Adding on, if I recall correctly, even though it's not "policy", Hannity attacked Obama for the Samalia Pirate incident, even though the captain was returned safely.

I didn't answer for the simple reason, your post is full of venom. To seriously say she makes woman look like an joke is foolish. Sorry that screams of hate also. To even go as far as to say you wouldn't stand up for her tells us you feelings on her; so as an woman you wouldn't stand up for her rights? Sorry not forcing my beliefs just calling out someone who is being hateful.

Wrong. I'm not going to beat around a bush on this paragraph. So in What way does that make right the so called jokes put out by David Letterman? NO, I DO MEAN NO public person family deserves to be attacked. Way to try to spin it into her putting her family into the spotlight makes it right. So logically speaking from your position if for say Obama puts his daughters in the spotlight they deserve to be attacked? Have some discretion!

Oh give examples of so called putting up her family, I'm certain other politicians do also.

Interesting, where did you get that last comment? The second part is weird. When in that quote does she say that criticism of her is unconstitutional, I do believe she questions the media role in campaign support when there supposed to be middle ground. It's no secret of the media supporting Obama, wither you like/dislike Obama.

Let's get the FULL scope of the things for the first comment you posted.

Sarah Palin bungled VP job description after Colorado third-grader's question : Rocky Truth Patrol : Rocky Mountain News

Palin's view of vice presidency critiqued - 2008 Presidential Campaign Blog - Political Intelligence - Boston.com

Ok the second comment took me forever to find a lot of information on. First and foremost Nick Carney has it in for her. Take one of the highlights of him saying she "made" it look like an "bordello", what do you think hes trying to say here? One to also add we only have him to take it for what he says, to which I'm not going to, I need more proof then his word. Hence way I actually cold not find this quote on anymore then blogs.

Sarah Palin's wasteful ways | Salon News

Does that not ring of sleaziness?
Interesting Biden made an similar comment.
here's the point, I clearly do not accept you saying that she makes women look like jokes, AND calling her an idiot. NO politician can really be called an idiot, really if that was the case they wouldn't be in office. Reason one being, that saying she is an joke is subjective AT best. At most, one could say she stands strong, and vigorous for what she believes in. The only reason I could possible think of you hating her is because she doesn't represent the standard template of an Feminist, she calls herself one AND says she doesn't believe in Abortion. Really George Bush was such an joke? I mean Africa did not call him an joke when he was the President who spent the most trying to prevent AIDS over there. ARGUABLY you could say George Bush did defend the country, and you can say that's what he CARED for. He wasn't the best and no means the worst president we had, but he did have an few strong suits.

Tell us your friends that agree with you.

the Kattie interview was horrible and everyone has bad days. I've addressed the Gibson so go and read up on that.
Hillary didn't answer a lot of questions during interviews, Obama has done the same thing, McCain also, and I couldn't forget Joe Biden. Is it new, no.

I think you should open YOUR eyes to what we have to say too

Translation; I want you to think our way. Oh I wouldn't be arguing with you right now if I did not look at your "points".

Kayci,

Because others do it, doesn't make it OK for you to tag along also. This is the point' there is a difference between criticism on someone and a personal attack, to which your comment was. Actually no, I don't dislike any politician I may completely disagree with them. there are some who I think go over an line and need to be reminded of that (they do serve the people). At the end of the day I would go out and play maybe pool with them, bowling, etc. (my sister husband is pretty liberal and we hang out all the time and you should here some of the arguments we have).

She doesn't run the court cases against those people does she? Then when the government messes things (it happens quite often) you cannot put the blame on her. Also to note they could be guilty if it was written on them, but when the government does something wrong in an trial they can be found "innocent" (mistrial).

Yes originally she was for it, but before the campaign she became against the bridge. Even Obama and Joe where for the bridge. Like them and her, you should know all politicians put there own spin on things they have/not done (oh and ut was her who KILLED the project).Of course I'm not your parent, but on this site I would say I'm your peer.

solemnclockwork, You have this weird way of wording and this even weirder way of shoving words into my mouth.

"I didn't answer for the simple reason, your post is full of venom. To seriously say she makes woman look like an joke is foolish."
Really? But you were able to answer so many other things and attack me. I could also say your post is full of venom and refuse to answer it. Why is it foolish to freely express the way i feel?

I dont watch David Letterman. To put it more clearly, Celebrities put them selves out there willingly. Dont you remember when they made fun of the Bush twins on Jay Leno? No one seemed to really get all mad at that. When you become at that level of Celebrity that is what you risk. You can say that Lindsay Lohan doenst deserve all the mean harmful jokes about her.

Dont get me wrong i dont Like Lindsay Lohan either.

Come on... You think that just because me and her are female we should stand together as one? Then i believe you should stand together with Obama as one too. The day you say "OBAMA IS DOING A GREAT JOB! HE'S SUCH A GOOD PRESIDENT!!" Will be the day i say "SARAH PALIN IS THE SMARTEST PERSON I KNOW AND SHE'S SO GREAT! IM SO HAPPY SHE'S FEMALE!!" (without lying, you have to really mean it) Just because we are the same gender doesn't make me ignore my beliefs. Just as you wouldn't do for Obama. The way you talk about him you can tell you dislike him. Im not going to call you out on it and tell you something that isnt true. Im not going to shove words in your mouth.

... You shove words in my mouth. I never said any of that and i KNOW i never said anything about abortion. You know what happens when you assume right? Pfft, I like her image. A woman who can handle herself. I think it's awesome how she goes hunting and shows she's not a dainty delicate girl. So you are assuming things. You assume i dont like her because she's not a barbie doll in a suit. What's your deal?

You got me! I believe in a woman's right to choose! Im not fully against abortion. I myself could never kill a child. When a egg is fertilized it's a baby and you would be killing a human if you aborted it. I guess you could say "murdering" a baby. With all that said i still believe it's up to the mother of the child what to do with her body. If she doesn't want a child or doesn't have the proper home or life style to bring one up. You shouldn't force her to.

Not to mention the over population of the world...

Yeah and he also took more vacations then any other President in office. You name one and I'll name one. You bring up something so great he did and I'll bring up something so bad he did. It'll be like a game, it'll be fun.

Did i ever say that He was the worst president we ever had? Hold for a sec i'm going to check...

Nope, I said he made us look like a joke. ;)

Are you sore because a lot of people supported Obama and never really gave McCain a chance? Now tell me, what so bad about Obama. Tell me what you dislike most about him.

You gotta be a little more clear with this one sweetie. Do you mean Tell me about the people who agree with me? Or do you want to really know about my rl friends?

Yeah everyone has their days right? why is it that Sarah has more off days then most? That wasnt one interview, that was clips from more then one interview. I wonder if they have more.

...

It's funny. You dont even know me. I never said you had to think "our way" or you had to agree with me. Im just saying you should be open to what we have to say instead of slamming a door in our face and fighting us with your every last breath. I dont like Sarah Palin, and I shoudlnt be forced to. I dont force you to love Obama.

Solemnclockwork, you started ATTACKING people for their negative views about Sarah Palin. You really should stop.

I am glad Palin has quit. I believe in freedom of choice under special circumstances: In other words if the child has deformities that would severely impact their quality of life or if they're a product of rape. Her staunch anti-abortion stance is the antithesis of this.

I also found her frighteningly stupid for a potential world leader. Mc Cain is an old man and she was his VP. That put her in the running to be the President. She wasn't able to address questions about world affairs. She could have been in charge of crucial decisions on a global scale and yet she didn't even know the names of places.

Scary, scary.

It's not the last we've seen of her though. I just hope Obama fulfils his promise as President, so this backwards and feral cougar can't get a look in edgewise.

Good.

But then, before I started in teaching in Asia, I worked for the Democratic National Committee, so it isn't hard to see why I'd be thrilled by the development.

Now, let's just keep her away from the White House.

I can't help but think that there is something going on. Seeing how the prosecutors are under investigation, then surely Palin, who claimed to have led the charge to 'clean up Alaskan politics', would be connected intimately to the same corruption that the prosecutors were guilty of.

It's such a drastic move, surely there's some major motivation behind it.

Ok while Im not necessarily defending the people who went after her family, I will say she did kind of put her family out to the wolves. She used her family as a political tool, more so than any recent candidate. She would always dwell on the fact she was such a great person becuase she was just your everyday women with children, and a sixteen year old daughter with a child. Now while all this isn't grounds for people to attack her CHILDREN, she did put them in the spot light a lot and gave people the opportunity to attack them. When you start using your family as bargaining and political tools, you cant get mad when someone else says something about them, even if its negative.

And I want to address something else you said. You said "NO ONE deserves to be made fun of". (correct me if im wrong im not trying to put words in your mouth). But I don't think that statement should be true ever. We don't live Smurf village where everyone gets along and there are no problems. Yes sometimes people go to far in criticizing people but that's a part of free speech. People need to be made fun of. People need to be called out for their mistakes. If everyone just sat idly by and went along with everything everyone said, we would be in a whole mess of problems.

Though i am not a fan Palins by any means. Her decision shocked more than if she announced her candidacy for President. If she intent was to be a real contender in 2012 (assuming she gets the nomination) this was the worst decision she could have made. Staying in office and making the hard choices working on Alaska's failing budget and showing her supporters she has got the stuff to put up a fight for the presidency in 2012. This was a bad bad choice going fishing instead of paying attention to her duties was a bad choice her own aids said that she mentally has not been at her post since November, not mention her own Party members question her and not that fond of her makes her battle already uphill this move kept the hill but now shes carrying a bolder on her back while climbing it. If this is any sign of whats to come I wouldn't want her as president. Not to mention if she ran against Obama he would eat her alive. I cant help but to want to see a Hillary vs Palin face off could prove to interesting.

Note as of right now I not in the best of condition for spelling and grammar so forgive me if it is broken or badly misspelled.

One thing also comes to mind on this topic, did not Obama and his cabinet "quit" there jobs to take up another? One could say being the President is an higher calling and it is, but he had to give up most if not all his time to run for president with the chance to lose. One reason not to get worked up over this.
Give the quotes or video please.

[quote=Barone1551;742048]Here is something else besides policy. The things these right wing newscasters were saying were ridiculous. They saddest part is they were legitimately pissed off. I couldn't help but laugh at them.

Hannity is NOT an news caster he is an commentator there is an huge difference.

I was curious on this until I laughed when I saw it was the huffington post. You do know the blog is on record as being hateful and untruthful? that said they twisted what Hannity was doing (he usually always does this). Overall (and simplistic) it was just an joke, more also to make an point because Hannity does believe Obama is an socialist. Thus the pun. Hannity ALWAYS does this, you should learn to recognize when he is making light of something.

Oh media matters is also on the record for untruthfulness also.

Why are you going as far back as someone college years to attack them? There is nothing wrong with someone going to different schools AS long as they complete the degree now is there? Did Sarah Palin Get her Degree, Yes she did, so she DID finish what she started.

If you really want to go down this road you Also open up other politicians for other thing they may have done. I'll take Obama as an contrast he did drugs during his college days. Is it right to attack him for that NO, same principle applies here.

How can any mother do so if they have an job? Honestly I don't know to make of this because I read there is underline town that she would be criticized for any job by your standard. WE do not know her personal life so I don't think you can go and say she not proper caring for her child.

Would you being willing to say every women who has an job needs to quit in order to bound with the child?

If I had the money I would go to many colleges also. You do know you can transfers some credits? Maybe she wanted to learn at different places, why still does going to different colleges make that an negative?

You don't get the reason why I said PH.D. Here's the point; One goes through certain steps in order to gain one, correct? Now she took steps in order to gain her degree, correct? Was it normal, maybe not but in no chance is that an reasonable way to criticize someone on. You don't go to one school to get an PH.D either.

Do I also have to repeat you CAN transfer credits? Making the case that going to different colleges makes one an quitter highly redundant.

Since we agree on the last two comments I will not continue them.

I interested in the aids, give evidence
you do know when she was announced for the VP pick McCain beat Obama in the poles? Point is I really doubt he could eat her alive if things don't start going in his favor economy wise. It's no secret that the Republican party is split hence the bickering.

Seriously, your going to try to chastise me, when you go and make an comment that Sarah is backwards and feral? That screams of an certain word. In what way do you want me to "stop" when this is a forum?

I also don't believe I've attacked anyone on this board, care to highlight parts you call "attacking"?

Yet again, calling her "stupid" does absolutely nothing to make your point. You didn't give anything to support that accusation. You have to be at least 35 to run for president, secondly most presidents ARE old so little issue with John McCain age.

do I have to point out Joe Biden? He not the best person when it comes to speaking, nor the best when it comes to making accurate statements.

As a senator, Obama ran for President (as did Clinton, Biden and McCain. Palin hadn't been governor long, but spent nearly a year running for VP) that is normal. But 6 months after losing the presidential election Palin decides to quit just over half-way through her gubernatorial duties...and this is after she spent almost half the time after she was elected running for VP.

So she is quitting now to run for president? That would be fine if she announced that like McCain, Obama, Biden, and Obama did when they stepped away from their duties.

But Palin didn't announce that.

Nice try with the backhand passive-aggressive insult. You'll have to do better next time though.

Palin's pathos | Steve Chapman

Palin's ship in the harbor

Mayor Palin: A Rough Record - TIME

washingtonpost.com - nation, world, technology and Washington area news and headlines

Todd S. Purdum on Sarah Palin | vanityfair.com

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W2kjF...erview Part II

YouTube - Bernard Goldberg embarasses Sean Hannity

IMO, Hannity was being very petty here.I have a problem with a person who has to go to so many schools for a Bachelor's degree. It's a red flag, imo. To me, it shows that she has a difficult time finishing what she starts or is quick to quit something if things get tough. Could you imagine an employer looking over the resume, and seeing all those unfinished schools listed? That looks just as bad as having gaps in employment on a resume. Now she's quitting as governor barely halfway through her term. It looks bad.Not really. At least he completed the schools he went to.My mother had a job. I still saw her everyday. Same with my father. It's important for the parents to be around, especially with a SPECIAL NEEDS INFANT. Unless the parent has no choice, I feel that they should be home with their kids or not take on a job where the parent will be constantly away from the child. I can see taking on a VP position with older kids, but I have a problem when it comes to doing so with a baby.Well, she's not at home. She's in the spotlight. She was running for VP, even though she has a baby at home...a special needs child. IMO, she should be spending the majority of her time, just as her husband, with that child until he gets older. Being governor probably wouldn't take up as much of her time, but being VP most definitely would.I didn't say she needed to quit, I'm saying she shouldn't be going after a position where she'll have to devote a lot of her time to it. I say the same for her husband, hence why I said any "parent". Nowhere did I say that she, specifically, should have to do this.Because she didn't finish them, that's why. It doesn't show consistency. There's nothing wrong with going to different schools, but it helps to actually finish them. Some employers would probably be weary because of that and might not even grant her an interview; some may give her an interview, and I guarantee you that she probably would be questioned about something like that and then she explains why. Maybe she does have a legitimate reason, but it still looks as if she couldn't finish what she started.You still usually finish the schools you go to, even if you go the route of a Doctrine. Even multiple holders had to eventually finish up someplace to get them, and they usually stick with a university, not multiple. I see if she'd gone to maybe a tech school or a vocational school and also college, but she went to multiple colleges, didn't finish them, to get a Bachelor's. I would love to know why she did that. Why couldn't she stay put with one college instead of attending multiple ones.Hello...it still is coming across as a negative view of her. "She can't finish what she starts." She quit multiple colleges. Why? Was it too tough for her? Was there a mitigating circumstance that affected her going? What about the dates? Were they all short-term. Was it a month here or there? That would look bad on a resume and her quitting as governor doesn't help things much.At least comedians still have Biden. He's great comedic material.:p

CHILDREN ARE OFF LIMITS. Nothing justifies going after them.

When did it become wrong to say your an great dad/mom? Give evidence that she took the situation with her daughter and profited off of. Your justifying them going after her children. She didn't use her family as you want to put it. Even then saying one cannot go after someone who sexualfies (not an word but you should get the meaning) her children is wrong.

I don't remember making an comment like that, and took the liberty to go back and look though my comments and I don't come across such an comment. Here's the point criticize someone on the issue, debate the issue, comment on the issue; but do NOT attack the person to which has happen to Sarah. Hence why I'm posting here. One could try to strive to live together in peace, but don't deny the point of the current situation. I agree with the last part.


Quote where I attacked you. I really, doubt you could say the same for my posts. Well you did express your feelings did you not? Now the question begs to be asked, should those feelings to which have been posted on an public page be free of criticism?

Celeb states does not make an excuse for ANYTHING. Actaully no I don't seeing how I wasn't as big as I'm now in politics. Even then the statement remains true for them.

Lindsay did not deserve that either.



So you wouldn't stand up for her if someone attacked her because shes female? Obama my president that I stand behind. Now I disagree over his policies, to which way I wouldn't say he's an "good president"; that's to be expected though I wouldn't expect someone to say Bush when they disagree with his policies was an good president.

Really? Most if not all the talk I've done about Obama on this thread is contrast to what has happen to Palin, so please quote me. (Oh also qoute me when I was "saying untrue things")

Well, I did let on in the first place it was an assumption! So know you say she is an woman who can handle herself, when in the first place you said she was an joke of an women. There's an conflict between those two.

Isn't the view of an woman who can handle herself an good model? If so then why did you say she was an joke of an woman?

Not to mention the over population of the world...

So the child must die to keep the mothers life style? Saying abortion is alright because the world is "over populated" is not acceptable. I'll tell way.

Headline the entire world population would fit into Texas.

Is the World Over Populated? Lets do the math... The World Can Fit In Texas - alt.conspiracy | Google Groups

My point is proven.

Semantics. Implying that he made us look like an joke means that he was the worst or very close worst president. If I where to say an baseball player was an joke would I be saying he wasn't worthy of being an baseball player? Yes I would.

[quote=QueenNanami;742178]Are you sore because a lot of people supported Obama and never really gave McCain a chance? Now tell me, what so bad about Obama. Tell me what you dislike most about him.

Newscaster should not being showing bias when they report, plain and simple. Journalists are also in that category. This is my beef. Policies, which I have said I completely disagree with.

"I'm not the only one who thinks that she makes us woman look like a joke you know"

You made this comment, hence the way I responded.

I know I looked at the youtube page, hence the reason why I responded the way I did.

why do I need to know you, to respond to your comments? No you didn't but saying along the lines of "open-your mind", "open-your eyes" means I want you to think my way. If I was slamming the door in your face would I go and look at what your saying, trading threw sites I don't like? I don't "force" you to like anybody I'm criticizing you on attacking Sarah point to make the difference.

Listening to good morning America, they had an interview with Sarah Palin on why she quit.

Reason manly being the whole ethics violation to which cost her and the state too much. To which also answer the whole "lame duck" answer she originally given as she would be spending way to much time fighting the complaints and costing the state way to much money.

Also would not close the door on wither she might run for President.

One thing to note she made the statement that if she dies politically she does.

Interesting.

On what? He thinks it something that the Whitehorse took credit right after the crisis, while Goldberg thinks nothing of it. difference yes, they share there views on the subject.

You really must remember Hannity is an commentator.
[quote=SSJup81;742536]I have a problem with a person who has to go to so many schools for a Bachelor's degree. It's a red flag, imo. To me, it shows that she has a difficult time finishing what she starts or is quick to quit something if things get tough. Could you imagine an employer looking over the resume, and seeing all those unfinished schools listed? That looks just as bad as having gaps in employment on a resume.

You seem to be the only one making an deal out of it. I really don't think an employer really cares when you have the DEGREE.

Do you get why you would go to an college? What's more important the DEGREE. you got it you completely that level of education REGARDLESS of how many colleges you go to. I will repeat myself YOU CAN TRANSFER CREDITS.

My point is it is so pointless to attack someone so far back in there lives.

Stop it. Really who are to put yourself above her when it really is such an personal thing to balance raising HER children to her own career. What your saying her she has no right to pursue her own life until she raises that kid. What's wrong with that, I'll tell you; she could very well being doing an good motherly job and by that you have NO right to tell someone that they cannot do something because you think they don't "spend" enough time with THERE children.

Let me ask you, are you accusing her of child neglect, because that is what this is starting to read like?

There is an reason why I put that wrote this, think about it.

Would you being willing to say every women who has an job needs to quit in order to bound with the child?

Contradiction. Way say there is no problem going to different schools then, then say it's an red flag, shows inconstancy, etc?

Look colleges are not about the going and "finish" the schooling there. They put you toward the Degree. There not high schools. You are also applying an stereotypical view on college going people to someone who didn't take the same route.

I repeat you can transfer credits, meaning it doesn't matter what college you go, as LONG as you GET the DEGREE.

you are getting to far into her personal life.

[quote=SaintKat;742531]Nice try with the backhand passive-aggressive insult. You'll have to do better next time though.

Really? It was your writing. So I pointed out the contrast in that post where you wanted to "call" me out on "attacking" others. Then you go to call Sarah an feral and backward cougar. Is that not in black-white contrast?

Hence the reason why I didn't use the word because I said the STATEMENT was, not you.

Todd S. Purdum on Sarah Palin | vanityfair.com

Does he have an thing for Palin? Other then that NONE of the McCain campaign guys will go on record with the smear attacks.

Palin's ship in the harbor

What's the point of this? Are we not discussing the effects of her quitting her office?

Mayor Palin: A Rough Record - TIME

Couldn't decide wither he hated her for being religious.

Also no books where banned (she didn't go after books), so I don't see the point here.

washingtonpost.com - nation, world, technology and Washington area news and headlines

What good does an front page do me?

Palin's pathos | Steve Chapman

Interesting, but here's the thing. Those attacks put her in debt, put the state under about around half an million. They went after her children. So there is truth in her questioning the attacks on her and her family.

Already addressed the Katie interview.

Would you have her announce three years before the next election?

Well, *I'll* say it, if we're being no-holds-barred:

George W. Bush was the worst president we have ever had.

There were presidents who did less. There were presidents who were outright incompetent. There were even presidents, such as Jimmy Carter, who were so gosh darn nice, they got steamrolled and couldn't push through anything resembling an agenda. In the long run, even Bush 41 didn't really accomplish anything.

The difference? Accomplishing NOTHING is much different than accomplishing a whole lot of negative. Bush 43 did a lot, an awful lot, and did it in a very disturbing direction. That's why he is the worst president we have ever had. Give me a deadlocked congress and an incompetent, ineffectual president over a majority congress of the same party as an incompetent, yet disturbingly effectual (in the wrong direction!) president.

What worries me so about Palin is the fact she seems to be able to court the same individuals who got Bush into office. Twice. And those people can turn her from an incompetent do-nothing, to an incompetent do-too-much. And that is very, very scary.

But, Did I NOT say he was the first President to spend and prevent AIDS (as much) in Africa?

IS that NOT an ACCOMPLISHMENT?

WHAT about protecting our country during an terrible time?

YOU HAVE to give him THAT ACCOMPLISHMENT.

Give me an break over your bias, seriously gonna keep making statements like this your going to kill your credibility.

Jimmy carter had an %34 approval rating when he left office.

Forgive me for posting twice like this.

You can say arguably we are heading in the wrong direction now with Both the current President, and congress. Makes saying the same thing with Bush and MUTE point.

Note to also you CANNOT call him the worst President as that spot(s) are reserved for those who WHERE impeached, and bush was not.


That said don't derail this thread. No talk was needed on the former President as this is ABOUT Sarah not Bush.

You did. And you know what? I acknowledge it. It's one of the few things I agreed with him on. It's also not the only thing I agreed with him on. However, if you add one while taking away two, you still end up with a net loss of one. The vast majority of things W did were negative, and severely outweigh his good actions.

I won't go where you're trying to push me.

I served under President Bush. When he was my commander-in-chief, I gave him the loyalty due my president. If he had asked me to go to Iraq, I would have. If he had asked me to go to Afghanistan, I would have.

This has absolutely nothing to do with how I think he handled national security issues: which is badly. Very, very badly. I keep my loyalty to my service, my president, and my country separate from my political views on all of the above.

So do not insinuate that I have to agree that he made America safer or else I have no knowledge of national defense.

I admitted my bias upfront. I am a proud Democrat. I worked for the DNC for two years in Atlanta. I raised $10,000 on foot, door to door for the upcoming congressional elections. In 2006 I was the youngest delegate to the national, mid-term convention. With that information you could probably even figure out some of my personal information if you dug deep enough.

My credibility, as confined in with the above disclosures, is nothing if not enhanced by my personal involvement in the political process.

Who is one of my personal heros because of his personal integrity. He was also, as I said, such a nice guy, that he couldn't say no. He couldn't put some butts to the fire. He couldn't fight back. So he accomplished nothing, especially in a time of economic and international crises. Was he a good president? Sadly, no. I love the man, and had the wonderful opportunity to spend time with his family. I was always welcome at Amy's house. Politically? His presidency was a failure. I said that.

Now who is showing bias?

Proverbial you, maybe. I would generally say that the negative, and there is some, is outweighed by the positive.

Most of the impeachments in American history were political grandstanding. Nixon probably deserved it, but he resigned. Clinton is about as deserving as half the politicians in America, on both sides of the aisle. Take a look at Governor Sanford. Or Eliot Spitzer. Party/Ideology doesn't matter here. It's all so much fluff. And impeachment is simply a fancy word for indictment anyhow. You have to be convicted for it to matter.

I wasn't derailing it. It is my belief that Palin attracts the same sort of folks as Bush did. As such, the examples set forth in his administration are definitely relevant as we consider the possible consequences of a Palin administration. If she is elected by the same people, she will be beholden to the same people, and therefore will probably follow the same policies.

Guess that's okay, but I still feel that there may be more to it. It seems a bit too sudden, don't you think?I repeat, Hannity was being petty and Goldberg even pointed that out. Obama didn't seem to be taking credit at all, especially since he did thank the Navy seals for doing a good job. How is that taking credit by going to the public to let the American people know that all is well?

If you go to a bunch of schools, short term it's going to get asked about. They'll question why you kept changing them, unless, maybe, you're going for an English Teaching job where they're more concerned about the actual degree for "Visa purposes".Transfer or not, it still looks bad to keep quitting schools just to go to another one. I still don't get why you can't see that. That's not showing consistency and it COMES ACROSS AS IF YOU HAVE A DIFFICULT TIME FINISHING WHAT YOU START. I'm not saying it does, but, it comes across that way.How am I attacking her? I'm stating an opinion. At no point did I say anything insulting. You're putting words in my mouth and "assuming". I'm just saying, it looks bad and may give off a negative impression of her and then her quitting as governor, just like with the schools, doesn't help matters much either, but, she did give a reason as to why she quit, but the way she did it is still off to me.I wasn't. Once again, you're making assumptions about me.I didn't say that either. What I was saying is that seems that her son would come first and that doing a job that's incredibly time-consuming would come second, especially since the kid is a baby. I said the EXACT SAME THING FOR PALIN'S HUSBAND and hold him to the same standard. I don't see how anyone as a Vice President, with the possibility to become President could juggle that with a special needs child.No where did I say she was doing a bad one. Please stop making assumptions and twisting my words.It would be written "their" and I said upfront, "imo" that both her and her hubby should be spending time with their son because of his age and probably shouldn't be taking on jobs that would keep them away from said child so much and so often since it's detrimental to proper childcare development.Once again, you are twisting my words. Nowhere did I say Palin is a neglectful parent. All I said is that, to me, her child should come first, just like I said for her hubby. I said that if they are to take on jobs, it should be ones that won't be so time-consuming, because the child is an infant.The term is "bond" and once again, you are twisting my words. I never insinuated that. I never said women can't work or shouldn't work. I didn't even say "women". I said "parents' and last I looked, that usually consists of the mother and the father. I don't understand why you seem to have selective reading.

I'll say it again. IMO, PARENTSWITH YOUNG CHILDREN, ESPECIALLY AN INFANT - OR IN THE PALINS' CASE, A SPECIAL NEEDS INFANT - SHOULD NOT BE FOCUSING ON OCCUPATIONS THAT'LL TAKE UP THE MAJORITY OF THEIR TIME, AND BEING IN A POLITICAL OFFICE THAT HIGH, DEFINITELY WOULD.It's a red flag if they were never finished, or if each school was attended for a short amount of time.It's also supposed to teach one how to "tough it out" and to "stick to it" and to be "up to the challenge" and "discipline". Going to so many different schools, Palin was coming across someone who couldn't handle it. It's good that she did finally finish it, but why so many? I'm just telling how it looks, not necessarily how it is.Yes and no. If you have a job, quit it, get another one, quit it, get another, quit it, and then finally find a job and stay for a decent amount of time, it's going to look bad that all the previous jobs were short-term. The employer would probably think that you were a bad worker and fired or either you couldn't handle the job. What's to say that that person won't give you the same performance where it may resort to a firing or a quitting? That's why it looks bad that she attended so many different colleges, and didn't even finish them.

Ok like i said in my post she did use them as a political tool. Its not hard to see that. And if you mean profit in monetary terms I never said or implied that. But she did receive gain off her children and family. That was her whole gimmick. She was your everyday down and dirty country girl. Her family had a lot to do with why people liked her. I cant even count how many times she mentioned her family, and even brought her whole family to the speeches. She used them all the time for political gain, she would name drop them all the time in an attempt to relate with the mothers of the world. And it worked....in the beginning. And like I said this doesn't necessarily make it ok for people to go after her kids, she put them out in the spot light. She didn't just parade them around like most candidates do sometimes. She talked to the media about the kids personally, like she was trying to let us get to know her kids. This sets them up to be made fun of. When your put in the spot light in my opinion you can be fair game. Also when letterman went after her daughter. Yes you can say it was wrong. But I have a hard time calling her a child. I think you forfeit your child status when you start having kids of your own. Yes she is young, but I hope she is not exactly like all of her other 16 year old friends, who are probably young and naive. She has a KID, she is an adult in my book.

And who is to say kids are off limits always. Just becuase it does not fit your moral standard does not mean it cant fit someone elses. I don't really think kids should be involved either, but its hard for a single person to make the rules and decide who can and cant be made fun of. Just becuase you disagree with it doesn't make it wrong.

Oh and for the second part I misread what you said. You said no family deserves to be made fun of. Sorry bout that.

That's a better reason for quitting than the one she gave, though one wonders if she could govern and run for VP why can't she govern and run for Pres?

Obama said her family is OFF the rader, so it's not just me. It's actually one of those unwritten rules in politics.

Tell me turning someone kids into sex objects is not wrong.

She is still an child at the age of 16 regardless of her having an child! Would you be willing to say the same thing if an 13 or 14 year old has one?

More if she announced she was doing that, it would kill her chances because people would really get board of hearing it for three years.

Maybe doing both at one time taught her she can't do it?

Then why did you say he had no accomplishments? So an negative denies this? But he did do it did he not, to which in the first one you deny him having an accomplishments.


Where exactly do you think I'm "trying" to push you?

That is subjective, and arguably you could go either way.

Actually you have to give him credit that he did keep the country safe. Remember the released CIA memos? Did you ever read them? You don't need to have knowledge of national defense.



Yes, you did. Don't need your life story though.

Interesting sentence, so you can make any statement you want?

How does pointing out he had an 34% approval rating make me bias? Did you think about why I put that there?

There were even presidents, such as Jimmy Carter, who were so gosh darn nice, they got steamrolled and couldn't push through anything resembling an agenda

Your words, tell me you said his presidency was an failure.

Now relate that to Bush you find an huge connection.

No, the stimulus bill is not working, Health care plan he proposes is an mess. Regardless of positives THERE still negatives are they NOT? And a lot believe it is the wrong way.

Does that deny what I said?

If you where not before you are now! You want to make the assumption that one is guilty by association, well I could make the same assumption about Obama. Airs and Wright are examples, but I'm not going to.

I pointed out he honestly believed what he was saying, Goldberg seemed to differ that's what happens on an commentator show, to which your supposed to make you own assumption about what they are talking about. I really don't care, I don't see it as an issue so I'm not going to argue it based on my own assumptions.

This is not Japan is it? Here's the problem your making the assumption that "jobs" care about the schools you went to even if you hold the degree. I cannot think of one job that really cares.

I don't see it because colleges are NOT high schools. reasons being you can decide how long and how many credits one can obtain at one and go to another one to get more. The very reason why there is an transfer system is because its NOT an problem. No you are saying that.

Can opinions be attacks to? Your calling her an quitter and that could be insulting. Care to contrast why you keep saying "it comes across" and thing "I'm saying"?

Two part 1 of 2

two part 2 of 2 (really sorry about this)

Yes you are, you are criticizing her raising and bonding of her own children. You say she shouldn't do anything political and focus only on her own children. Know what your the first to go that route and go after on this. In all honestly it is petty. Point is there is no evidence of wrongdoing so you can't criticize her raising her own children.

Contradiction. Would not be saying she couldn't be vice president because she couldn't put her son first, be telling her how to live and raise her children?

Yes you did, saying that she couldn't balance being vice president and rasing her son is saying she not doing an good motherly job.

Petty. I did put an disclore that I'm not in the best condition right now for spelling and grammer didn't I?

Contrast this with the rest of what you have been writing so far.

then if she did you would say that it is child neglect would you not? You say that such an job takes way to much time and spending these few months with her child is determental to them, now if she took such an job. You would have to say that is child neglect would you not?

Being petty again. First off who are we talking about Sarah, we are not talking about her husband are we? Sarah is an women so I made an link between the two.

Really, I figured out this is so off putting. Your putting yourself on an pedestal over her and challanging her on raising her own children. Who are to decide if she can't raise her own children with such an position?

Really? You want to know something I can NOT think of anybody who cares about how many and how long you went to college for, you know why? Because colleges are the gateway to an degree to which people CARE for.

No your doing both. Reaon why you say you need to finish an specfic college regardless of cercimstance or your branded an quiter. Know what if where going to do that, we could brand Obama an druggy (that would be complelty wrong but logically this is what YOUR doing).

Going to college is not an career is it? You go to college to learn hence, I would be willing to say the more you go the more knowledgeable your going to be.

I'll repeat colleges are not high schools.

I dont really care if Obama said that. Yes I supported Obama but that doesnt mean everything he says is the right way to do it. Like I have stated I dont personally think that going after the kids is the right thing to do. I am just saying she set her family up for it. Whether it is right or wrong is up to the individual viewing the situation. I am merely stating she is partly to blame for her family getting negative attention. When you parade them in the spot light so much, they are bound to get criticized.

And yes I think that makes her an adult in my eyes. If you are moving on to more adult thing, I see you as an adult. You may not have all the same experiences an 18 year old would. But you sure as hell have more experience than many other 16 year olds. This goes to the age old question of what really is an adult. I have known plenty of 16 year olds who are intellectually more advanced that legally binding adults. Just because you turn a certain age doesn't make you automatically smarter and more mature. Its the same when you look at the legal system. If the law worked by your standards than no one no matter what would ever be tried as and adult under the age of 18. But people are tried as adults when they are under the age of 18.

Intelligence does not make an adult. So in essence because one of my age DOES have the experience and maturity (emotionally and mentally) one could say I'm an adult. Now I ask you, in what way does an 16 year old classify as an adult? Hint legally they cannot do an thing. As to the question what is an adult I guarantee an 16 year old isn't. Also just because you are an certain age (16) doesn't make one an adult.

Even then why are you continuing an point that Bristol can be attacked because she is an "adult"?

In all children who get charged as an adult it is FOR murder huge difference (note is not wither they are an adult but wither they are an danger to society).

Really, so you would still have people reserve the right to go after someone family let alone there children? The issue here is not wither she put her children out there like you would have it, it's wither they are fair game to which it is NOT. You think she puts her children out there chastise her for it, don't think it's ok to go after them. Do I have to add they went after her son and said it was one of her daughters, do you even know how petty that is? How did she parade him around to deserve that?

Also either you start to support (with evidence) your argument about her "parading" her children or drop it.

No, you have a right to Criticize what you want but that doesn't mean i cant stand up for myself. You treat what I have said like it was blaspheme.

I'm not making an excuse. It's what you risk. It's the REAL WORLD! In Real life people say mean things and make up stuff to make life more interesting or to sell something. That's life, there is always going to be something like that. I don't really care because in my life, i don't have the time to sit around fighting battles for other people. I don't care what anyone says unless it's directed at me personally, my family, or my close friends. So you can ask me all you want if i have any sympathy for her and I would always answer no. What she does in her personal life will never affect me. If she ran for president maybe then i will care and look into things but for now I really don't give what people say about her or her family.

I would stand up for all woman if someone said "Woman can not run the White House." Or "Woman have tiny brains." I would stand up for all woman on something like that, but just because me and Palin are female and someone is saying mean things, no I wouldnt stand up for her. That may sound mean, it may sound cold hearted, but it's the truth and Iam cold hearted.

I didn't say you said untrue things, I said i wasn't going to tell you things that weren't true. i can see where you may have mistook that for me saying you were saying untrue things and i apologize for that. As for the other part, I know you can say what ever you want but Im to lazy after work to go back and read all your posts. Hey Im just being honest, I feel lazy. I'll find them for you later and we can chat it up.


Contradiction is the word your looking for not conflict, and it doesnt matter because you wrong. I said she made woman look like a joke. Plus you have what Iam saying backwards. Her image and whats in her brain are different things. On the outside her image gives off this independent look. Like she can handle herself. Then when she opens her mouth all that comes out is a "Uhhhhhh" that where she makes us look like a joke! she makes woman look like a joke by not properly answering questions and contradicting herself all the time. Have you ever taken a class on how to properly give a speech? If you have to stop and go "Um" or "Uh" your doing it wrong. "Uh" seems to be Sarah Palin's catchphrase.

Maybe on Children it's a good image. Joke of a woman? I didnt say she was a joke of a woman, i said she made all woman look like a joke. She can handle herself when it comes to shooting animals from helicopters but can she handle herself when she's thrown from that helicopter into the media and the public and given a microphone and all that comes out is "Um uh". I can handle myself when it comes to some things and other things i cant handle. She doent have very good public speaking skills and she doesnt know what she's talking about half the time. On the outside, on the inside. Those are the differences.


Life Style as in if she was a heavy drug addict. People who are addicted to Drugs shouldnt have children. Most drug addicts would sell there babies diaper money just for a hit of something. Most kids born to drug addicted homes die within the first few months of life.

It's a woman's right to have a choice. If she doesnt want a baby, no one should force her to. If i were raped and then found myself pregnant, would you force me to give birth to the child?

You really proved nothing.

Are you trying to get me to admit to something? Not necessarily if you said he was a joke, it doesnt mean he was the worst player there ever was. It does mean he was a bad one tho.

This is actually something i agree with.

Yeah but you confused me.

"Tell us your friends that agree with you."

It's the way it's worded. It's alittle confusing to me. Did you want me to tell you about my real life friends or about people who agree?

So everyday is a off day for Palin?

I specifically said that being an adult is not an age thing. I said it has to do with your mental state of being. I said just because you turn 18 you don't magically switch over to being an adult besides what the law says.

And I only brought up murder to point out this previous statement. Its not always about the law abiding age. You can still be considered an adult even below the age of 18. And its not just if your a danger to society. There are people who are tried as minors even if they are a danger to society. They are just put in to juvenile detention. They are tried as adults if the law thinks they were knew what they were doing and acting as an adult.

And the only reason I brought up this whole thing about her being and adult is because you kept saying the CHILDREN are off limits. So I said I don't see her as a child. I didn't really want to get in a huge discussion on what the requirements to be an adult are, but you brought it there. I was only trying to state she can be viewed as and adult.

Like I have said in, oh, ever post in this thread. Personally, if I were in the media, I would not go after the kids or her family. Unless they did something worthy of news coverage on their own. Meaning doing something other than being related to Sarah Palin. But for some reason you still think that I have some vendetta against Palin's family. But that goes without saying that I do think the media can go and attack whoever they want. Some people use loose guidelines on who can and cant be criticized. And usually the family, and almost always the family is off limits. Unless they warrant some criticizing or stuff they do on their own. But her family reached the spot light, they are bound to get criticized and made fun of. Thats what happens when people know your name, and some people don't like you. They will go after you for anything. Is it right? Is it wrong? I know where you stand. And I know where I stand. Why don't your stop with the holier than though stance and accept that people can have different morals than you. Some people are ok with going after the family. Some aren't. Just face the facts that everyone is not the same as you. Opinions will differ.

And yes I will try and find some articles showing how she paraded around her family, and used them for political gain. Not right this second as I don't have the time. Most of what I am talking about comes from reading, listening to others talk about it, and just watching many of her speeches when she brings out the family or just talks about them all the time. And honestly if you don't feel like waiting for me just type in any combination of Palin, family, using, gain, parading. And I am sure you will find many forums and articles talking about this.

Here is one that i found interesting. However it was after the Letterman Joke. But it is still interesting.
Sarah Palin Continues To Drag Daughter Through Mud For Political Gain - Liberal Values - Defending Liberty and Enlightened Thought

I will presume that your written style does not have the normal tone assumptions, and that certain characteristics are not indicative of a given tone or emotional state. My own tone is academic and scholastic in most cases.

I said he had a lot of accomplishments. I said "an awful lot" with emphasis on the "awful." Most were negative. I never said they were all negative.

I think the insinuation was clearly the questioning of my loyalty. I have dealt with this same claim dozens of times, and we're often not too far away from a claim of, "If you don't think President Bush is protecting this country, then you must either have no idea what you are speaking about, or you want to see America fail." The fact so many of our elected GOP officials have said almost the same thing, word for word, makes me wary of going down that rabbit hole with the neoconservative rank and file.

Questioning a fellow citizen's loyalty, regardless of political affiliation, is inappropriate.

Actually, I don't need to do anything at all. You can insist until you're blue in the face that I change my opinion that the actions of President Bush made America less safe, and it will have no effect. It isn't like you're insisting on a law of macro-mechanics. In order to assert opinions, you must offer reasoning as to why you are justified in asserting that others should agree. Notice, I nowhere said you had to believe what I believe. Why do you think you have justification in not affording me the same respect?

I read the memos. At least, I believe I have read those which you refer to. Rather than think we were made safer, I honestly think we turned the international community against us even more for CIA actions.

And... wait... you're telling me that in order to understand elements of national defense one need not know about national defense? I don't think I'm misquoting or twisting words here. Please note, this is not to humiliate you, or to "rub your nose" in a failure of logic, but I think we need to examine the logical consequences of your statement.

Keeping the country safe is otherwise known as national defense.

The memos refer to actions taken by the CIA to keep the country safe (in the Bush Administration's opinion), which is to say the memos refer to actions taken by the CIA for purposes of national defense.

You don't need to have a knowledge of national defense to understand memos from the CIA pertaining to actions taken by the CIA for purposes of national defense.

Nope. No twisting. You just quite clearly said you don't need to have a knowledge of national defense to understand (at least actions taken as part of) national defense.

If this is not what you meant to say, then I cannot follow the logic as presented here.

In the interest of fairness, I was making sure my biases were clear. This is usually considered a very well-mannered thing to do in a political debate.

The life story quip came off petty. It has no place in academic debate.

With justification, if what you mean is can I make any statement I believe should be considered. Before working in politics, I was a political reporter, when I decided I had developed a bias, I left journalism to work for what I believed in. I have always been a consumer of political history and current political events. I have studied political philosophy from the Ancient Greeks, through Rome, to the Italian city states, to the Divine Rule of Kings, and to the beginnings and current state of representative democracies around the world.

I am quite credible, thanks. My acknowledgement of my bias is, as I say, just good manners.

I can't believe you're actually saying Jimmy Carter's rating was undeserved and he was really a good president that the public just didn't like.

And even if you are, are you then suggesting that Bush was a really good president, like Jimmy Carter, that the public just didn't like?

I suppose I can follow the logic, I just don't think you honestly meant to imply that when you pointed out he had a 34% approval rating.

I think you put it there to insinuate his approval rating is proof he was a worse, maybe even in your mind, a far worse, president than George W. Bush. Obviously, I find both of these assertions silly, albeit for different reasons.


Okay:

they got steamrolled and couldn't push through anything resembling an agenda

Here. Jimmy Carter couldn't push through anything resembling an agenda. He failed to accomplish an agenda he was elected to accomplish. He failed. His presidency was a failure. Just because I didn't say failure doesn't mean you are excused from understanding synonyms when they occur.

What connection? That Bush was a failure? No, I think the problem is he didn't fail to pass his agenda; it was just an agenda America really couldn't afford, and one that was significantly different from his campaign promises.

Bush was president for eight years. Obama has been president for, what, six months? I gave George Bush his entire first term before I went to work for Kerry, and I wasn't even a Democrat at the time. At least give him until the mid-terms before you start writing his legacy. The above comparison is a false comparison. Another logical fallacy, asserting the two can be equally weighted.

Also: Meet the stimulus hires - Bobby Jones, 55 (1) - FORTUNE

Yes.

You said that impeachment was proof of the presidents to be considered the worst.

I said that impeachment was political grandstanding that, at the end of the day, had no value whatsoever, and was not valid for any kind of judgement.

The two are directly contradictory.

I am not. I chimed in on a discussion already in progress. If it was being derailed, it was being derailed before I showed up. What I am doing is recognising that politicians do not act alone. Not to get elected, and not once they are elected. This is true of Obama, it is true of Bush, and it is true of Palin.

Ayers and Obama were on the same "society" boards, as were several republicans. The comparison here is also false, because if I can say Obama is like Ayers, then I can say the Republicans are like Ayers, or even that Obama and the Republicans are alike. And that's just illogical nonsense.

Wright is a much less false example, but at least Obama publicly distanced himself from Wright and has since condemned recent remarks by the pastor.

Palin (and Huckabee, who is at least entertaining with support from Chuck Norris) courts the evangelical radical right (this is no smear against Christianity, but rather a nod to the demographic make up where the majority call themselves "born-again"). This is the same group that led Bush to win the election in 2004, and come close enough to be named the winner in the 2000 election. This demographic is the reason why the administration went so far right when America, as a whole, votes the middle. By 2006, scandals had rocked the far right enough that the segment was depressed, and a serious liberal movement originally supporting Kerry was able to move in and move the numbers to the left during the midterms. The Democrat winning in 2008 was almost a forgone conclusion. Only a specific candidate's personal history might have been a factor in changing this. I tend to believe both Hillary and Obama had the exact same chances of winning, although Hillary's absolute vote count might have been lower. America was just that angry at the right and blamed the GOP (even replacing moderate GOP representatives with more conservative Democratic representatives in some districts!).

As long as Palin refuses to distance herself from the radical right in the way that Obama distanced himself from Wright, and quite clearly shows she does not agree with their agenda and will not accept the help of their political machines to be elected, then as president, she would be expected to abide by their wishes unless she wants to see the GOP rocked even worse, or herself on the list of one-termers. What I find so frightening is the fact that far from distancing herself, she is embracing them. Why? Well, because, at least, according her speeches, debates, articles, etc, she is a member of the radical right. This is not guilt by association. She's clearly a member of a group with which I strongly disagree on, at the very least, most social issues, and a fair number of economic ones.

I found something weird about Sarah Palin. At first i didnt think it was true but then I looked further into it and found it was.

While she was the Mayor of Wasilla rape victiums were charged for their own Forensic testing kits.

"Former Democratic Rep. Eric Croft, who sponsored that bill, said he was disappointed that simply asking the Wasilla police department to stop didn't work. Croft said he doubts Palin was unaware of the practice."

Palin's town used to bill victims for rape kits

That's just dispicable! That's beyond words of anger. I can't say anything else. :mad:

Good for Alaska! And good riddance to her, I hope.

I may be wrong, but I think the real reason McCain tapped her is that he thought he needed a female running mate and that at least she would not overshadow him or conflict with his platform. I cannot believe the American public really ever saw her as a "good" choice for 2012 - or any other year.

I have rarely agreed with Republicans (since before Nixon got caught I think), but I agree completely with Rollins on this one. Maybe Matalin is looking to be Palin's running mate someday. Then I would not have to hesitate at all to vote for anyone else.

I fully agree!

To much to quote right know..so I'll answer by paragraph and in order.

QueenNanami,

did you answer the question that was posted at you? Yes, I treat what you have said as WRONG.

Point being calling this the real world? Who here sees things differently? Also do not those who do such an thing GET branded? Feeling sympathy for others is an part of being human and on that you have an contradiction. You say won't fight battles for other people, but will defend your family and friends. That said this is not about her personal life but people who have unjustly and unfairly went after her.

This relates to the above in that it is an contradiction. If you say you won't fight battles for others then you must also say you won't do it for other women. Point is there are SAYING things about her because SHE is an women! Tell me one man that would get the same treatment.



"Just as you wouldn't do for Obama. The way you talk about him you can tell you dislike him. Im not going to call you out on it and tell you something that isnt true. Im not going to shove words in your mouth."

Those are your words. Contrast that to what you are saying now. NOT an excused, to call yourself lazy.

Are we playing word games now? Petty. Look up both dif. and tell me that I couldn't use the word in the context of the sentence and have someone not know what I'm talking about. No I did not. You never said what she says you only made the generalizing that she makes women into "jokes". That also stands true for "women who can handle herself". Now these two are in conflict with each other because only one can be true. What you are looking for is that she is not an good public speaker, not an generalized wording.

Symantics, Saying she makes women look like an joke is also saying she is an joke of an women, because you know she is an woman! Your point, I don't get, for the very reason that other politicians usually don't give strait answers.

What? You seriously put an drug addicted person above the value of an child. You don't get it. It's not about the mothers right but the child! Short answer yes. Long answer it's not just your life and how are to put the blame on an child for the reason of it's existence? That said I would want it to be illegal to abort the child, not force you that is an huge difference. Point also to add you don't have to raise the child.

Care to challenge it? Think more of why I said that.

Do you need the definition of an joke? Seriously calling someone an joke implies that they are not worthy to be considered, what more do you use the word for? No I'm not trying to get you to say anything, I just point out.

we agree on this point, so no further comment is needed.

Look are you going to answer the question or beat around the bush?

Serology? again how does that even constitute an answer?

Barone1551 ,

Works both ways. Also read my post, I said you would "reserve the right of people".

Danger to society point still stands.

So you say shes game, right? Regardless of that legally she is an child, psychological is still an child (unless you provide evidence contrary). SO I would be correct in calling her an child.

It's not about what you would do. Would you say stealing is wrong, would you say lying is wrong, and would you say murder is wrong? there is an connection between those. No, because there is an general consent about this. AND on that, you want to attack someone you better expect to be challenged on it. Hence what is happening here.

Don't have the time is not an excuse. Telling me to go look it up is NOT an excuse. Hearsay is no an excuse.

Even looking at the title of that made me cringe. After reading WoW, what an lie ( I had to say it, the bias was clawing at my eyes). Can I ask you how many times that he referred to "right wing bloggers"? I seriously laughed when I read "authoritarian right". I point this to you, if Sarah Palin base is conservatives why does the author continually make the mark that this is an conspiracy by the right? When this is about comments made by Lettermen? It also tries to say "right-wing" bloggers blatantly told an lie that it was about Willow. Here's the problem Willow was the one at the game.

Indeed interesting, But I ask you how much stock do you place in such writing? In seriousness I was taken back by the tone of the article.

Tsuwabuki,

Ok after coming back and reading some things again I noticed that in the first posting I completely misread the bush part. My huge fault and sorry for that.

What are you trying to say with that first comment?


Ok, where can you provide that I question your loyalty? Good goal on calling me Neoconservative, shall we continue with the labeling? Thinking that it WAS an simple question to be answered. So I never made that claim.

I gave reasoning being that the CIA Memos does offer evidence of polices by the BUSH administration, that lead one to believe he did protect the country. It is no way an respect issue to which you want to make it into. One gives credit when there is evidence do they not?

Not an issue about what the national community thinks about us. This is about wither the CIA Memos give Bush credit that his polices protected the country. (Bradbury May 10, Bradbury May 10 long, Bradbury May 30, and byee).

In context of what I posted No, because one can read one can come to the conclusion. Evidence being the topic here, wither you believe it was right worked we had threats they where stopped. Like the wording there. Nothing more needs to be taken when in was in context of the CIA Memos.

Point being in pointing that out?

The memos also refer to policies put in place by the Bush administration.

I'll keep my comment short as I addressed that in the above. One does not need knowledge of said subject to read of results.

can't comment anymore.

Life story again. Self serving also. Statement is in response to the posting of ones accomplishments to support ones argument. I'm not arguing against your life. Your life also does not validate what you can freely say.

Depending on your point of view that is argumentative.

Same as with Bush.

Maybe what I'm trying to say is both had goal's and did not care about popularity contest. Maybe both had there faults but got down and dirty on there goals.

Really, when I made these types of statements throughout this thread?

How can I say he was worst when Bush had an MUCH lower approval rating when he left office! (around the 20s). Like the wording here too.

Completely missed the point. You did say failure in the one I quoted above that. That though was not what I was aiming at. I wanted you to look at what you said about Carter and apply it to Bush.

Obama does continue a lot of his policies does he not?

9.5 percent unemployment. Did he not say it would not go about 8.0 percent? Joe is on record as saying they misread how bad the economy is. When did I say there are equal? I said that they still are negatives that is all.

Stimulus spending finally starts to trickle down - USATODAY.com

Labor Leaders Push Obama for Second Stimulus Package - Political Punch

On Health Care, Obama Has Stern Words For Critics - ABC News

Read these.

Articles of Impeachment

Andrew Johnson - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Historical rankings of United States Presidents - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You said MOST. Arguably I don't think you can discount Nixon.

This is about Bush, in any way I don't not think Sarah Palin name is Bush.

Ayers And Obama: What Is Their Relationship?

Read that about Ayers. Point being that if your going to do the same for the right do the same for the left.

WoW, did not think you would do something like that. Way to bash the protestants (that really doesn't belong here for it is incredibly off topic and will spiral in something that will go against the rules of this site). Really OFFER EVIDENCE to support that line of thinking. That said I do believe you should replace the wording "far right" with REPUBLICANS in general. I really don't like the Republicans right now.

Special Report: Ideologically, Where Is the U.S. Moving?

Yeah keep calling her radical right, that really works without proof. McCain was an moderate and a pretender the reason why he lost.

QueenNanami,

Really again?

FactCheck.org: Did Sarah Palin make rape victims pay for their own rape kits?

You really can't say either way, and no if you did look it up you would know about this.

I do hope I got everything that was posted while I was gone. I ask if I messed anything point it out. (Note My grammar and spelling may still not be up to task, so forgive me on that part).

Some other perspectives: Sarah Palin's Constitutional Train Wreck:

Shannyn Moore: Sarah Palin's Constitutional Train Wreck

In-the-know Repubs want her to disappear:

Republican pundits open fire on Sarah Palin - Los Angeles Times

If you plan on having me understand what you are referring to, you really needed to quote. It's been days at least, if not a week, and I do have a daily life. I can't keep track of the conversation without quotes. I'd have to go back and construct one based on your ordering of sentences, which would take a lot of time I just don't want to spend on a forum.

I will say that your accusations of that I lack the ability to reason, argue, provide justification, or how I need to handle what constitutes evidence is just silly. Quite the opposite, I broke down your logic and showed where you had said something nonsensical. I'm a philosopher. We deal in arguments and counter arguments regularly. Now, if you're interested in continuing the discourse, I suggest you quote me, structure your responses to my quotes, so I can continue. Otherwise, I will guess you aren't serious, and I'll go back to having completely forgotten about this.

MMM,

It's no surprise that the Republican party is back biting and attacking each other. One of the very reasons why I considering going independent.

What do you think of Shannyn and her reporting? I wouldn't deny what she posts without first looking up the information and doing it myself. I would warn people she has and axe to grind against Sarah.

Shannyn Moore: Sarah Palin’s Not-So-Grand Inquisitor | Verum Serum

Interesting blog, but take what you want from it.

I'll start with the most alarming part that strikes me.

When did I accuse you of having no ability to reason, argue, or provide justification? Even then I would also throw that phrase "how I handle what constitutes evidence" in that lot.

That's a big swallow and I ask that you quote as what sentences, phrases, or paragraphs that lead you to believe I made those assumptions. I'm at a lost as to why, and would like to know how you came to those.

This whole "logic" answer doesn't satisfy. I addressed what you have said about the post, either you respond to what I have said or acknowledge what I have said has merit. This whole "I'm an philosopher" does not in no way constitute an answer to my arguments. In respect to this debate in what way does pointing that out merit you to have more credibility over me? I'll go an little bit further and ask why do yo keep pointing these "accomplishments" out, what do you gain to benefit?

I'm sorry, but in what why do you account for special treatment? I did that for EVERYONE that posted after me last time. I'm not going to keep double posting so that I can treat you above others. I really seriously doubt that you cannot tell which response is to what. Writing that I'm not "serious" is not an excuse to quite this debate, even then saying that so that I would account for your "special" requests. I'll ask this in what why do I treat yo above others, in the process break (minor) site rules continually in this thread? I'm not going to appease you.

"Daily life" is an incredibly poor excuse. Why you ask, well did you take time out to put in some response to what has been posted, yes you did. You can also put time in to respond to others. In essence don't expect others to treat your "time" above theirs. That said if you cannot keep track without quotes that is your problem not mine.

You spent time to post you surely can spend time to respond.

I was pretty sure this was a dead subject... Im so done with Sarah Palin. She's a idiot why do we keep talking about her -.- ...

As much as i dont want to keep talking to you. I wanted to say something.

I have no sympathy for Sarah Palin what so ever. You can not convince me other wise. It's hard for me to feel emotionally to someone I hate. Thats right i hate her now because im so sick of hearing about her. Im so sick of you tell me how great she is, i couldnt care less if she died. Of course if she died right as i typed this I may feel a tiny bit bad. You sure like that word contradiction now that i told you about it. Sarah Palin is neither my family or friend and i dont like her. So I dont care. Thats right Iam all full of venom and hate! ;) [/rant]

Well maybe it is! Maybe i did contradict myself when i said that, but there are some people i would stick up for and others i would not. If someone said Hilary Clinton wasnt smart enough I would say she was and I would stick up for that. But if i agree that Sarah Palin is stupid and is like the separated female twin to George W. Bush then No. I wouldnt stick up for her if i felt the same way. I would then be a Hypocrite. I dont care if that contradicts anything else Ive ever said because i dont really give anymore.

I would never stand up for Sarah Palin because I believe that she is a idiot and she makes woman look like a joke. That i stand firm on.

Oh yeah and...
and

I doubt that if you are the Mayor of a certain town and people know that they are making rape victims pay for their testing kits. That there is no way you are going to hear about it. You're the freaking Mayor! Someone had probably told her about it. Whether she knew about it was UNCERTAIN! I said that in my post and it say's it in the article i posted up. I never said it was a true fact. What i meant by what i said is at first i didnt believe it like it was a made up story but it was a true story! There was really a problem with them charging their rape victims.

Yeah i did look it up on many websites. More then one and Ive even read the one you posted up to counter mine. They had to pass a freaking law to get them to stop charging people. It started while Sarah Palin was the Mayor and with the police chief she had selected. I have very high doubts that you wouldnt hear about that if you were mayor. I doubt that if it was going to make me look bad i would fess up to it. I believe she did know. Yes i did look into alot of sites and i thought others should know about her wrong doings.

This one i couldnt find alot of info on. So maybe you can. Prove it wrong ;)

[quote=solemnclockwork;746645]
Barone1551 ,

Works both ways. Also read my post, I said you would "reserve the right of people".

Danger to society point still stands.

So you say shes game, right? Regardless of that legally she is an child, psychological is still an child (unless you provide evidence contrary). SO I would be correct in calling her an child.

It's not about what you would do. Would you say stealing is wrong, would you say lying is wrong, and would you say murder is wrong? there is an connection between those. No, because there is an general consent about this. AND on that, you want to attack someone you better expect to be challenged on it. Hence what is happening here.

Don't have the time is not an excuse. Telling me to go look it up is NOT an excuse. Hearsay is no an excuse.

Even looking at the title of that made me cringe. After reading WoW, what an lie ( I had to say it, the bias was clawing at my eyes). Can I ask you how many times that he referred to "right wing bloggers"? I seriously laughed when I read "authoritarian right". I point this to you, if Sarah Palin base is conservatives why does the author continually make the mark that this is an conspiracy by the right? When this is about comments made by Lettermen? It also tries to say "right-wing" bloggers blatantly told an lie that it was about Willow. Here's the problem Willow was the one at the game.

Indeed interesting, But I ask you how much stock do you place in such writing? In seriousness I was taken back by the tone of the article.

Ok yes i say she is game... were just going back and forth on the subject. It is my belief that you can be an adult with out the legal status of being and adult. I use trial and criminal cases as example to show that people under the legal age to be an adult are seen as adults. This was just one example of why I think this. I just want to know what do you think makes an adult? Is there some magical being that changes you into an adult the second you turn 18? Are you telling me that you are more of an adult at 17 years and 364 days that you are at exactly 18. I wonder. Thats all I am trying to say. I dont think you need to be the age of 18 to be considered an adult. And I dont completly understand your point about being a physical threat. Do you mean to say that you can only be an adult if you 18 or if you kill people?

I really dont know what you are saying or trying to prove by the bolded part.

And you need to calm down a bit. I never used any excuses. I really didn't have time to find articles, and then post them. Then the topic kind of died down and I completely forgot about it. My bad, but you need to chill a little bit.

You can say that about any side. Every side has its extremists. I could go find things about the far right and post an identical post to yours.

solemnclockwork,

Tell you what, give me two days, and I'll try to construct something. I'm leaving for America soon, and I really need to make sure my ducks are in a row, so I'm sorry, but I do not have time to write a huge essay of a response tonight. I assume I won't have internet for the 18 hours I'm on the plane, and I will want to sleep when I get to Texas.

Give me two days, my parents have broadband, I will go back and structure a response. However, I think you're taking this far too personally, I think you're projecting emotional content into my posts that simply isn't there, and I think that you need to quote everyone you respond to, not just me. It's hard for everyone to follow. There are certain academic standards to be met in a debate in order to act dispassionately. I do not believe you are meeting those standards. As a philosopher, I am intimately familiar with those standards, and thus I have the credibility to say that you are not following them. There is nothing unusual about this.

I'll start with the last paragraph. (one you quoted about aerial hunting)

That really helps when you don't provide an source.

Easy find. So next time post the full debate.

Alaska Wolf and Bear Protection Act (2008 - Ballotpedia)

What does uncertain mean? When you read the definition you would then know you can't make an accusation of wither she knew or not. THAT is the point. That said I don't care to compare "sites" this isn't an game or "I got more then you" is it? You cannot make an factual guess without evidence to support it.

Palin's town charged women for rape exams - CNN.com

Read it.

found something weird about Sarah Palin. At first i didnt think it was true but then I looked further into it and found it was.

Your words. Now think of how I'm supposed to take that? Saying something is true means I should take it as fact. Now if you meant to say the story had merit then point out the difference.

Hmmm,

I remember Elementary school when you say "I don't want to keep talking to you". That said I would like you to think about what you are saying. Do you honestly expect me to believe that you harbor such extensive feelings toward her? In the great phrases I would say.... Quite being childish. Then say you would only stick up for certain people, much simpler then making an generalized saying then negating it the second later.


If someone said Hilary Clinton wasnt smart enough I would say she was and I would stick up for that. But if i agree that Sarah Palin is stupid and is like the separated female twin to George W. Bush then No

Do you know the connecting between those two? I'll tell you this time. In what way do you see that one can have assumption and deny another theirs? Either

A you agree that both are branded along the same line.

B You deny both are branded along the same line.

Reason being you ask? Well first off that is an very broad generalizing, secondly saying unfounded things about someone does nothing. Thirdly that phrase is an mirror opposite of what your doing (if I was doing it to Clinton and you where defending her.)

You should care about your public perception.

Lastly I might add, since you made the comment that "I'm telling you how great she is", I'm defending her against such attacks. I have comments along the lines that I do like her, but I do believe that is as far as I gone (quote me if you think otherwise), as I do believe a LOT of the attacks against her is very unwanted.

Should such writings be taken then? No they should be ignored. That said what do you mean "I could post an identical post to yours"?

Barone1551,

Your writing, to which I responded is not an excuse. You never supported your argument that she "paraded" her children around.

the bold part was in response to your fourth paragraph. I'll enlighten you to what I meant by it. There is an connection between the three parts, that universally all agree are wrong. Now an person could believe murder was right, but does that make it right no. Once could believe that because someone is rich they should take part does that mean they can steal it no. One tales an lie, does that mean there honest, no. Apply this to what has been shown to the Palin's family. Second part stands as to what is happening now.

Who decides which children will be tried as adults? - By Harlan J. Protass - Slate Magazine

Children charged with murder… should they be tried as adults? | Lawinfo Weblog

Youths Shouldn't Be Tried As Adults, Study Says

Read them in response to children and crime.

Enough with the smart talk you know what I meant. when I said I was going by psychologically and legally what constitutes and adult. In what way did I say that someone comments murder they are an adult?

Tsuwabuki,

Second paragraph I'm going to begin with.

I "think" doesn't mean I do does it? That said offer evidence as to why when you get back.

To quote everyone would be the best possible scenario. AS I have said in context of the rules of this site I wasn't going to keep double posting, hence why I posted the way I did and gave the structure of the post.

What academic standards are you using? You do know the broad term "debate" stands for do you not? As I have said before don't make accusations without offering evidence. Even then I relate this to you, why do you continue prop you accomplishments up and then try to challenge me on "academic standards" in an internet debate?

IDEA :: International Debate Education Association

Is this what you refer to?

How can you then exist on an rules that have not taken place at the beginning of this thread? It's like putting things in an middle of an game. To add I don't know what debate format you are talking about, and we have no judge so there are really no set standards in this type of discussion (how can there be, it's not regulated). Question then points towards me and why I adamantly ask people to provide evidence to support there argument. Simple, claims and accusations remain false until it's given merit by support.

That said, I put no stock into what "you think" without you offering evidence as to why. I also would say your being above yourself with the "philosopher". If I haven't made it clear yet I will now; you don't bring personal accomplishments into an debate. When two come together the only thing that matters is argument and evidence that supports that point. NOTHING ELSE. So in retrospect your only serving yourself when you keep bring up what you "are".

Can't really respond to the first paragraph, other then have an good time.

(I ran out of text space so I had to cut out out two quotes, sorry)