Sarah Palin: Why She Must be Destroyed

conservatives4palin ^ | January 27,2010 | techno

[rbmillerjr]

“The next POTUS will need upwards of 70 million votes to win.”

Ok, we get it, you hate Palin.

Now, name us your magical mystery candidate that you KNOW can get 70 Million votes right now.

[excopconservative]

I have a sneaking suspicion that you are not going to be a happy camper after the dust settles in 2012.

---

My crystal ball is telling me that before the dust settles, that Ron Paul will endorse Sarah Palin and actively work for her election. They will agree to disagree on foreign policy but without solving the economic issues, a foreign policy is irrelevant.

[The Comedian]

Awesome post.

Awesome!

Today is a good day to die.
I didn't say for whom.

[Spunky]

In my posting at #49 to which you responded to I said; "When I was a teenager..."

Get it now? I woke up and smelled the roses a LONG TIME ago.

I am not selling anything, but I think you have boughten something from someone else.

[wtc911]

I don't hate palin at all. I've never written anything that could be so construed.

I do not think that she is qualified to be POTUS. I do not think that she can get the 70,000,000 votes needed to win. Because of this I do not want to see her as our nominee. I have explained my reasons often enough.

One of the problems you and other palintes have is that the only way you can handle opposition to a palin nomination is to totally disregard the notion that anyone can be a conservative without climbing aboard your train. Instead anyone who opposes her as our nominee must be attacked, ridiculed, villified. That is absurd and childish.

[Spunky]

"I do not think that she is qualified to be POTUS.."

Can you tell me, what in your eyes, someone has to have or do to be qualified?

She fits everthing the Constitution says in order to be qualified.

[sport]

That was the cry of the main stream media and the communists a while back. Their fellow travelers keep parroting it.

[wtc911]

No, she fits the constitutional requirement to be eligible, not qualified. Any 35 year old, third generation American crack-head living in the projects without even a GED passes that test.

I can't help it if you don't understand the difference.

[Spunky]

"I can't help it if you don't understand the difference."

When it relates to the Constitutional Law there is no difference in those two words. You are just nit picking.

ThesaurusLegend: Synonyms Related Words Antonyms Adj.
1 - meeting the proper standards and requirements and training for an office or position or task; "many qualified applicants for the job" competent - properly or sufficiently qualified or capable or efficient; "a competent typist" eligible- qualified for or allowed or worthy of being chosen; "eligible to run for office"; "eligible for retirement benefits"; "an eligible bachelor" unqualified - not meeting the proper standards and requirements and training

Yes the Constitutional "Qualifications" did allow for a crack head, dope smoking you know what, to become President when the people of the United States became so passive in their responsibilities to elect a person of good character.

Sarah Palin meets all the eligible "Qualities" of the Constitution. And she is not a crack head, dope smoking, lacking education so I am asking again. Outside of the Constitutional "Qualities" "Eligibility" What "Qualities" would you want a person to have in order to run for President?

[Spunky]

P.S. Sarah Palin is of good moral character. She has governed, she has budgeted, she has gone up against both parties when they are wrong.

So what more would you want from a person?

[sport]

She is ok by me, my FRiend. I was only relating what the slogan of the main stream media and the communists. And also that their fellow travelers parrot the company line.

[wtc911]

If, as you so humorously contend, constitutionally eligible = qualified then you cannot deny that any second generation American who is over thirty-five and not a convicted felon is indeed qualified to be President of the United States.

This includes everyone from Michelle Obama to Al Sharpton to Sarah Bernhardt to Nancy Pelosi to Alec Baldwin, Barbra Streisand and any number of mentally retarded Americans who meet that standard.

Are you standing by your assertion? Do you deem all of these Americans as qualified to be POTUS?

I don't. Elibible, yes - qualified, no.

[RichInOC]

It ultimately resolves down to one answer, and it’s equally true for the Left, moderate-to-liberal Republicans and some folks on the Right, although they each have their own reasons: They’re deathly afraid she’ll take over.

[Spunky]

"If, as you so humorously contend, constitutionally eligible = qualified then you cannot deny that any second generation American who is over thirty-five and not a convicted felon is indeed qualified to be President of the United States."

I can deny your above statement, because you forgot to address the fact they need to be a Natural Born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, and been fourteen years a resident within the United States.

I already gave you definitions for the word eligible. Here it is again from MY dictionary (the other I gave you was from the thesaurus online.

eligible 1. fit to be chosen 2. legally qualified for office. 3. an eligible person.

The Constitution states: "No Person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible (qualified) to the Office of President; neither shall any person be eligible(qualified) to that Office who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty five Years, and been fourteen Years a Resident within the United States."

"This includes everyone from Michelle Obama to Al Sharpton to Sarah Bernhardt to Nancy Pelosi to Alec Baldwin, Barbra Streisand and any number of mentally retarded Americans who meet that standard"

"Are you standing by your assertion? Do you deem all of these Americans as qualified to be POTUS?"

At this point in time I DO NOT know if these people you mention meet all the requirements, eligible (qualified) under the Constitutional Law as described above. They are probably all over thirty-five years of age, but I don't know if they fit the rest of the qualifications under the Constitution.

"I don't. Elibible, yes - qualified, no."

I do not believe the persons you mentioned above have the "QUALITIES"(different from "Qualified" under the Constitution) of the person YOU or I would want to have in a President.

Again Sarah Palin has all the "Qualifications" to be President. She may not have the "Qualities" that you want in a person.

So now that I have made myself clear about "QUALIFIED"(eligible) versus QUALITIES, What "QUALITIES" in your eyes is Sarah Palin lacking or have that you don't like? I pointed out she has governed, she has been responsible for budgets, she has fought both parties when she knew they were wrong. So is it because she is not a male? Is it because of her religion? Is it because she has 5 children? Is it because of her marriage? Is it because she hunts and fishes? Is it because she wears red lipstick; etc that you believe she doesn't have the "QUALITIES" of someone you would want as President?