Yes, it definitely is to her advantage to be pretty.Quote:
Originally Posted by tickle
Pair her up as veep candidate with Cheney, and you've got yourself a rock-solid far-right conservative team.
|
Yes, it definitely is to her advantage to be pretty.Quote:
Originally Posted by tickle
Pair her up as veep candidate with Cheney, and you've got yourself a rock-solid far-right conservative team.
Hello gal:Quote:
Originally Posted by galveston
I agree with your sentiment... I'd take values over geography any day. But, if I had my druthers, I'd want my leader to have both. Truth is, running the world is a lot more complicated that knowing where all the countries are.
Look, Gal. I know you like her. But she knows NOTHING about the world. That's not a this. MOST people in this country don't know about the world. MOST governors in the country don't either. They don't have to. It may come as a shock to you, but I didn't always know everything about the world like I do now. It took a few years... ;)
But, if Sarah is going to compete for office on a national level, her competency in world affairs is going to be tested... Of course, if what she wants to do is make a whole bunch of cash, that's cool too. It IS the American way, after all.
With Huckabee out of the way, she has right field to herself. I'd LOVE for her to surprise me. No, I don't support her politics. But I absolutely support a regular mother reaching for the stars.
excon
And you know this how ?Quote:
Look, Gal. I know you like her. But she knows NOTHING about the world.
Hello tom:Quote:
Originally Posted by tomder55
I guess you missed the Katie Couric interview. I didn't. I also don't buy that she was blindsided by Couric when Palin said she was told they were going to talk "girl talk"... Nobody who knows Katie Couric believes that. She's the CBS ANCHOR for crying out loud. She's going to interview the VP candidate and she's going to talk GIRL TALK?? Dude!
Nope. I saw it, and I BELIEVED it.
That doesn't mean that she can't LEARN. I haven't seen any evidence that she's tried, though. Didn't she say something about Jews flocking to Israel in response to a policy question?? I think she did?? What Middle East phenomenon does she know about that I don't?
Again, I saw the Couric interview, and I BELIEVED it.
excon
PS> Uhhh, she also did a Charley Gibson interview that didn't turn out so swell.
Because she didn't know where ONTARIO WAS... IN CANADA... which isn't far from Alaska. I can't quote the exactly time that came up but that is what I heard in on of her debates.Quote:
Originally Posted by tomder55
tickle she negotiated a transAlaska-Canada natural gas pipeline before she left office. I think she has a solid understanding of your country.
Ex. Couric cherry picked and heavily edited from 3 days of interviews for the show . Considering that a faltering Couric ,who's show was tanking , used this interview to salvage it ;this was disgusting treatment .
Specifically her whole foreign policy position was distorted by CBS... the network that brought you Rathergate .
CBS News Erases Moderate Quotes from Palin Transcript - IRIS Blog
Hello again, tom:Quote:
Originally Posted by tomder55
I read the parts that were edited out... They showed no great, in depth, international intellect. Sorry.
But, I'm willing to be wrong. I hope she brushed up on some stuff. We ARE going to find out, aren't we? Let's talk after she actually does an interview with someone other than her admirers at FOX.
If she knows SOMETHING, we WILL find out. If she knows NOTHING, we'll find that out too. It ain't something she can hide.
excon
She had a foreign policy position?Quote:
Originally Posted by tomder55
Did you finish reading her book yet?
What is it with you liberals? A cute woman with plenty of smarts and enjoys family life and loves her country. And compare her to President Dither? Let's go.
Hey! I'm Republican and didn't compare her to President Obama. What did she do that was smart? (I think I missed that part.)Quote:
Originally Posted by George_1950
She didn't 'negotiate' anything, tomder, it hasn't got approval from our Federal government to allow Alaska to take the pipeline to your midwest. I don't know why you equate that with 'having a solid understanding of our country'.Quote:
Originally Posted by tomder55
Tick
Why is it that Americans, like no other nation I have come across, need to remind themselves and everybody else how much they love their country? How Patriotic they are? Patriotic.. The only time I hear that word is out of an Americans mouth..Quote:
Originally Posted by George_1950
What's the story??
Is it that American's love there country more than the Dutch, French or Swiss love there's? Or is it that you need to categorise people into those who love and those who don't?
Its almost like you all feel so insecure about it that you have to remind each other at every chance.
Some of you actually believe that those on the other side of the spectrum don't love their country don't you? You actually think that Sarah Palin loves her Country more than Obama does?
About half way through. I have been busy with other projects that have cut into my reading time.Quote:
Did you finish reading her book yet?
tickle ,the gas pipeline project is going to be the biggest private construction project in the history of North America. Real infrastructure work unlike Obama's removing and resurfacing black top roads.
I've always wondered why others don't express their patriotism? I mean voluntarily, not like coming out to fête dear leader.Quote:
Originally Posted by Skell
You have hit upon something very important, so let me spell it out for you: l I b e r t y, personal freedom, independence...Quote:
Originally Posted by Skell
Obama and other progressives don't give a dam for it; in fact, they want to usurp all personal freedoms and liberties in favor of the almighty, unquestionable, reverent state. Perhaps the USA is the only place that amount of personal liberty has ever existed, and it is being taken away, almost without notice or review in the mainstream media or academia. So, it is not patriotism, my friend; it is liberty. You can take it, or leave it; doesn't matter to me. Evidently, Sarah Palin is tapping into that aspect of American life.
Hello again, George:Quote:
Originally Posted by George_1950
I'm glad you brought that up... You talk about liberty and freedom as though you understand it. But, you don't.
You supported the dufus when he took away YOUR freedom to have your emails and telephone calls remain private. That's the Fourth Amendment to the Constitution you didn't mind getting trashed. You supported the dufus when he took away YOUR habeas corpus rights, which is what the Fifth Amendment to the Constitution is all about. You certainly don't mind overthrowing the Sixth Amendment to the Constitution that speaks about cruel and unusual punishment...
Although, I don't believe we've spoken about it, I suggest you don't support GAY people in having the same "freedoms" you have, thereby trashing the Ninth Amendment. I'd also be willing to bet that you think the government should organize prayer in its institutions, and that kills the First Amendment...
So, all in all, George, you don't support liberty at all. You ain't even close.
excon
I think Tiger wishes his texts and telephone calls were private ;)
W did not take any of the rights you mentioned away from me, but this POTUS wants to give non-citizens that don't follow and are not signers to the Geneva convention, rights that belong to the US citizen.
And it is not W, but the population and the politicians that are against gay marriage. What, 0 for 31, with the latest defeat in NY, a blue state? That record makes the NJ Nets look good.
G&P
Hello again, in:Quote:
Originally Posted by inthebox
Let's take them one at a time.
YOUR right to due process of law is what the Fifth Amendment is about. The cornerstone of that amendment is habeas corpus... That is the right of ANY prisoner to challenge his detention...
Then the dufus comes along and says HE, and HE alone can designate somebody to BE an enemy combatant, and ENEMY COMBATANTS don't have ANY habeas corpus rights. In other words, they don't have a right to challenge their imprisonment...
I'm sure all that makes you warm and fuzzy, until you realize that the dufus could designate YOU to be an enemy combatant, meaning that YOU, an American citizen (who theoretically HAS habeas corpus rights), wouldn't be able to challenge YOUR detention...
The above paragraph is indisputable.
Now, of course, you're going to say, well MY government wouldn't do that to ME... But, if our founders believed that, they wouldn't have been SO intent on making SURE the government wouldn't do that to its people, and that's why they wrote those amendments like they did.
Next.
You, as an individual sovereign citizen of this great nation of ours, enjoy every single right the Constitution says you do. But, you don't have them because they're popular - they're not. You don't have them because a majority of the citizens say you do. You don't have them because the politicians like or dislike them...
You have them because you are a citizen. Therefore, if EVERY politician said that YOU shouldn't have your First Amendment rights, they would be WRONG. If EVERY male citizen said that women shouldn't be allowed to vote, they would be wrong. If EVERY citizen said black people shouldn't be allowed to eat in the same dining room as whites, they'd be wrong.
If you have the right to marry, then so does EVERYBODY else, no matter HOW unpopular the cause, and no matter HOW many politicians don't like it. You do know, that NONE of the hard earned rights, that we have belatedly bestowed upon certain groups of people were NOT popular ideas when those movements began...
I'm going to stop now. That's a lot for you to digest.
excon
And so everyone does . Marriage is defined as between man and woman in the books and In is right ;when We the People have voted on the issue it has been a slam dunk to respect the definition of marriage.Quote:
If you have the right to marry, then so does EVERYBODY else
But if you read Palin's book ,she is no where's near the cultural warrior she is falsely portrayed as.
BURP: :)Quote:
Originally Posted by excon
There is a lot of "ifs" and "theoretical" there. Then there is your definitive statement. Following that; IF Joe average can marry Jane, then it should be Joe's right to marry Julie and Ann and Fido the dog and some other guy and throw in some 12 year old - right? Who cares if it is popular or not, or if it is not legal; by golly the founder's of the constitution wanted me to be able to do these things because it is my right :p
G&P
Hello again, in:Quote:
Originally Posted by inthebox
You're excused...
Your argument went into stupid mode, but I'm used to that from you guys... I guess you're saying if you're granted the right to marry the same sex, that means you'll also have to right to marry a dog... Is that what you think??
Stupid, stupid, stupid...
I'm assuming that TODAY you have the RIGHT to make love to your wife... Ergo, you must have the right to make love to a rock, or your next door neighbor...
Stupid, stupid, stupid...
But, I expect nothing other than that from those people who don't understand the Constitution, and are afraid... I stand by my statement to George... You guys know NOTHING about freedom or liberty.
excon
Hello again, in:Quote:
Originally Posted by inthebox
Let me make sure I understand you... As remote as the possibility might be, IF the government DID arrest you and DID designate you to be an enemy combatant, you'd be OK WITHOUT your habeas corpus rights??
Sure you'd be... In a pigs eye! Like all good wingers, you talk a good story, but when the rubber meets the road your WALK don't match your TALK. If you were arrested, you'd be the FIRST one screaming for a lawyer, as well you should. When one of your family members gets involved with drugs, for example, all of a sudden you're not so tough on crime... I know how you guys operate.
So, you'll pardon me, if I don't believe you'd willingly give up ANY of YOUR rights, and you shouldn't. But, please don't diminish the damage the dufus did to the Constitution and freedom, by embracing the following refrain:
I didn't stand up for freedom, because they weren't coming for me... I didn't stand up for freedom when they came for my neighbor. When they finally came for me, there wasn't anybody left to stand up for me.
excon
PS> Your post is also an affront to the founding fathers who experienced FIRST hand what the government is capable of doing, and that's WHY they wrote what they did...
You seem incredulous at the mere suggestion that your government might violate your rights.. That's incredulous to me.
excon
Umm, what does all this have to do with Sarah Palin?
Has anyone other than me noticed that when the lefties have no answer for an argument they change the subject?
Hello gal:
It's MY thread, and I'll take where I want it to go. You're welcome to take me on, point for point. But, you'd rather talk about me.
Besides, the first time I don't have a cogent answer for anything, is the day you'll see pigs fly.
excon
You're righty friend George derailed it at post 114.Quote:
Originally Posted by galveston
By my calculations the gay community made a huge mistake in gunning for nothing less than redefining marriage, and in fact a few are beginning to recognize this. Regardless of what you see as a constitutional liberty, they're blowing it themselves with their in-your-face approach to both the politics and their public behavior. And Lambert's stuff is clean as the pure driven snow compared to what goes on - in public - at the Folsom Street Fair and Up Your Alley in Sodom and Gomorrah (San Francisco).Quote:
Originally Posted by excon
In response to citizen complaints the perverts in SF asked for "public sex tents." You think the American people are pushing back now, just imagine if they saw for themselves what goes on in full public view at these gay sex fairs. Is that the kind of liberty you're referring to, or do the people of this country have a right to set a few community standards?
Hello again, Steve:
You mistake my support for gay marriage to include support for every dingbat faggot or every off the wall San Francisco politician.
Just because a guy is an a$$, DOESN'T mean he isn't entitled to enjoy the same rights YOU do.
excon
Palin's a birther - 'nuff said.
All she said was it was legitimate to ask questions about his birth certificate. Perhaps she thinks so because they used the birth of her son as a issue against her.
No doubt ;like you ,the Press will target her single observation taken out of context and use it for all it's worth.
Hello tom:Quote:
Originally Posted by tomder55
No, tom. It's not legitimate at all - especially after those questions have been answered, and answered, and then answered again.
She's a birther, huh? Not surprising... How do you like her now, Steve?
excon
From her Facebook page today
Quote:
Voters have every right to ask candidates for information if they so choose. I've pointed out that it was seemingly fair game during the 2008 election for many on the left to badger my doctor and lawyer for proof that Trig is in fact my child. Conspiracy-minded reporters and voters had a right to ask... which they have repeatedly. But at no point – not during the campaign, and not during recent interviews – have I asked the president to produce his birth certificate or suggested that he was not born in the United States.
- Sarah Palin
Hello tom:
Come on, tom. Admit it. You're a birther too.
excon
Not at all. Do I have to produce my submission during the campaign again ? I made a slam dunk case against the proposition.
BTW she has also chimed in on Climategate on Facebook :
Quote:
The president's decision to attend the international climate conference in Copenhagen needs to be reconsidered in light of the unfolding Climategate scandal. The leaked e-mails involved in Climategate expose the unscientific behavior of leading climate scientists who deliberately destroyed records to block information requests, manipulated data to "hide the decline" in global temperatures, and conspired to silence the critics of man-made global warming. I support Senator James Inhofe's call for a full investigation into this scandal. Because it involves many of the same personalities and entities behind the Copenhagen conference, Climategate calls into question many of the proposals being pushed there, including anything that would lead to a cap and tax plan
Policy should be based on sound science, not snake oil. I took a stand against such snake oil science when I sued the federal government over its decision to list the polar bear as an endangered species despite the fact that the polar bear population has increased. I've never denied the reality of climate change; in fact, I was the first governor to create a subcabinet position to deal specifically with the issue. I saw the impact of changing weather patterns firsthand while serving as governor of our only Arctic state. But while we recognize the effects of changing water levels, erosion patterns, and glacial ice melt, we cannot primarily blame man's activities for the earth's cyclical weather changes. The drastic economic measures being pushed by dogmatic environmentalists won't change the weather, but will dramatically change our economy for the worse.
Policy decisions require real science and real solutions, not junk science and doomsday scare tactics pushed by an environmental priesthood that capitalizes on the public's worry and makes them feel that owning an SUV is a "sin" against the planet. In his inaugural address, President Obama declared his intention to "restore science to its rightful place." Boycotting Copenhagen while this scandal is thoroughly investigated would send a strong message that the United States government will not be a party to fraudulent scientific practices. Saying no to Copenhagen and cap and tax are first steps in "restoring science to its rightful place."
Hello tom:Quote:
Originally Posted by tomder55
Well, as it turns out, she said just a touch more than you alluded to. Here's what she ACTUALLY said.
-----------------------
HUMPHRIES: Would you make the birth certificate an issue if you ran?
PALIN: Um, I think the public, rightfully, is still making it an issue. I don't have a problem with that. I don't know if I would have to bother to make it an issue, because I think enough members of the electorate still want answers.
HUMPHRIES: Do you think it's a fair question to be looking at?
PALIN: I think it's a fair question, just like I think past associations, past voting records, all of that is fair game.
---------------------
Yup. She's a birther.
excon
Actually here is the complete relevant transcript.
Would you make the birth certificate an issue if you ran?
I think the public, rightfully, is still making it an issue. I don't have a problem with that. I don't know if I would have to bother to make it an issue 'cause I think there are enough members of the electorate who still want answers.
Do you think it's a fair question to be looking at?
I think it's a fair question, just like I think past associations and past voting record — all of that is fair game. You know, I've got to tell you, too: I think our campaign, the McCain/Palin campaign didn't do a good enough job in that area. We didn't call out Obama and some of his associates on their records and what their beliefs were and perhaps what their future plans were. And I don't think that that was fair to voters to not have done our jobs as candidates and as a campaign to bring to light a lot of the things that now we're seeing made manifest in the administration.
I mean, truly, if your past is fair game and your kids are fair game, certainly Obama's past should be. I mean, we want to treat men and women equally, right? Hey, you know, that's a great point, in that weird conspiracy-theory freaky thing that people talk about that Trig isn't my real son. And a lot of people say, “Well you need to produce his birth certificate! You need to prove that he's your kid!” Which we have done. But yeah, so maybe we could reverse that and use the same [unintelligible]-type thinking on them.
...
To tell you the truth .I'm more interested in his college records and perhaps reading some of his college era thesis papers.
So what part of his past and his birth certificate contains questions that need to be answered?Quote:
Originally Posted by tomder55
Nothing ;but the nut jobs tried to make a case that her son Trig was actually the son of her daughter.
What part of that quote says there are questions that need to be answered? The question is, is his past fair game or not, or does that only apply to the right?Quote:
Originally Posted by NeedKarma
| All times are GMT -7. The time now is 06:36 AM. |