Any idea what “in good faith” means?

Carry on indeed.

No, I do not have a specific named person in mind.

OK. So …uh…. basically you didn’t have a point, and essentially making up crap.

Going forward, maybe I won’t be appreciating your comments as much after all.

Somehow I believe I’ve find the strength to carry on.

I’ve always appreciated your comments here, and I expect I will continue to do so after this tempest-in-a-teapot.

But I do think it’s time to give it a rest.

No, I do not have a specific named person in mind. My “beware” was aimed a right-leaning people generally — ^including^ the “guy at the end of the bar after a Raiders game”.

You write, “I like the “our” — that was a nice touch, as concern trolls go, inviting the conclusion that “we” are on the same — pro-American — side.”

I don’t know what the %$#@ you want at this point. My use of “our” was genuine. If you’re nevertheless skeptical, that’s your right and privilege.

Going forward, maybe I won’t be appreciating your comments as much after all. I’m sorry for ^me^ in that regard.

Obama’s incompetence now is as much a benefit as it is a disaster–Mike Mc.

I’ve said the same thing in a different way: Obama is worth more to the Republicans than to the Democrats. My ever near conspiratorial suspicions are on high alert. The truth about Martin Luther King Jr. was suppressed by his martydom. Exponentially so for Ghandi. JFK.

Letter-writers to sites like CNN and USAToday. Generally speaking, people with less upstairs than what we see here (for example).

And I personally know someone who’s like that (but who hasn’t written any letters that I know of).

Do you have any idea how pathetic that sounds? I cited, inter alia, Evan Thomas, editor of Newsweek, Judith Warner and David Brooks (columnists at the New York Times), and you in rebuttal cite some anonymous a-holes?

You’ve got to pick up your game. Cite someone on the right that someone has heard of, not some guy at the end of the bar after a Raiders game. For example, a statement by Krauthammer, Victor Davis Hanson, a nationally prominent Republican politico, or someone on Fox News.

And our best defense against that is to look, (again) soberly, with eyes wide open at what we have in Ms. Palin now, ^before^ a situation turns up in which we possibly make fools of ourselves.

I like the “our” — that was a nice touch, as concern trolls go, inviting the conclusion that “we” are on the same — pro-American — side. Here’s the tipoff: only leftists even think about Palin at this point, and they obsess endlessly about every aspect — and I do mean every aspect — of her.

Those two are both good because they have the correct principles. They know, in general, what works and what doesn’t; what’s good and what’s not; what America is and what it isn’t.

Palin would be miles ahead of Obama. She’d be a huge vast improvement on any Dem at all since all Dems (now) have their principles wrong.

If you have the right principles, and are somewhat incompetent, you won’t do much harm anyway, and lots of good will happen based on the principles.

If you have the wrong principles, like Obama and all Dems, your very competence is the cause of huge harm. Obama’s incompetence now is as much a benefit as it is a disaster. Some of it blocks the implementation of his unreal starting positions.

Sarah Palin, since she entered the national stage, has shown more guts, gumption and good sense than Obama, Pelosi, Reid, the MSM, the elite and even 90% of Republicans.

She’s is more of a man than any of the men, and more of a woman that most of the women.

She would be an excellent first female US Pres.