I need to read her book (wild horses couldn’t pay me to read any politician’s book), I need to do more research, I don’t understand Alaskan law, etc. Is that it?
Maybe Sarah should have read a book or two. Maybe she should have done more research before swearing an oath to govern Alaska. Had she understood Alaskan law better, maybe she’d have known better, or maybe she’d have been prepared for frivolous ethics charges and a lawsuit-bankcruptcy attack from Democrat hacks? Just like she might have done a little more reading and listening (and thinking?) and been better prepared for attack interviews from Gibson and Couric?
And y’all still aren’t answering my question. What happens next time she annoys some Democrat hacks? They find a new, frivolous angle to sue, frivolously, and a frivolous Democrat judge frivolously sees merit in the case? And she’s not as prepared as she might have been, and didn’t expect such hatred and viciousness, and, for the sake of her family and of the voters of America, she quits, again? Wagerers, what odds will you give me?
Thanks to those who’re trying, politely and rationally, to show me where I’m wrong, and to those few who aren’t so polite or rational, thanks for the CAPITAL-LETTER internet yelling and for the asterisk-ized swearing. Sarah’s people is as Sarah’s people does, hayna?
First, this wasn't just "annoying some democrat hacks", this was an all out war to destroy her coming from the bowels of the Soros led DNC. They took advantage of the Alaskan laws beyond anything done before. It was purposeful in its attempt to take her down, and vicious beyond anything I've ever seen in politics to date. It paralyzed the state, and destroyed the Palin family financially, making it impossible to get anything done other than respond to mindless and frivolous complaints. Did you know that eventually every complaint was dismissed outright?
Now, she could have folded her tent by remaining as gov, taken her salary and finished her term as you suggest she should have done. Instead, she stepped aside for the sake of the state of Alaska, then took on a wonderful role as a critic of the democrat machine. In that role she has excelled, and has hit the mark weekly. The icing on the cake is that they can't go after her anymore with the same tactics cause she can now sue the crap out of them.
“or maybe she’d have been prepared for frivolous ethics charges and a lawsuit-bankcruptcy attack from Democrat hacks?”
You are blaming her for the maggots who attack her? Odd.
She threatens the status quo; that’s why she is attacked. If she was defender of the status quo; the attacks would be polite and minor.
If two people agree all the time, one of them is lying. I do agree that the self edited sw&@ring and the CAPS LOCK YELLING! do become tiresome.
I continue to be impressed with SP as I learn more about her. She seems to be learning quite quickly. I still have not chosen who to support in a race that has no official candidates yet, but if it was demanded of me today, she is the only real conservative whose name I see everyday. I wrote in Duncan Hunter in Nov, and voted for him in the primary, though he was out of the race by the time we in AZ got to vote. I would do it all again if he throws his hat in.
I would be interested to know who you choose come time. But beware, you will be subject to the same criticism you so willingly submit here.
For the past coupe of decades, I’ve been paying attention not only to what people say, but to how they say it. This is because:
1. A liberal argues like a liberal—always.
2. A liberal trying to pass himself off as a conservative can be identified by the differences between the positions he thinks conservatives hold and those they really do. A liberal never gets this right—ever. He also argues like a liberal when pretending to support conservative positions.
3. A conservative, or a person on the road “up from liberalism,” argues like a conservative when arguing conservative positions, but like a liberal when arguing residual liberal positions (A residual position is a liberal one that he has not yet sloughed off on his journey to the right.)
(From “dsc’s Rules for Observing Debate with Liberals)
So, what does “argue like a liberal” mean, anyway?
Well, there are a few things that both liberals and others tend to do when arguing in favor of a liberal position. In no particular order, some of these are:
1. Refuse to examine sources that argue against their position. (wild horses couldn’t pay me to read any politician’s book)
2. Ignore opponent’s arguments, then (a) continue to make assertions that have already been answered (Maybe Sarah should have, etc.) and (b) claim that those answers were never offered (And y’all still aren’t answering my question) when actually they have been.
3. Exaggerate or fabricate offenses against civility, as though that had anything to do with the merits of the arguments (thanks for the CAPITAL-LETTER internet yelling)
— I found three capitalized words. One was the word “really,” capitalized for emphasis and hardly an attack, and the other two were the names of two prominent Republicans, also capitalized for emphasis. IOW, the complaint re “Internet yelling” is unfounded.)
(and for the asterisk-ized swearing)
The US is in danger of going under, and you’re worried about a little vulgarity? I doubt it. I think Thomas Sowell tells us why those two complaints were made:
“It is amazing how many people think that they can answer an argument by attributing bad motives to those who disagree with them. Using this kind of reasoning, you can believe or not believe anything about anything, without having to bother to deal with facts or logic.”
4. Attribute statments to others that they never made. (Coming soon)
flowerplough may be a conservative, or he may be a liberal. Don’t know yet. It is interesting, though, that in answering Governor Palin’s supporters he argued like a liberal.
The last bunch of wild horses I saw couldn't pay for feed let alone pay someone to read a book.
That's okay, lots of people have difficulty sitting down and reading a book whether written by a politician or by anybody else. Government schools have pretty well beaten that sort of thing out of our kids. It's too bad too... think of all the stuff that will have to be reinvented because someone didn't like to read.
I'm lucky -- I grew up before television so I had to either read or live in ignorance. Now I can wait for the book to come out on tape or (even later) as a movie. Though after reading some things and then watching the movie I'm glad I still read. Movies are always much different and usually worse than the book.
"Going Rogue" was read aloud on some program last week I believe, so it's out there if you're interested. It's a decent story and easy to follow. The first half tells why she holds the views she does and the second tells about the campaign, the election and her subsequent resignation. If you really want to know both sides of the question you need to read/listen to the book. If you're satisfied with half the story then don't. You have to understand though, if you're not interested in hearing both sides of the issue your opinions will be pretty much disregarded.