Puerile remark about a serious subject.Is that something like “Real men don’t eat Quiche?”
Gotta agree. We can do better.She’s an 11 watt bulb on the brightness meter.
She certain has a lot in charm and courage, but really lacks in other areas. She makes a fine spokewoman though, stick with what she is good at IMHO.Compared to the other prominent women in politics like Clinton, Pelosi, Boxer, Feinstein, and Sebelius to name a few, she shines like the sun in a cloudless sky. Name one prominent liberal woman who is so unafraid to speak in support of the unborn and of true women’s rights, please.
Is it her outspoken pro-life stance that turns you off? As Cristians, we should embrace her as a true sister in the fight to save the unborn.
Eddie Mac
I concur; she should stick to fund raising and speechgiving. She’s definitely not Presidential material.She certain has a lot in charm and courage, but really lacks in other areas. She makes a fine spokewoman though, stick with what she is good at IMHO.
I guess a person has to be pro-abortion to be presidential material.I concur; she should stick to fund raising and speechgiving. She’s definitely not Presidential material.
Well, based on my relatively limited exposure to her, she does not appear to have a sound, deep grasp of a multitude of issues, which makes one ‘presidential’ in my opinion. If she does have this grasp, it does not communicate itself. And I have not heard of any people who know her well that have said ‘really, she knows her stuff’.The thread is about her pro-life stance…
None of the negative comments about her so far have been based on substance or fact.
I guess you missed last years election-having Presideintial material is not necessary to be President.I concur; she should stick to fund raising and speechgiving. She’s definitely not Presidential material.
So, by your admitted limited exposure, do you mean that as the governor of Alaska, she would not have had a sound, deep grasp of a multitude issues?Well, based on my relatively limited exposure to her, she does not appear to have a sound, deep grasp of a multitude of issues, which makes one ‘presidential’ in my opinion. If she does have this grasp, it does not communicate itself. And I have not heard of any people who know her well that have said ‘really, she knows her stuff’.
I don’t think that you can prove that in terms of ‘fact’ for anyone, other than IQ, which doesn’t tell you the whole story anyway.
We had a very pro-life president for the last 2 terms, it did not do much other then add to the human death toll.I guess a person has to be pro-abortion to be presidential material.
The thread is about her pro-life stance.
On her worst day Mrs. Palin has more to say on the truth about the pro-death culture than ANY liberal.
No one so far has countered with any liberal woman who can match Mrs. Palin’s courage and committment to life.
None of the negative comments about her so far have been based on substance or fact.
Eddie Mac
Using your logic means that having a pro-death president is okay then because the killing will not decrease.We had a very pro-life president for the last 2 terms, it did not do much other then add to the human death toll.
Abortions reached their lowest level since Roe was imposed under President Bush-and that, of course, counts only US abortions. Countless other thousands(millions?) were saved by his cutting off funds for international abortion providers.We had a very pro-life president for the last 2 terms, it did not do much other then add to the human death toll.