[solemnclockwork]

Originally Posted by Barone1551

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.

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?

Originally Posted by MMM

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?

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?

Originally Posted by Tsuwabuki

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.

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.

Originally Posted by Tsuwabuki

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

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.

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.

Originally Posted by Tsuwabuki

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.

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

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

Originally Posted by Tsuwabuki

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?

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.

Originally Posted by Tsuwabuki

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

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.

Originally Posted by Tsuwabuki

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.

Does that deny what I said?

Originally Posted by Tsuwabuki

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.

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.

Originally Posted by SSJup81

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?

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.

Originally Posted by SSJup81

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"

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.

Originally Posted by SSJup81

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.

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.

Originally Posted by SSJup81

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.

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