Sarah Palin's radical right-wing mentors

'What a pathetic attempt to cover the “true meaning” and nature of what you believe.'

You're the only one who thinks it 'pathetic'. Nor was this a cover. This addresses generations of mis-use of the term 'liberal' by ignorant, right wing demagogues who have tried to appropriate this perfectly good word for Orwellian purposes.

" So, my mistake . . . . I was defining “MODERN Liberalism” the type you represent. "MODERN CONSERVATISM" is about entrepreneurship, choosing life over killing unborn babies, heterosexual, life-giving relationships and spines of steel, and so forth. ""

No --you did not define either 'liberalism' nor 'conservatism' nor were you appointed to do so. And you did not define 'modern conservatism". You just repeated the talking points handed down from a GOP focus group. You fell for it.

Secondly "modern conservatism' is NOT about 'entrepreneurism'. It is about enriching a tiny elite of about 1 percent of the entire population. Before you state things as facts, I suggest you do some research first. In FACT, every GOP administration since Ronald Reagan has claimed to be 'conservative' but have in fact enriched a tiny base of elites. Check the Bureau of Labor Statistics, US Department of Commerce-BEA, Census Bureau. The biggest offender have been the 'tax cuts' form which ONLY the upper quintile benefited. Wealth did NOT trickle down as the conservatives promised. It trickled up. Today ---because of 'conservative' incompetence --about 1 percent of the nation owns outright some 90 percent of the nation's total wealth. Check it out! Facts!

"You Modern Liberals can't hide behind dictionary definitions. Modern Liberalism ultimately leads to a communistic society and, as history has proven, IT NEVER works. NEVER!"

That's a funny one. From whom did you cut and paste it? In fact, liberalism --despite massive propaganda efforts to redefine it --still means precisely what Vierotchka said it means. In fact, the conservative 'free market' model has never worked and has always required a 'liberal'' BAILOUT.

The recent BAILOUT is proof of it. The market failed and required a LEFTIST solution. The bailout proves that Marx was right. What you would call a 'free market' failed just before the Great Depression and it's failing now.

"Modern Conservationism always works; ALL the time. It even works for the lying modern liberals. "

Modern conservatism has never worked and Bush's application of it proves just how catastrophic and incompetent 'modern;' conservative policies are.

In any case, 'modern conservatism' is just the word 'modern' stuck on the word 'conservatism' which is still nothing more than Adam Smith's 'invisible hand' Clue: there is NO invisible hand and, I daresay, that you have never bothered to read Smith though you claim to speak authoritatively about conservatism.

"Oh and doesn’t the congress (Modern Liberals) have the lowest approval rating (9%) in US history??? "

Nonsense. Cite your source! In fact, conservatives amount to just less about thirty percent of the entire population.

Just recently someone in the conservative media (and that's everyone from from CNN to FOX) claimed that Obama continues to pulled steadily ahead of McCain and, in the next breath, called Obama the most liberal Democrat to run for President since JFK.

In the meantime, consider the fact that if the market is working 'now', it's only because of the timely BAILOUT ---a MARXIST solution to yet another catastrophic and decisive FAILURE of conservative ideology.

I don't represent anyone but myself, your lame, hateful and psittacine responses notwithstanding. You, on the other hand, represent the worst in humanity.

"What a pathetic attempt to cover the “true meaning” and nature of what you believe."

You're the only one who thinks it 'pathetic'. Nor was this a cover. This addresses generations of mis-use of the term 'liberal' by ignorant, right wing domagogues who have tried to appropriate this perfectly good word for Orwellian purposes.

" So, my mistake . . . . I was defining “MODERN Liberalism” the type you represent. "MODERN CONSERVATISM" is about entrepreneurism, choosing life over killing unborn babies, heterosexual, life-giving relationships and spines of steel, and so forth. ""

No --you did not define either 'liberalism' nor 'conservatism' nor were you appointed to do so. And you did not define 'modern conservativism". You just repeated the talking points handed down from a GOP focus group. You fell for it.

Secondly "modern conservativism' is NOT about 'entrepreneurism'. It is about enriching a tiny elite of about 1 percent of the entire population. Before you state things as facts, I suggest you do some research first. In FACT, every GOP adminstration since Ronald Reagan has claimed to be 'conservative' but have in fact enriched a tiny base of elites. Check the Bureau of Labor Statistics, US Department of Commerce-BEA, Census Bureau. The biggest offender have been the 'tax cuts' form which ONLY the upper quintile benefited. Wealth did NOT trickle down as the conservatives promised. It trickled up. Today ---because of 'conservative' incompetence --about 1 percent of the nation owns outright some 90 percent of the nation's total wealth. Check it out! Facts!

"You Modern Liberals can't hide behind dictionary definitions. Modern Liberalism ultimately leads to a communistic society and, as history has proven, IT NEVER works. NEVER!"

That's a funny one. From whom did you cut and paste it? In fact, liberalism --despite massive propaganda efforts to redefine it --still means precisely what Vierotchka said it means. It is the conservative 'free market' model which, in fact, has never worked and has always required a 'liberal'. The recent BAILOUT is proof of it. The market failed and required a LEFTIST solution. The bailout proves that Marx was right. What you would call an 'free market' failted just before the Great Depression and it's failing now.

"Modern Conservationism always works; ALL the time. It even works for the lying modern liberals. "

Modern conservativism is just the word 'modern' stuck on the word 'conservativism' which is still nothing more than Adam Smith's 'invisible hand' Clue: there is NO invisible hand and, I daresay, that you have never bothered to read Smith though you claim to speak authoritatively about conservatism.

"Oh and doesn’t the congress (Modern Liberals) have the lowest approval rating (9%) in US history??? "

Nonsense. Just recently someone in the conservative media (and that's everyone from from CNN to FOX) claimed that Obama continues to pulled steadily ahead of McCain and, in the next breath, called Obama the most liberal Democrat to run for President since JFK.

In the meantime, consider the fact that if the market is working 'now', it's only because of the timely BAILOUT ---a MARXIST solution to yet another catastrophic and decisive FAILURE of conservative ideology.

I don't represent anyone but myself, your lame and hate-filled response notwithstanding. Get a life.

Any form of authority, except theirs of course.

Thats true. Lest we forget they have a "special destiny" and cannot be bound by the laws of man.

There should be a simple self-test for people to determine their level of craziness:

1) Do you think any misfortune that befalls you is not your own fault but rather the fault of a international super secret cabal of Communists and/or demons?

2) Do you feel unprotected/unsafe if you only own 25 handguns, 37 shoutguns and 14 AK-47s?

3) Do the voices generally tell you that its okay to kill because everyone who isnt you is "unworthy?"

If you answered yes to any of these question....you might be a Republican.

"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

If you take away the guns, you take away the power of the people, and you invite people like George Bush to pass things like the Patriot Act and assume a dictatorship.

You anti-gun people don't realize how you play into their hands. Anybody that wants to commit a crime can find a gun to do it anyway- we just won't have any to stop them with.

I'm actually in favor of the 2nd amendment and do think that it's important that the government not be the only ones allowed to wield firearms. That being said, the Patriot Act was passed while we still have the right to bear arms.

A well armed populace may be the LAST defense against tyranny, my problem with these lunatics is that they see it as the ONLY means of remedying our domestic issues. In fact, they seem disturbingly eager to get a chance to do so violently.

Quick thought on gun control: The arguement that we need guns to protect ourselves from the government seems a little weak.

Our military is the most powerful on earth. In the extremely unlikely even that every single member of Congress, the entire Supreme Court and every single NATO ommander and every General in the US all decided to give power over to a dictator (what would have to happen in order for this scenario to actually happen) and "round up" citizens....would owning 5 shoutguns really make a difference against a tank and Blackhawk helicopters?

The reality is: no.

The minute a patriot whipped out his gun to fend off the military they would in all likelihood just roll over him in a tank and that would be that.

But this does raise an interesting question. If the pro-gun crowd truly believes that they can single-handedly defeat the US posessing only small arms and hunting rifles....they how can our military possibly win in Iraq when the entire population has MILITARY grade assualt weapons?

Its an interesting question.

Hi, crob80227.

The economics of a hot war are such that a poorly equipped army that fights tiny battles over a long period of time CAN win over a larger, better equipped force.

That is the lesson of the Guerilla strategy as invented during the Revolutionary War and perfected in Cuba, Vietnam, Afghanistan and possibly now in Iraq.

It is far better to wage a cold war with soft weapons: diplomacy, economics, politics, education.

@ magnusdeus - "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State,..." are the defining words of the Second Amendment. It obviously doesn't mean "please disregard what precedes two commas", it means that the right to bear arms is only within the framework of a well regulated Militia. It doesn't mean that all and sundry can have and bear arms.

Does your state have a militia? Mine does and it's treated like a low-level terrorist organization. Militias without federal ties don't exist.

@crob- I'm in the military and I'm well aware of its capabilities. The fact is that in a revolution environment most people would not be faced with tanks and apaches; the military's not big enough. It's a volunteer force which means they'd probably draft (but there'd be a revolution so that probably wouldn't work that well...). Guerrilla tactics would win out like they have in nearly every war in history.

At any rate, it's not the hypothetical combat scenarios that matter; it's the fear. The government should fear its people and ours doesn't.

@ magnusdeus, I live in Switzerland, and the Swiss army is a militia army and is well ordained, and all its members have to keep their uniform, gear, assault rifle and a box of 7 bullets at home. That is far closer to the US's 2nd amendment than anything in the US.