Palin Is Dumber Than Bush and More Dangerous Than McCain

Palin is dumber than Bush and more dangerous than McCain to even think about the US possibly needing to go to war with Russia. Let Georgia and Ukraine join NATO–who cares–as long as the US gets out.

Author: Laurence Vance

Laurence Vance holds degrees in history, theology, accounting, and economics. He has written and published twelve books and regularly contributes articles and book reviews to both secular and religious periodicals.

99 thoughts on “Palin Is Dumber Than Bush and More Dangerous Than McCain”

  1. NATO has been formed to protect the world from Communist SOVIET UNION.

    Well there is no more Soviet Union what is the reason to expand NATO & build missile in backyard of RUSSIA> Surely there is no ideological differences anymore.

    Missiles in Poland is excuse to get the near to oil.

    Keeping that in our mines we prepare ourselves with showdowns Americans with Russia if McCain & that women comes to the high office.

    Scary thing is that Putin has demonstrate that to protect the Russia he is willing to defend and McCain & Palin willing to attack and all they talk is a war.

    Thank god Putin is not as stupid & ignorant as Mccain & new women

    1. NATO is a classic example of beauracratic and institutional self-preservation. Once the government creates some body or agency it never just ends. It re-invents itself, endures, finds some new purpose, just keeps rolling merrily along, consuming public funds. Mussolini said it best, “war is the health of the state”.

      1. That is what Marcuse in One Dimensional Man is getting at by saying the concept becomes the operation.

        A little like–what was it–the March of Dimes, which set out to cure polio, and after polio was “cured”, had to find another disease to stay in business.

        At any rate, NATO is now the sworn protector of the “North Atlantic” against anyone in the world that seeks to disband NATO.

        One wonders, have the Czechs or the Poles looked carefully at the secession clause?

        1. Angela Davis, a very bright mind, who happens to be a student of Marcuse and a Marxist, is now talking of the US as the “prison-industrial complex”.

          With three percent of the US population in prison–more than either China or
          Russia both per capita and absolutely–she has a point.

          I have not seen even her, however, apply the “concept-operation” pattern to that, though I have not read a great deal of her work and may simply have missed it.

          Certainly, having a great number of prisons and a huge establishment of judges, lawyers, police, bureaucrats, guards,other employees and private contractors who make their living off them–in the South especially, whole towns–hinges at least partly on keeping them filled, and even overcrowded so that more will be built.

          To what extent, then, one wonders is the concept–punishment for crime, or removal from society, etc,–now incidental? And are crimes with criminal penalties involving prison solely generated to keep the prison system solvent and growing?

          For one reason and another, I’d be much more interested in Paris Hilton’s take on the question than Sarah Palin’s.

  2. Even dumber than Bush? Sure looks like it.

    And you can’t even say that her heart’s in the right place. She’s arrogantly, homicidally ignorant, and proud of it.

    1. I think she can read and write, which puts her ahead of GWB. But she’s an authoritarian personality, like him. She wants what she wants when she wants it, and if you disagree on anything, no matter how trivial, you are an enemy for life. She’s not going to back-off on “unitary executive.” Smart people, smart politicians, don’t make enemies for life. She’s indulged in all the silly scams small-time politicians do, too. Per diem to live in her own home, eat her own cooking! Harrassing people who don’t want to harrass her ex-bro-in-law!

      Her Pentecostalism annoys me. Not all P.s are dumb, but the main reason for joining a Pentecostal church is to turn your brain off, wallow in emotion, and assume that every time you get a wild hair up your wazoo, it’s a message from G-d!

      Finally, I’m also annoyed by all those silly men who think she’s hot! A lot of them must have not seen a woman in a looong time! Like 60 days at sea or 10 years in prison.

      Lester Ness

    2. Sarah (“Blood an’ Guts”) Palin is, like Mad Bomber McInsane, a Goddamn lying, Israel Lobby-controlled scumbag.

      Palin seems to yearn for war with Russia (!). She says that we can’t “second guess” whatever Israel does against Iran. (After your meeting with AIPAC and “Zionist Joe” LIEberman, you really got with the program, huh, Palin?)
      We might have to hit Pakistan, blah blah blah.

      You probably know that Ron Paul said the other day to shun both of the DemoPublican Party’s candidates, and to vote for the third party of your choice. He’s right.

  3. Wow! Who do you vote for? We got idiots and morons on both sides. I know voting is a sham anyway–for the sheeple. But this is ridiculous…a hockey mom is going to be VP, and possibly President if McCain can’t serve a full term. On the other end we have Obama, who has systematically backtracked on all of his claims and progressive stances that got him there–I wonder what ‘change’ he will implement now? Bomb Iran instead of sending an army in? He brought on Biden, whose voting record shows he is a hawk in sheeps’ clothing.

  4. Whether there will or will not be a war is entirely up to Russia. If they are prepared to stay within their boundaries, there will be no war. If they invade any NATO state, then there will be war. Everyone in Europe from the Baltics and westward is armed and arrayed against them.

    Russia took a chunk out of Moldova, went after Georgia and is now working on Ukraine because these are non-NATO states and available for the picking. Russia will chip away and take whatever they can by stealth rather than face a war with NATO that they cannot win.

    1. Why should Americans die for the Balts? Neither Moldova, Ukraine or Georgia are vital interests of the United States. Why should America risk a war with a nuclear armed power for this. People like you really scare me and are the main reason I am a libertarian.

    2. Since you are so knowledgeable about world politics, could you please explain the need for todays’ NATO existence. Thank you in advance.

    3. NATO came to its long overdue demise in Clinton’s illegal war against Yugoslavia. The corpse is wandering around Afghanistan looking for 1842.

    4. Unlike the USA, Russia is not ruled by fundamentalist fanatics eager for the end of the world.

      Lester Ness

    5. Whether there will or will not be a war is entirely up to America. If they are prepared to stay within their boundaries, there will be no war. If they invade any Islamic state, then there will be war.

      Obama bin Laden

      You see, Peter, how utterly fatuous your comments are about Russia? Bin Laden could say exactly the same thing about us.

      1. Well said, Mr. Nelson.

        America’s criminally belligerent “foreign policy,” plus its ass-sucking support of Israel’s criminality, has made these two countries the most hated and/or distrusted in the world.

    6. The fair division line in Europe is where it was drawn early 90s. I.e. none of the newly appointed NATO states are rightfully eligible for NATO protection. These are territories effectively under US protectorate.

      Now – what US people and most importatly Elite prefer – US missiles in Poland OR Russian missiles on Cuba AND Veneszela? That is the question.

      The purpose of missiles in Poland is to attack Russia (eventually). Invading Poland in order to get rid of the missiles is one option…

      Is it military sane to attack an offensive army installation being built on your border?

    7. I think it is humorous to hear a person talking about Russia staying within their borders while the good old JewSA galavants all over the globe invading one sovereign nation after another. But it doesn’t count when it is our nation overstepping our bounds right ? ? ?

      This Palin person is downright scary. She thinks any war THIS country is God’s will and doesn’t hesitate to abuse whatever position in government she holds to harass her chosen enemies.

      Now it is emerging that she tried to fire the chief librarian of Wasilla, AK because she refused to eliminate books from their library at Palin’s direction.

      Dumber than Bush ? ? ? I don’t know, that is a pretty difficult feat to accomplish. You would just about have to work on that one. But Palin isn’t the sharpest knife in the drawer either and the more she is exposed it looks like she is a few sandwiches short of a picnic as well.

      With that phony war hero McCain who gave his Vietnamese captors detailed information concerning flight paths and altitudes as well as our targets in Nam, resulting in a 60% increase in the number of our fighters shot down being old enough to croak at any moment. Especially when you consider his inability to control his temper. It is a really scary thought to even contemplate this Palin B as possible president.

      Can you imagine this Palin going through PMS and having her finger on the nuclear trigger and then she hallucinates that God gave her a message to push the button ? ? ?

      I am making plans right now to move to Central America. I don’t plan on being around when America becomes a glass parking lot.

      Oh yeah, for the moron who talks about Russia staying inside their boundaries, Russia had far more provocation to invade Georgia than this country had to invade Iraq so you better get a clue pal as you wave that plastic flag made in Communist Red China.

      1. Please Go, Go NOW, Don’t look back just go!!! I bet you don’t. You’re just like all the other complainers, wine, wine, wine. You will never do anything that might help others because all you do is point fingers and complain. So just go to South America and smoke pot and support the drug lords. Hey one more thing maybe you can get all your peace people and go to the middle east and peace out the war. Make sure not to mess with any of the head cutters you know I’ve seen the tapes and they even have kids cutting the heads off of living people. Of course why do you care move to South America. Kick back and enjoy yourself.

    8. Peter, did the U.S. stay within its boundaries when it invaded Iraq? Where are the WMD? Do you realize that Russia has several thousand nuclear weapons. Do you realize what just a tiny fraction of those weapons could do to all the big cities of the United States? This isn’t defenseless little Serbia the bully-boy USA would be fighting. This kid can punch us back. HARD! I suggest you stop watching Fox news and just continue with your duck-hunting Bubba.

    9. Your opinion,Peter,does not surprise me.In my 20 years in the US I haven’t read a single positive article on Russia in mainstream press.The same is with movies.If there is a Russian character,it’s either a bandit, or a drunk, or an idiot, or a prostitute. I don’t blame you for being brainwashed,but you have to develop intellectual curiosity and go to the independent sources.If you want to learn about current situation in Russia from an unbiased point of view,go to
      It may come to you as a shock,but it’s a historic fact, that in 1979 the government of Afganistan asked the Soviet government for help to fight the Taliban. American government supported the Taliban and called it “freedom fighters”. In 2001 the US troops invaded Afganistan to fight the same “freedom fighters”, the Soviets were fighting in 1979.
      In 1980 the Reagan administration funded and armed a guerilla force to oust the Nicaraguan government.Since then the US bombed, invaded, occupied, vanquished Grenada,Haiti(twice),Panama,Serbia,Iraq(twice).Here is, what Andrew J.Bacevich wrote on the subject,”Of course, Americans believe, that none of the American wars are their fault.We are Vestal Virgins at work in a brutal sinful world,forced occasionally to turn into Amazon warriors to defend our virtue…”
      Since 1979 Russia has not occupied a single country. Recently it was provoked to defend its citizens. The Russian Army could have occupied Tbilisi,but it hasn’t, because “regime change” is not Russian expression.
      As far as Moldova is concerned,the Transniester republic unilaterally proclaimed independence,and was not recognized by any member of the UN.It is not under Russian jurisdiction.
      When you start to learn more about what’s really going on in the world, you will see, that it’s not only up to Russia.In politics it takes more than two to tango.
      I am a US citizen and I want my taxes to be used on war against diseases, hunger,homelessness and ignorance. Especially ignorance,since it breeds fear and aggression, which leads to wars.
      ‘s really going

      1. Ira, you do not pay any taxes — you are not working. Never did. Moreover — you do not own a checking account or any credit cards. Your ex black drug addict boyfriend who smashed your face with a phone has more money than you do. Before you preach to REAL Americans who REALLY pay their taxes about politics — get a job. And if you hate America that much — move back to your beloved Russia.

  5. Lessee, we managed to avoid a hot war with Russia for the 60 years of the Cold War; getting through the Berlin airlift, Korea, Cuban Missle Crisis, Viet Nam, Prague Spring, Dr. Strangelove (Kissinger), Nixon’s Last Days dementia, the Afghanistan invasion, fall of the Berlin Wall and the break-up of the Soviet Union. Now we are going to incinerate civilization over Georgia? Because McCain is so desperate to be Prez before he tips over, that he sold his soul to his handlers in choosing a neophyte hick to help with his demographics? If we hand over the reins of power to these nutjobs then we are as doomed as doomed can be.

    1. Well, he’s been sucking up to the weirdest, craziest, of evangelists, after a lifetime of mocking “skypilots”, praising Darwin, etc. So yes, he’ll do anything to get into office.

  6. Sarah Palin looks like a genius along side of Bob Barr who yesterday snubbed a news conference of Ron Paul who was seeking to unite all non-system candidates around four basic principles. Not only did Barr humiliate Paul by saying he would attend and then, at the last minute, absented himself, he sent Paul a letter inviting him to run as his Vice Presidential candidate! I mean talk about chutzpah! Barr’s campaign next went on to praise Bush’s “leadership” with 9/11.

    Barr is a shmendrik, an eel, whose campaign, already beset with inconsistencies with the past and the odour of possible moral lapses is, with this episode, all but over. Petitions now circulate to remove him from the Libertarian Party ticket. And Lew Rockwell’s site, respected by so many in Libertarian circles, has turned a pointedly critical eye toward him. To stand in the way of an honest attempt by Paul – as wussy as he was about running himself -to united anti-system voters around four principles and four candidacies is beneath contempt. Barr is a farbrecher.

    1. Ah, Paul’s Four Principles–sounds very Chinese. And Barr’s Praise of Chairman Bush’s Leadership.

      Paul Craig Roberts has the only rational course–vote Obama and destroy the Republican Party.

      Casting a vote in a political context is not a moral or ethical decision. It is not a metaphysical or religious experience.

      Those are all part of the American mythology exploited by politicians.

      Voting is strict calculation.

      Nor is there any need to vote positively. Negative votes (as in ostracism or tribunician veto) are quite as effective as positive onse–actually perhaps more effective.

      In this case destroying the Republican Party also constitutes the best prospect for the rise of a viable Third Party.

      1. Hello Eugene,

        “Paul Craig Roberts has the only rational course–vote Obama and destroy the Republican Party”.

        But you know, of course, that the Republican Party doesn’t sum up the problem. Destroying the Republicans isn’t destroying the Republicans. Its simply giving the ascendence to the Democrats who are themselves Republicans. And if we were to destroy the Democrats it wouldn’t be that we’d destroy the Democrats we’d simply give the ascendence to the Republicans who are themselves Democrats.

        “Casting a vote in a political context is not a moral or ethical decision. It is not a metaphysical or religious experience.”

        The weight of your nominalism is crushing you, Eugene. There is no decision of any kind that is not moral or religious because, very simply, there is no such thing as ungraced being. The idea of state of pure nature is an abstraction. These questions were poured over extensively by both the Canadian Bernard Lonergan and Henri du Lubac of the nouvelle theology in its encounter with neo-scholasticism prior to the Second Vatican Council. The two-tiered structure that emerged as a consequence of Cajetan’s flawed reading of St. Thomas has been utterly discredited. No one ever hears anymore of a state of pure nature that is seen as having an end in itself. I’d invite you to a conversation with either Lonergan or du Lubac, Eugene. I think you’d find them both impressive.

        1. Nonsense–voting for a man or an issue in a secular context has numerous aspects, positive and negative, and there is no way in hell this or that particular vote in itself can be judged “moral” or “ethical”, often not even in regard to motive.

          That is the nonsense the Roman Catholic Church brought into American politics largely through the Irish, though the Irish politicians themselves were much more pragmatic.

          Indeed, even some of the old Irish clergy, like Diamond Dick Cushing, trotted out the casuistry when convenient, especially in relation to clans like the Kennedys.

          A vote for a Congressional candidate, for example, is not a vote on jury in a criminal case.

          That is how the politicians try to make one complicit in their programs and schemes and lunacy.

          And that is exactly how they do NOT behave among themselves, trading this or that vote on this issue for this or that vote on that issue.

          What the Roman Catholic Clergy wrought the Rapturists have now taken up with a vengeance, ably exploited by Straussian Neo-Cons who are geniuses at exploiting the “desire” (with almost a Lacanian flavor) of many oto feel righteous and moral and part of something “greater than oneself”.

          Whatever that last might be, it is no state, no people, no nation, and no political candidate or issue.

          Whatever Congress and the Executive is, it is not, in conception, greater than anyone.

          Indeed, whatever politicians one votes for are best viewed as criminals, actual or potential.

          Instead of putting them in Congress, they should be sentenced to their terms in Federal prison, and let out only after performing their duties according to the Constitution.

          Incidentally, John that is a very poor usage of “nominalist”.

        2. One knows neither Lonergan nor du Luba, John.

          Warn them ahead of time, will you that I intend to pursue the analogy of the individual responsibility, according to Roman Catholic Theology, of individual members of firing squads side by side with the individual responsibility and ethical requirements of “voting” in secular contests between two or more presumably human politicos.

        3. Presumably, for example, in voting for Obama, you could easily vote for that part of him that does not believe in abortion, say, from the waist down.

        4. Not to obsess over the matter, before hearing your no doubt erudite and pertinent reply, but might one also trust that these theologians or ethicists or whatever they are, had they a specific position on the moral or ethical significance of this or that particular vote in a secular political contest–might one trust that they applied the same principles and analysis to “votes” in, say, the Roman Curia?

        5. Eugene,

          “Incidentally, John that is a very poor usage of ‘nominalist’.”

          Well, I consider it a very precise usage of the term, Eugene. Never thought of yourself as presupposing nominalism? Your whole construct reeks of it.

          “Nonsense–voting for a man or an issue in a secular context has numerous aspects, positive and negative, and there is no way in hell this or that particular vote in itself can be judged “moral” or “ethical”, often not even in regard to motive.”

          But I’ve just explained what “way in hell” a vote in a secular context can itself be regarded as moral. Nothing mysterious about it. The question goes directly to the matter of the relation of nature and grace. It has nothing whatsoever to do with the Irish or some imagined relation between Catholics and Rapturists. You presuppose a natural environment for politics that is imagined to exist in isolation from grace, or truth. But I’d submit to you that the reason I regard your construct as imaginary is that I feel quite certain that you have a desire for truth that is built right into your very being, Eugene. Its what makes it possible for you to know truth, for if there were no natural desire for it, truth could not be disclosed. And to see being in truth is to see it morally, Eugene. As a consequence and as with anything else, there is truth – and hence morality – to be discerned in any political question. An ungraced political environment is an abstraction because all political questions are human questions and the human being naturally desires truth. The fact is inescapable. Like it or not, we are connected inextricably to the truth and morality of political questions. It is this desire for truth that make you experience outrage when you learn of the cluster bombing of Afghan villagers. Du Lubac argues this general point most persuasively. I’d refer you to him for greater detail.

          Du Lubac argues this point most persuasively.

        6. As to your question about the uniform application of principles to political and curial matters, I suppose I might benefit first from knowing what it is that you have in mind when mentioning curial “votes”. What are you getting at, exactly?

        7. John, the “desire” for truth is not truth, and it is the nature of “desire” to be unfulfilled.

          Construct a functor of your remarks, insert “not truth” wherever your Lubac moves you to talk of “desire for truth”, and see exactly what your Lubac is attributing to others.

          Is he himself not claiming in regard to himself, on the other hand, in making these statements, not a “desire for truth”, but “truth”?

        8. Well, of course, the desire for truth isn’t truth, Eugene. If that were the case mankind would be the truth and mankind is not the truth as you would seem willing to agree. Who or what, then, is the truth to which this desire is connected? The answer to that question is God, God is the truth and the truth God! Yet he is under no obligation to reveal Himself to us simply because we inherently desire Him. He reveals Himself when He so decides and in so doing maintains His freedom over against the world and history. So God is both the Truth and utterly free. If you’re looking for a definition of freedom or liberty that really means something you’ll find it in God. Our freedom – and this is critical – consists in a participation in His. It is most particularly an ontological freedom and it is to what theologians refer when they speak of being “in Christ”. But what is most important here is that our natural desire for Him, for truth, connects every human activity and all of history to Him and lends to every action a moral aspect, which was the point of your question initially. It is for us to discern the form of Christ in all things, to seek, uncover and serve Him. And He is both Truth and Love. At core Truth and Love are an identity.

        9. Which, John, does not in the least clarify the question about your Lubac, does it–and what he seems to claim to have that others have a “desire” for, thus do not have?

          Then there is the strange twist, “desire for truth” leads to “outrage”, presumably ethical and moral?

          Ah, the money changers in the Temple, perhaps–that was “desire for truth” that led to outrage? Or do other processes also lead to “outrage”?

          Or was that not outrage–tipping over the tables and such?

          I am sure you can clarify all this precisely in a few words, after Lubac naturally.

          Here, of course, should one be silly enough to get lost in the thicket of the Old Testament, an “outrage” of a Tribal “God” based on “desire for truth” becomes a bit problematic as far as divinity is concerned, does it not?

          Nor will one bother you at the moment about, in the same context, some seemingly curious aspects in regard to the tale of Job.

        10. One also does not understand at all your “nominalism” in relation to “vote” (not the word, the activity).

          Are you saying that there is some rule or implicit agreement in, say, a contemporary American election in which there are candidates, that forbids one from casting a vote for A for the sole purpose of making sure B does not get elected?

          That therefore a “vote” is by definition a “vote for” and never allowable as a “vote against”?

          A very strange doctrine indeed, one should think–that seems to require a positive act of approval and never an act of disapproval?

        11. Eugene,

          “Which, John, does not in the least clarify the question about your Lubac, does it–and what he seems to claim to have that others have a “desire” for, thus do not have?”

          By no means, the “natural desire” so-called is universal and innate. It is not that du Lubac has it to the exclusion of someone else. It comes with the territory, so to speak.

          “Then there is the strange twist, “desire for truth” leads to “outrage”, presumably ethical and moral?”

          Yes, the objective violations of the moral order in the Afghan example given earlier lead to outrage because God, who is the truth itself, is outraged by them. To be precise, in history, He is crucified in respect of them. They are violations of the dignity that He has accorded to humankind, and we survive them solely because He bears them for us. Our’s is a God of Love who identifies Himself with us, most particularly with the least of us.

        12. Eugene,

          Here, I’m thinking of the cosmology involved, the particular understanding of the relation between the God and the world that one presupposes when considering a particular question. One might ask precisely what understanding of his relationship is it that he brings to any question? Do I presuppose only a nominal relation between the two or something more real? In modernity, the influence of nominalism on such presuppositions has be most considerable. Even within aspects of Christianity its impact has been strongly felt. The thought forms of Protestantism owe much to nominalism. In those precincts, God is so removed from the world that even ones redemption is considered to be a matter of fiat. Redemptive grace is said to be imputed not infused. A Catholic, I do not share this nominalist vision, naturally. But one approaching the matter of voting with nominalist presuppositions, which would be the rule in this day and age, would be more apt to consider its moral content as somehow isolated from the process, whether or not its moral significance were to be considered. Someone with a more sacral vision of the world would tend to see it rather differently, as more engaged. Its a question of how one approaches life as a whole and how closely one regards God’s proximity to it. We Catholics envision God as quite engaged with us, actually.

        13. Once again John, that does not answer the question of how voting in a secular contest understood as pure calculation is in any way “nominalist”. Depending on the structure, for example, one might be able to “vote” for one of two candidates. Is there something in “voting” that requires one exclusively to “vote for” and not “vote against” one of the two?

          Both the Romans and the Greeks had negative forms of voting, and the veto in the US Constitution, for example, is a survival of one form of that.

          Your point is not etymological, is it? That a “vote” is a “vow” (vota) and thus some sort of “approval” or “complicity”? For one thing even vows–votae–can be for or against. And among the Greeks to vote, psephizo, was also to reckon or calculate or count–at Athens in some elections by putting a ball (“ballot”) in a jar.

          Are you in fact saying that a “vote against” B in a race between A and B is necessarily a “vote for A”, including some supposed “approval” of A, rather than “disapproval” of B?

          No doubt this is what is in effect argued from many a pulpit, and yet the same pulpiteers also often indulge in commending “voting against” X or Y when it suits them.

          At rate, I do not see how any specific vote in a secular election has any easily characterizable and intrinsic ethical or moral dimension, to wit, that a vote for A, for example, can be defined automatically as unethical because it is necessarily “approving” (“voting for”) either A or something that A supposedly “stands for”, granting even that “stands for”, in relation to candidate A or B, means anything easily graspable.

  7. Well, I *was* open to the very faint possibility of voting for McCain because I thought Palin was somewhat pro-life, pro-gun rights, states rights, and that she was not a neo-con on foreigh policy (plus I was counting on McCain dying after his inaugural address).

    My mistake–Chuck Baldwin anyone?

  8. The Republicans have provided the USA with presidents who had prior careers as an actor and a cowboy. During both of those presidencies, they forced the country into risky deficit positions that now threatens national security more than anything else. With the national debt approaching 10 trillion dollars, generated mainly by Reagan and Bush Jr. policies, the country is about to teeter. Why not elect a prisoner-of-war and a hockey mom to run the country into the ground even further. The wisdom that is required to do the job properly comes from knowledge that is gained by education and experience. Neither McCain nor Palin have what it takes in that department.

    1. If I recall correctly, the US Total Debt Report in April 2008 was $53 trillion.

      That figure is, by the way, directly connected to the collapse of real estate concomitant with the rise in the price of oil–thus also fuel, food, and so forth.

    2. Once upon a time, the Republicans were relatively reasonable people,standing for balanced budgets, avoiding military adventures, and the like. Over the last generation, they’ve somehow turned into a cult, with divinely chosen, divinely inspired leaders, etc.

      Lester Ness

  9. My first 2008-09-11 19:53:49 entry should’ve read: “What else did Fox News tell you”

    Anyway, my take………

    NATO should be dismantled and Russia should be welcomed into the EU. I believe this alone will eliminate a majority of the US spawned “problems” with Russia.

    There is really no point in keeping an antiquated cold war military alliance like NATO around. The Europeans must understand that NATO is simply being used as a tool of American imperialism to encircle and intimidate Russia. After Europe decides to abolish NATO, Russia should then be invited to join the EU if they want. This whole thing is being cooked up by the American neocons who are working overtime to salvage their declining empire. Europe has NO REASON to view Russia as an enemy. The Europeans would do well to tell Cheney, Rice and their ilk to stay out of their affairs. I agree with Putin that a unipolar world under the thumb of one nation will NEVER work and that the Europeans must STOP doing the bidding of the Americans. It’s time to put the clamp on the American military machine and start working towards a more peaceful world.

    1. You’re really being nice about it. I’d rather the Europeans tell Cheney, Rice, et al to do what Cheney told someone in congress to do a few years back. As in “go f**k yourself!”

  10. Not long ago, I read that there were three conclusions you can make from military history. They are: 1) Don’t attack Russia! 2) Don’t attack Russia! 3) Don’t attack Russia!

    Lester Ness

      1. Actually, don’t invade Afghanistan. Even Alexander the Great decided to cut his losses, move on to India, after 5 years. (Probably that is what makes one “great”: knowing when to quit.)

        Lester Ness

        1. Indeed, and for the sixth, seventh, and eighth rules–(6) Don’t invade Mesopotamia, (7) Don’t invade Mesopotamia; (8) Don’t invade Mesopotamia.

        2. How about don’t invade anybody. Just have peace. (Peace. What a terrible thought that must be for the neo-conservatives.)

        3. As Gibbon had it, Rome conquered the world in self-defense. There is more than a little truth to the sententia, though I have not seen it elevated to the status of a conclusion to be reached from the study of military history.

          Even Caesar’s conquest of Gaul, for example, was to a large degree a response to centuries of attacks southward from that area.

          Studying the Fetial Priesthood is fascinating in that regard. There is clearly discernible among the Romans, even very late, the attitude not only that war is bad, and to be avoided whenever possible, but that all wars undertaken unjustly will lead to defeat.

          Among moderns, the Russians seem closest to a kindred view.

  11. R.C.Willams wrote a great blog. When the Cold War ended and agreed to a unified Germany our government assured them that we would not go into their sphere of influence. We have troops on seven-hundred and forty bases overseas. Russia could make a fine strategic partner. I believe it was Madison who said, “Commerce will all, alliances with none.

  12. She’s not dumb – she’s a raging moron! “Need” to go to war. Her choice of words are a window to her true soul.

    Guess living next door to the Russian bear and looking Putin in the eye hasn’t impressed upon her that Russia is the one country on earth that can literally erase America. America will do the same in kind of course. We don’t need that, and we don’t need a moron with lipstick on a self-appointed mission from God.

    1. It’s not as if she’s actually gone next door, gotten to know the neighbors.

      One point in her favor: her husband is half Eskimo (if rumor be true). They could the first mixed-race marriage in the White House (or the Naval Observatory)!

      Lester Ness

      1. Yes, indeed, and in Louisiana, Mr. Jindal was widely advertised as the first “non-white” governor in the state’s history, establishing that in them there parts the proper definition of “Caucasian”, in which Jindal excels most of the “whites”, is at best a bit obscure.

        If a Vietnamese gets elected next time around, will he or she be the first “non-Caucasian” Governor of Louisiana then?

        1. Correction: “the first non-white to serve as governor of Louisiana since Reconstruction“. That would suggest, therefore, the first “non-Caucasian” has also been taken.

        2. Since they are not from the Caucasus, none of them are Caucasians. However, if they were to elect Mr. Saakashvili, then they’d have a Caucasian governor.

          Lester Ness

        3. Interesting, USPI, LLC, out of Houston and the US private security contractor a convoy of whose was ambushed in Afghanistan today, for the second time in a month, is wholly owned by a “Native American Indian” supposedly:

          My oh my, how ethnically diverse the Right Wing lunatic fringe has become of late.

        4. I never have understood how “privatization” and government downsizing, whether in young Daley’s Chicago or Bush’s Texas or at the Federal level, means continuing exactly the same governmental activities, or more, but farming them out to private contractors, who are paid for out of tax money.

          Isn’t that the essence of Corporate Fascism?

      2. I don’t think Palin’s husband is half-Eskimo, but affirmative action for its own sake, even if it’s only a spouse, doesn’t belong anywhere near the White House. Candidates for the most powerful offices in the land should be judged on merit alone, whether they’re purple, hermaphrodites, or whatever.

        I read that Todd Palin has some Eskimo blood from one of his grandmothers, and I guess that gives him the right to call himself a member of the tribe. Big deal.

        I honestly thought that after the last eight years we Americans would have learned our lesson. Watching Palin last night filled me with such foreboding. Her kind of sheer nuttiness appeals to a lot of voters, the 30% or so of Rapture Christians that make-up the GOP base. They WANT Armageddon, and what better candidate to deliver it than Palin, who talks non-chalantly of taking on the Russian bear?

        Obama made one mistake in describing Palin (or rather McCain’s policies ;-) — pigs are smarter than both Palin and McCain.

        1. Quite true; many pigs ARE smarter than both of them put together, and most of the Dispensationalists, too! Less pretentious, too! The US could do better if it imitated the Athenians and chose it’s officials by lottery! As it is, Americans are likely to end up with a Dispensationalist pig in office.

          Lester Ness

  13. Palin just spilled the beans on what McCain and the neo-crazies have been plotting all along. She’s not more dangerous than McCain, just less discreet.

    Don’t you see? The Cold War never ended for the neo-crazies. They’ve been trying to tighten the noose around Russia ever since the USSR and the Warsaw Pact dissolved. They’ve added countries to NATO, invaded Iraq, made regime change their only goal in Afghanistan back in 2001 and now want to invade Iran to put military bases all around Russia.

    It’s not all about Israel. It’s all about global hegemony.

    1. There’s some kind of weird alliance that I do not completely understand between 1) Neo-con cold war nuts; 2) Armeggedonites; 3) War profiteers like Halliburton. I suppose each faction is trying to use the others for their own purposes.

      Lester Ness

  14. Palin will slowly but surely cause McCain’s post convention bump in the polls to dry up. As the American public gets to know Palin, the less that they’re going to like her.

  15. Palin deserves congratulations for openly stating the implications of the mad rush to get these places into Nato… this is something other leaders have refused to do in fear perhaps of scaring the population and getting them to oppose such a ridiculous course of action. Perhaps she needs to be restored to storage for some additional training.

  16. I was wondering why McCain had the hots for her. Now I know. I read some of the Neocons don’t like her. The reason must have not been her views on foreign policy.

  17. We haven’t seen the true depths of this woman’s belligerant ignorance yet – wait until someone has the courage to ask for her views on the Israeli/Palestinian conflict. My guess is that she will quote Scripture to advocate absolute genocide of the Palestinians.

  18. “Palin Is Dumber Than Bush and More Dangerous Than McCain”

    Which brings forth the question, and rather forcefully, of why America boasts the highest percentage of female fascists in the world? Any ideas any one?

    1. Wow is that a loaded question. I would say that the allure of fascism is based on power and control. In the US we have been living under a steady bombardment from the Feminist movement which tells women not to submit to anything, not men, not god or parents. As life is inherintly uncontrollable this leads to frustration. The frustration at lack of control leads to a further grasp for power. Thus Feminism leads to Fascism. The political party a women belongs to has very little to do with the power of feminism to effect behaviour.

      Of course there are more parts to it than just feminism. It’s the want of power and control combined with a society that is embracing fascism and socialism. Our government and media promote fear every chance they get. Fear Russia, Fear terrorists, Fear flood, famine, fire, etc. The only answer proposed is the Government, which according to socialists and fascist is the only thing that can keep you safe. Thus, if your a frightened feminist it’s only logical to run out and join the FFA (Future Fascist of America). Not all societies that have embraced feminism and socialism have a Fascist bent. For example Denmark. but that might only be because they lack the desire and ability for world domination.


      1. Georgia’s about Israel. Two of the Georgian ministers who were instrumental in launching Georgia’s attack on Russia are duel Israeli citizens (sound familiar?). And Saaka however- you-spell-it is on record over and over pledging support for Israel, including during Israel’s invasion of Lebanon in 2006.

        Israel sold weapons and had advisers in Georgia, and Israel needs Georgia to launch an attack on Iran. That is, if the U.S. won’t let Israel use Iraqi airspace, which, depending on the day, the U.S. has said it will not. But again, that depends on the day and how much pressure the pro-Israel lobby has put on the U.S. the day before.

    2. What rot — “America boasts the highest percentage of female fascists in the world”

      Give us some stats, Ali — I want to see figures. Or could my poor, wittle, female pea brain not be able to handle looking at actual numbers? It’s remarkable that any woman can even read, isn’t it? Hope you’re not Muslim Ali, because then you’d be perpetrating the same anti-woman stereotypes that the GOP perpetrates about “women-hating Muslims.” After-all, we invaded Afghanistan to “free women.”

      And to Brad Smith: from your posts I’ve gathered that you’re former military — so why are you scared of strong women? In my experience, men who are scared of women have deep-seated insecurities about themselves. Kind of like men who are scared of gays.

      If the situation were reversed, and men had, from the dawn of humankind, been slaves to their reproduction, but suddenly, with the advent of contraception (freedom) got the chance to take charge of their own lives, would you then say that “meninism” had encouraged American men to become fascists?

      And, looking through American history, our most powerful fascists have all been men. After-all we’ve never had a female commander-in-chief, when “backwards” nations like India and Pakistan have, and even poor, little, powerless Israel, “the only democracy in the Middle East.” Sarcasm off.

      1. Give Peas A Chance why is it that feminist are always so afraid of men who point out the problems with feminism? You should do a little research on the rise of feminism and who funded it and why before you defend it. Take a good hard look at what feminism has brought to our country. I don’t know how entrenched you are in feminist indoctrination. But from what I have learned in debating with feminist in the past is that there is little or no point. Feminists tend to toe their own line no matter how much proof is put out to the contrary. It’s almost a cultlike devotion.

        Are children better off being raised by a mother who works 60 hours a week, and has felt empowered by raising children without the help of a man? Just because some women feel that they don’t need a man doesn’t meen children don’t.

        Yes I fear strong (feminist) women, I’m afraid that there mindless fanaticism will ruin yet another generation of children. It’s sad to see anyone who equates their ability to birth children with slavery and their only freedom contraception. What a pity.


      2. Give Peas A Chance,

        I am from Iran, and a Shia Muslim.

        I said a higher percentage than others. Strictly, it may be 2% as opposed to others’ highest of 1%. And that includes countries with women much more emancipated than the American women. So, instead of coming up with that knee-jerk reaction, why don’t you try to give numbers that disproves that conjecture?

        Don’t press me for actual statistics, from some well respected source. I don’t have any actual numbers. There is no methods of ascertaining that kind of statistics, for the very reason that nobody is going to confess to being one. Perhaps Mussolini’s office was the last place where one could get that kind of numbers for any country. It is now just the kind of thing that people call others. However, from my experience of the past 7 years on the internet, I have come to that conclusion. From opinion polls, to blogs, to forums, for every female that does not sound like one, there are two that do. At least two. And the choice of Palin for McCain presidency confirms that. Make no mistake about it. McCain wants to get elected, and he needs the vote of the female population of America. I many not have the statistics that you ask for, but I am sure the Roveians and their people do albeit in a twisted form, nonetheless serving the purpose very well. In fact in Europe no politician is bold enough to acknowledge the existence of women who hold views to Sarah Palin, let alone choose them as their running mate and potential replacement.

        As for the freedom that women have been enjoying as of late, I think it has more to do with economics than contraception. Actually contraception has made women more of slaves than they have ever been. Now, they can join the ranks of their fellow male slaves in the factories and workplaces. They now can join the military, at least in the West, and be raped by friend and foe. Now in the West, prostitution is a job like any other job, and pornography is a legitimate business enterprise, and so it is downright cruel and backward to call Tracy Cum free and in “control” of three men a victim and a slave. Contraception has made all that possible, but again economy is the real culprit. Women did not consent to be controlled by men, because they were carrying the men’s children, but because the men would provide food, home, and security. Now that is done by the government and demand for ever cheaper labor. So no need for men as far as the woman armed with contraceptive is concerned. Marx and Engels talk a lot about the ownership and control of the means of production and how it enslaves those who do not control them. However, to think of a woman’s womb as a means of production just does not sit very well with me. You may consider giving birth to another human being a dirty job, but believe me, somebody has to do it. Of course that is before human beings start growing their offspring in containers on an industrial scale. By then I am sure, male or female is totally irrelevant. By the way, Governor Palin, soon to be Vice President Palin, has five children.

        This is besides the point, but I am entirely curious. Some months ago there was a report of a study in Britain that showed women there spend about thirty percent of their income on cosmetic surgery. I am sure that there are women who spend much more than that on cosmetic surgery and their looks, but a figure like that is just awesome and points to nothing but an economic investment. Now the women in the West have to work their butts off, to get what they were offered for free, before they were granted their freedom. Before, it was a man’s world, now it is a man’s heaven.? :)

        1. Well said Ali. It’s very interesting to note that someone from another country has a clearer understnding of the issues than most of us from the US. The brainwashing that goes on in this country is unbelievable.

          It’s also interesting to note how feminist fascist would like to export thier cult to other nations with force if necessary. Feminism as an ideal is a far cry from what it has morphed into. For one example check out it’s an article titled “Auctioning Her Virginity Is Natural Step For Feminist”.


        2. “It’s also interesting to note how feminist fascist would like to export thier cult to other nations with force if necessary.”

          Of course they would. It is like a pyramid scheme. It is not sustainable on its own. It needs more victims to sustain itself. And like a pyramid scheme the more successful it is the greater the impact of the crash. I suppose it is true that the road to nowhere passes through everywhere.

  19. My guess is that Palin just isn’t quite up on all the neo-con talking lines yet. She like most politicians is willing to do or say anything to get in office. It’s easy enough for her to memorize the speaches the neo-con writters hand her but when it comes time to answer questions she has to think. Of course she is thinking, what do my handlers want me to say? I’m sure given time she will get it down just like the rest. It’s really not that hard and I’m sure any actress with the ability to really get into a role could figure it out. She’s just lacking in practice, don’t worry folks whe will figure it out. What, where and when to spout the party line is the art of politics.


  20. LMAO, it’s REALLY going to bug a lot people when Fertility Palin is sworn in as the next V.P., let alone when Mac keels over and dies from old age or Alzheimer’s and she becomes the Prez, finger on the button, swinging the Bible through the air like a sword…
    The USA certainly has went downhill recently and it doesn’t look like that slide is about to end any time soon. But what can be said when the people of the country cheer it on, who repeatedly vote for the men whom they know responsible? ‘You make your bed and then you sleep in it’ as the expression goes.

  21. Let’s see, yesterday was the “anniversary” of 9-11. Everyone believes the government conspiracy theory. To question the government is to make you a crackpot.

    The USA has an election in a month and a half. What are they talking about? The two unconstitutional & illegal wars? No. Both sides are outdoing each other on how they will create more war. The “financial sector” of the USA is in a meltdown. Are the dems & repubs talking about this little inconvenient problem? Of course not. They’re both telling us how much more “money” they’re going to spend on the welfare/warfare state.

    These people, and their supporters, are delusional. Voting is highly over rated, especially when evil controls both sides. Of the four, Obama, Biden, McNuts, and Palin, I wouldn’t send any one of them to a grocery store with a $20 bill. Google “wet start” McCain. He is a real piece of work. Of all the Keating 5, only he had the audacity to stay around. At least the others had the decency to just go away. And notice how anti war Obama has become the new, improved, warrior. It’s amazing what AIPAC can do. And poor Sarah is just along for the ride. Watch the neoconization of Ms. Alaska. Whatever Israel wants, is OK by her.

    The fix is in. The USA will be the most powerful empire, with a third world population, in history. Welcome to ancient Rome on steroids. As the great Charley Reece wrote, crediting a classics professor friend, no one woke up in 476 and said, “hey, it’s the Dark Ages”.

  22. We know that all of the current candidates would go to war for Israel, which is in the middle of its own little cold war escalation with Russia. We also know that all of the current candidates support the inclusion of Georgia in NATO and that an attack on a NATO member country is considered an attack on all NATO countries.

    So when asked if Georgia joined NATO, whether the United States should go to war if Georgia was invaded again by Russia, Palin responded: “Perhaps so. I mean, that is the agreement when you are a NATO ally, is if another country is attacked, you’re going to be expected to be called upon and help.”

    I don’t see what all the fuss is about. We finally have a politician who’s willing to state the truth, placing the ramifications of our policies on the table for all to see. Casting aside the fact that we disagree with the policy, isn’t this the kind of candor that allows for an honest debate?

    1. “We know that all of the current candidates would go to war for Israel”

      That seems to be what all or most of them are saying. I have a vague memory of Ronald Reagan at one point suggesting that he would fire ten million Federal employees. That attracted one’s attention. Alas, he did not deliver.

  23. Garrbage in garrbage out!The sign of ultimate ignorance.

    Palin Links Iraq to Sept. 11 In Talk to Troops in Alaska:

    “Gov. Sarah Palin linked the war in Iraq with the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks, telling an Iraq-bound brigade of soldiers that included her son that they would “defend the innocent from the enemies who planned and carried out and rejoiced in the death of thousands of Americans.”

    The idea that the Iraqi government under Saddam Hussein helped al-Qaeda plan the attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon, a view once promoted by Bush administration officials, has since been rejected even by the president himself. But it is widely agreed that militants allied with al-Qaeda have taken root in Iraq since the U.S.-led invasion.”

  24. The Republicans have kept Palin under wraps and attacking the press to make sure she isn’t asked any tough questions. They can dash to the election spouting lies with a phony front and 4 more years of evil. Palin spent 6 years and attended 5 colleges to get a journalism degree. Obama is a constitutional professor. Joementum Lieberman is to the left of Obama and will be the next Sec of State. Phil Gramm is primarily responsible for the Enron fraud and the bank mortgage meltdown and he will be our next Sec of Treasury. Ron Paul and Chuck Hagel and the other couple of reel old Republicans ar out or going to lose their positions in Congress. The Republican party is nothing but a fascist shell.

    The corporate media are going along with the lies and the Palin stalking horse because there is no longer a free press. The Justice Department is a front for the Republican party operatives. The Daily Show is about the only real reporting left. It is sad and depressing to see the country going down the tubes this way.

  25. Judging by this thread, most commentators think that Sarah Palin is stupid. However, IMHO Joe Biden is a much bigger obtuse knucklehead. Let’s be honest, with Sarah you can take her glasses off,undo her hair and deliver some spanking.

  26. Iraq Is Said to Mass Troops Near Kuwait
    E-MAIL Print Reprints Save Share
    LinkedinDiggFacebookMixxYahoo! BuzzPermalinkREUTERS
    Published: October 2, 1995
    Iraq is massing tanks and troops close to the border of Kuwait, causing intense debate within the Pentagon, The Sunday Times of London reported today.

    The report, which quoted Pentagon officials as saying Iraq was secretly massing troops in the south, said they cannot dismiss the possibility that Iraq’s leader, Saddam Hussein, was planning another invasion.

    The troop movements were detected by satellite, the newspaper said. It said some Pentagon officials would like to strike immediately against the Iraqi troops, while others argue that the intelligence is unclear.

    About 100 tanks and armored personnel carriers have been moved south into the exclusion zone imposed by the United Nations after the Persian Gulf war, according to the report, with most movements taking place at night in small numbers to avoid United States spy satellites.

  27. Pingback: bidding numbers
  28. Ho pensato che sarebbe stato noioso alcuni post vecchi, ma in realtà compensato per il mio tempo. Io posto un link a questa pagina sul mio blog. Sono sicuro che i miei visitatori troveranno che molto utile.

  29. C'est mon grand plaisir de visiter votre site et profitez de votre excellent post ici. J'aime beaucoup cela. Je peux sentir que vous avez payé beaucoup d'attention pour ces articles, comme tous les sens et sont très utiles. Merci beaucoup pour le partage. Je peux être très bon lecteur et auditeur, si vous êtes à la recherche de même pour tous à être bon.Apprécier pour votre temps! Heureux tous les jours!

  30. Costumes de marin, comme are generally tentation, couleurs éclatantes et intervalle blanc, haut profil élément homosexual pour stimuler vos glandes surrénales. Ralph Lauren Printemps 2012 Exposition Mme maillots de bain, du coup de maître à l'aquarelle de l'inspiration, l'utilisation de couleurs solubles dans l'eau apparaissent l'ensemble des effets magiques, pour être imprimé sur the maillot de bain, mis sur elle, peu importe où vous êtes à are generally recherche pour are generally mise au phase

Comments are closed.