Sarah Palin off the wall

[VaYank5150]

I disagree.

President Obama won by 6 points. He campaigned against a lame duck with pitiful approval ratings. He had a large majority of the young vote due to his charisma and hipness. He had a campaign team that is matched by few, if any, in history and he had the advantage of the minority vote that the democratic party always had; but his running increased the numbers that actually voted; dramatically.

And, we can not forget the promise to 95% of the Americans that they would get extra spending money during a recession if they elected him.

Yet, he only won by 6%. Seems to me, Palin was a good choice. The spread should have been much larger.

In my opinion, of course.

You and I can agree to disagree on this point. However, in order to test your theory, I believe it is tantamount that you and the GOP (sorry, I am making an assumption here that you are a Republican), put her on the ticket in 2012 WITHOUT McCain. Would you agree?

She was a needed spark for a failing campaign.

Her allure came and went.

Now she is a good looking commentator with a political background; but no longer a politician.

And I am not a republican. I am a conservative. Bush did not have my vote in 2004.

McCain was the recipient of my NO vote for President Obama.

And I like to agree to disagree. It makes me smarter and wiser. So I thank you for a civil debate.

Fair enough, and thank you for the clarification on the Republican remark. If not Palin, who? If not now, when?

 

[Jarhead]

You and I can agree to disagree on this point. However, in order to test your theory, I believe it is tantamount that you and the GOP (sorry, I am making an assumption here that you are a Republican), put her on the ticket in 2012 WITHOUT McCain. Would you agree?

She was a needed spark for a failing campaign.

Her allure came and went.

Now she is a good looking commentator with a political background; but no longer a politician.

And I am not a republican. I am a conservative. Bush did not have my vote in 2004.

McCain was the recipient of my NO vote for President Obama.

And I like to agree to disagree. It makes me smarter and wiser. So I thank you for a civil debate.

Fair enough, and thank you for the clarification on the Republican remark. If not Palin, who? If not now, when?

I wish I had the answers Mr. Yank (or Ms?).

I don't. I am just an interested citizen.

One thing I know for sure. As much as I would like us all to go back to our conservative values, it is unfair for me to try to make this happen. We are a country of 300 million people with a variety of personal ideologies, agendas, and wish lists.

Conservatism works for me, but it may not work for my neighbor. I will thrive in a conservative atmosphere, but those with a more progressive ideology may fail in such an atmosphere. So I do not have the answers.

I pretty much go with the flow and all I ask is that my representatives explain their decision making so I may adjust to it.

Unfortunately, they seem to refuse to explain.

That is my only complaint about our congresspeople and Presidents of late.

 

[VaYank5150]

She was a needed spark for a failing campaign.

Her allure came and went.

Now she is a good looking commentator with a political background; but no longer a politician.

And I am not a republican. I am a conservative. Bush did not have my vote in 2004.

McCain was the recipient of my NO vote for President Obama.

And I like to agree to disagree. It makes me smarter and wiser. So I thank you for a civil debate.

Fair enough, and thank you for the clarification on the Republican remark. If not Palin, who? If not now, when?

I wish I had the answers Mr. Yank (or Ms?).

I don't. I am just an interested citizen.

One thing I know for sure. As much as I would like us all to go back to our conservative values, it is unfair for me to try to make this happen. We are a country of 300 million people with a variety of personal ideologies, agendas, and wish lists.

Conservatism works for me, but it may not work for my neighbor. I will thrive in a conservative atmosphere, but those with a more progressive ideology may fail in such an atmosphere. So I do not have the answers.

I pretty much go with the flow and all I ask is that my representatives explain their decision making so I may adjust to it.

Unfortunately, they seem to refuse to explain.

That is my only complaint about our congresspeople and Presidents of late.

Mr...but Yank is fine.

I had never voted for a Democrat in my life before Obama. Perot twice, but never a Democrat. And while I too appreciate conservative values, I find it very hard to understand why Americans are fine with spending billions, if not trillions of dollars on wars in foreign countries, yet get all pissy when our government tries to spend money to help ensure our citizens stay healthy?

 

[del]

McCain is no friend to the TEA parties and I think Palin was stupid to pitch up for him. I have never been a fan of Palin but I'm losing the very limited respect that I did have for her.

Agreed! Even though I respect her ability to excite an audience, in my opinion she will never be ready for "prime time" as a candidate in a presidential election. She just doesn't have what it takes.....not that that means anything these days...

Actually it does. Just look at what happened to the GOP in 2008, when they thought the electorate was dumb enough to vote for Palin?

i think they knew they were going down no matter what and palin was a hail mary pass.

they were half right anyway

 

[Jarhead]

Fair enough, and thank you for the clarification on the Republican remark. If not Palin, who? If not now, when?

I wish I had the answers Mr. Yank (or Ms?).

I don't. I am just an interested citizen.

One thing I know for sure. As much as I would like us all to go back to our conservative values, it is unfair for me to try to make this happen. We are a country of 300 million people with a variety of personal ideologies, agendas, and wish lists.

Conservatism works for me, but it may not work for my neighbor. I will thrive in a conservative atmosphere, but those with a more progressive ideology may fail in such an atmosphere. So I do not have the answers.

I pretty much go with the flow and all I ask is that my representatives explain their decision making so I may adjust to it.

Unfortunately, they seem to refuse to explain.

That is my only complaint about our congresspeople and Presidents of late.

Mr...but Yank is fine.

I had never voted for a Democrat in my life before Obama. Perot twice, but never a Democrat. And while I too appreciate conservative values, I find it very hard to understand why Americans are fine with spending billions, if not trillions of dollars on wars in foreign countries, yet get all pissy when our government tries to spend money to help ensure our citizens stay healthy?

Presented that way, yes, it seems ludicrous; I agree with you.

However, presented the following way, it does not. Now bear in mind, I am not debating the need or lack of need for the Iraq conflict. I have never really come to terms with what was right as I have so much conflicting information from our politicians, that only a true partisan can make a decision as to whether or not the conflict was necessary.

However, back to the topic:

We do not expect the government to keep us healthy. That is our own responsibility.
We do expect governemnt to keep America safe. That is something each one of us can not accomplish individually.

That is how a conservative views the role of government.

Again, please do not jump down my throat about how could the Iraq conflict be considered as keeping us safe.

None of us know the truth about that decision. One side is lying and we will never know which one.

BUt I agree, it has proven to be a mistake; intentional or not is another story.

 

[VaYank5150]

I wish I had the answers Mr. Yank (or Ms?).

I don't. I am just an interested citizen.

One thing I know for sure. As much as I would like us all to go back to our conservative values, it is unfair for me to try to make this happen. We are a country of 300 million people with a variety of personal ideologies, agendas, and wish lists.

Conservatism works for me, but it may not work for my neighbor. I will thrive in a conservative atmosphere, but those with a more progressive ideology may fail in such an atmosphere. So I do not have the answers.

I pretty much go with the flow and all I ask is that my representatives explain their decision making so I may adjust to it.

Unfortunately, they seem to refuse to explain.

That is my only complaint about our congresspeople and Presidents of late.

Mr...but Yank is fine.

I had never voted for a Democrat in my life before Obama. Perot twice, but never a Democrat. And while I too appreciate conservative values, I find it very hard to understand why Americans are fine with spending billions, if not trillions of dollars on wars in foreign countries, yet get all pissy when our government tries to spend money to help ensure our citizens stay healthy?

Presented that way, yes, it seems ludicrous; I agree with you.

However, presented the following way, it does not. Now bear in mind, I am not debating the need or lack of need for the Iraq conflict. I have never really come to terms with what was right as I have so much conflicting information from our politicians, that only a true partisan can make a decision as to whether or not the conflict was necessary.

However, back to the topic:

We do not expect the government to keep us healthy. That is our own responsibility.
We do expect governemnt to keep America safe. That is something each one of us can not accomplish individually.

That is how a conservative views the role of government.

Again, please do not jump down my throat about how could the Iraq conflict be considered as keeping us safe.

None of us know the truth about that decision. One side is lying and we will never know which one.

BUt I agree, it has proven to be a mistake; intentional or not is another story.

I am in complete agreement with you. The Constitution states as such. Splitting hairs on the definition and scope of "keeping us safe" and "provide for the general welfare" is normally where the gloves come off.

 

[Jarhead]

Mr...but Yank is fine.

I had never voted for a Democrat in my life before Obama. Perot twice, but never a Democrat. And while I too appreciate conservative values, I find it very hard to understand why Americans are fine with spending billions, if not trillions of dollars on wars in foreign countries, yet get all pissy when our government tries to spend money to help ensure our citizens stay healthy?

Presented that way, yes, it seems ludicrous; I agree with you.

However, presented the following way, it does not. Now bear in mind, I am not debating the need or lack of need for the Iraq conflict. I have never really come to terms with what was right as I have so much conflicting information from our politicians, that only a true partisan can make a decision as to whether or not the conflict was necessary.

However, back to the topic:

We do not expect the government to keep us healthy. That is our own responsibility.
We do expect governemnt to keep America safe. That is something each one of us can not accomplish individually.

That is how a conservative views the role of government.

Again, please do not jump down my throat about how could the Iraq conflict be considered as keeping us safe.

None of us know the truth about that decision. One side is lying and we will never know which one.

BUt I agree, it has proven to be a mistake; intentional or not is another story.

I am in complete agreement with you. The Constitution states as such. Splitting hairs on the definition and scope of "keeping us safe" and "provide for the general welfare" is normally where the gloves come off.

True.

But why should the gloves come off? America spoke in November 2008. America speaks every two years. Elections have benefits and elections have consequences.

America is a great land and nothing in law is absolute.

Seems politicians and the media want us to argue. They seem to want us to drop the gloves. Makes for great reporting; sensationalism sells

Why should we argue? I believe in the sanctity of elections. Seems this is what America wants today; in 2012 it may be something else.

Sure, partisans argue till the cows come home. But normal America? All we want is the truth so we can adapt and then make a more educated voting decision next time.

Just wish we could get the truth. The spinning is killing me.

 

[VaYank5150]

Presented that way, yes, it seems ludicrous; I agree with you.

However, presented the following way, it does not. Now bear in mind, I am not debating the need or lack of need for the Iraq conflict. I have never really come to terms with what was right as I have so much conflicting information from our politicians, that only a true partisan can make a decision as to whether or not the conflict was necessary.

However, back to the topic:

We do not expect the government to keep us healthy. That is our own responsibility.
We do expect governemnt to keep America safe. That is something each one of us can not accomplish individually.

That is how a conservative views the role of government.

Again, please do not jump down my throat about how could the Iraq conflict be considered as keeping us safe.

None of us know the truth about that decision. One side is lying and we will never know which one.

BUt I agree, it has proven to be a mistake; intentional or not is another story.

I am in complete agreement with you. The Constitution states as such. Splitting hairs on the definition and scope of "keeping us safe" and "provide for the general welfare" is normally where the gloves come off.

True.

But why should the gloves come off? America spoke in November 2008. America speaks every two years. Elections have benefits and elections have consequences.

America is a great land and nothing in law is absolute.

Seems politicians and the media want us to argue. They seem to want us to drop the gloves. Makes for great reporting; sensationalism sells

Why should we argue? I believe in the sanctity of elections. Seems this is what America wants today; in 2012 it may be something else.

Sure, partisans argue till the cows come home. But normal America? All we want is the truth so we can adapt and then make a more educated voting decision next time.

Just wish we could get the truth. The spinning is killing me.

I think the reason the gloves come off is BECAUSE we live in America. We ALL have opinions and most of us want our opinions known. I do not believe invading Iraq is covered by the "keeping us safe" clause, just as trying to make healthcare more available to everyone is not covered by the "providing for the general welfare" clause for many others.

 

[Jarhead]

I am in complete agreement with you. The Constitution states as such. Splitting hairs on the definition and scope of "keeping us safe" and "provide for the general welfare" is normally where the gloves come off.

True.

But why should the gloves come off? America spoke in November 2008. America speaks every two years. Elections have benefits and elections have consequences.

America is a great land and nothing in law is absolute.

Seems politicians and the media want us to argue. They seem to want us to drop the gloves. Makes for great reporting; sensationalism sells

Why should we argue? I believe in the sanctity of elections. Seems this is what America wants today; in 2012 it may be something else.

Sure, partisans argue till the cows come home. But normal America? All we want is the truth so we can adapt and then make a more educated voting decision next time.

Just wish we could get the truth. The spinning is killing me.

I think the reason the gloves come off is BECAUSE we live in America. We ALL have opinions and most of us want our opinions known. I do not believe invading Iraq is covered by the "keeping us safe" clause, just as trying to make healthcare more available to everyone is not covered by the "providing for the general welfare" clause for many others.

you just confirmed the point I was making.
You made your stance clear; I do not necessarily agree about the Iraq part, (still not sure who is telling us the truth); but I respect how you feel; and more importantly, I UNDERSTAND how and why you feel as you do.
And my gloves are still on; and so are yours.

Civil debate is what we need. Politicians and the media prefer otherwise.

 

[VaYank5150]

True.

But why should the gloves come off? America spoke in November 2008. America speaks every two years. Elections have benefits and elections have consequences.

America is a great land and nothing in law is absolute.

Seems politicians and the media want us to argue. They seem to want us to drop the gloves. Makes for great reporting; sensationalism sells

Why should we argue? I believe in the sanctity of elections. Seems this is what America wants today; in 2012 it may be something else.

Sure, partisans argue till the cows come home. But normal America? All we want is the truth so we can adapt and then make a more educated voting decision next time.

Just wish we could get the truth. The spinning is killing me.

I think the reason the gloves come off is BECAUSE we live in America. We ALL have opinions and most of us want our opinions known. I do not believe invading Iraq is covered by the "keeping us safe" clause, just as trying to make healthcare more available to everyone is not covered by the "providing for the general welfare" clause for many others.

you just confirmed the point I was making.
You made your stance clear; I do not necessarily agree about the Iraq part, (still not sure who is telling us the truth); but I respect how you feel; and more importantly, I UNDERSTAND how and why you feel as you do.
And my gloves are still on; and so are yours.

Civil debate is what we need. Politicians and the media prefer otherwise.

It takes TWO participants to civily debate a topic. It is rare that we see that on USMB. Thank you for your participation in this. And just so you know, I am just as guilty as ANYONE on here of having taken my gloves off before.

 

[Jarhead]

I think the reason the gloves come off is BECAUSE we live in America. We ALL have opinions and most of us want our opinions known. I do not believe invading Iraq is covered by the "keeping us safe" clause, just as trying to make healthcare more available to everyone is not covered by the "providing for the general welfare" clause for many others.

you just confirmed the point I was making.
You made your stance clear; I do not necessarily agree about the Iraq part, (still not sure who is telling us the truth); but I respect how you feel; and more importantly, I UNDERSTAND how and why you feel as you do.
And my gloves are still on; and so are yours.

Civil debate is what we need. Politicians and the media prefer otherwise.

It takes TWO participants to civily debate a topic. It is rare that we see that on USMB. Thank you for your participation in this. And just so you know, I am just as guilty as ANYONE on here of having taken my gloves off before.

So am I Mr. Yank. So am I.
But I have mellowed. I have learned to respect my neighbor.

 

[VaYank5150]

you just confirmed the point I was making.
You made your stance clear; I do not necessarily agree about the Iraq part, (still not sure who is telling us the truth); but I respect how you feel; and more importantly, I UNDERSTAND how and why you feel as you do.
And my gloves are still on; and so are yours.

Civil debate is what we need. Politicians and the media prefer otherwise.

It takes TWO participants to civily debate a topic. It is rare that we see that on USMB. Thank you for your participation in this. And just so you know, I am just as guilty as ANYONE on here of having taken my gloves off before.

So am I Mr. Yank. So am I.
But I have mellowed. I have learned to respect my neighbor.

Still working on that part personally, Mr. Jarhead!

 

[Jarhead]

It takes TWO participants to civily debate a topic. It is rare that we see that on USMB. Thank you for your participation in this. And just so you know, I am just as guilty as ANYONE on here of having taken my gloves off before.

So am I Mr. Yank. So am I.
But I have mellowed. I have learned to respect my neighbor.

Still working on that part personally, Mr. Jarhead!

Seems to me your work paid off already.
I gave you a miultitude of opportunities to put me in my place. But you didnt.
Well done.

 

[AquaAthena]

So am I Mr. Yank. So am I.
But I have mellowed. I have learned to respect my neighbor.

Still working on that part personally, Mr. Jarhead!

Seems to me your work paid off already.
I gave you a miultitude of opportunities to put me in my place. But you didnt.
Well done.

Jarhead and VaYank, thank you both for an interesting discourse. You were very professional and I enjoyed the conversation and earnest openness.

 

[Dont Taz Me Bro]

One day she is running with the tea party crowd and the next day she is campaigning for McCain in Arizona.
In her speech she called McCain "a maverick and supporter of small government and personal responsibility".

Yeah, I was wondering if I was the only one who saw the irony in that.

 

[AquaAthena]

One day she is running with the tea party crowd and the next day she is campaigning for McCain in Arizona.
In her speech she called McCain "a maverick and supporter of small government and personal responsibility".

Yeah, I was wondering if I was the only one who saw the irony in that.

Yes, she appears to be becoming a real politician...lol.

 

[VaYank5150]

One day she is running with the tea party crowd and the next day she is campaigning for McCain in Arizona.
In her speech she called McCain "a maverick and supporter of small government and personal responsibility".

Yeah, I was wondering if I was the only one who saw the irony in that.

Yes, she appears to be becoming a real politician...lol.

Ouch....I am not sure who should be more offended by that? "Real" politicians or Caribou Barbie?

 

[NYcarbineer]

And if she doesn't support McCain and his imaginary track record she's labeled an "ingrate" and "Clueless" for not saying so during the Presidential Campaign.

Oh and, Congrats!

LiarFrank, if I didn't know any better, I would think you were finally admitting to the hypocrisy of the right?

No, Johnny Jackoff, I'm pointing out that if anyone took the time to think it through, I'm not saying you were going to think it through, I was hopeful maybe some other people on here would, you would see that Palin had a bad choice either way:

She refuses to back McCain: she paints herself as an "ingrate" for slapping the hand that put her on the national stage and "weak" for not standing up to McCain's stupidity sooner

She goes: well, even a moron like you, Johnny Jackoff, can see what happened.

If you have a bad choice either way, then there's no reason not to simply go with your principles.
Some people were led to believe she had conservative principles, not RINO principles.