Is Palin failin' ? or OMG McCain wins with Palin !! pt. 2

The friendliest place on the web for anyone that follows U2.
If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.
See posts with no answers
Status
Not open for further replies.
No spoken words said:
I have a question for you, and it's not really "on topic". Why are you the way you are?
Click to expand...



Come on guys, stop being so hard on Chuck.





Anyways, forgive my slight delay, I've been catching up on the thread,
but thought this was indirectly relevant (or not :shrug:) a few pages back with regard to teleprompter/lack of issue.







YouTube - George W Bush - American Idiot

Juuuust saying.................


Ok, you may now return to your irregularly scheduled debate.
 
TheEdge U2JT said:
So who's fault is that? That is the system we have in place and it is clear that the system works. If the appointees get approved then they must have been qualified enough to get approved. I cannot believe that our Senate leader only choose to act in what you describe as, "Exceptional Circumstances."

If you disagree, you should submit a complaint to Joe Biden when he returns to the Senate after he loses the election in November.
Click to expand...

I have no idea what you're trying to say.

My only point was that the President is important in picking Supreme Court justices. :shrug:
 
BonoVoxSupastar said:
You're lecturing folks on getting facts straight? That's funny.

You don't think this has anything to do with the fact that she went from unknown to VP nominee in a week? Please! If this was a known canidate, things would be completely different. Stop with your "left" this "liberal" that, it completely weakens your argument and makes you look paranoid.

We've had time to figure things out about the other canidates, they don't need to be publicly vetted, she does, and that is exactly what's going on.
Click to expand...

So tell me where it states that a Presidential nominee has to do their vetting process through the media?

The public should and will seek more info but rumors about her child, affairs, being a Nazi supported, a Buchanan supporter, she cut funding for unwed mothers, she's anit-semitic....on and on.....that is not vetting. It IS liberal bloggers that have started these vicious lies. If you want to bury your head in the sand on it, fine. Its not like I think any of you are really willing to see her qualifications and know the truth. It seems you are wringing you hands in hope and excitement that this crap might be true. Give it up. You can call me paranoid but the reactions of several of you on here just makes me laugh. Its clear the I hit a nerve with you.
 
TheEdge U2JT said:
So tell me where it states that a Presidential nominee has to do their vetting process through the media?

The public should and will seek more info but rumors about her child, affairs, being a Nazi supported, a Buchanan supporter, she cut funding for unwed mothers, she's anit-semitic....on and on.....that is not vetting. It IS liberal bloggers that have started these vicious lies. If you want to bury your head in the sand on it, fine. Its not like I think any of you are really willing to see her qualifications and know the truth. It seems you are wringing you hands in hope and excitement that this crap might be true. Give it up. You can call me paranoid but the reactions of several of you on here just makes me laugh. Its clear the I hit a nerve with you.
Click to expand...

What's clear is that you came in here swinging without getting a feel for the place and people first. You have started out here in an extremely partisan way, so forgive us if we don't take you too seriously when you blame others of being blinded or so partisan we can't admit our own mistakes.

As to your rumors page, I haven't even heard of most of those, but I can believe that some were speculating on them even though they may not have been true - a lot of the blogosphere is speculation on rumors, and that is certainly true for both sides of the political spectrum. There are also some errors. That page claims she turned down the money for the bridge. Which is misleading. The bridge wasn't built, but the money was not returned to the federal government. A lot of those "proofs" aren't even proofs either, just dismissals without any actual evidence to back them up (the reason for the firing of the librarian & police chief, for one).

I also can't help but notice that the issues that I have consistently brought up here about her, and the ones I have challenged you on several times, are either not on that list, or are confirmed true, though in in cursory terms ("yes, she did take money from the federal government"). I can surely admit that some of the rumors are false, but I have not been on here spreading any of those rumors except the ones that your "proof" page either doesn't address or admits are true.

Interesting.
 
TheEdge U2JT said:
So tell me where it states that a Presidential nominee has to do their vetting process through the media?
Click to expand...
You're missing my point. I'm saying this is what the media does, because that's what the public wants. We want to know something about the people we're voting for... The public knew nothing about this woman. So of course the media is going to start finding information and with the race for information and trying to be the one that breaks the next story, some things are going to be wrong.


TheEdge U2JT said:
The public should and will seek more info but rumors about her child, affairs, being a Nazi supported, a Buchanan supporter, she cut funding for unwed mothers, she's anit-semitic....on and on.....that is not vetting.
Click to expand...
You don't think people care about these things? Of course they do.

TheEdge U2JT said:
It IS liberal bloggers that have started these vicious lies. If you want to bury your head in the sand on it, fine. Its not like I think any of you are really willing to see her qualifications and know the truth. It seems you are wringing you hands in hope and excitement that this crap might be true. Give it up.
Click to expand...

Vicious lies? The whole baby story thing was stupid, someone spoke before they had all the facts straight, but I haven't heard any other vicious lie. I've heard stories that haven't been clear, and information taken out of context. But like I said that's going to happen when people are racing to get information.

I do want to know the truth.


TheEdge U2JT said:
You can call me paranoid but the reactions of several of you on here just makes me laugh. Its clear the I hit a nerve with you.
Click to expand...

Why do you think you hit a nerve? It's funny how you are concerned about rumors and lies yet you posted one of the biggest lies in a thread that wasn't even on topic.

You came in swinging and attacking yet somehow "we're" at fault...
 
I'm not sure how you can say came in swinging. I am passionate about what I believe and I take the time to research and develop my opinions. I dont mean to offend anyone but it did seemed that everyone in here were big enough boys and girls to have a rational debate about this election. There seemed to be plenty that are clearly supporting Obama that are dishing it out.

I respect everyones opinion even if I dont agree. I've heard a lot of...that was sarcasm, responding to me. You all can be sarcastic but nothing I say is? I think you might all be taking a lot of what I say a bit too personally for some reason.

I'm sitting here at home laughing at most of this. I feel like Custer! I'm surrounded. You wont change my mind and I know I will not change yours BUT what I have read from all of you has challenged me on what I believe and solidified my opinion that McCain should be our next President.

Believe me, there is nothing personal here. Regardless of who wins, we are all in this together. Stuck with what comes next good or bad.
 
BonoVoxSupastar said:
Why do you think you hit a nerve? It's funny how you are concerned about rumors and lies yet you posted one of the biggest lies in a thread that wasn't even on topic.

You came in swinging and attacking yet somehow "we're" at fault...
Click to expand...

BVS, you are not representative of the FYM community at large. If you choose to believe that you are, then you are deluding yourself. You have a consistent habit of trying to isolate and embarass conservative posters. You do not display the consistency you demand off of conservative posters in your own posts.

Maybe something to bear in mind when you are giving your moral lectures to people.
 
Don't you just hate it when rumours are started,
turned into half lies from the mouths of people who have everything to lose, twisted out of purportion,
spread like fire and then shoved down the public throat as truth,
just to make someone look bad because you don't like them?

Kinda pisses one off.
I know it would me.
 
I don't have time to go through these one by one right now, but numbers 35 and 40 are laughable.

35. yes, she did fire the Wasilla Chief of Police as Mayor; yes, it was because he was lying to the City Council.
40. yes, she did ask the librarian if some books could be withdrawn because of being offensive; no, they couldn’t; yes she did threaten to fire the librarian a month later; no, that wasn’t over the books thing but instead over administrative issues; no, the librarian wasn’t fired either; yes, the librarian was a big supporter of one of her political opponents; yes, the librarian was also the girlfriend of the Chief of police mentioned above; no, this is not the first time in the history of civilization that someone has been threatened with being fired over a political dispute

First, no sources linked to, regarding the Police chief lying to city council, and that he was the boyfriend of the librarian. Nice. Also, because she's not the first one to use her office to settle a political grudge, that makes it okay? Btw, it wasn't just the librarian and chief she did this to, either, there were numerous others she attempted to/did fire.
 
BonoVoxSupastar said:
You're missing my point. I'm saying this is what the media does, because that's what the public wants. We want to know something about the people we're voting for... The public knew nothing about this woman. So of course the media is going to start finding information and with the race for information and trying to be the one that breaks the next story, some things are going to be wrong.
Click to expand...

I just have an expectation that the process be fair. I remember a time when journalists had to satisfy a burden of proof before the information was taken to the world. That has changed. The Dan Rather National Guard story was a sad example of how far this has fallen.

I'm sorry if I said something to offend you. That is not at all my point. Please dont mistake a debate about things like the treatment of Sarah Palin and the rumors that are flying, as any kind of personal attack for me. Not the case. I respect your opinion.
 
TheEdge U2JT said:
Please dont mistake a debate about things like the treatment of Sarah Palin and the rumors that are flying, as any kind of personal attack for me. Not the case. I respect your opinion.
Click to expand...
I am glad you don't wish to make the debate personal, but when you say things like this...
TheEdge U2JT said:
The public should and will seek more info but rumors about her child, affairs, being a Nazi supported, a Buchanan supporter, she cut funding for unwed mothers, she's anit-semitic....on and on.....that is not vetting. It IS liberal bloggers that have started these vicious lies. If you want to bury your head in the sand on it, fine. Its not like I think any of you are really willing to see her qualifications and know the truth. It seems you are wringing you hands in hope and excitement that this crap might be true. Give it up. You can call me paranoid but the reactions of several of you on here just makes me laugh. Its clear the I hit a nerve with you.
Click to expand...
If you're hitting a nerve, I think it may be because you're taking an extremely personalized and angry-sounding tack here about defending your preferred candidates from 'liberal bloggers that have started these vicious lies'. Three of the six rumors you listed above are one and the same (Nazi supporter/Buchanan supporter/anti-Semitic), which was shot down immediately (from 'the left') as soon as it appeared in here; I don't recall anyone here speculating about 'affairs'; and the 'funding cut for unwed mothers' was immediately skeptically questioned (again, from the left) as soon as it was posted in here, too. To treat it as a foregone conclusion that that list is some sort of sinister emblem of what people in here must be 'wringing their hands in hope and excitement' over does make you sound like you're taking this all a bit too personally, yes. You don't need to demonize your opponents to rebut their debating points.
 
Last edited:
TheEdge U2JT said:
but it did seemed that everyone in here were big enough boys and girls to have a rational debate about this election.
Click to expand...

That's great, I would love to have a rational debate, but when someone comes in with "left" this "liberal" that, posting bullshit videos, attacking the forum as a whole it doesn't come off as rational.
 
yolland said:
I am glad you don't wish to make the debate personal, but when you say things like this...

If you're hitting a nerve, I think it may be because you're taking an extremely personalized and angry-sounding tack here about defending your preferred candidates from 'liberal bloggers that have started these vicious lies'. Three of the six rumors you listed above are one and the same (Nazi supporter/Buchanan supporter/anti-Semitic), which was shot down immediately (from 'the left') as soon as it appeared in here; I don't recall anyone here speculating about 'affairs'; and the 'funding cut for unwed mothers' was immediately skeptically questioned (again, from the left) as soon as it was posted in here, too. To treat it as a foregone conclusion that that list is some sort of sinister emblem of what people in here are 'wringing their hands in hope and excitement' over does make you sound like you're taking this all a bit too personally, yes. You don't need to demonize your opponents to rebut their debating points.
Click to expand...


Are you posting as moderator here?
 
financeguy said:
BVS, you are not representative of the FYM community at large. If you choose to believe that you are, then you are deluding yourself.
Click to expand...

I'm not sure what you are talking about, I never claimed to be representative of FYM, my point is he's doing what you often do and address FYM as if it's one collective and attacking it as a whole.
 
BonoVoxSupastar said:
That's great, I would love to have a rational debate, but when someone comes in with "left" this "liberal" that, posting bullshit videos, attacking the forum as a whole it doesn't come off as rational.
Click to expand...
You've already made your point, no need to keep piling on.
 
Given the amount of related reading I've done in the past week, I'll be the first to admit that the left has its fair share of nutters and conspiracy theorists who really want to believe the worst about Palin. There are also some very valid criticisms of her out there, as well.

However, I think most Dems in here are much more reasoned and fair-minded than your general internet crazies. The truth is an admirable goal, in all this, for both sides. How people decide to interpret that truth is up to them.
 
yolland said:
If you've got a beef with my post go ahead and articulate it.
Click to expand...

Well, my beef is, there's been a couple of the left leaning posters over the last few days that have come out with stuff every bit as partisan as what The Edge said, and I didn't see you admonishing them.

Granted, it's unreasonable to ask you moderate us 24 hours a day.
 
TheEdge U2JT said:
I'm sorry if I said something to offend you. That is not at all my point. Please dont mistake a debate about things like the treatment of Sarah Palin and the rumors that are flying, as any kind of personal attack for me. Not the case. I respect your opinion.
Click to expand...

I will give you the benefit on the doubt on this, and do hope that we can have rational, fair discussions/debates in here. However, I'm sure you aware that saying such things as "I feel sorry for you, I really do" and that I'm "blinded by liberalism and my hatred of conservatism" certainly doesn't indicate much respect for my opinion.
 
1. Step back a read what I said about sarcasm. Sheesh, all a bit too sensitive.

2. The 3 were tied to the Buchanan visit. The the point was to show how one thing gets taken to extremes. Wearing a campaign button as a friendly gesture at at rally in Alaska and next thing you know, Sarah Palin hate Jews.

3. I know what are the things that have been discussed here. With the affair and the funding for unwed mothers I was trying to show the range of garbage that is being thrown at Palin in these various rumors. A few people have even said they had not heard some of these rumors. This is the crap that is out there and it is uncalled for.

Question her on earmarks. Obama did just that today

“When you’ve been taking all these earmarks when it is convenient and then suddenly you are the champion anti-earmark person, that’s not change. Come on! I mean, words mean something. You can’t just make stuff up,”

and she shot back

“Today our opponent brought up earmarks and frankly I was surprised that he raised the subject. I didn’t think he’d want to go there,” she said. “Our opponent has requested nearly one billion dollars in earmarks in just three years…about a million dollars for every working day. Just wait until President John McCain puts a stop to that.”

Question her on the bridge...

but be willing to actually hear the answers and not just jump to conclusions. It seems everything is being accepted as fact rather that, "I'd like to know more about xxxx."
 
financeguy said:
Well, my beef is, there's been a couple of the left leaning posters over the last few days that have come out with stuff every bit as partisan as what The Edge said, and I didn't see you admonishing them.

Granted, it's unreasonable to ask you moderate us 24 hours a day.
Click to expand...
I would hope no one thinks my point--namely, that projecting responsibility for promoting unfounded rumors onto people who don't subscribe to them to begin with comes across as demonizing--applies only to conservatives, because it obviously doesn't. I don't know which posts you have in mind, and no, I haven't read all of them closely; these threads move really fast. I know there've been some generally snide posts from both sides but snarkiness as such is not what I'm talking about here.
 
Se7en said:
what about those of us who aren't democrats.

internet crazies? :madwife::sad:
Click to expand...

I was just responding to my observations of the differences between some democrats on other sites, and the ones in here, that's all. :)

TheEdge U2JT said:
3. I know what are the things that have been discussed here. With the affair and the funding for unwed mothers I was trying to show the range of garbage that is being thrown at Palin in these various rumors. A few people have even said they had not heard some of these rumors. This is the crap that is out there and it is uncalled for.
Click to expand...
I and a few others have commented on these things. The purported affair - I read from what strikes me as a fairly reliable source that the attempt to cover up of the business partner's divorce file wasn't due to an affair, but instead because his former wife was dating a Palin advisor, who later got fired (hmm, this firing thing is almost becoming a pattern, isn't it?). I also posted about the funding cuts. Someone else posted, refuting it, and not knowing that much about calculating state budgets, and frankly, being too lazy to look into it further, I accepted their word. I also posted the night before she announced Bristol's pregnancy that there was nothing to the rumour she didn't give birth to Trig, and that the real story was that her daughter is pregnant. We're not all out for blood, here. Just honesty.

Question her on earmarks. Obama did just that today

“When you’ve been taking all these earmarks when it is convenient and then suddenly you are the champion anti-earmark person, that’s not change. Come on! I mean, words mean something. You can’t just make stuff up,”

and she shot back

“Today our opponent brought up earmarks and frankly I was surprised that he raised the subject. I didn’t think he’d want to go there,” she said. “Our opponent has requested nearly one billion dollars in earmarks in just three years…about a million dollars for every working day. Just wait until President John McCain puts a stop to that.”

Question her on the bridge...

but be willing to actually hear the answers and not just jump to conclusions. It seems everything is being accepted as fact rather that, "I'd like to know more about xxxx."
Click to expand...

The difference here is that he's not basing his campaign on being a non-earmark politician, whereas she's making false claims that that's the kind of politician she is. But how Republican of her to shift focus away from herself and back on to Obama, though. She's a quick study.
 
TheEdge U2JT said:
Question her on earmarks. Obama did just that today

“When you’ve been taking all these earmarks when it is convenient and then suddenly you are the champion anti-earmark person, that’s not change. Come on! I mean, words mean something. You can’t just make stuff up,”

and she shot back

“Today our opponent brought up earmarks and frankly I was surprised that he raised the subject. I didn’t think he’d want to go there,” she said. “Our opponent has requested nearly one billion dollars in earmarks in just three years…about a million dollars for every working day. Just wait until President John McCain puts a stop to that.”
Click to expand...

But don't you see how she didn't address what Obama was saying? Obama was NOT criticizing her for use of earmarks. He was criticizing her saying that she DIDN'T use them and then using them. The hypocrisy. That's what it's about. Obama has never claimed that he hasn't used earmarks. If Palin was using earmarks but she had never claimed that she wasn't, there wouldn't be an issue. But she didn't address her own hypocrisy at all, she just attacked him instead.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

MrsSpringsteen
Atomic City
Replies
11
Views
1K
HeartlandGirl
HeartlandGirl
N
NBA 2023-24 Thread
9 10 11
Replies
314
Views
10K
Hewson
Hewson
MrsSpringsteen
Gilead States Of America
Replies
16
Views
865
MrsSpringsteen
MrsSpringsteen
N
  • Locked
NBA 2022-23 Thread
46 47 48
Replies
1K
Views
45K
U2inUtah
U2inUtah
Headache in a Suitcase
  • Locked
Songs of Songs, Books & Fat Puns - New Album Discussion #8
33 34 35
Replies
1K
Views
53K
Headache in a Suitcase
Headache in a Suitcase

Latest posts

Back
Top Bottom