You can call her what you want. I just point out the obvious and ask that you give some thought to what/who you actually consider as a "victim". In my analogy if you did not get it, the rattle snake would not consider himself a victim. And it is in the nature of the rattle snake to strike in defense. If you poke at Palin, she is gonna strike back. If you want her to go away, stop poking her with your stick.

How many losing VP candidates go on to make a serious run for President? Let's have an adult discussion, your point is again diversionary.

I repeat. Palin is a fringe candidate. I support her 100%. I believe that she could win. It is a long-shot bordering on miraculous if she pulled it off. She is keeping her options open. She does not care about mass popularity. She talks to a core base of enthusiastic supporters like me. As a strategy, if she pulls it off, would be pure political genius. If she chooses not to run, she has lost nothing.

I heard Jimmy "The rent is too damn high" is running for President are you offering him your sage advise too? What is the difference that warrants Palin getting your attention but not Jimmy, that is my fundamental question. Can I get a direct thoughtful answer? I suppose not, so I draw my own conclusion and I think you fear Palin for some reason.

ace...frivolous questions from one with such blind fealty dont deserve thoughtful responses.

I suspect you would likely just twist and turn the direction of the discussion again...your trademark!

My opinion. Like I said I am a fan, I know why I comment about her, why do you? Do you take her seriously? Do you think she is more than a fringe candidate? Obliviously you do based on your responses here.

O.k. then stop worrying about my opinion and tell me yours. Start with why do you care about Palin? Why do you bother with her?

In my opinion Palin will not be a third party candidate. I see nothing that would indicate she has ever given that serious thought.

She has the same choices as anyone else, I don't get your point. Is the issue that you resent that Palin has options beyond what you presented above?

---------- Post added at 12:04 AM ---------- Previous post was Yesterday at 11:57 PM ----------

Of course my questions are frivolous, otherwise you would not be engaging me. I see a pattern. That aside, and even if you don't care and it is not about you in particular, I am really trying to understand the Palin phenomenon with people who don't like her, don't think she is serious, and don't fear her. Why does a professional writer need to write about what she is not gonna write about, illustrated in the OP? Why does a poster here start a thread asking people to join along with a boycott of commenting on Palin - why not just stop? What are the dramatics about?

Sarah Palin says she'd consider running as a third-party candidate in the 2012 presidential elections.

When asked by conservative radio talk show host Lars Larson about such a strategy, she responded, "That depends on how things go in the next couple of years," adding, "If the Republican Party gets back to that [conservative] base, I think our party is going to be stronger and there's not going to be a need for a third party, but I'll play that by ear in these coming months, coming years."

Palin considers third party run (w/audio) but success is unlikely - National populist | Examiner.com

As to further discussion with you, given that you are unwilling or unable to understand my explanation of why I believe she is deserved of media coverage and political discussions (she is not Chuck Baldwin, despite your lame comparison)..... and not a free pass to continually snipe behind her self-selected media outlets....Its not fear, ace. It is holding her accountable for her divisive words.

But as I said, given your blind fealty... there is no reason to continue.

I would rather read the latest Archie comic.

http://images.tfaw.com/covers_tfaw/400/no/nov100723.jpg

Barack Obama & Sarah Palin Clobber Archie & Reggie in Exclusive Preview - ComicsAlliance | Comics culture, news, humor, commentary, and reviews

Carry on, ace.

Edit: I misread. My goof.

ace, darling, i understand pretty well what's happening with the republican party.
it's easier to see when you aren't on your knees.
try it sometime.

that last post was over the line.

my apologies to ace & more generally.

i try not to allow exasperation to get the better of me, but sometimes i fall down.

She says what she believes and I agree with her most of the time. If you consider her words divisive, that is your issue. But, I am curious, how exactly would you hold her accountable? By hanging on to every word she says? By viewing every Youtube video she makes? By reading every Tweet she tweets? By reading every article she writes? By watching every interview she makes? By making pledges not to talk about her in February??? You folks have made yourselves perfectly unclear.

I am gonna not talk about Jessie Jackson next month.:confused:

---------- Post added at 07:18 PM ---------- Previous post was at 07:09 PM ----------

Palin went against the party establishment in Alaska. She went against the party establishment in her endorsement of Miller over Lisa "voter intent" Murkowski. The moment she was announced as VP candidate by McCain the party establishment was in shock. She has virtually no party establishment support inside the Washington belt way. She actually has net negatives among Republicans in polls, if you believe or give them credibility (which I don't). Perhaps, you can explain or elaborate on the comment you made.

Will,

I owe you an apology. After reading this thread, I have decided to join you and Dana. :)

No apology necessary, we just have different views. I suspect we'll still have plenty to butt heads on this month. :thumbsup:

Perhaps you misunderstand. If "talking about Sarah Palin" means regurgitating the tired, old argument and counter argument presented in this thread...I'm all for "Palin fasting". No offense to those participating. :)

Palin's PAC, SarahPAC is second only to Romney's PAC, Free &Strong AmericaPAC, among potential candidates for 2012.

That makes them players....whether either or both run or not.

But no, ace. I am still dont fear her.

I fear her being elected.

there's a lot of interesting stuff happening in the world---you know, that place that's not really covered by the american press.
and the past 24 hours have revealed pretty clearly---as if it were necessary---the accuracy of referring to the united states as a single party state with two right wings, and this not only because obama has decided to take the gloves off and dive into being a moderate republican, but also by way of the tepid responses from the united states to what's happening in egypt.

so far as the tea party is concerned, if they keep talking to audiences that do not accept their reality-optional approach, they'll destroy themselves quick-like:

Michele Bachmann's Tea Party overdrive mocked for Obama response | World news | The Guardian

speaks for itself.

Wow.... let me tell you...wow! :oogle:

Maybe a Tea Party–free month?

I see a Palin-Bachmann ticket in the making.

Dammit, that would be the best show on earth!

I don't dispute she is a "player", there are many "players" that are not going to run for President or have a realistic shot at winning. The more important question is what kind of power does she have or can she actually make a difference. And as I have communicated many times here and in other threads, Palin speaks to her base and her base already believes what we believe. When McCain picked her for VP on his ticket, he needed the Palin base to get energized - it worked but he lost independents due to the "financial crisis".

Although I will not support Romney in the primaries, he actually has a realistic shot at being the Republican Party nominee and a shot at beating Obama.

---------- Post added at 04:01 PM ---------- Previous post was at 03:56 PM ----------

A few times I have tried to emphasize the point that I don't fear certain people getting elected because the odds of it happening are so small it is not worth the concern. Do you think she could seriously threaten Obama in a general election? Do you think she has more than a long-shot chance of winning the Republican Party Nomination? If she runs as a third party candidate do you think that would hurt Obama or could possibly win? If the answers are no, why the concern? Like I have been stating, I just don't get it.

---------- Post added at 04:05 PM ---------- Previous post was at 04:01 PM ----------

Were you one of the folks trumpeting the end of the Republican party in 2008/09?

---------- Post added at 04:18 PM ---------- Previous post was at 04:05 PM ----------

Isn't it interesting that, at least based on my non-scientific observations, that a telecast meant for the internet targeting a faction of the Tea Party (who is the Tea Party Express anyway) gets just as much discussion in the media as a Presidential address to the world outlining his views of the state of the US and plans for the future?

Even here, we are not discussing an energy policy, war, global warming, governmental financial crises around the globe, growing political instability and a few important things specific to the US like unemployment, immigration, social security, health care costs going through the roof still, etc, etc, so if we stop talking about Palin and the Tea Party, what will we discuss?

{added}I stand corrected, there is a thread on Egypt and Tunisia.


---------- Post added at 04:20 PM ---------- Previous post was at 04:18 PM ----------

Would be better than Obama's empty happy talk.

I have never understood the hype or hate behind Palin. I do not believe she is the fool Liberals make her out to be, but I also do not believe she is the hero conservatives hope for. She seems to be aware of the issues, but has not shown herself to be a viable candidate for anything more than a TV show, nor has she shown herself to be tough enough for the office she held or the office people hope she will gain.

I can actually see the concern people have on both sides in respect to Palin becoming president. She is really not qualified for the presidency, and we now have a track record of electing such individuals.

For the record; I am a Libertarian, and I have attended a few tea party rallies. The first ones in 2009.

I think the concept of being "qualified" has never been defined and if we did come up with some objective threshold, I think it would even then be over-rated in terms of a President governing. Outside of being a functional adult all I need is honesty, ability to listen, strong core beliefs and a willingness to make decisions even if they are not popular. The real work of governing does not occur in the office of the President. Leadership is key for a President and that is a skill not learned at Harvard or other institutions of higher learning.

I should have said, 'In my opinion."
I agree with your point, but I believe a candidate for the presidency should have a proven track record of leadership and have shown some tangible results as an executive in the private sector. The attributes you listed are indeed crucial, but you also need to have the ability to follow through until the project is complete.
When Palin stepped down as Governor that was the end of her career as a leader, imo. I understand the reasoning behind her leaving, but that does not excuse the action.
I would also like to add that I think it would be a very selfish move if she were to decide to run for the office. There is no way she can win, and it would only distract from the viable candidates.

Democrats would be wise to back off of Palin for a while and let her regain some support in the next year, then CRUSH HER! But please don't. Call her all the names you can think of.

because what makes a good president of the united states is a lack of education coupled with a steaming pile of good ole class resentment served up petit-bourgeois victim style, preferably with american flags and vague bromides a plenty. that way the evil others can persecute the heroic but not real bright president and attention can be directed to that while the american system tanks altogether.
but what matters is that the reality-optional conservative set have an empty suit they can admire on the way down. that's key.

but what really matters is that the system tank in a regulatory environment that allows the people who bought and paid for the reality-optional sets astroturf political feel-good movement are not required to give up any of their shit.

so when the new feudalism comes and members of the reality-optional conservative set returns to their usual existential position as serf, they'll have idiot conservative lords they admire and memories of flags and bromides aplenty.

because that's what really matters. no competence, not knowledge, not ability. what matters is that the eternal victims have an Empty and Not-Real-Bright Leader that's just like they imagine themselves to be. someone they can look up to. someone they admire.

that's key.

I tend to agree, when she resigned I did not think she would ever be a serious candidate for President and I generally don't like when people quit a fight - but the way Palin characterized the issue in terms of "reloading" I understood. And even if she chooses not to run, she is following through on her pledge to work on her agenda, and I think her decision has proven to be very effective even if she never runs for political office in the future.

I think Palin stepped down as Alaska's Gov be cause she needed cash to fight legal battles she got herself into while Gov. Plus she wanted to cash in while the iron was still hot. Going back to Alaska and doing the state business would not have been nearly as profitable has putting her name on a couple of ghost written, lie riddled books.

I simply have a broader view of leadership than what you present. My study of great historical leaders, political and otherwise, indicates an emphasis on functional education rather than formal education. And even in the cases of exceptional I.Q. or formal education the ability to lead was more directly related to simplicity and an appeal to base emotion.

Systems are rarely the cause of a cultural or civilization's decline. In my study it has had more to do with the abuse of a system. So, if you argue that a failed system is one that is subject to abuse - I can see your point. Otherwise, I do not believe that it is possible to have a system that can not be subject to abuse or some other form of breakdown under certain conditions.

Yet, you fail to present an alternative. What is a better system? Who would you support running that system? It is far to easy for you to sit back and do what you do without taking an intellectual risk. That is something I do get.

---------- Post added at 06:53 PM ---------- Previous post was at 06:43 PM ----------

Why would you read her books? Or...did you read them...:orly:

The gambit has been sprung:eek: You either secretly admire and support Palin or waste your time reading her books. Or, you don't read her books and you rely on the regergitated musing of people with an agenda and are being used.:shakehead:

Which is it?

What kind of logic is that? I've read Mein Kampf too, doesn't mean I secretly "admire" Hitler. I've read Going Rogue and it's full of logic just like you used here with several out and out lies mixed in. Why you admire and respect a proven liar is not my problem it's yours.

Why did you read it? A simple question. If you answer the question you will understand the point.

Give an example of a lie in the book.

Again, give specifics...if you can...if you can support your claims. It is simple. Instead of addressing specifics we play games with ad-hominem attacks.

I have not read any book written by Obama and I never will because I thinks his rhetoric is empty and he is and has been politically motivated. Given what has been said about Palin and the fact that you don't even think she wrote anything opens your comments up to question. It is not my logic that is of concern, rather your lack of clarity - so again, which is it - was it just an exercise in you wasting your time? If so, why?

And, I am still trying to understand this thread. If you folks don't want to discuss Palin - stop. Why do we need an announcement? Why the theatrics? Why put so much energy into a person you don't even think can write her own life story.

You folks put yourselves into a logical trap and apparently don't even know it. But, yes, yes, yes, I know, I am the one with the problem. Got it.

I read a lot of things. I read the Turner Diaries several years before the Oklahoma City bombing. Using your logic that makes me a racists.

I could give you example, you'd make excuses... lets just save time. St. Sarah walks on water.

And yes you do have a problem. Your post in this thread alone show a complete inability to understand or process even basic logic. I mean seriously read what you wrote-

If I read something that contains theories or ideas I disagree with I'm wasting my time. What kind of logic is that?

Unsound.

I have not asked what you have read, I asked you why. There is a difference. If you ask me why I read a controversial book I could tell you why.

That is your twisted logic. If you re-read what I wrote you may understand the issue better. One of the choices was a waste of time or support. If it was a book of lies, written by a ghost writer - you clearly wasted your time, why did you make that choice?

Make it about me, I have clearly stated I am a fan and supporter of Palin. I have also stated that her appeal has had nothing to do with her persuading me intellectually rather that we share similar points of view and that there is an emotional trigger. O.k., I put my issues on the table, your turn.

You can answer simple questions directly or you can make your responses about Ace. Been done thousands of times and never changes anything. You telling me I have a problem is a waste of your time and won't stop me from confronting what I think are inconsistencies and lack of clarity.



You could just state why you read the book. Or, you could say, yes, reading the book was a waste of my time and initially I thought there may have been value in reading the book. But you did not for some reason, why?

---------- Post added at 10:10 PM ---------- Previous post was at 09:58 PM ----------

I have read many thing I disagree with, and I can tell you why I made the decision to read those things. I even read some things for pure joy or entertainment. The unsound comment is based on faulty assumptions you read into the questions presented. Now I question you - do you really not understand the point being made and you really believe based on what has actually been written, rather than faulty assumptions, what has been questioned has been done in a unsound manner? Is it possible that you don't understand? Is this all pretense for some other issue? It could be as simple as some here simply like making fun of and attacking Palin, if so why not say it.

I read opposing view points for many reasons. Often it's just to hear the other side of issues. In my opinion reading and listening to several sides on any issue is a good thing.

And if Palin has indeed mislead readers on a number of issues, I imagine it's a good thing to know about it, especially if her fans simply take such information at face value.

To tie this back in to the thread, it's this kind of thing that should make it obvious as to why it doesn't make sense to ignore the likes of Palin. If you have Palin and people like Bachman essentially communicating propaganda to the public, it's best to know about it and to know how wide and deep it runs.

To engage in political discourse, you need to know the issues, and you need to know what each faction is saying.

I think ignoring people like Palin and Bachman is a bad idea, because there many who listen to their every word.

Why did you read Palin's book? Is her point of view an opposing point of view or did she just lie? Why is it difficult to say that you think reading a book of lies is a waste of time? Was there actual value in reading her "opposing point of view"...oh I take that back..., her ghost writer's (according to you) point of view?

I suppose it was more of a ghost collaborator/co-author.

I'm not going to say I think "reading a book of lies is a waste of time" because I don't think that.

Ace your logic is completely lacking and done answering your questions. It's wasting my time and yours.

If?

What have you taken at face value based on what is in this thread?

With no specifics the above is pretty empty.

But, what would be the difference between Palin using "propaganda" and Obama using "propaganda"?

I can tell you that I pay attention to people with power and people I take very seriously. Most of the folks tap dance around the real issue - they fear Palin. Simple honesty is refreshing.

I don't engage issues or people I don't take seriously. And many of you confuse me on your responses to me, why waste time engaging Ace given all the problems he has.

{added} Have you notice that Ace has started to refer to himself in the third person? Wonder what that means?

There are people listening to every word from Louis Farrakhan he is generally ignored. There has to be more and we can't keep saying, paraphrasing, that she is an idiot and then say we can't ignore her.

It has become clear that the attacks against Palin are not about substance but more about undermining her credibility so less people will be inclined to want to listen to her. There is a real fear that her message actual may sell to a broader audience. Hence her strategy of keeping her options open and responding to every attack can prove to be very effective - and that is very ironic.

---------- Post added at 10:42 PM ---------- Previous post was at 10:37 PM ----------

What conclusion have you drawn from this information?

---------- Post added at 10:45 PM ---------- Previous post was at 10:42 PM ----------

Use your own words then.

I am not wasting my time, this has value to me. If you ask me what and why, I could give a honest, direct and understandable answer.

I'm not sure what you're asking.

"[Seniors and the disabled] will have to stand in front of Obama's 'death panel' so his bureaucrats can decide, based on a subjective judgment of their 'level of productivity in society,' whether they are worthy of health care."

-Sarah Palin on Friday, August 7th, 2009, in a message posted on Facebook

I don't know. Motive? Why do you ask?

I don't think everyone fears Palin. However, I will suggest that those who do may very likely have a healthy fear.

If I'm confused about something I'm engaged with, I tend to want to understand it.

Farrakhan isn't a high-profile public figure associated with a high-profile political movement, nor is he considering a run for the highest office in the country as a former governor and vice-presidential nominee. I'm curious as to why you'd bring up Farrakhan. Do you consider Palin a kind of Farrakhan?

The attacks against Palin tend to be about her credibility with regard to her message. The irony I tend to see is that she tends to deflect this into some attack on her right to free speech if not something else. She fails to adequately respond to questions regarding her credibility. The interesting thing is that this seems to lead her supporters to believe that this strengthens it. Talk about irony.

That she had help with the writing process. Major publishers publishing major works tend not to want to publish substandard writing.

i really dont understand what argument you're trying to make ace.
you appear to think that reading about opposing viewpoints opens you up to some kind of contamination. so that if you read enough you get infected and next thing you know the disease is manifesting itself and you're attending tea party rallies.

but that's just crazy.

what it appears to be is a backhanded rationalization for your own refusal or inability to engage with any viewpoints that aren't like your own.

and this some imaginary "gambit" you've sprung...it's funny stuff.

Are you implying that those who attend tea parties have something wrong with them, or are you just making the point that reading opposing viewpoints does not necessarily change your own views, but merely strengthen your understanding of an entire issue? If it is the latter and you were just making a point--I agree. I believe you are only hurting your overall argument if you are implying the former.

Always the Palin advocate, but why? Thread after thread I've watched you for the past couple of years. I can understand that you can agree with her platform. But what I've never seen addressed in any of these threads is: Why Palin? The traits you claim to admire belong to multitudes of women. Admiration and respect don't bestow her with credibility. What exactly is it that puts her above other Republicans in your eyes, or even Republican women?

You're there to defend her every move, faux pas, ignorance and her honor. You seem so passionate about it. What exactly does she bring to the table that deems her worthy of so much effort? What makes you think she'd be a great leader of this country?

I'd truly like to hear your honest, direct and understandable answer.