Home Forums Hunting & Shooting Hunter's Campfire Sarah Palin is a FOX

Apparently a lot of intelligence is needed and maybe speech lessons as well because since Lincoln shredded the Constitution no Republican has been able to even come close to following the Constitution with the possible exception of Calvin Coolidge.

True, making the point that it's time to focus more on the contents of the package and less on the wrapping paper...

I could care less if it was a WV hillbilly running for office as long as they could get there point across without irritating the schitt out of me like Palin does with her rambling, incoherent style. Hell, even an old farmer who's been around enough and doesn't mince words would be my preference over some big shot Oxford graduate who talks out of both ends.

What I get irritated with is this notion that a woman who can't get a simple point across without giving a person a headache is somehow just what conservatives need to reshape the balance of power in Washington. She might be smart and she might be conservative and she might be good for some late night dreaming but her delivery is akin to scratching a chalkboard with your fingernails.

I tried really, really hard in the beginning to like her but the more she talks, the more I shake my head and I think just from the comments on this board, my opinion isn't unique.

Can't tell you what the middle is exactly, because I'm not there.

A liberal that allegedly hunts is still a liberal.

The fact, as you admitted, that you are unable to make a decision as to you your political philosophy, indicates bipolar disorder, FAS, or just cognitive contradictions.

Calling yourself "the middle" doesn't make that any more true than you claiming to have spanked Stick re: 308 vs. 7-08.

Hmmmmm--If needed---I would say that the FOX news team would provide for some pretty darn good speech lessons and coaching.

Real-time "On the job" experience I would say.

I think the fact that Palin is now working for FOX should help her speaking abilities considerably.
Not that that is the most important thing to me, but it certainly won't hurt her one bit.

She may just surprise some of the skeptics.

Byc: I had a wet dream just last night in which I was being chased down a dark alley by a herd of idiotic and foul smelling turdlikepeople and Sarah Palin swooped in and took me in her arms and saved me!
Then she took me to a remote beach and taught me how to swim naked in the moonlight - oohh it was a great dream first eluding and further frustrating the turdlikepeople and then being saved by such a beautiful woman.
Aaaaahhhhh......
Will I be inclined to watch more FOX News now with Sarah on board - yes, if thats possible?
Hold into the wind
VarmintGuy

So... it's "hilarious" that I would call myself in the middle, yet, you can't even define it? That's flat stupid.

Methinks you are shooting some blunt arrows there, Mikey.

"Allegedly" hunts? WTF are you implying? Please explain that one. If you are saying I'm lying about hunting then first, [bleep] you!! Second, [bleep] YOU!! and third, I can prove it (and have) so... [bleep] you.

I HAVE made a decision, long ago, as to my political philosophy. It's very simple. I don't subscribe fully to either side because neither holds a lock on the truth. To blindly follow either side is to blindly swallow numerous serious philosophical contradictions. I, and others here, have pointed out over and over and over how riddled with contradiction and outright deceit the modern American "conservative" position is. Yet, you fail to so much as acknowledge this, you and yours, instead bleating that those of us who won't accept this BS are somehow "muddled". I call BS. "Muddled" is to call yourself a freedom-loving, Constitution-loving, small government "conservative" and then, say, deny people personal freedoms. Violate the constitution. Espouse a HUGE government capable of not only meddling in OUR lives, but in meddling in the lives of people all around the world. And on and on.

As near as I can tell, my views break down about like this. I say "as near as I can tell" because, frankly, some things that modern "conservatives" want would better be described as liberal, and vice versa. So I have to attempt to categorize these based not on where they SHOULD be, but rather where they ARE in the modern spectrum. But anyway:

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------

RIGHT

-Guns. 2nd amendment all the way, on multiple levels, to include "because it ain't for duck hunting".

-Free markets. Love 'em, not that they really exist anyway but that another topic;

-Person freedom, accountability, and responsibility.

-Small government. PLEASE! Cut the [bleep] thing down to size. Including the military. Stop the global meddling.

-State's rights.

LEFT

-pro-Choice;

-pro-environment; it's all we have and with this many phookin' people, there's just no alternative but regulation in this regard;

-against imprisoning people for the simple use of intoxicants; if you don't own your own HEAD, what do you own? Besides, a bunch of drug users (alchohol) wrote those stupid laws.

-support equal rights and privelages for all law-abiding adult humans. What consenting adults do is not the State's business, nor is denying anyone rights or privilidges based on that.

-against un-Cnstitutionally forcing religion into public institutions such as schools and courtrooms .

-pro-union. A necessary evil. This ties into the "free markets don't really exist anyway" comment, above.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

So there you go Mikey. Tell me that's not a person in the middle. I dare ya.

In the end, though, what we have in America is NOT a political system that tears everything down and starts from scratch with each new leader, like happens with warlords and dictators and so on.

What we have is akin to a train going down a track. The new administration gets a train... on a track, going a direction, at a speed, with a certain cargo, a certain amount of coal to burn, and so on.

And so, the only rational thing to do is to look at where the train is at each "stop" (election) and look at who's available to take over the train and make a call as to who can best take the reins at that moment, for that train. And McCain/Palin, and more importantly the out-of-gas Republican Party, was NOT the right people to hand that train to in '08. Period. They'd run the damn thing out of coal, and were standing there like deer in the headlights wondering what happened, who to blame, and what to do.

And that's where some of you have your heads up your butts with respect to Obama. He was absolutely the right choice- given the choices. The train he inherited was in the very midst of a massive socialization of the economy- because of George Bush! And started by George Bush. To blame bank bailouts and stimulus packages and so on on Obama is partisan stupidity and frankly beneath most of you here; you are smarter than that!! (excluding Nemesis).

Wow, just wow.

Define "middle", hilarious-boy.

And what WAS your implication when you said I "allegedly" hunt?

Back up your bullchit, Mikey.

The train he inherited?
Inherited hell, he spent millions and campaigned his ass off to buy that job.

Wow indeed. You are so utterly and completely completely wrong, yet so very sure of yourself. Perhaps your view makes sense in relation to your point of reference/ upbringing, because to tell the truth, you are passionate about it, and really seem intelligent. You also remain civil, which is why you are not on ignore. That said, it should be obvious that I most emphatically disagree with you, particularly about Obama being good for the country. There is only one positive I can glean from his Presidency, and that is that it should kick conservatives hard enough in the azz that they realize they have given the country away to Socialism. Maybe it will serve to revitalize interest in the Constitution, and what gov't can ,and cannot do within the parameters of that document. Past that, he is an absolute disaster, tearing the USA apart, to rebuild it as a Socialist utopia. That trick never works.

You know this how?

How can you claim these views and vote for Obama?

home run

I got chit to do. maybe I'll check back on this thread, but case closed...irregardless.

The Ghost writers name is Lynn Vincent. It was covered in the news when her book was released.

A lying communist racist windbag with absolutely no experience for much of any job, let alone the most important and powerful on earth, is never the right choice.

BTW: the enumerated are Obama's good points, when I'm feeling charitible.

But some good may come of this if American's rise up and take this country back.

Not to mention that he was oh so ready to cast that "yes" vote.

I didn't say he was good for the country. I said he was the best choice we had at that time, given all the existing conditions that... existed.

What's "good for the country" got to do with that? Seriously. McCain/Palin wasn't going to be "good for the country". Bush wasn't "good for the country".

If you want to talk about the "direction of the train", then a reasonable discussion of that begins with Bush II. The Obama administration began at the point at which the Bush administration ended. I think we all agree that things were FUBAR at that point. So the fact that they are FUBAR now is not a surprise, and it isn't Obama's fault (any more than it would have been McCains fault).

I'll say it till I'm blue in the face because it's true. The perverse obsession with Puritan social issues is POISON for the Republicans, in addition to being anti-freedom and unConstitutional. You want to win? Stop scaring off the crucial middle with harebrained attempts to put the Bible places it shouldn't be.