OK, please justify answer #2. There is very little to base this claim on -- certainly it's not evidenced outside of the GOP's already long-lost hierarchy and the already anti-Palin lefties.
I know why she said she left. I've even read (and agree with) Bill Whittle's essay on her outing. But I still say--it's not preposterous to conclude quitters don't win.
> But I still say--it's not preposterous to conclude quitters don't win.
a) Since she's not a "quitter", it's preposterous to apply it here. And that you maintain such says, in fact, that you DON'T "know why she said she left." There's no connective between her leaving office to save the people of Alaska the expense and distractions of dealing with the endless harassments applied to her as an ongoing example of the Politics of Destruction and "quitting". Duh and Q.E.D.
b) The assertion itself is just flat out wrong, and it only takes one name to put the error to it: Nixon.
For the record, I agree that the press and the left mistreated Palin. And I know the reasons she cited for leaving office early. I disagree only in calling that "quitting," and in believing that an unwanted trait in a candidate or President. Put differently, though I sympathize with her rationale, she still quit, and I can't say she's fit for higher executive office.
Well put Carl. Note -- Carl is leaving himself plenty of wiggle room. "can not say she is fit" is not equivalent to "can say she is not fit".
However Carl, I believe you are setting a pretty high standard for 'higher office'. Having resigned for professional or political reasons (or however you want to characterize Palin) is an "unwanted trait" I'd like to know what else would raise your eyebrows? How many politicians have unwanted traits that are actually detrimental to performing their job? Like being coke heads? Or liberals?
Can we please put the resignation behind us? Can we stop holding Sarah Palin to a hopelessly high standard? Can we get back to what is important, namely, fixing the institutions of this country? And if Sarah Palin wants to help do that, she has my support. 110%. I hope she will have the support of all of our readers.
You answered No to "Do you believe the Federal Reserve should be audited?".
I thought free markets depended on the free flow of information. Not for Carl.
Good job, Carl. Once again, you show how you favor government intervention when it serves Big Money. Just as with TARP and the AIG "bailout", (nothing but another conduit of taxpayer money to big investment banks, like your heroes at Goldman Sachs), you are all for it.
Not to suggest I really agree with Carl on that -- I think there needs to be an amendment that requires, absolutely, for governments at all levels to abide by GAAP.
But that's probably going to have to wait for The Constitution, Mk II.
14 comments:
OK, please justify answer #2. There is very little to base this claim on -- certainly it's not evidenced outside of the GOP's already long-lost hierarchy and the already anti-Palin lefties.
Justify that she's not a viable candidate? This simple: quitters don't win.
> This simple: quitters don't win.
Sorry, I think she's more than adequately explained her justifications, which have nothing to do with "quitting".
Given that you've no doubt read them too, I find that argument downright preposterous.
I know why she said she left. I've even read (and agree with) Bill Whittle's essay on her outing. But I still say--it's not preposterous to conclude quitters don't win.
> But I still say--it's not preposterous to conclude quitters don't win.
a) Since she's not a "quitter", it's preposterous to apply it here. And that you maintain such says, in fact, that you DON'T "know why she said she left." There's no connective between her leaving office to save the people of Alaska the expense and distractions of dealing with the endless harassments applied to her as an ongoing example of the Politics of Destruction and "quitting". Duh and Q.E.D.
b) The assertion itself is just flat out wrong, and it only takes one name to put the error to it: Nixon.
I'll add my two cents hereThis is one of the few issues that I respectfully disagree with Carl on. Her resignation is a non-event in her political career. Also see my initial supportive reaction.
For the record, I agree that the press and the left mistreated Palin. And I know the reasons she cited for leaving office early. I disagree only in calling that "quitting," and in believing that an unwanted trait in a candidate or President. Put differently, though I sympathize with her rationale, she still quit, and I can't say she's fit for higher executive office.
Well put Carl. Note -- Carl is leaving himself plenty of wiggle room. "can not say she is fit" is not equivalent to "can say she is not fit".
However Carl, I believe you are setting a pretty high standard for 'higher office'. Having resigned for professional or political reasons (or however you want to characterize Palin) is an "unwanted trait" I'd like to know what else would raise your eyebrows? How many politicians have unwanted traits that are actually detrimental to performing their job? Like being coke heads? Or liberals?
Can we please put the resignation behind us? Can we stop holding Sarah Palin to a hopelessly high standard? Can we get back to what is important, namely, fixing the institutions of this country? And if Sarah Palin wants to help do that, she has my support. 110%. I hope she will have the support of all of our readers.
Notice how he didn't touch the Nixon issue.
:oP
"Sorry, Carlie" -- you don't get a win in this one so far.
You've neither approached the matter by explaining how what she did is "quitting", nor justified why it is that it's even relevant.
You answered No to "Do you believe the Federal Reserve should be audited?".
I thought free markets depended on the free flow of information. Not for Carl.
Good job, Carl. Once again, you show how you favor government intervention when it serves Big Money. Just as with TARP and the AIG "bailout", (nothing but another conduit of taxpayer money to big investment banks, like your heroes at Goldman Sachs), you are all for it.
> You answered No ...(snip)... I thought free markets depended on the free flow of information.
Uhhhh... WTF?
Not to suggest I really agree with Carl on that -- I think there needs to be an amendment that requires, absolutely, for governments at all levels to abide by GAAP.
But that's probably going to have to wait for The Constitution, Mk II.
I don't think we're getting it this time around.
The Fed publishes its accounts quarterly. I answered "no" because I don't understand what more is necessary.
OBH:
Explain to me how you're using Nixon as a favorable example?
Post a Comment