I'm done with her
Find a Conversation
| Wed, 10-08-2008 - 2:01pm |
Well, I am not defending Sarah Palin anymore. I have tried to be neutral. I have suggested that if she did a good job the next 4 years in Alaska, that she might be a great Republican candidate. But after her attacks this week, I am done. When I hear interviews with people leaving her rallies saying they are "afraid" of Barack Obama, saying they were on the fence before, but now they are "terrified" if Obama elected. More and more people are calling him a terrorist. We've seen these changes on this board this week.
She's either an idiot, or she is content to lead with fear and further fracture our country. If she believes that for a second that Obama has a terrorist agenda, she's a dummy. I don't think she believes it, however. I think she is just throwing out the insinuations, letting people connect the dots, and come to the most vicious of conclusions. I've heard her lastest battle cry referred to as "red meat" speeches, where she is throwing raw meat to the savage dogs to work them into a frenzy, throwing chum in the water to stir up the sharks.
I can take this kinda crap from Hannity or Rush or Savage or any of the others. But she is trying to be the VP - NOTHING about her this week has been either Presidential or remotely classy. Will she use this same language about world leaders? Will she say the same about our Secretary of State when they meet with "unfriendly" leaders? Did Colin Powell or Condy Rice "pal around with terrorists"? They have certainly met with some of the most controversial leaders in the world.
I won't defend her any more. I will not, as a Republican woman myself, support her if chooses to run on '12. I will leave her to the dogs and let them attack. I am ready for REAL change, and this type of race baiting, this type of insulting, unpatriotic dialogue about a STANDING US SENATOR, is beyond insulting. I'm disappointed in her, in myself for supporting her, and this morning, as I listened to part of her speech, I actually threw up in my mouth a little. Her words, her tone, and the response she created was disgusting. I am done with her.
Edited 10/9/2008 4:00 am ET by lj_jacieb

Pages
I really don't think she approves of this behavior at her rallies
If she doesn't approve of what is said then why doesn't she say so? I have had parent's of children in that have used the "N" word and you can bet I say something to them. If I disagree with haltered that comes from someone I say something otherwise it basically means you accept what was said.
It sounds to me like you already have your mind made up
where?
i wouldn't be here if i didn't have an open mind, what else would someone be here for? for a fight? i see you changed your name.
-Kristen
<>
LOL, oh that is so funny! A protester is someone who holds a sign and maybe chants things, not someone who bombs things. So if someone bombs an abortion clinic they're merely a protester?
I don't know if you're interested but here's info about McCain's involvement with Keating.
''I met him in 1981 at a Navy League dinner in Phoenix. He was the state's largest homebuilder, a contributor to every charity in Arizona. He was very pleasant. He told me I was one of his heros. My wife and I saw him a couple of times that year, and when I announced I was going to run run for Congress, I went to him for financial support, and he helped me, in 1982, in 1984 and in my Senate campaign in 1986.''
''In those days, he didn't want anything from me,'' the Senator continued. ''He never asked me for anything of significance until the thing with the regulators.'' Encounter With the Regulators
When Mr. Keating asked Senator McCain to help him make a deal with savings and loan regulators to ease up on Lincoln, the request led to a thunderous argument between the two men outside the Senator's office on March 24, 1987, a week before the first of two meetings with the regulators.
The friendship never recovered, but Mr. McCain, for reasons he finds difficult to explain, ignored the advice of his staff and attended the meetings anyway.
He went, he says, not for Charlie Keating but because of the jobs Mr. Keating's American Continental Corporation provided in Arizona, because, he says, it appeared that regulators were unfairly giving Lincoln Savings a hard time. He relied, he says, on an accounting report, signed by no less an economic emminence than Alan Greenspan, then a consultant, now the chairman of the Federal Reserve Board. Nobody twisted his arm, he said. The Bahamas and Wife's Trip
''I was very, very concerned about the appearance of the meetings before I went,'' he said. ''I'm a big boy. I made the decision.'' His first real effort to explain came at a Phoenix news conference a week after The Arizona Republic reported that he and his family had vacationed at Mr. Keating's home in the Bahamas in 1984, 1985 and 1986, and had only belatedly reimbursed the developer's company for flights there on the corporate jet.
The paper also reported that the Senator's wife, Cindy, and her father, a wealthy beer distributor and prominent Phoenix businessman, invested $359,100 from their own comapny in a Keating shopping center partnership in 1986.
Senator McCain said he was unaware that some of the personal flights had not been paid for until Mr. Keating's accountants brought them to his attention in March 1989. He made the reimbursements in May and June.
His wife has a right to her own career, he said, noting that under a prenuptual agreement their finances are separate and the investment had been reported on his Senate financial disclosure forms for three years. Editor Was a Convert
http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=950DE6DF1031F931A15751C1A96F948260&sec=&spon=&pagewanted=2
The AIP is not a secession group, read their website.
Q: What is the Alaskan Independence Party?
A: An Alaskan political party whose members advocate a range of solutions to the conflicts between federal and local authority; from advocacy for state's rights, through a return to territorial status, all the way to complete independence and nationhood status for Alaska.
Mmhmm not secessionist.. what, pray tell, does secession mean to you?
Other places you can find me:




vi.png" />
Flickr Badge" border="0" />
Flickr Badge" border="0" />
Flickr Badge" border="0" />
Our family photo album online!
(password: ballfamily)
border=0>
Other places you can find me:
Info on the AIP from their website. To me asking for a vote doesn't seem radical. Less government is a good thing, I'm for that.
Until we as Alaskans receive our Ultimate Goal, the AIP will continue to strive to make Alaska a better place to live with less government interference in our everyday lives.
The Alaskan Independence Party's goal is the vote we were entitled to in 1958, one choice from among the following four alternatives:
1) Remain a Territory.
2) Become a separate and Independent Nation.
3) Accept Commonwealth status.
4) Become a State.
The call for this vote is in furtherance of the dream of the Alaskan Independence Party's founding father, Joe Vogler, which was for Alaskans to achieve independence under a minimal government, fully responsive to the people, promoting a peaceful and lawful means of resolving differences.
Platform and Goal
of the
Alaskan Independence Party
Preamble
We affirm that all political power is inherent in the people; that all government originates with the people, is founded on their will only, is instituted to protect the rights of the individual; that all persons have a natural right to life, liberty, the pursuit of happiness, and the enjoyment of the rewards of their own industry; that all persons are equal and entitled to equal protection under the law. We stand on a firm constitutional foundation.
Platform
We pledge to exert our best efforts to accomplish the following:
1. To effect full compliance with the constitutions of the United States of America and the State of Alaska.
2. To support and defend States' Rights, Individual Rights, Property Rights, and the Equal Footing Doctrine as guaranteed by the constitutions of the United States of America and the state of Alaska.
3. To advocate the convening of a State Constitutional Convention at the constitutionally designated 10 year interval.
4. To reinforce the unalienable rights endowed by our Creator to Alaska law, by eliminating the use of the word "privilege" in the Alaska statutes.
5. To amend the Constitution of the State of Alaska so as to re-establish the rights of all Alaskan residents to entry upon all public lands within the state, and to acquire private property interest there in, under fair and reasonable conditions. Such property interest shall include surface and sub-surface patent.
6. To foster a constitutional amendment abolishing and prohibiting all property taxes.
7. To seek the complete repatriation of the public lands, held by the federal government, to the state and people of Alaska in conformance with Article 1, Section 8, Clause 17, of the federal constitution.
8. To prohibit all bureaucratic regulations and judicial rulings purporting to have the effect of law, except that which shall be approved by the elected legislature.
9. To preserve and protect the Alaska Permanent Fund, Permanent fund earnings, earnings reserve fund and individual Permanent Fund Dividends.
10. To provide for the direct popular election of the attorney general, all judges, and magistrates.
11. To provide for the development of unrestricted, statewide, surface transportation and utility corridors as needed by the public or any individual.
12. To affirm and assert every possible right-of-way established under R.S. 2477 of July 26, 1866, before its repeal by the Federal Land Management Policy Act of October 21, 1976.
13. To support the right of the individual to keep and bear arms.
14. To support the complete abolition of the concept of sovereign or governmental immunity, so as to restore accountability for public servants.
15. To support the rights of parents to privately or home school their children.
16. To support the privatization of government services.
17. To oppose the borrowing of money by government for any purposes other than for capital improvements.
18. To strengthen the traditional family and support individual accountability without government interference or regulation.
19. To support the right of jurors to judge the law as well as the facts, according to their conscience.
20. To support "Jobs for Alaskans...First!"
Hi, I just wanted to say something regarding your comment to Kristen (umdlax4). I too thought she came across as a McCain supporter and I called her on it which started a rather negative exchange. However, I have since emailed her and we have each offered our different points of view and although I cannot say for certain that she hasn't made up her mind yet (that's only for her to say), I do have to say that I do find her to be open-minded and willing to receive new information.
Chrissy
mom to Aidan 8/21/03
Grayson Blaine 12/30/07
Other places you can find me:




vi.png" />
Flickr Badge" border="0" />
Flickr Badge" border="0" />
Flickr Badge" border="0" />
Our family photo album online!
(password: ballfamily)
border=0>
Other places you can find me:
This is their home page. Their ultimate goal as they clearly state on their home page is a VOTE. oooo, how radical.
ALASKA FIRST!
Until we as Alaskans receive our Ultimate Goal, the AIP will continue to strive to make Alaska a better place to live with less government interference in our everyday lives.
The Alaskan Independence Party's goal is the vote we were entitled to in 1958, one choice from among the following four alternatives:
1) Remain a Territory.
2) Become a separate and Independent Nation.
3) Accept Commonwealth status.
4) Become a State.
The call for this vote is in furtherance of the dream of the Alaskan Independence Party's founding father, Joe Vogler, which was for Alaskans to achieve independence under a minimal government, fully responsive to the people, promoting a peaceful and lawful means of resolving differences.
where?
In the past you have stated your beliefs.
i wouldn't be here if i didn't have an open mind, what else would someone be here for? for a fight?
Do you not read the posts on this board. EMC, Heavenly, and a couple of others are the only ones that have truly open minds (IMO)
<>
on income tax only
and that will probably not be the only issue i use to decide my vote (as i have ALSO said in previous posts)
and besides....are (were) you insinuating that i shouldn't ask a question if my political mind is made up? seriously? because yours seems made up, but you still ask questions.
regarding your SN change, hopefully this new name will help you follow TOS.
-Kristen
Pages