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

[RadiomanATL]

I disagree.

While I do not think she invented the death panel argument, she is one of the very few who could have sent democrats into a spittle flecked outrage, stumbling all over themselves to point out how retarded she is.

No ear of anyone required. And the fact that she used facebook only helped matters.

No ear required???? You mean no one had to pay attention to her????? Maybe you misunderstand what it means to "have the ear" of someone. It means that person pays attention to what you say. So you say she doesn't need anyone to pay attention to her to have political influence??????

I have to disagree.

You misunderstand.

She didn't need to have the ear of any powerful brokers in Washington to get her message out.

 

[nodoginnafight]

I disagree.

While I do not think she invented the death panel argument, she is one of the very few who could have sent democrats into a spittle flecked outrage, stumbling all over themselves to point out how retarded she is.

No ear of anyone required. And the fact that she used facebook only helped matters.

No ear required???? You mean no one had to pay attention to her????? Maybe you misunderstand what it means to "have the ear" of someone. It means that person pays attention to what you say. So you say she doesn't need anyone to pay attention to her to have political influence??????

I have to disagree.

You misunderstand.

She didn't need to have the ear of any powerful brokers in Washington to get her message out.

Maybe - but would the death panel argument have died a quick and relatively silent death without Grassley, McCaughey, Beck, Limbaugh, Thomas, et al.?????? Impossible to say with any certainty

But as I said before - she has the ear of people who are susceptible to that type of argument.

 

[PubliusInfinitum]

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.

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.

 

[PubliusInfinitum]

Maybe that explains it. It's a better explanation than anything I've come up with.
I don't hate the woman, but...well, the "but" is obvious.

Well, it's just my opinion, but it's an opinion I've formed after seeing a lot of it in action. I'm a Christian. I'm a Christian who destests the way people have bastardized the faith to try to manipulate Christians politically. And I've met and gotten to know a lot of folks who are part of the evangelical right, who are Palin fans, and who can't seem to wrap their minds around "give unto Caesar what is Caesar's"

Well that's easily understood...

You're not a Christian, which you made clear in your screed:

The "unalienable Human Right endowed by God" is the right to serve God - period - end of list.
The fact that our forefathers had to overcome a religious predisposition to acknowledge the authority of the crown and the fact that they did this by pandering to the puritans by pretending God endorsed political principles is not surprising.

It still happens today - people manipulate the gulliable with religion in order to achieve their political goals.

THIS Christian has studied the Bible thoroughly enough to realize that ANYONE who tries to claim God endorses political objectives is NOT speaking the word of God.

Nor are you an American... which is a position sustained by your above premise where you confuse American governance with Emperical Rule...

Nothing particularly complex here...

Take care - enjoyed the chat.

And that kids, is all there is to exposing evil for what it is... know your principles and never accept a premise which hopes to appeal to them and in so doing undermines the foundation in reason on which they rest.

Easy peasy...

 

[PubliusInfinitum]

I disagree.

While I do not think she invented the death panel argument, she is one of the very few who could have sent democrats into a spittle flecked outrage, stumbling all over themselves to point out how retarded she is.

No ear of anyone required. And the fact that she used facebook only helped matters.

I agree. So, will you please work with Publius to get her on the GOP ticket in 2012?

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?

Understand that I'm directly and unambiguously challenging you to provide SPECIFICS... as noted above, so as to sustain your stated position; and that where ya respond with some vague reference to 'seeing Russia...' or other such leftist witticism... you will be exposign yourself as an addle-minded FOOL; and if ya choose to ignore that challenge, you'll be exposing yourself as a COWARDLY, addle-minded fool...

And that no matter HOW you respond.. you're going to wish that you'd just left it alone and kept your foolish opinion to yourself.

 

[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.

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.

 

[VaYank5150]

I agree. So, will you please work with Publius to get her on the GOP ticket in 2012?

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?

Understand that I'm directly and unambiguously challenging you to provide SPECIFICS... as noted above, so as to sustain your stated position; and that where ya respond with some vague reference to 'seeing Russia...' or other such leftist witticism... you will be exposign yourself as an addle-minded FOOL; and if ya choose to ignore that challenge, you'll be exposing yourself as a COWARDLY, addle-minded fool...

And that no matter HOW you respond.. you're going to wish that you'd just left it alone and kept your foolish opinion to yourself.

Can you say hypocrisy, Publius? I knew you could. You have the audacity to demand specifics from RadiomanATL, yet when challenged to provide specifics yourself, you dodge the question....pathetic.

 

[nodoginnafight]

Well that's easily understood...

You're not a Christian, which you made clear in your screed:



Nor are you an American... which is a position sustained by your above premise where you confuse American governance with Emperical Rule...

Nothing particularly complex here...

Take care - enjoyed the chat.

And that kids, is all there is to exposing evil for what it is... know your principles and never accept a premise which hopes to appeal to them and in so doing undermines the foundation in reason on which they rest.

Easy peasy...

Once again you jump to a conclusion, make unwarranted assumptions, and arrive at an incorrect conclusion. I was saying good-bye to goldcatt who was leaving the discussion to rest.

 

[RadiomanATL]

No ear required???? You mean no one had to pay attention to her????? Maybe you misunderstand what it means to "have the ear" of someone. It means that person pays attention to what you say. So you say she doesn't need anyone to pay attention to her to have political influence??????

I have to disagree.

You misunderstand.

She didn't need to have the ear of any powerful brokers in Washington to get her message out.

Maybe - but would the death panel argument have died a quick and relatively silent death without Grassley, McCaughey, Beck, Limbaugh, Thomas, et al.?

No, because the Democrats wouldn't let it die. Those people you mentioned only came into the argument AFTER liberals and the admin stupidly went after Palin.

 

[VaYank5150]

Take care - enjoyed the chat.

And that kids, is all there is to exposing evil for what it is... know your principles and never accept a premise which hopes to appeal to them and in so doing undermines the foundation in reason on which they rest.

Easy peasy...

Once again you jump to a conclusion, make unwarranted assumptions, and arrive at an incorrect conclusion. I was saying good-bye to goldcatt who was leaving the discussion to rest.

He ain't all there, is he, nodog?

 

[nodoginnafight]

Understand that I'm directly and unambiguously challenging you to provide SPECIFICS

While providing absolutely nothing himself but wild and disproven claims and opinions .....
How conveeeeenient ......

 

[nodoginnafight]

You misunderstand.

She didn't need to have the ear of any powerful brokers in Washington to get her message out.

Maybe - but would the death panel argument have died a quick and relatively silent death without Grassley, McCaughey, Beck, Limbaugh, Thomas, et al.?

No, because the Democrats wouldn't let it die. Those people you mentioned only came into the argument AFTER liberals and the admin stupidly went after Palin.

Maybe - perhaps there is a danger in letting wild, unmerited accusations go unchallenged or maybe there is more danger in dignifying them with a response ....

It can be argued either way I suppose. But I'll agree with you in that imho the admin made plenty of mistakes in the healthcare debate.

 

[RadiomanATL]

I agree. So, will you please work with Publius to get her on the GOP ticket in 2012?

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

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

You may now continue with your incoherent rants.

 

[Sarah G]

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.

 

[nodoginnafight]

Maybe idiots need someone to represent them??????????????????????????

 

[VaYank5150]

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.

I have to agree with this assertion. Gives new meaning to the term, "Must see TV"!

 

[Oscar Wao]

Where can you watch these things?

 

[Sarah G]

Maybe idiots need someone to represent them??????????????????????????

Uh huh, idiots need love too?

 

[Polk]

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.

Bet they wish they had Terry McAuliffe.

 

[VaYank5150]

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.

Bet they wish they had Terry McAuliffe.

Terry McAuliffe was more than happy to tell the Commonwealth his big ideas for taxing and spending. I am not sure Virginians would have elected him now.