Sarah Palin: ‘Waterboarding is how we’d baptize terrorists’ in her administration

The Washington Times ^ | April 26, 2016 | David Sherfinski

[jazusamo]

INDIANAPOLIS — Former Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin fired up a crowd of thousands inside Lucas Oil Stadium Saturday night to kick off the National Rifle Association’s “Stand and Fight Rally,” saying Americans’ constitutional rights as envisioned by the founding fathers are under attack and policies like gun-free zones constitute “stupid on steroids.”

“They knew that if the Second Amendment goes, the rest of the constitution is not far behind,” she said of the country’s founders.

In her approximately 12-minute address, Mrs. Palin also derided what she argued is akin to a ‘blame the messenger’ attitude on gun violence many Americans take today.

“Gun stores are an accomplice to crime,” she said, “and that fork made me fat.”

Mrs. Palin, plucked from relative political obscurity to be the 2008 GOP vice presidential nominee, still enjoys significant support among elements of the party’s base, and was at times received like a rock star inside the complex adjacent to the Indiana Convention Center, where much of the gun rights group’s annual meeting has taken place.

[DoughtyOne]

 I’ve been here since 1998, and I’ve been posting pro Conservative opinions for the whole time. You’re delusional.

Uhhhh, no. I've been here since 1997, and I actually talked to you at one of the events back in the day.

Wow, you actually talked to me at one of the events in the day.  That's really impressive.

You were coming from a different perspective, but we were both there for a common purpose.

I was coming from a different perspective.  So far you have provided no information whatsoever here.  It just gets better and better...

I've been cutting you slack all these years, but your recycled Lefty vomit about Palin was just about the last straw.

You've been cutting me slack?  Gee, that was mighty nice of you.  So what you're saying is that in 16 years, you never had the backbone to discuss an issue with me.

So watch your tail around me from here on out, you pudgy little whimp. Yeah, I was the really tall guy...

Do you realize what an idiot you just made yourself out to be here?  Frankly I doubt it.  It would take fare more intelligence than this post exemplifies, for you to have the slightest clue.

1. You talked ot me in the day.  Means absolutely nothing...
2. I was coming from a different perspective... one of the worst things you can possibly write about someone.  You're kidding right?  This was supposed to be impressive?  It was the stuff of buffoonery.
3. You cut me some slack for 16 years.  Seriously, this borders being serious nut-job material.
4. So not it's threats and insults.

Just post a link to Palin's comprehensive immigration plans ace...  oh, she doesn't have any.

And you defend this...

[kiryandil]

You always were just a Mouth, someone who never really contributed to the work of the site.

The rest of us were busy whacking Big Bill's peepee, and didn't have time for your "Alas Poor Yorick" schtick.

Yeah, LAT/WP & Eschoir didn't think you were big enough fry to include in the lawsuit, did they, DoughtyBoy?

[DoughtyOne]

There are a lot of problems with your post sir.  Okay, lets look at them.

First, YOU came on to this thread with the same old tired bullshit attack you made for years, as if she was a part of the establishment GOPE who wants amnesty.

There is not current comprehensive immigration plan from Palin.  She wants to be considered to be a contender, but one of the leading issues of the day goes lacking when it comes to a clear cut plan from Palin.

Here last interviews on the subject she states she wants to register them.  Asked if they will have to leave, she says not as long as they follow the rules.  So she was/is another person who wants to make up new ruiles, rather than enforce the laws we have.  Where has she refuted these statements?  She says she's not in favor of Comprehensive immigration reform.  I never said she was.  I have only repeated what she said her plan was.  Where has she refuted that or presented a new plan.  Just saying she doesn't agree with McCain doesn't mean a thing.  He wants comprehensive immigration reforem.  She doesn't.  That still doesn't mean she does not want to register them and allow them to stay.  And when I ask for a link to her immigration policy, nobody will provide it.  I went to Facebook looking for it.  I didn't find it.  So link me to it LakeShark.

You wanted to recycle the old interviews while she was a candidate or shortly thereafter to "prove" your old ongoing made up point that has been now proven to be entirely incorrect. 

You honestly amaze me.  The interviews are out there.  You can listen to them.  And yet you refernce me trying to prove my "made up point".  No, I reference Palin's own ingterview.  And no I haven't been proven to be wrong.  Saying you don't support a comprehensive immigration reform, does not mean that you have sworn off registering illegals and allowing them to stay.  Show me her new plan, and I'll be glad to see it and agree to the points made in it.  Until then, I'm going with her last interviews.

She hasn't done new ones.  She hasn't sworn off registering and allowing them to stay.

For you to still be doing that KNOWING she is genuinely against amnesty shows you to be either dishonest, a simple Palin hater or both.

In the interviews in question, Palin says she is against amnesty.  Then she proceeds to suggest they need to be registered, and then they can stay.

You see LakeShark, you know even less about the woman than I do.  None the less you are here to set me straight, not knowing what you are talking about.

I find that more than slightly disturbing, you KNOWING she is against illegal immigration and all its negative ramifications you still came on a thread and pushed your old beliefs, might I add: clearly wrong and made up beliefs.

LakeShark, you really don't know what you are talking about.  It's pointless to discuss this with you, if you're not going to address what is out there.

So, now you come on and move the goal posts. You now say: Please link me to Palin’s detailed plan for fixing illegal immigration

Well sir, that's just disingenuous of you. The only "plans" that are out are from old candidates and old campaigns that have failed, there is no candidate for president yet and you know that. She is NOT a candidate, and neither is anyone else. If you can find one person with a "detailed plan for fixing illegal immigration" who might have presidential aspirations, go ahead, link us to it. Just one. Go ahead, just one. We won't hold our breath.

So what you're telling me, is that you acknowledge she has no comprehensive immigration reform plan.  And realizing she has no comprehensive immigration reform plan, you still come here to say what her plan is or isn't.  And when I at least fofer up interviews she has agreed to participate in, and she lays out her plan, you still say that is no longer her plan.  What pray tell do you base that on?  The last things she has said are out there, and she hasn't put out other detailed plans, but you're just postive that here plan is not what it used to be.  Why?  On what basis do you make that claim?

The point is, you are holding her to a standard that no one meets, yet criticizing her with your underlying premise (false) as if she is still aligned with McCain concerning immigration.

If you wish to cast this as McCain's plan, go ahead and try.  In the interveiw Palin state's clearly what her plan is.  Yet now it wasn't her plan after all.  It is now McCain's plan, and it was supposed to be all along.  Well, that's not the way she was selling it back then.  She was selling it as her thoughts on illegal immigration and how to fix it.  At no time in the interview did she reference John's and my plan, or John's plan, or anything about it being the campaign plan..., it was her plan..

As I said on the day YOU found out YOU WERE WRONG ABOUT ALL THIS: MAN UP, ADMIT YOU WERE WRONG, A REAL MAN WOULD DO SO. So far you have been incapable of a simple apology to all those you browbeat for years about this issue with the same old tired crap, and here you are again. It's like Groundhog Day with you.

Sorry, I'm not going to play the Obama game plan here.  We own up to what we have said as Conservatives.  Last I heard Palin was a Conservative.  She did the interviews.  It was unfortunate then.  It's still unfortunate.  If she wants to get out in front of this issue, a good place to start would be to refute the idea or registartion and allowing illegals to stay.  It's a rather simple step. Instead you come in to a thread, hijack it, and demonstrate just how unhinged you are about her. Grow up.

You know nothing abou the interveiws and what was contained in them, and you reference me as unhinged.  You ask me to grow up.  Tell you what LakeShark, study up on the issue and come back to discuss it more.  I'd be interested if you can find anything to link me to that backs up any of your claims.

[kiryandil]

The Pillsbury DoughtyBoy has always been the Mouth That Roared, even back in the day.

He tries to baffle you with the same old BS, as you pointed out.

You're doing well. Stick the pudgy little worm to the wall.

[DoughtyOne]

You always were just a Mouth, someone who never really contributed to the work of the site.

Well, I've done some things to support FR and it's goals over the years.  I've never been asked to do some things.  I've tried to be supportive at events from Los Angeles, to San Diego, to Las Vegas, to Washington, D. C.

I believe this is a discussion forum.  It is therefore supportive of Conservatism to address issues from a Conservative perspective.  If that's your idea of a big infraction around here, I laugh at your stupidity.

The rest of us were busy whacking Big Bill's peepee, and didn't have time for your "Alas Poor Yorick" schtick.

Oh yeah, I've never said an unkind word about Bill.  Your inside joke here was a little too obtuse to make sense or points.

Yeah, LAT/WP & Eschoir didn't think you were big enough fry to include in the lawsuit, did they, DoughtyBoy?

And why shoud they?  I'm not the owner of the site and have never claimed to be.  I have also never claimed to have any status here other than participation.

Were you mentioned in the LAT/WP & Eschoir lawsuit?

[kiryandil]

Your font color thingee is striking, but I always favored Deb & Phil's fuchsia. It was more of a b*tchslap for those with the talent to pull it off.

You, not so much.

[DoughtyOne]

Well that’s nice...

LOL

[kiryandil]

You've got him on the run.

Now, he's just posting Blue Diarrhea like a squid covering its escape. If you analyze it, it's all just Boilerplate Blather.

[DoughtyOne]

You are a rather ignorant person aren’t you.

[kiryandil]

You are a rather ignorant person aren’t you.

Yep. 17 years on Free Republic last month, and there's only one poster more ignorant than me.

His initials are "The Pillsbury DoughtyBoy" - too dumb to move out of California...

He's all yours, boys. You've got the little turd well in hand. Need any help, just give me a shout.

(BTW, DoughyBoy - billypaul was intelligent. You, you're just a Mouth.)

[onyx]

Thank you so much, Lakeshark!

I’ve read all the posts and you have D.O. nailed.

I must admit I’m at a loss to understand his rabid PDS because in person he’s a very nice guy ... grounded and sensible too.

Sarah Palin is one of our very best and completely on our side. Just ask SENATOR TED CRUZ who never fails to give her credit for his election.

[oldfart]

I’m not going to engage in some sort of debate here. I made my point - which you agreed with - and you made yours. I ain’t the sharpest knife on the Christmas tree nor do I claim to be so I’ll defer to those who either are such or think they are.
It has been a very nice day.

[DoughtyOne]

You are a rather ignorant person aren’t you.

Yep. 17 years on Free Republic last month, and there's only one poster more ignorant than me.

LakeShark wrote me a response touching on a number of issues.  Rather than just say, "You're wrong on all that!", I took the time to isolate each of his comments and respond on point.  The responses I provided addressed why I thought it was reasoned to disagree.  You don't have to agree with them, but they were reasoned responses on point, and did present a valid couterpoint.  This you dismissed as boilerplate.  You didn't have the faculties to grasp what I had done.  And on this thread you also berated me for using color to differntiate who was saying what.  This makes it easier for people stopping by, or even the person I'm responding to, to know exactly who is saying what and in response to what.  So your response wasn't reasoned.  It evidenced your inability to make a reasoned assessment.  We'll see more evidence of that here in this post.

His initials are "The Pillsbury DoughtyBoy" - too dumb to move out of California...

Okay rather than touch on substance and disapprove and provide an alternative view, you just conceeded the poing and went for the insult killer.  Killer of what?  Killer of discussion.  You don't want discussion because you can't challenge my comments on point.

You insult my pseudonyum.  Who cares?  Then you make a comment to me that is so broad that you capture a lot of others in your insult.  Which state's FReepers dontate the most in every FReepathon?  Care to guess?  Yep, that's right, all those people too dumb to move out of their home state, California.  And which state does Jim Robinson reside in?  Which state do the servers for Free Republic reside in?

California is a great state.  I haven't been willing to surrender it or abandon it.  I guess that makes me pretty dumb in some people's eyes.  They are people who are so shallow, that I don't mind what they think of me.

The lack of intellegence you displayed in that one sentence, should clear it up for anyone wondering if you have two brain cells to scrape together.

He's all yours, boys. You've got the little turd well in hand. Need any help, just give me a shout.

Ah yes, more evidence of your billiance.  If anyone else wants to insult anyone living in California including the owner of this forum, just ask this guy.  He'll be glad to help you.

(BTW, DoughyBoy - billypaul was intelligent. You, you're just a Mouth.)

Third grade much?

[DoughtyOne]

Thank you so much, Lakeshark!

I’ve read all the posts and you have D.O. nailed.

If you mean posting comments which were easily addressed on point, and shot down without reubuttal, then I agree.  LakeShark really has me on the run.  You know better than that Onyx.

Rather than admit that I have a point, you folks simply circle the wagons and keep sending each other notes heralding victory as each of you are mowed down by arrows.  Victory means taking the other person out.  It doesn't mean dropping off one by one because you know the other person is scoring points.  And the points I've made are irrefutable.  If you follow what I am trying to say, it is going to be troubleing for you folks.  If it isn't, then you're not interested in reasoned assessment of your proposed candidate.

I must admit I’m at a loss to understand his rabid PDS because in person he’s a very nice guy ... grounded and sensible too.

This was nice of you to say Onyx.  I can't honestly say I've met any FReepers that rubbed me the wrong way in person.  I don't carry over my forum debates in person.  I consider this a place where thoughts and ideas are presented, and challenged.

Back in 2000, we had a guy running for the office.  Some of us were challenging his Conservative credentials.  Those who supported the guy were very upset about it.  There was a real range war here.  The folks who supported him prevailed through the primaries and he became our nominee.  And then he proceeded to barely win the officice by the slimest of margins, against the likes of Al Gore.  Almost any Conservative with an awareness of the issues should be able to trample Al Gore under their feet in short order.  This guy couldn't.  He wasn't a true Conservative at his core.  Over and over again we saw that during his presidency.

Today we debate how much liberal agenda was reversed or turned back during his presidency.  The sad fact is, very little.  There is an argument to be made that tenets of the Left's agenda were actually implemented too.  Troubles that were looming over our nation were ignored.  By the end of his term our economy was in total meltdown.  And then rather than highlight precisely why this came about, he allowed the Left to craft it as some evil plot of Wall Street and Lending institutions.  At no point did the man lay out the carefully crafted campaign of the Liberals to gift loans to people who couldn't pay them back, and how that segment of the lending industry tanked the whole system as bad paper built up to the point it couldn't be sustained any longer.  So now we're still doing it.  And sooner or later it happens all over again.

So when people make comments like, "I do not support Comprehensive Immigration Reform!", it isn't enough for me.  I want to see their platform on the issue.  If they tell me they support gun rights, I want to see what their plans are for protecting them, rolling back the decades of restrictions on those rights.  I don't want to give people a pass just because they can fire off a great populist speech.  I am very leery of each and every candidate.  I have seen what a Republican President, a Republican Senate, and a Republcan House can fail to do.  I want to know what the person is going to be fighting for in detail before I sign off on them.  That is what I have been trying to say here..

Sarah Palin is one of our very best and completely on our side. Just ask SENATOR TED CRUZ who never fails to give her credit for his election.

What is Sarah's Immigration plan?

You folks can circumvent the issues all you want.  I can think of nice things to say about George Bush too.  In the end, his administration failed this nation miserably.  I do not want a repeat of that.  Neither should you.

[Lakeshark]

There you go again, moving the goal posts per usual. Everyone on this thread noticed you didn't link me to a candidate who has a plan to deal with illegal immigration. Just one sir, just one, go ahead, we're watching. You obviously know her and every other candidate better than we do, so we're watching.

As I said, we're also not holding our breath because we understand your hypocrisy and odd intellectual bankruptcy. Keep up the double standards, wrap them in blue print, and we'll all marvel at your chutzpah (and yes, we'll laugh).

Keep posting us interviews that are six years old, interviews that never proved your point, keep making up what she says, and pretend you don't KNOW she came out strongly against the GOPE's amnesty/immigration plans. Go ahead, we're all watching you stink up the thread with your made up beliefs, so by all means continue.

We're also waiting for an apology for your Smearing, browbeating, blue lies for the past years.

MAN UP: YOU WERE WRONG, ADMIT IT, MAN UP.

[DoughtyOne]

There you go again, moving the goal posts per usual. Everyone on this thread noticed you didn't link me to a candidate who has a plan to deal with illegal immigration. Just one sir, just one, go ahead, we're watching. You obviously know her and every other candidate better than we do, so we're watching.

I'd like to see some place where she says she no longer supports registration and the illegal alien staying here.  If you can't provide that, then you have no idea if her position has changed or not.

I'm not here breathlessly hawking some other candidate.  I haven't made any statements about the immigration views of other candidates.  I merely asked what her views on it were.  You provided an answer and I have asked you to prove it.  Changing the issue to one of me providing statements from other candidates is the real deflection here.  Nice try though.

As I said, we're also not holding our breath because we understand your hypocrisy and odd intellectual bankruptcy. Keep up the double standards, wrap them in blue print, and we'll all marvel at your chutzpah (and yes, we'll laugh).

Laugh all you like.  I don't mind at all.  What's becoming clearer with each of your posts, is that you cannot back up your claim that her position has changed.  Provide some documentation to make it clear Palin has stopped supporting registration and remaining in place.  If you can't, I understand your problem.  It's the same one I have with her.  She's great at populist presentations.  She's not so great on the important issues of the day.  She can make a great sound-bite.  She can't provide the plan that makes it clear she has changed her mind about registration and staying in place..

Keep posting us interviews that are six years old, interviews that never proved your point, keep making up what she says, and pretend you don't KNOW she came out strongly against the GOPE's amnesty/immigration plans. Go ahead, we're all watching you stink up the thread with your made up beliefs, so by all means continue.

Okay, the main beef with the interviews from six years ago, is that you believe Palin was caught up on the McCain campaign and so it isn't fair to saddle her with in effect his policy.  Okay, then lets eliminate the problem with that

Here's part of her interview with O'Reilly.  I'm not a big fan of O'Reilly, but in this interview she again reinforces her intent to register them and that the expectation is that the illegals who register will work.  This is from 2010, two years after McCain went down to defeat, and the same year Palin endorsed him to remain the Senator from Arizona over Hayworth.  She hadn't been his running mate for two years.  None the less, she's still hawking the registration and remaining in place.

She also talks about putting the national guard on the border, and building the full fence on the border.  So she does say some good things too.

Then she makes what I think is a cardinal mistake.  Reagan's policy regarding illegal aliens did not fail.  Only have of it was implemented.  Bush, Clinton, Bush, and Obama failed to enforce the new tougher employer sanctions and tighter border security along the border with Mexico.  We stopped raids of businesses.  In short, we stopped most of the things we did prior to Reagan's agreement to the bill.  Saying that his fix didn't work, is very unfair to Reagan.  And Palin also pegs the figure at three million, which after the fact was accurate, but Reagan was assured there were only one million illegal aliens in country when he signed the bill.  Another point to be made on this 1 million vs 3 million figure, is that the pro amnesty bunch has always low-balled the figure of illegal s inside our nation.  Today the number is still pegged at 11 million even though we had 9 million in 2000, and we know for a fact that illegal alien border crossing exploded after Bush was elected, because he kept talking up amnesty.  So when Sarah talks of registering and remaining in place, she misses the one real lesson from the Reagan immigration reform.  Expect the actual number of illegal aliens involved to be up to 300% higher than what is discussed during the process.

While I do believe Palin's instincts are fairly good on the illegal aliens issue, her achillies heel is her belief in registration and staying in place.  If she follows through on that, we're easily looking at the impact of 80 to 150 million new U. S. Citizens within 20 years.  And most of them will vote for the party that gives away the most goodies.  That would be the Democrats.

We're also waiting for an apology for your Smearing, browbeating, blue lies for the past years.

LakeShark, if nothing else you are good for a laugh.

MAN UP: YOU WERE WRONG, ADMIT IT, MAN UP.

When I am wrong, I do man admit to it.  It's a trait you might want to consider adopting.

[caww]

Yep....Wrong time and place...I think she messed up this one as even the Christian community is irritated she used the idea of Baptism in relation to water boarding.

[caww]

But some of us who support Sarah disagreed with her saying this...I am one of them...that doesn’t mean i don’t still support her efforts..it means she messed up this time around...and excuse me but she will and can do that...she is not perfect and will be the first to say as much.

I have to say that though I support and like Sarah some of her followers are still off the rail as much as those who support Obama. I’ve seen others make comment on threads about Sarah and people jump all over them when it should be free for discussion.

I have found it’s NOT free for discussion and so it’s rare I will comment at all...though I’d like to now and then.

Sarah was wrong to associate Baptism to Water-boarding IMO...and that needs to be said....even if not agreeable to everyone.

[Triple]

Sarah is the best!

[kiryandil]

Okay rather than touch on substance and disapprove and provide an alternative view, you just conceeded the poing and went for the insult killer. Killer of what? Killer of discussion. You don't want discussion because you can't challenge my comments on point.

You're just not getting the message that your comments aren't worth challenging, because if we want to hear your points, we can all just turn on MSNBC, CNN, gAyBC, or SeeBS and listen to those idiots quack the same points all day long.

We come to Free Republic for intelligent discussion, not for the Katie Couric/DoughtyBoy executive summary.