Sarah Palin quits

[MMM]

I have never seen this level of filibustering on JF before. It's really something.

[minimin]

See what i mean, you get all defensive because someone shares their opinion, and IF you actually read what i said i don't share that opinion for all christians next time read, and yea I kinda paraphrased your quote, you knew what i meant. Chill out will ya, I dont care to read your FACTS, first off its early in the morning, second(i bet there nonsense), and third well im busy. So carry on with your retarded online debate, Im out. Agruing over sara palin(a lame duck who isnt a lame duck because shes a quitter) simply waste time......have fun sitting at your angry tree hahaha ^_^

[Barone1551]

Not quit sure what you mean by user identification..... they were links to articles about the topic we have been discussing (pailin using her family). They work fine on my computer, but I did use a login to get to it. It was lexusnexus so I had to use a pin to sign in. Sorry if it doesn't work. Now instead of repeating what I have said for about.... all my posts I'll leave you to argue with others on this thread. We have conflicting opinions and we are most likely not going to change each others minds. Good luck on future discussions, have a good day.

[QueenNanami]

Originally Posted by solemnclockwork

Sarcams sign? Explain.

Look it up in a freaking Dictionary.

I have different views then a lot of politicians, but as that is said I mature and knowledgeable to know that "hating" and despising them is wrong and puts an huge burden on the person who does such an thing. As an fellow American could you stand up for her for being an American "United we stand divided we fall". Having different views then someone is an poor excuse to hate them.

We have different views and she makes woman look like a joke. I dont like her. I have a right to not like anyone i want. Omfg dude, now are you going to tell me Im not a "True American" Because i dont want to stand up for Sarah freaking Palin?! She's dumb. I dont like her. I dont care if that makes me a bad American! In America we have freedom of speech and it's my American right to express how I feel where every i freaking want to.

Me making you "angry" is your problem. If you get mad because an different opinion is presented then you need to check your anger.

Lol i have. You insult me and then try to tell me you arent. When insulted I feel angry and mad. It's not because you have a different opinion. It's that weird passive aggressive way you insult me.

Let me first explain the different in calling an statement something and calling the person. First and foremost I said the STATEMENT is foolish, did not relate to you. Joe Biden makes gaps all the time and people don't challenge him but what he says, there is an difference.

If you call the statement foolish wouldnt that make the one who said it a fool? It relates because I said it.

Phrases like "I don't want to keep talking to you" and "I hate....so and so) are childish. Saying that "quite being childish" does not make you child, what it is saying your currently acting like one. Difference. You could also take that in context of the sentence before it too.

And you act like a stuck up know it all. No one's right but you right? Your going to keep this going until i admit Im wrong right? Well Im very stubborn and if I remember correctly this isnt the point out others faults thread. This is the Sarah Palin thread. So you can shove any opinion you have about me. Because this thread is not about attacking me and what i do.

Depends on how thick your skin is. I would say though at most I usually provide constructive criticism. If you haven't realized yet, this is an heated debate as such when things get hot they burn. Outside of this debate we still are all on the same page and should be NO bad blood between each other.

Constructive criticism my bum. Constructive criticism means it's something someone needs to build on. What you say is just criticism. I have not been burned and this is a Debate about Sarah Palin. So far you have barely said anything back to me about her. You mostly are just judging what Im doing or have done.

It doesn't matter what you then when there is no concrete evidence. Point is you can say she might of known, but does that make it true? You cannot stick an accusation against someone without first proving that those accusation are true. It the same as with conspiracy theories.

What ever dude. This is my last post to you. Me and you are no longer debating, We are derailing, it's more of a name calling post after post now. Last i checked It wasnt about me and you, It's about Sarah Palin.

This is done.

[solemnclockwork]

Originally Posted by bELyVIS

I'm old enough to form my own opinion without your advice. I'm also old enough not to argue with people who force their opinion on us all in this thread.

Did I deny you to form your own opinion? No I didn't. I challenged that opinion there's an huge difference.

I'm certain that your old enough also to know why you shouldn't use terms like "I hate", that was the reason I asked how old you are.

I"m at an lost how you can say I "force" my opinion on others, care to enlighten?

Originally Posted by MMM

I have never seen this level of filibustering on JF before. It's really something.

Who do you think is filibustering? Why would you say that?

The conversation has continued and went in different directions, so I cannot say which side would fit the bill?

Originally Posted by minimin

See what i mean, you get all defensive because someone shares their opinion, and IF you actually read what i said i don't share that opinion for all christians next time read, and yea I kinda paraphrased your quote, you knew what i meant. Chill out will ya, I dont care to read your FACTS, first off its early in the morning, second(i bet there nonsense), and third well im busy. So carry on with your retarded online debate, Im out. Agruing over sara palin(a lame duck who isnt a lame duck because shes a quitter) simply waste time......have fun sitting at your angry tree hahaha ^_^

How did you come to the conclusion I"m being defensive? I never question that you didn't say all 80%. You do know what the word fact means?

Originally Posted by QueenNanami

Look it up in a freaking Dictionary.

We have different views and she makes woman look like a joke. I dont like her. I have a right to not like anyone i want. Omfg dude, now are you going to tell me Im not a "True American" Because i dont want to stand up for Sarah freaking Palin?! She's dumb. I dont like her. I dont care if that makes me a bad American! In America we have freedom of speech and it's my American right to express how I feel where every i freaking want to.

Lol i have. You insult me and then try to tell me you arent. When insulted I feel angry and mad. It's not because you have a different opinion. It's that weird passive aggressive way you insult me.

If you call the statement foolish wouldnt that make the one who said it a fool? It relates because I said it.

And you act like a stuck up know it all. No one's right but you right? Your going to keep this going until i admit Im wrong right? Well Im very stubborn and if I remember correctly this isnt the point out others faults thread. This is the Sarah Palin thread. So you can shove any opinion you have about me. Because this thread is not about attacking me and what i do.

Constructive criticism my bum. Constructive criticism means it's something someone needs to build on. What you say is just criticism. I have not been burned and this is a Debate about Sarah Palin. So far you have barely said anything back to me about her. You mostly are just judging what Im doing or have done.

What ever dude. This is my last post to you. Me and you are no longer debating, We are derailing, it's more of a name calling post after post now. Last i checked It wasnt about me and you, It's about Sarah Palin.

This is done.

I know what sarcasm means, I was asking why would you use it?

I NEVER told you couldn't like anyone did I? I have said SAYING you hate her is pointless for two reasons; One it puts an huge burden on you (it also gives that person power over you). Two I have said I don't believe that you do. You really don't need to use such language here, I NEVER question your loyalty did I? I asked an simple question, and that question had a point to it. Being that when it comes down to it, everyone would stand up for another, wither you completely disagree or dislike the person.

I NEVER question the right for you to feel certain ways did I? Free speech works for me to, to which you're not understanding here. You get to say what you want I GET to say what I want THAT is the POINT here.

On an different note free speech in America has limits. You cannot say fire in an crowed building without legal trouble. You also cannot speak libel and slander without the chance for legal trouble. Point to this? Your freedom of speech ends where mine beings, and mine ends where someone else begins.

Defamation - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You getting (anybody also who fits into this) over what someone else does IS your problem not theirs. I have also stated that when two arguments (opinions) collide THERE will be an conflict. Let it be known now since I have to say it, I'M NOT INSULTING YOU.

Well, it COULD be taken that way. Here I'll explain. When an painter has an bad painting you call the painting bad right? By extension does that mean the painter is bad? NO it doesn't it just means that specific painting is done poorly. Wither the artist had an bad streak, didn't focus, etc doesn't matter. I also have stated to MMM in this thread about calling someone an lier over someone telling one lie. Same principle applies here. ARGUABLY one could make an case out of repeated cases, but that not the issue here. I also have stated I don't like labeling.

DID I SAY I KNOW EVERYTHING, NO didn't think so. I have also stated that I was wrong in another debate about water boading DID I NOT? This is an debate it goes for how long it wants (I really can't say). Well if it's not an "point out others thread" could you stick by that in reference to Sarah Palin.

constructive - definition of constructive by the Free Online Dictionary, Thesaurus and Encyclopedia.

Read those on constructive criticism (I do remain you that constructive criticism doesn't have an set stone def.)

WikiAnswers - The Q&A wiki
/Q/What_is_a_good_definition_of_constructive_criticism_and_feedback

You completely mistook the phrase. I never intended for you to take that you got burned, but for you to see that because of the nature of this debate strong feeling prevail. I have been saying and defending Sarah Palin thought out this thread.

Was this post about Sarah Palin yes it was.

Sarah Palin quits

Neither you OR me where name calling, so I don't know how you came to that conclusion, YET it is still about Sarah. My whole posts toward you have been about the language you use towards her.

READ WHAT I WRITE.

I'm going to address all the rude points here. Me coming across as demanding is the same in any debate. One side demands that the other provide evidence to support or defend there argument, it's simple as that. I would expect others to treat it the same way. Me being rude is subjective. I did not label anybody, or resort to personal attacks. I pointed out several factors in which either was childish (you believe that saying you hate someone is an mature feeling?) or venom. the point of those are to show the person to think about what they are writing. I have also stated that opinions are valid to each other. As last note coming off is subjective at best because it is an conflict of ideas and opinions and no one likes to be told there wrong or not right on the issue.

I have to see the other side to argue against it, I also must see and read what they say, post, and link.

I shouldn't have to write this but I will. EVERYONE including me have emotions that depending on the context will strike them up. I give people leeway in that I don't respond to snide remarks usually. that said I'm also stricken by the same emotion everyone else goes threw, in as such I can become prone to doing the same thing.

I have also stated outside of this thread, I still see everyone on the same platform as me. I don't have a problem with anyone, at the end of the day if it was possible I would still see everyone on here as an peer.

I also might add as I think about it, as this goes on think about some of the words used against Palin (she makes women look like joke, I hate hear, she only has two braincells etc). Maybe if they would word it to be more natural to passive, there wouldn't be such an huge discussion about it. That is the reason why I'm defending her against personal attacks. She gets attacked unjustly and unfairly.

That is not to say the same thing can happen about political arguments (around the same argument me and you had, but much cooler). As such I believe those remain natural because of there ideology nature.

Take the comment that burkhartdesu posted. Completely unjustified to say something like that. I"m challenging peoples opinions so that they would show the woman some respect.

At the most it not about how you feel about her politically, she still deserves the same respect you give to others. It also begs to be asked, if you treat her in such the same way, how then can you ask others to treat you nicely?

[Barone1551]

Originally Posted by solemnclockwork

On an different note free speech in America has limits. You cannot say fire in an crowed building without legal trouble. You also cannot speak libel and slander without the chance for legal trouble. Point to this? Your freedom of speech ends where mine beings, and mine ends where someone else begins.

Defamation - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[/i]

Just wanted to point out some small details. You mentioned before about teachers and bosses. Try using wikipedia with your teachers and bosses and see how far that gets you. Normally this isn't my style, nitpicking about peoples posts. I find it tacky to nitpick, But since you jumped on my back about being using credible sources, ill give you a small taste. sorry.

And the shouting fire thing you used is kind of miss quoted. It does not matter how crowded a place is.

this is all

[QueenNanami]

This is done.

Like i said, Im not fighting with you anymore.

[solemnclockwork]

Originally Posted by Barone1551

Just wanted to point out some small details. Some you would have pointed out if someone else made these mistakes. You mentioned before about teachers and bosses. Try using wikipedia with your teachers and bosses and see how far that gets your. Normally I wouldn't stoop this low but seeing as you were so quick to jump on my back about the sources I use, Ill give you the same treatment.

And the shouting fire thing you used is kind of miss quoted. It does not matter how crowded a place is.

this is all

Petty, I'll explain

First off, Wiki is not ALWAYS wrong, is it? Now I have that established.

The problem with using wiki is that almost any body can edit it to change what it says. So because of that, you LOOK AT THE SOURCES which also relates to my previous comment about providing evidence.

Since I must I provide these to which the article provides as sources.

Defamation -
Open Directory - Society: Law: Legal Information: Defamation

# ^ E.g. in the case the offence of defamatory libel under the common law of England and Wales, where prior to the enactment of section 6 of the Libel Act 1843 (defence of justification for the public benefit), the truth of the defamatory statement was irrelevant, and it continues to be sufficient that it is published to the defamed person alone.
# ^ Center for Visual Computing Invasion of Privacy
# ^ a b False light by Professor Edward C. Martin - Cumberland School of Law, Samford University
# ^ from Latin : libellus ("little book") ("Webster's 1828 Dictionary, Electronic Version". Christian Technologies, Inc.. 1828. http://65.66.134.201/cgi-bin/webster..._web1828=libel. Retrieved on 2006-12-31.
# ^ "Online Etymology Dictionary". Online Etymology Dictionary. Retrieved on 2006-12-31. )
# ^ 50 Am.Jur.2d libel and slander 1-546
# ^ "out-law.com". August 8, 2008. Bulletin board postings more likely slander than libel, says High Court.
# ^ Map showing countries with criminal defamation laws
# ^ ARTICLE 19 statements on criminalized defamation
# ^ Republic of the Philippines. "The Revised Penal Code". Chan Robles law Firm. REVISED PENAL CODE OF THE PHILIPPINES - BOOK TWO (FULL TEXT). Retrieved on 2006-11-24. "Art. 353. Definition of libel. – A libel is public and malicious imputation of a crime, or of a vice or defect, real or imaginary, or any act, omission, condition, status, or circumstance tending to cause the dishonor, discredit, or contempt of a natural or juridical person, or to blacken the memory of one who is dead."
# ^ See, for example, Section 18-13-105, Colorado Revised Statutes
# ^ "Legal dictionary". findlaw.com. http://dictionary.lp.findlaw.com/scr...lic%20interest. Retrieved on 2006-11-24.
# ^ "Legal Terms". legal.org. http://www.canona650.com. Retrieved on 2004-10-22.
# ^ Milkovich v. Lorain Journal Co., 497 U.S. 1 (1990)
# ^ New York Times Co. v. Sullivan, 376 U.S. 254 (1964).
# ^ Article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights
# ^ BBC News, reporting the comments of Professor Michael Geist, July 31, 2006
# ^ IRIS 2006-10:2/1: Ilia Dohel, Office of the OSCE Representative on Freedom of the Media. Representative on Freedom of the Media: Report on Achievements in the Decriminalization of Defamation
# ^ PACE Resolution 1577 (2007): Towards decriminalisation of defamation
# ^ Bundeskriminalamt (Federal Police) Yearly Statistics 2006
# ^ Defamation, Libel, and Slander Per Se
# ^ New York Times, "Firm Awarded $222.7 Million In a Libel Suit Vs. Dow Jones"
# ^ Awards $35.5 Million To Russian In Libel Case, The Washington Post, December 16th, 1999
# ^ U.S. Court Finds Kommersant Guilty of Libel
# ^ Document - Singapore: Defamation suits threaten Chee Soon Juan and erode freedom of expression Amnesty International
# ^ Libel On The Internet: An International Problem
# ^ The recent spat by the DBS bank is proof that the libel law in Singapore needs to be reformed
# ^ House of Lords - Berezovsky v. Michaels and Others Glouchkov v. Michaels and Others (Consolidated Appeals)
# ^ Letter From the Editor - Barron's Online
# ^ The Media and the Law Australian Press Council - Press Law in Australia
# ^ Murphy v. LaMarsh (1970), 73 W.W.R. 114
# ^ Société Radio-Canada c. Radio Sept-Îles inc., [1994] R.J.Q. 1811 canlii.org
# ^ Moles, Robert N, PhD. "Canada reports: Libel case may set precedent". Networked Knowledge. Canada reports: Libel case may set precedent. Retrieved on 2009-01-03.

Read this on using wiki.

Wired Campus: Wikipedia Founder Discourages Academic Use of His Creation - Chronicle.com

I did not "jump" on your back, I challenged the source you used. Difference. I have criticized you for not posting any sources, difference.

I expect you to give me the same treatment.

Completly and utterly pointless to write that. It wasn't in reference to the amount of people in the building wither you have the right to shout fire. The point is shouting fire gets people hurt, and has no utility.

Part of the original quote is "shouting fire in an crowed..." where the part I replaced was building where it was theater.

http://www.nationmaster.com/encyclopedia/Oliver-Wendell-Holmes%2C-Jr."

[SSJup81]

Originally Posted by solemnclockwork

It was directed at anybody who can not handle the pressure and response that comes with stating your opinion in such a place.

You're still coming across as disrespectful, rude, and a tad big defensive...almost like one throwing a temper tantrum, but not really on that level.

There's a LOT of speculation going on here. As such when two opposing views come together it becomes an debate. Hence what has happen.

I suppose, but for what I was talking about, how Palin's quitting makes her look bad in general, just like the quitting of all the schools she went to, to me makes her look bad was pretty much my only, and main qualm. Why you can't seem to understand my point of view is beyond me, and with others, it doesn't seem as if you want to acknowledge another person's point of view. To me, you're attacking the poster more so than what's actually said.

Tsuwabuki recognized this as an debate.

Good for him. If he wants to debate, okay.

In an court of law can you make an accusation without supporting it?

I'm not making accusations about anything or anyone.

Can you scream fire in an public building without there being one (doing so will land you into legal trouble).

Common sense. Of course not.

How then is it rude for me to ask people to show respect to there own selves by supporting what they say?

It's just an opinion though. If people go around saying, "I feel" or "IMO" and such, and then give a reason, it should be left at that...not demanded that the person elaborate more on it. IMO, Palin quitting her colleges, and having to go to so many just for a Bachelor's degree looks bad to me, and also, to me makes her look like a "quitter" and her quitting as governor makes her looks like an even bigger one. What can I say to back that up if this statement is based solely on how I feel? I didn't attack Palin, I didn't call her "stupid" or anything like that. I didn't bash her either. I just feel that quitting wasn't a good idea, especially if she does have aspirations for obtaining some other political office.

You don't pay attention to the boy who cried wolf do you? Simply I demand they do so, as an standard. Gossip is something no one should peddle in.

I don't see anyone here gossiping. Just giving their opinions on why he/she doesn't like her or either why he/she doesn't feel she'd make a good President or why he/she felt she shouldn't have quit or how they feel since she did quit. In other words, I don't see anyone here stating their opinions as if they're facts. The posts are clearly subjective and opinionated.

One thing I add is I do see someone who doesn't support there own arguments and opinions as doing an wrong to the people who read it, and it themselves.

Why should they support an argument if they don't have much to support it with? Let's say someone said, "I felt Palin wasn't very knowledgeable when it came to international relations because of an interview she gave." or "I feel that Palin truly needs to get out of Alaska more, because she comes across as living in a bubble." Both of these are opinions, but, they aren't stated as facts either, because of the wording and the context.

I"m not arguing an old topic, I used that as an building block to what I was saying. Nothing needs to be taken from it other then what context it was in the paragraph.

*Points to what I said above*

Here's the point you are not getting, a person who sees that by this forums standards has the right to challenge that opinion. Now you have the right to respond. Opinions are beliefs correct?

It can be defined as that, but I see opinions as more as "personal views". Just because you view a person in a certain way, doesn't make it a true belief.

If an belief is wrong and someone points that out either to show to others why it was wrong or to you also is it wrong to do so?

So how is my view wrong? I did say that imo Palin is coming across as a quitter. That's just based on observation.

It's relates to the water boarding thread. Rohin4hire was correct in pointing out that my "opinion" of what constitutes torture was wrong and we debated at the time (its not there because it got heated). That is simply whats happening here.

But the problem is how you're coming across and you seem to be spending more time attacking the poster than the actual post.

I'm going to address all the rude points here. Me coming across as demanding is the same in any debate. One side demands that the other provide evidence to support or defend there argument, it's simple as that. I would expect others to treat it the same way. Me being rude is subjective. I did not label anybody, or resort to personal attacks. I pointed out several factors in which either was childish (you believe that saying you hate someone is an mature feeling?) or venom. the point of those are to show the person to think about what they are writing. I have also stated that opinions are valid to each other. As last note coming off is subjective at best because it is an conflict of ideas and opinions and no one likes to be told there wrong or not right on the issue.

Even though I don't agree with it (the hate thing), they have the right to dislike if they want. It's done so much and so often. Look at celebrities who get a lot of hate and stuff. It's to be expected, especially with someone in the spotlight. I know I can never personally dislike someone I don't know, but there are some who do. The only thing I personally do dislike about Palin are some of her views, but I don't dislike her.

I have to see the other side to argue against it, I also must see and read what they say, post, and link.

But that's just it, you really haven't come across as seeing the other side of the argument. You're just arguing.

I shouldn't have to write this but I will. EVERYONE including me have emotions that depending on the context will strike them up. I give people leeway in that I don't respond to snide remarks usually. that said I'm also stricken by the same emotion everyone else goes threw, in as such I can become prone to doing the same thing.

For me, I'm extremely calm, laid back, and nonchalant. This thread is nothing, and for the most part, there hasn't been anything here that's "upset" me. I wouldn't still be here if that were the case.

I have also stated outside of this thread, I still see everyone on the same platform as me. I don't have a problem with anyone, at the end of the day if it was possible I would still see everyone on here as an peer.

That's good. I'm pretty much the same way.

I also might add as I think about it, as this goes on think about some of the words used against Palin (she makes women look like joke, I hate hear, she only has two braincells etc). Maybe if they would word it to be more natural to passive, there wouldn't be such an huge discussion about it. That is the reason why I'm defending her against personal attacks. She gets attacked unjustly and unfairly.

I do agree she does get attacked unfairly, but, she has said/done things that made her come across as if she lacks knowledge, and the one that stands out for me, was when she couldn't name one single newspaper when asked to name what she read, after she stated that she read papers from all over. It was a simple, easy question, but managed to botch it. For something that's done on a regular basis, which she implied, seems she should've been able to name something right off the bat.

Take the comment that burkhartdesu posted. Completely unjustified to say something like that. I"m challenging peoples opinions so that they would show the woman some respect.

Not sure what was said. ^^ That aside, this same logic should be applied to Obama as well. There have been a lot of people being disrespectful towards him. Some towards Bush as well.

At the most it not about how you feel about her politically, she still deserves the same respect you give to others. It also begs to be asked, if you treat her in such the same way, how then can you ask others to treat you nicely?

Which is my philosophy in general. Treat others the way you would want to be treated and try to be respectful of everyone, regardless. I don't know Palin, which is why I can't say I dislike her...just her views, which is normal anyway. She seems to be a far right Christian. I have no problem with Christians or anything...just the extremists, but it's her prerogative to believe what she wants. Who am I to argue that?

[bELyVIS]

Originally Posted by solemnclockwork

Did I deny you to form your own opinion? No I didn't. I challenged that opinion there's an huge difference.

If "challenged" means to try to make me take your opinion as my own, then yes, you "challenged' my opinion.

Originally Posted by solemnclockwork

I'm certain that your old enough also to know why you shouldn't use terms like "I hate", that was the reason I asked how old you are.

Why can't I use hate? If I hate someone or something I can state that. I hate the way this thread is going. I hate someone telling me I shoudn't use terms like "I hate". You're not my mother and even she can't tell me what to feel.

Originally Posted by solemnclockwork

I"m at an lost how you can say I "force" my opinion on others, care to enlighten?

By not accepting anyone's negative opinion about Palin and trying to convince us we are "wrong" about our opinions about her. Do you really think writing responses as long as a book helps your case? No. I get bored after a certain amount of reading them and move on.
So, what in this for you? Did Palin offer you the job as ambassador to Japan if she wins? Don't pack your Yukata yet 'cause it ain't gonna happen.