The only reason McQueeg pulled double digits in the election was because of Palin.
You are pathetic...
Posted on 02/18/2011 2:18:06 AM PST by pissant
I think American voters would do better to think about the influence political leaders exert by their words and actions, instead of treating their speeches (not to mention their sound bites and 60-second spots) as evidence of anything but what they think we want to hear. This came to mind last week as I read the report about Sarah Palin's non-appearance at this year's biggest conservative non-event (or should that be biggest non-conservative, pretending-to-be-conservative event?). She released a statement intended to keep her distance from the individuals and organizations whose non-appearance was meant to convey disapproval of CPAC's trendy surrender to the homosexual lobby.
Why, you rightly ask, would someone touted as the maverick spokesman for the pro-life, pro-family tea-party grass roots of the GOP be anxious to make it clear that she had no problem with the push to make GOProud an icon of conservative legitimacy? "Palin suggested that conservative groups had more important issues to worry about than which groups were attending the conference. 'There are so many life-changing, life-and-death issues out there in front of us. You know, we'd better be concentrating on what is really important here. …'"
(Excerpt) Read more at wnd.com ...
And, curiously, this has nothing to do with homosexual votes, and little to do with homosexual money.
The "gay agenda" is enormously popular with straights (except for legal marriage if it's called marriage).
Why is this? What IS the "gay agenda"?
The gay agenda is to normalize "f*** who you want, when, where, and how you want". The rest of it is commentary, but the core principle is that sex, any sex, between consenting sexual beings is 1) good, and 2) so important and necessary that all other considerations of a legal or social nature must be done away with or repressed.
This message is very popular in our sexualized culture. It has overwhelming support among voters of both parties, both sexes, and all ages.
That's why voters won't support "anti-gay" candidates (again, except in the case of the marriage laws).
*WARNING* PISSANT IS A *DISCOURAGEMENT TROLL*
What exactly did Palin say?
Alan Keyes is allied with some of the nuttier birthers, such as Gary Kreep and Orly Taitz, so pot, kettle, black.
Governor Palin never said this. She said she had no problem with GOProud speaking at CPAC. Basically she meant if CPAC wants to allow a homosexual group to speak there, that's their problem. Did she speak there? Has she ever endorsed GOProud's or the homosexual agenda?
Alan Keyes is a disingenuous loser who can't get elected to the town water board.
She said she had no problem with GOProud speaking at CPAC. Read between the lines. CPAC is an organization in decline. If they want to have homosexuals and jihadists speaking for them, what business is it of mine? (paraphrasing Palin).
Palin has never spoken at CPAC and she doesn't like Keene, who is the President of CPAC. So how can this be construed as Palin be homo-friendly? Basically she's saying that whoever speaks at CPAC is their problem, not hers.
Keyes sadly resorts to strawman gutter-politics that other establishment conservatives and Republicans resentful of Palin use in a desperate attempt to derail her ambitions.
Yeah, right. And Sarah Palin thinks questions about the man sitting in the Oval Office’s constitutional fitness to serve are a nuisance and a “distraction” from what really matters: the economy.
And yet the economic troubles are just a symptom of the underlying moral problem that Alan Keyes seems to understand better than practically anyone else.
I have little use for Orly Taitz, frankly. But there’s nothing nutty about Gary Kreep. What are you talking about?
I just did.
Why is Keyes defending an organization that welcomes jihadists and homosexuals, and who's founder has ethical problems.
What are you talking about? Where is he defending them?
Please post any statement or article where Governor Palin explicitly endorses or is sympathetic to the homosexual agenda.
His entire article is based on the strawman that CPAC is a conservative organization and that Palin, by mentioning that she has no problem with GOProud speaking there, means she is "winking" at the homosexual lobby.
CPAC is not a conservative organization. They are an establishment, RINO organization that is nothing more than a cattle call for desperate GOP presidential candidates.
I'll do even better: When she became Governor of Alaska she was faced with a constitutional crisis of sorts over the homosexual agenda. The top court in her state had told the legislature that it had to legalize same-sex benefits for state employees. The legislature rightfully responded with legislation doing the exact opposite of what that leftist court wanted. Palin was faced with one of those water-shed decisions about which of the other two branches of government she would throw the executive branch in with. What did she do? She vetoed the legislation and sided with the liberal pro-homosexual court.
Those sorts of actions mean more than mere words, wouldn't you say?
This came to mind last week as I read the report about Sarah Palin's non-appearance at this year's biggest conservative non-event (or should that be biggest non-conservative, pretending-to-be-conservative event?).
The only reason McQueeg pulled double digits in the election was because of Palin.
You are pathetic...
Why is that?
This place has been over run by mental midgets like pissant.
As long as there are so many ignorant self stroking goofballs on here, I guess the country won't follow their lead.
This time we have a real opportunity with Governor Palin; here's a chance for FR to step up and show it's not a bastion of losers. After the literal explosion of PDS rants the past two days I won't hold my breath.
We, eventually, lined up behind Jorge Arbusto for both terms. But no, we have never had universal agreement here. Here, it should be safe to do so. To talk through differences.
It helps to be honest about them though... Which some folks ditch early just to score "points" on some imaginary score card in their heads. So you end up with threads like this one. Spouted by an ideologue by an ideologue against someone who really doesn't deserve it.
Is Palin a perfect candidate? Probably not. Is she the best one to have stepped forward so far? Quite possibly. Depends on how much traction Cain can get...
Actually, the political downfall came because child custody records reviewed he had asked the "hot actress wife" to perform sex acts with him in clubs, not over allegations of an affair.
Palin is right to separate herself from "Birthers." They've become Obama's "tin foil conspiracy" whipping boy, analogous to Hillary's "vast right wing conspiracy." The focus must be the issue of ensuring eligibility going forward by requiring candidate's proof at the state level. If Obama is caught by that web, so be it.
Right. But just ask her supporters to name any federal programs or agencies that she's actually proposed cutting if you want to see heads explode and the invective to fly.
I see you know nothing about Sarah Palin.
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.