Palin in 2012

[Mowich]

''liberals are teaching us all to believe that Sarah Palin is a flake and a lightweight.''


LOL! McCain and his camp say a lot worse about her.

NO, no, no, gopher! She does that all by herself everytime she opens that moose-chewing mouth of hers. Good grief the woman proved she was a flake on more than one occasion with no help from anyone else.

 

[ironsides]

''liberals are teaching us all to believe that Sarah Palin is a flake and a lightweight.''


LOL! McCain and his camp say a lot worse about her.

Must I always correct your english. "McCain and his camp said a lot worse about her" he has no camp at the moment.

 

[EagleSmack]

African-American conservatives have always brought out the true nature of a lot of liberals. Racist NIMBYs

 

[SirJosephPorter]

Indeed, Palin's candidacy (or lack thereof) is entirely an internal matter for Americans, and therefore they are free to do as they choose, and it is our role to support them.

No it is not, TenPenny. It is our role to support the president, whoever gets elected. It is not our role to support the Republican candidate. We can all have an opinion about who will make a better president.

Even after the president is elected, what you say applies only to the governments. Thus Canadian government should try to be friendly, try to get along with whoever is the president. But that doesn’t mean that individual Canadian cannot trash the president to their heart’s content. Indeed, there are conservative posters here who bash Obama non stop.

 

[SirJosephPorter]

''liberals are teaching us all to believe that Sarah Palin is a flake and a lightweight.''


LOL! McCain and his camp say a lot worse about her.

Who said that, Gopher, was it in one of Walter’s copy and paste (I never read them myself)? Anyway, if so, that is totally wrong.

The country at large has a negative opinion of Joan of Arc. She is especially unpopular among the women of the country. She has high negatives. If she was unpopular only with the liberals she would have an approval rating of 70 to 80%, not the 25 to 30 % she currently has (which is also what she had just prior to the election).

 

[countryboy]

By Dewie Whetsell, Alaskan fisherman, as posted in comments on the MOVEON ad about Sarah Palin:
I've spent the last 45 of my 66 years in a commercial fishing town in Alaska . I understand Alaska politics but never understood national politics well until this last year. Here's the breaking point: Neither side of the Palin controversy gets it. It's not about persona, style, or rhetoric; it's about doing things. Even Palin supporters never mention the things that I'm about to tell you here.

1- Democrats forget when Palin was the Darling of the Democrats, because as soon as Palin took the Governor's office away from a fellow Republican and tough SOB, Frank Murkowski, she tore into the Republican's "Corrupt Bastards Club" (CBC) and sent them packing. Many of them are now residing in State housing and wearing orange jump suits. The Democrats reacted by skipping around the yard, throwing confetti and singing, "la la la la" (well, you know how they are). Name another governor in this country who has ever done anything similar.


2- Now with the CBC gone, there were fewer Alaskan politicians to protect the huge, giant oil companies here. So she constructed and enacted a new system of splitting the oil profits called "ACES." Exxon (the biggest corporation in the world) protested so Sarah told them, "Don't let the door hit you in the stern on your way out." They stayed, and Alaska residents went from being merely wealthy to being filthy rich. Of course, the other huge international oil companies meekly fell in line. Again, give me the name of any other governor in the country who has done anything similar.


3- Another thing she did when she walked into the governor's office get the list of State requests for federal funding for projects, known as "pork." She went through the list, took 85% of them and placed them in the "when-hell-freezes-over" stack. She let locals know that if we need something built, we'll pay for it ourselves. Maybe she figured she could use the money she got from selling the previous governor's jet because it was extravagant. Maybe she could use the money she saved by dismissing the governor's cook (remarking that she could cook for her own family), giving back the State vehicle issued to her, maintaining that she already had a car, and dismissing her State provided security force (never mentioning - I imagine - that she's packing heat herself). I'm still waiting to hear the names of those other governors.


4- Now, even with her much-ridiculed "gosh and golly" mannerism, she also managed to put together a totally new approach to getting a natural gas pipeline built which will be the biggest private construction project in the history of North America.. No one else could do it although they tried. If that doesn't impress you, then you're trying too hard to be unimpressed while watching her do things like this while baking up a batch of brownies with her other hand.


5- For 30 years, Exxon held a lease to do exploratory drilling at a place called Point Thompson. They made excuses the entire time why they couldn't start drilling. In truth, they were holding it like an investment. No governor for 30 years could make them get started. This summer, she told them she was revoking their lease and kicking them out. They protested and threatened court action. She shrugged and reminded them that she knew the way to the court house. Alaska won again.


6- President Obama wants the nation to be on 25% renewable resources for electricity by 2025. Sarah went to the Alaska legislature and submitted her plan for Alaska to be at 50% renewables by 2025. We are already at 25%. I can give you more specifics about things done, as opposed to style and persona. Everybody wants to be cool, sound cool, look cool. But that's just a cover-up. I'm still waiting to hear from liberals the names of other governors who can match what mine has done in two and a half years. I won't be holding my breath.
By the way, she was content to return to Alaska after the national election and go back to work, but the haters wouldn't let her. Now, these adolescent screechers are obviously not scuba divers. And no one ever told them what happens when you continually jab and pester a barracuda. Without warning, it will spin around and tear your face off. They shoulda known better.


You have just read the truth about Sarah Palin that sends the media, along with the Democratic party, into a wild uncontrolled frenzy to discredit her. I guess they are only interested in skirt chasers, dishonesty, immoral people, liars, womanizers, murderers, and bitter ex-presidents' wives.
So, "You go, Girl." I only wish the men in Washington had your guts, determination, honesty, and morals.
I rest my case.
Only FOOLS listen to the biased media.

Well, her style isn't exactly 'mainstream downtown USA' but I do think she has a lot to offer. Eccentric? Yep. A bit rough around the edges? Sure. Effective? I think so, based on her record of actual accomplishments. Presentable? I think so. Capable? No doubt. I think it's a 'style' problem, which is what everyone likes to jump on. Fair enough.

I also think the left wing folks are scared out of their wits about her, or else they wouldn't waste all that time making so much noise and trying to discredit her. And they know she has some time to polish up a few rough edges and become a contender. Frightening, to some.

You have to admit - even if you don't really care for her - that she is interesting. Otherwise, YOU wouldn't spend so much time talking about her.

So, keep on talkin'...as ol' P.T. Barnum once said, "There's no such thing as bad publicity."

 

[TenPenny]

No it is not, TenPenny. It is our role to support the president, whoever gets elected. It is not our role to support the Republican candidate. We can all have an opinion about who will make a better president.

It is our role to support the results of a democratic vote. If the Republican Party elects a rock as its leader, it is our role to support the results of that vote. Not necessarily to support that person as the best candidate for President, but to support that person as the chosen candidate for that party as the result of a vote.

 

[SirJosephPorter]

It is our role to support the results of a democratic vote. If the Republican Party elects a rock as its leader, it is our role to support the results of that vote. Not necessarily to support that person as the best candidate for President, but to support that person as the chosen candidate for that party as the result of a vote.

That doesn’t make sense. Support a president, certainly, that makes sense. What that means is that our government should be friendly to the US president, work with him when we can, support him in international endeavors whenever possible etc.

But we have to support the Republican nominee (or a Democratic nominee)? What does that mean? We must support the president to the extent that he interacts internationally. A presidential candidate does not interact internationally; he is involved completely in domestic politics (until he gets elected).

So it isn’t clear to me what you mean by we must support the Republican (or the Democratic) candidate.

 

[countryboy]

That doesn’t make sense. Support a president, certainly, that makes sense. What that means is that our government should be friendly to the US president, work with him when we can, support him in international endeavors whenever possible etc.

But we have to support the Republican nominee (or a Democratic nominee)? What does that mean? We must support the president to the extent that he interacts internationally. A presidential candidate does not interact internationally; he is involved completely in domestic politics (until he gets elected).

So it isn’t clear to me what you mean by we must support the Republican (or the Democratic) candidate.

"...work with him...", "...support him...", "...that he acts internationally...", "...he is involved...", "...until he gets elected" - Wow!

Is this a politically-correct set of statements? Does it mean you don't think Sara has a chance in 2012? Freudian slip?

 

[SirJosephPorter]

"...work with him...", "...support him...", "...that he acts internationally...", "...he is involved...", "...until he gets elected" - Wow!

Is this a politically-correct set of statements? Does it mean you don't think Sara has a chance in 2012? Freudian slip?

No, it is not a Freudian slip, I don’t think Palin has a realistic chance in 2012. She has a good chance of winning the nomination, she is very popular with the Republican base. But winning the election is a different thing altogether.

She would have a realistic chance only if the economy is absolutely in the tank in 2012, which is highly unlikely, as of now. And if economy is absolutely in the tank, then she would have a fighting chance of getting elected, she still won’t be a shoe in (as most reasonable Republican candidates, such as Mitt Romney would be). But if economy is even in a reasonable shape, Obama should win by a landslide against her.

USA had its best chance to elect a female president with Hillary Clinton. Now chances of electing a female look slim for another generation. Assuming Obama serves for eight years, Hillary will be too old by then to try to presidency.

 

[TenPenny]

That doesn’t make sense. Support a president, certainly, that makes sense. What that means is that our government should be friendly to the US president, work with him when we can, support him in international endeavors whenever possible etc.

But we have to support the Republican nominee (or a Democratic nominee)? What does that mean? We must support the president to the extent that he interacts internationally. A presidential candidate does not interact internationally; he is involved completely in domestic politics (until he gets elected).

So it isn’t clear to me what you mean by we must support the Republican (or the Democratic) candidate.

If some nation, some party, some service club, holds a vote to pass a motion, it is our responsiblity as free citizens of a democratic nation to support their right to do so.

For example, if a political party elects someone, let's say Palin, to be their chosen candidate, then we must support their right to do so.

I'm not saying we can't criticize their choice, I'm saying that since it was a democratically held vote, we must support the results.

 

[AnnaG]

If some nation, some party, some service club, holds a vote to pass a motion, it is our responsiblity as free citizens of a democratic nation to support their right to do so.

For example, if a political party elects someone, let's say Palin, to be their chosen candidate, then we must support their right to do so.

I'm not saying we can't criticize their choice, I'm saying that since it was a democratically held vote, we must support the results.

;-)

 

[SirJosephPorter]

If some nation, some party, some service club, holds a vote to pass a motion, it is our responsiblity as free citizens of a democratic nation to support their right to do so.

For example, if a political party elects someone, let's say Palin, to be their chosen candidate, then we must support their right to do so.

I'm not saying we can't criticize their choice, I'm saying that since it was a democratically held vote, we must support the results.

Thanks for clarifying that. That sounds reaosnable.

 

[gopher]

''Must I always correct your english. "McCain and his camp said a lot worse about her" he has no camp at the moment.''



The word is ENGLISH, not english. :lol:

 

[gopher]

SJP,

Here's the answer for who I quoted:



Walter

House Member

​

offline

2,718 Posts

top of page | report | add rep | #395

2 days ago

December 01, 2009
Palin and the future

By Christopher Chantrill

[FONT=times new roman,times]A generation ago liberals taught me to believe that Ronald Reagan was an extremist and a lightweight. Then I went to a Republican caucus in 1980 as a Bush supporter and met the Reagan supporters. I realized that they were the little people, mechanics, technicians, churchgoers, folks that used to be Democrats.[/FONT]

[FONT=times new roman,times]Now liberals are teaching us all to believe that Sarah Palin is a flake and a lightweight.[/FONT]




.............................................................................................




It was Walter with his usual goofball right wing posts. Libs may criticize Palin but what they said is quite tame compared to McCain and his people. You wouldn't know it if you relied on Walter's post.

But hey, who's prejudiced, right? There isn't a word of truth in his posts but if he wants to believe them that's just fine.

 

[TenPenny]

For SJP's benefit, Joan of Arc died recently:
"ROY, JEANNE D'ARC - It is with great sadness the family announce the sudden passing of Jeanne D'arc Roy on December 2, 2009, widow of the late Hector Joseph Roy '

 

[SirJosephPorter]

For SJP's benefit, Joan of Arc died recently:
"ROY, JEANNE D'ARC - It is with great sadness the family announce the sudden passing of Jeanne D'arc Roy on December 2, 2009, widow of the late Hector Joseph Roy '

I remember in the 70s, there was a short live sitcom on American TV, ‘We have got each other’. In that there was an actress named ‘Joan Van Ark’.

She is old now, but she was quite a bombshell in those days. She also starred in 'Dallas' and 'Knot's landing'.

 

[lone wolf]

Geez you place a lot of emphasis on TV

 

[countryboy]

I remember in the 70s, there was a short live sitcom on American TV, ‘We have got each other’. In that there was an actress named ‘Joan Van Ark’.

She is old now, but she was quite a bombshell in those days. She also starred in 'Dallas' and 'Knot's landing'.

Yikes! I think I'd rather see a picture of Ms. Palin.

 

[SirJosephPorter]

Yikes! I think I'd rather see a picture of Ms. Palin.

Give her a break, countryboy. She is probably 65 years old by now.