Posted on 03/25/2010 9:14:21 PM PDT by rabscuttle385
Link only, per FR posting rules
“When you can’t recognize obvious satire, give up.”
You’re a laugh a minute.
““When you can’t recognize obvious satire, give up.””
That’s just you excusing your ignorance, neverconservative.
I would have a hard time with her connection to McCain if I thought she shared his views on a wide variety of issues. But I have more respect for McCain I guess than a lot of people here, not that he deserves it.
I guess I think slightly less badly about McCain because Sarah Palin, who spent a significant amount of time with him and his family, says he’s a good man. Either she is a lousy judge of character, or the picture I had painted of him wasn’t accurate.
Since at the moment I trust her judgment, and since I have never met him myself, I give her the benefit of the doubt on this one — not that it would make me send money, or vote for him if I lived in Arizona in the primary.
It’s funny because I certainly am not as much of a Palin supporter as many people here are, but I think I respect her position more than they do.
You started the argument. You couldn't recognize obvious satire about McCain's attack on the First Amendment. You excerpted selectively. Now you start ad hominems. That's pretty good, although that is usually a sign of the left. Adios
“You started the argument”
Actually, no... you questioned my statement that he attacked the Constitution by stating that no, he attacked the First Amendment.
“That’s pretty good, although that is usually a sign of the left. Adios”
Pretty amusing coming from a McCainiac.
My view was more practical and pragmatic. Back when we had 4.5% unemployment, an argument could be made that to some extent, illegals weren’t hurting americans looking for work (although I wanted the bill to address that specifically by adding protections for american workers in the H1B and other visa programs).
SO I looked at illegals who for years were given a wink and a nod. They lived on our streets, spoke OUR language, were integrated into OUR culture. They had jobs, they owned businesses that employed americans. They paid their mortgages, kept their property neat, served on the PTA. These were people who, if you had to judge who to let in, are exactly what you’d hope you’d get.
There only problem, a major one, is that they broke the rules to get here. So I figure, for this small subset, maybe it’s 1 or 2 million out of the 12 million, that have been here a long time, that we essentially ENCOURAGED to break the rules (since the legal immigration system was broken — another thing I wanted to fix in the bill), that we would impose a fine, issue a temporary work visa, and let them put their name on the BOTTOM of the list for immigration.
And if others were found that would be better suited than these people who lived here, and we had met our quota, then we’d give THOSE people visas to come into the country, and send our current neighbors home — but as I said, we started with the few that already had proven their worth to our country.
Under my plan, nobody would be eligible to stay if they had forged a social security number, had not paid their taxes, or had any convictions more serious than a speeding ticket. If they had accepted government checks, they were gone — we would only grant this special privilege to those who had real jobs and had proven they wanted to be Americans, not hyphenated people looking to change our country.
I know a lot of people didn’t agree with me. And now that we have 10% unemployment, we don’t have free jobs for people who cheated.
I often used the example of people sneaking into a rock concert, and sitting in other people’s seats. When the concert isn’t very crowded, we can force the interlopers to pay for a seat, and a penalty for cheating, and move them to seats that aren’t taken — we don’t have to kick them out of the stadium.
But when the stadium is sold out, there are no free slots, and we need to send them home. They can’t benefit from cheating.
Hopefully it’s because I was so good at defending him against false or spurious attacks, of which there were more than a few.
But as I said repeatedly, my “support” for Romney was not based on my feelings for Romney, but on my analysis of his campaign platform relative to other viable candidates. Sure, I was counting on him doing something different than he had in the past, but we all have to put some level of trust in candidates that they will do what they say they will do, and contrary to some of the attacks, in my opinion Romney was pretty good at keeping whatever promises he had made to get elected to an office, even if some of those promises were different than the promises he made later for another office.
Would I rather have a candidate who had been consistant all along? Sure, which is one of the positives I see in Sarah Palin. Fred Thompson looked good on that point as well, which is why I supported him until it was clear he had waited to long and didn’t have the heart for the battle, and was losing all the primaries (remember the few heady days when he was polling first? unfortunately, it didn’t last). Huckabee, Giuliani, McCain, Romney — of those four, I STILL say that Romney had the best campaign platform, and was the most trustworthy of the bunch.
I know people violently disagree with me on that point. Which is fine. I always said that if you didn’t trust him to keep his word, you should not vote for him, because his record wasn’t consistant.
But it was absurd for people to try to put me in a category with those who connected with a candidate and then tried to justify what they did. And that hurt those who argued against me, and in a few cases still does, although most who argue against Romney now are just going through the motions, and aren’t seriously trying to win people over.
I don’t think Romney has a chance this time — Romneycare is too big a weight around his ankles. But I won’t write him off — people really don’t like Obama, and if Palin doesn’t run, and we can’t find a candidate who looks like they can beat Obama, and Romney has the same platform as last time, I think he would be a better candidate than McCain was in 2008.
But that’s a ways off, and I am quite hopeful that we will have a candidate most of us can rally around, like Thompson in 2008, but who will get into the race early enough to actually win the primary.
As for Palin, I think her biggest damage at FR is done by her most avid supporters, who constantly claim that she is being devious, deceptive, lying, or clueless when she says things they don’t like.
Could you get your editor to shorten that up a little? I’m not going to wade through that.
Pretty amusing when I wrote in comment# 254, "Let the voters decide. I hope he loses"? It time to stop obsessing with your hatred of McCain, IMHO.
“If I were Palin, I would campaign for McCain even though I don’t like his positions. “
Yeah... you’d campaign for a traitor.... and you didn’t even read the article.... LOL. You don’t know what she said. You don’t care what she said. You just admire her loyalty to one of our greatest enemies and you’d make that personal loyalty over country decision the same way yourself....
“It time to stop obsessing with your hatred of McCain, IMHO”
It’s time for you to pound sand, IMHO.
I would prefer not to engage in some debate over some detail that you find important but that I’ve obviously forgotten about hundreds of posts ago. But in one last attempt to get you to stop berating me with repeated posts, I will try to explain to you the meaning of this post. If you disagree with my explanation, ok. We don’t have to agree. You can call me a liar, whatever. I don’t need to know that you disagree or that you think I’m a liar. Please just let it go after this.
In your post you quoted:
“But some Republican analysts say a Palin endorsement could be a double-edge sword in the crucially important swing state of Florida.
“A Palin endorsement of Rubio gives a boost in the short term because of attention it brings,” said Doug Heye a GOP campaign analyst and a campaign veteran. “It helps Charlie Crist in the long term. To win a primary in a state as large as Florida, a candidate needs a broad base of support within the party. The people who support Palin already support Marco Rubio, and many of the primary voters up for grabs are not Palin supporters.”
This post expresses the view that endorsing Rubio gives Palin short term attention, but helps Charlie Crist in the long term, because she is failing to build “broad based support”. This means the person quoted feels that Palin should cater to broad based support in the Republican party in Florida. This is the view that we need to have a “big tent” (I am not quoting anyone. I am simply using quotation marks to denote that this is a term that is used in general by people.)
The big tent = broad based Republican support as opposed to focused support by conservatives.
My post said we don’t need to have a big tent, a big tent is for clowns.
I am making the point that we do not have to pursue broad-based support in order to be effective as a party.
I hope you can accept this as my opinion whether or not you agree with it and let’s end this particular exchange. Thanks, and I will not be responding to you further, unless you want to talk about something new.
Initially no, but I did eventually. That's why I could later write that it was a puff piece of an OpEd. I wasn't interested in what she had to say about McCain because I hope McCain loses. I was glad Palin was repaying an obligation of loyalty. I have seen enough disloyalty.
At the same time, there's too much vitriol. Self identified conservatives have increased from about a third of the electorate to only about forty percent in the latest Gallup, IIRC. Who knows how many rats consider themselves conservative? I want to win in the elections. Forty percent isn't good enough. We have to attract enough moderates and independents before the rats do any more damage.
You are certainly welcome to your opinion. If you don’t have a problem with her endorsing McCain or what that implies, great. Each person must decide for themselves.
For me, its the thin end of the wedge. If she’ll support McCain, will she support Lindsey Graham? Where exactly does it end? I’d like to know. I like her, but I’m not ready to follow someone blindly.
“Her explanation for the endorsement-personal loyalty to her former running mate-is self evident.”
I accept her explanation, but how much loyalty does she owe him? Unlimited loyalty? How much compromise with liberalism does she have to ignore in order for the loyalty balance to be paid? Think of each of the things he’s supported. How much liberalism is necessary for Palin’s loyalty debt to be paid? How much unnecessary spending? I guess my gut feeling on this is, she’s already done enough to prove her loyalty. How about focusing that Palin energy on getting some conservatives elected.
“I accept it as do most conservatives on FR and others including Rush, Mark Levin and (incidentally) Jim Robinson.”
That’s fine, but I don’t take my cues from Rush, Mark Levin, etc. I love listening to them but just because Rush says its ok for Palin to endorse John McCain, he doesn’t get a pass just because he is Rush.
“As far as I am concerned, it is a tempest in a teapot with which the Paul/ Mitt axis is trying(very unsuccessfully)to damage Palin.”
Maybe they are, but she’s opened herself up to it. It was a decision to do it and she made the decision. Just like for everyone else, decisions have consequences.
“I was glad Palin was repaying an obligation of loyalty. I have seen enough disloyalty.”
Loyalty to country first.
” Who knows how many rats consider themselves conservative?”
Quite a few Republicans consider themselves “conservatives” without being so.
Actually that was a political analyst saying that a Palin endorsement would give Rubio a short term boost but would have the overall effect on his race of lowering his current support among the normally Crist supporters that have moved to Rubio and having some of them move back to Crist.
It was a tactical and strategical comment on the dynamics of the Rubio and Crist primary in which Rubio is far ahead, it was not about Palin.
This would have been so much easier if you hadn’t ambushed me with a fake quote and then refused to tell why you were doing it, or what you were driving at, now that you finally explained what your post to me was about, I could finally clear it up for you.
The challanges that I see in the horizon will make amnesty, tax-n-trade and closing Gitmo look like litter in the water. We are facing an economic desaster that will take the world economy down like dominos. We need the best we can put forth to turn this . . . this Titanic around. I think McCain, for all that can be said against him, knows how to reverse screws port and starboard and put the rudder midships.
Arizona needs to put McCain back in at this time for the best interest of this country.
Hayworth can take the con when the iceburg is past.
Did McCain betray his country? How could McCain think he was being disloyal to the country? How could Palin think she was being disloyal to the country? I think of loyalty in the personal sense first as in family and friends. Other people are free to think what they want. Look up loyalty. It can get complicated.
you must be either a troll or a rin-o-p hack...
editing my earlier post, the ole juan chose SP, in my opinion, because he believed that she would torpedo his campaign...
i nearly threw something at the tv when he gave all gushing praise to the islamocommie fool in the 'debates'...
and he still didnt get blown out like he shoulve...
with friends like jm, weve got too many enemys...
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.