Schoolyard Taunting

[timesjoke]

But that is like cutting your nose off to spite your face hugo.

 

Your solution to the 70% problem (your number not mine) is to throw away the 30% and join forces with the 100% socialist?

 

 

I personally agree that in the past we have seen a lot of things from Republicans that I am not very proud of, we had a lot of chances to do some real good and we wasted our power on things better seen from Liberals. You have complete agreement from me that a lot of them were not doing as they should have.

 

 

But splintering the party made it worse, not better.

 

 

 

I don't see how these Libertarians think their doing better by voting for a pure socialist like Obama.

 

 

 

 

The solution is to come back together under one flag, to work hard internally and eliminate these more liberal leaning Republicans and to stop embracing the lies of the Liberals hugo.

 

Example:

 

Palin is not a liberal just because of one instance where she supported the laws of her State, you dilute the waters by comparing her to someone like Obama and you actually make Obama look centerist with that. In comparison, our Nation would be a lot better off with someone like Sarah Palin than someone like Obama...........

 

 

But you Libertarians reject Sarah Palin to vote for Obama......incredible.

[hugo]

But that is like cutting your nose off to spite your face hugo.

 

Your solution to the 70% problem (your number not mine) is to throw away the 30% and join forces with the 100% socialist?

 

 

I personally agree that in the past we have seen a lot of things from Republicans that I am not very proud of, we had a lot of chances to do some real good and we wasted our power on things better seen from Liberals. You have complete agreement from me that a lot of them were not doing as they should have.

 

 

But splintering the party made it worse, not better.

 

 

 

I don't see how these Libertarians think their doing better by voting for a pure socialist like Obama.

 

 

 

 

The solution is to come back together under one flag, to work hard internally and eliminate these more liberal leaning Republicans and to stop embracing the lies of the Liberals hugo.

 

Example:

 

Palin is not a liberal just because of one instance where she supported the laws of her State, you dilute the waters by comparing her to someone like Obama and you actually make Obama look centerist with that. In comparison, our Nation would be a lot better off with someone like Sarah Palin than someone like Obama...........

 

 

But you Libertarians reject Sarah Palin to vote for Obama......incredible.

 

 

Have you ever had a rational thought in your life? They do have medications nowadays to treat delusions.

[timesjoke]

I was not the guy who went from claiming to be conservative to voting for Obama hugo.

 

The Libertarians did exactly that so how can you complain about the old days Republicans when your modern day Libertarians are voting more socialist than the Republicans of old?

 

Say what you want, nothing any Republican has voted for is as bad as voting for Obama.

[hugo]

I was not the guy who went from claiming to be conservative to voting for Obama hugo.

 

The Libertarians did exactly that so how can you complain about the old days Republicans when your modern day Libertarians are voting more socialist than the Republicans of old?

 

Say what you want, nothing any Republican has voted for is as bad as voting for Obama.

 

http://www.republicansforobama.org/

 

Read that TJ. Guess what, Libertarians voted mainly for Barr. Republicans in the Bush Administration grew government at a faster rate than the Clinton administration.

 

I am actually a member of both the Libertarian Party and the Republican Liberty Caucus which is looking to nominate another Reagan or Goldwater as a nominee, not a Bush or McCain, do you agree with that goal?

[timesjoke]

 

 

Read that TJ. Guess what, Libertarians voted mainly for Barr.

 

http://www.redcounty.com/national/2008/10/a-no-vote-or-a-barr-vote-equal

 

A vote for Barr was a vote for Obama, so combine both lists of Libertarians who voted either way and you get the total of harm against a conservative ticket. The Libertarians helped Obama get elected. They certainly was not the only ones, but this goes to my splinter comment, if you guys let yourself get splintered off and support either someone who has no chance of getting elected, or you support the pure socialist as you did with Obama, your obviously doing more harm than good for your stated cause of conservative values.

 

 

 

I am actually a member of both the Libertarian Party and the Republican Liberty Caucus which is looking to nominate another Reagan or Goldwater as a nominee, not a Bush or McCain, do you agree with that goal?

 

I do not agree with the goal that if you can't have someone who is 100% the way you want them you will refuse to settle for someone who meets 80% of your stated beliefs then you instead vote for someone like Obama.

 

 

To be honest, that kind of voting looks like a temper tantrum.

[ImWithStupid]

Not the less than 1/2 of 1% of the voters for Barr. Republicans believe government spending and fornicating is great as long as they are the ones doing it.

 

 

I took a serious look at Barr in the 08 election as at first on the surface he seemed as a real option, but the more I saw and heard him in interviews, the more I saw what a flake he was. Kind of like Ron Paul.

[timesjoke]

I took a serious look at Barr in the 08 election as at first on the surface he seemed as a real option, but the more I saw and heard him in interviews, the more I saw what a flake he was. Kind of like Ron Paul.

 

Agreed, I like a lot of things they say, but when you look down to the meat of the policies they want you find huge holes.

[RoyalOrleans]

Barack Obama and Sarah Palin on Taxing Oil Companies and Giving the Money to Others

 

My only problem with Sarah Palin is that she's a socialist. Plain and simple. Palin said of herself "a pit bull in lipstick", but I believe she is G. Dubya in a skirt. Those who doubt me live in Alaska... by choice!

 

The problem I have with neocons is that they don't believe it is socialism if a neocon implements it. My state is crooked, your state is crooked; we're all beneath a federal entitlement umbrella and can't get out from under.

 

Solution? Legalize the Constitution.

[timesjoke]

I don't think it is fair to single out one thing and say someone is a socialist. I recently offered an example of how Texas has recently enacted several progressive changes in their prison system that are right out of the Californis department of corrections handbook, does that mean one area of progressive actions turns every politician in Texas into a socialist?

 

 

Human beings are complicated, I do not think any of us are 100% anything, hell even the normally conservative minded Libertarians voted for Obama in the last election, now does that mean all those Libertarian voters are now socialist because they voted for one socialist President?

 

All I do know is that someone like Obama is a million times worse than someone like Sarah Palin but if we spend all our time bashing conservatives because they are not 100% perfect compared to our ideals....then we will always help the liberals win because in many cases they will get behind whoever can win, while crybaby conservative splinter groups refuse to get behind who can win under some misguided notion that they are making a difference in protest......well they are not helping their own conservative causes by turning their backs on a 80% conservative and helping a 100% socialist get elected, that is like cutting your nose off to spite your face.

[RoyalOrleans]

I don't think it is fair to single out one thing and say someone is a socialist. I recently offered an example of how Texas has recently enacted several progressive changes in their prison system that are right out of the Californis department of corrections handbook, does that mean one area of progressive actions turns every politician in Texas into a socialist?

 

 

Human beings are complicated, I do not think any of us are 100% anything, hell even the normally conservative minded Libertarians voted for Obama in the last election, now does that mean all those Libertarian voters are now socialist because they voted for one socialist President?

 

All I do know is that someone like Obama is a million times worse than someone like Sarah Palin but if we spend all our time bashing conservatives because they are not 100% perfect compared to our ideals....then we will always help the liberals win because in many cases they will get behind whoever can win, while crybaby conservative splinter groups refuse to get behind who can win under some misguided notion that they are making a difference in protest......well they are not helping their own conservative causes by turning their backs on a 80% conservative and helping a 100% socialist get elected, that is like cutting your nose off to spite your face.

 

You can apply that "unfair to single a person out" to anyone or anything to make it look good. By that rationale, you could say that it is unfair to single out Obama as a socialist for all of his healthcare reform campaigning. It's the same thing, but different political affiliation. So in the essence of fairness, we could go so far as to say: don't pigeon hole Hitler because he hated the Jews and look at other things he's done. Evil: no matter how great or small is still evil. Garbage next to refuse is trash.

 

I believe that Obama is a socialist for his healthcare agenda (among other things) and I believe Sarah Palin is a socialist for her dealings with Big Oil in Alaska (among other things). There is no difference between the two as far as I am concerned. Argue the semantics of it all day long, but at the end of the day Palin and Obama are not that unlike. You can lump Bush I and II and McCain into that pigeon-hole, too.

 

Furthermore, I would love a 100% Liberal as President. Not the modern, mainstream Liberal that has been pegged to the Progressives and the Democrats. A liberal in the sense of Ludwig von Mises, Frederich Hayek, and now Ron Paul. A "classic liberal" who believes in the shrinking of government and the promotion of the free markets. A man schooled in Austrian economics and not some pompous Keynesian.

 

If all Libertarians voted for Obama, it was because of the thinly veiled promise to pull troops out of Iraq and thus ending the war over there. Which, I for one, would get behind with a passion (We can not afford to wage war, we're broke, and borrowing from future generations.). Yet, I didn't vote for the Obama (I wrote in my candidate), but I would say "Job well done" if he had kept that promise (which you and I know he had no intention of keeping).

 

The libertarians are scattered and lack central leadership. I don't think the support they gave to Obama was substantial enough to cause a sway in the election.

[timesjoke]

I would never call Obama a socialist based on one thing, or two, or even three, that is because as I said before, humans are complex creatures and nobody, not even you is 100% anything.

 

I consider Obama, Reid, and Pelosi to be socialists because everything they do is socialist, there is nothing they have ever come out passionate about that would be considered a conservative idea.

 

 

By writing in a vote for someone who could not win you actually voted for Obama, I know you do not want to admit that but you turned your back on someone who could win and was 75% conservative, would have made conservative appointments to judges, and would not have pushed for universal healthcare. People like you and hugo caused this mess, not people like me who could see the least of all evils and make a choice based on what was better for the Country, not get pissed off and waste my vote out of spite.

 

 

 

We need to come back together, no we will never completely agree with those in the Republican party, but if we stay together all of us can push for more liberal members and do some actual good by limiting the damage done by someone like Obama.

 

 

No, the libertarians did not get Obama elected on ther own, they are just an example of disconnected splinter groups who are on the sidelines claiming to have a conservative belief structure but voting socialist, it is the splintering of the party that is getting people like Obama elected, not any one splinter.

[RoyalOrleans]

I would never call Obama a socialist based on one thing, or two, or even three, that is because as I said before, humans are complex creatures and nobody, not even you is 100% anything.

 

I consider Obama, Reid, and Pelosi to be socialists because everything they do is socialist, there is nothing they have ever come out passionate about that would be considered a conservative idea.

 

 

By writing in a vote for someone who could not win you actually voted for Obama, I know you do not want to admit that but you turned your back on someone who could win and was 75% conservative, would have made conservative appointments to judges, and would not have pushed for universal healthcare. People like you and hugo caused this mess, not people like me who could see the least of all evils and make a choice based on what was better for the Country, not get pissed off and waste my vote out of spite.

 

 

 

We need to come back together, no we will never completely agree with those in the Republican party, but if we stay together all of us can push for more liberal members and do some actual good by limiting the damage done by someone like Obama.

 

 

No, the libertarians did not get Obama elected on ther own, they are just an example of disconnected splinter groups who are on the sidelines claiming to have a conservative belief structure but voting socialist, it is the splintering of the party that is getting people like Obama elected, not any one splinter.

 

Whatever, man. I didn't turn my back on a 75% conservative, I turned my back on a 25% socialist. And I didn't vote for a 100% socialist figurehead. Either way, both candidates are controlled by an oligarch of bankers.

 

I'm sick and tired of "voting for the lesser evil". Neither candidate would have been beneficial to this country. If not universal healthcare, McCain would've pushed some other socialist agenda of equal or greater proportions.

 

A vote cast is not a vote wasted, TJ. Democracy is mob rule: if you want to vote the way YOUR mob sees fit, go ahead and do it. If you want to believe that one candidate is less evil than the other... fine... go sell that the tourists.

[timesjoke]

Whatever, man. I didn't turn my back on a 75% conservative, I turned my back on a 25% socialist. And I didn't vote for a 100% socialist figurehead. Either way, both candidates are controlled by an oligarch of bankers.

 

Oh yes you did my friend, you made a trip 75% conservative to a 100% socialist, that was you moving 175% to the left RO, no matter how you try to rationalize it.

 

I'm sick and tired of "voting for the lesser evil". Neither candidate would have been beneficial to this country. If not universal healthcare, McCain would've pushed some other socialist agenda of equal or greater proportions.

 

As I said before, nobody is 100% exactly like you, perfect in every way so no matter what human you vote for, it is voting for the lesser evil. It is called reality.

 

You can claim that McCain would have passed something equal but you know that to be untrue. Sure, McCain has had a few issues here and there but he was nothing like Obama. Your still forgetting things like judges, McCain would naver have selected a Sotomayor for example.

 

A vote cast is not a vote wasted, TJ. Democracy is mob rule: if you want to vote the way YOUR mob sees fit, go ahead and do it. If you want to believe that one candidate is less evil than the other... fine... go sell that the tourists.

A vote cast for someone you know cannot win is a vote for a liberal RO. I posted this for hugo but he refuses to read it, maybe you will:

http://www.redcounty.com/national/2008/10/a-no-vote-or-a-barr-vote-equal

 

If there are only 2 candidates, there will be votes destined for Obama, and votes destined for McCain. ANY vote NOT for McCain is a vote for Obama and this is why:

 

Say you have 20 voters- 10 are registered Democrats, and 10 are registered Republicans. The 10 Democrats decide to support Obama, because well, he's a Democrat and they are party loyalists. Obama gets those 10 votes! Now we have the Republicans, some of whom are pissing and moaning about how McCain isn't conservative enough for them, so 2 of those decide, hmmm, we're just going to punish the dang 'ol Republican Party and vote for Bob Barr (or Chuck Baldwin). 1 decides to not vote at all. 1 is an Obamacon who has been duped into believing all of Obama's lying campaign rhetoric, and decides to vote for Obama. So McCain gets only 6 votes and Obama wins. Those 4 non-McCain votes got Obama elected, how is that not a vote for Obama!!

[ImWithStupid]

Whatever, man. I didn't turn my back on a 75% conservative, I turned my back on a 25% socialist. And I didn't vote for a 100% socialist figurehead. Either way, both candidates are controlled by an oligarch of bankers.

 

I'm sick and tired of "voting for the lesser evil". Neither candidate would have been beneficial to this country. If not universal healthcare, McCain would've pushed some other socialist agenda of equal or greater proportions.

 

A vote cast is not a vote wasted, TJ. Democracy is mob rule: if you want to vote the way YOUR mob sees fit, go ahead and do it. If you want to believe that one candidate is less evil than the other... fine... go sell that the tourists.

 

That's why I couldn't with good faith put my vote behind anyone in the last Presidential election. I skipped that section.

 

That said...

 

"My 80% friend is not my 20% enemy" - Ronald Reagan

[ImWithStupid]

 

 

If there are only 2 candidates, there will be votes destined for Obama, and votes destined for McCain. ANY vote NOT for McCain is a vote for Obama and this is why:

 

Say you have 20 voters- 10 are registered Democrats, and 10 are registered Republicans. The 10 Democrats decide to support Obama, because well, he's a Democrat and they are party loyalists. Obama gets those 10 votes! Now we have the Republicans, some of whom are pissing and moaning about how McCain isn't conservative enough for them, so 2 of those decide, hmmm, we're just going to punish the dang 'ol Republican Party and vote for Bob Barr (or Chuck Baldwin). 1 decides to not vote at all. 1 is an Obamacon who has been duped into believing all of Obama's lying campaign rhetoric, and decides to vote for Obama. So McCain gets only 6 votes and Obama wins. Those 4 non-McCain votes got Obama elected, how is that not a vote for Obama!!

 

 

Your entire premise is flawed. You are assuming everyone is either a registered Republican or Democrat and those that are, vote the party line.

 

It's not a vote for Obama. It's a vote for a third candidate. That person believed that Bob Barr or Chuck Baldwin were the better candidates to be President and voted with their convictions.

 

A vote for Ralph Nader wasn't a vote for GW. A vote for Ross Perot wasn't a vote for Clinton. They were votes for Nader and Perot.

[timesjoke]

Your entire premise is flawed. You are assuming everyone is either a registered Republican or Democrat and those that are, vote the party line.

 

It's not a vote for Obama. It's a vote for a third candidate. That person believed that Bob Barr or Chuck Baldwin were the better candidates to be President and voted with their convictions.

 

A vote for Ralph Nader wasn't a vote for GW. A vote for Ross Perot wasn't a vote for Clinton. They were votes for Nader and Perot.

 

If you read the entire thing I linked instead of the short part I quoted you might understand better.

 

 

Like it or not we have a two party system, at the final vote, one of two people will be leading the Country. When you cast your vote you are either voting for one or the other, if you waste your vote on someone like Barr when you know beyond any shadow of doubt that he cannot win, then you know your not supporting the conservative that "CAN" win. Indirectly your actually voting for Obama by witholding your vote for McCain. If all the normally conservative minded splinter groups like the Libertarians had gotten behind McCain we would have won, and we would not be trying to fight off the Government takeover of healthcare and we most certainly would not have activist Judges put into powerful offices like Sotomayor if McCain had won.

 

Everyone who refused to vote, or voted for a canidate they knew had no chance to win but normally believes in conservative values has actually voted for Obama and is just as responsible for Obama being in power as those who actually cast their vote with his name on it.

 

 

“Bad politicians are sent to Washington by good people who don't vote.� ~ William E. Simon

 

“Democrats are the only reason to vote for Republicans� ~ Will Rogers

[ImWithStupid]

 

Like it or not we have a two party system, at the final vote, one of two people will be leading the Country.

 

 

And because of people like you, who are willing to sell out their values for the lesser of two evils, that will never change. (Might want to read history. We weren't always Republicans or Democrats.)

 

If Barry Goldwater were running in 2008 as the Green Party candidate or a party he made up just to run, I sure as shit would vote for him, like most true conservatives, but because of people like you who vote by the R or D behind their name, he wouldn't have a snowball's chance in hell, even though he would blow McCain or Romney or anyone else who ran in 2008 as a supposed conservative, out of the water when it comes to true conservative values.

 

I refuse to cast my vote for someone I wouldn't publicly endorse.

[snafu]

It may be tempting to feel worn down as we take one step after another towards the “fundamental transformation of America� that Barack Obama promised. But we mustn’t let our energy be sapped, even in the face of the mind-boggling leap the Obama Administration just took that fundamentally shifts us towards more reliance on foreign energy sources. Hang on to your hat and take a look at this.

 

Months ago I discussed Washington’s decision to allow U.S. dollars to flow to Brazil for that nation’s off-shore oil drilling projects, while D.C.’s attitude towards America’s own offshore developments appeared less-than-enthusiastic. We gained hope though when our President promised in his State of the Union address that he’d be “making tough decisions about opening new offshore areas for oil and gas development.� Most of us optimistically assumed that “making tough decisions� meant allowing at least some offshore drilling. In fact, on national television that night I said that the President deserved kudos for acknowledging our need for domestic energy development in his speech.

 

Turns out that was just more drilling doublespeak: America has been snookered again.

 

While everyone has been focused on Obamacare, the Obama administration took advantage of America’s distraction and quietly said that it’s planning to place a hold on offshore drilling on the outer continental shelf until at least 2012.

 

At a time when our country is desperate for job growth, deficit reduction, and energy independence, it’s simply astonishing that the administration refuses to allow additional offshore drilling, even while supporting energy development in foreign countries.

 

According to a study by the American Energy Alliance, opening the OCS to drilling could create as many as 1.2 million new jobs and add hundreds of billions of dollars annually to the US economy. Those are real American jobs – and great American opportunities – that can’t be outsourced. Offshore drilling would provide billions in revenue for our states, allowing them to reduce their budget deficits without raising taxes. It would help reduce our trade deficit, which spikes with each rise in the price of oil because we’re so reliant on foreign sources of energy. And because we have some of the best environmental standards in the world, we should be drilling for our own oil instead of buying it from countries with less stringent standards.

 

When the Obama Administration first delayed offshore leasing on the OCS to allow for “an extended public comment period,� the comments it received reflected what all the polling tells us – that Americans overwhelmingly support offshore drilling. (Curiously, those pro-drilling findings weren’t heavily publicized by the Administration and the press.) Americans understand that a true “all-of-the-above� approach to energy independence must include responsible development of our conventional resources. Even as we develop alternative energy sources, we’ll still rely on oil and gas for decades to come. If we don’t drill for it here, then we’ll just have to keep buying it from others.

 

Using executive power to lock up energy resources ignores the will of the American people who want to develop those resources and know that we can do so in an environmentally responsible manner.

 

Ignoring the American people is never good politics, but whether it’s energy independence or health care, our leadership in Washington is tone deaf to the commonsense solutions that Americans want.

 

Watching this potentially earth-shattering energy policy decision made quietly while health care transformation distracts us, it makes one wonder what else our politicians are up to. An old trick is to intentionally consume attention with a “crisis� so as to sap the public’s energy, and then to conveniently push through rash measures that would receive great scrutiny at any another time. Remember Rahm Emanuel’s Saul Alinsky-style of political operation: “You never want a serious crisis to go to waste.�

 

America, we must resolve to stay engaged in what our politicians are doing. Don’t get tired and give up. All political power is inherent in the people. America can only be transformed into something unrecognizable if we get so tired that we give up our political power and close our eyes to what is going on. Find the energy to stand for what you know is right, including supporting leaders who don’t engage in energy policy doublespeak.

 

- Sarah Palin

 

 

http://www.facebook.com/#!/notes/sarah-palin/nonstop-dc-nonsense-drilling-down-on-energy-doublespeak/364728493434

[timesjoke]

And because of people like you, who are willing to sell out their values for the lesser of two evils, that will never change. (Might want to read history. We weren't always Republicans or Democrats.)

 

Okay, let's look a little closer to that concept.

 

Who was really voting for their values? The guy who votes for someone who cannot win or who does not vote at all has no chance at all of getting even a tiny speck of what he claims to believe in enacted. You know beyond all doubt that your vote is wasted, so in reality your really voting for the other guy, the pure socialist who you claim to hate but your direct actions actually helped. My vote was for someone who could actually win and even though I did not like everything he stood for, I was happy to get 75% of my wants instead of taking a 175% departure from my wants to help Obama get elected.

 

 

 

If Barry Goldwater were running in 2008 as the Green Party candidate or a party he made up just to run, I sure as shit would vote for him, like most true conservatives, but because of people like you who vote by the R or D behind their name, he wouldn't have a snowball's chance in hell, even though he would blow McCain or Romney or anyone else who ran in 2008 as a supposed conservative, out of the water when it comes to true conservative values.

 

Most true conservatives? I am a true conservative and I most certainly would never waste my vote and help someone like Obama get elected. For every actions there is a reaction, by refusing to accept compromise where you can get some of what you wanted, you instead guranteed that you would get nothing and suffer all the more than if you had accepted the compromise.

 

Do you really think your better off with the kinds of policies and judges Obama will enact just so you can claim a "purity" possition?

 

I refuse to cast my vote for someone I wouldn't publicly endorse.

 

And instead you would rather offer support for someone like Obama through inaction waiting forever for a perfection in canidate that you will never find:

 

 

 

A man would do nothing if he waited until he could do it so well that no one could find fault. ~John Henry

 

Striving for excellence motivates you; striving for perfection is demoralizing. ~Harriet Braiker

 

Gold cannot be pure, and people cannot be perfect. ~Chinese Proverb

 

Better a diamond with a flaw than a pebble without. ~Confucius

 

Sometimes... when you hold out for everything, you walk away with nothing. ~ unknown

[ImWithStupid]

Sorry if standing on principle is a concept you can't grasp. Nobody said anything about waiting for perfection, but if the choice is super-progressive Obama and moderate-progressive McCain, I'll not cast my lot in with either.

 

In a choice between Stalin and Mao, I wouldn't vote for either. You would.

[snafu]

No TJ is complete right. I would love to see another party become a factor but you guys are living in la la land. Maybe just maybe the tea party could branch off but then I would be in la la land thinking it could happen with you. The fact is (like TJ said) there are two parties and you have to choose the lesser of two evils. There will never be a candidate that could have all of the qualities everybody desires. Therefore you are not only throwing your vote away you are boosting the vote for the party you disagree with more. I'm stund that we are even having such a conversation.

[ImWithStupid]

No TJ is complete right. I would love to see another party become a factor but you guys are living in la la land. Maybe just maybe the tea party could branch off but then I would be in la la land thinking it could happen with you. The fact is (like TJ said) there are two parties and you have to choose the lesser of two evils. There will never be a candidate that could have all of the qualities everybody desires. Therefore you are not only throwing your vote away you are boosting the vote for the party you disagree with more. I'm stund that we are even having such a conversation.

 

 

I never said I wanted a third party. I said I will vote for the best person I think should do the job regardless of party.

 

The lesser of two evils thing is BS, sellout excuses. I don't think it's beyond thought that the D or R parties could completely self destruct. We just haven't had the right environment yet.

[hugo]

What is getting lost here is I am bad mouthing Palin because I want the Republicans to nominate someone in the the tradition of Goldwater and Reagan. I want another Reagan. Snaf and TJ are happy with GW in a skirt. I hope to vote for a Republican who is not a stinking socialist.

[hugo]

Energy doublespeak, Sarah? What do ya call it when ya tax oil companies in Alaska but oppose it nationally?

[RoyalOrleans]

Energy doublespeak, Sarah? What do ya call it when ya tax oil companies in Alaska but oppose it nationally?

 

I'll take "Big, Fat Hypocrite" for $800, Alex.