The American Spectator

Bill from WV| 3.2.10 @ 9:53PM

Come on Glenn Beck and Michele Bachmann driving extremist groups? Why? Because they dare to question the socialist policies of the first Yes I'm going to say it, Black President who has surrounded himself with avowed Communist and Marxist advisors?
I can see why the SPLC would be upset! Martin Luther King would be upset about what is going on as well. Since when does the SPLC not want people to enjoy ALL the rights granted to them by the Constitution?
I guess though that is no different than Louis Farakan or Jeremiah Wright stoking the Black Panthers or the Nation of Islam right?
This is an effort by the SPLC to cause people to fear those evil white extremist groups like the Tea Party, and the Libertarians,and the Independents... they are coming to take away ALL the government giveaways they have been getting for the last 50 years!!
Run for your lives !! The extremists are coming,the extremists are coming!
MRD

Stephen Macklin| 3.3.10 @ 7:41AM

Good points... Except the Constitution does not grant rights. The constitutions assumes that individuals have those rights and protects them from the government.

Alan Brooks| 3.3.10 @ 8:45AM

Libertarians are harmless, after all these decades they are still so cannibalistic they can hardly get their people elected.

24AheadDotCom| 3.3.10 @ 1:37PM

Libertarians aren't so harmless, and I'm referring to the ones inside the Beltway who have a disproportionate influence on our politics, and that largely due to corporate funding. One of the damaging things they do is advocate for massive/illegal imm., joining with the far-left against the wishes of the vast majority of Americans.

As for this post, I've got 78 posts about the SPLC going back to 2004, including catching them in misleading statements and including a very interesting link they have:

http://24ahead.com/s/southern-poverty-law-center

It's odd how RSM didn't link to that or to the DTN page, considering that there's a lot of information there.

Nick| 3.4.10 @ 1:34PM

Influence in Washington? Trust me. I used to work there. The place is anything but a libertarian hotbed. What a couple of guys at Cato. A couple other guys drinking beers over at the LP headquarters? We are only begining to influence the system in any real way.

Sean| 3.2.10 @ 10:00PM

I consider the SPLC an extremist group.

brad| 3.3.10 @ 1:38AM

They are extremists, they are communists. Read the history of the SPLC, you'll find a who's who of communism in america in there rank and file.

Geno Canto del Halcon| 3.3.10 @ 3:00PM

To paraphrase Barry Goldwater (and his libertarian speech writer, Karl Hess), "Extremism in the defense of JUSTICE is no vice." The last thing modern day Ds and Rs want is JUSTICE; they are only interested in power. Attacking the SPLC as "communist" is a shallow, transparent smear aimed at weak minds.

Janie| 3.4.10 @ 1:34PM

You're entitled to you own opinion, Geno--but you're not entitled to you own facts--even if you are a weak minded liberal.

SPLC is indeed a communist organization and you know it.

Mike| 3.2.10 @ 10:53PM

McCain,

Okay, you are having fun. I get it.

But it the Libertarians ever really gain sway and actually have the power to abolish the Federal Reserve and the IRS and you are still pitching the same bs, I will know for certain that you are an idiot.

Alan Brooks| 3.3.10 @ 8:49AM

You're the idiot, Mike; libertopians will be too busy tearing each other down to abolish the Federal Reserve and the IRS, or anything else but perhaps each other.

Ephor| 3.2.10 @ 11:24PM

If.

Concerned Citizen| 3.2.10 @ 11:33PM

It doesn't matter what a bunch of Libertarians think about the IRS and the Federal Reserve -- this country is BROKE and some things are going to have to change. Once everyone finishes losing all their money to the banksters, it'll be Judgement Day for all the socialists out there, including many Republicans.

dorkafork| 3.2.10 @ 11:48PM

But it the Libertarians ever really gain sway and actually have the power to abolish the Federal Reserve and the IRS and you are still pitching the same bs, I will know for certain that you are an idiot.

If libertarians gained enough sway in this democratic society to abolish the Federal Reserve and the IRS, they would by definition not be extremist.

Even now I fail to see how that makes them "extremist", particularly in the sense the SLPC has used the term in the past. More "loopy" than "grim and alarming".

Calvin Dodge| 3.3.10 @ 12:28AM

The SPLC also refers to "Oath Keepers" as dangerous. What are they doing which is dangerous?

They're pledging to NOT disarm citizens or blockade cities.

I guess "dangerous" must mean "dangerous to left-wing power mongers".

evil monger| 3.3.10 @ 12:44AM

MSDNC had a guy on the Dylan Ratigan show from SPLC hyping these numbers. Actually Ratigan seemed more unhinged than the SPLC functionary, but the point is this was the focus of the episode. They ended with a segment on the so-called Coffee Party (they must have wanted to keep using their CPUSA stationary and sweatshirts; they are only profligate with the taxpayers' money).

evil monger| 3.3.10 @ 12:44AM

MSDNC had a guy on the Dylan Ratigan show from SPLC hyping these numbers. Actually Ratigan seemed more unhinged than the SPLC functionary, but the point is this was the focus of the episode. They ended with a segment on the so-called Coffee Party (they must have wanted to keep using their CPUSA stationary and sweatshirts; they are only profligate with the taxpayers' money).

Don Meaker| 3.3.10 @ 12:53AM

To crooked eyes, truth has an arwy face.

hitnrun| 3.3.10 @ 1:27AM

It's interesting, when I was a kid during the 90s I was dimly aware of all these right wing groups throughout the nation's hinterland who hated America in general and Bill Clinton in particular.

Now, of course, I have a much more fuller awareness of the nature of the media that was inundating me with tales of sinister rednecks and their secret agendas. It's going to be a revealing bout of nostalgia to see the same hit pieces being written again, this time with immediate, widely disseminate rebuttals on the Internet.

What we have here is a failure to selectively communicate.

Jeremiah| 3.3.10 @ 5:00AM

I remember the 90s. Who could forget Bill Clinton and Waco--he was responsible for the incineration of about a hundred Americans there; many of them young children.

Yeah, I remember Bill Clinton, too.

bigfingo| 3.3.10 @ 6:52AM

Don't forget the assassination of Randy Weaver's wife (with a child in her arms). Or the guns pointed at Elian Gonzalez. I believe that our current president and his minions (his flying monkeys) are fully capable of these types of thuggery and perhaps more.

Missy| 3.3.10 @ 7:06PM

Definitely MORE!

Orson| 3.3.10 @ 2:09AM

Sean said "I consider the SPLC an extremist group."

They lied that Colorado Congressman Tom Tancredo was a racist. The lie became became a textbook "fact," which then had to be sued.

And back in the mid 1990s, the SPLC claimed that Colorado had eight racist white power groups - including four in Northern Colorado.

Now, considering that I personally knew constitutionalist and pro-gun-rights libertarians active with three of these, I knew the SPLC to be a lying racist hate group.

NO ONE can be a libertarian and a racist. By definition, libertarians are too individualistic to be collectivist, which is the idiocy racism demands.

epobirs| 3.3.10 @ 3:51AM

Now that is certainly false on its face. There is no reason one cannot have a specific dislike of a racial group and also be a libertarian. The difference between such a person and those who'd seek to make their hatred enshrined in law, is that the libertarian would not seek such power and his personal prejudices would remain solely limited to himself and not a matter for governmental policy.

He would be free to exercise his dislike of a group in his personal conduct, so long as he remains within the law. Likewise, those around him would be free in turn to legally exercise their right not to associate or do business with such a person.

Freedom to be a jerk also means freedom of others to treat you as a jerk.

Forrest| 3.3.10 @ 2:16AM

Anybody here actually read the report, or know anything about SPLC. In their extremist/hate-group listings SPLC lists Neo-Nazis, KKK and black nationalist (Nation of Islam, Black panthers). Holocaust deniers and the Jewish Defence League. Extremist Christian Anti-gay groups, extremist Muslim groups, and left environmental groups (ELF, ALF).

Since to my knowledge there are no ORGANIZED violent or threatening "socialist/marxist" groups of current. Yes, there are individuals that define themselves as Anarchists that commit property damage, which a simple search of SLPC site will reveal documentation of.

However the realities of "right-wing" extremism are true.
http://english.aljazeera.net/p.....16797.html
(now now just because it Al-Jazeera, don't be a self-fulfilling prophecy)

Just as these groups are aloud to PEACEFULLY speak their minds, other groups like the SPLC are allowed to offer their interpretation.

Their publication called the, Intelligence Report, is widely used in academic settings. But this fact might be too 'intellectual-elitist' for this lot.

ps. Adam Smith, Rand, Friedman, Hoyak, Mises are used in academic settings too (sociology, philosophy, economics and political science) so don't go getting all hypocritical here about academic-elitists.

FORREST| 3.3.10 @ 2:39AM

Furthermore, SLPC reports on secessionist groups as well, which the author of the article is proudly a member of.

Red Phillips| 3.3.10 @ 8:54AM

That is partially the point Forrest. The SPLC, which is a Cultural Marxist hack outfit, has declared the League of the South a hate group. This alone reveals the SPLC for what it is, an agenda driven group of Cultural Marxist, whose entire reason for being is to demonize anyone slightly to the right of center, and raise truckloads of money doing it.

Mike D| 3.3.10 @ 3:16AM

"(now now just because it Al-Jazeera, don't be a self-fulfilling prophecy)"

I think you've already been the "self-fulfilling prophecy" (is English your native tongue?) of the moonbat leftist.

Forrest| 3.3.10 @ 3:56AM

How so? I have offered accounts of SPLC documenting 'right-wing" and 'leftist' extremeist groups.
All you offer is name calling.

Forrest| 3.3.10 @ 4:13AM

the following link is an SPLC article about the ELF
http://www.splcenter.org/get-i.....-necessary

Forrest| 3.3.10 @ 4:22AM

And another one that site the SPLC documentation of radical environmental groups.

http://www.environmentalgraffi.....rorism/878

Mike D| 3.3.10 @ 3:17AM

Never mind libertarians, the SPLC thinks that the Constitution Party are "extremists"!

Forrest| 3.3.10 @ 4:12AM

"The party (Constitution Parry) puts a large focus on immigration, calling for stricter penalties towards illegal immigrants and a moratorium on legal immigration until all federal subsidies to immigrants are discontinued.[2] The party absorbed the American Independent Party, originally founded for George Wallace's 1968 presidential campaign."

George Wallace s best known for his Southern populist[3] pro-segregation attitudes during the American desegregation period.

"The party opposes same-sex marriage, and believes state and local governments have the right to criminalize "offensive sexual behavior
The SPLC monitors anti-immigrant groups."
-SPLC monitors anti-gay groups

David Jack Smith| 3.3.10 @ 5:42AM

"George Wallace s best known for his Southern populist[3] pro-segregation attitudes during the American desegregation period."

George Wallace is also best known for being a Democrat. A fact that seems to be surprisingly missing from your "piece."

Jamie| 3.3.10 @ 6:22AM

Fascist Liberals never let 'inconvenient' facts get in the way of their beliefs.

Forrest | 3.3.10 @ 9:32AM

Yes George Wallace was a Democrat so is Byrd and he was a KKK member too.
And Lincoln was Republican.. yes of course.

Fascist anybody's don't let fact get in their way.

But if you actually read the above post, you would see that I didn't mention that he was Republican or Democrat, but that he started the American Independence Party which was later absorbed by the Constitution Party.

You just proved my point that the Constitution Party could be considered a extremist party because it was founded, in part, by George Wallace (former-D-Alabama), a segregationist, a racist.

Nadorn| 3.3.10 @ 1:15PM

So because the group had people in it a couple dozen years ago that came from another group headed by a guy that was a segregationist makes them obviously preparing to storm their local courthouse with Uzis, totally irregardless of their current membership and stances?

Red Phillips| 3.3.10 @ 8:57AM

So being restrictionist on immigration makes one a hate group? As I said, the SPLC is nothing but a bunch of Cultural Marxist hacks. Thanks for making my case for me.

Forrest| 3.3.10 @ 9:50AM

I would say no, I understand the reasoning (in some arguments) for being restrictionist. However, the history, and current occurrences, of anti-immigrant violence in this country by vigilant and law enforcement is a reality.

Illegals are illegal, they should be dealt with accordingly, by the proper law enforcement authorities.

And unfortunately, another reality is that civil discourse on immigration is blurred by the fact that there ARE white supremacists that act violently against immigrants illegal or legal.

Red Phillips| 3.3.10 @ 12:51PM

Forrest, anyone who thinks the Constitution Party is a hate group is either delusional or deliberately attempting to slur. Immigration restrictionism and opposition to gay marriage are both entirely mainstream positions that can easily be defended from a traditional conservative standpoint. Not that being "mainstream" is inherently virtuous. Just that the notion that these are "extremist" positions could only be thought by someone who never gets outside their hyper PC bubble.

Forrest has no trees| 3.3.10 @ 1:21PM

So, the Constitution Party is in favor of restricting immigration, and people who beat immigrants are in favor of restricting immigration, therefore the Constitution Party are people who beat immigrants?

ZerObama| 3.3.10 @ 7:36PM

Forrest is a troll. The SPLC is a radical Marxist group, and anyone who cites it as a reasonable source is highly suspect.

Forrest | 3.3.10 @ 4:25AM

It sucks to be pooled together with Nazi's and fascists is it?
A taste of your own medicine (if you can afford it).

Jeremiah| 3.3.10 @ 4:54AM

Touchy touchy! Unfortunately for us, you America hating COMMIES are in the White House--that's real bitter medicine.

Better watch it, though; you leftists could get a good, strong dose of your own nasty medicine. We are fed up with your treacherous policies.

Mike T| 3.3.10 @ 7:26AM

Just par for the course for the left. If I had a dime for every liberal who used those words to describe the entire political right, I could afford to fund a political campaign that could outspend Obama 2:1.

mezzrow| 3.3.10 @ 7:18AM

The SPLC, Frank Rich, and the Obami in general are casting about for the TimMcVeigh/Militia trope to troll in front of America.

Crawl into their mindspace - It bailed them out after '94 (which they see as inevitable again), and 'it'll work again'... It's their socialist version of bubba bait for the booboisie. The guy to fear is white, wearing camo, and is holding a gun. Wash, rinse, repeat.

P. Aaron| 3.3.10 @ 7:36AM

How many colleges nationwide are controlled by anti-American leftists? Probably more than 500.

birdwoman| 3.3.10 @ 8:12AM

College students don't listen to their professors much - they mostly follow the group speak around them, which, these days, can also be driven by the internet. The more truths are outed, the better chance the next generation has.

Some ol'dude| 3.3.10 @ 10:00AM

Kinda like the well mannered folks that post on here.

Group Speak driven by the Internet or the Cable News 'Spin' Commentators or , Talk Radio Blowhards, or partisan comment posters for that matter

ZerObama| 3.3.10 @ 7:10PM

Kinda' like the DNC talking points robots who post as trolls, too. Group Speak indeed.

Red Phillips| 3.3.10 @ 9:01AM

I'm shock, just shocked, that Beltway cosmotarian Dave Weigel repeated SPLC propaganda. Cosmotarians would never go after their own like that, would they?

Red Phillips| 3.3.10 @ 9:06AM

Actually the Weigel commentary is pretty fair. I just wish he had criticized the SPLC's contention instead of just dumping it out there.

Bob| 3.3.10 @ 10:14AM

True libertarians will never be accepted by the religious extremists known as "conservatives" because they believe in liberty which means they are pro-choice and are willing to allow gay marriage. We want the government out of our pockets and out of our bedrooms.

It's really too bad that the Republican party has been taken over by the religious right and the anti-intelligence class because we do agree on fiscal conservatism.

Red Phillips| 3.3.10 @ 12:53PM

"because they believe in liberty which means they are pro-choice"

Yeah, all those dead babies are really basking in their liberty.

Bob| 3.3.10 @ 1:06PM

You do mean dead fetuses, don't you? How many crack babies have you adopted? Are you willing to pay for their hospital bills? That must mean you want universal health care, right? Gee, if you allowed gays to marry, we'd have more adoptions, right? Isn't that what you want?

Nadorn| 3.3.10 @ 1:18PM

The issue clearly isn't as black and white as you'd like us all to believe, is the point.

Common Sense| 3.3.10 @ 1:29PM

NEWS FLASH: Because a random person (Red Phillips) does not adopt crack babies, fetuses have no right to live. Now, using this logic, does it follow that unadopted crack babies have no right to live?

Red Phillips| 3.3.10 @ 1:56PM

Bob, you clearly have an anti-Christian obsession that you inflict on the rest of us in thread after thread. Some might say I have a non-interventionist obsession, but at least I confine my pet issue commentary to threads actually related to foreign policy. You, on the other hand, work your anti-"religious right" commentary into threads that have nothing (or only marginally) to do with it. Like this one. Why are you so bitter against Christians? All Jesus did was die on the Cross for the sins of the world, including yours. Perhaps you should take Him up on the offer to save your immortal soul, instead of grousing about Christians who don't want women to be able to kill their own babies legally. And for the record, I have six kids so I am certainly doing my part to continue the species.

Derek Leaberry| 3.3.10 @ 2:04PM

Bob maintains that Hitler was a Christian despite overwhelming evidence to the contrary. People who are willfully blind to an obvious truth are not worth arguing with.

Bob| 3.3.10 @ 2:10PM

Hitler claimed that he was a Christian. Do you really disagree? Do you want the multitude of quotes from him? You just don't want to admit the truth. Whether you think he was Christian is irrelevant.

Margie| 3.3.10 @ 2:38PM

So what if he claimed himself a Christian? Actually though, he claimed himself a Catholic, specifically. And wasn't that for a brief time anyway? If you are above the age of 12, you'd know that just because someone says they are something, doesn't make it so. If you had a basic understanding of right from wrong and everything wasn't "relative" to you, you'd recognize that fact.
But you repeatedly choose to play games. Hitler claimed to be a Catholic, but he served the Devil.

Bob| 3.3.10 @ 3:16PM

Actually, Margie, he claimed to be a Christian for most all of his life. Here are his quotes:

http://www.stephenjaygould.org.....itler.html

Margie| 3.3.10 @ 3:26PM

OK~ even so, it doesn't make him one. He was a liar. On this I know you agree.

Bob| 3.3.10 @ 3:54PM

Actually we do agree that Hitler was "inhuman" and a blot on all mankind. By the way, all politicians are liars and thieves whether they are Democrats OR Republicans.

Margie| 3.3.10 @ 4:45PM

No, all politicians are not liars and thieves. They may be rare, but they are not all such!

Derek Leaberry| 3.3.10 @ 3:49PM

People can claim anything in public for political expedience. For instance, Obama claims to be a Christian but that is only for show. Lincoln and Jefferson were religious skeptics yet those two men used religious imagery in their writings and speeches, especially Lincoln.

Bob| 3.3.10 @ 2:09PM

Red, I'm not "anti-Christian" at all. I'm against ANY religion forcing their beliefs on all of society through legislation. I believe in true liberty where we trust individuals, not government, to make their own decisions. The reason I rail against "Christians" so much at AmSpec is because the Republican party has morphed more into a Christian offshoot than a true political party. Secular topics, such as fiscal conservatism, are thereby relegated to a secondary position. If the Republican party welcomed ALL fiscal conservatives including pro-choice and gay's, you wouldn't hear a peep from me about Christians.

And Jesus was supposedly a good teacher, but he wasn't the messiah to most of the people of the world. So quit trying to make him so.

Margie| 3.3.10 @ 2:23PM

Jesus IS the Messiah.
Just because "Bob" says He isn't, doesn't it make it so.
"Behold, He is coming with the clouds, and every eye will see Him, every one who pierced Him; and all tribes of the earth will wail on account of Him. Even so. Amen." Rev. 1:7.

Bob| 3.3.10 @ 3:14PM

YOU BELIEVE he's the messiah. Atheists like me certainly don't. Jews don't. Buddhists don't. Muslims don't. In fact, most people in this world don't.

Margie| 3.3.10 @ 3:24PM

But it isn't based on what I or you believe. It's based on fact. It is historical fact that He was born, performed miracles for everyone to see with their own eyes, was crucified, risen from the dead and sits at the right Hand of the Father. Since He became the sacrificial Lamb for all of our sins, tis means there no longer remains a sacrifice, and that because of this, it means that "we were bought with a price."
You are basing your life on whether or not this is true. Either Jesus is a liar, or He is the Son of God. It's your "choice" to not believe Him, but you're making a BIG mistake!

Bob| 3.3.10 @ 3:52PM

"Historical fact" that he performed miracles and rose from the dead?????? That's funny.... It's historical fact that Hitler claimed he was Christian.... It's historical fact that we evolved from the apes... Do you believe that? You certainly have a right to believe as you do, but that doesn't make it an "historical fact". Those books were written by men. You should study the ancient religious books that were not accepted by the ancient Christian church. They are in the Vatican. Perhaps the most telling are those that ended up in Ethiopia since they were less edited by the church of that day. The church elders removed all passages inconsistent with their views. And you call their revisions "historical fact"?

I suggest you actually use your mind and study ancient Christian history. Belief is not something that depends on "historical fact" as most religious intellectuals will tell you. The fact is that you are viewing history THROUGH your beliefs. Since I don't believe in God, I view history through that lens. That doesn't make either of us "right". That's what choice is all about.

Margie| 3.3.10 @ 4:14PM

Bob,
You're going off the deep end again. In fact, Jesus still performs physical miracles, even today. The greatest miracle, though, is the one where you accept Him into your heart and He "recreates" you from the inside out. Like in John 3:3. Then you KNOW He is real. You would have to humble yourself though, and admit your need for Him. That your life isn't working and you're a big fat zero! Yes, He came only "to seek and to save the lost." Are you one of those? The Good Shepherd leaves his flock of 99 to go after the 100th that is missing.
I know from personal experience that this is so. I can only wish the same for you.
~Also Bob~ God doesn't ask us to believe "blindly." He says "if you seek Me with all of your heart, I will be found by you." You can't believe in something that doesn't exist. He exists, but you'd have to want to find Him. And even if you don't think you want to find Him, you could be just trying to tell yourself that. :^)

Margie| 3.3.10 @ 3:12PM

Bob says:
"It's really too bad that the Republican party has been taken over by the religious right.."
~Hilarious! Is that why the big problems with "RINO'S?"
"..and the anti-intelligence class.."
~To Bob, that means anyone who doesn't think like he does. Like an Atheist.
In TRUTH~ everyone is welcome in the Republican party. It's the party of Reagan. Fiscal conservatives, libertarians, and all are welcome. But not to "take it over" and turn it into a "non-interventionist" or pro-choice party.

Bob| 3.3.10 @ 3:20PM

If that is TRUE, Margie, then do you really think a pro-choice candidate, let's say like Tom Ridge, could get the Republican vote? The true test of who is welcome is who could get the vote. I don't want the Republican party to be either pro-choice OR anti-abortion. Neither should be in the platform or a litmus test. Furthermore, I don't want it to be either interventionist or non-interventionist. You intervene where it is necessary, not where it is optional, like Iraq.

Margie| 3.3.10 @ 3:36PM

My opinion is that we conservatives would not nominate a pro-choice candidate. Why would we want to? Abortion is wrong even though it's legal. And it shouldn't be. It was done by the activist Judges, not voted on by the people. I don't think most Americans are pro-abortion.
In all, if the people are allowed to freely choose their nominee for President, it wouldn't be a pro-choice person. The establishment Republicans who aren't paying attention have been "put on notice."

Same thing with non-interventionism. Most Americans do not think this is correct. These things don't have to be a litmus test. The people choose, and most just don't want someone who is either pro-choice, or non-interventionist.
So~ it really IS all about choice. The freedom to choose the candidate we want to.

Bob| 3.3.10 @ 3:43PM

What you have is liberty versus your religious views. The fact is that our country needs fiscal conservatism and your religious views limit the convergence of all fiscal conservatives behind a fiscally responsible candidate. You would accept an unqualified candidate like Palin because of her religious views, right?

Margie| 3.3.10 @ 3:59PM

No, actually it isn't liberty vs. religion. It's your basic right from wrong. Certain things are just in you to know they are wrong because God made us that way. He gave us a conscience to be able to tell. It's what we do with it that's the problem. Ever say to yourself when you were younger~ "Oh, I'll NEVER do THAT." Only to eventually do it and you feel awful, but then you continue doing it and "get used to it?" There goes your conscience, and as we get older it gets worse. Just look around.

The point is, I know that we need fiscal conservatism, now more than ever! We also need a decent person who doesn't agree that abortion is a "right." The people will choose.. but why does there have to be a separation between what you want and what I want? Are you that dead set against a pro-life candidate? There really shouldn't be the need for that. I think you are just looking at it in the wrong light.
No. Sarah Palin isn't unqualified to me. What are the requirements to become President? You have to be over 18 and a citizen. To me, you have to love your country and know right from wrong. You have to understand that Socialism is wrong and that individual freedom is right. (and that doesn't include the so-called "freedom" to kill the unborn.) Sarah would be a fine candidate, though I do prefer a man for the job. :^)

Bob| 3.3.10 @ 4:13PM

Margie, true to my convictions, I have no problem with an anti-abortion candidate if they are well educated, understand the issues, and show they have intellectual curiosity. This includes Romney, Jindal, Ryan, Ridge, etc. Palin has proven she doesn't understand economics, history, the Supreme Court, the Constitution, etc. The fact that you would consider her qualified is what bothers me. Give me someone qualified and I won't care a rat's a___ about their religious or abortion views.

Margie| 3.3.10 @ 4:26PM

Well, we will disagree about Sarah. But the things you assign to her about her not understanding I think are false. Do you just "blindly" believe what the Leftist media tells you about her? Maybe if you read her book you would see what she truly thinks. She is a right thinking person!
~There are plenty of good conservatives out there in the Republican party. No candidate is going to be perfect, though. Personally, I'm psyched about 2012 and can't wait to see who's going to come forward. Conservatives are serious and are "stoked" and are tired of so called moderates. I think we can agree on that? I think you just might be a bit more conservative than you think you are, Bob. (sorry, don't mean to blow your cover :^)

tonypal| 3.3.10 @ 4:41PM

Thanks Bob for clearing all of this up. Whenever I'm confused on an issue, I can always count on you for guidance. All this time, I thought the right way to go was pro-life because who the hell knows when life truly begins and maybe I'm condoning murder if I support abortion rights. But reading through today's posts, I understand how wrong I've been.

As an added bonus, given your stated position that you're an atheist, I've decided to chuck this whole God thing. Now my mind is free and I'm totally liberated. I just wish the rest of the fools on this site - and they are fools, because you say they are and who am I to argue with you - would just drop their silly obsession with God and a messiah who redeemed all of mankind. How stupid and weak-minded. I'm with you now Bob.

SoCon| 3.3.10 @ 7:17PM

Bob is a bigot who hates believers--how absurd that he tries to deny it. Bob also believes everything the psychopath, Adolf Hitler, spewed. We all know that Hitler told the truth, right?

Bob, why don't you post on Globaloney Warming threads anymore? Huh?

Wrong wrong and more wrong--Bob is a moron, an idiot and a fool: A yellow-bellied chicken, too.

Margie| 3.3.10 @ 8:03PM

Oops. You must be age 35 at least to be President.

Nick| 3.4.10 @ 1:44PM

Why not. Ending imperialism is a good conservative thing to do. You guys changed the GOP from a peace loving noninterventionist party. Now perhaps is the time to turn it back. War is hell. We have no business waging hell-unless we are defending ourselves- than I say have at- quickly and decisively.

Ken (Old Texican)| 3.3.10 @ 10:47AM

Yes, Libertarians are dangerous, to themselves. They will instantly shoot their own........nose off to spite their ...........faces.

Nominate the right Republicans and lets get on with turning the country around. If those Republicans have a libertarian leaning, great!

Nick| 3.4.10 @ 1:47PM

Who do you want us to support. Palin? Romney? My God if you do there is very little hope for the republic. We need to radicaly reform the GOP into a Goldwater-small government party- or else the GOP will lose and so will the country.

Derek Leaberry| 3.3.10 @ 10:59AM

The SPLC is just a shakedown outfit that manipulates white guilt to fill Morris Dees' coffers. The Libertarians are relatively harmless, best left to esoteric arguments regarding the theories of Austrian economics and whimsies concerning with drug legalization. Most don't respect culture and have a difficult time relating to the world as it is, not as they would wish it is. After nearly forty years of existance, Libertarians rarely receive more than one percent of the vote.

Margie| 3.3.10 @ 2:51PM

According to their website, the Constitution party is another "non-interventionist" party. Rather than having an interest in restoring the Republican party, they want to see it destroyed. NOT a good thing.

SoSueMe| 3.3.10 @ 3:36PM

We Libertarians have no desire to destroy the Republican party...it's doing a very fine job of that on its own.

Margie| 3.3.10 @ 3:38PM

Well SueMe,
I guess you really haven't been paying attention then, have you?
But is that what you want?

Nick| 3.4.10 @ 1:51PM

Don't you get it? The GOP is a shadow of what it once was. The TEA Party thing started with Ron Paul and is a reaction against big government- which the GOP supported. George Bush destroyed the party. The public is not pro-GOP it is increasingly anti state/taxes/bailouts etc. The GOP is part of the problem.

SoCon| 3.3.10 @ 7:31PM

Ronald Reagan did NOT support a third party--he supported a 'strengthened' Republican party.

We have to hold our Republican politicians accountable--no more 'Beltway Fever'!

Nick| 3.4.10 @ 1:53PM

It can not happen. The GOP loves stealing from the tax payer just as much as the Dems. I should know I used to work with them in DC.

IMTT| 3.5.10 @ 7:06AM

iPhone to Mac transfer can help you manage iPhone on Mac well, It is the best iPhone to Mac Transfer app that can backup iPhone music, movie and photo to Mac.

beejeez| 3.4.10 @ 11:37AM

Please don't make us have health care as cheap as other countries!
Please don't tell me the Weaver fiasco happened before Clinton was president!
Please don't make the government restrict Wall Street bankers!
Please don't tell me federal taxes were higher under Reagan, Bush I and Eisenhower than they are now!
Please don't tell me the only libertarian country is Somalia!
NAAA NAAAA NAAAA I'M NOT LISTENING!!!!

Janie| 3.4.10 @ 1:43PM

Whatever, moron.

Please admit that the American people have rejected ObamaCare by 2 to 1!
Please admit there will be 'death panels' under ObamaCare!
Please acknowledge unemployment has sky-rocketed under Obama!
Please admit that taxes on the middle class are going to shoot through the roof soon!
Please admit that you liberals can't govern!
Please admit that you democrats are drowning in your own filthy corruption!

The DEMOCRAT CULTURE OF CORRUPTION!!

SAVE THE DATE: NOVEMBER 2, 2010!

WE HAVE!

dave| 3.24.11 @ 7:22AM

I recommend http://www.Libertarian-International.org the Libertarian International Organization to see how dangerous they are.

Hotels in Antwerp| 5.22.11 @ 5:59AM

I unquestionably understand what you have said. In fact, I browsed throughout your other articles and I think that you’re certainly right. Congrats with this site.

سوريا| 6.24.11 @ 11:59PM

vere vereg oooooooooooooooood
http://www.soryh.com