Thursday, August 16, 2012

Palin skipping the GOP convention

Freepers continue their Palin obsession, even as no one else wants much to do with her:

smoothsailing doesn't believe it:
Nowhere in her statement does Palin say she will not speak.

The headline and the lead are shoddy BS from Reuters hacks.
doug from upland knows no one works harder than Sarah Palin:
She is always so gracious and has worked hard as hell to save this nation.
mom.mom knows Democrats fear her:
It would be unfortunate not to have Sarah speak at the convention. She is a star and the democrats fear her. She has a rare talent for connecting with folks. We need her voice and active participation these next 3 months.
Friendofgeorge is likewise discomfited:
This is sooo outrages, I feel like I am in Alice in Wonderland. One of the most powerful people in the Conservative movement, and she is being shunned???

Romney finally did something good by picking Ryan, but he leaves out the most important person to me.

Where do I go to scream
muawiyah explains that Romney's people are probably pedophiles:
The crowd around Romney and McCain are a tad strange. They were counting Sarah's underwear from the beginning, and lord only knows what indignities they had in store for the children.

Maybe they saved their more perverted stuff up for this campaign ~ Ryan has young children.
LaserJock explains how Sarah Paln didn't quit, but shoehorning every single military retreat he could think of into an analogy:
She DID quit. She can get back into the game thru a Cabinet post and/or running in 2014 for the senate seat. Otherwise she’s just an ornament-not serious.

Yeah, and George Washington quit when he retreated from New York rather than face certain annihilation in an unfriendly environment (New York was full of Loyalists) that limited his maneuvering room.

One must sometimes reposition in order to strike back and eventually win. History is full of General Custer's who just refused to acknowledge reality and give up some ground when necessary. Sarah has handled things admirably in this regard and is now a more powerful force for conservatism than she could possibly have been in the Little Big Horn of the Alaska Governors Mansion.

To claim she's just an ornament simply doesn't compute given how she's dominated so many news cycles and positively affected so many local and national races.
Iron Munro knows to trust Sarah's instincts:
Sarah always takes the high road.
She instinctively knows which path is the right one.
So many could learn from her but they feel threatened by her insight and strength.
livius thinks it's cause Romney's a Mormon:
members of polygamist sects have problems dealing with independent women, and I think Romney is displaying this and should reassess his behavior right now. He’d do himself a serious favor by asking her to speak, and if nothing else, he should remember that she has a lot of devoted followers and he doesn’t, so he needs them.
JediJones explains how the GOP lacks the courage to back crazy people and laughingstocks for national office:
Here’s what I think the vicious cycle is that the GOP keeps falling into.

Some Republican candidates appear on the scene who explicitly call out how truly devastating and dangerous the policies of the Democrats are for this country. Naturally, they are beloved by the base who are the one group of Americans who has done their homework and understands the destructive nature of the Left.

The Democrats see these politicians as especially threatening because not only do they know what the Democrats are up to but they’re not afraid to speak the truth. Therefore the liberal media unleashes a massive smear campaign against them involving all the Alinsky-ite tactics of ridicule, lies and such and such.

The liberal media’s attacks begin to have the desired effect and drive down their poll numbers. The GOP elites then get scared and seek to marginalize those candidates because they’re afraid they’ll make the whole party unpopular, hurt fundraising, etc.

It happened to Newt Gingrich, Sarah Palin, Allen West and Donald Trump. All of them are now too hot for GOP TV.
DrewsMum hopes she still takes over the convention:
I hope to God she goes and tries to be just a bystander... And I hope she is ambushed by the crowd and that she STILL steals attention away from the RINOS.... YEA, I said it... ;o)
You know what? So do I.

jimsin gives witness to how awesome Sarah is:
they dont call it the STUPID PARTY for nuthin....ya know.

Here they have a bona fide political star, whose wildly popular with the base.. A stunner who can fill a 40,000 seat stadium wherever she decides to opine...

And some party dink decides not to invite this champion to the ball....oh my GODDD. What fool made this decision and which are the fools who decided to play follow the fool....?

WASILLA ALASKA'S SARAH LOUISE.... A PLACE WHERE BEAUTY MEETS BRAINS MEETS BRAVERY MEETS HONESTY MEETS FAITH AND ABILITY.... !
presently no screen name thinks if all the crazy people gather together, America will love them!
Sarah needs her own speaker’s platform away from the GOP convention where she, Newt, Allen West speak and then the voters can compare it to the mitt/paul/mccain speeches. It would be obvious who the Patriots are.
JLAGRAYFOX expects a Palin surprise at the convention:
Methinks you folks should keep your powder dry and keep your yaps shut. Mitt Romney & Paul Ryan may just spring Ms. Palin on the convention floor at the absolute last minute for maximum exposure and to screw the liberal, Obamabot, left-wing, media dirt bags.

Based on the massive turnout of voters for Romney/Ryan wherever they went Saturday & Sunday and the dismal rally attendance at every Obama campaign stop... I would say Palin, speaking at the last minute, would be a stunning good move, and would bring the convention to a fever pitch!!!

23 comments:

  1. Of all FReeper delusions, "liberals fear Palin" may be the most absurd.

    Can't wait to see them rationalize her increasingly desperate career choices. The county fair circuit, bottom- of-the-barrel reality TV...they'll claim all of it is some brilliant game of nine-dimensional chess undertaken for the good of the Republic.

    They truly deserve each other.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Palin hasn't given Romney a lot of support, so she is not getting a prime gig at the Republican National Convention. It's that simple.

    "So, because you are lukewarm, and neither hot nor cold, I will spit you out of my mouth."
    JC

    ReplyDelete
  3. "They were counting Sarah's underwear from the beginning,"

    What the heck is that supposed to mean?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I think he was just looking for an excuse to talk about Sarah's underwear. To be totally honest, a lot of the metaphors the freepers use make no sense to me at all. I don't now if it's a generation gap thing or a batshit insane facist thing.

      Delete
  4. JimRob finds freeper lack of faith disturbing:

    http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2919388/posts

    Ozy have you ever done a spotlight on JimRob?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. "Make it a double impeachment. They are co conspirators in the attempted coup d’etat, y’know."
      JimRob

      I have no idea what Jim is talking about here.

      Delete
    2. Like the words from most religious leaders, it's all hyperbole and gloom and doom. The message doesn't matter as long as the passion of the congregation is stirred up.

      Freepers constantly try these impassioned speeches to varying degrees of success, but JimRob is actually pretty good at it.

      Delete
    3. Abortion is always a touchstone of freeper cognitive dissonance. On the one hand it is "Hoo yah! CONSTITUTION Semper Fi!". But on the other they want their presidential candidate to declare his intention to overturn a SCOTUS ruling - which of course can only happen if the Executive branch shreds the constitution and becomes a de facto Monarchy. The Legislative branch can reverse a SCOTUS postion but the Executive cannot and must not attempt to do so. Constitutional Law 101 Freepers!

      Delete
    4. Our African Queen ? I wasn't aware we had any.

      "amnesty for illegal alien animals without a law passed by CONgress, attacking Libya for no reason and without CONgressional approval" I am guessing you are referring to Ronald Reagan ?

      Delete
    5. ahinam, you win the internet.

      Delete
    6. "Shreds the Constitution" == "Does things I disagree with".

      Delete
  5. It is interesting to me that they always call male politicians by their last names (Obama, Romney, Gingrich, Santorum) but always call Palin "Sarah."

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. OBAMA HATES WHITES, JEWS, AND CATHOLICSAugust 16, 2012 at 8:28 PM

      I HAVE TEH DOWNS!!!!!!111

      Delete
    2. Sorta like how conservatives think that fuck-up Reagan was God, huh?

      Delete
    3. Sure he did. He just happened to be in the right place at the right time while the Democrats in Congress did all the work. He just went along with them. Meanwhile, he funneled arms to Iran to help terrorists. Oh yeah, and he ate jellybeans.

      Delete
    4. Oh Ok, I'm making it up. The 1980's would have happened with the Jew Hating Peanut Farmer running the country. Uh-huh. And I guess your African Queen is a genius, too.


      You're a barely animate chunk of afterbirth.


      Delete
    5. Yeah, I'm pretty sure the 1980s would have happened no matter who was president. I know it's probably news to you, but that's sort of the way numbers work. And yes, almost everything you say is made up, including Carter being a Jew hater.

      Delete
  6. Is America Really Under Attack From Conservative Right-Wing Terrorist Who Want Civil War?
    http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-religion/2919537/posts

    ReplyDelete
  7. ...Your definition of small minority seems to be about half:
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catholic_Church_and_politics_in_the_United_States#Presidential_elections

    ReplyDelete
  8. Yes, it's much better to use the vastly superior Conservapedia, what with the way it always gets the facts right on every single thing ever. And I notice you couldn't provide any proof that his cite from Wikipedia is wrong.

    ReplyDelete
  9. Yes, because something is on Wikipedia that automatically means it's untrue, right? Got that proof that the Wikipedia cite is wrong yet?

    ReplyDelete
  10. EUPHGEEK IS A STUPID CUNTAugust 18, 2012 at 2:02 AM

    "PLEASE BE AWARE THAT ANY INFORMATION YOU MAY FIND IN WIKIPEDIA MAY BE INACCURATE, MISLEADING, DANGEROUS, ADDICTIVE, UNETHICAL OR ILLEGAL.

    Some information on Wikipedia may create an unreasonable risk for readers who choose to apply or use the information in their own activities or to promote the information for use by third parties.

    None of the authors, contributors, sponsors, administrators, vandals, or anyone else connected with Wikipedia, in any way whatsoever, can be responsible for your use of the information contained in or linked from these web pages.

    Please take all steps necessary to ascertain that information you receive from Wikipedia is correct and has been verified. Check the references at the end of the article. Read the article's talk page and revision history to see if there are outstanding disputes over the contents of the article. Double-check all information with independent sources."

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Risk_disclaimer

    ReplyDelete
  11. And nowhere in that statement do I see anything refuting the information in Ozy's post. Could it be because the information is correct? Gosh, what if you actually took the advice in the statement and verified the information? Wouldn't want to do that, though, would you? Your whole world view might come crashing down around your ears if you ever came in contact with facts.

    ReplyDelete