Posted on 01/17/2010 4:47:36 PM PST by St. Louis Conservative
Who said anything about Mitt Romney?
May not make a difference that the media has tried to Dan-Quayle Sarah.
The "majority" nolonger trusts the libtard media like they did during the time of Quayle.
You're living in the past. Times have changed.
It was a rhetorical response re: "forgetting" Palin.
You're living in the past. The way the American public gets its news and forms its opinions has shifted dramatically.
It isn't 1988 anymore.
“There are very few public figures as conversant with the nitty-gritty of energy policy as she, very few with the track record of actually cutting government waste while in office.”
Palin’s Alaska state budget for 2009 was 9% above that of 2008. Where is all this “cutting the size of government” she did? Because she axed a few useless programs which were mainly for show?
Too many Palin supporters just regurtitate the campaign literature they read from 2008 instead of delving into the details and it’s these type of details that will cause them the most grief when Sarah gets smacked with them.
Only problem is this GOP Establishment dogma being pushed by the the same GOP drone posse who gave us McCain is completely divorce for all polling data.
If you accept the assumption that Palin is "Quayled". Then so is Barack Obama and every major Democrat or Republican political figure in this country since their favorable/unfavorable ratings is the same range, or lower, then Palins. This dogma also ignore the fact that her approval numbers have shot up all this year while all the Establishment icon numbers have dropped
Which is the common thread to all you Palin bashers posts including this one.
None of you yet have any serious factual case to make against Palin, you all merely are busy manufacturing rationalize in a vain attempt to legitimize your emotion based dislike for her, or because of your loyalty to some other GOP figure.
This is why the Palin supporters bash you Palin haters back. You all routine engage, as this article does, in the most absurd personal attack style arguments dressed up as supposed "superior reasoning and intellectual ability". No, it is merely people, such as this article's author, attempting to find a rational to justify their emotional respond to Palin
Bob J,
Source for this claim?
What would you of said about a guy who doubled the Government's budget in his 8 years in office Bill?
That guy was President Ronald Reagan.
Now Bill
Name me 3 states in the last 10 years who state's Budgets declined between one year and the next?
Oh but that right, you cannot because there is NOT ONE Government budget, including those produced by Ronald Reagan, that has ever reduced Govt. spending year to year.
But then for you Palin haters, the rabid intellectual dishonesty of your posts is irreverent to the facts as long as it advances your holy cause of destroying Palin.
No, too many of you emotion based Palin haters merely make crap up to justify your emotional response to her rather then ever find out the slightest hint that might challenge your comfortable little bubble world opinions.
This is why no one takes you seriously Bob.
Your posts are a combination, of half truths, lying by omission and out and out disinformation.
Try making a credible, fact based argument, complete with sources instead of your usual ones based on dishonest factiods crafted to suit your fancy, and people might take you seriously again.
As long as you keep changing the "facts" to validate your "Hate Palin" dogmas rather then ever make a serious argument, we Feepers are going to continue to laugh at you.
Laughing Feepers, golly jeepers.
Which is complete project coming from Palin hate Duke who is not making a serious rational argument against Palin in this article but is merely desperately flailing around trying to rationalize his/her emotion based opinions about Palin.
These people who post here claiming that they "love Palin but ..." and then proceed to offer up weak reasons to reject her, are defeatists, liabilities to whatever team they say they're playing "for." In short, they believe 1) that the mainstream media is THE power broker and that 2) there is nothing we can do to change it so we might as well roll over.
And when you call them on it, they become mental contortionists and claim things like "Saying Palin isn't the future of the party isn't the same as 'rolling over,'" when the REASON they give for rejecting Palin as the future of the party is BECAUSE of their perceived mainstream media's "Quayleing" power. They fool themselves, but not us.
In Internet slang, a troll is someone who posts inflammatory, extraneous, or off-topic messages in an online community, such as an online discussion forum, chat room or blog, with the primary intent of provoking other users into an emotional response[1] or of otherwise disrupting normal on-topic discussion.[2]
Thank God for that, you might have been hurt otherwise.
Thank God for that, you might have been hurt otherwise.
Worth saying twice! ;-)
I don't care what a politician says, they'll blurt out anything they think you want to hear to get your vote, I look at their history because that's the best indication of what they might do. I researched Palins “fiscal” history (including the “bridge to no where” that she was for before she was against) from Wasila to Juneau and it isn't anything like what she portrays and what her supporters regurgitate on a daily basis.
However, it's IMPOSSIBLE to have any kind of rational discussion about Palin or her record on FR, her supporters just shout you down with most vile and profane attacks, call you a liar, a lib and infer hidden agendas...before they tel you take a hike because you're killing their buzz. You are not interested in knowing the truth, you're too wrapped up in your fuzzy warm Palin blanket to care.
So when Palin supporters are ready for a frank discussion about her and people can be reasonably assured they won't get banned for committing the heretical sin of Palin criticism, you let me know.
But even you must acknowledge Palin criticism grows everyday on FR and it isn't because there is any new news. Her supporters drive people to it and you only have yourselves to blame.
I researched Palins “fiscal” history (including the “bridge to no where” that she was for before she was against) from Wasila to Juneau and it isn’t anything like what she portrays and what her supporters regurgitate on a daily basis.
Good for you Bob. Care to share that ‘research’ so we can then join you in that frank discussion?
You habitually engage in both tactics.
So why don't you present a sourced, rational fact based post for your opinions about Palin?
Only this time, try to base your opinions on real facts with serious credible sources, not manufactured dishonest factoids like "Palin raised Alaska's budget 9%". sourced by something you read on some website run by one of your fellow Palin haters.
Another question still waiting for you to answer.
Name for me three Govs who in the last 20 years REDUCED their state budget from 1 year to the next?
Your original claim is intellectually dishonest in that you claim she "raised the budget 9%" with out telling us 9% of what nor sourcing your claims.
You also are making an ad homine attack since you produce no context and merely posture as if a 9% increase was some huge betrayal of Conservatives.
If you accept your opinion that a 9% increase was some huge betray of Conservatives then every single politician in the last 70 years of US History has betrayed you because NONE Of them have reduced a Government budget from 1 year to the next.
No, not even Ronald Reagan. Nice try but again an example of you manufacturing facts to fit your opinions rather the dealing in real facts.
In a country where all State budgets routinely go up 15-20% annually, holding it to a mere 9% growth rate would represent a reasonable triumph for "Conservative" ideals.
Should she of done better? Sure but to posture, as you did, that her failure to hold the line at a point of your personal choosing some how makes her not conservative, is completely absurd.
It represent another example of you clinging to a self chosen impossible standard rather then bothering to engage your intellect where Palin is concerned.
I have to wonder if you work in advertising because your posting reflect the same vacuous tactics of making a completely devoid of logic, but stated with arrogant confidence, sorts of arguments one sees in most Advertising campaigns.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.