Only thing I can think of:

1. There is something we don't know yet, like a scandal that hasn't been revealed or

2. She is bat shit crazy

3. She just got fed up with being in the spot light, and didn't have the guts to say that, but instead made up some vague bullshit about basketball.

4.

---

Originally posted by Ihmotepp
Only thing I can think of:
1. There is something we don't know yet, like a scandal that hasn't been revealed or
2. She is bat shit crazy
3. She just got fed up with being in the spot light, and didn't have the guts to say that, but instead made up some vague bullshit about basketball.
4.

---

5. All of the above.

“I think Sarah Palin is on the verge of becoming the Miami Vice of American politics: Something a lot of people once thought was cool and then 20 years later look back, shake their heads and just kind of laugh,” quipped Republican media consultant Todd Harris.

Looks like Alaska Senator Lisa Murkowski isn't happy about Palin's little stunt. She's released a statement blasting the governor for abandoning the state before her term is done:

murkowski.senate.gov/public/index.cfm

It's also split the GOP as well:

www.politico.com/news/stories/0709/24507.html

If Sarah thought she'd be greeted as a liberator of the GOP's electoral woes, she's in for a rude awakening.

Originally posted by Lidane

www.politico.com/news/stories/0709/24507.html

 

"...Miami Vice of American Politics..." haha

Let it go.

Originally posted by Gameloading

It's pretty funny you accuse the left of being fascists while you're defending a person who wants to:

- Put creationism in science class
- Is opposed to abortion
- Wants to ban gay marriage

So who is the fascist now eh?

Sorry Gameloading, but I don't think you ever learned the truth about her and only heard the slanders.  Considering the left continually pursues fascist legislation, Sarah Palin did not pursue that legislation.  It was a slander that she did when she was running for VP and never contracted.

Originally posted by Cleffy

Originally posted by Gameloading

It's pretty funny you accuse the left of being fascists while you're defending a person who wants to:

- Put creationism in science class
- Is opposed to abortion
- Wants to ban gay marriage

So who is the fascist now eh?

 

Sorry Gameloading, but I don't think you ever learned the truth about her and only heard the slanders.  Considering the left continually pursues fascist legislation, Sarah Palin did not pursue that legislation.  It was a slander that she did when she was running for VP and never contracted.

Sarah Palin does believe Creationism should be in public schools, is opposed to abortion and is against gay marriage. 

This isn't "slander", these are her opinions. Feel free to look it up.

The difference is she has not pursued them fervently.  She may have put a piece of legislation forward, but she didn't go around the state trying to sell the idea.  She didn't constantly re-introduce the bills.  What you have with liberal politicians is a fervent attempt to implement fascist policy.

Originally posted by Cleffy

The difference is she has not pursued them fervently.  She may have put a piece of legislation forward, but she didn't go around the state trying to sell the idea.  She didn't constantly re-introduce the bills.  What you have with liberal politicians is a fervent attempt to implement fascist policy.

That's a load of crap!  If she has put a piece of legislation forward then she believes in that legislation.  It doesn't matter how "fervently" she does it... she better believe in what she's proposing.  Because, if she doesn't, then she's a hypocrite.   And, as for  your last statement, unless you have some actual proof to back it up, it is nothing more than more ultra-conservative fear-mongering BS.  Please keep the BS to yourself.

Sarah Palin seems to be the Britney Spears of the political world.

Originally posted by Cleffy

The difference is she has not pursued them fervently.  She may have put a piece of legislation forward, but she didn't go around the state trying to sell the idea.  She didn't constantly re-introduce the bills.  What you have with liberal politicians is a fervent attempt to implement fascist policy.

She voted in 1998 for a state amendment banning gay marriage.

She has made her pro life views an important aspect of her image. She also opposes stem cell research.

While she has never taken action on creationism in schools, she did say that creationism should be taught in schools.

Just because she doesn't act on it does't mean she doesn't support them.

Originally posted by Gameloading

Originally posted by Cleffy

The difference is she has not pursued them fervently.  She may have put a piece of legislation forward, but she didn't go around the state trying to sell the idea.  She didn't constantly re-introduce the bills.  What you have with liberal politicians is a fervent attempt to implement fascist policy.

 

She voted in 1998 for a state amendment banning gay marriage.

She has made her pro life views an important aspect of her image. She also opposes stem cell research.

While she has never taken action on creationism in schools, she has said that creationism should be taught in schools.

Just because she doesn't act on it does't mean she doesn't support them.

And these Views are bad Because?? Oh thats right you dont support them.
Liberals are honestly worse than Republicans at this point.

Originally posted by Ekibiogami

Originally posted by Gameloading

Originally posted by Cleffy

The difference is she has not pursued them fervently.  She may have put a piece of legislation forward, but she didn't go around the state trying to sell the idea.  She didn't constantly re-introduce the bills.  What you have with liberal politicians is a fervent attempt to implement fascist policy.

 

She voted in 1998 for a state amendment banning gay marriage.

She has made her pro life views an important aspect of her image. She also opposes stem cell research.

While she has never taken action on creationism in schools, she has said that creationism should be taught in schools.

Just because she doesn't act on it does't mean she doesn't support them.

And these Views are bad Because?? Oh thats right you dont support them.
Liberals are honestly worse than Republicans at this point.

They are bad because they restrict what other people can do and infringes on the seperation of church and state. Where did the "America is the land of the free!!" mentality go?

Or is it only free for people with christian morals and values?
 

I think the argument was about introducing fascist forms of government.  Someone introducing 1 bill about what she believes in and leaving it at that isn't forcing fascist policy.  Now re-introducing the same bill a dozen times, or introducing 1500 page bills at 3am the day they are to be enacted is very much fascist policy.  To put it in a greater perspective, over a decade ago she introduced a bill that would ban gay marriage.  While governor she has given Alaskans even more freedom and relief from taxes and regulations.  I think that far outwieghs 1 bill as far as freedom is concerned.  I think the concept of gay marriage is much more complicated then you give it credit as can be seen by the multi-page arguments and bickering on the subject.

---

Originally posted by Ekibiogami

---

Originally posted by Gameloading

---

Originally posted by Cleffy

The difference is she has not pursued them fervently.  She may have put a piece of legislation forward, but she didn't go around the state trying to sell the idea.  She didn't constantly re-introduce the bills.  What you have with liberal politicians is a fervent attempt to implement fascist policy.

---

 
She voted in 1998 for a state amendment banning gay marriage.

She has made her pro life views an important aspect of her image. She also opposes stem cell research.

While she has never taken action on creationism in schools, she has said that creationism should be taught in schools.

Just because she doesn't act on it does't mean she doesn't support them.

---

And these Views are bad Because?? Oh thats right you dont support them.
Liberals are honestly worse than Republicans at this point.

---

If you start teaching creationism in school you need to either start teaching all other religion's viewpoints on the creation of universe just as much or else it would pretty much be propaganda.

Originally posted by Cleffy

I think the argument was about introducing fascist forms of government.  Someone introducing 1 bill about what she believes in and leaving it at that isn't forcing fascist policy.  Now re-introducing the same bill a dozen times, or introducing 1500 page bills at 3am the day they are to be enacted is very much fascist policy.  To put it in a greater perspective, over a decade ago she introduced a bill that would ban gay marriage.  While governor she has given Alaskans even more freedom and relief from taxes and regulations.  I think that far outwieghs 1 bill as far as freedom is concerned.  I think the concept of gay marriage is much more complicated then you give it credit as can be seen by the multi-page arguments and bickering on the subject.

The point was that Sarah Palin supports ideas that restricts what other people can't or can not do. In my opinion, that is a sign of fascism. It doesn't matter if you're introducing a bill or an average person voting againt the freedom of other people without a good reason, its the same to me.

I don't think the concept of gay marriage is that complicated. I have been in many debates on this forum about gay marriage and from what I have experienced, the vast majority of people who  oppose gay marriage do so because of their religious faith. A few of them try to come up with flawed excuses to hide their religious motivations, such as:

"The definition of marriage has never changed" 

or

"Marriage between a man and a woman are the building blocks of our society"

And other flawed arguments.

Originally posted by Gameloading

Originally posted by Ekibiogami

Originally posted by Gameloading

Originally posted by Cleffy

The difference is she has not pursued them fervently.  She may have put a piece of legislation forward, but she didn't go around the state trying to sell the idea.  She didn't constantly re-introduce the bills.  What you have with liberal politicians is a fervent attempt to implement fascist policy.

 

She voted in 1998 for a state amendment banning gay marriage.

She has made her pro life views an important aspect of her image. She also opposes stem cell research.

While she has never taken action on creationism in schools, she has said that creationism should be taught in schools.

Just because she doesn't act on it does't mean she doesn't support them.

And these Views are bad Because?? Oh thats right you dont support them.
Liberals are honestly worse than Republicans at this point.

They are bad because they restrict what other people can do and infringes on the seperation of church and state. Where did the "America is the land of the free!!" mentality go?

Or is it only free for people with christian morals and values?
 

How is Protecting a Baby form Murder Infringing on your rights?

Second If Creationism is to Be taught in schools It should Incompace ALL Curent major Religions. (Oh and there is no seperation of Curch and state.. Justa FYI there) The Government not picking a State Religion is Vastly diffrent then the Government may NOT Reconise a Religion.

Quote from you: Where did the "America is the land of the free!!" mentality go?
Its beeing Stolen by our President. But I guess you dont care if its in your Favor.

Originally posted by Ekibiogami

Originally posted by Gameloading

Originally posted by Ekibiogami

Originally posted by Gameloading

Originally posted by Cleffy

The difference is she has not pursued them fervently.  She may have put a piece of legislation forward, but she didn't go around the state trying to sell the idea.  She didn't constantly re-introduce the bills.  What you have with liberal politicians is a fervent attempt to implement fascist policy.

 

She voted in 1998 for a state amendment banning gay marriage.

She has made her pro life views an important aspect of her image. She also opposes stem cell research.

While she has never taken action on creationism in schools, she has said that creationism should be taught in schools.

Just because she doesn't act on it does't mean she doesn't support them.

And these Views are bad Because?? Oh thats right you dont support them.
Liberals are honestly worse than Republicans at this point.

They are bad because they restrict what other people can do and infringes on the seperation of church and state. Where did the "America is the land of the free!!" mentality go?

Or is it only free for people with christian morals and values?
 

 

How is Protecting a Baby form Murder Infringing on your rights?

Second If Creationism is to Be taught in schools It should Incompace ALL Curent major Religions. (Oh and there is no seperation of Curch and state.. Justa FYI there) The Government not picking a State Religion is Vastly diffrent then the Government may NOT Reconise a Religion.

Quote from you: Where did the "America is the land of the free!!" mentality go?
Its beeing Stolen by our President. But I guess you dont care if its in your Favor.

A fetus is a fetus, not an unborn baby.

There is a seperation of Church and Station, it's mentioned in the constitution. Creationism is nothing more than spin. It's religion. The deal is schools should educate facts and knowledge, not religion. Creationism is not a scientific theory. 
Before a theory is mentioned in school books it has go to through lots of criticism, testing.research and be backed up by evidence and only then is it allowed to be presented in science class.

There is no reason to excuse creationism from this test all other scientific theories have to go through.

Originally posted by Gameloading

Originally posted by Cleffy

I think the argument was about introducing fascist forms of government.  Someone introducing 1 bill about what she believes in and leaving it at that isn't forcing fascist policy.  Now re-introducing the same bill a dozen times, or introducing 1500 page bills at 3am the day they are to be enacted is very much fascist policy.  To put it in a greater perspective, over a decade ago she introduced a bill that would ban gay marriage.  While governor she has given Alaskans even more freedom and relief from taxes and regulations.  I think that far outwieghs 1 bill as far as freedom is concerned.  I think the concept of gay marriage is much more complicated then you give it credit as can be seen by the multi-page arguments and bickering on the subject.

 

The point was that Sarah Palin supports ideas that restricts what other people can't or can not do. In my opinion, that is a sign of fascism. It doesn't matter if you're introducing a bill or an average person voting againt the freedom of other people without a good reason, its the same to me.

I don't think the concept of gay marriage is that complicated. I have been in many debates on this forum about gay marriage and from what I have experienced, the vast majority of people who  oppose gay marriage do so because of their religious faith. A few of them try to come up with flawed excuses to hide their religious motivations, such as:

"The definition of marriage has never changed" 

or

"Marriage between a man and a woman are the building blocks of our society"

And other flawed arguments.

I don't think you ever won those arguments.  Your excuses were that of a 19 year old with a limited view of the world, peoples beliefs, and idealism.  In  the US the seperation of church and state works both ways.  To me the concept of gay marriage infringed on the churches rights to decide who can get married at their church.

Still I think you can agree on the fact that gay marriage is an issue that have a myriad of perceptions.  To me bringing forward a bill to ban gay marriage may not infringe upon church and state depending on how the bill is entailed.  A ban on gay marriage also does not infringe on freedoms people have, it merely determines what entitlements they can get from the government.  Its not like the couple is fined and put in jail for 20 years.  I think to call such legislation fascism is a bit of a stretch.  The excuse against her beliefs is that she will enforce them and she has not which makes the argument she is a fascist moot.  On the other hand her opponents do just that and impose even more invasive legislation.

Originally posted by Cleffy

Originally posted by Gameloading

Originally posted by Cleffy

I think the argument was about introducing fascist forms of government.  Someone introducing 1 bill about what she believes in and leaving it at that isn't forcing fascist policy.  Now re-introducing the same bill a dozen times, or introducing 1500 page bills at 3am the day they are to be enacted is very much fascist policy.  To put it in a greater perspective, over a decade ago she introduced a bill that would ban gay marriage.  While governor she has given Alaskans even more freedom and relief from taxes and regulations.  I think that far outwieghs 1 bill as far as freedom is concerned.  I think the concept of gay marriage is much more complicated then you give it credit as can be seen by the multi-page arguments and bickering on the subject.

 

The point was that Sarah Palin supports ideas that restricts what other people can't or can not do. In my opinion, that is a sign of fascism. It doesn't matter if you're introducing a bill or an average person voting againt the freedom of other people without a good reason, its the same to me.

I don't think the concept of gay marriage is that complicated. I have been in many debates on this forum about gay marriage and from what I have experienced, the vast majority of people who  oppose gay marriage do so because of their religious faith. A few of them try to come up with flawed excuses to hide their religious motivations, such as:

"The definition of marriage has never changed" 

or

"Marriage between a man and a woman are the building blocks of our society"

And other flawed arguments.

 

I don't think you ever won those arguments.  Your excuses were that of a 19 year old with a limited view of the world, peoples beliefs, and idealism.  In  the US the seperation of church and state works both ways.  To me the concept of gay marriage infringed on the churches rights to decide who can get married at their church.

But those debates can't really ever be won. That said, there is a difference between allowing gay marriages by law and enforcing individual clergymen to marry gay people. When a law for gay marriage is passed, it's up to the leaders of the individual churches whether to perform homosexual marriage or not, and respectfully reserve the right not to marry them due to conflicts with their religion. There will always be more open minded clergymen, who feel the book their faith is based on is the product of s wholy different era, that will have no problem with it. And there will also be those who will simply be tempted by the money. Either way, I personally feel that seperation between church and state is not a valid reason to oppose homosexual marriage as a government.