View Full Version : So.... what's up with Sarah Palin?
Pages :
1
2
[
3]
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
sapphiregirl
09-04-2008, 04:12 PM
Big if. I wouldn't automatically believe it either from the Democrats or Republicans. Very self-serving story. Yeah, call me skeptical.
I don't care about people using teleprompters - they all do. But she had that teleprompter stare the whole time. But, yes, she was very composed. Good audience contact, good expression.
True....Biden is really good at "off the cuff" remarks though so she better be prepared for those debates - she has one month to prep vs his years of experience.
I think its cool you sit back and look at both sides so much....everyone could learn from that. I think McCain and Palin lack that ability and are horrible for the country. He is known for being a bit tempermental and she just came off as a bit*h. I don't seem them uniting people on all the complex issues in the world today. It will a 4 year pissing contest or something.
G-Real
09-04-2008, 04:34 PM
I have to disagree, as this hurts my brain-meats. Yes, it would be wonderful if people were responsible regarding sex. They aren't. They may lack the means or the education (thank you, federally funded abstinence-only programs) to make wise decisions. The public school system woefully underprepares kids for responsible sexuality. I have worked in Boston Medical Center, fighting for grants and educating teens about how to prevent pregnancy and STIs. I know from experience that birth control isn't cheap, and it isn't provided to those who so desperately need it. At BMC, we would run out all the time. It is not fair to first undereducate children, chastise them for wanting to do something that feels good, then punish them by forcing them to raise a child they never wanted.
You cannot judge a woman in poverty who becomes pregnant. It may be a choice between feeding the children she already has and a package of condoms, or birth control pills. She may not be able to say "no" to the man in her life. She may be sleeping with a man in order to avoid sleeping on the streets. You do not understand her situation. Please don't presume to judge her simply because she beomes pregnant with a child she does not want.
But.....but.....white conservative men and women need to play god.....
BMC......ceriously, damn.........
bem401
09-04-2008, 04:52 PM
You cannot judge a woman in poverty who becomes pregnant. It may be a choice between feeding the children she already has and a package of condoms, or birth control pills. She may not be able to say "no" to the man in her life. She may be sleeping with a man in order to avoid sleeping on the streets. You do not understand her situation. Please don't presume to judge her simply because she beomes pregnant with a child she does not want.
I'm not judging her for being poor.
I'm not judging her for lacking education.
I'm not judging her for already having kids.
I'm judging her with sleeping with a guy because she needs a place to stay.
I'm not judging her for becoming pregnant, but....
I guess I am judging her for deciding that fetus' life isn't worth the sacrifice reqired to give it a life. If thinking that way makes me a bad person, I guess that's a burden I'll have to live with.
G-Real
09-04-2008, 05:00 PM
I'm not judging her for being poor.
I'm not judging her for lacking education.
I'm not judging her for already having kids.
I'm judging her with sleeping with a guy because she needs a place to stay.
I'm not judging her for becoming pregnant, but....
I guess I am judging her for deciding that fetus' life isn't worth the sacrifice reqired to give it a life. If thinking that way makes me a bad person, I guess that's a burden I'll have to live with.
so bem, what in the event of a miscarriage? I mean her body "rejects" the fetus.....does that make her evil, does it mean she commited murder/manslaughter?
bem401
09-04-2008, 05:05 PM
so bem, what in the event of a miscarriage? I mean her body "rejects" the fetus.....does that make her evil, does it mean she commited murder/manslaughter?
Absolutely not. If it is not intentional, how can she be faulted?
I guess I am judging her for deciding that fetus' life isn't worth the sacrifice reqired to give it a life. If thinking that way makes me a bad person, I guess that's a burden I'll have to live with.
I won't debate your right to be pro-life, as I'm sure you'll respect my right to be pro-choice. However, if conservatives believe that abortion is wrong, then why not start funding programs to decrease unintended pregnancy, or funding to improve the status of children put up for adoption? Programs such as comprehensive sexual education decrease STI rates and unintended pregnancy among teens. Provide funding for community-wide health education including, but not limited to, sex ed. Provide low-cost birth control, and make it easy to get.
It appears that conservatives want it both ways: they want women to carry all pregnancies to term, but don't offer solutions designed to decrease the rate at which these pregnancies occur, nor are there programs in place to provide sufficient aid for when they do. Bristol Palin is lucky that she was born into a family that can support her unintended pregnancy, but many women are not. What do we do for them, if abortion is not an option?
Zia_Abq
09-04-2008, 05:16 PM
so bem, what in the event of a miscarriage? I mean her body "rejects" the fetus.....does that make her evil, does it mean she commited murder/manslaughter?
Or what of a committed or married couple who practices regular birth control methods such as condoms or the pill who gets pregnant. They were being responsible. Why should they HAVE to bring a baby into the world ?
I mean what the hell? Are they supposed to never have sex just because a complete stranger feels that they shouldn’t be allowed to have an abortion. Makes no sense. Seriously, if Pro-Life types don’t believe abortion is acceptable behavior then DON’T FUCKING HAVE ONE! Why is that so hard :banghead:
bem401
09-04-2008, 05:19 PM
I won't debate your right to be pro-life, as I'm sure you'll respect my right to be pro-choice. However, if conservatives believe that abortion is wrong, then why not start funding programs to decrease unintended pregnancy, or funding to improve the status of children put up for adoption? Programs such as comprehensive sexual education decrease STI rates and unintended pregnancy among teens. Provide funding for community-wide health education including, but not limited to, sex ed. Provide low-cost birth control, and make it easy to get.
It appears that conservatives want it both ways: they want women to carry all pregnancies to term, but don't offer solutions designed to decrease the rate at which these pregnancies occur, nor are there programs in place to provide sufficient aid for when they do. Bristol Palin is lucky that she was born into a family that can support her unintended pregnancy, but many women are not. What do we do for them, if abortion is not an option?
I guess I am just opinion that it should not be my responsibility to fund programs creating a safety net for people who can't control their urges, or at least can't deqal with them responsibly. If you look at other aspects of life, people have to deal with their mistakes. Dealing with an unwanted pregnancy by choosing abortion gets the person/people involved out of their predicament but it costs the fetus its life.
G-Real
09-04-2008, 05:32 PM
I guess I am just opinion that it should not be my responsibility to fund programs creating a safety net for people who can't control their urges, or at least can't deqal with them responsibly. If you look at other aspects of life, people have to deal with their mistakes. Dealing with an unwanted pregnancy by choosing abortion gets the person/people involved out of their predicament but it costs the fetus its life.
Bem I understand your point, but, I hate to say it, its a viscour circle......
so the women have children, put them up for adoption, but, american are too busy adopting chinese, african childrenl; rather then children here who need parents. Thus the state has to "pay" for them.
Its paying Peter to pay Paul...
I guess I am just opinion that it should not be my responsibility to fund programs creating a safety net for people who can't control their urges, or at least can't deqal with them responsibly. If you look at other aspects of life, people have to deal with their mistakes. Dealing with an unwanted pregnancy by choosing abortion gets the person/people involved out of their predicament but it costs the fetus its life.
I agree ith G-Real. One way or another, an unintended pregnancy costs federal and state money. It costs money to take care of children born to women who are not ready to be mothers. It costs money to provide food, medical care, and housing. Should we remove this safety net, it is the children who suffer, which pro-lifers are obviously against. Why not spend dramatically less money to educate the women beforehand, to provide them with a means to avoid being pregnant in the first place? Prevention is simpler, cheaper, and more effective. And should that preention fail, a woman should have safe access to abortion, should she so choose.
There seems to be a idea among pro-lifers that the legality of abortion in any way effects how many abortions are performed. It doesn't. It simply makes abortion less safe and more costly. That is not something that anyone should wish upon a woman.
xdamage
09-04-2008, 06:59 PM
In a society, we are not completely autonomous. As much as we would like to pick and choose only the benefits of the society, with that comes carrying some of the burdens. Therefore we also do get some say in how others in our society behave because it impacts on us, no matter how small.
I don't see a fetus as a human anymore then I see the cells I just killed by scratching my arm to be an arm. They are surely alive, but in a big gray scale, on one end of the spectrum is a few cells, somewhere along the way, increasingly becoming more human as time goes on, but even still not fully developed after leaving the womb. Humans continue to develop. And because I see it this way, it is not black or white for me that a fetus interrupted is always wrong. Just as I don't see an early miscarriage as a death equivalent to a human death, i don't see an abort as a murder equivalent to a human murder.
In the animal world, no group of animals can escape that they live in a world of finite resources. If the pact/group/etc. over breeds, they WHOLE group suffers for it in the form of scarce resources for all. Humans though, despite all intellect, apparently cannot understand that in a universe of finite resources, our world cannot support infinite numbers. How about more of us? Yes, sure, but like the animals, again, as the numbers increase, the statistical trend is toward decreasing resources for all, and ultimately a poor quality of life for all. Again this is a gray scale matter. Somewhere between the population of the earth 2000 years ago (about 200 Million people) and now (about 6.5 Billion People) means that somewhere along this exponential trend, like the animals, we will suffer for it. In fact in many parts of the world people are. So maybe the maximum number is 10 billion, or 20, but how bad do things have to get before people finally say ENOUGH? Or is the reality is the black and white thinkers just will never get it? They can't fathom a world getting worse and worse and worse, only absolutes like we haven't reached the MAXIMUM POSSIBLE yet?
In the end though, it is simple for me. People fuck because they are wired to have sex now, worry about consequences later. This is human nature and short of a lot of social training and guidance, this is what people do. You might as well punish pets for fucking because humans barely plan it much more carefully if left to their own.
People want what they want. Thus if they want kids, they will find an argument to have them. If they don't, they will find the counter arguments.
And for the most part people don't care about the overall impact, so long as their own wants are met. So maybe we do have to see the world's population explode and let nature do what it does, limit population growth the same way nature deals with animals. Mass suffering and dying until balance is restored.
Optimist
09-04-2008, 08:35 PM
^^^^Wow! That was great. I hope things don't get to that point but you were on fire with that response.
Abortion........the fiscally conservative approach and socially conservative approach.
threlayer
09-04-2008, 09:37 PM
I will give her props for being unruffled. It would be easy to be a basket case, speaking in front of a stadium and national television audience.
But content? Platitudes and gratuitous jabs. If they're platitudes and insults that appeal to you, I guess it was kick-ass. I was hoping for more substance, a lot more.
Agreed. Lots of clever funny jabs. But a LOT was just glossed over, one dimensional. Everything like that she said needs to be explained. Maybe she doesn't understand it or want to. Anyhow it was entertainment.
Now McCain's speech tonight was a lot more impressive! He's started separating himself from that idiot Bush. (And I say that with reference to the "Dallas" star JR saying 'that idiot Barnes'.) Not that Bush is an idiot, since that is a medical term.
Zia_Abq
09-04-2008, 10:15 PM
So does anyone by chance happen to know which particular books Palin wanted banned?
fancygirl
09-04-2008, 10:54 PM
^ my guess is Jameson's How to be a Pornstar
might've made the list.
xdamage
09-05-2008, 12:56 AM
...I hope things don't get to that point but ...
I hope not either, but it happens on smaller scales all the time, and arguably is even happening now in some parts of the world.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_population
Since 1900, barely 100 years ago, the world's population roughly quadrupled from 1.6 billion to about 6.5 billion today. That is more growth then the period from 0 BC to 1750. In other words, over a span of about 1800 years the world's population quadrupled, and now, thanks to exponential growth, yet again in a 100 year span.
It is funny... I have heard people say, on average every couple that practices no BC *only* has 7-8 children. Hello? Only? Do these people really not understand exponential growth? Do they really not understand the concept of "finite" resources? Do they imagine that the next generation should be the one to stop having kids when we reach the 20 billion mark? Do they hope God will fix it? What? Either I don't get it, or they don't get it.
Either we use our intellects to slow that growth or it will continue. If it continues, we will increasingly see resources stretched thinner. The animals don't escape that fate, and so far I don't see evidence that the majority of humans have what it takes to escape that fate either.
I guess we will see.
Djoser
09-05-2008, 01:47 AM
Xdamage is making some great points, as are many others here.
The fact of the matter is that the earth has a limited capacity to support life. Human life, animal life, plant life, any sort of fucking life.
The colossal arrogance of humans who assume that we as humans have a greater Right to Life than any and all other species is the sort of thinking that will doom the human race, as surely as pushing the big red button sitting in the White House. Which Palin might easily decide God is telling her to do should she happen to inherit the office, and heathen Arabs piss her off.
I don't care if McCain's grandma is 94, that's no guarantee that a whackjob like Palin won't suddenly be in a position to impose her atavistic thinking in a more direct way on the nation, or possibly start WW III, and possibly ending the world, making arguments about the Right to Life rather pointless.
And you better believe she is in favor of shutting down stripclubs, which means anyone supporting her here is a fucking hypocrite.
Getting back to this Sacred Right to Life of Every Holy Human Fetus, though. Unless you believe that a soul is given by God to every fusion of gamete and oocyte, producing the diploid cell zygote, we are talking about something as complex as an ameoba.
'Oh, but it has the potential to grow into a walking, talking, thinking human being.' would go the logic of the hypothetical atheist or agnostic ProLifer--all three of them.
Well, fine, but by destroying the increasingly fragile ecosystem with the uncontrolled breeding of the human race, the potential of Life itself to flourish on the earth is threatened.
No one gives a fuck about any other kind of Life being slaughtered, cut down, sprayed with poisons, gassed in animal shelters, etc., etc.
Just don't fuck with that little glob of cells in the Holy Human uterus...
sapphiregirl
09-05-2008, 02:33 AM
I hope not either, but it happens on smaller scales all the time, and arguably is even happening now in some parts of the world.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_population
Since 1900, barely 100 years ago, the world's population roughly quadrupled from 1.6 billion to about 6.5 billion today. That is more growth then the period from 0 BC to 1750. In other words, over a span of about 1800 years the world's population quadrupled, and now, thanks to exponential growth, yet again in a 100 year span.
It is funny... I have heard people say, on average every couple that practices no BC *only* has 7-8 children. Hello? Only? Do these people really not understand exponential growth? Do they really not understand the concept of "finite" resources? Do they imagine that the next generation should be the one to stop having kids when we reach the 20 billion mark? Do they hope God will fix it? What? Either I don't get it, or they don't get it.
Either we use our intellects to slow that growth or it will continue. If it continues, we will increasingly see resources stretched thinner. The animals don't escape that fate, and so far I don't see evidence that the majority of humans have what it takes to escape that fate either.
I guess we will see.
NOVA did an excellent series on this.
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/worldbalance/
cool interactive map
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/worldbalance/eart-flash.html
bem401
09-05-2008, 07:08 AM
. Why not spend dramatically less money to educate the women beforehand, to provide them with a means to avoid being pregnant in the first place? Prevention is simpler, cheaper, and more effective.
Agreed on all counts.
And should that preention fail, a woman should have safe access to abortion, should she so choose.
Here is where we diverge. I am just of the opinion that once a couple creates a life, they have an obligation to it.
There seems to be a idea among pro-lifers that the legality of abortion in any way effects how many abortions are performed. It doesn't. It simply makes abortion less safe and more costly. That is not something that anyone should wish upon a woman.
If it makes it less safe and more costly, there will be fewer of them. Granted, there will be some back-alley abortions because some will insist on them, but why should one be more concerned about the pregnant woman than the fetus she is carrying if you believe that fetus constitutes a life?
I don't see my position as punishing the woman. Rather, I see it as defending the baby.
Zia_Abq
09-05-2008, 08:06 AM
From all I could find, it seems to have been presented more as a hypothetical (albeit a strenuously pushed one) rather than a specific list; sort of "If I wanted some books taken off the shelves would there be any problem?"
In a way I'm curious, but actually I don't care if it would have been Heather Has Two Mommies, Huckleberry Finn, The Bible, The Quran or The Turner Diaries; of the objections to Palin so far this one pretty much tops my list (other than the gross lack of experience, of course).
Thanks. Yeah that was all I could find too. That and her reasons were "objectionable language" whatever that means. I understand she threatened to have the librarian fired for not complying with the request. That kind of reaction seems to be a pattern with her. Not a good sign.
Optimist
09-05-2008, 08:55 AM
Thanks. Yeah that was all I could find too. That and her reasons were "objectionable language" whatever that means. I understand she threatened to have the librarian fired for not complying with the request. That kind of reaction seems to be a pattern with her. Not a good sign.
She's George Bush: the vindictiveness, narrow world view. Not a good sign.
Eric Stoner
09-05-2008, 09:26 AM
Thanks. Yeah that was all I could find too. That and her reasons were "objectionable language" whatever that means. I understand she threatened to have the librarian fired for not complying with the request. That kind of reaction seems to be a pattern with her. Not a good sign.
Actually she went ahead and fired the librarian and then rehired her under public pressure.
Zia_Abq
09-05-2008, 10:19 AM
Can you actually find a credible source that confirms that story?
Sure thing. Here it is in a TIME article. There are plenty of newspapers that reported it as well.
Tauries
09-05-2008, 12:48 PM
Can you actually find a credible source that confirms that story?
So far there isn't one. There is only the comment by 1 person who was fired by Palin. I find it very odd the best that one possible disgruntled employee can come up is that "Palin asked if was possible to ban books at the behest of her mayoral constituency" has been turned into she is a confirmed "Bookburner". I have found so far in regards to atributable quotes from the concerned parties. If this was a real issue it would've been dealt with long ago.
Zia_Abq
09-05-2008, 03:07 PM
I hope everyone will please note the current avatar used by the person above, which includes a monkey in reference to Obaaa, when considering what he has to say about the subject at hand.
sapphiregirl
09-05-2008, 03:20 PM
I hope everyone will please note the current avatar used by the person above, which includes a monkey in reference to Obaaa, when considering what he has to say about the subject at hand.
Hmmmm....could that possiby put him in the bigot category or just not cool category?
Anyway....I was listening to 3 people discuss McCain's speech last night and one of the questions was if race would hurt Obama's chances. One of the responses was - if people won't vote for Obama simply based on the color of his skin, well they would not vote democratic anyway so it probably doesn't matter.
sad...
threlayer
09-05-2008, 07:24 PM
She's George Bush: the vindictiveness, narrow world view. Not a good sign.
This is certainly something to watch out for. After all, she may be just a heartbeat away....
bem401
09-06-2008, 06:45 AM
Anyway....I was listening to 3 people discuss McCain's speech last night and one of the questions was if race would hurt Obama's chances. One of the responses was - if people won't vote for Obama simply based on the color of his skin, well they would not vote democratic anyway so it probably doesn't matter.
sad...
Sadly, there are people voting for him strictly because he is Black as well.
Does anybody seriously think a white man espousing Obama's positions would be anywhere near as popular? It's part and parcel of his "change" mantra.
Zia_Abq
09-06-2008, 09:15 AM
Does anybody seriously think a white man espousing Obama's positions would be anywhere near as popular?
Yes. Yes, I do. And it is my opinion that a comment like that says much more about the person saying it than the person it is being said about.
'Nuff said! :mad:
Richard_Head
09-06-2008, 09:23 AM
Interesting how Palin is being sequestered from the media isn't it? They seem really scared of her answering tough questions.
bem401
09-06-2008, 09:34 AM
Yes. Yes, I do. And it is my opinion that a comment like that says much more about the person saying it than the person it is being said about.
'Nuff said! :mad:
So I'm a racist for observing that race is a factor in his popularity? Hey, Tiger Woods is the greatest golfer on the planet, no doubt about it. But the fact that he is so popular owes a lot to the fact that he is more than just another white guy with talent.
As for Obama, IMHO, a white guy saying "its time for a change, its time for a change, its time for a change" wouldn't get nearly the same traction he does.
And if race isn't part of his appeal, why do they accuse everyone who is critical of him of being a racist?
bem401
09-06-2008, 09:41 AM
Interesting how Palin is being sequestered from the media isn't it? They seem really scared of her answering tough questions.
Well, the convention broke just 36 hours ago, give it some time. I think by the time this election is over, you'll be tired of seeing her answering whatever questions are thrown at her.
And if in fact it turns out they shield her from tough questions, it wouldn't be much different than Obama. The closest he has come to having to answer tough questions came at Saddleback and he hardly shone that night. Oh , and it took 19 months for him to face those questions.
Zia_Abq
09-06-2008, 09:48 AM
Hey, Tiger Woods is the greatest golfer on the planet, no doubt about it. But the fact that he is so popular owes a lot to the fact that he is more than just another white guy with talent
Thankyou for re-affirming my earlier point about your comments. You're entitled to your opinion though. I'm going back to ignoring you now. Carry on.
Richard_Head
09-06-2008, 09:56 AM
Well, the convention broke just 36 hours ago, give it some time. I think by the time this election is over, you'll be tired of seeing her answering whatever questions are thrown at her.
And if in fact it turns out they shield her from tough questions, it wouldn't be much different than Obama. The closest he has come to having to answer tough questions came at Saddleback and he hardly shone that night. Oh , and it took 19 months for him to face those questions.Huh? Obama has been campaigning for 19 months, he's been in multiple debates, he has been interviewed dozens upon dozens of times. Where are you getting this from?
bem401
09-06-2008, 10:04 AM
Huh? Obama has been campaigning for 19 months, he's been in multiple debates, he has been interviewed dozens upon dozens of times. Where are you getting this from?
He's been tossed softballs by the MSM for 19 months and debated against people who, for the most part, agree with him. We will see how he does with O'Reilly this week and in the debates starting in a few weeks but up till now he has been allowed to be very vague in the answers I've seen. All his interviewing and debating thus far has been in largely "friendly" environments
bem401
09-06-2008, 10:31 AM
Thankyou for re-affirming my earlier point about your comments. You're entitled to your opinion though. I'm going back to ignoring you now. Carry on.
Downplaying the significance of race in either Obama's or Woods' popularity is just being naive. Both of them would be significant figures regardless of race but the race dimension helps make them the icons they are.
Miss_Luscious
09-06-2008, 07:49 PM
I am going to venture a guess that if Obama was white, he would have even more support. I know for a fact that if a person with his ideas and his ability to motivate people was red, green purple or whatever, they would still get my vote. Why are people always trying to take away from him as a man by saying he's only successful because he's black? Where exactly are you getting this stuff from? Do blacks have a history of being held up and treated better that I don't know of? Is that how white people vote? Based on race? "I'm gonna vote for that black guy because he's black." That sounds crazy.
Jay Zeno
09-06-2008, 08:17 PM
I have no doubt that there is some fascination with Sen. Obama because he is a singular event, a viable (half) black candidate; that that fact will turn a number of people off; that that fact will generate a support for the underdog with other people; that had he been (all) white, he would be a very popular Democratic Presidential hopeful, especially having suffered through Gore and Kerry.
I'm sure that a fair amount of fascination with Tiger Woods comes from his racial ancestry, especially in a sport that's been lily-white for so long. Turning the sport on its head and all that. I'm also sure that if he were merely one of the front-runners, instead of being far and away the best golfer on the planet, he would receive a lot less attention.
I figured all this stuff is fairly obvious. Not sure what we're debating.
bem401
09-07-2008, 07:17 AM
I'm sure that a fair amount of fascination with Tiger Woods comes from his racial ancestry, especially in a sport that's been lily-white for so long.
And what's been more lily-white than the Oval Office? Its been occupied by a white man for 100 years longer than there have been golf courses in this country.
Turning the sport on its head and all that.
Isn't Obama's campaign all about turning Washington on its head and all that ( change, change, change ) ?
I'm also sure that if he were merely one of the front-runners, instead of being far and away the best golfer on the planet, he would receive a lot less attention.
And I'm sure if he were far and away the best golfer on the planet and was a blond white guy from the South or from another country, he'd receive less attention, at least outside the golf world. As would Obama, if the only different about him was his race.
Look, I'm not saying either Obama or Woods owe all their success to their race, but to say it doesn't come into play at all, as one other poster seemed to be doing, is to deny reality.
Zia_Abq
09-07-2008, 09:23 AM
Not sure what we're debating.Well it’s off topic and I don’t know why he brought up the race issue to begin with but basically he seems to be claiming that if they weren’t black that they would dramatically less successful.
I believe the opposite. In my opinion, their race has nothing to do with their success and that it is based on their ABILITY not the color of their skin.
And really what does Obama's skin color have to do with the topic of what is up with Sarah Palin anyway? None. So why did he bring it up? Beats me :shrug:
bem401
09-07-2008, 10:00 AM
Well it’s off topic and I don’t know why he brought up the race issue to begin with but basically he seems to be claiming that if they weren’t black that they would dramatically less successful.
I believe the opposite. In my opinion, their race has nothing to do with their success and that it is based on their ABILITY not the color of their skin.
And really what does Obama's skin color have to do with the topic of what is up with Sarah Palin anyway? None. So why did he bring it up? Beats me :shrug:
Actually, you ( in post 131 ) sensed racist overtones in Tauries' avatar, and on this I don't disagree with you. (He's since changed his avatar, BTW).
And then SapphireGirl (in post 132) recounted a conversation with somebody who refused to vote for Obama because he's Black.
I just pointed out that Obama gets some support as well because he is non-white.
I also never he or Tiger be dramatically less successful but I agree with JZ that a fair amount of the fascination with them and the attention they get is due to their racial ancestry.
Zia_Abq
09-07-2008, 10:12 AM
:banghead: back to topic please.
So, what is up with Sarah Palin.
bem401
09-07-2008, 10:32 AM
:banghead: back to topic please.
So, what is up with Sarah Palin.
If you want to return to topic, you shouldn't rewrite the history of the thread en route.
Zia_Abq
09-07-2008, 11:39 AM
ANYWAY
back to topic
So, what is up with Sarah Palin?
bem401
09-07-2008, 11:47 AM
^^^ chalk one up for me I guess.
Now back to topic.
Zia_Abq
09-07-2008, 01:36 PM
So will she give an interview?
Apparently the answer is yes but there is a catch. A big catch. It won't be on Meet the Press. It won't be on Face the Nation either. Instead it will be given to Republican run and pure propaganda cable channel, FoxNews. So much for answering any hardball questions.
Here's a quote from the McCain campaign manager:
"She'll agree to an interview when we think it's time and when she feels comfortable doing it" Davis said on "Fox News Sunday"
Miss_Luscious
09-07-2008, 01:48 PM
That is not going to work.. If she's ready to be VP and become president at the drop of a hat, then should should be ready to do interviews.
bem401
09-07-2008, 01:49 PM
So will she give an interview?
Apparently the answer is yes but there is a catch. A big catch. It won't be on Meet the Press. It won't be on Face the Nation either. Instead it will be given to Republican run and pure propaganda cable channel, FoxNews. So much for answering any hardball questions.
Here's a quote from the McCain campaign manager:
"She'll agree to an interview when we think it's time and when she feels comfortable doing it" Davis said on "Fox News Sunday"
She will undoubtedly make herself available to all the networks in due time. Probably sooner rather than later. Not to do so would be a huge mistake.
I would guess she is studying things that heretofore didn't matter to her. She wouldn't want to show up for an Obama shill like Chris Matthews and have the host try to turn it into a game of "Name That Obscure Foreign Leader", which is exactly what they'd be tempted to do to her.
I believe she has an interview scheduled with ABC later this week. If so, I am sure the interviewer will be sure to throw her softballs.
FBR
Miss_Luscious
09-07-2008, 01:52 PM
Or maybe they'd ask her to explain the numerous things that have come up in the past week about her. That shouldn't be so hard to do and she doesn't need to prepare to speak the truth, does she?