Former Alaska governor Palin says she will run for president in 2012 "if there is nobody else to do it"

[Ulysses G.]

You aren't being honest.

Edited November 5, 2010 by Ulysses G.

[Jingthing]

You aren't being honest.

At least include the remainder of my post in your snippet so the readers can decide for themselves if the charge was true or not. I find your mocking post offensive and out of place here.

[Ulysses G.]

I am not talking about one particular post. I am talking about all the far-left talking points posts that have no basis in reality.

Edited November 5, 2010 by Ulysses G.

[Jingthing]

I am not talking about one particular post. I am talking about all the far-left talking points posts that have no basis in reality.

Then talk to the specific issues with your reasoning rather than tossing general insults to me. I think I have made a very strong case against your position in regard to the type of supreme court justices a President Palin would pick, and you have no reply except to label and insult me with words like delusional. I could easily come up with much racier words than that for someone who imagines Palin would be a pro-gay, pro abortion rights, pro secularist president and pick justices like that, but why bother? Why post here if that's all you've got?

Edited November 5, 2010 by Jingthing

[Ulysses G.]

I think I have made a very strong case against your position in regard to the type of supreme court justices a President Palin would pick

I did not call you delusional. As per usual, you throw out a bunch of unfounded personal opinions with no proof what-so-ever and try to act like they are facts. Sorry, but delusional accurately describes many of your political POSTS.

[Jingthing]

I think I have made a very strong case against your position in regard to the type of supreme court justices a President Palin would pick

I did not call you delusional. As per usual, you throw out a bunch of unfounded personal opinions with no proof what-so-ever and try to act like they are facts. Sorry, but delusional accurately describes many of your political POSTS.

If you say so, but I doubt you have convinced anyone at all that Sarah Palin would be a pro gay, pro abortion rights, pro secular president. That simply defies simple logic, unless you believe she thinks the exact opposite of what comes out of her pretty mouth.

[canuckamuck]

Perhaps you need to take the citizenship-test, to make sure you have the basic knowledge about the nation?

Now I've heard everything. How about Palin/Beck Christ centered re-education camps for unrepentant liberals?

Now that sounds like Utopia, but there's no point in trying reform those liberals, it is mostly due to brain damage.

Luckily many of them pick a lifestyle that inhibits reproduction

Edited November 5, 2010 by canuckamuck

[Ulysses G.]

I am not trying to convince anyone of anything about Sarah Palin - I am not a fan. I am trying to point out that most of what you claim about Republicans and the Tea Party is unsubstantiated hogwash.

[Jingthing]

I am not trying to convince anyone of anything about Sarah Palin - I am not a fan. I am trying to point out that most of what you claim about Republicans and the Tea Party is unsubstantiated hogwash.

Now you are backtracking. Thanks for that. Because anyone can read what you said about your illogical rejection of my assertions of the type of justices Palin would pick (in regards to gay rights, abortion rights, and church/state separation).

More support for my assertions, which are obviously true --

Is America a Christian nation?

Sarah Palin said on Friday that it's "mind-boggling" to suggest otherwise.

Palin spoke Friday evening to 16,000 evangelical Christian women at the Women of Joy conference in Louisville, Ky. Speaking about the separation of church and state, Palin said that the founding fathers of the United States were "true believers" and that George Washington "saw faith in God as basic to life." Collapse

But two groups dedicated to the separation of church and state are now speaking out against her, arguing that she is misreading the founders' intent.

"It's incredibly hypocritical that Sarah Palin, who disapproves of government involvement in just about anything, now suddenly wants the government to help people be religious," Barry Lynn, the executive director of Americans United for Separation of Church and State, told ABC News.

"It is wildly inconsistent with her views on limited government to get the government involved in matters of faith."

http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/sarah-palin-sparks-church-state-separation-debate/story?id=10419289

Palin on abortion --

Palin on gay marriage -

Edited November 5, 2010 by Jingthing

[cdnvic]

Now that sounds like Utopia, but there's no point in trying reform those liberals, it is mostly due to brain damage.

Luckily many of them pick a lifestyle that inhibits reproduction

I posted a warning about insulting people's political beliefs before. Here's another (and final) one.

[chuckd]

To remind the readers of the origin of this exchange, so you can decide for yourselves who is correct.

My assertion is that a President Palin would pick supreme court judges with a strong tendency to support her political positions on the court.

Namely --

lack of respect for constitutional church/state separation (a tea party trademark) which is darkly ironic as they parade themselves as lovers of the founder's intentions, and they support the exact opposite

against gay marriage

for overturning Roe v Wade so that abortion would be made illegal again, sending poor women to their deaths at the hands of back alley abortionists

UG feels Palin would pick judges with the opposite positions as stated and/or without regard to their assumed politics on these important issues to her and her core base.

I contend UG's position reflects a deeply uninformed position. UG's position is as absurd as asserting that Obama would pick a judge who he feels will overturn the voter's rights act. End of story.

Jingthing:

I have quoted your entire post so you cannot claim anything is being taken out of context.

First, let me agree with you that any sitting President is more likely to appoint a Supreme Court Justice that tends to think along the same political and constitutional lines as the appointing President does. That's the way it has always been and will likely always be.

Having said that, let me now discuss the remainder of your post.

1. Can you tell me exactly where in the Constitution it calls for a separation of church and state? It is not in the first amendment if that is your claim so, where is it?

2. Is marriage defined as a Constitutional right? Marriage is a state's right issue and has been regulated as such since the framers of the Constitution signed the document. As a matter of fact, 39 of the 50 states have passed legislation or enacted laws voted on by the citizens of that state specifying marriage should be between a man and woman only. See here: http://www.stateline.org/live/ViewPage.action?siteNodeId=136&languageId=1&contentId=15576

3. Roe v. Wade will likely come up soon enough to see what will happen. I can imagine how the two most recently appointed Justices will vote.

I certainly hope you don't think any of these questions are absurd but you seem to be throwing quite a few comments around without any sort of backup. Perhaps you can provide some answers to my questions.

[longway]

Doesn't really matter what is true, what matters is what will stick. Should be entertaining enough.

[Ulysses G.]

Palin on gay marriage -

This seems like a perfectly sensible position that Jingthing happens to not agree with - no signs of insanity here.

[Jingthing]

Oy vey!

1.

The First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution says: “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion; or prohibiting the free exercise thereof….” The U.S. Supreme Court has interpreted this clause to mean that religion and government must stay separate for the benefit of both. The government holds no religious viewpoint and leaves all decisions about faith and religious practice to its citizens.

http://www.au.org/issues/why-church-state-separation.html

Yes, with tea party justices, they could interpret that differently. This reflects the long standing supreme court interpretation.

2. Marriage and the constitution. Remember, not long ago interracial American couples were denied the right to marry in the same way gays are denied today. But justice and equality prevailed under the law. Equality loving people want the same justice for gays, but electing Palin or her type would deeply damage such prospects.

http://www.newsweek.com/2010/01/08/the-conservative-case-for-gay-marriage.html

The United States Supreme Court has repeatedly held that marriage is one of the most fundamental rights that we have as Americans under our Constitution. It is an expression of our desire to create a social partnership, to live and share life's joys and burdens with the person we love, and to form a lasting bond and a social identity. The Supreme Court has said that marriage is a part of the Constitution's protections of liberty, privacy, freedom of association, and spiritual identification. In short, the right to marry helps us to define ourselves and our place in a community. Without it, there can be no true equality under the law.

It is true that marriage in this nation traditionally has been regarded as a relationship exclusively between a man and a woman, and many of our nation's multiple religions define marriage in precisely those terms. But while the Supreme Court has always previously considered marriage in that context, the underlying rights and liberties that marriage embodies are not in any way confined to heterosexuals.

3. Roe vs. Wade, of course if Palin or one of her types gets a pick or two, it will likely be overturned.

These items reflect my positions on those subjects. Don't expect a high level constitutional law discussion with me, or probably most anyone on this board. That, indeed, would be absurd.

Edited November 5, 2010 by Jingthing

[Jingthing]

Palin on gay marriage -

This seems like a perfectly sensible position that Jingthing happens to not agree with - no signs of insanity here.

When did I call her insane? SHOW ME. I called her anti-gay marriage and an extreme social conservative, which she is. For many people including me, a position to have a federal constitutional anti-gay marriage amendment is an open act of hatred and bigotry against gay people; you are free to disagree. You were clearly implying she was something different with your ridiculous assertion that she may make pro gay rights court picks.

Edited November 5, 2010 by Jingthing

[Ulysses G.]

We're not afraid of Palin. We welcome her as the easiest right wing whacko to beat.

Isn't a "whacko" a synonym for insane?

[Ulysses G.]

You were clearly implying she was something different with your ridiculous assertion that she may make pro gay rights court picks.

I never made that assertion if you are talking about gay marriage. In fact, I have said several times that she is against it.

[Jingthing]

We're not afraid of Palin. We welcome her as the easiest right wing whacko to beat.

Isn't a "whacko" a synonym for insane?

Close but not exactly. Insane indicates a mental illness. The W word indicates bizarreness, not always clinical mental illness. In any case, you pulled an old quote, and we are now moderated to not call names that way.

[Jingthing]

You were clearly implying she was something different with your ridiculous assertion that she may make pro gay rights court picks.

I never made that assertion if you are talking about gay marriage. In fact, I have said several times that she is against it.

You did indeed by clear implication say that there was no need to worry about her picking anti-gay marriage supreme court picks. Others, the record is there. You have tried my patience now with your backtracking, and your gamesmanship has reached an intolerable annoyance level. It would be more manly to admit your mistake. I'm going to dinner now.

Edited November 5, 2010 by Jingthing

[geriatrickid]

The "far right" would be the American Nazi party, the racist militias and other such loons. They have nothing to do with the Republicans OR the Tea Party.

Agreed. However, an observer would then suggest that a great many U.S. citizens share views that fall into that extremist camp. Racist views include those of such disparate groups as the polygamist sect of the Church of Latter Day Saints, the Nation of Islam etc. They might have different religious views and skin hues but they have more in common with each other than they do with Roger Republican, Debbie Democrat and Irwin Independent. I would offer that one is misreading the results of the midterm elections if one assumes there was a groundswell of support for the Tea Party and Sarah Palin because of the following;

1. More than 50% of the candidates backed and or endorsed by Sarah Palin lost.

2. Exit polling of voters showed that the voters wanted change and were not expressing agreement with the Tea Party agenda.

3. Propositions favouring tax cuts at the state level did not succeed. The voters voted for change, but understood that cutting taxes which would result in job losses and reduced services may not have been the best route to follow.

4. Exit polls showed that the majority of voters identifying with either Democrat or Republican candidates had more in common with each other than they did with hard core Tea Party supporters.

5. Polling shows that the negative perceptions that attach to the Tea Party are much greater than the positive perceptions. I would suggest then that a great many people expressing some support for the Tea Party are not necessarily Tea Party platform supporters, but are people that want change fast.

I still believe that most U.S. voters are "moderates". The fun will now begin as the elected Tea Party members will have to deal with the budget. In case anyone looked, if one excludes core programs such as social security, medicare & and defense that leaves only 15% of the budget in the discretionary budget. Even if it was all cut, i.e. no support for musuems, no foreign aid, no home heating oil subsidies there would still be a massive deficit. Once the Tea Party tries to cut social security or payments to the elderly there will be a backlash and it will come from some of the Tea Party's own supporters, the elderly. AARP isn't going to let the Tea Party cut medicare or social security benefits. If the Defense department is allowed to close bases, there will be a bloodbath in Congress since many of those bases keep some of the most conservative districts alive.

Fun, fun, fun until China takes the keys away........ (Apologies to the Beach Boys)

Edited November 5, 2010 by geriatrickid

[Ulysses G.]

When did I call her insane? SHOW ME.

You did ask.

[Ulysses G.]

I never made that assertion if you are talking about gay marriage. In fact, I have said several times that she is against it.

You did indeed by clear implication say that there was no need to worry about her picking anti-gay marriage supreme court picks.

I did not say that. I said that she would not necessarily do a bunch of different things that you said she would do and - by the way - I do not think that marriage is necessarily a gay "right".

You have no evidence that she would do any of these things other than your very biased opinion.

Edited November 5, 2010 by Ulysses G.

[Ulysses G.]

I still believe that most U.S. voters are "moderates".

I very much agree with you and I am no big fan of the Republican Party or the Tea Party or Sarah Palin. However, they may be very useful in the short-term to keep Obama from continuing with some of his unpopular policies that I consider to be very destructive to my country.

Edited November 5, 2010 by Ulysses G.

[Ulysses G.]

You have tried my patience now with your backtracking, and your gamesmanship has reached an intolerable annoyance level.

I have no idea why you are getting so testy. You have thrown around a number of accusations that you can not back up with facts and I politely pointed that out.

[chuckd]

1. Sarah Palin backed a total of 64 candidates for election, including the primaries. Of this 64 a total of 10 were defeated in the primaries, leaving 54 to run in the general elections.

Of the remaining 54 candidates, 32 of them won, 17 lost and the remaining 5 have yet to be decided.

She supported 37 men and 27 women. A total of 41 of them had Tea Party ties and the remaining 23 were considered establishment Republicans.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/special/politics/palin_tracker/

2. As of 25 June 2010, the following mix of citizens existed in the US.

Conservatives - 42%

Moderates - 35%

Liberals - 20%

http://www.gallup.com/poll/141032/2010-conservatives-outnumber-moderates-liberals.aspx

3. In spite of what Mr. Jingthing says, the separation of church and state is not in the constitution. It is a Supreme Court decision which can be changed at any time if as many as 5 of the 9 Justices agree on it.

[A_Traveller]

The Tea Party claims to be a grassroots organisation, though one does wonder if there is more than a little AstroTurf in there. Palin's after the election video was interesting, including reference back to Regan, a suitable ethnic mix of TP "heroes', and maybe, just maybe a pitch for her future.

One does have to say the Non Negotiable Core Beliefs raise more than a few concerns:- [LINK]

Illegal Aliens Are Here illegally.

Pro-Domestic Employment Is Indispensable.

Stronger Military Is Essential.

Special Interests Eliminated.

Gun Ownership Is Sacred.

Government Must Be Downsized.

National Budget Must Be Balanced.

Deficit Spending Will End.

Bail-out And Stimulus Plans Are Illegal.

Reduce Personal Income Taxes A Must.

Reduce Business Income Taxes Is Mandatory.

Political Offices Available To Average Citizens.

Intrusive Government Stopped.

English As Core Language Is Required.

Traditional Family Values Are Encouraged.

Common Sense Constitutional

Conservative Self-Governance

After all one persons special interest, may be another's freedoms, and the phrase 'Traditional Family Values' often raises the spectre of intolerance, or worse. It has to be said that presently TP seems to be more about saying No, rather than saying how do we manage a complex multi-cultural democracy.

Regards

Edited November 5, 2010 by A_Traveller

[TAWP]

The logic that Bin Laden, an enemy of all Americans mentioned a preference for one candidate over another is in no imaginable way comparable to the clear and obvious LEADERSHIP ROLE Sarah Palin has taken for the tea party people. To suggest there is and then make accusations about my logic, beggars belief. Now clearly the tea party is a grab bag and doesn't, at least yet, have an official leader, Palin is quite obviously a huge favorite of that crowd. There is no doubt about that. I will back off from my assertion that she is the top current favorite of the tea party people for president. Polls will swing on that and right now she may be behind others. But she is well in the running for that title.

http://www.nydailynews.com/news/politics/2010/09/23/2010-09-23_sarah_palin_tea_party_favorite_id_run_for_president_in_2012_if_nobody_else_wante.html

The movement has no leader as it is not centrally steered or controlled, it is very decentralized.

So therefor, obviously, Palin has no leadership role. It doesn't matter what you find obvious, if you are wrong.

[TAWP]

lack of respect for constitutional church/state separation (a tea party trademark) which is darkly ironic as they parade themselves as lovers of the founder's intentions, and they support the exact opposite

Where do you get these delusions from? I am just asking, because someone must have feed them to you. I know for a fact that the Tea Party Movement didn't.

You aren't paying attention. Check the history of tea party darling (and loser) Christine O'Donnell. Sarah Palin and Glenn Beck (who if you are honest you must admit is a key founder of the tea party) have made similar assertions. This crowd is obsessed with the US being a "Christian" nation and they claim constitutional/founder support for their distortions. You are falling for their propaganda that they are a benign force. They are an extremely dangerous, potentially very destructive force. Happily, if they rise, the resistance to their radicalism will be even more energized to fight them.

O'Donnel a darling of the movement? Hardly.

She, like Palin and Beck, as despised by many Tea Party sympathizers. Do they have a strong media-penetration and can bring out the message? Sure. But above the message of the Tea Party itself they are not needed.

And to call Beck a 'key founder' of the movement is again a failure to understand current history. He jumped on the bandwagon months after the ball was rolling and decided to become 'radical and against big government', but his latest selling-point has nothing to do with the movement nor it's start.

You are afraid of them, I am sure, just as you are afraid of any force that oppose government intervention into peoples lives, any force that are a proponent of minimal government or any force that oppose self reliance and responsibility.

But that doesn't make them dangerous. I think those that propose the opposite are far more dangerous as it is far more likely that the will propose laws that affect others in an effort to control them.

[Ulysses G.]

It doesn't matter what you find obvious, if you are wrong.

..And continually.

[TAWP]

With regards the Tea Party, surely an expat who enjoys the benefits of a country with low taxation, that has a govt. which doesnt interfere in every aspect of life would be a hypocrite to belittle it.

Tea partiers and the matching right wing of the republican party are 100% into interfering in your private life. If you are gay? they dont want that. Feel like abit of weed in your house on friday night? they will arrest you for that. Same sex marriage? Doesnt affect them, but they will stop you doing it etc etc.

Nonsense, no keypoint in the tea party movement has EVER mentioned interfering with peoples lifes - most, if the issue has EVER been raised, is on the OPPOSITE side.

Jesus man, atleast lie smaller so it doesn't stink so much.

You aren't being honest. Opposing the equal rights freedom of gay marriage and working to make abortion illegal are indeed impositions into people's private lives.

Tea Party Movement has no official position on abortion and organizers have PURPOSEFULLY made sure that the organization say nothing in either direction, as to not alienate anyone. However, sympathizers are free to think what they want. You are possibly misunderstanding this because some sympathizers have had a higher media penetration than other (republican have a platform, while libertarians usually are not allowed much airtime by any channel at all) and you think the movement therefor share all of their views.