Sarah Palin and the Two Americas

[Ban Hammer 13,491]

sarah palin just needs to get back under that glass ceiling so everyone dem will be happy.

Yes, because it's absolutely about the fact that she is a woman and nothing to do with her ideological position.

some sure are letting their true colors show.......

So, what true colours would those be Charles, hmm? Are you saying that you can't see any irony in what I posted, or any shallow and baiting nonsense in what you posted?

oh i get what you're saying, but apparently you missed what i was getting at. you better go back and start over again.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

Sympathy or no - does it enter into the realm of possibility that a guy discussing a family tragedy in might actually be sincere in his sentiments?

Not when your own running mate, Kerry, who is repulsed by you and wishing you weren't on the ticket. The point wasn't his son's tragic death but that he lied and said he had never told the story before about his dead son lying on a slab. He needed a story to gain the confidence of political allies. I understand politicians lie but using your own son's corpse to get the VP slot is a new low, well until the cheap shots on Palin got immediate national. coverage.

Personally, I look forward to hearing her speak at the convention. She going to get some huge ratings- thank you Daily Kos! We love you. My guess is her speech will be about her background and views and not some whitewashed Obama type "I'm really from Kansas" bio followed by a speech not even his supporters could recall a minute after his speech. Too busy watching the Red China inspired Beijing fireworks display.

The point was that a mother appeared on TV claiming that she was offended by Coulter's comments about their tragedy. Coulter didn't bat an eye, not even to take the human approach of saying "I'm sorry for your loss" and a disturbing number of people here had no problem with that.

Essentially then its apparently perfectly fine to attack someone's family if the person has themselves introduced them into the public eye, but not when it puts the candidate at odds with their position (or the established party position) on social issues.

If it needs to be pointed out again - I find it all disgusting, but I am not seeing the consistency in the argument here from you or Gary that would suggest that you have the capacity for judgement to acknowledge that certain modes of argument actually lower you - regardless of the perceived justification you feel makes it ok.

When it comes to US politics it seems that its perfectly ok to use the reptilian part of the brain over its higher functions.

Edited September 3, 2008 by Paul Daniels

[HAL 9000 96]

Gary, that is certainly what you are saying. You are saying that under your rules children are not off limits if...

If what? The parents bring it up to gain sympathy? If they try to use them for political gain?

Or you can take the higher road and ignore it instead of pandering to the politics of filth.

Or I can condemn the parent for doing it. If Palin was saying, "hey look! my daughter is having a baby and because I am pro life she is keeping it" then any remark is fair game. Don't you see the difference?

Of course I do. Hence I am not part of the bash-Palin bandwagon you so ridiculously label as coming from the 'liberal media.' Now, do I criticize Palin's so-called experience and beliefs in relation to what is or isn't proportional to a united nation... there is where the game should be. But that does not benefit the McCain campaign and hence is more prone to not be discussed as often.

Or Democrats. Life and politics are many times a lot more complicated than what cover a particular book has any given week. You should know that having been an avid fan of the Operation Chaos that didn't quite work.

I never said anything about the "liberal media". I was retorting some of the Obama supporters in this forum. And yes I have noticed that you and a few others are not joining in on the bashing.

Then perhaps it would have been a better idea to not starting this thread with an article that pretty much lumps this nonexistent 'liberal media' with some folks that may (or may not be) actual Obama supporters. There is a difference, and I suspect that as with many other parts of this campaign season, there are spinners out there looking merely for political points that voters may not be tuned into catching.

While actual issues continue to be ignored that only benefit the older of the two candidates.

Edited September 3, 2008 by maviwaro

[Peikko 1,575]

Sympathy or no - does it enter into the realm of possibility that a guy discussing a family tragedy in might actually be sincere in his sentiments?

Not when your own running mate, Kerry, who is repulsed by you and wishing you weren't on the ticket. The point wasn't his son's tragic death but that he lied and said he had never told the story before about his dead son lying on a slab. He needed a story to gain the confidence of political allies. I understand politicians lie but using your own son's corpse to get the VP slot is a new low, well until the cheap shots on Palin got immediate national. coverage.

Personally, I look forward to hearing her speak at the convention. She going to get some huge ratings- thank you Daily Kos! We love you. My guess is her speech will be about her background and views and not some whitewashed Obama type "I'm really from Kansas" bio followed by a speech not even his supporters could recall a minute after his speech. Too busy watching the Red China inspired Beijing fireworks display.

The point was that a mother appeared on TV claiming that she was offended by Coulter's comments about their tragedy. Coulter didn't bat an eye, not even to take the human approach of saying "I'm sorry for your loss" and a disturbing number of people here had no problem with that.

Essentially then its apparently perfectly fine to attack someone's family if the person has themselves introduced them into the public eye, but not when it puts the candidate at odds with their position (or the established party position) on social issues.

If it needs to be pointed out again - I find it all disgusting, but I am not seeing the consistency in the argument here from you or Gary that would suggest that you have the capacity for judgement to acknowledge that certain modes of argument actually lower you - regardless of the perceived justification you feel makes it ok.

When it comes to US politics it seems that its perfectly ok to use the reptilian part of the brain over its higher functions.

Well, of course, such a thing doesn't exist because evolution is a myth.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

Gary, that is certainly what you are saying. You are saying that under your rules children are not off limits if...

If what? The parents bring it up to gain sympathy? If they try to use them for political gain?

Or you can take the higher road and ignore it instead of pandering to the politics of filth.

Or I can condemn the parent for doing it. If Palin was saying, "hey look! my daughter is having a baby and because I am pro life she is keeping it" then any remark is fair game. Don't you see the difference?

Of course I do. Hence I am not part of the bash-Palin bandwagon you so ridiculously label as coming from the 'liberal media.' Now, do I criticize Palin's so-called experience and beliefs in relation to what is or isn't proportional to a united nation... there is where the game should be. But that does not benefit the McCain campaign and hence is more prone to not be discussed as often.

Or Democrats. Life and politics are many times a lot more complicated than what cover a particular book has any given week. You should know that having been an avid fan of the Operation Chaos that didn't quite work.

I never said anything about the "liberal media". I was retorting some of the Obama supporters in this forum. And yes I have noticed that you and a few others are not joining in on the bashing.

Then perhaps it would have been a better idea to not starting this thread with an article that pretty much lumps this nonexistent 'liberal media' with some folks that may (or may not be) actual Obama supporters. There is a difference, and I suspect that as with many other parts of this campaign season, there are spinners out there looking merely for political points that voters may not be tuned into catching.

While actual issues continue to be ignored that only benefit the older of the two candidates.

It was a ####### article actually - the same thing would have been written regardless of who was chosen.

[HAL 9000 96]

Sympathy or no - does it enter into the realm of possibility that a guy discussing a family tragedy in might actually be sincere in his sentiments?

Not when your own running mate, Kerry, who is repulsed by you and wishing you weren't on the ticket. The point wasn't his son's tragic death but that he lied and said he had never told the story before about his dead son lying on a slab. He needed a story to gain the confidence of political allies. I understand politicians lie but using your own son's corpse to get the VP slot is a new low, well until the cheap shots on Palin got immediate national. coverage.

Personally, I look forward to hearing her speak at the convention. She going to get some huge ratings- thank you Daily Kos! We love you. My guess is her speech will be about her background and views and not some whitewashed Obama type "I'm really from Kansas" bio followed by a speech not even his supporters could recall a minute after his speech. Too busy watching the Red China inspired Beijing fireworks display.

The point was that a mother appeared on TV claiming that she was offended by Coulter's comments about their tragedy. Coulter didn't bat an eye, not even to take the human approach of saying "I'm sorry for your loss" and a disturbing number of people here had no problem with that.

Essentially then its apparently perfectly fine to attack someone's family if the person has themselves introduced them into the public eye, but not when it puts the candidate at odds with their position (or the established party position) on social issues.

If it needs to be pointed out again - I find it all disgusting, but I am not seeing the consistency in the argument here from you or Gary that would suggest that you have the capacity for judgement to acknowledge that certain modes of argument actually lower you - regardless of the perceived justification you feel makes it ok.

When it comes to US politics it seems that its perfectly ok to use the reptilian part of the brain over its higher functions.

Well, of course, such a thing doesn't exist because evolution is a myth.

And that is yet again another reason to criticize Palin.

Yep. There will always be a 'liberal media' and left wing dogs out there by the bushel.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

Gary, that is certainly what you are saying. You are saying that under your rules children are not off limits if...

If what? The parents bring it up to gain sympathy? If they try to use them for political gain?

Or you can take the higher road and ignore it instead of pandering to the politics of filth.

Or I can condemn the parent for doing it. If Palin was saying, "hey look! my daughter is having a baby and because I am pro life she is keeping it" then any remark is fair game. Don't you see the difference?

Of course I do. Hence I am not part of the bash-Palin bandwagon you so ridiculously label as coming from the 'liberal media.' Now, do I criticize Palin's so-called experience and beliefs in relation to what is or isn't proportional to a united nation... there is where the game should be. But that does not benefit the McCain campaign and hence is more prone to not be discussed as often.

Or Democrats. Life and politics are many times a lot more complicated than what cover a particular book has any given week. You should know that having been an avid fan of the Operation Chaos that didn't quite work.

I never said anything about the "liberal media". I was retorting some of the Obama supporters in this forum. And yes I have noticed that you and a few others are not joining in on the bashing.

Then perhaps it would have been a better idea to not starting this thread with an article that pretty much lumps this nonexistent 'liberal media' with some folks that may (or may not be) actual Obama supporters. There is a difference, and I suspect that as with many other parts of this campaign season, there are spinners out there looking merely for political points that voters may not be tuned into catching.

While actual issues continue to be ignored that only benefit the older of the two candidates.

It was a ####### article actually - the same thing would have been written regardless of who was chosen.

We should arrange a day trip to the Creationist Museum to learn the error of our ways...

I'd be kicked out for laughing...

[alienlovechild 75]

The point was that a mother appeared on TV claiming that she was offended by Coulter's comments about their tragedy. Coulter didn't bat an eye, not even to take the human approach of saying "I'm sorry for your loss" and a disturbing number of people here had no problem with that.

Essentially then its apparently perfectly fine to attack someone's family if the person has themselves introduced them into the public eye, but not when it puts the candidate at odds with their position (or the established party position) on social issues.

If it needs to be pointed out again - I find it all disgusting, but I am not seeing the consistency in the argument here from you or Gary that would suggest that you have the capacity for judgement to acknowledge that certain modes of argument actually lower you - regardless of the perceived justification you feel makes it ok.

Whose mother are you talking about? Somebody in an audience? You can bet it wasn't poor Elizabeth Edwards after all she's been through. How's that for sympathy, 6? I'm not happy Edward's kid died but I'm more outraged by how Edwards manipulated the media for years and his family into thinking the scumbag was "for the little guy" in the "other America" and what a great family man he was. I think don't believe Palin had control over her daughter's sex life or her mentally disabled kid being born (ok she could have aborted but that wasn't her "choice") but Edwards knew exactly what he was doing on his son's campaign death story and screwing that tramp while lying about it.

I'm fairly consist because I have to fill you in 6 on the details but most people ignore what doesn't fit the insults. My advice is to you is to watch Palin's speech tonight and although she may not get your vote (Can you vote yet?) I'm sure it's going to a media event that may actually change some votes on an unknown candidate who has been shredded by the media woodchipper. Speeches don't count you say? A speech at the DNC convention in 2004 propelled a nobody to stardom 4 years later, that nobody was Obama himself! The play is the thing where we hope to catch the conscience of the king (or the American public).

Edited September 3, 2008 by alienlovechild

[HAL 9000 96]

Gary, that is certainly what you are saying. You are saying that under your rules children are not off limits if...

If what? The parents bring it up to gain sympathy? If they try to use them for political gain?

Or you can take the higher road and ignore it instead of pandering to the politics of filth.

Or I can condemn the parent for doing it. If Palin was saying, "hey look! my daughter is having a baby and because I am pro life she is keeping it" then any remark is fair game. Don't you see the difference?

Of course I do. Hence I am not part of the bash-Palin bandwagon you so ridiculously label as coming from the 'liberal media.' Now, do I criticize Palin's so-called experience and beliefs in relation to what is or isn't proportional to a united nation... there is where the game should be. But that does not benefit the McCain campaign and hence is more prone to not be discussed as often.

Or Democrats. Life and politics are many times a lot more complicated than what cover a particular book has any given week. You should know that having been an avid fan of the Operation Chaos that didn't quite work.

I never said anything about the "liberal media". I was retorting some of the Obama supporters in this forum. And yes I have noticed that you and a few others are not joining in on the bashing.

Then perhaps it would have been a better idea to not starting this thread with an article that pretty much lumps this nonexistent 'liberal media' with some folks that may (or may not be) actual Obama supporters. There is a difference, and I suspect that as with many other parts of this campaign season, there are spinners out there looking merely for political points that voters may not be tuned into catching.

While actual issues continue to be ignored that only benefit the older of the two candidates.

It was a ####### article actually - the same thing would have been written regardless of who was chosen.

We should arrange a day trip to the Creationist Museum to learn the error of our ways...

I'd be kicked out for laughing...

I'd be escorted out for asking obvious questions. Like how they explain billions of years of molecular evolution in a few thousand years.

[rclouse 0]

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

The point was that a mother appeared on TV claiming that she was offended by Coulter's comments about their tragedy. Coulter didn't bat an eye, not even to take the human approach of saying "I'm sorry for your loss" and a disturbing number of people here had no problem with that.

Essentially then its apparently perfectly fine to attack someone's family if the person has themselves introduced them into the public eye, but not when it puts the candidate at odds with their position (or the established party position) on social issues.

If it needs to be pointed out again - I find it all disgusting, but I am not seeing the consistency in the argument here from you or Gary that would suggest that you have the capacity for judgement to acknowledge that certain modes of argument actually lower you - regardless of the perceived justification you feel makes it ok.

Whose mother are you talking about? Somebody in an audience? You can bet it wasn't poor Elizabeth Edwards after all she's been through. How's that for sympathy, 6? I'm not happy Edward's kid died but I'm more outraged by how Edwards manipulated the media for years and his family into thinking the scumbag was "for the little guy" in the "other America" and what a great family man he was. I think don't believe Palin had control over her daughter's sex life or her mentally disabled kid being born (ok she could have aborted but that wasn't her "choice") but Edwards knew exactly what he was doing on his son's campaign death story and screwing that tramp while lying about it.

I'm fairly consist because I have to fill you in 6 on the details but most people ignore what doesn't fit the insults. My advice is to you is to watch Palin's speech tonight and although she may not get your vote (Can you vote yet?) I'm sure it's going to a media event that may actually change some votes on an unknown candidate who has been shredded by the media woodchipper. Speeches don't count you say? A speech at the DNC convention in 2004 propelled a nobody to stardom 4 years later, that nobody was Obama himself! The play is the thing where we hope to catch the conscience of the king (or the American public).

You missed my point. That's ok - to be expected I suppose.

[HAL 9000 96]

Why is there so much point missing today?

Time for some VJ-itamins!!

[Peikko 1,575]

It's back to that age old human predeliction, validatiing oneself by looking down on others. What's ironic to me is, that those who are the most adamant that this is the way for humanity to treat each other are quite often adherents to organised religions. I find this deeply disturbing for the most part.

[almaty 19]

[Chica Yeyé 41]

to brother almaty and rclouse for being the only ones not taking themselves too seriously