Thank you for making it obvious that you and your Barack Obama consider graduates of public universities to be intellectually inferior.

And also, what we’re seeing is that Barack Obama and his Barack Obama supporters are pointing to current weather and natural events as proof that global warming is real.

I seem to believe our resident trolls like Tano were screaming that that was unscientific last week. Do they and their Barack Obama, all of whom they claim are far smarter than all the rest of us, care to explain why they are repeating and using what they claim to be a fallacy?

I am speaking as someone with a modest economics degree.

SA, same here.

Whilst I agree with the aim of lower taxes, I am not sure that it is going to be possible if national debt remains insurmountable.

But you give the answer, SA, in the next sentence:

Thanks to the out of control spending of the Congress under the Obama administration, as well as the last 2 years of the Bush Administration…

In other words: Cut “domestic” or non-defense spending. And don’t even make deep cuts: Simply cut all the spending added after, oh, 2006. That alone would cut several hundreds of billions from the U.S. budget. Can anyone seriously argue that in 2006, after six years of the profligate, free-spending Bush administration, the U.S. wasn’t spending enough?

high inflation and high unemployment at the same time… called stagflation.

High inflation and high unemployment go together, when and because the government is discouraging *production* and innovation in the economy. History shows that when the government encourages them – that is, when government sticks to enforcing criminal law, contracts and property rights, and sound money under natural interest rates, and halts all of its other interference with the economy – then to that extent, stagflation ends.

Taxes should not be lowered until the debt is under control… What I am saying is that if taxes are not lowered immediately then it is not necessarily a bad thing.

You’re saying that lowering the deficit is a higher priority than lowering taxes, and I agree, but could we please state it more nakedly? SPENDING MUST BE CUT. Cutting spending is the key to both problems (lower deficit + lower taxes).

The only people who will vote for her are already in the fold. She proved she’ll send the independents fleeing.

Five colleges in six years and graduating from that esteemed University of Idaho only reinforces that she doesn’t have the capacity to ever, ever, ever be anything more than AK governor or Faux News Channel’s opinion personality.

So, Yeah, keep that idiot in the spotlight. Please.

There is nothing wrong with jotting down a couple of points on the hand. There is nothing wrong with having notes or dot points whilst standing at the podium either. However, there is something wrong when someone needs two teleprompters for every single speech that is given. He looks like Mr. Bobblehead… and he has the most annoying voice.

My only concern with Sarah’s platform is the lower taxes, and I am speaking as someone with a modest economics degree. Whilst I agree with the aim of lower taxes, I am not sure that it is going to be possible if national debt remains insurmountable.

Thanks to the out of control spending of the Congress under the Obama administration, as well as the last 2 years of the Bush Administration, the USA has a very high national debt. The consequences of this spending for the future is high inflation and high unemployment at the same time. This situation, which defies the logic of Keynesian economics is called stagflation. We had stagflation in the past, and here in Australia that period was prolonged because of the prolific spending of the Whitlam government. Taxes should not be lowered until the debt is under control.

My thoughts on the subject are cautionary only, because we can only wait and see what will happen. It is just that lowering taxation rates, especially income taxes could cause an unwanted expansion in the money supply that would lead to the stagflation.

On the other hand, if Palin was elected and got it right with regard to offshore drilling for oil, which should bring in more dollars, then that tax reduction could take place at a faster pace. What I am saying is that if taxes are not lowered immediately then it is not necessarily a bad thing. On the other hand raising taxes would be a bad thing.

Gays and lesbians automatically oppose lower taxes, smaller government, transparency, energy independence, and strong national security — because Palin and the vast majority of Republicans and conservatives support them.

No mention of Jesus and the dinosaurs, yet. (Tano joke) Or of anything that could be construed as anti-gay.

Listening now. My favorite quote so far:

We’re drowning in national debt, and many of us have had enough…
They keep borrowing, and they keep printing these dollars… and they keep making us take these steps toward insolvency… they’re sticking our kids with the bill, and that’s immoral, that’s generational theft! We’re stealing these opportunities from our children.

Yup, “immoral”, she went there

The only point that’s worth discussing about this ink-on-the-hand business is one of Republican hypocrisy.

Whoa, Levi. If you want to talk about hypocrisy, then why aren’t you praising Palin for her greenness? As a Michelle Malkin commentor put it a day or two ago:

It doesn’t get much greener than writing notes on your hand, does it? It costs a bit of ink and a bit of soap to wash it off. No teleprompter which uses energy. No paper which kills trees. The Left should be consistent and applaud her greenness.

Heh

There are stupid people that voted for George Bush twice that think Sarah Palin is too stupid to be President.

There is no measure quite like stupid people who are so stupid they would do stupid stuff twice, but “they think Sarah Palin is too stupid to be President.”

Wow! When people are serial stupid and they identify someone too stupid to vote for, that cements it. Poll the stupid people. The stupid can be counted upon to ferret out the really stupid. Intellectuals cannot differentiate between common stupid and super stupid. That is the job for nuanced stupid specialists who can plumb the depths of stupidity against their own enlightened stupidity.

Jonathan Swift is crying tears of laughter.

Sarah Palin does not get under our skin,…

The proof in this is that you show up jabbering whenever her name appears.

we aren’t afraid of her,…

Sure, you can send out just about anyone in the liberal/progressive movement and draws crowds that would make the Pope tremble with jealousy.

she’s not out-witting us, or whatever other fantasy you’d like to believe.

Obviously, you could shut her down in a nano-second.

But

Sarah Palin is both a comedy goldmine and a self-inflicted gunshot wound to the head of the GOP.

So, the only solution is for the conservatives to knock Sarah Palin off to save themselves.

Knowing that Levi is dedicated to saving conservatism and the GOP we should all light a candle to him for his Mother Teresa level dedication to bringing us truth and light. (Or is it poof and lite ?)

Speaking of Sarah Palin’s general level of intelligence, did anyone else see her tell Chris Wallace that the only way for Obama to salvage his presidency is to ‘play the war card’ and invade Iran? That’s the stupidest thing I’ve heard anyone say so far this year.

And once more, even though I know this will fall on deaf ears – Sarah Palin does not get under our skin, we aren’t afraid of her, she’s not out-witting us, or whatever other fantasy you’d like to believe. Sarah Palin is both a comedy goldmine and a self-inflicted gunshot wound to the head of the GOP. You boys go right ahead and continue to elevate her, keep on paying those checks and pumping up that ego, she’ll be primed for one of the most epic flame-outs in the history of politics come 2012. There are stupid people that voted for George Bush twice that think Sarah Palin is too stupid to be President.

Don’t waste your time. Andrew Sullivan is more intellectually honest than that one.

Yes, you are correct, Obama did not use teleprompters to address 6th graders, but that one is a pathological liar who will redefine the entire English language, and twist the entire internet inside out trying to save face before he will ever own up to the fact that you were right and he was wrong.

He does it all the time.

What part of this is correct?

Check your own photo, at your own link.
1) Obama in sixth-grade classroom.
2) Obama had Teleprompters set up in sixth-grade classroom. Because, God knows, He uses them often, probably more often than any President in history.
3) Obama talking to people from said Teleprompters.
4) People being media. Or as Katey pointed out: mental and emotional sixth graders, rather than literal sixth graders.

So, IF we are to judge by your own photo and link, Serenity, I got 3 parts of 4 correct. Can we see you admit that? I mean, if you are supposedly so great at admitting things and all that?

Far-right Republicans who want to find a populist leader love her. All the Republican political professionals, who understand that the Republicans seem to have no leaders on the bench, and whose main fantasy is to latch their wagons to an empty vessel/star – so that maybe someday they can actually run foreign affairs, or domestic affairs, or any of a thousand lesser roles for a clueless leader – they love her too.

And most of all, the opposition love her to death. The greatest fantasy for Democrats is that Sarah is your nominee in 2012. I would go so far as to make a blanket prediction here – if she is your nominee, Obama will do better than Reagan’84, at least in terms of popular vote. So yeah, anything at all that we can possibly do to help her on her way. Yes, even if you guys get tired of her and stop focusing on her, we will bring her back to center stage.

The only ones who are really upset at all the attention Sarah is getting are the sane Republicans who recoil in horror at the prospect of her taking over the party.

Thats the way politics works, guys. Yes, to your great consternation, Dems will run against Bush until that well runs dry. We ran against Newt Gingrich for a decade after he crashed and burned. You guys hold the record though – you are still running against Jimmy Carter 29 years after he left office.

When you have someone on the other side who you know ends up making you look good, you do all you can to keep them in the spotlight.
Putting Sarah up as the Republican counter to Obama is perhaps the smartest purely political move that Dems can make.

Sometimes when you are looking to understand something that you don’t quite get, it is helpful to look to the obvious.

You’re actually doing what you accused me of doing in another post on this blog. Have you no shame?

No idea what you’re talking about, champ. And I probably don’t care; I mean, get over yourself.

You’re changing the subject.

Nope. First, the subject is “sarah-palin-treated-as-political-equal-of-president” and I’m not the one who changed it; I was adding on to John #2. Second, John #2 brought up the Left’s freak-out over Palin talking from a few very terse notes and that was “the subject” I was responding to. Now *YOU*, Serenity, are trying to change the subject into some meta-subject about me allegedly, supposedly changing the subject from whatever convoluted point you wish it were. In other words, Serenity: You’re actually doing what you accused me of doing in another post on this blog. Have you no shame?