NationStates Jolt Archive

Not really... It's true. There's no way to prove your statement and it can easily be turned back on you.

For instance, look at the Democratic congress. They've achieved nothing they said they would do and have been very cooperative with the Bush Administration. Take a look at your own party too before you call someone "the worst."

Well, they have passed many of the things they said they would, Bush just vetoed them. So not their fault.


And cooperative? You mean theyve been compremising? You mean theyve taken a different approach aside from my way or the highway?


Also, your pathetic little attack did nothing to refute my claim that the Republican leaders and pundits are the most hypocritical. Either refute my point or GTFO.

Im honostly suprised O'riely hasnt said yet that it was Obama, the evil liberal black man, who raped this poor white girl forcing her to become pregenet.

He just saw some of that sweet, sweet white flesh and couldnt control himself.

She shouldn't have worn that conservative Republican clothing.

Im beyond laughing at this point. Im approaching weeping.

Some of the Reps. here that are dismissing this would dismiss it in the reverse (like Im sure Neo Bret would) but some are just pathetic.


And frankly, the Republican leaders and pundits are the worst.
Laugh through your tears, like Pagliacci. I ran out of tears long ago, but I find I can still laugh despite the near-constant nausea.

Laugh through your tears, like Pagliacci. I ran out of tears long ago, but I find I can still laugh despite the near-constant nausea.

Your eyes are sort of dry-heaving now?

Might explain the nausea.

Laugh through your tears, like Pagliacci. I ran out of tears long ago, but I find I can still laugh despite the near-constant nausea.

I just drink my sadness away.


Seriously though, Im just waiting for Palin to have been in a porno or beaten a 3 year old to a bloody pulp.

Not really... It's true. There's no way to prove your statement and it can easily be turned back on you.
Actually, it's as easy as pie. All you to do is to have spent the last 8 years watching and reading the news and noticed how often they've said things, been proven dead-wrong, and had to retract, backtrack, or lie to cover themselves. Yeah, trust me, this gang are the worst -- both in their bad intentions and their lousy skills.

For instance, look at the Democratic congress. They've achieved nothing they said they would do and have been very cooperative with the Bush Administration. Take a look at your own party too before you call someone "the worst."
Hm...they've been cooperative with the Bush administration... and yet nothing gets done...why would be that? Could it be that someone's not being cooperative? But you already said they were being cooperative...so I guess it must be Bush screwing everything up then. :D

And what did you expect them to do rather than try to work with the White House? Stage a coup?

EDIT: Just so you know, I'm not a Republican either... Baseless claims just irritate me.
Sure.
To be fair, if I must, I think that's a little bit of a disingenuous comparison. First of all, calling out someone on predicted reactions to hypothetical situations is flimsy at best. And Clinton himself got the blow job in what, in even the most generous light, was an issue of misconduct in a position of authority. She was an intern. And, while the question was not worth the money spent to ask, he did lie about it. But the important distinction is that it was all his doing, not his daughters.

Now, McCain has way back in 1998 joked that Chelsea Clinton was 'so ugly' because Janet Reno was her father (http://www.salon.com/news/1998/06/25newsb.html)...but that was a whole two years before he was a candidate. Not all children are off limits...
What? But aren't the Republicans now telling us it's wrong to pick on teenage girls? Surely, the Republican candidate would never have done such a thing...

I like how all the Republicans on this board are brushing this off saying its not news worthy.

I KNOW theyd all be all over this if it was Obama's 17 year old daughter. I KNOW they all thought it was news worthy when Clinton was getting BJs from interens. The level of willful blindness and cognitive dissonance is disgusting.

I KNOW that I am not a Republican, yet I still say it is hardly news worthy. I KNOW that if it was the other way around that the Democrats would be doing the exact same thing as the Republicans, and yes I KNOW that Republicans would be all over it. As I said in another thread I KNOW that in politics hypocrisy lies on both sides of the table.

I KNOW that I am not a Republican, yet I still say it is hardly news worthy. I KNOW that if it was the other way around that the Democrats would be doing the exact same thing as the Republicans, and yes I KNOW that Republicans would be all over it. As I said in another thread I KNOW that in politics hypocrisy lies on both sides of the table.

Yeah....but not to this obvious and comedic extent.

Not really... It's true. There's no way to prove your statement and it can easily be turned back on you.

For instance, look at the Democratic congress. They've achieved nothing they said they would do and have been very cooperative with the Bush Administration. Take a look at your own party too before you call someone "the worst."

EDIT: Just so you know, I'm not a Republican either... Baseless claims just irritate me.
Within the first 100 days they raised minimum wage, passed the recommendations of the 9/11 commission, passed ethics reforms regarding lobbyists banning gifts meals and travel-the largest since watergate, lowered interest rates on student loans, and passed energy and health care reforms. And that was the first 100 days.

Because baseless claims irritate you so...

And no, I'm not a member of the Democratic Party.

Dont forget being a member of a seccessionist group!

Fixed. Apologies for the grammar naziism but that's one of my big pet peeves.

a commencement speech saying that the iraq war is god's will.

I don't have words for how disturbing that is.

I just drink my sadness away.


Seriously though, Im just waiting for Palin to have been in a porno or beaten a 3 year old to a bloody pulp.
I'm holding out for the cannibal thing. It is Alaska, after all.

What? I'm just saying...it snows a lot there...

Well, they have passed many of the things they said they would, Bush just vetoed them. So not their fault.


And cooperative? You mean theyve been compremising? You mean theyve taken a different approach aside from my way or the highway?


Also, your pathetic little attack did nothing to refute my claim that the Republican leaders and pundits are the most hypocritical. Either refute my point or GTFO.

Alright big shot, what did they pass? Go to the Congressional Records and show me something that Democrats passed in congress that was promised in their bid for congressional control.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but wasn't it the Democrats who said they were going to cut off funding for the Iraq War? That's something Congress alone has the power to do and Bush can't do anything about it.

Personally, I hate both parties... I think they're both wrong.

Also, I wasn't attacking you... I just prefer to see a well constructed argument rather than party line dribble. Then again, I am a teacher so I suppose I like people to do their homework.

What? But aren't the Republicans now telling us it's wrong to pick on teenage girls? Surely, the Republican candidate would never have done such a thing...

She might have been in college by then, maybe once they become college age they're fair game.

Yeah....but not to this obvious and comedic extent.

Meh, six of one, half a dozen of the other.

Dont forget being a member of a successionist group!

Wasn't that her husband?

That list of names is amusing in this context. :D

I can't express how much I am enjoying this little brouhaha, especially that it's all the Republicans tripping all over themselves trying to get ahead of Ms. Palin's onslaught of closet-skeletons. Seriously, it seems like, every 6 hours, it's something new with this woman. What's next? She ran over a little girl's dog in 1987 -- twice? And after that, what? She's a cannibal? This is hilarious.

What horrifies me... is the numbing effect.

We saw it all the way through Bush's terms.... initial shock at one or two things, and then it was kind of like... "Oh, CIA torture camps on foreign territory... meh. Oh, the Intelligence Report finally came back and clearly states that the White House knowingly lied as cause for war??? And you're bringing it up again"

I'm a little worried that Palin may have been the perfect pick after all. She's such a walking shitstorm, McCain could be systematically raping every American in alphabetical order, and it wouldn't be able to gain column inches.

Alright big shot, what did they pass?



Sure. Better yet, someone already did it for me.

Within the first 100 days they raised minimum wage, passed the recommendations of the 9/11 commission, passed ethics reforms regarding lobbyists banning gifts meals and travel-the largest since watergate, lowered interest rates on student loans, and passed energy and health care reforms. And that was the first 100 days.

Because baseless claims irritate you so...

And no, I'm not a member of the Democratic Party.


They also passed timetables for withdrawl from Iraq, bills to give children healthcare, and domestic spending bills to beef up our infastructre.


All of which Bush vetoed.


Ready to admit your a fool?


Oh, and most importantly, this has NOTHING to do with what I originially said. I pointed out the hypocrisy in republican leadership and pundits. You have "refuted" this claim by saying what is essentially "Uuuuuuhhh.....the democratic congress sux!!!111!111! Tey havent done anything!!!11!!11!"


And even that claim is wrong.

Then again, I am a teacher so I suppose I like people to do their homework.

Then maybe you should do yours. What would your students say?

Wasn't that her husband?

Nope that was her.

Palin's first child was born a little under eight months after her marriage. Apparently they eloped promptly at her first missed period.

So attack Palin for that, if and only if she had before publicly said that she thought people shouldn’t engage in sex before marriage.

if and only if she had before publicly said that she thought people shouldn’t engage in sex before marriage.



Which she has....

Nope that was her.

Ok, cheers.

Which she has....

So attack her for conceiving a child outside of marriage then.

Ok, cheers.

No problem.


See at least you have the class to ask questions when you dont know the answer then get your undies all in a bunch and talk smack.

So attack her for conceiving a child outside of marriage then.

Knowing what I just read, I will;)

Fixed. Apologies for the grammar naziism but that's one of my big pet peeves.



I don't have words for how disturbing that is.
it was a commencement speech at a church run school. she asked the graduates to pray that the people and the oil companies could work together to get more drilling done in alaska.

it was a commencement speech at a church run school. she asked the graduates to pray that the people and the oil companies could work together to get more drilling done in alaska.

Liberal media slander.

Within the first 100 days they raised minimum wage, passed the recommendations of the 9/11 commission, passed ethics reforms regarding lobbyists banning gifts meals and travel-the largest since watergate, lowered interest rates on student loans, and passed energy and health care reforms. And that was the first 100 days.

Because baseless claims irritate you so...

And no, I'm not a member of the Democratic Party.


Most of which had bipartisan support because it is politically damaging for any politican to vote against bills of that nature. The bill regarding gifts, meals, and travel expenses, correct me if I'm wrong, was an addition to the McCain-Feingold Act... Which limited the amount individuals can donate to political campagins. Oh, McCain, you corrupt, evil individual who co-sponsored a bill limiting campagin donations.

The Democrats were elected mostly due to the failures of the Iraq War.. Nothing has been done about that when Congress actually DOES have the power to end it.

Knowing what I just read, I will;)

Good, I have no problem with that, though I know what bothers me is of little concern to anyone here.:p

Meh, six of one, half a dozen of the other.



Wasn't that her husband?

Nope, that was her.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2008/sep/02/uselections2008.republicans20085?gusrc=rss&feed=worldnews

Grabbed the first article that came up on google.

The Democrats were elected mostly due to the failures of the Iraq War.. Nothing has been done about that when Congress actually DOES have the power to end it.

No. They dont. They can deny funding. But then they are just screwin the troops. They can pass bills to bring them home (which they have passed time tables) but Dear Leader can veto them (which the has).


So, prey tell, how can congress end it?

Nope that was her.
Apparently, they've come out with voter registration records that show she's been a life long Republican and has only associated in some unclear way with them. Not sure where I read it, it may have been in the article you linked, now that I think about it...If I find it again I'll link it.

No problem.


See at least you have the class to ask questions when you dont know the answer then get your undies all in a bunch and talk smack.

:confused: I didn't know I was.

Most of which had bipartisan support because it is politically damaging for any politican to vote against bills of that nature.


So the fuck what? They campaigned that the would pass them, and they did.


So what you are saying is "The Democrats never did anything they said they would, except for all that stuff there, but ignore that because it shows Im wrong."

The Democrats were elected mostly due to the failures of the Iraq War.. Nothing has been done about that when Congress actually DOES have the power to end it.

No. They dont. They can deny funding. But then they are just screwin the troops. They can pass bills to bring them home (which they have passed time tables) but Dear Leader can veto them (which the has).


So, prey tell, how can congress end it?

Just gets better (or worse depending on which side you're on):
Proud to be a 'fucking redneck'
The teenager expecting a baby with the 17-year-old daughter of Republican vice-presidential candidate Sarah Palin calls himself 'a fucking redneck' on his MySpace page.
Levi Johnston, 18, a high-school hockey player, is engaged to Bristol Palin, whose pregnancy was revealed to the Republican party convention just days after her 44-year-old mother was picked as John McCain's running mate.
He is the high-school sweetheart of the Alaska governor's daughter and used his home page to admit having a girlfriend, but said: 'I don't want kids.'
The hockey player with the Wasilla Warriors in Alaska was said to have made no secret of the pregnancy in his home town.
On the page he also says: 'But I live to play hockey. I like to go camping and hang out with the boys, do some fishing, shoot some shit and just chillin' I guess'
He added: 'Ya f uck with me I'll kick [your] ass'
Proud to be a 'f******* redneck' (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/worldnews/article-1051519/Proud-f----redneck-The-teenager-expecting-baby-Sarah-Palins-17-year-old-daughter.html)
what a delightful young man. I bet the Palin's are only too happy to welcome him into their fold.

This also has come out:
Republican worries about US vice presidential candidate Sarah Palin grew yestetday after it emerged she laughed repeatedly as a cancer-surviving opponent was described as a 'cancer' and a 'bitch' during a radio interview.
Called a cancer-survivor a bitch (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/worldnews/article-1051911/McCains-deputy-laughed-air-opponent--cancer-survivor--described-cancer-bitch.html)
Interestingly, further down the article is this little snippet:
"Just two days before announcing Mrs Palin as his number two, Mr McCain was still holding out the hope that he could choose old friends Joe Lieberman, an independent, or former governor Tom Ridge as his election sidekick.
But, according to the New York Times, the right wing of the party forced him to pass over both men because they favour abortion rights."
So much for the 'Maverick' (TM) not pandering to his party and going his own way.

On the plus side, her husband was done for drink-driving, so he can at least hold his head up high and say he's continuing the tradition set by Bush.

:confused: I didn't know I was.

I wasnt saying you do. I was refering to others who do.


You typically are one of the more level headed members here.

Most of which had bipartisan support because it is politically damaging for any politican to vote against bills of that nature. The bill regarding gifts, meals, and travel expenses, correct me if I'm wrong, was an addition to the McCain-Feingold Act... Which limited the amount individuals can donate to political campagins. Oh, McCain, you corrupt, evil individual who co-sponsored a bill limiting campagin donations.

The Democrats were elected mostly due to the failures of the Iraq War.. Nothing has been done about that when Congress actually DOES have the power to end it.

Maybe if there was a Democrat president, also. The problem with the Republican bitching about how little Democrats have done, is that certain Republicans keep vetoing everything, and thenturning round and going 'oh gosh!' as though they're horrified that Dems failed to pass something.

What horrifies me... is the numbing effect.

We saw it all the way through Bush's terms.... initial shock at one or two things, and then it was kind of like... "Oh, CIA torture camps on foreign territory... meh. Oh, the Intelligence Report finally came back and clearly states that the White House knowingly lied as cause for war??? And you're bringing it up again"

I'm a little worried that Palin may have been the perfect pick after all. She's such a walking shitstorm, McCain could be systematically raping every American in alphabetical order, and it wouldn't be able to gain column inches.
Oh, I'm absolutely certain this loon will get votes in spite of everything. The Republican base has an agenda that requires their party to be in the White House, and they will vote for ANYTHING. McCain could run with John Wayne Gacy, and they would still vote for him.

That's why, whether we are laughing, crying, or puking, we MUST get out the sane vote.

Nope, that was her.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2008/sep/02/uselections2008.republicans20085?gusrc=rss&feed=worldnews

Grabbed the first article that came up on google.

Thanks Muravyets, interesting to read.

Just gets better (or worse depending on which side you're on):

Proud to be a 'f******* redneck' (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/worldnews/article-1051519/Proud-f----redneck-The-teenager-expecting-baby-Sarah-Palins-17-year-old-daughter.html)
what a delightful young man. I bet the Palin's are only too happy to welcome him into their fold.

This also has come out:

Called a cancer-survivor a bitch (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/worldnews/article-1051911/McCains-deputy-laughed-air-opponent--cancer-survivor--described-cancer-bitch.html)
Interestingly, further down the article is this little snippet:
"Just two days before announcing Mrs Palin as his number two, Mr McCain was still holding out the hope that he could choose old friends Joe Lieberman, an independent, or former governor Tom Ridge as his election sidekick.
But, according to the New York Times, the right wing of the party forced him to pass over both men because they favour abortion rights."
So much for the 'Maverick' (TM) not pandering to his party and going his own way.

On the plus side, her husband was done for drink-driving, so he can at least hold his head up high and say he's continuing the tradition set by Bush.

This woman is awesome.


For me, at least.

I wasnt saying you do. I was refering to others who do.


You typically are one of the more level headed members here.

Oh, sorry I misread your post, well thank you for the kind compliment.

Most of which had bipartisan support because it is politically damaging for any politican to vote against bills of that nature. The bill regarding gifts, meals, and travel expenses, correct me if I'm wrong, was an addition to the McCain-Feingold Act... Which limited the amount individuals can donate to political campagins. Oh, McCain, you corrupt, evil individual who co-sponsored a bill limiting campagin donations.

The Democrats were elected mostly due to the failures of the Iraq War.. Nothing has been done about that when Congress actually DOES have the power to end it.
You are wrong about McCain-Fiengold, that was passed before 2006 when Democrats took control of congress.

Furthermore, those were the list of issues that they ran on. Those are the bills that they said they would pass. Your claim was that they did nothing, it was wrong. Now you shift the goalposts to say that they did nothing about Iraq, which is also wrong. They passed bills that had phased withdrawl (they did not campaign on cutting the purse strings, which was their only other option). Those bills were vetoed. Continuing to pass those bills would have resulted in a cold cut of funding, which they did not support. In addition they held 58 oversight hearings (one of congress' functions) about Iraq, an improvement over the zero held before.

Your statement is inaccurate, and your shifting of the goalposts didn't actually change that. I know that baseless statements irritate you and people can get overly defensive when they're irritated-just take a deep breath, correct yourself, and the irritation floats away...

Nope, that was her.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2008/sep/02/uselections2008.republicans20085?gusrc=rss&feed=worldnews

Grabbed the first article that came up on google.
They're now saying she never was - has been a registered republican since 1982. Her husband registered for that Alaskan independence movement in the 1990's but has been 'independent' the past few years. She has, however, met with them and spoken at their conventions.
Personally, I think this is one of (if not THE one) better things to come to light. It shows them to be independent thinkers.

This woman is awesome.

For me, at least.

Sarah Palin is not a woman. Sarah Palin is a product. A merchandise.

I Can't Believe It's Not Hillary. For all the flavor of a woman in the White House who isn't First Lady, with none of the fat.

Thanks Muravyets, interesting to read.
Sorry it's not something better than the Guardian. They're kind of the liberal NY Post. But it's a starting point, at least.

They're now saying she never was - has been a registered republican since 1982. Her husband registered for that Alaskan independence movement in the 1990's but has been 'independent' the past few years. She has, however, met with them and spoken at their conventions.
Personally, I think this is one of (if not THE one) better things to come to light. It shows them to be independent thinkers.
I'm sure they'll be saying a lot of things over the coming days. ;)

McCain could run with John Wayne Gacy, and they would still vote for him.
They would campaign on the fact he loves children and his name is John Wayne. What could be more American than that name?
Any attempt to highlight his (ahem) indiscretions will be blasted as the Liberal MediaTM doing it's typical GOP-hating smear tactics.

The religious right-wing will love him because he's killing homosexuals, thereby showing a novel way to deal with same-sex marriage.

Just gets better (or worse depending on which side you're on):

Proud to be a 'f******* redneck' (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/worldnews/article-1051519/Proud-f----redneck-The-teenager-expecting-baby-Sarah-Palins-17-year-old-daughter.html)
what a delightful young man. I bet the Palin's are only too happy to welcome him into their fold.

This also has come out:

Called a cancer-survivor a bitch (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/worldnews/article-1051911/McCains-deputy-laughed-air-opponent--cancer-survivor--described-cancer-bitch.html)
Interestingly, further down the article is this little snippet:
"Just two days before announcing Mrs Palin as his number two, Mr McCain was still holding out the hope that he could choose old friends Joe Lieberman, an independent, or former governor Tom Ridge as his election sidekick.
But, according to the New York Times, the right wing of the party forced him to pass over both men because they favour abortion rights."
So much for the 'Maverick' (TM) not pandering to his party and going his own way.

On the plus side, her husband was done for drink-driving, so he can at least hold his head up high and say he's continuing the tradition set by Bush.
I'm so happy... :D She's the gift that keeps on giving.

I'm so happy... :D She's the gift that keeps on giving.

Unfortunately, The Liberal Media™ is going to act like those stories never happened.

They would campaign on the fact he loves children and his name is John Wayne. What could be more American than that name?
Any attempt to highlight his (ahem) indiscretions will be blasted as the Liberal MediaTM doing it's typical GOP-hating smear tactics.

The religious right-wing will love him because he's killing homosexuals, thereby showing a novel way to deal with same-sex marriage.
Yeah, that's pretty much the pattern.

I'm so happy... :D She's the gift that keeps on giving.

Really she is.


I wonder what else we dont know about this woman?


Im still counting on her having been in a porno. Id love to see the GOP sweat that one out.

The Democrats were elected mostly due to the failures of the Iraq War.. Nothing has been done about that when Congress actually DOES have the power to end it.

Bush vetoes January 2001 to November 2006:
September 4, 2006: Vetoed H.R. 810, the "Stem Cell Research Enhancement Act.

Bush vetoes since November 2006:
May 1, 2007: Vetoed H.R. 1591, U.S. Troop Readiness, Veterans' Care, Katrina Recovery, and Iraq Accountability Appropriations Act, 2007. Override attempt failed in House, 222-203 (284 needed).

June 20, 2007: Vetoed S. 5, Stem Cell Research Enhancement Act of 2007.

October 3, 2007: Vetoed H.R. 976, Children's Health Insurance Program Reauthorization Act of 2007 ("SCHIP"). Override attempt failed in House, 273-156 (286 votes needed).

November 2, 2007: Vetoed H.R. 1495, Water Resources Development Act of 2007. Overridden by House, 361-54 (277 votes needed). Overridden by Senate, 79-14 (62 needed), and enacted as Pub.L. 110-114 over President's veto.

November 13, 2007: Vetoed H.R. 3043, Departments of Labor, Health and Human Services, and Education, and Related Agencies Appropriations Act of 2008. Override attempt failed in House, 277-141 (279 votes needed).

December 12, 2007: Vetoed H.R. 3963, Children's Health Insurance Program Reauthorization Act of 2007[18]. Override attempt failed in House, 260-152 (275 votes needed).

December 28, 2007: Pocket Vetoed H.R. 1585, National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2008[19]

March 8, 2008: Vetoed H.R. 2082, Intelligence Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2008.[20] [21]. Override attempt failed in House, 225-188

notice something?

Now what were you saying about the Dems not doing anything since holding Congress?

Really she is.


I wonder what else we dont know about this woman?


Im still counting on her having been in a porno. Id love to see the GOP sweat that one out.
Alaskan cannibal porn. *nods*

And on THAT note ... I'm off to bed. That crazy cow will probably be up 15 points in the polls by morning. Gods, I wish the mothership would come already.

Alaskan cannibal porn. *nods*

And on THAT note ... I'm off to bed. That crazy cow will probably be up 15 points in the polls by morning. Gods, I wish the mothership would come already.
Ah, you don't want to start going down that path...first of all, that usually refers to, lets say 'chunky' chicks-I don't think this woman has ever even managed pregnancy fat. Second, there are so many things that make her a bad candidate that has nothing at all to do with her being a woman that you don't want someone to mistake your objection towards her as being against female candidates. Especially when the response to that is on such a hair trigger that even when the critique has fuck all to do with it it goes off (like when a Representative called sexism because Carville said the city hall of the town she was a mayor of looked like a bait shop.)

Wasn't that her husband?

Nope that was her.

Her husband is the drunk driver.

Alaskan cannibal porn. *nods*

And on THAT note ... I'm off to bed.Num-num!
http://www.websmileys.com/sm/cool/cool29.gif

Alaskan cannibal porn. *nods*

That's hawt.

Apparently the father of Bristol Palin's child has a Myspace Page in which he describes himself as a 'fuckin' Redneck'. Think he'll get pistolwhipped by some Alaska State Troopers any time soon? ;)

Her husband is the drunk driver.

I though that was Dubya?

Her husband is the drunk driver.

Yes, yet another reason why we shouldn't support her because someone else was drinving while drunk.

Yes, yet another reason why we shouldn't support her because someone else was drinving while drunk.
I think you're missing the point, here.

Palin's party is the party which has spent at least my entire lifetime trying to make people's private lives into matters of public debate and law. She belongs to the groups which declare that their personal morality should be imposed on every single human being in the United States. When they make these assertions, they make their personal private lives a public concern.

Nobody is forcing them to do this. Personally, I would be delighted if the Sarah Palins of the world would stop shoving their private values onto my life, so I could go back to ignoring them and living according to my own values. But until they do so, their behavior is my problem because they are choosing to make it my problem.

Sarah Palin can gush about how proud she is of her daughter's "decision" to keep her baby, but we all need to remember that Sarah Palin doesn't think our daughters should be allowed to make that decision. Even if they're raped.

Sarah Palin can talk all she wants about how her infant son is a blessing, but we all need to remember that Sarah Palin opposes funding for the kind of medical care that kids like him need. It's great for the wife of a filthy-rich oil exec to view her disabled child as a "blessing," but it would be even nicer if she spared a thought for the parents who take on such responsibilities while working minimum-wage jobs.

Sarah Palin can claim that private family matters should be left out of politics, but we all need to remember that she is quick to use her political power to settle private feuds. If you're not prepared to fire somebody because Palin doesn't like him, then she'll just fire you and hire somebody else to fight her private family battles with their public office.

Sarah Palin can talk about how important and sacred heterosexual marriage is, and how important it is to reserve all sexual activity for marriage, but we should all remember that her values aren't even good enough for her to practice them. She was pregnant before she married, and now her teenage daughter is, too. If her values are so very important to the moral character of America, so important that she wants to spend million of our tax dollars teaching them, then we have the responsibility to ask why she doesn't find those values important enough to actually adhere to them.

If Sarah Palin feels that it is unfair for people's private lives and family issues to be made into public political footballs, then I'm sure she'll stop making them so any day now.

Bottle, you've got an excellent point.

Sarah Palin can gush about how proud she is of her daughter's "decision" to keep her baby, but we all need to remember that Sarah Palin doesn't think our daughters should be allowed to make that decision.

Good points, and for the sake of simplicity and to target areas I want clarification on I am snipping away other bits.

Now with the above statement, would not many people be attacking her saying that the Bristol should be allowed to make the choice on her own rather than other people, now if she had said the daughter is keeping the child than there would have been uproar over the fact the Bristol didn't get to make the decision.

The same goes for the father, who has stated I'm proud to be a fucking redneck or words to that effect, why should that matter to Palin in particular does the Republican party have a thing against rednecks?

She was pregnant before she married.

The question with this one is this, had she publicly come out and said that it was bad and people shouldn't do it before she became pregnant outside of marriage?

Alaskan cannibal porn. *nods*
But then she'd become the Wendigo!
http://www.comicmonsters.com/CMimages/wendigo.jpg
It was bad enough faux pas George Bush Snr throwing up on the Japanese PM, so just think how damaging it could be if Sarah Palin tore his head off and devoured him?

Good points, and for the sake of simplicity and to target areas I want clarification on I am snipping away other bits.

Now with the above statement, would not many people be attacking her saying that the Bristol should be allowed to make the choice on her own rather than other people, now if she had said the daughter is keeping the child than there would have been uproar over the fact the Bristol didn't get to make the decision.

Think about what you just said.

Yes, you're right, there probably would be uproar if a teenage girl was forced to carry a pregnancy against her wishes.

BECAUSE THE AMERICAN PEOPLE ARE OVERWHELMINGLY PRO-CHOICE.

Yet Palin, who wants to be elected Vice President of the USA, believes that teenage girls should be forced to carry pregnancies against their wishes. Well, except her OWN daughter, who gets to make that decision and should be allowed to make it in private and the big meanie media should leave her alone.


The same goes for the father, who has stated I'm proud to be a fucking redneck or words to that effect, why should that matter to Palin in particular does the Republican party have a thing against rednecks?

I have no idea what you're talking about.


The question with this one is this, had she publicly come out and said that it was bad and people shouldn't do it before she became pregnant outside of marriage?
Why on Earth does that matter? She's said it countless times SINCE she did it. I guess it's okay for her to do it as long as now she thinks nobody else should do it? Yeah, that's much better, sure.

Of course, for that to work, she would have to conclude that her current life is a bad one. After all, if fucking before marriage is such a bad and destructive thing, then certainly her life must have been harmed and destroyed by it. She must regret her marriage and her children, seeing as how they were the result of such a bad choice. I'm sure she'll be coming forward to state that any day now.

Think about what you just said.

Yes, you're right, there probably would be uproar if a teenage girl was forced to carry a pregnancy against her wishes.

BECAUSE THE AMERICAN PEOPLE ARE OVERWHELMINGLY PRO-CHOICE.

Yet Palin, who wants to be elected Vice President of the USA, believes that teenage girls should be forced to carry pregnancies against their wishes. Well, except her OWN daughter, who gets to make that decision and should be allowed to make it in private and the big meanie media should leave her alone.

Point taken, no need to shout though Bottle.

I have no idea what you're talking about.

Separate issue, it has been mentioned in this thread and on various news services and is supposedly meant to be a bad thing for her.

Why on Earth does that matter? She's said it countless times SINCE she did it. I guess it's okay for her to do it as long as now she thinks nobody else should do it? Yeah, that's much better, sure.

Of course, for that to work, she would have to conclude that her current life is a bad one. After all, if fucking before marriage is such a bad and destructive thing, then certainly her life must have been harmed and destroyed by it. She must regret her marriage and her children, seeing as how they were the result of such a bad choice. I'm sure she'll be coming forward to state that any day now.

Well yes it does matter, why can't politicians change their stance on issues? Because she has changed her stance she may have realised that it was a mistake and that is is a bad thing at the time she may have had no problem with it, and yes she may have regretted the fact that she had sex before marriage after all who knows if that was the first person.

And just a question in regards to the voting.

Do you vote for the President and Vice President as one or do you vote for them separately? That is to say if you vote for say McCain does that mean you vote for Palin or could you vote for McCain and vote for Biden.

Point taken, no need to shout though Bottle.

Gimme a break.

I say the same shit over and over and over and folks tune it out, so then I write it out in big capital letters for you and you think I'm "shouting." I'm not shouting, I'm speaking extremely slowly and clearly so that nobody has an excuse for being unable to keep up.


Separate issue, it has been mentioned in this thread and on various news services and is supposedly meant to be a bad thing for her.

The fact that she's having her pregnant daughter marry a guy who brags about starting fights and says he doesn't want kids? Well, yeah, I do think that kind of undermines her whole "family values" shtick, since it makes her looks like somebody who believes that any marriage is good enough. Long as the little girl don't birth no bastards it's a winner, right?


Well yes it does matter, why can't politicians change their stance on issues? Because she has changed her stance she may have realised that it was a mistake and that is is a bad thing at the time she may have had no problem with it, and yes she may have regretted the fact that she had sex before marriage after all who knows if that was the first person.

...which is why she made such an effort to teach her daughter those values.


And just a question in regards to the voting.

Do you vote for the President and Vice President as one or do you vote for them separately? That is to say if you vote for say McCain does that mean you vote for Palin or could you vote for McCain and vote for Biden.
In my lifetime, I have never once been fortunate enough to vote FOR anybody in a Presidential election. I have only been able to vote against.

I will be voting against the McCain ticket this time around, because I believe both the individuals on that ticket are completely unfit to lead. Keeping them from office requires that I vote for Obama/Biden, so that is what I will do, even though neither is the person I believe to be most fit for their office.

... any marriage is good enough. Long as the little girl don't birth no bastards it's a winner, right?


This is actually a line you have to initial on a Nye County, State of Nevada Marriage License application.

Its also printed on the court house up in Pahrump, in Latin.

Well, Pig Latin, but they tried.

Gimme a break.

I say the same shit over and over and over and folks tune it out, so then I write it out in big capital letters for you and you think I'm "shouting." I'm not shouting, I'm speaking extremely slowly and clearly so that nobody has an excuse for being unable to keep up.

Ok, for sure

The fact that she's having her pregnant daughter marry a guy who brags about starting fights and says he doesn't want kids? Well, yeah, I do think that kind of undermines her whole "family values" shtick, since it makes her looks like somebody who believes that any marriage is good enough. Long as the little girl don't birth no bastards it's a winner, right?.

Except its not her doing this but rather she is standing by her daughter and suporrting her I am sure that alings with he "family values" shtick.

As for wether it is right or not perhaps you can tell me or perhaps she can, but next time Bottle please when referring to a child born outside of wedlock don't call them bastards, it may not mean much to you but it does to me.

...which is why she made such an effort to teach her daughter those values.

Umm, yes because she thinks it is wrong and regrets those decisons in her life which is why she has instilled them into her daughter. (Note, they are not my thoughts)

In my lifetime, I have never once been fortunate enough to vote FOR anybody in a Presidential election. I have only been able to vote against.

I will be voting against the McCain ticket this time around, because I believe both the individuals on that ticket are completely unfit to lead. Keeping them from office requires that I vote for Obama/Biden, so that is what I will do, even though neither is the person I believe to be most fit for their office.

Ok, does that mean that when voting against a party you vote against both at once rather than voting against the Presidential nominee and the Vice Presidential nominee.

I think you're missing the point, here.

Palin's party is the party which has spent at least my entire lifetime trying to make people's private lives into matters of public debate and law. She belongs to the groups which declare that their personal morality should be imposed on every single human being in the United States. When they make these assertions, they make their personal private lives a public concern.

Nobody is forcing them to do this. Personally, I would be delighted if the Sarah Palins of the world would stop shoving their private values onto my life, so I could go back to ignoring them and living according to my own values. But until they do so, their behavior is my problem because they are choosing to make it my problem.

Sarah Palin can gush about how proud she is of her daughter's "decision" to keep her baby, but we all need to remember that Sarah Palin doesn't think our daughters should be allowed to make that decision. Even if they're raped.

Sarah Palin can talk all she wants about how her infant son is a blessing, but we all need to remember that Sarah Palin opposes funding for the kind of medical care that kids like him need. It's great for the wife of a filthy-rich oil exec to view her disabled child as a "blessing," but it would be even nicer if she spared a thought for the parents who take on such responsibilities while working minimum-wage jobs.

Sarah Palin can claim that private family matters should be left out of politics, but we all need to remember that she is quick to use her political power to settle private feuds. If you're not prepared to fire somebody because Palin doesn't like him, then she'll just fire you and hire somebody else to fight her private family battles with their public office.

Sarah Palin can talk about how important and sacred heterosexual marriage is, and how important it is to reserve all sexual activity for marriage, but we should all remember that her values aren't even good enough for her to practice them. She was pregnant before she married, and now her teenage daughter is, too. If her values are so very important to the moral character of America, so important that she wants to spend million of our tax dollars teaching them, then we have the responsibility to ask why she doesn't find those values important enough to actually adhere to them.

If Sarah Palin feels that it is unfair for people's private lives and family issues to be made into public political footballs, then I'm sure she'll stop making them so any day now.

LMAO Mwhahahahahah *wipes tear from eye*

Ohmygoodness... That was the single most hate filled rhetoric endorsed tirade of propaganda BS I've ever seen put in a single post. Even by you, you've topped yourself. Not even worthy of dissection for responses, not a single point is a valid complaint but it seems to be entirely misleading technicalities and outright lies or misconceptions. Blathering piles of hate spewed out of it like it does from KKK and Neo-Nazi racist propaganda, only from the polar opposite side of the spectrum this time. The sad part is that you are probably utterly convinced of your correctness but, meh, thats the price of fanaticism I suppose.

Why is it then that Bottle's writing seems rather reasonable while your response is pretty much a tired old bunch of "whatever you say, I will claim it's utter and complete nonsense", Balderdash71964?

Why is it then that Bottle's writing seems rather reasonable while your response is pretty much a tired old bunch of "whatever you say, I will claim it's utter and complete nonsense", Balderdash71964?

When someone disagrees with us on a fundemental level we tend to demonize them to explain their differences from us. It's easier to demonize them than it is to accept their differences. Bottle has demonized Palin.

When someone disagrees with us on a fundemental level we tend to demonize them to explain their differences from us. It's easier to demonize them than it is to accept their differences. Bottle has demonized Palin.

So you have demonised Bottle?

When someone disagrees with us on a fundemental level we tend to demonize them to explain their differences from us. It's easier to demonize them than it is to accept their differences. Bottle has demonized Palin.
Really? Because, you know, Bottle went point by point, issue by issue and gave a detailed analysis of why she thought the issues mattered...aaaaand you, well, you compared her to the KKK and Nazis...

So...who demonized who?

The only one winning here is Godwin's Law.

So you have demonised Bottle?

I don't think so. I think she believes it, I think she believes it deeply. I don't think she's faking it or doing it for dishonest or deceptive or hypocritical purposes. I think she's just come to a fundementally different conclussion than I have. Contrariwise, she insinuates that intelligent people can't endorse Palin.

Propaganda can sound like a logical and reasonable discourse, but by placing the blame for our troubles (real or imagined) on 'so-and-so' (group or individuals) and suggesting that our problems are resolved if we remove the persons, it becomes propaganda.

Do you vote for the President and Vice President as one or do you vote for them separately? That is to say if you vote for say McCain does that mean you vote for Palin or could you vote for McCain and vote for Biden.
I'm sorry, I was under the impression that you were a US citizen over the age of 20. Have you never voted in a US presidential election?

Now, I only have experience of voting in three states, but in NY, VT, and MA, President and VP are one check box. You have to vote either Obama/Biden or McCain/Palin. You don't get to mix and match. That's probably why P and VP don't campaign separately.

I don't think so. I think she believes it, I think she believes it deeply. I don't think she's faking it or doing it for dishonest or deceptive or hypocritical purposes. I think she's just come to a fundementally different conclussion than I have. Contrariwise, she insinuates that intelligent people can't endorse Palin.

Propaganda can sound like a logical and reasonable discourse, but by placing the blame for our troubles (real or imagined) on 'so-and-so' (group or individuals) and suggesting that our problems are resolved if we remove the persons, it becomes propaganda.
No, I'm sorry, I don't by this at all. (A) She never did or said the things you claim she did. (B) You never actually addressed anything she did say. What you did was attack her personally because you could not counter her arguments. That much is obvious, because surely, if you could have, you would have. Instead, your post was the net forum equivalent of upsetting the chess board in a snit. By doing it, you lose. You lose the argument, you lose credibility in general, and you lose reputation because you make yourself look silly by first throwing out KKK and Nazi references and then trying to backpedal from them.

Blouman Empire at least made an effort to dance with Bottle. He didn't do very well -- dodging and ignoring points, cherrypicking phrases out of context so he could keep banging that one drum he brought with him -- but at least he showed the respect to his opponent and this forum to make the effort. You were not even that considerate.

No, I'm sorry, I don't by this at all. (A) She never did or said the things you claim she did. (B) You never actually addressed anything she did say. What you did was attack her personally because you could not counter her arguments. That much is obvious, because surely, if you could have, you would have. Instead, your post was the net forum equivalent of upsetting the chess board in a snit. By doing it, you lose. You lose the argument, you lose credibility in general, and you lose reputation because you make yourself look silly by first throwing out KKK and Nazi references and then trying to backpedal from them.

I didn't backpeddle from them, what gave you that idea?

Blouman Empire at least made an effort to dance with Bottle. He didn't do very well -- dodging and ignoring points, cherrypicking phrases out of context so he could keep banging that one drum he brought with him -- but at least he showed the respect to his opponent and this forum to make the effort. You were not even that considerate.


No need to be considerate by responding point by point, she's going around calling Palin the wife of a filthy-rich oil exec, she's gone beyond the pale in in her rhetoric BS. Cheese fell off her bread, as they say.

It's odd to hear somebody claim that I "hate" Sarah Palin, when my feelings about her are so intensely luke-warm.

She's nothing remotely new. She's a good looking white woman who is prepared to oppose abortion rights, gay rights, health care, and pretty much every other progressive action item. In other words, she's the absolute stereotype of the Good Republican Woman.

There are half a dozen other GOP women of this sort who could have been tapped to fill the Veep spot. They happened to pick Palin. I don't see any reason to hate her personally, since she's just fulfilling a needed role on their ticket. If it wasn't her it would have been one of the others from the GOP stable of attractive white anti-feminist women.

The best thing I can do, the most respectful thing I can do, is to try to view her as an individual candidate and at least address her stances directly. Personally, I don't think her own party views her that way, I think they simply picked a good-looking white woman without really caring who she was or what she stood for, but just because the GOP engages in quota affirmitive action behavior doesn't mean that I have to follow their lead. I will give Palin the benefit of the doubt and assume that her positions are legit and should be addressed on their merits (or lack thereof).

I'm sorry, I was under the impression that you were a US citizen over the age of 20. Have you never voted in a US presidential election?

Now, I only have experience of voting in three states, but in NY, VT, and MA, President and VP are one check box. You have to vote either Obama/Biden or McCain/Palin. You don't get to mix and match. That's probably why P and VP don't campaign separately.

By no means, I have never voted in a US presidential election being an Australian citizen.

Thank you for explaining that to me, but isn't it true that at some point there was a Democrat president and a Republican vice president? And I suppose since that is not how they are voted in that never did happen and never will.

I think I should take the advice of Scotland Yard Detective Fix from Around the World in 80 Days, "don't get involved in American election campaigns"

This is bit silly topic.

Discussing whether a person has political competence to become the president based on whether her daughter should, would or could have had an abortion or become a single teenage mother instead of marrying her hubby.

Isn't abortion decided per state anyways so no matter what her stance is over abortion or family issues they would have very small effect to status quo?


I'm not from USA but if I had to decide whether to vote McCain or Obama - who might be a better candidate overall but his campaign is bit too sleek and glossy to my tastes. Palin and McCain both have had a life so to say, while Obama's character is missing similar definition - I'd go with candidate number 3. :p

This is bit silly topic.

Discussing whether a person has political competence to become the president based on whether her daughter should, would or could have had an abortion or become a single teenage mother instead of marrying her hubby.

You're right, it is silly for a family's private medical decisions to be held up as some kind of major political issue. Please write a letter to the GOP informing them of same.


Isn't abortion decided per state anyways so no matter what her stance is over abortion or family issues they would have very small effect to status quo?

I won't bother to answer you in depth, since you obviously can't be bothered to read anything in this thread before you post anyhow, but I'll simply suggest that you learn a bit more about American law before you enter topics like this.

When someone disagrees with us on a fundemental level we tend to demonize them to explain their differences from us. It's easier to demonize them than it is to accept their differences. Bottle has demonized Palin.

Just out of curiosity, how?
You see, I read this post, and what I read was Bottle comparing Palin's words with her actions.
It's not exactly Bottle's fault if Palin doesn't really cut a good figure in such a comparison...

By no means, I have never voted in a US presidential election being an Australian citizen.

Thank you for explaining that to me, but isn't it true that at some point there was a Democrat president and a Republican vice president? And I suppose since that is not how they are voted in that never did happen and never will.

I think I should take the advice of Scotland Yard Detective Fix from Around the World in 80 Days, "don't get involved in American election campaigns"
Oh, my mistake. Sorry about that. Now that you mention it, I remember another thread in which you made it clear you're Australian. My bad. Anyway, no, you can't split the Pres/VP tickets in US presidential elections. They are matched sets.

Now, historically, there was a time when the there were no running mates. The vice-president would be the second-place runner up in the election.

http://www.senate.gov/artandhistory/history/common/briefing/Vice_President.htm
Under the system the framers created, the candidate receiving the most electoral votes would be president. The one coming in second would be vice president.

In the election of 1800, however, the constitutional system for electing presidents broke down, as both Jefferson and Aaron Burr received the same number of electoral votes. This impasse threw the contest into the House of Representatives, where for thirty-five separate ballots, neither candidate was able to gain a majority. When the stalemate was finally broken, the House elected Jefferson president, thus making Aaron Burr our third vice president. Within four years of this deadlocked election, Congress had passed, and the necessary number of states had ratified, the Twelfth Amendment to the Constitution, instituting the present system wherein electors cast separate ballots for president and for vice president.

In those days, obviously, you could have a president and vice-president who were opposed politically.

You can vote across party lines for other offices -- so, in Congressional or state elections, you could vote Dem governor, Rep District Attorney, Libertarian State Comptroller, Green judges, etc.

Isn't abortion decided per state anyways so no matter what her stance is over abortion or family issues they would have very small effect to status quo?

Um.....n (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roe_v._Wade)o (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Planned_Parenthood_v._Casey).

I didn't backpeddle from them, what gave you that idea?




No need to be considerate by responding point by point, she's going around calling Palin the wife of a filthy-rich oil exec, she's gone beyond the pale in in her rhetoric BS. Cheese fell off her bread, as they say.
No need to respond point by point indeed. You're cherrypicking and you're denying your own actions. You fail again.

I didn't backpeddle from them, what gave you that idea?

No need to be considerate by responding point by point, she's going around calling Palin the wife of a filthy-rich oil exec, she's gone beyond the pale in in her rhetoric BS. Cheese fell off her bread, as they say.

Wait, wait, so "filthy rich oil exec" is hate-filled, but "KKK and Neo-Nazi racist propaganda" isn't?

Seriously, can you actually address her points? All evidence points to no. You've made several excuses to avoid debate. Another method you might try is going for a walk. That's a great way to avoid debate without baiting and flaming.

Thank you for explaining that to me, but isn't it true that at some point there was a Democrat president and a Republican vice president? And I suppose since that is not how they are voted in that never did happen and never will.

I looked this up specifically because it occurred to me that I don't think there is any rule saying that two parties could not join to present one pres/vp ticket. Here's what I found:

http://wiki.answers.com/Q/What_Republican_president_had_a_Democrat_vice_president
Lincoln (Republican) picked Andrew Jackson (Democrat) as a replacment VP during his term, but because of the situation in the US both of them affiliated with a new party ("Union"), so neither man was aligned with his traditional party at the time. So that's a kind of "yes it happened" and "no it never happened" answer at the same time.

I believe it would be legally possible to run a mixed ticket. If anyone knows otherwise, I'd like to know. But the voters do not get to split the pres/vp ticket -- voting pres from one team and vp from the other.

LMAO Mwhahahahahah *wipes tear from eye*

Ohmygoodness... That was the single most hate filled rhetoric endorsed tirade of propaganda BS I've ever seen put in a single post. Even by you, you've topped yourself. Not even worthy of dissection for responses, not a single point is a valid complaint but it seems to be entirely misleading technicalities and outright lies or misconceptions. Blathering piles of hate spewed out of it like it does from KKK and Neo-Nazi racist propaganda, only from the polar opposite side of the spectrum this time. The sad part is that you are probably utterly convinced of your correctness but, meh, thats the price of fanaticism I suppose.

When someone disagrees with us on a fundemental level we tend to demonize them to explain their differences from us. It's easier to demonize them than it is to accept their differences.

It's okay with us if you don't accept the differences, but it would be preferable if you debated rather than demonized.

It's okay with us if you don't accept the differences, but it would be preferable if you debated rather than demonized.
Quite. It's a bit silly for anybody to be attacking me for being "convinced" that I'm right, when nobody has even provided a single rebuttal point to see how I might respond. You can't really claim that I refuse to consider the possibility that something else is true, when nobody has yet provided a single alternative for consideration.

I honestly expected more debate regarding my post.

Quite. It's a bit silly for anybody to be attacking me for being "convinced" that I'm right, when nobody has even provided a single rebuttal point to see how I might respond. You can't really claim that I refuse to consider the possibility that something else is true, when nobody has yet provided a single alternative for consideration.

I honestly expected more debate regarding my post.

well...you're stupid.

And a doodoo head

Quite. It's a bit silly for anybody to be attacking me for being "convinced" that I'm right, when nobody has even provided a single rebuttal point to see how I might respond. You can't really claim that I refuse to consider the possibility that something else is true, when nobody has yet provided a single alternative for consideration.

I honestly expected more debate regarding my post.

Honestly, I have no issue with that kind of stuff being placed in the middle of a point-by-point debate, but instead he substituted it for debate.

Quite. It's a bit silly for anybody to be attacking me for being "convinced" that I'm right, when nobody has even provided a single rebuttal point to see how I might respond. You can't really claim that I refuse to consider the possibility that something else is true, when nobody has yet provided a single alternative for consideration.

I honestly expected more debate regarding my post.
It's my opinion that no alternative has been provided because there are no alternatives to consider. Many of us agree with what you said entirely, and those who disagree, who are participating in this thread, apparently can't come up with any successful counter, or any counter at all.

Honestly, I have no issue with that kind of stuff being placed in the middle of a point-by-point debate, but instead he substituted it for debate.
Well, since he's not going to do it, I guess I will.

Bottle Point 1: "Palin's party is the party which has spent at least my entire lifetime trying to make people's private lives into matters of public debate and law."

Rebuttal: The personal IS political. The left-wing supports making private matters into public issues, too, like domestic abuse, spousal rape, corporal punishment by parents, and private ownership of firearms.

BP2: "Sarah Palin can gush about how proud she is of her daughter's "decision" to keep her baby, but we all need to remember that Sarah Palin doesn't think our daughters should be allowed to make that decision."

Rebuttal: Palin can be proud of her child for making the right choice, even if she thinks that making the wrong choice should be illegal. For instance, you can still be proud of your child for resisting the temptation to steal some candy, even if you simultaneously belief that theft should be illegal.

BP3: "Sarah Palin can talk all she wants about how her infant son is a blessing, but we all need to remember that Sarah Palin opposes funding for the kind of medical care that kids like him need."

Rebuttal: Palin may regard her own child as a blessing, but that doesn't mean she necessarily believes that all handicapped children are blessings to their families. She may believe it is wrong for parents to try to support and raise handicapped kids if they cannot financially afford to do so. She may believe that it is simply not the place of the government to support anybody's children, and since she is able to support hers this does not make her a hypocrite.

BP4: "Sarah Palin can claim that private family matters should be left out of politics, but we all need to remember that she is quick to use her political power to settle private feuds."

Rebuttal: The 'Troopergate' scandal is still under investigation. It's a bit premature to assume that the whole story is known.

BP5: "Sarah Palin can talk about how important and sacred heterosexual marriage is, and how important it is to reserve all sexual activity for marriage, but we should all remember that her values aren't even good enough for her to practice them."

Rebuttal: While it certainly isn't admirable for a person to say one thing and do another, that doesn't necessarily mean that the values they advocate are to blame. Decent folks can make mistakes and learn from them.

BP6: "If Sarah Palin feels that it is unfair for people's private lives and family issues to be made into public political footballs, then I'm sure she'll stop making them so any day now."

Rebuttal: This "eye for an eye" mentality is questionable. Is it right for us to levy personal attacks against somebody just because they started it? Or should we hold ourselves to a higher standard?

Oh, my mistake. Sorry about that. Now that you mention it, I remember another thread in which you made it clear you're Australian. My bad. Anyway, no, you can't split the Pres/VP tickets in US presidential elections. They are matched sets.

Now, historically, there was a time when the there were no running mates. The vice-president would be the second-place runner up in the election.

http://www.senate.gov/artandhistory/history/common/briefing/Vice_President.htm


In those days, obviously, you could have a president and vice-president who were opposed politically.

You can vote across party lines for other offices -- so, in Congressional or state elections, you could vote Dem governor, Rep District Attorney, Libertarian State Comptroller, Green judges, etc.

I looked this up specifically because it occurred to me that I don't think there is any rule saying that two parties could not join to present one pres/vp ticket. Here's what I found:

http://wiki.answers.com/Q/What_Republican_president_had_a_Democrat_vice_president
Lincoln (Republican) picked Andrew Jackson (Democrat) as a replacment VP during his term, but because of the situation in the US both of them affiliated with a new party ("Union"), so neither man was aligned with his traditional party at the time. So that's a kind of "yes it happened" and "no it never happened" answer at the same time.

I believe it would be legally possible to run a mixed ticket. If anyone knows otherwise, I'd like to know. But the voters do not get to split the pres/vp ticket -- voting pres from one team and vp from the other.

OK thank you, I hope you don't mind if I ask a follow up question.

I whipped out my little 'bible'* and the 12th amendment states the electors shall name in their ballots the person voted for as President and in distinct ballots the person voted for as Vice President ( I am skipping a bit here but it talks about how the ballots are collected and sent to the President of the Senate and then counted) It then goes on to say that the person having the greatest number of votes for President, shall be the President. (it continues again on how the president is chosen along with sections which have been repealed with the 20th amendment) It then states The person having the greatest number of votes as Vice President shall be the Vice President.

Now I underlined the distinct word because to me and I may be interpreting the amendment incorrectly says that the electors which I am assuming mean the voters but in a ballot for their choice of President and a separate ballot for their choice of Vice President. Now as I say I may be interpreting it incorrectly but if not and in the three states you mentioned don't allow this then is that not breaking the law?

Interesting to see that the second candidate would become the Vice President back during the infancy of the nation and as for Lincoln yes very interesting thanks for giving me that piece of knowledge.

*Obviously I don't mean bible as in the bible, but this almanac which is quite old (1997) and I need to get an updated version is something which I have spent many years flipping through and reading about, it is quite dog eared and I am having trouble ensuring that some pages remain in their right spot

Just out of curiosity, how?
You see, I read this post, and what I read was Bottle comparing Palin's words with her actions.
It's not exactly Bottle's fault if Palin doesn't really cut a good figure in such a comparison...

Really? Which words with her actions are you thinking of? It is more like a generic stereotyping of Palin to Bottle's impression of what the evil Republicans and their policies are up to, Bottle simply tried to glue all those evil things onto Palin. Much like what the fanatical nut-cases who attacked Obama early on tried to do, saying he was anti-America, secretly a Muslim, using his own words to convict him and they had pictures to prove it... yada yada yada.

Additionally, Bottle proved my point afterwords with her insulting dismissal and acted like she's not being motivated by hate to act unfairly towards Palin's candidacy for VP. Pure BS.
Lets read it again...

It's odd to hear somebody claim that I "hate" Sarah Palin, when my feelings about her are so intensely luke-warm.

She's nothing remotely new. She's a good looking white woman who is prepared to oppose abortion rights, gay rights, health care, and pretty much every other progressive action item. In other words, she's the absolute stereotype of the Good Republican Woman.

There are half a dozen other GOP women of this sort who could have been tapped to fill the Veep spot. They happened to pick Palin. I don't see any reason to hate her personally, since she's just fulfilling a needed role on their ticket. If it wasn't her it would have been one of the others from the GOP stable of attractive white anti-feminist women.

The best thing I can do, the most respectful thing I can do, is to try to view her as an individual candidate and at least address her stances directly. Personally, I don't think her own party views her that way, I think they simply picked a good-looking white woman without really caring who she was or what she stood for, but just because the GOP engages in quota affirmative action behavior doesn't mean that I have to follow their lead. I will give Palin the benefit of the doubt and assume that her positions are legit and should be addressed on their merits (or lack thereof).

Lets pretend for a moment that Palin was a black man and he was dismissed by Bottle with those bolded statements. Picked only to fulfill a role, affirmative action to thank for his being picked at all, any dozen other Uncle Toms to pick from.... Utter wank. Totally insulting and categorically demeaning to the person and their abilities and attributes as a individual human being (all while trying to pretend the exact opposite is true, of course.).

LMAO Mwhahahahahah *wipes tear from eye*

Ohmygoodness... That was the single most hate filled rhetoric endorsed tirade of propaganda BS I've ever seen put in a single post. Even by you, you've topped yourself. Not even worthy of dissection for responses, not a single point is a valid complaint but it seems to be entirely misleading technicalities and outright lies or misconceptions. Blathering piles of hate spewed out of it like it does from KKK and Neo-Nazi racist propaganda, only from the polar opposite side of the spectrum this time. The sad part is that you are probably utterly convinced of your correctness but, meh, thats the price of fanaticism I suppose.

As far as I can see, you're the one doing the irrational blathering. Bottle provided a debate post that was on topic, and you responded with personal attacks against Bottle, evading the topic entirely.

It's time for you to knock it off. If you can't address the topic without personal attacks, don't post at all.

Frisbeeteria
NS Senior Game Mod

Lets pretend for a moment that Palin was a black man and he was dismissed by Bottle with those bolded statements. Picked only to fulfill a role, affirmative action to thank for his being picked at all, any dozen other Uncle Toms to pick from.... Utter wank. Totally insulting and categorically demeaning to the person and their abilities and attributes as a individual human being (all while trying to pretend the exact opposite is true, of course.).

Just because it's insulting doesn't mean it's wrong, I mean please, do you really think the GOP are above such an action?

Really? Which words with her actions are you thinking of? It is more like a generic stereotyping of Palin to Bottle's impression of what the evil Republicans and their policies are up to, Bottle simply tried to glue all those evil things onto Palin. Much like what the fanatical nut-cases who attacked Obama early on tried to do, saying he was anti-America, secretly a Muslim, using his own words to convict him and they had pictures to prove it... yada yada yada.

Additionally, Bottle proved my point afterwords with her insulting dismissal and acted like she's not being motivated by hate to act unfairly towards Palin's candidacy for VP. Pure BS.
Lets read it again...



Lets pretend for a moment that Palin was a black man and he was dismissed by Bottle with those bolded statements. Picked only to fulfill a role, affirmative action to thank for his being picked at all, any dozen other Uncle Toms to pick from.... Utter wank. Totally insulting and categorically demeaning to the person and their abilities and attributes as a individual human being (all while trying to pretend the exact opposite is true, of course.).

Well, you mentioned to avoid actually addressing any points for yet another post.

She didn't attack her for being a woman out of left field.

The GOP launched attack after attack about experience and the readiness the Presidency required. They then picked someon with less experience than Obama. Surely, they had a reason, no?

Now, if Obama had lost and they suddenly picked someone that totally undermined every argument they'd ever made, someone obviously unvetted, and that person seemed to have only one qualification, he fit the right color to attract disenfranchised voters from the other party, then, YES, we would all point it out.

1. He met her once.
2. Her political experience is less than Obama's, someone that we've been told isn't qualified to be President by McCain himself.
3. She appears to be unvetted.
4. She openly admitted in an interview to being unaware of what a VP does.
5. McCain has three famously important women in his life. Three partners. One was a beauty queen, dumped when she got older. Another was an heiress, and very much his junior. The third is a beauty queen, and again very much his junior.

That fifth one is a doozy. McCain seems to choose only young, beautiful women for the most important role in his life. So, yes, her position as a woman, particularly a woman with little to no reason to have been selected by McCain other than she is a woman, is relevant.

Just because it's insulting doesn't mean it's wrong, I mean please, do you really think the GOP are above such an action?

Of course he thinks that, the moral superiority of the Republican party has been proven over and over again.

Just because it's insulting doesn't mean it's wrong, I mean please, do you really think the GOP are above such an action?

What the GOP would do in this situation isn't relevant here. What is relevant is that her being a woman just "happens" to fill a ridiculous hackey role in this election. It's obvious political pandering and acting like anyone is attacking her solely because she's a woman is dishonest.

Of course he thinks that, the moral superiority of the Republican party has been proven over and over again.

Obviously, especially with their humane policy towards Iraq.

What the GOP would do in this situation isn't relevant here. What is relevant is that her being a woman just "happens" to fill a ridiculous hackey role in this election. It's obvious political pandering and acting like anyone is attacking her solely because she's a woman is dishonest.
To clarify, my entire point was that I think the GOP picked Palin because she fits their list of demographic requirements for a candidate, not because they actually cared much about vetting her as a real individual. My point was that I think that's lame, so I will at least try to do her the courtesy of addressing her on the issues and on her individual record.

Well, since he's not going to do it, I guess I will.
Nicely done, except you forgot all the KKK and Nazi parts. ;) Mind if I play?

Bottle Point 1: "Palin's party is the party which has spent at least my entire lifetime trying to make people's private lives into matters of public debate and law."

Rebuttal: The personal IS political. The left-wing supports making private matters into public issues, too, like domestic abuse, spousal rape, corporal punishment by parents, and private ownership of firearms.
Muravyets Counter 1: Incorrect. The left-wing's approach merely regulates the non-private aspects of private business and activities, such as gun transactions and recordkeeping, actions that affect other people who have a right to legal recourse, such as spouses, etc. None of that tells you that you may not own a gun or how you must maintain it, etc., nor how you can run your own affairs except when you violate the law or another's rights. Conversely, the right-wing approach does invade the private sphere and attempt to tell you who you can have sex with and how, how you can acquire health care and from whom, who you can leave your property to and include as beneficiary on your personal insurance policies, etc. The two approaches are not comparable.

BP2: "Sarah Palin can gush about how proud she is of her daughter's "decision" to keep her baby, but we all need to remember that Sarah Palin doesn't think our daughters should be allowed to make that decision."

Rebuttal: Palin can be proud of her child for making the right choice, even if she thinks that making the wrong choice should be illegal. For instance, you can still be proud of your child for resisting the temptation to steal some candy, even if you simultaneously belief that theft should be illegal.
MC2: Arguments that compare abortion/reproductive decisions to crimes are suspect. The fact is that theft is already illegal and is generally considered wrong by the majority of Americans. So regardless of whether Palin would honor her child's decision not to steal, it would not be in the context of her honoring her child for choosing not to do something that other people legitimately have a right to choose TO DO. Nobody has a right to steal, after all, and very few people think anyone should. The same cannot be said about reproductive decisions. Currently, Americans do have a right to decide whether or not to have a baby, and the vast majority of Americans (70+%) believe that we should have that right. However, Palin seeks to take away from Americans in general the right to make that choice, even as she allows her own child to make it.

So, the rebuttal fails in two ways: It compares apples to oranges by comparing reproductive decisions to crime, and it fails to show that Palin's statements are not hypocritical.

BP3: "Sarah Palin can talk all she wants about how her infant son is a blessing, but we all need to remember that Sarah Palin opposes funding for the kind of medical care that kids like him need."

Rebuttal: Palin may regard her own child as a blessing, but that doesn't mean she necessarily believes that all handicapped children are blessings to their families. She may believe it is wrong for parents to try to support and raise handicapped kids if they cannot financially afford to do so. She may believe that it is simply not the place of the government to support anybody's children, and since she is able to support hers this does not make her a hypocrite.
MC3: The second point may not show hypocrisy, but the first point does and in more ways than one. If Ms. Palin claims to be "non-elitist" and a "regular person," how could she possibly justify thinking that her own child is better in anyway than anyone else's? Also if Palin is as religious and moral and anti-abortion as she claims, how could she claim that the handicapped children of poor people are not as precious and endowed with as much of a right to life as she would say her own handicapped child is?

So this rebuttal fails because it highlights her hypocrisy rather than disproving it.

BP4: "Sarah Palin can claim that private family matters should be left out of politics, but we all need to remember that she is quick to use her political power to settle private feuds."

Rebuttal: The 'Troopergate' scandal is still under investigation. It's a bit premature to assume that the whole story is known.
MC4: A legitimate point. However, consider this: As long as the question hangs over her, do we want to be voting her into the vice-presidental seat? What if it turns out there was a scandal and she is guilty of ethics violations? What do we do with VP Palin then? Without jumping to conclusions as to what the outcome of the investigation will be, the existence of the investigation should have disqualified her from McCain's list of possible running mates. So while it is not so much a mark against her (yet), it is a mark against McCain's judgment.

BP5: "Sarah Palin can talk about how important and sacred heterosexual marriage is, and how important it is to reserve all sexual activity for marriage, but we should all remember that her values aren't even good enough for her to practice them."

Rebuttal: While it certainly isn't admirable for a person to say one thing and do another, that doesn't necessarily mean that the values they advocate are to blame. Decent folks can make mistakes and learn from them.
MC5: Sarah Palin seems to keep making the same mistakes over and over. How long before we can legitimately expect the learning part to happen?

BP6: "If Sarah Palin feels that it is unfair for people's private lives and family issues to be made into public political footballs, then I'm sure she'll stop making them so any day now."

Rebuttal: This "eye for an eye" mentality is questionable. Is it right for us to levy personal attacks against somebody just because they started it? Or should we hold ourselves to a higher standard?
MC6: Turnabout is fair play.

OK thank you, I hope you don't mind if I ask a follow up question.

I whipped out my little 'bible'* and the 12th amendment states the electors shall name in their ballots the person voted for as President and in distinct ballots the person voted for as Vice President ( I am skipping a bit here but it talks about how the ballots are collected and sent to the President of the Senate and then counted) It then goes on to say that the person having the greatest number of votes for President, shall be the President. (it continues again on how the president is chosen along with sections which have been repealed with the 20th amendment) It then states The person having the greatest number of votes as Vice President shall be the Vice President.

Now I underlined the distinct word because to me and I may be interpreting the amendment incorrectly says that the electors which I am assuming mean the voters but in a ballot for their choice of President and a separate ballot for their choice of Vice President. Now as I say I may be interpreting it incorrectly but if not and in the three states you mentioned don't allow this then is that not breaking the law?

Interesting to see that the second candidate would become the Vice President back during the infancy of the nation and as for Lincoln yes very interesting thanks for giving me that piece of knowledge.

*Obviously I don't mean bible as in the bible, but this almanac which is quite old (1997) and I need to get an updated version is something which I have spent many years flipping through and reading about, it is quite dog eared and I am having trouble ensuring that some pages remain in their right spot
As far as I know, the system followed in the three states I mentioned is the same in all 50 states. President and Vice-President run as one. The Electoral College is a bizarre little creature, but in general it follows, rather than leads or acts independently of, the popular vote, so it is extremely unlikely that the Electoral College would be able to split the Pres and VP as you suggest, just as a practical matter. The presidential candidate with the highest number of votes and the vice-presidential candidate with the highest number of votes will always be from the same team.

However, you have now exhausted my knowledge and understanding of this. I hope someone who knows the system better will chime in.

What the GOP would do in this situation isn't relevant here. What is relevant is that her being a woman just "happens" to fill a ridiculous hackey role in this election. It's obvious political pandering and acting like anyone is attacking her solely because she's a woman is dishonest.

You saying McCain picked her because she's a woman, and apparently being a pretty one is important to your conspiracy riddled theory as well, IS attacking her because she is a woman, simple matter of fact. You would not be making those attacks if she was a man, obviously. You think it's okay though because you aren't attacking her directly yourself, you are attacking her employer instead so you say it's not her fault nor are you attacking her.

But you are. It's exactly like attacking an employer for hiring a token black man, you dismiss them and the employee. Insulting to the man and his abilities, as if he couldn't have gotten the job unless he was a black man. And in this case you are proven wrong by the fact that there have been active online campaigns to enlist Sarah Palin for the VP position for over a year before she was finally selected. Petitions to try and get McCain to select her from months before the day he finally did select her.

As far as I know, the system followed in the three states I mentioned is the same in all 50 states. President and Vice-President run as one. The Electoral College is a bizarre little creature, but in general it follows, rather than leads or acts independently of, the popular vote, so it is extremely unlikely that the Electoral College would be able to split the Pres and VP as you suggest, just as a practical matter. The presidential candidate with the highest number of votes and the vice-presidential candidate with the highest number of votes will always be from the same team.

However, you have now exhausted my knowledge and understanding of this. I hope someone who knows the system better will chime in.

Yeah ok thanks very much, it does seem to go against the 12th amendment but then I may be interpreting it wrong.

Thanks for explaining it to me it did answer questions for me although then the Electoral College does open up some more questions (why can't it be simple?), I saw that Neo Art reading this thread he might have some knowledge on the law in regards to this matter.

You saying McCain picked her because she's a woman, and apparently being a pretty one is important to your conspiracy riddled theory as well, IS attacking her because she is a woman, simple matter of fact. You would not be making those attacks if she was a man, obviously.

Yes, it is pretty obvious that if she were a man Jocabia would not be claiming that she was picked because she is a woman....

Did that really need to be said?

You saying McCain picked her because she's a woman, and apparently being a pretty one is important to your conspiracy riddled theory as well, IS attacking her because she is a woman, simple matter of fact. You would not be making those attacks if she was a man, obviously. You think it's okay though because you aren't attacking her directly yourself, you are attacking her employer instead so you say it's not her fault nor are you attacking her.

I also wouldn't be making those attacks if she appeared to fulfill ANY need other than being a woman. Again, I know you're having difficulty defending her as a choice so you have to demonize everyone who disagrees with her nomination, but how about addressing the point.

I listed point-by-point why she screams out that she is the ill-thought-out choice of a political hack. Once again rather than addressing the actual points, you continue to try and demonize by irrelevant comparisons.



But you are. It's exactly like attacking an employer for hiring a token black man, you dismiss them and the employee. Insulting to the man and his abilities, as if he couldn't have gotten the job unless he was a black man. And in this case you are proven wrong by the fact that there have been active online campaigns to enlist Sarah Palin for the VP position for over a year before she was finally selected. Petitions to try and get McCain to select her from months before the day he finally did select her.

But this is about her employer, since she didn't choose herself for VP. He did. She's admitted to being unqualified and admitted to supporting Obama. As a person, as a woman, as governor of AK, I've got no issue with her. But since she was selected as VP, I have to look at the reasons one would do so.

I gave my reasons for thinking this was a hack decision. Address them or admit you cannot.

There were many candidates that were popular picks. He didn't select many of them. Many of them didn't have the scandals, the obvious undermining of the core arguments being made, and the complete lack of understanding of the job.

Say what you want about Obama, but he is a Constitutional scholar. Palin didn't know what a VP does a month ago.

Yeah ok thanks very much, it does seem to go against the 12th amendment but then I may be interpreting it wrong.

Thanks for explaining it to me it did answer questions for me although then the Electoral College does open up some more questions (why can't it be simple?), I saw that Neo Art reading this thread he might have some knowledge on the law in regards to this matter.

the 12th amendment says that each elector shall vote once for President and once for Vice President. Don't confuse an elector with an actual voter. It doesn't mean each individual person votes twice, merely the elector votes from each state vote once for each.

You saying McCain picked her because she's a woman, and apparently being a pretty one is important to your conspiracy riddled theory as well, IS attacking her because she is a woman, simple matter of fact. You would not be making those attacks if she was a man, obviously. You think it's okay though because you aren't attacking her directly yourself, you are attacking her employer instead so you say it's not her fault nor are you attacking her.

But you are. It's exactly like attacking an employer for hiring a token black man, you dismiss them and the employee. Insulting to the man and his abilities, as if he couldn't have gotten the job unless he was a black man. And in this case you are proven wrong by the fact that there have been active online campaigns to enlist Sarah Palin for the VP position for over a year before she was finally selected. Petitions to try and get McCain to select her from months before the day he finally did select her.
See bolded parts.

No, it isn't and, no, it isn't.

It is NOT like attacking Palin for being a woman because it actually is not an attack on Palin at all. It is an attack on the GOP for being sexist in cynically considering Palin's sex more important than her skills. That is a criticism of the GOP. It has nothing to do with Palin.

It is NOT at all like dismissing a black employee for having been hired by a racist employer just to fill a quota. Anyone who would dismiss the employee at the same time as the racist employer would also be guilty of racism. Only that is not what is happening here.

Here is what is actually happening:

1) The GOP chooses Palin, and subsequent events indicate that they did not vet her to see if she would be a viable candidate beforehand.

2) We suggest that, if they did not vet her, then they did not choose her for her skills, so we look for other reasons why they may have chosen her. We look at how she is being used by the campaign, and it seems to us likely that they only picked her for her sex and looks. We then blame the GOP and McCain team for that.

3) Then WE vet Palin for them. We look at her background and her skills, and we find them lacking. Even if she were a man, we'd still find them lacking. Her sex has nothing at all to do with our criticism of her.

Get it now?

the 12th amendment says that each elector shall vote once for President and once for Vice President. Don't confuse an elector with an actual voter. It doesn't mean each individual person votes twice, merely the elector votes from each state vote once for each.

This confuses me more, what or who are the electors from each state. But I was confusing the term elector with voter.

Nicely done, except you forgot all the KKK and Nazi parts. ;) Mind if I play?

Not in the least! Let's see how long I can keep up the other side...


Muravyets Counter 1: Incorrect. The left-wing's approach merely regulates the non-private aspects of private business and activities, such as gun transactions and recordkeeping, actions that affect other people who have a right to legal recourse, such as spouses, etc. None of that tells you that you may not own a gun or how you must maintain it, etc., nor how you can run your own affairs except when you violate the law or another's rights. Conversely, the right-wing approach does invade the private sphere and attempt to tell you who you can have sex with and how, how you can acquire health care and from whom, who you can leave your property to and include as beneficiary on your personal insurance policies, etc. The two approaches are not comparable.

The left wing frequently references "ownership" of one's own body, which puts it in the same realm as property rights.

Furthermore, if the left wants to see government be in charge of health care, then shouldn't the government get to determine what kind of care people will get? If lefties want global health care then they're asking to have the government be a part of their "private" medical decisions, so how can then then claim to be upset when the government concerns itself with those medical decisions?


MC2: Arguments that compare abortion/reproductive decisions to crimes are suspect. The fact is that theft is already illegal and is generally considered wrong by the majority of Americans. So regardless of whether Palin would honor her child's decision not to steal, it would not be in the context of her honoring her child for choosing not to do something that other people legitimately have a right to choose TO DO. Nobody has a right to steal, after all, and very few people think anyone should. The same cannot be said about reproductive decisions. Currently, Americans do have a right to decide whether or not to have a baby, and the vast majority of Americans (70+%) believe that we should have that right. However, Palin seeks to take away from Americans in general the right to make that choice, even as she allows her own child to make it.

So, the rebuttal fails in two ways: It compares apples to oranges by comparing reproductive decisions to crime, and it fails to show that Palin's statements are not hypocritical.

Perhaps the majority agree that theft is wrong, but at one time the majority agreed that abolishing slavery was wrong. The fact that all (white) people were legally allowed to own black people as slaves didn't make it right, and it certainly didn't stop those who campaigned to MAKE slavery illegal.


MC3: The second point may not show hypocrisy, but the first point does and in more ways than one. If Ms. Palin claims to be "non-elitist" and a "regular person," how could she possibly justify thinking that her own child is better in anyway than anyone else's? Also if Palin is as religious and moral and anti-abortion as she claims, how could she claim that the handicapped children of poor people are not as precious and endowed with as much of a right to life as she would say her own handicapped child is?

So this rebuttal fails because it highlights her hypocrisy rather than disproving it.

Whether or not a child is deserving of care and support and a right to life is a different matter than if the government should be charged with providing said care and support for every child.

It is the government's job to prevent and prosecute murder, but it is not the government's job to see that each individual citizen has a nutritious, home-cooked meal on their table every night. Likewise, it is the government's responsibility to see that abortion is stopped (to stop the killing of fetuses), but it is not the government's responsibility to directly see to the care of every living child in America.


MC4: A legitimate point. However, consider this: As long as the question hangs over her, do we want to be voting her into the vice-presidental seat? What if it turns out there was a scandal and she is guilty of ethics violations? What do we do with VP Palin then? Without jumping to conclusions as to what the outcome of the investigation will be, the existence of the investigation should have disqualified her from McCain's list of possible running mates. So while it is not so much a mark against her (yet), it is a mark against McCain's judgment.

If McCain narrowed his range of candidates to only those who do not have scandal hanging over their heads, the pickings would be slim indeed. *rimshot*

Seriously, though, perhaps McCain knows more than we do.


MC5: Sarah Palin seems to keep making the same mistakes over and over. How long before we can legitimately expect the learning part to happen?

How can we say it hasn't? She advocates programs that she says will lower teen pregnancy rates and divorce rates, as well as improve conditions for children. She's got her priorities straight at least.


MC6: Turnabout is fair play.
An eye for an eye leaves the world blind!

To clarify, my entire point was that I think the GOP picked Palin because she fits their list of demographic requirements for a candidate, not because they actually cared much about vetting her as a real individual. My point was that I think that's lame, so I will at least try to do her the courtesy of addressing her on the issues and on her individual record.
they didnt need to vet her, she is mccain's SOULMATE. he said so when introducing her as his choice for vp.

i would have loved to see his wife's reaction to that when they got out of view of the press.

This confuses me more, what or who are the electors from each state. But I was confusing the term elector with voter.
You're not the only one. The Electoral College is like a wart on the ass of our election process. I wish we could freeze the damned thing off already.

they didnt need to vet her, she is mccain's SOULMATE. he said so when introducing her as his choice for vp.

i would have loved to see his wife's reaction to that when they got out of view of the press.

Yes, but it is, of course, a conspiracy theory to point out that of three supposed "soulmates" McCain has chosen, all have been young beautiful women. One an heiress and two beauty queens. Don't dare notice trends. That might amount to evidence, and God forbid we base our views on evidence.

Does anyone else notice that as he chooses each SOULMATE they tend get more and more distant from his own age.

This confuses me more, what or who are the electors from each state. But I was confusing the term elector with voter.

oy, this just confuses matters further. Let me explain simply. The vote for president and vice president, In American is not a popular vote, by which I mean, it’s not that the people vote en masse, and whoever gets the most votes wins. If it was, Al Gore would have been president in 2000 as he got more votes than Bush.

Rather the way our system works is, each state has a number of electors, equal to the number of representatives that state has in congress (or the number of representatives in the house +2 as each state gets 2 senators regardless of size). It is the electors who ACTUALLY vote for the president and vice president.

Rather than one big popular presidential election, we instead have 50 “mini” elections, where the voters of each STATE vote on how those state electors will vote. In other words, the people who vote in New York are, in actuality, voting on how they want the electors from New York to vote. They don’t vote DIRECTLY for president and vice president, they vote on how they are going to direct their electors to vote.

You're not the only one. The Electoral College is like a wart on the ass of our election process. I wish we could freeze the damned thing off already.

Ok so the Electors are the Electoral Colleges of each state? So according to the 12th they place a vote in for the President and the Vice President which they can do separately but the voters cannot do this. But the Electoral college in theory just places their votes in whoever had the most for each state, and since voters can only vote for one part or the other rather than individual candidates such as splitting their President/VP vote the Electoral college will always place their distinct votes for the one party.

Yes, but it is, of course, a conspiracy theory to point out that of three supposed "soulmates" McCain has chosen, all have been young beautiful women. One an heiress and two beauty queens. Don't dare notice trends. That might amount to evidence, and God forbid we base our views on evidence.

Does anyone else notice that as he chooses each SOULMATE they tend get more and more distant from his own age.
it is so CREEPY for him to call her his soulmate that after i pressed the post button i thought i must have dreamt that he said it. so i looked it up.

this crazy old man called his VP choice that he barely knows his SOULMATE.

what the fuck?

Ok so the Electors are the Electoral Colleges of each state? So according to the 12th they place a vote in for the President and the Vice President which they can do separately but the voters cannot do this. But the Electoral college in theory just places their votes in whoever had the most for each state, and since voters can only vote for one part or the other rather than individual candidates such as splitting their President/VP vote the Electoral college will always place their distinct votes for the one party.

essentially correct yes. The electoral voters vote for each person seperately, but in most states, they are bound by law to vote how the populace of that state voted, and the populace can only vote for president and vice president together.

Think of the presidential election not as one BIG election, but 50 mini elections, each one essentially a vote on whom to tell the electoral voters for that state to vote for

it is so CREEPY for him to call her his soulmate that after i pressed the post button i thought i must have dreamt that he said it. so i looked it up.

this crazy old man called his VP choice that he barely knows his SOULMATE.

what the fuck?

It really is nuts to call her his soulmate. I do find it amusing that I'm not supposed to compare her to his trend with soulmates, because that makes me a mysogynist, but him setting that comparison up should be ignored.

I wonder what would happen if I called one of my female employees my soulmate? I wonder if the paperwork for the suit would actually come at me fast enough to render me unconscious.

essentially correct yes. The electoral voters vote for each person seperately, but in most states, they are bound by law to vote how the populace of that state voted, and the populace can only vote for president and vice president together.

Think of the presidential election not as one BIG election, but 50 mini elections, each one essentially a vote on whom to tell the electoral voters for that state to vote for

Yeah ok thanks, I was writing the post you quoted as you were posting your other post.

Thanks that does make a bit more sense, but since the electors are allowed to vote separately for President and Vice President why then can't the voters? What is the reasoning behind this?

Yeah ok thanks, I was writing the post you quoted as you were posting your other post.

Thanks that does make a bit more sense, but since the electors are allowed to vote separately for President and Vice President why then can't the voters? What is the reasoning behind this?

*shrug* really, that's up to each individual state, they just all went that way.

Just gets better (or worse depending on which side you're on):

Proud to be a 'f******* redneck' (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/worldnews/article-1051519/Proud-f----redneck-The-teenager-expecting-baby-Sarah-Palins-17-year-old-daughter.html)
what a delightful young man. I bet the Palin's are only too happy to welcome him into their fold.

This also has come out:

Called a cancer-survivor a bitch (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/worldnews/article-1051911/McCains-deputy-laughed-air-opponent--cancer-survivor--described-cancer-bitch.html)
Interestingly, further down the article is this little snippet:
"Just two days before announcing Mrs Palin as his number two, Mr McCain was still holding out the hope that he could choose old friends Joe Lieberman, an independent, or former governor Tom Ridge as his election sidekick.
But, according to the New York Times, the right wing of the party forced him to pass over both men because they favour abortion rights."
So much for the 'Maverick' (TM) not pandering to his party and going his own way.

On the plus side, her husband was done for drink-driving, so he can at least hold his head up high and say he's continuing the tradition set by Bush.
This just gets funnier.

This just gets funnier.

That first one was ridiculous. He's an 18-year-old kid and has nothing to do with this at all.

The second one is a good story except for the bit about her laughter. It appeared to me to be nervous laughter. I'd like to think I would speak up in that situation, but they're shock jocks. That's what they do.

Not in the least! Let's see how long I can keep up the other side...
Okay, but just a little bit more. This sort of thing creates the mistaken impression that our opponents have any credibility. ;)

The left wing frequently references "ownership" of one's own body, which puts it in the same realm as property rights.
Stuff and nonsense. That sort of conflation is possible only with a willful misunderstanding of terms -- the kind of semantics game that the right-wing so often accuses the left of. Legal ownership of property and a person's sense of ownership of themselves are completely and obviously different and separate concepts.

Furthermore, if the left wants to see government be in charge of health care, then shouldn't the government get to determine what kind of care people will get? If lefties want global health care then they're asking to have the government be a part of their "private" medical decisions, so how can then then claim to be upset when the government concerns itself with those medical decisions?
And here, the right-wing creates its own pitfall. Does the right-wing, or does the right-wing not, believe that private citizens have the right to own and control property without undue government interference?

If they do, and if they will insist that "ownership of one's own body" is a property rights issue, then how can they possibly justify giving the government the power to interfere so egregiously in our rights to control that property? (edited for grammar)

If they do not believe it, then where do they get off calling people "lefties"?

Perhaps the majority agree that theft is wrong, but at one time the majority agreed that abolishing slavery was wrong. The fact that all (white) people were legally allowed to own black people as slaves didn't make it right, and it certainly didn't stop those who campaigned to MAKE slavery illegal.
Not a valid comparison because slavery took away people's right to control their own destinies, whereas keeping the government out of reproductive decisions safeguards people's right to control their own destinies. So making one thing illegal while keeping the other legal maintains an even course along the same line -- letting people control their own destinies.

Legal/illegal and right/wrong are different concepts. If it is considered right for people to control their own destinies, then it is right to make slavery illegal while keeping abortion and related matters legal.

Of course, if the right-wing does not believe that people should be allowed to control their own destinies... well, then, Sarah Palin still has a problem, because while she supports policies that would take take away women's ability to control their own destinies, she also supports her own child exercising such a right. So the charge of hypocrisy still stands.

Whether or not a child is deserving of care and support and a right to life is a different matter than if the government should be charged with providing said care and support for every child.

It is the government's job to prevent and prosecute murder, but it is not the government's job to see that each individual citizen has a nutritious, home-cooked meal on their table every night.
Strawman. Who said any such thing? The kinds of programs that Palin opposes certainly do not. They target only some children in need. When the right-wing says that not every child deserve governmental care and support, are they really saying that no child deserves it. An attempt to paint limited programs as broad-based ones makes it seem so.

Likewise, it is the government's responsibility to see that abortion is stopped (to stop the killing of fetuses), but it is not the government's responsibility to directly see to the care of every living child in America.
Since when is it the responsibility of the government to stop abortion? Putting the cart a bit before the horse there, aren't you (on behalf of the right-wing ;))?

In any event, what the government's responsibilities are and how far they stretch is a matter of debate -- and elections.

If McCain narrowed his range of candidates to only those who do not have scandal hanging over their heads, the pickings would be slim indeed. *rimshot*
*brief golf applause*

Seriously, though, perhaps McCain knows more than we do.
Okay, now that's funny. At the end of the day, does the right-wing have nothing to offer but blind trust and obedience to authority? On the basis of what do you place such trust in him -- his past record of flip-flops and mistakes?

How can we say it hasn't? She advocates programs that she says will lower teen pregnancy rates and divorce rates, as well as improve conditions for children. She's got her priorities straight at least.
She can say whatever she likes about the programs she advocates. The statistics show otherwise. It has become clear to the majority of Americans as well as to experts on such matters that the kinds of programs Palin supports simply do not deliver the results she says they do. If she blindly adheres to measures that do not work, that is not an indication that she has her priorities straight. It indicates she values appearances over results.

An eye for an eye leaves the world blind!
:D I challenge the right-wing to name who said that, spell it right, and give the context. (EDIT: Remember, you're in character, Bottle.)

Okay, I'm out. Sorry. I have to clean the house. ;)

Ok so the Electors are the Electoral Colleges of each state? So according to the 12th they place a vote in for the President and the Vice President which they can do separately but the voters cannot do this. But the Electoral college in theory just places their votes in whoever had the most for each state, and since voters can only vote for one part or the other rather than individual candidates such as splitting their President/VP vote the Electoral college will always place their distinct votes for the one party.
I am completely out of my depth with this. Please direct these questions to Neo Art.

It's probably been said, but:

Mrs. Palin is in favour of abstinence only sex-ed and opposes sex education in schools, including all access to contraceptive information for adolescents.

And her 17-year old daughter is now pregnant, as a perfect illustration on how abstinence only sex ed doesn't work.

To me, Palin seems more and more like the wrong choice for McCain...

It really is nuts to call her his soulmate. I do find it amusing that I'm not supposed to compare her to his trend with soulmates, because that makes me a mysogynist, but him setting that comparison up should be ignored.

I wonder what would happen if I called one of my female employees my soulmate? I wonder if the paperwork for the suit would actually come at me fast enough to render me unconscious.
and its not a nomination based on gender or anything but can you imagine mccain calling JOE LIEBERMAN his soulmate?

its language meant for your lover, not your running mate.

Okay, but just a little bit more. This sort of thing creates the mistaken impression that our opponents have any credibility. ;)

To hell with credibility, at this point I'm just hoping they'll have the stones to even voice their positions on issues.


Stuff and nonsense. That sort of conflation is possible only with a willful misunderstanding of terms -- the kind of semantics game that the right-wing so often accuses the left of. Legal ownership of property and a person's sense of ownership of themselves are completely and obviously different and separate concepts.

Yeah, that was kind of a shot in the dark.


And here, the right-wing creates its own pitfall. Does the right-wing, or does the right-wing not, believe that private citizens have the right to own and control property without undue government interference?

If they do, and if they will insist that "ownership of one's own body" is a property rights issue, then how can they possibly justify giving the government the power to interfere in our rights to control that property so egregiously?

If they do not believe it, then where do they get off calling people "lefties"?

Good grief yes.

I mean. Um. A male person's right to privately own some guns or women or whatever is quite different from a female person's right to murder a man's sperm?


Not a valid comparison because slavery took away people's right to control their own destinies, whereas keeping the government out of reproductive decisions safeguards people's right to control their own destinies. So making one thing illegal while keeping the other legal maintains an even course along the same line -- letting people control their own destinies.

Legal/illegal and right/wrong are different concepts. If it is considered right for people to control their own destinies, then it is right to make slavery illegal while keeping abortion and related matters legal.

Of course, if the right-wing does not believe that people should be allowed to control their own destinies... well, then, Sarah Palin still has a problem, because while she supports policies that would take take away women's ability to control their own destinies, she also supports her own child exercising such a right. So the charge of hypocrisy still stands.

The only recourse I can come up with at this point would basically be an appeal to aristocracy, the idea that some people are informed/educated/white enough that they can be trusted to make decisions that the "little people" cannot. But I simply don't have the stomach to formulate such an argument using the standard dog-whistle phrasing and vagueness that you can expect from folks like Rush Limbaugh.


Strawman. Who said any such thing? The kinds of programs that Palin opposes certainly do not. They target only some children in need. When the right-wing says that not every child deserve governmental care and support, are they really saying that no child deserves it. An attempt to paint limited programs as broad-based ones makes it seem so.

The idea is that the government is responsible for making sure all kids have a certain minimum standard. I.e., it's the government's job to make sure all kids are safe from being murdered, raped, or left to starve, but as long as the kids' basic needs are met then the government should stay out of the way. So middle-class kids don't need government help for things like daycare and school lunches; those only need to be provided for poor families.


Since when is it the responsibility of the government to stop abortion? Putting the cart a bit before the horse there, aren't you (on behalf of the right-wing ;))?

Well, the argument goes that government is supposed to stop murder, abortion is murder, and therefore...


In any event, what the government's responsibilities are and how far they stretch is a matter of debate -- and elections.

And each side argues their perspective.



*brief golf applause*


Okay, now that's funny. At the end of the day, does the right-wing have nothing to offer but blind trust and obedience to authority? On the basis of what do you place such trust in him -- his past record of flip-flops and mistakes?
Not trust in this case, so much as suspension of condemnation until more information is provided.

(On this one I'm playing Devil's Advocate to the Nth degree, I'll have you know, since I personally believe that one can generally find the truth by heading in the opposite direction from the one McCain is pointing.)


She can say whatever she likes about the programs she advocates. The statistics show otherwise. It has become clear to the majority of Americans as well as to experts on such matters that the kinds of programs Palin supports simply do not deliver the results she says they do. If she blindly adheres to measures that do not work, that is not an indication that she has her priorities straight. It indicates she values appearances over results.

So she's either a liar, a hypocrite, or incompetent.

I cannot rebutt this. :P


:D I challenge the right-wing to name who said that, spell it right, and give the context.

Um, duh? It was Jesus.


Okay, I'm out. Sorry. I have to clean the house. ;)
Whew, and a good thing, too. I was about at the end of my ideas.

It is NOT like attacking Palin for being a woman because it actually is not an attack on Palin at all. It is an attack on the GOP for being sexist in cynically considering Palin's sex more important than her skills. That is a criticism of the GOP. It has nothing to do with Palin.

...

Get it now?


Its EXACTLY attacking Palin for being a woman. You are saying that the person, Sarah Palin the elected governor, was only picked because she has a vagina. You are wrong. Every elected governor of every state is a qualified individual.

And in Sarah Palin's case, there were thousands of people trying to enlist Sarah for VP, even before McCain was selected. I myself signed a Petition to get the GOP ticket to select Sarah for VP before McCain was the nominee, back when some thought that maybe Huckabee would pick her for his VP choice.

You guys acting like McCain dug her up because she is a pretty woman just don't get it. McCain finally saw the light, as far as I'm concerned, and picked the best choice for the GOP ticket. Not because of her being a woman, but because she's a blue collar NRA member regular church going person that thinks corrupt politicians need to be exposed and thrown out of office. And for all the social issues you guys hate her for, we love her for those reasons as much as you despise them.

Does anyone else notice that as he chooses each SOULMATE they tend get more and more distant from his own age.

Perhaps McCain has the soul of a horny teenage boy?

Its EXACTLY attacking Palin for being a woman. You are saying that the person, Sarah Palin the elected governor, was only picked because she has a vagina. You are wrong. Every elected governor of every state is a qualified individual.

And in Sarah Palin's case, there were thousands of people trying to enlist Sarah for VP, even before McCain was selected. I myself signed a Petition to get the GOP ticket to select Sarah for VP before McCain was the nominee, back when some thought that maybe Huckabee would pick her for his VP choice.

You guys acting like McCain dug her up because she is a pretty woman just don't get it. McCain finally saw the light, as far as I'm concerned, and picked the best choice for the GOP ticket. Not because of her being a woman, but because she's a blue collar NRA member regular church going person that thinks corrupt politicians need to be exposed and thrown out of office. And for all the social issues you guys hate her for, we love her for those reasons as much as you despise them.
oh tell the truth.

you cant possibly think that this political neophyte is the best candidate out of hundreds of excellent choices.

if obama had appointed someone like this you would be crowing about how it shows his bad judgement and i would be throwing up because i would have to agree with you.

You guys acting like McCain dug her up because she is a pretty woman just don't get it. McCain finally saw the light, as far as I'm concerned, and picked the best choice for the GOP ticket.

The best choice for vice president is someone whose entire political experience is being governor of one of the least populated states in the country for less than two years?

In the ENTIRE GOP this is the best choice?

Seriously?

Perhaps McCain has the soul of a horny teenage boy?

along with the livers kidneys and heart, all sauteed with onions. It's how he stays fit.

The best choice for vice president is someone whose entire political experience is being governor of one of the least populated states in the country for less than two years?

In the ENTIRE GOP this is the best choice?

Seriously?

Hey, be fair! She also has the political experience of being mayor of a teensy little suburb! Clearly that will help her greatly as VP! :rolleyes:

The best choice for vice president is someone whose entire political experience is being governor of one of the least populated states in the country for less than two years?

In the ENTIRE GOP this is the best choice?

Seriously?
It's kind of like how the Harriet Miers nomination was a slap to women in America. Out of all the great legal minds in the country, Bush couldn't come up with better? And once it turned out that Miers was a disaster, he immediately nominated another white male Christian, because heaven knows it's not like he could possibly find another qualified woman in the entire country...

Sigh. If the GOP really wants us to believe that Palin is the best they've got, then THEY are the ones stating that they've got dregs for members. Personally, I think they could have done much better, and this move was a miscalculated attempt to capitalize on supposedly disaffected Clinton voters.

Sigh. If the GOP really wants us to believe that Palin is the best they've got, then that's pretty fucking sad.

I think that's the point, really. If you're going to argue that a one term governor of a state that has more moose than people is the best the GOP has to offer, then the GOP is pathetic.

along with the livers kidneys and heart, all sauteed with onions. It's how he stays fit.

Perhaps Palin can offer him new recipes, given Mur's theory regarding Alaskan cannibal porn. I hear a little rosemary can really improve the flavor of teenage-boy hearts. :tongue:

oh tell the truth.

you cant possibly think that this political neophyte is the best candidate out of hundreds of excellent choices.

if obama had appointed someone like this you would be crowing about how it shows his bad judgement and i would be throwing up because i would have to agree with you.

I am telling you the truth, I DID sign a petition to enlist Sarah Palin for VP back in May of this year. Other people have been pushing for her since February of 2007.

I think that's the point, really. If you're going to argue that a one term governor of a state that has more moose than people is the best the GOP has to offer, then the GOP is pathetic.

And thus we're back to "either lying or incompetent."

It's kind of like how the Harriet Miers nomination was a slap to women in America. Out of all the great legal minds in the country, Bush couldn't come up with better? And once it turned out that Miers was a disaster, he immediately nominated another white male Christian, because heaven knows it's not like he could possibly find another qualified woman in the entire country...

Sigh. If the GOP really wants us to believe that Palin is the best they've got, then THEY are the ones stating that they've got dregs for members. Personally, I think they could have done much better, and this move was a miscalculated attempt to capitalize on supposedly disaffected Clinton voters.
imagine how the actually qualified republican women must be feeling.

if he had to nominate a woman--and it was a good idea--he could have chosen from at least a dozen excellently qualified republican women who have been in public life long enough that they have no skeletons in their closets.

I am telling you the truth, I DID sign a petition to enlist Sarah Palin for VP back in May of this year. Other people have been pushing for her since February of 2007.
all i can think is that religion is more important to you than your country. that is the only possibility i can see for anyone to think she is a good choice.

To hell with credibility, at this point I'm just hoping they'll have the stones to even voice their positions on issues.
Pfft. Don't hold your breath. Balderdash is still trying to attack me with his "yes it is too like what I said, neener-neener" tactic. Rather like "a cow buzzing around a gadfly." (literary quote; I can read.)

Yeah, that was kind of a shot in the dark.
A shot that gets taken a depressing number of times. It's a common enough argument, about which I have nothing polite to say.

Good grief yes.

I mean. Um. A male person's right to privately own some guns or women or whatever is quite different from a female person's right to murder a man's sperm?
:D Watch out for the spikes at the bottom of that pitfall. ;)

The only recourse I can come up with at this point would basically be an appeal to aristocracy, the idea that some people are informed/educated/white enough that they can be trusted to make decisions that the "little people" cannot. But I simply don't have the stomach to formulate such an argument using the standard dog-whistle phrasing and vagueness that you can expect from folks like Rush Limbaugh.
Seriously. There's no other direction for such arguments to go, and one thing we know is that these people will never openly admit that they do not believe in equality. That's why they always get painted into a corner when they try this approach.

The idea is that the government is responsible for making sure all kids have a certain minimum standard. I.e., it's the government's job to make sure all kids are safe from being murdered, raped, or left to starve, but as long as the kids' basic needs are met then the government should stay out of the way. So middle-class kids don't need government help for things like daycare and school lunches; those only need to be provided for poor families.
Yeah, but it still tries to paint limited programs as being broad-based ones. They'll always trot out stories about welfare cheats and children of affluent families getting social benefits, but in fact, they can show precious few examples, and the programs they attack are specifically geared towards the poor -- by their millions.

Well, the argument goes that government is supposed to stop murder, abortion is murder, and therefore...
Yeah, but it's an argument that goes nowhere. Just another morass.

And each side argues their perspective.
Or one side has us argue their perspective for them. ;)

Not trust in this case, so much as suspension of condemnation until more information is provided.
I think we have plenty of information right now, and November is not that far away.

(On this one I'm playing Devil's Advocate to the Nth degree, I'll have you know, since I personally believe that one can generally find the truth by heading in the opposite direction from the one McCain is pointing.)
Don't worry. No one with any sense would think -- oh, wait *remembers where we are* Yeah, good disclaimer.

So she's either a liar, a hypocrite, or incompetent.

I cannot rebutt this. :P
So far, neither can anyone else.

Um, duh? It was Jesus.
You're channeling Palin!!! Quick! Someone call an exorcist!

Whew, and a good thing, too. I was about at the end of my ideas.
I have to get the place landlady-ready so I can ask for some repairs. And tonight is knitting night, which means cocktails! Yippee! I'll need some 'tinis if I'm going to address Balderdash's balderdash later.

Okay, NOW I'm off.

The best choice for vice president is someone whose entire political experience is being governor of one of the least populated states in the country for less than two years?

In the ENTIRE GOP this is the best choice?

Seriously?


I didn't say she has the most experience, I said she's the best person for the job.

Its EXACTLY attacking Palin for being a woman. You are saying that the person, Sarah Palin the elected governor, was only picked because she has a vagina. You are wrong. Every elected governor of every state is a qualified individual.

We aren't talking about whether she was qualified to be governor. It's an issue that McCain doesn't seem to know much about her, yet called her his SOULMATE, while she undermines every argument made thus far.

And in Sarah Palin's case, there were thousands of people trying to enlist Sarah for VP, even before McCain was selected. I myself signed a Petition to get the GOP ticket to select Sarah for VP before McCain was the nominee, back when some thought that maybe Huckabee would pick her for his VP choice.

You guys acting like McCain dug her up because she is a pretty woman just don't get it. McCain finally saw the light, as far as I'm concerned, and picked the best choice for the GOP ticket. Not because of her being a woman, but because she's a blue collar NRA member regular church going person that thinks corrupt politicians need to be exposed and thrown out of office. And for all the social issues you guys hate her for, we love her for those reasons as much as you despise them.

Be careful. Wouldn't want to address the actual points. Just keep saying everyone doesn't get it. That's almost like an argument.

Every issue you listed about her beliefs, other governors have and then some. Those governors have more experience and thus don't undermine the experience argument which was the only argument the GOP had. Those governors know what a VP does. Those governors appealed as much as she did. The difference, of course, is that those governors just didn't have the right equipment.

But, hey, it's not like we have any reason to be cynical. I mean, the GOP and McCain haven't been known to make political hay before. There is, of course, no polls being conducted right now by the GOP to see how many disaffected Hillary supporters are attracted by Palin, are there?

I said she's the best person for the job.

And I'll ask again, do you honestly and truly believe that the BEST person for the job of VICE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES is a woman whose sum total political experience is a 20 month stint as governor of Alaska?

I didn't say she has the most experience, I said she's the best person for the job.

So far the only reasons you've listed for her being the "best" choice has been for holding beliefs that are relatively common in the GOP. Would you be willing to demonstrate what makes each person that could have been considered a worse choice?

Let's here what disqualified the nearly two dozen other governors from being the best choice? Certainly, you considered all of them, yeah?

imagine how the actually qualified republican women must be feeling.

if he had to nominate a woman--and it was a good idea--he could have chosen from at least a dozen excellently qualified republican women who have been in public life long enough that they have no skeletons in their closets.
Off the top of my head:

Linda Lingle, Governor of Hawaii. She's got more political experience, and successfully made over her party into a viable block in the typically-Blue state of Hawaii.

Christie Todd Whitman, former Governor of NJ. Also more experienced, and familiar with breaking through glass ceilings, she also would be a powerful moderate voice and would appeal to the middle-ground voters who dislike the radical religious faction within the GOP.

Kay Bailey Hutchison, of Texas, the longest-tenured female Republican senator. While her home state is hardly a battleground state, she is tremendously popular there, and has a lot of potential to mobilize Hispanic voters.

Here is a list of governors -

Can you list a quality that made you pick her over every other Republican Governor?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_current_United_States_Governors

Jindal was 100% pro-life is equally an outsider and has already been vetted.

Or Pawlenty, or Crist, or any number of other governors.

Or, perhaps, we could look for legislative experience for the position that is the President of the Senate.

Nah, that's just sensible. No need for sensible when electing politicians.

Off the top of my head:

Linda Lingle, Governor of Hawaii. She's got more political experience, and successfully made over her party into a viable block in the typically-Blue state of Hawaii.

Christie Todd Whitman, former Governor of NJ. Also more experienced, and familiar with breaking through glass ceilings, she also would be a powerful moderate voice and would appeal to the middle-ground voters who dislike the radical religious faction within the GOP.

Kay Bailey Hutchison, of Texas, the longest-tenured female Republican senator. While her home state is hardly a battleground state, she is tremendously popular there, and has a lot of potential to mobilize Hispanic voters.
i was hoping for heather wilson, congresswoman from new mexico.

she is a freaking rhodes scholar with a phd in international relations.

but she's an air force veteran and mccain is a navy man--no possible soulmate there.

We aren't talking about whether she was qualified to be governor. It's an issue that McCain doesn't seem to know much about her, yet called her his SOULMATE, while she undermines every argument made thus far.



Be careful. Wouldn't want to address the actual points. Just keep saying everyone doesn't get it. That's almost like an argument.

Every issue you listed about her beliefs, other governors have and then some. Those governors have more experience and thus don't undermine the experience argument which was the only argument the GOP had. Those governors know what a VP does. Those governors appealed as much as she did. The difference, of course, is that those governors just didn't have the right equipment.

But, hey, it's not like we have any reason to be cynical. I mean, the GOP and McCain haven't been known to make political hay before. There is, of course, no polls being conducted right now by the GOP to see how many disaffected Hillary supporters are attracted by Palin, are there?

You just can't stay away from making insulting personal attacks against her can you? What if we turned that around and said, is "Obama" is the best black man for the position that you could find in entire democratic party? No black men or politicians that were better qualified for the Presidency than a first term senator who's spent more days as a senator campaigning than he has proposing law? But the reality is that Obama wasn't picked because he's the most qualified, he's picked because people choose him and what he wants to do. The same with Sarah Palin.

I'm saying that Sarah was selected because of who she is and what she has shown herself to be capable of, and what she hopes to achieve (look for some of her Sarah for Governor stuff if you can still find it). I agree with her positions about ethics in government and I fully expect her to take those positions to Washington. She sets an example for us that we recognize as one of our own (blue collar conservatives).

Off the top of my head:

Linda Lingle, Governor of Hawaii. She's got more political experience, and successfully made over her party into a viable block in the typically-Blue state of Hawaii.

Wow, there's a missed opportunity. To be able to make inroads in one of Obama's 'home states' would have gone a long way, especially if it's a traditionally 'blue' state.

But Palin had to do what they should have realized was an impossible double duty, seduce disenfranchised Clinton voters AND shore up a hard right base that hadn't warmed to McCain. While he succeeded in the latter, the former has actually become worse for him because it's hard not to see the move as anything but callous and insulting.

You just can't stay away from making insulting personal attacks against her can you? What if we turned that around and said, is "Obama" is the best black man for the position that you could find in entire democratic party? No black men or politicians that were better qualified for the Presidency than a first term senator who's spent more days as a senator campaigning than he has proposing law? But the reality is that Obama wasn't picked because he's the most qualified, he's picked because people choose him and what he wants to do. The same with Sarah Palin.

I'm saying that Sarah was selected because of who she is and what she has shown herself to be capable of, and what she hopes to achieve (look for some of her Sarah for Governor stuff if you can still find it). I agree with her positions about ethics in government and I fully expect her to take those positions to Washington. She sets an example for us that

I didn't say best woman for the position, did I? I said she's not the best PERSON for the position.

The people didn't choose Palin. You listed thousands of peopel signing a petition. Obama was chosen by millions.

Regardless, the only one who look specifically for a woman was McCain. I would have liked him to pick someone qualified, regardless of equipment. You won't even address the issues with her qualifications, her problems she brings to the ticker or any other relevant point. All you do is keep whining about how no one should bring up the blatant pandering.

As a final note, if you don't know what personal attacks are, please, stop using that term. It's just silly at this point.

Lets pretend for a moment that Palin was a black man and he was dismissed by Bottle with those bolded statements. Picked only to fulfill a role, affirmative action to thank for his being picked at all, any dozen other Uncle Toms to pick from.... Utter wank. Totally insulting and categorically demeaning to the person and their abilities and attributes as a individual human being (all while trying to pretend the exact opposite is true, of course.).

I kinda wonder, if Clinton had won the nomination instead of Obama and then she went and picked a white guy as a running mate, if the Republicans would have gone with a token black man for a VP candidate. It's roughly what they seem to have done here, but with a white woman instead of a black man... and what the Republicans seem to have done (picked someone who appears incompetent because she's a young woman and will hopefully get votes) is insulting and demeaning and should be rejected by voters.

LMAO Mwhahahahahah *wipes tear from eye*

Ohmygoodness... That was the single most hate filled rhetoric endorsed tirade of propaganda BS I've ever seen put in a single post. Even by you, you've topped yourself. Not even worthy of dissection for responses, not a single point is a valid complaint but it seems to be entirely misleading technicalities and outright lies or misconceptions. Blathering piles of hate spewed out of it like it does from KKK and Neo-Nazi racist propaganda, only from the polar opposite side of the spectrum this time. The sad part is that you are probably utterly convinced of your correctness but, meh, thats the price of fanaticism I suppose.



You remember back when you were in Kindergarden, and there was always that one kid whod claim to know the answers to all the hard questions, but his answer would always be "I know the answer but Im not telling you!"

Baldy's posts consistantly remind me of that kid. People write long, thought out posts with the goal of opening up honost and pulbic debate, and Baldy's response is simply "OMG LOLZ U R TEH NAZI AND U HATES SARAH PALIN!!111!1! IM NOT EVEN GONNA BOTHER REFUTING U CUZ IT WOULD WASTE MY TIME!!!111!"

You know Baldy, most of us grew out of this stage. We expect you to have to. Just saying "Your wrong!" or comparing them to Klansmen isnt an auto-win. In fact, it just makes you look foolish and, well gives Bottle the auto-win.

Wow, there's a missed opportunity. To be able to make inroads in one of Obama's 'home states' would have gone a long way, especially if it's a traditionally 'blue' state.

But Palin had to do what they should have realized was an impossible double duty, seduce disenfranchised Clinton voters AND shore up a hard right base that hadn't warmed to McCain. While he succeeded in the latter, the former has actually become worse for him because it's hard not to see the move as anything but callous and insulting.

Oh, of course not. Nope. You're just making personal attacks. It's not like you give a list of reasons why she was a poor choice or why any reason given by either the GOP or McCain showed much better choices available.

Noting that he'd only met her once. That's a personal attack (or at least Balderdash would have you believe so).

Noting that she's unvetted. Personal attack.

Noting that she undermines the central argument of the campaign. Personal attack.

Noting that he called her his SOULMATE. Personal attack.

Noting that she admitted to not knowing what a VP does. Personal attack.

They must be personal attacks. Otherwise, Balderdash would have to address them rather than focus on demonizing arguments.

Oh, of course not. Nope. You're just making personal attacks. It's not like you give a list of reasons why she was a poor choice or why any reason given by either the GOP or McCain showed much better choices available.

Noting that he'd only met her once. That's a personal attack (or at least Balderdash would have you believe so).

Noting that she's unvetted. Personal attack.

Noting that she undermines the central argument of the campaign. Personal attack.

Noting that he called her his SOULMATE. Personal attack.

Noting that she admitted to not knowing what a VP does. Personal attack.

They must be personal attacks. Otherwise, Balderdash would have to address them rather than focus on demonizing arguments.
I have to bring it up again, it was apparently insulting to women for Carville to compare her former city hall to a bait shop. It was the first time I saw Carville stunned. "Do I have to remind you that I spent months, even on this very show, trying to get a woman elected president?" It's like arguing with a Steve Correll character that shouts "Sexism" as soon as you open your mouth. A shoulder brush almost seems like a legitimate complaint at this point. The thing is, playing to the refs didn't work for Clinton who, at the very least, could make a legitimate claim for the office. You'd think they would have noticed, I mean, it was all over the news...

I kinda wonder, if Clinton had won the nomination instead of Obama and then she went and picked a white guy as a running mate, if the Republicans would have gone with a token black man for a VP candidate. It's roughly what they seem to have done here, but with a white woman instead of a black man... and what the Republicans seem to have done (picked someone who appears incompetent because she's a young woman and will hopefully get votes) is insulting and demeaning and should be rejected by voters.


Every Governor is experienced enough to be considered for the Job, what do you think the application lists as its requirements? I suggest being elected governor of any state is qualification enough. And this person, Srah Palin, has proven herself by disposing of a sitting governor of her own party, AND an ex governor of the other party, she has fought with the oil companies in Alaska and she's proven herself as person that roots out corruption.

Others have said, (before she was selected officially)...
McCain should run against a corrupt, do-nothing Congress, a la Harry Truman. If he should choose to do so, Gov. Palin would make an excellent partner “The landscape is littered with the bodies of those who have crossed Sarah,” pollster Dave Dittman told the Weekly Standard’s Fred Barnes.
http://www.neoconstant.com/631/mccain-should-pick-sarah-palin-for-vp/

while her daughter's pregancy is a family problem and irrelevant to her mother's run for the VP, it does make me wonder if the very people she was chosen to pander to might be turned off by a mother who "doesnt have control of her child"

its a difficult time for a 17 year old to be in the national spotlight.

Who has control over their 17 year old children? It is not like they are still toddlers.

Every Governor is experienced enough to be considered for the Job, what do you think the application lists as its requirements? I suggest being elected governor of any state is qualification enough. And this person, Srah Palin, has proven herself by disposing of a sitting governor of her own party, AND an ex governor of the other party, she has fought with the oil companies in Alaska and she's proven herself as person that roots out corruption.

Others have said, (before she was selected officially)...
McCain should run against a corrupt, do-nothing Congress, a la Harry Truman. If he should choose to do so, Gov. Palin would make an excellent partner “The landscape is littered with the bodies of those who have crossed Sarah,” pollster Dave Dittman told the Weekly Standard’s Fred Barnes.
http://www.neoconstant.com/631/mccain-should-pick-sarah-palin-for-vp/


Yeah, Palin would be great for cleaning up corruption. Not like shes being investigated for corruption or anything.


Oh shit. Wait.

The flopping was sad then and it's sad now.

If he didn't want people to notice that it's political pandering, he might have at least chosen someone he had considered for more than a couple days. All evidence suggests they've been caught pants down. If she really was the best candidate, they would have been vetting her, not choosing her last minute out of desperation.

It's not sexism to notice. It's not sexism to notice the trends in McCain's choices for "soulmates". It's not sexism to notice that he used that word to describe her. It's not sexism to notice that it just happens to fit into a nice little political nitch that he's been pandering to. No more than it is to notice it's also a pander to evangelicals. And everything coming out of the back end of the campaign supports these conclusions.

They are based on evidence. It's not a leaped conclusion based on her equipment. It's a conclusion based on the rumblings from the group that chose her and from an evaluation of her qualifications.

Obama came out today and very forcefully said he will not make this a campaign issue, and that if someone in his campaign does they will be fired.


Part of me is very proud of him. Bravo, clean politics and all that.


On the other hand, Im infuriated. This election is very, very important for this country, and the Republicans would never, ever be this courtious. He is deliberitally handcapping himself. I can say safely that Obama is a better man then I, because I would go for the kill and annihilate them when they were down.

It is funny. Us Republicans talk this way about Democrats. I am glad that Obama is being a gentleman. However, it is the liberal media not the politicians that typically do the sleezy attacks.

It is funny. Us Republicans talk this way about Democrats. I am glad that Obama is being a gentleman. However, it is the liberal media not the politicians that typically do the sleezy attacks.

You had me until you said liberal media.


Please, the ebil liberal media is being FAR more gentle on Palin then they have been on anyone else this whole election.


Liberal Media indeed.

Every Governor is experienced enough to be considered for the Job, what do you think the application lists as its requirements? I suggest being elected governor of any state is qualification enough. And this person, Srah Palin, has proven herself by disposing of a sitting governor of her own party, AND an ex governor of the other party, she has fought with the oil companies in Alaska and she's proven herself as person that roots out corruption.

Others have said, (before she was selected officially)...
McCain should run against a corrupt, do-nothing Congress, a la Harry Truman. If he should choose to do so, Gov. Palin would make an excellent partner “The landscape is littered with the bodies of those who have crossed Sarah,” pollster Dave Dittman told the Weekly Standard’s Fred Barnes.
http://www.neoconstant.com/631/mccain-should-pick-sarah-palin-for-vp/

Just keep tooting that horn. Don't debate. Don't actually address any specific points. That a few thousang people wanted her to be VP is qualification enough.

Do you think it's relevant that she admits she doesn't know what the VP does?

Do you think it's relevant that she doesn't actually know John McCain, nor he her?

Do you think it's relevant that she is unvetted?

Do you think it's relevant that she happens to pander to voters McCain has openly admitted to seeking out?

I know, personal attacks, right? I mean, God forbid we analyze the process by which he chose her. That's much to personal, right? I mean, one's qualifications for VP are personal and should not be examined. How one got the job is personal and should not be examined? One wonders why we even have an election process. They should just have a meet and greet convention and then we vote for the one we find likeable. Because analyzing the actual stances and qualifications of a person is too "personal".

Just keep tooting that horn. Don't debate. Don't actually address any specific points. That a few thousang people wanted her to be VP is qualification enough.

Do you think it's relevant that she admits she doesn't know what the VP does?

Do you think it's relevant that she doesn't actually know John McCain, nor he her?

Do you think it's relevant that she is unvetted?

Do you think it's relevant that she happens to pander to voters McCain has openly admitted to seeking out?

I know, personal attacks, right? I mean, God forbid we analyze the process by which he chose her. That's much to personal, right? I mean, one's qualifications for VP are personal and should not be examined. How one got the job is personal and should not be examined? One wonders why we even have an election process. They should just have a meet and greet convention and then we vote for the one we find likeable. Because analyzing the actual stances and qualifications of a person is too "personal".

Joc, you sexist pig, if you keep making personal attacks on Palin I may have to report your posts. God why are you such a misogynist?

You had me until you said liberal media.


Please, the ebil liberal media is being FAR more gentle on Palin then they have been on anyone else this whole election.


Liberal Media indeed.

The "liberal" media managed to chase a champion of the poor out of the spotlight for cheating on his wife, but not the man who would be President for doing the same thing.

The "liberal" media made huge hay off the "crazy preacher" when it was Obama, but we hear relatively little about the same issue when it's Palin.

The "liberal" media joined in, in the impeachment of a President for marital infidelity, but doesn't make that an issue in the selection of one.

The fact is the media has its favorites. It likes both Obama and McCain so we aren't going to see the level of discourse we see with Bush and Clinton. Sorry, but that's how it is. It's not about right and left, it's about what puts the butts in the seats.

Yeah, Palin would be great for cleaning up corruption. Not like shes being investigated for corruption or anything.


Oh shit. Wait.

And who is behind these allegations? The person fired? No. Former state Rep. Andrew Halcro, who ran against Palin in the 2006, clearly you don't expect the opposing party to just stand aside and not criticize one of the most popular governors of any party in the last fifty years? Sour grapes.

You had me until you said liberal media.


Please, the ebil liberal media is being FAR more gentle on Palin then they have been on anyone else this whole election.


Liberal Media indeed.

No way! The moment they find this out they go wild. This daughter business is pure sleaze! Contrast this to Obama and his Weatherman terrorist buddy. That story was only covered by A.M. radio for a long time. Also, the thing with Edwards was sat on by the media. Obama's wife is pretty scandalous and she has not even received this amount of attention.

And who is behind these allegations? The person fired? No. Former state Rep. Andrew Halcro, who ran against Palin in the 2006, clearly you don't expect the opposing party to just stand aside and not criticize one of the most popular governors of any party in the last fifty years? Sour grapes.

How about we wait and see what the Investigators say before proclaiming it a Political Write-off

And who is behind these allegations? The person fired? No. Former state Rep. Andrew Halcro, who ran against Palin in the 2006, clearly you don't expect the opposing party to just stand aside and not criticize one of the most popular governors of any party in the last fifty years? Sour grapes.

Yep, your right. Because it came from a political opponent. it must be false.


Did you think it was sour grapes when Ken Star went after Bill? Or was that different because Star was on your side?


Hypocrit.


Oh, and it actually did come from the person fired, so youre a hypocrit and wrong.

And who is behind these allegations? The person fired? No. Former state Rep. Andrew Halcro, who ran against Palin in the 2006, clearly you don't expect the opposing party to just stand aside and not criticize one of the most popular governors of any party in the last fifty years? Sour grapes.

Which would be relevant if there weren't a full investigation that is ongoing. It's not just an allegation. It's gotten traction, which means they are actually finding something worth investigating. That doesn't make her guilty, but it certainly moves it past "sour grapes".

No way! The moment they find this out they go wild. This daughter business is pure sleaze! Contrast this to Obama and his Weatherman terrorist buddy. That story was only covered by A.M. radio for a long time. Also, the thing with Edwards was sat on by the media. Obama's wife is pretty scandalous and she has not even received this amount of attention.

The Weatherman thing was absurd anyway because he had very little contact wth them, simply was on the same board as them.

Contrast this to the Rev. Wright thing.

Oh, and how is Obama's wife scandalous"? Because she says what she feels? Damn uppity woman.

Or are you refering to her supposed lack of patriotism? Are you really going to pretend that the media wasnt all over that?

No way! The moment they find this out they go wild. This daughter business is pure sleaze! Contrast this to Obama and his Weatherman terrorist buddy. That story was only covered by A.M. radio for a long time. Also, the thing with Edwards was sat on by the media. Obama's wife is pretty scandalous and she has not even received this amount of attention.

His "buddy"? He lived near the guy and they were on some boards together. He's as much a buddy of Obama's as Falwell is a buddy of McCain.

Both are sad attempts to avoid discourse. You should be above that.

The thing with Edwards is no different than the thing with McCain. You really want to open that can of worms?

His "buddy"? He lived near the guy and they were on some boards together. He's as much a buddy of Obama's as Falwell is a buddy of McCain.

Both are sad attempts to avoid discourse. You should be above that.

The thing with Edwards is no different than the thing with McCain. You really want to open that can of worms?

The main point is that this is pure sleaziness. Attacking someone on the basis of their teen being a pro-lifer with pro-lifer problems is sleazy. Now I am a pro-abortion and birth control kinda guy and strongly so, but I hardly think that the media should be focussing on the problems of anyone's child espescially a minor child. Ronald Reagan's daughter made an ass of herself in the limelight but she was at least an adult. This is terrible. When has the liberal media ever attacked any liberal for what their minor child did?

I think that a spouse is fair game but a teenaged child? This is so nasty.

The Weatherman thing was absurd anyway because he had very little contact wth them, simply was on the same board as them.

Contrast this to the Rev. Wright thing.

Oh, and how is Obama's wife scandalous"? Because she says what she feels? Damn uppity woman.

Or are you refering to her supposed lack of patriotism? Are you really going to pretend that the media wasnt all over that?

I was talking about her lack of patriotism.

When has the liberal media ever attacked any liberal for what their minor child did?

"Did you hear that the Clintons also have a White House dog?"

"Did you hear that the Clintons also have a White House dog?"
To be fair, Chelsea Clinton wasn't attacked for having done anything. She was simply attacked because she was born to Bill and Hillary Clinton.

The main point is that this is pure sleaziness. Attacking someone on the basis of their teen being a pro-lifer with pro-lifer problems is sleazy. Now I am a pro-abortion and birth control kinda guy and strongly so, but I hardly think that the media should be focussing on the problems of anyone's child espescially a minor child. Ronald Reagan's daughter made an ass of herself in the limelight but she was at least an adult. This is terrible. When has the liberal media ever attacked any liberal for what their minor child did?

I think that a spouse is fair game but a teenaged child? This is so nasty.

You consider teen pregnancy to be a pro-lifer problem? I think the religious right would disagree with you.

No one is attacking this girl. In fact, most would agree that she is behaving quite admirably. They are attacking the religious right and Palin for the inconsistency of their message.

Their message says that teen pregnancy stems from teaching them how to use birth control. This counters that message.

Their message says that teen pregnancy is exasperated by open-minded liberals. This counters that message.

This is about how this stands in contrast to their views on pre-marital sex, sexual education and the sanctity of marriage.

It is, however, nasty. Sadly, her daughter was thrust into the spotlight by her mother in order to score political points. It's shameful.

I was talking about her lack of patriotism.

Uh-huh. The old right horn is tooting again. While the right is paying homage to patriotism by wiping their collective behinds with the constitution, we act as patriots in the ways required of us by the founders.

The founders told us to speak ill when ill is what is going on. The founders told us to expect the best from our country and tell our leaders so. Our country was founded on the "lack of patriotism" you so decry. It was that "lack of patriotism" that led me to put my life on the line for my country. Frankly, if expecting this country to live up to its ideals makes me not a patriot, put me on the list too.

Okay, let's clear this complete and utter BULLSHIT and alter the goddamn DISCOURSE RULES, ONCE AND FOR ALL!

PATRIOTISM IS WANTING WHAT IS BEST FOR YOUR COUNTRY, NOT BEING "PROUD OF IT"! WHEN YOU LOVE SOMETHING, YOU WANT IT TO IMPROVE, REGARDLESS OF FEELING GOOD (PRIDE) ABOUT ITS CURRENT OR PAST STATE! THAT'S WHAT PATRIOTISM MEANS, AND IF YOU WANT TO ATTACK MICHELLE FOR ACTUALLY EXPRESSING HERS, YOU'RE BEING INTELLECTUALLY DISHONEST!

MAGISTER DIXIT!

Whew, that felt good. Anyone up for scrabble later?

To be fair, Chelsea Clinton wasn't attacked for having done anything. She was simply attacked because she was born to Bill and Hillary Clinton.

True enough. That makes it much...better?

You consider teen pregnancy to be a pro-lifer problem? I think the religious right would disagree with you.

No one is attacking this girl. In fact, most would agree that she is behaving quite admirably. They are attacking the religious right and Palin for the inconsistency of their message.

Their message says that teen pregnancy stems from teaching them how to use birth control. This counters that message.

Their message says that teen pregnancy is exasperated by open-minded liberals. This counters that message.

This is about how this stands in contrast to their views on pre-marital sex, sexual education and the sanctity of marriage.

It is, however, nasty. Sadly, her daughter was thrust into the spotlight by her mother in order to score political points. It's shameful.

I do not blame Palin for this. I blame the media for this. This is so sleazy it should be going on it Britain, not in the USA. I mean, this is the sort of garbage that we would expect from British tabloids coverage of the royal family.

It is not that the religious right is inconsistent on the issue of abstainence, sex ed, abortion, and birth control. They are just wrong. They are consistently wrong and stupid when it comes to anything having to do with reproductive rights and policy.

*snip obnoxious font and caps*

Seriously Heikoku, any good points you might make are lost much of the time in vitriol and orthographic gimmicks.

I do not blame Palin for this. I blame the media for this. This is so sleazy it should be going on it Britain, not in the USA. I mean, this is the sort of garbage that we would expect from British tabloids coverage of the royal family.

It is not that the religious right is inconsistent on the issue of abstainence, sex ed, abortion, and birth control. They are just wrong. They are consistently wrong and stupid when it comes to anything having to do with reproductive rights and policy.
really?

i blame john mccain for his poor judgement in choosing a running mate that no one knows and who has a ton of minor skeletons in her closet.

Article: Palin slashed spending for troubled teens and teen mothers in 2007 (http://voices.washingtonpost.com/the-trail/2008/09/02/palin_slashed_funding_to_help.html?hpid=artslot)

Seriously Heikoku, any good points you might make are lost much of the time in vitriol and orthographic gimmicks.

I figured I'd present my argument at about the quality of the rhetoric of the complete and utter morons that attack Michelle Obama.

You consider teen pregnancy to be a pro-lifer problem? I think the religious right would disagree with you.

I am not sure what you meant by this. Teen pregnancy is primarily a pro-lifer problem because when pro-lifer teens get knocked up they remain pregnant. This is in contrast to pro-choice knocked up teens who may remain pregnant.

I am not sure what you meant by this. Teen pregnancy is primarily a pro-lifer problem because when pro-lifer teens get knocked up they remain pregnant. This is in contrast to pro-choice knocked up teens who may remain pregnant.

I would imagine that teenager motherhood might be more a "pro-life" problem than a pro-choice problem, but teenage pregnancy doesn't seem to be related to either position.

By which I mean, neither have anything to do with getting pregnant, but rather what happens after pregnancy.

I am not sure what you meant by this. Teen pregnancy is primarily a pro-lifer problem because when pro-lifer teens get knocked up they remain pregnant. This is in contrast to pro-choice knocked up teens who may remain pregnant.

Not in my experience. You give to much credit to the committment of pro-lifers. Most of the people I know who kept their pregnancies are avowed pro-choice. I know several anti-choicers who quietly made it go away.

Article: Palin slashed spending for troubled teens and teen mothers in 2007 (http://voices.washingtonpost.com/the-trail/2008/09/02/palin_slashed_funding_to_help.html?hpid=artslot)

This speaks very highly of her. We should not encourage or coddle pregnant teens in any manner. If they want to be dumbasses and do this sort of thing, then let them pay for it.

Not in my experience. You give to much credit to the committment of pro-lifers. Most of the people I know who kept their pregnancies are avowed pro-choice. I know several anti-choicers who quietly made it go away.

Pro-life people that get abortions??????? What?????? That is like pacifists that fight in wars. It is like steak eating vegetarians. Are you saying that the pro-life aborters remained pro-life after their abortions or became pro-life after their abortions? I must admit you have me really confused.

I would imagine that teenager motherhood might be more a "pro-life" problem than a pro-choice problem, but teenage pregnancy doesn't seem to be related to either position.

By which I mean, neither have anything to do with getting pregnant, but rather what happens after pregnancy.

But is not the problem with teenage pregnancy that it leads to teenage motherhood (and presumably teenage fatherhood) and that this is rather too early of a time to become parents?

Pro-life people that get abortions??????? What?????? That is like pacifists that fight in wars. It is like steak eating vegetarians. Are you saying that the pro-life aborters remained pro-life after their abortions or became pro-life after their abortions? I must admit you have me really confused.

He's saying that pro-lifers sometimes pussy out of their principles when faced with.. real life.

But is not the problem with teenage pregnancy that it leads to teenage motherhood (and presumably teenage fatherhood) and that this is rather too early of a time to become parents?

only if you presume, falsely, that pregnancy is only about just waiting 9 months then out pops a baby.

Article: Palin slashed spending for troubled teens and teen mothers in 2007 (http://voices.washingtonpost.com/the-trail/2008/09/02/palin_slashed_funding_to_help.html?hpid=artslot)

Not to mention:
Reporters asked McCain in November 2007 whether he supported grants for sex education in the United States, whether such programs should include directions for using contraceptives and whether he supports President Bush's policy of promoting abstinence.

"Ahhh, I think I support the president's policy," McCain said.

He's saying that pro-lifers sometimes pussy out of their principles when faced with.. real life.

But just so I am on the same page, this would then make them pro choicers who used to be pro-lifers right?

only if you presume, falsely, that pregnancy is only about just waiting 9 months then out pops a baby.

What should I be presuming then?

This speaks very highly of her. We should not encourage or coddle pregnant teens in any manner. If they want to be dumbasses and do this sort of thing, then let them pay for it.

Oi! Leave Palin's daughter out of this! We're talking politics here!

Pro-life people that get abortions??????? What?????? That is like pacifists that fight in wars. It is like steak eating vegetarians. Are you saying that the pro-life aborters remained pro-life after their abortions or became pro-life after their abortions? I must admit you have me really confused.

Welcome to a world that isn't exactly black and white? Lovely shades of gray can be found here...

Welcome to a world that isn't exactly black and white? Lovely shades of gray can be found here...

I understand the shades of gray thing. I am a pro-abortion and tree hugging Republican so I know what it is to be firmly surrounded by grayness and not really fitting in. However, it is one thing to be gray and another thing to be white yet considering oneself black as is the case of the pro lifer who decides to have an abortion.

I understand the shades of gray thing. I am a pro-abortion and tree hugging Republican so I know what it is to be firmly surrounded by grayness and not really fitting in. However, it is one thing to be gray and another thing to be white yet considering oneself black as is the case of the pro lifer who decides to have an abortion.

Why? Don't you think one could be morally opposed to abortion, yet when you happen to become pregnant yourself you chose to compromise your values just a little?

But just so I am on the same page, this would then make them pro choicers who used to be pro-lifers right?

No, it means that they don't believe anyone should have an abortion, but when faced with the potential embarrassment of their own teen child delivering out of wedlock, they opt for a quiet abortion, and continue to espouse their anti-choice politics all the same.

This speaks very highly of her. We should not encourage or coddle pregnant teens in any manner. If they want to be dumbasses and do this sort of thing, then let them pay for it.

Really? It speaks highly of her that she voted to cut resources that would help the teenage women who she believes should be forced to remain pregnant and deliver?

I understand the shades of gray thing. I am a pro-abortion and tree hugging Republican so I know what it is to be firmly surrounded by grayness and not really fitting in. However, it is one thing to be gray and another thing to be white yet considering oneself black as is the case of the pro lifer who decides to have an abortion.

You are pro-abortion? Do you stand outside of OB/Gyn offices telling women to get rid of that ugly bump? What the hell is pro-abortion?

Meanwhile, have you ever heard of hypocrites? The same people who would throw a guy in jail for shoplifting while grifting millions from their investors? The same people who snort cocain and vote for marijuana to be illegal? The same people who endorse higher sentences for crack users than powder coke users? The same people who drink and drive and use driving under the influence to make an argument against drug use? The same people who torture the bounds of the law and then talk about how we need to crack down?

The world is full of hypocrites. Unfortunately, the majority of them tend to have a lot of power and tend to want to violate our personal freedoms.

Meanwhile, have you ever heard of hypocrites? The same people who would throw a guy in jail for shoplifting while grifting millions from their investors? The same people who snort cocain and vote for marijuana to be illegal? The same people who endorse higher sentences for crack users than powder coke users? The same people who drink and drive and use driving under the influence to make an argument against drug use? The same people who torture the bounds of the law and then talk about how we need to crack down?

Don't forget people who push to make homosexuality criminal or at least shameful while writing lurid love notes to male interns or tapdancing in airport bathroom stalls.

Or people who declare they won't negotiate with terrorists then cave in to the demands of a certifiably self-absorbed and sociopathic leader of an isolated regime who happens to carry actual nuclear weapons.

Shes already shown that shes willing to fire people for divorcing her sister, Im sure shed do everything in her power to destroy this guys life if he didnt marry her daughter.


This just shows how willing she is to abuse her powers. I think the press should look into this, and politically kill this bitch.

Wow. I like how you say that and not know exactly why she may (or may not as it's still not proven) want the trooper fired. Her brother-in-law used a taser gun on his child, had a restraining order placed on him, and verifiably threatened his wife's father (which, effectively is Palin's father) should she attempt to divorce him. Read it all here (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alaska_Public_Safety_Commissioner_dismissal).

You think there's not a good enough reason to fire the guy, even if he weren't related?

Read up on the facts, my firend. You won't look as stupid.

Wow. I like how you say that and not know exactly why she may (or may not as it's still not proven) want the trooper fired. Her brother-in-law used a taser gun on his child, had a restraining order placed on him, and verifiably threatened his wife's father (which, effectively is Palin's father) should she attempt to divorce him. Read it all here (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alaska_Public_Safety_Commissioner_dismissal).

You think there's not a good enough reason to fire the guy, even if he weren't related?

Read up on the facts, my firend. You won't look as stupid.

It might have been a good reason to fire that trooper, but not to fire his boss. As a family member, she should recuse herself. Any involvement on her part is corruption, whether it turns out to be illegal or not.

Since we're not talking about whether or not the trooper should have been fired but whether the PSC should have been, you might want to do a little reading yourself before suggesting people look stupid.

Wow. I like how you say that and not know exactly why she may (or may not as it's still not proven) want the trooper fired. Her brother-in-law used a taser gun on his child, had a restraining order placed on him, and verifiably threatened his wife's father (which, effectively is Palin's father) should she attempt to divorce him. Read it all here (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alaska_Public_Safety_Commissioner_dismissal).

You think there's not a good enough reason to fire the guy, even if he weren't related?

Read up on the facts, my firend. You won't look as stupid.

While it might be a good reason to fire someone - the problem is that Palin may have abused her power when she fired someone else, namely Monegan, for his failing to fire Wooten.

Wow. I like how you say that and not know exactly why she may (or may not as it's still not proven) want the trooper fired. Her brother-in-law used a taser gun on his child, had a restraining order placed on him, and verifiably threatened his wife's father (which, effectively is Palin's father) should she attempt to divorce him. Read it all here (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alaska_Public_Safety_Commissioner_dismissal).

You think there's not a good enough reason to fire the guy, even if he weren't related?

Read up on the facts, my firend. You won't look as stupid.

while that may be a perfectly good reason to want someone fired, it isn't a good reason to fire the guy in charge of deciding whether or not to fire that guy.

edit: damn, late to the party.

It might have been a good reason to fire that trooper, but not to fire his boss. As a family member, she should recuse herself. Any involvement on her part is corruption, whether it turns out to be illegal or not.

Since we're not talking about whether or not the trooper should have been fired but whether the PSC should have been, you might want to do a little reading yourself before suggesting people look stupid.

The director was offered a transfer because Palin decided to change the direction of the office he ran (clearly they were at odds over how that sort of situation should be resolved). As the governor is directly responsible for that apppointment they are allowed to 'fire' them at any time, with no reason if they so choose, like a cabinet position. He refused to be transfered so she fired him. you might want to do a little reading yourself before suggesting people look stupid

The director was offered a transfer because Palin decided to change the direction of the office he ran (clearly they were at odds over how that sort of situation should be resolved). As the governor is directly responsible for that apppointment they are allowed to 'fire' them at any time, with no reason if they so choose, like a cabinet position. He refused to be transfered so she fired him. you might want to do a little reading yourself before suggesting people look stupid

What about what you said disagreed with me? None of it.

I love your attacks. Keep them coming. They are continued evidence that rather than address specific points, this is all you've got.

While it might be a good reason to fire someone - the problem is that Palin may have abused her power when she fired someone else, namely Monegan, for his failing to fire Wooten.

Clearly you didn't read it because you didn't bring up a bunch of irrelevent points, dumbass.

while that may be a perfectly good reason to want someone fired, it isn't a good reason to fire the guy in charge of deciding whether or not to fire that guy.

edit: damn, late to the party.

Same thing that applies to Gravlen and I applies to you. You wrongly read a post and replied to what was in it. By not bringing up irrelevant and unrelated points, you prove you didn't read.

What about what you said disagreed with me? None of it.

I love your attacks. Keep them coming. They are continued evidence that rather than address specific points, this is all you've got.

You said he didn't deserve to be fired, you were wrong. Like changing coaches, the team owner doesn't need a reason other than, I don't like the direction this team is going.

The director was offered a transfer because Palin decided to change the direction of the office he ran (clearly they were at odds over how that sort of situation should be resolved). As the governor is directly responsible for that apppointment they are allowed to 'fire' them at any time, with no reason if they so choose, like a cabinet position. He refused to be transfered so she fired him. you might want to do a little reading yourself before suggesting people look stupid
It seems like he has done some reading... You know since they're investigating whether or not she overstepped her bounds and abused her power. I doubt anyone is just going to take your word for it...

the question for the investigator will be whether Monegan might have lost his job for failing to dismiss trooper Mike Wooten.
http://www.adn.com/monegan/story/478090.html

Clearly you didn't read it because you didn't bring up a bunch of irrelevent points, dumbass.

Well I... I... I can't read. I NEVER LEARNED TO READ! *cries* You should know that by now...

Actually, I expect a hug since I can't read or write. All in all, I'm not doing too bad on an internet forum, am I? ;)

It might have been a good reason to fire that trooper, but not to fire his boss. As a family member, she should recuse herself. Any involvement on her part is corruption, whether it turns out to be illegal or not.

Since we're not talking about whether or not the trooper should have been fired but whether the PSC should have been, you might want to do a little reading yourself before suggesting people look stupid.

No, I'm aware that the issue is the trooper's boss, but it was up to the boss to fire the trooper, and he didn't. Mind that this all came after the investigation where the trooper was found to have threatened the father.

Now, again, we don't know if she was directly involved in this situation. However, someone somewhere dropped the ball. The man should have been fired, he wasn't. Where does the fault lie?

You said he didn't deserve to be fired, you were wrong. Like changing coaches, the team owner doesn't need a reason other than, I don't like the direction this team is going.

I did? Please, quote me.

I pointed out that we were discussing whether or not he deserved to be dismissed/fired/hung out to dry or whatever wording you'd like. I didn't say whether he should or should not have been let go. In fact, the only thing I did say is that there was enough evidence of corruption to launch an investigation. And there was, that's a fact. In fact, there was enough evidence for Palin to put a member of her staff on paid leave.

No, it means that they don't believe anyone should have an abortion, but when faced with the potential embarrassment of their own teen child delivering out of wedlock, they opt for a quiet abortion, and continue to espouse their anti-choice politics all the same.

Let's face it, teens have to make their own decisions on this. Their parents cannot do it for them. My big "HUH????" would be someone who is a pro-lifer 100% yet still has abortions and remains a pro-lifer. I am sure that as someone said earlier in this tread that real life can help a pro lifer change his mind but someone who did not change their pro life mind yet had an abortion is just too ridiculous of a concept.

Let's face it, teens have to make their own decisions on this. Their parents cannot do it for them. My big "HUH???? would be someone who is a pro-lifer 100% yet still has abortions and remains a pro-lifer. I am sure that as someone said earlier in this tread that real life can help a pro lifer change his mind but someone who did not change their pro life mind yet had an abortion is just too ridiculous of a concept.

You mean like a governor whose pet project is ending prostitution while visiting prostitutes? Nah, too ridiculous. That would never happen in real life.

Really? It speaks highly of her that she voted to cut resources that would help the teenage women who she believes should be forced to remain pregnant and deliver?
Yes. The pro-life position merely seeks to ban abortions it does not seek to require people to not put the children up for adoption. Government should stay out of the lives of families. Supporting chidlren is the role of the parents not the government.

Yes. The pro-life position merely seeks to ban abortions it does not seek to require people to not put the children up for adoption. Government should stay out of the lives of families. Supporting chidlren is the role of the parents not the government.

It's relevant that she doesn't actually support the results of her laws.

I know that doesn't bother you, but it should.

I'll make this pledge now. You get every unwanted child a set of parents, I'll personally campaign to make abortion illegal. Until we're done mistreating actual children, I'm afraid I'm not going to worry to much about the treatment of those that don't yet exist.

It's relevant that she doesn't actually support the results of her laws.

I know that doesn't bother you, but it should.

I'll make this pledge now. You get every unwanted child a set of parents, I'll personally campaign to make abortion illegal. Until we're done mistreating actual children, I'm afraid I'm not going to worry to much about the treatment of those that don't yet exist.

I am pretty sure that the demand for healthy babies exceeds supply. At least tha tis what I always heard. I know that there are a lot of popular myths out there though and maybe this is one. It just seems tha tif we had lots of healthy babies that were available for adoption people would not need to go to other countries to adopt babies.

It's relevant that she doesn't actually support the results of her laws.

I know that doesn't bother you, but it should.

I'll make this pledge now. You get every unwanted child a set of parents, I'll personally campaign to make abortion illegal. Until we're done mistreating actual children, I'm afraid I'm not going to worry to much about the treatment of those that don't yet exist.

Even if every unwanted child (including the unhealthy ones and the olds ones) was able to be placed in a good home I would still want abortions to be easily obtainable to keep the population down. We are an overpopulated species tha tis hurting the environment and causing otehr species to becoem endangered and extinct.

edit: damn, late to the party.

I know. I'm always fashionably late. It makes me look sexy and admirable. :D

It seems like he has done some reading... You know since they're investigating whether or not she overstepped her bounds and abused her power. I doubt anyone is just going to take your word for it...


http://www.adn.com/monegan/story/478090.html

You mean like this quote from your link?

Sen. Gene Therriault of North Pole, leader of the small Republican Senate minority that generally has backed Palin's policies, said he expects the governor will cooperate, and if she's cleared, the investigation could strengthen her.

"Unfortunately, with partisan politics and talk shows and bloggers, there's probably just as much noise as substance," he said. "Hopefully, what the investigator can do is sift through it and see if there's any legitimacy."

The point is not that the guy was fired, the point is that if the governor used her position to illegally look into her brother in laws personal information, which would be against the law if she did. The firing of the director is not a problem, only the spark that made her opponents try to light a fire.

The last time Sarah Palin was forced to stay silent for an investigation, it turned out she was right and her boss, was wrong. If past experiences are any indication, this will have a similar result.

And if it turns out that she did overstep her bounds, she should be reprimanded and we move onwards. It isn't like it's a big deal, certainly not the extent Bill Clinton was being investigated for using state troopers to procure women for his sexual encounters... This pales in perspective and that wasn't a big deal either, certainly nothing that should cost him the election (at the time).

I am pretty sure that the demand for healthy babies exceeds supply. At least tha tis what I always heard. I know that there are a lot of popular myths out there though and maybe this is one. It just seems tha tif we had lots of healthy babies that were available for adoption people would not need to go to other countries to adopt babies.

You can guarantee healthy babies now? Especially considering many people don't have access to adequate health care. Pray tell, how?

Healthy white babies in the US are in demand, 'tis true. Unfortunately, not all babies in the US are white nor are they all healthy.

I know. I'm always fashionably late. It makes me look sexy and admirable. :D

You will go far on this forum, New Romanore. Welcome to the political & religious purgatory that is this forum. Enjoy the rage, the pain and the mockery!

The last time Sarah Palin was forced to stay silent for an investigation, it turned out she was right and her boss, was wrong. If past experiences are any indication, this will have a similar result.

And if it turns out that she did overstep her bounds, she should be reprimanded and we move onwards. It isn't like it's a big deal, certainly not the extent Bill Clinton was being investigated for using state troopers to procure women for his sexual encounters... This pales in perspective and that wasn't a big deal either, certainly nothing that should cost him the election (at the time).

The last time a Republican was in power, it turned out that they invaded a random hapless country and screwed up your economy. If past experiences are any indication, this will have a similar result.

And it also pales in comparison to lying to get your country into a WAR.

You mean like this quote from your link?

Sen. Gene Therriault of North Pole, leader of the small Republican Senate minority that generally has backed Palin's policies, said he expects the governor will cooperate, and if she's cleared, the investigation could strengthen her.

"Unfortunately, with partisan politics and talk shows and bloggers, there's probably just as much noise as substance," he said. "Hopefully, what the investigator can do is sift through it and see if there's any legitimacy."

The point is not that the guy was fired, the point is that if the governor used her position to illegally look into her brother in laws personal information, which would be against the law if she did. The firing of the director is not a problem, only the spark that made her opponents try to light a fire.

The last time Sarah Palin was forced to stay silent for an investigation, it turned out she was right and her boss, was wrong. If past experiences are any indication, this will have a similar result.

And if it turns out that she did overstep her bounds, she should be reprimanded and we move onwards. It isn't like it's a big deal, certainly not the extent Bill Clinton was being investigated for using state troopers to procure women for his sexual encounters... This pales in perspective and that wasn't a big deal either, certainly nothing that should cost him the election (at the time).

"the question for the investigator will be whether Monegan might have lost his job for failing to dismiss trooper Mike Wooten."

Hmmm... which one should I trust? I simply can't decide who might be more credible.

The last time a Republican was in power, it turned out that they invaded a random hapless country and screwed up your economy. If past experiences are any indication, this will have a similar result.

And it also pales in comparison to lying to get your country into a WAR.

Oh boy another one of these folks.

Oh boy another one of these folks.

Yeah, why would anyone distrust the current government? Can't fathom a reason why.

That said, I really believe the administration believed there would be WMD's. I think they set it up with the belief it would turn out to be true. However, if they actually had credible intel, we'd have found the WMD's and relatively quickly. They didn't and we didn't.

I was moving in to my new place in Spokane over the last week. I heard the DNC and the Palin announcement over the radio. I had to listen to the latter on AM radio...and listened as Rush Limbaugh effectively came all over himself as Palin was speechifying.

My two belated cents:

What the hell is wrong with both parties? The Democrats blare about change and nominate a 30-year senator. The Republicans blare about inexperience and then nominate a less-than-two-year governor. It's like they're both TRYING to lose.

Palin's daughter being pregnant seems to have energized the Republicans because Palin "walks the talk" on being pro-life. Phyllis Schlafly then declares that if Palin had been a pro-choice Democrat, she'd have aborted the Down's Syndrome fetus. Neil Conan on NPR this morning shot that shit to hell by interviewing a pro-choice Democrat couple who didn't abort their Down's Syndrome fetus, either.

This is getting ugly, and I've been cogent since Ford v. Carter.

If Palin abused her power to get revenge on her sister's ex-husband and then fired the guy she told to fire the ex, that's not someone I want in the White House, period. I don't care HOW hot she is or whether or not she can skin a moose, for fuck's sake. She was mayor of Wasilla. I've fucking BEEN there. It's tiny. And using "commander in chief of the Alaska National Guard" as some kind of excuse for international leadership and experience? For fuck's sake, that's beyond reaching. That's high-level political yoga.

All that said, her experience with the oil industry is certainly a plus. I'll give her that, and give her standing up to Ted Stevens. But really, that's all. One of the things really missing in the Republican circle jerk on this woman is that she's pro-gay. Funny how that's left out of much of the blinkered fawning I've been hearing about her.

Oh boy another one of these folks.

What, people who can read, listen and think for themselves? The horror.

I was moving in to my new place in Spokane over the last week. I heard the DNC and the Palin announcement over the radio. I had to listen to the latter on AM radio...and listened as Rush Limbaugh effectively came all over himself as Palin was speechifying.

My two belated cents:

What the hell is wrong with both parties? The Democrats blare about change and nominate a 30-year senator. The Republicans blare about inexperience and then nominate a less-than-two-year governor. It's like they're both TRYING to lose.

Palin's daughter being pregnant seems to have energized the Republicans because Palin "walks the talk" on being pro-life. Phyllis Schlafly then declares that if Palin had been a pro-choice Democrat, she'd have aborted the Down's Syndrome fetus. Neil Conan on NPR this morning shot that shit to hell by interviewing a pro-choice Democrat couple who didn't abort their Down's Syndrome fetus, either.

This is getting ugly, and I've been cogent since Ford v. Carter.

If Palin abused her power to get revenge on her sister's ex-husband and then fired the guy she told to fire the ex, that's not someone I want in the White House, period. I don't care HOW hot she is or whether or not she can skin a moose, for fuck's sake. She was mayor of Wasilla. I've fucking BEEN there. It's tiny. And using "commander in chief of the Alaska National Guard" as some kind of excuse for international leadership and experience? For fuck's sake, that's beyond reaching. That's high-level political yoga.

All that said, her experience with the oil industry is certainly a plus. I'll give her that, and give her standing up to Ted Stevens. But really, that's all. One of the things really missing in the Republican circle jerk on this woman is that she's pro-gay. Funny how that's left out of much of the blinkered fawning I've been hearing about her.


She's not pro-gay. At all. She's supported the amendment to the Alaskan constitution that defined marriage as one man and one woman and had to be ordered by the court to give benefits to same-sex partners.

Also, there is an excellent reason for choosing a 30-year senator. President of the Senate. Biden knows how to get things done and Obama has always said that he will pull experience from everywhere to make the moves he needs to make to accomplish his goals. His choice of Biden shows that he's more concerned with the outcome of the next Presidency than he is with the outcome of the next election. If only all politicians ran that way.

One more thing...the unwed pregnant daughter thing? So what? EXCEPT that it should be being used as ammunition against abstinence-only sex ed (I'm assuming that's the message they got from mommy). I've not heard anyone mention or even look into how the Palin kids were taught in their particular school.

You mean like this quote from your link?
No. That quote isn't very relevant.


The point is not that the guy was fired, the point is that if the governor used her position to illegally look into her brother in laws personal information, which would be against the law if she did. The firing of the director is not a problem, only the spark that made her opponents try to light a fire.
The article disagrees with you. I trust the article.

The last time Sarah Palin was forced to stay silent for an investigation, it turned out she was right and her boss, was wrong. If past experiences are any indication, this will have a similar result.
Unfortunately, past experiences never are in such cases.


And if it turns out that she did overstep her bounds, she should be reprimanded and we move onwards. It isn't like it's a big deal,
It is - because she's a fresh face with little experience. And if she's managed to get involved in an abuse of power scandal already...

Well...

Not to mention that someone said "4 more years of Bush" too...

certainly not the extent Bill Clinton was being investigated for using state troopers to procure women for his sexual encounters... This pales in perspective and that wasn't a big deal either, certainly nothing that should cost him the election (at the time).
Any confirmation of that rumour might well have sunk him.

Oh boy another one of these folks.

Were there WMDs? No.

Did your government scare you into submission? Yes.

Were opponents of the war called anti-American and US-haters for being against that useless bloodshed in an attempt to slander them into submission? FUCKING YES.

Unless you go right ahead and tell me where the hell the WMDs are or are willing to go beat up the morons that tried to slander people like me into submission, you don't get to express any annoyance at ALL about me pointing out the kind of mistake and crime that bloodshed was.

One more thing...the unwed pregnant daughter thing? So what? EXCEPT that it should be being used as ammunition against abstinence-only sex ed (I'm assuming that's the message they got from mommy). I've not heard anyone mention or even look into how the Palin kids were taught in their particular school.
i agree that its mostly irrelevant. as i said earlier, all sorts of families end up with pregnant teens. its not evidence of being a bad mother at all.

but i still wonder if they plan to bring the new happy family with them to washington or if they plan to leave them to fend for themselves in alaska.

Were opponents of the war called anti-American and US-haters for being against that useless bloodshed in an attempt to slander them into submission? FUCKING YES.


I don't know why you make such a big thing out of this. It's nothing special, it always happens, and will happen for as long as nationalists exist in the US.

I don't know why you make such a big thing out of this. It's nothing special, it always happens, and will happen for as long as nationalists exist in the US.

It happened to me and I OWE them for it.

That makes it personal, yes.

It happened to me and I OWE them for it.

Don't let it get to you, the same people would probably call most of the people on NS anti-American.

Don't let it get to you, the same people would probably call most of the people on NS anti-American.

I just hate that I was beaten with ad hominem. I hate that I lost to such an idiotic move. I, the guy that studies speech and language for a living, got beaten by an ad hominem and by appeals to fear, by argument ad metum.

I just hate that I was beaten with ad hominem. I hate that I lost to such an idiotic move. I, the guy that studies speech and language for a living, got beaten by an ad hominem and by appeals to fear, by argument ad metum.

You didn't get beaten, anyone who uses that term 'anti American' immediately fails at life.

You didn't get beaten, anyone who uses that term 'anti American' immediately fails at life.

*Chuckles.*

Maybe so, and it's a very good way to look at it. But I still want to rub it in their faces. If I get them to feel guilty for the deaths, and think they caused them, or helped, if I get them to develop a trauma over it, I'll be happy. I'm that spiteful. ;)

"Our beautiful daughter Bristol came to us with news that as parents we knew would make her grow up faster than we had ever planned. We're proud of Bristol's decision to have her baby and even prouder to become grandparents," Sarah and Todd Palin said in their brief statement. This is the direct quote from Palin's statement on her daughter's pregnancy. If a decision was made is that not pro-choice?

"Our beautiful daughter Bristol came to us with news that as parents we knew would make her grow up faster than we had ever planned. We're proud of Bristol's decision to have her baby and even prouder to become grandparents," Sarah and Todd Palin said in their brief statement. This is the direct quote from Palin's statement on her daughter's pregnancy. If a decision was made is that not pro-choice?

Not if you want to change the law to deny others that choice.

no its not pro choice because if her daughter had made a different decision her mother would have done her best to deny her choice.

ms palin AND THE REPUBLICAN PARTY PLATFORM want to outlaw abortion except in cases where continuing a pregnancy would kill the mother--no rape, incest or grave deformity exceptions allowed.

Yeah, why would anyone distrust the current government? Can't fathom a reason why.

It's a perfectly fine position to take, but Heikoku is shockingly juvenile. In a weird way, he confirms the Republicans claims that there's such a thing as the "angry left". He's irrational and psychotic. He acts like every time he was called "anti-American" that George Bush touched his childhood self in inappropriate places.