Your request is being processed... Poll: Majority Of Republicans Want Party To Be More Like Palin Huffington Post | Nicholas Graham | February 2, 2009 12:21 PM While the media and political elites debate the future of the GOP, rank and file Republicans see see no need to deviate from the party's current path. According to a recent Rasmussen poll, a plurality of Republican voters think the party has grown too moderate over the past eight years, and a majority think the party should become more like controversial Alaska Governor Sarah Palin. These sentiments echo the view of new RNC chairman Michael Steele, who in an interview on Fox News yesterday strongly iterated that the GOP's troubles stemmed not from their governing policies but their failure to successfully sell those policies to the American people: We failed to lead," said the former Lt. Maryland Governor. "The principles we espoused [in 1994] are still true and good today and that's not what people moved away from us for. They moved away from us because we behaved badly. We came to Washington and we became like the people we were sent here to replace. And they replaced us." Newt Gingrich, the leader of the Republican Revolution in the early 90s, sees Palin as a "formidable" candidate amid a very open Republican field for the 2012 presidential race: If Sarah Palin seeks out a group of very sophisticated policy advisers and develops a fairly sophisticated platform, she will be very formidable. However, one fairly high-profile disagreement Palin has with national Republicans regards the stimulus package pushed by Obama. Palin, along with many other Republican governors facing large state deficits, supports passage of the bill, a position not shared by many of her Republican colleagues in the Senate and House. Republicans, back in the minority, have also rediscovered a new appreciation for fiscal conservatism after the profligate Bush years, and may not take to kindly to Palin's latest project: a road to nowhere that could ultimately cost up to $2 billion.
z10 why do you not address those that accusse you of pedophelia and alcoholism? Are you a predator and a drunk?
As you may or may not be aware, I am certainly no fan of ZZZzzzzzzz. However, I cannot help but note your affinity for unprovoked (in the context of this thread) smear tactics that would make Karl Rove's heart beat faster and possibly even make him moist. Does it have that effect on you, too?
I am merely asking a question, I couldn't care less if he's a drunk, it would make sense. If he's a pedophile he needs to take a severe beating and then go to prison. (That's the G rated version anyways).
I have a similar view towards pedophiles. However, what does our fortuitous meeting of the minds have to do with the content of this thread?
Sorry, T-Dog, but the facts are that the Moron Alcoholic Troll is a pathological liar, a defender of pedophilia, and an intellectual fraud. In my view, it's not necessary to say 'but let's give him the benefit of the doubt and debate him today in case he's changed'. No one on this site has provoked more attacks than the Idiot. If there's one thing the Fuckwit Alcoholic Troll has proved time after time after time, it's that it is completely and utterly impossible to debate anything with him. He will use every evasive tactic in the book, ignore your rebuttals, post incomprehensible long-winded responses, pathetically contradict himself, and finally start posting your own words as his response and also posting pictures of pink rabbits as a response. There is no further need to show this piece of shit any respect or cut him any further breaks. He was banned twice and maybe three times. He has apparently stopped doing whatever it was that got him banned, but it's still hardly worth my breath to tell him to fuck off. If you start a thread with this same content, I will be happy to debate the issue with you. When the AssHat Troll brings it up, I tell him to go fuck himself, because there's zero point in engaging him. If he started the thread he's going to insinuate himself into the debate (because that's his life - trolling ET).
As I wrote earlier, Nik, I have very little regard for ZZZzzzzzzz. I am quite familiar with his bullshit tactics and have been their recipient on several occasions. And I think that we can all agree that pedophilia is repugnant. However, the Z-Man has only posted a political cut-and-paste without any personal comments of his own in this case. And it is interesting that he who immediately responded with attacks against him, rather than the post content, is someone who doesn't like his politics. That's a bit convenient and transparent, don't you think? I am not so much defending one of the less defensible characters on ET. Rather, I am pointing out that the people who have initiated this attack both here and in other threads are coincidentally Far Right Republicans. I have about as much regard for Z-Man's ad hominem attacks as I do for those of the Republican Smear Machine. So if you're going to point to the one, do be sure to point to the other as well.
This site allows for freedom of speech and expression. Therefore any person has the right to express himself/herself here. Nobody can take it upon himself/herself, or has the authority, to stop another from expressing himself/herself with the exception of the owner and/or moderators, if they so choose. If you don't want to debate with Z then don't. Put him on your 'ignore' list or whatever. Simple as that. However, railroading, hounding and foul-mouthing a person ad infinitum regardless of the thread's context is not appropriate.