Free Republic 3rd Quarter Fundraising Target: $88,000 Receipts & Pledges to-date: $31,858
36%  
Woo hoo!! And the first 36% is in!! Thank you all very much!!

Posts by antonico

Brevity: Headers | « Text »
  • Chief Justice Roberts affirms: ObamaCare was poorly written

    06/25/2015 2:36:12 PM PDT · 72 of 108
    antonico to Kaslin

    John Roberts is BUSH appointee. “Dubya” Bush. The same “Dubya” who never vetoed a Federal Budget; was the first president in US history to sign a $2 TRLLION budget into law; and also the first president to sign a $3 TRILLION federal budget into law - and therefore make the new baseline that much that’s required to be spent in each succeeding year. Get with it folks - the Bushes are Democrats with R’s next to their name. And so much of what they do publicly shows us that.

  • Karl Rove: We Can Stop Gun Violence if We Repeal the Second Amendment

    06/25/2015 2:00:17 PM PDT · 79 of 81
    antonico to woofie

    “Rhetorical device

    In rhetoric, a rhetorical device or resource of language is a technique that an author or speaker uses to convey to the listener or reader a meaning with the goal of persuading him or her towards considering a topic from a different perspective, using sentences designed to encourage or provoke a rational argument from an emotional display of a given perspective or action. Note that although rhetorical devices may be used to evoke an emotional response in the audience, this is not their primary purpose.

    This above is what Rove used ...Im sorry you could not follow it
    ___________________________________________________________

    I didn’t follow it - and neither did anybody else - because that’s not what he used. He wasn’t “persuading” us to look it this topic from another point of view. And even if he were using this (which he wasn’t), this definition of rhetorical device PROVES MY THEORY, not yours!! The conclusion of his thesis was that such violence as Charleston would continue UNTIL the 2nd Amendment was repealed to “remove all guns” from people’s hands (ostensibly). So your claim of using rhetorical language to persuade us to accept his thesis by other means undermines what you’ve been claiming all along LMAO!!! Your argument now is, “His thesis being exactly what he said it was, though I still maintain he didn’t really say what he said, and to prove my point, here is the method which he used to persuade us of his thesis, which I still claim he didn’t utter”.

    You’re as screwed up as Rove is, without a doubt. Have a great weekend!!

  • Karl Rove: We Can Stop Gun Violence if We Repeal the Second Amendment

    06/25/2015 11:57:49 AM PDT · 74 of 81
    antonico to woofie

    “Now maybe there’s some magic law that will keep us from having more of these. I mean basically the only way to guarantee that we will dramatically reduce acts of violence involving guns is to basically remove guns from society, and until somebody gets enough “oomph” to repeal the Second Amendment,THATS NOT GOING TO HAPPEN
    >>>>>>>>>>>

    Why the hell would someone say say “THATS NOT GOING TO HAPPEN” if they are suggesting something they want to do?
    ___________________________________________________________

    This is a direct quotation of what you said Rove said. Since I quoted directly, let’s not have anymore confusion. It’s clear your problem is comprehending SYNTAX. You know, sentence structure like use of nouns, verbs, and predicates?? Roves statement as said above CLEARLY shows he’s an advocate of 2nd amendment repeal based on his own linguistics. His statement of the problem - as he sees it - is that there is no “magic law” (yet) to eradicate events like Charleston. He says then that in order “dramatically reduce” shootings such at this, the only solution is to “remove guns from society”. So we have Rove assessing the problem (lack of a “magic law” to “dramatically reduce more Charlestons), and then declares what the solution to the problem would be (”remove guns from society). In terms of argumentation of debate points, this is what’s known as laying out the case. So in this paragraph you want to use to exonerate his corruption, he tells us what he thinks the problem is and what he thinks the solution would be.

    It’s his use of the word “until” that gives away his cover. The word “until” is a preposition, and means “a word to indicate continuance to a specified time” (this is the Merriam-Webster definition). So Rove tells us we’re going to be subject to Charleston type events UNTIL the “specified time” that “somebody” gets the “oomph” to “repeal the 2nd Amendment”. He says it’s not going to happen - but he doesn’t say it’s not going to happen because of his own defense of principle behind the constitutional provision that the right to bear arms should be unabridged. He’s saying we’re going to have Charleston-type problems UNTIL somebody gets “oomph” (read: courage) and eliminates the 2nd amendment to remove guns from society (ahhh...his “magic law”, at last!!)

    Your parsing of his last statement away from everything else tells us a lot about YOU! Trying to overemphasize “that’s not gonna happen” in isolation is an epic fail on your part. It’s trying to foist the notion he’s posing as a defender of the 2nd amendment, but you IGNORE everything he said before it and drop the context of his own words of the entire paragraph you quoted on his behalf. Far from a defense of the 2nd amendment, the whole context of this very paragraph YOU quoted indicates clearly this is a LAMENT from Rove that somebody - at present - lacks “oomph” to repeal it (if you were truly a 2nd amendment defender, why on earth would you ever utter what would be required to get rid of it???). Rove is lamenting that there will be no repeal (after all, he tells us the solution to “dramatically reduce” more Charleston type events - get rid of guns; apparently Rove has never heard of all the gun crime that happens in the heavily gun restricted Chicago). He’s not defending the 2nd Amendment. At all. And any idiot with half a brain can read this paragraph of his you quoted and understand that as clearly as the sunrise. Except of course, you.

    Rove is worthy of all the hatred he brings upon himself. Whether he’s swindling private citizens out of cash for his Epic Fail Super PAC, or foisting yet another big-gubmint luvin’ Bush down out throats, he’s earned every bit of hatred he gets. Equally from both sides, I might add. Karl Rove’s 15 minutes of fame was over LONG ago - and it’s time for this worthless ass-clown to get off the stage and go back to his closet-case life.

  • Karl Rove: We Can Stop Gun Violence if We Repeal the Second Amendment

    06/24/2015 9:25:07 AM PDT · 72 of 81
    antonico to woofie

    “He is not walking it back

    If you bothered to listen to the segment, Rove clearly said “That is not going to work” in regard to the idea of doing away with the second amendment
    He was on Hannity last night and he emphasized that what needed to happen in the Charleston Case was not gun control but that someone needed to listen to what that 21 year old was espousing and take responsibility fort it (which did not happen)...In short a societal solution and not a government solution.”
    _________________________________________________________

    If he said or suggested a societal solution is what’s needed, then he surely IS walking back what he said to Chris Wallace, claiming “oomph” was required to repeal the 2nd Amendment. Society cannot repeal anything, only legislators can. So the fact he had to even show up on Hannity to keep talking about the same subject trying to not say what he did say to Wallace is - by definition - walking it back. Again, it’s clear comprehension of text escapes you.

    And, “apologize” to Rove? You’re clearly out of your mind. Why you fanboy this moron is a mystery. This clueless clown swindled almost $400 million out of people for his basically useless Super PAC American Crossroads in 2012, spending more money on behalf of more losers than ever before in politics. And this numb-nuts Rove an his RINO ilk have the nerve to blame their losses on conservatives!! It was THEIR RINO candidates losing en masse in 2012: Thompson, Wilson, Mack, McMahon, Rehberg..and the biggest loser of all in Mitt Romney. Rove’s success rate in 2012 was less than 10% - and sending hundreds of millions of dollars down the drain backing candidates he told every media outlet were “The only ones who can win” - except they didn’t. His comments to Wallace on the 2nd Amendment reveal exactly what he thinks and who he is, and it’s the same political acumen that was evident when all of his backed candidates lost comprehensively. He’s no conservative. He’s a “big-gubmint”-loving RINO. Like all the Bushes, Romneys, Fords, Nixons, Rockefellers, et.al. And he’s so stupid about not watching what he says - like the Wallace appearance - that he had to go beg Hannity to put him on for a “do-over”, the kind of do-overs media give to Democrats who unintentionally expose themselves against the Party Line.

    Your admonition to me that I owe Rove an apology is so ridiculous that you should be laughed out of every room you walk in to. And it’s clear you’re as intellectually inept as Rove is.

  • Karl Rove: We Can Stop Gun Violence if We Repeal the Second Amendment

    06/23/2015 4:46:29 PM PDT · 70 of 81
    antonico to woofie

    “You read minds don’t you? (SARCASM)”


    You don’t need to be able to read minds to understand what he meant. You just have to be able to read. And comprehend. Two things clearly beyond you ;).

    And today we KNOW he meant exactly what I said, because he’s trying to walk it back with double-talk instead of openly denying it. He’s a piece of garbage.

  • Karl Rove: We Can Stop Gun Violence if We Repeal the Second Amendment

    06/22/2015 8:14:44 AM PDT · 49 of 81
    antonico to Old Retired Army Guy

    “There are a lot of Social Media fasely implying that Fove was advocating repeal of the 2nd amendment. All he was doing was showing how laws against guns do not deter violence and stating that short of repealing the 2nd amendment which he said will never happen the gun laws are useless against a determined killer. So those who are trying to falsely accuse Rove need to pull in their claws.”
    __________________________________________________________

    That’s not quite an accurate assessment either. It was the use of his phrase “..and until somebody gets enough oomph to repeal the 2nd Amendment...”. This is as revealing of his intent as it could be. His syntax here is unmistakable: Rove is hoping for - through his own words - somebody rising to acquire enough “oomph” to do just that. Since he himself stated what would be required for repeal - “oomph” in this case - he sees the 2nd Amendment as a cause of violence and congress therefore must raise it’s “oomph” to stop it. It was Rove who linked gun violence and the 2nd Amendment in this cause-and-effect relationship on Fox News. Nobody else did. And it’s clear that he’s all for the “oomph” needed to repeal it. Otherwise, why sanctify an attempt at repeal with lacking enough “oomph” - which is clearly intended to mean COURAGE to repeal it. That may be lost on you with your comment, but the rest of us get exactly what he means. Which is no surprise. He’s a leftist, period.

  • Mitt Romney's Advice to the GOP: Focus on Minority Voters

    06/14/2015 12:06:11 PM PDT · 27 of 75
    antonico to 2ndDivisionVet

    Yeah. This is the guy who told the congressional GOP to “swallow hard” and pass Obama’s Amnesty in full. Somebody tell that idiot Coulter about that; she still is out there shilling for this proven loser.

  • GOP introduces bill to block Internet rules

    03/05/2015 8:29:50 AM PST · 19 of 44
    antonico to GIdget2004

    They need to tie the amendment to the Debt Ceiling Bill or some other Must Pass bill. That’s the only way it will work.

  • WHIP LIST: House Republicans split on ‘clean’ Homeland Security funding [updated]

    02/25/2015 10:47:42 AM PST · 4 of 41
    antonico to GIdget2004

    Why update? This is just more liberal claptrap by a liberal rag, The Hill. The real secret on all of this is the Democrats in panic. The media portraying the GOP schisms is devised to cloak the Democrats never wanting to vote to fund what they themselves say is an unconstitutional action. It’s the Straw Man, used again and again.

  • Jeb Bush: Denying Dreamers Accelerated Citizenship Is ‘Ridiculous’

    02/05/2015 9:01:49 AM PST · 28 of 40
    antonico to DiogenesLamp

    Jeb Bush is ridiculous. Ann Coulter nailed it when she said “Three generations of imbeciles is enough.”
    _________________________________________________________

    In the same piece Coulter - the “single issue voter” (immigration) Ann Coulter - wrote that she hoped Mitt Romney’s exit from the 2016 Presidential Handicap was only temporary. You know, Mr. Mitt “Swallow Hard & Pass Full Amnesty” Romney. For her to label anybody else an imbecile is, well, imbecilic. Jeb Bush is a horrible option. But her reasoning for it - immigration stance, given who she wants to cram down everybody’s throats, again - makes you wonder if she’s even sober these days. Ann Coulter occupies Seat #1 in the Mitt Romney Clown Car.

  • Is Sarah Palin Too Toxic for 2016?

    01/26/2015 8:50:48 AM PST · 47 of 102
    antonico to SeekAndFind

    Whether anybody likes her personally is a different issue as to whether she makes a good leader. Her speech in Iowa was - let’s be charitable - and say it was a disorganized stream-of-consciousness rambling, suggesting she decided to go off script. It was an opportunity to demonstrate why the world should take her seriously as a politician. Instead, she presented really nothing but a list of ad-hominem complaints that made her look embittered.

    Like it or not, if you want to lead a nation, Statecraft has a certain protocol. There are trappings that go with the office - whether you’re a president or a prime minister. And one thing that is NOT statesmanlike is standing holding a sign screaming an expletive at Michael Moore. It’s juvenile, witless, and essentially the end of any argument you have. Once you descend to the level of personal attack, you’ve admitted you’re not up to the job required of head-of-state. Margaret Thatcher always said she was delighted when her opponents had stooped to the level of attacking her personally with ad-hominem, because that was the signal that they were basically out of ideas. It was the White Flag, intellectually speaking. So Palin descended to just that level with this ill-advised profane slam to Moore. It makes her look petty, common and unimaginative (there’s no witty intellect in reaching for profanity to make a point - any idiot can utter FU). Instead of reverting back to what makes a good politician, she’s reaching for the kind of public statements that you’d expect to see or hear from a banal, common, witless celebrity. Time to admit it: her 15 minutes was up years ago. She’s now proven she’s the GOP Crazy Aunt in the Attic.

  • Cantor speaks to establishment Republicans in Va. about how to win

    01/24/2015 9:43:05 PM PST · 31 of 34
    antonico to E. Pluribus Unum

    How does a guy who failed to hold his own seat in a primary lecture to anybody about how to win??? Somebody please explain that. Clearly it’s over my feeble brain...

  • Sarah Palin on Potential Romney ’16 Run: ‘We Need New Blood’ ... (Hello Sarah, this means you)

    01/18/2015 8:18:03 AM PST · 46 of 71
    antonico to Cringing Negativism Network

    Sarah Palin has no chance of securing the GOP nomination for president. She has no money to do so. All of the PAC’s she associated with are open to anyone to see what kind of money they have on hand, since financial disclosure of a PAC’s assets are required by law. When you look at those it’s plain to see there is no way she can afford a presidential run in this day and age. We’re living in the days of presidential campaigns costing hundreds of millions of dollars. You do not raise that in 5 to 10 dollar increments from her devout followers. You simply have to have large dollar donors acting on your behalf to underwrite the fixed, continuous expenses of a campaign - staff, office space and attendant utility & operating costs, travel, venues for your public appearances - and multiply that by 50 states. It’s staggering. The fact is Palin has nowhere near that kind of money, nor any access to it since she’s not courting those who can help her financially. Needless to say, those who donate to the RNC overall - such as the Gas Chamber of Commerce - will make absolutely sure she has no path into the GOP nomination. They’d pull every dime of funding to the RNC if Preibus ever thought of working with her to secure the nomination for herself.

    So any thought of a presidential run by her is no more than Pie in the Sky daydreaming. The facts on the ground are clear enough - she’s too broke to mount any sort of campaign required to win. It’s no more complicated than that.

  • FIRE John Boehner : Free Republic's "National Rallies" : Saturday (2015-01-03) : CALL to ACTION !

    12/30/2014 8:10:31 PM PST · 17 of 57
    antonico to Patton@Bastogne

    It isn’t going to happen. Boehner was already chosen by the conference in the fall to be the nominee for Speaker. Nobody’s running against him. And since it’s all a voice vote, you’re not going to get the 30 GOP members needed to abstain or vote for someone else. It’s a fait accompli. Boehner will win, sad to say.

  • EXCLUSIVE — SEAN HANNITY CALLS FOR TREY GOWDY TO REPLACE BOEHNER AS SPEAKER, GOWDY DECLINES

    12/30/2014 7:44:39 PM PST · 73 of 133
    antonico to Jim Robinson

    Hannity is in fact a goofball. he approaches everything like some dense adolescent. He has none of the wit or analytical skills of Limbaugh; doesn’t have the education of Levin; and truthfully is less intelligent than Ingraham. If it wasn’t for his looks he’d be nowhere. He’s a conservative parrot. Not a conservative thinker.

    Speaker of the House at this stage, with an Obama White House set to veto everything you submit that’s even remotely Conservative in agenda is basically a thankless job. Pelosi had the Senate & White House in her party’s control, so her job was a lot easier. The question is: why would a real Conservative even want the job of Speaker now? It’s bad enough to have to deal with an Obama White House. Worse still would be having to deal with a McConnell Senate. McConnell has already thrown in the progressive big-government wing of the GOP. Why would a guy like Gowdy or Jordan or any of them want to have to deal with that too? You’d end up pulling your hair out trying to get McConnell to move right and get Obama to sign anything. Maybe that’s why none of the real conservatives have stepped up to challenge Boehner so far. It’s a thankless job under these circumstances. And Boehner may be the only idiot who actually wants the job under the ridiculous circumstances which exists now. He’s in it for the historical footnote: he served as Speaker of the House for X number of years. It’s not hard to figure out.

  • Brent oil $90 to $100 in 12 to 18 months: Pickens

    12/23/2014 8:15:42 AM PST · 14 of 25
    antonico to shove_it

    I read somewhere that places like Venezuela and Russia, who survive on oil profits, are the ones who need oil priced in the $100 a barrel range. OPEC can apparently keep lowering prices until the rest of the world goes into the red pulling up their own oil or fracking shale. The question is - how will OPEC’s competitors survive the OPEC attempt to put them out of business?

  • Who Harry Reid Caved to in His Final Major Act as Majority Leader Will Blow Your Mind

    12/14/2014 10:41:14 PM PST · 27 of 54
    antonico to 2ndDivisionVet

    Well the Tea Party is about to be over. The GOP got very little in the CRomnibus bill save the one thing they truly wanted: the CFR reform to allow the donatiuons to congressional campaign committees to soar a thousandfold. The Chamber of Commerce, and all of it’s business RINO tentacles, will now be able to flush the coffers of the GOP House & Senate campaign committees all for the expressed purpose of quashing primary opponents of incumbent RINO’s. Unless the Tea Party finds a group of multi billionaire underwriters, the GOP-E’s tactic of reforming the committee donations will effectively end Tea Party candidates making any headway at all.

  • Should Ted Cruz Delay The Omnibus Bill 30 Hours By Forcing Reid To Hold A Cloture Vote?

    12/12/2014 9:32:22 AM PST · 14 of 30
    antonico to Laissez-faire capitalist

    It’s pointless. There will be enough McCains, Grahams, and the rest of the feckless GOP to vote for cloture. It has no teeth to stop anything. The one lone chance to have success was with Marlin Stuztman in the House holding to his principles. He’s whining now the House Leadership lied to him - like he couldn’t have figured that out. So Stutzman gave us Cromnibus, betraying his Tea Party ideals. And if Stutzman was stupid enough believe snakes like Boehner and McCarthy and Scalise and the rest of the RINO gang, then he doesn’t deserve his seat.

  • McConnell Plots a Functional, Bipartisan Senate

    12/08/2014 4:07:33 PM PST · 30 of 53
    antonico to upchuck
    Somebody explain to me how it is this Fool From Kentucky can say out of once side of his mouth that ObamaCare is the worst piece of legislation he's ever seen, and out of the other side of his mouth he claims no full repeal bill will be offered because he doesn't have 60 votes. Now, is it me, or has every Democrat in or out of the Senate been proclaiming LOUDLY that passing this monstrosity was a huge mistake?? It seems to me that if a full repeal bill was offered by McConnell, his lack of getting 60 basically FORCES Democrats to support this law AGAIN if they don't vote for cloture, in the face of all their tolls of defeated Senators whose vote for it cost them their job!!!McConnell then can say “Hey, we tried to get it fully repealed but ya know what? Those Democrats you keep voting out of office because they defended this law are, well, still defending it with their votes, and you have them to thank...in 2016.” Even if they get 6 Democrats for Cloture and Obama vetoes, the veto is a rallying point against the Democrat Party as a whole. I'm not seeing where McConnell actually loses by bringing a full repeal to the floor. Unless of course, his real goal is to just help his Democrat pals to keep their jobs.
  • Mitt Romney: Republicans Should 'Swallow Hard,' Pass 'Permanent' Amnesty Bill

    11/27/2014 1:12:21 PM PST · 157 of 424
    antonico to JRandomFreeper
    Is there a count anywhere of how mane offices Mitt Romney has run for, and his win-loss record from his attempts?
  • Dissidents Planning Boehner Coup Face Long Odds

    09/30/2014 5:31:43 PM PDT · 6 of 18
    antonico to mrsmith

    This claptrap is nothing but opinion from the notoriously leftist Roll Call. They WANT Boehner to keep his Speakership. Precisely because he will grab his ankles for Obama every time. Thing is, after November, there could be a handful more GOP members who are more Conservative. There needs to be 20-25 GOP Members defecting from the January vote. The threat to strip committee assignments is a tacit admission by the RINO overlords that they smell dissent in the air, and think they can shut it down floating this threat. Which tells me the threat is real - at least to the GOP overlords. Otherwise, why leak the threat?

  • Tory MP Mark Reckless defects to Ukip

    09/27/2014 8:15:54 AM PDT · 4 of 8
    antonico to GonzoII

    This is just the continuing fallout from the Tory Party’s brutal removal of Margaret Thatcher in 1990. The Tory Party “Wets” (we call them RINO’s here) hated her, and decided they had had enough. They staged coup in the House of Commons to basically overturn a national election to remove her and install the feckless John Major. The Tory Party was destroyed from that moment on, and they have never recovered. The Major loss to Blair in 1997 was as catastrophic as the Carter loss to Reagan in 1980. And the Tories went into essentially political exile for the next 13 years, and only managed to win in 2010 (barely) because the backlash against Blair & Brown had reached such a pitch that Labour could never win. But that said, the Tories HAD to cut a deal with the OTHER liberal party, the Liberal Democrats, in order to form a coalition government under David Cameron. Even with hatred high among voters for the Blair-Brown disaster, the Tories couldn’t manage to win an outright Majority of seats to form their own government. For 5 days after the 2010 election, Liberal Democrat leader Nick Clegg held the balance of power in his hands for the entire UK, having to decide to side with their philosophical enemies the Tories (who barely won the lection overall), or throw in with their more kindred spirits in the Labour party who lost, and thereby risk alienation by turning losing Labour into a winning government. They eventually chose to go with the vote of the people, through gnashed teeth. And the Tories were done no favors, having had to beg the Lib Dems to side with them instead of Labour just to form a government. And again, all of this mishmash in the Tory party exists today because of their political assassination of Margaret Thatcher over 20 years ago.

    So it’s no small wonder why any British MP who’s even remotely Thatcherite in their thinking would find a happier home in the UKIP. The Tory Party today is a party equivalent to the current GOP here - made up of Patrician Blue Bloods who believe in a socialist type state mostly to preserve a class status. They Tories and GOP of today have as donors deep pocketed cartel rulers who want governments to protect them from competition; increase the amount of slave labor they can buy cheaply; and keep the have nots in their proper place below the aristocracy. America needs a UKIP.

  • Bob Beckel Warns of ‘October Surprise’ from Dems

    09/19/2014 9:49:58 AM PDT · 24 of 74
    antonico to Responsibility2nd

    Probably a staged “event” regarding something about ISIS, trying to make the current White House Occupant look competent - which is no small feat.

  • Filipino Soldiers Defied UN Order to Surrender to ISIS

    09/02/2014 7:58:59 AM PDT · 24 of 34
    antonico to SeekAndFind

    So who was the Muslim-supporting UN “Commander” who ordered them to lay down their arms? Why is it we don’t have this idiot’s name??? It’s amazing how the left works these things totally in reverse against their enemies. If this was a doctor refusing an abortion, that doctor’s name would be in the news 24/7 for a week, and they’d mobilize their mob goons to surround that doctor’s house.

  • Palin goes 0 for 2 in Alaska as clout disappears nationally

    08/21/2014 2:44:45 PM PDT · 30 of 105
    antonico to bigdaddy45

    To say she endorsed 15 and 4 won is factual. It’s not disputable. The point is well made - she was a lot more effective in endorsements in 2010 than now. And it makes sense. Back in 2010, many of her supporters stayed true to her because they were absolutely convinced she was going to make that serious POTUS run in 2012. When she bailed on that in October of 2011, a chunk of those who were looking to her to right the ship of the nation started looking elsewhere. A percentage of them in 2012 essentially stopped taking her POTUS aspirations - which she herself stoked - seriously. By 2014, and after signing to do not only another television show on some cable channel, but also starting her own subscription based network, more of those who pinned their hopes to her in a political sense were getting the idea she has no serious designs to run for office again. Her name as a candidate hasn’t been on a ballot since she was elected governor (as 2008 VP she wasn’t the ballot name, McLame was). So she herself has not run for any office for 8 years. Her rash of endorsements in this 2014 cycle seemed to coincide with the beginning of her new series (is it even still on the air?).

    It’s become clear Sarah Palin is more interested in being a celebrity than an office holder.

  • Chris McDaniel: I Beat Thad Cochran by 25,000 Votes

    08/05/2014 8:28:10 AM PDT · 81 of 88
    antonico to Rides_A_Red_Horse

    “Yes, let’s keep Mitch McConnell as Democrat with an (R) behind his name.”

    ________________________________________________________

    Interesting someone finally brings his name up. Let’s remember: McConnell is the one who was twisting arms in the Senate at a private meeting to raise $800,000 from sitting Senators to get Cochran over the hump in the runoff - after he actually LOST the primary to McDaniel!! Let that sink in. Sitting GOP Senators rallied to pony up almost a million bucks to back the LOSER in the GOP Primary for a runoff. The Senate GOP Leader wants to overturn the will of the Mississippi GOP voters. If that isn’t a clear illustration of just how corrupt politics has become, nothing is. It’s McConnell who is largely responsible for funneling that $800,000 to Haley Barbour for the expressed purpose of rounding up Democrat votes for Cochran. They all KNEW if they didn’t McDaniel would win the runoff going away. McConnell was trying to keep Conservatives out of the Senate; Barbour wanted his Mississippi pigeon in the Senate to keep his own lucrative lobbying gig going. Mitch McConnell is as responsible for the Cochran duplicity in Mississippi as anybody. In fact he could be said to be the center of it.

    And speaking of McConnell, where is the Dear Leader and his positions on this whole border crisis? What has Dear Leader Mitch to say about the overflow of illegal immigrants invading the southern border? Seems Dear Leader Mitch is yet to be heard from considering he is the Dear Leader of the GOP Senate. If the McDaniel case gets to court, and there is enough light cast upon just what the McConnell-Barbour axis pulled off, I hope that some Super PAC runs ads in KY this fall about “Remember Thad”, and Dear Leader Mitch’s role in bringing it about. :)

  • Chris McDaniel: I Beat Thad Cochran by 25,000 Votes

    08/04/2014 3:38:56 PM PDT · 43 of 88
    antonico to cotton1706

    I’m not a lawyer, but the move to put this in front of the state GOP Executive Committee is interesting. It forces the Mississippi GOP to either run McDaniel out of town and tell him to go pound sand or to admit what he has is valid. If it’s the former, he goes to court. If it becomes and actual trial, it doesn’t seem like they can withhold the registries because that’s part of the discovery - is it not? If there is a law binding in the state that Democrats cannot vote in both their primaries and in Republican primaries, then the registries would be evidence to prove the case either way, so it seems they would have to allow it only because there is a law in in the state barring crossover voting. If the GOP Executive Committee sides with McDaniel in that, yes, illegal crossover voting happened, then they admit their certified winner is a certified loser.

    I wonder what face saving, no statement the Mississippi GOP Executive Committee will give when McDaniel’s case appears in front of them? :)

  • Rep. Raul Labrador Will Challenge Kevin McCarthy for GOP Leader: A race for Cantor's job after all.

    06/13/2014 5:15:22 PM PDT · 10 of 24
    antonico to qaz123

    “How this can even be a contest is beyond me. But, the wimps with Rs after their name will vote for McCarthy. Hope the guys like Gohmert and Gowdy can rally the troops and put him and the rest of the eGOP to bed for at least a little while.”
    ___________________________________________________________

    Gowdy claims to be “very good friends” with McCarthy, so it’s unlikely he (or anyone other than the true pure bred Conservatives) will offer much resistance at all. I’m thinking this is just another RINO ploy. Labrador knows he has no chance to win this - he’s only entered because Steve King (who counts Labrador as an amnesty supporter) has been raising hell about ramming this election through before any opposition to McCarthy can get some traction. Labrador is the table scrap here, to keep the House Conservatives quiet, and nothing more.

    The people of this country despise its leadership. For Conservatives, they loathe everything about GOP leadership as it stands now. Take a look at all the House Leadership Team: Boehner & Cantor hail from - at best - Purple States, and McCarthy from a pure Blue State. Until that changes there is zero hope they will do ANYTHING to challenge Obama. Even McConnell hails from Kentucky which has had a long line of Democrat governors in its history. Unless Red State leadership is put in place, you won’t get anything but mealy mouthed compromising and appeasing from feckless politicians.

  • Cantor ‘in cahoots’ on amnesty, challenger says

    05/29/2014 2:42:46 PM PDT · 7 of 7
    antonico to jimbo123

    I would love to believe that Cantor will lose this race. Haven’t seen any polling data here on the left coast. But I presume Cantor is outspending Brat by huge margins, and that will carry the day for Cantor?

  • Karl Rove (and other e-Repubs) butt in California gubernatorial race, too

    05/27/2014 5:48:50 PM PDT · 24 of 40
    antonico to cotton1706

    What’s amazing to me is the GOP Establishment - and their own brand of media sock puppets - continually wail about the primaries, clamoring that ALL “Republicans” need to coalesce together behind a candidate. But only do so when they want coalescing behind their candidate. When their candidate is getting hammered in a primary, all of a sudden we don’t hear calls for unity and coalescing. We hear cries like this - destroy conservatives. Somebody should ask Karl about that the next time his horrible mug turns up on Fox.

  • Report: Hillary Clinton is Scared to Death of Trey Gowdy’s Investigation

    05/23/2014 5:35:05 PM PDT · 38 of 38
    antonico to PoloSec

    The story is that when she spoke in front of the House last time - uttering her famous “What difference does it make” nonsense, the House Leadership did not put her under oath then. That won’t happen in front of the Select Committee. This might be the reason she’s quaking in her shoes.

  • Primary Live Thread (AR,GA,ID,KY,OR,PA)

    05/21/2014 1:18:02 PM PDT · 438 of 467
    antonico to Kolath

    “Read your little rant, rolled the eyes, smirked at your bitterness.

    Nobody cares...
    __________________________________________________________

    Then if nobody cares, which presumes you don’t either, why bother responding? Talk about worthy of an eye-roll....

  • Primary Live Thread (AR,GA,ID,KY,OR,PA)

    05/20/2014 8:20:44 PM PDT · 307 of 467
    antonico to Steven Scharf

    “Karen Handel is not going to make up 30,000 votes, That would be 7% of all votes cast.

    Not going to happen. I am surprised this one has not been called yet.”
    ___________________________________________________________

    This should put an almost closed door to the idea that Sarah Palin is still any kind of endorsement powerhouse on her own anymore. As we’ve seen this year with Katrina Pierson, Steve Lonergan, Elizabeth Benacqusito and now apparently Karen Handel (who also failed with the Palin endorsement the last time she ran for governor), Sarah Palin alone no longer has that Touch Of Gold backing that turns a loser into a winner (and the truth is the legend of such a thing is far more exaggerated than the reality). For all of the women listed above, they had very little support - endorsement or otherwise - from the major funding conservative groups like SCF, Club For Growth, etc. Their biggest “asset” to run for office was literally that Palin endorsement. And it turned up trumps for them.

    It seems we’ve at last reached the point where Sarah Palin’s penchant for telling other politicians what they must do - while she declines to seek office herself as a former head of state - is wearing thin. She’s preaching from the sidelines berating others who do go through the rigors of facing an electorate every two or six years, while she heaps nothing but criticism on most of them - from the protected sanctity of the makeup & wardrobe trailer on the set of her latest TV show, airing on a channel nobody ever heard of. Palin needs to either suit up, and get in the game after five years of personal cashing in on her political career that was a half-decade ago and fix the problems she demands others fix. Or she should just shut up and go away. Her recent string of losing endorsements where SHE was the major endorsement power attests to the fact that she’s not the political force she was in 2010 (and no, Plain faithful, Sasse was NOT a Palin operation since he was backed and supported LONG ago by SCF Club For Growth, various TEA Party groups well before Palin weighed in). Attention Governor Palin: get your name on a ballot and get your own hands dirty - or bloody - to help fix the mess we’re in that you keep complaining about, or shut up already. We’ll get behind Ted and Mike - and sometimes even Rand and Marco - they had the guts to run and work (especially Ted). You just sit in your star trailer. And complain. Lame, Sarah. Very, very lame

  • The McConnell challenge that wasn’t

    05/20/2014 2:04:53 PM PDT · 64 of 210
    antonico to Baynative

    Bevin never had any chance. He never led MCConnell in any poll. Senate Conservtives Fund - which I contribute to - basically threw away money on a campaign that had no chance. Money that could have gone to people like Chris McDaniel, or TW Shannon. They should have known better. The Bevin Money from SCF was nothing but personal animus money wasted because Matt Hoskins hates Mitch McConnell.

  • Karl Rove warns Tim Donnelly will hurt GOP candidates nationwide

    05/17/2014 6:38:21 AM PDT · 16 of 78
    antonico to cotton1706

    I think Karl Rove has brain damage.

  • Boehner: House Won’t Arrest Lois Lerner

    05/12/2014 11:24:07 AM PDT · 37 of 50
    antonico to SeekAndFind

    When the scandal first broke, Boehner himself was the one asking “I want to know who’s going to jail”? Well...

  • Sarah Palin Takes Swipe At (GOP) Alaska Gov. Sean Parnell While Defending Oil Tax Structure

    05/11/2014 1:10:47 PM PDT · 9 of 20
    antonico to WilliamRobert

    “Why would sane people take on a political career in today’s climate?
    Maybe, if you feel so strongly about common sense solutions you should run and implement them.
    I don’t blame Palin from staying away from elected office, the death threats, criticism, good ole boy system, and general slimy atmosphere of politics”

    __________________________________________________________

    So, you say I should run for office to implement ideas I admonish no one for in any critical way, yet you bristle in defense of Palin’s posturing as a perpetual sideline critic of elected officials and excuse her decision not to run?? According to you, I have to run for NOT criticizing elected officials, but she doesn’t have to run BECAUSE she criticizes elected officials??? Do you even understand how convoluted your suggestion is??

  • Sarah Palin Takes Swipe At (GOP) Alaska Gov. Sean Parnell While Defending Oil Tax Structure

    05/11/2014 12:40:35 PM PDT · 3 of 20
    antonico to Cringing Negativism Network

    “Sarah you really, really, really need to get back into politics.
    Just saying”


    Exactly what I’ve been chastising her for in this forum for a month now. This is yet again another example of her using her current position as a news contributor - which was built by her past political career - to heap endless criticism on every politician in sight, from the sidelines. She tells current elected officials what the solutions are they must enact, but declines the opportunities to actually seek office herself to practice the solutions she preaches to others they must pursue. As if she says, “here are the things you elected officials ought to be doing...and if you need any more info from me on what should be done in precise measure, I’ll be in wardrobe and makeup on the set of my new show. Call me there.” Please. Palin deludes her faithful by using these criticisms as a tease that she may run - someday. Sort of. Maybe. But this endless flattering-only-to-deceive game she’s played has gone on for the last five years, declining to seek office herself at every turn. I’m with you. Time for Palin to suit and get back in the game to fix these problems she tells everybody else how to solve, or shut up, do her obscure TV show and collect her cash. Then she can hope she gets a talk show one day. On a network people might actually watch.

  • Jahan Wilcox, RNC Spokesman, Attacks Republican Candidate as “Fraud”

    05/07/2014 9:41:18 AM PDT · 26 of 33
    antonico to Timber Rattler

    “So Conservatives who stand up and try to do something concrete about the corrupt, decrepit GOP-E are infected with stupidity in your view? “

    __________________________________________________________

    That they stand up for it isn’t the stupidity, if you actually understood the grammar in my sentence. The stupidity on their part is that everyone think’s THEY are the “TEA Party” solution to the corrupt GOP-E, and 5 or 6 of them - longing to reach the celebrity status of someone like Cruz - gets into the race and splits an already thin vote margin. Standing up for TEA Party ideas is not the problem. The method of so many of them flooding the zone and splitting their own votes is precisely what’s helping the GOP-E wipe out any further gains the TEA party might make. After all, what good is owning a gun if all you’re going to do with it is shoot off your own foot?

  • Jahan Wilcox, RNC Spokesman, Attacks Republican Candidate as “Fraud”

    05/07/2014 8:25:58 AM PDT · 12 of 33
    antonico to cotton1706

    The stupidity of the “TEA Party Candidates” is that they flood into these primaries and do nothing but ensure the GOP-E person winning. How many ran against Tillis? How many are lining up against Graham? This is why Romney won the primary: Gingrich, Santorum, Bachmann and Perry were all running the same votes. If the TEA Party is gonna shoot itself in the foot this way, then the losses like last night will only mount.

  • May Sixth PRIMARY DAY - Reports and etc. LIVE THREAD

    05/06/2014 9:21:44 PM PDT · 77 of 126
    antonico to struggle

    As far as I can tell by results, TEA Party got shellacked everywhere.

  • Kay Hagan: Dear Republicans, My Opponent Once Said Obamacare Was “a Great Idea”

    05/06/2014 11:57:45 AM PDT · 14 of 18
    antonico to Kaslin

    “You two neocons ought to be ashamamed, and you call yourself conservatives *spit*”


    Since you’ve already resorted to name calling - which is the absence of a coherent argument - then I have won already. The very sentence you write - claiming this supports Tillis - indicates you have a serious problem understanding grammar. He said, using the very quote you reprinted:

    “The majority of the stuff in ObamaCare is bad, because it’s not fiscally sustainable. It’s a great idea that can’t be paid for”.

    Now pay attention while I educate you on how Tillis’s usage here underscores what I said. In the first sentence, he says ObamaCare’s provisions are “bad” - and then identifies why they are “bad” - citing fiscal unsustainability (which incidentally shows Tillis to be a moron himself - and idea’s merit as to good and bad has nothing to do with it’s funding - the two ideas are mutually exclusive, since the mere ability to pay for a lousy idea doesn’t make it a better idea). Tillis has no problem with ObamaCare in principle. No problem with its encroachment of individual liberty. His basis for citing ObamaCare’s flaw is that the law doesn’t provide the funding for it. And, to make sure he let’s us know he means exactly what he said, the next sentence he utters tells us the exact same thing. He identifies ObamaCare itself as a “great idea that can’t be paid for”. In BOTH of these sentences Tillis’s only problem with ObamaCare is it’s funding source. He makes no objections to any of it’s horrors on businesses, doctors, patients, insurance companies, individuals being forced to pay a tax penalty for merely being alive because of it; none of these issues are any concern to Tillis. Only it’s funding problem. Other than the funding, Tillis tells us it’d be great, and that the majority of it’s problems would be solved.

    So instead of trying to tell me what he actually said, it’s clear I did read what he said. The difference between you and me is that I actually understand what he said - since he said the same thing twice in two sentences. Whereas you, obviously, have failed to understand even something as elementary as this. So go pound sand.

  • Kay Hagan: Dear Republicans, My Opponent Once Said Obamacare Was “a Great Idea”

    05/06/2014 9:47:01 AM PDT · 2 of 18
    antonico to Kaslin

    So, Tillis apparently thinks as long as ObamaCare could be “paid for”, that’s would make it a great idea? That’s the syntax of his sentence he uttered. Which is exactly the kind of gobbledygook we expect from Establishment Republicans. They love big government every bit as much as progressive Democrats. They just think they can manage the behemoth better. So in a way, Hagan has a point.

  • Tea party vs. establishment as primary season opens - The Washington Post

    05/05/2014 5:22:34 PM PDT · 9 of 12
    antonico to FreeAtlanta

    Anybody who thinks McConnell is going to lose to Bevin has got rocks in his head. Ditto for Boehner in his primary challenge. There is no way the state GOP in either Ohio or Kentucky is going to let the party leaders in the national legislature lose. It’s just not going to happen. In fact, it even looks like Lindsey Lady Graham is going to cruise in above all the non-starter campaigns that were arrayed against him. On the list above it only looks like Cochran has the chance to be dumped. The rest of them are looking home and hosed.

  • Sarah Palin Endorses Dan Bongino for Congress

    05/04/2014 7:35:00 PM PDT · 32 of 32
    antonico to Sam Troy

    “Palin was in office 965 days, some 35 days shy of President Kennedy’s 1000 days in office. She accomplished in that time span everything she set out to do with an exceptional record of policy making, even accomplishing more than her predecessor attempted.”


    Then why is it all she can manage to do now it tell other politicians how they must act; tell voters for whom they must vote; while for the last 5 years she has declined every opportunity to run for any sort of office to get her hands dirty - or bloody - to fix the very problems she does nothing but criticize others for not fixing? Could it be that she has decided her TV career - and it’s cash cow status - is just a tad more important to her than having to deal with really hard issues? That’s why she’s losing her endorsement power. People are wising up to the fact that all she basically does is complain from the sidelines while declining to suit up and get into the game herself. She’s a coward.

    Incidentally, since her documentary was entitled “The Undefeated” - where and why was that name chosen? She was defeated - forced to resign her governorship (giving you canards the benefit of the doubt as to why); and she was the defeated part of a national ticket. That sounds like two huge defeats to me, no??

  • Sarah Palin Endorses Dan Bongino for Congress

    05/04/2014 4:40:46 PM PDT · 28 of 32
    antonico to rabidralph

    “So Walker’s skittishness and his sudden need to finish his college degree and to get a hair transplant don’t speak to someone who has a strong character and who can withstand a lot of criticism without apologizing when the heat’s too much. Sorry for the lengthy explanation”.


    So Walker is less a profile in courage than Palin, who didn’t even bother to finish out her only term as governor barely halfway into it - because of one little liberal blogger??? Uh, ok.

  • Sarah Palin Endorses Dan Bongino for Congress

    05/04/2014 8:25:11 AM PDT · 26 of 32
    antonico to rabidralph

    “I appreciate you explaining your position. If you can take the time, I recommend to you the documentary about Gov. Palin called Undefeated. You might be able to rent it on Netflix or buy it at Amazon. It goes through her record in government, starting with her time as Mayor of Wasilla. People are interviewed and they talk about the reforms she made every step of the way in various offices she held. She has, literally, been there, done that, when it comes to fixing government and there’s no doubt she can lay out a blue print for fixing what’s wrong with our Federal government.”

    ___________________________________________________________

    Thank you for the reply to me. I did see “The Undefeated”. I was with a group of people in Southern California the night it premiered, and Andrew Breitbart spoke after the screening to those of us in the room. My view on it was it was a historical record on Palin written by her hired hagiographer, Stephen Bannon. I got the gist of it - she was fighting political cronyism and managed to succeed against it in her run for governor. But do you honestly think she’s the only one who ever did such a thing in her career? You think that makes her unique? The way her idolaters tell it, you’d think Sarah Palin was the only politician in history to have stood up against a state political machine, and won. It’s more over glorification. All smoke, little heat. The main thrust of her achievement as a governor would be to unleash Alaska’s energy reserves. And that is noteworthy. But I don’t find that some sort of an amazing achievement. One thing I will say on her behalf is about her integrity of resigning her administrative position based on her ethos. That alone is truly rare. But confining it to her achievements as a governor, the entire 90 minutes was about 30 minutes too long and again - her resigning is a stain that will stay with her if she ever decides to run for office again. She’s not going to be able to live it down.

    When you compare her to a governor of the caliber of Scott Walker, you realize just how timid Sarah Palin looks. He won his governorship on the promise of the same type of reformation as she did. And his reward was a recall to try to get him thrown out of office. He was faced with hostile unions who were striking whenever they could, and his entire Democrat State Senate literally left the state to try to grind the state government to a halt and tag him with the blame for it. You want tell me who has “been there done that”?? You can believe it’s Palin if you want to. But Walker is a FAR more accomplished executive as governor than she ever was. And if you think she’s going to “lay out a blueprint for fixing what’s wrong with our federal government”, then why hasn’t she done so? And the answer is she has no intention of doing it - because answers are hard to mete out when you have conflicting interests. If she was POTUS now, her “plan” wouldn’t be going anywhere. She cannot fire Harry Reid, so she has to live with a hostile Senate which will never bow to her. That’s why she’s not going to run again. She’s decided it’s a whole lot easier to carp and criticize from the sidelines (which is what her entire post-political career has amounted to) than it is to actually get into the game and work to fix it. Telling others what they do wrong is not a solution to a problem. Failing to get yourself into an elected office again to practice what she preaches is equally not a solution. And this is what Sarah Palin has been about since she quit her governorship five years ago.

  • Sarah Palin Endorses Dan Bongino for Congress

    05/03/2014 8:45:15 PM PDT · 23 of 32
    antonico to palin45potus

    “But you seem determined to make me admit that you are 100% right and I am100% wrong.”

    __________________________________________________________

    Again, you’re inaccurate. It has nothing to do with right and wrong to any degree. You’re making that up. That’s not what this was about. Your original accusation was one of hatred of me for her, which is wrong on the face, and in every other way. I see her for what she actually does - not glom onto her as though she was the lone salvation of the nation and ergo gets a huge margin to err, like her blindly faithful flock, of which you seem to be one. I laid out a defense of my position to your accusation (which you seem reluctant to categorize as the accusation it was). I laid out facts. All you’ve countered with - up to now - is more idolatry of her. She’s not an idol to me. She’s someone who ended up in politics, and she’s judged based on what she actually says and does. That’s what I wrote. Now, I’ll get to these amazing nonsense you’ve written here. Let’s start with the most important one - her non-invitation to the 2012 GOP Convention. This is an abjectly false statement. She absolutely was invited to speak there. Reince Preibus went on Fox News - national television - and said unequivocally he called Sarah Palin himself, he offered her a prime spot at the convention to speak, and SHE turned it down. So get that straight. he had everything to lose by having her come out publicly and calling him a liar. She never did (probably because every phone call at the RNC is recorded, so her calling him a liar when he wasn’t would be humiliating for her). So get that straight. They offered. She refused. The fact you don’t know this explains a lot of why we still have this ongoing diatribe. This is what her blind faithful following believe - that she was victimized by the evil RNC. And it’s a complete myth. Idolatry. Again.

    You want to know what I said about that was good? I was the one who wrote first she was excellent at choosing candidates in 2010. It had nothing to do with the GOP-E. She herself was riding the wave of her popularity still riding high from 2008, and she did it very intelligently. I also pointed out when it began to fall - when she bailed on the 2012 POTUS race. And I have it on very good authority that she passed because Christie declined to get into the race (which was an utterly stupid decision on her part, which I relayed to the extremely reliable source). Nonetheless, once she bailed, many of her followers were looking for someone to be a leader - and they sensed it’s not her. That’s why her 2012 endorsements fell short of 2010. Those who wanted her to make her stand to help them felt like - “why should I support who she anoints”? She spent 3-4 years doing nothing but maligning Obama, The GOP-E, their destructive policies -and when it came time for her to do her part of at least attempting to try to defend the very people she expected to support those she endorsed, she shrunk from the challenge. Waived Her White Flag Of Surrender, as it were. This is a battle that neither Reagan or Thatcher shied away from, especially Lady Thatcher. Sarah Palin showed herself at that moment to be all smoke and no heat. It would have been far better for her to have gotten into the game and lost out (as Reagan did in 1976), than to tease and tease and tease, and then when push came to shove she decided to get sick to her stomach. So without any more than that retreat, she herself undermined her own brand. That’s why her 2012 endorsements fared so poorly from her 2010 gold mine. But mind you, her litany of complaints on politics has not stopped. Since she herself made her name as a politician - and since she still cashes in on her past political career at Fox News, among other venues - there is a saturation point reached by the public when you complain about what’s lacking in representation but you’re not willing to get in the game and fix what you keep complaining about in such a high profile manner. What you seem to be saying is it’s perfectly fine for her to use the very high profile platforms she’s given to be some kind of Conservative Siren, but it’s abjectly evil to hold her to account when someone asks, “Well, Governor Palin, it’s been 5 years since you last held office (and even quit that job well before you were supposed to), how about instead of criticizing others you suit up, get yourself elected and get your own hands dirty - or bloody - to fix this stuff”?? And we hear crickets chirping at that logic from the Palin Idolaters. Wanna know what the real dirty little secret is? Sarah Palin just plain doesn’t have the guts to get into the game and fix what she complains about. Not now. She may have done so earlier in her career, but she’s cashing in now in a way which she never did before - two TV shows? Two separate contracts at Fox News? However many book deals? Uhh..you can’t make that kinda money governing Alaska, unless you’re a Murkowski LOL!!! She’s clearly trying to stretch her 15 minutes of fame for as much as she can get from it financially. That’s as clear as day to anyone with half a brain. There’s a reason she’s not running for office, ya know???

    And what good is any “plan” of hers - 5 point or otherwise - is SHE isn’t going to implement it?? What, she decides to write a “5-Point Plan” and then..uh..give it to, say, Ted Cruz and say “Here is my outstanding plan, implement this darling, will you!”??? Unless SHE is going to run on it for office, it means nothing. Period.

    And absolutely right about Sasse and McDaniel. They have been backed and supported WAY before she ever said anything about them. If you plan to make the case it was her endorsement alone that carried the day for them should they win - you better be able to back that up with verifiable proof. Not just an arbitrary claim. She got Deb Fischer over the hump in 2012, and that was impressive. But everyone who is anyone conservative knows Sasse and McDaniel both. The SCF, Club For Growth TEA Party have all been working to get their names out way before her endorsement. So no, she alone gets no credit for anything they achieve. If anything, her endorsements of them is a case of her riding on the back of the hard work of others. Given her growing list of no-name losers thus far in 2014 (Benacquisto, Pierson, Lonergan, et.al), it’s no wonder why she felt the need. That’s why she’s not sticking her neck out for Bevin - she knows he has no chance at all. I railed against SCF - as a donor to them - for wasting money on him. The Kentucky GOP is never going to let the party’s national senate leader lose in a primary. It’s just not going to happen. Ditto for Winteregg against Boehner. That’s why Palin won’t endorse them. They are two more losers she’d be saddled with, and her endorsement brand is on life support as it is.

    It’s ridiculous to speculate on a 2016 between Hillary and Palin. Neither of them are going to be the nominee. So enough of this. Idolize Palin as you will. She quite simply is not the force she once was, and isn’t likely to be in the future. That said, if she does decide to man up, drag her ass onto a ballot in 2016, then I will watch her closely. If she wins, and decides to try to fix what she complains about, then kudos to her. But until then, she needs to just shut up.

  • Sarah Palin Endorses Dan Bongino for Congress

    05/03/2014 4:59:38 PM PDT · 21 of 32
    antonico to palin45potus

    “As I stated in the first exchange, you hate her. That’s fine, it’s a free country. And I don’t need to defend myself against you. Think whatever you want.As I stated in the first exchange, you hate her. That’s fine, it’s a free country. And I don’t need to defend myself against you. Think whatever you want.

    But as I said, you sam to know each and every shortcoming she supposedly has in great detail, as though you have a vested interest in running her down.

    So no, I won’t let you “turn the tables on me” because i already said that I don’t think she’s gonna run. i just think that she wants the same things that I want, which is a renewal of America.

    __________________________________________________________

    So, you’re the only one who can pose questions, which I take the time to answer? I pose questions to you, and you dismiss them and me altogether? This is the behavior of The Idol Worshipper. The Idol is not to be questioned, and non-believers are not to be answered - just dismissed. If you claim that all she wants is a “renewal of America”, why does that make her above any sort of question as to how that’s to be secured???

    By the way, if you believe she’s not going to run again for anything, then why is it she’s to be elevated at all in any political sense? It underscores my questions about her totally. She demands others do what she herself won’t do. If she stays out of politics (and she’ll likely have to since to run for POTUS you need Wall Street caliber money backing you to underwrite the hundreds of millions of dollars it costs to mount a serious POTUS campaign, which she would never get), why is her insight better than anyone else’s to the extent you need to say she just knows better? Her criticism from people like me is justified because she is the one putting herself on the periphery of the political arena by what she says and does. But since much of her criticism of other politicians is often hysterically shrieked (that’s what her hyper ALL CAPITAL LETTERS posts on Facebook are about: shrieking in hysteria), it becomes hard to take her seriously. If she never seeks an office again, then she will be nothing more than just another celebrity posing as someone who’s an expert politically. And it’s her contract at Fox and her appearances on both TV & Radio political shows that makes her eleigible to be critiqued. So to answer your question - again - her choosing to wade into politics makes her worthy of scrutiny. But to you - who apparently simply wants to worship her above all else - that worship quality is what would make this scrutiny unbearable. And one more thing: I’m pretty sure if she herself read what I’ve written here, she’d be a lot tougher handling this very minor critique from me than you. Your skin is apparently much thinner than hers.

  • Sarah Palin Endorses Dan Bongino for Congress

    05/03/2014 3:28:46 PM PDT · 18 of 32
    antonico to palin45potus

    “But I ask you: Why do you feel the need to denigrate her so? Do you want her to go away and never be heard from again? If so, why? “

    ___________________________________________________________

    Instead of you asking me questions, let me turn the tables on you. What is it you see as her great contribution - now? I’ll give her that her power to pick the right candidates in 2010 was of immeasurable value. But she clearly doesn’t have this anymore. She’s backing candidates, but where she was once the standard of conservatism in a candidate, she’s picking candidates that no longer win, thus her contributions politically speaking, are marginal. So if her greatest contribution is severely diminished, her value also diminished. She’s not making policy; she’s not having to deal with any conflicts about the office of state. She’s merely offering criticisms to her opponents without any means or even intention to play on the same field, which is namely serving in an electoral capacity.

    Sounds to me like it’s your desire to elevate her to a much higher plateau than she actually has earned which is causing this discourse. Sarah Palin has not held - nor has she sought - any political office in 5 years. She’s been a Fox News Contributor - but appears only in settings which are friendly to her (Hannity would rather step on his tongue than ever seriously take her to task for her words). She’s signed contracts for two different television reality series shows. So why is it you think she has anything to contribute at all?? Rather than seeing me as someone just eager to rip her a new one as a matter of course, from my point of view it’s you who wish to elevate her to a status far loftier than one she’s actually earned.

    Sarah Palin is NOT Reagan. She parrots a lot of what Reagan believed, yes. But he formulated them; and articulated them brilliantly. She simply parrots. His training as an actor made him very much at home in front of a camera, an expert at commanding it through extemporaneous delivery and improvisation (she is far less skilled at both qualities). And Sarah Palin is in NO WAY a Margaret Thatcher. She has exactly zero of that Thatcher intellect, and none of the Thatcher parliamentary skill. So why it is you wish to elevate her is really the question. Not why I question her.