Sarah Palin: "Well North Korea, this is stemming from, I think, a greater problem when we're all sittin' around asking, oh no, what are we gonna do, and we're not having a lotta' faith that the White House is gonna come out with a strong enough policy to, um, sanction what it is that North Korea is gonna do. So this speaks to a bigger picture that certainly scares me in terms of our national security policies. But, um, obviously, um, stand with our North Korean allies, we're bound to by treaty.."
Slip of the tongue? Or just Sarah, exercising her limitations?
Slip of the tongue? Or just Sarah, exercising her limitations?
SARAH PALIN: Well, North Korea, this is stemming from I think a greater problem when we're all sitting around asking, "Oh, no, what are we going to do" and we're not having a lot of faith that the White House is going to come out with a strong enough policy to sanction what it is that North Korea's going to do. So this speaks to a bigger picture here that certainly scares me in terms of our national security policies. But obviously got to stand with our North Korean allies. We're bound to by treaty. We're also bound to by ‑‑
STU: South Korea.
SARAH PALIN: Yeah. And we're also bound by prudence to stand with our South Korean allies, yes. And, you know, to remind North Korea, well, we're not going to reward bad behavior and we're not going to walk away and we do need to press China to do more to increase pressure on that arena.
Change the "North" to "South" and it still doesn't come across as a very intellectual statement.Sarah Palin: "Well North Korea, this is stemming from, I think, a greater problem when we're all sittin' around asking, oh no, what are we gonna do, and we're not having a lotta' faith that the White House is gonna come out with a strong enough policy to, um, sanction what it is that North Korea is gonna do. So this speaks to a bigger picture that certainly scares me in terms of our national security policies. But, um, obviously, um, stand with our North Korean allies, we're bound to by treaty.."
I am waiting for the inevitable sex scandal. I pride myself on giving candidates equal weight and consideration in every election. But, if she runs, I will not vote for her and most of the conservatives that I know won't either.
Why is race or gender relevant?
Will 2012 be any different?
That has never resulted in a good candidate. It's how we got stuck with Coats.Probably not, for now I'd say more people will be voting against Obama than for whoever.
That has never resulted in a good candidate. It's how we got stuck with Coats.
It's better than them [strike]libertarians[/strike] anarchists.
I will say this on WHO I would prefer to be my president.
That person does exist
They have plain spoken honesty
They are true to the principles of liberty that our founders based our Constitution on
They understand that compromise is necessary in govt
They also understand that compromising their own principles is a sell-out and would never do so
They understand that all negotiations and compromises must be within the limits set by our founders via the constitution, and any "comprise" that moves the govt outside of the boundaries of the Constitution are not allowed.
Most importantly: they would never willingly run for President - not because the job is the toughest one in the world - but because they are humble and not presumptuous enough to expect folks would vote for them.