Replies

...that a long time Palin derider such as yourself would be suggesting she is a traitor for supporting a traitor.

Anyone who comes out and says that she agrees with McCain and what he stands for is a traitor just like him.

It was not my intent to head in that direction. As strange as it may seem to some of the brain-trusts around here, sometimes a simple question is just a simple question. I'm not referring ot you BTW Rabs.

This was the question. "Is it okay to support a traitor to our cause? Yes or no."

A simple yes reponse would have gotten a comment along the lines of, "Don't we owe it to ourselves and our cause to be more true to our core values than that?"

A simple no answer would have gotten a comment along the lines of, "Then please quit defending people doing things you know to be wrong."

That's it. Instead of answering the question, LakeSnark accused me of something that wasn't true at all. He actually preferred to lie, than answer the simple question truthfully. He knew he had painted himself into a corner. This angered him, so he decided to go with the big lie. That's the Rules for Radicals training evidently.

So instead, the question got asked a number of more times, with no reponse. It just hung out there like a drying road apple, the stench building because Mr. Smarty-Pants completely misread the situation. And then having done so, he had to go on the attack lest he have to fess up and address the question candidly.

Now Rabscuttle385 comes along and states the obvious. I wasn't going to go there, but frankly, I fail to see a valid objection to what he stated. When you get right down to it, if you back someone who is a traitor to our cause, you're either completely uninformed, or you agree with them and have tarnished your own reputation so soundly, that the only impression left is a very ugly one.

Nice work LakeSnark, you raised the visibility of this to the point you finally got someone to address it. Happy now?

I have never thought Sarah Palin was the sharpest pencil in the box. For this reason I don't assert the same "Traitor to our cause" comment I do to McCain. If you're an informed Conservative, you don't ask your State's Senators to try to get the U.S. to sign on the Law of the Sea Treaty. LINK If you're an informed Conservative you may join a man on a ticket to moderate him, but you sure as hell don't back him for reelection so he can play the part of the destroy for another six years. This is John McCain. The information is out there. Palin, reportedly a very bright person didn't at some point think it was important enough to search for the materials I did? LINK

I have never made the assertion that Palin backed the LOST Treaty out of a desire to harm the U.S. None the less she saw her state's interests as the primary interests. She didn't understant the evil nature of what the U.N. was trying to set up with the Law of the Sea Treaty, and tried to get her Senators to help ram it through. That was a massive mistake. It was a mistake due to her being clueless to the overall impact of the LOST Treaty on the U.S. if it became fully functional and we were participating. Not no, but hell no.

As for her backing McCain, she probably did see it as something that broke down to her owing him a favor. Folks, do we do return favors for the enemies of our cause, and our nation?

All one has to do is read about what McCain has been up to for nearly his whole life, to know he is unfit to hold public office. Endorse him? I don't think there are more than twenty people on this forum who would endorse him, because they recognize what a scumbag he is. And yet, it doesn't matter to these same people that someone they want to lead them would.

It absolutely baffles me why anyone would want a person to lead them, who thought John McCain was fit to return to Washington, D. C. for another six years.

Rabsctuttle385 has posted a LINK here that reveals Palin's stated agreement with where McCain wants to lead the nation. This wasn't in 2008 either. It's in 2010. Really folks? This is the person you want to lead you? Why?

Either she fully comprehends what McCain is and agrees with him, or she has no idea what he stands for, how despicable it is, and why she should oppose him. Which of these two traits convinces you she is fit to lead us?

Is she evil like McCain? My personal opinion is no. Is she informed enough to lead us? Honestly, in my opinion, no.

Either she fully comprehends what McCain is and agrees with him, or she has no idea what he stands for, how despicable it is, and why she should oppose him.

I think she knows exactly what she stands for...and she agrees with him.

Direct quote, straight from the horse's mouth:

Long before the summer of 2008, I respected the man known as the "maverick of the Senate." From up in the Last Frontier state, I'd watched with deep admiration as he fought tirelessly against wasteful spending and corruption. I was inspired by his willingness to buck his political party - and even his president - to do what he believed was right for this country.

Link

Palin has openly said that she "respected" McCain "long before...2008" and that she "watched with deep admiration" as he "buck[ed]" the GOP "to do what...was right for this country."

Either she's lying through her teeth, she's being manipulated by her handlers like a marionette, or she's a RINO traitor like McCain.

I started to read and thought to myself, oh, he's finally being clear, but the more I read, the more you dance and shuffle like a minstrel.

If you had stopped with, It was not my intent to head in that direction., you would have shown good character.

But no, you had to claim He actually preferred to lie, even though several others thought you were saying the same thing. It wasn't just me blue boy. Nor did I lie. I really thought you were going there, and suspect you still were from what you eventually said in your latest too obtuse reply.

Here's the money quotes: Now Rabscuttle385 comes along and states the obvious. I wasn't going to go there, but frankly, I fail to see a valid objection to what he stated. When you get right down to it, if you back someone who is a traitor to our cause, you're either completely uninformed, or you agree with them and have tarnished your own reputation so soundly, that the only impression left is a very ugly one.

All one has to do is read about what McCain has been up to for nearly his whole life, to know he is unfit to hold public office. Endorse him? I don't think there are more than twenty people on this forum who would endorse him, because they recognize what a scumbag he is. And yet, it doesn't matter to these same people that someone they want to lead them would.

Either she fully comprehends what McCain is and agrees with him, or she has no idea what he stands for, how despicable it is, and why she should oppose him. Which of these two traits convinces you she is fit to lead us?

Now I know you said some other things, but it's clear to anyone reading your screeds you really want to say what ~~Rabadash~~ said, that you really deep down believe she's a traitor because she endorsed McCain, that you step to the edge of saying it, but then pull back because you know you won't stay on this forum if you actually, you know, say it.

At any rate, I wish you had stopped at that first sentence, but your Freudian slip appears to be showing.

If I'm wrong, just stop at the first sentence like you should have. If I'm right, give us another obtuse, and confusing reply.

A brilliant post, as always D1.

Now Rabscuttle385 comes along and states the obvious. I wasn't going to go there, but frankly, I fail to see a valid objection to what he stated. When you get right down to it, if you back someone who is a traitor to our cause, you're either completely uninformed, or you agree with them and have tarnished your own reputation so soundly, that the only impression left is a very ugly one.

Let that bit soak in a while, folks. There is a simple but very important wisdom here.

I have never thought Sarah Palin was the sharpest pencil in the box. For this reason I don't assert the same "Traitor to our cause" comment I do to McCain.

You seem to be following this line of thinking:

"Never ascribe to malice that which is adequately explained by incompetence." - Napoleon Bonaparte

...Which I applaud, I really do. And normally I would be content to embrace a similar attitude. But in our current state, and in the present political economy, while I might be congenial enough to waive off such things in the general sense, the raw statistical risk is one I daresay we cannot afford.

Once again I rise to present the terms of the Reagan Coalition: *No* conservative faction should be expected to 'take one for the team' when it comes to their basic unmovable principles. Our point of compromise *must* begin after the point where those principles are served.

Is it right to support a candidate who supported LOST? This is no mere faux pas - this erodes the very sovereignty of our nation. And the follow-on question: Is it right to expect our defenders of the Constitution, that faction among us who are civil-libertarian minded, and those in the military who are put at risk by LOST, to compromise... to take one for the team?

With that as an example, I must react with a jaundiced eye. WHATEVER my personal feelings might be, I know that many of our brothers-in-arms will not be able to swallow that 'mistake' and vote for her. And I know that they will likely support someone else, causing a fracture which immediately spells defeat.

And if by chance there is victory, and whether by malice or ignorance, if there comes a day when LOST is once again before the president's pen... that victory will be a Pyrrhic one indeed.

So if one is to err, I would submit that it is better to err toward suspecting malice - toward assuming the worst and acting accordingly... at the very least, where conservative principles are concerned. Folks seem to forget how many of our elected representatives crow Conservatism until they are in office - whereupon they drop the act and revert to form. Perhaps that is a cynical view, but it is one earned by many years of betrayal.