Posted on 05/05/2013 1:04:02 PM PDT by Jim Robinson
Edited on 05/05/2013 1:07:16 PM PDT by Jim Robinson. [history]
Would you support Sarah Palin should she decide to run for the presidency in 2016?
Let's see. How does she compare to my litmus checks:
What's not to like?
Oh, yeah. That thing about not reading newspapers and also seeing Russia from her house. That's just too dumb to be true. /s
Well, but she did resign from her office, so I guess that's one thing not to like. But they all have at least one thing not to like. How does she compare on all the major conservative issues?
And the left absolutely hates her.
And Tokyo Rove and the GOP-e absolutely despises her.
But tea party conservatives like her. A lot!
And so do I.
How about you?
Are you ready to turn this country around with an honest to God pro-life, pro-family, pro-gun, God-loving, America-loving patriot and grassroots conservative favorite who we can all be proud of and for whom we will work overtime for a change?
Seems to be a couple left. Of course a bunch seemed to have redefined it to the point where we can safely call it liberalism. Ask around. You’ll find conservatism now means moderating on abortion, accepting homosexual adoption and all kinds of previously ‘not a chance in hell stuff!
Cool huh? Of course, my personal favorite is and always will be taking the exact language used by the talking heads at MSNBC and firing it off full auto at a woman who this very thread shows 25 to 1 has the support of Free Republic.
So what am I to think? Should I think that 3 in 4 people should STFU with their support of a proven conservative, or that 1 in 4 should find a new hobby?
Really. do tell. And while you are thinking on it, think about why supporting and defending someone you believe in is in any way wrong.
When Sarah stepped on to the stage in Arizona being introduced as candidate for Vice President with McCain, ... in a few minutes, I was thanking God for sending us a candidate what represented the voice of the people and Godly principles. It brought tears and joy, BOTH.
SHE IS GREAT! I have and do support her and pray she decides to enter the race. Our biggest foe is the entrenched leadership of the Republican Party MO!
3 in 4, 1 in 25...what difference does it make? ;)
Yes.
5.56mm
There is no chance for a third party when we continue to use single member districts with first past the post winners. You’d need to change that system first to get a third party ~ then you’d probably get 157 parties and you’d be kvetching about how difficult was to get more than three Congresscritters together to agree on anything.
You get the 85% if you are running INSIDE THE PARTY STRUCTURE. Even Palin gets 1% running outside the party structure. Just the way it is.
How utterly stupid of them. In the future the big money men should leave choosing the candidate to people who know how to run winning campaigns.
Definitely ~ Roe V. Wade is, in fact, a Libertarian delight. It didn’t, for example, limit the practice of abortion to trained medical personnel. It literally legalized back alley abortions by traditional rootworkers and shamen!
+It’s the way it was. You keep completely skipping over the fact that a whole bunch of Republicans cut up their registration cards post Romney.
You honestly believe they will run right back and vote for the next Romney? Seriously? It’s a whole new ballgame now. It is not what it was Nov 1 2012. It changed drastically.
And it isn’t just the hardcore on FR. I hear regular people who aren’t political junkies say it. You are flat out wrong. You are going by outdated data. The next election, if we get that far will show which of us is closest to right.
yes
The MSM controls and manipulates you to the point that you believe Palin or any other limited government Christian conservative, cannot win. You ONLY believe that because of what the MSM has covinced you. You are allowing yourself to be manipulated by the MSM.
I think if foreigners can prove they were slaves when they were born here it's OK, otherwise, that 'jurisdiction' clause pretty well opens the door to actually using the current world standard on citizenship if we want to.
“She has become too polarizing”
What is meant by “polarizing?” It means only that a person of principle inspires opposition to the leftist agenda. That’s all. It is a bad thing only from the perspective of the left, and no one should have the slightest concern for their perspective. When a RINO uses the term, it just means that he is in a snit because principled opposition is interfering with his attempts to give the leftists their way.
We should be working for *more* polarization, not less. We should be drawing a line in the sand: “Demonrats and other scum please move to the other side of that line.”
The demonrats well know that it is polarization that wins elections, which is why they both practice it and try to convince their enemies that it is a bad thing. When one accepts that premise, one allows the demonrats to select Stupid Party candidates by eliminating all that the rats find “too polarizing.”
“A leader knows how to bring people together.”
A leader also knows how to recognize the enemy. A leader knows that Evil always attacks Good, because that is the nature of Evil. A leader knows that one must not bring Evil into the tent, and that one cannot bring people together with Evil without becoming evil.
All leftist thought, from the limousine liberalism of a George Clooney to the murderous horrors of Mao, Stalin, and Pol Pot, is of and from Satan. Leftism is a contaminant in the human cognosphere, not a natural component of it.
Satan is smarter than we are, and he never sleeps. Those over whom he has the most influence are like maniacally evil energizer demons.
It is important to remember that this is a different “left” and “right” than that in common use today. This distinction is not between monarchists and advocates of mob rule, nor even between idiots taken in by socialist drivel and those who know better. It is a distinction between “closer to God” and “closer to the Earl of Hell,” and is independent of the personal beliefs of anyone concerned. A Stupid Party imbecile could fancy himself an atheist and still be to the right of a demon-ridden Evil Party Messalina who claimed the label of Catholic without holding or supporting Catholic beliefs.
Each member of the Evil Party is a loathsome, crawling, traitorous, congenitally dishonest, amoral, sociopathic, gun-fearing, pansy-assed, chicken-choking, Starbucks-sipping, godless, America-hating, degenerate, pickle-smooching, liberal-Nazi fool. At the very best, through stupidity or moral confusion, they are allied with and support such scoundrels.
There can be—there must be—no “bringing together.” The alternatives are victory or death, as has always been the case.
“Sarah Palin divides.”
Such discernment is one trait of a good leader. A good leader makes one thing perfectly clear: he does not stand with or even tolerate scumbags. If that means that the scumbags don’t vote for him, well, they weren’t going to vote for him anyway, so nothing lost—but much gained.
If a candidate doesn’t drive the leftards into a slavering, convulsing, howling, puking, chewing-their-own-lips-off, full-blown “Exorcist” seizure, that candidate is not morally fit for office.
It is the leftards and their loathsome catamites in the media, academia, the judiciary, and almost every other walk of life who “divide.” Agree with them or you are their enemy, and they will stop at nothing to destroy you. Governor Palin has made it plain that she does not agree with them, that she gladly accepts that she is their enemy, and so they howl that she divides rather than unites (disagrees with them), that she is a hater (disagrees with them), that she is a charismatic pole around which their opposition can gather (disagrees with them), and that for all these reasons she is “unelectable.”
Really? We’re going to let the leftards disqualify her as a candidate because she disagrees with them?
If we do, we deserve to ride the boxcars to the death camps. And don’t think that isn’t what they have in mind.
Hillary Hillary not Palin.
My comments on this thread were out of line and semi-trolling. [Remember the James Bond movie where a girl told Bond that she was a semi-virgin?]Thanks don-o and from my little corner of the www, semi/DemStyle apology semi-accepted.
I am not recanting the substance of what I said [Yeah that would take a bit more Conservative understanding not to mention humility], but this thread was not the place for that.
No, the place for that is on Karl Roves/McCains/Romneys knee(s)
Now there is a trio that has got PESD (Palin Emasculation Syndrome Dysfunction) to the max, they love to see the stuff you posted here on Free Republic and your staunch solid refusal to disagree with the GOPe and their Alinsky/Ayers/Emanuel/Axelrod/Obama/Jarrett/Islamic mindset without a recantation. Nice company to keep.
Your wrong-headed and willful confusion of "libertarian" with "liberal" not only reveals PRIDE in your heart becasue you presume to strong-arm your definition of "morality" over other Christians, but damages morality, freedom, and conservatism because you are presumptuous enough to assign to government a responsiblity that belongs to religion.
Stay classy, Synchro.
I'm a class act, dude.
That loves thypos.
Synchro to dono-o.
Doing my best to counter comments anathema to reasoned discourse.
I pointed specifically to the most Libertarian aspect of Roe v. Wade which is where it ALLOWED anyone to perform an abortrion, with no ifs, ands or buts.
You are the one attempting to argue that total individual freedom to kill someone else is not the highest ideal of Libertarianism!
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.