BF2S Forums Sarah Palin

AussieReaper wrote:

lowing wrote:

AussieReaper wrote:

Well if not Palin for President, I think she'd make a fine VP. Problem is, who does she align with the most?

I personally would loathe to see a Bachmann/Palin ticket.

actually I don't want her anywhere near it. I think where ever she goes, it will eliminate all chances of a republican victory and thus ensuring more Obama.

You're probably right. And I think Palin knows it too. She's just doing all these tours / book signings / tv shows just as a way to make money which is a shame.

no more of a shame than any other celebrity doing the same thing. She is in demand and she is cashing in on that, I don't care. She isn't getting any of my money.

Kmar wrote:

It's the fact that she started doing it right after she quit her elected office that is bothersome.

Why?

People only go into politics to make money.

CEOs jump ship without any thought except for the money, why not politicians?
Its not as if they're in it for their fellow man.

i wish i had romney money

Yea, this is nice.

Rick Scott reported an eye-popping net worth of more than $218
million last month in forms filed with the state Division of Elections.

But the Republican candidate for governor also has tens of millions
of dollars tucked in a trust under his wife's name and in a family
limited partnership. He has amassed a complicated network of
investments, holdings and companies designed to shield against legal and
tax liabilities, according to a St. Petersburg Times review of his
financial holdings.

And as far as I know (and I do), LLP's have to disclose.

FEOS wrote:

lowing wrote:

FEOS wrote:

lowing wrote:

You didn't say the things I addressed? you might wanna go back and re-read your own post FEOS.

No, lowing. I didn't.


Benefiting personally from a decision does not make the decision correct or right, lowing. Read my sig.

Well then FEOS, you are losin' it cuz this is what you said, and what I addressed

FEOS wrote:

Her critical thinking IS real, lowing. There are many examples of her poor critical thinking (bridge to nowhere endorsement before not endorsing it anyone?). Choosing to quit the office the people of her state had elected her to execute. They did not elect her to do nation-wide bus tours and reality TV shows in order to "reach more people with her message." Those "real" enough for you.


lol, not what I said, I said your examples do not show a lack of intelligence or "critical thinking". You can be unscrupulous or unethical and still know exactly what you are doing and have thought the matter through.

I was talking about the non-germane things you keep dragging into the discussion--those things I never once bring into my argument, yet you keep bringing up for some reason (her clothing, etc). When the points are relevant, I address them. The disconnect on this might be due to a day or so going by between exchanges.

So I am not "losin' it". Just because she's fallen ass-backwards into tea party success does not mean that her thought process was sound from a policy perspective. She may be shrewd from a money-making, publicity perspective. That doesn't mean she has the chops to be POTUS. And it certainly does not mean her critical thinking skills are up to snuff. Otherwise, saying "man and dinosaurs coexisted" or even implying the same would never have happened.

No, you are losing it, because I addressed EXACTLY the things you brought up, go back and read what I highlighted.

What policy? She has no policy, she is not in office in any capacity. She is capitalizing on her popularity. Again, that is not an example of stupidity or a lack of critical thinking.

Her critical thinking skills may not be up to snuff, but your examples as to why do not hold water, because, whatever her thinking, there is no doubt it benefits her. to say it is by accident, is nothing but being a hater.

Jaekus wrote:

lowing wrote:

Jaekus wrote:

Basic rule of logic: you can't prove a negative.

Should try it sometime.

if you can't prove a negative, then you can't really claim one exists then either.
what you can do is provide reason for your conclusions, you don't want to, and choose to insult instead, I can't help that

wah wah QQ. If you make dumb comments, expect to be treated as such.

Someone asked if she supports it, I said no, how can I prove a lack of support?

Never said she was against it, but seeing as no one can link to anywhere she has said she does support it, how can anyone say she does? derp.

wow, so you really think you can not show a lack of support of an issue? really?
c'mon, you're just tryin' to be a smart ass right? Wait hold on.....nope, I don't care, never mind.

Jaekus wrote:

She has not shown to support it = lack of support.

With her other stances on issues it's unlikely she would at any rate.

well actually she has praised alaska for their 95% organ donator program participation , so I really have no idea how you can say she would not support it, but really, neither do you, so no matter.

Jaekus wrote:

Link?

http://www.ontheissues.org/Celeb/Sarah_ … h_Care.htm
Signed up as organ donor; Alaska leads the states

Gov. Palin today applauded the milestone that more than half of Alaska residents--335,033 people--have signed up to be organ and tissue donors. Alaska is the first state with a donor registry to enroll more than half of its state’s population. The Governor, First Gentleman and their two oldest children are organ and tissue donors.
“I am proud that so many residents recognize the life-giving benefits of organ and tissue donation,” Governor Palin said. “Their willingness to donate demonstrate the selfless and generous nature of Alaskans.“
April is National Donate Life Month. Every day in April, people across the U.S. make a special effort to celebrate the tremendous generosity of those who have saved lives by becoming organ, tissue, marrow, and blood donors. Life Alaska Donor Services is the tissue donation organization serving the State of Alaska, offering the option of donation to families who have suffered a death.


I did make a mistake it was 55% and I typed 95%. Still, more than any other state and she herself is a donor. Now, did you want to support your claim that she does not support organ donor programs?

Jaekus wrote:

Well, this could have been solved when I asked for the link over a page ago, but I stand corrected.

I would say something about being able to die now, I have seen everything, but I know all the comments that would generate.

lowing wrote:

FEOS wrote:

lowing wrote:

Well then FEOS, you are losin' it cuz this is what you said, and what I addressed

FEOS wrote:

Her critical thinking IS real, lowing. There are many examples of her poor critical thinking (bridge to nowhere endorsement before not endorsing it anyone?). Choosing to quit the office the people of her state had elected her to execute. They did not elect her to do nation-wide bus tours and reality TV shows in order to "reach more people with her message." Those "real" enough for you.


lol, not what I said, I said your examples do not show a lack of intelligence or "critical thinking". You can be unscrupulous or unethical and still know exactly what you are doing and have thought the matter through.

I was talking about the non-germane things you keep dragging into the discussion--those things I never once bring into my argument, yet you keep bringing up for some reason (her clothing, etc). When the points are relevant, I address them. The disconnect on this might be due to a day or so going by between exchanges.

So I am not "losin' it". Just because she's fallen ass-backwards into tea party success does not mean that her thought process was sound from a policy perspective. She may be shrewd from a money-making, publicity perspective. That doesn't mean she has the chops to be POTUS. And it certainly does not mean her critical thinking skills are up to snuff. Otherwise, saying "man and dinosaurs coexisted" or even implying the same would never have happened.

No, you are losing it, because I addressed EXACTLY the things you brought up, go back and read what I highlighted.

What policy? She has no policy, she is not in office in any capacity. She is capitalizing on her popularity. Again, that is not an example of stupidity or a lack of critical thinking.

Her critical thinking skills may not be up to snuff, but your examples as to why do not hold water, because, whatever her thinking, there is no doubt it benefits her. to say it is by accident, is nothing but being a hater.

Again, having success after a poor decision does not make the decision any less poor. It simply means that she has made other decisions following that one that weren't. Quitting office was a bad decision. Doing all the publicity whore stuff is benefiting her personally, sure. Is that a good decision? For her. Is it for the people who elected her that she walked out on? Most definitely not. Again: critical thinking. You see only the surface. Critical thinking is about analyzing from multiple angles.

And...as stated before I'm not a "Palin hater". On a personal level, I connect with her. I just don't think she has what it takes to be POTUS.

eleven bravo wrote:

derp

FEOS wrote:

lowing wrote:

FEOS wrote:

I was talking about the non-germane things you keep dragging into the discussion--those things I never once bring into my argument, yet you keep bringing up for some reason (her clothing, etc). When the points are relevant, I address them. The disconnect on this might be due to a day or so going by between exchanges.

So I am not "losin' it". Just because she's fallen ass-backwards into tea party success does not mean that her thought process was sound from a policy perspective. She may be shrewd from a money-making, publicity perspective. That doesn't mean she has the chops to be POTUS. And it certainly does not mean her critical thinking skills are up to snuff. Otherwise, saying "man and dinosaurs coexisted" or even implying the same would never have happened.

No, you are losing it, because I addressed EXACTLY the things you brought up, go back and read what I highlighted.

What policy? She has no policy, she is not in office in any capacity. She is capitalizing on her popularity. Again, that is not an example of stupidity or a lack of critical thinking.

Her critical thinking skills may not be up to snuff, but your examples as to why do not hold water, because, whatever her thinking, there is no doubt it benefits her. to say it is by accident, is nothing but being a hater.

Again, having success after a poor decision does not make the decision any less poor. It simply means that she has made other decisions following that one that weren't. Quitting office was a bad decision. Doing all the publicity whore stuff is benefiting her personally, sure. Is that a good decision? For her. Is it for the people who elected her that she walked out on? Most definitely not. Again: critical thinking. You see only the surface. Critical thinking is about analyzing from multiple angles.

And...as stated before I'm not a "Palin hater". On a personal level, I connect with her. I just don't think she has what it takes to be POTUS.

You connect with her? I always thought you were a reasonably smart guy FEOS. I'm disappointed.