You Guys Ready for Sarah Palin Yet?

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
62

[quote]Alpha F wrote:

[quote]Sifu wrote:

The whole notion that a woman is sure to get the women’s vote is risible. It is deeply ingrained into the nature of a woman to be highly competitive with and therefore critical of other women. They are ruthless with other women and will tear her to shreds.
[/quote]

Absolutely true!

I am female, not a feminist and I can tell you even the indoctrinated feminazis will still be that way inclined.
Deep down in their IDs where feminism can’t reach, women prove true to their nature that their role is to be cooperative with the Alpha Male, not competitive.
[/quote]

I don’t think Hillary got the memo.

63

[quote]Alpha F wrote:
I think she has common sense.
Something that is sorely lacking in the world.
Something you can’t teach at Harvard.

Being intelligent does not mean you possess common sense.

And in general being intelligent results in failure at common sense ( because it is just a too simple and direct observation of reality for a complex IQ to stomp down and reach from the lofty heights of their minds.).

I would take common sense over intelligence any day for positions of leadership.

[/quote]

Some profs and CEO’s did an analysis of her interdepartment emails while she was gov. They said she was brilliant and a true leader.

The lib/dem/media did such a hatchet job on US, denying us a true leader and giving us the likes of Hillary, Barack, Good Ol’ Joe, and other such human feces.

64

[quote]atypical1 wrote:

[quote]Elegua360 wrote:
Now…someone LIKE Palin, as in, someone not part of the Ivy League educational establishment…yeah, I would definitely consider such a person.[/quote]

You do realize that our Founding Fathers were all highly educated right? In fact many went to Harvard.

Since when did being intelligent and well educated become something that was not desired in someone leading?

And yes I know that we’ve had nine presidents (including Washington) who did not attend college.

james
[/quote]

Our FF’s studied the classics, history, Latin, and so on.

Obama, Romney, Clinton(s)…all the rest…they studied how to be lawyer-rats.

Do you think any of those criminals could give a detailed analysis of Gibbon’s, The History of the Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire? LOL!

65

[quote]Fletch1986 wrote:

[quote]Alpha F wrote:

[quote]Sifu wrote:

The whole notion that a woman is sure to get the women’s vote is risible. It is deeply ingrained into the nature of a woman to be highly competitive with and therefore critical of other women. They are ruthless with other women and will tear her to shreds.
[/quote]

Absolutely true!

I am female, not a feminist and I can tell you even the indoctrinated feminazis will still be that way inclined.
Deep down in their IDs where feminism can’t reach, women prove true to their nature that their role is to be cooperative with the Alpha Male, not competitive.
[/quote]

I don’t think Hillary got the memo.[/quote]

She is not a woman, she is a lawyer.

Sharks are not mammals, they are cartilaginous fish.

Which explains her lack of a spine or “flexible” spine - thus making her a perfect puppet.

:slight_smile:

Besides, Bill Clinton wasn’t exactly alpha, and she did end up Obama’s girl: she could have turned down the offer to serve under him.

66

Smart rat or moral normal human with outstanding leadership and drive…that is the question.

I’ll take the second. She may or may not know who Edward Gibbon is but she is better than any of those rats.

67

[quote]Alpha F wrote:

[quote]Fletch1986 wrote:

[quote]Alpha F wrote:

[quote]Sifu wrote:

The whole notion that a woman is sure to get the women’s vote is risible. It is deeply ingrained into the nature of a woman to be highly competitive with and therefore critical of other women. They are ruthless with other women and will tear her to shreds.
[/quote]

Absolutely true!

I am female, not a feminist and I can tell you even the indoctrinated feminazis will still be that way inclined.
Deep down in their IDs where feminism can’t reach, women prove true to their nature that their role is to be cooperative with the Alpha Male, not competitive.
[/quote]

I don’t think Hillary got the memo.[/quote]

She is not a woman, she is a lawyer.

Sharks are not mammals, they are cartilaginous fish.

[/quote]

Lol, good point

68

Yeah I’d say when the best defense of someone’s intelligence is talking about other stupid people we aren’t dealing with someone very smart. Reminds me of sluts in college defending their sluttiness by saying “oh I’m not near as bad as jessica!”

But this is fucking stupid. Sarah Palin has NO CHANCE of being the next President of the United States. None. Zip. Zilch. Nada. No HH it doesn’t matter what the fuck happens to the economy. I would sell everything I own and bet any sum of money against her being the nominee for the Republican Party. It does not matter who tarnished her reputation, if it was fair, if it was the media, or liberals, or establishment republicans or ANYTHING.

Sarah Palin’s star will never be anywhere near as bright as it once was. Democrats absolutely hate her. Republicans are highly mixed on her. As much as I’d love to see a third party emerge and be a big player soon it isn’t going to be Sarah Palin in 2016 with any type of real shot. I’d LOVE to see evidence of this being wrong pointed out from somewhere other than a far right website.

If someone wants to defend her go for it. If someone wants to say they would vote for her go for it. And if someone would like to an escrow a bet on her being the Republican nominee for President in 2016 now I will set any sum of money up to take it.

69

[quote]H factor wrote:
Yeah I’d say when the best defense of someone’s intelligence is talking about other stupid people we aren’t dealing with someone very smart. Reminds me of sluts in college defending their sluttiness by saying “oh I’m not near as bad as jessica!”

But this is fucking stupid. Sarah Palin has NO CHANCE of being the next President of the United States. None. Zip. Zilch. Nada. No HH it doesn’t matter what the fuck happens to the economy. I would sell everything I own and bet any sum of money against her being the nominee for the Republican Party. It does not matter who tarnished her reputation, if it was fair, if it was the media, or liberals, or establishment republicans or ANYTHING.

Sarah Palin’s star will never be anywhere near as bright as it once was. Democrats absolutely hate her. Republicans are highly mixed on her. As much as I’d love to see a third party emerge and be a big player soon it isn’t going to be Sarah Palin in 2016 with any type of real shot. I’d LOVE to see evidence of this being wrong pointed out from somewhere other than a far right website.

If someone wants to defend her go for it. If someone wants to say they would vote for her go for it. And if someone would like to an escrow a bet on her being the Republican nominee for President in 2016 now I will set any sum of money up to take it. [/quote]

And for all we know if she got elected, she would quit in the middle of the term to go make money.

70

[quote]Fletch1986 wrote:

[quote]H factor wrote:
Yeah I’d say when the best defense of someone’s intelligence is talking about other stupid people we aren’t dealing with someone very smart. Reminds me of sluts in college defending their sluttiness by saying “oh I’m not near as bad as jessica!”

But this is fucking stupid. Sarah Palin has NO CHANCE of being the next President of the United States. None. Zip. Zilch. Nada. No HH it doesn’t matter what the fuck happens to the economy. I would sell everything I own and bet any sum of money against her being the nominee for the Republican Party. It does not matter who tarnished her reputation, if it was fair, if it was the media, or liberals, or establishment republicans or ANYTHING.

Sarah Palin’s star will never be anywhere near as bright as it once was. Democrats absolutely hate her. Republicans are highly mixed on her. As much as I’d love to see a third party emerge and be a big player soon it isn’t going to be Sarah Palin in 2016 with any type of real shot. I’d LOVE to see evidence of this being wrong pointed out from somewhere other than a far right website.

If someone wants to defend her go for it. If someone wants to say they would vote for her go for it. And if someone would like to an escrow a bet on her being the Republican nominee for President in 2016 now I will set any sum of money up to take it. [/quote]

And for all we know if she got elected, she would quit in the middle of the term to go make money.[/quote]

That would be a first a President quitting to do a book tour

71

The more I think about it this is the only thing that makes sense.

If Republicans didn’t want her to run for President in 2012, and Republican leaning independents didn’t want her to run, and Tea Party supporters didn’t want her to run in 2012 then perhaps HH is suggesting that the Democrats will embrace her for the 2016 nomination over Hilary.

Odd thing is I’d love for HH to be right, that we will kick out career politicians and go with someone new…it’s just that has zero chance of being Sarah Palin.

73

[quote]atypical1 wrote:

[quote]Elegua360 wrote:
Now…someone LIKE Palin, as in, someone not part of the Ivy League educational establishment…yeah, I would definitely consider such a person.[/quote]

You do realize that our Founding Fathers were all highly educated right? In fact many went to Harvard.

Since when did being intelligent and well educated become something that was not desired in someone leading?

And yes I know that we’ve had nine presidents (including Washington) who did not attend college.

james
[/quote]

What an incredibly presumptuous comment. At what point did I state, or imply, that intelligence or education was a negative?

As for something closer to my meaning, in relation to your question – a history of attending an Ivy League school has not guaranteed the quality of any president, in my personal observation.

We have a lot of Ivy League worship in this country, and as much as said schools may pick from a slightly more select pool of potential students, it also picks a lot of legacies and affirmative action students as well.

Legacy admissions and Affirmative Action students do not always make for the best presidents.

I, for one, have no reason to think of a Harvard student as being innately superior to a person who attended a top University of California program, for instance.

74

[quote]pushharder wrote:
smh proves himself to be a sucker to the mainstream left wing media.

They concocted a narrative about Palin. He swallowed it hook, line and sinker.

Like I said, a sucker.

Develop a filter, my young friend.[/quote]

Every single point I made was born of words that came out of Sarah Palin’s mouth or in I believe one single case the corroborated testimony of political operatives within the McCain/Palin ticket. There is no media spin on her inability to name a paper or magazine she reads. And that one’s on video, so it can’t be some elaborate fabrication either.

Or can you disprove any of what I listed? ANY at all?

77

[quote]H factor wrote:
Yeah I’d say when the best defense of someone’s intelligence is talking about other stupid people we aren’t dealing with someone very smart. Reminds me of sluts in college defending their sluttiness by saying “oh I’m not near as bad as jessica!”
[/quote]

lol! A lot of this Palin vs. Biden debate is kind of like passionately debating about why gonorrhea is SO much better than syphilis.

79

[quote]pushharder wrote:

[quote]smh23 wrote:

[quote]pushharder wrote:
smh proves himself to be a sucker to the mainstream left wing media.

They concocted a narrative about Palin. He swallowed it hook, line and sinker.

Like I said, a sucker.

Develop a filter, my young friend.[/quote]

Every single point I made was born of words that came out of Sarah Palin’s mouth or in I believe one single case the corroborated testimony of political operatives within the McCain/Palin ticket. There is no media spin on her inability to name a book she reads. And that one’s on video, so it can’t be some elaborate fabrication either.

Or can you disprove any of what I listed? ANY at all?[/quote]

Ahhh…I see…you don’t think she’s a good performer. OK.

So the guy you said you voted for VP…how well does he perform in front of the microphone and camera?

For that matter how well can you perform under the bright lights, amigo? Got that one all sewn up?

[/quote]

Performer?

There is no amount of performance necessary in producing the name of a newspaper or magazine that one reads when one’s asked to do so. There is no amount of performance necessary in producing the name of a Supreme Court decision other than Roe v. Wade when one’s asked to do so. There is no amount of performance necessary in demonstrating an understanding that the rationale underpinning the majority opinion of Roe v. Wade had to do with a Constitutional right to privacy when one’s asked to do so. There’s no performance necessary in naming the three members of NAFTA. I could go on for quite some time.

Only an ignoramus could fuck all of those up (try this: would Biden, Obama, Boehner, Cantor, McConnell, Pelosi, and both Clintons ever have failed to name a newspaper they read or a Supreme Court decision they didn’t agree with other than Roe v. Wade or the three fucking members of NAFTA? Doubtful.). And only an arrogant, power-hungry twit could fuck all of those up without letting out a long and defeated sigh, looking into the camera, and explaining that, as a patriot and someone who wants the best for this country, she implores the electorate not to vote for her.

If you honestly believe that a person can have so much excruciating trouble with these very basic measurements of competence and still be fit for high office, then you might as well parade the cast of Jersey Shore out onto the campaign trail.

Note, by the way, that I’ve listed substantial idiocies, not gaffes. A gaffe is when she said that we need to stand with our North Korean allies–it’s a mistake. It relies upon a single misplaced word. It’s understandable. No one holds it against her or anybody else.