Chelene Nightingale Article by Jill Flyer

[DerailAmnesty.com]

This article actually works to Chelene's benefit.

Firstly, this author doesn't do a lot to establish her own credibility.

A. Her writing isn't very good. You could easily edit/condense 20% of what she wrote out and still cover the subject matter in depth. She rambles too much in this piece.

B. Who on God's green Earth cites either of Tony's loon Yahoo pages?

C. She engages in gratuitous name calling (cuckoo birds, LiberTEArians, etc.). It's too much. If you want to tear Chelene a new one, you don't need to sell it so hard. She goes overboard.

Secondly, she attempts to damn the hard right (Arpaio, Paul and Tancredo) by draping Chelene around their neck. She succeeds, however, in equating Chelene to their position(s) and stature.

Tancredo is a well known multiple-term Congressman, as is Ron Paul. They both also enjoy a degree of substantive and intellectual credibility. Joe Arpaio has a quality and enviable track record in law enforcement, and is well-renowned for his commitment to principal and law and order (because of the positions they have staked out, they are precisely the GOP members that Karl Rove and establishment Republicans would like to see either spontaneously combust or move to Nairobi). Chelene, on the other hand, has good hair, a nice chest and an insatiable desire to hear herself talk while others seek her leadership. Nonetheless, based upon this offering, you'd think the four of them were co-equals in terms of accomplishment and prominence.

It'd be like me attempting to damn/besmirch Dennis Kucinich, Maxine Waters and Alan Alda by making repeated references to Naui or Cliff, each time I spoke about them. And, yes, I understand that that the link is the endorsements, but still ...

Finally, it seems that the worst thing she can think of Chelene doing is costing Meg Whitman a close election. I beg to differ. Quite to the contrary, the best thing Chelene could accomplish would be to cost Meg Whitman the election. For all of her warts (many of which some of us have, oh, mentioned in passing on this board), Chelene Nightingale is a tow-the-line conservative. Gun rights, prayer in school, immigration, fiscal responsibility ... right down the line, she is what you expect from what, at least used to be, considered a conservative. Further, she hasn't been saying one thing to one audience comprised of people darker than Mariah Carey, and something else to white folks.

Chelene is a loon and a liar, but a traditional GOP-type with loon and liar augmentations. Meg Whitman, by contrast, will spend whatever it takes and say anything to anybody. Chelene can't possibly win, but Whitman deserves to lose. The latter is completely untrustworthy and should be defeated for numerous reasons; chief among them that what she represents shouldn't be acceptable to Republican voters.

Meg Whitman being ultimately undone in a close contest, by a small number of GOP voters defecting to a "true conservative," would be an appropriate fate for someone who never should have been handed the GOP nomination to begin with.

If Nightingale is unhappy about this article, she shouldn't be. The author said little about her that those who already dislike her haven't already, and nothing that will change the minds of the sycophants/conspiracy theorists who had decided to cast their ballots for her before this piece ever appeared online.

[Ayatollahgondola]

Originally Posted by DerailAmnesty.com

Finally, it seems that the worst thing she can think of Chelene doing is costing Meg Whitman a close election. I beg to differ. Quite to the contrary, the best thing Chelene could accomplish would be to cost Meg Whitman the election. For all of her warts (many of which some of us have, oh, mentioned in passing on this board), Chelene Nightingale is a tow-the-line conservative. Gun rights, prayer in school, immigration, fiscal responsibility ... right down the line, she is what you expect from what, at least used to be, considered a conservative. Further, she hasn't been saying one thing to one audience comprised of people darker than Mariah Carey, and something else to white folks.

Chelene is a loon and a liar, but a traditional GOP-type with loon and liar augmentations. .

There's a big difference between an actual conservative and one that latches on to the conservative handle in a boisterous manner that attempts to bolster the image of one. Chelene is the latter. Practicing conservatives do more than dramatize the obvious. They live them. I've rambled on before as to the lack of Chelene's credentials on conservative causes, but there's little to no evidence that she was a 2nd amendment proponent, a defender of state's rights, a fiscal tightwad, or proponent of smaller government prior to her coming to SOS. None! In fact, since she arrived, she has hypocritically asked the feds for protection from her state creditors, which places her at odds with her 10th amendment stance. No fiscal tightwad would jump into the governors race with their own personal finances in total chaos, and with such surreal expectations of winning.

[DerailAmnesty.com]

Originally Posted by Ayatollahgondola

There's a big difference between an actual conservative and one that latches on to the conservative handle in a boisterous manner that attempts to bolster the image of one. Chelene is the latter. Practicing conservatives do more than dramatize the obvious. They live them. I've rambled on before as to the lack of Chelene's credentials on conservative causes, but there's little to no evidence that she was a 2nd amendment proponent, a defender of state's rights, a fiscal tightwad, or proponent of smaller government prior to her coming to SOS. None! In fact, since she arrived, she has hypocritically asked the feds for protection from her state creditors, which places her at odds with her 10th amendment stance. No fiscal tightwad would jump into the governors race with their own personal finances in total chaos, and with such surreal expectations of winning.

I really detest being placed in the position of having to defend Chelene Nightingale but your comments are unfair.

There is much to berate Mommy Dearest about. Lack of conservative convictions is not among them, however.

Firstly, there's nothing hypocritical about her filing bankruptcy. Chelene has represented herself as a "Constitutionalist" and bankruptcy is provided for in Title 1 Section 8.

Secondly, the fact that she can't raise or manage money doesn't mean that she fails to advocate for fiscal restraint. Hell, I support the idea that missed shots from the perimeter should be rebounded and put back in by post players in the paint, but I can't slam dunk a basketball to save my life.

Finally, and most significantly, Nightingale has staked out conservative positions and not wavered from them; at least since any people involved with SOS have known her. Prayer in school, lower taxes, etc. etc. Chelene is in lock-step with the GOP platform.

There's been a good deal of speculation that Chelene would abandon her espoused immigration or gun rights views in a city second if she thought it would draw her more attention or gain her more votes. The reality, however, is that that hasn't happened. She hasn't pulled a McCain or Whitman. She has consistently campaigned with the same messages.

Conspiracy theory marinated screwball? Yes. Shamelessly self-centered? Absolutely. Unreliable friend or associate? An understatement. Inconsistent or flip-flopping conservative. No. That's what the record shows.

[Twoller]

Originally Posted by DerailAmnesty.com

....

Conspiracy theory marinated screwball? Yes. ...

Really? Which conspiracy theories?

[DerailAmnesty.com]

Originally Posted by Twoller

Really? Which conspiracy theories?

The ones of which I'm aware (and I'll be more knowledgeable about this in a couple weeks): 9/11, Birther, Bilderberg and Chemtrails.

[Twoller]

Like any "conspiracy theory", there is an orthodox version and the more serious version which the orthodoxy ignores. Which does Chelene prescribe to, the orthodox versions or the more serious versions? 9/11, for example. Was that anything but an Al Qaeda conspiracy, according to Chelene? I wouldn't trust anyone to any government position who couldn't come to terms with that. If one wanted to confront the complexities of Al Qaeda itself, that might be acceptable in theorizing over conspiracies around 9/11, but nothing short of that for me.

But "chemtrails" was a new one for me. Here is Wikipedia's entry on the subject:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chemtra...spiracy_theory

[4shadows]

It is good to see someone say something nice about her, I know the majority doesnt care for her and perhaps she earned those feelings, but at one time she was a sister in the movement and must have some good qualities. That mob mentality that we speak about on the illegal side can go both ways. I am not her cheerleader but on a personal level she has always treated me with respect, so I will do the same until she no longer deserves that from me. God Bless America and Her Troops!

[Eagle1]

Originally Posted by 4shadows

It is good to see someone say something nice about her, I know the majority doesnt care for her and perhaps she earned those feelings, but at one time she was a sister in the movement and must have some good qualities. That mob mentality that we speak about on the illegal side can go both ways. I am not her cheerleader but on a personal level she has always treated me with respect, so I will do the same until she no longer deserves that from me. God Bless America and Her Troops!

I said the same things and then it was my turn. That changed things quite a bit.

[PochoPatriot]

Originally Posted by 4shadows

II am not her cheerleader but on a personal level she has always treated me with respect, so I will do the same until she no longer deserves that from me.

The problem, 4shadows, is that nearly everyone here has been treated and is still being treated disrespectfully by her and her sycophants. Did you know just by posting on this board you are showing your disloyalty? I was told the same thing be Nightin-ghoul, when I began posting on No More Invasion back in 2007.

She'll turn on you when, and if, she perceives you as a threat. I became a threat to her, and all I ever did to her was disagree with her choice for president in 2008. For that I have been called a la raza mole and a number of other childish insults.

[DerailAmnesty.com]

Originally Posted by 4shadows

It is good to see someone say something nice about her ...

Aaaaaaaaaaarrrrrrrrgggggghhhhhh!! I knew this would happen. This is Davi The Instigator/Provocateur's fault.

I did not say anything nice about Chelene. I don't have anything nice to say about Chelene. Chelene does not deserve to have anything nice said about her, and if she did, I would not be the one saying it. Anything that could even remotely be construed as close to "nice," I said prior to my last post: She's given her campaign great effort and she's easy on the eyes.

What I said is that she holds legitimate conservative positions. She has textbook GOP platform ideology. Further, she hasn't wavered from those positions.

Davi's criticism of her as something other than a conservative is unwarranted. Whatever else she may be, Chelene is a political conservative.

It's not a matter of saying something nice. It's a matter of fairness and accuracy.

Originally Posted by Twoller

Like any "conspiracy theory", there is an orthodox version and the more serious version which the orthodoxy ignores. Which does Chelene prescribe to, the orthodox versions or the more serious versions? 9/11, for example.

I already know it is a mistake to ask this question, but here goes: Can you please tell me which of the 9/11 consipiracy theories are the orthodox versions and which are the more serious 9/11 conspiracy theories?