Cyrena, that’s good to know.  Russ is as good at “copy” and “paste” as George Bush and the Fed.

O Dar, I’ll have to listen again.  I didn’t catch that what Sullivan bristled at was Chomsky’s objection to the Iraq invasion.  There’s a history between the two of them that I’m not familiar with and I’ve started digging into it.

No, Rus, you’re mistaken. You’re beating the drum for a cult, and not all true conservatives buy into it’s dangerous hegemony. You do have blinders on, and I’m only speaking about you.

In my family, I have many Republicans. Essentially, they’re not informed or wealthy. Those are the only excuses I’ve heard for voting Republican. You can feel like a victim all you want, but the party you vote for has been taken over by a cult hell bent on victimizing the American people and making the country a Saudi-esque state.

It’s sickening, and I may only hope you see this for what it is one day instead of being a soulless shill for talking points about “Bill Ayers” and “Rev. Wright” while disregarding the reality our nation faces.

The pettiness and delusional rhetoric you beat on every comment is nothing short of a disservice to yourself and all other Americans. We’re in this boat together, but it seems your priorities are focused elsewhere.

Dr. Knowitall, PhD, PhD:
“O Dar,

I found and watched the video.  I realize there are people out there who don’t “like” Sullivan.  Trying to be objective, I can’t really fault what he said anymore than I could fault either Chomsky or Maher.

I realize Sullivan was called out for his position by the left, but why not?  I’ll look into Chomsky’s alleged Soviet support for myself.

In fact, the one who made the most reasonable sense to me, who spoke my brand of truth was Hugely(sp?).”

If one wants to argue that America’s invasion of Iraq is justified, regardless of what international law is, then fine, but one can’t change facts, and what Prof.Chomsky said is a fact, atleast as far as what international law is.

For Sullivan to call Prof.Chiomsky, someone who is as morally and intellectually superior to him as Isaac Newton is to an ant, a “liar” is to deny fact.

But ofcourse Sullivan didn’t actually provide any countering argument.

By Rus7355, September 22 at 9:03 am #
Dr. Knowit,
Just another suggestion.
Perhaps you should skip over my posts. Your replies make you appear exceedingly foolish.
~~~~~~~~~
Wow Dr. Knowitall,

This is impressive. You rate the exact same ‘verbatim’ comment from rus7355 that I got. (can’t remember who else).

So, welcome to the club. Anybody who challenges the reactionary rus with numbers gets the same ‘orders’.

If you’ve been condemned by reactionary rus with the numbers, then it means you’re in excellent company.

Sorry, but pragmatic tax policy trumps loose associations with people who are relatively regular people if you don’t have neocon blinders on. You’re unable to view anyone without these blinders, though, because you’re in the cult. Put that in your blackberry and smoke it.

Rus, what’s foolish is worshiping Palin as a goddess of conservatism when she is no such thing. What’s foolish is thinking Obama won’t win this election. McPain has hung the albatross around his neck, and the GOP swooned, but now the boards are starting to shrink and your ship will fall like lead into the sea.

Why doesn’t anyone ask Palin or McCain about what to do about the economy? They like to answer with rhetoric about reform and change, but neither one has changed anything except via deregulation upon John’s behalf and tax increases on Palin’s behalf. You’re following a false conservative cult of greed, Rus.

@writeon, you’re right, “Palin may not have an expensive, elite university, education; but that doesn’t make her stupid or a farce. I think it’s terribly dangerous to label her a farce, because by inference one is seen to be writing-off millions of ordinary American women, many of whom are energized by Palin and identify with her.”

But, what you must understand is that what separates the millions of women you refer to from SP is that they are not running for, nor would they agree to run for VP, possibly to become POTUS in a heart-non-beat.  That’s the thing.  I ask you, what opinion must she have of herself that allows her to think she’s qualified?  Why would you or anyone who has any understanding of our government and its relationship to the rest of the world think SP is qualified to be POTUS?  Try to be objective, please.  Remember, the world is diverse, with a world of diverse opinions.  That disqualifies her from the getgo, never mind anything else.  This is where education comes into play.  A POTUS needs to understand that fact. 

To help your side a little, George Bush is a supreme example of an Ivy League educated guy who apparently skipped school but became POTUS, so the degree doesn’t mean much either. 

We shouldn’t worry, I guess, because SP is, as we write, cramming a new world view for herself.

O Dar,

I found and watched the video.  I realize there are people out there who don’t “like” Sullivan.  Trying to be objective, I can’t really fault what he said anymore than I could fault either Chomsky or Maher.

I realize Sullivan was called out for his position by the left, but why not?  I’ll look into Chomsky’s alleged Soviet support for myself.

In fact, the one who made the most reasonable sense to me, who spoke my brand of truth was Hugely(sp?).

Russ, take a nap.

O Dar:

I didn’t see the appearance with Chomsky but am bewildered by how, on Maher, as I’m familiar with the format, one is on the show with another and then waits until the other goes to call him a liar?  How does that happen?  I’ve never seen anyone leave the show until it’s over, except by video.  I’ve never seen anyone appear by video after the panel convenes, that I can remember.  If Chomsky appeared by video, how could Sullivan call him a liar to his face?  Furthermore, this doesn’t square with Sullivan’s confronting anyone on the show with opposing views, that I’ve seen

I still have great respect for Sullivan’s thinking and even more respect for his willingness to be confronted by the liberal pit bulls on Maher.

His stand on religion, while he is quite religious, is reasonable to me, an atheist. 

What has he said that you disagree with?

I agreed with Klein about blame laying for the Wall St. debacle. Sullivan, a conservative, wants to blame the mortgagee.  Klein and I agree. But, I understand his reasoning.  I may not always agree with him, but that’s more a difference of opinion than it is faulty reasoning, I think.

Dr. Knowitall, PhD, PhD:
“Andrew Sullivan has been among the most brilliant and reasonable of Maher’s panelists.  His estimation of Palin probably used about 1/700,000,000,000th of his intellect.”

No he hasn’t.

Watch the video of when Prof.Chomsky appeared briefly on thwe show, and Sullivan waited until he was gone to call him a liar.

Besides being a coward, he’s also a hypocrite. He was devoted to the neocon agenda, then when things went bad for them and Bush, he began calling himself a “libertarian conservative”.

While I enjoy any joke made at gov Sarah’s expense, I find it hard to watch old Billy Maher these days.
Ever since he sold out to the same corporate media types that cut his balls off, I have been suspect of anything Bill or his line up of pundits have to say.
I stopped watching Billy after last years episode that featured that troglodyte Scarborough bitching about how anti american Chris Hedges new book “American Facists” was, and gutless Billy gave him a pass and moved on to something else ASAP(probably because he had not read it either)
While Ms Klein should be considered a liberal intelectual, Bill Maher is just another pot smoking, cadillac liberal hack, who all to often, appears dim in front of guests.(remember when the writers were on strike and he did two shows on his own, what drek!)

Bill Maher is an example of the kind of awful gutless liberal that has sat idley bye while the nation has spun down the toilet. His only complaint is that grass isn’t legal.
He should get on the train of other phony liberals like Clinton, Obama, Reid and Pelosi, and drive it over a cliff.

Gov Sarah might well be an idiot, but she could also be you VP someday soon.

Jeez, I feel nautious all the sudden.

Naomi got it right.
Sarah clearly will adhere to all the dark side policies that have been used for making the decisions in the whitehouse for the past 8 years.
What we need in Washington is some stain removing sunshine.
Nutty evangelicals scare the crap out of me!

Middlepath:

On this:

“... Then again, it’s the same system and same voting age populace that twice (s)elected Bush….”

~~~~~

Maybe not. In fact, while the entire country doesn’t hear much from them, these 8 years, or even 4 years later, we do NOT have the same voting age populace that twice selected Bush.

Consider this first: Bush and Cheney were not selected or elected by the populace in either 2000, or 2004. Both were fraudulent elections/assignments. That said though, we cannot ignore the fact that ENOUGH of the population DID vote for them, or the fraud could never have been accomplished.

Be that as it may, we are now in 2008, and the demographics of the voting population have in fact changed. The number of newly registered voters has been nothing short of phenomenal, and we can put the majority of them on the Obama/Biden ticket.

Now I realize that I’m saying this from my own particular view, or seat in the bleachers, and that it is not a birds-eye view. (even if I was a fly on the wall, I still would only be one fly). BUT..it’s a pretty good view, since I do get to move around.

That said, I get to see a whole bunch of NEW voters added to the populace, and I know that not ALL white women of the previous voting demographics are likely to fall for the likes of Palin. In fact, among educated white women at least, we see a call to reject Palin, who is the epitome of everything they’ve spent decades trying to correct/eliminate.

So, hang in there. Like Sullivan, I think we could be underestimating the intelligence of ‘white women’ as well as our youth.

@ middlepath

“I’m not a fan of Sullivan, but I’m relieved to see that he has enough intelligence to expose Palin for who she really is—a farce.”

Andrew Sullivan has been among the most brilliant and reasonable of Maher’s panelists.  His estimation of Palin probably used about 1/700,000,000,000th of his intellect.

I agree that the facts about Palin must be reiterated over and over again, and backed up with rock-solid evidence, by the Democrats. The evidence is there for just about any talking point they want to make about Palin’s lack of experience, her lack of knowledge, her extremist views that seem to be coming from the 15th century rather than the 21st,  and the fact that she would be one heartbeat away from being the president…possibly for a hell of a long time. If they don’t do this,  Palin will continue to be the gender choice of far too many white women, regardless of whether or not they actually think she would make a good VP.  Sad to say and it makes me ashamed of those of my gender who think that way, but there it is…

I’m outraged about McCain’s VP pick.  It is an obvious pander to get women’s votes.  This woman has no business being a heartbeat away from the presidency.  None whatsoever.  McCain is OLD.  So old you could almost say it is likely he won’t live out his term.  President Palin would be a nightmare for this country.  She is reason enough to vote Obama.  His VP pick is a perfect match and has experience a lifetime over Palin.

I’m not a fan of Sullivan, but I’m relieved to see that he has enough intelligence to expose Palin for who she really is—a farce. Now if we could just get more conservatives, like Sullivan, to speak out against the absurdity of Palin running as McCain’s VP candidate, then maybe, just maybe it’ll make a difference come November 2. Then again, it’s the same system and same voting age populace that twice (s)elected Bush.