Posted on 02/02/2010 8:35:43 AM PST by goldstategop
In my view, his presence on these shows alone should disqualify him, but Sarah Palin thinks he’s just wonderful because Sarah Palin doesn’t think. She’s a dummy, and it’s time her blind worshipers woke up to that, but they refuse to awaken from their slumber. Does it not bother her that, as the Sultan points out, Rand Paul compared the U.S. military to Hitler? Hellooooo . . . ?
Either Sarah Palin supports Rand Paul’s nutty views against torturing terrorists and siding with Iran against America or she’s just ignorant and uninformed beyond belief. I vote for both, which is why she is utterly unqualified to be anything in the conservative movement, including a spokesperson and admired figure, much less Presidential timber.
The Sultan points out that not only does Rand Paul side with Iran against America and beseech us to “understand their [Iran's] perspective,” but he calls for us to close Gitmo, and release the terrorists “drop them back off into battle . . . drop ‘em back off into Afghanistan” so they can perpetrate more terrorist attacks against our troops. Remember that the next time you hear the clueless Sarah Palin spout off something her handlers told her to say about how closing Guantanamo Bay is bad. She doesn’t mean what she says. And she doesn’t know what she’s talking about.
Read Sultan Knish’s entire piece . . . and wake the heck up on a complete idiot who now has dangerous power. Her name is Sarah Palin. And she’s a fraud.
(Excerpt) Read more at debbieschlussel.com ...
Debbie is such a jealous hack. Which is kinda strange since she is decent looking
And I hate it that “intellectual” seems to have become an insult on FR these days.
<><><><><><><
Agreed. Around here, the underlying theme is often that intellectual = effete elite.
She and her cohorts give the crackpot theory of Adorno some viability, that ethnocentrism is a mental disorder.
So take it up with the boss!
Thank you. Rand Paul is not the idealogue his father is and he is a true CONSTITUTIONAL conservative...and also I think Ron Paul is grossly misrepresented on these forums sheesh. You’d think he was Hitler or something.
Well said! here here.
Maybe because your version of “intellectual” is in fact “pseudo-intellectual” ... high-sounding, shallow nonsense.
Truth is plain and clear. Honest people are usually the most concise.
The Constitution can fit in your pocket because it’s straight talk. But if 2700 page Healthcare Bills crafted by indulgent academics who may spend a lot of time in books but have no understanding of how the world literally functions is your cup of tea than so be it.
There is more “depth” to someone who’s experienced what it’s like to live amidst the natural wonders of Alaska than someone who’s been jaded by some of the worst trappings of modernity. Minds have very little room to expand within the walled confines of a university—and besides, it’s not as if Palin is not well-read or unknowledgable about history.
In the end how you talk means and what kind of wine you drink means nothing—it’s your actions and accomplishments that count.
I was on this idiot’s other thread last night similar to this.
Am glad this FReeper is not supporting Palin as we don’t need loons in the crowd.
Between my several posts last night and the others,
you wonder if some FReepers can read or are just stupid
thinking he can try this again.
Funny, I think Schlussel is an idiot as well.
Maybe because your version of “intellectual” is in fact “pseudo-intellectual” ... high-sounding, shallow nonsense.
<><><><><><><
No, I don’t think so. I’m pretty sure I can tell the difference. But, that’s a matter of opinion, I guess.
Well. I'm quite skeptical of Dr. Paul but after reading Sarah Palin's endorsement for him I noted that she acknowledges that there are "issues we disagree on" and that she is looking to help "shake up Washington", as she often said during her vice-presidential campaign. Sounds like a reasonable explanation to me. Politics is compromise and I think Sarah Palin realizes that.
Belligerent comments aimed at Palin by those who think she isn't 'conservative enough' or that buy into the the 'stupid' label the left keeps trying to paste on Palin are useless in a rational discussion. Oh, I forgot, it's the internet. Sorry.
I find the hatred directed at Sarah Palin by the left to be repulsive and the only slightly-less vitriolic sneers directed at Sarah Palin by some conservatives (or those pretending to be conservatives on the anonymous internet) to be both troubling and repulsive. One wonders why the anti-Palin intensity seems to be almost equal on the political right as well on the left. No doubt, some of those now dissing Sarah Palin on FR will end up promoting some no-chance, ultra-conservative candidate in the 2012 GOP presidential primaries and that candidate will barely be noticed by the voters as either Sarah Palin or someone else emerges as the Republican candidate to replace Obama in 2012, when the American public will have had a bellyful of 'hope and change', socialist style.
Sarah Palin is clearly a political and social conservative and that is part of the reason the left despises her. Well, that, and her immense popularity. Palin is obviously intelligent and has leadership qualities, as she's proved throughout her life. She is never going to play the political games some expect her to play and she likes the 'maverick' role. I doubt she spends her time obsessing over whether she can be president or what people think of her intelligence. She's self assured and doesn't need the public approval of painfully jealous allegedly 'conservative' shrews like Debbie Schlussel or anonymous posters on conservative websites, such as FR.
While I have no way to know what the political future for Sarah Palin may be, I know that the nonsense recently discussed here regarding 'intellectuals' is pointless. Ronald Reagan was hardly an 'intellectual' yet remains a great president that is revered by conservatives. He was vilified by the left in his day as "too old and out of touch, a "washed-up actor" and, always "dangerous". He was none of these - and proved it.
Today, 30 years later, Sarah Palin is sneered at as "not sufficiently experienced" as if warming a seat in congress transforms one into some sort of national policy wizard. Ronald Reagan had no 'foreign policy experience' and did just fine, thanks. Like Reagan, Palin lacks an Ivy League education and for that, the left (and some on the right) sneer at her. Her 'grass roots' approach to government scares the left and seems to unsettle some on the right. That's too bad. I won't rule out Sarah Palin as a viable candidate for president in 2012 but she'll likely be hard-put, just as Reagan was, to secure the RNC endorsement. She'll have to win primaries and buck both liberals assailing her while they vote for some RINO in 'open' primaries (which should be illegal) and some 'conservatives' crying that she's not conservative enough and mocking her candidacy while boosting some no-chance loser who says the right things and graduated from Yale. In that scenario, I'll vote for Palin.
For now, I'll just observe and marvel at the level of antagonism some 'conservatives' seem to have for a woman who has lived a life based on conservative values and is wildly popular with millions.
If you have read any of the three authors I have mentioned (or perhaps Thomas Sowell, who is in my opinion the most likely contemporary for inclusion in that group) you would be aware that "shallow nonsense" is a far from accurate description.
My concept of a conservative intellectual is one who is grounded in the historical roots of conservatism from classical times through the growth of European conservatism and the writings of our founding fathers.
A good example of a "shallow" comment would be "“Plato said it well, ‘Be kind, for everyone you meet is fighting a hard battle,’" when what you're citing is a made up quote pulled off the internet.
It’s a fairly minor power - I could do it, if I spritzed my hair and put on makeup.
None, which is one reason why I'm not ready to govern. I would never run a state because I wouldn't be good at it. I'm glad she was good at running Alaska. In my opinion, she is not ready to run the country. I'm a voter, so my opinion gets to count. She chose Rick Perry to support. That is one example where I disagree with her priorities. She doesn't represent me because she is apparently not conservative enough. If she were, she wouldn't support Perry.
Well said, sir.
The ad hominem is beneath you, and worse, aligns you and Schlussel with the worst of the left that attacks Palin simply as a proxy for attacking anyone to the right of, say, Evan Bayh. Palin’s no idiot, and her endorsement of the candidate does not require or imply that she agree with him on everything; only that she views this particular candidate, in this particular race, as the best available to move the agenda forward.
I know this much: Palin is indispensable to the conservative movement. Schlussel is not. And snarky attacks on Palin’s family, intelligence, motives or sophistication help the opposition, and hurt the good guys. But maybe that’s your goal?
To Pro-Palin people:
I have not made up my mind about Palin. The #1 thing she has done to make me skeptical is her support for Perry over Medina. Perry is a wonderful example of what is wrong with Texas politics.
Some of you appear to be Palin loons. I don’t think Palin is a loon, but I think some of you have lost your minds. I haven’t made up my mind and all I see are attacks without any real argument on why I should support her.
A, “Hey, she supported Perry because she thinks . . . .” would do. As it stands, she is supporting 1 of 2 elitists for governor.
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.