The upshot to being in the super-minority, is that the fault for the collapse of every money-wasting, economy-tanking entitlement program will belong exclusively to the democrats.

Why isn't anyone mentioning the protestors during the Bush presidency who held up signs depicting Bush as, yes, Hitler. Protestors often drew comparisons between Bush and Nazis, Mussolini, bin Laden, and many others. Anyone who walked around Union Square Park the last 7.5 years knows what I am talking about. Just google "Bush as Hitler" and you'll see plenty of examples.

Of course I think resorting to calling someone Hitler is the last act of a desperate man and is despicable, but please let's not pretend that the now-indignant left did not use the same tactics.

I am not a Bush fan, but comparing him to Hitler is a despicable act. So is comparing Obama to Stalin. Any hyperbolic comparison to *actually* evil entities is a mark of an uneducated fool, foaming at the mouth.

Are you aware of Godwin's Law? It states:

"As a Usenet discussion grows longer, the probability of a comparison involving Nazis or Hitler approaches 1."

Political discourse has the same weakness.

Amazing. For 8 years I was constantly told that dissent was the most patriotic thing you could do? Now suddenly it's "unAmerican?" huh. The mind of a liberal.

Dissent is right. Shouting to disrupt a meeting is wrong. The Nazis used posters of how badly they had been treated when trying to attack people as recruiting tools. Just saying.

I'm not sure what MayDupe is trying to just be saying (it's August, incidentally), but you have to shout when your elected representatives try to rig their town hall meetings with pre-arranged questions and carefully selected audiences. The dissenters at the town hall meetings are all the more impressive in what they have to go through just to make it into one of the gatherings.

The White House, Homeland Security, and State Department have announced that we're no longer referring to terrorists as terrorists, because to do so might "offend" the terrorists.

Obama wouldn't even condemn the Iranian bludgeoning of citizens protesting in the streets, because to do so might offend The Supreme Leader.

Yet Obama and His Hope and Change Orchestra has no apprehension in labeling ordinary Americans who ask civil, reasonable questions at townhall meetings as "Nazis !" "brownshirts !" "terrorists !" "fascists !" et al.

It's just kind of ironic that Obama has an official policy of negotiating with Jihadists, but not with...Americans.

Are we preferring the days when the meetings had hand-picked audiences, and loyalty oaths were sworn? I remember last 4th of July when a guy shouting was dragged away by a bunch of goons just as George was talking about freedom. This reminds me of a 300lb guy calling others fat.

Hey, Dupey MayDupe -- nice job asking Obama about those mean signs questioning health reform! You'll get an extra ration of flu shots for that one!

'Mr Bush, why are you so awesome', the type of challenging question during a Bush PA.

Just because "Bush did it" (planted questions, massive deficit spending) doesn't mean it's ok for Obama to hit the accelerator on the same policies.

OK Perry, but why did nobody notice it at the time?

shorter May Dupp;

"I love government control. I need a father figure like Obama to run my life for me. I don't care if daddy bankrupts the country---just as long as I get my welfare check in the mail !"

Shorter Walrus: So dumb he doesn't know what 'shorter' means.
That's never gonna stop you from eating GOP shit and acting like it's sausage, right?
The worst part is that I am a republican 8 minutes out of 10, but when I read this site, my bullshit meter starts pinging like the geiger counter in the Radon belt.

How could you not have noticed the left's "outrage" over that one gay Republican who supposedly asked a planted question?

Now on deficit spending, plenty on the right were criticizing Bush. You never heard Rush Limbaugh saying "Take a stand for the Constitution" when arguing against Medicare Part D?

So you're "a republican 8 minutes out of 10"...like Arlen Spectre? And on what exactly do you disagree with Karol? It sounds more like you want to be a "Republican" but inwardly are just a liberal.

Gay rights - liberal. Gun rights - conservative. Like most people Perry, probably you included, I cannot take on a set of political beliefs in a big parcel. I call myself (and mostly vote) GOP, but I'm not gonna hold my nose and not say anything when there be bullshit in the air. People who whine because McCain lost just tick me off. They are the same people who just loved everything GW Bush did and never thought to wonder how this affected the broader prospect of keeping a GOP voice in the wheels of gub'mint.

"Gay rights - liberal."

Meaning what, exactly? I support "gay rights" in that I believe they should be able to have legally valid contracts and call it "marriage," if they want. Most people would consider this liberal. A lot of my fellow Christians probably think I'm going to burn.

I also believe that the state should not be able to define a subjective value like "marriage." If two people want to call themselves "married," then as Jefferson said, "But it does me no injury for my neighbor to say there are twenty gods, or no god. It neither picks my pocket nor breaks my leg." My wife, for example, considered us married before we legally were.

So two people ought to be able to enter a contract that establishes common property, disposition of inheritance without a will, etc., and have it registered with a county clerk. On the flip side, though two people can call themselves "married," an employer should not be forced to recognize it (for the purposes of benefits, whether health insurance or death benefits). That's libertarianism.

"Gun rights - conservative."

And again, meaning what? Ted Rall supports "gun rights" but is quite liberal. I, on the other hand, believe that 100% unhindered gun rights are primarily for defending ourselves against government. I don't support laws barring convicted criminals from owning guns, for two reasons: a person might have been convicted unjustly and will need to defend himself against lynch mobs upon release from jail, and real criminals don't bother obeying gun laws anyway.

"Like most people Perry, probably you included, I cannot take on a set of political beliefs in a big parcel. I call myself (and mostly vote) GOP, but I'm not gonna hold my nose and not say anything when there be bullshit in the air."

Nothing wrong with this. Similarly, I won't necessarily vote for a "Libertarian" candidate by default. Sometimes they're "libertarian" not out of principle, but because they want legalized marijuana and hate cops.

"People who whine because McCain lost just tick me off. They are the same people who just loved everything GW Bush did and never thought to wonder how this affected the broader prospect of keeping a GOP voice in the wheels of gub'mint."

I wasn't about to vote for McCain just because I so staunchly oppose Obama, so like in 1996, I made a principled vote for someone I knew stood for liberty. I've pointed out for, well, a Very Long Time that it wouldn't be any different under a President McCain. Same old massive spending (it originates from Congress, after all), his own $300 billion mortgage reform plan, the necessity of future tax hikes, and zero change in the Federal Reserve's monetary policy.

It's a dance where it doesn't matter which of the two you go home with -- either way, you're getting screwed.

Now, see what happens when you don't attack me personally? I actually reply...nicely.