NationStates Jolt Archive

No wonder I was confused by the 'it did happen' thing.

What he means is 'it didn't happen - it's a story - but I'm offended by the thrust'. Or... something.

more like "I want to pretend to be offended by the thrust that I'm now making up"

The same way some true Scotsmen can put sugar on their oatmeal.

It's not the same at all. A change from the cultural norm, vs 'The greatest commandment'. No it's not the same at all.

From the fumbling, bumbling, and general incompetancy that would make Palin herself exclaim "this man is an idiot" I think I've managed to discern what could, quite liberally, be described as his "point".

The article predicted that Palin would step down, citing a desire to be with her family as an excuse.

Baldy then claimed that this article is saying she should step down, because she should be spending more time with her family. He then claimed that the democratic party is sexist, because it believes Palin should step down, to care for her family, but has not said the same for Obama, who has two young girls himself.

Ignoring the fact that, not only has he failed to demonstrate that the authors of the article he posted are in any way affiliated with, or representative of, the Democratic party, he has also failed to address the fact that the article stated only that the authors believed she would step down, citing that reason, and did not, in any way, advocate she step down for that reason.

So an article that says "she'll probably step down claiming she needs to spend more time with kids" has been magically and mystically transformed into "Democrats think she should step down so she can spend more time with her kids. They don't say that to Obama, those sexists!"

Omitting your clear disdain for my opinion, at least now I see that you really do comprehend what you read. Thank you for clarifying it for the others.

Omitting your clear disdain for my opinion, at least now I see that you really do comprehend what you read. Thank you for clarifying it for the others.

Now, provide evidence that "this will likely happen" translates to "this is why she should step down," or admit that your opinion is bunk.

Omitting your clear disdain for my opinion, at least now I see that you really do comprehend what you read. Thank you for clarifying it for the others.

I understand the point you were trying (poorly) to make. The fact that it needed explanation to others is far more your fault than theirs, considering how you mangled not only tenses, but logic.

I understand what you're trying to say, as for the disdain, there's a reason I made it clear. It's quite warranted, for the reasons I explained.

It's not the same at all. A change from the cultural norm, vs 'The greatest commandment'. No it's not the same at all.
I am, personally, less inclined to try to declare what constitutes a "true" Christian. I don't mean to argue the point. I was merely pointing out that your statement can be seen as a fallacy by people who do not share your interpretation of "the greatest commandment."

Omitting your clear disdain for my opinion, at least now I see that you really do comprehend what you read. Thank you for clarifying it for the others.
Oh, it was already clear to us. As was the fallacy of your "argument" as well, though NA also did an excellent job of laying that bare.

Oh, it was already clear to us. As was the fallacy of your "argument" as well, though NA also did an excellent job of laying that bare.

admit you...you love me.

Heh could be. So then I'm back to, Conservative Christian, surly that's an oxymoron?

I personally believe it to be. But Christians tend to disgree with me on that.

Omitting your clear disdain for my opinion, at least now I see that you really do comprehend what you read. Thank you for clarifying it for the others.

Now, prove that the position "she should step down to care for her family" is the position of the democratic party.

Now, prove that the position "she should step down to care for her family" is the position of the democratic party.

Are you seriously trying to imply that evidence and reason have anything to do with trying to find out information or settle disputes?

Pfft. You probably also think that the Pope is Catholic, or something. :rolleyes:

Now, prove that the position "she should step down to care for her family" is the position of the democratic party.
its it, of course, NO ONE'S position.

she should step down for the good of the country.

"i have to step down so i can care for my family" is the polite fiction that ALL politicians use when they step down suddenly.

so why are you arguing with balderdash over it as if it makes sense?

admit you...you love me.
I will admit no such thing. :tongue:

As twisted as his argument was, we should give Baldy some credit for being the only worshiper of St. Palin with the guts to try to defend her in this thread (IIRC).

I know, I know. Damning with faint praise. ;)

As twisted as his argument was, we should give Baldy some credit for being the only worshiper of St. Palin with the guts to try to defend her in this thread (IIRC).

I know, I know. Damning with faint praise. ;)
Seriously. With friends like him, does Sarah Palin need enemies? I almost feel sorry for the woman -- except that I think she would think Baldy's arguments make sense.

Seriously. With friends like him, does Sarah Palin need enemies? I almost feel sorry for the woman -- except that I think she would think Baldy's arguments make sense.

well, she'd have to get back to him.

Because she has small children and family comes first she's not capable of being in higher office. Riiiight

It's like you didn't even read what you quoted . . .

Because she has small children and family comes first she's not capable of being in higher office. Riiiight

You don't seem to get it. "I need to spend more time with my family" is the standard polite excuse given when a politician needs to resign suddenly. I've actually only heard it used by male politicians, but that may be because there are more male politicians than female ones, so there are more of them who resign. It's never the real reason they're resigning, but it's a nicer thing to say than the real reasons, most of the time.

Of course, you could already know that and just be playing stupid.

This is the theory I stated earlier to a friend.

There are two tracks being laid as far as I can tell. The first is lowered expectations. This has been pretty frequent in the elections so far-Palin's out of her league, right? She of course will get creamed, right? Now all she has to do is not drool on the mic and she "exceeded expectations."

The second track is 'poor picked on Palin.' Even though the Democrats up and down anytime they were asked about Bristol said it was a personal matter, and all the media really did was report on the press release the McCain camp gave them, they cried long and loud about how picked on she was. And now, asking her a question is picking on her.

Biden is an attack dog, he's the "A verb, a noun, and 9/11" guy. And he's a little off the rails. She manages to utter a few sound bits, Biden gets in zingers and she exceeded expectations under a hostile and disrespectful bunch of meanies.

Seriously hope I didn't just call that.
I skimmed (http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/washington/2008/09/sarah-palin-m-5.html)...I'm afraid. Someone defeat this argument so I can sleep...

If Palin steps down, I'm not voting. Period.

If Palin steps down, I'm not voting. Period.

That'll show 'em! :rolleyes:

I skimmed (http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/washington/2008/09/sarah-palin-m-5.html)...I'm afraid. Someone defeat this argument so I can sleep...

Simple. Biden just needs to not get in "zingers". Dont bother. Dont even try. Palin (if her recent interviews are any indication) will probably do far more damage to herself then Biden could do to her. Biden needs to simply answer the questions, and when Palin says something stupid, gently correct her like a teacher would correct a student, while giving off the impresion that her opinion is respected even if she gets facts wrong to defeat any cries of sexism.

If Biden plays the good attack dog, slips his leash and goes up there frothing at the mouth and just rips her throat out and feasts on her heart, like Id love him to do, the scenario you mentioned will happen, and the Republican noise machine will start its cries of sexism all over again.

Conservative voices that are calling for resignation wont change their tune, because many of them are smart enough to know a beating when they see it, but the average American will think big old mean sexist Biden was just trying to make poor cute little Palin cry.

Id like to think that if Im thinking of these stragagies for free the guys getting paid to prep Biden are thinking of them too.

If Palin steps down, I'm not voting. Period.

Why? She's not running for president.

If Palin steps down, I'm not voting. Period.
Is this because

A) You would vote to give her the vice presidency, or
B) You would vote to deny her the vice presidency?

Simple. Biden just needs to not get in "zingers". Dont bother. Dont even try. Palin (if her recent interviews are any indication) will probably do far more damage to herself then Biden could do to her. Biden needs to simply answer the questions, and when Palin says something stupid, gently correct her like a teacher would correct a student, while giving off the impresion that her opinion is respected even if she gets facts wrong to defeat any cries of sexism.

If Biden plays the good attack dog, slips his leash and goes up there frothing at the mouth and just rips her throat out and feasts on her heart, like Id love him to do, the scenario you mentioned will happen, and the Republican noise machine will start its cries of sexism all over again.

Conservative voices that are calling for resignation wont change their tune, because many of them are smart enough to know a beating when they see it, but the average American will think big old mean sexist Biden was just trying to make poor cute little Palin cry.

Hopefully, Biden knows this. Maybe you should email the campaign or something.

Because you're right, if he's civil and answers the questions confidently, and simply corrects her factual errors calmly, she will do enough damage to herself. But he can't just go in there and attack.

Because you're right, if he's civil and answers the questions confidently, and simply corrects her factual errors calmly, she will do enough damage to herself. But he can't just go in there and attack.

Kind of the same way that Dick Cheney did very well in his debate against John Edwards (I thought he put that one away, and I'm no fan of Cheney.) His public image up to that point was so shady and extremist that by speaking quietly and not shooting laser beams out of his eyes he pretty much undercut Edwards's whole argument.

Biden also cant pull a John McCain and start every sentence ith "you dont understand" because then the Republican party will start implying Biden thinks these issues are too complicated for women.

Biden also cant pull a John McCain and start every sentence ith "you dont understand" because then the Republican party will start implying Biden thinks these issues are too complicated for women.

Just as Obama had to walk on eggshells to avoid looking like the "angry black man", so too must Biden to avoid looking like the mean old misogynist.

Just as Obama had to walk on eggshells to avoid looking like the "angry black man", so too must Biden to avoid looking like the mean old misogynist.

Exactly. But the old white guy can look like a arrogant senile son of a bitch. He was a POW damnit!

The worse Palin gets beaten in the debate, the more people will view her favorably. What a fucking country.

The worse Palin gets beaten in the debate, the more people will view her favorably. What a fucking country.

That depends. If she Quayles herself, then she'll look unfavorable. But if it appears that she's getting flustered or intimidated by Biden hammering her, you're right, she'll come across better.

noooo

all joe biden has to do is make good answers to the questions. then let sarah palin founder on her own.

unlike people who "know stuff" but are light on details, sarah palin doesnt know that she doesnt know. just like watching her katie couric interview that even the most modestly politically savvy person could tell was crap, her "high school student adding filler to the 3 page paper" approach in the debate will reveal itself to anyone paying attention at all.

noooo

all joe biden has to do is make good answers to the questions. then let sarah palin founder on her own.

unlike people who "know stuff" but are light on details, sarah palin doesnt know that she doesnt know. just like watching her katie couric interview that even the most modestly politically savvy person could tell was crap, her "high school student adding filler to the 3 page paper" approach in the debate will reveal itself to anyone paying attention at all.
I agree. Biden need hardly address her or refer to her at all. Not ignore her, mind you, but not engage her in an adversarial manner.

However, I'm anticipating that Palin will get a bounce immediately after the debate, regardless of how it turns out, and that bounce will peter out over a few days and leave her lower in public opinion than she is now. People seem to respond to her public appearances with an initial "she's so spunky!" reaction, and then they think about what she actually said and they move away from her.

That depends. If she Quayles herself, then she'll look unfavorable. But if it appears that she's getting flustered or intimidated by Biden hammering her, you're right, she'll come across better.

Unless she gets to 5 minutes from the end, whips out her hanky and cries 'because she just loves America so much, and how she's so proud and glad her mom raised her to believe that ANYONE can aspire to the Whitehouse'...

Unless she gets to 5 minutes from the end, whips out her hanky and cries 'because she just loves America so much, and how she's so proud and glad her mom raised her to believe that ANYONE can aspire to the Whitehouse'...

Speaking of appeals to emotion, my favoritest moment from the first debate was after McCain finished talking about his accessorizing, and Obama said "You know John, I have a bracelet too."

But if Palin steps down, there'll be no one at the top of either ticket for heterosexual proto-masochistic politically-aware teenage males to have slightly disturbing Oedipal sexual fantasies about.

For that reason alone, surely she has to stay?

Omitting your clear disdain for my opinion, at least now I see that you really do comprehend what you read. Thank you for clarifying it for the others.

You realize you just said his explanation that you molested the article past recognition was correct and thanked him?

One wonders how you admit such poor reading comprehension and then attempt to blast others for not agreeing with your evaluation of articles and/or posts.

But if Palin steps down, there'll be no one at the top of either ticket for heterosexual proto-masochistic politically-aware teenage males to have slightly disturbing Oedipal sexual fantasies about.

For that reason alone, surely she has to stay?

They can have those fantasies about McCain:

http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2168/1503289499_59a3996856.jpg

But if Palin steps down, there'll be no one at the top of either ticket for heterosexual proto-masochistic politically-aware teenage males to have slightly disturbing Oedipal sexual fantasies about.

For that reason alone, surely she has to stay?
its more disturbing to me that every time mccain talks about her (and the EXCITEMENT she has brought to his campaign) he has that creepy molestor look on his face.

If Palin steps down, I'm not voting. Period.

That'll show 'em! :rolleyes:

Hey, I'm in full support of this, in fact I would encourage all of those who are thinking of voting for McCain to do the same whether she drops out or not.

...and glad her mom raised her to believe that ANYONE can aspire to the Whitehouse'...

If a ticket that includes Palin can get elected, I'll believe it too.

You realize you just said his explanation that you molested the article past recognition was correct and thanked him?

One wonders how you admit such poor reading comprehension and then attempt to blast others for not agreeing with your evaluation of articles and/or posts.

Wow, just wow. You quoted it, you left it in your quote of mine, and you just simply can't comprehend it? What part of Omitting your clear disdain for my opinion, didn't you understand? It's really quite simple.

Or, perhaps, are you, like Neo Art was before he admitted to knowing what the post actually meant, just feigning ignorance so as to be able to throw an unwarranted barb or two in my direction?

Then again on the other hand, maybe Neo Art IS the only liberal regular on this forum in these political threads that really does have a reading comprehension capable of following a discussion that persists for more than two posts in a thread chain. Perhaps he is the only intelligent adversary in this forum that can comprehend? Because really, isn't that really what is essentially being said by the need for him to clarify these things for the others around here? You decide, feigning ignorance or do you really just don't get it?

*Gets out fire extinguisher* Wow! It's hot in here!

Wow, just wow. You quoted it, you left it in your quote of mine, and you just simply can't comprehend it? What part of Omitting your clear disdain for my opinion, didn't you understand? It's really quite simple.

Or, perhaps, are you, like Neo Art was before he admitted to knowing what the post actually meant, just feigning ignorance so as to be able to throw an unwarranted barb or two in my direction?

Then again on the other hand, maybe Neo Art IS the only liberal regular on this forum in these political threads that really does have a reading comprehension capable of following a discussion that persists for more than two posts in a thread chain. Perhaps he is the only intelligent adversary in this forum that can comprehend? Because really, isn't that really what is essentially being said by the need for him to clarify these things for the others around here? You decide, feigning ignorance or do you really just don't get it?

How about you stop attacking other posters and actually address some substance?

Like what do you think of the conservative criticism of St. Palin? What do think this means for the McCain/Palin ticket?

I'm not surprised you disagree with these critics as you've made clear your support for Palin is unshakeable, but aren't you a bit disappointed by her performance in those interviews Ms. Parker references? Aren't you a little concerned about Palin's electabillity?

EDIT: And, other than labeling anyone that criticizes St. Palin as sexist or corrupt, how do you respond to the substance of the criticisms of Palin made by conservatives?

How about you stop attacking other posters and actually address some substance?

You have GOT to be kidding. Why don't you make a score sheet and go back and measure who's being attacked... :rolleyes:

Like what do you think of the conservative criticism of St. Palin? What do think this means for the McCain/Palin ticket?

I'm not surprised you disagree with these critics as you've made clear your support for Palin is unshakeable, but aren't you a bit disappointed by her performance in those interviews Ms. Parker references? Aren't you a little concerned about Palin's electabillity?

I'm not really concerned, no. I'm not convinced that Palin has lost her overall appeal. Moods and polls swing up and down, I just need it to swing up about three days before the election. The interviews are so-and-so. They clarify her positions and thus they will reduce those people that don't agree with those positions. On the other hand, it attracts more strongly those that do agree with those positions. 80% approval rating is impossible to hold except for those that are NOT clear about what they stand for and can attract people from both sides of a given issue, those that think the candidate is on their side until they find out better later (like antiwar, peace now groups, used to think Obama was on their side until he talked about attacking more in Afghanistan and Pakistan, then they found out that he's not really one of them, despite what they thought before). 50% like Obama and McCain are trying to get, is a more realistic expectation and Palin can still get that easily enough.

I think the fact that I had people this very day (not in this forum) running up to me armed with their new poll results from Alaska and gleefully state to me "What happened to your girl Sarah? Her approval ratings dropped to a mere 68% in Alaska! Why is that?"

You do see the irony right? A mere 68%? lol.

EDIT: And, other than labeling anyone that criticizes St. Palin as sexist or corrupt, how do you respond to the substance of the criticisms of Palin made by conservatives?

I don't label them all sexist or corrupt, I label them hypocrites too. Depending on the case specifics, they aren't all sexist or corrupt. The critics that Palin gets from conservatives are far less than the liberal critics who have attacked the Biden choice.

A conservative Christian reactionary gets 68% approval in Alaska? No, you must be joking. I am simply stunned. That's amazing. Wow.

You have GOT to be kidding. Why don't you make a score sheet and go back and measure who's being attacked... :rolleyes:

I didn't say you weren't being attacked. You were both on substance and more directly. You responded with personal attacks and didn't address the substance.

Regardless, the "they did it too" excuse is pretty lame.

I don't label them all sexist or corrupt, I label them hypocrites too.

:D

Depending on the case specifics, they aren't all sexist or corrupt. The critics that Palin gets from conservatives are far less than the liberal critics who have attacked the Biden choice.

To what criticisms of Biden are you referring? Are there liberals out there saying Biden isn't qualified or experienced enough to be Vice-President?

And, you do realize Ms. Parker was one of St. Palin's most enthusiastic supporters prior to her recent conversion due to disappointment?

A conservative Christian reactionary gets 68% approval in Alaska? No, you must be joking. I am simply stunned. That's amazing. Wow.
its only because they dont include polar bears and beluga whales in the polling.

I'm not really concerned, no. I'm not convinced that Palin has lost her overall appeal. Moods and polls swing up and down, I just need it to swing up about three days before the election. The interviews are so-and-so. They clarify her positions and thus they will reduce those people that don't agree with those positions. On the other hand, it attracts more strongly those that do agree with those positions. 80% approval rating is impossible to hold except for those that are NOT clear about what they stand for and can attract people from both sides of a given issue, those that think the candidate is on their side until they find out better later (like antiwar, peace now groups, used to think Obama was on their side until he talked about attacking more in Afghanistan and Pakistan, then they found out that he's not really one of them, despite what they thought before). 50% like Obama and McCain are trying to get, is a more realistic expectation and Palin can still get that easily enough.

I think the fact that I had people this very day (not in this forum) running up to me armed with their new poll results from Alaska and gleefully state to me "What happened to your girl Sarah? Her approval ratings dropped to a mere 68% in Alaska! Why is that?"

You do see the irony right? A mere 68%? lol.

I do see the irony and 68% is good for her Alaska approval rating, but do you have any idea what her national numbers are like ('cuz I don't)?

EDIT: Googling found this Newsweek post, but it is more that a bit dated: Palin's Favorability Ratings Begin to Falter (http://blog.newsweek.com/blogs/stumper/archive/2008/09/16/palin-s-favorability-ratings-begin-to-falter.aspx):

The polls reflected the early success of her strategy. In the three days after Palin joined Team McCain--Aug. 29-31--32 percent of voters told the pollsters at Diageo/Hotline that they had a favorable opinion of her; most (48 percent) didn't know enough to say. (The Diageo/Hotline poll is conducted by Financial Dynamics opinion research; it's the only daily tracking poll to regularly publish approval ratings.) By Sept. 4, however, 43 percent of Diageo/Hotline respondents approved of Palin with only 25 percent disapproving--an 18-point split. Apparently, voters were liking what they were hearing. Four days later, Palin's approval rating had climbed to 47 percent (+17), and by Sept. 13 it had hit 52 percent. The gap at that point between her favorable and unfavorable numbers--22 percent--was larger than either McCain's (+20) or Obama's (+13).

But then a funny thing happened: Palin seems to have lost some of her luster. Since Sept. 13, Palin's unfavorables have climbed from 30 percent to 36 percent. Meanwhile, her favorables have slipped from 52 percent to 48 percent. That's a three-day net swing of -10 points, and it leaves her in the Sept. 15 Diageo/Hotline tracking poll tied for the smallest favorability split (+12)** of any of the Final Four. [UPDATE: The Sept. 17 Diageo/Hotline tracking poll shows Palin at 47 percent favorable and 37 percent unfavorable--an even narrower +10 split.] Over the course of a single weekend, in other words, Palin went from being the most popular White House hopeful to the least.

Speaking of appeals to emotion, my favoritest moment from the first debate was after McCain finished talking about his accessorizing, and Obama said "You know John, I have a bracelet too."

I was torn. It was a bit weak, it sounded a little contrived, I hated to see him stooping to it... but that was far from John's first appeal to emotion in that debate, and I'd wondered just how Obama was going to tackle it. And it pretty much worked... for a while.

:D

;)

To what criticisms of Biden are you referring? Are there liberals out there saying Biden isn't qualified or experienced enough to be Vice-President?

Shall we mention the Democrats that had supported Hillary that came out in favor of McCain in the last month? Lynn Forester de Rothschild and John Coale come to mind.

And, you do realize Ms. Parker was one of St. Palin's most enthusiastic supporters prior to her recent conversion due to disappointment?

I believe she's scared of losing and she seems to have jumped both ON and now OFF the bandwagon too quickly... But she is someone that I never heard of before you quoted her, so I'm merely guessing.

Wow, just wow. You quoted it, you left it in your quote of mine, and you just simply can't comprehend it? What part of Omitting your clear disdain for my opinion, didn't you understand? It's really quite simple.

Or, perhaps, are you, like Neo Art was before he admitted to knowing what the post actually meant, just feigning ignorance so as to be able to throw an unwarranted barb or two in my direction?

Then again on the other hand, maybe Neo Art IS the only liberal regular on this forum in these political threads that really does have a reading comprehension capable of following a discussion that persists for more than two posts in a thread chain. Perhaps he is the only intelligent adversary in this forum that can comprehend? Because really, isn't that really what is essentially being said by the need for him to clarify these things for the others around here? You decide, feigning ignorance or do you really just don't get it?

Weak.

Everytime anyone questions you on your meaning, you make it their fault. That's pretty weak.

How about talking TO your opponents rather than always trying to talk DOWN TO them. You're really not that special, you know.

Shall we mention the Democrats that had supported Hillary that came out in favor of McCain in the last month? Lynn Forester de Rothschild and John Coale come to mind.


Why? Did they say "Biden isn't qualified or experienced enough to be Vice-President?", then?

I do see the irony and 68% is good for her Alaska approval rating, but do you have any idea what her national numbers are like ('cuz I don't)?

http://politicalwire.com/archives/2008/09/19/palins_favorability_ratings_tumble.html

Nationally shes at 42% favorability.

I do see the irony and 68% is good for her Alaska approval rating, but do you have any idea what her national numbers are like ('cuz I don't)?

Honestly I don't. Everything I have is at least a week old. I think we need to wait until Monday or so, enough time for the debate to have settle in and the survey polling to take place Friday and Saturday and show up in Monday's results...

http://politicalwire.com/archives/2008/09/19/palins_favorability_ratings_tumble.html

Nationally shes at 42% favorability.

Thats ten days old.

Shall we mention the Democrats that had supported Hillary that came out in favor of McCain in the last month?

Who are outnumbered by the Republicans for Obama?

Oh, and Obamas at 50% to McCains 42%. Dont know if youve seen that your girl's head of the ticket is getting beat on.

Thats ten days old.

It is the most recent however, meaning not much has probably changed.

Thats ten days old.

Like my brain. :p

Thats ten days old.

That makes it invalid?

Why? Did they say "Biden isn't qualified or experienced enough to be Vice-President?", then?

Every argument has to be mirrored? I think not. I think Biden doesn't represent 'change' for those that want change. I think Biden doesn't represent confidence, but I myself don't dislike Biden, but I'm not their targeted audience.

That makes it invalid?

Yes, in election polling that makes it invalid

Yes, in election polling that makes it invalid

Until a more recent poll is released, it's all we really have to go on, right?

It is the most recent however, meaning not much has probably changed.

LOL, um no. It doesn't mean that it probably hasn't changed, it means we don't know, that's all it means.

Until a more recent poll is released, it's all we really have to go on, right?

And ten days ago McCain was beating Obama, is that your point?

And ten days ago McCain was beating Obama, is that your point?

Wow. You really dont understand the way this works.

And ten days ago McCain was beating Obama, is that your point?

No, my point is that it's the most recent favorability poll that we have, and therefore, is the only one we can speak intelligently to. For someone who constantly criticizes other people's reading comprehension, you'd think you'd do more to make your own unassailable.

Shall we mention the Democrats that had supported Hillary that came out in favor of McCain in the last month? Lynn Forester de Rothschild and John Coale come to mind.

Move the goalposts much?

Neither Lynn Forester de Rothschild nor John Coale were motivated by the Biden choice. (I am also not aware of either specifically criticizing the Biden choice.)

Move the goalposts much?

Neither Lynn Forester de Rothschild nor John Coale were motivated by the Biden choice. (I am also not aware of either specifically criticizing the Biden choice.)

Damn it Cat Tribe, you asked for names, he gave them to you. how dare you insinuate that those particular names don't actually, you know, answer the question?

its only because they dont include polar bears and beluga whales in the polling.

Beluga whales are all Episcopalians anyway, I don't think they'd go for her much.

Might it be possible for you not to relentlessly spam every thread?

Move the goalposts much?

Neither Lynn Forester de Rothschild nor John Coale were motivated by the Biden choice. (I am also not aware of either specifically criticizing the Biden choice.)

But they do, I can't prove it, and neither can you disprove it, but do either of us think that IF Obama had picked Clinton they would have come out in support of McCain?

That depends. If she Quayles herself, then she'll look unfavorable. But if it appears that she's getting flustered or intimidated by Biden hammering her, you're right, she'll come across better.

But didn't Bentsen hammer Mr. Potatoe Head with "Senator, You're No Jack Kennedy"?

Beluga whales are all Episcopalians anyway, I don't think they'd go for her much.
point taken

But they do, I can't prove it, and neither can you disprove it, but do either of us think that IF Obama had picked Clinton they would have come out in support of McCain?

If, as you admit, you "can't prove it," then why do you assert it is true?

Also, there is a rather substantial difference between saying they would have supported an Obama/Clinton ticket and saying they don't think Biden is qualified to be Vice-President (or even that they object to Biden on any grounds other than his not being Clinton).

Wow. You really dont understand the way this works.

Okey dokey.... You came out with a poll that was ten days old and say its as new as we have to we can assume that things haven't changed much since then, so I mention that McCain was leading Obama ten days ago and we both know that he is not today. Thus, I proved your premise wrong, so yes, I think I do know how these things work, too bad it's too much for you though apparently.

Okey dokey.... You came out with a poll that was ten days old and say its as new as we have to we can assume that things haven't changed much since then, so I mention that McCain was leading Obama ten days ago and we both know that he is not today. Thus, I proved your premise wrong, so yes, I think I do know how these things work, too bad it's too much for you though apparently.

What are Sarah Palin's most recent favorability ratings?

If, as you admit, you "can't prove it," then why do you assert it is true?

Also, there is a rather substantial difference between saying they would have supported an Obama/Clinton ticket and saying they don't think Biden is qualified to be Vice-President (or even that they object to Biden on any grounds other than his not being Clinton).

It means that they aren't supporting Obama because of his ticket AND VP choice is a part of that ticket, and as you wanted me to say what I think about the conservatives that aren't supporting Palin, I've gone further, and shown liberals that won't even support their own ticket because of who's on it. Is there any evidence that Parker is supporting Obama now because she doesn't like Palin? No? Then my position is stronger than yours as far as this little tit for tat with name dropping is going.

Might it be possible for you not to relentlessly spam every thread?

I thought that was a nice place for a kitty kat woot :)

Might it be possible for you not to relentlessly spam every thread?

Depends. Is it possible for a Crack addict to kick the habit in one day?

I thought that was a nice place for a kitty kat woot :)

I wouldn't care as much if he wasn't doing it in like four threads that I'm keeping up with right now.

I wouldn't care as much if he wasn't doing it in like four threads that I'm keeping up with right now.

I try to keep my pics relevant, so why worry? :p

point taken

But are the Beluga whales a part of that break-away Episcopalian movement or the stay with Bishop Katherine Schori group? It probably makes a difference for how they vote.

I notice that she 'agreed' with Obama when you guys are making fun of her for supposedly not knowing what she is talking about. The irony never ends with you.
I see it's that time again where you make a laughing stock of yourself on the interwebs. Thank goodness! We were getting a tad bored with reality and factual analysis.

You are indeed correct:It is ironic. Unfortunately not the way you're contriving it to be. The irony here was that she, as part of the McCain campaign, attacked Obama over his proposals but then, when cornered, flustered totally and ended up stating Obama's position as the correct one.
THAT'S ironic.

People dissing her for not knowing her arse from her elbow and chuckling at her constant snafus which then need to be retracted by her superior is NOT ironic. Much like your desperate clinging onto your weird fantasies about Sarah, which involve timetravel and no doubt other things, it's not ironic. Merely pathetic.

It means that they aren't supporting Obama because of his ticket AND VP choice is a part of that ticket, and as you wanted me to say what I think about the conservatives that aren't supporting Palin, I've gone further, and shown liberals that won't even support their own ticket because of who's on it. Is there any evidence that Parker is supporting Obama now because she doesn't like Palin? No? Then my position is stronger than yours as far as this little tit for tat with name dropping is going.

ROTFLASTC

Kathleen Parker of the National Review.

George Will.

David Frum.

David Brooks.

All prominent conservative pundits that have recently criticized Palin's qualifications for office.

You refuse to respond to these criticisms on the merits. Fine.

Although you hinted that such criticism existed, you have failed to show any parallel criticism of Biden. Fine.

As for two bitter Clinton supporters, that is too bad -- although even there you don't focus on the substance of their complaints. But there are also Republicans for Obama. See, e.g., link (http://www.republicansforobama.org/), link (http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/us_and_americas/article1752381.ece), link (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Obama_Republican)("A Gallup Poll from July 28 to August 3 indicated 10% of Republicans prefer Obama to McCain,[6] compared to 12% of "McCain Democrats". Andrew Romano of Newsweek states the polls he has read indicate the cross-over voters "cancel each other out" so far.[7]")

Whether or not there are specific Republicans that have switched to supporting Obama because of the Palin pick, I don't know. But such a "tit for tat" was never the subject we were discussing.

You just never quit making stuff up do you?
You support McCain. McCain doesn't support Equal Pay Legislation and has come out against it. By inference, therefore you don't support Equal Pay Legislation.
Is that so difficult to understand?


Even being kind to you, and saying you don't support his stance on the issue, even this shows that the idea of Equal Pay Legislation is obviously not an important issue to you.
So you either are against it at worst or at best am entirely indifferent to the idea.

Every argument has to be mirrored? I think not. I think Biden doesn't represent 'change' for those that want change. I think Biden doesn't represent confidence, but I myself don't dislike Biden, but I'm not their targeted audience.

It doesn't have to be mirrored - but that was the question you were 'answering'. I thought the information should, then, at least conform to what was asked, because otherwise it looks like you have no answer.

Honestly I don't. Everything I have is at least a week old. I think we need to wait until Monday or so...

It's been Monday for almost 24 hours....

ROTFLASTC

Kathleen Parker of the National Review.

George Will.

David Frum.

David Brooks.

All prominent conservative pundits that have recently criticized Palin's qualifications for office.

You refuse to respond to these criticisms on the merits. Fine.

Although you hinted that such criticism existed, you have failed to show any parallel criticism of Biden. Fine.

As for two bitter Clinton supporters, that is too bad -- although even there you don't focus on the substance of their complaints. But there are also Republicans for Obama. See, e.g., link (http://www.republicansforobama.org/), link (http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/us_and_americas/article1752381.ece), link (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Obama_Republican)("A Gallup Poll from July 28 to August 3 indicated 10% of Republicans prefer Obama to McCain,[6] compared to 12% of "McCain Democrats". Andrew Romano of Newsweek states the polls he has read indicate the cross-over voters "cancel each other out" so far.[7]")

Whether or not there are specific Republicans that have switched to supporting Obama because of the Palin pick, I don't know. But such a "tit for tat" was never the subject we were discussing.

I'm a little confused.

Here's what it looks like:

Cat: Jeepers, four prominent conservative pundits dissed Palin! Yipes!

Baldy: Well, Joe is just as unqualified.

Cat: Really, who said that?

Baldy: Yeah, well two prominent fans of Clinton jumped the ticket.

Cat: Uh huh...


I'll admit, I could be wrong, but it looks like the "Yeah, Well You Can't Fly, Either" defence...

Okey dokey.... You came out with a poll that was ten days old and say its as new as we have to we can assume that things haven't changed much since then, so I mention that McCain was leading Obama ten days ago and we both know that he is not today. Thus, I proved your premise wrong, so yes, I think I do know how these things work, too bad it's too much for you though apparently.

You know what the difference there is?


We got an updated poll to show that had changed. Oh, and nice flame baiting. One more and I think Ill report you, just for shits and giggles.

I'm a little confused.

No surprise there... Let's fix this then:

Here's what it looks like:

Cat: Jeepers, four prominent conservative pundits dissed Palin! Yipes! (but still support the McCain ticket)

Baldy: Just as many liberals are against the Obama ticket with Biden.

Cat: Really, who said that?

Baldy: Well two prominent fans of Clinton jumped the ticket so hard they are endorsing McCain instead of their democrat ticket.

Cat: Uh huh...

You know what the difference there is?


We got an updated poll to show that had changed. Oh, and nice flame baiting. One more and I think Ill report you, just for shits and giggles.

You of all people should report it, don't wait.

... Oh, and nice flame baiting. One more and I think Ill report you, just for shits and giggles.

Don't bother, I've been reading the thread.

He's not the only one who's been getting a little heated. Play nicer, folks.

You of all people should report it, don't wait.

:rolleyes:

Anyway, on to the subject.

The most recent poll shows that Palin is down to a 42% favorability rating.
There is nothing to indicate that has changed.
Therefore it is logical to assume that Palin is still at 42% favorability.


Your "counterarguement" sucks because there IS updated information to show that McCain no longer has his convetion bounce, but is in fact down by 8 points.

It's been Monday for almost 24 hours....

Monday after the VP debate. Next Monday. It's a fair statement. We should wait until after the national spotlight has been on her before we try to deduce the public opinion on Palin. All most people have to go on so far are a couple sound bites and a softball Katie Couric piece.

That still doesn't change the fact that the most recent information we DO have shows her at 42% and, until new information surfaces, we can only assume that's her approval rating.

Monday after the VP debate. Next Monday. It's a fair statement. We should wait until after the national spotlight has been on her before we try to deduce the public opinion on Palin. All most people have to go on so far are a couple sound bites and a softball Katie Couric piece.

That still doesn't change the fact that the most recent information we DO have shows her at 42% and, until new information surfaces, we can only assume that's her approval rating.


*Stutters backward, hand to chest, "I'm coming to join you, Elizabeth, it's the big one!," I can't believe I've been actually almost, sortof kindof defended by TCT, Neo Art and now Sdaeriji on in the period of less than one week!*

Thank you.

But I disagree with your final conclusion, we cannot assume anything about the data, it's too old, that's all we know.

*Stutters backward, hand to chest, "I'm coming to join you, Elizabeth, it's the big one!," I can't believe I've been actually almost, sortof kindof defended by TCT, Neo Art and now Sdaeriji on in the period of less than one week!*

Thank you.

But I disagree with your final conclusion, we cannot assume anything about the data, it's too old, that's all we know.

We can assume that it's the most accurate information we have and, absent any evidence to the contrary, is the best estimate we have. At any rate, favorability ratings right now are stupid for the VPs, as they haven't had the chance to truly present themselves since the conventions.

No surprise there... Let's fix this then:

Here's what it looks like:

Cat: Jeepers, four prominent conservative pundits dissed Palin! Yipes! (but still support the McCain ticket)

Baldy: Just as many liberals are against the Obama ticket with Biden.

Cat: Really, who said that?

Baldy: Well two prominent fans of Clinton jumped the ticket so hard they are endorsing McCain instead of their democrat ticket.

Cat: Uh huh...

Humourously - even in this format, your answer was still nonsensical. Four prominent conservatives specifically attack the Republican VP... and your idea of that being just the same on the other side... is half as many people that made absolutely no comment to justify your assertion.

Awesome.

Monday after the VP debate. Next Monday. It's a fair statement. We should wait until after the national spotlight has been on her before we try to deduce the public opinion on Palin. All most people have to go on so far are a couple sound bites and a softball Katie Couric piece.

That still doesn't change the fact that the most recent information we DO have shows her at 42% and, until new information surfaces, we can only assume that's her approval rating.

Oh... THAT Monday...

Unless she does a pretty spectacular job, she's only going to hurt that percentage. Katie Couric really did give her an easy pitch, and she couldn't have done much worse.

I do find it funny how defensive the Republicans have got over their VP, though. It's kind of cute watching them act all gallant, whilst simultaneously trying not to be seen doing so, because that would be sexist....

Oh... THAT Monday...

Unless she does a pretty spectacular job, she's only going to hurt that percentage. Katie Couric really did give her an easy pitch, and she couldn't have done much worse.

I do find it funny how defensive the Republicans have got over their VP, though. It's kind of cute watching them act all gallant, whilst simultaneously trying not to be seen doing so, because that would be sexist....

Technically, she could break even. She doesn't have to either go up or down. But I believe that she'll go down even further in this week's polls, and will recover some of that loss immediately after the debate.

Now, her unfavorability ratings, that might be a different story. I can definitely see a lot of undecideds coming out of the debate with lower esteem for her.

add to the list of people who think Palin was a bad choice, former Newsweek editor, and one of the the most respected political scientists in the world, Fareed Zakaria (http://www.cnn.com/2008/WORLD/americas/09/29/zakaria.sarah.palin/index.html)

add to the list of people who think Palin was a bad choice, former Newsweek editor, and one of the the most respected political scientists in the world, Fareed Zakaria (http://www.cnn.com/2008/WORLD/americas/09/29/zakaria.sarah.palin/index.html)

Clearly an ignorant sexist.

No, but seriously Zakaria knows his shit, even if hes book sucks.

I still don't get why people think that having a vagina makes Sarah Palin representative of diversity in the Republican Party. She has more repressive and sexist views than most of the rest of the party. How any woman can be against things like equal pay for equal work is beyond me. I thought these battles were won years ago. Clearly not.

add to the list of people who think Palin was a bad choice, former Newsweek editor, and one of the the most respected political scientists in the world, Fareed Zakaria (http://www.cnn.com/2008/WORLD/americas/09/29/zakaria.sarah.palin/index.html)

Fareed? That sounds like a Muslim name.

I still don't get why people think that having a vagina makes Sarah Palin representative of diversity in the Republican Party. She has more repressive and sexist views than most of the rest of the party. How any woman can be against things like equal pay for equal work is beyond me. I thought these battles were won years ago. Clearly not.

Humans long ago learned that the best people to oppress any group are members of that very same group. Look at how Phyllis Schlafly helped kill the Equal Rights Amendment. Or how the Western World holds up Ayaan Hirsi-Ali as an authority on Ebil Mozlemz Running Rampant.

add to the list of people who think Palin was a bad choice, former Newsweek editor, and one of the the most respected political scientists in the world, Fareed Zakaria (http://www.cnn.com/2008/WORLD/americas/09/29/zakaria.sarah.palin/index.html)

You know, Fareed is one of the people that I shut up and listen to when it comes to world foreign affairs, I don't have to agree with him to respect his opinion and listen to what he has to say because he's sure to have an insight or something that is worth paying attention to.

HOWEVER, to assume he's a fair judge of a "Mr. Smith Goes to Washington Personality", a frontier non-Washington insider, Mr. Zakaria is not my first choice to represent the non-Washington elite, like Obama wants to be...

Fareed Zakaria, Spokesperson for the Global Elite (http://www.fair.org/index.php?page=3593)

I think I'll stick with the middle class Americans and rural citizens making up their own mind about Palin, thank you very much.

Humans long ago learned that the best people to oppress any group are members of that very same group. Look at how Phyllis Schlafly helped kill the Equal Rights Amendment. Or how the Western World holds up Ayaan Ali-Hirsi as an authority on Ebil Mozlemz Running Rampant.

I know, I just still have faith in the human race. Although that is seriously dwindling when I see people like Palin and Ayaan Hirsi-Ali getting air time and support for their evil and insidious views.

Wow, just wow. You quoted it, you left it in your quote of mine, and you just simply can't comprehend it? What part of Omitting your clear disdain for my opinion, didn't you understand? It's really quite simple.

Or, perhaps, are you, like Neo Art was before he admitted to knowing what the post actually meant, just feigning ignorance so as to be able to throw an unwarranted barb or two in my direction?

Then again on the other hand, maybe Neo Art IS the only liberal regular on this forum in these political threads that really does have a reading comprehension capable of following a discussion that persists for more than two posts in a thread chain. Perhaps he is the only intelligent adversary in this forum that can comprehend? Because really, isn't that really what is essentially being said by the need for him to clarify these things for the others around here? You decide, feigning ignorance or do you really just don't get it?


Clear disdain for your position doesn't change that you claimed he explained it well. His explanation of your position is that you misunderstood the article and thus chose to represent it falsely. Whether that's on purpose or not, that you'd regard it as an explanation of your position, even once we remove the venom, is embarrassing for you. Do you know what disdain means? You didn't say he misrepresented it, only that he demonstrated disdain. And I would agree, he didn't misrepresent your position and he did demonstrate his disdain.

I understood what you meant. It was clear the entire time. You misrepresented an article that suggested she might (they called it speculative) bow using a typical excuse made by both men and women alike. Unfortunately, you decided that this was sexist, despite there have been regular resignations by men on the Bush administration using the same reasons.

There is someone here feigning ignorance and it's apparent to everyone here who that is.

It means that they aren't supporting Obama because of his ticket AND VP choice is a part of that ticket, and as you wanted me to say what I think about the conservatives that aren't supporting Palin, I've gone further, and shown liberals that won't even support their own ticket because of who's on it. Is there any evidence that Parker is supporting Obama now because she doesn't like Palin? No? Then my position is stronger than yours as far as this little tit for tat with name dropping is going.

So basically, if someone who supported a DIFFERENT ticket doesn't support THIS ticket, it's an example of people jumping ship (since they weren't generally supporting Dems but specifically Clinton), but when we give examples of people who ORIGINALLY supported PALIN but now DO NOT support PALIN, you can't see how that's different?

Seriously, this is just sad.

Clear disdain for your position doesn't change that you claimed he explained it well. His explanation of your position is that you misunderstood the article and thus chose to represent it falsely. Whether that's on purpose or not, that you'd regard it as an explanation of your position, even once we remove the venom, is embarrassing for you. Do you know what disdain means? You didn't say he misrepresented it, only that he demonstrated disdain. And I would agree, he didn't misrepresent your position and he did demonstrate his disdain.

I understood what you meant. It was clear the entire time. You misrepresented an article that suggested she might (they called it speculative) bow using a typical excuse made by both men and women alike. Unfortunately, you decided that this was sexist, despite there have been regular resignations by men on the Bush administration using the same reasons.

There is someone here feigning ignorance and it's apparent to everyone here who that is.


Speaking of which, Im still waiting for Baldy to show some evidence that "Palin should stay home to be with her family" is the positon of the democratic party. Because the evidence doesnt exist.

Humourously - even in this format, your answer was still nonsensical. Four prominent conservatives specifically attack the Republican VP... and your idea of that being just the same on the other side... is half as many people that made absolutely no comment to justify your assertion.

Awesome.

I love that he keeps either rewording his argument or agreeing with others when they do it and somehow it just sounds more ridiculous.

Don't you know, unless everyone in the party behaves like a hive mind toward the ticket then they must be saying they don't like the VP. There can't be any other reason, duh.

Speaking of which, Im still waiting for Baldy to show some evidence that "Palin should stay home to be with her family" is the positon of the democratic party. Because the evidence doesnt exist.

Especially because we found more Republicans that hold the identical position reflected in the speculation AND the author of the speculation didn't actually say whether they were hoping for that outcome. But that's logic for you. It doesn't always make its way into everyone's arguments.

Baldy seems to think we're supposed to respect any argument made no matter how ludicrous and unsupported. He also seems to think if he says then he needn't support it. Neither is true.

But are the Beluga whales a part of that break-away Episcopalian movement or the stay with Bishop Katherine Schori group? It probably makes a difference for how they vote.
this is why the beluga whales are endangered. religious strife.

I say hooray to Palin interviews. I say hooray to Palin's cram session before a debate I will get massive laughs out of listening to. I of course will be working during the event and will have to DVR it. This will make the joy of instant replay that much more satisfying. George Will and David Brooks are two conservatives I truly love. I find myself being more in line with Will than most anyone else. Being a Libertarian and registered Republican, I enjoy his pragmatism and penchant for small government fiscal conservatism. He's what conservatives should aspire to be. I thought Sarah Palin was a horrible choice from the beginning. I'm just tickled silly that it's being fleshed out how inferior she truly is. It has nothing to do with sexism at all. Also, crying sexism and denying there is racism at play with Obama is silly. Both Palin and Obama have been up against a hard reality in America. I mean that in a sense that they are not white males. Colbert has Paul Begala on right now. It is one of the funniest interviews I've seen in a while. It's definitely worth downloading.

this is why the beluga whales are endangered. religious strife.

Sometimes I really think you are an awesome poster and I really appreciate seeing your posts in a thread, and this is one of those times :)

I love that he keeps either rewording his argument or agreeing with others when they do it and somehow it just sounds more ridiculous.


Next time, bring donuts. (http://punditkitchen.files.wordpress.com/2008/09/political-pictures-barack-obama-debate-me-tasty-donuts.jpg)

She doesn't have to either go up or down.
I would say, after seeing all the horrible, humiliating things she's become, she's done far, far enough of going down.

she's just laughable. I was watching a review of her on CNN and they were showing reviews from her interview with Couric.

The one that had my mouth dropping at her idiocy was the one about the 700 billion bail out.

She answered it and I was like....what the shit has health care and job creation have to do with the bail out of Wall Street banks? If it was a faux pas, she should have said she had made a mistake and corrected herself, but she didn't and instead she talks on and makes a bigger fool out of herself.

The only thing that's scary is CNN says she has an over 50% favorable rating. I'd like to know what they are smoking, it obviously has really bad effects on their rational thinking.

Can't wait for the Biden and Sarah debate. It's so clear she is out of her leauge.

she's just laughable. I was watching a review of her on CNN and they were showing reviews from her interview with Couric.

The one that had my mouth dropping at her idiocy was the one about the 700 billion bail out.

She answered it and I was like....what the shit has health care and job creation have to do with the bail out of Wall Street banks? If it was a faux pas, she should have said she had made a mistake and corrected herself, but she didn't and instead she talks on and makes a bigger fool out of herself.

The only thing that's scary is CNN says she has an over 50% favorable rating. I'd like to know what they are smoking, it obviously has really bad effects on their rational thinking.

Can't wait for the Biden and Sarah debate. It's so clear she is out of her leauge.
Well, let's see...

There are the Bible-humping god-botherers who will support Palin no matter what -- even after the cannibalism story finally breaks (*crosses fingers - oh please, oh please*) -- as long as she stays right with GOD(tm) and remains safe from witches. They will never falter, because abandoning God's candidate would be like abandoning God, and that would make Jesus cry, and that might mess up their chances of getting one of the good condos in heaven (or Alaska) once the end of the world comes.

Then there are those who will support her because she is female, regardless of how incompetent she is, because it's nice that the girls get to play with the boys, even if they can't quite keep up. Hey, it's okay if she can't really do the job because she's got all those men around her to do the real work, so everyone should stop picking on her. She's doing the best she (or any woman) can. As election day approaches, that number might go down a little, but there will always be those who think she will never have to be anything but a "diversity" figurehead and will vote for McCain in spite of her on the ticket.

And then there are those who say they support her just because they say they support everything about the McCain campaign to maintain their position of opposition towards the Obama campaign. They want to make sure no one get the impression that there is any gray area between the two sides (even if, in reality, there is), so they'll just say "I like it" to anything connected to McCain, including Palin, even if, in reality, they die inside a little everytime they see her.

These groups taken into consideration, I'd say that the poll numbers of claimed support for Palin will never go down below a certain base level -- possibly as election day comes up, she might slip down towards GWB's approval numbers.

At least that's what my breakfast tea leaves say. *nods*

Well, let's see...

There are the Bible-humping god-botherers who will support Palin no matter what -- even after the cannibalism story finally breaks (*crosses fingers - oh please, oh please*) --

you claiming she's a Wendigo?

tbh, if she was, I'd probably support her. That would be soooo cool.

you claiming she's a Wendigo?

tbh, if she was, I'd probably support her. That would be soooo cool.

Hey, you used that word. I am not saying anything. Get that? I allege nothing. Because I don't know, do I? All I have ever said is... it snows a lot in Alaska, and sometimes...you know...you just can't make it to the supermarket... I just noticed a couple of dots lying around -- I'm not the one connecting them. I'm not the one throwing around words like "Wendigo." ;)

you claiming she's a Wendigo?

tbh, if she was, I'd probably support her. That would be soooo cool.

It'd be cooler if she were a Pastafarian.

Well, let's see...

There are the Bible-humping god-botherers who will support Palin no matter what -- even after the cannibalism story finally breaks (*crosses fingers - oh please, oh please*)

Ewww.... I knew she was freaky. Bible-Thumping really doesn't bother me that much, I know my Bible pretty well, but I don't consider myself a Bible thumper. And these people are so stupid, in my mind if they truely understood the scriptures they wouldn't be voting the way they are. But again....interpretation *shakes head*


-- as long as she stays right with GOD(tm) and remains safe from witches. They will never falter, because abandoning God's candidate would be like abandoning God, and that would make Jesus cry, and that might mess up their chances of getting one of the good condos in heaven (or Alaska) once the end of the world comes.

I really do hate this God is on our side mentality. It's just plain huburis. And the way things are going with the US Economy, maybe God isn't too happy with how things are. *shrugs*



Then there are those who will support her because she is female, regardless of how incompetent she is, because it's nice that the girls get to play with the boys, even if they can't quite keep up. Hey, it's okay if she can't really do the job because she's got all those men around her to do the real work, so everyone should stop picking on her. She's doing the best she (or any woman) can. As election day approaches, that number might go down a little, but there will always be those who think she will never have to be anything but a "diversity" figurehead and will vote for McCain in spite of her on the ticket.

Now that really makes me upset, upset that they treat her less than competent, even though I can't stand her. I am a senior at school and an English major, and a woman, plus had two terms with straight A's. So you can imagine I am seething fire about this 'good girl pat her on the head like a dog, now let's put her back in the cage mentality. And I really hate that she's only a woman and doing the best she can mentality. But it's McCain's fault for picking an idiot. When he first picked her, I predicted well there goes the election, he's lost because he's picked a woman who doesn't know shit.


And then there are those who say they support her just because they say they support everything about the McCain campaign to maintain their position of opposition towards the Obama campaign. They want to make sure no one get the impression that there is any gray area between the two sides (even if, in reality, there is), so they'll just say "I like it" to anything connected to McCain, including Palin, even if, in reality, they die inside a little everytime they see her.

These groups taken into consideration, I'd say that the poll numbers of claimed support for Palin will never go down below a certain base level -- possibly as election day comes up, she might slip down towards GWB's approval numbers.



Again I still think Palin being chosen as VP was a horrible mistake and will cost McCain the election. I think this will show during the VP debate, although that's hard to say. I still think Biden will eat her for lunch. And the reasons you give are valid, although there's a lot of flawed logic if this is what people are thinking when they go for her.

Why should Sarah Palin stand down? Because she is stupid? That didn't stop George W. Bush and he won two elections.

The American people are stuck on electing people to the Presidency that represent the average joe, instead of electing the best among themselves to LEAD them. That makes democracy itself look stupid. And you wonder why states like China are not in a hurry to embrace democracy?

Why should Sarah Palin stand down? Because she is stupid? That didn't stop George W. Bush and he won two elections.

The American people are stuck on electing people to the Presidency that represent the average joe, instead of electing the best among themselves to LEAD them. That makes democracy itself look stupid. And you wonder why states like China are not in a hurry to embrace democracy?

Elitist. :tongue:

Why should Sarah Palin stand down? Because she is stupid? That didn't stop George W. Bush and he won two elections

Bush is not stupid. That's why he won two elections, because people underestimated him and ultimately failed to account for his inherent political abilities. His entire political campaign is a careful act constructed and managed by very intelligent men that know what people want and how to get them voting.

Bush is not stupid. That's why he won two elections, because people underestimated him and ultimately failed to account for his inherent political abilities. His entire political campaign is a careful act constructed and managed by very intelligent men that know what people want and how to get them voting.
That only shows that Bush's managers are intelligent, not necessarily that he is. He could just be the product they successfully sold.

Of course, he could be very smart, but it doesn't matter, because whatever intelligence he may have is cancelled out by his incompetence. What he thinks doesn't matter anywhere near as much as what he does.

That makes democracy itself look stupid. And you wonder why states like China are not in a hurry to embrace democracy?
Nah, that only makes the US version of democracy look stupid. There's plenty of other types of democracy out there that are far more democratic than the US version.
And China ain't in a hurry to embrace democracy cause the peoples in power like being in power too much to hand it over to the masses.

...although there's a lot of flawed logic if this is what people are thinking when they go for her.

When it comes to political decisions (and other decisions for that matter) logic doesn't necessarily have anything to do with it. Although some voters take the time to inform themselves on the candidates and the issues, many won't. I'm including this excerpt from a recent article on the psychology of voting and partisan behavior in the Association for Psychological Science's Observer (link to the full article is below).

From the article:

Westen and colleagues used neuroimaging to look at the neural responses of individuals who described themselves as partisan. They showed the participants one of three groups of slides: one group about their party’s candidate, one about the other party’s candidate, or one about a neutral control subject. In each group, the first slide revealed a position the politician had taken, and the second depicted a contradiction — something the candidate had done or said that seemed to be contrary to what the first slide was saying. Not only were the participants unable to see the contradiction for their own candidate, but the neuroimaging also showed that they were regulating their emotional response. The researchers saw large areas of activation in the prefrontal cortex, which indicates emotional influence on reasoning, and in the posterior cingulated cortex, associated with forgivability. Essentially, participants detected the contradiction in their reasoning, but they weren’t allowing it to affect their opinion. Westen describes this as “motivated reasoning.”

There’s more. Westen showed the participants yet another slide, this one offering a rationale for the earlier contradiction. When they did this, large areas in the ventral striatum became active, suggesting that participants were rewarding themselves for working through the problem. This combination of the suppressed negative emotions and reward for reaching a biased conclusion “suggests why motivated judgments may be so difficult to change,” Westen writes. “They are doubly reinforcing.”

In other words, emotion plays a large role in political decision making. Of course, most people probably already believe that to be the case, it's just interesting (to me) to see some evidence for it.

EDIT: Sorry, I neglected to provide the link to the full article: http://www.psychologicalscience.org/observer/getArticle.cfm?id=2393

When it comes to political decisions (and other decisions for that matter) logic doesn't necessarily have anything to do with it. Although some voters take the time to inform themselves on the candidates and the issues, many won't. I'm including this excerpt from a recent article on the psychology of voting and partisan behavior in the Association for Psychological Science's Observer (link to the full article is below).

From the article:



In other words, emotion plays a large role in political decision making. Of course, most people probably already believe that to be the case, it's just interesting (to me) to see some evidence for it.

EDIT: Sorry, I neglected to provide the link to the full article: http://www.psychologicalscience.org/observer/getArticle.cfm?id=2393
Fascinating. Thank you.

Bush is not stupid. That's why he won two elections, because people underestimated him and ultimately failed to account for his inherent political abilities.

Bush isn't stupid. Bush is a zealot. The two are often mistaken for each other due to their similar inflexibility.

The problem with a zealot is that once he's convinced himself that one side of the argument is right, any attempt to dislodge that opinion is simultaneously wrong, dangerous, and evil. Note Bush's flexibility on things that don't enter his zealot worldview. He's quite capable of compromise, reason, and understanding. However, cross into the Zealot Zone, and you'll find yourself accused of 'siding with the terrorists', even if all you were talking about was stem cell research.

The stupid can be bypassed or might even be convinced to listen to reason. Intelligent zealots offer no such mechanism. They know Right from Wrong, and you have no chance of dissuading them with logic or reason.

Bush isn't stupid. Bush is a zealot. The two are often mistaken for each other due to their similar inflexibility.

The problem with a zealot is that once he's convinced himself that one side of the argument is right, any attempt to dislodge that opinion is simultaneously wrong, dangerous, and evil. Note Bush's flexibility on things that don't enter his zealot worldview. He's quite capable of compromise, reason, and understanding. However, cross into the Zealot Zone, and you'll find yourself accused of 'siding with the terrorists', even if all you were talking about was stem cell research.

The stupid can be bypassed or might even be convinced to listen to reason. Intelligent zealots offer no such mechanism. They know Right from Wrong, and you have no chance of dissuading them with logic or reason.


That's funny, not too long ago we used to call a person that had good stick-to-it-edness and a strong ethical code of convictions a person of good character. Someone that sticks to their convictions regardless of popularity was a sought after trait in leaders, now they are called zealots huh? Sounds like regression to me, not progress.

That's funny, not too long ago we used to call a person that had good stick-to-it-edness and a strong ethical code of convictions a person of good character. Someone that sticks to their convictions regardless of popularity was a sought after trait in leaders, now they are called zealots huh? Sounds like regression to me, not progress.

There's a difference between sticking to convictions regardless of popularity and sticking to them regardless of any and all evidence.

There's a difference between sticking to convictions regardless of popularity and refusing, under any conditions, to ever reconsider them.

There's also a difference between sticking to one's convictions and declaring any disagreement to be dangerous, evil, etc.

We are talking about someone who sticks to his conclusions although they are HIDEOUSLY WRONG, as anyone with eyes could see. That has never been an admired trait.

There's a difference between sticking to convictions regardless of popularity and sticking to them regardless of any and all evidence.

There's a difference between sticking to convictions regardless of popularity and refusing, under any conditions, to ever reconsider them.

There's also a difference between sticking to one's convictions and declaring any disagreement to be dangerous, evil, etc.

Right, I was just going to write something similar.

The conviction that religion should have a place in the public square can be an admirable position. The conviction that only your brand of religion have that place is wrong.

Feeling that going to war was justified is a strong conviction. Ignoring evidence to the contrary is wrong.

Feeling as though your plan is a good one is fine. Calling those who don't like your plan unpatriotic, America hating, elitist liberals is wrong.

Someone that sticks to their convictions regardless of popularity was a sought after trait in leaders.

Not by me. I've always preferred leaders who were able to be swayed by reasonable people making reasonable arguments. It used to be called 'diplomacy', back in the day when Americans cared what other people thought.

Somebody stomped all over that concept when they decided that changing one's mind when presented with a solid argument was flip-flopping, not statesmanship. I wonder who has worked hardest on devaluing that formerly desirable trait. Oh wait, wasn't that something the Bush campaign thrived on?

Not by me. I've always preferred leaders who were able to be swayed by reasonable people making reasonable arguments. It used to be called 'diplomacy', back in the day when Americans cared what other people thought.

Somebody stomped all over that concept when they decided that changing one's mind when presented with a solid argument was flip-flopping, not statesmanship. I wonder who has worked hardest on devaluing that formerly desirable trait. Oh wait, wasn't that something the Bush campaign thrived on?

In the words of Colbert "When the president decides something on Monday, he still believes it on Wednesday -- no matter what happened Tuesday."

Not by me. I've always preferred leaders who were able to be swayed by reasonable people making reasonable arguments. It used to be called 'diplomacy', back in the day when Americans cared what other people thought.


You mean like a year and a half ago when Bush apologized for mistakes made in Iraq and fired Rumsfeld and stopped listening to Chaney and started listening to the reasonable people making reasonable arguments like McCain that said the status quo wasn't working wasn't going to work and he had to change it up and start with a surge of troops, not a leveling or withdrawal of troops, to proceed with progress not defeat? Because clearly that change in belief by Bush is self evident now.

It seems like he is open to reasonable arguments, so unless you mean because he's not swayed by your position then he must be a closed mined zealot, then I don't see how we can say he's not open to reasonable argument and changing his course of action to meet changing conditions.

You mean like a year and a half ago when Bush apologized for mistakes made in Iraq and fired Rumsfeld and stopped listening to Chaney and started listening to the reasonable people making reasonable arguments like McCain that said the status quo wasn't working wasn't going to work and he had to change it up and start with a surge of troops, not a leveling or withdrawal of troops, to proceed with progress not defeat? Because clearly that change in belief by Bush is self evident now.

Any attempt to clarify Rumsfeld's resignation as "learning" and not "petty political hackery" is easily defeated by looking at when Rumsfeld resigned. Immediately following a Democratic takeover of Congress.

Rumsfeld's resignation had nothing to do with learning, and everything to do with pressure from the Republican leadership to do something to appease pissed off voters.

unfortunately, for McCain, it appears to have been too little, too late.

You mean like a year and a half ago when Bush apologized for mistakes made in Iraq and fired Rumsfeld and stopped listening to Chaney and started listening to the reasonable people making reasonable arguments like McCain that said the status quo wasn't working wasn't going to work and he had to change it up and start with a surge of troops, not a leveling or withdrawal of troops, to proceed with progress not defeat? Because clearly that change in belief by Bush is self evident now.

It seems like he is open to reasonable arguments, so unless you mean because he's not swayed by your position then he must be a closed mined zealot, then I don't see how we can say he's not open to reasonable argument and changing his course of action to meet changing conditions.

Agreeing to this would mean I'd have to ignore the fact that he was backed into a corner and HAD to do this. He really didn't have any options. Further, he should have made these decisions from the start. He gravely F'd this whole thing from the start. Firing Rumsfeld was giving in to the political pressures from the American public and congress at the time. Waiting until four/five years into the war does not impress me. Firing Generals who didn't agree with him for those four/five years doesn't impress me. Telling everyone they were cowards/un-patriotic if they didn't support him doesn't impress me. There's a difference between making rational changes to a plan and having no other choice. It would be like me being asked if I wanted a bologna sandwich. "I don't like bologna" I would reply. "Well, your choices are between a bologna sandwich and starving to death. Please make the choice to eat the bologna sandwich. I mean, sometimes you have to change your mind and make the choice anyhow." "Fine, I'll eat the bologna sandwich and hate every minute of it. It beats being powerless and subject to impending death."

That's funny, not too long ago we used to call a person that had good stick-to-it-edness and a strong ethical code of convictions a person of good character.

You did.

But your definition of 'ethical code' might be different to mine, and if it is, 'sticking to it' is a bad, bad thing, for me.

I don't care how determined someone is - if they want to carry forward an agenda that is sexist, racist, gender discriminatory, or any of those other kinds of prejudice and discrimination... they are NOT a 'person of good character'. They're assholes.

Now, prove that the position "she should step down to care for her family" is the position of the democratic party.

Yep. Ive asked twice. Still waiting Baldy. Either prove it or retract it. Be a man Baldy. Be intellectually honost. For once.

You mean like a year and a half ago when Bush apologized for mistakes made in Iraq and fired Rumsfeld and stopped listening to Chaney and started listening to the reasonable people making reasonable arguments like McCain that said the status quo wasn't working wasn't going to work and he had to change it up and start with a surge of troops, not a leveling or withdrawal of troops, to proceed with progress not defeat? Because clearly that change in belief by Bush is self evident now.

It seems like he is open to reasonable arguments, so unless you mean because he's not swayed by your position then he must be a closed mined zealot, then I don't see how we can say he's not open to reasonable argument and changing his course of action to meet changing conditions.

Heh. I love that the best example you could come up with was the admission upon what amounts to force that he'd caused the unnecessary death or thousands of people.

You're right, that's how I define good character. Some countries might have an issue with that, however. There is something about murder that tends to remind people of something OTHER than good character.

Heh. I love that the best example you could come up with was the admission upon what amounts to force that he'd caused the unnecessary death or thousands of people.

You're right, that's how I define good character. Some countries might have an issue with that, however. There is something about murder that tends to remind people of something OTHER than good character.

Yes, but those countries hate freedom. And they're probably full of foreigners.

In an attempt to poke this back on topic (and despite my own efforts to derail it), I think Gov Palin has a bit of a zealot's temperament about her. Can't really be sure though - it may be shallowness masked by political expediency.

So far, all we've seen of her is what the Bush handlers have let us see. I'm not 100% certain that her Katie Couric meltdown wasn't caused by over-prepping, rather than the reverse. It's possible they indoctrinated her to stay 'on message' so hard that she self-destructed.

Then again, there was the Bush Doctrine question. Maybe she's just shallow and ill-informed after all.

In an attempt to poke this back on topic (and despite my own efforts to derail it), I think Gov Palin has a bit of a zealot's temperament about her. Can't really be sure though - it may be shallowness masked by political expediency.

So far, all we've seen of her is what the Bush handlers have let us see. I'm not 100% certain that her Katie Couric meltdown wasn't caused by over-prepping, rather than the reverse. It's possible they indoctrinated her to stay 'on message' so hard that she self-destructed.

Then again, there was the Bush Doctrine question. Maybe she's just shallow and ill-informed after all.


Considering the reports about her taking people disagreeing with her policy personally, yeah, Id call her a zealot.

In an attempt to poke this back on topic (and despite my own efforts to derail it), I think Gov Palin has a bit of a zealot's temperament about her. ...

I hope she IS a zealot, an enthusiastic advocate for the people and the causes that brought her to power in Alaska, a tireless champion who continues doing what she has been doing in Alaska and brings that with her to Washington… Rooting out corruption and putting the people back in charge of their own resources. I hope she's a true believer who strives to bring those traits to the nation as a whole and our relationship with energy and ethics in government.

*Palin's agenda has been dominated by an energy policy that, in part, bears more resemblance to the one put forward by Democratic presidential nominee Barack Obama and other Democrats than the one backed by McCain and the GOP.

Obama supports a so-called windfall tax on oil profits; McCain opposes it. McCain also opposed repealing billions of dollars in oil tax breaks as a way of paying for renewable energy subsidies.

*Douglas Holtz-Eakin, McCain's policy director, sees a distinction.
"The key difference between what the governor did and what Sen. Obama is proposing is, the governor did not impose a windfall profits tax," Holtz-Eakin said during a lunch with reporters last week. "It's a permanent change. It's not an opportunistic grab for 'windfall profits,' and I think that's a fundamental difference in the approach. She was trying to set the state up for both good and bad times in the oil industry, and that's very sensible."

*Palin got tough with major oil producers in other ways, too. She moved to revoke ExxonMobil's license to develop oil and natural gas at Point Thomson on the North Slope, arguing the company had sat for too long on the site without developing the reserves. ExxonMobil says it will begin drilling this winter, but the state says the plans are inadequate.

*The burgeoning scandal, which included revelations of favors done for politicians by oil services company VECO, set the stage for Palin's general election campaign. She promised to overhaul ethics laws and re-examine the state's relationships with the oil industry.
http://www.usatoday.com/news/politics/election2008/2008-09-11-palin-cover_N.htm

Now, prove that the position "she should step down to care for her family" is the position of the democratic party.

This is four now. I know you wont answer Baldy, Im just pointing out to everyone else how you arent answering.

I hope she's a true believer who strives to bring those traits to the nation as a whole and our relationship with energy and ethics in government.

Neither of which there is any reason to believe she will do

Yep. Ive asked twice. Still waiting Baldy. Either prove it or retract it. Be a man Baldy. Be intellectually honost. For once.

If you want me to retract something I've said, perhaps you should quote me saying what you want me to retract, instead of quoting yourself interpreting what I've said and building a strawman.

I don't think I've said anything about the Democratic Party Positions, I said democrats and I've said liberals, not the same thing as saying it's a Democratic party position. Try reading some letters to the editors, some post responses to news articles online, etc., to pretend like there aren't people who made the argument that Palin should stay home with her children is either naive or disingenuous. Who here is being accused of intellectual dishonesty?

This is four now. I know you wont answer Baldy, Im just pointing out to everyone else how you arent answering.

Good for you, keep it up.


I don't want you to feel as though you aren't accomplishing anything.... :rolleyes:

Trying reading some letters to the editors, some post responses to news articles online, etc., to pretend like there aren't people who made the argument that Palin should stay home with her children is either naive or disingenuous. Who here is being accused of intellectual dishonesty?

Show me some. I dont think they exist.

Show me instances of liberals and democrats (and you need to show that they are indeed liberals and democrats) saying Sarah Palin should step down to spend more time with her family.

Neither of which there is any reason to believe she will do

Right, because past job performance is a poor indicator of future job performance.


Oh, wait, yes it is.

Right, because past job performance is a poor indicator of future job performance.


Oh, wait, yes it is.

Well, she didnt root out corruption, she created some of her own, which shes being investigated for (but its on hold, because shes taking Bush's game plan and claiming some nonexistant privalage that the law doesnt apply to her).


And if "keep drilling damnit!!!" is her solution to our energy crisis, its very short sighted and anyone with half a brain would agree its not a solution.

Show me some. I dont think they exist.

Show me instances of liberals and democrats (and you need to show that they are indeed liberals and democrats) saying Sarah Palin should step down to spend more time with her family.

I don't care if you think they exist or not. If this is the ONLY forum you gather information from then I'm not surprised you are unware of what has been going on for over a month in the rest of internet and new source websites etc. Just google something like {Palin bad mother} and see what you get...

Right, because past job performance is a poor indicator of future job performance.


Oh, wait, yes it is.

You mean like George W. Bush?

:D

I don't care if you think they exist or not. If this is the ONLY forum you gather information from then I'm not surprised you are unware of what has been going on for over a month in the rest of internet and new source websites etc. Just google something like {Palin bad mother} and see what you get...

I get my information from plenty of sources, none of which are this forum. Im here to discuss the information, and Im not doing your research for you.


Why does it feel like Im saying this to so many people lately: You make a claim, you back it up.


Show me liberals saying that Palin should step down to be with her family. Show me liberals saying that. If you dont back it up, Ill assume your just talking shit (which to be honost, I already assume, I just want to see you admit it or dance around it. Either way I laugh).

Well, she didnt root out corruption, she created some of her own, which shes being investigated for (but its on hold, because shes taking Bush's game plan and claiming some nonexistant privalage that the law doesnt apply to her).


And if "keep drilling damnit!!!" is her solution to our energy crisis, its very short sighted and anyone with half a brain would agree its not a solution.


I think I've discovered what zealotry is. Try reading her actual record ...

Try a blog of a different color once in a while... http://www.palinfightscorruption.com/palin/

I get my information from plenty of sources, none of which are this forum. Im here to discuss the information, and Im not doing your research for you.


Why does it feel like Im saying this to so many people lately: You make a claim, you back it up.


Show me liberals saying that Palin should step down to be with her family. Show me liberals saying that. If you dont back it up, Ill assume your just talking shit (which to be honost, I already assume, I just want to see you admit it or dance around it. Either way I laugh).

I did back it up, I backed it up with links and I continue to post links. You choose to use blinders and make up arguments and pretend I've said things I haven't said.

You mean like George W. Bush?

:D

What part of his past job performance didn't translate into his current job performance?

I think I've discovered what zealotry is.

Oh, did you take a look in the mirror?

Try reading her actual record ...

Try a blog of a different color once in a while... http://www.palinfightscorruption.com/palin/

I dont usually read blogs, and Im not reading this one, because I dont care how much "corruption" she faught, because she is currently being investigated for corruption, making all that crying of "fighting corruption" ring hollow.

Oh, and: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/09/25/palin-kept-donations-from_n_129428.html

We make a big deal about Obama keeping money from alleged corrupt Chicago politicians, but Palin keeps it and its a-ok.

What part of his past job performance didn't translate into his current job performance?

A lot carried over, actually. Like his experience running companies into the ground.

I did back it up, I backed it up with links and I continue to post links. You choose to use blinders and make up arguments and pretend I've said things I haven't said.

:eek:


What links! What in Gods name are you talking about? You havent posted a single link proving that Liberals think Sarah Palin should step down to spend time with her family. The ONE article you posted a link to doesnt say what you think it says, as has been discussed ad nausium.

Im not an idiot and Ive read this whole thread, so dont try this crap with me.

A lot carried over, actually. Like his experience running companies into the ground.

There you go then.

:eek:


What links! What in Gods name are you talking about? You havent posted a single link proving that Liberals think Sarah Palin should step down to spend time with her family. The ONE article you posted a link to doesnt say what you think it says, as has been discussed ad nausium.

Im not an idiot and Ive read this whole thread, so dont try this crap with me.

Aw, you're getting mad, and I thought you were just here to laugh.

NOW President Kim Gandy said:
“It would be best for everyone if Sarah Palin would just stay home and raise her kids,” Gandy said. ”When you have one child with Down syndrome and another with an unwanted pregnancy who won’t even consider the ease and convenience of abortion, you need to be a better mother, not Vice President.”
Link (http://carbolicsmoke.com/2008/09/05/feminist-group-says-gov-palin-should-stay-home-and-raise-her-kids/)



------

Real ones:
She is nuts. And the Republicans are nuts for putting her on a ticket. She has a five-month-old kid with Down's Syndrome.

Why is no one writing about this? I have a special needs kid. I have two. Here's what happens when you have a special needs kid. You are in shock. You love the kid. I loved my first one so much that even though there was something like an 80% chance of having another kid with autism, I had a second kid.

http://blog.penelopetrunk.com/2008/09/04/palins-children-should-take-priority-over-being-vice-president/

Palin is a rising political figure and should be considered, but not in this election. Republicans should give her and her family time to deal with all the new responsibilities and look at her again in the future. That would be supporting family values.

http://www.deseretnews.com/article/1,5143,700256035,00.html

Aww, you're getting mad. And here I thought you said you were just here to laugh.

Not mad, fed up with dishonosty.


NOW President Kim Gandy said:
“It would be best for everyone if Sarah Palin would just stay home and raise her kids,” Gandy said. ”When you have one child with Down syndrome and another with an unwanted pregnancy who won’t even consider the ease and convenience of abortion, you need to be a better mother, not Vice President.”
Link (http://carbolicsmoke.com/2008/09/05/feminist-group-says-gov-palin-should-stay-home-and-raise-her-kids/)

That quote doesnt say what you think it does, but thats not a suprise.

That belief there is not that she should step down to stay home with her family. NOW wants her to step down because shes fucking crazy and stands against everything they stand for. Caring for her family doesnt even enter their radar. The mention of carring for her family is pure character assassination. Whether she is a good or bad mom is up for debate, but they havent said shes a bad mother for being the VP, but for other reasons. You can try and paint it that way, but youd be lying, and everyone would be able to see it.



The REAL reason they want her step down is right in your source:

"She may be an intelligent, motivated, highly successful professional woman,” NOW President Kim Gandy said, “but she’s the wrong woman. She’s a bad woman. She’s not even half the woman Joe Biden is.”

So, still waiting. Where is there a liberal saying THE REASON Sarah Palin should step down is to stay with her family.

She’s not even half the woman Joe Biden is.

Biden is a transsexual? Damn! Now that IS news!

Not mad, fed up with dishonosty.



That quote doesnt say what you think it does, but thats not a suprise.

That belief there is not that she should step down to stay home with her family. NOW wants her to step down because shes fucking crazy and stands against everything they stand for. Caring for her family doesnt even enter their radar. The mention of carring for her family is pure character assassination. Whether she is a good or bad mom is up for debate, but they havent said shes a bad mother for being the VP, but for other reasons. You can try and paint it that way, but youd be lying, and everyone would be able to see it.



The REAL reason they want her step down is right in your source:



So, still waiting. Where is there a liberal saying THE REASON Sarah Palin should step down is to stay with her family.

Actually that post was a joke, it was supposed to go with the 'laughing' part, but then I realized that you guys are too tightly wound to realize it was a joke so I deleted it and added a real one....

Biden is a transsexual? Damn! Now that IS news!

Check the source, it's parody. Didn't mean to misrepresent, I did use the word joke and then realized this is the wrong crowd for jokes from me...

EDIT: and as the response shows, I was correct that a comedy relief wouldn't be perceived that way from me here.

I think I've discovered what zealotry is. Try reading her actual record ...

Try a blog of a different color once in a while... http://www.palinfightscorruption.com/palin/
yeah, like a blog called www.palinfightscorruption.com is going to be fair and balanced.

You know what? I did in fact click on the your link and read through a bit of it. I can now see where you're coming from.
A more desperate attempt to justify and sanctify Palin while smearing her opponents I've never seen, so thank you for that.

As for the site itself, here's a typical example:
Violent Men at Center of "Tasergate"
The more we find about "Troopergate," the more justified Sarah Palin seems in firing Public Safety Commissioner Walt Monegan.

The increased media attention to the controversy has revealed both men at the center of the inquiry have disturbing records of physical abuse against their family members.

Monegan is the man who Democrats believe GOP Vice Presidential contender Sarah Palin improperly used her political power to fire over his alleged unwillingness to fire Palin's former brother-in-law, Wooten.

His estranged wife, Georgene Moldovan said she sought a restraining order against Monegan in 1994 after he threatened to kill her, waved a gun at her and knocked her shoulder out of socket, according to court papers. The court papers say, "he pulled out his gun and waved it at me outside my home and yelled he would kill me if I stopped him."
So what does this tell us?
That 14 years ago Monegan was a violent asshole to his wife.
And this somehow means Palin was right to fire him?
How does that work exactly?
How does his past actions justify Palin firing him because he refused to dismiss her ex-brother-in-law?
The two have no connection there at all.

All the above shows is that 14 years ago he was an asshole in his private life. So how does this affect his work 14 years later, and how does it have any bearing whatsoever on Palin firing him over something that has nothing to do with what he did 14 years earlier?
Simple Question:
Did she fire him because his wife accused him of battery 14 years earlier?


It's just an attempt to smear him in order to justify Palin's corruption. "Look, he's a wife-beater! How can you support a wife-beater? If you don't accept Palin's actions, you're as bad as he is, you wife-beater"


Like Baldy, this blogger is only interested in throwing in information totally unrelated to the topic at hand, then using the unrelated info to justify dismissing and ignoring the real issue.

Edit: oh I see. You realized your own link was a joke, so you changed it, and tried to claim you knew it the whole time.

Check the source, it's parody.

Doesn't matter. I assumed that NOW President Kim Gandy had a sense of humor, which would have been amusing. Finding out that somebody else wrote it doesn't lessen the joke.

yeah, like a blog called www.palinfightscorruption.com is going to be fair and balanced.

You know what? I did in fact click on the your link and read through a bit of it. I can now see where you're coming from.
A more desperate attempt to justify and sanctify Palin while smearing her opponents I've never seen, so thank you for that.

As for the site itself, here's a typical example:

So what does this tell us?
That 14 years ago Monegan was a violent asshole to his wife.
And this somehow means Palin was right to fire him?
How does that work exactly?
How does his past actions justify Palin firing him because he refused to dismiss her ex-brother-in-law?
The two have no connection there at all.

All the above shows is that 14 years ago he was an asshole in his private life. So how does this affect his work 14 years later, and how does it have any bearing whatsoever on Palin firing him over something that has nothing to do with what he did 14 years earlier?
Simple Question:
Did she fire him because his wife accused him of battery 14 years earlier?


It's just an attempt to smear him in order to justify Palin's corruption. "Look, he's a wife-beater! How can you support a wife-beater? If you don't accept Palin's actions, you're as bad as he is, you wife-beater"


Like Baldy, this blogger is only interested in throwing in information totally unrelated to the topic at hand, then using the unrelated info to justify dismissing and ignoring the real issue.


Fair and Balanced like this thread? lol

Doesn't matter. I assumed that NOW President Kim Gandy had a sense of humor, which would have been amusing. Finding out that somebody else wrote it doesn't lessen the joke.

I think it's funny too, that's why I posted it initially. Just apologizing now because KOL got all defensive about it before realizing it was parody.

Fair and Balanced like this thread? lol

Just because you're about the only person defending someone, doesn't mean that anyone else is being unfair or unbalanced.

Edit: oh I see. You realized your own link was a joke, so you changed it, and tried to claim you knew it the whole time.

Oh for... :rolleyes:

Fine, I put it back, let the people decide for themselves if it makes them laugh or not.

Just because you're about the only person defending someone, doesn't mean that anyone else is being unfair or unbalanced.

That's correct, just because I'm the only one holding a position doesn't make it unbalanced. But I didn't reference me being alone or not.

Oh for... :rolleyes:

Fine, I put it back, let the people decide for themselves if it makes them laugh or not.

I got a little chuckle out of it. But whether it's "funny" or "not funny" is irrelevant. The fact is, I'm fairly certain you thought it was real when you posted it. You didn't post it to be funny, you posted it because you thought she actually said it.

Fair and Balanced like this thread? lol
Whoosh!
What was that?
Reality and integrity whizzing right over Baldy's head.

You do realise that you were the one that posted that link?
I was replying to it, and all you can say is basically agree with me that it's totally partisan and unbalanced?
(since you feel this thread is overwhelmingly unbalanced against Palin)

Once again, I notice you're up to your usual tricks of ignoring everything a poster says, especially when it's addressed to you. Highlight one phrase, out of context and that has nothing to do with the post and use it to dismiss the entire post.
Exactly like this well-informed poster said earlier:

Like Baldy, this blogger is only interested in throwing in information totally unrelated to the topic at hand, then using the unrelated info to justify dismissing and ignoring the real issue.

thank you for proving that character analysis.

I don't care if you think they exist or not. If this is the ONLY forum you gather information from then I'm not surprised you are unware of what has been going on for over a month in the rest of internet and new source websites etc. Just google something like {Palin bad mother} and see what you get...

YOU are supposed to support your argument. How about instead of telling others to google your argument YOU do it and then post links that support it?

Whoosh!
What was that?
Reality and integrity whizzing right over Baldy's head.

You do realise that you were the one that posted that link?
I was replying to it, and all you can say is basically agree with me that it's totally partisan and unbalanced?
(since you feel this thread is overwhelmingly unbalanced against Palin)

Once again, I notice you're up to your usual tricks of ignoring everything a poster says, especially when it's addressed to you. Highlight one phrase, out of context and that has nothing to do with the post and use it to dismiss the entire post.
Exactly like this well-informed poster said earlier:



thank you for proving that character analysis.

Ignoring what arguments, I posted a link, I qouted nothing in it, if you want to argue about it, go and argue with their authors. I merely pointed out that he said she doesn't fight corruption and I provided a source that says otherwise.

If you want to think that there is no eyebrow raising interest in the fact that the people accusing her of corruption are some of the same people that have already been busted our outed by her then feel free to think criminals never lie about the cops that arrest them either...

YOU are supposed to support your argument. How about instead of telling others to google your argument YOU do it and then post links that support it?

I DID support my argument, the first post had the link to the article I was criticizing. He wants to change my position to something else and wants me to support that argument. Sorry, doesn't work that way.

Here is what I said, notice the link.
Oh no, there's no hypocrisy and errors of basic logic involved with the calls for Palin to 'step down.'

Prediction of the next twenty four hour crystal ball at The Globalist: Within 48 hours, the McCain campaign is going to make the announcement that Alaska Governor Sarah Palin, ... is going to return to Alaska...

With fictitious letter from Palin resigning her VP spot saying: ... “Country First,” but we can do so only to the extent that our highest priority, our family life, does not interfere with that service.

“However, with a special needs son and a grandchild on the way, I have no other choice. As I know you will appreciate and understand, I am first and foremost a mother.

“It is for that reason that I am withdrawing my candidacy to be Vice President of the Untied States.”
Link (http://www.theglobalist.com/StoryId.aspx?StoryId=7264)

Because we all know that mothers can't both be a good worker AND a good mother, because the feminist movement over the last forty years has been an abstract failure and Democrats have now realized that mothers should stay home with their babies, Sarah will be the good woman resign her candidacy...

One wonders why poor ol' Obama's little girls have to be raised in a household with a man who is away all the time, too busy to be their father anymore, how he will have no time for them anymore and they will be essentially going through their prime development years as if they are in a single parent home (oh wait, their Mom works too, I guess raised by nannies or something).

Oh wait, he's a Man, he's allowed to have a family AND a job... Only women have to stay home with their kids and can't hold a higher office.

http://i235.photobucket.com/albums/ee218/Balderdash71964/JFK_working_w-child.jpg

That's correct, just because I'm the only one holding a position doesn't make it unbalanced. But I didn't reference me being alone or not.

No, but you made a snide comment about whether or not the thread was fair and balanced.

It is. You're just wrong.

No, but you made a snide comment about whether or not the thread was fair and balanced.

It is. You're just wrong.

Fair, yes. Balanced, no.

But you're not going to have an equal amount of people on either side of a subject, so it's silly to protest this.

No, but you made a snide comment about whether or not the thread was fair and balanced.

It is. You're just wrong.

Your wrong, provide evidence of your assertion. Otherwise I'll just assume you want to ignore the fact that you have no proof and you make stuff up and you're being intellectually dishonest yet again...

Your wrong, provide evidence of your assertion. Otherwise I'll just assume you want to ignore the fact that you have no proof and you make stuff up and you're being intellectually dishonest yet again...

^ this is proof of how this isn't a fair debate

QED

Fair, yes. Balanced, no.

But you're not going to have an equal amount of people on either side of a subject, so it's silly to protest this.

No - it's balanced... Baldy, and anyone else who cares to, is welcome to present evidence to support their side of the argument.

If there was any...

Your wrong, provide evidence of your assertion. Otherwise I'll just assume you want to ignore the fact that you have no proof and you make stuff up and you're being intellectually dishonest yet again...

I can go through and hyperlink each of your posts, if that helps.

I won't even ask for the $10 an hour it would be worth.

No - it's balanced... Baldy, and anyone else who cares to, is welcome to present evidence to support their side of the argument.

If there was any...

It's only unfair if he/she isn't "winning". Duh. :p

Ignoring what arguments, I posted a link, I qouted nothing in it, if you want to argue about it, go and argue with their authors. I merely pointed out that he said she doesn't fight corruption and I provided a source that says otherwise.

If you want to think that there is no eyebrow raising interest in the fact that the people accusing her of corruption are some of the same people that have already been busted our outed by her then feel free to think criminals never lie about the cops that arrest them either...
It doesn't work that way. If you posted a link that supposedly backs up your stance, you have to be prepared to defend it.

Your source is wrong. Therefore your statement that Palin fights corruption is wrong. got it?
If you don't agree with me, then defend the source you posted which you think 'proves' your statement.

To quote another poster:
You're wrong, provide evidence of your assertion. Otherwise I'll just assume you want to ignore the fact that you have no proof and you make stuff up and you're being intellectually dishonest yet again...

It doesn't work that way. If you posted a link that supposedly backs up your stance, you have to be prepared to defend it.

Your source is wrong. Therefore your statement that Palin fights corruption is wrong. got it?
If you don't agree with me, then defend the source you posted which you think 'proves' your statement.

To quote another poster:


I don't need to defend the source, they defend it already. Your accusations against it are unsupported and your summary of their accusations is inaccurate. Source your statement that the source I provided was wrong.

Let's go back and show you how easy it is review what you said against it and how they defend themselves.

yeah, like a blog called www.palinfightscorruption.com is going to be fair and balanced.

You know what? I did in fact click on the your link and read through a bit of it. I can now see where you're coming from.
A more desperate attempt to justify and sanctify Palin while smearing her opponents I've never seen, so thank you for that.

As for the site itself, here's a typical example:

So what does this tell us?
That 14 years ago Monegan was a violent asshole to his wife.
And this somehow means Palin was right to fire him?
How does that work exactly?
How does his past actions justify Palin firing him because he refused to dismiss her ex-brother-in-law?
The two have no connection there at all.

All the above shows is that 14 years ago he was an asshole in his private life. So how does this affect his work 14 years later, and how does it have any bearing whatsoever on Palin firing him over something that has nothing to do with what he did 14 years earlier?
Simple Question:
Did she fire him because his wife accused him of battery 14 years earlier?


It's just an attempt to smear him in order to justify Palin's corruption. "Look, he's a wife-beater! How can you support a wife-beater? If you don't accept Palin's actions, you're as bad as he is, you wife-beater"

Like Baldy, this blogger is only interested in throwing in information totally unrelated to the topic at hand, then using the unrelated info to justify dismissing and ignoring the real issue.


Really? That's the argument they made? I thought it was the one posted on their website...

The facts are really quite simple. From the Fall of 2007 through mid-2008 Commissioner Monegan repeatedly tried to undermine the Governor's authority by working against her and the administration over the Department of Public Safety's budget.

As everyone knows, this Governor came into office on a reform platform and one of her principal accomplishments has been to reduce wasteful spending. Commissioner Monegan refused to abide by this fiscal reform policy. One of the governor's top Department of Public Safety priorities was to fill as many as 56 trooper vacancies, but the Commissioner re-routed dollars away from these positions and into his own chosen areas of funding.

Last Fall, Commissioner Monegan proposed a 10-year strategic plan that committed state dollars and removed the governor's constitutional budget authority; he also traveled to Washington, DC to lobby Congress for federal earmarks without the Governor's knowledge; and then finished off the year by engineering a press conference that included his friend Senator Hollis French to present the department's own budget just days ahead of the Governor's reform budget.

Monegan continued his obstructionist conduct through the first half of 2008. Early on he publicly requested reinstatement of budget money the Governor previously vetoed. Think about that: One of the Governor's own cabinet members publicly contradicting her veto decision! And in repeated emails among the governor's staff and the Commissioner's staff, Commissioner Monegan's brazen refusal to follow the appropriate interdepartmental channels to request more money was obvious.

The final straw came in late June and early July of this year when Commissioner Monegan arranged for yet another unauthorized trip to Washington, DC to request more financial assistance from Congress.

The bottom line is that Commissioner Monegan refused to comply with internal budget approval channels and lodged repeated requests for funding that were out of line with the other appropriation requests for every other commissioner and agency. Those are the facts leading to Walt Monegan's reassignment on July 11th. We have copied for you a set of relevant emails that were submitted to the Personnel Board today.

Make no mistake, as a political appointee, Mr. Monegan served at the pleasure of the Governor and was duty-bound to execute the Governor's policy objectives. After eight months of repeatedly ignoring the Governor's budget priorities, making public statements that directly challenged the Governor's policy agenda, and taking numerous unilateral actions in conflict with the Governor in support of his own policy agenda, his replacement in July 2008 should have come as no surprise and cannot now seriously be questioned. Absolutely no credence should be given to any Ethics Complaint against the Governor for her appropriate exercise of her executive discretion under this set of facts.


The fact that he beats his wife is incidental, its not why he was fired, so you presenting it like it is a reason in the source is simply bogus.

I don't need to defend the source, they defend it already. Your accusations against it are unsupported and your summary of their accusations is inaccurate. Source your statement that the source I provided was wrong.

...The fact that he beats his wife is incidental, its not why he was fired, so you presenting it like it is a reason in the source is simply bogus.

If it were that simple, there'd neither be a big investigation, nor a refusal to take part, on Palin's behalf. The fact that they're hiding something is evidence that there's something to hide.

I don't need to defend the source, they defend it already. Your accusations against it are unsupported and your summary of their accusations is inaccurate. Source your statement that the source I provided was wrong.


If you post a link, it's kinda up to you to explain why the fuck anyone should give a damn about it. Your e-rimjob of Palin doesn't quite cut it. Nor does "they're picking on her! they're mean!" This is politics. You can expect to get picked on, and have all your flaws torn wide open. Think the rules aren't fair? Too bad, then you should stay the fuck out of the game.

If it were that simple, there'd neither be a big investigation, nor a refusal to take part, on Palin's behalf. The fact that they're hiding something is evidence that there's something to hide.

Oh that's a good argument... not.

As the lead attorney for one of two Troopergate lawsuits filed in Alaska yesterday morning, I am convinced that this legislative investigation is blatantly unlawful.

Undercutting the investigation further, recently disclosed communications between the governor's office and the former commissioner transparently reflect that the real reason he was removed from his position was due to his insubordinate refusal to implement the governor's budgetary and fiscal policies. For example, on Dec. 6, 2007, the commissioner called a press conference in support of his expansive budgetary plan, a plan that was directly at odds with the governor's policies. Two months later, he released a letter to the governor advocating for additional funds for items that the governor previously vetoed.

And yet the investigation continues. Fueled by the partisan legislator at its helm, this investigation has morphed into a political circus. Almost weekly, the lead legislator makes a statement prejudging the outcome of the supposedly neutral investigation. He has mentioned that the investigation could lead to impeachment, has declared that the investigation's conclusion "s likely to be damaging to the governor's administration," and has shortened the term of the investigation to facilitate a late "October surprise" - right before the election. This legislator directs the investigation to its very detail, even dictating which witnesses will be interviewed.

The Alaska Personnel Board is the only body that Alaska law expressly empowers to investigate ethical malfeasance by the executive branch. As complaints by both the governor herself and the state troopers' union are before it, the matter should be resolved there, out-of-site of the national political scene and out-of-reach of partisan investigators.

[I]Joseph W. Miller is an attorney in Fairbanks, Alaska. He is a former U.S. Magistrate Judge, state judicial officer, and decorated Gulf War Veteran (B.S., United States Military Academy; J.D., Yale Law School; M.S., Resource Economics, University of Alaska). A copy of Mr. Miller's complaint may be found at www.palinfightscorruption.com.

http://www.thebulletin.us/site/index.cfm?newsid=20131582&BRD=2737&PAG=461&dept_id=576361&rfi=8

Real ones:
She is nuts. And the Republicans are nuts for putting her on a ticket. She has a five-month-old kid with Down's Syndrome.

Why is no one writing about this? I have a special needs kid. I have two. Here's what happens when you have a special needs kid. You are in shock. You love the kid. I loved my first one so much that even though there was something like an 80% chance of having another kid with autism, I had a second kid.

http://blog.penelopetrunk.com/2008/09/04/palins-children-should-take-priority-over-being-vice-president/

Palin is a rising political figure and should be considered, but not in this election. Republicans should give her and her family time to deal with all the new responsibilities and look at her again in the future. That would be supporting family values.

http://www.deseretnews.com/article/1,5143,700256035,00.html

Yep, and neither of these are identifyable liberals or democratic party leaders. So, youve proven jack.

I DID support my argument, the first post had the link to the article I was criticizing. He wants to change my position to something else and wants me to support that argument. Sorry, doesn't work that way.

Here is what I said, notice the link.

Except, as has been addressed, that article doesnt say what you think it says.

I don't need to defend the source, they defend it already. Your accusations against it are unsupported and your summary of their accusations is inaccurate. Source your statement that the source I provided was wrong.

This is why you suck at debate. I've seen you make this argument before. When you provide a source, it's YOUR job to defend it. If you don't want to or cannot, don't provite it.

We cannot argue with the authors, so we argue with YOU and require YOU to support their assertions. I know this pisses you off, mostly because you keep taking positions that are so difficult to defend, but rise to the challenge or admit you can't and sign off.

Yep, and neither of these are identifyable liberals or democratic party leaders. So, youve proven jack.
One of them, in fact (the Deseret News) is identifiable as arch-conservative staunch Republican.

Oh that's a good argument... not.

As the lead attorney for one of two Troopergate lawsuits filed in Alaska yesterday morning, I am convinced that this legislative investigation is blatantly unlawful.

Undercutting the investigation further, recently disclosed communications between the governor's office and the former commissioner transparently reflect that the real reason he was removed from his position was due to his insubordinate refusal to implement the governor's budgetary and fiscal policies. For example, on Dec. 6, 2007, the commissioner called a press conference in support of his expansive budgetary plan, a plan that was directly at odds with the governor's policies. Two months later, he released a letter to the governor advocating for additional funds for items that the governor previously vetoed.

And yet the investigation continues. Fueled by the partisan legislator at its helm, this investigation has morphed into a political circus. Almost weekly, the lead legislator makes a statement prejudging the outcome of the supposedly neutral investigation. He has mentioned that the investigation could lead to impeachment, has declared that the investigation's conclusion "s likely to be damaging to the governor's administration," and has shortened the term of the investigation to facilitate a late "October surprise" - right before the election. This legislator directs the investigation to its very detail, even dictating which witnesses will be interviewed.

The Alaska Personnel Board is the only body that Alaska law expressly empowers to investigate ethical malfeasance by the executive branch. As complaints by both the governor herself and the state troopers' union are before it, the matter should be resolved there, out-of-site of the national political scene and out-of-reach of partisan investigators.

[I]Joseph W. Miller is an attorney in Fairbanks, Alaska. He is a former U.S. Magistrate Judge, state judicial officer, and decorated Gulf War Veteran (B.S., United States Military Academy; J.D., Yale Law School; M.S., Resource Economics, University of Alaska). A copy of Mr. Miller's complaint may be found at www.palinfightscorruption.com.

http://www.thebulletin.us/site/index.cfm?newsid=20131582&BRD=2737&PAG=461&dept_id=576361&rfi=8

I like the fact you cut out all the stuff that would suggest bias - like the big fat paragraph detailing the alleged 'crimes' of the trooper in question. Very selective of you. Or the allegations that the investigators are incapable of giving fair assessment because of 'conflicts'... or the claims that the investigators lack the right to investigate.

"Biased investigators who have made up their minds at the outset of an investigation cannot be trusted to conduct an investigation fairly." That's what? Accusation? Opinion?

Clearly, your source is conflicted here - being both DIRECTLY involved in this situation, AND extremely partisan. You don't even need to look beyond the text to see what this person's actual involvement is... the partisanship is clear and present.

And, to be honest - even if we ignore partisanship, we're left with a source that claims one thing, and a source that claims another. There's no way for us to judge between them... and Sarah Palin is refusing to cooperate in the actual investigation.

You still haven't shown how that makes the allegations groundless. SHe may be innocent, or she may not be, in this matter - but 'innocent until proven guilty' is only valid if you actually participate in the process.

This is why you suck at debate. I've seen you make this argument before. When you provide a source, it's YOUR job to defend it. If you don't want to or cannot, don't provite it.

We cannot argue with the authors, so we argue with YOU and require YOU to support their assertions. I know this pisses you off, mostly because you keep taking positions that are so difficult to defend, but rise to the challenge or admit you can't and sign off.

This is why you suck at posting in threads like this. You're so frequently a day late and a dollar short. When you post in a thread like this it's YOUR job to catch up in the thread before you try to move the conversation back-wards. If you don't want to or cannot (catch up), don't post in it.

We cannot move the debate back-wards to repeat argue with YOU and require YOU to catch up and see what has been said after the post you are reading before you restart something that's already been done. I know this pisses you off, mostly because your main tact is to take a misunderstood point of your own that is days old and repeat it ad nauseum and it's so difficult for you to continue reading a thread without immediately satisfying your urge to post your attack(s), but rise to the challenge or admit you can't and sign off.

One of them, in fact (the Deseret News) is identifiable as arch-conservative staunch Republican.

The entire newspaper or just the writer I quoted? :rolleyes:

If you post a link, it's kinda up to you to explain why the fuck anyone should give a damn about it. Your e-rimjob of Palin doesn't quite cut it. Nor does "they're picking on her! they're mean!" This is politics. You can expect to get picked on, and have all your flaws torn wide open. Think the rules aren't fair? Too bad, then you should stay the fuck out of the game.



Calm down, mate, calm down. It's the internet; it's not worth this much heat.

...
You still haven't shown how that makes the allegations groundless. SHe may be innocent, or she may not be, in this matter - but 'innocent until proven guilty' is only valid if you actually participate in the process.

Funny. Clearly you don't actually advocate for judicial jurisdiction or anything responsible like that, no, you simply assert that she is supposed to defend herself in an arena that itself is questionable in its lawfulness. You want to have a mob trial, a mockery of judicial behavior, and hear the case as quickly as possible and without due regard for prudence or fairness.

Which begs the question, why do you have a problem with an accused person and their lawyers determining the rightful jurisdiction to have the trial/hearing in before agreeing to participate with the authority of said hearing? I suggest its your known bias showing here, but perhaps you can explain it some other way.

Which begs the question, why do you have a problem with an accused person and their lawyers determining the rightful jurisdiction to have the trial/hearing in before agreeing to participate with the authority of said hearing? I suggest its your known bias showing here, but perhaps you can explain it some other way.
why? Maybe because the board Palin wishes to be heard by is made up of three people, one of whom she hereself appointed and a 2nd who donated $400 to her election fund.
How exactly is that rightful jurisdiction?

Which begs the question, why do you have a problem with an accused person and their lawyers determining the rightful jurisdiction to have the trial/hearing in before agreeing to participate with the authority of said hearing?

Because it's not their job. Determination of who has jurisdiction is the job of the courts. Palin and her lawyer are within their rights to file a motion to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, but it's the court's job to determine the validity of that motion.

You don't get to not show up because you don't think that the court has jurisdiction. That's not your place to decide. It's not your decision to make. It's the court's job to determine who has jurisdiction. So you show up, you argue why you think there is no jurisdiction, and you await the ruling, and move on accordingly.

In America, it's not up to the accused to deside if the court has power over her.

Funny. Clearly you don't actually advocate for judicial jurisdiction or anything responsible like that...


Clearly. Right?

Because I said that, didn't I?


...no, you simply assert that she is supposed to defend herself in an arena that itself is questionable in its lawfulness.


Questioned... by her defence attorney? No shit! He probably insists she 'didn't do it', too!


You want to have a mob trial, a mockery of judicial behavior, and hear the case as quickly as possible and without due regard for prudence or fairness.


What are you, Captain of the Good Ship Make-shit-up?

Where did I say, suggest, or hint at suggesting... any of that?


Which begs the question, why do you have a problem with an accused person and their lawyers determining the rightful jurisdiction to have the trial/hearing in before agreeing to participate with the authority of said hearing?


I don't think I said I had a problem with making sure the right jurisdiction is involved... you seem to be saying that JUST because the attorney claims that's the case. Personally, I think it's rhetoric, and will be shown to be baseless - because I doubt that the proceedings would have got this far if there was NO argument for jurisdictional relevence.


I suggest its your known bias showing here, but perhaps you can explain it some other way.

My known bias? Awesome.

What is my known bias?

The entire newspaper or just the writer I quoted? :rolleyes:

Um. The entire newspaper. You don't know a damn thing about The Deseret News, do you? You just Googled it and thought it supported your argument, when actually it doesn't. :rolleyes:

Because it's not their job. Determination of who has jurisdiction is the job of the courts. Palin and her lawyer are within their rights to file a motion to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, but it's the court's job to determine the validity of that motion.

You don't get to not show up because you don't think that the court has jurisdiction. That's not your place to decide. It's not your decision to make. It's the court's job to determine who has jurisdiction. So you show up, you argue why you think there is no jurisdiction, and you await the ruling, and move on accordingly.

In America, it's not up to the accused to deside if the court has power over her.


I agree with your principle, but we both know that papers have been flying back and forth and I don't think any court has decided anything yet, this is hardly unusual. From my understanding the state Personnel Board has been asked to hear the case themselves instead of the Senate hearings, jurisdiction should be determined by the courts, I agree.

I've just found out that an Alaskan judge will be hearing tomorrow.

JUNEAU, Alaska, Sept. 30 (UPI) -- An Alaska judge has merged two lawsuits challenging the right of the legislature to investigate Gov. Sarah Palin's firing of her public safety commissioner.

A hearing is scheduled Thursday, the Anchorage Daily News reported.

Critics say that Palin, the Republican vice presidential nominee, fired Public Safety Commissioner Walter Monegan because he refused to dismiss her former brother-in-law, a state trooper, who was involved in a nasty divorce case with her sister.

The merged lawsuits were filed by the state attorney general and by five Republican legislators. Last week, members of Palin's staff, acting on advice from the attorney general, ignored subpoenas to testify before a legislative committee.

The lawyer for the Republican lawmakers wants Democratic Sen. Hollis French of Anchorage or the chief investigator in the case to testify.

A spokeswoman for the Republican presidential campaign called the investigation a "political circus."


http://www.upi.com/Top_News/2008/09/30/Troopergate_hearing_set_this_week/UPI-51531222801602/

If that's still up to date, we'll find out more soon enough.

Um. The entire newspaper.
And also, the particular writer he was quoting, who is explicitly addressing fellow "Utahns and Republicans".

...
I don't think I said I had a problem with making sure the right jurisdiction is involved... you seem to be saying that JUST because the attorney claims that's the case. Personally, I think it's rhetoric, and will be shown to be baseless - because I doubt that the proceedings would have got this far if there was NO argument for jurisdictional relevence.

The courts will decide jurisdiction, you have explicitly stated that you think she needs to comply now, or else she has something to hide.... That is your known bias revealing itself for you.

And also, the particular writer he was quoting, who is explicitly addressing fellow "Utahns and Republicans".

Okay, I concede to that argument then, the person in question clearly can not be a liberal nor a Democrat since one, they posted a letter to the Deseret News, and two, addressed their letter to Utahns.

The courts will decide jurisdiction, you have explicitly stated that you think she needs to comply now, or else she has something to hide.... That is your known bias revealing itself for you.

That's my known bias? The fact that I don't accept someone saying 'you don't have authority to try me' as being evidence of innocence?

The investigation looks legitimate, refusing to comply doesn't make her guilty, but it does make her uncooperative.

And to be honest - if she's nothing to hide, jurisdiction shouldn't be a big deal.

The courts will decide jurisdiction, you have explicitly stated that you think she needs to comply now, or else she has something to hide.... That is your known bias revealing itself for you.

She is required to participate until it's heard and decided.

I suppose if she were in jail and she had an appeal filed she shouldn't have to participate in the current sentence, right?

The fact is that she agreed they had jurisdiction up until things stopped going her way. Suddenly, they're stalling because they realized the results were going to made available before the election.

Yes, that seems a little guilty. But I'm strange in that when people act shady, I tend to think they're shady. Crazy, I know.

Neo Art, The CatTribe, either of you want to take off your anti-Balderdash71964 hat for just a moment and deal with this post I'm about to quote, respectfully? He won't believe me if I say it...

That's my known bias? The fact that I don't accept someone saying 'you don't have authority to try me' as being evidence of innocence?

The investigation looks legitimate, refusing to comply doesn't make her guilty, but it does make her uncooperative.

And to be honest - if she's nothing to hide, jurisdiction shouldn't be a big deal.

Okay, I concede to that argument then, the person in question clearly can not be a liberal nor a Democrat since one, they posted a letter to the Deseret News, and two, addressed their letter to Utahns.

What do you know, you dropped part of the argument. Shocking. You're usually so careful to actually address what people write.

Now, how about you address who he ACTUALLY addressed the letter to.

This is why you suck at posting in threads like this. You're so frequently a day late and a dollar short. When you post in a thread like this it's YOUR job to catch up in the thread before you try to move the conversation back-wards. If you don't want to or cannot (catch up), don't post in it.

We cannot move the debate back-wards to repeat argue with YOU and require YOU to catch up and see what has been said after the post you are reading before you restart something that's already been done. I know this pisses you off, mostly because your main tact is to take a misunderstood point of your own that is days old and repeat it ad nauseum and it's so difficult for you to continue reading a thread without immediately satisfying your urge to post your attack(s), but rise to the challenge or admit you can't and sign off.

Any argument you haven't settled is up for debate. That you want it to remain in the past because it was proving your inabilities is your problem, not mine. Meanwhile, in what world is a post SIX posts earlier going backwards. I know you were hoping you would get by with a little whining and hope that would pass. It didn't.

I don't need to settle on using the arguments of others. I'll make my own thanks. I noticed you didn't address the point. I'm sure others noticed too.

Now, you want to actually participate or complain that people are requiring you to defend the assertions you bring to the thread?

Nevermind, we all know the answer.

Neo Art, The CatTribe, either of you want to take off your anti-Balderdash71964 hat for just a moment and deal with this post I'm about to quote, respectfully? He won't believe me if I say it...

I love that you pretend like they're violating her rights or something. The information they're requesting is the behavior of public officials in a public capacity. It absolutely should be subject to public scrutiny. They're asking other people who in their public role participated in this fiasco to give over relevant information. She's asking them not to.

What would you think if one of your employees started trying to hide their emails sent from their business account from you, and asked other people in your employ to participate? And yes, she works for the public and the people trying her are acting on behalf of that public.

I love that you pretend like they're violating her rights or something. The information they're requesting is the behavior of public officials in a public capacity. It absolutely should be subject to public scrutiny. They're asking other people who in their public role participated in this fiasco to give over relevant information. She's asking them not to.

The lawyers are asking for a ruling about the proper jurisdiction. You can't wait?

What would you think if one of your employees started trying to hide their emails sent from their business account from you, and asked other people in your employ to participate? And yes, she works for the public and the people trying her are acting on behalf of that public.

How would you feel if middle management decided to start acting like Human Resources and skip the proper investigation and methodology to question employees actions?

And to be honest - if she's nothing to hide, jurisdiction shouldn't be a big deal.
Problem here, as I stated before, is that Palin and her lawyers want the jurisdiction to be a panel of 3 people, one of whom she appointed and another who donated $400 to her election fund.
So it is in fact a big deal, regardless of whether she's guilty or not.

Jocab: I also love how Baldy thinks anyone who disagrees with him, or even just points out legal technicalities are somehow 'anti-Baldy'. Yes. That's why we're arguing. Not because we're wanting to show him the inherrent discrepancies and glaring mistakes in his argument. No. It's just because we're all against him.

Problem here, as I stated before, is that Palin and her lawyers want the jurisdiction to be a panel of 3 people, one of whom she appointed and another who donated $400 to her election fund.
So it is in fact a big deal, regardless of whether she's guilty or not.

Jocab: I also love how Baldy thinks anyone who disagrees with him, or even just points out legal technicalities are somehow 'anti-Baldy'. Yes. That's why we're arguing. Not because we're wanting to show him the inherrent discrepancies and glaring mistakes in his argument. No. It's just because we're all against him.

It looks like there's a reasonable claim to jurisdiction now, even if it's not the PERFECT fit... but I don't necessarily buy their excuse that there's only this one group of people that would be right, and that just HAPPENS to be a friendly audience...

So - since the current arrangement looks servicable, and not conflicted, I'd say the jurisdiction is both irrelevent (because it's acceptable as is) and an excuse.

I'm not saying it wouldn't be a big deal if she got to hand pick her investigators. :) Which is apparently the only way Baldy will think it's fair...

You're all just anti-Baldy sexists, the lot of you.

:p

The lawyers are asking for a ruling about the proper jurisdiction. You can't wait?

Why should we wait? It's relevant to the fact she asking for a promotion from the same public she's snubbing.

I agree with her. We'll absolutely wait. Till then, no promotion. You agree?


How would you feel if middle management decided to start acting like Human Resources and skip the proper investigation and methodology to question employees actions?

They aren't skipping. Currently, there has been no decision. They are operating legally and should continue to do so until there is a decision that requires them to stop. Until then, I would require my employee to follow the rules as they stand or lose her job. I most certainly wouldn't promote her while she was refusing to cooperate with her employers.

See, the problem here is that you are pretending they are skipping proper investigation or methodology. This is patently false. They are being denied the ability to investigate by the person who is under investigation. She agreed to participate until there was a potential that the results might cost her a promotion and then she not only clammed up but order all of thus who work for her to do the same.

Using the original analogy if she asked that she be tried by someone outside the company, I'd agree, fire her, and turn her over to the authorities to deal with, with all relevent evidence. Unfortunately, since here, they can't fire her, I'd push the investigation as hard and as far as necessary to get the truth. She's not advocating an honest investigation, she's attempting to thwart one.

It looks like there's a reasonable claim to jurisdiction now, even if it's not the PERFECT fit... but I don't necessarily buy their excuse that there's only this one group of people that would be right, and that just HAPPENS to be a friendly audience...

So - since the current arrangement looks servicable, and not conflicted, I'd say the jurisdiction is both irrelevent (because it's acceptable as is) and an excuse.

I'm not saying it wouldn't be a big deal if she got to hand pick her investigators. :) Which is apparently the only way Baldy will think it's fair...

She considered a 10 Republican and 4 Democrat panel to be too partisan. She's stalling. It's not even about winning the case. It's about making sure the people choosing whether she deserves a promotion or not don't have all the information.

You're all just anti-Baldy sexists, the lot of you.

:p
surely not! Some of us must like this Baldy without being sexist:
http://imagecache2.allposters.com/images/pic/RSPOD/RS642~Sinead-O-Connor-Rolling-Stone-no-642-October-1992-Posters.jpg

You're all just anti-Baldy sexists, the lot of you.

:p

Why do we hate freedom?

Okay, I concede to that argument then, the person in question clearly can not be a liberal nor a Democrat since one, they posted a letter to the Deseret News, and two, addressed their letter to Utahns.

Thank you. That wasnt so hard was it? How does intellectual honosty feel?

Neo Art, The CatTribe, either of you want to take off your anti-Balderdash71964 hat for just a moment and deal with this post I'm about to quote, respectfully? He won't believe me if I say it...

Funny to have you appeal to me so soon after you went on an extended rant about how I was too biased to even debate with -- let alone moderate.

I'll admit to not having cutting-edge information about Troopergate, but the information you cite is ridiculously biased, inaccurate, and/or irrelevant.

For example, the mere fact that pro-Palin forces have filed a lawsuit to challenge the legitimacy of the investigation against here does not mean that challenge has any merit. The fact that a judge has set a hearing on the matter means even less.

But, please explain what changed in September to make an investigation that Palin publicly invited and said she would cooperate with into a jurisdictionless partisan witch-hunt. From (with a cringe) Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alaska_Public_Safety_Commissioner_dismissal#State_Legislature_investigation):

On July 18, Palin said "we would never prohibit, or be less than enthusiastic about any kind of investigation."[114]


On July 21, Palin said that said she welcomed an investigation. "I've said all along, hold me accountable," Palin told reporters.[115]


On July 24, Palin said "I have absolutely nothing to hide … I'm happy to answer any questions between now and when they [the legislature] do conduct an investigation also. … I'm happy to comply, to cooperate. … No problem with an independent investigation."[116]


On July 29, Palin's spokesperson said "the governor has said all along that she will fully cooperate with an investigation and her staff will cooperate as well."[117]


On August 13, an official press release stated "Governor Palin has directed all of her staff to cooperate fully with Branchflower."[118]


On August 29, Palin's attorney wrote to Branchflower: "Please know that we intend to cooperate with this investigation … I would like to review our calendars to schedule depositions of witnesses."[119]


On August 30, the McCain campaign said "Governor Palin is an open book on this -- she did nothing wrong and has nothing to hide. … she has been happy to cooperate fully in the inquiry of this matter. … The legislature and Attorney General are both currently reviewing the circumstances of Walt Monegan’s departure … and the Governor is fully cooperating with those inquiries."[120]


On August 30, the Washington Times reported that Palin knew Branchflower by reputation, and welcomed the investigation: "I know he's a prosecutor, probably a heavy duty prosecutor, and so that kind of puzzles us why we are going down that road when we are very, very open to answering any questions anybody has of me or administrators … But I think this process will bode well for the state of Alaska and our administration, having a review committee of those experts in public safety, in the trooper organization."[63]


On September 4, the Anchorage Daily News noted that Palin had made repeated public statements that she would cooperate, and reported that Palin's attorney had said that hadn't changed.[121]

Okay, I concede to that argument then, the person in question clearly can not be a liberal nor a Democrat since one, they posted a letter to the Deseret News, and two, addressed their letter to Utahns.

Cute. If you were sincere, this would show a scrap of integrity.

Given that you were the one alleging that the person in question was a liberal and/or Democrat and the evidence not only doesn't support that assertion but indicates the contrary, you should concede the point.

... that is St. Palin's candidacy.

Palin has difficulty naming court case she disagrees with (http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2008/10/01/palin-has-difficulty-naming-court-case-she-disagrees-with/):

Republican Vice Presidential candidate Sarah Palin had difficulty naming a specific Supreme Court case she disagreed with besides Roe v. Wade in a long-awaited clip CBS News aired Wednesday night.

The comments, first reported by Politico, came in an interview with CBS News anchor Katie Couric taped last week.

"Well, let's see. There's –of course –in the great history of American rulings there have been rulings, that's never going to be absolute consensus by every American," Palin said. "And there are–those issues, again, like Roe v Wade, where I believe are best held on a state level and addressed there. So you know–going through the history of America, there would be others but–"

"Can you think of any?" Couric interjected.

"Well, I could think of–of any again, that could be best dealt with on a more local level, maybe I would take issue with," Palin responded. "But you know, as mayor, and then as governor and even as a vice president, if I'm so privileged to serve, wouldn't be in a position of changing those things but in supporting the law of the land as it reads today."

Palin's comments came in the same interview during which she gave a widely-panned answer on the economic bailout bill (http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2008/09/26/cafferty-is-pa…o-be-presidentcafferty-is-palin-qualified-to-be-president/) and had trouble describing John McCain's record (http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2008/09/25/palin-another-…n-could-happenpalin-another-great-depression-could-happen/) on regulation of the financial industry.

The interview later became the subject of Saturday Night Live's opening sketch last weekend.



LOL

... that is St. Palin's candidacy.

Palin has difficulty naming court case she disagrees with (http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2008/10/01/palin-has-difficulty-naming-court-case-she-disagrees-with/):

Republican Vice Presidential candidate Sarah Palin had difficulty naming a specific Supreme Court case she disagreed with besides Roe v. Wade in a long-awaited clip CBS News aired Wednesday night.

The comments, first reported by Politico, came in an interview with CBS News anchor Katie Couric taped last week.

"Well, let's see. There's –of course –in the great history of American rulings there have been rulings, that's never going to be absolute consensus by every American," Palin said. "And there are–those issues, again, like Roe v Wade, where I believe are best held on a state level and addressed there. So you know–going through the history of America, there would be others but–"

"Can you think of any?" Couric interjected.

"Well, I could think of–of any again, that could be best dealt with on a more local level, maybe I would take issue with," Palin responded. "But you know, as mayor, and then as governor and even as a vice president, if I'm so privileged to serve, wouldn't be in a position of changing those things but in supporting the law of the land as it reads today."

Palin's comments came in the same interview during which she gave a widely-panned answer on the economic bailout bill (http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2008/09/26/cafferty-is-pa…o-be-presidentcafferty-is-palin-qualified-to-be-president/) and had trouble describing John McCain's record (http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2008/09/25/palin-another-…n-could-happenpalin-another-great-depression-could-happen/) on regulation of the financial industry.

The interview later became the subject of Saturday Night Live's opening sketch last weekend.



LOL

God this woman is a joke.

For example, the mere fact that pro-Palin forces have filed a lawsuit to challenge the legitimacy of the investigation against here does not mean that challenge has any merit. The fact that a judge has set a hearing on the matter means even less.

Totally incorrect. I'll draw your attention to two cases that establish the enormous and nearly insurmountable criteria of merit that a case must satisfy to survive the pleading stage:

Conley v Gibson 355 U.S. 41 (1957)

and more recently:

Bell Atlantic Corp v. Twombly 127 S. Ct. 1955 (2007)

As both of these cases clearly demonstrate, a court will not even briefly entertain matters that have no set of facts or that lack any standard of plausibility.

This precedent will keep our dockets free of absurdity long after your nation is dust, Cat-Tribes.

You should be disbarred for your cynicism.

Totally incorrect. I'll draw your attention to two cases that establish the enormous and nearly insurmountable criteria of merit that a case must satisfy to survive the pleading stage:

Conley v Gibson 355 U.S. 41 (1957)

and more recently:

Bell Atlantic Corp v. Twombly 127 S. Ct. 1955 (2007)

As both of these cases clearly demonstrate, a court will not even briefly entertain matters that have no set of facts or that lack any standard of plausibility.

This precedent will keep our dockets free of absurdity long after your nation is dust, Cat-Tribes.

You should be disbarred for your cynicism.

Once again, I bow in tribute to your insight--particularly in citing relevant precedent. :hail:

Once again, I bow in tribute to your insight--particularly in citing relevant precedent. :hail:

Yes, tremble, for as powerful as my utterly distorted and wholly pedestrian grasp of case law is, it is nowhere NEAR as potent as Palin's.

Yes, tremble, for as powerful as my utterly distorted and wholly pedestrian grasp of case law is, it is nowhere NEAR as potent as Palin's.

Impossible.

You already named two supreme court cases. That's more than she's managed to do.

Also, your citation form, while good, was not perfect :tongue:

Funny to have you appeal to me so soon after you went on an extended rant about how I was too biased to even debate with -- let alone moderate.

When a person 'argues' they are biased, everyone is biased by default. When a person debates, they are capable of switching sides and argue the opposite case to the best of their ability as well. When you are motivated to argue instead of debate (I use the difference to mean, in one you don't have to be entirely forthcoming to argue every conceivable eventuality that you can think of but rather can allow yourself to use what you know to be a bad argument if it is a winning tactic, in the other, a person concedes the flaws in their own position to determine the truth), in the appeal I made to you and Neo Art, I suspected you would have the integrity to postulate why it would not be wise to argue a defense case out of it's jurisdiction until forced to.

But, please explain what changed in September to make an investigation that Palin publicly invited and said she would cooperate with into a jurisdictionless partisan witch-hunt. ...

She has new council now, a reasonable explanation to understanding her change of legal defense strategy/position. Odds are McCain's lawyers are in control of the legal activities now, not Palin, whereas before, ignorant civilians often assume their innocence will defend them in court and they have nothing to worry about, in error. Which wise person should represent themselves against the council of their lawyers?

Impossible.

You already named two supreme court cases. That's more than she's managed to do.

Also, your citation form, while good, was not perfect :tongue:

Nuh-uh, check ALWR rules, which state, in part:

"When incompetently citing minimally relevant cases in such a way that failes to meaningfully render a cogent rule, much less capture any applicable insight, the following form is used: [insert form I used]".

Stare decisis, noun, a band from San Jose California that primarily does covers of KISS and Pat Boone.

Nuh-uh, check ALWR rules, which state, in part:

"When incompetently citing minimally relevant cases in such a way that failes to meaningfully render a cogent rule, much less capture any applicable insight, the following form is used: [insert form I used]".

Stare decisis, noun, a band from San Jose California that primarily does covers of KISS and Pat Boone.

ooh, I know that edition, that comes bundled with The Complete Idiots Guide to Law Like Stuff, right?

I'm also fairly certain it's "ALWD" :p

You should be disbarred for your cynicism.


Cynicism? I wonder if I should use that word instead of bias?


nah. :tongue:

She has new council now, that sounds like the most likely and reasonable explanation to change her legal defense position. Odds are McCain's lawyers are in control of the legal activities now, not Palin, whereas before, ignorant civilians often assume their innocence will defend them in court and they have nothing to worry about, in error. Which wise person should represent themselves against the council of their lawyers?

I like how the Republican nominee for Vice-President is reduced to little more than a lost babe in the woods that must be saved by McRambo. :(

Odds are McCain's lawyers are in control of the legal activities now, not Palin, whereas before, ignorant civilians often assume their innocence will defend them in court and they have nothing to worry about, in error.

Ignorant civilian? Interesting words to describe the woman you want to be the second most powerful person in america.

I like how the Republican nominee for Vice-President is reduced to little more than a lost babe in the woods that must be saved by McRambo. :(

Oh nonsense. Good legal council is never a bad idea, you disagree?

Ignorant civilian? Interesting words to describe the woman you want to be the second most powerful person in america.

She's not a lawyer. She doesn't need to be.

Oh nonsense. Good legal council is never a bad idea, you disagree?

You've got Cat-Tribes dead center nailed on this one.

The retention of council and reasonable reliance on their advice constitutes complete and perpetual abdication of responsibilty for an action to which one is party.

That's why matters brought frivolously, fraudulently, or in bad faith have consequences solely for the attorneys involved, and the clients bear no culplability under the law.

Hear that, Cat-Tribes? Shape up or I'll call the character and fitness board of your local bar and poop on you from a great height.

She's not a lawyer. She doesn't need to be.

So, the options are "lawyer" or "ignorant civilian"?

Diligent citizen isn't a nice middle ground? Or, for somebody who will soon be President of the Senate, perhaps some familiarity, at least beyond the characterization of "ignorant" (not my term) with the law?

Even a member of the executive branch should go beyond "ignorant civilian", much less be able to pass the bar.

Its okay, though...as you've established, if/when she takes some action grossly inconsistent with rudimentary grasp of the law, it won't be her fault. It will be the attorney general's fault.

You've got Cat-Tribes dead center nailed on this one.

The retention of council and reasonable reliance on their advice constitutes complete and perpetual abdication of responsibilty for an action to which one is party.

That's why matters brought frivolously, fraudulently, or in bad faith have consequences solely for the attorneys involved, and the clients bear no culplability under the law.

Hear that, Cat-Tribes? Shape up or I'll call the character and fitness board of your local bar and poop on you from a great height.

:fluffle: You hilarious little bastard, you. :D

I'm also fairly certain it's "ALWD" :p

You're going to bill me for this, aren't you?

I'd call you a Jew, but Frisbeeteria yelled at me. He was technically (and more broadly) correct to do so, but that's beside the point.

:fluffle: You hilarious little bastard, you. :D

Oh, so now you with the communication of a defammatory falsehood to a third party?

Its on, now, DM.

Unless your lawyer told you to say it, in which case my apologies.

I have to read 200 pages on civil procedure by Friday, so I'm logging off.

I won't do the reading, but I am logging off.

Oh, so now you with the communication of a defammatory falsehood to a third party?

Its on, now, DM.

Unless your lawyer told you to say it, in which case my apologies.

I have to read 200 pages on civil procedure by Friday, so I'm logging off.

I won't do the reading, but I am logging off.

You know, that part would be funnier if I'd kept Neo Art's IM window open. I could really make a case (haha) of having done so in advance.

You silly lawyers and your "studying." We in Physics have yet to hear of such a thing (not true, as it happens, but not the point).

You're going to bill me for this, aren't you?

I'd call you a Jew, but Frisbeeteria yelled at me. He was technically (and more broadly) correct to do so, but that's beside the point.

There are two things that Harvard Law taught me:

1) how to cite correctly

2) how to raise attention to the fact that I went to Harvard Law, even when grossly socially awkward to do so.