RE: RE: There is no spoon

First off, what does your post title, "There is no spoon," mean???

It's a Matrix reference. It has to do with GOP True Believers and their existence in an alternate reality.

You're the one defending Hillary, not me.

Right. I guess the part where I said I wasn't defending her is one of those things that slipped out of your alternate reality.

Searching the web, I found out there isn't currently a windfall profits tax on oil...

My mistake. I had forgotten that it had expired. In any case, what she said was that she wanted to take proceeds from taxes collected on oil companies. If you want to spin it as "taking oil company profits," that's fine, but your President said exactly the same thing before the elections. I'll get to that directly.

When did Bush propose a windfall profits tax???

Did I say anything at all about Bush proposing a windfall profits tax? Did I say anything about Hillary proposing one? I don't mind debating, but I can't be held responsible for positions you make up out of thin air and arbitrarily assign to me.

Back before the elections, either last year or in 2004, I forget which, maybe both times, Bush proposed taking proceeds from taxes on oil to set up a fund for investigating alternative energy sources. I remember watching the gaping dimwit grin like a fool as he said that the oil companies "ought to pay for" the research and if they weren't willing to do it voluntarily, the government would help them. So please, outside of some Kool-aid-guzzling pubbie dream, how, exactly is that any different than what Hillary said?

I still believe Hillary is a socialist, and the rhetoric she is using with regard to oil companies and profits is the same rhetoric Hugo Chavez used before he nationalized the oil companies in Venezuela.

Hillary is a dedicated socialist, and I said as much repeatedly. So is your President. What's your point? She isn't going to run as one, and for the thirtieth time, all you pubbies screeching about it plays right into her hands. Unless the GOP has a viable alternative, the "we're not Hillary" tactic is going to fail in a blaze of tears and thrashing among the faithful, just like the very same tactic failed last November. You guys can sit there like stumps, insisting that Hillary is all sorts of things, lesbian, socialist, axe murderer, whatever, until the cows come home. Your continued insistence on that as a tactic to keep her out of the White House will net you nothing but disappointment. That was the original point of my critique of Blankley's article, and regardless of how much you attempt to fragment my argument into side issues, I'm going to repeat it in every response.