She is just not a good person.
“Help me, Ohio, to help put John McCain in the White House,” she said. “He understands. He understands you. We understand how important it is that this team be elected. For one thing, we know who the bad guys are, OK?”
That statement elicited scattered shouts of “Obama!” throughout the crowd.
“We know that in the war, it’s terrorists, terrorists who hate America and her allies and would seek to destroy us, and the bad guys are those who would support and sympathize with the terrorists,” she said. “They do not like America because of what we stand for. Liberty. Freedom. Equal rights. Those who sympathize and support those terrorists who would seek to destroy all that it is that we value, those are the bad guys, OK?”
If Palin didn't mean Obama as one of her “bad guys”, she should have damn well had the courage to tell the crowd just that. Chumming the waters will never get them to 51% — in fact, I'm damn certain it will backfire hellaciously. As it stands, she and the McCain campaign are pursuing a strategy that will succeed only in whipping up violence against a future President. I'm pretty sure she doesn't give a damn, which is why their campaign must be crushed decisively; to avoid any possible conclusion that what they're doing is acceptable in a civil society.
since when are mccain-palin for equal rights?
I agree, Laurel, I did a double take when I read that McCain-Palin supports equal rights. I mean, she went so far as to admit in the debate that she would tolerate me as a lesbian – golly, gee, how good loudly does that ring my equality bell?
I don’t think he would. As a matter of fact, I don’t think Obma would counterattack against ant country if they hit contiguous USA, Alaska, Hawaii or any one of our territories. I’m quite certain that Obama would take it to the UN and the UN would tell us we had it coming and then Obama would errr and ahhhhhhhh and go into his double speak act. Meanwhile—you’d have a very, very angry Department of Defense.
<
p>So in that context—perhaps Obama is in fact a bad guy. I can tell you one thing. As a 28 year member of the armed forces, I wouldn’t want Obama’s name on any documents of mine and —praise God—-I dodged having to have Clinton’s name on anything. I would venture to guess that just considering our armed forces—there are going to be an awful of very unhappy people if Mr. Obama is elected. Probably explains why Clinton stayed at arms length for his presidency and was only palsy wallsy with the USAF.
Israel would already have nuked Iran to oblivion before the US or anyone else would have a chance to react. As a “28 year member of the armed forces”, I am sure you are perfectly aware of the fact that Israel is perfectly capable of retaliating in devastating fashion all by itself. So why are you postulating such a ridiculous scenario? And on what evidence do you base your assumptions about what Obama would do? Nada.
<
p>
You’re clutching at straws maniacally here. Let’s see here…
<
p>You don’t think Israel can defend itself. Iran does not have the capability to make a working atomic weapon, much less a simultaneous, multiple warhead missile-launched strike. If Iran nuclearizes — something likely in reaction to the bumbling Bush/McCain style of diplomacy, we would have M.A.D. conditions. Nobody is “taking out” anybody. So change your underpants already.
<
p>When say a “very, very angry Department of Defense”, you’re implying a coup d’etat. After Obama is elected, would you support a military coup d’etat?
<
p>You’re hilarious when talking about “very unhappy people” in our armed forces. Obama has strong leads in fundraising from active military, retired military, and the population in general. The people who do the fighting — and have done it — support Obama, even if you personally do not. Stop projecting your struggles with reality onto the wider population.
I will leave it up to reveal for all how utterly nonsensical your position is. I mean, for God’s sake, of course Obama (or anyone else) would counterattack against any country who struck “contiguous USA, Alaska, Hawaii or any one of our territories.” I defy you to point us to a single utterance by Obama suggesting otherwise.
<
p>Your scandalous suggestion is based on nothing other than your irrational hatred of Obama. Where does that come from, anyway? Have you really, honestly answered that for yourself?
I mean really? The guy is 99% troll at this point.
If your appalling candidate was failing at everything he touched, you’d be irascible, too. I see it as a pleasant, personal reminder of how sad these people are. Notice that MCRD doesn’t even try to talk about McCain at this point, he just throws up random lies about Obama.
<
p>Why is North Dakota a swing state? Why is everyone from Romney to Smith desperately running away from him? He’s the type of guy that has MCRD in his corner.
<
p>
His posts aren’t merely absurd. They read like the delusional rantings of a mental patient.
of your novel, MRCD. I won’t read it, but it will be fun seeing everyone who does complaining.
….because she has been cleared of any hint of wrongdoing in the investigation that found her guilty of abusing her power a governor. (!???)
<
p>Or maybe she just lives in an alternative universe that resides within her own mind.