Nope. No sale with 0romney
Posted on 08/12/2011 6:11:05 PM PDT by ejdrapes
Palin: “Could I Support Somebody Like Mitt Romney? Yeah”… DES MOINES, Iowa — 2008 GOP vice presidential nominee Sarah Palin said Friday that she still hasn’t decided if she’s going to run for president. Palin is also undecided about whom she would endorse if she ultimately decided against entering the race. Swarmed by media and supporters at the Iowa State Fair, the former governor of Alaska told The Daily Caller that she’s not concerned that Mitt Romney is considered the frontrunner at this time. “No, nothing worries me at this point,” Palin told TheDC. “Could I support somebody like Mitt Romney? Yeah.” When TheDC pointed out that some tea partiers have pledged to make sure Romney doesn’t get the nomination, Palin said, “I’m of the mind of ABO — Anybody But Obama, at this time.”
ejdrapes can't answer.
This account has been banned or suspended.
Palin Derangement Syndrome:
A mental disorder afflicting fanatical haters of Gov. Sarah Palin.
Also suffered by starry-eyed supporters of the governor.
Neither side will allow the smallest hint of an opposing view (hardcore).
Some are open to discussing the facts of life in politics (softcore).
Darkwing104 has those graphics.
I’ve never [cough] borrowed them from him.
How about it, DW? Thor/Viking or Superman JimRob coming up in the rotation soon?
ok...well maybe we’ll see them soon with all the Romneybots hanging out here. Sheesh....
Sounds like you’re in need of some sleep-eye and then some!
Pathetic ad-hominem attack-user.
Know-nothing, braindead poster.
What about ABO don’t you understand? 99.9 percent of us would do the same thing ... not happily but ABO.
I agree ...empty suit but still better than Obama.....Romney must know something about money as he made a bunch .....whereas all Obama knows is that He is Special... Frontrunners rarely survive
And that's always the best kind of opponent to have, right GB?
Yeah, it's Jim's house and Jim's rules....but all the same, wouldn't it strike you as a little odd if you were visiting somebody at their house, and they suddenly racked a shotgut at you for saying something that they disagreed with politically?
Reagan worshipping can’t-get-over-the-fact-reagan-is-ancient-historyer.
Wolf packs and ass kissing has been a big part of this forum...folks find a new cause and get some mod help and run around purging and gleefully high five like a football game.
There have been a number of issues over the years from the Lucianne dustup, to Bush 2000, to Schiavo, Amnesty..once supported here largely, Katrina and so forth...now it’s..at least for the wolf pack..”You Don’t Support Sarah Devoutly Enuff”...
and the Romney accusation is their denunciation..sometimes true..sometimes not...I was under the impression Drapes supported Bachmann
i had hoped when some of the worst sorts had left with Mad Ivan over their support of Rudy that it would be a while till we got into all this again...nope...many are back supporting Sarah
Pray tell how do you go from Rudy to Sarah ideologically and if so then how solid are one’s own creds?
I often disagree with Hannity who is too soft but we do eat our own here
Don't buy into that, Palin explained their mischaracterization, and in fact set a couple of them straight on it.
She's smart to not throw Romney under the bus when the media baits her to do so.
The rest of your post doesn't need comment as it is based on your believing the misleading talking point put out by the MSM.
Well, except your last sentence:
...but don’t know about the view on Perry.No apparantly you don't. Check the boss's posts if you want to know.
A long time ago, back when the internet was young and free, before the Democratic Underground was hatched from its reptilian Orc pit, before the Daily Kos was a twinkle in Stalin's eye, a lot of folks here wanted to allow liberals on FR, in order to debate them and set them straight personally. Kind of like a battleground of ideas.
Management disagreed, basically saying that there's plenty of places for you to go if you want to fight with liberals, but this isn't going to be one of them. This is a refuge for strategic planning and the advancement of conservatism. If they were to allow liberals or (for lack of a better term) liberal RINOs, to infiltrate the discussion, it basically turns a fortress into a whorehouse. So to speak. GOP or DNC infiltrators could basically divert the entire discussion down paths they wanted, and use Jim's electrons as free advertising into the conservative bloodstream.
This idea of keeping it Conservative Only waxes and wanes. At one point, years back, management actually got worried about encroaching Democrat power, and put up polls asking if we should turn FR into an internet wing of the GOP. This was voted down by a huge margin, and Jim decided he had it right in the first place. FR is more effective as a conservative power center that has no other allegiance. Kind of a proto-Tea Party.
That said, I hear exactly what you're saying. I often don't agree with the prevailing sentiment of Conservatives Only. I like arguing with liberals, which means I tend to go long stretches lurking or not posting. I can go to other websites (generally news sites) and open fire on liberals all day long.
FR's a different animal. There's strong advantages and disadvantages to how it is run, but it's truly unique. The strict lane of discussion keeps the site calibrated, like the northern star of conservatism. The steady flow of newbies over the years has actually helped keep the place grounded in reality. On the other hand, it's an awful echo chamber, and you can spot the folks that ONLY come here a mile away. What passes for argument with them is often just people trying to one up each other for who's the most hard core conservative.
Lots of people have gotten frustrated and gone off to form other websites, none of any note. End of the day, there's lots of places to open fire on liberals, and I can suggest some good ones if you're feeling trigger happy. I've been as frustrated as you seem with what feels like short-sighted reasoning. I wish that parts of FR were different.
I'd also be angry if I spent years working on a website, and then suddenly the posters on it started advocating Barack Obama's reelection. Maybe I'm a petty jerk, but I'd ban people who promoted that idea, and tell them to peddle it elsewhere. I think the ban parameters on FR are often not set correctly, but I understand the idea itself.
This is not a job....or career
I pay to be here not the other way around
Geez.
I am unaware about JR and Perry. I am the one on open forum to have asked if the forum would be allowed to support Bachmann if Palin sits it out....yes was the answer.
I don't like Perry much except slightly less worse than Romney but he has a lot of folks here...run them off and it will get even smaller here.
This forum will have a hard time existing as a Palin only forum in the primary
I like Palin but many of her supporters here are jerks. It's the same human nature behavior we have all seen since our teens and the chasing down on dissent has little to do with ideology for the tattletales and more to do with a need to belong and just be high fivers
I knew when I saw that Palin made an ABO comment and that yes it included Romney as I guess worst case scenario that many here who simply deny it ever happened.
So enjoy your zot fest...you have been here long enough to know how things change quick so you might ought to watch your back if they do.
The nasty tenor here takes the fun out of being hopeful about Palin...at least on this forum. For all the whine about PDS, the exponentially largest most ugly section of the forum are the most ardent Palin brigade...and as I have pointed out...some of them are returnees who stir up the same trouble and wolf pack and purge JR's rolls when they can over any issue...it's about them more than the candidate.
Anyone keeping a list of the hardcore PDSers? would be interesting to see if I missed any :pEvening Star is the worst PDSer here.Late to the thread here. Please indulge me with
1. Define PDS
2. Is there a difference in hardcore as opposed to softcore?
He disguises himself as a soft lovable Concern Troll but in reality he is the most despicable Palin detractor on the site.
He has bowed down and worshiped (using her terminology here) the most hardcore Palin haters that have posted here.
On of his most vile posts was when he said that Palin supporters would think it a great thing if Palin crapped her pants
Then he had the audacity to go to the movie about Palin and rub shoulders with those that he accused of loving crap in pants.
I challenged him to tell them how he felt, and told him he is a coward if he doesn't.
I doubt he did; he's pretty slimy two-faced and weak.
He's also an anti-freeper and bowed down and worshiped many other of his ilk that were eventually banned.
No, I don't ping him/her, I have no respect for people like him.
He will see my post mentioning him and post some sick rebuttal.
Hardcore---banned (except a few like ES and jla).
Softcore...Still here.
I checked plenty of JR's pages and found nothing on Perry. So what is it?
I see quite a few zotted posters here if Perry's supporters here go.
IF you have a link please post it. I am not big on Perry but I think Rush is. You know who i like.,..either woman.
You act like you know what JR says about Perry talk here..spit it out....please. It looks like Perry will run so it would be nice to know..thanks.
Nope. No sale with 0romney
Red herrings won’t help you.
Start using a dictionary and read some political history, moron.
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.