Oh OH- I guess Palin's Political career isn't OVER after all.

reagan didn't quit

oh please, not you too.
she gave her reasons, evidently most people understood it, except you lefties spreading that BS. oh well, it doesn't seem to be working judging from the above article.:lol:

You never cease to amaze me, Steph. All there is to understand is that she did not fulfill her obligation to the people of Alaska that voted for her in good faith. I don't think it has anything to do with being on the left or the right. Geez!!!

LOL, and the Obama didn't FULFILL his promise to serve out his JUNIOR SENATOR POSITION before he ran for President, so it is you all who never cease to AMAZE ME.:lol::lol:

the Obama is a QUITTER AND A LIAR.
 
Last edited:
Y'all quit picking on my secret sweetie... A woman who knows how to field dress a moose is terribly attractive to me.
 
Yet another Sarah Palin thread started by a "Conservative", full of "Conservatives" complaining that "the left" is obsessed with Sarah Palin......

well you go through and count up who started the most, then get back to us.
I'll guarantee it won't be Conservatives.:lol:
 
oh please, not you too.
she gave her reasons, evidently most people understood it, except you lefties spreading that BS. oh well, it doesn't seem to be working judging from the above article.:lol:

You never cease to amaze me, Steph. All there is to understand is that she did not fulfill her obligation to the people of Alaska that voted for her in good faith. I don't think it has anything to do with being on the left or the right. Geez!!!

LOL, and the Obama didn't FULFILL his promise to serve out his JUNIOR SENATOR POSITION before he ran for President, so it is you all who never cease to AMAZE ME.:lol::lol:

the Obama is a QUITTER AND A LIAR.

But there was a clear majority in the Senate as backup and his one vote wouldn't matter. The legislation he had sponsored or co-sponsored still existed as part of Senate debate among 99 others. There was no gaping hole as a result of his early resignation from the Senate. BIG difference.
 
You never cease to amaze me, Steph. All there is to understand is that she did not fulfill her obligation to the people of Alaska that voted for her in good faith. I don't think it has anything to do with being on the left or the right. Geez!!!

LOL, and the Obama didn't FULFILL his promise to serve out his JUNIOR SENATOR POSITION before he ran for President, so it is you all who never cease to AMAZE ME.:lol::lol:

the Obama is a QUITTER AND A LIAR.

But there was a clear majority in the Senate as backup and his one vote wouldn't matter. The legislation he had sponsored or co-sponsored still existed as part of Senate debate among 99 others. There was no gaping hole as a result of his early resignation from the Senate. BIG difference.

LOL, knew you'd HAVE an EXCUSE for him..
crack me up:lol:
 
Yet another Sarah Palin thread started by a "Conservative", full of "Conservatives" complaining that "the left" is obsessed with Sarah Palin......

well you go through and count up who started the most, then get back to us.
I'll guarantee it won't be Conservatives.:lol:

And I'd put money that you're wrong.

But the fact of the matter is, we're both too lazy to actually do it.
 
Yet another Sarah Palin thread started by a "Conservative", full of "Conservatives" complaining that "the left" is obsessed with Sarah Palin......

well you go through and count up who started the most, then get back to us.
I'll guarantee it won't be Conservatives.:lol:

And I'd put money that you're wrong.
hummm, a bet huh.
But the fact of the matter is, we're both too lazy to actually do it.
:thup::lol:
 
not really
maybe its your standards that are low if you think any other POTUS has been better

Well Reagan wouldn't even be apart of my lifetime.

Bush Sr, Clinton, Bush Jr, and Obama. Clinton has been the best in my lifetime.

Reagan should be on nobody's "best" lists alone for the fact that he ignored AIDS for five years.

Domestic policy of the Ronald Reagan administration - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Perhaps the greatest criticism surrounds Reagan's silence about the AIDS epidemic spreading in the 1980s. Although AIDS was first identified in 1981, Reagan did not mention it publicly for several more years, notably during a press conference in 1985 and several speeches in 1987. During the press conference in 1985, Reagan expressed skepticism in allowing children with AIDS to continue in school, stating:

It is true that some medical sources had said that [HIV] cannot be communicated in any way other than the ones we already know and which would not involve a child being in the school. And yet medicine has not come forth unequivocally and said, 'This we know for a fact, that it is safe.' And until they do, I think we just have to do the best we can with this problem.[68]

The CDC had previously issued a report stating that "casual person-to-person contact as would occur among schoolchildren appears to pose no risk."[69]

I don't care what political philosophy or ideology one holds, such negligence is too big to ignore.

Imagine if President Obama was told about a disease that was ravaging the American people. Instead of going on television to talk about it, he ignored it, for really 6 years and gave it one mention two years before that. On top of that, in the press conference two years prior, he gave out inaccurate information about the disease that contradicted the CDC. Can you imagine if he did that today?

More information:

http://articles.sfgate.com/2004-06-...n-san-francisco-aids-research-education-cases

Following discovery of the first cases in 1981, it soon became clear a national health crisis was developing. But President Reagan's response was "halting and ineffective," according to his biographer Lou Cannon. Those infected initially with this mysterious disease -- all gay men -- found themselves targeted with an unprecedented level of mean-spirited hostility.

With each passing month, death and suffering increased at a frightening rate. Scientists, researchers and health care professionals at every level expressed the need for funding. The response of the Reagan administration was indifference.

By Feb. 1, 1983, 1,025 AIDS cases were reported, and at least 394 had died in the United States. Reagan said nothing. On April 23, 1984, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention announced 4,177 reported cases in America and 1,807 deaths. In San Francisco, the health department reported more than 500 cases. Again, Reagan said nothing.

Reagan would ultimately address the issue of AIDS while president. His remarks came May 31, 1987 (near the end of his second term), at the Third International Conference on AIDS in Washington. When he spoke, 36,058 Americans had been diagnosed with AIDS and 20,849 had died. The disease had spread to 113 countries, with more than 50,000 cases.

Dr. C. Everett Koop, Reagan's surgeon general, has said that because of "intradepartmental politics" he was cut out of all AIDS discussions for the first five years of the Reagan administration. The reason, he explained, was "because transmission of AIDS was understood to be primarily in the homosexual population and in those who abused intravenous drugs." The president's advisers, Koop said, "took the stand, 'They are only getting what they justly deserve.' "
 
Yet another Sarah Palin thread started by a "Conservative", full of "Conservatives" complaining that "the left" is obsessed with Sarah Palin......

well you go through and count up who started the most, then get back to us.
I'll guarantee it won't be Conservatives.:lol:

Just with Sinatra and USAR Palin threads, you're fucked on that bet.
 
Yet another Sarah Palin thread started by a "Conservative", full of "Conservatives" complaining that "the left" is obsessed with Sarah Palin......

well you go through and count up who started the most, then get back to us.
I'll guarantee it won't be Conservatives.:lol:

Just with Sinatra and USAR Palin threads, you're fucked on that bet.

don't know about that, if I were you I don't think I'd put money on that one.
 

Forum List

Back
Top