Posted on 08/25/2011 9:01:23 AM PDT by indianrightwinger
Karl and Barack have a lot in common in the same way that Newt and Clinton had a lot in common.
Another Freeper had seen it and gave me the name and link.
posted on Thursday, August 25, 2011 8:33:49 AM by Logic n’ Reason
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-chat/2768701/posts?page=41#41
Considering all the flak SP has received being on the front line against the left more publicly and vocally than anyone else on the right and more consistently to use the the argument that she “can’t handle the flak” because she quit is ridiculous. She’s fearless and never backs down no matter what’s thrown at her. And she doesn’t just defend herself, she defends us. If you had no ready response (at least to say, she’d be a better president than 0bama) then you don’t know a lot about her. She’s explained it. People here have explained it. She’s written about it. I bet when/if she gets in she’s able to make it a nonissue pretty damn quick. Maybe you and your wife could watch the Undefeated when it comes out on DVD/PPV to have a better understanding of Mrs. Palin. She has a 20 year history in public service and has never backed down.
Cindie
What a concept...a politician putting their constituents and her state above her political ambitions. Too bad more politicians didn’t think with a servant’s heart instead of a politician. The US laws regarding lawsuits against a sitting president are quite different than they are in Alaska. Campaigns are designed to help people learn about a candidate, their vision, and what direction they want to take the country. My sister isn’t as informed politically as I am so as a believer in Sarah Palin, I felt it my obligation to give her the information she needed to understand Palin’s reasoning. Whether she supports Palin or someone else at least she will be making an informed decision. We owe it to our country no less.
Cindie
So you think it's NOT devious and misleading to imply that Palin "quit because she couldn't take the political heat" when she sidestepped inevitable bankruptcy deliberately intended by Democrat opponents, and which could not happen today because Alaskan law has since been changed to protect its governors from such "legal" financial nukes? When you deny that that was the case, you are deluded, irrational, and/or incompetent. And you reveal a lot about the character (or lack thereof) of some Palin detractors.
And (though I haven't seen it on this thread) you think it's not devious or misleading to describe Palin's ACES plan regarding what the State of Alaska charges oil companies for drilling on state-owned land (pretty much the same way you or I would charge an oil company for drilling on our own private land if it had oil) as an "oil windfall profits tax" (though it involved neither profits nor windfalls)? Again, Palin detractors have FOR YEARS been using the scary propaganda phrase "oil windfall profits tax" to falsely describe ACES. It is plainly an example of Palin detractors being devious and misrepresenting the truth in their attempt to get people not to support Palin.
And yes, I mean it EXACTLY the way I wrote it. You are deluded, irrational, and incompetent if you cannot recognize duplicity among Palin detractors when you see it -- or when YOU ENGAGE IN IT.
Bottom line: Palin detractors have a weak hand, so they have to be deceitful. When you find yourself siding folks who have to lie to themselves as well as their opponents, it's a sure sign you're on the wrong side.
I believe you’re the one who first brought Reagan into our discussion. And I also believe that you and the other Sarahphiles are the ones who almost always bring personal insult and hysteria into “Sarah as candidate” discussions.
Palin quit because she couldn’t take the political heat and she sidestepped inevitable bankruptcy deliberately intended by Democrat opponents who were using a law she’d lobbied for (”championed”) and signed, which was so full of obvious abusable loopholes that her Democrat opponents thanked her for it. No other of the current crop of Repub candidates has had the unfortunate experience of seeing a policy he pushed turn, almost immediately, into such a “weapon of choice” for the opposition. Once bitten, twice shy, the Sarahphiles may say, but that didn’t seem to be the case for her in the Gibson/Couric interviews in 2008, when she, apparently having seen how polite and sweet G&C were to various affirmative action/minority liberals in the recent past, seemed to somehow expect similar sugar from our all-Dem all-the-time TV people. Twice.
Karl Rove is the cancer in the Republican party.
I believe you’re the one who first brought Reagan into our discussion.
Yes indeed, I did, when I pointed out that Reagan's landslide victory put the lie to your assertion that the GOP needs a less polarizing candidate than Palin. You replied: Palin ain’t Reagan. And I never said she was -- what I DID say was that the argument that "polarizing" politicians can't win is clearly disproven by history, such as Reagan's victory, and the defeat of moderates such as McCain, Meg Whitman, and Dole.
As for "personal insult," I wrote: “Palin detractors have to be devious and misrepresent the truth in their attempt to get people not to support Palin.” THAT was the extent of what you apparently interpret as "personal insult and hysteria into “Sarah as candidate” discussions.
You wrote of my words: Either didn’t really mean it the way you wrote it, or you’re deluded/irrational/incompetent.
When I used your own words "deluded, irrational, incompetent" to describe your willful bindness to the fact that the heat Palin faced with regard to the resignation was financial, not political, you came back complaining that I was engagining in personal insult and hysteria.
You are a wonderful example of the kind of mindset behind those who dislike Palin.
Many of the Free Republic Palinistas have, over the past few months, proven themselves to me to be obstinate, self-righteous, quasi-fanatical, illogical, hysteria-prone boors.
Everything I needed to know about Islam I learned on September 11th, and everything I need to know about Sarah Palin I’ve already seen. And so has her reality-camping tentmate Kate Gosselin.
I think you are too modest.
Are you saying that what Sarah faced in Alaska was mere "pressure?"
However, if she thinks what Palin faced in Alaska was mere "pressure" then she should not be voting.
Note to Karl: You’re history. Find another occupation.
Some “architect”.
Win in 2000 by 535 votes, and win in 2004 by 12,000 votes in Ohio.
In the real world, he wouldn’t be allowed to practice.
BTW, Tokyo Rove, we were the first to be on to you, in DE in 2010.
Now the rest of America knows you’re a backstabbing fraud.
So how do you think she would handle the more intense pressures of the presidency?
We’re not talking about a regular job here.
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.