Here's your gun safety training for the day.

After all the fun I had yesterday, I wish I had started a Sarah-Palin bashing spree much sooner.

Here Sarah Palin is again, defending her use of the word "slavery." Instead of acknowledging a rather inappropriate choice of words, she decided that the offended black population just wasn't intelligent enough to understand her intent.

Off to hunt for more Sarah Palin stuff to keep myself amused. Dance, puppets! Dance!

The police, America's heroes, lock up a grandmother in a holding cell with 40 men.

Florida, of course.

Meanwhile, Batkid takes San Francisco by storm!

Awesomeness from the Make A Wish Foundation.

Gog, regarding Batkid.

Coolest. Thing. Ever.

Yes Patrick, please call all the demons of hell down on her head. But she is right.

So maybe the term slavery isn't the right word. But others use it as well.

And from your link:

Yeah, it sucks that the U.S. has an insane amount of national debt. But, unless Palin knows something about the international loans America has taken out that the rest of us don’t, the U.S. won’t belong to another country because of our debt. No one is going to come and chain America, pack her up like cargo and ship her off to parts unknown. No one is going to deny America’s basic rights and force her work for free so that their nation can experience economic growth at an unprecedented rate. America may have a lot of debt, but that debt can be paid. Slaves, true slaves, didn’t have that kind light at the end of their tunnels.

Maybe a better phrase would be that every American would be subjects the foreign loan sharks that are circling us now.

As it stands the U.S. dollar is only backed by the full faith and credit of the United States. There is no gold or silver standard. At some point the value of the U.S. dollar is probably not going to be worth the paper it is printed on. As is stands the U.S. owes $16,700,000,000,000 to entities external to the U.S.

In addition the government does not really make any money. It is our money that gets taken from all of us by taxes, fines and so forth.

So when the U.S. dollar is no longer trusted as the currency it is going to leave the U.S. Federal Government, and the citizens of the country, on the hook to pay back that $16.7 TRILLION back to the outside entities. That money has to be bought from some other country by the work of the U.S. citizens.

And the foriegn entity can also dictate the worth of their dollar. So they can keep us paying the debt for a long time because the principle will never get paid down.

So loan sharking is a better term but debt slavery is a nice easy shorthand.

hehe - Patrick, You seem to be a "slave to your desire" to play gotcha with your betters!

(Is that a quick enough 2-step for you?)

I don't like Palin and I don't think that she should have said that African Americans are not capable of understanding what she meant - that was the big insult.

Comparing debt to slavery is a common practice. The bible says the the borrower is slave to the lender. In biblical times, it was indeed true. Debt can prevent you from doing what you want to do.

On the other hand, some debt is a protection. We often spent money now because it will help us in the long run. Spending money can be an investment.

Now I'm getting controversial. Education, vaccines, and many other things are investments that can save us money in the future. I suppose we have to discern between investing and growing out debt. I'd rather pay for preschools than prisons, I'd rather pay for an inhaler than a pauper's grave for a teenager with asthma.

As much as I dislike Palin, I hate to treat her unfairly.

Charles, you're catching on. Much better than the semi-hysterical rant you went on yesterday.

Charles, you're catching on. Much better than the semi-hysterical rant you went on yesterday. -- Patrick at November 16, 2013 8:20 PM

So are you saying that you can't make a cogent and intelligent reply to someone?

Where does my reply suggest that I am incapable or making an intelligent or cogent response? Thus far, there is nothing here that needs even a reply, much less a cogent and intelligent one (including yours, incidentally, but because I had so much fun with it yesterday, I'll yank your chain a little).

I posted about a blatant violation of civil rights which happened to at least involve Sarah Palin. The supporters couldn't get past the fact that the post was about Sarah Palin, and went into hysterics about how persecuted she supposedly was.

And what made this so delectably ironic was the complaints about this supposed anti-Sarah bias. The bias that was demonstrated was their pro-Sarah bias. So, if she violates someone's civil rights, any criticism of her is the result of some supposed anti-Sarah bias.

It was especially laughable coming from Radwaste and lujlp. They foam and gnash over the TSA (which they were conspicuously silent on during the previous administration) claiming that it's a violation of Constitutional rights. Lujlp in fact proved himself a terrorist supporter.

I think it's hilarious that they proved themselves such consummate hypocrites. They claim to be such stalwarts for the Constitution (though neither one of them understands the Constitution, and neither do you, incidentally). But they seem to care much less about our rights when Bush is violating them. Or Sarah Palin.

Charles actually wrote the best cuckoo rant I've seen in a long time. All I did was point out that Sarah Palin was involved in kidnapping and wrongful imprisonment. And somehow, he felt the need to defend Sarah's accent, her intelligence, her attractiveness, her husband, her son Track and her daughter Bristol.

(Somehow, Piper, Willow and Trig were left out of it.)

(though neither one of them understands the Constitution, and neither do you, incidentally). -- Patrick at November 17, 2013 9:06 AM

Please show me where I have fallen down on understanding the Constitution. I would really appreciate it.

Cuckoo, cuckoo; be careful there Patrick, I might just lay my eggs in your nest.

I posted about a blatant violation of civil rights which happened to at least involve Sarah Palin.

No you didnt, you posted a link to an article where a bunch of reports got huffy that they were cordoned off somewhere and exaggerated being locked in. Not one comment confirmed that they were actually locked into a room from outside (in case you didnt know locks are on the inside of doors) and physically restrained from leaving.

The following is not worth anyone's time, given the commenter quoted, but it is offered to the person without an idea of who Patrick is:

"They foam and gnash over the TSA (which they were conspicuously silent on during the previous administration) claiming that it's a violation of Constitutional rights."

Um - you weren't here during the previous Administration.

And - good luck sustaining your reliance on the Two Wrongs Fallacy. Even if I was silent about the transgression of some other Administration, that does not invalidate my commentary about the one in office. Try to grasp that.

Do you really think that who is in charge determines whether something is right? That would explain a lot.

For instance, I have not commented on the pilicies of Pol Pot, either. By your way of thinking, this must mean that I support Pol Pot's policies, even though, in contrast to yourself, I have never posted a link suggesting my stance.

I wonder why it is that you and Mike Hunter have never answered this simple question: "What mode of travel is your right?"

This has a basis in Constitutional law - the Lemuel Penn case.

Can you answer that now - or is it too inconvenient to be exposed for the authoritarian you are, as with the ACA cost calculator challenge?