Posted on 12/03/2009 7:57:25 PM PST by unseen
As usual, you’ve got nothing but personal attacks. And, as usual, you have no interest in conversing about the core issues our nation faces.
Quit acting like a juvenile.
Funny thing is that statement is an obvious fact...yet because of political correctness we have to beat around the bush and avoid saying what is plain and clear....
Parroting McCain is not an excuse. She had no problem disagreeing with McCain on ANWR. She didn't specifically comment on her support of a pathway to citizenship (amnesty) in this clip. If she's against now, she's apparently flip flopped.
“She had no problem disagreeing with McCain on ANWR”
Because she was from Alaska, and had energy credentials. She could hardly contradict McCain coming from Alaska which doesn’t have an illegal immigrant problem.
If your implying she has the same views as McCain on all positions then that is obviously incorrect, and is laughable.
you know what?! You are maybe ON TO SOMETHING!!!
What if Sarah didn’t run and what if the majority of voters wrote in her name...could she then win the presidency?
is that allowed?
Where was the personal attack? I merely pointed out that destroying the candidacy of Governor Palin is your job as Party Chairman for a third party presidential candidate.
Pointing out to people that you are at work when you attack Governor Palin is reasonable don’t you think?
Again, I ask, where did I make a personal attack?
I’ve been here almost ten years consistently advocating my positions. And you’re acting like an unprincipled jerk.
If you or any other Palin supporter thinks she can avoid dealing with her stated pro-”pathway-to-citizenship” position in the red-hot anti-amnesty environment that is getting ready to heat up, you’re even more delusional than I thought.
I’ve been telling people that she is against amnesty but they did not believe me, so here you have it.
One more check for Sarah.
So she was for a path to citizenship because she didn't have immigration credentials? Does she have them now?
Here is her position on a path to citizenship:
Q: So you support a path to citizenship for undocumented immigrants?
A: I do because I understand why people would want to be in America. To seek the safety and prosperity, the opportunities, the health that is here. It is so important that yes, people follow the rules so that people can be treated equally and fairly in this country.
If your implying she has the same views as McCain on all positions then that is obviously incorrect, and is laughable.
If I noted that she disagreed with McCain on ANWR, how in the hell could I be implying that she has the same views as McCain on all positions? That makes no sense.
“Because she was from Alaska, and had energy credentials. She could hardly contradict McCain coming from Alaska which doesn’t have an illegal immigrant problem.
So she was for a path to citizenship because she didn’t have immigration credentials? Does she have them now?
“
I talk about contradicting the top of the ticket in a tight presidential campaign, and you reply about credentials. I know both words start with the letter “c”, but ...
“Here is her position on a path to citizenship: “
No, as I said, she wasn’t going to flame McCain and look like an idiot undermining the campaign.
The United States already has laws for citizenship, they simply need greatly to be enforced and followed. I’d gladly support more funding to do that right over any sort of amnesty...which I oppose completely.
Wow, you brought up credentials. I quoted your comment verbatim. You said (implied) that she could disagree with McCain (contradict) on energy issues because she had energy credentials but couldn't contradict him on immigration issues, because she had no credentials on the issue while McCain does. Your comment:
"Because she was from Alaska, and had energy credentials. She could hardly contradict McCain coming from Alaska which doesn’t have an illegal immigrant problem."
Does she have credentials now? Can she contradict any candidate who has those credentials?
No, as I said, she wasn’t going to flame McCain and look like an idiot undermining the campaign.
So she lied about her position and agreed with a RINO position for political reasons? That doesn't sound very principled, esp on such a key issue. How will it not be viewed as flip flopping in the primary?
Yup! Anyone still claiming not to understand the Governor's position on illegal immigration, at this point, is either disingenuous; dim-witted; or both! ;)
I believe there was another interview where she talked about this that is clearer - I’m sure someone will post it on this thread, it was probably with Greta.
Energy -> credentials/Alaska -> can contradict McCain.
Illegal immigrants -> no previous record -> can’t contradict.
Not sure what is you don’t understand here. Credentials means she has a proven track record, she had that with energy not with illegal immigration.
Credentials does not equal “ideas”, “positions”, “views” and does not mean her views/ideas are not sound.
You keep using words like lie and flip flop, because you imply she shared MCcain’s position on this.
I’m telling you that she supported the campaign to beat Obama, and she did this as a VP candidate in a campaign taht was already well under way when she joined.
Yoo hoo?
Brief off-hand comments on a radio show, ones which don't even answer any key questions about her previously-stated position in support of amnesty, aren't in any way a substitute for the kind of serious principled statesmanship that is going to be required if we are to have any hope of saving this republic.
The amnesty debate is going to burn like a political inferno in the next few months. If this is the best she can do she is doomed. People have way to much at stake here to mess around any longer with equivocations of any kind on this crucial question.
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.