Sarah Palin quits

[SaintKat]

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

[SSJup81]

Originally Posted by solemnclockwork

Give the quotes or video please.

YouTube - Bernard Goldberg embarasses Sean Hannity

IMO, Hannity was being very petty here.

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.

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.

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.

Not really. At least he completed the schools he went to.

How can any mother do so if they have an job?

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.

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.

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.

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

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.

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?

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 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.

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.

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

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.

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.

At least comedians still have Biden. He's great comedic material.

[solemnclockwork]

Originally Posted by Barone1551

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.

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.

Originally Posted by QueenNanami

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

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?

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?

Originally Posted by QueenNanami

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.

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.

Originally Posted by QueenNanami

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.

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")

Originally Posted by QueenNanami

... 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?

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?

Originally Posted by QueenNanami

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...

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

Originally Posted by QueenNanami

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.

My point is proven.

Originally Posted by QueenNanami

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.

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.

Originally Posted by QueenNanami

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?

"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.

Originally Posted by QueenNanami

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.

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

Originally Posted by QueenNanami

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.

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.

[solemnclockwork]

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.

Originally Posted by SSJup81

IMO, Hannity was being very petty here.

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.

Originally Posted by SSJup81

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.

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.

Originally Posted by SSJup81

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.

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?

Originally Posted by SSJup81

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.

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

Originally Posted by SSJup81

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.

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.

Originally Posted by MMM

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.

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

[Tsuwabuki]

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.

[solemnclockwork]

Originally Posted by Tsuwabuki

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.

[solemnclockwork]

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.

[Tsuwabuki]

Originally Posted by solemnclockwork

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

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.

WHAT about protecting our country during an terrible time?

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.

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

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.

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

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?

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.

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

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.

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.

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

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.

[SSJup81]

Originally Posted by solemnclockwork

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.

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?

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.

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?

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.

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".

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.

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.

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

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.

Stop it. Really who are to put yourself above her

I wasn't. Once again, you're making assumptions about me.

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.

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.

What's wrong with that, I'll tell you; she could very well being doing an good motherly job

No where did I say she was doing a bad one. Please stop making assumptions and twisting my words.

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.

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.

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

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.

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

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.

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

It's a red flag if they were never finished, or if each school was attended for a short amount of time.

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.

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.

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

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.

[Barone1551]

Originally Posted by solemnclockwork

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.

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.