Replies

Let me see, you’ve been attacking people who agree that her comments were unfortunate for hours on end

Your problem is with the truth. You don't know what it is, you don't recognize it when you see it and you confuse it with opinion.

I've been taking so-called conservatives to task for stating that they "cannot in good conscience support" Sarah Palin because she supports the man who selected her to run for Veep on his ticket (currently in the absence of another candidate)...in spite of her conservative record and her stated positions on matters of national import.

I've also been calling out posters like you, who are incessant in your inane defenses of the people who make such statements.

I knew rabs was going to withhold support from Palin (and I told him so...right here on Free Republic) before he did it, because she's a Republican...he just needed an excuse. I could have just as easily predicted your gallant and chivalrous defense of his position, but you weren't around at the time. Out of sight, out of mind.

“I have stated that Palin made a mistake. Another person stated that she has been politically savvy and wise.”

If you wish to state, that neither of these statements is true, then be my guest.

Otherwise, one of these statements is true, and once again you have not been able to avoid reality.

* * * * *

So-called Conservatives, can't back a man like McCain 100%. Make of that what you will. And making the case that if a friend of Soros supports you to his own ends, you must support him to his own ends, requires no rebuttle.

I haven't been inceasently defending other posters here. I have been discussing the merits of Palin making that statement.

I've been taking so-called conservatives to task for stating that they "cannot in good conscience support" Sarah Palin because she supports the man who selected her to run for Veep on his ticket (currently in the absence of another candidate)...in spite of her conservative record and her stated positions on matters of national import.

Because she supports "100 percent" a Vichy RINO, in spite of his left-wing, anti-conservative record and his efforts to promote amnesty, to muzzle free speech, and to impose a cap-and-tax system.

Because she supports "100 percent" a Vichy RINO, despite all the hoopla about a REAL conservative entering the primary against the aforementioned Vichy RINO.

Supporting RINOs against conservatives...isn't that something Party hacks like Newt "Scozzafava" Gingrich do?