Posted on 09/28/2010 8:55:19 PM PDT by 2ndDivisionVet
At post 178, you accused both mkjessup and me of opposing Palin based on our "hatred of women in authority."
When all else fails, O-bots accuse their opponents of being racist. Similarly, Palinbots (like yourself) accuse their opponents of being sexist. Either way, both you and your counterpart on the left have played the victim card because you couldn't stand the legitimate criticism of your Messiah.
There is no difference, unless you believe it's okay for conservatives to play the victim card but it's not okay for liberals to do the same. Of course, that would be rank hypocrisy, something you also railed against in post 178, but I won't hold it against you.
Whether my personal opinion on that aspect is true or not makes little difference. Your vile demeanor towards Mrs. Palin is irrational from my viewpoint, and your condescending demeanor towards her and her supporters is presented in a juvenile manner that is blatantly obvious for all to see.
It does not matter how you spin your replies, the facts are registered on this forum for all to see, and you've been called on it numerous times and have yet to post a rational or honest response to those questioning your motives, IMO.
If you do not like Mrs. Palin for whatever reason, that is your right and you are welcome to your opinion, but to belittle and denigrate others constantly simply to get your point across is childish and pointless. Are you so narcissistic that you believe your opinion is more precious and important than anyone else and that your opinion must be the correct one or others have to be less intelligent and mindless to the point you've decided to impose a label upon them that makes you feel better? Maybe I've forgotten the word “elitist”?
Are you actually Karl Rove by any chance?
I’m against anti-family social programs (e.g., VAWA) and tax hikes against oil companies for the purpose of increasing revenues for so-called “education.” As for back door boys (romantics, SNAGs: sensitive New Age guys) dividing women against men, I’m against that, too.
Palin Speaks to Investors in Hong Kong
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/2346270/posts
The Chinese Connection via the CLSA: Sarah Palin Enters the Lion’s Den
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/bloggers/2345119/posts
...and this one.
Sarah Palin Is Pro Amnesty For Illegal Aliens - Univision Interview [Old news, 2008]
Diggers Realm ^ | October 24, 2008
Univision: Do you then favor an amnesty for the 12 or 13 million undocumented immigrants?
Sarah Palin: No, I do not. I do not. Not total amnesty. You know, people have got to follow the rules. They've got to follow the bar, and we have got to make sure that there is equal opportunity and those who are here legally should be first in line for services being provided and those opportunities that this great country provides.Univision: To clarify, so you support a path to citizenship for undocumented immigrants?
Sarah Palin: I do because I understand why people would want to be in America. To seek the safety and prosperity, the opportunities, the health that is here. It is so important that yes, people follow the rules so that people can be treated equally and fairly in this country.
” Palin is not in office because she resigned to devote herself to this crusade”
Palin resigned to take a 1 million per year contract with Fox News, and to do a national book tour , which allegedly net her some 12 million dollars. More power to her, but Palin is out for Palin.
” Palin is the outsider that is taking on Mitt Romney, the GOP itself, and the President, mano-e-mano.”
What would you say if Nitt Wittney, and Palin ran on the same ticket in 2012?
Those are results of her movement, and the time since her resignation, and a part of the mission itself.
Do you read books? Do you watch news?
If you ever became involved in politics with a strong message, and a desire for it to reach people wouldn’t you write books, and strive to become a news figure?
Why do these political basics have to be explained?
Don’t forget her ignorant support of the UN’s power and world taxation grab called the Law of the Sea Treaty.
http://usforeignpolicy.about.com/b/2008/10/15/palin-supports-law-of-the-sea-treaty.htm
The very real concern among conservatives is that Senator Jim DeMint may be working to firm up his conservative credentials to become Mitt Romney’s vice presidential candidate.
Senator Demint was one of the leaders that helped form an exploratory committee to put Mitt Romney into the 2008 primaries, many conservatives believe that by doing that, it knocked out any other conservatives from trying for the 2008 nomination because Romney had all the money, all the organization, and the powerful endorsement of his campaign’s Senior Advisor and Exploratory committeeman, Jim DeMint. It was a powerful package formed to shut out conservative challengers, limiting the field to Mitt Romney and unfunded longshots McCain, and Huckabee.
Jim DeMint and Mitt Romney have continued that relationship, and Romney just did a major fund raiser for Demint a few weeks ago.
” Why do these political basics have to be explained? “
Those are not political basics. Palin went for the money and the fame. She is a populist, a la Bill O’Reilly. Conservative one day, pumping Mccain the next(at the Beck rally).
I am not in the least happy with any of the so-called candidates. DeMint is not running, so why you persist in naming his sins is beyond me. We don’t have anyone of CONSERVATIVE credentials who wants to run. I can hardly blame them. Obama and his gangsters in and out of office have bankrupted this country, and whatever Republican takes over is in for literal hell.
I’ll let someone else try to explain to you the importance of books and media coverage, and publicity, to getting a political message out. They can also explain how hard it is to avoid making a profit while doing so when you dominate the political scene like Palin does, and then you can explain to them why the Palin family and her political causes should not be profiting from her books and her media work.
” I’ll let someone else try to explain to you the importance of books and media coverage, and publicity, to getting a political message out. “
Sorry, but Palin has a history of being a populist, not a reliable conservative.
I also made it clear that I don’t begrudge her a dime. I hope she makes 100 million. At least then she can let go of Mccain.
You could argue that DeMint was just being pratical and pragmatic. He knew what a worthless amnesty queen McCain was and he knew Huck’s appalling record, and Rudy’s pro-aborion stance, so he chose to go with the only ‘frontrunner’ that made sense. Fred was never a frontrunner and he did not join the race until 9 months later.
In fact, if you recall, when it came down to Huck, Mitt and McCain as the last guys standing, all the sudden Rush and Levin and Co. were cheering on Romney as if he were Reagan, much to my chagrin and astonishment.
That’s the rationalization. It holds ZERO, make that less than zero water with me because:
a) Mitt was every bit as bad or worse than Huck or McCain, and
b) where TF were his balls to actually support one of the conservative underdogs in the race - this screw the establishment attitude he has now?
If I were like a Palinista, I’d buy into the rationalization, like the type the cultists are selling for Palin endorsing RINOs this time ‘round. A “genius”, a “pragmatist”, a “hard nosed player”, etc.
But I don’t. It was DeMint stupidly supporting a lilly livered, flip flopping liar over three others of similar ilk and couple of REAL conservatives that could have used his support.
But at least there is the chance he has wised up:
DeMint not sold on Romney as 2012 approaches
http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2010/03/15/demint-not-sold-on-romney-as-2012-approaches/
And everything he says, even his denials of “wanting to run” point towards DeMint running himself.
Romney just did a fund raiser for the guy so that relationship is alive and well.
Since you sold us all on Romney as the best man for president in 2008, then how about Lindsey Graham?
Jim Demint not only endorsed Graham, but DeMint served as Lindsey’s reelection co-chair for the 2008 reelection.
I'm sure they have a relationship. Probably friends, form the sounds of it. But you don't say what DeMint said to CNN if you are planning on supporting the guy again for Potus.
Since you sold us all on Romney as the best man for president in 2008
WTF are you smoking. I just ripped DeMint a new one for supporting flipper. I gave the Palin-esque rationalization that DeMint fans could use if they were like Precious' fan club, but I also stomped on its neck and called it for what really is. Crap.
That is the difference between a cultist, who spends all their time rationalizing away flaws and those of us who call a spade a spade.
then how about Lindsey Graham?
Have I ever uttered one word of kudos for Demint supporting Graham? No. In fact I called it a black mark on his soul. he should have thrown that crapweasel under the bus years ago.
I face the flaws of these politicians openly and honestly. And they ALL have them. And if Palin's only flaws were her support for some highly unsavory characters for election, she'd be alot higher on my list of people I'd support.
” You could argue that DeMint was just being pratical and pragmatic. He knew what a worthless amnesty queen McCain was and he knew Huck’s appalling record, and Rudy’s pro-aborion stance, so he chose to go with the only ‘frontrunner’ that made sense. Fred was never a frontrunner and he did not join the race until 9 months later.
In fact, if you recall, when it came down to Huck, Mitt and McCain as the last guys standing, all the sudden Rush and Levin and Co. were cheering on Romney as if he were Reagan, much to my chagrin and astonishment.
That’s the rationalization. It holds ZERO, make that less than zero water with me because:
a) Mitt was every bit as bad or worse than Huck or McCain, and
b) where TF were his balls to actually support one of the conservative underdogs in the race - this screw the establishment attitude he has now?
If I were like a Palinista, I’d buy into the rationalization, like the type the cultists are selling for Palin endorsing RINOs this time ‘round. A “genius”, a “pragmatist”, a “hard nosed player”, etc.
But I don’t. It was DeMint stupidly supporting a lilly livered, flip flopping liar over three others of similar ilk and couple of REAL conservatives that could have used his support.
But at least there is the chance he has wised up: “
Maybe....I agree with all of your rant, with the exception of McCain. He is the most dangerous traitor in the Republican party. Nobody even comes close.
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.