Sometimes I think libbies really are as stupid as they appear. Other times, I believe them to be simply craven manipulators of the naive, young, perennially-aggrieved victims seeking permanent government-provided largesse, and the hopey-changey hard-left ideologues. The conundrum of truly understanding libbies goes on and on.....consider this quote from the article about Sinema: "Until the average American realizes that capitalism damages her livelihood while augmenting the livelihoods of the wealthy..." The profound ignorance, and untruth, in that statement is, quite literally, frightening. Perhaps Sinema should team up with Congressman "Tip Over Guam" Johnson on the "Stunningly Ignorant" libbie ticket. - Snark

Gosh, Outsider - you can't even seem to accurately repeat YOURSELF. Let's consider - the evidence is before all of us. Did you simply assert that Hannity was "fiercely partisan?" Um....no. Let's consider the FACT. Your post stated: "just as fiercely partisan on the right (and also devoid of humor) as the lefty's of MSNBC. So, what you actually stated, despite your attempt to lie about it, is that Hannity is "just as fiercely partisan...." and that is what I disputed, before you lied in an attempt to misrepresent your initial post. Sorry you're unable to defend your initial fanciful assertion - and that you've so been so clearly shown up. Keep trying though....you may improve, however unlikely that outcome! - Snark

Yes, yes.....and your support for your supposed parroting of PB's philosophy? Evidence of "neocon" control of Republican Party? None offered, still? Evidence of Republicans' commitment to more wars? None offered, still? Evidence of American "Wars of empire?" None offered, still? Hmmm....so, in other words, you've EXACTLY NOTHING to offer in support of the astonishingly stupid - yes, stupid - statement you made, and on which I called you out? Your pretending that my post, which clearly, and with evidence (see long list of wars above) rebuts the inanity of your comment, is nothing but name calling is absurd. Try again, if you've something substantive to offer in your THIRD attempt. - Snark

; -)

...fought by America this century: WWI? Nope, no territory held by the USA long-term after this war. WWII? Nope, no territory held by the USA long-term after this war. Korean "war"? Nope, no territory held by the USA long-term after this war. Vietman? Nope, no territory held by the USA long-term after this war. First Iraq war? Nope, no territory held by the USA long-term after this war. Second Iraq war? Nope, no territory held by the USA long-term after this war. Afghanistan war? Nope, no territory held by the USA long-term after this war. Ergo, outsider, you're proved to be a liar, an idiot, or both. Feel free to identify which. - Snark

Outsider wrote: "The Repubs, controlled by the neocons, are committed to increased defense spending and more wars of empire" WOW - tough to convey that much untruth and stupidity in just one sentence. Well done! Let's take a look: "Repubs are controlled by neocons..." REALLY? Perhaps someone should tell those millions of republicans who would have preferred a nominee far further to the right than the centrist Romney. "...committed to more wars..." REALLY? Go ahead - provide one iota of evidence for broad Republican Party support of more wars. Waiting...... "....wars of empire..." REALLY? This statement is so ignorant as to be bewildering. Wars of empire? Sure, look at all the captured and held territory in wars...

...channeling, ambulance-chasing scamming fraud of a lawyer would ultimately reveal an utter lack of character. Huh! Who woulda thunk it!?! A "stand-up guy," eh, Chrissy? Well, perhaps in your book, you leftist poltroon. - Snark

loadstar- I did not watch ol' Tingly-Leg, but if he did, in fact, refer to Edwards as a "stand-up" guy, that doesn't surprise me. After all, what forthright, proud father worth his salt hasn't bribed an underling to pretend to be the father of his child? Which "stand-up guy" among us hasn't spent nearly a million dollars to conceal an affair conducted while his wife is struggling with cancer, conceived an out-of-wedlock child, then lied, very publicly, and for years, to conceal his perfidy? What? None of us? Oh, yeah, that's right. Edwards is, quite simply, an over-blowdried ponce. He is a disgrace to fathers, to men, and, quite frankly, to humankind. The only surprise is why anyone would be surprised that a dead-child-...

A strong argument is made in this article. It's my belief that Romney has a very positive environment in which to attempt to unseat an incumbent President seeking re-election. While that's a tough thing to do, I believe that a well-run Romney campaign is capable of doing just that. The American public (or, at least, the young, naive, minority, single women, and hard-left ideologue elements of it) largely fell in love with the "IDEA" of Obama in 2008. After nearly 4 years of facing the truly ghastly outcomes produced by this most-divisive, -ideological, and -hard left of Presidents, the bloom is truly off the rose. Vote RIGHT in 2012! - Snark

...on Republicans. In short, Obama won in 2008, as the beneficiary of a nearly "perfect storm" of conditions present at that time. We'll see how he fares in 2012 with, for the first time in his life, an actual record as a leader (a clear, horriffic failure, to those able to see and think clearly), no 3+ times advantage in campaign funds, and a (please, oh, PLEASE) much stronger opponent. My prediction? Romney will win, and will win handily. The outcome will NOT be as close as many pundits are predicting. - Snark