Unfortunately, the US Congress has seen to it to hold money over the states’ heads, manipulating compliance with certain laws by promising or denying money that they have no business controlling. SB 1070 is a great example of the fed flexing its might over Arizona. Eric Holder has actually seen fit to sue Arizona for attempting to enforce law that the fed is largely ignoring! This is the problem with liberalism; it is all about a two class system, as Karl Marx envisioned; the Bourgeoise and Proletariat. Guess where honest, hard-working Americans are in that scenario?

In psychological terms, children and infantile adults suffer from a lack of boundaries, and a lack of understanding why there should even be boundaries at all. Who has time for Bakunin’s childish drivel?

On a more topical note, to zombie’s original article, I would argue that using the creations of a free society to promote free markets and the same free society makes absolute sense and IMHO is not contradictory, however in the event zombie is referring to Palin’s personal Social Values, I might agree. Yet, to what degree can we say that Palin’s personal Social Values would reflect her governance of a nation with varying Social Values? The only speculation I can make is that other Presidents with socially conservative values did not force those values on the nation as a whole, maybe upon varying aspects, but each state in the Union has never been forced by a social conservative President to be socially conservative. Whereas the opposite has been true of the lefts demand that we all heel our speech, actions, and wallets to their ideal of social liberalism (which of course is not liberal at all).

Furthermore, the very premise of any collectivist ideology is far more “backwards” than anything that calls for personal responsibility and individual rights. The tribal basis pushed over and over by the left is in fact regressive, whereas the freedom of individuals from collective coercion and subsistence is in fact progress in the grand scheme of things.

How much Palin represents these things is hard to calculate, however she has done well to stand against the collective as any strong individual would.

So, as you said that you support strong state/local government, I’m sure you would have no problem with the provisions withing the Obama health bill to be enacted at state level, correct? If “Obamacare” is “socialism”, but you are in favor of socialistic policies at state level, then you are in favor of “Obamacare” at state level. Of course, that would be the Massachusetts health care reform enacted by Mitt Romney. I guess when a democrat does it at federal level it’s socialism, and when a republican does it at state level its capitalism.

Again, I make no excuses for Keith Olbermann. All network news is bullshit and shouldn’t be trusted. That being said, I think that Bill Maher analysis is right on: “When Jon announced his rally, he said the national conversation was dominated by people on the Right who believe Obama’s a Socialist and people on the Left who believe 9/11’s an inside job, but I can’t name any Democratic leaders who think 9/11’s an inside job [of course, a Fox News Business commentator recently came out as a 9/11 truther]. But Republican leaders who think Obama’s a Socialist…all of them. …. Keith Olbermann is right when he says he’s not the equivalent of Glenn Beck. One reports facts the other one is very close to playing with his poop.”

Krauhammer used to be one of the best and most rational of political commentators, but like most of the right-wing has shifted positions further and further outside the realms of sanity as Obama Derangement Syndrome kicked into full gear. The fact is we are currently discussing Palin. Her views are the majority of views within the tea party and as such within the conservative movement. Those who speak out against those views or are not as “ideologically pure” as Palin (fiscal conservatives who trust the science of AGW, socially liberal fiscal conservatives, pragmatic conservatives who reach across the isle) are being purged as we speak.

About Glenn Beck: he is a bit strange, and from my perspective, over the top, but if I had to thoughtfully consider a viewpoint, I’ll choose Glenn Beck over Keith Olbermann any day of the week. Talk about a self parady! Those in glass houses shall not cast stones.

Krauhammer has an excellent commentary from this week about the left’s perception of Sarah Palin that is applicable to Zombie’s piece. You should check it out. The soundbite from that message is: Conservatism is bigger than Sarah Palin. Not too many on the left really understand that. This past election was all the evidence that is needed.

Scott: [Right now all I see is a giant ranty block of text that I frankly don’t have the time to dissect.] Translation: I don’t have a valid answer.What you do have is more snarky silliness.Let me know when you are ready to be serious.Thank you SPayne, for boiling it down for those who don’t think.

We where having a discussion on socialism and it’s application. You choose to ramble on like a drunken sea captain about the particularities of the health care bill that have nothing really to do with our earlier discussion nor do I support. Not only that, but I also addressed some of the “points” you made anyways. How about you stay on topic, make intelligent points and not rant like a crazy person.

SPayne: Bakunin, I think he’s saying yes to strong state/local gov’t, no to strong federal gov’t.
It’s what the original Republicans, like Thomas Jefferson, wanted.

The question of debate can be boiled down to is “is socialism good?”. In the above image, zombie protrays “socialism” as bad, and that Palin as the savior of America, free markets and capitalism, even while enacting socialistic policies at state level. If “socialism is bad” then it is bad at all levels of government, including state and local government. If Scott supports “strong state/local govn’t” then he is supporting socialist “state/local govn’t” in the context of the discussion we where/are having.

SPayne: “Gotta stand with our North Korean allies”
And one of your guys said, “Well, the constitution is wrong.”
Misspoke or misquoted.

first things first, He’s not “one of my guys”. I’ve made it perfectly clear on this website that I do not support either the republicans or democrats. With I think I probably have more disdain for the republicans (mostly due to there reactionary and regressive social policies) I have nothing in common with the Obama and the democrats.

Second, misspeaking is different from misquoting. Palin clearly said “stand with our North Korean allies”. While she misspoke, it’s up to you the reason why (My opinion: she is seriously confused about the difference between North and South Korea).

THIRD, there’s nothing wrong with thinking the Constitution is wrong. That document has never been perfect. It once counted blacks as only a fraction of a citizen and denied voting rights to those without property and women. I think it’s also clear that in the context of the statement he was giving, he was talking about interpretation of the constitution (that is, he is arguing that there is nothing in the constitution that says “money is free speech”. He’s wrong, mind you, as “freedom of speech” has been interpreted for close to 100 years to include symbolic speech (like burning the flag, wearing an armband, etc) and I think that campaign donations can be within those realms.)

as for “snarky silliness”. I throw that in because the modern right has become a self parody. How is my “snarky silliness” any different then what Glenn Beck, hero of the tea party, saying on a nightly basis about Obama?