Palin unleashes on Mccain team, admits why she held back in 2008

[240 is Back]

Lot's of hate in this thread...

Let me lighten it up with a pic of my imaginary wife...who just tonight, got my imaginary divorce when I learned she's an idiot.

what did she say/do to make you think she's an idiot?

[avxo]

wow..so you are saying that Obama has not been tough on terrorism??......is that what you are saying?..because if you are, then you are definitely the dumbest fuck who ever walked the earth

No. I was responding to your ridiculous assertion - which I highlighted when quoting your post. You wrote, “Obama has been tougher on terrorism than anybody.” That's simply not true. You can argue that Obama has been tough on terror, or tougher than other Presidents; I may even agree with you. But it's just flat out stupid to say that he's tougher than anybody - and it's a claim that's demonstrably false.

[Soul Crusher]

Under Sequester, U.S. Giving Islamists $500 Million
Investors Business Daily ^  | July 29, 2013 | Editorial

Posted on Tuesday, July 30, 2013 10:07:22 AM by opentalk

Mideast: The sequester has "cost jobs," says President Obama, and "gutted investments in education and science and medical research." But somehow he's earmarked $500 million for Hamas terrorists.



Circumventing Congress and with no fanfare, President Obama last week issued an executive order enabling him to send an additional $500 million directly to the Palestinian Authority in the West Bank — much of which you can bet will wind up going to the Iranian-backed Hamas terrorist organization.



According to Obama, "it is important to the national security interests of the United States to waive the provisions of" Congress' legislative restrictions "in order to provide funds . .. to the Palestinian Authority."



At the beginning of his first term, Obama promised close to $1 billion in aid to the Palestinian Authority, with then-Secretary of State Hillary Clinton pledging none of it would reach Hamas.



But the Hebrew-language newspaper Yediot Acharonot has documented that tens of millions of dollars in aid for the PA — from Israel — ended up being used by Hamas for weapons.


(Excerpt) Read more at news.investors.com ...

[Straw Man]

Who the hell pays attention to Obama the manufactured "President"?

Hate Democracy much ?

The majority of your fellow citizens voted for him twice so deal with it

[240 is Back]

Hate Democracy much ?

The majority of your fellow citizens voted for him twice so deal with it

the solution isn't to shit on obama... at this point, over the last SIX POTUS elections, you had a repub win 2 times (barely) and a Dem win 4 times rather comfortably. 

People can say "I'm conservative!" in plenty of polls, but looking at the last 6 elections, that speaks volumes

The solution is NOT to just shit on Obama... it's to come up with BETTER SOLUTIONS to the problems facing america. 

[avxo]

People can say "I'm conservative!" in plenty of polls, but looking at the last 6 elections, that speaks volumes

People are conservative, by an large. It's just that the meaning of the word has been twisted.

As for elections results, it's quite obvious that the GOP just isn't fielding the right people. They try to field people like Rick Santorum, Newt Gingrich, Sarah Palin and Rick Perry. People who focus on all the wrong things, targeting a small niche which they think they have a connection with. They focus on things like whether teenagers get sex education or not, on whether women should be able to have abortions or not, and so on, instead of serious issues. And when they lose, they go on a search for people who are more wrong...

The same applies, by and large to democrats. The names and topics change, but it's the same tune.

The solution is NOT to just shit on Obama... it's to come up with BETTER SOLUTIONS to the problems facing america.  

The solution is for us to demand real politicians, not carefully hair-sprayed and scripted archetypes who speak in loud booming voices for many minutes at a time but do so in 30 second soundbites but, ultimately, say nothing at all.

[240 is Back]

But the proof is in the pudding... whatever the cause, the Repubs are getting smashed in presidential elections.

Bush won twice, both times in very close elections that came down to ONE state with question marks. 

Obama and Clinton both won handily, twice, and Hilary is leading Chistie by 6 points in polls, and only a fool would say she doesn't have a decent chance in 2016. 

Repubs aren't winning the big election.   Whatever they're doing, nobody can say "it's working!"

[Soul Crusher]

But the proof is in the pudding... whatever the cause, the Repubs are getting smashed in presidential elections.

Bush won twice, both times in very close elections that came down to ONE state with question marks. 

Obama and Clinton both won handily, twice, and Hilary is leading Chistie by 6 points in polls, and only a fool would say she doesn't have a decent chance in 2016. 

Repubs aren't winning the big election.   Whatever they're doing, nobody can say "it's working!"

The candy man always is more popular than the dentist

[avxo]

But the proof is in the pudding... whatever the cause, the Repubs are getting smashed in presidential elections.

No... not "whatever the cause". The result isn't what's important; the cause is.

Obama and Clinton both won handily, twice, and Hilary is leading Chistie by 6 points in polls, and only a fool would say she doesn't have a decent chance in 2016.

The 2016 campaign season isn't for another 2 years... it's silly to make predictions about who does and doesn't have a decent chance in Presidential politics two years into the future.

With that said, I don't think she has a chance and she won't be elected President. If for no other reason, she 65 today (and, more importantly, looks it) and she'll be 67 in 2015, and would be 72 by 2020... Age is a difficult disadvantage to overcome.

As for who's leading in the polls in 2013, does it even matter who leads the polls in hypothetical matchups a couple of years before the campaign season? Hint: it doesn't.

[240 is Back]

No... not "whatever the cause". The result isn't what's important; the cause is.


The 2016 campaign season isn't for another 2 years... it's silly to make predictions about who does and doesn't have a decent chance in Presidential politics two years into the future.

With that said, I don't think she has a chance and she won't be elected President. If for no other reason, she 65 today (and, more importantly, looks it) and she'll be 67 in 2015, and would be 72 by 2020... Age is a difficult disadvantage to overcome.

As for who's leading in the polls in 2013, does it even matter who leads the polls in hypothetical matchups a couple of years before the campaign season? Hint: it doesn't.

THe point is that TODAY, given 6 years of OBama bullshit, people are STILL saying they'd choose a DEM over a repub for Prez by 6 points.  Unbelievable to me.

Dems should be down by 15 points after all the crap obama has done - and dems LEAD?

[avxo]

THe point is that TODAY, given 6 years of OBama bullshit, people are STILL saying they'd choose a DEM over a repub for Prez by 6 points.  Unbelievable to me.

Because in their mind, Republican means Rick Santorum, Sarah Palin, Newt Gingrich, Rick Perry and Herman Cain.

Now, take me. I'm fairly conservative when it comes to the economy. The best way to describe me would be "right-leaning libertarian." When it comes to Obama, I don't like his policies, his politics or his approach to governing. I don't think he's particularly good or effective as President. And I couldn't and didn't vote for him in either '08 or '12.

But you know something? The prospect of President Santorum scares the hell out of me. Same with President Palin, President Gingrich, President Perry or President Cain. I couldn't and wouldn't vote for any of them either.

So it doesn't surprise me that the GOP continues losing elections. Their candidates are, by and large, horrible and I refuse to vote for horrible candidates, because if I do, I'll only keep getting horrible candidates in the future.

Perhaps this is naive of me. Perhaps by not voting, I only achieve one thing: letting others decide for me, and not prompting the party to change and get back to its roots and away from the religious right, the neo-con chickenhawks, the intellectually deficient cabal that is currently at the helm and the "patriots" - or, should I say, the largely mindless drones - that wave Tea Party^† flags.

But I don't have any other way of expressing my displeasure with the GOP. I wrote letters and they didn't listen. I stopped contributing and they didn't listen. I stopped voting and they haven't listened... yet.


^† I think that there was merit to some Tea Party positions in the beginning, but it too was co-opted by idiots and fringe political elements. As a result, it morphed into an extreme and rather ugly caricature of a movement. It's a pity, because it had the potential to really reshape the GOP.

[Soul Crusher]

Good post - cant argue w any of it 

Because in their mind, Republican means Rick Santorum, Sarah Palin, Newt Gingrich, Rick Perry and Herman Cain.

Now, take me. I'm fairly conservative when it comes to the economy. The best way to describe me would be "right-leaning libertarian." When it comes to Obama, I don't like his policies, his politics or his approach to governing. I don't think he's particularly good or effective as President. And I couldn't and didn't vote for him in either '08 or '12.

But you know something? The prospect of President Santorum scares the hell out of me. Same with President Palin, President Gingrich, President Perry or President Cain. I couldn't and wouldn't vote for any of them either.

So it doesn't surprise me that the GOP continues losing elections. Their candidates are, by and large, horrible and I refuse to vote for horrible candidates, because if I do, I'll only keep getting horrible candidates in the future.

Perhaps this is naive of me. Perhaps by not voting, I only achieve one thing: letting others decide for me, and not prompting the party to change and get back to its roots and away from the religious right, the neo-con chickenhawks, the intellectually deficient cabal that is currently at the helm and the "patriots" - or, should I say, the largely mindless drones - that wave Tea Party^† flags.

But I don't have any other way of expressing my displeasure with the GOP. I wrote letters and they didn't listen. I stopped contributing and they didn't listen. I stopped voting and they haven't listened... yet.


^† I think that there was merit to some Tea Party positions in the beginning, but it too was co-opted by idiots and fringe political elements. As a result, it morphed into an extreme and rather ugly caricature of a movement. It's a pity, because it had the potential to really reshape the GOP.

[240 is Back]

Because in their mind, Republican means Rick Santorum, Sarah Palin, Newt Gingrich, Rick Perry and Herman Cain.

For 75% of the republicans (AT LEAST), this is what they WANT in their President.   Seriously.