quote:

ORIGINAL: mnottertail

Now, to business-----so she resigned as Governor of Alaska....either she is setting up for a run at national power or she ain't, we won't know until late this fall when we see her stumping or not to raise money for the mid-terms (because republican or democrat, common or royalty, the checkbook has the effect of law).

Anyway, big fuckin' deal.   She may have higher aspirations, she may not....she may simply be sick and tired of being called a dumb fucking cunt (mea culpa, mea culpa, mea maxima culpa)......our dicing and slicing and laser-like inciteful reasonings will not sway her judgement, I expect.

This time, Firm....it is in answer to you, (peripherally)  although I have no dog in this fight, and do not consider her resigning as governor to have any more political import than mcnamara cakking...............

quote:

ORIGINAL: harddaddy4u

The pettiness of liberals is breathtaking. Not to mention the transparency of their efforts to try and destroy a good woman with false charges and innunendo.

The mere fact that you libs keep trying to attack Sarah Palin, long after she simply went back to being governor of Alaska, shows how empty you all are.

I suggest you all get lives - unless you are a citizen of the state of Alaska, it's none of your damn business what she does or how she does it. The last time I checked, states handle their own matters without interference from meddlesome people who live in other states, and have too much time on their hands.

quote:

ORIGINAL: ThatDamnedPanda

Considering such blogs are the only sources Heretic cites,

quote:

ORIGINAL: TheHeretic

quote:

ORIGINAL: ThatDamnedPanda

Considering such blogs are the only sources Heretic cites,

    Dammit, Panda, when I said I would go find you specific examples of the use of the words "slut" and "tard" did I indicate I was going to look anywhere else but blogs???  Not a rhetorical question.  I used those words to describe the tone of the attacks, and others insisted on taking them literally.  I've been saying that since the issue came up. 

     Fuckit.  I'll just pop in on a Sarah Palin thread somewhere in the future and shove ya'lls noses in "I told you so's"

    

quote:

ORIGINAL: FirmhandKY

Rape kits debunked from Slate.

quote:

Samuels also quotes from an article in the local Wasilla paper that police chief Charlie Fallon didn't want to pass the burden along to taxpayers. That is an undeniably boneheaded and offensive statement. What she leaves out is his statement that he was TRYING to bill INSURANCE COMPANIES, not victims. "In the past we've charged the cost of exams to the victims insurance company when possible," is what he said.

quote:

3. Will you support funding for abstinence-until-marriage education instead of for explicit sex-education programs, school-based clinics, and the distribution of contraceptives in schools?

SP: Yes, the explicit sex-ed programs will not find my support.

There have been discussions about this even on CM. You are trying to enforce the fallacy of the excluded middle.

Her position:

Palin appears to disagree with McCain on sex education:

"I'm pro-contraception, and I think kids who may not hear about it at home should hear about it in other avenues," she said during a debate in Juneau.

quote:

quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen

quote:

5. She believes that the Iraq war was directed by God.

She actually called it a 'task from God.' Seems like the same thing to me but I expect your usual semantic games.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i2ypVSYoEKA

Great piece of propaganda. Unfortunately, I've listened to the entire thing, not just the chop job you offer. I thought the text overlay was pretty neat - it tries to help you skip right over what she actually said:

... In September. Pray for our military men and women who are striving to do what is right also for the country. That our leaders - our national leaders - are sending them out on a task that is from God. That is what we have to make sure we are praying for.

She asking the congregation for pray that our leaders are actually following God's plan. It's a hope, not a declaration.

quote:

quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen

quote:

6. She said that dinosaurs walked the earth 4k years ago.

She's been cagey about stating her beliefs, SOP for creationists who want to be taken seriously on the national stage. But she did say she wanted creationism taught in public schools during her campaign for governor.
http://chronicle.com/blogs/election/2391/palin-believes-in-biblical-creation-but-hasnt-forced-it-into-the-curriculum

So ... let me get this straight.

You can't prove she said the remark I put forth, so you decide to change the subject.

She has never stated that she believes in Creationism. She has said “I don’t pretend to know how all this came to be.”

Fine point? Not when you put words in her mouth, and condemn her simply because she holds Christian beliefs.

You are also saying that since she has religious beliefs - but isn't willing to force them on others - she's disqualified for public office? I guess she is pretty 'cagey" and all, believing that she shouldn't enforce her religious beliefs on others.

Firm

quote:

ORIGINAL: FirmhandKY

Well, I hate to differ, but no one has proven a single one of the slurs I posted. There's been a lot of sarcastic humor, and further attacks. There have been a lot of misdirection, and changing of terms.

quote:

ORIGINAL: FirmhandKY
But not a single one of the slurs I posted has been proved. Just a bunch of mind-readers and pundits getting in more digs.

quote:

ORIGINAL: FirmhandKY
You yourself are guilty, in your above post.

Was Palin a member of the AIP or not?

Not Todd.

Not "did she record an address for their convention" ... WAS SHE A MEMBER?

The answer of course is "No", but you attempt to change the subject, and paint a picture around the facts so that you can change the focus just enough to get by without actually answering the question.

quote:

ORIGINAL: FirmhandKY
I find it amusing that the very people who seem to decry the "politics of personal destruction" seem to find nothing wrong with it when it's practiced against someone that they dislike.

quote:

ORIGINAL: TheHeretic

        There has to be more to this story, and I'm completely ok with having no idea what it is.  This torpedoes her as a potential contender in '12, and that's the part I'm most ok with.

  

quote:

ORIGINAL: tazzygirl

quote:

ORIGINAL: TheHeretic

quote:

ORIGINAL: Loki45

You're talking bloggers and we're talking Palin...

          Then why the fuck am I wasting time here, if we aren't even talking about the same thing???

Happy 4th.  I'm gonna go get drunker.

The Daily KOS and other such sites are a far cry from the Democratic party calling her a slut of her child a "tard"

quote:

ORIGINAL: ThatDaveGuy69

I think that there is a point at which the family, or at least parts of it, become fair game.

Sarah's "tard" kid, a Downs Syndrome child, should have been completely off-limts.  And he was, right up to the point she brought the poor little guy out on-stage with a thousands of cheering people and flashing lights.  He should have been home in bed.  Her cred ibility as a concerned parent would have soared if she at simply said it was past his bedtime and he was at home with a sitter.

Sarah's older daughter should have been off limits.  And she was, right up to the point where we all learned how well "abstinance only" worked for her.  At that point she becaome another of Palin's failed policies.

For the most part, family members are not routinely ripped on.  That is until they, or the politician, do something really stupid to bring them into the spotlight.  Chelsea Clinton was kept out of the spotlight and I don't remember her embarrassing her parents.  The Bush twins only made the headlines when one of them got caught (underage) drinking. 

On the other hand, Dick Chaney's daughter -an out lesbian- was often a problem as her lifestyle was completely at odds with Bush's policies.

Remember Billy Carter and "Billy Beer"?  'nuf said on that...

Family is a funny thing in politics.  It can hurt, help, embarass, sustain, and even take the blame.  And while they may not have signed up for the ride, their being viewed as media targets generally depends on how willing they are to go along (age not withstanding), how much the politician attempts to exploit them, and how many embarrassing moments they cause.

Personally, I don't ever want to see another under-age child of a politician on stage for anything other than a victory celebration, and even then it should be for only the briefest of moments.

~Dave

quote:

ORIGINAL: FirmhandKY
Well, I hate to differ, but no one has proven a single one of the slurs I posted. There's been a lot of sarcastic humor, and further attacks. There have been a lot of misdirection, and changing of terms.

quote:

ORIGINAL: FirmhandKY
Was Palin a member of the AIP or not?

quote:

ORIGINAL: ThatDaveGuy69
1) The library thing.
It's one thing for Sarah Palin, private citizen, concerned PTA-mother-of-five, etc, to ask the head of the library what policies exist to remove a book from the shelves.  It a quite another thing for newly-elected MAYOR Palin to ask that same librarian about removing books.  The implication is that the mayor is has an egenda.  Usually, the phrase "trial balloon" is used when someone is only testing the reaction to something.  The actual plan is never revealed up-front.  Of course there was no list.  Not even 1 title.  Nobody (not even SP) is dumb enough to hand over such ammuntion. 

quote:

ORIGINAL: ThatDaveGuy69

2) Rape Kits
Only 1 reported rape in all of Alaska?  Really?  Astounding.  Especially since the 50th state has been referred to as the meth captial of America...
OK, so the money wasn't ever in the budget.  Fine.  Governor Palin never "removed" it.  But by the same token, she appearantly never sought to include it, either.  I've always been under the impression that female politicians were a bit more sensitive to women's issues.  You know, like being raped.  Wouldn't you just sort of expect a female governor to make sure funding for rape kits was in the state budget?  Wouldn't someone on her staff make a point of it?  If for no other reason than to not have to defend the money NOT being there?  Is there some greater point that is being missed here?

quote:

ORIGINAL: ThatDaveGuy69

3) The pressure of being governor was too much, what with all her personal family issues...
What was the date that all these issues suddenly sprang forth, or maybe I should say: were "created"?  Would that have been the 7th day?  EVERYONE has issues.  Every person who decides to take a shot at politics has to weigh their ambitions against the potential harm to their personal life.  Politics is ugly, brutal, and unforgiving.  As Super Chicken would say: "You knew the job was dangerous when you took it, Fred".  Every man and woman who has ever sought any office has been dragged through the mud on everything from their stand on abortion to who does their hair.  It is the nature of the beast.  The list of family issues that Sarah Palin has to contend with are certainly more than most people will ever have to deal with.  But they didn't happen over night.  Maybe -just maybe- she should not have run for governor in the 1st place.  And when asked to be John McCain's running mate, maybe the right answer should have been a sheepish golly-gee Mr McCain but I'm just happy to server the people of Alaska, ya-know...

quote:

ORIGINAL: ThatDaveGuy69

4) Abstinance only education
Does anyone still believe this is a healthy, safe, sane approach to one of the most important issues teens will ever have to deal with?  I read a report that teens who received AO "education" were routinely having unprotected anal sex because they thought it was perfectly safe - can't get pregant (so no need for condoms!) and the girl is still a virgin.  Hey, makes perfect sense!  But besides that troubling news, you can see how well abstinance worked out for Sarah's older daughter.  Does the phrase "Do as I say, not as I do" ring a bell?

quote:

ORIGINAL: ThatDaveGuy69

BTW:  I heard a caller on the radio this afternoon assert that Sarah is a meth-head.  He laid-out a very well-reasoned argument and all the pieces fit.  Probably complete BS, but oh so ironic if true.  Just sayin...  Random drug tests for all elected officials!

quote:

ORIGINAL: ThatDamnedPanda

... I'm just responding to Firm's statement that there's no evidence your sources are right-wing blogs. He said something to the  effect that "there's little evidence (you guys) are getting your information from right wing blogs", and I said that's what you were quoting.

quote:

ORIGINAL: tazzygirl

The more i look, the more disgusted i get. i can find no where stating Palin denies spending 50.000 on her office. yet, i found this.

http://www.usnews.com/blogs/the-inside-job/2008/09/08/sarah-palin-and-the-gray-haired-museum-ladies.html

have a good night

quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen

quote:

ORIGINAL: FirmhandKY

Rape kits debunked from Slate.

Did you read this article? It confirms exactly what was already said while claiming to debunk it.
from the article:

quote:

Samuels also quotes from an article in the local Wasilla paper that police chief Charlie Fallon didn't want to pass the burden along to taxpayers. That is an undeniably boneheaded and offensive statement. What she leaves out is his statement that he was TRYING to bill INSURANCE COMPANIES, not victims. "In the past we've charged the cost of exams to the victims insurance company when possible," is what he said.

If anyone sends a bill to any insurance company it is done by billing the covered person. That person is responsible for co pays and deductibles as well as coverage limits. So yes, Wasila billed rape victims for their rapekits while Palin was mayor and it was a change to long held policy.

The only thing your article actually succeeds at debunking is that the Alaska law was passed in response to Wasila's practice.

quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen

I'm not enforcing anything. She answered the question with no nuance. I also note that she spoke in favor of abstinence only during the campaign.

quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen

quote:

ORIGINAL: FirmhandKY

quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen

quote:

5. She believes that the Iraq war was directed by God.

She actually called it a 'task from God.' Seems like the same thing to me but I expect your usual semantic games.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i2ypVSYoEKA

Great piece of propaganda. Unfortunately, I've listened to the entire thing, not just the chop job you offer. I thought the text overlay was pretty neat - it tries to help you skip right over what she actually said:

... In September. Pray for our military men and women who are striving to do what is right also for the country. That our leaders - our national leaders - are sending them out on a task that is from God. That is what we have to make sure we are praying for.

She asking the congregation for pray that our leaders are actually following God's plan. It's a hope, not a declaration.

As predicted semantic games. Any way you slice it that comment says what that the iraq war is a task from god.

BTW since you are trying to be so precise as to quote the entire comment note that all she actually asks is for the congregation to pray for 'our military men and women.' You could interpret the next sentence as a request to pray for the leaders but it isn't the only interpretation and considering her speaking style and the tone in the actual clip I think the other interpretation is more valid.

quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen

Yes, she has stated that she is a creationist. If you read the linked article you would see that. I don't give a crap what her spiritual beliefs are until she proposes to put those spiritual beliefs in the public school classroom as she did when she said she wanted creationism taught alongside evolution.

quote:

In a recent survey you said that you would support abstinence-until-marriage education but that you would not support explicit sex-ed programs. What are explicit sex-ed programs, and does that include talking about condoms in school?

quote:

Palin's answer:

No, I don't think that it includes something that is relatively benign. Explicit means explicit. No, I am pro-contraception, and I think kids who may not hear about it at home should hear about it in other avenues. So I'm not anti-contraception. But yeah, abstinence is another alternative that should be discussed with kids. I don't have a problem with that. That doesn't scare me, so it's something that I would support also.

quote:

ORIGINAL: FirmhandKY
No individual was billed during her time as mayor.

Thank you for acknowledging the debunking of the second myth.

quote:

She never said abstinence ONLY. It's only what you wish to believe.

quote:

In other words you at least acknowledge that there is room for doubt, but you still choose to believe what you want to believe.

Progress, I guess.

quote:

quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen

Yes, she has stated that she is a creationist. If you read the linked article you would see that. I don't give a crap what her spiritual beliefs are until she proposes to put those spiritual beliefs in the public school classroom as she did when she said she wanted creationism taught alongside evolution.

No, the linked article's author claims she is a creationist, but specifically does not quote her. It's a conclusion of the author, just as you are making conclusions.

However, it's not what she has said.

You choose to believe what you wish to believe.

Firm

quote:

ORIGINAL: ThatDamnedPanda

Assuming you're not being facetious by accusing me of resorting to your trademark tactic, let me try to be more clear. As I stated,  I have never seen anyone here accuse Sarah Palin of being a member of the Alaskan Independence Party. I don't acknowledge your assertion that anyone has. I don't dispute it, but never having seen it, i don't accept it at face value either.

But just to keep the discussion moving, I expounded a little bit to say that whether they have or not, she does have ties to the party, both through her husband and by virtue of having shown support for them by sending a recorded greeting, as the Governor of Alaska, at their state convention. So, even if she is not a card-carrying member, it is not a stretch of the truth or an unfair association to say that she has links to the group. Arguing that she is not actually enrolled is a purely semantical exercise, pointing out a distinction without a difference. Is it technically inaccurate to call her a member? Yes. Is it grossly unfair, an unjustified distortion of her position? No.

quote:

ORIGINAL: ThatDamnedPanda

As for accusing me of changing the subject - I'm frankly flabbergasted.

quote:

ORIGINAL: ThatDamnedPanda

Let's scroll back a few pages here, and see how we got to this point. One of your favorite tactics, when faced with a complex and multi-faceted argument, is to move the argument around as much as possible, probing for weaknesses and trying to find small - usually very small - points in the argument that you can isolate and defend. You move it over here, and see if your opponent's position is vulnerable there; you move it over there, and probe for weaknesses there; you just keep moving it around until you find some minor - usually very minor - point where you can say, "Sorry, you can't prove that one beyond a reasonable doubt, so I don't accept your argument." Then you pretend the entire argument was about that one minor sub-point, and claim victory. Not criticizing, mind you; it's just what you do, and we all know it and make our own decisions on whether or not we're wiling to work with it when responding to you.

quote:

ORIGINAL: ThatDamnedPanda

And that's what you did here.

quote:

ORIGINAL: ThatDamnedPanda

The original point i was arguing was, primarily, that she is a liar and an unstable narcissist. The discussion, at that point, was centered around issues of her character, her integrity, and her qualifications for higher political office, and most of my argument was focused on the issue of her integrity. You didn't bother refuting that, choosing only to discuss the issue of whether she had been unfairly maligned. When I "killed 2 birds with 1 stone" by bringing that back into the discussion with my last link, I was attempting to move the argument away from the minor point where you were trying to isolate it, and back to the larger issues we had been debating befofre you tried to box it in. But since it had been so many hours since you had tried to cut it off and separate it from the original topic, you apparently forgot that you were the one who tried to obfuscate matters by changing the subject in the first place. I'm not changing the subject, Firm - I'm trying to steer it back on the same track it started on.