Sarah Palin
-
- Posts: 209
- Joined: December 20th, 2009, 5:02 pm
Sarah Palin
1. She resigned as governor of Alaska almost a year and a half before her term was up
2. She has become an 'analyst' for Fox News.
3. She has claimed to be a 'mother grizzly', whatever that means. (Definetly not the archetype provided by the Greeks with the Goddess Artemis, or how a mother bear would die before allowing her cubs to be harmed).
4. Supports the supposedly 'more' conservative candidates of the republican/tea party.
In all, she may be more educated than when last running as McCain's running mate in 2008, but she hasn't gained that much more political experience.
At least now Obama (regardless of how good or terrible you believe him to be as President) will have 4 years of actual experience as President of the U.S.
If Palin is selected as the Republican candidate to run against Obama, it must be admitted it is only for her celebrity status. Can anyone, without being nasty and insulting by attacking Obama, give good reasons as to why she would make a good choice to run against Obama in 2012? Wouldn't the Republicans be better off selecting another candidate?
- whitetrshsoldier
- Premium Member
- Posts: 1773
- Joined: March 11th, 2009, 1:19 pm
- Favorite Philosopher: Frederic Bastiat
- Location: San Diego, CA
All she is full of is talking points, and they're not even good. Her spin on them is the homely "How's that Hopey-Changey thing working out for ya', Mr. President".
As a STRONG CONSERVATIVE, I'm embarassed people associate her with my cause.
Please, somebody, get Ron Paul in that race one last time!!!
- Eckhart Aurelius Hughes
- The admin formerly known as Scott
- Posts: 5765
- Joined: January 20th, 2007, 6:24 pm
- Favorite Philosopher: Eckhart Aurelius Hughes
- Contact:
"The mind is a wonderful servant but a terrible master."
I believe spiritual freedom (a.k.a. self-discipline) manifests as bravery, confidence, grace, honesty, love, and inner peace.
-
- Posts: 1877
- Joined: November 16th, 2009, 11:03 am
- Contact:
- Juice
- Posts: 1996
- Joined: May 8th, 2009, 10:24 pm
But, Palin endorsed 12 conservatives in these last round of primaries and 9 of them won, many of whom were down in the poles until her endorsement.
I agree to some extent that she may not be a wise choice for the presidency in 2012 I would whole heartedly support her for energy secretary when this regime ends in 2013.
WTS-I would support a Palin-Paul ticket. And, I believe an intellectuality inferior to Palin is now in office. Palin would be leaps and bounds over that leftist crank.
Scott- I'm surprised that you would point out that unsupported nonfactual article. I agree that government grew with Nixon and the last Bush, but Reagan and Bush 1, I suggest you check those histories. And, how could they even mention Sarah Palin when she wasn't even in any of those administrations, never mind having one of her own, "YET".
An explanation of cause is not a justification by reason.
C. S. Lewis
Fight the illusion!
-
- Posts: 1877
- Joined: November 16th, 2009, 11:03 am
- Contact:
With Palin, the conservative movement can be fairly certain that they won't have another RINO that just talks conservative, but then ends up growing government and advancing more progressive policies.
- whitetrshsoldier
- Premium Member
- Posts: 1773
- Joined: March 11th, 2009, 1:19 pm
- Favorite Philosopher: Frederic Bastiat
- Location: San Diego, CA
No way in hell. Unless Bill Maher becomes the head of the G.O.P. [or finds a way to buy the head out].Wowbagger wrote:I've neglected US politics in the last month, and I have a question that really interests me:
What do you think are the odds that Palin will become the Republican candidate?
She'd lose miserably, and is far too controversial to keep people focused on the campaign; instead, it'd be deflated into a pageant, and Obama's tongue is much more forked than hers is.
- Eckhart Aurelius Hughes
- The admin formerly known as Scott
- Posts: 5765
- Joined: January 20th, 2007, 6:24 pm
- Favorite Philosopher: Eckhart Aurelius Hughes
- Contact:
Sarah Palin praised Bush's $700 billion bailout. She opposes legalizing marijuana (though she did smoke it) preferring to spend billions of taxpayer dollars per year waging a futile war on it. She likely made Thomas Jefferson role over in his grave when she said, "God shouldn't be separated from the state." She wants creationism to be taught in public schools. She supports the words "under god" in the Pledge of Allegiance because she mistakenly believes the founding father's put it in there (but it was added in 1954). Her lie about "death panels" was voted biggest lie of 2009. She supported a "bridge to nowhere," her state kept the earmark money, and then she got caught lying about it during her national campaign in a weirdly self-damaging way (source). Up until she quit, she was the Governor of a state that received more federal funds per capita than anyone else in the Union and in which citizens received an annual check from the state government for their share of 'commonly owned' oil and gas royalties. She increased the sales tax in Alaska. She supports gambling bans. She supported the war in Iraq, even dragging religion into it by saying it is the "will of God" that we intervene in Iraq. She supports denying economic benefits enjoyed by heterosexual couples (e.g. health benefits for the spouse/domestic partner of an employee) to gay couples; more generally, compare Sarah Palin's big government position on same-sex unions and the government's role in "defining marriage" to libertarian Ron Paul's very different positions on the same:
Ron Paul wrote: My personal belief is that marriage is a religious ceremony. And it should be dealt with religiously. The [government] really shouldn't be involved. The government got involved mostly for health reasons 100 years or so ago. But this should be a religious matter. All voluntary associations, whether they're economic or social, should be protected by the law. But to amend the Constitution is totally unnecessary to define something that's already in the dictionary. We do know what marriage is about. We don't need a new definition or argue over a definition and have an Amendment. To me, it just seems so unnecessary to do that. There's no need for the federal government to be involved in this.
Consider Sarah Palin's desire to criminalize abortion even for teenage rape victims no matter how early in the pregnancy, and compare that with libertarian Ayn Rand's views on the same:Sarah Palin wrote:In my own state, I have voted, along with the vast majority of Alaskans who had the opportunity to vote, to amend our constitution defining marriage as between one man and one woman. I wish on a federal level that's where we would go, because I don't support gay marriage.
***Ayn Rand wrote:Never mind the vicious nonsense of claiming that an embryo has a “right to life.” A piece of protoplasm has no rights—and no life in the human sense of the term. One may argue about the later stages of a pregnancy, but the essential issue concerns only the first three months. To equate a potential with an actual, is vicious; to advocate the sacrifice of the latter to the former, is unspeakable. . . . Observe that by ascribing rights to the unborn, i.e., the nonliving, the anti-abortionists obliterate the rights of the living: the right of young people to set the course of their own lives. The task of raising a child is a tremendous, lifelong responsibility, which no one should undertake unwittingly or unwillingly. Procreation is not a duty: human beings are not stock-farm animals. For conscientious persons, an unwanted pregnancy is a disaster; to oppose its termination is to advocate sacrifice, not for the sake of anyone’s benefit, but for the sake of misery qua misery, for the sake of forbidding happiness and fulfillment to living human beings.
Unfortunately, to directly answer the question in the OP, the Republicans would have a better chance at winning with Palin than someone like Paul. The destructive influence of a bipartisan league of selfish special interests combined with what I call the McDonald's effect mean one wins by selling out and by being the Britney Spears or McDonald's of political leadership. Remember, Britney Spears sells more CDs than true musical art talent Andrea Bocelli; McDonald's sells more burgers than Chef Ramsey; and Palin gets more attention and would get more votes than Paul.
***
I suggest you check them especially before calling an article nonfactual and telling me to check them. Even adjusted for inflation, federal spending increased over 14% under Reagen and over 7% under the first Bush (source). For a specific example of Reagan's big government policies, Reagan supported and passed a bill that spent billions of dollars on the war on drugs (source).Juice wrote:I agree that government grew with Nixon and the last Bush, but Reagan and Bush 1, I suggest you check those histories.
Of course, this thread is about Sarah Palin who supports even bigger government than other conservatives like Reagan.
"The mind is a wonderful servant but a terrible master."
I believe spiritual freedom (a.k.a. self-discipline) manifests as bravery, confidence, grace, honesty, love, and inner peace.
- Juice
- Posts: 1996
- Joined: May 8th, 2009, 10:24 pm
Funny how there is now an upsurge in usage since Obama has been in office, shades of Carter!!!!!
Speaking of Carter, the most likely cause of any increase in government during Reagan's "TERMS" in office.
And just like Reagan, Palin, is causing all kinds of fear among progressives and for good reasons. To bad there wasn't this much nuanced nitpicking while Obama was running, things sure would be alot better, NOW, had he only been even a little truthful.
Don't read progressive spin Scott, I have too few brain cells left as it is.
An explanation of cause is not a justification by reason.
C. S. Lewis
Fight the illusion!
-
- Posts: 1877
- Joined: November 16th, 2009, 11:03 am
- Contact:
2023/2024 Philosophy Books of the Month
Mark Victor Hansen, Relentless: Wisdom Behind the Incomparable Chicken Soup for the Soul
by Mitzi Perdue
February 2023
Rediscovering the Wisdom of Human Nature: How Civilization Destroys Happiness
by Chet Shupe
March 2023