Sarah Palin Not First Choice for 90+% of Educated Republicans

[Madeline]

Sarah Palin would be a much better President than the massive failure in there now.

O give me a break, Mad.

Obama is a Marxist, Palin isn't. Obama went to a church where the Pastor preached: "God damn America!' Palin didn't.

Obama the Destroyer.
Palin the Restorer.

Restoring what? Jim Crow laws?

And BTW, no matter how many times you call Obama a Marxist, it will still not be true. A Marxist is, essentially, an anarchist. One who believes that eventually, no government whatsoever will be necessary. Obama is a Socialist Capitalist....one who believes that business requires some restraint for the good of the people.

To one degree or another, so is every other US President since 1900, and doubtless, so are you.

Labels have to mean something to hurt, Mad.

 

[DiveCon]

The quote is unequivocal. Romney was Limbaugh's pick.

he didnt endorse him

Limbaugh supported Rudy G until it became evident that McCain was the nominee. Then he switched to McCain

i think you are confusing Hannity and Limbaugh

 

[rdean]

And we are talking about a leftist attitude right here Toro!

Remember the "smartest guys in the room" told us McCain was our best candidate. He was "electable."

Same thing about Dole.

And as USUAL, the "smartest guys in the room" take their cue from the LIBERAL MEDIA.

If it's sooooooooooooooooooo schmart to be led around by the nose, by the liberal media, you can have it.

Us "dumb people" will follow people like Reagan, whom the "smartest guys in the room" at that time told us, could never get elected.

TeaPartySpamurai

Here is a brief summary of what "smart" and "intellectual" people have given us.

Medicine

Cars

The constitution

Computers

Clean water

Sanitation

Electricity

Crop innovation

And so on.

So instead of carrying a massive chip around on your shoulder for "smart" people and "elites," you should be getting up every morning, thanking God that there are much smarter people in the world who are making your life better.

No, no no no.

Nice try. That's what INNOVATERS have given us.

Not the same thing as elites.

For example the Founding Fathers were going AGAINST the "educated elite" of their day in Founding this country.

The ELITE of their day was invested in the monarchy.

My family knew Henry Ford. Henry Ford was a neighbor of my Dad when he was a kid and even bought my dad an ice cream cone once.

Henry Ford was not an elitist, but a self made man.

He was born on a farm, and started in business as apprentist machinest.

Computers?

Jobs and Gates started their business in a garage.

I could go on and on.

Wonderful innovaters. Inventing cars, medicine, computers. Etc etc etc.

Doesn't mean they always know who should run the country.

Sorry, your examples are a big fail.

I love reading what you write because it's so stupid.

Someone bought your Dad an "ice cream"? ******* socialist.

The very first self-powered road vehicles were powered by steam engines and by that definition Nicolas Joseph Cugnot of France built the first automobile in 1769 - recognized by the British Royal Automobile Club and the Automobile Club de France as being the first. So why do so many history books say that the automobile was invented by either Gottlieb Daimler or Karl Benz? It is because both Daimler and Benz invented highly successful and practical gasoline-powered vehicles that ushered in the age of modern automobiles. Daimler and Benz invented cars that looked and worked like the cars we use today. However, it is unfair to say that either man invented "the" automobile.

The History of the Automobile - Gas Engines

The Z1 originally created by Germany's Konrad Zuse in his parents living room in 1936 to 1938 is considered to be the first electrical binary programmable computer.

When was the first computer invented?

----------------------------------

Figuring out how to take someone else's invention and mass producing it is a far cry from "inventing" it.

Besides, what do you want to bet the great inventions came mostly from "liberals". Conservatives aren't really good at "invention" because they want things to "stay the same", "go backwards", "stay in the past". And most of them believe "mysticism" is "real". Does that sound like someone who would explore, invent, and come up with "new" ideas?

 

[teapartysamurai]

As much as Teabagg'n Sammy slams the pick of McCain to lead the ticket in 2008. The sad fact for the Republicans is they don't have a candidate of McCains calibre in 2012

McCain LOST idiot!

What "calibre" exactly does a loser have, and why would we want another one?

 

[teapartysamurai]

It was the everyday Republicans voting in the primaries that said McCain was electable. He was the best the party had to offer in 2008. If you believe otherwise, tell me who was a better candidate than McCain? Romney?

Yeah, listening to the liberal media. As they did with Dole and with Ford.

They listed to the "elites" tell us who was "electable."

The elites were wrong.

Both Dole and Ford were outstanding legislators and were much better candidates than anyone the GOP has right now

And, like the NY Times you are all for them, BECAUSE YOU ARE A LIBERAL, and you want candidates like that, BECAUSE THEY WOULD LOSE.

Helloooooooooooooooo, you "educated" Republicans waking up to the ploy in this thread?

No, of course not! You are too "schmart" for that!

 

[teapartysamurai]

Pick a better candidate than Rush and Beck?

I think so. They have a much better track record picking republicans than either of the comics

The NY Times has a better track record of picking Republican presidential candidates that win?

Can you give us some examples???????????????

I can't WAIT to hear this one!



I can't wait to hear this!

Lets see how well the power of the microphone has done for ole' Rush. In 2008 he rallied his dittoheads to elect Rudy Guilianni and Hillary as a Dem.


The Times has a better perspective of the entire GOP electorate rather than just the right wing extremists who dwell on Rush's every blabber
How did that one work out?

Nice cop out but you don't get away so easy.

GIVE ME AN EXAMPLE OF A GOP PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE THE NEW YORK TIMES EVER PICKED THAT WON????????????

You give me that, and you will have your argument for why I should listen to the NY Times on GOP candidates.

 

[rightwinger]

As much as Teabagg'n Sammy slams the pick of McCain to lead the ticket in 2008. The sad fact for the Republicans is they don't have a candidate of McCains calibre in 2012

McCain LOST idiot!

What "calibre" exactly does a loser have, and why would we want another one?

Sorry TeaBagg'nSammy...but you FAILED to name a candidate better than McCain

Yes McCain LOST....and the fact that you can't name a single candidate shows you will LOSE again

 

[ScreamingEagle]

O give me a break, Mad.

Obama is a Marxist, Palin isn't. Obama went to a church where the Pastor preached: "God damn America!' Palin didn't.

Obama the Destroyer.
Palin the Restorer.

Restoring what? Jim Crow laws?

And BTW, no matter how many times you call Obama a Marxist, it will still not be true. A Marxist is, essentially, an anarchist. One who believes that eventually, no government whatsoever will be necessary. Obama is a Socialist Capitalist....one who believes that business requires some restraint for the good of the people.

To one degree or another, so is every other US President since 1900, and doubtless, so are you.

Labels have to mean something to hurt, Mad.

To-MAY-to.......To-MAH-to.....

Socialist Capitalist......Socialist Democrat......Marxist.......

All basically are one and the same..anarchists at heart....

 

[Liability]

As much as Teabagg'n Sammy slams the pick of McCain to lead the ticket in 2008. The sad fact for the Republicans is they don't have a candidate of McCains calibre in 2012

McCain LOST idiot!

What "calibre" exactly does a loser have, and why would we want another one?

Sorry TeaBagg'nSammy...but you FAILED to name a candidate better than McCain

Yes McCain LOST....and the fact that you can't name a single candidate shows you will LOSE again

The GOP could run a bag of spoiled guacamole against President Obama, now that he has proved himself to be extraordinarily inept and rather dangerous, and the GOP candidate could win.

Do you liberal Democratics grasp what this means?

Well, do ya -- punks?

Ok. Then, I'll tell ya.

It means that no matter how hard you try to run Gov. Palin into the ground, even she could defeat President Obama.

Thankfully, the GOP has better alternative candidates.

I suspect that it's premature to think Gov. Christie. But he seems to have the right stuff (especially if he goes on a damn diet).

But there are several GOP potential candidates any one of whom can defeat President Obama. They are good people. But that's not even the point. It's that President Obama is that bad. And now. we have all seen it.

 

[ScreamingEagle]

No matter who the presidential candidate is.....the left is still scared shitless of Palin because if she winds up the VP candidate again she will bring to the election tons of people, prestige, and power (votes, name recognition, and money)......

 

[The T]

Obama is a Marxist, Palin isn't. Obama went to a church where the Pastor preached: "God damn America!' Palin didn't.

Obama the Destroyer.
Palin the Restorer.

Restoring what? Jim Crow laws?

And BTW, no matter how many times you call Obama a Marxist, it will still not be true. A Marxist is, essentially, an anarchist. One who believes that eventually, no government whatsoever will be necessary. Obama is a Socialist Capitalist....one who believes that business requires some restraint for the good of the people.

To one degree or another, so is every other US President since 1900, and doubtless, so are you.

Labels have to mean something to hurt, Mad.

To-MAY-to.......To-MAH-to.....

Socialist Capitalist......Socialist Democrat......Marxist.......

All basically are one and the same..anarchists at heart....

MARXISM : An ideology created in the 19th Century by one disgruntled man---Karl Marx---in response to capitalism. Marx was not a peasant beholeden to the MAN: he was a well-off elitist obscessed with his own intelligence. Marx looked at income inequalities under capitalism, thought it bad, and predicted a worker's revolution, that would destroy the bourgeois (producers/entrepeneurs), and DEMAND forced economic equality. The prism through which he viewed the world was classic leftism: he did not see people as individuals, but rather as stuck members of monlithic economic groups, or classes. Marx's poisonous ideology sought not to inspire members of the lower classes, but make them resent WEALTH, and success.
Sound familiar?
Practioners would include: Karl Marx, College Professors, and sycophant students.

_____________________

SOCIALISM: "Marxism's TWIN. Socialism attempts to propmote Marx's theories within the mounds of democracy, which is virtually impossible.. It is obscessed with inequalities, and seeks to 'remedy' them, by punishing societys' achievers through taxation, and loss of liberty. Socialists win elections by encouraging resentment of the wealthy, blaming AMERICA, exploiting Western guilt, and castigating opponents as MEAN SPIRITED bigots, too stupid to understand their compassionate brilliance.

Practioners would include: European intellectuals, Canadian Healthcare Officials, and BARACK OBAMA.

______________________

COMMUNISM: Economic and political system, that promised the establishment of a classless society with common ownership. The working class (prolertariat)was supposed to "rise up" to replace the ruling class (bourgeoise) and establish nirvana.---a peaceful happy society with no government. Communism delivered tyranny. No Communist government has ever sprung up as a result of a "people's revolt". Every Communist government to date---and they have ALL been murderous. has seen elites imposing MARXISM, on their subjects. This awful system allows for NO private property, (except the RULERS), no LIBERTY, and no dissent, with communist leaders exercising absolute power.
See former Soviet GULAGS, or the skulls from Pol-Pot's S-21 torture chamber. According to the scholarly, "Black Book Of Communism", Communism has been responsible for the deaths of 100 million people worldwide.

Practioners: V.I. Lenin, Josef Stalin, Mao Tse-tung, Fidel Castro, Pol Pot, Kim Jong Il, all Soviet Politburo in their opulent dachas...

 

[rightwinger]

McCain LOST idiot!

What "calibre" exactly does a loser have, and why would we want another one?

Sorry TeaBagg'nSammy...but you FAILED to name a candidate better than McCain

Yes McCain LOST....and the fact that you can't name a single candidate shows you will LOSE again

The GOP could run a bag of spoiled guacamole against President Obama, now that he has proved himself to be extraordinarily inept and rather dangerous, and the GOP candidate could win.

Do you liberal Democratics grasp what this means?

Well, do ya -- punks?

Ok. Then, I'll tell ya.

It means that no matter how hard you try to run Gov. Palin into the ground, even she could defeat President Obama.

Thankfully, the GOP has better alternative candidates.

I suspect that it's premature to think Gov. Christie. But he seems to have the right stuff (especially if he goes on a damn diet).

But there are several GOP potential candidates any one of whom can defeat President Obama. They are good people. But that's not even the point. It's that President Obama is that bad. And now. we have all seen it.

Another FAIL by the right

Its a simple question, why are you so afraid to name who you support and why?

I have no problems supporting Obama day after day, I support my candidate and am proud of him. Yet when I ask the right wingers on the board a simple question, the best answer I can get is "bag of guacamole"

Once again, you prove my point....McCain was much better than anyone you have right now

 

[Toro]

No matter who the presidential candidate is.....the left is still scared shitless of Palin because if she winds up the VP candidate again she will bring to the election tons of people, prestige, and power (votes, name recognition, and money)......

Just to remind everybody, this thread is about how 90% of educated Republicans want someone other than Sarah Palin as their Presidential nominee in 2012. This has nothing to do with the Left.

I have never, ever seen a Leftist who was scared of Sarah Palin. Mocking condescenion is not fright. But it makes the Palinistas feel better about themselves when they elevate the Left's contempt into fright because it validates their own beliefs, even if those beliefs are completely wrong. Take it at 100% face value that the Left wants Sarah Palin to be nominated in 2012. That may be hubris, and it may be wrong, but it is completely genuine.

And WTF is "socialist capitalism?" You guys are just making things up now, aren't you?

 

[rightwinger]

No matter who the presidential candidate is.....the left is still scared shitless of Palin because if she winds up the VP candidate again she will bring to the election tons of people, prestige, and power (votes, name recognition, and money)......

Ego is too big for Palin to accept VP. I, for one hope the GOP gives her the nomination. So do 90% of Democrats

 

[JakeStarkey]

Sarah Palin would be a much better President than the massive failure in there now.

O give me a break, Mad.

Palin would be a far worse choice than BHO, no question about that among thinking adults.

My choice has always been Romney. He will have trouble with southern evangelicals again. If Huckabee is willing to accept second seat, Romney has a chance.

 

[JakeStarkey]

The Founding Fathers were the "elite" of the country and they WOULD not have given the tea party samurais a voice, period.

 

[JakeStarkey]

No matter who the presidential candidate is.....the left is still scared shitless of Palin because if she winds up the VP candidate again she will bring to the election tons of people, prestige, and power (votes, name recognition, and money)......

The Dems want Palin to run, eaglebeak, because it will be an easy victory.

 

[ScreamingEagle]

No matter who the presidential candidate is.....the left is still scared shitless of Palin because if she winds up the VP candidate again she will bring to the election tons of people, prestige, and power (votes, name recognition, and money)......

Just to remind everybody, this thread is about how 90% of educated Republicans want someone other than Sarah Palin as their Presidential nominee in 2012. This has nothing to do with the Left.

I have never, ever seen a Leftist who was scared of Sarah Palin. Mocking condescenion is not fright. But it makes the Palinistas feel better about themselves when they elevate the Left's contempt into fright because it validates their own beliefs, even if those beliefs are completely wrong. Take it at 100% face value that the Left wants Sarah Palin to be nominated in 2012. That may be hubris, and it may be wrong, but it is completely genuine.

And WTF is "socialist capitalism?" You guys are just making things up now, aren't you?

No, "socialist capitalism" is a new dodgy term cooked up by the left...you know....a socialist state with some capitalism mixed in to pay the bills....

Maybe this explains it better....

 

[ScreamingEagle]

No matter who the presidential candidate is.....the left is still scared shitless of Palin because if she winds up the VP candidate again she will bring to the election tons of people, prestige, and power (votes, name recognition, and money)......

The Dems want Palin to run, eaglebeak, because it will be an easy victory.

That's why they're practicing insults so hard and so early....?

 

[The T]

No matter who the presidential candidate is.....the left is still scared shitless of Palin because if she winds up the VP candidate again she will bring to the election tons of people, prestige, and power (votes, name recognition, and money)......

The Dems want Palin to run, eaglebeak, because it will be an easy victory.

That's why they're practicing insults so hard and so early....?

Pay no nevermind to Jokey Fakey...he's a confused individual that thinks he's a partisan...only he doesn't know which party...