Posted on 07/10/2011 10:31:40 AM PDT by kristinn
I read both books but for some reason thought the thumpin’ stuff was in her 2nd book.
I did think that Going Rogue was published earlier (i.e. closer to the 2008 election) as I recall the detail-by-detail account of the Couric interview.
Again - my mistake.
Fred is another candidate for a reading of Sun Tzu. Perhaps that may open his eyes a bit.
Fred? Give it a go. Art of War explains much.
Thanks for being honest when you didnt have to. It is a sign of character.
So show some of your own and answer my questions. I answered yours...twice.
I'm still waiting....................................
I’m truly obsessed with the fact she can’t win because most Americans will believe she quit. That’s what I’m obsessed with. I want someone that can beat Barak Hussein Obama. She cannot. As much as I love her, she cannot win. That’s what I’m obsessed with.
I hope I’m wrong, but I’ve been pegging this stuff pretty well for a long time. I was heckled here about some of that absolute moonbats we had running in 2010 and said they would lose (which they did). In this case, Palin isn’t a moonbat but she still can’t win. Unfortunately we do the same thing we always do, snatch defeat from the jaws of victory. Beating Obama in 2012 should not be hard with the right candidate, unfortunately we will probably screw that up. Beating Reid in Nevada should have been a cake walk...except we screwed it up. Etc, etc, etc.
Wind...I’ll pick up the kindle and do that, can you please also google why Palin quit and read the various media interpretations. Then factor in how many people, mostly independents, are going to go pick up her book or believe what the media is saying on why she quit.
That, is why she cannot win among many other reasons. Or maybe her campaign can buy every likely voter a copy of her book.
I like it when you defend a candidate. Palin didn't quit anything, she stepped hip deep into the fight, defending herself on a national level.
If you refuse, then you have turned into a spam/concern troll.
If I said to you the sky was made of rock and every news outlet swore it to be true, would you believe it?
“She can’t win” is nothing but crap. If people stop spouting that garbage and vote for her based on her bonifides, not media spin, she will win. You are helping the media meme. Why?
Is that post directed to me?
Really?
freepmail to you
My definition of quit... Being active and then becoming dormant. Palin went from active to super active in what she was capable of. You're 180 degrees out in your assessment, and the people realize Palin's no quitter. You're odd ball out.
Thanks!
Okay, I'm impressed and now understand your post to me.
Thank you!
With all due respect, I don't give a rat's ass what the media's interpretation of events is.
That said, I read lots of the media's interpretations as they were published. An ex-Freeper used to post them here regularly, just to make sure that the rest of us got our daily dose of liberal media spin on Palin.
The fact is, Alaska has a curious quirk in their ethics law, that compels public servants to spend their own money to defend against any ethics complaints filed against them through the Alaskan courts. It was this quirk that leftist operatives in Alaska exploited to nearly bankrupt the Palin family, and to throw Governor Palin's administration into virtual brake lock.
Pull out your Kindle and read chapter five. The sordid details are all there. They're also a matter of public record, should you want to verify Sarah's account.
LoL love your optimistic faith in the media.
all the hoopla surrounding the royal couple (Prince William and Kate) the wedding etc...is making me antsy for an event far, far more exciting: the inauguration of the first female president of the United States. Now THAT is what I’d call history and a true spectacle to behold: The introduction of President Palin, leader of the free world. Commander in Chief.
sooooooo excited.
A truly historic moment. Not so much that SP would be the 1st female prez (though thats true as well), but what it would mean that a no-bs conservative will be in the big chair and in command of the greatest force for anything decent the world has ever produced.
LibroCommies will be in abject fear across the globe.
Oh how I pray it happens.
Look, I appreciate your take on it, but every thread with the name Palin in it has someone talking about a posse, or a team, or a group of hit-men.
I have very seldom entered Palin threads. I did twice the other day. I wasn’t there very long before I had already been accused of being the member of some austere team targeting Palin.
I’ve probably made less than twenty comments on a Palin thread all year. The fighting on those threads has turned me off so bad, I don’t even want to hear the name anymore.
Good luck to you. I mean it, but leave me out of that crap.
If you recall, the day after the first major Republican primary debate, when Thompson was still in the race, Rush Limbaugh stated on his show: "There was one conservative candidate on that stage last night, and that candidate was Fred Thompson."
I don't recall ever seeing any Thompson supporters declare on Free Republic that Rush had endorsed Thompson. They didn't do so, I expect, because they were above lying, and it would have been a lie to say Rush endorsed Thompson.
I remember hearing Mark Levin, during the primaries when Thompson was still in the race, refer to Fred Thompson as "my guy" on one of his radio shows. I don't recall ever seeing one Thompson-supporting FReeper ever declare that Levin endorsed Thompson. Again, it would have been a lie, and Thompson supporters were above lying, even in the name of their candidate.
On the other hand, after Thompson had dropped out and it was down to McCain, Romney, and Huckabee, Rush had a show where he did a segment lamenting the fact that we had such lousy piss-poor candidates. He talked about how of the candidates, Romney "probably" was the candidate who "more closely embodies" the three legs of the conservative stool. His tone of voice was subdued and grim.
Romney's supporters here on Free Republic came out in droves, gleefully posting that "Rush endorsed Romney!" It was a lie, pure and simple, and an easily proven lie at that. Anyone who read Romney threads saw Romney supporters caught and cornered, and the blatant duplicity, the lowness, of Romney's supporters was illustrated, proven, and on exhibit daily here. It was a sight of beauty.
At the very last days of the primary elections, when it was nearly over and the the shocking possibility that McCain might very well win the nomination was clear, Mark Levin penned an actual official endorsement of Romney over McCain, but he wrote it in such a way that it was crystal clear that the "endorsement" was out of pure desperation. Levin made it obvious that he had zero enthusiasm about Romney -- the tone was one of grimness and regret.
Immediately Romney FReepers chortled that Levin was a Romneybot, and they still make the claim to this day. It was then, and still is, a lie, and at the time, easy to prove because you could find the column so people could read it for themselves. Many of us posted the links so lurkers COULD read it for themselves, and see just how crooked were Romney's supporters.
Supporters of ALL the other candidates -- Huckabee, Thompson, Giuliani, McCain, Hunter -- were, within the normal parameters of often heated political discourse, civil, above lying and emoting other than what I would consider average.
Romney supporters, on the other hand, had an MO. They called those who didn't like Romney "haters." They accused those who opposed Romney of doing so out of "hate" and/or out of dislike of the Mormon religion. CONSISTENTLY they, and they alone, did this. They berated those who rejected Romney as being like "children." They were ugly, nasty, emotional, shrill, and they often LIED outright, again and again and again. In fact, it was shockingly consistent.
I figure that the majority of people who read Free Republic never post, but lurk and learn, the same as I do on every other political or news forum. I figure non-FReeping lurker treat FR the same way I treat other news and political forums (I only post to FR, and lurk everywhere else) -- I read them for information and insight, and have educated myself quite a lot; I figure that many readers of FR do the same here.
By allowing the Romney shills to lie about so-called endorsements, pull the Mormon bigotry card, call everyone who disagreed with them "haters" -- and it was a remarkable MO that was consistent and overwhelmingly THE common denominator in Romney supporters -- lurkers could see that, and they could see my and others' posts proving the lies, and pointing out that the behavior of Romney's supporters spoke volumes about their candidate. As indeed it did, and still does.
I believe in my heart that because Jim Robinson allowed those people to reveal themselves in a way that could NEVER have happened anywhere else, informed Americans smart enough to come to FR to learn and get insight on conservative opinion, rejected Romney. If Jim had banned those posters, Romney might still have had a lot of conservatives fooled.
His supporters exhibited lack of honor, lack of ethics, and the willingness to LIE in order to knock out the opposition.
You, Windflier, work against the opposition by using truth, whole truth, reason, and sense. You have too much honor and ethics to resort to deliberate misrepresentation of truth in order to smear opposition. So do I, and so the kinds of people who support a candidate like Palin.
The behavior of people who attack Palin speaks volumes about their own caliber, and the behavior of people who support her, who don't lie and mislead and distort truth in the process of knocking out her opponents in the arena of ideas, speaks volumes about Palin. You can tell a lot about a person by both their friends and their enemies, and you can tell a lot about a politician by their friends and enemies, as well.
I think the candid, spontaneous, well-informed, rough-and-tumble world of Free Republic is the best place in the world for readers to truly see the huge difference between the kinds of people who oppose, and the kinds of people who support, Palin. If anti-Palin folks were banned, it would work against Palin. Palin detractors, like the Romney supporters, are given just the right amount of rope to hang themselves, thanks to Jim and thanks to FReepers who calmly, methodically, and objectively call them on their crap.
Your mileage may vary! ;^)
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.