Palin in 2012? Yeah Right

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
41

[quote]apbt55 wrote:
Neuromancer wrote:
apbt55 wrote:
Neuromancer wrote:
She’s waiting to see what God tells her to do.

Obama is on video saying there are 57 states, now he is the moron.

I can think of other candidates that would be better suited to run, but you treat her like she is a horrible person, she ismore qualified to be in the whitehouse then the president elect as far as executive experience.

Oh I know you don’t like her cuz she isn’t some ugly upity bitch like hillary, the clinton with the balls.

Did I say anything about Obama?Did I say anything about Clinton?

I didn’t think so.So stop telling me what I did and didn’t say,and address what I did write.

I don’t think she would be a good candidate because she is ignorant.Simple as that.

That is my opinion,nothing more,nothing less.

In what way is she ignorant?

Just curious, because I have heard her talk in person on 2 separate occasions, and would say she actually is quite intelligent, she is not ivy league prepped to sound more intelligent than she actually is. And she is christian and tries to uphold her values so that makes her ignorant. So in that case anyone who upholds the values systems they believe in is ignorant.

And I was using those tools as an example. Sorry It was a direct attack on you.

[/quote]

Ignorance,as Pookie said,is not stupidity.I never said she was stupid.I think she is probably more than smart enough to hold the presidency.But that she is glaringly ignorant in many areas that I would consider necessary knowledge for the president of any country,is fairly obvious.

Once again that is nothing that can’t be remedied by time and exposure to the world at large.

Would she not be better served by a stint as a senator maybe?She’s young,I don’t understand what the desperation is to get an unprepared candidate onto the stage in '12,when she could probably be groomed into a shoo-in in '16.

Christian values are also not a problem in and of themselves.What bothers me is how one can publicly declare that as the basis for decision making.It,in my mind,rides roughshod over the separation of church and state on the public stage.

Keep your own counsel,and at least make me feel that you arrive at choices by your own free will,not by the direction of a higher power.

I know many people of deep faith,Christian and Jew,that while they pray daily,I have never seen it given air out in the world at large.

I know that this is a bit of a ramble,hope it clarifies my position somewhat.

42

[quote]Neuromancer wrote:
apbt55 wrote:
Neuromancer wrote:
apbt55 wrote:
Neuromancer wrote:
She’s waiting to see what God tells her to do.

Obama is on video saying there are 57 states, now he is the moron.

I can think of other candidates that would be better suited to run, but you treat her like she is a horrible person, she ismore qualified to be in the whitehouse then the president elect as far as executive experience.

Oh I know you don’t like her cuz she isn’t some ugly upity bitch like hillary, the clinton with the balls.

Did I say anything about Obama?Did I say anything about Clinton?

I didn’t think so.So stop telling me what I did and didn’t say,and address what I did write.

I don’t think she would be a good candidate because she is ignorant.Simple as that.

That is my opinion,nothing more,nothing less.

In what way is she ignorant?

Just curious, because I have heard her talk in person on 2 separate occasions, and would say she actually is quite intelligent, she is not ivy league prepped to sound more intelligent than she actually is. And she is christian and tries to uphold her values so that makes her ignorant. So in that case anyone who upholds the values systems they believe in is ignorant.

And I was using those tools as an example. Sorry It was a direct attack on you.

Ignorance,as Pookie said,is not stupidity.I never said she was stupid.I think she is probably more than smart enough to hold the presidency.But that she is glaringly ignorant in many areas that I would consider necessary knowledge for the president of any country,is fairly obvious.

Once again that is nothing that can’t be remedied by time and exposure to the world at large.

Would she not be better served by a stint as a senator maybe?She’s young,I don’t understand what the desperation is to get an unprepared candidate onto the stage in '12,when she could probably be groomed into a shoo-in in '16.

Christian values are also not a problem in and of themselves.What bothers me is how one can publicly declare that as the basis for decision making.It,in my mind,rides roughshod over the separation of church and state on the public stage.

Keep your own counsel,and at least make me feel that you arrive at choices by your own free will,not by the direction of a higher power.

I know many people of deep faith,Christian and Jew,that while they pray daily,I have never seen it given air out in the world at large.

I know that this is a bit of a ramble,hope it clarifies my position somewhat.

[/quote]

Did you know “great” liberal presidents like Wilson and FDR prayed for guidance daily… gasp…

You shout conspiracy on threads with 10 times this amount of proof.

43

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
Neuromancer wrote:
apbt55 wrote:
Neuromancer wrote:
apbt55 wrote:
Neuromancer wrote:
She’s waiting to see what God tells her to do.

Obama is on video saying there are 57 states, now he is the moron.

I can think of other candidates that would be better suited to run, but you treat her like she is a horrible person, she ismore qualified to be in the whitehouse then the president elect as far as executive experience.

Oh I know you don’t like her cuz she isn’t some ugly upity bitch like hillary, the clinton with the balls.

Did I say anything about Obama?Did I say anything about Clinton?

I didn’t think so.So stop telling me what I did and didn’t say,and address what I did write.

I don’t think she would be a good candidate because she is ignorant.Simple as that.

That is my opinion,nothing more,nothing less.

In what way is she ignorant?

Just curious, because I have heard her talk in person on 2 separate occasions, and would say she actually is quite intelligent, she is not ivy league prepped to sound more intelligent than she actually is. And she is christian and tries to uphold her values so that makes her ignorant. So in that case anyone who upholds the values systems they believe in is ignorant.

And I was using those tools as an example. Sorry It was a direct attack on you.

Ignorance,as Pookie said,is not stupidity.I never said she was stupid.I think she is probably more than smart enough to hold the presidency.But that she is glaringly ignorant in many areas that I would consider necessary knowledge for the president of any country,is fairly obvious.

Once again that is nothing that can’t be remedied by time and exposure to the world at large.

Would she not be better served by a stint as a senator maybe?She’s young,I don’t understand what the desperation is to get an unprepared candidate onto the stage in '12,when she could probably be groomed into a shoo-in in '16.

Christian values are also not a problem in and of themselves.What bothers me is how one can publicly declare that as the basis for decision making.It,in my mind,rides roughshod over the separation of church and state on the public stage.

Keep your own counsel,and at least make me feel that you arrive at choices by your own free will,not by the direction of a higher power.

I know many people of deep faith,Christian and Jew,that while they pray daily,I have never seen it given air out in the world at large.

I know that this is a bit of a ramble,hope it clarifies my position somewhat.

Did you know “great” liberal presidents like Wilson and FDR prayed for guidance daily… gasp…

You shout conspiracy on threads with 10 times this amount of proof.[/quote]

Do you have comprehension issues?

Read my post again and get back to me.

44

[quote]Brayton wrote:
Anyone else expecting a Playboy spread down the road? [/quote]

I don’t know about the rest of you, but I still have that sexy librarian scenario in my head every time I see her on TV. “your books are way overdo” “i lost them, what should i do?” “oh i think we can work something out…” then que the cheesy porn music.

45

[quote]Neuromancer wrote:
DoubleDuce wrote:
Neuromancer wrote:
apbt55 wrote:
Neuromancer wrote:
apbt55 wrote:
Neuromancer wrote:
She’s waiting to see what God tells her to do.

Obama is on video saying there are 57 states, now he is the moron.

I can think of other candidates that would be better suited to run, but you treat her like she is a horrible person, she ismore qualified to be in the whitehouse then the president elect as far as executive experience.

Oh I know you don’t like her cuz she isn’t some ugly upity bitch like hillary, the clinton with the balls.

Did I say anything about Obama?Did I say anything about Clinton?

I didn’t think so.So stop telling me what I did and didn’t say,and address what I did write.

I don’t think she would be a good candidate because she is ignorant.Simple as that.

That is my opinion,nothing more,nothing less.

In what way is she ignorant?

Just curious, because I have heard her talk in person on 2 separate occasions, and would say she actually is quite intelligent, she is not ivy league prepped to sound more intelligent than she actually is.

And she is christian and tries to uphold her values so that makes her ignorant. So in that case anyone who upholds the values systems they believe in is ignorant.

And I was using those tools as an example. Sorry It was a direct attack on you.

Ignorance,as Pookie said,is not stupidity.I never said she was stupid.I think she is probably more than smart enough to hold the presidency.But that she is glaringly ignorant in many areas that I would consider necessary knowledge for the president of any country,is fairly obvious.

Once again that is nothing that can’t be remedied by time and exposure to the world at large.

Would she not be better served by a stint as a senator maybe?She’s young,I don’t understand what the desperation is to get an unprepared candidate onto the stage in '12,when she could probably be groomed into a shoo-in in '16.

Christian values are also not a problem in and of themselves.What bothers me is how one can publicly declare that as the basis for decision making.It,in my mind,rides roughshod over the separation of church and state on the public stage.

Keep your own counsel,and at least make me feel that you arrive at choices by your own free will,not by the direction of a higher power.

I know many people of deep faith,Christian and Jew,that while they pray daily,I have never seen it given air out in the world at large.

I know that this is a bit of a ramble,hope it clarifies my position somewhat.

Did you know “great” liberal presidents like Wilson and FDR prayed for guidance daily… gasp…

You shout conspiracy on threads with 10 times this amount of proof.

Do you have comprehension issues?

Read my post again and get back to me.[/quote]

Sorry, the conspiracy theory thing was to gambit. my bad.

Those presidents publicly expressed their faith and reliance on god for direction.

I think most people would be surprised by some of the statements made by liberal presidents concerning Christianity. Things like the US being a tool of god and such.

“here on earth God’s work must be truly our own.” —JFK

46

[quote]Gambit_Lost wrote:
Let me guess-- you still think that deep throat was making up lies.

[/quote]

Anonymous sourcing for top level presidential misconduct (ie real news) is not in the same ballpark as anonymously sourced petty, tabloid character assassination.

47

[quote]Demiajax wrote:
I think she hasn’t released her medical records because she’s had an abortion.

Now that would be the nail in her coffin. [/quote]

Wrong. It’s because she actually has more balls than most men.

48

[quote]Odogg wrote:

Didn’t know Africa was a CONTINENT?? WTF?! She is Done.[/quote]

Supposedly that was from a debate rehearsal and was just a slip fo the tongue. Kind of like Biden’s 3 letter word, J O B S jobs or Obama’s 57 states.

49

[quote]Headhunter wrote:
Demiajax wrote:
I think she hasn’t released her medical records because she’s had an abortion.

Now that would be the nail in her coffin.

Where are Obama’s medical records? Where are his Harvard transcripts? Why aren’t you libs searching down his drug dealer instead of seeing if she’s ever had an unpaid parking ticket?

Jeez, you fucking libs suck donkey balls, plain and simple.

[/quote]

Where is his real birth certificate?

50

[quote]tom63 wrote:
Odogg wrote:

Didn’t know Africa was a CONTINENT?? WTF?! She is Done.

Supposedly that was from a debate rehearsal and was just a slip fo the tongue. Kind of like Biden’s 3 letter word, J O B S jobs or Obama’s 57 states.

[/quote]

Actually, the Africa thing was a hoax.

51

[quote]SteelyD wrote:
Gambit_Lost wrote:
Let me guess-- you still think that deep throat was making up lies.

Anonymous sourcing for top level presidential misconduct (ie real news) is not in the same ballpark as anonymously sourced petty, tabloid character assassination.[/quote]

The education level/knowledge base of a VP candidate, and perhaps future presidential candidate is real news.

Mate I have a hard time believing this one too, but as of now I’ve not seen anyone stand up and say, “no she actually knows her shit.” If you find some of those people (particularly staffers who could counter the claims made by other staffers) then you should post those.

Again, I do defend the use on anonymous sourcing. If you’re trying to defend Palin, go find a source that counters the other sources. Right now all we have is an anonymous news story (although it is given some credibility as it’s coming from a news org that is normally “on the side” of the conservatives) and then some side story about shitty reporting.

In short, disprove the original story, not the second (shitty reporting). Hell I actually want you to, I don’t want to think McCain would actually pick someone that unqualified, I find it almost impossible to believe.

52

The story is a hoax people!

53

The article you linked to certainly didn’t say that (see what steely said about peopl who kin reed gud). I’d love to see evidence that is though, do you have any?

(hint the article you linked to was about the purported source…but that wasn’t the source, we still don’t know the source…No one has actually countered the information yet.)

54

I would prefer Ann Coulter to Sarah Palin, but of course Ann is not popular because she likes to expose all the hypocrisy and lies of the loony Left. She’s not kind and gentle enough for the ‘soccer mom’ in most Americans.

Anyway, once Obama implodes (he may wind up with a lower approval rating than Bush, by 2012), maybe Palin can win.

55

[quote]Gambit_Lost wrote:
The article you linked to certainly didn’t say that (see what steely said about peopl who kin reed gud). I’d love to see evidence that is though, do you have any?

(hint the article you linked to was about the purported source…but that wasn’t the source, we still don’t know the source…No one has actually countered the information yet.)

[/quote]

Rofl. How do you counter an anonymous Fox news source?! The only source that’s ever been named was this guy, a prankster.

56

Here’s what it comes down to everyone believes what they want to believe.

And one more thing fellows, conservatives are guilty until proven innocent. Liberals are innocent until proven guilty.

57

[quote]DeterminedNate wrote:
Her 15 minutes is up. Bye bye Sarah.[/quote]

Agreed.

58

[quote]Sloth wrote:
Gambit_Lost wrote:
The article you linked to certainly didn’t say that (see what steely said about peopl who kin reed gud). I’d love to see evidence that is though, do you have any?

(hint the article you linked to was about the purported source…but that wasn’t the source, we still don’t know the source…No one has actually countered the information yet.)

Rofl. How do you counter an anonymous Fox news source?! The only source that’s ever been named was this guy, a prankster.[/quote]

Does this really need to be explained yet again? Read my post above. All you need is another source that’ll say “no, she knows her shit.” Why hasn’t even one come forward yet?

Instead of rolf’ing if you had thought for even a moment or two you’d have realized how simple this would be.

Example for the sloths among us:
Anonymous #1, 2, & 3: “she didn’t know shit about Africa!”
Anonymous #4, 5, & 6: “yes she did.”

See how easy that is? Again, I’d like to see such evidence. It’s scary to think (and nearly imposible to believe) that she was so ignorant.

Here’s another way you could do it (since your to busy loling to think for yourself, apparently): You could, I suppose, attack the source of the sources. Attack the news reporter (show where he’s fucked up in the past) or attack the liberal bias of fox. Come on guys, you’re better than this.

Please, god, prove this report wrong.

59

[quote]Gambit_Lost wrote:

Does this really need to be explained yet again? Read my post above. All you need is another source that’ll say “no, she knows her shit.” Why hasn’t even one come forward yet?

Instead of rolf’ing if you had thought for even a moment or two you’d have realized how simple this would be.

Example for the sloths among us:
Anonymous #1, 2, & 3: “she didn’t know shit about Africa!”
Anonymous #4, 5, & 6: “yes she did.”

See how easy that is? Again, I’d like to see such evidence. It’s scary to think (and nearly imposible to believe) that she was so ignorant.

Please, god, prove this report wrong.[/quote]

Are you kidding? “Sources” have come foward. Steve Biegun, a fellow who can actually be checked on, since he identifies himself, had this to say.

He says there’s no way she didn’t know Africa was a continent, and whoever is saying she didn’t must be distorting “a fumble of words.” He talked to her about all manner of issues relating to Africa, from failed states to the Sudan. She was aware from the beginning of the conflict in Darfur, which is followed closely in evangelical churches, and was aware of Clinton’s AIDS initiative. That basically makes it impossible that she thought all of Africa was a country.
http://corner.nationalreview.com/post/?q=YWViMjhiZjI4ODlkZjg0NDg5MTJmNmIwYmFiNDRmNWU=

There’s the counter-source you were looking for. One that can be verified as real, since he’s named. I guess you should’ve read up more.

Just admit it, you folks fell for bad reporting.

60

[quote]Sloth wrote:
The story is a hoax people![/quote]

The following story is still about “the source” of the quote, but some folks here want to prove something that can’t be proven either way. It’s hearsay, all of it.

However THIS is real from the supposed ‘foreign policy expert’ half of Obama/Biden (that would be Biden):

During the VP debate:

"Hezbollah is a legitimate part of the government in the country immediately to the north of Israel."

Oh? What country is that-- Teletubby Land? Nary a word from the press about it.

It’s bias. They shut Obama and Biden up for the whole campaign. The MSM provided great cover for them.