Sarah Palin Is about to become the GOP Lead Candidate for POTUS !

reply to post by ThirdEyeofHorus


The socialists have awakened a sleeping giant.

- Capitalism -
Ken Langone appears to be leading the way.
They see all of the Obama socialists actions and will be demanding change .
------------------
Actually, we have already seen change. Remember November 2010?
Obama received a " shellacking ".

I for one think Palin is the best thing since cake

I mean, she's like a female Charlie Sheen working in politics

Also, I love how you put "bronze content provider" into your signature without actually being at that level

reply to post by redmage

Personally, I base my vote/opinions regarding a candidate on his/her actual actions and voting records. No amount of political spin, from either side, can change those.

I've seen her..

Everything from this point on in your post is nothing more than your own partisan opinion.

LINKS, MAN, LINKS!

dbl post

dbl post

reply to post by MaskedDebater

DUPLICATE POST FROM OTHER PALIN MOVIE FAN THREAD:

Movie Review by NY POST:

But its tone is an excruciating combination of bombast and whining, it’s so outlandishly partisan that it makes Richard Nixon look like Abraham Lincoln and its febrile rush of images — not excluding earthquakes, car wrecks, volcanic eruption and attacking Rottweilers — reminded me of the brainwash movie Alex is forced to sit through in “A Clockwork Orange.” Except no one came along to refresh my pupils with eyedrops.

Read more: www.nypost.com...

Guess who owns the NY POST. Yep, Rupert Murdoch. And here is what Mr. Murdoch had to say about what the NY POST prints. (Disclaimer: From an unrelated story a couple of years ago.)

"As the Chairman of the New York Post, I am ultimately responsible for what is printed in its pages. The buck stops with me.

What we got here is a Quagmire.

/MD

No, what we have here is an attempt to infer that Murdoch agrees with the Post's opinion. The fact that your disclaimer "From an unrelated story a couple of years ago" proves you knew that, yet you continued to attempt the ruse.

He does not, and cannot possibly, agree with every article published in the Post. You know what he meant by that, at least you should know. But I'm beginning to wonder...

Originally posted by mishigas
Everything from this point on in your post is nothing more than your own partisan opinion.

Sorry, Bub, but that's a logical fallacy and simply not the truth of the matter. It's like I said in my second post in this thread, "it's not just Democrats/Liberals who can't take this political cheerleader seriously as a candidate. Most Conservatives, Republicans, Libertarians, and anyone who has taken the time to actually educate themselves regarding legitimate political issues can't take her seriously either.".

I know your world would be much easier if everything was "black and white", and you could simply chalk up anyone who dislikes Palin as being a partisan voice, but that's just not how things are in the real world. There are many people who dislike Palin as a potential "future candidate" based on own lack of merit, and partisan spin has nothing to do with it. I happen to be one of those people.

Fact is that people vote with their eyes. They are easily deceived by what they see. G.W. Bush was better looking than Kerry. Obama was better looking than McCain and Hillary. Thats why Palin is the only candidate that stands any chance of beating Obama, regardless of what policies she follows.

reply to post by redmage

Sorry, Bub, but that's a logical fallacy and simply not the truth of the matter. It's like I said in my second post in this thread, "it's not just Democrats/Liberals who can't take this political cheerleader seriously as a candidate. Most Conservatives, Republicans, Libertarians, and anyone who has taken the time to actually educate themselves regarding legitimate political issues can't take her seriously either.".

Well then you better jump on that bandwagon with the rest of the kool-aid drinkers. Can't be thinking for yourself, now can you? What would the flock think?

I know your world would be much easier if everything was "black and white", and you could simply chalk up anyone who dislikes Palin as being a partisan voice, but that's just not how things are in the real world. There are many people who dislike Palin as a potential "future candidate" based on own lack of merit, and partisan spin has nothing to do with it. I happen to be one of those people.

As I thought. "One of those people". Bot an original thought in your mind. If I want to know what you think, I'll ask any one of the million sheeple out there.

By the way, where are the LINKS?

reply to post by redmage

Sorry, Bub, but that's a logical fallacy and simply not the truth of the matter. It's like I said in my second post in this thread, "it's not just Democrats/Liberals who can't take this political cheerleader seriously as a candidate. Most Conservatives, Republicans, Libertarians, and anyone who has taken the time to actually educate themselves regarding legitimate political issues can't take her seriously either.".

Well then you better jump on that bandwagon with the rest of the kool-aid drinkers. Can't be thinking for yourself, now can you? What would the flock think?

I know your world would be much easier if everything was "black and white", and you could simply chalk up anyone who dislikes Palin as being a partisan voice, but that's just not how things are in the real world. There are many people who dislike Palin as a potential "future candidate" based on own lack of merit, and partisan spin has nothing to do with it. I happen to be one of those people.

As I thought. "One of those people". Bot an original thought in your mind. If I want to know what you think, I'll ask any one of the million sheeple out there.

By the way, where are the LINKS?

Originally posted by mishigas
Well then you better jump on that bandwagon with the rest of the kool-aid drinkers. Can't be thinking for yourself, now can you? What would the flock think?

Since I have no "flock", which kool-aid would that be? I mentioned many groups. Liberitarian? Republican? Democrat? Conservative? Liberal? Logical and independent thinkers? Lots of VERY different flavors there for you to attempt to bunch them all together.

Originally posted by mishigas
As I thought. "One of those people".

Yup, one of those damned independent thinkers who doesn't register with any political party, and actually chooses to think for himself (ironic that you mentioned such a notion earlier). Sorry, but it's a growing group that doesn't have political rallys under any specific banner, so there's nowhere to drink any Kool-Aid, and no one passing it out. I know the truth can sometimes be hard, but not everyone fits into your assumptive pigeon-holes.

Originally posted by mishigas
Bot an original thought in your mind. If I want to know what you think, I'll ask any one of the million sheeple out there.

Again, what sheeple? These groups mentioned rarely agree on anything. Liberitarian sheeple? Republican sheeple? Democrat sheeple? Conservative sheeple? Liberal sheeple? Logical thinker sheeple? For you to even attempt to paint them all under the same broad brush is absurd.

Perhaps you simply don't understand the contextual definition of the word partisan. Here you go...

Source

par·ti·san – noun

an adherent or supporter of a person, group, party, or cause, especially a person who shows a biased, emotional allegiance.

par·ti·san – adjective

of, pertaining to, or characteristic of partisans; partial to a specific party, person, etc.: partisan politics.

And there's the difference, unlike you, I'm not "partial to any specific party", or more notably... "person" (Palin); so, while your support of Palin is definitively partisan, there is nothing inherently partisan about not supporting Palin.

reply to post by redmage

Again, what sheeple? These groups mentioned rarely agree on anything. Liberitarian sheeple? Republican sheeple? Democrat sheeple? Conservative sheeple? Liberal sheeple? Logical thinker sheeple? For you to even attempt to paint them all under the same broad brush is absurd.

Perhaps you simply don't understand the contextual definition of the word partisan. Here you go...

Party affiliation doesn't matter, or isn't even necessary, for you to wear the sheeple moniker. It's just your attitude that "If the crowd says it's so, it must be so" that pervades your posts and earns you the label.

You need assurance from the majority.

The fact that you are unable to supply links is proof that you are merely parroting what you've been told.

Originally posted by Eurisko2012
reply to post by Chrisfishenstein

 

You better stay out of Arizona. That's a red state. -GOP stronghold -
Sarah just moved in to Scottsdale.

------------------------------------------------------------
The choice is clear.
Yank out the socialist Obama and elect the super capitalist Sarah Palin!
The USA runs on high octane capitalism!

edit on 26-5-2011 by Eurisko2012 because: (no reason given)

I am no fan of Obummer or shrub, or Failin...

Both parties are paid off puppet parades.

The only thing the US is running on now is printed money backed by nothing.

We have not had true capitalism for a LONG LONG time.

Taxing the crap out of me to pay for other ppl to screw, have kids,
stay home and smoke pot all day is total socialism and it was going
on under shrub and others.

Taxing the crap out of me and giving it to billion dollar mega corporations
are corporate welfare is fascism as defined by Mussolini.

This country is circling the toilet bowl, and what the politicians think
of you can be summed up in HR 645 and S 787.

We have a Plutocratic Oligarchy fronting thru a banana republic.

Originally posted by mishigas
Party affiliation doesn't matter, or isn't even necessary, for you to wear the sheeple moniker. It's just your attitude that "If the crowd says it's so, it must be so" that pervades your posts and earns you the label.

"Party affiliation" actually does matter when you make baseless "partisan" accusations like...

Originally posted by mishigas
Everything from this point on in your post is nothing more than your own partisan opinion.

It shows you clearly didn't know/understand the definition of "partisan".

That said, your assumptions are still misplaced, and incorrect. It may be hard for you to understand, but I formed my own opinions regarding Palin, and "the crowd" (whatever you believe that means) had nothing to do with it. I have no fear of going against the grain and rooting for a worthy underdog. I simply don't believe Palin to be worthy of support in regards to an imaginary run for the POTUS.

Originally posted by mishigas
You need assurance from the majority.

Again, you're simply showing how little you know of me, and/or showing very poor intuition on your part. I honestly couldn't care less what the "majority" thinks. The "majority" voted for Obama, and I think they were foolish. My best friend's wife was directly involved in Obama's campaign, and she tried like hell to get my vote. My response was always the same, "When you can honestly tell me he voted against the TARP Bailout, then he'll at least get my consideration.". As frustrated as that left her, she never could. Likewise, McCain voted for TARP as well, and that removed him from my prospective candidate list in the '08 elections too.

Originally posted by mishigas
The fact that you are unable to supply links is proof that you are merely parroting what you've been told.

I can supply links; however, everything I stated basically falls into the "common knowledge" category by now (with all the coverage she's received from the '08 elections through to today), and generally links aren't requested for basic/general knowledge. If you're having problems with Google, or there were any specific points you were having issues locating, then feel free to list them and I can help point you in the right direction. Likewise, if you have any evidence countering any of those points I'd be happy to view it.

That said... honestly, to me, most of those points are merely peripheral. She bailed on her oath of office, and abandoned her supporters in Alaska to pursue TV and book deals. That alone is enough to knock her out of earnest consideration as a viable candidate for POTUS in my eyes; similar to how support of TARP knocked out both Obama and McCain from my list of potentials in '08.

Originally posted by Skyfloating
Fact is that people vote with their eyes. They are easily deceived by what they see. G.W. Bush was better looking than Kerry. Obama was better looking than McCain and Hillary. Thats why Palin is the only candidate that stands any chance of beating Obama, regardless of what policies she follows.

You have a point there. GWB was actually attractive to many women voters for example, no matter what he said. Plus they found his warlike posing very masculine.
Whether SP is an attractive woman though is a matter of debate among those who are attracted by beautiful women.
If it was up to me, perhaps this lady would not continue her genes... even if I did not know her political affiliations. Frankly, to me she looks kind of unintelligent but aggressive at the same time, just from media pictures.

reply to post by Kokatsi

If it was up to me, perhaps this lady would not continue her genes... even if I did not know her political affiliations.

What the hell is that supposed to mean? Man up and explain yourself.

After Gnome Alaska voted for Sara Palin Gnome Alaska disappeared.

If you are planning on voting do to popularity, attractiveness, race, or gender you are stupid and should stay home so the rest of us can make an informed decision.

To the sheep that have fallen for pailins BS, and keep saying she is a threat to the left, you should know that there are Liberals trying to get her the nomination. What does that tell ya?

reply to post by Eurisko2012


Without violating T&C's I will just put:

Can I make it any clearer?!

she is illuminati