Republicans Against Sarah Palin

Beefy said:
Noted. This is a direct contradiction of what you have stated before. Fact.
Click to expand...

It's certainly not a contradiction of what you imagined I said. Noted.

There is a vast intermediate area between an athiest and a theocrat.
Click to expand...

Not really, one is as dangerous as the other. They are extremes, but one is certainly viable, while the other is demonstratively impossible. A theocrat could never implement their religion because the 1st Amendment prohibits it. But an Atheist... well, that is the liberal argument of what religious belief our government should hold. You justify it, even as it fundamentally erodes the founding principles of the nation.

But perhaps you're once again demonstrating your inability to see anything other than black and white. And she is proposing more of her personal religion in government, especially through the vehicle of her books, and specifically of renouncing the Kennedy Catholic speech. Not going to work mainstream. You'll win the red states again, but this shit doesn't fly with most of the voting public.
Click to expand...

She speaks very little of her religion in the book. I would need to see specific "proposals" Palin has presented, to determine how she was imposing her personal religious viewpoints. I don't know about what she 'denounced' regarding anything with Kennedy and Catholic in the title, but I don't think she upset too many mainstream Americans with it, precisely because I am not familiar with it. That tells me, whatever she said, wasn't as "gawd awful" as the left has portrayed it to be.... you know, how the propagandas are made?

If you don't mind another 4 years of Obama, keep it up. You said it yourself, you'll vote for anything the Republicans put up next time. Does it matter? Your vote is locked up. Republican no matter what. From the horse's mouth.
Click to expand...

I'm going to vote for someone running on the Republican ticket, most likely, but not for the Republican Party. Not sure who that will be, but they will likely be running on the Republican ticket. I haven't ruled out anyone, and there is a remote outside chance, I could vote for a third party candidate. See... here's the thing about demographics...

"Assume to be equal". Really? Why don't you restate your case here, but make sure to pick one of the 1,100 cases you've made about this subject, and stick with it. Can 1 ruler be divided into 3 equal parts or not? And "Both" isn't a valid answer. Pick one.
Click to expand...

*sigh* Of course an object can be divided into three parts. You can thank "1/3" for that! If "1/3" didn't exist, you would never be able to divide things by three. I think where we may differ, is in the philosophical understanding of what "equal" means. To you, "equality" is a never-ending struggle, something that is hopelessly unattainable, and to me, it means truth and fact. All I ever "stated" was; 1 can't be divided equally by 3, without producing a remainder. Sorry, we can't debate that fact, it's math... not debatable.

Kudos Dix! Obama thanks you.
Click to expand...

No, he needs to thank any fool who thinks he can vote something besides Republican, and get any effective change in government. If he is re-elected, it will be largely due to the 'libertarian' types who decide to stay home or vote for some idiot libertarian candidate, who isn't going to even be mentioned without snickers. We live in a two party system... The Democrat Party, just renewed Nancy Pelosi to run things in the House, and Harry has vowed to run the Senate the same as before... You want more of that? Seriously? How big of a goofball idiot do you have to be, to allow Obama to get re-elected? All I can do is vote for the only political party that has any chance to defeat Obama in 2012, but I am going to be very instrumental in determining who that candidate will be, and my money is on a Tea Party type, as opposed to an Establishment elitist... that's just my take on it.
 
Dixie said:
You know, I get why Libtards don't like Palin, she is a true conservative, and they fear conservatives like most of us fear vampires. I can't quite figure out why right-wingers don't like Palin. Yeah, she drives the lefties nuts... so? Are you living in a fantasy world, where you expect we can nominate a GOP candidate who WON'T drive the liberals nuts? Because, I got news for ya, even if we kidnapped Dennis Kusinich and funneled enough brains in the moron's head to make him somewhat conservative, the left would STILL not like our candidate! It doesn't matter who we choose, the left is going to do whatever they can to denigrate, attack the character, start rumor fires, and spread outright slanderous lies about them.

I see people on the right shying away from Palin, based solely on the liberal-generated negativity. Now, a few of these people are Bush-era establishment Republicans like Karl Rove, but are THESE the people who need to be setting the course of the Republican party? Sorry, but I just don't see how Karl Rove's opinion carries any weight at all in this. Rove is responsible for destroying anything that was left of the Reagan Conservative movement, and represents the 'moderate' direction we certainly don't need to be headed in.

Conservatives, pull your heads out of your asses and realize, Palin is likely someone you could have to vote for, unless you want to give Oabma another 4 years. If you have specific issue points you disagree with Palin on, it's fine and dandy for us to debate those, and have a conversation about what direction we need to take the party, but this childish and petty attacking Palin along with your liberal buddies, over personality, needs to stop.
Click to expand...

Very true and why McCain was the perfect GOP candidate- for Liberals. :clink:
 
Dixie said:
You know, I get why Libtards don't like Palin, she is a true conservative, and they fear conservatives like most of us fear vampires.
Click to expand...

You fear vampires? Dixie, I hate to be the one to break it to you, but vampires don't exist. Maybe if fewer conservatives feared fictional characters we wouldn't have some of the problems we face now.
 
Dix, there will always be people in the party that do not support some other republican for that position. This is why we hold primaries to find out who is most supported by members of the parties. My bet is that if Sarah runs she'll lose handily in the primary, but at this time it seems unlikely as she seems to be saying she doesn't plan on running.
 
I think 2012 is too early for Palin. She should run for Senator of Alaska first. She's the type who gets more attractive with age, unlike Hillary.
 
Damn Yankee said:
I think 2012 is too early for Palin. She should run for Senator of Alaska first. She's the type who gets more attractive with age, unlike Hillary.
Click to expand...

And being attractive is such an important factor for running the country.
 
Damn Yankee said:
Hook, line and sinker.
Click to expand...

:rofl:

Yeah, you intended it as bait. Good that you are consistent, at least.

You talked about her being more attractive with age. What characteristic of her type being attractive changes significantly with age?

And considering the number of times you have posted the comparisons of neocon women and libtard women.........lol.....nah, not even worth it.
 
Damocles said:
Dix, there will always be people in the party that do not support some other republican for that position. This is why we hold primaries to find out who is most supported by members of the parties. My bet is that if Sarah runs she'll lose handily in the primary, but at this time it seems unlikely as she seems to be saying she doesn't plan on running.
Click to expand...

Yes, I understand we have a political process, and Palin would have to win the primary. I also understand a lot of Republicans would find someone else to vote for, and it wouldn't be a 'slam dunk' for her to win a primary. I don't know how 'handily' she would lose, because she does have a fairly significant following, despite not announcing a candidacy. From my perspective, if she didn't outright win the nomination, she would finish a strong second.

But here's the thing elitist establishment and libertarian type republicans need to be thinking about... what if she does win the primary? Are you going to be able to walk back all of this negativity you've participated with the left in generating on Palin? Because if Palin is the GOP nominee, and you can't vote for her, you may as well be voting for Obama. All I am trying to get any of you to do, is stop this uncontrollable urge to join the left in the character assassination of Sarah Palin. Understand that your 'objections' to Palin thus far, have been empty and weak. We've elected peanut farmers, actors, and community organizers in recent years, so now is an odd time to cling to the importance of 'gravitas' and 'experience' as deal breakers.
 
Dixie said:
I keep hearing certain "Republicans" bash on Palin, saying she isn't "qualified" to be president, and lamenting that she will have problems because she quit her job as governor of Alaska, or her church is too fundamentalist for mainstream. But really, when you look at the situation she faced in Alaska as governor, it is clear to see why she stepped down. Had she remained there, the left would have not rested until they buried her. Governor is not a high paying job, relatively speaking, and she faced endless litigation foist upon her by the left, she was going to have to defend herself against bogus ethics charges, and no telling what else they would have dug up. It would have been relentless, because it already was, as thousands of liberal lawyers perused through anything she had touched in Alaska, for anything they could potentially hit her with. No politician in the history of America has ever had to endure such a witch hunt. And you think she should have sat there like a duck, and let them take their best shot? Are you crazy? They were on a mission to destroy Sarah Palin, and when a Political Machine like the Democrat Party goes on a mission to destroy a single individual, they can usually succeed, whether it is warranted or not. Palin knew it was just going to get worse the closer we came to 2012, and she made a move to mitigate the damage early on. Would she have been "smarter" politically, to remain where she was, and be picked apart by the liberal buzzards? Keep in mind, as the official head of state in Alaska, she wouldn't be permitted to continually respond to allegations and charges, the governor has responsibilities to tend to the state's business, not address personal issues. So, while she sat bound and gagged by her office, the liberal witch hunt would have continued, and anyone with half a brain can figure out how that might have ended for Palin. She actually took an action the liberals totally didn't ever expect her to take, by stepping down. It put an immediate end to what they were doing, and afforded Palin the freedom to not only earn the money to defend herself, but also have the platform and time to do so. While it may be perceived as "quitting" and a rather unorthodox move, I think it was a quite brilliant maneuver, and one that became necessary in light of what was happening to her. It takes tremendous courage to do something unorthodox, especially something that most people would consider political suicide. Am I the only republican who thinks she did the right thing?

As for her church and its fundamentalism, I can't recall Palin ever publicly speaking of her church or her personal religious views... EVER! Aside from the normal and routinely obligatory mentions of respect for God, which 95% of mainstream Americans share, she doesn't seem to wear her religious views on her sleeve. She is even less prone to talk religion than George W. Bush, and on the social issues of our time, like abortion and gay marriage, her position seems to be consistent, she advocates these things should be left to communities and states to decide for themselves, and the Federal government should not take a position. Isn't that pretty much the "Libertarian" viewpoint? I mean, I really don't think Republicans are going to nominate an Atheist to run against Obama, do you? I just can't see that happening, so someone who doesn't feel compelled to interject their personal religious views into their political policies, shouldn't really be a problem for most on the right. I think it's the best you can ask for in that regard.

You can say what you like about her experience or 'gravitas' but when you compare her to the Community Organizer-in-Chief, she has more executive experience, more business experience, and a better grasp of reality regarding mainstream average Americans. In fact, I believe she connects with the "average Joe" better than any politician we've seen in decades. About the only "problem" she has, is the continual "drag" being placed on her by elites in the Republican party itself. It's stunning that certain people on the right, are as vehemently opposed to Palin as the leftist socialists. Even with this anchor around her neck, she still polls relatively high as a contender for the GOP nomination, and she hasn't even started actually campaigning yet.

I hear these criticisms of Palin often from the right, and I always like to challenge them to tell me specifically, what do you disagree with that she has said? Tell me the position she has taken on an issue that you find disagreement with? None of them ever can! They stammer and stutter around, and keep reverting back to the LIBERAL talking points which attack her persona and character, her personality, not her message. Is it "sexism" or "elitism" or what? She obviously resounds with a good chunk of mainstream America, she obviously has a strong Conservative message, and I'll tell you what... I'd trust her in a heartbeat, with ANY decision she might have to make as my President.
Click to expand...
Oh, she has spoken of it, and then learned to tone it down due to the craziness of her beliefs! She doesn't believe in evolution, that is pretty hick!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top