- This topic is empty.
-
AuthorPosts
-
September 3, 2008 at 6:11 pm #636943
JenVMemberSeptember 3, 2008 at 6:55 pm #636944
acemotelParticipantWhat motivates people to defend Palin to the nth degree, when they know nothing about her? Is it just because McCain picked her? Certainly they weren’t fans a week ago.
And even if she didn’t force creationism on the AK school curriculum, isn’t it enough to cast doubt on her VP-readiness to know that she believes it?
September 3, 2008 at 7:09 pm #636945
beachdrivegirlParticipantDoes it take more than 20/months to get something passed even when Governor……or am i mistaken.
September 3, 2008 at 7:11 pm #636946
JoBParticipantit’s because she is a woman…
unfortunately.. as someone already pointed out.. she ain’t no Hillary! And that’s not the good news.
September 3, 2008 at 7:13 pm #636947
JoBParticipantJenV..
i got distracted.
i can think of little more dangerous than arbitrarily banning books…
i bet the subject never came up after she forced the librarian out… after all.. it doesn’t have to if the new librarian is compliant. books just disappear from the system or are never ordered…
September 3, 2008 at 7:15 pm #636948
charlabobParticipantYou mean people *defend* her because she’s a woman? Right?????? :-)
September 3, 2008 at 7:17 pm #636949
beachdrivegirlParticipantThat is what I was hearing this a.m. on tv. they were commenting that Palin is the first real hope for the Republican party to have a successful women canidate. So, many die hard Republicans are pushing aside their personal doubts, and thinking further of even this Presidential election. B/c if they can make Ms. Palin a “big” deal then even if McCain loses come November they have had a success by making Palin a new vibrant women player in the Republican party who we will unfortunatly get to see more and more of.
September 3, 2008 at 7:20 pm #636950
JoBParticipantpicking an unsuitable candidate shows more disrespect for women than respect.
and yes charla.. i meant they defend her because she is a woman.. and as such an unsuitable woman has captured the underdog status for the republicans once again…
September 3, 2008 at 7:46 pm #636951
JennyMembershe really does stick to her ideals, doesn’t she?
NOT!
Whoa, you’ve spun around so fast you got my head spinning!
Must…sit…down…
OK. Let us review: FIRST you complain that she’s a religious nut. THEN I show how she doesn’t seem to let her religious views get in the way of her libertarianism. WHICH… makes you hate her even more for being a hypocrite.
Do I have this correct?
September 3, 2008 at 7:53 pm #636952
JenVMemberNR went ON AND ON yesterday about how she sticks by her ideals. Clearly she does not. If she did, I could at least respect that. But like most politicians, she says what she says when it is prudent.
September 3, 2008 at 7:55 pm #636953
JennyMemberIn other news: Politico published an opposition research book on Palin from 2006 – THAT INCLUDED HER SOCIAL SECURITY NUMBER. Apparently the original book had the last 4 digits redacted, but still, DAYUM.
I guess Palin needs to call LifeLock. (Or on second thought, no – from what I’ve read LifeLock isn’t very effective; but anyway.)
Former Maryland Lt. Gov. Michael Steele, who had also had his SSN publicized by Democrats, said today he’s seen an email from the DNC that reveals they are explicitly trying to sink her nomination within a week.
If he can support that claim – this will be a BOMBSHELL.
September 3, 2008 at 8:02 pm #636954
charlabobParticipantSteele made a number of claims during his failed bid for the Maryland governorship, which turned out to be false. I don’t know if this is one of them. When I get home, I’ll look them up — it’s hard to type fast enough to keep up with the right wing spin machine, even on this silly little blog. :-)
This “bombshell” means that the Repugs are getting ready to throw Palin under the bus and need someone to blame it on. “Ooooooh, those cruel meanies made it impossible for us to nominate a well-vetted, incredibly qualified woman.”
How can you tell that’s about to happen? Because all of them, up and down the line, deny it’s even been mentioned in idle chatter AND because the woman hasn’t been interviewed AT ALL since her surprise nomination.
September 3, 2008 at 8:06 pm #636955
AnonymousInactiveJoB – Here is an example of a “personal” attack BY YOU:
>
>
> “beachdrivegirl.. don’t you get it?” –JoB
>
>
>
> ” it looks like i can’t have intelligent conversation with you.” – JoB
Of course, you will explain these away somehow, I’m looking forward to it.
Although this is not the place, I just wanted to share a couple and if you do need more, I would be happy to send them via email, as no one else is interested in this discussion.
Sorry to interrupt the discussion, everyone.
September 3, 2008 at 8:30 pm #636956
Tonya42MemberI am not picking on JoB, unless you call questioning statements that are unfounded and well her uncanny knack to find everything “foolish” that she can’t rationalize or refute. You are right, JoB does not need to be defended by anyone, but it would be nice if she started defending her own statements and start practicing what she preaches. Amen.
September 3, 2008 at 9:00 pm #636957
JenVMemberNR, why don’t you just start a new thread about how much you dislike JoB?
September 3, 2008 at 9:03 pm #636958
GenHillOneParticipantCorrect – this is not the place and no one else is interested. And posts like the above are the real definition of foolish.
Until the “ignore this user” button comes along to give the rest of us a choice, please take your incessant personal concerns offline. The first time, speak your mind, the 49th and 50th time just sound petty and lose any validity that you may have had to begin with anyway. I want to read about the topic, not why the two of you don’t like another member.
September 3, 2008 at 9:07 pm #636959
mellaw6565MemberI agree GenHillOne – it’s really ruining the good discussions on these threads.
September 3, 2008 at 9:08 pm #636960
JennyMemberIt occurs to me that, whether this smear campaign against Sarah Palin is orchestrated or totally open-source, “let’s put on a smear campaign!” kind of deal, this is just the kind of thing that will eventually bring the interwebs under the control of the FCC and/or FEC. Just you watch. (If so, God help us all.)
(‘course, after McCain-Feingold it could easily be McCain who does it. Blech.)
September 3, 2008 at 9:10 pm #636961
JenVMemberSarah Palin is the one who brought her daughter and her underage, unwed pregnancy into the spotlight, not anyone else. She is the only one to blame. She has started a smear campaign against her daughter. Poor kid.
September 3, 2008 at 9:57 pm #636962
AnonymousInactiveJenV – Where are you getting your information?
She was up front when the Republican Party was vetting her, she disclosed everything and it wasn’t a big deal.
The media chose to bring this into the spotlight (and then, of course, the who-knows-how-many Democrats who continue to discuss it daily).
Is your thinking that, because she is running,it is her fault?
September 3, 2008 at 10:05 pm #636963
JenVMemberyou’re right NR, it is the big, bad liberal media’s fault that her daughter got pregnant, Palin admitted to the fact that her daughter was pregnant, and the media chose to report on something that is NEWS. But the right-wingers would just ignore it if it were on the Dem’s side, right? Sarah Palin was up front talking about her daughter’s pregnancy, the media talks about it, and all of a sudden she’s not the one who brought it up for public scrutiny…right.
September 3, 2008 at 10:19 pm #636964
AnonymousInactive“Sarah Palin is the one who brought her daughter and her underage, unwed pregnancy into the spotlight, not anyone else. She is the only one to blame. She has started a smear campaign against her daughter. Poor kid.”
JenV – I was asking for your source to back up this very inflammatory statement you made.
I did not say, in any way, that it was the media’s fault. I said that she was up-front about it, the media reported it and, now, Democrats can’t stop talking about it.
Please back up your accusation that this is all Palin’s fault. Would you have rather she try and hide it? Are you suggesting that, because she did the right thing and was forthcoming, she brought it up for “public scrutiny”? So, now we are punishing her because she was honest?
September 3, 2008 at 10:24 pm #636965
charlabobParticipantThe Party and McCain did not vet her adequately. Do you believe that because they said they did? If not, what possible evidence do you have?
Had they vetted her, they would have some response to the emerging facts, other than “We Knew That.” Good grief — the shrill desperation of the right is getting painful to behold.
September 3, 2008 at 10:26 pm #636966
JenVMemberNo, but blaming the media for reporting on it is just insanity. She trotted her daughter out there and then the right wingers go nuts claiming this is all liberal media bias. Maybe if she had done her job as a mother her teen daughter wouldn’t have gotten knocked up in the first place…hmmm?? But no, sex ed is clearly immoral.
and if it were on the other foot – the talking heads over at Faux News would never let it die for a second. you know it and I know it. They harp on every little thing that would discredit a candidate – and now you’re crying liberal media bias when it happens here. HYPOCRITICAL THINKING. You’re guilty of it too- oh gee, Barack Obama is a muslim….oh, Reverend Wright…. I call complete and utter bullcrap on your argument, NR.
September 3, 2008 at 11:01 pm #636967
CPMemberKu-DOS JenV. Pot and Kettle-ism abounds.
-
AuthorPosts
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.