Posted on 11/09/2010 10:58:28 PM PST by 2ndDivisionVet
Cram it.
All you are proposing is that we give Obama his very own Ross Perot. No thanks. I stand with Reagan and will take the GOP back. We've already started.
>>It would seem that you enjoy the give and take of a “flame war.” Sometimes it doesn’t happen naturally, though, and you have to write something deliberately provocative. That is a way to get sparks but does not contribute to any effort to convince anyone of anything other than your own penchant for getting a “yelling” match going.<<
In this case I am not looking for a flame war (although a rollicking one is always fun as long as no one takes it personally).
I want to note the following:
1) I have not suggested that supporters of Mrs. Palin are not smart, etc. I merely think their political calculus returns an incorrect result. Look back over my posts — you will see I have not insulted anyone (given point 2, below).
2) I (accurately) noted that anyone (such as, say, me) who criticizes Mrs. Palin gets flamed pretty badly.
3) I post this out of genuine concern for 2012. Yes, it is my opinion but I base it on some logic, which I post and is rarely refuted. Maybe Mrs. Palin can overcome the deficiencies I note, but no one has said HOW, other than to say “well, she just can.”
I do NOT want another 4 years of the TOTUS-reading fuhrer. It will take us 10 years to undo the damage he has done, domestically and internationally. If he has another 4 years it may take a generation.
Mrs. Palin is not the solution at this time.
It seems you haven’t recognized a standard formula for what it is.
By which I mean, one of the most common ways to to publicly criticize someone like Palin is to package the criticism in what appears to be praise.
The oldest trick in the book—talking out of two sides of one’s mouth. Progressives love to use this tactic. RINOs and the ruling class in general have also mastered it.
And one of the most common signs of a cult is the complete inability to think of anything at all that could possibly be wrong, and a knee-jerk dismissal of any comment that in any way questions the perfection that the cult perceives.
If I say “I love free republic, it’s still the best place for one-stop shopping for news and conservative commentary, although there are way too many vanity and blog posts and people repeating the same story a dozen times”, you think that I’m really trying to trash Free Republic?
Oddly, this is exactly how one describes something they really like but want to make better. We definitely need to do a better job of picking candidates in 2012. That people are upset about someone suggesting this is not a good thing.
I stand with Reagan but will not support Romney or any part of the Republican Party if he is the 2012 nominee. If he is the nominee then it’s We Are All Socialists Now! and I will not be part of that. If that happens then there will either be a third party which will probably lose it all or a replacement party which will collect up all the conservatives ans win. When the DNC and the Democrats-as-Republicans give us Romney then I will seriously take stock of my supplies and begin to do what one has to do.
“She is not electable” is not the truth, it’s just an opinion.
Stating one’s opinion as immutable truth is asking to be flamed.
Thanks for explaining. obviously i think you are wrong. shes going to be fine if she runs and gets the nomination.
America will get to know the real Sarah
‘Mrs. Palin is not the solution at this time.’
You can’t beat someone with no one. Arbitrarily comparing a candidate to a theoretical perfect candidate is meaningless. If you do not favor Palin, who is your candidate. I have not made up my mind, but have some negative criteria:
1) No Congresscritters
2) No one who served in the Bush administration
3) No one east of the Delaware River.
Charles, the floor is yours.
Pick a candidate already (Sheesh!) and let it stand up to the necessary scrutiny.
You can’t beat someone with no one. Arbitrarily comparing a candidate to a theoretical perfect candidate is meaningless.
Amen LCS.
These "concerned" posters lecturing people about their Palin pick, yet they offer no alternative...
We will have a conservative, electable candidate for senate in my state in 2012. Their first general election campaign commercial will NOT start with the words “I am not a witch”.
I suggest that each of us look in our own states for electable conservatives who we can get to take on the task.
>>Stating one’s opinion as immutable truth is asking to be flamed.<<
I shall forthwith and forever more attempt to remember to add “IMHO” after all the posts I make on FR.
Of course, since about 99% of all posts on FR are in the opinion of the poster I assume you shall demand the same of all, including yourself.
In fact, the statement “Stating one’s opinion as immutable truth is asking to be flamed” is stated as a fact, when it is but your opinion.
You should be more careful in the future about signposting your opinions, else they be taken as assertion of a fact and you are flame bait.
And no one has yet to contest a single argument I have made in why I think she is unelectable. Whereas your assertion about posting opinions as fact is unsupported by any argumentation whatsoever.
When you grasp a sword by the blade your hands can get cut...
Note to any and all who assert that Governor Palin is flatly, inevitably unelectable as president: You’re entitled to your opinion. And at some point, through the electoral process, your opinion may be proven to be the truth. Until then, you simply don’t get to pretend it is.
>>You can’t beat someone with no one. Arbitrarily comparing a candidate to a theoretical perfect candidate is meaningless.
“Amen LCS.
These “concerned” posters lecturing people about their Palin pick, yet they offer no alternative.”
<<
There is no forensic onus in pointing out that something/someone is bad to then provide a “good” substitute. If we select Mrs. Palin as the candidate (which I doubt will happen anyway), she will lose (IMHO) and we will be stuck with the TOTUS-reader for another 4 years. Her minuses I have laid out (and they are still unrefuted).
I can tell you that (again IMHO, since people think that any post that doesn’t SAY “IMHO” is stated as a fact) NONE of the candidates in 2008 should run again. They all stink (IMHO).
We need some fresh blood — Demint? Bonds? I don’t know about who would be better, but I am pretty sure who we should NOT run.
And I am not alone. That is what you should be concentrating on.
Oh — IMHO.
>>Note to any and all who assert that Governor Palin is flatly, inevitably unelectable as president: You’re entitled to your opinion. And at some point, through the electoral process, your opinion may be proven to be the truth. Until then, you simply don’t get to pretend it is.<<
Is that a fact or your opinion?
All candidates are ‘good’ and ‘bad’ in different ways and proportions, and only in relation to other candidates. I do not favor DeMint, since he is a congresscritter.
It is assumed that most post on FR are opinions, with no disclaimer required, unless the poster goes out of his way to insist he is not stating an opinion but a fact, in which case he will be challenged to produce evidence for said “fact” or retract the claim. Opinions don’t require proof, truth claims do.
You didn’t simply fail to offer an opinion disclaimer, you made a truth claim.
No.
To say Palin caused the loss of the senate is not constructive criticism, it’s a fabrication.
It’s an attempt to make the loss of the senate an issue against Palin, because the agenda to stop Palin is sorely in need of ammunition.
Those are not exclusive; the charge is a constructive criticism, and in this case, it is not accurate. So I guess you could argue that any charge that turns out not to be true ceases to be constructive criticism, but you really seem to be arguing that making the claim was wrong, not that the claim itself was wrong.
And I seriously doubt that Bachus is part of this nefarious plot to stop Sarah Palin. He seems to really like her, and has said nice things about her.
>>. Opinions don’t require proof, truth claims do.<<
And the arbitrator of a “truth” vs. “opinion” claim is exactly whom?
And, I note your truth claim of “Opinions don’t require proof, truth claims do” is unsubstantiated and thus requires an “opinion” signpost.
The bottom line: You can’t win this one (I M H O). Every opinion is an opinion, whether it be declarative or sidled-up-to.
If a statement such as “Mrs. Palin is unelectable” requires me to signpost it as an opinion, I have a solution (see tag). Of course, to meet the ill-defined requirement of “opinion vs. truth claim” everyone else will need to apply the same solution.
Sadly, we will lose some very clever taglines, but forensics is a harsh mistress.
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.