Unsubstantiated gossip (political)

Message

Beebs52 · #51 Post by **Beebs52** » Mon Sep 01, 2008 5:02 pm

dimmzy wrote:
I'm pretty sure Sarah Palin looks at her little boy and thinks the same thing.
Yes. Too bad she won't be able to spend any time with him since campaigning is generally considered to be a 15-hour-a-day activity.

What exactly is your beef? You're very, very snarky (and I know snark) about this woman. I hope it doesn't harken back to something that you couldn't do or something, but you're very,very odd about this whole subject. And, if you're willing to be snarky on this message board I guess you have to be willing to take the questions.

How the HELL would you know how she's going to take care of this child during the campaign? Just because you may not be capable of accomplishing it, why be such a strangely bitter commentator?

It's quite weird.

dimmzy · #52 Post by **dimmzy** » Mon Sep 01, 2008 5:07 pm

What exactly is your beef?

I think she's unqualified to be vice president of the United States.

Tocqueville3 · #53 Post by **Tocqueville3** » Mon Sep 01, 2008 5:07 pm

dimmzy wrote:
I'm pretty sure Sarah Palin looks at her little boy and thinks the same thing.
Yes. Too bad she won't be able to spend any time with him since campaigning is generally considered to be a 15-hour-a-day activity.

That's her business. Not yours.

Tocqueville3 · #54 Post by **Tocqueville3** » Mon Sep 01, 2008 5:10 pm

dimmzy wrote:
What exactly is your beef?
I think she's unqualified to be vice president of the United States.

How?

I know this has been said before about a zillion times but if she's not qualified to be veep then Obama sure as hell ain't qualified to be prez.

What are the qualifications for being veep?

Tocqueville3 · #55 Post by **Tocqueville3** » Mon Sep 01, 2008 5:14 pm

Beebs52 wrote:
dimmzy wrote:
I'm pretty sure Sarah Palin looks at her little boy and thinks the same thing.
Yes. Too bad she won't be able to spend any time with him since campaigning is generally considered to be a 15-hour-a-day activity.
What exactly is your beef? You're very, very snarky (and I know snark) about this woman. I hope it doesn't harken back to something that you couldn't do or something, but you're very,very odd about this whole subject. And, if you're willing to be snarky on this message board I guess you have to be willing to take the questions.

How the HELL would you know how she's going to take care of this child during the campaign? Just because you may not be capable of accomplishing it, why be such a strangely bitter commentator?

It's quite weird.

Yet again, beebs nailed it. I would really like to hear an explanation for the massive amounts of vitriol you're spewing about this woman.

Beebs52 · #56 Post by **Beebs52** » Mon Sep 01, 2008 5:17 pm

dimmzy wrote:
What exactly is your beef?
I think she's unqualified to be vice president of the United States.

Dimmzy, I appreciate your answer. It has nothing to do with her family situation. It has to do with her...issues? Surely you can't say she's unqualified simply because she has a lot of kids?

Or are you comparing this to Clinton's many debacles? As in, those had nothing to do with his qualifications for president?

I'm honestly asking you. Because her birthing babies has nothing to do with her qualifications for vp.

mrkelley23 · #57 Post by **mrkelley23** » Mon Sep 01, 2008 5:30 pm

I s anyone gonna give Obama props for releasing a statement saying that the baby is Palin's familys' business and nobody else's, and that the media should leave her alone?

dimmzy · #58 Post by **dimmzy** » Mon Sep 01, 2008 5:32 pm

I would really like to hear an explanation for the massive amounts of vitriol you're spewing about this woman.

I didn't realize that conservatives are in favor of mothers with newborns working 15-hour-a-day jobs outside the home.

If yes, then...

why not government-paid daycare so ALL women can do it?

why not expand after-school programs in safe places so that ALL women can work long hours without worrying about their children at 3 pm?

why not expand government-paid health care so ALL women can have the option of giving birth to special needs children without worrying about costs? Our local newspaper did an article about how parents of autistic children in Rochester are declaring bankruptcy because they can't afford care for their children.

I just hate the hypocrisy. That's all. It's all, "let the poor eat cake while WE hire round-the-clock nannies."

Don't complain about liberal Democrats and their "immoral lifestyles" when the current vice president's only grandchild is the child of two lesbians and a sperm donor. Now THAT's conservative!!

If they would just come out and say, "you know, we and liberal Democrats aren't really that far apart after all -- let's find a solution to our social issues that will satisfy us by looking at ways to provide education, health care and fair wages to us all" I would be very proud of us all.

Very proud.

Weyoun · #59 Post by **Weyoun** » Mon Sep 01, 2008 5:40 pm

dimmzy wrote:
What exactly is your beef?
I think she's unqualified to be vice president of the United States.

But you are not attacking her for that reason. You just consider her to be a bad woman.

Weyoun · #60 Post by **Weyoun** » Mon Sep 01, 2008 5:42 pm

dimmzy wrote:
I would really like to hear an explanation for the massive amounts of vitriol you're spewing about this woman.
I didn't realize that conservatives are in favor of mothers with newborns working 15-hour-a-day jobs outside the home.

If yes, then...

why not government-paid daycare so ALL women can do it?

why not expand after-school programs in safe places so that ALL women can work long hours without worrying about their children at 3 pm?

why not expand government-paid health care so ALL women can have the option of giving birth to special needs children without worrying about costs? Our local newspaper did an article about how parents of autistic children in Rochester are declaring bankruptcy because they can't afford care for their children.

I just hate the hypocrisy. That's all. It's all, "let the poor eat cake while WE hire round-the-clock nannies."

Don't complain about liberal Democrats and their "immoral lifestyles" when the current vice president's only grandchild is the child of two lesbians and a sperm donor. Now THAT's conservative!!

If they would just come out and say, "you know, we and liberal Democrats aren't really that far apart after all -- let's find a solution to our social issues that will satisfy us by looking at ways to provide education, health care and fair wages to us all" I would be very proud of us all.

Very proud.

Because we don't want a massive welfare state. Next.

Beebs52 · #61 Post by **Beebs52** » Mon Sep 01, 2008 5:44 pm

mrkelley23 wrote:I s anyone gonna give Obama props for releasing a statement saying that the baby is Palin's familys' business and nobody else's, and that the media should leave her alone?

I must say, it was a classy thing to say.

So much for anyone reading my posts! Ha.

mellytu74 · #62 Post by **mellytu74** » Mon Sep 01, 2008 5:45 pm

Weyoun wrote:
mellytu74 wrote:She supported the Bridge to Nowhere before she was against it. A month ago, she praised Obama's energy policy a month ago. In pretty glowing terms, IIRC. She was a Pat Buchannan supporter in 2000. Might not help with some groups.
She very specifically didn't support Buchanan. In fact, she was on Steve Forbes' committee to elect him in 2000.

Weyoun --

I read it in The New Republic online (which may not be The National Review but sure as hell ain't The Daily Kos), which cited a 1999 AP report of a Buchanan trip to Alaska.

That could very well have been just the case of a local politician supporting a visitor.

I looked further and see that she was, indeed, on Forbes' committee. I seriously doubt that she would have been supporting Buchanan under those circumstances.

I stand corrected on that -- but she most certainly supported the bridge and supported Obama's energy policy.

http://www.reuters.com/article/politics ... 7020080901

http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/archive/ ... 04936.aspx

EDITED to fix typos.

tlynn78 · #63 Post by **tlynn78** » Mon Sep 01, 2008 5:47 pm

I didn't realize that conservatives are in favor of mothers with newborns working 15-hour-a-day jobs outside the home.

I can't speak for all 'conservatives' but I'm in favor of a woman's right to choose to have a child and choose to work a 15-hour-a-day job, and to be PERSONALLY RESPONSIBLE for those choices.

t.

Beebs52 · #64 Post by **Beebs52** » Mon Sep 01, 2008 5:50 pm

dimmzy wrote:
I would really like to hear an explanation for the massive amounts of vitriol you're spewing about this woman.
I didn't realize that conservatives are in favor of mothers with newborns working 15-hour-a-day jobs outside the home.

If yes, then...

why not government-paid daycare so ALL women can do it?

why not expand after-school programs in safe places so that ALL women can work long hours without worrying about their children at 3 pm?

why not expand government-paid health care so ALL women can have the option of giving birth to special needs children without worrying about costs? Our local newspaper did an article about how parents of autistic children in Rochester are declaring bankruptcy because they can't afford care for their children.

I just hate the hypocrisy. That's all. It's all, "let the poor eat cake while WE hire round-the-clock nannies."

Don't complain about liberal Democrats and their "immoral lifestyles" when the current vice president's only grandchild is the child of two lesbians and a sperm donor. Now THAT's conservative!!

If they would just come out and say, "you know, we and liberal Democrats aren't really that far apart after all -- let's find a solution to our social issues that will satisfy us by looking at ways to provide education, health care and fair wages to us all" I would be very proud of us all.

Very proud.

You're making some really goofy statements. Repeatedly. And, obviously, you don't want to hear any rebuttal. Works for me.

Immoral blah blah blah. Hypocrisy. Yep. It's all about the "conservative" hypocrisy. You've illustrated the liberal version.

In favor of women working 15 hours a day outside the home with newborns? Where did that come from?

I think your angst is that the federal/state government doesn't pay for every single last thing that YOU think is worth paying for. I, personally, don't think we're PRIVILEGED or have RIGHTS to certain market-driven commodities. Or, GUARANTEED JOBS. Or RECOMPENSED for all the horrible things that have happened to us based on our decisions or the weather or what God has decided to deal to us.

Butch up.

themanintheseersuckersuit · #65 Post by **themanintheseersuckersuit** » Mon Sep 01, 2008 5:50 pm

mrkelley23 wrote:I s anyone gonna give Obama props for releasing a statement saying that the baby is Palin's familys' business and nobody else's, and that the media should leave her alone?

That's why I posted it.

dimmzy · #66 Post by **dimmzy** » Mon Sep 01, 2008 5:51 pm

But you are not attacking her for that reason. You just consider her to be a bad woman.

Not at all. I admire her for "walking the talk" in many ways.

And she'd be fun at parties.

Weyoun · #67 Post by **Weyoun** » Mon Sep 01, 2008 5:53 pm

dimmzy wrote:
But you are not attacking her for that reason. You just consider her to be a bad woman.
Not at all. I admire her for "walking the talk" in many ways.

And she'd be fun at parties.

You'd never direct some of the comments you have made about her toward a man in the same position.

dimmzy · #68 Post by **dimmzy** » Mon Sep 01, 2008 6:06 pm

In favor of women working 15 hours a day outside the home with newborns? Where did that come from?

Well, why does a political party that call itself socially conservative select a divorced man with a trophy wife and a new mother as its candidates?

I just think it's hypocritical.

Nothing against either of them personally.

Beebs52 · #69 Post by **Beebs52** » Mon Sep 01, 2008 6:16 pm

dimmzy wrote:
In favor of women working 15 hours a day outside the home with newborns? Where did that come from?
Well, why does a political party that call itself socially conservative select a divorced man with a trophy wife and a new mother as its candidates?

I just think it's hypocritical.

Nothing against either of them personally.

Well, it depends upon what you call socially conservative. I didn't know divorce was illegal, nor, even Biblically prohibited (but I'm not talking fundamentalist here, so if that's where you're going you'll have to take it up with others). Didn't know that a new mother was prohibited from holding public office. These are new things for me.

I'm not holding McCain up as the poster boy for doing the right thing marriage-wise in the past. Apparently, you give no second chances for anybody. That's why your party kept Clinton in office, right? And Kennedy was certainly a paragon of virtue...along with his brothers.

It seems that you may have some strange rigid view of what "conservatives" are. I've gotten to the point that the definitions are meaningless--conservative/liberal. If you're still stuck in some cliched 80's version of something, bless your heart.

I think you're reading your DailyKos too much. "We" all aren't so much one-issue peeps.

dimmzy · #70 Post by **dimmzy** » Mon Sep 01, 2008 6:25 pm

I'm not holding McCain up as the poster boy for doing the right thing marriage-wise in the past. Apparently, you give no second chances for anybody. That's why your party kept Clinton in office, right? And Kennedy was certainly a paragon of virtue...along with his brothers.

Actually, I'm not a Democrat.

And that's what bothers me about ALL these debates -- people who disagree are automatically the other--read, Bad--side.

I want another party.

Maybe I want to be a Whig...

Beebs52 · #71 Post by **Beebs52** » Mon Sep 01, 2008 6:35 pm

dimmzy wrote:
I'm not holding McCain up as the poster boy for doing the right thing marriage-wise in the past. Apparently, you give no second chances for anybody. That's why your party kept Clinton in office, right? And Kennedy was certainly a paragon of virtue...along with his brothers.
Actually, I'm not a Democrat.

And that's what bothers me about ALL these debates -- people who disagree are automatically the other--read, Bad--side.

I want another party.

Maybe I want to be a Whig...

You know what? I can appreciate that attitude.

It does appear that you are grouping some in a particular niche, though. That's what has gotten me all het up and into responding to you. I perceived an automatic slant that, once again, I have to rail against.

Truce on the defined partyline, but definitely no backing down on what I disagree with.

Happy Labor Day. Seriously.

mrkelley23 · #72 Post by **mrkelley23** » Mon Sep 01, 2008 6:36 pm

themanintheseersuckersuit wrote:
mrkelley23 wrote:I s anyone gonna give Obama props for releasing a statement saying that the baby is Palin's familys' business and nobody else's, and that the media should leave her alone?
That's why I posted it.

Sorry, Beebs and Tmitsss.

Next time I'll try to read the whole thread before posting.

Or not.

Beebs52 · #73 Post by **Beebs52** » Mon Sep 01, 2008 6:37 pm

dimmzy wrote:
I'm not holding McCain up as the poster boy for doing the right thing marriage-wise in the past. Apparently, you give no second chances for anybody. That's why your party kept Clinton in office, right? And Kennedy was certainly a paragon of virtue...along with his brothers.
Actually, I'm not a Democrat.

And that's what bothers me about ALL these debates -- people who disagree are automatically the other--read, Bad--side.

I want another party.

Maybe I want to be a Whig...

Double post.

mrkelley23 · #74 Post by **mrkelley23** » Mon Sep 01, 2008 6:41 pm

In Dimmzy's defense...

What she has said in this thread is in so many words what my lovely bride had to say about this subject when she read the newspaper story. I have no idea who Wendy is planning to vote for in the fall -- she was a Hillary supporter, so we canceled each other's votes in the primary -- but she was nonplussed about the Palin choice, for the very reason Dimmzy has stated here. That surprised me, since I thought it was a very savvy move by McCain.

dimmzy · #75 Post by **dimmzy** » Mon Sep 01, 2008 6:48 pm

You know what? I can appreciate that attitude.

It does appear that you are grouping some in a particular niche, though. That's what has gotten me all het up and into responding to you. I perceived an automatic slant that, once again, I have to rail against.

Truce on the defined partyline, but definitely no backing down on what I disagree with.

Happy Labor Day. Seriously.

Hugs and Happy Labor Day to you too, Beebs!

I just hope people don't think I have anything against any of the politicians personally. Anyone who runs for public office in this day and age deserves credit.

Whoever is elected, I think we're in for an exciting ride ...