Questions for Sarah PalinRemember that irritating kid in class who would never put his hand down?
It was Peter Hamm. Who knew one day that would also be his favorite salute? Well, maybe the kids he told on...
I do wish Governor Palin (I note your tactical use of her first name, Petey. Oh, wait, you threaten to shoot people who call you that, don't you?) would answer this question the way I would:
What did you mean when you described "attacks on our Second Amendment rights" as equivalent to gangs and drug use as something that would "harm family life?" ...Does this include efforts by groups like the Brady Campaign...
But it being politics and all, I don't expect she will.
What the Brady subversives are doing, of course, aside from desperately trying to claim relevance, is throwing a wrench into the gun owner mix. They're hoping she won't dare say anything disagreeing with John McCain. And they're hoping the harder core will be upset by that. Alternatively, if she does, they can exploit that, too.
It's only a win-win for them if we give it to them.
I haven't come out and embraced Palin. I do agree she is interesting and there are things about her I like. In truth, I don't think she has the needed experience to be president, but then, I don't think any of the candidates do--and from what I've seen she's got 'em all beat.
I think the smart thing for her to do here is just ignore Hamm. And I think the smart thing for us to do is not let him spark a fire that he can then sit back and enjoy.
16 comments:
honestly, i could care less about this so-called experience everyone is interested in. biden was picked for his foreign policy experience? i guess six terms in the beltway is a good way to learn how to lie really well, particularly to people from other countries.
that's experience.
no, i'm really more interested in people who will make good decisions. moral decisions. people with values.
She won't get my vote because I have to vote for McCain to give it to her. But if the ticket were reversed she would stand a helluva good chance.
Experience is only any good if one learns something from it. As can be proven, those with experience in the race, haven't learned a damn thing, except possibly for Palin who has more executive experience than the other three put together. She has learned what the founding principles of the country are and has displayed a ferocity in adhering to them, even at the expense of opposing her own party when it came to cleaning up corruption. Sounds like pretty good mental facilities to use while gaining experience.
Also, in the foreign relations arena, the dynamic is ever changing, ergo anyone with experience yesterday is behind the curve already today. A funcioning brain and good core principles are far more important than "experience" when that experience is making the same damn mistakes over and over.
I used to be a construction manager, everything from Quality Assurance to Project Engineer/Manager on multi-million dollar projects at one point in my life.
The most incompetent people I ever had to deal with were some of those hired solely on their "experience". Not all of them, but a goodly number. It seems experience was valued highly by the people who did the hiring, whether my company or those of subcontractors. In most cases when I had to deal with an incompetent it would eventually be revealed that his experience was that he went broke in his own company. He couldn't even protect his own investment, but was somehow deemed "experienced" enough to protect his employer's money.
Experience is only good if one learns something from it.
Also, just what part of the pig is the Ham(m) again?
What straightarrow said. I would vote for her, not for mccain the collaborator.
Nothing can prepare a person for being president, therefore you go with the person you trust to make the right choices when needed. I don't trust anyone enough to hand my life over to them.
Isn't it funny that people who have "experience" are denigrated for being "insiders", while those who have none are castigated for that. Lose/lose situation.
I'll summarize the article for ya'll.
"Baaaaa baaaa baaaa, "NRA." Baaaa... baaaaaaaaaaaaaa"
first off, I could give a crap what the NRA does or says. They are not the end-all be-all of gun rights orgs.
secondly, i don't think people really need the "experience" everyone keeps yelling about. it's the same thing over and over. Can she read the Constitution? Does she know what it means? There. What other qualifications does one need? Besides of course, tutoring McCain in what it means...
With criticism like that the Manchurian Candidate is going to win in a walk
I am voting for McCain just to get HER in. What's wrong with you people? If you don't vote for McCain, you risk throwing away the chance to win for our side. And in 4 years, we might even keep what keep what we've won with Palin running for President. Come on, look at the big picture and stop whining about McCain. If we don't win this time, we may never get another chance for a long long time and you will see all your rights destroyed because you failed to act. Stop thinking about yourself and think for the greater good. Just because you don't like McCain doesn't mean you can't vote for him to get Palin into office.
Straightarrow, I've always had the utmost respect for your posts, but this time, I feel you're talking out of your ass - cutting off your nose to spite your face, so to speak.
OrangeNeckInNY - That's an awful lot of "if". The only way for "our side" to win is to refuse to play a rigged game.
My rights do not come from government. Government has no authority to whittle away the "least" of my rights in the tiniest way. I am not a slave and I refuse to pretend to be one in order to make them comfortable.
I am voting for the only person who will represent me; the only person I trust with my rights. Me. I know the vote will not "count". I don't care anymore. I will "waste" my vote by refusing to vote for the lesser of two or three evils, and I will have a clear conscience while I prepare for the inevitable.
I will not insult you for making what I see as a horrible mistake; please return the favor.
Well, orangeneck, I'm sorry you feel that way. But I will not vote for a man who has not only disrespected the Bill of Rights, but has actively negated one of the amendments in it.
You say "our side" as though McCain were really on it. He has proven he is not. I won't vote for him. Nor will I vote for the shining bigot from Chicago.
Lets see if we can figure out what happens after Obama is elected because so many people either didn't vote or wasted it with Bob Barr. The demoncrates control both house of congress, they get to set at least 3 more SCOTUS picks in the next 4 to 8 years, maybe more. They pass all manner of gun laws without taking away our 2nd Amendment. They repeal the 22nd amendment. Republican party outlawed. Game, set, match. USA loses.
"USA loses".
Um...how, exactly, is it that we are not losing now? The opportunity to make something constructive out of the collectivists' messes has positively oozed out of the air for years, and yet look at where we are.
Kent nailed it that this is a rigged game. The only ones (!!) the party-driven system benefits are (surprise) the parties. Palin was chosen precisely to make a vindictive, petty little tyrant seem less offensive, but with minimal risk that she'll actually be able to do anything about that. In the bargain the party can stick her in the one position where she will do the least "damage". Remember how Ron Paul got actively edited out of the conversation because he made everyone look bad by talking about things that matter? The RNC has absolutely no interest in empowering anyone committed to limited government, now or anywhere down the road. (Hell, the rot is so bad even the Libertarians can't field someone worth voting for...and that is really sad.)
I, for one, absolutely refuse to reward those punks for doing that. There appears to be much to like about Palin, on her own, but the fact remains: you can stick the world's best chocolate coating on a steaming pile, and it's still a steaming pile.
And--sorry, Sarah, but in the end, you chose to hitch your wagon to this toad.
Well, the USA is loosing now and I agree. However if you choose not to participate in the process as so many have done in the past because it doesn't matter, then you will get what you deserve, but I don't. I choose to involve myself in the process so IF the time ever comes for active change then at least I can say I participated whether it counted or not. I know that there isn't much we can do and little we can change as the process is fixed, but I will be there voting because now that's all I can do. Whoever wants to leave had better be able to find some other place where you can still say these things and have a little freedom to boot, even if it's all they will allow us to have. I don't think you really want to "unlimber the Winchesters" as the old Native American once told his congressman and you probably won't leave either, you've got it too good here.
tjbbpgob-
Some of us see this in a different light than you do. As in: those who participate in a rigged game have no right to complain when the inevitable result... results. Those who see the game and know it is rigged choose to spend their time and energy on other activities. Remember, if voting could change anything, it would be illegal. Instead it works to trick you into believing you are "doing something".
Those of us you suggest "want to leave" have nowhere free left to go. The days of an accessible frontier beyond the reach of tyrants are gone. Therefore we might as well stay here and fight for our liberty in spite of everything. If only because this is where we keep all our stuff. We love the idea of liberty too much to abandon America (which is in reality our families and friends) to those who hate liberty. That is why we do not jump when told to "love it or leave it".
I refuse to only have the little freedom "they" allow us to have. I will TAKE that which is mine. They can't control, or kill, us all.
"
They can't control, or kill, us all."-Kent.
Even if they can, they still lose. Nobody would be left who could or is inclined to be productive. There goes their free ride.
Ironically, tjbbpgob's pragmatist argument, in its zeal for pragmatic purity, does not seem to recognize that there is a pragmatism among the purists, as well. It's simply of a more subtle kind, which appears only after the big issues have been satisfied.
Kent is again right on when he says that some see the situation in a different light--I would argue further that there is a completely different worldview out there, complete unto itself, that even most gunnies can't really relate to. In a nutshell, this worldview asks only one question: who controls your life, you or someone else? Sounds simple. (And it really is, too, in the end. We've just been conditioned against it--even asking the question--for more years than most of us have been alive.)
The point is: it is a mistake to interpret non-participation as apathy, just as it is a mistake to interpret a vote for Palin as a tacit endorsement of McCain (and yet, there is exactly zero chance that a vote for Palin will be interpreted any other way).
I, for one, look at the current choice like this: would I rather have my foot hacked off by an axe, or by a chainsaw? This answer is easy: I'm not going to go on record as saying I want my foot hacked off at all, period. It doesn't change if one of the offers includes local anaesthesia, or a really sharp blade to make it hurt less. This answer is non-negotiable; there will be no misinterpreting mine as a vote for self-mutilation. And so in this sense, I'm a purist.
Now...if there were to be an option among the set in which there is a chance that the foot may actually be spared, maybe at the cost of a small headache to make it happen...now that is something worth considering. And now, the addition of mitigating factors like aspirin for the headache, or viable protection for the ankle, may become worth discussing minutiae about. But if the foot is coming off regardless, who cares?
This is not apathy. Nor is it irrational. It is not even entirely without its own pragmatism.
I think this is why you have seen such support at this site for Ron Paul. Make no mistake: to a libertarian, even Ron Paul is a compromise. And yet even the purists you find here seemed willing to give him a chance--precisely because he never promised to hack your foot off. With that piece of self-preservation satisfied, the minutiae can be considered on merits. Not before.
Until then, best prepare to protect that foot. ObarrMcCain's minions may decide they want it sooner rather than later.
Post a Comment