I listened to Sarah Palin's full Wisconsin speech. She's not a great orator but, as the Anchoress observes, she speaks clearly, coherently and with style. "GOP leaders - learn from the championship Badger women's hockey team - fight like a girl!" I'd like to see more Republicans in Washington fighting like this "girl."

This is Palin at her best. Hit them hard with the facts. Keep the debate on the real issues and not on birth certificates. Keep the base fired up and ready to work to get our country back.

Full text and vid at her Facebook page.

What's not to LIKE about that?

BS. No specifics. Like all politicians, she's all for "cutting" the budget but short on details on what she'd cut. If she proposed one program she'd cut, I'd admire her for that, even if I disagreed with her.

Not "double-speak?" More of the same. Not surprising, as the "former Governor of Alaska" could not serve out her term.

Correction: on second look, she did propose cutting government funded abortions.

Yeah, that'll balance the budget. Riiight.

Hard to control such a person who isn't cowering by their force shield of PC. Truth, well told, is what they fear, and she is their biggest enemy because she uses it.

Who do you think you're fooling, Chico? We've all seen your comments here. The idea that you would show admiration for anyone on the conservative side of the aisle is laughable... what's even more laughable is that you expect us to believe you.

Palin has openly endorsed Paul Ryan's plan. Do you admire her for that? No. Do you admire Paul Ryan for proposing real and specific cuts? No. Do you hold the Democrats to the same standards? No.

And as far as Palin not serving out her term... well, neither did the current President of the United States. And you don't hold it against him.

"I was elected yesterday. I have never set foot in the U.S. Senate. I've never worked in Washington. And the notion that somehow I'm immediately going to start running for higher office just doesn't make sense." -Barack Obama, 2004

Correction: on second look, she did propose cutting government funded abortions.

And in his second comment, Chico proves what a liar he is.

"If she proposed one program she'd cut, I'd admire her for that, even if I disagreed with her."

Yeah, that'll balance the budget. Riiight.

Did she at any point claim it would?

BS. No specifics. Like all politicians, she's all for "cutting" the budget but short on details on what she'd cut. If she proposed one program she'd cut, I'd admire her for that, even if I disagreed with her.

Not "double-speak?" More of the same. Not surprising, as the "former Governor of Alaska" could not serve out her term."

Sorry, you apparently missed how she was hated in Alaska because she alone had the courage to go after her own party and cut some loved spending because it was imprudent. Why do you think people (you, perhaps?) the left and the status quo right, so fear her?

Chico's playing a con game, Don. He's pretending to be a reasonable, open-minded person to disguise his sneering hate for people like Palin... and us.

Palin has openly endorsed Paul Ryan's plan.

Ryan's plan is more smoke and mirrors, more BS. Not serious. Ryan wants to replace Medicare and give all geezers "vouchers" to pay for private insurance when they're 65? How in heck is he going to force the private insurance companies to cover decrepit old geezers at any price? Essentially, it's Obamacare with an individual mandate for those over 65 and a mandate on or a subsidy for the insurance companies.

As if another layer of overhead between doctor and patient amongst all of the insurance companies will reduce costs. I guess if we have "death panels" yeah. Ridiculous.

Chico, I'm not going to argue with you. There's NO chance a leftist drone like you would ever endorse Paul's plan, or even give it a fair hearing. You claimed that you would admire Palin for proposing even one cut. She has proposed specific cuts, both by herself and by endorsing Ryan's plan. Yet you show no admiration. Instead, you move the goalposts once again... now, you claim that Ryan's plan is "BS." We get it... everything you don't like is BS, Chico.

You're a miserable little hypocrite, Chico. Thanks for once again proving it. Have a nice day, troll.

Mr. Evil,

Yes, If what Palin says is BS, and what she endorses is BS, it can be said she's running on a platform of BS.

It seems you don't understand Ryan's plan well enough to defend it.

Also, take a chill pill. All of that bile will eat a hole through your stomach.

I don't know why anyone would bother to "debate" ones like Chico, you'll make NO headway, nor should you even try.

Best thing is to ignore them, and try like hell to outnumber them at the ballot box.

This woman represents our citizens as they SHOULD be seen--not as the left wishes to mold them. God willing, she will run, and be victorious.

And at that point, the resurgence of my beloved country can begin.

The republicans have been very clear on their budget proposal. All economists have openly said that Obama's "proposal" did nothing concerning the hard choices to cut. The main part of the sentence shouldn't be a surprise: "Obama did nothing..." That can be applied to all liberals even the challenged chico.

Palin is the gift that keeps giving. She brings out the absolute worst in liberals which turns off most of america. So Sarah, keep at it girl. ww

chico is just being a liberal democrat, long on bs short on everything else, just like Obama, Reid, Pelosi etc ad nauseam. mpw

And Chico is a paid troll, on the payroll of Moron.org or Organizing for AHoles (OFA) in their lame attempt to astroturf some libtard grassroots movement.

Why are any of you engaging with this rectal carbuncle?
Have you ever heard the expression don't waste your time arguing with an idiot?

Hey, how many times do I have to say Obama is full of BS, too? Just because he's a BS'er does not make Palin an avatar of keen fiscal policy.

I know that for you teatards, what Saint Sarah sez is an article of faith, not to be examined in any critical detail. I might as well be arguing with a Taliban about what Mohammed said and whether it makes any sense.

So, I get it, the fact that she didn't actually say anything in her speech doesn't make any difference -- she's still a Goddess in your book.

"Hey, how many times do I have to say Obama is full of BS, too? Just because he's a BS'er does not make Palin an avatar of keen fiscal policy."

I have gone to Amazon.com to buy a book that interests me. I read the comments and sometimes you find someone who trashes the book almost beyond logic. Then I go look at this person's other reviews and see that everything they have reviewed gets a one star rating. I think that pretty much elimnates that person as having any credible opinions about anything. If you feel your criticism of Palin is validated because you also trash Obama, what does that mean? I'd rather have a debate with someone who stands for something rather than criticizes everything. What do you do with the rest of your free time? Go to HuffPost and trash Obama? What is there in that? What do you stand for then?

Hey brown nose chico, Obama hasn't said anything of value in two years, hasn't lived up to any promise, has gone to war, has used remote vehicles for assassination and indebted us to the n'th but keep sticking your tongue up his tailpipe, you obviously like the taste. mpw

I've had decent conversations with Henry and Hyper.

Chico? I just downcheck and move on - he's not interested in dialog, he's just looking for an on-line fight.

What do you stand for then?

For the Constitution, including freedom of speech, assembly, the right to be secure in our homes and private communications from the police agencies, to possess arms to defend against the state, the right to due process for all Americans.

Against wars unless the defense of the country is really involved. Clear and imminent danger, not hypothetical threat, and not threat to "allies."

Against rigging of laws and policy for crony capitalism, looting of the economy and helping export of jobs.

For the truth, against empty emotive BS of the Palin or Obama type.

Unfortunately, there aren't many national politicans who represent many of these ideas. Ron Paul, Gary Johnson and Russ Feingold might be somewhat close.

I think the Wizbangers and teatards are as much suckers to the right-wing fascist warmonger crony capitalist pickpockets as the lefties are to the left-wing nanny state welfare pickpockets.

"Hey, how many times do I have to say Obama is full of BS, too?"

This is along the lines of those who "I USED TO BE a Republican but now I'm a............."

Chico you unmasked yourself with;

"I know that for you teatards...."

Why not drag your sorry ass back to DU or Huffpo. You'll be among friends who actually believe the shit you peddle.

Ladies and Gentlemen - Fellow Americans - I give you United States of America's President and Armed-Forces Commander-In-Chief-Elect Sarah Louise Ronald Wilson Reagan Heath Palin!

Has a nice ring to it, eh?

PALIN/BOLTON/2012!

Chico,

Time to bring out your other self none other then sock puppet Woop ( if he's clean ) and try some projection deflection.

"Unfortunately, there aren't many national politicans who represent many of these ideas. Ron Paul, Gary Johnson and Russ Feingold might be somewhat close."

You name three individuals and you are not even sure about them. Look, it could be that many people who post here do desire the same things you do. However, it could also be that these individuals can step away from that level of idealism - because right now that is really what it is - and face reality and decide what the most pressing problems are that are the most immediate threats to the sovereignty of this country. The progressives have been very clever and patient in advancing their agenda piecemail over much of the 20th and into the 21st century. Yeah, we have let our political class get away with way too much but things are not going to dramatically change all of a sudden either. If you want to have things change I don't know who you are going to recruit toward that goal if you insult everyone you meet.

DaveD,

I don't know what you mean by "progressive." Theodore Roosevelt in his time was a "progressive."

I also don't see the merit in degrading people. People have different abilities. By definition, one half of the population is "below average," and from the bottom third to the bottom quarter might have serious deficits that would prevent them from working high-skill, high-tech, high-knowledge, high-pay jobs. Others have physical or mental health problems which prevent full employment.

In the end, there has to be a safety net for people. Is that what you mean by "progressive?"

"I also don't see the merit in degrading people." Chico: 1:50 PM

"I know that for you teatards," Chico: 10:00 AM

Might want to work things out with your buddy on the AM Chico shift, apparently he's ditched the stylebook and has gone off the reservation.

Either that, or he needs to get you back on message, because you're straying off the assignment.

Did I hurt your feelings, bupkins?

I meant degrading people who were crippled and mentally deficient by starving them, not calling the wilfully stupid and mean "teatards."

Back on script! Good parrot - you'll get an extra cracker tonight!

Chico,
Well, I guess by progressive I mean the current ideology of those today who are considered liberals. I could be mistaken but I use this term because I believe they have taken on this designation themselves. Sort of like the term liberalism itself. The term classic liberalism would refer to an ideology of limited government and favor individual liberty. Modern liberalism favors government intervention to solve social issues. In my mind it favors the development of a welfare state and a mixed economy - more government intervention than a classic liberal would envision. I agree that Theodore Roosevelt was proponent of this latter ideology - the New Nationalism as he called it. I don't know what would think of the extent of government in our lives today.

I also don't have a problem with a safety net. It seems you feel it is reasonable as well. By the same token in your comment #23 you talk about "nanny state pickpockets". Would you agree that is the dark side to a situation where government has a progressively larger influence in solving social problems?

AWK! AWK! Get me kool aid... My brain is dry.. AWK! AWK!

"13. Posted by Chico | April 18, 2011 8:49 AM | Score: -16 (16 votes cast)"

Hey chico' you slacker.. you forgot to vote + on this one.

DaveD, this sums up what I believe about the need for a safety net:

"The determination of the Republican congressional majority to destroy the country’s legacy of what once was known (in religious circles, at least) as social justice is being accomplished amidst the ignorance of the vast majority that such a thing ever existed and was defended, in the 1940s and 1950s and even after, by what were known as progressive Republicans. Not only has that breed been stamped out but so has the memory that such a movement existed under the leadership of Theodore Roosevelt, Herbert Hoover (a humanist, if a credulous economist), Dwight Eisenhower, Wendell Willkie, Thomas Dewey, and even under the demonized Richard Nixon.

What has replaced it has been an ignorant and repressive socio-political ideology that rests on assumptions of class and individual privilege devoid of responsibility. The United States has experienced this before. It might in Rumsfeldian idiom be called one of the known knowns of American history; and that history would indicate that it will eventually be brought to an end by electoral choice, after voters have experienced its consequences. When this will happen is an unknown known.

This ideology in its modern American version is a ”conservative” attack on the popular rights proclaimed in Europe in the nineteenth century by such genuinely conservative figures as Prussia’s Imperial Chancellor Otto von Bismarck (in 1883-1887) and Pope Leo XIII, in his 1891 Encyclical Letter “Rerum Novarum,” intended to liberate people from a condition in which “the rich had in effect enslaved the poor.” The Encyclical demanded the guarantee to workers of a minimum wage, the right to form unions, to bargain collectively, and to possess individual property. Bismarck, “against violent opposition,” created national sickness, accident and old age insurance, limits on child and women’s labor, and fixed working hours for laborers."

http://www.williampfaff.com/modules/news/article.php?storyid=514

Chico,
I am interested in your link. Which of William Pfaff's books do you recommend.

Which of William Pfaff's books do you recommend.

The Bullet's Song is excellent.

Thanks