Posted on 06/16/2010 8:33:50 AM PDT by Clintonfatigued
It’s funny how Palin critics seem to rely on citing facts, figures and on-the-record statements while Palinistas only response it to make personal attacks.
Palinista Credo - “If I don’t read it on a bumper sticker, it doesn’t exist and if you claim it does, well, you’re poopey head!”
You of all people criticizing Palin for supporting a RINO when you were the biggest McCain hawker on FR in 2008. Shall I post some of your gems?
Hey freepers! Check out Bob J's posting history and you'll see he is truly obsessed with Sarah Palin.
You’d vote for Murkowski.
No, Bob, the point is, you made up a claim out of whole cloth in post 10, and then have the gall to lecture anyone else about where they are getting their opinions? Especially someone who at least tried to research the topic first? That is what is hilarious - that you could even TRY to lecture ANYONE on this thread about where they got their claims from, since you have already aptly demonstrated where you get yours.
Right. And if Palin has decided to endorse Lisa or no one at all, Bob J would have squealed about that too.
How you can even muster the gall to make such a statement on this thread, Bob, after your fictional post 10, is beyond comprehension.
She did not. Once again you are simply lying here Bob.
http://www.salon.com/news/feature/2010/06/02/palin_murkowski
In 2004, when Lisa Murkowski ran for her first full term, Palin considered running against her, but citing her son Track’s desire to be away from the public spotlight, she decided against it. Palin backed Murkowski’s primary opponent, Mike Miller.
“Right. And if Palin has decided to endorse Lisa or no one at all, Bob J would have squealed about that too.”
here’s a question, did Sarah Palin donate $5000 to LISA MURKOWSKI’s PAC/
Uh, Bob, the idea is that you verify your claim BEFORE making an attack post.
Really then you should have no problem providing links to document your claims from now on.
Really even a sub par intellect like yours Bob should be able to string your lies together more coherently then this.
Here you claim you have been researching this fight between Palin and Murkowski "for 10 years" yet later in this same thread you also claim "Palin endorsed and campaigned for Murkowski in 2004."
So which is it Bob?
How does self proclaimed "superior intellect" reconcile these two contradictory statements?
I say you are simply a shameless liar willing to post anything to validate your ignorant bigotry about Palin.
Since you have been caught lying about Palin on a number of thread, including this one, from now you are going to be required to cite documentation for independent verification of your claims about Palin.
That is an intellectually dishonest attempt at topic diversion. It the sort of tactics a child uses when they are caught in wrong doing.
You have to answer the point posed to you 1st not attempt to hijack the conversation off topic.
I'm going to walk you through this step by step because it has become abundantly clear to me and others that there is lack of understanding and comprehension not only among Palin worshipers but also Palin herself.
1. Palin refuses to endorse Lisa Murkowski.
2. The press asks her why.
3. She says her son, Track, asked her not to because he wanted her “away from the public spotlight”.
4. Palin then endorses Murkowski’s opponent.
To the most genial and unassuming observer, Palin’s actions and comments seem to be at best inconsistent if not a lie since the endorsement of Lisa's opponent, after supporting the family for several years, would draw MORE ATTENTION than if she just endorsed Lisa or better, not endorse ANYONE.
This is what's disturbing about this event.
1. Palin is lying to everone’s face about her reasons for endorsing Lisa's opponent.
2. She utilized/used her family as an excuse, diversion (as she does ALL THE TIME) and tool in her political machinations, AND DIDN'T BLINK AN EYE.
What's worse and what is the basis of many problems we have on this site between supporters and critics, is that her “amen corner” accepts the EXCUSE without thinking, without even having a clue to the irony if not outright manipulation by Palin, AND...
You go so far as to post this quote on public bulletin board as if it makes ANY SENSE, would exonerate Palin and as if one else will recognize the disconnect and OBVIOUS BS that any high school kid would recognize! This was about the dumbest excuse Palin could have given but not only did she NOT RECOGNIZE the absurdity of her statement at the time, here we are six years later with her supporters using it as if it had any legitimacy at all.
And regarding Palin's stated reason for not supporting Murkowski - here's a hint - if you want to have any standing to criticize Palin's veracity, try improving your own first.
They don't care.
Just making things up eh? You don’t think he’s that Bob whathisname guy I see one FNC from time to time, spouting the dem party line, do you?
“Palin endorsed and campaigned for Murkowski in 2004.”
Well Johnnie, being such a stickler for accuracy can you point to where I made this statement?
Oh, you can’t? It was dirtboys statement? You mean dirtboy misquoted me, you saw it, picked it up and ran with it without thinking, without checking?
How unusual for Palinista...
Exactly.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.