Posted on 02/07/2011 7:21:00 AM PST by pissant
I don’t know about that. People now consider RINOism a “catchable” affliction.
I agree with that. I just don't know the answer to keeping them out. It's like gun laws: only law-abiding citizens obey them. Criminals don't.
Say we ask everybody who signs up, "Do you like to perform homosexual acts?" Some bugger who wants to be in the military might lie and get in. I'm not saying we shouldn't ask; I'm saying it's not effective. Discharging those caught in the act is 100% effective: the problem is removed, and there is an example set.
The funny thing is that I don’t care one way or another if she or anyone else speaks at CPAC. I just thought I’d enjoy the pretzel-twisting logic needed to support Palin yet continue to hate on Bachmann for speaking there.
The old way used to work. Don’t allow homosexuals. The ones that are serious about serving have no problem putting their sexual preferences last on their list. It’s been done. It worked. If they cause a problem they can be court-martialed. Homosexuality should be banned in the military. That’s not a place for social experimentation.
Listening to that was about as painful as Obama’s “duhs, uhs, and let me be clears”.
Stuff like this happens when a person doesn’t want to be clear about what they think. Sooner or later it is best to be clear. People may not like what you think, but it shows you thought it through enough to have an opinion and are prepared defend it.
Palin is great at lobbing zingers at Obama, but unprepared for being on the other end of the zingers. This was a softball. I can’t imagine how bad it could have been had it have been the “lamestream” media.
No, it really isn't subjective, at all. By every measure, Palin's disapproval rating is as high, or higher, than the day of the 2008 election. On election day, there wasn't a single exit poll that showed less than 60% of the voting public believed she was qualified for the office of vice president. Her qualification perception hasn't budged off that number.
"What that tells me is that you agree with the state-run media and the establishment ruling class that Palin really is stupid."
I don't know how anyone looking objectively at the answer she gave to CBN, could regard it as smartly constructed, or keenly delivered. Is that "agreeing with the state-run media"? Perhaps, but it doesn't mean it's an unwarranted conclusion. If it looks and sounds like a duck....
"...Palin makes a dent everywhere she goes. Every time Gov Palin speaks, there is a media frenzy"
Those two sentences could be true if you replaced the word "Palin" with "Kim Kardashian". The media covers Palin for the same reason Kardashian is a multi-millionare. It's train wreck television. People who love Palin watch because she appeals to them, and people who loathe Palin watch because it entertains them. It's a win/win for the media.
Of course, there's another, perhaps more sinister reason the media pays attention to Palin - because every minute they spend covering Palin, is a minute less they have to give to covering compelling, articulate conservatives like Paul Ryan or Bob McDonnell. Palin provides the club to the media that they then use to bludgeon all conservatives. Here's their narrative - "Conservatives are intellectually challenged, inarticulate rubes and here's a two-minute story on Sarah Palin to prove it."
Palin ran a state with a population that wouldn't even make it the fourth most populated city in Texas, with a budget that is commensurate with the budget of Dallas. Would you vote for a two-term Mayor of Dallas, TX to be President?
Come on. Do you really believe Palin "recogniz[es] homosexuality as a legitimate behavior?" That is a stretch from the interview. It's unfair, and you know it.
There is no "little l" when it comes to Libertarianism. I've done enough research on it to know better. You're a fool if you think that the Founding Fathers, men who were PREDOMINATELY strong Christians and legislated our countries laws on the Word of God, were modern day Libertarians.
Objection. You can't conflate the modern Libertarian party with libertarianism. The two are no more identical than a republic is to the Republican Party. What do you despise so much about the cause of liberty and self-government? That is little-L libertarianism. Nothing more.
Evil has no boundaries.
Yes, it does: good men and the law. And ultimately the sovereignty of God, although we're talking about earthly law here.
Faggots weren't content in staying within the boundaries of their own sodomy chambers, and never will be.
I was talking about the difference between civil law and military, but OK, let's talk about civil sodomy law.
Up until 40 years ago, when the fags INTIMIDATED the APA into removing homosexuality from it's list of mental disorders, faggotry was seen as just that. Our laws have always seen it as an abominable behavior, in fact those "Libertarian" Founding Fathers looked at the behavior with great concern
Thanks for the link; other than reading about GW punishing the behavior in the military, I haven't read about the Founders' view on homosexuality as it relates to law. I would defer to them, as I do on all things political.
It's not possible to play the Libertarian "rights" card and follow the laws of God. Only time will tell which side Sarah Palin takes.
There's that big "L" again. And what is the "Libertarian rights card?" Do you mean my position that the State has no authority to drag people from their homes because they commit sexual sins? I don't think the Founders believed any different; otherwise, why the 4th Amendment?
We can agree that homosexuality is against the laws of both man and God without according the state authority to drag men from their homes.
Would you vote for a two-year Mayor of Dallas, TX to be President?
Losers, both, before they even start.
Palin provides the club to the media that they then use to bludgeon all conservatives. Here's their narrative - "Conservatives are intellectually challenged, inarticulate rubes and here's a two-minute story on Sarah Palin to prove it."
So, therefore all conservatives should drop her like a hot potato, and go with a media-approved candidate. Thus proving the Lefts's arguments. This gets more interesting the more you talk. You really understand the media well; do you work for them?
Palin ran a state with a population that wouldn't even make it the fourth most populated city in Texas, with a budget that is commensurate with the budget of Dallas.
Ahh, the old "Alaska is too small" argument! What about the budget of Arkansas (Clinton)? Now the requirement list for president grows! Not only do you have to be a NBC (well, throw that one out), you must have have managed a budget bigger than that of Alaska! And if she was from Kentucky, would you then set the bar equal to that state's budget? This is nothing but a red herring, and you know it.
Would you vote for a two-term Mayor of Dallas, TX to be President?
If I though he/she had the expertise to get the damned unconstitutional Federal government off my back, and if he/she was committed to the Constitution, you BET I would vote for them. In a HEARTBEAT. Regardless of what the media said.
I agree there. In fact, I think there's NO PLACE for government to be doing social experimentation. It is evil.
I'd hesitate and quite probably refuse to cast my presidential vote for a two-term mayor of Dallas or any other city.
Oh, so you include the "quitter" snark? It's so funny, so persuasive, golly.
Those of us who understand why she left aren't persuaded.
And my vote for your putative Constitutional conservative Dallas mayor stands, half-term or not.
Non-ruling-class Americans used to be able to get elected in this country.
Palin is as much a RINO as the others.
Let's see - Obama, Clinton, Reagan, Carter, Ford, Nixon, Eisenhower - all came from non-political families. Families that could hardly be described as dynastic. But hey, if you want to go with the line that we have to elect Palin, because she's the only one who is "one of us", be my guest.
"Oh, so you include the "quitter" snark? It's so funny, so persuasive, golly. "
Nope, just stating a fact, although I do think it's interesting to you're reflexively defensive about it.
"This gets more interesting the more you talk. You really understand the media well; do you work for them?"
Yep, that's me - media consultant. While I'm flattered that you think my commentary is so insightful that I must be some kind of "insider", alas I'm only a retired sailor.
"What about the budget of Arkansas (Clinton)?"
I certainly wasn't comfortable with Clinton's experience, and I was in good company - hence Clinton's inability to garner more than 43% of the popular vote.
Is that the measuring stick you want to use - just because someone else got elected managing a similarly sized state, it's a good idea?
By the way, Kentucky's population and GDP dwarfs Alaska's. It's not even close.
“Stuff like this happens when a person doesn’t want to be clear about what they think. Sooner or later it is best to be clear. People may not like what you think, but it shows you thought it through enough to have an opinion and are prepared defend it.”
Exactly. One of the organizers of the CPAC boycott has called out Gov Palin and asked her to clarify her remarks. I bet big money that she does not.
“Her remarks did not sit well with American Principles Project president Frank Cannon. His group was one of the first to call on supporters to boycott this year’s CPAC conference, one of the largest annual gatherings of conservatives in the country, over GOProud’s involvement.
‘The concern of conservatives is over the participation of a group whose stated goals run at odds with that of core conservative principles, not over debate over those issues,’ said Cannon said in a statement on Monday. ‘Governor Palin should clarify her comments by letting us know whether in her definition, traditional marriage is a core component of conservatism.’”
Actions have consequences.
you are analogizing apples and oranges.
Remember what the democrats did to Zell Miller for speaking at the Republican Convention? They ridiculed and raked him over the coals.
The speaker may give the most perfect conservative speech however that does not change the fact that the CPAC has become infested with homosexual activists and rinos.
Then why is this group at CPAC?
Let's assume this true, (I am not privy to the level of infestation at CPAC by homo activists and RINOs), how does a speaker, let's say Michele Bachmann, lend any credibility to those infesting?
The fact is, Bachmann, Cain, et al are not falling over themselves to accommodate your, and others, views. So you throw a collective hissy fit and call them names, like "RINO".
What's next, taking a piece of chalk and printing mean things about them on the sidewalk?
Jimmie Carter and Bill Clinton both had quite a bit of executive experience - and look how they turned out.
Frankly, "executive experience" is overrated. To be successful in life, a person needs common sense - which DeMint has in abundance.
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.