I have seen the Democrat's version of Sarah Palin....

[Zona]

Let me know when he gets 40MM to watch his speech, 70MM to watch the debate, dismantles ObamaCare with a single Facebook posting and gets to #1 on Amazon

Dismantled health care.....?

You do know the term "Death Panel" is an embarrassment now as a reference to the republicans now..right?

Only to kool aid drinking dumb asses. Obama's mouth piece set that stir up by announcing proudly that their research indicated that if they could get the elderly and the terminal off expensive health care and get them to just die quietly at home or a hospice the Government would save BILLIONS.

Do you have some kind of proof of this? Seriously.

OH and what do you call the insurance companies dropping people if they get terminally sick or denying claims for the terminally sick? Arent those death panels?

 

[PubliusInfinitum]

Please show me ANY cuuriculum that "teaches" kids it is OK to have sex. Until you can, then we are debating a partisan supposition on your part, which does not lend itself to meaningful debate.

And there ya have it... and it is a WONDERFUL FAIL!

Now to be fair, I only asked the question to demonstrate that she's a LIAR... and as such incapable of answering the question posed...

But I wanted her to fail because such demonstrates that the Left's positon on such is absurd.

The Leftist sexual education system, teaches children HOW to have sex... and where such teachings implicitly authorize such behavior.

Such is the nature of "EDUCATION"...

Abstinence teaches kids who already know HOW to have sex, about the mind-bending responsibilities of engaging in such; Abstinence teaches that pre-marital sex is WRONG... and it teaches that it is WRONG... because it is WRONG to engage in behavior which bears responsibility that one is not prepared for or capable of BEARING; because it conceives a HUMAN LIFE which is entitled to the right to that life.

And that it is a certainty that where one teaches education to children that inherently comes with a tacit authorization to engage in such; that the encouragement inherent in such, will produce more instances OF children having sex, than would a cirriculum that specifically FORBIDS such and explains in stark, graphic detail, the ramifications of such.

And it is for THAT reason that the member refused to answer the question.

Let me guess, this long winded, self agrandizing load of shit is your way of saying you have NO evidence that ANY curriculum teaches kids that it is OK to have sex? Why not just admit that you are a liar. We already know it, and it MIGHT give you a bit of credibility.

Wow... I wouldn't have advised two fallacious failures in a row... but if that's how ya felt ya needed to play it... It's FINE me...

Notice friends how the Advocate of Left-think is incapable of responding to what is clearly stated in the argument to which she is responding; and in unambiguous terms... preferring instead, to advance a flaccid PRETENSE... and this due to her impotent intellectual means to discuss the issue.

They're liars... as is nearly always the case with fools.

 

[PubliusInfinitum]

Let me know when he gets 40MM to watch his speech, 70MM to watch the debate, dismantles ObamaCare with a single Facebook posting and gets to #1 on Amazon

The Palin factor is much like the Bush factor (doctrine). People just tune in to watch her be an idiot.

Sarah, what is "Bush Doctrine?"

I mean you and many others have scoffed at Palin not knowing what Bush Doctrine is... but not one of those who've so scoffed have ever been able to answer that question.

Now I've asked you this before, and in response to you advancing the same implication... you were unable to answer it then and I'll predict that you're unable to answer it now.

 

[PubliusInfinitum]

Dismantled health care.....?

You do know the term "Death Panel" is an embarrassment now as a reference to the republicans now..right?

Only to kool aid drinking dumb asses. Obama's mouth piece set that stir up by announcing proudly that their research indicated that if they could get the elderly and the terminal off expensive health care and get them to just die quietly at home or a hospice the Government would save BILLIONS.

Do you have some kind of proof of this? Seriously.

OH and what do you call the insurance companies dropping people if they get terminally sick or denying claims for the terminally sick? Arent those death panels?

Yeah... Hussein himself, in a 'townhall' answered the question of a female Doctor who asked him if his healthcare plan would consider her Mother's zest for life, when considering her candidacy for a heart transplant... to which he responded that 'we can't really judge viability for these kinds of procedures on a persons 'zest for life ... it may be that your mother's case would be better served if she just took a pain pill, instead of a transplant.'

Now add that to the longstanding Policy of Socialized medicine, wherein every single system which used EVERY FACET OF SUCH a system rations healthcare, and that is because THEY HAVE LIMITED RESOURCES... and they have limited resources BECAUSE THE GOVERNMENT RUN SYSTEM destroys the means for a viable private system to exist... and where there are limited resources; limited funds, limited doctors, limited nurses, limited facilities, limited diagnostic systems... and massive pressure on those resources, it is a mathematical certainty that those resources will be rationed and RATIONING MEANS THAT THERE MUST BE SOMEONE: SOME WHERE, who decides WHO gets treated and who doesn't...

Add to THAT INCONTROVERTIBLE CERTAINTY that the original bill; and the one that is STILL BEING DEBATED IN CONGRESS; provides that senior citizens; and those facing terminal illness; which just happens to be where the greatest expenses and the greatest stresses are realized to the system, that such patients would be provided 'end of life' counseling...

Now those are the circumstances wherein the absolute certainty of "DEATH PANELS" >>>WILL<<< be found...

"Death Panels" are merely the bureaucratic systems which determine that patients will not be treated beyond a certain point; transplant candidates will not be provided a transplant; Panels of bureaucrats, Bean-counters... Deptartment heads... call them what ya will... there is absolutely NO POSSIBILITY that such will not be a major player in ANY SYSTEM which serves incalculable liability with limited means... and that is exactly what you idiots are going to get.

And that is exactly what Palin was referring to...

 

[PubliusInfinitum]

No thanks. She's a moron. Just because she can be cagey does not mean she isn't mentally handicapped in most areas. I don't want her running the local library, let alone some sort of national policy.

REALLY?

Now I wonder Radio, what SPECIFIC Palin policy advocacy do you find the most offensive; and why?

From her? All of them.

SWEET FAIL!

And that kids is all there is to exposing Independent, Moderate, Centrist, Progressive, Liberals as FOOLS!

They're entire intellectual forte is little more than the means to consume addle-minded leftist myth and regurgitate it wherever they find an opportunity...

NO where in the response is there ANYTHING which STANDS TO MEET THE UNAMBIGOUS challenge to support her assertion; wherein she was asked to site a SPECIFIC PALIN PLICY POSITION WHICH THIS MEMBER FOUND OFFENSIVE.

And that is because she doesn't HAVE A SPECIFIC GREIVANCE WITH A SPECIFIC PALIN POLICY ADVOCACY... her 'feelings' are simply those which she's been lead to believe are POPULAR, thus, within her limited intellectual means represents TRUTH.

She's a LIAR and this is a direct result of her being an IDIOT!

Because she can't demonstrate the ability to intelligently communicate or debate the long-term national ramifications that her positions will affect.

VAGUE... And factually incorrect, Plain has spoken intelligently and debated extensively her policy positions on a wide range of issues from commerce to energy; from war to healthcare...

The same exact position from someone else I might go with. Because there is the possibility that they might actually grasp the full scope of the debate.

How would you even know? As you've demonstrated here that you have nothing remotely close to a full understanding of even THIS DEBATE...

I would be more confident that they might actually understand what they are talking about. But from her? Nu-huh.

LOL... But you have no idea what YOU'RE talking about... so by what means would ya base such a judgment?

She has demonstrated zero ability that she comprehends the nuances of what she advocates, and instead it appears that all she is doing is repeating the same old bullet points. Nothing she has done has ever proven otherwise.

Wow... you've repeated yourself three times now... demonstrating that you have zero ability to comprehend the obvious... let alone the nuance for those DIRECT ASSERTIONS THAT YOU EMPHATICALLY STATE!

You may now continue with your incoherent rants.

ROFLMNAO... Oh how I DO so adore, sweet irony.






LOL...
















Moderates...

 

[RadiomanATL]

REALLY?

Now I wonder Radio, what SPECIFIC Palin policy advocacy do you find the most offensive; and why?

From her? All of them.

SWEET FAIL!

Thanks for summarizing your post right off the bat so I wouldn't have to myself.

 

[VaYank5150]

And there ya have it... and it is a WONDERFUL FAIL!

Now to be fair, I only asked the question to demonstrate that she's a LIAR... and as such incapable of answering the question posed...

But I wanted her to fail because such demonstrates that the Left's positon on such is absurd.

The Leftist sexual education system, teaches children HOW to have sex... and where such teachings implicitly authorize such behavior.

Such is the nature of "EDUCATION"...

Abstinence teaches kids who already know HOW to have sex, about the mind-bending responsibilities of engaging in such; Abstinence teaches that pre-marital sex is WRONG... and it teaches that it is WRONG... because it is WRONG to engage in behavior which bears responsibility that one is not prepared for or capable of BEARING; because it conceives a HUMAN LIFE which is entitled to the right to that life.

And that it is a certainty that where one teaches education to children that inherently comes with a tacit authorization to engage in such; that the encouragement inherent in such, will produce more instances OF children having sex, than would a cirriculum that specifically FORBIDS such and explains in stark, graphic detail, the ramifications of such.

And it is for THAT reason that the member refused to answer the question.

Let me guess, this long winded, self agrandizing load of shit is your way of saying you have NO evidence that ANY curriculum teaches kids that it is OK to have sex? Why not just admit that you are a liar. We already know it, and it MIGHT give you a bit of credibility.

Wow... I wouldn't have advised two fallacious failures in a row... but if that's how ya felt ya needed to play it... It's FINE me...

Notice friends how the Advocate of Left-think is incapable of responding to what is clearly stated in the argument to which she is responding; and in unambiguous terms... preferring instead, to advance a flaccid PRETENSE... and this due to her impotent intellectual means to discuss the issue.

They're liars... as is nearly always the case with fools.

So, yet AGAIN, you refuse to provide any proof of your assertion? Why do you refuse? Are you scared? Are you a liar?

 

[saveliberty]

Sorry. I think you misunderstood. I was referring to the "I can see Russia from my house" and "Abstinence only education" bimbo part of Palin.

Yes... that's why I qualified the position as I did... Given that it was a certainty that you were speaking to the myth created by Palin's opposition and not Palin.

But let's try this, shall we?

Let's discuss the potential outcome of an education system which professes something other THAN Abstinence-Only...

Now it is a given that you will assert, that 'kids are going to have sex...'.

A position which neither I, nor anyone has contested... not the least of which being Palin.

Now given that it is a certainty that 'kids are going to have sex...'; does it serve reason that the professing that it's OK to have sex will somehow discourage more children to have sex, than the stern and unbending profession that it is WRONG for kids to engage in sex; which is taught through a sound curriculum that sustains that profession?

Take your time as this is a tricky one!


Anyone care to form a wager as to how she'll respond to this?

Please show me ANY cuuriculum that "teaches" kids it is OK to have sex. Until you can, then we are debating a partisan supposition on your part, which does not lend itself to meaningful debate.

DASH provides funding and technical support for coordinated school health programs, HIV prevention, teen pregnancy prevention, and the prevention of STDs and other related diseases. It supports national, state, and local organizations, including national nongovernmental organizations that work with and target various populations; state and local education agencies; a nationwide network of training centers that help teachers in every state provide HIV education within coordinated school health programs; demonstration centers that train policymakers and program managers; and universities.

DASH expenditures for 2002 were $47.6 million, all of which went to programs for teens. Our analysis assumes that 80 percent of that sum ($38 million) went to support safe sex and contraceptive programs for teens.

Your welcome.

 

[VaYank5150]

Yes... that's why I qualified the position as I did... Given that it was a certainty that you were speaking to the myth created by Palin's opposition and not Palin.

But let's try this, shall we?

Let's discuss the potential outcome of an education system which professes something other THAN Abstinence-Only...

Now it is a given that you will assert, that 'kids are going to have sex...'.

A position which neither I, nor anyone has contested... not the least of which being Palin.

Now given that it is a certainty that 'kids are going to have sex...'; does it serve reason that the professing that it's OK to have sex will somehow discourage more children to have sex, than the stern and unbending profession that it is WRONG for kids to engage in sex; which is taught through a sound curriculum that sustains that profession?

Take your time as this is a tricky one!


Anyone care to form a wager as to how she'll respond to this?

Please show me ANY cuuriculum that "teaches" kids it is OK to have sex. Until you can, then we are debating a partisan supposition on your part, which does not lend itself to meaningful debate.

DASH provides funding and technical support for coordinated school health programs, HIV prevention, teen pregnancy prevention, and the prevention of STDs and other related diseases. It supports national, state, and local organizations, including national nongovernmental organizations that work with and target various populations; state and local education agencies; a nationwide network of training centers that help teachers in every state provide HIV education within coordinated school health programs; demonstration centers that train policymakers and program managers; and universities.

DASH expenditures for 2002 were $47.6 million, all of which went to programs for teens. Our analysis assumes that 80 percent of that sum ($38 million) went to support safe sex and contraceptive programs for teens.

Your welcome.

Hopefully, you have heard what happens to those who ASSume?

 

[saveliberty]

Please show me ANY cuuriculum that "teaches" kids it is OK to have sex. Until you can, then we are debating a partisan supposition on your part, which does not lend itself to meaningful debate.

DASH provides funding and technical support for coordinated school health programs, HIV prevention, teen pregnancy prevention, and the prevention of STDs and other related diseases. It supports national, state, and local organizations, including national nongovernmental organizations that work with and target various populations; state and local education agencies; a nationwide network of training centers that help teachers in every state provide HIV education within coordinated school health programs; demonstration centers that train policymakers and program managers; and universities.

DASH expenditures for 2002 were $47.6 million, all of which went to programs for teens. Our analysis assumes that 80 percent of that sum ($38 million) went to support safe sex and contraceptive programs for teens.

Your welcome.

Hopefully, you have heard what happens to those who ASSume?

Yes, I have. It is pretty much the same thing that happens to people like you who get caught making a bogus statement. Own it! You said, "we are debating a partisan supposition." Unless there was evidence to the contrary. I provided it.

 

[Maple]

A real candidate would have wiped out Bob McDonnell months ago. I mean seriously, can you imagine Bob McDonnell beating Mark Warner?

Creigh Deeds is a horrible candidate though. Horrible.

I agree. While I may not agree with all of McDonnell's plans, at least he actually HAS some plans. Deeds looked like a buffoon last night. No plans whatsoever. Reminded me of most of the Republicans up on Capitol Hill! What a moron.

Well the only plans your democrat party has is to bankrupt this country with all of their deficit spending.

" IF A GOVERNMENT IS BIG ENOUGH TO GIVE YOU EVERYTHING YOU NEED THEY ARE BIG ENOUGH TO TAKE EVERYTHING YOU HAVE. "Thomas Jefferson.