Sarah Palin quits

[MMM]

Originally Posted by solemnclockwork

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

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?

[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

[solemnclockwork]

two part 2 of 2 (really sorry about this)

Originally Posted by SSJup81

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

Yes you are, you are criticizing her raising and bonding of her own children. You say she shouldn't do anything political and focus only on her own children. Know what your the first to go that route and go after on this. In all honestly it is petty. Point is there is no evidence of wrongdoing so you can't criticize her raising her own children.

Originally Posted by SSJup81

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.

Contradiction. Would not be saying she couldn't be vice president because she couldn't put her son first, be telling her how to live and raise her children?

Originally Posted by SSJup81

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

Yes you did, saying that she couldn't balance being vice president and rasing her son is saying she not doing an good motherly job.

Originally Posted by SSJup81

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.

Petty. I did put an disclore that I'm not in the best condition right now for spelling and grammer didn't I?

Contrast this with the rest of what you have been writing so far.

Originally Posted by SSJup81

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.

then if she did you would say that it is child neglect would you not? You say that such an job takes way to much time and spending these few months with her child is determental to them, now if she took such an job. You would have to say that is child neglect would you not?

Originally Posted by SSJup81

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

Being petty again. First off who are we talking about Sarah, we are not talking about her husband are we? Sarah is an women so I made an link between the two.

Really, I figured out this is so off putting. Your putting yourself on an pedestal over her and challanging her on raising her own children. Who are to decide if she can't raise her own children with such an position?

Originally Posted by SSJup81

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

Really? You want to know something I can NOT think of anybody who cares about how many and how long you went to college for, you know why? Because colleges are the gateway to an degree to which people CARE for.

Originally Posted by SSJup81

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.

No your doing both. Reaon why you say you need to finish an specfic college regardless of cercimstance or your branded an quiter. Know what if where going to do that, we could brand Obama an druggy (that would be complelty wrong but logically this is what YOUR doing).

Originally Posted by SSJup81

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.

Going to college is not an career is it? You go to college to learn hence, I would be willing to say the more you go the more knowledgeable your going to be.

I'll repeat colleges are not high schools.

[Barone1551]

Originally Posted by solemnclockwork

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?

I dont really care if Obama said that. Yes I supported Obama but that doesnt mean everything he says is the right way to do it. Like I have stated I dont personally think that going after the kids is the right thing to do. I am just saying she set her family up for it. Whether it is right or wrong is up to the individual viewing the situation. I am merely stating she is partly to blame for her family getting negative attention. When you parade them in the spot light so much, they are bound to get criticized.

And yes I think that makes her an adult in my eyes. If you are moving on to more adult thing, I see you as an adult. You may not have all the same experiences an 18 year old would. But you sure as hell have more experience than many other 16 year olds. This goes to the age old question of what really is an adult. I have known plenty of 16 year olds who are intellectually more advanced that legally binding adults. Just because you turn a certain age doesn't make you automatically smarter and more mature. Its the same when you look at the legal system. If the law worked by your standards than no one no matter what would ever be tried as and adult under the age of 18. But people are tried as adults when they are under the age of 18.

[solemnclockwork]

Originally Posted by Barone1551

I dont really care if Obama said that. Yes I supported Obama but that doesnt mean everything he says is the right way to do it. Like I have stated I dont personally think that going after the kids is the right thing to do. I am just saying she set her family up for it. Whether it is right or wrong is up to the individual viewing the situation. I am merely stating she is partly to blame for her family getting negative attention. When you parade them in the spot light so much, they are bound to get criticized.

And yes I think that makes her an adult in my eyes. If you are moving on to more adult thing, I see you as an adult. You may not have all the same experiences an 18 year old would. But you sure as hell have more experience than many other 16 year olds. This goes to the age old question of what really is an adult. I have known plenty of 16 year olds who are intellectually more advanced that legally binding adults. Just because you turn a certain age doesn't make you automatically smarter and more mature. Its the same when you look at the legal system. If the law worked by your standards than no one no matter what would ever be tried as and adult under the age of 18. But people are tried as adults when they are under the age of 18.

Intelligence does not make an adult. So in essence because one of my age DOES have the experience and maturity (emotionally and mentally) one could say I'm an adult. Now I ask you, in what way does an 16 year old classify as an adult? Hint legally they cannot do an thing. As to the question what is an adult I guarantee an 16 year old isn't. Also just because you are an certain age (16) doesn't make one an adult.

Even then why are you continuing an point that Bristol can be attacked because she is an "adult"?

In all children who get charged as an adult it is FOR murder huge difference (note is not wither they are an adult but wither they are an danger to society).

Really, so you would still have people reserve the right to go after someone family let alone there children? The issue here is not wither she put her children out there like you would have it, it's wither they are fair game to which it is NOT. You think she puts her children out there chastise her for it, don't think it's ok to go after them. Do I have to add they went after her son and said it was one of her daughters, do you even know how petty that is? How did she parade him around to deserve that?

Also either you start to support (with evidence) your argument about her "parading" her children or drop it.

[QueenNanami]

Originally Posted by solemnclockwork

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?

No, you have a right to Criticize what you want but that doesn't mean i cant stand up for myself. You treat what I have said like it was blaspheme.

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.

I'm not making an excuse. It's what you risk. It's the REAL WORLD! In Real life people say mean things and make up stuff to make life more interesting or to sell something. That's life, there is always going to be something like that. I don't really care because in my life, i don't have the time to sit around fighting battles for other people. I don't care what anyone says unless it's directed at me personally, my family, or my close friends. So you can ask me all you want if i have any sympathy for her and I would always answer no. What she does in her personal life will never affect me. If she ran for president maybe then i will care and look into things but for now I really don't give what people say about her or her family.

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.

I would stand up for all woman if someone said "Woman can not run the White House." Or "Woman have tiny brains." I would stand up for all woman on something like that, but just because me and Palin are female and someone is saying mean things, no I wouldnt stand up for her. That may sound mean, it may sound cold hearted, but it's the truth and Iam cold hearted.

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")

I didn't say you said untrue things, I said i wasn't going to tell you things that weren't true. i can see where you may have mistook that for me saying you were saying untrue things and i apologize for that. As for the other part, I know you can say what ever you want but Im to lazy after work to go back and read all your posts. Hey Im just being honest, I feel lazy. I'll find them for you later and we can chat it up.

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.

Contradiction is the word your looking for not conflict, and it doesnt matter because you wrong. I said she made woman look like a joke. Plus you have what Iam saying backwards. Her image and whats in her brain are different things. On the outside her image gives off this independent look. Like she can handle herself. Then when she opens her mouth all that comes out is a "Uhhhhhh" that where she makes us look like a joke! she makes woman look like a joke by not properly answering questions and contradicting herself all the time. Have you ever taken a class on how to properly give a speech? If you have to stop and go "Um" or "Uh" your doing it wrong. "Uh" seems to be Sarah Palin's catchphrase.

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?

Maybe on Children it's a good image. Joke of a woman? I didnt say she was a joke of a woman, i said she made all woman look like a joke. She can handle herself when it comes to shooting animals from helicopters but can she handle herself when she's thrown from that helicopter into the media and the public and given a microphone and all that comes out is "Um uh". I can handle myself when it comes to some things and other things i cant handle. She doent have very good public speaking skills and she doesnt know what she's talking about half the time. On the outside, on the inside. Those are the differences.

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

Life Style as in if she was a heavy drug addict. People who are addicted to Drugs shouldnt have children. Most drug addicts would sell there babies diaper money just for a hit of something. Most kids born to drug addicted homes die within the first few months of life.

It's a woman's right to have a choice. If she doesnt want a baby, no one should force her to. If i were raped and then found myself pregnant, would you force me to give birth to the child?

My point is proven.

You really proved nothing.

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.

Are you trying to get me to admit to something? Not necessarily if you said he was a joke, it doesnt mean he was the worst player there ever was. It does mean he was a bad one tho.

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.

This is actually something i agree with.

"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.

Yeah but you confused me.

"Tell us your friends that agree with you."

It's the way it's worded. It's alittle confusing to me. Did you want me to tell you about my real life friends or about people who agree?

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

So everyday is a off day for Palin?

[Barone1551]

Originally Posted by solemnclockwork

Intelligence does not make an adult. So in essence because one of my age DOES have the experience and maturity (emotionally and mentally) one could say I'm an adult. Now I ask you, in what way does an 16 year old classify as an adult? Hint legally they cannot do an thing. As to the question what is an adult I guarantee an 16 year old isn't. Also just because you are an certain age (16) doesn't make one an adult.

Even then why are you continuing an point that Bristol can be attacked because she is an "adult"?

In all children who get charged as an adult it is FOR murder huge difference (note is not wither they are an adult but wither they are an danger to society).

Really, so you would still have people reserve the right to go after someone family let alone there children? The issue here is not wither she put her children out there like you would have it, it's wither they are fair game to which it is NOT. You think she puts her children out there chastise her for it, don't think it's ok to go after them. Do I have to add they went after her son and said it was one of her daughters, do you even know how petty that is? How did she parade him around to deserve that?

Also either you start to support (with evidence) your argument about her "parading" her children or drop it.

I specifically said that being an adult is not an age thing. I said it has to do with your mental state of being. I said just because you turn 18 you don't magically switch over to being an adult besides what the law says.

And I only brought up murder to point out this previous statement. Its not always about the law abiding age. You can still be considered an adult even below the age of 18. And its not just if your a danger to society. There are people who are tried as minors even if they are a danger to society. They are just put in to juvenile detention. They are tried as adults if the law thinks they were knew what they were doing and acting as an adult.

And the only reason I brought up this whole thing about her being and adult is because you kept saying the CHILDREN are off limits. So I said I don't see her as a child. I didn't really want to get in a huge discussion on what the requirements to be an adult are, but you brought it there. I was only trying to state she can be viewed as and adult.

Like I have said in, oh, ever post in this thread. Personally, if I were in the media, I would not go after the kids or her family. Unless they did something worthy of news coverage on their own. Meaning doing something other than being related to Sarah Palin. But for some reason you still think that I have some vendetta against Palin's family. But that goes without saying that I do think the media can go and attack whoever they want. Some people use loose guidelines on who can and cant be criticized. And usually the family, and almost always the family is off limits. Unless they warrant some criticizing or stuff they do on their own. But her family reached the spot light, they are bound to get criticized and made fun of. Thats what happens when people know your name, and some people don't like you. They will go after you for anything. Is it right? Is it wrong? I know where you stand. And I know where I stand. Why don't your stop with the holier than though stance and accept that people can have different morals than you. Some people are ok with going after the family. Some aren't. Just face the facts that everyone is not the same as you. Opinions will differ.

And yes I will try and find some articles showing how she paraded around her family, and used them for political gain. Not right this second as I don't have the time. Most of what I am talking about comes from reading, listening to others talk about it, and just watching many of her speeches when she brings out the family or just talks about them all the time. And honestly if you don't feel like waiting for me just type in any combination of Palin, family, using, gain, parading. And I am sure you will find many forums and articles talking about this.

Here is one that i found interesting. However it was after the Letterman Joke. But it is still interesting.
Sarah Palin Continues To Drag Daughter Through Mud For Political Gain - Liberal Values - Defending Liberty and Enlightened Thought

[Tsuwabuki]

I will presume that your written style does not have the normal tone assumptions, and that certain characteristics are not indicative of a given tone or emotional state. My own tone is academic and scholastic in most cases.

Originally Posted by solemnclockwork

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.

I said he had a lot of accomplishments. I said "an awful lot" with emphasis on the "awful." Most were negative. I never said they were all negative.

Where exactly do you think I'm "trying" to push you?

I think the insinuation was clearly the questioning of my loyalty. I have dealt with this same claim dozens of times, and we're often not too far away from a claim of, "If you don't think President Bush is protecting this country, then you must either have no idea what you are speaking about, or you want to see America fail." The fact so many of our elected GOP officials have said almost the same thing, word for word, makes me wary of going down that rabbit hole with the neoconservative rank and file.

Questioning a fellow citizen's loyalty, regardless of political affiliation, is inappropriate.

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.

Actually, I don't need to do anything at all. You can insist until you're blue in the face that I change my opinion that the actions of President Bush made America less safe, and it will have no effect. It isn't like you're insisting on a law of macro-mechanics. In order to assert opinions, you must offer reasoning as to why you are justified in asserting that others should agree. Notice, I nowhere said you had to believe what I believe. Why do you think you have justification in not affording me the same respect?

I read the memos. At least, I believe I have read those which you refer to. Rather than think we were made safer, I honestly think we turned the international community against us even more for CIA actions.

And... wait... you're telling me that in order to understand elements of national defense one need not know about national defense? I don't think I'm misquoting or twisting words here. Please note, this is not to humiliate you, or to "rub your nose" in a failure of logic, but I think we need to examine the logical consequences of your statement.

Actually you have to give him credit that he did keep the country safe.

Keeping the country safe is otherwise known as national defense.

Remember the released CIA memos? Did you ever read them?

The memos refer to actions taken by the CIA to keep the country safe (in the Bush Administration's opinion), which is to say the memos refer to actions taken by the CIA for purposes of national defense.

You don't need to have knowledge of national defense.

You don't need to have a knowledge of national defense to understand memos from the CIA pertaining to actions taken by the CIA for purposes of national defense.

Nope. No twisting. You just quite clearly said you don't need to have a knowledge of national defense to understand (at least actions taken as part of) national defense.

If this is not what you meant to say, then I cannot follow the logic as presented here.

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

In the interest of fairness, I was making sure my biases were clear. This is usually considered a very well-mannered thing to do in a political debate.

The life story quip came off petty. It has no place in academic debate.

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

With justification, if what you mean is can I make any statement I believe should be considered. Before working in politics, I was a political reporter, when I decided I had developed a bias, I left journalism to work for what I believed in. I have always been a consumer of political history and current political events. I have studied political philosophy from the Ancient Greeks, through Rome, to the Italian city states, to the Divine Rule of Kings, and to the beginnings and current state of representative democracies around the world.

I am quite credible, thanks. My acknowledgement of my bias is, as I say, just good manners.

How does pointing out he had an 34% approval rating make me bias? Did you think about why I put that there?

I can't believe you're actually saying Jimmy Carter's rating was undeserved and he was really a good president that the public just didn't like.

And even if you are, are you then suggesting that Bush was a really good president, like Jimmy Carter, that the public just didn't like?

I suppose I can follow the logic, I just don't think you honestly meant to imply that when you pointed out he had a 34% approval rating.

I think you put it there to insinuate his approval rating is proof he was a worse, maybe even in your mind, a far worse, president than George W. Bush. Obviously, I find both of these assertions silly, albeit for different reasons.

Your words, tell me you said his presidency was an failure.

Okay:

they got steamrolled and couldn't push through anything resembling an agenda

Here. Jimmy Carter couldn't push through anything resembling an agenda. He failed to accomplish an agenda he was elected to accomplish. He failed. His presidency was a failure. Just because I didn't say failure doesn't mean you are excused from understanding synonyms when they occur.

Now relate that to Bush you find an huge connection.

What connection? That Bush was a failure? No, I think the problem is he didn't fail to pass his agenda; it was just an agenda America really couldn't afford, and one that was significantly different from his campaign promises.

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.

Bush was president for eight years. Obama has been president for, what, six months? I gave George Bush his entire first term before I went to work for Kerry, and I wasn't even a Democrat at the time. At least give him until the mid-terms before you start writing his legacy. The above comparison is a false comparison. Another logical fallacy, asserting the two can be equally weighted.

Also: Meet the stimulus hires - Bobby Jones, 55 (1) - FORTUNE

Does that deny what I said?

Yes.

You said that impeachment was proof of the presidents to be considered the worst.

I said that impeachment was political grandstanding that, at the end of the day, had no value whatsoever, and was not valid for any kind of judgement.

The two are directly contradictory.

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.

I am not. I chimed in on a discussion already in progress. If it was being derailed, it was being derailed before I showed up. What I am doing is recognising that politicians do not act alone. Not to get elected, and not once they are elected. This is true of Obama, it is true of Bush, and it is true of Palin.

Ayers and Obama were on the same "society" boards, as were several republicans. The comparison here is also false, because if I can say Obama is like Ayers, then I can say the Republicans are like Ayers, or even that Obama and the Republicans are alike. And that's just illogical nonsense.

Wright is a much less false example, but at least Obama publicly distanced himself from Wright and has since condemned recent remarks by the pastor.

Palin (and Huckabee, who is at least entertaining with support from Chuck Norris) courts the evangelical radical right (this is no smear against Christianity, but rather a nod to the demographic make up where the majority call themselves "born-again"). This is the same group that led Bush to win the election in 2004, and come close enough to be named the winner in the 2000 election. This demographic is the reason why the administration went so far right when America, as a whole, votes the middle. By 2006, scandals had rocked the far right enough that the segment was depressed, and a serious liberal movement originally supporting Kerry was able to move in and move the numbers to the left during the midterms. The Democrat winning in 2008 was almost a forgone conclusion. Only a specific candidate's personal history might have been a factor in changing this. I tend to believe both Hillary and Obama had the exact same chances of winning, although Hillary's absolute vote count might have been lower. America was just that angry at the right and blamed the GOP (even replacing moderate GOP representatives with more conservative Democratic representatives in some districts!).

As long as Palin refuses to distance herself from the radical right in the way that Obama distanced himself from Wright, and quite clearly shows she does not agree with their agenda and will not accept the help of their political machines to be elected, then as president, she would be expected to abide by their wishes unless she wants to see the GOP rocked even worse, or herself on the list of one-termers. What I find so frightening is the fact that far from distancing herself, she is embracing them. Why? Well, because, at least, according her speeches, debates, articles, etc, she is a member of the radical right. This is not guilt by association. She's clearly a member of a group with which I strongly disagree on, at the very least, most social issues, and a fair number of economic ones.

[QueenNanami]

I found something weird about Sarah Palin. At first i didnt think it was true but then I looked further into it and found it was.

While she was the Mayor of Wasilla rape victiums were charged for their own Forensic testing kits.

"Former Democratic Rep. Eric Croft, who sponsored that bill, said he was disappointed that simply asking the Wasilla police department to stop didn't work. Croft said he doubts Palin was unaware of the practice."

Palin's town used to bill victims for rape kits

[YukisUke]

Originally Posted by QueenNanami

I found something weird about Sarah Palin. At first i didnt think it was true but then I looked further into it and found it was.

While she was the Mayor of Wasilla rape victiums were charged for their own Forensic testing kits.

"Former Democratic Rep. Eric Croft, who sponsored that bill, said he was disappointed that simply asking the Wasilla police department to stop didn't work. Croft said he doubts Palin was unaware of the practice."

Palin's town used to bill victims for rape kits

That's just dispicable! That's beyond words of anger. I can't say anything else.