Palin is no Clinton

page: 2
5
<< 1   >>

log in

join

posted on Sep, 4 2008 @ 07:14 PM
link   
reply to post by southern_Guardian
 


You need to get your eyeballs tightened.

I don't claim to be psychic, but Sarah Palin is going to make a lot friends among women who also happen to have a cerebral cortex.

The gender feminists wouldn't vote for McCain if he put Ellen DeGeneres on the ticket.


[edit on 2008/9/4 by GradyPhilpott]




posted on Sep, 4 2008 @ 07:15 PM
link   
reply to post by tmbandt
 


that post sounded like an approximation of this



I don't know half of you half as well as I should like; and I like less than half of you half as well as you deserve. -- Bilbo Baggins



posted on Sep, 4 2008 @ 07:19 PM
link   
reply to post by undo
 

I'm not exactly sure what you meant by this post, but I do pay a lot of attention to politics. The fact you are quoting "Lord of the Rings" says a lot though.



posted on Sep, 4 2008 @ 07:20 PM
link   

Originally posted by GradyPhilpott
You need to get your eyeballs tightened.

I don't claim to be psychic, but Sarah Palin is going to make a lot friends among women who also happen to have a cerebral cortex.

The gender feminists wouldn't vote for McCain if he put Gloria Steinem on the ticket.


Well the thread highlights that she is the complete opposite of what Hillary is, McCain obviously chose her to get the bulk of Hill voters, yet thats like saying Hilary supporters only voted her in because of her gender. So what else could she bring to the table besides her gender qualities? I mean seriously now?

I hear all day from righties saying "shes all great" yet, this is not why McCain chose her. So whats the point if shes completely opposite to Hillary? Hows that going to bring in Hillarys strong base? Sure theres a small group a disgruntled voters who will choose mccain regardless but how do you see her making an impact when she is the complete opposite to Hillary values and policies. Are women in a america really that ignorant to just fall down for Palin because shes another woman and shes having family problems? Is this how the GOP labels people? Is this the assumption here?

[edit on 4-9-2008 by southern_Guardian]



posted on Sep, 4 2008 @ 07:23 PM
link   

Originally posted by tmbandt
reply to post by undo
 

If I were less informed, I'd prolly choose McCain due to his choice of VP.


it took this addled brain a bit to work this out mathematically, in the context of the rest of your post. (see the algebra of grammar). It was at that point i reminded myself of one of the bewildered hobbits following Bilbo's "i don't like half of you..." etc, speech, where they stopped their merry making to see if it worked out to a compliment or not.



posted on Sep, 4 2008 @ 07:32 PM
link   
reply to post by southern_Guardian
 
I'm sorry, I missed your post earlier.

I would say that Mrs. Palin has absolutely no experience at being a president and is probably unqualified. I'd make the same assumption about every president we've ever had. Some had more qualifications then others, but still, no one has ever had the job until they had it, so "being the President of the United States" experience only goes out to folks who have either earned, or been "given" a second term.

I have always felt that Hillary was driven by pure ambition rather than a selflessness to serve. I don't have that same gut feeling about Palin at this point.

That being said, this was just my initial reaction to Palin's speech last evening .



posted on Sep, 4 2008 @ 07:35 PM
link   
I don't think its so much about Palin appealing to Hillary's supporters the way Hillary did.

I think its about the fact that LOTS of people don't like EITHER candidate at all, and Palin is rather charasmatic. Its not a replacement for Hillary, its a likeable fresh face that will lure in people that can't stand the other three.



posted on Sep, 4 2008 @ 07:38 PM
link   

Originally posted by southern_Guardian
Are women in a america really that ignorant to just fall down for Palin because shes another woman and shes having family problems? Is this how the GOP labels people? Is this the assumption here?


Feminists have made it quite clear that they want a woman to vote for and they are mad as hell that the Democrats didn't give them one.

That's a fact, but I would hope that most women will look at the candidates and their platforms and vote according to their values and beliefs.

Sarah Palin fills the woman bill, but those women who are looking for Marxist are not going to be satisfied.

For women who are looking for what McCain has to offer in his political platform, they might be impressed that he also has such a bright, beautiful, hardworking, and principled woman on his ticket.

Women who just want to vote for a woman will have no need to look further.





[edit on 2008/9/4 by GradyPhilpott]



posted on Sep, 4 2008 @ 09:14 PM
link   
reply to post by GradyPhilpott
 


So let me just repeat what you said there in a more simple form.

-Women will just fall down one by one because McCain put a woman on the ticket.

-Hillary has been replaced by Palin and Hill voters will just vote in droves.

And while your at it, you call Obama a "marxist". Right.

[edit on 4-9-2008 by southern_Guardian]



posted on Sep, 4 2008 @ 09:21 PM
link   
it seems important for us to have a woman in the white house. the reason being that it will dispell the myth that having a woman leader will be the end of the world scenario, as she will automatically be characterized as the whore of babylon, when the whore of babylon is a religion not a person. because it's a religion not a person, a female in leadership of the usa can't be the whore of babylon UNLESS, she creates a religion in which she kills millions of christians, builds her empire on seven mounts or hills in a city, which is proven to be babylon the great according to the text, and so on. none of the other specific references refer to this. it's just the tendency of men to characterize women as whores.

in other words, if there's a woman in the white house and we're all still here and not dead, 4 years later, obviously, SHE is not the whore of babylon

[edit on 4-9-2008 by undo]



posted on Sep, 4 2008 @ 09:27 PM
link   
reply to post by southern_Guardian
 


No. That's not what I said. I said what I said plainly enough. You don't need to paraphrase.

I called Hillary a Marxist, but Obama's policies and tactics are Marxist, too.

Marxist influence is strong in the Democrat party, but it might be waning or perhaps it's just shifting.


In the meantime, people are out there talking about the end of talk radio, the death of talk radio. The real story with Mrs. Clinton's demise here is the death of the feminazi. The feminist movement as personified by Mrs. Clinton is dead. She also represents the sixties Baby Boomers on the left. You know, I thought this was going to be an election between a sixties Baby Boomer on the left and a sixties Baby Boomer on the right, like Rudy Giuliani, Romney. This is going to end up being something far more generational than that. But I thought it was going to be the last gasp of the anti-war feminists, the anti-war leftists from the Baby Boom generation. They're gone! She has been dismissed, is what all of this means. The feminist movement as personified by militant, angry women from the sixties and seventies is dead. It has no influence anymore. It cannot even beat a candidate with no experience, a rookie, who speaks in platitudes.

The real story here with the demise of Mrs. Clinton, Katha, is that the feminist movement has no influence anymore, in a major political sense in this country. We have outlasted it; we have beaten it back. All militant feminism is, by the way, folks, is just one of the many tentacles of liberalism out there, and this tentacle, which is working its way into our... By the way, it's not dead. It's not totally dead, but it is been reduced in its national political influence. The tentacles of feminism are still out there screwing up marriages and screwing up child care and this kind of thing, and that's going to be the case for a long time. Militant feminism gave us the notion that every father is a predator. It gave us the notion that every father is a predator and abuses kids. Those kinds of things are still with us. But in terms of militant feminism as an agenda articulated by a leading feminazi winning elections, it's not the case.

www.freerepublic.com...


I never thought I'd quote Rush Limbaugh, but I think he might be onto something here. I hope so.

His term feminazi might accurately characterizes the tyrannical tactics of the feminists, but they are totally Marxist and their literature is where you find the evidence for that, not from the mouths of radio pundits.


[edit on 2008/9/5 by GradyPhilpott]



posted on Sep, 4 2008 @ 10:45 PM
link   
reply to post by southern_Guardian
 


Im sorry, but you do not like Sarah Palin because she thinks abortion is wrong, and you like Hillary because she voted to keep the most barbaric medical procedure around (partial birth abortion) legal? Despite the fact that the American College of Obstetrics and Gynecology has said on numerous occasions that that procedure is NEVER a necessity??



posted on Sep, 4 2008 @ 11:50 PM
link   
Picking Biden for VP is the 2nd biggest mistake the Dumbocrats have made. If Obama had selected either Hillary or Kathleen Sebelius as VP, Ms. Palin would not have been an issue.
The biggest mistake is picking Obama as the nominee. Look at the polls, it's a dead heat. In this current political climate, a generic Democrat would lead a generic Republican by 15 pts. This shows Obama is a very weak Democratic candidate.



posted on Sep, 5 2008 @ 06:29 AM
link   

Originally posted by Swampfox46_1999
Im sorry, but you do not like Sarah Palin because she thinks abortion is wrong, and you like Hillary because she voted to keep the most barbaric medical procedure around (partial birth abortion) legal?


You know I think its great people have values, i think its great people have morals, even though they may different to others. I dont think its anybodies right however to force their OWN values and morals onto somebody else.

Whether you choose to deal with it or not, abortion is an INDIVIDUALS decision, you and the other righties here have no business getting involved and unless you want to keep following the hypocrisy express of individual freedom and the death penalty, I suggest you reconsider what you said above.

I dont like abortion either but I know that it is necessary for some in the case of rape and incest. Im sorry but I dont feel those poor victims should be put through a situation they have no control of, some choose to have the kids, good on them, but I dont think they have to go through another complication in life after what they experienced. As for the developing egg, well you can say the same for "masturbation" and death penalty. I believe in God but I also know that I have no control over an individuals choice and I should never have any control. Even though I disagree with how they make decisions in life, I value freedom, and I do not intend to strip that freedom away from them.

And on a little note, abortion is mostly an arguement on religious grounds, I refer you to the first amendment of the constitution, you know, the one Bush left in the trash for the last 8years? Oh you wouldnt know, you probably voted in the guy twice.

-SG

[edit on 5-9-2008 by southern_Guardian]



posted on Sep, 5 2008 @ 06:50 AM
link   

Originally posted by coolieno99
Picking Biden for VP is the 2nd biggest mistake the Dumbocrats have made. If Obama had selected either Hillary or Kathleen Sebelius as VP, Ms. Palin would not have been an issue.


Oh I apologise on their behalf, I mean we liberals never knew how naive and desperate women were to vote in a female candidate to stand behind John McCain.... oh the women will just line up for Palin now.... I mean Hillary voters will just line up for Palin, shes a woman you know? they have to vote her, they probably will, since their women and they all think alike. I mean they only voted in Hillary becuase she was female.

Im happy im not a Hillary supporter or a woman for that matter, I would be insulted I tell ya.


The biggest mistake is picking Obama as the nominee. Look at the polls, it's a dead heat. In this current political climate, a generic Democrat would lead a generic Republican by 15 pts. This shows Obama is a very weak Democratic candidate.


I beg to differ
this is a very historic election and there are other factors to consider.

-Obama is the first black nominee of a major party, he is the first black/minority to actually have a chance to be president of the United states.

-Obama has only been known by the public for two years now, compared to McCain and Hillary's years of name recognition, well its pritty hard to get your message across in comparison.

-His the first biracial candidate to have a chance to win in a western country.

-He just got off beating Hillary, I mean honestly now, Hillary was probably tougher to compete with compared to McCain now


-He doesnt have an already established base like McCain or Hilary does, the kind of base that takes years to form.

-McCain already ran for president for what? like twice? He knows the election process.

and last but not least, 3years ago if you told somebody we will have the first black nominee of a major party in history, they would laugh in your face and probably say more like 2030. My point? Technically, well socially, we're asking alot of america, we are asking something to happen decades ahead of time. I well and truly believe Obama has that chance, but the above should be noted.


[edit on 5-9-2008 by southern_Guardian]






top topics



 
5
<< 1   >>

log in

join