Posted on 07/10/2011 10:31:40 AM PDT by kristinn
Oh, *that's* right: the meme is that Sarah bans books: even though the librarian concerned admitted that she hadn't.
Try again.
Cheers!
Full Disclosure: The reason Free Republic works is because of the factors discussed in the book The Wisdom of Crowds. Trolls are like a poison to the catalyst: but honest disagreement, instead of an echo chamber, keep it working.
Cheers!
“The introduction of President Palin, leader of the free world. Commander in Chief.”
Awesome thought
Wow, Windflier.
Feeding a troll after having identified one is about the biggest public admission of stupidity there is. Smart fish let the bait go right by--they don't chomp on it and crow to everyone that they've been caught!
So I don't know whether you're just that stooopid, or you don't really believe sickoflibs was trolling.
Stupid or dishonest..which is it?!?
Reagan was Conservative, but Perry is a smorgasbord conservative.
There’s feeding a troll and then there’s calling one out and proving it.
But you knew that... it WAS pretty obvious after all. Hell Windflier even gave him multiple chances to recant. So since you knew that it sure seems pretty stupid to blather on about it just to try saving your dishonest little buddy’s lack of credibility.
Stupid and dishonest...something ironic there....You a friend of Rabspittle or whatever his name is by any chance?
BTW, I have it on good authority that we aren’t the only ones that think SOL is a troll and have called him on it. But I doubt you’d want to call that guy stupid or dishonest. Then again, perhaps you would.
For those who care:
Since SOL won’t come clean and claims persecution, Here in most of it’s glory is the “Duty to Run” post that just slipped his mind...the reason I jumped him when he started the same kind of crap again on this thread with this post...note his opening comment/questions:
To: Gondring
RE :”Well, I wouldn’t hold it against her if she spent more time raising her family... maybe the younger ones won’t be as short-changed as Bristol and Willow.”
Even if she’s the only one who can save this country as president?
369 posted on Sunday, July 10, 2011 7:04:42 PM by sickoflibs
____________________________________________
Previous thread:
To: Norm Lenhart
RE:”That’s the only way she loses IMO... not even playing the game. If she doesn’t run she doesn’t. Her choice.....”
If that is really the case then does she have a duty to run?
74 posted on Saturday, July 02, 2011 9:41:11 PM by sickoflibs
________________________________________
And now, the rest of the story...
________________________________________
To: Norm Lenhart
RE :”No such animal as ‘duty to run.’ Don’t see it listed anywhere”
Not even if she’s the only one who can beat Obama?
76 posted on Saturday, July 02, 2011 9:50:52 PM by sickoflibs
To: Norm Lenhart
RE :”Show me this ‘Duty to run” somewhere legally binding. Her only responsibility is to her family and herself. Constitution says nothing about mandated running for office.”
Not in the constitution. To you.
If she is the only one that can beat Obama, and she is the best choice, and if she is sure to win if she runs, and you are sure she is running, then doesnt she have an obligation to you to run? Otherwise Obama wins and what? What valid reason could she have to let Obama have another 4 years? Her family? Herself?
83 posted on Sunday, July 03, 2011 10:52:29 AM by sickoflibs
To: Norm Lenhart
RE :”Since you say she has a responsibility to run -to me- personally,I officially absolve her of any requirement to run on my behalf”
***
OK I understand, you have a completely one sided commitment to her. You feel an obligation to tell the world that she is the only one that can beat Obama, and that she is the best choice, and if she is sure to win if she runs, and that you are sure she is running, but to you she has no commitment to you to run even if you say that gets Obama re-elected. I understand. Sounds completely rational.
118 posted on Sunday, July 03, 2011 7:06:45 PM by sickoflibs
To: Norm Lenhart
RE :”We brought Obama on ourselves by not voting for McCain/Palin when we had the chance remember? “
WHAT ???? You kidding? I had no more of an obligation to vote for McCain-Palin ticket as I would a Romney-Palin ticket or a Hillary-Palin ticket. If you want to convince readers of something positive about Palin, bringing up her relationship with that treasonous RINO is the worst approach. I am amazed that you would bring that up. It makes the ‘one-sided commitment’ approach look even worse.
124 posted on Sunday, July 03, 2011 7:32:43 PM by sickoflibs
To: stephenjohnbanker
RE :”The obtuseness here is staggering.”
Check this out: we brought on Obama by not voting (enough) for McCain in 2008 and so we have the duty to correct it by unconditionally promoting Palin as president in 2012 (and buying these tee-shirts) even if she doesn’t want to run herself, we owe it to her and America to support the run even if it is nonexistent. #93
You learn something every day.
135 posted on Sunday, July 03, 2011 8:12:59 PM by sickoflibs
To: sickoflibs
I seem to remember it was you talking about some mythical ‘duty’ on Palin’s part to run because she owed it to her supporters.
Now if you deny the fact that voting McCain/Palin in sufficient numbers by citizens of America, which many ‘protest voters’ did not, btw, would not have resulted in Obama losing the election, the obtuseness here is your own.
138 posted on Sunday, July 03, 2011 8:19:04 PM by Norm Lenhart
To: Norm Lenhart
RE :”I seem to remember it was you talking about some mythical ‘duty’ on Palin’s part to run because she owed it to her supporters.”
Nope, I just asked you :”If she is the only one that can beat Obama, and she is the best choice, and if she is sure to win if she runs, and you are sure she is running, then doesn’t she have an obligation to you to run? “
...and your response that ‘she doesn’t have to run if she doesnt want to in your eyes’ indicates a completely one sided commitment from you to her. I have no regrets that McCain was not president and have no one sided obligations to anyone least of all him.
144 posted on Sunday, July 03, 2011 8:34:19 PM by sickoflibs
To: sickoflibs
Total BS. You said duty. I said “No such animal as “Duty to run” and I asked you to find it written anywhere that she had a “duty” to run. Read it again. Closely...and with feeling ;) Read it ALL again and you, like everyone else here will see where your PDS addled brain went wrong ;)
145 posted on Sunday, July 03, 2011 8:45:30 PM by Norm Lenhart
To: Norm Lenhart
RE :”Total BS. You said duty. I said “No such animal as “Duty to run” and I asked you to find it written anywhere that she had a “duty” to run. Read it again. Closely...and with feeling ;) Read it ALL again and you, like everyone else here will see where your PDS addled brain went wrong ;)”
Why would I read it again when I just copied your comments? Just because you dont like what you said yet you dont feel free to disagree with it either, doesnt make me a PDSer. But that is an easy sounding out for you.
147 posted on Sunday, July 03, 2011 8:56:21 PM by sickoflibs
To: sickoflibs
Does lying in public arouse you or something? It sure amuses the rest of us so I guess it’s all good.
You did not copy my comments. You misrepresented them utterly, then you replaced your “duty” statement with “obligation”...two different things entirely ... which was not only the genesis of, but the basis for the rest of this time waster. And which anyone with eyes can go back and see for themselves. Yes, you do need to read it again, although it appears that understanding simple English is beyond you.
I stand fully behind my statements and you twist mine and yours alike. Which one of us is the fool here?
148 posted on Sunday, July 03, 2011 9:04:20 PM by Norm Lenhart
Look, I made an honest and forthright post on how I see the election taking shape. For you to lump me in with a bunch of people and post a sarcastic cartoon, basically LYING about me being a Romney fan, is pretty low class and white trash.
I'll get the last laugh though. lol
Rabs:Check it out, folks - you're all unhinged, deranged, and a bunch of misfits, par excellence!
Considering the source isn't that more like being Keith Olbermann's Worst People in the World?!
“WHAT ???? You kidding? I had no more of an obligation to vote for McCain-Palin ticket as I would a Romney-Palin ticket or a Hillary-Palin ticket. If you want to convince readers of something positive about Palin, bringing up her relationship with that treasonous RINO (McCain) is the worst approach. I am amazed that you would bring that up. “
(SOL reply to sleeper NL)
Yep, I made the argument why she needs to run in 2012 in those comments you copied, true PDS vile there LOL, reading the PDS script word for word, man you got me pegged.
Thanks for the amusement.
” Considering the source isn’t that more like being Keith Olbermann’s Worst People in the World?! “
Yeah....
” “WHAT ???? You kidding? I had no more of an obligation to vote for McCain-Palin ticket as I would a Romney-Palin ticket or a Hillary-Palin ticket. If you want to convince readers of something positive about Palin, bringing up her relationship with that treasonous RINO (McCain) “
Norm has no problem with McCain the SOB, so one must assume that a Romney/Palin ticket would suffice as well. I have read nothing to indicate otherwise. And Norm, why not ping Jim Rob and get his opinion of McCain & Romney? I’ll be waiting.
But I didnt repost what he said to me to provoke that response:”We brought Obama on ourselves by not voting for McCain/Palin when we had the chance remember? “ (NL to SOL)
LOL, so my response was WTF? I had no obligation to vote for McCCain. We are better off with Obama than Mccain as bad as that is,
The real irony here is that if McCain had won, we might have had amnesty with chain migration rammed down our throats. If it ever passes, the USA as we know it is finished. Obama can’t do it, because the Republs would block it.....because he is the Obamamunist ;-)
And lots of other smelly crap too. And it all would have the Republs name on it, just like the Bush/Pelosi light bulb ban does (yikes). My viewpoint is that the Republs president shouldnt be banning our lightbulbs, that is Democrats job. (I been stocking up on them.)
” My viewpoint is that the Republs president shouldnt be banning our lightbulbs, that is Democrats job. (I been stocking up on them.) “
lol....I BOUGHT 120 OF EM.
My BIL is a retired SS agent who served Bush I, Clinton and Bush II.
They didn’t like running with Clinton because they really did want to exercise. He’d run for the cameras and then when out of site stop and chat or get a bite to eat.
No doubt you have been instructed as to how 'our' socialists are soooo much better than their socialists. And you have most predictably been informed of the infallible wisdom of the immortal goddess, and how Group Think and popularity are better guidelines than conservative principles...
Mere Republicanism. It must be something in the toe-cheeze.
There is no doubt in my mind that this will end up in exactly the same place as did McCain't, and Thompson before him. It is a foregone conclusion, and the same old song.
I can understand your distaste for immersing yourself in any brawl, but if you ever find the stomach for it, read one of these Palin threads carefully, and you'll see the real dynamic unfold.
Folks who have honest doubts and disagreements with Governor Palin rarely draw insults or snark from the Palin supporters. More often than not, you'll see the Palin supporters engaging them in thoughtful conversation or purposeful debate.
The knives only come out when a poster begins actively attacking Palin with ridicule, snark, lies, or liberal talking points. Often, the miscreant is a serial anti-Palin poster, so they're well known for their excessively negative views of Palin. It ain't their first rodeo. They've been locking horns with Palin supporters for months on end.
These people only account for a very small number at Free Republic, but they create so much chaos and noise, that they appear to be much larger in number than they really are. This is the PDS squad you hear so much about. They are irrational and disruptive, and wouldn't last ten minutes here, if they didn't claim to be conservatives.
If anti-Palin folks were banned, it would work against Palin. Palin detractors, like the Romney supporters, are given just the right amount of rope to hang themselves, thanks to Jim and thanks to FReepers who calmly, methodically, and objectively call them on their crap.
Darn you, Finny. You done went and converted me with solid reasoning and logic again! Darn it .. LOL
Alright. I'll leave my sleeves rolled up, and keep on swinging ;-)
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.