Conservative Political Forum

General Category => Political Discussion and Debate => Topic started by: taxed on February 26, 2013, 03:22:41 PM

Title: Palin in 2016
Post by: taxed on February 26, 2013, 03:22:41 PM
I hope she runs.  She's accomplished more than any of the RINOs have, and would drive the GOP absolutely crazy (not to mention the libs).

I'm about to watch The Undefeated on Netflix...

Thoughts?
Title: Re: Palin in 2016
Post by: Solar on February 26, 2013, 03:30:07 PM
Can you imagine how many libs heads would explode if she ran for any office? :popcorn:
Title: Re: Palin in 2016
Post by: taxed on February 26, 2013, 03:32:35 PM
Quote from: Solar on February 26, 2013, 03:30:07 PM
Can you imagine how many libs heads would explode if she ran for any office? :popcorn:

That alone would be so worth it.  No one can work them into a frenzy like Palin...
Title: Re: Palin in 2016
Post by: walkstall on February 26, 2013, 03:35:32 PM
Quote from: Solar on February 26, 2013, 03:30:07 PM
Can you imagine how many libs heads would explode if she ran for any office? :popcorn:


:lol:     (https://conservativepoliticalforum.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi1101.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fg439%2Fexatera%2Fsmileys%2Fangry%2Fbth_1sm059explode.gif&hash=1dd99aa5ed704511314514c274f95029b8aed8fb)   (https://conservativepoliticalforum.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2F%5Burl%3Dhttp%3A%2F%2Fi1132.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fm575%2Fmaxmoo%2FFunny%2520Pics%2FDecor%2520Smileys%2Fbth_smilie_girl_130.gif%255Dhttp%3A%2F%2Fi1132.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fm575%2Fmaxmoo%2FFunny%2520Pics%2FDecor%2520Smileys%2Fbth_smilie_girl_130.gif%255B%2Furl%255D&hash=36e202ce1a506a5efe0cdba03b7a589587d37a7f)
Title: Re: Palin in 2016
Post by: Solar on February 26, 2013, 03:36:05 PM
Quote from: taxed on February 26, 2013, 03:32:35 PM
That alone would be so worth it.  No one can work them into a frenzy like Palin...
She's been quite as of late, bet she has something in the works, the woman never sleeps when there's libs to scare. :laugh:
Title: Re: Palin in 2016
Post by: taxed on February 26, 2013, 03:37:48 PM
Quote from: Solar on February 26, 2013, 03:36:05 PM
She's been quite as of late, bet she has something in the works, the woman never sleeps when there's libs to scare. :laugh:

I know she has to be sick of this Marxist takeover.
Title: Re: Palin in 2016
Post by: Solar on February 26, 2013, 03:42:06 PM
Quote from: taxed on February 26, 2013, 03:37:48 PM
I know she has to be sick of this Marxist takeover.
And the spineless RINO to boot.
Title: Re: Palin in 2016
Post by: BILLY Defiant on February 26, 2013, 03:45:24 PM
I love to see her run and I'd love to see her win and I'd love to see her in the Oval office. The wailing and gnashing of liberal teeth would be the icing on the cake.

But lets face it folks...if she runs she'll fail.


Billy
Title: Re: Palin in 2016
Post by: taxed on February 26, 2013, 03:57:47 PM
She would also start pushing pro-Nuclear policy.  That would change our society.
Title: Re: Palin in 2016
Post by: Solar on February 26, 2013, 03:59:35 PM
Quote from: BILLY Defiant on February 26, 2013, 03:45:24 PM
I love to see her run and I'd love to see her win and I'd love to see her in the Oval office. The wailing and gnashing of liberal teeth would be the icing on the cake.

But lets face it folks...if she runs she'll fail.


Billy
The left couldn't afford her a win, they know she's too much of a threat, that's why they went after her like they did.
It's also why she has no love for the RINO, they hung her out to dry, even helped with some of the beating.
Title: Re: Palin in 2016
Post by: taxed on February 26, 2013, 04:00:21 PM
Quote from: Solar on February 26, 2013, 03:59:35 PM
The left couldn't afford her a win, they know she's too much of a threat, that's why they went after her like they did.
It's also why she has no love for the RINO, they hung her out to dry, even helped with some of the beating.

It would be her against DC....
Title: Re: Palin in 2016
Post by: taxed on February 26, 2013, 04:03:47 PM
(https://conservativepoliticalforum.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fimages.sodahead.com%2Fpolls%2F002634049%2F2948208198_Liberal20logic20101_xlarge.jpeg&hash=0a5304dba5ca44d40e583173f47a9a1841082eff)
Title: Re: Palin in 2016
Post by: BILLY Defiant on February 26, 2013, 04:04:23 PM
Quote from: taxed on February 26, 2013, 04:00:21 PM
It would be her against DC....


The MSM state run propaganda machine would be running around like rabid rottweillers.

Billy

Title: Re: Palin in 2016
Post by: JustKari on February 26, 2013, 05:46:50 PM
She says what she means, and means what she says.

From Facebook today (by postings it on Facebook, she gives permission to share this)
QuoteD.C.: Cut the Drama. Do Your Job.

Americans are sick and tired of yet another ginned-up crisis. D.C. needs to grow up, get to work, and live within its means. The real economic Armageddon looming before us is our runaway debt, not the sequester, which the President advocated for and signed into law and is now running around denouncing because he never had any genuine intention of reining in his reckless spending.

Remember that this sequestration deal came about because of the long debt ceiling standoff in the summer of 2011. It wasn't the ideal outcome for anyone, but it did at least include real deficit reduction of about $110 billion per year for 10 years, which is still nowhere near enough to close our massive deficit. Keep in mind that since the sequester passed, the President has already hit American families and small business owners with his tax increases, or "more revenue" as he likes to call it. The American public doesn't want tax increases; we want government to rein in its overspending.

If we can't stomach modest cuts that would lower federal spending by a mere 0.3% per year out of a current federal budget of $3.6 trillion, then we might as well signal to the whole world that we have no serious intention of dealing with our debt problem.

If we are going to wet our proverbial pants over 0.3% in annual spending cuts when we're running up trillion dollar annual deficits, then we're done. Put a fork in us. We're finished. We're going to default eventually and that's why the feds are stockpiling bullets in case of civil unrest.

If we ARE serious about putting our fiscal house in order, then let's stop the hysterics, tighten our belts, and take our medicine.

- Sarah Palin
Title: Re: Palin in 2016
Post by: taxed on February 26, 2013, 05:48:12 PM
Quote from: JustKari on February 26, 2013, 05:46:50 PM
She says what she means, and means what she says.

From Facebook today (by postings it on Facebook, she gives permission to share this)

Totally.  I'm a huge Palin fan....
Title: Re: Palin in 2016
Post by: Cryptic Bert on February 26, 2013, 09:54:13 PM
It would never work. If we couldn't get Romney elected, Palin, a real Conservative doesn't stand  chance.
Title: Re: Palin in 2016
Post by: Cyborg on February 26, 2013, 10:48:00 PM
Palin is supposed to speak at CPAC 2013

March 14, 15, 16, 2013

I have typed in all the names below, that are scheduled to speak as shown online

NOTE - Usually CPAC provides streaming links to watch the speakers online.

CONSERVATIVE POLITICAL ACTION CONFERENCE

http://conservative.org/cpac/2013/ (http://conservative.org/cpac/2013/)


CPAC 2013

MARCH 14 -16
Thursday, Friday, Saturday

US Sen Marco Rubio
Sarah Palin former Gov Alaska
US Rep Paul Ryan
Sen. Rand Paul (the son )
Sen Ted Cruz
ex US Rep - Allen West
Dana Loesch - Host the Dana Loesch show
Arthur Davis former Rep. Cong.
Tom Fitton Pres Judicial Watch
Sonnie Johnson - Founder - Did she say that / Breitbart News Network
David Keene President NRA
Gov. Scott Walker Wis.
Wayne LaPierre Exec. VP. NRA
Katie Kieffer
Mitt Romney Former Rep Pres. Candidate
Katie Pavlish News Editor Town Hal
Rick Santorum ex. US Sen
US Sen Tim Scott
Crystal Wright Editor Pub. ConservativeBlackChic.com
T,W, Shannon Spkr Hse Oklahoma
Sen Pat Toomey
Nicole Malliotakis Assy woman NY St Assy.
Art Linares St Sen. Conn.
Sen Mike Lee
Bobby Jindal Gov. Louisana
Jeff Frazee Pres Young Americans for Liberty
S. E. Cupp Co-hos The Cycle MSNBC
Carly Fiorina Former CEO of many Co's.
Wayne Allen Root 2008 Libertarian Pres Candidate for VP

Alexand McCobin - Pres. Students for Liberty
Gov Rich Perry Texas
Sen Mitch McConnell
Sen Ron Johnson
Chelsi Henry Outreach Chair -Young Republican National Federation
Kristen Hawkns Pres Students for Life
Francesca Chambers Editor Red Alert Policies
Ken Cuccinelli Virgina Att. Gen
Al Gardenas - ACU Chairman
Rep. Eric Cantor
Jeb Bush
Sen Kelly Ayotte
Newt Gingrich
Title: Re: Palin in 2016
Post by: Cryptic Bert on February 26, 2013, 10:58:28 PM
We are so much better looking...
Title: Re: Palin in 2016
Post by: taxed on February 27, 2013, 10:53:27 AM
Quote from: The Boo Man... on February 26, 2013, 10:58:28 PM
We are so much better looking...

Indeed.
Title: Re: Palin in 2016
Post by: Turks on February 27, 2013, 11:27:10 AM
As much as I love  her and we need someone like her, it would be a big mistake.  The media would have a field day and they now control indirectly and directly how a candidate is presented to the puiblic.   They hated her as a V.P. candidate, they would villify and destroy her as a candidate or nominee.

If you thought the media was biased against Romney, perish the thought of what they would do with a second chance at Palin.  Don't forget how many mindless, low info dolts we now have voting as well.

What current "Obama supporter" would even consider her and you would need to get some of them back into the fold to get a victory.  I just don't see it happening.

I don't think she would get past the primaries.

Title: Re: Palin in 2016
Post by: taxed on February 27, 2013, 11:28:18 AM
Quote from: Turks on February 27, 2013, 11:27:10 AM
As much as I love  her and we need someone like her, it would be a big mistake.  The media would have a field day and they now control indirectly and directly how a candidate is presented to the puiblic.   They hated her as a V.P. candidate, they would villify and destroy her as a candidate or nominee.

If you thought the media was biased against Romney, perish the thought of what they would do with a second chance at Palin.  Don't forget how many mindless, low info dolts we now have voting as well.

What current "Obama supporter" would even consider her and you would need to get some of them back into the fold to get a victory.  I just don't see it happening.

I don't think she would get past the primaries.

Hence why I want her.  I don't want someone the media is going to like.  They are state controlled, and if they are for a candidate, I don't want that candidate.
Title: Re: Palin in 2016
Post by: Turks on February 27, 2013, 11:31:06 AM
Quote from: taxed on February 27, 2013, 11:28:18 AM
Hence why I want her.  I don't want someone the media is going to like.  They are state controlled, and if they are for a candidate, I don't want that candidate.

I don't want a protest candidate...I want a candidate that's going to win. She would make a great President.  I love her but I don't see it happening in today's political environment. 
Title: Re: Palin in 2016
Post by: Solar on February 27, 2013, 11:35:55 AM
It doesn't matter what the media thinks, all that matters is what the base thinks.
Screw the left, they won't be voting for a single Conservative anyway, and since the left has thrown every piece of excrement at her they could generate, they have nothing left or they'd have used it.
Title: Re: Palin in 2016
Post by: taxed on February 27, 2013, 11:36:14 AM
Quote from: Turks on February 27, 2013, 11:31:06 AM
I don't want a protest candidate...I want a candidate that's going to win. She would make a great President.  I love her but I don't see it happening in today's political environment.

I don't deny under our current union-controlled electoral system that it wouldn't be a challenge.
Title: Re: Palin in 2016
Post by: Turks on February 27, 2013, 11:46:23 AM
Quote from: Solar on February 27, 2013, 11:35:55 AM
It doesn't matter what the media thinks, all that matters is what the base thinks.
Screw the left, they won't be voting for a single Conservative anyway, and since the left has thrown every piece of excrement at her they could generate, they have nothing left or they'd have used it.

Don't get me wrong. I'd love it.  But I'm not so sure even with the base, she could overcome what she would be up against.  I'm not so sure any Republican can overcome it.

Now having said that, if suddenly the regime collapses in the next two years, then she could step right in.  But if the support Dear Leader and the Dimwits have continues to grow, I just don't see how we are going to rid ourselves of them.
Title: Re: Palin in 2016
Post by: Turks on February 27, 2013, 11:51:58 AM
Quote from: taxed on February 27, 2013, 11:36:14 AM
I don't deny under our current union-controlled electoral system that it wouldn't be a challenge.

I agree.  I'm with you, not against you.   :thumbsup:
Title: Re: Palin in 2016
Post by: Crock Hunter on February 27, 2013, 12:47:28 PM
Quote from: Solar on February 26, 2013, 03:30:07 PM
Can you imagine how many libs heads would explode if she ran for any office? :popcorn:

Sure.. . . . Internal pressure from uncontrollable laughter..  :cool:
Title: Re: Palin in 2016
Post by: Crock Hunter on February 27, 2013, 12:51:57 PM
Quote from: taxed on February 27, 2013, 11:36:14 AM
I don't deny under our current union-controlled electoral system that it wouldn't be a challenge.

"union-controlled" ????   :rolleyes:  This I gotta hear. .. .

Title: Re: Palin in 2016
Post by: supsalemgr on February 27, 2013, 12:56:25 PM
Quote from: Crock Hunter on February 27, 2013, 12:51:57 PM
"union-controlled" ????   :rolleyes:  This I gotta hear. .. .

Crock Of, I am not surprised it went over your head.
Title: Re: Palin in 2016
Post by: Crock Hunter on February 27, 2013, 12:58:12 PM
Quote from: Solar on February 27, 2013, 11:35:55 AMthey won't be voting for a single Conservative anyway,

I could vote for a Conservative but the far right crazy train left William F. Buckley station more than a decade ago.. .. ..
Title: Re: Palin in 2016
Post by: taxed on February 27, 2013, 01:03:21 PM
Quote from: Crock Hunter on February 27, 2013, 12:51:57 PM
"union-controlled" ????   :rolleyes:  This I gotta hear. .. .

Start here with a few random articles:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/02/22/labor-unions-obama-elections-2012_n_1293173.html (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/02/22/labor-unions-obama-elections-2012_n_1293173.html)
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052702304782404577488584031850026.html (http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052702304782404577488584031850026.html)
http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/292645/who-s-biggest-outside-group-2012-elections-big-labor-jonathan-collegio (http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/292645/who-s-biggest-outside-group-2012-elections-big-labor-jonathan-collegio)
http://blog.heritage.org/2012/09/03/morning-bell-union-money-in-elections/ (http://blog.heritage.org/2012/09/03/morning-bell-union-money-in-elections/)
Title: Re: Palin in 2016
Post by: supsalemgr on February 27, 2013, 02:30:25 PM
Quote from: taxed on February 27, 2013, 01:03:21 PM
Start here with a few random articles:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/02/22/labor-unions-obama-elections-2012_n_1293173.html (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/02/22/labor-unions-obama-elections-2012_n_1293173.html)
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052702304782404577488584031850026.html (http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052702304782404577488584031850026.html)
http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/292645/who-s-biggest-outside-group-2012-elections-big-labor-jonathan-collegio (http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/292645/who-s-biggest-outside-group-2012-elections-big-labor-jonathan-collegio)
http://blog.heritage.org/2012/09/03/morning-bell-union-money-in-elections/ (http://blog.heritage.org/2012/09/03/morning-bell-union-money-in-elections/)

You may have the seen the last of Crock Of. One of the loons from my former forum.
Title: Re: Palin in 2016
Post by: Crock Hunter on February 27, 2013, 06:39:26 PM
Quote from: supsalemgr on February 27, 2013, 12:56:25 PM
Crock Of, I am not surprised it went over your head.

My goodness... I'm here all of 5 minutes and the notorious right-wing name calling has already begun.  ..

You and I don't have very much history, supper... Why the vitriol?
Title: Re: Palin in 2016
Post by: Cryptic Bert on February 27, 2013, 06:41:12 PM
Quote from: Crock Hunter on February 27, 2013, 12:58:12 PM
I could vote for a Conservative but the far right crazy train left William F. Buckley station more than a decade ago.. .. ..

What makes someone "far right"?
Title: Re: Palin in 2016
Post by: Solar on February 27, 2013, 06:53:31 PM
Quote from: Crock Hunter on February 27, 2013, 06:39:26 PM
My goodness... I'm here all of 5 minutes and the notorious right-wing name calling has already begun.  ..

You and I don't have very much history, supper... Why the vitriol?
Cut the feigned insult bull shit. If you have anything to bring to the forum aside of stupid remarks, then I suggest you start posting them.
I have no patience for trolls.♦
Title: Re: Palin in 2016
Post by: Solar on February 27, 2013, 06:54:25 PM
Quote from: The Boo Man... on February 27, 2013, 06:41:12 PM
What makes someone "far right"?
Anything thing Right of Pelosi apparently...
Title: Re: Palin in 2016
Post by: Crock Hunter on February 27, 2013, 06:54:33 PM
Quote from: taxed on February 27, 2013, 01:03:21 PM
Start here with a few random articles:

Both . . . . (http://townhall.com/tipsheet/danieldoherty/2012/11/07/obama_and_romney_collectively_spent_2_billion_this_election_cycle)

Rmoney Contributors (http://www.opensecrets.org/pres12/contrib.php?id=N00000286)

President Obama Contributors (http://www.opensecrets.org/pres12/contrib.php?id=N00009638)

But in essence I do agree with you... The right-wing SCOTUS's Citizens United decision is the worst thing to have happened to our election system .. that is until the recent gerrymandering underway at the hands of Republican hooligans.. ...
Title: Re: Palin in 2016
Post by: Cryptic Bert on February 27, 2013, 06:59:25 PM
Looks like we have a troll on hour hands...
Title: Re: Palin in 2016
Post by: Crock Hunter on February 27, 2013, 07:05:16 PM
Quote from: The Boo Man... on February 27, 2013, 06:41:12 PM
What makes someone "far right"?

Good question ... .  and it could be one of those unanswerable sort'a whys like "What makes someone racist ?" or "What makes someone a serial conspiracist... ?

I think a good answer to your question would be "a detachment from reality" .. ..

New here so have you had a chance to relate your journey.. ?  Post a link.



Title: Re: Palin in 2016
Post by: Cryptic Bert on February 27, 2013, 07:08:10 PM
Quote from: Crock Hunter on February 27, 2013, 07:05:16 PM
Good question ... .  and it could be one of those unanswerable sort'a whys like "What makes someone racist ?" or "What makes someone a serial conspiracist... ?

I think a good answer to your question would be "a detachment from reality" .. ..

New here so have you had a chance to relate your journey.. ?  Post a link.

So you use the term yet you can't articulate what it means...
Title: Re: Palin in 2016
Post by: Crock Hunter on February 27, 2013, 07:17:28 PM
Quote from: The Boo Man... on February 27, 2013, 07:08:10 PM
So you use the term yet you can't articulate what it means...

I thought I was clear in that I have no idea what would inspire someone to be far-right.. my best guess was that it requires a detachment from reality.. same could be said of far-left.. ..

If you're looking for a definition.. I'd say it was a mash-up of disorganized Libertarian notions magnified through a distorted Conservative lens.. .. 

Does that answer your question...?
Title: Re: Palin in 2016
Post by: Cryptic Bert on February 27, 2013, 07:25:07 PM
Quote from: Crock Hunter on February 27, 2013, 07:17:28 PM
I thought I was clear in that I have no idea what would inspire someone to be far-right.. my best guess was that it requires a detachment from reality.. same could be said of far-left.. ..

If you're looking for a definition.. I'd say it was a mash-up of disorganized Libertarian notions magnified through a distorted Conservative lens.. .. 

Does that answer your question...?

Nope but then again I knew you wouldn't because you're just trying to stir the pot.
Title: Re: Palin in 2016
Post by: Solar on February 27, 2013, 07:37:38 PM
Quote from: Crock Hunter on February 27, 2013, 07:17:28 PM
I thought I was clear in that I have no idea what would inspire someone to be far-right.. my best guess was that it requires a detachment from reality.. same could be said of far-left.. ..

If you're looking for a definition.. I'd say it was a mash-up of disorganized Libertarian notions magnified through a distorted Conservative lens.. .. 

Does that answer your question...?
This forum is far Right as you put it, we also believe the Founders had it completely right.
Are you saying the Founders were "a mash-up of disorganized Libertarian notions magnified through a distorted Conservative lens.. .." 
Title: Re: Palin in 2016
Post by: Cryptic Bert on February 27, 2013, 08:05:03 PM
Quote from: Solar on February 27, 2013, 07:37:38 PM
This forum is far Right as you put it, we also believe the Founders had it completely right.
Are you saying the Founders were "a mash-up of disorganized Libertarian notions magnified through a distorted Conservative lens.. .."

He has no clue. He throws the far right extremist label around because that is what they do on the sites he frequents. This dude is just another parrot...
Title: Re: Palin in 2016
Post by: Solar on February 27, 2013, 08:21:36 PM
Quote from: The Boo Man... on February 27, 2013, 08:05:03 PM
He has no clue. He throws the far right extremist label around because that is what they do on the sites he frequents. This dude is just another parrot...
Is there a recipe for Budgie, or do you just use it for target practice and hit the store and pick up a chicken for the barby?
I see his time as short...
Title: Re: Palin in 2016
Post by: Bowhntr on February 28, 2013, 06:06:46 AM
I would love to see her run and WIN.  However, I think we all know that she does not stand a snowballs chance.  Look at how bad the state ran media crucified her in 2008.  There was more attention given to the VP candidate from the GOP than the top of the Dem ticket.  It would be funny to watch the liberals go into convulsions but we need someone who can WIN!!!
Title: Re: Palin in 2016
Post by: Solar on February 28, 2013, 06:24:18 AM
Quote from: Bowhntr on February 28, 2013, 06:06:46 AM
I would love to see her run and WIN.  However, I think we all know that she does not stand a snowballs chance.  Look at how bad the state ran media crucified her in 2008.  There was more attention given to the VP candidate from the GOP than the top of the Dem ticket.  It would be funny to watch the liberals go into convulsions but we need someone who can WIN!!!
I believe that to be what is referred to as a "self fulfilling prophecy".
The media made such a fuss over her, that Conservatives have convinced themselves that she hasn't got a chance, I believe that to be far from true.
Just imagine if she were to stand up and dare the left to take her on, they already shot their wod, they have nothing left to throw at her.

I believe if she honestly has it left in her to take on the MSM, she would come out the winner and the media/left would look like petty fools.
Title: Re: Palin in 2016
Post by: JustKari on February 28, 2013, 06:32:13 AM
Quote from: Solar on February 28, 2013, 06:24:18 AM
I believe that to be what is referred to as a "self fulfilling prophecy".
The media made such a fuss over her, that Conservatives have convinced themselves that she hasn't got a chance, I believe that to be far from true.
Just imagine if she were to stand up and dare the left to take her on, they already shot their wod, they have nothing left to throw at her.

I believe if she honestly has it left in her to take on the MSM, she would come out the winner and the media/left would look like petty fools.

Solar is right, when Jesse Ventura ran for governor of MN, the media tried to make sure he had no chance.  I won't deny that they drove him insane once he won, but he did win.
Title: Re: Palin in 2016
Post by: Bowhntr on February 28, 2013, 06:35:46 AM
Quote from: Solar on February 28, 2013, 06:24:18 AM
I believe that to be what is referred to as a "self fulfilling prophecy".
The media made such a fuss over her, that Conservatives have convinced themselves that she hasn't got a chance, I believe that to be far from true.
Just imagine if she were to stand up and dare the left to take her on, they already shot their wod, they have nothing left to throw at her.

I believe if she honestly has it left in her to take on the MSM, she would come out the winner and the media/left would look like petty fools.

I disagree.  In this country of "low information voters" all it will take is a couple of 6 o'clock news stories and she is done.  The majority of voters in this country do not care enough to research issues and learn the truth.  So, all it would take is more of the same from the propaganda machine and she would have no chance.  All one has to do is look at the 2008 and 2012 election results to find the proof.
Title: Re: Palin in 2016
Post by: Turks on February 28, 2013, 06:41:30 AM
Quote from: Bowhntr on February 28, 2013, 06:35:46 AM
I disagree.  In this country of "low information voters" all it will take is a couple of 6 o'clock news stories and she is done.   The majority of voters in this country do not care enough to research issues and learn the truth.  So, all it would take is more of the same from the propaganda machine and she would have no chance.  All one has to do is look at the 2008 and 2012 election results to find the proof.

I don't often find myself on a different page than Solar since I came here but this time I'm afraid that I am.  Your first sentence sums it up.  The second sentence is the icing on the cake for me as well.

The media isn't going to turn their bias around any time soon.  Besides haven't we had enough of the rethreads?  The Bush family, the Clintons and Palin.

I don't think she could generate enough enthusiam  to overcome the odds.    She'll fire up her base but that won't "translate" nationwide.
Title: Re: Palin in 2016
Post by: Solar on February 28, 2013, 07:11:58 AM
Quote from: Bowhntr on February 28, 2013, 06:35:46 AM
I disagree.  In this country of "low information voters" all it will take is a couple of 6 o'clock news stories and she is done.  The majority of voters in this country do not care enough to research issues and learn the truth.  So, all it would take is more of the same from the propaganda machine and she would have no chance.  All one has to do is look at the 2008 and 2012 election results to find the proof.
Low information voters have never been on the right side of the isle, those that vote for Pubs generally are voting for two reasons, they either actually support the candidate, or they genuinely hate the left, but to say our side is full of low information voters is simply ludicrous.
Title: Re: Palin in 2016
Post by: Bowhntr on February 28, 2013, 07:36:51 AM
Quote from: Solar on February 28, 2013, 07:11:58 AM
Low information voters have never been on the right side of the isle, those that vote for Pubs generally are voting for two reasons, they either actually support the candidate, or they genuinely hate the left, but to say our side is full of low information voters is simply ludicrous.

I'm saying the exact opposite....the other side is FULL of low information/single issue voters and no matter how much the GOP rallies our faithful and swing votes we can not defeat their majority.  Anyone that may have been swung by truth is so disengaged that all it would take is a couple of 6:00 stories and they will vote dem. It is a sad but true reality that the dems have created a voting majority that are on the government dole and they are not going to vote to give themselves a pay cut!
Title: Re: Palin in 2016
Post by: AndyJackson on February 28, 2013, 07:40:46 AM
I'd rather lose with Palin than some milktoast schmuck like Dole, McCain, Romney.

Get our money's worth at least.  She would at least tear the biased MSM and fixed debates, a new asshole each.

Palin and Paul would be cool.  Or Palin and a sterling conservative minority.
Title: Re: Palin in 2016
Post by: Turks on February 28, 2013, 07:58:36 AM
A Palin nomination would only serve to revive Tina Fey's somewhat fading star.    :wink:
Title: Re: Palin in 2016
Post by: Crock Hunter on February 28, 2013, 07:59:58 AM
Quote from: Solar on February 27, 2013, 07:37:38 PM
This forum is far Right as you put it, we also believe the Founders had it completely right.
Are you saying the Founders were "a mash-up of disorganized Libertarian notions magnified through a distorted Conservative lens.. .."

No, the Founders were neither Conservative nor Liberal.. They were Radicals...   But the question put to me was "what makes someone far-right" ..  (actually the individual was asking me for my definition of "far-right") .. .

As I said.. The Founders were Radicals but their ideas were without a doubt liberal..  The Founders with their support of Free Speech, a Free Press ..  of individual rights and liberties flew in the face of contemporary thinking.. The Founders were in no way attempting to "Conserve" the existing form of governance.. 
Title: Re: Palin in 2016
Post by: Turks on February 28, 2013, 08:09:29 AM
Perhaps the Founders were more "innovative" than liberal in their thinking.  The founders had a Judeo-Christian influence on their philosophies.  Hardly what today's liberal is influenced by.
Title: Re: Palin in 2016
Post by: Crock Hunter on February 28, 2013, 08:34:54 AM
Quote from: Turks on February 28, 2013, 08:09:29 AM
Perhaps the Founders were more "innovative" than liberal in their thinking.  The founders had a Judeo-Christian influence on their philosophies.  Hardly what today's liberal is influenced by.

"innovative"..  progressive...liberal... All just semantics..  What they were NOT is Conservative.

And though influenced by Judeo-Christian values ... in regards to governing they were much more influenced by the Enlightenment movement coming out of Europe.. from philosophers such as John Locke, Thomas Hobbes and Jean-Jacques Rousseau. 

Briefly.. Hobbes held that government is necessary... from Rousseau and John Locke came the concept of a government of, for and by the people.

And the addition of a SCOTUS as a governmental branch insured that the Constitution would remain a living document in that the court would interpret based on a changing world and our obligations to the past.

Title: Re: Palin in 2016
Post by: Solar on February 28, 2013, 08:52:25 AM
Quote from: Bowhntr on February 28, 2013, 07:36:51 AM
I'm saying the exact opposite....the other side is FULL of low information/single issue voters and no matter how much the GOP rallies our faithful and swing votes we can not defeat their majority.  Anyone that may have been swung by truth is so disengaged that all it would take is a couple of 6:00 stories and they will vote dem. It is a sad but true reality that the dems have created a voting majority that are on the government dole and they are not going to vote to give themselves a pay cut!
Absolutely disagree, look how much of the base sat home because the RINO pushed another RINO down our throats.
First Johnny now Romney, and you think Palin would somehow be a death sentence?
You give the media to much credit...

Yeah, I guess we just need to keep repeating the the same process over and over again. Can you say Insanity?

Only 6% Rate News Media As Very Trustworthy
http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/general_politics/february_2013/only_6_rate_news_media_as_very_trustworthy (http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/general_politics/february_2013/only_6_rate_news_media_as_very_trustworthy)
Title: Re: Palin in 2016
Post by: supsalemgr on February 28, 2013, 08:53:24 AM
Quote from: Crock Hunter on February 28, 2013, 08:34:54 AM
"innovative"..  progressive...liberal... All just semantics..  What they were NOT is Conservative.

And though influenced by Judeo-Christian values ... in regards to governing they were much more influenced by the Enlightenment movement coming out of Europe.. from philosophers such as John Locke, Thomas Hobbes and Jean-Jacques Rousseau. 

Briefly.. Hobbes held that government is necessary... from Rousseau and John Locke came the concept of a government of, for and by the people.

And the addition of a SCOTUS as a governmental branch insured that the Constitution would remain a living document in that the court would interpret based on a changing world and our obligations to the past.

So what is your position on Obama's war on guns?
Title: Re: Palin in 2016
Post by: Solar on February 28, 2013, 09:04:01 AM
Quote from: Crock Hunter on February 28, 2013, 07:59:58 AM
No, the Founders were neither Conservative nor Liberal.. They were Radicals...   But the question put to me was "what makes someone far-right" ..  (actually the individual was asking me for my definition of "far-right") .. .

As I said.. The Founders were Radicals but their ideas were without a doubt liberal..  The Founders with their support of Free Speech, a Free Press ..  of individual rights and liberties flew in the face of contemporary thinking.. The Founders were in no way attempting to "Conserve" the existing form of governance..
Absolutely Wrong! The Founders were Classic Liberals, the opposite of today's liberals, which makes them aligned with the Far Right as in Tea party Conservative.
The Tea party movement aligns itself with the Founders, leaning Libertarian, like the Founders, the Tea movement believes in a small, less intrusive Govt, quite the antonym of the progressives of today, where they want to grow Govt into every aspect of our lives, the exact opposite of the Govt structure the Founders created.
Title: Re: Palin in 2016
Post by: Mountainshield on February 28, 2013, 09:18:49 AM
Quote from: Bowhntr on February 28, 2013, 06:35:46 AM
I disagree.  In this country of "low information voters" all it will take is a couple of 6 o'clock news stories and she is done.  The majority of voters in this country do not care enough to research issues and learn the truth.

Only about 50% of the US population votes though, so you dont need to win over the masses, the GOP needs to get down with the Dems and play dirty and get better at organizing vote busses and give money/boons to the sympathetic but apathetic people to vote just like the left wing does. When you talk about voters you are not talking about the majority of the country. It's more about the side that can mobilize as many people as possible using all means at your disposal. Even though in an ideal republic such measures should be unnecessary to get people to vote.
Title: Re: Palin in 2016
Post by: Cryptic Bert on February 28, 2013, 09:23:07 AM
Quote from: Solar on February 28, 2013, 09:04:01 AM
Absolutely Wrong! The Founders were Classic Liberals, the opposite of today's liberals, which makes them aligned with the Far Right as in Tea party Conservative.
The Tea party movement aligns itself with the Founders, leaning Libertarian, like the Founders, the Tea movement believes in a small, less intrusive Govt, quite the antonym of the progressives of today, where they want to grow Govt into every aspect of our lives, the exact opposite of the Govt structure the Founders created.

:lol: :lol: :lol:


They never come prepared...
Title: Re: Palin in 2016
Post by: Mountainshield on February 28, 2013, 09:31:12 AM
Quote from: The Boo Man... on February 28, 2013, 09:23:07 AM
:lol: :lol: :lol:
They never come prepared...

Something tells me he smoked too much pot during political philosophy lectures at his uni.
Title: Re: Palin in 2016
Post by: supsalemgr on February 28, 2013, 09:48:44 AM
Quote from: Mountainshield on February 28, 2013, 09:31:12 AM
Something tells me he smoked too much pot during political philosophy lectures at his uni.

No. He is on the same board as Vrede (John Barth) and picked up some of her talking points.
Title: Re: Palin in 2016
Post by: Solar on February 28, 2013, 09:49:37 AM
Quote from: The Boo Man... on February 28, 2013, 09:23:07 AM
:lol: :lol: :lol:


They never come prepared...
Knife to a gunfight, they're always ill equipped.
Title: Re: Palin in 2016
Post by: Cryptic Bert on February 28, 2013, 09:52:11 AM
Quote from: Solar on February 28, 2013, 09:49:37 AM
Knife to a gunfight, they're always ill equipped.

That's not a knife. It's a chicken bone he has been gnawing on for a few hours...
Title: Re: Palin in 2016
Post by: taxed on February 28, 2013, 09:55:06 AM
Quote from: Crock Hunter on February 27, 2013, 06:54:33 PM
Both . . . . (http://townhall.com/tipsheet/danieldoherty/2012/11/07/obama_and_romney_collectively_spent_2_billion_this_election_cycle)

Rmoney Contributors (http://www.opensecrets.org/pres12/contrib.php?id=N00000286)

President Obama Contributors (http://www.opensecrets.org/pres12/contrib.php?id=N00009638)

But in essence I do agree with you... The right-wing SCOTUS's Citizens United decision is the worst thing to have happened to our election system .. that is until the recent gerrymandering underway at the hands of Republican hooligans.. ...

You posted donor data.  Great.  What does this have to do with union control and influence on elections?
Title: Re: Palin in 2016
Post by: taxed on February 28, 2013, 09:56:51 AM
Quote from: Crock Hunter on February 27, 2013, 07:17:28 PM
I thought I was clear in that I have no idea what would inspire someone to be far-right.. my best guess was that it requires a detachment from reality.. same could be said of far-left.. ..

If you're looking for a definition.. I'd say it was a mash-up of disorganized Libertarian notions magnified through a distorted Conservative lens.. .. 

Does that answer your question...?

You really have this down...
Title: Re: Palin in 2016
Post by: Cryptic Bert on February 28, 2013, 09:59:40 AM
Quote from: taxed on February 28, 2013, 09:56:51 AM
You really have this down...
:lol: :lol: :lol:


He was so certain about right wing extremists then when pushed he suddenly went all vague...
Title: Re: Palin in 2016
Post by: taxed on February 28, 2013, 10:00:18 AM
Quote from: The Boo Man... on February 28, 2013, 09:23:07 AM
:lol: :lol: :lol:


They never come prepared...

hahahahahaha
Title: Re: Palin in 2016
Post by: Cryptic Bert on February 28, 2013, 10:03:13 AM
Quote from: taxed on February 28, 2013, 10:00:18 AM
hahahahahaha

He went back to his liberal forum "Bob, Bob! What's a classical liberal? No one mentioned classical liberals"...
Title: Re: Palin in 2016
Post by: taxed on February 28, 2013, 10:06:26 AM
Quote from: The Boo Man... on February 28, 2013, 10:03:13 AM
He went back to his liberal forum "Bob, Bob! What's a classical liberal? No one mentioned classical liberals"...

I have to say, I love them at this age...
Title: Re: Palin in 2016
Post by: Solar on February 28, 2013, 10:10:46 AM
Quote from: The Boo Man... on February 28, 2013, 10:03:13 AM
He went back to his liberal forum "Bob, Bob! What's a classical liberal? No one mentioned classical liberals"...
:laugh: :laugh: :laugh
Title: Re: Palin in 2016
Post by: Crock Hunter on February 28, 2013, 11:32:04 AM
Quote from: Solar on February 28, 2013, 09:04:01 AM
the Tea movement believes in a small, less intrusive Govt,

Yes and with the Articles of Confederation the Founders tried small government only to find that government under that document was ineffectual.  It was South Carolina's Charles Pinckney that recommended the expansion of government by way of a new constitution.. They then clandestinely met and penned our present Constitution creating a larger, more powerful central government.   Today, Conservatives would accuse them of supporting large government.. .. .

Quote from: Solar on February 28, 2013, 09:04:01 AM
where they want to grow Govt into every aspect of our lives,

Do you mean like the DOMA... .

There are indeed individuals that would like to see a more socialist government than we now possess just as there are individuals that would relish having no government at all... . 

However in demonizing everyone left of Palin, I'm afraid you've fallen for the alternate reality created by right-wing corporate shills.. .. We are not as far apart in our wants and needs as you've been led to believe..
Title: Re: Palin in 2016
Post by: Cryptic Bert on February 28, 2013, 11:44:51 AM
Quote from: Crock Hunter on February 28, 2013, 11:32:04 AM
Yes and with the Articles of Confederation the Founders tried small government only to find that government under that document was ineffectual.  It was South Carolina's Charles Pinckney that recommended the expansion of government by way of a new constitution.. They then clandestinely met and penned our present Constitution creating a larger, more powerful central government.   Today, Conservatives would accuse them of supporting large government.. .. .

So according to you limiting the size of government to what is outlined in the Constitution is considered supporting big government. Hilarious.

QuoteDo you mean like the DOMA... .

There are indeed individuals that would like to see a more socialist government than we now possess just as there are individuals that would relish having no government at all... . 

However in demonizing everyone left of Palin, I'm afraid you've fallen for the alternate reality created by right-wing corporate shills.. .. We are not as far apart in our wants and needs as you've been led to believe..

(https://conservativepoliticalforum.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi1076.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fw441%2FKrellkneen%2F158467881_broken_record_xlarge_zps7bc68f53.jpeg&hash=95f1130ec6dceca43863f572c99ebaf7393bb91b)
Title: Re: Palin in 2016
Post by: Turks on February 28, 2013, 11:46:54 AM
Quote from: Crock Hunter on February 28, 2013, 11:32:04 AM
Yes and with the Articles of Confederation the Founders tried small government only to find that government under that document was ineffectual.  It was South Carolina's Charles Pinckney that recommended the expansion of government by way of a new constitution.. They then clandestinely met and penned our present Constitution creating a larger, more powerful central government.   Today, Conservatives would accuse them of supporting large government.. .. .

Do you mean like the DOMA... .

There are indeed individuals that would like to see a more socialist government than we now possess just as there are individuals that would relish having no government at all... . 

However in demonizing everyone left of Palin, I'm afraid you've fallen for the alternate reality created by right-wing corporate shills.. .. We are not as far apart in our wants and needs as you've been led to believe..


Not altogether quite true as you stated it: 

http://americanhistory.about.com/od/governmentandpolitics/f/articles_of_confederation_fails.htm (http://americanhistory.about.com/od/governmentandpolitics/f/articles_of_confederation_fails.htm)

The reasons they "penned our present Constitution creating a larger, more powerful central government" are far different from the reasons why some want larger government today.  In Obama's case he wants dependency so he can control the individual and the individual's vote.   


Todays' federal goverment is more of an nanny state centralized governenment. 
Title: Re: Palin in 2016
Post by: Solar on February 28, 2013, 12:01:36 PM
Quote from: Crock Hunter on February 28, 2013, 11:32:04 AM
Yes and with the Articles of Confederation the Founders tried small government only to find that government under that document was ineffectual.  It was South Carolina's Charles Pinckney that recommended the expansion of government by way of a new constitution.. They then clandestinely met and penned our present Constitution creating a larger, more powerful central government.   Today, Conservatives would accuse them of supporting large government.. .. .
Pay close attention. The first constitution of the United States, passed by Congress in 1787, but not ratified until 1781, replaced by the present constitution in 1789.
1791 The Bill of Rights dded to the Constitution.
So States disagreeing with the original were in your opinion for bigger Govt, even though they ratified Bill of Rights?

QuoteDo you mean like the DOMA... .

There are indeed individuals that would like to see a more socialist government than we now possess just as there are individuals that would relish having no government at all... . 

However in demonizing everyone left of Palin, I'm afraid you've fallen for the alternate reality created by right-wing corporate shills.. .. We are not as far apart in our wants and needs as you've been led to believe..


You would be wrong to assume Conservatives want no Govt at all, we believe in Govt, just not the one the left has envisioned today or the expansion currently underway.
Title: Re: Palin in 2016
Post by: taxed on February 28, 2013, 12:06:32 PM
I watched The Undefeated last night.  She is such a badass.

Her speeches all reflect on our freedoms, the Constitution, etc.  She really knows how to hit home.
Title: Re: Palin in 2016
Post by: Cryptic Bert on February 28, 2013, 12:07:59 PM
Quote from: Solar on February 28, 2013, 12:01:36 PM
Pay close attention. The first constitution of the United States, passed by Congress in 1787, but not ratified until 1781, replaced by the present constitution in 1789.
1791 The Bill of Rights dded to the Constitution.
So States disagreeing with the original were in your opinion for bigger Govt, even though they ratified Bill of Rights?


You would be wrong to assume Conservatives want no Govt at all, we believe in Govt, just not the one the left has envisioned today or the expansion currently underway.

Now he is confusing Conservatism with anarchism...
Title: Re: Palin in 2016
Post by: Solar on February 28, 2013, 12:08:36 PM
Quote from: taxed on February 28, 2013, 12:06:32 PM
I watched The Undefeated last night.  She is such a badass.

Her speeches all reflect on our freedoms, the Constitution, etc.  She really knows how to hit home.
But Taxed, those are the reasons she shouldn't run according to some, because those are unpopular opinions. :rolleyes:
Title: Re: Palin in 2016
Post by: taxed on February 28, 2013, 12:10:44 PM
Quote from: Solar on February 28, 2013, 12:08:36 PM
But Taxed, those are the reasons she shouldn't run according to some, because those are unpopular opinions. :rolleyes:

She took on some really big, entrenched entities.  There was one scene where some powerful oil guy got in her face and told her she didn't know who the f* she was dealing with, and she just stared him down.  The guy gave in.
Title: Re: Palin in 2016
Post by: Crock Hunter on February 28, 2013, 12:17:22 PM
Quote from: taxed on February 28, 2013, 09:55:06 AM
You posted donor data.  Great.  What does this have to do with union control and influence on elections?

I posted verifiable numbers.. Here is an overall including Corporate/Union Donors (http://www.opensecrets.org/overview/topcontribs.php#)....

From whom is less important than How Much.  Do you think more money from either side would give us better candidates and/or more honest elections.. I Don't... In fact all indications are that it has had the opposite effect... . .

Another thing to consider is that Union money is locally sourced primarily from working Americans... However Multinational Corporations are allowed to make donations which in actuality is allowing foreign money to influence our elections.. 


"I hope that we shall crush in its birth the aristocracy of our monied corporations, which dare already to challenge our government to a trial of strength, and bid defiance to the laws of our country." -Thomas Jefferson


Title: Re: Palin in 2016
Post by: taxed on February 28, 2013, 12:42:55 PM
Quote from: Crock Hunter on February 28, 2013, 12:17:22 PM
I posted verifiable numbers.. Here is an overall including Corporate/Union Donors (http://www.opensecrets.org/overview/topcontribs.php#)....

From whom is less important than How Much.  Do you think more money from either side would give us better candidates and/or more honest elections.. I Don't... In fact all indications are that it has had the opposite effect... . .

Another thing to consider is that Union money is locally sourced primarily from working Americans... However Multinational Corporations are allowed to make donations which in actuality is allowing foreign money to influence our elections.. 


"I hope that we shall crush in its birth the aristocracy of our monied corporations, which dare already to challenge our government to a trial of strength, and bid defiance to the laws of our country." -Thomas Jefferson

I'm not disputing your numbers.  I am saying looking at American dollar-for-dollar donation comparison doesn't account for union power.  Obama couldn't raise as much from Americans as Romney, and even the unions were holding back some in case Hussein lost.  That's why he needed donations from China.  More on that: http://townhall.com/tipsheet/katiepavlich/2012/10/08/exposing_barack_obamas_illegal_foreign_campaign_money_loophole (http://townhall.com/tipsheet/katiepavlich/2012/10/08/exposing_barack_obamas_illegal_foreign_campaign_money_loophole)


Unions have incredible power.  They take advantage and buy off politicians to pass laws, enabling them to get a rake of employees' earnings, against the employees' will, continuing the perpetual cycle of liberal, anti-capitalistic legislation, snowballing their power all subsidized by the worker.  Unions influence local elections and up, from dog catcher up to the President.  More on that: http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052702304782404577488584031850026.html (http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052702304782404577488584031850026.html)
Title: Re: Palin in 2016
Post by: supsalemgr on February 28, 2013, 12:49:09 PM
Quote from: Crock Hunter on February 28, 2013, 12:17:22 PM
I posted verifiable numbers.. Here is an overall including Corporate/Union Donors (http://www.opensecrets.org/overview/topcontribs.php#)....

From whom is less important than How Much.  Do you think more money from either side would give us better candidates and/or more honest elections.. I Don't... In fact all indications are that it has had the opposite effect... . .

Another thing to consider is that Union money is locally sourced primarily from working Americans... However Multinational Corporations are allowed to make donations which in actuality is allowing foreign money to influence our elections.. 


"I hope that we shall crush in its birth the aristocracy of our monied corporations, which dare already to challenge our government to a trial of strength, and bid defiance to the laws of our country." -Thomas Jefferson

BTW, we are still awaiting an answer to my question if you support Obama's gun control efforts.
Title: Re: Palin in 2016
Post by: Solar on February 28, 2013, 12:53:02 PM
Quote from: Crock Hunter on February 28, 2013, 12:17:22 PM
I posted verifiable numbers.. Here is an overall including Corporate/Union Donors (http://www.opensecrets.org/overview/topcontribs.php#)....

From whom is less important than How Much.  Do you think more money from either side would give us better candidates and/or more honest elections.. I Don't... In fact all indications are that it has had the opposite effect... . .

Another thing to consider is that Union money is locally sourced primarily from working Americans... However Multinational Corporations are allowed to make donations which in actuality is allowing foreign money to influence our elections.. 


"I hope that we shall crush in its birth the aristocracy of our monied corporations, which dare already to challenge our government to a trial of strength, and bid defiance to the laws of our country." -Thomas Jefferson
Where do you get this shit?
Even lib sites expose the truth from time to time. Read and learn something.

http://www.opensecrets.org/orgs/summary.php?id=d000000088 (http://www.opensecrets.org/orgs/summary.php?id=d000000088)
Title: Re: Palin in 2016
Post by: taxed on February 28, 2013, 12:57:46 PM
Quote from: Solar on February 28, 2013, 12:53:02 PM
Where do you get this shit?
Even lib sites expose the truth from time to time. Read and learn something.

http://www.opensecrets.org/orgs/summary.php?id=d000000088 (http://www.opensecrets.org/orgs/summary.php?id=d000000088)

Foreign donations???  He needs to get up to speed:
http://www.examiner.com/article/report-obama-camp-soliciting-donations-from-china-vietnam-other-countries (http://www.examiner.com/article/report-obama-camp-soliciting-donations-from-china-vietnam-other-countries)
Title: Re: Palin in 2016
Post by: Solar on February 28, 2013, 01:01:43 PM
Quote from: taxed on February 28, 2013, 12:57:46 PM
Foreign donations???  He needs to get up to speed:
http://www.examiner.com/article/report-obama-camp-soliciting-donations-from-china-vietnam-other-countries (http://www.examiner.com/article/report-obama-camp-soliciting-donations-from-china-vietnam-other-countries)
Yeah, I saw that too, but you have to take a slow pace with these people, too much info at one time tends to overload them. :biggrin:

I'm guessing he is growing into a Libertarian, but he's still packed full of leftist talking points, but is starting to question their validity.
Title: Re: Palin in 2016
Post by: Crock Hunter on February 28, 2013, 01:16:05 PM
Quote from: taxed on February 28, 2013, 12:42:55 PM
That's why he needed donations from China.

I'm afraid your news source isn't being completely truthful with you...

A September 2012 analysis by the Government Accountability Institute doesn't show any verifiable instances of illegal foreign donations to the Obama campaign.  In fact the report says that both candidates had issues with fraudulent Internet campaign donations in the 2008 election, and that in the 2012 election both major-party candidates' campaign literature has been circulated on foreign social media with links to pages through which donations can be made.

I'm more than willing to stop these donations.. Removing the root of all evil will undoubtedly make for a more honest open election system... .


Quote from: taxed on February 28, 2013, 12:42:55 PM
Unions influence local elections and up, from dog catcher up to the President.

I don't think anyone here is naive enough to think that corporations do not have great influence in our election process.. .
How Big Business Is Buying the Election  (http://www.thenation.com/article/169639/never-mind-super-pacs-how-big-business-buying-election#)

Again I ask... Would you agree to remove this level of money from our system of election.. Do you imagine the Founders would find favor in the Presidency going to the highest bidder?


Title: Re: Palin in 2016
Post by: Crock Hunter on February 28, 2013, 01:21:14 PM
Quote from: Solar on February 28, 2013, 12:53:02 PM
Where do you get this shit?
Even lib sites expose the truth from time to time. Read and learn something.


Nothing from your linked site contradicts what you've highlighted..
Title: Re: Palin in 2016
Post by: Crock Hunter on February 28, 2013, 01:26:02 PM
Quote from: taxed on February 28, 2013, 12:57:46 PM
Foreign donations???  He needs to get up to speed:
http://www.examiner.com/article/report-obama-camp-soliciting-donations-from-china-vietnam-other-countries (http://www.examiner.com/article/report-obama-camp-soliciting-donations-from-china-vietnam-other-countries)

I posted the facts.. The cited report also implicates the Romney campaign..  Your failure is in depending on your heavily biased news sources to give you the complete picture..
Title: Re: Palin in 2016
Post by: Solar on February 28, 2013, 01:29:25 PM
Quote from: Crock Hunter on February 28, 2013, 01:21:14 PM
Nothing from your linked site contradicts what you've highlighted..
You said
Quote"Another thing to consider is that Union money is locally sourced primarily from working Americans"
If you read the site you would see that it is the AFLCIO funding Dim elections across the Country, that is in no way local.
Locally sourced means that local Unions were doing the donating, and nothing would be further from the truth.
Though smaller unions do contribute to lower level elections, and they lean heavily Left as well.
Title: Re: Palin in 2016
Post by: Solar on February 28, 2013, 01:31:08 PM
Quote from: Crock Hunter on February 28, 2013, 01:16:05 PM
I'm afraid your news source isn't being completely truthful with you...

A September 2012 analysis by the Government Accountability Institute doesn't show any verifiable instances of illegal foreign donations to the Obama campaign.  In fact the report says that both candidates had issues with fraudulent Internet campaign donations in the 2008 election, and that in the 2012 election both major-party candidates' campaign literature has been circulated on foreign social media with links to pages through which donations can be made.

I'm more than willing to stop these donations.. Removing the root of all evil will undoubtedly make for a more honest open election system... .


I don't think anyone here is naive enough to think that corporations do not have great influence in our election process.. .
How Big Business Is Buying the Election  (http://www.thenation.com/article/169639/never-mind-super-pacs-how-big-business-buying-election#)

Again I ask... Would you agree to remove this level of money from our system of election.. Do you imagine the Founders would find favor in the Presidency going to the highest bidder?
From the NY Post of all places.
Obama campaign accepted foreign Web donation -- and may be hiding more
http://www.nypost.com/p/news/national/bam_blind_eye_to_illegal_donors_8SWotytr1RvbhyDCRyyrEL (http://www.nypost.com/p/news/national/bam_blind_eye_to_illegal_donors_8SWotytr1RvbhyDCRyyrEL)
Title: Re: Palin in 2016
Post by: taxed on February 28, 2013, 03:59:23 PM
Quote from: Crock Hunter on February 28, 2013, 01:26:02 PM
I posted the facts.. The cited report also implicates the Romney campaign..  Your failure is in depending on your heavily biased news sources to give you the complete picture..


http://hotair.com/archives/2012/10/08/obama-bundler-tied-to-chinese-government/ (http://hotair.com/archives/2012/10/08/obama-bundler-tied-to-chinese-government/)
Title: Re: Palin in 2016
Post by: Solar on February 28, 2013, 04:16:30 PM
Quote from: taxed on February 28, 2013, 03:59:23 PM

http://hotair.com/archives/2012/10/08/obama-bundler-tied-to-chinese-government/ (http://hotair.com/archives/2012/10/08/obama-bundler-tied-to-chinese-government/)
It's pretty obvious where he gets his news. :glare:
Title: Re: Palin in 2016
Post by: quiller on March 01, 2013, 04:40:54 AM
Quote from: Solar on February 27, 2013, 07:37:38 PM
This forum is far Right as you put it, we also believe the Founders had it completely right.
Are you saying the Founders were "a mash-up of disorganized Libertarian notions magnified through a distorted Conservative lens.. .."

I define the "far right" as the racist droolers at St*rmfront or the pockets of neonazi trash which lurk in any society. They are not conservative, they are dangerous fanatics fully worthy of Big Government attention.

Think of politics like longitude on a globe. You eventually wind up back where you started if you go far enough in any direction. The "far right" which displays so many thuggish tactics of the far left is no damn different. They're the freaks at the end of the logic-train-line.

I saw what the ELECTED leftist freaks did to America under LBJ and 58,000 Americans died in Vietnam, thanks to Dems backing a war that was doomed to failure by their administration. Then I saw what dangerous fanatics could do under the RINO criminal Richard Nixon, who gave us more government regulation than any modern-day Republican will admit to (but hasn't got the guts to kill).

The "far right" (as the leftist invaders here would tell us) is not the group to fear if they want to tighten our tax load. Cutting federal deadwood means cutting union jobs. This is always a good thing, taking away the "right" of a government employee to hang onto a job for life.

As for sources, HotAir is owned by Michelle Malkin. I saw nothing amiss in that story's contents, but do agree this poster has a whole lot of bias to overcome before accepting the legitimacy of differing opinion.
Title: Re: Palin in 2016
Post by: Mountainshield on March 01, 2013, 08:23:23 AM
Quote from: quiller on March 01, 2013, 04:40:54 AM
I define the "far right" as the racist droolers at St*rmfront or the pockets of neonazi trash which lurk in any society. They are not conservative, they are dangerous fanatics fully worthy of Big Government attention.

Think of politics like longitude on a globe. You eventually wind up back where you started if you go far enough in any direction. The "far right" which displays so many thuggish tactics of the far left is no damn different. They're the freaks at the end of the logic-train-line.

I saw what the ELECTED leftist freaks did to America under LBJ and 58,000 Americans died in Vietnam, thanks to Dems backing a war that was doomed to failure by their administration. Then I saw what dangerous fanatics could do under the RINO criminal Richard Nixon, who gave us more government regulation than any modern-day Republican will admit to (but hasn't got the guts to kill).

The "far right" (as the leftist invaders here would tell us) is not the group to fear if they want to tighten our tax load. Cutting federal deadwood means cutting union jobs. This is always a good thing, taking away the "right" of a government employee to hang onto a job for life.

As for sources, HotAir is owned by Michelle Malkin. I saw nothing amiss in that story's contents, but do agree this poster has a whole lot of bias to overcome before accepting the legitimacy of differing opinion.


Your definition of far right is invalid though. The "Left right" concept of politics comes from parliamentary europe. The left was the side that stood for more/total parliamentarism and the right was the side that defended monarchy. During this process the right adapted the more conservative view of Edmund Burke concerning the legitimacy of the state and private property rights concepts from Locke. The left adopted more radical collectivist ideals and that the legitimacy of the state was the will of the majority.

You are confusing far right with fascism. Fascism is another form socialism, I.e Musselini socialist party, Hitler National Socialist Worker Party and the wellfare state of Imperial Japan. In the modern sense far right is falsely attributed to socialist racist due to the communist control of semantics, but the people you are describing on stormfront are all socialist. They are ethnosocialists, I.e Albanian socialism. Whereas what we call left wing socialist are better described as troglosocialists.

I would advise you to read more about the subject as the confusion of far right=nazism is a communist concept and perspective, remember the Left is wholly dependent on demonization their opposition so that they don't have to attack the arguments but only integrity of their enemy. And by adopting the communist definition of left-right you are supporting their world view and control over language.

Edit: The only isntance in history where far right could be connected with fascist branch of socialism was the Spanish Civil War. The left consisted of different groups such as communist, anarchists, syndicalists, socialists, liberals, progressives etc and the right was made up by two different monarchy groups supporting differrent heritage lines of the monarchy, corporatist fascist (Franco), clergy and different groups of farmer/landlord coalition. Of these groups Franco was the most powerfull and this is the reason many claim that because Franco was fascist and had support from right wing groups, then fascism must be right wing. This is a very clear logical fallacy if you actually read history and philosophy. I would advice Antony Beevor: Battle for Spain.
Title: Re: Palin in 2016
Post by: Crock Hunter on March 01, 2013, 08:38:44 AM
Quote from: Solar on February 28, 2013, 01:29:25 PM
You said If you read the site you would see that it is the AFLCIO funding Dim elections across the Country, that is in no way local.
Locally sourced means that local Unions were doing the donating, and nothing would be further from the truth.
Though smaller unions do contribute to lower level elections, and they lean heavily Left as well.

Oh.. I see your confusion... . My analogy was made between money from Multinational (Global) Corporations and American (Local) Unions.. .. . American money (Local) donated to our candidates is one thing... Foreign (Global) money another.. .. .

Do you think our election process would benefit from more money ..??
Title: Re: Palin in 2016
Post by: Crock Hunter on March 01, 2013, 08:45:50 AM
Quote from: Solar on February 28, 2013, 01:31:08 PM
From the NY Post of all places.
Obama campaign accepted foreign Web donation -- and may be hiding more
http://www.nypost.com/p/news/national/bam_blind_eye_to_illegal_donors_8SWotytr1RvbhyDCRyyrEL (http://www.nypost.com/p/news/national/bam_blind_eye_to_illegal_donors_8SWotytr1RvbhyDCRyyrEL)

As I posted earlier from the same Government Accountability Institute report as cited in your link above... Both candidates had issues accepting online donations when they shouldn't have. .. .  Both campaigns ultimately fixed the problem..

Those are simply the facts... but the far-right overlooks one and condemns the other..
Title: Re: Palin in 2016
Post by: Solar on March 01, 2013, 08:50:01 AM
Quote from: Crock Hunter on March 01, 2013, 08:38:44 AM
Oh.. I see your confusion... . My analogy was made between money from Multinational (Global) Corporations and American (Local) Unions.. .. . American money (Local) donated to our candidates is one thing... Foreign (Global) money another.. .. .

Do you think our election process would benefit from more money ..??
And your comparison was completely flawed.
You neglected the fact that Unions are not restricted to the US, and that not all Corporations are global conglomerates.
But it's these global corps that give most of their money to the Dims, as in the GE's of the world, or GMC and it's Union connection.
Times have changed since before you learned the leftist talking point that the left cares for the little guy, they don't give a damn about you.
And learn what it means to incorporate as a business owner, only a few are actually big corporate monsters, around 90% of incorporated business is that of small business, the main source of employment in America.
Title: Re: Palin in 2016
Post by: quiller on March 01, 2013, 09:20:55 AM
Quote from: Mountainshield on March 01, 2013, 08:23:23 AM

Your definition of far right is invalid though.

Didn't read the rest.
Title: Re: Palin in 2016
Post by: Mountainshield on March 01, 2013, 09:24:31 AM
Quote from: quiller on March 01, 2013, 09:20:55 AM
Didn't read the rest.

why not?

Edit: I checked out the definition of invalid and I'm sorry I was wrong to use it word as you do have foundation for your definition and its logical.
What I meant to say that it is incorrect.
Title: Re: Palin in 2016
Post by: quiller on March 01, 2013, 09:30:35 AM
For the record, I live in Hutaree Country --- near the hugely-respected Hillsdale College which proudly refuses federal aid and turns out some of the very best of the best in numerous branches of study. Hillsdale, Lenawee and much of Monroe Counties along the Ohio border are all deeply conservative and enjoy well over 80% actual church attendance, avid-vocal PTOs guiding local schools, and cost-cutting county and local governments now in fear for their cushy salaries from the taxpayers who have had enough.

Hutaree, for those who recall it, was a motley crew of local halfwits whose bold talk caught the ear of a federal snitch who sold the feds a bill of goods on how dangerous these guys really were. When it came time to clean house, it was the much-maligned Michigan Militia (itself rebuilding credibility after McVeigh and Nichols) who turned them in. That was responsible conservativism.

My area believes gun control is where you hit the sonofabitch you aim at. My area votes for honest people and pillories those who aren't. My area wouldn't allow and will never allow people like McVeigh to become important. My area wouldn't allow Stormfront. We'd run their asses out like we did the Black Legion in the 1930s.
Title: Re: Palin in 2016
Post by: taxed on March 01, 2013, 10:14:55 AM
Quote from: Crock Hunter on March 01, 2013, 08:45:50 AM
As I posted earlier from the same Government Accountability Institute report as cited in your link above... Both candidates had issues accepting online donations when they shouldn't have. .. .  Both campaigns ultimately fixed the problem..

Those are simply the facts... but the far-right overlooks one and condemns the other..

http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government/2012/10/22/Report-Obama-Campaign-Accepts-16-Times-More-Donations-Via-Erroneous-Zip-Codes-Than-Romney (http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government/2012/10/22/Report-Obama-Campaign-Accepts-16-Times-More-Donations-Via-Erroneous-Zip-Codes-Than-Romney)

QuoteGAI analyzed Federal Election Commission (FEC) from the 2012 election cycle and found Obama's campaign has accepted $4,580,805.35 in campaign donations that list invalid zip codes—a figure 16 times greater than Romney's campaign. The study found that Gov. Romney's 2012 FEC data include $282,814.78 in donations that have invalid zip codes.

The Obama campaign curiously pays more in fees to turn off the "CVV" security feature that requires those donating online to enter the three or four digit number on the back of the credit card. In addition, while the campaign claims use the Address Verification System (AVS) security check, the number of donations with invalid zip codes that the campaign has accepted proves the campaign uses one of the weakest AVS systems online.

Try again.
Title: Re: Palin in 2016
Post by: Crock Hunter on March 01, 2013, 12:56:58 PM
Quote from: Solar on March 01, 2013, 08:50:01 AM
give most of their money to the Dims, as in the GE's of the world, or GMC ....

GM Donations. . . .  (http://www.opensecrets.org/orgs/summary.php?id=D000000155)

(https://conservativepoliticalforum.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi802.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fyy302%2FCrockHunter%2Fgm.jpg&hash=c2641df50f487f56fdff0cb70a77f3147ff8b126)


GE Donations . . . . (http://www.opensecrets.org/orgs/summary.php?id=D000000125)

(https://conservativepoliticalforum.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi802.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fyy302%2FCrockHunter%2Fge.jpg&hash=48e64710866330cc64ff555998fd56f80c431bfd)



Looks like Rmoney was about $164,000 ahead.. Maybe you'd like to pick 2 others?
Title: Re: Palin in 2016
Post by: Solar on March 01, 2013, 01:24:26 PM
Quote from: Crock Hunter on March 01, 2013, 12:56:58 PM
GM Donations. . . .  (http://www.opensecrets.org/orgs/summary.php?id=D000000155)

(https://conservativepoliticalforum.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi802.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fyy302%2FCrockHunter%2Fgm.jpg&hash=c2641df50f487f56fdff0cb70a77f3147ff8b126)


GE Donations . . . . (http://www.opensecrets.org/orgs/summary.php?id=D000000125)

(https://conservativepoliticalforum.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi802.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fyy302%2FCrockHunter%2Fge.jpg&hash=48e64710866330cc64ff555998fd56f80c431bfd)



Looks like Rmoney was about $164,000 ahead.. Maybe you'd like to pick 2 others?
OMG You got me! How could this be? GE donated less to Husein...Tell me it isn't so.
We like I said, it's a lib site so you're not going to get the full truth, but let's see if I can explain this tiny contribution, OK?

Quote2011 "Job Czar" position, as a member of President Obama's 2009 Economic Recovery Advisory Board (PERAB). Besides Immelt's direct access to President Obama since 2009, GE was privy to Valerie Jarrett's September 2009 "Clean Energy Summit," where an array of attendees just so happened to "collectively strike gold" with over $5.3 billion in taxpayer funds from the Obama stimulus.

But you say, "So what", he appointed Immelt, big deal.
Well General Electric, paid nothing in federal taxes in 2011, even as it made billions in profit?
http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/general-electric-paid-federal-taxes-2010/story?id=13224558 (http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/general-electric-paid-federal-taxes-2010/story?id=13224558)
Title: Re: Palin in 2016
Post by: supsalemgr on March 01, 2013, 01:26:07 PM
Quote from: Crock Hunter on March 01, 2013, 12:56:58 PM
GM Donations. . . .  (http://www.opensecrets.org/orgs/summary.php?id=D000000155)

(https://conservativepoliticalforum.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi802.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fyy302%2FCrockHunter%2Fgm.jpg&hash=c2641df50f487f56fdff0cb70a77f3147ff8b126)


GE Donations . . . . (http://www.opensecrets.org/orgs/summary.php?id=D000000125)

(https://conservativepoliticalforum.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi802.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fyy302%2FCrockHunter%2Fge.jpg&hash=48e64710866330cc64ff555998fd56f80c431bfd)



Looks like Rmoney was about $164,000 ahead.. Maybe you'd like to pick 2 others?

Crock Of, since you are so good at this could you share the union distribution?

BTW, I am still awaiting an answer to the question if you support Obama's gun control position? It has been two days now. It is not a hard question.
Title: Re: Palin in 2016
Post by: Crock Hunter on March 01, 2013, 01:35:35 PM
Quote from: taxed on March 01, 2013, 10:14:55 AM
The Obama campaign curiously pays more in fees to turn off the "CVV" security feature

Thankfully.. that is until the far-right succeeds in turning the U.S. into a theocracy... "curiously" is not grounds for a conviction... .. .

But it begs the question as to why no one on the right is prosecuting. .. If they had anything.. no doubt they would

The reality is that both side had issues with online donations and both sides corrected those issues.. Even when attempts were made by RedState.com editor Erick Erickson to illegally donate.. to OFA the contribution failed to clear.. ..

"For several days my bank listed it as processing. Then this is where the anti-climactic end to my story comes. The donation ultimately did not go through." -Erick Erickson

When will you address the Canadian owned OdysseyRe corporation $1 million contribution to the Mitt Romney-affiliated Restore Our Future Super PAC.?

The bottom line is that these unlimited sums of money entering our election system is undermining the very Constitution that I swore to protect.. .. .



Title: Re: Palin in 2016
Post by: supsalemgr on March 02, 2013, 04:59:30 AM
Quote from: Crock Hunter on March 01, 2013, 01:35:35 PM
Thankfully.. that is until the far-right succeeds in turning the U.S. into a theocracy... "curiously" is not grounds for a conviction... .. .

But it begs the question as to why no one on the right is prosecuting. .. If they had anything.. no doubt they would

The reality is that both side had issues with online donations and both sides corrected those issues.. Even when attempts were made by RedState.com editor Erick Erickson to illegally donate.. to OFA the contribution failed to clear.. ..

"For several days my bank listed it as processing. Then this is where the anti-climactic end to my story comes. The donation ultimately did not go through." -Erick Erickson

When will you address the Canadian owned OdysseyRe corporation $1 million contribution to the Mitt Romney-affiliated Restore Our Future Super PAC.?

The bottom line is that these unlimited sums of money entering our election system is undermining the very Constitution that I swore to protect.. .. .

Crock Of, if you are interested in true debate then maybe questions posed to you should be addressed rather spouting dem talking points.
Title: Re: Palin in 2016
Post by: Bowhntr on March 02, 2013, 05:17:44 AM
Quote from: supsalemgr on March 02, 2013, 04:59:30 AM
Crock Of, if you are interested in true debate then maybe questions posed to you should be addressed rather spouting dem talking points.

He is simply another of the BDF trolls that have infiltrated here.  Give it time and he will slink back to their 4 poster slime pit.
Title: Re: Palin in 2016
Post by: JustKari on March 02, 2013, 05:32:08 AM
Quote from: Crock Hunter on March 01, 2013, 01:35:35 PM
Thankfully.. that is until the far-right succeeds in turning the U.S. into a theocracy...

Please provide proof.
Title: Re: Palin in 2016
Post by: Solar on March 02, 2013, 05:37:48 AM
Quote from: JustKari on March 02, 2013, 05:32:08 AM
Please provide proof.
The ignorant can be entertaining at times, can't they? :laugh:

I wonder if he's heard about our secret society, "on the enslavement of liberals" after we take over the world? :rolleyes:
Title: Re: Palin in 2016
Post by: The Stranger on March 02, 2013, 05:42:19 AM
Quote from: Bowhntr on March 02, 2013, 05:17:44 AM
He is simply another of the BDF trolls that have infiltrated here.  Give it time and he will slink back to their 4 poster slime pit.
:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:
Title: Re: Palin in 2016
Post by: JustKari on March 02, 2013, 05:43:31 AM
Quote from: Solar on March 02, 2013, 05:37:48 AM
The ignorant can be entertaining at times, can't they? :laugh:

I wonder if he's heard about our secret society, "on the enslavement of liberals" after we take over the world? :rolleyes:

I am just waiting with baited breath at what whackjob site he will link for "proof",
Title: Re: Palin in 2016
Post by: The Stranger on March 02, 2013, 05:50:46 AM
I think Palin would have been a good pick, but she is now tainted in the fact the MSM has had years to print lies about her and trash her. I personally like her but she would go no place unfortunately. :sad:
The libs are afraid of her still which is why they continually rip her apart every chance they get. Come on look at what they have in the white hose. :lol:
Title: Re: Palin in 2016
Post by: Solar on March 02, 2013, 05:54:36 AM
Quote from: The Stranger on March 02, 2013, 05:50:46 AM
I think Palin would have been a good pick, but she is now tainted in the fact the MSM has had years to print lies about her and trash her. I personally like her but she would go no place unfortunately. :sad:
The libs are afraid of her still which is why they continually rip her apart every chance they get. Come on look at what they have in the white hose. :lol:
They did the same to Reagan, and look how well that worked.
Title: Re: Palin in 2016
Post by: The Stranger on March 02, 2013, 06:52:46 AM
Quote from: Solar on March 02, 2013, 05:54:36 AM
They did the same to Reagan, and look how well that worked.
I think people had a few more brain cells back then and I don't think the MSM was as nasty. Look at all the libs who believe the lies they hear about her. There was a video a few yrs. back that interviewed libs and they believed nearly every lie about Palin. Today there are to many followers and no thinkers. Other then here of course. :blush:
There was a video like this about Palin I just can't find it right now!
How Obama Got Elected... Interviews With Obama Voters (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mm1KOBMg1Y8#ws)
Title: Re: Palin in 2016
Post by: Solar on March 02, 2013, 08:05:22 AM
Quote from: The Stranger on March 02, 2013, 06:52:46 AM
I think people had a few more brain cells back then and I don't think the MSM was as nasty. Look at all the libs who believe the lies they hear about her. There was a video a few yrs. back that interviewed libs and they believed nearly every lie about Palin. Today there are to many followers and no thinkers. Other then here of course. :blush:
There was a video like this about Palin I just can't find it right now!
How Obama Got Elected... Interviews With Obama Voters (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mm1KOBMg1Y8#ws)
Reagan didn't have the Internet to fight the leftist media, a media that was by far more subtle back then, but leftists just the same in a very insidious way, think Walter Kronkite.

Today Palin is being hit hard, but only because the MSM knows it has serious competition, us, forums like ours, Drudge, Rush and many others like him, the leftists no longer control the full media spectrum, so they go over the top and were here as a counter balance.

But keep in mind, those that were stupid enough to believe the lies by the MSM would never vote for a Conservative anyway. But for those that actually believe she is tainted, they too have fell for the leftist spin that she is too damaged to run.

She isn't, she could easily step up to the plate and the Right would embrace her without question and the left would shit their pants after all the work they put into destroying her.
Title: Re: Palin in 2016
Post by: taxed on March 02, 2013, 10:09:59 AM
Quote from: Crock Hunter on March 01, 2013, 01:35:35 PM
Thankfully.. that is until the far-right succeeds in turning the U.S. into a theocracy... "curiously" is not grounds for a conviction... .. .
Any chance of you elaborating on that?

Quote
But it begs the question as to why no one on the right is prosecuting. .. If they had anything.. no doubt they would
Who would be doing this prosecuting?

Quote
The reality is that both side had issues with online donations and both sides corrected those issues.. Even when attempts were made by RedState.com editor Erick Erickson to illegally donate.. to OFA the contribution failed to clear.. ..

"For several days my bank listed it as processing. Then this is where the anti-climactic end to my story comes. The donation ultimately did not go through." -Erick Erickson

http://www.redstate.com/2012/10/08/the-obama-campaign-processed-this-donation/ (http://www.redstate.com/2012/10/08/the-obama-campaign-processed-this-donation/)

Quote from: Erick EricksonIt was thanks to the bank, not Barack Obama's campaign, that the donation did not go through.



Quote
When will you address the Canadian owned OdysseyRe corporation $1 million contribution to the Mitt Romney-affiliated Restore Our Future Super PAC.?
How about right now?  What would you like to know?  What do you not like about the donation?  The amount?  Was it legal?  What would you like me to address?


Quote
The bottom line is that these unlimited sums of money entering our election system is undermining the very Constitution that I swore to protect.. .. .
I would like real campaign finance reform, absolutely.  What would be your solution?
Title: Re: Palin in 2016
Post by: Crock Hunter on March 02, 2013, 11:57:23 AM
Quote from: JustKari on March 02, 2013, 05:32:08 AM
Please provide proof.

..  at your fingertips.. .. .. .

"The initial goal was to move thousands of Christian constitutionalists to South Carolina to accelerate the return to self-government based upon Christian principles at the local and State level. " - Christian Exodus.. (http://christianexodus.org/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=9&Itemid=37)

"I want you to just let a wave of intolerance wash over you. I want you to let a wave of hatred wash over you. Yes, hate is good... Our goal is a Christian nation. We have a biblical duty, we are called on by God to conquer this country. We don't want equal time. We don't want pluralism." Randall Terry, founder of Operation Rescue, in The News-Sentinel, Fort Wayne, Indiana 8/16/93

"So let us be blunt about it: We must use the doctrine of religious liberty to gain independence for Christian schools until we train up a generation of people who know that there is no religious neutrality, no neutral law, no neutral education, and no neutral civil government. Then they will be get busy in constructing a Bible-based social, political and religious order which finally denies the religious liberty of the enemies of God."
–Gary North, quoted in Albert J. Menendez, Visions of Reality: What Fundamentalist Schools Teach, Prometheus Books, 1993

"Christians have an obligation, a mandate, a commission, a holy responsibility to reclaim the land for Jesus Christ -- to have dominion in civil structures, just as in every other aspect of life and godliness. But it is dominion we are after. Not just a voice. It is dominion we are after. Not just influence. It is dominion we are after. Not just equal time. It is dominion we are after. World conquest. That's what Christ has commissioned us to accomplish. We must win the world with the power of the Gospel. And we must never settle for anything less... Thus, Christian politics has as its primary intent the conquest of the land -- of men, families, institutions, bureaucracies, courts, and governments for the Kingdom of Christ." From The Changing of the Guard: Biblical Principles for Political Action by George Grant, published in 1987 by Dominion Press

Title: Re: Palin in 2016
Post by: Crock Hunter on March 02, 2013, 12:06:43 PM
Quote from: JustKari on March 02, 2013, 05:43:31 AM
I am just waiting with baited breath at what whackjob site he will link for "proof",

As with all my posts.. I simply use facts gleaned from the real world.. ..
Title: Re: Palin in 2016
Post by: Solar on March 02, 2013, 12:12:02 PM
Quote from: Crock Hunter on March 02, 2013, 12:06:43 PM
As with all my posts.. I simply use facts gleaned from the real world.. ..
He is no more a representative of Christians than that of the Westboro Church.
I'm no Christian, but those that I do know think these people are freakin nuts.
Title: Re: Palin in 2016
Post by: AndyJackson on March 02, 2013, 12:23:18 PM
Quote from: Crock Hunter on March 02, 2013, 12:06:43 PM
As with all my posts.. I simply use facts gleaned from the real world.. ..
You wouldn't be one of those liberals who think that 4 or 5 silly Christian zealots means a threat of theocracy.......while you dismiss thousands of jihad speeches and thousand of jihad deaths as "just a couple fringe guys".....would you  ?

lol, a Christian theocracy is looming right around the corner.....but you're a racist if you worry about the muslim violence.  Yes, If you happen to be 5.
Title: Re: Palin in 2016
Post by: taxed on March 02, 2013, 12:23:39 PM
Quote from: Crock Hunter on March 02, 2013, 11:57:23 AM
..  at your fingertips.. .. .. .

"The initial goal was to move thousands of Christian constitutionalists to South Carolina to accelerate the return to self-government based upon Christian principles at the local and State level. " - Christian Exodus.. (http://christianexodus.org/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=9&Itemid=37)

"I want you to just let a wave of intolerance wash over you. I want you to let a wave of hatred wash over you. Yes, hate is good... Our goal is a Christian nation. We have a biblical duty, we are called on by God to conquer this country. We don't want equal time. We don't want pluralism." Randall Terry, founder of Operation Rescue, in The News-Sentinel, Fort Wayne, Indiana 8/16/93

"So let us be blunt about it: We must use the doctrine of religious liberty to gain independence for Christian schools until we train up a generation of people who know that there is no religious neutrality, no neutral law, no neutral education, and no neutral civil government. Then they will be get busy in constructing a Bible-based social, political and religious order which finally denies the religious liberty of the enemies of God."
–Gary North, quoted in Albert J. Menendez, Visions of Reality: What Fundamentalist Schools Teach, Prometheus Books, 1993

"Christians have an obligation, a mandate, a commission, a holy responsibility to reclaim the land for Jesus Christ -- to have dominion in civil structures, just as in every other aspect of life and godliness. But it is dominion we are after. Not just a voice. It is dominion we are after. Not just influence. It is dominion we are after. Not just equal time. It is dominion we are after. World conquest. That's what Christ has commissioned us to accomplish. We must win the world with the power of the Gospel. And we must never settle for anything less... Thus, Christian politics has as its primary intent the conquest of the land -- of men, families, institutions, bureaucracies, courts, and governments for the Kingdom of Christ." From The Changing of the Guard: Biblical Principles for Political Action by George Grant, published in 1987 by Dominion Press

What does this have to do with "the right"?
Title: Re: Palin in 2016
Post by: JustKari on March 02, 2013, 12:33:07 PM
Quote from: Crock Hunter on March 02, 2013, 11:57:23 AM
..  at your fingertips.. .. .. .

"The initial goal was to move thousands of Christian constitutionalists to South Carolina to accelerate the return to self-government based upon Christian principles at the local and State level. " - Christian Exodus.. (http://christianexodus.org/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=9&Itemid=37)

"I want you to just let a wave of intolerance wash over you. I want you to let a wave of hatred wash over you. Yes, hate is good... Our goal is a Christian nation. We have a biblical duty, we are called on by God to conquer this country. We don't want equal time. We don't want pluralism." Randall Terry, founder of Operation Rescue, in The News-Sentinel, Fort Wayne, Indiana 8/16/93

"So let us be blunt about it: We must use the doctrine of religious liberty to gain independence for Christian schools until we train up a generation of people who know that there is no religious neutrality, no neutral law, no neutral education, and no neutral civil government. Then they will be get busy in constructing a Bible-based social, political and religious order which finally denies the religious liberty of the enemies of God."
–Gary North, quoted in Albert J. Menendez, Visions of Reality: What Fundamentalist Schools Teach, Prometheus Books, 1993

"Christians have an obligation, a mandate, a commission, a holy responsibility to reclaim the land for Jesus Christ -- to have dominion in civil structures, just as in every other aspect of life and godliness. But it is dominion we are after. Not just a voice. It is dominion we are after. Not just influence. It is dominion we are after. Not just equal time. It is dominion we are after. World conquest. That's what Christ has commissioned us to accomplish. We must win the world with the power of the Gospel. And we must never settle for anything less... Thus, Christian politics has as its primary intent the conquest of the land -- of men, families, institutions, bureaucracies, courts, and governments for the Kingdom of Christ." From The Changing of the Guard: Biblical Principles for Political Action by George Grant, published in 1987 by Dominion Press

If you want to quake in fear of takeover from a group that no one has heard of, more power to you.  I hope you have a while to wait because Christ will return before that group ever gains traction.
Title: Re: Palin in 2016
Post by: Solar on March 02, 2013, 12:36:10 PM
Quote from: taxed on March 02, 2013, 12:23:39 PM
What does this have to do with "the right"?
They see no distinction, even though Terry's wife tends to lean left.
To them, the Tea party is nothing but a bunch of racists, and Jesse Jackson speaks for all blacks.

They only see black and white, yet claim it is the right that refuses to budge, when historically the Right is always the one giving up ground to leftists, which is why we're in the mess we're in.
Now, how is it possible that a Theocratic movement could possibly take place, when the country is abandoning God?

Boggled minds want to know. :laugh:
Title: Re: Palin in 2016
Post by: taxed on March 02, 2013, 12:39:58 PM
Quote from: Solar on March 02, 2013, 12:36:10 PM
They see no distinction, even though Terry's wife tends to lean left.
To them, the Tea party is nothing but a bunch of racists, and Jesse Jackson speaks for all blacks.

They only see black and white, yet claim it is the right that refuses to budge, when historically the Right is always the one giving up ground to leftists, which is why we're in the mess we're in.
Now, how is it possible that a Theocratic movement could possibly take place, when the country is abandoning God?

Boggled minds want to know. :laugh:

I was gonna say, it's not working very well...
Title: Re: Palin in 2016
Post by: Crock Hunter on March 02, 2013, 12:46:22 PM
Quote from: AndyJackson on March 02, 2013, 12:23:18 PM
You wouldn't be one of those liberals who think that 4 or 5 silly Christian zealots means a threat of theocracy.......while you dismiss thousands of jihad speeches and thousand of jihad deaths as "just a couple fringe guys".....would you  ?

No.. Though I do not disagree with you concerning silly Christian zealots..  I'm someone that takes threats seriously until if reality demonstrates otherwise.  Christian Exodus, Randal Terry.. and Fred Phelps are dangerous people.. Arrogantly ignoring zealots of any stripe can have serious consequences.. (http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/04/10/bush.briefing/)
Title: Re: Palin in 2016
Post by: AndyJackson on March 02, 2013, 12:49:58 PM
I don't think they (liberals) really believe most of what they say.

They're conditioned to say whatever they think will annoy, shout down, or derail their opponent (and the discussion). 

And they literally don't want any more than that, from what they're saying.

They are not trying to discuss, they are primarily trying to be little shits and gain some sort of advantage with it.
Title: Re: Palin in 2016
Post by: taxed on March 02, 2013, 12:52:39 PM
Quote from: Crock Hunter on March 02, 2013, 12:46:22 PM
No.. Though I do not disagree with you concerning silly Christian zealots..  I'm someone that takes threats seriously until if reality demonstrates otherwise.  Christian Exodus, Randal Terry.. and Fred Phelps are dangerous people.. Arrogantly ignoring zealots of any stripe can have serious consequences.. (http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/04/10/bush.briefing/)

I'd consider the lunatic.  Phelps?  Does he not belong to the same church that protests military funerals?  I wouldn't count on him getting too much support from conservatives.

Didn't Terry run for President this last election?  How'd he do?

Who else you got?
Title: Re: Palin in 2016
Post by: AndyJackson on March 02, 2013, 12:52:58 PM
Quote from: Crock Hunter on March 02, 2013, 12:46:22 PM
No.. Though I do not disagree with you concerning silly Christian zealots..  I'm someone that takes threats seriously until if reality demonstrates otherwise.  Christian Exodus, Randal Terry.. and Fred Phelps are dangerous people.. Arrogantly ignoring zealots of any stripe can have serious consequences.. (http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/04/10/bush.briefing/)

What precisely have Phelps or Terry done that equates to Islamic terrorism and murder  ?

Your attempt at equivalency is just a very slimy method of outright lying.

Can you elaborate on "Christian Exodus" ?
Title: Re: Palin in 2016
Post by: Crock Hunter on March 02, 2013, 12:53:36 PM
Quote from: Solar on March 02, 2013, 12:36:10 PM

Now, how is it possible that a Theocratic movement could possibly take place, when the country is abandoning God?

Boggled minds want to know.

Abandoning??

Rasmussen: 79% Believe Jesus Christ Rose from the Dead (http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/lifestyle/holidays/april_2009/79_believe_jesus_christ_rose_from_the_dead)
Title: Re: Palin in 2016
Post by: Crock Hunter on March 02, 2013, 12:56:47 PM
Quote from: AndyJackson on March 02, 2013, 12:52:58 PM

Can you elaborate on "Christian Exodus" ?

Link - "Christian Exodus" (http://christianexodus.org/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=9&Itemid=37)
Title: Re: Palin in 2016
Post by: taxed on March 02, 2013, 12:57:14 PM
Quote from: Crock Hunter on March 02, 2013, 12:53:36 PM
Abandoning??

Rasmussen: 79% Believe Jesus Christ Rose from the Dead (http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/lifestyle/holidays/april_2009/79_believe_jesus_christ_rose_from_the_dead)

http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/news/religion/2011-01-27-1Amuslim27_ST_N.htm (http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/news/religion/2011-01-27-1Amuslim27_ST_N.htm)
Title: Re: Palin in 2016
Post by: AndyJackson on March 02, 2013, 01:00:07 PM
uhhhhh...you found a Christian themed website / community......and this is a threat.....while you and your ilk pretend that Muslim terrorism is just racism or paranoia on someone else's part  ?

You're not trying to discuss, you're just endeavoring to annoy and obfuscate.
Title: Re: Palin in 2016
Post by: Crock Hunter on March 02, 2013, 01:04:42 PM

Quote from: AndyJackson on March 02, 2013, 12:52:58 PM
What precisely have Phelps or Terry done that equates to Islamic terrorism and murder  ?

Your attempt at equivalency is just a very slimy method of outright lying.

I offered no equivalency... I said... "Arrogantly ignoring zealots of any stripe can have serious consequences.. "  The point obviously was that ignoring radical Islamic terrorists allowed them to spread and strengthen.. Internal threats.. (a push for Theocracy) should be taken just as serious.

Title: Re: Palin in 2016
Post by: Crock Hunter on March 02, 2013, 01:32:00 PM
Quote from: taxed on March 02, 2013, 12:57:14 PM
http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/news/religion/2011-01-27-1Amuslim27_ST_N.htm (http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/news/religion/2011-01-27-1Amuslim27_ST_N.htm)

Today U.S. population = 311 million.. .Muslim population today = 6, 580,000
That's  2.1% Muslim

The projected U.S. population in 20 years is 361,680,000... ..  Your article says that our Muslim population will double.. that's 13,160,000 for a percentage of 3.6%...

A 1.5% increase over 20 years... for scale... Our Hispanic population increases about 2.5% a year.. ..

That aside.. .. . Islam, Judaism  and Christianity are Abrahamic religions.. They worship the same God... . .. and that is the primary reason your comment " when the country is abandoning God?" fails once you process the facts.

Title: Re: Palin in 2016
Post by: Crock Hunter on March 02, 2013, 01:38:31 PM
Quote from: AndyJackson on March 02, 2013, 01:00:07 PM
uhhhhh...you found a Christian themed website / community......and this is a threat.....while you and your ilk pretend that Muslim terrorism is just racism or paranoia on someone else's part  ?

I can only go by their own words... Their "Theme" as stated.. is to replace the existing government with their version of a theocracy..  I take all terrorists threat very serious.. but I fear domestic terrorists more..


Quote from: AndyJackson on March 02, 2013, 01:00:07 PM
You're not trying to discuss, you're just endeavoring to annoy and obfuscate.

How's that.. I offer a rebuttal or a comment and most often provide supporting documents and/or figures ...  Facts may be annoying..but they do not obfuscate.
Title: Re: Palin in 2016
Post by: taxed on March 02, 2013, 01:45:24 PM
Quote from: Crock Hunter on March 02, 2013, 01:32:00 PM
Today U.S. population = 311 million.. .Muslim population today = 6, 580,000
That's  2.1% Muslim
Yup.

Quote
The projected U.S. population in 20 years is 361,680,000... ..  Your article says that our Muslim population will double.. that's 13,160,000 for a percentage of 3.6%...
Yup.

Quote
A 1.5% increase over 20 years... for scale... Our Hispanic population increases about 2.5% a year.. ..
Yes, but they aren't dangerous as muzzies.  Sure, they bring their 3rd world diseases and problems, and leech off the tax payers, but they haven't run too many planes into our buildings.


Quote
That aside.. .. . Islam, Judaism  and Christianity are Abrahamic religions.. They worship the same God... . .. and that is the primary reason your comment " when the country is abandoning God?" fails once you process the facts.

http://www.christianpost.com/news/the-latest-pew-survey-christianity-losing-secularism-winning-83325/ (http://www.christianpost.com/news/the-latest-pew-survey-christianity-losing-secularism-winning-83325/)


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christianity_in_the_United_States (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christianity_in_the_United_States)
QuoteChristianity is the most popular religion in the United States, with around 73% of polled Americans identifying themselves as Christian in 2012.[1] This is down from 86% in 1990, and slightly lower than 78.6% in 2001.[2] About 62% of those polled claim to be members of a church congregation.[3] In the mid-1990s the United States had the largest Christian population on earth, with 224 million Christians.


Do you call that an upward trend?
Title: Re: Palin in 2016
Post by: Solar on March 02, 2013, 01:46:47 PM
Quote from: AndyJackson on March 02, 2013, 12:52:58 PM
What precisely have Phelps or Terry done that equates to Islamic terrorism and murder  ?

Your attempt at equivalency is just a very slimy method of outright lying.

Can you elaborate on "Christian Exodus" ?
They hate liberals because they condone murder of babies? :laugh:
How dare those radicals go against liberalism and their eugenics way.
Title: Re: Palin in 2016
Post by: Solar on March 02, 2013, 01:48:45 PM
Quote from: Crock Hunter on March 02, 2013, 12:53:36 PM
Abandoning??

Rasmussen: 79% Believe Jesus Christ Rose from the Dead (http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/lifestyle/holidays/april_2009/79_believe_jesus_christ_rose_from_the_dead)
Which has what to do with theocracy?
I can appreciate your need to defend what you wrote, but you may want to quit while you're behind. :wink:
Title: Re: Palin in 2016
Post by: Solar on March 02, 2013, 01:51:10 PM
Quote from: Crock Hunter on March 02, 2013, 01:04:42 PM
I offered no equivalency... I said... "Arrogantly ignoring zealots of any stripe can have serious consequences.. "  The point obviously was that ignoring radical Islamic terrorists allowed them to spread and strengthen.. Internal threats.. (a push for Theocracy) should be taken just as serious.
Again, show us some comparative proof that US Christians believe in murdering in the name of their Deity.
Title: Re: Palin in 2016
Post by: Crock Hunter on March 02, 2013, 02:02:45 PM
Quote from: taxed on March 02, 2013, 01:45:24 PM
Do you call that an upward trend?

Nope.. My point was that 79% give or take a bit can hardly be seen as abandoning God.. but with their 2.5% a year increase those ..howjsay...  "3rd world diseases and problems, and leech off the tax payers" Hispanics are deeply religious and almost always Christian... ..
Title: Re: Palin in 2016
Post by: Crock Hunter on March 02, 2013, 02:04:50 PM
Quote from: Solar on March 02, 2013, 01:48:45 PM
Which has what to do with theocracy?
I can appreciate your need to defend what you wrote, but you may want to quit while you're behind. :wink:

Nothing.. I was responding to a completely different comment... but then you know that. 
Title: Re: Palin in 2016
Post by: Solar on March 02, 2013, 02:04:53 PM
Quote from: Crock Hunter on March 02, 2013, 02:02:45 PM
Nope.. My point was that 79% give or take a bit can hardly be seen as abandoning God.. but with their 2.5% a year increase those ..howjsay...  "3rd world diseases and problems, and leech off the tax payers" Hispanics are deeply religious and almost always Christian... ..
Do you see boogeymen in the Tea party as well? :rolleyes:
Title: Re: Palin in 2016
Post by: Crock Hunter on March 02, 2013, 02:06:47 PM
Quote from: Solar on March 02, 2013, 01:51:10 PM
Again, show us some comparative proof that US Christians believe in murdering in the name of their Deity.

I never said that they did..
Title: Re: Palin in 2016
Post by: taxed on March 02, 2013, 02:08:22 PM
Quote from: Crock Hunter on March 02, 2013, 02:02:45 PM
Nope.. My point was that 79% give or take a bit can hardly be seen as abandoning God.. but with their 2.5% a year increase those ..howjsay...  "3rd world diseases and problems, and leech off the tax payers" Hispanics are deeply religious and almost always Christian... ..

...and it's still on a downward trend.  Still, how can this country have almost 80% Christians, but not live in a theocracy?  If we were 80% muzzie, would we be as free as we are now?

What I'm asking is, why do you put Christianity and Islam on the same pedestel?  Muzzies are anti-American, treat their women worse than animals, are destructive, and worship a pedophile.  They'll wipe their ass with one hand while talking on a cell phone in the other.  Christianity is so much better for the world.
Title: Re: Palin in 2016
Post by: Crock Hunter on March 02, 2013, 02:08:38 PM
Quote from: Solar on March 02, 2013, 02:04:53 PM
Do you see boogeymen in the Tea party as well? :rolleyes:

I wouldn't call freighted, misinformed Senior Citizens boogeymen...
Title: Re: Palin in 2016
Post by: taxed on March 02, 2013, 02:10:19 PM
Quote from: Crock Hunter on March 02, 2013, 02:08:38 PM
I wouldn't call freighted, misinformed Senior Citizens boogeymen...

About what?
Title: Re: Palin in 2016
Post by: Solar on March 02, 2013, 02:11:11 PM
Quote from: Crock Hunter on March 02, 2013, 02:08:38 PM
I wouldn't call freighted, misinformed Senior Citizens boogeymen...
:lol:
I'm sure that made actual sense to you. :rolleyes:
Title: Re: Palin in 2016
Post by: Crock Hunter on March 02, 2013, 02:17:58 PM
Quote from: taxed on March 02, 2013, 02:08:22 PM
...and it's still on a downward trend.  Still, how can this country have almost 80% Christians, but not live in a theocracy?  If we were 80% muzzie, would we be as free as we are now?

What I'm asking is, why do you put Christianity and Islam on the same pedestel?  Muzzies are anti-American, treat their women worse than animals, are destructive, and worship a pedophile.  They'll wipe their ass with one hand while talking on a cell phone in the other.  Christianity is so much better for the world.

First .. thanks for taking our discussion seriously.. I don't seem to be getting that courtesy from everyone..

I find fault with all religions.. some worse than others... I don't not as you say.. put Christianity and Islam on the same pedestal..  and in some Islamic societies there are these atrocities that you mention.. But not in all...   When you paint all Muslims with such a broad brush as you do you are making the same mistake as do the radicals.... . .

As for Christianity being so much better for the world... yes.. in the same way as having a cold is better than having pneumonia..

Title: Re: Palin in 2016
Post by: taxed on March 02, 2013, 02:22:33 PM
Quote from: Crock Hunter on March 02, 2013, 02:17:58 PM
First .. thanks for taking our discussion seriously.. I don't seem to be getting that courtesy from everyone..
No problem.  You seem like a good poster so far.

Quote
I find fault with all religions.. some worse than others... I don't not as you say.. put Christianity and Islam on the same pedestal..  and in some Islamic societies there are these atrocities that you mention.. But not in all...   When you paint all Muslims with such a broad brush as you do you are making the same mistake as do the radicals.... . .

As for Christianity being so much better for the world... yes.. in the same way as having a cold is better than having pneumonia..
Help me understand what atrocities Christians commit, or how are they bad for the world.
Title: Re: Palin in 2016
Post by: JustKari on March 02, 2013, 02:44:09 PM
The link you posted about the %79, actually proves our point a bit.  This last Election cycle, the Democrats attempted to remove God from their platform.  At the DNC, they took a vote to put the mention of God back in, it was obvious from the croud that it did not pass, yet the chair called it passed.  Obviously the democrats are part of this alleged 79%, and even if they believe, they don't want God and politics to mix.

I don't want to live in a theocracy either.  We were given free will to choose to believe or not.  I will always hold that there is only one truth, but YOU should ALWAYS have the free will to choose to believe it or not.
Title: Re: Palin in 2016
Post by: Solar on March 02, 2013, 02:58:45 PM
Quote from: JustKari on March 02, 2013, 02:44:09 PM
The link you posted about the %79, actually proves our point a bit.  This last Election cycle, the Democrats attempted to remove God from their platform.  At the DNC, they took a vote to put the mention of God back in, it was obvious from the croud that it did not pass, yet the chair called it passed.  Obviously the democrats are part of this alleged 79%, and even if they believe, they don't want God and politics to mix.

I don't want to live in a theocracy either.  We were given free will to choose to believe or not.  I will always hold that there is only one truth, but YOU should ALWAYS have the free will to choose to believe it or not.
Well said Kari, and I agree, we are a Free society based on a law that prohibits a Theocracy (First Amendment), which makes the argument that we live under the threat that Christianity could take over the Govt. is ludicrous.

But with the way the left wants to claim the Constitution and Bill of Rights is somehow a living document to be changed at the whim of a nonexistent Democracy, does give credence of a threat of Sharia, especially the way they are welcoming them into the party.
Title: Re: Palin in 2016
Post by: Solar on March 02, 2013, 03:15:33 PM
Quote from: Crock Hunter on March 01, 2013, 01:35:35 PM
Thankfully.. that is until the far-right succeeds in turning the U.S. into a theocracy...

Quote from: Crock Hunter on March 02, 2013, 11:57:23 AM
"I want you to just let a wave of intolerance wash over you. I want you to let a wave of hatred wash over you. Yes, hate is good... Our goal is a Christian nation. We have a biblical duty, we are called on by God to conquer this country. We don't want equal time. We don't want pluralism." Randall Terry, founder of Operation Rescue, in The News-Sentinel, Fort Wayne, Indiana 8/16/93
From your link, Randall Terry ran as a Democrat for POTUS.
Damn those Rightwingnuts, they have even infected the Dim party! :rolleyes:

   
QuoteCatholic Online (www.catholic.org (http://www.catholic.org))

The campaign of Pro-life activist Randall Terry, who is running for the Democratic Party's nomination for President, has successfully launched graphic television ads in five Midwestern states to put the spotlight on the horrors of abortion.
http://www.catholic.org/national/national_story.php?id=44029 (http://www.catholic.org/national/national_story.php?id=44029)
Title: Re: Palin in 2016
Post by: taxed on March 02, 2013, 03:17:17 PM
Quote from: Solar on March 02, 2013, 03:15:33 PM
From your link, Randall Terry ran as a Democrat for POTUS.
Damn those Rightwingnuts, they have even infected the Dim party! :rolleyes:

   
He even got a couple delegates!
Title: Re: Palin in 2016
Post by: Solar on March 02, 2013, 03:22:12 PM
Quote from: taxed on March 02, 2013, 03:17:17 PM
He even got a couple delegates!
For the record, I like Crock, he may be young, but he's at least thinking, he's just been exposed to too many leftist talking points.
I do believe he will wind up being a Libertarian and eventually a Conservative.

It's for this reason I've been giving him a hard time, I want to challenge his ideas in hopes he comes to some enlightening moments on his own.
Title: Re: Palin in 2016
Post by: taxed on March 02, 2013, 03:23:18 PM
Quote from: Solar on March 02, 2013, 03:22:12 PM
For the record, I like Crock, he may be young, but he's at least thinking, he's just been exposed to too many leftist talking points.
I do believe he will wind up being a Libertarian and eventually a Conservative.

It's for this reason I've been giving him a hard time, I want to challenge his ideas in hopes he comes to some enlightening moments on his own.

Yeah, I like him...
Title: Re: Palin in 2016
Post by: supsalemgr on March 02, 2013, 03:34:42 PM
Quote from: Crock Hunter on March 02, 2013, 12:06:43 PM
As with all my posts.. I simply use facts gleaned from the real world.. ..

And do not address questions posed.
Title: Re: Palin in 2016
Post by: AndyJackson on March 02, 2013, 04:54:54 PM
Is crock hunter one of the locusts from that other site ?

It's like the Mariel boatlift....a bunch of criminals and lunatics coming ashore  !!
Title: Re: Palin in 2016
Post by: Bowhntr on March 02, 2013, 05:56:11 PM
Quote from: AndyJackson on March 02, 2013, 04:54:54 PM
Is crock hunter one of the locusts from that other site ?

It's like the Mariel boatlift....a bunch of criminals and lunatics coming ashore  !!

Yup! (to both BTW)
Title: Re: Palin in 2016
Post by: Crock Hunter on March 03, 2013, 03:13:16 PM
Quote from: Crock Hunter on March 02, 2013, 02:08:38 PM
I wouldn't call freighted, misinformed Senior Citizens boogeymen...
Quote from: taxed

link=topic=10005.msg115739#msg115739 date=1362262219

About what?

I'll be happy to point those out as we go along.
Title: Re: Palin in 2016
Post by: Crock Hunter on March 03, 2013, 03:14:58 PM
Quote from: JustKari on March 02, 2013, 02:44:09 PM
Obviously the democrats are part of this alleged 79%, and even if they believe, they don't want God  and politics to mix.

Nor did our Founders. .. . It is one thing to have our Constitution rooted in moral (Christian) values ..quite another for the church to have an active role in governing..

It was the Church of England's active role in government that
prompted the framers of our Constitution to take extra precautions
to minimize the church's influence over our governing bodies..


Quote from: JustKari on March 02, 2013, 02:44:09 PM
I don't want to live in a theocracy either.  We were given free will to choose to believe or not.  I will always hold that there is only one truth, but YOU should ALWAYS have the free will to choose to believe it or not.

Unless you're a Muslim living in America..  :rolleyes:
Title: Re: Palin in 2016
Post by: Crock Hunter on March 03, 2013, 03:16:21 PM
Quote from: taxed on March 02, 2013, 02:22:33 PM
No problem.  You seem like a good poster so far.
Help me understand what atrocities Christians commit, or how are they bad for the world.

Fewer today than in their bloody history. .. 

It was conversion at the point of a sword that swept Romanized Christianity across Europe.. I hear very similar sentiments in today's far-right rhetoric. 
Title: Re: Palin in 2016
Post by: Crock Hunter on March 03, 2013, 03:17:06 PM
Quote from: Solar on March 02, 2013, 03:15:33 PM
From your link, Randall Terry ran as a Democrat for POTUS.   

What does that have to do with religious zealots wishing to turn the U.S. into a theocracy?
Title: Re: Palin in 2016
Post by: Crock Hunter on March 03, 2013, 03:18:26 PM
Quote from: Solar on March 02, 2013, 03:22:12 PM
I do believe he will wind up being a Libertarian and eventually a Conservative.

There's no reason to be so insulting.. . :cool:..
But if we were to be truthful with ourselves.. something that right-wingers struggle to do... we are all liberal in some regards and conservative in others..

Quote from: Solar on March 02, 2013, 03:22:12 PM
I want to challenge his ideas in hopes he comes to some enlightening moments on his own.

Feel free to try.. On nearing retirement, I've had a lifetime of "enlightening moments" thanks to the simple fact that I do not reject reality..   Seems that that is a prerequisite for being Conservative.. ..
Title: Re: Palin in 2016
Post by: Crock Hunter on March 03, 2013, 03:19:37 PM
Quote from: supsalemgr on March 02, 2013, 03:34:42 PM
And do not address questions posed.

I see you perform the same duties on this forum as you did on the others...

You seem comfortable here on "the porch" .. .. . ?
Title: Re: Palin in 2016
Post by: Crock Hunter on March 03, 2013, 03:20:52 PM
Quote from: AndyJackson on March 02, 2013, 04:54:54 PM
Is crock hunter one of the locusts from that other site ?

I post and and have posted on many sites.. though none are dedicated to Entomology...

Quote from: AndyJackson on March 02, 2013, 04:54:54 PM
It's like the Mariel boatlift....a bunch of criminals and lunatics coming ashore  !!

Which line did you get in.. ??
Title: Re: Palin in 2016
Post by: Solar on March 03, 2013, 03:24:04 PM
Quote from: Crock Hunter on March 03, 2013, 03:17:06 PM
What does that have to do with religious zealots wishing to turn the U.S. into a theocracy?
Because you made the claim it was the far right wanting a Theocracy.
When the example you used is a lib/Dim running for POTUS under the Dim ticket.
Yes, Randall Terry is a Lib/Dem, not a Far Right zealot as you claim.

Quote from: Crock Hunter on March 01, 2013, 01:35:35 PM
Thankfully.. that is until the far-right succeeds in turning the U.S. into a theocracy...
Title: Re: Palin in 2016
Post by: Solar on March 03, 2013, 03:30:33 PM
Quote from: Crock Hunter on March 03, 2013, 03:18:26 PM
There's no reason to be so insulting.. . :cool:..
But if we were to be truthful with ourselves.. something that right-wingers struggle to do... we are all liberal in some regards and conservative in others..

Feel free to try.. On nearing retirement, I've had a lifetime of "enlightening moments" thanks to the simple fact that I do not reject reality..   Seems that that is a prerequisite for being Conservative.. ..
From your posts, it's obvious you are still wet behind the ears.
But still it is you that are ignoring reality, it is the left that is bankrupting the country, growing Govt, making it more intrusive into our daily lives.
Conservative, not Republicans want to reverse this action, put Govt back in the hands of the people, strengthen States Rights, whether they be liberal States or Conservative matters not, Conservatives want to cut the Govt in half and take away it's access to Fiat money.
Title: Re: Palin in 2016
Post by: taxed on March 03, 2013, 03:42:15 PM
Quote from: Crock Hunter on March 03, 2013, 03:16:21 PM
Fewer today than in their bloody history. .. 

It was conversion at the point of a sword that swept Romanized Christianity across Europe.. I hear very similar sentiments in today's far-right rhetoric.

Like what?
Title: Re: Palin in 2016
Post by: taxed on March 03, 2013, 03:43:15 PM
Quote from: Crock Hunter on March 03, 2013, 03:18:26 PM
There's no reason to be so insulting.. . :cool:..
But if we were to be truthful with ourselves.. something that right-wingers struggle to do... we are all liberal in some regards and conservative in others..

Feel free to try.. On nearing retirement, I've had a lifetime of "enlightening moments" thanks to the simple fact that I do not reject reality..   Seems that that is a prerequisite for being Conservative.. ..

May I ask what type of work you are/were in?
Title: Re: Palin in 2016
Post by: Crock Hunter on March 03, 2013, 03:53:52 PM
Quote from: Solar on March 03, 2013, 03:24:04 PM
Because you made the claim it was the far right wanting a Theocracy.
When the example you used is a lib/Dim running for POTUS under the Dim ticket.
Yes, Randall Terry is a Lib/Dem, not a Far Right zealot as you claim.

I see.. You're under the impression that there are no Conservative nut jobs calling themselves Democrats ... And you say I'm wet behind the ears..

Randall Terry is a pro-life, anti-gay, anti-Muslim Evangelical Christian. (http://www.terryinthehouse.com/). . yep.. sounds like the typical Lib/Dem to me.. ..  :rolleyes:

Ya see... that's that reality thing that I was talking about.. A Conservative has to be able to read the proof that ..Randall Terry is a pro-life, anti-gay, anti-Muslim Evangelical Christian. (http://www.terryinthehouse.com/) and think Lib/Dem... ..
Title: Re: Palin in 2016
Post by: Solar on March 03, 2013, 03:59:57 PM
Quote from: Crock Hunter on March 03, 2013, 03:53:52 PM
I see.. You're under the impression that there are no Conservative nut jobs calling themselves Democrats ... And you say I'm wet behind the ears..

Randall Terry is a pro-life, anti-gay, anti-Muslim Evangelical Christian. (http://www.terryinthehouse.com/). . yep.. sounds like the typical Lib/Dem to me.. ..  :rolleyes:

Ya see... that's that reality thing that I was talking about.. A Conservative has to be able to read the proof that ..Randall Terry is a pro-life, anti-gay, anti-Muslim Evangelical Christian. (http://www.terryinthehouse.com/) and think Lib/Dem... ..
FAIL! You were the one claiming Terry was a radical Right wing extremist BECAUSE of the aforementioned, I merely proved you are full of it.
Title: Re: Palin in 2016
Post by: Crock Hunter on March 03, 2013, 04:03:57 PM
Quote from: taxed on March 03, 2013, 03:43:15 PM
May I ask what type of work you are/were in?

I graduated with a Bachelor of Science in Electrical Engineering in 1974.  I spent my entire career in Automation, Instrumentation and Controls as a designer and programmer and in the last few years as the Controls Department Head for a local OEM..

I'm a musician .. one which you may have encountered if you're a live music fan in the Asheville/Charlotte/Greenville area... I enjoy restoring and using vintage musical instruments and vacuum tube amps.. .

What's your back ground ?? 

Title: Re: Palin in 2016
Post by: Solar on March 03, 2013, 04:12:18 PM
Quote from: Crock Hunter on March 03, 2013, 04:03:57 PM
I graduated with a Bachelor of Science in Electrical Engineering in 1974.  I spent my entire career in Automation, Instrumentation and Controls as a designer and programmer and in the last few years as the Controls Department Head for a local OEM..

I'm a musician .. one which you may have encountered if you're a live music fan in the Asheville/Charlotte/Greenville area... I enjoy restoring and using vintage musical instruments and vacuum tube amps.. .

What's your back ground ??
Yes, I remember you from LNF a few years back.
Title: Re: Palin in 2016
Post by: taxed on March 03, 2013, 04:22:10 PM
Quote from: Crock Hunter on March 03, 2013, 04:03:57 PM
I graduated with a Bachelor of Science in Electrical Engineering in 1974.  I spent my entire career in Automation, Instrumentation and Controls as a designer and programmer and in the last few years as the Controls Department Head for a local OEM..

I'm a musician .. one which you may have encountered if you're a live music fan in the Asheville/Charlotte/Greenville area... I enjoy restoring and using vintage musical instruments and vacuum tube amps.. .

What's your back ground ??

Software development since my late teens.  Started and sold a telecom company in my 20s.  Started a staffing and labor consulting company after that, and sold out a few years ago.  Been a real estate investor since 2005.
Title: Re: Palin in 2016
Post by: Crock Hunter on March 03, 2013, 04:29:20 PM
Quote from: Solar on March 03, 2013, 03:59:57 PM
FAIL! You were the one claiming Terry was a radical Right wing extremist BECAUSE of the aforementioned, I merely proved you are full of it.

Nonsense... See.. there's that reality thing that always trips you guys up.. .

Terry..being a Republican for a lifetime then FOR ONE YEAR listing as a Democrat (the DNC released a press statement to the effect that Terry was NOT a Democrat) then listing as an Independent the next year all the while proclaiming yourself to be a pro-life, anti-gay, anti-Muslim Evangelical Christian does NOT make you a Lib/Dem ..

Try to be realistic..
Title: Re: Palin in 2016
Post by: Crock Hunter on March 03, 2013, 04:31:53 PM
Quote from: taxed on March 03, 2013, 04:22:10 PM
Been a real estate investor since 2005.

Cool..  I just bought my second investment property just outside of Asheville.. Plan to do a little fix'n this spring and rent it out.. . .

Title: Re: Palin in 2016
Post by: Bowhntr on March 03, 2013, 04:33:49 PM
Quote from: Crock Hunter on March 03, 2013, 03:14:58 PM
Nor did our Founders. .. . It is one thing to have our Constitution rooted in moral (Christian) values ..quite another for the church to have an active role in governing..

Which "church" would that be...Baptist, Methodist, Catholic, Episcopal, LDS.  I did not know that "the church" was running in any upcoming elections.  Proof would be beneficial to you before making unsubstantiated claims.
Title: Re: Palin in 2016
Post by: taxed on March 03, 2013, 04:39:44 PM
Quote from: Crock Hunter on March 03, 2013, 04:31:53 PM
Cool..  I just bought my second investment property just outside of Asheville.. Plan to do a little fix'n this spring and rent it out.. . .

Good luck with it.  I do hope you have the stomach for it.  The more property you buy, the more conservative you'll become.
Title: Re: Palin in 2016
Post by: Crock Hunter on March 03, 2013, 04:44:12 PM
Quote from: Bowhntr on March 03, 2013, 04:33:49 PM
Which "church" would that be...Baptist, Methodist, Catholic, Episcopal, LDS.  I did not know that "the church" was running in any upcoming elections.  Proof would be beneficial to you before making unsubstantiated claims.

It was the paragraph following "quite another for the church to have an active role in governing.." that explains the comment. ..

"It was the Church of England's active role in government that
prompted the framers of our Constitution to take extra precautions
to minimize the church's influence over our governing bodies.." -CH

We don't want an official state church as was the norm during our founders's day... that is .. at least I don't . . . 
Title: Re: Palin in 2016
Post by: Crock Hunter on March 03, 2013, 04:52:32 PM
Quote from: taxed on March 03, 2013, 04:39:44 PM
Good luck with it.  I do hope you have the stomach for it.  The more property you buy, the more conservative you'll become.

As I said... "second" investment property.. So yes I have some experience in the matter.. but I don't see why that should turn me in to a Conservative.. I'm a Realist first.. i.e.. I don't struggle against reality..  but then we know that reality has a strong liberal bias..  :cool:
Title: Re: Palin in 2016
Post by: taxed on March 03, 2013, 04:54:41 PM
Quote from: Crock Hunter on March 03, 2013, 04:52:32 PM
As I said... "second" investment property.. So yes I have some experience in the matter.. but I don't see why that should turn me in to a Conservative.. I'm a Realist first.. i.e.. I don't struggle against reality..  but then we know that reality has a strong liberal bias..  :cool:

You will....
Title: Re: Palin in 2016
Post by: Bowhntr on March 03, 2013, 05:33:00 PM
Quote from: Crock Hunter on March 03, 2013, 04:44:12 PM
It was the paragraph following "quite another for the church to have an active role in governing.." that explains the comment. ..

"It was the Church of England's active role in government that
prompted the framers of our Constitution to take extra precautions
to minimize the church's influence over our governing bodies.." -CH

We don't want an official state church as was the norm during our founders's day... that is .. at least I don't . . .

Last time I checked this was America, we have no Church of England, and we have no church trying to take an active role in government.  Your paranoia and refusal to answer the question is noted.
Title: Re: Palin in 2016
Post by: Solar on March 03, 2013, 06:23:32 PM
Quote from: Crock Hunter on March 03, 2013, 04:29:20 PM
Nonsense... See.. there's that reality thing that always trips you guys up.. .

Terry..being a Republican for a lifetime then FOR ONE YEAR listing as a Democrat (the DNC released a press statement to the effect that Terry was NOT a Democrat) then listing as an Independent the next year all the while proclaiming yourself to be a pro-life, anti-gay, anti-Muslim Evangelical Christian does NOT make you a Lib/Dem ..

Try to be realistic..
Yet still, libs voted for him. Bloomberg did the same thing, and when he failed as a Pub, registered as an Independent.
But none of it matters, your need to paint the Right as extreme is a complete failure, when it is your side that's backing a Marxist.
Title: Re: Palin in 2016
Post by: taxed on March 03, 2013, 06:26:51 PM
Quote from: Solar on March 03, 2013, 06:23:32 PM
Yet still, libs voted for him. Bloomberg did the same thing, and when he failed as a Pub, registered as an Independent.
But none of it matters, your need to paint the Right as extreme is a complete failure, when it is your side that's backing a Marxist.

hahaha

No conservative would ever run as a Dem...
Title: Re: Palin in 2016
Post by: Solar on March 03, 2013, 06:27:23 PM
Quote from: Crock Hunter on March 03, 2013, 04:44:12 PM
It was the paragraph following "quite another for the church to have an active role in governing.." that explains the comment. ..

"It was the Church of England's active role in government that
prompted the framers of our Constitution to take extra precautions
to minimize the church's influence over our governing bodies.." -CH

We don't want an official state church as was the norm during our founders's day... that is .. at least I don't . . .
So then you admit your original point to paint the Right as extreme and pushing for a Theocracy was pure bull shit, designed to inflame.
Real bright, and you claim to be a realist?
Title: Re: Palin in 2016
Post by: Solar on March 03, 2013, 06:29:52 PM
Quote from: taxed on March 03, 2013, 06:26:51 PM
hahaha

No conservative would ever run as a Dem...
:laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh:
Exactly!!!! But then, apparently we don't see the same reality as he does. :rolleyes:
Title: Re: Palin in 2016
Post by: Yawn on March 03, 2013, 06:31:03 PM
Quote from: Crock Hunter on March 03, 2013, 04:44:12 PM
It was the paragraph following "quite another for the church to have an active role in governing.." that explains the comment. ..

"It was the Church of England's active role in government that
prompted the framers of our Constitution to take extra precautions
to minimize the church's influence over our governing bodies.." -CH

We don't want an official state church as was the norm during our founders's day... that is .. at least I don't . . .

Did you know that there WERE State Religions at the time? THAT didn't violate the Federal Constitution.

QuoteNine out of the original thirteen colonies had established state religions. The predominant religious groups back then were Puritans, Anglicans, Calvinists, Presbyterians, Congregationalists, and Baptists. source (http://faculty.ncwc.edu/mstevens/410/410lect10.htm)

Neither did the fact that in many cases, you had to swear an oath to the CHRISTIAN faith to run for office. Also, the "public" school system was created so as to spread a UNIFYING christian culture as new immigrants began to flood this nation.

Muslim mosques would NEVER have been tolerated among the colonists
Title: Re: Palin in 2016
Post by: Cryptic Bert on March 03, 2013, 06:39:39 PM
Quote from: Solar on March 03, 2013, 06:23:32 PM
Yet still, libs voted for him. Bloomberg did the same thing, and when he failed as a Pub, registered as an Independent.
But none of it matters, your need to paint the Right as extreme is a complete failure, when it is your side that's backing a Marxist.

Have you noticed that if you ask him what is a right wing extremist he gives vague answers and never mentions any actual polices or positions.
Title: Re: Palin in 2016
Post by: Solar on March 03, 2013, 06:43:03 PM
Quote from: The Boo Man... on March 03, 2013, 06:39:39 PM
Have you noticed that if you ask him what is a right wing extremist he gives vague answers and never mentions any actual polices or positions.
Yeah, I saw that.
This is why I say he's wet behind the ears, if he were as old as he claims to be, he would know the difference in a Pub and a Conservative.
Title: Re: Palin in 2016
Post by: anti-American on March 03, 2013, 08:09:51 PM
I like Sarah Palin a lot but, unfortunately, I don't think she has any chance of becoming president. The media decided they were going to destroy her and they did with brutal efficiency (she didn't help her cause though, I'll admit that). I'm not one to refrain from speaking my mind about my political opinions but there have been occasions when I wanted to voice my support for Palin but refrained from doing so because I knew I would be intensely ridiculed and my credibility would be undermined for supporting her. While the people I am usually around are young adults (who tend to be more liberal) I have taken just as much heat from young conservatives, including College Republicans, because I like Palin.
Title: Re: Palin in 2016
Post by: taxed on March 03, 2013, 08:49:52 PM
Quote from: American on March 03, 2013, 08:09:51 PM
I like Sarah Palin a lot but, unfortunately, I don't think she has any chance of becoming president. The media decided they were going to destroy her and they did with brutal efficiency (she didn't help her cause though, I'll admit that). I'm not one to refrain from speaking my mind about my political opinions but there have been occasions when I wanted to voice my support for Palin but refrained from doing so because I knew I would be intensely ridiculed and my credibility would be undermined for supporting her. While the people I am usually around are young adults (who tend to be more liberal) I have taken just as much heat from young conservatives, including College Republicans, because I like Palin.

I was never embarrassed of her.  I could just fall back on her resume and just challenge someone to find a politician who can beat it.  She pushed the largest infrastructure project in the world, and wrestled control of Alaska back from the corrupt oil guys.  Hussein worked at Baskin Robbins.
Title: Re: Palin in 2016
Post by: anti-American on March 03, 2013, 08:51:11 PM
Quote from: taxed on March 03, 2013, 08:49:52 PM
I was never embarrassed of her.  I could just fall back on her resume and just challenge someone to find a politician who can beat it.  She pushed the largest infrastructure project in the world, and wrestled control of Alaska back from the corrupt oil guys.  Hussein worked at Baskin Robbins.

Some people have no interests in facts when they have made up their mind that they hate somebody because the media told them to.
Title: Re: Palin in 2016
Post by: taxed on March 03, 2013, 08:53:16 PM
Quote from: American on March 03, 2013, 08:51:11 PM
Some people have no interests in facts when they have made up their mind that they hate somebody because the media told them to.

I talked to one of those type guys yesterday.  We talked for about 5 min... but there were other cars behind me so I had to take off....
Title: Re: Palin in 2016
Post by: walkstall on March 03, 2013, 09:17:52 PM
Quote from: American on March 03, 2013, 08:51:11 PM
Some people have no interests in facts when they have made up their mind that they hate somebody because the media told them to.


I turned the media off 10 years ago.  No TV and No Paper.   No media BS   :thumbsup:
Title: Re: Palin in 2016
Post by: Solar on March 04, 2013, 04:31:13 AM
Quote from: American on March 03, 2013, 08:51:11 PM
Some people have no interests in facts when they have made up their mind that they hate somebody because the media told them to.
Yes that's true, and they would vote for Husein no matter what.
Were not not concerned what some moron that takes their marching orders from the leftists, they would never vote for a Conservative anyway.

But be honest, if Palin were to come out swinging and kicking ass on the GOP with her firebrand style of take no prisoners, would you really look for a better candidate?
(I'm not just asking you, that's pointed at everyone)

It's time we stopped allowing the Leftist media select our candidates, especially when they tell you "she hasn't a chance, she damaged goods".
That's not something that originated on the Right, that was a leftist seed planted so you would think that.
Title: Re: Palin in 2016
Post by: JustKari on March 04, 2013, 06:14:10 AM
Quote from: Solar on March 04, 2013, 04:31:13 AM
Yes that's true, and they would vote for Husein no matter what.
Were not not concerned what some moron that takes their marching orders from the leftists, they would never vote for a Conservative anyway.

But be honest, if Palin were to come out swinging and kicking ass on the GOP with her firebrand style of take no prisoners, would you really look for a better candidate?
(I'm not just asking you, that's pointed at everyone)

It's time we stopped allowing the Leftist media select our candidates, especially when they tell you "she hasn't a chance, she damaged goods".
That's not something that originated on the Right, that was a leftist seed planted so you would think that.

Assuming the leftists and RINOs would somehow let her win the caucus and she made it to the big show, she would have my vote.  I think the caucus is our problem.
Title: Re: Palin in 2016
Post by: Solar on March 04, 2013, 06:26:53 AM
Quote from: JustKari on March 04, 2013, 06:14:10 AM
Assuming the leftists and RINOs would somehow let her win the caucus and she made it to the big show, she would have my vote.  I think the caucus is our problem.
Anymore, I would say the whole game is rigged from start to finish, but this last election proved that even the GOP can't out fraud the experts where elections are concerned.
Title: Re: Palin in 2016
Post by: Crock Hunter on March 04, 2013, 10:18:40 AM
Quote from: Bowhntr on March 03, 2013, 05:33:00 PM
Last time I checked this was America, we have no Church of England, and we have no church trying to take an active role in government.

It's important to remember that pre-revolutionary war colonists were British subjects and so under the jurisdiction of the Church of England.. . So my reply being about the founders and their disdain for a state sanctioned religion stands...
Title: Re: Palin in 2016
Post by: Crock Hunter on March 04, 2013, 10:22:52 AM
Quote from: Yawn on March 03, 2013, 06:31:03 PM
Did you know that there WERE State Religions at the time? THAT didn't violate the Federal Constitution.

As I noted.. my comments and about the founders and pre-revolutionary pre-Constitution British rule...
Title: Re: Palin in 2016
Post by: Bowhntr on March 04, 2013, 11:09:25 AM
Quote from: Crock Hunter on March 04, 2013, 10:18:40 AM
It's important to remember that pre-revolutionary war colonists were British subjects and so under the jurisdiction of the Church of England.. . So my reply being about the founders and their disdain for a state sanctioned religion stands...

I thought we were talking about turning modern day America into a theocracy?  Looks like your liberal argument is falling apart and you are confusing yourself.
Title: Re: Palin in 2016
Post by: Crock Hunter on March 04, 2013, 11:39:01 AM
Quote from: Bowhntr on March 04, 2013, 11:09:25 AM
I thought we were talking about turning modern day America into a theocracy?

We are.. and I gave you the example that our founders thought having a state religion was a bad idea... We should follow their example today don't you think?


Quote from: Bowhntr on March 04, 2013, 11:09:25 AM
Looks like your liberal argument is falling apart and you are confusing yourself.

That our founders rejected having a state sanctioned religion included in our Constitution is not a "liberal argument" .. it is a historical fact. 

Title: Re: Palin in 2016
Post by: Bowhntr on March 04, 2013, 11:43:55 AM
Quote from: Crock Hunter on March 04, 2013, 11:39:01 AM
We are.. and I gave you the example that our founders thought having a state religion was a bad idea... We should follow their example today don't you think?


That our founders rejected having a state sanctioned religion included in our Constitution is not a "liberal argument" .. it is a historical fact.

We are following their example today and you have yet to prove you original statement that somehow we are on the verge of NOT!
Title: Re: Palin in 2016
Post by: rstrong on March 05, 2013, 12:16:39 PM
Quote from: Solar on March 04, 2013, 04:31:13 AM
But be honest, if Palin were to come out swinging and kicking ass on the GOP with her firebrand style of take no prisoners, would you really look for a better candidate?

The birthers would have a field day.  The case against her being foreign-born is a thousand times better than it ever was for Obama.

Feb 11, 1964
Sarah Palin is born in the Yukon, Canada.

Today we're told that she was born in Idaho, and the family move to Skagway, Alaska three months later. (citation) (http://www.skagwaynews.com/051107GovPalinvisit.html) However...

Mar 27, 1964
The Good Friday Earthquake (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Good_Friday_Earthquake), the most powerful earthquake in U.S. history at a magnitude of 9.2, strikes South Central Alaska, killing 125 people and inflicting massive damage to the city of Anchorage, Alaska.  Several towns in coastal British Columbia, including Prince Rupert, Tofino, Port Alberni and Zeballos, suffer damage from tsunamis associated with the quake.  Skagway and Juneau are even closer.

Weeks later, when Sarah Palin is 3 months old, her family moves to the middle of this area.

But which is more believable?  That the Palin family decided to move to the middle of this remote disaster area just weeks after it happened?  Or that they had actually moved there months earlier and were caught in the middle of it?  This is important because...

1960s
We now know - from Palin herself - that the Palin family's regular hospital while living in Skagway, was in Canada. (citation) (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/03/08/palin-crossed-border-for_n_490080.html)  If she were born while her family lived in Alaska, then she was born in Canada.

2008-2013
Birthers claim that Obama's mother travelled half-way around the world - while about to give birth - in 1961 third-world travel conditions - to have her baby in a third-world country - for some unknown reason - and then travelled back half-way around the world - with a newborn baby - to be back in Hawaii before anyone noticed or recorded that she was gone - and to arrange for a local hospital to give Vital Statistics false information in time for them to put birth announcements in the local papers the same week Obama was born.

And then - for an unknown reason - given that he had American citizenship via an American parent, and a middle-class black kid - or any given kid - wasn't likely to be elected President - had a false birth certificate somehow put into government records.

Compare the credibility of this to a similar claim for Sarah Palin:  Her family moved to Alaska several months earlier than they claim - BEFORE the quake, rather than knowingly moving into the disaster zone.

No trips around the world and into Africa while pregnant and back with a newborn are required.  There's no forged birth certificate required - because she hasn't shown any birth certificate.  Nor have government officials verified its authenticity for the public - so there's no false government records required.

Nor have we seen birth announcements in the local papers, so there's no 49 year old conspiracy required.  A quick Google search reveals the Bonner County Daily Bee to be the local newspaper in Sandpoint (http://www.bonnercountydailybee.com/ (http://www.bonnercountydailybee.com/)) and a search of their archives shows no birth announcement for Sarah Heath (Palin's maiden name).

Her college records are sealed.  (citation) (http://www.eduinreview.com/blog/2008/10/sarah-palins-gpa-and-college-record/)  Some might wonder what she's hiding.  Especially since...

1988
Sarah marries Todd Palin.  Todd Palin's family came from Canada.  (citation) (http://www.cbc.ca/canada/manitoba/story/2010/04/19/man-palin-invite-hartney.html)

He was also registered as a member of the Alaskan Independence Party from 1995 to 2002.  Soon, Sarah Palin joined too.  (citation) (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alaskan_Independence_Party#Registered_members)  This is an organization that wants to withdraw Alaska from the Union to be an "independent" country.  Opening the door for it to join Canada.

2006
Agent Palin is elected governor of Alaska.  Canada is trying a different strategy regarding Alaska...

August 2008
Palin is selected as John McCain's running mate.

A constant barrage Obama birther claims keep the press misdirected.  They also ensure that anyone looking into Palin's birthplace is painted as a similar wingnut.

Palin's selection is a move that has been widely regarded as a mistake.  But were Palin's antics real, or calculated to do harm?

There were hints of the latter:  She constantly wore RED - a CANADIAN color.  She sounds a lot more like a Canadian than Obama sounds like a Kenyan.  If anything she talks like a character from Strange Brew, Bob McKenzie.

And then...

August 2008
Palin signs a bill authorizing the State of Alaska to award TransCanada Pipelines — the sole bidder to meet the state's requirements — a license to build and operate a pipeline to transport natural gas from the North Slope to the Continental United States through Canada. The governor also pledged $500 million in seed money to support the project

Even if it helps make America energy self-sufficient, it's still dependant on a Canadian pipeline.  Canadians are thankful for Agent Palin.

Her mission accomplished, Palin soon resigns her job as governor.

2012
Palin endorses Ted Cruz's senate run.  Ted Cruz was born in Canada.

The pattern continues, the more you look.

Title: Re: Palin in 2016
Post by: Bowhntr on March 05, 2013, 12:20:38 PM
Here we go again...looks like another from BDF has shown up.  You'd be better off to slink on back and stay in your sand box over there rwrong.....You're in the big leagues over here. 

Solar, you, taxed, and a few others are gonna have a ball with this idiot.

:popcorn: :popcorn: :popcorn:
Title: Re: Palin in 2016
Post by: Cryptic Bert on March 05, 2013, 12:26:45 PM
Quote from: rstrong on March 05, 2013, 12:16:39 PM
The birthers would have a field day.  The case against her being foreign-born is a thousand times better than it ever was for Obama.

Feb 11, 1964
Sarah Palin is born in the Yukon, Canada.

Today we're told that she was born in Idaho, and the family move to Skagway, Alaska three months later. (citation) (http://www.skagwaynews.com/051107GovPalinvisit.html) However...

Mar 27, 1964
The Good Friday Earthquake (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Good_Friday_Earthquake), the most powerful earthquake in U.S. history at a magnitude of 9.2, strikes South Central Alaska, killing 125 people and inflicting massive damage to the city of Anchorage, Alaska.  Several towns in coastal British Columbia, including Prince Rupert, Tofino, Port Alberni and Zeballos, suffer damage from tsunamis associated with the quake.  Skagway and Juneau are even closer.

Weeks later, when Sarah Palin is 3 months old, her family moves to the middle of this area.

But which is more believable?  That the Palin family decided to move to the middle of this remote disaster area just weeks after it happened?  Or that they had actually moved there months earlier and were caught in the middle of it?  This is important because...

1960s
We now know - from Palin herself - that the Palin family's regular hospital while living in Skagway, was in Canada. (citation) (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/03/08/palin-crossed-border-for_n_490080.html)  If she were born while her family lived in Alaska, then she was born in Canada.

2008-2013
Birthers claim that Obama's mother travelled half-way around the world - while about to give birth - in 1961 third-world travel conditions - to have her baby in a third-world country - for some unknown reason - and then travelled back half-way around the world - with a newborn baby - to be back in Hawaii before anyone noticed or recorded that she was gone - and to arrange for a local hospital to give Vital Statistics false information in time for them to put birth announcements in the local papers the same week Obama was born.

And then - for an unknown reason - given that he had American citizenship via an American parent, and a middle-class black kid - or any given kid - wasn't likely to be elected President - had a false birth certificate somehow put into government records.

Compare the credibility of this to a similar claim for Sarah Palin:  Her family moved to Alaska several months earlier than they claim - BEFORE the quake, rather than knowingly moving into the disaster zone.

No trips around the world and into Africa while pregnant and back with a newborn are required.  There's no forged birth certificate required - because she hasn't shown any birth certificate.  Nor have government officials verified its authenticity for the public - so there's no false government records required.

Nor have we seen birth announcements in the local papers, so there's no 49 year old conspiracy required.  A quick Google search reveals the Bonner County Daily Bee to be the local newspaper in Sandpoint (http://www.bonnercountydailybee.com/ (http://www.bonnercountydailybee.com/)) and a search of their archives shows no birth announcement for Sarah Heath (Palin's maiden name).

Her college records are sealed.  (citation) (http://www.eduinreview.com/blog/2008/10/sarah-palins-gpa-and-college-record/)  Some might wonder what she's hiding.  Especially since...

1988
Sarah marries Todd Palin.  Todd Palin's family came from Canada.  (citation) (http://www.cbc.ca/canada/manitoba/story/2010/04/19/man-palin-invite-hartney.html)

He was also registered as a member of the Alaskan Independence Party from 1995 to 2002.  Soon, Sarah Palin joined too.  (citation) (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alaskan_Independence_Party#Registered_members)  This is an organization that wants to withdraw Alaska from the Union to be an "independent" country.  Opening the door for it to join Canada.

2006
Agent Palin is elected governor of Alaska.  Canada is trying a different strategy regarding Alaska...

August 2008
Palin is selected as John McCain's running mate.

A constant barrage Obama birther claims keep the press misdirected.  They also ensure that anyone looking into Palin's birthplace is painted as a similar wingnut.

Palin's selection is a move that has been widely regarded as a mistake.  But were Palin's antics real, or calculated to do harm?

There were hints of the latter:  She constantly wore RED - a CANADIAN color.  She sounds a lot more like a Canadian than Obama sounds like a Kenyan.  If anything she talks like a character from Strange Brew, Bob McKenzie.

And then...

August 2008
Palin signs a bill authorizing the State of Alaska to award TransCanada Pipelines — the sole bidder to meet the state's requirements — a license to build and operate a pipeline to transport natural gas from the North Slope to the Continental United States through Canada. The governor also pledged $500 million in seed money to support the project

Even if it helps make America energy self-sufficient, it's still dependant on a Canadian pipeline.  Canadians are thankful for Agent Palin.

Her mission accomplished, Palin soon resigns her job as governor.

2012
Palin endorses Ted Cruz's senate run.  Ted Cruz was born in Canada.

The pattern continues, the more you look.

(https://conservativepoliticalforum.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi1076.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fw441%2FKrellkneen%2Ftumblr_m1vtviM5LP1qihztbo1_250_zpse97dc81c.gif&hash=963cd22d79cc4af7cf9fdffca970c5c6e0b56b9a)
Title: Re: Palin in 2016
Post by: Crock Hunter on March 05, 2013, 12:32:45 PM
Quote from: Bowhntr on March 05, 2013, 12:20:38 PM
Here we go again...looks like another from BDF has shown up.  You'd be better off to slink on back and stay in your sand box over there rwrong.....You're in the big leagues over here. 


Strange.. I'm here just to set the record straight.. . the facts that I post and link shouldn't be grounds for a ban.. ..  If your argument can't stand examination ..what does that say about your ability to reason other than it is sorely lacking..

If you don't allow for debate ..you don't deserve to call yourself a forum . . .
Title: Re: Palin in 2016
Post by: admin on March 05, 2013, 12:35:19 PM
Quote from: Crock Hunter on March 05, 2013, 12:32:45 PM
Strange.. I'm here just to set the record straight.. . the facts that I post and link shouldn't be grounds for a ban.. ..  If your argument can't stand examination ..what does that say about your ability to reason other than it is sorely lacking..

If you don't allow for debate ..you don't deserve to call yourself a forum . . .
So are you asking to be banned? Either stick to the thread topic, or take a hike, or I'll show you the door.
Title: Re: Palin in 2016
Post by: AndyJackson on March 05, 2013, 12:37:27 PM
Quote from: Crock Hunter on March 04, 2013, 11:39:01 AM
We are.. and I gave you the example that our founders thought having a state religion was a bad idea... We should follow their example today don't you think?


That our founders rejected having a state sanctioned religion included in our Constitution is not a "liberal argument" .. it is a historical fact.

The founders made sure that there would not be a state established religion.  Though there is NO
constitutional "seperation", only that the state would not have an official religion.

But in quote after quote and document after document, they made it clear that the country was founded on Judeo-Christian values, and the country and constitution would not survive an abandonement of the values that support the concepts of individual worth, liberty, and independence.

Once you let everyone define their own code of ethics (or lack thereof), there is no decency left to support equality, liberty, and freedom.

The US was designed, and the constiitution was created, to avoid both the state religion of England, and the too-powerful government of England....and all of the failed states before that, due to both of these issues.
Title: Re: Palin in 2016
Post by: Solar on March 05, 2013, 12:47:14 PM
Quote from: rstrong on March 05, 2013, 12:16:39 PM

Nothing personal, but due to a few trolls lately, all libs are being banned for a month.
Title: Re: Palin in 2016
Post by: Crock Hunter on March 05, 2013, 12:48:53 PM
Quote from: AndyJackson on March 05, 2013, 12:37:27 PM
in quote after quote and document after document, they made it clear that the country was founded on Judeo-Christian values, and the country and constitution would not survive an abandonement of the values that support the concepts of individual worth, liberty, and independence.

I don't disagree.. .  Would you agree that our Constitution also protects you from my religion and me from yours?
Title: Re: Palin in 2016
Post by: Crock Hunter on March 05, 2013, 12:51:05 PM
Quote from: Solar on March 05, 2013, 12:47:14 PM
Nothing personal, but due to a few trolls lately, all libs are being banned for a month.

So I take it your arguments are too weak to examine?

Title: Re: Palin in 2016
Post by: AndyJackson on March 05, 2013, 12:56:36 PM
Quote from: Crock Hunter on March 05, 2013, 12:32:45 PM
Strange.. I'm here just to set the record straight.. . the facts that I post and link shouldn't be grounds for a ban.. ..  If your argument can't stand examination ..what does that say about your ability to reason other than it is sorely lacking..

If you don't allow for debate ..you don't deserve to call yourself a forum . . .
Your first problem is waltzing in here to "set the record straight".  Who are you and who appointed you to this position ?

And you're certainly not setting anything straight by unloading your opinions, and linking to your favorite biased sites.

Just give your opinion, accept that this is all it is, and can the "your dum huh huh huh" stuff.  Ditto for all your little buddies.
Title: Re: Palin in 2016
Post by: walkstall on March 05, 2013, 12:56:47 PM
The air smells so much better now.

(https://conservativepoliticalforum.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi554.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fjj417%2FShar_dreamer%2FWild%2520Smilies%2Fbth_pepe.gif&hash=d0aaa7869963cbe8880ec9901d2e7e1b07fc5745)
Title: Re: Palin in 2016
Post by: taxed on March 05, 2013, 09:47:37 PM
Quote from: rstrong on March 05, 2013, 12:16:39 PM
The case against her being foreign-born is a thousand times better than it ever was for Obama.

The pattern continues, the more you look.

Try harder....
http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government/2012/05/17/The-Vetting-Barack-Obama-Literary-Agent-1991-Born-in-Kenya-Raised-Indonesia-Hawaii (http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government/2012/05/17/The-Vetting-Barack-Obama-Literary-Agent-1991-Born-in-Kenya-Raised-Indonesia-Hawaii)


I'm sorry I missed this thread, because you would have been fun.
Title: Re: Palin in 2016
Post by: Cryptic Bert on March 05, 2013, 10:21:29 PM
Quote from: taxed on March 05, 2013, 09:47:37 PM
Try harder....
http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government/2012/05/17/The-Vetting-Barack-Obama-Literary-Agent-1991-Born-in-Kenya-Raised-Indonesia-Hawaii (http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government/2012/05/17/The-Vetting-Barack-Obama-Literary-Agent-1991-Born-in-Kenya-Raised-Indonesia-Hawaii)


I'm sorry I missed this thread, because you would have been fun.

Asking a lib to put forth effort is like asking a lib to spend his own money...