-
Re: A Lady by the name of...
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Busyman
Quote:
Originally Posted by
j2k4
Sarah Palin, current Governor of Alaska, has been selected by John McCain to run as VP on the Republican ticket.
A splendid pick, I think. :whistling
Respond immediately, all of you. :mellow:
A splendid pick to win the election or a splendid pick as in "a good choice to take over as President of our United States should something unfortunate befall John McCain"?
I thought you would have trashed the pick, quite honestly....unless you pick my first reason.
edit: Well I just read most of this thread and I guess I gave you too much credit. As always....the hive mind is ruling. Clocker has you handled though. With the glut of material out there, it's too easy.
As a side note: I must say with this Sarah Palin pick, it is like some Twilight Zone shit...first the pick itself, then hearing all these Republican party goers talk as if it's great for the country. It's like everyone at the RNC was told what to say in advance and actually believe it.
Then there's no need to reply to you, given you and clocker are of the "hive" mind.
Insofar as there are (as always) more of you than there are of me, the more effective application of the word hive would be in reference to you and your ilk.
No original thoughts for you, eh? :whistling
-
Re: A Lady by the name of...
Well, now that the initial brouhaha has died down a bit, the real fun begins.
We'll see how Sarah Baracuda (absent her ironically chosen Heart theme song) does out in the wild and at the debate.
-
Re: A Lady by the name of...
Quote:
Originally Posted by
j2k4
umm the sum total of the allegations against us weekly are:
1) misleading headline
2) they didn't say how many years ago the DUI as
3) they didn't say why she abused her powers to get someone fired
4) the secession thing which republicans are officially denying
1 is a fair cop, tabloid headlines can be well dodge.
2 - get serious
3 get the fuck, Palin's sister told her that the sister's ex husband did something illegal and Palin abused her power to punish him?? Leaving that out doesn't strike me as biased, it makes her sound like even more of a fuckwit.
4 she blatantly has links to the independence party what with attending the convention and being a former member.
-
Re: A Lady by the name of...
I think she's a Muslim too.
-
Re: A Lady by the name of...
Quote:
Originally Posted by
ilw
Quote:
Originally Posted by
j2k4
umm the sum total of the allegations against us weekly are:
1) misleading headline
2) they didn't say how many years ago the DUI as
3) they didn't say why she abused her powers to get someone fired
4) the secession thing which republicans are officially denying
1 is a fair cop, tabloid headlines can be well dodge.
2 - get serious
3 get the fuck, Palin's sister told her that the sister's ex husband did something illegal and Palin abused her power to punish him?? Leaving that out doesn't strike me as biased, it makes her sound like even more of a fuckwit.
4 she blatantly has links to the independence party what with attending the convention and being a former member.
2 - Get "serious"?
You see no difference between a thing happening yesterday vs. 22 fucking years ago?
You get serious, Ian.
3 - There's documentation to be considered that you have omitted, but there's also an investigation taking place, which, if it were a democrat involved, you would claim as forestalling any conclusion.
4 - Blatantly false.
Her husband had links to a secession movement, which is still a constitutional right, though you'd never know it these days.
If you are going to comment from way over there, it behooves you to get things right.
-
Re: A Lady by the name of...
Quote:
Originally Posted by
clocker
I think she's a Muslim too.
I'm sure that's being investigated, too.
-
Re: A Lady by the name of...
No investigation necessary...it's enough that I think it.
-
Re: A Lady by the name of...
Is Megan McCain's remark off limits?
"No one knows what war is like other than my family....period"
[youtube]OMxp5UkeGCc[/youtube]
-
Re: A Lady by the name of...
Quote:
Originally Posted by
devilsadvocate
Is Megan McCain's remark off limits?
"No one knows what war is like other than my family....period"
[youtube]OMxp5UkeGCc[/youtube]
Would you rather talk about Chris Matthew's or Keith Olbermann's lack of bias.
http://www.freep.com/apps/pbcs.dll/a...NT07/809090353
BTW-
Does young Megan have her own show, or host political conventions.
No?
I Didn't think so. ;)
-
Re: A Lady by the name of...
It was just a young woman stating her view on her family in the military , I would n't beat her over it . Probably nervous being on tv , I know I'd be .
-
Re: A Lady by the name of...
Quote:
Originally Posted by
peat moss
It was just a young woman stating her view on her family in the military , I would n't beat her over it . Probably nervous being on tv , I know I'd be .
I agree, I'm just wondering where exactly the boundaries are, Which is why I didn't comment on her comment
@J2K4 Apart from it being a tired old method of avoiding answering the question actually asked I fail to see any connection.
-
Re: A Lady by the name of...
Quote:
Originally Posted by
devilsadvocate
Is Megan McCain's remark off limits?
"No one knows what war is like other than my family....period"
[youtube]OMxp5UkeGCc[/youtube]
Quote:
Originally Posted by
devilsadvocate
Is Megan McCain's remark off limits?
"No one knows what war is like other than my family....period"
Would you rather talk about Chris Matthew's or Keith Olbermann's lack of bias.
http://www.freep.com/apps/pbcs.dll/a...NT07/809090353
BTW-
Does young Megan have her own show, or host political conventions.
No?
I Didn't think so. ;)
Quote:
Originally Posted by
devilsadvocate
Quote:
Originally Posted by
peat moss
It was just a young woman stating her view on her family in the military , I would n't beat her over it . Probably nervous being on tv , I know I'd be .
I agree, I'm just wondering where exactly the boundaries are, Which is why I didn't comment on her comment
@J2K4 Apart from it being a tired old method of avoiding answering the question actually asked I fail to see any connection.
Okay-
To answer your question, no, I think if you want to rip her, you should go ahead and rip her; I've said it before - if you go out and get your puss on TV advocating your husband/father/what-have-you, you ought to be ready for what comes after.
Now, hows about you answer my question, which I have emboldened for you.
BTW-
I hope you'll pardon my saying so, but relying on others to define the boundaries of your commentary is kind of chickenshit, but, as I have just given you carte blanche, please (please) fire away. :whistling
-
Re: A Lady by the name of...
It's obvious you would rather talk about it so go ahead, I still don't see the connection or why it's important, I've already given you my assessment of the two in question.
Perhaps fox could take a leaf
As for boundaries it's a legitimate question considering we are stepping over the mark if we ask anything about Palin.
-
Re: A Lady by the name of...
Quote:
Originally Posted by
devilsadvocate
It's obvious you would rather talk about it so go ahead, I still don't see the connection or why it's important, I've already given you my assessment of the two in question.
You claimed Matthews was straight-arrow, middle of the road.
Apparently Mssrs. Williams and Brokaw disagree, which opinions certainly trump your own; I merely offered you a chance to reassess, but you seem ideologically constrained.
No matter.
Quote:
Originally Posted by
devilsadvocate
As for boundaries it's a legitimate question considering we are stepping over the mark if we ask anything about Palin.
Who said that?
Ask whatever you like, advance whatever views you have.
Odd, though, you are more likely to comment about Palin than Matthews, wouldn't you say.
-
Re: A Lady by the name of...
Quote:
Originally Posted by
j2k4
You claimed Matthews was straight-arrow, middle of the road.
Apparently Mssrs. Williams and Brokaw disagree, which opinions certainly trump your own; I merely offered you a chance to reassess, but you seem ideologically constrained.
No matter.
Apart from the internal workings of nbc how do their opinion trump mine?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
j2k4
Odd, though, you are more likely to comment about Palin than Matthews, wouldn't you say.
Well one is a political news commentator and the other is RUNNING FOR THE POSITION OF VICE PRESIDENT AND WOULD BE ONE HEARTBEAT AWAY FROM BEING PRESIDENT OF THE USA. and we know little about her.
So tell me, where should my priorities be?
It appears you think Mathews more of an issue
-
Re: A Lady by the name of...
Quote:
Originally Posted by
devilsadvocate
Apart from the internal workings of nbc how do their opinion trump mine?
Because, as liberals. they have asserted Matthews is too liberal for their taste, whereas you (who reject categorization) cannot manage to reach the same conclusion, having already vouched him as mainstream.
That's how.
Quote:
Originally Posted by
devilsadvocate
Quote:
Originally Posted by
j2k4
Odd, though, you are more likely to comment about Palin than Matthews, wouldn't you say.
Well one is a political news commentator and the other is
RUNNING FOR THE POSITION OF VICE PRESIDENT AND WOULD BE ONE HEARTBEAT AWAY FROM BEING PRESIDENT OF THE USA. and we know little about her.
So tell me, where should my priorities be?
It appears you think Mathews more of an issue
And it appears you do not, although you and Matthews are of similar mind where Palin is concerned.
This is much too easy. :whistling
-
Re: A Lady by the name of...
Okay, just so that I have no false impressions here-
You think it's more important to discuss a political commentator than the potential VP?
-
Re: A Lady by the name of...
Quote:
Originally Posted by
j2k4
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Busyman
A splendid pick to win the election or a splendid pick as in "a good choice to take over as President of our United States should something unfortunate befall John McCain"?
I thought you would have trashed the pick, quite honestly....unless you pick my first reason.
edit: Well I just read most of this thread and I guess I gave you too much credit. As always....the hive mind is ruling. Clocker has you handled though. With the glut of material out there, it's too easy.
As a side note: I must say with this Sarah Palin pick, it is like some Twilight Zone shit...first the pick itself, then hearing all these Republican party goers talk as if it's great for the country. It's like everyone at the RNC was told what to say in advance and actually believe it.
Then there's no need to reply to you, given you and clocker are of the "hive" mind.
Insofar as there are (as always) more of you than there are of me, the more effective application of the word
hive would be in reference to you and your ilk.
No original thoughts for you, eh? :whistling
I actually had John McCain as my pick until the Palin announcement. My thoughts were that McCain has been spouting off at the mouth with his alignment with Bush to appease folks like yourself and then once in office he'd actually be "sensible".
This Palin pick was pure pandering to disgruntled Hilary supporters and to the Republican base....a base that never really liked McCain in the first place.
Now McCain will have a person that wouldn't have an ass chance in hell of being President through an electorate, succeeding him if he falls terribly ill or....dead.
A McCain pick is now easily off the table. Then again, a pick of Romney or Giuliani pick would've sucked just as much but for different reasons. I guess I was looking for a surprise of different proportions and not of epically stupid proportions.
It's a smart pick only in the that people are epically stupid. People that pick McCain for the "OMGSHE'Z UHH WOMIN!!11!1" are fucking stupid. She's low on sensibility and high on ability to deliver zingers in speeches. It's damn good entertainment though.
Cries of sexism from the McCain camp actually go against Palin's own talk of whiney women.
A VP pick is supposed to be someone that can lead the country if the President can't. Wtf advice will she have for McCain about Iraq? Iran? Russia....oh that's right, she's an expert cuz she's up there next to it.
-
Re: A Lady by the name of...
Quote:
Originally Posted by
j2k4
Quote:
Originally Posted by
devilsadvocate
Is Megan McCain's remark off limits?
"No one knows what war is like other than my family....period"
Would you rather talk about Chris Matthew's or Keith Olbermann's lack of bias.
http://www.freep.com/apps/pbcs.dll/a...NT07/809090353
BTW-
Does young Megan have her own show, or host political conventions.
No?
I Didn't think so. ;)
Quote:
Originally Posted by
devilsadvocate
Quote:
Originally Posted by
peat moss
It was just a young woman stating her view on her family in the military , I would n't beat her over it . Probably nervous being on tv , I know I'd be .
I agree, I'm just wondering where exactly the boundaries are, Which is why I didn't comment on her comment
@J2K4 Apart from it being a tired old method of avoiding answering the question actually asked I fail to see any connection.
Okay-
To answer
your question, no, I think if you want to rip her, you should go ahead and rip her; I've said it before - if you go out and get your puss on TV advocating your husband/father/what-have-you, you ought to be ready for what comes after.
Now, hows about you answer
my question, which I have emboldened for you.
BTW-
I hope you'll pardon my saying so, but relying on others to define the boundaries of your commentary is kind of chickenshit, but, as I have just given you carte blanche, please (please) fire away. :whistling
I think what MSNBC did was excellent, actually.
That would be like having Bill O'Reilly or Rush Limbaugh serving as anchor although Olberman and Mathews aren't that bad.
-
Re: A Lady by the name of...
Quote:
Originally Posted by
devilsadvocate
Okay, just so that I have no false impressions here-
You think it's more important to discuss a political commentator than the potential VP?
I'll discuss either or both.
Seems you are determined to be selective; you had no trouble talking up Matthews a short while back, but the going has gotten a bit rougher on that front, precluding you from further comment.
Apparently multitasking is beyond you. :whistling
-
Re: A Lady by the name of...
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Busyman
Quote:
Originally Posted by
j2k4
Then there's no need to reply to you, given you and clocker are of the "hive" mind.
Insofar as there are (as always) more of you than there are of me, the more effective application of the word hive would be in reference to you and your ilk.
No original thoughts for you, eh? :whistling
I actually had John McCain as my pick
until the Palin announcement. My thoughts were that McCain has been spouting off at the mouth with his alignment with Bush to appease folks like yourself and then once in office he'd actually be "sensible".
This Palin pick was pure pandering to disgruntled Hilary supporters and to the Republican base....a base that never really liked McCain in the first place.
Now McCain will have a person that wouldn't have an ass chance in hell of being President through an electorate, succeeding him if he falls terribly ill or....dead.
A McCain pick is now easily off the table. Then again, a pick of Romney or Giuliani pick would've sucked just as much but for different reasons. I guess I was looking for a surprise of different proportions and not of epically stupid proportions.
It's a smart pick only in the that people are epically stupid. People that pick McCain for the "OMGSHE'Z UHH WOMIN!!11!1" are fucking stupid. She's low on sensibility and high on ability to deliver zingers in speeches. It's damn good entertainment though.
Cries of sexism from the McCain camp actually go against Palin's own talk of whiney women.
A VP pick is supposed to be someone that can lead the country if the President can't. Wtf advice will she have for McCain about Iraq? Iran? Russia....oh that's right, she's an expert cuz she's up there next to it.
You had McCain as your pick?
Don't make me laugh.
Actually, your saying that is a pretty good example of pandering, come to think of it. :lol:
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Busyman
Quote:
Originally Posted by
j2k4
Quote:
Originally Posted by
devilsadvocate
Quote:
Originally Posted by
peat moss
It was just a young woman stating her view on her family in the military , I would n't beat her over it . Probably nervous being on tv , I know I'd be .
I agree, I'm just wondering where exactly the boundaries are, Which is why I didn't comment on her comment
@J2K4 Apart from it being a tired old method of avoiding answering the question actually asked I fail to see any connection.
Okay-
To answer
your question, no, I think if you want to rip her, you should go ahead and rip her; I've said it before - if you go out and get your puss on TV advocating your husband/father/what-have-you, you ought to be ready for what comes after.
Now, hows about you answer
my question, which I have emboldened for you.
BTW-
I hope you'll pardon my saying so, but relying on others to define the boundaries of your commentary is kind of chickenshit, but, as I have just given you carte blanche, please (please) fire away. :whistling
I think what MSNBC did was excellent, actually.
That would be like having Bill O'Reilly or Rush Limbaugh serving as anchor although Olberman and Mathews aren't that bad.
You conveniently overlook the fact neither O'Reilly nor Limbaugh is, was or ever will serve as an anchor, which they would have had to do for your post to make the slightest sense.
Your point has no point.
-
Re: A Lady by the name of...
Quote:
Originally Posted by
j2k4
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Busyman
I actually had John McCain as my pick until the Palin announcement. My thoughts were that McCain has been spouting off at the mouth with his alignment with Bush to appease folks like yourself and then once in office he'd actually be "sensible".
This Palin pick was pure pandering to disgruntled Hilary supporters and to the Republican base....a base that never really liked McCain in the first place.
Now McCain will have a person that wouldn't have an ass chance in hell of being President through an electorate, succeeding him if he falls terribly ill or....dead.
A McCain pick is now easily off the table. Then again, a Romney or Giuliani pick would've sucked just as much but for different reasons. I guess I was looking for a surprise of different proportions and not of epically stupid proportions.
It's a smart pick only in the that people are epically stupid. People that pick McCain for the "OMGSHE'Z UHH WOMIN!!11!1" are fucking stupid. She's low on sensibility and high on ability to deliver zingers in speeches. It's damn good entertainment though.
Cries of sexism from the McCain camp actually go against Palin's own talk of whiney women.
A VP pick is supposed to be someone that can lead the country if the President can't. Wtf advice will she have for McCain about Iraq? Iran? Russia....oh that's right, she's an expert cuz she's up there next to it.
You had McCain as your pick?
Don't make me laugh.
Actually, your saying that is a pretty good example of pandering, come to think of it. :lol:
Pandering to whom? You?
Don't make me laugh. I pander to no one. I've had my mother and countless others at my ear for months.
You surely don't come close to anyone that has any sway over my decisions or someone I'd change a response in order to pander.
I viewed McCain as a person closer to the middle than Obama. His ability to piss folks like yourself off, appealled to me.
Salin Palin as second in command is the dumbest choice I have ever seen but an excellent choice ftw.
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Busyman
Quote:
Originally Posted by
j2k4
Quote:
Originally Posted by
devilsadvocate
Quote:
Originally Posted by
peat moss
It was just a young woman stating her view on her family in the military , I would n't beat her over it . Probably nervous being on tv , I know I'd be .
I agree, I'm just wondering where exactly the boundaries are, Which is why I didn't comment on her comment
@J2K4 Apart from it being a tired old method of avoiding answering the question actually asked I fail to see any connection.
Okay-
To answer
your question, no, I think if you want to rip her, you should go ahead and rip her; I've said it before - if you go out and get your puss on TV advocating your husband/father/what-have-you, you ought to be ready for what comes after.
Now, hows about you answer
my question, which I have emboldened for you.
BTW-
I hope you'll pardon my saying so, but relying on others to define the boundaries of your commentary is kind of chickenshit, but, as I have just given you carte blanche, please (please) fire away. :whistling
I think what MSNBC did was excellent, actually.
That would be like having Bill O'Reilly or Rush Limbaugh serving as anchor although Olberman and Mathews aren't that bad.
You conveniently overlook the fact neither O'Reilly nor Limbaugh
is, was or ever will serve as an anchor, which they would have had to do for your post to make the slightest sense.
Your point has no point.
Wrong. It solidified my point.
-
Re: A Lady by the name of...
Quote:
Originally Posted by
j2k4
Quote:
Originally Posted by
devilsadvocate
Okay, just so that I have no false impressions here-
You think it's more important to discuss a political commentator than the potential VP?
I'll discuss either or both.
Seems
you are determined to be selective; you had no trouble talking up Matthews a short while back, but the going has gotten a bit rougher on that front, precluding you from further comment.
Apparently multitasking is beyond you. :whistling
I gave you my answer
Quote:
I've already given you my assessment of the two in question.
Any further discussion would just be repetition as my opinion on the two has not changed.
So to recap, you started a thread about Sarah Palin and asked for opinions, then when opinions and questions about her start flowing you want to change the subject to a tv personality then seem to suggest I have some sort of bias or agenda because I am more likely to comment about Sarah Paling IN THE SARAH PALIN THREAD than Chris Mathews.
I don't care about Mathews-- get over it
-
Re: A Lady by the name of...
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Busyman
I think what MSNBC did was excellent, actually.
That would be like having Bill O'Reilly or Rush Limbaugh serving as anchor although Olberman and Mathews aren't that bad.
Quote:
Originally Posted by
j2k4
You conveniently overlook the fact neither O'Reilly nor Limbaugh is, was or ever will serve as an anchor, which they would have had to do for your post to make the slightest sense.
Your point has no point.
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Busyman
Wrong. It solidified my point.
Afraid not.
To compare Limbaugh and O'Reilly to Matthews and Olbermann and then say one is more biased than the other would be logical.
To compare Limbaugh and O'Reilly the pundits/commentators to Matthews and Olbermann the anchors is utterly illogical; one might even say, desperate.
Sorry, it doesn't wash - I suspect even your mom would tell you that.
Quote:
Originally Posted by
devilsadvocate
Quote:
Originally Posted by
j2k4
I'll discuss either or both.
Seems you are determined to be selective; you had no trouble talking up Matthews a short while back, but the going has gotten a bit rougher on that front, precluding you from further comment.
Apparently multitasking is beyond you. :whistling
I gave you my answer
Quote:
I've already given you my assessment of the two in question.
Any further discussion would just be repetition as my opinion on the two has not changed.
So to recap, you started a thread about Sarah Palin and asked for opinions, then when opinions and questions about her start flowing you want to change the subject to a tv personality then seem to suggest I have some sort of bias or agenda because I am more likely to comment about Sarah Paling IN THE SARAH PALIN THREAD than Chris Mathews.
I don't care about Mathews-- get over it
Yes, but you used to, and, since he's one of your boys, I'll keep reminding you of the fact.
You're on the hook - get over it. :whistling
-
Re: A Lady by the name of...
Quote:
Originally Posted by
j2k4
Yes, but you used to, and, since he's one of your boys, I'll keep reminding you of the fact.
You're on the hook - get over it. :whistling
:blink:
-
Re: A Lady by the name of...
I see that yesterday Palin polished off that old Bush administration turd and linked the war in Iraq with 9/11.
That line probably still plays well with the brain dead- Palin's core constituancy.
-
Re: A Lady by the name of...
Quote:
From the AP-
John McCain continued to laud his running mate, Sarah Palin, as a budget cutter on Friday, this time erroneously asserting that as governor of Alaska she had not sought congressional earmarks for her state.
Appearing on the ABC television show “The View,” McCain was pressed on her record of seeking such targeted money for Alaska. “Not as governor she didn’t,” McCain said.
Under her leadership the state this year asked for almost $300 per person in requests for pet projects...That's more than any other state received, per person, from Congress for this budget year, and runs counter to the reformer image that Palin and the McCain campaign are pushing. Other states got just $34 worth of local projects per person this year, on average, according to Citizens Against Government Waste, a watchdog group in Washington.
Her first year in office, the state's earmarks averaged almost $800 per person, so technically I suppose, Palin could be seen as a "reformer".
I would argue however that going from 24 times the national average to just 10 times more than everyone else just makes her a less egregious offender and not a crusader.
Keep in mind that Alaska reaps an ocean of money from oil taxes...
Quote:
Originally Posted by Seattle Times
Alaska collected an estimated $6 billion from the new tax during the fiscal year that ended June 30, according to the Alaska Oil and Gas Association. That helped push the state's total oil revenue — from new and existing taxes, as well as royalties — to more than $10 billion, double the amount received last year.
While many other states are confronting big budget deficits because of the troubled economy, Alaska officials are in the enviable position of exploring new ways to spend the state's multibillion-dollar budget surplus.
Some of that new cash will end up in the wallets of Alaska's residents.
Palin's administration last week gained legislative approval for a special $1,200 payment to every Alaskan to help cope with gas prices, which are among the highest in the country.
That check will come on top of the annual dividend of about $2,000 that each resident could receive this year from an oil-wealth savings account.
So how is it that a state that rakes in so much cash still finds it necessary to apply for so much federal money?
If they wanted to build the Gravina Island bridge, why not fund it themselves?
-
Re: A Lady by the name of...
Quote:
Originally Posted by
j2k4
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Biggles
I personally think Palin is a bit of a gamble on McCain's part. He only met her a couple of times before the pick. Her somewhat fundamentalist (of the Pat Buchanan variety) views I think might be worrisome to middle of the road Republicans. I suppose it really depends if anything untoward creeps out of the woodwork. The daughter could, of her own volition, throw a spanner in the works.
It may be a gamble that pays off or it may not. I think when the dust settles Democrats might be glad it is not Romney or Rudi - I quite like the latter.
I feel a bit sorry for the son heading off to Iraq - talk about painting a target on someone's arse.
Would you draw out the Buchanan parallel a bit, Les. :mellow:
Sorry for the delay, I am sure I read that pat Buchanan said she had been one of his supporters in a previous election and that she had certain sympathies with his religious views. To be fair I have no idea how popular or unpopular Pat Buchanan is with the religious right nor whether he would make such a claim mischievously.
-
Re: A Lady by the name of...
-
Re: A Lady by the name of...
Quote:
Originally Posted by
clocker
And from this we are supposed to gather...what, precisely? :huh:
-
Re: A Lady by the name of...
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Biggles
Quote:
Originally Posted by
j2k4
Would you draw out the Buchanan parallel a bit, Les. :mellow:
Sorry for the delay, I am sure I read that pat Buchanan said she had been one of his supporters in a previous election and that she had certain sympathies with his religious views.
You may gather whatever you choose, I was merely providing a link to what Les was referring to.
On a separate matter...
This morning's WTF moment is provided by Bill O'Reilly in this week's Time magazine "Ten Questions for Bill O'Reilly"...
Quote:
Originally Posted by Time magazine
Q.-Given your defense of Sarah Palin's judgment on Bristol Palin, do you take back what you said about Jamie Lynn Spears' pregnancy--that her parents were to blame? Emil Caillaux, LIMA
A.-When I talked about the Spears parents, I said the parents were pinheads because they didn't supervise their young daughters. I stand by that remark. There's no evidence that the Palins did not supervise their daughter or their other children.
"Evidence" is a very fluid word in O'ReillyWorld apparently.
-
Re: A Lady by the name of...
Quote:
Originally Posted by
clocker
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Biggles
Sorry for the delay, I am sure I read that pat Buchanan said she had been one of his supporters in a previous election and that she had certain sympathies with his religious views.
You may gather whatever you choose, I was merely providing a link to what Les was referring to.
On a separate matter...
This morning's WTF moment is provided by Bill O'Reilly in this week's Time magazine "Ten Questions for Bill O'Reilly"...
Quote:
Originally Posted by Time magazine
Q.-Given your defense of Sarah Palin's judgment on Bristol Palin, do you take back what you said about Jamie Lynn Spears' pregnancy--that her parents were to blame? Emil Caillaux, LIMA
A.-When I talked about the Spears parents, I said the parents were pinheads because they didn't supervise their young daughters. I stand by that remark. There's no evidence that the Palins did not supervise their daughter or their other children.
"Evidence" is a very fluid word in O'ReillyWorld apparently.
If the Palin family's situation generates the "drama" of the Spears situation and is documented to the same fare-thee-well, we may actually have evidence that we could judge as "fluid".
This will take another few days, I'd guess, so stay tuned.
The Palin girl still has to become a pop star, sing at the Super Bowl, have serial boyfriends, and go nuts, all while fitting in the giving-birth thing.
-
Re: A Lady by the name of...
I have no doubt it would be an issue about family control for social conservatives if Palin was on the democratic party ticket, but I don't see how it's relevant to the Palin ticket other than a gotcha in regards to pushing a social agenda such as abstinence only education.
So far I have seen nothing to make me doubt her social conservatism.
I feel there has been an attitude of who are you going to believe, me or your lying eyes when it comes to claims of her fiscal record.
I will state that being under investigation doesn't equal guilt, but why are they trying to block subpoenas in the abuse of power investigation? (doesn't this sound familiar)
-
Re: A Lady by the name of...
Quote:
Originally Posted by
j2k4
The Palin girl still has to become a pop star, sing at the Super Bowl, have serial boyfriends, and go nuts, all while fitting in the giving-birth thing.
I think you're confusing the Spears sisters.
Jamie Lynn is the 16 year old babymama, not Britney.
Jamie Lynn may aspire to her sibling's notoriety- only time will tell- but as of now she's just a relatively normal teenager (who probably all aspire to pop princessdom).
-
Re: A Lady by the name of...
Quote:
Originally Posted by
clocker
Quote:
Originally Posted by
j2k4
The Palin girl still has to become a pop star, sing at the Super Bowl, have serial boyfriends, and go nuts, all while fitting in the giving-birth thing.
I think you're confusing the Spears sisters.
Jamie Lynn is the 16 year old babymama, not Britney.
Jamie Lynn may aspire to her sibling's notoriety- only time will tell- but as of now she's just a relatively normal teenager (who probably
all aspire to pop princessdom).
Not confusing them at all, just making the point that parenting seems to be a bit more of an issue in the Spears family than for the Palins, who have two more daughters who are not pregnant.
The Spears clan is batting 1.000, as compared to the Palins' .333.
As an aside, and apropos of nothing at all, I remember Britney being a republican, so.
Quote:
Originally Posted by
devilsadvocate
I have no doubt it would be an issue about family control for social conservatives if Palin was on the democratic party ticket, but I don't see how it's relevant to the Palin ticket other than a gotcha in regards to pushing a social agenda such as abstinence only education.
So far I have seen nothing to make me doubt her social conservatism.
I feel there has been an attitude of who are you going to believe, me or your lying eyes when it comes to claims of her fiscal record.
I will state that being under investigation doesn't equal guilt, but why are they trying to block subpoenas in the abuse of power investigation? (doesn't this sound familiar)
Yeah, it reminds me of the Clintons. :whistling
-
Re: A Lady by the name of...
Quote:
Originally Posted by
j2k4
Not confusing them at all, just making the point that parenting seems to be a bit more of an issue in the Spears family than for the Palins, who have two more daughters who are not pregnant.
The Spears clan is batting 1.000, as compared to the Palins' .333.
As an aside, and apropos of nothing at all, I remember Britney being a republican, so.
Given that Britney is 26 years old, it would seem that the time for blaming the parents has long since passed.
Why is it that Britney wasn't embraced by the conservative right like Bristol was?
-
Re: A Lady by the name of...
Quote:
Originally Posted by
clocker
Quote:
Originally Posted by
j2k4
Not confusing them at all, just making the point that parenting seems to be a bit more of an issue in the Spears family than for the Palins, who have two more daughters who are not pregnant.
The Spears clan is batting 1.000, as compared to the Palins' .333.
As an aside, and apropos of nothing at all, I remember Britney being a republican, so.
Given that Britney is 26 years old, it would seem that the time for blaming the parents has long since passed.
Why is it that Britney wasn't embraced by the conservative right like Bristol was?
Has Bristol been "embraced"? :dabs:
As to Britney, you feel her familial circumstances did not contribute at all?
Her earlier (as in early teenaged) exploits are rumored to have been quite racy; her mom says Britney lost her virginity well prior to meeting that Timberlake fellow, I guess. :yup:
-
Re: A Lady by the name of...
So, you really wanna defend O'Reilly on this one?
-
Re: A Lady by the name of...
Quote:
Originally Posted by
clocker
So, you really wanna defend O'Reilly on this one?
I have no idea what O'Reilly says or thinks, though certain things can be inferred.
I don't like him and I don't watch him, and I thought you knew that.
Britney blurbs are not at all hard to find, though I steer clear of US magazine. :whistling
-
Re: A Lady by the name of...
Yes.
The Inuit are massing on the border and preparing to annex Canada.
Don't tell Idol or Ross, it's a surprise.
Edit:
What's happened here?
Looks like some posts were dropped because my post makes no sense as a response to j2.
Maybe I was just hallucinating.
