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

reply to post by MrXYZ

4 candidates are ahead of the rest: Romney, Bachmann, Cain, and Palin....which is AWESOME!!

3 of those don't stand a chance of ever winning an election involving the entire population, namely Bachmann, Palin, and Cain. They all made too many crazy statements that are demonstrably wrong. Check out their "lying" record on Politifact...

Don't be ridiculous. Or naive. Or whatever.

A quick look at Boy Blunder and Joe Hairplugs 'Senator for the MBNA' and they leave you laughing hysterically. They are just lucky that they have a soft MSM to protect them, just like Barry's baby mama said they did.

What they can't overlook is Cain asking for all future bills to be at most 3 pages long, or Palin coming out with one lie after the other, or Bachmann showing her incredible lack of knowledge when it comes to economics and science.

Cain has a name recognition problem. They are terrified by Palin, since she outs them daily. That's why the hate and rancour is spread, and why the MSM follows her around like puppies. And Bachmann, incredible lack of knowledge when it comes to economics and science? You have got to be joking! This current crew has the economy in the toilet, and as far as science:

Vice President Joe Biden, tasked with overseeing the $787 billion stimulus package, has been having a little trouble with his "numbers."

During an interview on CBS' "Early Show" on Wednesday, Biden told viewers to check out a government-run Web site tracking stimulus spending, but admitted he was embarrassed because he couldn't remember the site's "number."

"You know, I'm embarrassed. Do you know the Web site number?" he asked an aide standing out of view. "I should have it in front of me and I don't. I'm actually embarrassed."

Biden, who seemed to indicate that he thought the Internet worked like a giant telephone, sounded an unusually Luddite note inside an administration often heralded for its mastery of the Web.

Biden

He's a real Luddite, all right!

reply to post by mishigas


I hope you realize that you are saying that Sarah Palin only looks good or has any chance because of how bad the opposition is. You are really emphasizing that she is not really good it is just that you think Obama is that bad. That is not a huge selling point for anyone. It really is not.

It get's worse.

And Bachmann, incredible lack of knowledge when it comes to economics and science? You have got to be joking! This current crew has the economy in the toilet, and as far as science:

So your defense of Bachman's knowledge does not mention Bachman or what she knows at all. Please see how this is not a good thing.

reply to post by Kitilani

I hope you realize that you are saying that Sarah Palin only looks good or has any chance because of how bad the opposition is. You are really emphasizing that she is not really good it is just that you think Obama is that bad. That is not a huge selling point for anyone. It really is not.

I honestly do not care one whit what you think it "looks like". I only know that the opposition is terrified of her; they send armies of boobies out to check her every email, all 24,000 pieces, and what did they come up with?

Big Fat 0 !!!


Now who's looking like the fool?

just another lying poll. let me ask you ATS, were any of you questioned for the poll? do you know anybody that was?

reply to post by Kitilani

So your defense of Bachman's knowledge does not mention Bachman or what she knows at all. Please see how this is not a good thing.

You're quite the novice, aren't you?

You haven't proved that Bachmann is bad at economics or science. You merely make slanderous statements, just like a typical lib.

I, on the other hand, showed you where your Keystone Kops are incompetent. Since they are so incompetent, your attacks on their rivals are baseless.

So, your argument against any of these candidates in a bowl of steam. Or a steaming pile.

reply to post by Kitilani




Grandpa Biden is not internet savvy.

Michelle Bachman thinks the Earth is 6000 years old.

That settles that.

Originally posted by mishigas
You're quite the novice, aren't you?

You haven't proved that Bachmann is bad at economics or science. You merely make slanderous statements, just like a typical lib.

Um....what did you do to prove that Bachmann is good or bad at either?

I, on the other hand, showed you where your Keystone Kops are incompetent. Since they are so incompetent, your attacks on their rivals are baseless.

So, your argument against any of these candidates in a bowl of steam. Or a steaming pile.

Oh, right. Slandered Obama and Biden.
Yeah um, I never slandered anyone but at least whatever is wrong with you is right there on the surface like that.

Originally posted by mishigas
You're quite the novice, aren't you?

You haven't proved that Bachmann is bad at economics or science. You merely make slanderous statements, just like a typical lib.

I, on the other hand, showed you where your Keystone Kops are incompetent. Since they are so incompetent, your attacks on their rivals are baseless.

So, your argument against any of these candidates in a bowl of steam. Or a steaming pile.

How about you show me exactly where I made any slanderous statements so I can try to take you seriously. At the moment it looks like you tried to just blame me for what you actually did. Maybe I am way off. Quote me.

reply to post by Kitilani

Originally posted by mishigas
You're quite the novice, aren't you?

You haven't proved that Bachmann is bad at economics or science. You merely make slanderous statements, just like a typical lib.

Um....what did you do to prove that Bachmann is good or bad at either?

Um.... it's not up to me to prove anything about Bachmann. YOU - collective you and the other libs - are the ones making accusations without any backup proof!! All your type does is sling arrows; that is the extent of your 'proof'.

It's YOUR JOB to prove she is so bad, not mine. Kapish? See how that works?

reply to post by mishigas


It is not up to you to back up the things you claim or you are no longer claiming that bachman knows anything about science or economics? Is this a credibility issue or a hero worship issue?

Originally posted by mishigas
Don't be ridiculous. Or naive. Or whatever.

Ironic you should say that, then resort to...

Originally posted by mishigas
...just like Barry's baby mama...

Which is ridiculous, naive, and bigoted to say the least.

"Baby mama" is a colloquial urban phrase that refers to a woman who has given birth to a child, and who is no longer in a relationship with the father (i.e. not currently his girlfriend, or wife). Michelle is Barack's wife, and resorting to an unfitting urban term that dismisses their marital relationship reeks of naivety and bigotry.

Originally posted by mishigas
Cain has a name recognition problem. They are terrified by Palin, since she outs them daily.

Cain does lack name recognition at this point, and unfortunately Obama is a perfect example of how much of a problem "lack of name recognition" means. As for Palin "outing them", it also means nothing unless she can offer viable alternative plans (something she NEVER does).

Palin currently spends all of her time cheerleading meaningless talking points, and tossing out ad hominem attacks against incumbents; sure, it's an effective tactic to rile up a crowd when you're only "preaching to the choir", but in order to realistically convert people, and gain supporters, she'll need to add some actual substance and offer viable alternatives to others' plans of action. Ad hominem attacks, jingoistic fervor, and dodging questions with a wink and a grin are no longer enough to gain the public majority needed.

Originally posted by mishigas
reply to post by Kitilani

 

So your defense of Bachman's knowledge does not mention Bachman or what she knows at all. Please see how this is not a good thing.

You're quite the novice, aren't you?

You haven't proved that Bachmann is bad at economics or science. You merely make slanderous statements, just like a typical lib.

You want facts that show she's lying and/or blatantly stupid and unknowledgeable?

Fine

Bachmann demonstrably doesn't have a clue what she's talking about!

Some Bachmann wisdom that's demonstrably wrong:

“Social Security, like I told you, is out of money. This year it is borrowing from the general treasury.”

"The president of the United States will be taking a trip over to India that is expected to cost the taxpayers $200 million a day."

Small businesses that have "$250,000 in gross sales for the business. They're the ones that are looking at massive tax increases."

"Secretly, unbeknownst to members of Congress, over $105 billion was hidden in the Obamacare legislation."

"The top 1 percent of income-earners pay about 40 percent of all taxes into the federal government."

And the list goes on...

Sooooooo, now that you have undeniable proof that she's lying, are you still going to defend her? Because that would be complete ignorance. You might wanna check out the mantra of this site

And some more links pointing out her great ability to lie:

LINK 1

LINK 2

And some more crazy quotes

''(Gay marriage) is probably the biggest issue that will impact our state and our nation in the last, at least, thirty years. I am not understating that.''

Wars, economic crisis, new diseases, and what's her main concern? Gay marriage

Not all cultures are equal.

Hitler would agree...

''Carbon dioxide is portrayed as harmful. But there isn't even one study that can be produced that shows that carbon dioxide is a harmful gas.''

Put a plastic bag over your head and check out how "not harmful" carbon dioxide is

''Does that mean that someone's 13-year-old daughter could walk into a sex clinic, have a pregnancy test done, be taken away to the local Planned Parenthood abortion clinic, have their abortion, be back and go home on the school bus? That night, mom and dad are never the wiser.''

This woman obviously has no clue about what exactly planned parenthood is

''[Pelosi] is committed to her global warming fanaticism to the point where she has said she has even said she is trying to save the planet. We all know that someone did that 2,000 years ago.''

Bringing religion into the game...great

''And what a bizarre time we're in, when a judge will say to little children that you can't say the pledge of allegiance, but you must learn that homosexuality is normal and you should try it.''

What judge is telling children to try and be gay?

''If we took away the minimum wage — if conceivably it was gone — we could potentially virtually wipe out unemployment completely because we would be able to offer jobs at whatever level.''

Yes...and turn the country into China in the process

''I'm very concerned about the international moves they're making, particularly … moving the United States off the dollar and onto a global currency, like Russia and China are calling for.''

And this WILL eventually happen, which she'd know if she had a clue about economics. This current crisis made it VERY clear that having the world's economy based on only 1 major currency instead of a basket of currencies is DISASTROUS.

'Normalization (of gayness) through desensitization. Very effective way to do this with a bunch of second graders, is take a picture of 'The Lion King' for instance, and a teacher might say, 'Do you know that the music for this movie was written by a gay man?' The message is: I'm better at what I do, because I'm gay.''

OMG, don't let your kids watch lion king, the music's by a gay man!!!

''There are hundreds and hundreds of scientists, many of them holding Nobel Prizes, who believe in intelligent design.''

Actually, there's more scientists called "Steve" (not Stephen, or Steven) in the US alone than scientists who believe in creationism

Google "Project Steve"...

''I find it interesting that it was back in the 1970s that the swine flu broke out under another, then under another Democrat president, Jimmy Carter. I'm not blaming this on President Obama, I just think it's an interesting coincidence.''

"I'm not saying he's responsible...I'm just mentioning it because....well....just think about it....maybe....but of course I'm not saying it..."

What a clown!!

Do I need to go on?? If you support that woman, you instantly lose all credibility

reply to post by Youmakemewonder

It is not up to you to back up the things you claim or you are no longer claiming that bachman knows anything about science or economics? Is this a credibility issue or a hero worship issue?

No it is NOT up to me. Let me give you a hypothetical example.

I'm going to walk around your neighborhood and put up fliers that say you like to expose yourself to other men in the night time.

Now, is it up to you to prove that you are innocent? Or is it up to me to prove you actually do like to expose yourself to other men?

In America, our justice system states that someone is innocent until proven guilty. Maybe you didn't know that.

reply to post by redmage

Originally posted by mishigas
Don't be ridiculous. Or naive. Or whatever.



Ironic you should say that, then resort to...

Originally posted by mishigas
...just like Barry's baby mama...



Which is ridiculous, naive, and bigoted to say the least.

I thought it was kinda funny, myself.

"Baby mama" is a colloquial urban phrase that refers to a woman who has given birth to a child, and who is no longer in a relationship with the father (i.e. not currently his girlfriend, or wife). Michelle is Barack's wife, and resorting to an unfitting urban term that dismisses their marital relationship reeks of naivety and bigotry.

Well, we're not even sure where Barry be born, so to doubt his whole life is valid.

Cain does lack name recognition at this point, and unfortunately Obama is a perfect example of how much of a problem "lack of name recognition" means. As for Palin "outing them", it also means nothing unless she can offer viable alternative plans (something she NEVER does).

Palin currently spends all of her time cheerleading meaningless talking points, and tossing out ad hominem attacks against incumbents; sure, it's an effective tactic to rile up a crowd when you're only "preaching to the choir", but in order to realistically convert people, and gain supporters, she'll need to add some actual substance and offer viable alternatives to others' plans of action. Ad hominem attacks, jingoistic fervor, and dodging questions with a wink and a grin are no longer enough to gain the public majority needed.

Sarah Palin is an extremely effective speaker and fund raiser. She had a major positive impact on the 2010 elections, helping to wrest the House from the Dems.

The very fact that she is pursued and hounded by the MSM is proof that the libs are terrified of her. She raises huge crowds and has won many converts to the TPM.

Originally posted by Kitilani

Originally posted by mishigas
You're quite the novice, aren't you?

You haven't proved that Bachmann is bad at economics or science. You merely make slanderous statements, just like a typical lib.

I, on the other hand, showed you where your Keystone Kops are incompetent. Since they are so incompetent, your attacks on their rivals are baseless.

So, your argument against any of these candidates in a bowl of steam. Or a steaming pile.

How about you show me exactly where I made any slanderous statements so I can try to take you seriously. At the moment it looks like you tried to just blame me for what you actually did. Maybe I am way off. Quote me.

I see you are still posting here but in response to the above we get -

Originally posted by mishigas

So you accuse me of doing exactly what you did when I did not. I simply ask you when and where and you hide. Guess where that puts your credibility at?

Big Fat 0

I know though that you do not care what I think. Apparently you only care if you vote for Sarah Palin. That is a winning strategy. Good luck. Shame you could not just be credible instead of blindly accusatory.

reply to post by Kitilani

Originally posted by Kitilani
How about you show me exactly where I made any slanderous statements so I can try to take you seriously. At the moment it looks like you tried to just blame me for what you actually did. Maybe I am way off. Quote me.
I see you are still posting here but in response to the above we get -

Originally posted by mishigas

So you accuse me of doing exactly what you did when I did not. I simply ask you when and where and you hide.

I wasn't hiding, I was ignoring you, since you need every little detail explained to you, like a 6 yr old, and I just don't have the time or interest. If someone doesn't immediately resond to you you whine. And I did say "collective you", which includes you, since you so passionately defend the slanderous statements against the GOP candidates.

I know though that you do not care what I think. Apparently you only care if you vote for Sarah Palin. That is a winning strategy. Good luck. Shame you could not just be credible instead of blindly accusatory.

See what I mean?:shk: What an idiotic statement. Are you looking for pity or something?

reply to post by Kitilani

Originally posted by Kitilani
How about you show me exactly where I made any slanderous statements so I can try to take you seriously. At the moment it looks like you tried to just blame me for what you actually did. Maybe I am way off. Quote me.
I see you are still posting here but in response to the above we get -

Originally posted by mishigas

So you accuse me of doing exactly what you did when I did not. I simply ask you when and where and you hide.

I wasn't hiding, I was ignoring you, since you need every little detail explained to you, like a 6 yr old, and I just don't have the time or interest. If someone doesn't immediately resond to you you whine. And I did say "collective you", which includes you, since you so passionately defend the slanderous statements against the GOP candidates.

I know though that you do not care what I think. Apparently you only care if you vote for Sarah Palin. That is a winning strategy. Good luck. Shame you could not just be credible instead of blindly accusatory.

See what I mean?:shk: What an idiotic statement. Are you looking for pity or something?

reply to post by MrXYZ



It would be so easy to trade lists with you, but I've got more important things to do. I gotta toss some seed out for the birds, and the ballgame is on.

So go about your very important life's purpose which is to dig up dirt on girls.

Originally posted by mishigas
reply to post by MrXYZ

 

It would be so easy to trade lists with you, but I've got more important things to do. I gotta toss some seed out for the birds, and the ballgame is on.

So go about your very important life's purpose which is to dig up dirt on girls.

So wait...let me get this right...

First you whine about people not providing any proof when attacking your stars, and when they do, you claim to not having time to look at the proof...because you have to toss out bird seed?

Wow, what a magnificent display of ignorance

No wonder you like Palin/Bachmann so much, they're just as ignorant towards facts

Originally posted by MrXYZ
First you whine about people not providing any proof when attacking your stars, and when they do, you claim to not having time to look at the proof...because you have to toss out bird seed?

Wow, what a magnificent display of ignorance

No wonder you like Palin/Bachmann so much, they're just as ignorant towards facts

Quoted for agreement. (s)he requested examples from me to justify my claim that Palin uses violence infused gun speak. When I provided such an example, I was accused of kidding. That is the sign of a person with no credible argument. Bird seed indeed from a bird brain.

/MD