Posted on 02/14/2011 1:33:52 AM PST by pissant
So is it always others at fault when you say things that are absolutely incorrect?
And now you want to talk about a track record of getting things right?
Laughably inept doesn’t even begin to describe such a position!
I didn’t start it. Dalight, or dayglow or whatever his/her name is said a) I seldom promote Bachmann. and b) that Palin and Bachmann are near 100% agreement. I’ll give you a tidbit:
VAN SUSTEREN: Governor Palin, if you were vice president today, what would you be telling a President McCain about what to do about immigration, if anything?
PALIN: I support his position on immigration.
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,590022,00.html
She (Bachmann) criticized an ill-fated White House plan to beef up border security while providing ways for some illegal immigrants to legalize their status. “It smacked of amnesty,” she said. “People in the Sixth District are not in favor of amnesty for illegal aliens.”
http://www.startribune.com/politics/national/house/12819527.html
Palin should not be held to what she said between July/Aug 2008 and early November 2012.
She isn’t really allowed to disagree with the President as VP. I give her a pass for those months. Those are McCains positions. Anything before or after is more fair game.
We will certainly be arguing about these or similar matters and I have noted your praise of Bachmann, DeMint and Cain.
The Palin quote is March 2010.
This is about right on the money. Except, it wasn't secret behavior that was the problem. It was the loudmouth, entitlement, pushing the gay agenda only behavior that was the problem. They exposed themselves as just a bunch of idiots rather than a truly conservative group who were interested in the best of our country and people.
I am cool with that. Major setback for those pushing this agenda, but honestly, the best thing for everyone else including gays who are serious about saving this great land of freedom and opportunity.
This is what I have been saying for a while, but I have plain got sick of it. The glee he gets for upsetting folks rather than informing them. As I said, if he toned it down about 50% and added real analysis perhaps there would be redeeming social value, for now its just PDS porn. This thread has been a good one though, but that is because this topic did really need covering. But, then 2nd Division or someone else would have posted something like it without the snark. Pissant never uncovers anything I don't already know. But, his crap still needs answering or it seems like folks are agreeing. Its a huge waste of time.
2nd, Bachmann does not have 100% agreement with Palin. Plain is McCain when it comes to amnesty, Bachmann is Steve King. Palin is Newt when it comes to global warming, Bachmann calls the whole thing a socialist hoax. Palin was pimping LOST as governor, Bachmann is the anti-globalist. Palin pushed TARP, Bachmann vociferously opposed it. Palin is a Title IX queen, Bachmann calls herself congressMAN. Palin want federal funding for special needs kids, Bachmann wants to cut welfare.
Cool! Evidence based posting. Now thats a bit better.
Unfortunately you are wrong about Palin and McCain vis-a-vis Amnesty, in fact, lets review the bidding about Palin coming to the aid of Jan Brewer when she was being attacked from all sides. You just make things up. This is my bone to pick with you on these sort of thing. Palin isn't Newt when it comes to anything. Gosh. Palin did not and does not support Global Warming hysteria but she did finesse this issue by building an environmental portfolio. Still, she is the one that sued the EPA on their determination that Polar Bears were threatened. She has been very solid on this. You just are looking for her to be Jim Inhofe which would be nice, and I believe that her position is just about square with his at this point, but there was a time when taking that position was equal to insanity, still she hung tough. Steve King is ok, but he has his RINO moments as well.
Palin supported TARP because McCain supported it. Thats what you do when you are the Vice President candidate, you don't get to run a separate campaign. This is the essence of lame, pissant. We both agree, that Palin is missing the boat on Title IX. Palin has actually made cuts in spending. Bachmann has thus far only be able to talk about such things.
Bachmann is a firebrand whom Sarah Palin supported wholeheartedly and raised significant funds for. Trying to find day light between these two is harder than hard. Only you could find this space, but this is a product of imagining mostly. Nevertheless, Bachmann will continue to take stands that would be poison to anyone running for President, and this is why we like her, support her and cheer her on. Just don't imagine that for a moment she is actually serious about 2012, and because you pretend that you believe she is serious, neither are you.
it might or might not be a huge waste of time, but it’s kind of a ritual of sorts.
Fair enough. What do people usually say when you tell them that?
Reality: McCain adopted a position of "Secure the Border before doing anything else" for his re-election, and Palin could support that and did.
VAN SUSTEREN: One of the big issues in the campaign was immigration in 2008, and you supported a path to citizenship as part of the immigration. Hispanics were very happy with what you were proposing, but then they went with President Obama. Now the Hispanics are unhappy with President Obama because so far, no immigration reform. What happened to immigration? What are we going to do about it? What do you want to do about it?
MCCAIN: Well, two things I think are important. One is the fact that the environment is so difficult on the border. We just had three American citizens murdered in Juarez. The violence and the struggle against the drug cartels is huge. We need to secure the border. We have to get the border secured.
Second of all, the agreement that we made had a temporary guest worker program, a legal temporary guest worker program. This is not in any proposal that the Democrats want because the unions, obviously, control their agenda. So we got to get the border secured. This is an existential threat to the government of Mexico.
VAN SUSTEREN: So how do you secure the border, Senator, because everyone keeps saying we need to secure the border? Do we build a big wall like they did -- like the -- you know, they did in East Europe? What do we do?
MCCAIN: Well, we need to have surveillance capabilities. An attempt that they were making just collapsed. The contractor failed miserably. But we need to do a lot more surveillance. And we could use a lot more high-tech. But to have the drug cartels' violence spill over into the United States of America is a real possibility.
VAN SUSTEREN: Governor Palin, if you were vice president today, what would you be telling a President McCain about what to do about immigration, if anything?
PALIN: I support his position on immigration. It all comes down to securing the border. And he who has actually proposed some solutions, the Obama administration does not want to listen to Senator McCain or any other Republican, and that, of course, leads to a greater problem that we have in Washington, D.C. And it's that lack of the new administration's ability and enthusiasm for listening to those on the other side of the aisle who have some good solutions that they want considered.
Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,590022,00.html#ixzz1DynJkNTV
Once more, a supposed fact pushed by pissant evaporates when you actually look at it. If you have to edit away the answer to get the quote you want, you are just plain dishonest.
You must not think much of Tammy then. Do you really believe she is an unknowing rube? She became a board member of GOProud. Was she so innocent that she was duped into it?Please, how stupid do people like her think others are? I don’t care if she is a lesbo. I just don’t like lesbos who try to fool others.
You mean she was duped. Or is she full of it? I believe the latter.
Screw this sexist crap in the conservative movement. What a bunch of BS.
I didn’t fall off a turnip truck, she and Palin are full of it.
I swear, some of you only want to believe what makes you FEEL good.
See post 107. Pissant selectively quoted Palin to make it look like she had adopted an open borders stance and flip-flopped, but instead, McCain had flip-flopped but pissant was relying on no one actually reading the source he posted which put the lie to his point.
So, as usual it is a complete waste of time. But you can't leave this crap unanswered so another round.
If any of you truly had a leg to stand on, you would quit bringing up pissant. Since you can’t, you blame the failings of your heroine on pissant.
It is so obvious it has become embarrassing. And no, you can’t leave this stuff unanswered.
That is why I had to make this post.
Everyone and their retarded uncle says “secure the border” first. First before WHAT? In McPalin’s words - Amnesty.
I love how folks have no clue what the it means yet try mightily to defend th eindefensible.
Look at the utter effin claptrap McCain says. More hightech bullshiite to “secure the border”. There have been few politicians so full of crap regarding illegal immigration as McCain. And Palin thinks he’s just peachy on the subject.
They spin ferociously. That’s all they can do.
“It was stated in another thread that he’s married with kids...”
I think Breitbart is married to Orson Bean’s daughter.
Nonsense. I know this subject like the back of my hand, unlike any of Palin's fan club members. I take that back, there are a few that understand, they just don't care.
That's simply untrue.
The court admitted they didn't have the ability to change the law, and told the legislature to change it. The legislature rightfully ignored them.
And then Romney, in fulfillment of the promises he had made to his sodomite friends in the Log Cabin Republicans, instituted it solely on his own authority. Threatened the JPs with firing if they wouldn't go along and changed the marriage licenses without the benefit of any enabling legislation whatsoever.
Quit helping Romney try to rewrite history.
That is the opposite of what happened. The court ruled that the existing law meant that gays could marry, but stayed their ruling for 6 months to allow the legislature to change the law if they wanted to try to fix it.
The legislature refused to change it, so after 6 months, as the entire nation understood, including all the nationwide organizations who railed against the court ruling, gay marriage became the law in Mass.
The "lawyers" who insist otherwise never sued to argue their novel theory of the law, because they knew better. It was just an argument, one not accepted or backed up by any contemporaneous written opinions.
My word, we actually were all alive when this happened. We saw the news; we heard Rush, Mark, and Sean. We read all the conservative newsletters. They all said the same thing, what we all knew to be true -- the court made gay marriage legal, and the legislature did nothing to stop them.
I know people have a political reason to make this stupid argument, but that doesn't make it any better an argument.
I disagree with this, and I wish I had it in my to make one of my long-winded arguments detailing my position, but, and I apologize, but I don't think I care that much about my opinion on this.
I think we both agree that both are bad; arguing which is worse I guess is not the most important thing. Thank you for your views on the subject, I do agree that your rationale is compelling.
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.