Posted on 01/19/2011 12:18:49 AM PST by pissant
When you ask Barack Obama’s admirers what they like most about him, you will typically hear of his personality traits before any specifics about policy. Obama’s fans say that he is so “smart… cool-headed… articulate…” To point out that in terms of policy, Obama isn’t that different from most other conventional Democrats–or even that different from George W. Bush–does little to dissuade the president’s most ardent champions, and any failure to live up to liberal ideals does little to change Obama’s current popular status as liberalism personified.
Sarah Palin is the Republican Obama. When you ask Palin’s admirers what they like most about her, you will typically hear of her personality traits before any specifics about policy. Palin’s fans say that she is “warm-hearted… down-to-earth… a good mom…” To point out that Palin’s actual politics aren’t that different from most other conventional Republicans, or in some ways, not much different from Obama’s, does not dissuade the former Alaska governor’s most ardent champions. And any failure to live up to conservative ideals fails to change Palin’s popular status as conservatism personified.
Obama and Palin represent opposing versions of the same identity politics. Based primarily on personality, love, or hatred for the other, it is politics driven primarily by emotion–not logic. If you don’t believe me, try telling an Obama-loving Democrat that he is no different from a Palin-loving Republican or vice versa. Even the soundest reasoning will do little to quell the forthcoming rage.
(Excerpt) Read more at amconmag.com ...
I support Ron Paul? Romney? Barbour? If you’re that removed from reality, then I guess I understand why you think Palin is a conservative
No, I (and apparently Palin) believe in the US constitution where BOTH abortion laws AND murder laws should both be at the state level as they were most of US history. I understand the political expediency in crafting these Federal laws but it sort of throws the argument that the other side violates the Constitution in the tank. That was the big problem with Bush apologists that suddenly got religion on the constitution January 2009. And there are many other examples i wont go into here.
No. If you believe that an unborn child is indeed a human being, then they are deserving of constitutional protections. We can leave it up to the states how they want to punish the crime of abortion. The states all prosecute murder, for it is understood that all citizens have a constitutional right to their life. IOW, a state cannot decide that murder is OK if you are a homeless drunk. Or retarded. Or a certain minority. Or a certain age (except pre-born).
This has nothing to do with Bush. Bush didn’t push for ‘life at conception’ legislation nor did he tout an amendment remedy. Either an unborn child is a person or he isn’t
You are completely misreading the US constitution as Democrats and many Republicans do. The US constitution protects you FROM the government, NOT from your mother. It is the state's job to protect you from your parents, or anyone else. That is why states made the murder and abortion laws for most of US history. The 1960s civil rights act has some provisions that should have been ruled unconstitutional and would of been 50 years earlier, primarily regarding private businesses.
The expansive view of US constitutional protections, that it protects everybody from everybody, is how we get the government taking businesses and property and giving it to others.
Palin is growing on me the last few comments.
No, YOU misread the constitution. And have it ass backwards, as well as the Declaration of Independence. Our rights, life, liberty are given to us by our creator. They are inalienable, and codified in the constitution. Georgia cannot decide not to prosecute citizens for violating another’s constitutional rights. The KKK rightly became a federal concern. Just as it is illegal, FINALLY, for Chicago to ban handguns. So too, would it be illegal for “gun control” vigilantes to set up roadblocks in Illinois and confiscate other citizens firearms. Illinois would be the place to prosecute such vigilantes, but if they chose instead to “legalize” such activity via non-prosecution, the citizens would have a federal remedy.
AGAIN:
The constitution protects you from the government, not you from your parents. That was left to the states. If it was the federal governments job in the US constitution to protect you from your parents, it would make perfect sense for the Federal government to force you to go to a doctor and get medical treatment(even if you are not a threat), to protect you from you letting yourself get sick.
The US constitution was not interpreted as you do as all powerful until Roosevelt packed the courts.
Nonsense. NO entity, mom, State, Uncle Mo, gets to violate another’s constitutional rights.
Can the KKK set up road blocks to keep blacks from voting if SC decides it likes the KKK.
Can Oregon allow doctors to execute any patient over 65 who needs a knee replacement?
Can Hawaii turn a blind eye if the ‘native’ population goes on a vigilante confiscation of “whitey” property?
Your medical treatment example is a straw man. The constitution does not address medical care, and therefore that is (or needs to be) entirely a state/individual matter. Just as SHOULD be 80% of what the feds have put their paws in.
The Constitution does address voting, gun ownership, LIFE, property, due process, etc etc, which neither the states, nor towns, nor counties, not homeowners associations, nor vigilantes, nor cousin Zeke, can violate.
“Drill Baby Drill” is not a personality trait . Its common sense.
And the prospects for American energy independence threaten the entire geopolitical New World Order strategy.
Because she could pull it off.
Palin is not a Progressive...PERIOD.
They hate her so much because she refuses to live a lie.
The Progressives only know how to live a lie and they want to force everyone else into their personal hell.
This is why constitutional arguments against Obama dont get taken seriously, because so many Republicans want to give unlimited power to the Federal government to force things they think are right.
We beat this one to death :)
You are yakking on and on about “unlimited” powers. I subscribe to our VERY limited Constitution. That specifically protects certain rights, from state interference or state indifference. They are enumerated quite clearly. Among them is life.
A state CANNOT promote or tolerate wholesale violations of those enumerated rights. Thus, Black Panthers cannot block whitey from voting (unless Holder is AG), just as the KKK cannot block minorities, NO MATTER WHAT the State does or does not do.
A state CAN, however, regulate the hell out of the healthcare industry, can make mooning your neighbor a felony, can require you to be 40 years of age to drive a car, can ban pop tarts, or require every home to keep a years supply of them.
Palin is quicker in getting her words out than any politician in the last 50 years, this is a sign she says what she believes! Finally, someone who tells the Truth!
Some people seems to think a woman can’t run this country, that’s another reason why she needs to be the first woman President!
She would do a lot to hurt the men having sex with men lifestyle, Normal would be back in again! That’s probably the biggest reason that the anti Palin freepers keeping spurring out all the same negatives Reagan lived with, yes, our token liberal democrat Trolls and with their sick lifestyle!
pissant...a jackass braying with jackasses.
You poor little retard.
LOL
Best Thread Posted in the last year!
Order For Palin To Lose, Someone Must Beat Her (To the PDS Chorus: Put up or Shup up)
2/21/2010 | Brices Crossroads
Posted on Sunday, February 21, 2010 9:31:41 PM by Brices Crossroads
For a number of weeks now, I have noticed here on Free Republic an increase in the number of posters who say that former Governor Sarah Palin is unelectable. he reasons proffered are usually two fold: First, her resignation as Governor of Alaska forever brands her as a quitter, and the American people will never elect a quitter. Second, she has been so damaged by the hostile MainStream Media, and will be further damaged in another campaign that she can never defeat Barack Obama in a general election. Leaving aside the criticisms of her for the moment (inasmuch as they have been addressed and debated in numerous other posts), I maintain that the 2012 election will be a referendum on Barack Obama. If he has succeeded, he will likely be returned to office. If, on the other hand, he has failed, he will be defeated, in effect fired by the American people. The GOP nominee, whoever that is, will in all probability become the 45th President of the United States. In a word, the GOP nomination will be worth having.
Which begs the question, and I address it specifically to those posters among you who have been quick to point out your perception of Palin’s flaws, including and especially her alleged “unelectability”: name the potential candidate(s) you believe a) would be a better President; and b) have the political skills and appeal to defeat her in a GOP primary. As the saying goes, you cannot beat something with nothing.
And the ones that do...
Meh. Even on his own threads he's a loser.
Yeah, they’re practically twins. You know...just like Arnold Schwarzenegger and Danny DeVito.
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.