|
Sarah will never be asked to rush.
|
|
Topic Started: Sep 6 2008, 02:00 PM (1,390 Views)
|
|
Baldo
|
Sep 7 2008, 11:16 AM
Post #31
|
|
- Posts:
- 59,953
- Group:
- Global Moderators
- Member
- #45
- Joined:
- Apr 28, 2008
|
Politics has always been dirty. Caesar found that out up close and personal as did Socrates.
But what is at the bottom of this is something more. As we saw in the Wellstone Funeral the far left consistently goes overboard in their condemnations.
I have no problem confronting Sarah Palin on birth control or her policies, just as I have no problem on confronting any candidate. What I do have a problem is the the justification of going after Bristol & Sarah over her pregnancy. It is crude, it is impolite, it is a disgrace. Anything to the contrary is a justification of a widely accepted rule of conduct that has been a consistent part of American politics, children are OFF LIMITS!. At times it was violated but not in modern times. It speaks to me of a campaign that cares more about winning then doing what's right. And make no mistake Obama could greatly reduce this despite his "statement!"
It is a direct predictor of what an Obama Administration with Pelsoi in control of Congress would bring us.
I could have told them, I could have warned them as Joan did with her "Wellstone funeral Moment." But they didn't listen to reason
MCCain Palin up by 4% http://www.zogby.com/news/ReadNews.dbm?ID=1548
Edited by Baldo, Sep 7 2008, 11:26 AM.
|
|
|
| |
|
Deleted User
|
Sep 7 2008, 11:23 AM
Post #32
|
|
Deleted User
|
- Baldo
- Sep 7 2008, 11:16 AM
Politics has always been dirty. Caesar found that out up close and personal as did Socrates. But what is at the bottom of this is something more. As we saw in the Wellstone Funeral the far left consistently goes overboard in their condemnations. I have no problem confronting Sarah Palin on birth control or her policies, just as I have no problem on confronting any candidate. What I do have a problem is the the justification of going after Bristol & Sarah over her pregancy. It is crude, it is impolite, it is a disgrace. Anything to the contrary is a justification of a widely accepted rule of conduct that has been a consistent part of American politics, children are OFF LIMITS!. At times it was violated but not in modern times. It speaks to me of a campaign that cares more about winning then doing what's right. And make no mistake Obama could greatly reduce this despite his "statement!" It is a direct predictor of what an Obama Administration with Pelsoi in control of Congress would bring us. I could have told them, I could have warned them as Joan did with her "Wellstone funeral Moment." But they didn't listen to reason MCCain Palin up by 4% http://www.zogby.com/news/ReadNews.dbm?ID=1548 . That Poll is amazing to me.
I can see Bill Clinton, Harold Ickes, James Carville and others pulling their hair out. With the Economy and the Bush's poplularity rating - the Democrats should probably be ahead by 30 points.
|
|
|
| |
|
Baldo
|
Sep 7 2008, 11:49 AM
Post #33
|
|
- Posts:
- 59,953
- Group:
- Global Moderators
- Member
- #45
- Joined:
- Apr 28, 2008
|
- Tony Soprano
- Sep 7 2008, 11:23 AM
I can see Bill Clinton, Harold Ickes, James Carville and others pulling their hair out. With the Economy and the Bush's poplularity rating - the Democrats should probably be ahead by 30 points.
IMHO Bill & HRC were doing the River-dance when they heard this. Terry McAuffle probably can't stop laughing.
It's Howard Dean. Pelsoi, & Obama who are sick.
The DNC has conflicts and no one reports it. Bill & HRC want control of it back. If Obama loses, HRC makes a play for Senate Majority leader and leader of her party. I think she understands that just might be her final highest office and a legacy of being the first Woman Majority Leader would be quite an achievement.
McCain & Clinton could reach across the isle and work for the betterment of our country
|
|
|
| |
|
Deleted User
|
Sep 7 2008, 12:33 PM
Post #34
|
|
Deleted User
|
. Yes, I thought about that too. Yes, they are happy now, but upset that this was the representative the Party put forward.
They privately want to run in 2012 - and not against an incumbent Dem President.
.
|
|
|
| |
|
Tidbits
|
Sep 7 2008, 03:34 PM
Post #35
|
|
- Posts:
- 5,242
- Group:
- Tier1
- Member
- #141
- Joined:
- Apr 28, 2008
|
- Duke 84
- Sep 7 2008, 06:27 AM
So how much shit am I expected to take here, Joan?
My point was that responsible birth control would have been a good idea in the cases of Bristol and Sarah Palin. But they don't believe in it, because Trojans aren't in the Bible, I guess. Their churches and policies preach abstinence and slash funds for teen moms. You obviously think differently. That's fine. By the way, how many times have your parents been insulted on this board? Because I'm up to three, and I'm sure I'm not finished with the "treatment".
I mean, dump on me all you want, Liestoppers Board - but leave my parents out of it. If they raised a boy that can "disgust" Jezebelle, they did a good job. He who attack the parents of a baby, and the baby, and say such things is revealing himself.
Trig is innocent. Those who attack parentage might ponder what their life would be like if their parents did what they suggest should have been done to prevent Trig's life.
Trig is innocent. He is a better man that are is attackers.
|
|
|
| |
|
Bill Anderson
|
Sep 7 2008, 04:46 PM
Post #36
|
|
- Posts:
- 3,405
- Group:
- Tier1
- Member
- #135
- Joined:
- Apr 28, 2008
|
One thing that I think we should remember is that Obama also faced a number of rumors that turned out not to be true. For example, he supposedly had sworn his oath of office on the Koran, his wife had made a "get whitey" comment or something like it on a tape, and so on.
The difference was that with the Obama rumors, the MSM, and especially the New York Times, worked overtime to dispel those rumors. However, in the Sarah Palin situation, the MSM and the NY Times often have been the source of the rumors, or have furthered them.
For example, Frank Rich this morning repeated the same "they didn't vet per properly" nonsense (he quoted the reporter from the Times, who apparently did not get it right). I guarantee you that he is not interested in getting the facts correct, as he and his editors at the Times already have decided on the "proper" narrative.
|
|
|
| |
|
Deleted User
|
Sep 7 2008, 05:08 PM
Post #37
|
|
Deleted User
|
- Duke parent 2004
- Sep 7 2008, 09:45 AM
Joan, The larger point that I only hinted at in drawing on your story of “Sue” is this: Human beings, especially the ones worth knowing, are much more than superstructures on which to display political preferences or political philosophies. All of us are bundles of contradiction. None of us should assume a one-to-one correspondence between our professed beliefs and the actions we take (or fail to take) that purportedly express those beliefs. It is a mistake of the first order to judge anyone on his reluctance or inability to lay out a systematic argument for one candidate or other in a national election. The candidates and their parties are hardly consistent themselves, and no one should be ashamed for not wanting to construct (or reconstruct) a political weltanschauung that would withstand laboratory analysis. After more than forty years of studying and thinking about politics, I have come to conclusions that would strike many posters here as most distressing. First among them is this: Politics is a second-rate activity. This is not to say that it is unimportant. It is to say that investing it and its practitioners with almost religious significance inevitably leads to disappointment and even mischief. It is not to say that a responsible adult should take a coin into the voting booth. It is to say that one can arrive at reasonable decisions without first needing to reconcile every incompatibility of one’s being with the pronunciamentoes of the candidates or their parties. The second conclusion is what I call the “operative consequence” of the first, and it is this: Vote for the least disreputable of the candidates—or even better (if the option is available), write in the name of someone less likely to do damage than the officially endorsed candidates. Perhaps this way of doing business resembles Bill Anderson’s and that of other libertarians. Its clear advantage lies in its being truer to the skepticism that I think should be brought to bear in examining all candidates for public office—most of whom tend to be effusive adult versions of the busy bodies I remember with pain from my school days. The third conclusion, which I’ve intimated in this note’s opening sentences and which I label the “literary consequence” of my first conclusion, is this: The persons I most enjoy meeting and occasionally befriending tend to be more like characters in a novel than the proponents of programs or the defenders of syllogisms. Some very good critics have pointed out how few great novels (Are there any?) turn on protagonists pushing political agendas. Somehow the V. I. Lenins and even the Winston Churchills of history prove less likely than the Anna Kareninas and the Rodion Raskolnikovs to capture the imagination and leave the reader with a deeper understanding of the ultimate inscrutability and variability of the human soul. Perhaps I’m a hopeless romantic in always looking for that “surprise,” that “contradiction” in another person that redeems him from the simple categorizations that often consign him prematurely to the enemy’s camp. You have been first-rate in acknowledging your own lapses and disappointments in your own conduct. Allow me to draw on one of my own experiences that, I hope, will even the score, so to speak, and perhaps add something to the point I’m trying to make about how we might better judge others. Late on a Saturday afternoon the first term of my sophomore year in college, one of my fraternity brothers and I found ourselves walking a long bridge in one of the worst sections of Buffalo, New York. We had hitched almost two-hundred miles that day, my friend to visit his girlfriend and I to spend a few days with my older brother, then a junior at the University of Buffalo. My friend suddenly nudged me, clearly with anxiety in his manner, for approaching us on the same side on which we were walking were three “menacing” black youths of roughly our own age. In those my glory days I was extremely fit: at 160 lbs of body weight, I could bench-press 320 pounds; and at only 5’8” tall, I could get to the rim on a basketball court. Moreover, I enjoyed puffing myself out as a fellow to be reckoned with, and especially relished jumping into fraternity horseplay whenever I had a chance to hurl someone across the room. But on that bridge, and for the first time in my life, I understood that the “real” threat I was facing revealed in me a fear and a hesitation that almost reduced me to blubbering. Perhaps my Popeye arms saved us that day, as the black fellows walked past us without incident. Perhaps the bluster feigned by my very liberal friend (he eventually became the chief engineer on the space-station project) as the “adversaries” approached did the trick. No matter, for from that day I have hesitated to impute courage or the lack of it to anyone not actually put to the test. From that day, I have also noted that the virtues I most admire—courage (both physical and intellectual) and fortitude—are hardly the exclusive properties of one political party. Indeed, the most courageous persons I know typically eschew taking strong political positions. I do not think the less of them for their “dereliction.” This post has already become too long. I’m confident you can apply it to some of the more particular concerns you raise about the current campaign and some of the posters here. I’ll not further presume on your patience and forbearance—at least not yet. I so admire how you think and most especially how you write! Great post!
|
|
|
| |
|
Duke parent 2004
|
Sep 7 2008, 06:16 PM
Post #38
|
|
- Posts:
- 2,284
- Group:
- Global Moderators
- Member
- #366
- Joined:
- Jun 6, 2008
|
Joan,
You have the most disarming way of making me feel like a schmuck for ever having taken issue with you.
I kiss thy hand.
|
|
|
| |
| 1 user reading this topic (1 Guest and 0 Anonymous)
|