President Palin? WTF?

[Fairweather]

getting pregnant late in her reproductive life, when chances of birth defects are so much higher

 

 

Not really your business, is it? Ahhh, the hypocrisy of our resident feminist. Please run with this one! It's a real winner for your guy!

 

Yeah, The Incubator's judgement, which is poor, is our business, and the birth defect statement is medically right on the money.

 

As for any statement being a 'winner for our guy', I hardly think this forum, read by about 10 people total who've already got their politics hardwired in, makes that anything other than a moron's rant.

 

Your girlfriend is just plain dumb.

[prole]

 

Your girlfriend is just plain dumb.

 

Have you learned nothing!? A hearty zinger or one-liner is the sure road to victory! Try an antimetabole or two at least!

[Off_White]

Palin has enough real flaws without inflating or stretching them. Seeing as how she's opposed to legal abortion and a proponent of abstinence only education, it would be more shocking if she did anything but insist that her underage daughter carry to term, or carry her own fifth child for that matter. Choice means allowing people to make their own decisions, regardless of what I think they should do.

 

Now, from the things she's said in the past, I think its possible she might not like anyone to have a choice, and I think that's a very good reason to make sure its not up to her to decide for everyone else.

[marylou]

*cough*itsbristolsbaby*cough, ahem.

 

In either case, knowingly carrying a baby with Down's to term is plain old bad judgement. I won't say it's not your right to make that choice, but it does say a lot about the judgment of the individual--and SP could end up being one heartbeat away from being leader of the free world. If it's her daughter's kid, taking credit for Trig is a bad idea too.

 

It's really not as interesting as some of her other problems though--book banning, the Bridge to Nowhere, Troopergate. There's more than enough incompetence wrapped up in that former beauty queen package.

[prole]

 

Now, from the things she's said in the past, I think its possible she might not like anyone to have a choice, and I think that's a very good reason to make sure its not up to her to decide for everyone else.

 

Whoa, let's not get too hasty here. Like the book banning incident, I'm pretty sure all those statements she's made in the past were purely rhetorical in nature.

[KaskadskyjKozak]

In either case, knowingly carrying a baby with Down's to term is plain old bad judgement.

 

Yes, we should kill all those who are inconvenient or flawed. Otherwise, it's indicative of "bad judgement". You'd make a fine Aryan.

[prole]

I don't give a rat's ass if she wants to have a Down Syndrome kid. Just don't tell me that I have to!

[tvashtarkatena]

In either case, knowingly carrying a baby with Down's to term is plain old bad judgement.

 

Yes, we should kill all those who are inconvenient or flawed. Otherwise, it's indicative of "bad judgement". You'd make a fine Aryan.

 

You're one Down's Syndrome baby the world could have done without.

[prole]

In either case, knowingly carrying a baby with Down's to term is plain old bad judgement.

 

Yes, we should kill all those who are inconvenient or flawed. Otherwise, it's indicative of "bad judgement". You'd make a fine Aryan.

 

You're one Down's Syndrome baby the world could have done without.

 

 

 

[Fairweather]

 

Now, from the things she's said in the past, I think its possible she might not like anyone to have a choice, and I think that's a very good reason to make sure its not up to her to decide for everyone else.

 

Whoa, let's not get too hasty here. Like the book banning incident, I'm pretty sure all those statements she's made in the past were purely rhetorical in nature.

 

Poorole - looks like you are--once again--a victim of that DNC Kool Aid:

 

http://www.snopes.com/politics/palin/bannedbooks.asp

[prole]

Third times a charm! Hmmm..."speculative discussions", eh? Like, "hey, what would one have to do to get some books around here?" or "hey, let's say I wanted to have some books banned. Do you think anyone would mind?"

Edited September 10, 2008 by prole

[Fairweather]

In either case, knowingly carrying a baby with Down's to term is plain old bad judgement.

 

Yes, we should kill all those who are inconvenient or flawed. Otherwise, it's indicative of "bad judgement". You'd make a fine Aryan.

 

Do you think Prole and TTK would gas them? Or just toss 'em in a dumpster?

[Fairweather]

Third times a charm!

 

Care to retract your lie?

[KaskadskyjKozak]

 

Now, from the things she's said in the past, I think its possible she might not like anyone to have a choice, and I think that's a very good reason to make sure its not up to her to decide for everyone else.

 

Whoa, let's not get too hasty here. Like the book banning incident, I'm pretty sure all those statements she's made in the past were purely rhetorical in nature.

 

Poorole - looks like you are--once again--a victim of that DNC Kool Aid:

 

http://www.snopes.com/politics/palin/bannedbooks.asp

 

Prole is not concerned with facts. His goal is to emulate his idol, Vladimir Ilich: "A lie told often enough becomes the truth"

[ClipStick]

 

Now, from the things she's said in the past, I think its possible she might not like anyone to have a choice, and I think that's a very good reason to make sure its not up to her to decide for everyone else.

 

Whoa, let's not get too hasty here. Like the book banning incident, I'm pretty sure all those statements she's made in the past were purely rhetorical in nature.

 

Poorole - looks like you are--once again--a victim of that DNC Kool Aid:

 

http://www.snopes.com/politics/palin/bannedbooks.asp

 

You are assuming she didn't "want" to remove the books..If the power was given she would have acted...That article does nothing but re-instate the fact that she has a closed mind to education and the enrichment of peoples minds...but you wouldn't know much on that subject.

 

[marylou]

Snopes doesn't disprove anything. Palin asked to have books removed from the library. After the librarian refused, Palin tried to fire her.

[prole]

Third times a charm!

 

Care to retract your lie?

 

Why would I? There is nothing on the website you posted that would suggest I was lying! She approached the librarian and asked how one would go about banning books and how she would feel. If the McCain campaign wants to spin some bullshit about "rhetorical questions" and "loyalty oaths" it doesn't change a thing. Seeing so-called libertarians defending this type of blatant horseshit is the pinnacle of phoneyness.

[Fairweather]

Apparently you did hot read the last paragraph. (Snopes won't copy/paste) It lays proof to the entirety of this lie. Try again.

[Fairweather]

 

That article does nothing but re-instate the fact that she has a closed mind to education and the enrichment of peoples minds...but you wouldn't know much on that subject.

 

You don't know me, tool.

[ClipStick]

What the hell are you talking about...The "LIST" is false...not the fact she wanted to ban books from a PUBLIC library...You could assume that the questionable books would be of this type and of these types of subject matter.

 

Do you believe in banning books??? Does it matter what book??? or is it the principle of banning books you believe in?

 

 

[marylou]

I kind of doubt there was a list. Palin broached the subject with the librarian on a number of occasions--there does not need to be a list for me to have a huge problem with this.

[Fairweather]

What the hell are you talking about...The "LIST" is false...not the fact she wanted to ban books from a PUBLIC library...You could assume that the questionable books would be of this type and of these types of subject matter.

 

Do you believe in banning books??? Does it matter what book??? or is it the principle of banning books you believe in?

 

 

When the very thesis of a story debunked, it is usually safe to assume the entire piece is, likewise, garbage.

[tvashtarkatena]

You don't know FW, but I certainly do. He's not able hold more than 1/2 an idea in his forebrain at any one time, so slow it down for him. SHE DIDN"T DO IT, SO IT'S ALL A LIE AND LIBERALS ARE BAD AND PALIN IS OK AND SHE'S ALSO BEING PERSECUTED FOR NOTHING BECAUSE SHE DIDN'T DO IT, WHATEVER IT IS, BUT SOME LIBERAL SAID SHE DID ONCE, SO ALL LIBERALS ARE LIARS, OK????? GET IT?????

 

The idea that Palin's actions indicate that she wanted to ban books, and therefore believes in banning books, which is a basic way of thinking that may be antithetical to a free society, is just not going to register in FW's pea brain because ALL LIBERALS ARE LIARS!!!!!!!

 

It's like trying to teach a pit bull not to lick its anus. Good luck.

Edited September 10, 2008 by tvashtarkatena

[prole]

Apparently you did hot read the last paragraph. (Snopes won't copy/paste) It lays proof to the entirety of this lie. Try again.

 

You're a dumbass. Try and keep up, I'll do it slow: The. last. paragraph. only. refutes. the. claim. that. there. was. a. list. not. that. she. asked. about. how. to. get. books. banned.

[Fairweather]

Do you believe in banning books??? Does it matter what book??? or is it the principle of banning books you believe in?

 

 

Hmmm, let's see: I just finished Linden Hills by Gloria Naylor; and did a reread of The Monkey Wrench Gang. When is the last time you looked outside your box?