Sarah Palin's Bizarre Iowa Speech Gets Thanks

[Esmeralda]

It is the Right, the conservatives, and Christians who expect women to be submissive

Wow, you obviously don't know any Republican women. You don't know any women at all. In this country, there are like 3 women like that. To attribute that portrayal to any large group in this country is just butt hurt love for your party. If you actually believe this, I'd see if you have a mental illness.

Totally wrong. Totally untrue. I know and have known countless conservative women and they are, compared to liberal woman, compliant and submissive: that is what traditional means for women, and they tend to be traditional.

 

[Esmeralda]

It is the Right, the conservatives, and Christians who expect women to be submissive

Wow, you obviously don't know any Republican women. You don't know any women at all. In this country, there are like 3 women like that. To attribute that portrayal to any large group in this country is just butt hurt love for your party. If you actually believe this, I'd see if you have a mental illness.

It has nothing whatsoever to do with what you call my party. I'm not hung up on party affiliations: it is a lifetime of observation, and it is a social issue, not a political issue. Liberalism is only partly about politics.

 

[kaz]

Libertarians are anarchists, got it. There are idiots on both sides.

Lemmings? I said idiots. You've mentioned this theory that Republicans who disagree on everything are "lemmings" while Democrats who agree on every issue for the same reason and justify them with the same talking points are not. But you believe it being the lemming that you are.

 

[kaz]

Pander to me? Did you see what Boner did to his opposition? I left the party circa 90 because they didn't give a shit about fiscal conservatism and 25 years later they still don't? What is the pandering you are hallucinating?

Uh, yeah. Even treating you like anything you say is pandering.

They need to tell libertarians to shut the fuck up and drum them out of the party completely.

I like the guy who said talking to LIbertarians is like asking a five year old to share a box of crayons.

Yes, neither a libertarian nor a box of crayons are going to use guns to confiscate other people's money and give it to you. That is a valid point, Poindexter.

 

[kaz]

That works only if there is no taxation at all. Pure libertarianism requires utopia. Its principles work best as a baromter.

The libertarians are anarchists bit again. Wow, you play that card so effectively too. Well done.

I never suggested anarchism. Paranoid much?

See the green. So you are suggesting government with zero dollars that is not anarchy? How does that make sense?

I pointed out the utopia necessary for pure libertarianism the same way it would be required for pure communism.

Pure libertarian is minimum government. Here is my definition for that.

What is a small government libertarian US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

You lose me completely on comparing minimum government (libertarianism) and maximum government (communism).

Libertarianism is, IMO, the ideal barometer and the standard measure for our constitution.

I'm not sure if I'm completely understanding you, it seems like you are contradicting yourself. If you are suggesting that is what government should be, obviously I agree. If you are suggesting we should strive to that but make reasonable compromises, I disagree. Libertarianism is government doing only that which all society benefits because there must be general societal recognition of things like property ownership, shared resources like water, recognition of policy, military protection, ... Anything but libertarianism is government victimizing one citizen for the benefit of another, and that is wrong on any scale. If you mean something besides those two, I missed it completely.

 

[Unkotare]

I know and have known countless conservative women and they are, compared to liberal woman, compliant and submissive: ...

That is complete and utter bullshit.

 

[Unkotare]

Fortunately, not only does he play the sax, he is brilliant:

So "brilliant" he couldn't manage to avoid getting caught f-ing around with...well, a younger, smarter, slimmer version of you? A "brilliant" person would have limited his blowing to the saxophone.

 

[kaz]

It is the Right, the conservatives, and Christians who expect women to be submissive

Wow, you obviously don't know any Republican women. You don't know any women at all. In this country, there are like 3 women like that. To attribute that portrayal to any large group in this country is just butt hurt love for your party. If you actually believe this, I'd see if you have a mental illness.

Totally wrong. Totally untrue. I know and have known countless conservative women and they are, compared to liberal woman, compliant and submissive: that is what traditional means for women, and they tend to be traditional.

You are a complete and utter liar, you're so swimming in kool-aid I don't know how you breathe.

 

[kaz]

It is the Right, the conservatives, and Christians who expect women to be submissive

Wow, you obviously don't know any Republican women. You don't know any women at all. In this country, there are like 3 women like that. To attribute that portrayal to any large group in this country is just butt hurt love for your party. If you actually believe this, I'd see if you have a mental illness.

It has nothing whatsoever to do with what you call my party. I'm not hung up on party affiliations: it is a lifetime of observation, and it is a social issue, not a political issue. Liberalism is only partly about politics.

You know nothing about women. Have you ever met one, Roger? Is this revenge for that none will go out with you?

 

[Dot Com]

It is the Right, the conservatives, and Christians who expect women to be submissive

Wow, you obviously don't know any Republican women. You don't know any women at all. In this country, there are like 3 women like that. To attribute that portrayal to any large group in this country is just butt hurt love for your party. If you actually believe this, I'd see if you have a mental illness.

Totally wrong. Totally untrue. I know and have known countless conservative women and they are, compared to liberal woman, compliant and submissive: that is what traditional means for women, and they tend to be traditional.

You are a complete and utter liar, you're so swimming in kool-aid I don't know how you breathe.

project much? I also know plenty of women "in binders" (submissive xstian females)

 

[danielpalos]

It is the Right, the conservatives, and Christians who expect women to be submissive

Wow, you obviously don't know any Republican women. You don't know any women at all. In this country, there are like 3 women like that. To attribute that portrayal to any large group in this country is just butt hurt love for your party. If you actually believe this, I'd see if you have a mental illness.

Totally wrong. Totally untrue. I know and have known countless conservative women and they are, compared to liberal woman, compliant and submissive: that is what traditional means for women, and they tend to be traditional.

Nice girls do.

 

[kaz]

It is the Right, the conservatives, and Christians who expect women to be submissive

Wow, you obviously don't know any Republican women. You don't know any women at all. In this country, there are like 3 women like that. To attribute that portrayal to any large group in this country is just butt hurt love for your party. If you actually believe this, I'd see if you have a mental illness.

Totally wrong. Totally untrue. I know and have known countless conservative women and they are, compared to liberal woman, compliant and submissive: that is what traditional means for women, and they tend to be traditional.

You are a complete and utter liar, you're so swimming in kool-aid I don't know how you breathe.

project much? I also know plenty of women "in binders" (submissive xstian females)

A woman hating liberal white guy gets into the discussion by sticking your hand down your pants. Thanks for the contribution. Liberals are just dicks. Your portrayal of conservative women is as offensive as it is ignorant. Go bitch slap some ho, Archie Bunker. My wife, sister, kids, the rest of my family our community, the churches we've gone to are filled with Conservative women. Your view they are submissive is as stupid and bigoted as you are.

 

[danielpalos]

I can only state at this time, that i am trying to appreciate modern women in modern times, even if it is sometimes more of a "challenge" than I believe it should be.

 

[RoshawnMarkwees]

That works only if there is no taxation at all. Pure libertarianism requires utopia. Its principles work best as a baromter.

The libertarians are anarchists bit again. Wow, you play that card so effectively too. Well done.

I never suggested anarchism. Paranoid much?

See the green. So you are suggesting government with zero dollars that is not anarchy? How does that make sense?

I pointed out the utopia necessary for pure libertarianism the same way it would be required for pure communism.

Pure libertarian is minimum government. Here is my definition for that.

What is a small government libertarian US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

You lose me completely on comparing minimum government (libertarianism) and maximum government (communism).

Libertarianism is, IMO, the ideal barometer and the standard measure for our constitution.

I'm not sure if I'm completely understanding you, it seems like you are contradicting yourself. If you are suggesting that is what government should be, obviously I agree. If you are suggesting we should strive to that but make reasonable compromises, I disagree. Libertarianism is government doing only that which all society benefits because there must be general societal recognition of things like property ownership, shared resources like water, recognition of policy, military protection, ... Anything but libertarianism is government victimizing one citizen for the benefit of another, and that is wrong on any scale. If you mean something besides those two, I missed it completely.

Pure libertarianism requires a utopia. Utopia makes any ideology moot. There will be inevitable needs for concessions as each person's desires and freedoms will conflict in common or public settings. Therefore libertarianism as a barometer works to effect compromises that might not necessarily be libertarian in principle but are necessary to effect order.

 

[kaz]

That works only if there is no taxation at all. Pure libertarianism requires utopia. Its principles work best as a baromter.

The libertarians are anarchists bit again. Wow, you play that card so effectively too. Well done.

I never suggested anarchism. Paranoid much?

See the green. So you are suggesting government with zero dollars that is not anarchy? How does that make sense?

I pointed out the utopia necessary for pure libertarianism the same way it would be required for pure communism.

Pure libertarian is minimum government. Here is my definition for that.

What is a small government libertarian US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

You lose me completely on comparing minimum government (libertarianism) and maximum government (communism).

Libertarianism is, IMO, the ideal barometer and the standard measure for our constitution.

I'm not sure if I'm completely understanding you, it seems like you are contradicting yourself. If you are suggesting that is what government should be, obviously I agree. If you are suggesting we should strive to that but make reasonable compromises, I disagree. Libertarianism is government doing only that which all society benefits because there must be general societal recognition of things like property ownership, shared resources like water, recognition of policy, military protection, ... Anything but libertarianism is government victimizing one citizen for the benefit of another, and that is wrong on any scale. If you mean something besides those two, I missed it completely.

Pure libertarianism requires a utopia. Utopia makes any ideology moot. There will be inevitable needs for concessions as each person's desires and freedoms will conflict in common or public settings. Therefore libertarianism as a barometer works to effect compromises that might not necessarily be libertarian in principle but are necessary to effect order.

Maybe you could bring that down a bit from 50K feet. What about libertarianism doesn't work? Where did the founding fathers go wrong?

 

[HenryBHough]

Another joyous morn with the stench of liberal fear heavy in the air!

Keep up the good work girls.

 

[RoshawnMarkwees]

That works only if there is no taxation at all. Pure libertarianism requires utopia. Its principles work best as a baromter.

The libertarians are anarchists bit again. Wow, you play that card so effectively too. Well done.

I never suggested anarchism. Paranoid much?

See the green. So you are suggesting government with zero dollars that is not anarchy? How does that make sense?

I pointed out the utopia necessary for pure libertarianism the same way it would be required for pure communism.

Pure libertarian is minimum government. Here is my definition for that.

What is a small government libertarian US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

You lose me completely on comparing minimum government (libertarianism) and maximum government (communism).

Libertarianism is, IMO, the ideal barometer and the standard measure for our constitution.

I'm not sure if I'm completely understanding you, it seems like you are contradicting yourself. If you are suggesting that is what government should be, obviously I agree. If you are suggesting we should strive to that but make reasonable compromises, I disagree. Libertarianism is government doing only that which all society benefits because there must be general societal recognition of things like property ownership, shared resources like water, recognition of policy, military protection, ... Anything but libertarianism is government victimizing one citizen for the benefit of another, and that is wrong on any scale. If you mean something besides those two, I missed it completely.

Pure libertarianism requires a utopia. Utopia makes any ideology moot. There will be inevitable needs for concessions as each person's desires and freedoms will conflict in common or public settings. Therefore libertarianism as a barometer works to effect compromises that might not necessarily be libertarian in principle but are necessary to effect order.

Maybe you could bring that down a bit from 50K feet. What about libertarianism doesn't work? Where did the founding fathers go wrong?

The essence of libertarianism is freedom to do whatever an individual wants to the extent that it doesn't confront another. In common or public settings conflict in interests is inevitable, therefore pure libertarianism can't work. That's where compromise is necessary but not without considering libertarian principles.

 

[Vandalshandle]

Libertarian philosophy works very well if you are stranded alone on an island....

 

[Stephanie]

the left is hard up for anything and anyone to hate on. Palin is their favorite target. Doesn't shine well on the Party that is suppose to be the CHAMPION for women

You think they would worry over their OWN PARTY they helped in sending to become a MINIORITY. but noooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo. a Palin speech OMG

pathetic

 

[JoeB131]

Yes, neither a libertarian nor a box of crayons are going to use guns to confiscate other people's money and give it to you. That is a valid point, Poindexter.

Wow, guy, I've never had anyone from the government come by to collect money from me with a gun, not once, ever.

But then, I'm not a crazy person.