonable thought out beliefs to back up their support of her? Sure you CAN cherry pick interviews but are you really saying that's what's happening here?

I think a lot of people have difficulty comprehending a different world view. Generally the folks who support Palin and her ilk care much less than folks on the left about the sort of rational arguments, that the interviewer is prompting for. To folks in her camp, it's more about "character" and trusting people to act in line with your "values". Why should they conform to the lefts rules of how to make decisions?

WPs ref to Bullshit is apt, but I think WP underestimates how incoherent most people are when asked to actually explain their beliefs and preferences. This works across the political spectrum, but folks in the fundamentalist-neo-con camp don't have any cultural incentive to self reflection, and so it's harder to cherry pick the "coherent" ones, because that sort of coherence does not, in general, matter to them.

When has Palin actually limited the size and scope of government? When she supported the "bridge to nowhere" ($398 MILLION in federal funds that she didn't return when the project was eventually cancelled)? When she ran up her state's travel expense accounts on her and her family for non-business? When she abused her powers to get her ex-brother in law sacked? Yeah, that's a real small government conservative.

For you to choose to vote for someone who is obviously incompetent over someone whose politics you merely differ with is crazy. I've voted for 3rd party candidates before; at least go that route.

I shiver at the thought of Palin in a meeting with Hu Jintao, Medvedev or Netanyahoo. She'd get eaten alive. She can't even handle Katie Couric.

Either you haven't thought it through or you are crazy.

>> ^ShakaUVM:
>>Guiness world record. Largest amount of neo-cons getting ready to go in a bookstore EVER.
Sigh... Palin is not a neo-con. Neo-cons are big government conservatives. Palin is a small government conservative. That's why she's so popular - most Republicans had to hold their noses to vote for GWB the second time and many rejected McCain, because they were both for the massive expansion of government. See for example Spendulus I. Obama continued the trend with Spendulus II.
Conservatives are (rightly) asking where all the money for the Spendulus bills will come from, and the Republican Party is providing no leadership in opposing the expansion of government - the party is nearly rudderless. Even though Palin wouldn't be my ideal candidate for president, I'd vote for most any candidate that was for limiting the size of government. Last year I voted Libertarian (Bob Barr), for example. If Palin ran against Obama, I'd vote for her.
All the liberal FUD aside, her stances on the issues are actually quite thoughtful and reasonable. I've followed her notes on Facebook from time to time:
http://www.facebook.com/note.php?note_id=90735023434#/notes.php?
id=24718773587
(Expecting to get automatically comment-downvoted by anyone who disagrees with my politics.)

>>Guiness world record. Largest amount of neo-cons getting ready to go in a bookstore EVER.

Sigh... Palin is not a neo-con. Neo-cons are big government conservatives. Palin is a small government conservative. That's why she's so popular - most Republicans had to hold their noses to vote for GWB the second time and many rejected McCain, because they were both for the massive expansion of government. See for example Spendulus I. Obama continued the trend with Spendulus II.

Conservatives are (rightly) asking where all the money for the Spendulus bills will come from, and the Republican Party is providing no leadership in opposing the expansion of government - the party is nearly rudderless. Even though Palin wouldn't be my ideal candidate for president, I'd vote for most any candidate that was for limiting the size of government. Last year I voted Libertarian (Bob Barr), for example. If Palin ran against Obama, I'd vote for her.

All the liberal FUD aside, her stances on the issues are actually quite thoughtful and reasonable. I've followed her notes on Facebook from time to time:
http://www.facebook.com/note.php?note_id=90735023434#/notes.php?id=24718773587

(Expecting to get automatically comment-downvoted by anyone who disagrees with my politics.)

Typical neo-con rhetoric, well, I guess it is not really rhetoric...

Do you have any concept of what socialism is?


http://www.americanprogress.org/cartoons/2009/11/111309.html

Guiness world record. Largest amount of neo-cons getting ready to go in a bookstore EVER.

If Fox "News" Channel wanted to report actual news they'd be directly involved with local stations.

Every major market has a local FOX station with a local FOX News broadcast from a local FOX affiliate. The local stations all have local news shows, and in prime time they broadcast a 'national' news show. The rest of their programming is filled with entertainment, drama, comedy, etc... You are going to have to explain exactly how what FOX is doing is any different than what the other big-3 channels are doing if you are going to have any kind of discussion here.

Cable news is a whole different animal. They roll 24/7 and constantly mix commentary, opinion and 'news' all together in one big hodge-podge. Cable news is a wasteland of poor quality, slap-dash drive-through journalism, and carnival barkers. That includes MSNBC and CNN as well as FOX.

Nonetheless, to say because CNN and MSNBC aren't true journalist networks either - and then somehow lump in everyother news outlet

Here you start entering a realm of personal interpretation where bias and opinion dictate what is or isn't a 'lie'. I would say that CNN, MSNBC, and FOX news all 'lie' in the sense that they present stilted, biased information and pretend it is 'news'. Cable news is awful that way. The stuff on the affiliates is more staid, but bias creeps in there as well though it is not so blatant or volumetric.

...It's okay for Fox News to straight up LIE, doctor pictures, and rally the neo con fringe into such a frenzy that they kill police officers and ob/gyns is a terrible argument. They lie, cheat, purposely exaggerate, shout down their interviewees, endorse violence, war, racism, bigotry and outright hatred of anything not stamped 'Fox Approved'. They then attempt to call themselves fair and balanced.. and try to sue you if you say otherwise.

You see - here is where I have a hard time taking you seriously. I see no distinction between what FOX (cable) News does, and the stuff on MSNBC & CNN. They're both filled with opinions and bias of such a polarizing caliber that it is impossible to consider any of them to be 'news' so much as 'infotainment'. But you are saying FOX is somehow in a different realm and I can only ascribe that position to your own personal bias. Every fault you lay at FOX News' feet can be applied with equal accuracy to CNN or MSNBC. But some of your stuff is clearly hyperbole and not meant to be taken seriously.

But if you consider yourself an objective viewer/citizen you'd realize that not only is Fox "News" extremely bias in it's "reporting" it's hurtful to the greater public interest of unity and honesty.

Uh - on what exact planet does 'public interest of unity & honesty' outweigh the right to freedom of speech? I find every single news channel to be hurtful to the greater public interest. I would love to strip them all of their ability to communicate anything except dry, basic facts. But freedom comes with strings attatched, and you take the good with the bad. Tell me - is your opinion of FOX such that you would advocate shutting it down, but leaving CNN & MSNBC alone? Does that not indicate a rather biased approach?

No PennyPacker, I'm saying that the FCC doesn't regulate cable channels ( fox cnn msnbc), they do, however, regulate public airwaves and any major news networks that use them. i.e. cbs abc nbc

If Fox "News" Channel wanted to report actual news they'd be directly involved with local stations.

Tho not surprisingly, Fox News Channel and 20th Century Fox (the sister company which controls all those local stations which fall under FCC regulation) are two seperate entities.
Murdoch and Turner(CNN) and Rogers(MSNBC) set up their "news" networks this way so they could have color commentary and opinion hosts because that drives ratings.

It doesn't earn Pulitzer awards tho..

Nonetheless, to say because CNN and MSNBC aren't true journalist networks either - and then somehow lump in everyother news outlet =/ - that it's okay for Fox News to straight up LIE, doctor pictures, and rally the neo con fringe into such a frenzy that they kill police officers and ob/gyns is a terrible argument.


Cnn sucks. They only talk about twitter now. Not the scrolling stories at the bottom of the screen.

Msnbc sucks. They don't cover Obama's or Dodd's or Frank's faults or inconsistencies.


Fox "News" is the worst. They lie, cheat, purposely exaggerate, shout down their interviewees, endorse violence, war, racism, bigotry and outright hatred of anything not stamped 'Fox Approved'. They then attempt to call themselves fair and balanced.. and try to sue you if you say otherwise.


Now I know all that text was pointless because it doesn't test your faith in your beloved bizarro world view. But if you consider yourself an objective viewer/citizen you'd realize that not only is Fox "News" extremely bias in it's "reporting" it's hurtful to the greater public interest of unity and honesty.

No PennyPacker, I'm saying that the FCC doesn't regulate cable channels ( fox cnn msnbc), they do, however, regulate public airwaves and any major news networks that use them. i.e. cbs abc nbc

If Fox "News" Channel wanted to report actual news they'd be directly involved with local stations.

Tho not surprisingly, Fox News Channel and 20th Century Fox (the sister company which controls all those local stations which fall under FCC regulation) are two seperate entities.
Murdoch and Turner(CNN) and Rogers(MSNBC) set up their "news" networks this way so they could have color commentary and opinion hosts because that drives ratings.

It doesn't earn Pulitzer awards tho..

Nonetheless, to say because CNN and MSNBC aren't true journalist networks either - and then somehow lump in everyother news outlet =/ - that it's okay for Fox News to straight up LIE, doctor pictures, and rally the neo con fringe into such a frenzy that they kill police officers and ob/gyns is a terrible argument.


Cnn sucks. They only talk about twitter now. Not the scrolling stories at the bottom of the screen.

Msnbc sucks. They don't cover Obama's or Dodd's or Frank's faults or inconsistencies.


Fox "News" is the worst. They lie, cheat, purposely exaggerate, shout down their interviewees, endorse violence, war, racism, bigotry and outright hatred of anything not stamped 'Fox Approved'. They then attempt to call themselves fair and balanced.. and try to sue you if you say otherwise.


Now I know all that text was pointless because it doesn't test your faith in your beloved bizarro world view. But if you consider yourself an objective viewer/citizen you'd realize that not only is Fox "News" extremely bias in it's "reporting" it's hurtful to the greater public interest of unity and honesty.

Neo-cons: giving hypocrisy its meaning. No logic, no reasoning.

I've heard the reason for Bush invading Iraq was because Iraq changed it's standard currency for oil sales from the Dollar to the Euro in the end of 2000 and the Fed's greatest nightmare is that that would catch on with OPEC.... so after we invade... we switch them right back on the Dollar standard. No idea if it's true but its the first explanation for the war that seems to fit the motivations of the neo-cons.

Agreed, although we'd probably disagree on exactly how to reduce the size of government.

Probably. After all, I'm a pro-military neocon, eh?

Disagree. They are definitely inflammatory but from what I've seen on the sift, they tend to focus on the nut-jobs and on how they are protesting. It's better for ratings.

I agree with you that they focus on the nutjobs - but I disagree with you about how they serve that up. People like MadCow and Olberman do NOT at any point go out of their way to say they are focusing only on the goofiest, most extremist fringe element. Quite the opposite. They do their damndest to make it look like the group is nothing BUT extremists. Same with Pelosi, Ried, and a lot of other Democrats who (frighteningly) are elected officials slandering the people.

It isn't hard when there is a large protest to go out and find the kook fringe. It existed in the Iraq war protests, and Republicans tried to portray it as normal. Now the neolibs are faced with large scale protests to their policies, and they are doing the same thing. Sadly, there are FAR too many people who are easily deceived by such unscruplulous methods. Here is a great example - a quote from dystopian...

but to be clear, Dick Armey's Neo-Con astroturf outfit FreedomWorks© is leading the charge against health care

Now - whether he meant it or not this is a backhanded attempt to make it sound like the protests are just right-wing nutjobs. Bull. The Iraq war protests were ginned up and sponsored by left-wing neolib nutjob extremists like Code Pink and such - but that does NOT mean that the people who attended them weren't legitimately concerned citizens who passionately believed in an issue. Groups could get tens of thousands to show up and protest because it was a REAL movement which reflected national sentiment. The fringe was there poking and prodding it along - but the essential core of the protest was legitimate.

EXACT same thing today. Some right wing groups may be doing some organizing, but the vast bulk of people who show up are NOT right wing kooks. They are people who are concerned about massive spending, big government intrusion into markets, inflation, debt, and general desire for a conservative fiscal approach. They are worried that Obama is doing way too much and has way too little to do it with, and they are there to shout "Stop!" For Pelosi, Reid, MadCow, Olberman, & the sifters to attempt to justify ignoring them just because a 'neocon' fringe element is along for the ride is insipid.

As long as you aren't calling for banning or silencing the other (admittedly there is some of that, which I don't agree with either), I see it as merely the right to show your disagreement.

On this I agree. I didn't like it when Republicans wanted to stifle Iraq war protests either, and I don't like it when Pelosi, Obama, Ried, MadCow & the rest want to silence the other side to grease the skids of thier agenda. And they DO want to silence the 'teabaggers', make no mistake.

(Although I still don't think it has the intended effect of countering the use of neocon.)

I don't see it so much as a 'counter' as it is a 'OK - right back at you'. If at some time the neolibs change and stop falsely labeling conservative thought then I'll adjust my method accordingly.

Interesting. I didn't know the origin of the word.

Whatever it once meant, at present, the term Neo-Con refers to Neo-Libs who have a fetish for aggressive, amoral foreign policy; probably best exemplified by the members of PNAC - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_for_the_New_American_Century . These are the folks that said it would take a tragedy the scale of Pearl Harbor in order to shock and awe the public into supporting their legislation.

Agreed that the term should not be applied to social and religious conservatives, but to be clear, Dick Armey's Neo-Con astroturf outfit FreedomWorks© is leading the charge against health care.

You will catch more bees with honey than vinegar, more minors in unmarked white vans, ect ect. Then again, sift is also pretty callus with the use of the word neo-con. Neo-con and Neo-lib are valid descriptions of political views and shouldn't be seen as pejoratives IMO. Though, using that term as a frame work for a straw-man is pretty common.

One thing is for certain, cum laude is fun to say. I want to have a maxima cum laude once in my life.

No, you're absolutely right WP.

You and other neo-cons have been given a bad rap this entire time.

I mean, this lady, who graduated cum laude with a major in sociology, not only doesn't understand real people, but she just hates everyone and has been hating and fearing everyone since the day she was born. And it is out of this fear of others that she decided to marry a community organizer.

What a horrible, uncaring, fearful woman.