She quit one facet of a job which she could no longer serve effectively; one in which her continued presence was counter productive to her obligations and the charter of her office...
ROFL... NO? Well I expect that she'll help Alaskans in substantially larger ways by unseating anti-Americans in the US Federal Legislature and as the President of the US, than your flaccid little conclusion otherwise projects.
Willows perspective has no bearing on whether the move was good or not. It is her perspective; what's more you've offered NOTHING which would so much as contest Willows perspective, let alone discredit it.
If you're goal is to do so, I suggest you cite that perspective and speak to it directly, instead of this vague reference, and this broad rejection of it.
It makes about as much sense as it did when McCain picked her. Couldn't even beat a black guy.
ROFLMNAO... It is hysterical to watch those who have demonstrated themselves to be VOID of any sense of sense, to speak that that which they feel doesn't 'make sense'...
but to conclude with a statement which rests in UNBRIDLED RACISM, well that is just PRECIOUS...
She quit being governor or she quit "one facet".
The job of Governor was one facet of what she sees as her job, as a leader.
She quit that facet; for the reasons she stated... all of which were intellectually sound and despite the perspective you and the gals want to sling on that decision; actually shows a substantial amount of personal character; not to mention the faith and confidence she has in those she leaves to do that job...
You're entitled to rationalize around her stated reasoning; but you're not entitled to do so without those who disagree with that rationalization, contesting it...
Perhaps, but you provide so very little evidence of it... that I tend to doubt that you do much thinking, if any; your arguments tend towards the irrational and I've never read a single position which you've offered, wherein a sound basis in reasoning is present. As a general rule; where thought is being applied; a well reasoned, logically valid argument is present; and its usually one which rests on a sound intellectual basis.
With you... not so much...
Did Reagan have to quit being the governor of California to run? Did Bush quit being the Texas Governor? Did McCain quit to run? Hillary? Maybe you can show a past president who quit their job in order to run. Giving one example would go a long way in showing that this isn't a huge ******* red flag.
Golly... lets see; First you assert the false premise that 'Palin had to quit'... Being false it's invalid reasoning; Second, setting that first fatal flaw aside; your premise suggests that those individuals you listed, held on to what they had; and did not relinquish the security of that position before taking on the challenge of a 'higher calling;' and that this represents a higher level of personal courage or character... and third, you desperately need to project that Palin's setting aside her Governorship was for reasons other than those she stated; now if you have tangible evidence to sustain that implication, post it; or concede by default that you know this to be false and are overtly attempting to deceive this forum through that projection, by your failure to do so.
And fourth, in all of that you misreprsent the facts... and try to correlate circumstances which are not conducive to such. Reagan ran for president as Governor of California in 68... He was not Governor of California in 76 or 80, when he came to the Federal executive in a landslide victory.
She can't be the leader of the free world if she can't handle being governor and raise her kids, even when most of them are adults.
A silly-assed quip of no substantive basis... No where has Palin proved that she 'can't handle' being Governor; to the contrary; she has been one of the most effective governors in Alaska's history and if you'd like to argue that... bring it.
And I work with people who's kids are serving in Iraq, and they still come to work every day.
Good for you... if only there was a purpose of that flaccid point of irrelevance.
If she can't be Governor because of problems, then she certainly can't be the President.
ROFL... again you project that she resigned because of problems SHE WAS ENDURING... when her statement in resigning CLEARLY, unambiguously demonstrates that her reasoning was based upon the problems that her presence was causing HER STATE.
Now again, IF YOU HAVE EVIDENCE WHICH SUSTAINS YOUR IMPLICATION ThAT SHE QUIT BECAUSE SHE COULDN'T HANDLE THE STRESS...
POST IT! Or concede by default that you HAVE ABSOLUTELY NO EVIDENCE and that as a result your position is little more than impotent, BASELESS CONJECTURE... through your failure to post that evidence.
I'll be monitoring your progress... best of luck to ya.
And before I hit submit, I just want to point out that how you write is very elitest. Here is an example. You wrote: to speak that which they feel. Who talks that way?
So it's elitists to speak in proper english and not end one's sentences on a preposition...
What's funny about that, is when you speak you come off as a DUMBASS... Dumbass.
Does that sound elitist to ya?
PI said:
And your perspective has no bearing on whether the move was good or not. It is your perspective; what's more you've offered NOTHING which would so much as contest my perspective, let alone discredit it.
If you're goal is to do so, I suggest you cite that perspective and speak to it directly, instead of this vague reference, and this broad rejection of it.
So... what? You didn't find a need to humiliate yourself through an attempted response to that position?
LOL... Hey I can't blame ya... you're carrying quite a lump of crap on that bruised self esteem as it is... so don't sweat it; you're doin' the best you can, God blessya.
