Palins Kid

[littleton_devil]

This is what happens when the left spread vicious lies. It's why they do it. The ignorant people grab bits and pieces and think it's fact.

Let see, how does that one line go ... something to the effect that, to conservatives, seeing is believing and to liberals, believing is seeing. Yea, that sounds about right.

[Nature's Minister]

This is what happens when the left spread vicious lies. It's why they do it. The ignorant people grab bits and pieces and think it's fact.

or maybe i just don't care enough about her daughter to pay attention very closely.

[Jimmy Leeds]

or maybe i just don't care enough about her daughter to pay attention very closely.

It wasn't a shot at you.

It was the fact you reiterated exactly what they want the unimformed public to think after they and their minions spread lies.

[RowdyFan42]

The ignorant people grab bits and pieces and think it's fact.

You mean like "ooooh, here's a picture of Barack Obama in traditional Somali attire, this must mean he's a Muslim!!!!!1one"?

[RowdyFan42]

I expected better from you. She is married. You saying her husband isn't capable of caring for their son?

If the situation was reversed -- if Obama had a special-needs infant -- you'd be all over him for neglecting his family and running for president, leaving Michelle to care for the kid without her husband's support and assistance.

[Jimmy Leeds]

You mean like "ooooh, here's a picture of Barack Obama in traditional Somali attire, this must mean he's a Muslim!!!!!1one"?

No. Like you calling her a grandmother without any basis in fact.

At least Hussein was wearing actually traditional desert garb, or whatever the heck it was.

[LizDevil30]

If the situation was reversed -- if Obama had a special-needs infant -- you'd be all over him for neglecting his family and running for president, leaving Michelle to care for the kid without her husband's support and assistance.

Where did you ever get that idea from? I'd be all over him???? What? If Obama had a special needs kids I'd be singing his praises! I was thrilled that he let Casey from PA a pro-life Dem speak at the convention when his late father had been barred by the Dems.

[devilsadvoc8]

If the situation was reversed -- if Obama had a special-needs infant -- you'd be all over him for neglecting his family and running for president, leaving Michelle to care for the kid without her husband's support and assistance.

Baseless accusation and avoids the original point.

[eaglejelly]

No. Like you calling her a grandmother without any basis in fact.

You do know that her daughter is pregnant, don

[Jimmy Leeds]

You do know that her daughter is pregnant, don

[RowdyFan42]

Rowdy was insinuating that Palin's 5th child is actually her daughter's.

I was making a joking reference to the beginning of this thread in which it was first brought up. I wouldn't expect you to remember that, though.

[RowdyFan42]

Where did you ever get that idea from? I'd be all over him???? What? If Obama had a special needs kids I'd be singing his praises! I was thrilled that he let Casey from PA a pro-life Dem speak at the convention when his late father had been barred by the Dems.

The more I think about this statement, the more it bothers me. It says to me that you don't support Obama now, but you would if he had a disabled child. It says to me that you think Palin's a better person than Obama simply because she had an accident of nature happen to her. Never mind that she selfishly decided to procreate again in her mid-40s despite already having four kids and a demanding job as the governor of a state and despite the fact that the chances of birth defects and complications are much higher at her age than they are for younger people.

[MantaRay]

Now that teen pregnancy is now on the rise after declining the last decade this makes Palins kid the poster child for the failed "Abstinence only" sex education program pushed by the zealots.

Congrat's Mr. Bush.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/conte...7120501208.html

[LizDevil30]

The more I think about this statement, the more it bothers me. It says to me that you don't support Obama now, but you would if he had a disabled child. It says to me that you think Palin's a better person than Obama simply because she had an accident of nature happen to her. Never mind that she selfishly decided to procreate again in her mid-40s despite already having four kids and a demanding job as the governor of a state and despite the fact that the chances of birth defects and complications are much higher at her age than they are for younger people.

WOW you really twist words. You were saying I'd diss the guy if he had a special needs child and now when I say I would do just the opposite you interpret that as I'm pro Palin.

How dare you diss her for having a child in her 40's. How dare you question her keeping her child. Seems to me you hate her for very wrong reasons. What about choice? She can't choose how many children she has and when she has them? She is pro life so it didn't matter to her what kind of child she had. Even pro choicers have publicly said they have the utmost respect for her. I feel very strongly about and made no secret about my support for the birth of special needs kids so why wouldn't I sing the praises of ANYONE who had one. You better check your own motives for why YOU support YOUR candidate.

I don't why I bother posting in this forum.

Edited September 3, 2008 by LizDevil30

[LizDevil30]

You know the more I read your comment, Rowdy the more disturbed I am by it. Not only are you saying women over 35 (when the chance of Down's increases) have no business having children because the baby could have Downs, you think they should abort those babies.

[squishyx]

You know the more I read your comment, Rowdy the more disturbed I am by it. Not only are you saying women over 35 (when the chance of Down's increases) have no business having children because the baby could have Downs, you think they should abort those babies.

I don't see how you have the nerve to condemn someone for twisting your words and then follow it up by spinning his. You are once again reading only half of the comments and picking and choosing the argument you want to debate rather then whats at hand. He didn't say anything about women over 35, he said he thinks its selfish for someone who has 4 kids, in the mid forties AND has a rather busy profession as governor of a state to be having more children. Context is so damn important yet you constantly and purposely skip it. I'm not sure I agree with Rowdy at mid 40's, but I definitely agree at some point you need to step back and stop having children because being a fit and able parent is important. Someone who is 45 and has a kid wont see them leave for college until they are pushing 70.

[SueNJ97]

OK, I've stayed out of this so far.

I don't like Palin's stand on almost any of the issues.

As some of you may recall, I am a registered Independent. At this point, I'm planning on going into the booth, leaving the Presidential spot blank and voting for the down ticket slots. If it looked like NJ was going to be close, I would have to vote for the Dems, but Obama is inexperienced, but, hey we were told that it didn't matter if it was a MAN. Apparently it only matters if it's a woman. We were told that we had to think about experience in a whole new way because he was a MAN. But, (and I have had this said to me directly by several democrats, btw), Palin is just a stupid, ex-beauty-queen in go-go boots who is putting her ambition in front of her family.

However, if Governor Palin were a man, and as a couple, between them, HE and his wife had 5 children, one of whom had Down's syndrome and one of whom was pregnant at 17, I cannot imagine that HE would be called a bad father, overly ambitious and told to go home and take care of his children. Do you get it now?

Then again, a good many women hate Hillary Clinton, say she's too ambitious, and grasping for power because, well, she didn't divorce Bill Clinton because of her career and that makes her too dangerous to be President. Can't have that, you know. But, it would never, ever be said about a man. Men, you see, are allowed to be ambitous. We, in fact, expect it from them.

And, btw, why is Joe Biden still a Senator? When he was in, what was it, his first term, his wife and one of his children died in an auto accident. He did not resign and go home and take care of his two other children. He put his frigging ambition in front of his family. But people say he's a fvcking great father. That's the difference. He's glorified for staying in office through his personal tragedy when, in fact, a woman would have been told to resign and GO HOME because her obvious ambitiion made her a BAD MOTHER and too dangerous to have in office.

Now, do you get it???

Edited September 3, 2008 by SueNJ97

[LizDevil30]

Thank you, Sue. Thank you. It was getting very lonely on my little island. I totally forgot to mention Biden. Totally agree.

Perhaps you stated the case, the points I was trying to make better, clearer. I tried every way till Tuesday to no avail. Squishy doesn't get sarcasm or irony. He has his opinion and he's sticking to it.

PLEASE know EVERYONE, in no way do I think or want anyone to think Sue and I are in cahoots or she posted (against her better judgment because she's learned the hard way about this forum, I should be so smart) on my behalf. I guess she finally couldn't take the double standard talk anymore. Sue and I are both women (probably very close in age) but we've never discussed politics and I know we don't agree on every issue. We both however, I have just learned from her post, Independent voters.

Thanks again, Sue for what it's worth. I was beginning no think no one else got it.

[LizDevil30]

And, btw, why is Joe Biden still a Senator? When he was in, what was it, his first term, his wife and one of his children died in an auto accident. He did not resign and go home and take care of his two other children. He put his frigging ambition in front of his family. But people say he's a fvcking great father. That's the difference. He's glorified for staying in office through his personal tragedy when, in fact, a woman would have been told to resign and GO HOME because her obvious ambitiion made her a BAD MOTHER and too dangerous to have in office.

Now, do you get it???

The whole Biden story was in his son's speech. Biden was sworn into office at his son's bedside in the hospital. He commuted by train back and forth between Wilmington and DC. No mention of who minded the kids when he was in DC. Everytime I think of how he was lauded for what he did and Palin is slammed it makes my blood boil!

[RowdyFan42]

How dare you diss her for having a child in her 40's. How dare you question her keeping her child. Seems to me you hate her for very wrong reasons. What about choice? She can't choose how many children she has and when she has them? She is pro life so it didn't matter to her what kind of child she had. Even pro lifers have publicly said they have the utmost respect for her. I feel very strongly about and made no secret about my support for the birth of special needs kids so why wouldn't I sing the praises of ANYONE who had one. You better check your own motives for why YOU support YOUR candidate.

Yeah, I figured you'd go off on that tangent. Well, as long as we're spouting "how dare you"s, let me come up with one of my own. How dare you diss me for daring to have an opinion that deviates from "Governor Palin is a woman, therefore she is beyond reproach". She can do whatever the hell she wants as long as it's legal, but guess what? It's my right -- and some would say my duty -- as an American to criticize her for making certain choices if I don't agree with them. And to specifically answer the part I bolded, you make it sound like having special needs children is preferable to being lucky enough to have children who don't have special needs, as if falling victim to nature's quirks makes you a better person. That's the impression I got from the first post I responded to and that's the impression I continue to get from your posts. The reason that bothers me is because I can't fathom why someone would place favor upon having unfortunate events happen to them.

You know the more I read your comment, Rowdy the more disturbed I am by it. Not only are you saying women over 35 (when the chance of Down's increases) have no business having children because the baby could have Downs, you think they should abort those babies.

I don't recall mentioning abortion lately. However, if you want to bring a baby into the world with any sort of problems that would make it more difficult to raise the child and/or prevent the child from having a "normal" life, you darn well better be prepared to care for the kid yourself. Don't make me spend my tax money on special care because you got in over your head. In other words, do what you want as long as it doesn't affect me. Or is the typical libertarian response too cold-hearted for you?

[squishyx]

OK, I've stayed out of this so far.

I don't like Palin's stand on almost any of the issues.

As some of you may recall, I am a registered Independent. At this point, I'm planning on going into the booth, leaving the Presidential spot blank and voting for the down ticket slots. If it looked like NJ was going to be close, I would have to vote for the Dems, but Obama is inexperienced, but, hey we were told that it didn't matter if it was a MAN. Apparently it only matters if it's a woman. We were told that we had to think about experience in a whole new way because he was a MAN. But, (and I have had this said to me directly by several democrats, btw), Palin is just a stupid, ex-beauty-queen in go-go boots who is putting her ambition in front of her family.

However, if Governor Palin were a man, and as a couple, between them, HE and his wife had 5 children, one of whom had Down's syndrome and one of whom was pregnant at 17, I cannot imagine that HE would be called a bad father, overly ambitious and told to go home and take care of his children. Do you get it now?

Then again, a good many women hate Hillary Clinton, say she's too ambitious, and grasping for power because, well, she didn't divorce Bill Clinton because of her career and that makes her too dangerous to be President. Can't have that, you know. But, it would never, ever be said about a man. Men, you see, are allowed to be ambitous. We, in fact, expect it from them.

And, btw, why is Joe Biden still a Senator? When he was in, what was it, his first term, his wife and one of his children died in an auto accident. He did not resign and go home and take care of his two other children. He put his frigging ambition in front of his family. But people say he's a fvcking great father. That's the difference. He's glorified for staying in office through his personal tragedy when, in fact, a woman would have been told to resign and GO HOME because her obvious ambitiion made her a BAD MOTHER and too dangerous to have in office.

Now, do you get it???

I have never said Sarah Palin is too inexperienced for the job. I don't see how anyone other then a former president or maybe former vice president has the "experience" for it. Having a lengthy career in politics isn't hurtful in anyway but hardly a important requirement. What I find most troubling about McCain (read McCain, not Palin) is that after spending months trying to convince the nation that Obama did not have the experience for the job he selects someone (read someone, not woman) with an equal resume to Obama to be VP, a slot which he said the most important thing was that they be able to step in and lead the country. How can he say Obama can't and Palin could with equal amounts of experience?

I wish people would stop playing the woman card, it has nothing to do with anything, or speaking for myself, nothing to do with anything I have said. Correlation is not causation, just because Palin is a women doesn't mean she is getting the short end of the stick because of it. I would consider any male to be a bad father in the same respect that I consider Palin a bad mother for making the choices they are making at present. Again I concede that those personal family choices have no correlation to how good at their job they may or may not be and have no bearing in my mind about who will do the best job.

I think Biden's case is drastically different because he ran for senate before the accident, he was left as a single parent and needed to support his surviving family and had trouble accepting the position even then. I don't know why he changed his mind and if we could go back in time I would say the same thing as I am saying now that it accepting a promotion and being away from his kids when they needed him most would be bad parenting. However that isn't what happened, and it's not the same as what we have today. Palin has a secure job (at least I'm pretty sure Governor is a secure job) before she accepted the VP slot and she also happens to have a 17 year old pregnant daughter who is due sometime in November. Her daughter did not get pregnant after she was elected, Sarah Palin made this decision ahead of time.

Oh and please, I haven't even for a minute considered Sarah Palin a bad mother or that she isn't qualified for the job because she is female. her gender has nothing to do with it, maybe you don't get it.

Edited September 3, 2008 by squishyx

[SueNJ97]

Thank you, Sue. Thank you. It was getting very lonely on my little island. I totally forgot to mention Biden. Totally agree.

Perhaps you stated the case, the points I was trying to make better, clearer. I tried every way till Tuesday to no avail. Squishy doesn't get sarcasm or irony. He has his opinion and he's sticking to it.

PLEASE know EVERYONE, in no way do I think or want anyone to think Sue and I are in cahoots or she posted (against her better judgment because she's learned the hard way about this forum, I should be so smart) on my behalf. I guess she finally couldn't take the double standard talk anymore. Sue and I are both women (probably very close in age) but we've never discussed politics and I know we don't agree on every issue. We both however, I have just learned from her post, Independent voters.

Thanks again, Sue for what it's worth. I was beginning no think no one else got it.

YW. I'd read the whole thread, on and off and I thought I got what you were getting at but I believed that the special needs/abortion question might be getting in the way of you making your point.

I've had this discussion with people over the last several days so I know the argument I am making (plus during the primaries when ambition was a sin for Clinton, but not for Obama, and I tried to point out that all politicians are ambitious, and also liars, and I just won't repeat the names I was called for saying this, which I thought was actually something that was pretty much well-known).

[NJDevs4978]

what is this? civil discussion in the politics section?!?

You spoke too soon

squishy, we just agree to disagree on this point - I do think who Obama associates with and what his beliefs are have a bearing on what he will be as a president. Just like I think McCain's character is also important (but not the only thing, and it seems to be the only thing that is being talked about by the Repubs since they disagree with him on a lot of issues)

And I'm not a woman but I do think there's a bit of a double standard when it comes to how they should take care of their kids. As I said in an earlier post, athletes, actors and politicians don't get killed for being away from home for long periods whatever their home situation is, but when it's a woman it gets looked at differently - apparently some people still believe they should stay at home with the kids and not be ambitious because they're threatened by career women. But I'll let those who would know that pov better like Liz and Sue argue that point.

Edited September 3, 2008 by Hasan4978

[squishyx]

Thank you, Sue. Thank you. It was getting very lonely on my little island. I totally forgot to mention Biden. Totally agree.

Perhaps you stated the case, the points I was trying to make better, clearer. I tried every way till Tuesday to no avail. Squishy doesn't get sarcasm or irony. He has his opinion and he's sticking to it.

PLEASE know EVERYONE, in no way do I think or want anyone to think Sue and I are in cahoots or she posted (against her better judgment because she's learned the hard way about this forum, I should be so smart) on my behalf. I guess she finally couldn't take the double standard talk anymore. Sue and I are both women (probably very close in age) but we've never discussed politics and I know we don't agree on every issue. We both however, I have just learned from her post, Independent voters.

Thanks again, Sue for what it's worth. I was beginning no think no one else got it.

There is no sarcasm or irony in anything you have posted, just stubbornness and deflection.

What double standard? Her life is being picked and torn apart just like every other politician running for president male or female. You are the one making the double standard, you are trying to say that her life should be left alone but every other male's is open season. If anything the rough welcoming Sarah has gotten is an example of how far women have come because they are no longer off limits and they are fair targets for anyone.

[squishyx]

You spoke too soon

squishy, we just agree to disagree on this point - I do think who Obama associates with and what his beliefs are have a bearing on what he will be as a president. Just like I think McCain's character is also important (but not the only thing, and it seems to be the only thing that is being talked about by the Repubs since they disagree with him on a lot of issues)

That's fair. If you feel that way though I'm curious as to how you feel about Palin's husband reportedly supporting Alasaka succeeding from the US? Does that reflect on Sarah in anyway? And I'm not trying to troll you it's a sincere question, personally I don't think it matters at all but from someone who does feel the people are close to you do have bearing, whats your take on that?

And I'm not a woman but I do think there's a bit of a double standard when it comes to how they should take care of their kids. As I said in an earlier post, athletes, actors and politicians don't get killed for being away from home for long periods whatever their home situation is, but when it's a woman it gets looked at differently - apparently some people still believe they should stay at home with the kids and not be ambitious because they're threatened by career women. But I'll let those who would know that pov better like Liz and Sue argue that point.

I think actors, athletes politicians make poor parenting decisions all the time and if we had threads for all of them I would say the same for any of them male or female who IMO make a poor parenting call. Rarely however is that ever the topic at hand, this time it is.