Notice: Forums will be shutdown by June 2019

To focus on better serving our members, we've decided to shut down the POF forums.

While regular posting is now disabled, you can continue to view all threads until the end of June 2019. Event Hosts can still create and promote events while we work on a new and improved event creation service for you.

Thank you!

Plentyoffish dating forums are a place to meet singles and get dating advice or share dating experiences etc. Hopefully you will all have fun meeting singles and try out this online dating thing... Remember that we are the largest free online dating service, so you will never have to pay a dime to meet your soulmate.
     
Show ALL Forums  > Politics  > New Palin Statistics...      Home login  
 AUTHOR
 Wookie50
Joined: 4/9/2006
Msg: 15
view profile
History
New Palin Statistics...Page 2 of 3    (1, 2, 3)

Closer inspection of a photo of Sarah Palin, during a speech in which she mocked President Obama for his use of a teleprompter, reveals several notes written on her left hand. The words "Energy", "Tax" and "Lift American Spirits" are clearly visible. There's also what appears to read as "Budget cuts" with the word Budget crossed out.


I suspected as much when she suddenly started discussing admission to Chuck E Cheese.
 Montreal_Guy
Joined: 3/8/2004
Msg: 16
view profile
History
New Palin Statistics...
Posted: 2/8/2010 4:40:58 PM

The Geneva Convention is NOT part of the Constitution


Well, it's not "part" of the Constitution in a strict sense, but the Constitution does indeed mandate that it be followed as the law of the land, as it does all signed and ratified international treaties. One can say that this linkage does in fact make it "part of the Constitution" in that it gives those it applies to a constitutional right to it's protection - even as a foreigner on US soil, or even US controlled soil.

That's what Hamdan v. Rumsfeld/Rasul v. Bush resolved, in the Supreme Court.


The United States Constitution specifically addresses treaties with other countries, and makes it clear that, once properly ratified, they are laws of the United States equal to any other statute. Recently these issues have been put to the test regarding the treatment of prisoners held at Guantanamo Bay in Cuba. These prisoners are believed to have acted on behalf of the Taliban or the al Qaeda terrorist group as part of the September 11th attacks. This article will explain the Supreme Court's June 2006 ruling on Hamdan v. Rumsfeld, and how it impacts the decision-making process on issues of national security, including the decision to go to war.

Constitutional Limits on Executive Power
Nevertheless, the President has declined to acknowledge constitutional limits on his discretion where national security is concerned. This position has been implemented more broadly than merely as it applies to Guantanamo Bay, resulting in bypassing an uncertain number of our laws, and of over 750 "signing statements," under which the President signs a law while declaring he will not abide by part or all of it. One of the laws the President has maintained was not binding on him is the Geneva Convention on the Treatment of Prisoners of War, one of the four drafted in 1949, including its Article Three.

Returning then to the issue of the treatment of detainees, the safety of our troops is often used as a reason for this unfettered executive discretion, but it is important to remember that the military is not always in agreement with the need for the practice in question. In fact, the Judge Advocates General of all three of the principle uniformed services spoke in opposition to the use of interrogation techniques that deviated from the standards of the Geneva Conventions. They did this because of the belief that the conventions were the law of the United States, and also because they believed that the use of such questionable means would create greater danger to our troops than it could prevent. The expertise of these soldiers was rejected by civilian policy makers in the executive branch, followed by a number of well-publicized abuses that have, indeed, increased the danger to our troops in the field.


Impact of the Court's Ruling
One week before our Independence Day, the United States Supreme Court ruled on Hamdan v. Rumsfeld, rejecting the idea that the President's authority in matters of national security is not subject to the checks and balances of our Constitution. The ruling also established the fact that the Geneva Conventions are binding on the executive and that Common Article Three, at least, applies to detainees in Guantanamo Bay. In a brief note, the Court mentioned one of the most controversial issues-whether the detainees are entitled to a decision by a summary tribunal prior to being denied the status of prisoners of war- but did not decide that question. Therefore, some of the procedures of the tribunals adjudicating the fates of the Guantanamo detainees will probably change to comply with the requirements of Common Article Three.

http://www.macelree.com/resources/home_war.html



Although by the terms used in the Court's holdings they were apparently limited to "citizen-detainees," the last paragraph of section III, D of the O'Connor plurality (four justices: O'Connor, Rehnquist, Kennedy, and Breyer) relies on the Geneva Convention and states that Habeas Corpus should be available to an "alleged enemy combatant." Based on that language and Court's holding in the case of Rasul v. Bush (issued on the same day as Hamdi, but limited solely to the holding that U.S. courts have jurisdiction to hear habeas corpus petitions filed by the Guantanamo detainees), the government conceded that some very limited due process rights allowing for hearings to determine the detainees' status as enemy combatants and the right to legal counsel would be extended to all of the Guantanamo detainees, citizen and non-citizen alike. The application of the Court's decisions in these cases is not inconsistent with the fact that the other two justices in the Hamdi majority, as well as two of the dissenting justices (Scalia and Stevens) were even more restrictive in their willingness to concede any of the detention powers requested by the government for Guantanamo detainees in the Hamdi case.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hamdi_v._Rumsfeld




"Treaty" has a much more restricted meaning under the constitutional law of the United States. It is an international agreement that has received the "advice and consent" (in practice, just the consent) of two-thirds of the Senate and that has been ratified by the President. The Senate does not ratify treaties. When the Senate gives its consent, the President--acting as the chief diplomat of the United States--has discretion whether or not to ratify the instrument. Through the course of U. S. history, several instruments that have received the Senate's consent have nonetheless remained unratified. Those instruments are not in force for the United States, despite the Senate's consent to them.

To summarize: the Senate does not ratify treaties; the President does. Treaties, in the U. S. sense, are not the only type of binding international agreement. Congressional-Executive agreements and Sole Executive agreements may also be binding. It is generally understood that treaties and Congressional-Executive agreements are interchangeable; Sole Executive agreements occupy a more limited space constitutionally and are linked primarily if not exclusively to the President's powers as commander in chief and head diplomat. Treaties and other international agreements are subject to the Bill of Rights. Congress may supersede a prior inconsistent treaty or Congressional-Executive agreement as a matter of U. S. law, but not as a matter of international law. Courts in the United States use their powers of interpretation to try not to let Congress place the United States in violation of its international law obligations. A self-executing treaty provision is the supreme law of the land in the same sense as a federal statute that is judicially enforceable by private parties. Even a non-self-executing provision of an international agreement represents an international obligation that courts are very much inclined to protect against encroachment by local, state or federal law.

http://www.asil.org/insights/insigh10.htm


So, as I understand it (as a non-legal/Constitutional expert) the Constitution does indeed provide that such ratified treaties are in fact binding in regards to US laws on every level.
 Hawaiianluau
Joined: 11/13/2008
Msg: 17
New Palin Statistics...
Posted: 2/8/2010 5:05:28 PM
IMO she should just fade to black and call it a day.

I'm a capitalist so IMO she should still keep doing what she's doing so long as there is someone paying her millions upon millions of dollars to do so. I still don't know why the left pay her so much attention. Utterly intriguing . They want all the rich to pay over half of their income to the government in the name of fairness but when someone they don't agree with makes a wolf shootin' plane load of money they do their best to discredit them. Human nature is a funny thing.
 cotter
Joined: 10/17/2005
Msg: 18
view profile
History
New Palin Statistics...
Posted: 2/8/2010 8:25:40 PM

Rahm on SNL answers Palin

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/02/07/snl-takes-on-rahm-emanuel_n_452596.html

OMG ... that is just hilarious and it's the way Rahm should have truly treated it.

The best thing for our nation would be for that poor excuse to just fade away, but then we wouldn't be able to see her run for President in 2012 ... sigh.

PALIN in 2012 ...

I mean really ... who would voluntarily want to miss that circus (complete with clowns and all) ...
 angelsands
Joined: 9/17/2005
Msg: 19
New Palin Statistics...
Posted: 2/8/2010 9:01:21 PM
If she runs,, she probably would win.. I mean, if she's got the support of all those mothers that take their little kids to the middle of a very OBNOXIOUS and yelling crowd... the support of all the males she winks on the cameras to... The support of all the teenagers/soon to be voters that think is OK to have unprotected sex and get an early pregnancy..the support of those who think she is "conservative enough" ... the support of those who think she is liberal enough.. the support of those who favors religion.... and according to HER book the support of those who don't favor religion..AND the support of those who think that she is "cute enough" to be president... All she needs to do is to have a nude calendar out!!... I guess is true that sex sells...OHH.. uhhh.. and I almost forgot... THE SUPPORT OF THOSE WHO ARE STUPID ENOUGH TO VOTE FOR HER WITH OUT ACTUALLY KNOWING WHAT SHE STANDS FOR... Because one thing is to talk about the issues, and a whole different game is to actually OFFER SOLUTIONS AND IMPLEMENT THEM... And We have many examples around...

 Super Ryan
Joined: 9/15/2007
Msg: 20
New Palin Statistics...
Posted: 2/8/2010 11:29:47 PM
This woman is not only a babbling idiot, she is also an incredible hypocrite. How can anyone believe she is suited to hold the highest office in the world.
Let's just look at the past week.

During her Tea Party Convention speech, she uttered the following:
"...and it’s a lot bigger than any charismatic guy with a teleprompter,”
Here she attempts to belittle the president, for using teleprompters for reading speeches, while she herself was reading a prepared speech from a lecturn mounted teleprompter.

And let's not forget her dishonest approach to offensive language.
Last week in a closed meeting, White House Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel, used the term "f@#$%ing ret@#$ed" to describe a democrat plan.
Sarah Palin immediately called for his resignation, asking if he is capable of decency, and of coarse made claims that the presidents apparent silence on a non-issue to be an endorsement of attacking the mentally disabled.
Then in response to the issue, Rush Limbaugh made the following comment:
"But our politically correct society is acting like some giant insult’s taken place by calling a bunch of people who are “retards,” “retards.” I mean these people, these liberal activists are kooks."
"So now there’s going to be a meeting, there’s going to be a “Retard” Summit at the White House, much like the Beer Summit between Obama and Gates and that cop in Cambridge."
And Sarah Palin answered back:
"[Limbaugh] was using satire... I didn’t hear Rush Limbaugh calling a group of people whom he did not agree with ‘f-ing retards’ and we did know that Rahm Emanuel has been reported, did say that. there is a big difference there."
I don't know, the only difference I really see, is that Rahm Emanuel made the comment in a closed door meeting, and Rush made the comment to millions of people.
I don't think either was correct to make the comment, but it is nowhere near the offensiveness that the n-word is according to Palin (unless someone on the right uses the word).

I just don't understand how a sizeable portion of the American population believes she is qualified to be president.
This woman promotes a message that running a government is a simple and predictable endevour, that can somehow be easily and predictably managed, if only the government would cut taxes, drill for oil , and live by the Christian right wing dogma.
But running a country, and one as massive as the U.S., is not a simple and can only somewhat be predicted of its future. It's not siply giving orders of some ideology, and results will be automatic. Sarah Palin does not understand this simple fact, and has absolutely none of the knowledge or intelligence to actually manage that fact.
This woman can't string three coherent sentences without the use of prepared notes, a teleprompter, or juvenile writtings on her hand.
She went to several colleges, to get a single degree in Communications with a minor in Journalism, and she can't handle the softest of softball interviews. Even Glen Beck had to press her to answer a simple question about her favourite founding father. I don't understand why people give her a pass on the magazine question, but come on, she is a freaking politician and needed three tries to come up with George Washington.

I could also go on about her amazine dishonesty, her three teeth heavy of a Jerry Springer episode family, or her apparent property tax evasion. But instead I will answer a question righties love to ask about the Palin popularity.
"Why are left wingers so obsessed with Sarah Palin"
Now I can't answer for everyone on the left, and obsessed is a bit of an exageration, but I'll tell you why I have followed the train wreck of Sarah Palin.
I can't really stand to watch her speak, I find her creative use of the english language, her empty ideas, and her unbelievable arrogance intollerable. But what I really find amazing (even after watching GW Bush elected twice, sort of), is that plenty of Americans watch her rhetoric and somehow think she should be running the worlds largest economy. I just really don't understand how people keep going to her for salvation after 15 months of disasters in everything she does. She plays into people's worst fears, and promises thinks no one can ever deliver, and around 20% of the population buys into it.
I am simply amazed that "Idiocricy" is looking like a good prediction of the future, when someone with such a low level of intellectual curiosity, as Palin is, could possibly be a contender for the office of the president.

But I really hope she does run in the 2012 election. I don't think she can actually win the republican primary, but her simply running should cause enough adamosity within the party, that Obama should get an easy re-election. And if somehow the 20% of the crazies, who think she is a viable candidate, help her win the primary, I still have faith that at least 51% of the American population can see her for what she really is; a poorly conceived gimick.
 Imported_labor
Joined: 3/7/2008
Msg: 21
New Palin Statistics...
Posted: 2/9/2010 3:10:50 AM

But I really hope she does run in the 2012 election.


I also hope she runs in 2012. If the other republican candidates don't shred her in the primaries, and she happens to end up being their nominee, she will get a rough ride. Those who support her and complain that she is getting abused a bit much are up for a rude awakening.

Once she becomes a presidential candidate her record as the Alaska governor will be fair game, and most important of all will be all the events that led to her resignation as the governor of Alaska. I am sure that all the tabloids and some talk shows will resurrect the fools play that she put on about her daughter's pregnancy, and the false charade about her planned wedding at the time she was running as McCain VP candidate.

If she wants to run she better be ready for that, in top of all her other shortcomings related to her lack of knowledge and her scarce intellectual abilities.
 wisguyingb
Joined: 1/5/2008
Msg: 22
New Palin Statistics...
Posted: 2/9/2010 3:32:36 AM
Palin's mission---Take the tea party movement away from it's libertarianism roots and bring it's elements to the GOP and the NeoCons.

I did not vote for McCain/Palin in 2008 (Voted for Chuck Baldwin) and probably would not vote for a Palin/? in 2012. She needs to stop being a hypocrite and call out people like Rush for his use of the "R" word.


I am sure that all the tabloids and some talk shows will resurrect the fools play that she put on about her daughter's pregnancy, and the false charade about her planned wedding at the time she was running as McCain VP candidate.


^^How do you know that their wedding was false? Do you have the facts to support this claim? Or is that just a hunch?
 cotter
Joined: 10/17/2005
Msg: 23
view profile
History
New Palin Statistics...
Posted: 2/9/2010 11:12:47 AM


I am sure that all the tabloids and some talk shows will resurrect the fools play that she put on about her daughter's pregnancy, and the false charade about her planned wedding at the time she was running as McCain VP candidate.

^^How do you know that their wedding was false? Do you have the facts to support this claim? Or is that just a hunch?
Who cares if it's fact or hunch? Fact is ... there was no wedding.

Fact is that if that is the case (with the wedding which I too suspected all along) ... it's sure not the first inconsistency we see with Ms. Ignoramous, and the "retarded" inconsistencies will not stop with Rahm Emanual either. Among other things ... the woman is apparently only incensed about specific people using the "retarded" word as well. She's two-faced about it. According to her grandson's father, the woman uses that word at home. "Gush Pfleghmball" is allowed to use the word, but Democrats aren't? What the hell is that all about?

Perhaps the only thing consistent about her is that she's good at misrepresenting just about everything in her life ... from her children all the way up to her political standing. Hmmm ... does that count as a "statistic"?
 Hawaiianluau
Joined: 11/13/2008
Msg: 24
New Palin Statistics...
Posted: 2/9/2010 10:23:28 PM
I don't know, the only difference I really see, is that Rahm Emanuel made the comment in a closed door meeting, and Rush made the comment to millions of people.

Also Rush used the words in jest and Emanuel used "f**king retards" in absolute seriousness and 100% truth as he was referring to his fellow liberals.
 cotter
Joined: 10/17/2005
Msg: 25
view profile
History
New Palin Statistics...
Posted: 2/10/2010 11:26:03 AM

... Emanuel used "f**king retards" in absolute seriousness ...
Actually he said an idea that some of them had was "fvcking retarded" ... the IDEA was retarded. He didn't call anyone at all "retarded".

... as he was referring to his fellow liberals.
He was not calling his fellow liberals "retarded" ... just some idiotic or moronic idea they had. When one looks in a thesaurus there really isn't much difference between using idiotic and moronic and retarded ...
Retarded … impeded … encumbered … obstructed

Idiotic … foolish … lacking judgment

Moronic … impaired

... but the emphasis was on the IDEA ... not the people who were talking or in the room.

What's it to Palin? They weren't talking about her or her child, although it would have been appropriate for her. She's definitely "impaired" ... the female version of "Dumbya"/The "High Functioning Moron".

BTW ... does anyone know ... has Paul Begala weighed in on this yet?
 Imported_labor
Joined: 3/7/2008
Msg: 26
New Palin Statistics...
Posted: 2/10/2010 12:39:32 PM

^^How do you know that their wedding was false? Do you have the facts to support this claim? Or is that just a hunch?


It was a hunch based on the whole picture we had at the time. I predicted that the wedding would not take place when the mother of Levi Johnston was arrested for drug trafficking. It wasn't a risky prediction by then, but the Palin supporters didn't want to believe me when I was saying that the whole thing was an act.

I wonder if Sarah Palin knew that sherry Johnston, the future mother-in-law of her daughter was under investigation for drug trafficking? If she knew, do you think that she ever was going to let her daughter get married to the father of that child?

All of that is going to be re-visited when she decides to run for office again.
 Super Ryan
Joined: 9/15/2007
Msg: 27
New Palin Statistics...
Posted: 2/11/2010 12:29:39 AM
The name on her black memorial bracelet

You know, you've put me in an ackward position. I really hate to have to defend Sarah Palin in any way. But the bracelet wasn't black, it was bronze and was specifically built for families of deployed soldiers.


The problem is, it looks like it's not a black bracelet at all. The owner of HeroBracelets.org wrote a post on his site bragging about Sarah Palin wearing the "Deployment Bracelet" he gave her, which is bronze, not black. Looking at the close-up of Palin's hand from the Tea Party convention, it seems entirely plausible that her bracelet is indeed a dark bronze or copper, which was mistaken for black in the light.

http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/sarah-palin-non-scandal-day-deployed-bracelet-edition

And here's a picture:
https://www.herobracelets.org/xcart/customer/product.php?productid=6&cat=0&page=
 wisguyingb
Joined: 1/5/2008
Msg: 28
New Palin Statistics...
Posted: 2/11/2010 4:07:29 AM
Everyone can whine or cheer about Palin. But the real truth is that the more people talk about her the more money she makes.
 Montreal_Guy
Joined: 3/8/2004
Msg: 29
view profile
History
New Palin Statistics...
Posted: 2/11/2010 8:14:14 AM
Washington (CNN) - As Sarah Palin marks her birthday, a new national poll indicates that 7 out of 10 Americans feel that she is not qualified to be president.

According to an ABC News/Washington Post survey, 71 percent of the public say the former Alaska governor is not qualified to serve in the White House, with 26 percent saying the 2008 Republican vice presidential nominee is qualified to be president. The 26 percent who say Palin is qualified is down 12 points from an ABC News/Washington Post poll from November.

Twenty-eight percent of people questioned in a CNN/Opinion Research Corporation survey from November indicated that Palin was qualified, with 7 in 10 feeling she was not qualified to be president.

The ABC News/Washington Post poll, released Thursday morning as Palin marks her 46th birthday, also indicates that even a majority of Republicans now view Palin as not qualified to serve as commander-in-chief. According to the survey, 45 percent of conservatives see her as qualified, down 21 points from last November.

The survey also indicates that 37 percent of Americans have a favorable view of her, with 55 percent holding an unfavorable view. According to a CNN/Opinion Research Corporation survey from last month, 43 percent of the public had a favorable opinion and 46 percent had an unfavorable view of Palin.

http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/?fbid=PMVSJsFJ-7A


Seems the more people see of her, the less they think she's a viable candidate.

Well, happy birthday Sarah !
 cotter
Joined: 10/17/2005
Msg: 30
view profile
History
New Palin Statistics...
Posted: 2/12/2010 6:12:29 PM

Seems the more people see of her, the less they think she's a viable candidate.
Well ... that's the idea of keeping her in the limelight ... the more they see of her the ... ??????

PALIN in 2012 ...
 MrLove45
Joined: 1/31/2010
Msg: 31
view profile
History
New Palin Statistics...
Posted: 2/15/2010 12:38:08 PM
Oh please let palin win the republican presidential nominee... that would be the best thing that could happen for the dems....
keep on anlienating moderates and independents making them feel ashamed to be associated with such a rabid,hypocritical, racist republican party....
palin/brown in 20112, you betcha sweet ar se that's a dream ticket for the dems.....
 jed456
Joined: 4/26/2005
Msg: 32
view profile
History
New Palin Statistics...
Posted: 2/16/2010 10:45:43 PM
What I do find interesting is the FACT that the liberals are so damn scared of this woman.


Speaking only for myself I am not "scared" its amusing to me to watch the train wreck that is sarah palin.
1. "As Putin rears his head and comes into the air space of the United States of America, where– where do they go? It's Alaska. It's just right over the border." --Sarah Palin, explaining why Alaska's proximity to Russia gives her foreign policy experience, interview with CBS's Katie Couric, Sept. 24, 2008 (Watch video clip)

2. "The America I know and love is not one in which my parents or my baby with Down Syndrome will have to stand in front of Obama's 'death panel' so his bureaucrats can decide, based on a subjective judgment of their 'level of productivity in society,' whether they are worthy of health care. Such a system is downright evil." –-Sarah Palin, in a message posted on Facebook about Obama's health care plan, Aug. 7, 2009

3. "All of 'em, any of 'em that have been in front of me over all these years." --Sarah Palin, unable to name a single newspaper or magazine she reads, interview with Katie Couric, CBS News, Oct. 1, 2008 (Watch video clip)

4. "Well, let's see. There's ? of course in the great history of America there have been rulings that there's never going to be absolute consensus by every American, and there are those issues, again, like Roe v. Wade, where I believe are best held on a state level and addressed there. So, you know, going through the history of America, there would be others but ?" --Sarah Palin, unable to name a Supreme Court decision she disagreed with other than Roe vs. Wade, interview with Katie Couric, CBS News, Oct. 1, 2008 (Watch video clip)

5. "We believe that the best of America is not all in Washington, D.C. ... We believe that the best of America is in these small towns that we get to visit, and in these wonderful little pockets of what I call the real America, being here with all of you hard working very patriotic, um, very, um, pro-America areas of this great nation." --Sarah Palin, speaking at a fundraiser in Greensoboro, N.C., Oct. 16, 2008

6. "[T]hey're in charge of the U.S. Senate so if they want to they can really get in there with the senators and make a lot of good policy changes that will make life better for Brandon and his family and his classroom." --Sarah Palin, getting the vice president's constitutional role wrong after being asked by a third grader what the vice president does, interview with NBC affiliate KUSA in Colorado, Oct. 21, 2008 (Watch video clip)

7. "They are kooks, so I agree with Rush Limbaugh. Rush Limbaugh was using satire ... I didn't hear Rush Limbaugh calling a group of people whom he did not agree with 'f-ing retards,' and we did know that Rahm Emanuel, as has been reported, did say that. There is a big difference there." –Sarah Palin, attempting to rationalize why it's okay for Limbaugh to use the word "retards" but not Emanuel, FOX News Sunday interview, Feb. 7, 2010

8. "Who calls a shot like that? Who makes a decision like that? It's a disturbing trend." –Sarah Palin, pushing a conspiracy theory that "In God We Trust" had been moved to the edge of coins by the Obama administration (the change was made by the Bush administration in 2007 and was later reversed by Congress, before Obama took office), West Allis, Wisconsin, Nov. 6, 2009

9. "Ohh, good, thank you, yes." --Sarah Palin, after a notorious Canadian prank caller complimented her on the documentary about her life, Hustler's "Nailin Paylin," Nov. 1, 2008 (Read more about the prank call, watch the video and see the transcript)

10. "I think on a national level your Department of Law there in the White House would look at some of the things that we've been charged with and automatically throw them out." --Sarah Palin, referring to a department that does not exist while attempting to explain why as president she wouldn't be subjected to the same ethics investigations that compelled her to resign as governor of Alaska, ABC News interview, July 7, 2009


12. [Sarah Palin] represents a fatal cancer to the Republican party." ?conservative columnist David Brooks


My I don't know if you're going to use the word 'terrorist' there." --Sarah Palin, asked if people who bomb abortion clinics are terrorists, NBC News interview, Oct. 23, 2008

"Perhaps so." --Sarah Palin, when asked if we may need to go to war with Russia because of the Georgia crisis, ABC News interview, Sept. 11, 2008

Isn't that a great idea to start a war with nuclear armed Russia?Please this women is a loony If I was a conservative I would be embarrassed to have this lady as my spokesperson.
And let's not forget the "grassroot's" tea party convention where it cost $560 dollars a ticket.And the 100,000 dollar speaking fee while it is fine to make money in this country I thought it was all about the people you know especially the ones who couldn't afford a ticket?Hypocrisy at its finest.


 SteelCity1981
Joined: 8/16/2005
Msg: 33
view profile
History
New Palin Statistics...
Posted: 2/18/2010 2:48:25 AM
palin/brown in 20112, you betcha sweet ar se that's a dream ticket for the dems


That's a very long time from now. I highly doubt they will run in 20112.
 HalftimeDad
Joined: 5/29/2005
Msg: 34
New Palin Statistics...
Posted: 2/18/2010 7:58:00 AM
The decision has to be made this year about whether to run for the Republican nomination. It's a long process. That's one of the reasons an obscure Governor from Arkansas won the Democratic nomination in 92 - in 90 Bush 1 was very popular and the heavyweights in the party decided to sit out.

So Palin is clearly going for the nomination, and she might not have an opponent much more qualified than she is. Obviously any opponent is more qualified - if you can spell President, you're more qualified - but Palin might just get the nomination.
 jed456
Joined: 4/26/2005
Msg: 35
view profile
History
New Palin Statistics...
Posted: 2/19/2010 2:30:04 PM
Because left leaning Paul has taken a stand against the occupation of Iraq and the U.S. war on terror.


Gee I thought America didn't occupy countries silly me.Oh wait Korea,Germany,japan.
Hitler's dead we won people Time to come home.


He voted against last year's war funding bill, supports repeal of the USA PATRIOT Act and opposes an attack on Iran.


I thought conservatives were always railing against big government interfering in there lives tapping phones isn't an invasion of privacy? It is always about the Constitution or so say some of the conservatives but only it seems when it fits there ideology.It is usually prudent to consider other options then rushing in and attacking any country.Guns blazing and yelling yeehaa and mission accomplished doesn't cut it.
But what do you expect from the extreme right wing conservatives When Palin is ready to go to war with Russia during the Georgia crisis.Let's face it during the cold war most sane people knew if the U.S. and Russia launched it was game over for the world,But apparently not palin.
 Super Ryan
Joined: 9/15/2007
Msg: 36
New Palin Statistics...
Posted: 2/19/2010 2:51:42 PM
I love how the NeoCons/Religious Right, paint anyone with a differing opinion as left leaning.
Ron Paul is right-wing, no matter how you look at it. Libertanians are right-wing.
I also love how they claim Justice Kennedy is left as well, even though he has voted with the right-wing justices on almost every case.
The GOP is going to continue losing ground on the dems, because they refuse to listen to anyone who does not pull the party line, or doesn't look at democracy as an "us vs them" mentallity.
How can your government ever function, when one side simply says "no" to everything the other side proposes.
The GOP is now saying no to policies they came up with, simply because now the dems support those policies.
 jed456
Joined: 4/26/2005
Msg: 37
view profile
History
New Palin Statistics...
Posted: 2/19/2010 3:00:50 PM

The GOP is now saying no to policies they came up with, simply because now the dems support those policies.


When I saw that I was astounded.We lost the election so were throwing a temper tantrum and screw the American public.
 Pyro74
Joined: 4/23/2006
Msg: 38
view profile
History
New Palin Statistics...
Posted: 2/19/2010 8:57:06 PM

Because left leaning Paul has taken a stand against the occupation of Iraq and the U.S. war on terror. He voted against last year's war funding bill, supports repeal of the USA PATRIOT Act and opposes an attack on Iran.

Sounds like a true conservative to me. Republican or not he's got my vote.
 Super Ryan
Joined: 9/15/2007
Msg: 39
New Palin Statistics...
Posted: 2/19/2010 9:38:54 PM

gains composure* Sugar, anyone with different world views than the religious right or Neocons, as you put it, is what we consider "left".
EX:
Religious right--center---------------------------------------------------left
IMO

Then you have zero understanding of what political leanings actually are.
Libertarians are right wing. This is the belief throughout the world including right wing America, but maybe not in psychotically right wing Texas
But what is funny, is that by international standards the democrats are right of centre, and not left, or anywhere near socialist.


I find it crazy that someone could actually believe only NeoCons and the religious right are right wing and everything else is left. This shows a small mind, without the ability to view any subject that challenges ones beliefs. Please expand where you get your information from.
FoxNews and Rush Limbaugh are not only biased, they are outright propoganda. They have little interest in reporting facts, they are much more interested in swaying opinion.
Myself, I try to get my information from as many sources as possible, including right wing sources. I never take anyones word for it, and I always ask the simple questions "Why did this source choose to report the story?" and "Who gains an advantage by the story being reported?"
And I also take classes on the subjects and read textbooks.
Show ALL Forums  > Politics  > New Palin Statistics...