The Sarah Palin Thread (You can see Russia from this thread)

[X Knight]

well.....even Joe Biden called the questioning of Palin's "fitness" to be VP ( because she has 5 kids ) sexist!

[SuBe]

well.....even Joe Biden called the questioning of Palin's "fitness" to be VP ( because she has 5 kids ) sexist!
Well, he went right back to work when his daughter and wife died, AND raised his boys.

[zenile]

Funny how the Obamas are so often caught making statements that they didn't mean. These people are Harvard-educated lawyers. You're telling me they just go around making false statements that they don't agree with? Not buying it.

They change their minds about what they really "meant" when they see the negative reaction to their statements. So you would have me believe that they are not smart enough to state their actual beliefs? They know exactly what they are saying, and when it is not well received, they go back on their statements.

I don't think an Ivy League education buys you what it used to. Just watch a GWB speech and you'll see what I'm talking about :o

[USMC]

If Sarah Palin was any kind of REAL mother, she would be raising her children, especially now that she has a special needs one, AND the one she'll raise when her daughter pops it out... instead of running of the 2nd highest office.

The hypocrisy of these so called "family values" people astound me.

:whatever:

[IrishFightin]

If Sarah Palin was any kind of REAL mother, she would be raising her children, especially now that she has a special needs one, AND the one she'll raise when her daughter pops it out... instead of running of the 2nd highest office.

The hypocrisy of these so called "family values" people astound me.

:whatever:


I hate Sarah Palin as much as the next liberal vagina-face, but I think that maybe going a bit to far.

[Tron5000]

If Sarah Palin was any kind of REAL mother, she would be raising her children, especially now that she has a special needs one, AND the one she'll raise when her daughter pops it out... instead of running of the 2nd highest office.

The hypocrisy of these so called "family values" people astound me.

:whatever:

Oh, so a mother can not have a career? What was the whole women's lib movement about?

Your statement is just ridiculous. Sarah Palin should probably be in the kitchen with an apron right now, cooking and cleaning for the young 'uns. That about right?

[Tron5000]

I hate Sarah Palin as much as the next liberal vagina-face, but I think that maybe going a bit to far.

Why would you "hate" Sarah Palin? What did she do to you?

[IrishFightin]

Oh, so a mother can not have a career? What was the whole women's lib movement about?

Your statement is just ridiculous. Sarah Palin should probably be in the kitchen with an apron right now, cooking and cleaning for the young 'uns. That about right?



Gotta be barefoot to Tron, gotta be barefoot.

[Tron5000]

Gotta be barefoot to Tron, gotta be barefoot.

Only if you're pregnant. I think the 2 go hand in hand, and as far as I know, she ain't pregnant. But she sure is fertile. Bring on more Conservatives, Sarah! Get back in the bedroom!

[USMC]

Oh, so a mother can not have a career? What was the whole women's lib movement about?

Your statement is just ridiculous. Sarah Palin should probably be in the kitchen with an apron right now, cooking and cleaning for the young 'uns. That about right?

Oh, I could give a flip about the women's lib movement, I believe it has gone to the extreme now. And I don't believe that both parents should have careers when they have children that need them to RAISE them.

Nanny's and daycare must be A-OK for your kids. But I disagree. ESPECIALLY with an infant, down-syndrome or not.

How many kids do YOU have, Tron?:whatever:

And for the record, YES, either Sarah Palin OR her husband should be at home RAISING their children. Not passing them off to granny or uncle billy bob or some daycare or live-in nanny.

Get real.:whatever:

[IrishFightin]

Why would you "hate" Sarah Palin? What did she do to you?


Theres just a personal problem that I have with her. Policy I disagree with, all of it. However, theres something about her I cant point out. I think shes a flash in the pan. It's the ferraro effect. At first its an amazing decision, but in the end, women will go large margin for the other side.

[IrishFightin]

Oh, I could give a flip about the women's lib movement, I believe it has gone to the extreme now. And I don't believe that both parents should have careers when they have children that need them to RAISE them.

Nanny's and daycare must be A-OK for your kids. But I disagree. ESPECIALLY with an infant, down-syndrome or not.

How many kids do YOU have, Tron?:whatever:

And for the record, YES, either Sarah Palin OR her husband should be at home RAISING their children. Not passing them off to granny or uncle billy bob or some daycare or live-in nanny.

Get real.:whatever:

Her husband Todd is taking care of them.

[Superman4ever]

No, they are not. Nancy Pelosi has 5 children, just like Palin. When she was nominated Shrieker of the House, were people in the MSM questioning whether or not she would be able to be a good mother, considering the duties of her new position? No, she's not a Republican, so of course they didn't. This is blatant sexism, and it's only aimed at those on the right.

Wow.

What is SOOOOOO unfair? Questioning her experience? Calling her out on her BS?

Blatant sexism? But you guys LOVE to tear Hilary a new one any chance you people could get. NOW, it's sexism? Now it's unfair? Hypocrite!

It's hysterical that you refer to Pelosi as "shrieker of the House" and then use the sexism line in the same damn post. If that is not one of the most oafishly constructed comments ever...G-d...:grin:...you people! LMFAO! :D

[X Knight]

If Sarah Palin was any kind of REAL mother, she would be raising her children, especially now that she has a special needs one, AND the one she'll raise when her daughter pops it out... instead of running of the 2nd highest office.

The hypocrisy of these so called "family values" people astound me.

:whatever:

This is just so extremely ridiculous!! And, I'm going to say it......SEXIST!!

According to you, women should NOT pursue careers or high-powered positions.....because if they have kids or grandkids, they need to stay home and raise their kids......otherwise they wouldn't be REAL mothers....

IOW....only men should go to work to provide for their families.....

yeah right!! try telling that to all the working mothers out there......try telling them that they are not "REAL" mothers......:whatever:

[Tron5000]

Oh, I could give a flip about the women's lib movement, I believe it has gone to the extreme now. And I don't believe that both parents should have careers when they have children that need them to RAISE them.

Nanny's and daycare must be A-OK for your kids. But I disagree. ESPECIALLY with an infant, down-syndrome or not.

How many kids do YOU have, Tron?:whatever:

And for the record, YES, either Sarah Palin OR her husband should be at home RAISING their children. Not passing them off to granny or uncle billy bob or some daycare or live-in nanny.

Get real.:whatever:
I really don't know what to say to this. Just.....WOW.

[Tron5000]

Wow.

What is SOOOOOO unfair? Questioning her experience? Calling her out on her BS?

Blatant sexism? But you guys LOVE to tear Hilary a new one any chance you people could get. NOW, it's sexism? Now it's unfair? Hypocrite!

It's hysterical that you refer to Pelosi as "shrieker of the House" and then use the sexism line in the same damn post. If that is not one of the most oafishly constructed comments ever...G-d...:grin:...you people! LMFAO! :D

I said "Shrieker of the House" because she shrieks. I could have applied that to Howard Dean if he were in her position. There is absolutely nothing sexist about that.

And when I "tear Hillary a new one," it has nothing to do with her being a woman, or a wife, or a mother. It has to do with her lies and her policies. So, yes, I will attack Hillary, but it won't be based on my perception of her fitness as a mother.

[jaguarr]

Pelosi's youngest daughter was 18 when Pelosi started her political career back in 1987. Keep fishing.

jag

[Tron5000]

Theres just a personal problem that I have with her. Policy I disagree with, all of it. However, theres something about her I cant point out. I think shes a flash in the pan. It's the ferraro effect. At first its an amazing decision, but in the end, women will go large margin for the other side.

You "can't point out" what makes you "hate" someone? That's kind of.....Ridiculous?

[Superman4ever]

I said "Shrieker of the House" because she shrieks. I could have applied that to Howard Dean if he were in her position. There is absolutely nothing sexist about that.


:whatever::whatever:

[Franklin Richards]

This is the product of Dan Quayle. USMC is just telling it like he thinks and what he's been told it is.


:thing: :doom: :thing:

[IrishFightin]

You "can't point out" what makes you "hate" someone? That's kind of.....Ridiculous?


Im a very spiteful person. I even dislike Mother Theresa.

[IrishFightin]

This is the product of Dan Quayle. USMC is just telling it like he thinks and what he's been told it is.


:thing: :doom: :thing:


My friends, no matter how rough the road may be, we can and we will never surrender to what is right!

[bell110]

So nobody remembers when Edwards was being asked why he was running for President when his wife was dying of cancer? People specifically said that he should focus on his wife and children instead of campaigning. So I guess these questions aren't as sexist or one sided as the right want us to believe.

[lazur]

So nobody remembers when Edwards was being asked why he was running for President when his wife was dying of cancer? People specifically said that he should focus on his wife and children instead of campaigning. So I guess these questions aren't as sexist or one sided as the right want us to believe.

Um, being a working mother is FAR different than running for a very demanding office when your wife is ailing from a deadly disease.

Besides, John Edwards is scum. He's already proven repeatedly that he could care less about his cancer-stricken wife, and that you would equate him to Palin is appalling ...

[X Knight]

I don't remember anyone making that much of a fuss when Edwards did that.

If they did, I don't remember it reaching the same level as it has over Palin.

[Mr Sparkle]

man, factcheck.org completely raped Palin on her speech.
ugly.

Plus, yeah, yesterday I happened to pay a visit to a friend of mine who recently had a baby, now, she has a Master's degree in architecture and was all torn up because her father had told her that it was all for naught, because she chose to stay at home and care for it.

she was in tears telling me " how could I leave him?....he needs me!"
and uh....didn't even have down syndrome.
but I guess Palin's kind of a sucky parent, explains Bristol, right conservatives?

huh....am I right?

[bell110]

http://organizersfightback.wordpress.com/

Her little jab at community organizers might come back and bit her.

[sinewave]

Funny how the Obamas are so often caught making statements that they didn't mean. These people are Harvard-educated lawyers. You're telling me they just go around making false statements that they don't agree with? Not buying it.

They change their minds about what they really "meant" when they see the negative reaction to their statements. So you would have me believe that they are not smart enough to state their actual beliefs? They know exactly what they are saying, and when it is not well received, they go back on their statements.

ok, so tell me what you think of mccain falsely accusing iran (a *****e country) with training al qaeda (a sunni organization) multiple times, referring to the non-existent country of czechoslovakia multiple times and asserting that iraq and pakistan share a border? are those just innocent mistakes or is he an idiot?

No, and he likely never would. Doubtful he would want to be "punished" with an imperfect infant.

ouch, where's the venom coming from? this is baseless and ugly.

What I think the main issue is, is, Democrats are scared. They know that Palin received only 1.1 Million less viewers than Obama. Theyare scared, that is why their Donations are up since she spoke.

Plus, I believe they are lost because they thought they had a Monopoly on the Female Vote. That is why the Media (who is in the Tank for Obama) is digging through very thing they can to make public opinion bad for her. But, the Public knows better.

you keep believing that. i will say it was a brilliant political move for the mccain campaign to announce palin as the vp after obama's well received dnc speech to dominate the media's focus, but i'm fairly certain that the amiercan public is smart enough to realize that the republicans have yet to outline their plans for his country instead of focusing their negativity aimed at the dems. plus, you know, the fact that the country is in the toilet due to republican policy.

[bunk]

man, factcheck.org completely raped Palin on her speech.
ugly.

Plus, yeah, yesterday I happened to pay a visit to a friend of mine who recently had a baby, now, she has a Master's degree in architecture and was all torn up because her father had told her that it was all for naught, because she chose to stay at home and care for it.

she was in tears telling me " how could I leave him?....he needs me!"
and uh....didn't even have down syndrome.
but I guess Palin's kind of a sucky parent, explains Bristol, right conservatives?

huh....am I right?

Wait - is she only on her first baby? She's got a ways to go.

[Matt]

man, factcheck.org completely raped Palin on her speech.
ugly.

Plus, yeah, yesterday I happened to pay a visit to a friend of mine who recently had a baby, now, she has a Master's degree in architecture and was all torn up because her father had told her that it was all for naught, because she chose to stay at home and care for it.

she was in tears telling me " how could I leave him?....he needs me!"
and uh....didn't even have down syndrome.
but I guess Palin's kind of a sucky parent, explains Bristol, right conservatives?

huh....am I right?

To be fair though, factcheck.org also "rapes," Obama on a daily basis. In otherwords, both sides lie, distort facts, and take quotes out of context to help their goals. Who'd of thunk it?

[Mr Sparkle]

Wait - is she only on her first baby? She's got a ways to go.

her third, and she has CHOSEN to raise each one.

[Mr Sparkle]

To be fair though, factcheck.org also "rapes," Obama on a daily basis. In otherwords, both sides lie, distort facts, and take quotes out of context to help their goals. Who'd of thunk it?

well, duh, that's what they do.
however, check the analysis of both speeches, tell me which is more severe.

[bunk]

her third, and she has CHOSEN to raise each one.

Oh wow. Maybe her's are cuter or something.

[Matt]

Does the ammount of lies really matter? A liar is a liar, whether they do it ten times a day or a hundred times a day.

[Mr Sparkle]

Does the ammount of lies really matter? A liar is a liar, whether they do it ten times a day or a hundred times a day.

the severity and amount of lies really DO matter Matt.
they really do.

[jaguarr]

http://organizersfightback.wordpress.com/

Her little jab at community organizers might come back and bit her.

Man, the comments on that blog are really interesting. Those people are highly insulted by the GOP over this and are getting organized very quickly to start launching counter-offensives. I suspect we'll see a ton of community organizers on the news channels very soon, tearing Palin and Giuliani new a-holes.

jag

[bell110]

Um, being a working mother is FAR different than running for a very demanding office when your wife is ailing from a deadly disease.

Besides, John Edwards is scum. He's already proven repeatedly that he could care less about his cancer-stricken wife, and that you would equate him to Palin is appalling ...

I'm talking about Palin, not just any average working mother. Palin going to be spending the next two months campaigning, and if she gets the job, the next four years as the VP. Two years into that, she'll start campaigning for 2012, and if something were to happen to McCain, she'll be in the most demanding office in the country.

Don't get me wrong, I think it's a stupid question. I thought it was a stupid question when it was asked of Edwards. I'm just tired of the right making this seem like it's ONLY asked because she's a woman and it's ONLY asked because she's a Republican. But, I guess it don't count for Edwards because he is "scum".

I don't remember anyone making that much of a fuss when Edwards did that.

If they did, I don't remember it reaching the same level as it has over Palin.

It was asked. Conservative talking heads beat it into the ground. Edward's wife came foward and said that she wanted her husband to run and that it was a private family matter. It's reached the level it has with Palin because the Republicans are good at crying foul over anything. I honestly haven't heard this question come up EXCEPT from Republicans crying about it. I'm starting to wonder if they aren't just making it up. Does anyone have a link to where someone asked this question?

[StorminNorman]

Palin now viewed more favorable than Obama, McCain

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/election_20082/2008_presidential_election/palin_power_fresh_face_now_more_popular_than_obama _mccain

A week ago, most Americans had never heard of Alaska Governor Sarah Palin. Now, following a Vice Presidential acceptance speech viewed live by more than 40 million people, Palin is viewed favorably by 58% of American voters. The latest Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey finds that 37% hold an unfavorable view of the self-described hockey mom.

The figures include 40% with a Very Favorable opinion of Palin and 18% with a Very Unfavorable view (full demographic crosstabs are available for Premium Members). Before her acceptance speech, Palin was viewed favorably by 52%. A week ago, 67% had never heard of her.

The new data also shows significant increases in the number who say McCain made the right choice and the number who say Palin is ready to be President. Generally, John McCain’s choice of Palin earns slightly better reviews than Barack Obama’s choice of Joe Biden.

Perhaps most stunning is the fact that Palin’s favorable ratings are now a point higher than either man at the top of the Presidential tickets this year. As of Friday morning, Obama and McCain are each viewed favorably by 57% of voters. Biden is viewed favorably by 48%.

There is a strong partisan gap when it comes to perceptions of Palin. Eighty-nine percent (89%) of Republicans give her favorable reviews along with 33% of Democrats and 59% of voters not affiliated with either major party.

She earns positive reviews from 65% of men and 52% of women. The Rasmussen Reports daily Presidential Tracking Poll shows that Obama continues to lead McCain among women voters while McCain leads among men. The Friday morning update—the first to include interviews conducted after Palin’s speech--showed the beginning of a Republican convention bounce that may match Obama’s bounce from last week.

Fifty-one percent (51%) of Americans believe that most reporters are trying to hurt Palin’s campaign, a fact that may enhance her own ratings.

(Want a free daily e-mail update? Sign up now. If it's in the news, it's in our polls. Get our daily update and we’ll let you know what voters really think.)

The Palin pick has also improved perceptions of John McCain. A week ago, just before he introduced his running mate, just 42% of Republicans had a Very Favorable opinion of their party’s nominee. That figure jumped to 54% by this Friday morning. Among unaffiliated voters, favorable opinions of McCain have increased by eleven percentage points in a week—from 54% before the Palin announcement to 65% today.

Fifty-one percent (51%) of all voters now believe that McCain made the right choice when he picked Palin to be his running mate while 32% disagree. By way of comparison, on the night after Biden gave his acceptance speech, 47% said that Obama made the right choice.

Eighty-one percent (81%) of Republicans say that McCain made the right choice while just 69% of Democrats said the same about Obama.

Among unaffiliated voters, 52% said that McCain made the right choice for his running mate and 45% said the same about Obama.

Forty percent (40%) now say that Palin is ready to be President, if necessary. That’s up from 29% last week. Forty-nine percent (49%) say the same about Biden.

However, following the Wednesday night speech, voters are fairly evenly divided as to whether Palin or Obama has the better experience to be President. Forty-four percent (44%) of voters say Palin has the better experience while 48% say Obama has the edge. Among unaffiliated voters, 45% say Obama has better experience while 42% say Palin.

Fifty-eight percent (58%) of voters say that Palin’s speech helped McCain’s chances of becoming President while only 10% believe it hurt those prospects.

While Palin’s numbers are stunning today, it remains to be seen how the Alaska Governor’s numbers will hold up through the next two months. She has made a tremendous first impression, but the country will get to know her a lot better between now and November.

Cliff Notes:

Palin has 58% favorable rating (higher than either candidate has had throughout the election. (59% by non-affiliated voters)

Palin has increased the Republican Party's enthusiasm for McCain (54% of Republicans now VERY favorable of McCain - up almost 10%) and 81% of Republicans believe Palin was a good pick (69 % of Democrats say the same of Biden. 52% of unaffiliated say it was a good choice.


Basically - anyone saying Palin was one of the worst VP choices ever, you are dead wrong.

[bunk]

Does the ammount of lies really matter? A liar is a liar, whether they do it ten times a day or a hundred times a day.


I think it does. We all know they will lie, it's part of the job. The degree of lying I think is important to look at.

It's like getting a dog from the pound. You know he'll **** in the house. Constant ****ing is much worse than occasional ****ing.

[jaguarr]

Palin now viewed more favorable than Obama, McCain

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/election_20082/2008_presidential_election/palin_power_fresh_face_now_more_popular_than_obama _mccain



Cliff Notes:

Palin has 58% favorable rating (higher than either candidate has had throughout the election. (59% by non-affiliated voters)

Palin has increased the Republican Party's enthusiasm for McCain (54% of Republicans now VERY favorable of McCain) and 81% of Republicans believe Palin was a good pick (69 % say the same of Biden. 52% of unaffiliated say it was a good choice.


Basically - anyone saying Palin was one of the worst VP choices ever, you are dead wrong.

She's new. The media hasn't finished vetting her out, yet. People don't know anything about her. And Hillary hasn't started in on her, yet, either (that changes starting on Monday). She's starting out high with her ratings. We'll see how she weathers over the next couple months.

jag

[Mr Sparkle]

Basically - anyone saying Palin was one of the worst VP choices ever, you are dead wrong.

so, those that echo your own thoughts on Obama's inexperience and use them as a valid critique of Palin's lack of experience are also dead wrong?:huh:
because that would make the fact that Obama moved 15 points ( in some cases) over McCain last week reflect the same upon those who said he was a bad choice for president.

[Captain Planet!]

Palin now viewed more favorable than Obama, McCain

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/election_20082/2008_presidential_election/palin_power_fresh_face_now_more_popular_than_obama _mccain



Cliff Notes:

Palin has 58% favorable rating (higher than either candidate has had throughout the election. (59% by non-affiliated voters)

Palin has increased the Republican Party's enthusiasm for McCain (54% of Republicans now VERY favorable of McCain) and 81% of Republicans believe Palin was a good pick (69 % say the same of Biden. 52% of unaffiliated say it was a good choice.


Basically - anyone saying Palin was one of the worst VP choices ever, you are dead wrong.
That is just downright sad.

[kainedamo]

Basically - anyone saying Palin was one of the worst VP choices ever, you are dead wrong.

lol

[StorminNorman]

so, those that echo your own thoughts on Obama's inexperience and use them as a valid critique of Palin's lack of experience are also dead wrong?:huh:
because that would make the fact that Obama moved 15 points ( in some cases) over McCain last week reflect the same upon those who said he was a bad choice for president.

The number one job of a VP is to get a President elected. Since it is obvious that Palin is doing a better job of that then either Romney or Pawlenty or Lieberman could of - then she is by definition a good VP pick for McCain.

Also that increase is Obama is more reflective of his convention than Palin. Palin has helped destroy that lead since.

[sinewave]

Palin now viewed more favorable than Obama, McCain

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/election_20082/2008_presidential_election/palin_power_fresh_face_now_more_popular_than_obama _mccain



Cliff Notes:

Palin has 58% favorable rating (higher than either candidate has had throughout the election. (59% by non-affiliated voters)

Palin has increased the Republican Party's enthusiasm for McCain (54% of Republicans now VERY favorable of McCain - up almost 10%) and 81% of Republicans believe Palin was a good pick (69 % of Democrats say the same of Biden. 52% of unaffiliated say it was a good choice.


Basically - anyone saying Palin was one of the worst VP choices ever, you are dead wrong.

of course. she's a new, shiny bauble for the republicans. it'll wear off once people get more acquainted with her. i don't see how this proves we're "dead wrong" by calling her one of the worst VP choices ever just because she's attracting attention after a week on the campaign and after rallying her base with a high profile speech. that doesn't exactly address her qualifications. it's just a knee-jerk reaction. republicans complained about the same thing when obama was getting all the press a while back. these things ebb and flow.

[StorminNorman]

She's new. The media hasn't finished vetting her out, yet. People don't know anything about her. And Hillary hasn't started in on her, yet, either (that changes starting on Monday). She's starting out high with her ratings. We'll see how she weathers over the next couple months.

jag

The media has had more bad press about Palin than they have good and she is still standing. You only have one chance to make a first impression and she took full advantage of that.

[sinewave]

The number one job of a VP is to get a President elected. Since it is obvious that Palin is doing a better job of that then either Romney or Pawlenty or Lieberman could of - then she is by definition a good VP pick for McCain.

Also that increase is Obama is more reflective of his convention than Palin. Palin has helped destroy that lead since.

:huh: i thought it was being ready to lead this country, should the president croak. i didn't realize the only thing they are needed for is to get the president elected. if that's the case, what does it say about mccain?

[jaguarr]

The media has had more bad press about Palin than they have good and she is still standing. You only have one chance to make a first impression and she took full advantage of that.

Haha! Okay, man. I think I'll give her a little longer than a week before I'll declare her a rousing success.

jag

[Mr Sparkle]

The number one job of a VP is to get a President elected. Since it is obvious that Palin is doing a better job of that then either Romney or Pawlenty or Lieberman could of - then she is by definition a good VP pick for McCain.

Also that increase is Obama is more reflective of his convention than Palin. Palin has helped destroy that lead since.

here I thought the number one job of a vice president was to be ready to lead the country should the president be unable to.:huh:
silly me.

also, only in your mind is tie on CBS and +7 in gallup a "destroyed" lead:yay:

[Mr Sparkle]

I totally bit sinewave's styles..... :(

[Mr Sparkle]

The media has had more bad press about Palin than they have good and she is still standing. You only have one chance to make a first impression and she took full advantage of that.

:huh: really, all I remember is them gushing about McCain's new VPILF otherwise.....not that much.

[ManofmyWord]

I'll agree that Palin came out fighting like she needed to. But I still don't see how she impressed anyone that wasn't already voting for Mccain.

[StorminNorman]

here I thought the number one job of a vice president was to be ready to lead the country should the president be unable to.:huh:
silly me.

also, only in your mind is tie on CBS and +7 in gallup a "destroyed" lead:yay:

Thats the number two job of the VP - in reality, the number one is electing the President.

The gallup number is lower than it has been since Obama's speech and the polls still don't reflect Palin's speech. We won't see polling numbers from her performance until Monday, Tuesday.

[StorminNorman]

:huh: really, all I remember is them gushing about McCain's new VPILF otherwise.....not that much.

Then you have made like an ostrich.

[sinewave]

I totally bit sinewave's styles..... :(

you've got great taste!

[DorkyFresh]

Palin now viewed more favorable than Obama, McCain

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/election_20082/2008_presidential_election/palin_power_fresh_face_now_more_popular_than_obama _mccain



Basically - anyone saying Palin was one of the worst VP choices ever, you are dead wrong.

first Obama's not good for America because he's too popular but when Palin becomes popular that means she's a good choice.







that's sexist!!! :woot: :oldrazz::word:

[sinewave]

Thats the number two job of the VP - in reality, the number one is electing the President.

i question your knowledge of the position, then.

[kainedamo]

first Obama's not good for America because he's too popular but when Palin becomes popular that means she's a good choice.







that's sexist!!! :woot: :oldrazz::word:

See, Norman's got on a pair of glasses that allow him to see the world in a very special way :o

Hates Obama for being a celebrity with energy, loves Palin for the same thing.

[sinewave]

first Obama's not good for America because he's too popular but when Palin becomes popular that means she's a good choice.







that's sexist!!! :woot: :oldrazz::word:

i know! it's almost like she's a, oh what's the word i'm looking for.... celebrity?!?

[Matt]

I think it does. We all know they will lie, it's part of the job. The degree of lying I think is important to look at.

It's like getting a dog from the pound. You know he'll **** in the house. Constant ****ing is much worse than occasional ****ing.

No it doesn't. "We all know they will lie, its part of the job." Is that really a suitable excuse for our elected officials? Is that really something we should settle for? That kind of defense of Barack Obama sickens me. Did he not promise to be something new? Something different? Something better than that? I'd expect it from McCain, from Palin. Not someone who promised to change the system and got so many votes by doing so. But just I expect it does, not mean I will settle for it. If you owned a business, would you settle for your employees lying to you about how much money they took in? Of course not. Why should we settle for our elected officials whom we pay, lying to us?

[StorminNorman]

i question your knowledge of the position, then.

The difference comes in if you want to talk about reality and if you want to talk about theory.

In theory - sure, the VP's number one job is the break ties and to be President should the President not be able to.

In reality...the Vice President is a campaign tool. And it was as a campaign tool that most of the "worst choice evah!" were referring to.

[DorkyFresh]

i know! it's almost like she's a, oh what's the word i'm looking for.... celebrity?!?
what i find ironic is that they ran an ad for Obama that featured Paris Hilton and Britney Spears...2 of America's dumbest female blonde celebrities, but if the Dems ever did that to Palin the Reps would jump ALL OVER it and call it a sexist ad.

[sinewave]

No it doesn't. "We all know they will lie, its part of the job." Is that really a suitable excuse for our elected officials? Is that really something we should settle for? That kind of defense of Barack Obama sickens me. Did he not promise to be something new? Something different? Something better than that? I'd expect it from McCain, from Palin. Not someone who promised to change the system and got so many votes by doing so. But just I expect it does, not mean I will settle for it. If you owned a business, would you settle for your employees lying to you about how much money they took in? Of course not. Why should we settle for our elected officials whom we pay, lying to us?

wait, aren't mccain and palin supposed to be "mavericks" and "reformers"? isn't reform just another word for change? your bias is showing.

[SuBe]

See, Norman's got on a pair of glasses that allow him to see the world in a very special way :o

Hates Obama for being a celebrity with energy, loves Palin for the same thing.
Why do you substitute the word "HATE" for "Disagrees with"?

[sinewave]

The difference comes in if you want to talk about reality and if you want to talk about theory.

In theory - sure, the VP's number one job is the break ties and to be President should the President not be able to.

In reality...the Vice President is a campaign tool. And it was as a campaign tool that most of the "worst choice evah!" were referring to.

ok, so you're saying the only reason mccain picked palin was to get votes and that they aren't really thinking ahead to what would happen if she becomes the vp or, god forbid, the president? that doesn't exactly inspire confidence.

what i find ironic is that they ran an ad for Obama that featured Paris Hilton and Britney Spears...2 of America's dumbest female blonde celebrities, but if the Dems ever did that to Palin the Reps would jump ALL OVER it and call it a sexist ad.

good point.

[Matt]

wait, aren't mccain and palin supposed to be "mavericks" and "reformers"? isn't reform just another word for change? you bias is showing.

Because a Nader supporter has so much pro-McCain bias. :whatever:

[Mr Sparkle]

Thats the number two job of the VP - in reality, the number one is electing the President.

The gallup number is lower than it has been since Obama's speech and the polls still don't reflect Palin's speech. We won't see polling numbers from her performance until Monday, Tuesday.


:huh: electing the president is the job of the people.
getting him elected? the job of his campaign strategists, because the people have to elect a President and a VP.
not just a President.

and yes, the gallup is lower, like I said no one in their right mind would call it, "destroyed"
plus, Obama facetime with o'reilly and stuff.
Obama's numbers where at their peak DURING the DNC which means that McCain's are at their peak now.
:huh::up:
it's all downhill from here for McCain and his Celebrity VP.


BTW who knew that the GOP had such disdain for community organizers?
:cwink: way to connect with the common man fellas, thank you Rusy, you totally made mi mind clear about which party is the lesser of two evils this year.

[Mr Sparkle]

No it doesn't. "We all know they will lie, its part of the job." Is that really a suitable excuse for our elected officials? Is that really something we should settle for? That kind of defense of Barack Obama sickens me. Did he not promise to be something new? Something different? Something better than that? I'd expect it from McCain, from Palin. Not someone who promised to change the system and got so many votes by doing so. But just I expect it does, not mean I will settle for it. If you owned a business, would you settle for your employees lying to you about how much money they took in? Of course not. Why should we settle for our elected officials whom we pay, lying to us?

Nah, dude, the severity and amount of lies coming from one camp as opposed to the other is kind of telling.
Obama "promises" change, not "promised" last time I checked he hasn't had a turn at office yet.
the GOP on the other hand is saying...."yeah, we know we messed up for 8 years, but ....we won't these next 4...trust us!"

:huh:

[bunk]

No it doesn't. "We all know they will lie, its part of the job." Is that really a suitable excuse for our elected officials? Is that really something we should settle for? That kind of defense of Barack Obama sickens me. Did he not promise to be something new? Something different? Something better than that? I'd expect it from McCain, from Palin. Not someone who promised to change the system and got so many votes by doing so. But just I expect it does, not mean I will settle for it. If you owned a business, would you settle for your employees lying to you about how much money they took in? Of course not. Why should we settle for our elected officials whom we pay, lying to us?

It's not a defense of Barack Obama. It is however, something I look at when choosing elected officials. Am I being constantly lied to my face, or is it occasionally? If two candidates make speeches and one is riddled with lies, and the other much less so, I take that into consideration. If I held out my vote for someone who doesn't lie, I wouldn't get to vote at all. None of these people see themselves as our employees, that isn't likely to change. I hate to say it, but we get the elected officials we deserve. I think Hillary would've been a bigger liar than anyone. It's why I didn't vote for her.

[Mr Sparkle]

not for nothing Norman, but your bias is showing.....like a lot.

[Matt]

That's rich coming from you. Norman may have biases, but he is by far one of the most politically knowledgable people here and more often than not puts his biases aside in order to look at the facts from a political perspective.

[Mr Sparkle]

That's rich coming from you. Norman may have biases, but he is by far one of the most politically knowledgable people here and more often than not puts his biases aside in order to look at the facts from a political perspective.

really? why exactly is it rich coming from me?
I have been nothing if not objective from the get go.
I don't even support one party over the other:huh:

all I see are issues.
make sure that if you're going to attack me you have a leg to stand on mr.
"I hate Obama for no good reason:cmad:"

[Matt]

really? why exactly is it rich coming from me?
I have been nothing if not objective from the get go.
I don't even support one party over the other:huh:

all I see are issues.
make sure that if you're going to attack me you have a leg to stand on mr.
"I hate Obama for no good reason:cmad:"


:lmao: :lmao: :lmao:......wait...are you serious? :dry:

[SuBe]

really? why exactly is it rich coming from me?
I have been nothing if not objective from the get go.
I don't even support one party over the other:huh:

all I see are issues.
make sure that if you're going to attack me you have a leg to stand on mr.
"I hate Obama for no good reason:cmad:"
:lmao:

[ShadowBoxing]

In theory - sure, the VP's number one job is the break ties and to be President should the President not be able to.

That's underrating that job, they're also responsible for presiding over the Joint Chiefs of Staff and Department of Defense, strong-arming people in the Senate and they are the chairman of NASA.

[Mr Sparkle]

:lmao: :lmao: :lmao:......wait...are you serious? :dry:

why yes:huh:
of course, people like you think that to be objective one MUST agree with you.
no. actually, objective analysis showed that the OTHER guy was better for the country.

it's not like I can help it.
:up:

but, really strong comeback and argument, all those smileys in a neat little configuration like you're laughing, and then "...." and the :dry:
you're well on your way to be the king of Oxford style debate.

[Matt]

Oooh, Sparkle. I'm not even gonna bother.

[Mr Sparkle]

:lmao:
LOOOOOOVE your avatar.
shows your objectivity.
dare I say, It highlights it.

"Nobama" just says so much, while saying really nothing at all doesn't it.

[Mr Sparkle]

Oooh, Sparkle. I'm not even gonna bother.

no, you "can't" so you will pretend you won't "bother"
two different things:cwink:

[SuBe]

LOOOOOOVE your avatar.
shows your objectivity.
dare I say, It highlights it.

"Nobama" just says so much, while saying really nothing at all doesn't it.
I'm not objective, or unbiased, nor am I required to be. Thanks for following along though.

[Mr Sparkle]

I'm not objective, or unbiased, nor am I required to be. Thanks for following along though.

uh, :huh: all I did was comment on your avatar.
it seems it is you who has problems "following along" :up:
good try though, good lad.

[Matt]

no, you "can't" so you will pretend you won't "bother"
two different things:cwink:

Not really. I just see very little point in arguing with one of the most biaed people on the Hype on whether or not they are biased. Your posts speak for themselves.

[Mr Sparkle]

stop spamming Matt, get back on topic, your ego bruises like a peach and that's obvious.

[SuBe]

uh, :huh: all I did was comment on your avatar.
it seems it is you who has problems "following along" :up:
good try though, good lad.
No, you said it shows my objectivity. I do not need to be objective, or pretend to be, like many others here. I have an agenda, I have a reason for my stances. I support those that follow a similar stance on the issues, or those that feel will help being about the type of result I want. I have no reason to be unbiased or objective.

[Mr Sparkle]

No, you said it shows my objectivity. I do not need to be objective, or pretend to be, like many others here. I have an agenda, I have a reason for my stances. I support those that follow a similar stance on the issues, or those that feel will help being about the type of result I want. I have no reason to be unbiased or objective.

so, objectivity in an election is a bad thing?:huh:

[kainedamo]

I'm not objective, or unbiased, nor am I required to be. Thanks for following along though.

Hahahhahaah! Nice of you to admit that you're not objective.


Wooooooooooooooow.

[Tron5000]

I'll agree that Palin came out fighting like she needed to. But I still don't see how she impressed anyone that wasn't already voting for Mccain.

She impressed James Dobson, who had previously stated that he could not vote for McCain. Now he's backing the ticket, and I'm sure the same is true for many Conservative Christians who were not in the McCain camp.

[kainedamo]

Not really. I just see very little point in arguing with one of the most biaed people on the Hype on whether or not they are biased. Your posts speak for themselves.

Matt, if everyone here were to hold you to that standard, most of the guys would have put you on ignore long ago.

[SuBe]

so, objectivity in an election is a bad thing?:huh:
You can pretend to be as objective as you want. Like I said, most people here claim to be. I for one am not. I have no reason, I'm not in a job that requires me to be. I don't pretend to tell anyone the news. Every thing I say has my slant on it. Like everyone else here. If you are questioning where I'm fair, yes I think I am.

But, last night in the RNC thread, I saw all the ugliness, and hatred from a lot of posters here. I'm sick of it, and won't pretend to be something I don't need to be.

[SuBe]

Hahahhahaah! Nice of you to admit that you're not objective.


Wooooooooooooooow.
And are you? Everyone here knows you want Obama to win, so is every post from you "objective"? You never claim that just because someone disagrees with Obama, that they are HATING? You want him to win, you are not "Objective" when it comes to McCain, or Palin or nearly any Republican.

You just pretend you are. Just like everyone else.

[Mr Sparkle]

You can pretend to be as objective as you want. Like I said, most people here claim to be. I for one am not. I have no reason, I'm not in a job that requires me to be. I don't pretend to tell anyone the news. Every thing I say has my slant on it. Like everyone else here. If you are questioning where I'm fair, yes I think I am.

But, last night in the RNC thread, I saw all the ugliness, and hatred from a lot of posters here. I'm sick of it, and won't pretend to be something I don't need to be.

no, I actually just asked if objectivity in an election was a bad thing.
again, seems you have trouble following along :up:
simply because you are unable to be objective, doesn't mean other are just pretending.
it just means you are UNABLE to be objective.

you, that's YOUR flaw.:cwink:

[kainedamo]

And are you?

I like to think so.

Everyone here knows you want Obama to win,

Doesn't mean that I can't be objective.

so is every post from you "objective"? You never claim that just because someone disagrees with Obama, that they are HATING? You want him to win, you are not "Objective" when it comes to McCain, or Palin or nearly any Republican.

You just pretend you are. Just like everyone else.


SupermanBeyond, quite frankly the fact that you can't be objective is the reason that you have so much trouble with these debates. Being objective, analysing facts fairly, is key to forming stronger arguments. The people that post the best arguments? They're the ones that find it easiest to be objective. Does everyone have a bias? Yes. Strong bias? Yes. Doesn't mean you can't be objective.

A good example of people not being objective...

Guy: Man, that Obama just has no experience and that Michelle is a *****.
Few months later...
Guy: Wow, I love that Sarah Palin has so much experience. I can't stand these sexist attacks aimed at her.

Not being objective is a flaw. The fact that you say you aren't objective is equivalent to saying that you will defend your 'guys' (in this case the republicans, McCain, and Palin) under any circumstances.

[SuBe]

no, I actually just asked if objectivity in an election was a bad thing.
again, seems you have trouble following along :up:
simply because you are unable to be objective, doesn't mean other are just pretending.
it just means you are UNABLE to be objective.

you, that's YOUR flaw.:cwink:
Yes, objectivity in the News Media should happen, does it? No. Do we have to require every poster here to be Objective? No.

I'm not a journalist, and if anything, I'm a commentator on this site, giving my opinion of the news I hear. That does not require anyone to be "Objective". If it bothers you, start talking to the People who support Obama, those people on this site GREATLY outnumber those who support McCain. They post more articles from the Daily Kos and any other Left Leaning site, THATS not Objectivism. They rant and rave about their distain for Bush, that's no Objectivism. They go on about how McCain could croke in any second after elected, though his Medical Records prove otherwise, and if President would have the Number one best healthcare for any individual in the world. That's not objectivism.

I don't pretend to be, and wear my "Unbiased" hat when I'm here. I know I am biased, I have reason for my support. Find someone else that is willing to admit it.

[Tron5000]

Yes, objectivity in the News Media should happen, does it? No. Do we have to require every poster here to be Objective? No.

I'm not a journalist, and if anything, I'm a commentator on this site, giving my opinion of the news I hear. That does not require anyone to be "Objective". If it bothers you, start talking to the People who support Obama, those people on this site GREATLY outnumber those who support McCain. They post more articles from the Daily Kos and any other Left Leaning site, THATS not Objectivism. They rant and rave about their distain for Bush, that's no Objectivism. They go on about how McCain could croke in any second after elected, though his Medical Records prove otherwise, and if President would have the Number one best healthcare for any individual in the world. That's not objectivism.

I don't pretend to be, and wear my "Unbiased" hat when I'm here. I know I am biased, I have reason for my support. Find someone else that is willing to admit it.

I admit it. I'm entirely biased. I don't claim to be objective. I'm not a fan of the Democrat party (as a whole...there are some Dems that I like), and I'm much more aligned with the Republicans, though I am registered as Independent. And this bias is probably very evident in most of my posts.

[kainedamo]

Yes, objectivity in the News Media should happen, does it? No. Do we have to require every poster here to be Objective? No.

I'm not a journalist, and if anything, I'm a commentator on this site, giving my opinion of the news I here. That does not require anyone to be "Objective". If it bothers you, start talking to the People who support Obama, those people on this site GREATLY outnumber those who support McCain. They post more articles from the Daily Kos and any other Left Leaning site, THATS not Objectivism.

What about articles from CNN, Washington Post, Huffington Post, and others? SB, you're never going to get anywhere debating without objectivity - and objectivity means looking at the facts. People enjoy posting articles with sources because it backs up their views.


They rant and rave about their distain for Bush, that's no Objectivism.

You are confusing bias with being objective. If someone forms their opinion on Bush with all of the facts at hand, then they are being objective.

[Tron5000]

What about articles from CNN, Washington Post, Huffington Post, and others? SB, you're never going to get anywhere debating without objectivity - and objectivity means looking at the facts. People enjoy posting articles with sources because it backs up their views.




You are confusing bias with being objective. If someone forms their opinion on Bush with all of the facts at hand, then they are being objective.

Exactly. People try to find objective sources to back up their subjective beliefs. You just shot down your own argument.

[Hobgoblin]

Back on topic.

This must be embarassing for Gov Palin. Her own mother in law may not vote for her.

http://www.nydailynews.com/news/politics/republican_race/2008/08/30/2008-08-30_sarah_palins_motherinlaw_uncertain_about.html

[Mr Sparkle]

Yes, objectivity in the News Media should happen, does it? No. Do we have to require every poster here to be Objective? No.

I'm not a journalist, and if anything, I'm a commentator on this site, giving my opinion of the news I hear. That does not require anyone to be "Objective". If it bothers you, start talking to the People who support Obama, those people on this site GREATLY outnumber those who support McCain. They post more articles from the Daily Kos and any other Left Leaning site, THATS not Objectivism. They rant and rave about their distain for Bush, that's no Objectivism. They go on about how McCain could croke in any second after elected, though his Medical Records prove otherwise, and if President would have the Number one best healthcare for any individual in the world. That's not objectivism.

I don't pretend to be, and wear my "Unbiased" hat when I'm here. I know I am biased, I have reason for my support. Find someone else that is willing to admit it.

:huh: like I said, the fact that you know you are biased doesn't mean everyone else is.
hating Bush?
well, he has something like 30% approval so he is doing something wrong, and people dislike him for THAT, not for simply being BUSH as his 80% approval rating post 9-11 would clearly show (where was the bias then?)
there have been articles posted here from both left and right leaning sites, the only fair outlet you yourself discredited simply because what?

it disagreed with you.

THAT's bias.

McCain, could die, and so could Obama, even though records prove otherwise (Obama's mom died of Cancer) so picking a VP because she's HOT and a woman?
sorry McCain, who harped on and on about experience, sure picked a winner there huh?
that's not biased, that's objective.
you not being able to see through party lines?

that's BIASED.
you not being able to see past the fair tax book (which has become like a bible to you) that's biased.
and I don't know if you remember, but you were calling out someone on their bias the other day because you and your brother had no complaints about Bush and you were in the military.
till I showed you how Bush mistreated the military from the get go, and still does.
you admitted a mistake, that's objectivity. because you were basing your opinion on personal experience and interpretation the definition of "subjectivity".

[jaguarr]

Back on topic.

This must be embarassing for Gov Palin. Her own mother in law may not vote for her.

http://www.nydailynews.com/news/politics/republican_race/2008/08/30/2008-08-30_sarah_palins_motherinlaw_uncertain_about.html

"I'm not sure what she brings to the ticket other than she's a woman and a conservative. Well, she's a better speaker than McCain," Faye Palin said with a laugh.

Ouch. Why isn't the McCain Campaign attacking Faye Palin for being sexist? :o

jag

[ManofmyWord]

They're too busy putting themselves on High Pedistals over the lowly people who work in the Community. ;)

[Gilpesh]

Back on topic.

This must be embarassing for Gov Palin. Her own mother in law may not vote for her.

http://www.nydailynews.com/news/politics/republican_race/2008/08/30/2008-08-30_sarah_palins_motherinlaw_uncertain_about.html

I had seen that... pretty funny.

Ouch. Why isn't the McCain Campaign attacking Faye Palin for being sexist? :o

jag

Because... um... SEXIST! JAG! YOU ARE SEXIST!

[jaguarr]

Because... um... SEXIST! JAG! YOU ARE SEXIST!

Sarah Palin: Not even her own mother-in-law will vote for her. :o

jag

[Hypestyle]

hopefully both political parties can look at "Bristol-gate" as a teachable moment instead of trying to dismiss it altogether--

http://hypestyleshomebase.blogspot.com/2008/09/northern-over-exposure-aang-thats-hello.html

[X Knight]

objective?? what's this talk about objective?

was it being objective when posters here posted link after link....story after story.....report after report......all desgined to make Palin look bad.....to embarass her.....to expose her "lies"......to question her "fitness" as a VP pick.....to pass judgment on why McCain picked her in the first place....??????

was it being objective when posters here gleefully went after Palin.....first for the fake pregnancy story.......then for her daughter's pregnancy.......questioning her fitness to be a mom because she made that flight when her water broke..........????

Although I have only been in the Political section of the Hype for 1 week, I have seen the pattern of behaviour here in this thread and in other "republican" threads.

Most of the posters here never gave Palin a chance......they jumped on her as soon as she was announced....proclaiming she was a poor choice only picked because she was a woman who would pander to the women voters......and since then, most of the posts here have been devoted to digging up whatever "dirt" or negative story to make Palin look bad...........

objectivity here??? I think not.......

[Hobgoblin]

Please, lets move on. Arguing over someone being objective or not gets us nowhere. Lets stay on topic.

[Gilpesh]

was it being objective when posters here posted link after link....story after story.....report after report......all desgined to make Palin look bad.....to embarass her.....to expose her "lies"......to question her "fitness" as a VP pick.....to pass judgment on why McCain picked her in the first place....??????

http://www.samefacts.com/archives/campaign_2008_/2008/09/palin_v_reality.php

[Kurosawa]

objective?? what's this talk about objective?

was it being objective when posters here posted link after link....story after story.....report after report......all desgined to make Palin look bad.....to embarass her.....to expose her "lies"......to question her "fitness" as a VP pick.....to pass judgment on why McCain picked her in the first place....??????

was it being objective when posters here gleefully went after Palin.....first for the fake pregnancy story.......then for her daughter's pregnancy.......questioning her fitness to be a mom because she made that flight when her water broke..........????

Although I have only been in the Political section of the Hype for 1 week, I have seen the pattern of behaviour here in this thread and in other "republican" threads.

Most of the posters here never gave Palin a chance......they jumped on her as soon as she was announced....proclaiming she was a poor choice only picked because she was a woman who would pander to the women voters......and since then, most of the posts here have been devoted to digging up whatever "dirt" or negative story to make Palin look bad...........

objectivity here??? I think not.......

After the Clinton scandals, the gloves have rightly come off. Playing nice does not help win elections. She knew what she was getting into.

[danoyse]

They're too busy putting themselves on High Pedistals over the lowly people who work in the Community. ;)

This is my problem with her whole community service jab, claiming that it didn't have "responsibilities."

She was mayor of a town with about 9000 people. Exactly how many major issues did this town had where they needed tons of community projects designed to help others. Did they have homeless? Did they have disasters to deal with?

It couldn't have been crime--from what I've read, Wasilla didn't even have an official police department until 1993.

Sure, all towns have their problems and communities will always come together in a crisis. But, as I've pointed out often...I work in NY. We don't have 9000 people, we have over 2 million people. We have the homeless, we have abandoned babies to take care of, we have poverty issues, drug problems and housing problems.

Are these issues that Palin has ever had to deal with on a scale like this? Has she ever had to confront these kinds of issues in the numbers we do? I doubt it, if she looks down on them the way she did.

Rudy snorted on this too--but he may be credited with cleaning up Times Square, but I don't recall him going out and personally escorting the homeless to shelters or taking care of abandoned babies. He left that up to his community leaders.

[jaguarr]

Please, lets move on. Arguing over someone being objective or not gets us nowhere. Lets stay on topic.

Are you saying that from an objective perspective, or are you being biased? :oldrazz:

jag

[danoyse]

objective?? what's this talk about objective?

was it being objective when posters here posted link after link....story after story.....report after report......all desgined to make Palin look bad.....to embarass her.....to expose her "lies"......to question her "fitness" as a VP pick.....to pass judgment on why McCain picked her in the first place....??????

was it being objective when posters here gleefully went after Palin.....first for the fake pregnancy story.......then for her daughter's pregnancy.......questioning her fitness to be a mom because she made that flight when her water broke..........????

Although I have only been in the Political section of the Hype for 1 week, I have seen the pattern of behaviour here in this thread and in other "republican" threads.

Most of the posters here never gave Palin a chance......they jumped on her as soon as she was announced....proclaiming she was a poor choice only picked because she was a woman who would pander to the women voters......and since then, most of the posts here have been devoted to digging up whatever "dirt" or negative story to make Palin look bad...........

objectivity here??? I think not.......

Welcome to politics. Don't think for a second that any other candidate has had it differently.

People are allowed to question and discuss the pros and cons of their abilities. If they don't like what they see, they're allowed to say so.

[USMC]

This is just so extremely ridiculous!! And, I'm going to say it......SEXIST!!

According to you, women should NOT pursue careers or high-powered positions.....because if they have kids or grandkids, they need to stay home and raise their kids......otherwise they wouldn't be REAL mothers....

IOW....only men should go to work to provide for their families.....

yeah right!! try telling that to all the working mothers out there......try telling them that they are not "REAL" mothers......:whatever:

I never said ONE WORD about a WOMAN staying home to raise kids... NOR did I say ONE WORD about a WOMAN not pursuing her career goals.

Get off your high horse. :whatever:

[Hobgoblin]

Are you saying that from an objective perspective, or are you being biased? :oldrazz:

jag

I am being 100% biased and proud of it! :woot::hehe:

[USMC]

I really don't know what to say to this. Just.....WOW.

So parents shouldn't be the ones to RAISE their children? Do YOU have children, Tron?

Do you?:huh::whatever:

[USMC]

This is the product of Dan Quayle. USMC is just telling it like he thinks and what he's been told it is.


:thing: :doom: :thing:

I'm telling it like a father of 2 who sees many MANY children sitting in daycares having SOMEONE ELSE raise them.

Again, you guys need to get off your high horses.:whatever:

[jaguarr]

I am being 100% biased and proud of it! :woot::hehe:

That's sexist! :funny:

jag

[Hobgoblin]

That's sexist! :funny:

jag

Aw go make me a sammich! And lose some weight. :oldrazz:

[Tron5000]

So parents shouldn't be the ones to RAISE their children? Do YOU have children, Tron?

Do you?:huh::whatever:

Yes, parents should be the ones to RAISE their children, which is a big part of why I am against teaching sex ed in schools. That should be up to the parents.

Did your mom work, big boy? Did she have a job so you could have clothes, and pencils for school? Or did she stay at home and back cookies?

Your argument is ridiculous.

[USMC]

I'm talking about Palin, not just any average working mother. Palin going to be spending the next two months campaigning, and if she gets the job, the next four years as the VP. Two years into that, she'll start campaigning for 2012, and if something were to happen to McCain, she'll be in the most demanding office in the country.


I wonder if she'll be holding her infant child, making that mother-child connection through it all... :huh:

:whatever:

[ManofmyWord]

Just saw that the Ethics Investigation in troopergate has been moved up to early October.

[jaguarr]

Aw go make me a sammich! And lose some weight. :oldrazz:

Lose weight? Hell no! I worked hard for this muscle! :cmad:

I wonder if she'll be holding her infant child, making that mother-child connection through it all... :huh:

:whatever:

I already had it out with everyone over this, USMC. I think most people who are parents get your perspective (I know I had the same concerns over the mother-child connection with a newborn and Palin's willingness to put that aside so easily, being a new parent myself), but it's something that's nearly entirely lost on folks who don't have kids.

jag

[X Knight]

I never said ONE WORD about a WOMAN staying home to raise kids... NOR did I say ONE WORD about a WOMAN not pursuing her career goals.

Get off your high horse. :whatever:

ummmm......yes you did.....not "stay home" per say....but......you did say that if Palin was a "REAL mother" then she should be focusing on raising her kids. Here's your original post:

If Sarah Palin was any kind of REAL mother, she would be raising her children, especially now that she has a special needs one, AND the one she'll raise when her daughter pops it out... instead of running of the 2nd highest office.


What does that imply? That implies that Palin should forego advancement in her political career to focus instead on raising her kids.....otherwise she wouldn't be a "Real mother."

hey.....you used that quote "REAL mother".....not me.......and when last I checked......"mothers" are usually WOMEN.

[jaguarr]

Just saw that the Ethics Investigation in troopergate has been moved up to early October.

Good. When the lead investigator said the McCain Campaign was pressuring him to hold off on announcing the results until after the election, that concerned me. Hopefully it's still going to be a fair and objective (oooh, there's that word again!) investigation with truthful results, whatever they may be (she totally did it).

jag

[Lightning Strykez!]

I saw nothing sexist coming out of Obama's camp or the media this week. The only ones screaming about it were the Republicans.

I think it's pretty clear that the Repub party is trying to antagonize the Obama camp. They're hoping that people will think "Where there's smoke, there must be fire" by literally CREATING a controversy over this woman's sex.

It's low. :down

[ShadowBoxing]

Yes, parents should be the ones to RAISE their children, which is a big part of why I am against teaching sex ed in schools. That should be up to the parents.

...And if the parents don't teach sex ed, then what?

[IrishFightin]

...And if the parents don't teach sex ed, then what?


Pussy-trolls.

[jaguarr]

I think it's pretty clear that the Repub party is trying to antagonize the Obama camp. They're hoping that people will think "Where there's smoke, there must be fire" by literally CREATING a controversy over this woman's sex.

It's low. :down

"You're attacking Palin just because she's a VPILF!!!" :cmad: :doublestandard:

jag

[USMC]

Did your mom work, big boy? Did she have a job so you could have clothes, and pencils for school? Or did she stay at home and back cookies?

Your argument is ridiculous.

My mother was not a politician, she was a single mother of 3 whose husband walked out on her. And she only worked while WE were in SCHOOL. When we were home, SHE was home. She refused to allow someone else to do HER job with us.

And it was alot of PB&J's, cause my mom can't cook for ****. :)

Seriously, YOU live in fantasy land when it comes to RAISING children to be productive members of society.

LOL, "I think parents should raise their kids, yet I am the one teaching other people's kids about sex".

Ridiculous. Have your own child and THEN you can come back to the dinner table with your nonsense. :whatever:

[Lightning Strykez!]

objective?? what's this talk about objective?

was it being objective when posters here posted link after link....story after story.....report after report......all desgined to make Palin look bad.....to embarass her.....to expose her "lies"......to question her "fitness" as a VP pick.....to pass judgment on why McCain picked her in the first place....??????

was it being objective when posters here gleefully went after Palin.....first for the fake pregnancy story.......then for her daughter's pregnancy.......questioning her fitness to be a mom because she made that flight when her water broke..........????

Although I have only been in the Political section of the Hype for 1 week, I have seen the pattern of behaviour here in this thread and in other "republican" threads.

Most of the posters here never gave Palin a chance......they jumped on her as soon as she was announced....proclaiming she was a poor choice only picked because she was a woman who would pander to the women voters......and since then, most of the posts here have been devoted to digging up whatever "dirt" or negative story to make Palin look bad...........

objectivity here??? I think not.......


*sigh*

The noobiliciousness of your post is really showing through here. This is a forum devoted to politics...and politics is essentially fueled by opposing opinions. That's why you have Dems vs. Repubs, Independents, etc.

Just because some of us think Sarah Palin is lame doesn't mean we're not being objective. It simply means that based on what we know of her...she's lame. :dry:

[Tron5000]

...And if the parents don't teach sex ed, then what?

Then they are not good parents. What if parents don't teach their kids about morality? Should that be up to the schools? What if a dad doesn't teach his son how to change a tire; should that be covered in public school?

Public schools should stick to actual subjects, like math, science, history, language arts, economics...You know, things where there is a right answer and a wrong answer. Sex ed does not fall in this category, where kids are indoctrinated on "feelings" and "beliefs" about sex.

Sex should not be discussed in schools. In 8th grade, I knew what I needed to know, and I opted out of sex ed and instead did an Independent Study project.

[jaguarr]

*sigh*

The noobiliciousness of your post is really showing through here. This is a forum devoted to politics...and politics is essentially fueled by opposing opinions. That's why you have Dems vs. Repubs, Independents, etc.

Just because some of us think Sarah Palin is lame doesn't mean we're not being objective. It simply means that based on what we know of her...she's lame. :dry:

Super-Bats clearly wasn't here when Obama was being relentlessly attacked.

jag

[Tron5000]

My mother was not a politician, she was a single mother of 3 whose husband walked out on her. And she only worked while WE were in SCHOOL. When we were home, SHE was home. She refused to allow someone else to do HER job with us.

And it was alot of PB&J's, cause my mom can't cook for ****. :)

Seriously, YOU live in fantasy land when it comes to RAISING children to be productive members of society.

LOL, "I think parents should raise their kids, yet I am the one teaching other people's kids about sex".

Ridiculous. Have your own child and THEN you can come back to the dinner table with your nonsense. :whatever:

I'm the oldest of 6 siblings. I am an uncle. I spend lots of time with the kids in my family. I know a lot about raising a child, trust me. I saw my parents do a damn good job of it for the past 27 years.

[USMC]

ummmm......yes you did.....not "stay home" per say....but......you did say that if Palin was a "REAL mother" then she should be focusing on raising her kids. Here's your original post:

What does that imply? That implies that Palin should forego advancement in her political career to focus instead on raising her kids.....otherwise she wouldn't be a "Real mother."

hey.....you used that quote "REAL mother".....not me.......and when last I checked......"mothers" are usually WOMEN.

Um, YOU imply all of that.

Had it been a MAN with a newborn infant running for one of the highest officces in the WORLD, then I would have used the term "Father".

And last time I checked... "fathers" are usually MEN. So honestly, you're the one making it a sexist discussion. I'm talking about parental responsibility.

:whatever:

[Lightning Strykez!]

"You're attacking Palin just because she's a VPILF!!!" :cmad: :doublestandard:

jag


http://s233.photobucket.com/albums/ee256/preved_yt/Gulps%20from%20other/th_V_dianagulp2.jpg

She's totally not what she seems dude. I'm telling you, she totally reminds me of Diana from V. Vindictive Second in Command, totally ambitious, eater of moose and thrower of biblez. :whatever:

[Gilpesh]

Super-Bats clearly wasn't here when Obama was being relentlessly attacked.

jag

And didn't read this...

http://www.samefacts.com/archives/campaign_2008_/2008/09/palin_v_reality.php

[USMC]

I'm the oldest of 6 siblings. I am an uncle. I spend lots of time with the kids in my family. I know a lot about raising a child, trust me. I saw my parents do a damn good job of it for the past 27 years.


LOL, not the same as having your own "big boy". :whatever:

[USMC]

http://s233.photobucket.com/albums/ee256/preved_yt/Gulps%20from%20other/th_V_dianagulp2.jpg

She's totally not what she seems dude. I'm telling you, she totally reminds me of Diana from V. Vindictive Second in Command, totally ambitious, eater of moose and thrower of biblez. :whatever:



AWESOME! :up:

[Hobgoblin]

Then they are not good parents. What if parents don't teach their kids about morality? Should that be up to the schools? What if a dad doesn't teach his son how to change a tire; should that be covered in public school?

Public schools should stick to actual subjects, like math, science, history, language arts, economics...You know, things where there is a right answer and a wrong answer. Sex ed does not fall in this category, where kids are indoctrinated on "feelings" and "beliefs" about sex.

Sex should not be discussed in schools. In 8th grade, I knew what I needed to know, and I opted out of sex ed and instead did an Independent Study project.

I'm not sure there is any indoctrination going on in sex ed. I had sex education for years, 4th grade to sophomore year in high school, and there was never any discussion of feelings. It was all very factual, this is called such and such and it does this. I think I turned out ok.

And acutally, my high school did have a shop class.

[Mr Sparkle]

I'm the oldest of 6 siblings. I am an uncle. I spend lots of time with the kids in my family. I know a lot about raising a child, trust me. I saw my parents do a damn good job of it for the past 27 years.

:huh: so being an uncle = being a parent.
I lived next door to a dentist once, guess I know a lot about dentistry?

[Lightning Strykez!]

Super-Bats clearly wasn't here when Obama was being relentlessly attacked.

jag

Um yeah! Like so clearly. :lmao:

[Tron5000]

I'mnot sure there is any indoctrination going on in sex ed. I had sex education for years, 4th grade to sophomore year in high school, and there was never any discussion of feelings. It was all very factual, this is called such and such and it does this. I think I turned out ok. Frankly, I think my parents were relieved that they didnt have to have the talk with me.

Yeah, I would also be relieved at shirking my parental responsibility and letting someone else teach my child about such an important subject.

[Hobgoblin]

Yeah, I would also be relieved at shirking my parental responsibility and letting someone else teach my child about such an important subject.

Actually, they were very responsible. They were just uncomfortable with that subject. Lots of parents are. No harm done.

[Mr Sparkle]

Yeah, I would also be relieved at shirking my parental responsibility and letting someone else teach my child about such an important subject.

next thing you know, your 17 year old is pregnant and your "shirking" the responsibility of caring for your special needs baby.

....wait.....that sounds ..........what?

[Tron5000]

Actually, they were very responsible. They were just uncomfortable with that subject. Lots of parents are. No harm done.

I'm sure my parents were not very comfortable discussing it with me, but they knew the importance of the matter, so they made sure that I had all the information they could give me. My dad gave me condoms at 13. He told me I better not be having sex, but if I did, I better wrap it up. I just can not for the life of me understand how parents can allow their children to be taught such important lessons by someone outside of the home. It boggles my mind.

[Addendum]

If the parents are too damn scared to tell their kids about sex, then they have no room to complain when someone else does

[ShadowBoxing]

Then they are not good parents.
...And so the kid should be f***ed because he had the awful luck of being born to bad parents?
What if parents don't teach their kids about morality?
Then often other mentor figures take up that torch...
Should that be up to the schools?
...like teachers, for example.
What if a dad doesn't teach his son how to change a tire; should that be covered in public school?
Certain day to day survival skills should be, yes. Changing a tire is fairly self-explanatory though, most cars come with instruction manuals too.
Public schools should stick to actual subjects, like math, science, history, language arts, economics...You know, things where there is a right answer and a wrong answer.
Most of those subjects don't have a simply right and wrong answer. ESPECIALLY history, science, economics...only religions ever deal in absolutes.
Sex ed does not fall in this category, where kids are indoctrinated on "feelings" and "beliefs" about sex.
There are certain facts about sex, contraception, and sexuality that can and should be taught in schools. Just because they fly in the face of certain ignorance that is prevalent in our society is no reason not to teach it.

[Gilpesh]

Actually, they were very responsible. They were just uncomfortable with that subject. Lots of parents are. No harm done.

And it doesn't help that in America... SEX IS BAD! SEX IS AWFUL! SINFUL! DON'T DO IT!

[USMC]

I just can not for the life of me understand how parents can allow their children to be taught such important lessons by someone outside of the home. It boggles my mind.

It starts with NOT raising them in the first place, Tron.

Careers being so important and such... :whatever:

[Hobgoblin]

I'm sure my parents were not very comfortable discussing it with me, but they knew the importance of the matter, so they made sure that I had all the information they could give me. My dad gave me condoms at 13. He told me I better not be having sex, but if I did, I better wrap it up. I just can not for the life of me understand how parents can allow their children to be taught such important lessons by someone outside of the home. It boggles my mind.

The point is that as long as kids are taught by a repsonsible adult about sex and how to avoid STD's and pregnancy, I dont care who does the teaching. It could be done by an uncle, aunt, grandparent, parent...or teacher in the classroom setting. Just get the info out.

And it doesn't help that in America... SEX IS BAD! SEX IS AWFUL! SINFUL! DON'T DO IT!

That probably didnt help them, no.

[USMC]

The point is that as long as kids are taught by a repsonsible adult about sex and how to avoid STD's and pregnancy, I dont care who does the teaching. It could be done by an uncle, aunt, grandparent, parent...or teacher in the classroom setting. Just get the info out.

Or just send them to Europe for a summer. :oldrazz:

[Hobgoblin]

Or just send them to Europe for a summer. :oldrazz:

The redlight district in Frankfurt is nice. :o

[Tron5000]

It starts with NOT raising them in the first place, Tron.

Careers being so important and such... :whatever:

Why do you keep posting the rolly-eye face at everyone? Do you just think it's cute or something?

So you're telling me that no one with a young child should ever be involved in politics? Won't BO's day job as POTUS keep him from being around to help raise his children? It's OK for him, but not for Sarah Palin? Gotcha.

[bell110]

Then they are not good parents. What if parents don't teach their kids about morality? Should that be up to the schools? What if a dad doesn't teach his son how to change a tire; should that be covered in public school?

Public schools should stick to actual subjects, like math, science, history, language arts, economics...You know, things where there is a right answer and a wrong answer. Sex ed does not fall in this category, where kids are indoctrinated on "feelings" and "beliefs" about sex.

Sex should not be discussed in schools. In 8th grade, I knew what I needed to know, and I opted out of sex ed and instead did an Independent Study project.

Sex ed is more than just saying, "Don't have sex until your married". It's all incompassing. They teach all about the reproductive system, which do have right and wrong answers. It's like saying nutrician shouldn't be taught in school because it should be the parents decision on what they eat for dinner. And they do stress abstinence until marrage, but they also teach about condoms and birth control.

[Hobgoblin]

Sex ed is more than just saying, "Don't have sex until your married". It's all incompassing. They teach all about the reproductive system, which do have right and wrong answers. It's like saying nutrician shouldn't be taught in school because it should be the parents decision on what they eat for dinner. And they do stress abstinence until marrage, but they also teach about condoms and birth control.

Exactly. Its teaching about health.

[DorkyFresh]

Public schools should stick to actual subjects, like math, science, history, language arts, economics...You know, things where there is a right answer and a wrong answer. Sex ed does not fall in this category, where kids are indoctrinated on "feelings" and "beliefs" about sex.

by that logic, they shouldn't be teaching any kind of art (music, theater, etc) in school since there are no right or wrong answers in those classes.

[sinewave]

Because a Nader supporter has so much pro-McCain bias. :whatever:

more like anti-obama bias.

[Tron5000]

by that logic, they shouldn't be teaching any kind of art (music, theater, etc) in school since there are no right or wrong answers in those classes.

I"m not really a big fan of it. If it is offered as an elective, where the student and parent can elect for them to take it, or as an after-school program, I'm all for it. Mandatory art and music classes? Not so fond of that, either.

[Gilpesh]

I"m not really a big fan of it. If it is offered as an elective, where the student and parent can elect for them to take it, or as an after-school program, I'm all for it. Mandatory art and music classes? Not so fond of that, either.

:dry: :dry:

[danoyse]

I"m not really a big fan of it. If it is offered as an elective, where the student and parent can elect for them to take it, or as an after-school program, I'm all for it. Mandatory art and music classes? Not so fond of that, either.

Music and art are offered as electives already.

[USMC]

Why do you keep posting the rolly-eye face at everyone? Do you just think it's cute or something?


Moreso because it bugs you. :yay:

So you're telling me that no one with a young child should ever be involved in politics? Won't BO's day job as POTUS keep him from being around to help raise his children? It's OK for him, but not for Sarah Palin? Gotcha.

Again, is your whole frame of discussion by "assuming" and "implying" and "so what you're saying is", and basically putting your words and thoughts into other people's heads?

Cause that's about all I've seen from you in such a short period of time...

I never once said anything about a person with a young child not being in politics...

And I wouldn't put a young child in the same category as a NEWBORN INFANT. Once again, proving that you know little about what it means to actually have your OWN child.

I have said the same thing I will say now: Parents should raise their children, not have someone else doing it. And unless Sarah Palin is holding that infant by her side while she campaigns for the 2nd highest office in the world, then she is simply making a poor parenting decision, IMO.

And it's not because she's a woman (which YOU seem to keep bringing up...), it's because she is a parent of an infant who has clearly decided to put her career before the needs of that infant. And SHE's the one spouting the need for conservative "family values".

Yawn. She is a flash in the pan, and the ONLY reason Republicans put her in this position is because SHE's a WOMAN. Talk about sexist. :whatever: (oops, there it is again...) It was politically strategic for this to happen, and the only way they were going to revitalize the party. It had nothing to do with her experience (or lack there-of), as proven by their so-called "vetting" process.

Seriously, stop being so non-objective about this whole thing.:word: (that better for ya?)

[USMC]

Mandatory art and music classes? Not so fond of that, either.


Wow. :dry:

[Hobgoblin]

I"m not really a big fan of it. If it is offered as an elective, where the student and parent can elect for them to take it, or as an after-school program, I'm all for it. Mandatory art and music classes? Not so fond of that, either.

What about cooking and sewing? Those are some useful skills to have. I learned them in junior high. Was that wrong? Or should I rely on someone else to cook for me?

[Tron5000]

Music and art are offered as electives already.

And that I am cool with.

What about cooking and sewing? Those are some useful skills to have. I learned them in junior high. Was that wrong? Or should I rely on someone else to cook for me?

If those classes are offered as electives, where you can choose to take them, I'm fine with that. Mandatory cooking and sewing? Not so much.

[kainedamo]

I don't get Tron5000's idea that teaching sex ed isn't teaching something factual.

Sex ed encompasses the reproductive system, the function of contraception, how sexually transmitted diseases are passed, how featuses are formed, etc etc etc.

What is wrong with teaching this?

I'd wager most parents wouldn't even know the facts of these things.

[Zen]

i really wish palin was vetted over a longer period of time, the bottleneck of stories is beggining to numb me.

i just glanced over the head line of Todd Palin Former business partner (yes, that one) files emergency motion to seal his divorce records.... alluding to the possible affair everyone on the blogosphere has been talking about between him and palin.

and you know what... i didnt even click the link. im just tired of Palin, already... in every way shape and form. im fatigued... its getting to the point where i wont turn the tv on except to play video games.

i mean it isnt like i havnt been saturated before... but the endless amount of stories coming out on her is numbing, especially with some of them being dubunked and then undebunked and then debunked again... i cant keep straight which ones are factual (cause many are)

scratch that, i just dont want to.

[sinewave]

Then they are not good parents. What if parents don't teach their kids about morality? Should that be up to the schools? What if a dad doesn't teach his son how to change a tire; should that be covered in public school?

Public schools should stick to actual subjects, like math, science, history, language arts, economics...You know, things where there is a right answer and a wrong answer. Sex ed does not fall in this category, where kids are indoctrinated on "feelings" and "beliefs" about sex.

Sex should not be discussed in schools. In 8th grade, I knew what I needed to know, and I opted out of sex ed and instead did an Independent Study project.

dude, reproduction is a biological function that all species share. why shouldn't it be taught in schools? they're there to get a well rounded education. why remove education on a function of their own bodies just because some repressed holy-roller thinks it's "dirty" or "immoral". i'm really sick of this puritanical crap that's running through the conservative community and seeping into mainstream culture.

[sinewave]

Sex ed is more than just saying, "Don't have sex until your married". It's all incompassing. They teach all about the reproductive system, which do have right and wrong answers. It's like saying nutrician shouldn't be taught in school because it should be the parents decision on what they eat for dinner. And they do stress abstinence until marrage, but they also teach about condoms and birth control.

thank you! :up:

[ShadowBoxing]

I"m not really a big fan of it. If it is offered as an elective, where the student and parent can elect for them to take it, or as an after-school program, I'm all for it. Mandatory art and music classes? Not so fond of that, either.
By that logic though, history, english/literature and science should not be taught, because their aren't "right" and "wrong" answers, most things presented in such a class is grounds for debate and the purpose is to get students to substantiate their claims. For example in english you might want to delve into what an author is trying to say, which can never truly be right or wrong.

[Mr. Thing]

Wow. :dry:

I see your wow and raise you a wtf :dry:

Not so fond of mandatory art and music classes? Kids need to have some sort of creative release in school, whether it's drawing a shoe or playing a keyboard. Seriously, I don't think I'd have been able to stick school if it wasn't for art and music.

Maybe I'm slightly biased, but I view those two subjects as a very important and integral part of education in schools.

[Addendum]

where the student and parent can elect for them to take it

The parent has already gone through high school. They aren't taking the class with their child. While there has to be some discussion regarding course selection with the parent and student (since the parent just might know what a particular course entails), the final decision is up to the student.

[Tron5000]

dude, reproduction is a biological function that all species share. why shouldn't it be taught in schools? they're there to get a well rounded education. why remove education on a function of their own bodies just because some repressed holy-roller thinks it's "dirty" or "immoral". i'm really sick of this puritanical crap that's running through the conservative community and seeping into mainstream culture.

Dude, I'm no "holy-roller," and I don't think "it's 'dirty' or 'immoral.'" I just think that those are lessons that a child should learn from his or her parents. That's all. Like I said previously, I took myself out of sex ed and opted instead to do an Independent Study project. That just was not an issue that I wanted to discuss with a teacher at my school, or in a classroom with 25 other kids.

[Lightning Strykez!]

Does anyone get the feeling that this whole situation is heading towards the greatest cluster**** the political world has ever seen? Every hour ON THE HOUR there's a new "revelation" about this woman, and none of them are pretty. The media is totally famished over this woman and they are digging all up IN her business.

Funny. The Republicans feel they've gotten their celebrity answer to Obama...but she's looking more like their Denise Richards. :rolleyes:

[Addendum]

Funny. The Republicans feel they've gotten their celebrity answer to Obama...but she's looking more like their Denise Richards. :rolleyes:

Now you've given VH1 or E an idea for a new show

[ShadowBoxing]

Does anyone get the feeling that this whole situation is heading towards the greatest cluster**** the political world has ever seen? Every hour ON THE HOUR there's a new "revelation" about this woman, and none of them are pretty. The media is totally famished over this woman and they are digging all up IN her business.

Funny. The Republicans feel they've gotten their celebrity answer to Obama...but she's looking more like their Denise Richards. :rolleyes:
I really think the ethics allegations and this new affair (though simply because National Enquirer has had a decent run of reporting this year) could be bad. The other stuff I think only helps her popularity. Although the fact that she is a bold face liar when it comes to her "accomplishments" and her stance on earmarks is going to hurt her in the debates.

[SuBe]

Does anyone get the feeling that this whole situation is heading towards the greatest cluster**** the political world has ever seen? Every hour ON THE HOUR there's a new "revelation" about this woman, and none of them are pretty. The media is totally famished over this woman and they are digging all up IN her business.

Funny. The Republicans feel they've gotten their celebrity answer to Obama...but she's looking more like their Denise Richards. :rolleyes:
Now, is there a REASON they are digging this up, and ignoring William Ayers?

[ShadowBoxing]

Now, is there a REASON they are digging this up, and ignoring William Ayers?
Is because William Ayers did what he did when Obama was eight years old, and Obama came out against Ayers' crimes. William Ayers' is akin to Palin's pregnant daughter, it's good spectacle for a little while, but ultimately it's nothing that damaging.

[Tron5000]

Is because William Ayers did what he did when Obama was eight years old, and Obama came out against Ayers' crimes. William Ayers' is akin to Palin's pregnant daughter, it's good spectacle for a little while, but ultimately it's nothing that damaging.

After he used Ayers as a political tool to become ingrained in Chicago politics. After he used his home as the launchpad for his political career. After he served on the board of the Woods Fund with him.

But when it is politically expedient, just like with Jeremiah Wright, Obama denounces him. Gotta love the man's loyalty.

[jaguarr]

i really wish palin was vetted over a longer period of time, the bottleneck of stories is beggining to numb me.

i just glanced over the head line of Todd Palin Former business partner (yes, that one) files emergency motion to seal his divorce records.... alluding to the possible affair everyone on the blogosphere has been talking about between him and palin.

and you know what... i didnt even click the link. im just tired of Palin, already... in every way shape and form. im fatigued... its getting to the point where i wont turn the tv on except to play video games.

i mean it isnt like i havnt been saturated before... but the endless amount of stories coming out on her is numbing, especially with some of them being dubunked and then undebunked and then debunked again... i cant keep straight which ones are factual (cause many are)

scratch that, i just dont want to.

Okay, the marital affair thing was new to me. Good grief...is there no end to all the rumors and scandals whirling around this woman?

jag

[Gilpesh]

After he used Ayers as a political tool to become ingrained in Chicago politics. After he used his home as the launchpad for his political career. After he served on the board of the Woods Fund with him.

But when it is politically expedient, just like with Jeremiah Wright, Obama denounces him. Gotta love the man's loyalty.

Just like Palin uses Stevens... Your point?

[Tron5000]

Okay, the marital affair thing was new to me. Good grief...is there no end to all the rumors and scandals whirling around this woman?

jag

There's just no end to the stuff people will make up in an attempt to discredit her.

The "affair" was attributed to "an enemy" of Palin's. This is just like when the whole "it's really her granddaughter!" thing was ginned up.

[sinewave]

Dude, I'm no "holy-roller," and I don't think "it's 'dirty' or 'immoral.'" I just think that those are lessons that a child should learn from his or her parents. That's all. Like I said previously, I took myself out of sex ed and opted instead to do an Independent Study project. That just was not an issue that I wanted to discuss with a teacher at my school, or in a classroom with 25 other kids.

i wasn't actually calling you a holy-roller, so sorry if it seemed that way. i've just heard that same line of thinking from people i would refer to as holy-rollers and many of them do consider sex dirty and immoral. the level of sexual repression in this country is something i have a hard time wrapping my head around. why aren't teachers qualified to teach children about their bodily functions? are you boiling it down to a moral position?

[Tron5000]

i wasn't actually calling you a holy-roller, so sorry if it seemed that way. i've just heard that same line of thinking from people i would refer to as holy-rollers and many of them do consider sex dirty and immoral. the level of sexual repression in this country is something i have a hard time wrapping my head around. why aren't teachers qualified to teach children about their bodily functions? are you boiling it down to a moral position?

No, I just think that sex between consenting people is a very private issue. I don't feel that it is something that should be discussed in school, particularly when many different kids come from many different backgrounds with many different views on sex. That's it. I'm not trying to take a moral stance against it; if anyone has known me the past 11 years, they will tell you that I have no problem with sex outside of marriage. In fact, in about 5 hours, I'll probably be quite fond of it. :woot:

[SuBe]

Top 7 Myths, Lies and Untruths About Sarah Palin
by FOXNews.com
Friday, September 5, 2008


FacebookStumble UponDigg Email Buzz up!


This doctored photo of Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin is one of a number of falsifications and rumors to emerge since she became Sen. John McCain's vice presidential running mate.


By Maxim Lott

Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin has been subjected to an intense amount of media and public scrutiny since she was named as John McCain’s vice presidential pick one week ago. Many of the attacks have come in the form of unconfirmed reports on the Internet. Among them:


1) Palin “Joined a Secessionist Political Party”



The Charge: Unsubstantiated Internet reports insisted Palin was once a member of the Alaska Independence Party, which critics call a secessionist political movement and supporters say is dedicated to seeking greater state control over federal lands across Alaska.

The Facts: Palin has been a registered Republican since 1982. There is no record of her ever being a member of the AIP, or any party but the GOP. Palin’s husband has been a member of the AIP in the past, but since 2002 has been a registered independent.

(See: Party Official Says Palin Was Not a Member http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/09/02/alaska-party-official-says-palin-was-not-a-member/?scp=2&sq=palin%20independence%20party&st=cse)

2) Palin Supported a “Nazi Sympathizer”

The Charge: “Palin was a supporter of Pat Buchanan, a right-winger or, as many Jews call him: a Nazi sympathizer,” Obama Florida spokesman Mark Bubriski was quoted as saying in a Miami Herald article.

The Facts: While mayor of Wasilla, Palin wore a Buchanan button during the sometimes presidential candidate’s 1999 visit. But Palin actually supported Steve Forbes in 2000, and served as a co-chair on his Alaska campaign.

In the weeks after the 1999 report of her wearing the Buchanan button, Palin said: “When presidential candidates visit our community, I am always happy to meet them. I’ll even put on their button when handed one as a polite gesture of respect. … The article may have left your readers with the perception that I am endorsing this candidate, as opposed to welcoming his visit to Wasilla.”

(See: Obama campaign advisor quote is from an e-mail sent to the Miami Herald http://miamiherald.typepad.com/nakedpolitics/2008/08/obama-camp-conn.html)

3) Palin “Wants Creationism Taught in School”

The Charge: Palin opposes the teaching of evolution, and would mandate the teaching of creationism in the state’s public schools.

The Facts: Palin said during her 2006 gubernatorial campaign that she would not push the state Board of Education to add creation-based alternatives to the state’s required curriculum, or look for creationism advocates when she appointed board members. She has kept this pledge, according to the Associated Press.

Palin has spoken in favor of classroom discussions of creationism, in some cases. “I don’t think there should be a prohibition against debate if it comes up in class. It doesn’t have to be part of the curriculum,” Palin told the Anchorage Daily News in a 2006 interview.



(See: ‘Creation science’ enters the race; Palin is only candidate to suggest it should be discussed in schools. By Tom Kizzia, Anchorage Daily News, 27 October 2006)

4) Palin “Was Nearly Recalled” While Mayor

The Charge: Palin was so controversial as mayor of Wasilla that she was almost recalled by a popular voter movement.

The Facts: The Wasilla City Council considered but never took up a recall motion after she fired a longtime police chief, who subsequently brought a lawsuit. A citizen’s group dropped their recall bid, and a judge ruled Palin had the authority to fire the chief.

(See: Foes Back Off Push to Recall Mayor http://www.adn.com/sarah-palin/story/513745.html)


5) Palin “Opposes Sex Education”


The Charge: Palin opponents say she supported the end of all sex education in public schools. In light of her daughter’s presumably unplanned teen pregnancy, this has been a particularly well discussed Internet topic.

The Facts: “The explicit sex-ed programs will not find my support,” Palin wrote in a 2006 questionnaire distributed among gubernatorial candidates. Palin favors abstinence-based sex education programs.


(See: McCain fought money on teen pregnancy programs, By Sharon Theimer, Associated Press, Sept. 2, 2008)


6) “This Picture Proves Palin is …”

The Charge: A slew of fake, Photoshopped or misdated photographs on the Internet purport to show Palin in any number of embarrassing or compromising poses. One photo claimed to show Palin standing poolside, wearing an American flag-themed bikini, toting a rifle with telescopic sight.

The Facts: The various photos are being discredited and shown to be fake on a number of Web sites. The original of the so-called bikini shot, probably the best-known of the pictures, was shown to have been taken of another woman, with Palin’s head Photoshopped above the body.


(See: Call to Arms, http://www.snopes.com/photos/politics/palin.asp)


7) Palin is the grandmother, and not the mother, of Trig Palin

The Charge: The most salacious rumor of all, this theory holds that Palin did not give birth to her son Trig in April, and was actually covering up for her daughter, Bristol.

The Facts: There are a number of photographs showing an apparently pregnant Sarah Palin, as well as a number of published eyewitness accounts of her pregnancy. These include First Lady Laura Bush, who says she spoke with a pregnant Palin at a governor’s conference in February. An assignment manager for KTVA news in Anchorage, Cherie Shirey, has also been quoted saying: “We worked with Governor Palin many times in 2008. Our reporters worked her on location and in the studio and I worked with her myself. She was definitely pregnant. You could see it in her belly and her face. The whole idea that Sarah Palin wasn’t pregnant with Trig is completely, absolutely absurd.”

The McCain campaign, in an apparent effort to counteract the rumors, announced last weekend that Bristol Palin is five months pregnant, which indicated she would have become pregnant before Trig was born.


(See: Palin Rebuts Rumors, Says Daughter Pregnant, http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20080901/pl_nm/usa_politics_palin_dc
Anchorage TV Station: Palin Was ‘Definitely Pregnant’ With Trig’ http://www.huffingtonpost.com/lee-stranahan/anchorage-tv-station-pali_b_123029.html)

[jaguarr]

There's just no end to the stuff people will make up in an attempt to discredit her.

The "affair" was attributed to "an enemy" of Palin's. This is just like when the whole "it's really her granddaughter!" thing was ginned up.

Well, the rumor did come out of the National Enquirer originally, so I'm not putting much credence in it at this point. However, they also broke the story on Edwards' affair (and people who wanted it to be true were more than happy to count the National Enquirer as a credible source at that time, which was amusing). I'm simply amazed at the s**tstorm of baggage this woman brings to the table, whether some of it's manufactured or not.....there is ALOT of it with her. I don't believe all of it is true, but I don't believe all of it is false, either.

jag

[Tron5000]

Well, the rumor did come out of the National Enquirer originally, so I'm not putting much credence in it at this point. However, they also broke the story on Edwards' affair (and people who wanted it to be true were more than happy to count the National Enquirer as a credible source at that time, which was amusing). I'm simply amazed at the s**tstorm of baggage this woman brings to the table, whether some of it's manufactured or not.....there is ALOT of it with her. I don't believe all of it is true, but I don't believe all of it is false, either.

jag

There will be a lot of issues brought up about any candidate for such a high office. Lots of...shall we say...unsavory issues surrounding Obama have been brought up. The fact that people are doing so much digging on her shows that many on the Left are quite fearful of her candidacy.

[jaguarr]

There will be a lot of issues brought up about any candidate for such a high office. Lots of...shall we say...unsavory issues surrounding Obama have been brought up. The fact that people are doing so much digging on her shows that many on the Left are quite fearful of her candidacy.

Or...maybe she's really that unsavory. ;)

jag

[Lightning Strykez!]

The fact that people are doing so much digging on her shows that many on the Left are quite fearful of her candidacy.

Meh.

No more fearful than the Right are of Obama's candidacy.

"OMGZ, HE'z MSLMZ! :whatever:

[Tron5000]

Meh.

No more fearful than the Right are of Obama's candidacy.

"OMGZ, HE'z MSLMZ! :whatever:

I'm just scared to death of his policies. That whole Muslim thing is a joke.

[sinewave]

No, I just think that sex between consenting people is a very private issue. I don't feel that it is something that should be discussed in school, particularly when many different kids come from many different backgrounds with many different views on sex. That's it. I'm not trying to take a moral stance against it; if anyone has known me the past 11 years, they will tell you that I have no problem with sex outside of marriage. In fact, in about 5 hours, I'll probably be quite fond of it. :woot:

there are some interesting points here. i'm not sure looking at it from the perspective of "sex between two consenting people" is the right way to look at it. i would look at it more from a clinical standpoint. like someone mentioned earlier, we wouldn't remove discussion of nutrition from schools based on a student's dietary habits at home, right? whether people get squeamish about the idea of kids discussing sex is not really the issue, some people don't like talking about cancer or mental retardation, but those are biological issues. i think schools should have the right to teach kids about how their bodies function without people getting all up in arms about them corrupting their kids and trying to steer them into a sexually promiscuous lifestyle at an early age. heck, you could make an argument that the more kids know about their bodies and the potential dangers of sex could help them develop into informed, responsible adults.

your point about sex being a private issue between consenting adults seems to go against the republican party's stance on the gay lifestyle.

[Tron5000]

there are some interesting points here. i'm not sure looking at it from the perspective of "sex between two consenting people" is the right way to look at it. i would look at it more from a clinical standpoint. like someone mentioned earlier, we wouldn't remove discussion of nutrition from schools based on a student's dietary habits at home, right? whether people get squeamish about the idea of kids discussing sex is not really the issue, some people don't like talking about cancer or mental retardation, but those are biological issues. i think schools should have the right to teach kids about how their bodies function without people getting all up in arms about them corrupting their kids and trying to steer them into a sexually promiscuous lifestyle at an early age. heck, you could make an argument that the more kids know about their bodies and the potential dangers of sex could help them develop into informed, responsible adults.

your point about sex being a private issue between consenting adults seems to go against the republican party's stance on the gay lifestyle.

I have absolutely no problem with people being gay. I have lots of really, really cool friends who are gay.

I'm not a Republican, and I don't agree with their stance on many issues, especially when it comes to what adults do in the privacy of their own homes. I do agree with the Right more often than not, however.

[bell110]

Where is Fox's Myths Lies and Untruths about Obama?

By the way, that question is rhetorical.

[SuBe]

Where is Fox's Myths Lies and Untruths about Obama?

By the way, that question is rhetorical.
Where's MSNBC's?

[Lightning Strykez!]

Where is Fox's Myths Lies and Untruths about Obama?

By the way, that question is rhetorical.

Heh. Good point.

Has the MSNBC or CNN done one on Obama? We all know FOX is in the tank for the RNC.

[jaguarr]

Where is Fox's Myths Lies and Untruths about Obama?

By the way, that question is rhetorical.

SuBe just posted it above, actually. I regard Fox about as reliable as the National Enquirer these days....occasionally they get one right but most of the time it's tripe.

jag

[sinewave]

I have absolutely no problem with people being gay. I have lots of really, really cool friends who are gay.

I'm not a Republican, and I don't agree with their stance on many issues, especially when it comes to what adults do in the privacy of their own homes. I do agree with the Right more often than not, however.

good to know and i'm glad you see things that way, but you still support the party that does feel the gay lifestyle is immoral and that they should be denied equal rights.

[Superman4ever]

Fox's all about "truth", myth busting and fairness when they're the ones being hammered.

They have NO problem slamming Hillary Clinton when the "sexism" card was used. NOW, these idiots are back-peddling and playing the "media is unfair to her because she's a woman". We should be more "fair" and not ask her about her qualifications and just swallow the BS she feeds us, like not being in favor of the bridge to nowhere.

[SuperT]

One thing I wanna know is how this woman can get off on propping herself up as the first woman candidate, she's doing this for the women and mothers of America, but as soon as Obama talks about him being the first African-American candidate, that he's representing US as a community, these idiots want to shout "racist" or "RACE CARD"

Whatever! I guess they don't want us uprising! As long as we're in jail or poor!

[SuBe]

One thing I wanna know is how this woman can get off on propping herself up as the first woman candidate, she's doing this for the women and mothers of America, but as soon as Obama talks about him being the first African-American candidate, that he's representing US as a community, these idiots want to shout "racist" or "RACE CARD"

Whatever! I guess they don't want us uprising! As long as we're in jail or poor!
She's not "Proping herself up as the first woman candidate", She's proping herself up as the First REPUBLICAN VP candidate. There's a difference.

I think it's the Dems are afraid, because they thought they had the Woman Vote Locked up since their support for NOW.

[Kurosawa]

Where's MSNBC's?

Which would make MSNBC "Fair and Balanced" on this issue if they haven't done such a list for either candidate, correct?

[sinewave]

She's not "Proping herself up as the first woman candidate", She's proping herself up as the First REPUBLICAN VP candidate. There's a difference.

I think it's the Dems are afraid, because they thought they had the Woman Vote Locked up since their support for NOW.

just because she's a woman, doesn't mean women voters will identify with her, especially with her far-right views. she's got an interesting story and she's a family woman, but i'm not sure that's going to be enough...

[SuBe]

Which would make MSNBC "Fair and Balanced" on this issue if they haven't done such a list for either candidate, correct?
Or, they'd rather perpetuate the myths.

[jaguarr]

She's not "Proping herself up as the first woman candidate", She's proping herself up as the First REPUBLICAN VP candidate. There's a difference.

I think it's the Dems are afraid, because they thought they had the Woman Vote Locked up since their support for NOW.

She keeps referencing Hillary Clinton and that she (Palin) is there as living proof that the glass ceiling can be shattered. She's totally playing up the female card. :huh:

jag

[SuBe]

just because she's a woman, doesn't mean women voters will identify with her, especially with her far-right views. she's got an interesting story and she's a family woman, but i'm not sure that's going to be enough...
I'm not saying she is garnering any more votes because she is a woman, but the Dems havn't really catered to the Conservate Woman Vote either. I still believe in the Silent Majority, and those women haven't had an outlet before.

[Superman4ever]

HAHA! :grin::grin:


Heart Condemns McCain-Palin use of 'Barracuda'

ST. PAUL, Minnesota (CNN) — Blasting through the Republican convention hall is the 1977 hit "Barracuda" by rock band Heart.

It's a shout-out to Sarah Palin. When she played basketball in high school, the soon-to-be Republican vice presidential nominee earned the nickname "Sarah barracuda" for her fierce competitiveness.

Some of her opponents revived the "Sarah barracuda" nickname after she became mayor of her hometown, Wasilla, in 1996, defeating a three-term incumbent.

UPDATE: Ann and Nancy Wilson of Heart said Thursday night that Universal Music Publishing and Sony BMG have sent a cease and desist notice to the McCain-Palin campaign over their use of 'Barracuda.'

"We have asked the Republican campaign publicly not to use our music. We
hope our wishes will be honored," the group said in a statement that said they "condemn" the use of the song at the Republican convention.

http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2008/09/05/mccain-palin-embrace-barracuda/

[SuBe]

She keeps referencing Hillary Clinton and that she (Palin) is there as living proof that the glass ceiling can be shattered. She's totally playing up the female card. :huh:

jag
And she has a right to do so.

[SuperT]

She's not "Proping herself up as the first woman candidate", She's proping herself up as the First REPUBLICAN VP candidate. There's a difference.

I think it's the Dems are afraid, because they thought they had the Woman Vote Locked up since their support for NOW.

You're kidding me? Describing herself as a hockey mom like all the other ones around America, then in her first speech taking Hillary Clintons "cracks in the ceiling" and representing woman.

Oh please. I'm not worried about the votes of the American woman only because the majority of them see him picking this woman as nothing more then disgusting pandering for their. When she has to talk about policy for the first time instead of ignoring the media, we'll see the real person. And unfortunately, there's nothing under it execpt right-wing, hypocritical, religious nutjob, who doesn't even stand up for womans rights, and can't even run her own damn family.

[SuperT]

Michelle Obama - now that is a woman we need in the White House with her husband. A strong, intelligent, articulate, African-American woman, not some Stepford wife drone.

ETA; WHOOPS!! Sorry for the double post!

[jaguarr]

And she has a right to do so.

We'll see how it works out for her. She might be a Barracuda but there's a friggin' giant shark getting in the water on Monday by the name of Hillary Clinton and I don't think she's very happy with Palin.

jag

[Kurosawa]

She's not "Proping herself up as the first woman candidate", She's proping herself up as the First REPUBLICAN VP candidate. There's a difference.

I think it's the Dems are afraid, because they thought they had the Woman Vote Locked up since their support for NOW.

Very few women that supported Hillary will vote for them because of Palin.

Had McCain manned up and chosen Lieberman, then Democrats would really be freaking out and the GOP would have taken a serious step towards appealing to undecided voters.

The fact that McCain caved in to party pressure and chose such a Quayleish candidate is proof enough that he isn't fit to lead. He's spent this whole campaign selling out everything he once stood for just to get elected.

[SuBe]

You're kidding me? Describing herself as a hockey mom like all the other ones around America, then in her first speech taking Hillary Clintons "cracks in the ceiling" and representing woman.

Oh please. I'm not worried about the votes of the American woman only because the majority of them see him picking this woman as nothing more then disgusting pandering for their. When she has to talk about policy for the first time instead of ignoring the media, we'll see the real person. And unfortunately, there's nothing under it execpt right-wing, hypocritical, religious nutjob, who doesn't even stand up for womans rights, and can't even run her own damn family.

Michelle Obama - now that is a woman we need in the White House with her husband. A strong, intelligent, articulate, African-American woman, not some Stepford wife drone.

ETA; WHOOPS!! Sorry for the double post!
Both those are your opinion. Some like the "Right-Wing, Hypocritical, Religoius Nutjobs". I don't see her selling herself as any of these anymore than the "Left Wing, Facist, Big-Government, Bleeding Hearts" on the other side.

[SuBe]

We'll see how it works out for her. She might be a Barracuda but there's a friggin' giant shark getting in the water on Monday by the name of Hillary Clinton and I don't think she's very happy with Palin.

jag
Does it Matter if Hillary isn't happy with her?

[SuBe]

Very few women that supported Hillary will vote for them because of Palin.

Had McCain manned up and chosen Leiberman, then Democrats would really be freaking out and the GOP would have taken a serious stand towards undecided voters.

The fact that McCain caved in to party pressure and chose such a Quayleish candidate is proof enough that he isn't fit to lead. He's spent this whole campaign selling out everything he once stood for just to get elected.
If McCain choose Leiberman, he would have splintered the Party, and by Chosing Palin, he has excited the Base, and Brought Conservatives to the Table that weren't there before. She has given Reason for some to Vote for the Ticket, that would have sat out the Election.

But, of course, I get that opinion from the Hours, upon hours of Political Talk Radio I listen to, and those are real people calling in giving their opinions, so, we'll see.

[jaguarr]

Does it Matter if Hillary isn't happy with her?

We're gonna find out. Especially since Napolitano and Sebelius will also be on the prowl.

jag

[DorkyFresh]

The fact that McCain caved in to party pressure and chose such a Quayleish candidate is proof enough that he isn't fit to lead. He's spent this whole campaign selling out everything he once stood for just to get elected.

well...everyone heard his speech last night. he has been and always will be....a servant.

[SuperT]

Does it Matter if Hillary isn't happy with her?

Uhm, to that large group of people that voted for her in the primaries, it does.

[Kurosawa]

If McCain choose Leiberman, he would have splintered the Party, and by Chosing Palin, he has excited the Base, and Brought Conservatives to the Table that weren't there before. She has given Reason for some to Vote for the Ticket, that would have sat out the Election.

But, of course, I get that opinion from the Hours, upon hours of Political Talk Radio I listen to, and those are real people calling in giving their opinions, so, we'll see.

True, but their base is diminishing and it wasn't enough to begin with.

[SuBe]

True, but their base is diminishing and it wasn't enough to begin with.
I don't think that is true. A lot of people didn't support, or at least were selling McCain, because he was too far left on certain issues. She brought in those people.

[Mr Sparkle]

And she has a right to do so.

so, she has a right to prop herself up as a candidate solely because of her gender?
wow, then I guess since roving bands of Klansmen weren't lynching women in the 50's, Obama's gone and one upped her.
if it's not about policy or qualifications and stuff.
also, interesting thing.
when all the stuff about Obama was coming out I called it noise and all the people on the right and some on the left that hated Obama were like

"no it's important, it's shows his character"

and I was like...no, it's noise
now that the same treatment is being offered to the candidate they like, with, might I add, the same exact implications of lack of character?

now it's all the fault of the media smear machine.

I still think it's noise.
except in that Bristol AKA "Juno Alaska" Palin has made a "choice" about her pregnancy, and her mother asks that the Media respect her "choice"

when, you know....she seeks to undermine the choice of other women, women that in some cases were raped.

so yeah, Palin might be hot, and I'd throw my hip out doing her while screaming "yes....yes Tina Fey, you and I were meant to be!!!!! YES!!!!!"
but Palin is still an idiot.
and the RNC mocked community organizers all day tuesday, just so you all know how very little they think of the common man and personal responsibility.
I mean, for the party of "small government" they seem to think that only people IN government count, or have leadership skills. :up:

duplicity FTW!!!!

[sinewave]

I'm not saying she is garnering any more votes because she is a woman, but the Dems havn't really catered to the Conservate Woman Vote either. I still believe in the Silent Majority, and those women haven't had an outlet before.

as far as i know, they haven't catered to any conservatives.

[Mr Sparkle]

Does it Matter if Hillary isn't happy with her?

when Palin seeks to sway Hillary followers?
uh...yes.

[SuBe]

so, she has a right to prop herself up as a candidate solely because of her gender?
wow, then I guess since roving bands of Klansmen weren't lynching women in the 50's, Obama's gone and one upped her.
if it's not about policy or qualifications and stuff.
also, interesting thing.
when all the stuff about Obama was coming out I called it noise and all the people on the right and some on the left that hated Obama were like

"no it's important, it's shows his character"

and I was like...no, it's noise
now that the same treatment is being offered to the candidate they like, with, might I add, the same exact implications of lack of character?

now it's all the fault of the media smear machine.

I still think it's noise.
except in that Bristol AKA "Juno Alaska" Palin has made a "choice" about her pregnancy, and her mother asks that the Media respect her "choice"

when, you know....she seeks to undermine the choice of other women, women that in some cases were raped.

so yeah, Palin might be hot, and I'd throw my hip out doing her while screaming "yes....yes Tina Fey, you and I were meant to be!!!!! YES!!!!!"
but Palin is still an idiot.
and the RNC mocked community organizers all day tuesday, just so you all know how very little they think of the common man and personal responsibility.
I mean, for the party of "small government" they seem to think that only people IN government count, or have leadership skills. :up:

duplicity FTW!!!!
Does anyone here really take you seriously?

[SuBe]

as far as i know, they haven't catered to any conservatives.
Exactly, which means that Conservate Women Voters haven't had someone they can relate with. Believe me, there are a lot of Conservative Women Voters too.

[Kurosawa]

I don't think that is true. A lot of people didn't support, or at least were selling McCain, because he was too far left on certain issues. She brought in those people.

I don't consider the base on either side enough to win, unless one side has a terrible (John Kerry) candidate. Maybe they were that lukewarm to McCain. But now their shot at any center-left support is basically gone. They will get the base and center-right moderates/undecideds that feel Palin is qualified, but not much to the left of that, and i think they've energized the Democratic base and women voters by making such a transparent and reckless choice.

[Marx]

PALIN TROOPER PROBE MOVED UP THREE WEEKS
http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2008/09/05/palin-trooper-probe-moved-up-3-weeks/





(My apologies if this has already been mentioned, I haven't exactly been paying attention to this thread as of late.)

[Kurosawa]

Exactly, which means that Conservate Women Voters haven't had someone they can relate with. Believe me, there are a lot of Conservative Women Voters too.

I think that Republican women are considered one of the most dependable voting blocs. BUT I could be wrong.

[sinewave]

Exactly, which means that Conservate Women Voters haven't had someone they can relate with. Believe me, there are a lot of Conservative Women Voters too.

what does that matter to the democrats? those women wouldn't have voted for clinton anyway.

[SuBe]

I don't consider the base on either side enough to win, unless one side has a terrible candidate. Maybe they were that lukewarm to McCain. But now their shot at any center-left support is basically gone. They will get the base and center-right moderates/undecideds that feel Palin is qualified, but not much to the left of that, and i think they've energized the Democratic base and women voters by making such a transparent and reckless choice.
I just see it differently.

Obama has the young, idealic vote. He has the Liberal vote. He has the Union vote. He has some on the center. He has the Big Government Vote.

McCain has the Old, Conservate vote. He has the young Conservate Vote. he has the Individualist Vote. He has some of the Center Vote. He might get most of the Latino Vote. He'll bring in the Conservative Women vote.

I think because of McCain's Legislation, especially working across the ailse more than most of those in Congress, he'll appeal to more.

[Mr Sparkle]

Does anyone here really take you seriously?
brilliant comeback, I see all my points addressed :up:
in answer to your question, I guess...the people with working brains do?

other than that? I can't be sure:cwink:

[SuBe]

brilliant comeback, I see all my points addressed :up:
in answer to your question, I guess...the people with working brains do?

other than that? I can't be sure:cwink:
I liked it better when I was dead to you. :csad:

[sinewave]

Does anyone here really take you seriously?

he makes some legitimate points.

[Excel]

Oh bih! Look out Sarah! Oprahs on the attack!

[danoyse]

If McCain choose Leiberman, he would have splintered the Party, and by Chosing Palin, he has excited the Base, and Brought Conservatives to the Table that weren't there before. She has given Reason for some to Vote for the Ticket, that would have sat out the Election.

But, of course, I get that opinion from the Hours, upon hours of Political Talk Radio I listen to, and those are real people calling in giving their opinions, so, we'll see.

I agree with this--Lieberman would have been a terrible choice for McCain, as he was a former Democrat and is pro-choice. It would not have won him any favors at all.

I don't see women swaying over Palin just because she's a woman. Conservative women, definitely. I have a friend who was probably barking and clapping like a seal to everything she said in that speech.

But she's no Hillary, and her stances on the issues (abortion, abstinence education, etc) are not going to be very popular with a lot of women, myself included. A lot of women I talked to thought she just came off as obnoxious the other night.

Of course I'm sure the PUMAs will vote for her just to spite Obama. :whatever:

[jaguarr]

Oh bih! Look out Sarah! Oprahs on the attack!

The Oprah Factor....the RNC is completely and totally unprepared for her.

jag

[danoyse]

Oh bih! Look out Sarah! Oprahs on the attack!

Oprah is making herself look bad not having her on the show before the election.

[Knives]

This here is stunning:

http://www.time-blog.com/swampland/2008/09/no_questions_please_were.html

They arent allowing this woman to do interviews. So they want the candidate for the vice presidency of the United States to NOT have to anwer ANYTHING about ANYTHING. THis is truly disgusting and shows that republicans are complete liars and hypocrites. They know if they let this useless woman run around doing interviews, she might fumble as soon as she is asked to explain ONE of her many contradictions.

If she cant even face a freaking reporter, how can she POSSIBLY face down other nations. And according to this IDIOT from the McCain campaign, the american people "dont care" about what her experinces or opinions are or what she thinks about the issues. How ****ing ridiculous is this! Are you kidding me? We're just supposed to take your stupid press releases at face value? I BEG that the "liberal" media does NOT let this fly and continues to QUESTION this woman, even if they receive no answers. Her lies and contradictions MUST be shown. Ridiculous. I am more convinced then EVER, that is McCain/Palin with this election, this country is doomed.

[Excel]

Oprah is making herself look bad not having her on the show before the election.

Appearently she is saying she wont have anybody from eithert ticket on till after the election.

[Tron5000]

I agree with this--Lieberman would have been a terrible choice for McCain, as he was a former Democrat and is pro-choice. It would not have won him any favors at all.

I don't see women swaying over Palin just because she's a woman. Conservative women, definitely. I have a friend who was probably barking and clapping like a seal to everything she said in that speech.

But she's no Hillary, and her stances on the issues (abortion, abstinence education, etc) are not going to be very popular with a lot of women, myself included. A lot of women I talked to thought she just came off as obnoxious the other night.

Of course I'm sure the PUMAs will vote for her just to spite Obama. :whatever:
I read that about 20% of Hillary voters voted for Bush in 04. 20% of 18,000,000 is a lot of votes.

[SuBe]

I agree with this--Lieberman would have been a terrible choice for McCain, as he was a former Democrat and is pro-choice. It would not have won him any favors at all.

I don't see women swaying over Palin just because she's a woman. Conservative women, definitely. I have a friend who was probably barking and clapping like a seal to everything she said in that speech.

But she's no Hillary, and her stances on the issues (abortion, abstinence education, etc) are not going to be very popular with a lot of women, myself included. A lot of women I talked to thought she just came off as obnoxious the other night.

Of course I'm sure the PUMAs will vote for her just to spite Obama. :whatever:
That might be apart of it. Remember this too though, women tend to be the ones going to Church over Men. Women, especially Career minded indepentant women. I know, there are alot of Liberal Career Minded Indiepentat Women, but again, the Conservative Women Vote is pretty much new.

[SuBe]

Appearently she is saying she wont have anybody from eithert ticket on till after the election.
:whatever:right. It's not because she had a ladyboner for Obama or anything...

[Mr Sparkle]

I liked it better when I was dead to you. :csad:

you just mad cuz I'm stylin' on you! *turns baseball cap backwards*





god...I'm really, really white.

[SuperT]

Oprah is making herself look bad not having her on the show before the election.

Even though she's a staunch Obama supporter, she said she's not having any of them on her show until the election is over.

[Excel]

:whatever:right. It's not because she had a ladyboner for Obama or anything...

Ummm Oprah herself is a person; not wanting her TV SHOW to be a campaign platform is understandle.

[danoyse]

Appearently she is saying she wont have anybody from eithert ticket on till after the election.

She's already had Obama on the show twice.

Although, I don't know why they're complaining. Palin apparently doesn't do interviews:

http://www.time.com/time/politics/article/0,8599,1838959,00.html?xid=site-cnn-partner

Answers may be a long time coming, though, if McCain adviser Nicolle Wallace is to be believed. She suggested on MSNBC Thursday that the media has been so unfair to Palin that it doesn't deserve a chance to interview her, and that all anyone will see of Palin will be her public speeches.

:whatever:

[SuBe]

you just mad cuz I'm stylin' on you! *turns baseball cap backwards*





god...I'm really, really white.
Can we just hug it out?:yay:

[Excel]

She's already had Obama on the show twice.

Although, I don't know why they're complaining. Palin apparently doesn't do interviews:

http://www.time.com/time/politics/article/0,8599,1838959,00.html?xid=site-cnn-partner



:whatever:

That will bite em the ass.

[SuperT]

She's already had Obama on the show twice.

Although, I don't know why they're complaining. Palin apparently doesn't do interviews:

http://www.time.com/time/politics/article/0,8599,1838959,00.html?xid=site-cnn-partner



:whatever:

This is truly disgusting and only goes to show that they are absolutely hiding something about her. She must not know what the hell she's talking about.

The debates will be good.

[Captain Planet!]

This is truly disgusting and only goes to show that they are absolutely hiding something about her. She must not know what the hell she's talking about.

The debates will be good.
She obviously doesn't know what she is talking about.

[Mr Sparkle]

Can we just hug it out?:yay:

:cmad:

acknowledge the legitimacy of my complaints about the RNC!:o
and we will.:heart:

[SuBe]

:cmad:

acknowledge the legitimacy of my complaints about the RNC!:o
and we will.:heart:
Sparky, you are one of the few posters I don't like to debate with. Sorry. You are not fun to debate. :o



This is not saying I'm not willing to however, It bothers me your lack of restraint in using the "ENTER" button. :oldrazz:

[Mr Sparkle]

Sparky, you are one of the few posters I don't like to debate with. Sorry. You are not fun to debate. :o



This is not saying I'm not willing to however, It bothers me your lack of restraint in using the "ENTER" button. :oldrazz:


I seldom "debate" here anymore, I merely put forth arguments, people might like them, people might not, because I have noticed that for the most part people get blinders when it comes to their horse in the race.
:cwink:

for instance, as a quasi-libertarian, did it not bother YOU seeing Palin and Rudy-9-11-gulliani talk down to Obama for being a community organizer?
one might even say they were being *gasp* "elitists" plus, it goes against your own views, and most of the people on the right about personal responsibility and "smaller" government.

weird to say the least.

[sinewave]

She's already had Obama on the show twice.

Although, I don't know why they're complaining. Palin apparently doesn't do interviews:

http://www.time.com/time/politics/article/0,8599,1838959,00.html?xid=site-cnn-partner



:whatever:

waaaaahhhhhhh! :down