Is Sarah Palin a Secessionist?

[Ban Hammer 13,692]

So at this point in time, I'd vote for an EXPERIENCED President with an understudy VP than for an INEXPERIENCED President with a nanny VP (Bush Cheney redux).

Like I said... look where all that 'experience' got us. Relevancy and substance... quite a problem for some to accept as real.

just think where all that inexperience will get us if obama wins.

A fresh start perhaps? We'll see.

or fresh disasters.

[VisaJourneyLady 33]

I personally don't think that this is that big a deal, nor is her daughter having a baby. What's really scary is that people are once again being swayed to her for her looks and charm and totally overlooking her lack of substance.

If she was a Democratic candidate, you would be all over it.

Nah, it's too crazy to believe. Try finding the post where I accuse Obama of wanting sharia law or an Islamic republic in America. Good luck in finding it.

By contrast, I've seen a few libs on this forum who claim the Republicans want sharia law in America.

The Republicans don't want Sharia law, but they do want to remove the distinction between church and state. Case in point is teaching religious doctrine like the bible version of evolution, and neglecting to teach basic realities, like sex education.

This story definitely has substance and any American should at least be aware of her affiliation with this organization....and find out just where her loyalty stands with the U.S. of A..

It's laughable to believe Palin is trying yank Alaska out of the union. Loyalty? Is this where you start to question her patriotism? Have you now or have you ever been a member of the Alaska Independence Party?

If she was a Democratic candidate, you would be all over it.

You betcha!

She'd be called a ######, a witch and everything in between.

If that woman has had years of experience in government, she'd be called the representative of same old politics . And by none other than fellow democrats! You know, they're very big into fresh faces in politics and yes, different kinda politics.

Wow , Sarah Palin has proven that she could not only challenge but overcome establishment politics by challenging and then over throwing the incumbent of his own party!!

Wow! what feat! And all that without hanging on to a dirty big city political machine.

She indeed represents Change We Can Believe In !!!

Pssssst.....Metta.

Voting for a woman - just because she's a woman - I don't think that's what the suffragettes had in mind when they were marching for the right to have a say in government.

That right to vote is too 'hard earned' to throw it away. Whether you're female or male. Single issue voters; ethnic voters; gender voters - it's all 'low brain power' thinking.

I found all of the commentary on her pretty gross so far. Can she deliver a speech?? Of course she can, she's a woman, but she's been a politician for years. Lord, it's like she manages to put on a nice outfit, and read a teleprompter and everyone starts saying 'Now didn't the little lady do well!!'. All that nonsense distracts from the fact that true equality means that we pay no attention to her gender, and listen to her speech. A speech so full of anger, lies and misdirection that it made me seriouly doubt that the people cheering for her were listening to her at all.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

I personally don't think that this is that big a deal, nor is her daughter having a baby. What's really scary is that people are once again being swayed to her for her looks and charm and totally overlooking her lack of substance.

If she was a Democratic candidate, you would be all over it.

Nah, it's too crazy to believe. Try finding the post where I accuse Obama of wanting sharia law or an Islamic republic in America. Good luck in finding it.

By contrast, I've seen a few libs on this forum who claim the Republicans want sharia law in America.

The Republicans don't want Sharia law, but they do want to remove the distinction between church and state. Case in point is teaching religious doctrine like the bible version of evolution, and neglecting to teach basic realities, like sex education.

This story definitely has substance and any American should at least be aware of her affiliation with this organization....and find out just where her loyalty stands with the U.S. of A..

It's laughable to believe Palin is trying yank Alaska out of the union. Loyalty? Is this where you start to question her patriotism? Have you now or have you ever been a member of the Alaska Independence Party?

If she was a Democratic candidate, you would be all over it.

You betcha!

She'd be called a ######, a witch and everything in between.

If that woman has had years of experience in government, she'd be called the representative of same old politics . And by none other than fellow democrats! You know, they're very big into fresh faces in politics and yes, different kinda politics.

Wow , Sarah Palin has proven that she could not only challenge but overcome establishment politics by challenging and then over throwing the incumbent of his own party!!

Wow! what feat! And all that without hanging on to a dirty big city political machine.

She indeed represents Change We Can Believe In !!!

Pssssst.....Metta.

Voting for a woman - just because she's a woman - I don't think that's what the suffragettes had in mind when they were marching for the right to have a say in government.

That right to vote is too 'hard earned' to throw it away. Whether you're female or male. Single issue voters; ethnic voters; gender voters - it's all 'low brain power' thinking.

I found all of the commentary on her pretty gross so far. Can she deliver a speech?? Of course she can, she's a woman, but she's been a politician for years. Lord, it's like she manages to put on a nice outfit, and read a teleprompter and everyone starts saying 'Now didn't the little lady do well!!'. All that nonsense distracts from the fact that true equality means that we pay no attention to her gender, and listen to her speech. A speech so full of anger, lies and misdirection that it made me seriouly doubt that the people cheering for her were listening to her at all.

I think we've all come to expect polished pieces of political theater from candidates (except GWB of course - who has surely underwhelmed every expectation that people reasonably have of elected officials).

Of course that people are all gung ho about the quality of the rhetoric and not touching anything of substance tells me pretty much all I need to know.

[GaryC 7]

I personally don't think that this is that big a deal, nor is her daughter having a baby. What's really scary is that people are once again being swayed to her for her looks and charm and totally overlooking her lack of substance.

Hmmm.... Who does this remind you of? Oh yeah, this is why Obama is so popular. All charm and no substance.

[Ban Hammer 13,692]

I personally don't think that this is that big a deal, nor is her daughter having a baby. What's really scary is that people are once again being swayed to her for her looks and charm and totally overlooking her lack of substance.

Hmmm.... Who does this remind you of? Oh yeah, this is why Obama is so popular. All charm and no substance.

maybe that's why the dems are so pissed.

[SteveLaura 0]

Sarah Palin On The Issues

• Opposes stem cell research. (Aug 2008)
• Vetoed bill denying benefits to gays, as unconstitutional. (Aug 2008)
• Marriage only be between and man and a woman. (Nov 2006)
• Ok to deny benefits to homosexual couples. (Aug 2006)
• No spousal benefits for same-sex couples. (Jul 2006)
• Top priorities include preserving definition of "marriage". (Jul 2006)
• If legislature passed death penalty law, I would sign it. (Nov 2006)
• Teach creationism alongside evolution in schools. (Aug 2008)
• Supports teaching intelligent design in public schools. (Aug 2008)
• Global warming affects Alaska, but is not man-made. (Aug 2008)
• Opposed protections for salmon from mining contamination. (Aug 2008)
• Sue US government to stop listing polar bear as endangered. (Aug 2008)
• Opposes explicit sex-education programs. (Jul 2006)
• No issue stance [on foreign policy] yet recorded by OnTheIssues.org.
• Supported infamous "Bridge to Nowhere"; now criticizes it. (Aug 2008)
• Health care must be market-and business-driven. (Jan 2008)
• Visits Kuwait; encourages Alaska big game hunting to troops. (Sep 2007)
• Let military personnel know how much we support them. (Nov 2006)
• No issue stance [on immigration] yet recorded by OnTheIssues.org.
• Before selection, questioned role of vice president. (Sep 2008)
• Investigated for firing ex-brother-in-law in custody battle. (Aug 2008)
• We don't know what the plan is to ever end the war. (Aug 2008)
• Wants exit plan; also assurances to keep our troops safe. (Mar 2007)
• No issue stance [on welfare and poverty] yet recorded by OnTheIssues.org.

Some of these are now well-known. See link for more details.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

Sarah Palin On The Issues

• Opposes stem cell research. (Aug 2008)
• Vetoed bill denying benefits to gays, as unconstitutional. (Aug 2008)
• Marriage only be between and man and a woman. (Nov 2006)
• Ok to deny benefits to homosexual couples. (Aug 2006)
• No spousal benefits for same-sex couples. (Jul 2006)
• Top priorities include preserving definition of "marriage". (Jul 2006)
• If legislature passed death penalty law, I would sign it. (Nov 2006)
• Teach creationism alongside evolution in schools. (Aug 2008)
• Supports teaching intelligent design in public schools. (Aug 2008)
• Global warming affects Alaska, but is not man-made. (Aug 2008)
• Opposed protections for salmon from mining contamination. (Aug 2008)
• Sue US government to stop listing polar bear as endangered. (Aug 2008)
• Opposes explicit sex-education programs. (Jul 2006)
• No issue stance [on foreign policy] yet recorded by OnTheIssues.org.
• Supported infamous "Bridge to Nowhere"; now criticizes it. (Aug 2008)
• Health care must be market-and business-driven. (Jan 2008)
• Visits Kuwait; encourages Alaska big game hunting to troops. (Sep 2007)
• Let military personnel know how much we support them. (Nov 2006)
• No issue stance [on immigration] yet recorded by OnTheIssues.org.
• Before selection, questioned role of vice president. (Sep 2008)
• Investigated for firing ex-brother-in-law in custody battle. (Aug 2008)
• We don't know what the plan is to ever end the war. (Aug 2008)
• Wants exit plan; also assurances to keep our troops safe. (Mar 2007)
• No issue stance [on welfare and poverty] yet recorded by OnTheIssues.org.

Some of these are now well-known. See link for more details.

Excuse me... but isn't that basically a checklist of textbook Republican positions?

I guess we can throw working across the aisle out of the window.

Because of course - the only American citizens who matter are the ones who buy foam-hands and attend conventions.

[alienlovechild 75]

The Republicans don't want Sharia law, but they do want to remove the distinction between church and state. Case in point is teaching religious doctrine like the bible version of evolution, and neglecting to teach basic realities, like sex education.

You must thinking of another country like Ireland for example. No republican (not be confused with Irish republicans) said they wanted to remove the distinction between church and state. Feel free to find me a quote from a Republican party leader on that fib. Let's see those numbers on the percentage of U.S. kids who are taught creationism. It not a real national issue. Lastly, sex education is not a basic subject unless you require several hours of classroom time devoted to the use of condoms. The basic reality is millions of kids don't graduate or those that do can't read, write or handle the real basics.

American teachers and their unions are loyal Democratic voters so blame them for more of problems in schools than an hour (?) devoted to creationism which isn't widely taught anyway.

Edited September 4, 2008 by alienlovechild

[almaty 19]

American teachers and their unions are loyal Democratic voters so blame them for more of problems in schools than an hour (?) devoted to creationism which isn't widely taught anyway.

i recall they supported reagan 2 times.... is that your definition of loyal?

[HAL 9000 96]

So at this point in time, I'd vote for an EXPERIENCED President with an understudy VP than for an INEXPERIENCED President with a nanny VP (Bush Cheney redux).

Like I said... look where all that 'experience' got us. Relevancy and substance... quite a problem for some to accept as real.

just think where all that inexperience will get us if obama wins.

A fresh start perhaps? We'll see.

or fresh disasters.

That line of thought gave us Bush and Cheney. If correct, then Obama and Biden shouldn't be that big of a leap for you.

The Republicans don't want Sharia law, but they do want to remove the distinction between church and state. Case in point is teaching religious doctrine like the bible version of evolution, and neglecting to teach basic realities, like sex education.

You must thinking of another country like Ireland for example. No republican (not be confused with Irish republicans) said they wanted to remove the distinction between church and state. Feel free to find me a quote from a Republican party leader on that fib. Let's see those numbers on the percentage of U.S. kids who are taught creationism. It not a real national issue. Lastly, sex education is not a basic subject unless you require several hours of classroom time devoted to the use of condoms. The basic reality is millions of kids don't graduate or those that do can't read, write or handle the real basics.

American teachers and their unions are loyal Democratic voters so blame them for more of problems in schools than an hour (?) devoted to creationism which isn't widely taught anyway.

And I WONDER why.

[Ban Hammer 13,692]

So at this point in time, I'd vote for an EXPERIENCED President with an understudy VP than for an INEXPERIENCED President with a nanny VP (Bush Cheney redux).

Like I said... look where all that 'experience' got us. Relevancy and substance... quite a problem for some to accept as real.

just think where all that inexperience will get us if obama wins.

A fresh start perhaps? We'll see.

or fresh disasters.

That line of thought gave us Bush and Cheney. If correct, then Obama and Biden shouldn't be that big of a leap for you.

and if obama wins, it should give the bushbots someone new to whine about.

[HAL 9000 96]

So at this point in time, I'd vote for an EXPERIENCED President with an understudy VP than for an INEXPERIENCED President with a nanny VP (Bush Cheney redux).

Like I said... look where all that 'experience' got us. Relevancy and substance... quite a problem for some to accept as real.

just think where all that inexperience will get us if obama wins.

A fresh start perhaps? We'll see.

or fresh disasters.

That line of thought gave us Bush and Cheney. If correct, then Obama and Biden shouldn't be that big of a leap for you.

and if obama wins, it should give the bushbots someone new to whine about.

For a little while, I suppose so. Later they could realize that he's probably NOT raising taxes like the McCain campaign is saying incorrectly. And when that happens, the joke would have been on them for believing such nonsense in the first place.

[Ban Hammer 13,692]

So at this point in time, I'd vote for an EXPERIENCED President with an understudy VP than for an INEXPERIENCED President with a nanny VP (Bush Cheney redux).

Like I said... look where all that 'experience' got us. Relevancy and substance... quite a problem for some to accept as real.

just think where all that inexperience will get us if obama wins.

A fresh start perhaps? We'll see.

or fresh disasters.

That line of thought gave us Bush and Cheney. If correct, then Obama and Biden shouldn't be that big of a leap for you.

and if obama wins, it should give the bushbots someone new to whine about.

For a little while, I suppose so. Later they could realize that he's probably NOT raising taxes like the McCain campaign is saying incorrectly. And when that happens, the joke would have been on them for believing such nonsense in the first place.

that too remains to be seen, don't it?

[HAL 9000 96]

Which is probably why I write "probably NOT."

[Ban Hammer 13,692]

Which is probably why I write "probably NOT."

unless you have a crystal ball, it's presumptuous is it not?