http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20071226/...laska_governor
It's interesting learning more about Sarah Palin. This article mentions she would be a good running mate. However, I have a hard time seeing her alongside any of the candidates in the field.
Checkout Ron Paul's legislation, write your representatives and spread the word!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legisla...ed_by_Ron_Paul
Lord of the Rings and Liberty: http://www.lewrockwell.com/carson/carson10.html
I think she should be on our short list of potential VP's
And now?Originally Posted by Richandler
no.
she is a moron.. she knows absolutely nothing about solid policy, foreign or domestic.
The ultimate minority is the individual. Protect the individual from Democracy and you will protect all groups of individualsRightful liberty is unobstructed action according to our will within limits drawn around us by the equal rights of others. I do not add 'within the limits of the law' because law is often but the tyrant's will, and always so when it violates the rights of the individual. - Thomas JeffersonI must not fear. Fear is the mind-killer. Fear is the little-death that brings total obliteration. I will face my fear. I will permit it to pass over me and through me. And when it has gone past I will turn the inner eye to see its path. Where the fear has gone there will be nothing. Only I will remain.
- Bene Gesserit Litany Against Fear
Well, back in 2007, when she was a virtual unknown, before she was attacked by a socialist media intent on destroying her, savvy Ron Paul supporters knew enough about Sarah Palin to recommend that Ron Paul pick her as his VP candidate.
You've quoted about 15 somewhat favorable opinions from RPFers two years ago of what I guesstimate to be at least 4k non-lurking members by the end of '07. Whether or not those people are credible is up for debate. The support of her then seemed to be about as unfounded as the smears you're likely to now see on RPFs. Were/are they tools? How were/are they being used? Lack of research?
I haven't yet read a comprehensive study of Palin's political positions, so I'm not yet willing to condemn her outright. Here's what I do know: her voice is annoying as all Hell and she ran with McCain. The latter is unforgivable, and I don't think I would believe this if I hadn't seen the exact same situation come up in the LNC last year, when Bob Barr was nominated for the LP's presidential ticket. Mary Ruwart, who took the second-largest share of the votes, declined to run for the VP election because she so strongly believed that Barr did not represent a ticket she wanted to be on. At the time, I was confused about the decision (in fact, I'm right now wearing my Bob Barr 2008 shirt underneath my plaid overshirt), but I now see the integrity her decision shows. Palin repeatedly endorsed McCain. McCain is unacceptable. Palin is thus unacceptable. That's my fairly weak guilt-by-association reasoning.
Now, why do you believe I should think otherwise?
Last edited by Kludge; 11-21-2009 at 06:25 AM. Reason: Forgot I was wearing the Barr shirt :/
If you're simply going to take a moderate, "wait and see" position, and refrain from attacking Palin, that's fine with me. I'm replying on those old threads basically for the reasons you said. No, there was not unanimous praise for Palin back in 2007, but she was discussed quite often, almost always favorably. I first took notice of Palin from reading favorable things about her here.
It's slightly different to refuse the VP nod for the Libertarian Party and for the Republican Party. Barr was a controversial choice - many felt he was more Republican than Libertarian. Typically, with the Republicans and Democrats, loyalty to the party is a factor, and there are other factors as well. "Balancing the ticket" would be a rare occurrence, if potential VP nominees would only accept if they agreed with the Presidential nominee 100%. In 1980, a Conservative (Reagan) picked a Liberal (Bush) to balance the ticket. Even though Bush thought Reagan was pushing "voodoo economics." I'm not saying that Bush was right to accept in 1980, but sometimes the desire to beat the opposition, perhaps in the belief that their party's nominee would be better than the oppositions nominee, perhaps in the belief that they themselves would be able to make a positive difference, in some small way, greater than they could from the outside, is a worthy reason to accept the nomination.
I'm not saying you, or anyone else here, should actively like, or prefer, Palin. I'm saying that it's a really bad idea to repeat the nasty MSM attacks on Palin. And in support of this, I reply to a variety of old threads from 2007 where people seem to like Palin so much that they think that she should be Ron Paul's VP. 2 years before Norah at MSNBC decided to edit interviews with Palin fans to try to make Palin look bad, we knew who she was and we generally liked her.
...until we saw her jump on the band wagon with John McCain.we knew who she was and we generally liked her.
Does Palin want us to vote for her or something or are you just on a renegade campaign for her hoping to sway support? As far as I know Ron never endorsed Palin. Am I wrong on that if so please provide a link that will confirm Ron Paul's endorsement.
For me I see her as the neo con's choice and as a quitter.
She fails both the illegal immigration and foreign wars for Israel (better known as git duh terrerusts) test. She is pro-amnesty and has an Israeli flag in her office (literally).
Notice the little flag right by her window to remind her of who she is working for.
She has stated she would support Israel if they started another war with Iran. She ran with Mr Amnesty himself John "bomb, bomb, Iran" McCain for the presidency.
But, hey she hunts and she is hot!!! And Sean Hannity says I should like her. That must mean she is one of the good guys right?
Last edited by Dunedain; 11-21-2009 at 07:54 AM.
This is why some people here (very few) have fallen for Palin. They think anyone the leftist media attacks, must be our friend. She's part of the problem, not the solution. Do not kid yourself. The leftist media attacked her because she's an easy target, not because she represents our movement and threatens the establishment.
Ron Paul was censored by left and right media. Right wing media LOVES Palin, and is not our friend! We are libertarians, we're not supposed to play into the left vs right game.
All I know is my support for Ron Paul would disappear if he chose someone like Palin as his VP. I'm pretty confident that he would never choose her.savvy Ron Paul supporters knew enough about Sarah Palin to recommend that Ron Paul pick her as his VP candidate.
"One of the great victories of the state, is that the word "Anarchy" terrifies people but, the word "State" does not" - Tom Woods
If you look around you'll see a bunch of people calling her stupid and a neocon.
I'm not saying that you should support Palin. I'm saying that when people look through here, and supporters of a Republican candidate are tearing down a fellow Republican, when there's no Presidential race, and that Republican being torn down is being very effective in combatting Obama, it looks bad. Republicans - Romney supporters, Huck supporters, supporters of other candidates or none at all - might not support Palin, but they do recognize that Palin is effective at helping to thwart Obama, a task that most Republicans agree is a worthy one. They may attempt to distinguish their candidate from Palin, but they at least somewhat dignified language in doing so.
They don't use DNC talking points.
Really, sometimes I can't tell if I'm on Democratic Underground or Ron Paul Forums with the language many use here. Even back in 2007-2008, I got the impression that Ron Paul had many supporters who didn't fully grasp the idea that Ron Paul had to be sold to Republicans, because he had to win the Republican nomination
by winning Republican Primaries in order to become President.
Some Republican who isn't fully committed to Ron Paul stumbles across this site, and they'll immediately think Ron Paul is a Democrat, because Republicans don't call Sarah Palin stupid. And look, here are all these people calling Sarah Palin stupid, and this is a Ron Paul site, so Ron Paul must be a Democrat. (By the way, typically, Democrats call other people stupid, not Republicans, it's not Palin specific). Republicans prefer socialist, leftist, liberal, evil, elitist. Democrats like stupid, extreme, right-wing, racist, sexist.
No, I'm talking about back in 2007 when people were discussing who should be Ron Paul's VP. Before anyone heard of her, we did, in 2007, and we knew her and liked her. Palin's a conservative, strong enough to get the nomination and beat Obama. That's why the Leftist media is attacking her. Yes, Paul is more revolutionary, represents more real change, and is a threat to both left and right.
The question at this point isn't whether Paul would pick Palin, but whether Palin would pick Paul - not only for VP, but for any top cabinet position. She's the front-runner now. Hating Palin is not a good way to get Ron Paul a different job (if he might want it).
prior to Palin selling out her principles to join McCain- we thought she was someone who supported secession. That is something else she has distance herself from... How can you trust her now?
She'd sell you into slavery if it meant more power for herself.
rewritten history with armies of their crooks - invented memories, did burn all the books... Mark Knopfler
I dunno. My point isn't how great Palin is. I know you were on these boards a lot back in the day.
Bush didn't become conservative when Reagan picked him. I'm not sure I'd agree with selling out the principles by taking the VP slot. But it's a reasonable enough argument. I don't know enough about secession to say. Slavery's probably a bit much.
But my core point is: Calling Palin stupid is a DNC talking point. Republicans know it. They go to a message board filled with people calling Palin stupid and they're not gonna like the message board and they're not gonna like the candidate the message board is about. And Ron Paul really needs Republicans if he's gonna run again in 2012.
McCain is disliked by a sizeable chunk of Republicans. Criticizing Palin by criticizing McCain (especially if McCain is seen as a RINO, rather than a neocon) will not hurt with Republicans. And there are plenty of other valid criticisms.
But when hundreds of people chant "Palin is stupid" in response to yet another MSNBC hit piece, this message board gets the feel of Democratic Underground.
That is definitely not the feel you want if you ever want votes from Republicans.
This is my definition of stupid- YouTube - CBS Sarah Palin interview
(note she backs mccain in the interview- she supported the bail-out because "something had to be done"
Not used as slander- just a definition of her breathe of knowledge.
If Ron Paul is in his senior year, Palin is in pre-k.
rewritten history with armies of their crooks - invented memories, did burn all the books... Mark Knopfler
And my only point is that Ron Paul does not benefit when you call Palin stupid.
It's not a debate about Palin's intelligence.
I look through these forums, and I see much less about Obama than I should, and almost everything Obama does is 100% opposite to everything Ron Paul stands for.
Palin is trying to stop the same things that Paul is trying to stop, and his supporters are criticizing his ally.
how is supporting the bail-out of banks supporting the same thing Ron stands for?
rewritten history with armies of their crooks - invented memories, did burn all the books... Mark Knopfler
The only running mate she would be for the mayor of the crazy town.
She is politically dead, media probably wants to keep idiotic ramblings of her lunacy around.
Selling a lot of books, huge crowds at booksignings, over 1 million on Facebook etc etc etc.
Bush drew bigger crowds than her, even if he didn't did'nt take time to quit his Texas governorship to write a book and do the book promoting tours.
That in itself doesn't amount to much in the end if objective is change for the better. I wonder how many people would be showing up to buy her book if she looked like Susan Byle. What is the book about, how to carry on Bush's policies even after he has left the building? She's more of the same old same past ignorances.
With her public display of religioracial extremism about Israeli settlements, she has essentially cut herself out of any future political high office.
Last edited by Liberty Star; 11-21-2009 at 09:25 AM.
I hear Obama can draw huge crowds too, maybe he's an ally too.
How about you start a thread where you list all of Palin's platform. Please site interviews to back the platform.
You will see she is neocon.
She wasn't neocon years ago when her and her husband supported the alaskan secessionist movement. But she has "reformed" those positions.
I have interview after interview of her parroting John McCain.
I don't like John McCain's policies.. and likewise- I don't like Palin's policies because they are the same.
And if she is changing her tune AGAIN- then that tells you how principled she really is-
If she was a 500 pound pig- i swear the whole love fest would be non-existant.
rewritten history with armies of their crooks - invented memories, did burn all the books... Mark Knopfler
Yeah, she's so great, she increased taxes, increased government, centralized power in AK, and increased spending.
She also violated our privacy because now the government databases all our prescription drug purchases and what doctor we see.
If you support Sarah, your on the wrong board. Or maybe I am, because if Ron ever picked her, I could never vote or support him again.
As long as you let government spend your money, they will always spend it on those who lobby for it over those who vote for it because they lied to you to get it, and they will spend it on those who best enable them to keep lying and spending your money.
Sometimes I think I'm talking to Republicans here, sometimes not.
We're in a phase right now where Obama and the Democrats are trying to implement socialism and Paul, Palin and the Republicans are trying to stop them.
We're not in a "who has a better platform" phase, or a "let's compare foreign policy" phase. We're in a "stop Obama and the Democrats" phase which will overlap with the "elect good Republicans in 2010."
Because we're in this particular phase, Paul and Palin are trying to do the same things. They're going about it in different ways, they probably have at least slightly different ideas about who good Republicans would be.
Rand Paul has asked for Sarah Palin's help.
Now, once election day 2010 is over, we can take a look at the results, analyze the landscape, and see how best to proceed. I suspect neither Paul nor Palin will announce prior to election day 2010.
Until then, both Paul and Palin should be working to stop Obama and to get their Republicans elected. When Paul's people are attacking Palin instead of helping on their goals, it's bad for Paul.
Unless I missed something, and Paul switched to Democrat, and the goal is to help Obama, not to stop him. I'm pretty sure I'm right though. I'm not sure that many have thought that through.
Let me give you a clue for free. no charge.
We aren't republicans, we are americans.
We are people who will no longer put party before country.
We are people who demand principled politicians not feel-good demagogues.
Palin is not our ally. She is whatever is popular at the moment. She has proven this with her own actions.
Maybe you need to do some serious thinking about what is really important to you.
rewritten history with armies of their crooks - invented memories, did burn all the books... Mark Knopfler
You probably think Reagan was a good president too right? Minus the fact he increased taxes 6 times, sold arms to Iran, brought crack to our streets, funded a cold war that was utter bull$#@!, increased the failed war on drugs and hired greenapsn.
I don't think you understand Ron Paul that well. If your just against Obama, go to Hannity's forum, you'll fit right in.
And if Rand asked for Sarah's help, I'm glad I know now because he won't get any support from me.
Last edited by akforme; 11-21-2009 at 10:06 AM.
As long as you let government spend your money, they will always spend it on those who lobby for it over those who vote for it because they lied to you to get it, and they will spend it on those who best enable them to keep lying and spending your money.
I'm not a Palin expert. I'm not saying Palin is great. I said that many here thought that she should be the VP. And many here did.
If Palin and Paul run both run in 2012, all of those things that you're saying are the kinds of things that will make Republicans less likely to vote for Palin.
But right now, in Nov 2009, neither Paul nor Palin are running for President, and both Paul and Palin are working toward the same goals - to stop Obama from increasing socialism and to get some more Republicans elected.
Attacking Palin before Nov 2010, before either Paul or Palin runs, doesn't help Paul accomplish his objectives of stopping Obama and getting Republicans elected.
Ron Paul, presumably, wants Rand Paul elected. He's working toward that goal.
Rand Paul asked for Sarah Palin's help. And here, on a message board that's supposed to be helping, among others, Rand Paul, we have lots and lots of people dumping on Sarah Palin.
Now, smart people, is dumping on Sarah Palin going to make Sarah Palin more likely, or less likely to support Rand Paul?
C'mon, we know how smart you all say you are. Rand Paul is asking for Sarah Palin's help. Does dumping on Sarah Palin on Rand Paul's message board help Rand Paul?
I don't like Rand now if he wants sarah's help. I'm glad I only sent 20 bucks because it will be the last 20 bucks he EVER gets from me.
Thanks for letting me know about that.
As long as you let government spend your money, they will always spend it on those who lobby for it over those who vote for it because they lied to you to get it, and they will spend it on those who best enable them to keep lying and spending your money.
I'm for ANYONE helping Rand to get elected; it DOES NOT MEAN that he is willing to compromise his principles. Hell, Ron Paul accepted donations from anyone and everyone. How is what Rand doing any different than that?
================
Open Borders: A Libertarian Reappraisal or why only dumbasses and cultural marxists are for it.
Cultural Marxism: The Corruption of America
The Property Basis of Rights
Oh no! We're not attacking Obama enough!
This is total and utter horse$#@!. You keep propagating the whole left-right war, and insisting we are betraying ourselves by not looking to the left as Satan manifest. Both the right AND the left are the targets here, along with the system they propagate that you must pick a team and attack the other.
And, to make it worse, you try shaming everyone by calling them Democrats like this is some sort of ultimate insult for not daring to support a completely empty candidate that sits on your preferred side of the fence. If you don't see why this is foolhardy, I don't think you even understand the whole point trying to be made here.
What we have here has nothing to do with left vs. right. We agree with things that Democrats purport to agree with, and we agree with things Republicans purport to agree with. We are neither, because a country with 300 million people cannot have 2 cookie-cutter points of view on any situation.
Palin has sided with neocons, talks like a neocon and has shown no true support for any of our causes, so, I have no reason to support her unless she proves otherwise. She hasn't. To me, she is currently just as much an enemy as Obama is, as she continues to propagate the destruction of our country just as severely no matter what sort of show she's putting on. For siding with her, perhaps you're more of a Democrat than any of us.
Unless she changes her tune, she remains that way, and is not to be trusted. If she does happen to work toward goals I agree with, then I'd work with her on those goals but lend her no aide anywhere else. She can even help out Rand, I don't care. However, even if she does, I'd rather nominate a piece of driftwood than her as any sort of candidate.
Last edited by RM918; 11-21-2009 at 10:38 AM.
Your right, and i just wrote Rands campaign to find out the details. I don't want to make any decision without knowing what the truth is.
However, if Rand asked for her help, I need to know what he agrees with her on? Quitting? Increasing taxes? Invading my privacy? Centralizing power? Increasing spending?
What principals is Rand giving up to gain the power of her support?
And I had no problem with Ron keeping that money, he was right, but he didn't ask them specifically for help either.
As long as you let government spend your money, they will always spend it on those who lobby for it over those who vote for it because they lied to you to get it, and they will spend it on those who best enable them to keep lying and spending your money.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
Connect With Us