explain this to me.

We are told Sarah Palin comes across as uneducated and a poor communicator that does not say anything. And she has given no indications of seeking political office.

Then why are the Dems and Liberal meeting in a non-stop daily assualt on her?

Seriously, I always hear their is no substance to her speeches and her background is void of any significant experience. Would it not make more sense to just ignore her?

Because somehow she became a spokesperson for the greatest threat to the Dems control of Washington. By attacking and discrediting her, they attempt to further discredit the Tea Party.

(04-16-2010 12:58 PM)West Is the Best Wrote:  Then why are the Dems and Liberal meeting in a non-stop daily assualt on her?

Mostly because they hate her. Also because they see the effect she has on the people who like/agree-with/support/admire her, and they want to send a particular message ("F*ck you. Shut Up. Go to Hell.") not just to her, personally, but to all of "them", too.

Quote:Would it not make more sense to just ignore her?

Yeah, it would. But they can't help it. The reaction she inspires in people -- both in favor and against -- is more visceral/emotional than anything.

(04-17-2010 01:35 PM)Native Georgian Wrote:  

(04-16-2010 12:58 PM)West Is the Best Wrote:  Then why are the Dems and Liberal meeting in a non-stop daily assualt on her?

Mostly because they hate her. Also because they see the effect she has on the people who like/agree-with/support/admire her, and they want to send a particular message ("F*ck you. Shut Up. Go to Hell.") not just to her, personally, but to all of "them", too.

Quote:Would it not make more sense to just ignore her?

Yeah, it would. But they can't help it. The reaction she inspires in people -- both in favor and against -- is more visceral/emotional than anything.

Actually, she is just good comedy. In essence, she is a comedian. The reason you guys on the right like her is because you think with your dicks not your brain(or for her brains).

She's a serious threat. Not necessarily as an opponent in elections, but as a fundraiser and an overall attraction. She probably doesn't cause any real harm to the democrats, but she is that voice that doesn't mean anything but just can't be ignored (like J. Jackson).

(04-17-2010 03:29 PM)nomad2u2001 Wrote:  She's a serious threat. Not necessarily as an opponent in elections, but as a fundraiser and an overall attraction. She probably doesn't cause any real harm to the democrats, but she is that voice that doesn't mean anything but just can't be ignored (like J. Jackson).

Yes she is a threat. She is a threat to this country, this world and human survival.

(04-17-2010 08:05 PM)RobertN Wrote:  

(04-17-2010 03:29 PM)nomad2u2001 Wrote:  She's a serious threat. Not necessarily as an opponent in elections, but as a fundraiser and an overall attraction. She probably doesn't cause any real harm to the democrats, but she is that voice that doesn't mean anything but just can't be ignored (like J. Jackson).

Yes she is a threat. She is a threat to this country, this world and human survival.

I doubt that. I just don't like the fact that if she were to get into office, she would be just as far off of moderate as Obama. She would also be just as involved in congressional legislation (unconstitutional for anyone who has ever done it) as Obama. I know that everyone knows that two wrongs don't make a right, as seen with the Obama administration getting payback on Bush and the GOP. You just can't afford having a 3rd wrong in the White House.

(04-17-2010 08:23 PM)nomad2u2001 Wrote:  

(04-17-2010 08:05 PM)RobertN Wrote:  

(04-17-2010 03:29 PM)nomad2u2001 Wrote:  She's a serious threat. Not necessarily as an opponent in elections, but as a fundraiser and an overall attraction. She probably doesn't cause any real harm to the democrats, but she is that voice that doesn't mean anything but just can't be ignored (like J. Jackson).

Yes she is a threat. She is a threat to this country, this world and human survival.

I doubt that. I just don't like the fact that if she were to get into office, she would be just as far off of moderate as Obama. She would also be just as involved in congressional legislation (unconstitutional for anyone who has ever done it) as Obama. I know that everyone knows that two wrongs don't make a right, as seen with the Obama administration getting payback on Bush and the GOP. You just can't afford having a 3rd wrong in the White House.

This thread is getting to what really bothers me.

When Newt's Contract took back both houses of congress for the republicans in 1994, they had a tremendous opportunity to work with a president who was basically centrist and pragmatic. They could have done a lot of good, but they had to focus on Monica-gate to pay the democrats back for Watergate.
We've pretty much had nothing but payback, going both ways, ever since.
Paying the other side back has become more important than doing what the country needs.
I guess we're at least fortunate that time spent paying back has been time not spent implementing the republicans' theocratic agenda or the democrats' socialist agenda.

(04-17-2010 08:30 PM)RobertN Wrote:  

(04-17-2010 08:23 PM)nomad2u2001 Wrote:  

(04-17-2010 08:05 PM)RobertN Wrote:  

(04-17-2010 03:29 PM)nomad2u2001 Wrote:  She's a serious threat. Not necessarily as an opponent in elections, but as a fundraiser and an overall attraction. She probably doesn't cause any real harm to the democrats, but she is that voice that doesn't mean anything but just can't be ignored (like J. Jackson).

Yes she is a threat. She is a threat to this country, this world and human survival.

I doubt that. I just don't like the fact that if she were to get into office, she would be just as far off of moderate as Obama. She would also be just as involved in congressional legislation (unconstitutional for anyone who has ever done it) as Obama. I know that everyone knows that two wrongs don't make a right, as seen with the Obama administration getting payback on Bush and the GOP. You just can't afford having a 3rd wrong in the White House.

What do you think the goal was after securing both houses and the White House? It was to get 'em down and kick the crap out of them while they could. Such will be the goal of the GOP when they get it back.

(04-17-2010 11:44 PM)nomad2u2001 Wrote:  

(04-17-2010 08:30 PM)RobertN Wrote:  

(04-17-2010 08:23 PM)nomad2u2001 Wrote:  

(04-17-2010 08:05 PM)RobertN Wrote:  

(04-17-2010 03:29 PM)nomad2u2001 Wrote:  She's a serious threat. Not necessarily as an opponent in elections, but as a fundraiser and an overall attraction. She probably doesn't cause any real harm to the democrats, but she is that voice that doesn't mean anything but just can't be ignored (like J. Jackson).

Yes she is a threat. She is a threat to this country, this world and human survival.

I doubt that. I just don't like the fact that if she were to get into office, she would be just as far off of moderate as Obama. She would also be just as involved in congressional legislation (unconstitutional for anyone who has ever done it) as Obama. I know that everyone knows that two wrongs don't make a right, as seen with the Obama administration getting payback on Bush and the GOP. You just can't afford having a 3rd wrong in the White House.

What do you think the goal was after securing both houses and the White House? It was to get 'em down and kick the crap out of them while they could. Such will be the goal of the GOP when they get it back.

Really? Do you have evidence that this is the case or are you making **** up like Faux "News"? You don't have to answer that. I already know the answer.

(04-18-2010 12:27 PM)RobertN Wrote:  

(04-17-2010 11:44 PM)nomad2u2001 Wrote:  

(04-17-2010 08:30 PM)RobertN Wrote:  

(04-17-2010 08:23 PM)nomad2u2001 Wrote:  

(04-17-2010 08:05 PM)RobertN Wrote:  

(04-17-2010 03:29 PM)nomad2u2001 Wrote:  She's a serious threat. Not necessarily as an opponent in elections, but as a fundraiser and an overall attraction. She probably doesn't cause any real harm to the democrats, but she is that voice that doesn't mean anything but just can't be ignored (like J. Jackson).

Yes she is a threat. She is a threat to this country, this world and human survival.

I doubt that. I just don't like the fact that if she were to get into office, she would be just as far off of moderate as Obama. She would also be just as involved in congressional legislation (unconstitutional for anyone who has ever done it) as Obama. I know that everyone knows that two wrongs don't make a right, as seen with the Obama administration getting payback on Bush and the GOP. You just can't afford having a 3rd wrong in the White House.

What do you think the goal was after securing both houses and the White House? It was to get 'em down and kick the crap out of them while they could. Such will be the goal of the GOP when they get it back.

Really? Do you have evidence that this is the case or are you making **** up like Faux "News"? You don't have to answer that. I already know the answer.

All it takes is simple observation. If they cared about starting a clean slate they wouldn't have gone to Obama so much to pimp legislation and checks and balances would've been observed for the first time in 10 years.

(04-18-2010 12:46 PM)nomad2u2001 Wrote:  

(04-18-2010 12:27 PM)RobertN Wrote:  

(04-17-2010 11:44 PM)nomad2u2001 Wrote:  

(04-17-2010 08:30 PM)RobertN Wrote:  

(04-17-2010 08:23 PM)nomad2u2001 Wrote:  

(04-17-2010 08:05 PM)RobertN Wrote:  

(04-17-2010 03:29 PM)nomad2u2001 Wrote:  She's a serious threat. Not necessarily as an opponent in elections, but as a fundraiser and an overall attraction. She probably doesn't cause any real harm to the democrats, but she is that voice that doesn't mean anything but just can't be ignored (like J. Jackson).

Yes she is a threat. She is a threat to this country, this world and human survival.

I doubt that. I just don't like the fact that if she were to get into office, she would be just as far off of moderate as Obama. She would also be just as involved in congressional legislation (unconstitutional for anyone who has ever done it) as Obama. I know that everyone knows that two wrongs don't make a right, as seen with the Obama administration getting payback on Bush and the GOP. You just can't afford having a 3rd wrong in the White House.

What do you think the goal was after securing both houses and the White House? It was to get 'em down and kick the crap out of them while they could. Such will be the goal of the GOP when they get it back.

Really? Do you have evidence that this is the case or are you making **** up like Faux "News"? You don't have to answer that. I already know the answer.

All it takes is simple observation. If they cared about starting a clean slate they wouldn't have gone to Obama so much to pimp legislation and checks and balances would've been observed for the first time in 10 years.

Pimp legislation? Please explain. (nice racist code word there buddy).

(04-18-2010 02:35 PM)RobertN Wrote:  

(04-18-2010 12:46 PM)nomad2u2001 Wrote:  All it takes is simple observation. If they cared about starting a clean slate they wouldn't have gone to Obama so much to pimp legislation and checks and balances would've been observed for the first time in 10 years.

Pimp legislation? Please explain. (nice racist code word there buddy).

That one of your funnier one Robbie.

(04-18-2010 02:35 PM)RobertN Wrote:  

(04-18-2010 12:46 PM)nomad2u2001 Wrote:  

(04-18-2010 12:27 PM)RobertN Wrote:  

(04-17-2010 11:44 PM)nomad2u2001 Wrote:  

(04-17-2010 08:30 PM)RobertN Wrote:  

(04-17-2010 08:23 PM)nomad2u2001 Wrote:  

(04-17-2010 08:05 PM)RobertN Wrote:  

(04-17-2010 03:29 PM)nomad2u2001 Wrote:  She's a serious threat. Not necessarily as an opponent in elections, but as a fundraiser and an overall attraction. She probably doesn't cause any real harm to the democrats, but she is that voice that doesn't mean anything but just can't be ignored (like J. Jackson).

Yes she is a threat. She is a threat to this country, this world and human survival.

I doubt that. I just don't like the fact that if she were to get into office, she would be just as far off of moderate as Obama. She would also be just as involved in congressional legislation (unconstitutional for anyone who has ever done it) as Obama. I know that everyone knows that two wrongs don't make a right, as seen with the Obama administration getting payback on Bush and the GOP. You just can't afford having a 3rd wrong in the White House.

What do you think the goal was after securing both houses and the White House? It was to get 'em down and kick the crap out of them while they could. Such will be the goal of the GOP when they get it back.

Really? Do you have evidence that this is the case or are you making **** up like Faux "News"? You don't have to answer that. I already know the answer.

All it takes is simple observation. If they cared about starting a clean slate they wouldn't have gone to Obama so much to pimp legislation and checks and balances would've been observed for the first time in 10 years.

Pimp legislation? Please explain. (nice racist code word there buddy).

Please, I'm blacker than Obama is (not just mentally, but genetically). But do you remember how Bush helped push through NCLB? Well at least that had bi partisan support. How often was Obama out there talking to people about healthcare? How many times did HE come up with his own plans for healthcare legislation (which in itself is wholly unconstitutional)?

(04-18-2010 04:48 PM)nomad2u2001 Wrote:  

(04-18-2010 02:35 PM)RobertN Wrote:  

(04-18-2010 12:46 PM)nomad2u2001 Wrote:  

(04-18-2010 12:27 PM)RobertN Wrote:  

(04-17-2010 11:44 PM)nomad2u2001 Wrote:  

(04-17-2010 08:30 PM)RobertN Wrote:  

(04-17-2010 08:23 PM)nomad2u2001 Wrote:  

(04-17-2010 08:05 PM)RobertN Wrote:  

(04-17-2010 03:29 PM)nomad2u2001 Wrote:  She's a serious threat. Not necessarily as an opponent in elections, but as a fundraiser and an overall attraction. She probably doesn't cause any real harm to the democrats, but she is that voice that doesn't mean anything but just can't be ignored (like J. Jackson).

Yes she is a threat. She is a threat to this country, this world and human survival.

I doubt that. I just don't like the fact that if she were to get into office, she would be just as far off of moderate as Obama. She would also be just as involved in congressional legislation (unconstitutional for anyone who has ever done it) as Obama. I know that everyone knows that two wrongs don't make a right, as seen with the Obama administration getting payback on Bush and the GOP. You just can't afford having a 3rd wrong in the White House.

What do you think the goal was after securing both houses and the White House? It was to get 'em down and kick the crap out of them while they could. Such will be the goal of the GOP when they get it back.

Really? Do you have evidence that this is the case or are you making **** up like Faux "News"? You don't have to answer that. I already know the answer.

All it takes is simple observation. If they cared about starting a clean slate they wouldn't have gone to Obama so much to pimp legislation and checks and balances would've been observed for the first time in 10 years.

Pimp legislation? Please explain. (nice racist code word there buddy).

Please, I'm blacker than Obama is (not just mentally, but genetically). But do you remember how Bush helped push through NCLB? Well at least that had bi partisan support. How often was Obama out there talking to people about healthcare? How many times did HE come up with his own plans for healthcare legislation (which in itself is wholly unconstitutional)?

HE didn't come up with his own plans for healthcare. HE let Congress do it. HE said what HE would LIKE to see but HE did not make "Obamacare". Actually, one of the most likely Republican presidential candidates probably had more of his ideas into the plan than Obama-and he didn't even know it. Mitt Romney. But go ahead, make false accusations.

(04-18-2010 05:08 PM)RobertN Wrote:  

(04-18-2010 04:48 PM)nomad2u2001 Wrote:  

(04-18-2010 02:35 PM)RobertN Wrote:  Pimp legislation? Please explain. (nice racist code word there buddy).

Please, I'm blacker than Obama

HE didn't come up with his own plans for healthcare. HE let Congress do it. HE said what HE would LIKE to see but HE did not make "Obamacare". Actually, one of the most likely Republican presidential candidates probably had more of his ideas into the plan than Obama-and he didn't even know it. Mitt Romney. But go ahead, make false accusations.

Nice duck there Robbie.

(04-18-2010 05:11 PM)Paul M Wrote:  

(04-18-2010 05:08 PM)RobertN Wrote:  

(04-18-2010 04:48 PM)nomad2u2001 Wrote:  Please, I'm blacker than Obama

HE didn't come up with his own plans for healthcare. HE let Congress do it. HE said what HE would LIKE to see but HE did not make "Obamacare". Actually, one of the most likely Republican presidential candidates probably had more of his ideas into the plan than Obama-and he didn't even know it. Mitt Romney. But go ahead, make false accusations.

Nice duck there Robbie.

Sorry, I didn't know he was a black man. I was wrong to conclude he was using it in a racist way. It just happens to be one of those "code words" that are used to try to mask racsim.

(04-18-2010 05:18 PM)RobertN Wrote:  

(04-18-2010 05:11 PM)Paul M Wrote:  

(04-18-2010 05:08 PM)RobertN Wrote:  

(04-18-2010 04:48 PM)nomad2u2001 Wrote:  Please, I'm blacker than Obama

HE didn't come up with his own plans for healthcare. HE let Congress do it. HE said what HE would LIKE to see but HE did not make "Obamacare". Actually, one of the most likely Republican presidential candidates probably had more of his ideas into the plan than Obama-and he didn't even know it. Mitt Romney. But go ahead, make false accusations.

Nice duck there Robbie.

Sorry, I didn't know he was a black man. I was wrong to conclude he was using it in a racist way. It just happens to be one of those "code words" that are used to try to mask racsim.

You just get funnier and funnier. Why don't you go ahead and fill us all in on the list of words a black man (can I say black? Never mind, you did. I'll put that one on the OK list) can use but the rest of us can't.

For the record, calling everyone else racist is a pretty good mask worn by racists.

(04-18-2010 05:26 PM)Paul M Wrote:  

(04-18-2010 05:18 PM)RobertN Wrote:  

(04-18-2010 05:11 PM)Paul M Wrote:  

(04-18-2010 05:08 PM)RobertN Wrote:  

(04-18-2010 04:48 PM)nomad2u2001 Wrote:  Please, I'm blacker than Obama

HE didn't come up with his own plans for healthcare. HE let Congress do it. HE said what HE would LIKE to see but HE did not make "Obamacare". Actually, one of the most likely Republican presidential candidates probably had more of his ideas into the plan than Obama-and he didn't even know it. Mitt Romney. But go ahead, make false accusations.

Nice duck there Robbie.

Sorry, I didn't know he was a black man. I was wrong to conclude he was using it in a racist way. It just happens to be one of those "code words" that are used to try to mask racsim.

You just get funnier and funnier. Why don't you go ahead and fill us all in on the list of words a black man (can I say black? Never mind, you did. I'll put that one on the OK list) can use but the rest of us can't.

For the record, calling everyone else racist is a pretty good mask worn by racists.

I am not saying that certain words are something one can say and one can't. I am saying that using such words in certain situations is a mask for what is really behind your thinking.