The imploding Republican party...

Just one week after her husband Todd Palin “went rogue” and endorsed Republican presidential candidate Newt Gingrich, former vice presidential candidate Sarah Palin said tonight she would vote for Gingrich “if I were a South Carolinian” — the closest she has come to an endorsement in this race.
Palin said tonight on “Sean Hannity” that she wants to see the race continue because “iron sharpens iron, steel sharpens steel.”
“These guys are getting better in their debates, they are getting more concise, they’re getting more grounded in what their beliefs are and articulating what their ideas are to getting the country back on the right track and getting Americans working again,” Palin said.
Hannity asked Palin if she was any closer to an endorsement of a presidential candidate.

“Well, I could tell you what I would do if I were a South Carolinian,” Palin told Hannity.
“That’s close to an endorsement,” Hannity said.

“If I had to vote in South Carolina, in order to keep this thing going I’d vote for Newt and I would want this to continue,” Palin said. “More debates, more vetting of candidates because we know the mistake made in our country four years ago was having a candidate that was not vetted, to the degree that he should have been so that we knew what his associations and his pals represented and what went into his thinking, the shaping of who our president today is.”

She's retarded. Opinion...dismissed.

__________________________________
That's not a ladybug, that's a cannapiller.

Say what you want about her but she was one of the few people to actually fight the establishment Republican party.

She's right in that Mitt is completely unprepared for the run and that Newt would do a much better job debating Obama. After the last debate in SC where Mitt awkwardly tried to not answer the question on his tax returns, it's obvious this guy won't last 2 minutes with Obama. Mitt looks like the worst guy on a high school debate team.

She's wrong, however, in thinking that Newt would win. I'm convinced that if any Republican running now is nominated, we'll have another 4 years of Obama (barring some massive screw-up by Obama between now and November).

When that happens, I hope the Republicans take an honest look at their party to see why people aren't excited about them any more and then do something about it.

trogdor! Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> When that happens, I hope the Republicans take an
> honest look at their party to see why people
> aren't excited about them any more and then do
> something about it.

Indeed.

trogdor! Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> She's right in that Mitt is completely unprepared
> for the run and that Newt would do a much better
> job debating Obama. After the last debate in SC
> where Mitt awkwardly tried to not answer the
> question on his tax returns, it's obvious this guy
> won't last 2 minutes with Obama. Mitt looks like
> the worst guy on a high school debate team.
>
> She's wrong, however, in thinking that Newt would
> win. I'm convinced that if any Republican running
> now is nominated, we'll have another 4 years of
> Obama (barring some massive screw-up by Obama
> between now and November).
>
> When that happens, I hope the Republicans take an
> honest look at their party to see why people
> aren't excited about them any more and then do
> something about it.

You'll need to define which Republicans your talking about. You see, the people on the street already know how the party got into this mess. The "who is next on the list...who's been standing in line long enough" way of doing things has never and will never work. They've become the twin to the Democratic party in taking care of their own and have completely forgotten that they are supposed to be taking care of the people of the United States.

Obama has done more than enough to not get re-elected......but that wont stop it from happening. People put their faith in political parties. They feel they'll always be done right by their party.

Guess what? Neither party gives a rats ass about us. Only in keeping themselves in power so they can continue to reward their friends and keep us down in the cotton fields.........dumb, happy with our free this and that and not a care in the world.

Amen Vexxxed...Few people in this town actually associate with the politcal class. If you ever spent anytime with them you would soon realize that politics is a game of one-up-man-ship for them a sort of metaphyiscal chess match. Very few of them are principled people.

Hay Zeus Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Amen Vexxxed...Few people in this town actually
> associate with the politcal class. If you ever
> spent anytime with them you would soon realize
> that politics is a game of one-up-man-ship for
> them a sort of metaphyiscal chess match. Very few
> of them are principled people.

I just hope Romney's Mormonized value system doesn't impair his duty to make the right decisions for regular American people. I've seen their message, and it's a message of hate.

She is so insignificant now...

Hay Zeus Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Amen Vexxxed...Few people in this town actually
> associate with the politcal class. If you ever
> spent anytime with them you would soon realize
> that politics is a game of one-up-man-ship for
> them a sort of metaphyiscal chess match. Very few
> of them are principled people.

Just what does "principled" mean in terms of politics?

If politics is the process by which groups of people
make collective decisions, then it is also true that
politics = compromise.

Politicians who rigidly adhere to their own "principles"
(fundamental law, doctrine, or assumption) cannot
compromise.

Obviously, not all people agree on which "principles"
should control, so governing or legislating without
compromise is impossible.

Therefore, "principled" people who disagree cannot govern.

____________________________________________________________

“When a corporation farts, I'll believe it's a human being.” – Dylan Ratigan

Unfortunately there are a lot of Republicans that listen to Palin, RUSH and Glenn Beck. They think this group provides factual information.

Palin backing Gingrich could give Newt a win in SC. SC is not a Mormon state and I don't think they are big on corporations.

sleepy Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Hay Zeus Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > Amen Vexxxed...Few people in this town actually
> > associate with the politcal class. If you ever
> > spent anytime with them you would soon realize
> > that politics is a game of one-up-man-ship for
> > them a sort of metaphyiscal chess match. Very
> few
> > of them are principled people.
>
> Just what does "principled" mean in terms of
> politics?
>
> If politics is the process by which groups of
> people
> make collective decisions, then it is also true
> that
> politics = compromise.
>
> Politicians who rigidly adhere to their own
> "principles"
> (fundamental law, doctrine, or assumption) cannot
> compromise.
>
> Obviously, not all people agree on which
> "principles"
> should control, so governing or legislating
> without
> compromise is impossible.
>
> Therefore, "principled" people who disagree cannot
> govern.


Sleepy, from reading any of your past posts I know you are not a principled person. So i know this hard for you because you live in a world of deciet and demagogary.

Let me clarify

Most politicians are not principled to the Constitution as a whole. They pick and choose which Admendments they like or don't like and Politik accordingly.

For example, many Democrats consistenly invoke the violation of 1st Amendment Rights (The Right to Free Speech/Protest/Assemble) most recently with the Occupy Wallstreet Movement "right" to protest. However, when it comes to protecting the 2nd Amendment (Right to Bare Arms) they are mysteriously absent. Gun bans are abound in places that are heavily controlled by Democrats.

Both Parties are guilty of it.

Hay Zeus Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Most politicians are not principled to the
> Constitution as a whole. They pick and choose
> which Admendments they like or don't like and
> Politik accordingly.
>
> For example, many Democrats consistenly invoke the
> violation of 1st Amendment Rights (The Right to
> Free Speech/Protest/Assemble) most recently with
> the Occupy Wallstreet Movement "right" to protest.

You mean jsut like the teabaggers did in 2010?

> However, when it comes to protecting the 2nd
> Amendment (Right to Bare Arms) they are
> mysteriously absent. Gun bans are abound in places
> that are heavily controlled by Democrats.

1st, it's 'bear', not 'bare'.

2nd, as you are well aware, the 2nd Amendment reads, in its entirety:
“A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.”

It’s funny how you wingnuts always ignore the first 13 words of this Amendment. The Founders tied the ‘right to keep and bear arms’ to the necessity of maintaining a ‘well regulated militia’. Why do you suppose this was done? Since neither the Constitution itself , nor the Bill of Rights, contemplates the US having a standing army, I posit that the Founders expected that community-based militias would be the primary military form used to protect against foreign intrusion. To maintain militia readiness, citizen would need to own their own weapons.

To suggest that the Founders favored the sort of unencumbered, unregulated gun ownership envisioned and championed today by the NRA is ludicrous.

____________________________________________________________

“When a corporation farts, I'll believe it's a human being.” – Dylan Ratigan

Sarah Palin IS the establishment silly.

Don't be duped by her song and dance, Sarah Palin is a fraud and a huckster.

Sarah Palin took federal earmarks while Mayor of Wasilla and during her half-term as Governor.

She appointed unqualified friends, cronies and hacks to upper level state positions and she used her staff to settle a personal vendetta with a family member who happened to be a member of the Alaska State Troopers.

She lied about her pregnancy, her husband is a know philanderer, and her kids run wild with little to now parental supervision.

She's a fraud and a liar, simply put. Beware of her, she's dangerous.

sleepy Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> It’s funny how you wingnuts always ignore the
> first 13 words of this Amendment. The Founders
> tied the ‘right to keep and bear arms’ to the
> necessity of maintaining a ‘well regulated
> militia’. Why do you suppose this was done?
> Since neither the Constitution itself , nor the
> Bill of Rights, contemplates the US having a
> standing army, I posit that the Founders expected
> that community-based militias would be the
> primary military form used to protect against
> foreign intrusion. To maintain militia readiness,
> citizen would need to own their own weapons.
>
> To suggest that the Founders favored the sort of
> unencumbered, unregulated gun ownership envisioned
> and championed today by the NRA is ludicrous.

Sleepy-Please remember that opposition to gun control isn't limited to those on the political right.

While you are correct that the Second Amendment refers to a "well regulated militia" you forget that in the context of the time in most colonies that meant just about every free white male property owner, and in some colonies every free white man. The phrase "well regulated" was intended to exclude from the coverage of the amendment not the law abiding semi-organized citizens but rather members of unofficial militias organized outside of, and in some cases contrary to, the laws of the states. One example of this would be the Regulators in pre-American Revolution western North Carolina.

Also while may gun control opponents overlook the first phrase of the Second Amendment, many gun control advocates overlook the words "the right of the people". The drafters of the Second Amendment were certainly could simply have said "“A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of MEMBERS OF SUCH MILITIAS to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.” That they chose to use more expansive language is indicative that the framers intended a more expansive reading than formations comparable to the National Guard today.

In addition you need to remember that the Second Amendment, like all other amendments, was passed with the distinct purpose of limiting the powers that had been granted to the central government under the Constitution. If you read Aticle I section 8 of the Constitution it gives the central government fairly extensive powers over the militias, and arguably the provision granting the central government control over the arming of the militia could also be used to disarm the militia, something the drafters of the Bill of Rights would have wanted to avoid.

The notion that the Second Amendment was originally intended to limit state government restrictions on gun ownership is of course silly. Like just about everything else in the Bill of Rights the Second Amendment was intended to limit the Federal government only. However if you accept the notion that the passage of the Fourteenth Amendment has somehow made those inherent rights of free men vis a vis the national government also applicable to state and local governments as well, it is difficult to argue that the principal would apply to freedom of religion or to the right to an attorney, but not to the right to bear arms.

Well the right to bear arms also was about the right to hunt for food. In the 1700's you couldn't just go to the supermarket and buy all your goods.

Bottom line is banning guns WILL NOT reduce gun crimes. Someone who intends to rob a bank or shoot a place up wont look at the sign on the door and say "if only i was allowed to bring a gun in here"

Banning guns would only prevent law abiding citizens from owning guns. Look what happened to England when they banned guns. Gun crime sky rocketed as did crimes as criminals knew they had nothing to fear and thats a small island where it is much easier to control what gets into the country.

Theres a reason why crime and gun crimes are lower in the US where gun laws arent restrictive. Cities where they are banned have the highest rates in the country per person.

Banning them would just mean only criminals have them. Criminals will tell you they look for people who they think will be unarmed and easy victims. Just like they smuggle in drugs they would start smuggling in guns and there would be nothing a normal citizen could do to protect themselves.

The cops cant be everywhere at once and unfortunately a lot of what they do is reactionary work. Should felons have guns, no, but there is no reason that law abiding people shouldnt have them

Sarah is hoping or has been promised the VP position on a Gingrich ticket,,,

Hatemotor Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Sarah is hoping or has been promised the VP
> position on a Gingrich ticket,,,


Hah, never. I don't like Gingrich, but he is a smart man. There's no way he would make the mistake of choosing her.
In fact, he probably wishes she would endorse Romney, since Palin really only hurts your chances.

Hatemotor Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Sarah is hoping or has been promised the VP
> position on a Gingrich ticket,,,


I doubt it, all she was really saying is that she wants to see the primary stay competitive which there is an advantage too. If Mitt wins SC which he very well could the primary is over.

Tell me if I am mis-understanding this. Palin is a paid Fox News Correspondent and employee. She goes on a Fox News program, not as a Fox News employee, but as a guest, and spouts that she wants the nomination process to run longer which will result in more ad buys for her employer, Fox News.

And no. Sarah Palin would turn down any opportunity to be on the ticket.

Fairfaxunderground rules: Lilliputions, not ok. Midgettville ok. I got it now.

What are 'Lilliputions' and what is 'Midgettville'?
If the latter is a place, then I think I know of it, but 'Lilliputions'..?

Radiophile Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Tell me if I am mis-understanding this. Palin is a
> paid Fox News Correspondent and employee. She goes
> on a Fox News program, not as a Fox News employee,
> but as a guest, and spouts that she wants the
> nomination process to run longer which will result
> in more ad buys for her employer, Fox News.
>
> And no. Sarah Palin would turn down any
> opportunity to be on the ticket.

Shes in the dog house with fox for announcing she wouldnt run for president on another news channel.

Yes you can have the conspiracy theory, but the basic point was that the more competitive process better prepares for the general election run and getting everything out now avoids surprises in November like the primary Obama and Hilary had

But I do agree she would turn down a VP offer if she got one

I think Newt might have a good chance in SC. In the end I doubt he can beat Obama in a debate.

Newted Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I think Newt might have a good chance in SC. In
> the end I doubt he can beat Obama in a debate.


He would crush obama in a debate. Whether or not he would in the ballot box is a different story.

Obama winning the 2012 election will be the best thing that can happen to the republican party.

Obama's Last Cigarette Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Obama winning the 2012 election will be the best
> thing that can happen to the republican party.

I couldn't agree more. The current GOP candidates can't even make it to the election. Imagine the embarrassment if they were to get elected.

All the republicans have to do is kick out the evangelicals.

Damn teabagging evangelicals don't know how to have fun
Attachments: